Research

INTRODUCTION

Coastal and marine fisheries play a significant role in the livelihoods of Amazonian riverine and coastal communities. Fish and fishing are locally important for a protein-rich diet (da Silva and Begossi 2009, Isaac and de Almeida 2011), culture (Cordeiro 2010), and social dynamics (Mertens et al. 2015), and are often the sole source of income for local populations in coastal communities (Krause and Glaser 2003). In 2019, total marine catches along the Brazilian Amazon coast were estimated at 272,155.422 tonnes representing approximately 37% of the estimated national production (Page et al. 2020). Brazil has not collected national-level fishing statistics since 2011. Page et al. (2020) reconstructed fisheries landings using unpublished data from Freire et al. and data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) up to 2017. See Santos et al. (2023) for further discussion on the causes and implications of the lack of systematic national fisheries data collection.

Marine fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon also contribute to national and international markets, with red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus) as an emblematic, although unsustainable, industrial, and large-scale artisanal export-oriented fishery (Isaac et al. 2009, Mescouto et al. 2024). Pará is the Brazilian state with the second highest number of fishers, of which around half are women (MPA 2023).

Brazilian marine fisheries have undergone significant transformations in recent decades. In Pará, for instance, the once-prominent industrial fishing fleet has declined, and a large-scale, capitalized artisanal fleet has emerged (Isaac-Nahum 2006). This shift has altered local fishing relations by facilitating the entry of new actors, accelerating processes of elite capture, and deepening inequities in access to fish and fisheries (Maneschy 1990, McGrath et al. 2015). The 1988 Brazilian Constitution aimed to decentralize fisheries governance in Brazil with the ultimate goal of improving aspects of governance such as civil society participation, greater consideration of local realities, and local accessibility of public authorities (Wever et al. 2012). However, the governance of marine fisheries in the Amazon continues to be described as partially centralized (Oviedo and Bursztyn 2017), ineffective and weak due to institutional fragmentation, rule breaking and weak enforcement (Isaac and Ferrari 2017, Alencar et al. 2022), although with little empirical evidence so far. There are also assumptions, yet to be substantiated, that fisheries conflicts are relatively low in small-scale fisheries (SSF) because informal rules would help prevent them (Isaac et al. 2009). However, conflicts in the region have been found to arise from negative perceptions of protected area management (Prado and Seixas 2018, Borges et al. 2021), coercive behavior of fisheries surveillance agents, overlapping fishing grounds (Jimenez et al. 2019), and land distribution issues (Santos et al. 2020), among others. A common denominator of these conflicts is unequal access to fish and fisheries as a fundamental driver (Ribot and Peluso 2003, Saunders et al. 2024).

In this study, we understand small-scale fisheries (SSF) as involving fishers fishing “autonomously or in a family economy, with their own means of production or through a partnership contract, ashore, or with the use of small boats” (translation of the definition of artisanal fishing in article 9, of the Brazilian National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Aquaculture and Fisheries Law No. 11.959, of June 29, 2009). Small-scale fisheries can have subsistence and/or commercial purposes. In large-scale artisanal fisheries, fishing trips last longer than 10 days, vessels are longer than 12 meters, and the hull is mostly made of wood (but can also be made of iron; Isaac et al. 2009). Importantly, we acknowledge that the legal definition of artisanal fishing varies across Brazil’s regulatory frameworks. For example, Law No. 11.959/2009 increased the vessel size limit from 10.2 to 20.3 metric tonnes. However, some regulations, notably those concerning social security, continue to use the previous 10.2 metric tonnes threshold, which leads to inconsistent classifications that affect fishers’ access to public policy benefits.

Understanding how access is negotiated, achieved, or lost, is essential for socioeconomic outcomes and for the anticipation and more nuanced assessment of fisheries-related conflicts. In addition, a more precise understanding of the role of different groups and institutions in the structure and dynamics of fisheries governance, from the perspective of those whose lives are intimately affected by it, is essential for the formulation of strategies aimed at more equitable governance and governance outcomes.

The present research investigates local and regional stakeholder perceptions of the governance structures and processes for coastal and marine fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon. The main objective is to understand how governance structures are perceived to influence SSF access to fish and fisheries in the coastal state of Pará, North Brazil. Specifically, the aim is to understand (1) who the main actors are in the perceived interaction networks; (2) what are the interactions that connect them; and, (3) how is access to fish resources and fisheries negotiated.

Our analysis unfolds in two steps. First, we examined the composition of perceived networks in terms of actors and links. We then built on a thematic analysis of the conducted interviews to understand how different interactions relate to issues of access in SSF. We discussed the main implications for fishers’ access to fish and fisheries considering the Theory of Access (Ribot and Peluso 2003, Peluso and Ribot 2020). We looked at the Amazonian coast of Brazil as a case in point, in which the artisanal fishing sector has historically developed in the absence of supportive public policies and with unregulated market for fish (McGrath et al. 2015, Doria et al. 2021).

Concepts and theoretical framework

Governance and network mapping approaches

We adopted Mark Bevir’s (2012:3) definition of governance as “all processes of social organization and social coordination.” Bevir (2012) pointed out that the rise of this concept is indicative of a certain discrediting of traditional political institutions. Framing these social organizational processes through the lens of governance shifts the focus away from traditional hierarchies and state structures, emphasizing instead the influence of markets and diverse network structures. In fact, “markets and networks might provide governance in the absence of any significant government” (Bevir 2012:3, but see also Young 1992), beyond the reading of governance as equivalent to government. This paradigmatic shift is also illustrated by the sharp increase in studies on environmental governance using social network analysis (Schwenke and Holzkämper 2020).

Various approaches within the social sciences have highlighted the dynamics of networked governance. The social capital literature emphasizes how diverse actors are connected through a set of relationships, or ties, such as the exchange of lease quotas in the Tasmanian lobster fishery (van Putten et al. 2011), cooperation and information sharing among small-scale fishers in Lobitos, Peru (Maya-Jariego et al. 2017) in which varying network structures are acknowledged to influence actors’ access to different types of resources. This resonates with Ostrom’s theory of the commons (Ostrom 2010) and related work on collective action, which highlight how resource users, such as small-scale fishing communities, develop local governance arrangements to manage shared resources, sometimes in coordination with, or in the absence of, effective state involvement. Relational approaches (Emirbayer 1997) have recently gained traction; these adopt a process-relational understanding of sustainability-oriented themes. This implies transcending rigidly separate categorizations of human and non-human actors or actants all of which are perceived as having strong influence on how environmental governance unfolds (West et al. 2020).

A number of studies have employed participatory network mapping or related approaches in the context of marine and coastal governance in Brazil. Glaser et al. (2018) adapted the Net-Map method (Schiffer and Hauck 2010) in a comparative analysis of fisher and tourism operator perceptions of environmental governance of a coral reef system in Northeast Brazil. Findings indicate that rules are more readily implemented if perceived as equitable and legitimate by those expected to comply. Gerhardinger et al. (2022) showed how the same methodological approach conducted with high-level institutional innovators of the Brazilian government can help to develop pathways for more transformative ocean governance.

Access

One objective of the study of environmental governance is to understand how access to natural resources and derived benefits are negotiated, contested, and distributed. Access is defined as “all possible means by which a person is able to benefit from things” (Ribot and Peluso 2003:156). In this study, we define “things” as fish and fisheries, where fisheries refer to the range of activities that can lead to the capture of specific fish resources and that can be defined by a variety of social, technological, economic, environmental, and governance conditions (Johnson 2006, Damasio et al. 2016, Smith and Basurto 2019). Similar to Silver and Stoll (2019), our analytical focus underscores that the benefits of fishing extend beyond mere production and income, highlighting its tangible contributions to sustainable livelihoods.

Analyzing access relationships, i.e., who is seeking access, who is maintaining access, and who is controlling others’ access, provides a relational perspective on patterns of distribution and drivers of resource conflict. The Theory of Access (Ribot and Peluso 2003, Peluso and Ribot 2020) posits that beyond property rights, de facto gaining, maintaining, or controlling access to resources is regulated by a range of interacting mechanisms that fall under the following categories: technology, capital, markets, labor and labor opportunities, knowledge, authority, social identity, negotiation of other social relations, and legal- and illegal-based mechanisms. A short description of each mechanism is provided in Table 1. All operate through social relations in a dynamic way, and their workings are contingent on the power relations prevailing among involved entities.

Peluso and Ribot (2020:300) argued that “[...] all efforts to gain, maintain, or control access are, at base, struggles in the domain of social relations [...]”, thus suggesting that negotiations of access are central to fishery-related conflicts. A growing number of studies point at lack of equity as a key underlying driver of marine conflicts (Glaser et al. 2018, Saunders et al. 2024). By illuminating the ways in which different groups of people do or do not benefit from a particular natural resource, and by detailing the benefits derived or pursued, the Theory of Access offers a framework to analyze the origin of environmental conflicts. Although mostly applied to terrestrial cases (Myers and Hansen 2019), this theory has also been useful to analyze issues of marine governance (Hicks and Cinner 2014, Calderön-Contreras and White 2019, Andriamahefazafy and Kull 2019). We suggest that these studies may not fully capture the relational component central to the Theory of Access. We propose and use a participatory network mapping methodological approach to assess how access is produced, negotiated, and contested through social interactions (Peluso and Ribot 2020).

METHODS

Study area

This fisheries study focuses on the municipality of Bragança (Fig. 1), located on the coast of the state of Pará, in northern Brazil. Pará is Brazil’s second largest state and belongs to what is called the Legal Amazon. The Legal Amazon was initially established by Law No. 1.806 of 6 January 1953, which created the Amazon Economic Valorization Plan and designated the area as a region under the jurisdiction of the Superintendence of Amazon Development (SUDAM). Currently, the Legal Amazon encompasses approximately 58.9% of the Brazilian territory (https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/informacoes-ambientais/geologia/15819-amazonia-legal.html?=&t=o-que-e). Both Pará and the municipality of Bragança have a medium-level human development index (HDI), which translates to poor levels of education, health, and revenue (https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/pa/braganca/panorama). Of the 393,512 fishers formally registered in Pará (MPA 2023), 194,184 are women and only 236 of them are classified as industrial fishers. In 2022, 49.8% of the 123,082 inhabitants in Bragança earned less than half the legal minimum monthly salary (https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/pa/braganca/panorama). The city and region lack adequate sanitation and drinking water systems, public recreational areas, health centers, and other infrastructure (Gomes et al. 2009, Gorayeb et al. 2009). This setting of poverty for the majority contrasts with the abundance of nature as local people often acknowledge (Isaac et al. 2010). In fact, this perception of natural abundance influenced the migration of people who fled the semi-arid climate of Northeast Brazil, especially the state of Ceará to come to this region since the late 1890s and early 1900s (Lacerda 2006). Among them, two early families founded what is now known as Vila dos Pescadores and Vila do Bonifácio. In 2010, the total population of Vila do Bonifácio (Fig. 1) was estimated at 1050 people (IBGE 2010, as cited in dos Santos Cavalcante et al. 2022), with 81% of families engaged in commercial artisanal fishing. In these and other fishing communities, kinship plays a crucial role in shaping access (Alencar et al. 2014).

The study area embraces two Brazilian Ramsar sites, namely the Amazon Estuary and its mangroves and the Cabo Orange National Park. Highly diverse marine life sustains a range of fishing operations, from small- and large-scale artisanal to industrial fisheries (Isaac et al. 2009).

Ethical considerations

Our research follows the Resolution nº 466, of 12 December 2012 by the Brazilian National Health Council Plenary, which provides guidelines and norms regulating research involving human beings, and the European Commission’s directives on ethics in Social Science and Humanities (European Commission 2021).

Fisheries landings in Bragança and challenges to governance

As per the most recent available official national statistics on marine capture fisheries in Brazil, the state of Pará ranks second in the country in terms of fisheries production with 153,332.3 tonnes landed in 2011 (MPA 2011). Marine fisheries in North Brazil are highly diverse, multispecies and multi-gear. Isaac et al. (2009) identified 20 fishery production systems within 3 fishery types: small-scale artisanal fisheries, large-scale artisanal or semi-industrial, and industrial fisheries. Small-scale fisheries use small wooden boats of less than 12 meters in length and have a relatively low environmental impact (in terms of, e.g., exploitation status of targeted stock, level of discards) while mostly contributing to local diets and livelihoods. Large-scale fisheries operate wooden vessels between 12 and 15 meters, while industrial fisheries use steel boats and have a higher environmental impact (Isaac et al. 2009).

Figure 2 shows some of the main organizations in charge of developing and implementing fisheries regulations at different governance levels in our study region, the coastal municipality of Bragança, Pará. Fisheries governance in Brazil is de jure decentralized, i.e., regional and local institutions are delegated power and management by the central governments (Glaser and Gorris 2023). Key legal frameworks have been developed since re-democratization in Brazil (for a federal-level analysis of key legal frameworks for fisheries governance see Nakamura and Hazin 2020; for the Pará state-level, see Alencar et al. 2022). The National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities (Decree no. 6040/2007) recognizes the social and political rights of traditional populations, including access to terrestrial and aquatic territories. The National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Aquaculture and Fisheries (Law no. 11,959/2009) replaced the Fisheries Code (Decree-Law no. 221/1967) and shifted the focus from industrialization to environmental, economic, and social sustainability. These policies highlight the significance of inclusive participation, capacity building, and sustainable livelihoods in fisheries, establishing themselves as essential legal tools that influence access to fish and fisheries in Brazil.

In the context of participation in formal governance processes, extractive reserves (RESEX; reservas extrativistas) are key institutional arrangements (Seixas and Kalikoski 2009). Extractive reserves are protected areas that aim to both secure local livelihoods and the traditional use of natural resources while integrating local populations into national development (Glaser and Da Silva Oliveira 2004). Extractive reserves are managed by a deliberative council, a multi-stakeholder body chaired by the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio). Our study area includes the Caeté-Taperaçú marine RESEX (Fig. 1), established in 2005. As per the last available statistics, the Caeté-Taperaçú marine RESEX supports approximately 8000 families who rely on its natural resources for sustenance (ICMBio 2011, https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/ultimas-noticias/resex-marinha-de-caete-taperacu-fortalece-as-instancias-participativas) with crab (Ucides cordatus) fisheries representing the most significant economic sector (Partelow et al. 2018). Its deliberative council includes ICMBio in the lead and, among others, representatives of the users’ association Associação dos Usuários da Reserva Extrativista Marinha Caeté-Taperaçú (ASSUREMACATA, hereafter users’ association), the Z-17 Fishers’ Guild (Colônia de Pescadores de Bragança Z-17, hereafter the fishers’ guild), and the Artisanal Fishers’ Union of Bragança (Sindicato dos Pescadores Artesanais de Bragança, hereafter the fishers’ union; federal ordinance no. 17, of 24 September 2007). Although the RESEX are designed to enhance participatory governance, limited engagement with its political processes has been noted (Partelow et al. 2018). This is often linked to perceptions of procedural burdens, the marginalization of local voices, including those of younger generations in decision making, and ongoing internal power disputes (Partelow et al. 2018).

Further institutional arrangements that promote participation at the state and local levels are the fishing agreements and the standing management committees (Comitês Permanentes de Gestão). Fishing agreements are established by local communities that formulate rules for fishing in a particular body of water, such as gear restrictions or seasonal fishing schedules. Relevant to the study area is the Caeté River Fisheries Agreement (but focused on freshwater fisheries; established through State-level SEMAS Ordinance n°1.358 of 07/2023). Standing management committees, such as the Standing Committee on Fisheries Management and the Sustainable Use of Demersal Fisheries Resources in the northern and northeast regions (established through Interministerial Ordinance n°8 of 09/2015) are consultative advisory multi-stakeholder bodies that inform decisions taken by the relevant federal authorities on given fisheries, including large-scale, artisanal, and industrial fisheries.

Despite these arrangements, fisheries regulations still often originate at the federal level, limiting the autonomy of regional and local institutions. Power imbalances at multiple levels hinder equitable actor participation and the integration of different types of knowledge. Lack of financial and human resources, as well as data, result in less accountable local organizations (Moura et al. 2009, Wever et al. 2012, Oviedo and Bursztyn 2017). In Bragança, sustainable fisheries with a balanced and effective participation in decision making are not yet a reality (Isaac et al. 2009, Partelow et al. 2018, Borges et al. 2021). Lack of communication among stakeholders, power imbalances, and political misrepresentation are among the factors that hinder participatory engagement in fisheries management (Isaac et al. 2010, Seixas et al. 2019).

Data collection

This research aligns with the premises of qualitative research (Maxwell 2008). We build on a social constructivist and critical approach to acknowledge that realities are socially constructed and mediated by subjective experiences shaped by the broader context and environment; and to acknowledge the mediation of the researcher’s own subjectivity(ies) in building an understanding of the problem being explored (Schwandt 1994). More specifically, this study builds on an analysis of perceptions as socially and historically situated interpretations, understandings, and evaluations of environmental change and governance (Bennett 2016). As forms of situated knowledge, perceptions are shaped by political and economic structures, institutional contexts, prevailing power relations, and everyday lived experiences.

Data were collected using a participatory network mapping method called Net-Map pioneered by and adapted from Schiffer and Hauck (2010). Net-Map allows the study and understanding of perceptions of complex governance problems (e.g., fisheries governance-related issues). A total of eight net-map interviews (Table 2) were carried out with key-informants between November 2022–March 2023 in the state of Pará, North Brazil. Net-maps #1-4 were conducted in the fishing communities of Vila do Bonifácio and Inferninho. The remaining net-maps were conducted in Bragança. Interviewees were: artisanal fishers, individuals (n = 3) or in groups (n = 2 groups of 3 fishers), and representatives of local municipal-level institutions linked to artisanal fisheries’ interests and management, namely two civil society organizations: the users’ association (n = 1) and the artisanal fishers’ union (n = 1); and one public authority, ICMBio (n = 1). Participants were selected through purposive sampling (Patton 2002) to capture a range of perspectives relating to fisheries that formally classify as artisanal, in the region of Bragança. This net-mapping approach reflects our goal of undertaking a deep qualitative exploration of the interviewees’ subjective experiences, with particular attention to their varied backgrounds and involvement in fisheries management. This allowed us to capture the complex nuances of relational power dynamics influencing access within this sector. Research fatigue observed in the region was also considered. Subsequently snowball sampling (Braun and Clarke 2013) was also used in the absence of a gatekeeper and as the lead author built a local network. In meaningfully selecting our interviewees, we aimed to explore if and how diverse targeted fish species, gear type, and thus engagement in different temporal and spatial relations within their fishing activities, influenced fishers’ perceptions. Selection criteria additionally included fishing experience for fishers’ interviewees (net-maps #1–5) and considerations of leadership within the community or relevant institutions for other participants (net-map 1; net-maps #6–8). The Z-17 fisher’s guild in Bragança is another key institution, however, requests for a net-map interview were unsuccessful. We acknowledge this limitation and recognize its impact on the scope and depth of our analysis of governance and local power dynamics.

A first set of net-maps was conducted with individual participants (net-maps #1–3). For net-maps #4–5, a focus group approach was adopted to gather perspectives from otherwise geographically dispersed participants to encourage dynamism and reduce potential research fatigue from a time-consuming activity, and to provide insights into the ways in which accounts of governance processes are negotiated among participants (Braun and Clarke 2013). When fishers shared similarities in terms of fishery operation and community affiliation, as in net-map #4, participation was balanced. The participants in net-map #5 were involved in the municipal education system for fishers in the town of Bragança. However, they worked in different fisheries and did not share community membership. In this case, one of the participants with closer ties to formal fisheries management organizations had a more prominent voice, and care was taken to avoid over-representation. Our subsequent analysis was also informed by observations of these group power dynamics (Farnsworth and Boon 2010). The overall number of interviews is consistent with our aim of exploring a range of stakeholder-specific perceptions in depth, in accordance with the principles of qualitative research. Other studies using the Net-Map method have conducted similar numbers of interviews (e.g., N = 6 in Glaser et al. 2018).

Before the network mapping exercises, all participants were informed of ethical considerations of the study and gave consent for the recording of their interviews. The net-map activity consisted of three steps (adapted from Schiffer and Hauck 2010):

1. To kick-off the activity, participants were asked “Who affects and who is affected by what happens with fisheries landing in Bragança?” (based on Glaser et al. 2018). Participants mentioned different groups of people or institutions. The interviewee wrote the names on color-coded post-it notes (Table 3). Fisheries sectors were attributed different colors, depending on how participants distinguished or named them. The post-it notes were placed on a large piece of white paper. We acknowledge the epistemological and ethical implications of framing this question in a way that polarizes groups of actors into those with power and those without. Drawing on theories of power dynamics and in particular Ribot and Peluso (2003) and Peluso and Ribot (2020), we understand power as a relational force mediated by structures in which fluid hierarchies as well as everyday acts of resistance challenge static notions of power.
2. When it was agreed that all relevant actors had been identified, participants were asked how the entities interact with each other, i.e., what types of links connect different entities. Five types of links were previously established based on Schiffer and Hauck (2010) and Glaser et al. (2018): (1) communication, (2) support/capacity building, (3) money flow, (4) control, and (5) complaint (Table 4). These links were to be represented by drawing uni- or bi-directional arrows of different colors for each type of link.
3. As the activity proceeded, the interviewer summarized what they were seeing in terms of net-map actors and links to ensure a correct understanding of the overall picture and to prompt further explanations when needed by participants.

Presidential elections were held in Brazil in October 2022, and a new government took office in January 2023. All net-maps produced before March 2023 are representative of the governance situation under the previous government because the configuration of ministries and secretariats under the new administration was uncertain during that time.

Data analysis

For this research, we used an inductive methodological approach. The net-map interviews yielded two types of outputs: (1) a visual representation of the perceived network; and (2) the interview recording. We first analyzed the net-maps produced in terms of their composition of actors and links. We then undertook a qualitative analysis of the interviews to understand how the interactions between different actors relate to access for fishing.

Analysis of perceived networks

Visual and basic quantitative analysis of the net-maps provided information on the network composition, i.e., on which actors were perceived by respondents, through which interactions they were related, and the respective frequencies of occurrence (based on Gerhardinger et al. 2022).

First, the perceived networks were visually represented using the open-source software Gephi (product version 0.10.1) for network visualization. Labels were established for each actor group mentioned by the interviewee that best reflected the names originally assigned. The parameters by which participants grouped certain fisheries were discussed to assign a fishery category. The names of target fish species mentioned in common Portuguese language during the interviews were associated with scientific names based on Isaac et al. (2008) for artisanal fisheries and Frédou et al. (2008) for industrial fisheries.

The numbers of actors and links were counted for each net-map to align with the previously established typologies. A Sankey diagram was plotted using the open-source data visualization platform RAWGraphs (Mauri et al. 2017) to represent the interactions between actors as senders and receivers, respectively, for all eight net-maps combined. To understand stakeholder specific differences of perceptions, the networks were also compared in terms of network composition.

Qualitative analysis of interviews

A qualitative analysis of the net-map interviews was carried out to elucidate the perceived interactions related to access to fish and fisheries. The transcripts of the interviews were initially generated using the online transcription software Sonix Inc. and were subsequently manually corrected and edited. We then conducted a thematic analysis (TA) using a deductive-inductive codebook approach based on Miles and Huberman (1994). Coding was done in the original language of the interviews, Brazilian Portuguese, using the software MaxQDA Plus version 2020. The coding process is detailed in Appendix 1. Different access issues were identified for each category of actors concerned (based on Ribot and Peluso 2003). The coding process was performed by the lead author (LD) and subsequently discussed and checked with co-authors MG and RS. The influence of the author’s subjectivity in the coding process is acknowledged.

The results of the qualitative analysis are presented in the form of tables, which include the three most cited mechanisms of access to fish resources and fisheries for the most cited SSF, public authorities, vessel owners and post-harvest, and civil society organizations, along with the corresponding themes. The frequencies are shown per aggregate of fishers’ net-maps (net-maps #1–4), civil society organizations’ net-map #6 and net-map #7, and public authorities’ net-map #8 to better capture differences in participant groups’ perceptions.

RESULTS

Network map analysis: general overview

The eight net-maps are pictured in Appendix 2. A total of 174 actors and 402 links were mentioned by participants. Small-scale fisheries (SSF) actors were the most cited actor group (n = 42), followed by public authorities (n = 36), and civil society organizations and large-scale fisheries, which were each cited 24 times (Table 5). The group of vessel owners and post-harvest actors included intermediaries, vessel owners, and the fishing and processing industries, as well as the national and international export markets.

In fishers’ net-maps #1–5, the most frequently mentioned link type through which access is negotiated was “money flow” (n = 59), followed by “complaints” (n = 48), and “support” (n = 48; Table 5). However, in the summary net-map, SSF access through “communication” was mainly within SSF’s own group (Fig. 3). “Complaint” was the next largest link through which access to fish and fisheries was negotiated mainly among SSF. Few links were perceived coming from groups of fishers to government agencies, civil society organizations, and vessel owners and post-harvest actors. For net-map #5, whose participants work in what they classified as industrial fisheries, access was negotiated through complaint links that come from all industrial fisheries explicitly to vessel owners.

Civil society organizations were perceived to influence SSF access mostly through support links, as in net-map #2 (Table 5). In the other fishers’ net-maps, the fishers’ guild and the artisanal fishers’ union were either absent (e.g., net-map #4) or connected through money flow to fishing actors (as a mandatory contribution for membership) as in net-map #3. The fishers’ guild and the artisanal fishers’ union were poorly connected to each other and to SSF from the fishers’ perspective. In both civil society organizations’ net-maps (net-map #7–8), the RESEX users’ association facilitated access of fishing actors through “control,” “communication,” and “support.” The artisanal fishers’ union, on the other hand, appeared only in its own net-map, with no link to fishing actors, and appeared to play a minor role in facilitating fishers’ access. Contrary to fishers’ perceptions, civil society organizations’ respondents saw SSF actors with limited links to each other.

In contrast to the low mentions of interactions emanating from SSF to public authorities, SSF received around half (n = 38) of the total links coming from public authorities (n = 74), which translated a strong overall perception of influence of the latter over SSF. Public authorities mostly regulated access of SSF through control (net-map #3–6, Table 5). The government representative interviewed was the only respondent to depict a systematic bi-directional communication network between the government agency represented (ICMBio) and all fisheries actors. No direct connection between ICMBio and the RESEX users’ association was mentioned by the public authority respondent. No complaints were perceived among or between formal organizations, but all fisheries were mentioned to have complaints among themselves. Despite receiving very few links coming from other actors, vessel owners and post-harvest actors largely controlled SSF and large-scale artisanal fisheries’ access through money flow.

Qualitative analysis of interviews

Knowledge, technology, and legal-based mechanisms were particularly relevant for SSF access. Figure 4 shows the average number of mentions per interview aggregate (net-maps #1–4; net-map #6; and net-maps #7–8) relating to different mechanisms of access. Small-scale fisheries’ access to fish was mostly linked to knowledge of the biogeophysical environment and in particular to the characteristics of the target species, as illustrated by the following quote:

This is the time for net fishing when the moon is full. That’s the time to net the pescada-amarela [Cynoscion acoupa], which is the best. (net-map#2)

The second most cited dimension of access was technology. Small-scale fisheries’ reliance on technology to adapt to changes in fish behavior and environmental conditions becomes particularly evident when access to this technology is restricted:

[...] if we had another type of material net, then we’d go somewhere else, right? Antônio [...] has 400 meters of fishing nets. Then his fishing won’t stop, because he’s already got the pescada [Cynoscion acoupa], he’s got the corvina [Cynoscion virescens], he’s got the uritinga [Sciades proops], he can fish and keep his pattern up all the time, right? (net-map #4)

Technology was also a topic in many of the complaint links among SSF that related to gear conflicts and aspects of everyday negotiations for access to fish and fisheries. Legal-based mechanisms represented challenges to SSF access. Small-scale fisheries struggle to obtain official documentation confirming their formal status as fishers, which impedes their ability to advocate for their rights and engage in disputes with industrial fishers.

Technology and markets were important for both large-scale artisanal- and industrial fisheries. Public authorities were perceived to control SSF access through legal mechanisms, knowledge, and illegal mechanisms. In terms of access through legal mechanisms, public authorities were mostly perceived to fail to facilitate fishers’ access (access obstruction) or to exercise unfairly differentiated legally based authority over SSF:

Why don’t they go to the industrial boats, which damage a lot more? They don’t control them. Because they want to control us, because it’s easy to control the small ones, it's very easy. (net-map #2)

Civil society organizations were importantly related to the exercise of control through legal mechanisms, social identity, and knowledge. Civil society organizations were perceived as often obstructing access through legal-based mechanisms, as highlighted by this interviewee:

We paid the colony [fishers’ guild] with all our heart. I’m fishing. I can't work [because of health issues] for two, five months, a year. It should pay an aid to the person, you know? And it never did that. (net-map #1)

Obstructed access often translated into complaint links in the net-maps. Vessel owners and post-harvest actors were frequently considered as mediating access to markets and capital. Appendix 3 provides quotes to illustrate further access mechanisms that are at the root of the more frequently occurring codes for SSF, public authorities, vessel owners and post-harvest actors, and civil society organizations.

DISCUSSION

Navigating access: social organization among fishers

Communication links between SSF mostly convey information about everyday fishing praxis and knowledge. Knowledge was the most frequently mentioned access mechanism for SSF, in line with Andriamahefazafy and Kull’s (2019) findings. Local fishing knowledge (LFK) refers to the understanding, meanings, and constructs associated with the environment and human-nature feedback, importantly allowing for the adaptation of fishing strategies and improved access to fishing resources. Our coding reveals that LFK contains elaborate details on the dynamics of fish migration, feeding and reproduction habits, and on how these habits are influenced by environmental factors. Our findings are in line with Barboza and Pezzutti (2011) who highlighted the richness of LFK and terminologies used by fishers from one of our study sites, Vila do Bonifácio. The terminologies and beliefs relating to the workings of nature (e.g., as the work of God and/or as a twist of fate) revealed by our interviews testify to the continuous (re)construction of imaginaries of coastal entanglement and thus influence how access is permanently (re)negotiated at the individual subjective and collective levels. Despite the absence of formal institutions to support and regulate artisanal fisheries perceived by our interviewees and reported in other Amazonian fishery contexts (Maneschy 1990, Doria et al. 2021, Alencar et al. 2022), the abundance of ties among SSF is thus evidence of informal social networks in artisanal fisheries and merits investigation into the implications for social organization in fisheries. The fact that conflicts internal to SSF were frequently cited by non-fisher interviewees may be due to an apparent propensity to mention conflicts elsewhere but not those respondents themselves were involved in. For instance, civil society organizations’ representatives and public authorities involved in fisheries management may tend to highlight the existence of fisheries conflicts to legitimize their authority to control access (Peluso and Ribot 2020). Government agencies at multiple levels play a pivotal role in the management of fisheries conflicts and have the capacity to promote positive social transformation (SSF guidelines, FAO 2015, Dahlet et al. 2021). However, in contexts such as Bragança, where government infrastructure for artisanal fisheries is weak, local communities may be compelled to foster their own institutions for conflict resolution, as observed in other parts of Brazil (Prado et al. 2021) and in tropical fisheries more broadly (Dahlet et al. 2021).

Public authorities: controlling, unreachable, or missing

The relatively few links that come from SSF and go to public authorities (n = 6) suggest limited power or influence of the former over the latter, and a shared perception that public authorities are not accessible. In essence, control links are understood as activities of inspection (fiscalização), which is perceived as the pinnacle of government authority. This control enforces formal regulations for particular fisheries, restricting short-term access to fish with the promise of protecting fish stocks, ultimately securing long-term access for fishers. This generated livelihood and equity issues. We concur with Fabinyi et al. (2015) that, beyond concerns over the ecological health of fish stocks, equity impacts of control activities are central for SSF. In the Bragança region, the lack of inspection activities was on the one hand seen to illustrate the government’s absence and neglect of artisanal fisheries. On the other hand, the regulatory authorities responsible for inspection (e.g., IBAMA) were criticized for conducting excessive inspections of small-scale fishers, who are more deprived of capital and material resources, while failing to monitor the most powerful groups of fishers, such as industrial trawlers, despite their involvement in the most destructive fishing practices. A similar “command-and-control” approach adopted by ICMBio and IBAMA is perceived by coastal users in the Tamandaré region in Northeast Brazil (Glaser et al. 2018). Our results reveal that inspection is seen to have an ambivalent role. Subject to inspection by state authorities, the “inspected” become a political subject. But when inspection is disproportionately focused on the most vulnerable groups, it becomes a matter of discrimination underpinned by important power imbalances. The Brazilian Navy seems to have greater legitimacy among SSF because it provides capacity-building activities that are mandatory for the acquisition of a fishing license. Although not formally responsible for fisheries management, the Brazilian Navy appears to play a gatekeeping role in the bureaucratic process of fisher formalization. This process directly affects SSF access to licenses, and by extension, to fishing rights.

Our findings also indicate perceptions of further forms of marginalization under the code of “access denied/obstructed,” echoing Hall et. al.’s (2011) notion of powers of exclusion, cited in Myers and Hansen (2019). For instance, unlike industrial fishers, who typically have better administrative support and formalized documentation, artisanal fishers often struggle to obtain the General Register of Fishing Activity (Registro Geral da Atividade Pesqueira, RGP), the official document issued by the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture that certifies their profession. The RGP is essential not only for legal recognition but also for accessing social protection and other public policies in support of artisanal fisheries. Getting the official documents is challenging for several reasons, including difficult access to public authorities and corruption or inaction by civil society organizations. Efforts to remedy this situation at the federal level include the creation of the National Secretariat for Registration, Monitoring and Research within the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and at the Bragança level within the Municipal Secretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture. In this context, our findings suggest that civil society organizations such as the fishers’ guild and the artisanal fishers’ union are held responsible for supporting and providing their members with access to legal mechanisms.

Civil society organizations and challenges to fishers’ representation

The fishers’ guild and artisanal fishers’ union are perceived to be institutions for safeguarding fishers’ rights, including access to social security benefits like pensions and benefits in times of unemployment and ill-health. Fishing is a highly risky and physically demanding activity (Sales et al. 2022) and access to health benefits is essential. The lack of trust and perceived inefficacy of artisanal fishers toward these organizations, and in particular the fishers’ guild, may explain the low membership rate of 48% of registered fishers in Pará (Lourenço et al. 2006). Fishers’ guilds in Brazil were first established by the Brazilian Navy in the 1920s, undermining the autonomy of fishing communities (Ramalho 2014). In other parts of the world where fishers’ guilds have emerged in a bottom-up fashion, they are now actively involved in local environmental management (e.g., in Spain, see Herrera-Racionero et al. 2022). In this sense, future research appears needed to examine and situate the role of fishers’ guilds and unions as pivotal actors within the Brazilian decentralized governance system, as well as their potential and actual influence on context-specific collective action.

In contrast, the RESEX Caeté-Taperaçú emerged from grassroots efforts supported by public authorities, social movements, and academia (do Nascimento 2021). The users’ association’s representative speaks of the organization as belonging to the people and claims to represent SSF against abuses by banks, intermediaries, and the fishing industry, among others. This is reflected in the number of mentions that related civil society organizations to social identity in the qualitative analysis of net-map #8. Because the RESEX Caeté-Taperaçú is not mentioned at all in three of the five fishers’ maps, perceptions of its influence on fisheries governance are diverse. Social identity is key for improved SSF access (e.g., Bennett et al. 2021). In Bragança and other locations where large-scale fisheries and/or tourism are absorbing the labor of small-scale fishers, ecosystems are becoming increasingly degraded, and fishing livelihoods and related social identities are undermined. This, in turn, may affect the capacities for collective action by fishers and increase their dependence on government intervention (Ramalho 2014, Pinkerton 2019).

Partelow et al. (2018) found that the RESEX Caeté-Taperaçú has been increasingly seen as a government social aid program facilitating access to housing and material goods rather than an institution actively embodying the collective management of natural resources. Our interviews confirmed this. The users’ association is linked to the National Program for Agrarian Reform and gives access to its members to programs and public policies such as the Bolsa Verde (green allowance) or agrarian reform credits, which are key among the few forms of public support available to the poor, remote communities within the RESEX (Prado and Seixas 2018).

Improving the formalization of SSF is a key FAO recommendation to nation states as a means of securing access to those working within these fisheries (FAO 2022). This could be achieved through the development of a legal framework for community-based resource management (Mertens et al. 2015, Blythe et al. 2017), in which artisanal fishers have formalized rights to manage their fisheries, and this extends beyond Caeté-Taperaçú marine RESEX boundaries (Borges et al. 2021). Articulating such a framework with the institutions linked to the RESEX may be challenging. Environmental NGOs active in the region have played an important role in supporting community organization and co-management efforts (Rare Brasil 2021). Social movements emerge as relevant enablers for scaling up SSF struggles to other levels of governance and improving local leadership capacity and conservation outcomes (Potiguar Júnior 2007, Pinkerton 2017). That no such NGOs and movements were mentioned by fisher respondents indicates a need for local outreach and mobilization.

Vessel owners and post-harvest actors filling the governance gap through capital and market

The predominance of money flow links from vessel owners and post-harvest actors to SSFs suggests a one-way influence in which the former control artisanal fishers’ access to markets and capital. On the Pará coast, artisanal fisheries typically rely on the marreteiro (middleman) to handle smaller quantities of fish and local markets and villages, while the intermediário (intermediary) handles larger production volumes and may resell to the national and international market. Both types of traders may also act as vessel owner, fishing gear financier, and/or moneylender including when catches are low, when illness prevents fishing, or when fishers suffer financial distress. Most of these transactions take place informally. Small-scale fisheries reliance on the marreteiro and intermediário will thus likely increase as public authorities and civil society organizations, such as the fishers’ guild, fail to provide effective legal support. Research by Poissant et al. (2023) in the rural Peruvian Amazon suggested that geographic isolation increases dependency of SSF on powerful intermediary actors. Similarly, Basurto et al. (2013) linked isolation to less cooperative behaviors and greater reliance on intermediaries. In our study area, the road construction in the 1970s cutting through the mangroves swamp provided a faster access route linking the coastal communities of Vila do Bonifácio and Vila dos Pescadores to the urban center of Bragança. This provoked a surge in intermediários (Oliveira and Henrique 2018). Coupled with limited traditions of collective action, the prevalence of informality in the SSF value chain, also appears to intensify the dependency of SSF on intermediários, which may potentially lead to increased exploitation of fishers, increased fishing pressure and a reduction in fish availability (Miñarro et al. 2016, Poissant et al. 2023).

Access to technology and capital remains a major barrier to SSF access in Bragança, a challenge also identified in other regions of Brazil (Haque et al. 2015). In an effort to improve access to credit, the Brazilian government introduced the Plano Safra da Agricultura Familiar in June 2023, which provides loans for SSF. Access to these loans is prevented, however, by difficult bureaucracy, poor repayment terms and rates, and fear of losing assets (Haque et al. 2015). As a result, fishers in Bragança often turn to their informal social networks, which include their intermediaries, for support. Another layer of complexity is added when the marreteiro or intermediário is the respective fisher’s relative such as in the case of the interviewee in net-map #2 whose uncle is the vessel owner and whose cousin is the marreteiro. Kinship networks play a central role in controlling and maintaining access to resources in Amazonia (Alencar et al. 2014), including in the context of erosion and resource depletion, as seen in Inferninho and Vila do Bonifácio. Characteristics of patron-client relationships were mentioned by our interviewees, but few complaint links came from SSF to intermediaries. This may indicate the ambiguity inherent in such relationships. Only net-map #5 discloses systematic complaint links flowing from all industrial fisheries to boat owners who are also fish traders indicating that the importance of informal and kinship links is a special feature of SSF in our research region.

CONCLUSION

This study explores how coastal and marine fisheries governance networks are seen to affect artisanal fishers’ access in Bragança, on the northeast Amazonian coast of Brazil, from the perspectives of a number of different relevant actors.

Fishers in both small-scale artisanal and large-scale artisanal fisheries are perceived to negotiate access to fish and fisheries among themselves, mostly on a daily basis, through communication and complaint links. These interactions are related to knowledge (e.g., communicating knowledge of the biogeophysical environment) and technology (e.g., gear conflicts). Public authorities and civil society organizations are seen to control fishers’ access through legally based mechanisms. However, these actors are portrayed as absent (e.g., obstructing access), unreachable, or lacking in reliability and fairness. When connected to SSF, public authorities are mostly reported to exert restrictive control of SSF through diverse means. Artisanal fishers lack a robust representation. Respondents perceived respective institutions, i.e., the fishers’ guild and the artisanal fishers’ union as failing to fulfil their main function: facilitating access to vital benefits of public policies (e.g., access through legally based mechanisms). Similarly, and despite a contrasting early history (Glaser et al. 2010), the influence of the association of the Caeté-Taperaçú extractive reserve appears to be limited now. In the absence of support from public authorities and civil society organizations, actors linked to vessel owners and the post-harvest sector are asserting their influence by controlling fishers’ access to markets and capital. In these relationships, SSF frequently find themselves depending on intermediaries for loans, or even narcotics, which must then be repaid with lower prices received for their catches.

Fisheries governance in Bragança is based more on market mechanisms and unequal forms of dependency (Johnson 2010) than on supportive laws drawn up by the public authorities. The results of our research draw attention to the need to: (1) enhance accessibility to public policies and government programs to strengthen the formalization of artisanal fisheries, taking into account its local characteristics and particularities, including the social organization already in place among artisanal fishers; (2) mobilize financial and human resources for local public authorities geared to improving access and equitable participation of artisanal fishers in decision-making forums; (3) facilitate access to the market and capital for artisanal fishers, for example, by incentivizing the establishment of a cooperative or other forms of innovation; (4) promote and encourage artisanal fishers’ organization and representation, for instance, by facilitating funding for capacity development in local leadership. These measures can only be fully effective if the need for basic education and health service structures is also addressed. The work presented here shows that promoting more equitable access for, and encouraging dialogue with, artisanal fishers are essential and missing prerequisites for sustainable development in the Amazon.

The integration of net mapping and access analysis provides valuable insights for the development of more inclusive marine conservation policies. Future research could examine how perceived governance networks evolve in response to significant institutional and environmental shifts, such as the proposed designation of a protected area vis-à-vis competing plans for oil exploitation in the Brazilian Amazon Shelf (Araujo et al. 2021). Longitudinal and multi-scalar analyses could shed light on how climate change compounds access challenges for artisanal fishers and how governance dynamics vary across levels. Additionally, further attention to the influence of non-state actors and the role of gender and intersecting power relations in shaping network influence remains crucial.

This becomes even more critical as aquaculture and oil exploration interests grow in the Amazon estuary, and in view of the upcoming 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP 30) to be held in Belém in November 2025.

LITERATURE CITED

Alencar, E. F., E. A. Celestino, and A. G. Abreu. 2022. Social conflicts and fishery governance systems in the estuary and coast of Pará, Amazonia, Brazil. Pages 233–247 in S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Bugeja Said, and M. Isaacs, editors. Blue justice. MARE Publication Series, vol 26. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89624-9_13

Alencar, E. F., I. S. de Sousa, and A. C. T. Gonçalves. 2014. Territories, kinship and strategies for the control of natural resources in the region of Japurá-Maraã, Amazonas. Scientific Magazine UAKARI 10(1). https://doi.org/10.31420/uakari.v10i1.161

Andriamahefazafy, M., and C. A. Kull. 2019. Materializing the blue economy: tuna fisheries and the theory of access in the Western Indian Ocean. Journal of Political Ecology 26(1):403–424. https://doi.org/10.2458/v26i1.23040

Araujo, L. S., U. R. Magdalena, T. S. Louzada, P. S. Salomon, F. C. Moraes, B. P. Ferreira, E. T. C. Paes, A. C. Bastos, R. C. Pereira, L. T. Salgado, M. L. Lorini, P. Yager, and R. L. Moura. 2021. Growing industrialization and poor conservation planning challenge natural resources' management in the Amazon Shelf off Brazil. Marine Policy 128:104465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104465

Barboza, R. S. L., and J. C. B. Pezzuti. 2011. Ethnoichthyology of traditional fishermen from Caeté-Taperaçu Marine Extractive Reserve: aspects related to ethology, habitat use and migration of fishes of the Sciaenidae. SITIENTIBUS série Ciências Biológicas 11(2):133–141.

Basurto, X., A. Bennett, A. Hudson Weaver, S. Rodriguez-Van Dyck, and J.-S. Aceves-Bueno. 2013. Cooperative and noncooperative strategies for small-scale fisheries’ self-governance in the globalization era: implications for conservation. Ecology and Society 18(4):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05673-180438

Bennett, J. J., N. C. Ban, A. Schuhbauer, D.-V. Splichalova, M. Eadie, K. Vandeborne, J. McIsaac, E. Angel, J. Charleson, E. R. Gavenus, S. Harper, T. Satterfield, T. Sutcliffe, and R. Sumaila. 2021. Access rights, capacities and benefits in small-scale fisheries: insights from the Pacific Coast of Canada. Marine Policy 130:104581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104581

Bennett, N. J. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30(3):582–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681

Bevir, M. 2012. Governance: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199606412.001.0001

Bezerra, P. R. S. 2000. Os pescadores e a recente normatização da pesca no estado do Pará: elementos para o reconhecimento da expressão ambientalista num movimento social. Papers do NAEA 1(1):127.

Blythe, J., P. Cohen, H. Eriksson, J. Cinner, D. Boso, A.-M. Schwarz, and N. Andrew. 2017. Strengthening post-hoc analysis of community-based fisheries management through the social-ecological systems framework. Marine Policy 82:50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.008

Borges, R., A. Breckwoldt, R. S. L. Barboza, and M. Glaser. 2021. Local perceptions of spatial management indicate challenges and opportunities for effective zoning of sustainable-use protected areas in Brazil. Anthropocene Coasts 4:210–232. https://doi.org/10.1139/anc-2020-0008

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2013. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Calderön-Contreras, R., and C. S. White. 2019. Access as the means for understanding social-ecological resilience: bridging analytical frameworks. Society and Natural Resources 33(2):205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1597233

Cordeiro, P. 2010. Carimbó da Vigia. Ed. do Autor, Vigia, Brazil.

Crona, B. I. 2006. Supporting and enhancing development of heterogeneous ecological knowledge among resource users in a Kenyan seascape. Ecology and Society 11(1):32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art32/

Dahlet, L. I., A. Himes-Cornell, and R. Metzner. 2021. Fisheries conflicts as drivers of social transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 53:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.011

Damasio, L. M. A., P. F. M. Lopes, M. G. Pennino, A. R. Carvalho, and U. R. Sumaila. 2016. Size matters: fishing less and yielding more in smaller-scale fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 73(6):1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw016

da Silva, A. L., and A. Begossi. 2009. Biodiversity, food consumption and ecological niche dimension: a study case of the riverine populations from the Rio Negro, Amazonia, Brazil. Environment, Development and Sustainability 11(3):489–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9126-z

do Nascimento, J. R. 2021. Nos maretórios da Amazönia: os desafios da gestão compartilhada nas Reservas Extrativistas Marinhas do nordeste do estado do Pará. Dissertation. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. https://doi.org/10.11606/T.8.2021.tde-20072022-165622

Doria, C. R. C., J. Dutka-Gianelli, M. Paes de Souza, K. Lorenzen, and S. Athayde. 2021. Stakeholder perceptions on the governance of fisheries systems transformed by hydroelectric dam development in the Madeira River, Brazil. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9:575514. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.575514

dos Santos Cavalcante, A., A. D. Sales, and R. S. L. Barboza. 2022. Aspectos socioeconômicos, organizacionais e saúde de pescadores artesanais em duas comunidades do Litoral Amazônico Brasileiro. Pages 55–72 in C. A. M. Cordeiro, D. de Souza, and F. C. A. F. Holanda, editors. Engenharia de pesca: aspectos teóricos e práticos. Científica Digital, Guarujá, Brazil. https://doi.org/10.37885/211006301

Emirbayer, M. 1997. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103(2):281–317. https://doi.org/10.1086/231209

European Commission. 2021. Ethics in social science and humanities. European Commission, DG Research and Innovation, Brussels, Belgium. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-in-social-science-and-humanities_he_en.pdf

Fabinyi, M., S. Foale, and M. Macintyre. 2015. Managing inequality or managing stocks? An ethnographic perspective on the governance of small-scale fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 16:471–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12069

Farnsworth, J., and B. Boon. 2010. Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qualitative Research 10(5):605–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110375223

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2015. Voluntary guidelines for securing small-scale fisheries in the context of food security and poverty eradication. FAO, Rome, Italy. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/edfffbfc-81e5-4208-a36f-334ff81ac10f/content

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2022. Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. First revision. FAO, Rome, Italy. https://www.fao.org/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/

Frédou, F. L., O. T. Almeida, K. Mourão, C. Barbosa, S. Rivero, and R. Thompson. 2008. Diagnóstico da pesca e da aqüicultura do Estado do Pará: diagnóstico, tendência, potencial e política pública para o desenvolvimento do setor pesqueiro industrial. Secretaria de Pesca e Aquicultura do Governo do Estado do Pará, Belém, Brazil.

Gerhardinger, L. C., E. Holzkämper, M. M de Andrade, M. R. Corrêa, and A. Turra. 2022. Envisioning ocean governability transformations through network-based marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies 21(1):131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-021-00250-1

Glaser, M., and P. Gorris. 2023. Decentralization and participation in integrated coastal management: policy lessons from Brazil and Indonesia. Pages 171–184 in B. Glaeser and M. Glaser, editors. Coastal management revisited: navigating towards sustainable human-nature relations, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Glaser, M., P. Gorris, B. P. Ferreira, and A. Breckwoldt. 2018. Analysing ecosystem user perceptions of the governance interactions surrounding a Brazilian near-shore coral reef. Sustainability 10(5):1464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051464

Glaser, M., G. Krause, R. S. Oliveira, and M. Fontalvo-Herazo. 2010. Mangroves and people: a social-ecological system. Pages 307–347 in U. Saint-Paul and H. Schneider, editors. Mangrove dynamics and management in North Brazil. Ecological Studies 211. Springer, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13457-9_21

Glaser, M., and R. Da Silva Oliveira. 2004. The prospects for co-management of mangrove ecosystems on the North Brazilian coast: whose rights, whose duties and whose priorities? Natural Resources Forum 28(3):224–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2004.00092.x

Gomes, R. K. S., L. C. C. Pereira, C. M. M. Ribeiro, and R. M. da Costa. 2009. Dinâmica socioambiental em uma comunidade pesqueira Amazônica, PA-Brasil. Revista da Gestão Costeira Integrada 9(2):101–111. https://www.aprh.pt/rgci/pdf/rgci-121_Gomes.pdf

Gorayeb, A., M. A. Lombardo, and L. C. C. Pereira. 2009. Condições ambientais em áreas urbanas da bacia hidrográfica do Rio Caeté - Amazônia Oriental - Brasil. Revista da Gestão Costeira Integrada 9(2):59–70. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3883/388340126005.pdf

Haque, C. E., C. Julián Idrobo, F. Berkes, and D. Giesbrecht. 2015. Small-scale fishers’ adaptations to change: The role of formal and informal credit in Paraty, Brazil. Marine Policy 51: 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.002

Herrera-Racionero, P., L. Miret-Pastor, R. Cervelló-Royo, and M. Rodilla-Alama. 2022. The role of the Spanish Mediterranean fisher’s guilds in maritime sustainability. Marine Policy 140:105058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105058

Hicks, C. C., and J. E. Cinner. 2014. Social, institutional, and knowledge mechanisms mediate diverse ecosystem service benefits from coral reefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(50):17791–17796. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1413473111

Isaac, V. J., and M. C. de Almeida. 2011. El consumo de pescado en la Amazonía brasileña. COPESCAALC Documento Ocasional 13. FAO, Rome, Italy. https://www.fao.org/4/i2408s/i2408s.pdf

Isaac, V. J., R. V. Espírito Santo, M. C. Almeida, O. Almeida, A. P. Roman, and L. Nunes. 2008. Diagnóstico da pesca e da aqüicultura do Estado do Pará: diagnóstico, tendência, potencial e política pública para o desenvolvimento do setor pesqueiro artesanal. Secretaria de Pesca e Aquicultura do Governo do Estado do Pará, Belém, Brasil.

Isaac, V. J., R. V. Espírito-Santo, and U. Saint-Paul. 2010. Fisheries and management. Pages 307-347 in U. Saint-Paul and H. Schneider, editors. Mangrove dynamics and management in North Brazil. Ecological Studies 211. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13457-9_15

Isaac, V. J., and S. F. Ferrari. 2017. Assessment and management of the North Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Environmental Development 22:97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2016.11.004

Isaac, V. J., R. V. E. Santo, B. Bentes, F. L. Frédou, K. R. M. Mourão, and T. Frédou. 2009. An interdisciplinary evaluation of fishery production systems off the state of Pará in North Brazil. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 25:244–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01274.x

Isaac-Nahum, V. J. 2006. Exploração e manejo dos recursos pesqueiros do litoral amazônico: um desafio para o futuro. Ciência e Cultura 58(3):44–47. http://cienciaecultura.bvs.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0009-67252006000300015

Jimenez, É. A., R. S. L. Barboza, M. T. Amaral, and F. L. Frédou. 2019. Understanding changes to fish stock abundance and associated conflicts: perceptions of small-scale fishers from the Amazon coast of Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management 182:104954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104954

Johnson, D. S. 2006. Category, narrative, and value in the governance of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 30(6):747–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.01.002

Johnson, D. S. 2010. Institutional adaptation as a governability problem in fisheries: patron-client relations in the Junagadh fishery, India. Fish and Fisheries 11:264–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00376.x

Krause, G., and M. Glaser. 2003. Co-evolving geomorphical and socio-economic dynamics in a coastal fishing village of the Bragança region (Pará, North Brazil). Ocean and Coastal Management 46(9-10):859–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00069-3

Lacerda, F. G. 2006. Entre o sertão e a floresta: natureza, cultura e experiências sociais de migrantes cearenses na Amazônia (1889–1916). Revista Brasileira de História 26(51):197–225. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-01882006000100010

Lima, J. B., M. F. Brabo, J. R. do Nascimento, M. A. S. dos Santos, A. C. B. de Siqueira, and M. F. B. do Amaral. 2020. Public policies and fishing activity in the Bragança City, Pará State, Amazon, Brazil. Research, Society and Development 9 (9):e769997560. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i9.7560

Lourenço, C., J. de Almeida e Silva Henkel, and M. C. A. Maneschy. 2006. A seguridade social para os pescadores artesanais no Brasil: estudo de caso no Pará. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), Chennai, India. https://www.icsf.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/930.ICSF175.pdf

Maneschy, M. C. A. 1990. Organização social e fatores de ameaça a uma comumidade pesqueira do litoral paraense. Cadernos do Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Belém 2(20):71–85. https://periodicos.ufpa.br/index.php/rhumanitas/article/view/14157/9875

Mauri, M., T. Elli, G. Caviglia, G. Uboldi, and M. Azzi. 2017. RAWGraphs: a visualisation platform to create open outputs. Pages 1–5 in F. Sorrentino, editor. CHItaly ‘17: proceedings of the 12th biannual conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125571.3125585

Maxwell, J. A. 2008. Designing a qualitative study. Pages 214–253 in L. Bickman and D. J. Rog, editors. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858.n7

Maya-Jariego, I., J. F. Querevalú-Miñán, L. G. Varela, and J. Ávila. 2017. Escape the lion cage: social networks by catch zones of small-scale fisheries in the oil settlement of Lobitos (Peru). Marine Policy 81:340–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.04.010

McGrath, D. G., L. Castello, O. T. Almeida, and G. M. B. Estupiñán. 2015. Market formalization, governance, and the integration of community fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon. Society and Natural Resources 28(5):513–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1014607

Mertens, F., M. Fillion, J. Saint-Charles, P. Mongeau, R. Távora, C. J. Sousa Passos, and D. Mergler. 2015. The role of strong-tie social networks in mediating food security of fish resources by a traditional riverine community in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecology and Society 20(3):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07483-200318

Mescouto, N., U. I. Peixoto, D. G. Trindade, H. Moura, and B. Bentes. 2024. Caribbean red snapper fishing performance indicators in Brazilian amazon shelf: is it the beginning of the end of a fishing system? PLoS ONE 19(5):e0300820. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300820

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Second edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://vivauniversity.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/milesandhuberman1994.pdf

Miñarro, S., G. Navarrete Forero, H. Reuter, and I. E. van Putten. 2016. The role of patron-client relations on the fishing behaviour of artisanal fishermen in the Spermonde Archipelago (Indonesia). Marine Policy 69:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.006

Moura, R. L., C. V. Minte-Vera, G. F. Dutra, I. B. Curado, F. S. Motta, and R. B. Francini-Filho. 2009. Conservação da biodiversidade, gestão pesqueira e promoção de equidade social: a contribuição das áreas marinhas protegidas. In 2º Congresso Brasileiro de biologia marinha, Armação dos Búzios, Rio de Janeiro, 24–28 May 2009.

Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura (MPA). 2011. Boletim estatístico da pesca e aquicultura 2011. Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura (MPA). 2023. Painel unificado do Registro Geral da Atividade Pesqueira. Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores, Porto Alegre, Brazil. https://www.gov.br/mpa/pt-br/assuntos/cadastro-registro-e-monitoramento/painel-unificado-do-registro-geral-da-atividade-pesqueira

Myers, R., and C. P. Hansen. 2019. Revisiting a theory of access: a review. Society and Natural Resources 33(2):146–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1560522

Nakamura, J., and F. Hazin. 2020. Assessing the Brazilian federal fisheries law and policy in light of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries. Marine Policy 113:103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103798

Oliveira, M. V. C., and M. C. Henrique. 2018. No meio do caminho havia um mangue: impactos socioambientais da estrada Bragança-Ajuruteua, Pará. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 25(2):497–514. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-59702018000200011

Ostrom, E. 2010. Gouvernance des biens communs: pour une nouvelle approche des ressources naturelles. De Boeck Supérieur, Bruxelles, Belgium.

Oviedo, A. F. P., and M. Bursztyn. 2017. Decentralization and fisheries management in the Brazilian amazon: resource rights and accountability. Ambiente e Sociedade 20(4):169–187. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc0029r1v2042017

Page, E., B. Derrick, A. Coulter, R. White, M. Ang, D. Dunstan, L. Hood, V. Relano, G. Tsui, L. van der Meer, and D. Pauly. 2020. South America: updated catch reconstructions to 2018. Pages 279–312 in B. Derrick, M. Khalfallah, V. Relano, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. editors. Updating to 2018 the 1950–2010 marine catch reconstructions of the Sea Around Us. Part II: the Americas and Asia-Pacific. Fisheries Centre Research Report 28. Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/legacy.seaaroundus/researcher/dpauly/PDF/2020/Books+%26+Chapters/Page+et+al+2020+South+America.pdf

Partelow, S., M. Glaser, S. Solano Arce, R. S. L. Barboza, and A. Schlüter. 2018. Mangroves, fishers, and the struggle for adaptive comanagement: applying the social-ecological systems framework to a marine extractive reserve (RESEX) in Brazil. Ecology and Society 23(3):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10269-230319

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Third edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Peluso, N. L., and J. Ribot. 2020. Postscript: a theory of access revisited. Society and Natural Resources 33(2):300–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1709929

Pinkerton, E. 2017. Hegemony and resistance: disturbing patterns and hopeful signs in the impact of neoliberal policies on small-scale fisheries around the world. Marine Policy 80:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.012

Pinkerton, E. 2019. Strategies and policies supporting small-scale fishers’ access and conservation rights in a neoliberal world. Pages 241–261 in R. Chuenpagdee and S. Jentoft, editors. Transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. MARE Publication Series, vol 21. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94938-3_13

Poissant, D., O. T. Coomes, B. E. Robinson, Y. Takasaki, and C. Abizaid. 2023. Livelihoods and poverty in small-scale fisheries in western Amazonia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 31(1):e12651. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12651

Potiguar Júnior, P. L. T. 2007. Desvelando o invisível: os movimentos sociais na pesca e suas ações no estuário do Pará. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humana 2(3):51–62. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1981-81222007000300006

Prado, D. S., and C. S. Seixas. 2018. Da floresta ao litoral: instrumentos de cogestão e o legado institucional das Reservas Extrativistas. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 48:281–298. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v48i0.58759

Prado, D. S., C. S. Seixas, and C. R. T. Futemma. 2021. From self-governance to shared governance: institutional change and bricolage in Brazilian extractive reserves. Environmental Science and Policy 123:106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.016

Ramalho, C. W. N. 2014. Estado, pescadores e desenvolvimento nacional: da reserva naval à aquícola. Ruris, 8(1):31–62. https://doi.org/10.53000/rr.v8i1.1740

Rare Brasil. 2021. Fish forever program: Brazil program report 2017–2019. Rare, Twycross, UK. https://rare.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/rareBrazil_executiveReport2017-2019_letter_05-copy.pdf

Ribot, J. C., and N. L. Peluso. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68(2):153–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x

Sales, A. D., O. T. de Almeida, M. F. Brabo, and B. R. da Silva Júnior. 2022. A pesca e os pescadores artesanais no litoral amazônico brasileiro: os casos de Bragança e Augusto Corrêa. Extensão Rural 29(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.5902/2318179670159

Santos, J. P., E. C. Guimarães, E. B. Garciov-Filho, P. S. de Brito, D. F. C. Lopes, M. C. Andrade, F. P. Ottoni, L. J. B. da Silva Dias, M. R. dos Anjos, R. N. F. Carvalho-Neta, L. R. R. Rodrigues, M. A. M. de Paula Nogueira, F. M. Pelicice, A. A. Agostinho, and P. M. Fearnside. 2023. Fisheries monitoring in Brazil: how can the 2030 agenda be met without fisheries statistics? Biota Neotropica 23(2):e20221439. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2022-1439

Santos, M. C., O. do Canto, R. Z. Bastos, N. Fenzl, L. Tupiassu, and D. Sombra. 2020. Conflito e gestão ambiental na zona costeira amazônica: o caso da vila do Camará, reserva extrativista (RESEX) marinha mestre Lucindo, Marapanim - Pará - Amazônia - Brasil. Brazilian Journal of Development 6(3):15607–15617. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv6n3-439

Saunders, F., R. Tafon, M. Knol-Kauffman, and S. A. Selim. 2024. Introductory commentary: marine conflicts and pathways to sustainability in an era of Blue Growth and climate change. Maritime Studies 23(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-023-00347-9

Schiffer, E., and J. Hauck. 2010. Net-Map: collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods 22(3):231–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10374798

Schwandt, T. A. 1994. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Pages 118–137 in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Schwenke T., and E. Holzkämper. 2020. Social (-ecological) network analysis in environmental governance: central publications, important concepts, and areas of application. Human Ecology Review 26(2):103–145. https://doi.org/10.22459/HER.26.02.2020.06

Seixas, C. S., I. Davidson-Hunt, D. C. Kalikoski, B. Davy, F. Berkes, F. de Castro, R. P. Medeiros, C. V. Minte-Vera, and L. G. Araujo. 2019. Collaborative coastal management in Brazil: advancements, challenges, and opportunities. Pages 425–451 in S. Salas, M. Barragán-Paladines, and R. Chuenpagdee, editors. Viability and sustainability of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. MARE Publication Series, vol 19. Springer, Cham. Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76078-0_18

Seixas, C. S., and D. C. Kalikoski. 2009. Gestão participativa da pesca no Brasil: levantamento das iniciativas e documentação dos processos. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 20:119–139. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v20i0.12729

Silver, J. J., and J. S. Stoll. 2019. How do commercial fishing licences relate to access? Fish and Fisheries 20(5):993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12393

Smith, H., and X. Basurto. 2019. Defining small-scale fisheries and examining the role of science in shaping perceptions of who and what counts: a systematic review. Frontiers in Marine Science 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00236

van Putten, I., K. G. Hamon, and C. Gardner. 2011. Network analysis of a rock lobster quota lease market. Fisheries Research 107(1–3):122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.10.015

West, S., L. J. Haider, S. Stålhammar, and S. Woroniecki. 2020. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosystems and People 16(1):304–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417

Wever, L., M. Glaser, P. Gorris, and D. Ferrol-Schulte. 2012. Decentralization and participation in integrated coastal management: policy lessons from Brazil and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 66:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.05.001

Young, O. R. 1992. The effectiveness of international institutions: hard cases and critical variables. Pages 160–194 in J. N. Rosenau and E.-O. Czempiel, editors. Governance without government: order and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521775.008