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, Brazil 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 Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil f Departamento de Farmacologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade de São Paulo, SP, Brazil g Departamento de Oceanografia e Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, ES, Brazil h Departamento de Oceanografia e Limnologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, 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, 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 Rio de Janeiro, Macaé, RJ, Brazil p Departamento de Engenharia e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, 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 biodiversity 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 o fficially 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 marine conservation 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.