Abstract
The goal of this article is to analyze the effects of capitalist modernization on the fishing industry located in Brazil’s far south from a perspective of socioenvironmental oceanography. Socioenvironmental oceanography builds on the contributions of historical materialism that prioritizes the study of the material foundations that support the process of capitalist accumulation. Within this perspective, the object of analysis shifts to one that is centered around the production of (ethno)oceanographic spaces. We argue that the production of these spaces result in the creation of public policies, which are geared towards mobilizing material and non-material resources for an epistemic community. This community was promoted to being a center of calculation whose supposed goal was to find ways to improve the bioeconomic “sustainability” of fishery resources. This process destroys fishing resources, as well as traditional/artisanal fishing systems and territories. In addition, it sets the stage for material and non-material precedents based around the spatial planning of marine areas that goes back to the foundations of the blue economy.
Some authors see the oceans as the new economic and epistemological frontier. They also see them as fertile ground for the construction of global public policies. This is seen with the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1 in 1982 (Havice and Zalick, 2019). UNCLOS’s signatories recognized the sovereign rights inherent within a maritime space that borders either a nation-state’s coast, a territorial sea (12 nautical miles), or an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (200 nautical miles). Since then, debates surrounding models concerning development and global environmental governance in the oceans grew in importance (Silver et al., 2015; Ertor and Hadjimichael, 2020).
During the 1990s, participants in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio+20) included the oceans within their debates on the “green economy,” one of the main topics of the event. As a result, one notes the use of the expression “blue economy,” discussed in four perspectives concerning the “oceans.” These perspectives were centered around natural capital and based on the idea that the oceans are a key element in the economies of small, developing island states in the Pacific, and that the ocean forms the basis for the way of life of traditional fishing communities. The resultant complex diversity reflected the problems as well as the solutions that each actor viewed as a priority at the time. Actors included NGOs, the UN, developing countries on small islands in the Pacific Ocean, social movements, researchers, etc. (Silver et al., 2015).
The expansion of debates and intergovernmental land policies to include the oceans is not new. The idea of “territorial” sovereignty over the oceans was established after the consolidation of modern territorial, administrative, and colonial states. It took more than four and a half centuries (from the fifteenth/sixteenth to the twentieth) for the oceans to go from being considered a “force field,” where states could exercise their spheres of influence, to becoming an extension of national territory, where sovereignty was exercised as an extension of a state’s land possessions (Steinberg, 2001).
The discussions surrounding the sustainable use of natural resources in the oceans from a perspective of modern environmentalism was the result of a historical process where land policies were expanded to include the oceans and vice versa. This process also included discussions, trials, and experiments that began at the end of the nineteenth century and continue to the present day (Moura, 2017a). The term “blue economy” summarizes the result of this historical process.
During the 1950s, bioeconomic models were created to encourage the “rational development of the fishing,” as well as to conserve fishery resources through a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and a maximum economic yield (MEY) (Moura, 2017a). These models would form the basis for Hardin’s (1968) dilemma surrounding the use of natural resources under the common ownership by English shepherds during the Middle Ages. Hardin argues that these resources had to be privatized or nationalized to prevent their collapse. The influence of Hardin’s logic can be seen in the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea, which began to recognize territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (ZEEs) at the beginning of the 1980s. As a result, 25 million square miles of ocean territory fell under the sway of nation-states (McGoodwin, 1990).
The rational development of the fishing is part of a larger process known as the “capitalist modernization of the fishing” (Moura, 2017b). This process led to the collapse and unequal distribution of fishery resources, the proletarianization of fishing work, and the destruction of the ways of life and management techniques that were shared by traditional fishing communities across various parts of the world, such as Iceland, Japan, England, Mexico, the United States, and Brazil. In countries with dependent economies, this process allowed foreign companies to grab territory for themselves within a country’s coastline as well as pillage its fishery resources. It also led to the unequal distribution of fishery resources within and amongst these same countries (Diegues, 1983; McGoodwin, 1990; Pálsson, 1991).
In this article, we seek to analyze the process of capitalist modernization within the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) in Brazil’s far south from a perspective of socioenvironmental oceanography. To achieve this goal, we broadened the theory developed by Antonio C. Diegues (1983), which prioritizes the analysis of material bases of capitalist accumulation through financing policies towards fishing companies. We also shift the object of analysis towards the production of (ethno)oceanographic spaces that compose the material and non-material bases for the blue economy.
Theoretical Framework
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, paradigm shifts occurred within the production of oceanographic knowledge that stemmed from the results of studies and trials conducted within the halls of academia (Moura, 2017a), training programs (Andreoli and Mello, 2019), and case studies in different countries in the Americas, particularly in Latin America (Narchi et al., 2018). This new oceanography, known as socioenvironmental oceanography in Brazil and social oceanography (SO) in other countries of the Americas, emerged from a critical perspective of classic oceanography (CO) and is based on southern epistemologies and decoloniality. Stemming from a criticism of CO, SO identified its three main pillars: oceanocentrism, which created a form of biocentrism applied to the oceans; the tragedy of the oceans, which is application of the paradigm of the tragedy of the commons on the seas; and the monoculture of the seas, when CO was credited as, or believed to be, a privileged space for the production of knowledge about the seas (Moura, 2017a; 2019), as a result of its exclusivism or epistemological totalitarianism (Mignolo, 2004; Santos et al., 2005).
Based on the three pillars described above, classic oceanography has been a violent process of destroying coastal and marine territories produced by traditional peoples and communities through their knowledge, while imposing different territories built on other forms of knowledge, those of modernity with a colonial bias. According to this perspective, CO was defined as, “a way to produce a (multi)disciplinary epistemic space within [a larger effort to] conquer the seas” (Moura, 2017a: 36).
Furthermore, the way in which classic oceanography’s image changed over time stemmed from a decolonial shift (with epistemic, theoretical, and political dimensions) whereby this perspective engaged more with subordinate social groups that lived in coastal and marine regions. The main areas of engagement were the fight for socioenvironmental justice and the effort to create a new object of pesquisa-ação (action research) . This new object was (ethno)oceanographic epistemic spaces (Moura, 2019).
Epistemic spaces are modalities of territories (as knowledge) produced by operational logics underlying their respective modes of knowledge (traditional knowledge, modern science, governmental rationality, etc.). According to Santos et al. (2005), modes of knowledge are socially constructed and stem from socially organized practices and the mobilization of material and intellectual resources linked to specific context. In other words, they are all epistemologically situated.
Social/socioenvironmental oceanography constructed its framework to this object of research-action through two “turns”: the anthropological and the philosophical. In the first, SO investigated the production of coastal and marine territories by using the operational logics of traditional peoples and communities. The second involved the examination of the production of coastal and marine areas based on Western scientific rationality. Since our objective is to analyze the public policies that are linked to the maintenance of a modern system geared towards the management of fishery resources, what concerns us here in terms of a mode of knowledge is what Foucault (2008) calls “governmental rationality.”
Governmental rationality is an art of government that shares the same origins as modernity. However, it does not itself constitute a specific knowledge of governmental practices because, “the knowledge involved must be scientific in its procedures.” It is within this interconnected process regarding the governmentalization of the state and the establishment of governmentality that a type of unit is established that can be simultaneously considered as both science and power. Throughout governmentality’s history, different sciences (medicine, economics, etc.) underpinned government practices (Foucault, 2008: 471).
The mobilization of knowledge was overseen by “epistemic communities” for the purposes of formulating public policy. According to Haas (1992), an epistemic community is a group of local, national, or international professionals recognized for having a certain expertise within a particular domain of knowledge that is seen to have political importance. They share common beliefs, values, convictions, validity criteria, political engagement, results, and practices associated with problems relevant to their professional expertise.
In order to be authorized to produce knowledge about a given object to make it intelligible to government practice, an epistemic community must first be promoted to being “centers of calculation.” Latour (1986) argues that centers of calculation are spaces where power inscribes itself through grants that originate from a group of professionals with various skills. 2 An epistemic community promoted to a center of calculation would then produce and mobilize knowledge with the goal of generating government thought, thereby making government practice possible. In this way, governmental rationality is inscribed in space and territorialized.
This “intelligibility scheme” not only molds, regulates, and manages the behavior of “others” but also ensures that relevant components are incorporated within an epistemological framework (Inda, 2005; Foucault, 2008). When the modern mode of social regulation shapes the use of natural resources, it can be considered a “modern system of natural resource management” (MM). An MM “reflects a significant base of scientific knowledge about resources and ecosystems,” as well as social institutions, historical precedents, and beliefs the Western world has about nature. With this definition in mind, we see that a modern system of natural resource management refers to the regulation of human behavior in relation to the environment, rather than manipulating the environment per se (Lertzman, 2009).
Within this conceptual framework, it can be seen that: a) the MM is a modality of “conduct of conduct” of governmental rationality that, by territorializing itself, produces one of the possible (ethno)oceanographic epistemic space; and b) an MM, with a colonial bias, inserts itself within the relationship between knowledge and power to force social and cultural changes, revealing a fundamental issue concerning resource management point out by Hoppers (2002): colonialism’s mind-control strategy.
Analyzing the process of capitalist modernization within the fishing industry from a perspective of social/socioenvironmental oceanography requires us to understand it as a tool to produce (ethno)oceanographic spaces. For heuristic purposes, this analysis takes place in three stages: a) the mobilization of material and non-material resources (knowledge, truths, values, infrastructure, etc.) throughout the history of governmentalization of fisheries management in Rio Grande do Sul; b) the process of capitalist accumulation in Rio Grande do Sul’s fishing industry; c) discussing the data presented in the two previous stages.
It is in this way that Diegues’ (1983) historical materialist legacy, which stresses that one should analyze not only the process of capitalist modernization in the fishing industry but also the larger process of capitalist accumulation that envelops it, expands to allow us to historicize the production of an (ethno)oceanographic space as a material and non-material prerequisite to the foundation of the blue economy. It also allows us to situate it within the various phases that characterize Brazilian environmental policy (sensu Sanchéz, 2008).
The Governmentalization Of The Fishing Sector: One Face Of The Production Of A Modern System Of Fisheries Management In Rio Grande Do Sul
Starting in the 1940s, regional and federal governments began to intervene to provide the institutional foundations, 3 values, and knowledge necessary for the creation of an MM in Rio Grande do Sul. This MM would break with the traditional/artisanal fisheries resource management systems of fishery resources (TM) and increase the extraction of these same resources, especially in the fishing industry in Rio Grande do Sul’s far south. 4
The first official records regarding the fishing industry in Rio Grande do Sul’s far south were recorded in 1945 by the Department for Hunting and Fishing that was then a part of the Ministry of Agriculture. Data relating to how often products were unloaded was generated annually to investigate the feasibility of developing the industrial fishing sector along Rio Grande do Sul’s coastline. The data collected between 1945 and 1946 concerning the artisanal fishing sector in Lagoa dos Patos and the region as a whole were encouraging: a production average of 12,387 tons. In 1947, the coastal region began to be explored for the purposes of industrial fishing. In 1951, six industrial vessels from Scandinavia were hired to conduct an experimental deep-sea fishing expedition (Rio Grande do Sul State Legislative Assembly, 1975; Barcellos et al., 1991).
The potential for fishing in the region attracted the interest of the state government, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and fishing companies. All three were interested in increasing the number of fish caught in the region, as well as in modernizing the practices used in the region’s fishing sector. It was for this purpose that the Sociedade de Estudos Oceanográficos (Society for Oceanographic Studies or SEORG) was created in 1953. Its founders (Eliezer Carvalho Rios, Boaventura Barcelos, and the engineers Nicolas Vilhar, Cícero Vassão, and Geral Leite Serrano) had ties to fishing companies that provided material and financial support to their organization (Torres, 2011: 184).
Both the state and federal governments modified the existing local and physical infrastructure relating to the sale and storage of fish to facilitate the distribution and/or industrialization of fishing and fishing byproducts. This support manifested in the foundation of the Entreposto Federal da Pesca (Federal Fishing Depot) in the city of Rio Grande in 1953. They also helped build the infrastructure needed to conduct research. This is seen in the establishment of the Laboratório de Bromatologia e Tecnologia do Pescado do Entreposto Federal da Pesca de Rio Grande (Laboratory for Bromatology and Fishing Technology at the Federal Fishing Depot in Rio Grande) as well as through fishing vessels and materials that were acquired from the Departamento Estadual de Portos, Rios e Canais (State Department for Ports, Rivers, and Canals or DEPRC). Research studies were conducted on fishing products and byproducts from the city of Rio Grande (for example, a study by Eliezer Carvalho Rios titled, “Composição química do pescado de valor commercial do RS” or “The chemical composition of fish with commercial value in RS”) with the support of the Laboratory. Oceanographic studies commissioned by the SEORG on Rio Grande’s coastline were completed thanks to the help provided by the DEPRC (Torres, 2011).
The FAO financed two important projects as part of its global campaign to encourage the consumption of fish and fisheries development. These projects were the Plano Beaty (Beaty Plan) and the Plano Ripley (Ripley Plan). The goal of the Beaty Plan was to collect marine species considered ideal for fishing purposes. This collection was to be done in conjunction with research studies on fishing technology (that included Eliezer Rios as a collaborator). The Ripley Plan conducted biological research with the goal of increasing fishing production. The results were published as the “Carta da Pesca” (or “White Paper on Fishing”) in 1961. The information contained in this document (such as the movement of schools of fish, as well as where, when, and how much one should fish) would justify the exploitation of natural resources from a perspective of developmentalism (Torres, 2011). It would also serve to facilitate the state’s efforts to regulate fishing activities, particularly the artisanal fishing sector.
SEORG set the stage for the creation of the Museu Oceanográfico (Museum of Oceanography or MO) and GEEPEMAL (that would later become the Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão de Recursos Pesqueiros Lagunares e Estuarinos or the Center for the Research and Management of Fishery Resources in Lagoons and Estuaries, also known as CEPERG). The first Semana Oceanográfica (Oceanography Week) was organized in 1953 during the same time as the MO was being inaugurated. The theme of the event was geared towards solving “research problems” as well as encouraging fishing both within Rio Grande do Sul and throughout Brazil as a whole. In 1954, this event’s theme demonstrated an interest in achieving a higher level of technical knowledge with the goal of turning the fishing industry once again into a “large source of wealth” (Calazans et al., 2010; Torres, 2011).
The infrastructure, knowledge, and human resources that were provided by various actors worked in tandem with a favorable political context to allow fishing companies in Rio Grande do Sul to increase their catch until the middle of the 1960s. Despite this increase, the amount that came from the artisanal fishing sector was even higher. Between 1955 and 1961, the artisanal and industrial fishing sectors produced 20,243 tons and 4,272 tons respectively (Souza, 2001; Pasquotto, 2005; Torres, 2011). It was not until the period between 1962 to 1968 that production from the industrial fishing sector began to show patterns similar to those seen in the artisanal fishing sector. During this time, the industrial fishing sector operated primarily in Argentine and Uruguayan waters, using different fish resources from artisanal fishing, which did not cause major conflicts (Barcellos, 1966; Rio Grande do Sul State Legislative Assembly, 1975).
During the period between 1966–1973, events that occurred on both the national and international stage led to the permanent decline of TMs as well as to the consolidation of an MM within Rio Grande do Sul. In 1966, Argentina claimed sovereignty over a swath of ocean that covered 200 nautical miles. Uruguay did the same in 1969 when it put in place restrictive measures that allowed the Uruguayan government to confiscate foreign vessels. Fishing was only allowed for those who paid Uruguayan taxes and acquired licenses from the government (Pasquotto, 2005). In 1970, Brazil also declared its sovereignty over a swath of 200 nautical miles. 5 Although an agreement was signed between Brazil and Uruguay in 1978 that allowed fishers from both countries to use the same fishery resources (Silva, 1990), it became ineffective within the span of a few years since many Brazilian ships found it impractical to fish in Uruguayan waters (Pasquotto, 2005).
It is in this way that underlying conflicts soon erupted between the artisanal and industrial fishing sectors as both were using the same natural resources: From this point on, even though it was limited in its area of operations, the industrial fishing sector was supported by large investments from the public sector, diversified its fishing gear, and performed a significantly larger degree of fishing (especially in Barra do Rio Grande) with species of fish of interest to artisanal fishers (. . .), those of which entered the Lagoa dos Patos in order to grow and/or reproduce. This highlights a previously latent conflict between the artisanal and industrial fishing sectors through their use of the same natural resource base (Pasquotto, 2005: 56-57).
With regards to Brazilian political climate at the time, the civil-military dictatorship established with the 1964 military coup issued Decreto-Lei 221 (Decree-Law #221) in 1967. This decree-law was an attempt by the dictatorship to turn the fishing sector into an industry with a large national base in accordance with the regime’s modernizing ideology. In line with the development model adopted by the regime, along with the “need” to modernize the fishing sector (with particular emphasis on the use of scientific knowledge as a tool for progress), the Ministry of Agriculture (1968: 3-6) issued the following statement:
6
The lack of scientific knowledge from individuals dedicated to fishing, both as a trade and as a pastime, leads this sector to be subject to traditions and superstitions with respect to fish behavior. (. . .) Other than being an economic problem, fishing is also [a] social [one]. [Once] structured and rationalized, [it should be] incorporated into the national reasonable human potential. Expanded and, with strong technical support, modernized, it would partly affect the national economy.
Taken within the context of the civil-military dictatorship’s need to “rationalize” 7 the fishing industry by giving it an industrial base, SEORG was fundamental in modernizing this sector in Rio Grande do Sul. This was because, at the time, the organization was already recognized in Brazil and internationally for its production of technical and scientific knowledge regarding the fishing industry.
Despite its rising strategic importance within the fishing industry, SEORG was plagued by a lack of financial resources that lasted throughout the 1960s. This negatively affected the organization’s ability to conduct its research into Brazil’s fishing sector. The financial support that it received from fishing companies was not enough. In addition, when SEORG turned to public officials in the state and federal governments for help, they received only empty promises. After November 21, 1969, SEORG was run by the Fundação Cidade do Rio Grande (City of Rio Grande Foundation). This foundation also ran the Universidade do Rio Grande (University of Rio Grande or URG) that was created on August 20, 1969 (Torres, 2011).
From a bureaucratic and administrative point of view, SEORG’s incorporation into the City of Rio Grande Foundation created the institutional conditions for the organization to obtain the promised financial support from public officials regarding its infrastructure and research projects. 8 Graduate programs were also a product of this process that enabled the training and education of qualified professionals. On August 27, 1970, a program in biological sciences was created. This coincided with the emergence of a graduate program in oceanography, the first in Brazil’s history. The first class was titled Novos Mundos da Oceanografia (New Worlds of Oceanography) and was held on March 1, 1971. It was taught by the oceanography program’s first coordinator, Professor Eliezer Rios from SEORG (Calazans et al., 2010; Torres, 2011).
The education of these professionals was carried out in accordance with common principles that were agreed upon by the administrators within these institutions. According to Torres (2011), the City of Rio Grande Foundation sought to promote studies, research, and the training of technical and specialized human resources for the purposes of advancing the city’s industrial development. The URG (run by the foundation) had a philosophy and politics that were centered around the “University/Industry” relationship. It was also based on a positivist tradition vis-à-vis the education of technical professionals (Carbelon, 1999). The university maintained this philosophical and political perspective from its foundation up until the 1980s. As a result, professionals that had ties to SEORG believed that the knowledge students gained in institutions of higher learning should have a practical, pragmatic effect, and should be geared towards professional development, a quality that was demanded by the fishing industry at the time (Calazans et al., 2010).
Activities regarding the use of natural resources followed the same rules and behavior that were established by bioeconomic models such as the MSY and the MEY. In the aforementioned “White Paper on Fishing” that helped the fishing industry increase its production as well as obtain grants, Barcellos confesses that he is “concerned about the rationalization with regards to the exploitation of [fish] stocks [and whether this practice] ‘might compromise future fishing harvests.’” This is a clear reference to the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY). In a study titled “Classificação econômica dos peixes do RS” (“The economic classification of fish in Rio Grande do Sul”), published in 1962, Barcellos tries to hierarchize fishery resources based on an outstanding relationship between fishing effort and the “economic situation” in which these resources are situated (Torres, 2011: 187). It is here that he defines the concept of Maximum Economic Yield (MEY).
The first regulations concerning fishing in Rio Grande do Sul’s far south were influenced by SEORG’s members. This is seen in Portaria n° 406 (Ordinance #406) issued by the Superintendência do Desenvolvimento da Pesca (Agency for Fishing Development or SUDEPE) on September 5, 1969.
9
Given the need to regulate the fishing of “mullet” and “croaker” near the beaches of Coroa do Cemitério, Bico dos Pescadores, Praia do Barro, [and] Chatelein in the municipality of São José do Norte on the 4th Seção Velha Pier, and Costa do Oeste in the municipality of Rio Grande, all [of these beaches being located] within the Rio Grande canal in the state of Rio Grande do Sul; Given that this regulation intends to avoid misunderstandings between fishers that were already fishing in the aforementioned areas and others that fish [there] temporarily for the mullet and croaker runs.
The mention of popular names for fisheries (“mullet run” – Mugil liza – and “croaker run” – Micropogonias furnieri) and locations in São José do Norte (“Coroa do Cemitério,” “Chatelein,” etc.) and Rio Grande (“4th Seção Velha Pier,” “Costa do Oeste,” etc.) suggests that this piece of legislation was based on knowledge that was produced by researchers from this locality.
Article 1 of Portaria n° 001 (Ordinance #001), issued on January 2, 1973, by SUDEPE shows a correlation between GEEPEMAL and signed legislation: “Allowing for shrimp fishing in the southern part of Lagoa dos Patos from December until April as long as the minimum size is 90 mm, measured from the end of the rostrum to the tip of the telson, according to the system of measurement currently in use by GEEPEMAL.” The legislation mentions a “system of measurement” that GEEPEMAL had in its possession at the time. It further states that this must be used in overseeing the sale and unloading of pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus paulensis) within the zones prescribed in the legislation. The purpose was to, “regulate the sale of shrimp and allow for a necessary [degree of] biostatistical oversight in studies [focusing on] the evaluation and conservation of stocks.” Apparently, the studies sponsored by GEEPEMAL, which was an offshoot of SEORG, supported SUDEPE’s policies that sought to preserve the fish stocks.
SEORG’s influence on public policy can also be seen in the legislation that was passed between 1968–1973. The legislation focused on two problems inherent in policies centered around the modern management of fishery resource, which became of great interest to the scientific community and many countries starting in the 1950s. These problems concerned the conservation and distribution of fishery resources. Portaria n° 138 (Ordinance #138) issued on March 12, 1968, refers to a ban on the “use of nets of any kind in all the tributaries [of] Lagoa Mirim, the Jaguarão, and São Gonçalo rivers,” which gave aquatic resources to owners of large rice plantations in the region (Garcia, 1998; Appendix 1 in Pieve et al., 2009). Ordinances #406, #407, and #408 (all issued on November 11, 1969) sought to regulate the order in which mullet and croaker were released into the estuary of Lagoa dos Patos, sectorize fishing areas along the coast of Rio Grande do Sul according to vessel size, and set limits on the number of nets and fishing spots (“andainas”) that could be used on vessels operating in the estuary of Lagoa dos Patos. The goal of each of these ordinances was to oversee the distribution of fishery resources. Ordinance #468 was issued on August 6, 1970, to establish a minimum catch size for fish as a conservation measure. Ordinance #001 was issued on January 2, 1973, to put in place the first official fishing calendar for the estuary of Lagoa dos Patos to protect and distribute fishery resources in the area.
Public officials opted for a top-down way of fishery resources management in areas where artisanal fishing operations were taking place. This modality of management was accompanied by a growing number of regulations. The priority to regulate the artisanal fishing sector but not its industrial counterpart can be seen in numbers. Between 1968–1973, the six aforementioned regulations were imposed to regulate Rio Grande do Sul’s fishing. Five of them targeted the artisanal fishing communities in the estuary of Lagoa dos Patos. Only one of them targeted both the artisanal and industrial fishing sectors on Rio Grande do Sul’s coastline. It must be said, however, that official regulations of fishery activities in Rio Grande do Sul did not exist until 1968.
After SEORG’s incorporation into the URG, the role of producing oceanographic knowledges gradually became more and more concentrated within a university setting. By the 1980s, the URG emerged as a center of excellence. When the university was federalized in 1987, the URG adopted a new philosophy and political ideology that allowed it to change its institutional mission. This mission went from being focused on a university/industry relationship to one that centered around a “coastal ecosystem” (Carbelon, 1999). 10 The URG’s new institutional mission did not represent a paradigm shift per se, but rather the city of Rio Grande’s decline as an industrial center (especially with regards to the fishing industry). It also revealed how dominant researchers specializing in the field of oceanography became within the university’s power structure.
As far as the field of oceanography was concerned, studies on fishery resources, surveys of new fishing areas, fishing technology, and “fishing in general” were produced by researchers within the exact and biological sciences at the now Universidade Federal de Rio Grande (Federal University of Rio Grande, FURG). They were then used by SUDEPE to craft legislation with relation to the fishing industry (Orlando et al., 1988). After SUDEPE was dissolved, this trend continued under the Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, IBAMA). Researchers from FURG and professionals from SUDEPE/IBAMA were members of the Grupo Permanente de Estudos dos Camarões das Regiões Sudeste e Sul do Brasil (Permanent Study Group on Regional Shrimp in Brazil’s South and Southeast), created in 1974. This organization authored various publications geared towards supporting legislation related to the fishing industry (Valentini et al., 1991; D’incao et al., 2002). Professionals who were educated at or had ties to FURG played a key role in drafting new legislation at the end of the 1990s. This legislation sought to reverse the collapse of fishery resources in Rio Grande do Sul (Moura, 2017b).
The Process Of Capitalist Accumulation: Another Face To The Production Of A Modern System Of Fisheries Management
According to Diegues (1983), other than encouraging the production of technical-scientific knowledge, another public policy measure was considered crucial for the establishment of an MM in Rio Grande do Sul: direct state intervention in the process of capitalist accumulation. This was done when SUDEPE issued Decreto-Lei n° 221/67 (Decree-Law #221/67) that was designed to provide financial incentives to industrial fishing.
In December 1978, the artisanal fishing sector accounted for less than 12% of the total capital that was recorded for Brazil’s commercial fishing industry (Diegues, 1983; Souza, 2001). New forms of processing, conservation, and transportation of fish in Rio Grande do Sul were based on these financial incentives. Besides white sea catfish and drummer, other fish species began to be targeted by processing plants. These species included mullet, croaker, anchovies, shrimp, flounder, wolf fish, and silver catfish. Many family businesses that specialized in canning fish disappeared between the years 1960–1980 (especially during the 1970s). Fish species, such as biru (Cyphocarax voga) and menhaden (Brevoortia pectinate) also lost their market share during this time (Souza, 2001; Pasquotto, 2005).
Brazil’s southern regions received the second largest volume of fiscal resources between the years 1967–1986 (approximately 24,51 percent), which included the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Some companies that existed at the time decided to modernize, others established themselves in the region, while others created fleets that were specifically designed for deep-sea fishing. As a result, a new social category was created to describe the workers on these fleets: “onboard fisher.” At the same time, the companies increased their volume of fishing production and created new jobs within the industry (Diegues, 1983; Souza, 2001; Pasquotto, 2005).
From 1969 onward, the volume of industrial fishing production surpassed that of the artisanal fishing sector. This was part of a trend that arose between 1960–1974 and went into decline after 1975. This trend was a direct result of the fiscal incentives and rural credits that helped offset the cost of fishing, especially with regards to the capture, canning, and processing of fish. The year 1973 marked the peak of this industrial production (67,000 tons). After 1973, the volume of industrial fishing production experienced setbacks until 1997 (28,000 tons) (Figure 1). Fiscal incentives were decisive in delivering fishery resources into the hands of fishing companies.
Artisanal Production, Industrial Production, Total Production, and Fishing Imports in Rio Grande do Sul (in Tons) During the Years 1960-1997.
In 1976, 30 fishing companies were registered as operating in the estuary of Lagoa dos Patos (Sousa, 2003). Twenty-three of these companies were in the city of Rio Grande alone. The industrial fleet on Rio Grande do Sul’s coastline grew from 25 ships in 1961 (Souza, 2001) to 240 in 1986 (SUDEPE, 1988). The goal of the decree-law was to address the disparity in the way resources were distributed between the industrial and artisanal fishing sectors that resulted from the creation of new fishing jobs. The decree-law sought to solve this problem by assigning the artisanal fishing sector the role of being a source of cheap labor for the fleets owned by fishing companies (Diegues, 1983).
Starting in 1973, the growth in the size of catches only served to accelerate the rate of overfishing. From a fish exporting state to other Brazilian states and foreign countries, fishing companies in Rio Grande do Sul began importing fish in 1980 in order to meet their processing capacity (Figure 1). Despite introducing imports, the fish processing capacity within these companies reached 40 percent in 1980, resulting in a decline in employment and salaries (SUDEPE, 1988).
There was another rise in fishing production in Rio Grande do Sul between the years 1983–1987. This trend differed from the previous one due to the concentration of rural credits, the rise in the market value of fish (Souza, 2001), and the onset of greater catch diversification. During this time, fish species that were previously not harvested for commercial use began to be caught by fishing companies. These species included shrimp, flounder, and shark. The expansion came to the detriment of other species already suffering from the effects of overfishing as early as the 1980s. These species included croaker, Argentine croaker (Umbrina canosai), king weakfish (Macrodan ancylodon), striped weakfish (Cynoscion striatus), and red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) (Barcellos et al., 1991). 11 Between the years 1985–1986, the volume of fish that was attributed to these fishing companies was approximately 45,000 tons. However, this trend began to stabilize following a drop in the level of industrial production that occurred in 1988. During the 1990s, various factors were responsible for the low volume of catches within fishing companies. These factors include the overfishing of local species, opening trade to fish imports, and the end of the fiscal incentives and rural credits that helped offset costs during the second half of the 1980s (Souza, 2001). The crisis unfolded within the “outlines of abandoned industrial plants” (Martins, 1997: 199). Of the 30 companies that benefited from the fiscal incentives and rural credits provided by public officials in 1980s, only 9 remained by 1996. Of these, 8 of them were located in the city of Rio Grande (Souza, 2001). Of the 17,000 employees that worked for these companies in the 1980s, only 2,000 remained employed by 1996 (Martins, 1997). The decline in the number of companies combined with the concentration in marketing channels set the stage for the arrival of “intermediaries” (Sousa, 2003).
In addition to the predatory effects fishing companies had on the region’s fish stocks, capitalist modernization was another phenomenon that had a negative effect on Rio Grande do Sul’s TM. This process incorporated materials (such as sonar, motors, nylon nets, etc.) that increased the size of catches and reduced the degree of “artesanality” of the traditional fish communities. However, it also created unforeseen costs and risks, including forcing many fishers to expend more effort fishing in order to meet higher costs and demand, as well as preventing them from dedicating more time towards the processing and selling of fish (fields that became increasingly dominated by fishing companies and intermediaries). As a result, the social reproduction of artisanal fishing practices suddenly found itself heavily dependent on the market (Pasquotto, 2005).
The modernization process within fishing production went hand in hand with the increase in the rate of “outsourcing” of decision making and stages of production. The evolution of production within the artisanal fishing sector in Rio Grande do Sul reveals a growth trend that was a response to the introduction of modern devices starting as early as 1972. This is seen in Figure 1, where the catch that was attributed to this sector surpassed 40,000 tons. From then, artisanal fishers had to increase the number of nets and decrease the mesh size to obtain the desired catch volume, indicating overfishing. The increase in hours devoted to fishing was due to the fall in the price of fish and the rise in the price of essential items, especially diesel fuel (Souza, 2001; Pasquotto, 2005).
Various factors, relating to the rise in the number of nets, the decline in mesh size, longer workdays, the greater number of fishing hours, travelling longer distances, new ways of finding schools of fish (such as sonar), unequal sharing systems, and the erosion in the degree of ethical behavior and respect shown amongst fishers, all point towards a TM in disarray (Pasquotto, 2005; Adomilli, 2007).
Between 1996–97, industrial parks practically disappeared in the region and the amount of fish unloaded from the artisanal fishing sector reached close to 15,000 tons, the same level recorded in the 1960s (Figure 1). The decline in industrial fishing was more pronounced than that of artisanal fishing. In fact, since 1974, most of the drop in total catch volume originated from the industrial fishing sector (Souza, 2001).
Two Sides Of The Same Coin: Conclusions Regarding The Collapse Of Fishery Resources In Rio Grande Do Sul
During the 1940s, public officials, professionals, and researchers began to construct an MM in Rio Grande do Sul. This MM was based on projects that were promoted by both the private and public sectors. These projects built the infrastructure, provided the financing, and produced the knowledge necessary to modernize the region’s fishing industry. In addition, they received financial support from intergovernmental agencies and owed their existence to professionals who were recognized for their experience within a specific domain of scientific knowledge, especially in areas regarded as politically important, such as the industrial fishing sector. These professionals exercised their influence within emerging and existing institutions at the time that they were responsible for formulating policies on a local, national, and international level. According to Haas’ (1992) definition, this group of professionals formed part of an epistemic community organized around a scientific organization (SEORG).
This epistemic community would establish the guidelines for the process of governmentalization mentioned by Inda (2005) regarding Rio Grande do Sul’s fishing sector. These guidelines related to government objectives, creating a framework for generating knowledge, building local institutions, and gathering experts that would receive authorization to produce “truths” on a given object. 12
This “object” became manageable for a “unique place” where power was inscribed, called centers of calculation (Latour, 1986). The object in this instance is an MM that served as a modality of (ethno)oceanographic space. During the governmentalization process of Rio Grande do Sul’s fishing sector, the epistemic community that organized within SEORG was elevated to being centers of calculation within the production of this MM.
By being elevated to a center of calculation, this epistemic community institutionalized and adapted itself not only within fishing companies but also within the modern state’s bureaucratic administrative apparatus. It, in turn, influenced these political and economic institutions as a space dedicated to the production of oceanographic knowledge based on a positivist/reductionist logic. According to Grinde and Johansen (1995), the bureaucratic administrative apparatus of the modern state is tied to the institutionalization of Western scientific rationality and creates what is called the “departmentalization of society.”
With this departmentalization, the epistemic community within SEORG became linked to public and private institutions that were responsible for formulating policies for the management of fishery resources in Rio Grande do Sul and the training of human resources to work in these institutions. This process established a power circuit that was of a modern colonial character. In a TM, decision-making power with regards to fishing is shared amongst artisanal fishing communities according to their own traditions. By contrast, the creation of an MM involves a shift as well as a concentration of power that occurs in certain spaces within a departmentalized society. Such a process produces power asymmetries, as is the case with other countries (McGoodwin, 1990; Pálsson, 1991).
The bureaucratic administrative apparatus of the modern state and private institutions changed throughout the course of the five decades analyzed in this essay: the foundation of the Museum of Oceanography and GEEEMAL; the latter’s transformation into CEPERG; URG’s transformation into FURG; and the rise, expansion, and fall of fishing companies. The epistemic community also changed, having been incorporated into the City of Rio Grande Foundation, which ran the URG; it also expanded (with the training of more professionals, for example) and its members changed (new people took over positions, for example). This process of departmentalization of the fishing sector transformed the power circuit, and in the cases studied, it expanded into a continuous production of MM.
Decree-law 221/1967 specified the civil-military dictatorship’s political economic goals for Brazil’s fishing sector. They included increasing production within fishing companies and transforming these same enterprises into a national base industry. During this time, the epistemic community’s goal was the same as that of the dictatorship: the industrial development of the fishing industry in the city of Rio Grande. Thanks to the institutional and financial support that it enjoyed with fishing companies, the epistemic community would pursue these common goals through the use of bioeconomic models, the same ones put forward by Gordon-Schaefer (MSY and MEY).
Within an MSY, there would have been a degree of balance between the maximum biological productivity of fish stocks, the maximum catch yield, and the mortality rate. Supposedly, this balance would solve the problem with regards to the conservation of fishery resources (McGoodwin, 1990). To incorporate the biological productivity of fishery resources, along with the various levels of fishing effort inherent in market dynamics within a broader framework, an economic theory was developed by H.S Gordon (1953; 1954). This theory is summarized in four stages:
1) Fishers in an area of open access have a higher catch rate as well as make more profit.
2) Other fishers go to the same location and compete with each other using different techniques in order to increase their catch.
3) This, in turn, leads to overfishing, greater competition, and an increase in the amount of effort needed to maintain the same catch level.
4) The situation ends with the collapse of fishing in that area where catch rates do not generate more profit but, instead, increase the amount of effort needed to fish there.
The four stages described above reveal a paradigm trend that is epitomized by the scenario known as the tragedy of the commons, in which individuals with access to a public resource act in their own interesst and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource. By referring to a scenario where medieval English shepherds produced a dilemma vis-à-vis the use of natural resources as common property, Hardin (1968: 1244) concludes that “freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.” He proposes a solution that would supposedly solve the problem relating to the distribution of natural resources: the privatization and/or nationalization of these same resources. The Hardin’s paradigm extended towards the oceans is called tragedy of the oceans and it forms one of the pillars that supports classical oceanography (Moura, 2017a; 2019).
One of the effects of the tragedy of the oceans was the emergence of territorial seas and ZEEs after the collapse of fish stocks and fishery resources in the North Atlantic from the 1950s to the 1970s. Within territorial seas and ZEEs, nation-states became the owners and administrators of fishery resources located within their territorial waters (McGoodwin, 1990). Countries in the Southern Cone (such as Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil) pursued similar policies during the 1960s and 1970s. These policies had a direct impact on the MM’s fishing production in Rio Grande do Sul. This can be seen in the decision by government agencies to concentrate their resources on fishing companies and allow them to fish within territories previously reserved for artisanal fishing communities.
According to Hardin (1968), the privatization and/or nationalization of natural resources can prevent the tragedy of the commons. He argues that those that are more biologically suitable to the area would have the legal right to hold power as well as become the guardians of the property. In this way, Hardin’s idea of resource distribution is supported by theories that are founded on heredity and evolution and based on a form of social Darwinism. This model also represents a modality of eugenic theory within the field of modern environmentalism (Moura, 2017a).
Hardin’s paradigm operates by producing a stereotypical representation of human beings and correlating areas of common property with areas where the use of resources is determined by a capitalist logic that suppresses artisanal knowledge and rules concerning the use of these same resources (McGoodwin, 1990; Moura, 2017a; 2017b). The following labels were applied to artisanal fishers according to a statement issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and in local legislation: “unintelligent,” “superstitious,” and having “a lack of knowledge.” According to Diegues (1983), this type of derogatory labelling is typical of the belief system that was institutionalized during the 1960s in Brazil where artisanal fishers were considered “ignorant, backward, and unproductive” and “do not know how to work with modern techniques.” By contrast, Western scientific rationality was seen to be a superior mode of knowledge or, rather, the only mode that existed to prevent the fishing activity from becoming a “social and economic problem.” This supposed superiority or exclusivity relating to scientific knowledge is what Mignolo (2004) and Santos et al. (2005) call the “epistemic totalitarianism” or “epistemological exclusivism.” These myths produce the non-existence of other modes of knowledge by labelling them as “superstitions” and traditions to make way for a rationality that is imposed on the oceans: oceanographic scientific knowledge. They also operate within the construction of a monoculture of the seas that composes another pillar of classical oceanography (Moura, 2017a; 2019).
Due to their status as being inferior and a “social and economic problem,” many professionals and government officials sought to control artisanal fishing through the use of regulations imposed by the Brazilian government. These regulations forced artisanal fishers to modify their behavior within the production of an MM of a disciplinary nature. By contrast, a process of deregulation took place in the industrial fishing sector that was typical of economic liberalism. The different treatment the industrial and artisanal fishing sectors experienced at the hands of government officials can be seen in fishing regulations, tax breaks, and lines of credit that were established between 1968–1973. These policies led to fishing companies receiving a massive transfer of capital, technology, infrastructure, natural resources, and cheap labor that was not only similar to what was seen in other parts of Brazil, but also elsewhere in the world (Diegues, 1983; McGoodwin, 1990; Pálsson, 1991).
The double standard of the policies of the modern colonial state that separates “savage zones” (areas where artisanal fishers operate, especially in the estuary of Lagoa dos Patos) from “civilized zones” (areas where fishing companies operate, such as the territorial seas and the ZEE) is considered by experts, such as Santos (2010), as a form of “social fascism” or “social apartheid.” Giving eugenic base to this social fascism in the modern environmental politics centered in the preservacionism and in the allocation of fishing resources in favor of a social group, it supports the emergence of a specific type of fascism/social apartheid that can be referred to as ecofascism (Comas-d’Argemir, 2018; Zimmerman, 1995). This ecofascism grew within the production of Rio Grande do Sul’s MM geared towards the conservation and use of natural resources in favor of a determined social group, namely that of industrial fishing.
The Hardinian solution for resource distribution is the same as the preservationist approach to protecting nature, especially those trained in deep ecology. Diegues (2001) shows us how this perspective leads to the destruction of territories, as well as to the theft of natural resources from traditional peoples and communities in favor of urban or industrial sectors of the population. After the application of this wilderness ethic within land borders, it was extended in the United States between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, spaces previously considered unknown. These oceans were deemed spaces to be conquered and dominated through modern science. Scientists and officials saw oceans as being rich in natural resources that could be used for human consumption, U.S. industry, and recreation. This process of domesticating the oceans is known as oceancentrism (Kroll, 2008) and occurred at the same time as the development and use of fisheries science within the field of biological oceanography (Moura, 2017a). The aforementioned epistemic community took part in this process of oceancentrism, which manifested in the production of Rio Grande do Sul’s MM. This production involved the awarding of research grants to fishing companies, crafting legislation that took away resources from artisanal communities and gave them to large corporations. This effort also resulted in the founding a museum of oceanography dedicated towards preserving Brazil’s biological marine heritage, and the establishment of the first program for oceanography to train human resources for the emerging fishing industry and to explore the unexplored maritime frontier.
Based on the three pillars that compose classical oceanography, an MM is characterized by two phases of Brazilian environmental policy mentioned by Sánchez (2008): resource management (starting in the 1930s) and territorial planning (starting in the 1960s). Both phases were centered on sectoral policies that sought to regulate access to natural resources, concentrate their economic use within a framework based on Western scientific rationality and controlled by the Brazilian government, and ensure the “untouchability” of areas considered strategic by researchers and public officials. The second phase involved the creation of ecological economic zoning, territorial seas and ZEEs. The dominance of an environmentalism centered on preservation is plain to see not only within these categories, but also within a larger process of the implementation of the Brazilian state’s environmental policies. The production of Rio Grande do Sul’s MM serves as an example of this phenomenon.
The production of knowledge and public policies geared towards sustainability in the use of coastal and marine resources occurred in Rio Grande do Sul before the onset of debates surrounding the blue economy in the 1990s, as was pointed out by Silver et al. (2015). After analyzing the history of how this (ethno)oceanographic space with modern colonial characteristics was created, we have come to the following conclusions regarding the design/redesign of this space within the execution of a blue economy.
First, extending discussions, tools, and public policies based on ideas of “sustainability” towards the oceans led to the collapse of fishery resources and the destruction of traditional territories owned by artisanal fishing communities. This can be seen in the use of an MSY and an MSE to produce the (ethno)oceanographic space in question. This serves as a classic example of the phenomenon mentioned by Leff (2001), in which the current environmental crisis represents a problem that lies at the heart of the very same models of development and knowledge that currently exploit it.
Second, basing a blue economy on the principles of sustainable development does not necessarily signify a break with the same pillars that currently make up the space’s structure. In Moura (2017c), we see that the current phase in Brazilian environmental policy, which began with the Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente (National Environmental Policy or PNMA) and was extended to the oceans through the Política Nacional para os Recursos do Mar (National Policy for Marine Resources or PNRM), failed to extricate itself from the very pillars that serve as the foundations of classical oceanography. In fact, the opposite occurred. The system put in place by government agencies within the three levels of the Brazilian federal government, created as an essential part of the PNMA and the PNRM to implement the Plano Nacional de Gerenciamento Costeiro (National Plan for Coastal Management or PNGC), generated the conditions to produce, gather, and incorporate the information necessary to expand the production of the (ethno)oceanographic space in question.
Lastly, we should consider whether and how marine spatial planning based on the “blue economy” could create a paradigm break with the structuring of (ethno)oceanographic space with a modern colonial bias.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Two previous versions of this article were published in Portuguese. The first was titled “As faces da modernização capitalista da pesca no extremo sul do Brasil: uma história da governamentalidade” (“The effects of capitalist modernization on the fishing industry in Brazil’s far south: A governmental history”) in Conhecimento interdisciplinar, governança ambiental e sociedade (Interdisciplinary Knowledge, Environmental Governance, and Society) edited by Dr. Pedro Roberto Jacobi. The second version appeared as part of a book that was edited by Gustavo Moura titled Guerra nos mares do sul: o papel da oceanografia na destruição dos territórios tradicionais de pesca (War in the Southern Seas: The Role of Oceanography in the Destruction of Traditional Fishing Territories).
Notes
Gustavo Goulart Moreira Moura is a Full Professor at the Department of Oceanography at the Universidade Federal do Pará (Federal University of Para) and Permanent Professor of both postgraduate programs: in Amazonian Family Agriculture and in Oceanography. Antonio Carlos Sant’Ana Diegues is the Scientific Director of the Núcleo de Apoio à Pesquisa sobre Populações Humanas Brasileiras (Research Support Center for the Study of Human Populations in Brazil) and Professor of the Environmental Sciences, both at the Universidade de São Paulo (University of Sao Paulo). Nick Ortiz is a writer, researcher, linguist and translator with over a decade of experience relating to Latin American history and politics.