lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Local ecological knowledge and the managementof marine protected areas in Brazil

Leopoldo C. Gerhardinger a,*, Eduardo A.S. Godoy b, Peter J.S. Jones c

a Associaçao de Estudos Costeiros e Marinhos – ECOMAR NGO, Rua Dr. Jose Andre da Cruz, 539, 45900-000 Caravelas (BA), Brazilb Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservaçao da Biodiversidade, Diretoria de Unidade de Conservaçao de Proteçao Integral, Coordenaçao do Bioma Marinho e Costeiro,SCEN – Trecho 2, Ed Sede do IBAMA, CEP.: 70.818-900, Brazilc Department of Geography, University College London (UCL), Pearson Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 30 December 2008

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ55 47 84015945E-mail address: leocavaleri@gmail.com (L.C. GerhaURL: http://www.ecomarbrasil.org

1 As part of a programme of work addressing the cknowledge, governments have undertaken: to establisplanning and; to respect, preserve and maintain traapplication with the approval and involvement of theutilization of such traditional knowledge.’’

2 The IUCN World Parks Congress (Durban, 2003), cand traditional communities through participatory pr

0964-5691/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.12.007

a b s t r a c t

This manuscript discusses the role of fishers’ Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) in the management ofMarine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Brazil. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken at nine MPAs toinvestigate MPA managers’ (n¼ 9) and higher governmental level authorities’ (n¼ 5) perceptions onthese. Varying levels of MPA governance approaches were assessed, from government-led centralizedtop-down (e.g. marine biological reserves) to community-based bottom-up MPA categories (e.g. marineextractive reserves). The use of fishers’ LEK was found to be an essential means of achieving a broaderand more diverse knowledge basis for MPA management, though most of the management current inplace is still science-driven in Brazil. The full engagement of local knowledge can also be regarded asa means of empowering local communities and promoting responsibility, but only if a more inclusivepraxis of participation is put to work. Different meanings for ‘Local Knowledge Use’ in MPA managementwere outlined and described for different management approaches (top-down vs. bottom-up). It wasnoted that each of these meanings brings different outcomes in terms of stakeholder participation andempowerment. It is also suggested that MPA co-management schemes might benefit from the adoptionof a ‘knowledge-building’ instead of ‘knowledge-using’ approach during a ‘problem-solving’ instead of‘decision-making’ management process. Finally, it is concluded that it will be an enormous challenge toput LEK to work in the benefit of MPAs in the country amidst so many priority actions brought by theproblems affecting the Brazilian National System of MPAs. Government must open up the agenda todeliberatively discuss the roles of local knowledge in MPA management, whilst local communitiesorganise themselves and increase the demand for participation with responsibility.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This paper discusses the roles of fishers’ Local EcologicalKnowledge (LEK) within the management of Marine ProtectedAreas (MPAs) in Brazil. The study of fishers’ LEK is increasinglygaining recognition in ichthyology studies [1,2], fisheries research

.rdinger).

ommitments embodied in Articleh mechanisms to ensure the effectiditional knowledge relevant to thindigenous and local communities

alled the international communityocesses in the design, planning an

All rights reserved.

[3,4], fisheries management [5,6], marine conservation [7–9] and inthe design and management of MPAs [10–12]. Internationalconventions and conferences such as the Convention on BiologicalDiversity1 (CDB) and the fifth IUCN World Parks Congress2 (Durban2003) also acknowledge the importance of engaging local knowl-edge and their holders in the management of MPAs.

8(j) (in situ conservation) and other provisions of the CBD dealing with traditionalve participation of indigenous and local communities in decision-making and policye conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; to promote its widerconcerned and; to encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the

as a whole, in Reccomendation 5.22(1:k), to: ‘‘engage stakeholders including locald management and, sharing of benefits of MPAs’’.

Fig. 1. Categories of MPAs assessed and their varying degrees of restriction. Consul-tative Management Councils (CMC) only inform government authorities in theirdecisions; while Deliberative Management Councils (DMC’s) have a majority ofcommunity members, government has only one vote and the role of facilitatingdiscussions.

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165 155

The use and incorporation of fishers’ LEK are well recognized asan important component of collaborative or community-basedmanagement schemes [13]. The use of LEK has the potential toincrease stakeholder participation, heighten awareness of benefitsfrom effective management regimes and increase stakeholder buy-in, thus enhancing the long-term sustainability of MPAs [14,15]. Byengaging fishers’ LEK in the management of marine resources, theexpected outcomes are often linked to increased participation,compromise, responsibility and empowerment of stakeholders inthe management process [16–19]. Incorporating LEK, customs andbeliefs are also considered an important means of increasing theeffectiveness of MPA communication, environmental educationand monitoring programs [20].

LEK is often considered a unique source of information inremote areas, far from research centres, where local ecological andsocial systems are poorly understood [21,11]. LEK is thus especiallyimportant in tropical inshore coasts, such as a large part of theBrazilian coastline, where detailed scientific knowledge on localhuman use and ecological processes of the seascape are often notreadily available [21,13,22,23,11]. The lack of scientific informationin such places may be in part due to the logistical and financiallimitations of marine research, and the historical lag of marinesciences behind other well studied terrestrial environments [24].

Although it is arguably clear that LEK has a role within marineconservation initiatives [7,8,18], the ways through which it isintegrated, represented and validated within MPAs managementand design still need further exploration, as only a few noteworthycase studies and theoretical analyses have been published to dateon this specific topic [25,11].

Based on interviews with Brazilian MPA and fisheries authori-ties from many different levels, this paper provides an in depthanalysis of the past and prospective uses of LEK for MPA manage-ment. This paper: i) outlines the categories of LEK that are useful forMPA management; ii) shows how LEK has been employed in themanagement of MPAs at varying levels of restriction and govern-ment control and; iii) discusses the issue of knowledge and vestedinterests. Finally, this paper presents a conceptual model ofknowledge use and transfer in MPA management, based on theexperience of MPA managers in Brazil.

1.1. LEK and ethnoecology

We opted for the term LEK (instead of traditional, indigenous ornative ecological knowledge) because it is the broadest definitiondescribing the knowledge of all local marine resource users. LEK ispresumed here to constitute a ‘body’ or a ‘system’ of sharedunderstandings and know-how with regard to environmentalfactors, behavioural attributes and ecological dynamics [26].

In Brazil, the field of ethnoecology and its subdisciplines (e.g.ethnoichthyology) is now well established. Hundreds of fish-ermen’s communities scattered along the coast offer enormousopportunities for mutual learning amongst fishermen, resourceusers, academics and regulators. It is estimated that marine fish-eries employs 800,000 people in the country [27].

Ethnoecology is practically defined by Marques [28] as the‘‘scientific study of traditional ecological knowledge’’. In order to berecognized as ‘ethnoecology’, research requires a certain combi-nation or cross-comparison of knowledge systems against eachother to find similarities, divergences and complementarities.Ethnoichthyology specifically deals with the scientific study of LEKon fish populations and can be regarded as a branch of ethno-ecology [29,30].

In this paper, for practical purposes ‘western’ or ‘scientific’knowledge refers to knowledge systems that are rooted in themainstream western academia [31]. There is a risk of over-

simplification when conceptualizing the essential concepts oftraditional and western scientific knowledge and developinga dichotomy between the two knowledge systems. There are vastlymore than two knowledge cultures in both categories [32]. It is notthe intention of this manuscript to deeply discuss both knowledgeparadigms, a subject well summarised by Mazzocchi [31]. It is,however, important to recognize that they are different knowledgesystems and are sometimes difficult to compare, but the challengeof integration is a necessary one if we hope to reach dialogue andbuild a shared understanding to address marine conservationchallenges.

1.2. Varying approaches to marine conservation in Brazil

Amongst the 12 possible categories of protected areas in Brazil,five are more commonly allocated to marine environments: Bio-logical Reserves, Ecological Stations, National Parks, EnvironmentalProtection Areas and Extractive Reserves.

We present here these MPA categories in three broad conceptualmanagement approaches (Fig. 1), two of which (bottom-up andtop-down) are well described by Jones [33]. Top-down initiativesare those typically led and dominated by governments, with deci-sions and priorities defined by government authorities at variouslevels (local, national, international). Authorities use power overdecisions to guarantee the accomplishment of strategic statutoryobligations. Top-down initiatives are largely reliant on statutoryenforcement. Biological Marine Reserves, Ecological Stations andNational Parks are here categorized as top-down, as they forbid allextractive uses, even research being regulated/restricted, and havemanagement councils in place only to guide decisions taken byrelevant authorities.

On the bottom opposite half of Fig. 1 lays Marine ExtractiveReserves (RESEX), which are truly community-based MPAs, withmanagement decisions being taken at a local level. In RESEX sites,government grants territorial user rights for fisheries to artisanal

Box 2. Categories of local ecological knowledge useful forMarine Protected Area (MPA) management according toBrazilian MPA officer citations. Number of citations is givenin the parenthesis.

Knowledge on species/resource distribution within theMPA (4)Seasonal variation of resource availability (4)Methods and resource exploitation dynamics (3)Sustainable exploitation rates (2)Navigation (2)Migration (2)Tides (2)Birds (2)Wind (2)Cycles of nature (2)History of the site (e.g. history of human use and occu-pation) (1)Temporal variation on resource size being exploited (1)Traditional nomenclature of particular sites (1)Impacts of harvesting over resources (1)

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165156

fishermen communities. RESEX management councils compriserepresentatives from local communities and disseminate powerlocally to approve or reject every management norm. Bottom-upinitiatives typically devolve power to local stakeholders. Localgovernance becomes important, which empowers local commu-nities to pro-actively drive management in ‘collaboration’ withrelevant authorities. In bottom-up initiatives, the relevant author-ity’s role shifts from ‘controller’ to ‘facilitator’ and stakeholders areable to influence and share control over the decisions affectingthem [34]. The RESEX protected area category emerged after anintense social movement in the Amazon in mid-1980s, in order toreconcile the extractive use of the forest (rubber-tappers) withnature conservation [35].

For the purpose of this analysis we propose a third categorylying somewhere between the two opposite ends of MPAmanagement scale: a ‘mixed approach’. Environmental ProtectionAreas (EPA) are considered as such as they have managementcouncil with limited powers and the ultimate decision is made bylocal government authorities in collaboration with local users.Zoning into extractive and no-take areas is provided for in EPAs butthese powers are arguably devolved and more flexible.

2. Methods

Site visits were made to nine Brazilian MPAs (Fig. 2) located infour states (Santa Catarina, Sao Paulo, Bahia and Pernambuco),where each local government authority (hereafter MPA officer ormanager) was interviewed using a semi-structured approach tobalance consistency and flexibility (Table 1). Additionally, semi-structured interviews were held in Brasilia, the nations’ capital city,with authorities from five government bodies belonging to theMinistry of Environment and ‘Chico Mendes Institute for theConservation of Biodiversity’ (ICMBio). The Ministry of Environ-ment is the Brazilian national governments’ institution responsiblefor the design of all national environmental policies, including thebroad-scale plan of a National System of Protected Areas (NSPAs).ICMBio is the Brazilian federal government’s executive environ-mental agency. This institution has statutory responsibility fordelivering national biodiversity conservation policies, including theimplementation of the NSPAs (terrestrial and marine).

Interviews were carried out in May/June 2007. Each interviewcovered issues related to LEK use in the management of MPAs(Box 1).

Box 1. Semi-structured interview topics.

What is Local Ecological Knowledge from the institu-tional and individual perspectiveCategories of local ecological knowledge useful formarine protected area managementHow LEK has been affecting the planning and manage-ment of the site (provide actual examples)Willingness and prospects for enhancing the use of LEKChallenges that have to be overcome in order to providepractical mechanisms to engage local knowledge inmarine protected area managementDiscuss issue of vested interests in science and localknowledge and how to avoid them

Size of resources being exploited (1)Shellfish spawning period (1)Species composition (1)Species interaction (1)Bottom mapping (1)Species biology (1)Reproduction (1)Moon cycle (1)Currents (1)Climate (1)Rain (1)

The interviews were recorded and a report of the main issues dis-cussed was sent to each interviewee for their comments andcorrections. The intention was purposely to get a perspective fromwithin government on LEK and the management of MPAs.

Interviewees were questioned about their personal rather thaninstitutional viewpoint. Therefore, it is important to note that theviewpoints herein presented do not represent an official govern-ment opinion.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. What categories of LEK are useful for MPAs management inmanagers’ perceptions?

MPA managers were asked their opinion on the categories ofLEK most useful to inform decisions regarding the management oftheir sites. In broad terms, the knowledge of resource usersregarding spatial distributions and seasonal variations of resourcesand human uses of the seascape within the MPA were the mostvalued type of knowledge. This can be summarised as ‘where’resources and their users are located in space and time. Other typesof knowledge categories were mentioned as valuable, includingknowledge on tidal cycles, species migrations, sustainable resourceexploitation rates, site history, birds, navigation, wind behaviourand cycles of nature (Box 2).

The utility of LEK systems for MPAs was also acknowledged on thebasis of their: value to define new MPA sites, utility for patrollingactivities (i.e. knowing where and when to focus effort), andusefulness as baseline data on less researched/assessable areas ofthe site.

Additionally to these categories, we may add those suggested byDiegues [36] such as information on fish spawning aggregationsites, fishing grounds, landing sites, documentation of marinerelated human activities, species population size, habitat specificity,

Fig. 2. Four states were visited and interviews made with MPA officers at each location. From the bottom upwards, black dots represent the states of Santa Catarina, Sao Paulo, Bahiaand Pernambuco.

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165 157

dietary preferences, spawning and mating behaviours, ontogeneticshifts in populations, fish behaviour, location and distribution, folkhabitat classification and folk-taxonomy.

Stakeholder involvement in establishing MPAs in Colombia hasplayed an important role in moving the designation processforward. Through the work of Friedlander et al. [25], fishermenhave identified several important areas that should receive morerestrictive protection (e.g. shallow mangrove and other nurseryareas). They also documented LEK information on the status offisheries, gears locally used, locations of fishing activity, trends inlandings and resource allocation conflicts. Friedlander et al. [24]also concluded that both science and community knowledge areimperative for MPAs if ecological and cultural sustainability are tobe achieved. Helvey [37] highlighted that including fishermenperceptions on larvae source locations are crucial for MPA ecolog-ical success, and the participation process may well generateincreased compliance.

Table 1Features of the 9 MPAs assessed in Brazil.

Marine protected area Designation date/size/category/location

Environmen

Pirajubae Marine Extractive Reserve 1990 (1444 ha) Sustainable use SouthBrazil

Mangroves,

Mandira Marine Extractive Reserve 2002 (1181 ha) Sustainable useSouthern Brazil

Mangrove,

Arvoredo Biological Marine Reserve 1989 (17,600 ha) Non-use South Brazil Rainforest cshorelines

Abrolhos Marine National Park 1983 (91,235 ha) Non-use NorthernBrazil

Coral reefs,

Tupiniquins Ecological Station 1986 (43 ha) Non-use Southern Brazil Rocky shore

Costa dos Corais EnvironmentalProtection Area

1997 (413,563 ha) Sustainable useNorthern Brazil

Coral reefs,

Cananeia-Iguape-PeruıbeEnvironmental Protection Area

1984 (234,000 ha) Sustainable useSouthern Brazil

Rainforest,mangroves

Baleia Franca EnvironmentalProtection Area

2000 (156,100 ha) Sustainable useSouth Brazil

Coastal andmangroves,

Anhatomirim EnvironmentalProtection Area

1992 (3000 ha) Sustainable use SouthBrazil

Mangroves,

As seen above, the literature abounds with examples of the useof many categories of LEK in MPA management or design and howLEK has contributed to MPA management or design effectiveness.There is therefore a vast scope for interdisciplinary exchangeamongst fishermen and scientists. It is important to note howeverthat these LEK categories exist only in the scope of western science.LEK is usually holistic in nature and the best research should makethis fact an important issue when documenting and speciallycommunicating knowledge back to the community. Most knowl-edge categories presented above are closely related to ecologicalattributes of a particular site. On the other hand, relevant knowl-edge includes other categories such as spiritual beliefs and otherculturally embedded knowledge systems equally, if not moreimportant for the success of MPA management. One should alsoconsider that the categories listed here might differ substantially iffishermen themselves were asked to provide their own view onwhat type of knowledge they would classify as useful.

t Main objectives and noteworthycharacteristics

Managementapproach

mud plains, coastal marine Sustainable fisheries, maintainlocal culture, shellfish, culturalmaintenance

Bottom-Up

estuarine Sustainable shellfish (e.g. oyster)exploitation, sustainable fisheries,cultural maintenance

Bottom-Up

over, marine offshore, rocky Biodiversity conservation, highmarine biodiversity, economicallyimportant reef finfish species

Top-Down

islands, offshore marine Coral reef conservation, whaleconservation and sustainabletourism

Top-Down

line, island, coastal marine Marine biodiversity conservation,research

Top-Down

coastal inshore Sustainable tourism and fisheries,coral reef conservation

Mixed Approach

coastal inshore, estuarine, Sustainable fisheries Mixed approach

offshore marine, rainforest,coastal lagoons

Sustainable tourism and fisheries,whale conservation

Mixed Approach

rainforest, rocky shorelines Sustainable fisheries and tourism,dolphin conservation

Mixed Approach

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165158

3.2. LEK within different management approaches

LEK input in decision-making of the top-down MPAs visited wasregarded as almost non-existent (Arvoredo MBR) or poor (Tupini-quins ES and Abrolhos MNP) (Table 2). LEK input was in this caseassociated with stakeholder contributions at the managementcouncil level (Arvoredo MBR and Abrolhos MNP) or through reportsand studies developed by scientists (all three study cases). It isworth remembering here that the purpose of the managementcouncil in top-down sites is simply to ‘inform’ the decisions ulti-mately taken by the officer in charge of the MPA. It was obviousduring interviews and explicitly put by MPA managers thatconventional scientific knowledge is the main source of informa-tion supporting the management of these sites.

The bottom-up character of RESEXs is assured by the existenceof Deliberative Management Councils, whereby decisions regardingthe site’s management are largely taken by council representatives.LEK is poorly used at Pirajubae RESEX but, by contrast, very muchused in the decision-making process of Mandira RESEX. In theformer case, although a few examples of LEK contribution in deci-sion-making were provided by the MPA officer (largely discussionsregarding shellfish exploitation norms), the absence of a workingDeliberative Management Council poses an enormous barrier forLEK input. In fact, the site has a history of conflicts and despitebeing one of the first Marine Extractive Reserves in the country, itwas never properly implemented according to the sites’ officer.Furthermore, the type of ongoing resource management is ‘too

Table 2Summary of knowledge use in the 9 MPAs assessed in Brazil.

Marine protected area Management council attributes Summroles

Pirajubae Marine Extractive Reserve Do not have a management council inplace nor a management plan

Substknow

Mandira Marine Extractive Reserve Management council deliberates overdecisions. Has management plan

Localmakindurinstudieecologthrou

Arvoredo Biological Marine Reserve Management council only informsdecisions. Has a management plan

Scientinputmana

Abrolhos Marine National Park Management council only informsdecisions. Has management plan

Scientinput,throu

Tupiniquins Ecological Station Do not have a management council inplace. Do not have a management plan

Scientinput,

Costa dos Corais EnvironmentalProtection Area

Do not have a working managementcouncil in place. Has no management plan

Scientknowalmos

Cananeia-Iguape-PeruıbeEnvironmental Protection Area

Management council only informsdecisions. Do not have a management plan

Localthroudeeplbecauresearthe ro

Baleia Franca EnvironmentalProtection Area

Management council only informsdecisions. Do not have management plan

Scientand uresearacknodecisiactivecounc

Anhatomirim EnvironmentalProtection Area

Do not have a management council inplace. Do not have management plan

ScientunpubMana

academic’ according to the interviewee’s own words, mainlythrough shellfish ecology research.

By contrast, at Mandira RESEX the Deliberative ManagementCouncil offers an outstanding stance for LEK input into discussionsof norms regarding sustainable exploitation and conservation ofoysters, fish and other local resources. The support of socialscientists was also considered important according to the inter-viewee. Mandira RESEX is in fact one of the most well studiedRESEXs in Brazil [38].

Centralized government fisheries’ management interventionshave proven to be inadequate [39–41] to face the current crisis inworld fisheries. This has fuelled the expansion of bottom-upapproaches as an alternative to top-down policies [42]. In SouthAmerica, the experience of Chile in granting territorial user rightsfor fisheries to artisanal fisher organizations stands out as a well-documented successful conservation strategy [43,44]. The 20Brazilian marine RESEX designated so far somehow parallel theChilean management approach. However, the extent to which theyhave being delivering conservation benefits within the Braziliantropical and culturally diverse scenario is not known. To date, fewcontrolled experiments have being done to evaluate their conser-vation outcomes. At Corumbau RESEX, for instance, despite somepositive biological effects have been scientifically measured, notmuch was felt in terms of improved livelihoods [45]. We suggestthat local ecological knowledge could play an important role inevaluating biological success of such MPAs. Engaging elderly andwell-experienced fishers and their knowledge in evaluating MPA

ary of perceived local and scientific knowledgein site management

Predominant observedpathways

antial scientific research being done. Localledge poorly used to guide management decisions

Pathway 4 predominant, whilepathway 2 might occur atinformal meetings. Pathway 1apparently not present due tostrong process of acculturation

knowledge predominantly used to base decision-g. Local people’s knowledge contributes directly

g management councils meetings. Scientifics on local knowledge also common. Scientificical knowledge has also a role to inform decision

gh a few studies available

Pathways 2 and 3 predominant,but path 4 may also occur.Pathway 1 likely common

ific knowledge main decision-making driver. LEKalmost unnoticeable, occasionally throughgement council debates or scientific reports

Pathway 4 predominant.Pathways 2 and 3 rarely

ific knowledge main driver. Poor local knowledgeeventually contributing at council meetings or

gh a few scientific studies

Pathway 4 predominant, whilepathways 2 and 3 mighteventually occur

ific knowledge main driver. Poor local knowledgeonly through a few scientific studies

Pathway 4 predominant, withfew cases of pathway 3

ific knowledge reasonably available. Localledge poorly available. Management at the site ist inexistent

Pathway 4 might be possible ifmanagement is put forward

and scientific knowledge studies are both availablegh published research and grey reports. Managery acknowledges the role of local knowledgese he is a local himself. The contribution of socialch groups has increased the acknowledgment ofle of local knowledge in management

Pathways 3 and 4 occur.Pathway 2 may occur toa greater extent if local peopleincrease their participation incouncil meetings

ific knowledge present through several publishednpublished research. The contribution of socialch groups has significantly increased thewledgment and input of local knowledge inon-making. Local knowledge also present throughparticipation of local people in the management

il meetings

Signs of pathways 1, 2, 3, 4, 5and 6 have been observed

ific knowledge available through published andlished research. Poor local knowledge input.

gement at the site is almost inexistent

Pathway 4 predominant, butmay contribute further ifmanagement is put forward

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165 159

success could not only extend the time scale analysis, but also bringother equally, if not more important, dimensions of community-based management approaches under evaluation (e.g. strength-ening local culture and economy).

Amongst the four ‘mixed approach’ MPA sites assessed, differentlevels of LEK influence in the management were observed. At Costados Corais and Anhatomirim EPA, where neither management plansnor management councils are currently in place, no LEK input wasreported simply because officers said that not much managementwas occurring. On the other hand, the experience of Cananeia-Iguape-Peruıbe and Baleia Franca EPAs in bringing LEK into decision-making is much broader. Three shared characteristics favouring theuse of LEK in the management of these sites can be outlined. Firstly,management councils are in place with fishermen’s representativesactively participating and contributing in the discussions. Secondly,the management approaches ‘adopted’ by the officers explicitlyacknowledged LEK as a core component of decision-making. AtCananeia-Iguape-Peruıbe EPA, for instance, the interviewee arguedthat he was more open to LEK because he was a local himself.Thirdly, both sites have been well studied and supported by socialscientists (e.g. ethnoecologists, human ecologists and anthropolo-gists). The impression was that such studies developed at their siteshave had significant impacts on their viewpoints and substantiallycontributed to the management approaches adopted in their sites.

Management councils constitute a very important platform forLEK input into MPA management decision-making. However, LEKinfluence in MPA management occurs by various other ways, whichare of equal or sometimes greater importance. For instance, even aninformal meeting or conversation between an MPA officer and anystakeholder (e.g. scientist or local fishermen) can bring substantialinfluence in the decision made by the former. This was clearlyrevealed by one of the MPA officers:

‘‘A researcher can come to me and say something about what isgoing on, or hand me a report, I will listen the same. A fishermancan come to me and say something or hand me a writtendocument through a fishermen syndicate or guild.both canbring me stuff on paper and both can bring me stuff orally’’.

The informal and oral character of LEK systems does not havethe same power and strength as conventional scientific knowledge,which is perceived as being well organised and built upon rigidmethodologies. This rationale is implicit in the words of the sameofficer when making the case for more stakeholder organisation:

‘‘They have to organise themselves in order to increasingly bringinformation to us and make us comprehend and say ‘They’reright!’’’.

This shows a certain viewpoint shared by many of the MPAmanagers interviewed that LEK is often not readily available nor sys-tematised for decision-making. This same perspective has also beenreported by Anuchiracheeva et al. [46] and Drew [8]. A second under-lying assumption can be noticed in the above quote, one that places theresponsibility and interest of bringing relevant LEK on fishermenthemselves. This assumption is more characteristic of more restrictive/top-down MPA, whereas relevant authorities assume a greaterresponsibility to engage local people in more bottom-up MPA sites. Athird observation is that when transferring to local stakeholders theresponsibility and interest on LEK communication, MPA officers mightbe indirectly revealing the lack of human resources and work overloadin the site. The same officer cited above admits being unable tocommunicate himself with as many fishermen as he would like to.

There are a number of attributes particular to the marine envi-ronment that pose particular challenges to the management ofMPAs. These attributes and its implications for MPAs strategies

were recently reviewed by Jones [33] and Carr et al. [47]. Amongstthese attributes are the lack of scientific knowledge due to logisticalchallenges, high research costs and the complexity/connectivity ofmarine ecosystems. The implication for management is that deci-sions must be taken in the face of high degrees of uncertainty.Carlsson and Berkes [48] have argued that the input of LEK couldcatalyse more adaptable and flexible management systems that aremore able to deal with uncertainty and surprise.

A commonly heard local knowledge limitation is that of a smallgeographical scale. Understanding the dynamics of marine speciespopulations over larger scales (connectivity and source-sink areasdebate) is important when planning MPA site locations. Linking thelocal aspect of fishermen knowledge with larger scale ecologicalunderstanding and planning is still a challenge. In such occasions,ethnoecologists could be important mediators and build a largerpicture of ecological processes by bridging knowledge from severalfishermen informants (e.g. [49]). This approach could result inlimited empowerment if a scope for fishermen participation indecision-making is not guaranteed, as discussed later in thismanuscript. While bridging LEK to such a broad planning scaleseems challenging, a diverse set of methods are available and couldoffer important insights (e.g. gis-based approaches such as SITES,Marxan and Ocean 3E) and experiences in California (USA) andother locations [50] indicate that the challenges can be overcomethough the use of such methods. In face of the potential prospectsfor LEK contribution in MPA design and management seen even intop-down approaches, we suggest that future rounds of expertreview of priority areas for sitting MPAs in Brazil open the frame-work to include local stakeholder input.

3.3. Knowledge and vested interests

The issue of how knowledge might be affected by personalinterests was brought up during interviews. Most MPA officersinterviewed argued that both academic and local knowledge areaffected by personal interests. Many examples of how such ‘vestedinterests’ interfered with the management of each site werereported by interviewees, two of which are given below asillustrations.

The issue of tropical shrimp farming was recurrently brought upas an example of how academia can be contradictory. This debatewas eminently relevant at Baleia Franca EPA site, where it wasa recent discussion topic within the management council. Accord-ing to the MPA officer, council representatives realised and wereintrigued to know that one could find scientists technically sup-porting the environmental sustainability of shrimp farms as well asscientists totally disagreeing with the possible sustainability ofsuch enterprises. Following further this debate, it is interesting toknow that there was an apparent common reached understandingamongst council representatives that science cannot answereverything, and local knowledge should therefore be valued.

Local ecological knowledge is also affected by local prioritiesthat are not necessarily sustainable according to most interviewees.Again another example from Baleia Franca EPA site clearly illus-trates this recurrent argument. Fishermen living in the surround-ings of one of the MPAs coastal lagoons (Camacho’s lagoon) havethe success of their fishery dependent on the seasonal opening ofthe lagoon’s mouth. Traditionally, this opening was done by localfishermen themselves through a similar traditional system welldescribed by Seixas and Berkes [51] for another nearby lagoon,allowing fish, seawater and shrimp larvae to be fed into the lagoon.Nowadays, the opening of the lagoon is done by heavy machinerypaid by a sand mining company that exploits the inner lagoon.Traditional fishermen knowledge associated to the lagoon mouth

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165160

opening customary practice is eroding and a dependence on thefinancial support of the mining company was developed. Accordingto the officer perception, this situation might have led fishermen tosupport mining activities within the lagoon and ignore its co-lateralnegative environmental effects.

In Puerto Morelos (Mexico), the negotiation of an MPAamongst local stakeholders was unfolding easily until it wasrealised that the area could represent a major investment. Fromthis moment on, Rodrıguez-Martınez [15] reports that theinterests of local stakeholders were polarized and oppositionstarted to develop. This situation is recurrently observed in thedesignation of MPAs in Brazil (LCG pers. obs.), and is likely tohave implications in terms of the inclination of stakeholders toprovide ‘true’ LEK.

Another viewpoint places and values scientific knowledge ona higher level, with likely implications for management decision-making processes. This paradigm sees science as free of vestedinterests and is supported by the following argument:

‘‘.considering that it is there [scientific knowledge] withoutparticular interests, simply the interest of understanding a givenregion, place or species, I believe that it [scientific knowledge]does not enter the merit of favouring one side or the other’’.

On many occasions MPA officers mentioned at some point thatmechanisms should be developed and put in place in order to ‘filter’knowledge content. The ‘filter’, drawn from MPA officers’ percep-tions, can be thought of as mechanisms that analyse and validateinformation that feeds into decision-making processes. Further-more, they should also facilitate dialogue and communicationbetween local and scientific knowledge. The idea of filteringmechanisms was associated with the role in MPA managementplayed by social scientists (e.g. ethnoecologists), multidisciplinaryteams, managers and management councils:

On the role of social scientists:

‘‘.an ethnoecologist or social scientist would be a persontransiting between the community and the academia, who cansystematise and summarise both knowledge systems’’.

On the role of management councils:

‘‘.within the council this issue [vested interests] is diluted. Yousubmit it [knowledge] to approval of other institutions, otherpeople. I think this is a type of social control’’.

On the role of managers:

‘‘Science can reach divergent conclusions on the analysis of thesame environmental problem, and the manager has the role tofilter’’.‘‘.the manager, he is the most interested person. Theresearcher is there to do his job and leave. The manager willcontinue to be there, he has the responsibility [to use the mostadequate knowledge]’’.

Fig. 3. Conceptual model of knowledge use and transfer in the management ofBrazilian MPAs.

3.4. Conceptual model of knowledge use and transfer in themanagement of Brazilian MPAs

The conceptual model presented here was designed in collab-oration with MPA managers and higher-level authorities during thecourse of the interviews. A preliminary sketch was shown to thefirst interviewee and subsequently re-discussed in the followinginterviews. Whenever possible, each suggested pathway wasillustrated with actual history-lines of LEK use in the managementof the assessed MPA or other known examples from other MPAs inthe country or relevant literature.

Recognizing the debate surrounding the meaning of the terminstitutions [52] it is used in this analysis to represent local informalrules built and shared by a given community, which are not sup-ported by official government legislation. They are rules that are inforce, but most of the times are not perceived and used by plannersand by officials and representatives of environmental agencies forconservation measures [53]. Official management institutions areconsidered here as norms and stances regulating the managementof MPAs but framed by the Brazilian official legal system, includingmanagement councils, decrees, management plans, normativeinstructions.

3.5. Pathways of knowledge use and transfer in marine spatialmanagement

Fig. 3 shows the several pathways of knowledge in marinespatial management. The numbers and letters in the arrows indi-cate the pathways explained further ahead in the paper.

3.5.1. Pathway 1: LEK informs local institutionsIn this process LEK systems inform a given group’s decision

regarding the management and community access to localresources. The existence of such LEK and customary institutions haslong being documented in Brazil [36,54] and other parts of theworld [55]. They represent an important research field becauseboth the local knowledge base and traditional management insti-tutions such as these described here are gradually disappearing dueto acculturation processes [12,56,57].

A good example is described by Seixas and Berkes [51] at Ibir-aquera Lagoon, Santa Catarina State (within the Baleia Franca EPA).Fishermen have traditionally organised themselves to seasonallyinterplay with the local environment by actively opening thelagoon estuary, which was closed by accumulated sand at a givenpoint of every year. This local and traditional management measureor institution was done in order to feed the lagoon with fisheryresources. Decisions regarding the opening procedures (e.g.seasonal timing) were subsidized by a detailed knowledge on thecycles of nature (oceanographic patterns) and resources (shrimpand finfish) [51]. Furthermore, a complex system regulatingcommunity access and partition of local common pool resourceswas in place, always subsidized by a robust LEK system.

Another example provided by the officer in charge of BaleiaFranca EPA was the community mobilization in the removal ofa dangerous ‘big stone’ that was causing several boat accidents at

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165 161

a given community. The issue was serious and after a fatalityoccurred the removal of the ‘big stone’ was so important it wastaken to the management council so it could be discussed and gainthe support of other institutions such as the Fire Service and theNavy. However, community leaders and fishermen decided toproceed with the removal themselves, drawing on their knowledgeof local seabed features and nautical expertise. The six tonne rockwas removed without the use of dynamite by twelve men workingover three days, who managed to pull the stone out of the waterusing a complex improvised system of ropes and pulleys. In boththese cases LEK directly supported important MPA managementdecisions and actions.

3.5.2. Pathway 2: local knowledge informing official institutionsthrough direct stakeholder participation

In this process local knowledge directly influences formaldecisions and culminates in an official norm/legislation. LEKinfluences management institutions by the direct act of participa-tion of fishermen in management discussions, which are usuallyheld within a management council meeting or another meetingwhere oral communication prevails. In fact, this process was one ofthe most recurrently cited mechanisms of local knowledge input indecision-making in the visited MPAs. During such meetings, fish-ermen’s representatives provide their knowledge in support ofa given subject under deliberation. MPA management councilswere also considered one of the most important platforms for LEKinput, in both top-down and bottom-up MPAs.

For example, in the Mandira RESEX some fishermen were takingdead wood remnants out of particular estuarine channels duringlow tide, in order to be able to gain access to fish by setting upgillnets that would otherwise become entangled. The issue wasbrought into discussion in the MPAs Deliberative ManagementCouncil. Other fishermen and community members argued thatdead wood remnants should be left untouched because theyprovided shelter and nursery grounds for fish, and this argumentbased on LEK was accepted. The decision favouring the mainte-nance of wood remnants was made an official norm by the MPAsmanagement plan. A similar decision was taken prohibiting theextraction of large oysters inhabiting deep oyster banks of theestuary. Large individuals were valued for their high reproductivepotential and the deep oyster banks where they occurred shouldfunction as repositories of oyster larvae (source areas).

3.5.3. Pathway 3: the role of ethno-sciences in LEK input intoofficial management institutions

In this process LEK feeds management decision-making afterbeing documented and analysed by social scientists. Several disci-plines have traditionally dealt with local knowledge systems, i.e.anthropology, human ecology and ethnoecology. It is not theintention here to discuss the role of the each discipline in detail andtheir inherent and specific approaches to study LEK systems.Definitions aside, the role of these ethno-sciences in the knowledgetransfer pathway presented here can be thought of as a ‘synthesis-filter-translation’ mechanism. LEK here is usually gathered, docu-mented, systematised, analysed and communicated by a scientist.Each step is diverse in methods and approaches, with differentethical and practical implications for management decision-making. A few examples are given in order to illustrate this process.

In the state of Santa Catarina, Gerhardinger et al. [12,49]gathered the LEK of fishermen in Babitonga Bay in order to mapgoliath grouper aggregation sites. The goliath grouper Epinephelusitajara is a critically endangered species of marine fish thatpotentially reaches 450 kg and lives 40 years. These maps arecurrently being used to support the definition of the borders ofa local candidate MPA.

At Tupiniquins ES, one of the first fisheries assessments wasdone through the use of cognitive mapping with resource users.According to the MPA officer, the research team has used fish-ermen’s LEK to map fishing grounds with varying levels of fishingintensity. Again, scientists mediated the gathering and analysis ofLEK that fed reports later submitted to the MPA authority.

The Baleia Franca EPA officer described an ongoing study at theCarijos ES (Santa Catarina State). Fishermen claim that the MPAshould protect the upper estuary where the main nursery areas arefound instead of prohibiting fishing activities in the productive lowerareas of the estuary, as this holds several fishing grounds tradition-ally important for their livelihoods. According to the interviewee,a multidisciplinary group of scientists are currently applying severalmethodologies (including resource user cognitive maps and tradi-tional ichthyology approaches) that will support a possible future re-categorization and re-definition of the MPA borders. The MPA officerargued that there are good chances of changing the MPA designbased on the LEK and livelihood requirements of local fishermen.

3.5.4. Pathway 4: conventional, scientific knowledge informingofficial management institutions

This is a very common process of knowledge input in themanagement of MPAs in Brazil. All sites, including bottom-up sitessuch as the marine extractive reserves, abounded with examples ofresearch or research groups of various disciplines having done orcurrently undertaking research. All sites had shelves filled withprintouts of papers, grey reports and graduate dissertation andtheses. Nevertheless, marine sciences and correlated disciplines arerelatively recent in Brazil, and therefore knowledge gaps arepresent on many fields [22].

3.5.5. Pathways 5 and 6: local\informal institutions shaping hybridmanagement institutions

Frequently, local institutions can be made official by thegovernment authority through a decree or any type of legal docu-ment (Pathway 5, Fig. 3). The idea embodied in this pathway is tobuild up on existent or recover traditional management institutionsthat have suffered from acculturation process and use them to tieup official institutions. These newly shaped institutions are likely toresult in further community compromise and enforcement becausethey derive from norms that are or were already bound by localsocial relations [55]. This is consistent with the argument that top-down institutions should reinforce, rather than displace, localcustomary institutions for natural resource management [34].

There are cases where LEK is ‘blended’ with conventionalscience and builds on a local institution during the process ofturning it to an official norm (Pathway 6, Fig. 3) [55]. Again, thework of Seixas and Berkes [51] illustrates how an academic researchcan perform as a mediator between the community, relevantauthorities and other regulatory bodies and stances. They haverecorded, through several social research methodologies, the localhistory on the traditional management institutions of localcommunities at Ibiraquera Lagoon, where today government isengaged in the designation of a marine RESEX. The MPA willestablish the grounds for a hybrid management system, whichsums the benefits of customary (e.g. system already socially bound)and official (e.g. statutory enforcement) systems.

At Arraial do Cabo RESEX, Silva [56] has shown that thiscommunity-based MPA has not yet managed to replace orstrengthen fishermen institutions.

3.6. Knowledge transfer amongst stakeholder groups

The knowledge transfer pathways illustrated here representsthe process of knowledge sharing through informal oral

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165162

communication or other mechanisms of information exchange (e.g.newspaper, magazines, TV, lectures) amongst stakeholder groupsof a given MPA.

Pathways u, v, w and x are outlined in the diagram in order todetach the role of ethno-sciences as a ‘mediator’ of different knowl-edge systems. Pathways u and v show the communication channelsbetween ethnoscientists and holders of LEK, while w and x representthe knowledge transfer between ethnoscientists and more ‘hard’scientific disciplines (e.g. ecology, oceanography and its subfields).

Pathways y and z show that as well as scientists gainingknowledge through conversations with fishermen, owners of LEKalso learn and are influenced by scientists and their researchoutcomes. A scientist’s hypothesis, for instance, often derives fromlocal peoples’ experience with nature (pathway y), e.g. an informalconversation between a scientist and a fisherman may generatea process of hypothesis creation and testing in the minds of both.These oral communication pathways of knowledge transfer andmutual learning mechanisms were clearly outlined by one MPAhigher-level authority interviewed:

‘‘The academic researcher, he uses a lot traditional knowledge inhis work. Even more in the marine environment where he canspeak to fishermen.and in a certain way, this knowledge endsup transferred to the environmental agency. Thus, indirectly, weare looking at the academia and using work that was producedthrough traditional knowledge.’’

3.7. LEK use, community participation and empowerment

To Berkes [18] ‘‘knowledge is power, and the use of local andtraditional ecological knowledge is a mechanism for co-management and empowerment’’. However, the ways which LEK isused have important implications in terms of communityempowerment, as demonstrated in the present work. To illustratethis debate on the light of MPA management, some of the researchhistory-lines presented above were assigned in relation to the typesof participation according to the framework devised by Cambelland Salagrama [58] (Table 3). These assignments are merely illus-trative and should not be seen as severe evaluations of the casestudies discussed herein.

Table 3A single dimension framework for analysis of the balance of participation in fisheries re

Type of participation in theresearch process

Characteristics of each type of participation

Type: A Professional exclusive Only involvement of Professionals

Type: B Professional-led Contract Professionals ‘buy-in’ the skills and equipment of the

Type: C Professional-ledConsultative

Professionals utilize the Indigenous knowledge of the fitheir own purposes

Type: D Professional-ledCollaborative

Professional allowing the involvement of fishers in theactivities of the professional under prescribed conditi

Type: E Collegial Professional and community researchers work equallyto generate knowledge on a constraint of mutual imp

Type: F Community ledCollaborative

Fishers Allowing the involvement of outsiders in the ractivities of the community under prescribed conditio

Type: G Community-ledConsultative

Fishers utilize the knowledge base of the professionalresearchers for their own purposes

Type: H Community-led Contract Fishers ‘buy-in’ research support from outside to addrneeds

Type: I Community exclusive Only involvement of community-based research parti

Using this framework, the study of Ibiraquera Lagoon, SantaCatarina State (within the Baleia Franca EPA) by Seixas and Berkes[51] might be viewed as a Type C or D study of local customarynorms. As seen before, their work is playing a key role in thedesignation process of a community-based MPA demanded by thecommunity. Empowerment seems therefore to be an importantoutcome of this collaboration.

The Carijos ES study case resembles Type D research, where theresearchers have drawn some of the research hypothesis fromcommunity needs. Although the research was done jointly with thecommunity using participatory methods such as resource mapping,the approaches were defined by scientists. Nevertheless, it is clearthat the Type D research approach has a large scope for LEKempowerment, as it is partially designed to fulfill a communitymanagement requirement.

The study of Gerhardinger et al. [49] can be regarded as Type Cresearch of fishermen’s LEK. Fishermen were not directly involvedin the provision of knowledge into decision-making. They seldomlyparticipated in the discussions regarding the designation process ofthe MPA (LCG, pers. obs.). The point here is that although LEK isofficially being used to support decision-making, fishermen’s inputoccurs solely through a scientist’s publication in a scientific article.This issue was recently outlined by the research team and a series ofcommunication and research approaches are shifting towards moreinclusive and empowering methodologies.

Pathways u, v, y and z might also reflect some sort of LEKparticipation in research. However, as pointed out by some of theinterviewees, scientists are not bringing knowledge and informa-tion back to local communities. As such, though several years ofresearch have been done locally, the community is not sufficientlyaware of their outcomes. These research processes or knowledgetransfer pathways might be placed somewhere between Type B andType C research. By not returning or communicating researchoutcomes or knowledge back to the community, very little, if noempowerment is likely to occur along the way.

Overall differences can also be perceived when comparing top-down with bottom-up approaches in terms of LEK empowermentin MPA management. The decision-making process in MPAmanagement happens at various levels. Top-down MPAs usuallyhave more centralized procedures of analysing and consolidating

search adapted from Cambell and Salagrama [58].

An example of resource investigation wherethese types might occur in fisheries

Research carried out in a laboratory, using remote sensing or on a researchvessel

fishers Professionals sample fish using a fisher’s canoe hired forgear trials and contracting him to provide labor

shers for Professionals interview fishers to access their indigenous knowledgeconcerning the ecology and behaviour of local stocks

researchons

Professional researchers work with fishers to draw up and jointly executea sampling program for fish in location and using methods defined by theprofessionals

togetherortance

Fishers and professional researchers share a common need to identify newresources, they work together to develop a methodology(*) implement theresearch together sharing their knowledge and skills, analyse the datajointly and share in its. Ultimate dissemination and use

esearchns

Fishers request assistance from a research institute to address a particularneed they have. They work with the Professionals to draw up and executea sampling program using methods defined by the fishersFishers consult professional researchers on their knowledge of the ecologyand behavior of the species concerned which has been generatedelsewhere

ess their Fishers request support from a formal research agency to addressa specific resource-related issue

cipants Fishers generate indigenous Ecological knowledge of the resourcesthrough their own methods of observation and validation

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165 163

a knowledge base for management. The knowledge base in thiscase is usually gathered by individual MPA managers or relevantauthorities and decisions tend to be discussed amongst thosehaving homogeneous thinking on a given issue under deliberation.Centralized decision-making favour scientific knowledge becauseof its written and organised form. It is obviously easier to reach anagreement over an alternative management option within closedmeetings with people that think the same way, using informationthat is readily available and consistent with the scientific expecta-tions of those involved.

If ethno-scientists’ research is solely (or majorly) driven foracademic purposes (e.g. interest only in the advancement ofscience, publications), as recurrently is the case, their role in MPAmanagement becomes one of LEK harvester, thus minimizing anycommunity empowerment so often considered as outcomes ofethno-ecological studies. This issue is discussed in an articledirected towards conservation biologists written by Shackeroff andCampbell [9], which makes a strong case for the academic discourseto include better descriptions of how their research has dealt withparticipation and power allocation, especially in social scientificendeavours dealing with indigenous or cross-cultural contexts.

Bottom-up MPAs, alternatively, offer a much broader scope forknowledge collaboration in decision-making. This is arguablybecause a common understanding/knowledge has to be built andshared in specific ‘stances’ of decision-making rather than analysedand deliberated by higher level individuals or institutions. Theimportance of promoting platforms for knowledge sharing andformation was stressed by an MPA officer:

‘‘In my understanding, the dialogue [in management councilmeetings] is not one of solely presenting the data to fishermenand saying ‘look, we reached these conclusions here!’. We needto build it [knowledge] together, this is my opinion. Fishermenalso have their knowledge’’.

Neves-Graça [59] found on her LEK study in the Azores that,rather than constituting two clearly distinct types of knowledge,through comparison and dialogical articulation local and scientificknowledge are typically locked in a process of mutual knowledgeformation. In this regard, management councils can act as collectivelearning and knowledge formation platforms, catalysing relatedprocesses. Therefore, they constitute a very promising tool forcollaboration amongst LEK and western scientific knowledge,especially in situations where council representatives and councilcoordinators are conscious of this potential. This is apparently thecase of the Baleia Franca and Cananeia-Iguape-Peruıbe EPAmanagement council approaches, as discussed previously.

By driving management council debates and discourses towards‘knowledge formation’ instead of ‘knowledge presentation’, stake-holders might be shifting the management council from a ‘deci-sion-making’ arena towards a ‘problem-solving arena’. This accordswith the point made by Carlsson and Berkes [48] that ‘decision-making’ implies choices between different alternatives whileproblem-solving has to do with the process of generating thesealternatives.

Brown [60] suggests that in order to move towards a real‘people-centred’ conservation and to develop locally appropriate(in terms of culture and resources) and adaptive systems ofmanaging diverse biological resources, a form of ‘fusion knowledge’should be aimed at, one that is neither strictly local nor scientific.She argues that ‘‘it is often at the interface between different waysof knowing and different forms of knowledge that innovations inresource management and practice can be made’’. Complementingthis thought, the findings of the present research suggest that co-management schemes would also benefit from a shift towardsa focus on the ‘process of building knowledge’, rather only seeing

knowledge as some kind of clearly defined product to be drawnupon when developing decisions.

Having discussed the benefits of using LEK in MPA co-management schemes, an important issue remains. It is broadlyaccepted that biodiversity conservation initiatives have shiftedparadigms, away from exclusive (top-down) protected areastowards community-based (bottom-up) approaches [60]. There ishowever an increasing concern that part of the bottom-up agendais an attempt to re-label or re-package conservation [34,60,61].Under this so called ‘new conservation’ approach, the knowledgebase used in decision-making still remains largely expert-driven[60]. Social research projects adopting approaches that do notaccount for a broad definition of community participation andempowerment can eventually do more harm than good to localcommunities [9]. Fortunately this was apparently not the situationin the case studies discussed in this paper.

4. Conclusions

The present research has comprehensively illustrated the rolethat LEK, especially that from artisanal fishers, plays in themanagement of MPAs, ranging from bottom-up or community-based, to top-down approaches. It has shown that a plethora ofknowledge categories held by fishermen are extremely usefulunder different management conditions and situations. However,most of the MPA management currently in place in Brazil is science-driven (Table 2). This outlines a high dependence on researchcentres that are obviously not able to provide all the informationneeded for decision-making. Over reliance on scientific knowledgethus limits MPA management because good management ideas areoften put aside due to the lack of scientific basis.

The results suggest that in order to fully engage this alternativeknowledge system (as opposed to the western/scientific manage-ment approach currently in place), local people need to be partnersat all stages of research and management. Scientists, managementcouncils, MPA practitioners, as well as fishers themselves havea great deal of responsibility in integrating all the knowledgesystems and thus have to follow ethical principles in relatedprocesses. The process of using knowledge to orient managementdecisions or building knowledge to facilitate problem-solving hasto be truly participatory and all knowledge should have some sortof ‘filtering mechanisms’ to keep away from vested interests thatare present in all stakeholders narratives.

Delivering marine conservation policies is a social phenomenonwhere the behaviour of resource users must be induced to change[62]. Therefore, as put by Kareiva [63], ‘‘far more important thanmodelling the ideal design of MPAs or networks of MPAs is buildinglocal social and community support for them’’. Given the currentalarming state of the Brazilian NSMPAs, it will certainly be anenormous challenge to put LEK to work in the benefit of MPAmanagement in the country. In this regard, the present research hasoutlined a series of favourable contexts for LEK input in MPAmanagement that will hopefully guide the process: i) presence ofmanagers known to the community; ii) individual approachadopted by a given officer; iii) bottom-up and mixed approachcategories; iv) working and representative council in place; v)identifying the issue of LEK in MPA management as a priority; vi)presence of active LEK research groups; vii) strong trust relationsamongst authorities and people; viii) LEK being readily available orsystematised.

Amidst so many priorities, it is likely that only through thecontinuous work of universities, NGOs and local fishers incollaboration with key government authorities, that a broaderground will be opened for LEK within the governance systems ofMPAs in Brazil.

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165164

Acknowledgements

This is a contribution of the Multi-institutional Program onLocal Knowledge and Practices, a parallel initiative to the Merosdo Brasil project (www.merosdobrasil.org). We sincerelyacknowledge the staff of the Ministry of Environment (MMA),Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservaçao da Biodiversidade(ICMBio) and IBAMA for providing their time and dedication toour interviews and logistics. We thank the key financialsupport of Programa Petrobras Ambiental and Center forMarine Conservation (Duke University) to our work, anda scholarship provided to Leopoldo Cavaleri Gerhardinger forhis master degree by Shell Chevening Centenary Scholarship.Manuscript and English content were greatly improved afterthe reviews of Sarah Pilgrim, Sarah Frias-Torres, Tiago DuqueEstrada, Luciana Pozzi and two anonymous referees.

References

[1] Poizat G, Baran E. Fishermen’s knowledge as background information intropical fish ecology: a quantitative comparison with fish sampling results.Environmental Biology of Fishes 1997;50:435–49.

[2] Mackinson S, Nottestad L. Combining local and scientific knowledge. Reviewsin Fish Biology and Fisheries 1998;8:481–90.

[3] Calamia MA. A methodology for incorporating traditional ecological knowl-edge with geographic information systems for marine resource managementin the Pacific. Traditional Marine Resource Management and KnowledgeInformation Bulletin 1999;10:1–12.

[4] Neis B, Schneider DC, Felt L, Haedrich RL, Fischer J, Hutchings JA. Fisheriesassessment: what can be learned from interviewing resource users? CanadianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1999;56(10):1949–63.

[5] Ruddle K. Local knowledge in the future management of inshore tropicalmarine resources of inshore tropical marine resources and environments.Nature and Resources 1999;30(1):28–37.

[6] UNESCO. Fishers’ knowledge in fisheries science and management. In:Haggan N, Barbara N, Baird IG, editors. Coastal management sourcebooks 4.Paris: UNESCO; 2007. p. 437.

[7] Johannes RE. Marine conservation in relation to traditional life-styles oftropical artisanal fishermen. The Environmentalist 2007;4(7):30–5.

[8] Drew J. Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation.Conservation Biology 2005;19(4):1286–93.

[9] Shackeroff JM, Campbell LM. Traditional ecological knowledge in conservationresearch: problems and prospects for their constructive engagement.Conservation and Society 2007;5(3):343–60.

[10] Scholz A, Bonzon K, Fujitab R, Benjamin N, Woodling N, Black P, et al.Participatory socioeconomic analysis: drawing on fishermen’s knowledge formarine protected area planning in California. Marine Policy 2004;28:335–49.

[11] Aswani S, Lauer M. Incorporating fishermen local knowledge and behaviorinto geographical information systems (GIS) for designing marine protectedareas in Oceania. Human Organization 2006;65:81–102.

[12] Gerhardinger LC, Freitas MO, Medeiros RP, Godoy EA, Marenzi RC, Hostim-Silva M. Local ecological knowledge on the planning and management ofmarine protected areas and conservation of fish spawning aggregations: theexperience of ‘‘Meros do Brasil’’ project. In: Areas Protegidas do Brasil 4.Brasılia: MMA; 2007. p. 105–p.127.

[13] Berkes F. Alternatives to conventional management: lessons from small-scalefisheries. Environments 2003;31(1):7–19.

[14] World Bank. Scaling up marine management: the role of marine protectedareas. World Bank report # 36635-GLB; 2006.

[15] Rodrıguez-Martınez RE. Community involvement in marine protected areas:the case of Puerto Morelos reef, Mexico. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment 2008;88(4):1151–1160.

[16] Jentoft S. Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy1998;22:423–435.

[17] Berkes F, Mahon R, McConney P, Pollnac P, Pomeroy R. Managing small-scalefisheries: alternative directions and methods. Ottawa: IDRC; 2001. 320 pp.

[18] Berkes F. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology2004;18(3):621–630.

[19] D’Incao F, Reis EG. Community-based management and technical advice inPatos Lagoon estuary (Brazil). Ocean & Coastal Management 2002;45:531–539.

[20] Malleret-King D, Glass A, Wanyonyi I, Bunce L, Pomeroy B. Socio-economicmonitoring guidelines for coastal managers of the Western Indian Ocean.SocMon WIO. CORDIO: East Africa Publication (Version 1); 2006. 108.

[21] Johannes RE. The case for data-less marine resource management: examplesfrom tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution1998;13:243–246.

[22] Amaral ACZ, Jablonski S. Conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity inBrazil. Conservation Biology 2005;19(3):625–631.

[23] Ardron J, Marchand A, Liedkte M. Gathering spatial knowledge from localexperts: a handbook for interviewing fishermen: version 2.0. Sointula, BC,Canada: Living Oceans Society; 2005.

[24] Jones PJS. Collective action problems posed by no take zones. Marine Policy2005;30(2):143–156.

[25] Friedlander A, Nowlis JS, Sanchez JA, Appeldoorn R, Usseglio P, McCormick C,et al. Designing effective marine protected areas in seaflower biospherereserve, Colombia, based on biological and sociological information. Conser-vation Biology 2003;17(6):1769–1784.

[26] Davis A, Wagner JR. Who knows? On the importance of identifying ‘‘experts’’when researching local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 2003;31(3):463–489.

[27] BRASIL. Diretrizes Ambientais para o Setor Pesqueiro. Diagnostico e Diretrizespara a Pesca Marıtima, Brasılia; 1997 124 pp.

[28] Marques JGW. Pescando Pescadores: Ciencia e Etnociencia em uma Per-spectiva Ecologica. Sao Paulo: Nupaub; 2001. 258 pp.

[29] Morril WT. Ethnoicthyology of the Cha-Cha. Ethnology 1967;4(4):405–416.[30] Marques JGW. Aspectos ecologicos na Etnoictiologia dos pescadores do

Complexo estuarino-Lagunar Mundau-Manguaba, Alagoas. PhD thesis, Uni-versidade Estadual de Campinas; 1991.

[31] Mazzocchi F. Western science and traditional knowledge: despite their vari-ations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Reports2006;7(5):463–466.

[32] Wilson D. Examining the two cultures theory of fisheries knowledge: the caseof the northwest Atlantic Bluefish. In: Putting Fishers’ knowledge to work.University of British Columbia: FCRR; 2003. p. 163–177.

[33] Jones PJS. Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and thesearch for middle ground. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries2001;11(3):197–216.

[34] Jones PJS, Burgess J. Building partnership capacity for the collaborativemanagement of marine protected areas in the UK: a preliminary analysis.Journal of Environmental Management 2005;77(3):227–243.

[35] Cavalcante OP. A Polemica em torno do conceito de Reserva Extrativistaenquanto atividade economica sustentavel. BSc thesis in economics, Uni-versidade Federal do Acre, 47 pp; 1993.

[36] Diegues AC. Traditional fisheries knowledge and social appropriation ofmarine resources in Brazil. In: Mare conference: people and the sea,Amsterdam; 2002.

[37] Helvey M. Seeking consensus on designing marine protected areas: keepingthe fishing community engaged. Coastal Management 2004;32:173–190.

[38] Chamy P. Reservas Extrativistas Marinhas: Um estudo sobre territor-ialidade marıtima e sustentabilidade. MSc dissertation, Universidade deSao Paulo; 2005.

[39] Myers R, Worm B. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities.Nature 2003;423:280–283.

[40] Pauly D, Alder J, Bennett E, Christensen V, Tyedmers P, Watson R. The futurefor fisheries. Science 2003;302:1359–1361.

[41] Defeo O, McClanahan T, Castilla JC. A brief history of fisheries managementwith emphasis on societal participatory roles. In: McClanahan T, Castilla JC,editors. Fisheries management: progress toward sustainability. Oxford:Blackwell; 2007. p. 305–326.

[42] Castilla J, Defeo O. Latin American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis on co-management and experimental practices. Reviews in Fish Biology andFisheries 2001;11:1–30.

[43] Castilla JC. The Chilean small-scale benthic shellfisheries and the institution-alization of new management practices. Ecology International Bulletin1994;21:47–63.

[44] Gelcich S, Godoy N, Prado L, Castilla JC. Add-on conservation benefits ofmarine territorial user rights fishery policies in central Chile. EcologicalApplications 2008;18:273–281.

[45] Moura RL, Dutra GF, Francini-Filho RB, Minte-Vera CV, Curado IB,Guimaraes FJ, et al. Fisheries management in the marine extractive reserve ofCorumbau – Bahia. In: Aquatic protected areas as fisheries management tools,4. Brasılia: Ministerio do Meio Ambiente; 2007. p. 169–181.

[46] Anuchiracheeva S, Demaine H, Shivakoti GP, Ruddle K. Systematizing localknowledge using GIS: fisheries management in Bang Saphan Bay, Thailand.Ocean & Coastal Management 2003;46:1049–1068.

[47] Carr MH, Neigel JE, Estes JA, Andelman S, Warner RR, Largier JL. Comparingmarine and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for the design of coastalmarine reserves. Ecological Applications 2003;13(1):S90–107.

[48] Carlsson L, Berkes F. Co-management: concepts and methodological implica-tions. Journal of Environmental Management 2005;75:65–76.

[49] Gerhardinger LC, Medeiros R, Marenzi RC, Bertoncini AA, Hostim-Silva M.Local ecological knowledge on the Goliath Grouper Epinephelus itajara.Neotropical Ichthyology 2006;4(4):441–50.

[50] National Marine Protected Areas Center. Mapping human activity in themarine environment: GIS tools and participatory methods. In: Workshopsummary, Pacific Grove, California; November 2005.

[51] Seixas CS, Berkes F. Learning from fishers: incorporating local knowledge inpolicy design and assessment. In: Vieira PHF, editor. Conservaçao daDiversidade Biologica e Cultural em Zonas Costeiras: Enfoques e experi-encias na America Latina e no Caribe, 1. Florianopolis: APED Editora; 2003.p. 333–71.

[52] Jentoft S. Institutions in fisheries: what they are, what they do, and how theychange. Marine Policy 2004;28:137–49.

L.C. Gerhardinger et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 154–165 165

[53] Begossi A, Brown D. Experiments with fisheries co-management in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. In: Wilson CD, Nielse JR, Degnbol P, editors. Thefisheries co-management experience, accomplishments, challenges andprospects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. p. 135–52.

[54] Cordell J. Locally managed territories in Brazilian coastal fishing. In: FAOconference on coastal lagoon fisheries, Rome; 1982.

[55] Cinner JE, Aswani S. Integrating customary management into marineconservation. Biological Conservation 2007;140:201–16.

[56] Silva PP. From common property to co-management: lessons from Brazil’s firstmaritime extractive reserve. Marine Policy 2004;28:419–28.

[57] Diegues AC. Marine protected areas and artisanal fisheries in Brazil. In:Samudra monograph. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers;2008. 54 pp.

[58] Cambell J, Salagrama V. New approaches to participation in fisheries research.FAO fisheries circular no. 965. Rome; 2001.

[59] Neves-Graça K. Politics of environmentalism and ecological knowledge at theintersection of local and global processes. Journal of Ecological Anthropology2006;10:19–32.

[60] Brown K. Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation. GlobalEcology & Biogeography 2003;12:89–92.

[61] Jentoft S. The devil in the detail. SAMUDRA report no. 38; July 2004.[62] Mascia MB, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, McKean MA, et al.

Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology 2003;17(3):649–50.

[63] Kareiva P. Conservation biology: beyond marine protected areas. CurrentBiology 2006;16(14):533–4.