SPA ILMAZ BR SAMUDRA Monograph Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil Antonio Carlos Diegues International Collective in Support of Fishworkers www. icsf. net About the Author Antonio Carlos Diegu currently at NU PAU contacted at adiegue SAMUDRA Monogra 1 W. p next page usp. an anthropologist, Brazil. He can be International Collective in Support of Fishworkers vMw. icsf. et SAMUDRA Monograph Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil Written by May 2008 Edited by Anil Menon Layout by P Sivasakthivel Cover Mapping of the limits of the Corumbau Marine Extractive Reserve, Brazil Photo by Nupaub and Tiago Almudi Printed at Nagaraj and Preface . Introduction Section l: Section II: Brazilian egislation on Marine Protected Areas . . The Development of Marine Extractive Reserves in Brazil — v vii 13 17 33 34 39 45 51 52 13 . Lessons from Existing Marine Extractive Section III’ Reserves…….
Southern paulo . Bahia Figure- Brazil peixe Lagoon National park, Mandira MER, São corumbau MER, Endnotes References Total landings: Catches (in percentage) by the artisanal and the industrial flshing sectors . List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Coastal/ marine no-take protected areas with populations living nside………… — — Distribution of coastal artisanal fishermen by main regons in 2003 . List of approved MERs, area, number of families who benefit and year of creation . OF area, number of families who benefit and year of studles……. . Mandira Extractive Reserve Limits of Corumbau creation List of Maps Map 1: Map 2: Map 3: Map 4: Map 5: Map 6: Map 7: Location of various non-lndian traditional people in Brazil and their location MERs . . Different categories of MPAs . Location of Location of the three MPAs chosen for case . Boundaries of the Peixe National park MER 7 1023 58 22 33 39 43 48 SAMIJDRA Monograph Acronyms and Abbreviations CBD CI CNPT COP7 .
The limits of the estuarine ft FURG ha GOMBR GOMNP IBAMA IBDF ICSF ICMBi0 ILO IUCN MER MIMP MMA mn MPA MRSD NGO NOAA NIJPAUB PA PA pow Convention on Biological Diversity Conservation International Centro Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentado das Populacoes Tradicionais (National Council for Traditional Populations) Seventh Meeting of the Conference of Parties (of the CBD) feet Federal University of Rio Grande hectares Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Gulf of Mannar N stituto Brasileiro do Meio 3 OF International Collective in Support of Fishworkers Instituto Chico
Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (Chico Mendes Institute for Conservation of Biodiversity) International Labour Organization International Union for Conservation of Nature marine extractive reserve Mafia Island Marine Park Ministério do Meio Ambiente, dos Recursos Hidricos e Amazônia Legal (Ministry of Environment, tWater Resources and the Legal Amazon) million marine protected area marine reserve for sustainable development non-governmental organization National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (of the US) Núcleo de Apoio á Pesquisa sobre Populações, Humanas e Áreas Umidas (Centre or Research on Human Populatiuon and Wetlands in Brazil) protected area Protected Areas Programme ofWork (of the CBD) MPAS IN BRAZIL SAM U DRA Monograph pow PA RSD SEMA SNUC TNC UNEP US WSSD WWF Programme of Work on Protected Areas (of the CBD) reserve for sustainable development Secretaria Especial do Meio Ambiente (National Secretariat for the Environment) Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação (National System of Conservation Units) The Nature Conservancy United Nations Environmental Programme United States World Summit on Sustainable Development( World Wide Fund for Nature MPAs IN BRAZIL umival of small-scale and traditional fishing and coastal communities. An MPA is considered to be any coastal or marine area in which certain uses are regulated to conserve natural resources, biodiversity, and historical and cultural features. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines an MPA as “any defined area within or adjacent to the marine environment, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation or other effective means, including custom, with the effect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversity enjoys a higher evel of protection than its surroundings”.
As an area-based management tool, MPAs are considered useful in implementing both the ‘ecosystem approach’ and the ‘precautionary approach’, since their design involves managing pressures from human uses by adopting a degree of protection, which can range from strict protection, where all use activities are barred, to less stringent measures Iike sanctioning areas where multiple uses are allowed and regulated. In 2004, the Seventh Meeting ofthe Conference of Parties (COP7) to the CBD agreed that marine and coastal protected areas, implemented as part of a wider marine nd coastal management framework, are one ofthe essential tools for the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity.
The meeting noted that marine and coastal protected areas have been proven to contribute to (a) protecting biodiversity; (b) sustanable use of components of biodiversity; and (c) managing conflict, enhancing economic well-being and improving the quality of life. Following on this, Parties to the CBD subsequently agreed to b s OF and improvng the quality of life. Following on this, Parties to the CBD subsequently agreed to bring at least 1 0 per cent ofthe orld’s marine and coastal ecological regions under protection by 2012. In 2006, only an estimated 0. 6 per cent of the world’s oceans were under protection. Protected areas (PAs) need to be seen not just as sites copious in biodiversity but also as regions historically rich in social and cultural interactions, which often have great importance for local livelihoods.
In practice, however, MPAS have increasingly become tools that limit, forbid and control use- patterns and human activity through a structure of rights and rules. While numerous studies have examined the ecological and biological impacts of MPAs, few have focused on their ocial implications for communities and other stakeholders in the area who depend on fisheries resources for a livelihood. A particular MPA may be both a “biological success” and a “social failure”, devoid of broad participation in management, sharing of economic benefits, and conflict-resolution mechanisms. Clearly, for MPAs to be effectively managed, it is essential to consider the social components needed for the long-term benefits of coastal communities.
It is in this context that the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) commissioned studies in six countries to understand the social dimensions of mplementing MPAs, with the followng specific objectives: • • to provide an overview of the legal framework for, and design and implementation of, MPAs• to document and analyze the experiences and views of ities, particularlv fishine 6 OF analyze the experiences and views of local communities, particularly fishing communities, with respect to various aspects of MPA design and implementation; and to suggest ways in which livelihood concerns can be integrated into the MPA Programme of Work, identifying, in particular, how local communities, particularly fishing communities, could engage as equal partners in the MPA rocessa The studies were undertaken in Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, Tanzania and hailand. Besides the Mexico study, the rest were based on primary data collected from selected MPA locations within each country, as listed in the table opposite.
The studies were undertaken in the context of Programme Element 2 on governance, participation, equity and benefit sharing in CBD’s Programme ofWork on Protected Areas (POW PA also referred to as PA poW), which emphasizes the full and effective participation of local and indigenous communities in protected area management. Taken together, the studies provide important nsights into the MPA implementation process from a fishing- community perspective, particularly on issues of participation. It is clear from the studies that the most positive examples of livelihood-sensitive conservation come from Brazil, where communities are in the forefront of demanding, and setting up, sustainable-use marine extractive reserves (MERs). Communities there are using PAS to safeguard their livelihoods, against, for example, shrimp farms and tourism projects.
The Brazil study also highlights the many challenges faced in the process, which are related, among other things, to the IN BRAZIL eed for capacity building of government functionaries and communities; funding; strong community/fishworker organizations; an interdisciplinary approach; and integration of scientific and traditional knowledge_ Country Brazil • • • • Case Study Locations Peixe Lagoon National Park, Rio Grande do Sul Marine Extractive Reserve (MER) Mandira, São Paulo Marine Extractive Reserve (MER) Corumbau, Bahia Gulf of Mannar National park (GOMNP) and Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GOMBR), Tamil Nadu ndia • Malvan (Marine) Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra South Africa Five MPAs in three of the countrys four coastal provinces, amely: • • • • • • • Langebaan Lagoon MPA Maputaland MPA St Lucia MPA Tsitsikamma MPA Mkambati MPA Mafia Island Marine Park (MIMP) Had Chao Mai Marine National Park, Trang Province, Andaman Coast • Ra Island, Prathong Island, Prathong Sub-district, Kuraburi District, Phang Nga Provnce, Andaman Coast Tanzania Thailand On the other hand, the studies from India, Mexico, South Africa Tanzania and Thailand indicate that communities do not consider themselves equal partners in the MPA processa While, in all cases, there have been recent efforts to enhance community participation, in general, participation tends to be instrumental- ommunities are expected to participate in implementation, but are not part of the process of desi ning and implementing management initiatives. T 8 1 document clear costs of human/community rights.
The affected communities regard alternative livelihood options as providing limited, if any, support, and, in several cases, as in South Africa, Tanzania and Thailand, they do not perceive substantial benefits from tourism initiatives associated with the PAs. There tends to be a resistance to MPAs among local communities, a mistrust of government and non- governmental organizations (NGOs) that lead such processes, and iolations of rules and regulations, undermining the effectiveness of the MPA itself. The studies in this series of SAMUDRA Monographs stress that there is a strong case for putting in place, or strengthening, a legal framework for supporting community rights to manage resources, building the capacity of both governments and communities, strengthening local organizations, and enhancing institutional co- ordination.
They also highlight the need for more, independent studies on MPA processes from the community perspective, given that the few existing studies on social dimensions of MPA Implementation have mainly been undertaken by MPA roponents themselves. Where clear examples of violations of community rights, and unjust costs on communities are identified, easily accessible redressal mechanisms need to be put in place, nationally and internationally. Empowerng indigenous and local fishing communities to progressively share the responsibility of managing coastal and fisheries resources, in keeping with the CBD’s PA POW, would undoubtedly meet the goals of both conservation and povefiy reduction.
This is the challenge before us- The future of both effective conservation and millions oflivelihoods is at st challenge before us. The future of both effective conservation and illions of livelihoods is at stake. Chandrika Sharma Executive Secretary, ICSF Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries In Brazil NTRODUCTION he establishment of marine and coastal protected areas in Brazil, particularly national parks, has led to many conflicts between artisanal fishers and those governing the protected areas. Most of these conflicts have been born of restrictions imposed on fishing activities in areas that were traditionally used by artisanal fishers.
In many cases, they are also a fallout of having created protected areas without consulting the fishing communities in the area or ncouraging their participation. A typical example of this top- down approach can be seen in the Peixe Lagoon National Park on the southern coast of Brazil, which has been described in a case study that follows. In 2000, when the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC) legislation came into force in Brazil, it included new categories of protected areas such as marine extractive reserves (MERs) and reserves for sustainable development (RSDs), where a sustainable use of resources Will help conserve biodiversity and improve the living standards of those recent vears, more and 0 DF 81