GEO Brasil - UNEP

4.8. Fishing
The first aspect to be considered next is related to the
adopted model of development.
The attempt to modernise fishing initiated at the end of the
1960s and continued until the beginning of the 1980s. It
was linked to the actual economic model, which
concentrated funds was, export-orientated, oversized,
technologically intensive and ecologically predatory. State
funds, through fiscal incentives and public crediting, played
an enormous and important part in this process. The
application of this model in the Brazilian fisheries area soon
faced serious problems related to the sustainability of the
exploited resources. The ambitious rationality put into
practice in this model can be compared with the one pointed
out by Habermas (1987) as “Instrumental Reason”. It was
immediatist and led to unlimited exploration, with known
disastrous results, as demonstrated by statistical data of
production already discussed. The knowledge used in this
great task can be classified as “mimetic”, due to the acritical
level faced on its introduction, assimilated and applied by
the different planners.
The proposed model for Brazilian fisheries activity can be
classified as “late productivity”, because at the beginning
of the seventies, the Rome Club was already criticising this
model. The same was happening to the international
ecological and environmental movement.
In reality, the apogee and decline of national fishing was
verified during the 1970s and 1980s (CNIO, op. cit.). The
same happened with the main management support
instruments, such as incentives or subsidies, research,
statistics, as well as legal aspects.
the eighties, was quite disrespected by both the users and
the managers of the resources. Monitoring was largely
insufficient and inefficient. Management at that time was
then responsible for the postponing of the crisis or
collapse of the main fisheries (Dias-Neto & Dornelles,
op. cit.).
The disastrous result of the policies implemented by that
model consequently led to widespread dissatisfaction.
This significantly contributed to the extinction, in 1988,
of the Superintendence of Fishing Development
(Superintendência do Desenvolvimento da Pesca -
SUDEPE), an agency linked to the Ministry of Agriculture.
The nineties began with a new milestone. The fishing
activity began to be managed by the Brazilian Institute
of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources
(Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos
Naturais Renováveis - IBAMA), linked to the Ministry of
the Environment (Ministério do Meio Ambiente -MMA).
This agency started to consider fisheries resources as
part of environmental resources. It then decided, at that
time, to implement plans and programmemes that
sought the recovery of the fisheries resources in a
situation of overfishing or threat of exhaustion (Dias-
Neto, 1999b), as well as the economic recovery of its
fisheries. Thus, mainly from 1991 to 1995, the negotiation,
definition and implementing of strong measures seeking
the recovery of resources occurred. Good results were
obtained by this process. Sardine fishing recovered
production from 32,000 tonnes, in 1990, to 117,642 tonnes
in 1997. The catch of the “piramutaba” fish recovered
from 7,070 tonnes in 1992, to 21,558 tonnes in 1997.
Among others, the red porgy catch reached 6,085 tonnes
in 1997, recovering from 1,612 tonnes in 1990 (Dias-Neto,
1999a).
policies feedback
As was discussed earlier the use of this model resulted in
the compromise of about 80% of the main marine fisheries
resources and significant impacts on those from continental
waters, at the end of the 1980s. The research went through
serious difficulties from the second half of the eighties to
the beginning of the nineties. Also, in the beginning of the
mid eighties, the statistical data network began to be
dismounted, leading to the inexistence of consolidated data
on the total production of national fishing between 1990
and 1994. The recovery of such data was only possible in
1995 through estimates. The fishing regulation, specially in
In spite of these positive results, the process deteriorated
during the period. The users of environmental resources
were accustomed to a less committed attitude to
sustainable use and more paternalistic use and they did
not like the changes. Strong impacts were caused
because there were no more benefits from incentives
and subsidies. This dissatisfaction rebounded in the
government and was aggravated by the competition that
started to exist among the several jurisdictions of the
Executive Power who began to fight for the management
of the fisheries resources (Dias-Neto, 1999b).
277