TESE FINAL_ANACARLARODRIGUES_enviada_ppg_ficha_06.11.24.pdf
Documento PDF (2.1MB)

Exibir conteúdo Baixar

                    UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE ALAGOAS
INSTITUTO DE CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS E DA SAÚDE
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos
Trópicos

ANA CARLA RODRIGUES

SERVIÇOS AMBIENTAIS E BENEFÍCIOS DA NATUREZA PARA AS PESSOAS DO
MAIOR ARRANJO DE CONSERVAÇÃO DE BASE COMUNITÁRIA NA AMAZÔNIA
BRASILEIRA

MACEIÓ - ALAGOAS
Setembro/2024

ANA CARLA RODRIGUES

SERVIÇOS AMBIENTAIS E BENEFÍCIOS DA NATUREZA PARA AS PESSOAS DO
MAIOR ARRANJO DE CONSERVAÇÃO DE BASE COMUNITÁRIA NA AMAZÔNIA
BRASILEIRA
Tese apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação
em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos
Trópicos, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da
Saúde. Universidade Federal de Alagoas, como
requisito para obtenção do título de Mestre/Doutor
em CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS, área de concentração
em Conservação da Biodiversidade Tropical.

Orientador: Prof. Dr. João Vitor Campos e
Silva
Coorientadora: Profa. Dra. Ana Claudia
Mendes Malhado

MACEIÓ - ALAGOAS
Setembro/2024

Folha de aprovação
Ana Carla Rodrigues
SERVIÇOS AMBIENTAIS E BENEFÍCIOS DA NATUREZA PARA AS PESSOAS DO
MAIOR ARRANJO DE CONSERVAÇÃO DE BASE COMUNITÁRIA NA AMAZÔNIA
BRASILEIRA
Tese apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação
em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos
Trópicos, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da
Saúde. Universidade Federal de Alagoas, como
requisito para obtenção do título de Doutor(a) em
CIÊNCIAS
BIOLÓGICAS
na
área
da
Biodiversidade.

Tese aprovada em 03 de setembro de 2024.

Dr.(a) – João Vitor Campos e Silva
(orientador)

Dra. Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado/UFAL
(Coorientadora)
Dr. (a) Guilherme Ramos Demétrio Ferreira

Dr. (a) Robson Guimarães dos Santos

Dr. (a) Simone Athayde

Dr. (a) Gustavo Hallwass

MACEIÓ - AL
Setembro/ 2024

DEDICATÓRIA

Dedico este trabalho à minha mãe, Lúcia, e ao meu irmão, Antônio,
pelo amor e apoio incondicionais, que sempre foram minha força e inspiração.
Aos meus avós, Antônio e Helena,
por suas bênçãos que superam o tempo e a distância.

AGRADECIMENTOS
Primeiramente, gostaria de honrar a Universidade Federal de Alagoas, uma universidade
nordestina, pública e de qualidade. Quero agradecer aos queridos professores do DIBICT, que
se tornaram amigos e acolheram nossa turma em meio ao caos da pandemia. Destaco também
a força e a inspiração de sete mulheres incríveis da turma de 2020, que foram tão resilientes ao
longo desse trajeto.
A cada um do Laboratório de Conservação no Século 21 (Lacos21), agradeço o
acolhimento, abraços, discussões, cafés e brincadeiras, que foram verdadeiros momentos
salvadores. Vocês tornaram essa jornada ainda mais especial.
Ao meu orientador e amigo, Jota (João Campos-Silva), um brilhante pesquisador, poeta,
cantor, sambista, compositor e otimista, tão necessário e fundamental neste mundo, muito
obrigada! Agradeço muito por me incentivar, me ensinar tanto, me corrigir tão docemente, e por
me permitir dividir os momentos dessa jornada. Me ensinou a também a confiar — confiar que
as coisas vão dar certo, que as coisas ficarão lindas, também a sempre pensar, aproveitar e
apreciar as belezas da vida.
Não posso deixar de dizer o quanto fui agraciada por ter também a Ana Malhado como
orientadora nessa jornada. Sempre me acolheu com palavras de carinho e motivação. Esteve
ao meu lado nas perdas e nas alegrias, acompanhando tantas maluquices da vida e tornando
tudo mais leve. Cada reunião, cada conversa, foram recargas que me ajudaram a continuar. Um
dos grandes orgulhos dessa jornada foi ter sido orientada por uma mulher, mãe e pesquisadora
incrível! Que sorte imensa a minha!
Ao Prof. Richard, tantos momentos interessantes, como ver um inglês abraçando,
aprendendo a tocar “Evidências” para os Lacoricos e sendo ele um dos maiores pesquisadores
do mundo, contribuindo com nossa formação.
Meu agradecimento ao Prof. Eduardo Brondízio, que me recebeu tão bem na Indiana
University, me proporcionando uma experiência profissional e pessoal inimaginável, e a
oportunidade de fazer tantos amigos no Lab. Casel. Nesse mesmo caminho surpreendente, tive
a alegria de encontrar as “Cientistas em Bloomington”, que tornaram o período sanduíche nos
EUA especial, com um companheirismo imenso e muito amor.
A Maceió, esse paraíso que me acalentou com sua beleza, me permitiu reencontrar
amigos e fazer amizades que se tornaram família. Sou grata por cada dia nesse lugar incrível,
que me mostrou com ser mais leve e que a vida pode ser assim.
Nesse período, me despedi de um grande incentivador, apoiador, cuidador e verdadeiro
pai que tive: meu avô Antônio do Leôncio. Ele sempre acreditou nos meus sonhos, assim como

minha avó Helena, que também já me olha lá de cima. Agradeço muito a eles, com todo meu
amor, pois sempre me apoiaram e oraram bastante para que eu realizasse meus planos e
sonhos. Além deles, contei com a garra, determinação, força, esperança, companheirismo e
amor da minha mãe Lúcia, que sempre uniu todas as forças do universo e enfrentou todas as
adversidades para que eu chegasse até aqui. Uma incansável motivadora em todas as minhas
jornadas. Eu te amo muito, mãe! Eu agradeço ao meu irmão Toninho (Antônio), biólogo
também, que me disse na época do vestibular que a biologia era uma paixão, não apenas uma
profissão. Essa fala sempre me acompanhou, especialmente diante dos muitos desafios que
enfrentei como profissional, mas que também me fez ver que minha paixão só aumentaria.
Agradeço a vocês pelos incentivos, motivações, lutas e orações. Eu consegui graças a vocês e
eu os amo muito! Muito obrigada!
E ao meu Chico, que não pôde estar fisicamente comigo nesta reta final, não poderia
deixar de agradecê-lo por todo amor e companheirismo que me ofereceu durante dezesseis
anos da minha vida, desde a graduação até o doutorado.
Aos meus sobrinhos Olívia, Antonela e Inácio, e à minha cunhada Mirelle, muito
obrigada pelo carinho e quando possível, atravessaram o país para acalentar a saudade e me
renovar. Minha gratidão e espero estar cada vez mais presente! Também expresso minha
gratidão a toda a minha família, aos meus tios, primos e primas-irmãs, que a todo momento
perguntavam: “Quando você vem?!” e que continuaram a me motivar, sempre dizendo para eu
terminar tudo logo, para nosso encontro no Corozinho.
Ao meu companheiro Hugo, com todo meu amor, agradeço por mais essa jornada,
talvez uma das mais loucas que tivemos. A vida nos trouxe a Maceió, repleta de desafios, e ele
sempre esteve ao meu lado. Choramos juntos de saudade da família, de medo da pandemia, e
celebramos juntos cada conquista. Nossas discussões científicas sempre renderam muito.
Hugo, além de ser o meu parceiro de vida, é um cientista formidável, e tenho muito orgulho e
me sinto honrada de trabalharmos juntos. Obrigada por todos os momentos lindos e de
conquistas!

Seguimos

realizando

nossos

sonhos

juntos!

Estendo

também

meus

agradecimentos a Gil, Neri e Bruno, que sempre estiveram ao nosso lado nas nossas decisões.
Minha grande amiga Allinne talvez nem imagina o quanto me ajudou durante esse
tempo. Agradeço de coração o apoio incondicional e por sempre “aceitar” a minha distância e,
ainda assim, continuar sempre presente ao meu lado. Às minhas Cumadis do início (e para
sempre) das aventuras amazônicas — Viviane, Vanessa e Letícia — agradeço por sempre me
ajudarem a “ajeitar os cabelos” e por fazerem parte da minha vida. Obrigada por estarem
comigo sempre! “Just as long as you stand, stand by me!”

Nessas jornadas de graduações tiveram muitas mãos (mães) envolvidas, na verdade,
“mães” de coração que sempre estarão marcadas em meu coração por toda a ajuda que nos
deram, a mim e à minha mãe em vários momentos. “As mulheres são como águas; crescem
quando se encontram.” Minha gratidão por terem nos tornados mais fortes.
Um professor, e agora amigo, sempre diz: “Daqui vão surgir grandes amizades para toda
a vida.” E realmente, aqui eu encontrei amizades muito necessárias e especiais. Agradeço ao
nosso quinteto formado por mim — Evellynne, Thainá, Carolina Neves e Anna Ludmilla — por
tornarem esse caminho mais lindo, iluminado e leve, por enxugarem as lágrimas e por
proporcionarem tantas diversões e alegrias. Ao Gaio, sou grata por todos os momentos de
longas conversas, descontrações, broncas e carinho.
Por fim, sinto uma gratidão imensa a tantas pessoas queridas do Médio Juruá! Foram
tantas conversas sobre vida, resiliência, união, luta e inspiração. Agradeço também pela
confiança em compartilhar seus imensos conhecimentos para que possamos lutar por um
futuro. Além disso, agradeço por mostrar as belezas e esperanças de uma Amazônia
inspiradora. Meu coração é repleto de amor e gratidão. Nunca vou esquecer a expedição de
campo pós-vacinação - Covid-19, em que participamos de uma primeira festa na comunidade:
às margens do Rio Juruá, com uma lua cheia linda nascendo sobre a floresta, e do outro lado,
as pessoas alegres comemorando os reencontros. Aquele momento foi a energia de esperança
necessária, e, a cada sorriso, a certeza de que dias melhores viriam.

“Foi um rio que passou em minha vida
E meu coração se deixou levar”
(Paulinho da Viola)

RESUMO

Os trópicos estão enfrentando as maiores taxas de degradação florestal globalmente,
impulsionadas pela produção de commodities, silvicultura, agricultura de commodities e
incêndios florestais, resultando em apenas 20% de florestas intocadas. Além disso, a
superexploração de peixes e vertebrados terrestres pode levar à síndrome de floresta
vazia, prejudicando os serviços ecossistêmicos. A contínua perda de cobertura florestal
e espécies animais ameaça a segurança alimentar de milhões de pessoas que
dependem da caça e pesca. Esta crise de biodiversidade, aliada à pobreza e
desigualdade social, desafia a criação de novos caminhos de desenvolvimento que
alinhem a conservação da biodiversidade com a melhoria do bem-estar local. A
Amazônia, representando mais de 50% das florestas tropicais remanescentes, é crucial
para a regulação do clima e a manutenção da biodiversidade global. Embora as Áreas
Protegidas sejam fundamentais para a preservação, muitas unidades de conservação
amazônicas carecem de estrutura e gestão adequadas, e terras indígenas enfrentam
invasões e exploração ilegal. Iniciativas de manejo comunitário dos recursos naturais
que acomodam múltiplos interesses locais estão surgindo como ferramentas poderosas
para recuperar populações de espécies historicamente superexploradas na Amazônia.
A pesca manejada do pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) é um exemplo de sucesso, no entanto,
desafios como monopólio pesqueiro, pesca ilegal, logística e remuneração justa para os
manejadores persistem. Esta tese, explora a pesca manejada do pirarucu no Rio Juruá,
oeste da Amazônia Brasileira, através de entrevistas com gestores, presidentes de
associações e pescadores, para investigar a multidimensionalidade dessa atividade na
proteção territorial, organização social e contribuição da natureza para as pessoas.
Observamos que o manejo comunitário do pirarucu apresenta um sistema de
governança policêntrico e adaptativo para promover tomadas de decisão participativas
e que apresentou um aumento de inclusão e aperfeiçoou os mecanismos de
monitoramento e sanções de punição ao longo do tempo, o que pode inspirar outros
modelos de bioeconomia para a Amazonia. Adicionalmente, a proteção comunitária dos
lagos para a pesca manejada promove diferentes percepções locais sobre a
contribuição da natureza para as pessoas principalmente na criação e manutenção de
habitats, qualidade do ar, materiais e preservação de recursos genéticos.
Demonstramos que o mapeamento das rotas de vigilância percorridas pelos
manejadores é substancialmente superior a área de interesse direto para o manejo
(área do lago). Porém, os custos associados à proteção são desproporcionais aos
benefícios gerados por essa atividade que pode ser valorizada por mecanismos de
pagamentos por serviços ambientais para melhor remuneração dos manejadores.
Palavras-chave: Amazônia, co-manejo, conservação.

ABSTRACT

The tropics are facing the highest rates of forest degradation globally, driven by
commodity production, forestry, agricultural commodities, and forest fires, resulting in
only 20% pristine forests remaining. Additionally, the overexploitation of wildlife can lead
to the empty forest syndrome, impairing ecosystem services. The continued loss of
forest cover and animal species jeopardize the food security of millions of people who
depend on hunting and fishing. This biodiversity crisis, coupled with poverty and social
inequality, challenges the creation of new development pathways that align biodiversity
conservation with the improvement of local well-being. The Amazon, representing over
50% of the remaining tropical forests, is crucial for climate regulation and the
maintenance of global biodiversity. Although Protected Areas are fundamental for
preservation, many Amazonian Protected Areas lack adequate structure and
management, and indigenous lands face invasions and illegal exploitation. Communitybased natural resource management initiatives that accommodate multiple local
interests are emerging as powerful tools to recover historically overexploited species
populations in the Amazon. Community-based Arapaima (Arapaima gigas) fisheries is a
success story; however, challenges such as fishing monopolies, illegal fishing, logistics,
and fair compensation for managers persist. This thesis explores the managed fisheries
of Arapaima in the Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazon, through interviews with
managers, association presidents, and fishers, to investigate the multidimensionality of
this activity in territorial protection, social organization, and the contribution of nature to
people. We observed that community management of pirarucu presents a polycentric
and adaptive governance system to promote participatory decision-making, which has
led to increased inclusion and improved monitoring and punishment mechanisms over
time. This model can inspire other bioeconomy models for the Amazon. Additionally, the
community protection of lakes for managed fishing promotes different local perceptions
of nature's contribution to people, mainly in the creation and maintenance of habitats, air
quality, materials, and the preservation of genetic resources. We demonstrate that the
mapping of surveillance routes taken by managers substantially exceeds the area of
direct interest for management (lake area). However, the costs associated with
protection are disproportionate to the benefits generated by this activity, which can be
valued through payment mechanisms for environmental services to better compensate
managers.
Key-word: Amazon, co-management, conservation.

LISTA DE FIGURAS
3.
THE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF ARAPAIMA (Arapaima gigas) IN AN
AMAZONIAN BRIGHT SPOT: A HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING
26
Figure 1. Territorial governance along the Juruá River examined through the lens of
polycentric governance. This approach involves multiple decision-making entities
managing resources within defined boundaries, encompassing diverse organizations,
scales, autonomies, and non-hierarchical processes.
39
Figure 2. The evolution of design principles (DPs) and their main features across three
periods: T1, Initial Phase: Sector-based regulations established as communities joined
the management process (blue). T2, Second Phase, around 2014: Regulations revised,
and f formalized in response to community demands (yellow). T3, Third Phase, 2023:
Regulations individualized by community (red).
43
4.
COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION CATALYZES MULTIDIMENSIONAL
NATURE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PEOPLE
49
Figure 1. Study area, mid-section of Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazonia.
Arapaima-managing and non-Arapaima-managing communities interviewed during this
study are represented by purple and yellow dots respectively.
55
Figure 2. Boxplots comparing local perceptions of hard-wood species abundance (Hura
crepitans, Copaifera longsdorffii, Ocotea cymbarum, and Platymiscium trinitatis),
fisheries CPUE, Arapaima gigas, and Colossoma macropomum abundance from rural
communities along the Juruá River before and after Araparaima co-management
implementation. Paired t-test statistical significance is denoted as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,
***p < 0.001 and **** p < 0.0001.
61
Figure 3. Boxplots represent local perceptions from both non-Arapaima managing and
Arapaima-managing communities about Arapaima abundance in unprotected lakes,
fisheries as a recreational activity, frequency of group celebrations, Arapaima as an icon
to represent local livelihoods, cultural strengthening and revival, learning opportunities
and community union. t-test statistical significance is denoted as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
and ***p < 0.001.
62
Figure 4. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of rural communities along the Juruá
River in western Brazilian Amazônia and Nature Contributions to People Perceptions.
The biplot displays the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2), which explain

52% and 29% of the variance, respectively. Purple dots represent Arapaima-managing
communities while non-Arapaima-managing communities are represented in yellow.
Arrows represent the loadings of the original variables, showing their contribution to the
principal components.
63
5.
COMMUNITY-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT EXERT A VAST VALUEADDED EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOOTPRINT IN AMAZONIAN FORESTS
82
Figure 1. Territorial protection and surveillance of Amazonian floodplains organized in
pairs or small teams within the scope of arapaima fisheries management. Protection
extends far beyond oxbow lakes, covering substantially larger areas. Arapaima comanagement activities have varying impacts at different spatial scales (1) Direct scale of
protection: immediate lake areas under surveillance; (2) Effective scale of protection:
full-time territorial surveillance, intensified during the dry season, protecting areas of
management interest; (3) Functional scale of protection: estimated based on the
movement ecology of arapaima , considering their ability to sustain ecological
interactions; and (4) Incidental scale of protection: indirect surveillance of adjacent
upland forest areas that are incidentally protected by restricting access to the floodplain
by outside users.
110
Figure 2. The Juruá River flood pulse in meters over the last 38 years and communitybased surveillance efforts. Community surveillance efforts intensify during the period of
receding floodwaters in which fish stocks become more concentrated and more
vulnerable.
111
Figure 3. Mid-section of the Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazonia. Orange circles
represent 14 communities located within two contiguous sustainable-use forest
reserves, with a combined area of 886,176 ha. These communities perform territorial
surveillance for co-management of arapaima (Arapaima gigas) within 96 lakes here
represented by blue dots. Inset map shows (i) the effective scale of protection (in yellow)
which included to the routes that community rangers patrol to protect lakes, and (ii) the
scale of functional protection (shaded in orange), in which arapaima stocks are fully
protected to move into floodplains during the high-water season. Finally, the larger (iii)
scale of incidental protection (shaded in grey) represents the adjacent upland (terra
firme) forests that are also closed off by restricting access by outsiders to floodplain
forests.
112
Figure 4. Boxplots representing the area in hectares (log10 x) and different spatial
scales of protection carried out by Amazonian rural communities engaged in Arapaima
(Arapaima gigas) co-management along the Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazonia.
66

Figure 5: Boxplot illustrating protection costs (US$) incurred by local communities
participating in sustainable Arapaima fisheries co-management, and alternative
estimated costs under two scenarios: (i) assuming that two lake guards in each
community are employed for territorial surveillance receiving a minimum wage according
to Brazilian labour regulations; and (ii) two environmental agents are hired and deployed
by a government agency.
113
Figure 6. Community-based territorial protection costs (US$) as a function of (a) the
authorized Arapaima harvest quota (log10 x) and (b) the distance (m) to the farthest lake
from the Juruá River channel.
114

LISTA DE TABELAS

4.

COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION CATALYZES MULTIDIMENSIONAL
NATURE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PEOPLE
49

Table 1. Questions asked to fishermen and women from Arapaima-managing and nonArapaima-managing communities along the Juruá River in the western Brazilian
Amazon regarding local perceptions of Nature’s Contribution to People before
and after Arapaima management implementation, as well as current perceptions.
55
5.

COMMUNITY-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT EXERT A VAST VALUEADDED EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOOTPRINT IN AMAZONIAN FORESTS
36

Table 1. Spatial scales, total areas (ha), and total costs (US$ ha‒1 yr‒1) of territorial
protection carried out by local communities engaged in arapaima (Arapaima gigas) comanagement fisheries along the Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazon.
116
8

APÊNDICE A – MATERIAL SUPLEMENTAR

Community-based fisheries management exert a vast value-added effective
protection footprint in Amazonian forests
Table S.1. Candidate models explaining costs of territorial protection performed by rural
Amazonian communities engaged in sustainable arapaima (Arapaima gigas) fisheries
along the Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazonia, including their respective Akaike
information criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), the difference between a
given model and the ‘best’ candidate model (ΔAICc), and the model Akaike weights
(ωAICc); d.f. = degrees of freedom, logLik = log-likelihood.
120

Table S.2. Comparative estimates of community-based protection costs of local
Arapaima stocks under different governance scenarios. These cost estimates are
expressed in terms of both (i) US dollars per hectare per year and (ii) the value of a
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program, expressed in US dollars per kilogram
of sustainably harvested fish.
121

SUMÁRIO
1.
APRESENTAÇÃO ....................................................................................... 11
REFERÊNCIAS............................................................................................................... 13
2.
REVISÃO DA LITERATURA ....................................................................... 15
2.1
As várzeas amazônicas ............................................................................. 15
2.2
Serviços Ecossistêmicos e Contribuição da Natureza para as Pessoas16
2.3
. A pesca do pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) ................................................... 19
REFERÊNCIAS............................................................................................................... 20
3.
THE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF ARAPAIMA (Arapaima gigas) IN
AN AMAZONIAN BRIGHT SPOT: A HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL
STRENGTHENING ......................................................................................................... 25
3.1
Abstract ....................................................................................................... 25
3.2
Introduction ................................................................................................ 26
3.3
Methods ...................................................................................................... 29
3.3.1
Study Area and socioecological context of Jurua River ........................ 29
3.3.2
Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................... 32
3.4
Results and discussion ............................................................................. 34
3.4.1
Implementation history .............................................................................. 34
3.4.2
Polycentric governance ............................................................................. 35
3.4.3
Regulations and Institutional Effectiveness in Community Management
of Arapaima: An Analysis through Design Principles ............................................... 40
3.4.4
Arapaima as a symbol of the new Amazonian sociobioeconomy ......... 43
Referências .................................................................................................................... 44
4.
COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION CATALYZES
MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PEOPLE .............................. 48
4.1
Abstract ....................................................................................................... 48
4.2
Introduction ................................................................................................ 49
4.3
Methods ...................................................................................................... 53
4.3.1
Study Area .................................................................................................. 53
4.3.2
Data collection ............................................................................................ 54
4.3.3
Analysis ...................................................................................................... 59
4.4
Results ........................................................................................................ 59
4.5
Discussion .................................................................................................. 62
Referências .................................................................................................................... 69
5.
COMMUNITY-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT EXERT A VAST
VALUE-ADDED EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOOTPRINT IN AMAZONIAN FORESTS78
5.1
Abstract ....................................................................................................... 80
5.2
Introduction ................................................................................................ 80
5.3
Results ........................................................................................................ 83
5.3.1
Operational structure of community-led protection ................................ 83
5.3.2
Community-based protection footprint .................................................... 84
5.3.3
Financial cost of CBC protection .............................................................. 85
5.4
Discussion .................................................................................................. 86
Spatial extent of community-based protection.................. Erro! Indicador não definido.
Cost of community-based protection in a seasonal environmentErro! Indicador não definido.

Strengthening recognition of hidden environmental servicesErro! Indicador não definido.
5.5
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 92
5.6
Methods ...................................................................................................... 93
5.6.1
Study Area .................................................................................................. 93
5.6.2
Resource governance resulting from arapaima co-management .......... 93
5.6.3
Data analysis .............................................................................................. 94
5.6.3.1
Quantifying territorial protection .............................................................. 94
Direct scale of protection .................................................... Erro! Indicador não definido.
Effective scale of protection................................................ Erro! Indicador não definido.
Functional scale of protection ............................................ Erro! Indicador não definido.
Incidental scale protection .................................................. Erro! Indicador não definido.
5.6.3.2
Assessing protection dynamics and costs .............................................. 98
Referências .................................................................................................................. 100
7 Conclusões gerais ................................................................................................... 109
8 APÊNDICE A – MATERIAL SUPLEMENTAR........................................................... 110

APRESENTAÇÃO
Os trópicos atualmente experimentam as maiores taxas de degradação florestal em
todo o mundo. A produção de commodities, a silvicultura, a agricultura itinerante e os
incêndios florestais são os principais motores do desmatamento (Curtis et al. 2018), restando
apenas 20% de florestas intocadas. Além disso, a superexploração de peixes e de
vertebrados terrestres pode levar a uma síndrome de floresta vazia, carente de serviços
ecossistêmicos (Wilkie et al. 2011; Antunes et al. 2016). O declínio contínuo da cobertura
florestal e de espécies animais coloca em risco a segurança alimentar de milhões de
pessoas indígenas e não indígenas que dependem da caça e da pesca como principais
fontes de proteínas, gorduras, calorias e micronutrientes (Tregidgo et al. 2020). A crise da
biodiversidade, combinada com altos níveis de pobreza e desigualdade social, impõe às
sociedades contemporâneas o desafio de estabelecer novos caminhos de desenvolvimento
que alinhem a conservação da biodiversidade com a melhoria do bem-estar local (Nobre et
al. 2016; Campos-Silva et al. 2021).
A Amazônia representa mais de 50% das florestas tropicais remanescentes e é um
ambiente crucial para a regulação do clima (Malhi et al. 2008) e para a manutenção da
biodiversidade em escala global (Pimm et al. 2014). A substituição de florestas por
agricultura mecanizada de commodities, pecuária e instalação de hidrelétricas em grande
escala tem sido historicamente responsável pelo desmatamento massivo da Amazônia, que
alcançou 838.600 km² até o final de 2022. Além disso, 38% da floresta remanescente está
atualmente degradada por incêndios, efeitos de borda, extração de madeira e secas
extremas (Lapola et al. 2023), aproximando-se do limiar de não retorno de 40% de
desmatamento (Sampaio et al. 2007; Lovejoy e Nobre 2019). Embora as Áreas Protegidas
sejam o principal obstáculo contra a perda de habitat e biodiversidade, a maioria das
reservas amazônicas carece de estrutura adequada, gestão e monitoramento. Um terço de
todas as terras indígenas amazônicas ainda não completou seu processo de demarcação
física e 85% enfrentam regularmente invasões por grileiros, extração ilegal de madeira e
mineração, que degradam a estrutura florestal e os recursos naturais essenciais para seus
ocupantes legítimos.

12
Iniciativas de base-comunitária que acomodam os interesses de múltiplos atores
locais estão emergindo como uma poderosa ferramenta para recuperar populações de várias
espécies historicamente superexploradas em toda a bacia amazônica (Campos-Silva et al.
2017). A pesca manejada do pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) praticada em Unidades de
Conservação, Terras Indígenas e em áreas de Acordos de Pesca é o caso de maior sucesso
de manejo comunitário dos recursos naturais. Além dos benefícios de conservação para
este icônico peixe amazônico, o manejo do pirarucu também se tornou uma grande
oportunidade para melhorar o bem-estar da população rural amazônida podendo ser
replicado em diversas bacias hidrográficas e de diferentes contextos sociais. Os principais
desafios para essa cadeia produtiva são a quebra do monopólio pesqueiro, o combate à
pesca ilegal, logística, infraestrutura e a remuneração justa para o manejador na beira do
lago.
Para construir essa tese naveguei pelo Rio Juruá, no oeste da Amazônia Brasileira e
entrevistei gestores, presidentes de associações, pescadores e pescadoras para entender a
multidimensionalidade dessa atividade na proteção territorial, organização social e na
contribuição da natureza para as pessoas em comunidades manejadoras e não manejadoras
de pirarucu. Ela é composta por três capítulos em formatos de artigos científicos que se
complementam de maneira cronológica na implementação dessa atividade.
“Você consegue fazer tudo sozinho aqui no Médio Juruá, menos manejar. Você
precisa ter uma comunidade organizada! O manejo começa impactando a organização
social das famílias…” Essas frases de Manoel Cunha, liderança do Médio Juruá ilustram
muito bem o que apresento no primeiro capítulo intitulado: “ The community management of
Arapaima (Arapaima gigas) in an Amazonian bright spot: a history of institutional
strengthening” . Nele, descrevo o histórico da implementação do manejo do pirarucu no rio
Juruá, o sistema policêntrico de governança e analisamos as modificações nos regimentos
internos das comunidades manejadoras ao longo do tempo de acordo com os princípios
propostos por Elinor Ostrom para o manejo de recursos comuns. Manoel segue com sua
fala: “Depois, traz uma colaboração e um impacto também na biodiversidade, se
protege um lago para tirar uma ou duas espécies, mas acaba ficando protegido todo
aquele ecossistema dentro daquele ambiente, né? Até a floresta, porque não se pode

13
derrubar uma árvore nem para tirar uma abelha (mel) sequer na redondeza desses
lagos de manejo, porque algum peixe daquele ambiente se alimenta daquela fruta…”.
Inspirada nessas palavras, o capítulo 2 “Community-based conservation catalyzes
multidimensional nature’s contributions to people”, revela como o manejo do pirarucu é uma
atividade mantenedora de serviços ecossistêmicos através da comparação das percepções
locais antes e depois da implementação da atividade para comunidades manejadoras de
pirarucu, que são contrastadas com as percepções atuais de comunidades não manejadoras
de pirarucu. Por fim, Fernanda Moraes, moradora e liderança feminina da comunidade Lago
Serrado é minha grande inspiração para o capítulo 3: “ Se um dia eu pudesse ter contato
com alguém de fora, e que se alimenta do peixe que tem no nosso lago, eu gostaria de
dizer: - Olha, você está comendo fruto de união, de um cuidado que as pessoas têm
para que esse alimento chegue até você! Você está tendo o privilégio de se alimentar
de um peixe que engloba amor, cuidado, proteção e união juntos.”. Nesse artigo,
Intitulado “Community-based fisheries management exert a vast value-added effective
protection footprint in Amazonian forests” mapeei as rotas de vigilância percorridas pelos
manejadores de pirarucu e descobri que a área localmente protegida por eles é
substancialmente maior do que a área de interesse direta para o manejo (área do lago), no
entanto todos os custos associados à vigilância são pagos pelos próprios manejadores, o
que é desproporcional aos benefícios gerados por essa atividade. Por isso, discuto que
mecanismos de pagamentos por essa atividade devem ser desenvolvidos para melhor
valorização do pirarucu de manejo e consequente melhor remuneração para o pescador na
beira do lago. Boa leitura!

REFERÊNCIAS
Antunes, A.P., Fewster, R.M., Venticinque, E.M., Peres, C.A., Levi, T., Rohe, F.,
Shepard, G.H., 2016. Empty forest or empty rivers? A century of commercial hunting in
Amazonia. Sci Adv 2. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600936
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., Amaral, J.H.F., Sarmento, H., Forsberg, B., Fonseca,
C.R., 2021. Fisheries management influences phytoplankton biomass of Amazonian
floodplain lakes. Journal of Applied Ecology 58, 731–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/13652664.13763

14
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., Antunes, A.P., Valsecchi, J., Pezzuti, J., 2017.
Community-based population recovery of overexploited Amazonian wildlife. Perspect
Ecol Conserv 15, 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.08.004
Curtis, P.G., Slay, C.M., Harris, N.L., Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M.C., 2018. Classifying
drivers of global forest loss. Science (1979) 361, 1108–1111.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445
Lapola, D.M., Pinho, P., Barlow, J., Aragão, L.E.O.C., Berenguer, E., Carmenta, R.,
Liddy, H.M., Seixas, H., Silva, C.V.J., Silva, C.H.L., Alencar, A.A.C., Anderson, L.O.,
Armenteras, D., Brovkin, V., Calders, K., Chambers, J., Chini, L., Costa, M.H., Faria,
B.L., Fearnside, P.M., Ferreira, J., Gatti, L., Gutierrez-Velez, V.H., Han, Z., Hibbard, K.,
Koven, C., Lawrence, P., Pongratz, J., Portela, B.T.T., Rounsevell, M., Ruane, A.C.,
Schaldach, R., da Silva, S.S., von Randow, C., Walker, W.S., 2023. The drivers and
impacts of Amazon forest degradation. Science (1979) 379.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8622
Lovejoy, T.E., Nobre, C., 2019. Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action. Sci Adv 5.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949
Malhi, Y., Roberts, J.T., Betts, R.A., Killeen, T.J., Li, W., Nobre, C.A., 2008. Climate
Change, Deforestation, and the Fate of the Amazon. Science (1979) 319, 169–172.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146961
Pimm, S.L., Jenkins, C.N., Abell, R., Brooks, T.M., Gittleman, J.L., Joppa, L.N., Raven,
P.H., Roberts, C.M., Sexton, J.O., 2014. The biodiversity of species and their rates of
extinction, distribution, and protection. Science (1979) 344.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752
Sampaio, G., Nobre, C., Costa, M.H., Satyamurty, P., Soares‐Filho, B.S., Cardoso, M.,
2007. Regional climate change over eastern Amazonia caused by pasture and soybean
cropland expansion. Geophys Res Lett 34. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030612
Tregidgo, D., Barlow, J., Pompeu, P.S., Parry, L., 2020. Tough fishing and severe
seasonal food insecurity in Amazonian flooded forests. People and Nature 2, 468–482.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10086
Wilkie, D.S., Bennett, E.L., Peres, C.A., Cunningham, A.A., 2011. The empty forest
revisited. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1223, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17496632.2010.05908.x.

15

1. REVISÃO DA LITERATURA
1.1 As várzeas amazônicas
As zonas úmidas são ecossistemas globalmente importantes para a conservação
da biodiversidade e para o bem-estar humano ((Butchart et al., 2010; Junk et al.,
2014a). Apesar de cobrirem somente 0.8% da superfície terrestre, esses ecossistemas
abrigam cerca de um terço de todas as espécies de vertebrados, além de sustentarem
diretamente os meios de vida de milhões de pessoas pela exploração de peixes e
vertebrados, solos férteis para agricultura, água potável, ciclagem de nutrientes e
regulação do clima (Groot et al., 2012). A Amazônia corresponde a mais de 50% dos
remanescentes de florestas tropicais sendo que uma vasta proporção de sua área é
formada por mosaicos de paisagens naturais de áreas úmidas inseridas dentro de uma
matriz de florestas de terra firme sob solos geralmente pobres em nutrientes e acima do
nível máximo da água das planícies aluviais adjacentes(Tuomisto et al., 1995). As
planícies aluviais amazônicas compreendem uma variedade de habitats, incluindo
florestas alagadas, savanas hidromórficas, áreas úmidas costeiras, florestas de maré e
florestas sazonalmente alagadas. Essas áreas úmidas amazônicas são classificadas de
acordo com suas características climáticas, edáficas e florísticas (Junk et al., 2014b,
2011). Com base nesses critérios, dois grandes grupos de áreas úmidas podem ser
distinguidos: aquelas com níveis de água (i) relativamente estáveis ou (ii) oscilantes
(Junk et al., 2011).
As zonas úmidas amazônicas de nível de água variável podem ser sazonalmente
alagadas por rios de água branca, como o Solimões, Madeira, Japurá e Juruá, de águas
pretas como o Negro, Tefé e Jutaí, ou ainda por rios de águas claras como o Tocantins,
Tapajós e Xingú (Wittmann et al., 2006). Os rios de águas brancas são ricos em
nutrientes, pois possuem as suas nascentes na Cordilheira dos Andes (Junk et al.,
2011) que depositam anualmente sedimentos em suas águas. As florestas
sazonalmente alagadas por rios de água branca são conhecidas como várzeas, que
são as zonas úmidas mais ricas em espécies de árvores no mundo, compartilhando
muitas espécies com as florestas de terra firme, além de possuir um alto número de

16
espécies endêmicas adaptadas para sobreviver ao longo período de inundação
(Wittman et al., 2017). A alternância anual entre períodos de inundação e de seca é a
principal responsável por moldar as formas de sobrevivência das espécies nas
diferentes épocas do ano (Costa et al., 2018). A fácil acessibilidade de transporte pelos
rios, a provisão de solos férteis para plantio durante a estação seca e a alta
produtividade pesqueira favorecem a ocupação das várzeas pelas comunidades
humanas rurais (Junk et al., 2011; Wittmann et al., 2006).
1.2 Serviços Ecossistêmicos e Contribuição da Natureza para as Pessoas
Os ecossistemas dão suporte à vida no planeta(Corvalan et al., 2005; Costanza,
2020; Costanza et al., 1997). As funções ecossistêmicas são conceituadas como
serviços ecossistêmicos (SE) quando trazem ideias de valor, saúde, bem-estar, meios
de subsistência e sobrevivência para o ser humano (Daily and Matson, 2008). Estas
funções provêm benefícios às pessoas, gerando soluções econômicas e sociais devido
ao uso direto e indireto dos recursos naturais (COSTANZA et al., 2017). Através dos SE
é possível medir a integridade ecológica de um ecossistema, e sua capacidade em
realizar as funções de regulação, produtividade e resiliência (Groot et al., 2002).
O conceito de SE se transformou ao longo do tempo objetivando unir a ciência,
os recursos naturais, e questões sociais para que fosse possível interligar as políticas
ambientais

e

socioeconômicas.

Seguindo

o

conceito

de

SE,

a

Plataforma

Intergovernamental de Políticas Científicas sobre Biodiversidade e os Serviços de
Ecossistema (IPBES) desenvolveu o conceito de "Contribuição da Natureza para as
Pessoas" (NCP – nature's contribution to people - em inglês) (Díaz et al., 2015). Este
conceito surgiu para ampliar pontos abordados pelos serviços ecossistêmicos, com a
inclusão das partes interessadas, perspectivas e conhecimentos de populações
tradicionais e indígenas. Assim, o NCP inclui as relações (positivas ou negativas) das
pessoas com a natureza, e as relaciona com a diversidade de ecossistemas e à
qualidade de vida (Díaz et al., 2018).
Neste contexto, a valoração de NCP (daqui em diante substitui o conceito de
serviços ecossistêmicos) significa qualificar e quantificar os serviços da natureza que

17
estão sendo usados e percebidos pelas atividades humanas. Com isso é possível
verificar o quão melhor ou pior estão os recursos naturais e o bem-estar das pessoas
envolvidas em determinado período (Pascual et al., 2017). Ou seja, através das
medidas adequadas, a valoração será capaz de mostrar quais são os NCPs que estão
em evidência para o bem-estar humano (Pascual et al., 2017)
A valoração dos NCPs é uma importante ferramenta para ser utilizada no
planejamento de estratégias de conservação de modo que combinem adequadamente
proteção e formulação de planos que garantam a sustentabilidade e a qualidade de vida
dos povos locais (Díaz et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2017). Quando se usa a mensuração
dos NCPs em valores monetários, pode-se tornar mais palpável a utilidade daquele
recurso utilizado pela sociedade, direta ou indiretamente (Costanza, 2001), de acordo
com os modelos de mercado. Desta forma, isto poderá auxiliar no entendimento de
como ocorre o declínio dos NCPs para evitar declínios e prejuízos futuros (Carpenter et
al., 2009; Corvalan et al., 2005). Sendo assim, a valoração, não só a monetária,
integrada à percepção da sociedade sobre os recursos naturais visa reconhecer a
diversidade de valores existentes a partir dos sistemas de conhecimento locais,
entendendo o valor social dos NCPs e como são utilizados. Porém, além das
valorações de mercado, que são baseadas em moedas de mercado, há uma
necessidade de reconhecer também valores não monetários, que também são de
grande valia para o funcionamento dos ecossistemas e bem-estar da população
mundial.
Há uma grande lacuna de conhecimento sobre os NCPs e sua valoração na
Amazônia, especialmente sob a perspectiva das comunidades locais (Strand et al.,
2018) Reconhecer e integrar esses conhecimentos é essencial para desenvolver
políticas ambientais e socioeconômicas que sustentem esses serviços a longo prazo
(Kiker et al., 2005). A valoração dos recursos naturais é crucial, pois estima os fluxos
desses recursos para identificar os impactos ou melhorias da natureza no bem-estar
humano (Chan et al., 2016; Díaz et al., 2018).
As comunidades locais possuem um entendimento profundo e específico do
ecossistema, que pode complementar os dados científicos e contribuir para estratégias

18
de conservação mais abrangentes (Brondízio et al., 2021). A colaboração entre
cientistas, formuladores de políticas e comunidades locais pode levar a soluções mais
sustentáveis e equitativas para a gestão dos recursos naturais na Amazônia. Assim, a
integração de conhecimentos científicos e locais não só preserva a biodiversidade, mas
também promove o bem-estar humano ao garantir que os benefícios dos recursos
naturais sejam compartilhados de maneira justa e sustentável (Campos-Silva and
Peres, 2016). Não obstante, a inclusão das comunidades locais no processo de
valoração é fundamental para garantir que as políticas sejam eficazes e justas.
Nesse contexto, o pagamento por serviço ambiental (PSA) surge como uma
ferramenta eficaz para a conservação e a sustentabilidade. Os primeiros programas de
PSA na Amazônia foram iniciados por volta dos anos 2000 e se destacam pela
aplicabilidade e pelas lições aprendidas a longo prazo. Um exemplo notável é o
Programa de Desenvolvimento Socioambiental da Produção Familiar (Proambiente),
que prevê pagamentos pela redução do desmatamento, programas de sequestro e
carbono evitado, diminuição ou finalização do uso de agrotóxicos, redução de
queimadas, conservação do solo, água e da biodiversidade (Onishi, 2019). Esses
programas demonstram como incentivos econômicos podem alinhar os interesses das
comunidades locais com objetivos de conservação, promovendo práticas sustentáveis
que beneficiam tanto o meio ambiente quanto as populações que dependem dele.
Os programas de PSA mais frequentes globalmente incluem o sequestro
de carbono ou a emissão evitada de gases carbônicos na atmosfera. Para a
implementação desses programas, são necessários trabalhos técnicos para obter
estimativas de quanto carbono seria emitido e evitado, estabelecer metas de redução
de emissão e calcular o carbono sequestrado por áreas de floresta protegidas ou
reflorestadas. Embora os projetos do REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Degradation) sejam amplamente reconhecidos, é importante notar que o foco aqui
está na ampla aplicabilidade dos PSAs (Matthews et al., 2014; Parker et al., 2008).
Um exemplo no estado do Amazonas é o Programa Bolsa Floresta (PBF) que
oferece apoio e fomento para comunidades tradicionais, visando contribuir com a
conservação das florestas e a melhoria da qualidade de vida. Para assessorar essas

19
comunidades, o programa promove diferentes medidas que visam desde o
fortalecimento da participação, autonomia e protagonismo de grupos populares até o
desenvolvimento do empreendedorismo e da capacidade de autogestão mantendo a
floresta conservada. Atualmente, o benefício abrange cerca de 35 mil pessoas
distribuídas nas Unidades de Conservação do Estado do Amazonas (Cisneros et al.,
2022).
De acordo com (Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016), no Rio Juruá, o manejo do
pirarucu aumenta a receita anual média das comunidades para US $10.601 ao ano em
lagos protegidos, aumentando os benefícios financeiros locais, incluindo melhorias nas
condições de vida da população, fortalecendo os valores culturais e a conservação da
biodiversidade. Os PSAs promovem a conservação ambiental, aumentam a consciência
global sobre a importância dos serviços ecossistêmicos e incentivam novas formas de
sustentabilidade.

Ao

valorizar

economicamente

os

serviços

prestados

pelos

ecossistemas, os PSAs oferecem um modelo sustentável que pode ser replicado em
diferentes contextos, adaptando-se às necessidades específicas de cada região e
comunidade(Pascual et al., 2014; Wunder, 2015).
1.3 . A pesca do pirarucu (Arapaima gigas)
A pesca é um importante meio de subsistência em todo mundo, principalmente
para as comunidades de baixa renda. Na Amazônia é a principal fonte de aquisição de
proteína, tornando a população dependente deste recurso. No entanto, e a pesca
comercial desregrada resulta muitas vezes na superexploração e no colapso dos
estoques pesqueiros (Darimont et al., 2015; Tregidgo et al., 2020). Esse colapso,
também resultante da alta demanda comercial, tem sido uma preocupação para a
conservação da biodiversidade e para economia local, principalmente pela exploração
de pescados de maior tamanho e reprodução lenta, como o pirarucu , (Arapaima gigas)
(Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016; Castello et al., 2009; Petersen et al., 2016).
De acordo com as instruções normativas do IBAMA n. 34, de 18 de junho de
2004 e n.º 001, de 01 de junho de 2005, a pesca, o transporte, a armazenagem e
comercialização do pirarucu são proibidos em todo o Estado do Amazonas, exceto se

20
proveniente de manejo de lagos. Tais instruções dão suporte ao decreto n.º 36.083 de
23/07/2015 que regulamenta a pesca manejada do pirarucu no Estado em Unidades de
Conservação Estaduais, Áreas de Relevante Interesse Socioambiental e em Áreas de
Acordo de Pesca, instituídas pelo órgão estadual competente. Os acordos de pesca
estabelecem regras de regulação para as práticas pesqueiras entre comunidades de
pescadores locais, podendo ser de subsistência e comercial, buscando lidar com os
conflitos de pressão sobre os recursos pesqueiros e com sanções a serem aplicadas
aos infratores (Castro and McGrath, 2001). Nestes acordos de pesca, os lagos são
divididos em três categorias: I) lagos abertos à pesca comercial; II) lagos de
subsistência para as comunidades; III) lagos protegidos pela comunidade para a
recuperação populacional do pirarucu e das demais espécies de pescado. Neste último,
a cota de retirada de arapaima é de 30% ao ano para cada lago, porcentagem que é
determinada pelo IBAMA a partir da contagem feita nos mesmos lagos no ano anterior
(Castello et al., 2009; decreto do Amazonas N.º 36.083, 23 de julho de 2015).
Na década de 1990 na Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá, a
pesca manejada do pirarucu foi implementada e devido ao alto nível de engajamento
comunitário tem se replicado em todo o Estado do Amazonas. Esta atividade representa
um raro exemplo onde a conservação da biodiversidade está alinhada à melhoria da
qualidade de vida. Tais benefícios incluem a recuperação populacional dessa espécie
historicamente super explorada, regulação das cadeias tróficas nos lagos, a proteção
dos ambientes de várzea, melhorias nas condições de vida, promoção da equidade de
gênero na pesca fortalecimento dos valores culturais e aumento da geração de renda
(Campos-Silva et al., 2019; Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016; Freitas et al., 2020).
REFERÊNCIAS
Brondízio, E.S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bates, P., Carino, J., Fernández-Llamazares,
Á., Ferrari, M.F., Galvin, K., Reyes-García, V., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Samakov, A.,
Shrestha, U.B., 2021. Locally Based, Regionally Manifested, and Globally Relevant:
Indigenous and Local Knowledge, Values, and Practices for Nature. Annu Rev Environ
Resour 46, 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Strien, A. v, Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond,
R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E., Carr, G.M.,

21
Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli,
A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M.H.,
Oldfield, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J.R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D.,
Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vié, J.-C.,
Watson, R., In, 2010. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of. Science (1979) 328, 1164–1168.
Campos-Silva, J.V., Hawes, J.E., Peres, C.A., 2019. Population recovery, seasonal site
fidelity, and daily activity of pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) in an Amazonian floodplain mosaic.
Freshw Biol 64, 1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13301
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., 2016. Community-based management induces rapid
recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci Rep 6, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34745
Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., Defries, R.S., Diaz, S., Dietz,
T., Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M., Perrings, C., Reid, W. V.,
Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R.J., Whyte, A., 2009. Science for managing ecosystem
services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
106, 1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106
Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Luzadis, V.A., 2009. Lessons
from integrating fishers of arapaima in small-scale fisheries management at the
mamirauá reserve, amazon. Environ Manage 43, 197–209.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9220-5
Castro, F. De, McGrath, D.G., 2001. O manejo comunitário de lagos na Amazônia,
Parcerias Estratégicas.
Chan, K.M.A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., GómezBaggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G.W., Martín-López, B.,
Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J.,
Turner, N., 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 113, 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
Cisneros, E., Börner, J., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2022. Impacts of conservation
incentives in protected areas: The case of Bolsa Floresta, Brazil. J Environ Econ
Manage 111, 102572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102572
Corvalan, C., Hales, Simon., McMichael, A., Butler, C., Campbell-Lendrum, D.,
Confalonieri, U., Leitner, K., Lewis, N., Patz, J., Polson, K., Scheraga, J., Woodward, A.,
Younes, M., 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Health Synthesis- A Report of
the Millennium. World Health Organization 1–59.
Costa, H.C.M., Peres, C.A., Abrahams, M.I., 2018. Seasonal dynamics of terrestrial
vertebrate abundance between Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. PeerJ 2018.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5058

22
Costanza, R., 2020. Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of
efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosyst Serv 43, 101096.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096
Costanza, R., 2001. Visions, values, valuation, and the need for an ecological
economics. Bioscience 51, 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1641/00063568(2001)051[0459:VVVATN]2.0.CO;2
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. LK https://royalroads.on.worldcat.org/oclc/4592801201, Nature TA - TT -.
Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A., 2008. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 9455–9456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804960105
Darimont, C.T., Fox, C.H., Bryan, H.M., Reimchen, T.E., 2015. The unique ecology of
human predators. Science (1979) 349, 858–860.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4249
de Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L.,
Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie,
A., Portela, R., Rodriguez, L.C., ten Brink, P., van Beukering, P., 2012. Global estimates
of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1, 50–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological
Economics 41, 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A.,
Adhikari, J.R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I.A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E.,
Chan, K.M.A., Figueroa, V.E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley,
P., Lyver, P., Mace, G.M., Martin-Lopez, B., Okumura, M., Pacheco, D., Pascual, U.,
Pérez, E.S., Reyers, B., Roth, E., Saito, O., Scholes, R.J., Sharma, N., Tallis, H.,
Thaman, R., Watson, R., Yahara, T., Hamid, Z.A., Akosim, C., Al-Hafedh, Y.,
Allahverdiyev, R., Amankwah, E., Asah, T.S., Asfaw, Z., Bartus, G., Brooks, A.L.,
Caillaux, J., Dalle, G., Darnaedi, D., Driver, A., Erpul, G., Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P., Failler,
P., Fouda, A.M.M., Fu, B., Gundimeda, H., Hashimoto, S., Homer, F., Lavorel, S.,
Lichtenstein, G., Mala, W.A., Mandivenyi, W., Matczak, P., Mbizvo, C., Mehrdadi, M.,
Metzger, J.P., Mikissa, J.B., Moller, H., Mooney, H.A., Mumby, P., Nagendra, H.,
Nesshover, C., Oteng-Yeboah, A.A., Pataki, G., Roué, M., Rubis, J., Schultz, M., Smith,
P., Sumaila, R., Takeuchi, K., Thomas, S., Verma, M., Yeo-Chang, Y., Zlatanova, D.,
2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Curr Opin
Environ Sustain 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

23
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R.,
Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M.,
Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P.W., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Van Der Plaat, F., Schröter,
M., Lavorel, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, E., Davies, K., Demissew, S.,
Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C.A., Hewitt, C.L., Keune, H., Lindley, S., Shirayama, Y.,
2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse
sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science (1979) 359, 270–272.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Freitas, C.T., Espírito-Santo, H.M.V., Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., Lopes, P.F.M.,
2020. Resource co-management as a step towards gender equity in fisheries. Ecological
Economics 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106709
Junk, W.J., Piedade, M.T.F., Lourival, R., Wittmann, F., Kandus, P., Lacerda, L.D.,
Bozelli, R.L., Esteves, F.A., Nunes da Cunha, C., Maltchik, L., Schöngart, J., SchaefferNovelli, Y., Agostinho, A.A., 2014a. Brazilian wetlands: Their definition, delineation, and
classification for research, sustainable management, and protection. Aquat Conserv 24,
5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2386
Junk, W.J., Piedade, M.T.F., Lourival, R., Wittmann, F., Kandus, P., Lacerda, L.D.,
Bozelli, R.L., Esteves, F.A., Nunes da Cunha, C., Maltchik, L., Schöngart, J., SchaefferNovelli, Y., Agostinho, A.A., 2014b. Brazilian wetlands: Their definition, delineation, and
classification for research, sustainable management, and protection. Aquat Conserv 24,
5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2386
Junk, W.J., Piedade, M.T.F., Schöngart, J., Cohn-Haft, M., Adeney, J.M., Wittmann, F.,
2011. A classification of major naturally-occurring amazonian lowland wetlands.
Wetlands 31, 623–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0190-7
Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, P.T.P., Linkov, I., 2005. Application of
multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess
Manag 1, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2004a-015.1
Onishi, C.M., 2019. Implantação De Programas De Pagamento Por Serviços Ambientais
(Psa) Como Estratégia De Conservação Do Patrimônio Natural: a Contribuição Do Setor
Empresarial.
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R.T.,
Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S.M.,
Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S.E., Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Berry, P.,
Bilgin, A., Breslow, S.J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E.,
Golden, C.D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H.,
Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P.H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., PichisMadruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg,
B.B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., Yagi, N., 2017. Valuing nature’s

24
contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27, 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., GomezBaggethun, E., Muradian, R., 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem
services. Bioscience 64, 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146
Petersen, T.A., Brum, S.M., Rossoni, F., Silveira, G.F.V., Castello, L., 2016. Recovery of
Arapaima sp. populations by community-based management in floodplains of the Purus
River, Amazon. J Fish Biol 89, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12968
Strand, J., Soares-Filho, B., Costa, M.H., Oliveira, U., Ribeiro, S.C., Pires, G.F., Oliveira,
A., Rajão, R., May, P., van der Hoff, R., Siikamäki, J., da Motta, R.S., Toman, M., 2018.
Spatially explicit valuation of the Brazilian Amazon Forest’s Ecosystem Services. Nat
Sustain 1, 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0175-0
Tregidgo, D., Barlow, J., Pompeu, P.S., Parry, L., 2020. Tough fishing and severe
seasonal food insecurity in Amazonian flooded forests. People and Nature 2, 468–482.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10086
Tuomisto, H., Ruokolainen, K., Kalliola, R., Linna, A., Danjoy, W., Rodriguez, Z., 1995.
Dissecting amazonian biodiversity. Science (1979) 269, 63–66.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5220.63
Wittman, H., Chappell, M.J., Abson, D.J., Kerr, R.B., Blesh, J., Hanspach, J., Perfecto,
I., Fischer, J., 2017. A social–ecological perspective on harmonizing food security and
biodiversity conservation. Reg Environ Change 17, 1291–1301.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1045-9
Wittmann, F., Schöngart, J., Montero, J.C., Motzer, T., Junk, W.J., Piedade, M.T.F.,
Queiroz, H.L., Worbes, M., 2006. Tree species composition and diversity gradients in
white-water forests across the Amazon Basin. J Biogeogr 33, 1334–1347.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01495.x
Wunder, S., 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services.
Ecological Economics 117, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016

25

2. THE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF ARAPAIMA (Arapaima gigas) IN AN
AMAZONIAN BRIGHT SPOT: A HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL
STRENGTHENING
Revista pretendida: Land Use Policy

Ana Carla Rodrigues, Adevaldo Dias, Richard James Ladle, Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado, João Vitor
Campos-Silva, Eduardo Sonnewend Brondizio

2.1 Abstract
Management of common-pool resources is important for sustainability and
community well-being, particularly in complex socio-ecological systems like the Amazon.
However, developing effective systems of resource management is challenging, and
there are few successful examples that can be used as model systems. Here, we
describe one such success story, the co-management of pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) in
the Middle Juruá River. We explore the factors that have led to its success, focusing on
polycentric governance, institutional design principles and socioeconomic impacts. We
carried out open and semi-structured interviews with different actors involved in comanagement. Furthermore, we collected the registered internal regulations of the
communities involved in co-management. We observed significant changes that
involved decentralization, increased inclusion and improved monitoring and sanctioning
mechanisms.

These

adjustments

reflect

an

adaptive

approach

to

arapaima

management, incorporating local needs and promoting participatory decision-making.
Collaborative management of pirarucu serves as a model for other natural resource
systems in the Amazon, illuminating ways to reconcile the protection of biodiversity while
generating diverse benefits for local communities.
Keywords: common-pool resources, polycentric governance, co-management,
socio-bioeconomy, sustainability, community management

26
2.2 Introduction
The Amazon basin is a critical conservation and cultural region due to its
unparalleled biodiversity, sociolinguistic diversity, and numerous ecosystem services
(Levis et al., 2020). Water resources, represented by the Amazon River and its vast
network of tributaries, streams, lakes, and floodplains, are fundamental to ecological
processes and the food security and well-being of indigenous peoples, local
communities, and urban populations (Lopes et al., 2021). These bodies of water support
high biodiversity, serving as habitat for many species and maintaining hydrological and
climatic cycles (Junk et al., 2007). They are also vital for fishing, agriculture, and
subsistence of riverside and indigenous communities, in addition to serving
transportation and communication needs. The conservation of these resources is crucial
for environmental preservation and the continuity of the life and culture of Amazonian
populations (Castello et al., 2013). However, environmental protection policies in Brazil
focus more on terrestrial environments, making scientific support essential for the
protection of Amazonian aquatic environments (Castello et al., 2013).
Sustainable management of natural resources is fundamental for the preservation
of ecosystems and the well-being of local communities (Brondizio & Le Tourneau, 2016).
In the vastness of the Amazon, community management of Arapaima (Arapaima gigas),
also known as pirarucu or paiche, is a model of success (Campos-Silva & Peres, 2016).
The involvement of fishers in management processes has played a fundamental role in
the conservation of small-scale fisheries in various ways, consolidating institutions over
time (Ostrom, 1990). The commercial overexploitation of arapaima in recent decades
has brought the species' population to the brink of extinction. The response to this crisis
began to emerge in the 1990s, marked by the launch of the Pirarucu Project in
Mamirauá, a Sustainable Development Reserve in Amazonas. Since its creation in
1999, the project has actively involved local communities in practices regulated by the
Brazilian Natural Resources Agency (IBAMA), establishing standards for fishing
seasons, minimum sizes, and annual quotas.
Co-management of the Arapaima in the Amazon is an example of communitybased natural resource management that has been successful in conserving this

27
important species (Campos-Silva & Peres, 2016). The co-management process involves
the active participation of local communities in monitoring, surveillance, fishing, and
selling the fish (Castello et al., 2009). In addition, these communities participate in
decision-making together with federal and state institutions, NGOs, universities, and
associations. The communities usually establish agreements categorizing the lakes into
areas for fish reproduction only, subsistence fishing lakes, and Arapaima management
lakes. Besides the agreements signed between communities and regulatory institutions,
there are restrictions on access to certain fishing areas and the establishment of quotas
that can be fished. One of the benefits of the co-management of the Arapaima is that it
contributes to food security and the subsistence of the local communities, which depend
on the fish for their diet, and its sale results in income generation. These goods and
services, subject to different levels of exclusion, subtraction, and overlapping types of
property regimes in their production or consumption (Mcginnis, 2012; Ostrom, 1990),
reflect the complexity of relationships between local communities and the comanagement of the Arapaima in the Amazon.
Community-Based Management (CBM) is notable because of its ability to actively
engage local communities in decision-making processes and implementing sustainable
practices (Brosius et al., 1998). This approach promotes the conservation of
ecosystems, social sustainability, and improved quality of life. The success of
Community-Based Management combines traditional knowledge and the active
participation of communities in natural resource management processes (Berkes, 2009;
Ostrom, 2008). This pioneering project in the Mamirauá Sustainable Development
Reserve has served as a model for implementing Arapaima management in other
regions, such as the Juruá River. These initiatives have positively impacted the
conservation of the species and the development of social organizations, both within and
between local communities (Campos-Silva et al., 2018).
The management of Arapaima in the Juruá River is deeply intertwined with
economic phases, historical influences, and power dynamics that have shaped the
region. This CBM is the result of the economic and social scenarios that culminated in
the first fishing agreements and moulded the evolution of institutions over time. The

28
trajectory of communities in the Juruá River region, influenced by the rubber cycles and
the economic transformations of the 1980s, highlights the resilience and adaptability of
local populations in the face of historical and environmental challenges. In this dynamic
context, the creation of the Médio Juruá Extractive Reserve (Resex) in the 1990s was a
fundamental milestone. In addition to preserving the environment, the Resex redefined
social relationships, granting collective rights and promoting sustainable practices.
The trajectory of the communities in the Rio Juruá region was influenced by the
rubber cycles and the economic transformations of the 1980s. This highlights the
resilience and organizational capacity of the local populations in the face of the historical
challenges of exploitation. With the process of community organization also came the
social pressure to create the Médio Juruá Extractive Reserve (Resex) in the 1990s. This
directly contributed to conserving the environment, redefined social relations, granted
collective rights and promoted sustainable practices. The community organizations,
state organizations, conservation units, and NGOs, formed a broad collaborative
network to develop comprehensive solutions to local challenges. A relevant example of
social organization is the Association of Rural Producers of Carauari (ASPROC), which
brought together approximately 800 families from 55 riverside communities, becoming
an important link between partner institutions and conservation units.
In addition to relations between communities, ASPROC also extends to
partnerships

with

research

institutions

and

NGOs,

further

strengthening

the

organization's capacity. This synergy between the community, scientific, and nongovernmental

sectors

contribute

to

sustainable

management,

highlighting

the

importance of interdisciplinary cooperation and the exchange of knowledge in the
development of effective management practices. These partnerships expand the
spectrum of influences, allowing a more holistic approach to promoting sustainable
Arapaima management in the Juruá River region.
The success of Arapaima management on the Juruá River will be evaluated
through institutional principles, with the active participation of community members in
decision-making processes. Applying Ostrom's design principles can provide valuable
guidance for developing effective community management systems. This approach can

29
help increase the resilience and adaptive capacity of local communities involved in the
co-management of natural resources. This analytical tool is particularly useful for
examining changes in various categories of rules and the social-organizational comanagement processes involved in crafting them as social groups cooperate.
Organizing these social dynamics as “action situations” provides us with analytical
resources “that can be used to describe, analyses, predict and explain behavior within
groups of institutional arrangements” (Ostrom, 2005). In this way, the design principles
help us organize institutional characteristics to determine the tensions, contradictions,
limitations, and catalysts of collective action at various levels. We must recognize that
the design principles seek to understand how the governance structure of CBM can be
maintained in the long term and replicated in other regions, as it has been a successful
case of co-management.
Despite the clear success of co-management of Arapaima, there are still nuances
to be understood and strengths to be leveraged. This study explores how the
community-based institution has organized itself for the management of arapaima and
how governance structures have been established. By analyzing the integration of Elinor
Ostrom's design principles in management activities, we evaluate the relationships
among institutions throughout the management process. Our goal is to further
strengthen and replicate the successful model of Arapaima management, providing a
robust foundation for effective natural resource management policies and practices
worldwide.
2.3 Methods
2.3.1 Study Area and socioecological context of Jurua River
The Juruá River is notable for its extensive, highly productive floodplains,
supporting hundreds of indigenous and non-indigenous human settlements. The
landscape consists of seasonally flooded (várzea) forests throughout the floodplain and
adjacent upland (terra firme) forests (Junk et al., 2011). The Juruá, particularly its middle
section, played a crucial role during the rubber boom, when thousands of people from

30
northeastern Brazil migrated to the Amazon to work as rubber tappers. These individuals
lived under conditions akin to slavery, without social rights, and often suffered from
severe poverty, debt patronage, tropical diseases, and lack of access to healthcare and
education (D’Almeida, 2006). With the assistance of the Catholic Church and the
environmental movement that emerged around the social activist Chico Mendes, these
local communities began a process of self-organization to secure essential social and
land rights (Fearnside, 1989). In this context, two large sustainable-use protected areas
were established in this region. The federally managed Médio Juruá Extractive Reserve
(ResEx Médio Juruá; 5°33′54″S, 67°42′47″W) was created in 1997 and hosts
approximately 700 people distributed across 13 villages within its 253,227 hectares. The
state-managed Uacari Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS de Uacari; 5°43′58″S,
67°46′53″W) was created in 2005, is home to about 1200 residents living in 32
communities within its 632,949 hectares. The local economy in both reserves is
sustained by fisheries, slash-and-burn agriculture, and non-timber forest products such
as oil seeds and palm fruits (Newton et al. 2011) and supported by payments for
environmental services (Alves-Pinto et al., 2018). However, two examples of communitybased management (CBM) stand out for generating significant social and economic
benefits for rural communities: the CBM of arapaima and freshwater turtles.

Arapaima management
The Arapaima (Arapaima gigas) is the largest freshwater scaled fish, reaching up
to 3 meters in length and over 200 kilograms in weight (Nelson, 1994). This iconic
species has been crucial for subsistence in the Amazon since pre-Columbian times
(Prestes-Carneiro et al., 2016). However, in the past century, arapaima populations
have plummeted due to intense commercial fishing, leading to their local extinction in
many areas (Castello et al., 2015). Despite a ban by the Brazilian government, illegal
fishing persisted, hindering recovery efforts (Castello & Stewart, 2010; Cavole et al.,
2015). In response, local communities, experienced fishers, and researchers initiated a
community-based management (CBM) model in 1999 at the Mamirauá Sustainable
Development Reserve (Castello et al., 2009, 2011).

31
The arapaima adapted to anoxic lake environments by developing a swim bladder
suitable for breathing air (Brauner et al., 2004). Consequently, arapaima frequently
surface to breathe, allowing trained fishers to visually count them using a standardized
protocol (Castello, 2004). This unique trait facilitates reliable population estimates,
enabling the government to assign a harvest quota of up to 30% of adult individuals per
CBM unit (Castello et al., 2011). Another vital aspect of the CBM approach is that local
communities must zone their water bodies, designating protected no-take lakes and
ensuring surveillance against poaching. This initiative has been highly successful
(Castello et al., 2009), and CBM schemes for arapaima have since expanded throughout
the Amazon.
Research has demonstrated that arapaima CBM yields significant outcomes for
both biodiversity conservation and the well-being of rural communities (Campos-Silva &
Peres, 2016; Castello et al., 2009; Petersen et al., 2016). Along the Juruá River in the
western Brazilian Amazon, community-based lake protection has led to a remarkable
425.2% increase in arapaima populations over 11 years (Campos-Silva et al., 2019).
Even outside protected areas, populations have shown a 397.5% annual increase
(Campos-Silva et al., 2019). A single protected lake can host over 2800 individuals,
compared to an average of just nine in unprotected lakes (Campos-Silva et al., 2019;
Campos-Silva & Peres, 2016). Similar patterns have been observed in other river
basins, where arapaima have also recovered significantly (Castello et al., 2009;
Petersen et al., 2016). Additionally, the protection of lakes benefits numerous cooccurring species, including caimans, freshwater turtles, and other fish species (Arantes
& Freitas, 2016; Campos-Silva & Peres, 2016; Miorando et al., 2013).
Beyond ecological benefits, arapaima CBM has driven substantial social
transformations in Amazonian communities. Protected lakes provide a steady annual
income for rural residents who often lack other cash-earning opportunities. This financial
security allows for savings and emergency expenditures, such as urgent healthcare
(Campos-Silva and Peres 2016). Profits from the harvest also contribute to improving
basic infrastructure and living conditions within households and communities (CamposSilva & Peres, 2016). Other significant social benefits reported by participants in

32
arapaima CBM include enhanced food security, community pride, cultural preservation,
and a more equitable distribution of fishery profits (Campos-Silva & Peres, 2016).
2.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis
First, we conducted open and semi-structured interviews with the main leaders
who led the implementation process of Arapaima management at Juruá River. These
interviews aimed to elucidate the different actors involved in the arrangements, the
governance, and the decision-making structure. Secondly, we collected all the recorded
internal regulations of the communities engaged in co-management within the Juruá
River region. These internal regulations delineate guidelines, norms, and rules
governing the utilization and conservation of resources associated with Arapaima comanagement. As part of the updating process, each community convened individual
focus meetings to propose modifications to the existing regulations.

The regiments

were organized, initially, by sector, reflecting the structure of the groups of communities
that collaborated. The initial regulations underwent review and adjustments in 2014 and
complete reformulation in 2023.
Based on the standardized principles for the co-management of Arapaima,
we carried out a quantitative and qualitative accounting of the changes that have
occurred over time in the internal regulations, in addition to a textual analysis approach
based on analytical reference and coding of the elements of the internal regulations. We
used Ostrom's design principles to guide the analysis process and synthetically capture
the conditions that define the configuration of the communities' institutional
arrangements. Subsequently, the texts were coded according to thematic categories,
using design principles in textual analysis, which enabled the quantitative analysis of the
data. After collecting data from the internal regulations, a radar plot was created to
illustrate the evolution of the internal regulations (Figure 1). Furthermore, we included
data on people's perceptions of improvements in nature over time, as well as data on
arapaima counts in the lakes during the regime periods.
Following

Ostrom's

design

principles

for

managing

resources, we implemented the following evaluation strategies:

common-pool

33
(1) Clearly Defined Boundaries: It is essential to establish clear and well-defined
boundaries for the common resource so that users understand their rights and
responsibilities. In our case, the allocation of lakes among communities is explicitly
defined, specifying which lakes are designated for fishing, breeding, or management.
(2) Adaptive Rules: Resource usage rules must be flexible and responsive to the
changing needs of the community. Our evaluation allows for adaptive rules, where
community members can propose changes, and institutions act as intermediaries to
facilitate these adjustments. This ensures that the allocation and use of lakes can be
renegotiated as needed.
(3) User Participation and Involvement: Active participation of users in the
management and decision-making processes is crucial. In our model, management is
entirely carried out by community members, who collectively determine participation in
various management activities, ensuring that decisions are made inclusively and
transparently.
(4) Monitoring: Continuous monitoring of common resources and institutional
compliance is necessary to ensure rules are followed and issues are promptly
addressed. This involves regular checks and assessments of the resources and the
governance structures in place.
(5) Graduated Sanctions: Effective and appropriate sanctions must be in place for
those who violate resource usage rules. For instance, in cases of unauthorized lake
usage or failure to fulfill management responsibilities, community-defined sanctions are
enforced to maintain order and compliance.
(6) Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: There must be fair and efficient mechanisms
for resolving conflicts among users. Our framework includes defined processes for
conflict resolution, involving relevant stakeholders to ensure equitable and timely
outcomes.
(7) Recognition of User Rights: The rights of users must be recognized and
respected concerning the common resource. This includes clearly delineated rights

34
about which fish can be caught and the quantities allowed, ensuring sustainable use and
equity among users.
(8) Supportive External Authorities: Involvement of external bodies such as state
agencies and NGOs can enhance resource management. For instance, fishing quotas
regulated by the state ensure that the resource is used sustainably.
In addition, we applied the polycentric governance framework to analyze
organizational structures and their contributions to co-management (Ostrom, 1990,
2010; Schröder, 2018). Data collection involved interviews with local community
members, community leaders, and organization representatives to gather insights into
the implementation of management practices and current activities.

2.4 Results and discussion
2.4.1

Implementation history

The community-based management of Arapaima on the Juruá River benefited
from a history of community-led protection of lakes supported by the catholic church in
the 1970s. These actions strengthened social organization and, critically, resulted in the
exclusion of large commercial boats. The spatial zoning of lakes and an experimental
harvesting quota was initially initiated in São Raimundo, an emblematic local community
with strong social organization and the presence of respected regional leaders. After the
implementation success at São Raimundo, several rural communities adopted the same
model in an attempt to replicate the same rules and dynamics.
Local community leaders played a crucial role in the implementation of Arapaima
arrangement at Juruá River. Their intimate understanding of local contexts, cultural
norms, and community dynamics enabled them to mobilize and engage community
members. As trusted figures, they acted as a bridge between external conservation
agencies and local populations, ensuring that conservation strategies are culturally
sensitive and locally relevant. By advocating for sustainable practices and facilitating
transparent communication, local leaders also helped foster a sense of ownership and

35
responsibility towards conservation efforts. Their leadership ensured that the stated
conservation goals aligned with the community's needs and aspirations, thereby
enhancing the sustainability and impact of conservation programs. Furthermore, local
leaders also mentored future generations, building a legacy of environmental
stewardship and community resilience that supported the long-term success of the
project.
2.4.2

Polycentric governance

Territorial governance along the Juruá River can be examined through the lens of
polycentric governance (Ostrom, 2010), which involves multiple decision-making entities
governing a resource within defined boundaries and includes a variety of organizations,
scales, autonomies, and non-hierarchical processes (Figure 1). Along the river, several
decision-making centers engage multiple stakeholders, from individuals to various
organizations such as community associations, non-profits, universities, government
institutions, and private companies (e.g., from the cosmetics industry). This collaborative
approach fostered a democratic decision-making system and numerous opportunities for
knowledge co-production. This multi-sector partnership aims to conserve natural
resources, improve rural community well-being, and integrate local people into profitable
and accountable value chains for processing diverse aquatic and terrestrial resources,
including managed fish, agricultural produce, palm fruits, and natural plant oils used in
the cosmetics industry. Each decision-making center operates with a high degree of
autonomy, reflecting diverse cultural backgrounds and spatial scales. In this context,
community meetings are essential to improve local rules and ensure high levels of
compliance. If the communities face stronger or unexpected challenges, local
assemblies of grassroots associations provide a platform for them to voice their
concerns and demands for collective action. If a local issue cannot be addressed at this
level, it can be taken up at broader decision-making centers. For instance, the Mid-Juruá
Territory Forum brings together multiple stakeholders to implement comprehensive
programs that expand the scale of local projects or single community interventions.

36
The Rio Juruá Ramsar site, designated in 2019, exemplifies wetland conservation
through international legislation aligned with local aspirations. Protected areas also have
their own decision-making centers, which help implement federal and state government
rules and plans. Each protected area hosts a management council, a highly participatory
body composed of diverse local actors that determines territorial priorities. Although
these decision-making centers operate at different levels and spatial scales, they are
interconnected around the common goal of conserving natural resources and enhancing
rural community well-being.
Another decision-making body that is configured as an axis of polycentric
governance is the Pirarucu Collective. The Pirarucu Collective (PC) is a network of
community-based organizations, supporting NGOs and government agencies involved in
the management of the Arapaima. This network was created by communities that
successfully managed the Arapaima to address larger-scale processes that influence
the value chain, ultimately determining the price paid to fishers for the Arapaima. The
PC became a decision-making platform to coordinate efforts and interventions along the
value chain to strengthen and recognize local participation, transforming it into a socially
and economically fair chain that promotes biodiversity conservation. Currently, the PC is
composed of community-based organizations representing 20 management units and
nearly 2500 families. The network operates according to principles of trust and mutual
understanding between members, humility, collaboration, and respect for the autonomy
of participating organizations. The PC also helps to create and strengthen public policies
such the Arapaima minimum price, which is a policy created by the Brazilian government
to ensure fairer commercial relationships. Undoubtedly, the results achieved by this
network reflect the relationship between its members and the collaborative environment.
As a result of the existence of the PC, individual experience and knowledge have
been shared among members improving their management and commercial practices.
At the individual level, peer recognition allows members to gain more confidence and
restore a sense of identity and local pride. It also empowers community-based
organizations and NGOs to have a voice in political and technical forums, often
negotiating sensitive issues as a group instead of as a lone organization. Moreover, the

37
PC allowed decisions and interventions to be implemented simultaneously at several
sites, affecting the value chain at a regional scale. Among its main achievements is the
strengthening of different public policies and the creation of a collective brand called
“Gosto

da

Amazônia”

(“the

taste

of

the

Amazon”

in

English)

(www.gostodaamazonia.com.br). This still embryonic collective brand raised the price of
managed Arapaima from 50% to 85% higher than the average in the state, depending
on where the Arapaima is sold (in the community, in the nearest city, or in the state
capital, Manaus).

38

Figure 1. Territorial governance along the Juruá River examined through the lens of polycentric
governance. This approach involves multiple decision-making entities managing resources within defined
boundaries, encompassing diverse organizations, scales, autonomies, and non-hierarchical processes.

2.4.3

A positive example of common pool resource management

The management of Arapaima at Jurua River involves the complex use of a
network of resources and social-ecological systems. As such, these activities related to
arapaima

management

exemplify

a

situation

of

Common-Pool

Resources

(CPR’s)(Ostrom, 2005). Specifically, the resources used in arapaima co-management
activities are characteristic of common resources (subsistence fishing and fish sales),
highlighting the role of subsistence fishing and trade among communities. Furthermore,
administrative management has been achieved through the implementation of
community-based normative institutions. The complexity resulting from the expansion of
co-management is also highlighted, adding institutional and socioeconomic complexity
to the management of CRP (Stronza, 2010).
The co-management of Arapaima, strongly shaped by the communities,
demonstrates participatory development in the creation of institutions aimed at
developing a participatory and multi-level governance system. Natural resource

39
management can illustrate the application of Common-Pool Resources (CPR’s)
principles in natural resource management. CPR theory can be applied to understand
how institutions play roles in the management of natural resources. The sustainable
management of Arapaima has led to the creation of effective organizations that
coordinate and facilitate joint decision-making among the involved parties. Continuous
monitoring of agreements and regulations is essential to ensure adherence to
institutional rules and to identify and resolve any issues or violations that may arise.
Additionally, community-based organizations promote cooperation among different
groups and institutions involved in Arapaima management. The creation of cooperative
networks and the establishment of agreements between organizations are fundamental
to ensuring an integrated and collaborative approach to resource management. These
organizations actively promote and participate in local community dynamics, assisting in
the formation of institutions, and in the development and adjustment of norms and
regulations in line with the communities' needs and demands. This involves discussing
and negotiating agreements that consider the needs and perspectives of all
stakeholders.
This process usually involves establishing effective communication mechanisms,
such as dialogue forums and discussion spaces, where different actors within the
organizations exchange knowledge, experiences, and relevant information for
management. In summary, the CPR framework can be applied to organizational
development, highlighting the importance of joint decision-making, the establishment of
agreements, and the implementation of effective monitoring mechanisms within and
between organizations. Therefore, the management of Arapaima involves the complex
use of natural resources in conjunction with an extensive network of socio-ecological
systems. As such, these activities related to Arapaima management exemplify a
common-pool resources (CPR’s) situation.

40
2.4.4 .

Regulations and Institutional Effectiveness in Community

Management of Arapaima: An Analysis through Design Principles
This study provides a comprehensive overview of the presence of design
principles (Ostrom, 1990) and their effectiveness within Arapaima co-management
regulations. The evolution of these regulations reflects practical adjustments based on
experiences from management activities over three periods. Initially, the regulations
were defined by sector when the communities joined the management process. In the
second phase, around 2014, changes to these regulations were introduced and
formalized in response to community demands. Finally, in the third phase, in 2023,
regulations were individualized by community rather than by sector, as the areas within
the Extractive Reserves (Resex) and Sustainable Development Reserves (RDS) had
previously been divided (Figure 2).
The main changes in the regulations, in relation to design principles, were notably
the decentralization of the regulations during these review and reformulation periods. In
the third revision, each set of regulations was tailored to the preferences of the
respective community. However, this introduced new challenges for local families and
communities, necessitating the development of testable sets of rules and norms that
may require complex adjustments in the future: (1) Boundaries: The most significant
changes in boundary definitions involved decisions and adjustments related to lakes,
often due to logistical reasons or agreements between communities and management
facilities. (2) Local Rules: The most notable modifications to local rules involved changes
in who could participate in management activities, the conditions of rights and duties,
and the timing for new members to gain full management rights. (3) Recent updates
have also emphasized the inclusion of women, elders, and youth in management
activities, reflecting a shift towards more inclusive and adaptive rulemaking. (4).
Monitoring: The changes in monitoring involved enhancing the oversight of compliance
with community agreements and management activities. Monitoring now focuses on
ensuring that members adhere to established roles and responsibilities, with more
robust mechanisms for tracking adherence to community and management agreements.
(5). Changes in sanctions for non-compliance with management activities and

41
community regulations became more pronounced. Additionally, gradual sanctions were
introduced, including temporary suspension of management profits, restrictions on
fishing in certain lakes, and even expulsion from the community. (6) Conflict Resolution:
conflict resolution continues to rely on dialogue, community expulsion, and notifications
from the management of the RDS and Resex. (7) Recent revisions have refined the
recognition of user rights concerning resource use, quantities, and qualities. Specific
increases in fish catches and sales in the community lakes may occur due to food
shortages, financial crises, or health issues within the community. Additionally, the use
of the community financial fund may be required to address such needs critics. (8).
Multiple Layers: Various entities are involved and continue to participate in management
actions, including bureaucratic processes, sanctions, regulations, and associations that
address members' demands. NGOs providing scientific and technical support are also
involved. Notably, there was an increase from Period 1 to Period 2, likely due to the
growing number of NGOs and the creation of community associations.
Regulations influence the behavioral processes associated with claims and use of
natural resources, thereby impacting all aspects of resource management and its
outcomes. The rules and norms established by institutions at various organizational
levels help reduce uncertainties among the population and contribute to mediating
competing actions and the values that individuals and groups bring to biodiversity
management.
This analysis is rooted in a holistic approach to examining collective actions; it
considers how individuals and communities operate within shared contexts of rules and
constraints related to the use of biophysical, political, cultural, and economic resources
(Ostrom et al., 1994). The design principles framework reveals how institutions are
defined in relation to participants, existing rules, and proposed changes in comanagement activities, evaluating the different types of design principles (Ostrom et al.,
1994).

42

Figure 2. The evolution of design principles (DPs) and their main features across three periods: T1, Initial
Phase: Sector-based regulations established as communities joined the management process (blue). T2,
Second Phase, around 2014: Regulations revised, and f formalized in response to community demands
(yellow). T3, Third Phase, 2023: Regulations individualized by community (red)

Ostrom's (1990) design principles outline the characteristics of institutional
systems involved in the management of common-pool resources. These principles have
practical applications in guiding the creation and management of governance systems
aimed at ensuring the sustainable use of common resources. Specifically, the principles
can help design institutions that support the sustainable use of resources and establish
effective mechanisms for monitoring, enforcing, and discussing rules and norms among
stakeholders. This approach can help increase the resilience and adaptive capacity of
local communities involved in the management of various resources.
Based on the review of the internal regulations of the communities and following
the application of the design principles, it is assumed that the presence of clear rules,
active community participation in decision-making, effective monitoring, and the
existence of sanction mechanisms are correlated with the success of natural resource

43
management and the sustainability of resources in the Amazon region. In the context of
Arapaima management, the implementation of clear rules, such as fishing seasons,
minimum catch sizes, and controlled catch quotas, reflects efficient mechanisms to
ensure the sustainability and oversight of common resource management in the
Amazon.
2.4.5

Arapaima as a symbol of the new Amazonian sociobioeconomy

The formation of the institutions described above resulted from a participatory
process of joint decision-making, within local communities and with intra-organizational
support. In addition, the strengthening of social organizations, such as fisher's
associations and community cooperatives, emphasizes the importance of social
organization in strengthening the effective management of resources, helping with
external bureaucratic processes and contacts with other organizations and bodies. The
interaction between the implementation of the Arapaima management institution and the
strengthening of social organizations in the collaboration illustrates the principles of the
CPR, demonstrating the orientation and effectiveness of this governance model in the
Amazon context.
Using design principles, organizations manage and protect common pool
resources (CPRs), ranging from the creation and application of participatory rules,
adjusted to the local reality for the use of common resources, monitoring and enforcing
these norms and rules, acting in managed decision-making with active and participatory
decisions to resolve bottlenecks and conflicts in the institutions. Even so, the multi-level
management of CPRs, as in this case of co-management, allows for greater use of
resources by ensuring that the rules and policies are fair and effective for all
stakeholders. In this way, CPRs prevent ecosystems from collapsing by using them in
ways that don't deplete them, guaranteeing common resources for the communities that
depend on them, as well as the resources originated and used by the cascade effect.
The inclusion of all organizations in different decision-making environments
increases the resilience of the entire model, ensuring solutions for various bottlenecks
throughout the value chain. The strategy based on the design principles can be

44
replicated for many other value chains implemented by similar actors. Several aspects of
this governance model are based on knowledge and social organization, agreed upon
by community members over many decades of resource scarcity, exploitation, and lack
of technical support. Currently, they may have inspired the use of common-pool
resources in remote regions, where infrastructure and logistics needs were absent. The
sociobioeconomy has become a target strategy to align biodiversity protection and
wellbeing in Amazonia.
There are several challenges in terms of a consolidation of an Amazonian
concept of sociobioeconomy beyond the monetary dimension (Vatn et al., 2024). In this
context, the community management of Arapaima serves as a model that can inspire
new bioeconomic models, illuminating pathways to reconcile biodiversity protection,
local well-being, and strong governance structures in previously disadvantaged
environments.
Referências
Alves-Pinto, H.N., Hawes, J.E., Newton, P., Feltran-Barbieri, R., Peres, C.A., 2018.
Economic Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services on Livelihoods of Agroextractivist Communities in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics 152, 378–388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.016
Arantes, M.L., Freitas, C.E.C., 2016. Effects of fisheries zoning and environmental
characteristics on population parameters of the tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum ) in
managed floodplain lakes in the Central Amazon. Fish Manag Ecol 23, 133–143.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12164
Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90, 1692–1702.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
Brauner, C.J., Matey, V., Wilson, J.M., Bernier, N.J., Val, A.L., 2004. Transition in organ
function during the evolution of air-breathing;insights from Arapaima gigas, an obligate
air-breathing teleost from the Amazon. Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 1433–1438.
https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00887
Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L., Zerner, C., 1998. Representing communities: Histories and
politics of community-based natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 11, 157–
168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929809381069

45
Campos-Silva, J.V., Hawes, J.E., Peres, C.A., 2019. Population recovery, seasonal site
fidelity, and daily activity of pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) in an Amazonian floodplain mosaic.
Freshw Biol 64, 1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13301
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., 2016. Community-based management induces rapid
recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci Rep 6, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34745
Campos-Silva, J. V., Hawes, J.E., Andrade, P.C.M., Peres, C.A., 2018. Unintended
multispecies co-benefits of an Amazonian community-based conservation programme.
Nat Sustain 1, 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0170-5
Castello, L., 2004. A Method to Count Pirarucu Arapaima gigas : Fishers, Assessment,
and Management. N Am J Fish Manag 24, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1577/M02-024.1
Castello, L., Arantes, C.C., Mcgrath, D.G., Stewart, D.J., De Sousa, F.S., 2015.
Understanding fishing-induced extinctions in the Amazon. Aquat Conserv 25, 447–458.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2491
Castello, L., Mcgrath, D.G., Hess, L.L., Coe, M.T., Lefebvre, P.A., Petry, P., Macedo,
M.N., Renó, V.F., Arantes, C.C., 2013. The vulnerability of Amazon freshwater
ecosystems. Conserv Lett 6, 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12008
Castello, L., Stewart, D.J., 2010. Assessing CITES non-detriment findings procedures
for Arapaima in Brazil. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26, 49–56.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01355.x
Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., 2011. Participatory Conservation and
Local Knowledge in the Amazon Várzea: The Pirarucu Management Scheme in
Mamirauá, in: The Amazon Várzea. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 259–273.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0146-5_18
Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Luzadis, V.A., 2009. Lessons
from integrating fishers of arapaima in small-scale fisheries management at the
mamirauá reserve, amazon. Environ Manage 43, 197–209.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9220-5
Cavole, L.M., Arantes, C.C., Castello, L., 2015. How illegal are tropical small-scale
fisheries? An estimate for arapaima in the Amazon. Fish Res 168, 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.03.012
D’Almeida, B.G.D., 2006. Os Acordos De Pesca Na Amazônia: Uma Perspectiva
Diferenciada De Gestão Das Águas, XV Encontro Preparatório do CONPEDI/UNICAP.
Fearnside, P.M., 1989. Extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazonia.

46
Junk, W.J., Piedade, M.T.F., Schöngart, J., Cohn-Haft, M., Adeney, J.M., Wittmann, F.,
2011. A classification of major naturally-occurring amazonian lowland wetlands.
Wetlands 31, 623–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0190-7
Junk, W.J., Soares, M.G.M., Bayley, P.B., 2007. Freshwater fishes of the Amazon River
basin: Their biodiversity, fisheries, and habitats. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 10, 153–
173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980701351023
Levis, C., Flores, B.M., Mazzochini, G.G., Manhães, A.P., Campos-Silva, J.V., Borges
de Amorim, P., Peroni, N., Hirota, M., Clement, C.R., 2020. Help restore Brazil’s
governance of globally important ecosystem services. Nat Ecol Evol.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1093-x
Lopes, P.F.M., de Freitas, C.T., Hallwass, G., Silvano, R.A.M., Begossi, A., CamposSilva, J.V., 2021. Just Aquatic Governance: The Amazon basin as fertile ground for
aligning participatory conservation with social justice. Aquat Conserv 31, 1190–1205.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3586
Mcginnis, M., 2012. How to Use the IAD Framework.
Miorando, P.S., Rebêlo, G.H., Pignati, M.T., Brito Pezzuti, J.C., 2013. Effects of
Community-Based Management on Amazon River Turtles: A Case Study of Podocnemis
sextuberculata in the Lower Amazon Floodplain, Pará, Brazil. Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 12, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.2744/CCB-1011.1
Nelson, J.S., 1994. Fishes of the world, #rd ed. ed. Wiley, New York.
Ostrom, E., 2008. The challenge of common-pool resources. Environment 50, 8–21.
https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21
Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding institutional diversity, Princeton University Press.
Princeton, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190672492.003.0008
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective
action, Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146384
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., James Walker, 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool
Resources, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Encyclopedia. The
University of Michigan Press.
Petersen, T.A., Brum, S.M., Rossoni, F., Silveira, G.F.V., Castello, L., 2016. Recovery of
Arapaima sp. populations by community-based management in floodplains of the Purus
River, Amazon. J Fish Biol 89, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12968
Prestes-Carneiro, G., Béarez, P., Bailon, S., Py-Daniel, A.R., Neves, E.G., 2016.
Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian

47
village. ournal of Archaeological Science: Reports 8, 454–462.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033.
Schröder, N.J.S., 2018. The lens of polycentricity: Identifying polycentric governance
systems illustrated through examples from the field of water governance. Environmental
Policy and Governance 28, 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1812
Stronza, A.L., 2010. Commons management and ecotourism: ethnographic evidence
from the Amazon. Int J Commons 4, 56–77.

48

3. COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION CATALYZES MULTIDIMENSIONAL
NATURE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PEOPLE
Revista pretendida: People and Nature
Ana Carla Rodrigues, Hugo C. M. Costa, Eduardo Sonnewend Brondizio, Adevaldo Dias, José Alves de
Moraes, Richard James Ladle, Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado, João Vitor Campos-Silva

3.1 Abstract
The Amazon rainforest and its ecological processes significantly contribute to
ecosystem services for humanity. As human activities threaten its maintenance, the
Amazon sustain of traditional indigenous and non-indigenous communities that
intimately connect to their surroundings and play a vital conservation role. The Arapaima
co-management is a successful example of the recognition of a social technology that
enhance local protagonism in conservation. The benefits of Arapaima co-management
are clear, encompassing ecological, economic, and social aspects. However, it is
necessary to understand and value the relationships between communities and nature,
revealing their diverse values. This study aims to elucidate the benefits of sustainable
community-based activities as a tool to improve the quality of life and protect the
Amazon rainforest. Interviews with 186 expert fishermen and fisherwomen from 39
communities along the Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazon, were conducted to
collect data based on their perceptions over time about high commercial-value and
ecologically important species, in addition to social aspects from their communities.
Each response was classified within the Nature's Contributions to People (NCP)
framework and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We compared benefits generated and
restored in nature between Arapaima-managing communities and non-Arapaimamanagement communities. The results show significant differences between the
contributions of nature among communities that do and do not practice Arapaima comanagement. Co-management activities have unintentionally increased the abundance
of economically valuable hard wood species aiding in climate change mitigation.
Arapaima-managing communities also perceive higher catch-per unit effort in fisheries

49
and increased and high-value economic species like

Tambaqui (Colossoma

macropomum). Additionally, these communities report more intangible contributions,
such as cultural revival and strengthening. This study reinforces that Arapaima comanagement has led to the recovery and maintenance of nature's benefits in the
Amazon. It also highlights the importance of recognizing and economically
compensating the benefits provided by communities, incentivizing the continuation of
practices that sustain these benefits.
Keywords: Ecosystem services, traditional ecological knowledge, common pool
resources
3.2 Introduction
Indigenous and non-indigenous people have cultivated deep interactions with and
detailed

perceptions

of

biodiversity

throughout

history.

Human

communities'

understanding of the forest acknowledges the dynamics that generate well-being and
quality of life, intrinsically linked through social interactions, cultural norms, practices,
and beliefs (Braga-Pereira et al., 2024; Díaz et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2017; Schröder,
2018). However, various human activities have caused profound changes in the global
ecological dynamic, leading to severe crises, including climate change, deforestation,
and biodiversity loss (Pörtner et al., 2023). Such changes severely impact socioecological systems, where local communities heavily depend on natural resources.
Therefore, profound and immediate changes in decision-making processes and public
planning are imperative to build more just and sustainable futures for socio-ecological
systems (Campos-Silva et al., 2021).
The Brazilian Amazon stands out as an exemplary ecological system due to its
immense size, exceptional primary productivity, and highly variable spatial and climatic
conditions. Its vast expanse, coupled with diverse age structures and stable ecosystems
maintained over long periods, has fostered an unparalleled level of biodiversity. As one
of the most species-rich regions on the planet, the Amazon plays a critical role in global
ecological processes and biodiversity conservation (Hubbs and Nelson, 1978; Malhado
et al., 2013). The Amazon region is characterized by a diversity of traditional

50
communities, each intimately connected to the environmental conservation of their
surroundings. These communities play a vital role in conservation efforts, driven by their
historical resilience to external pressures and the pressing sociopolitical dynamics of
their social and cultural contexts, territorial claims, and organizational structures (Davis
and Wagner, 2006). In the Brazilian Amazon, natural resources, including fruits,
medicinal plants, hunting, fishing, and timber, are indispensable for the subsistence of
local communities. These resources support daily survival and sustain important cultural
practices (Camilotti et al., 2020). The effective and sustainable management of these
resources by local communities is crucial for their well-being and the preservation of the
region’s rich ecological systems (Albuquerque et al., 2024; Mori et al., 2013).
The Amazon represents over 50% of remaining tropical forests and is a crucial
environment for regulating climate (Malhi et al., 2008) and sustaining biodiversity on a
global scale (Pimm et al., 2014; Sullivan et al., 2020). Replacing forests with
mechanised commodity agriculture, cattle ranching, and large-scale hydropower
generation has historically led to massive deforestation, which reached 846,640,600 km²
by late 2023 (INPE, 2022). Furthermore, 38% of the remaining forest is currently
degraded by fire, edge effects, timber extraction, and extreme drought (Lapola et al.,
2023), approaching the no-return threshold of 40% deforestation (Lovejoy and Nobre,
2019; Sampaio et al., 2007). The ongoing decline of both forest cover and wildlife
jeopardizes food security for millions of indigenous and non-indigenous people who rely
on bushmeat and fish as major sources of protein, fats, calories, and micronutrients
(Tregidgo et al., 2020)
Protected Areas (PAs) cover more than 28.4 million square kilometers worldwide
and represent the major strategy to ensure biodiversity conservation, protection of
ecological processes, and ecosystem services (Folke and Berkes, 2002; Palomo et al.,
2014; Watson et al., 2014). Most Brazilian PAs are in the Amazon and represent the key
strategy against tropical biodiversity loss and deforestation (Bruner et al., 2001; Mori et
al., 2013a; Ricketts et al., 2010) Currently, sustainable-use PAs and Indigenous Lands
compose an important and promising strategy to increase local governance, contributing
to the broad sustainable goals of the socio-environmentalist movement (Brondízio et al.,

51
2021). Therefore, beyond its conservation value, PAs are in constant evolution in terms
of conception, goals, and management strategy (Watson et al., 2014). In tropical
countries, where poverty alleviation is also imperative, PAs (especially those for
sustainable use) face the additional challenge of integrating the goals of biodiversity
conservation and social aspiration (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). Education, health,
and minimum income are, therefore, still imperative. There have been incontestable
advances with the creation of the PAs system in Brazil, but important concerns
regarding its implementation remain. In fact, it has been suggested that many of the
world’s PAs exist only as ‘paper parks’ (Dudley and Stolton, 1999), lacking human
resources, funding, and infrastructure, and failing to deliver effective conservation
(Joppa et al., 2008). In a constant shortage of funding and human resources, the future
of the Amazon cannot rely solely on the implementation of protected areas. In this
context, community-based conservation emerges as a window of opportunity to align
biodiversity protection and social needs (Albuquerque et al., 2024).
Community-based initiatives that accommodate the interests of multiple local
stakeholders are proving to be a powerful tool in the recovery of several historically
overexploited species throughout the Amazon basin (Campos-Silva et al., 2017). These
initiatives promote gender equity in fisheries (Freitas et al., 2020), enhance local
livelihoods, and reduce rural exodus among youth (Campos-Silva et al., 2021)
Additionally, they strengthen governance structures and contribute to the protection of
territories. To achieve this, it is necessary to include the most diverse social groups in
decision-making processes, especially rural communities, to ensure that a wide range of
values and perceptions are expressed and considered (Brondizio et al., 2021; Vatn et
al., 2024). Including and recognizing all stakeholders in decision-making processes
ensures the identification of various values of nature, surpassing evaluations limited to
only monetary values.
Negotiations that exclude local and indigenous communities, favoring other
groups and considering only market values in decision-making processes, result in
crises in the use of natural resources. Thus, it is urgent to identify the diversity of values,
including different worldviews, social conditions, and distinct relationships with nature, as

52
these elements are fundamental for the creation and implementation of strategic actions
that promote sustainable changes (Bennett et al., 2021; Fischer and Riechers, 2019;
Malmborg et al., 2022). Ecosystem services are the functions and resources provided by
nature that influence human well-being, giving rise to the idea of Nature's Contributions
to People (NCPs) (Díaz et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2017). NCPs expand the concepts of
ecosystem services to include local and indigenous knowledge, allowing for a deeper
understanding of the interactions between nature and humans (Kadykalo et al., 2019).
Strategies based on NCPs transcend ecological, economic, and social analyses,
providing a holistic understanding of the benefits this knowledge can offer (Díaz et al.,
2018; Pascual et al., 2017; Quintas-Soriano et al., 2018).
Local Communities and Indigenous People possess profound knowledge about
the use of their territories (Brondízio et al., 2021), which is reflected in substantially lower
deforestation rates in their areas. This significantly contributes to the preservation of
NCPs (Corlett, 2015). Additionally, local communities have demonstrated the capacity to
protect areas much larger than those directly used for sustainable community-based
management of Arapaima (Arapaima gigas), highlighting the effectiveness of their lake
protection systems and, consequently, vast forest expanses. The co-management of
Arapaima stands out as a symbol of significant change in conservation actions in the
Amazon basin. This activity has ecological benefits, recovering the Arapaima population
by up to 425% in 11 years, including the increase of other species (Campos-Silva et al.,
2019; Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016; Castello et al., 2009; Petersen et al., 2016).
Additionally, the model provides socioeconomic benefits, such as financial resources for
local communities, improving infrastructure, and promoting the inclusion of women in
fisheries management (Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016; Freitas et al., 2020)
Despite the evident ecological, economic, and social benefits, it is necessary to
understand the nuances of NCPs in co-management. This is essential to value the
relationships between communities and nature, revealing the diverse values associated
with activities like Arapaima co-management (Quintas-Soriano et al., 2018). Therefore, it
is crucial to understand other benefits and values, including the new and emerging ones
in this context (Kadykalo et al., 2019). Here, we evaluated the benefits generated and

53
restored in nature, based on the perceptions of local communities that practice
Arapaima co-management and those that do not. By analyzing these perceptions, we
aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the benefits of sustainable
community-based activities as a tool to improve people's quality of life and protect the
Amazon rainforest.
3.3 Methods
3.3.1 Study Area
The study was conducted in the mid-section of the Juruá River, located in the
state of Amazonas, which is one of the main tributaries of the Solimões River, in rural
communities within and outside two contiguous Extratctive Reserves: the Uacari
Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS Uacari, 5º43'58"S, 67º46'53"W), covering an
area of 632,949 hectares, and the Médio Juruá Extractive Reserve (ResEx Médio Juruá,
5º33'54"S, 67º42'47"W), with an area of 253,227 hectares. The ResEx Médio Juruá and
RDS Uacari were officially established in 1997 and 2005, respectively, and currently
house approximately 4,000 inhabitants spread across 74 communities along 800 km.
These communities were located mainly near the river channel, but also included those
situated along tributary streams and lakeshores (Figure 1) (Newton et al., 2012).

54

Figure 1. Study area, mid-section of Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazonia. Arapaimamanaging and non-Arapaima-managing communities interviewed during this study are
represented by purple and yellow dots respectively.

3.3.2 Data collection
We conducted a survey consisting of 15 questions with experienced fishermen
and women from the sampled communities. The responses were recorded on a modified
Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 represents the lowest possible value or total
disagreement, and 10 represents the highest possible grade or total agreement (Table
1.). We chose this scale because it is commonly used in rural primary schools, making it
easier for participants to understand and provide accurate responses. The answers were
supplemented with open-ended comments about each question, which were either
recorded or transcribed during the interviews. This approach allowed for a deeper
understanding of the nuances of co-management in each community and local
specificities (Maia et al., 2004). We used these additional comments to identify and

55
classify each response within the 18 Nature's Contributions to People (NCP) framework
from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2017).
The questions addressed perceptions of various factors, including the abundance
of high-value timber species, fisheries catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), Arapaima
abundance in both protected and unprotected lakes, and the abundance of Tambaqui
(Colossoma macropomum), the most valuable Amazonian fish and a key seed predator
and disperser. Additionally, the questions explored aspects such as group celebrations,
cultural revival and strengthening, learning opportunities, community cohesion, and
whether the Arapaima could symbolize life in the Juruá River Basin (Table 1.).
Respondents from communities engaged in Arapaima management reported their
perceptions of both the period before the implementation of co-management and the
present day. In contrast, communities not engaged in Arapaima management reported
only their current perceptions.

Table 1. Questions asked to fishermen and women from Arapaima-managing and non-Arapaima-managing communities along the Juruá River in
the western Brazilian Amazon regarding local perceptions of Nature’s Contribution to People before and after Arapaima management
implementation, as well as current perceptions.
Question

Local
communities

Time Frame

Nature’s Contribution to
People

How do you perceive the abundance of Assacú (Hura
crepitans), surrounding the community's lakes?

Arapaimamanaging

Before and after Arapaima
management implementation

Habitat Creation and
Maintenance
Air quality
Climate Regulation
Materials
Genetic Resources

How do you perceive the abundance of Louro-mamuri
(Ocotea cymbarum), surrounding the community's lakes?

Arapaimamanaging

Before and after Arapaima
management implementation

Habitat Creation and
Maintenance
Air quality
Climate Regulation
Materials
Genetic Resources

How do you perceive the abundance of Macacaúba
(Platymiscium trinitatis), surrounding the community's lakes?

Arapaimamanaging

Before and after Arapaima
management implementation

Habitat Creation and
Maintenance
Air quality
Climate Regulation
Materials
Genetic Resources

How do you perceive the abundance of Copaíba (Copaífera
longsdorffii), surrounding the community 's lakes?

Arapaimamanaging

Before and after Arapaima
management implementation

Habitat Creation and
Maintenance
Air quality
Climate Regulation
Materials
Genetic Resources

How do you perceive fisheries CPUE in community’s lakes?

Arapaima-

Before and after Arapaima

Food

57

managing

management implementation

How do you perceive Arapaima (Arapaima gigas)
abundance in the community's lakes?

Arapaimamanaging

Before and after Arapaima
management implementation

Habitat creation and
Maintenance
Freshwater Quality
Food
Physical and
Psychological
Experiences
Maintenance of options

How do you perceive Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum)
abundance in the community's lakes?

Arapaimamanaging

Before and after Arapaima
management implementation

Habitat creation and
Maintenance
Pollination and Dispersal
Food
Maintenance of options

How do you perceive Arapaima (Arapaima gigas)
abundance in unprotected lakes?

Arapaimamanaging
and
Non-Arapaimamanaging

Current

Habitat creation and
Maintenance
Freshwater Quality
Food
Physical and
Psychological
Experiences
Maintenance of options

Fisheries can be considered as a recreational activity

Arapaimamanaging
and
Non-Arapaimamanaging

Current

Physical and
Psychological
Experiences
Supporting Identities

Group celebrations are common in your community

Arapaimamanaging
and
Non-Arapaimamanaging

Current

Learning and Inspiration
Physical and
Psychological
Experiences
Supporting Identities

58

Culture and traditions are not being lost in your community

Arapaimamanaging
and
Non-Arapaimamanaging

Current

Learning and Inspiration
Physical and
Psychological
Experiences
Supporting Identities

Current inhabitants from your community are reviving
traditions and cultural behaviors from your ancestors

Arapaimamanaging
and
Non-Arapaimamanaging

Current

Learning and Inspiration
Physical and
Psychological
Experiences
Supporting Identities

The Arapaima can be used as symbol to represents
livelihoods in the Juruá

Arapaimamanaging
and
Non-Arapaimamanaging

Current

Learning and Inspiration
Physical and
Psychological
Experiences
Supporting Identities

You have experienced opportunities to learn new techniques
and good practices in fisheries

Arapaimamanaging
and
Non-Arapaimamanaging

Current

Learning and Inspiration

Inhabitants of your community are very uniting

Arapaimamanaging
and
Non-Arapaimamanaging

Current

Supporting Identities

3.3.3 Analysis
To understand the Nature's Contributions to People (NCPs) provided by
Arapaima co-management, we first performed a paired t-test on the local communities
engaged in managed fisheries. This analysis utilised respondents' perceptions,
comparing periods before and after the implementation of Arapaima management in
each community. Next, we compared the current local perceptions of NCPs between
Arapaima-managing communities and non-Arapaima-managing communities using a
Student’s t-test. Both t-tests had their assumptions validated. Finally, we assigned one
or more of the 18 NCPs to each response and its additional comments to identify which
NCPs contributed most to differences in perceived NCPs between non-Arapaimamanaging communities and Arapaima-managing communities using a Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) with the vegan package in R (Oksanen et al., 2022). All
analyses were conducted in R version 4.4.1 (R Core Team 2024).
3.4 Results
We interviewed 186 people from 39 different communities along the Juruá River,
comprising 15 Arapaima-managing communities and 24, non-Arapaima-managing
communities. Respondents from Arapaima-managing communities perceived a higher
abundance of high-value hardwood tree species after the implementation of Arapaima
management, specifically Assacú (Hura crepitans), Louro-mamuri (Ocotea cymbarum),
and Macacaúba (Platymiscium trinitatis), with statistically significant differences (p <
0.05). Although Copaíba (Copaífera longsdorffii) was perceived to have increased in
value after the implementation of co-management, this difference was not confirmed by
the t-test. Oxbow lakes used by Arapaima-managing communities showed higher CPUE
for daily fisheries, greater Arapaima abundance, and higher Tambaqui abundance after
the implementation of Arapaima management, compared to the periods before
implementation (Figure 2). When compared with non-Arapaima-managing communities,
fishermen and women from Arapaima-managing communities perceived lower Arapaima
abundance in unprotected lakes. Additionally, communities engaged in co- management
perceived fisheries as a recreational activity, experienced a higher frequency of group

60
celebrations, and reported stronger community unity. Arapaima co-management also
promoted cultural revival and strengthening, along with the introduction of new
techniques and learning opportunities. Despite the notable differences mentioned, all
interviewees agreed that the Arapaima could be used as an icon to represent livelihoods
in the Juruá River (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Boxplots comparing local perceptions of hard-wood species abundance (Hura crepitans,
Copaifera longsdorffii, Ocotea cymbarum, and Platymiscium trinitatis), fisheries CPUE, Arapaima
gigas, and Colossoma macropomum abundance from rural communities along the Juruá River before
and after Araparaima co-management implementation. Paired t-test statistical significance is denoted
as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 and **** p < 0.0001.

61

Figure 3. Boxplots represent local perceptions from both non-Arapaima managing and Arapaimamanaging communities about Arapaima abundance in unprotected lakes, fisheries as a recreational
activity, frequency of group celebrations, Arapaima as an icon to represent local livelihoods, cultural
strengthening and revival, learning opportunities and community union. t-test statistical significance is
denoted as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.

Principal

Component

Analysis

revealed

that

non-Arapaima-managing

communities occupied a broad spectrum in the multivariate space showing that this
group of communities perceive NCPs differently from each other. In contrast, Arapaima
managing communities occupies a small area in the multivariate space being more
concise and related to each other which clearly separates the two groups. PC1 captured
51 % of data variance being Habitat creation and maintenance the most influential NCP
in distinguishing the two groups, followed by air quality, climate regulation, materials,
and genetic resources (Figure 4).

62

Figure 4. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of rural communities along the Juruá River in western
Brazilian Amazônia and Nature Contributions to People Perceptions. The biplot displays the first two
principal components (PC1 and PC2), which explain 52% and 29% of the variance, respectively. Purple
dots represent Arapaima-managing communities while non-Arapaima-managing communities are
represented in yellow. Arrows represent the loadings of the original variables, showing their contribution to
the principal components.

3.5 Discussion
Co-management of arapaima has led to the creation and recovery of ecosystem
services in the western Amazon. By integrating local knowledge from communities and
scientific approaches, we can reveal valuable insights and benefits to nature.
Community members’ perceptions of improvements in nature’s contributions to people
highlight the importance of recognizing and economically compensating the community
efforts to sustain community-based conservation arrangements, thereby incentivizing the
continuation of sustainable practices (Díaz et al., 2018).

63
The co-management of arapaima has brought significant benefits to local
communities, especially related to socioeconomic improvements and population
recovery of target species (Campos-Silva et al., 2018). Our studies amplify the range of
benefits, spot lightening outcomes that are very important for local wellbeing. Among
these benefits is the increase in Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum), a species that
was rare before co-management but has now become an important source of protein for
local families, enhancing food security. The sustainable sale of Tambaqui and arapaima
has also increased family incomes (Isaac et al., 2015). Additionally, there has been a
noted growth in the availability of lower commercial value fish that are consumed daily
and are quite essential for food security specially during intermittent periods of scarcity
(Tregidgo et al., 2020).
Community members have also observed the recovery of high value tree species
such as Assacú (Hura crepitans), Louro-mamuri (Ocotea cymbarum), Macacaúba
(Platymiscium trinitatis), and Copaíba (Copaífera longsdorffii), which were previously
heavily exploited. This demonstrates a cascading effect of management practices,
benefiting several non-target species (Campos-Silva, 2017). The recovery of these tree
species plays an important role in mitigating climate change, as the increased
abundance of trees contributes to carbon sequestration, benefiting global sustainability
(Mori et al., 2013, Peres et al 2016).
A diverse range of methods is needed to discern the values of nature, reflecting
its complexities and multidimensionality (Scholte et al., 2015). In the case of comanagement, it is crucial to involve diverse forms of valuation with financial implications
and consider the diverse potential impacts on the values of communities and natural
resources. Current asymmetries in natural resource management can result in simplistic
valuations

based

solely

on

financial

criteria,

undermining

a

pluralistic

and

comprehensive approach (Dasgupta and Srikanth, 2020). For example, the unity and
sense of cooperation between people in co-management activities can ensure
participation even without direct financial rewards (Brites and Morsello, 2018). Nonmonetary valuations have shown that a sense of belonging within communities engaged
in co-management improves outcomes (Yates et al., 2010). Considering local

64
perceptions in community management activities provides a more realistic and in-depth
understanding of the benefits of these initiatives. Integrating local community
perspectives strengthens natural resource management and promotes sustainable and
equitable development (Braga-Pereira et al., 2024). Community involvement in resource
management can increase the effectiveness of co-management programs, improve
resource conservation, and foster local economic development (Malmborg et al., 2022;
Wiseman, 2006).
Community-based conservation is a powerful global force for protecting and
sustainably managing ecosystems and species (Kothari et al., 2013). In the Brazilian
Amazon, it has played a crucial role in safeguarding large forest areas and reproduction
sites for historically overexploited species (Campos-Silva et al., 2017), demonstrating
the effectiveness of local management. Local communities have successfully protected
lake areas averaging 47.4 ha and “terra-firme” areas averaging 11,188 ha. This
conservation effort extends well beyond the pirarucu fishing lakes, highlighting the broad
impact of community-managed initiatives. These communities' capacity to implement
effective conservation strategies underscores their vital role in ecosystem-wide
protection,

significantly

benefiting

both biodiversity

and

community

well-being

(Rodrigues et al., 2024).
Amazon floodplain communities employ co-management strategies, integrating
traditional knowledge with collective agreements to sustain fish productivity and
minimise conflicts over aquatic resources. This approach has enhanced fish abundance,
and fisheries yields in tropical floodplain lakes, thereby supporting fisheries sustainability
and food security in dam-affected areas (Silvano et al., 2014). Co-management not only
boosts ecological benefits, such as increased species abundance and habitat
availability, but also improves outcomes by enhancing the diversity and quantity of fish
catches (d’Armengol et al., 2018). Effective co-management relies on social cohesion
and well-regulated territories, which bolster subsistence fishing for local communities
(Gutiérrez et al., 2011; Tregidgo et al., 2020). Co-management practices for Arapaima in
Amazon floodplain lakes have positively impacted fish assemblage structure and
composition, leading to greater fish richness, biomass, and improved household income

65
and livelihoods (Donda, 2017). By facilitating species recolonization, co-management
enhances the abundance, size, and biomass of high-value fish species. The positive
effects of co-management on fish assemblages have been observed in protected lakes,
reinforcing its benefits for both ecological and socio-economic dimensions (MedeirosLeal et al., 2021; Silvano et al., 2014).
Biodiversity conservation can ensure food security for local communities
(Naughton-Treves et al., 2005; Tregidgo et al., 2020). However, public policies in many
countries treat food security and biodiversity conservation as contradictory goals. The
productivism discourse argues that to improve food security, it is necessary to increase
food availability, but this negatively impacts biodiversity (Mooney and Hunt, 2009). Local
initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon can promote regional sustainability by fostering
changes in production systems, adding value, providing access to markets, and
strengthening local governance arrangements (Brondizio et al., 2021). Communitybased management is democratic and collaborative, resulting in a greater sense of
belonging and responsibility within communities. This approach integrates social,
economic, and environmental objectives, promoting resilience and adaptability within
communities (Ostrom, 1990). Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is an invaluable
resource for sustainable resource management, encompassing generations of
experience and a deep understanding of local ecosystems (Berkes, 2009; Brondízio et
al., 2021). Co-management also promotes the transmission and sharing of traditional
knowledge, ensuring its preservation for future generations (Hossain and Ballardini,
2021).
Non-material values such as trust, joy, increased recreational opportunities, new
learning experiences, and the strengthening of traditional knowledge and unity are
inherent in co-management. Consequently, cultural recovery, appreciation, and
reinforcement help protect socio-biodiversity. This array of benefits demonstrates that
co-management transcends the economic resources it generates. Additionally, it fosters
empowerment and enhances social cohesion, improves collaborative efforts, increases
unity, and encourages active participation in decision-making processes. The

66
reinforcement of social organisation, alongside traditional ecological knowledge,
promotes equity and social justice (Albuquerque et al., 2024).
There is a need to strengthen assessments of the relationships between society
and nature, as well as the use of its resources, based on the perception of local
communities. This is essential to avoid the simplification of assessments and valuations
made by groups that focus only on the economic and unsustainable use of natural
resources (Vatn et al., 2024). The perception of local communities in the protection of
areas of global importance, such as the Amazon, reveals immense diversity in the
perceptions of the benefits of nature, where there is a great consensus between human
perception and changes in natural resources (Braga-Pereira et al., 2024). For example,
the perception of experienced fishers confirmed the evident notion that local fish
populations have increased (Campos-Silva et al., 2017). Participatory and deliberative
methods in the assessment of the perception of NCPs are essential to ensure that the
values and interests of local communities are included in decision-making processes.
Such approaches value natural resources and their sustainable uses, and promote a
sense of belonging and commitment among those involved in the use and conservation
of resources (Hausmann et al., 2016)
Community unity can be one of the strongest drivers of local involvement in comanagement (Brites and Morsello, 2018). Changes in people’s beliefs about the impacts
of human activity on natural resources can ensure community participation in comanagement activities. Recognizing increased unity, sharing the importance of
conservation actions, and improving community well-being can increase and ensure
community participation rates. Strengthening policies that support co-management
arrangements for arapaima is crucial to increasing adaptive capacity and overall
performance, allowing continued activity even in adverse circumstances. These
community-based arrangements, involving active local participation in resource
management, have been shown to be effective in preserving biodiversity and improving
quality of life (Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016; Ostrom, 1990) Strengthening these
arrangements increases the capacity of communities to face future environmental and
socioeconomic challenges, as well as promoting equitable and inclusive management of

67
natural resources (Folke and Berkes, 2002). Therefore, policies that support and expand
these arrangements are essential for long-term sustainability and increased resilience.
Implementing policies to strengthen sustainable community management can
lead to the growth and strengthening of local institutions and better relationships with
other stakeholders (Villamayor-Tomas and García-López, 2018). Empowering policies
can improve collective decision-making by making it more inclusive and participatory,
recognizing and transmitting traditional ecological knowledge, and promoting economic
autonomy. Community management supported by effective policies can ensure better
performance, especially when integrated and strategic policies are in place to support it.
Alternative sources of support for conservation activities and community
engagement may include compensatory payments for conservation actions that reflect
global benefits (Akers, 2019). These compensations may be provided by governments
or other public and private organizations (Ezzine-de-Blas et al. 2016). Partner
organizations may provide infrastructure support to significantly boost conservation
efforts by stabilizing activities and building larger coalitions (Osewe et al, 2023). Policies
and programs aimed at strengthening activities can increase the connection between
institutions and the resilience of local communities (Nieratkaa et al., 2015). Community
members are essential in identifying priorities for improvement in activities, and
supportive policies may include investments in infrastructure, such as territorial
surveillance. These investments improve relationships within and between communities
and other institutions, increasing the resilience of activities (Wiseman, 2006).
Conservation science has often argued that biodiversity conservation and social
needs are, at worst, incompatible and, at best, difficult to deliver simultaneously
(McShane et al., 2011). However, few initiatives have tested these ideas in established
sustainable-use systems. Empowered communities can decentralize natural resource
management, generating significant sources of self-development while ensuring
ecological outcomes, as we observed in our study case. There is still a long way to go to
properly recognize the efforts of local communities in protecting nature and ensure a
fairer financial return that covers the costs and fairly compensates those communities.
Nevertheless, highlighting conservation successes can boost optimism, a crucial asset

68
in addressing contemporary socioecological challenges, which is often in shortage
among conservationists in many developing countries (Cvitanovic and Hobday, 2018).

69

Referências
Akers, J.F., Yasué, M., 2019. Motivational Crowding in Payments for Ecosystem Service
Schemes: A Global Systematic Review. Conservation and Society 17, 377–389.
https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_90
Albuquerque, U.P., Maroyi, A., Ladio, A.H., Pieroni, A., Abbasi, A.M., Toledo, B.A.,
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Hallwass, G., Soldati, G.T., Odonne, G., Vandebroek, I., Vallès,
J., Hurrell, J.A., Pardo de Santayana, M., La Torre-Cuadros, M. de los Á., Silva, M.T.P.,
Jacob, M.C.M., da Fonseca-Kruel, V.S., Ferreira Júnior, W.S., 2024. Advancing
ethnobiology for the ecological transition and a more inclusive and just world: a
comprehensive framework for the next 20 years. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 20, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-024-00661-4
Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2021. Patchwork Earth:
navigating pathways to just, thriving, and sustainable futures. One Earth 4, 172–176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.004
Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90, 1692–1702.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
Braga-Pereira, F., Mayor, P., Morcatty, T.Q., Pérez-Peña, P.E., Bowler, M.T., de Mattos
Vieira, M.A.R., Alves, R.R. da N., Fa, J.E., Peres, C.A., Tavares, A.S., Mere-Roncal, C.,
González-Crespo, C., Bertsch, C., Rodriguez, C.R., Bardales-Alvites, C., von Muhlen,
E., Paim, F.P., Tamayo, J.S., Valsecchi, J., Gonçalves, J., Torres-Oyarce, L., Lemos,
L.P., Gilmore, M.P., Correa, M.A., Perez, N.C.A., Puertas, P., El Bizri, H.R., 2024.
Predicting animal abundance through local ecological knowledge: An internal validation
using consensus analysis. People and Nature 6, 535–547.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10587
Brites, A.D., Morsello, C., 2018. Effects of Economic Dependence and Cooperative
Behavior Over Participation in Monitoring the Impacts of Natural Resource Trade.
Ecological Economics 147, 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.033
Brondizio, E.S., Andersson, K., de Castro, F., Futemma, C., Salk, C., Tengö, M.,
Londres, M., Tourne, D.C., Gonzalez, T.S., Molina-Garzón, A., Russo Lopes, G., Siani,
S.M., 2021. Making place-based sustainability initiatives visible in the Brazilian Amazon.
Curr Opin Environ Sustain 49, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.007
Brondízio, E.S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bates, P., Carino, J., Fernández-Llamazares,
Á., Ferrari, M.F., Galvin, K., Reyes-García, V., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Samakov, A.,
Shrestha, U.B., 2021. Locally Based, Regionally Manifested, and Globally Relevant:
Indigenous and Local Knowledge, Values, and Practices for Nature. Annu Rev Environ
Resour 46, 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127

70
Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2001. Effectiveness of
parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science (1979) 291, 125–128.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.291.5501.125
Camilotti, V.L., Pinho, P., Brondízio, E.S., Escada, M.I.S., 2020. The Importance of
Forest Extractive Resources for Income Generation and Subsistence among Caboclos
and Colonists in the Brazilian Amazon. Hum Ecol 48, 17–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00127-7
Campos-Silva, J.V., Hawes, J.E., Peres, C.A., 2019. Population recovery, seasonal site
fidelity, and daily activity of pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) in an Amazonian floodplain mosaic.
Freshw Biol 64, 1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13301
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., 2016. Community-based management induces rapid
recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci Rep 6, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34745
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., Antunes, A.P., Valsecchi, J., Pezzuti, J., 2017.
Community-based population recovery of overexploited Amazonian wildlife. Perspect
Ecol Conserv 15, 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.08.004
Campos-Silva, J. V., Hawes, J.E., Andrade, P.C.M., Peres, C.A., 2018. Unintended
multispecies co-benefits of an Amazonian community-based conservation programme.
Nat Sustain 1, 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0170-5
Campos-Silva, J. V., Peres, C.A., Hawes, J.E., Haugaasen, T., Freitas, C.T., Ladle, R.J.,
Lopes, P.F.M., 2021. Sustainable-use protected areas catalyze enhanced livelihoods in
rural Amazonia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105480118
Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Luzadis, V.A., 2009. Lessons
from integrating fishers of arapaima in small-scale fisheries management at the
mamirauá reserve, amazon. Environ Manage 43, 197–209.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9220-5
Corlett, R.T., 2015. The Anthropocene concept in ecology and conservation. Trends
Ecol Evol 30, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.007
Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A.J., 2018. Building optimism at the environmental sciencepolicy-practice interface through the study of bright spots. Nat Commun.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05977-w
d’Armengol, L., Prieto Castillo, M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Corbera, E., 2018. A systematic
review of co-managed small-scale fisheries: Social diversity and adaptive management
improve outcomes. Global Environmental Change 52, 212–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.009

71
Dasgupta, P., Srikanth, K., 2020. Valuing Development, Environment and Conservation:
Creating Values that Matter. Conservation and Society 18, 68.
https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_121
Davis, A., Wagner, J., 2006. A right to fish for a living? The case for coastal fishing
people’s determination of access and participation. Ocean Coast Manag 49, 476–497.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.04.007
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R.,
Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M.,
Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P.W., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Van Der Plaat, F., Schröter,
M., Lavorel, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, E., Davies, K., Demissew, S.,
Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C.A., Hewitt, C.L., Keune, H., Lindley, S., Shirayama, Y.,
2018a. Assessing nature’s contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse
sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science (1979) 359, 270–272.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R.,
Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M.,
Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P.W., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Van Der Plaat, F., Schröter,
M., Lavorel, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, E., Davies, K., Demissew, S.,
Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C.A., Hewitt, C.L., Keune, H., Lindley, S., Shirayama, Y.,
2018b. Assessing nature’s contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse
sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science (1979) 359, 270–272.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Donda, S., 2017. Who benefits from fisheries co-management? A case study in Lake
Chiuta, Malawi. Mar Policy 80, 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.10.018
Dudley, N., Stolton, S., 1999. Conversion of paper parks to effective management:
developing a target. Report to the WWF-World Bank Alliance from the IUCN/WWF
Forest Innovation Project. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland.
Ezzine-De-Blas, D., Wunder, S., Ruiz-Pérez, M., Del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, R., 2016.
Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS
One 11, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149847
Fischer, J., Riechers, M., 2019. A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People
and Nature 1, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.13
Folke, C., Berkes, F., 2002. Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local
knowledge, in: L. H. Gunderson, & C.S.H. (Ed.), Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington DC, pp.
121–146.

72
Freitas, C.T., Espírito-Santo, H.M.V., Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., Lopes, P.F.M.,
2020. Resource co-management as a step towards gender equity in fisheries. Ecological
Economics 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106709
Gutiérrez, N.L., Hilborn, R., Defeo, O., 2011. Leadership, social capital and incentives
promote successful fisheries. Nature 470, 386–389. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09689
Hausmann, A., Slotow, R., Burns, J.K., Di Minin, E., 2016. The ecosystem service of
sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environ
Conserv 43, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000314
Hossain, K., Ballardini, R.M., 2021. Protecting Indigenous Traditional Knowledge
Through a Holistic Principle-Based Approach. Nord J Hum Rights 39, 51–72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2021.1947449
Hubbs, C.L., Nelson, J.S., 1978. Fishes of the World., #rd ed. ed, Systematic Zoology.
Wiley, New York. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412830
INPE, 2022. Programa de Monitoramento da Amazônia e Demais Biomas [WWW
Document]. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. URL
http://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/downloads/ (accessed 2.7.24).
Isaac, V.J., Almeida, M.C., Giarrizzo, T., Deus, C.P., Vale, R., Klein, G., Begossi, A.,
2015. Food consumption as an indicator of the conservation of natural resources in
riverine communities of the Brazilian Amazon. An Acad Bras Cienc 87, 2229–2242.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201520140250
Joppa, L.N., Loarie, S.R., Pimm, S.L., 2008. On the protection of “protected areas.” Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 6673–6678. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802471105
Kadykalo, A.N., López-Rodriguez, M.D., Ainscough, J., Droste, N., Ryu, H., Ávila-Flores,
G., Le Clec’h, S., Muñoz, M.C., Nilsson, L., Rana, S., Sarkar, P., Sevecke, K.J.,
Harmáčková, Z. V., 2019. Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions
to people.’ Ecosystems and People 15, 269–287.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713
Kothari, A., Camill, P., Brown, J., 2013. Conservation as if people also mattered: Policy
and practice of community-based conservation. Conservation and Society 11, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.110937
Lapola, D.M., Pinho, P., Barlow, J., Aragão, L.E.O.C., Berenguer, E., Carmenta, R.,
Liddy, H.M., Seixas, H., Silva, C.V.J., Silva, C.H.L., Alencar, A.A.C., Anderson, L.O.,
Armenteras, D., Brovkin, V., Calders, K., Chambers, J., Chini, L., Costa, M.H., Faria,
B.L., Fearnside, P.M., Ferreira, J., Gatti, L., Gutierrez-Velez, V.H., Han, Z., Hibbard, K.,
Koven, C., Lawrence, P., Pongratz, J., Portela, B.T.T., Rounsevell, M., Ruane, A.C.,
Schaldach, R., da Silva, S.S., von Randow, C., Walker, W.S., 2023. The drivers and

73
impacts of Amazon forest degradation. Science (1979) 379.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8622
Lovejoy, T.E., Nobre, C., 2019. Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action. Sci Adv 5.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949
Maia, A.G., Reydon, B.P., Ie, D., 2004. metodologias e recomendações Valoração de
recursos ambientais – metodologias e recomendações. IE/UNICAMP.
Malhado, A.C.M., Ladle, R., Whittaker, R., Neto, A., Malhi, Y., Ter Steege, H., 2013. The
ecological biogeography of Amazonia. Front Biogeogr 5.
https://doi.org/10.21425/f5fbg13314
Malhi, Y., Roberts, J.T., Betts, R.A., Killeen, T.J., Li, W., Nobre, C.A., 2008. Climate
change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science (1979) 319, 169–172.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146961
Malmborg, K., Enfors-Kautsky, E., Schultz, L., Norström, A. V., 2022. Embracing
complexity in landscape management: Learning and impacts of a participatory resilience
assessment. Ecosystems and People 18, 241–257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2061596
McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B.,
Mutekanga, D., Thang, H. Van, Dammert, J.L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M.,
Peter Brosius, J., Coppolillo, P., O’Connor, S., 2011. Hard choices: Making trade-offs
between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144, 966–972.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038
Medeiros-Leal, W.M., Castello, L., Freitas, C.E.C., Siqueira-Souza, F.K., 2021. SingleSpecies Co-management Improves Fish Assemblage Structure and Composition in a
Tropical River. Front Ecol Evol 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.604170
Mooney, P.H., Hunt, S.A., 2009. Food Security: The Elaboration of Contested Claims to
a Consensus Frame*. Rural Sociol 74, 469–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15490831.2009.tb00701.x
Mori, A.S., Furukawa, T., Sasaki, T., 2013a. Response diversity determines the
resilience of ecosystems to environmental change. Biological Reviews 88, 349–364.
https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12004
Mori, A.S., Spies, T.A., Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Andrade, A., 2013b. Reframing ecosystem
management in the era of climate change: Issues and knowledge from forests. Biol
Conserv 165, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.020
Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B., Brandon, K., 2005. The role of protected areas in
conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30,
219–252. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507

74
Nieratkaa, L., Bray, D., Mozumder, P., 2015. Can Payments for Environmental Services
Strengthen Social Capital, Encourage Distributional Equity, and Reduce Poverty?
Conservation and Society 13, 345–355. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.179880
Oksanen, J., Simpson Gavin, Blanchet F, Kindt Roeland, Legendre Pierre, Minchin
Peter, O’Hara R.B., Solymos, P., Stevens, M., Szoecs, E., Wagner, H., Barbour Matt,
Bedward Michael, Bolker Ben, Borcard Daniel, Carvalho Gustavo, Chirico Michael, De
Caceres Miquel, Durand Sebastien, Evangelista Heloisa, FitzJohn Rich, Friendly
Michael, Furneaux Brendan, Hannigan Geoffrey, Hill Mark O, Lahti Leo, McGlinn Dan,
Ouellette Marie-Helene, Ribeiro Cunha Eduardo, Smith Tyler, Stier Adrian, Ter Braak
Cajo, Weedon James, 2022. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version
2.6-4. Community ecology package.
Osewe, I., Hălălișan, A.F., Talpă, N., Popa, B., 2023. Critical Analysis of Payments for
Ecosystem Services: Case Studies in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Forests 14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061209
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective
action, Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146384
Palomo, I., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., González, J.A., García-Llorente, M., Alcorlo,
P., Mora, M.R.G., 2014. Incorporating the social-ecological approach in protected areas
in the anthropocene. Bioscience 64, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bit033
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R.T.,
Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S.M.,
Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S.E., Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Berry, P.,
Bilgin, A., Breslow, S.J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E.,
Golden, C.D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H.,
Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P.H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., PichisMadruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg,
B.B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., Yagi, N., 2017. Valuing nature’s
contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27, 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Peres, C.A., Emilio, T., Schietti, J., Desmoulière, S.J.M., Levi, T., 2016. Dispersal
limitation induces long-term biomass collapse in overhunted Amazonian forests. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 113, 892–897.
https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1516525113/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.201516525SI.PDF
Petersen, T.A., Brum, S.M., Rossoni, F., Silveira, G.F.V., Castello, L., 2016. Recovery of
Arapaima sp. populations by community-based management in floodplains of the Purus
River, Amazon. J Fish Biol 89, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12968

75
Pimm, S.L., Jenkins, C.N., Abell, R., Brooks, T.M., Gittleman, J.L., Joppa, L.N., Raven,
P.H., Roberts, C.M., Sexton, J.O., 2014. The biodiversity of species and their rates of
extinction, distribution, and protection. Science (1979) 344.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752
Pörtner, H.O., Scholes, R.J., Arneth, A., Barnes, D.K.A., Burrows, M.T., Diamond, S.E.,
Duarte, C.M., Kiessling, W., Leadley, P., Managi, S., McElwee, P., Midgley, G., Ngo,
H.T., Obura, D., Pascual, U., Sankaran, M., Shin, Y.J., Val, A.L., 2023. Overcoming the
coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts. Science (1979) 380.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4881
Quintas-Soriano, C., Brandt, J.S., Running, K., Baxter, C. V., Gibson, D.M., Narducci, J.,
Castro, A.J., 2018. Social-ecological systems influence ecosystem service perception: A
programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) analysis. Ecology and Society
23, art3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10226-230303
Ricketts, T.H., Soares-Filho, B., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Nepstad, D., Pfaf, A., Petsonk, A.,
Anderson, A., Boucher, D., Cattaneo, A., Conte, M., Creighton, K., Linden, L., Maretti,
C., Moutinho, P., Ullman, R., Victurine, R., 2010. Indigenous lands, protected areas, and
slowing climate change. PLoS Biol 8, e1000331.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000331
Rodrigues, A.C., Costa, H., Carlos, P., Brondizio, E., Dias, A., Dias, J., Constantino, P.,
Ladle, R., Malhado, A.C., Campos-Silva, J. V., 2024. Community-based fisheries
management exert a vast value-added effective protection footprint in Amazonian
forests. Nature Sustainability - In press 1–26. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs3782947/v1
Sampaio, G., Nobre, C., Costa, M.H., Satyamurty, P., Soares-Filho, B.S., Cardoso, M.,
2007. Regional climate change over eastern Amazonia caused by pasture and soybean
cropland expansion. Geophys Res Lett 34. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030612
Scholte, S.S.K., van Teeffelen, A.J.A., Verburg, P.H., 2015. Integrating socio-cultural
perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods.
Ecological Economics 114, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
Schröder, N.J.S., 2018. The lens of polycentricity: Identifying polycentric governance
systems illustrated through examples from the field of water governance. Environmental
Policy and Governance 28, 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1812
Silvano, R.A.M., Hallwass, G., Lopes, P.F., Ribeiro, A.R., Lima, R.P., Hasenack, H.,
Juras, A.A., Begossi, A., 2014. Co-management and spatial features contribute to
secure fish abundance and fishing yields in tropical floodplain lakes. Ecosystems 17,
271–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9722-8
Sullivan, M.J.P., Lewis, S.L., Affum-Baffoe, K., Castilho, C., Costa, F., Sanchez, A.C.,
Ewango, C.E.N., Hubau, W., Marimon, B., Monteagudo-Mendoza, A., Qie, L., Sonké, B.,

76
Martinez, R.V., Baker, T.R., Brienen, R.J.W., Feldpausch, T.R., Galbraith, D., Gloor, M.,
Malhi, Y., Aiba, S.I., Alexiades, M.N., Almeida, E.C., De Oliveira, E.A., Dávila, E.Á.,
Loayza, P.A., Andrade, A., Vieira, S.A., Aragão, L.E.O.C., Araujo-Murakami, A., Arets,
E.J.M.M., Arroyo, L., Ashton, P., Gerardo Aymard, C., Baccaro, F.B., Banin, L.F.,
Baraloto, C., Camargo, P.B., Barlow, J., Barroso, J., Bastin, J.F., Batterman, S.A.,
Beeckman, H., Begne, S.K., Bennett, A.C., Berenguer, E., Berry, N., Blanc, L., Boeckx,
P., Bogaert, J., Bonal, D., Bongers, F., Bradford, M., Brearley, F.Q., Brncic, T., Brown,
F., Burban, B., Camargo, J.L., Castro, W., Céron, C., Ribeiro, S.C., Moscoso, V.C.,
Chave, J., Chezeaux, E., Clark, C.J., De Souza, F.C., Collins, M., Comiskey, J.A.,
Valverde, F.C., Medina, M.C., Da Costa, L., Dančsák, M., Dargie, G.C., Davies, S.,
Cardozo, N.D., De Haulleville, T., De Medeiros, M.B., Del Aguila Pasquel, J., Derroire,
G., Di Fiore, A., Doucet, J.L., Dourdain, A., Droissart, V., Duque, L.F., Ekoungoulou, R.,
Elias, F., Erwin, T., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Fauset, S., Ferreira, J., Llampazo, G.F., Foli,
E., Ford, A., Gilpin, M., Hall, J.S., Hamer, K.C., Hamilton, A.C., Harris, D.J., Hart, T.B.,
Hédl, R., Herault, B., Herrera, R., Higuchi, N., Hladik, A., Coronado, E.H., HuamantupaChuquimaco, I., Huasco, W.H., Jeffery, K.J., Jimenez-Rojas, E., Kalamandeen, M.,
Djuikouo, M.N.K., Kearsley, E., Umetsu, R.K., Kho, L.K., Killeen, T., Kitayama, K.,
Klitgaard, B., Koch, A., Labrière, N., Laurance, W., Laurance, S., Leal, M.E., Levesley,
A., Lima, A.J.N., Lisingo, J., Lopes, A.P., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lovejoy, T., Lovett, J.C.,
Lowe, R., Magnusson, W.E., Malumbres-Olarte, J., Manzatto, Â.G., Marimon, B.H.,
Marshall, A.R., Marthews, T., De Almeida Reis, S.M., Maycock, C., Melgaço, K.,
Mendoza, C., Metali, F., Mihindou, V., Milliken, W., Mitchard, E.T.A., Morandi, P.S.,
Mossman, H.L., Nagy, L., Nascimento, H., Neill, D., Nilus, R., Vargas, P.N., Palacios,
W., Camacho, N.P., Peacock, J., Pendry, C., Mora, M.C.P., Pickavance, G.C., Pipoly, J.,
Pitman, N., Playfair, M., Poorter, L., Poulsen, J.R., Poulsen, A.D., Preziosi, R., Prieto,
A., Primack, R.B., Ramírez-Angulo, H., Reitsma, J., Réjou-Méchain, M., Correa, Z.R.,
De Sousa, T.R., Bayona, L.R., Roopsind, A., Rudas, A., Rutishauser, E., Salim, K.A.,
Salomão, R.P., Schietti, J., Sheil, D., Silva, R.C., Espejo, J.S., Valeria, C.S., Silveira, M.,
Simo-Droissart, M., Simon, M.F., Singh, J., Shareva, Y.C.S., Stahl, C., Stropp, J., Sukri,
R., Sunderland, T., Svátek, M., Swaine, M.D., Swamy, V., Taedoumg, H., Talbot, J.,
Taplin, J., Taylor, D., Ter Steege, H., Terborgh, J., Thomas, R., Thomas, S.C., TorresLezama, A., Umunay, P., Gamarra, L.V., Van Der Heijden, G., Van Der Hout, P., Van
Der Meer, P., Van Nieuwstadt, M., Verbeeck, H., Vernimmen, R., Vicentini, A., Vieira,
I.C.G., Torre, E.V., Vleminckx, J., Vos, V., Wang, O., White, L.J.T., Willcock, S., Woods,
J.T., Wortel, V., Young, K., Zagt, R., Zemagho, L., Zuidema, P.A., Zwerts, J.A., Phillips,
O.L., 2020. Long-term thermal sensitivity of earth’s tropical forests, Science.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw7578
Tregidgo, D., Barlow, J., Pompeu, P.S., Parry, L., 2020. Tough fishing and severe
seasonal food insecurity in Amazonian flooded forests. People and Nature 2, 468–482.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10086
Vatn, A., Pascual, U., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Termansen, M., Arias-Arévalo, P., Balvanera,
P., Athayde, S., Hahn, T., Lazos, E., 2024. Incorporating diverse values of nature in
decision-making—theory and practice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences 379. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0315

77
Villamayor-Tomas, S., García-López, G., 2018. Social movements as key actors in
governing the commons: Evidence from community-based resource management cases
across the world. Global Environmental Change 53, 114–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.005
Watson, J.E.M., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B., Hockings, M., 2014. The performance and
potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947
Wiseman, J., 2006. Local heroes? Learning from recent community strengthening
initiatives in Victoria. Australian Journal of Public Administration 65, 95–107.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2006.00485.x
Yates, G.E., Stein, T. V., Wyman, M.S., 2010. Factors for collaboration in Florida’s
tourism resources: Shifting gears from participatory planning to community-based
management. Landsc Urban Plan 97, 213–220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.003

78

4. COMMUNITY-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT EXERT A VAST VALUEADDED EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOOTPRINT IN AMAZONIAN FORESTS
Submetido na Nature Sustainability (Em Revisão)
Ana Carla Rodrigues1,2, Hugo C. M. Costa2,3, Carlos A. Peres2,4, Eduardo Sonnewend
Brondizio5,6, Adevaldo Dias7, José Alves de Moraes2,8, Pedro Constantino9, Richard
James Ladle1, Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado1, João Vitor Campos-Silva1,2,3,10

1 Programa de pós-graduação em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos Trópicos,

Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió,
AL, Brasil
2 Instituto Juruá, Manaus, AM, Brasil

3

Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da

Amazonia, Manaus, AM, Brasil
4 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

5

Department of Anthropology, and Center for the Analysis of Social Ecological

Landscapes (CASEL), Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
6 Programa de Pós-graduação em Ambiente e Sociedade (NEPAM), Universidade de

Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil.
7 Memorial Chico Mendes, Manaus, AM, Brasil

8

Associação dos Moradores Agroextrativistas do Baixo Médio Juruá (AMAB),

Comunidade Lago Serrado, Carauari, AM, Brasil.
9 US Forest Service, International Program - Brasil.

79
10

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal e Recursos Pesqueiros,

Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM, Brasil

80

4.1 Abstract
Community-based conservation has gained traction in the Brazilian Amazon due
to its potential in combining territorial protection, local well-being, and biodiversity
conservation. Here, we conducted an innovative assessment of the effective protection
footprint of the largest community-based fisheries conservation arrangement in the
Amazon. Local communities effectively protected between 1 and 13 lakes, which were
on average 47.4 ha in size. However, the effectively protected floodplain area was
approximately eight-fold larger than the extent of direct protection, defined as the
immediate focal area sustaining financial returns through co-management. The
additional protection of a ‘functional area’ was on average 11,188 ha, or 36-fold larger
than the directly protected area. Although the average cost of effective protection was
low (US$0.95 ha‒1 yr‒1), this was entirely incurred by low-income local communities
Our study underscores the remarkable effort leveraged by Amazonian rural communities
in protecting natural ecosystems and the imperative need to develop compensation
mechanisms to financially reward them, which are currently lacking.
Keywords: Communal conservation, co-management, environmental protection,
Amazonia, sustainable development, tropical forest

4.2 Introduction
Community-based conservation (CBC), in which local communities lead the
management and protection of natural resources, is one of the most promising
conservation strategies in developing tropical countries (Berkes, 2007). There are
several significant potential co-benefits of CBC initiatives (Brooks et al., 2012). First,
CBC ensures biodiversity conservation by promoting sustainable land use practices and
critical habitat protection (Campos-Silva et al., 2018). Second, it can generate income
and create employment opportunities for local communities through ecotourism,
sustainable harvesting of natural resources, and other forms of income generation (RuizBallesteros and Brondizio, 2013). Third, it can improve social and economic well-being

81
locally by enhancing food security and providing greater access to social services and
infrastructure (Campos-Silva et al., 2021; Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016). Fourth, it
promotes participatory decision-making, which can enhance the sense of ownership and
responsibility among local communities (Ostrom, 2009). Finally, CBC can contribute to
the achievement of global conservation goals by effectively conserving biodiversity,
building capacity and facilitating knowledge-sharing among stakeholders (Esmail et al.,
2023).
CBC is seen as a feasible conservation approach in the Amazon because it
combines territorial protection, local welfare, and biodiversity conservation, while also
generating income and preventing biodiversity loss (Campos-Silva et al., 2019; CamposSilva and Peres, 2016). A notable CBC initiative in the Neotropics is the co-management
of pirarucu, or giant arapaima (Arapaima gigas) fisheries in Amazonia (Campos-Silva
and Peres, 2016; Freitas et al., 2020). Territorial protection is crucial within CBC as it
supports source-sink dynamics in harvested Amazonian landscapes, aiding the recovery
of historically overexploited species (Arantes et al., 2022; Campos-Silva et al., 2019).
CBC-mediated territorial protection is ensured by 24/7 environmental surveillance,
deterring poaching by local and external resource users (Franco et al., 2021).
Community surveillance restricts outsider access and enforces protection rules through
punitive measures, such as confiscating products, removing trespassers, and notifying
government agencies (Queiroz, 2015). Surveillance, initiated in 1995, was key in
developing ‘fishing agreements’—formal commitments among communities to comply
with management rules—and led to the 2002 consolidation of a community-based
environmental protection system (Franco et al., 2021).
The CBC approach has been remarkably successful. For example, wild arapaima
populations increased by 425% along the Juruá River (Campos-Silva et al., 2019),
mirroring trends in other basins adopting this approach (Castello et al., 2009; Petersen
et al., 2016). Additionally, this approach positively impacted fish communities' structure
and composition, increasing species richness, body mass, abundance, and biomass
(Medeiros-Leal et al., 2021).

82
A major motivation for arapaima fisheries co-management is to generate
demographic benefits for resource populations, resulting in both subsistence and direct
income (Campos-Silva et al., 2020). However, the economic burden of territorial
surveillance falls heavily on disenfranchised local communities, potentially threatening
the long-term viability of this conservation program (Robalino et al., 2021). Arapaima
CBC presents a common-pool resource dilemma: enhanced fish populations allow
fishers to secure predictable quotas, but this requires costly monitoring and enforcement
to ensure sustainable floodplain management. Besides monitoring costs, fishing
communities face significant logistical expenses in marketing their fish quotas (Instituto
Juruá, unpubl. data). Research suggests that conservation policies need to offer
sufficient incentives to stimulate local economic interests and mobilize commitments to
formalize conservation actions (Londres et al., 2023). Therefore, the disparity between
positive large-scale conservation outcomes and low socioeconomic benefits poses a
significant challenge to the sustainability of CBC efforts (Campos-Silva et al., 2019).
One way to offset these costs is through Payment for Environmental Services
(PES) programs co-designed with communities, providing compensation for the use and
stewardship of resources to ensure environmental services. PES participants can be
individuals, enterprises, NGOs, private institutions, or the public as direct or indirect
beneficiaries of territorial protection (Wunder, 2015). PES often involves carbon
sequestration, water quality, ecotourism, and biodiversity protection (Ezzine-De-Blas et
al., 2016). Implementing PES for biodiversity is challenging due to indirect, delayed
benefits, often requiring legal support (Hein et al., 2013). In Latin America, PES uptake
has increased, targeting forest carbon, hydrological catchments, and biodiversity
conservation. Balancing payments is complex due to socio-ecological intricacies and
history; PES can reduce deforestation, especially under long-term contracts (Charoud et
al., 2023), and bolster ecosystem resilience (Ocampo-Melgar et al., 2024). Even in
areas with limited governance, PES can yield significant benefits (Salzman et al., 2018).
Successful PES programs should adapt to diverse conditions and be integrated
into flexible, existing governance structures. Long-term effectiveness requires
continuous monitoring of costs, production, and impacts, with a focus on enhancing

83
natural resources rather than merely maintaining the status quo (Börner et al., 2017).
Effective implementation also hinges on creating schemes that enhance social equity
and foster intrinsic motivation, which are justified on both normative and instrumental
grounds (Akers and Yasué, 2019). These schemes should be managed autonomously,
fairly, and efficiently to maximize socio-environmental benefits and ensure resource
conservation (Lliso et al., 2021).
Here, we quantitatively assess the impact of the largest community-based
conservation program in Brazilian Amazonia by examining the full extent of communityled environmental surveillance and their associated costs considering 96 protected lakes
located along the Juruá River, a major tributary of the Amazon. Specifically, we estimate
the full spatial extent of floodplain and upland forests that local communities can
effectively guard as a consequence of CBC, and the economic cost incurred by this
surveillance, which are currently borne out by the communities. We use these estimates
to highlight the enormous effort invested by Amazonian rural communities to ensure the
protection of natural ecosystems, arguing for the development of new governance and
financial tools to reward strong local conservation measures by legitimate resource
users as a cost-effective and socially just approach to ensure forest protection. Finally,
we discuss the potential viability of PES approaches to support community-based
conservation and reduce the asymmetry between the costs of conservation efforts
incurred locally and environmental benefits accrued at much larger spatial scales.

4.3 . Results
4.3.1 Operational structure of community-led protection
Local guards covering a floodplain area are community members who participate
in arapaima management, and may be organized in pairs or small teams of up to eight
people. The rotation among teams is determined by the community and is established
depending on the physical environment, such as lake location, lake accessibility,
distance to the community support base, and number of guards available in the

84
community (Figure 1A). In general, surveillance forays could range from six hours to
seven consecutive days, but in a few communities the guard lived in a floating house on
the lake all year-round. Surveillance costs are mostly paid for by community members
themselves, in which household food and fuel supplies are made available to enable
travel to the vicinity of each surveillance site. However, a few communities included
surveillance activities as part of the total cost of arapaima management. The most
critical surveillance season was when the level of floodwaters was receding. Illegal
fishers at this time could rapidly move into a lake and harvest protected stocks of
commercially desirable fish species, resulting in the remaining stock to relocate from any
given lake in search of safer sites elsewhere (Figure S1).
4.3.2 Community-based protection footprint
A total of 96 protected oxbow lakes under the direct jurisdiction and stewardship
of 14 rural communities and hosting a population count of approximately 109,000 adult
arapaima, were mapped along the Juruá River (Figure 1B). These communities were on
average spaced by 82.8 km from the nearest town (range = 51.78 - 110.9 km). Each of
these communities on average contained 12.6 families (range = 2 - 32), with a total of
177 families participating in community-led lake surveillance. On average, 6.4 lakes
(range = 1 - 13) were protected per community, with individual lakes accounting for a
mean dry-season area of 47.39 (± 82.26) ha. The spatial extent of direct protection was
on average 305 ha per community, but the wider territorial protection resulting from
effective protection was on average 2,346 ha (Table S1, Figure 2A). In other words, the
extent of effectively protected areas was almost eight-fold larger than the aggregate size
of all protected lakes within the jurisdiction of any given community, which corresponds
to the actual focal area that derived financial returns through co-management. The
functional floodplain area supporting co-management was even larger: on average this
amounted to 11,189 ha per community, an area ~36-fold larger than the directly
protected area (ANOVA, df = 3, F = 93.41, p< 0.001; Figure S2; Table S2). Finally, each
local community included in this study incidentally protected an overall additional
average upland area of 12,383 ha of terra firme (nonflooded) forests by simply closing
off those areas by severing physical access through the floodplain area protected by

85
CBC. This area was on average nearly 40-fold larger than the directly protected area.
Combining all four zones of either direct or incidental protection, each community in fact
protected a mean total area of floodplain and upland forest nearly 86 times larger than
the total dry-season area of lakes sustaining local arapaima populations.
4.3.3 Financial cost of CBC protection
The current community-scale monetary costs of environmental surveillance were
calculated based on real-world expenditure information reported by each community.
The mean annual cost of territorial surveillance was estimated at ~US$31,271 to ensure
the overall effective protection of 32,844 ha of floodplain environments. In other words,
on average ~US$0.95 was spent on each hectare of effectively protected area.
Surveillance expenditure was conservatively estimated at zero labour costs and based
on only fuel and food supplies consumed by lake guards who volunteered to contribute
unpaid labour time. These costs are low compared to the estimated community-led costs
based on our three potential hypothetical PES scenarios. We found that if two lake
guards were to be rewarded by local daily wages, these costs would increase to
US$5.30/ha. Assuming that labour costs for two guards could be met considering the
Brazilian minimum wage, these costs would slightly increase to US$5.40/ha. Finally,
considering standard payment rates recently awarded by the official environmental
protection agency (ICMBio), these costs would further increase to US$9.60/ha (Figure
2B).
On average, surveillance costs represented 32% of the overall costs of
community-based fisheries management and exerted a negative impact of 21% of the
net community income. Our model selection identified three most parsimonious models
(Table S3). The model averaging approach revealed that travel distance to the farthest
lake, which was typically isolated from the river channel, was the most important
predictor across all plausible models in explaining protection costs (ωAICc = 1).
Additionally, the authorized arapaima harvest quota (ωAICc = 0.33) and number of
protected lakes (ωAICc = 0.32) emerged as other important variables, each appearing in
one of the selected models (Figure S2).

86
To ensure a fair reward system to local fishers who protect wide-ranging fisheries
resources that transcend local jurisdictions, we identified three potential scenarios
according to the payment system complying with Brazilian labour regulations. The cost
of any PES program was calculated considering the fishing quota allowed by the
regulatory agency, so that PES costs could be equated to a standard unit of fish offtake
(kg of harvested fish). This facilitates the payment rationale to local fishers, in addition to
the fact that large quotas translate into more intensive efforts to protect supporting
habitats. In these terms, local payments would range from US$0.94/kg of fish
considering local wages to US$1.70/kg of fish considering ICMBio hiring practices
(Table S4). Considering labour costs in terms of the current minimum salary according
to Brazilian labour law, cost estimates would be comparable to those based on local
daily wages (US$0.95/kg). These cost estimates mean that ensuring the viability of a
PES program covering the entire Central Juruá River basin would require funding in the
order of between ~US$1,770,000 and ~US$3,170,000 each year. If we were to project
those values to support CB fisheries management across the entire state of Amazonas,
this would require between ~US$50.3 million and ~US$90.1 million in annual payments,
which would benefit over 400 rural communities and ensure the socially just protection of
approximately 15 million hectares of floodplain forests.

4.4 Discussion
The territorial protection and resource surveillance carried out by Amazonian local
communities involved in arapaima co-management has ensured the protection of vast
areas of tropical forest, safeguarding the flow of multiple ecosystem services at different
scales (Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016). Beyond the ecological benefits reported to
date, our results show that community-led protection of aquatic environments within
community-based fisheries arrangements also ensure the added-value protection of
much larger aquatic and terrestrial areas compared to only the aggregate lake area
where dry-season fishing activities are conducted. Quantifying this enormous effort
allocated by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to protect their own territories

87
reinforce the positive role of traditional people on conservation of Amazonian
environments (Brondízio et al., 2021).
Local communities are always present, thereby protecting their aquatic
environments all year-round and 24 hours each day. Yet commercially valuable fish
stocks become more vulnerable during the receding floodwaters, which renders
community protection efforts even more diffuse, more complex, and more demanding.
Therefore, surveillance requires enormous dedication of time and effort, in addition to
incurring a high cost to already low-income families, by limiting their capacity to engage
in other profitable activities and subsistence food production (Campos-Silva et al., 2020).
In this context, community-led territorial governance and protection represents a
substantial opportunity cost for local households. It is therefore critical to recognize, and
ideally enhance, communal surveillance activities through financial support of local
communities if the long-term success of these CBC outcomes are to be maintained
(Charoud et al., 2023).

Spatial footprint of community-led protection
We show that the scale of effective environmental protection by Juruá
communities, considering their routine surveillance routes on foot, is almost eight-fold
larger than the actual aggregate lake area. This extended protection footprint in fact
becomes much larger, considering that guarding floodplain environments during the
critical time of the year incidentally precludes access to adjacent upland forests that
would otherwise be reached. Therefore, by precluding illegal incursions by outside users
into the floodplain and its anastomosing channels, local communities also ensure the
added-value protection of vast areas of unflooded upland forests. In this context, beyond
the strong positive impact on fisheries resources and aquatic biodiversity shown
elsewhere (Campos-Silva et al., 2019; Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016), the effective
protection of both várzea and terra firme forests during the low-water season clearly
delivers strong additional benefits to terrestrial biodiversity conservation by preventing
illegal exploitation by fishers, hunters, loggers and, more recently, miners.

88
Another key finding reported here is the spatial extent of functional protection,
which is an important hidden positive impact of community-based conservation. The
Juruá River experiences a flood pulse that can reach depths of up to 11 m for up to 230
days a year (Campos-Silva et al., 2021). Arapaima fish exhibit lateral migration patterns
during this prolonged flood pulse, including habitual movements into flooded forests
between tributary lakes and perennial streams, and the main river channel (CamposSilva et al., 2019). Population recovery of this apex predator is closely associated with
lateral migration and replenishing of depleted environments (Campos-Silva et al., 2019),
which can impact the top-down trophic dynamics across an area ~255-fold larger than
the neighbouring lake area, thereby controlling the abundance of other important prey
species (Campos-Silva et al., 2021). In addition, the spatial contagion of enforcing
protection ensures recolonization of previously depleted areas far away from the target
lake, reinforcing the importance of co-management activities in promoting food security
for Amazonian rural communities (Tregidgo et al., 2020).

Cost of community-based protection in a seasonal environment
Arapaima population viability is closely linked to the hydrological cycle, including
the supra-annually variable seasonal flood pulse, which markedly alters the seasonal
fluvial connectivity of the floodplains along major meandering rivers of the Amazon (Junk
et al., 1989). During the flood season, arapaima moves between lakes, the main river
channel, and the flooded forest, where they have access to high-quality food sources
(Campos-Silva et al., 2019). When floodwaters begin to recede, arapaima shows a high
degree of site fidelity, returning to their breeding lakes, particularly when conditions are
quiet including low ambient noise (Campos-Silva et al., 2019). Our results show a much
greater community effort during this period in protecting stocks against human
disruptions induced by fishing gear and poaching (Figure 2B). This leads to a marked
peak of labour-intensive surveillance activity that requires substantial resources,
including food supplies, fuel, boats and canoes, and a larger number of volunteers
because schools of arapaima can flee the lakes prematurely if they perceive a threat
from outside fishers.

89
Comparing the costs of community-led efforts against alternative scenarios that
rely on proactive participation of government agencies or NGOs, we easily reach the
conclusion that local community inclusion in conservation arrangements is the cheapest
and most cost-effective mechanism to ensure the protection of natural ecosystems, such
as the Juruá floodplains. However, we emphasise the glaring lack of social justice
behind this strategy given the heavy burden and local opportunity costs considering that
the time and effort spent in territorial protection could be allocated to alternative income
generation activities. In fact, the substantial asymmetry between large conservation
benefits accrued at multiple scales and the local socioeconomic costs incurred locally
represents

one

of

the

main

bottlenecks

in

implementing

community-based

arrangements. This distortion thus needs to be addressed to strengthen the CBC model
in Amazonia and beyond.
Although the costs of community-led protection can be seen as exceedingly low
compared to the typical investments in conservation interventions by most external
agencies (Silva et al., 2019), those values are extremely high for disenfranchised local
communities, which accept to soldier on because this heavy burden yields many other
benefits beyond a simple monetary trade-off (Campos-Silva et al., 2021). Our study
communities have legitimized their interests through co-management actions,
increasingly engaging in conservation practices with intrinsic motivations that are often
above economic payoffs. In addition to collective decision-making, there is a collective
sense of autonomy and belonging that ensures access to natural resources for both
present and future generations (Gamarra et al., 2019; Ostrom, 2009). Given little or no
action enacted by toothless environmental agencies throughout the Amazon, this local
community empowerment has filled the vacuum by successfully protecting their own
territories

against

major

threats

by

external

enterprises

overexploitation (Levis et al., 2020; Lopes et al., 2021).

Strengthening recognition of hidden environmental services

waging

predatory

90
Community-led biodiversity protection thorough local empowerment can ensure
socio-environmental governance and maintenance of ecosystem services and
opportunities for self-development both inside and outside protected areas (CamposSilva

et

al.,

2021), especially when confronting

hostile policies

dismantling

environmental regulations (Vale et al., 2021). However, local communities cannot
continue to shoulder the heavy burden of 24-by-7 environmental protection without
external support. This is vital for the maintenance of community-based conservation,
given that biodiversity-based value chains are not sufficiently fair to cover the intrinsic
costs of environmental protection. In addition, above and beyond the financial costs
associated with surveillance efforts, there are other secondary opportunity costs incurred
by neglecting horticultural investments, which also provide subsistence and income
(Alves-Pinto et al., 2018; Newton et al., 2012). Furthermore, a relentless state of
surveillance and readiness imposes a substantial physical and psychological toll, given
the ever-present possibility of violent hostilities from potential intruders, which in extreme
cases can be life-threatening (Campos-Silva et al., 2020).
Payments for Ecosystem (or environmental) services (PES) has the potential to
contribute highly positive conditional incentives for the provision of ecosystem services
(Wunder, 2015). Although this approach is more common in terrestrial conservation, it
has recently grown in fisheries management (Bladon et al., 2016). In sum, PES is more
likely to succeed within fisheries arrangements that show (i) demand for one or a set of
ecosystem services or bottlenecks in the value-chain; (ii) evidence-based approach with
a clear baseline; (iii) clear boundaries and property rights; (iv) strong local governance;
(v) robust monitoring, control and surveillance; and (vi) financial sustainability (Bladon et
al., 2016). Arapaima co-management in the Brazilian Amazon shows a high level of
community organization, in addition to the balanced participation of local institutions,
NGOs, academic institutions, and government agencies. These conditions provide a
solid foundation for the implementation, organization, and development of PES
programs involving established CBC arrangements. This is critical because the lack of
socio-political organization often makes these schemes unworkable (Salzman et al.,
2018).

91
Our study clearly underscores an imperative moral challenge of directly
compensating local communities providing a wider public good generated by their
environmental protection efforts (Arantes et al., 2022). A fairer return on their
conservation efforts is vital to compensate for their tangible contributions and roles as
protagonists of these arrangements, aligning biodiversity protection with local wellbeing.
As such, strengthening and ensuring better surveillance conditions and greater
economic returns to local communities can capture the long-term goals of local
environmental and socioeconomic sustainability.
A co-designed PES model should be transparent in terms of who pays (the
buyers), who benefits (the beneficiaries), and who sells (the providers) (Mohammed,
2013). We advocate that a PES mechanism within the arapaima CBM program in Brazil
should be supported multilaterally between inter-governmental funds, non-governmental
initiatives, and international cooperation, considering that the ecosystem services
indirectly provided by local communities operate at a global scale (Levis et al., 2020).
The Brazilian government has the means to implement a PES program, which could
become a key financial mechanism, strengthening the economic benefits of
environmental protection, promoting an increased sense of ownership, and engaging
new communities into arapaima management, similarly to other PES programs like the
Bolsa Floresta (Cisneros et al., 2022). However, we highlight the importance of securing
enough decision-making power for local leaders and community representatives to
ensure procedural and representative justice throughout the entire process of
implementing and maintaining programs (Lopes et al., 2021).
Community participation is a crucial element in the processes of designing,
implementing, and monitoring the effectiveness and success of PES activities (Kaiser et
al., 2021). In addition, this must be based on transparency among investors,
beneficiaries, and providers (Shapiro-Garza et al., 2020; Upton, 2020). Thus, the active
participation of community members, together with inter-institutional partnerships, can
render bureaucratic and legal processes enforceable in a participatory manner (ShapiroGarza et al., 2020).

92
PES programs have raised significant ethical and social concerns. Treating
natural resources as commodities, subject to transactions, can exacerbate unequal
benefit distribution, potentially disadvantaging involved communities (Kaiser et al.,
2021). For initiatives to be effective, equity in PES benefit distribution must be integrated
throughout the workflow. Ignoring the interconnected aspects of socio-biodiversity can
undermine conservation efforts. Focusing solely on measurable environmental services
and oversimplifying ecological processes can undervalue natural resources (Kaiser et
al., 2021; Shapiro-Garza et al., 2020). A comprehensive resource assessment is
necessary to avoid excluding critical operational factors in PES development and
maintenance (Kaiser et al., 2021).
While benefiting from PES, communities can paradoxically become dependent
and vulnerable without strategies to mitigate financial and structural risks ensuring
program continuity (Upton, 2020). Diversifying funding sources reduces risks associated
with interruptions or delays in payments and benefits (Kaiser et al., 2021). This approach
ensures long-term viability for community-based surveillance systems, making them fair
activities (Shapiro-Garza et al., 2020). Our findings show that CBM is a highly viable and
cost-effective method for implementing PES, allowing for territorial protection across
vast Amazonian Forest areas with relatively modest investments, significantly enhancing
frontline conservation efforts.

4.5 Conclusion
Arapaima management in Brazilian Amazonia has emerged as a strong window
of opportunity to align biodiversity protection with sustainable and equitable prosperity.
However, any socioeconomic gains accrued from sustainable offtakes are still very
modest considering the huge positive conservation impact (Campos-Silva et al., 2021,
2020, 2019; Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016). We here uncover the hidden added-value
of community-based territorial surveillance, which ensures both biodiversity protection
and the provision of a wide range of ecosystem services that, in turn, enhances the
quality of life of local people. We reinforce the need to both recognize and reward the

93
enormous effort allocated by local communities to protect Amazonian natural
ecosystems. It is thus imperative to consolidate this new pathway towards a brighter
future for Amazonia, in which local livelihoods and the protection of Earth’s largest
tropical forest are inextricably linked.
4.6 Methods
4.6.1 Study Area
This study was conducted along the Juruá River, a major tributary of the Solimões
(=Amazon) River, and primarily within the ~2.58-million-hectare municipal county of
Carauari (4° 52′ 58″ S, 66° 53′ 45″ W) in the State of Amazonas, Brazil. This region is
strongly influenced by commercial and subsistence activities involving fishing,
agriculture, and Euterpe (açaí) fruit and oilseed extraction (Newton et al., 2012). This
region contains two contiguous sustainable-use protected areas: the 632,949-ha Uacari
Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS Uacari, 5º43'58"S, 67º46'53"W; Decree No.
25,039 of Jun. 1, 2005), and the 253,227 ha Extractive Reserve Médio Juruá (ResEx
Médio Juruá, 5º33'54"S, 67º42'47"W; Decree No. n/a of Mar. 4, 1997). These reserves
were decreed in 1997 and 2005, respectively, and currently contain ~4,000 inhabitants
distributed across 74 communities, most of which near the river channel, along a fluvial
distance of 800 km, in addition to communities located along the banks of oxbow lakes
and perennial streams (Figure 1B).

4.6.2 Resource governance resulting from arapaima co-management
To ensure both economic and food security for rural communities, Fishing
Accords (i.e. formal agreements) were widely negotiated in the mid-Juruá region during
the 2010s. These accords involved local communities, including those outside protected
areas, as well as the Fishers Cooperative of Carauari, the nearest urban centre. The
agreements created three different categories of access to lake resources during the dry
season, when lakes become clearly discrete geographic features where fish
concentrate: (1) Subsistence-use lakes, which are intended to supply local subsistence

94
needs, and which are restricted to artisanal fishers from the resident community who are
responsible for guarding that lake; (2) Protected lakes, which are managed by local
communities primarily as arapaima stock recovery sites, and exclude both commercial
and subsistence fishing boats, except for a brief community-led offtake season based on
a strict harvest quota predetermined by IBAMA, the Brazilian Natural Resources Agency
(Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016); and (3) Production lakes, which are open-access to
both commercial and subsistence fishers.
A floating wooden watchtower is typically erected at the main strategic entrance
of the lake. Equipped with makeshift hunting gear and subsistence supplies, these
stationary posts, which are occupied by a small patrol unit and managed by the resident
community, conduct round-the-clock armed surveillance. During the arapaima
management season, some of the protected lakes are harvested by the resident
community for a brief period of up to 5 days per year, according to a previously
determined proportional harvest quota based on a stock assessment defined as the
number of adult and juvenile arapaima counted at that lake in the previous year (see
Campos-Silva and Peres, 2016).
Annual arapaima counts began at several lakes along the mid-Juruá in 2005, and
lake management was implemented in 2010 by a partnership between local
communities, local associations, and federal and state agencies. Arapaima counts take
place during the low-water season at each monitored lake each year, and the census
data are forwarded to IBAMA. IBAMA then authorizes a lake-specific harvest quota of up
to 30% of all adults (>1.5m in length) counted, depending on the fish processing
requirements of the resident community and other extenuating factors.

4.6.3 Data analysis
4.6.3.1

Quantifying territorial protection

We conducted participatory community mapping through semi-structured
interviews (CAAE research ethics permit 52148721.6.0000.5013) with lake guards,

95
community leaders, and community residents. First, we asked general questions to
describe the surveillance dynamics, including the main actors, surveillance alternation
dynamics, impact of seasonality on surveillance dynamics, surveillance pathways,
conflict resolution strategies, and associated costs. Participatory community mapping
occurred interactively using A3-sized hardcopy cartographic maps showing LANDSAT-8
satellite images in RGB (5,4,3) colour composition, with a scale of 1:100,000 for location
and identification of each lake where territorial surveillance had been deployed by each
community. Each lake management category was identified by outlining locations on the
map using colour markers (Wartmann and Purves, 2017). Participatory community
mapping was carried out with community residents who had extensive previous
experience with both spatial landmarks across the waterscape, which is the main form of
transport in this region, the overall landscape, and in-depth knowledge of arapaima comanagement activities (Patton, 2015; Silvano et al., 2023). Floodplain mapping was
carried out within the scope of either community meetings or visits to resident
households (Saija et al., 2017). Experienced individuals were identified by community
leaders.
Arapaima co-management activities exert varying impacts at different spatial
scales of influence (Figure 2A). First, there is a (1) direct scale of protection, represented
by the immediate lake area where actual surveillance takes place. Second, there is an
(2) effective scale of protection, which is represented by the total area within the
community surveillance boundaries. Third, there is a (3) functional scale of protection,
represented by the functional impact zone exerted by spatial exclusion, particularly
related to the vagrancy and movement capacity of the target species protected at each
lake. Finally, there is an (4) incidental scale of protection at which local communities
indirectly protect large portions of upland (terra firme) forests farther inland by simply
restricting entry to strategic access points within the more accessible adjacent
floodplains.
Direct scale of protection
During the mapping sessions, all lakes protected through surveillance that are
managed by any given community were identified and further classed as direct

96
surveillance areas, as they are the focus of management activities, and their total area
was measured using the MapBiomas Água Project collection 1 dataset (MapBiomas
2021), which mapped all open water bodies across Brazil.
Effective scale of protection
Territorial surveillance for lake protection is a set of actions and adaptive
strategies that occur on a full-time basis, but intensified in the dry season, to protect
areas of management interest. These areas include subsistence-use, protected, and
production lakes that are harvested for local subsistence. Surveillance aims to protect
lakes from illegal harvesting by either local or external fishers, and any other exploitation
activities that can disturb the lake and the surrounding forest, such as hunting and
timber extraction. Surveillance strategies are continuously adapted according to the
needs of each community and depend on the number of managed lakes, number of
people available for surveillance, landscape context, and geographic accessibility of
each lake.
Surveillance is conducted by travelling around the perimeter of each lake by
canoe or on foot, depending on the season, searching for any presence or signs of
intruders. In several communities, floating wooden houses are placed at strategic entry
points of access to lakes to optimize surveillance. During surveillance, lake guards cover
a floodplain area much larger than the size of individual lakes, which we refer to as
“effective scale of protection”, where illegal activities, including poaching, fishing, and
logging, are excluded. To estimate the effective protection of each lake, we combined
GPS tracks and spatial data recovered from interviews to map the daily paths that
community guards frequently travelled to protect each lake. The area effectively
protected, including seasonally-flooded várzea forest and open-water bodies, was
estimated, including all reported paths on foot and/or canoes between lakes, and all
strategic surveillance points that were frequently accessed by outside users attempting
illegal fishing. Polygons drawn during participatory mapping were reproduced in QGIS
3.14 (QGIS, 2023) at the same scale using the corresponding satellite image to fine-tune
estimates of the effective scale of protection.

97
Functional scale of protection
We also estimated the functional protection area of each lake based on the
ranging ecology of giant arapaima (Arapaima gigas), the conservation target species in
this arrangement. We therefore considered arapaima movement patterns, which had
been quantified during a previous telemetry study (Campos-Silva et al., 2019), to
estimate the capacity of each lake to function as a source area of individuals moving into
depleted lakes and the spatial configuration of landscape-scale population gene flow,
both of which can sustain ecological interactions and top-down control of food webs
mediated by an apex predator (Campos-Silva et al., 2021).
This was estimated using a 1,730-m buffer area around the dry-season perimeter
of each lake (i.e. the direct scale of protection). This threshold value corresponds to the
radius of an average circular Arapaima home range area, defined by the Minimum
Convex Polygon formed by positional fixes obtained for 12 juveniles and adults. Six of
these individuals were tracked in our study area in 2014 and seven in 2015 using
conventional VHF telemetry, amounting to 309 locations, 125 and 184 of which during
the dry and wet seasons, respectively (see Campos-Silva et al., 2019). Individual
estimates are available within Table S.5.
Incidental scale protection
In addition to these three scales of protection, oxbow lake surveillance also
incidentally protects all the rear areas of upland forests by closing off the physical
accessibility to unauthorized users of the várzea floodplain. This strategy prevents nonresident loggers, hunters, and fishers from accessing upland areas, typically to stealthily
exploit natural resources without the explicit consent of the local community. This scale
of protection was estimated by multiplying the total width of várzea floodplains protected
at the effective scale by a conservative 10-km length of upland forests that could be
potentially affected by illegal extractive activities (Benítez-López et al., 2019; Peres et
al., 2016). To assess differences in spatial extent between different scales of protection,
an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed with the response variable on a

98
logarithmic scale. Assumptions of normality of residuals and homogeneity of variances
were evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene tests, respectively.

4.6.3.2

Assessing protection dynamics and costs

To better understand local surveillance priorities according to the flood pulse
dynamics, we organized focal group interviews at each community with 45 experienced
fishers who had conducted local lake surveillance for at least 15 years. These focal
groups were adept at mapping the seasonality of surveillance because of previous
experience and fluctuations in water level change the accessibility to water-bodies and
their vulnerability. Surveillance costs were acquired during interviews and encompassed
general operational expenditure including fuel, food, and butane gas used as fuel to
power outboard motors during surveillance routes, according to the unique ways in
which each community carried them out. This excludes labour input and expenditure
related to purchase and maintenance of wooden or aluminium boats, outboard motors,
paddles, and infrastructure such as strategically positioned floating houses, which
served to accommodate lake guards during surveillance shifts. To supplement our field
data, we assessed the annual reports of arapaima management fisheries provided by
the Association of Rural Producers from Carauari (ASPROC) produced in 2022.
ASPROC is a grassroots smallholder and fisher-led organization leading the arapaima
management along the Juruá River. We computed the surveillance expenses associated
with all four scales of surveillance and subsequently compared costs under three
different scenarios: 1) current expenditure covered by local communities or guards who
were community members lacking any labour wage payments, 2) general expenditure
and costs considering local daily wages of US$14.30 for two people working all yearround; 3) costs incurred by hiring two individuals receiving a minimum wage of
US$442.24 (US$247.30 in wages plus US$194.90 in labour taxes) to conduct
surveillance in compliance with Brazilian labour regulations, and 4) potential expenditure
of US$852 (US$510.20 in wages plus US$341.80 in taxes) covered by the Brazilian

99
Environmental Agency for two additional environmental agents, according to the hiring
notice SEI/ICMBio 15343964 and law 7.957/1989.
We also performed Generalized Linear Models (GLM) using a Gaussian
distribution for continuous data to investigate the community-scale variation in protection
costs (response variable) as a function of distance to the nearest town, number of lakes
requiring protection, distance to the farthest lake, and the locally authorized harvest
quota.

We mitigated for collinearity between predictors using the Variance Inflation

Factor (VIF < 3), excluding variables above this threshold (Zuur et al., 2010). We further
combined all possible models, from the constant to the full model, using the dredge
function of the MuMIn package. Models were selected based on the lowest Akaike
information criterion (AIC) corrected for small sample sizes (AICc). The ΔAICc value
represents the difference between the AICc of a given model and the lowest AICc,
whereas ΔAICc < 2 represent the most likely set of parsimonious models (Burnham and
Anderson, 2002). Finally, we applied a model-averaging approach, which represented
the beta average of all predictors included in the set of most parsimonious models, and
determined the relative importance of each explanatory variable given their model
frequency and cumulative Akaike weight. All analyses were conducted in R 4.3.1. All
monetary costs were standardized and corrected for inflation from October 2021 to July
2023 and converted into USD using a 4.91 BRL exchange rate.
Lastly, we estimated the financial imperative of meeting the overall costs of
territorial protection through a PES mechanism. In an attempt to estimate a value that
could cover the costs of territorial protection, we built three alternative scenarios i)
considering all operational costs, including fuel and food requirements and, at least two
people hired through daily wages, ii) operational costs and minimum wages following
Brazilian labour regulations, and iii) operational costs and human resources hired
through the standard practices followed by the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação
da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), Brazil’s environmental agency responsible for Protected
Areas and environmental management. These compensation mechanisms provide
valuable insights into ways of rewarding local dwellers for their role in territorial
protection. However, it is essential to recognize that community protection of their

100
environments is a collective effort. Therefore, involving local leaders in program design
is crucial from the outset to identify the most effective ways of rewarding those engaged
in territorial protection. Finally, we divided these values by the potential fish catch of
each community to calculate monetary expenditure per unit of fish biomass harvested,
which can facilitate the rational implementation of a PES program based on territorial
protection and official catch statistics.

Referências
Akers, J.F., Yasué, M., 2019. Motivational Crowding in Payments for Ecosystem Service
Schemes: A Global Systematic Review. Conservation and Society 17, 377–389.
https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_90
Alves-Pinto, H.N., Hawes, J.E., Newton, P., Feltran-Barbieri, R., Peres, C.A., 2018.
Economic Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services on Livelihoods of Agroextractivist Communities in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics 152, 378–388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.016
Arantes, C.C., Castello, L., Basurto, X., Angeli, N., Sene-Haper, A., McGrath, D.G.,
2022. Institutional effects on ecological outcomes of community-based management of
fisheries in the Amazon. Ambio 51, 678–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-015751
Benítez-López, A., Santini, L., Schipper, A.M., Busana, M., Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2019.
Intact but empty forests? Patterns of hunting-induced mammal defaunation in the
tropics. PLoS Biol 17, e3000247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000247
Berkes, F., 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702098104
Bladon, A.J., Short, K.M., Mohammed, E.Y., Milner‐Gulland, E.J., 2016. Payments for
ecosystem services in developing world fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 17, 839–859.
https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12095
Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U.M.,
Wunder, S., 2017. The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services. World
Dev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020
Brondízio, E.S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bates, P., Carino, J., Fernández-Llamazares,
Á., Ferrari, M.F., Galvin, K., Reyes-García, V., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Samakov, A.,
Shrestha, U.B., 2021. Locally Based, Regionally Manifested, and Globally Relevant:

101
Indigenous and Local Knowledge, Values, and Practices for Nature. Annu Rev Environ
Resour 46, 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127
Brooks, J.S., Waylen, K.A., Mulder, M.B., 2012. How national context, project design,
and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation
projects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109, 21265–21270.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207141110
Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., 2002. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical
Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed. Springer New York LLC, New York.
Campos-Silva, J.V., Hawes, J.E., Freitas, C.T., Andrade, P.C.M., Peres, C.A., 2020.
Community-Based Management of Amazonian Biodiversity Assets, in: Baldauf, C. (Ed.),
Participatory Biodiversity Conservation: Concepts, Experiences, and Perspectives.
Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03041686-7_7
Campos-Silva, J.V., Hawes, J.E., Peres, C.A., 2019. Population recovery, seasonal site
fidelity, and daily activity of pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) in an Amazonian floodplain mosaic.
Freshw Biol 64, 1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13301
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., 2016. Community-based management induces rapid
recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci Rep 6, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34745
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., Amaral, J.H.F., Sarmento, H., Forsberg, B., Fonseca,
C.R., 2021. Fisheries management influences phytoplankton biomass of Amazonian
floodplain lakes. Journal of Applied Ecology 58, 731–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/13652664.13763
Campos-Silva, J. V., Hawes, J.E., Andrade, P.C.M., Peres, C.A., 2018. Unintended
multispecies co-benefits of an Amazonian community-based conservation programme.
Nat Sustain 1, 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0170-5
Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Luzadis, V.A., 2009. Lessons
from integrating fishers of arapaima in small-scale fisheries management at the
mamirauá reserve, amazon. Environ Manage 43, 197–209.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9220-5
Charoud, H., Costedoat, S., Izquierdo-Tort, S., Moros, L., Villamayor-Tomás, S.,
Castillo-Santiago, M.Á., Wunder, S., Corbera, E., 2023. Sustained participation in a
Payments for Ecosystem Services program reduces deforestation in a Mexican
agricultural frontier. Sci Rep 13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49725-7
Cisneros, E., Börner, J., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2022. Impacts of conservation
incentives in protected areas: The case of Bolsa Floresta, Brazil. J Environ Econ
Manage 111, 102572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102572

102
Esmail, N., McPherson, J.M., Abulu, L., Amend, T., Amit, R., Bhatia, S., Bikaba, D.,
Brichieri-Colombi, T.A., Brown, J., Buschman, V., Fabinyi, M., Farhadinia, M.,
Ghayoumi, R., Hay-Edie, T., Horigue, V., Jungblut, V., Jupiter, S., Keane, A.,
Macdonald, D.W., Mahajan, S.L., McVey, A., Moehrenschlager, A., Nelson, F.,
Noshirwani, M.M., Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., Postigo, J.L., Rakotondrazafy, V., Rao, M., Roe,
D., Sierra Huelsz, J.A., Stolton, S., Tawake, A., Wintle, B., 2023. What’s on the horizon
for community-based conservation? Emerging threats and opportunities. Trends Ecol
Evol 38, 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.02.008
Ezzine-De-Blas, D., Wunder, S., Ruiz-Pérez, M., Del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, R., 2016.
Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS
One 11, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149847
Franco, C.L.B., El Bizri, H.R., Souza, P.R. e., Fa, J.E., Valsecchi, J., Sousa, I.S. de,
Queiroz, H.L. de, 2021. Community-based environmental protection in the Brazilian
Amazon: Recent history, legal landmarks and expansion across protected areas. J
Environ Manage 287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112314
Freitas, C.T., Espírito-Santo, H.M.V., Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., Lopes, P.F.M.,
2020. Resource co-management as a step towards gender equity in fisheries. Ecological
Economics 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106709
Gamarra, N.C., Correia, R.A., Bragagnolo, C., Campos-Silva, J.V., Jepson, P.R., Ladle,
R.J., Mendes Malhado, A.C., 2019. Are Protected Areas undervalued? An asset-based
analysis of Brazilian Protected Area Management Plans. J Environ Manage 249,
109347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109347
Hein, L., Miller, D.C., de Groot, R., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the
financing of global biodiversity conservation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5, 87–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.004
Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B., Sparks, R.E., 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain
systems. Canadian special publication of fisheries and aquatic sciences 106, 110–127.
Kaiser, J., Haase, D., Krueger, T., 2021. Payments for ecosystem services: A review of
definitions, the role of spatial scales, and critique. Ecology and Society 26.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12307-260212
Levis, C., Flores, B.M., Mazzochini, G.G., Manhães, A.P., Campos-Silva, J.V., Borges
de Amorim, P., Peroni, N., Hirota, M., Clement, C.R., 2020. Help restore Brazil’s
governance of globally important ecosystem services. Nat Ecol Evol.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1093-x
Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S., 2021. On the role of social equity in payments for
ecosystem services in Latin America: A practitioner perspective. Ecological Economics
182, 106928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106928

103
Londres, M., Salk, C., Andersson, K.P., Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Russo Lopes, G.,
Siani, S.M.O., Molina-Garzón, A., Gonzales, T., Montoya, D.R., Futemma, C., de Castro,
F., Tourne, D.C.M., 2023. Place-based solutions for global social-ecological dilemmas:
An analysis of locally grounded, diversified, and cross-scalar initiatives in the Amazon.
Global Environmental Change 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102718
Lopes, P.F.M., de Freitas, C.T., Hallwass, G., Silvano, R.A.M., Begossi, A., CamposSilva, J.V., 2021. Just Aquatic Governance: The Amazon basin as fertile ground for
aligning participatory conservation with social justice. Aquat Conserv 31, 1190–1205.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3586
MapBiomas Project. (2021). Mapping of water surfaces in Brazil (Collection 1).
Accessed January 2022 from [https://plataforma.brasil.mapbiomas.org/agua].
Medeiros-Leal, W.M., Castello, L., Freitas, C.E.C., Siqueira-Souza, F.K., 2021. SingleSpecies Co-management Improves Fish Assemblage Structure and Composition in a
Tropical River. Front Ecol Evol 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.604170
Mohammed, E.Y., 2013. Economic incentives for marine and coastal conservation:
Prospects, challenges and policy implications, in: Economic Incentives for Marine and
Coastal Conservation: Prospects, Challenges and Policy Implications. Routledge, pp. 1–
270. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203728345
Newton, P., Nichols, E.S., Endo, W., Peres, C.A., 2012. Consequences of actor level
livelihood heterogeneity for additionality in a tropical forest payment for environmental
services programme with an undifferentiated reward structure. Global Environmental
Change 22, 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.006
Ocampo-Melgar, A., Barría, P., Cerda, C., Venegas-González, A., Fernández, J., DíazVasconcellos, R., Zamora, J., 2024. Payment for Ecosystem Services: institutional
arrangements for a changing climate in the Chilean Mediterranean Region. NPJ Climate
Action 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00132-2
Ostrom, E., 2009. Understanding institutional diversity, Understanding Institutional
Diversity. Princeton, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190672492.003.0008
Patton, M.Q., 2015. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice, 4th ed. Sage Publications.
Peres, C.A., Emilio, T., Schietti, J., Desmoulière, S.J.M., Levi, T., 2016. Dispersal
limitation induces long-term biomass collapse in overhunted Amazonian forests. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 113, 892–897.
https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1516525113/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.201516525SI.PDF
Petersen, T.A., Brum, S.M., Rossoni, F., Silveira, G.F.V., Castello, L., 2016. Recovery of
Arapaima sp. populations by community-based management in floodplains of the Purus
River, Amazon. J Fish Biol 89, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12968

104
QGIS.org. 2023. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open-Source Geospatial
Foundation Project. http://qgis.org
Queiroz, R.C., 2015. Vigilância e proteção de terras indígenas: Programa de
Capacitação em Proteção Territorial. FUNAI/GIZ, Brasília.
R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org.
Robalino, J., Pfaff, A., Sandoval, C., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., 2021. Can we increase the
impacts from payments for ecosystem services? Impact rose over time in Costa Rica,
yet spatial variation indicates more potential. For Policy Econ 132, 102577.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2021.102577
Ruiz-Ballesteros, E., Brondizio, E.S., 2013. Construção de Acordo Negociado : A
Emergência do Turismo de Base Comunitária em Floreana ( Ilhas Galápagos ) 72, 323–
335.
Saija, L., De Leo, D., Forester, J., Pappalardo, G., Rocha, I., Sletto, B., Corburn, J.,
Mwau, B., Magnaghi, A., 2017. Learning from practice: environmental and community
mapping as participatory action research in planning. Planning Theory and Practice 18,
127–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1262982
Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A., Jenkins, M., 2018. The global status
and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nat Sustain 1, 136–144.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0
Shapiro-Garza, E., McElwee, P., Van Hecken, G., Corbera, E., 2020. Beyond Market
Logics: Payments for Ecosystem Services as Alternative Development Practices in the
Global South. Dev Change 51, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12546
Silva, J.M.C. da, Castro Dias, T.C.A. de, Cunha, A.C. da, Cunha, H.F.A., 2019. Public
spending in federal protected areas in Brazil. Land use policy 86, 158–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.035
Silvano, R.A.M., Baird, I.G., Begossi, A., Hallwass, G., Huntington, H.P., Lopes, P.F.M.,
Parlee, B., Berkes, F., 2023. Fishers’ multidimensional knowledge advances fisheries
and aquatic science. Trends Ecol Evol 38, 8–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.10.002
Tregidgo, D., Barlow, J., Pompeu, P.S., Parry, L., 2020. Tough fishing and severe
seasonal food insecurity in Amazonian flooded forests. People and Nature 2, 468–482.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10086
Upton, C., 2020. Conserving Natures? Co-producing Payments for Ecosystem Services
in Mongolian Rangelands. Dev Change 51, 224–252.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12549

105
Vale, M.M., Berenguer, E., Argollo de Menezes, M., Viveiros de Castro, E.B., Pugliese
de Siqueira, L., Portela, R. de C.Q., 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to
weaken environmental protection in Brazil. Biol Conserv 255, 108994.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108994
Wartmann, F.M., Purves, R.S., 2017. What’s (not) on the map: Landscape features from
participatory sketch mapping differ from local categories used in language. Land (Basel)
6. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6040079
Wunder, S., 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services.
Ecological Economics 117, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016
Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N., Elphick, C.S., 2010. A protocol for data exploration to avoid
common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041210X.2009.00001.x.

106

Figures

Figure 1. (A) Illustration elucidating the landscape where territorial protection and
surveillance are implemented. Protection extends far beyond oxbow lakes, covering
substantially larger areas. Arapaima co-management activities have varying impacts at
different spatial scales (1) Direct scale of protection: immediate lake areas under
surveillance; (2) Effective scale of protection: full-time territorial surveillance, intensified
during the dry season, protecting areas of management interest; (3) Functional scale of
protection: estimated based on the movement ecology of arapaima , considering their
ability to sustain ecological interactions; and (4) Incidental scale of protection: indirect
surveillance of adjacent upland forest areas that are incidentally protected by restricting
access to the floodplain by outside users. (B). Mid-section of the Juruá River, western
Brazilian Amazonia. Orange circles represent 14 communities located within two
contiguous sustainable-use forest reserves, with a combined area of 886,176 ha. These
communities perform territorial surveillance for co-management of arapaima (Arapaima
gigas) fisheries within 96 lakes (indicated by blue dots). Inset map shows (i) the effective
scale of protection (in yellow), which included to the routes that community rangers
patrol to protect lakes, and (ii) the scale of functional protection (shaded in orange), in
which arapaima stocks are fully protected to move into floodplains during the high-water
season. Finally, the wider (iii) scale of incidental protection (shaded in grey) represents

107
the adjacent upland (terra firme) forests that are also closed off by restricting access by
outsiders into floodplain forests.

Figure 2. Boxplots depicting (A) the area (in hectares, log10 scale) and spatial scales of
protection implemented by Amazonian rural communities in Arapaima co-management
along the Juruá River, and (B) the protection costs (US$/per hectare/year) borne by
these communities, including estimated costs under three alternative scenarios: (i)
employing two lake guards per community at local daily wages, (ii) hiring two guards
under Brazilian labour regulations, and (iii) hiring two environmental agents deployed by
a government agency.

108

Acknowledgments:
This work was made possible through a myriad of partners. We thank the financial
support Fundo Brasileiro para a Biodiversidade (FUNBIO) and Instituto Humanize
(Project No. 021/2021), which played a crucial role in facilitating and advancing this
study. This research is also part of the National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet
Amazon Expedition. We are also grateful for the support from FAPEAM within the
Amazônia + 10 initiative (grant number 01.02.016301.04664/2022-03). Instituto Juruá
also acknowledges the support from Mulago Foundation, The Pilot House, Synchronicity
Earth, International Conservation Fund and International Conservation Fund of Canada,
ACR would like to acknowledge the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Nível

Superior

(CAPES)

for

providing

her

doctoral

scholarship

(Grant

No.

88887.505812/2020-00). Additionally, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico
e Tecnológico (CNPq) awarded an exchange scholarship (Grant No. 200625/2022-5) to
ACR at Indiana University. JVC-S gratefully acknowledges financial support for this
publication by the Fulbright Amazonia program, which is sponsored by the U.S.
Department of State and the Fulbright Commission in Brazil. Its contents are solely the
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the
Fulbright Program, the Government of the United States, or Fulbright Brasil). CAP and
Instituto Juruá are supported by a Frontiers Planet Prize. We thank the Secretaria do
Estado do Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Amazonas (SEMA,
DEMUC), and Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis
(ICMBio) for granting research permits.

We are grateful to the Associação dos

Produtores Rurais de Carauari, Associação dos Moradores da Reserva de
Desenvolvimento Sustentável Uacari, Departamento de Mudanças Climáticas e Gestão
de Areas Protegidas da Secretaria de Meio Ambiente do Amazonas and all local
communities along the Médio Juruá region. Their collaboration, insights, and support
were instrumental in the successful execution of this project.

109

7 Conclusões gerais
A pesca manejada do pirarucu promove benefícios multidimensionais para
comunidades rurais na Amazonia brasileira que muitas vezes carecem de acesso a
serviços públicos, mas demonstram uma governança de recursos comuns eficaz. A
inclusão de múltiplos atores nos ambientes de tomada de decisão aumenta a resiliência
desse modelo de governança que é baseado em décadas de conhecimento e
organização social, demonstrando o potencial da sociobioeconomia para alinhar a
proteção da biodiversidade com o bem-estar na Amazônia, indo além das dimensões
meramente monetárias. As comunidades manejadoras de pirarucu percebem as
contribuições da natureza de forma diferente, principalmente valores não-materiais
como união, oportunidades recreativas, novas experiências de aprendizado e o reforço
do conhecimento tradicional. Embora os ganhos socioeconômicos atual com a venda da
quota autorizada tem transformado a vida ribeirinha, os valores ainda são modestos em
comparação ao valor agregado não reconhecido da vigilância territorial comunitária.
Esta vigilância não só garante a proteção da biodiversidade, mas também fornece uma
ampla gama de serviços ecossistêmicos, como a provisão de materiais, manutenção e
criação de habitats, regulação climática e segurança alimentar melhorando a qualidade
de vida das populações locais. Portanto, reconhecer e recompensar os esforços
substanciais dessas comunidades na proteção dos ecossistemas amazônicos é
imperativo para um futuro mais brilhante para a Amazônia, onde os meios de
subsistência dos moradores das várzeas e a proteção da floresta continuem
profundamente conectados.

110

8 APÊNDICE A – MATERIAL SUPLEMENTAR
Community-based fisheries management exert a vast value-added effective
protection footprint in Amazonian forests
Ana Carla Rodrigues1,2, Hugo C. M. Costa2,3, Carlos A. Peres2,4, Eduardo Sonnewend
Brondizio5,6, Adevaldo Dias7, José Alves de Moraes2,8, Pedro Constantino9, Richard
James Ladle1, Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado1, João Vitor Campos-Silva1,2,3,10
1 Programa de pós-graduação em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos Trópicos,

Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió,
AL, Brasil
2 Instituto Juruá, Manaus,AM, Brasil
3

Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da

Amazonia, Manaus, AM, Brasil
4 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
5

Department of Anthropology, and Center for the Analysis of Social Ecological

Landscapes (CASEL), Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
6 Programa de Pós-graduação em Ambiente e Sociedade (NEPAM), Universidade de

Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil.
7 Memorial Chico Mendes, Manaus, AM, Brasil
8

Associação dos Moradores Agroextrativistas do Baixo Médio Juruá (AMAB),

Comunidade Lago Serrado, Carauari, AM, Brasil.
9 US Forest Service, International Program - Brasil.
10 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal e Recursos Pesqueiros,

Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM, Brasil

This PDF file includes:
Figure S.1., Figure S.2., Table S.1., Table S.2., Table S.3. and Table S.4.

111

Figure S.1. The Juruá River flood pulse in meters over the last 38 years and
community-based surveillance efforts. Community surveillance efforts intensify during
the period of receding floodwaters in which fish stocks become more concentrated and
more vulnerable.

112

Figure S.2. Coefficient estimates ± 95% confidence intervals, showing the magnitude
and direction of different explanatory variables for community-based territorial
protection obtained by a generalised linear model-averaging approach.

Table S.2. Spatial scales, total areas (ha), and total costs (US$ ha‒1 yr‒1) of territorial protection
carried out by local communities engaged in arapaima (Arapaima gigas) co-management
fisheries along the Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazon.
Spatial scale
of protection

Total area
(ha)

Direct area
Effective area
Functional area
Incidental area
All scales of
protection

Total cost
(US$ ha‒1 yr‒1)

Mean area (ha)
per community

4,263
32,844
156,645
173,359

Protection
ratio1
1.0
7.7
36.7
40.7

305
2,346
11,189
12,383

0.95²
0.95
0.19
0.18

367,111

85.1

26,223

-

¹ Protected area ratio between any given spatial scale and the scale of direct protection of oxbow
lakes under the jurisdiction of any given community, where Arapaima management activities take
place.
² The cost of either direct or effective protection are the same, given that local communities
conduct broader surveillance protecting areas beyond the immediate scale of direct protection of
oxbow lakes.

114

Table S.2. Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc test performed
between different spatial scales of protection carried out by Amazonian rural
communities engaged in Arapaima (Arapaima gigas) co-management along the Juruá
River, western Brazilian Amazonia
Pairwise comparison
Incidental
Direct
Incidental Effective
Incidental Functional
Direct
Effective
Direct Functional
Effective Functional

Estimate
-1.736
-0.767
-0.128
0.968
1.607
0.638

Conf.low
-2.044
-1.075
-0.437
0.660
1.299
0.330

Conf.high
-1.428
-0.459
0.179
1.276
1.915
0.946

p value
0
< 0.0001
0.684
< 0.0001
0
< 0.0001

115
Table S.3. Top-ranked candidate models (ΔAICc < 2) explaining costs of territorial protection
performed by rural Amazonian communities engaged in sustainable arapaima (Arapaima gigas)
fisheries along the Juruá River, western Brazilian Amazonia, including their respective Akaike
information criterion with small sample size correction (AICc), the difference between a given
model and the best model (ΔAICc), and the model Akaike weights (ωAICc); d.f. = degrees of
freedom, logLik = log-likelihood
Model Formula
Farthest Lake distance
Farthest Lake Distance + Harvest Quota
Farthest Lake Distance + Number of Lakes

df
3
4
4

logLik
-14.293
-12.539
-12.566

AICc
36.586
36.715
36.768

ΔAICc
0
0.129
0.182

Table S.4. Comparative estimates of community-based protection costs of local Arapaima stocks
under different governance scenarios. These cost estimates are expressed in terms of both (i) US
dollars per hectare per year and (ii) the value of a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program,
expressed in US dollars per kilogram of sustainably harvested fish.

Governance arrangement
Local Community
Local Community and
Daily wages
Brazilian Labour
regulations
Brazilian Environmental
Agency

Protection costs
US$ -ha -yr
0.95

PES US$ per kg
ofharvested fish
0¹

5.3

0.94

5.4

0.95

9.6

1.70

¹ The costs of protection incurred by local communities are currently not covered within any PES
arrangement.

ωAICc
0.351
0.329
0.320