The conflict between the southern right whale and coastal fisheries on the southern coast of Brazil

Marine Policy (Impact Factor: 1.87). 03/2013; 38:428–437. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.07.003

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to identify the interactions and conflicts that exist between the southern right whale (E. australis) and the coastal fisheries performed in the Southern Right Whale Environmental Preservation Area (EPA) in the state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil, through the knowledge of local fishers. Thirty-three ethnographic interviews held in October 2010 found that 81.8% (N=27) of the fishermen interviewed were able to identify the species by its area of occurrence, coloration, and body size. The subsequent analysis of interviews was based on those 27 fishermen selected. There were no reports of positive interactions, and 52% (N=14) of those interviewed described negative interactions related to whales “tearing and/or dragging the gillnets”. Accidents between whales and fishing vessels were described by 44% (N=12) of the fishermen. Accidental captures in gillnets were mentioned in 48% (N=13) of the interviews and fishermen believed that these events were caused by whales failing to see gillnets in the water (N=4) and by the position of these nets in the routes frequented by the mammals (N=9). In the fishermen's eyes this type of interaction has minimal impact on fishery. Therefore, is suggested the monitoring of areas frequented by whales and fishery, the use of gillnets away from these animals' migration routes, the search for alternative and lower-impact fishing activities, and the training of local actors for sustainable whale watching tourism in the region.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The following article discusses how to elicit quantitative stakeholder driven scenarios as an output for use in interdisciplinary policy models using Systems Thinking and Bayesian Belief Network conjointly in a workshop setting. The usefulness of this joint method was tested on a core group of stakeholders that would likely be impacted if offshore aquaculture were to be developed in Santa Barbara, California, namely the commercial fishermen. The workshop elicited several scenarios describing stakeholder perceived notions of how offshore aquaculture could impact their industry. This joint method is a new method of developing future scenarios. These can in turn be used to develop more encompassing and interdisciplinary foresight models, early warning systems, for managers in different management areas. Models can thereby include human perception and comprehensive and quantitative scenarios by delimiting the variable paths toward each stakeholder driven scenario as additional elements in a comprehensive policy foresight recommendation tool.
    Ocean & Coastal Management 03/2013; 73(3):127–135. · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The zooplankton redfeed may need an international management regime in the future. An optimal resource regime from Norway’s point of view has already been hypothesized Tiller (J Environ Dev 19 (2):191–214, 2010). We expand on this hypothesis and analyze the regime preferences of other interested states: Russia, Iceland and the EU. These states will all react and respond differently to the advent of a new resource in the Northeast Atlantic and have different policy interests to bring to the negotiation table than the initiator Norway. One cannot analyze international regimes without fully comprehending the perspectives of other actors involved. It is therefore critical to look at the issues and concerns that are likely to arise on the international arena during regime negotiations and develop scenarios that account for the possible events that could materialize at that stage. This could potentially produce a more predictable end scenario in the case of the future redfeed regime, especially for Norway. In explaining this, we sketch four possible future scenarios, and proceed with discussing them in light of the potential preferences of the key actors involved. Given the enticing nature of studying a regime that has not yet materialized, the case of redfeed in the Northeast Atlantic is explored and discussed from the vantage point of actors whose cooperation with Norway is critical for the successful future operationalization of the international management regime for redfeed, namely Russia, Iceland, and the EU. Using regime formation theory and scenario analysis, mapping out the future negotiation stage of the regime formation process is undertaken. The article argues that Norway’s role as a driver for the development of this regime will steer the negotiation process and ensure the outcome that is most beneficial for Norway, with Russia acquiescent rather than aggressive.
    Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 03/2013; 3(2).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gillnets and traps often are considered to have fewer holistic environmental impacts than active fishing gears. However, in addition to the targeted catches, gillnets and traps still cause unwanted mortalities due to (i) discarding, (ii) ghost fishing of derelict gear, (iii) depredation, (iv) escaping or dropping out of gear, (v) habitat damage, and potentially (vi) avoiding gear and predation and (vii) infection of injuries sustained from most of the above. Population-level concerns associated with such ‘unaccounted fishing mortalities’ from gillnets and traps have been sufficient to warrant numerous attempts at mitigation. In this article, we reviewed relevant research efforts, locating 130 studies in the primary literature that concomitantly quantified mortalities and their resolution through technical modifications, with the division of effort indicating ongoing concerns. Most studies (85) have focused on discard mortality, followed by ghost-fishing (24), depredation (10) and escape (8) mortalities. The remaining components have been poorly studied (3). All problematic mortality components are affected by key biological (e.g. species), technical (e.g. fishing mechanisms) and/or environmental (e.g. temperature) factors. We propose that these key factors should be considered as part of a strategy to reduce impacts of these gears by first assessing modifications within and then beyond conventional configurations, followed by changes to operational and handling practices. Justification for this three-tiered approach is based not only on the potential for cumulative reduction benefits, but also on the likely ease of adoption, legislation and compliance.
    Fish and Fisheries 08/2013; · 8.76 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 1, 2014