Management Effectiveness of Brazilian Federal Protected Areas: Results of 2010

THIS PUBLICATION Brazilian Federal Protected Areas HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN

BRAZILIAN FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS PARTNERSHIP WITH: PROJECT BR

Federal PAs were evaluated in 2010. 2012

Of the total area covered by federal and state PAs in Brazil was already Workshops were evaluated by the held to perform RAPPAM method. the evaluation.

Of the federal PAs assessed had high values of management effectiveness. Is the average management effectiveness value of the federal PAs in 2010. MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS Why we are here To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature. OF BRAZILIAN FEDERAL PROTECTED www.wwf.org.br AREAS: RESULTS OF 2010 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

WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAZILIAN FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS: RESULTS OF 2010

Authors WWF-Brasil Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade

Organizers Cristina Aragão Onaga Maria Auxiliadora Drumond Mariana Napolitano e Ferreira

Brasília, 2012

Foto capa: WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch Adriano Gambarini/WWF-Brasil

Publishing team

Organized by Cristina Aragão Onaga Maria Auxiliadora Drumond Mariana Napolitano e Ferreira

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 WWF-Brasil/Bento Viana SUMMARY

Foreword 11

Chapter 1. Introduction and methodological procedures 12 Rappam framework 17 General information 18 Pressures and threats 18 Context and management effectiveness 20

Chapter 2. Rappam results 2010 22 General information 23 Human resources 28 Pressures and threats 28 Context 42 Socio-economic importance 44 Vulnerability 46 Management effectiveness 48 Planning 48 Inputs 51 Process 53 Outputs 56 Overall analysis of management effectiveness 58 Protected Areas System 60

Chapter 3. Evolution of management effectiveness 62 in Brazilian Federal Protected Areas in five years: comparison between 2005-2006 and 2010 Rappam assessment in 2005-2006 and in 2010 64

Bibliography 66

Attachment 68 WWF-Brasil/Eduardo 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 Adriano Gambarini/WWF-Brasil

10 The Third Global Biodiversity Foreword 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.

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.

11 ChAPTER 1

Introduction and methodological procedures 12 WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch

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

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).

14 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 Gambarini/WWF-Brasil

15 Table 1 Numbers of protected areas evaluated in 2010 using Rappam, by PA management category and biogeographic domain.

Marine- Atlantic Total per Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest 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 117 19 40 44 69 1 2 292 domain

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

16 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 framework

The 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.

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’.

17 What are the weaknesses of the Outlook, Goals What do we expect management cycle? and Objectives to attain?

Reﬂection and Context and Assessment Situation

How do external Were the objectives factors affect the attained? INTERACTIVE objectives?

Outcomes Planing ASSESSMENT and Design

Are outputs adequate PROCESS To what extent are so that objectives can the objectives attained be attained? through planning? Outputs Resulting from Management Inputs

Are management Management Are there enough processes coherent with Process inputs for objectives the objectives? to be attained?

Figure 2 Management and assessment cycle as proposed by WCPA/IUCN. Source: HOCKINGS et al., 2000.

General information

The 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 threats

Module 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

18 Table 2 Elements and modules of the RAPPAM questionnaire.

Element Module

1. General information 2. Pressures and threats Context 3. Biological importance 4. Socio-economic importance 5. Vulnerability 6. Objectives Planning 7. Legal status 8. Area design and planning 9. Human resources 10. Communication and information Inpts 11. Infrastructure 12. Financial resources 13. Planning Process 14. Decision making 15. Research, evaluation and monitoring Outputs 16. Results 17. Protected Areas System design Outputs Protected 18. Protected Areas System policies Areas System 19. Political environment

Table 3 Scoring 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 - - -

19 Pressure:

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

In the past 5 years The severity of pressure over the past 5 years has been: this activity has: Abrangência: Impact: Permanence: (Time area takes to recuperate) Increased drastically Total (>50%) Severe Permanent (>100 years) Increased slightly Widespread (15–50%) High Long term (20–100 years) Remained constant Decreased slightly Scattered (5–15% Moderate Medium term (5–20 years) Decreased drastically Localised (<5%) Light Short term (<5 years)

Threat:

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

The probability of the The overall severity of the threat over the next 5 years is likely to be: threat occurring is: Extent: Impact: Permanence : Very high Total (>50%) Severe Permanent (>100 years) High Widespread (15–50%) High Long term (20–100 years) Medium Low Scattered (5–15%) Moderate Medium term (5–20 years) Very Low Localised (<5%) Light Short term (<5 years)

Figure 3 RAPPAM questionnaire to assess threats and pressures.

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 effectiveness

Modules 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.

20 Table 4 Scoring scheme for the management effectiveness modules.

Alternative Points

Yes (y) 5

Predominantly yes (p/y) 3

Predominantly no (p/n) 1

No (n) 0

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. WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch

21 Adriano Gambarini/WWF-Brasil e WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch

CHAPTER 2

Rappam results 2010 22 Brazilian Federal Protected Areas

General info 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).

Percentage of continental biomes in protected areas

Source CAMUC/DIREP 16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0% 1937 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Atlantic Forest Pampas Pantanal

Figure 4 Evolution of federal PAs created in Brazil from 1937 to 2010 by percentages protected for each biogeographic domain.

23 Areas (há) of Federal Protected Areas by management categories

Fonte: CAMUC/DIREP 30.000.000

25.000.000

20.000.000

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0 1937 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

APA EE MN RDS RESEX

ARIE FN PN RB RVS

Figure 5 Evolution 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.

24 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

Table 5 Atlantic Forest 1.964.386 Area (in hectares), of the groups Pampas 318.000 & management categories of federal protected areas, Total 74.931.198 by biogeographic domains.

Strict protection

2.7 % 1.5 % 0.4 %

10.6 % Amazon

2.8 % Caatinga

Cerrado

Marine-coastal

Atlantic Forest

Pantanal

81.9 % Figure 6 Percentage distribution of strict protection federal PAs by biogeographic domains.

25 Sustainable use

4.8 % 5.1 % 0.8 %

3.6 % Amazon

6.7 % Caatinga

Cerrado

Marine-coastal

Atlantic Forest

Pampas

79.1 % Figure 7 Percentage distribution of sustainable use federal PAs by biogeographic domains.

Strict protection

0.5 % 11.6 % 19.0 % EE

MN 0.1 % PN

RVS

68.9 %

Figure 8 Percentage distribution of strict protection federal PAs by management categories.

26 Sustainable use

APA 24.1 % 30.1 % ARIE

0.1 % RDS

RESEX 0.2 %

45.5 % Figure 9 Percentage distribution of sustainable use federal PAs by 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

Table 6 National Forest (FN) 18.520.947 Areas in hectares of PAs Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) 64.735 under strict protection or sustainable use group Extractive Reserve (Resex) 12.246.349 according to specific management categories. Total 74.931.198

27 Human resources

Currently 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.

Table 7 Human resources allocated at federal protected areas according to post and function and by biogeographic domains and PA group.

Logistics and Bio-geographic Univ. Technical administrative Security Brigade Total domain bio degree level support

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

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).

Pressures and threats

The 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.

28 Biogeographic domain Roles and posts 18001400 14001400

16001200 12001200 1400 1000 10001000 1200 800 800 1000 800

800600 600600 Number of staff Number of staff 600 400 400400 400 200 200200 200 00 00 Técnico Técnico Vigilante Vigilante Forest coastal Brigadista Brigadista Atlantic Marine- Cerrado Amazon Pampas & admin. Pantanal Caatinga Logistics Nível superior Nível superior Surveillance Univ. degree Univ. Apoio logístico Apoio logístico Brigade corps Technical level Technical e administrativo e administrativo

Figure 10 Figure 11 Human resources available for each Brazilian domain. Human resources distribution in Brazilian Federal Federal PA management activities, according to posts and functions.

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).

29 Pressures SP SU

Threats SP SU

Agriculture & sylviculture P 43 72 A 46 79 Hunting P 94 105 A 100 108 Collecting non-wood products P 46 43 A 48 46 Infrasturucture construction & operation P 46 90 A 62 125 Residue disposal (pollution) P 35 84 A 39 89 Invading exotic species P 84 94 A 99 102 Wood extraction P 49 97 A 43 91 Mining P 25 68 A 35 83 Deliberately-set fires P 66 71 A 74 87 External influences P 86 144 A 109 164 Human settlement P 56 104 A 57 122 Grazing land P 58 87 A 57 88 Fishing P 46 95 A 47 98 Semi-natural processes P 50 70 Pressures A 52 77 SP SU Tourism and recreation P 37 46 A 36 51 Resource use by local populations P 59 106 Threats A 60 108 SP SU

Figure 12 Criticity of pressures (P) and threats (T) in Federal Protected Agriculture & sylviculture P 43 72 Areas under Strict Protection (SP) and Sustainable Use (SU). A 46 79 Hunting P 94 105 A 100 108 FigureCollecting 13 illustrates non-wood productsthe tendency P shown46 by pressures43 over the last five years. Positive values indicate a tendency toA increase48 and negative46 ones, a tendency to decline. InfrastuructureThe impacts construction stemming & operation from P external46 influences showed90 a much stronger tendency to increase than any of the othersA and 62that was true for both Strict125 Protection and Residue disposal (pollution) P 35 84 Sustainable Use PAs. Hunting, collecting non-wood forest products, mining and fires A 39 89 tended toInvading decline, exotic all speciesthe more P so in the strict84 protection areas. That94 could be because of the greater numbers of surveillance,A security99 and brigade personnel and102 technical staff allocated Woodto PAs extraction in this P group. Wood49 extraction and 97the conversion of land use to grazing land tended to increaseA in sustainable43 use PAs 91and decline in strict protection areas. All other impactsMining showed P a25 tendency to 68increase to a greater or lesser extent but A 35 83 always more markedly in the sustainable use PAs. Deliberately-set fires P 66 71 A 74 87 External influences P 86 144 A 109 164 Human settlement P 56 104 A 57 122 Grazing land P 58 87 A 57 88 Fishing P 46 95 A 47 98 Semi-natural processes P 50 70 A 52 77 Tourism and recreation P 37 46 A 36 51 Resource use by local populations P 59 106 30 A 60 108 SP SU

SP SU

-50 0 50 100 150 200

Agriculture & sylviculture -50 0 50 100 150 200 Hunting Agriculture & sylviculture Collecting non-wood products Hunting Infrastructure construction & operation Collecting non-wood products Residue disposal (pollution) Infrastructure construction & operation Invading exotic species Residue disposal (pollution) Wood extraction Invading exotic species Mining Wood extraction Deliberately-set fires Mining External influences Deliberately-set fires Human settlement External influences Grazing land Human settlement Fishing Grazing land Semi-natural processes Fishing Tourism and recreation Semi-natural processes Resource use by local populations Tourism and recreation

Resource use by local populations Figure 13 Tendency of pressures inside Federal Strict Protection and Sustainable Use PAs to increase or decline.

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.

31 32 WWF-Brasil/Eduardo Aigner

33 SP SU

SP SU

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Resource use by local populations Figure 14 Probability of occurrence of threats inside Federal Strict Protection and Sustainable Use PAs.

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.

34 Pressures SP SU

Threats SP SU

Agriculture & forestry P 57% 58% A 55% 59% Hunting P 90% 91% A 90% 90% Collecting non-wood products P 60% 60% A 62% 56% Infrasturucture construction & operation P 55% 52% A 63% 67% Residue disposal (pollution) P 62% 74% A 62% 73% Invading exotic species P 72% 60% A 75% 59% Wood extraction P 60% 77% A 62% 73% Mining P 33% 44% A 37% 47% Deliberately-set fires P 69% 60% A 72% 67% External influences P 71% 77% A 73% 80% Human settlement P 53% 54% A 52% 57% Cattle raising P 60% 64% A 58% 59% Fishing P 65% 76% A 64% 72% Semi-natural processes P 42% 49% Pressures A 43% 51% SP SU Tourism and recreation P 58% 49% A 59% 57% Threats Resource use by local populations P 54% 65% A 48% 64% SP SU

Figure 15 Frequency of pressures (P) and threats (T) inside Agriculture & sylviculture P 43 72 Federal Strict Protection and Sustainable Use PAs. A 46 79 Hunting P 94 105 A 100 108 Collecting non-wood products P 46 43 b) Pressures and threats in the areas surroundingA protected48 areas 46 Infrasturucture construction & operation P 46 90 The activities that have generatedA the greatest62 impacts in the surrounding125 areas of Residue disposal (pollution) P 35 84 Brazilian Federal PAs in the last fiveA years39 have been human89 settlement, agriculture, forestry, hunting,Invading infrastructure exotic species constructionP and84 operation, harvesting94 wood, cattle raising, and the use of natural resourcesA by local99 communities (Figure 16). All102 those activities, in additionWood to residueextraction disposal P and49 exotic species constitute97 the greatest threat to the entire surrounding area.A Tourism,43 recreation and91 collecting non-timber Mining P 68 forest products are the activities that exercised25 the least pressure and constitute the A 35 83 least threats to theDeliberately-set areas surrounding fires P PAs. Threat66 criticity is greater71 than pressure criticity except in the case of non-timberA forest74 product collection, which87 showed similar values in bothExternal (threats influences and P pressures). 86In a similar way to the situation144 revealed inside PAs, the threats areA much greater109 in the surrounding areas and the 164 construction and operationHuman settlement of infrastructure P 56 is a matter of concern104 especially in the A 57 122 case of the sustainableGrazing use group. land P 58 87 A 57 88 Fishing P 46 95 A 47 98 Semi-natural processes P 50 70 A 52 77 Tourism and recreation P 37 46 A 36 51 Resource use by local populations P 59 106 35 A 60 108 Pressures SP SU

Threats SP SU

Agriculture & forestry P 114 139 A 128 147 Hunting P 102 119 A 103 121 Collecting non-timber products P 51 52 A 52 50 Infrasturucture construction & operation P 103 118 A 138 162 Residue disposal (pollution) P 81 118 A 92 130 Invading exotic species P 94 97 A 106 105 Wood extraction P 79 129 A 104 139 Mining P 67 94 A 76 108 Deliberately-set fires P 79 95 A 83 97 Human settlement P 120 149 A 137 163 Cattle raising P 92 130 A 95 132 Fishing P 69 98 A 78 107 Semi-natural processes P 76 98 Pressures A 76 107 SP SU Tourism and recreation P 32 43 A 36 47 Threats Resource use by local populations P 92 117 A 104 131 SP SU

Figure 16 Criticity of pressures (P) and threats (T) in areas surrounding federal strict protection and sustainable use PAs. Agriculture & sylviculture P 43 72 A 46 79 Hunting P 94 105 A 100 108 The criticityCollecting of non-wood pressures products on the P surrounding46 areas43 of PAs is always greater for sustainable use PAs than for strictA protection48 categories46 and the criticity of the Infrasturucturethreats is constructiononly smaller & operation in sustainable P use46 PAs in the case 90of non-timber forest product extraction and invasive exoticA species. 62 125 Residue disposal (pollution) P 35 84 A 39 89 Figure 17 showsInvading the exotic tendency species P of pressure occurrence84 in the areas surrounding94 PAs during the last five years.A Human settlement,99 infrastructure construction102 and operation and residueWood extraction disposal P were the49 aspects that tended97 to increase the most, just as much around sustainableA use 43areas as around strict91 protection areas. Mining, deliberately-set fires, huntingMining P and25 extraction of 68non-timber forest products all tended A 35 83 to increase alongDeliberately-set with other fires aspects, P but66 to a lesser extent. The71 tendency of occurrence of pressures always showed higherA values74 associated to sustainable87 use PAs than to the strict protectionExternal groupinfluences except P in the items86 tourism and recreation where144 the values were the same for both groups.A 109 164 Human settlement P 56 104 A 57 122 Grazing land P 58 87 A 57 88 Fishing P 46 95 A 47 98 Semi-natural processes P 50 70 A 52 77 Tourism and recreation P 37 46 A 36 51 Resource use by local populations P 59 106 A 60 108

36 Pressures and threats

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%).

SP SU

0 50 100 150 200 250

Agriculture & sylviculture -50 0 50 100 150 200 Hunting Agriculture & sylviculture Collecting non-wood products Hunting Infrastructure construction & operation Collecting non-wood products Residue disposal (pollution) Infrastructure construction & operation Invading exotic species Residue disposal (pollution) Wood extraction Invading exotic species Mining Wood extraction Deliberately-set fires Mining Human settlement Deliberately-set fires Grazing land External influences Fishing Human settlement Semi-natural processes Grazing land Tourism and recreation Fishing Resource use by local populations Semi-natural processes

Tourism and recreation Figure 17 Resource use by local populationsTendency of pressures in areas surrounding federal strict protection and sustainable use PAs to increase or decline.

37 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. SP SU

SP SU

0 50 100 150 200 250

Agriculture & sylviculture -50 0 50 100 150 200 Hunting Agriculture & sylviculture Collecting non-wood products Hunting Infrastructure construction & operation Collecting non-wood products Residue disposal (pollution) Infrastructure construction & operation Invading exotic species Residue disposal (pollution) Wood extraction Invading exotic species Mining Wood extraction Deliberately-set fires Mining Human settlement Deliberately-set fires Grazing land External influences Fishing Human settlement Semi-natural processes Grazing land Tourism and recreation Fishing Resource use by local populations Semi-natural processes

Tourism and recreation Figure 18 Resource use by local populationsProbability of threats occurring in the areas surrounding federal strict protection and sustainable use PAs.

38 Repeating the pattern found inside protected areas, hunting appears most frequently Pressures 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 sustainableSP useSU areas (Figure 19). Generally speaking however all of the activities show a high frequency of occurrence. Threats SP SU

Agriculture & forestry P 79% 79% A 82% 78% Hunting P 92% 88% A 92% 88% Collecting non-timber products P 61% 59% A 59% 57% Infrasturucture construction & operation P 72% 68% A 83% 76% Residue disposal (pollution) P 76% 78% A 79% 79% Invading exotic species P 74% 57% A 76% 61% Wood extraction P 82% 85% A 82% 79% Mining P 69% 57% A 69% 62% Deliberately-set fires P 77% 68% A 78% 71% Human settlement P 82% 82% A 83% 83% Cattle raising P 75% 70% A 75% 69% Fishing P 71% 76% A 71% 76% Semi-natural processes P 54% 54% Pressures A 55% 56% SP SU Tourism and recreation P 53% 39% A 55% 41% Resource use by local populations P 75% 73% Threats A 76% 72% SP SU

Figure 19 Frequency of pressures (P) and threats (T) in areas surrounding federal strictAgriculture protection & sylviculture and sustainable P use 43PAs. 72 A 46 79 Hunting P 94 105 A 100 108 Collecting non-wood products P 46 43 A 48 46 Infrasturucture construction & operation P 46 90 A 62 125 Residue disposal (pollution) P 35 84 A 39 89 Invading exotic species P 84 94 A 99 102 Wood extraction P 49 97 A 43 91 Mining P 25 68 A 35 83 Deliberately-set fires P 66 71 A 74 87 External influences P 86 144 A 164 109 39 Human settlement P 56 104 A 57 122 Grazing land P 58 87 A 57 88 Fishing P 46 95 A 47 98 Semi-natural processes P 50 70 A 52 77 Tourism and recreation P 37 46 A 36 51 Resource use by local populations P 59 106 A 60 108

Edward Parker/WWF-Canon Biological importance Context 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%.

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.

42 81% Total 73% SP 67%

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

EE MN PN RB RVS APA ARIE FN RDS RESEX

Figure 20 Average Biological Importance values for Brazilian Federal Protected Areas by sustainable use and strict protection groups and by management categories. Bioma

BiomaAverage

Average

91% 73.21% 91% 82% 73.21% 76% 74% 75% 74% 82% 76% 74% 75% 65% 74%

65%

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest Figure 21 Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal Biological importance of Brazilian Federal coastal Forest Protected Areas by biogeographic domains.

43 75% 69% 87% 55% 81% 79% 66% 69% 77% Species Endemism Biodiversity Key species Temporal patterns Temporal Landscape function Threatened species Representativeness Reduced ecosystems

Figure 22 Average indicator values obtained in the analysis of the Biological Importance of Brazilian federal protected areas.

Socio-economic importance

According 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’.

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;

44 • 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.

56% 60% 62% Total

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

EE MN PN RB RVS APA ARIE FN RDS RESEX Bioma

Figure 23 Average Average socio-economic importance of Federal Protected Areas by sustainable use and strict protection groups and by management categories. Bioma

Average

87%

91% 59.53% 72% 73.21% 68% 65% 82% 62% 76% 74% 75% 74% 52% 53% 65%

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest

Figure 24 Socio-economic importance of Federal Protected Areas by biogeographic domains. Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest

45 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).

46% 56% 54% 19% 67% 79% 53% 83% 79% Subsistence Employment Sustainable use Educational value Species of interest Recreational value Relevant attributes Religious importance Environmental services

Figure 25 Average values attributed to Brazilian Federal Protected Areas’ socio-economic importance indicators.

Vulnerability

The 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).

46 51% 51% 52% Total

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

EE MN PN RB RVS APA ARIE FN RDS RESEX

Bioma

Figure 26 Vulnerability of Brazilian federal protected areas by sustainable Total Bioma use and strict protection groups and by management categories.

Total

70%

51% 59% 70% 58%

51% 48% 51% 59% 44% 43% 58%

51% 48% 44% 43%

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest

Figure 27 Amazon VulnerabilityCaatinga of Brazilian federalCerrado protected Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal areas by biogeographic domains. coastal Forest

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.

47 63% 48% 21% 33% 66% 78% 66% 40% 48% 50% Conflicting Hiring staff monitoring Political and Accessibility Market value Keeping staff enforcement Illegal activity traditional use Legal instrument Political instability Resource demand economic pressures

Figure 28 Average values attributed to Brazilian Federal Protected Areas’ vulnerability indicators.

Management effectiveness

The 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.

Planning

Generally 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%.

48 WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch WWF-Brasil/Claudio Maretti

49 59% 60% 62% Total

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

EE MN PN RB RVS APA ARIE FN RDS RESEX

Figure 29 Brazilian Federal protected areas planning by sustainable use and strict protection groups, and by management categories.

When the analysis is made by biogeographic domains, the figures continuePlanejamento 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). PlanejamentoAverage

Average

60.5% 74%

60.5% 74% 62% 62% 61% 60% 57% 59%

62% 62% 61% 60% 57% 59%

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest

AmazonFigure 30 Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal Brazilian Federal protected areas planning by biogeographic domains.coastal Forest

50 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).

94% 64% 79% 87% 54% 50% 91% 44% 34% 19% 47% 82% 68% 44% 41% 74% 36% 82% Zoning Design Location Land use Councilors Legal status Consistency Connectivity Land tenure Specific goals General goals understanding Law enforcement Category suitability Staff understanding Staff Community support Participative process Conflict management Boundary demarcation

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

Inputs

Indicators 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%).

51 40% Total 38% 37%

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

EE MN PN RB RVS APA ARIE FN RDS RESEX

Figure 32 Brazilian federal protected areas inputs by sustainable use and strict protection groups and by management categories.

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

38.0%

40% 39% 37% 38% 38% 37% 60.5% 74% 26%

62% 62% 61% 60% 57% 59%

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest

Figure 33 Brazilian federal protected areas inputs by biogeographic domains.

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 Amazon Caatingalocal communities.Cerrado On the otherMarine- hand, a lot Atlanticof effort must bePampas put into the numbersPantanal of personnel available for PAcoastal management andForest 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. 13% 56% 45% 38% 36% 58% 44% 35% 30% 50% 44% 41% 43% 32% 32% 44% 23% 38% 31% 46% 15% 41% Transport Staff skills Staff Equipment for visitors Installations Past funding Maintenance Comunication Communication with community Funding forecast Capacity building Human resources Finance allocation Working conditions Working Financial prospects Fundraising capacity among communities Installations for team Admistrative practices Data gathering means Information availability Data processing means Communication structure Performance assessment

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

Process

Management 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).

49 Total 48 47

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

EE MN PN RB RVS APA ARIE FN RDS RESEX

Figure 35 Management process ratings for Brazilian federal protected areas by sustainable use and strict protection groups and by management categories.

53 Adriano Gambarini/WWF-Brasil

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

47.8%

55% 51% 49% 60.5% 74%49% 46% 45% 41%

62% 62% 61% 60% 57% 59%

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest

Figure 36 Management process ratings for Brazilian federal protected areas by biogeographic domains.

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest

34% 37% 46% 37% 35% 58% 78% 76% 47% 70% 50% 75% 32% 33% 31% 48% 39% 34% 41% 58% Inventory articulation knowledge Partnerships Transparency Legal impacts Illegal impacts Pressures and Interinstitutional research results threats strategy Operational plan Lessons learned Management plan Access to scientific Access to scientific Ecological research Internal organisation Identification of gaps Management council Communication flows Community participation Environmental education Socio-economic research

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

55 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.

Outputs

This 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).

56 Total 53% 49% SP 45% SU

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

EE MN PN RB RVS APA ARIE FN RDS RESEX

Figure 38 Outputs achieved during the last two years by Brazilian Federal Protected Areas Results by Sustainable Use and Strict Protection Groups and by Management Categories. Planejamento Average Average

48.6%

57% 53% 74% 52% 60.5% 51% 46% 46% 62% 62% 61% 59% 60% 57% 37%

Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest

Figure 39 Outputs achieved during the last two years by Brazilian federal protected areas by biogeographic domains. Amazon Caatinga Cerrado Marine- Atlantic Pampas Pantanal coastal Forest 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.

57 61% 41% 32% 59% 48% 35% 66% 40% 48% 56% 61% 31% 52% Research Restoration communities Infrastructure Dissemination Monitoring rsults Visitation Control Visitation Capacity building Threat prevention Relations with local Management planning Resource management Personnel management Environmental education

Figure 40 Average value attributed to indicators of Outputs achieved during the lasttwo years by Brazilian Federal Protected Areas.

Overall analysis of management effectiveness

The 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.

58 Table 8 Values 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.

Management Group Category Planning Inputs Processes Outputs effectiveness

EE 54.41% 38.42% 46.48% 56.58% 47.80%

MN 58.89% 44.55% 45.00% 18.46% 43.56% Strict PN 60.78% 40.60% 51.19% 51.39% 50.40% Protection RB 62.87% 40.53% 51.59% 56.34% 51.88%

RVS 44.00% 26.91% 32.00% 32.00% 33.42%

APA 62.64% 33.73% 43.93% 41.17% 44.98%

Arie 46.05% 30.10% 34.67% 30.94% 35.43% Sustainable FN 60.94% 37.23% 50.80% 52.31% 49.48% Use 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%

Biogeographic Management Planning Inputs Processes Outputs domain 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% Table 9 Atlantic Forest 59.5% 39.9% 48.9% 52.8% 49.5% Values attributed to the component elements of Pampas 60.0% 26.4% 41.0% 36.9% 40.5% the Brazilian Federal PAs Pantanal 73.9% 39.1% 48.5% 56.9% 53.4% management effectiveness assessment expressed Management as percentages, by effectiveness 60.5% 38.0% 47.8% 48.6% 48.1% biogeographic domains. (by elements)

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.

59 100

71% 47% 61% 38% 43% 38% 32% 38% 65% 41% 48% 0 Goals Outputs Planning Legal status Infrastructure & Monitoring & Information Communication Decision making Human resources Design & Planning Financial resources Research evaluation

Planejamento Inputs Process Outputs

Figure 41 Values attributed to the modules of each major element of the Rappam assessment, expressed as percentages.

Protected Areas System

The 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.

60 System design

Total

67% 61%

100% 100% 100% 100% System design 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 20% 20% Total stages Integrity Extinction use areas protection Endemism prevention Biodiversity Sustainable Successional 67% Configuration Transition zones Transition

61% Socio-biodiversity Natural processes Key species areas Representativeness Protected area policy

100% 100% 100% 100% Total 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%

20% 20%

stages 61% Integrity Extinction use areas protection Endemism prevention Biodiversity Sustainable Successional Configuration 57% Transition zones Transition Socio-biodiversity Natural processes Key species areas 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Representativeness Protected area policy 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Total aspects inventory structure Research Clear goals Biodiversity Governance Government of variability Staff training Staff commitment Stakeholders management sustainability Socio-cultural 61% Organisational capacity building System outreach Gap assessment Restoration goals Natural resources Temporal evolution Temporal effectiv. assessment effectiv. 57% Political context 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% Total 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% aspects inventory structure Research Clear goals Biodiversity 61% Governance Government of variability Staff training Staff commitment Stakeholders management sustainability Socio-cultural Organisational capacity building System outreach Gap assessment Restoration goals Natural resources 54% Temporal evolution Temporal effectiv. assessment effectiv. 100% 100% Political context 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 20% 20% Total Financial education incentives Legislation contribution Sustainable management Conservation sustainability Environmental on enviroment communication Interinstitutional Capacity building 61% Law enforcement Protection policies Social participation 54%

100% 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% Figure 42 20% 20% Parameters 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. Financial education incentives Legislation contribution Sustainable management Conservation 61 sustainability Environmental on enviroment communication Interinstitutional Capacity building Law enforcement Protection policies Social participation Chapter 3

Evolution of management effectiveness in Brazilian Federal Protected Areas in five years: comparison between 2005-2006 and 2010 62 Adriano Gambarini/WWF-Brasil

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

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.

100 High 13% Medium 80 22.6% Low

60 36.2%

40 46.2%

50.8% 31.2% 0 2005-06 2010

Figure 43 Percentage of protected areas with high, medium and low management effectiveness total values during 2005-06 and 2010 evaluation cycles.

64 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.

Table 10 Values 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.

Percentage Statistical Elements / Modules 2005 - 06 2010 difference analysis1

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 51.4 61.0 9.6 * and planning

Inputs 32.3 38.0 5.7 -

Human resources 25.7 37.9 12.2 *

Communication 42.9 43.5 0.6 and information

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 * 1. Results of the Wilcoxon Paired Test to evaluate whether changes Decision making 59.3 60.5 1.3 * in data over the period were statistically significant. Test was Research, evaluation 32.6 40.6 8.0 * applied only to the groups of and monitoring PAs that were evaluated on both occasions. The test was applied Results 34.9 48.6 13.9 * to the Modules only. The asterisk indicates that the test confirmed statistical significance (p<0.05). Management effectiveness 41.0 48.1 7.1 *

65 Bibliography

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.

66 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 Gestao 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.

67 CHART 1. Rappam questionnaire applied in 2005-06 and 2010

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

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

The PA shelters a significant number of species with populations over-exploited or under threat of over- 3.b** 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 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 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

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 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

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

Continuous and consistent educational actions are implemented that contribute to PA management and the 14.h** 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

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

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

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

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

The PA supported local community and council organization, capacity building and development during the 16.j** 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 – ICMBio

The 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-Brasil

WWF-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 government 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 effectiveness 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 WWF-Brasil

Minister President Emeritus Izabella Mônica Vieira Teixeira Dr. Paulo Nogueira-Neto

President Chico Mendes Institute of Biodiversity Álvaro Antônio Cardoso de Souza Conservation President Vice-presidents President Conservation – Eduardo de Souza Martins Roberto Ricardo Vizentin Marketing and Fundraising – José Pedro Sirotsky Finance and Control – Carlos Eduardo Soares Castanho Director of Planning, Nominations – Haakon Lorentzen Administration and Logistics Silvana Canuto Medeiros Chief Executive Officer Maria Cecília Wey de Brito Protected Area, Sustainable Use and Traditional Populations Board Conservation Director Daniel Guimarães Bolsonaro Mauro Armelin

Director of Biodiversity Research Conservation Director Evaluation and Monitoring Michael Becker Marcelo Marcelino de Oliveira Communication and Protected Areas Creation Engagement Director and Management Board Regina Amélia Cavini Pedro de Castro da Cunha e Menezes Administration and Macro-process Coordinator – Protected Finances Director Areas Planning and Evaluation Maximiliano Matos Schaefer Bernardo Ferreira Alves de Brito - Interim Amazon Programme Coordinator Protected Areas Management Monitoring Mauro Armelin - Interim and Evaluation Coordinator Marcelo Rodrigues Kinouchi Amazon Programme Conservation Officer Technical Staff Mariana Napolitano e Ferreira Lilian Letícia Mitiko Hangae Lucia de Fátima Lima Amazon Programme Sílvia Luciano de Souza Beraldo Conservation Specialist Marisete Inês Santin Catapan 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. Santos APA 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 Protected Area Responsible for fulfilling Rappam questionnaire

THIS PUBLICATION Brazilian Federal Protected Areas HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN

BRAZILIAN FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS PARTNERSHIP WITH: PROJECT BR

Federal PAs were evaluated in 2010. 2012

Of the total area covered by federal and state PAs in Brazil was already Workshops were evaluated by the held to perform RAPPAM method. the evaluation.