Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

http://d

n Corr

E-m

matt.br

rodrigo.

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

Resolving environmental issues in the southern Brazilian artisanalpenaeid-trawl fishery through adaptive co-management

Catarina N.S. Silva a,n, Matt K. Broadhurst b, Rodrigo P. Medeiros c, Jose H. Dias c

a School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6012, New Zealandb Industry and Investment NSW, Fisheries Conservation Technology Unit, National Marine Science Centre, PO Box 4321, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australiac Centro de Estudos do Mar, Universidade Federal do Parana, Av. Beira Mar s/n, 83255-976, Pontal do Sul, Parana, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 24 January 2013

Received in revised form

7 February 2013

Accepted 8 February 2013Available online 16 March 2013

Keywords:

Adaptive co-management

Artisanal fishery

Fisheries management

Brazil

Penaeid trawl

Sustainable fisheries

7X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. A

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.02.002

esponding author. Tel.: þ64 22 074 4963; fax

ail addresses: catari.bio@gmail.com (C.N.S. Sil

oadhurst@dpi.nsw.gov.au (M.K. Broadhurst),

medeiros@ufpr.br (R.P. Medeiros), zehoogle@

a b s t r a c t

Many conventional management strategies have been demonstrated to be ineffective in achieving

sustainable fisheries, and new approaches are required to overcome existing environmental, social and

economic problems. Adaptive co-management represents the combination of a learning-by-doing

approach (adaptive management) involving all related and legitimate stakeholders in the decision-

making process (collaborative management). In this study, the relevant experiences from a fishery in

southern Brazil are reported. The first section of the paper summarizes the broad history of national

fisheries and their management. Then the southern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fishery is briefly

described and the three main problems associated with the common gears used are discussed,

including their (1) poor size and species selectivities, (2) poor efficiencies, and (3) their mechanical

impacts on benthic habitats. Finally, a framework is proposed to address the environmental and socio-

economic issues in the fishery and its implementation discussed via an adaptive co-management

approach.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Artisanal or small-scale fisheries are an invaluable source ofsustenance, income and employment for many coastal commu-nities throughout developing countries, representing an essentiallivelihood strategy for millions of families and greatly contribut-ing towards poverty alleviation. The importance of such fisheriesin terms of global production is indisputable, given that theycontribute towards more than half of the estimated wild harvesttotal of �100 million tonnes per annum (which is mostlydestined for direct human consumption), employ more than31.5 million capture fishers and support around 84 million peoplein associated employment [1].

Artisanal fisheries have an established tradition in Brazil, initiatedby indigenous tribes who harvested fish and molluscs, evidence ofwhich can be found in large mounds of shells called ‘Sambaquis’.After Portuguese and Spanish migrants arrived in the XVI century,larger-scale commercial fisheries developed, especially in southernBrazil, which encompasses the states of Parana, Santa Catarina andRio Grande do Sul and is bordered by the cities of Curitiba and RioGrande (Fig. 1). While industrial fisheries still exist throughout Brazil,artisanal fisheries have continued to remain more important,

ll rights reserved.

: þ644 463 5331.

va),

gmail.com (J.H. Dias).

accounting for �65% (or 505 812 t) of the total annual nationalproduction [2], and involving a plethora of fishing methods, rangingfrom simple hook-and-line to more complex active gears like benthictrawls and seines [3–5] (Fig. 2).

Historical recognition of the need to sustain Brazilian fisheriesresources has led to various attempts at regulation. However, likefor many overseas fisheries, national management has been aconsiderable challenge [6], mostly reflecting a shortfall in therequired science [7–9].

Internationally, it is commonly recognized that there is not oneuniversally appropriate fisheries management strategy [10]. Rather,fisheries should be considered independently, with managementimplemented after debate among all stakeholders. For this reason,collaborative management or co-management has been proposed asan alternative approach to fisheries governance where decision-making processes and accountability are more evenly spread amonggovernments and stakeholders [11,12]. Shifting from a command-and-control to a collaborative approach is one rationale to improvethe robustness of management institutions [13,14]. Another perspec-tive on fisheries management relies on the recognition of fisheries ascomplex adaptive systems [15]. Focusing on a learning approach,adaptive management embraces uncertainty, treats fisheries manage-ment as ‘experiments’ and emphasizes so-called ‘‘learning-by-doing’’[16,17]. The adaptive co-management approach is an outcome fromcollaborative management and adaptive management experiences,with emphasis on learning and linking functions of governance[18–20].

Fig. 1. Map of Brazil and the area encompassed by the southern Brazilian artisanal

penaeid-trawl fishery.

Fig. 2. Artisanal fishing boat from southern Brazil.

C.N.S. Silva et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141134

While there is plenty of literature discussing the differenttypes of functional fisheries management approaches and theirutility [7,12,21–25], there are few case studies documentingadaptive co-management experiences (see e.g., [18,26]). Also,there is a need for more systematic approaches and comprehen-sive frameworks to facilitate selecting the most appropriatestrategy for a particular fishery.

The aim of this article is to discuss the implementation of acomprehensive framework using an adaptive co-managementapproach in the southern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fish-ery, one of the most important national artisanal sectors. As partof this work, an argument is presented to suggest that modifica-tions and refinements to penaeid trawls to address key environ-mental concerns, that historically have been developedindependently, should be incorporated within broader approachfrom the onset, and with regard to adaptive co-management.

History of fisheries management in Brazil

The progression of a co-management approach to artisanalfisheries in Brazil first requires adequate comprehension of thehistory and culture associated with previous strategies, all of

which were characterised by diverse levels of organization(bureaucracy) and institutional arrangements. Prior to coloniza-tion, all fishing activity in Brazil was self-managed, wherebyindigenous people mostly sustainably harvested from their var-ious regions. Although subsistence-based, there is evidence thatsuch fisheries were nevertheless complex and sophisticated,involving gears like bone hooks, and small nets made from wovenfibres collected from forests [3].

The arrival of Portuguese and Spanish migrants in the XVIcentury marked the development of larger-scale commercialfisheries. Owing to the greater similarly to European climates,many settlements developed in the more southern states andcontributed towards the initial development of industrial fleets,initially at Santos in S~ao Paulo State [5]. Following a rapidincrease in the numbers of fishers and vessels, the exploitationof fishery resources required the emergence of the first natural-resource management organizations.

Throughout history, Brazil has experienced multiple degrees oflinked organizations of civil society and social movements asforums in local, regional, national and international levels thathave cumulatively improved human and civil rights, environ-mental protection and democracy. There were various institu-tional arrangements that shaped the three key sectors – fisheries,protected areas and coastal management – of natural resourcemanagement along the coastal zone. While it might be expectedthat fisheries and protected areas should be embedded withincoastal management, they have been managed by differentpolicies, institutional arrangements, levels of stakeholder partici-pation and leading organizations [5,27–30].

Modern fisheries management in Brazil can be divided intothree development stages (Table 1). During the first stage, theBrazilian Navy held the jurisdiction of fisheries management. In1923, the Navy created the ‘‘Diretoria de Pesca e Saneamento’’(Board of Fisheries and Sanitation), which was aimed at promot-ing fisheries. In the same year, the Navy also created the firststakeholder organizations called ‘‘Colonias de Pescadores’’ (fisher’communities or guilds) that were essentially loose regionalcollectives [31]. Even today, such communities still persist asthe main representative organization of artisanal fishers, althoughother forms of social organization also occur. In 1938, the ‘‘Codigode Cac-a e Pesca’’ (Code of Hunting and Fishing) was the firstfishing regulation enforced by the Hunting and Fishing Serviceunder the Ministry of Agriculture. Even though incentives forfishery development were incipient, they facilitated the first stepstowards industrialization [32].

The creation of the ‘‘Superintendencia para o Desenvolvimentoda Pesca—SUDEPE’’ (Superintendence for the Development ofFishing) in 1962 (1962–2009) marked a new, second stage offisheries management in Brazil, characterized by the empower-ment of a government institution that actively progressed fish-eries development. This second stage can be subdivided into fourdifferent institutional periods (Table 1). The first institutionalperiod (1962–1989) was distinguished by a rapid expansion ofindustrial fisheries. Government incentives were initiated todevelop industrial fleets, which effectively reduced the relativeimportance of artisanal fisheries that needed to share fishinggrounds and resources [4,5,31]. Supported by subsidies, theexpansion of fishing industries as well as modernization of vesselsincreased total landings in Brazil from 220,000 t in 1960 to nearly750,000 t in 1984 [33] and much of the increased catch camefrom southern states [34].

The second institutional period (1989–1998) was distin-guished by a general change in the fisheries-governance ideology,mostly from food production and development to environmentalprotection. The ‘‘Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dosRecursos Naturais Renovaveis—IBAMA’’ (Brazilian Institute of

Table 1Institutional periods and stages of fisheries management in Brazil, including the respective leading organisations and decision-making institutions, and evidence of coastal

collaborative management (CCM) related to formal legislation.

Source: Adapted from Medeiros [81].

Institutional

period

Leading organizations Decision making Evidence of CCM

First stage1921–1962 Navy Hunting and Fishing Service (after 1938) Organization of fishers by Navy as an extension of coastal

zone defence. Military ideology, affecting community-

based management

Ministry of Agriculture

Second stage1962–1989 Superintendence for the Development

of Fisheries (SUDEPE—Ministry of

Agriculture)

SUDEPE Command and control was still the dominating ideology

1989–1998 Brazilian institute of Environment and

Renewable Natural Resources

(IBAMA—Ministry of Environment)

IBAMA regional delegates play a special role in

developing regulations for regional fisheries

Command and control persist, but more empowered by

scientific advisory committees

1998–2003 IBAMA Fishing resources are classified as either

overexploited (IBAMA regulation) or

underexploited and highly migratory fishes (DPA

regulation)

Research organizations (universities and fisheries

institutions) function from formal partnerships. CCM

emerges from Protected Area Policy (National System for

Protected Areas—SNUC) give opportunities to CCM at

advisory and deliberative councils

Department of Fisheries and

Aquaculture (DPA —Ministry of

Agriculture)

2003–2009 Special Secretary of Aquaculture and

Fisheries (SEAP—Presidency of

Republic) —IBAMA

SEAP had status of Ministry, replacing the roles of

DPA

Emerging institutional arrangements, although not

formally defined as fisheries policy strategies. Rising

number and consolidation of protected areas for resource

users (extractive reserves) as a proper institutional

arrangement in fisheries

Division of competences between IBAMA and

SEAP remainedChico Mendes Institute for

Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio

—Ministry of Environment)

Third stage2009–

present

Ministry of Fisheries (MPA) —IBAMA MPA leads the decision making, although still

shared with IBAMA

Participation and traditional ecological knowledge are

considered basic assumptions of the new fisheries policy.

Creation of National Co-Management System for the

Sustainable Use of Fishery Resources (SGCUSRP)

C.N.S. Silva et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141 135

Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) governed bythe Ministry of Environment, started to exercise jurisdictionover fisheries management. In 1998, IBAMA shared responsibil-ities with the ‘‘Departamento de Pesca e Aquicultura—DPA’’(Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture) in regulating fisheries,marking the third institutional period (1998–2003). This amalga-mation was formalized in 2003 when the DPA was dissolved andeffectively replaced by the ‘‘Secretaria Especial de Aquicultura ePesca—SEAP’’ (Special Secretariat of Aquaculture and Fisheries).Jurisdiction was shared based on the exploitation of fisheriesresources. Specifically, overexploited and depleted fish stockswere managed by IBAMA, while underexploited and highlymigratory fishing stocks (e.g., tunas) were managed by SEAP.IBAMA also had to provide management plans for all over-exploited species, including penaeids [35]. The asymmetricalpower and contrary objectives between SEAP and IBAMA wereaccentuated by budgets designed to promote fisheries develop-ment programs. Since this institutional period, environmentalprotection ideology has been weakened relative to the idea offishery development. New fisheries subsidies, authorizations forforeign vessels, social programs for fishers and incentives foraquaculture were all adopted.

The management of protected areas was also under thejurisdiction of IBAMA until 2007, when its structure and functionwas split and the ‘‘Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservac- ~ao daBiodiversidade—ICMBio)’’ (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiver-sity Conservation) was created to manage federal protected areas(with exclusive jurisdiction). Since the creation of ICMBio, parti-cipation was established as a condition and a duty for resourcemanagement, and there has been an increased focus towardsfisheries management under a collaborative approach, especiallyso-called ‘‘marine extractive reserves’’ and other sustainable-useprotected areas [28].

The fourth institutional period (2003–2009) of the secondstage of fisheries management finished with the creation of the‘‘Ministerio da Pesca e Aquicultura—MPA’’ (Ministry of Fisheriesand Aquaculture) in 2009 and the promulgation of the nationalpolicy for sustainable development of fisheries and aquacult-ure (Table 1). A shared function still remains between MPAand the Ministry of Environment, but there is no division interms of jurisdiction of fishing stocks with different exploitationstatus.

Within the third fisheries-management stage, the creation ofthe ‘‘Sistema de Gest~ao Compartilhada do Uso Sustentavel dosRecursos Pesqueiros—SGCUSRP’’ (Co-Management System for theSustainable Use of Fishery Resources) in 2009 established the‘‘Comiss~ao Tecnica da Gest~ao Compartilhada dos RecursosPesqueiros—CTGP’’ (Technical Committee on Fisheries Co-Man-agement) exclusively comprising MPA and the Ministry of Envir-onment representatives. In practice, the CTGP has enhancedcentralization between IBAMA and MPA. In addition to definingwhich fishery rules are applied for each management unit, CTGPhas the prerogative of opening fisheries co-management arrange-ments (FCMA).

For all the three historical management stages, the precondi-tions for fisheries co-management were nationally rare or absent[4,12]. Since the recent formation of CTGP, no other initiatives onfisheries co-management arrangements have been created norimplemented. There are also no defined mechanisms to connectexisting local FCMA (including marine protected areas councils) atregional and national levels. The only formal recognition of afishery management tool that attends to a coastal collaborativemanagement perspective is so-called ‘Fishing Agreements’ (FAs).Fishing agreements started when resource users from the Amazonbasin claimed the maintenance and recognition of their localinstitutional arrangements [36]. In practice, FAs work as a formal

Fig. 3. Catches of seabob shrimp, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri from an artisanal canoe

trawler in Parana State, Brazil.

C.N.S. Silva et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141136

legitimization by the government of community-based fishingmanagement. Unfortunately, there are only a few coastal colla-borative management experiences where FAs are part of manage-ment procedures [4], and they are not recognized in the newfishery policy, although there are several inland fishery manage-ment processes in the Amazon Basin.

Many of the above discussed changes in fisheries managementideology have mirrored broad sociological transitions. For exam-ple, since the early 1980s, Brazilian society has experienced ademocratic transition (from military rule), which facilitated theemergence of clearer social identities, and organizations ofparticipatory and public decision-making arenas. Such a demo-cratic movement has affected natural resource management.Specifically, the evolution of environmental policy in Brazil hasprovided tools for social control (defined here as a policy tool thatprovides society the opportunity to ‘‘control’’ the performance ofgovernment, management decisions and sectorial policies) acrossnational, regional, state and municipality levels, including: (1)environmental-impact assessments and environmental licensesthat enable potentially hazardous activities to be monitored andevaluated according to criteria regulated by the government;(2) protected areas with obligatory representation by civil societyand resource users; and (3) environmental councils and local‘Agenda 21’ [37] created at municipality, state or regional levels,and with the capacity to intervene in environmental policy andsocioeconomic development.

More recently, the above phenomenon has been furtherinfluenced by pressure from left-oriented parties (especiallyworkers) on the federal government, by the enhanced engage-ment of civil society and by external influences from a globalizedworld [38,39]. Still, fisheries co-management incentives at anational level in Brazil have been politically gridlocked, butexperiences at a local level are revealing opportunities that canpromote adaptive learning to an effective cross-scale manage-ment interaction in fisheries [28].

Fig. 4. Bycatch from an artisanal canoe trawler in Parana State, Brazil.

The southern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fishery

Sustainability issues

The area defined as southern Brazil is one of the five nationaladministrative regions and includes the states of Parana, SantaCatarina and Rio Grande do Sul (Fig. 1). In terms of marineproduction, the southern region is the second most productiveaccounting for 29% (156,574 t) of the national catch in 2010 [40].In 2000, the total number of registered artisanal boats was 16,744(only 3.5% of which were powered), and the registered number ofartisanal fishers was 23,658 [3].

Of the various species targeted by southern Brazilian artisanalfishers, seabob shrimp (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) is among the mostimportant, accounting for 27% (15,276 t) of the total nationalcrustacean catch in 2010 [40], and among the top ten of the mostcaught penaeids in the world [41] (Fig. 3). In 2005, 52,411 t ofseabob shrimp were globally landed [41] and in the same period,Brazil was responsible for 15,788 t [2]. Locally, seabob shrimp islargely exploited by artisanal trawlers or canoes (o10 m; Fig. 2);mostly towing small trawls (headline lengths o9 m and 26- to32-mm stretched mesh opening throughout) at depths down toapproximately 20 m [3,42–46].

Like virtually all of the world’s penaeid-trawl fisheries, inaddition to the targeted seabob shrimp, southern Brazilian arti-sanal trawlers also catch and discard large quantities of unwantedorganisms (collectively termed ‘bycatch’; Fig. 4); the mortality ofwhich represents a threat to stocks [47–49]. Few regional quan-titative data are available, however it is known that bycatches

comprise more than 60 species, dominated by teleosts (82%), butalso substantial quantities of crustaceans (10%) and variousmolluscs, echinoderms and cnidarians [44–46,50–52] (Fig. 4).The depletion of endangered species (e.g., marine turtles) popula-tions, reduction of recruitment and biomass of stocks that are thebasis of other fisheries, and the subsequent cascading social andeconomic problems form some of the vast impacts of catchingunwanted organisms [53,54].

While there are unique sustainability issues facing the south-ern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fishery (e.g., effective man-agement of the targeted species), like throughout the rest of theworld, most concerns can be separated into three broad cate-gories. First, of historical concern, is the above stated inherentpoor selectivity of conventional penaeid trawls [47]. Second, andancillary to the obvious implications that the mortality of largequantities of bycatch has on stocks and the subsequent cascadingresponses throughout the food web [54], are concerns over theunseen mechanical impacts of trawls on benthic habitats [55,56].Third, is a more recent but growing economic impetus forimproved efficiencies; attributable to both the rising cost of fossilfuels and awareness about the socio-economic impacts of climatechange [57,58].

The ongoing viability of local (and also international) penaeidtrawling requires a coherent, practical and multi-faceted approach

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of a generic penaeid trawl with (A) radial escape section and (B) Nordmøre-grid bycatch reduction devices.

C.N.S. Silva et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141 137

towards solving the key issues within these three areas. Technolo-gical solutions are likely to form the basis of much of this approach[56,58]. Further, because the eventual acceptance and adoption ofany modifications by stakeholders is essential for their effective use(and progression), they will need to be developed, tested andrefined within a co-management paradigm that involves not onlyeffective negotiation, liaison and communication across all levels ofparticipation [54,59–61] but also issues related to the effectivenessand sustainability of the institutions [62].

A framework for addressing environmental and socio-economic

concerns

Owing to the visual impacts of large quantities of discardedbycatch, the greater majority of research done to address envir-onmental concerns in many overseas penaeid-trawl fisheries hasconcentrated on the issue of poor species selectivity [63]. Morespecifically, this work has focused on mitigating unaccountedfishing mortalities through improved species and size selectionvia modifications to the posterior sections (to include bycatchreduction devices—BRDs; Fig. 5) and, to a lesser extent, changesto fishing operations [56,63,64].

Much less research has been done to address the remainingtwo broad (but inter-related) sustainability concerns associatedwith the benthic impacts of penaeid trawls and/or their ineffi-ciencies [56]. However, it is clear that technological solutions toboth categories of problems will require more holistic changes totrawling, including modifying the spreading mechanisms (i.e.,otter boards), ground gear, rigging configurations and/or nettingmaterials [56–58]. Further, because the components within thisarea of the gear ultimately determine the quantity and type oforganisms that enter the codend, in many cases, it should befeasible to structure such modifications to address all threesustainability issues described above, including the remainingproblems associated with poor species and size selection.

While the progression of more sustainable artisanal penaeid-trawl fisheries in Brazil might follow the historical trend in othercountries of first assessing retrospectively-fitted BRDs [65], fol-lowed by efforts at mitigating other environmental concerns ofpoor efficiencies and habitat impacts, a more coherent approachcould involve implementing a broader holistic framework andwithin the spirit of adaptive co-management. As a starting point,Kennelly and Broadhurst [65] proposed a simple frameworkinvolving key stakeholders (representatives from industries,research organisations and managers) for addressing the firsttwo environmental issues above in penaeid-trawl fisheries. Thekey steps of Kennelly and Broadhurst’s [65] framework can beencapsulated as: (1) identifying problematic unaccounted fishingmortality (typically discard mortalities); (2) developing altera-tions to existing fishing gears and practices that minimise themortality of these species; (3) testing these alternatives inappropriately-designed field experiments; and (4) gaining accep-tance of the new technology throughout the particular fishery. Itshould be feasible to incorporate the third environmental concernof poor efficiencies, into such a framework, and specifically at(3) above, which might be considered the most complex stage.

One coherent progression forwards of stage (3) to address allthree environmental concerns of penaeid trawling might involveassessing modifications first within the range of existing gearconfigurations [60], then beyond existing gear configurations, andfinally if required, to operational techniques. The successfulcompletion of all three areas of research requires the key skillsets associated with co-management, including a strategic long-term vision at a suitable level of government, effective leadership,and perhaps most importantly, collaboration with a sufficientlyrepresentative collective of fishing industries [54,61]. Thesecriteria are needed not only to progress technological develop-ments, but also to facilitate the eventual adoption of outcomes.The above three research areas and their application to thesouthern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fisheries are discussedbelow.

C.N.S. Silva et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141138

Modifications within existing gear configurations

The existing gears used in the southern Brazilian penaeid-trawl fishery have evolved over more than 70 years, and aresubject to few restrictions. The fishery is managed by some inputcontrols, including limited entry (numbers of fishing licenses)according to engine and boat dimensions, minimum mesh sizesand headline lengths. However, all of the regulations are based onthe most common configurations at the time of legislation. Therehave been very few studies done to determine optimal config-urations for the sizes of the targeted penaeids or with anyconsideration of incidental impacts.

A first step towards improving the environmental efficiency ofgears would be to optimise mesh sizes within existing configura-tions; not only to improve selectivity, but also to reduce drag [60].Similarly, other aspects of the trawling configurations should beassessed to determine the most appropriate, which include, butare not limited to, conventional otter-board rigging (angles ofattack and sizes), headline heights (to minimise fish bycatch),ground gear arrangements and rigging (to minimise bottomcontact), or possibly varying sweep lengths (to reduce catchesof fish) or even twine diameter [66–68].

Within a co-management approach, the above and similarwork would be facilitated by a comprehensive survey of existingconventional gears (via representatives of the established localorganizations, including fishing communities) and some indica-tion of their performances, based on fishers’ perceptions [69]. Aspart of this data collection, it seems pertinent for participatoryapproaches to be initiated [20]. Beyond promoting the need toaddress key environmental concerns among fishing communities,such data could help to identify conventional configurations thatare inherently more selective and/or more environmentally sen-sitive. Also, simple changes within existing configurations toreduce environmental impacts might be more readily adoptedby fishers (and are more easily regulated within existing legisla-tion) than complex, new alterations to gears.

Modifications beyond existing gear configurations

Although modifications beyond existing gear configurationsshould ideally follow efforts at optimising gears within theirexisting parameters [60], it is often where researchers initiatethe first changes, and typically with BRDs and codends. Thisprobably occurs not only in response to the visual impacts of poorspecies selectivity (especially for charismatic and endangeredspecies) and concerns over discard mortality, but also the morereadily available funding based on the promise of dramaticresults.

The very limited work done so far in the southern Brazilianartisanal penaeid-trawl fishery has followed this approach[44–46,70]. The first efforts date back to the late 1980s, duringthe second institutional stage of fisheries management and aspart of the shift from food production and fishery development toenvironmental protection. Conolly [70] tested various configura-tions of BRDs that were common among eastern USA penaeidfisheries, including versions of a so-called ‘radial escape section’’(Fig. 5a). However, while such BRDs reduced unwanted catches offish (by up to 48%), losses of shrimp were excessive (up to 27%),precluding adoption by fishers. Conolly [70] also assessed theutility of reducing the side netting taper in the body of trawls,effecting a 44% reduction in trawl length. This simple modifica-tion facilitated the escape of fish during haul back and reduced bycatch by 17%.

Despite the above results, there was minimal adoption byindustries, possibly owing to insufficient promotion and exten-sion, but also because of a lack of clear focus on the definition ofbycatches and their impacts. At the time, few fishers, scientists,

managers or the general public perceived any problems asso-ciated with unaccounted fishing mortality. Also, a contributingfactor was the prevalence of a command-and-control ideology,which precluded any experimental fisheries management, and inreality was limited to enforcing temporal and spatial closures asthe main tools for regulating exploitation.

Despite considerable efforts in other regional countries,including the USA (e.g., [71–73]) and Argentina (e.g., [74]), verylittle subsequent relevant work was done in any Brazilianpenaeid-trawl fisheries for the following 20 years. The mostrecent efforts at improving the selectivity of southern Brazilianartisanal penaeid trawls were made by Silva et al. [44–46]. Thiswork mostly focused on a series of experiments to develop andrefine a Nordmøre-grid (Fig. 5b). Compared to conventionaltrawls (with no modifications), those containing Nordmøre-gridsmade from aluminium and with bar spaces of 17–24 mm wereeffective in reducing bycatch by up to 56%, without significantlyaffecting catches of seabob shrimp [44,45].

Other preliminary research [46] demonstrated the utility ofsimple changes to just the mesh orientation in the codend.Specifically, compared to conventional diamond-mesh codend(made from 26-mm mesh), designs made from 30- and 32-mm mesh hung on the bar (i.e., square-shaped) reduced the meannumbers of total bycatch by 17 and 10%, while also slightlyimproving the size selectivity for seabob shrimp (i.e., reducingcatches of the smallest individuals).

Similar results have been observed for other penaeid-trawlfisheries using modifications like square-mesh codends (e.g., [75])and the Nordmøre-grid (e.g., [76]), and it is likely that their wide-scale use throughout southern Brazil would dramatically reducebycatch, and associated unaccounted fishing mortality [64].Obviously, however, such an outcome requires the co-operationof artisanal fishers to not only source Nordmøre-grids (which canbe expensive) and codend materials, but also to actively use themthrough some local perceived benefit. Both processes might befacilitated within an adaptive co-management approach by on-going testing between researchers and representatives of fishercommunities of cheaper locally-available materials for construc-tion (e.g., bamboo rather than aluminium grids), and the adequateextension of the benefits of using modifications, which mightinclude improved quality of the targeted penaeids and reducedsorting times [76].

Other simple modifications beyond existing gear configura-tions to address the remaining environmental issues of habitatimpacts and/or poor efficiencies might include replacing otterboards with beam assemblies, which, if rigged correctly, couldhave a lower benthic impact and less drag [77]. Beam trawls arecommonly used in other, overseas penaeid-trawl fisheries andcould be simply adopted in some areas [41].

Modifications through operational techniques

Irrespective of the type and extent of technical modificationsdiscussed above, these are unlikely to result in 100% selection forthe targeted species and their sizes, nor completely resolve theother environmental issues. Despite best efforts, there will behabitat impacts, and at least some unwanted organisms will becaught and eventually landed and discarded. Both of these issuesmight be partially addressed through appropriate temporal andspatial closures; the legislation for which already exists in Brazil(e.g., trawling is already prohibited in sheltered waters, especiallyestuaries), although there are few supporting scientific data.

Unaccounted fishing mortality also might be reduced viamodified on-board handling practices. For example, most trawl-ing occurs in shallow water, and by small-scale gears. Suchcharacteristics could mean that at least some of the discarded

C.N.S. Silva et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141 139

bycatch survives [64]. Fishers might be encouraged to considersimple operational modifications, such as sorting catches inwater, shorter deployments or releasing bycatch away frompredators [64].

Within the category of operational techniques is also the use ofalternative fuels and/or more refined propulsion systems. Whileat present, such technology might be beyond the possibilities forartisanal fisheries; in some case propulsion could be assisted bywind. Many of the southern Brazilian artisanal trawlers aresimply modified canoes, which could be rigged with sails, to atleast partially reduce fuel consumption (e.g., [78]).

Co-management as a continuous process

The success of the application of the above framework to thesouthern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fishery requires anappropriate management approach. Typically, centralized man-agement systems are problematic and local users cannot effec-tively manage resources by themselves. Successful resourcemanagement strategies depend on both the knowledge of localusers and the ability of the state to address the intrinsic complex-ity of resources management [24]. Co-management has gainedattention among government organizations, fisheries managers,scientists, environmental groups, and various stakeholdersbecause it allocates resource management responsibilities, aswell as decision-making processes, between the governmentand the community, effectively facilitating and promotingpower-sharing [11]. But obviously, to be functional and effective,co-management requires a complete understanding of the inter-action between local and government interests for each specificfishery.

Such participation in fisheries management can vary fromconsultation by government to full engagement of resources usesin making co-management operational [21]. However, pastexperiences suggest several challenges to Brazilian fisheries co-management [27,28,79,80]. These experiences can be summar-ized with reference to crucial aspects of progressing successfulco-management.

One straightforward assessment of the degree of fisheries co-management success can be based on the design principlesdeveloped by Ostrom [13,14], which permits envisioning of goodpractices or conditions to promote sustainable use of resources. Akey principle refers to definitive boundaries (biophysical andsocial) and gives attention to what is managed and who is partof the decision-making process. Valid cohesion of fisher organiza-tions is one of the big challenges for successful management inBrazil. Fisher communities do still remain as the formal organiza-tion (although other forms are also present), but their presencedoes not necessarily reflect social capital for effective co-management [81], mainly because a lack of fisheries co-management arenas and high-centralized management currentlyimpose gridlocks to fishers’ participation. Further, the relationshipbetween cost and benefit will dictate how adherent resourceusers will comply with rules. Southern Brazilian artisanalpenaeid-trawl fishers disagree with current management institu-tions and policies, and the lack of low-cost mechanisms to resolveconflicts creates an abyss between government agencies andfishers.

Other relevant design principles developed by Ostrom [13]include ‘‘monitoring of institutions, minimal recognition of localrules, graduated sanctions and nested enterprises’’. It is notwithin the scope of the present paper to fully explore therelevance of these principles to the southern Brazilian artisanalpenaeid-trawl fishery, however it is important to mention thatlocal fisheries management – especially penaeid fisheries – haslittle or no evidence of being in congruence with the concept of

robust governance [14]. This means that technical modifications(including BRDs) cannot be considered as just additional manage-ment tools, but indeed, must be thought of as an option to triggeran alternative approach to conventional management [82].

Within such a concept of initiating and promoting fisheries co-management, Pomeroy and Berkes [12] proposed three steps; therelevance of which are probably important here, according to thecurrent institutional period of Brazilian fisheries management.The first step is that ‘‘the government must establish conditionsfor (or at least not impede) co-management systems to originateand prosper’’. Innovative experiences from Brazilian universitiesand non-government organizations have provided good perspec-tives for fisheries co-management, as well as marine protectedareas [28]. However, the connection between local experiencesand current national systems for fisheries co-management is notwell-defined.

The second step outlined by Pomeroy and Berkes [12] con-siders that ‘‘fishers must be given access to government andgovernment officials to express their concerns and ideas’’. The gapbetween Brazilian fishers and government is enhanced by astrong lack of trust by the former. As a third step ‘‘fishers shouldbe given the right to develop their own organizations and to formnetworks and coalitions for cooperation and coordination’’. Again,fisher communities are the formal organization, but these are notalways recognized (by the government) as being legitimate tocontribute towards decision making. Also, fishers have their ownperceptions about how management should operate, mainlybased on their traditional ecological knowledge. Clearly greatereffort is required to validate the role of fishers in decision-makingprocesses.

Conclusion

Brazilian fisheries management is at a crossroads. Historyshows how centralised and technocratic management, combinedwith overwhelming bureaucracy, has reduced the opportunity forfisher participation and for innovative management strategies. Itis likely that co-management would provide a clear step forwardthat would most easily be facilitated by effective representationof stakeholders’ interests. Owing to the historical delineation offisher communities throughout southern Brazil, the basis for sucha structure already exists. The key challenge is to co-ordinaterepresentation among communities and fishers’ representatives.Doing so will facilitate the refinement and extension of resourcemanagement solutions.

The potential for such benefits is clearly illustrated by therecent work done in the southern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fishery. The experiments were done in one fishing commu-nity, using local boats and knowledge. The location and directionof trawls were chosen by fishers in order to reproduce thehabitual fishing conditions. This allowed fishers to participate inthe process of developing and refining the BRDs, and effectivelyprovided them with possession of the outcomes; a recognised keystep towards encouraging local adoption [61].

The next coherent stage would be to promote the resultsamong fisher communities; which requires a contribution fromexisting state organisations, such as MPA (Table 1). Within thisprocess, the adaptive leaning mechanism should be tested andimplemented. As proposed by Garaway and Arthur [83], thisprocess should be thought as a cycle comprising three stages:(1) preparing for learning, (2) learning and (3) evaluating learn-ing. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed comprehen-sive framework should be continuously evaluated with alearning-by-doing approach, identifying gaps and priorities, creat-ing and disseminating information as well as evaluating the

C.N.S. Silva et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141140

outcomes. Such an approach could promote a coherent progres-sion of fisheries management in southern Brazil, and ultimatelybenefit the sustainability of fisheries resources.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are extended to Henry Spach for providing valuableadvice and assistance. Several agencies are thanked for theirsupport of research into environmentally benign penaeid trawls,including the ‘Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientıfico eTecnologico’ ’Ministerio da Educac- ~ao’ (Proext 2013), ‘Pro-Reitoriade Extens~ao e Cultura/UFPR’ (Project PROEC 732/12), ‘Laboratoriode Biologia de Peixes, Centro de Estudos do Mar’, ‘Reestruturac- ~aoe Expans~ao das Universidades Federais’, ‘Ministerio da Educac- ~ao(Edital Proext 2013)’ and ‘Programa Institucional de Bolsas deIniciac- ~ao Cientıfica’.

References

[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The state of worldfisheries and aquaculture 2010. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations; 2010 p. 1–218.

[2] IBAMA. Estatıstica da Pesca 2007, Brazil—Grandes Regi ~oes e Unidades daFederac- ~ao. Brasılia: Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos RecursosRenovaveis; 2007 p. 113.

[3] Diegues AC. Artisanal fisheries in Brazil. Chennai: International Collective inSupport of Fishworkers; 2006 p. 72.

[4] Vasconcellos M, Diegues AC, Sales RR. Limites e possibilidades na gest~ao dapesca artesanal costeira. In: Costa AL, editor. Nas redes da pesca artisanal.Brasılia: IBAMA/PNUD; 2007. p. 15–83.

[5] Vasconcellos M, Diegues AC, Kalikoski DC. Coastal fisheries of Brazil. In: Salas S,Chuenpagdee R, Charles A, Seijo JC, editors. Coastal fisheries of Latin Americaand the Caribbean. Rome: FAO; 2011. p. 73–116 FAO Fisheries and AquacultureTechnical Paper. No. 544.

[6] Asmus ML, Kitzmann D, Laydner C. Tagliani CRA. Gest~ao Costeira no Brasil:instrumentos, fragilidades e potencialidades. Gerenciamento Costeiro Inte-grado 2006;4:52–57.

[7] Holling CS, Meffe GK. Command and control and the pathology of naturalresource management. Conserv Biol 1996;10(2):328–337.

[8] Holling CS, Berkes F, Folke C. Science, sustainability and resource manage-ment. In: Berkes F, Folke C, editors. Linking social and ecological systems:management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 342–362.

[9] Degnbol P, Gislason H, Hanna S, Jentoft S, Raakjar Nielsen J, Sverdrup-JensenS, et al. Painting the floor with a hammer: technical fixes in fisheriesmanagement. Mar Policy 2006;30(5):534–543.

[10] Sen S, Nielsen JR. Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis. MarPolicy 1996;20(5):405–418.

[11] Berkes F, George P, Preston R. Co-management: the evolution of the theoryand practice of joint administration of living resources. Alternatives1991;18(2):12–18.

[12] Pomeroy RS, Berkes F. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Mar Policy 1997;21(5):465–480.

[13] Ostrom E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institution for collectiveaction. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990 p. 298.

[14] Ostrom E. Understanding institutional diversity. New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press; 2005 p. 355.

[15] Garcia S, Charles A. Fishery systems and linkages: implications for scienceand governance. Ocean Coast Manage 2008;51(7):505–527.

[16] Gunderson LH, Holling CS. Panarchy: understanding transformations inhuman and natural systems. Washington: Island Press; 2002 p. 532.

[17] Hughes TP, Gunderson LH, Folke C, et al. Adaptive management of the greatbarrier reef and the grand canyon world heritage areas. AMBIO J HumEnviron 2007;36(7):586–592.

[18] Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N. Introduction: moving beyond co-management. In: Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N, editors. Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning and multi-level governance. Vancou-ver: University of British Columbia Press; 2007. p. 1–18.

[19] Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R. Adaptive co-management and theparadox of learning. Global Environ Change 2008;18(1):86–98.

[20] Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation,bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage2009;90(5):1692–1702.

[21] Berkes F, Mahon R, McConney P, Pollnac R, Pomeroy R. Managing small-scalefisheries: alternative directions and methods. Ottawa: International Devel-opment Research Centre; 2001 p. 261.

[22] Wilson DC, Nielsen JR, Degnbol P. The fisheries co-management experience:accomplishments, challenges, and prospects, 26. Kluwer Academic Publish-ers; 2003 Fish and Fisheries, p. 348.

[23] Kaplan I, McCay BJ. Cooperative research, co-management and the socialdimension of fisheries science and management. Mar Policy 2004;28(3):257–258.

[24] Carlsson L, Berkes F. Co-management: concepts and methodological implica-tions. J Environ Manage 2005;75:65–76.

[25] Berkes F. Implementing ecosystem-based management: evolution or revolu-tion? Fish Fish 2012;13(4):465–476.

[26] Fennell D, Plummer R, Marschke M. Is adaptive co-management ethical? JEnviron Manage 2008;88(1):62–75.

[27] Kalikoski DC, Seixas CS, Almundi T. Gest~ao compartilhada e comunitaria dapesca no Brasil: Avanc-os e Desafios. Ambiente e Sociedade 2009;12(1):151–172.

[28] Seixas CS, Kalikoski DC. Gest~ao participativa da pesca no Brasil: levanta-mento das iniciativas e documentac- ~ao dos processos. Desenvolvimento eMeio Ambiente 2009;20:119–139.

[29] Scherer MEG, Asmus M, Filet M, Sanches M, Poleti AE. El manejo costero enBrasil: analisis de la situacion y propuestas para una posible mejora. In:Farinos J, editor. La gestion integrada de zonas costeras. Algo mas que unaordenacion del litoral revisada? Valencia: IIDL/Publicaciones de la Universi-tad de Valencia; 2011. p. 161–173.

[30] Seixas CS, Kalikoski DC, Almudi T, et al. Gest~ao compartilhada do uso derecursos pesqueiros no Brasil: elementos para um programa nacional.Ambiente e Sociedade 2011;14:23–44.

[31] Diegues AC. Pescadores, Camponeses e Trabalhadores do Mar. S~ao Paulo:Editora Atica; 1983 p. 287.

[32] CEMBRA—Centro de Excelencia para o Mar Brasileiro. O mar no seculo XXI:relatorio aos tomadores de decis~ao. Base Hidrografica da Marinha, Niteroi,2012, p. 540.

[33] Abdallah PR. Bacha CJC. Evoluc- ~ao da atividade pesqueira no brasil: 1960–1994. Teoria e Evidencia Economica 1999;7(13):9–24.

[34] UNIVALI. Boletim estatıstica da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina—Ano 2009e panorama 2000–2009: programa de monitoramento e avaliac- ~ao da ativi-dade pesqueira industrial no sudeste e sul do Brasil. Itajaı: Universidade doVale do Itajaı; 2010 p. 97.

[35] Dias Neto J. Proposta de plano nacional de gest~ao para o uso sustentavel decamar ~oes marinhos do Brasil. Brasılia: MMA/IBAMA; 2011 p. 1–243.

[36] Viana JP, Castello L, Damasceno JMB, et al. Manejo comunitario do PirarucuArapaima gigas na reserva de desenvolvimento sustentavel Mamiraua—

Amazonas, Brasil. In: Prates AP, Blanc D, editors. Areas aquaticas protegidascomo instrumentos de gest ~ao pesqueira. Brasılia: Serie Areas NaturaisProtegidas 4. MMA/SBF; 2007. p. 249–271.

[37] UNCED. Agenda 21: Earth Summit—The United Nations Programme of Actionfrom Rio. In: United Nations conference on environment and development:Rio de Janeiro; 1993. p. 300.

[38] Avritzer L. Sociedade civil, instituic- ~oes participativas e representac- ~ao: daautorizac- ~ao �a legitimidade da ac- ~ao. Dados 2007;50(3):443–464.

[39] Borba J, Sell CE. Movimentos sociais, participac ~ao e democracia: contexto eperspectivas de debate no Brasil. Poli!tica e Sociedade 2007;6(11):7–18.

[40] MPA. Boletim Estatıstico da Pesca e Aquicultura, Brasil 2010. Brasılia:Ministerio da Pesca e Aquicultura; 2012 p. 128.

[41] Gillett R. Global study of shrimp fisheries. FAO fisheries technical paper no.475; 2008. p. 359.

[42] Andriguetto-Filho JM, Krul R, Feitosa S. Analysis of natural and socialdynamics of fishery production systems in Parana, Brazil: implications formanagement and sustainability. J Appl Ichthyol 2009;25:277–286.

[43] Sim ~oes SM, Costa RC, Fransozo A, Castilho AL. Diel variation in abundanceand size of the seabob shrimp Xiphopenaeus kroyeri (Crustacea, Penaeoidea)in the Ubatuba region, Southeastern Brazil. Anais da Academia Brasileira deCiencias 2010;82(2):369–378.

[44] Silva CNS, Broadhurst MK, Schwingel A, Dias JH, Cattani AP, Spach HL.Refining a Nordmøre-grid for a Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fishery. FishRes 2011;109:168–178.

[45] Silva CNS, Broadhurst MK, Dias JH, Cattani AP, Spach HL. The effects ofNordmøre-grid bar spacings on catches in a Brazilian artisanal shrimpfishery. Fish Res 2012;127–128:188–193.

[46] Silva CNS, Dias JH, Cattani AP, Spach HL. Selectivity of square-mesh codendsin an artisanal fishery in southern Brazil. Lat Am J Aquat Res2012;40(1):124–133.

[47] Andrew NL, Pepperell JG. The by-catch of shrimp trawl fisheries. OceanogrMar Biol 1992;30:527–565.

[48] Alverson DL, Freeberg MH, Murawski SA, Pope JG. A global assessment offisheries bycatch and discards. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations; 1994 FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339, p. 233.

[49] Kelleher K. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2005 FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper No. 470, p. 131.

[50] Carniel VL. Interac- ~ao de aves costeiras com descartes oriundos da pescaartesanal no litoral centro-sul paranaense. Master thesis in Zoology, Setor deCiencias Biologicas, Universidade Federal do Parana, Curitiba; 2008. p. 80.

[51] Cattani AP. Avaliac- ~ao de dispositivos de reduc- ~ao de captura incidental napesca de arrasto do municıpio de Pontal do Parana-PR. Master thesis incoastal and oceanic systems, Setor de Ciencias Biologicas, UniversidadeFederal do Parana, Curitiba; 2010. p. 147.

[52] Cattani AP, Santos L de O, Spach HL, Budel BR. Guanais JHDG. Avaliac- ~ao daictiofauna da fauna acompanhante da pesca do camar~ao sete-barbas do

C.N.S. Silva et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 133–141 141

municıpio de Pontal do Parana, litoral do Parana. Brasil. Boletim do Institutode Pesca 2011;37:247–260.

[53] Hall MA. On bycatches. Rev Fish Biol Fish 1996;6:319–352.[54] Lewison RL, Soykan CU, Cox T, et al. Ingredients for addressing the challenges

of fisheries bycatch. Bull Mar Sci 2011;87(2):235–250.[55] Kaiser MJ, de Groot SJ. The effects of fishing on non-target species and

habitats: biological conservation and socio-economic issues. Oxford: Black-well Science; 2000 p. 399.

[56] Valdemarsen JW, Suuronen P. Modifying fishing gear to achieve ecosystemobjectives. In: Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G, editors. Responsible fisheries inthe marine ecosystem. Rome: FAO; 2003. p. 321–341.

[57] Priour D. Numerical optimisation of trawls design to improve their energyefficiency. Fish Res 2009;98:40–50.

[58] Suuronen P, Chopin F, Glass C, Løkkeborg S, Matsushita Y, Queirolo D, et al.Low impact and fuel efficient fishing: looking beyond the horizon. Fish Res2012;119–120:135–146.

[59] Tucker AD, Robbins JB, McPhee DP. Adopting turtle excluder devices inAustralia and the United States: what are the differences in technologytransfer, promotion and acceptance? Coast Manage 1997;25:405–421.

[60] Broadhurst MK, Kennelly SJ, Gray CA. Strategies for improving the selectivityof fishing gears. In: Kennelly SJ, editor. By-catch reduction in the world’sfisheries. Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag Inc; 2007. p. 1–18.

[61] Hall MA, Nakano H, Clarke S, et al. Working with fishers to reduce bycatches.In: Kennelly SJ, editor. By-catch reduction in the world’s fisheries. Dordrecht:Springer-Verlag Inc; 2007. p. 235–288.

[62] Hauzer M, Dearden P, Murray G. The effectiveness of community-basedgovernance of small-scale fisheries, Ngazidja island, Comoros. Mar Policy2013;38:346–354.

[63] Broadhurst MK. Modifications to reduce bycatch in prawn trawls: a reviewand framework for development. Rev Fish Biol Fish 2000;10:27–60.

[64] Broadhurst MK, Suuronen P, Hulme A. Estimating collateral mortality fromtowed fishing gear. Fish Fish 2006;7:180–218.

[65] Kennelly SJ, Broadhurst MK. Bycatch begone: changes in the philosophy offishing technology. Fish Fish 2002;3:340–355.

[66] Sumpton WD, Smith PJ, Robotham BG. The influence on catch of monofila-ment and multifilament netting in otter prawn-trawls. Fish Res1989;8:35–44.

[67] Broadhurst MK, McShane PE, Larsen RB. Effects of twine diameter and meshsize in the body of prawn trawls on bycatch in Gulf St. Vincent, Australia. FishB-NOAA 2000;98:463–473.

[68] Sterling D, Eayrs S. Trawl-gear innovations to improve the efficiency ofAustralian prawn trawling. In: First international symposium on fishingvessel energy efficiency E-fishing: Vigo; 2010. p. 5.

[69] Foster SJ, Vincent ACJ. Tropical shrimp trawl fisheries: fishers’ knowledge ofand attitudes about a doomed fishery. Mar Policy 2010;34:437–446.

[70] Conolly PC. Bycatch activities in Brazil. In: Jones RP, editor. Internationalconference on shrimp bycatch. Tallahassee: Southeastern Fisheries Associa-tion; 1922. p. 291–302.

[71] Harrington D, Vendetti RA. Shrimp trawl bycatch reduction in the South-eastern United States. In: Solving bycatch: considerations for today andtomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program report no. 96-03, University ofAlaska Fairbanks: 1995. p. 129–136.

[72] Watson JW. Summary report on the status of bycatch reduction devicesdevelopment. Mississippi: NOAA, Southeast Fisheries Science Center; 1996.

[73] Rogers DR, Rogers BD, de Silva JA, Wright VL. Effectiveness of four industry-developed bycatch reduction devices in Louisiana’s inshore waters. Fish Bull1997;95:552–565.

[74] Pettovello AD. By-catch in the Patagonian red shrimp (Pleoticus muelleri)fishery. Mar Freshwater Res 1999;50:123–127.

[75] Broadhurst MK, Millar RB. Square-mesh codend circumference and selectiv-ity. ICES J Mar Sci 2009;66:566–572.

[76] Brewer D, Rawlinson N, Eayrs S, Burridge C. An assessment of bycatchreduction devices in a tropical Australian prawn trawl fishery. Fish Res1998;36:195–215.

[77] Broadhurst MK, Sterling DJ, Cullis BR. Effects of otter boards on catches of anAustralian penaeid trawl. Fish Res 2012;131–133:67–75.

[78] Brabeck S. SkySails–new energy for fishing trawlers. In: first internationalsymposium on fishing vessel energy efficiency E-fishing: Vigo; 2010. p. 8.

[79] De Moura RL, Minte-Vera CV, Curado IB, et al. Challenges and prospects offisheries co-management under a marine extractive reserve framework inNortheastern Brazil. Coast Manage 2009;37(6):617–632.

[80] Seixas CS, Minte-Vera CV, Ferreira RG, et al. Co-managing commons:advancing aquatic resource management in Brazil. In: Lopes PF, Begossi A,editors. Current trends in human ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing; 2009. p. 156–182.

[81] Medeiros RP. Possibilidades e obstaculos �a co-gest~ao adaptativa de sistemaspesqueiros artesanais: estudo de caso na area da Baıa de Tijucas, litoralcentro-norte do Estado de Santa Catarina, no perıodo de 2004 a 2008.Doctoral thesis in political sociology, Centro de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas,Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianopolis; 2009. p. 330.

[82] Tallis H, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus M, Lester SE, McLeod KL, Fluharty DL, et al.The many faces of ecosystem-based management: making the process worktoday in real places. Mar Policy 2010;34:340–348.

[83] Garaway CJ, Arthur RI. Adaptive learning: a practical framework for theimplementation of adaptive co-management—lessons from selected experi-ences in South and Southeast Asia. London: MRAG Ltd; 2004 p. 44.