IMPLEMENTATION OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AS A
GOVERNABILITY CHALLENGE IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL
by© Mirella de Oliveira Leis
A dissertation submitted to the
School of Graduate Studies
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMaster of Science
Department of Geography
Memorial University of Newfoundland

May 2016
St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador

ABSTRACT

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been endorsed internationally as a tool promoting
marine conservation. MPAs implementation can however be challenging, with many notachieving conservation objectives while creating conflicts with small-scale fishers, often
overlooked. This study aims at exploring how MPA implementation can be improved,
taking as a case study the Marine National Park of Currais Islands in Southern Brazil.
Specifically, this thesis offers a theoretical contribution by applying the interactive
governance framework to analyze both the natural and the social systems, focusing on
small-scale fishers, governed by the MPA as an institution. The thesis also presents amethodological contribution, as it develops and applies an exploratory mapping approach.
We surveyed 65 small-scale fishers from eight communities at Pontal do Paranámunicipality, and conducted an exploratory mapping approach in small groups. Mainfindings point to challenges and opportunities to MPA implementation, and offer a way to
involve small-scale fishers in the discussion about MPAs.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Ratana Chuenpagdee, for theopportunity given and for all the guidance and support provided. Thank you forencouraging me to think outside the box and for mostly giving me questions, rather thananswers.
I am thankful to Dr. Rodolphe Devillers, for sharing insights, providing assistance withdata analysis on ArcGIS, and with revisions on the text.
I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Rodrigo Pereira Medeiros, for showing me
the “social side” of Oceanography that brought me here, for the thoughtful discussions,and for helping me ground my research in the Paraná context.
I would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution that Dr. Sérgio Macedo Gomes deMattos and Dr. Evan Edinger have made as reviewers of this thesis.
The research was funded by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil (SSHRC) “Too Big To Ignore, Global Partnership for Small-Scale Fisheries
Research” Partnership Grant, and Memorial University of Newfoundland.
I would like to thank all my colleagues from NESPAMP lab at the Federal University of
Paraná (UFPR) and from the International Coastal Network lab at Memorial University,
for all the support.
I would like to especially thank Victoria Rogers and Chloé Poitevin who sharedknowledge and experiences with me throughout our Master’s, you definitely made it alleasier.

iii

I am grateful to the fishers from Pontal do Paraná, for sharing their knowledge andexperience, and teaching me so much about their lives and the ocean.
To my parents José Fernando and Patrícia, and my brother Murillo, for all theencouragement and for understanding having me away for a while – it was all worth it!
This would not have been possible without everything you’ve always done for me.
To Rafael, who was always there by my side for all the emotional support and for making
me feel like home while being so far away.

iv

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Abbreviations and Symbols ................................................................................................. ix
List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .............................................................. 1
1.1. MPA: Overview and research gap ........................................................................................ 1
1.2. Thesis scope and research questions ..................................................................................... 3
1.3. Theoretical foundation .......................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1. Governance and governability ....................................................................................... 4
1.3.2. Participatory mapping .................................................................................................... 6
1.4. Case study and methodology ................................................................................................ 8
1.5. Thesis organization and chapter outline.............................................................................. 10
1.6. Co-authorship statement ..................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER TWO: .......................................................................................................................... 18
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TOWARDS MPA IMPLEMENTATION IN
SOUTHERN BRAZIL ................................................................................................................... 18
2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.1. Interactive governance framework and MPAs ............................................................. 222.2. The Marine National Park of Currais Islands: History and current context ........................ 24
2.3. Data collection and analysis ................................................................................................ 27
2.4. Results ................................................................................................................................. 29
2.4.1. The MPA system.......................................................................................................... 29
2.4.2. Perceptions of small-scale fishers ................................................................................ 40
2.4.3. What contributes to MPA governability? .................................................................... 50
2.5. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 53
2.6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER THREE: ...................................................................................................................... 73v

AN EXPLORATORY MAPPING APPROACH FOR ASSESSING WHAT MATTERS TO
SMALL-SCALE FISHERS: A CASE ILLUSTRATION OF A MARINE PROTECTED AREA
IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL .............................................................................................................. 73
3.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 74
3.2. Methods............................................................................................................................... 78
3.2.1. Study area..................................................................................................................... 78
3.2.2. Data collection, processing and analysis ...................................................................... 83
3.3. Results ................................................................................................................................. 85
3.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 93
3.5. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 101
CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................. 115
4.1. Main findings .................................................................................................................... 116
4.2. Policy recommendations and future research ................................................................... 119
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 123
APPENDIX I Questionnaire Cover Letter ................................................................................... 144
APPENDIX II Questionnaire Consent Form ............................................................................... 146
APPENDIX III Questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 152
APPENDIX IV Map used for the exploratory mapping approach............................................... 160
APPENDIX V Original quotes from small-scale fishers in Portuguese ...................................... 161

vi

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Characterization of fishing communities from Pontal do Paraná. The name ofthese communities are: 1 = Vila dos Pescadores; 2 = Pontal do Sul; 3 =Barrancos; 4 = Shangri-lá; 5 = Carmery; 6 = Ipanema; 7 = Canoas; 8 = Praia
de Leste. n = Number of fishers who completed the questionnaire.
Table 2.2 Small-scale fishers’ perception by community (1 = Vila dos Pescadores; 2 =Pontal do Sul; 3 = Barrancos; 4 = Shangri-lá; 5 = Carmery; 6 = Ipanema; 7 =Canoas; 8 = Praia de Leste).
Table 2.3 Perception of fishers towards the MPA according to fishing gear used,showing the most frequent responses to each category (i.e. environment,
community and fishers).

vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Location of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands and nearby smallscale fishing communities from Pontal do Paraná municipality.
Figure 2.2 Fishers' perceptions towards the Marine National Park of Currais Islands.
Figure 3.1 Protected areas of sustainable use and integral protection categories in coastal
Paraná state, Southern Brazil.
Figure 3.2 Location of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands, Paraná State,
Southern Brazil, with the four small-scale fishing communities studied.
Figure 3.3 Flowchart illustrating the three steps of the rapid exploratory mapping
approach: the baseline map elaboration, the data collection in small groups
and the data analysis and mapping in a GIS.
Figure 3.4 Maps of (a) ecological, (b) economic and (c) socio-cultural importance; andareas (d) in need for protection, (e) with other uses, and (f) of concern. Cell
values, represented by colour intensity indicate the number of communities
that selected a given cell. Red symbols show fishing communities studied,and black symbols show fishing communities not studied.
Figure 3.5 Map showing the cumulative importance of grid cells in terms of both
importance to fishers (i.e. ecological, economic and sociocultural) andconcerns of small-scale fishers in relation to the marine environment (i.e.
impacts). Colour intensity indicates how many times a given cell was
identified as being important by communities.

viii

List of Abbreviations and Symbols

CBD:

Convention on Biological Diversity

GIS:

Geographic Information System

IBAMA:

Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources(Brazilian Federal Environmental Agency)

ICEHR:

Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research

ICMBio:Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biological Diversity(Brazilian Federal Environmental Agency for protected areas management)

IUCN:

International Union for Conservation of Nature

MFA:

Brazilian Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture

MMA:

Brazilian Ministry of Environment

MPA:

Marine Protected Area

PPGIS:

Public Participation Geographic Information System

SNUC:

Brazilian National System of Conservation Unitsix

List of Appendices

Appendix I

Questionnaire Cover Letter

Appendix II

Questionnaire Consent FormAppendix III Questionnaire
Appendix IV Map used for exploratory mapping approach
Appendix V Original quotes from small-scale fishers in PortuguesexCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEWThis chapter introduces the thesis, first with an overview about Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs), highlighting in particular some of the main issues related to them andidentifying the research gap, which the thesis aims to address. This is followed by asynopsis of the two main chapters that compose this manuscript-based thesis, with an
explanation of the interactive governance framework used as theoretical foundation for
Chapter 2, and a presentation of participatory mapping approach used in Chapter 3. Next,
the case study of an MPA in Southern Brazil is presented, along with the methodology
employed for this research. The chapter concludes with the thesis organization and a brief
outline of the chapters contained in the thesis.

1.1. MPA: Overview and research gap

Concerns about marine ecosystem degradation and declining fishing resources arewidespread (Pauly et al. 1998; Pauly et al., 2005; Worm et al. 2006). Several approaches
and solutions have been proposed to address these concerns. Popular among them is
MPAs, which have been acknowledged as an effective tool to promote marine
conservation and improve fisheries management (Pauly et al., 2002; Rice et al. 2012).
MPAs are recognized for the benefits they can provide to marine resources by increasing
diversity and richness within their boundaries and increasing fisheries catches through aspillover effect (Halpern and Warner, 2002; Lester et al., 2009). For these reasons, MPAs
have been internationally endorsed through the Convention on Biological Diversity

1

(CBD, 2010), with countries signatories to the convention agreeing on the new Aichi
Target 11, to increase the world’s oceans and coastal areas protected to 10% by 2020.
Even though this target includes other forms of protection, MPAs are the most used,present in 2.12% of world’s oceans in 2015 (MPAtlas, 2015).
At the current rate of MPA establishment and considering several issues andchallenges related to the implementation, it is unlikely that the Aichi Target 11 will be
met. Many MPAs are referred to, for instance, as “paper parks” due to the lack ofcompliance from stakeholders and to the fact that the conservation objectives are notachieved (Rife et al., 2013). In other cases, MPAs have been designated in areas where
no human activities take place, undermining thus the need for protection (Devillers et al.,2014).
MPAs are often criticized for being taken as technical fixes or panaceas,
disconnected from local contexts and therefore producing disappointing results (Degnbol
et al., 2006). Further, there has been difficulty in making social and ecological goals
compatible (Jentoft et al., 2007), with some MPAs being a social failure even when there
is biological success (Christie, 2004), and other MPAs as an example of a social successwithout many benefits to the species it aims to protect (Ennis, 2011). As such, there is
growing recognition of the social, economic and cultural impacts that MPAs may cause(Mascia et al., 2010), which are often overlooked (Diegues, 2008).
Research on MPAs has been focused largely on biological/ecological aspects eventhough socio-economic and governance perspectives have gained more attention in thepast ten years (Thorpe et al., 2011). For the most part, an integrative approach toincorporate social science research to study MPAs had been lacking (Christie, 2004;2

Christie et al., 2003), contributing thus to lack of buy-in and poor compliance, but studies
on the human dimensions of MPAs (Charles and Wilson, 2009), impacts of MPAs on
resource users’ livelihoods (Mascia et al., 2010) and MPA governance with emphasis on
the interactions between a social and a natural system that are governed by the MPA as
an institution (Jentoft et al., 2007; Paladines and Chuenpagdee, 2015) have been
growing, and are crucial to implementation success. As posited by Jentoft et al. (2007), it
is particularly important to consider MPAs as an institution that deals with both social
and natural issues, which implies, in many cases, the need to acknowledge the role ofsmall-scale fishers in determining either success or failure in achieving MPA’s
objectives.

1.2. Thesis scope and research questions

This thesis contributes to the understanding about MPA governance in order toaddress the recurring challenge on how to make MPAs work. As social support isimportant for better governance (Jentoft et al., 2007), this thesis argues that
understanding how small-scale fishers relate to the marine environment and how toincorporate this information in the discussion about MPAs is critical to implementation
success. The thesis follows the interactive governance framework (Kooiman et al. 2005)
in considering that natural and social systems associated with an MPA, and the capacityof the MPA as a governing institution are key elements to making the MPA governable.
Using a case study of an MPA in Southern Brazil, the Marine National Park ofCurrais Islands, this thesis aims specifically to answer to the following questions:

31) What are the challenges and opportunities that the natural system and smallscale fishers, as crucial components of the social system, pose to the MPA as agoverning system towards its implementation?
2) How to better understand small-scale fishers’ relationships to the marine
environment and include them in the MPA discussion?
The study is an empirical application of interactive governance framework in thecontext of MPAs, and involves a development of an exploratory mapping approach toelicit participation of small-scale fishers in the decision-making about the MPA. In
addition to providing insights that can help in the elaboration about the management planfor the Marine National Park of Currais Islands, it offers lessons that are broadly
applicable to help make MPAs more successful.

1.3. Theoretical foundation

1.3.1. Governance and governability

Interactive governance invites an examination of MPAs as socially constructed
institutions, embedded in a particular context, and in need of stakeholder support (Jentoft
et al., 2007). This conceptual framework is holistic and interdisciplinary, and is novel in
its focus on interactions, considered to occur within the natural and social system-to-begoverned, the governing system, and also between the two systems (Kooiman et al.,2005). It therefore accounts for relationships between small-scale fisheries, theirenvironment, and the MPA as an institution.

4

As interactive governance posits, the systems-to-be-governed and the governing
system have emerging properties. These encompass diversity, i.e. the components of thesystems such as species, ecosystems or stakeholders, complexity, which considers therelationships among the components, dynamics, or the interactions among components,and scale issues relating to spatial and temporal boundaries of the systems (Chuenpagdee
and Jentoft, 2009; Kooiman et al., 2005). A thorough analysis of the systems is possible
through a governability assessment, which is about evaluating the capacity of thegoverning system to address the needs of a system-to-be-governed, and the limits that thesystem poses to governance with its characteristics (Bavinck et al. 2013). By examining
system’s properties, a governability assessment aims at exploring where governancechallenges can be found, while aiming at enhancing governability (Jentoft, 2007).
Interactive governance has been previously applied to the context of MPAs, providing
insights about their implementation, and how to approach it in order to enhance
governability (Chuenpagdee et al., 2013; Jentoft et al., 2011; Jentoft et al., 2012), as
further detailed in Chapter 2.
Taking into account the contributions of the interactive governance framework inunderstanding MPAs, this study applies this approach to the Marine National Park ofCurrais Islands, Brazil. It explores and describes the properties of the natural and social
system-to-be-governed and of the governing system associated with the MPA. It does so,however, not as a comprehensive governability assessment, but with an emphasis on
small-scale fisheries, a sector that relies on the area where the MPA is now located fortheir livelihoods and that has been overlooked. Further, it incorporates small-scale
fishers’ perceptions towards the MPA as well as other features such as attachment to5fisheries, and perception of changes in fishing resources and of future of fisheries in theregion, which help understand the diversity of the social system in its relation to the
MPA. In Chapter 2, the study sheds light on how governable the MPA is, and points tothe challenges in the implementation, focusing on whether small-scale fishers can copewith the new restrictions while trying to maintain their livelihoods, and highlights
opportunities for enhancing governability.

1.3.2. Participatory mapping

The benefits of including small-scale fishers into MPA planning and management
have been acknowledged and involve increased buy-in and compliance, towards
achieving conservation while maintaining small-scale fishing livelihoods (Diegues, 2008;
Jentoft et al., 2007). Participatory mapping has been used as one of the approaches
towards increasing participation of local stakeholders in natural resource management(Ferse et al., 2010). As further explained in Chapter 3, different approaches andtechniques have been proposed and applied to involve fishers in the MPA planning
process, many of which advocate for inclusion of social data into spatial planning (LeCornu et al., 2014; Stephanson and Mascia, 2014).
The use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as tool for participatory mapping
seeks public engagement, incorporation of local knowledge and empowerment (Baldwin
et al., 2013; Sieber, 2006). In order to provide baseline information that can inform theimplementation of MPAs, local and traditional ecological knowledge have been
incorporated into map creation (Hall and Close, 2007; Leite and Gasalla, 2013; Martins et6

al., 2014; Schafer and Reis, 2008), sometimes integrating these to scientific knowledge(De Freitas and Tagliani, 2009). Further, attributes that have been mapped include
stakeholders’ values (Bryan et al., 2010; Sherrouse et al., 2011), spatial access priorities(Yates and Schoeman, 2014) and fishers’ preferred resource spaces from a humandimensions perspective, through the use of mental maps and perceptions (Teh et al.,2012).
However, elaboration of maps that integrate relevant information for MPA
management can face challenges (Brown and Kyttä, 2014) as it is often time-consuming,
costly, and requires technical skills. There are also issues related to information disclosureof local and traditional knowledge and misuse of data acquired. Thus, this study makes amethodological contribution by presenting an exploratory mapping approach thatinvolves a rapid assessment of what small-scale fishers consider as being important andthreatening to the marine environment to which they rely on. This approach is innovative
as it is conversational, based on knowledge sharing and consensus amongst participants,
requires minimal level of technical skills and is non-threatening as it avoids asking
sensitive questions such as fishing locations. The application of the approach to small
groups of fishing people using paper maps, later transferred to ArcGIS, allows gathering
useful information on potential areas of conflict and of agreement between small-scale
fishing communities. Thus, it provides baseline information about marine ecosystem
according to small-scale fishers’ knowledge, valuable for the development of amanagement plan and inclusion of small-scale fishers towards the implementation of an
MPA. Further details are provided on Chapter 3.

7

1.4. Case study and methodology

This thesis studies the case of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands, locatedin Paraná State, Southern Brazil. The Currais Islands and surrounding marine
environment located off the coast of Pontal do Paraná municipality have recently been
designated as of June 2013 as a no-take MPA, which currently has the management planunder elaboration. The MPA objective is to protect seabirds that nest in the area andmarine species such as the threatened Atlantic grouper (Epinephelus itajara).
The context of coastal Paraná, in which the MPA has been designated, is of highbiological diversity. More than 82% of the coastal region is under protection (Pierri et al.,2006), with 21 protected areas under integral protection category, encompassing an areaof 199,454.25 ha, and 18 that are considered of sustainable use, in an area of 496,228.40
ha. Other spatial restrictions based on fishing gear and distance from the coast also apply.
More than 11,000 small-scale fishers and their families have relied heavily on themarine and estuarine area to exert their activity for over 100 years (Andriguetto-Filho etal., 2006). Small-scale fishers from the oceanic coast use the rocky substrate in thesurroundings of Currais Islands to fish, especially in winter when mullets and mackerel
are abundant in the area. However, MPA designation was government-driven and public
consultation did not take place, thus overlooking small-scale fishers. Therefore, this study
focuses on the small-scale fishing communities of Pontal do Paraná municipality that arelocated nearby the MPA and have traditionally used the coastal area to fish. This case wasparticularly chosen as it illustrates a common situation of a no-take MPA designation,
top-down without public consultation (Diegues, 2006; Gerhardinger et al., 2011) with8

lack of small-scale fishers’ participation for a variety of reasons (Trimble et al., 2014),
while small-scale fisheries rely on the marine environment and play a prominent role in
the implementation of the MPA (Lunn and Dearden, 2006).
The methodology used in this study was tailored to the research questions
investigated, and constitutes a novel approach to identifying challenges and opportunities
to MPA implementation. First, its novelty comes from empirically analyzing a recently
designated MPA in Southern Brazil using interactive governance as lenses. This provides
adequate framing to study an MPA from an integrative and analytical perspective, rather
than a technical one, which involves an assessment of the natural, social, and governing
systems. For this, a governability assessment was conducted, based on information
gathered from a literature review, informal conversations with key informants andquestionnaires conducted with 65 small-scale fishers from eight communities at Pontal do
Paraná municipality, to gauge demographics, fishing activities, attachment to fisheries,
and perceptions about changes in catches, future of fisheries and about the MPA.
Additionally, this study innovates in designing and testing an exploratory groupmapping exercise, with the objective of involving small-scale fishers in the discussion
about the MPA, to which they had not been invited before. The approach uses paper maps
and colour markers to elicit discussion in small groups (i.e. three to five participants)
about the importance of the marine area and impacts associated to it in small-scale
fishers’ perception. The approach was conducted with fourteen participants from four
small-scale fishing communities, which represent well the diversity on Pontal do Paraná
coast. A combination of the two methods constitutes a novel methodology for evaluating
the MPA as a natural, social and governing system and focus on small-scale fishers’
9perceptions towards the MPA and the surrounding environment, representing an attempt
to be conducive to MPA implementation while including small-scale fishers in theprocess.

1.5. Thesis organization and chapter outline

The thesis is structured into four chapters. Chapter 1 (Introduction) provides a
general overview of the context in which the research topic emerges and the theoreticalgrounding, the research questions, the methodology used and a brief description of thecase study. Chapter 2 focuses on identifying governability challenges and opportunities
to MPA implementation using the interactive governance framework, with a focus on
small-scale fishers. Chapter 3 presents a novel exploratory mapping approach forincluding small-scale fishers in the elaboration of the management plan, which provides
simple and rapid information to assist MPA implementation. A summary and conclusion
based on the main findings from the study are presented in Chapter 4, along with somesuggestions about the development of the management plan of the MPA investigated inthis study, as well as for other MPAs elsewhere.

1.6. Co-authorship statement

The first paper (Chapter 2) shares co-authorship with the supervisor, Dr Ratana
Chuenpagdee. The second paper (Chapter 3) shares co-authorship with the supervisor
and the two committee members, Dr. Rodolphe Devillers and Dr. Rodrigo Pereira
Medeiros. The candidate is the principal author of both papers, having formulated10research questions, conceived the study design, collected and analyzed primary andsecondary data, and prepared initial drafts. The supervisor and committee members
provided advice and comments at all stages and the preparation of final manuscripts
incorporated critical input and editorial suggestions of the supervisor.

References

Andriguetto-Filho, J. M., Chaves, P. T.C., Santos, C. and Liberati, S. A. (2006).
Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado do Paraná. In Isaac, V., Martins, A.S.,
Haimovici, M., and Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (Eds.), A pesca marinha e estuarina do
Brasil no início do século XXI: Recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos einstitucionais (pp. 117-140). Belém, Brazil: Editora Universitária.
Baldwin, K., Mahon, R., and McConney, P. (2013). Participatory GIS for strengthening
transboundary marine governance in SIDS. Natural Resources Forum, 37(4), 257268.
Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., and Kooiman, J. (Eds.). (2013). Governabilityof Fisheries and Aquaculture: Theory and Applications. MARE Publication Series
7, Netherlands: Springer.
Brown, G., and Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public
participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied
Geography, 46, 122-136.

11

Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., and Macdonald, D.H. (2010). Targetingthe management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what andhow? Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(2), 111-122.
CBD. The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi biodiversity targets(2010). CBD COP Decision X/2 annex of the conference of the parties. Retrieved
from http://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-10.
Charles, A., and Wilson, L. (2009). Human dimensions of marine protected areas.
Journal of Marine Science, 66(1), 6-15.
Christie, P. (2004). Marine Protected Areas as biological succusses and social failures inSoutheast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 42, 155-164.
Christie, P., McCay, B.J., Miller, M.L., Lowe, C., White, A.T., Stoffle, R, Fluharty, D.L.,
Talaue-McManus, L., Chuenpagdee, R., Pomeroy, C., Suman, D.O., Blount, B.G.,
Huppert, D., Villahermosa Eisma, R.L., Oracion, E., Lowry,K., and Pollnac, R.B.
(2003). Toward developing a complete understanding: a social science research
agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries, 28(12), 22-26.
Chuenpagdee, R., and Jentoft, S. (2009). Governability Assessment for fisheries andcoastal systems: A reality check. Human Ecology, 37(1), 109-120.
Chuenpagdee, R., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Szeliánszky, E., Alegret, J.L., Fraga, J., andJentoft, S. (2013). Marine Protected Areas: Re-thinking their inception. Marine
Policy, 39, 234-240.
De Freitas, D.M., and Tagliani, P.R.A. (2009). The use of GIS for the integration of
traditional and scientific knowledge in supporting artisanal fisheries management insouthern Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2071-2080.
12Degnbol, P., Gislason, H., Hanna, S., Jentoft, S., Nielsen, J.R., Sverdrup-Jensen, S., andWilson, D.C. (2006). Painting the floor with a hammer: Technical fixes in fisheries
management. Marine Policy, 30(5), 534-543.
Devillers, R., Pressey, R.L., Grech, A., Kittinger, J.N., Edgar, G.J., Ward, T., andWatson, R. (2014). Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring easeof establishment over need for protection? Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems, 1-25.
Diegues, A.C. (2006). Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil. SAMUDRA Monograph, Chennai,
India: International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF).
Diegues, A.C. (2008). Marine Protected Areas and artisanal fisheries in Brazil.
SAMUDRA Monograph, Chennai, India: International Collective in Support of
Fishworkers (ICSF).
Ennis, G.P. (2011). Closed areas as a conservation strategy in the Newfoundland lobster
fishery. Biodiversity, 12(1), 11-20.
Ferse, S.C.A., Costa, M.M., Máñez, K.S., Adhuri, D.S., and Glaser, M. (2010). Allies, notaliens: increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area
implementation. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 23-34.
Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.A.S., Jones, P.J.S., Sales, G., and Ferreira, B.P. (2011).
Marine protected dramas: The flaws of the Brazilian National System of Marine
Protected Areas. Environmental Management, 47(4), 630-643.
Hall, G.B., and Close, C.H. (2007). Local knowledge assessment for a small-scale fisheryusing geographic information systems. Fisheries Research, 83(1), 11-22.

13

Halpern, B.S., and Warner, R.R. (2002). Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects.
Ecology Letters. 5(3), 361-366.
Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries andcoastal governance. Marine Policy, 31(4), 360-370.
Jentoft, S., van Son, T., and Bjørkan, M. (2007). Marine protected areas: A governancesystem analysis. Human Ecology, 35(5), 611-622.
Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., and Pascual-Fernandez, J.J. (2011). What are MPAs for: On
goal formation and displacement. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(1), 75-83.
Jentoft, S., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Modino, R.D.C., Gonzalez-Ramallal, M., andChuenpagdee, R. (2012). What Stakeholders Think About Marine Protected Areas:
Case Studies from Spain. Human Ecology, 40(2), 185-197.
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., and Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for Life:Interactive Governance for Fisheries, Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of
Amsterdam Press.
Le Cornu, E., Kittinger, J.N., Koehn, J.Z., Finkbeiner, E.M., and Crowder, L.B. (2014).
Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning.
Conservation Biology, 28(4), 902-911.
Leite, M.C.F., and Gasalla, M.A. (2013). A method for assessing fishers’ ecologicalknowledge as a practical tool for ecosystem-based fisheries management: Seeking
consensus in Southeastern Brazil. Fisheries Research, 145, 43-53.
Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines,
S.D., Araimé, S., and Warner, R.R. (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine
reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46.
14

Lunn, K.E., and Dearden, P. (2006). Fishers’ needs in Marine Protected Area zoning: A
case study from Thailand. Coastal Management, 34(2), 183-198.
Martins, I.M., Medeiros, R.P., and Hanazaki, N. (2014). From fish to ecosystems: The
perceptions of fishermen neighboring a southern Brazilian marine protected area.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 91, 50-57.
Mascia, M.B., Claus, A., and Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of marine protected areas on
fishing communities. Conservation Biology, 24(5), 1424-1429.
MPAtlas Explore. (2015, August 17). Retrieved from http://www.mpatlas.org/explore/.
Paladines, M.J.B., and Chuenpagdee, R. (2015). Governability assessment of theGalapagos Marine Reserve. Maritime Studies, 14(13), 1-21.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., and Torres Jr., F. (1998). Fishingdown marine food webs. Science, 279(5352), 860-863.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J.,
Watson, R., and Zeller, D. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries.
Nature, 418, 689-695.
Pauly, D., Watson, R., and Alder, J. (2005). Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on
marine ecosystems and food security. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 360(1453), 5-12.
Pierri, N., Angulo, R.J., Souza, M.C., and Kim, M.K. (2006). A ocupação e o uso do solo
no litoral paranaense: condicionantes, conflitos e tendências. Desenvolvimento e
Meio Ambiente, 13, 137-167.
Rice, J., Moksness, E., Attwood, C., Brown, S.K., Dahle, G., Gjerde, K.M., Grefsrud,
E.S., Kenchington, R., Kleiven, A.R., and McConney, P. (2012). The role of MPAs
15

in reconciling fisheries management with conservation of biological diversity.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 69, 217-230.
Rife, A. N., Erisman, B., Sanchez, A., and Aburto-Oropeza, O. (2013). When goodintentions are not enough...Insights on networks of “paper park” marine protectedareas. Conservation Letters, 6(3), 200-212.
Schafer, A.G., and Reis, E.G. (2008). Artisanal fishing areas and traditional ecologicalknowledge: The case study of the artisanal fisheries of the Patos Lagoon estuary
Brazil. Marine Policy, 32(3), 283-292.
Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., and Semmens, D.J. (2011). A GIS application forassessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services.
Applied Geography, 31(2), 748-760.
Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature
review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3),491-507.
Stephanson, S.L., and Mascia, M.B. (2014). Putting people on the map through anapproach that integrates social data in conservation planning. Conservation Biology,
28(5), 1236-1248.
Teh, L.C.L., Teh, L.S.L., and Meitner, M.J. (2012). Preferred resource spaces and fisher
flexibity: Implications for spatial management of small-scale fisheries. Human
Ecology, 40(2), 213-226.
Thorpe, A., Bavinck, M., and Coulthard, S. (2011). Tracking the debate around marine
protected areas: key issues and the BEG framework. Environmental Management,
47(4), 546–63.
16

Trimble, M., Araujo, L.C., and Seixas, C.S. (2014). One party does not tango! Fishers’
non-participation as a barrier to co-management in Paraty, Brazil. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 92, 9-18.
Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C, Halpern, B.S. and Jackson,
J.B.C. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science,
314(5800), 787-790.
Yates, K.L., and Schoeman, D.S. (2014). Incorporating the spatial access priorities offishers into strategic conservation planning and marine protected area design:
reducing cost and increasing transparency. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 1-8.

17

CHAPTER TWO:CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TOWARDS MPA IMPLEMENTATION
IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL

Abstract

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are being promoted around the world but theiroperationalization still faces several challenges. Many studies have been conducted to
identify factors affecting the successful implementation of the MPAs. Little attention has
been paid, however, to systematically examine MPAs, with a focus on small-scale fishers
as important stakeholders to achieve implementation, on the natural system and on the
MPA as a governing institution. To address this gap, we follow the interactive
governance framework, which argues that how fishers perceive the MPA plays animportant role in how governable the MPA will be. Thus, the case of the Marine National
Park of Currais Islands was analyzed based on features of the natural system, on smallscale fishers’ demographics and perceptions as part of the social system, and on theexistent institutional arrangements. Field observation, informal discussion, and literature
reviews were employed to describe the systems. Additionally, questionnaires wereadministered to 65 small-scale fishers in eight communities along coastal Paraná, aiming
to elicit fishers’ perceptions about the MPA and its effects on fishing livelihoods. The
study points to challenges to MPA governance and reveals that the MPA is highly diverseand complex in terms of the natural and social systems. While small-scale fishers live in18

close proximity of each other and share marine resources, they differ in their perceptions
and acceptability of the MPA mainly according to the fishing gears and techniques used.
The paper concludes with suggestions about ways to improve governability, for instance,
through enhancing the sense of ownership and stewardship among fishers, building on
their cultural connection and conservation values demonstrated towards the islands.

2.1. Introduction

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are endorsed worldwide as a strategy to address
issues related to ecosystem degradation and resource decline, and to protect biodiversity
and promote conservation (Pauly et al., 2002; Rice et al., 2012). A growing number of
MPAs have been established in order to achieve international targets set by theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010), one of which (Aichi target 11), is toreach 10% of world’s coastal and marine areas protected by 2020. Many authors argue,
however, that quantity does not necessarily mean quality (De Santo, 2013), and that areas
designated for protection have often failed in achieving their objectives (Agardy et al.,2011). Studies show, for instance, that MPAs can be a biological success, but a social
failure (Christie, 2004) and vice-versa (Ennis, 2011), not delivering conservation
outcomes (Rife et al., 2013).
Challenges to MPA governance are related to lack of enforcement (Guidetti et al.,2008), poor data, insufficient technical, financial and logistical support (Pomeroy et al.,2005), weak coordination (Bennett and Dearden, 2014), and lack of professional
motivation (Gerhardinger et al., 2011). Jentoft et al. (2007) add that the stated goals of

19

MPAs are often difficult to achieve, partly because of the incompatibility between
ecological and social objectives. While inclusion of fishers’ knowledge in resource
governance is increasingly advised to avoid major flaws (Johannes et al., 2000), theirperceptions are often ignored or misrepresented, when designing or managing MPAs
(Diegues, 2008). Chuenpagdee et al. (2013) further suggest that success or failure of
MPAs depends also on what happened at the time the idea about the MPAs was first
conceived and how it was communicated, which may influence stakeholders’ perception
and their wiliness to cooperate. The lack of consideration about the above factors in theentire process, from establishment to management, contributes to MPA governancechallenges, making them less governable. As a result, rather than achieving conservation
outcomes on the ground (Rife et al., 2013), social conflicts are exacerbated, impacting
people’s livelihoods (Mascia et al., 2010), and leading to resistance to rules and noncompliance (Ferse et al., 2010; Jentoft et al, 2007; Yates, 2014).
Extensive research has been conducted on various topics of MPAs, such as on its
ecological significance and effects (Halpern and Warner, 2002; Lester et al., 2009),
design, size and location (Devillers et al., 2014; Halpern 2003), and operational strategies
for MPA effectiveness (Pomeroy et al., 2005). Much less attention is given to examining
social aspects of MPAs (Thorpe et al., 2011), or to employing more integrative (Christie,
2004) and trans-disciplinary approaches (Degnbol et al., 2006) to facilitate theirimplementation. The need to understand MPAs in the broader context that they areembedded in, considering them as socially constructed institutions that govern bothnatural and social systems, has been highlighted (Jentoft et al., 2007). According to20

interactive governance framework (Kooiman et al., 2005), the comprehensive
understanding of the MPAs is required in order to improve its governability.
This study contributes to the discussion about how to make MPAs more effective asa tool to promote marine conservation. It takes a holistic approach to looking at MPAs,
not as technical solutions (Degnbol et al., 2006) or with a focus on one aspect such as
ecological or biological, as they have been often assessed (Thorpe et al., 2011). Rather,using the Marine National Park of Currais Islands in Southern Brazil as an illustration, theresearch employs the interactive governance framework in analyzing aspects of thenatural system, and of the small-scale fisheries as an important part of the social systemassociated with the MPA as a governing institution, that may contribute to making it moreor less governable. Since the MPA was designated through a top-down, governmentdriven process without any public consultation, the study examines the challenges that the
MPA implementation may face given the context in which it is inserted, focusing on theperceptions of small-scale fishers in relation to their attachment to fisheries, to changes
and the future of fishing activities in the region, and on the MPA itself. Specifically,
perceptions of small-scale fishers and the MPA are assessed using a questionnaire
containing close and open-ended questions to gauge the support that fishers may have for
the MPA. Findings from the study provide a basis for suggestions about challenges andopportunities that should be considered in the development of the management plan for
the MPA.
In the next sections, the conceptual framework used for analysis is presented,
followed by the description of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands and themethods employed in the study. The results section begins with descriptions of the MPA
21

as natural, social, and governing systems, along with the account of interactions between
them, with a focus on small-scale fishers, considering that these stakeholders did notparticipate in the MPA designation process and are greatly affected by marine spatial
restrictions to areas they have traditionally used (Medeiros and Azevedo, 2013). The
match between the properties of the natural and social systems that are being governed
and the current governing system is discussed. The final section offers suggestions about
opportunities towards better governance and implementation of this MPA and elsewhere.

2.1.1. Interactive governance framework and MPAs
Interactive governance is defined by Kooiman et al. as “the whole of interactions
taken to solve societal problems and to create societal opportunities; including theformulation and application of principles guiding those interactions and care for
institutions that enable and control them” (2005, p. 17). This conceptual framework isholistic and interdisciplinary, and with a special focus on interactions between and withina system-to-be-governed, comprising natural and social systems, and a governing system(Kooiman et al., 2005). Interactive governance has been applied in several contexts,
including marine conservation (Chuenpagdee, 2011), fisheries and aquaculture(Chuenpagdee et al., 2008), and MPAs (Chuenpagdee et al., 2013; Jentoft et al., 2007;
Jentoft et al., 2011; Jentoft et al., 2012; Paladines and Chuenpagdee, 2015; Voyer et al.,2015). When applied to MPAs, the interactive governance framework invites an
examination of the MPAs as a governing system in one instance and as a system-to-begoverned in another. It also recognizes the presence of interactions between and within

22

systems, and with the broader context in which the MPA is inserted (Jentoft et al., 2007;
Modino and Pascual-Fernández, 2013).
To operationalize the interactive governance perspective, the framework to assessgovernability helps to explore what properties and features of the governing system andthe system-to-be-governed that may cause difficulties in governance (Bavinck et al. 2013;
Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2009; Kooiman et al. 2005). In the context of an MPA, theframework pays attention to the level of diversity, complexity and dynamics of the naturaland social systems, as well as any scale issues associated with the MPA (Jentoft et al.,2007). On a governability assessment, the same analysis is conducted to evaluate theseproperties of the MPA governing system, and discuss whether they contribute to making
the MPA more or less governable (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2009). Interactive
governance generally argues that the more diverse, complex and dynamic the system is,
the more difficult it is to govern, unless the governing system is highly capable. Scaleissues, especially in terms of boundary and jurisdictional overlap, also create low
governability. Finally, the types and quality of interactions between the MPA governing
system and the natural and social systems it tries to govern determine the level ofgovernability (Jentoft et al., 2007). Interactions in this sense refer to “the various ways inwhich the governing system is made aware of, and sensitive to the diversity, complexity,
dynamics and scale issues within the systems to be governed, and the ways in which it
reacts” (p.113, Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2009). Further, governing interactions reveal
the ways in which goals and objectives are negotiated, how conflicts are resolved andcompromise is achieved (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2009). Governing interactions areassessed based on presence of interactive attributes such as participation, communication,23

collaboration, learning, adaptation, and the nature of the interactions (e.g. when and how
it takes place) and quality of these interactions (Song and Chuenpagdee, 2010). The betterthe interactions, meaning higher quantity and quality of interactions between and within
systems (e.g. the MPA and their environment, stakeholder groups and the MPA)
throughout the process of establishment including the pre-implementation, the more
likely it will be for the MPA to succeed in achieving its goals (Jentoft et al., 2007).
MPA studies, conducted mostly in Spain, Mexico and Thailand using the interactive
governance perspective, provide useful insights about their implementation. For instance,
Chuenpagdee et al. (2013) highlight the importance of looking at the pre-implementation
process of MPAs, referred to as the “step zero”, in order to understand what guides thedesignation and by whom the idea is put forward. Other studies show that images (orworldview) that stakeholders have towards the MPAs, and whether they match those of
the governing system determines the overall governability (Jentoft et al., 2012; Modino
and Pascual-Fernández, 2013). Further, Jentoft et al. (2011) argue that the goals andobjectives of an MPA, along with the process of how they are agreed upon and whose
opinions are considered, should be determined empirically since they are keys in making
MPAs governable.

2.2. The Marine National Park of Currais Islands: History and current context
Since the early 1970’s the Currais Islands (Figure 2.1) have been the focus ofornithological studies, with about 8,000 seabird specimens recorded (Borzone et al.,1994). In 1982, the Brazilian government granted use rights of the islands to the Federal

24University of Paraná, to recognize the importance of the islands to the scientificcommunity, and as a means to support research. Later, in 1986, a research laboratory wasconstructed in Currais’ largest island. At the same time, worldwide concern on
environmental issues brought Currais Islands to the public attention, with media
announcing threats to seabirds and calling for urgent measures to protect the islands. As a
response, the Center for Marine Studies of Federal University of Paraná issued a reportcalling for protection of the islands through National or State Park category (Borzone etal., 1994). Claims made through research and media culminated into the MPA Bill in
2002, which was approved by the Senate in 2012. According to a letter issued by theBrazilian Federal Environmental Agency for protected areas management (ICMBio) to
the Ministry of Environment under request of the Federal Senate, while acknowledging
the existence of scientific literature on Currais Islands, ICMBio states that technicalstudies were not conducted specifically aiming at the creation of the MPA, nor proposing
the most suitable design for it, and that the required public consultation had not been
conducted (ICMBio, 2012). Their recommendation was to conduct a study on the use of
the marine area by small-scale and industrial fisheries and the impacts of these activities
to regional biodiversity prior to the designation of the MPA, which was ignored with the
MPA Bill being approved by the Senate and later put in effect by the president in 2013.
The Marine National Park of Currais Islands is a no-take MPA under the categoryof integral protection (IUCN IIa). Located six nautical miles offshore of Pontal do Paranámunicipality, in Paraná State coastal zone in Southern Brazil, the MPA covers an area of
13.5 km² (Figure 2.1). The objective of the MPA is to protect three uninhabited oceanicislands for their importance as a seabird breeding colony (Carniel and Krul, 2010; Krul,
25

2004; Martins and Dias 2003), for Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster), Kelp Gull (Larus
dominicanus) and Magnificent Frigatebirds (Fregata magnificens), and for their adjacentmarine environment that provide habitat for reef fish species (Hackradt et al. 2011),
including the critically endangered Atlantic Goliath Grouper (Epinephelus itajara)(IUCN, 2015). Currently, the MPA management plan is being developed and needs to befinished by 2018, which is five years after the creation according to Brazilian legislation.

Figure 2.1 - Location of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands and nearby small-scale fishingcommunities from Pontal do Paraná municipality.

26

2.3. Data collection and analysis

Several methods were used to conduct the study. The first step involved an
examination of secondary data related to the Currais Islands and adjacent coastal zone, as
well as the fishing communities from Pontal do Paraná municipality and their small-scale
fishing activities. This was done in order to describe and understand the ecological, social
and institutional contexts in which the MPA is situated. The material analyzed included
published peer-reviewed papers and unpublished documents in both Portuguese andEnglish, such as theses, technical reports, government reports, and digital media.
Primary data collection took place during two visits to the study sites. The
preliminary visits (June to July of 2014) involved field observation and informal
conversation with key informants, such as elder fishers, owners of fish stores and the
MPA Park manager. This phase of research helped understand the context and issues in
the region, make contacts with community members, and finalize the questionnaire.
During the second visit between August and September of 2014, questionnaires
were administered to 65 respondents at eight small-scale fishing communities in Pontal
do Paraná municipality. The questionnaire contained quantitative and qualitative openended questions related to demographics, fishing activities, attachment to fisheries,
dependency on fisheries, perceived changes in fisheries resources, and perception about
the MPA. Active fishers over 19 years old were approached either at the beach after
returning from the sea, in front of their homes or at the fish markets. Purposive andconvenience sampling method was employed. The first author administered thequestionnaires by reading the questions and recording the answers in Portuguese, her27

native language. At the start of the data collection, fishers were presented in oral andwritten form all information related to the research, and only when they gave verbal
consent that the first question was asked. This research was reviewed by theInterdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research and is in compliance withMemorial University’s ethics policy (ICEHR Number: 20150229-AR).
Data collected through the questionnaires was numerically coded and recorded
using an MS-Excel spreadsheet. Qualitative data from open-ended responses wereanalyzed by creating themes and categories to which responses were assigned. The
qualitative nominal and ordinal data had its counting and frequency calculated. For
quantitative variables, central tendency and dispersion measures were calculated. The free
software RStudio® was used for non-parametric statistical analysis. In order to identify
relationships between perception of MPA and fishing gear, a Fisher’s exact test was
conducted for significance of variables analyzed, which was determined at α=0.05(Kincaid et al., 2014). The Fisher exact test is a non-parametric test used to examine thesignificance of the association between two nominal variables in a two-way contingency
table, with the null hypothesis of independence between variables (Clapham andNicholson, 2013; Upton and Cook, 2014). Fisher’s exact test is more accurate andcommonly used when the expected numbers are small, too small to use the Chi-square
test (McDonald, 2009; Sprent, 2014).

28

2.4. Results

2.4.1. The MPA system

2.4.1.1. The ecological system

Paraná coastal zone, where the Currais Islands are located, extends for 107 km andis intersected by two main water bodies: the Guaratuba bay at the southernmost part andthe Estuarine Complex of Paranaguá at the northern part. This represents a highly
biological diverse area, comprised of sandy beaches, rocky shores, seagrass beds,
mangroves, tidal flats, and Atlantic forest (Lana et al., 2001).
Currais consist of three rocky oceanic islands, with depths ranging from 1.5 to 18 m
(Veiga et al., 2004). They are located on the inner continental shelf, which presents agentle slope of 1/700 m and is mainly dominated by a sand-muddy sediment composition(Veiga et al. 2004). The consolidated substrate in Currais makes a particularly rare naturalenvironment in Paraná continental shelf, represented also by other oceanic islands:
Itacolomis, in the South, Palmas, Galheta and Figueira in the North. Currais Islands havebeen considered a priority area for conservation (Portaria MMA nº 9 from 23/01/07), andare known to support an abundant and diverse community of 20 species of ascidians(Rocha and Faria 2005), a diversity of benthic macro fauna (Borzone et al., 1994), andfunction as habitats for 48 reef fish species in 30 families, 11% of which are endemic to
the Brazilian coast (Daros et al. 2012). The area is also home to Atlantic Goliath Grouper(Epinephelus itajara), a critically endangered species (Hackradt et al. 2011; IUCN 2015).
The islands serve as a breeding area for seabirds throughout the year (Carniel and Krul,

29

2010; Krul, 2004; Martins and Dias, 2003). The guano contributes to determining
zonation in the rocky shore (Borzone et al., 1994), while seabirds interact with smallscale fishing activities, feeding mainly from their discards (Carniel and Krul, 2012).
These relationships make the natural system very complex.
Currais Islands have high dynamics, with migratory fish species such as mackerel(Scomberomorus cavalla) and mullets (Mugil liza and M. platanus). Mullets reach Paraná
coast between May and August in their migration from South to North, following climaticand oceanographic conditions characteristic of the winter season: South winds and low
temperatures (Herbst and Hanazaki, 2014). According to fishers participating in thisstudy, the Currais Islands is the first area where mullets aggregate in Paraná coast when
migrating from the open ocean, seeking a foraging and spawning ground. Similar
observations were made by fishers from Santa Catarina state, South of Paraná, where
fishers also referred to a rocky bottom as an area where mullet stops at the so-called“paradas” for resting, spawning, feeding and seeking refuge (Herbst and Hanazaki, 2014).

2.4.1.2. Small-scale fisheries and the fishing people

From a total coastal population of 236,000, small-scale fisheries represent the maineconomic activity and source of income for more than 11,000 people directly or indirectly
related to the activity, living in over 60 communities located in coastal Paraná(Andriguetto-Filho et al. 2006). Although not representative at a national scale whencompared to the production of marine capture fisheries from the neighboring states ofSanta Catarina and São Paulo, Paraná’s fisheries have a crucial importance to the30

livelihoods of people who rely on fishing for survival in a context of poverty (Borges etal., 2004; Natividade et al. 2006; Pierri, 2003) with total yearly landings oscillating
between 500 and 2,500 tonnes between 1975 and 2000 (Natividade et al., 2006), and2,170 tonnes as of 2011 (MPA, 2011).
Although Paraná’s production is small-scale with local importance, its coastal areas
have national importance to industrial fisheries from neighboring states (Guanais et al.,2015), as these fleets have operated between Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul States,
therefore including Paraná coast (UNIVALI/CTTMar, 2013). The fishing gears and techniquesthat are mostly used by industrial fishing fleets exploiting the Paraná coast are bottom gillnets,
pair trawls, and surrounding nets (UNIVALI/CTTMar, 2013). The industrial fisheries of theneighboring Santa Catarina state accounts for more than 13% of the national production
with 121,960 tonnes per year, leading the national ranking (MPA, 2011). Main targeted
species comprise pelagic fishes, such as sardine (Sardinella brasiliensis), followed by skipjack
tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and croaker (Micropogonias furnieri), with main fishing gears usedbeing surrounding nets, followed by double-rig beam trawlers and pole and line fishing.

Similarly, São Paulo’s production has national importance, ranking 7th amongst Brazilian
coastal states, with around 20 to 30 thousand tonnes fished yearly from 2009 to 2011, an estimate
profit of 80 to 120 million Reais (Brazilian currency) (Instituto de Pesca, 2015). Historically, themain targeted fishing resource is the sardine (Sardinella brasiliensis), followed by seabob shrimp(Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) and other demersal fish species(Instituto de Pesca, 2015). Main fishing gears include surrounding nets, accounting for the
majority of fishing landings, followed by pair trawl and double-rig beam trawlers.

31

At a municipal scale, as of 2008 about 400 people participated in various aspects offisheries, including harvesting, processing and marketing, representing about 2% of total
population of Pontal do Paraná municipality (Caldeira and Pierri, 2014). There are 13
fishing communities in the municipality, seven being distributed along the oceanic coastand six located around the estuary. Fishing practices vary spatially and temporallyaccording to availability of targeted fish species and the coast configuration (AndriguettoFilho, 2003). At the oceanic coast, 60% of the fishers use gillnets while the rest use
bottom-trawl, and to a lesser extent, hooks and lines and spear, which is snorkel-based
and practiced mainly by fishers from Mel Island (Fuzetti, 2007) and a few from
communities throughout the coast. The overwhelming majority of the boats are 6 to 12 m,
many of which are canoes, with 11 to 24 horse power engine, and can be adapted to either
gillnet or bottom-trawl fishery (Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2009; Caldeira and Pierri, 2014).
One to three fishers operates a canoe, depending mainly on the fishing gear used, with atleast two fishers required for gillnetting. The majority of fishers own and work on theirboats, sometimes with crew members.
Bottom trawl fisheries in Paraná consist of one or two cone-shaped nets that are
kept open by otter boards and towed by a single canoe on the bottom, generally reaching
9 m in length and less than 10 GRT, with an engine of 11 or 18 HP, targeting shrimp(Malheiros, 2008). Bottom-trawling is the most widespread fishing technique in coastal
Paraná, with the highest landings (Natividade et al., 2006).
Gillnet fisheries are generally performed by a motorized canoe, wooden or
fiberglass, and encompass a high diversity of techniques employed, including set(“fundeio”) and drift (“caceio”) gillnets, which can be positioned either at the bottom or32

at the surface of the water column; encircling gillnets; “caracol”, in which the gillnets are
towed concentrically; and beach seine (Caldeira and Pierri, 2014). Net dimensions andmesh size vary according to targeted species, with fish as the main fishing resource,
accounting for 26% of total landings (Natividade et al., 2006).
Coastal Paraná’s fishers in general target 27 different fishing resources,
representing 72 species and 19 groups (Correa, 1987; Natividade et al., 2006). Shrimp,
particularly sea-bob shrimp (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) and white shrimp (Litopenaeus
shimitti) represent the main economically important species (Andriguetto-Filho, 2002),
accounting for 73% of landings in weight (Natividade et al., 2006). They are caught
throughout the year except during the closed season from March to May (Caldeira andPierri, 2014). Among fish, Serranidae and Scianidae encompass the majority in number
species caught, with Clupeidae and Scianidae representing a majority in weight(Natividade et al., 2006). Hake (Macrodon ancylon) are caught throughout the year, but
castin leatherjacket (Oligoplites saliens), common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) andother species of hake (Cynoscion leiarchus, C. microlepidotus and C. acoupa) are fishedfrom spring to summer, and croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) during spring. In autumn
and winter months, the main targeted species are mullets (Mugil liza), mackerel(Scomberomorus brasiliensis and S. cavalla), and flounder (Paralichthys spp.).
As found in this study, catch destinations vary between communities, depending onaccess to markets, seasonal availability and fluctuation in demands. Seasonality also
influences demand from tourism, which peaks in the summer. Generally, direct sale totourists takes place in the summer, and sale to middlemen in the winter when local
demand is low. Household consumption, on the other hand, is largely determined by food33

preferences, with some fishers declaring that they cannot eat fish after working with it allday, and by amount caught (too low to sale). It is also related to the sale value of the fish,with fish of less value such as non-target species called “misturinha” being consumed inhouseholds.
While the majority of fishers depend on fisheries for income, about 17% rely on
fishing as the only income source. According to Borges et al. (2004), the average monthly
income for small-scale fishers from Paraná is R$749.0 as of 1998, and from that, 55%
was from fishing activities and 31% from other sources. As recorded in this study, othersources of income include those that are fishing-related such as boat pilot,
commercializing and processing fish or mending gears, as well as non-fisheries income
such as construction, house rental for tourists and as security guard. Some fishers receive
government assistance, “Bolsa Família,” as supplements to household income.

2.4.1.3. Interactions between a natural and a social system

Also important to understand are the interactions between small-scale fisheries andthe natural system’s components of Currais Islands. Given that one of the objectives ofthe Marine National Park of Currais Islands is to protect seabird populations, it is crucial
to understand how these interact with fishing activities, and whether they are subjected to
impacts from these. Impacts from fishing activities to seabird populations throughbycatch have been documented worldwide being pointed out as one of the main threats toseabirds (Croxall et al., 2012), and efforts have been made to mitigate such impacts(Lokkeborg, 2011). Seabird bycatch has been historically related to longline industrial

34

fisheries (Bugoni et al., 2008b; Anderson et al., 2011), but other fishing practices andgears have also been considered as threats, such as hook and line fishery (Bugoni et al.,2008a), trawling (Sullivan et al., 2006) and gillnet fisheries (Zydelis et al., 2013).
Although seabird bycatch impacts usually relate to industrial fishing fleets, impacts ofsmall-scale fisheries on seabirds have also been documented (Bugoni et al., 2008a;
Shester and Micheli, 2011). However, there are no records for Paraná State related to
impacts from small-scale fisheries to seabird populations through bycatch, and in thisstudy small-scale fishers did not demonstrate any evidence of such impacts. These would
need to be further investigated.
Seabirds from coastal Paraná (Larus dominicanus, Sula leucogaster and Fregata
magnificens) highly depend on small-scale fisheries’ discards as main dietary source(Carniel and Krul, 2012), an interaction that has been recorded in other locations forscavenging seabirds (Traversi and Vooren, 2010). Regular et al. (2013) found that diverseabirds and scavenger surface-feeders seabirds are impacted differently from a ban on
gillnet fisheries, with scavenging seabird species being negatively affected by reduction
on discards availability. Similarly, Laneri et al. (2010) found that during periods oftrawling inactivity, seabird bycatch by longline fisheries is increased due to food scarcity.
According to Bicknell et al. (2013), a ban in discards, as has been suggested by the EU
Fisheries Policy following an international trend, might have negative consequences forseabirds by generating a food shortage, which would impact seabird foraging, distribution
and population dynamics. However, some positive impacts to a ban on fishing activity
include seabird bycatch reduction and a reduction in generalist species that dominate
some seabird communities (Bicknell et al., 2013). Thus, a displacement of fishing35

activities and a potential reduction on fishing discards could be expected to impact
foraging seabird species from Currais Islands if seabird bycatch is not an impact in theregion. However, incidental capture of other species have been associated with gillnet
fisheries and documented in the region, for marine mammals (Rosas et al., 2002) with special
attention to the threatened species Pontoporia blainvillei (IUCN, 2015), and for sea turtles,
including the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta) (Fiedler et al.,2012), and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in Paranaguá Bay, Paraná (López-Barrera et al.,2012).

Another objective of the newly established MPA is to protect marine species’
habitat, given that rocky reefs are a rare coastal feature in coastal Paraná. Thus, as thishabitat is used by reef fish, including the threatened Atlantic Goliath grouper, it isimportant to estimate impacts of spear fishing and gillnetting to local reef fish species,
especially related to illegal catches of Atlantic Goliath grouper for Paraná. Further, it is
known that ghost fishing (i.e. lost or abandoned fishing gear that continues to induce
mortality of aquatic organisms, without human control) might constitute an important
threat to marine species (Matsuoka et al., 2005). This might be considered a potential
impact to marine organisms in Currais Islands, as in this study a group of small-scale
fishers was interviewed while mending gillnets after they got tangled around the rocky
reefs of Currais Islands. According to some small-scale fishers in this study, this iscommon when they are fishing for fish schools close to the rocky islands and therefore
may constitute a real threat to marine species. Small-scale fishers seem to be aware of the
impact in this study as they mentioned the need to prohibit fishing too close to the rocks,
suggesting different buffer distances ranging from 100 to 1000 m. This further

36

demonstrated the lack of knowledge of existing legislation, which already prohibits
gillnet fishing within 50 m from the islands for drift gillnets and within 100 m from theislands for set gillnets, thus indicating a lack of compliance.
The threatened Atlantic Goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara) aggregates in theartificial reefs installed by the NGO Mar Brasil and rocky islands such as Galheta,
Currais, and Itacolomis in coastal Paraná during the summer season for breeding(Brandini, 2014; Félix-Hackradt and Hackradt, 2008). In this study, the surroundings ofCurrais and Itacolomis Islands have also been attributed as habitat for the species,
according to small-scale fishers. Despite a moratorium from 2002, the Atlantic Goliathgrouper (Epinephelus itajara) has still been captured and commercialized illegally in
Brazil with an annual catches average of 393 tonnes (Giglio et al., 2014). Thus, increasing
enforcement of legislation along with the establishment of priority areas for conservationof the species has been highly endorsed (Giglio et al., 2014). According to Félix-Hackradt
and Hackradt (2008), illegal catches of Atlantic Goliath grouper have been reported forcoastal communities of Paraná. Although in this study there were no records of illegal
catches of the species, this should be considered a potential impact, especially because
groupers are a common target to spear fishing that takes place in the area.
As Brandini (2014) argues, the occurrence of Goliath groupers in the artificial reefarea has attracted scuba diving operators and generated revenue from tourism. Therefore,
in the particular case of the Atlantic Goliath grouper, ecotourism could be an appealing
alternative to spearfishing and should be further explored as to include small-scale
fishers. This would be especially relevant with regards to the MPA, under National Park
category, which allows tourism and research. However, this should be considered with37

caution, as impacts from tourism to Currais Islands have been identified by Borzone et al.
(1994), which are still recurring according to small-scale fishers that participated in thisstudy. These include seabird handling by tourists, causing injuries to nestlings and eggs,
provoked seabird flight with noise from speed boats, and littering (Borzone et al., 1994).
In theory, MPAs’ are supposed to function by providing alternative income sources to thefishers whose activities are disrupted by the establishment of the MPA, with ecotourism
often promoted as the alternative employment sector that will keep fishers in the water
without harming fish populations and or marine habitats (Agardy, 1993). Options for
local tourism initiatives in Currais Islands could be then explored, creating anotherincome source to local people, which currently have relied on few alternatives (Pierri,2003). But this approach does not appear to work in Currais Islands, as access toecotourism is currently limited to tourism and dive operators as well as to speed boats’
owners from Curitiba, the State’s capital. Another problem to that would be thewillingness of fishers to remain fishing, mainly because they like their activity, as foundin this study and by Trimble and Johnson (2013).

2.4.1.4. The governing system

Environmental and fisheries management in the region are largely organized as a
top-down, hierarchical governing system. The Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture andMinistry of Environment operate at the Federal level. Operating under the Ministry ofEnvironment are ICMBio and the Brazilian Institute for Environment and Renewable
Resources. ICMBio is a federal agency dealing specifically with federal protected area

38

management, and therefore is in charge of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands.
The Brazilian Institute for Environment and Renewable Resources is a state level agency
responsible for management and enforcement of natural resources. Additionally, theEnvironmental Police is responsible for enforcement of environmental legislation at theState level. Both perform a role in enforcing this MPA’s regulations. Environmental
legislation at State and Federal levels have restricted fishing activities through seasonal
and area closures, gear and vessel restrictions and licenses, as well as other conservation
initiatives as the installation of artificial reefs by a local non-governmental organization
called Mar Brasil (Brandini, 2014).
Governments are not the only actors in the governing system. Fishing communities
have their own organization at the municipal level, the fishing guilds or “colônia”, whichis established by municipality as a formal organization of fishers, first created in Brazil inthe 19th century and recognized by Federal Law since 2008 (Law nº11,699/2008), withthe objective of defending fisher’s rights and interests. The fishing guild of Pontal do
Paraná municipality is located in Shangri-lá community. The “Movement of Artisanal
Fishers of Paraná State” (MOPEAR) is a fishers’ organization created in response toconflicts with a protected area situated at the Northern Paraná coast, the Superagui
National Park. Through this organization, small-scale fishers fight for their rights and forthe recognition of their traditional livelihoods, connecting them with one another atregional and national scales, and with the governmental institutions.

39

2.4.2. Perceptions of small-scale fishers

As previously mentioned, a questionnaire was developed to examine theperceptions of small-scale fishers about the MPA. Sixty-five people from eight
communities completed the questionnaire (Table 2.1). These numbers represented the
majority of active small-scale fishers in each community, an assessment based on direct
observation and data retrieved from Caldeira (2009) of the number of canoes operating ineach place, and considering that each canoe has 1-2 people working on it. The nonresponse rate, considering all communities, was 20%. The average time taken to complete
the questionnaire was 38 minutes, ranging from 15 to 180 minutes. The participants were
all male, as that is the only gender working as active fishers on the oceanic coast. The
average age of the respondents was 47 years, and the majority (55%) did not completeelementary school. Unless specified, the results below are presented based on theaggregation of all the 65 respondents.
Communities have differences and similarities according to their demographics(Table 2.1). Data shown represents the category with majority of responses. In cases
when about half of respondents cited each category, such as in main fishing gear and boatownership, the community was determined here as “mixed”. Number of canoes could not
be determined at all locations, thus for Vila dos Pescadores and Pontal do Sul, and for
Canoas and Praia de Leste the number was based on data from Caldeira (2009), who
treats them as two integrated communities and provides only the total number for each
pair.

40

Table 2.1 - Characterization of fishing communities from Pontal do Paraná. The name of these communities
are: 1 = Vila dos Pescadores; 2 = Pontal do Sul; 3 = Barrancos; 4 = Shangri-lá; 5 = Carmery; 6 = Ipanema;
7 = Canoas; 8 = Praia de Leste. n = Number of fishers who completed the questionnaire.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(n=5)

(n=5)

(n=6)

(n=17)(n=8)(n=17)

(n=4)

(n=3)

80

40

100

71

62.5

76.5

75

0

20

60

0

29

37.5

23.5

25

100

8

21

14

25

Demographics

Origin (%)
NativeNon-native*
Number of canoes

10**

8**

Boat ownership (%)
Boat owner
Crew member

80

80

83

65

62.5

65

25

33

20

20

17

35

37.5

35

75

67

100

0

67

47

37.5

94

25

67

0

100

33

53

62.5

6

75

33

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

20

40

0

53

50

35

0

67

80

60

100

47

50

65

100

33

Main fishing gear (%)
GillnetBottom-trawl
Public fish
marketIncome (%)
Non-fishing
Fishing*Non-native refers to small-scale fishers who were born in another municipality;**According to Caldeira (2009).

2.4.2.1. Attachment to fisheries

The study posits that attachment to fisheries can be understood by examining
fishers’ perceptions on their activity in relation to the reasons for working in fisheries andwhether they would like to sustain it for themselves or for their children. The majority of41

fishers (83%) has family members in fisheries and has lived in their communities for an
average of 40 years, or an entire life for some of them. They started fishing at an averageage of 14 years, and 77% of them indicated that they learned how to fish from a family
member, such as their father or grandfather. The majority of fishers said that they mainly
work in fisheries because they like fishing. Other reasons were also mentioned, however,such as they come from a fishing family or they find fishing profitable. About 38%
indicated, however, that they have this occupation because they lack alternatives. On
fishers’ attachment to their occupation, the majority of them (78%) would not change
their activity for the same income, mainly because they like fishing, and for economic
reasons such as the investment made in the equipment or for insurance benefits. Some,however, also rely on supplementary income sources from non-fishing related activities(Table 2.1). Those who would like to change activity mainly cited the hardship withfishing occupation as the reason. Although the majority of fishers like fishing and arewilling to continue doing it for themselves, they would not like their children to beworking in fisheries (Table 2.2). In addition to the hardship associated with theoccupation, some fishers recognized that better opportunities exist for their children andthey prefer to send them to school. One of the reasons given by those who would liketheir children to work in the fisheries was the desire for their children to help the family
or maintain the fishing heritage. Limits imposed by environmental legislation were also
cited as one of the reasons for some of the fishers not want their children in the activity.

42

2.4.2.2. Changes and future of fisheries

Fishing resource dynamics are good indications of interactions between small-scale
fishers and the MPA. About 88% of the respondents indicated changes in catches, with
75% of those believing the change to be negative (decreasing catches). Fishers referred toa reduction in abundance and diversity of targeted species in general, but main species
cited were mullets, hake and sea-bob shrimp. Reasons mentioned for the declining
catches are increased fishing pressure, either from industrial fisheries fleets fromneighboring states (39%), which exploit Paraná’s coast as mentioned earlier, or otherlocal small-scale fishing practices considered destructive (35%), such as bottom-trawling,
spear fishing and gillnet with small mesh size or high dimensions.
Respondents also mentioned pollution and port-related activities as additionalcauses for the decline observed, given the proximity of the access channel to Paranaguá port,
the largest in grain export port terminal in Latin America (APPA, 2016). The decline in catches

affected daily fishing activities for 76% of fishers responding to the questionnaire,
resulting in loss of fishing grounds and fishing farther from coast or causing an increasein fishing effort. Some respondents felt constrained by the environmental legislation that
restricts fishing activities, and ended up with low compliance in the situation of declining
catches or tried to find alternative income sources and invested less in fisheries.
On a positive note, about 25% of fishers, mostly from Barrancos and Shangri-lá,
observed an increase in catches (Table 2.2), mainly due to conservation measures such as
the installation of artificial reefs and the environmental legislation that resulted inindustrial fishing fleets moving further away from coast. Fishers mentioned that the43

artificial reefs contributed attract reef fish species such as the grey triggerfish (Balistes
capriscus), and reduced industrial fishing was related to an increase in white shrimp,
occurring for a longer season. The use of new technologies, such as motorized boats,smaller mesh sizes, nets of bigger dimensions, which led to increase fishing effort, wasalso attributed as another reason for catch increase.
Some of the fishing communities relied on species that gather around Currais
Islands during the winter season (June to September), when days out in the sea are fewer
due to the increased frequency of cold fronts, restraining fishers’ access to the rough seas.
Fishers referred to this as a “natural closed season”, as they are prevented from fishing
due to the inclement weather. According to them, this adds to the “legally closed-season”
from March to May when they are not allowed to fish for shrimp. Additional reasons forlow catches during the winter months are decreased demand for fish outside of the tourist
season (thus poor price), and few fish available for catches (especially mullets). Fishers
refer to fishing during the winter rather negatively, e.g. “August is the month of disgust”.
Irrespective of the perspective about the present situation, fishers were generally
pessimistic about the future of fisheries in the region, with 80% of the respondents
perceiving a tendency of decline or even end of the activity. Evidence of this sentiment
was provided, for example, with fishers giving up their job and a low recruitment of new
fishers into the activity, mostly due to a lack of interest from youth. The decrease incatches as a result of increased pressure over resources was cited as another cause for thisperception, followed by government-related problems, such as the lack of financial
support, prioritization of few and limits imposed by legislation. Concern aboutsustainability related to the technologies was mentioned by some fishers, both those who
44engage in these practices and others who do not. The rest of the fishers, who showed
optimism about the future of fisheries in the region believe in conservation initiatives
with adequate enforcement and investment in new technologies to increase fishing effort
would contribute to make small-scale fisheries prosper in the future.

Table 2.2 - Small-scale fishers’ perception by community (1 = Vila dos Pescadores; 2 = Pontal do Sul; 3 =Barrancos; 4 = Shangri-lá; 5 = Carmery; 6 = Ipanema; 7 = Canoas; 8 = Praia de Leste).
Small-scale fisher's
perceptions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(n=5)

(n=5)

(n=6)

(n=17)(n=8)(n=17)

(n=4)

(n=3)

Willing to have children working in fisheries (%)
Yes

0

0

83

23

25

18

0

0

No

100

100

17

71

72.5

76

100

67

Don’t know

0

0

0

6

2.5

6

0

33

Yes

0

60

17

23

0

23

0

0

No

100

40

83

71

100

71

100

100

Don’t know

0

0

0

6

0

6

0

0

Decrease

100

100

50

50

72

53

50

100

Increase

0

0

50

44

14

27

0

0

No changes

0

0

0

6

14

20

50

0

Pessimistic

100

80

83

59

86

80

100

100

Optimistic

0

20

17

41

14

20

0

0

Willing to change activity (%)

Changes in catches (%)

Future of fisheries (%)

45

2.4.2.3. The MPA and what it means to fishers and their environment

With regard to the Marine National Park of Currais Islands, 92% of fishers knew
about the MPA, mainly through media (41%), community members (32%) or meetingsorganized by the fishers’ association or the local non-governmental organization, Mar
Brasil (20%). Oral communication was the main way through which they learned about
the designation of the MPA, with TV as another important media and with community
members helping to spread the information. Of the overall fishers responding to thequestionnaire, 57% believed that the MPA objective was environmental conservation,
followed by 20% who thought that there was no reason to designate an MPA, or that its
objective was to harm small-scale fishers or for personal or political interests. This latter
point of view was mainly expressed by fishers from Barrancos, Ipanema and Praia deLeste, who resented the government actions to designate the MPA. About 10% of
respondents, particularly from Pontal do Sul community, indicated that they did not knowwhat the MPA was for.
In general, the MPA was perceived as being good to the environment (Figure 2.2),
because it promotes conservation (46%). Conversely, fishers who responded that the
MPA would be neutral or bad to the environment explained that it is because they did not
believe that the MPA would make any difference to conservation or fisheries
sustainability. While small-scale fishers who shared this opinion did not perceive the
MPA as being threatened and did not think government would provide adequate
enforcement. Rather, they felt that Currais Islands would be better protected by46

themselves, showing a sense of ownership towards the archipelago. This perspective is
illustrated by the quote from one of the respondents:“[The MPA] won’t be of any help. We don’t kill the birds; they are the first to
welcome the fishers who go there. No one has ever destroyed anything there.
Fishers take good care of that place. And it is possible that when they take fishers
out of there, people will destroy it. This law will not protect anything, [the island] isbetter off without it, than with it.” (Translated from Portuguese – see Appendix V
for original quote.)
Small-scale fishers’ sense of ownership towards Currais Islands is also expressed
when they refer to feeding the seabirds fish discards. This is demonstrated in the quote:“[The government] has created [the MPA] to protect the Kelp Gulls, the Brown Boobies.
But the fishers are the ones who feed them, by throwing them the discards from bottomtrawling.” (Translated from Portuguese – see Appendix V for original quote.)
Also, when they mention taking care of the islands they refer to not killing or
disturbing sea birds and their nests, nor disembarking on the islands, in opposition to what
they reported about the tourists. Further, always being around fishing is regarded as a wayof surveillance, as they do not consider fishing around the islands a threat to the islands
and the birds, as shown in the statement: “We are the ones who take care of those islands,
who are always around fishing.” (Translated from Portuguese – see Appendix V for
original quote.)Thus, by doing this they consider to be protecting the islands from others regarded
as threat, such as tourists. Another threat identified by small-scale fishers is the trophy
spearfishing, which targets the largest fish, such as the threatened Atlantic Goliathgrouper. Some small-scale fishers also make a distinction between the “coloured fish”,

47that use the rocky reef as habitat and should be preserved, and the fish that are migrating,targeted by them. By knowing Currais Islands well, some demonstrate a sense of
attachment to it, and perceive as part of their homes, as it can be perceived by thefollowing quote: “I don’t understand why to do that [the MPA]. There are lots of birds.
This is stupid, there is nothing there to preserve. I know that island as I know mybedroom”. (Translated from Portuguese – see Appendix V for original quote.) In thisquote, this is further evidenced when a sense of resentment towards the MPA designation
without small-scale fishers’ consent is felt as an emotional and personal offense, as it canbe noted from the statement:“This is hurting the coastal family. What hurts the most is to know that it is [thepark designation] for political interests. No one makes a law if there are no interests
behind it. Who is going to decide what is good is ourselves. People in Curitiba do
not know that. We do.” (Translated from Portuguese – see Appendix V for original
quote.)

Here a small-scale fisher talks about the park creation, as if something was taken
away from all coastal communities from Paraná who rely on fishing activities. Throughthe park creation it is assumed that governors from the State’s capital, Curitiba, know
better than small-scale fishers what is best for Currais Islands. The fisher further
explained that this is taken as an offense because if something you feel belongs to you istaken away from you, is usually because it is assumed that you did not take good care ofit.
Fishers were divided when asked about the effects of the MPA to the community, as
shown in Figure 2.2. The majority of the respondents felt that the MPA was bad to thecommunity because it prohibited the extractive use of the area, affecting fishing activities.
48

Those who perceived the MPA to be positive to the community argued, however, that it
would help increase fish and promote conservation. Similar divergent was found on thequestion about how the MPA would affect individual fishers directly. The main reason for
the negative perception was the high dependency on the area for fishing. One fisher
explained it further: “Our income from this week came from there [Currais Islands]. It is
the first place where fish stop when coming from the open ocean.” (Translated from
Portuguese – see Appendix V for original quote). On the other hand, the protection andincrease on fishing resources was attributed as examples of how the MPA could affectfishers positively. As mentioned by a fisher: “[The MPA] will help me, because it will bea shelter to the fish: there they reproduce, grow, and come to the coast.” (Translated from
Portuguese – see Appendix V for original quote). These fishers, who make up 27% of
respondents, mainly perceive that the MPA would increase fish diversity and abundance
inside the MPA and could result in a spillover effect. Those who considered the MPA as
neutral to them did not use the area and therefore did not think that they were going to beaffected.

Figure 2.2 - Fishers' perceptions towards the Marine National Park of Currais Islands.

49

Small-scale fishers differed in how they perceive the MPA based on the fishing gear
used (Table 2.3). The Fisher’s Exact test shows that difference was significant in relation
to how small-scale fishers perceive the MPA to themselves (p-value=0.01), with the
majority of gillnet fishers indicating they rely on Currais to fish.

Table 2.3 - Perception of fishers towards the MPA according to fishing gear used, showing the mostfrequent responses to each category (i.e. environment, community and fishers).
Main fishing gear used
Perception of MPA
Gillnet (N=39)

Bottom-trawl (N=26)

Promotes conservation

Promotes conservation

Positive

80

87

Negative

4

4

Neutral16

9Prohibits fishing

Increases catches/Prohibits fishing

Positive

25

42

Negative

56

37

Neutral19

21

Prohibits fishing

Increases catches/Not affected

Positive

21

40

Negative

56

20

Neutral

23

40

To the environment (%)

To the community (%)

To fishers (%)

2.4.3. What contributes to MPA governability?

As shown in the above analysis, fishers from the eight fishing communities differ interms of the fishing gear and technique used, their experiences, and what they expect on
the future of fisheries. All of these factors influence how fishers perceive and support the
MPA as a conservation initiative, and thus its governability. While governability issystem and context-specific, learning about common features that communities share and50discuss how they may give rise to the overall governability is useful to improvegovernance. For instance, this information can help governing authorities establish rules
and regulations that can be applied to similar communities, thus making enforcement lesscomplicated. Therefore, features of the social and natural systems, and fishers’
perceptions towards the MPA are analyzed in terms of their influence on the MPA
governability. It should be noted that small-scale fishers do not constitute the only
stakeholders affected by the MPA, thus this analysis focuses on their influence on MPA
governability based on the assumption that they constitute a marginalized group that
relies on their fishing activity as main or only source of income, which needs to be
included in the process as important allies to MPA implementation. The analysis resultsin two main groupings of the eight small-scale fishing communities, as shown below.
Suggestions are then made about what to do to enhance governability in each case.
Group 1: Lower governability - MPA is good to the environment but bad for smallscale fisheries. This group refers to fishers who claimed that the MPA would conserve theenvironment, but be bad to the community and to themselves, mainly because it would
prohibit them to use the area. These corresponded mainly to gillnetters (Table 2.3) from
communities that rely heavily on Currais Islands to fish, such as Barrancos, Shangri-lá,
Ipanema, and Carmery. Therefore, the majority of small-scale fishers from thesecommunities has more at stake and is directly affected by the MPA. Despite the concern
on small-scale fishing livelihoods, some features of the social system in thesecommunities constitute opportunities for matching the conservation objectives of the
MPA with the needs for maintenance of livelihoods. For instance, these were the only
communities that pointed out an increase in catches, which matched in some cases to an
51

optimism related to the activity in the future (Table 2.2). This was especially the case inShangri-lá, where experience with increased catches generated by the artificial reefs led
to optimism in conservation initiatives. Further, fishers from Barrancos were willing tohave their children to be fishers, mainly to maintain the fishing heritage. Even though thisviewpoint does not represent the majority of the people in the area, the optimism related
to conservation initiatives in increasing catches may be a starting point for defining rules
and regulations in which small-scale fishers would have faith in, and to which they would
be able to abide to, which will help increase the MPA governability. Further, having nonfishing activities as a supplementary source of income, as with small-scale fishers from
Shangri-lá and Carmery (Table 2.1), and giving other communities the opportunity tohave a local fish market (i.e. besides Shangri-lá) could help as alternatives to increase thefish value and the household income while decreasing fishing effort in Currais.
Group 2: Higher governability - MPA is neutral to the environment andgood/neutral to the community. Formed by fishers from Vila dos Pescadores, Pontal doSul, Canoas and Praia de Leste, this group shares the perception that they could be either
positively affected or not affected by the MPA. Fishers from these communities do not
generally rely on Currais Islands to fish, including bottom-trawlers from Pontal do Sul
and Canoas, and gillnetters from Vila dos Pescadores and Praia de Leste. In the case ofVila dos Pescadores, they are located at the estuary mouth, which is the furthest awayfrom Currais, and they fish predominantly in the bay and areas from the Northern Paraná
coast. Fishers from Praia de Leste are the closest to Currais (i.e. about six nautical miles)
but they do not use the Currais area because they fish with gillnets targeting hake andshrimp that occur closer to coast. In relation to the effect of MPA to the environment,52there are divergent perceptions within this group. Fishers from Canoas and Praia de Lestemainly think the MPA will not make a difference, due to issues of low enforcement andconsidering that the MPA will not address other impacts such as pollution. On the other
hand, fishers from Vila dos Pescadores and Pontal do Sul share the opinion that the MPA
could be good to the environment, as it could promote conservation, contributing to anincrease in fishing resources closer to coast. It is notable, however, that almost all fishers
from these four communities reported a decrease in catches, and are pessimistic about the
future of fisheries (Table 2.2), which could easily lead to lowering governability. Many ofthem also indicated little attachment to fishing livelihoods. Nevertheless, the highgovernability attributed to this group is associated with the fact that fishers share similar
images about the MPA and will most likely be in compliance with the rule, given the lowlevel of conflict in the use of gear and fishing areas.

2.5. Discussion

The diversity, complexity and dynamic features of the Marine National Park ofCurrais Islands pose challenges to the MPA governance. As noted by Chuenpagdee andJentoft (2009), governability is about the capacity of the natural, social, and governing
systems to respond to the challenges posed by its inherent features. Thus, the morediverse, complex and dynamic a system is, the more difficult it will be to govern its
functioning. In order to increase governability of the MPA, the properties of the natural
system should be considered, exploring further the biological diversity and therelationships between species. Such knowledge would increase our capacity to define

53potential threats and develop appropriate conservation objectives. In particular, thedynamics of fish species that use the Currais Islands’ surroundings as habitat, such as
mullets and mackerel, need to be understood and considered when designing themanagement plan. For instance, given that these two main species only occur in thewinter, the option of having an ‘open season’ during the winter months for small-scale
fisheries using gillnets targeting these species could be studied, accounting for impacts
that this could generate.
Significant differences in the characteristics between the eight small-scale fishingcommunities and the way fishers perceive the MPA imply that MPAs may affect smallscale fishing livelihoods differently. As argued by Andriguetto-Filho et al. (2009), thegeneralizations cannot be made about small-scale fisheries in Paraná state. In this study,
distance from the MPA does not seem to play a role when defining which communities
might or might not be affected by it, while other features of the social system such as
fishing gear and techniques, perception of changes and future of fisheries, and attachment
to fisheries, seem to have a much larger role in how much they have at stake and in how
fishers perceive the MPA. The diversity in fishing communities’ characteristics andperceptions at a local scale was also found by Yates (2014) in Northern Ireland fisheries
and by Kincaid et al (2014) at the small-scale fishing communities related to the Mafia
Island MPA in Tanzania. Their findings, as well as those from the current study, reinforce
the caution noted by Degnbol et al. (2006) when applying MPAs as technical fixes tomanagement problems. Further, assumptions made without consideration about local
contexts may not only generate conflict, but also result in negative feedbacks for future
management approaches (Jentoft et al., 2007). The diversity in fishers’ perceptions and in54

how the MPA would affect their livelihoods can pose challenges to governability of the
MPA if this is not taken into account. It also implies that communities cannot be treatedas a homogeneous whole, as also suggested by Agrawal and Gibson (1999), in the study
exploring the concept of community and how it has been approached in conservation ofnatural resources. By acknowledging the different perceptions of the MPA and the socialand economic dependency to maintenance of fishing livelihoods in the implementation of
the MPA, governability could be increased. However, it should be noted that this would
ideally be achieved in conjunction with other stakeholders, which would also be
responsible for contributing to achieving MPA’s goals.
As shown in this study, small-scale fishers’ perception of the MPA, in relation to
the community and to themselves, varied according to the fishing gear used. This isbecause the fishing gear used and species targeted reflect on whether fishers directly relyon the archipelago, and therefore on how affected they are by the MPA. The relationshipwas more evident on how fishers using different gear perceived the effect of the MPA tothemselves. As the MPA poses restrictions that mostly apply to gillnet users, it may be
indirectly favoring and endorsing bottom-trawl fisheries, which are considered more
impacting to the marine environment. Further, small-scale fishers’ response to reduced
catches in general has been increasing fishing effort and expanding fishing grounds tofarther from coast. By restricting activities at Currais Islands, fishing effort could be
expended in other areas, which would undermine environmental conservation in theregion when considered at a larger scale. The effects of overfishing and impacts of fishingactivities to marine species and their habitat have been acknowledged in the literature(Chuenpagdee et al., 2003; Dayton et al., 1995), and strategies to address these impacts
55

include promoting the use of bycatch reduction devices associated to MPAs (Guanais etal, 2015), as well as endorsing the use of fishing gears that are considered less impacting
in comparison to others (Chuenpagdee et al., 2003). As decisions made inside the MPA
are not restricted to its boundaries, scale issues should be considered as the MPA could
represent a threat to governability of the entire coast, having an impact on how and where
fishers operate.
Challenges to the implementation of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands
could lie on the interactions between the natural and the social systems. The
understanding of the dynamics that operate between these systems-to-be-governed isfundamental in order to realize whether fishers will be able to cope with the new
restrictions imposed by the MPA while trying to maintain their livelihoods (Jentoft et al.,2007). An example of this is the difficulties faced by fishers during the winter, which
could be exacerbated by prohibiting fishing activities in the surroundings of Currais
Islands, where most of their catches from this season come from. The difficulty inmaintaining fishing livelihoods in a context of declining catches is enhanced, also withurban and tourism expansion that threatens fishers’ livelihoods in the region(Andriguetto-Filho, 2003; Pinheiro et al., 2010). Similar to what Trimble and Johnson(2013) found in their study, the majority of small-scale fishers in this study are not willingto change activity. Fishers face increasing difficulties when their access to an importantfishing ground is restricted. Such exclusion could bring about not only economic
hardship, but also cultural impacts, as fishing represents, not just livelihoods, but a way oflife to many, especially small-scale fishers (Jones, 2009; Onyango, 2011). As the MPA
prevents fishers to exert their effort, the expected response would be lack of support,
56

which would lower governability of the MPA. Further, it could compromise reachingconservation goals and generate conflict, thus diminishing the capacity of the MPA toaddress the needs of these fishers.
As a governing institution, the MPA authority needs to define MPA objectives andthe threats it aims at addressing. Right from the start, the designation of the Marine
National Park of Currais Islands was guided by research recommendations especially interms of the category chosen, of integral protection (Borzone et al., 1994), based on theassumption that fisheries in general pose threats to the area. However, this study raises thequestion that threats to Currais Islands and to coastal Paraná as whole, whether real or
perceived, may also come from other activities, such as industrial fisheries fromneighboring states, port-related industry and pollution, as pointed out by small-scale
fishers. This finding should be considered in the development of the management plan for
the MPA, with a need for evidence on real threats to Currais Islands’ terrestrial andmarine ecosystem.
Further, the MPA authority could explore ways to benefit from the sense ofownership that small-scale fishers participating in this research demonstrated towards theislands, and their willingness to conserve what they rely on, in enhancing governability.
In this study, some fishers perceived themselves as the ones protecting the islands, andconsidered the MPA something they took ownership of. Focusing on fishers as allies,
instead of excluding them from the process, could be an important step towards
enhancing MPA’s governability and leading to successful implementation.
Grouping communities into ‘relative governability’ based on their features isanother way to help determine appropriate pathways to deal with communities. While the57specific characteristics and experience of each fishing community play important role in
how they view the MPA, some communities have more in common than others, and they
thus can be considered together when applying rules and regulations. This can then help
address issues related to lack of compliance and low enforcement, which often affect theoverall governance and are common throughout Brazil’s protected areas (Diegues, 2008)
and worldwide (Guidetti et al., 2008). Since governability is not a quality that is given
once and for all (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2009), grouping of communities as suggested
in this study is also neither permanent nor perfect. It should therefore be seen only as away to approach communities with the proposed governance options.

2.6. Conclusion

The implementation of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands requires athorough and systematic understanding of the MPA. The study sheds light on how
governable the MPA would be, based on small-scale fishers perceptions and systems’
features, and points to the opportunities for enhancing its governability. For instance, thenatural system’s dynamic features, such as the mackerel and mullet occurrence in thearchipelago, and the impacts of small-scale fishing activities on the Currais Islands’marine ecosystem should be better understood. Further, the implementation of the MPA
needs to recognize the differences in fishing gear, attachment to fishing livelihoods, andperceptions about changes and the future of fisheries on fisher’s support towards the
MPA. Importantly, the study highlights the need for different engagement with small-58

scale fishers who have high stake in the MPA debate, with those who do not, taking into
account the diversity and complexity of the social system.
From the governing system perspective, a clear definition of MPA’s goals andobjective is needed, as well as the assessment of the impacts that the MPA has on theenvironment and on the communities. Stakeholders’ diverse interests may play a diffuserole and it is fundamental that the image of the MPA to those governed matches what itmeans to those who govern. Future research could focus on how to involve different
communities in defining management actions, which will help enhance the MPA
governability.

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil (SSHRC) “Too Big To Ignore, Global Partnership for Small-Scale Fisheries
Research” Partnership Grant, and Memorial University. The authors want to thank thefishers from Pontal do Paraná municipality for sharing their knowledge and also the MPA
manager for providing the current situation on the process of implementation.

References

Agardy, M.T. (1993). Accommodating ecotourism in multiple use planning of coastal andmarine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 20(3), 219-239.

59

Agardy, T., di Sciara, G.N., and Christie, P. (2011). Mind the gap: Addressing theshortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning.
Marine Policy, 35(2), 226-232.
Agrawal, A., and Gibson, C.C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role ofcommunity in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629-649.
Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O., andBlack, A. (2011). Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species
Research, 14, 91-106.
Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (2002). Sistemas técnicos de pesca no litoral do Paraná:
caracterização e tipificação. In Raynaut, C., Zanoni, M., Lana, P.C., Floriani, D.,
Ferreira, A.D.D., and Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (Eds), Desenvolvimento e meio
ambiente: em busca da interdisciplinaridade (pp. 213-233). Curitiba, Brazil:
Editora UFPR.
Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (2003). A mudança técnica e o processo de diferenciação dos
sistemas de produção pesqueira do litoral do Paraná, Brasil. Desenvolvimento e
Meio Ambiente, 8, 43-58.
Andriguetto-Filho, J. M., Chaves, P. T.C., Santos, C. and Liberati, S. A. (2006).
Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado do Paraná. In Isaac, V., Martins, A.S.,
Haimovici, M., and Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (Eds.), A pesca marinha e estuarina do
Brasil no início do século XXI: Recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos einstitucionais (pp. 117-140). Belém, Brazil: Editora Universitária.

60

Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., Krul, R., and Feitosa, S. (2009). Analysis of natural and social
dynamics of fishery production systems in Paraná, Brazil: Implications for
management and sustainability. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25(3), 277-286.
APPA. História do Porto de Paranaguá (2016, April 12). Retrieved from:http://www.portosdoparana.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=2
6
Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., and Kooiman, J. (Eds.). (2013). Governabilityof Fisheries and Aquaculture: Theory and Applications. MARE Publication Series
7, Netherlands: Springer.
Bennett, N.J., and Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation:
Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governanceand management in Thailand. Marine Policy, 44, 107-116.
Bicknell, A.W.J., Oro, D., Camphuysen, K.C.J., and Votier, S.C. (2013). Potential
consequences of discard reform for seabird communities. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 50, 649-658.
Borges, L.M.M., Maulin, G.C., and Andriguetto, J.M. (2004). Analysis of income sourcesof fishers’ families on the coast of the State of Paraná, Brazil. Journal of Coastal
Research, 39(3), 1267-1269.
Borzone, C.A., Soares, C.R., Angulo, R.J., Marone, E., Camargo, R., Prata Junior, V.P.,
Klingenfuss, M.S., Groffl, J.L., Ferencz, F., Krul, R., Moraes, V.S., Scherer Neto,
P., Lana, P.C., Maia, M.F.C., Barros Junior, F.C.R., Tavares, Y.A.G., Farias,
J.M.S., and Matarezi, J. (1994). Proposta para a categoria e o plano de manejo das61ilhas oceânicas do litoral do Paraná. Technical report. Universidade Federal do
Paraná, Pontal do Paraná.
Brandini, F. (2014). Marine biodiversity and sustainability of fishing resources in Brazil,
a case study of the coast of Paraná state. Regional Environmental Change, 14(6),2127-2137.
Bugoni, L., Mancini, P.L., Monteiro, D.S., Nascimento, L., and Neves, T.S. (2008).
Seabird bycatch in the Brazilian pelagic longline fishery and a review of capture
rates in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Endangered Species Research, 5, 137147.
Bugoni, L., Neves, T.S., Leite Jr., N.O., Carvalho, D., Sales, G., Furness, R.W., Stein,
C.E., Peppes, F.V., Giffoni, B.B., and Monteiro, D.S. (2008). Potential bycatch of
seabirds and turtles in hook-and-line fisheries of the Itaipava fleet, Brazil. Fisheries
Research, 90(1-3), 217-224.
Caldeira, G.A. (2009). Diagnóstico socioecológico da pesca no município de Pontal do
Paraná (PR): Subsídios para a gestão compartilhada (Master’s thesis). Centro deEstudos do Mar, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Pontal do Paraná, Paraná, Brazil.
Caldeira, G.A., and Pierri, N. (2014). Economic relations and the co-management ofcommon resources: The case of marine fisheries in Pontal do Paraná, Southern
Brazil. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 32, 119-137.
Carniel, V.L., and Krul, R. (2010). Numbers, timing of breeding, and eggs of Kelp Gulls
Larus dominicanus (Charadriiformes: Laridae) on Currais Islands in southern
Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 18(3), 146-151.

62

Carniel, V.L., and Krul, R. (2012). Use of artisanal fishery discards by seabirds on the
Paraná coast in Brazil. Marine Ornithology, 40, 57-62.
CBD The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi biodiversity targets(2010). CBD COP Decision X/2 annex of the conference of the parties. Retrieved
from http://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-10.
Christie, P. (2004). Marine Protected Areas as biological succusses and social failures inSoutheast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 42, 155-164.
Chuenpagdee, R. (2011). Interactive governance for marine conservation: An illustration.
Bulletin of Marine Science, 87(2), 197-211.
Chuenpagdee, R. and Jentoft, S. (2009). Governability Assessment for fisheries andcoastal systems: A reality check. Human Ecology, 37(1), 109-120.
Chuenpagdee, R., Morgan, L.E., Maxwell, S.M., Norse, E.A., and Pauly, D. (2003).
Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters.
Frontiers in Ecolology and the Environment. 1(10), 517-524.
Chuenpagdee, R., Kooiman, J., and Pullin, R. (2008). Assessing governability in capture
fisheries, aquaculture and coastal zones. The Journal of Transboundary
Environmental Studies. 7(1), 14-33.
Chuenpagdee, R., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Szeliánszky, E., Alegret, J.L., Fraga, J., andJentoft, S. (2013). Marine Protected Areas: Re-thinking their inception. Marine
Policy, 39, 234-240.
Clapham, C. and Nicholson, J. (2013). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics(4th Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

63Corrêa, M.F.M. (1987). Ictiofauna da Baía de Paranaguá e Adjacências (Litoral do
Estado do Paraná – Brasil) Levantamento e Produtividade (Master’s thesis).
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Croxall, J.P., Butchart, S.H.M., Lascelles, B., Stattersfield, A.J., Sullivan. B., Symes, A.,
and Taylor, P. (2012). Seabird conservation status, threats, and priority actions: A
global assessment. Bird Conservation International, 22(1), 1-34.
Daros, F.A., Bueno, L.S., Vilar, C.C., Passos, A.C., and Spach, H.L. (2012). Checklist of
rocky reef fishes from the Currais Archipelago and Itacolomis Island, Paraná State,
Brazil. Checklist: Journal of Species Lists and Distribution, 8(3), 349-354.
Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T., and Hofman, R.J. (1995). Environmental
effects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, 5(3), 205-232.
De Santo, E.M. (2013). Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push forquantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 124, 137-146.
Degnbol, P., Gislason, H., Hanna, S., Jentoft, S., Nielsen, J.R., Sverdrup-Jensen, S., andWilson, D.C. (2006). Painting the floor with a hammer: Technical fixes in fisheries
management. Marine Policy, 30(5), 534-543.
Devillers, R., Pressey, R.L., Grech, A., Kittinger, J.N., Edgar, G.J., Ward, T., andWatson, R. (2014). Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring easeof establishment over need for protection? Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems, 1-25.

64

Diegues, A.C. (2008). Marine Protected Areas and artisanal fisheries in Brazil.
SAMUDRA Monograph, Chennai, India: International Collective in Support of
Fishworkers (ICSF).
Ennis, G.P. (2011). Closed areas as a conservation strategy in the Newfoundland lobster
fishery. Biodiversity, 12(1), 11-20.
Félix-Hackradt, F.C. and Hackradt, C.W. (2008). Populational study and monitoring of
the goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822), in the coast of Paraná,
Brazil. Natureza & Conservação, 6(2), 141-156.
Ferse, S.C.A., Costa, M.M., Máñez, K.S., Adhuri, D.S., and Glaser, M. (2010). Allies, notaliens: increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area
implementation. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 23-34.
Fiedler, F.N., Sales. G., Giffoni, B.B., Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A., Secchi, E.R., Bugoni, L.
(2012). Driftnet fishery threats sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean. Biodiversity
Conservation, 21, 915-931.
Fuzetti, L. (2007). A pesca na Ilha do Mel (Paraná-Brasil): Pescadores, atividades erecursos pesqueiros (Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba,
Paraná, Brazil.
Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.S., Jones, P.J.S., Sales, G., and Ferreira, B.P. (2011). Marine
protected dramas: the flaws of the Brazilian National System of Marine Protected Areas.
Environmental Management, 47(4), 630-43.

Giglio, V.J., Bertoncini, A.A., Ferreira, B.P., Hostim-Silva, M., and Freitas, M.O. (2014).
Landings of Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara, in Brazil: Despite prohibitedover ten years, fishing continues. Natureza & Conservação, 12(2), 118-123.

65

Guanais, J.H.G., Medeiros, R.P., and McConney, P.A. (2015). Designing a framework foraddressing bycatch problems in Brazilian small-scale trawl fisheries. Marine Policy,
51, 111-118.
Guidetti, P., Milazzo, M., Bussotti, S., Molinari, A., Murenu, M., Pais, A., Spanò, N.,
Balzano, R., Agardy, T., Boero, F., Carrada, G., Cattaneo-Vietti, R., Cau, A.,
Chemello, R., Greco, S., Manganaro, A., di Sciara, G.N., Russo, G.F., and Tunesi,
L. (2008). Italian marine reserve effectiveness: Does enforcement matter?
Biological Conservation, 141(3), 699-709.
Hackradt, C.W., Félix-Hackradt, F.C., and García-Charton, J.A. (2011). Influence ofhabitat structure on fish assemblage of an artificial reef in southern Brazil. Marine
Environmental Research, 72(5), 235-447.
Halpern, B. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve
size matter? Ecological Applications, 13, 117-137.
Halpern, B.S., and Warner, R.R. (2002). Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects.
Ecology Letters, 5(3), 361-366.
Herbst, D.F., and Hanazaki, N. (2014). Local ecological knowledge of fishers about thelife cycle and temporal patterns in the migration of mullet (Mugil liza) in Southern
Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 12(4), 879-890.
ICMBio. (2012). Resposta ao requerimento n°146 de 2012 do Senado Federal, o qual
solicita informações sobre estudos técnicos e consultas públicas sobre a proposta decriação “Parque Nacional da Ilha dos Currais”, no âmbito do PLC n° 60 de 2003.
Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da
Biodiversidade.
66

Instituto de Pesca (2015). Produção pesqueira marinha e estuarina do Estado de São Paulo– Junho de 2015, 62, 1-4. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto de Pesca.
Jentoft, S., van Son, T., and Bjørkan, M. (2007). Marine protected areas: A governancesystem analysis. Human Ecology, 35(5), 611-622.
Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., and Pascual-Fernandez, J.J. (2011). What are MPAs for: On
goal formation and displacement. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(1), 75-83.
Jentoft, S., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Modino, R.D.C., Gonzalez-Ramallal, M., andChuenpagdee, R. (2012). What Stakeholders Think About Marine Protected Areas:
Case Studies from Spain. Human Ecology, 40(2), 185-197.
Johannes, R.E., Freeman, M.M.R., and Hamilton, R.J. (2000). Ignore fishers’ knowledge
and miss the boat. Fish and Fisheries, 1(3), 257-271.
Jones, P.J.S. (2009). Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protectedareas proposals. Marine Policy, 33(5), 759-765.
Kincaid, K.B., Rose, G., and Mahudi, H. (2014). Fishers’ perception of a multiple-use
marine protected area: Why communities and gear use differ at Mafia Island,
Tanzania. Marine Policy, 43, 226-235.
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., and Pullin, R.S.V. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for life:
interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam
University Press.
Krul, R. (2004). Aves marinhas costeiras do Paraná. In J. O. Branco (Ed.), Aves marinhas
e Insulares Brasileiras: Bioecologia e Conservação (pp. 37-56). Itajaí, Brazil:
Editora da Univali.

67

Lana, P.C., Marone, E., Lopes, R.M., and Machado, E.C. (2001). The Subtropical
Estuarine Complex of Paranaguá Bay, Brazil. In U. Seeliger and B. Kjerfve (Eds.).
Coastal Marine Ecosystems of Latin America (pp. 131-145). Ecological Studies, 44,
Berlin: Springer.
Laneri, K., Louzao, M., Martínez-Abraín, A., Arcos, J.M., Belda, E.J., Guallart, J.,
Sánchez, A., Giménez, M., Maestre, R., and Oro, D. (2010). Trawling regime
influences longline seabird bycatch in the Mediterranean: New insights from asmall-scale fishery. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 420, 241-252.
Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines,
S.D., Araimé, S., and Warner, R.R. (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine
reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46.
Lokkeborg, S. (2011). Best practices to mitigate seabird bycatch in longline, trawl andgillnet fisheries – efficiency and practical applicability. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 435, 285-303.
López-Barrera, E.A., Longo, G.O., and Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A. (2012). Incidental captureof green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in gillnets of small-scale fisheries in the Paranaguá
Bay, Southern Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management, 60, 11-18.
Malheiros, H.Z. (2008). Avaliação da pesca de arrasto do camarão-sete-barbas(Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) em comunidades do entorno do Parque Nacional do
Superagui – Paraná (Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal do Paraná, Pontal do
Paraná, Paraná, Brazil.

68

Martins, F.C., and Dias, M.M. (2003). Cuidado parental de Sula leucogaster (Boddaert)(Aves, Pelecaniformes, Sulidae) nas Ilhas dos Currais, Paraná, Brasil. Revista
Brasileira de Zoologia, 20(4), 583-589.
Mascia, M.B., Claus, A., and Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of marine protected areas on
fishing communities. Conservation Biology, 24(5), 1424-1429.
Matsuoka, T., Nakashima, T., and Nagasawa, N. (2005). A review of ghost fishing:
Scientific approaches to evaluation and solutions. Fisheries Science, 71(4), 691702.
McDonald, J.H. (2009). Handbook of Biological Statistics (2nd Edition). Baltimore,
Maryland: Sparky House PublishingMedeiros, R.P., and Azevedo, N.T. (2013). Nota técnica preliminar: Impacto da criação
do Parque Nacional de Currais à pesca artesanal do litoral do Estado do Paraná.
Technical note. Pontal do Paraná, Brasil: Universidade Federal do Paraná.
Modino, R.D.C., and Pascual-Fernández, J.J. (2013). Marine Protected Areas in the
Canary Islands – Improving Their Governability. In Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R.,
Jentoft, S., Kooiman, J. (Eds.), Governability of Fisheries and Aquaculture (pp.
219-241). MARE Publication Series 7(335), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
MPA (2011). Boletim estatístico da pesca e aquicultura. Brasília, Brasil: Ministério da
Pesca e Aquicultura.
Natividade, C.D., Pereira, M.J.C.F., and Andriguetto, J.M. (2006). Small-scale fishinglandings on the coast of the State of Paraná, Brazil, from 1975 to 2000, withemphasis on shrimp data. Journal of Coastal Research, 39(3), 1272-1275.

69

Onyango, P. (2011). Occupation of last resort? Small-scale fishing in Lake Victoria,
Tanzania. In Jentoft, S. and Eide, A. (Eds.), Poverty Mosaics: Realities andProspects in Small-Scale Fisheries (pp. 97-124). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Paladines, M.J.B., and Chuenpagdee, R. (2015). Governability assessment of theGalapagos Marine Reserve. Maritime Studies, 14(13), 1-21.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J.,
Watson, R., and Zeller, D. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries.
Nature, 418, 689-695.
Pierri, N. (2003). O litoral do Paraná: Entre a riqueza natural e a pobreza social.
Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 8, 25-41.
Pinheiro, L., Lana, P.C., Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., and Hanazaki, N. (2010). Pesca depequena-escala e a gestão patrimonial: o caso da pesca da tainha no litoral
paranaense. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 21, 143-155.
Pomeroy, R.S., Watson, L.M., Parks, J.E., and Cid, G.A. (2005). How is your MPA
doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine
protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(7-8), 485-502.
Regular, P., Montevecchi, W., Hedd, A., Robertson, G., and Wilhelm, S. (2013).
Canadian fishery closures provide a large-scale test of the impact of gillnet bycatchon seabird populations. Biology Letters, 9(20130088).
Rice, J., Moksness, E., Attwood, C., Brown, S.K., Dahle, G., Gjerde, K.M., Grefsrud,
E.S., Kenchington, R., Kleiven, A.R., and McConney, P. (2012). The role of MPAs
in reconciling fisheries management with conservation of biological diversity.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 69, 217-230.
70

Rife, A. N., Erisman, B., Sanchez, A., and Aburto-Oropeza, O. (2013). When goodintentions are not enough: Insights on networks of “paper park” marine protectedareas. Conservation Letters, 6(3), 200-212.
Rocha, R.M., and Faria, S.B. (2005). Ascidians at Currais Islands, Paraná, Brazil:
Taxonomy and distribution. Biota Neotropica, 5(2), 1-20.
Rosas, F.C.W., Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A., and de Oliveira, M.R. (2002). Incidental catchesof Franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) on the Southern coast of São Paulo Stateand the coast of Paraná State, Brazil. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals,
1(1), 161-167.
Shester, G.G., and Micheli, F. (2011). Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries:
Bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gillnets. Biological Conservation, 144(5),1673-1681.
Song, A.M., and Chuenpagdee, R. (2010). Operationalizing governability: A case studyof a Lake Malawi fishery. Fish and Fisheries, 11(3), 235-249.
Sprent, P. (2014). International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. (pp 524-525).
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
Sullivan, B.J., Reid, T.A., Bugoni, L. (2006). Seabird mortality on factory trawlers in the
Falklands Islands and beyond. Biological Conservation, 131(4), 495-504.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2015.2. (2015, August 24). Retrieved
from www.iucnredlist.org.
Thorpe, A., Bavinck, M., and Coulthard, S. (2011). Tracking the debate around marine
protected areas: key issues and the BEG framework. Environmental Management,
47(4), 546–563.
71

Traversi, G.S., and Vooren, C.M. (2010). Interactions between seabirds and the trawl
fishery in coastal waters of southern Brazil in summer. Revista Brasileira deOrnitologia, 18(3), 183-193.
Trimble, M., and Johnson, D. (2013). Artisanal fishing as an undesirable way of life? The
implications for governance of fishers’ wellbeing aspirations in coastal Uruguay
and Southeastern Brazil. Marine Policy, 37, 37-44.
UNIVALI/CTTMar (2013). Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina –Ano 2012, 13(1), 1-66. Itajaí, Brasil: Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro deCiências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar.
Upton, G. and Cook, I. (2014) A Dictionary of Statistics (3rd Edition). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Veiga, F.A., Angulo, R.J., Marone, E., and Brandini, F.P. (2004). Características
sedimentológicas da plataforma continental interna rasa na porção central do litoral
paranaense. Boletim Paranaense de Geociências, 55, 67-75.
Voyer, M., Gollan, N., Barclay, K., and Gladstone, W. (2015). ‘It’s part of me’;understanding the values, images and principles of coastal users and their influenceon the social acceptability of MPAs. Marine Policy, 52, 93-102.
Yates, K.L. (2014). View from the wheelhouse: Perceptions on marine management fromthe fishing community and suggestions for improvement. Marine Policy, 48, 39-50.
Zydelis, R., Small, C., and French, G. (2013). The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet
fisheries: A global review. Biological Conservation, 162, 76-88.

72

CHAPTER THREE:
AN EXPLORATORY MAPPING APPROACH FOR ASSESSING WHAT
MATTERS TO SMALL-SCALE FISHERS: A CASE ILLUSTRATION OF A
MARINE PROTECTED AREA IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL

Abstract

Benefits of involving local stakeholders in the design and implementation of marine
protected areas (MPAs) are well recognized, resulting in increased support and enhanced
compliance. Various approaches have been used to encourage stakeholders’ involvement,
one of which being participatory GIS mapping. While maps can be beneficial, issues
remain around information disclosure, lack of technical skills, and the time required togenerate these mapping products. To address these concerns, an “exploratory mapping”
approach is proposed to capture what ecosystems and resources stakeholders consider as
being important and what activities they believe to generate negative impacts. The
approach is conversational, voids of sensitive questions, and focuses mostly onknowledge sharing among participants. Information from this simple mapping exercise
can be used as inputs in the discussion about the MPA and its governance, especiallywhen tension and conflicts are anticipated. An illustrative case study was performed in
the Marine National Park of Currais Islands, Southern Brazil, which was designated in2013 without public consultation. Fourteen small-scale fishers from four communities
located near the park participated in the study. They generally concur that the area
designated as the MPA is very important from ecological, economic and sociocultural
perspectives. Further, the maps indicate high level of agreement between groups of73

fishers with respect to the ecological importance, which could be a starting point for the
discussion about conservation efforts at a regional scale. Overall, the study highlights
how exploratory mapping approach can provide baseline information about marine
ecosystem according to fishers’ knowledge, identify potential for conflicts, and bevaluable for the development of a management and implementation plan for an MPA.

3.1. Introduction

With a global increase in anthropogenic impacts, marine biodiversity loss andfisheries overexploitation are unprecedented (Halpern et al., 2008; Worm et al., 2006).
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are now used worldwide as a key tool to support marine
conservation efforts (Halpern, 2003; Halpern and Warner, 2002). This area-based
conservation measure has been acknowledged to benefit biological conservation (Lester
et al., 2009), also resulting in some cases in increased catches outside of MPAs
boundaries (Costello, 2014; Halpern et al., 2009; McClanahan and Mangi, 2000).
Recognizing the potential benefits of MPAs, the international community agreed at the
Aichi Convention on Biological Diversity to expand MPAs networks to 10% of theworld’s oceans by 2020, a goal captured by the Aichi Target 11 (CBD, 2010).
With 2.12% of the oceans currently protected by MPAs (MPAtlas, 2015), it isunlikely that the Aichi target will be reached by 2020. One reason lies in the challenges
that MPAs implementation can face (Chuenpagdee et al., 2013; De Santo, 2013; Wood etal., 2008). The focus on biological and ecological criteria that dominates most MPA
designation process (Thorpe et al., 2011) can undermine social issues. MPAs that focus
exclusively on conservation benefits at the cost to local communities have been called74‘social failures’ by Christie (2004). On the other hand, studies have criticized MPAs forcompromising too much with stakeholders and existing socio-economic activities at thecost of conservation (Devillers et al., 2014; Meinesz and Blanfuné, 2015). Many MPAs
end-up being ‘paper parks’, not reaching their objectives and failing to show conservation
outcomes (Rife et al., 2013). Another reason for difficulties in implementing MPAs is thelack of buy-in from local stakeholders, which generates resistance and lack of complianceto regulations (Jentoft et al., 2007). While the importance of public consultation isrecognized, and is, in some cases, a legal obligation, it is still common for MPAs to be
designated through a top-down process, without any public involvement (Diegues, 2008;
Lopes et al., 2013).
MPAs can negatively impact fishers’ livelihoods, especially small-scale fishers who
rely heavily on local fisheries resources and may not have alternative sources of income(Mascia et al., 2010). Getting support from local communities during the MPA planningand implementation is hence very important (Ferse et al., 2010). Different methods havebeen proposed and applied to involve fishers in the MPA planning process, many ofwhich advocating for the inclusion of socio-economic data into spatial planning (LeCornu et al., 2014; Stephanson and Mascia, 2014). An example of method is participatory
mapping using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which seeks public engagement
and empowerment through the mapping of an area and the incorporation of local
knowledge (Baldwin et al., 2013). Mapping of local ecological knowledge (Hall andClose, 2007; Leite and Gasalla, 2013; Martins et al., 2014), traditional ecologicalknowledge (Schafer and Reis, 2008) and integration of traditional and scientificknowledge (De Freitas and Tagliani, 2009) have also been promoted to provide baseline75

information that can inform the implementation of MPAs. This is possible through aspatialization of coastal uses, natural features, and species occurrence (Gerhardinger etal., 2009). Mapping of stakeholders’ values has also been used for informing marine
spatial planning (Bryan et al., 2010; Sherrouse et al., 2011). Other techniques involve
mapping spatial access priorities (Yates and Schoeman, 2014) and fishers’ preferredresource spaces from a human dimensions perspective, through the use of mental maps
and perceptions (Teh et al., 2012). Efforts have also looked at including socio-economic
variables in the design of MPAs through multicriteria analysis using the systematicconservation planning software Marxan (Adams et al., 2011) and ecosystem modelling
platforms such as Atlantis (Ainsworth et al., 2012).
Despite their benefits, these techniques have limitations, including concerns about
the introduction of bias and lack of spatial accuracy when representing qualitative
information derived from non-scientific knowledge on a quantitative platform as GIS(Close and Hall, 2006). In a study identifying issues for public participation GIS (PPGIS),
Brown and Kyttä (2014) discuss issues about sampling, degree of public engagement, andthe integration of PPGIS data into planning decision support (Brown and Kyttä, 2014). It
has been shown that the use of simple techniques, involving paper maps and markers,
results in increased participation and contributes to reduce participant bias (Pocewicz etal., 2012). Given the limitations of current approaches to participatory mapping, our study
offers an approach to mapping what fishers consider as being important to them and theimpacts to which the marine environment is subjected to. It does so based on interactive
governance (Kooiman et al., 2005), a conceptual framework with a holistic andinterdisciplinary approach that innovates in its focus on interactions. According to this76

framework, interactions are considered to occur between and within a system-to-begoverned, comprised by its natural and social systems, and a governing system. It
highlights the need to look at the context in which MPAs are inserted, something that cangreatly influence how the MPA will be formed and function when implemented (Jentoft
et al., 2011). Also important to consider is the fact that stakeholders have different
attitudes and perceptions towards MPAs (Chuenpagdee et al., 2013), which will also
influence the outcomes of how MPAs will be accepted and the level of compliance by
resource users (Voyer et al., 2015). This study is framed by the Interactive Governance
Framework, which suggests focusing on what local stakeholders consider as being
important, and incorporating it into the decision-making process, as a means to improvegovernance.
This paper presents an ‘exploratory’ mapping approach that allows capturing
information about the importance of places in the ocean for small-scale fishers, based on
different characteristics (e.g. ecological, economic, socio-cultural). The approach is
exploratory in that it aims to collect data in a simple and rapid way, without high degreeof spatial or thematic precision. Such method can help provide general information about
the importance of marine areas, as well as of possible conflict, and can be incorporated in
the discussion about the development of an MPA management plan. The approach wastested on the coastal area of Paraná state, Southern Brazil, where the Marine National
Park of Currais Islands has been recently designated as of 2013 without public
consultations. The protected area management plan needs to be developed within five
years after the declaration, according to the Brazilian National System of Conservation

77

Units (SNUC). Findings from this research may contribute to the development of the
MPA’s management plan.
The following section gives an overview of the Paraná coastal zone to provide
context for the study area and the Marine National Park of Currais Islands. Next, we
describe the exploratory mapping approach that can be used as a rapid tool to incorporate
small-scale fishers’ inputs for the elaboration of the MPA’s management plan. Resultsfrom the approach are presented and the contributions and limitations of the proposed
approach are discussed in the context of MPA, as well as general implications for marine
resource governance.

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Study area

This study was conducted in coastal Paraná, near the Marine National Park ofCurrais Islands, Southern Brazil (Figure 3.1). Paraná coast extends for about 100 km,
intersected by two main water bodies, the Guaratuba Bay at the southernmost part and theEstuarine Complex of Paranaguá in the northern part. The region presents a high diversityof natural environments (Lana et al., 2001) and was nominated as a UNESCO World
Heritage Site for its largest continuum of remaining Atlantic forest, encompassing 25
protected areas in Paraná and São Paulo States (UNESCO, 2015). Partly due to its
ecological importance, more than 82% of the Paraná coast region is protected under thesustainable use or integral protection categories of the Brazilian National System of78

Protected Areas (SNUC; Pierri, 2003; Pierri et al., 2006). Protected areas in coastal
Paraná State sum up to 39 in number and comprise over 695 thousand hectares in area
protected, including land and water territories, and at municipal, state and federal levels.
These protected areas include 21 under the integral protection category and 18 ofsustainable use, shown in Figure 3.1., the latter category comprised mainly by
Environmental Protected Area (APA) and Private Reserve of Natural Heritage (RPPN)
types. The majority of protected areas in coastal Paraná still does not have a management
plan in place, which is fundamental to guide management actions and define, based on thebest available knowledge, how implementation should proceed. Other conservation
efforts took place in the coastal region of Paraná, including the installation of artificial
reefs by a local non-governmental organization (Mar Brasil) (Brandini, 2014) and fishing
restrictions from the federal and state environmental legislations, through seasonal andspatial closures, gear and vessel restrictions and fishing licenses.
In June 2013, the Marine National Park of Currais Islands was designated (Lawnumber 12,829/2013) as a no-take MPA under the IUCN category IIa (‘integral
protection’). The MPA encompasses an area of 13.5 km² located at six nautical miles off
the coast of Pontal do Paraná municipality (Figure 3.2). The MPA is established mainly toprotect three uninhabited rocky islands, which are the breeding grounds of the seabirds
Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster), Kelp Gull (Larus dominicanus) and Magnificent
Frigatebirds (Fregata magnificens) (Carniel and Krul 2010; Krul 2004; Martins and Dias
2003). It also aims to protect the adjacent marine environment, which embodies uniquehabitats for reef fish species (Hackradt et al. 2011) and the critically endangered Atlantic
Goliath Grouper (Epinephelus itajara) (IUCN, 2015).
79Figure 3.1. - Protected areas of sustainable use and integral protection categories in coastal Paraná state,
Southern Brazil.

Impacts to the marine ecosystem in this region have been documented for the last
four decades (Caldeira and Pierri, 2014), with all targeted species from Paraná coast
being currently overexploited (Haimovici et al, 2006). The ecosystem degradation isfurther enhanced by oil spill incidents (Noernberg et al., 2008), and increasing
sedimentation in the estuary due to deforestation and pollution from port-related activities(Lana et al., 2001), such as dredging of the access channel to Paranaguá port, the largest
in grain export port terminal in Latin America (APPA, 2016).
According to the federal last report from 2011, catches from marine extractive
fisheries from Paraná varied from 3,141 tonnes in 2010 to 2,170 tonnes in 2011 (MPA,
2011). While small-scale fisheries are predominant in the area, the coast of Paraná is80

important for regional fisheries, such as small and medium-sized trawlers from São Pauloand Santa Catarina States (Guanais et al, 2015). These vessels from neighboringmunicipalities and States use this area both as the fishing grounds and local landing sites,
generating conflicts with local small-scale fishers (Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2009;
Caldeira and Pierri, 2014).
More than 70% of São Paulo State landings are from industrial fishing fleets, ataround 20 to 30 thousand tonnes yearly from 2009 to 2013 and an estimate profit of 80 to
120 million Reais (Brazilian currency), ranking 7th among Brazilian coastal states(Instituto de Pesca, 2015). Historically, the main fishing resource is the sardine(Sardinella brasiliensis), followed by seabob shrimp (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), croaker(Micropogonias furnieri) and other demersal fish species (Instituto de Pesca, 2015).
The industrial fleet from Santa Catarina State presented more than 157 thousand
tonnes of landed production for the year 2012, a record for the last 22 years(UNIVALI/CTTMar, 2013). Between 2009 and 2012 the landings ranged from around
113 to 157 thousand tonnes. Targeted species comprise pelagic fish species, caught
mainly using surrounding nets. All fleets from these neighboring states have operated
between Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul States, therefore including Paraná coast(UNIVALI/CTTMar, 2013). The fishing gears and techniques that are most used in
Paraná coast are bottom gillnets, pair trawls, and surrounding nets (UNIVALI/CTTMar,2013).

81

Figure 3.2 – Location of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands, Paraná State, Southern Brazil, withthe four small-scale fishing communities studied.

The main economic activities on Paraná’s coasts are tourism, port development(both in expansion) and small-scale fisheries (Pierri, 2003; Pierri et al., 2006). Small-scale
fisheries have played an important role in the region since the 18th century as a means ofsubsistence for local population, and later gained market importance from the 19th century
onwards (Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2009; Pierri et al., 2006). It is estimated that more than
11,000 people, in over 60 fishing communities in Paraná’s six coastal municipalities,
currently rely on fisheries (Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2006). Small-scale fishing is doneusing multiple gears and varies spatially along the estuarine system (Andriguetto-Filho,
2003; Angulo, 1993). More than 60 fish and shellfish species are targeted, with total
landings around 1,500 t/year (Corrêa, 1987; Natividade et al., 2006).
82

Four small-scale fishing communities from Pontal do Paraná municipality wereselected for this study (i.e. Vila dos Pescadores, Barrancos, Shangri-lá and Ipanema) for
their proximity to the MPA (Figure 3.2). They were chosen to represent communities
with different distances from the MPA and with distinct fishing gear. In Pontal do Paranámunicipality, about 2% of the total population (about 400 people) were registered as
fishers as of 2008 (Caldeira and Pierri, 2014). This includes workers involved in fish
harvesting, processing and marketing (Caldeira and Pierri, 2014). Fishing gears andpractices used to target finfish include drift gillnets (surface and bottom), set gillnets,
encircling gillnet (occupying the entire water column), “caracol” (gillnet pulled by a
motorized vessel), and beach seine fishery (Caldeira and Pierri, 2014). Hook and line
fishing and spearfishing also take place in the region (Medeiros and Azevedo, 2013).
Targeted species of shellfish and finfish vary throughout the year according to resource
availability and coastal features (Andriguetto-Filho, 2003; Caldeira and Pierri, 2014) withmainly mullets (Mugil liza), and mackerel (Scomberomorus brasiliensis and S. cavalla)
being caught around Currais Islands during the winter.

3.2.2. Data collection, processing and analysis

Data collection took place between August and September 2014. Fishers over theage of 19 were approached at the beach, when returning from fishing trips, at the fish
market, or in front of their houses, and invited to take part in the study. Fishers were
presented with all the information related to the research. The research protocol was

83

approved by the Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research and complies
with Memorial University’s ethics policy (ICEHR Number: 20150229-AR).
The data collection process involved three steps (Figure 3.3). First, the researchers
prepared a base map, which included location of coastal communities, bathymetriccontours as reference, and a grid dividing the area of interest in 4km² cells, created using
ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2. fishnet tool (Figure 3.3). Second, printed base maps were used in
the communities to guide conversation and mapping exercise in a small, focused groupsetting, at a location chosen by the fishers. When familiar with the map, fishers were
given colour markers and asked to mark areas according to the six attributes investigated,which were: (i) ecological importance, (ii) economic importance, (iii) sociocultural
importance, (iv) areas where other uses occur, (v) areas of concern, and (vi) areas
requiring protection. The researchers guided the discussion around these topics during
and after the marking, to elicit the reasons why some areas were more important thanothers and the types of concerns, use and protection related to the impacts perceived bythem. The exercise was ‘conversational’, meaning that fishers explained why these areas
were important, and exchanged ideas, sometimes making changes to the map as theconversation progressed and consensus reached. At the end of the mapping exercise, adigital photo of the map was taken and used by the researchers for transferring theinformation into the GIS. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected using thismethod.
The third step corresponded to data processing and analysis, which started with thetransfer of information collected on the paper maps into a digital map using ArcGIS(Figure 3.3). Each grid cell was assigned a numerical value corresponding to the number84

of times it was identified by a given community for any of the six attributes analyzed.
Thematic choropleth maps were produced for each of the six attributes, with colour value(darkness) representing the number of communities identifying each cell. Additionally, an
index indicating the agreement on each cell’s importance was designed, capturing thetotal number of times a given cell was chosen for any importance criteria (e.g. ecological,
economic, sociocultural). Cell values ranged from 0 to 12 (4 communities x 3 criteria).
Areas of concern (i.e. where impacts occur) were overlaid to the importance index map,
which shows areas considered to be important and under threat at the same time.

Figure 3.3 - Flowchart illustrating the three steps of the rapid exploratory mapping approach: the baseline
map elaboration, the data collection in small groups and the data analysis and mapping in a GIS.

3.3. Results

The number of participants involved in each mapping exercise ranged from two to
five per fishing community, with a total of 14 participants for the four communities.
Participants corresponded to a sample of the population of active small-scale fish85

harvesters at each community, estimated based on the number of canoes in use (i.g.
accounting for one to two small-scale fishers operating by canoe). Participants were from
Vila dos Pescadores (three participantes, five canoes); Barrancos (two participants, eightcanoes); Shangri-lá (five respondents, 21 canoes); and Ipanema (four participants, 25
canoes). They were all male, with average age of 52 years, and did not completeelementary school (64%). On average, the exercise duration was 55 minutes.
Mapping indicates an overlap in the areas of ecological importance identified byfishers from the different communities, and diverse reasons provided in support of theidentification of areas, indicating an overall agreement. Currais Islands were identified by
the largest number of communities as having ecological importance (Figure 3.4a). Areasof ecological importance identified by the fishers (Figure 3.4a) were rocky islands,
including Itacolomis and Currais, the artificial reefs along the coast, and the rocky
bottoms near Praia de Leste, indicated on Figure 3.2. Those areas were selected for theirrole as nursery and foraging areas for fish species, sometimes referred as “colourful
fishes”. Some of the species associated with these substrates were cited by fishers during
the mapping exercises, such as common snook (C. undecimalis), at Galheta islands, Mel
islands and rocky bottoms; grey triggerfish (Balistes capriscus) at the artificial reefs; andmackerel (S. brasiliensis and S. cavalla) and mullets (Mugil liza) associated to Currais
islands. One community surveyed extended the ecological importance to an area locatedbetween of Currais and Itacolomis islands called “Parque dos Meros”, meaning a park ofAtlantic Goliath Groupers (Epinephelus itajara), a threatened species (IUCN, 2015) thatcannot be fished under the Brazilian legislation. Some fishers also identified the adjacent86

Estuarine Complex of Paranaguá, an area of ecological importance due to its nursery rolefor shrimps.
While targeted species, fishing gears and strategies employed varied amongst
fishing communities, the majority of participants identified areas used for small-scale
fishing activities as having economic importance (Figure 3.4b). They indicated thatfishing activities had already been largely restricted along the coast, with exclusion areas
for beach seine, gillnets and bottom-trawl. Mapping also indicates an agreement with theeconomic importance of rocky habitats formed by Currais and Galheta islands, as well as
the rocky bottom near Praia de Leste, indicated on Figure 3.2. Finally, the first three
nautical miles of waters along the coast was identified as areas of economic importanceby most communities.
Only a few locations were identified as areas of socio-cultural importance, whichwere mostly associated with leisure activities, such as recreational fishing near artificial
reefs (Figure 3.4c). Recreational fishing mainly targets the reef fish species Balistes
capriscus that became available after the installation of concrete structures on theseafloor. Currais Islands were identified as socio-culturally important due to their role asa shelter during stormy weather at sea.
Fishers participating in the mapping exercises identified industrial fisheries,
tourism, recreational fishing, recreational diving and spearfishing as other activities
taking place in the areas (Figure 3.4e). They associated those uses mostly with people
from outside of their communities. Currais and Itacolomis islands and a near shore rocky
bottom area were heavily used by spear fishers and speed boats for recreational fishing,
diving and tourism. In those cases pointed out in the exercises, small-scale fishers
87explained that tourism activities mainly consist of speed boat tours for small groups
operated during summer by boat owners from Curitiba, who keep their boats at the local
marinas and in some cases hire locals from Vila dos Pescadores or Pontal do Sul
communities as boat pilots. These tourists often practice recreational fishing with hookand line for trolling (locally named as “corrico”), or spearfishing (Borzone et al., 1994).
Spearfishing in Currais is also practiced by some residents from Encantadas community
at Mel Island, or by a few small-scale fishers from Pontal do Paraná municipality, as
noted in this research. According to Borzone et al. (1994), common targets forspearfishers at the rocky islands of Paraná coast include Serranidae such as groupers(Epinephelus itajara, E. guaza, E. morio, E. niveatus and Rypticus randalli) which aremostly threatened (IUCN, 2015). As documented by the same authors, in 1994 there wereabout 800 privately-owned speed boats at the marinas of Paraná coast, concentrated at
Guaratuba municipality and Pontal do Sul community in Pontal do Paraná. From the totalof 200 boats at Pontal do Sul’s marinas, only a minority of less than 10% was reported tovisit the oceanic islands (Borzone et al., 1994). Tourists seldom disembark at Currais
Islands for walking or recreational fishing, despite its rocky and steep terrain, as
documented by Borzone et al. (1994) and reinforced as personal communication fromparticipants. Recreational diving tours are conducted by some of the five scuba diving
schools from Curitiba (Borzone et al., 1994), or by the local NGO Mar Brasil.
Two communities mentioned the same areas along the coast as being used by theindustrial fishing fleets from neighbouring states using pair trawl, as being one area inbetween the coastline and Currais, and the other East of Currais. Pair trawls are prohibitedwithin the first five nautical miles from the shore, making this fishery illegal in this area.
88

Pair trawling consists of a fishing technique employed only by industrial fishing fleets, ofthe neighboring states of Santa Catarina and São Paulo. In Santa Catarina, the landings
from pair trawling account for 7,5% of the total production, corresponding to 11,855
tonnes of fish, mainly Sciaenidae such as Argentine croaker (Umbrina canosai),Whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) and Stripped weakfish (Cynoscion
guatucupa) (UNIVALI/CTTMar, 2013). The pair trawling fleets from Santa Catarina
operate between São Paulo (24º S) and Rio Grande do Sul (34.5º S) states, thus including
Paraná, and at depths ranging from 25 to 200 m. In São Paulo state pair trawling
represents the second largest fishery with 2,178 tonnes of fish caught in the first semesterof 2015, only behind encircling gillnets (Instituto de Pesca, 2015).
Some fishers also cited small-scale fishing activities practiced by othercommunities or by groups using other fishing gears. The first three nautical miles fromthe coast were identified as being the most used areas for bottom trawling, while rocky
habitats were used by encircling gillnet small-scale fisheries.
The question about areas of concern aimed at understanding the impacts in theregion. As shown in Figure 3.4f, areas of concern were indicated for the first nautical milefrom the shore where small-scale bottom-trawling occurs, and for two parallel lines along
the coast that are used by industrial fishing fleets from neighbouring states reaching
shallower waters. Two communities related the impacts of dredging the channel giving
access to Paranaguá port, generating sediment suspension to reducing the availability ofwhite shrimp. The area where the ships are anchored while waiting for entering the port
through the access channel constitutes another issue, due to the disposal of garbage andballast water. Fishers discussed potential impacts that a new port in the municipality may
89cause, adding to those observed for the Paranaguá port. Currais Islands were considered
an area of concern due to the amount of garbage washed up to the islands, the use ofencircling gillnets and spearfishing activities targeting reef fish species, including thethreatened ones. Spearfishing in rocky bottom habitats near Praia de Leste was also
indicated as a concern for the same reasons.
When asked to indicate areas in need of protection on the map, participants
minimally addressed the topic. While areas of ecological concerns were identified during
the discussion, only one community discussed and identified areas on the map for this
attribute (Figure 3.4d).

90Figure 3.4 - Maps of (a) ecological, (b) economic and (c) socio-cultural importance; and areas (d) in needfor protection, (e) with other uses, and (f) of concern. Cell values, represented by colour intensity indicate
the number of communities that selected a given cell. Red symbols show fishing communities studied, andblack symbols show fishing communities not studied.

91

Figure 3.5 shows the cumulative importance of grid cells in the area. It highlights
overlap between areas of importance (i.e. ecological, economic and sociocultural) andareas of concern for fishers, the latter being mainly related to the occurrence of otherusers, considered impacting by small-scale fishers. The level of importance is determinedby adding the number of times a cell was considered as being important. In general,
small-scale fishers were in agreement with respect to areas of importance, with structured
habitats receiving the highest importance index. These included Galheta Island in thenorth, the artificial reefs, and a rocky bottom located near Praia de Leste community inthe south (see Figure 3.2). Currais Islands receives the highest level of agreement withrespect to its importance.
Another key finding from the mapping exercise, shown in Figure 3.5, is that areas
indicated as important by the majority of communities are often areas of concern due toenvironmental impacts. An example of this is Currais Islands, considered to be importantand an area of concern at the same time. Impacts at Currais Islands were mainly related tospearfishing, pollution and ghost nets. On the other hand, Galheta Island was deemed
important, but was not indicated as being of concern by any community. This could be
because fishers could have focused more attention on Currais Islands rather than Galheta
due to the MPA designated there.

92

Figure 3.5 - Map showing the cumulative importance of grid cells in terms of both importance to smallscale fishers (i.e. ecological, economic and sociocultural) and concerns of small-scale fishers in relation to
the marine environment (i.e. impacts). Colour intensity indicates how many times a given cell was
identified as being important by communities.

3.4. Discussion

The context in which the Marine National Park of Currais Islands was designatedillustrates a common situation worldwide where new MPAs are established without
public consultations and broader community engagement (Diegues, 2008). Results fromthe exploratory mapping approach reveal areas where tension and conflicts may arise in
the implementation of the MPA and highlights where opportunities for moving forward
may be found. Currais Islands is an area recognized by small-scale fishers as being
ecologically, economically and socio-culturally important, making it thus what Ruiz-Frau93

et al. (2011) referred to as “hotspot areas for the provision of values.” This circumstancecould lead to conflicts, for instance when the MPA objectives as no-take compromise
economic activities (i.e. extractive uses) and prevent people from enjoying socio-culturalvalues of the area (e.g. use of the islands as a shelter). However, the fact that the MPA
management plan is under development can potentially bias the importance perceived, as
fishers may be concerned about being excluded from this area. Brown and Brabyn (2012)
have documented in their Public Participation GIS study a tendency for participants tofavour areas that are proximate to them, or where they have familiarity. The importanceattributed to the Currais Islands in this study suggests the need for incorporating smallscale fishers in the consideration about the management plan.
Even though fishing communities in the region use different fishing gears andpractices (Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2009), having different perceptions about the MPA,
they were in agreement on the location of ecologically important areas. Further, smallscale fishers provided similar reasons for the ecological importance of the areas. Suchconsistency could be used as a starting point to incorporate fishers in the process of MPA
implementation and discuss conservation at a regional level. Fishers in this study
identified the role of the estuarine system as a nursery ground for shrimp and fish species,
which has been recognized in the literature (Beck et al., 2001). This was also the reason
why fishers from Tijucas Bay estuary in South Brazil consider the estuary as being
ecologically important (Martins et al., 2014). The ecological importance of rocky
substrate as habitat for reef fish species and of the artificial reefs identified by fishers inthis study are in line with the findings from Hackradt et al. (2011), which compared thefish assemblage from the artificial reefs in Paraná with Currais Islands.
94

Areas of economic importance are widely spread along the coast, with few overlap
between communities. This is most likely due to the different fishing areas used byfishers, following resource availability throughout the year. Areas of economic
importance generally coincide with those considered ecologically important. The close
relation between what is considered economically and ecologically important could be
explained, following Caldeira and Pierri (2014), by the fact that fishers search for areas
where catches are high, which often correspond to high-productivity habitats, such as
areas close to shore, rocky islands and rocky bottoms.
It has been acknowledged that MPAs often displace fishing effort to other areas(Stevenson et al., 2013). Martins et al. (2014) also noted a displacement of fishing effort
since the designation of the Arvoredo MPA in Southern Brazil, causing an unanticipatedincrease in fishing activity inside the bay, considered as a nursery ground and more
vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts. By spatially restricting fishing activities, fishingdisplacement could result in new and unpredictable governance challenges, as fishers
adapt to changes in ocean use and regulations (Abbott and Haynie, 2012). Fishingdisplacement could also increase the cost and travel time to reach further fishing grounds(Stevenson et al., 2013), something that could potentially impact small-scale fishers(Mascia and Claus, 2009). In the case of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands,
fishing displacement could occur from Currais to other areas considered in this study as
being of equivalent ecological importance. For instance, the Itacolomis islands,
considered ecologically important by both fishers in this study and by the Brazilian
Ministry of Environment, could potentially be used by fishers from Pontal do Paraná.
This could lead to concentrating fishing activities at an area not currently exploited by95

small-scale fishers from Pontal do Paraná, mainly due to the distance from their ports.
Those reasons call for a larger scale governance of the region, taking for instance into
consideration the potential for a new MPA to be designated in Itacolomis islands in theSouth.
Areas where other uses occur (e.g. tourism, spearfishing, industrial fisheries) wereconsidered as being of concern, and corresponded in part to those indicated as importantto small-scale fishers (i.e. economic, ecological or sociocultural). This could possibly
imply the existence of conflicts among resource users, related to the designation of the
MPA. Some conflicts have been identified by Giraldi-Costa and Murata (2015) at theneighboring Matinhos municipality, in which about 300 small-scale fishers with 35
fishing fleets also highly depend on Currais Islands’ fishing grounds, and are in conflictwith the MPA designation. More specifically in this research, potential conflicts arisingfrom or being enhanced by the MPA designation have been noticed, for instance, between
commercial fishing activities and other uses, based on small-scale fishers’ perceptions of
tourists as one of the main threats to the islands being further enhanced by the indirectprioritization of these resource users by the MPA category. Also, between different
commercial and recreational fishing activities, especially with regards to recreational
spearfishers, acknowledged by small-scale fishers as those who target the resident andthreatened species, and those whose activity would be difficult to enforce for being
submerged and easily confused with recreational diving. Potential conflicts among smallscale fishing gear users could also occur, with those who operate with encircling gillnets
being more prejudiced than the bottom-trawlers. Also among small-scale fishingcommunities, with those in which the beach seine for mullets takes place in winter (e.g.
96Pontal do Sul and Vila dos Pescadores) benefiting from the closure of Currais Islands’fishing ground, as more fish are expected to come closer to shore, while othercommunities who rely heavily on the area are prohibited of exhorting their activity. This
reallocation of rights through MPAs creates “winners and losers”, which may result in aripple effect of economic, social and cultural impacts depending on the properties of thenatural and social systems (Jentoft et al., 2007; Mascia and Claus, 2009). Conflicts
between resource user groups have been previously described in the literature, such as theuse of Paraná’s fishing grounds by industrial fishing vessels from other Brazilian Statesand municipalities (Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2009; Caldeira and Pierri, 2014). Some of
the concerns that fishers have towards the coastal area are related to impacts that would
not be addressed by an MPA, including waste disposal, oil spill, sediment suspension andballast water. These have been previously described in the literature for the region(Caldeira and Pierri, 2014; Haimovici et al, 2006; Lana et al., 2001; Noernberg et al.,2008) and would need to be addressed at a much larger scale.
Areas identified by the small-scale fishers as being in need of protection mainly
correspond to locations where other activities take place (e.g. spear fishing, bottomtrawling), indicating possible conflicts between activities at those locations. This suggests
that, when identifying areas that need protection, fishers perceive protected areas as abarrier to other uses, not only diminishing the impacts caused by other activities on theenvironment, but also reducing conflicts with small-scale fisheries. Jentoft et al. (2012)
discuss the importance to explore the images that small-scale fishers have of MPAs tobetter understand how fishers can respond to MPAs and hence improve governability andimplementation. Areas in need of protection were only identified on the map by one97community, which could either show distrust on disclosing information that could
potentially be used to define further MPAs, or a lack of support for more protection
measures. Due to the open-ended question, fishers may have interpreted the question onneed for protection differently (e.g. “where would you like to see another protected
area?”). Generally, as expected, small-scale fishers expressed a need to protect Currais
Islands, as long as it does not affect small-scale fishers, and with a smaller area than the
one defined by the law. A need for protection was also mentioned for the first nauticalmile from the shore, due to the intense small-scale bottom trawling and concerns related
to the impacts of this fishing practice. With a regulation already in place to prohibit
trawlers to fish within one nautical mile from the coast (IBAMA 29/2004), fishers wereclaiming for better enforcement, since compliance is low. In this area, the use of gillnets
by motorized boats is also prohibited (MFA/MMA 12/2012). Another community that
discussed areas in need of protection cited Currais Islands, but then made clear that theyshould still be allowed to fish there. In this sense, this could be also related to the “not-inmy-backyard” problem, explained by Jentoft et al. (2012) as a reason why fishers could
be supportive of the idea of an MPA in general, but not of a particular MPA being locatedclose to them. Fisheries management in Brazil, and to a lesser extent MPA management,
may have failed to create a proper environment for institution innovation (Silva et al,2013). Fishing regulations have been based on spatial and seasonal closure (Medeiros etal., 2013), with no room for balancing conservation objectives with maintenance offishing livelihoods. This has resulted in a focus on no-take protected areas, with little
experimentation of institutional innovations already present in Brazil, such as the Marine98Extractive Reserves that preserves traditional uses and fishing livelihoods (Diegues,
2008; Kalikoski et al., 2009; Seixas and Kalikoski, 2009)
The approach used in this study to capture what fishers consider as being importantin relation to the marine environment enabled an initial discussion about the main
challenges to the MPA implementation. The small-group exercise promoted sharing andvalidation of knowledge between fishers in a non-threatening way, avoiding sensitive
questions and using grid cells as spatial units instead of exact locations not to disclose
specific areas of interest. This is different from participatory mapping studies in whichsmall-scale fishers had been asked to disclose information about the spatial and temporal
distribution of fishing activities and main harvested species (Leite and Gasalla, 2013;
Schafer and Reis, 2008). Other approaches have also focused on gathering information on
local ecological knowledge on species distribution and aggregation areas (Félix-Hackradt
and Hackradt, 2008; Gerhardinger et al., 2009). The method developed and applied in thisstudy is particularly useful when lack of trust exists among participants, as a result of pastexperiences with research in the region and of the past decisions by the government,
something present in this study. Other spatial methods have focused on the mapping ofsocial values attributed by resource users towards their territory (Bryan et al., 2010;
Sherrouse et al., 2011), and this relates to the method employed in this study in a way thatit explores fishers’ perceptions towards the marine environment they rely on and theimpacts to which it is subjected to, rather than focusing on pointing out where and how
fishing activities occur. However, social values mapping differs from the approach
employed in this study, as the approach used here does not systematically employ thesocial values for ecosystem services’ typology (Sherrouse et al., 2011). Rather, the map is99

generated constructively around two main categories (i.e. importance and impacts) with afocus on acquiring qualitative information on the reasons behind choices and theparticipants’ arguments towards reaching consensus before drawing on the map. The
approach employed here also differs from Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI),
which constitutes user-generated content that is assorted with spatial coordinates (Jiang
and Thill, 2015), because it is conversational and interview-based, where information isderived from a small group discussion, with the assistance of a moderator. Contrary to
Map Biography, which records an individual’s life history and resource use spatiallythrough time and is usually applied to mapping indigenous land use (Chapin et al., 2005),
the method employed in this study focuses on a community’s shared perception of theirsurrounding environment at a particular time frame, when a Marine Protected Area isbeing implemented.
The approach was also adequate to the context of Paraná coastal zone where there isa low educational level and where most of communication occurs orally. It can be argued,
however, that the low level of education could be a barrier to the level of cartographic
knowledge necessary to understand the map presented and provide valid information.
This was not the case in this study though, as the fishers did not have difficulties locating
themselves on the map, especially after having been given time to familiarize with it. The
use of the grid cells and the elaboration of the baseline map with main reference features
helped reduce bias associated with the accuracy of recording information on the paper
map sheet, following recommendations from Close and Hall (2006). It was important tomake sure that small-scale fishers knew where the main references were on the map
before starting the discussion, and a map tailored to the study containing those main100

references was fundamental. The elicitation process involved discussions about each
attributestudiedandprovidedsupporting

qualitative

data,

which

reducesmisinterpretations and offers rich information on the reasons behind particular choices
made while indicating areas on the map. The exercises provided a space for debate
between fishers, allowing them to meaningfully engage in a discussion on the topic, toreach consensus within their group on the areas thought to be important and impacted.

3.5. Conclusions

This study presented a simple exploratory mapping approach that helps capture
information on areas fishers consider as being important. The approach was used in thecase of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands in Brazil, an MPA designatedrecently without public consultations. The approach offered small-scale fishers an
opportunity to share their views and provide valuable information to the government
designing a management plan for the MPA. It provided insights on areas that needattention in the region, showing that the Currais Islands MPA is an important area forfishers for a variety of factors. As there was an overall agreement on ecologicallyimportant areas, there might be potential for working closely with fishers using theinformation collected as a starting point for discussion on conservation and sustainable
use of the area. Challenges lie on impacts associated to coastal uses that are notcounteracted by a MPA, such as pollution and sediment suspension from port-related
activities.

101

The rapid assessment done using an exploratory mapping approach could ideally be
used before any MPA implementation. The approach provides insights on how toproceed, using a breadth of information on what is important to people and which areas
need attention, identifying avenues for future more in-depth, technical approaches. One ofthe values of this participatory mapping method is that it may aid the inclusion of
economically or politically disenfranchised stakeholders in consultations, thus creating
avenues to increase small-scale fishers’ participation in the MPA implementation, arguingfor social acceptance and better governance.
Future research could extend the use of the approach to other small-scale fishingcommunities from Paraná coastal zone, as well as other stakeholders such as tourists,divers, recreational fishers, researchers and government for a more comprehensive
participation and understanding of what matters to people and incorporating it into theprocess to inform decision-making in coastal governance. Also, a need for a discussion ata more regional scale when elaborating the management plan for the Marine National
Park of Currais Islands was identified, considering the potential for a new MPA at
Itacolomis Islands and the possible displacement of fishing effort to other ecologicallyimportant areas. For that, the issues should be discussed at the scale of the marine
environment inner continental shelf of Paraná state, encompassing the oceanic islands.
Other MPAs could incorporate this approach as a first evaluation of potential challenges
to MPA implementation and as a means to include local stakeholders in the discussion.

102

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil (SSHRC) “Too Big To Ignore, Global Partnership for Small-Scale Fisheries
Research” Partnership Grant, and Memorial University of Newfoundland. The authors
want to thank the fishers from Pontal do Paraná municipality for sharing their knowledge.

References
Abbott, J.K., and Haynie, A.C. (2012). What are we protecting? Fisher behavior and theunintended consequences of spatial closures as a fishery management tool.
Ecological Applications, 22(3), 762-777.
Adams, V.M., Mills, M., Jupiter, S.D., and Pressey, R.L. (2011). Improving social
acceptability of marine protected area networks: A method for estimating
opportunity costs to multiple gear types in both fished and currently unfished areas.
Biological Conservation, 144(1), 350-361.
Ainsworth, C.H., Morzaria-Luna, H., Kaplan, I.C., Levin, P.S., Fulton, E.A., CudneyBueno, R., and Pfister, T. (2012). Effective ecosystem-based management mustencourage regulatory compliance: A Gulf of California case study. Marine Policy,
36(6), 1275–1283.
Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (2003). A mudança técnica e o processo de diferenciação dos
sistemas de produção pesqueira do litoral do Paraná, Brasil. Desenvolvimento e
Meio Ambiente, 8, 43-58.

103

Andriguetto-Filho, J. M., Chaves, P. T.C., Santos, C. and Liberati, S. A. (2006).
Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado do Paraná. In Isaac, V., Martins, A.S.,
Haimovici, M., and Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (Eds.), A pesca marinha e estuarina do
Brasil no início do século XXI: Recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos einstitucionais (pp. 117-140). Belém, Brazil: Editora Universitária.
Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., Krul, R., and Feitosa, S. (2009). Analysis of natural and social
dynamics of fishery production systems in Paraná, Brazil: Implications for
management and sustainability. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25(3), 277- 286.
Angulo, R.J. (1993). A ocupação urbana do litoral paranaense e as variações da linha decosta. Boletim Paranaense de Geociências, 41, 73-81.
APPA. História do Porto de Paranaguá (2016, April 12). Retrieved from:http://www.portosdoparana.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=2
6
Baldwin, K., Mahon, R., and McConney, P. (2013). Participatory GIS for strengthening
transboundary marine governance in SIDS. Natural Resources Forum. 37(4), 257268.
Beck, M.W., Heck Jr, K.L., Able, K.W., Childers, D.L., Eggleston, D.B., Gillanders,
B.M., Halpern, B., Hays, C.G., Hoshino, K., Minello, T.J., Orth, R.J., Sheridan,
P.F., and Weinstein, M.P. (2001). The identification, conservation, andmanagement of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates.
Bioscience, 51(8), 633-641.
Borzone, C.A., Soares, C.R., Angulo, R.J., Marone, E., Camargo, R., Prata Junior, V.P.,
Klingenfuss, M.S., Groffl, J.L., Ferencz, F., Krul, R., Moraes, V.S., Scherer Neto,104

P., Lana, P.C., Maia, M.F.C., Barros Junior, F.C.R., Tavares, Y.A.G., Farias,
J.M.S., and Matarezi, J. (1994). Proposta para a categoria e o plano de manejo das
ilhas oceânicas do litoral do Paraná. Technical report. Universidade Federal do
Paraná, Pontal do Paraná.
Brandini, F. (2014). Marine biodiversity and sustainability of fishing resources in Brazil,
a case study of the coast of Paraná state. Regional Environmental Change. 13(6), 111.
Brown, G., and Brabyn, L. (2012). An analysis of the relationships between multiple
values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS
and landscape character classification. Landscape and Urban Planning. 107(3),317-331.
Brown, G., and Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public
participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied
Geography, 46, 122-136.
Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., and Macdonald, D.H. (2010). Targetingthe management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what andhow? Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(2), 111-122.
Caldeira, G.A., and Pierri, N. (2014). Economic relations and the co-management ofcommon resources: The case of marine fisheries in Pontal do Paraná, Southern
Brazil. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 32, 119-137.
Carniel, V.L., and Krul, R. (2010). Numbers, timing of breeding, and eggs of Kelp Gulls
Larus dominicanus (Charadriiformes: Laridae) on Currais Islands in southern
Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 18(3), 146-151.
105

CBD The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi biodiversity targets(2010). CBD COP Decision X/2 annex of the conference of the parties. Retrieved
from http://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-10.
Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., and Threlkeld, B. (2005). Mapping indigenous lands. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 34, 619-638.
Christie, P. (2004). Marine Protected Areas as biological succusses and social failures inSoutheast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 42, 155-164.
Chuenpagdee, R., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Szeliánszky, E., Alegret, J.L., Fraga, J., andJentoft, S. (2013). Marine Protected Areas: Re-thinking their inception. Marine
Policy, 39, 234-240.
Close, C.H., and Hall, G.B. (2006). A GIS-based protocol for the collection and use of
local knowledge in fisheries management planning. Journal of Environmental
Management, 78(4), 341-352.
Corrêa, M. F. M. (1987). Ictiofauna da Baía de Paranaguá e Adjacências (Litoral do
Estado do Paraná – Brasil). Levantamento e Produtividade (Master’s thesis).
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Costello, M.J. (2014). Long live marine reserves: A review of experiences and benefits.
Biological Conservation, 176, 289-296.
De Freitas, D.M., and Tagliani, P.R.A. (2009). The use of GIS for the integration of
traditional and scientific knowledge in supporting artisanal fisheries management insouthern Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2071-2080.

106

De Santo, E.M. (2013). Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push forquantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 124, 137-146.
Devillers, R., Pressey, R.L., Grech, A., Kittinger, J.N., Edgar, G.J., Ward, T., andWatson, R. (2014). Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring easeof establishment over need for protection? Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems, 1-25.
Diegues, A.C. (2008). Marine Protected Areas and artisanal fisheries in Brazil.
SAMUDRA Monograph. Chennai, India: International Collective in Support of
Fishworkers (ICSF).
Félix-Hackradt, F.C. and Hackradt, C.W. (2008). Populational study and monitoring of
the goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822), in the coast of Paraná,
Brazil. Natureza & Conservação, 6(2), 141-156.
Ferse, S.C.A., Costa, M.M., Máñez, K.S., Adhuri, D.S., and Glaser, M. (2010). Allies, notaliens: increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area
implementation. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 23-34.
Gerhardinger, L.C., Hostim-Silva, M., Medeiros, R.P., Matarezi, J., Bertoncini, A.A.,
Freitas, M.O., and Ferreira, B.P. (2009). Fishers’ resource mapping and goliathgrouper Epinephelus itajara (Serranidae) conservation in Brazil. Neotropical
Ichthyology, 7(1), 93-102.
Giraldi-Costa, A.C., and Murata, A.T. (2015). Conflitos socioambientais na criação de
Unidades de Conservação: o caso do Parque Nacional Marinho das Ilhas dos
Currais. Revista Hipótese, 1(3), 48-63.
107

Guanais, J.H.D.G., Medeiros, R.P., and McConney, P.A. (2015). Designing a framework
for addressing bycatch problems in Brazilian small-scale trawl fisheries. Marine
Policy, 51, 111-118.
Hackradt, C.W., Félix-Hackradt, F.C., and García-Charton, J.A. (2011). Influence ofhabitat structure on fish assemblage of an artificial reef in southern Brazil. Marine
Environmental Research, 72(5), 235-447.
Haimovici, M.; Rossi-Wongtschowski, C.L.D.B.; Cergole, M.C.; Madureira, L.S.;
Bernardes, R. A.; Ávila-da-Silva, A. O. (2006). Recursos pesqueiros da região
Sudeste-Sul. In Programa REVIZEE: Avaliação do Potencial Sustentável deRecursos Vivos da Zona Econômica Exclusiva (207-242). Brasília, Brazil: Relatório
Executivo, Ministério do Meio Ambiente.
Hall, G.B., and Close, C.H. (2007). Local knowledge assessment for a small-scale fisheryusing geographic information systems. Fisheries Research, 83(1), 11-22.
Halpern, B.S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve
size matter? Ecological Applications, 13(1), 117-137.
Halpern, B.S., and Warner, R.R. (2002). Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects.
Ecology Letters, 5(3), 361-366.
Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C.,
Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Elbert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan,
H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., andWatson, R. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science,
319(5865), 948-952.

108

Halpern, B.S., Lester, S.E., and Kellner, J.B. (2009). Spillover from marine reserves andthe replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental Conservation, 36(4), 268-276.
Instituto de Pesca (2015). Produção pesqueira marinha e estuarina do Estado de São Paulo– Junho de 2015, 62, 1-4. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto de Pesca.
Jentoft, S., van Son, T., and Bjørkan, M. (2007). Marine protected areas: A governancesystem analysis. Human Ecology, 35(5), 611-622.
Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., and Pascual-Fernandez, J.J. (2011). What are MPAs for: On
goal formation and displacement. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(1), 75-83.
Jentoft, S., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Modino, R.D.C., Gonzalez-Ramallal, M., andChuenpagdee, R. (2012). What Stakeholders Think About Marine Protected Areas:
Case Studies from Spain. Human Ecology, 40(2), 185-197.
Jiang, B., and Thill, J. (2015). Volunteered Geographical Information: Towards theestablishment of a new paradigm. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 53,
1-3.
Kalikoski, D.C., Seixas, C.S., and Almudi, T. (2009). Gestão compartilhada e comunitáriada pesca no Brasil: avanços e desafios. Ambiente & Sociedade, 12(1), 151-172.
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for Life: Interactive
Governance for Fisheries. Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam
Press.
Krul, R. (2004). Aves marinhas costeiras do Paraná. In J. O. Branco (Ed.), Aves marinhas
e Insulares Brasileiras: Bioecologia e Conservação (pp. 37-56). Itajaí, Brazil:
Editora da Univali.

109

Lana, P.C., Marone, E., Lopes, R.M., and Machado, E.C. (2001). The Subtropical
Estuarine Complex of Paranaguá Bay, Brazil. In U. Seeliger and B. Kjerfve (Eds.).
Coastal Marine Ecosystems of Latin America (pp. 131-145). Ecological Studies, 44,
Berlin: Springer.
Le Cornu, E., Kittinger, J.N., Koehn, J.Z., Finkbeiner, E.M., and Crowder, L.B. (2014).
Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning.
Conservation Biology, 28(4), 902-911.
Leite, M.C.F., and Gasalla, M.A. (2013). A method for assessing fishers’ ecologicalknowledge as a practical tool for ecosystem-based fisheries management: Seeking
consensus in Southeastern Brazil. Fisheries Research, 145, 43-53.
Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines,
S.D., Araimé, S., and Warner, R.R. (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine
reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46.
Lopes, P.F.M., Rosa, E.M., Salywonchyk, S., Nora, V., and Begossi, A. (2013).
Suggestions for fixing top-down coastal fisheries management through participatory
approaches. Marine Policy, 40, 100-110.
Martins, F.C., and Dias, M.M. (2003). Cuidado parental de Sula leucogaster (Boddaert)(Aves, Pelecaniformes, Sulidae) nas Ilhas dos Currais, Paraná, Brasil. Revista
Brasileira de Zoologia, 20(4), 583-589.
Martins, I.M., Medeiros, R.P., and Hanazaki, N. (2014). From fish to ecosystems: The
perceptions of fishermen neighboring a southern Brazilian marine protected area.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 91, 50-57.

110

Mascia, M.B., and Claus, A. (2009). A property rights approach to understanding human
displacement from protected areas: The case of Marine Protected Areas.
Conservation Biology, 23(1), 16-23.
Mascia, M.B., Claus, A., and Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of marine protected areas on
fishing communities. Conservation Biology, 24(5), 1424-1429.
McClanahan, T.R., and Mangi, S. (2000). Spillover of exploitable fishes from a Marine
Park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications, 10(6), 17921805.
Medeiros, R.P., and Azevedo, N.T. (2013). Nota técnica preliminar: Impacto da criação
do Parque Nacional de Currais à pesca artesanal do litoral do Estado do Paraná.
Technical report. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Pontal do Paraná, Brazil.
Medeiros, R.P., Guanais, J.H.D.G., Santos, L.O., Spach, H.L., Silva, C.N.S., Foppa, C.C.,
Cattani, A.P., and Rainho, A.P. (2013). Estratégias para a redução da fauna
acompanhante na frota artesanal de arrasto do camarão sete-barbas: perspectivas
para a gestão pesqueira. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca, 39(3), 339–358.
Meinesz, A., and Blanfuné, A. (2015). 1983-2013: Development of marine protectedareas along the French Mediterranean coasts and perspectives for achievement of
the Aichi target. Marine Policy, 54, 10-16.
MPA (2011). Boletim estatístico da pesca e aquicultura. Brasília, Brasil: Ministério da
Pesca e Aquicultura.
MPAtlas Explore. (2015, August 17). Retrieved from http://www.mpatlas.org/explore/.

111

Natividade, C.D., Pereira, M.J.C.F., and Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (2006). Small-scale
fishing landings on the coast of the state of Paraná, Brazil, from 1975 to 2000, withemphasis on shrimp data. Journal of Coastal Research, 39(3), 1273-1276.
Noernberg, M.A.; Angelotti, R.; Caldeira, G.A.; and Sousa, A.F.R (2008). Determinação
da sensibilidade do litoral paranaense à contaminação por óleo. Brazilian Journal of
Aquatic Science and Technology, 12(2), 49-59.
Pierri, N. (2003). O litoral do Paraná: Entre a riqueza natural e a pobreza social.
Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 8, 25-41.
Pierri, N., Angulo, R.J., Souza, M.C., and Kim, M.K. (2006). A ocupação e o uso do solo
no litoral paranaense: condicionantes, conflitos e tendências. Desenvolvimento e
Meio Ambiente, 13, 137-167.
Pocewicz, A., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Brown, G., and Schnitzer, R. (2012). An evaluation ofinternet versus paper-based methods for public participation geographic information
systems (PPGIS). Transactions in GIS, 16(1), 39-53.
Rife, A.N., Erisman, B., Sanchez, A., and Aburto-Oropeza, O. (2013). When goodintentions are not enough... Insights on networks of “paper park” marine protectedareas. Conservation Letters, 6(3), 200-212.
Ruiz-Frau, A., Edward-Jones, G., and Kaiser, M.J. (2011). Mapping stakeholders values
for coastal zone management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 434, 239-249.
Schafer, A.G., and Reis, E.G. (2008). Artisanal fishing areas and traditional ecologicalknowledge: The case study of the artisanal fisheries of the Patos Lagoon estuary
Brazil. Marine Policy, 32(3), 283-292.

112

Seixas, C.S., and Kalikoski, D.C. (2009). Gestão participativa da pesca no Brasil:
levantamento das iniciativas e documentação dos processos. Desenvolvimento e
Meio Ambiente, 20, 119-139.
Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., and Semmens, D.J. (2011). A GIS application forassessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services.
Applied Geography, 31(2), 748-760.
Silva, C.N.S., Broadhurst, M.K., Medeiros, R.P., and Guanais, J.H.D.G. (2013).
Resolving environmental issues in the southern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl
fishery through adaptive co-management. Marine Policy, 42, 133–141.
Stephanson, S.L., and Mascia, M.B. (2014). Putting people on the map through anapproach that integrates social data in conservation planning. Conservation Biology,
28(5), 1236-1248.
Stevenson, T.C., Tissot, B.N., and Walsh, W.J. (2013). Socioeconomic consequences offishing displacement from marine protected areas in Hawaii. BiologicalConservation, 160, 50-58.
Teh, L.C.L., Teh, L.S.L., and Meitner, M.J. (2012). Preferred resource spaces and fisher
flexibity: Implications for spatial management of small-scale fisheries. Human
Ecology, 40(2), 213-226.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2015.2. (2015, August 24). Retrieved
from www.iucnredlist.org.
Thorpe, A., Bavinck, M., and Coulthard, S. (2011). Tracking the debate around marine
protected areas: key issues and the BEG framework. Environmental Management,
47(4), 546–563.
113

UNESCO World Heritage List. Atlantic Forest South-East Reserves (2015, July 23).
Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/893/.
UNIVALI/CTTMar (2013). Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina –Ano 2012, 13(1), 1-66. Itajaí, Brasil: Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro deCiências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar.
Voyer, M., Gollan, N., Barclay, K., and Gladstone, W. (2015). ‘It’s part of me’;understanding the values, images and principles of coastal users and their influenceon the social acceptability of MPAs. Marine Policy, 52, 93-102.
Wood, L.J., Fish, L., Laughren, J., and Pauly, D. (2008). Assessing progress towards
global marine protection targets: shortfalls in information and action. Oryx, 42(3),340-351.
Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson,
J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz,
J.J., and Watson, R. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystemservices. Science, 314(5800), 787-790.
Yates, K.L., and Schoeman, D.S., 2014. Incorporating the spatial access priorities offishers into strategic conservation planning and marine protected area design:
reducing cost and increasing transparency. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 1-8.

114

CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This thesis has presented a theoretical contribution to interactive governanceframework and added to the existing literature on MPAs and small-scale fisheries. It didso by empirically applying a governability assessment to address the questions on how
governable MPAs are, and what challenges the natural and social systems posed to MPAs
as an institution towards their implementation, as explored in Chapter 2. The thesis alsooffered a methodological contribution by designing and testing a novel exploratory
mapping approach to involve small-scale fishers in the MPA discussion in a simple, rapid
and non-threatening manner, presented in detail in Chapter 3. In this way, it addressed theresearch question on how to better understand how small-scale fishers relate to the marine
environment and how to incorporate this information in the discussion about MPAs. The
case study on the Marine National Park of Currais Islands, in Southern Brazil, illustrated
this contribution by identifying potential challenges to MPA governance and suggested
what can be done to help improve its implementation. Further, the case study offered asimple and innovative ‘map-based’ approach to involve small-scale fishers in the MPA
discussion. Thus, this concluding chapter (Chapter 4) reiterates what has been done in thisstudy and gives a summary of the main lessons learned in Chapters 2 and 3. It also
discusses research implications and provides recommendations to improve thegovernance of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands, and generally. The chapter
concludes with limitations of the study and prospects for future research.

115

4.1. Main findings

Chapter 2 of the thesis explored how governable an MPA is and what can create
governability challenges to its implementation. It has also identified where opportunities
to improve governance can be found. Through a governability assessment, the highly
dynamic nature of the natural system, both spatially and temporally, is highlighted as animportant feature to consider in the MPA design.
Further, this study posits that small-scale fishers do not represent a homogeneousgroup, and therefore should be treated differently. In other words, the social systemassociated with the MPA is very diverse and complex, with small-scale fishers sharing thesame coastal areas but making different uses of the coast and having different perceptionsof the MPA in terms of its contribution to the marine environment, to their community,
and to themselves. The difference is due mainly to the main fishing gear and techniques
used, with encircling gillnets being used by those who rely most on the area designated as
the MPA. Other features, such as attachment to fisheries and perception of changes incatches and of future of the activity seem to also influence on how fishers relate to the
MPA. The fishing communities in which the use of encircling gillnets is more widespreadshow strong attachment to fisheries and are comparatively more optimistic about the
future of fisheries. Given that they have more at stake in the fisheries, they should be
more directly involved in the discussion about the MPA and in defining future
management actions.
The designation of the MPA was largely a top-down process, guided by researchinterests, and did not comply to the Brazilian National System of Protected Areas

116

regulations, which requires public consultation to be conducted prior to establishing a
new MPA. It is therefore not surprising to find mismatches between the images that
small-scale fishers have of the MPA and its objective, compared to those of thegovernments. Small-scale fishers sometimes perceived the MPA as unnecessary,considering that the islands are not under serious threats, except from other impacts notaddressed by the MPA (e.g. from port-related activities and pollution). Further, byprohibiting gillnetting in the area, the governing system may be prioritizing the interest of
bottom-trawlers, even though they are considered to create more impacts. Suchdiscrimination could pose challenges to governance at a much larger scale than the MPA,
especially when considering the potential relocation of gillnet fishing effort to other
ecologically important areas.
Opportunities to improve the MPA implementation could arise by embracing thesense of ownership towards Currais Islands displayed by some small-scale fishers,
particularly those relying most in the area for their fishing livelihoods. Some fishers also
demonstrate optimism about conservation efforts in the region, attributing them toincreased catches and a better future for fisheries. This shows space where dialogue canbe fostered to find a balance between conservation needs and maintenance of livelihoodsof small-scale fishing people.
In Chapter 3, a simple mapping approach was employed to enable fishers to identify
importance of the marine area and impacts that different activities create. The approach isconversational and non-extractive, with respect to local knowledge, and can be used as a
rapid appraisal method prior to the designation of the MPA or during the consultation
about the MPA planning. The study highlighted how this exploratory mapping approach117can provide spatial baseline information about marine ecosystem according to fishers’
knowledge and judgments, revealing areas of conflict and of agreement, valuable for thedevelopment of a management and implementation plan for an MPA.
In the Marine National Park of Currais Islands case study, small-scale fishers showcommon ground when assigning ecological importance mainly to areas with rocky
bottom, relating this to the presence of fish and importance to their life cycle. Small-scale
fishers place high economic importance to areas most used by them for their fishingactivities, explaining that these are where their targeted resources are located. The areasof high economic importance largely correspond with those having ecologicalimportance. Thus, ‘hotspots’ of importance could be identified, with Currais Islands being
the most cited area having the highest ecological, economic and socio-cultural
importance. Currais Islands are also considered, however, threatened by spearfishing andtourism activities as well as other impacts.
The method developed and employed in this study provides an opportunity forsmall-scale fishers to interact with each other, discussing points of view and reachingconsensus before marking areas on the map. The approach was appropriate given the lowlevel of formal education of small-scale fishers from Pontal do Paraná municipality, as it
draws largely from the tradition of oral communication, and does not require priorcartographic knowledge. Fishers can easily identify where things are on the map usingreference features provided. The exploratory mapping approach could ideally be used
before any MPA implementation, providing insights on how to proceed, using a breadthof information that is rapidly available, as well as identifying avenues for more in-depth,
technical approaches, if desired.
118

4.2. Policy recommendations and future research

The case of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands represents an example of
how MPA designation is often conducted, i.e. without public consultation, through a topdown process (Arruda, 1999; Bensusan and Prates, 2014; Diegues, 2008), despite
requirements from the Brazilian legislation for broad stakeholder participation in thedefinition of location, dimensions and boundaries of the protected areas (MMA, 2004).
Further, implementation is difficult as about 78% of all designated Brazilian protectedareas at federal and state levels do not have a management plan (Sousa et al., 2011).
Therefore, this study reveals challenges that arise when recommendations for stakeholder
participation are not considered and aims at highlighting avenues for inclusion and better
governance.
The study is also timely since the management plan for the Marine National Park ofCurrais Islands is currently under development. Specific recommendations related to thecase study include focusing on the small-scale fishing communities and gear users who
have more at stake in terms of the MPA, and using the exploratory mapping approachpresented here as elicitation tool towards including these small-scale fishers in thediscussion of the management plan. Also, even though the MPA was designated under the
National Park category, which does not allow any extractive uses while focusing on
tourism, research and recreation according to Brazilian legislation (SNUC, 2000), there isspace for discussing and exploring ways of including small-scale fishers’ opinions into
the MPA management plan. This would include fishing agreements made between fishers
and the environmental agency, which could for example legally allow an open season

119

during winter for targeting migratory species that constitute an important source ofincome to small-scale fishers this time of the year, as long as its impacts are assessed,
making it feasible for small-scale fishers to maintain their livelihoods.
Generally speaking, MPA implementation elsewhere could benefit from theanalytical assessment applied in this thesis (i.e. interactive governance), to explore theproperties of the natural and social system that the MPA aims to govern. There is a needto acknowledge the context in which the MPA is embedded in, including the diversity,
complexity, dynamics and scale that it encompasses in the MPA design. By applying agovernability assessment, it is possible to identify where challenges to a potential MPA
could be before designating it, and help find characteristics inherent to the systems (i.e.
sense of ownership) that might be conducive to better governance if considered. Further,use of the exploratory mapping approach presented in this thesis is expected to help
include small-scale fishers in the process, thus by understanding how they relate to themarine environment may shed light on what would potentially lead to buy-in andcompliance, thus enhancing the changes of success of an MPA.
Limitations of this study include the reduced precision of the maps produced
through the exploratory mapping approach, which was adequate to the objective here, but
could be limited if the objective would be to indicate a precise location. Also, when
exploring fishers’ perceptions towards a particular MPA already designated (e.g. Marine
National Park of Currais Islands), information collected through the questionnaires andmapping may reflect the current context, which therefore may have been influenced by
the implementation of the MPA.

120

Another limitation could be the inclusion of only male small-scale fishers, whichwere the focus of this study because as active fish harvesters, they were presumably themost affected by the Marine National Park of Currais Islands and who are experiencing
daily changes to the marine environment and its uses. While women, who are involved in
post-processing, as well as other resource users such as divers, recreational fishers,
tourists and researchers, were not the focus of this study, they could have different
perceptions about the MPA and will also have to abide to MPA’s rules, being also
important towards an effective implementation. Further, this research represents a timeframe of the entire process of an MPA designation and implementation that involves
different phases, through which the way the MPA is perceived may change across smallscale fishers. Finally, the grouping of small-scale fishing communities could be different
depending on the criteria used to determine the grouping. While the grouping in this study
was considered to be reasonable and robust, since it was based on data obtained from thequestionnaire, a change in criteria may lead to different groupings. For this reason, thegovernability level based on the grouping is only a relative measure and should beinterpreted as such. In other words, the use of this information in the development of the
MPA management plan should be done with caution and with this limitation in mind.
Recommendations for future research include exploring a clear definition of MPA’s
goals and the impacts it aims at addressing, which is needed so those governed and those
who govern share a common image of what the MPA is intended to be. Future research
could apply the exploratory mapping approach presented here to other contexts, prior to
MPA designation or even to assess an existing MPA in order to guide management
actions and as a means to include local stakeholders in decision-making. Based on the121limitations indicated here, research could work towards improving the exploratory
mapping approach, in respect to incorporating diversity of resource users – including
fisher women and other resource users, and at different stages of MPA designation andimplementation. Some improvement can also be made about the method to assessgovernability to enhance its utility and robustness.

122

REFERENCES

Abbott, J.K., and Haynie, A.C. (2012). What are we protecting? Fisher behavior and theunintended consequences of spatial closures as a fishery management tool.
Ecological Applications, 22(3), 762-777.
Adams, V.M., Mills, M., Jupiter, S.D., and Pressey, R.L. (2011). Improving social
acceptability of marine protected area networks: A method for estimating
opportunity costs to multiple gear types in both fished and currently unfished areas.
Biological Conservation, 144(1), 350-361.
Agardy, M.T. (1993). Accommodating ecotourism in multiple use planning of coastal andmarine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 20(3), 219-239.
Agardy, T., di Sciara, G.N., and Christie, P. (2011). Mind the gap: Addressing theshortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning.
Marine Policy, 35(2), 226-232.
Agrawal, A., and Gibson, C.C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role ofcommunity in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629-649.
Ainsworth, C.H., Morzaria-Luna, H., Kaplan, I.C., Levin, P.S., Fulton, E.A., CudneyBueno, R., and Pfister, T. (2012). Effective ecosystem-based management mustencourage regulatory compliance: A Gulf of California case study. Marine Policy,
36(6), 1275–1283.
Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O., andBlack, A. (2011). Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species
Research, 14, 91-106.

123

Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (2002). Sistemas técnicos de pesca no litoral do Paraná:
caracterização e tipificação. In Raynaut, C., Zanoni, M., Lana, P.C., Floriani, D.,
Ferreira, A.D.D., and Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (Eds), Desenvolvimento e meio
ambiente: em busca da interdisciplinaridade (pp. 213-233). Curitiba, Brazil:
Editora UFPR.
Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (2003). A mudança técnica e o processo de diferenciação dos
sistemas de produção pesqueira do litoral do Paraná, Brasil. Desenvolvimento e
Meio Ambiente, 8, 43-58.
Andriguetto-Filho, J. M., Chaves, P. T.C., Santos, C. and Liberati, S. A. (2006).
Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado do Paraná. In Isaac, V., Martins, A.S.,
Haimovici, M., and Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (Eds.), A pesca marinha e estuarina do
Brasil no início do século XXI: Recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos einstitucionais (pp. 117-140). Belém, Brazil: Editora Universitária.
Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., Krul, R., and Feitosa, S. (2009). Analysis of natural and social
dynamics of fishery production systems in Paraná, Brazil: Implications for
management and sustainability. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25(3), 277-286.
Angulo, R.J. (1993). A ocupação urbana do litoral paranaense e as variações da linha decosta. Boletim Paranaense de Geociências, 41, 73-81.
APPA. História do Porto de Paranaguá (2016, April 12). Retrieved from:http://www.portosdoparana.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=2
6
Arruda, R. (1999). “Populações tradicionais” e a proteção dos recursos naturais em
unidades de conservação. Ambiente & Sociedade, 5(2), 79-92.
124

Baldwin, K., Mahon, R., and McConney, P. (2013). Participatory GIS for strengthening
transboundary marine governance in SIDS. Natural Resources Forum, 37(4), 257268.
Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., and Kooiman, J. (Eds.). (2013). Governabilityof Fisheries and Aquaculture: Theory and Applications. MARE Publication Series
7, Netherlands: Springer.
Beck, M.W., Heck Jr, K.L., Able, K.W., Childers, D.L., Eggleston, D.B., Gillanders,
B.M., Halpern, B., Hays, C.G., Hoshino, K., Minello, T.J., Orth, R.J., Sheridan,
P.F., and Weinstein, M.P. (2001). The identification, conservation, andmanagement of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates.
Bioscience, 51(8), 633-641.
Bennett, N.J., and Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation:
Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governanceand management in Thailand. Marine Policy, 44, 107-116.
Bensusan, N., Prates, A.P.A. (2014). A diversidade cabe na unidade? In Bensusan, N.,
Prates, A.P. (Eds.), A diversidade cabe na unidade? Áreas protegidas no Brasil(pp.19-26). Brasília, Brazil: IEB, 2014.
Bicknell, A.W.J., Oro, D., Camphuysen, K.C.J., and Votier, S.C. (2013). Potential
consequences of discard reform for seabird communities. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 50, 649-658.
Borges, L.M.M., Maulin, G.C., and Andriguetto, J.M. (2004). Analysis of income sourcesof fishers’ families on the coast of the State of Paraná, Brazil. Journal of Coastal
Research, 39(3), 1267-1269.
125Borzone, C.A., Soares, C.R., Angulo, R.J., Marone, E., Camargo, R., Prata Junior, V.P.,
Klingenfuss, M.S., Groffl, J.L., Ferencz, F., Krul, R., Moraes, V.S., Scherer Neto,
P., Lana, P.C., Maia, M.F.C., Barros Junior, F.C.R., Tavares, Y.A.G., Farias,
J.M.S., and Matarezi, J. (1994). Proposta para a categoria e o plano de manejo das
ilhas oceânicas do litoral do Paraná. Technical report. Universidade Federal do
Paraná, Pontal do Paraná.
Brandini, F. (2014). Marine biodiversity and sustainability of fishing resources in Brazil,
a case study of the coast of Paraná state. Regional Environmental Change, 14(6),2127-2137.
Brown, G., and Brabyn, L. (2012). An analysis of the relationships between multiple
values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS
and landscape character classification. Landscape and Urban Planning. 107(3),317-331.
Brown, G., and Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public
participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied
Geography, 46, 122-136.
Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., and Macdonald, D.H. (2010). Targetingthe management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what andhow? Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(2), 111-122.
Bugoni, L., Mancini, P.L., Monteiro, D.S., Nascimento, L., and Neves, T.S. (2008).
Seabird bycatch in the Brazilian pelagic longline fishery and a review of capture
rates in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Endangered Species Research, 5, 137147.
126

Bugoni, L., Neves, T.S., Leite Jr., N.O., Carvalho, D., Sales, G., Furness, R.W., Stein,
C.E., Peppes, F.V., Giffoni, B.B., and Monteiro, D.S. (2008). Potential bycatch of
seabirds and turtles in hook-and-line fisheries of the Itaipava fleet, Brazil. Fisheries
Research, 90(1-3), 217-224.
Caldeira, G.A. (2009). Diagnóstico socioecológico da pesca no município de Pontal do
Paraná (PR): Subsídios para a gestão compartilhada (Master’s thesis). Centro deEstudos do Mar, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Pontal do Paraná, Paraná, Brazil.
Caldeira, G.A., and Pierri, N. (2014). Economic relations and the co-management ofcommon resources: The case of marine fisheries in Pontal do Paraná, Southern
Brazil. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 32, 119-137.
Carniel, V.L., and Krul, R. (2010). Numbers, timing of breeding, and eggs of Kelp Gulls
Larus dominicanus (Charadriiformes: Laridae) on Currais Islands in southern
Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 18(3), 146-151.
Carniel, V.L., and Krul, R. (2012). Use of artisanal fishery discards by seabirds on the
Paraná coast in Brazil. Marine Ornithology, 40, 57-62.
CBD. The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi biodiversity targets(2010). CBD COP Decision X/2 annex of the conference of the parties. Retrieved
from http://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-10.
Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., and Threlkeld, B. (2005). Mapping indigenous lands. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 34, 619-638.
Charles, A., and Wilson, L. (2009). Human dimensions of marine protected areas.
Journal of Marine Science, 66(1), 6-15.

127Christie, P. (2004). Marine Protected Areas as biological succusses and social failures inSoutheast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 42, 155-164.
Christie, P., McCay, B.J., Miller, M.L., Lowe, C., White, A.T., Stoffle, R, Fluharty, D.L.,
Talaue-McManus, L., Chuenpagdee, R., Pomeroy, C., Suman, D.O., Blount, B.G.,
Huppert, D., Villahermosa Eisma, R.L., Oracion, E., Lowry,K., and Pollnac, R.B.
(2003). Toward developing a complete understanding: a social science research
agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries, 28(12), 22–26.
Chuenpagdee, R. (2011). Interactive governance for marine conservation: an IllustratIon.
Bulletin of Marine Science, 87(2), 197–211.
Chuenpagdee, R., and Jentoft, S. (2009). Governability Assessment for fisheries andcoastal systems: A reality check. Human Ecology, 37(1), 109-120.
Chuenpagdee, R., Morgan, L.E., Maxwell, S.M., Norse, E.A., and Pauly, D. (2003).
Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters.
Frontiers in Ecolology and the Environment. 1(10), 517-524.
Chuenpagdee, R., Kooiman, J., and Pullin, R. (2008). Assessing governability in capture
fisheries, aquaculture and coastal zones. The Journal of Transboundary
Environmental Studies. 7(1), 14-33.
Chuenpagdee, R., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Szeliánszky, E., Alegret, J.L., Fraga, J., andJentoft, S. (2013). Marine Protected Areas: Re-thinking their inception. Marine
Policy, 39, 234-240.
Clapham, C. and Nicholson, J. (2013). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics(4th Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

128

Close, C.H., and Hall, G.B. (2006). A GIS-based protocol for the collection and use of
local knowledge in fisheries management planning. Journal of Environmental
Management, 78(4), 341-352.
Corrêa, M. F. M. (1987). Ictiofauna da Baía de Paranaguá e Adjacências (Litoral do
Estado do Paraná – Brasil). Levantamento e Produtividade (Master’s thesis).
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Costello, M.J. (2014). Long live marine reserves: A review of experiences and benefits.
Biological Conservation, 176, 289-296.
Croxall, J.P., Butchart, S.H.M., Lascelles, B., Stattersfield, A.J., Sullivan. B., Symes, A.,
and Taylor, P. (2012). Seabird conservation status, threats, and priority actions: A
global assessment. Bird Conservation International, 22(1), 1-34.
Daros, F.A., Bueno, L.S., Vilar, C.C., Passos, A.C., and Spach, H.L. (2012). Checklist of
rocky reef fishes from the Currais Archipelago and Itacolomis Island, Paraná State,
Brazil. Checklist: Journal of Species Lists and Distribution, 8(3), 349-354.
Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T., and Hofman, R.J. (1995). Environmental
effects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, 5(3), 205-232.
De Freitas, D.M., and Tagliani, P.R.A. (2009). The use of GIS for the integration of
traditional and scientific knowledge in supporting artisanal fisheries management insouthern Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2071-2080.
De Santo, E.M. (2013). Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push forquantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 124, 137-146.
129

Degnbol, P., Gislason, H., Hanna, S., Jentoft, S., Nielsen, J.R., Sverdrup-Jensen, S., andWilson, D.C. (2006). Painting the floor with a hammer: Technical fixes in fisheries
management. Marine Policy, 30(5), 534-543.
Devillers, R., Pressey, R.L., Grech, A., Kittinger, J.N., Edgar, G.J., Ward, T., andWatson, R. (2014). Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring easeof establishment over need for protection? Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems, 1-25.
Diegues, A.C. (2006). Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil. SAMUDRA Monograph, Chennai,
India: International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF).
Diegues, A.C. (2008). Marine Protected Areas and artisanal fisheries in Brazil.
SAMUDRA Monograph, Chennai, India: International Collective in Support of
Fishworkers (ICSF).
Ennis, G.P. (2011). Closed areas as a conservation strategy in the Newfoundland lobster
fishery. Biodiversity, 12(1), 11-20.
Félix-Hackradt, F.C. and Hackradt, C.W. (2008). Populational study and monitoring of
the goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822), in the coast of Paraná,
Brazil. Natureza & Conservação, 6(2), 141-156.
Ferse, S.C.A., Costa, M.M., Máñez, K.S., Adhuri, D.S., and Glaser, M. (2010). Allies, notaliens: increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area
implementation. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 23-34.
Fiedler, F.N., Sales. G., Giffoni, B.B., Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A., Secchi, E.R., Bugoni, L.
(2012). Driftnet fishery threats sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean. Biodiversity
Conservation, 21, 915-931.
130

Fuzetti, L. (2007). A pesca na Ilha do Mel (Paraná-Brasil): Pescadores, atividades erecursos pesqueiros (Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba,
Paraná, Brazil.
Gerhardinger, L.C., Hostim-Silva, M., Medeiros, R.P., Matarezi, J., Bertoncini, A.A.,
Freitas, M.O., and Ferreira, B.P. (2009). Fishers’ resource mapping and goliathgrouper Epinephelus itajara (Serranidae) conservation in Brazil. Neotropical
Ichthyology, 7(1), 93-102.
Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.S., Jones, P.J.S., Sales, G., and Ferreira, B.P. (2011).
Marine protected dramas: the flaws of the Brazilian National System of Marine
Protected Areas. Environmental Management, 47(4), 630-43.
Giglio, V.J., Bertoncini, A.A., Ferreira, B.P., Hostim-Silva, M., and Freitas, M.O. (2014).
Landings of Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara, in Brazil: Despite prohibitedover ten years, fishing continues. Natureza & Conservação, 12(2), 118-123.
Giraldi-Costa, A.C., and Murata, A.T. (2015). Conflitos socioambientais na criação de
Unidades de Conservação: o caso do Parque Nacional Marinho das Ilhas dos
Currais. Revista Hipótese, 1(3), 48-63.
Guanais, J.H.G., Medeiros, R.P., and McConney, P.A. (2015). Designing a framework foraddressing bycatch problems in Brazilian small-scale trawl fisheries. Marine Policy,
51, 111-118.
Guidetti, P., Milazzo, M., Bussotti, S., Molinari, A., Murenu, M., Pais, A., Spanò, N.,
Balzano, R., Agardy, T., Boero, F., Carrada, G., Cattaneo-Vietti, R., Cau, A.,
Chemello, R., Greco, S., Manganaro, A., di Sciara, G.N., Russo, G.F., and Tunesi,131L. (2008). Italian marine reserve effectiveness: Does enforcement matter?
Biological Conservation, 141(3), 699-709.
Hackradt, C.W., Félix-Hackradt, F.C., and García-Charton, J.A. (2011). Influence ofhabitat structure on fish assemblage of an artificial reef in southern Brazil. Marine
Environmental Research, 72(5), 235-447.
Haimovici, M.; Rossi-Wongtschowski, C.L.D.B.; Cergole, M.C.; Madureira, L.S.;
Bernardes, R. A.; Ávila-da-Silva, A. O. (2006). Recursos pesqueiros da região
Sudeste-Sul. In Programa REVIZEE: Avaliação do Potencial Sustentável deRecursos Vivos da Zona Econômica Exclusiva (207-242). Brasília, Brazil: Relatório
Executivo, Ministério do Meio Ambiente.
Hall, G.B., and Close, C.H. (2007). Local knowledge assessment for a small-scale fisheryusing geographic information systems. Fisheries Research, 83(1), 11-22.
Halpern, B. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve
size matter? Ecological Applications, 13, 117-137.
Halpern, B.S., and Warner, R.R. (2002). Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects.
Ecology Letters. 5(3), 361-366.
Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C.,
Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Elbert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan,
H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., andWatson, R. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science,
319(5865), 948-952.
Halpern, B.S., Lester, S.E., and Kellner, J.B. (2009). Spillover from marine reserves andthe replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental Conservation, 36(4), 268-276.
132

Herbst, D.F., and Hanazaki, N. (2014). Local ecological knowledge of fishers about thelife cycle and temporal patterns in the migration of mullet (Mugil liza) in Southern
Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 12(4), 879-890.
ICMBio. (2012). Resposta ao requerimento n°146 de 2012 do Senado Federal, o qual
solicita informações sobre estudos técnicos e consultas públicas sobre a proposta decriação “Parque Nacional da Ilha dos Currais”, no âmbito do PLC n° 60 de 2003.
Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da
Biodiversidade.
Instituto de Pesca (2015). Produção pesqueira marinha e estuarina do Estado de São Paulo– Junho de 2015, 62, 1-4. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto de Pesca.
Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries andcoastal governance. Marine Policy, 31(4), 360-370.
Jentoft, S., van Son, T., and Bjørkan, M. (2007). Marine protected areas: A governancesystem analysis. Human Ecology, 35(5), 611-622.
Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., and Pascual-Fernandez, J.J. (2011). What are MPAs for: On
goal formation and displacement. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(1), 75-83.
Jentoft, S., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Modino, R.D.C., Gonzalez-Ramallal, M., andChuenpagdee, R. (2012). What Stakeholders Think About Marine Protected Areas:
Case Studies from Spain. Human Ecology, 40(2), 185-197.
Jiang, B., and Thill, J. (2015). Volunteered Geographical Information: Towards theestablishment of a new paradigm. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 53,
1-3.

133

Johannes, R.E., Freeman, M.M.R., and Hamilton, R.J. (2000). Ignore fishers’ knowledge
and miss the boat. Fish and Fisheries, 1(3), 257-271.
Jones, P.J.S. (2009). Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protectedareas proposals. Marine Policy, 33(5), 759-765.
Kalikoski, D.C., Seixas, C.S., and Almudi, T. (2009). Gestão compartilhada e comunitáriada pesca no Brasil: avanços e desafios. Ambiente & Sociedade, 12(1), 151-172.
Kincaid, K.B., Rose, G., and Mahudi, H. (2014). Fishers’ perception of a multiple-use
marine protected area: Why communities and gear use differ at Mafia Island,
Tanzania. Marine Policy, 43, 226-235.
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., and Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for Life:Interactive Governance for Fisheries, Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of
Amsterdam Press.
Krul, R. (2004). Aves marinhas costeiras do Paraná. In J. O. Branco (Ed.), Aves marinhas
e Insulares Brasileiras: Bioecologia e Conservação (pp. 37-56). Itajaí, Brazil:
Editora da Univali.
Lana, P.C., Marone, E., Lopes, R.M., and Machado, E.C. (2001). The Subtropical
Estuarine Complex of Paranaguá Bay, Brazil. In U. Seeliger and B. Kjerfve (Eds.).
Coastal Marine Ecosystems of Latin America (pp. 131-145). Ecological Studies, 44,
Berlin: Springer.
Laneri, K., Louzao, M., Martínez-Abraín, A., Arcos, J.M., Belda, E.J., Guallart, J.,
Sánchez, A., Giménez, M., Maestre, R., and Oro, D. (2010). Trawling regime
influences longline seabird bycatch in the Mediterranean: New insights from asmall-scale fishery. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 420, 241-252.
134

Le Cornu, E., Kittinger, J.N., Koehn, J.Z., Finkbeiner, E.M., and Crowder, L.B. (2014).
Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning.
Conservation Biology, 28(4), 902-911.
Leite, M.C.F., and Gasalla, M.A. (2013). A method for assessing fishers’ ecologicalknowledge as a practical tool for ecosystem-based fisheries management: Seeking
consensus in Southeastern Brazil. Fisheries Research, 145, 43-53.
Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines,
S.D., Araimé, S., and Warner, R.R. (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine
reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46.
Lokkeborg, S. (2011). Best practices to mitigate seabird bycatch in longline, trawl andgillnet fisheries – efficiency and practical applicability. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 435, 285-303.
Lopes, P.F.M., Rosa, E.M., Salywonchyk, S., Nora, V., and Begossi, A. (2013).
Suggestions for fixing top-down coastal fisheries management through participatory
approaches. Marine Policy, 40, 100-110.
López-Barrera, E.A., Longo, G.O., and Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A. (2012). Incidental captureof green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in gillnets of small-scale fisheries in the Paranaguá
Bay, Southern Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management, 60, 11-18.
Lunn, K.E., and Dearden, P. (2006). Fishers’ needs in Marine Protected Area zoning: A
case study from Thailand. Coastal Management, 34(2), 183-198.
Malheiros, H.Z. (2008). Avaliação da pesca de arrasto do camarão-sete-barbas(Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) em comunidades do entorno do Parque Nacional do135Superagui – Paraná (Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal do Paraná, Pontal do
Paraná, Paraná, Brazil.
Martins, F.C., and Dias, M.M. (2003). Cuidado parental de Sula leucogaster (Boddaert)(Aves, Pelecaniformes, Sulidae) nas Ilhas dos Currais, Paraná, Brasil. Revista
Brasileira de Zoologia, 20(4), 583-589.
Martins, I.M., Medeiros, R.P., and Hanazaki, N. (2014). From fish to ecosystems: The
perceptions of fishermen neighboring a southern Brazilian marine protected area.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 91, 50-57.
Mascia, M.B., and Claus, A. (2009). A property rights approach to understanding human
displacement from protected areas: The case of Marine Protected Areas.
Conservation Biology, 23(1), 16-23.
Mascia, M.B., Claus, A., and Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of marine protected areas on
fishing communities. Conservation Biology, 24(5), 1424-1429.
Matsuoka, T., Nakashima, T., and Nagasawa, N. (2005). A review of ghost fishing:
Scientific approaches to evaluation and solutions. Fisheries Science, 71(4), 691702.
McClanahan, T.R., and Mangi, S. (2000). Spillover of exploitable fishes from a Marine
Park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications, 10(6), 17921805.
McDonald, J.H. (2009). Handbook of Biological Statistics (2nd Edition). Baltimore,
Maryland: Sparky House Publishing.

136

Medeiros, R.P., and Azevedo, N.T. (2013). Nota técnica preliminar: Impacto da criação
do Parque Nacional de Currais à pesca artesanal do litoral do Estado do Paraná.
Technical report. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Pontal do Paraná, Brazil.
Medeiros, R.P., Guanais, J.H.D.G., Santos, L.O., Spach, H.L., Silva, C.N.S., Foppa, C.C.,
Cattani, A.P., and Rainho, A.P. (2013). Estratégias para a redução da fauna
acompanhante na frota artesanal de arrasto do camarão sete-barbas: perspectivas
para a gestão pesqueira. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca, 39(3), 339–358.
Meinesz, A., and Blanfuné, A. (2015). 1983-2013: Development of marine protectedareas along the French Mediterranean coasts and perspectives for achievement of
the Aichi target. Marine Policy, 54, 10-16.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2004). Gestão Participativa do SNUC 1ªEd. Brasília,Brazil: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.
Modino, R.D.C., and Pascual-Fernández, J.J. (2013). Marine Protected Areas in the
Canary Islands – Improving Their Governability. In Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R.,
Jentoft, S., Kooiman, J. (Eds.), Governability of Fisheries and Aquaculture (pp.
219-241). MARE Publication Series 7(335), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
MPA (2011). Boletim estatístico da pesca e aquicultura. Brasília, Brasil: Ministério da
Pesca e Aquicultura.
MPAtlas Explore. (2015, August 17). Retrieved from http://www.mpatlas.org/explore/.
Natividade, C.D., Pereira, M.J.C.F., and Andriguetto-Filho, J.M. (2006). Small-scale
fishing landings on the coast of the state of Paraná, Brazil, from 1975 to 2000, withemphasis on shrimp data. Journal of Coastal Research, 39(3), 1273-1276.

137

Noernberg, M.A.; Angelotti, R.; Caldeira, G.A.; and Sousa, A.F.R (2008). Determinação
da sensibilidade do litoral paranaense à contaminação por óleo. Brazilian Journal of
Aquatic Science and Technology, 12(2), 49-59.
Onyango, P. (2011). Occupation of last resort? Small-scale fishing in Lake Victoria,
Tanzania. In Jentoft, S. and Eide, A. (Eds.), Poverty Mosaics: Realities andProspects in Small-Scale Fisheries (pp. 97-124). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Paladines, M.J.B., and Chuenpagdee, R. (2015). Governability assessment of theGalapagos Marine Reserve. Maritime Studies, 14(13), 1-21.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., and Torres Jr., F. (1998). Fishingdown marine food webs. Science, 279(5352), 860-863.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J.,
Watson, R., and Zeller, D. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries.
Nature, 418, 689-695.
Pauly, D., Watson, R., and Alder, J. (2005). Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on
marine ecosystems and food security. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 360(1453), 5-12.
Pierri, N. (2003). O litoral do Paraná: Entre a riqueza natural e a pobreza social.
Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 8, 25-41.
Pierri, N., Angulo, R.J., Souza, M.C., and Kim, M.K. (2006). A ocupação e o uso do solo
no litoral paranaense: condicionantes, conflitos e tendências. Desenvolvimento e
Meio Ambiente, 13, 137-167.

138

Pinheiro, L., Lana, P.C., Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., and Hanazaki, N. (2010). Pesca depequena-escala e a gestão patrimonial: o caso da pesca da tainha no litoral
paranaense. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 21, 143-155.
Pocewicz, A., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Brown, G., and Schnitzer, R. (2012). An evaluation ofinternet versus paper-based methods for public participation geographic information
systems (PPGIS). Transactions in GIS, 16(1), 39-53.
Pomeroy, R.S., Watson, L.M., Parks, J.E., and Cid, G.A. (2005). How is your MPA
doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine
protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(7-8), 485-502.
Regular, P., Montevecchi, W., Hedd, A., Robertson, G., and Wilhelm, S. (2013).
Canadian fishery closures provide a large-scale test of the impact of gillnet bycatchon seabird populations. Biology Letters, 9(20130088).
Rice, J., Moksness, E., Attwood, C., Brown, S.K., Dahle, G., Gjerde, K.M., Grefsrud,
E.S., Kenchington, R., Kleiven, A.R., and McConney, P. (2012). The role of MPAs
in reconciling fisheries management with conservation of biological diversity.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 69, 217-230.
Rife, A. N., Erisman, B., Sanchez, A., and Aburto-Oropeza, O. (2013). When goodintentions are not enough...Insights on networks of “paper park” marine protectedareas. Conservation Letters, 6(3), 200-212.
Rocha, R.M., and Faria, S.B. (2005). Ascidians at Currais Islands, Paraná, Brazil:
Taxonomy and distribution. Biota Neotropica, 5(2), 1-20.
Rosas, F.C.W., Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A., and de Oliveira, M.R. (2002). Incidental catchesof Franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) on the Southern coast of São Paulo State139

and the coast of Paraná State, Brazil. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals,
1(1), 161-167.
Ruiz-Frau, A., Edward-Jones, G., and Kaiser, M.J. (2011). Mapping stakeholders values forcoastal zone management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 434, 239-249.

Schafer, A.G., and Reis, E.G. (2008). Artisanal fishing areas and traditional ecologicalknowledge: The case study of the artisanal fisheries of the Patos Lagoon estuary
Brazil. Marine Policy, 32(3), 283-292.
Seixas, C.S., and Kalikoski, D.C. (2009). Gestão participativa da pesca no Brasil:
levantamento das iniciativas e documentação dos processos. Desenvolvimento e
Meio Ambiente, 20, 119-139.
Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., and Semmens, D.J. (2011). A GIS application forassessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services.
Applied Geography, 31(2), 748-760.
Shester, G.G., and Micheli, F. (2011). Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries:
Bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gillnets. Biological Conservation, 144(5),1673-1681.
Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review andframework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491-507.

Silva, C.N.S., Broadhurst, M.K., Medeiros, R.P., and Guanais, J.H.D.G. (2013).
Resolving environmental issues in the southern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl
fishery through adaptive co-management. Marine Policy, 42, 133–141.
Song, A.M., and Chuenpagdee, R. (2010). Operationalizing governability: A case studyof a Lake Malawi fishery. Fish and Fisheries, 11(3), 235-249.

140

Sousa, N.O., Santos, F.P., Salgado, M. A., Araújo, F.F. (2011). Dez anos de história:Avanços e desafios do Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza.
In Medeiros, R., Araújo, F.F.S. (Eds.) Dez anos de Sistema Nacional de Unidadesde Conservação da Natureza: lições do passado, realizações presentes eperspectivas para o futuro, (pp. 7-19), 1ªEd. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério do Meio
Ambiente.
Sprent, P. (2014). International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. (pp 524-525).
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011.
Stephanson, S.L., and Mascia, M.B. (2014). Putting people on the map through an approach that
integrates social data in conservation planning. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1236-1248.

Stevenson, T.C., Tissot, B.N., and Walsh, W.J. (2013). Socioeconomic consequences offishing displacement from marine protected areas in Hawaii. BiologicalConservation, 160, 50-58.
Sullivan, B.J., Reid, T.A., Bugoni, L. (2006). Seabird mortality on factory trawlers in the
Falklands Islands and beyond. Biological Conservation, 131(4), 495-504.
Teh, L.C.L., Teh, L.S.L., and Meitner, M.J. (2012). Preferred resource spaces and fisher
flexibity: Implications for spatial management of small-scale fisheries. Human
Ecology, 40(2), 213-226.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2015.2. (2015, August 24). Retrieved
from www.iucnredlist.org.
Thorpe, A., Bavinck, M., and Coulthard, S. (2011). Tracking the debate around marine
protected areas: key issues and the BEG framework. Environmental Management,
47(4), 546–63.

141

Traversi, G.S., and Vooren, C.M. (2010). Interactions between seabirds and the trawl
fishery in coastal waters of southern Brazil in summer. Revista Brasileira deOrnitologia, 18(3), 183-193.
Trimble, M., and Johnson, D. (2013). Artisanal fishing as an undesirable way of life? The
implications for governance of fishers’ wellbeing aspirations in coastal Uruguay
and Southeastern Brazil. Marine Policy, 37, 37-44.
Trimble, M., Araujo, L.C., and Seixas, C.S. (2014). One party does not tango! Fishers’
non-participation as a barrier to co-management in Paraty, Brazil. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 92, 9-18.
UNESCO World Heritage List. Atlantic Forest South-East Reserves (2015, July 23).
Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/893/.
UNIVALI/CTTMar (2013). Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina –Ano 2012, 13(1), 1-66. Itajaí, Brasil: Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro deCiências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar.
Upton, G. and Cook, I. (2014) A Dictionary of Statistics (3rd Edition). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Veiga, F.A., Angulo, R.J., Marone, E., and Brandini, F.P. (2004). Características
sedimentológicas da plataforma continental interna rasa na porção central do litoral
paranaense. Boletim Paranaense de Geociências, 55, 67-75.
Voyer, M., Gollan, N., Barclay, K., and Gladstone, W. (2015). ‘It’s part of me’;understanding the values, images and principles of coastal users and their influenceon the social acceptability of MPAs. Marine Policy, 52, 93-102.

142

Wood, L.J., Fish, L., Laughren, J., and Pauly, D. (2008). Assessing progress towards
global marine protection targets: shortfalls in information and action. Oryx, 42(3),340-351.
Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C, Halpern, B.S. and Jackson,
J.B.C. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science,
314(5800), 787-790.
Yates, K.L. (2014). View from the wheelhouse: Perceptions on marine management fromthe fishing community and suggestions for improvement. Marine Policy, 48, 39-50.
Yates, K.L., and Schoeman, D.S. (2014). Incorporating the spatial access priorities offishers into strategic conservation planning and marine protected area design:
reducing cost and increasing transparency. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 1-8.
doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu122
Zydelis, R., Small, C., and French, G. (2013). The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet
fisheries: A global review. Biological Conservation, 162, 76-88.

143

APPENDIX I Questionnaire Cover Letter

This cover letter was provided in Portuguese, but translated for inclusion in thethesis.

August 2014
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a graduate student from Memorial University of Newfoundland in St. John’s Canada
conducting a research that is part of a project named Too Big To Ignore(http://toobigtoignore.net/), which is a global partnership for small-scale fisheries
research.
I would like to invite you to participate in my research about the challenges andopportunities to the implementation of the Marine National Park of Currais Islands byanswering a few questions about the marine environment and fisheries that take place inthe region. The objective of this questionnaire is to obtain your opinion and those of otherfishers about the importance of this area to the fishing communities and the mainconcerns when it comes to the conservation of the marine environment.
There are no right or wrong answers to the questions, as they aim to reflect your personal
opinion and point of view. Your participation is completely voluntary and all the data isanonymous and strictly confidential, and will be used for the purposes of this research
only. I anticipate that we may take around 20-25 minutes to complete this questionnaire.
The proposal for this research has been approved by the Interdisciplinary Committee on
Ethics in Human Research at Memorial University. If you have ethical concerns about the144research (such as the way you have been treated or your rights as a participant), you may
contact the Chairperson of the ICEHR at icehr@mun.ca or by telephone at +1 709 864
2861.
If you have comments or questions, or wish to receive a copy of the final report, pleasecontact myself or my supervisor, Dr. Ratana Chuenpagdee at ratanac@mun.ca or bytelephone at __________.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mirella de Oliveira Leis
 +55 41 _______ / +55 41 _____
 mirella.deoliveiraleis@mun.ca

145

APPENDIX II Questionnaire Consent Form

This questionnaire was provided in Portuguese, but translated for inclusion in thethesis.

Title:

Implementation of Marine Protected Areas as a governability
challenge in Southern Brazil

Researcher(s):Mirella de Oliveira Leis
Department of Geography
Memorial University
mirella.deoliveiraleis@mun.ca

Supervisor(s):Ratana Chuenpagdee
Department of Geography
Memorial University
ratanac@mun.ca

You are invited to take part in a research project entitled “Implementation of Marine
Protected Areas as a governability challenge in Southern Brazil.”This form is part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea ofwhat the research is about and what your participation will involve. It also describes yourright to withdraw from the study. In order to decide whether you wish to participate inthis research study, you should understand enough about its risks and benefits to be able
to make an informed decision. This is the informed consent process. Take time to readthis carefully and to understand the information given to you.

146

Please contact theresearcher, Mirella de Oliveira Leis, if you have any questions about the study or for
more information not included here before you consent.
It is entirely up to you to decide whether to take part in this research. If you choose not totake part in this research or if you decide to withdraw from the research once it has
started, there will be no negative consequences for you, now or in the future.
Introduction
I am a graduate student from Memorial University of Newfoundland in St. John’s
Canada. As part of my Masters’ thesis, I am conducting research under the supervision of
Dr. Ratana Chuenpagdee. The research is part of a project named Too Big To Ignore,
which is a global partnership for small-scale fisheries research and intends to address thegovernability challenges to Marine Protected Area (MPA) implementation. MPAs havebeen internationally endorsed as a strategy to marine resource conservation and fisheries
management, but implementation of MPAs remains a challenge worldwide, resulting in
few conservation outcomes reported on the ground and generating social conflicts. This is
the case especially where biodiversity-rich areas targeted for conservation coexist withhigh reliance on natural resources use, as of the coastal zone of Paraná in Southern Brazil.
Purpose of study:
The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges and explore opportunities to theeffective implementation of MPAs in the context of Southern Brazil, by looking at theconflicts and compatibility between perceived resource use and nature conservation
efforts.
What you will do in this study:

147

You are invited to participate in this study by answering a few questions about the marine
environment and fisheries that take place in the region. The objective of this questionnaire
is to obtain your opinion and those of other fishers about the importance of this area to thefishing communities and the main concerns when it comes to the conservation of themarine environment.
Length of time:
The completion of the questionnaire is expected to take around 20 to 25 minutes.
Withdrawal from the study:
Participation is completely voluntary, and respondents are free to withdraw from thestudy, as well as any information they have given, at any point while data is being
collected.
As data is anonymous, individual questionnaires cannot be withdrawn after the datacollection session has ended.
To stop and/or end involvement in the data collection, the participant can communicate to
the researcher the willingness to stop and/or end the involvement in study.
Data collected up to the point of a participant’s withdrawal will be destroyed.
There are no consequences associated to the participants’ withdrawal from the study.
Possible benefits:
This research intends to provide practical potential benefits to the coastal communities ofParaná, such as contributing to share knowledge about the importance of and impacts tothe area. Ideally, these benefits would include providing coastal communities affected by
the designation of the MPA means to claim to government authorities the importance ofthe coastal area of Paraná state to both the maintenance of their livelihoods and148conservation of biodiversity. Also, provide government officials and managers betterguidance during the elaboration of the MPA management plan, by highlighting thepotential challenges and opportunities to the MPA implementation
Benefits to the scientific community involve contributing to the vast MPA literature byidentifying the challenges and opportunities to MPA implementation through a first
empirical application of the interactive governance analytical framework, which is broadin scope and adopts a systems perspective of analysis.
Possible risks:
There are no potential risks of being involved in the study.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is ensuring that identities of participants are accessible only to thoseauthorized to have access. Privacy of participants will be maintained and identity kept
confidential, and this will be achieved as it follows:First, no questionnaire survey information will be collected that may directly
reveal the identities of participants (e.g. name of the person or description ofphysical appearance);

The returned questionnaires will be coded using identification numbers;

Sorting and ordering data will be numerically transformed and recorded in a
spreadsheet for further analysis;

Information about the participants will be aggregated;

149



Overall, data released will not contain names, initials or other directly identifying
information, as it will be about the community as whole, not about individual
opinions.

Anonymity:
Anonymity refers to not disclosing participant’s identifying characteristics, such as nameor description of physical appearance. Every reasonable effort will be made will be madeto ensure the participant’s anonymity, and they will not be identified in any reports andpublications. Anonymous data will be achieved in this study through the protection ofconfidentiality of personal information and records.
Recording of Data:
There will be no audio, video or photographic record of data in this study, only written
records.
Storage of Data:
The actual completed questionnaire survey and data files will be assigned a numericalcode and will be kept in a locked data storage facility in the International Coastal
Network housed in the Bruneau Centre for at least five years, according to the Memorial
University policy on Integrity in Scholarly Research, before being destroyed.
Reporting of Results:
Data collected from this research project will be used to compose a Masters’ thesis. Also,
it will be tentatively published in journal articles and presented at conferences, and also
published in the format of a report to be delivered to the overall public.
Data will be reported only in aggregated form, so that it will not be possible to identify
individuals.
150Sharing of Results with Participants:
By the end of the data collection phase, the results will be presented in a workshop format
with open invitation and voluntary participation, in order to share the preliminary versionof results in an aggregated form. The final results of the research will be shared with thegeneral public, including participants of the study, through a report.
Questions:
You are welcome to ask questions at any time during your participation in this research.
If you would like more information about this study, please contact:
Researcher: Mirella de Oliveira Leis
Email: mirella.deoliveiraleis@mun.ca.

Phone number: +55 41 ________

Supervisor: Ratana Chuenpagdee
Email: ratanac@mun.ca

Phone number: +1 709 _______The proposal for this research has been reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Committee on
Ethics in Human Research and found to be in compliance with Memorial University’s
ethics policy. If you have ethical concerns about the research, such as the way you havebeen treated or your rights as a participant, you may contact the Chairperson of the
ICEHR at icehr@mun.ca or by telephone at 709-864-2861.
I have read and explained this consent form to the participant before receiving theparticipant’s consent, and the participant had knowledge of its contents and appeared tounderstand it.

_______________________________________________________

Signature of Principal Investigator

Date
151

APPENDIX III QuestionnaireThis questionnaire was provided in Portuguese, but translated for inclusion in thethesis.

Questionnaire number: ____
Location: ______________________
Date: ___ /___ /___
Time of the day: ___:___ □ a.m. □ p.m.
Resource user group: ________________
Duration: __________
1) Is fishing your main occupation?
a) □ Yes (continue the questionnaire)b) □ No, my main occupation is ______________( do not continue thequestionnaire)
Demographics
2) Where are you from?
a) □ From hereb) □ From _________ but I have been living here for ____ years
3) What is your age? ____years
4) What is your highest level of education?
a) □ Illiterateb) □ Elementary school (1st to 8th grade) incomplete152c) □ Elementary school (1st to 8th grade) completed) □ High school (9th to 11th grade) incompletee) □ High school (9th to 11th grade) completef) □ Superior education (university) incompleteg) □ Superior education (university) completeh) □ Master’s degreei) □ Doctoral degree5) What is your gender?
a) □ Maleb) □ Femalec) □ Other (please specify):_______________
Attachment to fisheries
6) How old were you when you started fishing as an occupation? _____ years.
7) With

whom

did

you

start

fishing/who

taught________________________.
8) Does your family fish too/ is involved in fisheries?
a) □ Yes (Kinship? _______________________)b) □ No
9) Do you have children?
a) □ Yes (How many?________)b) □ No
10) Would you want your children be fishers like you? Why?

153

you

how

to

fish?

a) □ Yes, because________________________________________________________________b) □No, because_______________________________________________________________c) □ Don’t know/ No opinion
11) Why do you work in the fishery?
a) □ Family in the fisheryb) □ Like fishingc) □ Make good moneyd) □ Lack of alternative choicese) □ Other:________________________________________________________
12) In case you could have the same income in another occupation, would you change theactivity?
a) □ Yesb) □ No
Dependency on fisheries13) What portion of your household income comes from the fishery?
a) □ Everythingb) □ More than halfc) □ Halfd) □ Less than halfe) □ Almost nothing15414) What are your sources of income? Check all that applies.
a) □ Fish all year roundb) □ Fish only during a certain season when the targeted species occur (Which
one___________________________________)c) □ Fish as a crew member in industrial fisheriesd) □ Hire people to work on your boate) □ Buyer or middlemanf) □ Fix fishing netsg) □ Processing (eg. filleting fish, peeling shrimp)h) □ Agriculturei) □ Take tourists to practice recreational fishingj) □ Take tourists for boat toursk) □ Work in other activities the city (formal employee)l) □ Work in other activities without a formal contractm) □ Receives a closed season insurancen) □ Receives a retirement pensiono) □ Other:________________________________________
15) Let’s suppose that you’ve caught 100kg of fish today. How much of this fish goes towhere?
____ % Your household consumption/give away to relatives and friends____ % Sold directly by you/your family members at local markets____ % Sold by you/your family members to any buyers/middlemen____ % Sold to specific people as agreed upon prior to harvesting155

____ % Others (please specify: _______________________________)
100 % TOTAL
Comments:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fishing activities
16) What is your main fishing gear?
a) □ Bottom trawlingb) □ Gillnetc) □ Spear fishingd) □ Other: __________________________________
17) Do you (Check all that applies):a) □ Own the boat but does not work on itb) □ Own and work on your boatc) □ Work as a crew member
Perceived changes in the fisheries resources18) Have you experienced changes in the catches?
a) □ Yes (please specify):________________________________________________________________b) □ Noc) □ Don’t know/No opinion
19) In your opinion, what is causing these changes?
a) Please describe:________________________________________________________________156b) □ Don’t know/No opinion
20) How is it affecting your daily fishing activities (practices and places where you gofishing)?
a) Please describe:________________________________________________________________b) □ Don’t know/No opinion21) Inyour

opinion,

what

is

the

futureoffisheries

inthe

region?

__________________________________________________________________
Relation to the MPA22) Have you ever heard about the National Marine Park of Currais Islands?
a) □ Yesb) □ No
23) How did you hear about it?
a) □ At a public meetingsb) □ From governorsc) □ From managersd) □ From NGO memberse) □ From researchers/students from the universityf) □ Through fishers organization/from other fishersg) □ From members of the community (family or friends)h) □ By visiting the areai) □ From tourism agenciesj) □ Through media (radio, television, internet)
157k) □ Other (please specify):_____________________
24) In your understanding, what is the National Marine Park of Currais Islands for?
Check all that applies.
a) □ Environmental conservationb) □ Increase catchesc) □ Reduce anthropic pressured) □ Exclude some resource userse) □ Empower local communitiesf) □ Promote tourismg) □ Conduct scientific researchh) □ Resolve conflicts between resource usersi) □ Achieve governmental goals on conservationj) □ Other (please specify):____________________________k) □ Don´t know/No opinion25) In your opinion, the National Marine Park of Currais Islands is:a) To the environment:□Very good

□ Good□ Neutral□ Bad□ Very bad□ Neutral□ Bad□ Very badb) To the community:□ Very good

□ GoodComments:____________________________________________________________
26) Do you think you may be affected (positively or negatively) by the National Marine
Park of Currais Islands? Why and in which way?

158a) □Yes,________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________b) □No,________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________c) □ Don´t know/No opinion27) In your opinion, which activities should be allowed in the National Marine Park ofCurrais Islands? Check all that applies.
a) □ Artisanal fisheriesb) □ Industrial fisheriesc) □ Recreational fisheriesd) □ Tourism activitiese) □ Researchf) □ Nothing should be allowedg) □ Other (please specify):_____________h) □Don’t know/No opinion

159

APPENDIX IV Map used for the exploratory mapping approach160

APPENDIX V Original quotes from small-scale fishers in Portuguese“[A área marinha protegida] não vai ajudar em nada. Nós não matamos os passarinhos,
eles são os primeiros a visitar o pescador que chega ali. Ali nunca ninguém destruiu nada.
Tá cuidado pelo pescador. Capaz que quando levarem o pescador de lá estraguem. Vaifazer sacanagem, botar fogo na ilha. Essa lei não vai proteger nada, ela [Ilhas dos Currais]
fica mais cuidada sem a lei do que com a lei.” (p. 47)“Eles criaram aquilo para proteger as gaivotas, os atobás. Mas quem sustenta elas é opescador, que joga o resto do arrasto pra eles." (p. 47)"Quem cuida da ilha somos nós, que estamos pescando sempre lá" (p.47)"Não entendo porque fazer isso aí [a AMP]. Passarinho tem bastante. Maior besteira [acriação do parque], ali não tem nada para preservar, conheço aquela ilha ali como oquarto da minha casa". (p. 48)"Tá ferindo a família do litoral. O que fere mais é saber que é por interesse político.
Ninguém faz lei se não tiver algo atrás dele. Quem vai resolver o que é bom é nós
mesmos. Quem tá em Curitiba não sabe disso. Nós sim." (p.48)“A nossa renda dessa semana veio de lá [Ilhas dos Currais]. O primeiro lugar que os
peixes de fora encostam é na ilha." (p. 49)“[A área marinha protegida] vai me ajudar, porque vai ser um abrigo para os peixes: elesse criam ali, crescem, vêm para as beiradas.” (p. 49)

161