Change in Governance Modes in Marine Protected Areas that Overlap with Fishing Territories: A Study of Cuba and Brazil

Abstract

This article discusses governance in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), particularly the possibility of formulating arrangements capable of confronting the effects of the ocean grabbing process in fishing territories. Through the articulation of experiences in MPAs in Cuba and Brazil and the content analysis of technical-scientific documents produced on the daily governance of these areas, legal frameworks in both countries, and peer-reviewed articles, this study identifies vectors of change in established modes of governance. The identified vectors are potential verifiers of equity and socio-environmental justice criteria in governance processes that can encourage recognition of traditional fisher’s rights to deliberation on access and use of resources in these areas. On the other hand, the conclusions drawn also reveal the limits of these arrangements when considering the ambiguity of the legal regimes that outline the creation and implementation of MPAs.

Keywords

Marine Protected Areas Modes of governance Brazil-Cuba Small-scale fishing

Marine-coastal territories are inserted in a complex context of socio-ecological changes associated with economic activities such as ports, mass tourism, mineral exploitation, and industrial-scale fishing. Their negative effects, which overlap with the effects of climate change (Faraco et al., 2016), such as the loss and increasing alteration of habitats, the overexploitation of fishing stocks, water pollution, real estate speculation, disorderly urban growth, and the suppression of traditional fishing territories, affect the biodiversity and quality of life of those who occupy these territories in a heterogeneous way, accentuating the socio-environmental vulnerability of traditional peoples and communities (Azevedo and Pierri, 2014), particularly small-scale and artisanal fishers (Araujo et al., 2017; Farvar et al., 2018; Frawley, Finkbeiner and Crowder, 2019; Prado et al., 2020).

This panorama prompts actions, discourses, and planning strategies for the use of coastal space worldwide, in which the conservation of marine-coastal ecosystems usually does not require safeguarding traditional communities and their livelihood and ways of life (Fairbanks et al., 2019; Mascia et al., 2017; Moura, 2017). Examples of strategies include coastal zone management policies and the creation of protected areas such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

MPAs are geographic spaces intended for the conservation of biodiversity, habitats, marine ecosystems, ecosystem services, and associated cultural values. They have resulted, for the most part, from international conservation models and goals such as those established by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature - IUCN (Batista, Suárez, and Botero, 2017; Cabrera et al., 2020; Campbell and Grey, 2019). In these areas, it falls on the state to regulate and manage use and occupation through legal mechanisms or combined management structures. Although they also intend to preserve the cultural values associated with traditional practices compatible with conservation, when superimposed on socially constructed and dynamic fishing territories (Cunha, 2009; Souza, 2018), MPAs become the stage for conflicts between artisanal fishers and public powers. This occurs either through the appropriation of traditional territories and common use resources (Bavinck et al., 2017; Foppa et al., 2018; Fundora García, 2017) or because artisanal fishers are marginalized in MPA planning and management processes (Farvar et al., 2018), constituting problems for established governance processes.

Coastal governance is a broad term that combines government structures, processes, rules, and norms that shape decision-making, power sharing, and allocation of responsibilities in the use and management of the marine environment (Song, Johnsen, and Morrison, 2018). When the focus is on MPAs in which small-scale fishing takes place, centralized state governance is observed, disregarding important sociocultural dimensions established internationally, such as the Voluntary Guidelines for Artisanal Fishing (Blythe et al., 2021; Song and Soliman, 2019).¹ However, to achieve the MPAs’ underlying objective of ensuring the socio-ecological reproduction of small-scale fishers and the protection of associated ways of life (Bavinck et al., 2017; Bennett, Govan, and Satterfield, 2015), it is necessary to consider the pre-existing rights that govern the access and use of coastal resources (Mascia et al., 2017). One of the main challenges is to ensure that these pre-existing rights and those already recognized by the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) are not undermined by a purely economic or overly conservationist bias (Blythe et al., 2021).

The implementation of innovations in governance systems is thus a challenge to the current power structure and institutional order (Berkes et al., 2006). It is important to analyze these processes in MPAs, as they lead to possible interpretations that these areas may constitute “ocean grabbing,” and inclusive and fair governance could help minimize the related effects. According to Bennet et al. (2015: 62), ocean grabbing refers to acts of “. . . dispossession or appropriation of use, control or access to ocean space or resources from previous resource users, rights holders or inhabitants.” For these authors, ocean grabbing occurs when the rights and lives of coastal peoples are not considered and when inadequate governance processes aggravate this context, compromising livelihoods and producing impacts that harm socio-ecological systems.

Facing the issue of governance in MPAs from this perspective involves critically addressing the complex challenge of looking at ecosystem conservation and issues related to maintaining the ways of life of communities that make a living from small-scale fishing, food security in these communities, and the socio-ecological reproduction of these areas (Bennet et al., 2021; Ebel, 2020). This includes questioning the persistence of natural science paradigms; of divergent principles, values, worldviews, and images related to governance processes; institutional deficiencies; failures to recognize and respect local and customary forms of governance; and the lack of attention to scale in governance relationships (Mansfield, 2001; Peters, 2020; Sowman, 2015).

In this article, the interactive governance approach (Kooiman et al., 2008) will be used as a technical-analytical bias in order to expand the discussion of changes in governance systems. Interactive governance is a common approach in discussions of MPAs that overlap with small scale fisheries. This approach has been constantly improved, including through consideration of institutional analyzes of socio-ecological systems (Ostrom and Basurto, 2011). In this sense, we hope to contribute to these discussions while also demonstrating the limits of this reading.

Initially, the model considers governance in three ways (Kooiman et al., 2008: 1) hierarchical governance with top-down intervention regulated by policies and laws; 2) co-governance, or collaborative governance, in which social actors link themselves to a common purpose in the form of mixed governance, aimed at connecting the parties involved within co-management regimes and public-private partnerships; 3) self-governance, in which government interference is minimal and actors self-organize in their own governance systems. However, current debates about governance in MPAs go beyond this reading, questioning the conditions and limits for change, hybrid relationships between these modes of governance (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2019; Song, Johnsen, and Morrison, 2018), and aspects associated with governability. This context, understood as a socially constructed arrangement to manage a complex system, considers this dynamism between modes of governance where context is a key element (Song, Johnsen, and Morrison, 2018).

Considering the diverse possibilities for change, we assume here that there are vectors that condition these processes. This means moving from a more structuralist form of governance (which works with constraints that provide regularities, reduce uncertainty, and shape interactions) to an arrangement or arrangements that addresses current fishing challenges, recognizing that they relate directly to the discussion of access to resources and territories.

Using empirical evidence based on a triangulation of institutional documents and a literature review, this article analyzes governance processes in MPAs in Cuba and Brazil, both marked by common international influences but distinct organizational structures. Despite highlighting the similarities and differences between the governance arrangements of these countries, we do not propose to pronounce the best policies for the protected areas analyzed. Our purpose is rather to develop a complementary study, presenting favorable and boundary aspects for MPA governance and identifying vectors of change in the governance modes of these areas. The study includes a call for new governance approaches, such as the need to carefully consider the limits of an MPA as a space for respecting and promoting the rights and sustainable practices of traditional fishing communities, especially in the face of the threat of loss of access to resources in a context of ocean grabbing (Bennett et al., 2021).

Methodological Procedures

Many countries have common international frameworks to guide their national governance practices, but they also develop their own organizational charts and decision-making structures, as is the case in Cuba and Brazil. Critical analysis of the differences from the federal legal framework to the organization of daily activities in a protected area can reveal interesting elements for the proposed discussion. In the case of these two countries, we considered the following elements: (1) the lived experiences in MPAs included in the technical-scientific reports produced on the daily governance of the Areas; (2) public policies related to the topic; and (3) peer-reviewed articles that complement the understanding of the contexts studied and assist in our interpretations. Each case offered a unique insight into their decision-making organizational charts, as well as jointly contributing to theoretical debates about transformations in governance.

The MPAs analyzed include the territories of the Guanahacabibes National Park, Pinar del Río, Cuba, and the Environmental Protection Area (APA) of Guaraqueçaba, Paraná, Brazil. In Cuba, the research was carried out between July and October 2018, monitoring the day-to-day activities of the MPA within the international cooperation framework signed by the Programa de Pós-Graduação em Tecnologia e Sociedade (Postgraduate Program in Technology and Society, PPGTE) of the Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (Federal Technological University of Paraná, UTFPR) and the Centro de Estudios de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Center for Environmental and Natural Resources Studies, CEMARNA) at the Universidad Pinar del Río. Daily monitoring took place through visits to the Protected Area, informal conversations with managers, researchers, and surrounding communities. It was not possible to accompany management meetings in Cuba, as that they did not take place during the study period. The information was complemented by reports and related publications.

In Brazil, the research occurred through observant participation and interaction with the components of the Guaraqueçaba MPA governance arrangement, which involved meetings in the Technical Chamber² of Traditional Peoples and Communities and in the Management Councils (CGs) of the Conservation Units³ in the period from March 2017 to May 2018 and in November 2018. Observant participation is a neologism of “participant research” as a way of distinguishing it from participant observation, as it is an approach that admits and presupposes a high level of researcher participation in the group under study (Peruzzo, 2017).

Regarding relevant public policies, we considered the legal frameworks of both countries, including local, regional, and national legislation as well as international agreements. Regarding the technical-scientific productions related to the Areas, in the case of Cuba, reports and territorial planning documents cited by local managers were considered as guides for daily practices. In the case of Brazil, the minutes of meetings held in the public participation spaces of the protected area were considered.

The collection and analysis of scientific articles was based on the ProKnow-C or Knowledge Development Process – Constructivist study process, described by Tasca et al. (2010) with detailed application by Ensslin, Ensslin, and Pinto (2013). The process consists of four stages: (a) selection of a portfolio of articles on the research topic; (b) bibliometric analysis of the portfolio; (c) systemic analysis; and (d) scientific extraction relevant to the research in question. To select the initial portfolio, the following combination of descriptors was considered: governance, small-scale fish, and marine protected areas. The search was carried out in the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases, first in March 2017 and again in August 2018. After organizing the data in bibliographic reference management software (EndNote) and reading the articles (seventy-seven initial articles), the final portfolio was composed of sixty articles that considered elements directly related to governance modes.

For the systemic analysis of this set of information (lived experiences in MPAs in technical-scientific reports, legal frameworks, and articles organized in NVivo Software), three categories of analysis were established: institutional frameworks, governing interactions, and users’ relationship with resources and MPAs, particularly small-scale fishers. In the “institutional frameworks” category, we explored vectors related to formal and informal rules. Institutional analysis has been conducted by Ostrom and Basurto (2011), who describe the complexity of the composition of rules among a wide diversity of collective and constitutional choices, observing that they shape systems’ structure and are directly affected by them. In this category, the context directly influences the formation of institutions marked by power relations and asymmetries (Epstein et al., 2015). In the “governing interactions” category, we considered social learning experiences, experimentation, and the systems dynamics (Crona et al., 2011; Mahon and McConney, 2013).⁴ In the category of “users’ relationship with resources and MPAs,” we considered hybrid relationships between different modes of governance, observing the different rationalities and worldviews of a given system (Song, Johnsen, and Morrison, 2018). These categories then guided data triangulation (Weyers, Stride, and Huisamen, 2011). Table 1 presents the perceived relationships with the modes of governance that guided our discussion of how interactions can restore rights and access and how existing conditions can persist without motivating transformations in governance.

Table 1

Analytical Categories and Governance Modes

	Governance Modes
Analyticalcategories	Hierarchical	Co-governance
Institutional milestones	- Organizational chart centralized in the state with little possibility of specific organizational charts in other administrative domains. - Result focused on system functionality. - Focus on biodiversity conservation goals/agreements.	- Involvement of different resource users, managers, and partners in institution formulation and monitoring. - International conservation goals and actions of international knowledge networks directly influence the formulation of agendas.
Governing interactions	- Interactions centralized in formal management and monitoring systems. - Exchanges between MPAs only occur occasionally. - Resource access and use rights restricted and depending on the level of MPA protection, with informal rules little considered in the system.	- Formation of knowledge networks to exchange learning between protected area managers, researchers, and resource users. - Presence of bridge institutions in the governance process.
Relationship between users, resources, and AMPs	- Fisheries management also centralized in the state. - Particularities and needs of artisanal fishers appear in legal documents but little in governance practices.	- Access to resources with rules discussed between users and other actors. - Stakeholders can form partnerships, but relationships can also reflect power asymmetries due to the unequal involvement of a wide range of actors.

Source: Author elaboration.

Results And Discussion

Contextualization Of MPAs

The Guanahacabibes National Park constitutes the central area of the Guanahacabibes Peninsula Biosphere Reserve and has an area of 39,830 ha (Cuba, 2014). It is considered one of the most important protected areas in Cuba due to the state of conservation of its resources with a high level of endemism and the presence of mangroves, swamps, cliffs, and beaches (Crespo et al., 2017). Created in 2001 through Agreement 4262 of the Comité Ejecutivo del Consejo de Ministers de la República de Cuba (Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Cuba), its objectives are: preserving the integrity of ecosystems; improving the area’s tourism activities, and raising awareness among decision-makers and local communities about the need to contribute to the conservation of natural resources (Cuba, 2014).

The area is administered by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente (Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment), through the Centro de Investigación y Servicios Ambientales (Center for Research and Environmental Services, Ecovida), under the direction of the body of functional management, whose objectives are as follows: conserve ecological diversity and stability; satisfy the needs of local populations through sustainable resource use practices; and promote scientific, educational, recreational, and tourist activities (Cuba, 2014).

The park contains the La Bajada community (with ninety-five inhabitants),⁵ as well as four other locations. Subsistence fishing (“de orilla”) persists mainly in that community. The delegate is the highest representative of residents’ interests and performs administrative management before higher administrative bodies. The park management plan was revised in 2014 (Márquez et al., 2014). In relation to the marine area, there is a sector (La Bajada – Uvero Queimadas) intended for subsistence fishing (by hook and line). In addition to fishing, there is traditional use of coastal vegetation, such as green guano used in tobacco trusses (Martínez Díaz, Díaz, and Llauge, 2015).

In relation to the MPA’s interaction with resource users (fishers, Guanahacabibes Integral Silviculture Company, Tourism Group, and Beekeeping Cooperative), their perception of the park is monitored. According to Márquez et al. (2014), indicators of community participation are used to assess the impact of the area’s planning/presence on local communities. Furthermore, there are strategies for involving communities interested in MPA management. The development of annual management plans is the result of collective planning in which representatives of institutions, decision makers, economic sectors, the scientific community, and local communities participate. There is a prospect for the integration of management institutions – Servicio Forestal Estatal (State Forest Service) and Servicio Nacional de Inspección de Pesca (National Fishing Inspection Service) – with users, representatives of the local community, and researchers. The MPA management is overseen by the Junta Directiva de la Reserva de la Biosfera (Biosphere Reserve Administration Council), responsible for the management, integration, and implementation of actions aimed at the rational use of the territory. It is seen as an arena for coordination between interested parties, who establish binding agreements to ensure coordinated management within the territory.

The Guaraqueçaba MPA is located on the coast of the state of Paraná, southern Brazil, created by Decree No. 90,883 in 1985. Its objective is to ensure the protection of one of the last representative areas of the Atlantic Forest biome in the Bahia estuarine complex of Paranaguá as well as the archaeological sites and communities integrated into the regional ecosystem. Its 1995 management plan has not been reviewed or updated.

With an area of 315,241 ha, it covers the municipality of Guaraqueçaba and part of the municipalities of Antonina, Paranaguá and Campina Grande do Sul. Given its extension and diversity of ecosystems and human settlements, we focus on its estuarine-marine portion in this article. The entire area is included in the Vale do Ribeira and Serra da Graciosa Biosphere Reserve. It covers other federal MPAs: the Superagui National Park (declared a Natural World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1999) and the Guaraqueçaba Ecological Station. These areas and others on the coast of Paraná and São Paulo make up the Lagamar Mosaic of protected areas.

The administration of the MPA is federal, carried out by the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), following the determinations of the National System of Conservation Units. As an arena for participation, three Advisory Management Councils operated in the area (from the MPA, Superagui park, and Guaraqueçaba station) which, in 2020, were united into a single council, now representative of the Integrated Management Center (NGI Antonina-Guaraqueçaba). The council is the main space for interaction with resource users (mainly, fishers and farmers) and other actors involved in conservation in the region (NGOs, state and municipal management bodies, and universities). It is a stage for local socio-environmental conflicts, including those related to the difficulty of accessing resources, reproducing ways of life, and power asymmetries in decision-making (Duarte, 2018). In addition to the federal instance of the Ministry of the Environment, state and municipal environmental bodies also enact legal instruments related to conservation and fisheries management in the territory. NGOs and other institutions also operate in the area (Faraco et al., 2016; Teixeira and Limont, 2008).

Andriguetto Filho et al. (2006) lists 37 fishing communities in the estuarine region of which the MPA is part. However, considering that fishing is quite diverse and also involves extraction of mangroves, it is considered that more communities access this territory. The small-scale fishing system in this region is dynamic and mobility between fishing gear occurs throughout the year and follows the dynamics of the main resources (Andriguetto Filho et al., 2006; Mafra, 2018). Small-scale fishing practices use a variety of gear and practices to extract mangrove resources. For Mafra (2018), in this territory fishing villages cannot be considered as unique management systems, indicating that MPA management requires a systemic approach. Different forms of community organization can be seen in the region, some of which are now called ‘forms of resistance’, which are separate from the established organization of social representation (Duarte, 2018; Mafra, 2018).

MPA Governance

In the cases described and the literature consulted, MPAs have different values, objectives, and norms, generating different expectations regarding the possibilities of governance given the overlapping of protection spaces and objectives, the level of protection, and the role to be played by the state and others social actors. A common trait perceived was the difficulty in accommodating the specificities related to the ways of life of traditional fishing communities and the difficulty of achieving governance formats that are fundamentally based on actions promoted by local populations. These characteristics, when combined with governing interactions, revealed the limits or possibilities in the construction of arrangements capable of confronting the effects of the ocean grabbing process. For Cuba and Brazil, based on the analytical categories studied, the most relevant aspects were organized in Table 2. These aspects stress the perception that changes in governance depend on articulations and negotiations through interactions that can restore rights, access, and control.

Table 2

Favorable and Borderline Aspects for MPA Governability: Influence on Ocean Grabbing

Country	Borderline aspects: Potential conditions for fostering or strengthening ocean grabbing	Favorable aspects: Possibility of arrangements capable of confronting ocean grabbing
Cuba	− State controls resource access through strategies such as fishing exclusion areas, leading to the exodus of fishers from MPAs with a higher level of protection and transformations in ways of life; – Adoption of the idea of “prevention” in nature conservation: this logic inhibits equity by ignoring the plurality of use and management characteristics in traditional ways of life; – Adoption of the idea of “blue growth” in policies (special attention to tourist appropriations and activities); – Gaps between inclusion and participation policies on paper and in practice; – Difficulty integrating information between different actors and different knowledge areas (asymmetric influence in the composition of transformation agendas); – Difficulty in information flow; – Disparity in perspective between bridge organizations and resource users regarding local governance: bridge organizations tend to dominate the narratives surrounding transformations; – Weak participation of fishers in decision-making processes on resource use.	− Despite the centralization of governance in the state, there are decision-making organizations closer to the resource users, and the Cuban state differs in that its premise is the more equal distribution of benefits; – Application of a regional approach to MPA management, which dialogues with national processes for protecting Cuban territory; – Simplified legal framework in fishing territories and MPAs; – Innovations in monitoring and self-monitoring systems; – Planning processes with the participation of local populations (attention to more vulnerable groups, which may still reveal the limits of participation mechanisms and unequal power dynamics); – Recognition of international fishers’ rights agreements, such as the SSF Guidelines.
Brazil	− State controls resource access (it cannot be said that the law of MPAs takes a preventive approach to socio-environmental and regulatory conflicts, and there is a violation of territorial rights authorized by the law that governs the creation of areas with a higher level of protection); – Adoption of the idea of “precaution” in nature conservation: this logic inhibits equity by ignoring the plurality of use and management characteristics in traditional ways of life;	− Existence of alternative governance arrangements in MPAs, especially in Extractive Reserves; – Presence of bridge organizations working to strengthen the agendas of fishing populations; – Existence of networks facilitating information flows; – Innovations in monitoring and self-monitoring systems; – Country recognizes international fishers’ rights agreements, such as the SSF Guidelines.
	− Adoption of the idea of “blue growth” in environmental policies (special attention to processes for valorizing environmental services);– Gaps between inclusion and participation policies on paper and in practice;– Overlapping legal framework in fishing territories and MPAs, with little recognition of informal rules;– Forms of resistance from vested interests and risk aversion by decision makers;– Difficulty integrating information between different actors and different knowledge areas;– Difference in vision between bridge organizations and resource users on local governance and asymmetry in dialogue.	− More robust discussions for the recognition of the right to estuarine/marine territory of fishing communities via Decree 6040/2007 (National Policy of Traditional Peoples and Communities) and Decree 5051/2004 (promulgates ILO Convention No. 169);– Strengthening social movements related to artisanal fishing: traditional fishing communities have developed conflict management mechanisms, offering resistance to an increasingly competitive marine environment; seeking instruments capable of harmonizing, to some extent, MPA regimes with traditional rights (such as fishing agreements and free, prior, and informed consultation protocols).

Source: Author elaboration.

Regarding institutional frameworks, the basis for building national protected area policies is common to both countries: they originated from international nature conservation agreements (based on precautionary characteristics of environmental law) and principles of marine sustainable development, such as the Guidelines for the Management Categories of Protected Areas of the IUCN and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Both countries are also signatories to international agreements on artisanal fishing, and here the Artisanal Fisheries Guidelines is especially important. Although the main objective of MPAs is the conservation of biodiversity, this objective no longer dispenses with the participation of fishing communities (Song and Soliman, 2019), and it is recognized, even if still in a limited way, that small-scale fishers play a central role in achieving conservation goals.

Therefore, the discussion focuses on governance context, participation forms, their limits when considering MPA institutional frameworks, and the extent to which changes in governance can ensure that biodiversity conservation is not configured as an ocean grabbing process. Any new governance structure challenges centralized organizational charts, the power structure, and institutional order, so changes to this governance context will likely meet resistance (Bennett et al., 2021). Even the implementation of the SSF Guidelines in MPAs runs this risk (Blythe et al., 2021).

These concerns are also added to the increasing incorporation of the idea of “blue growth” into the fishing and marine-coastal planning instruments of both countries, such as productivity-focused fishing policies (Azevedo and Pierri, 2014) and policies that consider the economic valuation of ecosystems and incentives for the growth of tourism in protected natural areas (Cabrera et al., 2020). Bennett et al. (2021) explains “blue growth” as an international agenda that conceives of oceans as spaces full of opportunities for economic growth, but which entail processes of social injustice, unequal distribution of benefits and/or burdens, as well as unfair decision-making processes and governance. In this sense, it is important to consider how this agenda is created and implemented (and by which social actors), and how current governance processes occur in Cuba and Brazil, observing openings that promote more equitable socio-political and economic processes in the obstacles related to the right to access and use of fishing resources in MPAs.

In Cuba, the state controls access and use of resources, a principle that shapes fishing management criteria, which include conservation of stocks as a guarantee of sustainability; price regulation; equity of measures; administrative feasibility (feasible to perform and monitor); and political acceptability. State control of fishing is also present, but little is known about the social impacts of MPAs on fishing communities. Greater attention is still given to participatory formats through representatives linked to the population and their ability to influence the effectiveness of management instruments (Planas et al., 2016), in addition to studies on the positive ecological impacts of MPAs and demarcations in fishing zones (López-Castañeda et al., 2020).

In Brazil, the principle of sovereignty prevails over MPAs, based on the National System of Conservation Units – SNUC. Even openings for participation provided for in the MPA legal framework related, such as participation in management councils and the formulation of fishing agreements, are not enough to transform the conservationist conception of fishing territory in these areas. Araujo et al. (2017) discuss the limits of opening new spaces for the participation of artisanal fishermen in defining governance practices, when at the same time the participation of local users has been contested by conservationist policies. Studies on the social impacts of Brazilian MPAs have become more frequent, which helps to make these asymmetries visible.

From an administrative-economic point of view, in Cuba and Brazil, MPAs essentially depend on state budgets. In Cuba, this resource is managed through the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Forestal (National Forest Development Fund) and in Brazil, through programs of the Environment Ministry and, more specifically, ICMBio. Due to the reduced resources allocated to protected areas, international financing constitutes an additional source of resources. The projects carried out with these resources are, for the most part, incremental in terms of effectiveness in meeting biodiversity conservation goals. In a study carried out in Chile, Aburto, Gaymer, and Govan (2020) demonstrate how external financing can generate ocean grabbing processes in MPAs. The authors therefore comment that it is essential to question the distribution of these resources, and that they must be linked to legitimate governance processes, corroborating the question already raised by Goldman (2001) about eco-governability.

Regarding the articulation between different institutional frameworks, in Cuba there is a greater relationship between those related to MPAs and the main instrument for managing the coastal zone in the country, Decree-Law 212 (DL-212). In this sense, Planas et al. (2016) argue that, even though the integration between planning instruments in the coastal zone may improve, it is already observed that local populations have some understanding of these instruments and their connections. For the authors, this possibly occurs as many of the managers have bonds of trust with the communities and engage in continuous communication. Batista, Suárez, and Botero (2017) address the limits and integrations between legal frameworks and concepts used in coastal management in Cuba, emphasizing the importance of ecological, social, and economic links between MPAs and other coastal areas. In more recent work, Batista, Pereira, and Botero (2019) argue that, to improve this coordination, local governments could have even more participation in the approval processes of Integrated Coastal Zone Management Programs. They even suggest the legal possibility of a “special grant” for these areas (which would include MPAs), facilitating local solutions to possible conflicts arising from coastal uses. For Cabrera et al. (2020), the adoption and implementation of the “Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Económico y Social hasta 2030” (National Economic and Social Development Plan until 2030) and the “Plan Estatal contra el Cambio Climático” (State Plan against Climate Change) is relevant to MPAs. Both outline possible new actions in coastal areas, requiring deeper analyses and treatments of MPAs.

In Brazil, in turn, the federative structure led to a distinction between national, state, and municipal organizational charts, with the MPAs themselves falling within one of these spheres. Therefore, even though they adhere to common federal regulations stemming from the Ministry of the Environment and other ministries, Brazilian MPAs may also incorporate state and municipal regulatory directions, depending on the entity responsible for their management. At the federal level, the responsible agency is ICMBio; in states and municipalities, there are state or municipal environmental departments/secretariats. This distinction could generally lead to greater local or regional autonomy for innovations. However, there is difficulty in connecting the organizational charts at different levels, in addition to a diverse and broad legal framework based on development and conservation policies that aggravate inequalities arising from the unequal distribution of benefits, costs, and risks in fishing territories (Azevedo and Pierri, 2014).

Thus, MPAs in Brazil appear to have limitations for interactions between governance levels. When tracing the relationship with the main coastal zone management instrument in the country, the National Coastal Management Plan, Moura (2017) argues that the plan has little communication with other policies. Even the National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Populations in Brazil, which supports alternatives to emerge in fishing territories by guaranteeing recognition and respect for traditional ways of life and territories (Moura, 2017), comes up against the fragility of formats for participation and access to resources in MPAs (Araujo et al., 2017; Farvar et al., 2018; Prado et al., 2020).

However, even if the hierarchical structure appears within the Cuban and Brazilian organizational charts, there are opportunities for other governing interactions. These include bridge organizations, characterized by potentially linking groups through strategic collaborative and learning processes (such as research, monitoring, education, or inspection actions), as observed in both the Cuban (Martínez Díaz, Díaz, and Llauge, 2015) and Brazilian cases (Foppa et al., 2018). When contextualizing these organizations in critical debates on governance (Berdej, Silver, and Armitage, 2019), different interests must be named, considering the different epistemes of these actors (Foppa et al., 2018; Moura, 2017), which helps transparency in a system’s governing interactions.

To expand governing interactions in MPAs, some approaches that discuss territory and territorialities are also cited as essential elements to be considered (Bavinck et al., 2017). However, current management instruments in Cuba and Brazil do not currently incorporate real proposals that take into account territorialities in MPAs and, in most cases, discussions are still permeated by macro-coastal planning, which are inseparable from the hegemonic vision of biodiversity conservation.

Added to these characteristics is the relationship between users and resources and MPAs. In the Cuban case, from 2011 (VI Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba) and especially from 2018 (recognition of a variety of fishing practices in the country), other non-state organizations expanded the scope of actors participating in the decision-making processes related to small-scale fishing by promoting experiments in cooperatives and collective arrangements capable of greater representation, promoting more sustainable fishing and community subsistence. Cabrera et al. (2020) comment that, regardless of the limitations, in Cuba there are favorable conditions for increased and effective citizen participation, as there is greater social equity, but a need remains to understand the reasons for the limits to participation in decision-making regarding the use of fishing resources. There is little research on small-scale fishing itself and on the perception of fishers about the issues that affect them, such as the creation of MPAs and the exodus of fishing communities from conservation zones (López-Castañeda et al., 2020). Added to this is the lack of studies on the logic of action of fishing cooperatives regarding relations under “blue growth.” Furthermore, Gerhartz-Muro et al. (2018), analyzing the set of political instruments in Cuba, cite the importance of accounting for trade-offs⁶ in the different uses of resources to prevent inaccurate expectations about the costs and benefits of decisions taken, contributing to a more equal distribution of benefits, one of the premises of the Cuban state.

In Brazil, there is also legal recognition of the need to promote social participation and some attention is paid to resources users. While participation is still incipient, partnerships and learning processes are growing (Prado et al., 2020), with the strengthening of fishing social movements and the appropriation/questioning of the legal and technical rationalities that underlie decisions in MPAs (Foppa et al., 2018). However, participatory initiatives implementation is incomplete, which often accentuates conflicts and consolidates technocratic discourses with preservationist principles that reflect little concern for the social context (Araujo et al., 2017).

An aspect related to resource access and use is the process of establishing MPAs, the so-called “step zero,” as described by Giraldi-Costa, Pereira Medeiros, and Tiepolo (2020) and elaborated by Vivacqua (2018). Cuba seems to approach this issue from a more interactive perspective regarding the categories and objectives of protected areas (Goldberg et al., 2016), while in Brazil this agenda seems to be more based on the percentage targets for MPAs, without considering the categories themselves (Giraldi-Costa, Pereira Medeiros, and Tiepolo, 2020). Participation rights are provided for in Convention No. 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO) on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and incorporated into specific regulations of both countries. ILO 169 deals with free and informed consent, access to information, and transparency in any action and/or project/policy to be implemented in traditional territories. This has been increasingly claimed in the case of MPAs overlapping with fishing territories (Souza, 2018).

Although these legal frameworks have institutionalized a certain degree of participation by local populations (such as fishing agreements and free, prior, and informed consultation protocols), it cannot be said that MPAs replace a specific instrument for guaranteeing traditional territory or respecting the collective principles that shape projects in a region (Goldman, 2001). In this way, the question of resource access and use, in addition to the permanence of populations in MPAs, also highlights the importance of the debate on guaranteeing long-term rights within new governance arrangements, since this topic is intrinsically related to the maintenance of ways of life, food security, and the distribution of costs and benefits in fishing communities.

Contributing to possible considerations on MPA governance, Wielgus et al. (2014) present characteristics to strengthen MPA governance in Cuba that can be taken advantage of by other countries: simplified laws compared to other places and space for legal improvements. As a limit, however, the authors point to the fact that MPA conservation strategies are basically based on science and/or socioeconomic goals. Likewise, Vivacqua (2018) highlights the importance of local knowledge and appreciation of fishing territories, often only recognized through protected areas such as Extractive Reserves, with their own governance and monitoring. Added here is the appreciation of the resistance presented by fishers’ social movements, which have sought instruments capable of harmonizing, to some extent, the MPA regimes with traditional rights. This adds to the strengthening of decision-making spaces with the possibility of visibility, referrals, and governance on emerging issues (Alexander, Andrachuk, and Armitage, 2016) and openness to innovations in governance (Green, 2015).

Finally, the discussion of governability also highlights network processes, as they are used to explain the coexistence of different modes of governance and the value of hybrid forms of governance in complex systems with the need to facilitate information flows (Song, Johnsen, and Morrison, 2018; Song and Soliman, 2019).

Vectors Of Change In Governance Modes

This article has explored aspects for consideration in the analysis and questioning of the structure of the organizational governance charts of MPAs in Cuba and Brazil. Changes in governance modes are often framed as apolitical, inevitable, and/or universally desirable (Blythe et al., 2021). Therefore, assuming that governance transformations that question the processes of reallocation of pre-existing rights governing MPA resource access and use is of interest (Bennet et al., 2020; Campbell and Grey, 2019; Mascia et al., 2017), we organized eleven vectors of change in the following governance modes (Table 3). It is worth noting that the vectors presented here are not unique and focused on the three categories of analysis mentioned in the methodology.

Table 3

Vectors of Change in Governance Modes

	Vectors of change in governance modes
Institutional milestones	- Simplification and review of the legal framework, minimizing overlaps- Symmetry of dialogue in decision-making processes, both in creation, planning, and monitoring- Presence of instruments that legitimize and support informal institutional arrangements, guaranteeing resource access and use in the long term
Governing interactions	- Information flow, with continuous learning and monitoring- Recognized and accepted bridge organizations- Government interactions that consider territorialities- Dialogue mechanisms between different scales
Relationship between users, resources and MPAs	- Mechanisms for perceiving and combating forms of resistance from vested interests- Informal institutions to facilitate user relationships with resources and MPAs- Expansion of knowledge about socio-ecological systems, considering different types of knowledge- Community learning that considers resource access and use rights and related ways of life

Source: Author elaboration.

MPAs are neither uniformly appropriate nor uniformly unfavorable for coastal communities; rather, the social impacts of MPAs vary within and between groups (Mascia et al., 2017). Therefore, they must be the object of analysis in processes of governance transformation and in the context of ocean grabbing. The realities mentioned here refer a little to this, demonstrating the complexity of the relationships between MPAs created in fishing territories and how the vectors presented may question this situation in search of more equitable practices.

We highlight three vectors related to institutional frameworks (these vectors help perceive and question institutional rigidity within governance systems): simplification of the legal framework; symmetry of dialogue in decision-making processes in institution creation, planning, and monitoring; and the presence of instruments that legitimize and support informal institutional arrangements. These vectors challenge knowledge domain structures and/or hegemonic arrangements as the exclusive form of action in MPAs and expand the discussion of how these structures and relationships come into existence (Campbell and Grey, 2019). Clearer legal and institutional arrangements, which consider these dimensions, are necessary to integrate scientific and local knowledge in a process of continuous and equitable social learning with a view to guaranteeing the rights and interests of local populations as well as the tangible and intangible values of biodiversity.

In this way, the vectors described regarding governing interactions show that small-scale fishing is a moving target from a governance point of view, which makes its governability more complex. Before actors can resolve on a problem issue, it may be reconfigured, implying different repercussions on a smaller and larger scale (Mansfield, 2001; Peters, 2020). Complexity also refers to the fact that system elements are interactive, overlapping, and interdependent (Mahon and McConney, 2013). Integrating system dynamics require monitoring and learning processes and recognizing territorialities (Cunha, 2009; Souza, 2018) that can improve the multifaceted relationships between governance and human well-being. Bridge organizations recognized and accepted in the system appear to assist this dynamic and the flow of information (Alexander, Andrachuk, and Armitage, 2016).

This does not signify, however, that improvement to management, communication systems, and processes based on technical-scientific information alone will create an environment conducive to more equitable governance and guaranteed resource access in the long term. The vectors that deal with the relationship of users with resources and MPAs emerge in this context to overcome the methodological and epistemological barriers present in coastal areas (Moura, 2017), questioning not only organizational centralization, but also collaborative partnerships and the difficulties of autonomy in self-governed processes. Ebel (2020) suggests that ocean legislative frameworks have brought many new stakeholders to the governance table, changing power dynamics. Without contestation, therefore, collaborative governance processes can accentuate asymmetries by masking vulnerabilities behind new partners (Béné, 2009), even as their presence is wanted for sharing skills and integrating knowledge.

As for self-governance, we turn to institutional analyses (Ostrom and Basurto, 2011), which also need to be contextualized. For Frawley, Finkbeiner, and Crowder (2019), decision-making processes and practices are not products of consensus and homogeneity; they are shaped by tensions that characterize existing institutions. When the set of informal rules is recognized in its heterogeneity, there is also the recognition that knowledge and practices are fundamental for MPA implementation, and that the capacity and space for self-organization and self-regulation are prerequisites for innovations. However, it is essential that traditionally conserved areas receive recognition and formal support for these processes.

In general, then, the vectors, when articulated and negotiated through interactions that can reassemble rights, access and control, highlight both potential benefits and threats to make fishing territories more robust in relation to pressures arising from ocean grabbing. In this sense, our analysis suggests that:

(1) From an institutional point of view, ensuring symmetry of dialogue in decision-making processes, both in creation, planning, and monitoring, can legitimize and support informal institutional arrangements, directly influencing the trajectory of changes and the perception of their desirability;

(2) The vectors listed on institutional frameworks and governing interactions, when dealing with power dynamics, guide MPA agendas and narratives. Thus, without these aspects, injustices caused by ocean grabbing may persist. These vectors make transformations in the governance of these areas possible;

(3) In relation to the narratives developed in MPAs, it is extremely important that the vectors contribute to the maintenance of the vision (and principles) of collective subjects (artisan fishers) in the vision produced, transmitted, and disseminated through the implementation by the state and/or other actors in order to obtain and consolidate a hegemonic conservationist consensus, as Goldman (2001) has already warned.

(4) When considering the vectors regarding the relationship between users and resources, the unequal distributions of costs and benefits of transformative processes in contexts of ocean grabbing must be analyzed. As Blythe et al. (2021) warn, increased overlap between approaches to ocean governance (which includes here the approaches discussed in MPAs) may result in incoherent or contradictory arrangements. Therefore, the assessment of past and ongoing efforts to promote transformations must be done in a contextualized and critical manner.

Conclusion

This article contributes to the debate on MPA governance by suggesting that even hybrid governance processes, marked by some degree of participation by small-scale fishers, do not guarantee the defense of resource access and use rights in MPAs or even create conditions to confront the ocean grabbing processes in these areas. Rather than considering modes of governance as entirely hierarchical, collaborative, or self-governed, we propose an analysis based on the eleven vectors described above. This can make fishing territories with MPAs more robust in the face of the pressures arising from ocean grabbing and attentive to new possibilities for relationships between users and states. To this end, and considering that new governance arrangements create spaces for (re)significations and (re)configurations of place, these transformations must consider a central issue: do these emerging arrangements have space for recognition, and are they capable of remodeling power structures and existing planning mechanisms in order to redirect the possible benefits and impacts of an MPA?

In this sense, rethinking governance includes efforts to review state actions in MPAs and benefits for small-scale fishers. As shown in the article, in Brazil there are social movements of resistance, partnerships being built, and protocols that reaffirm the traditional resource access and use rights in the territories. In Cuba, different fishing practices outside state cooperatives are becoming visible, suggesting, as in the Brazilian case, the creation of arrangements that safeguard against ocean grabbing. In this scenario, the vectors described are potential verifiers of criteria for equity and socio-environmental justice in governance processes, but we suggest, as a future study, a deeper understanding of the relationships between the vectors and their limits when considering the different systems of social organization of fishing and the political-economic systems of each country.

Footnotes

Notes

Manuela Dreyer da Silva holds a PhD in Technology and Society and is a Professor at the Universidade Federal do Paraná’ Center for Marine Studies and Postgraduate Program in Environment and Development. Cristina Frutuoso Teixeira has a PhD in Environment and Development and is a Professor at the Postgraduate Program in Environment and Development, PPGMADE) of the Universidade Federal do Paraná. Raimundo Vento Tielves holds a PhD in Agricultural Sciences and is a Professor at the Center for the Study of the Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Pinar del Río, Cuba. Christian Luiz da Silva has a PhD in Production Engineering and Post-doctorate degree in Administration. He is a Professor in the Postgraduate Program in Technology and Society at the Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná. Ania Bustio Ramos has a PhD in Geographical Sciences and is a Professor at the University of Pinar del Río, Cuba. Décio Estevão do Nascimento has a PhD in Human Sciences and Technology and is a Professor at the UTFPR. Heather Heyes is a translator in Quito, Ecuador. This work was carried out with the support of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES). The authors would also like to thank Cemarna, UPR, Cuba for its assistance.

References

Aburto

Jaime

Gaymer

Carlos F.

Govan

Hugh

2020 “A large-scale marine protected area for the sea of Rapa Nui: From ocean grabbing to legitimacy.” Ocean and Coastal Management 198 (1): 1–13.

Alexander

Steven M.

Andrachuk

Mark

Armitage

Derek

2016 “Navigating governance networks for community-based conservation.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14 (3): 155–164.

Andriguetto Filho

José Milton

Chaves

Paulo de Tarso

Santos

Cesar

2006 “Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do Estado do Paraná,” pp. 117–140 in Isaac

Victoria Judith

(ed.), A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI: Uso e Apropriação de Recursos Costeiros Grupo Temático and Modelo Gerencial da Pesca. Belém: UFPA.

Araujo

Luciana Gomes

Castro

Fábio

Freitas

Rodrigo Rodrigues

Albuquerque

Marina

Vieira

Regina

Mattos Seixas

Cristiana Simão

2017 “Struggles for inclusive development in small-scale fisheries in Paraty, Southeastern Coast of Brazil.” Ocean and Coastal Management 150: 24–34.

Azevedo

Natalia T.

Pierri

Naína

2014 “Fisheries policy in Brazil (2003-2011): The choice for production growth and the place of artisanal fisheries.” Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 32: 61–80.

Bavinck

Maarten

Berkes

Fikret

Charles

Anthony

Dias

Ana Carolina Esteves

Doubleday

Nancy

Nayak

Prateep

Sowman

Merle

2017 “The impact of coastal grabbing on community conservation – a global reconnaissance.” Maritime Studies 16 (8): 1–17.

Batista

Celene Milanés

Pereira

Cristina I.

Botero

Camilo M.

2019 “Improving a decree law about coastal zone management in a small island developing state: The case of Cuba.” Marine Policy 101: 93–107.

Batista

Celene Milanés

Suárez

Andrés

Botero

Camilo M.

2017 “Novel method to delimitate and demarcate coastal zone boundaries.” Ocean and Coastal Management 144: 105–119.

Béné

Christophe

2009 “Are fishers poor or vulnerable? Assessing economic vulnerability in small-scale fishing communities.” Journal of Development Studies 45 (6): 911–933.

10.

Bennett

Nathan James

Govan

Hugh

Satterfield

Terre

2015 “Ocean grabbing.” Marine Policy 57: 61–68.

11.

Bennett

Nathan James

Blythe

Jessica

White

Carole

Campero

Cecilia

2021 “Blue growth and blue justice: Ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy.” Marine Policy, 125: 104387.

12.

Berdej

Samantha

Silver

Jennifer

Armitage

Derek

2019 “Political ecology perspective on bridging organizations and their influence on marine conservation.” Society and Natural Resources 33 (10): 1194–1212.

13.

Berkes

Fikret

Hughes

T. P.

Steneck

R. S.

Wilson

J. A.

Bellwood

D. R.

Crona

Folke

, et al. 2006 “Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources.” Science 311 (5767): 1557–1558.

14.

Blythe

Jessica

Armitage

Derek

Bennett

Nathan James

Silver

Jennifer

Song

Andrew M.

2021 “The politics of ocean governance transformations.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 634718.

15.

Cabrera Hernández

Alfredo Juan M.

Acosta

M. Arellano

Santos

O. Rey

Martínez

Á. A.

Montero

G. García

Marquez

A. Fernández

de los Reyes

R. Pérez

, et al. 2020 “Manejo costero integrado en Cuba: Avances y retos en la etapa 2009-2019.” Revista Costas 1: 95–116.

16.

Campbell

Lisa M.

Gray

Noela J.

2019 “Area expansion versus effective and equitable management in international marine protected areas goals and targets.” Marine Policy 100: 192–199.

17.

Crespo Santoyo

Daloyma

Hernández

Ramos

Luis

Aldo

Martínez

Lemus

Martínez

Yosvany

Hernández

Leonor

2017 “Consideraciones sobre la gestión turística en la península de Guanahacabibes y las perspectivas de su desarrollo sostenible.” Revista Ecovida 7 (2).

18.

Crona

Beatrice

Ernstson

Henrik

Prell

Christina

Reed

Mark

Hubacek

Klaus

2011 “Combining social network approaches with social theories to improve understanding of natural resource governance” in Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance, edited by Bodin

Örjan

Prell

Christina

, 44–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Cuba 2014 “Resolución 159/14 - Plan del Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas para el periodo 2014-2018.” Centro Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (CNAP), La Habana, Cuba.

20.

Cunha

Lucia Helena Oliveira

2009 “O mundo costeiro: temporalidades, territorialidades, saberes e alternatividades.” Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 20: 59–67.

21.

Duarte

Letícia

2018 “Resistir e retomar, nossa terra e nosso mar: os comuns como planejamento e gestão territorial subversivos em Guaraqueçaba.” Doctoral thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba.

22.

Ebel

Sarah A.

2020 “Moving beyond co-management: Opportunities and limitations for enabling transitions to polycentric governance in chile’s territorial user rights in fisheries policy.” International Journal of the Commons 14 (1): 278–295.

23.

Ensslin

Leonardo

Ensslin

Sandra Rolim

Pinto

Hugo

2013 “Research process and bibliometric analysis: Bank service quality assessment.” Revista de Administração Contemporânea 17 (3): 325–349.

24.

Epstein

Graham

, et al. 2015 “Institutional fit and the sustainability of socialecological systems.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 34–40.

25.

Faraco

Luiz

Andriguetto-Filho

José

Daw

Tim

Lana

Paulo

Teixeira

Cristina Frutuoso

. 2016 “Vulnerability among fishers in Southern Brazil and its relation to Marine Protected Areas in a scenario of declining fisheries.” Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 38 (1): 51–76.

26.

Fairbanks

Luke

Boucquey

Noëlle

Campbell

Lisa

Wise

Sarah

2019 “Remaking oceans governance: Critical perspectives on marine spatial planning.” Environment and Society: Advances in Research 10: 122–140.

27.

Farvar

Taghi M.

Borrini-Feyerabend

Grazia

Campese

Jessica

Jaeger

Tilman

Jonas

Holly

Stevens

Stan

2018 “Whose Inclusive Conservation? Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium n. 5.” Tehran: The ICCA Consortium and Cenesta.

28.

Frawley

Timothy Haight

Finkbeiner

Elena M.

Crowder

Larry B.

2019 “Environmental and institutional degradation in the globalized economy: Lessons from small-scale fisheries in the Gulf of California.” Ecology and Society 24 (1): 7.

29.

Foppa

Carina Catiana

Barreto

Giovanna Carla

Veras

Neto

Quintanilha

Francisco

Medeiros

Rodrigo Pereira

2018 “A (re)categorização de unidades de conservação e suas implicações aos modos de vida tradicionais.” Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 48 (1): 343–366.

30.

Fundora García

Adrian

2017 “Los espacios de la cotidianidad en Guanahacabibes: asimetrías sociales, identidades movibles, migraciones y movilidad territorial,” pp. 59–82 in Chamoreau

Claudine

Huet

Nahayeilli Juárez

(eds.), Pertenencia y legitimidades en México, Centroamérica y el Caribe: Avances de investigación de estudiantes associados. Mexico City: Cuaderno de Trabajo Nº4.

31.

Gerhartz-Muro

José L.

Kritzer

Jacob

Gerhartz-Abraham

Adrián

Miller

Valerie

Pina-Amargós

Fabián

Whittle

Daniel

2018 “An evaluation of the framework for national marine environmental policies in Cuba.” Bulletin of Marine Science 94: 1–18.

32.

Giraldi-Costa

Ana Carolina

Pereira Medeiros

Rodrigo

Tiepolo

Liliane

2020 “Step zero of marine protected areas of Brazil.” Marine Policy 120: 104–119.

33.

Goldberg

Nathalie

Ferro-Azcona

Hakna

Espinoza-Tenorio

Alejandro

Ortega-Argueta

Alejandro

Mesa-Jurado

M. Azahara

Barba-Macías

Everardo

2016 “Sistemas nacionales de áreas protegidas em América Latina; los casos de Cuba, Uruguay y México.” Áreas Naturales Protegidas Scripta 2 (1): 63–84.

34.

Goldman

Michael

2001 “Constructing an environmental state: eco-governmentality and other transnational practices of a ‘green’World Bank.” Social Problems 48 (4): 499–523.

35.

Green

Lesley J. F.

2015 “Fisheries science, Parliament and fishers’ knowledge in SouthAfrica: An attempt at scholarly diplomacy.” Marine Policy 60: 345–352.

36.

Jentoft

Svein

Chuenpagdee

Ratana

(eds.) 2019 Transdisciplinarity for Small-Scale Fisheries Governance Analysis and Practice. MARE Publication Series, New York: Springer.

37.

Kooiman

Jan

Bavinck

Marteen

Chuenpagdee

Ratana

Mahon

Robin

Pullin

2008 “Interactive governance and governability: An introduction.” Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 7: 1–11.

38.

López-Castañeda

Laura

Vázquez-Rodríguez

José

Ramenzoni

Victoria C.

Rangel-Rivero

Armando

González-Díaz

Silvia P.

Vázquez-Sánchez

Vanessa

Delgado-Pérez

Ailyn

Borroto-Escuela

Daily

2020 “Conocimiento local y percepciones de cambios ambientales de pescadores artesanales residentes en Yaguajay, Sancti Spíritus, Cuba,” pp. 119–140 in Mariño

Ulsía Urrea

Alcalá

Graciela

(eds.), Pescadores en México y Cuba: Retos y oportunidades ante el cambio climático, Mexico City: Unas Letras Industria Editorial.

39.

Mafra

Tiago

2018 “Produção socioespacial do litoral do Paraná e as estratégias de resistências dos pescadores artesanais na luta pelo seu território.” Doctoral thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba.

40.

Mahon

Robin

McConney

Patrick

2013 “A Network Perspective on Governing Interactions,” pp. 301–314 in Bavinck

Maarten

, et al. (eds.) Governability of Fisheries and Aquaculture. MARE Publication Series, Dordrecht: Springer.

41.

Mansfield

Becky

2001 “Thinking through scale: The role of state governance in globalizing North Pacific fisheries.” Environment and Planning A 33 (10): 1807–1827.

42.

Márquez

Baena

Leyva

De Celis

P. M.

Camejo

J. A.

Cobián

Borrego

Arencibia

L. E.

2014 “Plan de Manejo 2014-2018 del Área Protegida de Recursos Manejados Península de Guanahacabibes.” Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente de la República de Cuba, Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas de Cuba CITMA-SNAP.

43.

Martínez Díaz

Marina

Díaz

Jorge

Llauge

Lázaro

2015 “Fundamentación de un sistema de acciones de educación ambiental en el Parque Nacional Guanahacabibes, Cuba.” Revista Avances 17 (2): 146–154.

44.

Mascia

Michael B.

Fox

Helen E.

Glew

Louise

Ahmadia

Gabby N.

Agrawal

Arun

Barnes

Megan

Basurto

Xavier

, et al. 2017 “A novel framework for analyzing conservation impacts: evaluation, theory, and marine protected areas.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1399 (1): 93–115.

45.

Moura

Gustavo Goulart Moreira

2017 “Manejo de mundos e gerenciamento costeiro na Amazônia: reflexões a partir de um diálogo entre etnooceanografia e etnodesenvolvimento” in Amazônia: olhares sobre o território e a região, pp. 257–296 in Costa

Jodival Mauricio

(ed.), Rio de Janeiro: Autografia.

46.

Ostrom

Elinor

Basurto

Xavier

2011 “Crafting Analytical Tools to Study Institutional Change.” Journal of Institutional Economics 7 (3): 317–343.

47.

Peruzzo

Cicilia M. Krohling

2017 “Pressupostos epistemológicos e metodológicos da pesquisa participativa: da observação participante à pesquisa-ação.” Estudios sobre las Culturas Contemporáneas Esp. XXIII (3): 161–190.

48.

Peters

Kimberley

2020 “The territories of governance: unpacking the ontologies and geophilosophies of fixed to flexible ocean management, and beyond.” Philosophical Transactions Royal Society B375: http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0458.

49.

Planas

Fajardo J.A.

Milanés

Celene

Fanning

Lucia M.

Botero

Camilo

2016 “Validating governance performance indicators for integrated coastal and ocean management in the southeast region of Cuba.” Open Journal of Marine Science 06 (01): 49–65.

50.

Prado

Deborah

Araujo

Luciana

Chamy

Paula

Dias

Ana Carolina Esteves

Seixas

Cristina

2020 “Participação social nos conselhos gestores de unidades de conservação: Avanços normativos e a visão de agentes do ICMBio.” Ambiente e Sociedade 23 (1): 1–23.

51.

Song

Andrew M.

Soliman

Adam

2019 “Situating human rights in the context of fishing rights - contributions and contradictions.” Marine Policy 103: 19–26.

52.

Song

Andrew M.

Johnsen

Jahn Petter

Morrison

Tiffany

2018 “Reconstructing governability: How fisheries are made governable.” Fish and Fisheries 19: 377–389.

53.

Souza

Roberto M.

(ed) 2018 Pescadores Artesanais e o Mito da Participação Social: A luta do MOPEAR para efetivar o Direito à Consulta prevista na OIT 169. Joinville: Clube dos Autores 380p.

54.

Sownan

Merle

2015 “Governability Challenges Facing Small-Scale Fishers Living Adjacent to Marine Protected Areas in South Africa,” pp. 359–381 in Jentoft

Sven

Chuenpagdee

Ratana

(eds.), Interactive Governance for Small-Scale Fisheries. MARE Publication Series 13, New York: Springer.

55.

Tasca

Jorge

Ensslin

Leonardo

Ensslin

Sandra Rolim

Alves

Maria Bernardete

2010 “An approach for selecting a theoretical framework for the evaluation of training programs.” Journal of European Industrial Training 34 (7): 631–655.

56.

Teixeira

Cristina

Limont

Marcelo

2008 “Possibilidades e limites da participação social na gestão de conflito ambiental: o conselho gestor em unidades de conservação.” Estudos de Sociologia 14: 95–1168.

57.

Vivacqua

Melissa

2018 “Reservas Extrativistas Marinho-Costeiras: Reflexões sobre o estágio pré-implementação.” Ambiente e Sociedade 21: 2–20.

58.

Weyers

Mike

Strydo

Herman

Huisamen

Arnel

2011 “Triangulation in social work research: The theory and examples of its practical application.” Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 44 (2): 207–222.

59.

Wielgus

Jeffrey

Poon

Sarah

Río

Esperanza Carballal del

Muñoz

Daylin

Whittle

Daniel

2014 “Fishery cooperatives in Cuba: Potential benefits, legal feasibility, and governance pre-conditions.” Marine Policy 45: 128–137.