Marine Protected Dramas: The Flaws of the Brazilian National System of Marine Protected Areas

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 DOI 10.1007/s00267-010-9554-7

Marine Protected Dramas: The Flaws of the Brazilian National System 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 managers 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 conservation agencies. Interviewees’ narratives were generally pessimistic and the National System was perceived as

L. C. Gerhardinger (&) Associac¸a˜o de Estudos Costeiros e Marinhos—ECOMAR NGO, Rua Dr. Jose´ Andre´ da Cruz, 539, 45900-000 Caravelas, BA, Brazil e-mail: leocavaleri@gmail.com L. C. Gerhardinger CTTMar, Laborato´rio de Educac¸a˜o 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 Conservac¸a˜o da Biodiversidade, SCEN, Trecho 2, Ed. Sede do IBAMA, CEP 70.818-900 Brası´lia, 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 Conservac¸a˜o da Biodiversidade, Centro Tamar, Rua Andre´ia n. 1—Volta do Robalo, CEP 42.835-000 Arembepe, Camac¸ari, BA, Brazil B. P. Ferreira Centro de Tecnologia, Departamento de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Arquitetura, s/n, Cidade Universita´ria, 50670-901 Recife, PE, Brazil

123

weak, with few recognizable marine conservation outcomes 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 disconnect between MPA policy and its delivery. Furthermore, 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 (ICMBio), and the need for political measures to promote state leadership and support. Continuing to focus on the designation 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 biodiversity conservation and fisheries management by scientists

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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 discussing 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 represented in the outputs of international conventions and conferences such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (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 conservation strategy. However, delivering marine conservation 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 population 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 representative NS of MPAs by 2012, but the achievement of such targets raises significant ‘collective action problems’ (Jones 2006). Although the Brazilian Ministry of Environment 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’.

631

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 conservation 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 protected 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 establishing 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

123

632

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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, multiinstitutional 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 government created the ‘Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservac¸a˜o 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 potentially 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 control of the institution. However, as this organizational restructuring has still not been fully completed, this clearly has significant implications for the effective implementation 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, Sa˜o 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

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 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

633 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

2. Traditional populations

3. Public use and business

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 Qualify, regulate and structure visitation activities, public use and recreation within protected areas

• Capacity building • Local social control • Environmental education • Strengthening local communities • Sustainable use and production

• Environmental services • Business development • Visitation • Sustainable forestry management

4. Territorial consolidation 5. Designation planning and evaluation of protected areas

Deliver and demarcate protected area limits and deal with land rights regularization procedures

• Territorial demarcation and signalization

Develop and implement tools and actions towards the designation and management of protected areas

• Designation

• Land rights regularization • 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

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

Promote knowledge generation on biodiversity conservation and management of protected areas

• Promotion and delivery of research

8. Monitoring and research

• Fire prevention and control • Design and implementation of action plans

• Biodiversity monitoring • Information management • Negotiation of environmental compensation

9. Management of environmental compensation and special financial resources

Manage environmental compensation financial resources and systematize special resources

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

12. Information technology and management

Integrated and strategic management of logistic and technologic resources

• Logistics and supply

13. Finance

Operationalize financial resources from the Union

• Finances

14. Budget and operational planning

Promote administrative modernization, implementing tools and methodologies to enhance institutional management effectiveness

• Operational planning

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

• Implementation of environmental compensation

• Corporative education

• Information technology • Financial collection • Budget execution

• Parliamentary advice • Ombundsman

123

634

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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

Fig. 1 Four states were visited and interviews made with marine protected area officers at each location. From the bottom upwards, black dots are located in the states of Santa Catarina, Sa˜o Paulo, Bahia and Pernambuco

MPA officer from the relevant local authority was interviewed 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 representatives 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, Protected 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 organizational 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, semitranscripts were produced and a document presenting the

123

main issues gleaned from these was sent to each interviewee 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 important 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.

1990 (1,444 ha) Sustainable use South Brazil

2002 (1,181 ha) Sustainable use Southern Brazil

1989 (17,600 ha) Non use South Brazil

1983 (91,235 ha) Non use Northern Brazil

1986 (43 ha) Non-use Southern Brazil

1997 (413,563 ha) Sustainable use Northern Brazil

1984 (234,000 ha) Sustainable use Southern Brazil

2000 (156,100 ha) Sustainable use South Brazil

1992 (3,000 ha) Sustainable use South Brazil

1. Pirajubae´ Marine Extractive Reserve

2. Mandira Marine Extractive Reserve (RESEX)

3. Arvoredo Biological Marine Reserve

4. Abrolhos Marine National Park

5. Tupiniquins Ecological Station

6. Costa dos Corais Environmental Protection Area

7. Canane´ia-Iguape-Peruı´be Environmental Protection Area

8. Baleia Franca Environmental Protection Area

9. Anhatomirim Environmental Protection Area

Do not have a management council in place. Do not have management plan.

Management council only informs decisions. Do not have management plan.

Management council only informs decisions. Do not have a management plan

Do not have a working management council in place.

A management plan was presented to the government in 2006 by Projeto Recifes Costeiros, an IADB funded multi-institucional initiative, but to this date has not been implemented (Ferreira and others 2007).

Do not have a management council in place. Do not have a management plan.

Management council only informs decisions. Has management plan.

Management council only informs decisions. Has a management plan.

Management council deliberates over decisions.

Has management plan.

Do not have a management council in place nor a management plan.

Management council attributes

Number indicates the reference of the marine protected area officer interviewed

Designation date/size/ category/location

Marine protected area

Table 3 Features of the nine marine protected areas assessed in Brazil

Mangroves, rainforest, rocky shorelines

Coastal and offshore marine, rainforest, mangroves, coastal lagoons

Rainforest, coastal inshore, estuarine, mangroves

Coral reefs, coastal inshore

Rocky shoreline, island, coastal marine

Coral reefs, islands, offshore marine

Rain forest cover, marine offshore, rocky shorelines

Mangrove, estuarine

Mangroves, mud plains, coastal marine

Environment

Sustainable fisheries and tourism, dolphin conservation

Sustainable tourism and fisheries, whale conservation

Sustainable fisheries

Sustainable tourism and fisheries, coral reef conservation

Marine biodiversity conservation, research

Coral reef conservation, whale conservation and sustainable tourism

Biodiversity conservation, high marine biodiversity, economically important reef finfish species

Sustainable shellfish (e.g. oyster) exploitation, sustainable fisheries, cultural maintenance

Sustainable fisheries, maintain local culture

Main objectives and noteworthy characteristics

Mixed-Approach

Mixed-Approach

Mixed-Approach

Mixed-approach

Top–down

Top–down

Top–down

Bottom–up

Bottom–up

Management approach

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 635

123

636

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 institutional 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 ‘nondemocratic’ and taken in a ‘top-down’ manner. This was corroborated by the viewpoints of all government representatives 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 environmental agency. This argument was often associated with the increasing ‘barriers’ to economic development in Brazil that nature conservation had, through IBAMA’s intervention, 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 institutional 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 surrounding 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 uncertain 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 conservation outside MPAs nor for aquatic resources research,

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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 management. 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 councils, 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 management decisions to council deliberation. This officer’s personal approach increased stakeholder participation and engagement in management council meetings. With regards to the Canane´ia-Iguape-Peruı´be 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 critical 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

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

supervising municipal environmental issues. The COMDEMA 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 experience 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 entities associated with federal institutions. Ferreira and others (2004) argue this is a clear advantage to decision decentralization 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 management 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 Semina´rio 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 management plans. This supports the observation of one interviewee 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 management plans have been implemented in the country, managers 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

637

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 management plans was observed by Pereira (1999), who argued that a ‘terrestrial approach’ dominates the management of the current MPAs in Brazil. Guidelines for designing management 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; Gonc¸alves 2008; Gerhardinger and others 2009). Several approaches have been devised to date to evaluate MPA effectiveness, offering the Brazilian government a wellstructured starting point, but these have not yet been utilized 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 Scorecard 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

123

638

‘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 Sa˜o Paulo mosaic, for instance, officers acknowledge that it was necessary to integrate logistical and human resources of neighbor MPAs in order to maximize and increase the potential benefits accruing from individual MPAs. At least two MMPAs have been legally designated in Brazil (Rio de Janeiro and Sa˜o 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 compensation 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 implementation of their sites, the objectives of the RUMAR programme 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 compensation legislation in Brazil is being revised. Here two different 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 modernized institution with much less administrative bureaucracy 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 initiative 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.

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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 marine 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 sustainable use. The recent creation of a Brazilian Ministry of Fisheries brings another state actor into the marine governance 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 initiatives) (Gerhardinger and others 2009), they can still be considered as ‘small drops in the ocean’ given the enormous 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 Canane´ia-Iguape-Peruı´be 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!

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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; Rodrı´guez-Martı´nez 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 shortages 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 availability 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 administrative 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 consequences, i.e. patrolling deficiencies and a lack of communication 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

639

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 promoting 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 Canane´ia-Iguape-Peruı´be 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 subsequently implemented. Today, this plan is considered obsolete and the MPA is indeed still in need of a management 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). However, 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

123

640

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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:

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 strategically and officially recognized as of high marine conservation priority in Brazil. This is the case of the three MPAs located in Sa˜o 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 designating 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] disbelief 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 seriously 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:

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 model of marine extractive reserves is viable, but it has to be made on good work before the designation of the site, to stimulate a better social organization before the designation, because thus once the

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 personnel 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 enterprises (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 dependent 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 considered to be very bureaucratic, consequently limiting their translation into effective marine conservation outcomes.

Disconnection Between Marine Protected Areas Policy and Its Delivery

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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 considered 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 provided 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 further 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 bottomup approaches. They represent the perception of those living within the governing system. Despite a few diverging 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 institutional conflicts and limitations, but also reflect social, cultural, 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 species control, community participation, environmental education, and so many other priorities currently being promoted by the MPA society and marine conservationists worldwide? The general finding is that implementation

641

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 implement 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 arguments, officers might be trying to hide their lack of ‘selfcapacity/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 motivation and pessimistic atmosphere present during interviews can affect how the entire system is able to respond to crisis through creativity and innovation.

Recent research and practice on natural resource management has shown that leadership is a very important (or even crucial) variable for the success of governance systems (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 established the National Academy for Biodiversity, which will be responsible for continuous personnel capacity building.

123

642

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 development. 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. However, the positive effects are thus most of the time subjective 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 administrative 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, ICMBio, 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.

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643

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 effective 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. Continuing 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 Conservac¸a˜o 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 Scholarship 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

Environmental Management (2011) 47:630–643 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 association 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—Comissa˜o Interministerial para os Recursos do Mar (1999) V Plano Setorial para os Recursos do Mar (1999–2003), Brası´lia 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 integrac¸a˜o da gesta˜o das unidades de conservac¸a˜o marinho costeiras de santa catarina–Brasil. Gerenciamento Costeiro Integrado 2:10–11 Ferreira L, Tavolaro S (2008) Environmental concerns in contemporary 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 Gesta˜o Integrada: A ´ rea de Protec¸a˜o Ambiental Costa de Corais Experieˆncia na A ´ REAS PROTEGIDAS DO BRASIL 4, Brası´lia, (AL/PE), In: A 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 ` deriva–um panorama dos mares brasileiros.

Gonc¸alves L (2008) A Greenpeace, Sa˜o Paulo Gravestock P, Roberts CM, Bailey A (2008) The income requirements of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 51(3):272–283 IUCN-WCPA (International Union for the Conservation of NatureWorld Commission on Protected Areas) (2008) Establishing marine protected area networks—making it happen. IUCNWCPA, 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

643 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 ´ reas Protegidas do MMA (2004) Gesta˜o Participativa do SNUC, A Brasil 2. MMA, Brası´lia MMA (2006) Suma´rio Executivo do terceiro relato´rio nacional para a convenc¸a˜o sobre diversidade biolo´gica: Brazil, Ministe´rio do Meio Ambiente. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Brası´lia Marchioro GB, Ilha HH (2007) A Elaborac¸a˜o do Programa Rumar— Rede de Unidades Marinhas e Costeiras do Ibama: Uma Ana´lise da sua Evoluc¸a˜o e Expectativas de Implementac¸a˜o. In: XII Congresso Latino-americano de Cieˆncias do Mar, 2007, Anais do XII COLACMAR, Floriano´polis Marchioro GB, Nunes MA, Dutra GF, Moura RD, Pereira PGP (2005) Avaliac¸a˜o dos impactos da explorac¸a˜o e produc¸a˜o de hidrocarbonetos no Banco dos Abrolhos e adjaceˆncias. Megadiversidade 1(2):225–310 Medeiros R (2006) Evoluc¸a˜o das tipologias e categorias de a´reas protegidas no Brasil. Revista Ambiente e Sociedade 9(1):41–64 Muanis MM, Serra˜o M, Geluda L (2009) Quanto custa uma unidade de conservac¸a˜o federal?: uma visa˜o estrate´gica para o financiamento do Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservac¸a˜o (SNUC). Rio de Janeiro, Funbio Pereira PM (1999) Unidades de Conservac¸a˜o 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 Conservac¸a˜o Costeiras e Marinhas de Uso Sustentavel como Instrumento para Gesta˜o Pesqueira. In: MMA/SBF (eds) Areas Aqua´ticas Protegidas como Instrumento de Gesta˜o Pesqueira, ´ reas Protegidas 1:25–38 Brasilia. Se´rie A Rodrı´guez-Martı´nez RE (2008) Community involvement in marine protected areas: the case of Puerto Morelos reef, Me´xico. Journal of Environmental Management 88:1151–1160 Seixas CS, Davy B (2008) Self-organization in integrated conservation 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

123