UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO NORTE

CENTRO DE BIOCIENCIAS PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ECOLOGIA

O QUE O MANEJO DO PIRARUCU PODE NOS ENSINAR?

ASPECTOS ECOLÓGICOS, SOCIAIS E CULTURAIS APLICÁVEIS A MÚLTIPLOS

SISTEMAS SOCIOECOLÓGICOS

Carolina Tavares de Freitas

NATAL/RN

Março de 2019

Carolina Tavares de Freitas

O QUE O MANEJO DO PIRARUCU PODE NOS ENSINAR?

ASPECTOS ECOLÓGICOS, SOCIAIS E CULTURAIS APLICÁVEIS A MÚLTIPLOS

SISTEMAS SOCIOECOLÓGICOS

Tese apresentada como requisito obrigatório para a

obtenção do título de doutor em Ecologia pelo

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia da

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte -

UFRN.

Orientadora: Dra. Priscila Fabiana Macedo Lopes

Coorientador: Dr. Carlos Augusto Peres

Natal/RN

Março de 2019

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte - UFRN

Sistema de Bibliotecas - SISBI

Catalogação de Publicação na Fonte. UFRN - Biblioteca Central Zila Mamede

Freitas, Carolina Tavares de.

O que o manejo do pirarucu pode nos ensinar: aspectos

ecológicos, sociais e culturais aplicáveis a múltiplos sistemas

socioecológicos / Carolina Tavares de Freitas. - 2019. 117f.: il.

Tese (Doutorado)-Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte,

Centro de Biociências, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Natal, 2019.

Orientadora: Dra. Priscila Fabiana Macedo Lopes.

Coorientador: Dr. Carlos Augusto da Silva Peres.

1. Manejo colaborativo - Tese. 2. Pesca - Tese. 3. Arapaima

sp. - Tese. 4. Equidade de gênero - Tese. 5. Amazônia - Tese. I. Lopes, Priscila Fabiana Macedo. II. Peres, Carlos Augusto da

Silva. III. Título.

RN/UF/BCZM CDU 574

Elaborado por Raimundo Muniz de Oliveira - CRB-15/429

Dedico esta tese à Amazônia, e a todas as pessoas que lutam pela perpetuação de sua biodiversidade e

de seus povos.

Saga da Amazônia

(Vital Farias)

Era uma vez na Amazônia a mais bonita floresta Mata verde, céu azul, a mais imensa floresta No fundo d'água as Iaras, caboclo lendas e mágoas E os rios puxando as águas Papagaios, periquitos, cuidavam de suas cores Os peixes singrando os rios, curumins cheios de amores Sorria o jurupari, uirapuru, seu porvir Era fauna, flora, frutos e flores Toda mata tem caipora para a mata vigiar Veio caipora de fora para a mata definhar E trouxe dragão-de-ferro, pra comer muita madeira E trouxe em estilo gigante, pra acabar com a capoeira Fizeram logo o projeto sem ninguém testemunhar Pra o dragão cortar madeira e toda mata derrubar Se a floresta meu amigo, tivesse pé pra andar Eu garanto, meu amigo, com o perigo não tinha ficado lá O que se corta em segundos gasta tempo pra vingar E o fruto que dá no cacho pra gente se alimentar? Depois tem o passarinho, tem o ninho, tem o ar Igarapé, rio abaixo, tem riacho e esse rio que é um mar Mas o dragão continua a floresta devorar E quem habita essa mata, pra onde vai se mudar? Corre índio, seringueiro, preguiça, tamanduá Tartaruga: pé ligeiro, corre-corre tribo dos Kamaiura No lugar que havia mata, hoje há perseguição Grileiro mata posseiro só pra lhe roubar seu chão Castanheiro, seringueiro já viraram até peão Afora os que já morreram como ave-de-arribação Zé de Nana tá de prova, naquele lugar tem cova Gente enterrada no chão Pois mataram índio que matou grileiro que matou posseiro Disse um castanheiro para um seringueiro que um estrangeiro Roubou seu lugar Foi então que um violeiro chegando na região Ficou tão penalizado que escreveu essa canção E talvez, desesperado com tanta devastação Pegou a primeira estrada, sem rumo, sem direção Com os olhos cheios de água, sumiu levando essa mágoa Dentro do seu coração Aqui termina essa história para gente de valor Pra gente que tem memória, muita crença, muito amor Pra defender o que ainda resta, sem rodeio, sem aresta Era uma vez uma floresta na Linha do Equador

“Sem conseguir resolver para onde olhar durante todo esse tempo, Dafé se

admirou de haver tanta ciência naquela gente comum, se admirou também de

nunca ter visto nos livros que pessoas como essas pudessem possuir

conhecimentos e habilidades tão bonitos, achou até mesmo a mãe uma

desconhecida, misteriosa e distante, em seu saber antes nunca testemunhado.

Quantos estudos não haveria ali, como ficavam todos bonitos fazendo ali suas

tarefas, agora também ela ia ser pescadora! Até pouquinho, estivera meio

convencida, porque ia ser professora e portanto sabia muito mais coisas do que

todos eles juntos, mas se via que não era assim. Tinha gente que pescava o peixe,

gente que plantava a verdura, gente que fiava o pano, gente que trabalhava a

madeira, gente de toda espécie, e tudo isso requeria grande conhecimento e

muitas coisas por dentro e por trás desse conhecimento - talvez fosse isto a vida,

como ensinava Vô Leléu, quanta coisa existia na vida! Que beleza era a vida,

cada objeto um mundão com tantas outras coisas ligadas a ele e até um pedaço

de pano teve alguém para prestar atenção só nele um dia, até tecê-lo e acabá-lo e

cortá-lo, alguém que tinha conhecimentos tão grandes como esses pescadores e

navegadores, mas já se viu coisa mais bonita neste mundo do nosso Deus? Dafé

sentiu até um pouco de vontade de dançar, deu uns tapinhas acelerados na borda

do barco, deu uns gritinhos, sapateou de emoção, correu de um lado para o

outro, vendo aqui o peixe que vinha, ali o anzol sendo iscado, acolá o plaf-plaf

das chumbadas engolidas pela água − mas oba, oba, oba, esta vida não é uma

beleza cheia de novidades? Agora ela também queria trabalhar de navegadora e

pescadora. Mas também queria ser professora. E o que é que ela queria mesmo?

Queria ser tudo, isso sim! Porque cada ofício tem o seu conhecimento da vida,

quantos lados tem a vida, vô Leléu?”

João Ubaldo Ribeiro − Viva o Povo Brasileiro

AGRADECIMENTOS

Aos povos da Amazônia, pela luta diária. Por estarem na linha de frente da conservação e terem um

papel extremamente importante, ainda que não devidamente reconhecido. Por muitas vezes

arriscarem a própria vida para defender um bem que é de toda a humanidade.

Aos pescadores e às pescadoras que aceitaram ceder parte de seu tempo para participar da pesquisa e

compartilharam seus preciosos conhecimentos e percepções comigo. Agradeço as comunidades do

Juruá e do Purus que nos receberam de portas abertas e a todos que nos acolheram em suas casas ou

nos presentearam com maravilhosos frutos de suas colheitas. Sou especialmente grata aos que nos

deram tanta assistência ou nos hospedaram diversas vezes: Bomba e dona Chica (Manariã - Juruá),

Andrade (Xibauazinho - Juruá), Assis e Socorro (Uixi - Purus), dona Francisca e Mário (Caua –

Purus), dona Lindinalva e Adelino (Fortaleza – Purus).

Ao Jota (JB; João Vitor Campos Silva), por ter mudado o rumo do meu doutorado ao me convidar

para integrar a equipe do Projeto Médio Juruá e me apresentar esta região tão especial da Amazônia.

Por ter me feito mergulhar no universo do manejo do pirarucu. Pelo imenso apoio logístico no

campo, ótimo convívio, auxílio com as entrevistas e participação ativa em toda a tese. Acima de

tudo, sou muito grata por sempre me contagiar com sua empolgação e ideias e por ter se tornado um

amigo-orientador disposto a ajudar a todo momento, deixando meu doutorado muito mais suave e

feliz.

Ao Helder (Helder Espírito Santo), meu companheiro de vida, sem o qual o trajeto até aqui com

certeza não teria tido a mesma leveza. Agradeço infinitamente pelo apoio constante e incondicional,

pela parceria em todos os âmbitos, pela disposição de ajudar em tudo. Sou muito grata também pelas

opiniões ao longo de todo o processo do doutorado, pelo auxílio com as entrevistas, por toda a ajuda

com as análises e pelas revisões dos textos. Mas, para além de tudo isso, agradeço profundamente o

suporte emocional que me oferece sempre.

À minha família, por também me dar grande suporte emocional. Sou imensamente grata a minha

mãe, meu pai e meus irmãos por serem a melhor família que se pode ter e por sempre me

proporcionarem muitas reflexões e aprendizados. Agradeço todo o apoio e a disposição em ajudar no

que for preciso. Agradeço especialmente minha mãe e minha irmã Verônica, pelas tantas horas de

conversa, por estarem sempre muito presentes e me darem muita força e paz.

À minha orientadora, Priscila Lopes, por ter me recebido de portas abertas e por estar sempre

disponível. Por sua confiança no meu trabalho, por toda a liberdade e autonomia que me

proporcionou ao longo do doutorado, por responder rapidamente a todas as demandas e por estar

sempre disposta a apoiar quando surgem novas oportunidades.

Ao meu coorientador, Carlos Peres, por ter aceitado disponibilizar parte de sua comprometida agenda

para contribuir com o trabalho. Por ouvir minhas ideias com interesse, dar sempre boas sugestões e

fazer revisões criteriosas. Por ter gentilmente me acolhido na equipe do Projeto Médio Juruá (PMJ).

Ao Leandro Castello, por sempre se colocar disponível para contribuir. Sou muito grata a todas as

sugestões que me deu ao longo do doutorado e à sua participação na minha banca de qualificação, a

qual trouxe contribuições cruciais para o aprimoramento da tese.

A todos aqueles que aceitaram avaliar o trabalho nas apresentações anuais da disciplina Seminários

em Ecologia e que contribuíram de diferentes formas: Adriana Carvalho, Ronaldo Angelini, Miriam

Plaza Pinto, Eduardo Venticique, Guilherme Longo. Agradeço especialmente à Adriana Carvalho,

que participou várias vezes e também foi membro da minha banca de qualificação.

Aos workshops em Pipa, pela excelente oportunidade de discutirmos nossos projetos em um

ambiente descontraído e agradável, permeado de comidinhas deliciosas e boas risadas. Agradeço à

Priscila por essa maravilhosa iniciativa e a todas do FEME (Fishing Ecology, Management and

Economics) pelas críticas construtivas e sugestões.

Aos que viabilizaram as nossas atividades de campo, de diferentes formas. Sou especialmente grata

ao Almir e à Tonha, os tripulantes oficiais do Hylea, figuras centrais nos meses de morada nesse

barco inesquecível, que facilitaram muito nossa vida e tornaram o campo muito mais divertido; à

toda a equipe e parceiros do Projeto Médio Juruá que também embarcaram no Hylea e fizeram com

que cada viagem fosse diferente; às instituições que nos apoiaram no Juruá e no Purus: ASPROC,

AMARU, DEMUC, ICMBio, Colônia de Pescadores Z 25 e Instituto Piagaçu.

À Clara (Clara Machado) por toda a imensa ajuda com o campo no Purus. Pela organização de toda a

logística, por ser uma maravilhosa companheira de campo, pelas tantas conversas e risadas, por

tentarmos juntas entender as nuances de processos históricos locais complexos e, acima de tudo, por

ter se tornado uma amiga querida para a vida toda.

Ao Duka (Eduardo Muhlen) pela gentil disponibilização de dados do Purus e pelas dicas do campo.

À Cristina Isis Buck Silva, do IBAMA/AM, pela disponibilização de dados e informações referentes

ao manejo do pirarucu no Amazonas.

Ao Renato Silvano por me permitir participar de sua expedição para o rio Unini. Os dados coletados

acabaram não entrando na tese, mas a experiência foi importante, especialmente por me revelar uma

realidade de manejo do pirarucu bem diferente das que conhecia até então. Agradeço a todos que

participaram da expedição pelos harmoniosos dias a bordo, especialmente à Andrea Leme e à

Priscila, pelos ótimos papos, e à Daia (Daiana Schneider) por organizar toda a logística. Sou muito

grata também às comunidades que nos acolheram e apoiaram a pesquisa.

À Mari (Marina Vieira) por ter me apresentado outras Amazônias, ao me proporcionar a

oportunidade de passar alguns dias com os Yanomami e de conhecer a TI Raposa Serra do Sol e a

Serra do Tepequém. Agradeço também a excelente oportunidade de acompanhar um pouquinho da

oficina de planejamento do PGTA da TI Yanomami e aprender tanta coisa nesses dias inesquecíveis.

E, claro, por ser uma amiga muito querida.

À toda a família da dona Dica e do seu Mimi, espalhada no Ubim, Cacau e Bom Socorro (RDS

Amanã), por serem minha família na Amazônia e terem me ensinado tanto ao longo desses quase dez

anos de amizade. Por tantas vezes me levarem para caçar, pescar, fazer açaí, fazer farinha, dançar

forró, etc. Foi maravilhoso poder passar uma semana de férias com eles depois de um campo de três

meses no Juruá. O Amanã não fez parte do doutorado, mas faz parte de mim. Sou eternamente grata

por tudo que já vivemos juntos e por terem despertado meu amor pela Amazônia.

Ao Rafa (Rafael Laia), pelos convites para falar sobre o manejo do pirarucu na disciplina Manejo de

Recursos Naturais, da UFRN. Foram ótimas chances de apresentar a temática de forma mais livre e

de divulgar as nuances do manejo para um público bastante diverso.

Aos amigos em Natal e aos colegas do PPG, que deram um brilho especial ao período do doutorado.

Agradeço especialmente à Miriam e ao Rafa, pelos encontros sempre tão divertidos e papo super

fluido; à Andressa e ao Pichi, pela convivência feliz nos tempos que passaram lá em casa; aos “legais

de natal”, esse grupo de pessoas realmente muito legais: Carol, Bernardo, Tamara, Juampy, Dri,

Guiga, Julia, JB, Isa, Pichi, Pocas, Marina Vergara, Eugenia, Juanka, Eli, Helô, Duka; aos ótimos

vizinhos da Porto das Oficinas: Hada, Pocas, Nicolas, Pedro, Alexandre, Célia, que quebraram vários

galhos, especialmente cuidando dos nossos animais quando viajávamos; às meninas do FEME, pelas

divertidas conversas e a disposição em ajudar sempre: Julia, Ana, Clara, Lud, Nat, Mona, Iohara; aos

companheiros de sala no PPG, que deixavam o ambiente tão alegre: Nádia, Adriana Almeida, Paulo

Marinho, Rafa Medeiros (além dos já citados anteriormente); aos funcionários e técnicos do DECOL,

por também tornarem os dias na UFRN mais agradáveis, com as descontraídas conversas de

corredor: dona Marlene, Erik, Ricardo, Dimas, Kionara e Victor.

À Ju Lins, Karla Koehler e Marília Rodrigues por serem amigas-irmãs e me acompanharem sempre

de perto (mesmo tão longe fisicamente).

Às caminhadas diárias às 5h30 da manhã na praia de Ponta Negra, que me permitiram viver a vida de

forma muito mais leve, consciente e feliz. Ao Parque Zoobotânico do Museu Goeldi, por presentear

as janelas e varanda de nossa nova morada com um belo suspiro de floresta amazônica em meio à

selva de pedra de Belém. Às corridas em seu calçadão, que me fizeram tão bem. À yoga e ao pilates,

que também foram muito importantes para reequilibrar a mente e o corpo.

A todos os financiamentos que me permitiram participar de cursos e eventos em distintos lugares do

mundo ao longo desses quatro anos e que me trouxeram oportunidades únicas de aprimorar minha

formação científica e ampliar os horizontes de distintas formas:

Ao governo da Austrália, à Embaixada da Austrália no Brasil e à Australian Academy of Science,

pela oportunidade de participar do Australia-Brazil PhD Exchange Program e realizar dois meses de

intercâmbio acadêmico na Australian National University (ANU), em Canberra. Sou especialmente

grata a Vanessa Ribeiro e Shannon Owen por estarem à frente da impecável organização de todas as

etapas do programa. Agradeço também a Robert Dyball, que me recebeu na ANU, e aos colegas da

Fenner School of Environment & Society, em especial Mae Noble, Richard Beggs e Katherina Ng.

Por fim, não tenho palavras para expressar minha eterna gratidão a Jan e Keith Thomas, esse

maravilhoso casal que nos acolheu calorosamente em sua casa durante os dois meses, nos tratando

como verdadeiros filhos. Nunca esquecerei os jantares de todos os dias, regados à muito intercâmbio

cultural, e os passeios divertidos que fizemos juntos (na Austrália e no Brasil!).

À National Geographic Society pela oportunidade de participar do National

Geographic Explorers Festival in Mexico City. Os workshops, palestras e eventos tiveram enorme

impacto na minha visão sobre divulgação científica, abriram muitos horizontes e trouxeram novas

oportunidades. Agradeço especialmente a Gael Almeida, por ser tão querida e fazer um maravilhoso

trabalho em prol do grupo da National Geographic LatinoAmérica.

Ao projeto Tracking Change: Local and Traditional Knowledge in Watershed Governance

(financiado pelo SSHRC), que me concedeu financiamento para campo e me permitiu participar do

Tracking Change…Global Knowledge Symposium, na Tailândia (2017) e em Nova York (2019),

onde pude interagir e fazer parcerias com pessoas de distintas áreas. Agradeço especialmente à Iria

Heredia, pela amizade instantânea e companhia super agradável. Também sou muito grata ao

Tracking Change pela oportunidade de ter passado dois dias em uma comunidade de pescadores do

rio Mekong e conhecido um pouco de sua realidade.

À Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation (ATBC) e à UFRN pelos financiamentos

para participar do 52º encontro anual da ATBC, no Havaí. Além de ampliar meus horizontes ao

conhecer esse especial recanto do mundo, pude fazer um workshop de estatística bastante útil.

Ao South American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies (SARAS) pelo curso

Introduction to Social-Ecological Systems Research in Latin America, no Uruguai, que foi uma

importante imersão na abordagem dos sistemas socioecológicos e outra ótima oportunidade de

interagir intensamente com pessoas de áreas muito distintas. Sou especialmente grata ao surgimento

da nossa rede transdisciplinar RESACA - Red socioecológica de co-creación para América Latina,

que já demonstra sinais de muita potência e brilho. Agradeço aos integrantes, espalhados pelo

mundo, pelo belo trabalho coletivo e por toda a energia que vem sendo investida na rede.

Ao Projeto Médio Juruá e à Darwin Initiative, pelo financiamento do meu campo no Juruá.

Ao Idea Wild, por me conceder o computador no qual desenvolvi esta tese.

À CAPES e à UFRN pela oportunidade do doutorado e da bolsa que viabilizou minha dedicação a

essa atividade tão engrandecedora.

E por último, mas com certeza não menos importante, registro aqui minha profunda gratidão a duas

grandes paixões...

A Amazônia, que me encanta sempre mais com a beleza de seus rios, suas matas e sua gente.

O mar, que me renova a cada encontro.

Quem vem pra beira do mar

(Dorival Caymmi)

Quem vem pra beira do mar, ai

Nunca mais quer voltar, ai

Quem vem pra beira do mar, ai

Nunca mais quer voltar

Andei por andar, andei

E todo caminho deu no mar

Andei pelo mar, andei

Nas águas de Dona Janaína

A onda do mar leva

A onda do mar traz

Quem vem pra beira da praia, meu bem

Não volta nunca mais

SUMÁRIO

RESUMO .................................................................................................................................. 1

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 2

INTRODUÇÃO GERAL ......................................................................................................... 3

CAPÍTULO 1: “SHIFTING BASELINE” IN FRESHWATER: USING FISHER’S PERCEPTIONS

FOR ASSESSING HISTORICAL TRENDS OF A BANNED SPECIES ........................................ 13

CAPÍTULO 2: CO-MANAGEMENT: A POTENTIAL TOOL TO PROMOTE GENDER EQUITY

IN FISHERIES ........................................................................................................................... 40

CAPÍTULO 3: CO-MANAGEMENT OF CULTURALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: A TOOL TO

PROMOTE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND HUMAN WELL-BEING ......................... 62

CONCLUSÃO GERAL ....................................................................................................... 105

1

RESUMO

Sistemas socioecológicos (SSE) são os complexos sistemas que abarcam tanto a dimensão

social (humana) quanto a ecológica (biofísica). Ambas dimensões são igualmente importantes

e funcionam como um sistema interdependente, no qual alterações em uma dimensão afetam a

outra. Para que o manejo de recursos naturais seja sustentável a longo prazo, faz-se necessário

garantir a integridade do SSE do qual tais recursos fazem parte. Portanto, é preciso considerar

tanto as dimensões biofísicas quanto as humanas desse sistema, incluindo seus componentes

sociais, econômicos, políticos e culturais. O manejo colaborativo (comanejo) é uma das

ferramentas que vem sendo utilizada na busca pela conciliação entre as distintas dimensões

dos SSE. Nesta tese, o manejo do pirarucu (Arapaima sp.) foi utilizado como um estudo de

caso para fornecer subsídios e incentivos ao desenvolvimento de sistemas de manejo de

recursos naturais mais eficazes, que busquem conciliar o sucesso das múltiplas dimensões do

SSE. Para tanto, foram abordadas três esferas distintas e complementares: ecológica, social e

cultural. No primeiro capítulo, demos maior enfoque na esfera ecológica ao avaliarmos as

tendências históricas de mudança na abundância e no tamanho dos pirarucus através das

percepções de 247 pescadores de 67 comunidades localizadas nos rios Juruá e Purus, dois

grandes tributários do rio Amazonas. No segundo, priorizamos a esfera social e abordamos, a

partir de dados quantitativos provenientes de entrevistas com 143 mulheres de 54

comunidades do rio Juruá, o potencial manejo do pirarucu em promover uma maior equidade

de gênero na pesca, além de outros benefícios sociais decorrentes. No terceiro, a esfera

cultural ganhou maior destaque ao utilizarmos dados de literatura para mostrar como o

manejo com foco em espécies culturalmente importantes pode ser uma ferramenta de grande

potencial para promover benefícios ecológicos e sociais, conciliando conservação da

biodiversidade com qualidade de vida de povos locais.

Palavras-chave: manejo colaborativo; pesca; Arapaima sp.; Espécies Culturalmente

Importantes; equidade de gênero; Amazônia

2

ABSTRACT

Socioecological systems (SES) are the complex systems encompassing both the social

(human) and the ecological (biophysical) dimensions. These dimensions are equally important

and function as an interdependent system, in which changes in one dimension affect the other.

For ensuring the long-term sustainability of natural resources management, it is necessary to

guarantee the integrity of the SES from which these resources are part. Therefore, it is

necessary to consider both the biophysical and the human dimensions of this system,

including its social, economic, political and cultural components. Collaborative management

(comanagement) is one of the available tools for reconcile the different dimensions of SES.

Here, the arapaima (Arapaima sp.) comanagement was used as a case study to provide

subsidies and incentives for the development of more effective natural resource management

systems. Three different and complementary spheres were addressed: ecological, social and

cultural. In the first chapter, we focused on the ecological dimension by evaluating the

historical trends of arapaima abundance and size based on the perceptions of 247 fishermen

from 67 communities located in the Juruá and Purus rivers, two major tributaries of the

Amazon River. In the second chapter, we prioritized the social sphere and showed, based on

interviews with 143 women from 54 communities on the Juruá River, that arapaima

comanagement has the potential to promote greater gender equity in fisheries. In the third

chapter, the cultural dimension was prominent as we used literature data to show how

comanagement focusing on culturally important species can be a potential tool to promote

ecological and social benefits, reconciling biodiversity conservation with local welfare.

Keywords: comanagement, fishing, pirarucu, Arapaima sp.; Culturally Important Species;

gender equity; Amazon

3

INTRODUÇÃO GERAL

Sistemas socioecológicos (SSE) são aqueles compostos tanto por dimensões biofísicas quanto

humanas, incluindo componentes econômicos, políticos, sociais e culturais (Berkes e Folke,

1998; Berkes 2011). As dimensões biofísicas e humanas são igualmente importantes e

funcionam como um sistema interdependente, no qual ao mesmo tempo em que as ações

humanas afetam os sistemas biofísicos, os fatores biofísicos também afetam o bem-estar

humano (Berkes 2011). Assim, apesar de muitas vezes serem tratadas separadamente, essas

dimensões deveriam ser consideradas inseparáveis, uma vez que estão totalmente

interrelacionadas e se afetam mutuamente (Hilborn e Walters, 1992; Berkes et al. 2001;

Kooiman et al. 2005; Cochrane e Garcia, 2009). Diversos autores argumentam que os

sistemas socioecológicos deveriam ser utilizados como unidade de análise nos estudos sobre

sustentabilidade e que o manejo de recursos naturais, para ser efetivo e realmente sustentável

a longo prazo, precisa focar em garantir a integridade desses sistemas e de suas múltiplas

dimensões (Francis et al. 2007; Cochrane e Garcia 2009; Berkes 2011).

O manejo colaborativo (comanejo) é uma das ferramentas utilizadas na busca pela

conciliação entre a dimensão biofísica e humana dos SSE (Folke et al. 2005; Kooiman et al.

2005; Armitage et al. 2007). Em termos gerais, o comanejo refere-se ao compartilhamento do

direito de tomada de decisão e de controle sobre o uso dos recursos entre os usuários e o

Estado e/ou demais instituições envolvidas (Jentoft, 1989; Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997). As

iniciativas de comanejo passaram a ocorrer mais expressivamente a partir da década de 1980,

representando uma alternativa ao regime de livre acesso (open access) e à centralização do

controle nas mãos do Estado (Cleaver, 1999; Gutiérrez et al., 2011). A partir desse sistema

mais inclusivo, acredita-se que o manejo tenda a apresentar maior eficiência, pois as regras

passam a ser mais legítimas para os usuários e a refletir melhor as condições do local,

resultando em propostas mais coerentes e em uma maior predisposição ao cumprimento dos

acordos (Jentoft, 2000; Jentoft et al., 1998; McClanahan et al., 2011, 2006). Ao cumprir os

acordos, os usuários promovem uma série de benefícios ecológicos, os quais gerarão

benefícios diretos e indiretos para eles próprios.

No caso dos SSEs da pesca artesanal de pequena escala, que é responsável por cerca

de metade da produção de todo pescado do mundo e emprega aproximadamente 25 milhões

de pescadores (FAO 2014), o manejo colaborativo parece representar uma ótima alternativa

para a sustentabilidade, uma vez que esse tipo de pesca é difícil de ser manejada com

eficiência a partir de um sistema de governança centralizado (McClanahan et al., 2009;

4

Costello et al. 2012). Essa dificuldade se deve especialmente ao caráter multiespecífico da

pesca, ao uso de distintos petrechos para captura e à falta de pontos de desembarque

definidos, características que limitam a coleta de dados e a capacidade de fiscalização

(McClanahan et al., 2009). Assim, diversos países têm buscado tornar a governança da pesca

de pequena escala mais participativa, estimulando o desenvolvimento de regimes de comanejo

(Alcala and Russ, 2006; Gelcich et al., 2010; Olsson et al., 2008).

A bacia Amazônica é a rede de drenagem com a maior área e a maior diversidade de

peixes do planeta (Junk et al. 2007). O pescado é a principal fonte de proteína animal para os

povos amazônicos, que apresentam o maior consumo per capita médio deste produto no

Brasil e um dos maiores do mundo, chegando a atingir um consumo médio de 800 g de

peixe/pessoa/dia em algumas localidades (Isaac e Almeida, 2011). Estimativas indicam que a

Amazônia responde por aproximadamente 60% de toda a produção da pesca extrativa

continental do Brasil (MPA, 2013), porém grande parte do que é pescado provavelmente

sequer chega a ser registrado formalmente. A crescente demanda comercial tem resultado em

diversos casos de sobrepesca na região amazônica, especialmente de espécies de alto valor e

ciclo de vida longo (Castello et al., 2014). Portanto, o desenvolvimento de formas alternativas

de manejo pesqueiro, a exemplo dos sistemas de comanejo, é uma das maneiras de se tentar

buscar melhorias para este cenário.

Dentre as iniciativas de comanejo na Amazônia vem se destacando bastante nos últimos

anos o manejo colaborativo do pirarucu (Arapaima spp.). O pirarucu é um dos maiores peixes

de água doce do mundo e um elemento de grande importância ecológica, econômica e cultural

na Amazônia. Esse peixe costumava ser associado a uma única espécie (Arapaima gigas;

Castello and Stewart, 2010), mas é atualmente mencionado como Arapaima spp. devido às

incertezas quanto à distribuição de múltiplos congêneres (Stewart 2013a,b; Castello et al.

2014; Watson et al. 2016). Durante todo o século XIX e início do século XX, o pirarucu foi o

principal recurso pesqueiro comercial da Amazônia Brasileira (Veríssimo 1895; Mérona

1993), o que levou à sua sobre-exploração em muitas áreas e a casos de extinções locais

(Castello et al. 2014). A pesca do pirarucu foi sendo, então, gradualmente proibida nos

estados da Amazônia a partir do final dos anos 1990, porém os índices de pesca ilegal se

mantiveram sempre muito altos diante da fiscalização ineficiente na região (Cavole et al.,

2015; Castello and Stewart 2010). Neste contexto, o manejo colaborativo do pirarucu surgiu

como uma alternativa para conciliar a recuperação dos estoques de pirarucu com a sua pesca

sustentável, despertando o engajamento dos povos locais e estimulando o cumprimento das

regras e a fiscalização protagonizada pelos próprios comunitários (Castello et al., 2009).

5

A primeira experiência de manejo do pirarucu começou em 1999, na Reserva de

Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá, localizada na bacia do rio Solimões, estado do

Amazonas. Ao longo dos anos, a experiência mostrou resultados promissores e, após

comprovado seu sucesso, o modelo foi aceito pelo Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e

dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA) como um sistema de manejo a ser

potencialmente replicado em outras áreas do estado, o que gerou a possibilidade da pesca

legal do pirarucu sob determinadas condições (Instrução Normativa Nº 1, de 1º de junho de

2005, Amazonas; Decreto Estadual Nº 36083, de 23 de julho de 2015, Amazonas). O manejo

do pirarucu proliferou-se na região e atualmente abarca mais de 3000 famílias, de mais de 450

comunidades rurais do Amazonas (IBAMA, comunicação pessoal). Outros estados, como

Acre e Rondônia, também estabeleceram normas permitindo a pesca do pirarucu se

desenvolvida dentro dos moldes de um plano de manejo aprovado pelos órgãos competentes

(Instrução Normativa Nº 1, de 30 de maio de 2008, Acre; Instrução Normativa Nº 2, de 13 de

maio de 2019, Rondônia).

O manejo do pirarucu é baseado em um sistema de cotas anuais, calculadas de acordo

com o número de indivíduos presentes em cada local a ser pescado. O número de indivíduos é

determinado anualmente a partir de um método de contagem inspirado no conhecimento local

dos pescadores e testado através de métodos científicos (Castello, 2004). A captura máxima

permitida pelo IBAMA é de 30% do total de indivíduos adultos contados (Decreto Estadual

Nº 36083, de 23 de julho de 2015, Amazonas), mas a cota concedida pode variar dentro desse

limite de acordo com critérios estabelecidos pelo IBAMA (IBAMA, comunicação pessoal).

Para obter aprovação do plano de manejo, as comunidades precisam delinear o zoneamento

dos seus corpos de água, determinando quais serão destinados ao uso contínuo (subsistência

e/ou comercial) e quais serão protegidos. Dentre os protegidos, deve-se incluir tanto lagos

destinados à pesca da cota anual de pirarucu (sem nenhum outro uso no restante do ano)

quanto lagos de proteção integral (sem nenhum tipo de uso ao longo de todo ano). Os

comunitários são responsáveis por garantir a fiscalização efetiva dos lagos protegidos para

evitar eventos de pesca ilegal nos mesmos (Decreto Estadual Nº 36083, de 23 de julho de

2015, Amazonas).

As iniciativas de manejo do pirarucu vêm promovendo a recuperação e aumento dos

estoques desse peixe em diversas regiões (Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016; Castello et al.,

2009; Petersen et al., 2016; Viana et al., 2007). No entanto, pouco se sabe acerca das

tendências históricas das populações de pirarucu na Amazônia, devido à deficiência de

monitoramento dos estoques e do desembarque pesqueiro. O acompanhamento sistemático

6

restringe-se apenas às áreas de manejo, nas quais são realizadas estimativas anuais de

abundância (contagens) de acordo com exigências do IBAMA. Tais áreas, porém, são

geograficamente limitadas e abrangem apenas uma pequena porção da distribuição geográfica

do pirarucu (Castello e Stewart 2010). Além disso, mesmo nessas áreas, o monitoramento

normalmente é restrito somente aos lagos protegidos, enquanto nos lagos de uso

(subsistência/comercial) as populações de pirarucu não costumam ser estimadas, ainda que

esses lagos façam parte da área de zoneamento da unidade de manejo (IBAMA, comunicação

pessoal). Vale ressaltar, ainda, que as áreas monitoradas possuem apenas registros recentes,

pois as iniciativas de manejo começaram a se espalhar apenas a partir dos anos 2000, o que

significa que não há dados disponíveis para avaliarmos as mudanças temporais dos estoques

em uma escala de tempo maior. No entanto, tendências temporais são particularmente

relevantes no caso de espécies historicamente exploradas que estejam experimentando

aumentos recentes, como é o caso do pirarucu, a fim de evitar que a magnitude da

recuperação seja sobre-estimada (Lotze et al. 2011; McClanachan et al. 2012). Neste sentido,

buscamos acessar tendências históricas de mudança na abundância e no tamanho dos

pirarucus a partir das percepções de pescadores locais. Diversos estudos ressaltam o potencial

dos pescadores em ser uma importante fonte de dados, especialmente nos casos em que há

pouca informação proveniente de monitoramentos sistemáticos (ex.: McClanachan et al.,

2012; Sáenz-Arroyo and Revollo-Fernández, 2016; Thurstan et al., 2015). A partir de dados

obtido em entrevistas com pescadores, então, buscamos responder às seguintes questões

centrais: as populações de pirarucu estão se recuperando tanto nos lagos protegidos quanto

nos demais? Nos locais onde percebe-se aumento dos estoques, já foram alcançados os níveis

populacionais do passado mais distante que conseguimos alcançar? O tamanho dos indivíduos

também vem sofrendo modificação ao longo das últimas décadas?

Em paralelo aos aspectos ecológicos é preciso olhar também para as demais esferas do

comanejo do pirarucu, uma vez que o mesmo corresponde a um sistema socioecológico e,

portanto, é composto por múltiplas dimensões inter-relacionadas. Alguns estudos apontam

para os benefícios econômicos gerados pelo manejo, já que a atividade resulta em uma

significativa renda extra para famílias rurais que normalmente possuem poucas alternativas de

geração de renda (Amaral, 2009; Campos-Silva and Peres 2016; Castello et al. 2009). No

entanto, as demais dimensões do manejo do pirarucu têm sido amplamente negligenciadas nas

pesquisas acerca da atividade. Pouco se fala, por exemplo, sobre os impactos sociais do

comanejo, apesar de haver indicações de que tal dimensão é diretamente afetada pela

atividade (Campos-Silva and Peres 2016). A dimensão social é uma faceta importante do

7

sucesso de qualquer SSE, e a conciliação entre os benefícios sociais e ecológicos é crucial

para a sustentabilidade do sistema a longo prazo. Além disso, a forma como os usuários

percebem as vantagens e desvantagens do sistema é determinante na maneira como irão agir,

o que influenciará o sucesso ecológico e, consequentemente, as demais dimensões do sistema

(Pollnac et al. 2010). Um exemplo importante de efeito social a ser investigado aqui refere-se

à participação das mulheres na cadeia produtiva da pesca do pirarucu, uma atividade que até

então era restrita aos homens (CTF, observação pessoal). Em diversas iniciativas de manejo

do pirarucu as mulheres participam da atividade e são financeiramente retribuídas pelo tempo

que investiram nela, o que para muitas parece tratar-se de algo inédito no universo das

atividades pesqueiras (CTF, observação pessoal). Esse aspecto chama especial atenção pelo

fato de a equidade de gênero ser um dos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável propostos

pela Organização das Nações Unidas para serem utilizados como metas pelas nações (ONU

2015). Assim sendo, nos perguntamos: existe diferença no acesso à renda proveniente da

pesca para mulheres localizadas em comunidades onde há e onde não há comanejo do

pirarucu? O comanejo está contribuindo para uma maior equidade de gênero no universo da

pesca?

Outra esfera muito pouco explorada nos estudos sobre o manejo do pirarucu é a

dimensão cultural, ainda que esta dimensão pareça estar diretamente relacionada ao sucesso

das iniciativas (CTF, observação pessoal). As pesquisas com enfoque no manejo e nos seus

resultados, comumente atribuem o sucesso das iniciativas ao engajamento comunitário

(Castello et al. 2009; Petersen et al. 2016; Campos-Silva and Peres 2016), mas os fatores que

promovem tal engajamento não costumam ser abordados. Seria a importância cultural do

pirarucu, além da econômica, um gatilho para motivar o interesse e o envolvimento dos povos

locais com as iniciativas de manejo voltadas para esse peixe? O manejo com foco em espécies

de grande importância cultural poderia ser visto como uma potencial ferramenta para conciliar

conservação da biodiversidade com melhoria da qualidade de vida de povos locais? Essa

ferramenta poderia ser aplicada em outros contextos do mundo?

Esta tese busca responder essas perguntas e preencher tais lacunas de conhecimento,

avançando em esferas distintas e complementares do SSE do comanejo do pirarucu e na

relação entre elas. No primeiro capítulo, damos maior enfoque à esfera ecológica ao

avaliarmos as tendências históricas de mudança na abundância e no tamanho dos pirarucus, a

partir das percepções de 247 pescadores de 67 comunidades localizadas nos rios Juruá e

Purus, dois grandes tributários do rio Amazonas. No segundo, priorizamos a esfera social e

abordamos, a partir de dados quantitativos provenientes de entrevistas com 143 mulheres de

8

54 comunidades do rio Juruá, o potencial do manejo em promover uma maior equidade de

gênero, além de outros benefícios sociais decorrentes. No terceiro, a esfera cultural ganha

maior destaque ao utilizarmos dados de literatura para mostrar como o manejo com foco em

espécies culturalmente importantes pode ser uma ferramenta de grande potencial para

promover benefícios ecológicos e sociais, conciliando conservação da biodiversidade com

qualidade de vida de povos locais.

REFERÊNCIAS

Alcala, A.C., Russ, G.R., 2006. No-take Marine Reserves and Reef Fisheries Management in

the Philippines: A New People Power Revolution. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 35,

245–254. https://doi.org/10.1579/05-A-054R1.1

Amaral, E.S.R., 2009. O manejo comunitário de pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) como alternativa

econômica para os pescadores das reservas Amanã e Mamirauá, Amazonas, Brasil.

Universidade Federal do Pará.

Armitage, D.R., Berkes, F., Doubleday, N., 2007. Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration,

Learning, and Multi-Level Governance. University of British Columbia Press,

Vancouver.

Berkes, F., 2011. Restoring Unity: The Concept of Marine Social-Ecological Systems, in:

Ommer, R., Cochrane, K., Cury, P., Perry, I. (Eds.), World Fisheries: A Social-

Ecological Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, Rome.

Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK.

Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R., Pomeroy, R., 2001. Managing Small-scale

Fisheries - Alternative Directions and Methods. International Development Research

Centre, Ottawa.

Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., 2016. Community-based management induces rapid

recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci. Rep. 6, 34745.

https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34745

Castello, L., 2004. A Method to Count Pirarucu Arapaima gigas: Fishers, Assessment, and

Management. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 24, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1577/M02-

024.1

Castello, L., Stewart, D.J., 2010. Assessing CITES non-detriment findings procedures for

Arapaima in Brazil. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 26, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-

0426.2009.01355.x

9

Castello, L., Stewart, D.J., Arantes, C.C., 2014. O que sabemos e precisamos fazer a respeito

da conservação do pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) na Amazônia, in: Amaral, E. (Ed.),

Biologia, Conservação e Manejo Participativo de Pirarucus Na Pan-Amazônia. IDSM,

Tefé, pp. 17–32.

Castello, L., Stewart, D.J., Arantes, C.C., 2013. O que sabemos e precisamos fazer a respeito

da conservação do pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) na Amazônia, in: Amaral, E. (Ed.),

Biologia, Conservação e Manejo Participativo de Pirarucus Na Pan-Amazônia. IDSM,

Tefé, pp. 17–32.

Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Luzadis, V. a, 2009. Lessons from

Integrating Fishers of Arapaima in Small-Scale Fisheries Management at the Mamirauá

Reserve, Amazon. Environ. Manage. 43, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-

9220-5

Cavole, L.M., Arantes, C.C., Castello, L., 2015. How illegal are tropical small-scale fisheries?

An estimate for arapaima in the Amazon. Fish. Res. 168, 1–5.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.03.012

Cleaver, F., 1999. Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to

development. J. Int. Dev. 11, 597–612.

Cochrane, K., Garcia, S., 2009. A Fishery Manager’s Guidebook, Second Edi. ed.

FAO/Wiley-Blackwell.

Costello, C., Ovando, D., Hilborn, R., Gaines, S.D., Deschenes, O., Lester, S.E., 2012. Status

and solutions for the World’s unassessed fisheries. Science 338:6106, 517–520.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1223389

FAO, 2014. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological

Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Francis, R.C., Hixon, M.A., Clarke, M.E., Murawski, S.A., Francis, R.C., Hixon, M.A.,

Clarke, M.E., Murawski, S.A., Francis, R.C., Hixon, M.A., Elizabeth, M., Murawski,

S.A., 2007. Ten Commandments for Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Scientists. Fisheries

32, 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2007)32

Gelcich, S., Hughes, T.P., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Defeo, O., Fernández, M., Foale, S.,

Gunderson, L.H., Rodríguez-Sickert, C., Scheffer, M., Steneck, R.S., Castilla, J.C.,

2010. Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources.

10

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 16794–16799.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012021107

Gutiérrez, N.L., Hilborn, R., Defeo, O., 2011. Leadership, social capital and incentives

promote successful fisheries. Nature 470, 386–389. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09689

Hilborn, R., Walters, C.J., 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment. Chapman and Hall,

London, UK.

Isaac, V.J., Almeida, M.C., 2011. El Consumo del pescado en la Amazonía brasileña. Rome.

Jentoft, S., 1989. Fisheries co-management: delegating government responsibility to

fishermen’s organizations. Mar. Policy 13, 137–154.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(89)90004-3

Jentoft, S., 2000. Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management. Mar. Policy 24,

141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(99)00025-1

Jentoft, S., McCay, B.J., Wilson, D.C., 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-management.

Mar. Policy 22, 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00040-7

Junk, W.J., Soares, M.G.M., Bayley, P.B., 2007. Freshwater fishes of the Amazon River

basin: their biodiversity, fisheries, and habitats. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 10,

153–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980701351023

Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pulin, R., 2005. Fish for Life: Interactive Governance

for Fisheries. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Lotze, H.K., Coll, M., Magera, A.M., Ward-Paige, C., Airoldi, L., 2011. Recovery of marine

animal populations and ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 595–605.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.07.008

McClanahan, T.R., Castilla, J.C., White, A.T., Defeo, O., 2009. Healing small-scale fisheries

by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 19, 33–47.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-008-9088-8

McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., MacNeil, M.A., Muthiga, N.A., Cinner, J.E.,

Bruggemann, J.H., Wilson, S.K., 2011. Critical thresholds and tangible targets for

ecosystem-based management of coral reef fisheries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 17230–

17233. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1106861108

McClanahan, T.R., Marnane, M.J., Cinner, J.E., Kiene, W.E., 2006. A Comparison of Marine

Protected Areas and Alternative Approaches to Coral-Reef Management. Curr. Biol. 16,

1408–1413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.062

11

Mérona, B., 1993. Pesca e Ecologia dos Recursos Aquáticos na Amazônia, in: Furtado, L.G.,

Leitão, W., Fiuza de Mello, A. (Eds.), Povos Das Águas - Realidade e Perspectivas Na

Amazônia. Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belém, pp. 159–185.

MPA, 2013. Balanço 2013: Pesca e Aquicultura, Brasil. Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., Hughes, T.P., 2008. Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based

management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 9489–

9494. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706905105

ONU, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

A/RES/70/1. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

Petersen, T.A., Brum, S.M., Rossoni, F., Silveira, G.F. V., Castello, L., 2016. Recovery of

Arapaima sp. populations by community-based management in floodplains of the Purus

River, Amazon. J. Fish Biol. 89, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12968

Pollnac, R., Christie, P., Cinner, J.E., Dalton, T., Daw, T.M., Forrester, G.E., Graham, N. a J.,

McClanahan, T.R., 2010. Marine reserves as linked social-ecological systems. Proc.

Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 18262–18265. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908266107

Pomeroy, R.S., Berkes, F., 1997. Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-

management. Mar. Policy 21, 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00017-

1

Sáenz-Arroyo, A., Revollo-Fernández, D., 2016. Local ecological knowledge concurs with

fishing statistics: An example from the abalone fishery in Baja California, Mexico. Mar.

Policy 71, 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.006

Stewart, D.J., 2013a. A New Species of Arapaima (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae) from

the Solimões River, Amazonas State, Brazil. Copeia 2013, 470–476.

https://doi.org/10.1643/CI-12-017

Stewart, D.J., 2013b. Re-description of Arapaima agassizii (Valenciennes), a Rare Fish from

Brazil (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae). Copeia 2013, 38–51.

https://doi.org/10.1643/CI-12-013

Thurstan, R.H., McClenachan, L., Crowder, L.B., Drew, J.A., Kittinger, J.N., Levin, P.S.,

Roberts, C.M., Pandolfi, J.M., 2015. Filling historical data gaps to foster solutions in

marine conservation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 115, 31–40.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.04.019

Veríssimo, J., 1895. A pesca na Amazônia, 1st ed. Livraria Clássica de Alves & C, São Paulo.

12

Viana, J.P., Castello, L., Damasceno, J.M.B., Amaral, E.S.R., Estupiñan, G.M.B., Arantes, C.,

Batista, G.S., Garcez, D.S., Barbosa, S., 2007. Manejo Comunitário do Pirarucu

Arapaima gigas na Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá - Amazonas,

Brasil, in: Prate, A.P., Blanc, D. (Eds.), Áreas Aquáticas Protegidas Como Instrumento

de Gestão Pesqueira. MMA/IBAMA, Brasília, pp. 239–261.

Watson, L.C., Stewart, D.J., Kretzer, A.M., 2016. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure

of the Threatened Giant Arapaima in Southwestern Guyana: Implications for Their

Conservation. Copeia 104, 864–872. https://doi.org/10.1643/CG-15-293

13

CAPÍTULO 1

“SHIFTING BASELINE” IN FRESHWATER: USING FISHER’S PERCEPTIONS

FOR ASSESSING HISTORICAL TRENDS OF A BANNED SPECIES

Carolina T. Freitas*a, João Vitor Campos-Silvab, Helder M.V. Espírito-Santoc, Leandro Castellod,

Carlos A. Perese, Priscila F. M. Lopesa

a Departamento de Ecologia, Centro de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil

b Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil

c Núcleo de Ecologia Aquática e Pesca, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil

d Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

e School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

Even tough wildlife has been intensely exploited for centuries, studies addressing the current

status of the populations often ignore their past conditions. Humanity is commonly deceived

by the “shifting baseline syndrome”, and each generation subconsciously accept as a baseline

the environmental conditions that occurred in their youth. Moreover, most studies addressing

the shifting baseline are restricted to the marine realm, while freshwater ecosystems have

gone largely disregarded. However, freshwaters may have been even more drastically

impacted than marine or terrestrial systems, and the shifting baseline syndrome likely affects

our current evaluations and management targets. Here we attest to this idea by addressing

temporal trends of the arapaima (Arapaima sp.), an iconic fish that used to be the most

important commercial fishery resource in the Brazilian Amazon until face overfishing

scenarios in many areas and some local extinctions. Through a comprehensive survey

encompassing 247 interviews in 67 communities of two major tributaries of the Amazon

river, we assessed fishers’ perceptions on the relative changes of arapaima stocks over the last

~70 years. We show that arapaima populations are recovering in some areas, but still

declining in others. Moreover, even where the stocks are increasing, they have not yet reached

its past abundance. We explore the nuances of our findings, and address specific strategies to

be adapted to use fishers’ perceptions for accessing data on banned species in data-poor

scenarios worldwide.

Keywords: Arapaima spp., pirarucu, Amazon, fish stocks, population trends, co-management

14

INTRODUCTION

Humans have impacted global fauna and flora over millennia. Most agree that we live now in

the Anthropocene era, a geologic time in which human activity has emerged as a global force

transforming the entire Planet along relatively short time-scales (Ellis, 2015; Zalasiewicz et

al. 2010). Over the past 500 years, humans have triggered a wave of wildlife declines that

may be comparable in both rate and magnitude with the five previous mass extinctions of

Earth’s history (Dirzo et al., 2014). As we scaled up from hunter-gatherers to modern

societies, the need for more intensive exploitation of natural resources has increased, together

with the drastic impact on the ecosystems (Crosby 2000).

Despite the acknowledged historical overexploitation of wildlife, studies addressing

the current status of the populations often ignore their past conditions. There is an underlying

assumption that only recent data on composition and abundance exist, and that historical data

are either nonexistent or not good enough to use in rigorous assessments (Pinnegar and

Engelhard, 2008). As such, scientists are commonly deceived by the “shifting baseline

syndrome” – that is, each generation subconsciously accept as a baseline the environmental

conditions that occurred at the beginning of their career (Pauly, 1995; Sheppard 1995). As one

generation replaces another, people’s perspectives change such that they fail to appreciate the

extent of past modifications (Sáenz-Arroyo et al., 2005). The gradual shift of the baseline

results in the use of inappropriate reference points to evaluate changes and to define

conservation targets (Jackson et al., 2001; Pauly, 1995).

Several studies have addressed the shifting baseline phenomenon over the last years,

using different methods to obtain historical information, such as archaeological remains,

genetic analysis, historical inventories, historical reports, trade records, and logbooks

(Pinnegar and Engelhard, 2008). Local ecological knowledge (LEK; Berkes et al., 1994;

Johannes, 1998) has also proven to be a powerful and cost-effective tool to increase our

understanding on population dynamics, especially when historical data is not available

(Mcclenachan et al., 2012; Sáenz-Arroyo and Revollo-Fernández, 2016; Thurstan et al.,

2015). Even though those unconventional sources of information have different degrees of

bias and may be methodologically more difficult to use than modern standardized data, they

should not be discarded or discredited on account of that (Jackson et al., 2001; Mcclenachan

et al., 2012; Sáenz-Arroyo and Revollo-Fernández, 2016). Worldwide, studies incorporating

data from non-traditional sources have revealed important processes of long-term changes and

enabled valuable insights into wildlife management that would otherwise not be possible

(Early-Capistrán et al., 2018; Jackson et al., 2001; Kittinger et al., 2015; Lotze and Worm,

15

2009; Mcclenachan et al., 2012; McClenachan et al., 2015; Torre et al., 2006). The more we

access population trends over the longest time period possible, the more we prevent the

widespread shifting baseline syndrome.

The shifting baseline syndrome was first identified in studies on marine fisheries

science and most studies addressing the phenomenon are still restricted to this realm.

Freshwater environments remain largely neglected in the field, although historical

exploitation of freshwater fauna was also intense and overharvesting rapidly devastated stocks

of the most economically valuable species (Humphries and Winemiller, 2009). The effects of

overexploitation in freshwaters may have been even more drastic than in marine or terrestrial

systems, mainly due to the constrained, more accessible nature of freshwater environments

(Humphries e Winemiller 2009). Indeed, a recent study on the resilience of Amazonian fauna

to the massive 20th century international fur/skin trade, showed that whereas freshwater

species suffered drastic population collapse, terrestrial species did not, partially due to the

persistence of adequate spatial refuges enabling source-sink dynamics (Antunes et al. 2016).

The profound effects of the past decimation of freshwater populations have gone largely

disregarded worldwide, and the shifting baseline syndrome likely affects our perceptions on

recent freshwater degradation and our evaluations of restoration targets (Humphries e

Winemiller 2009).

Here we step up this idea by assessing the historical trends of an iconic fish from the

Amazon basin: the arapaima (Arapaima sp.). Arapaima is one of the largest freshwater fish on

Earth, and used to be the most important commercial fishery resource of the Brazilian

Amazon during the 19th and early 20th century (Mérona, 1993; Veríssimo, 1895). Such severe

pressure led to an overfishing scenario, and to the consequent prohibition of arapaima harvest

in the 1990s (Castello et al., 2014). Yet, the effectiveness of the prohibition was hindered by

high levels of illegal harvest due to insufficient compliance and surveillance (Castello and

Stewart, 2010; Cavole et al., 2015). Since the 2000s, an arapaima co-management model has

been gradually established in different areas, promoting the increase of local populations

(Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016; Castello et al., 2009; Petersen et al., 2016). A remarkable

lack of historical data on arapaima stocks, however, limits our understanding on the

populations’ changes over time. Temporal trends are particularly relevant in such cases of

historically exploited species that are experiencing recent increases, otherwise the magnitude

of the recovery can be overestimated (Lotze et al. 2011; McClenachan et al. 2012). For

banned species exposed to high levels of illegal harvest, as is arapaima, evaluating the

16

population trends is also crucial to verify if the prohibition was enough for ensuring recovery,

or if further measures may be needed.

Through a comprehensive survey encompassing 247 interviews in 67 communities of

two major tributaries of the Amazon river, we assessed fishers’ perceptions on the relative

changes of arapaima populations over the last ~70 years. We show that although arapaima

stocks have been promisingly increasing in some areas, they have not yet reached its past

abundance, nor is the recovery geographically distributed across the studied regions. We

discuss the nuances of our findings and the broad implications of our study, which could serve

as a model to other researches in data-poor scenarios worldwide.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study area

The study was conducted in the Brazilian Amazon, specifically in the Juruá and in the Purus

rivers (Fig.1), two major tributaries of the Amazon river. Both are whitewater rivers and have

their origins in the Andes, from where they transport large amounts of nutrient-rich sediments

(Junk et al. 2011). The whitewater rivers deposit their sediments in large floodplains, locally

known as várzeas. The várzeas are highly fertile and covered with productive terrestrial and

aquatic herbaceous plant communities and floodplain forests, which function as a nursery and

feeding area for many fish species (Junk et al., 2011). The Juruá and the Purus rivers are very

productive in terms of fishing, and part of their fishery production is destined to Manaus, the

capital of Amazonas state and the largest Amazonian city. Both basins have Sustainable-Use

Protected Areas (herein PAs), a park category with the goal of reconciling natural resource

conservation with the maintenance of local people traditional ways of life. We surveyed

communities located along ~1500 km of the lower and middle Juruá river, and ~150 km of the

lower Purus river (Fig. 1). The surveyed communities were located either inside or outside

PAs. The PAs included in the study were the Middle Juruá Extractive Reserve (RESEX

Médio Juruá; 5º 33’ S, 67º 42’ W; ~287,000 ha), the Uacari Sustainable Development Reserve

(RDS Uacari; 5º 43' S, 67º 46' W; ~633,000 ha) and the Lower Juruá Extractive Reserve

(RESEX do Baixo Juruá; 3º 30’ S, 66º 05’ W; ~188,000 ha) in the Juruá basin, and the

Piagaçu-Purus Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS-PP; 4º 45' S, 61º 07' W; ~1.008.000

ha) in the Purus basin (Fig. 1). The inhabitants of all surveyed communities have similar

livelihoods, based mainly on fisheries, slash-and-burn agriculture and non-timber forest

17

products (Newton et al., 2012). Fishing is one of the main sources of income to the local

communities in both studied regions (Newton et al., 2012).

Figure 1. Map of the study areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Left: the study areas (red and blue rectangles) circumscribed in the map of the Brazilian Amazon. Right: LANDSAT 5 image of the study area in the Juruá river (red rectangle; upper right) and in the Purus river (blue rectangle; lower right), two major tributaries of the Amazon river. Orange and yellow circles correspond to surveyed rural communities with and without arapaima co-management, respectively. Green polygons represent the Protected Areas.

Arapaima and its fishery in the Brazilian Amazon

Arapaima (locally known as pirarucu; Fig. 2) used to be considered a single species

(Arapaima gigas; Castello and Stewart, 2010) but is currently referred to as Arapaima spp.

due to uncertainties regarding the distribution of multiple congeners (Castello et al., 2013;

Stewart, 2013a, 2013b; Watson et al., 2016). This fish has great ecological, economic and

cultural importance in the Amazon, playing a central role in the livelihood of many

Amazonian peoples since pre-Columbian times (Aparicio, 2014; Murrieta, 2001; Prestes-

Carneiro et al., 2016). Arapaima fishing used to be a specialized activity, restricted to only a

few specialists in each community, since its capture was done mainly with a harpoon and

required advanced technical skills. This fishing also implied in a profound Local Ecological

Knowledge on arapaima and its ecology, which was passed down through generations,

normally from father to son. Since the early 2000s, arapaima can only be legally harvested

within specific arapaima co-management schemes subjected to the approval of the Brazilian

Environmental Agency (IBAMA). In such schemes, arapaima fishing has turned into a

18

collective activity, with a totally different arrangement than the historical and traditional

fishing.

Arapaima co-management is featured by local people and authorized by IBAMA. The

model is based on a quota system set yearly according to the fish abundance within the

management areas (Castello et al., 2009). The maximum allowed quota corresponds to 30%

of the total arapaima adults (> 1.5 m in length) existing in the area. The abundance is annually

estimated by local people through a standardized protocol based on direct visual counts

(Castello, 2004). This is possible because arapaima is an obligate air-breather that comes to

the surface every ~15 min. IBAMA only releases the first fishing quota to the community

after three consecutive annual counts, and depending on the increases on arapaima stocks over

this time. The quota is allocated as a one-off annual harvest, normally lasting from a few days

to a month. To be granted IBAMA’s approval to manage arapaima, the community needs to

zone its water bodies, specifying which lakes will be destined to protection (hereafter

“protected lakes”), to subsistence fishery (hereafter “subsistence lakes”) or to commercial

fisheries (hereafter “open access lakes”). The protected lakes encompass both no-take lakes

and lakes where there is no fishing all over the year but the one-off arapaima annual quota

fishing. The inclusion of protected lakes is mandatory, and the communities need to establish

a local vigilance system to preclude poaching. They are also required to send an annual report

to IBAMA, with detailed information on each step of the co-management, such as the

arapaima counting, harvest (including the weight, sex, and gonadal stage of each individual

captured) and commercialization. All these steps follow specified protocols, and are subjected

to different types of oversight. Arapaima co-management is currently happening in ~ 450

communities within the Amazonas State, where the studied communities are located (IBAMA

unpublished data; Sup.Fig.1). In the other Amazonian states, the establishment of co-

management initiatives is still insipient. The engagement of local people in the arapaima co-

management has ensured its success and several consequent positive ecological and

socioeconomic benefits, including the significant recovery of arapaima populations, the

generation of income to rural families and the maintenance of cultural practices (Campos-

Silva and Peres, 2016; Castello et al., 2009; Petersen et al., 2016; Viana et al., 2007; Amaral,

2009). Despite the prohibition of arapaima harvest outside a co-management scheme, in both

the Juruá and the Purus basins there is a local understanding that arapaima may be harvested

for local consumption, and the species is often caught for this purpose (CTF personal

observation).

19

Figure 2. Arapaima sp. and its fishery in the Brazilian Amazon. A) Arapaima individual in an aquarium (Photo: Pedro Peloso); B) Historical illustration of arapaima by Franz Keller (Keller, 1874); C) Fishers during the arapaima co-management harvest, waiting arapaima come up to the surface to harpoon it (Amanã Sustainable Development Reserve, Solimões River basin; Photo: Carolina Freitas); D) Fishers landing arapaima harvested during the arapaima co-management in the Middle Juruá Extractive Reserve (Juruá River basin; Photo: Carolina Freitas).

Data sampling

Our data is based on semi-structured interviews with 247 fishers, 123 from the Juruá and 124

from the Purus basin. Fishers were from 54 communities of the Juruá basin (16 inside and 38

outside PAs) and 13 of the Purus basin (9 inside and 4 outside PAs). The interviews were

conducted in 2016 (August-November) in the Juruá river, and in 2017 (October-November) in

the Purus river. In each community, we used snowballing techniques to identify the fishers

who were believed by the community members to have a good knowledge on arapaima

(expert arapaima fishers). Particular attention was given to the identification of elderly expert

fishers in each community. We explained the goals of our study to each potential interviewee

and asked for their voluntary participation. All those who consented to participate were

included in the research. All interviewees were men, which is related to the fact that arapaima

fishing used to be a male activity in the Amazon. Over the last years, women have been

included in some of the co-management initiatives, but their participation is normally

20

restricted to the post-harvest activities only (see chapter 2) and our questions for this study

required experience with arapaima harvest. The questionnaire used for the interviews included

questions on: (i) the name of the lakes where the interviewee used and uses to go fishing (and

since when); (ii) the category of each lake (protected, open access or subsistence lake); (ii)

how many adult arapaima (> 1.5 m) he estimate he would approximately see in the most

abundant part of each cited lake if he watched the lake for 20 min in the period when he

started fishing; (iii) how many he would currently see if he watched the same area for 20

minutes; (iv) the weight of the largest arapaima he has ever caught in his life, and when was

it. For this last question (iv), we asked for the largest fish caught out of the co-management

harvest, since the fishing done within the co-management scheme is collective and many

interviewees could mention the same fish (pseudoreplication). Additionally, we used direct

observation in the fishing communities (including during arapaima fishing) and spontaneous

open questions to better understand nuances of arapaima fisheries and local specificities.

Data analysis

Studies have pointed out the importance of addressing trends, rather than absolute values, to

properly use LEK as one of the available tools to understand the dynamics of wild

populations from a historical perspective (e.g. Saenz-Arroyo and Revollo-Fernandez 2016).

As such, quantifying arapaima population and establishing specific individual lengths is not in

the scope of this study. Instead, we tried to evaluate the relative temporal trends in arapaima

abundance and size according to fishers’ perceptions and records.

Arapaima sightings

For evaluating abundance trends, we used fishers’ estimates of arapaima sightings as a proxy

of arapaima relative abundance. Studies using interviews to assess data on fish abundance

normally focus on fishing captures, mainly on the interviewees’ best catch or catch per unit

effort (e.g. Coll et al., 2014; Early-Capistrán et al., 2018; Tesfamichael et al., 2014). A

reduction in the catch over time likely indicates a decline on the species abundance, if the

commercial demand for the species has not changed nor fishers have any other reason for

having reduced their catch. In the case of banned species, however, acquiring information on

current catches may be challenging, since those who are still harvesting the species will likely

not feel at ease to openly expose data on illegal catches. That is why we decided to use

arapaima sightings instead of arapaima catches.

21

We firstly calculated the rate of change of arapaima sightings by dividing the number

of arapaima each interviewee estimated to see in the past by the number he estimated to

currently see in the same area. The rate was calculated by: log (past sightings+0.5) – log

(present sightings+0.5). This rate was used as the response variable, and the year when the

interviewee started to fish in the area was the predictor. To not overweight the perception of

fishers who cited a higher number of lakes, we summarized an average rate per interviewee

by each lake category. The subsistence lakes were excluded from the analyzes because this

category encompasses a wide range of actual uses, from cases where the lake functions

similarly to a protected lake (e.g. only a few families, from a certain community, fish there

and exclusively for household consumption) to cases where it functions similarly to an open

access lake (e.g. several families, from various communities, fish there and eventually for

small-scale commercial purposes). The analyses were therefore restricted to the protected and

open access lakes only. Most protected lakes are located inside PAs, while the open access are

common both inside and outside PAs. Data was analyzed separately for the Juruá and the

Purus basins, and for each lake categories. The database we acquired from the interviews

started in different periods in each analyzed case: from the 1940s in the case of the Purus

open access lakes; from 1950s in both protected and open access lakes of the Juruá; and from

1960s in Purus protected lakes.

We used loess regressions to fit smooth curves between the variables to evaluate

general trends of arapaima relative abundance over time in each case. Loess is a powerful

locally weighted regression for fitting smooth curves to empirical data (Jacoby, 2000). It is a

non-parametric method whose procedure is a fairly direct generalization of traditional least-

squares methods for data analysis (Cleveland, 1979). As such, loess tries to find a curve of

best fit without assuming the data must fit a certain distribution shape. It depicts the “local”

relationship between the response and predictor variables over parts of their ranges, which

may differ from a “global” relationship determined using the whole data set (Cleveland 1979).

Instead of estimating parameters like a and b in y = ax +b, it focuses on the fitted curve. The

fitted points and their standard errors are estimated with respect to the whole curve rather than

a particular estimate. The overall uncertainty is measured as how well the estimated curve fits

the population curve (Jacoby 2000).

In the graphs showing the relative changes on arapaima sightings over time, the Y axis

corresponds to the rate of change calculated as log (past sightings/present sightings). When Y

= 0, the number of arapaima seen in the past (numerator) is equal to the number of arapaima

seen in the present (denominator), since log (1) = 0. For a constant present arapaima sighting,

22

an inferior Y value for someone who started to fish in the year X+1 compared to someone

who started in the year X, indicates that the person who started before (in X) got to see more

arapaima in the beginning of his career than the person who started later (in X+1), i.e. the

downward curve indicates a decline in the past number of arapaima. Once the curve shows a

point of inflexion and goes up, it means that people who started to fish after this year used to

see more arapaima in the beginning of the career than people who started just before, i.e. the

upward curve indicates an increase in the past number of arapaima. In both the downward and

upward curves, if Y values are below zero, it indicates that the rate (i.e. past/present) is

inferior to 1, since log (x < 1) = < 0. In this case, people have been sighting a higher number

of arapaima currently than when they started fishing, regardless if arapaima populations were

declining or increasing in the past. As such, in the hypothetical case of having more arapaima

currently then in the whole period from 1940s onwards (i.e. from when we have data), we

would see the whole curve below zero. In a hypothetical case where arapaima populations

would not have changed since the 1940s, we would have seen a straight line at Y = 0.

Arapaima size

To evaluate trends in arapaima size over time, the largest arapaima caught was used as a

proxy of arapaima maximum size. As such, the weight of the largest arapaima ever caught by

each interviewee (out of co-management harvest) was used as the response variable, and the

year when the fish was caught was the predictor. Loess regressions were used to fit smooth

curves between the response and predictor variables, and data was analyzed separately for the

Juruá and the Purus basins. As opposed to the case of arapaima sightings, the relationship

between arapaima size and the predictor was monotonic in both basins, which allowed us to

use a Spearman correlation to verify the relationship between the variables.

RESULTS

Arapaima sightings in protected lakes

Both rivers, Juruá (red line) and Purus (blue line) showed similar trends regarding the

temporal changes on arapaima sightings in protected lakes (Fig 3). In both basins, arapaima

sightings declined from the beginning of the database (1950s) until the mid-1990s, when it

began to stabilize and then to increase around 2005 (Fig 3). The lines cross the zero in 1975

and 1965 for the Juruá and the Purus river, respectively (Fig 3), indicating that people who

started fishing after these dates saw on average more arapaima in recent years than in the

23

beginning of their career, whereas those who started fishing before these turning points

believe that arapaima has not yet recovered its past abundance. The 10-years difference

between the two basins could either indicate that the arapaima declined first in the Purus or

that the recent arapaima recovery was stronger in the Purus than in the Juruá. Yet, the former

hypothesis is more likely since arapaima recovery has been similar in the protected lakes of

both basins (Campos-Silva et al. in press; Petersen et al., 2016). The curve representing the

Purus is always below the one of the Juruá (Fig. 3), which indicates that the rate between the

past and present arapaima sightings is smaller in the Purus. Thus, assuming that the current

abundance of arapaima is similar in both basins, the lower line corresponds to fewer past

arapaima sightings in the Purus compared to the Juruá. The lines of both basins show a major

decline in the first decades and a smoothed decline from the 1980s on, which could indicate

either a reduction on fishing pressure thenceforth or stock depletion.

Figure 3. Arapaima sightings trends in protected lakes of the Brazilian Amazon. A) Temporal changes on arapaima sightings in protected lakes of the Juruá river (red line) and the Purus river (blue line). Y values correspond to the rate of change of arapaima sightings estimated by dividing the number of arapaima each interviewee estimated to see in the past by the number he estimated to currently see in the same area. The rate was calculated by: log (past sightings+0.5) – log (present sightings+0.5). Each point in the graph corresponds to the average rate of change of all lakes cited by each interviewee. X values correspond to the year when the interviewee began fishing in the area. B) Map of the Amazon showing the location of the Juruá river (red line), the Purus river (blue line) and the city of Manaus (yellow star).

B

A

24

Arapaima sightings in open access lakes

The general pattern of change is different between the open access lakes from the Juruá (red

line) and the Purus (blue line; Fig. 4). In the Juruá, the line does not cross the zero, which

means that the interviewees as a whole used to sight more arapaima in the past than currently,

regardless of when the person started fishing (i.e. the stocks have not started increasing yet).

The line approaches a downward straight line, which indicates a sharp decline on arapaima

sightings over time (Fig. 4). In contrast, in the Purus basin the line crosses the zero around

1975, indicating that only those who began their career before this year used to sight more

arapaima in the past, while those who started later have been sighting more arapaima lately

than in the beginning of their careers. The Purus curve stabilized around 1995 and began to

rise by 2005 (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Arapaima sightings trends in open access lakes of the Brazilian Amazon. A) Temporal changes on arapaima sightings in open access lakes of the Juruá river (red line) and the Purus river (blue line). Y values correspond to the rate of change of arapaima sightings estimated by dividing the number of arapaima each interviewee estimated to see in the past by the number he estimated to currently see in the same area. The rate was calculated by: log (past sightings+0.5) – log (present sightings+0.5). Each point in the graph correspond to the average rate of change of all lakes cited by each interviewee. X values correspond to the year when the interviewee started to fish in the area.

A

B

25

Arapaima size

The average size of the largest arapaima caught by the interviewees (disregarding those

harvested within a co-management scheme) has declined over the last decades in both the

Juruá (rho = - 0.50, p < 0.0001) and the Purus (rho = - 0.53, p < 0.0001, Fig. 5). The data is

scanty before the 1970s, which is likely related to a common time lag between the period

when the interviewees started their career as fishers and the period when they began fishing

arapaima. In the interviews, fishers often attributed such time lag to the fact that arapaima

fishing demands high technical expertise and profound acquired knowledge on arapaima. The

data scarcity in the first decades of the study hampers the proper adjustment of the trend lines,

and results in large confidence intervals at the beginning of the time series (Fig. 5).

Nevertheless, there is a clear declining pattern in both basins for the subsequent period to

which there is more data. The average size of the largest arapaima is always greater in the

Juruá than in the Purus basin. For instance, in 1990 the largest arapaima caught had in average

~175 kg in the Juruá compared to ~115 kg in the Purus. In 2000, the average was ~155 kg in

the Juruá and ~95 kg in the Purus (Fig. 5). However, the shape of the lines indicates a sharper

decline in the Juruá than in the Purus along the surveyed period (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Temporal changes on the weight of the largest arapaima caught by the inte rviewees from the Juruá (red line) and the Purus (blue line) rivers, in the Brazilian Amazon. Y values correspond to the largest arapaima ever caught by the interviewee, not including fishing done within a co-management harvest. X values correspond to the year when the mentioned fish was caught.

26

DISCUSSION

Our results show a severe decline on arapaima populations throughout the mid-20th century in

both the Juruá and the Purus basins. Although the populations have been increasing since the

beginning of the 2000s, the recovery is not necessarily widespread within each basin. In the

Juruá, for example, arapaima populations are increasing in the protected lakes but are still

declining in the open access lakes. In both the Juruá and the Purus, arapaima average

maximum size (disregarding those caught in management schemes) has been declining over

the last decades.

Our data is limited to the mid-20th century onwards because the oldest people in the

communities in general only began fishing in the 1950s. Nevertheless, sparse historical

archives indicate that arapaima fishing pressure dates way back before this period. The

explorer Robert Schomburgk, for example, mentioned in his book published in 1840 that

“there are extensive [arapaima] fisheries for supplying the different towns, and great

quantities are sent to Para, where it is preferred to the fish salted on the North American

coast, and commands a higher price.” (Schomburgk, 1840). In 1854, a periodical where

governmental acts of the Amazonas state were issued, published a note establishing the value

of provincial tax for arapaima commercialization (Estrella do Amazonas 1854). In 1895, José

Veríssimo mentioned in his book that “arapaima fishery occupies the first position among the

Amazonian fisheries, according to any possible economic criteria” and that “the arapaima is

the basis of Amazonian nourishment” (Veríssimo 1895, p. 28). Such historical evidences

suggest that the pressure over arapaima stocks was already high in the 19th century. Indeed,

in 1941 the ichthyologist Manuel Nunes Pereira mentioned in a report that arapaima was no

longer as abundant as before in most lakes of the Purus basin (Nunes Pereira 1941). He

considered that the species was endangered by this time and that some harvest restrictions

would be crucial to ensure arapaima perpetuation (Nunes Pereira 1941). Therefore, the

decline observed here in the early years representing the relative changes on arapaima

sightings over time (Fig. 3 and 4) is the result of an intense exploitation lasting surely for

more than a century before the 1950s.

Changes on arapaima sightings in the protected lakes

In the Purus, fishers who started fishing after 1965 tended to generally mention more

sightings recently in the protected lakes than they used to see in the past, while in the Juruá

this is the case only for fishers who started fishing one decade later (Fig. 3). Such 10-years

disparity between the two basins is likely due to historical differences in local fishing

27

pressure. The Purus river is much closer to Manaus (Fig. 3), the largest city in the entire

Amazon, which favored the commercialization of products from this basin. The access from

Manaus to both basins is by boat, and it takes one and five days to reach the Purus and the

Juruá, respectively (travelling throughout day and night). The journey along the Juruá also

takes longer, since it is the most winding river in the world (IBGE 2019). For instance, six

days are needed to navigate along the Juruá River from the surveyed communities closest to

Manaus to those more distant (Fig. 1). Despite the lack of historical landing data, there is

evidence that from 1976 to 1978 the Purus responded for 16-19% of the total annual

Amazonas fishing catch and had ~6500 registered fishers, while the Juruá responded for 5%

and had ~1200 registered fishers (Petrere 1983, 1985). Within this period, ~900 annual

fishing trips from Manaus, the main consumer city, were done to the Purus as opposed to only

~100 to the Juruá (Petrere 1983). Such higher fishing pressure in the Purus likely led to an

earlier depletion of the local stocks compared to the Juruá, and that is probably why the

current scenario of arapaima abundance in the Purus is better than the one back in 1965, while

this is not yet the case for the Juruá. The difference in the historical fishing pressure between

the two basins, and the presumed better condition of the past stocks in the Juruá, may also

justify why the rate between the past and present arapaima sightings is always higher in the

Juruá (Fig. 3).

The rise of the curves representing the relative temporal changes on arapaima

sightings in the protected lakes (Fig. 3) is likely related to the establishment of arapaima co-

management initiatives in the studied regions. Arapaima annual counts began in 2005 and

2007 in the studied areas of the Juruá and the Purus, respectively (IBAMA, unpublished data).

To start the counts, the communities needed to have previously zoned their water bodies and

converted some of them into no-take lakes. Therefore, most lakes currently labeled as

protected were converted into such category around this period, although not all

simultaneously, since the co-management started in a few communities and was gradually

adopted by others (IBAMA, unpublished data). Interviewees commonly mentioned that, even

though some lakes were already labeled as protected previously to the establishment of the

arapaima co-management (within the establishment of the Protected Areas), compliance was

not as effective as in the context of arapaima co-management. The co-management

represented a paradigm shift, in which local people became an important part of the arapaima

conservation without giving up financial gains. They felt stimulated by the recovery of this

culturally important fish that was hitherto almost disappearing, and felt proud of being the

driving force of such recovery (Campos-Silva et al. 2016). The co-management was a great

28

stimulus for local compliance and surveillance against poaching, which resulted in the

consequent increase of the stocks (Campos-Silva et al. 2016; Castello et al. 2009).

Changes on arapaima sightings in the open access lakes

Arapaima sightings have been also increasing in the open access lakes of the studied area in

the Purus basin, whereas they are continuously declining in the Juruá (Fig. 4). Such difference

may be consequence of the geographical distribution of our sampling in each basin. While in

the Juruá the surveyed communities were distributed across ~1500km of the river bank, in the

Purus they were much more concentrated, along ~150 km of the river bank and in adjacent

regions (Fig. 1). Therefore, the surveyed communities in the Purus, and the lakes used by the

interviewees, were much closer to each other than in the Juruá. The geographical proximity

favors arapaima spillover from the protected to the open access lakes (Campos-Silva et al.

2019). The spillover is possible because the lakes become connected by floodplain forests and

river channels during the high-water season, enabling arapaima lateral migration through

them (Castello et al. 2008). Arapaima move some kilometers (~ 30 km) during the high-water,

and tend to come back to the same region when the waters level drops (Campos-Silva et al.,

2019). In this process, the individuals may disperse to nearby lakes and reproduce on them

(Campos-Silva et al. 2019). As our survey in the Purus was geographically restricted to areas

with or close to arapaima co-management, many of the open access lakes mentioned by the

interviewees are likely affected by such arapaima annual migration. In the Juruá, however,

our comprehensive survey included several areas located far from arapaima co-management,

where the species struggles to recover in the absence of spillover from protected lakes

concomitant with high levels of poaching.

The wide media repercussion of the arapaima recovery promoted by the arapaima co-

management may give the impression that arapaima is recovering across the entire Amazon,

which is probably not true. Our findings from the Juruá are likely a good sample of the

Amazonian reality as a whole, since most of arapaima original distribution is not covered by

co-management initiatives (Sup.Fig.1) and their positive impact is thus geographically limited

as well. On places exempted from the co-management initiatives, or from its indirect effects,

the historical overexploitation of arapaima stocks may be increasingly aggravated by high

levels of poaching. For instance, 77% of all arapaima landed in Santarém (a major Amazonian

city) was estimated to be illegal, which corresponds to the highest rate of illegal fishing ever

reported in the global literature and to more than four times the world average (Cavole et al.

2015). Therefore, arapaima may be still facing a widespread declining condition, as reinforced

29

by our results (Fig. 4). Findings from studies addressing the effects of arapaima co-

management also support this idea, since their comparison between adjacent areas with and

without arapaima co-management unanimously shows that arapaima stocks continue to

decline (or stabilize at very low densities) in the absence of arapaima co-management, despite

dramatically increasing in the areas with co-management (Campos-Silva et al. 2016; Petersen

et al. 2016). The only data systematically collected regarding arapaima abundance is the one

from arapaima counts within the co-management schemes, and these counts are mostly

restricted to the protected lakes. Yet, arapaima stocks should be monitored in a broader

geographical scale, especially considering the strong evidence suggesting that simply banning

its fisheries on paper without assuring enough enforcement is not effective in ensuring

arapaima recovery. We also suggest that partnerships between areas with and without

arapaima co-management could increase the range of the co-management effects and

potentiate the spill-over effect. The positive result of such partnerships would be important

not only ecologically but also for the local food security and the maintenance of cultural

values associated to the arapaima.

Changes in arapaima size

Changes in arapaima size over time showed here reinforce its continued overexploitation (Fig.

5). Even tough large individuals are still often captured within the co-management harvest

(CTF and JVCS personal observation), such harvest is normally restricted to the protected

lakes, wherein people do not fish throughout the year except for the one-off annual quota

catch. Protected lakes likely concentrates greater densities of large individuals due to the

strong local surveillance on theses lakes concomitant with the high site fidelity of migrating

arapaima (Campos-Silva et al. 2019). Hence, the probability of finding larger individuals in

protected lakes is likely much greater than in the other lakes, where there are far less arapaima

and they are often captured before reaching large sizes. The data from the interviews probably

refers to individuals caught in non-protected lakes, since fishing in protected lakes is not

allowed outside a co-management scheme, and local surveillance against poaching in these

lakes is normally strong. As such, the declining pattern observed both in the Juruá and the

Purus rivers may be explained by the continued fishing pressure over arapaima out of the

protected lakes. Therefore, similarly to the abundance case, data on arapaima size coming

exclusively from the co-management reports can give us the false illusion that arapaima is

increasing in size all over the Amazon, which may not be true, as suggested by our results. To

the best of our knowledge, even within the co-management areas there is no certainty that

30

arapaima is increasing in size, since the arapaima weight data sent yearly to IBAMA was not

publically analyzed. Studies should be done in order to evaluate the trends on arapaima size

caught in the co-management harvests, and the possibility of restricting a maximum allowed

size for the individuals captured ought to be considered.

The shifting baseline syndrome and the use of fishers’ perceptions for obtaining

information on banned, data-deficient species

Arapaima fishing was banned in the 1990s due to evidence suggesting that the species was

overexploited all over the Amazon. Nevertheless, such evidence was mainly based on direct

observations from researchers and conservationists, since systematic data on arapaima

monitoring or on landing records was absent. Such lack of historical data favors the shifting

baseline syndrome, not only among fishers but among scientists as well, and our perceptions

on the species recovery may consequently become biased and detached from historical reality

(Pauly 1995). Places where monitoring is scarce often concurring with those where

surveillance is deficient. Such unfavorable scenario is highly common in developing

countries, which controversially host most global biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al., 2000)

and most of the world’s rural poor, who depend directly on natural resources for subsistence

and to support local economies (Fisher and Christopher, 2007). Therefore, monitoring the

species and ensuring their perpetuation is both ecologically appealing and critical to maintain

food security and social stability (Adams, 2004; Adenle et al., 2015)

We showed that the shifting baseline is present among Amazonian fishers. Those who

recently began their careers often perceive arapaima stocks as plentiful nowadays in the

protected lakes, while those who started to fish in the 1950-1960s generally claim that

arapaima used to be far more abundant in the past. Such difference reinforces the importance

of accessing and outreaching the historical conditions of the stocks. Shifting baselines among

fishers might, for example, negatively influence their behavior regarding restrictive measures,

since they may not perceive any need to change their ways (Bunce et al., 2008). In the

absence of monitoring data, as in the arapaima case, interviews with users may be the only

source of information to access and evaluate the historical trends of the species. Even though

it may be challenging to incorporate local knowledge into scientific analyses (Huntington

2000; Johannes et al. 2000), that knowledge can offer important insights into the former

conditions of the stocks and ecosystems (Johannes 1981), especially where historical records

are scant. Importantly, when the generation of the eldest people have died, their perception

about how the environment once looked will be gone forever (Sáenz-Arroyo et al., 2005).

31

Here we estimated the abundance trends of a banned species based on fishers’

perceptions, without needing to ask the interviewees about their captures. Even though it is

possible to build trust with the communities and get access to data from illegal activities, such

process demand time and may be unfeasible in many contexts worldwide. Asking about

peoples’ notions, instead of catches, is a less-invasive way of accessing information on a

banned species, which will likely result in a higher number of people keen to participate in the

research. In our case, for example, by asking about arapaima sightings, we enabled a much

more comprehensive survey, encompassing fishers who fish arapaima illegally and would

honestly expose it, fishers who would not expose it (or would lie about the quantities) and

fishers who respect the ban and do not fish arapaima anymore. Moreover, the non-need to

build trust with the communities enable a more comprehensive survey, since data can be

obtained across a broad geographical scale in a shorter period of time.

Studies addressing banned species throughout the world could adapt our method to try

to evaluate the relative changes of the species abundance over time. We acknowledge that

arapaima offers the natural convenience of being easily seen, as it needs to go to the surface to

breath and normally stays restricted to the lakes during the low-water season. Nevertheless,

other questions could be used for other contexts, as for instance “How many [species popular

name] do you think you could catch on a fishing day in [place name] (i) currently and (ii) in

the period when you began to fish?” or “If you leave a gillnet for [amount of time] in [place

name], how many [species popular name] do you think you could catch (i) these days and (ii)

in the period when you began to fish?”. Other questions could be used depending on the

particularities of each fishery. Similarly, questions about the size could also be adapted to

other contexts. In our case, data on arapaima size was not a problem because people still feel

free to fish arapaima for household consumption. Where this is not the case, the survey could

be restricted to the abundance, or questions regarding fish size could be adjusted in order to

avoid embarrassment. For instance, instead of the largest fish caught by the interviewee, we

could ask “What is the size of a [species popular name] considered to be large (i) nowadays

and (ii) in the period when you began to fish?” or “When people catch [species popular

name], how large it (i) uses to be nowadays and (ii) used to be when you began to fish?”. In

all cases, designing a proper questionnaire requires reasonable previous knowledge about the

specificities of the context being addressed (e.g. aspects related to the target species, to the

fishing techniques applied, to the habits of the fishers etc.). It is also important to have large

samples and include a reasonable number of interviewees from each age class (Sáenz-Arroyo

et al., 2005). Additional effort may be needed to find elderly people, particularly in

32

developing countries, where populations are often highly skewed towards young people

(Sáenz-Arroyo et al. 2005). Finally, it may be appropriate to not expose how exactly the rates

and trends will be calculated, to not influence interviewees’ answers due to eventual personal

interests in see a certain result.

The method we propose here does not seek to obtain absolute data on the stocks at a

certain point in time, but to assess relative changes over time based on users’ perceptions. The

central idea was to capture their notion on the differences between the present and past stocks

characteristics. For stocks changing over time, as is the arapaima and many others worldwide,

the contrast between the present and the past tend to be different amongst people from

different ages. Modelling this difference is a way to estimate population trends and relative

changes. Such estimation is highly valuable, as it may help reduce the pernicious shifting

baseline syndrome and enable a more coherent and realistic evaluation of the current relative

condition of the stocks within a historical perspective (Pauly, 1995).

CONCLUSION

To avoid the shifting baseline on wildlife management, species need to be monitored and to

have their current data compared with their historical conditions (Pauly, 1995). In the case of

banned species, monitoring is crucial to verify if the prohibition was effective in ensuring

recovery, or if further measures may be needed. This is especially true for places exposed to

high levels of illegal harvest, as is often the case in developing countries (Adams, 2004;

Adenle et al., 2015; Cavole et al. 2015). Controversially, those places often have scarce

population monitoring and a marked lack of historical data. The case addressed in our study is

a real example of that. Despite being the main commercial fishery resource in the Brazilian

Amazon for centuries, arapaima used to be unmonitored, and historical long-term systematic

data on stocks trends is inexistent. Arapaima fisheries became banned in the 1990s, but is

largely poached throughout the Amazon, and there is still no stock monitoring, except for the

restricted areas of co-management.

By interviewing fishers and accessing their perceptions, we were able to obtain

valuable information on arapaima trends for the last ~70 years. We showed that arapaima was

severely declining along the mid-20th century in both the Juruá and the Purus river, two major

tributaries of the Amazon river. Although the populations have been increasing since the

beginning of the 2000s, the recovery is not widespread within each basin. Arapaima increases

seem to be dependent on the presence of protected lakes surveilled by local people, a

condition often related to the establishment of co-management initiatives. Arapaima co-

33

management follows specific protocols, featured by local people and authorized by the

Brazilian Environmental Agency, and has been highly successful in recovering the stocks.

However, the wide media repercussion of such recovery may give the false illusion that

arapaima is recovering across the entire Amazon. Yet, on places exempted from the co-

management, or from its indirect effects, arapaima seems to be still declining, in both

abundance and size. Considering that co-management initiatives cover a very limited portion

of arapaima original distribution, stocks monitoring should encompass a much broader scale

than that of the co-management areas. Moreover, partnerships between areas with and without

arapaima co-management should be stimulated in order to increase the range of the co-

management effects and potentiate the spill-over effect.

The method used to estimate temporal changes on arapaima abundance was innovative

and very appropriate for the case of a banned species, since it was focused on people notions

about the stocks instead of peoples’ fishing captures. This less-invasive approach enables the

participation of a larger number of people, including those who respect the ban and do not

fish anymore, and those who would not reveal their illegal catches. It is also more time

effective, since it is not necessary to invest a long time in building trust to get access to

compromising information. We suggested specific and practical strategies to enable the

adaption of our method to researches in other contexts throughout the world. We strongly

recommend the use of users’ perceptions as a tool to estimate population trends, especially in

the case of banned species exposed to deficient enforcement and high levels of poaching.

Such estimation may help reduce the shifting baseline syndrome and enable a more coherent

evaluation of the current relative condition of the stocks from a historical perspective.

ACKNOWLEDGES

We are very grateful to all the fishers who participated in the research and were willing to

spend their time and perceptions with us. We also thank the surveyed communities and their

inhabitants as a whole, who opened their doors to us. We are grateful to ASPROC, AMARU,

CEUC, ICMBio and IPi for fieldwork support. This study was funded by the Darwin Initiative

for the Survival of Species (DEFRA/UK; Project 20–001 awarded to CAP) and the “Tracking

Change: The Role of Local and Traditional Knowledge in Watershed Governance”

(SSHRCC/Canada; Partnership Grant 895-2015-1024 awarded to CTF and PFML). CTF and

JVCS thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

(CAPES/Brazil; Finance Code 001) for a PhD and a post-doctoral scholarship, respectively.

34

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

The study fully complies with ethical standards. The research was approved by the Ethics

Committee (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisas com Seres Humanos - CEP/UFRN; Permit

2.013.825) according to Brazilian legislation involving research with traditional people. It was

also approved by the Centro Estadual de Unidades de Conservação (CEUC) and the Instituto

Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) according to Brazilian legislation

involving research in Protected Areas. All participants had access to an Informed Consent

Form (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido - TCLE), and voluntarily agreed to

participate in the research. People appearing in the pictures within the manuscript gave us

their informed written consent authorizing the publication of the pictures.

REFERENCES

Adams, W.M., 2004. Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty. Science 306,

1146–1149. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097920

Adenle, A.A., Stevens, C., Bridgewater, P., 2015. Global conservation and management of

biodiversity in developing countries: An opportunity for a new approach. Environ. Sci.

Policy 45, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.002

Aparicio, M., 2014. Relações Alteradas – Ideias Suruwaha sobre Animais e Caça. Ilha Rev.

Antropol. 16, 037. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8034.2014v16n2p37

Berkes, F., Folke, C., Gadgil, M., 1994. Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Biodiversity,

Resilience and Sustainability, in: Perrings, C.A., Mäler, K.-G., Folke, C., Holling, C.S.,

Jansson, B.O. (Eds.), Biodiversity Conservation - Problems and Policies. Springer

Science + Business Media Dordrecht, pp. 281–299.

Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R., Pomeroy, R., 2001. Managing Small-scale

Fisheries - Alternative Directions and Methods. International Development Research

Centre, Ottawa.

Bunce, M., Rodwell, L.D., Gibb, R., Mee, L., 2008. Shifting baselines in fishers’ perceptions

of island reef fishery degradation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 51, 285–302.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.09.006

Campos-Silva, J.V., da Fonseca Junior, S.F., da Silva Peres, C.A., 2015. Policy reversals do

not bode well for conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. Nat. Conserv. 13, 193–195.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.006

Campos-Silva, J.V., Hawes, J.E., Peres, C.A. 2019. Population recovery, seasonal site

fidelity, and daily activity of pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) in an Amazonian floodplain

35

mosaic. Fresh. Biol. 64, 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13301

Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., 2016. Community-based management induces rapid

recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci. Rep. 6, 34745.

https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34745

Castello, L., 2004. A Method to Count Pirarucu Arapaima gigas : Fishers, Assessment, and

Management. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 24, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1577/M02-

024.1

Castello, L., Arantes, C.C., Mcgrath, D.G., Stewart, D.J., Sousa, F.S. De, 2014.

Understanding fishing-induced extinctions in the Amazon. Aquat. Conserv. Mar.

Freshw. Ecosyst. n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2491

Castello, L., Stewart, D.J., 2010. Assessing CITES non-detriment findings procedures for

Arapaima in Brazil. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 26, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-

0426.2009.01355.x

Castello, L., Stewart, D.J., Arantes, C.C., 2013. O que sabemos e precisamos fazer a respeito

da conservação do pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) na Amazônia, in: Amaral, E. (Ed.),

Biologia, Conservação e Manejo Participativo de Pirarucus Na Pan-Amazônia. IDSM,

Tefé, pp. 17–32.

Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Luzadis, V. a, 2009. Lessons from

Integrating Fishers of Arapaima in Small-Scale Fisheries Management at the Mamirauá

Reserve, Amazon. Environ. Manage. 43, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-

9220-5

Cavole, L.M., Arantes, C.C., Castello, L., 2015. How illegal are tropical small-scale fisheries?

An estimate for arapaima in the Amazon. Fish. Res. 168, 1–5.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.03.012

Cleveland WS. 1979. J. Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots.

Am. Stat. Assoc. 74, 829–836. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286407

Coll, M., Carreras, M., Ciércoles, C., Cornax, M.-J., Gorelli, G., Morote, E., Sáez, R., 2014.

Assessing fishing and marine biodiversity changes using fishers’ perceptions: the

Spanish Mediterranean and Gulf of Cadiz case study. PLoS One 9, e85670.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085670

Dirzo, R., Aletti, M., Young, H.S., Isaac, N.J.B., Collen, B., Ceballos, G., 2014. Defaunation

in the Anthropocene. Science (80-. ). 345, 401–406.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817

36

Early-Capistrán, M.M., Sáenz-Arroyo, A., Cardoso-Mohedano, J.G., Garibay-Melo, G.,

Peckham, S.H., Koch, V., 2018. Reconstructing 290 years of a data-poor fishery through

ethnographic and archival research: The East Pacific green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in

Baja California, Mexico. Fish Fish. 19, 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12236

Eder, J.F., 2005. Coastal resource management and social differences in Philippine fishing

communities. Hum. Ecol. 33, 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-005-2430-Z

Ellis, E., 2015. Ecology in an Anthropogenic Biosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 85, 287–331.

https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2274.1

Fisher, B., Christopher, T., 2007. Poverty and biodiversity: Measuring the overlap of human

poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecol. Econ. 62, 93–101.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.020

Humphries, P., Winemiller, K.O., 2009. Historical Impacts on River Fauna, Shifting

Baselines, and Challenges for Restoration. Bioscience 59, 673–684.

https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.9

Jackson, J.B., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K. a, Botsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J.,

Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J. a, Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange,

C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J., Warner,

R.R., 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science

293, 629–37. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059199

Jacoby, W., 2000. Loess: a nonparametric, graphicial tool for depicting relationships between

variables. Elect. Stud. 19, 577–613. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.104

Johannes, R.E., 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: Examples from

tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 243–246.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01384-6

Junk, W.J., Piedade, M.T.F., Schöngart, J., Cohn-Haft, M., Adeney, J.M., Wittmann, F., 2011.

A classification of major naturally-occurring amazonian lowland wetlands. Wetlands 31,

623–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0190-7

Keller, F., 1874. The Amazon and Madeira Rivers - Sketches and Descriptions from the

Notebook on an Explorer. London.

Kittinger, J.N., International, C., Mcclenachan, L., Gedan, K., 2015. Marine historical

ecology in conservation: applying the past to manage for the future. Choice Rev. Online

52, 52-5865-52–5865. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.190255

Lotze, H.K., Worm, B., 2009. Historical baselines for large marine animals. Trends Ecol.

Evol. 24, 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.12.004

37

McClenachan, L., Cooper, A.B., McKenzie, M.G., Drew, J.A., 2015. The Importance of

Surprising Results and Best Practices in Historical Ecology. Bioscience 65, 932–939.

https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv100

McClenachan, L., Ferretti, F., Baum, J.K., 2012. From archives to conservation: Why

historical data are needed to set baselines for marine animals and ecosystems. Conserv.

Lett. 5, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00253.x

Mérona, B., 1993. Pesca e Ecologia dos Recursos Aquáticos na Amazônia, in: Furtado, L.G.,

Leitão, W., Fiuza de Mello, A. (Eds.), Povos Das Águas - Realidade e Perspectivas Na

Amazônia. Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belém, pp. 159–185.

Murrieta, R.S.S., 2001. A mística do Pirarucu: pesca, ethos e paisagem em comunidades

rurais do baixo Amazonas. Horizontes Antropológicos 7, 113–130.

https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-71832001000200006

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000.

Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858.

https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501

Newton, P., Endo, W., Peres, C.A., 2012. Determinants of livelihood strategy variation in two

extractive reserves in Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. Environ. Conserv. 39,

97–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000580

Pauly, D., 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol.

Evol. 10, 430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89171-5

Petersen, T.A., Brum, S.M., Rossoni, F., Silveira, G.F. V., Castello, L., 2016. Recovery of

Arapaima sp. populations by community-based management in floodplains of the Purus

River, Amazon. J. Fish Biol. 89, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12968

Pinnegar, J.K., Engelhard, G.H., 2008. The “shifting baseline” phenomenon: A global

perspective. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-007-9058-6

Prestes-Carneiro, G., Béarez, P., Bailon, S., Rapp Py-Daniel, A., Neves, E.G., 2016.

Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian

village. J. Archaeol. Sci. Reports 8, 454–462.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033

Sáenz-Arroyo, A., Revollo-Fernández, D., 2016. Local ecological knowledge concurs with

fishing statistics: An example from the abalone fishery in Baja California, Mexico. Mar.

Policy 71, 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.006

Sáenz-Arroyo, A., Roberts, C.M., Torre, J., Cariño-Olvera, M., Enríquez-Andrade, R.R.,

2005. Rapidly shifting environmental baselines among fishers of the Gulf of California.

38

Proc. Biol. Sci. 272, 1957–62. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3175

Schomburgk, R.H., 1840. The Naturalist’s Library - Ichthyology - Fishes of British Guiana

Part I.

Stewart, D.J., 2013a. Re-description of Arapaima agassizii (Valenciennes), a Rare Fish from

Brazil (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae). Copeia 2013, 38–51.

https://doi.org/10.1643/CI-12-013

Stewart, D.J., 2013b. A New Species of Arapaima (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae) from

the Solimões River, Amazonas State, Brazil. Copeia 2013, 470–476.

https://doi.org/10.1643/CI-12-017

Tesfamichael, D., Pitcher, T.J., Pauly, D., 2014. Assessing Changes in Fisheries Using

Fishers ’ Knowledge to Generate Long Time Series of Catch Rates : a Case Study from

the Red Sea 19.

Thurstan, R.H., McClenachan, L., Crowder, L.B., Drew, J.A., Kittinger, J.N., Levin, P.S.,

Roberts, C.M., Pandolfi, J.M., 2015. Filling historical data gaps to foster solutions in

marine conservation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 115, 31–40.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.04.019

Torre, J., Hawkins, J.P., Saenz-Arroyo, A., Roberts, C.M., Carino-Olvera, M., 2006. The

value of evidence about past abundance: marine fauna of the Gulf of California through

the eyes of 16th to 19th century travellers. Fish Fish. 7, 128–146.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2006.00214.x

Veríssimo, J., 1895. A pesca na Amazônia, 1st ed. Livraria Clássica de Alves & C, São Paulo.

Viana, J.P., Castello, L., Damasceno, J.M.B., Amaral, E.S.R., Estupiñan, G.M.B., Arantes, C.,

Batista, G.S., Garcez, D.S., Barbosa, S., 2007. Manejo Comunitário do Pirarucu

Arapaima gigas na Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá - Amazonas,

Brasil, in: Prate, A.P., Blanc, D. (Eds.), Áreas Aquáticas Protegidas Como Instrumento

de Gestão Pesqueira. MMA/IBAMA, Brasília, pp. 239–261.

Watson, L.C., Stewart, D.J., Kretzer, A.M., 2016. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure

of the Threatened Giant Arapaima in Southwestern Guyana: Implications for Their

Conservation. Copeia 104, 864–872. https://doi.org/10.1643/CG-15-293

39

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Supplementary Figure 1. Distribution of arapaima co-management initiatives across the Amazonas state . Each green circle represents one management unit, which may encompass several communities and lakes (data from IBAMA, unpublished). White line indicates the limits of Amazonas state. Black line indicates the approximate limits of arapaima geographical distribution, based on Castello & Stewart 2010.

40

CAPÍTULO 2

CO-MANAGEMENT:

A POTENTIAL TOOL TO PROMOTE GENDER EQUITY IN FISHERIES

Carolina T. Freitasa, Helder M.V. Espírito-Santob, João Vitor Campos-Silvac, Carlos A. Peresd, Priscila

F. M. Lopesa

a Dept. de Ecologia, Centro de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, 59078-900, Natal, RN, Brazil

b Núcleo de Ecologia Aquática e Pesca, Universidade Federal do Pará, 66075-110, Belém, PA, Brazil

c Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, 57072-900, Maceió, AL, Brazil

d School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

Women greatly contribute to fisheries worldwide, representing about 47% of the global

fisheries’ workforce. Yet female fishing roles often go unrecognized, overlooked and

underpaid. In the Brazilian Amazon, arapaima (Arapaima sp.) co-management fisheries,

which began in the early 2000s, represents a change in this scenario. To assess the impact of

arapaima co-management on women recognition in fisheries, we conducted a comprehensive

assessment at 54 semi-subsistence fishing communities (with and without arapaima co-

management), across a ~1,500-km segment of a major Amazonian river. Based on

quantitative data from interviews with 143 local women, we show that arapaima co-

management represents an innovative source of female income from fisheries and a

groundbreaking recognition of women participation in fishing activities. In communities

where arapaima co-management had been established, median female fishing revenue was

US$ 215/yr and the mean probability of women earning income from fisheries was 76%, a

marked difference from the virtually non-existent female fishing income at communities

without arapaima co-management (median = US$ 0; mean probability = 7%). Our results

support that arapaima co-management was the main variable explaining differences in women

fishing income between the study communities. Although many women often participate in

commercial fisheries, arapaima co-management has been the only source of fisheries income

for most of them. We discuss the potential, limitations and broad implications of our case

study, which can serve as a model to be adapted to other fisheries schemes worldwide seeking

to enhance gender equity in fisheries and other extractive economies.

Keywords: Women, income generation, small-scale fisheries, Amazon, arapaima, pirarucu,

paiche

41

INTRODUCTION

Fishing is often considered a male activity throughout the world. Estimates indicate, however,

that women represent 47% of the global fisheries’ workforce, encompassing about 56 million

jobs in the harvest and post-harvest subsectors (World Bank, 2012). In the harvest sector only,

women account for nearly 14% (8.3 million) of all people directly engaged in fisheries and

aquaculture (FAO, 2018). Indeed, in some regions women contribute to 25-55% of all small-

scale fisheries catch (Harper et al., 2013; Kleiber et al., 2014; Lentisco and Lee, 2015).

Nevertheless, the role of women in fisheries is often unrecognized and overlooked worldwide

(Bennett, 2005; Di Ciommo and Schiavetti, 2012; Gustavsson and Riley, 2018; Harper et al.,

2013; Zhao et al., 2013).

The common misconceptions that women do not participate in fisheries, or that

women’s roles are of little importance, stem directly from a cultural bias in the definition of

what constitutes “work” and “fisheries” (Nadel-Klein and Davis, 1988). Women role in

fisheries does not necessarily correspond to fishing on a boat for days at a time, as men often

do, which may be consequence of cultural constraints limiting female performance and the

time they can be away from home. Women normally need to reconcile their fishing activities

with the domestic ones, since household chores and most of the child rearing are considered a

women responsibility in many traditional cultures (Frockling et al. 2013). This results in

women often limiting their fishing activities to areas close to the household (FAO, 2018;

Lentisco and Lee, 2015), which probably helps explain why they have a great contribution in

the post-harvest sector (FAO, 2018).

The widespread tendency to conceptually limit fisheries to the harvest sector only,

especially when part of commercial fishing, disregards subsistence fishing and other activities

in the fish supply chain, in which women often play an important, but invisible role (Harper et

al., 2017, 2013; Salmi and Sonck-Rautio, 2018; Zhao et al., 2013). Such invisibilization is

undertaken by both men and women, by reinforcing the roles culturally imposed that

undervalue the female’s work while overvalue the male’s (Gustavsson and Riley, 2018;

Koralagama et al., 2017; Yodanis, 2000). This invisibilization also results in women being

unpaid or underpaid, as their participation in fisheries is usually seen as an informal help or as

an extension of the household obligations (Di Ciommo and Schiavetti, 2012; Yodanis, 2000).

The lack of financial recognition may feedback women’s invisibilization in fisheries, since

the value socially attributed to a certain work is commonly related to its remuneration.

Gender equity and women empowerment are one of the Sustainable Development

Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, set out by the United Nations to

42

guide developing policies (United Nations, 2015). Nevertheless, practical examples of

initiatives and tools to effectively increase gender equity in fisheries are incipient. Here, we

evaluate the potential of a fisheries co-management scheme to substantially increase the

access of women to fishing income, and consequently enhance female recognition and

empowerment. Based on data from a comprehensive sampling, we show an actual example of

how a new management arrangement could enable the inclusion and financial recognition of

women in a fishery that used to be totally dominated by men. We discuss the potentialities,

limitations and broad implications of our case study, which could serve as a model to other

fisheries schemes throughout the world.

METHODS

Study area

The study was conducted in the Juruá River (Amazonas State, Brazil), a major tributary of the

Amazon River. The region has different protected areas, including a few Sustainable-Use

Protected Areas (herein PAs), a park category with the goal of reconciling natural resource

conservation with the maintenance of local people’s traditional ways of life. We surveyed

communities located both inside and outside two contiguous PAs (Fig. 1), the Middle Juruá

Extractive Reserve (RESEX Médio Juruá; 5º 33’ S, 67º 42’ W; ~287,000 ha) and the Uacari

Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS Uacari; 5º 43' S, 67º 46' W; ~633,000 ha). These two

PAs are analogous in terms of local access to institutional support and to sources of income.

All surveyed communities are situated along the Juruá riverbank (Fig. 1), and their inhabitants

have similar livelihoods, based mainly on fisheries, slash-and-burn agriculture and non-timber

forest products (Newton et al., 2012). Fishing is one of the main sources of income to the

local communities in the studied region (Newton et al., 2012).

43

Figure 1. Distribution of the sampled communities across a ~1,500km segment of the Juruá River, in the Brazilian Amazon. Lower right: the study area (black rectangle) circumscribed in the map of South America; left: LANDSAT 5 image showing the 54 communities (colored circles) where the interviews were conducted; green polygons correspond to Protected Areas (PAs); purple circles indicate communities engaged in the arapaima co-management, all of them located inside a PA; orange circles indicate communities located inside a PA but not engaged in arapaima co-management; yellow circles indicate communities located outside PAs.

Arapaima co-management

The fisheries scheme addressed in this study is the arapaima co-management. Arapaima

(Arapaima spp.) is one of the largest freshwater fish in the world, which in the past used to

reach up to 200kg (Gudger, 1943). It is an iconic fish of the Amazonian floodplains, with

great ecological, economic and cultural importance. During the 19th and early 20th century,

arapaima was the most important commercial fishing resource in the Brazilian Amazon

(Mérona, 1993; Veríssimo, 1895), which led to its overfishing in many areas, and to the

consequent prohibition of its harvest in the 1990s (Castello et al., 2014). The effectiveness of

the prohibition was hindered by high levels of poaching (Castello and Stewart, 2010), a

scenario that only started to change in the 2000s, after a co-management model was proposed

by a non-profit organization working in the Solimões River basin (Castello et al., 2009). The

first experiences were successful and the initiatives proliferated throughout the Amazon,

starting in our study area in 2005. Currently, arapaima fishery is still banned by law in

44

Amazonas State, and the species can only be legally fished within a co-management scheme

proposed by local communities and approved by the Brazilian Environmental Agency –

IBAMA (Amazonas, 2005).

Arapaima co-management must follow a model required by IBAMA, which includes

several rules (Amazonas, 2015). The fishery is based on a quota system set yearly according

to the fish abundance within the management areas (Amazonas, 2005; Castello et al., 2009).

The abundance is annually estimated by local people through a standardized protocol that

uses direct visual counts (Castello, 2004). This is possible because arapaima is an obligate air-

breather that comes to the surface every ~15 min (Castello, 2004). The quota is allocated as a

one-off annual harvest, normally lasting from a few days to a month. To be granted IBAMA’s

approval to manage arapaima, the community needs to zone their water bodies, including no-

take lakes, and to establish a local vigilance system to preclude poaching (Amazonas, 2015).

Arapaima co-management generates several ecological and socioeconomic benefits,

including the significant recovery of arapaima populations, the generation of income to rural

families and the maintenance of cultural practices (Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016; Castello et

al., 2009; Petersen et al., 2016; Viana et al., 2007; Amaral, 2009). In some of the

communities, women have officially joined the co-management (Fig. 2), being paid for their

participation, an innovation in an otherwise male dominant fishery.

45

Figure 2. Photos of women working in the arapaima co-management in the Brazilian Amazon (Photos: Carolina Freitas).

Women participation in arapaima fisheries

Historically, arapaima fisheries used to be a highly specialized activity, restricted to a few

experts in each locality (Castello et al. 2009). Such specialization comes largely from the

traditional practice of harpooning the arapaima at the moment of aerial breathing (Castello et

al. 2009), which requires high technical skills and enough knowledge on the species behavior.

Arapaima fishery used to be restricted to the men (Castello et al. 2009), likely due to features

of the fishery associated with cultural constraints. For instance, catching arapaima requires

46

great physical strength, a feature normally associated to the figure of the men. Local

Ecological Knowledge (LEK; Berkes 2008) on arapaima is generally handed down from

father to son, which make it naturally more difficult to women to engage in arapaima fishing.

Moreover, arapaima fisheries often involved long displacements and sometimes days away

home, which unable women to reconcile this activity with household duties and childcare

(roles culturally seen as women responsibilities).

With the establishment of the co-management scheme, community members engaged

on it are now required to watch over the water bodies throughout the year; count the arapaima

in the period designed for it; harvest the fishing quota; transport the fish to where they will be

cleaned; clean the fish; register information required by IBAMA for each fish caught (weight,

size, gender, gonadal stage); and transport the fish to the buyer. The last five activities are

concentrated in a short period, as fishing is allocated as a one-off annual harvest, limited by

logistical constraints mainly related to fish conservation (CTF and JVCS, personal

observation). Such new arrangement requires having more people working together in order

to perform all the stages and to enable the catch of the total quota in the available time. With

the local perception of an optimized supply chain based on collective effort, arapaima fishery

was naturally expanded from the dominance of the “arapaima experts” to a communal fishing

system (Castello et al. 2009). In such scenario, women were included in the scheme in some

localities and started to participate on arapaima fisheries (CTF and JVCS, personal

observation). In places without arapaima co-management, the species is not allowed to be

fished but illegal fisheries are widespread in the region and large amounts of arapaima are

illegally captured every year (Cavole et al. 2015). In those cases, arapaima fishery is not

performed as a collective activity, as in the co-management, and is normally restricted to the

men only (CTF and JVCS, personal observation).

Despite the fact that arapaima co-management is currently widespread in the Amazon,

female participation in the initiatives is still geographically limited (IBAMA, personal

communication). Co-management specificities vary from place to place, since the

communities have autonomy to decide some internal rules. For instance, they are free to

decide if they will fish the quota collectively or distribute it among community’s members,

how they will organize the work groups, and how they will share the profits among the

participants. Therefore, while in some places women are participating and having their roles

recognized through financial rewards, in many others they were not included in the scheme

(CTF and JVCS personal observation). Eventually, women may participate to a certain extent

but rather than being seen as workers, they are considered as a voluntary helper (CTF

47

personal observation). The reasons explaining such differences between the various initiatives

across the Amazon are still not clear, due to the lack of studies addressing gender issues on

arapaima fisheries.

Data sampling

Our data is based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 143 women, from 54 fishing

communities along ~1,500 km of the Juruá river. The interviews were conducted in 2016

(August-November). At the time, only communities located inside PAs were engaged in

arapaima co-management. In the two PAs included in the study, seven communities were

undertaking the arapaima co-management. We conducted interviews in six of them; the

seventh had to be excluded due to logistical issues. In total, our sampling included women

from three different contexts: 35 women living in communities undertaking the arapaima

management and located inside a PA (six communities); 37 in communities without arapaima

management but also located inside a PA (10 communities); and 71 in communities without

arapaima management and located outside a PA (38 communities). In each community, we

tried to interview all the women who were available and keen to participate in our research.

We used the same questionnaire for all interviews, wherein we asked the interviewee how

often she used to fish (for either subsistence or commercial purposes); how often she earned

any income from fisheries; and how much she earned (in Brazilian Real – R$) from fisheries

in the previous year (2015). For the women engaged in the arapaima co-management, we also

asked about the activities they carried out; if they participated in the co-management decision-

making; and if they thought the arapaima co-management had brought any changes to the

women. Additionally, we used direct observation in the fishing communities (including

during arapaima fishing) and spontaneous open questions, to better understand nuances of

arapaima fisheries and local specificities.

Data analysis

We restricted our analysis to the income effectively received by the women, although we

acknowledge that subsistence fisheries may have a high indirect economic impact (Harper et

al. 2013). To evaluate if the arapaima co-management was financially including women in

fisheries, we used a Mann-Whitney test to verify if female fisheries income was different

between communities with and without arapaima management. We performed a generalized

linear model (GLM) to evaluate the effect of arapaima co-management on women revenues,

taking into account other variables that we believed could also be affecting female income.

48

The model used may be simplified as: fisheries revenue ~ arapaima management + Protected

Area + woman age, in which the response variable is the income from fisheries whereas the

independent variables are the presence/absence of arapaima co-management, the

presence/absence of a Protected Area (ie, whether the community where the woman lived was

inserted in a PA), and the woman age. A structured relationship between residuals and fitted

values of the GLM model indicated that the independent variables affected the response

variable in a discrete instead of a continuous way. Therefore, we decided to use a binomial

GML. As such, we estimated the effect of the same independent variables on the

presence/absence of female income from fisheries, as following: presence/absence of fisheries

revenue ~ arapaima management + Protected Area + woman age. The model used had good

explanatory power compared to a Null model. Model coefficients were afterwards used to

predict the probability of a woman earn income from fisheries if she lives in a community

with or without arapaima co-management. Such probability was calculated considering that

all other variables would remain constant. Finally, a Spearman correlation was used to verify

the relationship between the total fisheries income and the income from arapaima co-

management only. Cases with total income equal to zero were excluded from this analysis to

avoid inflating the relationship between the two variables. In all the analyses, the income

variable corresponded to the fisheries revenue in the year prior to the interview (2015). Only

the income earned directly by the woman (not by the men) was considered. In all cases, the

amount reported in the local currency (Brazilian real – R$) was converted to American dollars

(US$) using the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of the World Bank for the year 2015 (US$ 1

= R$ 1.859; World Bank, 2018). Values with decimal points were rounded up to the nearest

whole number.

RESULTS

Women participation in fisheries

Among the 143 interviewed women, most of them (100; i.e. 70%) fish regularly, a pattern that

is consistent in both the communities with and without arapaima co-management (where 74%

and 69% of the interviewees are used to fish, respectively). Within the 100 women who fish

regularly, the majority fish only for subsistence purposes, while 31% participate in

commercial fisheries (or 15% and 36% in the communities with and without arapaima co-

management, respectively). Among the interviewees who are used to participate in

commercial fisheries, only 32% (10 women) eventually earn any income for their

49

participation in the activity (or 25% and 33% in the communities with and without arapaima

co-management, respectively). The women who participate in the punctual, annual event of

arapaima fisheries but are not used to fish along the rest of the year, or to participate in other

commercial fisheries, or to earn income from them, were not considered in such percentages.

From all interviewed women, 35 and 108 lived in communities with and without arapaima co-

management respectively, and 30 participated in arapaima co-management.

Women income in communities with and without arapaima co-management

There is no difference in female fisheries income between communities with and without

arapaima management if we consider all their income except the revenues from the arapaima

co-management (Mann-Whitney W = 2013, p = 0.1; Fig. 3A). In both community categories,

there is a clear pattern of absence of female income from fisheries (median: US$ 0; 1 st

quartile: US$ 0, 3rd quartile: US$ 0; Fig. 3A). Nevertheless, when we include the revenues

from arapaima co-management in the total female fisheries income, we see a marked

difference in women income between communities with and without arapaima management

(Mann-Whitney W = 533, p < 0.0001; Fig. 3). Whereas in the first, the annual median of

women revenues was US$ 215 (1st quartile: US$ 54, 3rd quartile: US$ 377; Fig. 3), in the

latter it remained at US$ 0 (1st quartile: US$ 0, 3rd quartile: US$ 0; Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Annual female income from fisheries in the presence/absence of arapaima co-management in 54 fishing communities of the Juruá River (Amazonas, Brazil; n:143 women; year: 2015). A) Female income from fisheries excluding revenues from arapaima co-management; B) Total female income from fisheries, including revenues from arapaima co-management.

50

When the effects of the three independent variables (presence/absence of arapaima co-

management; presence/absence of PA; and woman age) were analyzed, arapaima co-

management was the only one affecting female income, and the effect was positive (p <

0.0001, z = 4.76; Fig. 4). If all variables remained constant, a woman living in a community

with arapaima co-management would have a mean probability of 76% of earning money from

fisheries, compared to only 7% for a woman living in a place without arapaima co-

management (Fig. 5). Total female fishing income is strongly correlated with female income

from arapaima co-management only (rs 0.75, p < 0.0001; Fig. 6), which further reinforces the

impact of arapaima co-management on women fishing revenues. Indeed, in the subset of

women who have earned any income from fisheries, 77% of them had the arapaima co-

management as the unique source of fisheries income.

Figure 4. Coefficient estimates (±95% confidence intervals) showing the magnitude and direction of effects of different variables on female income from fisheries, in 54 fishing communities of the Juruá River (Amazonas, Brazil). Blue line indicates a positive effect of the independent variable on female income; confidence intervals crossing the zero indicates that the independent variable has no effect on female income.

51

Figure 5. Probability of women to earn income from fisheries in the presence/absence of arapaima co-management based on data from 54 fishing communities in the Juruá River (Amazonas, Brazil). If all variables remained constant, a woman living in a community with arapaima co-management would have a mean probability of 0.76 (76%) of earning money from fisheries, compared to only 0.07 (7%) for a woman living in a place without arapaima co-management.

Figure 6. Relationship between total annual female fisheries income and female income from the arapaima co-management only, based on data from 35 fishing communities along the Juruá River (Amazonas, Brazil; year: 2015).

52

Women participation in arapaima co-management

Women participation in arapaima fisheries seems to be a consequence of the shift from the

traditional arapaima fishery to the co-management scheme, which implied in a communal

fishing system based on labor division. In such new arrangement, people no longer need to

master every step of arapaima fishery to work on it; through the labor division, workers can

arrange their selves according to their skills and availability. Furthermore, the wide range of

activities within the arapaima co-management required capacity building. In some cases,

community members with some expertise (e.g. cleaning arapaima) taught those who did not,

whereas in others, outsider local experts were invited to the community to teach a certain skill

(e.g. how to count arapaima based on their LEK but following specific rules imposed by

IBAMA). Women certainly benefitted from such knowledge exchange, which provided them

skills that allowed their inclusion in the co-management.

Female roles and rewards are not necessarily equal among the initiatives, nor always

the same within a certain initiative. Among the six surveyed communities engaged in

arapaima co-management, five had the participation of women (community names: São

Raimundo, Xibauazinho, Toari, Morada Nova and Santo Antônio). In those five communities,

women were normally engaged in cleaning the arapaima, cataloging data of caught fish,

cleaning the common spaces, and cooking for the workers during the quota harvest. In

general, women earn much less than men. The difference between both incomes varied

considerably across the five communities, from around three times to more than 10,

depending on how the community decided to arrange the payments. For instance, in one of

the communities (Toari) women are paid a fixed fee per day, whereas in others they take part

in the profits. In this latter case, women income share varied according to the collective

decisions on how the various activities within the co-management stages would be valued. In

only one community (São Raimundo) women could effectively earn the same value as men.

In all communities, women claimed to participate in the meetings involving arapaima co-

management decision-making. However, they may often feel uncomfortable to expose their

opinions in a male-dominated environment.

When asked whether the arapaima co-management had provided something different

to them, most women talked about the opportunity of making their own money and being able

to invest it as they deemed fit. They were grateful for no longer need to subjugate all their

priorities to those of their husbands. According to one of them: “Now we [women] earn our

own money; before [prior to the arapaima co-management] we did not earn anything”, while

another one said “With the management [arapaima co-management] each one has her own

53

money and spends in whatever she wants. Outside the management, the money [of the

household] is all pulled together. [Now] It is up to us to decide if we want to save the money

from the management to buy something more valuable or if we want to buy something for

ourselves”. To the vast majority (97%), it is the first time they are making any income from

fishery-related activities (and often from any economic activity). The opportunity to learn

new things and acquire new skills (e.g., how to clean the arapaima) was also mentioned as

another important advantage of the arapaima co-management. It was also pointed out the

opportunity of having women and men working together, and of women being able to take

part in an activity that used to be exclusive to the men and which women never thought they

would be involved in. Regardless of the specific reasons, all women expressed great

satisfaction with their inclusion in the arapaima co-management.

DISCUSSION

Most women in the studied region are already engaged in fishing, but mainly for subsistence

purposes. Among the women who participate in commercial fisheries, only a minority receive

any payment for their work, except for the income they make from the arapaima co-

management. In fact, where co-management is in place, women have a much higher median

income than their counterparts in communities with no co-management. This happens because

such scheme usually represents their only opportunity of earning income from fisheries. Such

engagement in co-management also translates into wellbeing, as these women claimed to be

very glad for the opportunity.

Arapaima co-management embodies a groundbreaking novelty in the region by

enabling women direct pay for their participation in a fisheries scheme. This represents more

than transferring rightful money to the women, it is their chance out of invisibility. The

financial recognition through payment for their time and effort invested in the activity helps

close the gap between the historical differences in recognition between fishermen and

fisherwomen. When women cease being a “hidden workforce” in fisheries, the importance of

their role is likely to become more evident to both them and their peers (Zhao et al. 2013).

Furthermore, providing income directly to the woman assigns more autonomy and

power to her (Abrams, 2012). Indeed, as mentioned by several interviewees, they no longer

need to ask her husband for every money they need, and consequently do not need to be

subjected to his endorsement and judgment about the need of that money. In some cases,

having their own money can also eliminate embarrassments, as the women will not need to

expose all their wants and needs. Opportunities of income may also help the women be less

54

vulnerable. For instance, a complete financial dependence can prevent them from leaving an

eventual abusive marital relationship, as we have witnessed in particular cases over the last

years working in the region.

Moreover, the distribution of income within the household may affect the family

expenditure patterns. In general, raising women share of income results in an increased budget

share on food and enhances the family’s nutrient intake and health (Doss, 2005; Hoddinott

and Haddad, 1995; Thomas, 1990). Income controlled by women also benefits children more

than income controlled by men (Lundberg et al., 1997; Thomas, 1990; Ward-Batts, 2008). A

study conducted in Brazil showed that child survival probabilities were almost 20 times higher

when income was controlled by the mother then when it was controlled by the father

(Thomas, 1990). In the UK, alcohol and men’s clothing expenditures decreased in the family

budget when money was transferred from men to women, while toys and women’s and

children’s clothing increased as a share of expenditure (Lundberg et al., 1997; Ward-Batts,

2008). Similarly, a study in Côte d’Ivoire found that an increased female share of income

reduced the household money spent on alcohol and cigarettes (Hoddinott and Haddad, 1995).

Those studies bring enough evidence that the household should not be seen as a single economic

actor, as there are individual preferences and distinct bargaining power between men and women

(Doss, 2005). The creation of income opportunities for women, as in the arapaima co-

management, may result in various benefits to the household and to the community as a whole in

the long-term.

The participation of women in arapaima fisheries was favored by some features of the

co-management scheme. Firstly, arapaima fisheries moved the focus from a few men experts

to a collective activity, where knowledge is to be shared and replicated. Also, it created labor

division, generating multiple job opportunities for distinct members of the community. Labor

division resulted in the need for capacity building, and women consequently had the

opportunity of learning different skills related to arapaima fisheries, which favored their

inclusion in the co-management. Nevertheless, although women participation is currently

happening in many arapaima co-management initiatives across the Amazon, it is still

geographically limited considering the initiatives as a whole (IBAMA, personal

communication). Since each community has autonomy to decide some specificities of their

co-management arrangement, the inclusion of women is not a default outcome and depends

on the spontaneous initiative of the community. Such initiative likely depends on contextual

features, such as women historical empowerment in place, previous communal experiences

and their relationship with gender issues, external influences etc. Studies focusing on this

55

aspect, surveying a wide range of arapaima co-management initiatives throughout the

Amazon, would be desirable to help us better understand why in some of the schemes women

were included whereas in others not.

Despite the lack of information in such large scale, pointing out the factors that may

explain the spontaneous inclusion and recognition of women in the arapaima co-management,

the experience promoted by the initiatives addressed in this paper could serve as a model to

other co-management schemes, not only of arapaima but to any fisheries scheme throughout

the world. The mechanisms that favored women inclusion in our study area (capacitated labor

division with financial recognition) could be adapted to different contexts seeking to promote

the opportunity of women inclusion in activities that they may be interested in, but are not

used to participate due to cultural constraints.

Importantly, women inclusion should not be limited to the harvest/post-harvest

sectors. Women need to be included in the decision making process, and to feel at ease to

expose their demands and opinions (Di Ciommo and Schiavetti, 2012; Harper et al., 2013;

Koralagama et al., 2017). Studies worldwide suggest that women tend to have low

participation in fisheries meetings and fishing decision-making forums (Di Ciommo and

Schiavetti, 2012; Eder, 2005; Harper et al., 2017; Kleiber et al., 2018; Smith, 2012). The

reasons are many and vary from case to case – e.g. not being invited to the meetings; not

feeling truly welcome; feeling uncomfortable and inhibited in male-dominated spaces; feeling

their opinions are not valued; not having her contribution in fisheries recognized; not having

someone to leave the children with; and the widespread bias of women being seen primarily

as mothers and wives while men as breadwinners and leaders (Alonso-Población and Siar,

2018; Di Ciommo and Schiavetti, 2012). In the arapaima co-management, such global pattern

of low female effective participation in the decision-making seems to be reproduced. Even in

the communities where women have got financial recognition for the participation in

arapaima fisheries, they often do not express their opinions nor participate actively in the

fishery decision making (CTF personal observation). Because women role in fisheries has

been historically undermined, they may need stimuli to empower themselves, while both men

and women may need stimuli to realize the importance of having both genders’ workforce

being equitably represented and recognized (Bennett, 2005; Di Ciommo and Schiavetti 2012).

Despite the increasing attention being given to the gender dimension in the

development agendas, and the growing number of studies highlighting the relevance of

female workforce and recognition in fisheries (e.g. Bennett 2005; Di Ciommo and Schiavetti

2012; Harper et al. 2015; Koralagama et al. 2017; Salmi and Sonck-Rautio 2018; Zhao et al.

56

2013), much more needs to be done in practical terms. Women continue to be a hidden

workforce worldwide and to be marginalized from decision-making. This status quo is

reflected on, and fed back by, fisheries’ research, management and policies, which tend to

acknowledge and focus on the male workforce only (Bennett, 2005; Kleiber et al., 2015;

Salmi and Sonck-Rautio, 2018). To reach the global Sustainable Development Goal of gender

equity (United Nations, 2015) in the fisheries domain, it is necessary to ensure opportunities

for women recognition and their effective inclusion, which implies valuing their workforce

and promoting their participation, including in the decision-making (Harper et al., 2013). That

could be stimulated in several different ways. On the one hand, empowerment, emotional

support and opportunities for reflection could be promoted through institutional support,

social groups, courses, forums, and others strategies and policies addressing gender equity

(Bennett, 2005; Zhao et al., 2013). For example, in the Tanga region of Tanzania, an IUCN

project helped increase female involvement and decision-making in fisheries by raising

awareness and support among women and men for a more equitable representation, and by

developing women confidence to participate in meetings (Tobey and Torell, 2006). In

Uganda, women empowerment has increased after an institutional policy change that sought

to integrate the marginalized groups in decision-making by ensuring their representation in

the fisheries committees (Nunan, 2006). On the other hand, policies related to the supply

chain could stimulate women formal inclusion through financial stimulus to the producers, as

for instance by creating certification labels that add value to products promoting gender

equity in fisheries.

CONCLUSION

In the Amazon, as worldwide, women often represent a hidden workforce in fisheries,

contributing to the activity but not having their efforts recognized. Arapaima co-management

represents a novel opportunity for Amazonian women to be financially rewarded for their

participation in a fisheries scheme. Having income going directly to the women will likely

trigger various positives effects, such as increased autonomy and more balanced power in

relation to the men, and improved child care and family’s health. The inclusion of women in

arapaima fisheries, an activity previously restricted to the men, was made possible by some

features of the co-management arrangement, as labor division and capacity building of

community members. However, women inclusion in arapaima co-management is still limited

to a few initiatives, and much is yet needed to include women in the decision-making

processes and to reach gender equity in the fishery scheme. Despite such important

57

limitations, the initiatives addressed in this paper represent a step forward in women

recognition in fisheries, and could serve as a model to be adapted to other fisheries schemes

worldwide seeking to promote greater gender equity in fisheries.

ACKNOWLEDGES

We are very grateful to all the women who participated in the research and were willing to

spend their time and perceptions with us. We also thank the surveyed communities and their

inhabitants as a whole, who opened their doors to us. We are grateful to ASPROC, AMARU,

CEUC and ICMBio for fieldwork support. This study was funded by the Darwin Initiative for

the Survival of Species (DEFRA/UK; Project 20–001 awarded to CAP) and the “Tracking

Change: The Role of Local and Traditional Knowledge in Watershed Governance”

(SSHRCC/Canada; Partnership Grant 895-2015-1024 awarded to CTF and PFML). CTF and

JVCS thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

(CAPES/Brazil; Finance Code 001) for a PhD and a post-doctoral scholarship, respectively.

PFML thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico

(CNPQ/Brazil) for a productivity grant. We are grateful to Leandro Castello for valuable

comments on the manuscript.

ROLE OF THE FUNDING SOURCES

The sponsors had no involvement with the interpretation of data, the writing of the

manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

The study fully complies with ethical standards. The research was approved by the Ethics

Committee (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisas com Seres Humanos - CEP/UFRN; Permit

2.013.825) according to Brazilian legislation involving research with traditional people. It was

also approved by the Centro Estadual de Unidades de Conservação (CEUC) and the Instituto

Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) according to Brazilian legislation

involving research in Protected Areas. All participants had access to an Informed Consent

Form (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido - TCLE), and voluntarily agreed to

participate in the research. People appearing in the pictures within the manuscript gave us

their informed written consent authorizing the publication of the pictures.

REFERENCES

58

Abrams, L., 2012. “There Is Many a Thing That Can Be Done with Money”: Women, Barter,

and Autonomy in a Scottish Fishing Community in the Nineteenth and Twentieth

Centuries. Signs (Chic). 37, 602–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-7836(85)90039-6

Alonso-Población, E., Siar, S. V., 2018. Women’s participation and leadership in fisherfolk

organizations and collective action in fisheries: a review of evidence on enablers, drivers

and barriers. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1159. Rome.

Bennett, E., 2005. Gender, fisheries and development. Mar. Policy 29, 451–459.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2004.07.003

Berkes, F. 2008. . Sacred ecology. 2nd Edition. New York/Oxon: Routledge

Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., 2016. Community-based management induces rapid

recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci. Rep. 6, 34745.

https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34745

Castello, L., 2004. A Method to Count Pirarucu Arapaima gigas : Fishers, Assessment, and

Management. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 24, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1577/M02-

024.1

Castello, L., Arantes, C.C., Mcgrath, D.G., Stewart, D.J., Sousa, F.S. De, 2014.

Understanding fishing-induced extinctions in the Amazon. Aquat. Conserv. Mar.

Freshw. Ecosyst. n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2491

Castello, L., Stewart, D.J., 2010. Assessing CITES non-detriment findings procedures for

Arapaima in Brazil. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 26, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-

0426.2009.01355.x

Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Luzadis, V. a, 2009. Lessons from

Integrating Fishers of Arapaima in Small-Scale Fisheries Management at the Mamirauá

Reserve, Amazon. Environ. Manage. 43, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-

9220-5

Di Ciommo, R.C., Schiavetti, A., 2012. Women participation in the management of a Marine

Protected Area in Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manag. 62, 15–23.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.02.010

Doss, C., 2005. The effects of intrahousehold property ownership on expenditure patterns in

Ghana. J. Afr. Econ. 15, 149–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/eji025

Eder, J.F., 2005. Coastal resource management and social differences in Philippine fishing

communities. Hum. Ecol. 33, 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-005-2430-Z

FAO, 2018. The State Of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome. https://doi.org/issn 10

Gudger, E.W., 1943. The Giant Fresh-Water Fishes of South America. Sci. Mon. 57, 500–

59

513.

Gustavsson, M., Riley, M., 2018. Women, capitals and fishing lives: exploring gendered

dynamics in the Llŷn Peninsula small-scale fishery (Wales, UK). Marit. Stud.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0102-z

Harper, S., Grubb, C., Stiles, M., Sumaila, U.R., 2017. Contributions by Women to Fisheries

Economies: Insights from Five Maritime Countries. Coast. Manag. 45, 91–106.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2017.1278143

Harper, S., Zeller, D., Hauzer, M., Pauly, D., Sumaila, U.R., 2013. Women and fisheries:

Contribution to food security and local economies. Mar. Policy 39, 56–63.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.018

Hoddinott, J., Haddad, L., 1995. Does Female Income Share Influence Household

Expenditures? Evidence From Côte D’Ivoire. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 57, 77–96.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1995.tb00028.x

Kleiber, D., Harris, L., Vincent, A.C.J., 2018. Gender and marine protected areas: a case

study of Danajon Bank, Philippines. Marit. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-

0107-7

Kleiber, D., Harris, L.M., Vincent, A.C.J., 2015. Gender and small-scale fisheries: A case for

counting women and beyond. Fish Fish. 16, 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12075

Kleiber, D., Harris, L.M., Vincent, A.C.J., Rochet, M.-J., 2014. Improving fisheries estimates

by including women’s catch in the Central Philippines. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71, 656–

664. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2013-0177

Koralagama, D., Gupta, J., Pouw, N., 2017. Inclusive development from a gender perspective

in small scale fisheries. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 24, 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.09.002

Lentisco, A., Lee, R.U., 2015. A Review of Women’s Access to Fish in Small-Scale

Fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular. Rome.

Lundberg, S.J., Pollak, R.A., Wales, T.J., 1997. Do Husbands and Wives Pool Their

Resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom Child Benefit. J. Hum. Resour. 32, 463–

480. https://doi.org/10.2307/146179

Mérona, B., 1993. Pesca e Ecologia dos Recursos Aquáticos na Amazônia, in: Furtado, L.G.,

Leitão, W., Fiuza de Mello, A. (Eds.), Povos Das Águas - Realidade e Perspectivas Na

Amazônia. Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belém, pp. 159–185.

Nadel-Klein, J., Davis, D.L., 1988. Introduction: Gender in the Maritime Arena, in: Nadel-

Klein, J., Davis, D.L. (Eds.), To Work and To Weep: Women in Fishing Economies. St.

60

John’s, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Insitute of Social and Economic

Research.

Newton, P., Endo, W., Peres, C.A., 2012. Determinants of livelihood strategy variation in two

extractive reserves in Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. Environ. Conserv. 39,

97–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000580

Nunan, F., 2006. Empowerment and institutions: Managing fisheries in Uganda. World Dev.

34, 1316–1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.016

Petersen, T.A., Brum, S.M., Rossoni, F., Silveira, G.F. V., Castello, L., 2016. Recovery of

Arapaima sp. populations by community-based management in floodplains of the Purus

River, Amazon. J. Fish Biol. 89, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12968

Salmi, P., Sonck-Rautio, K., 2018. Invisible work , ignored knowledge ? Changing gender

roles , division of labor , and household strategies in Finnish small-scale fisheries. Marit.

Stud.

Smith, S.L., 2012. Toward inclusive co-management: Factors influencing stakeholder

participation. Coast. Manag. 40, 327–337.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2012.677642

Thomas, D., 1990. Intra-Household Resource Allocation : An Inferential Approach. J. Hum.

Resour. 25, 635–664.

Tobey, J., Torell, E., 2006. Coastal poverty and MPA management in mainland Tanzania and

Zanzibar. Ocean Coast. Manag. 49, 834–854.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.08.002

United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. Gen. Assem. 70 Sess. 16301, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-

0173-7.2

Veríssimo, J., 1895. A pesca na Amazônia, 1st ed. Livraria Clássica de Alves & C, São Paulo.

Viana, J.P., Castello, L., Damasceno, J.M.B., Amaral, E.S.R., Estupiñan, G.M.B., Arantes, C.,

Batista, G.S., Garcez, D.S., Barbosa, S., 2007. Manejo Comunitário do Pirarucu

Arapaima gigas na Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá - Amazonas,

Brasil, in: Prate, A.P., Blanc, D. (Eds.), Áreas Aquáticas Protegidas Como Instrumento

de Gestão Pesqueira. MMA/IBAMA, Brasília, pp. 239–261.

Ward-Batts, J., 2008. Out of the Wallet and into the Purse: Using Micro Data to Test Income

Pooling. J. Hum. Resour. 43, 325–351.

World Bank, 2018. PPP conversion factor [WWW Document]. URL

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP?locations=BR (accessed 10.5.18).

61

World Bank, 2012. Hidden Harvest - The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries.

Yodanis, C.L., 2000. Constructing gender and occupational segregation: A study of women

and work in fishing communities. Qual. Sociol. 23, 267–290.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005515926536

Zhao, M., Tyzack, M., Anderson, R., Onoakpovike, E., 2013. Women as visible and invisible

workers in fisheries: A case study of Northern England. Mar. Policy 37, 69–76.

62

CAPÍTULO 3

CO-MANAGEMENT OF CULTURALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: A TOOL TO

PROMOTE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND HUMAN WELL-BEING

Carolina T. Freitas*a, Priscila F. M. Lopesa, João Vitor Campos-Silvab, Mae M. Noblec,

Robert Dyballc, Carlos A. Peresd

a Dept de Ecologia, Centro de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, 59078-900, Natal, RN, Brazil

b Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, 57072-900, Maceió, AL, Brazil

c Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Acton ACT 2601, Australia

d School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

Co-management has been advocated as an effective tool to achieve natural resource

conservation worldwide. Yet, the potential of co-management arrangements can fail to be

realized when there is insufficient local engagement. In this perspective paper, we argue that

co-management schemes focusing on culturally important species (CIS) can help overcome

this issue by engaging local people’s interest. To develop this theory, we explore published

data on the outcomes of two management schemes, both encompassing multiple independent

initiatives, to discuss CIS-management effects and benefits. We also show a compilation of

CIS examples throughout the world, and discuss the potential of CIS-management to reach a

global audience. Based on these data we argue that CIS-management can be an effective tool

to reconcile the often intractable goals of biodiversity conservation and human welfare.

Keywords: Culturally significant species, cultural keystone species, collaborative

management, traditional people, resource use, Amazon, Arapaima spp., Podocnemis spp.

63

1. INTRODUCTION

Collaborative management (co-management) of natural resources has become increasingly

widespread worldwide, especially after the 1980s, when local people, conservationists, and

researchers began searching for alternatives to the often unsuccessful top-down management

schemes prevalent at the time (Jentoft 1989; Pomeroy and Berkes 1997; Berkes 2009). Co-

management implies a participatory decision-making process in which the regulation of

natural resource use is shared between the users and other stakeholders, such as the national

or subnational government, NGOs and local cooperatives (Berkes et al. 2001). In cases where

local people are exerting continuous direct influences on species and their habitats, such

locally inclusive management approaches tend to be more effective and successful for natural

resource conservation than non-participatory systems (McClanahan et al. 2006; Gutiérrez et

al. 2011; Cinner et al. 2012).

Despite its widely acclaimed potential, co-management arrangements can also fail

(Jentoft et al. 1998; Béné et al. 2009; Terborgh and Peres 2017), often due to lack of local

community involvement (Jentoft 2000) or frail official institutional support (Terborgh and

Peres 2017). When official enforcement is absent or ineffective, local engagement may be the

only way to ensure an effective vigilance system to enforce compliance by outsiders (Cinner

et al. 2012). Poor enforcement is ubiquitous in developing countries, typically because of

underfunding, understaffing, or low political priorities with conservation goals (Berkes et al.

2001; Campos-Silva et al. 2015). Yet, tropical developing countries host most global

biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000), and most of the world’s rural poor, who depend

directly on natural resources for subsistence and to support local economies (Fisher and

Christopher 2007). Therefore, natural resource conservation based on local engagement is

both ecologically appealing, and critical to maintain food security and social stability in

developing countries (Adams 2004; Adenle et al. 2015).

Achieving local engagement in a co-management scheme can be challenging, as

several factors may influence local interest and commitment (see e.g. Seixas and Davy 2008;

Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015; Mistry et al. 2016). Yet, successful cases of self-organization are

normally associated with users being strongly attached to the resources in focus, which either

support a substantial portion of local livelihoods or have a high value assigned to its

sustainability (Ostrom 2009; Measham and Lumbasi 2013). Otherwise, the costs of local

engagement may not be worth the effort (Ostrom 2009). In this paper, we argue that placing

culturally important species as the focus of management schemes is a powerful mechanism to

engage local communities with conservation initiatives.

64

Culturally important species are those highly significant for local people, with

prominent functional roles in their diet, materials, medicine, cultural identity and/or spiritual

values (Cristancho and Vining 2004; Garibaldi and Turner 2004). The concept of “cultural

keystone species” (CKS) was proposed to refer to these species as an analogy to the

ecological concept of “keystone species” (sensu Paine, 1969; Power et al., 1996). As such,

CKS corresponds to species crucial to the survival of a people’s culture, without which the

society they support would be completely different (Cristancho and Vining 2004; Garibaldi

and Turner 2004). Here we use the more comprehensive term “culturally important species”

(CIS) considering that some species may play an overriding role in people’s culture yet are

not necessarily irreplaceable and indispensable to the culture’s survival. Nevertheless, the

local extinction or decline of CIS will always be critical to local peoples, likely affecting not

only their subsistence and/or spirituality, but also the transmission of Traditional Ecological

Knowledge (TEK; Berkes, 2008), and the continuity of traditional practices related to the

species.

Considering the huge impact CIS may have on local peoples’ lives, it has been argued

that these species should be taken into account by management and conservation monitoring

approaches in order to ensure local people’s long-term access to them (Cristancho and Vining

2004; Noble et al. 2016). Furthermore, local people should have the inherent right to

participate in the decision-making in managing these species, which have played fundamental

socio-cultural roles for generations (Garibaldi 2009; Butler et al. 2012; Noble et al. 2016).

Beyond the relevant issues of social justice, studies have also highlighted the potentially

positive ecological consequences of CIS-management (Garibaldi 2009; Garibaldi e Turner

2004; Cristancho and Vining, 2004; Noble et al. 2016). These authors built their assumptions

on multiple arguments, based mainly on the following ideas: (i) if local people identify

strongly with a certain species, they will have a strong desire to preserve or restore such

species, which favours conservation success (Garibaldi and Turner 2004; Garibaldi 2009); (ii)

focusing on CIS is a way to simultaneously address ecological and cultural concerns, and

having a focal set of species may be financially and logistically more manageable (Garibaldi

and Turner 2004; Garibaldi 2009); (iii) the decline of a CIS may negatively affect local

stakeholders who are effectively caring for local natural resources, which may consequently

affect the stability of the ecosystem (Cristancho and Vining 2004); (iv) CIS are often vital

species to the ecosystem where they occur, thereby their conservation should be beneficial for

both local people and the environment (Noble et al. 2016); and (v) the population recovery of

65

CIS and their habitats will support the reclamation of the habitat for associated species

(Garibaldi 2009).

Despite expectations about the positive outcomes potentially generated by CIS-

management, studies that actually show real-world results are scarce. Moreover, the use of

quantitative data to support the beneficial outcomes of using CIS-management approaches is

highly limited. This limitation is problematic as policy-makers and managers often need

quantitative data to support their decisions, particularly those related to species’ management.

Here we attempt to fill this knowledge gap by compiling quantitative data on the ecological,

social, and economic outcomes of two co-management schemes focused on CIS, with the

support of multiple independent initiatives. The data is literature-based, derived mostly from

ecological studies. Even though both schemes are focused on CIS, these studies normally fail

to address the impact of the species’ cultural importance to the success of the initiatives.

Success is generally attributed to the engagement of local people, but the triggers promoting

such successful engagement are rarely mentioned.

By assembling arguments from CIS studies and results from the two case studies, we

discuss how focusing on CIS in management schemes is a way to motivate local people

interest and involvement. A consequence of local engagement will be positive conservation

outcomes, even in cases where institutional resource governance is severely limited, as in

most developing countries. Finally, we provide a compilation of CIS examples from around

the world to discuss the potential of CIS-management applicable across a wide range of

geographic contexts.

2. METHODS

We analyzed two prominent co-management schemes established in the freshwater

ecosystems of the Brazilian Amazon. The Amazon is responsible for Brazil being one of the

five countries that together contain more than 70% of the world’s wilderness (Watson et al.

2018). At the same time, thousands of rural communities live in the Amazon and rely directly

on natural resources for their survival. Such a scenario makes it imperative to develop

strategies seeking to reconcile biodiversity conservation with the maintenance of local

people’s culture and livelihoods. We chose two examples of currently successful CIS

management strategies, which have several independent initiatives spread over a large

geographic scale (Fig. 1). The first one refers to the arapaima (Arapaima spp.; Fig. 2)

fisheries management, and the second to the conservation of freshwater turtles (Podocnemis

spp.; Fig. 3) through the protection of fluvial sand beaches. We explore both schemes to

66

discuss their main outcomes and limitations. The data used comes from the literature and

from personal direct observations in the field by the authors along their careers.

In addition to the two case studies, we present a compilation of CIS examples from

other parts of the world in order to illustrate the wide range of species that are highly relevant

to local societies worldwide. Providing a full compilation of CIS examples from all over the

globe is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we present a limited list of examples based

on an online search in the Web of Science database using the search terms “cultural keystone

species” OR “culturally important species” OR “culturally significant species” OR “tabooed

species” OR “cultural taboo” (all in English). We also used snowballing techniques, by

including citations found within the search publications. Our compilation was restricted to

animal species only. The examples were gathered in a table with information on (i) the

common and scientific names of the species; (ii) its general taxonomic group; (iii) its

geographic location; (iv) the culture that has identified the species as a CIS; (v) the species’

local uses and values; and (vi) the references citing each example. The information used to fill

the table came from studies found in our search and consequently do not necessarily

correspond to all data available to each species in other possible sources.

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of co-management schemes for two culturally important genus (Arapaima

spp. and Podocnemis spp.) within the State of Amazonas, in the Brazilian Amazon. Left: map of South America

indicating the large geographic region (black rectangle) where both co -management schemes are currently

established. Right: distribution of (a) Arapaima spp. (black circles) and (b) Podocnemis spp. (white circles) co-

management schemes within the black rectangle. Circle sizes are proportional to the number of co -management

areas (water bodies/beaches) within each location. Note: Data on the location of arapaima co -management water

bodies were obtained from the Brazilian Environmental Agency (IBAMA), while the location of protected

beaches focusing on Podocnemis spp. conservation was obtained from a governmental official bulletin

(Amazonas Official Diary, Nº 33604, 14th September 2017).

67

3. CASE STUDIES

3.1 Arapaima co-management

Arapaima is one of the largest freshwater fish on Earth, and an iconic element of the Amazon

(locally known as pirarucu in Portuguese, or paiche in Spanish; Fig. 2). It used to be

considered a single species (Arapaima gigas; Castello and Stewart, 2010) but is currently

referred to as Arapaima spp. due to uncertainties regarding the distribution of multiple

congeners (Stewart 2013a,b; Castello et al. 2014; Watson et al. 2016). Arapaima spp. inhabit

lakes and water channels during the dry season and migrate laterally to flooded forests when

the water levels rise (Castello 2008). The individuals are mainly fished during the dry season,

when they are concentrated in the discrete water bodies. Arapaima plays a central role in the

livelihood and cultural identity of many Amazonian peoples since pre-Columbian times,

corresponding to an important source of animal protein (Bates 1863; Veríssimo 1895; Prestes-

Carneiro et al. 2016), local medicine (Alves and Rosa 2007), and a key element in

sociocultural practices and local cosmologies (Murrieta 1998, 2001; Aparicio 2014).

Figure 2. Photos of Arapaima spp. A) An arapaima individual in an aquarium (Photo: Pedro Peloso); B) Fishermen hauling arapaima into the boat during nocturnal fishing in the Juruá River basin (Photo: Carolina Freitas); C) Fisherman weighing an arapaima individual in the Purus River basin (Photo: Carolina Freitas). Note: According to ethical standards, all persons shown here authorized the use of their photographs through an informed written consent.

68

During the 19th and early 20th century, arapaima was the most important commercial

fishery resource in the Brazilian Amazon (Veríssimo 1895; Mérona 1993), which led to its

overfishing in many areas (Castello et al. 2014). The expansion of commercial fisheries

across the Amazon River and its major tributaries from the 1960s onwards, driven by

increased fishing technologies, further aggravated the situation of arapaima stocks, as well as

other species (McGrath et al. 1993). Facing such excessive fishing pressure and its negative

consequences, some riverine communities started grassroots movements seeking to take

control of local water bodies and implement local agreements to regulate fishing activities

(McGrath et al. 1993, 2008; De Castro 2002; De Castro and McGrath 2003). These so-called

fishing agreements, starting in the 1980s, had an important repercussion and came to be

legally accepted by the Brazilian government in the late 1990s, representing an innovative

formal instrument of collaborative fisheries management (De Castro and McGrath 2003;

McGrath et al. 2008). This process created the basis for the subsequent establishment of other

fisheries co-management models in the Amazon, such as the arapaima co-management.

Arapaima co-management started as an alternative to reconcile the recovery of

arapaima stocks with its sustainable harvest, since arapaima fisheries had been banned by

local legislation in the 1990s but illegal fishing continued in the absence of adequate

enforcement (Castello and Stewart 2010; Cavole et al. 2015). The first arapaima co-

management initiative was undertaken in the early 2000s, in the Mamirauá Sustainable

Development Reserve (Solimões River basin), and showed promising results (Castello et al.

2009). After the proven success of this experience, the scheme was accepted by the Brazilian

Environmental Agency (IBAMA) as a model to be replicated in other areas, which opened the

possibility of legal arapaima fishing under specific conditions (Amazonas Normative

Instruction Nº1, 1st June 2005). The arapaima co-management model is based on a quota

system set according to the arapaima abundance within the management areas (Castello et al.

2009). The abundance is annually estimated by local people through direct visual counts; this

is possible because arapaima is an obligate air-breather coming to surface every ~15 min,

which enables fishers to count the number of individuals in the lakes and water channels

based on TEK and following a standardized protocol (Castello 2004). IBAMA is in charge of

setting the next-year quota for each community, which is allocated as a one-off annual

harvest, normally lasting from a few days to one month. In order to award IBAMA’s approval

to start an arapaima co-management system, the community must design a management plan,

which includes the zoning of the water bodies (including no-take lakes) and the establishment

69

of a local vigilance system to preclude illegal fishing (Castello et al. 2009; Amazonas Decree

Nº 36083, 23rd July 2015).

Arapaima co-management plans have proliferated throughout the Amazon over the

last years, currently encompassing > 3000 fishing households from > 450 rural communities

(IBAMA, personal communication). Studies have highlighted the positive ecological and

socioeconomic impacts of the activity. For instance, the number of arapaima adults increased

up to 24-fold after eight years of arapaima co-management in the Japurá River basin (Castello

et al. 2009); up to 29-fold after six years of co-management in the Purus River basin (Petersen

et al. 2016); and up to 30-fold after 11 years of co-management in the Juruá River basin

(Campos-Silva and Peres 2016). In all cases, arapaima declined or remained stable at low

densities in neighbouring water bodies not included in the co-management scheme (Castello

et al. 2009; Petersen et al. 2016; Campos-Silva and Peres 2016). Models testing the effect of

several predictors (including environmental and landscape variables) on the arapaima

abundance, showed that the presence of the co-management scheme was the strongest

predictor, accounting for over 70% of the observed variation in arapaima numbers (Campos-

Silva and Peres 2016). Importantly, not only arapaima populations have had advantages from

such management - other aquatic species also benefit from increased abundance with the

protection of the water bodies, such as the high-value tambaqui fish (Colossoma

macropomum; Arantes and Freitas, 2016; Silvano et al., 2009), freshwater turtles

(Podocnemis spp.; Miorando et al., 2013), and caimans (Melanosuchus niger; Projeto Médio

Jurua, unpublished data).

Arapaima co-management also brings socioeconomic benefits to the rural

communities. All arapaima harvested are sold by local people through a simplified value

chain, which results in a significant extra income. After 10 years of arapaima management in

the Japurá River basin, the per capita income from arapaima sales increased five-fold

(Amaral 2009). In the Juruá basin, it was showed that co-managed lakes can ensure an

average annual revenue of nearly US$ 10,600 per community and US$ 1,050 per household

(Campos-Silva and Peres 2016), which corresponds to about four times the Brazilian

minimum wage. Such extra income is highly relevant for local people, who have a largely

subsistence lifestyle with limited cash-earning opportunities, often earning less than the

minimum wage per month. Furthermore, revenues from arapaima sales are received as an

annual windfall, which enables investments that local participants could not make otherwise,

including improvements in fisheries enforcement and communal assets, such as local schools,

medical care, and power generators for household and community lighting (CTF and JVCS,

70

personal observation). In addition to the economic outcomes and its indirect social benefits,

interviews with self-declared former illegal arapaima fishers showed that most of them (75%)

highlighted that arapaima co-management helps strengthen cultural values, and many (68%)

declared that local people’s pride and self-esteem increased due to the success they achieved

in restoring arapaima populations (Campos-Silva and Peres 2016). Some interviewees (28%)

also mentioned the more equitable income distribution as another important outcome, since

arapaima fisheries are now a collective enterprise rather than having the benefits fall to only a

few experienced fishermen (Campos-Silva and Peres 2016).

3.2 Freshwater turtle conservation through fluvial sand beach protection

The genus Podocnemis includes four extant species of freshwater turtles in the Brazilian

Amazon, all of them commonly used by local people: The giant South American turtle

(females locally known as tartaruga and males as capitarí; Podocnemis expansa; Fig. 3A),

the yellow-spotted river turtle (tracajá/zé prego; P. unifilis; Fig. 3B), the six-tubercled river

turtle (iaçá/pitiú; P. sextuberculata; Fig. 3C), and the red-headed river turtle (irapuca; P.

erythrocephala; Fig. 3D). These four species occur in rivers, lakes and floodplain forests, and

use fluvial beaches to nest (Smith 1979; IUCN 2018).

Podocnemis spp. play a central role in the livelihood and cultural identity of many

Amazonian peoples since pre-Columbian times (Bates 1863; Silva-Coutinho 1868; Carvajal

1894; Veríssimo 1895; Prestes-Carneiro et al. 2016). Local people value both adults and eggs

for multiple purposes, especially as food delicacy and medicinal resource, in addition to being

a highly important item in social practices and celebrations (Smith 1974; Alho 1985; Johns

1987; Rebêlo and Pezzuti 2000; Alves and Rosa 2007; Pezzuti et al. 2010; Alves et al. 2012).

Podocnemis spp. are also greatly valued by riverine peoples as a special food item to diversify

their otherwise monotonous fish-based diet (Murrieta 1998).

71

Figure 3. Photos of Podocnemis spp. (A) P. expansa (Photo: Camila Ferrara); (B) P. unifilis (Photo: Camila Ferrara); (C) P. sextuberculata (Photo: Fernanda Rodrigues); and (D) P. erythrocephala (Photo: Camila Ferrara).

During the 18th and 19th centuries, following the European colonization, millions of

freshwater turtles were slaughtered yearly, and their eggs widely converted into oil for

cooking and urban lightning (Smith 1979). This led to a sharp decline in turtle populations. In

the 1960s, a National Law was established in Brazil banning the hunting and

commercialization of wild animals (Brazilian Fauna Protection Law, Nº 5197, 3rd January

1967), which consequently discontinued legal trade of turtles. However, high levels of illegal

harvesting continued in the absence of adequate enforcement (Fachín-Terán et al., 2004;

Kemenes and Pezzuti, 2007; Peñaloza et al., 2013). The situation was aggravated by the

construction of highways and large hydroelectric dams directly impacting the nesting beaches

(Smith 1979; Alho 2011; Norris et al. 2018a). Faced with the depletion of Podocnemis spp.

stocks, local communities started on the ground conservation initiatives, focused on

protecting turtle nesting beaches (Andrade 2007). These initiatives were eventually supported

by government institutions, NGOs and/or researchers, and proliferated throughout the

Amazon (Andrade 2007; Cantarelli et al. 2014).

72

The management scheme is based on the establishment of protected beaches whereby

local beach-guards are in charge of surveillance, and nest monitoring (IBAMA 2016). Each

protected beach is constantly surveyed, day and night, by one to three guards, to avoid

poaching of adults and eggs during all the nesting period (dry season; ~ 5 months). In some

places beach-guards work on a voluntary basis, while in others they are financially supported

by the local government and receive a monthly payment during the nesting period. The

payment is delivered either in cash (amount equivalent to the Brazilian minimum wage, ~

US$ 250/month) or, more commonly, as a food hamper (equivalent to less than half a

minimum wage; ~ US$ 110/month; Campos-Silva et al., 2018).

Studies have highlighted positive impacts of turtle management schemes. For instance,

comparisons between areas with and without the scheme, showed that in the Lower Amazon

the managed areas had ten-fold more P. sextuberculata, and accounted for 91% of the total

individuals caught in the entire study area (Miorando et al. 2013). In the Juruá basin, managed

areas had 58 times more P. expansa, six times more P. unifilis, and three times more P.

sextuberculata (Campos-Silva et al. 2018); moreover, 99% of all P. expansa nests recorded

on unprotected beaches were raided by poachers compared to only 2.1% on adjacent protected

beaches (Campos-Silva et al. 2018). Studies tested the effect of several environmental and

social variables on turtle abundance, and community-based beach protection was the strongest

one for both P. sextuberculata (Miorando et al. 2013) and P. expansa (Campos-Silva et al.

2018). Data accumulated through the Podocnemis expansa Conservation Program across nine

states of the Brazilian Amazon, showed that protected beaches produced at least 46 million

hatchlings in 30 years, and resulted in P. expansa population recovery in most areas

(Cantarelli et al. 2014). Furthermore, a study focusing on P. unifilis showed that two years of

government enforcement patrols had no effect on nest harvesting, whereas one year of co-

management in the same area resulted in almost threefold reduction of harvest levels (Norris

et al. 2018). In addition to Podocnemis spp., protected beaches benefits species from several

other groups, such as beach-nesting birds, large catfishes, terrestrial invertebrates, river

dolphins, caimans and green iguanas (Campos-Silva et al. 2018). The magnitude of

differences in the abundance varies across species, with some being overwhelmingly more

abundant on protected beaches (e.g. 83-fold for black skimmers, Rynchops niger; Campos-

Silva et al., 2018).

In contrast to the arapaima co-management, the turtle management scheme does not

represent a cash-earning opportunity for the community and cannot become financially self-

sufficient over time, due to the legal impediment to the harvest and trade of turtles and their

73

eggs in Brazil (Brazilian Fauna Protection Law, Nº 5197, 3rd January 1967; Brazilian

Environmental Crimes Law, Nº 9605, 12th February 1998). The economic benefits, if any, are

restricted to the beach-guard’s nominal symbolic payment only, and come from external

input. Such absence of tangible financial return is frequently mentioned by beach-guards as

one of the main concerns for the long-term sustainability of the activity (Campos-Silva et al.

2018). They also complain about the lack of appreciation of their role by government

authorities and the wider society, who fail to adequately recognize the considerable time and

effort they invest in the conservation scheme, and the personal risks they incur from

confronting recalcitrant poachers (Campos-Silva et al. 2018). Another often expressed

concern is the insufficient support from government agencies, both in terms of financial

assistance (e.g. investment on basic equipment or on fuel for patrols) and official enforcement

(e.g. application of formal sanctions to identified poachers) (Campos-Silva et al. 2018;

Pezzuti et al. 2018; CTF and JVCS personal observation). On the other hand, beach-guards

often highlight the strengthening of local cultural values as a great positive outcome from the

turtle conservation scheme (Campos-Silva et al. 2018). Furthermore, communities where

protected beaches emerge are seen as privileged areas, and residents feel proud of the

increasingly abundant turtle population (Pezzuti et al. 2018).

4. CIS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

The two case studies explored above are examples of currently active CIS-management

schemes, for which we have quantitative data demonstrating the outcomes. We used those

examples to better illustrate how CIS-management systems may be successful in both

ecological and social terms. Other examples might be found in other parts of the world, and

many more could exist if there were adequate initiatives to motivate their establishment.

Indeed, in our compilation of CIS examples worldwide (Table 1), we showcase a wide range

of CIS, encompassing several taxonomic groups and environments, as well as different uses

and values for various peoples throughout the world. This compilation, which may represent

only a small portion of all existing examples, illustrates the potential of CIS management to

span a wide geographic scale. Each culture has its own CIS, and often these have a strong

effect on the ecosystem they inhabit, which make them especially relevant for management

and conservation purposes (Close et al. 2002; Noble et al. 2016).

74

Table 1. Examples of Culturally Important Species (CIS) throughout the worlda. Species are listed in alphabetical order of their general taxonomic group (bird, crustacean, fish, mammal, mollusk, reptile) and then of their common name.

CIS general

group

CIS common and scientific

names Peopleb Country/Nationb

Local values and uses

mentionedbc

(listed in alphabetical order)

Referencesb

Bird

Bush buck

(Tragelaphus scriptus)

Ikoma and Natta

(Serengeti District) Tanzania Sacred species, symbolic value Kideghesho 2008

Cassowary

(Casuarius casuarius johnsonii)

Djiru

(Mission Beach) Australia Food, identity Hill et al., 2010

Karam

(Kaironk Valley) Papua New Guinea Oral tradition, symbolic value Bulmer, 1967

Glaucous-winged gull

(Larus glaucescens)

Huna Tlingit

(Southeastern Alaska) USA

Food (eggs), identity, social

practices, spirituality Hunn et al., 2003

Kereru [New Zealand pigeon]

(Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) Tuawhenua New Zealand

Celebrations, food,

spirituality, symbolic value Timoti et al., 2017

Muttonbird [Sooty shearwaters]

(Puffinus griseus) Rakiura New Zealand

Celebrations, ceremonies,

food, economy, social

practices, spirituality, symbolic

value

Mccarthy et al., 2014; Moller

et al., 2009a, 2009b

Ostrich

(Struthio camelus)

Ikoma

[some Abhaghetigha clans]

(Serengeti District)

Tanzania Sacred species, symbolic value Kideghesho 2008

Vulture

(Gyps spp.) Parsee India

Legends, practical utility

(cleaning the environments and

disposing human bodies),

symbolic value

Markandya et al., 2008

White Stork

(Ciconia ciconia) Polish rural people Poland

Beliefs, folklore, pest regulator

in agriculture, symbolic value Kronenberg et al., 2017

Crustacean

Crayfish

(Jasus edwardsii) Kaikōura New Zealand Food, identity, symbolic value Mccarthy et al., 2014

Crayfish [Freshwater crayfish]

(Astacoides spp.)

Betsileo and Tanala

(Fianarantsoa Province) Madagascar

Economy, food, social

practices Jones et al. 2006

Crayfish [Freshwater crayfish]

(Cambarus spp. and Astacus spp.)

Cherokee, Chitimachas,

Houmas, Choctaw, USA Food, legends Irwin, 2014; Noble et al., 2016

75

Attakapas

Crayfish [Freshwater crayfish]

(Paranephrops planifrons and P.

zealandicus)

Māori New Zealand Food

Kusabs and Quin, 2009; Noble

et al., 2016

Crayfish [Murray crayfish]

(Euastacus armatus)

Aboriginal peoples of the

Murray-Darling River

basin

Australia Food

Humphries, 2007; Noble et al.,

2016

Marron

(Cherax tenuimanus and C. cainii)

Aboriginal peoples of the

Murray-Darling River

basin

Australia Food Noble et al., 2016

Yabby

(Cherax destructor)

Aboriginal peoples of the

Murray-Darling River

basin

Australia Food Humphries, 2007; Noble et al.,

2016

Fish

Eel [American eel]

(Anguilla rostrata) Mi’kmaq Canada

Ceremonies, food, legends,

medicine, social practices,

spirituality, symbolic value

Davis et al., 2004; Mainland

Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq, 2011;

Prosper and Paulette, 2002;

SRSF, 2002

Eel [New Zealand freshwater eel]

(Anguilla dieffenbachia, A.

australis and A. reinhardtii)

Māori New Zealand Food, legends McDowall, 2011; Noble et al.,

2016

Eel [Short-finned eel]

(Anguilla australis)

Māori New Zealand Food, legends Dolamore et al., 2016;

Mccarthy et al., 2014

Aboriginal peoples

of South-west Victoria Australia

Ceremonies, economy, food,

social practices, symbolic

value

Framlingham Aboriginal Trust

and Winda Mara Aboriginal

Corporation, 2004; Noble et

al., 2016

Herring [Pacific herring]

(Clupea pallasii)

Heiltsuk

(British Columbia) Canada

Ceremonies, economy, food,

social practices Gauvreau, 2015

Haida

(Queen Charlotte Islands,

British Columbia)

Canada Bait for fishery, food,

economy, oil source Jones, 2007

Alaska natives USA Celebrations, food Moss, 2015

Kahawai [Australian salmon]

(Arripis trutta)

Te Whānau-a-Hikarukutai/

Ngāti Horomoana people New Zealand

Celebrations, ceremonies,

food, identity, narratives,

social practices, spirituality,

Maxwell et al., 2018

76

symbolic value

Lamprey [Pacific lamprey]

(Lampetra tridentata and

Entosphenus tridentatus)

Indigenous people of the

Columbia River Plateau

(e.g. Nez Perce, Umatilla,

Warm Springs and

Yakama)

USA Ceremonies, celebrations,

food, medicine, spirituality

Close et al., 2002; CRITFC,

2011

Murray cod

(Maccullochella peelii)

Aboriginal peoples of the

Murray Darling River basin Australia

Cosmology, economy, food,

identity, symbolic value

Ginns, 2012; Noble et al.,

2016

Salmon [Atlantic salmon]

(Salmo salar)

Mi’kmaq

(Nova Scotia) Canada

Celebrations, ceremonies,

food, social practices,

spirituality

Denny and Fanning, 2016

Salmon [Pacific salmon]

(Oncorhynchus spp.)

Gitga'at and other coastal

peoples of British

Columbia

Canada Economy, food, identity Garibaldi and Turner, 2004;

Healey, 2009

Aboriginal peoples from

Alaska, Canada,

and the Pacific

Northwest (300+

tribes)

USA

Canada

Celebrations, ceremonies,

food, economy, identity,

spirituality

Bruce Johnsen, 2009; Cozzetto

et al., 2013; Dittmer, 2013;

Galbreath et al., 2014;

Garibaldi, 2009; Haggan et al.,

2004; Landeen and Pinkham,

1999

Mammal

Beaver

(Castor canadensis)

Dene, Cree, and Métis

(Fort McCay, Alberta) Canada

Ecosystem function,

technology Garibaldi, 2009

Boar [Wild Boar]

(Sus scrofa taiwanus) Truku Taiwan

Food, legends, social practices,

spirituality, symbolic value Simon, 2013

Beluga

(Delphinapterus leucas)

Qeqertarsuaq Inuits

(Disco Island) Greenland

Celebrations, Economy, food,

identity, social practices Sejersen, 2001; Tejsner, 2014

Inuvialuit

(Western Arctic Inuit) Canada

Economy, food, social

practices

Loseto et al., 2018; Tyson,

2017

Nunavik Inuit

(Northern Quebec) Canada

Cosmology, economy, food,

social practices Tyrrell, 2008

Caribou [Barren-ground caribou]

(Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) Inuvialuit Canada Food, fur, social practices Tyson, 2017

Caribou [Woodland caribou]

(Rangifer tarandus)

Gwich’in,

Tlicho, Denesuline, and

Inuit

Canada Economy, food, identity,

spirituality Prowse et al., 2009

Collared Peccary Mayan and mestizo peoples Mexico Food, medicine, narratives García del Valle et al., 2015

77

(Pecari tajacu) of the Lacandon Rainforest

(Chiapas)

Cow

(Bos taurus indicus)

Meena, Bhils, and Kathodi

(Rajasthan) India

Magical-spiritual use; sacred

species Kushwah et al. 2017

Deer [Common deer]

(Mazama gouazoubira)

Chapada do Araparipe

villagers

(Ceará)

Brazil Food, medicine, symbolic

value Bonifácio et al., 2016

Deer [White-tailed deer]

(Odocoileus virginianus)

Mayan and mestizo peoples

of the Lacandon Rainforest

(Chiapas)

Mexico Food, medicine, narratives García del Valle et al., 2015

Dugong

(Dugong dugon)

Aboriginal peoples of the

Hope Vale community

(Cape York Peninsula)

Australia Food, identity, social practices,

symbolic value

Nursey-Bray, 2009; Nursey-

Bray et al., 2010

Torres Strait islanders Australia Celebrations, ceremonies,

food, social practices,

Butler et al., 2012; Delisle et

al., 2018; Kwan et al., 2006;

Marsh et al., 2015

Elephant

(Loxodonta africana)

Ikoma and Natta

(Serengeti District) Tanzania Sacred species, symbolic value Kideghesho 2008

Gorilla [Cross River gorilla]

(Gorilla gorilla diehli)

Villagers around Bechati-

Fossimondi-Besali forest

(Lebialem Division)

Cameroon Narratives, medicine, symbolic

value (totem) Etiendem et al. 2011

Hyena [Spoted hyena]

(Crocuta crocuta)

Ikoma and Natta

[clans: Abhaghetigha and

Abasaye]

(Serengeti District)

Tanzania Sacred species, symbolic value Kideghesho 2008

Ibex

(Capra sibirica) Western Pamir Tajikistan

Clothes, folklore, food,

materials, symbolic value Jackson and Jain, 2006

Fin whale

(Balaenoptera physalus) Inuit Greenland

Economy, food, social

practices, Caulfield, 1997

Leopard

(Panthera pardus)

Natta

[Abasaye clan]

(Serengeti District)

Tanzania Sacred species, symbolic value Kideghesho 2008

Lion

(Panthera leo)

Ikoma

[some Abharanche clans]

(Serengeti District)

Tanzania Sacred species, symbolic value Kideghesho 2008

Marco Polo sheep Kyrgyz Tajikistan Clothes, folklore, food, Jackson and Jain, 2006

78

(Ovis ammon polii) (Eastern Pamir) materials, symbolic value

Minke whale

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Inuit Greenland

Economy, food, social

practices Caulfield, 1997

Moose

(Alces alces)

Dene, Cree, and Métis

(Fort McCay, Alberta) Canada Food, technology Garibaldi, 2009

Aboriginal peoples from

Yukon Canada

Economy, food, recreational

value, spiritual value Jung et al., 2018

Monkeys [any species, or

specifically tantalus monkey,

mona monkey and/or

Sclater’s monkey,

depending on the community]

(Chlorocebus tantalus,

Cercopithecus mona,

Cercopithecus sclateri)

Igbo

(Lagwa and Akpugoeze

villages, in Imo and Enugu

States)

Nigeria Folklore, identity, narratives,

sacred species, symbolic value

Baker et al. 2009;

Baker 2013

Narwhal

(Monodon monoceros)

Nunavut Inuits Canada Economy, food, social

practices, source of ivory Diduck et al., 2005

Qeqertarsuaq Inuits

(Disco Island) Greenland

Economy, food, social

practices Tejsner, 2014

Paca

(Cuniculus paca)

Mayan and mestizo peoples

of the Lacandon Rainforest

(Chiapas)

Mexico Food, medicine, narratives García del Valle et al., 2015

Polar bear

(Ursus maritimus)

Inuit

(Nunavut) Canada Cosmology, economy, food

Freeman and Wenzel, 2006;

Wenzel, 2005

Tiger [Bengal tiger]

(Panthera tigris tigris)

Meena, Bhils, and Kathodi

(Rajasthan) India

Magical-spiritual use; sacred

species Kushwah et al. 2017

Mollusk

Abalone

(Haliotis spp.)

Māori New Zealand

Food, identity, medicine, social

practices, spirituality, symbolic

value

Mccarthy et al., 2014

Gitga'at

(British Columbia) Canada Food, identity Garibaldi and Turner, 2004

Cockle [Basket cockle]

(Clinocardium nuttallii)

Gitga'at

(British Columbia) Canada Food, identity Garibaldi and Turner, 2004

Cockle [Mangrove cockle]

(Anadara tuberculosa)

Isla Costa Rica villagers

(El Oro) Ecuador Economy, food Beitl, 2011

Cockle [New Zealand cockle] Puketeraki and Ōtakou New Zealand Food, identity, symbolic value Mccarthy et al., 2014

79

(Austrovenus stutchburyi) Marae

Mussel [Green Lipped Mussel]

(Perna canaliculus) Māori New Zealand

Economy, food, social

practices Paul-Burke et al., 2018

Mussel [New Zealand freshwater

mussel]

(Echyridella menziesi)

Māori New Zealand Ceremonies, food, medicine,

spirituality, tools

McDowall, 2002; Noble et al.,

2016

Oyster

(Crassostrea virginica)

Chesapeake Bay coastal

communities USA Economy, food Paolisso and Dery, 2010

Reptile

Snake [Cobra, Green mamba,

Python and/or Puffadder]

(Naja haje, Dendroaspis

angusticeps, Python spp, Bitis

arietans)

Ikoma

[clans: Wahikumari,

Abharanche, Abhaghetigha,

Abhamwancha and

Abhahimurumbe]

(Serengeti District)

Tanzania Sacred species, symbolic value Kideghesho 2008

Tortoise [Leopard tortoise]

(Geochelone pardalis)

Natta

[Abasaye clan]

(Serengeti District)

Tanzania Sacred species, symbolic value Kideghesho 2008

Turtle [Green turtle]

(Chelonia mydas)

Torres Strait islanders Australia Celebrations, ceremonies,

food, social practices

Butler et al., 2012; Delisle et

al., 2018; Johannes and

MacFarlane, 1993

Aboriginal peoples of the

Hope Vale community

(Cape York Peninsula)

Australia Food, identity, social practices,

symbolic value

Nursey-Bray, 2009; Nursey-

Bray et al., 2010

Miskitu Nicaragua Economy, food, leather, oil,

social practices

Lagueux, 1998;

Nietschmann, 1974

Bahía Magdalena villagers

(Pacific side) Mexico Celebrations, food, medicine Nichols et al., 2000

Seri

(Sonoran coast and islands

of the Gulf of California)

Mexico Food, legends, symbolic value Nabhan et al., 1999

Coastal and island villagers Papua New Guinea

Celebrations, ceremonies,

economy, food, legends,

symbolic value, social

practices, tools

Spring, 1981, 1979

Turtle [Hawksbill turtle]

(Eretmochelys imbricata)

Solomon Islands villagers

(Melanesia) Solomon Islands Food, economy Hamilton et al., 2015

80

Turtle [Leatherback turtle]

(Dermochelys coriacea)

Kei Island villagers

(Maluku) Indonesia Food, social practices Suarez and Starbird, 1995

Turtle [Olive ridley turtle]

(Lepidochelys olivacea)

Ostional villagers

(Nicoya Peninsula) Costa Rica

Aphrodisiac, food, local

economy Campbell, 1998, 2003

Turtle [Sea Turtles]

(no specific species)

Wayuú

(Guajira Peninsule)

Colombia and

Venezuela

Ceremonies, food, legends,

medicine, spiritual value,

symbolic value

Barrios-garrido, 2018a, 2018b

Caroline Islands villagers Micronesia Ceremonies, food, social

practices, symbolic value McCoy, 1995

Dangme and Fante

(Ada Peninsula and

Winneba)

Ghana Legends, sacred species Alexander et al. 2017

a This table does not provide a comprehensive compilation of CIS examples from around the world, but a list of examples found in our search (see Methods section) in order to

illustrate the wide range of species that are highly relevant to different peoples worldwide.

b The information on each species came from the studies found in our search (see Methods section), and do not necessarily corre spond to all data available to the species (ie. to

its whole geographic distribution, to all the cultures linked to the species, to all local uses and values, or to all references about the species and its cultural importance).

c All species included in this table were clearly mentioned to be highly culturally important t o local people. The number of uses/values listed in the table does not necessarily correspond to the degree of cultural importance of the species.

81

5. DISCUSSION

The two case studies addressed in this paper show important similarities and differences

(Table 2) that have direct implications to their ecological, social, and economic

outcomes. Even though the initiatives focusing on Arapaima spp. and Podocnemis spp.

are naturally restricted to the Amazon, they both bring relevant insights to wildlife

management and conservation, applicable to multiple contexts throughout the world.

Hereafter, we discuss some of the key learnings from the two case studies and propose a

general framework regarding CIS-management schemes.

82

Table 2. Similarities and differences between Arapaima spp. fisheries co-management, and

Podocnemis spp. conservation through the protection of fluvial beaches.

Arapaima spp.

co-management

Podocnemis spp.

co-management

Target species

Cultural importance High High

Historical commercial overpressure High High

Current illegal harvest pressure

High High

Co-management features

Rules focusing on habitat protection Yes Yes

Surveillance / Enforcement Local Local

Participants’ engagement High High

Community involvement Strong Moderatea

Main stimuli to local engagement Cultural and Economic Cultural and Moral/Ethic

Personal risk to participants High High

Societal recognition and outreach High Low

Possibility of financial self-sustainability Yes No

Legal permission to trade the target species Yesb No

Benefits from the management scheme

Increased abundance of the target species Yes Yes

Increased abundance of non-target species Yes Yes

Ecological benefits for the ecosystem Yes Yes

Contribution to food security Yes Yes

Strengthening of cultural values Yes Yes

Strengthening of local pride and self-esteem Yes Yes

Income generation Yes Noc

Income distribution within the community Yes No

a Community involvement on turtle co-management (beach protection) varies across different locations. In many

cases, however, only one to three beach-guards are in charge of the management rather than the whole

community.

b Trade of wild arapaima is allowed only under co-management schemes approved by the Brazilian

Environmental Agency (IBAMA), who is in charge of setting annual quotas to each management unit according

to the local arapaima abundance.

c In some locations beach guards receive a monthly payment during the turtle nesting period. This payment may

be delivered either in cash or as a food hamper, and needs to come from external sources (e.g. local government

or NGOs). The activity itself does not generate income. Illustrations: Karla Koehler

83

5.1 Key learnings from the case studies

5.1.1 Learnings from similarities between the case studies

In both Arapaima spp. and Podocnemis spp. managements it is clear that the strong

connection local people have with the target species resulted in a deep cultural incentive

to seek the recovery of their populations to sustainable levels. Such local interest

stimulated communal engagement with conservation initiatives focusing on these

species. The local engagement, in turn, triggered the success of the initiatives and was

so effective that it has become the strongest predictor of species abundance across

multiple contexts (Miorando et al. 2013; Campos-Silva and Peres 2016; Campos-Silva

et al. 2018). Indeed, if local people are thoroughly engaged, there is better potential for

full-time physical presence and effective local surveillance, as they are permanent

residents in the target areas (Jentoft et al. 1998; Pomeroy et al. 2001; Ostrom 2007).

Moreover, people from the same or neighbouring communities normally know each

other well and can easily distinguish non-compliant individuals. Even though kinship

ties may represent a barrier for local sanctions (Crawford et al. 2004), peer pressure and

moral obligation are often stronger determinants of people’s behaviour than formal

rules, especially in places where official surveillance is low or non-existent (Kaplan

1998; Sutinen and Kuperan 1999; Crawford et al. 2004).

The two case studies are also actual examples of how top-down enforcement, as

currently deployed, is not necessarily effective across the Brazilian Amazon. Despite

the legal restrictions to the harvest of Arapaima spp. and Podocnemis spp.,

independently imposed decades ago, both species still face overfishing/overhunting

scenarios in many areas due to high levels of illegal harvest throughout the region

(Castello et al. 2009; Miorando et al. 2013b; Campos-Silva and Peres 2016; Petersen et

al. 2016; Campos-Silva et al. 2018; Norris et al. 2018b). Indeed, about 77% of all

arapaima landed in Santarém (a major Amazonian city) was estimated to be illegal,

which corresponds to the highest rate of illegal fishing ever reported in the global

literature, and to more than four times the world average (Cavole et al. 2015). Another

study showed that in only two years, ~4000 Podocnemis spp. individuals illegally

harvested were confiscated by park wardens in a single Reserve, an amount that

probably represents only a small fraction of all turtles poached in that specific area

(Kemenes and Pezzuti 2007). The overall depletion scenario of Arapaima spp. and

84

Podocnemis spp. contrasts with the impressive recovery these species are demonstrating

in areas where local people are engaged in co-management initiatives focusing on them

(Castello et al. 2009; Miorando et al. 2013; Cantarelli et al. 2014; Campos-Silva and

Peres 2016; Petersen et al. 2016; Campos-Silva et al. 2018; Norris et al. 2018b).

Another important aspect present in both case studies is that the corresponding

management schemes do not focus on benefiting the target species only (Table 2).

Instead, they are both based on rules and procedures that embraces the ecosystem scale

and consequently benefit many co-occurring non-target taxa. The arapaima co-

management is grounded on the zoning of the water bodies, including no-take lakes,

while the turtle co-management scheme is centered on the protection of the entire

fluvial beach. Therefore, these management initiatives could be considered examples of

Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM; Pikitch, 2004). Similar management schemes,

focusing on CIS but based on rules aimed to protect the entire ecosystem, would be

strongly advised to other contexts as well. The focus on CIS may be a trigger to spark

local people’s motivation and real engagement in EBM schemes.

The spatial planning of the management scheme may be another relevant feature

for its broader success. As illustrated by our case studies, the ecological benefits can be

enhanced by the establishment of a zoning based on a source-sink model, in which the

species could recover in no-take areas and spill-over to other areas (Stobart et al. 2009;

Di Lorenzo et al. 2016; Campos-Silva et al. 2017). It is also important to design

monitoring strategies aiming at verifying population trends over time. Quantitative

studies are especially advantageous in this case, as they enable following up on the

changes in an objective way, comparable at both temporal and spatial scales, and may

also be useful to avoid misinterpretations of the stocks condition due to the “shifting

baseline syndrome” (sensu Pauly, 1995). Yet, community-based monitoring should be

prioritized, as local people are an essential part of the scheme, and ought to be

empowered and recognized as protagonists, and duly rewarded for their efforts.

5.1.2 Learnings from differences between the case studies

Income generation viability may be a relevant factor to ensure the long-term

sustainability of the conservation initiative (Pomeroy et al. 2001). Some people may be

interested in a certain initiative due to cultural or moral motivation only and be willing

to sacrifice income or incur personal costs to carry out a moral duty (Sutinen and

85

Kuperan 1999), as is the case of many beach-guards involved in the turtle management

scheme. Beach protection is a high-risk activity with frequent threats of violence from

poachers (including death threats) and the material benefits, if any, are negligible

considering the high workload the activity demands and the risks involved (Campos-

Silva et al. 2018; Pezzuti et al. 2018). Turtle management scheme is mainly motivated

by community ethics, and emotional connection with Podocnemis spp. (Pezzuti et al.

2018). It is an actual example that nonmaterial motivations should not be seen as side-

effects of cultural processes, but rather as conscious decisions based on local values

(Pezzuti et al. 2018). Nevertheless, motivations can change over time. As anticipated by

many beach-guards, social and market pressures might have a negative effect on beach-

guards’ long-term engagement or on their replacement by future generations (Campos-

Silva et al. 2018). If a beach-guard gives up or has no successor, all the conservation

gains made over the years can be quickly lost. In contrast, in the arapaima co-

management, sales of sustainably harvested fish bring direct economic benefits for

many families in the community, which entails compliance and long-term engagement

among the entire fishing village, and encourages community-led surveillance and

widespread peer pressure. Finding ways of generating income from the beach protection

may enhance communal involvement and long-term commitment with the scheme, and

reduce poaching. Furthermore, transforming the beach protection in a self-sustaining

scheme, as is the arapaima co-management, would make it less vulnerable to

oscillations in political interests and external support, which would likely increase the

probability of its long-term success (Campos-Silva et al. 2018).

Yet, such striking financial contrast between the two cases is consequence of an

important intrinsic difference between them: while national legislation prevent turtle

harvesting in Brazil, specific legal norms allow regulated arapaima trade (e.g.

Amazonas Normative Instruction Nº 01, 1st June 2005; Acre Normative Instruction Nº

01, 30th May 2008; Rondônia Normative Instruction Nº 02, 13th May 2019). Turtles and

fish exhibit different life-histories that have direct implications to their management and

may impose more challenges to the sustainable use of the former. Delayed sexual

maturity and long reproductive life span, for example, are features associated with the

vulnerability of turtles to the exploitation of juveniles and adults (Thorbjarnarson et al.

2000). However, a recent study focusing on P. unifilis showed that increasing first-year

survival could generate rapid population increases and even compensate for population

86

losses due to adult harvesting (if adult female harvest remains < 25%). P. unifilis is a

relatively fast maturing species, with maturation age similar to arapaima, which

contrasts with the slower maturing temperate and larger-bodied marine turtles (Norris et

al. 2019). Furthermore, studies have shown that the sustainable harvest of turtle eggs

can represent a viable management alternative (Alho 1985; Campbell 1998; Escalona

and Fa 1998; Pezzuti and Vogt 1999; Caputo et al. 2005), especially in places where a

high proportion of nests is normally lost for natural causes, as in many Amazonian

fluvial beaches (Pezzuti and Vogt 1999; Caputo et al. 2005). Despite successful

examples elsewhere of sustainable harvest/trade of turtle eggs (e.g. Costa Rica -

Campbell 1998; Ecuador - Caputo et al. 2005), the attempt to test a similar program in

Brazil is limited by national legislation banning the use of wildlife other than fisheries

(Brazilian Fauna Protection Law, Nº 5197, 3rd January 1967; Brazilian Environmental

Crimes Law, Nº 9605, 12th February 1998). Yet, scholars have advocated that legal

arrangements enabling regulated turtle harvest may be the most effective way to ensure

the long-term conservation of Podocnemis spp. in the Amazon, considering the scenario

of deficient enforcement associated with high levels of widespread illegal harvest (Alho

1985; Pezzuti and Vogt 1999; Campos-Silva et al. 2017, 2018; Pezzuti et al. 2019).

The role of education and outreach is another important contrasting aspect that

emerges from a comparison between the two case studies (Table 2). Arapaima co-

management has been acclaimed by the media, the government and NGOs, and there is

a widely built perception that the scheme is fruitful for the community and relevant for

conservation. Conversely, beach protection is a neglected initiative with little public

profile throughout the region, despite its long history and great importance (Pezzuti et

al. 2018). Formal recognition may be an effective support and stimulus to local

engagement and peer pressure, since it is a way to trigger the wide collective perception

that the scheme is beneficial, and therefore morally and ethically defensible (Crawford

et al. 2004). The severe lack of societal appreciation of the turtle management scheme,

together with the poor financial viability of the initiative, might lead to its future failure,

as anticipated by many beach-guards (Campos-Silva et al. 2018).

5.2 CIS-management and its potential applicability to multiple contexts worldwide

Despite particular bottlenecks, both case studies can be considered successful examples

of CIS-management. The role of CIS to motivate local engagement with the initiatives

87

ensured continued on-the-ground enforcement of conservation practices, which was

essential for the successful recovery of target and non-target species, and subsequent

profound sociocultural benefits. Similar outcomes could likely be achieved with many

other CIS, as those listed on Table 1. Yet, when designing a CIS-management proposal

it is indispensable to analyze the singularities of each reality. The cultural importance of

a species is always context-dependent, and a certain species that is highly important to

one group may not be to another, even if both groups are in contact with the same

species (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). The relevance and uses of a species may also

change over time, as cultures are dynamic and adaptive (Cristancho and Vining 2004).

Furthermore, each ecosystem will function in a particular way (and also change over

time), and rules or strategies operating in one place may not be suitable to another, even

if the target species are the same. Developping CIS-management proposals in close

partnership with local people is therefore crucial to ensure that the proposed scheme is

culturally, socially and ecologically relevant and approriate, in addition to being flexible

to changes. However, it is important to evaluate the impact that the target CIS may have

on the natural ecosystem functioning, avoiding efforts to support eventual non-native

species that become a CIS (Nuñez and Simberloff 2005).

The general steps and feed processes expected to be found in any CIS-

management initiative are outlined as a flow chart in Fig. 4. The process illustrated in

this figure may be briefly described as following: an ecosystem-based co-management

scheme with a focus on CIS will likely arouse local people interest on the initiative,

stimulating their engagement. Such engagement will likely result in local compliance

and surveillance, and consequently bring dividends to ecosystem conservation and

species recovery. Species recovery will likely generate direct and indirect ecological,

cultural, social, and economic benefits, which may reinforce local people interest in the

initiative, resulting in further reinforcing feedback to the system (Fig. 4).

As such, management schemes focusing on CIS could trigger positive socio-

ecological consequences at multiple scales in many different contexts throughout the

world. The positive impact of CIS-management may be especially meaningful in the

context of developing countries, where not only official enforcement tends to be weak

or non-existent (Berkes et al. 2001; Campos-Silva et al. 2015), but also corruption tends

to be high (Transparency International 2018). The common mismanagement of public

finances and/or bribery of officials frequently happening in these countries further

88

aggravates difficulties in implementing effective enforcement schemes (Smith et al.

2003; Agnew et al. 2009). As such, triggering local people interest and consequent

engagement on conservation initiatives may often be the best solution for ensuring the

perpetuation of local natural resources.

Figure 4. Flow chart representing steps and feed processes expected to be found in any conservation initiative focusing on Culturally Important Species (CIS). Continuous lines indicate processes very likely to happen, while dashed lines indicate processes that may happen depending on the context. In general, the flow chart shows that (1) ecosystem-based co-management schemes focusing on a CIS will likely arouse local people interest on the initiative; (2) once they are interested, they will be keen to get engaged on it, which will likely result in (3) local compliance and surveillance, and consequently bring dividends to (4) ecosystem conservation and species recovery. Species recovery will likely (5) bring direct and indirect ecological, cultural, social, and economic benefits, which will (6) reinforce their interest in the initiative, resulting in further reinforcing feedback to the system.

6. CONCLUSION

The cultural importance of any given species should be regarded as a highly relevant

aspect in conservation strategies designed for areas where natural resource use is critical

to local livelihoods. Given that local people have the most to gain from CIS population

recovery, management initiatives focusing on those species have a strong potential to

stimulate local people interests, and their consequent engagement, compliance and

enforcement. Such local, full-time surveillance is potentially much more effective than

official mechanisms of institutional enforcement, which are typically deficient and

deployed sporadically, especially in countries with low governance levels. Importantly,

89

the proposed focus on CIS does not mean that the management initiatives should be

designed to benefit the target species only. We advocate management schemes with

rules embracing the ecosystem scale and ensuring that many other species, and the

environment as a whole, will also benefit from the conservation initiative. The focus on

CIS may be seen as an effective trigger to spark local people’s motivation and real

engagement in the conservation scheme. As such, the scheme will likely achieve a wide

range of positive ecological, social, cultural and economic outcomes. Therefore, we

claim that CIS-management can be an effective socio-ecological tool to reconcile

biodiversity conservation with local people quality of life, keeping with the Sustainable

Development Goals set out by the United Nations to guide developing policies (United

Nations 2015).

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was co-written during an Australia-Brazil PhD Exchange Program awarded

to CTF by the Australian Government Department of Education and Training, through

the Australian Embassy in Brazil, and the Australian Academy of Science. CTF and

JVCS thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

(CAPES/Brazil; Finance Code 001) for a PhD and a post-doctoral scholarship,

respectively. PFML thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e

Tecnológico (CNPQ/Brazil) for a Productivity Grant. We are also grateful to funds from

the Tracking Change: The Role of Local and Traditional Knowledge in Watershed

Governance (SSHRCC/Canada; Partnership Grant 895-2015-1024 awarded to CTF and

PFML), and the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species (DEFRA/UK; Project 20–

001 awarded to CAP). We thank Camila Ferrara and Fernanda Rodrigues for giving us

pictures and clarifying questions about Podocnemis spp.; and Helder Espirito-Santo for

valuable comments on the manuscript.

8. AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT

CTF conceived the central idea, did the literature review, and drafted the manuscript;

PFML, JVCS, MMN, RB and CAP gave critical suggestions for its content and design,

and revised it critically; MMN did the maps. All authors gave final approval for

publication.

90

9. REFERENCES

Adams WM (2004) Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty. Science

306:1146–1149. doi: 10.1126/science.1097920

Adenle AA, Stevens C, Bridgewater P (2015) Global conservation and management of

biodiversity in developing countries: An opportunity for a new approach. Environ

Sci Policy 45:104–108. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.002

Agnew DJ, Pearce J, Pramod G, et al (2009) Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal

Fishing. PLoS One 4:e4570. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004570

Alexander L, Agyekumhene A, Allman P (2017) The Role of Taboos in the Protection

and Recovery of Sea Turtles. Front Mar Sci 4:. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00237

Alho CJR (1985) Conservation and management strategies for commonly exploited

amazonian turtles. Biol Conserv 32:291–298. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(85)90019-

9

Alho CJR (2011) Environmental Effects of Hyropower Reservoirs on Wild Mammals

and Freshwater Turtles in Amazonia: A Review. Oecologia Aust 15:593–604. doi:

10.4257/oeco.2011.1503.11

Alves RRN, Rosa IL (2007) Zootherapy goes to town: The use of animal-based

remedies in urban areas of NE and N Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol 113:541–555. doi:

10.1016/j.jep.2007.07.015

Alves RRN, Vieira KS, Santana GG, et al (2012) A review on human attitudes towards

reptiles in Brazil. Environ Monit Assess 184:6877–6901. doi: 10.1007/s10661-

011-2465-0

Amaral ESR (2009) O manejo comunitário de pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) como

alternativa econômica para os pescadores das reservas Amanã e Mamirauá,

Amazonas, Brasil. Universidade Federal do Pará

Andrade PCM (2007) Criação e Manejo de Quelônios no Amazonas - Projeto

Diagnóstico da Criação Animais Silvestres no Estado do Amazonas, 2nd edn.

ProVárzea/FAPEAM/SDS, Manaus

Aparicio M (2014) Relações Alteradas – Ideias Suruwaha sobre Animais e Caça. Ilha

Rev Antropol 16:037. doi: 10.5007/2175-8034.2014v16n2p37

Arantes ML, Freitas CEC (2016) Effects of fisheries zoning and environmental

characteristics on population parameters of the tambaqui (Colossoma

macropomum) in managed floodplain lakes in the Central Amazon. Fish Manag

91

Ecol 23:133–143. doi: 10.1111/fme.12164

Baker LR (2013) Links Between Local Folklore and the Conservation of Sclater’s

Monkey (Cercopithecus sclateri) in Nigeria. African Primates 8:17–24

Baker LR, Tanimola AA, Olubode OS, Garshelis DL (2009) Distribution and

abundance of sacred monkeys in Igboland, Southern Nigeria. Am J Primatol

71:574–586. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20690

Barrios-garrido H (2018a) Las tortugas marinas y los pueblos Wayuú : Una historia de

ritos , creencias y usos tradicionales. Ecotrópicos 30:

Barrios-garrido H (2018b) The Wayuu - Shepherds of the Sea

Bates HW (1863) The Naturalist on the River Amazons. John Murray, London

Beitl CM (2011) Cockles in custody: The role of common property arrangements in the

ecological sustainability of mangrove fisheries on the Ecuadorian coast. Int J

Commons 5:485–512. doi: 10.18352/ijc.285

Béné C, Belal E, Baba MO, et al (2009) Power Struggle, Dispute and Alliance Over

Local Resources: Analyzing ‘Democratic’ Decentralization of Natural Resources

through the Lenses of Africa Inland Fisheries. World Dev 37:1935–1950. doi:

10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.05.003

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging

organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90:1692–1702. doi:

10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

Berkes F (2008) Sacred Ecology, 2nd edn. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New

York

Berkes F, Mahon R, McConney P, et al (2001) Managing Small-scale Fisheries -

Alternative Directions and Methods. International Development Research Centre,

Ottawa

Bonifácio KM, Freire EMX, Schiavetti A (2016) Cultural keystone species of fauna as a

method for assessing conservation priorities in a Protected Area of the Brazilian

semiarid. Biota Neotrop 16:. doi: 10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2014-0106

Bruce Johnsen D (2009) Salmon, science, and reciprocity on the Northwest Coast. Ecol

Soc 14:. doi: 43

Bulmer R (1967) Why is the Cassowary Not a Bird ? A Problem of Zoological

Taxonomy Among the Karam of the New Guinea Highlands. Man 2:5–25

Butler JR a, Tawake A, Skewes T, et al (2012) Integrating Traditional Ecological

92

Knowledge and Fisheries Management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the

Catalytic Role of Turtles and Dugong as Cultural Keystone Species. Ecol Soc

17:art34. doi: 10.5751/ES-05165-170434

Campbell L (1998) Use them or lose them? Conservation and the consumptive use of

marine turtle eggs at Ostional, Costa Rica. Environ Conserv 25:305–319

Campbell LM (2003) Contemporary Culture, Use, and Conservation of Sea Turtles. In:

The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. II. pp 302–331

Campos-Silva JV, da Fonseca Junior SF, da Silva Peres CA (2015) Policy reversals do

not bode well for conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. Nat Conserv 13:193–195.

doi: 10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.006

Campos-Silva JV, Peres CA (2016) Community-based management induces rapid

recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci Rep 6:. doi:

10.1038/srep34745

Campos-Silva JV, Peres CA, Antunes AP, et al (2017) Community-based population

recovery of overexploited Amazonian wildlife. Perspect Ecol Conserv 15:266–

270. doi: 10.1016/j.pecon.2017.08.004

Campos-Silva J V., Hawes JE, Andrade PCM, Peres CA (2018) Unintended

multispecies co-benefits of an Amazonian community-based conservation

programme. Nat Sustain 1:650–656. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0170-5

Cantarelli VH, Malvasio A, Verdade LM (2014) Brazil’s Podocnemis expansa

Conservation Program: Retrospective and Future Directions. Chelonian Conserv

Biol 13:124–128. doi: 10.2744/CCB-0926.1

Caputo FP, Canestrelli D, Boitani L (2005) Conserving the terecay (Podocnemis

unifilis, Testudines: Pelomedusidae) through a community-based sustainable

harvest of its eggs. Biol Conserv 126:84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.004

Carvajal G (1894) Descubrimiento del Río de las Amazonas. Sevilla

Castello L (2008) Lateral migration of Arapaima gigas in floodplains of the Amazon.

Ecol Freshw Fish 17:38–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0633.2007.00255.x

Castello L (2004) A Method to Count Pirarucu Arapaima gigas : Fishers, Assessment,

and Management. North Am J Fish Manag 24:379–389. doi: 10.1577/M02-024.1

Castello L, Arantes CC, Mcgrath DG, et al (2014) Understanding fishing-induced

extinctions in the Amazon. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst n/a-n/a. doi:

10.1002/aqc.2491

93

Castello L, Stewart DJ (2010) Assessing CITES non-detriment findings procedures for

Arapaima in Brazil. J Appl Ichthyol 26:49–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-

0426.2009.01355.x

Castello L, Viana JP, Watkins G, et al (2009) Lessons from Integrating Fishers of

Arapaima in Small-Scale Fisheries Management at the Mamirauá Reserve,

Amazon. Environ Manage 43:197–209. doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9220-5

Caulfield RA (1997) Greenlanders, Whales, and Whaling - Sustainability and Self-

Determination in the Arctic. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH

Cavole LM, Arantes CC, Castello L (2015) How illegal are tropical small-scale

fisheries? An estimate for arapaima in the Amazon. Fish Res 168:1–5. doi:

10.1016/j.fishres.2015.03.012

Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, MacNeil MA, et al (2012) Comanagement of coral reef

social-ecological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:5219–5222. doi:

10.1073/pnas.1121215109

Close DA, Fitzpatrick MS, Li HW (2002) The Ecological and Cultural Importance of a

Species at Risk of Extinction, Pacific Lamprey. Fisheries 27:19–25. doi:

10.1577/1548-8446(2002)027<0019:TEACIO>2.0.CO;2

Cozzetto K, Chief K, Dittmer K, et al (2013) Climate change impacts on the water

resources of American Indians and Alaska Natives in the U.S. Clim Chang

120:569–584. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0852-y

Crawford BR, Siahainenia A, Rotinsulu C, Sukmara A (2004) Compliance and

enforcement of community-based coastal resource management regulations in

North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coast Manag 32:39–50. doi:

10.1080/08920750490247481

Cristancho S, Vining J (2004) Culturally defined keystone species. Hum Ecol Rev

11:153–164

CRITFC (2011) Tribal Pacific Lamprey Restoration Plan for the Columbia River Basin

Davis A, Prosper K, Wagner J, Paulette MJ (2004) The Paq’tnkek Mi’kmaq and Ka’t

(american eel): A Case study of Cultural Relations, Meanings, and Prospects. Can

J Native Stud 2:359–390

De Castro F de, McGrath DG (2003) Moving Toward Sustainability in the Local

Management of Floodplain Lake Fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon. Hum Organ

62:123–133. doi: 10.17730/humo.62.2.9bkh58xeekj6bg0m

94

De Castro F (2002) From myths to rules: The evolution of local management in the

Amazonian floodplain. Environ Hist Camb 8:197–216. doi:

10.3197/096734002129342648

Delisle A, Kiatkoski Kim M, Stoeckl N, et al (2018) The socio-cultural benefits and

costs of the traditional hunting of dugongs Dugong dugon and green turtles

Chelonia mydas in Torres Strait, Australia. Oryx 52:250–261. doi:

10.1017/S0030605317001466

Denny S, Fanning L (2016) A Mi’kmaw Perspective on Advancing Salmon Governance

in Nova Scotia, Canada: Setting the Stage for Collaborative Co-Existence. Int

Indig Policy J 7:. doi: 10.18584/iipj.2016.7.3.4

Di Lorenzo M, Claudet J, Guidetti P (2016) Spillover from marine protected areas to

adjacent fisheries has an ecological and a fishery component. J Nat Conserv

32:62–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2016.04.004

Diduck A, Bankes N, Clark D, Armitage D (2005) Unpacking social learning in social-

ecological systems. In: Breaking Ice. pp 269–290

Dittmer K (2013) Changing streamflow on Columbia basin tribal lands-climate change

and salmon. Clim Chang 120:627–641. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0745-0

Dolamore B, Puddick J, Wood SA (2016) Accumulation of nodularin in New Zealand

shortfin eel (Anguilla australis): potential consequences for human consumption.

New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res. doi: 10.1080/00288330.2016.1236738

Escalona T, Fa JE (1998) Survival of nests of the terecay turtle (Podocnemis unifilis) in

the Nichare-Tawadu Rivers, Venezuela. J Zool 244:303–312

Etiendem DN, Hens L, Pereboom Z (2011) Traditional knowledge systems and the

conservation of cross river gorillas: A case study of Bechati, Fossimondi, Besali,

Cameroon. Ecol Soc 16:. doi: 10.5751/ES-04182-160322

Fachín-terán A, Vogt RC, Thorbjarnarson JB (2004) Patterns of Use and Hunting of

Turtles in the Mamirauá Sustainable Development Reserve, Amazonas, Brazil. In:

Silvius KM, Bodmer RE, Fragoso JMV (eds) People in Nature: Wildlife

Conservation in South and Central America. Columbia University Press, New

York, pp 362–377

Fisher B, Christopher T (2007) Poverty and biodiversity: Measuring the overlap of

human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecol Econ 62:93–101. doi:

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.020

95

Framlingham Aboriginal Trust and Winda Mara Aboriginal Corporation (2004)

Kooyang Sea Country Plan

Freeman MMR, Wenzel GW (2006) The nature and significance of polar bear

conservation hunting in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59:21–30. doi:

10.14430/arctic360

Galbreath PF, Bisbee MA, Dompier DW, et al (2014) Extirpation and Tribal

Reintroduction of Coho Salmon to the Interior Columbia River Basin. Fisheries

39:77–87. doi: 10.1080/03632415.2013.874526

García del Valle Y, Naranjo EJ, Caballero J, et al (2015) Cultural significance of wild

mammals in mayan and mestizo communities of the Lacandon Rainforest,

Chiapas, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 11:. doi: 10.1186/s13002-015-0021-7

Garibaldi A (2009) Moving From Model to Application: Cultural Keystone Species and

Reclamation in Fort McKay, Alberta. J Ethnobiol 29:323–338. doi: 10.2993/0278-

0771-29.2.323

Garibaldi A, Turner N (2004) Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological

Conservation and Restoration. Ecol Soc 9:

Gauvreau A (2015) “Everything Revolves Around the Herring”: The Heiltsuk-Herring

Relationship Through Time. Simon Fraser University

Ginns A (2012) Murray Cod – creator of the river. Rip Rap 34:42–43

Gutiérrez NL, Hilborn R, Defeo O (2011) Leadership, social capital and incentives

promote successful fisheries. Nature 470:386–389. doi: 10.1038/nature09689

Haggan N, Turner N, Carpenter J, et al (2004) 12,000+ Years of Change: Linking

traditional and modern ecosystem science in the Pacific Northwest. In: Society for

Ecological Restoration International conference. Victoria BC, pp 1–29

Hamilton RJ, Bird T, Gereniu C, et al (2015) Solomon islands largest hawksbill turtle

rookery shows signs of recovery after 150 years of excessive exploitation. PLoS

One 10:1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121435

Healey MC (2009) Resilient salmon, resilient fisheries for British Columbia, Canada.

Ecol Soc 14:. doi: 10.5751/ES-02619-140102

Hill R, Williams KJ, Pert PL, et al (2010) Adaptive community-based biodiversity

conservation in Australia’s tropical rainforests. Environ Conserv 37:73–82. doi:

10.1017/S0376892910000330

Humphries P (2007) Historical indigenous use of aquatic resources in Australia’s

96

Murray-Darling Basin, and its implications for river management. Ecol Manag

Restor 8:106–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00347.x

Hunn ES, Johnson DR, Russell PN, Thornton TF (2003) Huna Tlingit Traditional

Environmental Knowledge, Conservation, and the Management of a “Wilderness”

Park. Curr Anthropol 44:S79–S103. doi: 10.1086/377666

IBAMA (2016) Manejo Conservacionista e Monitoramento Populacional de Quelônios

Amazônicos. Ministério do Meio Ambiente/Instituto Brasileiro do Meio

Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brasília

Irwin S (2014) When Life Gives You Crawfish, Make Étouffée. Attakapas Gaz. 1–11

IUCN (2018) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. In: Version 2017-3.

www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 15 May 2018

Jackson R, Jain N (2006) Mountain Cultures, Keystone Species: Exploring the Role of

Cultural Keystone Species in Central Asia

Jentoft S (1989) Fisheries co-management: delegating government responsibility to

fishermen’s organizations. Mar Policy 13:137–154. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(89)90004-3

Jentoft S (2000) Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management. Mar Policy

24:141–148. doi: 10.1016/S0308-597X(99)00025-1

Jentoft S, McCay BJ, Wilson DC (1998) Social theory and fisheries co-management.

Mar Policy 22:423–436. doi: 10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00040-7

Johannes RERE, MacFarlane JWW (1993) Traditional fishing in the Torres Strait

islands. CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories

Johns AD (1987) Continuing problems for Amazon river turtles. Oryx 21:25–28. doi:

10.1017/s0030605300020445

Jones R (2007) Application of Haida oral history to Pacific herring management. In:

Haggan N, Neis B, Baird IG (eds) Fishers’ Knowledge in FisheriesScience and

Management. UNESCO, Paris, pp 103–118

Jung TS, Czetwertynski SM, Schmiegelow FKA (2018) Boreal forest titans do not

clash: low overlap in winter habitat selection by moose (Alces americanus) and

reintroduced bison (Bison bison). Eur J Wildl Res 64:. doi: 10.1007/s10344-018-

1184-z

Kaplan IM (1998) Regulation and compliance in the New England Conch Fishery: a

case for co-management. Mar Policy 22:327–335

97

Kemenes A, Pezzuti JCB (2007) Estimate of Trade Traffic of Podocnemis (Testudines,

Pedocnemididae) from the Middle Purus River, Amazonas, Brazil. Chelonian

Conserv Biol 6:259–262. doi: 10.2744/1071-

8443(2007)6[259:EOTTOP]2.0.CO;2

Kideghesho JR (2008) Co-existence between the traditional societies and wildlife in

western Serengeti, Tanzania: Its relevancy in contemporary wildlife conservation

efforts. Biodivers Conserv 17:1861–1881. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9306-z

Kronenberg J, Andersson E, Tryjanowski P (2017) Connecting the social and the

ecological in the focal species concept: case study of White Stork. Nat Conserv

22:79–105. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.22.12055

Kusabs IA, Quin JM (2009) Use of a traditional Māori harvesting method, the tau

kōura, for monitoring kōura (freshwater crayfish, Paranephrops planifrons) in

Lake Rotoiti, North Island, New Zealand. New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res 43:713–

722. doi: 10.1080/00288330909510036

Kushwah VS, Sisodia R, Bhatnagar C (2017) Magico-religious and social belief of

tribals of district Udaipur, Rajasthan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 13:. doi:

10.1186/s13002-017-0195-2

Kwan D, Marsh H, Delean S (2006) Factors influencing the sustainability of customary

dugong hunting by a remote indigenous community. Environ Conserv 33:164–

171. doi: 10.1017/S0376892906002992

Lagueux CJ (1998) Marine turtle fishery of Caribbean Nicaragua: Human use patterns

and harvest trends. University of Florida

Landeen D, Pinkham A (1999) Salmon and his people - Fish & fishing in Nez Perce

culture

Loseto LL, Hoover C, Ostertag S, et al (2018) Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas),

environmental change and marine protected areas in the Western Canadian Arctic.

Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 212:128–137. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2018.05.026

Mainland Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq (2011) Mi’Kmaq and The American Eel - Traditional

Knowledge Relating to the American Eel

Markandya A, Taylor T, Longo A, et al (2008) Counting the cost of vulture decline-An

appraisal of the human health and other benefits of vultures in India. Ecol Econ

67:194–204. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.020

Marsh H, Grayson J, Grech A, et al (2015) Re-evaluation of the sustainability of a

98

marine mammal harvest by indigenous people using several lines of evidence.

Biol Conserv 192:324–330. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.007

Maxwell KH, Horomoana TW-HN, Arnold R, Dunn MR (2018) Fishing for the cultural

value of kahawai (Arripis trutta) at the Mōtū River, New Zealand. New Zeal J

Mar Freshw Res 52:. doi: 10.1080/00288330.2018.1532440

Mccarthy A, Hepburn C, Scott N, et al (2014) Local people see and care most? Severe

depletion of inshore fisheries and its consequences for Māori communities in New

Zealand. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 24:369–390. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2378

McClanahan TR, Marnane MJ, Cinner JE, Kiene WE (2006) A Comparison of Marine

Protected Areas and Alternative Approaches to Coral-Reef Management. Curr

Biol 16:1408–1413. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.062

McCoy M (1995) Subsistence hunting of turtles in the Western Pacific: the Caroline

Islands. In: Bjorndal K (ed) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, revised ed.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, p 275

McDowall B (2002) Decline of the Kakahi - Identifying Cause and Effect. Water Atmos

10:

McDowall RM (2011) Ikawai. Freshwater fishes in Māori culture and economy.

Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand

McGrath DG, Cardoso A, Almeida OT, Pezzuti J (2008) Constructing a policy and

institutional framework for an ecosystem-based approach to managing the Lower

Amazon floodplain. Environ Dev Sustain 10:677–695. doi: 10.1007/s10668-008-

9154-3

McGrath DG, de Castro F, Futemma C, et al (1993) Fisheries and the evolution of

resource management on the lower Amazon floodplain. Hum Ecol 21:167–195.

doi: 10.1007/BF00889358

Measham TG, Lumbasi JA (2013) Success factors for community-based natural

resource management (CBNRM): Lessons from Kenya and Australia. Environ

Manage 52:649–659. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0114-9

Mérona B (1993) Pesca e Ecologia dos Recursos Aquáticos na Amazônia. In: Furtado

LG, Leitão W, Fiuza de Mello A (eds) Povos das Águas - Realidade e

perspectivas na Amazônia. Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belém, pp 159–185

Miorando PS, Rebêlo GH, Pignati MT, Brito Pezzuti JC (2013) Effects of Community-

Based Management on Amazon River Turtles: A Case Study of Podocnemis

99

sextuberculata in the Lower Amazon Floodplain, Pará, Brazil. Chelonian Conserv

Biol 12:143–150. doi: 10.2744/CCB-1011.1

Mistry J, Berardi A, Tschirhart C, et al (2016) Community owned solutions: Identifying

local best practices for socialecological sustainability. Ecol Soc 21:. doi:

10.5751/ES-08496-210242

Moller H, Kitson JC, Downs TM (2009a) Knowing by doing: Learning for sustainable

muttonbird harvesting. New Zeal J Zool 36:243–258. doi:

10.1080/03014220909510153

Moller H, O’B Lyver P, Bragg C, et al (2009b) Guidelines for cross-cultural

Participatory Action Research partnerships: A case study of a customary seabird

harvest in New Zealand. New Zeal J Zool 36:211–241. doi:

10.1080/03014220909510152

Moss ML (2015) The nutritional value of Pacific herring: An ancient cultural keystone

species on the Northwest Coast of North America. J Archaeol Sci Reports. doi:

10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.08.041

Murrieta RSS (2001) A mística do Pirarucu: pesca, ethos e paisagem em comunidades

rurais do baixo Amazonas. Horizontes Antropológicos 7:113–130. doi:

10.1590/S0104-71832001000200006

Murrieta RSS (1998) O dilema do papa-chibé: consumo alimentar, nutrição e práticas

de intervenção na Ilha de Ituqui, baixo Amazonas, Pará. Rev Antropol 41:. doi:

10.1590/s0034-77011998000100004

Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for

conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. doi: 10.1038/35002501

Nabhan G, Govan H, Eckert S, Seminoff J (1999) Sea Turtle Workshop for the

Indigenous Seri Tribe. Mar Turt Newsl 86:14

Nichols WJ, Bird KE, Garcia S (2000) Community-Based Research and its Application

to Sea Turtle Conservation in Bahia Magdalena, BCS, Mexico. Mar Turt Newsl

4–7

Nietschmann B (1974) When the turtle collapses, the world ends. Nat Hist 34–43

Noble M, Duncan P, Perry D, et al (2016) Culturally significant fisheries: keystones for

management of freshwater social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 21:art22. doi:

10.5751/ES-08353-210222

Norris D, Michalski F, Gibbs JP (2018a) Beyond harm’s reach? Submersion of river

100

turtle nesting areas and implications for restoration actions after Amazon

hydropower development. PeerJ 6:. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4228

Norris D, Michalski F, Gibbs J (2018b) Community involvement works where

enforcement fails : conservation success through community-based management

of Amazon. PeerJPreprints. doi: https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26843v1

Norris D, Peres CA, Michalski F, Gibbs JP (2019) Prospects for freshwater turtle

population recovery are catalyzed by pan-Amazonian community-based

management. Biol Conserv 233:51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.022

Nuñez MA, Simberloff D (2005) Invasive Species and the Cultural Keystone Species

Concept. Ecol Soc 10:resp4. doi: 10.5751/ES-01342-1001r04

Nursey-Bray M (2009) A Guugu Yimmithir Bam Wii: Ngawiya and Girrbithi: Hunting,

planning and management along the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Geoforum

40:442–453. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.02.002

Nursey-Bray M, Marsh H, Ross H (2010) Exploring discourses in environmental

decision making: An indigenous hunting case study. Soc Nat Resour An Int J

23:366–382. doi: 10.1080/08941920903468621

Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci

104:15181–15187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104

Ostrom E (2009) A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-

Ecological Systems. Science (80- ) 325:419–422. doi: 10.1126/science.1226338

Paine RT (1969) A Note on Trophic Complexity and Community Stability. Am Nat

103:91–93. doi: 10.1086/282586

Paolisso M, Dery N (2010) A Cultural Model Assessment of Oyster Restoration

Alternatives for the Chesapeake Bay. Hum Organ 69:169–179. doi:

10.17730/humo.69.2.k1p4770551884604

Paul-Burke K, Burke J, Te Ūpokorehe Resource Management Team, et al (2018) Using

Māori knowledge to assist understandings and management of shellfish

populations in Ōhiwa harbour, Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zeal J Mar Freshw

Res 52:542–556. doi: 10.1080/00288330.2018.1506487

Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol

Evol 10:430. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89171-5

Peñaloza CL, Hernández O, Espín R, et al (2013) Harvest of Endangered Sideneck

River Turtles ( Podocnemis spp.) in the Middle Orinoco, Venezuela. Copeia

101

2013:111–120. doi: 10.1643/CE-10-158

Petersen TA, Brum SM, Rossoni F, et al (2016) Recovery of Arapaima sp. populations

by community-based management in floodplains of the Purus River, Amazon. J

Fish Biol 89:241–248. doi: 10.1111/jfb.12968

Pezzuti J, de Castro F, McGrath DG, et al (2018) Commoning in dynamic

environments: Community-based management of turtle nesting sites on the lower

Amazon floodplain. Ecol Soc 23:. doi: 10.5751/ES-10254-230336

Pezzuti JCB, Antunes AP, Fonseca R, et al (2019) A Caça e o Caçador : uma Análise

Crítica da Legislação Brasileira sobre o Uso da Fauna por Populações Indígenas e

Tradicionais na Amazônia. Biodiversidade Bras 2:42–74

Pezzuti JCB, Lima JP, da Silva DF, Begossi A (2010) Uses and Taboos of Turtles and

Tortoises Along Rio Negro, Amazon Basin. J Ethnobiol 30:153–168. doi:

10.2993/0278-0771-30.1.153

Pezzuti JCB, Vogt RC (1999) Nesting Ecology of Podocnemis sextuberculata

(Testudines, Pelomedusidae) in the Japurá River, Amazonas, Brazil. Chelonian

Conserv Biol 3:419–424

Pikitch EK (2004) Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management. Science (80- ) 305:346–347.

doi: 10.1126/science.1098222

Pomeroy RS, Berkes F (1997) Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-

management. Mar Policy 21:465–480. doi: 10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00017-1

Pomeroy RS, Katon BM, Harkes I (2001) Conditions affecting the success of fisheries

co-management: lessons from Asia. Mar Policy 25:197–208. doi: 10.1016/S0308-

597X(01)00010-0

Power ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, et al (1996) Challenges in the Quest for Keystones.

Bioscience 46:609–620. doi: 10.2307/1312990

Prestes-Carneiro G, Béarez P, Bailon S, et al (2016) Subsistence fishery at Hatahara

(750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village. J Archaeol Sci

Reports 8:454–462. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033

Prosper K, Paulette MJ (2002) The Mi’kmaq Relationship With Kat (American Eel).

Soc Res Sustain Fish 7:

Prowse TD, Furgal C, Wrona FJ, Reist JD (2009) Implications of Climate Change for

Northern Canada: Freshwater, Marine, and Terrestrial Ecosystems. AMBIO A J

Hum Environ 38:282–289. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-38.5.282

102

Rebêlo G, Pezzuti J (2000) Percepções sobre o consumo de quelônios na Amazônia:

sustentabilidade e alternativas ao manejo atual. Ambient Soc 6:85–104. doi:

10.1590/S1414-753X2000000100005

Ruiz-Mallén I, Schunko C, Corbera E, et al (2015) Meanings, drivers, and motivations

for community-based conservation in Latin America. Ecol an 20:

Seixas CS, Davy B (2008) Self-Organization in Integrated Conservation and

Development Initiatives. Int J Commons 2:99–125. doi: 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.24

Sejersen F (2001) Hunting and management of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)

in Greenland: Changing strategies to cope with new national and local interests.

Arctic 54:431–443

Silva-Coutinho JM (1868) Sur les tortues de l’Amazone. Bull la Société Zool

d’Aclimatation 2:

Silvano RAM, Ramires M, Zuanon J (2009) Effects of fisheries management on fish

communities in the floodplain lakes of a Brazilian Amazonian Reserve. Ecol

Freshw Fish 18:156–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0633.2008.00333.x

Simon S (2013) Of Boars and Men: Indigenous Knowledge and Co-Management in

Taiwan. Hum Organ 72:220–229. doi: 10.17730/humo.72.3.xq24071269xl21j6

Smith NJH (1979) Aquatic turtles of Amazonia: An endangered resource. Biol Conserv

16:165–176. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(79)90019-3

Smith NJH (1974) Destructive Exploitation of the South American River Turtle. Yearb

Assoc Pacific Coast Geogr 36:85–102. doi: 10.1353/pcg.1974.0000

Smith RJ, Muir RDJ, Walpole MJ, et al (2003) Governance and the loss of biodiversity.

Nature 426:67–70. doi: 10.1038/nature02025

Spring S (1981) Marine turtles in the Manus Province: a study of the social, cultural and

economic implications of the traditional exploitation of marine turtles in the

Manus Province of Papua New Guinea. J Soc Ocean 72–73:169–174. doi:

10.3406/jso.1981.3058

Spring S (1979) Subsistence Hunting of Marine Turtles in Papua New Guinea. In: SPC-

NMFS Workshop on Marine Turtles in the Tropical Pacific Islands. p 13

SRSF (2002) The Paq’tnkek Mi’kmaq and Kat (American Eel – Anguilla rostrata)

Stewart DJ (2013a) Re-description of Arapaima agassizii (Valenciennes), a Rare Fish

from Brazil (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae). Copeia 2013:38–51. doi:

10.1643/CI-12-013

103

Stewart DJ (2013b) A New Species of Arapaima (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae)

from the Solimões River, Amazonas State, Brazil. Copeia 2013:470–476. doi:

10.1643/CI-12-017

Stobart B, Warwick R, González C, et al (2009) Long-term and spillover effects of a

marine protected area on an exploited fish community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser

384:47–60. doi: 10.3354/meps08007

Suarez M, Starbird C (1995) A Traditional Fishery of Leatherback Turtles in Maluku ,

Indonesia. Mar Turt Newsl 68:15–18

Sutinen JG, Kuperan K (1999) A socio‐economic theory of regulatory compliance. Int J

Soc Econ 26:174–193. doi: 10.1108/03068299910229569

Tejsner P (2014) Quota disputes and subsistence whaling in Qeqertarsuaq, Greenland.

Polar Rec (Gr Brit) 50:430–439. doi: 10.1017/S0032247414000242

Terborgh J, Peres CA (2017) Do Community-Managed Forests Work? A Biodiversity

Perspective. Land 6:1–7. doi: 10.3390/land6020022

Thorbjarnarson J., Lagueuz CJ, Bolze D, et al (2000) Human use of turtle: a worldwide

perspective. In: Klemens MW (ed) Turtle Conservation. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, DC

Timoti P, O’B Lyver P, Matamua R, et al (2017) A representation of a tuawhenua

worldview guides environmental conservation. Ecol Soc 22:. doi: 10.5751/ES-

09768-220420

Transparency International (2018) Transparency International - The Global Anti-

Corruption Coalison.

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017.

Accessed 15 May 2018

Tyrrell M (2008) Nunavik Inuit Perspectives on Beluga Whale Management in the

Canadian Arctic. Hum Organ 67:322–334

Tyson W (2017) Using social-ecological systems theory to evaluate large-scale

comanagement efforts: A case study of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Ecol Soc

22:. doi: 10.5751/ES-08960-220105

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. Gen Assem 70 Sess 16301:1–35. doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-

7.2

Veríssimo J (1895) A pesca na Amazônia, 1st edn. Livraria Clássica de Alves & C, São

104

Paulo

Watson JEM, Venter O, Lee J, et al (2018) Protect the last of the wild. Nature 563:27–

30. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07183-6

Watson LC, Stewart DJ, Kretzer AM (2016) Genetic Diversity and Population Structure

of the Threatened Giant Arapaima in Southwestern Guyana: Implications for

Their Conservation. Copeia 104:864–872. doi: 10.1643/CG-15-293

Wenzel GW (2005) Nunavut Inuit and Polar Bear: The Cultural Politics of the SPort

Hunt. Senri Ethnol Stud 67:363–388. doi: 10.15021/00002676

105

CONCLUSÃO GERAL

Nesta tese, foram abordados distintos aspectos do comanejo do pirarucu, um sistema

socioecológico existente na Amazônia Brasileira. No primeiro capítulo, aspectos

ecológicos foram tratados sob uma perspectiva histórica, a partir do uso de entrevistas

para acessar as percepções de pescadores sobre mudanças na abundância e tamanho do

pirarucu ao longo do tempo. Nós mostramos que as populações de pirarucu vinham

sofrendo um drástico declínio desde meados do século XX, mas vêm aumentando em

diversas áreas nos últimos anos. Esse aumento, no entanto, não acontece em todos os

lugares, sendo bastante associado à existência do comanejo do pirarucu na região. O

método utilizado neste capítulo se mostrou muito útil para acessar dados populacionais

de espécies proibidas, especialmente nos casos em que a exploração ilegal continua

acontecendo. Foram sugeridas estratégias específicas para adaptar este método a outros

contextos do mundo. No segundo capítulo, concluímos que o manejo do pirarucu vem

promovendo um maior reconhecimento financeiro da participação das mulheres em

atividades pesqueiras. Tal reconhecimento pode gerar diversas consequências positivas,

como um aumento da autonomia e empoderamento feminino, do cuidado com as

crianças e da saúde da família. Esse exemplo do manejo do pirarucu poderia servir

como um modelo a ser adaptado para outras realidades, com vistas a promover uma

maior equidade de gênero nas mesmas. Nós abordamos algumas características do

manejo que provavelmente favoreceram essa inclusão e reconhecimento da mulher, e

discutimos algumas limitações atuais dessa inclusão, tanto em termos geográficos

quando da participação da mulher em processos de tomada de decisão. No terceiro

capítulo, foi sugerida que a importância cultural de uma espécie deveria ser encarada

como um aspecto relevante em estratégias de conservação voltadas para áreas onde o

uso de recursos naturais é crucial para a subsistência dos povos locais. Considerando

que esses povos têm interesse direto em ver a recuperação das espécies com as quais

estão diretamente conectados, estratégias de manejo que foquem nessas espécies têm

maior potencial de estimular o interesse dos povos locais e seu consequente

engajamento na iniciativa. Nós sugerimos que a iniciativa de manejo abarque regras que

favoreçam o ecossistema como um todo, e que o foco em uma espécie culturalmente

importante (CIS) funcione como um gatilho para despertar a motivação e envolvimento

dos usuários na iniciativa. Assim, diversos benefícios ecológicos, sociais, culturais e

106

econômicos poderão ser gerados, de maneira que o manejo com foco em CIS pode ser

visto como uma importante ferramenta para conciliar conservação da biodiversidade

com qualidade de vida de povos locais.