- Email: [email protected]
Governance challenges for the newest Brazilian marine protected areas: Preliminary considerations for stakeholder participation
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean and Coastal Management journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Governance challenges for the newest Brazilian marine protected areas: Preliminary considerations for stakeholder participation A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords MPA Remote territories Governance Stakeholders Ecosystem-based management
Nations worldwide are facing new challenges in the protection of large remote marine habitats and searching for effective pathways to comply with international sustainable goals. In this letter, we discuss opportunities and uncertainties in the management of two recent remote Marine Protected Areas MPAs, St. Peter and S. Paul and Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelagos, Brazil, and evaluate the application of Ecosystem-based Management framework in the current national legal system. ‘Stakeholder involvement’ is revealed a major gap in the baseline governance of the MPAs, as a highlight for decreased participation in decision-making of Seascapes.
Letter 2
On March 19th, 2018, Brazil established more than 900,000 km of new marine protected areas (MPAs) beyond its continental territory by including two remote archipelagos (St. Peter and S. Paul and Trindade and Martim Vaz) in the National Environmental Conservation System (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b) (Fig. 1). This massive enlargement of MPAs (representing approximately 25% of the current marine surface) is an important step towards the improvement of the Brazilian environmental agenda. Environmental regulation in Brazil now safeguards pristine biodiversity hotspots and guarantees compliance with the Aichi Target 11 and the Sustainable Development Goal 14 (to protect 10% of the marine and coastal areas before 2020; CDB, 2011; UN, 2015; Soares and Lucas, 2018). Indeed, several future challenges in the management of the Archipelagos are expected, crossing scientific and institutional areas (Soares and Lucas, 2018), and creating both opportunities and un certainties for the conservation of marine biodiversity (Giglio et al., 2018). St. Peter and St. Paul is the smallest and most isolated tropical ar chipelago on the planet, located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean (Viana et al., 2017). Trindade and Martim Vaz is a chain of submarine mountains situated approximately 1.000 km of the Brazilian coast. Both sites are marine wildlife refuges guarded by highly diverse and pristine marine habitats (Pedrini et al., 1989; Hazin et al., 2008; Almeida et al., 2011; Pereira-Filho et al., 2011; Siciliano et al., 2012; Simon et al., 2013; ~es et al., 2015; Viana et al., 2015; Aued Santos et al., 2014; Magalha et al., 2018; Albuquerque et al., 2019). Biodiversity conservation was stated as a priority and the sites were promoted to international ocean observatories (Brazilian Long-term Ecological Research Program PELD/CNPq http://memoria.cnpq.br/sitios-peld; Muelbert et al., 2019). However, the Brazilian Navy held the islands’ jurisdiction for coastal protection and military purposes, imposing research restrictions and centralizing management decisions. Biodiversity conservation was instituted to the environmental agency Instituto Chico Mendes, just recently weakened by current governmental disputes. It is the typical case when isolation protects biodiversity (Edgar et al., 2014) but in cludes disputes of interests, showing that merging defense and
environmental conservation is complex. Divergent issues emerge from shared-managed areas, requiring a lot of creativity to reach long-term success as MPAs. Management actions must converge institutional scope and attributions towards MPA goals while guarding biodiversity integrity and allowing public use (Bennet and Dearden, 2014). Legal premises facilitate the management pro cesses, in the Archipelagos’ cases, that MPAs do not interfere in national defense in the territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zone (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b). However, environmental protection is never a guarantee as several military recreational activities have major impacts on local marine biodiversity (Giglio et al., 2018). It is not the first time that a remote military site is promoted to an MPA in Brazil. Alcatrazes Ar chipelago in the coast of S~ ao Paulo is a former military site recently upgraded to MPA after environmental incidents (Brasil, 2016). Both St. Peter and St. Paul and Trindade and Martim Vaz MPAs’ creations include critical moments such as previous and non-authorized spread of zoning maps through social networks and the consequent pressure from the scientists and environmentalists. During the establishment of the MPAs around the Archipelagos, the Aichi’s targets grounded the con servation goals, but still provoked disagreement between the involved parties, mainly in technical zoning and categorization. Conflicts covered top-down changes in original MPA design and unprotecting key-habitats, fishing allowance, and focus on achieving the Aichi Target 11 rather than regional conservation priorities (Giglio et al., 2018). A mosaic of MPAs of different protection levels came out as the final agreement (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b; Giglio et al., 2018). The land and seascapes were awarded as Natural Monuments. Not surprisingly, several important marine habitats were classified into the lowest re striction category, a big environmental loss. The major challenge for the new MPAs is the most visual: remote ness. Remote and large MPAs (LMPAs) are expected to dominate future sea spatial organization and optimize biodiversity conservation efforts (Kittinger et al., 2011). Despite world advances in the management of LMPAs (Lewis et al., 2017), there is no specific guideline or legal framework in Brazil, while monitoring, institutional, and human ca pacity issues are arising nonstop. Considering the current agreement, the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105067 Received 3 September 2019; Received in revised form 8 November 2019; Accepted 22 November 2019 0964-5691/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Caroline Malagutti Fassina, Ocean and Coastal Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105067
C.M. Fassina et al.
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Archipelagos hold less than half of the ideal features for effective and equitable management (Gill et al., 2017, Table 1). Although deep-water barriers and large-size are beneficial assets for MPAs (Edgar et al., 2014), distance from the people’s eyes imposes the eminent risk of government centralization and restricted stakeholder participation. Meeting competing values (i.e. fisheries and conservation) is a major challenge in remote LMPAs, negatively interfering with the ability to effectively implement management and conservation (Brooks, 2013). Since marine biodiversity at the Archipelagos is not integrally protected by the output regulation, we already anticipate severe consequences by
the allowed human activities (e.g. scuba diving and boat tourism; Roche et al., 2016; Giakoumi et al., 2017; Harasti et al., 2019). Successful management of the new remote Brazilian LMPAs urgently calls for innovation, dynamism, and integration. A well-designed man agement plan targeted to achieve specific MPA features, improve governance, and enable dialogue could speed up the protection of the Archipelagos’ biodiversity (Bennett et al., 2014). The Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) is an appropriate framework for this kind of situa tion since the territorial coverage of the Archipelagos’ MPAs is a new space to be built-in a more consolidated baseline of participative
Fig. 1. Location of the new remote Marine protected Areas, St. Peter and S.paul (55� 36’N, 29� 21’W) and Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelagos (20� 30’ S, 29� 20’W), in regard to the Brazilian continental coastline. Results of the cross-analysis evaluating the citation of Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) Key-principles in the national legel MPA system (Archipelagos’ MPA decrees, Brasil 2018a,b; National Strategic plan for Protected Areas NSPAP, Brasil 2006) and are shown in the charts. Note: Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone is in dark blue, dashed lines represent MPA geographic limits. 2
C.M. Fassina et al.
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
NSPPA but not even mentioned in the Archipelagos’ decrees. Likewise, ‘Societal Choices’, a way to enforce society participation in the envi ronmental management processes, is not stated in the documents. Several other EBM principles are not found in the legal texts, for instance ‘Appropriate Scales’ and ‘Acknowledge Uncertainty’, both particularly important for remote LMPAs (Lewis et al., 2017). Although discussion about strategic sites and policies for marine areas increases compliance and stakeholders’ vigilance by raising awareness over environmental bans, broad society may still remain totally out of the decision-making process which consequently loses effectiveness (IUCN, 2013; Bennet and Dearden, 2014). Stakeholders are at the core of the LMPAs’ management framework and should be map ped at first (Lewis et al., 2017), which did not happen yet for the Archipelagos. Response from the actual users and understanding of how actions overcome in the territorial arena of non-property earth surfaces must receive a long-term goal in LMPAs, the management agenda is an executive issue. In both situations – goal definition and stakeholder permanent vigilance - broad society should be accessed by representa tive groups and their coherent leadership (IUCN, 2013; Bennet and Dearden, 2014). Stakeholders are an issue itself when the consensus gets a conflict of priority between groups (Wolfe and Putler, 2002). Society’s involvement in the governance process is a requirement forwarding the process to be enabled, encouraged, and enhanced in/by different mechanisms of consensus formation in a flexible perspective linked to social groups and their knowledge (Holling et al., 1998; Carlson and Berkes, 2005). Stakeholder Involvement has a strong relationship with political motivations that define the first moments of any protected area creation and regulation. In Brasil, MPAs’ governance is supposedly a participatory system in which decision-making relies on a manager and a council (Brasil, 2000). However, open consultancy is rare and key stakeholders are often left out of the discussions unless directly affected. Even duplicity of managing bodies in upper and deliberative spheres did not pronounce greater stakeholder participation in the first moments of the creation of the Archipelago’s MPAs (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b). The fishery industry, i.e., was clearly not treated as a key-stakeholder by the Navy or the ICMBio, which instituted severe fishing bans at the islands with no opposition (Brasil, 2018c). The ocean mining industry, partic ularly for Trindade’s case, and other local stakeholders such as the tourism industry which could be directly benefited by the new MPAs did not join discussions and creation processes. In regard to the most specific challenges - remoteness and huge area we point out that: if in one hand, the unilateral raising of territorial waters issued by presidential decree 1.098/1970 (Brasil, 1970) over the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone was essentially based on political, diplomatic, economic and security factors, although without conditions of material and technological contingent for the fulfillment of such claim (Carvalho, 1999). The conservation initiative by the presi dential decrees 9.312 and 9.313 (Brasil, 2018d) reaffirms the right and obligation to provide international commitments. Contradictorily, the October 2019’s oil disasters that hit the sea of northeastern Brazilian coastal zone prove the management disability previously protested by eleven countries (Castro, 1989). By being geographically distant from the mainland, specific management converges and its institutional scope of Coastal Zone, Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Eco nomic Zone (Brasil, 1993) shall be advanced. In addition, the sites fit in the category of Transboundary Water Systems by the status of Large Marine Ecosystems territories (Talaue McManus et al., 2016), a chal lenge in the global panorama of multilevel governance, which means a unrestricted to an exclusive command place (IOC-UNESCO, 2016). Far from not willing to exert sovereignty in these islands, how is Brazil going to guarantee ecosystem-based management there? Is if going to create the conditions for ordered rule and collective action or institutions of social coordination (Dietz et al., 2003), developing structures and processes by which people make decisions and share power (Lebel et al., 2006), and resolving trade-offs and providing a vision and direction for sustainability (Folke et al., 2005). EBM fits in the
Table 1 Ideal features for successful Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) in terms of man agement efficiency and equitability (Gill et al., 2017) and environmental and restriction characteristics that have significant positive impact on conservation (Edgar et al., 2014) currently present at St. Peter and St. Paul’s and Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelagos’ MPAs. Ideal MPA features
St. Peter and St. Paul’s Archipelago
Management efficiency and equitability Legally gazetted X Appropriate MPA regulations in place Implementing management plan Acceptable enforcement capacity Acceptable budget capacity X Monitoring informs X management activities Adequate staff capacity/ presence Inclusive decision-making Shared/non-state management Environmental and restriction characteristics No-take X Well enforced Old (>10 years) Large (>100km2) X Isolated X
Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelago X
X X
X X X
governance, sovereign principles, scientific approaches, tactical man agement, and strong environment monitoring. EBM is an interdisci plinary approach that balances ecological, social and governance principles at appropriate temporal and spatial scales in a distinct geographical area to achieve sustainable resource use (Slocombe, 1993; Christensen et al., 1995), legally allowed by the MPAs’ category (Brasil, 2000). In EBM, scientific knowledge and effective monitoring acknowledge the connections, integrity, and biodiversity within an ecosystem considering both dynamism and uncertainties (Ostrom, 1990, 2009; Atkins et al., 2011). EBM also recognizes coupled social-ecological systems with stakeholders involved in an integrated decision table, ev idence, and adaptive management process where decisions reflect so cietal choice based on benefits and sustainable principles (Long et al., 2015; Armitage et al., 2018). By considering the role of the human dimension in shaping ecosystem processes and dynamics (Folke et al., 2005), EBM could mitigate future conflicts and facilitate the alignment of marine conservation and stakeholders’ needs at the Archipelagos. An evaluation of the application potential of EBM to the current MPA legal system in Brazil reveals inconsistency and a list of lacks in the baseline frameworks. We searched for evidences of the 15 EBM keyprinciples (Long et al., 2015) in the Archipelago’s MPAs’ decrees (Bra sil, 2018a, 2018b) and in the National Strategic Plan for Protected Areas (NSPPA; Brasil, 2006) by crossing the occurrence of representative words for each principle in the legal texts (Fig. 1; Methods in Supple mentary material). Our results revealed that only two of the 15 princi ples - ‘Use of Scientific Knowledge’ and ‘Ecological Integrity and Biodiversity’ - are considered in the three legal texts analyzed, occu pying, side by side, the first place in the number of mentions. Regardless of the low overall coverage, this finding reveals that the EBM core management guided by ecosystem knowledge to promote ecological integrity and biodiversity conservation - is comprehended in the Archipelago’s MPAs’ agreements as well as the in the main strategic guideline for the Brazilian conservation units. ‘Appropriate Monitoring’ is the next most cited, evidence that inputs of ecosystem information shall remain in the long-term and could promote the application of EBM. Stakeholder Involvement, on the top list of the most important EBM principles, is a divergent point as it is the 5th most highlighted by the 3
C.M. Fassina et al.
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Brazilian Conservation Unit System (Brasil, 2000) and implementation is a matter of proactiveness, knowledge-driven actions, and detailed planning. Long-term ecological research programs, an EBM tool to incorporate ecosystem information, is a common practice in Brazilian MPAs supported by the ICMBio. The management plan, the core docu ment guiding MPAs in Brazil (Brasil, 2000), is totally open to adjust ments based on local specificities and incorporation of different management tools, which could follow EBM principles. Public consul tancies and partnerships are ways to enforce deliberating opportunities and facilitate stakeholder participation. Costa dos Corais, a LMPA in the Northeast Coast of Brazil, is an example to be followed in the manage ment of stakeholder conflicts, participatory instruments, extensive long-term ecosystem monitoring, and conservation across marine hab itats (Ferreira et al., 2004; Feitosa et al., 2012; Glaser et al., 2018; Eduardo et al., 2018). Large marine ecosystems are supposed to be a global matter of governance based on key principles already mentioned (Long et al., 2015; IUCN, 2017), that address implications of cumulative human impacts and monitoring capacity. All these aspects must be designed and conducted as an agenda of monitoring based on integrated methodolo gies and strategies able to cover multiple scales and sectors (Ban et al., 2017; Gill et al., 2017). Final goal: governance guided by participatory approach, clear objectives, and institutionalization (Rockmann et al., 2017). Address the challenges and gaps in MPAs’ management plan is crucial to ensure a coherent inclusive process according to the legal normative set as public territories. Governance arrangement is critical in LMPAs, requiring multiple-agency management (Kittinger et al., 2011), leadership (Gerhardinger et al., 2011), and government investment based in high scored technical calls of services. EBM is a framework to be considered as an action-guide towards efficiency and participation and could fill up a major governance gap in the MPAs from their beginning.
framework in a systems approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 215–226. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.012. Aued, A.W., Smith, F., Quimbayo, J.P., C^ andido, D.V., Longo, G.O., Ferreira, C.E.L., Witman, J.D., Floeter, S.R., Segal, B., 2018. Large-scale patterns of benthic marine communities in the Brazilian Province. PLoS One 13 (6), e0198452. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal pone.0198452. Ban, N.C., Whitney, D., Davies, T., Buscher, E., Lancaster, D., Eckert, L., Rhodes, C., Jacob, A.L., 2017. Conservation actions at global and local scales in Marine SocialEcological Systems: status, gaps and way forwards. In: Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean, pp. 143–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8053751.00008-8. Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., 2014. From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: governance, management, and local development for more effective marine pro tected areas. Marine Police 50, 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2014.05.005. Brasil, 1970. Decreto-lei n.� 1.098, datado de 25 de março de 1970. Brasil, 1993. Lei Nº 8.617 de 4 de janeiro de 1993. Disp~ oe sobre o mar territorial, a zona contígua, a zona econ^ omica exclusiva e a plataforma continental brasileiros, e d� a outras provid^encias. Brasil, 2000. Lei Nº 9985 de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, x 1o, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituiç~ ao Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservaç~ ao da Natureza e d� a outras provid^ encias. Brasil, 2006. Decreto Nº 5.758 de 13 de abril de 2006. Plano Estrat� egico Nacional de � Areas Protegidas. Brasil, 2016. Decreto Nº 14.400 de 2 de agosto de 2016. Cria o Refúgio de Vida Silvestre do Arquip�elago de Alcatrazes no litoral norte do Estado de S~ ao Paulo. � Brasil, 2018. Decreto Nº 9.312 de 19 de março de 2018. Cria a Area de Proteç~ ao Ambiental do Arquip�elago de Trindade e Martim Vaz e o Monumento Natural das Ilhas de Trindade e Martim Vaz e do Monte Columbia. � Brasil, 2018. Decreto Nº 9.313 de 19 de março de 2018. Cria a Area de Proteç~ ao Ambiental do Arquip�elago de S~ ao Pedro e S~ ao Paulo e o Monumento Natural do Arquip� elago de S~ ao Pedro e S~ ao Paulo. Brasil, Instituto Chico Mendes de Proteç~ ao da Conservaç~ ao da Biodiversidade, 2018. � Portaria Conjunta Nº 2 de agosto de 2018. Disciplina a atividade de pesca na Area de Proteç~ ao Ambiental do Arquip�elago de Trindade e Martim Vaz. Brasil, Instituto Chico Mendes de Proteç~ ao da Conservaç~ ao da Biodiversidade, 2018. � Portaria Conjunta Nº 3 de agosto de 2018. Disciplina a atividade de pesca na Area de Proteç~ ao Ambiental do Arquip�elago de Trindade e Martim Vaz. Brooks, C.M., 2013. Competing values on the Antarctic high seas: CCAMLR and the challenge of marine-protected areas. Polar J. 3 (2), 277–300. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/2154896X.2013.854597. Carlson, L., Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implica tions. J. Environ. Manag. 75, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2004.11.008. Carvalho, G.L.C., 1999. O mar territorial brasileiro de 200 milhas: estrat� egia e soberania, 1970-1982. Rev. Bras. Política Int. 42 (1), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0034-73291999000100005. Castro, Luiz Augusto de Araújo, 1989. O Brasil e o Novo Direito do Mar: Mar Territorial e Zona Econ^ omica Exclusiva. FUNAG, Brasília. CBD Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011. Strategic plan for biodiversity 20112020, including Aichi biodiversity targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/. Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., d’Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson, C.H., Turner, M. G., Woodmansee, R.G., 1996. The report of the ecological society of America com mittee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 6 (3), 665–691. https://doi.org/10.2307/2269460. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1902–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015, 52. Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, N.S., Becerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T.F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D., Campbell, Sj, Cooper, A.T., DAvey, M., Edgar, S.C., F€ orsterr, G., Galvan, D.E., Irigoyen, A.J., Kushner, D.J., Moura, R., 2014. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. In: Parnell, P., Shears, N.T., Soler, G., Strain, E.M.A., Thomson, R.H. (Eds.), Nature 506, 216–220. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature13022. Eduardo, L.N., Fr�edou, T., Lira, A.S., Ferreira, B.P., Bertrand, A., M� enard, F., Fr� edou, F.L., 2018. Identifying key habitat and spatial patterns of fish biodiversity in the Tropical Brazilian continental shelf. Cont. Shelf Res. 166, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.csr.2018.07.002. Feitosa, C.V., Chaves, L.C.T., Ferreira, B.P., Araújo, M.E., 2012. Recreational fish feeding inside Brazilian MPAs: impacts on reef fish community structure. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 92 (7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315412000136. Ferreira, B.P., Messias, L.T., Maida, M., 2004. The environmental municipal councils as �rea de Proteç~ an instrument in coastal integrated management: the a ao ambiental costa dos Corais (AL/PE) experience. J. Coast. Res. 39, 1003–1007. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptative governance of socialecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511. Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.A.S., Jones, P.J.S., Sales, G., Ferreira, B.P., 2011. Marine protected dramas: the flaws of the Brazilian national system of marine protected areas. Environ. Manag. 47, 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9554-7. Giakoumi, S., Scianna, C., Plass-Johnson, P., Micheli, F., Grorud-Colvert, K., Thiriet, P., Claudet, J., Di Carlo, G., Di Franco, A., Gaines, S.D., García-Charton, J.A., Lubchenco, J., Reimer, J., Sala, E., Guidetti, P., 2017. Ecological efects of full and partial protection in the crowded Mediterranean Sea: a regional meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 8940. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08850-w.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank: Federal University of Espírito Santo, Coor denaç~ ao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), �gico Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnolo (CNPq), and the Long-term Program of Ecological Research (PELD) Coastal Habitats of Espírito Santo for Ana Carolina Mazzuco’s fellow ships (88887.185758/2018–00; 88887.137932/2017–00; 031117341); Center for Marine Studies at the Federal University of Paran� a (CEM/ UFPR) and public call Research and Development in integrares and sustainable actions in Brazil’s Bays (MCTIC/CNPq 21/2017) for Daniel Telles’s support; and Center for Environmental Studies and Research, Campinas State University (NEPAM/UNICAMP) for Caroline Fassina’s support. We also would like to thank the British Council and the Newton Fund for opening this discussion during the Workshop Ecosystem-based Management of estuaries and coasts to support coastal adaptation. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105067. References Albuquerque, F.V., Navia, A.F., Vaske Jr., T., Crespo, O., Hazin, F.H.V., 2019. Trophic ecology of large pelagic fish in the Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago, Brazil. Mar. Freshw. Res. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF18352 (in press). Almeida, A.P., Moreira, L.M.P., Bruno, S.C., Thom� e, J.C.A., Martins, A.S., Bolten, A.B., Bjorndal, K.A., 2011. Green turtle nesting on Trindade Island, Brazil: abundance, trends, and biometrics. Endanger. Species Res. 14, 193–201. https://doi.org/ 10.3354/esr00357. Armitage, D., Markschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob. Environ. Chang. 18 (1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002. Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Gregory, A.J., 2011. Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR
4
C.M. Fassina et al.
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx Roche, R.C., Harvey, C.V., Harvey, J.J., Kavanagh, A.P., McDonald, M., SteinRostaing, V.R., Turner, J.R., 2016. Recreational diving impacts on coral reefs and the adoption of environmentally responsible practices within the SCUBA diving in dustry. Environ. Manag. 58, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0696-0. Rockmann, C., Kraan, M., Goldsborough, D., Van Hoof, L., 2017. Stakeholder partici pation in Marine Management: the importance of transparency and rules for participation. In: Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean, pp. 289–306. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00014-3. Santos, A.C.L., Coutinho, I.M., Viana, D.L., Rego, M.G., Branco, I.S.L., Hazin, F.H.V., Oliveira, P.G.V., 2014. Reproductive biology of dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus (actinopterygii: coryphaenidae), in Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago, Brazil. Sci. Mar. 78 (3), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04013.08A. Siciliano, S., Moura, J.F., Filgueiras, H.R., Rodrigues, P.P., Leite Jr., N.O., 2012. Sightings of humpback whales on the Vit� oria-Trindade chain and around Trindade island, Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 60 (3), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1590/S167987592012000300016. Simon, T., Macieira, R.M., Joyeaux, J.-C., 2013. The shore fishes of the Trindade–Martin Vaz insular complex: an update. J. Fish Biol. 82, 2113–2127. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jfb.12126. Slocombe, D.S., 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management. Bioscience 43 (9), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312148. Soares, M.O., Lucas, C.C., 2018. Towards large and remote protected areas in the south Atlantic Ocean: St.Peter and St. Paul ś archipelago and the Vit� oria-Trindade seamount chain. Mar. Police 93, 101–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2018.04.004. Talaue McManus, L., Mahon, R., Aureli, A., Barbi�ere, J., Bertule, M., Bigagli, E., Bjørnsen, P., Combal, B., Dumont, A., Fanning, L., Fischer, A., Glennie, P., Grimes, S., Heileman, S., Lacroix, P., Lagod, M., Nakamura, M., Nijsten, G.-J., Rast, W., Sherbinin, A., 2016. Transboundary Water Systems - Status and Trends: Crosscutting Analysis, vol. 6. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi. UN The United Nations, 2015. General assembly resolution A/RES/70/1. Transforming our world, the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available at. http://www. un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol¼A/RES/70/1&Lang¼E. Viana, D.F., Hazin, F.H.V., Andrade, H.A., Nunes, D.M., Viana, D.L., 2015. Fisheries in the Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago:13 years of monitoring. Bol. Inst. Pesca 41 (2), 239–248. Viana, D.L., Hazin, F.H.V., Oliveira, J.E.L., Souza, M.A.C., 2017. Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago: Brazil in the mid atlantic. In: Recife : Vedas Ediç~ oes, p. 203. Wolfe, R.A., Putler, D.S., 2002. How tight are the ties that bind stakeholders groups? Organ. Sci. 13 (1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.64.544.
Giglio J., V., Pinheiro Q., H., Bender G., M., Bonaldo M., R., Costa-Lotufo V., L., Ferreira E.L., C., Floeter R., S., Freire, A., Gasparini R., J., Joyeux, J., Krajewski P., J., Lindner, A., Longo O., G., Lotufo M.C., T., Loyola, R., Luiz J., O., Macieira M., R., Magris A., R., Mello J., T., Quimbayo P., R., Rocha A., L., Segal, B., Teixeira B., J., Vila-Nova A., D., Vilar C., C., Zilberberg, C., Francini-Filho B., F., 2018. Large and remote marine protected areas in the South Atlantic Ocean are flawed and raise concerns: Comments on Soares and Lucas. Marine Policy 96, 13–17. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.marpol.2018.07.017. Gill, D.A., Mascia, M.B., Ahmadia, G.N., Glew, L., Lester, S.E., Barnes, M., Craigie, I., Darling, E.S., Free, C.M., Geldmann, J., Holst, S., Jensen, O.P., White, A.T., Basurto, X., Coad, L., Gates, R.D., Guannel, G., Mumby, P.J., Thomas, H., Whitmee, S., Woodley, S., Fox, H.E., 2017. Capacity shortfalls hinder the perfor mance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 593, 665–669. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature21708. Glaser, M., Gorris, P., Ferreira, B.P., Breckwoldt, A., 2018. Analysing ecosystem user perceptions of the governance interactions surrounding a Brazilian near shore coral reef. Sustainability 10, 1464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051464. Harasti, D., Davis, T.R., Jordan, A., Erskine, L., Moltschaniwskyj, N., 2019. Illegal rec reational fishing causes a decline in a fishery targeted species (Snapper: chrysophrys auratus) within a remote no-take marine protected area. PLoS One 14 (1), e0209926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209926. Hazin, F.H.V., Vaske Júnior, T., Oliveira, P.G., Macena, B.C.L., Carvalho, F., 2008. Oc currences of whale shark (rhincodon typus Smith, 1828) in the Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 68 (2), 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S1519-69842008000200021. Holling, C.S., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Science, sustainability and resource manage ment. In: Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cam bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 342–361. IOC-UNESCO and UNEP, 2016. Large Marine Ecosystems: Status and Trends. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. IUCN Environmental Law Centre, 2013. Stakeholder Participation Toolkit for Identifi cation, Designation and Management of Marine Protected Areas. RAC/SPA and IUCN-Med. RAC/SPA, Tunis, p. 30. Kittinger, J.N., Dowling, A., Purves, A.R., Milne, N.A., Olsson, P., 2011. Marine protected areas, multiple-agency management, and monumental surprise in the northwestern Hawaiian islands. J. Mar. Biol. 2011, e241374 https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/ 241374. Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T.P., Wilson, J., 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11 (1), 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01606110119. Lewis, N., Day, J.C., Wilhelm, ‘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. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, vol. 26. IUCN. xxviii þ, Gland, Switzerland, p. 120. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. CH.2017.PAG.26.en. Long, R.D., Charles, A., Stephenson, R.L., 2015. Key principles of marine ecosystembased management. Mar. Policy 57, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2015.01.013. Magalh~ aes, G.M., Amado-Filho, G.M., Rosa, M.R., Moura, R.L., Brasileiro, P.S., Moraes, F. C., Francini-Filho, R.B., Pereira-Filho, G.H., 2015. Changes in benthic communities along a 0–60 m depth gradient in the remote St. Peter and St. Paul archipelago (MidAtlantic ridge, Brazil). Bull. Mar. Sci. 91 (3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.5343/ bms.2014.1044. Muelbert, J.H., Nidzieko, N.J., Acosta, A.T.R., Beaulieu, S., Bernardino, A.F., Boikova, E., Bornman, T.G., Cataletto, B., Deneudt, K., Eliason, E., Kraberg, A., Nakaoka, M., Pugnetti1, A., Ragueneau, O., Scharfe, M., Soltwedel, T., Sosik, H.M., Stanisci, A., Stefanova, K., St�ephan, P., Stier, A., Wikner, J., Zingone, A., 2019. ILTER-the In ternational long-term ecological research network as a platform for global coastal and ocean observation. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 527. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmars.2019.00527. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325 (5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133. Pedrini, A.G., Gonçalves, J.E.A., Fonseca, M.C.S., Zaú, A.S., Lacorte, C.C., 1989. A survey of the marine algae of the Trindade Island. Bot. Mar. 32, 97–99. Pereira-Filho, G.H., Amado-Filho, G.M., Guimar~ aes, S.M.P.B., Moura, R.L., Sumida, P.Y. G., Abrantes, D.P., Bahia, R.G., Güth, A.Z., Jorge, R.R., Francini-Filho, R.B., 2011. Reef fish and benthic assemblages of the Trindade and Martin Vaz island Grup, southwestern atlantic. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 59 (3), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S1679-87592011000300001.
Caroline Malagutti Fassina** Secretaria Municipal Do Meio Ambiente, Prefeitura de Santos, Praça Dos �rios 10 Gonzaga, Santos, 11065-922, Brazil Expediciona Center of Environmental Sciences and Research, University of Campinas, �ria, Campinas, 13083-867, Rua Dos Flamboyants 155 Cidade Universita Brazil Daniel Hauer Queiroz Telles*** �, Av. Beira-mar S/n Center for Marine Studies, Federal University of Parana �, 83255-976, Brazil Pontal Do Sul, Pontal Do Parana Ana Carolina Azevedo Mazzuco* Benthic Ecology Group, Department of Oceanography, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Av. Fernando Ferrari 514 Goiabeiras, Vito�ria, 29075-910, Brazil **
Corresponding author.
***
Corresponding author.
*
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Fassina). E-mail address: [email protected] (D.H.Q. Telles). E-mail address: [email protected] (A.C.A. Mazzuco).
5
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean and Coastal Management journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Governance challenges for the newest Brazilian marine protected areas: Preliminary considerations for stakeholder participation A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords MPA Remote territories Governance Stakeholders Ecosystem-based management
Nations worldwide are facing new challenges in the protection of large remote marine habitats and searching for effective pathways to comply with international sustainable goals. In this letter, we discuss opportunities and uncertainties in the management of two recent remote Marine Protected Areas MPAs, St. Peter and S. Paul and Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelagos, Brazil, and evaluate the application of Ecosystem-based Management framework in the current national legal system. ‘Stakeholder involvement’ is revealed a major gap in the baseline governance of the MPAs, as a highlight for decreased participation in decision-making of Seascapes.
Letter 2
On March 19th, 2018, Brazil established more than 900,000 km of new marine protected areas (MPAs) beyond its continental territory by including two remote archipelagos (St. Peter and S. Paul and Trindade and Martim Vaz) in the National Environmental Conservation System (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b) (Fig. 1). This massive enlargement of MPAs (representing approximately 25% of the current marine surface) is an important step towards the improvement of the Brazilian environmental agenda. Environmental regulation in Brazil now safeguards pristine biodiversity hotspots and guarantees compliance with the Aichi Target 11 and the Sustainable Development Goal 14 (to protect 10% of the marine and coastal areas before 2020; CDB, 2011; UN, 2015; Soares and Lucas, 2018). Indeed, several future challenges in the management of the Archipelagos are expected, crossing scientific and institutional areas (Soares and Lucas, 2018), and creating both opportunities and un certainties for the conservation of marine biodiversity (Giglio et al., 2018). St. Peter and St. Paul is the smallest and most isolated tropical ar chipelago on the planet, located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean (Viana et al., 2017). Trindade and Martim Vaz is a chain of submarine mountains situated approximately 1.000 km of the Brazilian coast. Both sites are marine wildlife refuges guarded by highly diverse and pristine marine habitats (Pedrini et al., 1989; Hazin et al., 2008; Almeida et al., 2011; Pereira-Filho et al., 2011; Siciliano et al., 2012; Simon et al., 2013; ~es et al., 2015; Viana et al., 2015; Aued Santos et al., 2014; Magalha et al., 2018; Albuquerque et al., 2019). Biodiversity conservation was stated as a priority and the sites were promoted to international ocean observatories (Brazilian Long-term Ecological Research Program PELD/CNPq http://memoria.cnpq.br/sitios-peld; Muelbert et al., 2019). However, the Brazilian Navy held the islands’ jurisdiction for coastal protection and military purposes, imposing research restrictions and centralizing management decisions. Biodiversity conservation was instituted to the environmental agency Instituto Chico Mendes, just recently weakened by current governmental disputes. It is the typical case when isolation protects biodiversity (Edgar et al., 2014) but in cludes disputes of interests, showing that merging defense and
environmental conservation is complex. Divergent issues emerge from shared-managed areas, requiring a lot of creativity to reach long-term success as MPAs. Management actions must converge institutional scope and attributions towards MPA goals while guarding biodiversity integrity and allowing public use (Bennet and Dearden, 2014). Legal premises facilitate the management pro cesses, in the Archipelagos’ cases, that MPAs do not interfere in national defense in the territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zone (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b). However, environmental protection is never a guarantee as several military recreational activities have major impacts on local marine biodiversity (Giglio et al., 2018). It is not the first time that a remote military site is promoted to an MPA in Brazil. Alcatrazes Ar chipelago in the coast of S~ ao Paulo is a former military site recently upgraded to MPA after environmental incidents (Brasil, 2016). Both St. Peter and St. Paul and Trindade and Martim Vaz MPAs’ creations include critical moments such as previous and non-authorized spread of zoning maps through social networks and the consequent pressure from the scientists and environmentalists. During the establishment of the MPAs around the Archipelagos, the Aichi’s targets grounded the con servation goals, but still provoked disagreement between the involved parties, mainly in technical zoning and categorization. Conflicts covered top-down changes in original MPA design and unprotecting key-habitats, fishing allowance, and focus on achieving the Aichi Target 11 rather than regional conservation priorities (Giglio et al., 2018). A mosaic of MPAs of different protection levels came out as the final agreement (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b; Giglio et al., 2018). The land and seascapes were awarded as Natural Monuments. Not surprisingly, several important marine habitats were classified into the lowest re striction category, a big environmental loss. The major challenge for the new MPAs is the most visual: remote ness. Remote and large MPAs (LMPAs) are expected to dominate future sea spatial organization and optimize biodiversity conservation efforts (Kittinger et al., 2011). Despite world advances in the management of LMPAs (Lewis et al., 2017), there is no specific guideline or legal framework in Brazil, while monitoring, institutional, and human ca pacity issues are arising nonstop. Considering the current agreement, the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105067 Received 3 September 2019; Received in revised form 8 November 2019; Accepted 22 November 2019 0964-5691/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Caroline Malagutti Fassina, Ocean and Coastal Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105067
C.M. Fassina et al.
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Archipelagos hold less than half of the ideal features for effective and equitable management (Gill et al., 2017, Table 1). Although deep-water barriers and large-size are beneficial assets for MPAs (Edgar et al., 2014), distance from the people’s eyes imposes the eminent risk of government centralization and restricted stakeholder participation. Meeting competing values (i.e. fisheries and conservation) is a major challenge in remote LMPAs, negatively interfering with the ability to effectively implement management and conservation (Brooks, 2013). Since marine biodiversity at the Archipelagos is not integrally protected by the output regulation, we already anticipate severe consequences by
the allowed human activities (e.g. scuba diving and boat tourism; Roche et al., 2016; Giakoumi et al., 2017; Harasti et al., 2019). Successful management of the new remote Brazilian LMPAs urgently calls for innovation, dynamism, and integration. A well-designed man agement plan targeted to achieve specific MPA features, improve governance, and enable dialogue could speed up the protection of the Archipelagos’ biodiversity (Bennett et al., 2014). The Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) is an appropriate framework for this kind of situa tion since the territorial coverage of the Archipelagos’ MPAs is a new space to be built-in a more consolidated baseline of participative
Fig. 1. Location of the new remote Marine protected Areas, St. Peter and S.paul (55� 36’N, 29� 21’W) and Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelagos (20� 30’ S, 29� 20’W), in regard to the Brazilian continental coastline. Results of the cross-analysis evaluating the citation of Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) Key-principles in the national legel MPA system (Archipelagos’ MPA decrees, Brasil 2018a,b; National Strategic plan for Protected Areas NSPAP, Brasil 2006) and are shown in the charts. Note: Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone is in dark blue, dashed lines represent MPA geographic limits. 2
C.M. Fassina et al.
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
NSPPA but not even mentioned in the Archipelagos’ decrees. Likewise, ‘Societal Choices’, a way to enforce society participation in the envi ronmental management processes, is not stated in the documents. Several other EBM principles are not found in the legal texts, for instance ‘Appropriate Scales’ and ‘Acknowledge Uncertainty’, both particularly important for remote LMPAs (Lewis et al., 2017). Although discussion about strategic sites and policies for marine areas increases compliance and stakeholders’ vigilance by raising awareness over environmental bans, broad society may still remain totally out of the decision-making process which consequently loses effectiveness (IUCN, 2013; Bennet and Dearden, 2014). Stakeholders are at the core of the LMPAs’ management framework and should be map ped at first (Lewis et al., 2017), which did not happen yet for the Archipelagos. Response from the actual users and understanding of how actions overcome in the territorial arena of non-property earth surfaces must receive a long-term goal in LMPAs, the management agenda is an executive issue. In both situations – goal definition and stakeholder permanent vigilance - broad society should be accessed by representa tive groups and their coherent leadership (IUCN, 2013; Bennet and Dearden, 2014). Stakeholders are an issue itself when the consensus gets a conflict of priority between groups (Wolfe and Putler, 2002). Society’s involvement in the governance process is a requirement forwarding the process to be enabled, encouraged, and enhanced in/by different mechanisms of consensus formation in a flexible perspective linked to social groups and their knowledge (Holling et al., 1998; Carlson and Berkes, 2005). Stakeholder Involvement has a strong relationship with political motivations that define the first moments of any protected area creation and regulation. In Brasil, MPAs’ governance is supposedly a participatory system in which decision-making relies on a manager and a council (Brasil, 2000). However, open consultancy is rare and key stakeholders are often left out of the discussions unless directly affected. Even duplicity of managing bodies in upper and deliberative spheres did not pronounce greater stakeholder participation in the first moments of the creation of the Archipelago’s MPAs (Brasil, 2018a, 2018b). The fishery industry, i.e., was clearly not treated as a key-stakeholder by the Navy or the ICMBio, which instituted severe fishing bans at the islands with no opposition (Brasil, 2018c). The ocean mining industry, partic ularly for Trindade’s case, and other local stakeholders such as the tourism industry which could be directly benefited by the new MPAs did not join discussions and creation processes. In regard to the most specific challenges - remoteness and huge area we point out that: if in one hand, the unilateral raising of territorial waters issued by presidential decree 1.098/1970 (Brasil, 1970) over the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone was essentially based on political, diplomatic, economic and security factors, although without conditions of material and technological contingent for the fulfillment of such claim (Carvalho, 1999). The conservation initiative by the presi dential decrees 9.312 and 9.313 (Brasil, 2018d) reaffirms the right and obligation to provide international commitments. Contradictorily, the October 2019’s oil disasters that hit the sea of northeastern Brazilian coastal zone prove the management disability previously protested by eleven countries (Castro, 1989). By being geographically distant from the mainland, specific management converges and its institutional scope of Coastal Zone, Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Eco nomic Zone (Brasil, 1993) shall be advanced. In addition, the sites fit in the category of Transboundary Water Systems by the status of Large Marine Ecosystems territories (Talaue McManus et al., 2016), a chal lenge in the global panorama of multilevel governance, which means a unrestricted to an exclusive command place (IOC-UNESCO, 2016). Far from not willing to exert sovereignty in these islands, how is Brazil going to guarantee ecosystem-based management there? Is if going to create the conditions for ordered rule and collective action or institutions of social coordination (Dietz et al., 2003), developing structures and processes by which people make decisions and share power (Lebel et al., 2006), and resolving trade-offs and providing a vision and direction for sustainability (Folke et al., 2005). EBM fits in the
Table 1 Ideal features for successful Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) in terms of man agement efficiency and equitability (Gill et al., 2017) and environmental and restriction characteristics that have significant positive impact on conservation (Edgar et al., 2014) currently present at St. Peter and St. Paul’s and Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelagos’ MPAs. Ideal MPA features
St. Peter and St. Paul’s Archipelago
Management efficiency and equitability Legally gazetted X Appropriate MPA regulations in place Implementing management plan Acceptable enforcement capacity Acceptable budget capacity X Monitoring informs X management activities Adequate staff capacity/ presence Inclusive decision-making Shared/non-state management Environmental and restriction characteristics No-take X Well enforced Old (>10 years) Large (>100km2) X Isolated X
Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelago X
X X
X X X
governance, sovereign principles, scientific approaches, tactical man agement, and strong environment monitoring. EBM is an interdisci plinary approach that balances ecological, social and governance principles at appropriate temporal and spatial scales in a distinct geographical area to achieve sustainable resource use (Slocombe, 1993; Christensen et al., 1995), legally allowed by the MPAs’ category (Brasil, 2000). In EBM, scientific knowledge and effective monitoring acknowledge the connections, integrity, and biodiversity within an ecosystem considering both dynamism and uncertainties (Ostrom, 1990, 2009; Atkins et al., 2011). EBM also recognizes coupled social-ecological systems with stakeholders involved in an integrated decision table, ev idence, and adaptive management process where decisions reflect so cietal choice based on benefits and sustainable principles (Long et al., 2015; Armitage et al., 2018). By considering the role of the human dimension in shaping ecosystem processes and dynamics (Folke et al., 2005), EBM could mitigate future conflicts and facilitate the alignment of marine conservation and stakeholders’ needs at the Archipelagos. An evaluation of the application potential of EBM to the current MPA legal system in Brazil reveals inconsistency and a list of lacks in the baseline frameworks. We searched for evidences of the 15 EBM keyprinciples (Long et al., 2015) in the Archipelago’s MPAs’ decrees (Bra sil, 2018a, 2018b) and in the National Strategic Plan for Protected Areas (NSPPA; Brasil, 2006) by crossing the occurrence of representative words for each principle in the legal texts (Fig. 1; Methods in Supple mentary material). Our results revealed that only two of the 15 princi ples - ‘Use of Scientific Knowledge’ and ‘Ecological Integrity and Biodiversity’ - are considered in the three legal texts analyzed, occu pying, side by side, the first place in the number of mentions. Regardless of the low overall coverage, this finding reveals that the EBM core management guided by ecosystem knowledge to promote ecological integrity and biodiversity conservation - is comprehended in the Archipelago’s MPAs’ agreements as well as the in the main strategic guideline for the Brazilian conservation units. ‘Appropriate Monitoring’ is the next most cited, evidence that inputs of ecosystem information shall remain in the long-term and could promote the application of EBM. Stakeholder Involvement, on the top list of the most important EBM principles, is a divergent point as it is the 5th most highlighted by the 3
C.M. Fassina et al.
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Brazilian Conservation Unit System (Brasil, 2000) and implementation is a matter of proactiveness, knowledge-driven actions, and detailed planning. Long-term ecological research programs, an EBM tool to incorporate ecosystem information, is a common practice in Brazilian MPAs supported by the ICMBio. The management plan, the core docu ment guiding MPAs in Brazil (Brasil, 2000), is totally open to adjust ments based on local specificities and incorporation of different management tools, which could follow EBM principles. Public consul tancies and partnerships are ways to enforce deliberating opportunities and facilitate stakeholder participation. Costa dos Corais, a LMPA in the Northeast Coast of Brazil, is an example to be followed in the manage ment of stakeholder conflicts, participatory instruments, extensive long-term ecosystem monitoring, and conservation across marine hab itats (Ferreira et al., 2004; Feitosa et al., 2012; Glaser et al., 2018; Eduardo et al., 2018). Large marine ecosystems are supposed to be a global matter of governance based on key principles already mentioned (Long et al., 2015; IUCN, 2017), that address implications of cumulative human impacts and monitoring capacity. All these aspects must be designed and conducted as an agenda of monitoring based on integrated methodolo gies and strategies able to cover multiple scales and sectors (Ban et al., 2017; Gill et al., 2017). Final goal: governance guided by participatory approach, clear objectives, and institutionalization (Rockmann et al., 2017). Address the challenges and gaps in MPAs’ management plan is crucial to ensure a coherent inclusive process according to the legal normative set as public territories. Governance arrangement is critical in LMPAs, requiring multiple-agency management (Kittinger et al., 2011), leadership (Gerhardinger et al., 2011), and government investment based in high scored technical calls of services. EBM is a framework to be considered as an action-guide towards efficiency and participation and could fill up a major governance gap in the MPAs from their beginning.
framework in a systems approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 215–226. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.012. Aued, A.W., Smith, F., Quimbayo, J.P., C^ andido, D.V., Longo, G.O., Ferreira, C.E.L., Witman, J.D., Floeter, S.R., Segal, B., 2018. Large-scale patterns of benthic marine communities in the Brazilian Province. PLoS One 13 (6), e0198452. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal pone.0198452. Ban, N.C., Whitney, D., Davies, T., Buscher, E., Lancaster, D., Eckert, L., Rhodes, C., Jacob, A.L., 2017. Conservation actions at global and local scales in Marine SocialEcological Systems: status, gaps and way forwards. In: Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean, pp. 143–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8053751.00008-8. Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., 2014. From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: governance, management, and local development for more effective marine pro tected areas. Marine Police 50, 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2014.05.005. Brasil, 1970. Decreto-lei n.� 1.098, datado de 25 de março de 1970. Brasil, 1993. Lei Nº 8.617 de 4 de janeiro de 1993. Disp~ oe sobre o mar territorial, a zona contígua, a zona econ^ omica exclusiva e a plataforma continental brasileiros, e d� a outras provid^encias. Brasil, 2000. Lei Nº 9985 de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, x 1o, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituiç~ ao Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservaç~ ao da Natureza e d� a outras provid^ encias. Brasil, 2006. Decreto Nº 5.758 de 13 de abril de 2006. Plano Estrat� egico Nacional de � Areas Protegidas. Brasil, 2016. Decreto Nº 14.400 de 2 de agosto de 2016. Cria o Refúgio de Vida Silvestre do Arquip�elago de Alcatrazes no litoral norte do Estado de S~ ao Paulo. � Brasil, 2018. Decreto Nº 9.312 de 19 de março de 2018. Cria a Area de Proteç~ ao Ambiental do Arquip�elago de Trindade e Martim Vaz e o Monumento Natural das Ilhas de Trindade e Martim Vaz e do Monte Columbia. � Brasil, 2018. Decreto Nº 9.313 de 19 de março de 2018. Cria a Area de Proteç~ ao Ambiental do Arquip�elago de S~ ao Pedro e S~ ao Paulo e o Monumento Natural do Arquip� elago de S~ ao Pedro e S~ ao Paulo. Brasil, Instituto Chico Mendes de Proteç~ ao da Conservaç~ ao da Biodiversidade, 2018. � Portaria Conjunta Nº 2 de agosto de 2018. Disciplina a atividade de pesca na Area de Proteç~ ao Ambiental do Arquip�elago de Trindade e Martim Vaz. Brasil, Instituto Chico Mendes de Proteç~ ao da Conservaç~ ao da Biodiversidade, 2018. � Portaria Conjunta Nº 3 de agosto de 2018. Disciplina a atividade de pesca na Area de Proteç~ ao Ambiental do Arquip�elago de Trindade e Martim Vaz. Brooks, C.M., 2013. Competing values on the Antarctic high seas: CCAMLR and the challenge of marine-protected areas. Polar J. 3 (2), 277–300. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/2154896X.2013.854597. Carlson, L., Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implica tions. J. Environ. Manag. 75, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2004.11.008. Carvalho, G.L.C., 1999. O mar territorial brasileiro de 200 milhas: estrat� egia e soberania, 1970-1982. Rev. Bras. Política Int. 42 (1), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0034-73291999000100005. Castro, Luiz Augusto de Araújo, 1989. O Brasil e o Novo Direito do Mar: Mar Territorial e Zona Econ^ omica Exclusiva. FUNAG, Brasília. CBD Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011. Strategic plan for biodiversity 20112020, including Aichi biodiversity targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/. Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., d’Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson, C.H., Turner, M. G., Woodmansee, R.G., 1996. The report of the ecological society of America com mittee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 6 (3), 665–691. https://doi.org/10.2307/2269460. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1902–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015, 52. Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, N.S., Becerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T.F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D., Campbell, Sj, Cooper, A.T., DAvey, M., Edgar, S.C., F€ orsterr, G., Galvan, D.E., Irigoyen, A.J., Kushner, D.J., Moura, R., 2014. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. In: Parnell, P., Shears, N.T., Soler, G., Strain, E.M.A., Thomson, R.H. (Eds.), Nature 506, 216–220. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature13022. Eduardo, L.N., Fr�edou, T., Lira, A.S., Ferreira, B.P., Bertrand, A., M� enard, F., Fr� edou, F.L., 2018. Identifying key habitat and spatial patterns of fish biodiversity in the Tropical Brazilian continental shelf. Cont. Shelf Res. 166, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.csr.2018.07.002. Feitosa, C.V., Chaves, L.C.T., Ferreira, B.P., Araújo, M.E., 2012. Recreational fish feeding inside Brazilian MPAs: impacts on reef fish community structure. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 92 (7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315412000136. Ferreira, B.P., Messias, L.T., Maida, M., 2004. The environmental municipal councils as �rea de Proteç~ an instrument in coastal integrated management: the a ao ambiental costa dos Corais (AL/PE) experience. J. Coast. Res. 39, 1003–1007. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptative governance of socialecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511. Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.A.S., Jones, P.J.S., Sales, G., Ferreira, B.P., 2011. Marine protected dramas: the flaws of the Brazilian national system of marine protected areas. Environ. Manag. 47, 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9554-7. Giakoumi, S., Scianna, C., Plass-Johnson, P., Micheli, F., Grorud-Colvert, K., Thiriet, P., Claudet, J., Di Carlo, G., Di Franco, A., Gaines, S.D., García-Charton, J.A., Lubchenco, J., Reimer, J., Sala, E., Guidetti, P., 2017. Ecological efects of full and partial protection in the crowded Mediterranean Sea: a regional meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 8940. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08850-w.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank: Federal University of Espírito Santo, Coor denaç~ ao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), �gico Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnolo (CNPq), and the Long-term Program of Ecological Research (PELD) Coastal Habitats of Espírito Santo for Ana Carolina Mazzuco’s fellow ships (88887.185758/2018–00; 88887.137932/2017–00; 031117341); Center for Marine Studies at the Federal University of Paran� a (CEM/ UFPR) and public call Research and Development in integrares and sustainable actions in Brazil’s Bays (MCTIC/CNPq 21/2017) for Daniel Telles’s support; and Center for Environmental Studies and Research, Campinas State University (NEPAM/UNICAMP) for Caroline Fassina’s support. We also would like to thank the British Council and the Newton Fund for opening this discussion during the Workshop Ecosystem-based Management of estuaries and coasts to support coastal adaptation. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105067. References Albuquerque, F.V., Navia, A.F., Vaske Jr., T., Crespo, O., Hazin, F.H.V., 2019. Trophic ecology of large pelagic fish in the Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago, Brazil. Mar. Freshw. Res. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF18352 (in press). Almeida, A.P., Moreira, L.M.P., Bruno, S.C., Thom� e, J.C.A., Martins, A.S., Bolten, A.B., Bjorndal, K.A., 2011. Green turtle nesting on Trindade Island, Brazil: abundance, trends, and biometrics. Endanger. Species Res. 14, 193–201. https://doi.org/ 10.3354/esr00357. Armitage, D., Markschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob. Environ. Chang. 18 (1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002. Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Gregory, A.J., 2011. Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR
4
C.M. Fassina et al.
Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxx Roche, R.C., Harvey, C.V., Harvey, J.J., Kavanagh, A.P., McDonald, M., SteinRostaing, V.R., Turner, J.R., 2016. Recreational diving impacts on coral reefs and the adoption of environmentally responsible practices within the SCUBA diving in dustry. Environ. Manag. 58, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0696-0. Rockmann, C., Kraan, M., Goldsborough, D., Van Hoof, L., 2017. Stakeholder partici pation in Marine Management: the importance of transparency and rules for participation. In: Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean, pp. 289–306. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00014-3. Santos, A.C.L., Coutinho, I.M., Viana, D.L., Rego, M.G., Branco, I.S.L., Hazin, F.H.V., Oliveira, P.G.V., 2014. Reproductive biology of dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus (actinopterygii: coryphaenidae), in Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago, Brazil. Sci. Mar. 78 (3), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04013.08A. Siciliano, S., Moura, J.F., Filgueiras, H.R., Rodrigues, P.P., Leite Jr., N.O., 2012. Sightings of humpback whales on the Vit� oria-Trindade chain and around Trindade island, Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 60 (3), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1590/S167987592012000300016. Simon, T., Macieira, R.M., Joyeaux, J.-C., 2013. The shore fishes of the Trindade–Martin Vaz insular complex: an update. J. Fish Biol. 82, 2113–2127. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jfb.12126. Slocombe, D.S., 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management. Bioscience 43 (9), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312148. Soares, M.O., Lucas, C.C., 2018. Towards large and remote protected areas in the south Atlantic Ocean: St.Peter and St. Paul ś archipelago and the Vit� oria-Trindade seamount chain. Mar. Police 93, 101–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2018.04.004. Talaue McManus, L., Mahon, R., Aureli, A., Barbi�ere, J., Bertule, M., Bigagli, E., Bjørnsen, P., Combal, B., Dumont, A., Fanning, L., Fischer, A., Glennie, P., Grimes, S., Heileman, S., Lacroix, P., Lagod, M., Nakamura, M., Nijsten, G.-J., Rast, W., Sherbinin, A., 2016. Transboundary Water Systems - Status and Trends: Crosscutting Analysis, vol. 6. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi. UN The United Nations, 2015. General assembly resolution A/RES/70/1. Transforming our world, the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available at. http://www. un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol¼A/RES/70/1&Lang¼E. Viana, D.F., Hazin, F.H.V., Andrade, H.A., Nunes, D.M., Viana, D.L., 2015. Fisheries in the Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago:13 years of monitoring. Bol. Inst. Pesca 41 (2), 239–248. Viana, D.L., Hazin, F.H.V., Oliveira, J.E.L., Souza, M.A.C., 2017. Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago: Brazil in the mid atlantic. In: Recife : Vedas Ediç~ oes, p. 203. Wolfe, R.A., Putler, D.S., 2002. How tight are the ties that bind stakeholders groups? Organ. Sci. 13 (1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.64.544.
Giglio J., V., Pinheiro Q., H., Bender G., M., Bonaldo M., R., Costa-Lotufo V., L., Ferreira E.L., C., Floeter R., S., Freire, A., Gasparini R., J., Joyeux, J., Krajewski P., J., Lindner, A., Longo O., G., Lotufo M.C., T., Loyola, R., Luiz J., O., Macieira M., R., Magris A., R., Mello J., T., Quimbayo P., R., Rocha A., L., Segal, B., Teixeira B., J., Vila-Nova A., D., Vilar C., C., Zilberberg, C., Francini-Filho B., F., 2018. Large and remote marine protected areas in the South Atlantic Ocean are flawed and raise concerns: Comments on Soares and Lucas. Marine Policy 96, 13–17. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.marpol.2018.07.017. Gill, D.A., Mascia, M.B., Ahmadia, G.N., Glew, L., Lester, S.E., Barnes, M., Craigie, I., Darling, E.S., Free, C.M., Geldmann, J., Holst, S., Jensen, O.P., White, A.T., Basurto, X., Coad, L., Gates, R.D., Guannel, G., Mumby, P.J., Thomas, H., Whitmee, S., Woodley, S., Fox, H.E., 2017. Capacity shortfalls hinder the perfor mance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 593, 665–669. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature21708. Glaser, M., Gorris, P., Ferreira, B.P., Breckwoldt, A., 2018. Analysing ecosystem user perceptions of the governance interactions surrounding a Brazilian near shore coral reef. Sustainability 10, 1464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051464. Harasti, D., Davis, T.R., Jordan, A., Erskine, L., Moltschaniwskyj, N., 2019. Illegal rec reational fishing causes a decline in a fishery targeted species (Snapper: chrysophrys auratus) within a remote no-take marine protected area. PLoS One 14 (1), e0209926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209926. Hazin, F.H.V., Vaske Júnior, T., Oliveira, P.G., Macena, B.C.L., Carvalho, F., 2008. Oc currences of whale shark (rhincodon typus Smith, 1828) in the Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 68 (2), 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S1519-69842008000200021. Holling, C.S., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Science, sustainability and resource manage ment. In: Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cam bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 342–361. IOC-UNESCO and UNEP, 2016. Large Marine Ecosystems: Status and Trends. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. IUCN Environmental Law Centre, 2013. Stakeholder Participation Toolkit for Identifi cation, Designation and Management of Marine Protected Areas. RAC/SPA and IUCN-Med. RAC/SPA, Tunis, p. 30. Kittinger, J.N., Dowling, A., Purves, A.R., Milne, N.A., Olsson, P., 2011. Marine protected areas, multiple-agency management, and monumental surprise in the northwestern Hawaiian islands. J. Mar. Biol. 2011, e241374 https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/ 241374. Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T.P., Wilson, J., 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11 (1), 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01606110119. Lewis, N., Day, J.C., Wilhelm, ‘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. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, vol. 26. IUCN. xxviii þ, Gland, Switzerland, p. 120. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. CH.2017.PAG.26.en. Long, R.D., Charles, A., Stephenson, R.L., 2015. Key principles of marine ecosystembased management. Mar. Policy 57, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2015.01.013. Magalh~ aes, G.M., Amado-Filho, G.M., Rosa, M.R., Moura, R.L., Brasileiro, P.S., Moraes, F. C., Francini-Filho, R.B., Pereira-Filho, G.H., 2015. Changes in benthic communities along a 0–60 m depth gradient in the remote St. Peter and St. Paul archipelago (MidAtlantic ridge, Brazil). Bull. Mar. Sci. 91 (3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.5343/ bms.2014.1044. Muelbert, J.H., Nidzieko, N.J., Acosta, A.T.R., Beaulieu, S., Bernardino, A.F., Boikova, E., Bornman, T.G., Cataletto, B., Deneudt, K., Eliason, E., Kraberg, A., Nakaoka, M., Pugnetti1, A., Ragueneau, O., Scharfe, M., Soltwedel, T., Sosik, H.M., Stanisci, A., Stefanova, K., St�ephan, P., Stier, A., Wikner, J., Zingone, A., 2019. ILTER-the In ternational long-term ecological research network as a platform for global coastal and ocean observation. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 527. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmars.2019.00527. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325 (5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133. Pedrini, A.G., Gonçalves, J.E.A., Fonseca, M.C.S., Zaú, A.S., Lacorte, C.C., 1989. A survey of the marine algae of the Trindade Island. Bot. Mar. 32, 97–99. Pereira-Filho, G.H., Amado-Filho, G.M., Guimar~ aes, S.M.P.B., Moura, R.L., Sumida, P.Y. G., Abrantes, D.P., Bahia, R.G., Güth, A.Z., Jorge, R.R., Francini-Filho, R.B., 2011. Reef fish and benthic assemblages of the Trindade and Martin Vaz island Grup, southwestern atlantic. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 59 (3), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S1679-87592011000300001.
Caroline Malagutti Fassina** Secretaria Municipal Do Meio Ambiente, Prefeitura de Santos, Praça Dos �rios 10 Gonzaga, Santos, 11065-922, Brazil Expediciona Center of Environmental Sciences and Research, University of Campinas, �ria, Campinas, 13083-867, Rua Dos Flamboyants 155 Cidade Universita Brazil Daniel Hauer Queiroz Telles*** �, Av. Beira-mar S/n Center for Marine Studies, Federal University of Parana �, 83255-976, Brazil Pontal Do Sul, Pontal Do Parana Ana Carolina Azevedo Mazzuco* Benthic Ecology Group, Department of Oceanography, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Av. Fernando Ferrari 514 Goiabeiras, Vito�ria, 29075-910, Brazil **
Corresponding author.
***
Corresponding author.
*
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Fassina). E-mail address: [email protected] (D.H.Q. Telles). E-mail address: [email protected] (A.C.A. Mazzuco).
5