this publication has been brazilian federal protected ... · published in partnership with: 2012...

THIS PUBLICATIONHAS BEENPUBLISHED INPARTNERSHIP WITH:

2012

PROJECTBR

Why we are hereTo stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

www.wwf.org.br

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAZILIAN FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS: RESULTS OF 2010

BRAZILIAN FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS

1986 Panda Symbol WWF“WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark

WWF-Brasil: SHIS EQ QL 6/8, Conjunto E - CEP 71620-430, Brasília, DF - (55 + 61) 3364-7400

Brazilian Federal Protected Areas

Federal PAs were evaluated in 2010.

Workshops were held to perform the evaluation.

Of the total area covered by federal and state PAs in Brazil was already evaluated by the RAPPAM method.

Of the federal PAs assessed had high values of manage-ment effectiveness.

Is the average management effectiveness value of the federal PAs in 2010.

WW

F-Brasil/Zig K

och

Foto capa: WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch


Authors

WWF-Brasil

Instituto Chico Mendes

de Conservação da Biodiversidade

orgAnizers

Cristina Aragão Onaga

Maria Auxiliadora Drumond

Mariana Napolitano e Ferreira

Brasília, 2012

PUBLIShING TEAM

orgAnized by

Cristina Aragão Onaga

Maria Auxiliadora Drumond


techinicAl review

Mariana Napolitano e Ferreira WWF-Brasil

Marcelo Kinouchi ICMBio

Lilian Mitiko Hangae ICMBio

Silvia Luciano de Sousa ICMBio

ProofreAding

Tauana Brandão

review of the english version

Frederico Brandão

lAyout And design

Radiola Design e Publicidade

Adriano G

ambarini/W

WF-B

rasil

WW

F-Brasil/B

ento Viana

SUMMARYForeword

Chapter 1. Introduction and methodological procedures Rappam framework

General information

Pressures and threats

Context and management effectiveness

Chapter 2. Rappam results 2010 General information

Human resources


Context Socio-economic importance

Vulnerability

Management effectiveness

Planning

Inputs Process

Outputs

Overall analysis of management effectiveness

Protected Areas System

Chapter 3. Evolution of management effectiveness in Brazilian Federal Protected Areas in five years: comparison between 2005-2006 and 2010

Rappam assessment in 2005-2006 and in 2010

Bibliography Attachment

11

12 17 1818

20

222328 28

42

44

46

48485153565860

62

64

66 68

WW

F-Brasil/E

duardo Aigner

List of acronyms

APA - Environmental Protection Area

Arie - Area of Relevant Ecological Interest

WCPA - World Commission of Protected Areas

EE - Ecological Station

FN - National Forest

ha - Hectares

Ibama - Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Federal Government)

ICMBio - Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (Federal Government)

MMA - Brazilian Ministry of the Environment

PN - National Park

Rappam - Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management

RDS - Sustainable Development Reserve

RB - Biological Reserve

Resex - Extractive Reserve

SNUC - National Protected Areas System

UC - Protected Area

UICN - International Union for Conservation of Nature

10

Adriano G

ambarini/W

WF-B

rasil

11

In 2012, when it is celebrates 20 years of the establishment of the CBD, the challenges to establishing a global context which actually combines the economic development with the maintenance of ecosystem services and biodiversity are increasing. However, some positive efforts should be recognized, and the establishment of protected areas is among the strategies that prevented even higher rates of loss of species and unique habitats. Brazil plays a prominent role in this scenario, accounting for about 75% of the total area that was protected in the world between 2003 and 2010.

According to the law governing the Brazilian System of Protected Areas, these areas are intended primarily for nature conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Their creation is a fundamental step for ecosystem conservation and to maintain the human wellbeing on Earth. The greatest challenge for its implementation is to ensure that PAs are managed adequately to fulfill their goals. Recognizing this challenge, in 2004, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Program of Work for Protected Areas (VII/28), which determined that signatory countries should implement management effectiveness assessments of a percentage of its protected area systems.

This publication presents the results of the partnership developed between the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation - ICMBio and WWF-Brazil to evaluate the management effectiveness of Brazilian federal protected areas based on the application of the RAPPAM - Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management method in 292 PAs in 2010. Throughout the text results from 2010 are compared to the results obtained by the same method in 2005-06.

We expect that the information and analysis contained in this publication will serve as a basis to assist the institutions that are responsible for or the ones that support the management of the Brazilian PA system in improving its effectiveness. Moreover, we hope that it consists of valuable material to inform the Brazilian society about the effectiveness of government investments in this important set of protected areas, which encompasses such a huge cultural and biological national heritage.

FOREwORD The Third Global Biodiversity Outlook, launched in 2010, indicated that the world has failed

to fulfill the goals set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2002 aimed at significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss, while the major pressures leading to this loss are not only constant, but, in many cases, intensifying.

12

ChAPTER 1Introduction and methodological procedures

13

WW

F-Brasil/Zig K

och

14

Most indicators of biodiversity status (population tendencies, risk of extinction, community composition, habitat extension and conditions) have been declining over recent decades and recent indexes show no significant alteration to that trend. At the same time indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including habitat conversion, resource consumption, exotic species, nitrogen pollution of the air, over-exploitation, and climate change impacts) continue to stand at very high levels even though there are some regions where a decline has been registered (BUTCHART et al., 2010).

Establishing protected areas is widely recognised as the most efficient way of restraining the biodiversity crisis (BRUNER et al., 2001; BALMFORD et al. 2002; SINCLAIR et al., 2002). Such areas maintain basic stocks of natural resources in various kinds of ecosystems and ensure the long-term maintenance of ecological processes. From the 1980s on, the world witnessed a considerable increase in the number of areas under protection as a result of the strong pro-environment movement in course and the growing perception of the need for institutionally protected natural spaces (LOCKWOOD et al., 2006; LEVERINGTON et al., 2008). Currently, protected areas are estimated to occupy 11% of the Earth’s surface (IPAN & UNEP-WCMC, 2010). In Brazil there are more than 1,600 PAs covering approximately 17% of the country’s land surface; a little over half of them are managed by the government (MMA, 2010). However, the number and dimensions of protected areas only provides a very simple form of indicator of political commitment to biodiversity conservation and its practical effects in containing the current crisis. There is a need to go beyond, and investigate whether the protected areas systems adequately represent all the different components of biodiversity and ecological processes and whether they are being managed effectively to ensure long-term maintenance of their natural resources.

Effective management of protected areas (PA) involves technical, political and economic aspects (such as design, connectivity, planning, institutional capacity, legal aspects, regional development programmes, law enforcement and others) and it can be considered as an essential condition for achieving the objectives that driven the establishment of such areas (HOCKINGS et al.; 2006). Assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas’ systems is essential to define strategies and priorities that will ensure that the networks of areas are functional and representative. Considering the importance of Brazilian natural ecosystems for biodiversity conservation in the world at large, maintaining a well managed protected areas system in Brazil is obviously fundamental to the conservation of global ecosystem services and biodiversity over the long term.

There are several methods available for monitoring the effectiveness of protected area management and they have been applied in such areas all over the world (HOCKINGS et al., 2006). What they actually try to measure is how well the protected areas conserve natural resources and how efficient they are in achieving their goals and objectives. The assessment is seen as a vital component of responsible and pro-active management (HOCKINGS et al., 2006).

INTRODUCTION AND METhODOLOGICAL

PROCEDURES

The biodiversity crisis affects various scales of biological organisation (genetic, specific and eco-systemic) in the most varied regions of the planet (PIMM & RAVEN, 2000; LOYOLA & LEWINSOHN, 2009; LOREAU et al., 2006)

15

From 1999 to 2002, WWF developed a method for the Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management – RAPPAM (ERVIN, 2003a; ERVIN 2003b) motivated by the need to provide tools for the development of policies designed to protect natural ecosystems and to establish a viable network of protected areas.

The method provides policy and decision makers related to protected areas with a simple tool for identifying tendencies and aspects that need to be addressed, towards more effective management, in any given system or group of protected areas (LEVERINGTON et al., 2008).

RAPPAM is the most widely adopted method in the world and has been implemented in around 40 countries and more than 1,000 protected areas in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean (LEVERINGTON et al., 2010). In Brazil RAPPAM was first applied in São Paulo in 2004 to evaluate the management of strict protected areas managed by the state’s Forestry Institute and Forestry Foundation (WWF-BRASIL et al., 2004). From 2005 to 2007, the method was implemented to evaluate the management of 246 Brazilian Federal Protected Areas in a partnership between WWF-Brasil and IBAMA (WWF-BRASIL & IBAMA, 2007). From 2008 to 2010, RAPPAM was applied to assess protected areas managed by the states of Acre (WWF-BRASIL, SEMA-AC, SEF-AC & ICMBIO, 2009), Amapa (WWF-BRASIL, IEF-AP, SEMA-AP & ICMBIO, 2009), Mato Grosso (WWF-BRASIL, SEMA-MT & ICMBIO, 2009), Amazonas (WWF-BRASIL, SDS-AM & ICMBIO, 2011), Para (WWF-BRASIL, SEMA-PA & ICMBIO, 2011), Rondonia (WWF-BRASIL, SEDAM-RO & ICMBIO, 2011) and Mato Grosso do Sul (WWF-BRASIL & IMASUL, 2011).

As stated above, 246 PAs were assessed when RAPPAM was applied for the first time in Brazilian Federal protected areas. In the second round of assessments which took place in 2010 the number went up to 292 thereby taking in 94% of all federal PAs in the country (Table 1). When federal PAs and state PAs are added together, the RAPPAM method has been applied to 473 areas altogether.

In 2010, most of the PAs evaluated were from the Amazon region followed by the Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado, the marine-coastal region, the Caatinga, the Pampas and the Pantanal. (Table 1).

Adriano G

ambarini/W

WF-B

rasil

16

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- coastal

Atlantic Forest Pampas Pantanal Total per

category

MN 1 1

RDS 1 1

RVS 1 1 3 5

Arie 3 2 3 1 9

APA 2 2 8 11 5 1 29

RB 9 1 1 4 14 29

EE 10 4 5 6 5 1 31

Resex 41 5 12 1 59

FN 32 6 5 21 64

PN 19 6 13 7 18 1 64

Total per domain 117 19 40 44 69 1 2 292

Table 1Numbers of protected areas evaluated in 2010 using Rappam,

by PA management category and biogeographic domain.

Figure 1Federal Protected Areas assessed using Rappam method in 2010.

17

1. Biogeographic domains are large continuous regions characterised by a single biome or a set o biomes that have climatic, biological and hydrological aspects in common and distinct from neighbouring domains due to great geographic and/or ecological barriers that separate them. In this report the PAs have been classified according to six great continental domains plus the marine-coastal region, in order to maintain the same scheme used in the Federal PA management assessment conducted in 2005. In the graphs and tables the term used is ‘Biogeographic domains’.

The number of PAs assessed has varied greatly among the PA categories and from one biogeographic domain1 to another, which means that the low numbers analysed in some categories may interfere in the interpretation of the results since they represent results of very few or a single PA. Nevertheless, the low numbers, both in terms of some categories and some biogeographic domains does reflect the reality of the federal PA system in which some regions like the Pantanal and the Pampas and some PA categories like Natural Monument, Sustainable Development Reserve and Wildlife Refuge, are represented by very few areas.

The application of the Rappam method in 2010 took place in three stages: (1) adapting the original questionnaire used by the method (ERVIN, 2003a) to the Brazilian context, (2) administering the questionnaire to PA managers during workshops; and (3) data analysis.

The workshop to adapt the questionnaire was held from March 3 to 5, 2010 and was attended by around 20 directors and regional coordinators from ICMBio and the WWF-Brasil team.

In the period from June to December 2010 seven workshops were held all with the same programming, namely: opening and mutual introduction of participants, presentation and discussion of the fundamental principles of the method, evaluation criteria and questionnaire structure, filling out the questionnaire, presentation and discussion of the results, and revision and adjustments.

The administration of the questionnaire to evaluate the Federal Protected Areas System took place at a workshop attended by 11 Regional Coordinators and four directors from ICMBio on September, 29 2010 in Itaituba, Para. The procedure adopted was that of a consensual response to a single questionnaire to provide an overall vision of Federal PAs in Brazil with each coordinator or director contributing with the specific information that they had of the region or theme they worked with

RAPPAM frameworkThe framework of the RAPPAM questionnaire addresses five elements of the management and evaluation cycle (context, planning, inputs, management processes and outputs) (Figure 2).

Each element consists of specific themes addressed in different modules. Table 2 shows the general structure of the questionnaire, the number of questions and the maximum and minimum scores that can be attributed to each element and module. There now follows a description of the elements and modules as they appear in the questionnaire.

The context analysis examines the PA’s current biological and socio-economic importance, vulnerabilities, pressures and threats. Management effectiveness is analysed based on planning, inputs, process and outputs.

18

INTERACTIVEASSESSMENT

PROCESSOutcomes

Reflection andAssessment

Context andSituation

Planingand Design

ManagementProcess

Outputs Resulting from Management

Outlook, Goalsand Objectives

Inputs

What are the weaknesses of the

management cycle?What do we expect

to attain?

How do external factors affect the

objectives?

To what extent are the objectives attained

through planning?

Are managementprocesses coherent with

the objectives?

Are outputs adequate so that objectives can

be attained?

Were the objectives attained?

Are there enoughinputs for objectives

to be attained?

Figure 2Management and assessment cycle as proposed

by WCPA/IUCN. Source: HOCKINGS et al., 2000.

General informationThe general information of the protected area (Module 1) consists of identification data, dates and documents associated to its creation and regulation, administrative information (financial execution, staff numbers), objectives and management priorities.

Pressures and threatsModule 2 is dedicated to evaluating pressures and threats that affect PAs. Pressures are considered to be those activities that have caused negative impacts on the PA in the preceding five years until present. Threats are also activities that can cause impacts but analysed in the perspective of the netx five years. That means that a given activity, like hunting for example, may be considered as a pressure because it took place in the past and/or a threat because it is liable to recur in the future.

Pressures and threats are measured in terms of their tendencies to occur and their criticity, with criticity being the expression of the extent, impact and persistency of the environmental damage (Figure 3). In addition to the score attributed for each assessment criterion (Table 3) a brief description of the activities generating impacts is also requested to make sure the object of analysis is clear and to enable the managers

19

Table 2Elements and modules of the RAPPAM questionnaire.

Element Module

Context

1. General information

2. Pressures and threats

3. Biological importance

4. Socio-economic importance

5. Vulnerability

Planning

6. Objectives

7. Legal status

8. Area design and planning

Inpts

9. Human resources

10. Communication and information

11. Infrastructure

12. Financial resources

Process

13. Planning

14. Decision making

15. Research, evaluation and monitoring

Outputs 16. Results

Outputs Protected Areas System

17. Protected Areas System design

18. Protected Areas System policies

19. Political environment

Table 3Scoring scheme for the analysis of threats and pressures.

Tendency Extent Impact Permanence

Increased drastically / Very high = 2 Total = 4 Severe = 4 Permanent = 4

Increased slightly / High = 1 Widespread = 3 High = 3 Long term = 3

Remained constant / Medium = 0 Scattered = 2 Moderate = 2 Medium term = 2

Decreased slightly / Low = -1 Localised = 1 Light = 1 Short term = 1

Decreased drastically / Very low = -2 - - -

20

In the RAPPAM assessment of 2005/2006, the analysis of threats and pressures was limited to those occurring within the PA boundaries. In 2010 it was decided to also analyse threats and pressures in the surrounding areas of all categories of PA including the Environmental Protection Areas.

Context and management effectivenessModules 3, 4 and 5 refer to the context element. They consist of an analysis of the PA’s biological and socio-economic importance and its vulnerability. PA planning is assessed in modules 6, 7 and 8 based on PA objectives, legal status and design and planning. The element inputs includes an analysis of human resources, communication and information, infrastructure and financial resources (modules 9 to 12). Modules, 13, 14 and 15 address processes relates to management planning, decision making and research, evaluation and monitoring. Module 16 covers outputs with an analysis of the quality of services and products resulting from the various actions carried out in the PA in the last two years.

There are four possible answers to each question: yes (y), no (n), predominantly yes (p/y) and predominantly no (p/n). In the options yes or no there must be total agreement or total disagreement with the respective statement. If there is any factor interfering with a total yes or a total no, then the options must be for predominantly yes or predominantly no. In the case of the intermediary answer (p/y and p/n) further clarification is requested. The scoring system for the Modules analysis is set out in table 4 below.

In the past 5 years this activity has:

Increased drasticallyIncreased slightlyRemained constantDecreased slightlyDecreased drastically

The severity of pressure over the past 5 years has been:

Abrangência:

Total (>50%)

Widespread (15–50%)

Scattered (5–15%

Localised (<5%)

Impact:

Severe

High

Moderate

Light

Permanence: (Time area takes to recuperate)

Permanent (>100 years)

Long term (20–100 years)

Medium term (5–20 years)

Short term (<5 years)

Yes No, there has been no pressure in the last 5 years

Pressure:

The probability of the threat occurring is:

Very highHighMediumLowVery Low

The overall severity of the threat over the next 5 years is likely to be:

Extent:

Total (>50%)

Widespread (15–50%)

Scattered (5–15%)

Localised (<5%)

Impact:

Severe

High

Moderate

Light

Permanence :

Permanent (>100 years)

Long term (20–100 years)

Medium term (5–20 years)

Short term (<5 years)

Yes No, it will not be a threat in the next 5 years

Threat:

Figure 3RAPPAM questionnaire to assess threats and pressures.

21

Data analysis is based on the numerical scores attributed to the items in the answer sheets as well as on any explanatory comments. The value for each element is calculated by obtaining the sum of the attributed values and expressing it as a percentage of the maximum that could have been attained.

The values used for the graphs are the percentages of the maximum score that were actually obtained for each module or element, which facilitates a comparison of the performance obtained in each one, even though the absolute values between them may be totally different. In addition to obtaining values per PA for each module/element, the graphs also express the average values obtained for each group of data analysed.

The results were all expressed as percentage of the maximum possible scores and according to WWF-Brasil et al. (2004) a result over 60% is considered high, from 40 to 60% is medium (including the two limits) and below 40% is low.

Management effectiveness of the set of PAs is evaluated on the basis of the results obtained from modules 6 to 16. The results are presented in the form of graphs representing averages obtained per module, element and group analysed. The total score attributed for management effectiveness is given by the sum of the scores obtained for modules 6 to 16.

Alternative Points

Yes (y) 5

Predominantly yes (p/y) 3

Predominantly no (p/n) 1

No (n) 0

Table 4Scoring scheme for the management effectiveness modules.

WW

F-Brasil/Zig K

och

22

ChAPTER 2Rappam results 2010

Adriano G

ambarini/W

WF-B

rasil e WW

F-Brasil/Zig K

och

23

GENERAL INFO Brazilian Federal Protected Areas

Percentage of continental biomes in protected areas

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Atlantic Forest Pampas Pantanal

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

Source CAMUC/DIREP

1937

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Figure 4Evolution of federal PAs created in Brazil from 1937 to 2010

by percentages protected for each biogeographic domain.

The first federal protected area established in Brazil was the Itatiaia National Park, created in 1937. In 1970 the entire Federal Protected Areas system consisted

of just 14 national parks and 12 national forests with a total area of 3,014,269 ha, a mere 0.36% of Brazil’s total land surface area (RYLANDS & BRANDON, 2005). It was only in the 1980s that the process of creating new areas began to speed up, expanding heterogeneously the coverage of protected areas to other Brazilian biogeographic domains (Figure 4). Among the continental domains, the Amazon is the one with the greatest percentage of its area covered by federal PAs (15%) while other domains have less than 5% of their areas under federal protection.

National park is the PA management category with greatest area in Brazil followed by national forests and extractive reserves (Figure 5).

24

1937

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

30.000.000

25.000.000

20.000.000

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0

Areas (há) of Federal Protected Areas by management categories

APA

ARIE

EE

FN

MN

PN

RDS

RB

RESEX

RVS

Fonte: CAMUC/DIREP

Figure 5Evolution of the area (in hectares) of Federal Protected Areas

created in Brazil in from 1937 to 2010, by management categories.

Because of its vast extension and state of conservation the Amazon has the largest percentage of federal protected areas coverage, comprised of 29,576,382 ha under strict protection (82.5% of all federal PA areas in Brazil) and 29,843,518 hectares in protected areas in the sustainable use group (77.5% of all federal sustainable use PAs in Brazil) (Table 5, Figures 6 and 7).

Of the 74,931,198 hectares of federal PAs, 40,672,038 (54.3%) are in the strict protection categories and 34,259,160 ha (45.7%) in the sustainable use group (Table 6). Within the strict protectiongroup, most PAs (69%) are national parks followed by ecological stations (19%) and biological reserves (11%) (Figure 8). In the sustainable use group, 45,5% of the total area are in national forests, 30% are extractive reserves and 24% are areas of environmental protection.

25

Biogeographic Domain / Group Area (hectares)

Strict Protection 34.259.160

Amazon 28.066.639

Caatinga 956.825

Cerrado 3.638.571

Marine-coastal 522.464

Atlantic Forest 928.462

Pampas

Pantanal 146.200

Sustainable Use 40.672.038

Amazon 32.163.517

Caatinga 2.708.899

Cerrado 1.457.357

Marine-coastal 2.059.879

Atlantic Forest 1.964.386

Pampas 318.000

Total 74.931.198

Figure 6Percentage distribution of strict protection

federal PAs by biogeographic domains.

Amazon

Caatinga

Cerrado

Marine-coastal

Atlantic Forest

Pantanal

81.9 %

2.8 %

10.6 %

1.5 %2.7 %

0.4 %

Table 5Area (in hectares), of the groups

& management categories

of federal protected areas,

by biogeographic domains.

Strict protection

26

Figure 7Percentage distribution of sustainable

use federal PAs by biogeographic domains.

Sustainable use

Amazon

Caatinga

Cerrado

Marine-coastal

Atlantic Forest

Pampas

6.7 %

3.6 %

5.1 %4.8 %

0.8 %

79.1 %

11.6 %0.5 %

19.0 %

0.1 %

68.9 %

EE

MN

PN

RB

RVS

Strict protection

Figure 8Percentage distribution of strict protection

federal PAs by management categories.

27

Table 6Areas in hectares of PAs

under strict protection

or sustainable use group

according to specific

management categories.

Group / Category Area (hectares)

Strict Protection 34.259.160

Ecological Station (EE) 6.509.401

Natural Monument (MN) 17.443

National Park (PN) 23.603.071

Biological Reserve (RB) 3.959.692

Wildlife Refuge (RVS) 169.553

Sustainable Use 40.672.038

Environmental Protection Area (APA) 9.812.546

Área of Relevant Ecological Interest (Arie) 27.460

National Forest (FN) 18.520.947

Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) 64.735

Extractive Reserve (Resex) 12.246.349

Total 74.931.198

APA24.1 %

ARIE

0.1 %

45.5 %

0.2 %

30.1 %

FN

RDS

RESEX

Sustainable use

Figure 9Percentage distribution of sustainable use

federal PAs by management categories.

28

Bio-geographic domain bio

Univ. degree

Technicallevel

Logistics and administrative

supportSecurity Brigade Total

Amazon 371 69 150 237 199 1026

Caatinga 48 38 32 107 170 395

Cerrado 116 128 163 158 351 916

Marine-coastal 119 67 87 100 35 408

Atlantic Forest 257 201 335 351 517 1661

Pampas 4 2 3 4 0 13

Pantanal 8 5 5 0 20 38

Total 923 510 775 957 1292 4.457

Strict Protection 468 337 540 648 1136 3.129

Sustainable Use 455 173 235 309 156 1.328

Table 7Human resources allocated at federal protected areas according

to post and function and by biogeographic domains and PA group.

human resourcesCurrently there are 4,457 persons directly involved in different aspects of federal PA management including environmental officers, other technical staff, personnel responsible for logistics and administrative support and those belonging to the brigades (Table 7). 70% of the personnel are located at strict protection areas and 305 in sustainable use areas.

Pressures and threatsThe pressures and threats are measured by their degree of criticity, their frequency of occurrence in the overall set of PAs and their tendency to increase or decrease in the course of time. This analysis has only considered to be negative those impacts stemming from activities incompatible with PA objectives and their management context, irrespective of the management category they belong to. For example, tourism in parks should only be considered as a pressure or a threat if it is being conducted at a more intense level than the parks capacity to support it, or if it is taking place in parks not open to the public. Harvesting wood should only be considered as having a negative impact on national forests if it is being done without due authorization, management plan or in disregard of the directives of the established management plan.

The greatest number of employees is located at Atlantic Forest PAs but these PAs are also more represented numerically in the Federal PA System (Figure 10). The Brigade Corps is the most numerous category among all the other levels of posts held, albeit, in the case of the ICMBio, it is made up of non-permanent personnel (Figure 11).

29

Figure 10Human resources available for each Brazilian domain.

Biogeographic domain1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Am

azon

Caa

tinga

Cer

rado

Mar

ine-

coas

tal

Atla

ntic

Fore

st

Pam

pas

Pan

tana

l

Figure 11Human resources distribution in Brazilian Federal Federal PA

management activities, according to posts and functions.

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Uni

v. d

egre

e

Tech

nica

l lev

el

Logi

stic

s &

adm

in.

Sur

veill

ance

Brig

ade

corp

s

Roles and posts

There now follows an analysis of internal and external pressures and threats associated to the protected areas that were the object of the assessment.

a) Internal pressures and threats to Protected Areas

The activities that had the greatest effects inside protected areas came from outside in the form of hunting and biological invasions (Figure 12). Gathering non-wood products and unauthorised tourism are the activities that least pressure or threaten the protected areas. With the exception of grazing land and wood extraction, the criticity of threats is greater than that of pressures, showing that there is a possibility of greater risks for the integrity of Protected Areas in the near future. That fact calls for prevention measures to be taken to minimise those foreseeable impacts. In this aspect the most serious cause for concern is in connection with infrastructure works and external influences.

The criticity of most of the pressures and threats identified is notably greater in the sustainable use group of PA management categories (Figure 12), which probably reflects the greater number of activities going on inside them and the increased difficulty of analysing whether they are causing negative impacts or not, and also because of the smaller number of personnel allocated to such areas, especially for surveillance and security (two time less and for brigade personnel, seven times less), than in strict protection areas (Table 7).

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Num

ber o

f sta

ff

Nív

el s

uper

ior

Técn

ico

Apo

io lo

gíst

ico

e ad

min

istra

tivo

Vigi

lant

e

Brig

adis

ta

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0N

umbe

r of s

taff

Nív

el s

uper

ior

Técn

ico

Apo

io lo

gíst

ico

e ad

min

istra

tivo

Vigi

lant

e

Brig

adis

ta

30

SP SU

SP SU

Pressures

Threats

Agriculture & sylviculture PA

Hunting PA

Collecting non-wood products PA

Infrasturucture construction & operation P

Invading exotic species P

A

Wood extraction PA

Human settlement PA

Mining PA

Residue disposal (pollution) P

A

Deliberately-set fires P

Grazing land PA

Fishing PA

Semi-natural processes PA

ATourism and recreation P

Resource use by local populations PA

AExternal influences P

A

A

4346

94100

464846

84

62

4943

86109

2535

35

99

66

56575857

4647

5250

3736

5960

74

39

7279

105108

4346

90

94

125

9791

144164

6883

84

102

71

104122

8788

9598

7770

4651

106108

87

89

SP SU

SP SU

Pressures

Threats


Hunting PA




A

Wood extraction PA

Human settlement PA

Mining PA


A


Grazing land PA

Fishing PA





A

A

4346

94100

464846

84

62

4943

86109

2535

35

99

66

56575857

4647

5250

3736

5960

74

39

7279

105108

4346

90

94

125

9791

144164

6883

84

102

71

104122

8788

9598

7770

4651

106108

87

89

Figure 12Criticity of pressures (P) and threats (T) in Federal Protected

Areas under Strict Protection (SP) and Sustainable Use (SU).

Figure 13 illustrates the tendency shown by pressures over the last five years. Positive values indicate a tendency to increase and negative ones, a tendency to decline. The impacts stemming from external influences showed a much stronger tendency to increase than any of the others and that was true for both Strict Protection and Sustainable Use PAs. Hunting, collecting non-wood forest products, mining and fires tended to decline, all the more so in the strict protection areas. That could be because of the greater numbers of surveillance, security and brigade personnel and technical staff allocated to PAs in this group. Wood extraction and the conversion of land use to grazing land tended to increase in sustainable use PAs and decline in strict protection areas. All other impacts showed a tendency to increase to a greater or lesser extent but always more markedly in the sustainable use PAs.

31

Figure 13Tendency of pressures inside Federal Strict Protection

and Sustainable Use PAs to increase or decline.

SP SU

Agriculture & sylviculture

Hunting

Collecting non-wood products

Infrastructure construction & operation

Invading exotic species

Wood extraction

Human settlement

Mining

Residue disposal (pollution)

Deliberately-set fires

External influences

Grazing land

Fishing

Semi-natural processes

Tourism and recreation

Resource use by local populations

-50 0 50 100 150 200

SP SU


Hunting




Wood extraction

Human settlement

Mining



External influences

Grazing land

Fishing




-50 0 50 100 150 200

The probability of each activity’s continuing to produce impacts on the protected areas in the next five years is illustrated in Figure 14. The external influences have the highest probability of occurrence and that applies as much to sustainable use PAs as to strict protection PAs. The construction and operation of infrastructure is a source of concern in the sustainable use PAs. Mining is the only activity with a negative probability in strict protection areas and deliberately-set fires is the only activity with a negative probability of occurrence in sustainable use PAs.

33

WW

F-Brasil/E

duardo Aigner

34

The most frequently activity registered is hunting, both as a pressure and as a threat and it affects both strict protection and sustainable use groups of PAs (Figure 15). The least frequent are mining activities and the occurrence of semi-natural processes. In all cases of threats and pressures, occurrence is highest in sustainable use PAs, thereby underscoring the need to invest in processes and inputs connected to the protection of this group.

Figure 14Probability of occurrence of threats inside Federal

Strict Protection and Sustainable Use PAs.

SP SU


Hunting




Wood extraction

Human settlement

Mining



External influences

Grazing land

Fishing




-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

SP SU


Hunting




Wood extraction

Human settlement

Mining



External influences

Grazing land

Fishing




-50 0 50 100 150 200

35

SP SU

SP SU

Pressures

Threats

Agriculture & forestry PA

Hunting PA




A

Wood extraction PA

Human settlement PA

Mining PA


A


Cattle raising PA

Fishing PA





A

A

58%59%

91%90%

60%56%

52%

60%

67%

77%73%

77%80%

44%47%

74%

59%

60%

54%57%

64%59%

76%72%

51%49%

49%57%

65%64%

67%

73%

57%55%

90%90%

60%62%

55%

72%

63%

60%62%

71%73%

33%37%

62%

75%

69%

53%52%

60%58%

65%64%

43%42%

58%59%

54%48%

72%

62%

SP SU

SP SU

Pressures

Threats


Hunting PA




A

Wood extraction PA

Human settlement PA

Mining PA


A


Grazing land PA

Fishing PA





A

A

4346

94100

464846

84

62

4943

86109

2535

35

99

66

56575857

4647

5250

3736

5960

74

39

7279

105108

4346

90

94

125

9791

144164

6883

84

102

71

104122

8788

9598

7770

4651

106108

87

89

Figure 15Frequency of pressures (P) and threats (T) inside

Federal Strict Protection and Sustainable Use PAs.

b) Pressures and threats in the areas surrounding protected areas

The activities that have generated the greatest impacts in the surrounding areas of Brazilian Federal PAs in the last five years have been human settlement, agriculture, forestry, hunting, infrastructure construction and operation, harvesting wood, cattle raising, and the use of natural resources by local communities (Figure 16). All those activities, in addition to residue disposal and exotic species constitute the greatest threat to the entire surrounding area. Tourism, recreation and collecting non-timber forest products are the activities that exercised the least pressure and constitute the least threats to the areas surrounding PAs. Threat criticity is greater than pressure criticity except in the case of non-timber forest product collection, which showed similar values in both (threats and pressures). In a similar way to the situation revealed inside PAs, the threats are much greater in the surrounding areas and the construction and operation of infrastructure is a matter of concern especially in the case of the sustainable use group.

36

The criticity of pressures on the surrounding areas of PAs is always greater for sustainable use PAs than for strict protection categories and the criticity of the threats is only smaller in sustainable use PAs in the case of non-timber forest product extraction and invasive exotic species.

Figure 17 shows the tendency of pressure occurrence in the areas surrounding PAs during the last five years. Human settlement, infrastructure construction and operation and residue disposal were the aspects that tended to increase the most, just as much around sustainable use areas as around strict protection areas. Mining, deliberately-set fires, hunting and extraction of non-timber forest products all tended to increase along with other aspects, but to a lesser extent. The tendency of occurrence of pressures always showed higher values associated to sustainable use PAs than to the strict protection group except in the items tourism and recreation where the values were the same for both groups.

Figure 16Criticity of pressures (P) and threats (T) in areas surrounding

federal strict protection and sustainable use PAs.

SP SU

SP SU

Pressures

Threats

139147

119121

5250

118

97

162

129139

149163

94108

118

105

95

130132

98107

98107

4743

117131

97

130


Hunting PA

Collecting non-timber products PA



A

Wood extraction PA

Human settlement PA

Mining PA


A


Cattle raising PA

Fishing PA




A

A

114128

102103

5152

103

94

138

79104

120137

6776

81

106

79

9295

69787676

3632

92104

83

92

SP SU

SP SU

Pressures

Threats


Hunting PA




A

Wood extraction PA

Human settlement PA

Mining PA


A


Grazing land PA

Fishing PA





A

A

4346

94100

464846

84

62

4943

86109

2535

35

99

66

56575857

4647

5250

3736

5960

74

39

7279

105108

4346

90

94

125

9791

144164

6883

84

102

71

104122

8788

9598

7770

4651

106108

87

89

37


Although Brazil has been the country that has made the largest contribution to expand the global area under protection since 2003, its notable economic growth over the last decade has unleashed an increasing demand for productive land and infrastructure with very negative consequences for environmental conservation. One of the greatest drivers is energy supply. Planning the energy infrastructure needs to be approached in the light of an integrated vision that takes into account the cumulative impacts of hydroelectric projects on protected areas with a view to minimising the impacts stemming from their implementation.

A preliminary survey of hydroelectric ventures inside federal protected areas and in their surrounding 10 km buffer zones identified a total of 202 ventures either under construction or already in operation, 69 projects with licensing and concession processes already in course and a further 32 that have been inventoried. Most of those ventures are located in buffer zones surrounding protected areas (81%) especially in the Atlantic Forest (54%) and the Amazon (24%). The protected area categories with the largest numbers of such projects are Areas of Environmental Protection (28%), Parks (23%) and National forests (23%).

Figure 17Tendency of pressures in areas surrounding federal strict

protection and sustainable use PAs to increase or decline.

SP SU


Hunting




Wood extraction

Human settlement

Mining



Grazing land

Fishing




0 50 100 150 200 250

SP SU


Hunting




Wood extraction

Human settlement

Mining



External influences

Grazing land

Fishing




-50 0 50 100 150 200

38

Figure 18Probability of threats occurring in the areas surrounding

federal strict protection and sustainable use PAs.

SP SU


Hunting




Wood extraction

Human settlement

Mining



External influences

Grazing land

Fishing




-50 0 50 100 150 200

SP SU


Hunting




Wood extraction

Human settlement

Mining



Grazing land

Fishing




0 50 100 150 200 250

The probability of each activity’s continuing to generate impacts on the areas surrounding protected areas in the next five years is illustrated in Figure 18. Infrastructure construction and operation along with human settlement appear as the most probable in the areas around both kinds of PAs. Non-timber forest product extraction and tourism and recreation give less cause for concern. However not one single activity carried out in the PA surroundings shows a negative probability for impacts.

39

Figure 19Frequency of pressures (P) and threats (T) in areas

surrounding federal strict protection and sustainable use PAs.

SP SU

SP SU

Pressures

Threats

79%82%

92%92%

61%59%

72%

74%

83%

82%82%

82%83%

69%69%

76%

76%

77%

75%75%

71%71%

54%55%

55%53%

75%76%

78%

79%

79%78%

88%88%

59%57%

68%

57%

76%

85%79%

82%83%

57%62%

78%

61%

68%

70%69%

76%76%

54%56%

41%39%

73%72%

71%

79%


Hunting PA

Collecting non-timber products PA



A

Wood extraction PA

Human settlement PA

Mining PA


A


Cattle raising PA

Fishing PA




A

A

SP SU

SP SU

Pressures

Threats


Hunting PA




A

Wood extraction PA

Human settlement PA

Mining PA


A


Grazing land PA

Fishing PA





A

A

4346

94100

464846

84

62

4943

86109

2535

35

99

66

56575857

4647

5250

3736

5960

74

39

7279

105108

4346

90

94

125

9791

144164

6883

84

102

71

104122

8788

9598

7770

4651

106108

87

89

Repeating the pattern found inside protected areas, hunting appears most frequently either as pressure or threat on the areas surrounding PAs and that is equally true for those around strict protection areas as for those around sustainable use areas (Figure 19). Generally speaking however all of the activities show a high frequency of occurrence.

Edw

ard Parker/WW

F-Canon

42

The Brazilian federal protected areas all presented a high figure for the item biological importance (73%), and the figure is even higher in strict protection areas

(81%) than in the sustainable use group (67%) (Figure 20). Biological importance is high in all management categories, especially in natural monument, national park and biological reserve, in which cases it is over 80%.

CONTExT Biological importance

Biological Importance

Protected areas, especially in regions with relatively few inventories and research, like the Amazon and the Cerrado, are usually the preferred target of biodiversity sampling and a great part of the biological information available is associated to them. Currently research and surveys are being carried out in 90% of all federal protected areas. Some of those PAs which already had their fauna and flora inventoried revealed to be of the greatest biological importance with very high levels of biodiversity richness.

Two expeditions to provide supporting information for the elaboration of the management plan for the Juruena National Park, an area of 1.9 million hectares located between the states of Mato Grosso and Amazonas, detected the presence of at least 101 mammal species, 127 fish species, 47 amphibian species, 40 species of reptiles and no less than 412 bird species.

Surveys made in the Serra Geral do Tocantins Ecological Station (approx.716,000 ha), the second largest protected area in the entire Cerrado, registered the occurrence of 450 species of vertebrates, including 17 endangered species, 50 species endemic to the Cerrado biome and 11 species whose distribution is potentially restricted (NOGUEIRA et al., 2011). At least 12 species collected are potentially new species and four of them have been recently described. Such results clearly show that this particular protected area is one of the most important in the entire Brazilian central region and that it contributes towards ensuring the survival of threatened species dependant, as they are, on what is one of the last remaining large continuous blocks of native Cerrado vegetation.

Biological importance is high across all protected areas and all Brazilian biogeographic domains (Figure 21). The high value registered for the Pampas needs to be viewed with reservations because it rests on the representation of only two protected areas.

The values attributed to the various indicators in the biological importance analysis shows that the sum of all of them confirms the overall importance (Figure 22) and especially underscores the elevated levels of biodiversity present in the PAs. The lowest contribution came from the indicator levels of endemism, which may actually reflect the low levels of knowledge of species and of their geographic distribution inside the areas.

43

Figure 21Biological importance of Brazilian Federal

Protected Areas by biogeographic domains.

Bioma

Average

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine-coastal

AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

73.21%

74% 75%

65%

76% 74%

91%

82%

Bioma

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

73.21%

74% 75%

65%

76% 74%

91%

82%

Figure 20Average Biological Importance values for Brazilian Federal Protected Areas

by sustainable use and strict protection groups and by management categories.

SP

SU

Total

EE MN PN RB RVS APA ARIE FN RDS RESEX

81%

74% 84% 84% 84% 64% 73% 62% 65% 64% 66%

73%67%

44

Socio-economic importanceAccording to the Rappam criteria, the Brazilian federal protected areas have a medium level of socio-economic importance (60%). It is lower in the strict protection areas (56%) but can be considered high in the sustainable use PAs (62%) (Figure 23). The highest socio-economic importance was found in the the category ‘natural monument’ but it must be remembered that only one PA in that category was actually evaluated. It was followed by the categories ‘environmental protection area’, ‘extractive reserve’ and ‘national park’.

Figure 22Average indicator values obtained in the analysis of the

Biological Importance of Brazilian federal protected areas.

Thre

aten

ed s

peci

es

Spe

cies

Bio

dive

rsity

End

emis

m

Land

scap

e fu

nctio

n

Rep

rese

ntat

iven

ess

Key

spe

cies

Tem

pora

l pat

tern

s

Red

uced

eco

syst

ems

75% 69% 87% 55% 81% 79% 66% 69% 77%

Socio-economic importance

In a recent study MEDEIROS et al., (2011) made a survey of the economic potential of Brazilian federal and state protected areas. Their main conclusions were as follows:

• Timber production from forest management concessions in national and state forests of the Amazon region, is capable of generating an annual turnover of from R$ 1.2 to 2.2 billion, more than present day amounts for the entire country;

• Rubber production, in the 11 extractive reserves identified as producing it, is bringing in R$ 16.5 million per year, while the production of Brazil nuts could potentially generate up to R$ 39.2 million per year, considering just the 17 extractive reserves that were actually surveyed;

45

Figure 23Average socio-economic importance of Federal Protected Areas by

sustainable use and strict protection groups and by management categories.

SP

SU

Total


56% 60% 62%

48% 73% 67% 45% 41% 69% 41% 57% 47% 68%

• Visitation in Brazil’s 67 national parks could bring in from R$ 1.6 to 1.8 billion per year based on Brazilian tourism flow estimates (around 13.7 million people a year by 2016).

Those impressive figures show that the level of socio-economic importance of protected areas could be raised a lot more once their potential is duly recognised and the necessary investments are made.

Figure 24Socio-economic importance of Federal Protected Areas by biogeographic domains.

Bioma

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

59.53%

62%65%

52%

68%

53%

87%

72%

Bioma

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

73.21%

74% 75%

65%

76% 74%

91%

82%

46

Em

ploy

men

t

Sub

sist

ence

Sus

tain

able

use

Rel

igio

us im

porta

nce

Rel

evan

t attr

ibut

es

Spe

cies

of i

nter

est

Rec

reat

iona

l val

ue

Env

ironm

enta

l ser

vice

s

Edu

catio

nal v

alue

46% 56% 54% 19% 67% 79% 53% 83% 79%

Figure 25Average values attributed to Brazilian Federal

Protected Areas’ socio-economic importance indicators.

Protected areas located in the Marine-coastal, Caatinga and Amazon domains have high levels of socio-economic importance while those located in the other domains scored values from 50 to 60% (medium).

The outstanding feature of the social, economic and cultural role analysis was the environmental services provision, followed by educational/scientific value and the presence of plant or animal species used by society. The least relevant aspect was the spiritual or religious importance attributed to the areas by their users (Figure 25).

VulnerabilityThe Rappam assessment classified Brazilian federal protected areas as having a medium level of vulnerability. Although no significant differences were detected between the scores of PAs in the strict protection group and those in the sustainable use group (51% and 52%, respectively) or between the management categories, the most vulnerable categories proved to be areas of environmental protection, natural monuments, and extractive reserves (Figure 26).

Protected areas in the Amazon, Pampas and Pantanal were slightly more vulnerable than those in the other domains although PAs in all domains scored in the range of 40 to 60% (medium vulnerability) (Figure 27).

47

Figure 26Vulnerability of Brazilian federal protected areas by sustainable

use and strict protection groups and by management categories.

SP

SU

Total


51% 51% 52%

50% 54% 51% 52% 49% 57% 39% 49% 42% 53%


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

51%59%

51%

44%48%

43%

70%

58%

Bioma

Total


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

51%59%

51%

44%48%

43%

70%

58%

Bioma

Total

Figure 27Vulnerability of Brazilian federal protected

areas by biogeographic domains.

Political instability and conflicts between protected areas and traditional land uses had the least influence on vulnerability figures (Figure 28). On the other hand the factor of easy access to areas, market value, high demand for natural resources, personnel hiring difficulties and difficulties in monitoring illegal activities were all shown to exacerbate PAs’ vulnerability.

48

Illeg

al a

ctiv

ity m

onito

ring

Lega

l ins

trum

ent

enf

orce

men

t

Pol

itica

l ins

tabi

lity

Mar

ket v

alue

Acc

essi

bilit

y

Res

ourc

e de

man

d

Kee

ping

sta

ff

Hiri

ng s

taff

Pol

itica

l and

eco

nom

ic p

ress

ures

Con

flict

ing

trad

ition

al u

se63% 48% 21% 33% 66% 78% 66% 40% 48% 50%

Figure 28Average values attributed to Brazilian Federal

Protected Areas’ vulnerability indicators.

Management effectivenessThe management effectiveness analysis is based on a synthesis of all the elements expressing planning, available inputs, implanted processes, and outputs achieved as well as an analysis of the total effectiveness values obtained by adding the scores for all those components.

PlanningGenerally speaking, under the heading planning, there is no sharp difference detectable between the strict protection (59%) and the sustainable use group (62%). The category sustainable development reserve with only one PA evaluated stood out from the others as it was furthest from the average score while all the others were fairly close to the average figure of 60%.

49

WW

F-Brasil/Zig K

ochW

WF-B

rasil/Zig Koch

WW

F-Brasil/C

laudio Maretti

50

SP

SU

Total


59% 60% 62%

54% 59% 61% 63% 44% 63% 46% 61% 82% 64%

Figure 29Brazilian Federal protected areas planning by sustainable use

and strict protection groups, and by management categories.

Figure 30Brazilian Federal protected areas planning by biogeographic domains.

Planejamento

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

60.5%

62% 62%57%

61% 59% 60%

74%

Planejamento

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

60.5%

62% 62%57%

61% 59% 60%

74%

When the analysis is made by biogeographic domains, the figures continue to be very similar with the exception of the Pantanal where the only PA assessed shows a higher value than any of the others (Figure 30).

51

Figure 31Average values attributed to Brazilian federal protected areas’ planning indicators.

Gen

eral

goa

ls

Spe

cific

goa

ls

Con

sist

ency

Sta

ff un

ders

tand

ing

Com

mun

ity s

uppo

rt

Cou

ncilo

rs u

nder

stan

ding

Lega

l sta

tus

Land

tenu

re

Bou

ndar

y de

mar

catio

n

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Con

flict

man

agem

ent

Loca

tion

Des

ign

Zoni

ng

Land

use

Con

nect

ivity

Par

ticip

ativ

e pr

oces

s

Cat

egor

y su

itabi

lity

94% 64% 79% 87% 54% 50% 91% 44% 34% 19% 47% 82% 68% 44% 41% 74% 36% 82%

There are several items that stand out positively in the analysis of planning in Brazilian Federal Protected Areas such as the inclusion of biodiversity protection and conservation among the overall PA goals, clear understanding of the PA objectives by the staff, the existence of a legal supporting framework in the legislation, PA location and connectivity, as well as the adequacy of the management category. On the other hand, the aspects of human and financial resources to enable the enforcement of the legislation are in a critical state and both need to be increased to achieve more effective protection and surveillance. Other aspects that need to be increased are the social participation in the planning and design of areas and the demarcation of boundaries (Figure 31).

InputsIndicators of inputs analysed included human and financial resources, materials, infrastructure, means of communication and data processing and analysis. The difference between the values obtained for the two groups of categories, strict protection and sustainable use, was just 3 percentage points (40% and 37%, respectively) and, on average, all the values obtained under this heading are low (Figure 32). There are detectable variations, however, among the various management categories. Sustainable development reserve, natural monument, national parks and biological reserves achieved scores in the medium range while other categories were all in the ‘low’ range. It should be taken into account, however, that sometimes the differences in scores are subtle, just a single percentage point so that the classification low, medium or high may reflect more on the criteria adopted for the method, without here intending to make a judgment of the degrees of significance of the differences observed. However, the score for the category wildlife refuge was indeed really low (27%).

SP

SU

Total


40% 38% 37%

38% 45% 41% 41% 27% 34% 30% 37% 46% 39%

Figure 32Brazilian federal protected areas inputs by sustainable use

and strict protection groups and by management categories.

Figure 33Brazilian federal protected areas inputs by biogeographic domains.

Processos

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

38.0%

37% 38% 38% 37%40%

26%

39%

Planejamento

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

60.5%

62% 62%57%

61% 59% 60%

74%

No significant differences were observed when the figures are analysed according to biogeographic domain, being basically low in all of them (Figure 33).

The indicators that tended to elevate the ‘Input’ average values were those associated to staff management skills, the communication structure between PAs and other management/administrative spheres and effective communication between PAs and local communities. On the other hand, a lot of effort must be put into the numbers of personnel available for PA management and the financial provision stability over the long term. Figure 34 clearly demonstrates that several indicators received scores below 40%, which indicate that effective PA management is in jeopardy. Among those indicators are periodic assessment of staff performance and development, working conditions, means for data gathering storing and processing, installations for visitors, availability of financial resources over the last five years and administrative practices.

This situation is all the more worrying because good planning and suitable inputs like human resources, infrastructure and equipment are essential for any PA to conduct management processes satisfactorily and achieve the desired conservation results. Any gaps in the staff composition, for example, jeopardises the performance of processes and achievement of satisfactory results. However, merely providing adequate inputs will not, on its own, guarantee effective PA management given that planning and conducting processes are essential stages in achieving the desired results.

53

Hum

an re

sour

ces

Sta

ff sk

ills

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g

Per

form

ance

ass

essm

ent

Wor

king

con

ditio

ns

Com

mun

icat

ion

stru

ctur

e

Dat

a ga

ther

ing

mea

ns

Dat

a pr

oces

sing

mea

ns

Tran

spor

t

Equ

ipm

ent

Mai

nten

ance

Pas

t fun

ding

Fund

ing

fore

cast

Adm

istra

tive

prac

tices

Fina

nce

allo

catio

n

Fina

ncia

l pro

spec

ts

Fund

rais

ing

capa

city

Inst

alla

tions

for t

eam

Inst

alla

tions

for v

isito

rs

Com

unic

atio

n w

ith c

omm

unity

Com

mun

icat

ion

am

ong

com

mun

ities

Info

rmat

ion

avai

labi

lity

13% 56% 45% 38% 36% 58% 44% 35% 30% 50% 44% 41% 43% 32% 32% 44% 23% 38% 31% 46% 15% 41%

Figure 34Average values attributed to Brazilian Federal Protected Areas’ inputs indicators.

ProcessManagement processes were given a medium rating overall (48%) broken down into 49% for strict protection PAs and 47% for sustainable use PAs. Management processes in wildlife reserves and areas of relevant ecological interest are somewhat more precarious (32% and 35% respectively) than is the case for other categories which achieved a ‘medium’ rating for this item (Figure 35).

SP

SU

Total


49 48 47

46% 45% 51% 52% 32% 44% 35% 51% 60% 45%

Figure 35Management process ratings for Brazilian federal protected areas by

sustainable use and strict protection groups and by management categories.

54

Adriano G

ambarini/W

WF-B

rasil

55

Figure 36Management process ratings for Brazilian federal

protected areas by biogeographic domains.

When the figures are analysed according to biogeographic domains the overall average is medium (Figure 36) but the Caatinga, Pampas and Marine-coastal PAs stood out with ratings higher than 50%.

Processos

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

47.8%

46%

55%

45%

51% 49%

41%

49%

Planejamento

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

60.5%

62% 62%57%

61% 59% 60%

74%

Man

agem

ent p

lan

Ope

ratio

nal p

lan

Less

ons

lear

ned

Inte

rnal

org

anis

atio

n

Tran

spar

ency

Par

tner

ship

s

Com

mun

ity p

artic

ipat

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

flow

s

Man

agem

ent c

ounc

il

Inte

rinst

itutio

nal

artic

ulat

ion

Lega

l im

pact

s

Env

ironm

enta

l edu

catio

n

Illeg

al im

pact

s

Eco

logi

cal r

esea

rch

Soc

io-e

cono

mic

rese

arch

Acc

ess

to s

cien

tific

rese

arch

resu

lts

Iden

tific

atio

n of

gap

s

Acc

ess

to s

cien

tific

kno

wle

dge

Inve

ntor

y

Pre

ssur

es a

nd th

reat

s st

rate

gy

34% 37% 46% 37% 35% 58% 78% 76% 47% 70% 50% 75% 32% 33% 31% 48% 39% 34% 41% 58%

Figure 37Average value attributed to management process indicators for Brazilian federal protected areas.

56

Transparency, partnerships, communication flows among staff and administration and institutional articulation were revealed to be the strong points of management processes. On the other hand, several indicators require attention and need to be improved such as management plan and natural resource inventory elaboration, adaptation to cultural and socio-economic aspects, operational planning, incorporating research and survey results, monitoring and traditional knowledge in planning processes, implementation of continuous and consistent education actions, monitoring legal and illegal activities impacts and access to results of research undertaken inside the areas (Figure 37).

Processes

The Brazilian National Protected Areas System envisages protected area planning management as being supported by two pillars, namely, the management plan and council for each area. The council must be made up of representatives of public bodies, civil society organisations and the local population. It may be deliberative or merely consultative, according to the management category of the PA in question but, in all cases, it must collaborate in the management of the area making it more participative and effective. Recent data (2012) show that 220 (71%) of the current 310 federal PAs already have councils and of those, 169 are consultative and 51 deliberative. The management plan is a technical document, which, in the light of the PA’s overall objectives and biological diagnosis, establishes the zoning scheme for the area and its surroundings and the regulations that should govern the management of the area and the use of its natural resources. Currently, in 2012, 115 federal PAs (37% of the total) already have their management plans in place and another 64 (21%) are in the process of elaborating them.

OutputsThis last element of analysis addresses the results obtained during the last two years, in regard to different areas of PA management. The overall results were classified as medium for both the strict protection (53%) and sustainable use group (45%) (Figure 38). The evaluation of the former was influenced by the low scores obtained by natural monument and wildlife refuge categories (18% and 32% respectively) although the number of such units analysed is very low. All the other management categories achieved ratings above 50%. Sustainable development reserve and national forest were the categories with the best results in the sustainable use group and the areas of relevant ecological interest obtained the lowest scores.

Generally speaking there were no great differences when the figures were analysed by domains with the exception of the Pampas; represented by a single PA (Figure 39).

57

Figure 38Outputs achieved during the last two years by Brazilian Federal Protected Areas

by Sustainable Use and Strict Protection Groups and by Management Categories.

SP

SU

Total


53%49%

45%

57% 18% 51% 56% 32% 41% 31% 52% 55% 41%

Figure 39Outputs achieved during the last two years by Brazilian

federal protected areas by biogeographic domains.

Results

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

48.6%

46%

52%

46%51% 53%

37%

57%

Planejamento

Average


AtlanticForest

Pampas Pantanal

60.5%

62% 62%57%

61% 59% 60%

74%

The strong points that positively influenced PA management effectiveness scores were preventive actions against threats, management planning, and research development and dissemination during the last two years (Figure 40). The items that revealed the greatest need for improvement were the management of natural resources in those PAs where such management is lacking, the implantation of infrastructure and monitoring.

58

Overall analysis of management effectivenessThe overall rating for management effectiveness in Brazilian federal protected areas is ‘medium’ (48%) but there are some management categories with figures far from the average, such as the low effectiveness registered for wildlife refuges and areas of relevant ecological interest, and the high effectiveness of sustainable development reserves (Table 8). The planning element was what contributed most to management effectiveness in all PA management categories, and apart from ‘context’, it was the only element that achieved a high rating (Table 8). Most of PA management categories assessed had low levels of Inputs, as well as the overall average rating for this element. Most other headings were rated as ‘medium’.

When effectives is analysed according to biogeographic domains, there is very little difference and almost all ratings attributed by the Rappam assessment method lies in the ‘medium’ range (Table 9).

The need for greater inputs in all regions is obvious and the single element with the most outstanding performance is planning (Table 9). Processes show ‘medium’ ratings for all domains and so do ‘Outputs’ except for the Pampas which was rated a higher effectiveness (63%) but, even so, close to the average.

Figure 40Average value attributed to indicators of Outputs achieved

during the lasttwo years by Brazilian Federal Protected Areas.

Man

agem

ent p

lann

ing

Res

tora

tion

Dis

sem

inat

ion

Visi

tatio

n C

ontro

l

Infra

stru

ctur

e

Thre

at p

reve

ntio

n

Per

sonn

el m

anag

emen

t

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g

Rel

atio

ns w

ith lo

cal

com

mun

ities

Res

earc

h

Mon

itorin

g rs

ults

Env

ironm

enta

l edu

catio

n

Res

ourc

e m

anag

emen

t

61% 41% 32% 59% 48% 35% 66% 40% 48% 56% 61% 31% 52%

59

Group Category Planning Inputs Processes Outputs Managementeffectiveness

Strict Protection

EE 54.41% 38.42% 46.48% 56.58% 47.80%

MN 58.89% 44.55% 45.00% 18.46% 43.56%

PN 60.78% 40.60% 51.19% 51.39% 50.40%

RB 62.87% 40.53% 51.59% 56.34% 51.88%

RVS 44.00% 26.91% 32.00% 32.00% 33.42%

Sustainable Use

APA 62.64% 33.73% 43.93% 41.17% 44.98%

Arie 46.05% 30.10% 34.67% 30.94% 35.43%

FN 60.94% 37.23% 50.80% 52.31% 49.48%

RDS 82.22% 46.36% 60.00% 55.38% 60.55%

Resex 63.92% 38.58% 45.02% 41.49% 47.11%

Total 60.49% 38.01% 47.85% 48.56% 48.13%

Table 8Values attributed to the component elements of the Brazilian Federal PAs management effectiveness assessment

expressed as percentages, by sustainable use and strict protection groups and by management categories.

Table 9Values attributed to the

component elements of

the Brazilian Federal PAs

management effectiveness

assessment expressed

as percentages, by

biogeographic domains.

Biogeographic domain Planning Inputs Processes Outputs Management

effectiveness

Amazon 61.5% 37.3% 45.9% 45.5% 47.1%

Caatinga 61.8% 37.8% 54.6% 52.0% 50.8%

Cerrado 57.4% 38.4% 45.0% 45.8% 46.2%

Marine-coastal 61.0% 37.1% 51.2% 51.0% 49.3%

Atlantic Forest 59.5% 39.9% 48.9% 52.8% 49.5%

Pampas 60.0% 26.4% 41.0% 36.9% 40.5%

Pantanal 73.9% 39.1% 48.5% 56.9% 53.4%

Management effectiveness (by elements)

60.5% 38.0% 47.8% 48.6% 48.1%

The modules for the assessment of management effectiveness that had higher performances wereobjectives, design, planning, process and decision making (Figure 41). ‘Inputs’ is the only module with low ratings. Among the others only planning processes are rated below what could be considered a satisfactory average.

60

Figure 41Values attributed to the modules of each major element

of the Rappam assessment, expressed as percentages.

Protected Areas SystemThe assessment of the Protected Areas System takes into account aspects associated to its design, policies directed at protected areas and the existing political context (Figure 42). The assessment modules are designed to verify whether the goals of protecting the area and conserving species, ecosystems and local culture are being fulfilled. The results obtained by this module for the Federal Protected Areas System are considered to be satisfactory (67%, high level), the outstanding aspects being the integrity of the protected areas included in the system, the inclusion of transition zones and of areas with high levels of biodiversity and areas with high levels of endemism. System design has some faults in regard to representativeness of Brazilian ecosystems and in the provision of adequate protection for endangered species or extremely reduced populations.

The extent to which policies associated to protected areas take the system into account was rated at 57% and therefore lay in the medium range. The assessment of the indicators: temporal data series, goals for restoring reduced or poorly represented ecosystems, staff training and governance all achieved a medium performance rating. The indicators revealing the most critical aspects in regard to national PA policies were those related to system outreach, carrying out research and making inventories, goals and strategies governing sustainability of natural resource use inside PAs and in the surrounding areas, and the capacity of other social actors involved.

Finally, in regard to the context or policy environment, national policies do support and foster the application of the law and social participation. On the other hand, financial sustainability, stimulus for education, and capacity building on environmental issues for representatives of other government sectors are all extremely fragile.

100

80

60

40

20

0

Goa

ls

Lega

l sta

tus

Infra

stru

ctur

e

Fina

ncia

l res

ourc

es

Pla

nnin

g

Dec

isio

n m

akin

g

Out

puts

Res

earc

h ev

alua

tion

& M

onito

ring

Des

ign

& P

lann

ing

Com

mun

icat

ion

& In

form

atio

n

Hum

an re

sour

ces

Planejamento Inputs Process Outputs

71% 47% 61% 38% 43% 38% 32% 38% 65% 41% 48%

61

Figure 42Parameters used to assess the modules design, PA policies and policy context in the assessment

of the Brazilian Federal Protected Areas System with values expressed as average percentages.

61%

54%

Legi

slat

ion

cont

ribut

ion

Fina

ncia

l s

usta

inab

ility

Pro

tect

ion

polic

ies

Inte

rinst

itutio

nal

com

mun

icat

ion

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Env

ironm

enta

l e

duca

tion

Sus

tain

able

m

anag

emen

t

Con

serv

atio

n in

cent

ives

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g o

n en

viro

men

t

Soc

ial p

artic

ipat

ion

20% 20%

100% 100%

60% 60% 60% 60%60%

Political context

Total

61%

54%

Legi

slat

ion

cont

ribut

ion

Fina

ncia

l s

usta

inab

ility

Pro

tect

ion

polic

ies

Inte

rinst

itutio

nal

com

mun

icat

ion

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Env

ironm

enta

l e

duca

tion

Sus

tain

able

m

anag

emen

t

Con

serv

atio

n in

cent

ives

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g o

n en

viro

men

t

Soc

ial p

artic

ipat

ion

20% 20%

100% 100%

60% 60% 60% 60%60%

Political context

Total

67%61%

Rep

rese

ntat

iven

ess

Inte

grity

Key

spe

cies

are

as

Sus

tain

able

use

are

as

Nat

ural

pro

cess

es

Tran

sitio

n zo

nes

Bio

dive

rsity

End

emis

m

Con

figur

atio

n

Soc

io-b

iodi

vers

ity p

rote

ctio

n

Suc

cess

iona

l s

tage

s

Ext

inct

ion

pre

vent

ion

20% 20%

100%

60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%

100% 100% 100%

System design

Total

67%61%

Rep

rese

ntat

iven

ess

Inte

grity

Key

spe

cies

are

as

Sus

tain

able

use

are

as

Nat

ural

pro

cess

es

Tran

sitio

n zo

nes

Bio

dive

rsity

End

emis

m

Con

figur

atio

n

Soc

io-b

iodi

vers

ity p

rote

ctio

n

Suc

cess

iona

l s

tage

s

Ext

inct

ion

pre

vent

ion

20% 20%

100%

60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%

100% 100% 100%

System design

Total

57%

61%

Cle

ar g

oals

Sys

tem

out

reac

h

Gov

ernm

ent

com

mitm

ent

Bio

dive

rsity

inve

ntor

y

Tem

pora

l evo

lutio

n o

f var

iabi

lity

Res

tora

tion

goal

s

Res

earc

h

60%

100% 100% 100%

20% 20% 20%

Protected area policy

Total

Gap

ass

essm

ent

Sta

ff tra

inin

g

Sta

keho

lder

sca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

man

agem

ent

effe

ctiv.

ass

essm

ent

Nat

ural

reso

urce

s s

usta

inab

ility

Soc

io-c

ultu

ral

asp

ects

Org

anis

atio

nal

stru

ctur

e

Gov

erna

nce

20% 20%

100% 100%

60% 60% 60%60%

57%

61%

Cle

ar g

oals

Sys

tem

out

reac

h

Gov

ernm

ent

com

mitm

ent

Bio

dive

rsity

inve

ntor

y

Tem

pora

l evo

lutio

n o

f var

iabi

lity

Res

tora

tion

goal

s

Res

earc

h

60%

100% 100% 100%

20% 20% 20%

Protected area policy

Total

Gap

ass

essm

ent

Sta

ff tra

inin

g

Sta

keho

lder

sca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

man

agem

ent

effe

ctiv.

ass

essm

ent

Nat

ural

reso

urce

s s

usta

inab

ility

Soc

io-c

ultu

ral

asp

ects

Org

anis

atio

nal

stru

ctur

e

Gov

erna

nce

20% 20%

100% 100%

60% 60% 60%60%

62

ChAPTER 3Evolution of management effectiveness in Brazilian

Federal Protected Areas in five years: comparison

between 2005-2006 and 2010

63

Adriano G

ambarini/W

WF-B

rasil

64

It can be seen that there were increases in all the elements that are determinant for management effectiveness – planning, inputs, process and outputs (Table 10 and Figure 43). The only element that failed to show an increase over the period was context. That can be explained by the significant decrease in PA vulnerabilities, which is of course a positive feature but may mask other possible interpretations when analysing data associated to context.

On the other hand, there are other observable and significant negative differences in biological and socio-economic importance. The explanation here is a series of factors including the real decline in some indicators used in the assessment of these elements mainly related to deforestation and degradation that still take place in the areas surrounding the PAs and even in some cases, inside them; and another aspect is difficulty of coming to a conclusion due to the lack of temporal series of data, inventories etc., for some items included in the modules.

RAPPAM ASSESSMENT IN 2005-2006

AND IN 2010

High

Medium

Low

100

80

60

40

20

2005-06 2010

0

13%

36.2%

50.8%

46.2%

31.2%

22.6%

Figure 43Percentage of protected areas with high, medium and low management

effectiveness total values during 2005-06 and 2010 evaluation cycles.

A comparison between the two moments of Rappam assessment (in 2005-2006 and then in 2010) shows that there was an increase in management effectiveness to the order of 7.1 percentage points (Table 10), which represents an increase of around 18% over the earlier situation. Application of the Wilcoxon Paired Test shows that this difference is statistically significant (p< 0.05).

65

Table 10Values attributed to the elements and modules in the Rappam assessments of context

and management effectiveness of Brazilian Federal Protected Areas in 2005-2006 and 2010.

Elements / Modules 2005 - 06 2010 Percentage difference

Statisticalanalysis1

Biological importance 76.8 73.2 -3.6 *

Socio-economic importance 61.4 59.5 -1.9

Vulnerability 56.7 51.3 -5.5 *

Planning 56.2 60.5 4.3 -

Objectives 64.7 71.3 6.6 *

Legal situation 53.4 46.8 -6.6 *

Area design and planning

51.4 61.0 9.6 *

Inputs 32.3 38.0 5.7 -

Human resources 25.7 37.9 12.2 *

Communication and information

42.9 43.5 0.6

Infrastructure 28.5 38.4 9.9 *

Financial resources 30.4 32.3 1.9

Process 42.0 47.8 5.7 -

Management planning 32.6 37.7 5.1 *

Decision making 59.3 60.5 1.3 *

Research, evaluation and monitoring

32.6 40.6 8.0 *

Results 34.9 48.6 13.9 *

Management effectiveness 41.0 48.1 7.1 *

1. Results of the Wilcoxon Paired Test to evaluate whether changes

in data over the period were statistically significant. Test was

applied only to the groups of PAs that were evaluated on both

occasions. The test was applied to the Modules only. The asterisk indicates that the test confirmed statistical significance (p<0.05).

Among the other modules the only one that returned a lower rating in the second Rappam assessment than the first was the module Legal situation and the difference registered was statistically significant (Table 10). It should be pointed out that there were alterations to the wording of some of the questions in this module in the 2010 questionnaire (Chart 2.1 ) that may have affected the comprehension of the question and influenced the answers.

The percentage of protected areas with high and medium ratings for management effectiveness increased considerably during the last five years (Figure 27), while the amount of PAs with low effectiveness was decreased. These results are an important indicator that the efforts being put towards the establishment and consolidation of protected areas have generated positive results and that the overall status of federal PA management has improved, even when considering the relatively high number of areas created between 2005 and 2010 to which are expected lower levels of effectiveness.

66

BALMFORD, A.; BRUNER, A.; COOPER, P.; COSTANZA, R.; FARBER, S.; GREEN, R.E.; JENKINS, M.; JEFFERISS, P.; JESSAMY, V.; MADDEN, J.; MUNRO, K.; MYERS, N.; NAEEM, S.; PAAVOLA, J.; RAYMENT, M.; ROSENDO, S.; ROUGHGARDEN, J.; TRUMPER, K.; TURNER, K. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297: 950- 953.

BRUNER, A. G.; GULLISON, R.E.; FONSECA, G.A.B. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science. 291: 125- 128.

BUTCHART S.H.M.; WALPOLE, M.; COLLEN, B.; VAN STREIN, A.; SCHARLEMANN, J.P.W.; ALMOND, R.E.A.; BAILLIE, J.; BOMHARD, B.; BROWN, C.; BRUNO, J.; CARPENTER, K.; CARR, G.M.; CHANSON, J.; CHENERY, C.; CSIRKE, J.; DAVIDSON, N.C.; DENTENER, F.; FOSTER, M.; GALLI, A.; GALLOWAY, J.N.; GENOVESI, P.; GREGORY, R.; HOCKINGS, M.; KAPOS, V.; LAMARQUE, J.F.; LEVERINGTON, F.; LOH. J.; MCGEOGH, M.; MCRAE, L.; MINASYAN, A.; MORCILLO, M.H.; OLDFIELD, T.; PAULY, D.; QUADER, S.; REVENGA, C.; SAUER, J.; SKOLNIK, B.; SPEAR, D.; STANWELL- SMITH, D.; SYMES, A.; SPEAR, D.; STUART, S.; TYRRELL, T.D.; VIE, J.C.; WATSON, R. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328: 1164–1168.

ERVIN, J. Metodologia do WWF para avaliação rápida e a priorização do manejo de unidades de conservação (Rappam). São Paulo, SP, WWF- Brasil. 70 p. 2003a. (Tradução WWF- Brasil.).

Ervin, J. WWF rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management (RAPPAM) methodology. Gland, Swizertland, WWF. 70 p. 2003b.

HOCKINGS, M.; STOLTON, S.; DUDLEY, N. Evaluating Effectiveness – A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Areas Guidelines Series (6). University of Cardiff and IUCN, Suíça. 2000. 121 p.

HOCKINGS, M.; STOLTON, S.; LEVERINGTON, F.; DUDLEY, N.; COURRAU, J. 2006. Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 14. WCPA. Suíça. 105p.

IBAMA E WWF- BRASIL. Efetividade de Gestão das unidades de conservação Federais do Brasil. Implementação do Método Rappam – Avaliação Rápida e Priorização da Gestão de unidades de conservação. Brasília. DF. 96 p. 2007.

IUCN & UNEP- WCMC. 2010. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, Reino Unido: UNEP- WCMC.

LEVERINGTON, F., COSTA, K. L, COURRAU, J., PAVESE, H., NOLTE, C., MARR, M., COAD, L., BURGESS, N., BOMHARD, B., HOCKINGS, M. Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. 2nd Edition. The University of Queensland. Brisbane Australia. 87 p. 2010.

LEVERINGTON, F.; HOCKINGS, M.; COSTA, K.L. 2008. Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas. Report for the project ‘Global study into management effectiveness evaluation of protected areas’. Gatton: The University of Queensland, IUCN WCPA, TNC, WWF. 70 p.

BIBLIOGRAPhY

67

LOCKWOOD, M.; WORBOYS, G.L.; KOTHARI, A. (eds.) 2006. Managing protected areas: a global guide. Earthscan, USA. 802p.

LOREAU, M.; OTENG- YEBOAH, A.; ARROYO, M.T.K.; BABIN, D.; BARBAULT, R.; DONOGHUE, M.; GADGIL, M.; HÄUSER, C.; HEIP, C.; LARIGAUDERIE, A.; MA, K.; MACE, G.; MOONEY, H.A.; PERRINGS, C.; RAVEN, P.; SARUKHAN, J.; SCHEI, P.; SCHOLES, R.J.; WATSON, R.T. 2006. Diversity without representation. Nature, 442: 245- 246.

LOYOLA, R.D.; LEWINSOHN, T.M. 2009. Diferentes abordagens para a seleção de prioridades de conservação em um contexto macrogeográfico. Megadiversidade, 5 (1- 2): 27- 42.

MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE (MMA). 2010. Cadastro Nacional de unidades tde conservação. Disponível em http://www.mma.gov.br/sitio/index.php?ido=conteudo.monta&idEstrutura=119. Acessado em 12 de dezembro de 2010.

PIMM, S.L.; RAVEN, P. 2000. Biodiversity: extinction by numbers. Nature, 403: 843- 845.

RYLANDS, A. B. & BRANDON, K. 2005. unidades de conservação brasileiras. Megadiversidade 1(1): 27- 32.

WWF-BRASIL, SDS- AM, ICMBIO. Efetividade de Gestão das unidades de conservação do Estado do Amazonas. Brasília. 69 p. 2011

WWF- BRASIL, SEDAM- RO, ICMBIO. Efetividade de Gestão das unidades de conservação do Estado de Rondônia. Brasília. 66 p. 2011

WWF- BRASIL, SEMA–PA, ICMBIO. Efetividade de Gestão das unidades de conservação do Estado do Pará. Brasília. 62p. 2011

WWF- BRASIL, IEF- AP, SEMA- AP & ICMBIO. Efetividade de Gestão das unidades de conservação no Estado do Amapá. Brasília. DF. 57p. 2009.

WWF- BRASIL, SEMA- AC, SEF- AC & ICMBIO. Efetividade De Gestão das unidades de conservação no Estado do Acre. Brasília. DF. 62p. 2009.

WWF- BRASIL, SEMA- MT &ICMBIO. Efetividade de Gestão das unidades de conservação no Estado do Mato Grosso. Brasília. DF. 68p. 2009.

WWF- BRASIL; Fundação Florestal; Instituto Florestal. Rappam: implementação da avaliação rápida e priorização do manejo das unidades de conservação do Instituto Florestal e da Fundação Florestal de São Paulo. WWF, Programa de Preservação da Mata Atlântica, Instituto Florestal de São Paulo, Fundação Florestal, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo. São Paulo. 42p. 2004.

WWF- BRASIL & IMASUL, 2011. Efetividade de Gestão das unidades de conservação no Estado do Mato Grosso do Sul. Brasília. DF. 68p.

CHART 1. RAppAm quesTionnAiRe Applied in 2005-06 And 2010

MODULE 3 – BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

3.a The PA shelters a large number of endangered species based on federal and/or state lists

3.b* The PA shelters a significant number of species with populations declining due to various pressures

3.b**The PA shelters a significant number of species with populations over-exploited or under threat of over-exploitation and/or declining due to various pressures

3.c* The PA has relatively high levels of biodiversity

3.c** The PA has significant levels of biodiversity

3.d* The PA has relatively high levels of endemism

3.d** The PA has significant levels of endemism

3.e The PA plays a critical role in the landscape

3.f The PA significantly contributes to the representativeness of the PA system

3.g The PA ensures minimum viable populations of key species

3.h* The structural diversity of the PA is consistent with historic patterns

3.h** The PA maintains the historic patterns of structural diversity

3.i* The PA includes ecosystems whose range has decreased significantly

3.i** The PA protects ecosystems whose range is decreasing in a significant way

3.j** The PA conserves a significant diversity of natural processes and natural disturbance regimes (2005-06 only)

MODULE 4 - SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE

4.a The PA represents an important source of employment for local communities

4.b* Local communities depend on PA resources for their subsistence

4.b** Local communities subsist by using PA resources

4.c The PA provides development opportunities for the community through the sustainable use of resources

4.d* The PA is of spiritual or religious importance

4.d** The PA has spiritual or religious importance

4.e* The PA has unique characteristics of aesthetic importance

4.e** The PA has relevant aesthetic, historic and/or cultural references

4.f* The PA has plant species of high social, cultural or economic importance

* Wording of the question in 2005-06 / ** Wording of the question in 2010 / Wording common to both cycles (no asterisk)

4.f** The PA has plant and animal species of high social, cultural or economic importance

4.g* The PA has animal species of high social, cultural or economic importance

4.g** The PA has high recreational value

4.h* The PA has high recreational value

4.h** The PA contributes significant environmental services and benefits

4.i* The PA contributes significant environmental services and benefits to the communities

4.i** The PA has high educational and/or scientific value

4.j* The PA has high educational and/or scientific value

MODULE 5 - VULNERABILITY

5.a Illegal activities in the PA are difficult to monitor

5.b* There is poor law enforcement in the region

5.b** There is poor application of legal instruments in the region

5.c The PA is subject to civilian disturbance and/or political instability

5.d Cultural practices, beliefs and traditional use are in conflict with PA objectives

5.e Market value for PA resources is high

5.f The PA is easily accessible for illegal activities

5.g* There is a great demand for vulnerable resources from the PA

5.g** There is a great demand for natural resources from the PA

5.h* PA management is under pressure to manage or exploit PA resources in an improper manner

5.h** PA management is under pressure to develop actions not in accordance with PA objectives

5.i* It is difficult to hire and maintain personnel

5.i** It is difficult to hire personnel

5.j** Retention of employees is difficult (2010 only)

MODULE 6 - OBJECTIVES

6.a PA objectives include the protection and conservation of biodiversity

6.b Specific objectives related to biodiversity are clearly stated in the PA management plan

6.c* Plans and policies are consistent with PA objectives

6.c** Plans and projects are consistent with PA objectives

6.d PA staff and managemer understand PA objectives and policies

6.e* Local communities support PA global goals

6.e** Local communities support PA objectives

6.f** PA management council members understand PA objectives and policies (2010 only)

MODULE 7 - LEGAL SITUATION

7.a* The PA is legally protected

7.a** The PA and its natural resources are legally protected

7.b Land tenure situation is regular

7.c* Boundary demarcation is adequate in order to identify PA limits

7.c** PA boundary demarcation and signs system are adequate

7.d* Human and financial resources are adequate to carry out critical law enforcement actions

7.d** Human and financial resources are adequate to carry out critical protection actions

7.e* Conflicts with local communities are managed fairly and effectively

7.e** There is legal basis for conflict management

MODULE 8 - AREA DESIGN AND PLANNING

8.a* PA location is consistent with PA objectives

8.a** PA location is consistent with its objectives

8.b* PA design optimises biodiversity conservation and/or social, cultural and economic aspects

8.b** PA design favours biodiversity conservation and/or social, cultural and economic aspects

8.c* PA zoning system is adequate for fulfilment of PA objectives

8.c** PA zoning is adequate for fulfilment of PA objectives

8.d* Land use in surrounding areas allows for effective PA management

8.d** Land use in surrounding areas allows for effective PA management

8.e The PA is linked to another PA

8.f* The PA design and category identification process was participative

8.f** PA design and category identification resulted from a participative process

8.g** PA category is appropriate to PA natural features and adequate use (2010 only)

MODULE 9 - HUMAN RESOURCES

9.a* The number of staff is sufficient to effectively manage the PA

9.a** The number of staff is sufficient to effectively manage the PA

9.b* Staff members have adequate skills to carry out the critical management actions

9.b** Staff members have adequate skills to carry out PA management

9.c* Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the needs of the staff

9.c** Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the needs of the PA

9.d* There is periodic review of staff performance and progress towards goals

9.d** There is periodic review of staff performance and progress

MODULE 10 - COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

10.a* There is adequate communication structure between the PA, other managements and other PAs

10.a** There is adequate communication structure between the PA and other spheres of administration

10.b* Existing ecological and socio-economic information is adequate for management planning

10.b** Existing ecological and socio-economic information is adequate for management planning

10.c* There are adequate means of collecting new data

10.c** There are adequate means of data collecting

10.d There are adequate systems for data storage, processing and analysis

10.e There is effective communication between the PA and local communities

10.f There is effective communication among local communities

MODULE 11 - INFRASTRUCTURE

11.a* Transport infrastructure is adequate to execute critical management actions

11.a** Transport infrastructure is adequate to fulfil PA objectives

11.b* Field equipment is adequate to execute critical management actions

11.b** Field equipment is adequate to fulfil PA objectives

11.c* PA facilities are adequate to execute critical management actions

11.c** Facilities are adequate to fulfil PA objectives

11.d Visitor facilities are appropriate to the level of visitor use

11.e Maintenance and care of equipment and facilities is adequate to ensure long-term use

MODULE 12 - FINANCIAL RESOURCES

12.a* Funding in the last 5 years has been adequate to perform critical management actions

12.a** Funding in the last 5 years has been adequate to fulfil PA objectives

12.b* Funding for the next 5 years is adequate to execute critical management actions

12.b** Funding for the next 5 years is adequate to fulfil PA objectives

12.c* Financial management practices ensure efficient PA management

12.c** Financial management practices ensure efficient PA management

12.d Fund allocation is consistent with PA priorities and objectives

12.e A previsão financeira a longo prazo para a unidade de conservação é estável

12.f The PA is capable of raising external funds

MODULE 13 - MANAGEMENT PLANNING

9.e* Working conditions are sufficient to maintain a high quality team

9.e** Working conditions are sufficient to maintain a team appropriate to accomplish PA objectives

13.a* There is an updated and comprehensive management plan

13.a** There is an management plan appropriate to PA management

13.b* There is a comprehensive inventory of PA natural and cultural resources

13.b** There is an inventory of PA natural and cultural resources appropriate to PA management

13.c There is an analysis and strategy for addressing PA threats and pressures

13.d* There is a detailed work plan that identifies specific targets for achieving PA management objectives

13.d**There is an operational planning instrument that identifies activities for achieving PA management targets and objectives

13.e The results of research and monitoring are routinely incorporated into planning

MODULE 14 - DECISION MAKING

14.a There is clear internal organisation in the PA

14.b* Management decision making is transparent

14.b** Management decision making is transparent

14.c* PA staff regularly cooperates with partners, local communities and other organisations

14.c** The PA regularly cooperates with partners, local communities and other organisations

14.d* Local communities effectively participate in decisions that affect them

14.d** Local communities effectively participate in PA management and contribute to decision making

14.e* There is effective communication between PA staff and the manager

14.e** There is effective communication between PA staff and the manager

14.f There is an effective PA council implemented

14.g** The PA effectively articulates with relevant bodies and entities

14.h**Continuous and consistent educational actions are implemented that contribute to PA management and the achievement of its objectives (2010 only)

MODULE 15 - RESEARCH EVALUATION AND MONITORING

15.a The impacts of legal uses of the PA are accurately monitored and recorded

15.b The impacts of illegal uses of the PA are accurately monitored and recorded

15.c* Research on key ecological issues is consistent with PA needs

15.c** Research on ecological issues is consistent with PA needs

15.d* Research on key socio-economic issues is consistent with PA needs

15.d** Research on socio-economic issues is consistent with PA needs

15.e* PA staff have regular access to research in the PA and recent scientific orientations

15.e**PA staff and local communities have regular access to information generated by research undertaken in the PA

15.f Critical monitoring and research needs are identified and prioritised

15.g** PA staff has access to recent scientific knowledge (in 2010 only)

MODULE 16 – OUTPUTS: In the last two years the following outputs have been consistent with the minimisation of the threats and pressures, PA objectives and the annual work plan

16.a* Management Planning

16.a** The PA carried out management planning in the last two years

16.b* Restoration of areas and mitigation actions

16.b**The PA restored areas and mitigation actions were properly conducted according to the PA’s needs during the past two years

16.c* Management of wildlife, habitat and natural resources

16.c**The PA carried out management of wildlife, habitat and natural resources according to PA’s needs during the last two years

16.d* Communication and outreach to society

16.d** The PA carried out communication and society outreach actions during the last two years

16.e* Control of visitors and tourists

16.e** The PA operated control over visitors according to its needs during the past two years

16.f* Infrastructure implementation and maintenance

16.f** The PA implemented and maintained infrastructure during the last two years

16.g* Threat prevention and identification and law enforcement

16.g** The PA applied threat prevention and identification and law enforcement during the last two years

16.h* Supervision and evaluation of staff performance

16.h** The PA supervised and evaluated its staff’s performance during the last two years

16.i* Staff Capacity building and development

16.i** The PA promoted capacity building and development for staff during the last two years

16.j* Organization, capacity building and development for local communities and councils

16.j** The PA supported local community and council organization, capacity building and development during the last two years

16.k* Research development in the PA

16.k** Research development in alignment with PA objectives was carried out during the last two years

16.l* Monitoring results

16.l** Management results were monitored during the last two years

16.m** The PA developed environmental education activities during the last two years (2010 only)

Chico Mendes Institute of Biodiversity Conservation – ICMBioThe Chico Mendes Institute of Biodiversity Conservation – ICMBio is a federal autarchy and legally constituted and incorporated entity attached to the Ministry of the Environment – MMA. It was created by Law nº 11.516, dated August 28, 2007, as part of an institutional reformulation of IBAMA and its principle responsibilities and lines of action are: the proposition, implantation, management, protection, supervision and monitoring of protected areas instituted by the Federal Union; the execution of policies directed at the sustainable use of renewable natural resources and at and the provision of support to extractive reserves and traditional populations in federal sustainable use protected areas; as well as fomenting the execution of research, prevention, preservation and biodiversity conservation programmes and environmental education programmes.

Currently the ICMBio is responsible for managing 312 federal protected areas located all over Brazil, of which 137 are under strict protection management and 175 under sustainable use management. The former group is made up of 67 National Parks, 31 Ecological Stations, 29 Biological Reserves, seven Wildlife Refuges and three National Monuments. The group of sustainable use areas, in turn, consists of 32 Environmental Protection Areas, 16 Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest, 65 National Forests, 59 Extractive Reserves and one Sustainable Development Reserve.

During 2005 and 2006, IBAMA and WWF-Brazil jointly conducted a study to assess the management effectiveness of Brazilian federal protected areas (IBAMA & WWF-BRASIL, 2007) based on the RAPPAM method – Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (Ervin, 2003). That first assessment analysed 246 federal protected areas of the 290 that existed at the time under the aegis of IBAMA. In 2010, the ICMBio, took on the role of WWF-Brazil partner for the application of the second round of RAPPAM assessment, evaluating 292 (94%) of the 312 federal protected areas that are currently managed by that Institute.

wwF-BrasilWWF-Brazil is a Brazilian non-governmental organisation dedicated to the conservation of nature, harmonising human activities with the conservation of biodiversity and fostering the rational use of natural resources to the benefit of current and future generations. Created in 1996, WWF-Brazil unfolds projects all over Brazil and is part of the WWF Network, the largest single independent nature conservation network in the world, active in more than 100 countries with the support of around 5 million members and volunteers.

WWF-Brazil undertakes dozens of projects in collaboration with local NGOs, universities and govern-ment bodies. WWF-Brazil activities are organised into regional programmes associated to the Ama-zon, Atlantic Forest, Pantanal and Cerrado domains and thematic programmes with a special focus on freshwater resources, climate change, energy, agriculture and landscape planning. The organisation’s headquarters are in Brasilia (Federal District) but it also has important offices in São Paulo (São Paulo state), Campo Grande (Mato Grosso do Sul), Manaus (Amazonas) and Rio Branco (Acre).

Among the main lines of action of WWF-Brazil’s Amazon Programme is the implementation of tools, policies and analyses designed to support the planning and management of protected areas that are part of Brazil’s National Protected Areas System (SNUC is the Portuguese acronym). To that end, since 2004, WWF-Brazil has been supporting the application of the RAPPAM method in Brazil. Around 470 Protected Areas have already been evaluated using this method, equivalent to eight out of every ten hectares under some form of protection in the country. Management effective-ness assessment is a simple tool that enables protected areas decision makers, and policy formula-tors to identify and prioritise the main tendencies, gaps and features of management that must be addressed to ensure that the areas fulfil the objectives they were created for and to strengthen the systems as a whole.

Ministry of the environMent

Minister

Izabella Mônica Vieira Teixeira

chico Mendes institute of biodiversity conservAtion President President

Roberto Ricardo Vizentin

director of PlAnning, AdMinistrAtion And logistics Silvana Canuto Medeiros

Protected AreA, sustAinAble use And trAditionAl PoPulAtions boArd Daniel Guimarães Bolsonaro

director of biodiversity reseArch evAluAtion And Monitoring Marcelo Marcelino de Oliveira

Protected AreAs creAtion And MAnAgeMent boArd Pedro de Castro da Cunha e Menezes

MAcro-Process coordinAtor – Protected AreAs PlAnning And evAluAtion

Bernardo Ferreira Alves de Brito - Interim

Protected AreAs MAnAgeMent Monitoring And evAluAtion coordinAtor

Marcelo Rodrigues Kinouchi

technicAl stAff

Lilian Letícia Mitiko Hangae Lucia de Fátima Lima Sílvia Luciano de Souza Beraldo

wwf-brAsil

President eMeritus

Dr. Paulo Nogueira-Neto

President

Álvaro Antônio Cardoso de Souza

vice-Presidents

Conservation – Eduardo de Souza MartinsMarketing and Fundraising – José Pedro SirotskyFinance and Control – Carlos Eduardo Soares CastanhoNominations – Haakon Lorentzen

chief executive officer

Maria Cecília Wey de Brito

conservAtion director

Mauro Armelin

conservAtion director

Michael Becker

coMMunicAtion And engAgeMent director Regina Amélia Cavini

AdMinistrAtion And finAnces director

Maximiliano Matos Schaefer

AMAzon ProgrAMMe coordinAtor

Mauro Armelin - Interim

AMAzon ProgrAMMe conservAtion officer


AMAzon ProgrAMMe conservAtion sPeciAlist

Marisete Inês Santin Catapan

Protected Area Responsible for fulfilling Rappam questionnaire

APA da Bacia do Rio São João/Mico-Leão-Dourado Rogério Oliveira Sousa

APA Cavernas do Peruaçu Evandro Pereira da Silva

APA da Bacia do Rio Descoberto Lídio José dos Santos

APA da Bacia do Rio Paraíba do Sul Fernando Regis Siqueira

APA da Baleia Franca Simão Marrul Filho

APA da Barra do Mamanguape Sandro Roberto da Silva Pereira

APA da Chapada do Araripe Quitéria Cavalcante Pereira

APA da Costa dos Corais Pedro Augusto Macedo Lins

APA da Serra da Mantiqueira Clarismundo Benfica do Nascimento

APA da Serra de Tabatinga Rodrigo Leal Moraes

APA de Anhatomirim Eloisa Neves Mendonça

APA de Cairuçu Julio José Maria Junior

APA de Cananéia-Iguape-Peruíbe Marcio Luiz Barragana Fernandes

APA de Fernando de Noronha Ricardo Araujo

APA de Guapi-Mirim Breno Herrera da Silva Coelho

APA de Guaraqueçaba Ana Carolina Saupe

APA de Ibirapuitã Eridiane Lopes da Silva

APA de Petrópolis Fernando Cesar Corrëa Esteves

APA de Piaçabuçú Irene da Silva

APA Delta do Parnaíba Silmara Erthal

APA do Carste de Lagoa Santa Ivson Rodrigues

APA do Morro da Pedreira Jose Geraldo de Araujo

APA do Planalto Central Verusca Maria Pessoa Cavalcante

APA dos Meandros do Rio Araguaia José Vanderley Cambuim

APA Igarapé Gelado Manoel Delvo B. SantosAPA Ilhas e Várzeas do Rio Paraná Arthur Sakamoto

APA Nascentes do Rio Vermelho Marcus Cantuario Salim

APA Serra da Ibiapaba João Evangelista Vieira

APA Tapajós Otavio Cezar Zacante Ramos

ARIE Floresta da Cicuta Felipe Franco Sardella

ARIE Ilha do Ameixal Mariana Alves Onça de Souza

ARIE Ilha Queimada Grande e Queimada Pequena Wilson Almeida Lima

ARIE Javari Buriti Daniel Paes Rezende

ARIE Manguezais da Foz do Rio Mamanguape Sandro Roberto da Silva Pereira

ARIE Mata de Santa Genebra Patricia Lia Santarosa

ARIE Matão de Cosmópolis Márcia Gonçalves Rodrigues

ARIE PDBFF Elizabeth Maria Maia de Albuquerque Martins

ARIE Seringal Nova Esperança Anselmo Gonçalves da Silva

EE Caracaraí Claudio Rogério N. O. Garcia

EE Cuniã Luciano Jesus de Lima

EE da Guanabara Tatiana Figueira de Mello

EE da Mata Preta Antônio de Almeida Correia Júnior

EE de Aiuaba Rose Mary Feitosa Macedo

EE de Aracuri-Esmeralda Agenor Antonio Gedoz

EE de Carijós Edineia Caldas Correia

EE de Guaraqueçaba Aroldo Correa da Fonseca

EE de Murici Nelma Toledo Mendonça

EE de Niquiá Havana Maduro Viana

EE de Pirapitinga Albino Batista Gomes

EE de Taiamã Marcelo Leandro Feitosa de Andrade

EE de Tamoios Adriana Nascimento Gomes

EE de Tupinambás Thayná Jeremias Mello

EE de Tupiniquins Lúcia Guaraldo

EE de Uruçuí Una Daniel de Miranda Pinto de Castro

EE do Castanhão Maria Luiza Nogueira Paes

EE do Jari Thaís Farias Rodrigues

EE do Seridó George Stephenson Batista

EE do Taim Henrique Horn Ilha

EE Iquê Cintia Maria Brazão

EE Juami Japurá Elder de Araújo Pena

EE Jutai Solimões Lauri Corso

EE Maracá Benjamim B. da Luz

EE Maracá Jipioca Admilson Stephano

EE Mico-Leão-Preto Paulo Roberto Machado

EE Raso da Catarina Ely Enéas Florentino de Sousa

EE Rio Acre Lincoln Schwarzbach

EE Serra das Araras Rafael Martins Valadão

EE Serra Geral do Tocantins Luciana Gosi Pacca Berardi

EE Terra do Meio Manoelle Reis Paiva

FN Acungui Cibele Munhoz

FN Altamira Francisco Damião de Araújo

FN Amana Marcos H. Okawa

FN Amapá Tainah Correa Seabra Guimarães

FN Amazonas Keurys Kelly Souza da Silva

FN Anauá Adriana Gomes Aragão

FN Araripe-Apodi Verônica Maria Figueiredo Lima

FN Balata Tufari Jackeline Nobrega de Almeida

FN Bom Futuro Wilhan Rocha Assunção

FN Caçador José Maria Brito Moreira de Azevedo

FN Canela Ewerton Aires Ricardo Ferraz

FN Capão Bonito Paulo Cesar Martins Ferreira

FN Carajás Frederico Drumond Martins

FN Caxiuanã Lilian Vieira Miranda

FN Chapecó Juares Andreiv

FN Contendas do Sincorá Osmar Barreto Borges

FN Crepori Maite Alves Guedes

FN da Mata Grande Manoel Eurípedes da Silva

FN de Açu Damião Dantas de Sousa

FN de Brasília Elda Raquel Vargas de Oliveira

FN de Goytacazes Leony Wand Del Rey de Oliveira

FN de Itacaiunas Edilson Esteves

FN de Lorena Vinicius Garcia Mattei

FN de Nísia Floresta Cláudio José Barbosa Pinto

FN de Pacotuba Aline Roberta Queiroz Lobato

FN de Palmares Gaspar da Silva Alencar

FN de Paraopeba Rosângela Ribeiro Silva

FN de Ritapolis José Nivaldo de Menezes Machado

FN de Silvania Renato Cézar de Miranda

FN de Sobral Daniel de Miranda Pinto de Castro

FN de Tefé Paulo Jardel Braz Faiad

FN Humaitá Wilzer Cristiane Lopes Gonçalves

FN Ibirama Flávio Zancheti

FN Ibura Paulo Cezar Reys Bastos

FN Ipanema Ofélia de Fatima Gil Willmersdorf

FN Iquiri Luiz Felipe Pimenta de Moraes

FN Irati Ricardo Augusto Ulhoa

FN Itaituba I Maria Jociléia Soares

FN Itaituba II Alan Vieira Gonzaga

FN Jacundá Denis Helena Rivas

FN Jamanxim Sérgio de Souza Leite Filho

FN Jamari André Gustavo Campo de Oliveira

FN Jatuarana Enir Salazar da Costa

FN Macauã / São Francisco Edson Amaral

FN Mapia Inauini Leomar Indrusiak

FN Mario Xavier Andréa de Nobrega Ribeiro

FN Mulata Licio Mota da Rocha

FN Negreiros Paulo Roberto Corrêa de Souza Junior

FN Passa Quatro Edgard de Souza Andrade Junior

FN Passo Fundo Remi Osvino Weirich

FN Pau Rosa Jacqueline Martins Gomes

FN Piraí do Sul Gustavo Nabrzecki

FN Purus Flávio Marcelo Paim

FN Restinga de Cabedelo Getúlio Luis de Freitas

FN Rio Preto Leandro Pereira Chagas

FN Roraima Dauriléia Vieira Gonzaga Souza

FN Santa Rosa do Purus Luciano Roitman

FN São Francisco de Paula Artur José Soligo

FN Saracá Taquera Carlos Augusto Pinheiro

FN Tapajós Darlison Andrade

FN Tapirapé-Aquiri Francileia Lobo de Souza

FN Trairão Javan Tarsis Nunes Lopes

FN Tres Barras Artur Batisti Filho

MN dos Pontões Capixabas Osvaldo Luiz Ceotto

PN Amazônia Leideane Diniz Brusnello

PN Anavilhanas Priscila Maria da Costa Santos

PN Cabo Orange Kelly Bonach

PN Campos Amazônicos Renato Diniz Dumont

PN Cavernas do Peruaçu Evandro Pereira da Silva

PN da Chapada das Mesas Luciana Maria Fernandes Machado

PN da Chapada Diamantina Bruno Soares Lintomem

PN da Chapada dos Guimaraes Priscilla Prudente do Amaral

PN da Chapada dos Veadeiros Leonard Schumm

PN da Lagoa do Peixe Maria Tereza Queiroz Melo

PN da Restinga de Jurubatiba Carlos Alexandre Fortuna

PN da Serra da Bocaina Alessandra Fontana

PN da Serra da Bodoquena Fernando Correia Villela

PN da Serra da Canastra Darlan Alcântara de Pádua

PN da Serra da Capivara Marcelo Afonso

PN da Serra das Confusões José Wilmington Paes Landim Ribeiro

PN da Serra do Cipó Henry Deubois Collet

PN da Serra do Divisor Paulo Oliveira de Sousa

PN da Serra do Itajaí Alfredo Mallet Bufrem Filho

PN da Serra dos Orgãos Ana Elisa Faria Bacellar Schittini

PN da Tijuca Katyucha Von Kossel de Andrade Silva

PN das Araucárias Juliano Rodriques Oliveira

PN das Emas Marcos da Silva Cunha

PN das Nascentes do Rio Parnaíba Cristiana Castro Lima Aguiar

PN das Sempre-Vivas Marina Mota Batista

PN de Aparados da Serra/Serra Geral Adão Luiz da Costa Gullich

PN de Brasília Eloisa Caixeta de Andrade Paiva

PN de Ilha Grande Térsio Abel Pezenti

PN de Itatiaia Márcio Luiz Quaranta Gonçalves

PN de Jericoacoara Carlos Pinheiro Tavares

PN de São Joaquim Marcos Hiroshi Taniwaki

PN de Sete Cidades Karlla Celma Batista Lima Gomes

PN de Ubajara Francisco Humberto Sousa Bezerra

PN do Araguaia Winicius Siqueira Pinto

PN do Caparaó Luizmar Catheringer

PN do Catimbau José Francimar Veloso Junior

PN do Descobrimento Carmen Vera Marques Barcellos

PN do Iguaçu Apolônio Nelson S. Rodrigues

PN do Monte Pascoal Magda Vania Galdino Barros

PN do Pantanal Matogrossense Marília Falcone Guerra

PN do Pau Brasil Raquel Mendes Miguel

PN do Superagui Guadalupe Vivekananda

PN dos Campos Gerais Marcio Ricardo Ferla

PN dos Lençois Maranhenses Adriano Ricardo Damato Rocha de Souza

PN Grande Sertão Veredas Paula leão Ferreira

PN Jamanxim Gerson Buss

PN Jaú Cristina Batista

PN Juruena Cristiane Ramscheid Figueiredo

PN Mapinguari Tatiane Rodrigues Lima

PN Marinho de Fernando de Noronha José Tadeu de Oliveira

PN Marinho dos Abrolhos Joaquin Rocha dos Santos Neto

PN Montanhas do Tumucumaque Marcela de Marins

PN Monte Roraima Sônia Regina Correa Lopes

PN Nascentes do Lago Jari Luiz Henrique Condrati

PN Pacaás Novos Tiago Dias Ferreira

PN Pico da Neblina Bruno Vinícius da Silva Souza

PN Rio Novo Alexandre Silva de Oliveira

PN Saint-Hilaire/Lange Beatriz Nascimento Gomes

PN Serra da Cutia Nathalia Portero da Silva

PN Serra da Mocidade Inara Auxiliadora Rocha dos Santos

PN Serra de Itabaiana Marleno Costa

PN Serra do Pardo Taina Rizzato Menegasso

PN Serra do Pardo Thiago Orsi Laranjeiras

R.V.S de Una Saturnino Neto Firmo de Sousa

R.V.S Rio dos Frades Suiane Benevides Marinho Brasil

RB Abufari Luís Carlos Andreatta

RB da Contagem Isabela Deiss de Farias

RB da Mata Escura Tiago Leão Pereira

RB das Araucárias Jorge Luiz de A. Marques

RB das Perobas Carlos Alberto Ferraresi De Giovanni

RB de Augusto Ruschi Eduardo Carlos Mignone Alves

RB de Comboios Juarez Tarcizio Scalfoni

RB de Guaribas Marina Pinheiro Klüppel

RB de Pedra Talhada Helaelson de Almeida

RB de Poço das Antas Rafael Puglia Neto

RB de Saltinho Fabio Adonis Gouveia Carneiro da Cunha

RB de Santa Izabel Erik Allan Pinheiro dos Santos

RB de Serra Negra Damásio Tiburtino N. Filho

RB de Sooretama Eliton de Almeida Lima

RB de Una Paulo César Pires Diniz da Cruz

RB do Atol das Rocas Damião Dantas Souza

RB do Córrego do Veado José Maria Assis Poubel

RB do Córrego Grande Ligia Mara Coser

RB do Tinguá Márcia de Souza Nogueira

RB Guaporé Celso Costa Santos

RB Gurupi Evane Alves Lisboa

RB Jaru Rafael Amaral

RB Lago Piratuba Patricia Ribeiro Salgado Pinha

RB Marinha do Arvoredo Leandro Zago da Silva

RB Nascentes da Serra do Cachimbo Aline Kellermann

RB Rio Trombetas Carlos Augusto Pinheiro

RB Tapirapé Renata Daniella Vargas

RB Uatumã Bruno Cascardo Pereira

RB União Josá Carneiro Brusaca

RDS Itatupã Baquiá Pedro Alves Vieira

Resex Delta do Parnaíba Deolindo Moura Neto

Resex Lagoa do Jequiá Maria Lúcia Mota Miranda

Resex Acaú-Goiana Patrícia Greco Campos

Resex Alto Juruá Urbano Lopes Da Silva

Resex Alto Tarauacá Rosenil Dias de Oliveira

Resex Arai Peroba Kelly Ferreira Cottens

Resex Arapixi Shanna Bittencourt

Resex Arióca Pruanã Maximiliano Niedfeld Rodriguez

Resex Arraial do Cabo Álvaro Luiz Ahrends Braga

Resex Auati Paraná Gabriela Calixto Scelza

Resex Baia de Iguape Carlos Antonio Santos de Oliveira

Resex Baixo Juruá Roberto Cavalcante Barbosa

Resex Barreiro das Antas Luciano de Souza Malanski

Resex Batoque Grasiely de Oliveira Costa Tavares

Resex Cassurubá Joaquin Rocha dos Santos Neto

Resex Cazumbá-Iracema Vladimir Andrade Nóbrega

Resex Chapada Limpa Katia Regina Aroucha Barros

Resex Chico Mendes Fernando França Maia

Resex Chocoaré Mato Grosso Silvia Carla Galuppo

Resex Ciriaco Euvaldo Pereira

Resex Corumbau Ronaldo Freitas Oliveira

Resex Curupuru Marcelo Silveira

Resex de Canavieiras Sérgio Fernandes Freitas

Resex de Recanto das Araras de Terra Ronca Manoel Eurípedes da Silva

Resex do Rio Jutaí Rachel Klaczko Costa

Resex do Rio Unini Ana Flávia Ceregatti Tinto

Resex Extremo Norte do Estado do Tocantins Carlos Eduardo Nascimento dos Santos

Resex Gurupá Melgaço Nayara de Oliveira

Resex Gurupi Piriá Claudia Simone da Luz Alves

Resex Ipaú Anilzinho Lauriane Kamila Santos Silva

Resex Ituxi Adriana Mota Gomes de Souza

Resex Lago do Capanã Grande Francivane Fernandes da Silva

Resex Lago do Cedro Leonardo Teófilo da Silva Cândido

Resex Lago do Cuniã Cristiano Andrey Souza do Vale

Resex Mãe Grande de Curuça Rodrigo S.P. Jorge

Resex Mandira Valtency Negrão da Silva

Resex Mapuá Diego M. Monteiro

Resex Maracanã Carlos Dias Timm

Resex Marinha de Caeté Taperaçu Fernando Pedro Marinho Repinaldo Filho

Resex Marinha de Tracuateua Paulo Henrique B de Oliveira

Resex Mata Grande Virgínia Talbot

Resex Médio Juruá Rosi Barista da Silva

Resex Médio Purus Branca Tressoldi

Resex Pirajubaé Fabiana Bertoncini

Resex Prainha do Canto Verde Alexandre Caminha de Brito

Resex Quilombo do Frexal Anna Karina Araujo Soares

Resex Renascer Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho

Resex Rio Cajari Francisco Edemburgo Ribeiro de Almeida

Resex Rio Cautário Etienne Oliveira Silva

Resex Rio Iriri Aline Simões

Resex Rio Ouro Preto Jeronimo Carvalho Martins

Resex Rio Xingu Luciana Nascimento Viana

Resex Riozinho da Liberdade Lisandro Marcio Signori

Resex Riozinho do Anfrísio Luis Wagner Guimaraes

Resex São João da Ponta Waldemar Londres Verdara Filho

Resex Soure Lisângela Aparecida Pinheiro Cassiano

Resex Tapajós Arapiuns Rosaria Sena Cardoso Farias

Resex Terra Grande Pracuuba Alex Fiuza

Resex Verde Para Sempre Anderson Nascimento

RVS da Ilha dos Lobos Ney Cantarutti Junior

RVS das Veredas do Oeste Baiano Humberto Moura Villar de Lucena

RVS dos Campos de Palmas Rodrigo Filipak Torres

pA sTAff THAT ATTended RAppAm woRksHops

Protected Area Responsible for fulfilling Rappam questionnaire

APA da Bacia do Rio São João/Mico-Leão-Dourado Rogério Oliveira Sousa

APA Cavernas do Peruaçu Evandro Pereira da Silva

APA da Bacia do Rio Descoberto Lídio José dos Santos

APA da Bacia do Rio Paraíba do Sul Fernando Regis Siqueira

APA da Baleia Franca Simão Marrul Filho

APA da Barra do Mamanguape Sandro Roberto da Silva Pereira

APA da Chapada do Araripe Quitéria Cavalcante Pereira

APA da Costa dos Corais Pedro Augusto Macedo Lins

APA da Serra da Mantiqueira Clarismundo Benfica do Nascimento

APA da Serra de Tabatinga Rodrigo Leal Moraes

APA de Anhatomirim Eloisa Neves Mendonça

APA de Cairuçu Julio José Maria Junior

APA de Cananéia-Iguape-Peruíbe Marcio Luiz Barragana Fernandes

APA de Fernando de Noronha Ricardo Araujo

APA de Guapi-Mirim Breno Herrera da Silva Coelho

APA de Guaraqueçaba Ana Carolina Saupe

APA de Ibirapuitã Eridiane Lopes da Silva

APA de Petrópolis Fernando Cesar Corrëa Esteves

APA de Piaçabuçú Irene da Silva

APA Delta do Parnaíba Silmara Erthal

APA do Carste de Lagoa Santa Ivson Rodrigues

APA do Morro da Pedreira Jose Geraldo de Araujo

APA do Planalto Central Verusca Maria Pessoa Cavalcante

APA dos Meandros do Rio Araguaia José Vanderley Cambuim

APA Igarapé Gelado Manoel Delvo B. SantosAPA Ilhas e Várzeas do Rio Paraná Arthur Sakamoto

APA Nascentes do Rio Vermelho Marcus Cantuario Salim

APA Serra da Ibiapaba João Evangelista Vieira

APA Tapajós Otavio Cezar Zacante Ramos

ARIE Floresta da Cicuta Felipe Franco Sardella

ARIE Ilha do Ameixal Mariana Alves Onça de Souza

ARIE Ilha Queimada Grande e Queimada Pequena Wilson Almeida Lima

ARIE Javari Buriti Daniel Paes Rezende

ARIE Manguezais da Foz do Rio Mamanguape Sandro Roberto da Silva Pereira

ARIE Mata de Santa Genebra Patricia Lia Santarosa

ARIE Matão de Cosmópolis Márcia Gonçalves Rodrigues

ARIE PDBFF Elizabeth Maria Maia de Albuquerque Martins

ARIE Seringal Nova Esperança Anselmo Gonçalves da Silva

EE Caracaraí Claudio Rogério N. O. Garcia

EE Cuniã Luciano Jesus de Lima

EE da Guanabara Tatiana Figueira de Mello

EE da Mata Preta Antônio de Almeida Correia Júnior

EE de Aiuaba Rose Mary Feitosa Macedo

EE de Aracuri-Esmeralda Agenor Antonio Gedoz

EE de Carijós Edineia Caldas Correia

EE de Guaraqueçaba Aroldo Correa da Fonseca

EE de Murici Nelma Toledo Mendonça

EE de Niquiá Havana Maduro Viana

EE de Pirapitinga Albino Batista Gomes

EE de Taiamã Marcelo Leandro Feitosa de Andrade

EE de Tamoios Adriana Nascimento Gomes

EE de Tupinambás Thayná Jeremias Mello

EE de Tupiniquins Lúcia Guaraldo

EE de Uruçuí Una Daniel de Miranda Pinto de Castro

EE do Castanhão Maria Luiza Nogueira Paes

EE do Jari Thaís Farias Rodrigues

EE do Seridó George Stephenson Batista

EE do Taim Henrique Horn Ilha

EE Iquê Cintia Maria Brazão

EE Juami Japurá Elder de Araújo Pena

EE Jutai Solimões Lauri Corso

EE Maracá Benjamim B. da Luz

EE Maracá Jipioca Admilson Stephano

EE Mico-Leão-Preto Paulo Roberto Machado

EE Raso da Catarina Ely Enéas Florentino de Sousa

EE Rio Acre Lincoln Schwarzbach

EE Serra das Araras Rafael Martins Valadão

EE Serra Geral do Tocantins Luciana Gosi Pacca Berardi

EE Terra do Meio Manoelle Reis Paiva

FN Acungui Cibele Munhoz

FN Altamira Francisco Damião de Araújo

FN Amana Marcos H. Okawa

FN Amapá Tainah Correa Seabra Guimarães

FN Amazonas Keurys Kelly Souza da Silva

FN Anauá Adriana Gomes Aragão

FN Araripe-Apodi Verônica Maria Figueiredo Lima

FN Balata Tufari Jackeline Nobrega de Almeida

FN Bom Futuro Wilhan Rocha Assunção

FN Caçador José Maria Brito Moreira de Azevedo

FN Canela Ewerton Aires Ricardo Ferraz

FN Capão Bonito Paulo Cesar Martins Ferreira

FN Carajás Frederico Drumond Martins

FN Caxiuanã Lilian Vieira Miranda

FN Chapecó Juares Andreiv

FN Contendas do Sincorá Osmar Barreto Borges

FN Crepori Maite Alves Guedes

FN da Mata Grande Manoel Eurípedes da Silva

FN de Açu Damião Dantas de Sousa

FN de Brasília Elda Raquel Vargas de Oliveira

FN de Goytacazes Leony Wand Del Rey de Oliveira

FN de Itacaiunas Edilson Esteves

FN de Lorena Vinicius Garcia Mattei

FN de Nísia Floresta Cláudio José Barbosa Pinto

FN de Pacotuba Aline Roberta Queiroz Lobato

FN de Palmares Gaspar da Silva Alencar

FN de Paraopeba Rosângela Ribeiro Silva

FN de Ritapolis José Nivaldo de Menezes Machado

FN de Silvania Renato Cézar de Miranda

FN de Sobral Daniel de Miranda Pinto de Castro

FN de Tefé Paulo Jardel Braz Faiad

FN Humaitá Wilzer Cristiane Lopes Gonçalves

FN Ibirama Flávio Zancheti

FN Ibura Paulo Cezar Reys Bastos

FN Ipanema Ofélia de Fatima Gil Willmersdorf

FN Iquiri Luiz Felipe Pimenta de Moraes

FN Irati Ricardo Augusto Ulhoa

FN Itaituba I Maria Jociléia Soares

FN Itaituba II Alan Vieira Gonzaga

FN Jacundá Denis Helena Rivas

FN Jamanxim Sérgio de Souza Leite Filho

FN Jamari André Gustavo Campo de Oliveira

FN Jatuarana Enir Salazar da Costa

FN Macauã / São Francisco Edson Amaral

FN Mapia Inauini Leomar Indrusiak

FN Mario Xavier Andréa de Nobrega Ribeiro

FN Mulata Licio Mota da Rocha

FN Negreiros Paulo Roberto Corrêa de Souza Junior

FN Passa Quatro Edgard de Souza Andrade Junior

FN Passo Fundo Remi Osvino Weirich

FN Pau Rosa Jacqueline Martins Gomes

FN Piraí do Sul Gustavo Nabrzecki

FN Purus Flávio Marcelo Paim

FN Restinga de Cabedelo Getúlio Luis de Freitas

FN Rio Preto Leandro Pereira Chagas

FN Roraima Dauriléia Vieira Gonzaga Souza

FN Santa Rosa do Purus Luciano Roitman

FN São Francisco de Paula Artur José Soligo

FN Saracá Taquera Carlos Augusto Pinheiro

FN Tapajós Darlison Andrade

FN Tapirapé-Aquiri Francileia Lobo de Souza

FN Trairão Javan Tarsis Nunes Lopes

FN Tres Barras Artur Batisti Filho

MN dos Pontões Capixabas Osvaldo Luiz Ceotto

PN Amazônia Leideane Diniz Brusnello

PN Anavilhanas Priscila Maria da Costa Santos

PN Cabo Orange Kelly Bonach

PN Campos Amazônicos Renato Diniz Dumont

PN Cavernas do Peruaçu Evandro Pereira da Silva

PN da Chapada das Mesas Luciana Maria Fernandes Machado

PN da Chapada Diamantina Bruno Soares Lintomem

PN da Chapada dos Guimaraes Priscilla Prudente do Amaral

PN da Chapada dos Veadeiros Leonard Schumm

PN da Lagoa do Peixe Maria Tereza Queiroz Melo

PN da Restinga de Jurubatiba Carlos Alexandre Fortuna

PN da Serra da Bocaina Alessandra Fontana

PN da Serra da Bodoquena Fernando Correia Villela

PN da Serra da Canastra Darlan Alcântara de Pádua

PN da Serra da Capivara Marcelo Afonso

PN da Serra das Confusões José Wilmington Paes Landim Ribeiro

PN da Serra do Cipó Henry Deubois Collet

PN da Serra do Divisor Paulo Oliveira de Sousa

PN da Serra do Itajaí Alfredo Mallet Bufrem Filho

PN da Serra dos Orgãos Ana Elisa Faria Bacellar Schittini

PN da Tijuca Katyucha Von Kossel de Andrade Silva

PN das Araucárias Juliano Rodriques Oliveira

PN das Emas Marcos da Silva Cunha

PN das Nascentes do Rio Parnaíba Cristiana Castro Lima Aguiar

PN das Sempre-Vivas Marina Mota Batista

PN de Aparados da Serra/Serra Geral Adão Luiz da Costa Gullich

PN de Brasília Eloisa Caixeta de Andrade Paiva

PN de Ilha Grande Térsio Abel Pezenti

PN de Itatiaia Márcio Luiz Quaranta Gonçalves

PN de Jericoacoara Carlos Pinheiro Tavares

PN de São Joaquim Marcos Hiroshi Taniwaki

PN de Sete Cidades Karlla Celma Batista Lima Gomes

PN de Ubajara Francisco Humberto Sousa Bezerra

PN do Araguaia Winicius Siqueira Pinto

PN do Caparaó Luizmar Catheringer

PN do Catimbau José Francimar Veloso Junior

PN do Descobrimento Carmen Vera Marques Barcellos

PN do Iguaçu Apolônio Nelson S. Rodrigues

PN do Monte Pascoal Magda Vania Galdino Barros

PN do Pantanal Matogrossense Marília Falcone Guerra

PN do Pau Brasil Raquel Mendes Miguel

PN do Superagui Guadalupe Vivekananda

PN dos Campos Gerais Marcio Ricardo Ferla

PN dos Lençois Maranhenses Adriano Ricardo Damato Rocha de Souza

PN Grande Sertão Veredas Paula leão Ferreira

PN Jamanxim Gerson Buss

PN Jaú Cristina Batista

PN Juruena Cristiane Ramscheid Figueiredo

PN Mapinguari Tatiane Rodrigues Lima

PN Marinho de Fernando de Noronha José Tadeu de Oliveira

PN Marinho dos Abrolhos Joaquin Rocha dos Santos Neto

PN Montanhas do Tumucumaque Marcela de Marins

PN Monte Roraima Sônia Regina Correa Lopes

PN Nascentes do Lago Jari Luiz Henrique Condrati

PN Pacaás Novos Tiago Dias Ferreira

PN Pico da Neblina Bruno Vinícius da Silva Souza

PN Rio Novo Alexandre Silva de Oliveira

PN Saint-Hilaire/Lange Beatriz Nascimento Gomes

PN Serra da Cutia Nathalia Portero da Silva

PN Serra da Mocidade Inara Auxiliadora Rocha dos Santos

PN Serra de Itabaiana Marleno Costa

PN Serra do Pardo Taina Rizzato Menegasso

PN Serra do Pardo Thiago Orsi Laranjeiras

R.V.S de Una Saturnino Neto Firmo de Sousa

R.V.S Rio dos Frades Suiane Benevides Marinho Brasil

RB Abufari Luís Carlos Andreatta

RB da Contagem Isabela Deiss de Farias

RB da Mata Escura Tiago Leão Pereira

RB das Araucárias Jorge Luiz de A. Marques

RB das Perobas Carlos Alberto Ferraresi De Giovanni

RB de Augusto Ruschi Eduardo Carlos Mignone Alves

RB de Comboios Juarez Tarcizio Scalfoni

RB de Guaribas Marina Pinheiro Klüppel

RB de Pedra Talhada Helaelson de Almeida

RB de Poço das Antas Rafael Puglia Neto

RB de Saltinho Fabio Adonis Gouveia Carneiro da Cunha

RB de Santa Izabel Erik Allan Pinheiro dos Santos

RB de Serra Negra Damásio Tiburtino N. Filho

RB de Sooretama Eliton de Almeida Lima

RB de Una Paulo César Pires Diniz da Cruz

RB do Atol das Rocas Damião Dantas Souza

RB do Córrego do Veado José Maria Assis Poubel

RB do Córrego Grande Ligia Mara Coser

RB do Tinguá Márcia de Souza Nogueira

RB Guaporé Celso Costa Santos

RB Gurupi Evane Alves Lisboa

RB Jaru Rafael Amaral

RB Lago Piratuba Patricia Ribeiro Salgado Pinha

RB Marinha do Arvoredo Leandro Zago da Silva

RB Nascentes da Serra do Cachimbo Aline Kellermann

RB Rio Trombetas Carlos Augusto Pinheiro

RB Tapirapé Renata Daniella Vargas

RB Uatumã Bruno Cascardo Pereira

RB União Josá Carneiro Brusaca

RDS Itatupã Baquiá Pedro Alves Vieira

Resex Delta do Parnaíba Deolindo Moura Neto

Resex Lagoa do Jequiá Maria Lúcia Mota Miranda

Resex Acaú-Goiana Patrícia Greco Campos

Resex Alto Juruá Urbano Lopes Da Silva

Resex Alto Tarauacá Rosenil Dias de Oliveira

Resex Arai Peroba Kelly Ferreira Cottens

Resex Arapixi Shanna Bittencourt

Resex Arióca Pruanã Maximiliano Niedfeld Rodriguez

Resex Arraial do Cabo Álvaro Luiz Ahrends Braga

Resex Auati Paraná Gabriela Calixto Scelza

Resex Baia de Iguape Carlos Antonio Santos de Oliveira

Resex Baixo Juruá Roberto Cavalcante Barbosa

Resex Barreiro das Antas Luciano de Souza Malanski

Resex Batoque Grasiely de Oliveira Costa Tavares

Resex Cassurubá Joaquin Rocha dos Santos Neto

Resex Cazumbá-Iracema Vladimir Andrade Nóbrega

Resex Chapada Limpa Katia Regina Aroucha Barros

Resex Chico Mendes Fernando França Maia

Resex Chocoaré Mato Grosso Silvia Carla Galuppo

Resex Ciriaco Euvaldo Pereira

Resex Corumbau Ronaldo Freitas Oliveira

Resex Curupuru Marcelo Silveira

Resex de Canavieiras Sérgio Fernandes Freitas

Resex de Recanto das Araras de Terra Ronca Manoel Eurípedes da Silva

Resex do Rio Jutaí Rachel Klaczko Costa

Resex do Rio Unini Ana Flávia Ceregatti Tinto

Resex Extremo Norte do Estado do Tocantins Carlos Eduardo Nascimento dos Santos

Resex Gurupá Melgaço Nayara de Oliveira

Resex Gurupi Piriá Claudia Simone da Luz Alves

Resex Ipaú Anilzinho Lauriane Kamila Santos Silva

Resex Ituxi Adriana Mota Gomes de Souza

Resex Lago do Capanã Grande Francivane Fernandes da Silva

Resex Lago do Cedro Leonardo Teófilo da Silva Cândido

Resex Lago do Cuniã Cristiano Andrey Souza do Vale

Resex Mãe Grande de Curuça Rodrigo S.P. Jorge

Resex Mandira Valtency Negrão da Silva

Resex Mapuá Diego M. Monteiro

Resex Maracanã Carlos Dias Timm

Resex Marinha de Caeté Taperaçu Fernando Pedro Marinho Repinaldo Filho

Resex Marinha de Tracuateua Paulo Henrique B de Oliveira

Resex Mata Grande Virgínia Talbot

Resex Médio Juruá Rosi Barista da Silva

Resex Médio Purus Branca Tressoldi

Resex Pirajubaé Fabiana Bertoncini

Resex Prainha do Canto Verde Alexandre Caminha de Brito

Resex Quilombo do Frexal Anna Karina Araujo Soares

Resex Renascer Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho

Resex Rio Cajari Francisco Edemburgo Ribeiro de Almeida

Resex Rio Cautário Etienne Oliveira Silva

Resex Rio Iriri Aline Simões

Resex Rio Ouro Preto Jeronimo Carvalho Martins

Resex Rio Xingu Luciana Nascimento Viana

Resex Riozinho da Liberdade Lisandro Marcio Signori

Resex Riozinho do Anfrísio Luis Wagner Guimaraes

Resex São João da Ponta Waldemar Londres Verdara Filho

Resex Soure Lisângela Aparecida Pinheiro Cassiano

Resex Tapajós Arapiuns Rosaria Sena Cardoso Farias

Resex Terra Grande Pracuuba Alex Fiuza

Resex Verde Para Sempre Anderson Nascimento

RVS da Ilha dos Lobos Ney Cantarutti Junior

RVS das Veredas do Oeste Baiano Humberto Moura Villar de Lucena

RVS dos Campos de Palmas Rodrigo Filipak Torres

THIS PUBLICATIONHAS BEENPUBLISHED INPARTNERSHIP WITH:

2012

PROJECTBR

Why we are hereTo stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

www.wwf.org.br


BRAZILIAN FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS

1986 Panda Symbol WWF“WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark

WWF-Brasil: SHIS EQ QL 6/8, Conjunto E - CEP 71620-430, Brasília, DF - (55 + 61) 3364-7400

Brazilian Federal Protected Areas

Federal PAs were evaluated in 2010.

Workshops were held to perform the evaluation.

Of the total area covered by federal and state PAs in Brazil was already evaluated by the RAPPAM method.

Of the federal PAs assessed had high values of manage-ment effectiveness.

Is the average management effectiveness value of the federal PAs in 2010.

this publication has been brazilian federal protected ... · published in partnership with: 2012...

Documents