Unjust and unsustainable: A case study of the Açu portindustrial complex

J.M. Ditty a,n, C.E. Rezende b

a Department of Political Sociology, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro (UENF), Av. Alberto Lamego, 2000 Campos, RJ, 28013-602, Brazilb Center of Biosciences and Biotechnology, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro (UENF), Av. Alberto Lamego, 2000 Campos, RJ,28013-602, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 July 2013Received in revised form22 November 2013Accepted 22 November 2013

Keywords:MegaprojectJust sustainabilityArtisan fisherPublic policy

a b s t r a c t

Given their potential for social and ecosystem disruption along with job creation and economic stimulus, theproliferation of extremely large-scale investment projects worldwide has created a dilemma for policymakersand public authorities. Although one method of balancing the varied interests of stakeholders is to requirethat development projects be sustainable, the definition of this concept has become muddled and fewpractical frameworks for its implementation have emerged. One strategy that does exist, however, is the justsustainability framework. The present study sought to assess the just sustainability of the Açu industrialseaport megaproject in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil through the application of a questionnaire among 60 activemarine artisan fishers of a nearby community. The results indicate that the megaproject was not sustainable.Furthermore, the results of the just sustainability indicators triangulated both with the study's primary fisherethnographic data and with peer-reviewed scientific assessments of similar projects, thus confirming thepotential value of the just sustainability framework for assessment and policy formulation.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Overview

One way to mitigate the social and environmental problemscreated by industrial seaport megaprojects is to guide thedecision-making and licensing process with principles of sustain-ability. Despite the problematic nature which has developedaround the term sustainable development, there is consensus thatthe Brundtland Commision definition of the term, i.e., as develop-ment “meeting the needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [1], isthe most useful. The concept of sustainability, therefore, engendersintergenerational equity with respect to environmental resources.

Sustainability has traditionally been considered the conflictbetween environmental and economic interests. Yet while pro-ponents of economic development emphasize sustainability interms of unfaltering economic growth, ecological economicperspectives have pointed out that the natural capital (rawmaterials, ecological services) required for the production ofgoods and services is a finite resource belonging to a finiteecosphere [2]. The focus of sustainability has thus shifted to themaintenance of natural resources and services. The unprece-dented degree to which humans currently affect the functioningof the planet, culminating in announcements of the arrival of theAnthropocene geological epoch [3], has led a majority of theorists

to endorse a three-pillared model asserting that sustainabilityrelies on an equilibrium between economic, social, and environ-mental interests [4].

It is clear, however, that inequalities in the social structure haveprevented the existence of such sustainability. Moreover, over thelast 20 years most social scientists have recognized the unequaldistribution of environmental hazards and benefits with respect tocertain minorities and classes [5]. Therefore, theories and approachesdealing with justice and equity have been adapted and expandedinto the realm of sustainability studies [6].

This scenario has highlighted the need for practical strategieswhich could link lofty theoretical models with on-the-groundpolitical realities. One framework which holds promise for this isjust sustainability (JS). JS defines sustainability as “the need toensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in ajust and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits ofsupporting ecosystems” (p. 78) [7]. Thus, because humans largelycontrol both economic activities and ecosystem health, equitablehuman relations must be part of any effort to achieve sustain-ability. Schlosberg has contributed to this paradigm by identifyingthree requirements for any measure of justice: the presence ofequitable resource allocation among stakeholders, recognition ofthe intrinsic value and life experiences of all involved parties, andthe meaningful participation of these stakeholders in the decision-making process [6]. To put it another way, the social healthrequired by JS in turn requires that all citizens receive the samedegree of material, cultural, and political respect.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Marine Policy

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.11.018

n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ55 22 2735 8548.E-mail address: john_ditty@hotmail.com (J.M. Ditty).

Marine Policy 45 (2014) 82–88

2. The problem

Sanctioned by Municipal Law no. 035/06, the Açu Port Indus-trial Complex (APIC) is under construction in the Municipality ofSão João da Barra in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. According tothe official site of the APIC's developers, the EBX Group, thecomplex will have 17 km of piers and 47 mooring berths able toreceive vessels of up to 400,000 t, and will have a loading/

unloading capacity of 350 million tons per year of steel products,petroleum, coal, granite, and iron ore. In addition, the APIC willcontain a shipbuilding yard, steel mills, cement mills, a coal-burning power plant, iron ore processing plants, a bulk petroleumstorage and processing facility, and an industrial district made upof information technology and offshore support firms. Althoughthe financial difficulties of EBX have recently cast doubts on thefuture of the APIC, as recently as 2012 the company was actively

Fig. 1. Location of the study area of Farol de São Tomé.

J.M. Ditty, C.E. Rezende / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 82–88 83

predicting the creation of up to 50,000 direct and indirect jobsrelated to this project [8].

The community of Farol de São Tomé is on the coast of theMunicipality of Campos dos Goytacazes, located approximately 50 kmfrom the municipal seat of the same name and 20 km from the APIC(Fig. 1). With 13,233 residents and a fishers colony with approximately1200 registered members [9], Farol de São Tomé's principal economicactivities are directly and indirectly related to marine artisanal fishery.It is thus the home to social actors with strong stakes in the eventualelaboration of the APIC megaproject. It is worth noting that there havebeen no other studies to date on the perspectives of the fishers of Farolde São Tomé with respect to potential change caused by the APIC, acause for concern given the probability of social reconfiguration andnegative impact to the region's marine fishery. One study identifiedthe risk of general environmental degradation to the region resultingfrom the construction and operation of the APIC stemming fromalterations to coastal morphology, substrate, and marine currents,reduced numbers of flora and fauna, the introduction of invasivebiological organisms, and chronic and acute releases of liquid, solid,and airborne pollutants [10].

Article 225 of Brazil's Federal Constitution asserts that “All have theright to an ecologically balanced environment, which is an asset ofcommon use and essential to a healthy quality of life, and both theGovernment and the community shall have the duty to defend andpreserve it for present and future generations” [11]. This documentclearly advances the notion of equitable intergenerational environ-mental sustainability outlined in the Brundtland Commission's report1 year earlier. Therefore, the present study sought to answer thequestion, “From the perspective of the artisan fishers of Farol de SãoTomé, to what extent can the APIC be considered sustainable?”

3. Methods

Making use of the JS framework, in order to evaluate thesustainability of the APIC project and licensing process from theFarol de São Tomé fishers' perspective, five research questionswere developed:

(1) What is the level of distributional equity in the fishingcommunity of Farol de São Tomé?

(2) Is the intrinsic value of the fishers generally recognized?(3) To what degree do the fishers participate in the political

decision-making process?(4) What ecosystem and fishery changes attributed to the APIC

have been detected to date?(5) What are the Farol de São Tomé fishers' perspectives with

respect to future changes caused by the APIC?

This study utilized a multiple methods research design thatmixed qualitative and quantitative methods in order to achievecomplementary data sets and enhance validity [12].

In order to answer the research questions, a questionnaire with28 open and closed questions was applied to 60 active artisanmarine fishers operating out of Farol de São Tomé. The question-naire was composed of five areas of inquiry: respondent back-ground/profile, proxies for the measurement of social equity, therecognition of the social value of the fishers, their participation inpolitical decisions, and impact of the APIC on fishery.

The application of the questionnaire was carried out in Apriland May of 2012. The author of the study acted as the soleadministrator of the questionnaire and interacted personally, i.e.,face to face, with all the respondents by orally presenting thequestions and noting down the answers. Whenever possible, suchinteraction occurred without the presence of others. This formatprevented problems of vision and illiteracy, allowed the author to

clarify questions when necessary, and represented a familiar formof communication for the fishers.

In order to maximize precision, data tabulation was performedaccording to predetermined codes on the same day as question-naire administration. The Constant Comparative Method [13] wasemployed for the coding of diverse qualitative responses in aneffort to render this data more meaningful.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Sample population profile

All 60 of the fishers contacted were males of between 18 and66 years of age, possessing between 3 and 47 years of experiencein fishery as their livelihood, and from 0 to 9 years of formaleducation. 62% did not own a fishing boat, while 33% owned oneboat, two fishers owned two boats, and one fisher was the ownerof three boats. 60% of these fishermen said they did not knowwhat kind of economic activity they would perform if it were notfishery. Of the 24 who knew what kind of alternative activity theywould pursue, all mentioned manual labor jobs such as construc-tion worker, farm worker, and brick manufacturing worker.

The results of the study thus portrayed a typical fisher as a 41-year-old male with 4 years of schooling and 23 years of experiencein professional fishery. He has neither an alternative source ofindividual income nor experience in other lines of work. Theseresults are consistent with those of another study carried outamong 30 fishers of Farol de São Tomé [14].

The fishers of Farol de São Tomé are thus characterized by a highdegree of social vulnerability. Feres's results indicate that 80% of thefishers she contacted had offspring [14], and the present study foundthat 82% of the fishers' families were entirely dependent on fishery fortheir livelihoods. The economic importance of fishery to the fishersand their families assumes a new light before the predicted environ-mental disruption to this activity by the APIC. If the fishers have toseek another source of income in the future, their limited schooling,their lack of vocational training, and average middle age status wouldreduce their chances of success. As a sign of the changing job marketin the region, one study found that during the first 4 years of the APICthe percentage of employees possessing less than 5 years of formaleducation fell sharply in São João da Barra [8].

The potential effects of job loss on fisher families may extendbeyond economic factors. Studies, for example, have found thatthe mental health of unemployed workers tends to suffer moreamong middle aged males [15], that job loss was linked to anincreased likelihood of divorce [16–19], and that paternal job losshad a correlation with abusive behavior of fathers towards theirchildren [20], especially their daughters [21]. Another study foundmore pronounced negative impact on school grades amongchildren whose father suffered job loss compared with job lossfaced by the mother [22].

In addition, given the limited job opportunities that exist in Farolde São Tomé coupled with its economic dependence on fishery andits geographic isolation, disruption to fishing activities in the areawould likely require fishers to move to other areas, thus creating aloss of social capital for these individuals and their families. In astudy of Italian communities, Helliwell and Putnam [23] identified acorrelation between income levels and social capital acquiredthrough social networks of family, friends, acquaintances, andorganizations, while another study found evidence of the disrup-tions that a loss of social capital can trigger [24]. At the same time,the field of Environmental Psychology has investigated ‘placeattachment’ and the negative consequences for a person's senseof identity resulting from a forced move to another location [25,26].

J.M. Ditty, C.E. Rezende / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 82–8884

4.2. Indicators related to equity

With respect to indicators pertaining to the just distribution ofpublic services and benefits, 78% of the fishers surveyed wereentitled to receive the remuneration benefit offered by Brazil'sFederal Work and Employment Ministry of approximately US $315per month during the season closed to shrimp fishery, from March1 to May 30. Furthermore, fishery represented the sole source ofpersonal income for 93% and the only source of immediate familyincome for 82% of the fishers sampled. In addition, 92% had nevertaken a vocational course for any area unrelated to fishery.

With respect to the Z-19 Fishers Colony, 67% of the fisherssurveyed rated its performance as “positive,”while 33% consideredit “negative.” The leading justification for a positive rating involvedhelp with the documentation required for the closed shrimpseason entitlement; other justifications for a positive performancerating were unspecific, claiming the entity “defended the inter-ests” of fishermen. In terms of justifications for negative ratings ofthe Fishers' Colony, 13 of the 20 said that the organization did verylittle for them, while 4 fishers alleged unequal treatment amongfishers by the colony. 6 fishers (4 offering a positive and 2 anegative assessment) were unable to justify their rating.

A summary or the responses related to social equity is providedin Table 1.

Although there is disagreement in the literature as to auniversal definition of ‘social equity,’ within the field of PublicAdministration there is general agreement that equity deals withthe question of for whom the organization is well-managed andefficient and for whom the services are delivered [27]. Thisconsideration gains importance when one considers that Camposdos Goytacazes receives more petroleum royalties than any otherand accepted roughly US $5 billion over the 10 years preceding thestudy [28].

An analysis of the public policy measures that benefit thefishers of Farol de São Tomé, however, reveals limited interventionand/or equity. Mostly due to problems with documents, a changeof residence, or conflict with the Z-19 Fisher's Colony leaders, 22%of the fishers in the present study did not receive the employmentinsurance benefit of US $315 per month during the 3-monthreproductive period for shrimp when activities are prohibited.Fishers pay US $7.50 per month to the colony, but a majority offishers characterized Z-19's primary usefulness in terms of expe-diting documents needed for the employment insurance benefit.By law, however, this benefit must be provided free of charge, asevidenced by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court's striking downof Article 2, Item IV of Law 10.779/03, requiring the membership offishers in a local fishers' colony and their registration with theLabor Ministry as stipulations for the closed fishery season benefitin 2008 [29]. Nevertheless, public authorities have failed to engagein campaigns to register unprotected fishers or to raise conscious-ness with respect to their rights. Most fishers remain convincedthat only Z-19 can provide them with the closed season benefit.

Furthermore, the only compensatory measure made by the EBXGroup in favor of the fishers of Farol de São Tomé was the purchaseand remodeling of the Z-19 Fishers Colony office building. This is instark contrast to the benefits directed at fishers in São João da Barra.

While in that municipality, in addition to investments in the FishersColony of Barra do Açu, the EBX Group is financing the constructionof a fish processing facility at a cost of US $1 million, the establish-ment of a computer laboratory, free dental consultations, andprojects promoting the vocational skills, career development, andhiring of fishers [30], the only investment for the fishers of Farol deSão Tomé seems to benefit a select group within the fishingcommunity. This discrepancy between the municipalities illustratesa public policy failure to address the APIC's impacts at the social andecosystem level. In addition, the compensation that only seemed toaffect Z-19's leadership may explain the discontent of the 18 fisherscontacted who complained of inaction and unequal treatment offishers by the colony.

The fact that only 8% of the fishermen contacted had receivedvocational training in an area other than fishery has implicationsextending beyond the fishers' capacity to change professions, for itrepresents a failure of authorities to invest in the human capital ofthe very actors that have been put at risk because of the develop-ment policies promoted by their local, state, and federal govern-ments. The establishment of free, local vocational courses could beone of the most cost-effective public measures possible to mitigatedamage caused by the APIC project.

Despite the windfall of royalties resulting from offshore petro-leum extraction for the Municipality of Campos dos Goytacazes,legally made possible exclusively by the ocean access provided bythe neighborhood of Farol de São Tomé, the fishermen contactedreported that infrastructural shortcomings abound in their region.They complain of a need for better health care facilities, supplies,and personnel, improved and additional public sanitation projects,and specific initiatives to promote fishing activities. These fishersmaintain that municipal investments only materialize during thesummer months in the form of cultural attractions and publicservices, precisely when tens of thousands from the municipal seatoccupy their summer homes, and say that the region is “forgotten”by the local government during the rest of the year.

4.3. Indicators of the recognition of the value of fishers

63% of the fishers surveyed declared that fishers are not valuedby the society. The most common justification was that fishery inFarol de São Tomé has failed to receive sufficient investments andinfrastructure, such as an artificial coastal harbor, diesel fueldispenser, and freezing/processing facility. Fishers frequentlyexpressed this sentiment with explicit reference to the petroleumroyalties the municipality receives because of its coastal access atFarol de São Tomé, but which “never arrive” at the community.Other explanations for feeling that fishers' social value is notgenerally recognized included the low market price of their catchand the perception that society considers them “inferior” and/or“dirty.”

In terms of other indicators for the recognition of the socialvalue of fishers, 85% of the respondents claimed to have had nocontact with representatives of the companies making invest-ments in the region, 91% said that they had not had any contactwith any government representative, and 87% felt no benefit fromthe introduction of the APIC. While 87% of the fishermen alsoreported that there were no opportunities to register opinionsabout the future of the region before ground was broken on theAPIC, 58% felt that at the time of the survey opportunities toregister their opinions on the future of the region were unavail-able. These data are shown in Table 2.

A majority of the fishers contacted disagreed with the statement“the value of marine fishers is generally recognized,” citing a lack ofpublic initiatives in the area by the local government and the widely-held sentiment that fishers are unclean and/or poverty-stricken. Theonly evidence of contact between representatives of the EBX Group

Table 1Social equity among fishers.

Affirmative responses % No.

Fishery is the sole source of personal income 93 56Fishery is the sole source of family income 82 49Receive the closed shrimp season benefit of US $315/month 78 47Give a positive rating for the Z-19 Fishers Colony 67 40Have vocational training in area other than fishery 8 5

J.M. Ditty, C.E. Rezende / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 82–88 85

and the fishers took the form of environmental education meetings(Programa da Educação Ambiental-PEA) required by the environmen-tal protection agency IBAMA as mitigation for offshore petroleumexploration by the OGX corporation. No public hearings with respectto the APIC were ever held in Farol de São Tomé, and those hearingsthat were carried out – in São João da Barra, Rio de Janeiro, andCampos dos Goytacazes – occurred 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively,after ground was broken on the APIC [31].

In addition, responses also suggest that they may have beendeprived of recognition given the stark power inequality thatexists between fishers, on the one hand, and the forces promotingthe APIC, on the other. During the present work's surveys, forexample, Eike Batista, controller of 61% of EBX assets, was theeighth wealthiest person on the planet [32], whose power in Brazilwas considered second only to President Dilma Rousseff [33].President Rousseff, in fact, has visited the APIC site, and the projecthas the support of the federal government in the form of billiondollar loans from the Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econôm-ico e Social (BNDES) due to its inclusion in the federal programPrograma de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC). In addition, the stategovernment of Rio de Janeiro has promoted the APIC through fiscalincentives, environmental licenses, and the forced removal offamily farmers, while the municipal governments of Campos dosGoytacazes and São João da Barra have frequently touted thepromise of job creation and regional development [34]. Thisscenario may explain why 87% of the fishers expected no benefitfrom the APIC; they felt their interests were considered “unim-portant” by proponents of the project.

4.4. Indicators of fisher participation in decision-making

50% of the fishermen claimed to attend most of the meetingsheld at the Z-19 Fishers' Colony, while 35% said they did not attendmeetings and 15% said that they were “sometimes” at meetings.

The questionnaire also asked if the participation in elections,meetings, and public hearings could influence the decisions thataffected fishery in the region. 68% of the respondents replied “no,”22% said “yes,” and 10% did not know or did not answer. Amongthose who felt that this kind of participation could not influencedecisions, exactly half expressed alienation with the process.Responses included “they just tell us what has already beendecided,” “the corporations are only interested in defending theirinterests,” “they make promises which are not kept,” and “fisher-men are not important to them.” Others seemed to hold the fishersresponsible for the perceived uselessness of participation indecision-making: one blamed divisions within fishers as a groupand another said that fishers “were never interested in this.” In thegroup believing that participation can make a difference, 4 fisherscited a perceived willingness of companies to change, 2 basedtheir affirmation on experience in contact with Petrobras, and2 others said that companies “listen and let you speak.” 7 men didnot offer a justification for their position.

The fishers were also asked about participation in residents'associations in Farol de São Tomé. 28 (47%) knew of at least onesuch group in the community but only 3 fishers (5%) said they

participated. The results related to participation in decision-making are summarized in Table 3.

The results indicate that the fishers do not have meaningfulparticipation in the political decision-making process that affectstheir surroundings. Only half report frequent attendance of Z-19Fishers Colony meetings, and the majority that do described theseevents in terms that conveyed a passive and/or subservient role forattendees with respect to the Z-19 leadership. Those that chosenot to go felt such events were not worth their time. However,when asked what kinds of initiatives they would like to seespearheaded by Z-19, almost all fishers listed several specificactions.

In addition to attendance and attitudes towards the fisherscolony, other indicators reveal even less participation and/orconfidence in elections, meetings, public hearings, and residents'associations. Such alienation with participatory channels mayreveal institutional and structural shortcomings. With respect topublic hearings, one researcher identified features of such meet-ings that reduce public participation, such as the use of highlytechnical language presented in long initial presentations, oppor-tunities for questions only late in the evening, and a lack ofmechanisms for feedback and accountability [35]. Others havedemonstrated how the inadequacies of such events cause fishersto misunderstand other actors' intentions and to incorrectlyidentify corporate actors ex post facto [36]. In addition, whilestudies of the massive Brazilian street protests of June, 2013 havenot yet been published, the general, all-encompassing nature ofthe grievances voiced reflects profound frustration with thetraditional electoral process.

The low fisher participation in decision-making must not beconsidered an isolated phenomenon. If the fishers of Farol de SãoTomé truly are “forgotten” by government officials, developers,professional representatives, and the larger society, as illustratedby the results of this study, the most logical outcome is a sequenceof suspicion, alienation, apathy, and withdrawal from the partici-patory process.

Low participation can thus be understood as both a cause and aresult of problems of equity and recognition, because, as Schlos-berg pointed out, those who are not recognized do not participate[6]. Other authors have also investigated the connection betweenparticipation and equity, most notably the role of local andregional political structures [37]. Although Article 206 of Brazil's1988 Constitution guarantees free and quality education for all[11], low fisher participation may be related to their limitedschooling [38].

4.5. Perceptions of the impact of the APIC on fishery

When asked if they had detected changes in their fisheryattributed to the APIC, 55% answered “no,” 40% answered “yes,”and 5% did not know. Those claiming to have noticed changes, orto have been unsure but suspicious, were then asked to identifythe primary source of impact on their activities. These included theexclusion zone making the waters around the APIC off-limits,breakwaters resulting in tidal changes in Farol de São Tomé,dredging near the APIC resulting in lower shrimp yields, and

Table 2Recognition of the value of fishers.

Affirmative responses % No.

Perception that fishers are generally valued by society 35 21Opportunity to register opinions about the future of the region 27 16Contact with representatives of companies investing in region 15 9Opportunity to register opinions before APIC construction 13 8Belief the APIC will bring personal benefit 13 8Contact with government representatives 9 5

Table 3Fisher participation in decision-making.

Affirmative responses % No.

Attendance of most Z-19 Fishers Colony meetings 50 30Belief that elections and public hearings can influence policy 22 13Participation in local residents' association 5 3

J.M. Ditty, C.E. Rezende / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 82–8886

lower shrimp yields caused by marine contamination releasedfrom ships.

The fishermenwere also asked to assess the likelihood of futurechanges to fishery as a result of the introduction of the APIC. 88%believed that fishery would be affected by the complex, 7% saw nosuch danger, and 5% chose not to answer. These data are shown inTable 4. Fishers who predicted or considered impact from the APICpossible were then asked to identify their primary concerns.Spatial conflict, whether disputing fishing areas with large shipsat sea or competing with social groups for residential space onland, was mentioned 24 times. In addition, alterations to theecosystem resulting from ongoing dredging activities appeared9 times, resulting from accidents or chronic spills appeared 8 times,and from the construction of piers and breakwaters and fromperforation activities on the ocean floor appeared twice each.

In terms of predictions as to the future of fishery out of theFarol de São Tomé community, while slightly less than half of thosesurveyed had noticed APIC attributed impact, 88% predicted suchimpact once the complex became operational. The concerns cited– marine and terrestrial spatial conflict, biophysical changesthrough breakwater construction and dredging, invasive species,chronic and acute spills, accidents, and underwater noise –

correlate highly with effects reported in the literature from otherport complexes and coastal industrial sites worldwide [39–49] andwith predictions obtained from local academic specialists familiarwith the APIC. This fact highlights not only the risk which the APIChas introduced to pre-existing social, environmental, and eco-nomic arrangements in the region, but also the unique resourcethat fishers as informed stakeholders represent, and thus thevaluable role that they could play in decision making exercises.

5. Conclusion

The results of the present work indicate that the processleading to the establishment of the APIC megaproject has beenneither sustainable nor just. Although Campos dos Goytacazesreceives billions of dollars in petroleum royalties, investmentshave not been distributed equitably throughout the municipality.Despite promoting the APIC project, and despite doing so in theMunicipality of São João da Barra, government authorities havefailed to take measures that would help mitigate disruptions to thefishing community of Farol de São Tomé. When the local govern-ment does invest in the neighborhood, it is only in the form oftemporary services during the summer months that disappearwith the retreat of tourists. Emblematic of this situation, nearlyone-fourth of the fishers contacted failed to receive the closedshrimp season benefit that they were legally entitled to during the3 months per year when they are prohibited from fishing.

In addition, both recognition of the fishers' social value and lifeexperiences as well as their participation in decision-making is aproblem. No public hearings on the APIC have been held Farol deSão Tomé, their opinions have rarely or never been sought bygovernment officials or developers, and they generally feel over-looked. Because they see no chance of promoting their interests ina system that is stacked against them, Farol de São Tomé fishersrarely participate in public hearings, play a passive role in fisher

colony decisions, and only vote in public elections because of thelegal requirement to do so.

Moreover, the vast majority of the fishers who operate out ofthis community feel that the APIC megaproject will adverselyaffect their professional activities. The lack of effective stakeholderengagement has resulted in increased conflict with respect to thearea's coastal resources.

Yet despite their high social vulnerability and limited formaleducation, the fishers contacted in the present study predictedspecific impacts to their activities that correlate highly with peer-reviewed scientific assessments of industrial seaport megapro-jects. These findings are important in two ways. First, by offeringconsistency between the perceptions of the local fishers, theresults obtained through indicators modeled by the just sustain-ability (JS) framework, and the scientific impact evaluation studiesof similar projects, JS would appears to have value both forsustainability assessment and for the formulation of sustainablepolicies. More research is needed in order to develop standardizedJS indicators for sustainability assessment. Second, environmentaland public planning policies should make use of free, existing localenvironmental knowledge by incorporating stakeholders in thedecision-making process. Such stakeholder engagement willincrease the sustainability of large-scale coastal projects and willreduce conflicts over coastal resources.

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the Conselho Nacionalde Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico CNPq (304.615/2010-2) and INCT Material Transfer at the Continent – Ocean Interface(573.601/08-9), the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado doRio de JaneiroFAPERJ (E-26/102.945/2011), and CAPES.

References

[1] Brundtland GH. World commission on environment and development. OurCommon Future 1987.

[2] Rees WE. Economic development and environmental protection: an ecologicaleconomics perspective. Environ Monit Assessment 2003;86:29–45.

[3] Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR. The Anthropocene: are humans nowoverwhelming the great forces of nature. Ambio: J Hum Environ2007;36:614–21.

[4] Gibson RB. Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework foreffective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations insignificant decision-making. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2006;8:259–80.

[5] Bullard RD. Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder,CO: Westview Press; 1990.

[6] Schlosberg D. Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements andpolitical theories. Environ Politics 2004;13:517–40.

[7] Agyeman J, Bullard RD, Evans B. Exploring the nexus: Bringing togethersustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space Polity 2002;6:77–90.

[8] Terra DCT, de Oliveira EL, Givisiez GHN. Mercado de trabalho formal no nortedo Rio de Janeiro: impacto da implantação do Complexo Portuário do Açu.Vértices 2012;14:63–82.

[9] Ávila-da-Silva AO, Vianna M. A produção pesqueira do Estado do Rio deJaneiro. In: Vianna M, editor. Diagnóstica da Cadeia Produtiva da pescaMarítima no Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro: SEBRAE-RJ; 2009.

[10] Coutinho R. Avaliação das Transformações Socioambientais Oriundas daImplantação do Complexo Portuário Industrial do Açu. Campos dos Goyta-cazes: Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Fluminense; 2009.

[11] Brasil. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília, D.F.: Senado;1988.

[12] Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by themultitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959;56:81–105.

[13] Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl1965;12:436–45.

[14] Feres SAP. Levantamento de informações da comunidade pesqueira: Baseadosna ictiologia dos pescadores do Farol de São Tomé [Monografia]. Campos dosGoytacazes: Instituto Federal da Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Fluminense;2010.

[15] Ballinger RC, Smith HD, Warren LM. The management of the coastal zone ofEurope. Ocean Coast Manag 1994;22:45–85.

[16] Becker GS, Landes EM, Michael RT. An economic analysis of marital instability.J Political Econ 1977;85:1141–87.

Table 4The APIC's impact on fishery.

Perception % No.

Belief that the APIC will affect fishery in the future 88 53Previous detection of changes in fishery attributed to APIC 40 24

J.M. Ditty, C.E. Rezende / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 82–88 87

[17] Yeung WJ, Hofferth SL. Family adaptations to income and job loss in the US.J Fam Econ Issues 1998;19:255–83.

[18] Charles KK, Stephens Jr. M. Job displacement, disability, and divorce. ; 48109.[19] Weiss Y, Willis RJ. Match quality, new information, and marital dissolution.

J Labor Econ 1997;15:S293–329.[20] Elder GH, Conger RD, Foster EM, Ardelt M. Families under economic pressure.

J Fam Issues 1992;13:5–37.[21] Elder Jr. GH, Van Nguyen T, Caspi A. Linking family hardship to children's lives.

Child Dev 1985:361–75.[22] Rege M, Telle K, Votruba M. Parental job loss and children's school perfor-

mance. Rev Econ Stud 2011;78:1462–89.[23] Helliwell JF, Putnam RD. Economic growth and social capital in Italy. East Econ

J 1995;21:295–307.[24] Shaw JD, Duffy MK, Johnson JL, Lockhart DE. Turnover, social capital losses,

and performance. Acad Manag J 2005;48:594–606.[25] Brown B, Perkins DD. Disruptions to place attachment. In: Altman SL, editor.

Place attachment. New York: Plenum; 1992. p. 279–304.[26] Felippe ML, Kuhnen A. O apego ao lugar no contexto dos estudos pessoa-

ambiente: práticas de pesquisa. Estudos de Psicol (Campinas)2012;29:609–17.

[27] Frederickson HG. Social equity and public administration: origins, develop-ments, and applications. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.; 2010.

[28] Barros D, Ikeda P. As prefeituras fazem a festa com os royalties do petróleo.Exame. São Paulo: Editora Abril; 2012.

[29] Brasil Agência. Lei seguro-desemprego de pescadores é alterada. Rio deJaneiro: Galpão: Panorama Brasil; 2008.

[30] LLX. Programas de apoio à pesca. Rio de Janeiro: Gestão sustentável; 2012.[31] Associação dos Geógrafos Brasileiros. Relatorio dos impactos socioambientais

do Complexo Portuário do Acu. Rio de Janeiro: Grupo de Trabalho em AssuntosAgrários, AGB; 2011.

[32] Forbes. Eike Batista. New York: Forbes.com; 2012.[33] Blankfeld K. Eike Batista: Brazil is home to majority of South America's most

powerful. New York, Forbes.com: Forbes; 2010.[34] de Oliveira C. Atuação do Grupo EBX e grandes projetos de investimento no

Norte Fluminense: O público e o privado como x da questão. Revista Vitas-Visões Transdisciplinares sobre Ambiente e Sociedade; 2012.

[35] Zhouri A. Justiça ambiental, diversidade cultural e accountability: desafiospara a governança ambiental. Rev Bras Ciênc Soc 2008;23:97–107.

[36] Ditty JM, Rezende CE. Public participation, artisanal fishers, and the implanta-tion of a coastal megaproject. Rev Soc Nat 2013;25:51–60.

[37] Macedo S, Alex-Assensoh YM. Democracy at risk: How political choicesundermine citizen participation and what we can do about it. Washington:Brookings Institution Press; 2005.

[38] Glass JJ. Citizen participation in planning: the relationship between objectivesand techniques. J Am Plann Assoc 1979;45:180–9.

[39] Groot SJ. An assessment of the potential environmental impact of large-scalesand-dredging for the building of artificial islands in the North Sea. OceanManag 1979;5:211–32.

[40] Currie D, Parry G. Effects of scallop dredging on a soft sediment community: alarge-scale experimental study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser Oldend 1996;134:131–50.

[41] Hall S, Basford D, Robertson M. The impact of hydraulic dredging for Razorclams Ensis sp. on an infaunal community. Neth J Sea Res 1990;27:119–25.

[42] Carlton JT, Geller JB. Ecological roulette: the global transport of nonindigenousmarine organisms. Science 1993;261:78–82.

[43] Bax N, Williamson A, Aguero M, Gonzalez E, Geeves W. Marine invasive alienspecies: a threat to global biodiversity. Mar Policy 2003;27:313–23.

[44] Burns KA, Smith JL. Hydrocarbons in Victorian coastal ecosystems (Australia):chronic petroleum inputs to Western Port and Port Phillip Bays. Arch EnvironContam Toxicol 1982;11:129–40.

[45] Hayman B, Dogliani M, Kvale I, Fet AM. Technologies for reduced environ-mental impact from ships: ship building, maintenance and dismantlingaspects. ENSUS-2000. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; 2000.

[46] Lee GF, Jones-Lee A. Regulating water quality impacts of port and harborstormwater runoff. International Symposium on Prevention of Pollution fromShips, Shipyards, Drydocks. New Orleans, LA: Ports, and Harbors; 2003.

[47] Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I, Coers A, ten Cate C, Popper AN.A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish.Trends Ecol Evol 2010;25:419–27.

[48] Chang JI, Lin CC. A study of storage tank accidents. J Loss Prev Process Ind2006;19:51–9.

[49] Darbra RM, Casal J. Historical analysis of accidents in seaports. Saf Sci2004;42:85–98.

J.M. Ditty, C.E. Rezende / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 82–8888