Brazilian large-scale marine protected areas: Other “paper parks”?

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Brazilian large-scale marine protected areas: Other “paper parks”? Alexandre Pereira da Silva

T

Wuhan University China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies, Luojiashan Road, no. 16, Wuhan University, Wuchang District, 430072, Wuhan, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Reserves Aichi biodiversity targets Brazil Oceanic islands Protection

This article takes the opportunity of the recent establishment of two large and remote marine protected areas (MPAs) in Brazilian jurisdictional waters to discuss the role played by large-scale MPAs and their impacts to achieve international goals. After the launching of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2010, especially Target 11, which concerns marine areas, some coastal states have created large-scale MPAs as a way of attaining a numerical target, though not necessarily fulfilling other ecosystem commitments. Brazil is the most recent example of this strategy through the establishment of MPAs that seem primarily concerned with international goals rather than effective biodiversity protection. Since the management of these protected areas will be shared between a technical body (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) and the Navy, and only a small portion of which will have similar status to “no-take” zone, the new MPAs can hardly be identified as being strongly committed to the marine environment protection. The article ends with some suggestions for improving biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian large-scale MPAs.

1. Introduction During the 8th World Water Forum, held in Brasilia between 18 and 23 March 2018, the Brazilian government announced the establishment of two large-scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs) surrounding the Trindade and Martin Vaz, and St. Peter and St. Paul archipelagos. The establishment of LSMPAs expanded the protected ocean coverage in Brazilian jurisdictional waters from 1.5% to over 26%, overreaching Target 11 of Aichi Biodiversity Targets. However, some aspects of this initiative must be critically considered: the timing of the announcement, the location and the ocean coverage of areas chosen to become LSMPAs. Another aspect to be analyzed is whether this initiative is consistent with the environmental policy of the current Brazilian government. The main hypothesis of the study is that the establishment of LSMPAs in two of the most remote territories of Brazil does not meet biodiversity protection goals, but rather aims to achieve a numerical target. The analysis has been divided into four parts. Section 1 introduces the international framework for marine protected areas (MPAs) and traces the evolution of marine conservation goals up to the current Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Section 2 discusses the role of LSMPAs, showing both advantages and disadvantages of their implementation. Section 3 analyses basic aspects of the protected areas and the decrees that has created remote LSMPAs in Brazil's exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Section 4 brings in some elements so as to answer the title

question, i.e., whether these LSMPAs are more likely to become or not “paper parks”. 2. International legal framework for marine protected areas and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Relevant dispositions concerning MPAs can be found under different treaties. The most important international legal instruments that facilitate the establishment of MPAs are: the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), the 1979 Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC), and the 1973/78 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (Dang, 2014). Other international legal treaties have played an additional role in the creation and management of MPAs, such as the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Guerreiro et al., 2001). CBD, which provides the most comprehensive legal framework for protected areas and defines them as a geographically defined areas

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.012 Received 21 May 2018; Received in revised form 16 October 2018; Accepted 14 December 2018 0964-5691/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

A. Pereira da Silva

which are designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives, is particularly relevant. In an attempt to describe the different approaches for protected areas, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has improved its definition for protected areas, which is widely recognized. The IUCN defines a protected area as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”. Both the CBD Secretariat and IUCN have tacitly agreed that the two definitions have effectively the same meaning (Dudley, 2008). IUCN and CBD also recognize six protected area management categories: strict nature reserves (Ia); wilderness areas (Ib); national parks (II); natural monuments or features (III); habitat/species management areas (IV); protected landscapes or seascapes (V); and, protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources (VI). The applicable category should be based primary management goal(s) of the protected area. In addition, the primary management goals should apply to at least threequarters of the protected area, the so-called “75% per cent rule”. It is worth noting that the CBD Programme of Work expressly identifies IUCN protected area categories (Dudley, 2008). Thus, MPA design may vary broadly from whole “no-take” marine areas where fishing and other extractive activities are forbidden to “multiuse” MPAs that allow certain levels of commercial fishing, extraction and other human uses in particular areas (Rife et al., 2013). One of the mechanisms created by the CBD was the Conference of the Parties (COP), a governing body that advances CBD implementation through the decisions taken at its periodic meetings. To date, COP has held 13 ordinary meetings and an extraordinary one. From 1994 to 1996, COP held its ordinary meetings annually, but after 1996 theses meetings have been held every two years. The COP meetings have produced important decisions concerning the decline in marine biodiversity that has led to a growing commitment to designate MPAs, in particular, to the Programme of Work on Protected Areas, the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, the Strategic Plan on Biodiversity and the Programme of Work on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity (Dang, 2014). In 2002 the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 6) adopted the Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity in order to “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth” (CBD, 2002). This goal, usually referred to as the 2010 target, was later endorsed by the Implementation Plan of the World Summit of Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002), which encouraged coastal states to “promote integrated, multidisciplinary and multisectoral coastal and ocean management at the national level” and to establish “marine protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012” (UN, 2002), therefore setting one of the first targets for MPAs. At COP 7 (Kuala Lumpur, 2004) the Programme of Work on Protected Areas was adopted “with the objective of the establishment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial and by 2012 for marine areas of comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protected areas that collectively, inter alia through a global network contribute to achieving the three objectives of the Convention and the 2010 target to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss” (CBD, 2004). Two years later, at COP 8 (Curitiba, 2006), a framework for monitoring implementation of the achievement of the 2010 target and

integration of targets into the thematic work programmes was agreed upon, with the main objective to promote the conservation of biological diversity of ecosystems, habitats and biomes. Two targets were then defined: at least 10 per cent of each of the world's ecological regions should be effectively conserved, and areas of particular importance to biodiversity should be protected (CBD, 2006). These goals have been on the marine conservation agenda of countries, non-governmental organizations and donor institutions for the purpose of protecting areas of biodiversity relevance, especially on conservation and management of habitats, species and genetic diversity (Spalding et al., 2013). COP 10 (Nagoya, 2010), after realizing that the target would not be met, set a new Strategic Plan for Biodiversity deadline for 2011–2020, aiming “to take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet's variety of life, and contributing to human well-being, and poverty eradication”. New goals were also set, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, comprised by 20 targets, with particular attention to Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective areabased conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes (CBD, 2010). These steps were followed by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – a collection of global goals resulting from the 2030 Agenda adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Goal 14.5 specifically states that by 2020 coastal states should “conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information” (UNGA, 2015). Although the aims of Aichi Target 11 and Goal 14.5 are similar, the latter does not mention the qualitative aspects of the former, which could lead to a situation where the levels of biodiversity protection could be dismantled as attention is focused on Goal 14.5 (Rees et al., 2018). While some scientists and conservationists recognize such targets as being somewhat arbitrary, in that setting 10 per cent of the global ocean under protection would not suffice to protect biodiversity and suppress extinctions, others believe that this objective was ambitious and politically unachievable (Wilhelm et al., 2014). When the targets were set, the total number of MPAs was roughly 5880 covering over 4.2 million km2 of ocean, which represented only 1.17% of marine habitats of the world. Only 12 of 190 states and territories had at that time MPA coverage at or above 10% (Toropova et al., 2010). 3. Large-scale marine protected areas: raising the figures Since 2010, the percentage of the world's oceans that are protected has increased steadily. The main reason for the recent and impressive growth in MPA coverage has been the establishment of LSMPAs. By 2006 LSMPAs represented only 1 million km2; ten years later, they accounted for more than 11 million km2 (Lewis et al., 2017). Without an agreed definition of LSMPA, experts diverge on the coverage size so as to consider large-scale MPAs. Some define LSMPAs as protected areas larger than 30,000 km2 (De Santo, 2013; Davies et al., 2017). Managers of the “Atlas of Marine Protection” consider them to be larger than 100,000 km2 (MPAtlas, 2017;

105

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

A. Pereira da Silva

Spalding et al., 2013); IUCN Guidelines define LSMPAs as marine conservation areas of at least 150,000 km2 (Lewis et al., 2017), while some scholars allege they should be larger than 240,000 km2 (Toonen et al., 2013). Nevertheless, everyone agrees that the first LSMPA was the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (344,000 km2) established by the Australian government in 1975. At that time the area surpassed all existing MPAs both in scope and scale (Lewis et al., 2017). Only in 2000 would a second LSMPA be established on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (360,000 km2) a truly remote LSMPA (Toonen et al., 2013). In 2006, this area was slightly expanded and recognized as the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (362,074 km2), which was turned into a 100 per cent “no-take” zone in 2011 and was greatly increased in 2016 (1,508,870 km2) to become the largest MPA in the world. But that lasted for just a few months, when Cook Islands established the Marae Moana, the world's largest MPA under a single country jurisdiction with 1,900,000 km2 covering its entire EEZ (Lewis et al., 2017). The large majority of MPAs are located within coastal states’ EEZ. The ten largest MPAs in the world substantially increase the protective coverage of some marine jurisdictions, significantly contributing to attain Aichi Target 11 by 2025 instead of 2054 (see projections made by Toonen et al., 2013). Some developed countries with overseas territories (e.g., France, United Kingdom, the United States) have created LSMPAs in their EEZs around these territories, reaching that target before 2020 (Devillers et al., 2015). Even though the figures suggest that it is possible to achieve Aichi Target 11 sooner than expected, it is likewise important to interpret such figures carefully. An MPA coverage does not necessarily mean effective protection, since some sites may operate ineffectively due to management or design failures. Furthermore, any single-coverage considerations disregard other MPA establishment challenges (Spalding et al., 2013). Aichi Target 11 provides that the protected areas must be effective and equitably managed, and also specifies that the MPAs must be “representative, in that they should protect typical examples of species and habitats in each of the world's marine ecoregions, and wellconnected, in that the MPA should be close enough together to enable ecological processes to connect between them” (Jones and De Santo, 2016). Nonetheless, the rapid increase and the issue of making gains in achieving protection goals through the establishment of LSMPAs has raised debate on the effectiveness of extensive and usually remote areas and added scrutiny to the subject of MPAs (Devillers et al., 2015; Wilhelm et al., 2014). The strategy to create LSMPAs has both advocates and critics with reasonable arguments. Those who are favorable to LSMPAs trust that these protected areas represent a huge conservation commitment, adding that from an ecological perspective, larger areas are more appropriate to regenerate fish stocks than smaller ones, considering that there is more space for larval dispersal and nursery habitats for early life stages (De Santo, 2013). Other LSMPA advantages would include the preservation of entire ecosystems and interdependent habitats, allowing biologically connected and varied ecosystems can coexist on the same management site (Wilhelm et al., 2014); LSMPAs include ocean and deep ocean ecosystems, which are not frequently found in smaller areas, and therefore protect vulnerable marine habitats such as seamount chains (Toonen et al., 2013); many LSMPAs comprise a variety of large and highly migratory species, offering better protection conditions for such species that cannot be provided by smaller areas (Wilhelm et al., 2014); various LSMPAs are located in remote regions, where protection costs per unit area are limited and more effective and where conflicts with local stakeholders are much less likely to occur as compared with smaller

coastal areas (Spalding et al., 2013). On the other hand, the establishment of LSMPAs has its own disadvantages, such as: while protection costs per unit area may be lower for an LSMPA, surveillance, enforcement and monitoring activities of vast offshore areas involve high investments (satellites, aircraft or large ships) (Wilhelm et al., 2014); the designation of LSMPAs is often decided in spite of the lack of enforcement measures (De Santo, 2013); Devillers et al. (2015) pointed out that many LSMPAs which have been established in distant and uninhabited areas have rarely been exploited for extractive activities, and are far from the most dangerous threats to marine biodiversity. Lewis et al. (2017), however, remind that some LSMPAs have been indeed established to face the overexploitation of fishery stocks, aiming to reverse the depletion of important species. Others say that when an LSMPA is supposed to face little threat, it diverts attention and scarce resources from efforts to tackle the real challenges, providing only an illusion of marine conservation and relieving the pressure for preservation in small and more threatened areas near the coast (Agardy et al., 2011), an approach that appears to be more driven by political pragmatism than by focusing on effective ways of improving the long-term biodiversity maintenance (Devillers et al., 2015). Another aspect concerning LSMPAs is the challenge regarding governance structures, as these large-scale areas often have to take the complexity of the target region into account (heterogeneous, multi-scaled and inter-linked), thus demanding different institutional collaborations, and generating a scenario where agencies roles and shared accountability often overlap, thus jeopardizing the governance of the protected area (Leenhardt et al., 2013). Moreover, despite the recent trend to establish LSMPAs, there is still limited experience or knowledge in dealing with these areas (Nikitine et al., 2018). Many scholars believe that the highest ocean expectations comprise both large and small MPAs (Toonen et al., 2013). However, they also argue that the limited resources available for the implementation of protected areas should take into consideration a balance between LSMPAs – usually remote, uncontested, and intact areas – and small MPAs – frequently non-remote, exploited, and threatened sites (Boonzaier and Pauly, 2016). In addition to the debate between the advantages and disadvantages of LSMPAs, another important issue to consider is their political use by coastal states upon establishing LSMPAs as a shortcut to achieve international goals, such as Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 or SDG Goal 14.5. Large and remote MPAs can be in many circumstances the easiest way for countries to attain, at minimal costs and political risks, their international conservation commitments (Boonzaier and Pauly, 2016). Conversely, the mere establishment of LSMPAs does not guarantee their success, inasmuch as complementary policies and strategies that can improve these actions and adequate fishery management are equally important (Davies et al., 2017). When protected areas are designated but inadequate resources are available for their implementation, these areas become only “paper parks”, which mean protected areas that do not effectively exist beyond the initial government declaration, providing only an impression of marine conservation (Rife et al., 2013; Jones and De Santo, 2016), not to mention the fact that some coastal states could have political gains without delivering a real MPA (Pala, 2013). The designation of an MPA, small or large, is just one step towards effective protection, but that alone is not enough to provide conservation outcomes.

106

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

A. Pereira da Silva

Image 1 4. The archipelagos of Trindade and Martin Vaz and St. Peter and St. Paul, along with the decrees that established the marine protected areas around them

established an oceanographic station (POIT), which shelters up to 40 Navy personnel. In 2011, a scientific station capable of receiving up to eight persons at a time was built. Martin Vaz is another small island located less than 50 km east of Trindade island. The archipelago of Trindade and Martin Vaz is connected to the continent by the VitoriaTrindade seamount chain and is the easternmost part of the Brazilian territory (Protrindade, 2018; Pinheiro et al., 2017). St. Peter and St. Paul is a set of rocky islets located about 900 km from the Brazilian northeastern coast, approximately 1800 km from the African coast. The remote group of rocks is only 400 m across at its greatest extent and has a total area of about 0.17 km2. It is an unwelcoming site, devoid of beaches, vegetation and fresh water, and subject to bad weather conditions. In 1998 Brazil established a scientific station in the archipelago with a capacity of receiving only four people at a time (Proarquipelago, 2018; Viana et al., 2009). The two LSMPAs were created by decrees signed on 19 March 2018, each dividing the protected areas under two different conservation regimes: an environmental protected area (área de proteção ambiental, APA), which covers most of the areas, and a natural monument (monumento natural, MONA), which encompasses a restricted area. The differences between an APA and a MONA are discussed below. Decree no. 9312 established an APA in the Trindade and Martin Vaz archipelago and a MONA of Trindade and Martin Vaz islands and Columbia Seamount (hereinafter MPA of Trindade and Martin Vaz) (Brasil, 2018a). The MPA of Trindade and Martin Vaz has a total of 47,153,244.97 ha (or 471,532.45 km2) divided into two different protected areas: the APA that comprehends the 200 nautical mile EEZ around Trindade island (402,377.09 km2) and the MONA, with

Brazil has the longest coastline in the South Atlantic Ocean with a huge EEZ. The country has four groups of oceanic islands: Rocas Atoll, Fernando de Noronha archipelago, Trindade and Martin Vaz archipelago, and St. Peter and St. Paul archipelago (IBGE, 2011). Despite its significant coastline, the first MPA in Brazil was only established in 1979 in the Rocas Atoll, a biological reserve under full protection status (Brasil, 1979). In the 1980s another few sites were protected, motivated solely by biodiversity and habitat conservation objectives (Gerhardinger et al., 2011). Nonetheless, total figures relating to MPAs, in coastal and offshore areas, have remained modest. Brazilian MPAs were initially small or medium scale one (less than 10,000 km2) and mainly along the coastal zone (Soares and Lucas, 2018). Before the 2018 decrees that designated the MPAs in the archipelagos of Trindade and Martin Vaz and St. Peter and St. Paul, Brazil had only 55,716 km2 of its 3,642,439 km2 of ocean area covered by conservation units, that is, 1.5% of its jurisdictional waters, and only 4977 km2 (0.14%) of this total was under full protection status, the remaining being sustainable use areas. With the decrees from March 2018 establishing two LSMPAs, the figures grew exponentially and suddenly represented more than 26% of the marine waters under Brazilian jurisdiction (MMA, 2018). Trindade and Martin Vaz is an archipelago located in the Southern Atlantic Ocean about 1100 km from the Brazilian coastline. Trindade island is approximately 10.2 km2. In 1957 the Brazilian government 107

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

A. Pereira da Silva

approximately 69,155.36 km2 (Brasil, 2018a). Decree no. 9313 also created an APA and a MONA in the St. Peter and St. Paulo archipelago (MPA of St. Peter and St. Paul) (Brasil, 2018b). The MPA of St. Peter and Paul archipelago has a total area of 45,431,554 ha (or 454,315.54 km2) divided into an APA that encompasses the 200 nautical mile EEZ around the archipelago (407,052.36 km2) and a MONA of approximately 47,263.18 km2 (Brasil, 2018b). Overall, the two Brazilian LSMPAs designated by these two decrees cover an area of more than 920,000 km2. Both an APA and a MONA are classified as conservation units (unidades de conservação, UCs) under the Brazilian legislation, that is, a “territorial space and its environmental resources, including jurisdictional waters, with relevant natural characteristics, legally instituted by Public Authorities, with conservation purposes and limits defined, under a special management regime, with applicable adequate protective guarantees” (Brasil, 2000).1 The main idea of the Brazilian UCs is to safeguard the representativeness of significant and ecologically viable sections of different populations, habitats and ecosystems of the national territory and jurisdictional waters, preserving the existing biological heritage. Additionally, they guarantee sustainable and rational use of natural resources to traditional populations, in addition to allowing surrounding communities the development of sustainable economic activities. The Brazilian UC system divides those units into two groups, according to their management purposes and types of use: full protection and sustainable use. Full protection units have as their primary purpose the preservation of nature, allowing only for the indirect use of natural resources, i.e., only activities that do not involve consumption, extraction or damage to these resources, such as recreational activities, ecological tourism, scientific research, among others. Sustainable use units aim to reconcile nature conservation with the sustainable use of resources, balancing them with human presence in the areas, i.e., activities involving the extraction and use of natural resources are allowed, providing that they maintain renewable environmental resources and ecological processes at a constant level (Brasil, 2000). These two main groups of UCs are subdivided in 12 categories, five of which under of full protection status (ecological stations, biological reserves, national parks, natural monuments and wildlife refuges) and seven under sustainable use status (areas of relevant ecological interest, private natural heritage reserves, environmental protected areas, national forests, sustainable development reserves, fauna reserves and extractive reserve) (Brasil, 2000). The main difference between APAs and MONAs is that the former belong to the sustainable use group, whereas the latter belong to the full protection group, which means that only MONAs in the two Brazilian LSMPAs have more strict protection. The MONA of the MPA of Trindade and Martin Vaz covers only 14.66% of its total area, and the MONA of the MPA of St. Peter and St. Paul just 10.4%. However, according to the two 2018 decrees, subsistence fisheries are allowed even within MONAs, thus in these cases the full protection status has been downgraded to something like no-take zones, as pointed out by Soares and Lucas (2018). The Brazilian LSMPAs have similar objectives. The main goal of the MPA of Trindade and Martin Vaz is to preserve: i) remnant aspects of the Atlantic Forest insular ecosystem; ii) scenic beauties; and, iii) marine natural resources and biodiversity in sections of the submerged mountain range (Brasil, 2018a), while the primary scope of the MPA of St. Peter and St. Paul is the conservation and sustainable use of its

biodiversity and genetic and biological resources, associated ecosystem services, fishery resources and other elements of marine biodiversity with economic potential and scientific interest for the archipelago and its EEZ (Brasil, 2018b). Therefore, whereas both LSMPAs mention the conservation of biodiversity among their goals, they meet Aichi Target 11 in principle. The MPA managing body is the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), “following the constitutional and legal competences of the Brazilian Navy” (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b). That means, for instance, that the ICMBio will have to approve of, “along with the Brazilian Navy”, the integrated management plan of these MPAs. The management plan must not affect “under no circumstances, activities of national defense by Armed Forces and the Maritime Authority to be carried out in territorial sea in the exclusive economic zone, including military activities, drills and research aimed at training, readiness and mobility of the Brazilian Armed Forces” (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b).2 ICMBio and Navy duties on environmental management over both LSMPAs will be later detailed by joint act. Both decrees assign a special role to the Armed Forces, especially the Navy (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b). Firstly, the MPA designation does not affect the competences and the performance of tasks by the Armed Forces and the Maritime Authority in the archipelagos. Secondly, the decrees do not interfere with the organization and implementation of the two programs that are already in force in the archipelagos: the St. Peter and St. Paul Archipelago Program (Proarquipelago) and the Trindade Island Program (Protrindade), both of which were established by the Inter-Ministerial Commission for Sea Resources (CIRM)3 in 1996 and 2007 respectively (Pereira da Silva, 2017). The 2018 decrees emphasize that the MPA status on Trindade and St. Peter and St. Paul should not interfere with in the organization and implementation of the Protrindade and Proarquipelago, including “the scientific, operational and logistics constraints for the systematic conduct of scientific research in this region” (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b).4 Despite, the expressed concern over the marine environment, the real concern appears to have been the minimum possible interference in the activities developed by the Navy in these areas. Finally, both archipelagos are considered indispensable to national security and “cannot be managed by national or foreign civil society organizations” (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b).5 Although the main stated objective of Proarquipelago and Protrindade is to promote and manage the development of scientific research on the archipelagos and adjacent sea areas, both programs were also established to reinforce the Brazilian presence on the Atlantic Ocean (Pereira da Silva, 2017). In this sense, the designation of MPAs, with the approval and support of the Armed Forces in the archipelagos, also attend to political purposes and strengthen sovereign rights over sea spaces around these areas. This approach is particularly important in the St. Peter and St. Paul archipelago so as to enhance sovereign rights over the region – until recently considered as rocks, not islands –, allowing the country to establish a 450,000 km2 wide EEZ, an area equivalent to almost 15 per cent of the entire Brazilian EEZ (Proarquipelago, 2018). 2 Translated from the original: “O plano de manejo não interferirá, sob nenhuma condição, nas atividades de Defesa Nacional das Forças Armadas e da Autoridade Marítima, a serem executadas no Mar Territorial e na Zona Econômica Exclusiva, incluídos a realização de atividades militares, os exercícios e as pesquisas que visem ao treinamento, à prontidão e à mobilidade das Forças Armadas Brasileiras.” 3 Inter-Ministerial Commission for Sea Resources (CIRM) is a multidisciplinary unit supervised by the Navy and has a Secretariat (SECIRM), which gathers and executes all the activities in the programs. 4 Translated from the original: “[...] condicionantes científicas, operacionais e logísticas para a condução sistemática das pesquisas científicas nessa região.” 5 Translated from the original: “[...] não poderão ser geridas por organizações da sociedade civil nacionais ou estrangeiras.”

1

Translated from the original: “espaço territorial e seus recursos ambientais, incluindo as águas jurisdicionais, com características naturais relevantes, legalmente instituído pelo Poder Público, com objetivos de conservação e limites definidos, sob regime especial de administração, ao qual se aplicam garantias adequadas de proteção”. 108

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

A. Pereira da Silva

Finally, the decrees determine that fisheries with economic purposes are to be allowed in both APAs, providing that no predatory methods are used. In 18 September 2018, the ICMBio and the Navy enacted two joint ordinances regulating fishery activities in the APAs of the two archipelagos (Brasil, 2018c, 2018d). Subsistence fisheries are permitted in both MONAs, that is, in the most sensitive areas around the islands. More importantly, the protected area designations are also unlike to protect against deep-sea mining activities in these areas (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b).

that these remote LSMPAs may do little to safeguard biodiversity and will become only “paper parks” (Magris and Pressey, 2018; Giglio et al., 2018). Brazil already has coastal and marine conservation units with low effectiveness, without management plans and which lack surveillance resources (Floeter et al., 2006). Albeit the percentage goals for ocean coverage in Aichi Target 11 and in SDG Goal 14.5 have already been achieved, the government had not announced any other measure to strengthen the protection of the areas, such as monitoring or enforcement investments in order to effectively achieve conservation goals. Moreover, other important coastal ecosystems remain unprotected (Soares and Lucas, 2018; Giglio et al., 2018). Although legal mandatory steps have been taken, many scholars have stressed that the establishment of LSMPAs has been modified by the Brazilian government during the process, disregarding preparatory studies and public consultations (Giglio et al., 2018). For instance, the Ministry of Environment has altered the full protection category in the St. Peter and St. Paul archipelago (from wildlife refuge to MONA), without further consultations to the scientific community; the Brazilian authorities changed the proposals in order to allow subsistence fisheries (an unfriendly environmental practice as mentioned in the preparatory studies, see below) within MONAs, therefore setting a dangerous precedent for fisheries in a full protected site (Soares and Lucas, 2018; Giglio et al., 2018); other areas near Trindade island have been excluded from the full protection status that was initially considered in preparatory studies (Giglio et al., 2018). In a letter signed by more than a 100 scientists and environmentalists addressed to the Brazilian President, they strongly criticized these alterations: “We understand that the desire to expand the marine conservation unit coverage in our exclusive economic zone is very positive and valuable, but this increase should not be done without considering the main areas of biological diversity, specifically the archipelagos and the seamount tops as well as the most important ecological processes that can ensure their long-term survival. The withdrawal of the oceanic islands from the proposed area of full protection status strongly undermines the conservation of the most important areas presented in this enormous conservation effort that our society presently engaged in”.7 The letter also stressed the need to establish a single and continuous area as a natural monument on Trindade island – instead of two separate blocks as proposed in the maps – in order to ensure and facilitate the surveillance, management and health of migratory routes of oceanic species (Ouvidoria do Mar, 2018). As a concession, the Navy agreed to include part of Trindade island and three of the ten maritime features of St. Peter and St. Paul under the full protection status. On the other hand, the MONA on Martin Vaz and the Columbia Seamount remained divided into two blocks (Giglio et al., 2018). The official justification for not fully including both areas of the archipelagos under full protection status was that this would restrain the working capacity of the Navy, which means that the Navy's interests overshadowed the environmental ones (Escobar, 2018). However, one of the reasons not explicitly mentioned by the Navy could be the fisheries practiced by their own members during the mission in both archipelagos. According to the two preparatory studies for the proposal to establish MPAs in the archipelagos, those fisheries have already been considered as having significant impact in these areas. Both studies dated from January 2018 made biological and

5. Brazilian “paper parks”? The Brazilian political scenario has experienced considerable modifications since August 2016, including a significant drawback in terms of environmental policy.6 Pressed by criminal charges filled by the Attorney General, President Temer was willing to make favorable concessions for the agribusiness sector in order to refute criminal charges in the National Congress that would have removed him from office. Temer's administration enacted several provisional measures to please Congress members linked to the rural caucus (Sauer and Leite, 2017). Aware of these acts, CBD's Executive Secretary, Cristiana Palmer, sent a letter to the Brazilian Minister of Environment expressing her concerns over the provisional measures that would have a negative impact on biodiversity and the international obligations and commitments agreed upon the country (CBD, 2017). After a decade of progress, forest clearance for logging, agriculture and mining in the Amazon rainforest has increased during the Temer's administration. As a reaction, Norway has cut its annual payments to Brazil's Amazon Fund to protect the rainforest by 60 per cent after a rise in forest destruction and other governmental initiatives against the environment (Norway, 2017). Also, the government has issued a decree ending the protected status of a vast region in the Amazon known as Renca – an acronym for National Reserve of Cooper and Associates (Reserva Nacional do Cobre e Associados). This area covers approximately 47,000 km2, encompassing seven conservation units and two indigenous territories. Few weeks later, after massive pressure from environmental groups, the federal government revoked the extinction of Renca (Matos and Grion, 2017). Furthermore, the current bad economic situation and government austerity have imposed considerable limitations to implement biodiversity conservation initiatives. In this regard, the possibility to announce the designation of two LSMPAs during an international conference was a perfect scenario to reverse the negative press coverage and improve both the domestic and international image of the government as to environmental issues. Internally, giving publicity to the establishment of the two LSMPAs pleased the conservationists, despite some restrictions. Externally, it allowed the government to claim that the Aichi Target 11 was attained with two years in advance. It is not difficult to conclude that the major aspect that drove the establishment of these two LSMPAs were political considerations (or “uninformed opportunism” in the words of Magris and Pressey, 2018). The establishment of those LSMPAs was not planned ahead. The latest National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) for the years 2016–2020 determines an expansion of the “marine and coastal protected areas to 5% of the Brazilian marine and coastal zone (equivalent to 175,000 km2)”. According to the foreword, the NBSAP “defines the Brazilian long-term perspective to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity”. There is no mention to an eventual LSMPA establishment (MMA, 2016). The new Brazilian LSMPAs are surrounded by doubts and uncertainties. Even though they fulfill some basic features, many worry

7

Translated from the original: “Entendemos que o desejo de ampliar a cobertura das Unidades de Conservação marinha em nossa Zona Econômica Exclusiva é extremamente positivo e valoroso, porém esse incremento não deve ser feito sem considerar as principais áreas de diversidade biológica, especificamente os arquipélagos e os topos dos montes submarinos, bem como dos processos ecológicos mais importantes que garantirão sua sobrevivência em longo prazo. A retirada das ilhas oceânicas da área proposta para UCs de proteção integral compromete fortemente a conservação das áreas mais importantes apresentadas neste imenso esforço de conservação que está movendo a nossa sociedade”.

6 The current Brazilian president, Michel Temer, took office in August 2016, after the parliamentary coup that removed re-elected President Dilma Rousseff (2011–2016) from office.

109

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

A. Pereira da Silva

socioeconomic assessments of the archipelagos (mentioned hereinafter as Trindade diagnostic study and St. Peter and St. Paul diagnostic study, respectively Pinheiro, 2018 and Francini-Filho et al., 2018). According to the St. Peter and St. Paul diagnostic study, the region is an important industrial fishing site with particular focus on pelagic species, such as the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) and the rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata). This study also pointed out that ships which transport people to the scientific station in the archipelago in the scope of Proarquipelago program – and which remain there the whole period – are also employed in commercial fishing, therefore fisheries occur in the area all year long (Francini-Filho et al., 2018). Until the mid-twentieth century, visitors to the archipelago invariably commented on the remarkable number of sharks in the area; however, since the 1990s, at least one shark species (Carcharhinus galapagensis) has become locally extinct following the start of fishing (Luiz and Edwards, 2011). This situation is repeated on Trindade island where fishing activities without any kind of management and the destruction of ecosystems caused by the extraction of reef environments constitutes one of the main threats around the islands and seamounts. According to the Trindade diagnostic study, Navy personnel are engaged in fisheries activities while on the island, but it is neither recreational nor smallscale fishing (Pinheiro, 2018). They are allowed to bring processed fish back to the mainland. The quantity of fish caught is thought to be high, and is estimated to reach a total of 2,5 tons of parrot fish and 2,2 tons of Atlantic goliath grouper yearly (Pinheiro and Gasparini, 2009). These catches are comparable to commercial fishing; however, they are performed with no management and involve endemic, endangered and rare species (Pinheiro and Joyeux, 2015). The Trindade diagnostic study recommended that only subsistence fishing should be permitted and that the transportation of any fish to the mainland should be forbidden (Pinheiro, 2018). Unlike the St. Peter and St. Paul archipelago, on Trindade island the National Department of Mineral Production (DNPM) has already authorized the exploration of the rhodolite banks in the Vitoria-Trindade seamount chain. The Trindade diagnostic study pointed out that these are potentially destructive activities that need to be carefully monitored, recommending such activities be banned in the submerged banks, thus preserving this important environment and its biodiversity (Pinheiro, 2018). On the one hand, the federal government has made a small concession to conservationist sectors upon accepting to include one third of Trindade island and three rocks of St. Peter and St. Paul under full protection status as natural monuments. On the other hand, there have been no changes on fishing and mining activities in the archipelagos. According to the decrees, subsistence fishing as well as economic fishing are allowed in both APAs, “as long as it does not employ predatory methods” (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b). Even though they recognize that both archipelagos are biodiversity hotspots and their surrounding waters harbor many endemic, vulnerable, and endangered species, having rich biodiversity, neither decree restricts mining activities in these regions. Indeed, there is no mention to mining in the decrees – despite claims from conservation sectors for a total ban of all kinds of mining –, thus opening the door for such activities, at least in the APAs. It is unlikely that the protected area management plans, which are to be restricted and regulated in the areas, will change this situation. It should be emphasized that the current Sectoral Plan for Marine Resources (IX PSRM, 2016–2019) points to the existence of polymetallic sulphides in the St. Peter and St. Paul archipelago, as well as and polymetallic nodules and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the region of Trindade island area (IX PSRM, 2016). As pointed out by Brazilian non-governmental environmentalist organizations, although Aichi Target 11 has been attained, the federal government should continue to undertake efforts to create and implement protected coastal and marine areas in order to achieve real

ecosystem representativeness. They also call the attention for the protection of coastal and shallow marine areas, such as coral reefs, dunes, sandbanks and mangroves, which area very sensitive to anthropogenic activities, climate change and, therefore, need a combination of more effective protection policies, and should ideally be considered “no-take” areas (Ouvidoria do Mar 2018). The designation of two LSMPAs was an initial and important step in terms of marine protection in the country. Nevertheless, many experts are still skeptical as to further implementation steps for these LSMPAs. At least three issues contribute to this. First, the rush of the federal government to approve the establishment of the areas and announce it during an international conference held in Brazil, taking the opportunity to engage in domestic and international propaganda. Second, a straightforward focus on the “10 per cent of coastal and marine areas” without giving due consideration for other Target 11 resolutions, such as “ecological representativeness”, “connected systems” and “areas of particular importance for biodiversity”. Third, the lack of any other measures to implement large-scale and remote protected areas, especially considering the difficulties to enforce and manage them. It was relatively easy to establish these two LSMPAs in remote areas and with very few stakeholders, when eventual difficulties would come from the Navy only; as previously discussed, its interests were preserved. It is much more difficult to establish an MPA, even a small one, in Brazilian coastal areas where tourism, real estate speculation, fishing, oil and gas exploration, and mining activities play significant roles. For instance, the MPA established before the large and remote one on the Trindade and St. Peter and St. Paul archipelagos was the MPA of Alcatrazes, in August 2016. This MPA is in a coastal archipelago in São Paulo state, under full protection status (wildlife refuge) and covers 674.79 km2. But although the initial debates were held in the 1990s, public consultations occurred only in March 2011, that is, it took almost 30 years to implement an MPA in that area (ICMBio, 2016). There is a major concern among the Brazilian scientific community that these LSMPAs will fail to contribute to marine conservation and divert attention, resources and political action from priority areas (Magris and Pressey, 2018; Giglio et al., 2018). Aichi Target 11 is much more than a numerical goal, as it inspires marine (and land) conservation strategies that go beyond the percentage target, highlighting initiatives that take place in areas of “particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem service” which are “ecologically representative”. Brazil should put forth initiatives to prevent that those areas from becoming “paper parks”, so as to enhance conservation measures by establishing real “no-take” areas in MONAs which would support a higher conservation level (Santos and Schiavetti, 2014; Soares and Lucas, 2018; Giglio et al., 2018); by implementing effective surveillance and by monitoring LSMPAs (Soares and Lucas, 2018); strict environmental licensing should guide APAs in order to compensate their excessively broadened activities, which might undermine biodiversity conservation goals (Soares and Lucas, 2018; Giglio et al., 2018); finally, management plans that expressly forbid mining activities in all areas should be developed (Giglio et al., 2018). If the Brazilian authorities have real interest in achieving conservation goals together with political gains as proposed by Aichi Target 11 and Goal 14.5, these measures would not only improve LSMPA conservation, but also help the country to reinforce its ambition for leadership in issues concerning environmental conservation and biodiversity protection. 6. Concluding remarks Progress towards the total area covered by MPAs had been extremely slow until the mid-2000s; however, since then there has been a rapid and continuous rise in the designation of MPAs. This has been basically influenced by the creation of LSMPAs that have also helped some coastal states to meet international conservation goals, especially Aichi Target 11. There is much dispute on LSMPAs. 110

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

A. Pereira da Silva

Both proponents and detractors have good arguments. Notwithstanding the controversy, the designation of LSMPAs continues being a prominent policy addressed by some coastal states and leading international statistics. The designation of two LSMPAs across the entire EEZ around remote Brazilian archipelagos, in spite of its good will to protect these areas, also reveals that political short-term objectives were considered before environmental goals. The 2018 decrees alone are insufficient for conservation outcomes. Attaining Aichi Target 11 requires setting in motion a much more complex process, not only by designating LSMPAs in open sea. It is essential that they be effectively implemented and it is also important that new MPAs in coastal areas include more sensitive ecosystems, such as coral reefs and mangroves, under full protection status. The first step has been taken, but there is still a lot of work to be done so as to avoid that these marine areas become “paper parks”.

Brazilian reef fishes. Biol. Conserv. 128, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon. 2005.10.005. Francini-Filho, R.B., Ferreira, C.E.L., Mello, T.J., Prates, A.P.L., Silva, V.N., 2018. Diagnóstico Biológico e Sócio-Econômico para a proposta de criação de uma Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) e um Monumento Natural Marinho (MONA) no Arquipélago São Pedro e São Paulo. http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/ stories/o-que-fazemos/consultas_publicas/Estudos_Cria%C3%A7%C3%A3o_ SaoPedro_SaoPaulo.pdf. Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.A.S., Sales, G., Ferreira, B.P., 2011. Marine protected dramas: the flaws of the Brazilian national system of marine protected area. Environ. Manag. 47, 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9554-7. Giglio, V.J., Pinheiro, H.T., Bender, M.G., Bonaldo, R.M., Costa-Lotufo, L.V., Ferreira, C.E.L., Floeter, S.R., Freire, A., Gasparini, J.L., Joyeux, J.C., Krajewski, J.P., Linder, A., Longo, G.O., Lotufo, T.M.C., Loyola, R., Luiz, O.J., Macieira, R.M., Magris, R.A., Mello, T.J., Quimbayo, J.P., Rocha, L.A., Segal, B., Teixeira, J.B., Vila-Nova, D.A., Vilar, C.C., Zilberberg, C., Francini-Filho, R.B., 2018. Large and remote marine protected areas in the South Atlantic Ocean are flawed and raise concerns: comments on Soares and Lucas (2018). Mar. Pol. 96, 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol. 2018.07.017. Guerreiro, J., Chircop, A., Dzidzornu, D., Grilo, C., Ribeiro, R., Van der Elst, R., Viras, A., 2001. The role of international environmental instruments in enhancing transboundary marine protected areas: an approach in East Africa. Mar. Pol. 35, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.06.013. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), 2011. Atlas geográfico das zonas costeiras e oceânicas do Brasil. IBGE, Rio de Janeiro. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), 2016. Governo cria o refúgio da vida silvestre de Alcatrazes. http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/ultimasnoticias/20-geral/8056-governo-cria-o-refugio-de-vida-silvestre-de-alcatrazes. Plano Setorial para os Recursos do Mar (IX PSRM, 2016-2019). . https://www.marinha. mil.br/secirm/sites/www.marinha.mil.br.secirm/files/publicacoes/IXPSRM.pdf. Jones, P.J.S., De Santo, E.M., 2016. Is the race for remote, very large marine protected areas (VLMPAs) taking us down the wrong track? Mar. Pol. 73, 231–234. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.08.015. Leenhardt, P., Cazalet, B., Salvat, B., Claudet, J., Feral, F., 2013. The rise of large-scale marine protected areas: conservation or geopolitics? Ocean Coast Manag. 85, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.08.013. Lewis, N., Day, J.C., Wilhelm, T.‘A., Wagner, D., Gaymer, C., Parks, J., Friedlander, A., White, S., Sheppard, C., Spalding, M., San Martin, G., Skeat, A., Taei, S., Teroroko, T., Evans, J., 2017. Large-scale Marine Protected Areas: Guidelines for Design and Management. IUCN, Gland, en. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.PAG.26. Luiz, O.J., Edwards, A.J., 2011. Extinction of a shark population in the Archipelago of Saint Paul's Rocks (equatorial Atlantic) inferred from the historical record. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2873–2881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.08.004. Magris, R.A., Pressey, R.L., 2018. Marine protected areas: just for show? Science 360 (6390), 723–724. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6215. Matos, B., Grion, D., 2017. Socio-environmental Flexibilization in Brazil and International Investments. http://antigo.bricspolicycenter.org/homolog/uploads/trabalhos/ 7250/doc/1519476466.pdf. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA), 2016. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/br/br-nbsap-v3-en.pdf. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA), 2018. Unidades de conservação por bioma. http:// www.mma.gov.br/cadastro_uc, Accessed date: 1 July 2018. MPAtlas, 2017. Atlas of Marine Protection. http://www.mpatlas.org/media/filer_public/ d0/b3/d0b3527c-924b-46b4-baaf-d14bab514f74/vlmpa_dec2017.jpg. Nikitine, J., Wilson, A.M.W., Dawson, T.P., 2018. Developing a framework for the efficient design and management of large scale marine protected areas. Mar. Pol. 94, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.012. Norway, 2017. Royal Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. https://www. regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/okt-avskoging-i-brasils-regnskog-gir-redusert-utbetalingfra-norge/id2581396/. Ouvidoria do Mar, 2018. Consulta pública para discussão das propostas de criação da Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) e Monumento Natural (MONA) nas regiões do Arquipélago São Pedro e São Paulo e do Arquipélago de Trindade e Martin Vaz. https://www.facebook.com/ouvidoriadomar. Pala, C., 2013. Giant marine reserves pose vast challenges. Science 339 (6120), 640–641. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.339.6120.640. Pereira da Silva, A., 2017. Brazil's recent agenda on the sea and the South Atlantic contemporary scenario. Mar. Pol. 85, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08. 010. Pinheiro, H.T., 2018. Diagnóstico Biológico e Sócio-Econômico para a proposta de criação de uma Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) e um Refúgio de Vida Silvestre (MONA) na Cadeia Vitória-Trindade. http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/o-quefazemos/consultas_publicas/estudos_criacao_ilha_trindade.pdf.pdf. Pinheiro, H.T., Gasparini, J.L., 2009. Peixes recifais do complexo insular oceânico Trindade-Martin Vaz: novas ocorrências, atividades de pesca, mortandade natural e conservação. In: Mohr, L.V., Castro, J.W.A., Costa, P.M.S., Alves, R.J.V. (Eds.), Ilhas oceânicas brasileiras: da pesquisa ao manejo. MMA/Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, pp. 143–161. Pinheiro, H.T., Joyeux, J.C., 2015. The role of recreational fishermen in the removal of target reef fishes. Ocean Coast Manag. 112, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2015.04.015. Pinheiro, H.T., Bernardi, G., Simon, T., Joyeux, J.C., Macieira, R.M., Gasparini, J.L., Rocha, C., Rocha, L.A., 2017. Island biogeography of marine organisms. Nature 549, 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23680. Proarquipelago (Programa Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo or Archipelago or St. Peter and St. Paul Program). . https://www.marinha.mil.br/secirm/proarquipelago.

Acknowledgment I would like to thank to Monica Costa and the anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions for improving this article. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone. References Agardy, T., Di Sciara, G.N., Christie, P., 2011. Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Mar. Pol. 35, 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.006. Boonzaier, L., Pauly, D., 2016. Marine protection targets: an updated assessment of global progress. Oryx 50 (1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000848. 2016. Brasil, 1979. Decreto n. 83.589, de 5 de junho de 1979. Cria a Reserva Biológica do Atol das Rocas e dá outras providências. Brasil, 2000. Lei n. 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, § 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, 2018a. Decreto n. 9.312, de 19 de março de 2018. Cria a Área de Proteção Ambiental do Arquipélago de Trindade e Martim Vaz e o Monumento Natural das Ilhas de Trindade e Martim Vaz e do Monte Columbia. Brasil, 2018b. Decreto n. 9.313, de 19 de março de 2018. Cria a Área de Proteção Ambiental do Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo e o Monumento Natural do Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo. Brasil, 2018c. Portaria Conjunta n. 2, de 24 de agosto de 2018. Disciplina a atividade de pesca na Área de Proteção Ambiental do Arquipélago de Trindade e Martim Vaz. Brasil, 2018d. Portaria Conjunta n. 3, de 24 de agosto de 2018. Disciplina a atividade de pesca na Área de Proteção Ambiental do Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo. CBD, 2002. Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision VI/26. Sixth Meeting of the COP to the CBD, The Hague, Netherlands 7–19 April 2002. CBD, 2004. Protected Areas (Articles 8 (a) to (e)), Decision VII/28, Seventh Meeting of the COP to the CBD, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 9–20 and 27 February 2004. CBD, 2006. Framework for Monitoring Implementation of the Achievement of the 2010 Target and Integration of Targets into the Thematic Programmes of Work, Decision VIII/15. Eight Meeting of the COP to the CBD, Curitiba, Brazil 20–31 March 2006. CBD, 2010. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Decision X/2. Tenth Meeting of the COP to the CBD, Nagoya, Japan 8–29 October 2010. CBD, 2017. Letter from CBD Executive Secretariat Cristiana Pasca Palmer to Brazilian Minister of Environment Sarney Filho. Ref: SCBD/OES/CPP/DC1MK186604 (5 June 2017). https://www.socioambiental.org/sites/blog.socioambiental.org/files/nsa/ arquivos/letter-brazil-cbd-es-05june2017.pdf. Dang, V.H., 2014. Marine Protected Areas Network in the South China Sea: Charting a Course for Future Cooperation. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden. Davies, T.E., Maxwell, S.M., Kaschner, K., Garilao, C., Ban, N.C., 2017. Large marine protected areas represent biodiversity now and under climate change. Sci. Rep. 7 (9569), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08758-5. De Santo, E.M., 2013. Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: how the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. J. Environ. Manag. 124, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.033. Devillers, R., Pressey, R.L., Grech, A., Kittinger, J.N., Edgar, G.J., Ward, T., Watson, R., 2015. Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease of establishment over need for protection. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25, 480–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2445. Dudley, N. (Ed.), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland. Escobar, H., 2018. Marinha e MMA definem mapas das novas áreas protegidas, com exclusão parcial das ilhas. http://ciencia.estadao.com.br/blogs/herton-escobar/ marinha-e-mma-definem-mapas-das-novas-areas-protegidas-com-exclusao-parcialdas-ilhas/. Floeter, S.R., Halpern, B.S., Ferreira, C.E.L., 2006. Effects of fishing and protection on

111

Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 104–112

A. Pereira da Silva Protrindade (Programa de Pesquisas Científicas na Ilha da Trindade or Scientific Research Program on the Island of Trindade). . https://www.marinha.mil.br/secirm/ protrindade. Rees, S.E., Foster, N.L., Langmead, O., Pittman, S., Johnson, D.E., 2018. Defining the qualitative elements of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 with regard to the marine and coastal environment in order to strengthen global efforts for marine biodiversity conservation outlined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14. Mar. Pol. 93, 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.016. Rife, A.N., Erisman, B., Sanchez, A., Aburto-Oropeza, O., 2013. When good intentions are not enough…Insights on networks of “paper park” marine protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 6, 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00303.x. Santos, C.Z., Schiavetti, A., 2014. Spatial analysis of Protected Areas of the coastal/ marine environment of Brazil. J. Nat. Conserv. 22, 453–461. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jnc.2014.05.001. Sauer, S., Leite, A.Z., 2017. Medida Provisória 759: descaminhos da reforma agrária e legalização da apropriação de terras no Brasil. Retratos de Assentamentos 20 (1), 15–40. Soares, M.O., Lucas, C.C., 2018. Towards large and remote protected areas in the South Atlantic Ocean: St. Peter and St. Paul's archipelago and the vitória-trindade seamount chain. Mar. Pol. 93, 101–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.004. Spalding, M.D., Meliane, I., Milan, A., Fitzgerald, C., Hale, L.Z., 2013. Protecting marine

spaces: global targets and changing approaches. Ocean Yearb. 27, 213–248. https:// doi.org/10.1163/22116001-90000160. Toonen, R.J., Wilhelm, T.‘A., Maxwell, S.M., Wagner, D., Bowen, B.W., Sheppard, C.R.C., Taei, S.M., Teroroko, T., Moffitt, R., Gaymer, C.F., Morgan, L., Lewis, N., Sheppard, A.L.S., Parks, J., Friedlander, A.M., The Big Ocean Think Tank, 2013. One size does not fit all: the emerging frontier in large-scale marine conservation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.039. Toropova, C., Meliane, I., Laffoley, D., Matthews, E., Spalding, M. (Eds.), 2010. Global Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities. IUCN, Gland. UN, 2002. World Summit on sustainable development. In: Johannesburg, South Africa, August 26–September 4, 2002. Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. UNGA, 2015. Transforming Our World. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. UN Doc. A/ RES/70/1, 21 October 2015. Viana, D.L., Hazin, F.H.V., Souza, M.A.C., Orgs., 2009. O arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo: 10 anos de estação científica. Secirm, Brasília. Wilhelm, T.‘A., Sheppard, C.R.C., Sheppard, A.L.S., Gaymer, C.F., Parks, J., Wagner, D., Lewis, N., 2014. Large marine protected areas – advantages and challenges of going big. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24 (Suppl. 2), 24–30. https://doi.org/10. 1002/aqc.2499.

112