DECENTRALIZATION AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON: RESOURCE RIGHTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

OVIEDO, ANTONIO F. P.; BURSZTYN, MARCEL

doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc0029r1v2042017

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Ambient. soc. 20 (04) • Oct-Dec 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc0029r1v2042017 copy

DECENTRALIZATION AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON: RESOURCE RIGHTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Decentralizing management is often mentioned as a good strategy to make fisheries sustainable. Prior to evaluating the consequences of the decentralization process, there is a need to consider the degree to which decentralizing the management and decision-making of fisheries is happening. This article presents case studies of inter-organizational management of fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon to examine how effective the decision-making power of local institutions and smallholders over fisheries resources is. We propose a method for mapping relevant patterns of decision-making rights, property rights, and accountability. We highlight the fact that while the government maintains significant control over fisheries resources through regulating extraction, local institutions have growing control over fisheries management decisions.

Key Words :
decentralization; fisheries management; property rights; participatory management; Brazilian Amazon

ANPPAS - Revista Ambiente e Sociedade Anppas / Revista Ambiente e Sociedade - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistaambienteesociedade@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] Note: Y indicates that the community has power over a theme; N indicates that it does not. Y/N indicates that the community has access over some mechanisms but not others, or that they are meant to have a certain access but do not have it in reality. Operational level rights are: 1-access, 2-withdrawal, 3-management, 4-exclusion, and 5-alienation. * Percentage of respondents that considered the category.


Vitória do Xingú	PAE Tapará	PAE Lago Grande Curuai	Silves	Pantaleão	Manoel Urbano	Feijó
Communities sampled
Vila Nova. Artisanal and urban fishers	Pixuna, Santa Maria e Costa do Tapará, Artisanal and commercial fishers	Piedade, Piraquara, Soledade, Terra Preta. Artisanal and commercial fishers	Santa Fé, Santa Luzia do Itapani, São João, São Sebastião do Sanabani, e Cristo Rei. Artisanal and urban fishers	São José, Várzea Alegre e Nova Olinda. Artisanal and commercial fishers	Santo Antonio, Lago Novo, Lago Grande, e Bela Vista. Artisanal and urban fishers	Porto Rubinho, Aldeia Formoso, Nova Olinda, Canada e Vila Extrema. Artisanal and urban fishers
Number of respondents (community members)
14	10	11	44	12	21	41
Communal or individual ownership/use
Smallholder use (public land)	Smallholder use (traditional communities in government-sponsored agroextractive settlement)	Smallholder use (traditional communities in government-sponsored agroextractive settlement)	Communal use (public land - floodplains)	Communal use; Protected Area set aside for traditional communities	Smallholder use (public land)	Smallholder use (public land), indigenous reserve
Management system and legal regulation
Open system with federal law (multi-species fishing rules)	Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE) with PAE Use Plan and fishing agreement (multi-species fishing rules and specific rules for arapaima management)	Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE) with PAE Use Plan and fishing agreement (multi-species fishing rules and specific rules for arapaima management)	Open system with municipal law and fishing agreements (multi-species fishing rules)	Protected area with management plan and fishing agreements (multi-species fishing rules and specific rules for arapaima management)	Open system with fishing agreements (multi-species fishing rules and specific rules for arapaima management)	Open system with fishing agreements (multi-species fishing rules and specific rules for arapaima management)
Government level introducing fisheries management
Federal government, Fisherman´s Union	Community association, federal government, Fisherman’s Union and NGO	Community association, federal government, Fisherman’s Union and NGO	Municipal government and NGOs	Community association, federal government, Fisherman’s Unions (Alvarães and Tefé) and NGO	state government, Fisherman’s Union, Pirarucu Fisherman´s Association and NGO	state government, Fisherman’s Union and NGO

	SOURCES OF DECENTRALIZATION
	PROPERTY RIGHTS	DECISION-MAKING				>ACCOUNTABILITY
	Subsistence fishery (92%)*	Commercial fishery (76%)*	Operational level rights	Management plan (56%)*	Participation (61%)*	Efficiency in management system (37%)*	Enforcement (78%)*	Benefits reach community (72%)*	Inter-organizational relations (48%)*	Accountability mechanisms (36%)*
Vitória do Xingú	Y	Y	1, 2	N	N	N	N	Y/N	N	N
PAE Tapará	Y	Y	1, 2, 3, 4	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
PAE Lago Grande Curuai	Y	Y	1, 2, 3, 4	Y	Y	Y/N	N	Y	Y	Y
Silves	Y	N	1, 2, 3	Y	Y	Y/N	Y/N	Y	Y/N	Y/N
Pantaleão	Y	Y	1, 2, 3, 4	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Manoel Urbano	Y	Y	1, 2, 3	N	Y/N	Y/N	N	Y/N	Y/N	N
Feijó	Y	Y	1, 2, 3	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y/N	Y/N