Marine Policy 96 (2018) 13–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Large and remote marine protected areas in the South Atlantic Ocean are flawed and raise concerns: Comments on Soares and Lucas (2018) T ⁎ Vinicius J. Giglioa, Hudson T. Pinheirob,c, ,1, Mariana G. Benderd, Roberta M. Bonaldoe, Letícia V. Costa-Lotufof, Carlos E.L. Ferreiraa, Sergio R. Floetere, Andrea Freiree, João L. Gasparinig, Jean-Christophe Joyeuxg, João Paulo Krajewskie, Alberto Lindnere, Guilherme O. Longoh, Tito M.C. Lotufoi, Rafael Loyolaj, Osmar J. Luizk, Raphael M. Macieiral, Rafael A. Magrism, Thayná J. Mellon, Juan P. Quimbayoa,e, Luiz A. Rochab,c, Bárbara Segale, João B. Teixeirag, Daniele A. Vila-Novae, Ciro C. Vilarg, Carla Zilberbergo, ⁎⁎ Ronaldo B. Francini-Filhop, a Departamento de Biologia Marinha, Universidade Federal Fluminense, RJ, b California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA c Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA d Departamento de Ecologia e Evolução, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil e Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de , Florianópolis, SC, Brazil f Departamento de Farmacologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade de , SP, Brazil g Departamento de Oceanografia e Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, ES, Brazil h Departamento de Oceanografia e Limnologia, Universidade Federal do , RN, Brazil i Instituto Oceanográfico, Universidade de São Paulo, SP, Brazil j Laboratório de Biogeografia da Conservação, Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, GO, Brazil k Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia l Laboratório de Ecologia Marinha, Universidade , Vila Velha, ES, Brazil m Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, DF, Brazil n Parque Nacional Marinho de Fernando de Noronha, Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, DF, Brazil o Núcleo em Ecologia e Desenvolvimento Ambiental de Macaé, Universidade Federal do , Macaé, RJ, Brazil p Departamento de Engenharia e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal da , PB, Brazil

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Here, we clarify the events described on a recent paper by Soares & Lucas in Marine Policy 93 (2018) that St. Peter and St. Paul´s Archipelago resulted in the establishment of large marine protected areas (MPAs) in Brazil. We describe crucial aspects of the Trindade Island and Seamount Chain planning process that were not addressed by the authors, particularly: (i) top-down changes on the original fi sheries management design that left the most diverse, unique and vulnerable ecosystems poorly protected; (ii) the permission of oceanic island fishing activities within no-take areas; and (iii) shortfalls in using these MPAs for quantifying progress towards marine reserves the Aichi Target 11. The spatial configuration of MPAs was modified by the government in a typical top-down Brazil scenario that received neither public nor scientific input. We call for a ban on fishing activities around the islands and on mining activities within all MPAs. We emphasize the need for reconciling qualitative aspects of Aichi Target 11 when establishing new MPAs as a strategy for enhancing conservation outcomes. The establishment of these large MPAs should not divert attention from actions needed for the protection of priority sites based on scientific evidence.

In March 2018, the Brazilian government created four of the largest of about 925,000 km2 in total. The country's MPAs coverage increased marine protected areas (MPAs) of the Atlantic ocean, covering an area sharply from 1.5% to 25%, which surpassed the 10% area-based goal

⁎ Correspondence to: 55 Music Concourse Dr, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA ⁎⁎ Correspondence to: Rua da Mangueira, s/n - Campus IV UFPB (Litoral Norte), Centro, Rio Tinto, João Pessoa, PB CEP: 58297000, Brazil. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.T. Pinheiro), rbfrancinifi[email protected] (R.B. Francini-Filho). 1 Following authorship determined alphabetically, except the last author. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.07.017 Received 9 May 2018; Received in revised form 19 July 2018; Accepted 20 July 2018 0308-597X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. V.J. Giglio et al. Marine Policy 96 (2018) 13–17 established by Aichi Target 11 of the Convention of Biological After the public hearings, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry Diversity. This fact was publicized by the Brazilian government, the of Defense, and representatives of the Brazilian Navy altered the pro- media, and several conservation non-governmental organizations as a posal by allowing “subsistence” fisheries inside the no-take MONAs. In great achievement, and was recently described by Soares & Lucas [1] as addition, most shallow reef habitats surrounding the SPSPA were re- a participatory process and an important step towards the conservation moved from the more strictly protected MONA areas. The case of the of marine and insular in Brazil. However, some basic Trindade Island was even more troubling, because most of its coastal principles of conservation planning were neglected by the decision- area (12 nautical mile radius) was excluded even from the less re- making process [2], and a breakdown in the stakeholder participation strictive APA category, keeping shallow biodiversity and endemism- process can compromise the successful implementation of these MPAs rich habitats open to any extractive uses [2]. When the creation of the in the future [3]. Major flaws on the socio-political process and mod- MPAs was offi cially announced, everyone involved in the public con- ifications on the spatial design of these large MPAs without technical sultation process was surprised and confused as the final design of the criteria or scientific input led to a lack of protection for a majority of the MPAs was completely different from the original proposal presented most vulnerable ecosystems, i.e. reefs and associated biodiversity be- during hearings (Fig. 1). tween 0–300 m depth around the oceanic islands. Here, we detail how The insular areas up to 300 m depth shelter all of the unique bio- the establishment of these MPAs was conducted and their conservation logical diversity and the most important biogeographical, ecological, implications at the national and global scales. and evolutionary processes in the regions [8,9,10]. The removal of the The recently created MPAs included two categories of protected oceanic islands and adjacent habitats from the no-take areas severely areas following the Brazilian National System of Protected Areas - compromises the expected conservation outcomes of the MPAs [2]. SNUC [4]: multiple-use areas named Environmental Protected Areas These new MPAs then add to the global extent of residual MPAs that (APA from the Portuguese Área de Proteção Ambiental; CAT V–IUCN), look good on paper but do not advance conservation objectives [11]. the least restrictive management category of protected areas in the The no-take areas, which represent only 12.6% of the MPAs, cover country and historically poorly enforced; and one category of suppo- primarily open ocean habitat with highly mobile pelagic species such as sedly no-take area, named Natural Monument (MONA from the Por- sharks, dolphinfish, tunas, mackerels and wahoo, which are not ade- tuguese Monumento Natural; CAT III–IUCN). The two APAs cover quately protected by these MPAs due to their home range dimensions 809,429.4 km2 (87.4% of the total area protected) and the two MONAs [2]. Since these species constantly move in and out of MPAs, their ef- cover 116,418.5 km2 (only 12.6% of the MPAs) and are nested within fective management is better achieved by controlling catch and effort, the APAs (Fig. 1). at the ocean basin scale, which are currently not applied and/or en- In Brazil, technical studies and public consultations are mandatory forced, leading to overexploitation of an increasing number of targeted steps to guiding the establishment of protected areas, according to the pelagic species in the Brazilian exclusive economic zone [12,13]. SNUC. In the process reported here, the technical assessments were In addition to the flawed final design, the decrees also do nothing to undertaken by scientists and managers [5,6], most of which are authors restrict fishing activities in the most vulnerable areas, allowing “sub- of this paper, and were based on the best available knowledge, ac- sistence” fisheries even in the no-take MONAs, which opens a dan- counting for the best practices in conservation management (e.g. con- gerous precedent in the history of in Brazil. The sidering endemic species and sensible habitat distributions) [7,8]. The islands do not have a permanent civilian population that depends on original proposals indicated the need for excluding mining and reg- fishing for a living, and since subsistence fisheries refer to practitioners ulating fisheries in the multiple-use areas, and placing no-take areas who either consume fish to survive or exchange or sell surplus harvest around the most vulnerable and priority sites for conservation (i.e. to meet other basic needs [14], this category clearly does not apply to shallow and deep habitats around the islands and seamounts). After the the present cases. While there is no subsistence fisheries in the islands, public consultation, an open letter signed by more than one hundred commercial fishing activities by large small-scale (> 10 m) or industrial scientists, managers, members of non-governmental organizations was vessels from regional fishing companies are common, and the so-called sent to the President and Ministry of Environment to support the MPAs “subsistence” fisheries is clearly a misdirection to validate and continue creation and proposing a ten-fold increase in the no-take area to protect the ongoing recreational fishing practices taking place on both islands a more representative portion of each ecosystem of St. Peter and St. by Brazilian Navy personnel [15] (Fig. 2). Paul´s Archipelago - ASPSP (Fig. 1). However, stakeholder opinions In Trindade Island, recreational and commercial fishing have al- were not taken into account and only used to legitimize top-down de- ready caused changes in fish community structure, with clear examples cisions (“uninformed opportunisms” cf. Magris and Pressey [2]). of decline of the main targeted species such as groupers and jacks First, before the on-line publication of the proposals, the Ministry of [15–18]. In addition, Brazilian Navy personnel harvests and exports Environment changed the no-take category for the SPSPA from REVIS tons of reef fishes to the continent yearly 2[16]). Recreational(Fig. (the Portuguese acronym for ) to MONA, without any fisheries is also common in SPSPA, mainly when the research station is consultation of scientists and managers involved in the writing of the occupied by Brazilian Navy personnel in maintenance missions. Com- original proposal. Although differences in protection levels between mercial fishing (mostly long lines and hand lines for tunas, dolphinfish MONA and REVIS are controversial and difficult to distinguish fol- and wahoo) is conducted all year round by the same vessels that lowing the SNUC, this change was the first step in a series of top-down transport Navy personnel and researchers to the SPSPA within the Pro- decisions made by the Brazilian government. These proposals were then Arquipélago program, funded by the Brazilian government (~US$ presented in two public consultation hearings held on strategic centers 450,000 per year). However, it is well known that even small levels of that encompass and are near the largest industrial fishing fleets and fishing pressure can cause major changes in insular fish populations, companies (mostly long-line fishers targeting pelagic fishes and hand mainly meso and apex predators, such as observed in Fiji [19] and Line line targeting reef fishes) that use the areas in question. At that mo- Islands [20], and there is a documented case of a fisheries driven ex- ment, the proposals were discussed by multiple stakeholders, including tinction of a Galapagos shark population in shallow reefs of the SPSPA scientists, politicians, environmental managers, non-governmental or- [21]. ganizations, concerned citizens and, surprisingly, no objections were We agree with Soares & Lucas [1] in their recommendations to raised by the fisheries industry during public consultations. The most prohibit fishing inside the MONAs and to conduct rigorous environ- plausible explanation for this scenario is that the creation of these MPAs mental licensing inside the APAs. However, since island biodiversity would not impact commercial pelagic fisheries, as those areas are re- remains threatened, we also recommend, together with most of the latively less fished (most of the industrial fishing fleet targeting pelagic Brazilian society that supported the creation of these MPAs during the fishes are concentrated in areas much closer to the coast). public consultations, that the Brazilian Ministry of Environment and

14 V.J. Giglio et al. Marine Policy 96 (2018) 13–17

(caption on next page)

15 V.J. Giglio et al. Marine Policy 96 (2018) 13–17

Fig. 1. (A) New large Brazilian oceanic MPAs. (B) Design proposed to St. Peter and St. Paul archipelago (SPSPA) by scientists and managers (“Before”). The dashed line represents the design of the no-take MPA (Wildlife Refuge) proposed in the technical study and public consultation. The other no-take and multiple use MPAs were proposed by the scientists, managers and members of non-governmental organizations through a public letter sent to the President and Ministry of Environment. (C) Final spatial configuration imposed by the government (“After”). (D, E) Zoomed view of both designs showing the placement of MPAs in relation to the archipelago. (F) Design proposed to Trindade Island and Seamount Chain (TISC) in the public consultations (“Before”), and (G) final design imposed by the government (“After”). (H, I) Zoomed view of both designs showing the Trindade Island and the surrounding area. The white areas are not covered by any type of MPA. Note that in the final design (i.e. “After”) most of SPSPA area is within the least restrictive management category (sustainable use) and most of the marine area surrounding Trindade Island is not covered by any MPA. Colored figure can be viewed in the online version.

Fig. 2. Single day catches by Brazilian Navy personnel in Trindade Island. Fishing is one of the main recreational activities carried out by military personnel in Trindade, and each person is allowed to store and export large quantities of fish fillets to the mainland. Endangered species involved in the catches include: reef shark (Carcharhinus perezii), nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum), yellowmouth grouper (Mycteroperca intertitialis), and gray parrotfish (Sparisoma axillare). Estimates point that around 12 thousand fishes, corresponding to 11.7 t, are captured annually by the military in Trindade Island [15–18].

Ministry of Defense cease fishing activities on a 12 nautical mile radius action needed for the creation and implementation of protected areas in around the islands to sustain biodiversity over time. The Brazilian Navy priority sites that are defined based on scientific evidence, which are should stop recreational fishing in both Trindade Island and SPSPA and necessary for addressing the world's biodiversity crisis [11,24,28]. help in the conservation effort to protect the local biodiversity, and thus Thus, Soares & Lucas’ [1] view that the new LMPAs were an important no longer allow the practice of exporting fishes to mainland, particu- step towards effective protection of marine ecosystems misinterprets larly considering the fact that they do not face any shortages in food the reality of best practices in MPA planning [2], which in this case, set supply. We believe that these recommendations will improve sig- a bad example to the world. nificantly the effectiveness of the new MPAs. Today, concern is growing worldwide that the focus on MPAs ex- Appendix A. Supporting information pansion in many countries, including Brazil, solely to reach Aichi tar- gets, is actually undermining effective conservation because it is Supplementary data associated with this article, including a portu- causing countries to focus on quantity rather than quality [2,22,23].As guese version of the article, can be found in the online version at doi:10. was the case here, many governments are only adding area to reach 1016/j.marpol.2018.07.017. global conservation targets, leading MPAs to be concentrated in parts of the ocean with low-conflict and the least need for immediate protection References [24,25]. By doing this, these governments are wasting their already- limited resources on conservation, while critical actions to halt biodi- [1] M.O. Soares, C.C. Lucas, Towards large and remote protected areas in the South versity decline are postponed or forgotten [22]. Because several coastal Atlantic Ocean: St. Peter and St. Paul´s Archipelago and the Vitória-Trindade – ff Seamount Chain, Mar. Pol. 93 (2018) 101 103. MPAs already struggle to be e ectively implemented in Brazil [26],itis [2] R.A. Magris, R.L. Pressey, Marine protected areas: Just for show? Science 360 questionable whether the government will endeavor to protect these (2018) 723–724. MPAs in the open ocean, which are much more costly to monitor [3] R. Pomeroy, F. Douvere, The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial ff planning process, Mar. Pol. 32 (2008) 816–822. properly [1]. This will surely compromise their e ectiveness in the [4] Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza. Ministério do Meio future. Ambiente. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, 2000. We also object to the notion that the newly-designated MPAs can be [5] R.B. Francini-Filho, C.E.L. Ferreira, T.J. Mello, A.P.L. Prates, V.N. Silva Diagnóstico understood as an achievement of Aichi Target 11, which aims to con- Biológico e Sócio-Econômico para a proposta de criação de uma Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) e um Monumento Natural Marinho (MONA) no Arquipélago São serve 10% of the sea for biodiversity through an effectively managed, Pedro e São Paulo. Technical report, 2018, p. 26. 〈〈http://www.icmbio.gov.br/ ecologically representative and well connected system of MPAs by portal/images/stories/o-que-fazemos/consultas_publicas/Estudos_Cria%C3%A7% 〉〉 2020. While the MPAs pioneer by protecting areas deeper than 100 m in C3%A3o_SaoPedro_SaoPaulo.pdf . [6] H.T. Pinheiro Diagnóstico Biológico e Sócio-Econômico para a proposta de criação Brazil [27], several other coastal and marine areas have outstanding de uma área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) e um refúgio de Vida Silvestre (MONA) biological and socioeconomic importance (see Supplementary Material na cadeia de Vitória-Trindade. Technical report, 2018, p. 49. 〈http://www.icmbio. 1), and thus should be candidates for protection. The establishment of gov.br/portal/images/stories/o-que-fazemos/consultas_publicas/estudos_criacao_ ilha_trindade.pdf.pdf〉. these large MPAs should not divert attention, resources, and political

16 V.J. Giglio et al. Marine Policy 96 (2018) 13–17

[7] C.C. Vilar, J.-C. Joyeux, R.D. Loyola, H.L. Spach, Setting priorities for the con- Brasília, 2009, pp. 135–153. servation of marine vertebrates in Brazilian waters, Ocean Coast. Manage. 107 [17] H.C. Guabiroba, Influência da pesca recreativa sobre a estrutura trófica da comu- (2015) 28–36. nidade de peixes da ilha da Trindade, Atlântico sul. MSc Thesis, 2014. [8] H.T. Pinheiro, B. Giacomo, T. Simon, J.-C. Joyeux, R.M. Macieira, J.L. Gasparini, [18] H.T. Pinheiro, A.S. Martins, J.L. Gasparini, Impact of commercial fishing on C. Rocha, L.A. Rocha, Island biogeography of marine organisms, Nature 549 (2017) Trindade Island and Martin Vaz Archipelago, Brazil: characteristics, conservation 82–85. status of the species involved and prospects for preservation, Braz, Arch. Biol. [9] M.R. Rosa, A.C. Alves, D.V. Medeiros, E.O.C. Coni, C.M. Ferreira, B.P. Ferreira, Techn. 53 (2010), pp. 1417–1423. R.S. Rosa, G.M. Amado-Filho, G.H. Pereira-Filho, R.L. Moura, R.L. de Moura, [19] S. Jennings, N. Polunin, Effects of fishing effort and catch rate upon the structure F.L. Thompson, P.Y.G. Sumida, R.B. Francini-Filho, Mesophotic reef fish assem- and biomass of Fijian reef fish communities, J. Appl. Ecol. 33 (1996) 400–412. blages of the remote St. Peter and St. Paul's Archipelago, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Brazil, [20] E.E. DeMartini, A.M. Friedlander, S.A. Sandin, E. Sala, Differences in fish-assem- Coral Reefs 35 (2015) 113–123. blage structure between fished and unfished atolls in the northern Line Islands, [10] O.J. Luiz, T.C. Mendes, D.R. Barneche, C.G. Ferreira, R. Noguchi, R.C. Villaça, central Pacific, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 365 (2008) 199–215. C.A. Rangel, J.L. Gasparini, C.E.L. Ferreira, Community structure of reef fishes on a [21] O.J. Luiz, A.J. Edwards, Extinction of a shark population in the Archipelago of Saint remote oceanic island (St Peter and St Paul's Archipelago, equatorial Atlantic): the Paul's Rocks (equatorial Atlantic) inferred from the historical record, Biol. Conserv. relative influence of abiotic and biotic variables, Mar. Fresh. Res. 66 (2015) 144 (2011) 2873–2881. 739–749. [22] M.D. Barnes, L. Glew, C. Wyborn, I.D. Craigie, Prevent perverse outcomes from [11] R. Devillers, R.L. Pressey, A. Grech, J.N. Kittinger, G.J. Edgar, T. Ward, R. Watson, global policy, Nature Ecol. Evol. 2 (2018) 759–762. Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease of establishment [23] A.C. Marques, A. Carranza, Politics should walk with science towards protection of over need for protection? Aquat. Conserv. 25 (2015) 480–504. the oceans, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 75 (2013) 1–3. [12] R. Barreto, F. Ferretti, J. Mills, A. Amorim, H. Andrade, B. Worm, R. Lessa, Trends [24] R.L. Pressey, P. Visconti, P.J. Ferraro, Making parks make a difference: poor in the exploitation of South Atlantic shark populations, Cons. Biol. 30 (2015) alignment of policy, planning and management with protected-area impact, and 792–804. ways forward, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 370 (2015) 20140280. [13] Brasil Portaria MMA No 445, de 17 de Dezembro de 2014. Diário Oficial da União [25] R.L. Pressey, R. Weeks, G.G. Gurney, From displacement activities to evidence-in- (2014). formed decisions in conservation, Biol. Conserv. 212 (2017) 337–348. [14] M. Sowman, Subsistence and small-scale fisheries in South : a ten-year re- [26] L.C. Gerhardinger, E.A. Godoy, P.J. Jones, G. Sales, Marine protected dramas: the view, Mar. Pol. 30 (2006) 60–73. flaws of the Brazilian National System of Marine Protected Areas, Environ. Manag. [15] H.T. Pinheiro, J.-C. Joyeux, The role of recreational fishermen in the removal of 47 (2011) 630–643. target reef fishes, Ocean Coast. Manage. 112 (2015) 12–17. [27] R. Magris, M. Mills, M. Fuentes, R. Pressey, Analysis of progress towards a com- [16] H.T. Pinheiro, J.L. Gasparini, Peixes recifais do complexo insular oceânico prehensive system of marine protected areas in Brazil, Nat. Conservacao 11 (2013) Trindade-Martin Vaz: novas ocorrências, atividades de pesca, mortandade natural e 81–87. conservação, in: L.V. Mohr, J.W.A. Castro, P.M.S. Costa, R.J.V. Alves (Eds.), Ilhas [28] P.J.S. Jones, E.S. De Santo, Is the race for remote, very large marine protected areas oceânicas brasileiras: da pesquisa ao manejo, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, (VLMPAs) taking us down the wrong track, Mar. Pol. 73 (2016) 231–234.

17