Marine Protected Areas in Brazil: An ecological approach regarding the large marine ecosystems

Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Marine Protected Areas in Brazil: An ecological approach regarding the large marine ecosystems Alexandre Schiavetti a, *, Jacques Manz b, Cleverson Zapelini dos Santos c, Teresa Cristina Magro d, Maria Inez Pagani e a

Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, State University of Santa Cruz (UESC), Rod Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Salobrinho, 45662-900 Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil Regional and Environmental Development (UESC), Brazil Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation (UESC), Brazil d Department of Forest Sciences, School of Agriculture Luiz de Queiroz, São Paulo University (ESALQ/USP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil e Department of Ecology, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil b c

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 26 February 2013

The objective of this study was to address the importance of implementing Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in Brazil and to examine their distribution, based on the delimitation of Large Marine Ecosystems. Out of a total of 336 protected areas identified in Brazilian coastal and marine areas, the North Platform has the largest protected area, but the ecosystem with the largest number of protected area, predominantly sustainable areas, was the East Coast followed by the South Platform. One of the reasons the eastern coast of Brazil to have more protected areas is the fact that there is a largest amount of coral reefs. Additionally there was political opportunities for the creation of protected areas for sustainable use. The coastal region of Brazil has achieved the goal proposed by the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity e 7, but only then through the category V of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which is not the best efficient means of conserving resources. The goal for marine conservation shows only the area above the recommended under protection in North Platform. The Marine portion of the East Coast and the South Platform has few protected areas, regardless of category management. We consider the coastal region the range of 12 nautical miles from baselines determined in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As for the number of strategies permitted by law and used for the conservation of coastal and marine systems, coastal systems show a higher number when compared with the marine system. We suggest that the Brazilian government should specify strategies for the protection of marine systems and expand the protected areas of all Large Marine Ecosystems. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Interest in assessing and managing the natural resources of marine environments is a relatively recent development. One approach for classifying coastal regions across all continents is that of the Large Marine Ecosystems. This system was proposed in 1984 and is based on ecological criteria for the differentiation of ecosystems and are organized in: (i) bathymetry, (ii) hydrography, (iii) productivity and (iv) trophic relationships (Sherman and Hempel, 2009). Ekau and Knoppers (1999) divided Brazil into three distinct large marine ecosystems: the North Platform, the East Coast and the South Platform. A marine biome comprises oceans,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ55 7336805262. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Schiavetti). 0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.02.003

seas and the marine area close to the continent that forms the so-called coastal zone. One of the most efficient methods for conserving biodiversity is the maintenance of viable populations of native species in their natural system, managed for the purposes of perpetuation in locals designated as Protected Areas (Game et al., 2009; Benedetti-Cecchi et al., 2003; Gell and Roberts, 2002; Halpern and Warner, 2003). In Brazil these areas are called Conservation Units. Marine and coastal protected areas are essential for the protection of marine biodiversity and the subsistence of human communities dependent upon marine resources (Kelleher and Recchia, 1998). In Brazil the coastal and marine areas are understood as one Biome. Coastal areas are the fringe immediately connected with the land areas. Recent data indicate that there are approximately 5880 Marine Protected Areas, covering more than 4.2 million km2 of the ocean. This is only 1.17% of the world’s total marine area. The main focus is

A. Schiavetti et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

on continental regions and platform areas, and coverage in these areas is around 4.32%. The level of protection in the open sea is only 0.91% (Toropova et al., 2010). This is only go to be effective if an action plan to protect the coast areas are implemented together with an appropriate planning of land use and urban design. In this study, we analyzed two distinct but interrelated environments: the coastal zone, defined according to the National Coastal Zone Management Program (Brasil, 1988), whose conservation practice standards have only recently been brought into action in Brazil, and the seas and oceans, where conservation measures are still very recent. To incorporate different views on the natural environment and its interaction with humans, the Brazilian government, through Law No. 9985 of July 18, 2000 (Brasil, 2000) and decree No. 4340, August 2002 (Brasil, 2002), created the National System of Conservation of Nature. This legislation established parameters for the creation, implementation and management of protective areas (territorial space and its environmental resources, including jurisdictional waters), defining categories based not only on the degree of protection of resources but also on the conservation objectives for the areas. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) suggests six management categories for protected areas around the world, and it proposes that all of them should be an integral part of the national system of protected areas (IUCN, 1994). The National System of Conservation of Nature suggests two classes of protection areas which, in turn, comprise 12 different categories: Integral Protection Protected Areas (Ecological Stations, Biological Reserves, National Parks, Natural Monuments and Wildlife Refuges) and Sustainable Use Protected Areas (Environmental Protection Areas, Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest, National Forests, Extractive Reserves, Wildlife Reserves, Sustainable Development Reserves and Private Natural Heritage Reserve). In 1992, the IV World Parks Congress recommended that each biome be composed of at least 10% protected area. This recommendation was used by the CBD at the Seventh Conference of Parties (COP 7) in 2004, where it was agreed that “at least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions should be effectively conserved” (Decision VII/30, CBD, 2004). The term established for the fulfillment of the agreement for land areas ended in 2010, while the term for marine areas ends in 2012 (Coad et al., 2009). Considering that the deadline for the goal established at the Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP 7) by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD Decision VII/30, 2004), which allocated 10% of total land area for conservation on a global scale, expired in 2010 and that the deadline for a similar goal for marine areas is 2012, the following questions arise: What percent of marine and coastal areas in Brazil are protected? Has Brazil achieved the goal established at COP 7? Which are the most frequent management strategies, according to the criterion of the National System of Conservation of Nature? This study aims to present a general picture of the conservation status of coastal and ocean areas in Brazil, thus enabling the development of management strategies to be applied at each Large Marine Ecosystem. The present study also aims to evaluate how the management strategies of marine and coastal Protected Areas are distributed and legally established in Brazil. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Study zone Stretching from the city of Oiapoque e Amapá State (02 020 100 N) to the city of Chui e Rio Grande do Sul State (33 450 1000 S), the Brazilian coast is approximately 10,800 km long considering the cutouts along the coastline (bays, recesses, gulfs, etc.) (MMA, 2010).

97

The sum of the areas of the coastal municipalities listed in the National Coastal Zone Management Program was used to calculate the total coastal area of Brazil. The area of each municipality was obtained from the website of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística e IBGE, in Portuguese).1 In terms of marine area, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, convened in Jamaica in 1982, proposed specific maritime boundaries, which are measured starting from the coast (United Nations, 2002). In Brazil, the Territorial Sea extends 12 miles and represents the area of absolute state sovereignty; the Contiguous Zone makes up the next 12 miles and represents the area of partial sovereignty, while the Exclusive Economic Zone is 188 miles long, including the contiguous zone (United Nations, 2002). Thus, as proposed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the marine area considered in this study refers to the first 200 miles off the coast. This study focused on the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas present in the three Large Marine Ecosystems reclassified by Ekau and Knoppers (1999) (Fig. 1). According to these authors, the Brazilian marine biomes are divided into three Large Marine Ecosystems. According to Duda and Sherman (2002) the limits of the LME are established both by the characteristics of oceanographic and neighboring terrestrial watersheds. The North Platform starts at the north end of the Brazilian coast in the municipality of Oiapoque (02 020 100 N and 52 510 3900 W) and ends at the edge of the boundaries between the states of Maranhão and Piauí, in the region of Delta Parnaíba (02 520 4500 S and 41 400 0100 W). This platform is characterized by climatic stability, smooth topography and high tidal ranges and it has a significant external source of organic matter that gives it a high rate of primary production. The East Coast starts at Delta Parnaíba (02 520 4500 S and 41 400 0100 W) in the city of Luís Correia, Piauí, and ends in Cabo de São Tomé, State of Rio de Janeiro (21 55’000 S and 40 S). The East Coast is largely influenced by the Sea Current of Brazil. It has an oligotrophic system with clear waters, little organic matter input and low primary productivity. It is the region with the greatest diversity of coral reefs along the Brazilian coast. The South Platform starts at Cabo de São Tomé (21 550 S and 40 S) and includes the far south territory of the country, up to the city of Chui (33 450 S and 53 230 4800 W). This platform has a seasonal climate, smooth topography, a little-diversified food chain and high primary production due to external sources of organic matter (MMA, 2006; Ekau and Knoppers, 1999). 2.2. Methodological procedures The Protected Areas were divided into coastal (terrestrial) and marine Protected Areas. Protected Areas present in the coastal area delimited by the National Coastal Management Program (50 km coastal), while the marine Protected Areas are those found within the 200 mile area of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The National Coastal Management Program in Brazil was instituted by Resolution 01/90, to be a set of activities and procedures, through specific instruments allow the management of resource use of the coastal zone. The plan was established by Law 7661/88 and expressed a major commitment to the sustainable development of coastal area, considered a national heritage. This aims to promote the primary planning the use of natural resources and the occupation of coastal areas, as well as identify their strengths, vulnerabilities and trends (Polette and Silva, 2003). All protected areas established until

1

www.ibge.gov.br

98

A. Schiavetti et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

Fig. 1. Division of the Brazilian coast into the three Large Marine Ecosystems (North Platform, East Coast and South Platform), with information on total coastal and sea area of each large ecosystem. Adapted from Ekau and Knoppers (1999) and VLIZ Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase: .

50 km distance to the sea was included like a coastal protected area. That was the limit studied by National Coastal Management Program. We then developed a map that allowed us to visualize the three Large Marine Ecosystems. Using the ArcGIS 9.2 software (ESRI, 2007), zones of the Large Marine Ecosystems were generated

using the buffer tool. The marine areas were calculated, and a layout was conducted. The datum surface used was WGS84, and the coordinates were expressed in degrees. The frequency (number of Protected Areas) and the total area in hectares (total extension of Protected Areas) for terrestrial and marine Protected Areas were calculated and then classified

A. Schiavetti et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

according to the Large Marine Ecosystems to which each Protected Areas belonged. Within each ecosystem, the Protected Areas were separated according to their conservation purpose: Integral Protection or Sustainable Use, both classified according to the 12 categories established by National System of Conservation of Nature. To analyze the distribution of Protected Areas as a function of size, the Protected Areas were categorized into four size ranges: up to 100 ha, 101e1000 ha, 1001e1,000,000 ha and greater than 1,000,000 ha. To assess the status of conservation efforts in Brazil, the difference between the 10% to be protected according to the legislation in effect and the total area effectively preserved was analyzed. Considering that Brazilian Law does not differentiate between the 12 conservation strategies outlined in National System of Conservation of Nature (SNUC, in Portuguese), we believe that all should be represented equally by which to achieve conservation goals. Because either integral protected areas and protected areas for sustainable use must have the same representation in the National System of Areas implemented in Brazil. With this representation equal to maintaining and promoting sustainable development can be achieved. Finally, environmental, economic and social aspects of biological diversity are valued. To investigate the relationship of marine protected area management category for each of the three Large Marine Ecosystems and compare with the value of 10% recommended by COP 7, the following relationship between areas was made: Total protected area management category of x/area that the category should protect. The number of strategies on a logarithmic scale for each LME was represented by Whittaker’s diagrams. The length of each curve indicates richness, whereas by the slope of the curve stands for equability (Melo, 2008). 3. Results 3.1. Conservation areas of Large Marine Ecosystems A total of 336 coastal and marine protected areas were identified in Brazil. The general conservation conditions of coastal and marine areas for each Large Marine Ecosystems are presented in Table 1. The Large Marine Ecosystems with the largest total coastal preserved area was the North Platform, while the South Platform had the least protected area (Table 1). In terms of the total area of protected marine zones, the North Platform had the largest area, while the South Platform had the lowest area. The largest percent of conservation was that of the North Platform (13%), due to the great Environmental Protection

Table 1 Protected area, percentage of conservation in relation to all the areas that comprise the ecosystems of each LME, number and extent of protected areas for integral protection and sustainable use in the coastal (A) and in the marine (B) part of the 3 Brazilian LMEs. NP ¼ North Platform, EC ¼ East Coast; SP ¼ South Platform, IP ¼ Integral Protection, SU ¼ Sustainable Use, n ¼ number of protected areas; ha ¼ hectares; LME ¼ Large Marine Ecosystems. LME

Protected area (ha)

% Conservation

IP (n)

Area (ha)

SU (n)

Area (ha)

(A) NP EC SP

4,278,840 1,830,247 1,418,991

31.07 22.25 22.23

8 73 56

1,347,669 175,315 529,027

16 80 44

2,931,171 1,654,932 889,964

(B) NP EC SP

6,400,683 1,539,205 276,638

13.01 1.26 0.38

4 14 14

246,301 152,674 101,025

6 15 6

6,154,382 1,386,531 175,613

99

Area of the Marajó Archipelago (5,500,000 ha). The East Coast had less than 1.3% of its marine area preserved, while the South Platform had less than 0.4%. Fig. 2 shows the division of conservation units according to/as a function of their size per Large Marine Ecosystems. We can see on Fig. 2 a higher concentration of protected areas between 1001 and 1,000,000 ha, approximately 50% of the total number of units. The Protected Areas sized between 101 and 1000 ha showed the second highest quantity, while those smaller than 100 ha had the third highest quantity. There were few Protected Areas larger than 1,000,000 ha, and they were only observed in the Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Platform and the East Coast. 3.2. Percentage of conservation according to COP 7 e 2004 (CBD, 2004) Fig. 3 present the preserved areas of the Large Marine Ecosystems in the coastal environment according to the various management categories of National System of Conservation of Nature. According to Fig. 3, all Large Marine Ecosystems had a high percentage of their coastal environment protected using only one category defined by National System of Conservation of Nature, the Environmental Protection Areas (Category V e IUCN). This category, according to the Brazilian conservation system, is one of the protected areas with the lowest success in terms of conserving resources, because normally are extensive urban and rural areas trying the sustainable development. The North Platform had a significant percentage of coastal protected as Biological Reserve Areas (Class I e IUCN), Parks (Class II e IUCN) and National Forests (Class VI e IUCN), while the South Platform had a significant amount of coastal protected as Parks (Class II e IUCN). Fig. 4 shows the preserved area of the three Large Marine Ecosystems in marine environment with the various management categories of National System of Conservation of Nature. The Environmental Protection Areas had the largest preserved regions in the marine environments. A great disparity exists between the three Large Marine Ecosystems, as the North Platform has a much larger protected area in comparison with the other ecosystems. This is due to the large area of the Marajó Island Environmental Protection Area (5,500,000 ha). Regardless of the category, the East Coast and the South Platform showed low amounts of conservation areas, while Environmental Protection Areas covered most of the protected area. 3.3. Distribution of protected areas Fig. 5 shows two diagrams with the frequency of Protected Areas in the y-axis and the number of management strategies (category) used in the x-axis, both in the terrestrial and in the marine portion of the Large Marine Ecosystems. Taking National System of Conservation of Nature as a reference, each Large Marine Ecosystems could employ up to 12 management strategies. Both coastal and at sea, no Large Marine Ecosystems has reached the maximum number of possible strategies. Ten management strategies were observed for coastal areas, while 7 were found for marine areas, considering that islands were included in the marine areas. Diagram (a) shows the situation for the coastal portion: the East Coast had the most Protected Areas and it employed the most management strategies (10); the South Platform had the second most Protected Areas and the lowest number of strategies employed (06); the North Platform employed 7 management strategies. Diagram (b) shows the status of marine areas in the Large Marine Ecosystems: the East Coast had the same number of strategies

100

A. Schiavetti et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

Fig. 2. Area size classes of preservations units per Large Marine Ecosystems.

as the South Platform (07) but a larger number of Protected Areas. On the other hand, the North Platform had a lower number of strategies (06). 3.4. Protection ratio for category management Table 2 shows the marine part of the North Platform, which has the protection ratio, was found to be lower for Biological Reserve (Category I e IUCN) and Private Natural Heritage Reserve (Category IV) categories. This last category can only be created in an area with private property and is the only category in which Brazilian law landowners are responsible formanaging (Schiavetti et al., 2010). The existing Private Natural Heritage Reserve in this Large Marine Ecosystems is an Island (Ilha de Marajó), which for this study were all considered as part of the marine portion, regardless of its distance from the coast. The Environmental Protection Area category (Category V) showed the largest value of this ratio, showing an area of effective protection higher than the minimum determined by COP 7. The total for this marine portion was in 1.34. For the marine portion of the East Coast, we have the lowest values were for the Ecological Station (Cat I) and Area of Relevant Ecological Interest (Cat IV) categories, while the highest value was for Environmental Protection Area, but with a lower value than for the Large Marine Ecosystems North Platform. The total value of this portion was 0.13

(Table 2). Already for the South Platform, Area of Relevant Ecological Interest and Wildlife Refuge (Cat III) categories showed the lowest values of protection ratio. No category showed a high protection value. The total value and was 0.047 (Table 2). The overall total, which is the sum of the marine and coastal portions of Large Marine Ecosystems 3, for the protection ratio was 0.59 (not shown) for all management categories. In standard National System of Conservation of Nature, the management categories that had the lowest ratios of protection were Wildlife Refuge (Cat III), Private Natural Heritage Reserve and Wildlife Reserve (Cat IV) and the higher the Environmental Protection Area (Cat V). Natural Monument categories (Cat III), Sustainable Development Reserve and the National Forest (Cat VI) were not established as marine protected areas. For the standard IUCN Category III was the one with the smallest ratio of protection, while Category V was the one with greater value. 4. Discussion Generally, the Brazilian coast shows a high incidence of protected area when analyzing Large Marine Ecosystems separately. The three Large Marine Ecosystems showed ratios of protected area above that recommended by COP 7. The North Platform had a value 4.45 times more protected area than the minimum recommended; the East Coast had a value of 2.40 times, while the South Platform

Fig. 3. Area under protection in the different categories of National System of Conservation of Nature, in the terrestrial environment concerning the three Large Marine Ecosystems. (1 ¼ Ecological Station, 2 ¼ Biological Reserve, 3 ¼ Park, 4 ¼ Natural Monument, 5 ¼ Wildlife Refuge, 6 ¼ Environmental Protection Area, 7 ¼ Relevant Ecological Interest Area, 8 ¼ National Forest, 9 ¼ Extractive Reserve, 10 ¼ Wildlife Reserve, 11 ¼ Sustainable Development Reserve, 12 ¼ Private Natural Heritage Reserve).

A. Schiavetti et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

101

Fig. 4. Area under protection in the different categories of national system of conservation of nature in the marine environment concerning the three large marine ecosystems. (1 ¼ Ecological Station, 2 ¼ Biological Reserve, 3 ¼ Park, 4 ¼ Natural Monument, 5 ¼ Wildlife Refuge, 6 ¼ Environmental Protection Area, 7 ¼ Relevant Ecological Interest Area, 8 ¼ National Forest, 9 ¼ Extractive Reserve, 10 ¼ Wildlife Reserve, 11 ¼ Sustainable Development Reserve, 12 ¼ Private Natural Heritage Reserve).

was 2.27. However, in all three Large Marine Ecosystems, the disproportionality is evident from the protected area under different management categories. The Environmental Protection Area category was largely responsible for the values presented in the size

Protected Areas. This is due to large extension of coastal management category. However, this category is one that provides less effective protection to the natural environment, often created with the aim of encouraging the settlement process and with the main purpose of tourism development, as verified by Artaza-Barrios and Schiavetti (2007) in the case of the coast of Bahia. Locke and Dearden (2005) criticize the IUCN categorization, because for these authors only categories IeIV must be regarded as protected areas. While the categories V and VI should be reclassified as areas of sustainable development. In fact, these two categories in Brazil belong to the class of Sustainable Use. Another important point to note is the fact that portions of coastal in the three Large Marine Ecosystems have much higher area under protection than the marine portions. Platform North Large Marine Ecosystems was the only one that showed protection ratio acceptable to the Marine part. When analyzing the total area under protection, regardless of category management, with the total area for the three Large Marine Ecosystems, we have that the value of this ratio is 0.59. This means that, in general, Brazil is protecting around 60% of the area should be protected, in accordance with the recommendation of COP 7.

Table 2 Values regarding the relationship between the total protected each management category and the total area that should be protected, considering the 3 Large Marine separately. NP ¼ North Platform, EC ¼ East Coast; SP ¼ South Platform. 1 ¼ Ecological Stations; 2 ¼ Biological Reserves; 3 ¼ National Parks; 4 ¼ Natural Monuments; 5 ¼ Wildlife Refuges; 6 ¼ Environmental Protection Areas; 7 ¼ Relevant Ecological Interest Area; 8 ¼ National Forests; 9 ¼ Extractive Reserves; 10 ¼ Wildlife Reserves; 11 ¼ Sustainable Development Reserves; 12 ¼ Private Natural Heritage Reserve. IUCN

Brazilian PA

LME NP

EC

SP

Category I

1 2 3 4 5 7 10 12 6 8 9 11

0 2.26E-05 0.050056 0 0 0 0 2.07E-05 1.233751 0 0.059969 0

7.35E-05 0.003096 0.009416 0 0 1.65E-05 0.000124 0 0.097776 0 0.020047 0

0.000322 0.005383 0.00847 0 2.43E-05 7.62E-05 0 0 0.024404 0 0.008144 0

1.34

0.13

0.047

Category II Category III Category IV

Category V Category VI Fig. 5. Whittaker’s Diagram e representing the number of management strategies in a) coastal system (protected areas placed in land environment) and b) marine system (protected areas placed in marine environment) per Large Marine Ecosystems.

TOTAL

102

A. Schiavetti et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

A discrepancy between the rates of the conservation of coastal and marine areas was found for all large marine ecosystems in Brazil. The numbers suggest better rates for the conservation of terrestrial areas, similar to global examples presented by Coad et al. (2009), who assembled a global database of protected areas and addressed the “10% of area protected” goal as stipulated at COP 7 (Decision VII/30, CBD, 2004). Coad (op. cit.) also found that the marine environment has been given much less attention when it comes to protected areas, with only 5.9% of the territorial seas in the world being covered (12 nautical miles). Only three out of the 15 ecological regions have more than 10% of its marine environment protected (Australia/New Zealand, South America and North America), while four other regions (Southeast Asia, Pacific, Southeast Asia and Eastern and Southern Africa) have less than 2% of their marine environments protected. When analyzing how much each nation has protected, the numbers are even worse; only 28 out of 194 countries have more than 10% of their marine areas conserved (Coad et al., 2009). As observed in this study, Brazil fails to reach the 10% conservation rate in marine areas, even with the 13% level of conservation in the North Platform, because the other platforms had lower percentages of conservation. Another similarity between the world index and the one we found for the Brazilian coast involves regions that have reached the 10% rate of marine conservation. These regions showed a low frequency of Protected Areas with each having a large area. When separated into size classes, the highest concentration of preserved areas was observed for units larger than 1001 ha. One explanation for the low amount of marine conservation can be that there is little knowledge about the seas. Besides of that the environmental and political invisibility of these regions makes it difficult to establish marine conservation areas and to monitor them. Additionally, the complexity of the marine biome creates the illusion that marine resources are infinite, and this leads to the sea being viewed as a commodity. Indeed, the effectuation of conservation in the marine environment is very recent and still incipient. While marine regions had lower numbers of Protected Areas and lower total protected areas, marine areas have the same number of managing strategies that terrestrial areas have. In this study, islands were classified as marine areas. When only considering territorial waters, however, there are far fewer strategies available. It is not possible to establish National Forests or Private Natural Heritage Reserves on the water. Additionally, while Natural Monuments are possible, they are improbable because natural monuments are created to conserve important geological and geomorphological structures and to attract visitors. Thus, we would like to highlight two considerations: the first refers to the specific characteristics of the marine biome. The nature of marine ecosystems is different from that of terrestrial ecosystems because marine ecosystems are large, open dynamic systems with an intense migration of species. The second, which is related to the first, has to do with the way protected areas are developed and managed in such distinct areas. That is, these biomes have special characteristics that must be considered when establishing management categories. The development of protection areas requires that National System of Conservation of Nature considers the particularities of the oceans and establishes categories geared to the needs of the marine biome. One example to follow is that of Greece, which has a legal instrument (Law No. 360 of June 18, 1976) specifically associated with the protection of marine and submarine environments. Regarding management, Fitzsimons and Wescott (2008) proposed a three-dimensional zoning where the sea surface, the water column and the seabed are layered so that the whole ocean can be considered.

In contrast with the marine areas, all coastal part by the Large Marine Ecosystems reached more than 10% of conservation. Still, the percentage of preserved areas per management category shows an uneven concentration in one of the categories of National System of Conservation of Nature, as the Environmental Protection Area was employed for more than 10% of conservation efforts in all Large Marine Ecosystems. For being the category with less stringent conservation rules, its role in the conservation of biological diversity is highly questionable. Fonseca et al. (1997) emphasized the importance of preserving biodiversity and only considered parks, reserves and other protected areas with severe restrictions as areas primarily dedicated to the protection of biodiversity. Still, the prevalence of Environmental Protection Area can be explained because it is a category of sustainable use where there is usually no expropriation of lands. Among other thing, the state avoids the payment of compensations, as well as social and political friction caused by the removal of residents (Artaza-Barrios and Schiavetti, 2007). The influence of human activities led Fonseca et al. (1997) to put National System of Conservation of Nature into question. For these authors, the rational use of natural resources in fully protected areas is a misunderstanding of the current wording of the bill of the National System of Conservation Units, for it opens the way for permanent human occupation of important portions of protected areas for indirect use on the grounds that its impact would be negligible. It was exactly this type of thinking about the level of protection associated with human influences on marine areas that led Fournier and Panizza (2003) to propose 4 levels of protection for marine protected areas. At level 1, there should be free access to the entire space. Professional fishing is allowed with a regular monitoring of fish size. Recreational sailing is allowed, but wild anchoring is prohibited. At level 2, access is controlled. All forms of fishing and leisure are prohibited. Professional fishing is allowed in a restrictive manner. Recreational sailing is prohibited. At level 3, access is also controlled. All forms of fishing are prohibited, whether professional or recreational. Activities that may lead to losses of ecosystems or that may damage the integrity of biocenoses, including research activities, are prohibited. Finally, at level 4, access is not allowed. All human activities are prohibited, as is the direct or indirect presence of man. Another aspect that should be considered, despite it not being among the objectives of this study, refers to areas only protected in theory. That is, a protected area are created, but goals are not reached because there is no management plan. This was evident in the study conducted by Artaza-Barrios and Schiavetti (2007), who evaluated the effectiveness of the management of two Environmental Protection Area (sustainable use Protected Areas of the East Coast) in the state of Bahia and concluded that the objectives established would not be achieved in the medium and long term. The need to continue this study is therefore evident because it is necessary to verify the effectiveness of conservation strategies, considering that the percentage of the protected area does not necessarily result in an area that ensures the conservation or protection of biological diversity. Another relevant discussion that also goes beyond the scope of this study is the double paradigm of biodiversity conservation versus local development and conservation versus poverty. According to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG7), the preservation of biodiversity is an indicator of poverty reduction (United Nations Millennium Project, 2005). This discussion involves preservationist and conservationist views (Fonseca et al., 1997; Diegues and Arruda, 2001) on the role of protected areas. For the latter, “protected areas should not be conceived as isolated islands of conservation of the social, cultural and economic context in which

A. Schiavetti et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

they are located” (Recommendation 5.29, V World Parks Congress of IUCN) (UNESCO, 2005). According to Scherl et al. (2006), “.examination of the linkages between the establishment and management of protected areas and issues of poverty in developing countries has become a practical and... in the poorer nations must be seen as a land use option that contributes as positively to sustainable development as other types of land use. And ethical, because, if one wants to achieve social justice, he or she should incorporate human rights and aspirations to the national and international conservation strategies” In this study, Scherl et al. (2006) featured quotes from several studies in Africa showing the reconciliation of biodiversity conservation with poverty minimization, where area managers conducted sustainable actions that resulted in economic improvements for the population. One example is the work of Worah (2002) in Uganda, where revenue sharing is conducted by the Wildlife Statute and 12% of gross revenue generated by parks is returned to the surrounding communities. Another example is the work conducted by Luckett et al. (2003) in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, where a Community Fund Tax was formulated; a fee is charged to visitors of protected areas and allocated to development projects: 10% is retained for recovery and distribution in areas where tourism is not the main economic activity, and the other 90% is spent on projects in the immediate vicinity of the protected areas. Scherl et al. (2006) portrays the Projects of Integrated Conservation and Development established for protected marine areas in Eastern Africa. At the reserves and national marine parks of Malindi and Watamu in Kenya, for example, activities include more facilities for the repair and maintenance of boats belonging to local tour boat operators, more facilities for the accommodation of visitors, and increased training for tour boat operators and park staff as they guide visitors. In addition to the ecotourism projects (for example, walks around the swamp) that generate funds for the financing of the education of children in the region, Child and Dalal-Clayton (2004) showed how in Zambia, each individual earns a portion of the profit gained from the two annual hunting concessions in South Luangwa National Park, while another portion is allocated to projects approved by the entire community (hospitals, schools). In Brazil, few protected areas have direct relationships with the populations. The Extractive Reserves (Reservas Extrativistas) are one of the categories that allow the use of natural resources by traditional populations and are therefore widespread among coastal areas (Begossi, 1998). In Brazil, 9 Extractive Reserves were found in the North Platform, 7 in the East Coast and 3 in the South Platform. According to Di Ciommo and Schiavetti (2012), the Extractive Reserve in Corumbau, Bahia state (East Coast), has been extensively studied. The goal of this area in Corumbau is to protect the fishing activities against the growing fishing industry, which threatens the stocks of shrimp in the region. The rights of using marine resources were guaranteed to the traditional extractive populations along the coast, where 484 registered members are distributed among different communities organized into three associations. Unfortunately, the extractive reserves still do not have significant potential for political organization and social and environmental resilience (Di Ciommo and Schiavetti, 2012). In this sense, to better understand whether the processes of biodiversity conservation have contributed to social change in Brazil, it is necessary to complement this study by analyzing the relationship between conservation and quality of life and with both political and economic aspects being considered. Another relevant point of this study involves the division of Brazil into three Large Marine Ecosystems for the analysis of

103

conservation units. That division could be relevant because the vast territorial extension of the Brazilian coast hinders the idea of regional conservation. Affirming that Brazil has reached the goal of 10% conservation is not enough. It is important to understand the distribution of these areas and to see whether they are concentrated in specific regions. If Brazil was analyzed as a whole, it would be impossible to see that the northern coastal region (North Platform) has a smaller number of Protected Areas in comparison with other Large Marine Ecosystems. Still, the size of the Protected Areas are significant, and this concentration could be explained by the fact that the North Platform is also the region that has the lowest population density and has undergone a later and less intense process of occupation in comparison with the other Large Marine Ecosystems. Once the major ecosystems are designated according to their environmental characteristics (oceanographic), management strategies can focus on the specific needs of each region, such as the delta regions (North Platform) and areas with corals (East Coast). Social factors have great relevance in the establishment of a Protected Area and, therefore, consider these factors for each Large Marine Ecosystem is required. For example, the North Platform has more isolated communities (traditional fishermen) in need of food resources, and that may justify the establishment of a greater number of extractive reserves in this Large Marine Ecosystem. On the other hand, the South Platform historically shows a greater level of exploitation of natural resources, such as industrial fishing, and that may explain the higher number of integral protection areas. As for the management of these protected areas networks, this division allows us to infer that the North Platform needs to expand the number of marine and coastal Protected Areas, the East Coast needs a better distribution of management strategies, requiring the creation of more restrictive units regarding the use of resources, and the South Platform shows a better distribution of management strategies, but has few protected areas. Finally, one should not forget the recommendations of the Fifth World Parks Congress of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (UNESCO, 2005), which stressed the inclusion of society in the management of protected areas as a prerequisite for achieving goals. Recently, some authors (Graham et al., 2003; Abrams et al., 2003) have suggested the application of the concept of Governance in guiding and evaluating the management of protected areas. Graham et al. (2003) proposed five key principles for the evaluation of Governance in Protected Areas: Legitimacy and Voice, Direction, Performance, Accountability and Fairness. According to Macêdo (2008), "Governance is the establishment of a system of norms, behaviors and behaviors embedded in a strategic redesign that involves the participation of various social actors (NGOs, associations, private sector and other stakeholders). They share the government principles, the ability to identify problems in the society and formulate and implement public policies. Whatever the approach, we believe that governance structures must be present in different systems levels, in international relations in the composition of governments (national, state and municipal),in the implementation of public policies, supply chains and in several other instances of social order.” Macêdo also evaluated the participative management of the Serra do Conduru State Park (Integral protection in East Coast), using the principles of governance. The result found was a “Management moderately satisfactory”, but in the limit for an “unsatisfactory management.” Hence, the concept of governance must be present at the creation and management of Protected Areas in Brazil because the

104

A. Schiavetti et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 76 (2013) 96e104

interactions of various social actors have an influence on biodiversity conservation. 5. Conclusions Protected areas of Brazilian coast show a very great inequality when comparing marine and coastal portions. The coastal environment has a greater area under protection by Law and a greater number of protected areas. The marine environment shows only the area above the recommended under protection in North Platform. The Marine portion of the East Coast and the South Platform has few protected areas, regardless of category management. The Environmental Protection Area category showed the largest protected areas in both the coastal and Marine portion, though it must consider its limited effectiveness in protecting natural resources, because it is a category where there are many conflicts of interest regarding the use sustainable resource. This study highlights the long path to be traced by Brazil with the objective of achieving the goals proposed at Seventh Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological, in which the country is a signatory. Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to CAPES, Programa Ciências do Mar (Marine Sciences Program) for granting scholarship to the third author, and to CNPq for granting scholarship to the first author. References Abrams, P., Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Gardner, J., Heylings, P., 2003. Evaluating Governanced a Handbook to Accompany a Participatory Process for a Protected Area. Parks Canada and TILCEPA (draft). Artaza-Barrios, O.H., Schiavetti, A., 2007. Análise da Efetividade do Manejo de duas Áreas de Proteção Ambiental do Litoral Sul da Bahia. Revista da Gestão Costeira Integrada 7 (2), 117e128. Begossi, A., 1998. Resilience and neo-traditional populations: the caiçaras (Atlantic Forest) and caboclos (Amazon, Brazil). In: Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 129e157. Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Bertocci, I., Micheli, F., Maggi, E., Fosella, T., Vaselli, S., 2003. Implications of spatial heterogeneity for management of marine protected areas (MPAs): examples from assemblages of rocky coasts in the northwest Mediterranean. Marine Environmental Research 55, 429e458, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1136(02)00310-0. Brasil, 1988. Lei N 7.661, de 16 de maio de 1988. Institui o Plano Nacional de Gerenciamento Costeiro e dá outras providências. Brasil, 2000. Lei N 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, x 1o, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituição Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. Brasil, 2002. Decreto N 4.340, DE 22 de agosto de 2002. Regulamenta artigos da Lei n 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000, que dispõe sobre o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e SNUC, e dá outras providências. CBD, 2004. (Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica, 7a Conferência das Partes). Sétimo encontro da Conferência das Partes do CBD, COP 7. Disponível em http:// www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id¼7767. (Access 09/2011). Child, B., Dalal-Clayton, B., 2004. Transforming approached to CBNRM: learning from the Luangwa experience, Zambia. In: McShane, T.O., Wells, M.P. (Eds.), Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development. Columbia University Press, NY, pp. 256e289. Di Ciommo, R.C., Schiavetti, A., 2012. Women participation in the management of a Marine Protected Area in Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management 62, 15e23. Coad, L., Burgess, N.D., Bomhard, B., Besancon, C., 2009. Progress on the Convention on biological Diversity’s 2010 and 2012 targets for protected area coverage. In: A Technical Report for the IUCN International Workshop “Looking to the Future of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas”, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, 14e17 September 2009. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Diegues, A.C., Arruda, R.S.V., 2001. Saberes tradicionais e biodiversidade no Brasil. In: Diegues, Antonio Carlos, Arruda, Rinaldo S.V. (Eds.). Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, São Paulo, USP, 2001. 177 pp. (Biodiversidade, 4). Duda, A.M., Sherman, K., 2002. A new imperative for improving management of large marine ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management 45, 797e833.

Ekau, W., Knoppers, B., 1999. An introduction to the pelagic system of the NorthEast and East Brazilian shelf. Archive of Fishery and Marine Research 47 (2/3), 113e132. ESRI, 2007. ArcGIS 9.2 Desktop. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Fitzsimons, J.A., Wescott, G., 2008. Getting the measure of Marine Protected Areas: surface area or volume as measures for reserve system auditing? Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18, 518e526. Fonseca, G.A.B., Pinto, L.P.S., Rylands, A.B., 1997. Biodiversidade e unidades de conservação. In: Anais do Congresso Brasileiro de Unidades de Conservação. Conferências e Palestras, vol. I. Universidade Livre do Meio Ambiente, Rede Pró-Unidades de Conservação & Instituto Ambiental do Paraná, Curitiba, pp. 189e209. Curitiba, 15 a 23 de novembro de 1997. Fournier, J., Panizza, A.C., 2003. Contribuições das Áreas Marinhas Protegidas para a Conservação e a Gestão do Ambiente Marinho, R. RA’E GA, Curitiba, n. 7, pp. 55e62. Editora UFPR. Game, E.T., Grantham, H.S., Hobday, A.J., Pressey, R.L., Lombard, A.T., Beckley, L.E., Gjerde, K., Bustamante, R., Possingham, H.P., Richardson, A.J., 2009 July. Pelagic protected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (7), 360e369, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tree.2009.01.011. Gell, F.R., Roberts, C.M., 2002. The Fishery Effects of Marine Reserves and Fishery Closures. WWF-US, 1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA. Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptre, T., 2003. Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century. Fifth World Parks Congress, Durban, 30 June 2003. Halpern, B.S., Warner, R.R., 2003. Matching marine reserve design to reserve objectives. Proceedings Royal Society of London 270, 1871e1878, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1098/rspb.2003.2405 (Review). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística e IBGE. Divisão Política-Administrativa do Brasil. Disponível em: (Acesso em: 30 set. 2011). IUCN, 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Kelleher, G., Recchia, C., 1998. Lessons from marine protected areas around the world. Parks 8 (2), 1e4. Locke, H., Dearden, P., 2005. Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigma. Environmental Conservation 32 (1), 1e10. Luckett, S., Mkhize, K., Potter, P., 2003. The experience of local boards in Kwa-ZuluNatal, South Africa. PARKS 13 (1), 6e15. Macêdo, J. A. C., 2008. Avaliação da gestão participativa dos parques estaduais da Bahia. 188 p. 297 mm, (UnB-CDS, Mestre, Política e Gestão Ambiental, 2008). Dissertação de Mestrado. Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Universidade de Brasília. Melo, A.S., 2008. O que ganhamos ‘confundindo’ riqueza de espécies e equabilidade em um índice de diversidade. Biota Neotrop 8 (3), 021e027. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA), 2006. Projeto Orla: Fundamentos para Gestão Integrada. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, Brasília, D.F., Brasil, ISBN 8577380297, 74 pp. http://www.mma. gov.br/estruturas/orla/_arquivos/11_04122008111238.pdf. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA), 2010. Panorama da conservação dos ecossistemas costeiros e marinhos no Brasil/Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas/Gerência de Biodiversidade Aquática e Recursos Pesqueiros. MMA/SBF/ GBA, Brasília, 148 pp.; 29 cm. Polette, M., Silva, L.P., 2003. GESAMP, ICAM e PNGC e Análise comparativa entre as metodologias de gerenciamento costeiro integrado. Ciência e Cultura 55 (4), 27e31 [online]. Scherl, L.M., Wilson, A., Wild, R., Blockhus, J., Franks, P., McNeely, J.A., McShane, T., 2006. As áreas protegidas podem contribuir para a redução da pobreza? Oportunidades e limitações. IUCN, Gland, Suíça e Cambridge, Reino Unido. viii þ 60pp. Schiavetti, A., Oliveira, H.T., Lins, A.S., Santos, P.S., 2010. Analysis of Private Natural Heritage Reserves as a Conservation Strategy for the Biodiversity of the Cocoa Region of the Southern State of Bahia, vol. 34. Revista Árvore (Impresso), Brazil, pp. 699e711. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies N 182. In: Sherman, K., Hempel, G. (Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: a Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Toropova, C. (Ed.), 2010. Global Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities. Agence des aires marines protégées/IUCN WCPA\UNEPWCMC/TNC/UNU/WCS, Brest, France/Gland, Switzerland, Washington, DC and New York, USA/Cambridge, UK/Arlington, USA/Tokyo, Japan/New York, USA, 96 pp. UNESCO, 2005. World Heritage at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. United Nations, 2002. Oceans: The Source of Life. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 20th Anniversary (1882e2002). United Nations Millennium Project, 2005. Investing in Development: a Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals (New York). Worah, S., 2002. The challenge of community-based protected area management. PARKS 12 (2), 80e93.