Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This article discusses the current problems andissues associated with the implementation of a National System of Marine Protected Areas in Brazil.
Citation preview
Marine Protected Dramas: The Flaws of the Brazilian NationalSystem of Marine Protected Areas
Leopoldo C. Gerhardinger • Eduardo A. S. Godoy •
Peter J. S. Jones • Gilberto Sales • Beatrice P. Ferreira
Received: 16 November 2009 / Accepted: 12 August 2010 / Published online: 24 September 2010
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract This article discusses the current problems and
issues associated with the implementation of a National
System of Marine Protected Areas in Brazil. MPA man-
agers and higher governmental level authorities were
interviewed about their perceptions of the implementation
of a national MPA strategy and the recent changes in the
institutional arrangement of government marine conserva-
tion agencies. Interviewees’ narratives were generally
pessimistic and the National System was perceived as
weak, with few recognizable marine conservation out-
comes on the ground. The following major flaws were
identified: poor inter-institutional coordination of coastal
and ocean governance; institutional crisis faced by the
national government marine conservation agency; poor
management within individual MPAs; problems with
regional networks of marine protected areas; an overly
bureaucratic management and administrative system;
financial shortages creating structural problems and a dis-
connect between MPA policy and its delivery. Further-
more, a lack of professional motivation and a pessimistic
atmosphere was encountered during many interviews, a
malaise which we believe affects how the entire system is
able to respond to crises. Our findings highlight the need
for a better understanding of the role of ‘leadership’ in the
performance of socio-ecological systems (such as MPA
networks), more effective official evaluation mechanisms,
more localized audits of (and reforms if necessary to)
Brazil’s federal biodiversity conservation agency (ICM-
Bio), and the need for political measures to promote state
leadership and support. Continuing to focus on the desig-
nation of more MPAs whilst not fully addressing these
issues will achieve little beyond fulfilling, on paper,
Brazil’s international marine biodiversity commitments.
Keywords Coastal management � Marine conservation �Marine reserves � Convention on biological diversity �Marine spatial management � Ocean governance
Introduction
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have recently become
widely proclaimed as a powerful tool for marine biodi-
versity conservation and fisheries management by scientists
L. C. Gerhardinger (&)
Associacao de Estudos Costeiros e Marinhos—ECOMAR NGO,
Rua Dr. Jose Andre da Cruz, 539, 45900-000 Caravelas,
BA, Brazil
e-mail: [email protected]
L. C. Gerhardinger
CTTMar, Laboratorio de Educacao Ambiental, Universidade do
Vale do Itajaı, Rua Uruguai, 458, Caixa Postal 360, 88302-202
Itajaı, SC, Brazil
E. A. S. Godoy
Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservacao da Biodiversidade,
SCEN, Trecho 2, Ed. Sede do IBAMA, CEP 70.818-900
Brasılia, Brazil
P. J. S. Jones
Department of Geography, University College London (UCL),
Pearson Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
G. Sales
Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservacao da Biodiversidade,
Centro Tamar, Rua Andreia n. 1—Volta do Robalo,
CEP 42.835-000 Arembepe, Camacari, BA, Brazil
B. P. Ferreira
Centro de Tecnologia, Departamento de Oceanografia,
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Arquitetura,
s/n, Cidade Universitaria, 50670-901 Recife, PE, Brazil
123
Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643
DOI 10.1007/s00267-010-9554-7
and national governments all around the world (Jones
2001). Within academia, several authors and research
groups have been working to evolve the ‘science of MPAs’
(e.g. Lubchenco and others 2003). This new scientific wave
includes, amongst other agendas, developing and discuss-
ing the foundations for the design of networks or systems
of MPAs that take into account a plethora of criteria
(biological, socio-economic, institutional, political, etc).
This recent rise of the MPA movement is clearly repre-
sented in the outputs of international conventions and
conferences such as the Convention on Biological Diver-
sity (CBD), the IUCN World Parks Congress (Durban
2003), the World Summit on Sustainable Development,
RAMSAR Convention (Uganda 2005) and in the 26th
meeting of the FAO fisheries committee (Rome 2005). The
anticipated result is that governments will devise the
institutional mechanisms and state capacity to implement
National Systems of Marine Protected Areas (NSs of
MPAs) in the near future (UNEP-WCMC 2008).
As a signatory of the above-mentioned conventions,
implementing a representative NS of MPAs is an important
component of the current statutory Brazilian marine con-
servation strategy. However, delivering marine conserva-
tion outcomes over an extensive and socially and
biologically diverse area is clearly a major challenge. The
Brazilian coastline is more than 8,000 km in length,
extending from tropical to subtropical environments, and
provides resources and services to more than 400 coastal
cities and hundreds of fishing communities. Highest popu-
lation densities are found in coastal areas, as in many other
areas of the world, and many important fishery resources are
already under threat or collapsed due to over-exploitation,
failed fisheries management plans and over-optimistic
fisheries incentive policies (Abdallah and Sumaila 2007).
According to a recommendation from the last IUCN
World Parks Congress, each nation should designate
20–30% of their marine territory as no-take MPAs, while
the CBD target is for each country to establish a repre-
sentative NS of MPAs by 2012, but the achievement of
such targets raises significant ‘collective action problems’
(Jones 2006). Although the Brazilian Ministry of Envi-
ronment has recently published several official strategic
plans, laws and programs that were conceived to address
the CBD targets and related domestic marine conservation
problems, the degree to which their implementation has
been successful in protecting marine biodiversity and
fisheries resources on the ground is still largely unknown.
We provide here a general analysis of the current
national framework for MPAs from the perspective of
MPA authority representatives themselves. This analysis
brings an inside perspective on the financial, operational
and administrative deficiencies of the current framework
on the ground, hereafter referred to as ‘dramas’.
The Brazilian National System of Marine Protected
Areas
Marine Protected Areas as Tools for Biodiversity
Conservation and Fisheries Management in Brazil
The first MPA in Brazil (Atol das Rocas Marine Biological
Reserve) was declared in 1979, followed by a few other
sites designated in the 80s, motivated solely by biodiversity
and habitat conservation objectives (Prates and others
2007). Brazilian MPA policies evolved in line with the
global tendency, and MPAs are now also regarded as
fisheries management tools (CIRM 1999; Prates and others
2007), though the validity of combining biodiversity con-
servation and resource management objectives is debatable
(Jones 2007). Today, the Brazilian target is to establish a
representative NS of MPAs by 2015, and to cover 10% of
the total national exclusive economic zone as no-take areas
by 2018 (information from CONABIO 3/2006 and other
official documents).
There are currently around 62 marine and coastal pro-
tected areas under federal administration. However, while
the sea in Brazil is constitutionally acknowledged as under
federal jurisdiction, coastal states and cities have also
designated marine protected areas—although the precise
number of these (and their effectiveness) is difficult to
ascertain.
The evolution of the Brazilian protected areas policy
and institutional mandates for their implementation since
historical times is described in detail by Medeiros (2006).
For the purpose of this article it is important to consider a
few key features of the Brazilian approach. Firstly, it is
worth noting that the Brazilian Institute of Environment
and Renewable Natural Resources’ (IBAMA) mandate
from 1989 to 2007 included regulatory and patrolling
control over all federal protected areas and the licensing of
potentially environmentally harmful enterprises over the
land and the sea across all the vast Brazilian territory.
Secondly, it is important to note the strength to the
protected area framework provided by the construction and
designation of the National System of Conservation Units
(SNUC) and the National Program on Protected Areas
(NPPA). The former offered a legal mechanism for the
designation and implementation of several categories of
protected areas. The latter consisted of policies for estab-
lishing the principles, directives, objectives and strategies
for the implementation of the SNUC by 2015. According to
Medeiros (2006), the main drivers pushing the construction
of the NPPA were: the need to encompass protected areas
implementation and coordination into a more concrete and
comprehensive strategy; existing problems and conflicts
with indigenous or state land facing irregular occupation
and; response to the growing international recognition of
Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 631
123
the need to improve protected area policies, e.g. Durban’s
World Park Congress (2003) and the COP7 meeting of the
Convention on Biological Diversity in Malaysia (2004). If
the SNUC and NPPA are considered as complementary
policies, they are in accord with the definition of a national
system of MPAs as a ‘conglomeration of networks under a
strategically planned and harmoniously operated, multi-
institutional framework’ (Agardy and Wilkinson 2003).
Other relevant legislation and initiatives enabling the
Brazilian NS of MPAs are described in Table 1.
The idea of creating a new institution to deal exclusively
with federal protected areas has been discussed amongst
Brazilian governmental environmental agencies since the
80s’. However, it was not until 2007 that the federal gov-
ernment created the ‘Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservacao
da Biodiversidade’ (ICMBio). ICMBio was designated
through an ‘Interim Measure’ by the executive power, and
later transformed into Law (No. 11.516/2007). ICMBio has
two main functions today: to govern federal protected areas
established under the National System of Conservation Units
(NSCU) and; protect endangered species of wildlife and
flora. IBAMA retained its mandate over licensing of poten-
tially environmentally harmful enterprises and patrolling.
In 2008 a private consultancy report commissioned by
ICMBio suggested that the Institute would benefit from a
‘macroprocess’ administrative approach, with departments
(sectors) mirroring its main executive mandates (Table 2).
The first eight ‘macroprocesses’ have direct implications
for the implementation of MPAs, the remaining being
directed towards internal administrative and logistic con-
trol of the institution. However, as this organizational
restructuring has still not been fully completed, this clearly
has significant implications for the effective implementa-
tion of MPAs, and was explored through a programme of
interviews with MPA managers in Brazil.
Methods
Site visits were made to nine Brazilian MPAs located in
four states distributed along the coast (Santa Catarina, Sao
Paulo, Bahia and Pernambuco state), where each local
Table 1 Summary of Brazilian governmental initiatives towards the implementation of a National System of Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
Governmental initiatives
towards marine protected
areas
Summary description Interacting institutions and departments
Priority areas for marine
conservation
Strategic legislation establishing priority areas for
new MPA sites designation (2007). The document was
produced out of an expert-based national consultation,
and has identified sites which will be given priority
consideration for future MPA designations, including
145 coastal (covering 148,412 km2) and 22 marine
(196,332 km2) candidate sites (Chatwin 2007).
MMA, through the NZCM, coordinate the review
of the document every 5 years. ICMBio uses as
guidance for new MPA designations.
National Program on
Protected Areas
Legislation establishing the principles, directives,
objectives and strategies for the achievement
of the national system of protected areas
(including terrestrial) by 2015.
MMA, through DPA, designed and published the
program with special input from the NZCM on
marine issues. ICMBio has statutory responsibility
to deliver the program at the federal level.
National System of
Conservation Units
(SNUC)
Legislation determining the alternative categories
of protected areas and their inherent governance
differences. MPAs can be designated by federal
government and coastal states following the same
criteria (in some cases they can also be designated
by cities).
ICMBio has statutory responsibility to designate
and manage the National System of MPAs.
Mosaics of Marine
Protected Areas
Legally established by the SNUC, allows for the
designation of regional mosaics of protected areas
that are integrally managed.
MMA has the responsibility to design networks
and mosaics of MPAs, whilst ICMBio has
statutory responsibility to implement them.
Program on Network
of Marine and Coastal
Conservation Units
(RUMAR)
Program under implementation, will provide continuous
financial support for MPAs.
ICMBio has the responsibility to implement the
program.
Other relevant marine
resource spatial
management legislation
Some marine areas can be placed under specific
management regimes (e.g. no-take zones) through
alternative legal mechanisms, such as Decrees and
Normative Instructions (within management plans and
fishing accords initiatives).
CFS and GERCO uses the available legislation
to designate other marine management sites along
the coast.
MMA Ministry of Environment, NZCM Nucleus for Marine and Coastal Zone, DPA Department of Protected Areas, CFS Center for Fisheries
Studies
632 Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643
123
Table 2 Institutional structure of the ‘Chico Mendes Institute of
Biodiversity Conservation’ (ICMBio), the federal environmental
agency responsible for the implementation of the Brazilian National
System of Protected Areas (terrestrial and marine) and endangered
species conservation (ICMBio 2008)
Macroprocess Objective Process
1. Social-environmental
management
Develop participative management of protected
areas, environmental education, conflict
management and capacity building courses
to the public (external to the institution)
• Conflict management
• Capacity building
• Local social control
• Environmental education
2. Traditional populations Deliver and develop policies related to
sustainable use of natural resources by
extractive communities and traditional people
within protected areas falling in the
‘sustainable use’ categories
• Strengthening local communities
• Sustainable use and production
3. Public use and business Qualify, regulate and structure visitation
activities, public use and recreation within
protected areas
• Environmental services
• Business development
• Visitation
• Sustainable forestry management
4. Territorial consolidation Deliver and demarcate protected area limits and
deal with land rights regularization procedures
• Territorial demarcation and signalization
• Land rights regularization
5. Designation planning and
evaluation of protected areas
Develop and implement tools and actions
towards the designation and management
of protected areas
• Designation
• Management plans elaboration and revision
• Evaluation of protected areas implementation
• Systems, Mosaics and corridors effectiveness
evaluation
6. Protection Develop protection and safety mechanisms
in areas facing invasion risk
• Patrolling
• Fire prevention and control
7. Conservation and management Develop biodiversity management tools aimed to
reduce the impacts of several human activities
on species facing extinction risk
• Evaluation of biodiversity conservation
• Design and implementation of action plans
8. Monitoring and research Promote knowledge generation on biodiversity
conservation and management of protected
areas
• Promotion and delivery of research
• Biodiversity monitoring
• Information management
9. Management of environmental
compensation and special
financial resources
Manage environmental compensation financial
resources and systematize special resources
• Negotiation of environmental compensation
• Implementation of environmental
compensation
10. Institutional development Disseminate the institutional competencies
and actions to society
• Communication and marketing
11. Human resource management Implement integrated practices and policies
for personal and professional development of
personnel
• Management of personnel and quality of life
• Corporative education
12. Information technology and
management
Integrated and strategic management of logistic
and technologic resources
• Logistics and supply
• Information technology
13. Finance Operationalize financial resources from the
Union
• Finances
• Financial collection
14. Budget and operational
planning
Promote administrative modernization,
implementing tools and methodologies to
enhance institutional management
effectiveness
• Operational planning
• Budget execution
15. Corporative support Support protected areas in international debates
and issues being processed in the National
Congress. To deal with environmental
complaints and abuses informed through the
‘green line’ system offered by IBAMA
• International cooperation
• Parliamentary advice
• Ombundsman
Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 633
123
MPA officer from the relevant local authority was inter-
viewed using a semi-structured interview approach (Fig. 1).
Sites were selected to encompass different protected
area categories available through national legislation
(Jones 2001; Gerhardinger and others 2009), ranging from
top-down (e.g. Biological Reserve) to bottom-up (e.g.
Extractive Reserve) governance approaches (Table 3).
Semi-structured interviews were also held with repre-
sentatives of authorities working at higher levels within
five government institutions involved with the design and
delivery of policies related to MPAs in Brazil (as at May–
June 2007): (i) ICMBio, Fisheries Department in the state
of Brasilia; (ii) ICMBio, Marine and Coastal Biome
Working Group; (iii) ICMBio, Department of Sustainable
Use Protected Areas; (iv) Ministry of Environment, Pro-
tected Areas Department; (v) ICMBio, Center for Fisheries
Studies of Southeastern Brazil.
Interviews with MPA officers lasted between 1 and 2 h,
while those with higher-level authorities lasted no longer
than 1 h. Interviews were carried out in May–June 2007.
Each interview covered issues related to the current orga-
nizational structure responsible for the formulation and
implementation of environmental policies in the country,
and issues related to the implementation of the Brazilian
MPA strategy. Every interview was audio-taped, semi-
transcripts were produced and a document presenting the
main issues gleaned from these was sent to each intervie-
wee for their comments, corrections and verification. The
intention was purposely to get perspectives from within
government on the degree of implementation of a NS of
MPAs. Interviewees were questioned about their personal
rather than institutional viewpoint. Therefore, it is impor-
tant to note that the viewpoints herein presented do not
represent an official government opinion. Nevertheless,
interviewees were usually keen to divulge their thoughts on
critical issues affecting MPAs and their department’s role
in managing them.
Results and Discussion
‘‘Marine Protected Dramas’’ Through the Eyes
of Managers
The following self-motivational drama accompanied the
atmosphere of almost every meeting with MPA officers and
is therefore critical to understand the context over which
interviews occurred. Most MPA officers pointed out some
degree of dissatisfaction with their jobs:
Sometimes I have the impression that IBAMA has
abandoned us.
Fig. 1 Four states were visited
and interviews made with
marine protected area officers at
each location. From the bottomupwards, black dots are located
in the states of Santa Catarina,
Sao Paulo, Bahia and
Pernambuco
Table 2 continued
Macroprocess Objective Process
16. Internal control Monitor administrative and technical procedures
within ICMBio in search of irregularities and
determination of responsibilities
• Auditing
17. Attorneyship Judicial and extra-judicial representation,
consultancy and juridical support
634 Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643
123
Ta
ble
3F
eatu
res
of
the
nin
em
arin
ep
rote
cted
area
sas
sess
edin
Bra
zil
Mar
ine
pro
tect
edar
eaD
esig
nat
ion
dat
e/si
ze/
cate
go
ry/l
oca
tio
n
Man
agem
ent
cou
nci
lat
trib
ute
sE
nv
iro
nm
ent
Mai
no
bje
ctiv
esan
d
no
tew
ort
hy
char
acte
rist
ics
Man
agem
ent
app
roac
h
1.
Pir
aju
bae
Mar
ine
Ex
trac
tiv
eR
eser
ve
19
90
(1,4
44
ha)
Su
stai
nab
le
use
So
uth
Bra
zil
Do
no
th
ave
am
anag
emen
t
cou
nci
lin
pla
cen
or
a
man
agem
ent
pla
n.
Man
gro
ves
,m
ud
pla
ins,
coas
tal
mar
ine
Su
stai
nab
lefi
sher
ies,
mai
nta
in
loca
lcu
ltu
re
Bo
tto
m–
up
2.
Man
dir
aM
arin
e
Ex
trac
tiv
eR
eser
ve
(RE
SE
X)
20
02
(1,1
81
ha)
Su
stai
nab
le
use
So
uth
ern
Bra
zil
Man
agem
ent
cou
nci
l
del
iber
ates
ov
erd
ecis
ion
s.
Has
man
agem
ent
pla
n.
Man
gro
ve,
estu
arin
eS
ust
ain
able
shel
lfish
(e.g
.
oy
ster
)ex
plo
itat
ion
,
sust
ain
able
fish
erie
s,cu
ltu
ral
mai
nte
nan
ce
Bo
tto
m–
up
3.
Arv
ore
do
Bio
log
ical
Mar
ine
Res
erv
e
19
89
(17
,60
0h
a)N
on
use
So
uth
Bra
zil
Man
agem
ent
cou
nci
lo
nly
info
rms
dec
isio
ns.
Has
a
man
agem
ent
pla
n.
Rai
nfo
rest
cov
er,
mar
ine
off
sho
re,
rock
ysh
ore
lin
es
Bio
div
ersi
tyco
nse
rvat
ion
,h
igh
mar
ine
bio
div
ersi
ty,
eco
no
mic
ally
imp
ort
ant
reef
fin
fish
spec
ies
To
p–
do
wn
4.
Ab
rolh
os
Mar
ine
Nat
ion
alP
ark
19
83
(91
,23
5h
a)N
on
use
No
rth
ern
Bra
zil
Man
agem
ent
cou
nci
lo
nly
info
rms
dec
isio
ns.
Has
man
agem
ent
pla
n.
Co
ral
reef
s,is
lan
ds,
off
sho
rem
arin
e
Co
ral
reef
con
serv
atio
n,
wh
ale
con
serv
atio
nan
dsu
stai
nab
le
tou
rism
To
p–
do
wn
5.
Tu
pin
iqu
ins
Eco
log
ical
Sta
tio
n
19
86
(43
ha)
No
n-u
se
So
uth
ern
Bra
zil
Do
no
th
ave
am
anag
emen
t
cou
nci
lin
pla
ce.
Do
no
th
ave
am
anag
emen
tp
lan
.
Ro
cky
sho
reli
ne,
isla
nd
,
coas
tal
mar
ine
Mar
ine
bio
div
ersi
ty
con
serv
atio
n,
rese
arch
To
p–
do
wn
6.
Co
sta
do
sC
ora
is
En
vir
on
men
tal
Pro
tect
ion
Are
a
19
97
(41
3,5
63
ha)
Su
stai
nab
leu
seN
ort
her
n
Bra
zil
Do
no
th
ave
aw
ork
ing
man
agem
ent
cou
nci
lin
pla
ce.
Am
anag
emen
tp
lan
was
pre
sen
ted
toth
eg
ov
ern
men
t
in2
00
6b
yP
roje
toR
ecif
es
Co
stei
ros,
anIA
DB
fun
ded
mu
lti-
inst
itu
cio
nal
init
iati
ve,
bu
tto
this
dat
eh
asn
ot
bee
n
imp
lem
ente
d(F
erre
ira
and
oth
ers
20
07
).
Co
ral
reef
s,co
asta
lin
sho
reS
ust
ain
able
tou
rism
and
fish
erie
s,co
ral
reef
con
serv
atio
n
Mix
ed-a
pp
roac
h
7.
Can
anei
a-Ig
uap
e-P
eru
ıbe
En
vir
on
men
tal
Pro
tect
ion
Are
a
19
84
(23
4,0
00
ha)
Su
stai
nab
leu
seS
ou
ther
n
Bra
zil
Man
agem
ent
cou
nci
lo
nly
info
rms
dec
isio
ns.
Do
no
t
hav
ea
man
agem
ent
pla
n
Rai
nfo
rest
,co
asta
lin
sho
re,
estu
arin
e,m
ang
rov
es
Su
stai
nab
lefi
sher
ies
Mix
ed-A
pp
roac
h
8.
Bal
eia
Fra
nca
En
vir
on
men
tal
Pro
tect
ion
Are
a
20
00
(15
6,1
00
ha)
Su
stai
nab
leu
seS
ou
th
Bra
zil
Man
agem
ent
cou
nci
lo
nly
info
rms
dec
isio
ns.
Do
no
t
hav
em
anag
emen
tp
lan
.
Co
asta
lan
do
ffsh
ore
mar
ine,
rain
fore
st,
man
gro
ves
,co
asta
l
lag
oo
ns
Su
stai
nab
leto
uri
sman
d
fish
erie
s,w
hal
eco
nse
rvat
ion
Mix
ed-A
pp
roac
h
9.
An
hat
om
irim
En
vir
on
men
tal
Pro
tect
ion
Are
a
19
92
(3,0
00
ha)
Su
stai
nab
le
use
So
uth
Bra
zil
Do
no
th
ave
am
anag
emen
t
cou
nci
lin
pla
ce.
Do
no
th
ave
man
agem
ent
pla
n.
Man
gro
ves
,ra
info
rest
,
rock
ysh
ore
lin
es
Su
stai
nab
lefi
sher
ies
and
tou
rism
,d
olp
hin
con
serv
atio
n
Mix
ed-A
pp
roac
h
Nu
mb
erin
dic
ates
the
refe
ren
ceo
fth
em
arin
ep
rote
cted
area
offi
cer
inte
rvie
wed
Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 635
123
The pressure is overwhelming upon the manager,
because many people understand that a management
problem is a problem with the manager, when it is
not.
These quotations illustrate a perceived lack of institu-
tional support, or a mission beyond the capabilities of the
person in charge, that leads to frustration and inability. At a
local level, officers are the ‘face’ of an ineffective MPA
system, and daily pressure slowly leads to discontent.
Three interviewees gave up their jobs two months after
being interviewed.
The Institutional Split of IBAMA
MPA officers and government authorities interviewed were
asked to provide their perspectives on the implications of
the IBAMA institutional split. They were unanimously
unaware of what was going to change in the administrative
routine of their sites, and sometimes did not even know if
they were still officially in their posts at the point of the
interview. The measure was recurrently considered ‘non-
democratic’ and taken in a ‘top-down’ manner. This was
corroborated by the viewpoints of all government repre-
sentatives interviewed, clearly demonstrating the very high
hierarchic level of the decisions regarding the institutional
reform.
Several interviewees argued that the measure was taken
to weaken the political strength of the national environ-
mental agency. This argument was often associated with
the increasing ‘barriers’ to economic development in Brazil
that nature conservation had, through IBAMA’s interven-
tion, been regarded by some interests as having caused.
A concern shared by many MPA officers was that it
would be extremely costly to create from scratch an
administrative and operational infrastructure that paralleled
that of IBAMA to properly implement MPAs. The insti-
tutional split was presented as an opportunity to change
outdated and bureaucratic administrative procedures and
most of the interviewees accordingly argued for an
opportunity to shift their personal working effort to the
management of their MPAs, instead of coping with other
responsibilities (i.e. environmental licensing in areas sur-
rounding a given MPA was frequently allocated to MPA
officers under IBAMA).
The institutional split clearly left MPA managers and
higher level authorities interviewed in a hiatus and uncer-
tain institutional space, where the future was largely
unknown and unpredictable.
To date (May, 2010), ICMBio’s internal departmental
structure has not been fully developed. There is still no
clear institutional policy towards marine biodiversity con-
servation outside MPAs nor for aquatic resources research,
as the recently created Ministry of Fisheries (June, 2009) is
still disputing mandates with the Ministry of Environment.
The Ministry of Fisheries has, however, recognized the
importance of no-take areas as a tool for fisheries man-
agement. This is especially relevant since, with many
stocks collapsed or declining, the new ministry is now also
responsible for the difficult mission of increasing Brazil’s
total fishery production.
Poor Management Being Delivered Within MPAs
Though implementing an effective management council
was a priority of every MPA manager, in many cases the
lack of MPA staff and other resources had largely limited
the ability of officers to place the implementation of
management councils in the forefront of their agendas.
Only five of the sites assessed had management coun-
cils, but the levels of implementation and effectiveness
perceived by interviewees varied greatly. Perhaps the only
MPA where the management council was considered
effective as a conflict resolution arena was that of Baleia
Franca EPA. In fact, the approach adopted in this MPA was
considered singular by the interviewee because although
the management council is legally designed solely for
consultation purposes, the manager regularly leaves man-
agement decisions to council deliberation. This officer’s
personal approach increased stakeholder participation and
engagement in management council meetings. With
regards to the Cananeia-Iguape-Peruıbe EPA, by contrast,
it was commented that whilst the management council
frequently meets, discussions are rarely productive:
Management council meetings are very boring these
days, everybody knows each other, and opinions are
not novel anymore.
The neighboring MPA officer (Tupiniquins ES) shared
this view, arguing that the region has an abundant number
of designated terrestrial and marine protected areas ([20
protected areas) so the same stakeholders end up meeting
each other in a variety of different forums where they
discuss similar issues.
Very large MPAs such as the Baleia Franca EPA face
enormous difficulties in mobilizing council representatives
for management council meetings. This issue is also criti-
cal in the case of Costa dos Corais EPA, where the Project
Recifes Costeiros (Ferreira and others 2007) adopted an
alternative strategy to deal with the large size of the site.
Instead of one management council with representatives
from all thirteen coastal cities bordering the site, they have
established ‘Municipal Councils for Environmental
Defense’ (COMDEMA). These are collegiate entities,
composed of government and civil society representatives,
charged with deliberating, consulting, regulating and
636 Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643
123
supervising municipal environmental issues. The COM-
DEMA is the municipal district’s higher jurisdiction for
environmental policy and is part of the Environmental
National System (SISNAMA) that seeks to protect and
conserve natural resources, as well as improving quality of
life and promoting sustainable development. The experi-
ence of the COMDEMA of Tamandare has been reported
by Ferreira and others (2004), and has represented a
benchmark for the constitution of other municipal councils,
now active, in the Costa dos Corais EPA. According to
these authors, local collegiate arenas are able to employ
participatory and deliberative procedures more efficiently,
enabling a more rapid decision-making process than enti-
ties associated with federal institutions. Ferreira and others
(2004) argue this is a clear advantage to decision decen-
tralization and environmental management.
Overall, management councils of marine and terrestrial
protected areas in Brazil face a diversity of problems, such
as financial shortages preventing regular meetings, lack of
capacity to deliberate (MMA 2004) and a lack of capacity
to effectively implement decisions. Despite all the outlined
difficulties, the government’s target is to implement man-
agement councils at every single protected area in the
country by 2010. This ambitious target was divulged by
one of ICMBio’s directors, at a ‘protected area’ thematic
round-table held during a conference at Curitiba
(I Seminario Sul Brasileiro de Conselhos Gestores, June,
2009) but it was immediately discredited by the many
participants (NGOs, community leaders and government
authorities). Muanis and others (2009) reported that
according to ICMBio’s data, from all 299 federal protected
areas existent by June 2008 (terrestrial and coastal/marine),
210 had no management plan, 184 had no management
councils and 161 had no basic infrastructure at all.
Only three of the visited MPAs had working manage-
ment plans. This supports the observation of one intervie-
wee that IBAMA seldom coped with the deadlines legally
established to draw up and review (on a five year cycle)
protected area management plans. In Brazil, as in many
systems, management plans are designed to provide MPAs
with specific objectives. They also define the zoning of
activities and the actions to be implemented within the
following 5 years. However, as very few MPA manage-
ment plans have been implemented in the country, man-
agers are left without clear targets. Pereira (1999)
attributed this problem to a lack of the funding needed to
discuss management plans with local stakeholders and then
to finalize and implement them.
On many occasions when asked about a particular
management issue, respondents answered that any question
regarding ‘management’ could not be easily discussed
because they considered that no significant management
was actually undertaken. To some, management would
only happen if a management plan and a management
council were in place. Furthermore, according to the view
of two MPA officers, conflicts with local communities are
largely avoided in sites without regulation simply because
of a lack of capacity to enforce any restrictions that might
lead to conflicts. Several MPA officers affirmed their sites
were very close to the concept of ‘paper parks’, and the
general impression is frequently of a very poor and weak
management being in place.
Another issue affecting the process of designing man-
agement plans was observed by Pereira (1999), who argued
that a ‘terrestrial approach’ dominates the management of
the current MPAs in Brazil. Guidelines for designing man-
agement plans that take into account the particular needs of
marine ecosystems are not yet available for planners.
Therefore managers claim that they have to rely on and
follow the official guidelines for designing management
plans that are terrestrially based. This causes many problems
e.g. appropriate biological and socioeconomic monitoring
indicators and research methods are substantially different
between terrestrial and marine environments.
The CBD requires that parties develop ‘effectively
managed’ MPA systems, with frameworks for monitoring,
evaluating and reporting effectiveness by 2010. Although
government claims to be currently applying an extensive
evaluation methodology (MMA 2006), a comprehensive
ecological effectiveness evaluation of the current NS of
MPAs is not yet available for public scrutiny, and only a
handful of case studies discuss the successes and failures,
strengths and limitations of existing Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) (e.g. Silva 2004; Floeter and others 2006;
Goncalves 2008; Gerhardinger and others 2009). Several
approaches have been devised to date to evaluate MPA
effectiveness, offering the Brazilian government a well-
structured starting point, but these have not yet been uti-
lized and the findings made public. There are also many
examples of MPA effectiveness evaluation methodologies
that could be adapted and applied, e.g. World Heritage
Management Effectiveness Handbook; Workbook for the
Western Indian Ocean; How is your MPA doing; The
Nature Conservancy 5-S framework; World Bank Score-
card to Assess Progress; MPA Report Guide and Rating
System. It would seem that the key issue is a lack of
political will to evaluate the effectiveness of Brazilian NS
of MPAs, which could reasonably be interpreted as a
reflection of a lack of political will to effectively manage
such a system.
Problems with Regional Networks of Marine Protected
Areas
A very promising and increasingly supported concept for
MPAs management in Brazil is that of regional networks or
Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 637
123
‘mosaics’ of marine protected areas (MMPAs) (Ferreira
and Prates 2002). The Brazilian protected area legislation
provides a framework for establishing such MMPAs. Once
legally designated, each MMPAs would ideally have its
own management council with community as well as
government representation. Muanis and others (2009)
argue that the application of this concept would increase
administrative efficiency.
In the Sao Paulo mosaic, for instance, officers
acknowledge that it was necessary to integrate logistical
and human resources of neighbor MPAs in order to max-
imize and increase the potential benefits accruing from
individual MPAs. At least two MMPAs have been legally
designated in Brazil (Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo
MMPAs), but their implementation seems to be happening
too slowly according to managers.
A recent governmental program named RUMAR was
highlighted by interviewees as a promising way to speed
up this process. RUMAR aims to provide for continuous
financial and operational support for MPAs, amongst
other means, by rapidly directing environmental com-
pensation money to particular MPA sites (Marchioro and
Ilha 2007).
The RUMAR program was regarded as very positive in
the view of most MPA managers interviewed. In the light
of all the structural problems surrounding the implemen-
tation of their sites, the objectives of the RUMAR pro-
gramme are encouraging and this was one of the few topics
bringing a degree of optimism to the interviews. However,
from the perspective of some MPA officers and a key
higher-level authority, the program is not advancing as fast
as was hoped because the related environmental compen-
sation legislation in Brazil is being revised. Here two dif-
ferent perspectives emerged regarding the potential for the
future success of RUMAR within the new institutional
context discussed previously.
The first is optimistic and sees the creation of the new
protected area agency as an opportunity to shape a mod-
ernized institution with much less administrative bureau-
cracy and therefore more dynamism and efficiency in the
delivery of RUMAR actions. The second, more pessimistic
viewpoint, is that RUMAR implementation will take even
longer because of the ‘messy’ and ‘unclear’ way in which
the institutional split was conducted.
The reality would seem to relate most closely to the
pessimistic viewpoint, in that to date, the RUMAR initia-
tive appears to have shown no significant progress due,
amongst other reasons, to the administrative turbulence
caused by IBAMA’s institutional split that gave rise to
ICMBio. Whether this turbulence will subside, providing
the potential for the RUMAR programme to support the
development and implementation of MMAs (in line with
the optimist’s views) remains to be seen.
Mismatches and Poor Inter-Institutional Coordination
of Ocean Governance
As noted by Crowder and others (2006), the lack of
co-operation and policy integration amongst different
government bodies may lead to the fragmentation of mar-
ine management, causing mismatches in ocean governance.
Many government agencies have also been proposing or
designating MPAs in Brazil, such as GERCO (Agency for
Coastal Zone Management), Ministry of Aquaculture and
Fisheries and the ICMBio’s Center of Fisheries Studies
(CFS), usually with fisheries management objectives. In the
case of CFS, this institution is seemingly working in close
co-operation with ICMBio to designate MPAs along the
coast. However, we have not found evidence to support
arguments that CFS, GERCO and ICMBio are working in
close co-operation in the delivery of MPAs and a wider
unified policy in zoning the marine environment for sus-
tainable use. The recent creation of a Brazilian Ministry of
Fisheries brings another state actor into the marine gover-
nance interplay. The governance mismatch problem also
increases in dimension if we consider the institutional
realm of customary management practices. In Brazil, while
some initiatives are shaping hybrid institutions in an
attempt to get the governance scale right for the problem
(e.g. fishing accords and marine extractive reserves initia-
tives) (Gerhardinger and others 2009), they can still be
considered as ‘small drops in the ocean’ given the enor-
mous dimension of the coastline and thousands of fishing
communities existent. It would appear that mismatch is a
worrying tendency in that Brazil’s marine governance
institutions are currently lacking in coordination, though
the potential for such integration exists.
Financial Shortages Creating Structural Problems
All visited MPAs report shortages of financial support to
some degree. This problem also affects other MPAs in the
country, such as the Corumbau RESEX (Silva 2004),
reflecting an understaffed and underfunded government
MPA system. It was estimated in 1997 that there was only
one member of staff for every 27,000 ha of protected area
(including terrestrial) in the country (Pereira 1999).
Maybe the most striking example can be noticed in the
words of the officer in charge of Cananeia-Iguape-Peruıbe
Environmental Protection Area:
Since October 2006 until today, June 2007, I received
only four thousand reais! It is almost a year with only
two thousand dollars, for 230 thousand hectares! And
if I extrapolate for the amount of assignments that I
take care of at the office, we are talking about almost
1 million hectares. The situation is this, it’s chaotic!
638 Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643
123
Brazil is not the only country suffering such financial
shortages to implement its NS of MPAs. Several national
MPA policy analyses have indicated that the MPA targets
are very challenging under existing financial constraint
(Wells and others 2007; Rodrıguez-Martınez 2008). In fact,
around the world lack of funding has been identified as a
primary reason for MPA failure (Gravestock and others
2008). It would appear, however, that the financial short-
ages for Brazilian MPAs are particularly acute.
A contradictory viewpoint was expressed by higher
level MPA government representatives. Interestingly, they
reported that financial constraints are not a ‘big deal’ for
protected areas. According to their viewpoint, the problem
lies in the ineffective administrative system of IBAMA that
impedes funding from reaching the sites, as observed in the
two arguments below:
The argument that there are no funds is not a valid
one. We need more articulation, more operational and
administrative capacity to manage the available
resources.
Our problem is not lack of financial resources, our
problem is resource management.
Another general structural problem impeding the
implementation of MPAs in Brazil is the lack of minimum
and continuous operational infrastructure support (e.g.
boats and personnel). Incredibly, some of the assessed sites
do not even have boats. Boats are essential for most of the
routine patrolling, communication and transportation
activities of any effectively managed MPA. Those officers
in possession of vessels revealed that they had no means of
using them due to lack of money for maintenance, fuel and/
or crew. The result was often abandoned and sometimes
irreparable vessels. Similar problems affected the avail-
ability of cars to support MPA management.
With regards to the availability of sufficient personnel,
in the case of Abrolhos MNP, the situation was classified as
‘chaotic’ by a higher level authority representative, who
stated:
There are two persons working in Abrolhos. This is
absurd, isn’t it? How will a person do the adminis-
trative paperwork, deliver capacity building, take
care of the park, equipment, write documents, do the
financial accounting… it’s impossible!.
Such human resource limitations were a commonly
discussed problem and were linked to many other conse-
quences, i.e. patrolling deficiencies and a lack of commu-
nication channels with local communities. On two
occasions, not only the quantity, but also the quality of
available personnel was a key concern. Firstly, most MPAs
are governed by professionals with a natural sciences
background according to a MPA manager. According to
this interviewee, natural scientists are not sufficiently
skilled to understand and deal with complex social issues
that dominate typical MPA management scenarios. Having
a social sciences background was neglected as an important
skill for MPA management, especially those sites pro-
moting sustainable use.
Secondly, some MPA officers reported having serious
problems with the efficiency of some of their current staff,
who were apparently not working effectively. This is
considered as a general structural problem affecting the
institution, whereby IBAMA has ‘stagnated’ according to
this viewpoint, suffering from staff inefficiency, which
derives amongst other things from lost motivation and a
lack of training (including some officers themselves), and a
significant proportion of barely ‘retired’ officers who draw
a salary but are no longer committed to their duties.
On many occasions, other examples of wastage of public
funds were evident. In Cananeia-Iguape-Peruıbe EPA, for
instance, substantial effort and money was invested in a
management plan several years ago. However it was never
officially published in the government register nor subse-
quently implemented. Today, this plan is considered
obsolete and the MPA is indeed still in need of a man-
agement plan. Overall, there was also a feeling that too
little funding was available to support MPAs, and that the
funding that was available was utilized inefficiently and
ineffectively. It is important to highlight that since 2007 a
new system has been implemented to better manage MPA
vehicles and boats, including maintenance and operation
costs. It remains to be seen whether this initiative will be a
success.
A recent financial audit estimated the need for an
investment of approximately 390 million dollars to
implement all 299 federal protected areas in Brazil (Muanis
and others 2009), or 0.1% of the total Brazilian government
tax collection (around 392 billion dollars in 2008). How-
ever, the 2008 budget allocated to ICMBio was around 82
million dollars. Recently, new complementary sources of
money have been sought to fund MPAs, i.e. environmental
compensation obligations from development projects,
environmental fines and voluntary donations by private
companies, amongst others. Nevertheless, it is still early to
evaluate the success of these funding schemes in coping
with the structural financial drama. The benefits and risks
these new kinds of institutional partnerships pose to MPA
governance remain to be seen.
The Overly Bureaucratic Management
and Administrative System
Further to the above-mentioned bureaucratic financial
administrative system currently in place, a critical issue
highlighted by some MPA officers and higher-level MPA
Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 639
123
authorities is that the management system is overly
bureaucratic. Accompanying every management measure
discussed and voted upon by a MPA Management Council,
for instance, there has to be a ‘long and painful’ legal
process. In other words, every single management measure
has to undergo a bureaucratic evaluation process by several
higher levels of ICMBio (formerly IBAMA) until it is
published as new legislation and finally implemented. This
process can take months, if not years, and is considered a
serious impediment for managing marine resources which
are, in the words of an MPA officer, ‘…dynamic and
therefore need frequent evaluation and re-evaluation’.
The lack of sufficient and well-qualified support per-
sonnel means that officers have to deal themselves with
minor administrative paperwork. Yet, the administrative
system is sometimes so bureaucratic and there is so much
work overload that more than once an officer reported
having to return unspent money to the government by the
end of a fiscal year (even in contexts of extreme financial
constraint), due to a lack of time and opportunities to
administer its expenditure. This failing was also recently
noted by Muanis and others (2009), who estimated that
only 30% of the total ICMBio’s 2008 budget had been
spent by October of that year.
As seen before, a proportion of the money used for MPA
implementation in Brazil derives from the ‘environmental
compensation’ legal compromise of development enter-
prises (e.g. oil and the ports sector), whereby they provide
funds for MPAs to offset the environmental impacts of
their activities. Some sites have been almost fully depen-
dent on these financial sources for several years, as is the
case of Abrolhos MNP. As well as the ethical and equity
issues raised by such compensation, the administrative
processes through which these funds pass were also con-
sidered to be very bureaucratic, consequently limiting their
translation into effective marine conservation outcomes.
Disconnection Between Marine Protected Areas Policy
and Its Delivery
In general terms, the legal de jure MPA framework in
Brazil was regarded by the interviewees as well structured.
However, most MPA officers considered the actual de facto
influence of MPA laws and policies, such as those in the
National Policy on Protected Areas, to be ‘non-existent’ or
‘very light’. One officer had argued for more specific and
objective guidance that could be translated into clear
management targets:
In the past years, we have not been receiving too
much guidance from Brasilia [capital of Brazil and
home of higher level departments of ICMBio and
IBAMA]. People there are a bit lost too.
The only exception to the opinion regarding MPA
management on the ground was provided by two MPA
managers. They both considered that the National Policy
on Protected Areas ‘strengthened’ their institutional agenda
towards the establishment of a local mosaic of integrated
MPAs (the two cases were officially designated as MMPAs
under the umbrella of Brazilian legislation).
Many of the visited MPAs were located in areas stra-
tegically and officially recognized as of high marine con-
servation priority in Brazil. This is the case of the three
MPAs located in Sao Paulo state. The Tupiniquins ES
officer noted that these MPAs are located within a ‘priority
hotspot’, declared a Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage
Site (UNESCO) and are deemed a high priority marine
conservation area by national legislation. Nevertheless,
despite this high priority context, all of these MPAs still
suffer serious implementation constraints and received no
further government support in the opinion of the managers.
MPA officers were also asked about their opinion on a
recurrently debated dilemma—the balance between efforts
to create more protected areas and to implement the
existing ones. This debate relates to policy priority setting
in the actual context of limited resources allocated for
protected areas within government. Unanimously, all MPA
officers and higher level MPA government authorities
opined in favour of the current national policy of desig-
nating more MPAs along the coast. Amongst the arguments
supporting this view is the poor biological representation of
the current NS of MPAs and the political contract assumed
with the CBD.
Of course, these are not divergent approaches and
should both be pursued as priorities. Nevertheless, the
consensual support for the current model of designating
more MPAs could have significant implications for the
success of the national MPA strategy in the long run. For
instance, on many occasions even a ‘paper MPA’ is
believed to result in ‘some protection which is better than
nothing’. However, as pointed out by one MPA officer
‘…the adoption of this approach generates [people’s] dis-
belief in the model’, potentially undermining their future
support for MPAs. Furthermore, the designation phase is
considered to be a fundamental step in the future success of
the MPA, and therefore needs special care. Mistakes made
in the early stages of designating a given MPA can seri-
ously undermine future public support. For instance, the
importance of placing effort in mobilizing the community
previously to the designation of a RESEX was noted by
one MPA officer:
The model of marine extractive reserves is viable, but
it has to be made on good work before the designa-
tion of the site, to stimulate a better social organi-
zation before the designation, because thus once the
640 Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643
123
reserve is designated there is already a mobilized
community.
The technical and strategic basis for the establishment of
a well planned and efficient NS of MPAs was often con-
sidered as a success of the Brazilian strategy. However,
some of the MPAs currently in place were often said to
have been designated without clear design principles and
public participation. An interesting suggestion was pro-
vided by the Arvoredo MBR officer in this regard. He
believes that MPAs should be designated/relocated based
on adequate research supporting correct site location and
border delineation, strategically locating them at places
minimizing public opposition. A policy suggestion derived
from this viewpoint would be, for instance, to ensure fur-
ther inputs of stakeholder knowledge and opinions during
the definition of the Brazilian strategic maps for marine
conservation (Table 1).
Conclusions
The structural dramas outlined in this research cut across
all MPA categories, including both top-down and bottom-
up approaches. They represent the perception of those
living within the governing system. Despite a few diverg-
ing opinions on specific issues, the informants’ perceptions
were fundamentally convergent and robust about the major
dramas, which in turn could be regarded as structural
‘governance’ challenges to the implementation of the
Brazilian NS of MPAs.
The dramas are also inter-dependent and were noticed or
‘perceived’ at various levels and scales of the governing
system. We suggest that they build up on governance’s
‘wicked problems’ (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009),
because they are not only driven by financial and institu-
tional conflicts and limitations, but also reflect social, cul-
tural, political and economic dynamics of modern Brazilian
society. Some of these, e.g. lack of money, operational and
human resources, high bureaucracy, can also be noticed in
other sectors of the Brazilian public administration, and
might be derived from cultural aspects and the relatively
recent history of Brazilian democratic institutions (the
country’s democratic constitution was only published in
1988, after more than 20 years of military dictatorship).
A burning question arises from the findings of this study.
How, in the face of so many structural deficiencies, would
it be possible to pro-actively work on issues such as
monitoring effectiveness, active restoration, invasive spe-
cies control, community participation, environmental edu-
cation, and so many other priorities currently being
promoted by the MPA society and marine conservationists
worldwide? The general finding is that implementation
capacity and effectiveness decreases as the NS of MPAs
expands and addresses broader scale conservation targets,
e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, National Program
on Protected Areas. In the meantime, for instance, the
highly unique coral reef systems of the Abrolhos Bank or
the livelihoods of hundreds of communities along the coast
are being destroyed by over-exploitation caused by open
access and lack of governance of the Brazilian seascape.
Lack of specific guidelines (e.g. management plans),
lack of money and other resources are recurrent arguments
used by MPA officers to justify not being able to imple-
ment effective conservation measures at a particular MPA.
During the phase of discussion of this manuscript with
other MPA practitioners (eg. NGOs, community leaders), it
was often suggested that by recurrently using these argu-
ments, officers might be trying to hide their lack of ‘self-
capacity/skills/interest’ to manage. Another way of putting
it is that ‘things would move forward if only a talented
individual would be in the right position’. While this type
of personal evaluation was not the purpose of our research,
we recognize that the ‘personal approach’ does count in
MPA implementation effectiveness. MPA officers can act
as catalysers, finding creative alternatives to problems, e.g.
establishing partnerships with other stakeholders in order to
fill operational and logistic gaps in management and
enforcement. In this regard, the lack of professional moti-
vation and pessimistic atmosphere present during inter-
views can affect how the entire system is able to respond to
crisis through creativity and innovation.
Recent research and practice on natural resource man-
agement has shown that leadership is a very important (or
even crucial) variable for the success of governance sys-
tems (Timmers 2004; Seixas and Davy 2008). MPAs
operating within a similar governance framework can
achieve different performance outcomes. The role of MPA
managers, their personal approach to conflict resolution or
even personal pathways and cultural background does
influence how a particular governance system operates.
Nevertheless, this critical situation can be, in part, derived
from the lack of institutional support to the individual MPA
officer. ICMBio has not yet reversed this picture, as after
two years of existence, it has still to build minimum
institutional executive capacity to support MPAs. This
clearly illustrates how interconnected the dramas are.
Nevertheless, this unsatisfactory situation does not mean
that our current MPAs are of no use and do not generate
biodiversity conservation outcomes. Progress has certainly
been made towards marine conservation in the country in
the past years. For instance, ICMBio has recently offered
patrolling capacity building courses to nearly 400 staff
members. In addition, in September 2009 ICMBio estab-
lished the National Academy for Biodiversity, which will
be responsible for continuous personnel capacity building.
Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 641
123
Oil and gas exploration was recently banned nearby the
Abrolhos MNP (Marchioro and others 2005), and Right
Whales populations are increasing within the Baleia Franca
EPA. Ultimately, the designation of a MPA brings to
people’s mind and to the institutional dimension of the
social-ecological system a conceptual/symbolic reference
that values marine conservation and sustainable develop-
ment. In practice, this means that stakeholders’ lives can
potentially change—in varying levels and ways—to adapt
to this new way of looking and relating to the sea. How-
ever, the positive effects are thus most of the time sub-
jective and diffuse, because no comprehensive and
objective effectiveness analysis has yet been undertaken on
the Brazilian NS of MPAs.
While it is acknowledged that MPAs in Brazil are
benefitting from increasing studies on the ecology of our
marine ecosystems, the solutions to these complex and
interconnected problems will most likely emerge from
systemic and interdisciplinary studies, as opposed to
reductionist approaches, drawing not only on ecological
but also on social, organizational, political, economic and
administrative sciences. Furthermore, we also suggest that
ICMBio would benefit from a thorough external adminis-
trative audit to tackle overly complex bureaucracy in all its
forms. It could also be argued, however, that the motives
for the break-up of IBAMA and the ongoing tolerance of
the institutional stagnation that it’s MPA successor, ICM-
Bio, seems to be suffering, are symptomatic of a lack of
leadership by the federal government, or even of a political
resistance to marine conservation measures that might
curtail economic development opportunities.
Thus, while it is sound to support the reasoning behind
the need of actions to fulfill broad scale, international and
strategic commitments, one has to consider the possible
negative consequences or collateral effects arising from the
continuous reproduction of a rhetoric approach by federal
government in response to environmental problems.
Ferreira and Tavolaro (2008) have argued that historically
the environmental legislation in Brazil is rhetorically
manipulated on a regular basis and set aside whenever it
contradicts other priorities. They reveal the ‘inexistence of
an autonomous judicial code capable of regulating the
relationship between the state, the economic subsystem,
and society at large’. Nevertheless, sociopolitical coalitions
and networks are emerging from Brazilian civil society to
deal with marine conservation issues at national and less
frequently at international levels (e.g. SOS Abrolhos, Rede
Meros do Brasil and Rede Mangue Mar). These networks
face enormous challenges, considering the extremely high
priority the Brazilian government places on rapid economic
growth, but they will play a major role in scaling-up
mechanisms for societal governance and control of coastal
and maritime biodiversity and resources.
Many of the challenges and dramas associated with the
Brazilian NS of MPAs discussed in this article resonate
with the reasons, outlined by Kelleher and others (1995),
why MPAs around the world were lacking in effectiveness,
particularly insufficient financial and technical resources to
develop and implement management plans, inadequate
commitment to enforcing management, lack of clear
organisational responsibilities for management and absence
of coordination between agencies with responsibilities
relevant to MPAs. It is argued that a key issue underlying
all these reasons is a lack of state commitment to an
effective NS of MPAs and therefore of political leadership
and state capacity to implement and enforce effective MPA
measures. IUCN-WCPA (2008) identifies clear and effec-
tive leadership, commitment and support at both the
political and agency levels, with a shared vision and
capacity to achieve success, as being key to achieving
effective MPA networks. The views reported in this article
from the perspectives of those officers involved in the
Brazilan NS of MPAs indicate that this is severely lacking.
The balance between the need for more localized audits
of and reforms to ICMBio and the need for political
measures to promote state leadership and support for
making Brazil’s NS of MPAs much more effective is a
debate that this article hopes to stimulate and contribute to.
It is concluded that the need for this debate is critical given
what appears to be the very low level of effectiveness of
the present NS of MPAs in Brazil and the lack of official
evaluations to actually assess such effectiveness. Contin-
uing to focus on the designation of more paper MPAs
whilst neglecting to address this low effectiveness will
achieve little beyond fulfilling, on paper, Brazil’s national
and international marine biodiversity commitments. The
key need is for political commitment and the development
of state capacity at all levels of government to ensure an
effective NS of MPAs, without which the dramas will
continue and the network of paper MPAs may degrade into
pulp fiction.
Acknowledgments This is a contribution from the the Meros do
Brasil network (www.merosdobrasil.org). We sincerely acknowledge
the staff of the Ministry of Environment (MMA), Instituto Chico
Mendes de Conservacao da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) and IBAMA
for providing their time and dedication to our interviews and logistics.
We thank the key financial support of Programa Petrobras Ambiental
and Center for Marine Conservation (Duke University) to our work,
and a scholarship provided by Shell Chevening Centenary Scholar-
ship to Leopoldo Cavaleri Gerhardinger for his master degree at
University College London.
References
Abdallah PR, Sumaila UR (2007) An historical account of Brazilian
public policy on fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy 31:444–450
642 Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643
123
Agardy T, Wilkinson T (2003) Conceptualizing a system of marine
protected area networks for North America. In Conference
presentation, science and management of protected areas asso-
ciation conference, Victoria, BC, 11–16 May 2003
Chatwin A (ed) (2007) Priorities for coastal and marine conservation
in South America. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA
CIRM—Comissao Interministerial para os Recursos do Mar (1999)
V Plano Setorial para os Recursos do Mar (1999–2003), Brasılia
DF
Crowder LB, Osherenko G, Young OR, Airame S, Norse EA, Baron
N, Day JC, Douvere F, Ehler CN, Halpern BS, Langdon SJ,
McLeod KL, Ogden JC, Peach RE, Rosenberg AA, Wilson JA
(2006) Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance. Science
313:617–618
Ferreira IV, Prates APL (2002) O processo de integracao da gestao
das unidades de conservacao marinho costeiras de santa
catarina–Brasil. Gerenciamento Costeiro Integrado 2:10–11
Ferreira L, Tavolaro S (2008) Environmental concerns in contempo-
rary Brazil: an insight into some theoretical and societal
backgrounds (1970–1990s). International Journal of Politics,
Culture and Society 19:161–177
Ferreira BP, Maida M, Messias LT (2004) The Environmental
Municipal Councils as an instrument in coastal integrated
management. Journal of Coastal Research SI 39
Ferreira BP, Maida M, Messias LT (2007) Os Conselhos Municipais
de Meio Ambiente como Instrumento de Gestao Integrada: A
Experiencia na Area de Protecao Ambiental Costa de Corais
(AL/PE), In: AREAS PROTEGIDAS DO BRASIL 4, Brasılia,
MMA
Floeter SR, Halpern BS, Ferreira CEL (2006) Effects of fishing and
protection on Brazilian reef fishes. Biological Conservation
128:391–402
Gerhardinger LC, Godoy EAS, Jones PJS (2009) Local ecological
knowledge and the management of marine protected areas in
Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management 52:154–165
Goncalves L (2008) A deriva–um panorama dos mares brasileiros.
Greenpeace, Sao Paulo
Gravestock P, Roberts CM, Bailey A (2008) The income require-
ments of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management
51(3):272–283
IUCN-WCPA (International Union for the Conservation of Nature-
World Commission on Protected Areas) (2008) Establishing
marine protected area networks—making it happen. IUCN-
WCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
The Nature Conservancy, Washington DC
Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as
a wicked problem. Marine Policy 33(4):553–560
Jones PJS (2001) Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences
and the search for middle ground. Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 11(3):197–216
Jones PJS (2006) Collective action problems posed by no take zones.
Marine Policy 30(2):143–156
Jones PJS (2007) Point of view—Arguments for conventional
fisheries management and against no-take marine protected
areas: only half of the story? Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 17(1):31–43
Kelleher G, Bleakley C, Wells S (1995) Priority areas for a global
representative system of marine protected areas. Report to the
World Bank Environment Department, Washington DC
Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Gaines SD, Andelman S (2003) Plugging a
hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves.
Ecological Applications 13:3–7
MMA (2004) Gestao Participativa do SNUC, Areas Protegidas do
Brasil 2. MMA, Brasılia
MMA (2006) Sumario Executivo do terceiro relatorio nacional para a
convencao sobre diversidade biologica: Brazil, Ministerio do
Meio Ambiente. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Brasılia
Marchioro GB, Ilha HH (2007) A Elaboracao do Programa Rumar—
Rede de Unidades Marinhas e Costeiras do Ibama: Uma Analise
da sua Evolucao e Expectativas de Implementacao. In: XII
Congresso Latino-americano de Ciencias do Mar, 2007, Anais
do XII COLACMAR, Florianopolis
Marchioro GB, Nunes MA, Dutra GF, Moura RD, Pereira PGP (2005)
Avaliacao dos impactos da exploracao e producao de hidrocar-
bonetos no Banco dos Abrolhos e adjacencias. Megadiversidade
1(2):225–310
Medeiros R (2006) Evolucao das tipologias e categorias de areas
protegidas no Brasil. Revista Ambiente e Sociedade 9(1):41–64
Muanis MM, Serrao M, Geluda L (2009) Quanto custa uma unidade
de conservacao federal?: uma visao estrategica para o financia-
mento do Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservacao
(SNUC). Rio de Janeiro, Funbio
Pereira PM (1999) Unidades de Conservacao das Zonas Costeira e
Marinha do Brasil. http://www.bdt.org.br/workshop/costa/uc
Prates AP, Cordeiro AZ, Ferreira BP, Maida M (2007) Unidades de
Conservacao Costeiras e Marinhas de Uso Sustentavel como
Instrumento para Gestao Pesqueira. In: MMA/SBF (eds) Areas
Aquaticas Protegidas como Instrumento de Gestao Pesqueira,
Brasilia. Serie Areas Protegidas 1:25–38
Rodrıguez-Martınez RE (2008) Community involvement in marine
protected areas: the case of Puerto Morelos reef, Mexico. Journal
of Environmental Management 88:1151–1160
Seixas CS, Davy B (2008) Self-organization in integrated conserva-
tion and development initiatives. International Journal of the
Commons 2:99–125
Silva PP (2004) From common property to co-management: lessons
from Brazil’s first maritime extractive reserve. Marine Policy
28:419–428
Timmer V (2004) Community-based Conservation and Leadership:
frame-works for analyzing the equator initiative. CID graduate
student work-ing paper no. 2. Science, Environment, and
Development Group, Center for International Development,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
UNEP-WCMC (2008) National and regional networks of marine
protected areas: a review of progress. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
Wells S, Burgess N, Ngusaru A (2007) Towards the 2012 marine
protected area targets in Eastern Africa. Ocean & Coastal
Management 50:67–83
Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 643
123
