Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T12:24:33.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Unregulated sales of fishing nets: consequences and possible solutions in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2022

Roberto Ferrazi
Affiliation:
Faculdade Eduvale de Avaré, Avaré, SP, Brazil
Guilherme Correia-Silva
Affiliation:
Faculdade Eduvale de Avaré, Avaré, SP, Brazil
Maria Eduarda P Bonan
Affiliation:
Faculdade Eduvale de Avaré, Avaré, SP, Brazil
Tommaso Giarrizzo
Affiliation:
Núcleo de Ecologia Aquática e Pesca da Amazônia and Laboratório de Biologia Pesqueira e Manejo dos Recursos Aquáticos, Grupo de Ecologia Aquática, Universidade Federal do Pará, 2651 Avenida Perimetral, Belém, Pará, Brazil Instituto de Ciências do Mar (LABOMAR), Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), Avenida da Abolição 3207, 60165-081 Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil
Carolina V Silva
Affiliation:
Faculdade Eduvale de Avaré, Avaré, SP, Brazil
Philip M Fearnside
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA), Av. André Araújo, 2936, CEP 69067-375, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
Valter M Azevedo-Santos*
Affiliation:
Faculdade Eduvale de Avaré, Avaré, SP, Brazil Núcleo de Ecologia Aquática e Pesca da Amazônia and Laboratório de Biologia Pesqueira e Manejo dos Recursos Aquáticos, Grupo de Ecologia Aquática, Universidade Federal do Pará, 2651 Avenida Perimetral, Belém, Pará, Brazil Universidade Federal do Tocantins (UFT), Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade, Ecologia e Conservação, CEP 77500-000, Porto Nacional, Tocantins, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Valter M Azevedo-Santos, Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Comment
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Introduction

Nets are important gear for fishing that provide many people with both food and income; however, they have a variety of direct and indirect negative impacts on aquatic biodiversity (Piatt & Nettleship Reference Piatt and Nettleship1987, Ayaz et al. Reference Ayaz, Acarli, Altinagac, Ozekinci, Kara and Ozen2006, Read et al. Reference Read, Drinker and Northridge2006, Blettler & Wantzen Reference Blettler and Wantzen2019, Gough et al. Reference Gough, Dewar, Godley, Zafindranosy and Broderick2020, Kelkar & Dey Reference Kelkar and Dey2020, Vitorino et al. Reference Vitorino, Ferrazi, Correia-Silva, Tinti, Belizário and Amaral2022). In Brazil, the sale nets is unregulated, with any buyer permitted to purchase any type of net, either from physical stores (Fig. 1a) or through online suppliers (Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Hughes and Pelicice2022). Only authorized fishermen and fisherwomen are legally permitted to use fishing nets, but sales of these nets without control and the difficulty of enforcing restrictions on their use contribute to widespread illegal fishing in Brazil (Supplementary Appendix S1, available online).

Fig. 1. Events involving fishing nets in Brazil: (a) example of the free sale of fishing nets in a physical store; (b) example of fish (orders Characiformes, Cichliformes and Siluriformes) caught in a gill net; (c) a freshwater turtle captured in a gill net; and (d) a ghost net found with remains of fish in it.

Despite studies demonstrating the impacts of fishing nets on Brazilian biodiversity (e.g., Possatto et al. Reference Possatto, Barletta, Costa, do Sul and Dantas2011, Santos et al. Reference Santos, Bellini, Bortolon and Coluchi2012, Iriarte & Marmontel Reference Iriarte and Marmontel2013, Adelir-Alves et al. Reference Adelir-Alves, Rocha, Souza, Pinheiro and Freire2016, Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Marques, Teixeira, Giarrizzo, Barreto and Rodrigues-Filho2021, Gallardo et al. Reference Gallardo, Fossile, Herbst, Begossi, Silva and Colonese2021), no empirical data on the free sale of nets are available, and there have been no specific recommendations for regulating their sale. We examined advertisements for fishing nets and surveyed the mesh sizes and chemical compositions of the nets offered for sale by two major online markets in Brazil: AliExpress and Mercado Livre. Here, we discuss the ways in which this unregulated commerce facilitates illegal fishing and impacts biodiversity, and we provide suggestions for regulating the sale of fishing nets in Brazil.

Sale of fishing nets

We searched the AliExpress (https://best.aliexpress.com/) and Mercado Livre (https://www.mercadolivre.com.br/) websites for the hypothetical purchase of fishing nets (see ‘Methods’ in Appendix S2). We found a total of 72 advertisements for fishing nets (none requiring specific authorization to purchase); the nets comprised ‘cast nets’ (29.2%), ‘gill nets’ (52.8%), ‘trawl nets’ (8.3%) and ‘nets for fishing rods’ (9.7%). The mesh sizes ranged from 2 to 24 cm (between opposite knots). Most nets found for sale were composed of nylon (59.7%) or unspecified plastic (1.4%). In 38.9% of the advertisements, the material from which the nets were made was either not provided or we were unable to find such information.

Consequences of the free sale of nets

Our searches demonstrated that people from any region of the country could acquire fishing nets (including those with small mesh sizes) on both websites assessed. In both physical (Fig. 1a) and virtual commerce, the sellers are not required to ask for an attestation or authorization certificate when fishing nets are purchased (Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Hughes and Pelicice2022). In the specific case of AliExpress, this problem is exacerbated by the fact that the fishing nets are imported into the country and cross the border without any environmental restrictions in place.

In Brazil, federal law restricts the use of fishing nets to professional fishers and to researchers; prior authorization is required in both cases (Brazil 2009). Restrictions on their use include limits such as refraining from fishing during the spawning period. In general, professional fishers are required to be registered at a government-approved cooperative or similar entity. However, unregulated fishing is common in Brazil (Chagas et al. Reference Chagas, Costa, Martins, Resende and Kalapothakis2015), and nets are the principal type of equipment used in such fishing. As these nets can be purchased without legal restrictions, inspections are conducted throughout the country only when the nets are being used in water bodies. Monitoring is hampered by the logistics of patrolling vast areas that are often inaccessible, especially in Amazonia. Recent examples (Appendix S3) of the difficulty of inspecting illegal mining in or near Amazonian rivers illustrate this. The free access to fishing nets facilitates the illegal fishing that is already occurring (e.g., Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Hughes and Pelicice2022; see also Appendix S1) – especially in Amazonia and in other parts of the country where conducting inspections is difficult.

Fishing nets are an efficient type of fishing gear for catching fish (e.g., Fig. 1b; Ramos et al. Reference Ramos, Lustosa-Costa, Lima, Barbosa and Menezes2021), but their use may also result in the accidental capture of other animals (Fig. 1c; Reeves et al. Reference Reeves, McClellan and Werner2013). Gill nets constitute a much larger problem in terms of overfishing and bycatch due to the large areas they can cover and the long period during which they often remain in the ecosystem when compared to other net types (e.g., cast nets). Various studies have documented the accidental capture of animals in gill nets (e.g., Table 1). The free access to these nets and their consequent illegal use contribute to overfishing and bycatch, both of which impact biodiversity negatively.

Table 1. Examples of negative impacts on aquatic animals caused by different types of fishing nets.

Pollution is also facilitated by unregulated sales of nets. Most nets are made of nylon (as shown by our survey), a material that is difficult to degrade (Link et al. Reference Link, Segal and Casarini2019). After being abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded, the nets become sources of pollution in the ecosystems concerned (Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Hughes and Pelicice2022). Ingestion of polyamide is a concern regarding both marine and freshwater fish (e.g., Zhu et al. Reference Zhu, Wang, Chen, Sun, Qu and Xia2019, Maaghloud et al. Reference Maaghloud, Houssa, Bellali, El Bouqdaoui, Ouansafi, Loulad and Fahde2021), including those in Brazil (Pegado et al. Reference Pegado, Schmid, Winemiller, Chelazzi, Cincinelli, Dei and Giarrizzo2018, Andrade et al. Reference Andrade, Winemiller, Barbosa, Fortunati, Chelazzi, Cincinelli and Giarrizzo2019, Neto et al. Reference Neto, Rodrigues, Ortega, Rodrigues, Lacerda and Coletto2020). Fishing nets may represent a major source of the polyamide and other harmful compounds ingested by fish and other aquatic animals, including reptiles and large mammals (Table 1).

Free sale and illegal use also increase the number of nets left in the ecosystem, whether intentionally or not (Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Hughes and Pelicice2022), resulting in ‘ghost nets’ (Barbosa-Filho et al. Reference Barbosa-Filho, Seminara, Tavares, Siciliano, Hauser-Davis and Mourão2020, Vitorino et al. Reference Vitorino, Ferrazi, Correia-Silva, Tinti, Belizário and Amaral2022; see also Fig. 1d), which impact aquatic fauna ranging from invertebrates to fish to large mammals (Table 1), including in Brazil (Barbosa-Filho et al. Reference Barbosa-Filho, Seminara, Tavares, Siciliano, Hauser-Davis and Mourão2020, Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Marques, Teixeira, Giarrizzo, Barreto and Rodrigues-Filho2021, Reference Azevedo-Santos, Hughes and Pelicice2022).

The need for a law to regulate net sales

Although Brazil still has no federal regulation of fishing net sales, in 2015 a bill (PL 206/2015) was presented to the federal legislature’s Chamber of Deputies that would prohibit ‘the manufacture, sale and use, throughout the National Territory, of fishing nets, with mesh smaller than 5 cm …’ (Brazil 2015). However, the bill was considered ‘too drastic’, and in 2019 it was shelved in the Chamber of Deputies.

A new bill is needed that could be approved and implemented without creating conflicts with authorized fishers and other groups. A clear example demonstrating that this is possible is Tocantins State Law 3249 of 24 July 2017, restricting the sale of nets to licensed fishers in that state (Diário Oficial de Tocantins Reference Oficial de Tocantins2017). Although this represents an advance in the state of Tocantins, its effect is undermined by the ease of purchasing nets in other states and via online sales. A law is needed at the federal level patterned on the law in Tocantins; however, we emphasize that the control of nets at the point of sale cannot replace inspection and monitoring of their use.

Drafting a federal bill requires the participation of the fisheries sector in addition to researchers (Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Fearnside, Oliveira, Padial, Pelicice and Lima2017). This collaboration is needed to balance provisioning and regulating ecosystem services and to avoid interpretations that could harm professional fishers and other sectors authorized to use fishing nets.

Conclusions

Sales of fishing nets in Brazil require no form of environmental authorization, yet the unregulated sale of these nets facilitates illegal fishing – which could contribute to overfishing, bycatch, pollution and ghost netting. The current scenario requires federal legislation (similar to an existing law in Tocantins State) regulating the sale of fishing nets throughout Brazil. However, this does not replace the need for ongoing inspection of fishing activities (legal or illegal) in the country’s waterbodies.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892922000273.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the editor, Nicholas Polunin, for comments and corrections. This manuscript was improved with the comments of three anonymous reviewers, to whom we are extremely grateful.

Financial support

TG and PMF were supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq; Proc. # 311078/2019-2 to TG; 311103/2015-4 and 312450/2021-4 to PMF).

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

Ethical standards

None.

References

Adelir-Alves, J, Rocha, GRA, Souza, TF, Pinheiro, PC, Freire, KMF (2016) Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gears in rocky reefs of southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 64: 427434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, MC, Winemiller, KO, Barbosa, PS, Fortunati, A, Chelazzi, D, Cincinelli, A, Giarrizzo, T (2019) First account of plastic pollution impacting freshwater fishes in the Amazon: ingestion of plastic debris by piranhas and other serrasalmids with diverse feeding habits. Environmental Pollution 244: 766773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayaz, A, Acarli, D, Altinagac, U, Ozekinci, U, Kara, A, Ozen, O (2006) Ghost fishing by monofilament and multifilament gillnets in Izmir Bay, Turkey. Fisheries Research 79: 267271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo-Santos, VM, Fearnside, PM, Oliveira, CS, Padial, AA, Pelicice, FM, Lima, DP Jr et al. (2017) Removing the abyss between conservation science and policy decisions in Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 17451752.Google Scholar
Azevedo-Santos, VM, Hughes, RM, Pelicice, FM (2022) Ghost nets: a poorly known threat to Brazilian freshwater biodiversity. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 94: e20201189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo-Santos, VM, Marques, LM, Teixeira, CR, Giarrizzo, T, Barreto, R, Rodrigues-Filho, JL (2021) Digital media reveal negative impacts of ghost nets on Brazilian marine biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin 172: 112821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbosa-Filho, MLV, Seminara, CI, Tavares, DC, Siciliano, S, Hauser-Davis, RA, Mourão, JS (2020) Artisanal fisher perceptions on ghost nets in a tropical South Atlantic marine biodiversity hotspot: challenges to traditional fishing culture and implications for conservation strategies. Ocean & Coastal Management 192: 105189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blettler, MCM, Wantzen, KM (2019) Threats underestimated in freshwater plastic pollution: mini-review. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 230: 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazil (2009) Lei Nº 11.959, de 29 de junho de 2009 [www document]. URL http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/lei/l11959.htm Google Scholar
Chagas, ATA, Costa, MA, Martins, APV, Resende, LC, Kalapothakis, E (2015) Illegal hunting and fishing in Brazil: a study based on data provided by environmental military police. Natureza & Conservação 13: 183189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagys, M, Žydelis, R (2002) Bird bycatch in fishing nets in Lithuanian coastal waters in wintering season 2001–2002. Acta Zoologica Lituanica 12: 276282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oficial de Tocantins, Diário, 2017. ANO XXIX – Estado do Tocantins, Segunda-Feira, 24 de julho de 2017 4.916 [www document]. URL https://central.to.gov.br Google Scholar
Gallardo, SS, Fossile, T, Herbst, DF, Begossi, A, Silva, LG, Colonese, AC (2021) 150 years of anthropogenic impact on coastal and ocean ecosystems in Brazil revealed by historical newspapers. Ocean & Coastal Management 209: 105662.Google Scholar
Gough, CLA, Dewar, KM, Godley, BJ, Zafindranosy, E, Broderick, AC (2020). Evidence of overfishing in small-scale fisheries in Madagascar. Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iriarte, V, Marmontel, M (2013) River dolphin (Inia geoffrensis, Sotalia fluviatilis) mortality events attributed to artisanal fisheries in the western Brazilian Amazon. Aquatic Mammals 39: 116124.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, JK, Massey, L, Gulland, F (2010) Fatal ingestion of floating net debris by two sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 765767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jantz, LA, Morishige, CL, Bruland, GL, Lepczyk, CA (2013) Ingestion of plastic marine debris by longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) in the north Pacific Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 69: 97104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelkar, N, Dey, S (2020) Mesh mash: legal fishing nets cause most bycatch mortality of endangered South Asian river dolphins. Biological Conservation 252: 108844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, J, Segal, B, Casarini, LM (2019) Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear in Brazil: a review. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 17: 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løkkeborg, S (2011) Best practices to mitigate seabird bycatch in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries – efficiency and practical applicability. Marine Ecology Progress Series 435: 285303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maaghloud, H, Houssa, R, Bellali, F, El Bouqdaoui, K, Ouansafi, S, Loulad, S, Fahde, A. (2021) Microplastic ingestion by Atlantic horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in the north and central Moroccan Atlantic coast between Larache (35° 30′ N) and Boujdour (26° 30′ N). Environmental Pollution 288: 117781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendonça, JT, Bonfante, TM (2011) Assessment and management of white mullet Mugil curema (Valencienne, 1836) (Mugilidae) fisheries of the south coast of São Paulo State, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 71: 663672.Google ScholarPubMed
Miranda, LE, Agostinho, AA, Gomes, LC (2000). Appraisal of the selective properties of gill nets and implications for yield and value of the fisheries at the Itaipu Reservoir, Brazil–Paraguay. Fisheries Research 45: 105116.Google Scholar
Murray, F, Cowie, PR (2011) Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 12071217.Google Scholar
Neto, JGB, Rodrigues, FL, Ortega, I, Rodrigues, LS, Lacerda, ALF, Coletto, JL et al. (2020) Ingestion of plastic debris by commercially important marine fish in southeast-south Brazil. Environmental Pollution 267: 115508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pegado, TSS, Schmid, K, Winemiller, KO, Chelazzi, D, Cincinelli, A, Dei, L, Giarrizzo, T (2018) First evidence of microplastic ingestion by fishes from the Amazon River estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133: 814821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piatt, JF, Nettleship, DN (1987) Incidental catch of marine birds and mammals in fishing nets off Newfoundland, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18: 344349.Google Scholar
Possatto, FE, Barletta, M, Costa, MF, do Sul, JAI, Dantas, DV (2011) Plastic debris ingestion by marine catfish: an unexpected fisheries impact. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62: 10981102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramos, TPA, Lustosa-Costa, SY, Lima, RMO, Barbosa, JEL, Menezes, RF (2021) First record of Moenkhausia costae (Steindachner 1907) in the Paraíba do Norte basin after the São Francisco River diversion. Biota Neotropica 21: e20201049.Google Scholar
Read, AJ, Drinker, P, Northridge, S (2006) Bycatch of marine mammals in US and global fisheries. Conservation Biology 20: 163169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, RR, McClellan, K, Werner, TB (2013) Marine mammal bycatch in gillnet and other entangling net fisheries, 1990 to 2011. Endangered Species Research 20: 7197.Google Scholar
Santos, AJB, Bellini, C, Bortolon, LF, Coluchi, R (2012) Ghost nets haunt the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) near the Brazilian Islands of Fernando de Noronha and Atol das Rocas. Herpetological Review 43: 245246.Google Scholar
Silva, ACCD, Castilhos, JC, Santos, EAP, Brondízio, LS, Bugoni, L (2010) Efforts to reduce sea turtle bycatch in the shrimp fishery in northeastern Brazil through a co-management process. Ocean & Coastal Management 53: 570576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spirkovski, Z, Ilik-Boeva, D, Ritterbusch, D, Peveling, R, Pietrock, M (2019) Ghost net removal in ancient Lake Ohrid: a pilot study. Fisheries Research 211: 4650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomás, J, Guitart, R, Mateo, R, Raga, JA (2002) Marine debris ingestion in loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from the western Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 211216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitorino, H, Ferrazi, R, Correia-Silva, G, Tinti, F, Belizário, AC, Amaral, FA et al. (2022) New treaty must address ghost fishing gear. Science 376: 11691169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, BP, Lewison, RL, McDonald, SL, McDonald, RK, Kot, CY, Kelez, S et al. (2010) Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. Conservation Letters 3: 131142.Google Scholar
Zerbini, AN, Kotas, JE (1998) A note on cetacean bycatch in pelagic driftnetting off southern Brazil. Report of the International Whaling Commission 48: 519524.Google Scholar
Zhu, L, Wang, H, Chen, B, Sun, X, Qu, K, Xia, B (2019) Microplastic ingestion in deep-sea fish from the South China Sea. Science of the Total Environment 677: 493501.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Events involving fishing nets in Brazil: (a) example of the free sale of fishing nets in a physical store; (b) example of fish (orders Characiformes, Cichliformes and Siluriformes) caught in a gill net; (c) a freshwater turtle captured in a gill net; and (d) a ghost net found with remains of fish in it.

Figure 1

Table 1. Examples of negative impacts on aquatic animals caused by different types of fishing nets.

Supplementary material: File

Ferrazi et al. supplementary material

Ferrazi et al. supplementary material

Download Ferrazi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 26.8 KB