Introduction

The growing demand for uses, spaces, and services of marine and coastal environments has increased the pressure on these ecosystems in recent decades. It also increases the conflicts between traditional and indigenous communities with urban and industrial development (Bennet et al. 2021). Activities such as shipping, oil and gas, aquaculture, offshore wind farms, the fast-growing industry of seabed mining, tourism, cruise ships, and coastal development share space with fishing and other traditional and cultural uses (Mulazzani and Malorgio 2017; Howard 2018). This rapid ocean development and the lack of more integrated regulations have potentialized conflicts and social injustice situations with coastal populations, especially with small-scale fishers (Jentoft and Knol 2014; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2018). The increase of blue growth initiatives intensifies the disputes over access, rights, distribution of benefits, values, and ownership over the ocean and coastal regions, here called ocean conflicts (Alexander 2019; Tafon et al. 2021).

Ocean conflict assessments raise an opportunity to develop conditions and pathways for understanding and transforming conflicts towards sustainable and equitable scenarios for the multiple users of the marine environment (Miall 2004; Tafon et al. 2021). To achieve conflict transformation, understanding the wide range of perspectives and values from all relevant stakeholders is needed, enhancing the participation of those affected by conflicts (Lederach 1997). Conflict transformation brings the perspective that conflict can be an opportunity for change and to engage in broader context towards justice and sustainability (Lederach 2003). It may involve transformation of relational, historical, and systemic dynamics shaping ocean sustainability, such as knowledge-power dynamics, and institutional practices that drive deep-rooted conflict (Tafon et al. 2021). Participatory assessment of conflicts has the potential to promote integration of knowledge and to avoid exclusion and appropriation of the process by more powerful stakeholders (Lederach 2003). A recent review of 66 cases of fisheries conflicts around the globe showed that governmental organizations that address fisheries conflicts tend to choose solutions that were mostly technical, rather than those that were more participative (Dahlet et al. 2021). The absence of participation and a holistic approach tend to deflect positive conflict transformations outcomes and equitable solutions.

While the understanding of ocean conflicts and participatory approaches is globally advancing, the diversity of local arrangements and cultural backgrounds need to be seriously taken into account. Advances in this understanding will enable us to envision pathways for sustainability at global scale, but at the same time respecting local realities. As widely analyzed in the literature, creating the opportunity for inclusive participation in the assessment of environmental problems may leave untouched the structural variables that create inequality in the first place (Taddei 2011). We are conscious about the challenges of the use of participatory methods in environmental research, such as the influence of the ideological and symbolic contexts that affects the way in which participants understand and contribute to the participatory process; the scope of this article, nevertheless, lies elsewhere, so we suggest readers interested in critical evaluations of participatory approaches to see White (1996), Cleaver (1999), Cooke and Kothari (2001), Peterson et al (2010), and Taddei (2011). On the other side, participatory approaches may also increase the social capital and strengthen the relation among stakeholders, which helps to improve a collaborative design of strategies to address the issue under investigation (Seixas 2006).

Based on that, this work is a first step of a broad transdisciplinary research action linked to the OCEANS PACTFootnote 1 project in Brazil that is dedicated to produce knowledge and advance actions around transformation of conflicts in coastal-marine environments. We argue that conflicts are not necessarily negative but, in specific circumstances, an opportunity to foster transformative change (Tafon et al. 2021). Some conflicts may also trigger trust among actors, build capacity for reflective leadership, and open possibilities to challenge and to modify weak or unwanted institutional arrangements, serving as a window of opportunities for social transformation in fisheries systems (Lederach 2003; Temper et al. 2018; Alexander 2019). Conflicts can also productively leverage co-production of knowledge as a means to harness conflict toward a sustainable, equitable, and just ocean development, as well as to inform policymakers (Tafon et al. 2021).

Here, we present a participatory assessment of ocean conflicts involving small-scale fishing activity of São Paulo coastline, southeastern Brazil. With this, we aimed to co-design a typology of the conflicts existing and experienced by the participants in a bottom-up manner. There was no proposal of a new method, but a description of the participatory approach we carried out in the assessment of conflicts, presenting the results as well as the challenges and possibilities that this approach can bring to engage stakeholders in participatory assessment of conflicts.

Characteristics of the study area

Brazil is the Latin American country with the largest coastal extension, with 8500 km of coast, 4.5 million km2 of exclusive economic zone, and about 58% of the population living within 200 km of the coast (Brasil 2010). In the last decade, the country has been planning for a more intensive and strategic use of the sea, especially after the discovery and exploration of the pre-salt oil layer in the southeast of Brazil. The coastal zone of São Paulo state (Fig. 1) is approximately 650 km long, encompassing sixteen municipalities and representing 32% of the Brazilian economy and hosting the biggest port in South America. The coastal population in 2021 was around 2.1 million (SEADE 2021).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map of the São Paulo coastal zone highlighting the 16 municipalities within the three regions and the boundaries of the three Marine Environmental Protection Areas

Full size image

The São Paulo state also has most of its coastal and marine area covered by three large marine protected areas (MPAs), which add significant importance for the discussion of ocean conflicts. These sustainable use MPAs were created in 2008 and are denominated marine environmental protection areas (MEPAs) of the North Coast, Central Coast, and South Coast. The MEPAs can be categorized as IUCN category V: protected landscape/seascape (Dudley 2013). They are a fundamental strategy for integrated and participatory environmental management of coastal and marine environments in the region. The three regions share similarities and divergences regarding social, environmental, and economic issues. The North Coast has 80% of territory covered by the Atlantic Forest and is marked by the presence of medium-small cities, strongly focused on tourism and port-industrial activity. In the last decade, the region has undergone an important transformation related to the installation and expansion of large enterprises linked to the oil and gas industry, boosting the regional development of municipalities (Teixeira 2013; Neto et al. 2017). The Baixada Santista region, on the Central Coast, is the most urbanized area in the state’s coast and stands out for the presence of a Metropolitan Region with about 1.7 million inhabitants. The port of Santos (the largest port of South America) and the Cubatão industrial complex are also important drivers of conflicts in the central coast (Sousa and Serafini 2018), especially related to loss of territory by fishing communities and pollution. The South Coast is characterized by small cities and preserved Atlantic Forest surrounded by the Iguape-Cananéia Estuarine-Lagoon Complex. It is an important estuary for the maintenance of native flora and fauna species as well as for reproduction, shelter, and food for several species, among other ecological functions and ecosystem services (Schaeffer-Novelli 1991). The predominant economic activity in South Coast is rural, such as those linked to small-scale agriculture, extractivism, fishing, handicraft, tourism, and services (IDESC 2009).

The fisheries survey from 2019 estimates around nine thousand small-scale fishers in São Paulo coast (PMAP-SP 2019). Small-scale fisheries (SSF) are fundamental for fish production, food security, and the economy of numberless of coastal communities of Caiçaras origin in São Paulo (Diegues 2006; Oceana 2020). Caiçaras are a traditional population of mixed ethnic heritage (with Indigenous, Afro-diasporic, and European), with values and behaviors strongly associated with the local ecosystems, and who have historically used natural resources, both terrestrial and marine-coastal environments for their livelihood (Begossi 2004; Diegues 2006). In addition to fishing, these populations traditionally supplement their income with small-scale agriculture; extractivism of crabs; oysters, shellfish, and forest products for fishing gear; handicrafts; canoes; and for their cultural reproduction. The SSF in the region is characterized as multispecies (e.g., demersal and pelagic fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, and shellfish) and multi-gear (e.g., gillnets, trawl, line, jigging, seine nets, cast nets and floating, and fixed traps). The activity occurs in coastal and inshore areas, with use of a wide range of boat types and sizes, but always smaller than 20 GRT (gross register tonnage), and equipped with low-tech gears (PMAP-SP 2019).

SSF in the region are subject to a growing process of socio-environmental vulnerability, as they combine poor infrastructure, limited access to services, few opportunities to earn an income outside of fishing, and a range of social problems that are associated with these conditions (Diegues 2006; Martins et al. 2019). These problems can result in a situation of environmental injustice, where fishers and communities are the main victims of environmental problems for which they are often not responsible (Acserald 2004). All these situations intensify the pressure on SSF communities, who do not have any special protection that guarantees their permanence in their fishing territories and the maintenance of their livelihoods (Oliveira-Monteiro et al. 2017). These elements are central and fundamental to SSF survival in the face of conflicts and disputes in which they are involved, both on land and at sea (Azevedo and Pierri 2014).

Methodological approach

We adopted a co-design strategy throughout the process, from the conceptualization to the methodology discussion, implementation, analysis, and dissemination of results. Such strategy resulted in gathering data based on an online survey and participatory workshops (Fig. 2) to assess the conflicts involving small-scale fishing communities of the São Paulo coastline during 2021.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Methodological steps used to the participatory assessment of conflicts involving small-scale fishing communities of the São Paulo coastline, southeastern Brazil

Full size image

Co-designing the assessment

All steps of the assessment, from the definition to the dissemination of the results, were collaboratively built by the project team, which included around 30 professionals and 11 institutions, including researchers from different disciplines (biology, oceanography, anthropology, sociology, history, and psychology) and non-academic partners, such as environmental officers of the three MEPAs of São Paulo, fishing communities’ leaders, and civil society organizations. The project team has the role of collaboratively designing and advising all activities and actions carried out by the project, including this conflict assessment. The co-design strategy was based on 15 online meetings and 5 internal workshops that promoted transdisciplinarity and allowed a horizontal participation among stakeholders with exchange of knowledge, from traditional to technical and scientific knowledge. By transdisciplinarity approach, we mean a research strategy that crosses multiple disciplinary and sector boundaries, to improve dialogue between academia and society and exchange perspectives and knowledge, along with action (Parra Vázquez et al. 2020). Due to the social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, all steps were conducted online, after guaranteeing that all participants were comfortable with the online tools and with internet conditions that secured their participation. The pandemic also added an additional challenge for the data gathering and to make the assessment inclusive to all stakeholders involved with SSF in the territory. We co-designed different mobilization strategies to engage the stakeholders to the online survey and participatory workshops, as described in the next sections.

Online survey

The assessment started with an online survey, in which the informants were asked to report at least one case of conflict involving or impacting SSF activities. After giving a description of the conflict, the informant was asked to identify (i) where did the conflict occur (considering the three coastal regions), (ii) who were the actors involved in the conflict, and (iii) what were the arenas or strategies for claims and mobilization about that conflict (if there were any). The translated survey is in Appendix 1.

Due to the online application, some mobilization strategies were used to create attention for the project and invite participants: (i) short video presenting the project and the survey; (ii) presentation to the board of the three MEPAs; (iii) identification of key-actors (MEPAs board members, local leaders, small-scale fishers, public officers, researchers, and civil society organizations linked to the region) and their preferred communication channel; (iv) different approaches were used to apply the survey (email, phone, or WhatsApp) depending on the social actors profile identified in the previous item. Approximately 350 people were invited to the survey.

The assessment was virtually conducted through an online form platformFootnote 2 for the participants with access to the internet and skills to answer it online. For those not digitally included, a trained person called and received the information by phone and registered on the online platform. This approach was used to increase inclusion in the survey, guaranteeing that persons with limited internet access or illiterate could be able to contribute to the survey. The online application was previously tested and validated by some local leaders and other actors in the territory. The pilot was applied to experience the online platform, to visualize the survey in different devices (mobile, pc, and laptops), and to make language adjustments to ensure better comprehension.

The data obtained by the online survey were systematized, and each conflict report was analyzed based on content analysis. The conflict reports were grouped and organized into emergent categories by two researchers separately, ensuring that the terms and representation used by each informant were preserved whenever possible. Later, the researchers shared their analysis and had a high rate of overlap. For conflict reports that did not overlap, they discussed the reasons for grouping until they reached a consensus on the category that should be included. After all the reports grouped, the categories were named. The categories’ names emerged from the description of the conflicts. The grouping process and the emergent categories were revised and validated by the project team before the workshops. The validation process was carried out by checking the coding process that resulted in the categories.

Participatory workshops

The workshops were co-designed to present the results of the online survey, to complement the conflict reports, and to identify the priority conflicts for each coastal region. The process of identifying priority conflicts is explained at the end of this topic. In order to identify potential differences and regional characteristics of conflicts, we chose to carry out three participatory workshops, one for each region of the São Paulo coast. Key actors were individually invited to attend the workshop. These actors were indicated by survey informants and, when necessary, complemented by project team members. The criteria were to ensure, for example, representation of fishers by municipality and fishing gear, representatives of Fishers Unions and community-based associations, members of the MEPAs boards, NGOs, and local/regional government representatives. Even though the characteristic of a remote event reduces the control over who accesses the link to the meeting, we chose not to restrict any participants who had an interest in the event and could contribute to the diagnosis of conflicts.

The workshops were carried out in May and June 2021 and were organized in four moments using a methodology for dialogue and consensus building. In the first one, the results of the online survey were presented, and any doubts were clarified. In the second moment, participants were divided into breakout rooms according to their sector (fishers, government, and civil society organizations) to validate and complement the conflicts reported, with one moderator per group. The division into groups allowed more freedom for participants from the same sector to dialogue and include their perspective of the conflicts. In the third moment, with everyone in the plenary, the moderators presented the discussions and any additional information made in their groups, so the participants had the opportunity to exchange impressions. Everyone who wished had their time and order of speech respected. The moderator team had a role to identify if any disagreement on a given conflict/category emerged to ensure that the final list would reflect a consensus from the workshop participants.

At the end, a summary of the discussions and conflict categories was presented, and participants were invited to the prioritization exercise. Participants had the opportunity to indicate, confidentially via private chat reserved to the moderator, the three conflicts they considered a priority and that most threatened SSF and/or fishing communities in their region. This methodological option intended to guarantee that each person could choose the three priority conflicts from their own perspective, without influence from the rest of the group. The results of the priority conflicts were presented, and a final discussion was encouraged. The workshops were conducted remotely, using an online platform, and lasted three hours on average. The meetings were recorded with the prior consent of all participants. The complementary notes made by moderators of each breakout room (and validated in the plenary) were analyzed and included in the description of the respective conflict categories. The indications of priority conflicts were reviewed and organized by sectors, and graphs were created. Finally, a new review of the results was made by the project transdisciplinary team.

Dissemination

Considering that this was the first participatory assessment of conflicts involving SSF in the region and that data must be available to all stakeholders, we decided to disseminate the results in two formats. First, to reach out to different local and regional stakeholders, a comprehensive report with accessible language was developed to communicate the co-produced results to the general public, especially those from the coastal territory of São Paulo that are directly or indirectly involved with coastal and marine socio-environmental conflicts. The report was written and reviewed by the project team and key stakeholders from the territory who volunteered throughout the process to co-produce the document (Prado et al. 2022). Beside the report, oral presentations were performed in the MEPAS boards and reached around 150 people. Secondly, this scientific paper aims to communicate those results to the academic community using the scientific manuscript format and language and, thus, to contribute to scientific and methodological advances in understanding SSF conflicts and coastal and marine governance issues.

Results

We carried out the comprehensive assessment of conflicts involving small-scale fisheries of the São Paulo coast including a wide and diverse participation of local actors in the online survey (n = 73) and virtual workshops (n = 114) based on the different engagement strategies. The survey informants ranged from fishers and/or representatives of fishing communities (44%); representatives of government agencies (27%); and other sectors of civil society such as universities, NGOs, and social movements (29%). Fishers were also the majority in the workshops in the South and North, while in the central region, the most urbanized area of this coastline, the sector with the greatest representation was civil society organizations (Fig. 3). Because of confidentiality, at the online survey stage, the participants informed only the sector they were part of (Appendix 1). In the workshops, the government representatives were from the state and federal environmental agency, Department of Fisheries and/or Environment in municipal governments, and government technical assistance.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Profile and number of participants in the three participatory workshops

Full size image

Coastal and marine conflicts in São Paulo Coast

A large number of conflict situations were reported through the online survey (n = 132), and 91 additional descriptions have been provided in the participatory workshops. The reports were systematized into 12 categories, according to the content addressed in the description of the conflict made by the informants (Table 1).

Table 1 Synthesis of the 132 conflict reports sampled in the assessment, organized into 12 categories.
Full size table

The scope of conflicts reported ranged from state level (covering the entire coast of São Paulo), regional level (in more than one municipality per region), to local level (in communities and neighborhoods) (Fig. 4). Conflicts with legislation and surveillance were the most cited in all regions and were considered statewide. Other conflicts were also statewide, but included peculiarities at the regional level, such as those related to pollution (in north, central, and south regions). Conflicts among fishing categories were also considered statewide (in north and central regions), which includes conflicts between fishers using different fishing gears (e.g., gillnet and trawl fishing) and among different fishing sectors (small-scale, industrial, recreational, and others). Conflicts with regulation, tourism, aquaculture, and real estate speculation were identified from statewide, regional, or local level depending on the informant perspective. Conflicts with large-scale enterprises were regionally situated, such as the port sector and oil and gas on the northern coast, and those related to the port and industrial complex on the central coast. In some situations, the reports pointed to conflicts at local level, such as those regarding protected areas and fishers or traditional communities, with specific cases/localities for the three regions.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The 12 categories of conflicts affecting the small-scale fisheries in São Paulo State, Brazil, their level of coverage (state, regional, or local), and their region of occurrence in the State of São Paulo (NC = North Coast; CC = Central Coast; SC = South Coast)

Full size image

Priority conflicts by region

We found out that there are some priority conflicts that are common in the three regions of the state, as is the case of the legislation and surveillance (Table 2). Other conflicts are priorities for some regions, such as regulation of fishing activity and fisheries management and planning for the southern and northern regions. On the other hand, the large-scale enterprises were a priority for the north and central region, while pollution was considered a priority for the central region.

Table 2 Indication of the priority conflicts in the participatory workshops indicated by all participants; fishers or community representatives’ participants; government participants; and other civil society organizations participants. Between parentheses is the percentage of indication of the conflict category as a priority
Full size table

When comparing the priority conflicts by profile of the participants (Table 2), we see differences between prioritizations among the sectors. In the southern region, for example, the conflict with regulation of fishing activity and fisheries management are priorities for the government representatives and the other civil society organizations, but not for the fishers and communities’ representatives. In the central region, the conflict with the large-scale enterprises is a priority for the government representatives and the other civil society organizations, while regulation of fishing activity is priority for the fishers' representatives. In the north region, pollution is considered priority for the civil society organizations, while the conflict among fishing categories was considered priority for the government representatives.

Discussion

Our findings represent the first participatory assessment of conflicts affecting SSF in the Southeast coast of Brazil, involving different actors, sectors, and allowing a transdisciplinary output that will support further research and decision-making. Other conflict assessments were carried out on a national scale in Brazil (CPP 2016), with some reports for São Paulo region (CPP 2021). The conflicts reported are similar to those identified in our participatory assessment, regarding protected areas, oil and gas enterprises, law enforcement, tourism, real estate speculation, and aquaculture (CPP 2021). Another report about conflicts was published by the Brazilian Future Ocean Panel, presenting cases of socio-environmental injustice on the Brazilian coast (HOB 2020). The case reported in the São Paulo coast concerns the accident with the company Ultracargo in the Santos harbor area, central coast of the state, which affected the estuary and the fishing territory of more than thousand fishers. Other specific conflicts in the São Paulo coast related to SSF concerned the oil and gas industry and urbanization (Torres et al. 2019), ports (Walter et al. 2019), and industrial fisheries × SSF (Sckendorff and Azevedo 2007). None of them had regional coverage and participation of different types of stakeholders along the research process.

Participatory conflict assessment has also been carried out by other countries and different sectors, such as in a forest conflict in Finland (Saarikoski et al. 2013), land use conflict in Australia (Brown and Raymond 2014), and for tropical island tourism conflict in Malaysia (Lechner et al. 2020). Collaborative and participatory strategies have also been used in conflict management in the fisheries sector, as the case of Swedish coastal fisheries (Bruckmeier and Larsen 2008), with Siri Lanka post war marginalized fishers (Scholtens and Bavinck 2018) and in a review of 6 case studies of managing cross-sectoral governance conflicts (Bellanger et al. 2020). Nevertheless, no records of participatory assessment aiming to identify and prioritize conflicts related to the SSF were found. In addition to that, we also bring an analytical effort and systematization of categories of ocean conflicts that can be useful in other contexts around the world.

The priority conflicts

Our participatory assessment of conflicts allowed us to identify that priority conflicts vary by region and sector. Even though there are unanimous conflicts, as related to legislation and surveillance which was pointed as priority for all the regions and sectors. In Brazil, the federal government centralizes fisheries management, and SSF has been historically neglected and absent from the decision-making process (Neto et al. 2021). The lack of participation of small-scale fishers in the formulation of laws and the lack of communication and transparency in the elaboration of laws are drivers that favors the emergence of conflicts. Additionally, in Brazil, there are a large number of regulations governing the use of and access to fishery resources. Just to illustrate, Vieira et al. (2015) found 175 federal regulatory instruments directly or indirectly related to fishing activities between 1934 and 2012. The complexity involved in the large number of regulations and the role or responsibilities of the different regulatory and enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and municipal levels amplifies the challenges for small-scale fishers. These situations generate countless conflicts about the fishing legislation’s applicability and help explain why this was considered a priority for all regions and sectors.

The prioritization of conflicts also varied by region, as was the case of large-scale enterprises for the northern and central regions. It reflects the regional and urban development of these areas, such as the port sector and oil and gas on the northern coast, and those related to the port and industrial complex on the central coast (Teixeira 2013; Sousa and Serafini 2018). Oil and gas supply chain generates great social and economic alterations in the producing regions, which include industrial structures, land and port infrastructure equipment, offices, and all the types of enterprises that deal with the demand for services and equipment for the oil sector (Seabra et al. 2015). Also, the central and north coast of São Paulo have important port hubs that helped boost the urbanization processes of the areas. This process has led to an expansion of the real estate market, fostering a process of intense urbanization, speculation of land prices, and social conflicts with local communities (Polis 2012). On the other side, on the south coast, the prioritization of conflicts is related to the fishing activities (categories of fisheries legislation, regulation, and management). This prioritization seems to be a consequence of the significant social and economic importance that small-scale fishing activity has for the numerous traditional communities existing in the region (Ramires et al. 2012; Mendonça 2015).

Besides different prioritizations, the way stakeholders perceive the incidence level of the conflict, at local, regional, and state levels, can be very important in the comprehension and referral of conflicts by decision-makers. Conflicts around fisheries management and planning, for instance, were considered local and regional. This points to the importance of regionalization of small-scale fisheries and the need to consider the particularities of the activity, as already discussed by other authors (Bavinck and Jentoft 2011). Pollution is also recognized as a condition that leads to conflicts at state and regional levels, revealing the understanding that the impacts of pollution have no boundaries and, therefore, are not restricted to the local level. Although pollution affects the entire region, there are peculiarities in each of the regions that needs to be addressed regionally. This type of information contributes both to the way civil society will be engaged, as well as to the development of public policies that transform ocean conflicts. This is because the transformation of conflicts into more equitable and sustainable outcomes demands the social involvement of the multiple stakeholders and the understanding that the same conflict can have different drivers and effects per region.

Our assessment also found differences in priority conflicts between the different sectors, with the exception of the central coast which had the same conflicts identified as priorities for all sectors. On the south coast, there was a difference between priority conflicts by sector, with fishers pointing to conservation policies, tourism, pollution, and the lack of spaces for dialogue as priorities. The representatives from the civil society organizations also pointed to other conflicts as priorities, such as large enterprises in coastal areas and tourism. This prioritization seems to be a consequence of the significant preservation of the region’s ecosystems and the fact that most of its territory is located in protected areas, where many of these areas overlap with traditional fishing territories. Conflicts over human presence in protected areas and restrictions on the use of resources began in the mid-1980s with the implementation of the first no-take protected areas in the South (Ferreira 2004). Although the social participation in management councils of the protected areas is guaranteed in the rules governing them, there are power asymmetries and challenges to effective social representation (Prado et al. 2020). On the north coast, the government representatives pointed out the conflict between fishing categories and the representatives of civil society pointed out pollution as a priority for the region, unlike the others. The conflict between fishing categories is mostly related to the dispute over the use of space and resources between industrial and small-scale fishing activities (Seckendorff and Azevedo 2007). In terms of pollution, it is mostly driven by the rapid development of the region due to the State government developing plan for expanding transport infrastructure as part of the São Paulo Macrometropolis, but the plan did not consider social and environmental dimensions properly and is increasing the social-environmental problems (Gonçalves et al. 2020).

Reflections on the participatory process to assess ocean conflicts

The integration of different knowledge and perceptions in our conflict assessment showed potential to achieve results that have more significant outcomes than if it was elaborated by single groups of stakeholders. It is because the participatory identification of conflicts proved to be a strategy to refine and validate different interpretations and the importance of conflicts. We also find out that conflict is framed differently by stakeholders, since the way the conflict is perceived depends on their values, worldviews, and interests (Engle and Korf 2005). It means that the conflict can have different shapes depending on the interlocutor who is describing it, as we saw in the previous topic for sectors and regions. In our assessment, we allowed the voices and perspectives of the different social actors to be heard, and that their own interpretations of conflicts were registered. In this sense, we decided not to give the participants a previous definition of conflict. Instead, we left it free for their own interpretations of what a conflict is. This choice was made to avoid theoretical bias that a conflict definition could trigger and allow the individual’s experiences to be reflected, described, and explained in the assessment. The categories of conflicts (Table 1) were built based on the way the participants presented the conflict. By doing that, we ended up with categories that might not be considered a conflict, if a condition for conflict is that social groups are in dispute over a topic. For example, in the pandemic conflict category, there are no defined parties in dispute, yet, the fisheries sector faced numerous challenges due to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 virus.

In a participatory assessment, it is essential that the participants feel that their opinions and knowledge will not be judged or rejected and that their inclusion can be positive for the process (Toro and Werneck 2004). In the last decade, marine scientists have started to realize that sustainable management and the use of marine resources cannot include only the natural science perspective. It has become essential to include and engage with society in management and decision-making over natural resources (Bavinck and Verrips 2020). While not a panacea, the inclusion of stakeholders can make research results more societally relevant, robust, and easily understood and accepted outside academia (Kopsel et al. 2021). On the other side, the great challenge of a participatory process is to overcome obstacles related to representativeness, power balance, transparency, language barrier, and use of resources accessible to all (Trimble et al. 2014). It is essential to guarantee the inclusion of the largest number of people who are outside the debate, using methodologies and strategies that promote the participation of historically excluded groups (Peterson 2011). In this sense, the engagement with stakeholders has become a key strategy in environmental research projects (Chilvers and Kearnes 2016).

The use of different engagement strategies (including those more familiar, as WhatsApp) encouraged the presence and resulted in satisfactory participation, both in the online survey and in remote workshops. One point of attention about the use of online surveys is the type of information sought. If the goal is to get richer and more subjective data, this may be a limitation (De Boni 2020). In some reports that we received, it would have been interesting to have more details on the conflict description. Perhaps remote in-depth interviews are a more suitable method depending on the research goal, since there are limited possibilities to offer stimuli to the respondents in online surveys. In our experience, the drafting and validation of these data at workshops were very important to overcome the limitations of the method. In this context, understanding how the social actors understand and are affected by the conflict is an important learning process and part of the pathway to transform conflicts into more equitable and sustainable scenarios.

Conclusions

The assessment presented here was built with the participation of multiple actors involved with the marine-coastal ecosystems of São Paulo, Brazil. These different actors were able to describe the existing conflicts that somehow affect small-scale fishing activity and coastal fishing communities. The participatory assessment of conflicts was an opportunity to capture the degree of importance assigned to those conflicts by the different stakeholders affected. Despite the challenges, this was an exercise of collaborative and transdisciplinary research, where different stakeholders could exchange their experiences, struggles, and perception on ocean conflicts. Our results also bring important learnings in a context of doing participatory research in times of a pandemic or to the experience of implementing participatory methodologies in an online world.

We identified 12 categories of conflicts that affect small-scale fisheries in a highly complex region, with both preserved coastal-marine environments and intensely urbanized areas with the presence of large-scale economic sectors. We also found differences in the prioritization of conflicts between regions and sectors. The identification of priorities by region and sector reveals which conflicts may be more critical in each area and which may require specific legal and management actions at various levels. The identification of priorities can also guide government actions to address the conflicts in future marine spatial planning processes.

Besides that, this type of knowledge gives important directions for future research projects that can be designed to address priority conflicts. The continuous, rather than fragmented, research increases the credibility of action-oriented approaches with society at large. This allows broadening the repertoire of transdisciplinary research experiences that co-delineates research questions, captures stakeholder demands, and returns knowledge more appropriately to the participants. We also point out that a follow-up of the conflicts unfolding can be made and updated over time so that the notion of conflict transformation itself can be further developed.