Management

Effectiveness of
Brazil’s Federal
Protected Areas
Ministry of the Environment
Marina Silva

IBAMA - Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Resources

Marcus Luiz Barroso Barros

Office for Strategic Management

Eason Ferreira do Nascimento

Office for Forests

Antônio Carlos Hummel

Office for Ecosystems

Marcelo Bastos Françozo

Office for Social-Environmental Development

Paulo Henrique Borges de Oliveira Junior

Typeset and Printing

IBAMA - Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Resources
National Center for Information, Environmental Technologies and Printing
(Centro Nacional de Informação, Tecnologias Ambientais e Editoração)

Edições Ibama
SCEN, Trecho 2, Bloco B, Sub-solo
70.818-900 - Brasília, DF
Telephone: 55 61 3316 1065
E-mail: editora.sede@ibama.gov.br

Printed in Brazil
Management
Effectiveness of
Brazil’s Federal
Protected Areas

Implementation of the Rappam

Methodology
Rapid Assessment and Prioritization
of Protected Area Management

Written by
IBAMA
WWF-Brasil

Organized by
Cristina Aragão Onaga
Maria Auxiliadora Drumon

Translated by
Adriana Casanova Guedes de Almeida

Brasília, 2007
WWF-Brasil

Board of Directors

President Emeritus
Dr. Paulo Nogueira-Neto

President
Álvaro de Souza

Vice-Presidents
Cláudio Valladares Pádua - Conservation
José Pedro Sirotsky - Marketing e Communications
Marcos Falcão – Finances and Control
Mário Augusto Frering – Institutional Relations

Board of Advisors
Bia Aydar
Eduardo de Souza Martins
Eduardo Plass
Everardo de Almeida Maciel
Francisco Antunes Maciel Müssnich
Haakon Lorentzen
José Eli da Veiga
Luís Paulo Saade Montenegro
Paulo César Gonçalves Egler
Sérgio Besserman Vianna

Chief Executive Officer

Denise Hamú

Superintendents
Carlos Alberto Scaramuzza – Thematic Programs
Cláudio Maretti – Regional Programs
Mônica Rennó - Marketing and Corporate Relations
Regina Cavini – Organizational Development

WWF - Brasil
Marisete Inês Santin Catapan
Marco Aurélio Rodrigues

Address
SHIS EQ QL 6/8
Conjunto E, 2º andar
71620-430 - Brasilia, DF
Telephone: 55 61 3364-7400
 Ibama
The Brazilian
Institute of Environment and
Renewable Resources is a
government agency associated to the
Ministry of the Environment. Ibama is
a corporate entity of public law. It was
enacted in 1989 through the fusion of
four Brazilian agencies that worked
with environmental matters: the
Secretariat for the Environment
(SEMA), the Superintendence for
Rubber Development (SUDHEVEA),
the Superintendence for Fishery
Development (SUDEPE) and the
Brazilian Institute for Forest
Development (IBDF). Since then,
IBAMA has become responsible for
formulating, coordinating, carrying
out and overseeing the National
Policies for the Environment, the
preservation, conservation and
rational use, fiscalization, control and
protection of renewable natural
resources. With the advent of
Provisional Measure 366 of April
26th, 2007, the management of
federal Protected Areas under full
protection and of sustainable use
became a responsibility of the Chico
Mendes Institute for Biodiversity
Conservation, whose attribution is to
carry out the national protected areas
policy pertaining to the federal
attributions related to the
proposition, implantation,
management, protection, fiscalization
and monitoring of Protected Areas
instituted by the Union.
The Chico Mendes Institute
for Biodiversity Conservation is
responsible for managing 290
protected area sites distributed
throughout Brazil and that encompass
about 8% of the entire national
territory. Of these protected area
sites, 126 are sites under full
protection and 164 are of sustainable
use. The first group of protected
areas totals 4% of the territorial
extension and is comprised of 62
national parks, 29 biological reserves,
32 ecological stations and 3 wildlife
refuges. The second group – that of
protected areas of sustainable use, is
comprised by 31 environmental
protection areas, 17 areas of relevant
ecological interest, 64 national
forests, 51 extractivist reserves and 1
sustainable development reserve.
“The wisdom of nature WWF-Brasil
is such that it doesn’t
produce anything WWF-Brasil is a non-profit Brazilian
civil society organization,
superfluous or useless.” recognized by the government as an
institution of public utility. Created
in 1996, WWF-Brasil works
Nicolau Copernico throughout the entire country.
WWF-Brasil´s mission is to
contribute to a Brazilian society that
conserves its natural environment
by harmonizing human activity with
the conservation of biodiversity and
the rational use of natural resources,
to the benefit of the citizens of
today and of future generations.
The WWF-Brasil has programs that
are related to the Amazon, the
Pantanal, the Atlantic Forest, climatic
changes, agriculture and the
environment, environmental
education, among others. Its
headquarters are located in Brasilia,
and there are six regional offices in
the country.
The main themes addressed by
WWF-Brasil include promotion of
the sustainable use of natural
resources, understanding of threats
to degradation of nature and finding
solutions to minimize them and
provide support to protected areas.
In this field, the WWF-Brasil
participates in the Protected Areas
of the Amazon Program (ARPA),
which is coordinated by the Ministry
of the Environment, carried out by
Ibama, Amazonian state
organizations and the Funbio, in
partnership with the World Fund for
the Environment through the World
Bank, and with the German
Cooperation through the KfW and
GTZ.
WWF-Brasil is also a member of the
world’s largest environmental
network: the WWF Network.
Created in 1961, the WWF Network
consists of similar and autonomous
organizations from 40 countries and
is supported by some 5 million
people, including registered
members and volunteers. The WWF
Network operates in more than 100
countries throughout 5 continents.
The international headquarters of
the WWF Network is located in
Switzerland.
 Editing Team
Office for Strategic Management (Diretoria de Gestão
Estratégica – Diget)
Mônica Borges Gomes Assad
Office for Forests (Diretoria de Florestas – Diref)
Ana Lúcia das Graças A. Chagas
Rosa Lia Gondim de Castro
Office for Ecosystems (Diretoria de Ecossistemas – Direc)
Maria Iolita Bampi
Office for Social-Environmental Development
(Diretoria de Desenvolvimento Socioambiental – Disam)
Sandra Maria da Silva Barbosa
Rodrigo Rodrigues

WWF-Brasil
Marisete Inês Santin Catapan
Marco Aurélio Rodrigues

Organizers
Cristina Aragão Onaga
Maria Auxiliadora Drumond

Publishing Team
Ibama
Coordination
Cleide Passos
Proofreading and Editing
Cleide Passos
Maria José Teixeira
Layout, Diagram and Cover
Paulo Luna
Bibliographic Standardization
Helionidia C. Oliveira
WWF-Brasil
Ana Cíntia Guazzelli

Cataloging-in-publication data
IBAMA- Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources
I59e Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural
Resources
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas:
Implementation of the Rappam Method – Rapid Assessment and
Prioritization of Protected Area Management / IBAMA. WWF-Brasil.
Brasilia, 2007.
Tradução do: Efetividade de Gestão da Unidades de Conservação
Federal do Brasil.
96 p. ; color il. ; 29 cm.
ISBN 978-85-7300-271-3
1. Environmental management – Brazil. 2. Protected Areas. 3.
Rappam Methodology I. Onaga, Cristina Aragão. II. Drumond, Maria
Auxiliadora. III. Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable
Natural Resources. IV. WWF-Brasil. V. Title.

CDU (2nd edition) 502.4

 S UMMARY

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. 9

List of Graphs ............................................................................................................................................ 11
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 13
1. Forward..................................................................................................................................................... 15
2. The Rappam Methodology ...................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Framework of the Model ................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 Context Analysis .................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Analysis of Effectiveness of Management ............................................................................. 18
2.2.3 Analysis of the Protected Area System .......................................................................... 19
3. Method Application in Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas ........................................ 21
3.1 Stages ................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................................ 22
3.3 Protected Areas Assessed ......................................................................................................... 23
4. Results .................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Full-Protection Protected Area Sites ..................................................................................... 27
4.1.1 Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves .......................................................................... 27
4.1.2 National Parks and Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................. 37
4.2 Protected Areas of Sustainable Use .................................................................................... 47
4.2.1 Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest .............. 47
4.2.2 National Forests ..................................................................................................................... 55
4.2.3 Extractivist Reserves and Sustainable Development Reserves ............................... 65
4.3 General Overview on the Effectiveness of Management of Federal
Protected Areas .............................................................................................................................. 72
4.4 Protected Areas System ............................................................................................................ 77
5. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 79

6. Final Remarks ..................................................................................................................................... 81

7. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 83
8. Technical Team .................................................................................................................................. 85

9. Participants in the Process ......................................................................................................... 87

Annex ......................................................................................................................................................... 91
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Number of questionnaires answered and participants per Rappam phase

for Ibama’s federal protected areas. ........................................................................ 21
Table 2 – Framework of the assessment questionnaire applied in the federal protected
areas of Brazil. ................................................................................................................... 22
Table 3 – Criteria for assessing pressures and threats. ........................................................... 23
Table 4 – Point values used for analysis of Modules 3 to 19 of the questionnaire. ..... 23
Table 5 – Number of federal protected area sites assessed through the Rappam
methodology, per category and biome. ................................................................... 23
Table 6 – Number of protected area sites assessed through the Rappam methodology
per state and category. ................................................................................................... 24
Table 7 – Federal Ecological Stations assessed through the Rappam methodology, per
biome, state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation. ........... 27
Table 8 – Federal Biological Reserves assessed through the Rappam methodology, per
biome, state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation. .............. 28
Table 9 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
the biological and socioeconomic importance of Ecological Stations and
Biological Reserves. ............................................................................................................ 29
Table 10 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
vulnerability of federal National Parks, Biological Reserves, Ecological Stations
and Wildlife Refuges. ........................................................................................................ 30
Table 11 – Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact federal
Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves. ............................................................. 30
Table 12 – National Parks assessed through the Rappam methodology, per biome, state,
area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation. ........................................ 37
Table 13 – Wildlife Refuges assessed through the Rappam methodology, per biome,
state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation. ............................ 38
Table 14 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
the biological and socioeconomic importance of National Parks and federal
Wildlife Refuges. ................................................................................................................... 39
Table 15 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
the vulnerability of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges. .................... 40
Table 16 – Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact National
Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges. ............................................................................. 40 11
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Table 17 – Environmental Protection Areas assessed through the Rappam methodology,

per biome, state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation. ..... 47
Table 18 – Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest assessed through the Rappam
methodology, per biome, state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of
creation. ............................................................................................................................... 48
Table 19 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
the biological and socioeconomic importance of federal Environmental
Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest. ................................ 49
Table 20 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
the vulnerability of federal Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of
Relevant Ecological Interest. ............................................................................................. 49
Table 21 – Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact
Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest. ... 50
Table 22 – National Forests assessed through the Rappam methodology, per region,
state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation. ........................... 55
Table 23 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
the biological and socioeconomic importance of federal National Forests. ... 57
Table 24 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per vulnerability
assessment. ....................................................................................................................... 57
Table 25 – Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact federal
National Forests. ................................................................................................................. 58
Table 26 – Federal Extractivist Reserves assessed through the Rappam methodology,
per biome, state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation. ...... 65
Table 27 – Federal Sustainable Development Reserves assessed through the Rappam
methodology, per biome, state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of
creation. ............................................................................................................................... 66
Table 28 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
the biological and socioeconomic importance of Federal Extractivist Reserves
and Sustainable Development Reserve. ...................................................................... 67
Table 29 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of
the vulnerability of federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable
Development Reserve. ..................................................................................................... 67
Table 30 – Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact federal
Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable Development Reserve. ..................... 68
Table 31 – Summary of analysis elements of the context and managerial aspects of
federal protected areas, per groups of management category. .................... 75
Table 32 – Consolidation of vulnerability, pressures, threats and management
effectiveness elements per different groups of management category. ......... 76
Table 33 – Number of measures raised during the planning workshops for the federal
Protected Areas System of the Amazon and of Brazil. .......................................... 79

12
 LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 1 – Number of protected area sites assessed by the Rappam methodology per
region of Brazil. ............................................................................................................... 24
Graph 2 – Number of protected area sites assessed by the Rappam methodology per
biome. .................................................................................................................................... 25
Graph 3 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of Ecological Stations and federal
Biological Reserves. ......................................................................................................... 29
Graph 4 – Vulnerabilities of federal Biological Reserves and Ecological Stations. ........... 30
Graph 5 – Effectiveness of management in federal Ecological Stations and Biological
Reserves, per management element and analysis module. ............................... 31
Graph 6 – Planning element for federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves, per
analysis module. ....................................................................................................... 32
Graph 7 – Inputs element for federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves, per
analysis module. .............................................................................................................. 32
Graph 8 – Processes element for federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves,
per analysis module. ........................................................................................................ 33
Graph 9 – Outcomes element for Federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves. .. 33
Graph 10 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of National Parks and Federal
Wildlife Refuges. ................................................................................................................ 39
Graph 11 – Vulnerability of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges. ........................... 40
Graph 12 – Management effectiveness of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges,
per management element and analysis module. .................................................. 41
Graph 13 – Planning element of National Parks and Federal Wildlife Refuges, per analysis
module. ................................................................................................................................ 42
Graph 14 – Inputs element of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges, per analysis
module. ............................................................................................................................... 42
Graph 15 – Processes element of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges, per analysis
module. .............................................................................................................. 43
Graph 16 – Outputs element of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges. .................... 43
Graph 17 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of federal Environmental Protection
Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest. .............................. 48
Graph 18 – Vulnerability of frederal Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant
Ecological Interest. ............................................................................................................... 49 13
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Graph 19 – Effectiveness of management of Environmental Protection Areas and Areas

of Relevant Ecological Interest, per management element and analysis
module. .................................................................................................................................. 50
Graph 20 – Planning element in Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant
Ecological Interest, per analysis module. ................................................................ 51
Graph 21 – Inputs element of Protected Environmental Areas and Areas of Relevant
Ecological Interest, per analysis module. .................................................................. 51
Graph 22 – Processes input of Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant
Ecological Interest, per analysis module. ................................................................ 52
Graph 23 – Outputs element of federal Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of
Relevant Ecological Interest. ........................................................................................... 52
Graph 24 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of federal National Forests. ......... 56
Graph 25 – Vulnerability of federal National Forests. ................................................................ 57
Graph 26 – Effectiveness of management of National Forests per management indicator
and analysis module. .................................................................................................... 59
Graph 27 – Planning element of National Forests, per analysis module. .......................... 59
Graph 28 – Inputs element of federal National Forests, per analysis module. ............... 60
Graph 29 – Processes element for federal National Forests, per analysis module. ....... 60
Graph 30 – Outputs element for federal National Forests. ....................................................... 60
Graph 31 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of federal Extractivist Reserves
and the Sustainable Development Reserve. ............................................................. 66
Graph 32 – Vulnerability of federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable
Development Reserve. ................................................................................................... 67
Graph 33 – Effectiveness of management of federal Extractivist Reserves and the
Sustainable Development Reserve per management element and analysis
module. ................................................................................................................................. 68
Graph 34 – Planning element for federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable
Development Reserve, per analysis module. ........................................................ 69
Graph 35 – Inputs element of for federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable
Development Reserve, per analysis module. ......................................................... 70
Graph 36 – Processes element for federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable
Development Reserve, per analysis module. ......................................................... 70
Graph 37 – Outputs element for federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable
Development Reserve, per analysis module. .......................................................... 71
Graph 38 – Number of federal protected area sites per rate of management
effectiveness. ...................................................................................................................... 72
Graph 39 – Number of federal protected area sites per management category and
rate of management effectiveness. ............................................................................ 74
Graph 40 – Percentage of federal protected area sites per rate of management
effectiveness and groups of management category. ......................................... 74
Graph 41 – Analysis on the federal protected areas system, per module and question. 78

14
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC – Acre
AL – Alagoas
AM – Amazonas
AP – Amapá
APA – Environmental Protection Area
Arie – Area of Relevant Ecological Interest
BA – Bahia
CE – Ceará
CMAP – World Comission on Protected Areas
DF – Federal District (Distrito Federal)
Diget – Office for Strategic Management
Dipro – Office for Environmental Protection
Direc – Office for Ecosystems
Diref – Office for Forests
Disam – Office for Social-Environmental Development
EE – Ecological Station
EPP – Office of Programs and Projects
ES – Espírito Santo
FN – National Forest
GO – Goiás
GPS – Global Positioning System
GT – Workgroup
Ha – Hectares
Ibama – Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources World
Conservation Union (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources)
MA – Maranhão
MG – Minas Gerais
MMA – Ministry of the Environment
MS – Mato Grosso do Sul
MT – Mato Grosso
NUC – Nucleus of Protected Areas
ONG – Non-governmental organization
15
PA – Protected Area
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

PB – Paraíba
PE – Pernambuco
PI – Piauí
PN – National Park
PR – Paraná
Rappam– Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management (Erin, 2003)
RB – Biological Reserve
RDS – Sustainable Development Reserve
Resex – Extractivist Reserve
RH – Human Resources
RJ – Rio de Janeiro
RN – Rio Grande do Norte
RO – Rondônia
RR – Roraima
RS – Rio Grande do Sul
RVS – Wildlife Refuge
SC – Santa Catarina
SE – Sergipe
Siuc – System of Information on Protected Areas
Snuc – National System for Nature Protected Areas
SP – São Paulo
TO – Tocantins
UF – State of the Federative Republic of Brazil
UICN – The World Conservation Union

16
 F ORWARD
Protected Areas are especially
protected sites that are primordially designated
for the conservation of nature and for the
sustainable use of natural resources. Their
creation represents a fundamental step toward
the conservation of ecosystems and the
maintenance of human kind’s quality of life
on earth. The great challenge to their
implementation is to ensure their effective
management. By acknowledging this challenge,
in 2004 the Convention on Biological
Diversity adopted the work plan for Protected
Areas (CBD VII/28), which establishes that
signatory parties shall assess the effectiveness
of their management of protected area
systems by 2010.
This publication outlines the results of
the partnership between Ibama and WWF-
Brasil to fulfill the objective through the
implementation of Rappam (Rapid
Assessment and Prioritization of Protected
Area Management) Methodology.
The objective is to foster tools for the
development of adequate policies for the
protection of ecosystems and the creation of
a viable network of protected areas. The study
entitled Effectiveness of Management of
Federal Protected Areas in Brazil (Efetividade
de Gestão das Unidades de Conservação
Federais no Brasil) comprised 246 protected
area sites. In other words, it comprised
84.48% of all existing public federal protected
areas. Thus, this assessment is an important
step in our efforts toward attaining managerial
improvement and toward developing the full
potential of the protected areas we manage.
The inter-institutional collaboration
yielded not only the analysis of this system of
protected areas, but also a series of
recommendations made by those who best
know the sites – their own managers. The
information and recommendations herein will
help organizations in the management of the
analyzed system and also in the process of
improving its effectiveness. It is also expected
that this document serve as a basis for the
articulation of partnerships with research
institutions, the private initiative, and both
governmental and non-governmental
organizations toward the conservation of this
natural and cultural heritage of unimaginable
value.
17
 2T HE RAPPAM METHODOLOGY

2.1 Background Since the management process is

In 1995, the World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA) of the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
established a workgroup to review matters
pertaining to the effectiveness of management
of protected areas. Through these findings,
the WCPA developed a reference chart to
ground the development of different tools and
methods with which to assess the
management of protected areas (Hockings et
al., 2000). This chart is founded upon the
management and assessment cycle, which is
based on the view, aims and objectives of both
the protected area site, as well as the Rappam
Methodology for the assessment itself (Figure 1).
influenced by the significance of areas and
by the pressures and opportunities related
to them, when assessing the effectiveness of
management of protected areas, it is
important to consider the context wherein
they are inserted, as regards their biological,
social and economic characteristics and their
vulnerabilities. The other elements pertaining
to the cycle concern planning , inputs,
processes and the outputs attained in
relation to the objectives established.
Considerations on the weaknesses and
potentials of each element grounds the
planning of strategies that focus on the
improvement of effectiveness of management
of protected areas.

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

Reflection and Context

Assessment and Situation
How do external
Werw the objectives factors affect
attained? the objectives?
INTERACTIVE
Outcomes ASSESSMENT Planing
and Design
PROCESS
Are outputs adequate Tho what extent
so that objectives can are the objectives
be attained? attained through
planning?
Outputs
Resulting from Inputs
Management
Are management
processes coherent with Are there enough
Management inputs for objectives
the objectives? Process to be attained?

Figure 1 – Management and assessment cycle proposed by the IUCN - WCPA. (Source: Hockings et al.,
2000) 19
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

2.2 Framework of the relevant scenic or aesthetic characteristics,

Model existence of plants or animals that have
cultural or economic importance, recreational
value, services and benefits provided by the
The questionnaire used by the ecosystem and the educational and scientific
Rappam Methodology includes three different value of the area.
analysis areas: context, effectiveness of
management and analysis of protected areas 2.2.2 Analysis of Effectiveness of
system. Each one of these three areas groups
Management
the questions into modules, which are further
grouped into elements, or indicators, of
analysis.
Effectiveness of Management is
analyzed by means of planning instruments,
2.2.1 Context Analysis
inputs, processes and outcomes that are
organized according to different modules or
The contextualization of protected
themes. The planning element contains
areas accounts for analysis of the pressures,
modules that comprise the conservation unit’s
threats, vulnerabilities and the scenario of
objectives, legal framework, and the design
biological and socioeconomic importance of
and planning of protected area sites. Input
individual protected areas.
assesses all available human resources, means
The pressure analyses consider the
of communication and information,
form through which impacts have been taking
infrastructure and financial resources.
place along the past five years. The threats
Processes are assessed by management
are translated into potential impact to the areas
planning for the area, existing models used in
over the following five years. Both are assessed
the decision-making process, mechanisms for
by means of the tendency for their occurrence
assessing and monitoring , and by the
and their nature, which is defined according
relationship between research carried out and
to its scope, intensity and time of resilience of
the area’s needs. Management results are
environmental hazards
specific products and services offered by
Vulnerability is assessed by: the
employees and managers of the conservation
difficulty in monitoring illegal activities, law
unit, as well as by community members and
enforcement, occurrences of omission,
volunteers. The following are assessed:
bribery and corruption, civil unrest or political
measures pertaining to management planning,
instability, conflicts among different cultural
site recovery and mitigation, management of
practices and beliefs, traditional uses and
natural resources, education and outreach to
conservation of nature, existence of high-
society, visitor and tourist control, implantation
market value resources, easy access to illegal
and maintenance of infrastructure, prevention
activities, demands for vulnerable resources,
and detection of threats, law enforcement,
pressure over the manager for undue
supervision and assessment of employee
exploitation of resources, difficulty in
performance, training and development of
recruiting and maintaining staff, lack of
human resources, organization, training and
monitoring on the efficacy of area
development of local communities and
management, poor fiscalization network, and
management councils, development of
the lack of clearly identified limits.
researches and monitoring of results.
The socio-economic importance is
Thus, effectiveness of management
assessed by: the role played by the
comprises outputs of planning elements,
conservation unit as a source of employment
inputs, processes and outcomes.
for the community, level of the community’s
dependence upon natural resources for
2.2.3 Analysis of the Protected
subsistence, opportunity for community
Area System
development through the sustainable use of
natural resources, spiritual and religious
significance of the area, the existence of The Rappam also comprises analysis
20
of the Protected Area System by means of
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas
three different modules: (1) design and
planning of the area, which verifies if
biodiversity conservation objectives and social-
cultural aspects are being fulfilled; (2) policies
for protected areas, which include planning
and system management practices; and the
(3) political context, which assesses public
policies related to the conservation of natural
resources.
Biological importance is assessed by:
the richness of rare endangered species or
species that face extinction, biodiversity,
ecosystemic diversity, level of endemism,
critical purpose of the areas of ecologic
processes, representativeness in the protected
area system, the area’s capacity to sustain
minimum viable populations of key species,
balance between the structural diversity and
the history of interferences in the area,
representativeness of ecosystems that are
becoming rare and the maintenance of natural
processes.
21
 3 METHOD APPLICATION IN
PROTECTED AREAS
BRAZIL’S FEDERAL

3.1 Stages area site managers, in regional events, by

Employment of the Rappam
methodology for the assessment of federal
protected areas of Brazil directly counted on
the participation of 452 people (Table 1). The
process begun with the adequacy of the
method’s original questionnaire (Erin, 2003)
to the reality of the system being analyzed.
The process was started in 2005 by an 18-
person workgroup specially formed by the
IBAMA to monitor and coordinate method
application. During 2005 and 2006, method
application was conducted and initially
addressed protected areas located in the
Amazon. The process was then conducted in
the remaining protected area sites located in
different biomes and regions. Method
application basically consisted of three stages:
(1) questionnaire completion by protected
management office and according to each
biome; (2) data analysis; and (3) development
of planning workshops during which
recommendations were made and measures
were taken with the objective of ensuring
effectiveness of management. Table 1 lists the
number of protected area sites analyzed and
number of participants per stage.
The analysis of modules that
correspond to the federal protected areas was
directly carried out by directors and
coordinators, chiefs of the protected sites,
heads of regional offices, environmental
analysts and coordinators of the protected
area centers. Forty-eight questionnaires on the
system for the federal protected areas were
answered. Sixty-three questionnaires on the
federal system managed by the Ibama were
also answered.

Table 1 – Number of questionnaire answered and participants per Rappam phase for Ibama’s federal
protected areas.

Questionários Fase 1 – Amazônia Fase 2 – Demais biomas e regiões

Unidades de conservação 93 153

Sistema de UCs 48 63

Oficinas e participantes

Oficina de adequação do método 18 -

Oficina de capacitação - 19

Oficina de aplicação 102 167

Oficina de recomendações 87 59

TOTAL 207 245 23

 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

3.2 Data Analysis Procedures
Table 2 presents the framework of the
questionnaire used for method application in
federal protected areas of Brazil. The questions
are grouped by theme, according to the
relevant element for placing the protected
areas mentioned in item 2 within a context
and for assessing their management
effectiveness. The complete questionnaire,
which details the specific approach for each
question, is included in the annexes.

Table 2 – Framework of the assessment questionnaire applied in the federal protected areas of Brazil.

Element Module Number of Questions

1 √ Profile 15
2 √ Pressures and threats Variable 1

√ Context 29
3 • Biological importance 10
4 • Socioeconomic importance 10
5 • Vulnerability 9
6 • Objectives 5
7 • Legal framework 5
8 • Area design and planning 6
√ Inputs 22
9 • Human resources 5
10 • Communication and information 6
11 • Infrastructure 5
12 • Financial resources 6
√ Processes 17
13 • Planning 5
14 • Decision-making process 6
15 • Research, assessment and monitoring 6
√ Outputs 16 12

√ System of Protected Areas

17 √ Design of the system of protected areas 14
18 √ Policies for protected areas 14
19 √ Political context 10

For the analysis of pressures and
threats, 16 activities that potentially impact
protected areas were defined: (1) lumbering;
(2) mining; (3) clearing of land for grazing;
(4) hunting; (5) fishing; (6) collection of non-
wood products; (7) tourism and recreation;
(8) waste disposal; (9) occurrence of semi-
natural processes (natural processes magnified
by anthropic influence); (10) construction of
infrastructure; (11) conversion of soil use;
(12) presence of invasive exotic species; (13)
pressures by human populations over the
natural and cultural resources; (14) external
influences; (15) urban expansion; and (16)
fires due to anthropic influences. Table 3
lists the assessment standards, or elements,
and the values respectively attributed to
them.

24 1
For this item, 16 activities of impact are assessed. Their occurrence varies in each protected area site.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Table 3 – Criteria for assessing pressures and threats.

Tendency Scope Impact Permanence of damage

Drastically increased / Very high = 2 Total = 4 Severe = 4 Permanent = 4

Slightly increased / High = 1 Generalized = 3 High = 3 Long-term = 3
Remained constant / Average = 0 Scattered = 2 Moderate = 2 Mid-term = 2
Slightly decreased / Low = 1 Specific location = 1 Slight = 1 Short-term = 1
Drastically decreased / Very low = 2 – – –

For each question for modules 3 to Values greater than 60% are considered high,
19 (Table 2), there are four possible answers, those between 40 and 60% are considered
whose point values are listed in Table 4. The average, and those under 40% are considered
scores obtained are given in percentage values. low.

Table 4 – Point values used for analysis of Modules 3 to 19 of the questionnaire.

Answer
Tabela 4 – Pontuação utilizada para a análise dos módulos 3 a 19 do Point value
questionário.
Yes (Y) 5
Tabela 4. Os resultados obtidos são
Predominantly yes (p/y) enunciados em 3valores percentuais, sendo co
Predominantly no (p/n) 1
No (N) 0

3.3 Protected Areas Assessed (PN), 28 biological reserves (RB), 30 ecological

stations (EE), and 3 wildlife refuges (RVS). The
Two hundred forty-six protected area sustainable use sites comprise 28
sites were assessed. Of these, 116 belong to a environmental protection areas (APA), 6 areas
full-protection group and 130 to a sustainable of relevant ecological interest (Arie), 52
use group, according to Brazilian Law 9985/ national forests (Flona), 43 extractivist reserves
2000 (Table 5). The full protection sites that (Resex), and one sustainable development
were analyzed comprise 55 national parks reserve (RDS).
Table 5 – Number of federal protected area sites assessed through the Rappam methodology, per
category and biome.

Group of Protected Area Sites

Full Protection Sustainable Use
Biome Total
EE RB PN RVS APA Arie FN RDS Resex
Amazon 12 9 12 1 2 21 1 35 93
Caatinga 4 1 5 2 5 17
Cerrado 4 1 13 1 8 5 27
Coastal and
Marine Zone 6 4 7 1 11 2 8 40
Atlantic Forest 3 13 17 1 5 2 21 61
Pampa 1 1
Pantanal 1 1 2
Subtotal 30 28 55 3 28 6 52 1 43

Total 116 130 246 25

 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

All of the Brazilian states were Acre, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, and São
represented by the protected area sites Paulo (10); Espírito Santo (9); Ceará,
assessed through the Rappam Methodology Maranhão, Piauí and Roraima (8); Amapá,
(Table 6), in order from greatest to least Goiás and Mato Grosso (6); the Federal District
participation: Pará (30); Amazonas (20); Rio and Pernambuco (5); Alagoas, Paraíba Rio
de Janeiro (16); Minas Gerais (14); Santa Grande do Norte and Tocantins (4); Sergipe
Catarina (13); Rondônia (12); Bahia (11); (3); and Mato Grosso do Sul (2).
Table 6 – Number of protected area sites assessed through the Rappam methodology per state and
category.

MG
AM

MA
GO

MS
MT

RO
RR
AC

RN
CE

RS
SC
PR

TO
BA
AP

ES

PB

SE
PE

SP
AL

DF
Group Category

RJ
PA
Total

PI
Full protection

EE 1 1 3 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 30

RB 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 28
PN 1 2 2 5 2 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 2 1 3 4 5 2 3 3 2 1 1 55
RVS 1 1 1 3
APA 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 28
Sustainable Use

Arie 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

FN 2 7 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 6 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 5 1 3 52

Resex 5 1 5 1 2 1 4 15 1 1 4 1 1 1 43

RDS 1 1

Total 10 4 20 6 11 8 5 9 6 8 14 2 6 30 4 5 8 10 16 4 12 8 10 13 3 10 4 246

The greatest number of protected followed by the Northeast (55), Southeast

area sites assessed is located in the northern (49), South (33), and the Midwest (19),
region of the country (90 sites). The North is according to Graph 1.

Graph 1 – Number of protected area sites assessed by the Rappam methodology per region of Brazil.

The Amazon was the most assessed (Graph 2). The Atlantic Forest
represented biome, with 93 sites and biome followed with 61 sites, but
26 approximately 75% of the total area of sites represents only 5% of the total area as each
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

site is on average 10 times smaller than Marine Zone, Cerrado, Caatinga, Pantanal and
those in the Amazon. Pampa. These biomes were little represented
Other biomes, in order from greatest in the system analyzed as they each have two
to least representativeness are: Coastal and and one protected area sites, respectively.

Graph 2 – Number of protected area sites assessed by the Rappam methodology per biome.

27
 Ecological
Stations and
Biological
Reserves
 4R ESULTS

As the assessment of information Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest,

collected through application of the Rappam Category V;
Methodology is best for monitoring and • Extractivist Reserves and Sustainable
planning when they pertain to protected area Development Reserve, Category VI.
sites with closer objectives (Ervin, 2003), five
different analysis groups were defined 4.1. Full-Protection Protected
according to the management objective and Area Sites
management category.
4.1.1 Ecological Stations1 and Biological
Full-Protection Protected Area Sites
Reserves2

• Ecological Stations and Biological Thirty ecological stations and 28

Reserves, category I of the IUCN;
• National Parks and Wildlife Refuges,
Category II;
Protected Areas for Sustainable Use
• National Forests, Category IV;
• Environmental Protection Areas and
biological reserves (Tables 7 and 8) created
between 1974 (Poço das Antas Biological
Reserve in Rio de Janeiro) and 2006 (Perobas
Biological Reserve in Paraná) were assessed.
The total area of this set of protected areas is
of 10,923,087.10 hectares, varying between
63.2 hectares (Tupiniquins Ecological Station
in São Paulo) and 3,373,111.00 hectares
(Terra do Meio Ecological Station in Pará).

Table 7 – Federal Ecological Stations assessed through the Rappam methodology, per biome, state,
area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation.

Biomes State Protected Area Area (hectares) Date of Creation

Ecological Stations (EE) 7.039.091,65

Amazon AC EE Rio Acre 77.500,00 02/06/81

AM EE de Anavilhanas 350.018,00 02/06/81
EE de Jutaí-Solimões 288.187,37 21/07/83
EE Juami-Japurá 837.650,00 03/06/85
AP EE de Maracá-Jipioca 72.000,00 01/06/81

1
Ecological Stations (EE) are for the purpose of conserving nature and carrying out scientific research, according
to Brazilian Law 9985/2000
2
Biological Reserves (RB) have the objective of providing full protection of the biota and other natural attributes
present within its limits, without direct human interference or environmental modifications, except for measures
for the recovery of their altered ecosystems and management measures that are necessary for the recovery
and preservation of natural balance, biological diversity and natural ecological processes. Article 10 of Brazilian 29
Law 9985/2000.
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Biomes State Protected Area Area (hectares) Date of Creation

Ecological Stations (EE) 7.039.091,65
Amazon MT EE de Iquê 200.000,00 02/06/81
PA EE da Terra do Meio 3.373.111,00 17/02/05
EE do Jari 227.126,00 12/04/82
RO EE de Cuniã 53.220,00 27/09/01
RR EE de Caracaraí 80.000,00 31/05/82
EE de Maracá 101.000,00 01/06/81
EE Niquiá 286.600,00 03/06/85
Caatinga BA EE Raso da Catarina 99.772,00 03/01/84
CE EE de Aiuaba 11.252,30 06/02/01
EE do Castanhão 12.579,20 21/09/01
RN EE do Seridó 1.166,38 31/05/82
Cerrado MT EE da Serra das Araras 28.700,00 31/05/82
EE Pirapitinga 1.090,00 20/07/87
PI EE de Uruçuí Una 135.000,00 06/02/81
TO EE Serra Geral do Tocantins 716.306,00 27/09/01
Coastal and Marine PR EE de Guaraqueçaba 13.643,50 31/12/82
RJ EE de Tamoios 8.699,75 23/01/90
RS EE do Taim 33.815,00 21/07/86
SC EE de Carijós 720,00 19/07/87
SP EE de Tupinambás 2.440,27 20/07/87
Atlantic Forest EE de Tupiniquins 63,20 21/07/86
AL EE de Murici 6.157,00 21/05/01
RS EE de Aracuri-Esmeralda 272,68 20/06/81
Pantanal SP EE Mico Leão-Preto 6.677,00 16/07/02
MT EE de Taiamã 14.325,00 02/06/81

Table 8 – Federal Biological Reserves assessed through the Rappam methodology, per biome, state,
area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation.
Biomes State Protected Area Area (hectares) Date of Creation
Biological Reserves (RB) 3.883.995,45
Amazon AM RB do Abufari 288.000,00 20/09/82
RB do Uatumã 950.000,00 06/06/90
AP RB do Lago Piratuba 392.000,00 16/07/80
MA RB do Gurupi 341.650,00 01/01/88
PA RB do Rio Trombetas 389.000,00 21/09/79
RB do Tapirapé 103.000,00 05/05/89
RB Nascentes da Serra do Cachimbo 342.477,60 20/05/05
RO RB do Guaporé 600.000,00 20/09/82
RB do Jaru 268.150,00 11/07/79
Caatinga PE RB de Serra Negra 1.100,00 20/09/82
Cerrado DF RB da Contagem 3.462,81 13/12/02
Coastal and Marine ES RB de Comboios 833,23 25/09/84
Zone RN RB do Atol das Rocas 36.249,00 05/06/79
SC RB Marinha do Arvoredo 17.800,00 12/03/90
SE RB de Santa Isabel 2.766,00 20/10/88
Atlantic Forest BA RB de Una 11.400,00 12/10/80
ES RB Augusto Ruschi 3.589,41 20/09/82
RB de Sooretama 24.250,00 20/09/82
RB do Córrego do Veado 2.392,00 20/09/82
RB do Córrego Grande 1.504,80 02/04/89
MG RB da Mata Escura 51.890,00 05/06/03
PB RB Guaribas 4.321,60 25/01/90
PE RB de Pedra Talhada 4.469,00 13/12/89
RB de Saltinho 548,00 13/12/83
PR RB das Perobas 8.716,00 20/03/06
RJ RB de Poço das Antas 5.000,00 11/03/74
Ecological RB do Tinguá 26.300,00 23/05/89
Stations and RB União 3.126,00 22/04/98
Biological
Reserves The ecological stations occupy a total 3,883,995.45 hectares, of which 95% are also
area of 7,039,091.65 hectares, of which 85% within the Amazon biome.
30 are within the Amazon biome. The biological The state of Pará has the greatest area
reserves have an area of extension of of ecological stations (3,600,277.00 hectares),
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

distributed among two protected area sites. Two
biological reserves comprising 1,238,00.00
hectares are located in the state of Amazonas.
4.1.1.1 Biological and
Socioeconomic
Importance
The biological reserves and ecological
stations that were analyzed have great
biological importance (79%) and average
socioeconomic importance (48%) (Graph
3). Among the biological importance
analysis elements, only the levels of
endemism were considered average. The
socioeconomic importance is accentuated
by its educational or scientific value, the
existence of plants or animals that have
cultural or economic importance and the
benefits provided by the ecosystem.

Graph 3 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of Ecological Stations and federal Biological
Reserves.

Of the biological reserves and importance. Nineteen percent present high

ecological stations, nearly 91% are of high socioeconomic importance, 50% average
biological importance, 5% of average biological socioeconomic importance and 31% low
importance and 3% of low biological socioeconomic importance. (Table 9)
Table 9 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of the biological and
socioeconomic importance of Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves.

High (> 60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (< 40%)

Module Number of % Number of Number of %
%
Sites Sites Sites

Biological Importance 53 91% 3 5% 2 3%

Socioeconomic 11 19% 29 50% 18 31%
Importance

4.1.1.2 Vulnerability elements are highlighted as being the main

Biological reserves and federal ecologic
stations present average vulnerability (56%).
There are 20 protected area sites that are
highly vulnerable (34.5%), and 27 that are
averagely vulnerable (46.6%). Only 11 sites
(19%) present low vulnerability (Graph 4). Five
factors yielding vulnerability (values greater
than 60%): easy access to illegal activities,
Ecological
difficulty in recruiting and maintaining staff, Stations and
existence of high-market value resources; Biological
Reserves
demands for vulnerable resources; and the
difficulty in fiscalizing illegal activities (Table
10). 31
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Graph 4 – Vulnerabilities of federal Biological Reserves and Ecological Stations.

Table 10 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of vulnerability of
federal National Parks, Biological Reserves, Ecological Stations and Wildlife Refuges.

High (> 60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (< 40%)

Number of Number of Number of
Module % % %
Sites Sites Sites

Vulnerability 20 34,5% 27 46,6% 11 19%

4.1.1.3 Pressures and Threats
The most critical impacts upon federal
biological reserves and ecological stations were
hunting, the presence of invasive exotic species,
external influences and fishing. Such activities
were also the most frequent and presented
the greatest tendency for growth over the last
five years, as well as the greatest probability of
occurring over the next ten years (Table 11).

Table 11 –Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact federal Ecological Stations
and Biological Reserves*.

Extent of Frequency Positive Positive

Extent of Frequency of
Pressure of Pressure Tendency of Probability of
Impacting Activity Threat and Threat and
and and Increased Occurrence as
> Average > Average
> Average >Average Pressure a Threat

Hunting + + + + + +
Invasive Exotic
+ + + + + +
Species
External Influences + + + + + +
Fishing + + + + + +
Fires due to anthropic influences + + + + +
Urban Expansion + + + +
Ecological Presence of Human +
+ + +
Stations and Populations
Biological
Reserves Pasture Lands + + +
Construction of Infrastructure + + +
+
32 Conversion of Soil Use +
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Extent of Frequency Positive Positive

Extent of Frequency of
Pressure of Pressure Tendency of Probability of
Impacting Activity Threat and Threat and
and and Increased Occurrence as
> Average > Average
> Average >Average Pressure a Threat

Waste Disposal + +
Semi-natural Processes + +
Tourism and Recreation +
Collection of +
+
Non-Wood Products
Lumbering +
Mining

The “+” sign is used when the element analyzed presents a value greater than the average attained in each
impacting activity for both pressures (activities that took place over the last five years) as well as for the threats
(activities that may take place within the next five years). The first two columns present the analysis of the extent
of pressures and threats. The third and fourth columns point to the frequency of occurrence of the impacting
activity in the protected area sites. The last two columns point to the tendency of increasing occurrence of
pressure and also if there is high probability for occurrence of the activity as a threat.

4.1.1.4 – Effectiveness of that most contributes to the effective management

Management
The average of effectiveness of
management in federal ecological stations and
biological reserves is of 43%. Planning is the element
of these protected areas (55% score). The planning,
processes and outputs elements also present results
considered to be average (43% and 41%,
respectively). The inputs element presents low
results (35%), as shown in Graph 5.

Graph 5 – Effectiveness of management in federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves, per
management element and analysis module.

In general, the only two modules that
present high scores (above 60%) are those
pertaining to the objectives of protected areas
and to the decision-making processes. The low
effectiveness scores are attributed to the
human resources, financial resources,
management planning and to items pertaining
to research, assessment and monitoring.
Two elements standout in the
planning of objectives for ecological stations
and biological reserves: inclusion of
Ecological
biodiversity protection and conservation Stations and
among these areas’ objectives and their staffs’ Biological
Reserves
and managers’ understanding of such
objectives. The existence of officially-
acknowledged legal instruments provides 33
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

support to the module that analyzes the
legal framework of protected areas. The
human and financial resources for
implementation of the law face critical
situation, and should be increased so that
protected areas can rely on fiscalization and
preventive protection measures. The
location and connection with other protected
area sites and the design are favorable for
federal biological reserves and ecological
stations to attain their objectives, despite the
fact that the process for choosing, delimiting
and defining management categories is
generally not a participatory one (Graph 6).

Graph 6 – Planning element for federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves, per analysis
module.

As regards the inputs element (Graph
7), the most critical aspect pertains to human
resources that are insufficient for the effective
management of protected areas. Two
elements related to financial resources are
more critical: funds that existed in the past
and long-term stability of the financial
perspective. Although they scored better than
human and financial resources, elements
pertaining to communication, information and
insfrastructure show that more efficacious
mechanisms need to be developed for
processing, collecting and disclosing information.
In addition, there must be improvement to field
equipment and installations, especially for
visitors.

Ecological
Stations and
Biological
Reserves

Graph 7 – Inputs element for federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves, per analysis
34 module.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

In the processes element, the decision- (Graph 8). In general, it is necessary that
making module stands out. Whereas the improvements be made in the management
collaboration with partners was deemed effective, planning and in the research, assessment and
it is necessary that councils be implemented monitoring of protected areas processes.

Graph 8 – Processes element for federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves, per analysis
module.

So that management outcomes resources, measures for the recovery of

can be more effective, the elements that degraded areas, and management of
most need investments are monitoring of wildlife and other natural resources
results, training and development of human (Graph 9).

Graph 9 – Outcomes element for Federal Ecological Stations and Biological Reserves.

Notwithstanding, measures pertaining development and relationship with local Ecological

to management planning, outreach, visitor communities also require attention, as none Stations and
Biological
control, personnel management, research attained satisfactory assessment results. Reserves

35
 National
Parks and
Wildlife
Refuges
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

4.1.2 – National Parks4 de Janeiro) and 2006 (Campos de Palmas

and Wildlife
Refuges5
Fifty-five national parks and 3 wildlife
refuges were assessed (Table 12 and Table
13). These protected areas were created
between 1937 (Itatiaia National Park, in Rio
Wildlife Refuge, in Paraná).
The total area of this set of units is of
17,399,386.85 hectares. The size of individual
sites varies between 142.00 hectares (Ilha dos
Lobos Wildlife Refuge, in Rio Grande do Sul)
and 3,867,000.00 hectares (Montanhas do
Tumucumaque National Park, in Amapá).

Table 12 – National Parks Assessed through the Rappam methodology, per biome, state, area of extension
(in hectares), and date of creation.

Biome State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

National Park (PN) 173.399.386,85

Amazon AC PN da Serra do Divisor 843.012,00 16/06/89

AM PN do Jaú 2.272.000,00 24/09/80
PN do Pico da Neblina 2.200.000,00 25/06/79
AP PN do Cabo Orange 619.000,00 15/07/80
PN Montanhas do Tumucumaque 3.867.000,00 22/08/02
PA PN da Amazônia 1.000.000,00 19/02/74
PN da Serra do Pardo 445.392,000 17/02/05
RO PN da Serra da Cutia 283.604,00 01/08/01
PN de Pacaás Novos 764.801,00 21/09/78
RR PN do Monte Roraima 116.000,00 28/06/89
PN Serra da Mocidade 350.860,00 29/04/98
PN Viruá 227.011,00 01/04/98

Caatinga BA PN da Chapada Diamantina 152.000,00 17/09/85

CE PN de Ubajara 6.288,00 30/04/59
PI PN da Serra da Capivara 129.953,00 05/06/79
PN da Serra das Confusões 502.411,00 02/10/98
PN de Sete Cidades 6.221,48 08/06/61

Cerrado DF PN de Brasília 42.300,00 29/11/61

GO PN da Chapada dos Veadeiros 65.000,00 01/01/61
PN das Emas 132.000,00 01/01/61
MA PN da Chapada das Mesas 161.000,00 12/12/05
PN das Nascentes Rio Parnaíba 729.813,55 16/06/02
MG PN Cavernas do Peruaçu 56.800,00 21/09/99
PN da Serra da Canastra 197.787,00 03/04/72
PN da Serra do Cipó 31.617,00 25/09/84
PN das Sempre-Vivas 124.000,00 13/12/02
PN Grande Sertão Veredas 230.671,00 12/04/89
National
4
National Park (PN) – The basic objective of National Parks is the preservation of natural ecosystems of great Parks and
ecological significance and scenic beauty, so as to allow for scientific research and the development of environmental Wildlife
education, interpretation, touristic and recreational activities. Article 11 of Brazilian Law 9985/2000. Refuges
5
Wildlife Refuge (RVS) – The basic objective of Wildlife Refuges is the protection of natural habitats to ensure
conditions for the existence and reproduction of local or migratory animal and plant species. Article 13 of
Brazilian Law 9985/2000. 39
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Biome State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

National Park (PN) 173.399.386,85
MS PN da Serra da Bodoquena 76.481,00 21/09/00
MT PN da Chapada dos Guimarães 33.000,00 12/04/89
TO PN do Araguaia 562.312,00 31/12/59
Coastal and BA PN Marinho dos Abrolhos 91.500,00 06/04/83
Marine Zone CE PN de Jericoacoara 8.416,00 04/02/02
MA PN dos Lençóis Maranhenses 155.000,00 06/06/81
PE PN Mar. de Fernando de Noronha 11.270,00 14/09/88
PR PN do Superagui 33.988,00 25/04/89
RJ PN da Restinga de Jurubatiba 14.860,00 29/04/98
RS PN da Lagoa do Peixe 34.400,00 06/11/86

Atlantic Forest BA PN do Descobrimento 21.129,00 20/04/99

PN do Monte Pascoal 22.500,00 27/11/61
PN do Pau Brasil 11.580,00 20/04/99
ES PN dos Pontões Capixabas 17.496,00 19/12/02
MG PN de Caparaó 31.800,00 24/05/61
PR PN de Ilha Grande 78.875,00 30/09/97
PN do Iguaçu 185.162,50 10/01/39
PN Saint-Hilaire/Lange 24.500,00 23/05/01
RJ PN da Serra da Bocaina 104.000,00 18/02/71
PN da Serra dos Órgãos 10.600,00 30/11/39
PN da Tijuca 3.953,22 06/07/61
PN de Itatiaia 30.000,00 14/06/37
RS PN da Serra Geral 17.345,50 20/05/92
PN de Aparados da Serra 13.060,60 17/12/59
SC PN da Serra do Itajaí 57.350,00 04/06/04
PN de São Joaquim 49.300,00 06/07/61
SE PN Serra de Itabaiana 7.966,00 15/06/05

Pantanal MT PN do Pantanal Mato-Grossense 135.000,00 24/09/81

Table 13 – Wildlife Refuges assessed through the Rappam Methodology, per biome, state, area of
extension (in hectares), and date of creation.

Biome State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

Wildlife Refuge (RVS) 145.245,00

Cerrado BA RVS das Veredas do Oeste Baiano 128.521,00 13/12/02

Coastal and RS RVS da Ilha dos Lobos 142,00 04/07/05
Marine Zone
National Atlantic Forest PR RVS dos Campos de Palmas 16.582,00 04/04/06
Parks and
Wildlife
Refuges Seventy-five percent of all national category – 4,486,000.00. The Veredas do
park areas are located within the Amazon Oeste Baiano Wildlife Refuge, located in
biome (12,988,680.00 hectares). The state Bahia, is in the Cerrado biome and comprises
40 of Amapá has the greatest portion of this 88% of the category’s entire area.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

4.1.2.1 Biological and importance is accentuated by the educational,

Socioeconomic
Importance
The national parks and wildlife refuges
jointly have high biological importance (85%)
and average socioeconomic importance
(68%), as stated in Graph 10. All analysis
elements on biological importance presented
elevated results. The socioeconomic
scientific and recreational values of the sites,
by the benefits the ecosystem fosters to
communities, the aesthetic importance, and
the existence of plant and animal species of
cultural or economic importance.
Fifty-six protected area sites (97%)
presented high biological importance and 41
(71%) presented high socioeconomic
importance (Table 14).

Graph 10 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges.

Table 14 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of the biological and
socioeconomic importance of National Parks and Federal Wildlife Refuges.

High (> 60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (< 40%)

Module Number of Number of Number of
% % %
Sites Sites Sites

Biological Importance 56 97% 1 2% 1 2%

Socioeconomic Importance 41 71% 15 26% 2 3%

4.1.2.2 Vulnerability Table 15). The main aspects that influence

In general, national parks and federal
wildlife refuges present average vulnerability
(58%). However, there are 22 protected area
sites (38%) that are very vulnerable. There are
27 protected area sites (47%) that rest on the
line of average vulnerability, and 9 (16%) on
vulnerability are: easy access for the
development of illegal activities; difficulty in
recruiting and maintaining staff; difficulty in
fiscalizing illegal activities; demands for
vulnerable resources; low incidence of law National
enforcement; the difficulty in fiscalizing illegal Parks and
Wildlife
activities; and high market value of natural Refuges

the line of low vulnerability (Graph 11 and resources.

41
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Graph 11 – Vulnerability of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges.

Table 15 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of the vulnerability of
National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges.

High (> 60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (<40%)

Module Number of
Número de Numberde
Número of Numberdeof
Número
% % %
Sites
unidades Sites
unidades Sites
unidades
Vulnerabilidade 22 38% 27 47% 9 16%

4.1.2.3 – Pressures and Threats the presence of human populations. Such

The most critical impacts upon
national parks and federal wildlife refuges are:
hunting; conversion of soil use; presence of
invasive exotic species; external influences; and
activities were also the most frequent and
presented the greatest tendency for growth
over the last five years, as well as the greatest
probability of occurring over the next ten years
(Table 16).

Table 16 – Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact National Parks and federal
Wildlife Refuges*.

Extent of Frequency Positive Positive

Extent of Frequency of
Pressure of Pressure Tendency of Probability of
Impacting Activity Threat and Threat and
and and Increased Occurrence as
> Average > Average
> Average >Average Pressure a Threat

Hunting + + + + + +
Conversion of Soil Use + + + + + +
Invasive Exotic Species + + + + + +
External Influences + + + + + +
Presence of Human Populations + + + + + +
Fires due to anthropic influences + + + + +
Pasture Lands + + + + +
National
Parks and Construction of Infrastructure + + +
Wildlife
Refuges
Tourism and Recreation + + + +

42 Collection of Non-Wood Products + + +

Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Extent of Frequency Positive Positive

Extent of Frequency of
Pressure of Pressure Tendency of Probability of
Impacting Activity Threat and Threat and
and and Increased Occurrence as
> Average > Average
> Average >Average Pressure a Threat

Semi-natural Processes + +

Fishing + +

The “+” sign is used when the element analyzed presents a value greater than the average attained in each
impacting activity for both pressures (activities that took place over the last five years) as well as for the threats
(activities that may take place within the next five years). The first two columns present the analysis of the extent
of pressures and threats. The third and fourth columns point to the frequency of occurrence of the impacting
activity in the protected area sites. The last two columns point to the tendency of increasing occurrence of
pressure and also if there is high probability for occurrence of the activity as a threat.

4.1.2.4 Effectiveness of Elements pertaining to the

Management
The average of effectiveness of
management in national parks and wildlife
refuges is of 44% (Graph 12). As in the cases
of biological reserves and ecological stations,
planning was the management element that
attained highest assessment scores (55%). The
processes element also presented average
results (47%), and inputs and outcomes
respectively yielded scores of 36% and 38%.
objectives of protected area sites and to
the decision-making process were the
ones that most contributed for the
effectiveness of management of this group
of protected areas. It can be noted that
there is need for improvement to a series
of items related to aspects of
management, especially as regards human
resources, infrastructure, financial
resources, research, assessment and
monitoring of results.

Graph 12 – Management effectiveness of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges, per management
element and analysis module.

Three elements standout in the objectives. The existence of officially-

planning of objectives for national parks and
wildlife refuges: inclusion of biodiversity
protection and conservation among these
areas’ objectives and their staffs’ and
managers’ understanding of such objectives,
and the coherence between management
policies and plans and the protected area’s
acknowledged legal instruments strengthens
the protected areas, unlike the situation of
National
legalization, demarcation of frontiers, and Parks and
human and financial resources for Wildlife
Refuges
implementing the law. The location and
connection with other protected area sites
and the design are favorable for this group 43
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

of protected areas to attain its objectives, generally not a participatory one, and that
despite the facts that the process for use of surrounding land does not foster
choosing , delimiting and defining proper management of protected sites
management and zoning categories is (Graph 13).

Graph 13 – Planning element of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges, per analysis module.

The most critical aspects of the inputs
element are the insufficiency of human
resources and inadequacy of installations for
visitors. The strongest aspects pertain to the
means of communication among protected
areas and other sectors related to their
management and to the communication
between protected areas and the local
communities. Two elements related to
financial resources are also critical: funds that
existed in the past and the perspective for long-
term financial stability. Although funds for the
following five years and the capacity to raise
funds contribute to diminish difficulties,
infrastructure elements point to the need for
improvement. Only the element that deals
with infrastructure maintenance obtained an
average assessment score (Graph 14).

National
Parks and
Wildlife
Refuges

44 Graph 14 – Inputs element of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges, per analysis module.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

In the Processes element, the decision-
making module stands out. The items that
obtained the best assessment scores pertain to
the communication flow between staff and
managers of protected areas, collaboration with
partners and the transparency of decision-
making. The results point to the need to foster
greater community participation in the activities
that affect them, as well as to the implementation
of councils (Graph 15). There is also need to
strive for improvement in the processes
pertaining to management planning, research
development, assessment and monitoring of
national parks and wildlife refuges.

Graph 15 – Processes element of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges, per analysis module.

Finally, the development of measures infrastructure, monitoring of results attained,

for the recovery of degraded areas, and visitor control stand out as modules that
management of wildlife and other natural most need measures so that management
resources, implantation and maintenance of results are more effective (Graph 16).

National
Graph 16 – Outputs element of National Parks and federal Wildlife Refuges. Parks and
Wildlife
Refuges

45
 Environmental
Protection Areas
and Areas of
Relevant
Ecological
Interest
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

4.2 Protected Areas of of relevant ecological interest (Table 17 and

Sustainable Use Table 18), created between 1982 (Petrópolis
APA in Rio de Janeiro) and 2002 (Planalto
4.2.1.Environmental Protection Central APA in the Federal District and the
Areas6 and Areas of Bacia do Rio São João-Mico Leão Dourado
Relevant Ecological APA in Rio de Janeiro). The total area of this
Interest7 set of protected areas is of 7,964,785.78
hectares, varying from 125.45 hectares
Thirty-four sites were assessed – 28 (Cicuta APA in Rio de Janeiro) to 1,592,550.00
environmental protection areas and 6 areas hectares (Serra da Ibiapaba APA in Piauí).

Table 17 – Environmental Protection Areas assessed through the Rappam methodology, per biome,
state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation.

Biome State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

Environmental Protection Area 7.947.916,26
Amazon PA APA do Igarapé Gelado 21.600,00 05/05/89
Caatinga CE APA da Chapada do Araripe 1.063.000,00 24/08/97
PI APA Serra da Ibiapaba 1.592.550,00 26/11/96
Cerrado DF APA da Bacia do Rio Descoberto 39.100,00 07/11/83
APA do Planalto Central 507.070,26 10/01/02
GO APA das Nascentes do Rio Vermelho 176.159,00 27/09/01
APA Meandros do Rio Araguaia 357.126,00 02/10/98
MG APA Carste de Lagoa Santa 35.600,00 25/01/90
APA Cavernas do Peruaçu 146.858,00 26/09/89
APA Morro da Pedreira 97.168,00 26/01/90
TO APA Serra de Tabatinga 61.000,00 06/06/90
Coastal and AL APA da Costa dos Corais 413.563,00 23/10/97
Marine Zone APA de Piaçabuçu 18.800,00 21/06/83
PB APA da Barra do Rio Mamanguape 14.640,00 10/11/93
PE APA de Fernando de Noronha 79.706,00 05/06/86
PI APA Delta do Rio Parnaíba 313.800,00 28/08/96
PR APA de Guaraqueçaba 298.000,00 31/01/85
RJ APA de Cairuçu 33.800,00 28/12/83
APA de Guapi-Mirim 14.000,00 25/09/84
SC APA da Baleia-Franca 156.100,00 14/09/00
APA de Anhatomirim 4.750,00 20/05/92
SP APA de Cananéia-Iguape-Peruíbe 240.000,00 23/10/84
Atlantic Forest MG APA da Serra da Mantiqueira 422.000,00 03/06/85
MS APA das Ilhas e Várzeas Rio Paraná 1.003.059,00 30/09/97
RJ APA da Bacia do Rio São João-Mico-Leão-Dourado 150.700,00 27/06/02
APA Petrópolis 59.000,00 13/09/82
SP APA Mananciais do Rio Paraíba do Sul 310.000,00 13/09/82
Pampa RS APA do Ibirapuitã 318.767,00 20/05/92

Environmental
6 Protection
APA - Environmental Protection Area (APA) is generally a large area, with a certain degree of human occupation,
Areas
and which has abiotic, biotic, aesthetic or cultural attributes that are especially important for the quality of life and and Areas of
well-being of human populations, and whose basic objective is to protect biological diversity, discipline the Relevant
occupation process and ensure sustainability of natural resources. Article 15 of Brazilian Law 9985/2000. Ecological
7
Arie - Area of Relevant Ecological Interest (Arie) is generally a small area with little or no human occupation, and Interest
which has extraordinary natural characteristics or is home to rare populations of the regional biota, and whose
basic objective is to maintain the natural ecosystems of regional or local importance and regulate the admissible use
of these areas in a manner that is compatible with nature conservation. Article 16 of Brazilian Law 9985/2000. 49
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Table 18 – Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest assessed through the Rappam methodology, per
biome, state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation.

Biome State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

Area of Relevant Ecological Interest 16.869,52

Amazon AC ARIE Seringal Nova Esperança 2.576,00 01/08/99

AM ARIE Projeto Fragmentos Florestais 3.288,00 05/11/85

Coastal and PB ARIE Manguezais da Foz do Rio Mamanguape 5.721,07 05/11/85

Marine Zone SP ARIE Ilha do Ameixal 359,00 05/11/85

Atlantic Forest RJ ARIE Floresta da Cicuta 125,45 09/01/85

SC ARIE Serra das Abelhas e Rio da Prata 4.800,00 28/05/85

The environmental protection areas
have greater representation in the Caatinga
biome, whereas the areas of relevant ecological
interest have greater representation in the
Coastal and Marine Zone. The state of Piauí
has 1,906,350.00 hectares of APAs. Paraíba
has only one Arie unit and represents 34% of
the category’s total.
4.2.1.1 Biological and
Socioeconomic
Importance
The environmental protection areas
and the areas of relevant ecological interest
have, in all, very high biological importance
(76%) and socioeconomic importance (69%),
as shown in Graph 14. Nearly 79% of these
areas present high biological importance,
18% present average importance, and only
one site (2.9%) presents low importance.
Twenty-two protected area sites (64.7%)
present high socioeconomic importance, 8
(23.5%) present average socioeconomic
importance, and 4 (11.8%) present low
socioeconomic importance. Among the
elements on biological importance that were
analyzed, only the levels of endemism
obtained average results. The great majority
of socioeconomic elements presents high
importance, with the exception of religious
or spiritual importance and the relevance
of the areas as sources of employment
(Graph 17 and Table 19).

Environmental
Protection
Areas
and Areas of
Relevant
Ecological
Interest

Graph 17 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of federal Environmental Protection Areas and
50 Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Table 19 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of the biological and
socioeconomic importance of federal Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant
Ecological Interest.

High (> 60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (< 40%)

Module Number Number of Number of
% % %
of Sites Sites Sites
Biological Importance 27 79% 6 18% 1 3%
Socioeconomic Importance 22 65% 8 24% 4 12%

4.2.1.2 Vulnerability fostering the development of illegal

In Graph 18, the federal APAs and
Aries present high levels of vulnerability
(63%). The main aspects that influence
vulnerability are: easy access to the area
activities; great demand for natural
resources; difficulty in recruiting and
maintaining staff; difficulty in fiscalizing
existing illegal activities; and high market
value of natural resources.

Graph 18 – Vulnerability of federal Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological
Interest.

According to Table 20, 18 protected vulnerability, 15 (44%) average levels, and 1

area sites (53%) present high levels of site (3%) presents low levels of vulnerability.

Table 20 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of the vulnerability of
federal Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest.

High (> 60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (< 40%)

Module Number of Number of Number of
% % %
Sites Sites Sites

Vulnerability 18 53% 15 44% 1 3%

Environmental
4.2.1.3 Pressures and Threats are the most critical and frequent activities. Protection
Areas
They are also those which had the greatest and Areas of
The construction of infrastructure, tendency for growth over the past five years Relevant
Ecological
conversion of soil use, waste disposal, urban and the greatest probability of occurrence Interest
expansion, and the negative aspects resulting over the next years in federal APAs and
from the presence of human populations Aries. 51
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Table 21 – Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact Environmental Protection
Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest*.
Extent of Frequency Positive Positive
Extent of Frequency of
Pressure of Pressure Tendency of Probability of
Impacting Activity Threat and Threat and
and and Increased Occurrence as
> Average > Average
> Average >Average Pressure a Threat

Hunting + + + +
Collection of Non-Wood Products + +
Construction of Infrastructure + + + + + +
Conversion of Soil Use + + + + + +
Waste Disposal + + + + + +
Invasive Exotic Species + + + + +
Urban Expansion + + + + + +
Lumbering + + + + +
Fires due to anthropic influences + +
External Influences + + + +
Mining + +
Pasture Lands + + + +
Fishing + +
Presence of Human Populations + + + + + +
Semi-natural Processes + +
Tourism and Recreation + +
The “+” sign is used when the element analyzed presents a value greater than the average attained in each
impacting activity for both pressures (activities that took place over the last five years) as well as for the threats
(activities that may take place within the next five years). The first two columns present the analysis of the extent
of pressures and threats. The third and fourth columns point to the frequency of occurrence of the impacting
activity in the protected area sites. The last two columns point to the tendency of increasing occurrence of
pressure and also if there is high probability for occurrence of the activity as a threat.

4.2.1.4 Effectiveness of Management and areas of relevant ecological interest was of

41%. The element that obtained the best scores
The average level of effectiveness of was planning (57%), followed by inputs (42%),
management in environmental protection areas and outputs (31%), as shown in Graph 19.

Environmental
Protection
Areas
and Areas of
Relevant
Ecological
Interest

Graph 19 – Effectiveness of management of Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant

52 Ecological Interest, per management element and analysis module.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas
The modules pertaining to the decision-
making processes and to the objectives
established for the protected areas are those that
most contribute to the effective management of
federal APAs and Aries (over 60%). The most
critical elements are those pertaining to financial
resources, human resources, management
Planning, research, assessment and monitoring,
outputs and infrastructure (scores under 40%).
The following items stand out in the
Planning elements for APAs and Aries: inclusion
of biodiversity protection and conservation
among these areas’ objectives and their staffs’
and managers’ understanding of such objectives,
and the coherence between management
Graph 20 – Planning element in Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological
Interest, per analysis module.
As regards inputs (Graph 21), the
strongest aspects are the means of
communication among managers, boards of
directors and other protected areas. Average
levels are shown in communication with local
communities, maintenance of infrastructure
Graph 21 – Inputs element of Protected Environmental Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest,
per analysis module.
policies and plans and the protected area’s
objectives. The existence of officially-
acknowledged legal instruments and the
legalization of the land strengthen the protected
areas, unlike the shortage of human and
financial resources for implementing the law.
The location and connection with other
protected area sites and the design also help
attain the objectives of this set of group of
protected areas, despite the facts that the process
for choosing , delimiting and defining
management and zoning categories is generally
not a participatory one, and that use of
surrounding land does not foster proper
management of protected sites (Graph 20).
and equipment, and the capacity to raise
funds. The other aspects are critical,
especially the insufficiency of human
resources, the funds that existed in the past
and long-term stability of the financial
perspective.
Environmental
Protection
Areas
and Areas of
Relevant
Ecological
Interest
53
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

The decision-making module is Aspects pertaining to management and

accentuated in the Processes element (Graph
22). The following aspects stand out in the
processes element: collaboration with partners;
transparency in the decision-making process;
and the communication flow between
employees and manager of protected area sites.
research planning, assessment and monitoring
are less positive, except for the availability of
inventory on natural and cultural resources,
definition of strategies to face pressures and
threats, and the access to research – all of which
attained average scores.

Graph 22 – Processes element of Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological
Interest, per analysis module.

Finally, most results attained do not local communities, all of which attained
reach a satisfactory level of performance, average scores. All remaining matters are
except for measures pertaining to outreach, critical, especially visitor control and
threat prevention and relationships with the monitoring of results (Graph 23).

Environmental
Protection
Areas Graph 23 – Outputs element of federal Environmental Protection Areas and Areas of Relevant Ecological
and Areas of Interest.
Relevant
Ecological
Interest

54
National
Forests
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

4.2.2 National Forests8 Flona in Roraima, Palmares Flona in Piauí,

The 52 national forests that were
assessed (Table 22) were created between
1946 (Araripe-Apodi Flona in Ceará) and
2005 (Balata-Tufari Flona in Amazonas, Anauá
and Ibura Flona in Sergipe). The total area of
national forests assessed is of 11,923,306.25
hectares, varying between 89.5 hectares
(Ritápolis NF in Minas Gerais) to 2,664,685.00
hectares (Roraima Flona in Roraima).

Table 22 – National Forests assessed through the Rappam Methodology, per region, state, area of
extension (in hectares), and date of creation.

Region State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

National Forests (Flona) 11.923.306,25
North AC FN de Santa Rosa do Purus 230.257,34 07/08/01
FN do Macauã 173.475,00 21/06/88
AM FN de Balata-Tufari 802.023,00 17/02/05
FN de Humaitá 468.790,00 02/02/98
FN de Mapiá-Inauiní 311.000,00 14/08/89
FN de Tefé 1.020.000,00 10/04/89
FN do Amazonas 1.573.100,00 01/03/89
FN do Jatuarana 837.100,00 19/09/02
FN do Purus 256.000,00 21/06/88
AP FN do Amapá 412.000,00 10/04/89
PA FN de Carajás 411.948,87 02/02/98
FN de Caxiuanã 200.000,00 28/11/61
FN de Saracá-Taquera 429.600,00 27/12/89
FN do Itacaiúnas 141.400,00 02/02/98
FN do Tapajós 600.000,00 19/02/74
FN do Tapirapé-Aquiri 190.000,00 05/05/89
RO FN de Jacundá 220.644,52 02/12/04
FN do Bom Futuro 280.000,00 21/06/88
FN do Jamari 215.000,00 25/09/84
RR FN de Anauá 392.725,00 18/02/05
FN de Roraima 2.664.685,00 01/03/89
Midwest DF FN de Brasília 9.346,28 10/06/99
GO FN da Mata Grande 2.009,49 14/10/03
FN de Silvânia 466,55 18/07/01
Northeast BA FN Contendas do Sincorá 11.034,30 21/09/99
CE FN Araripe-Apodi 38.626,32 02/05/46
FN de Sobral 598,00 27/09/01
PB FN da Restinga de Cabedelo 103,36 06/02/04
PI FN de Palmares 170,00 22/02/05
RN FN de Açu 215,25 18/07/01
FN de Nísia Floresta 174,95 27/09/01
SE FN do Ibura 144,16 19/09/05
Southeast ES FN de Goytacazes 1.350,00 28/11/02
FN de Pacotuba 450,00 13/12/02
FN Rio Preto 2.830,63 17/01/90
MG FN de Paraopeba 200,00 18/07/01
FN de Ritápolis 89,50 21/09/99
FN Passa Quatro 335,00 25/10/68
National
Forests
8
National Forest - National Forest (Flona) is a forest area of predominantly native species, whose basic
objectives are the multiple sustainable use of forest resources and scientific research, with emphasis placed on
methods for the sustainable exploitation of native forests. Article 17 of Brazilian Law 9985/2000. 57
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Region State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

National Forests (Flona) 11.923.306,25

RJ FN Mário Xavier 493,00 08/10/86

SP FN Capão Bonito 4.344,33 25/10/68
FN de Lorena 249,31 18/07/01
FN Ipanema 5.179,93 20/05/92

South PR FN Açungui 728,78 25/10/68

FN Irati 3.495,00 25/10/68
RS FN Canela 517,73 25/10/68
FN Passo Fundo 1.328,00 25/10/68
FN São Francisco de Paula 1.606,70 25/10/68
SC FN Caçador 710,44 25/10/68
FN Chapecó 1.606,63 25/10/68
FN Ibirama 570,58 11/03/81
FN Piraí do Sul 124,80 02/06/04
FN Três Barras 4.458,50 25/10/68

Nearly 40% of national forests are
located in the Amazon region, but they
correspond to 99% of the area occupied by
this category of protected area (11,829,748.73
hectares). The state of Amazonas is home to
5,268,013.00 hectares distributed throughout
seven protected area sites.
4.2.2.1 Biological and
Socioeconomic Importance
The set of 52 national forests are
of great biological importance (69%),
especially due to its high biodiversity,
representativeness within the protected
areas system, diversity of natural processes,
regimes of natural disturbs and the
presence of ecosystems that have been
suffering from significant reduction. The
socioeconomic importance (average of
57%) is accentuated by the educational
and scientific value of the sites and by the
presence of socioeconomically important
plant species (Graph 24).

National
Forests

58 Graph 24 – Biological and socioeconomic importance of federal National Forests.

Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Nearly 65% of areas are of high forests (40%) present elevated socioeconomic
biological importance (34 protected area sites), importance, 22 (42%) present average
23% (12) are of average importance and 11.5% socioeconomic importance and 9 (17%) have
(6) are of low importance. Twenty-one national low biological importance (Table 23).

Table 23 – Absolute frequency and percentage of Protected Areas per assessment of the biological
and socioeconomic importance of federal National Forests.

High (>60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (<60%)

Module Number of Number of
Number of % % %
Sites Sites Sites

Biological Importance 34 65% 12 23% 6 12%

Socioeconomic Importance 21 40% 22 42% 9 17%

4.2.2.2 Vulnerability natural resources, great demand for natural

The average vulnerability level of
national forests was of 48%. This level shows
that protection is hindered by the easy access
to the areas, difficulties in recruiting and
maintaining staff, elevated market value of
resources, difficulty in fiscalizing illegal activities
and low incidence of law enforcement.
Eighteen national forests (35%) presented high
levels of vulnerability, 15 (29%) average levels
of vulnerability and 19 (37%) low levels of
vulnerability (Graph 25 and Table 24).

Graph 25 – Vulnerability of federal National Forests.

Table 24 – Absolute frequency and percentage of Protected Areas per vulnerability assessment.

High (>60%) Média (40% a 60%) Low (<60%)

Alta (>60%) Média (40% a 60%) Baixa (<60%)
Module
Módulo Number deof % Number de
Número of Number de
Número of
Número % %
% %
% National
Sites Sites
unidades Sites
unidades Forests
unidades

Vulnerability 18 35% 15 29% 19 37%

59
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

4.2.2.3 Pressures and Threats were also the most frequent and presented
the greatest tendency for growth over the last
The presence of invasive exotic five years, as well as the greatest probability
species, lumbering and external influences of occurring over the next years in national
were the most critical activities. Such activities forests (Table 25)*.
Table 25 – Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact federal National
Forests*.
Extent of Frequency Positive Positive
Extent of Frequency of
Pressure of Pressure Tendency of Probability of
Impacting Activity Threat and Threat and
and and Increased Occurrence as
> Average > Average
> Average >Average Pressure a Threat

Invasive exotic species + + + + + +

Lumbering + + + + + +

External Influences + + + + + +

Hunting + + + +

Presence of human populations + + + + +

Conversion of soil use + + +

Mining + + +

Fires due to anthropic influences + + + +

Collection of non-wood products + + +

Pasture lands + +

Urban Expansion + + +

Construction of infrastructure + +

Semi-natural process + +

Tourism and recreation + +

Waste Disposal +

Fishing +

The “+” sign is used when the element analyzed presents a value greater than the average attained in each
impacting activity for both pressures (activities that took place over the last five years) as well as for the threats
(activities that may take place within the next five years). The first two columns present the analysis of the extent
of pressures and threats. The third and fourth columns point to the frequency of occurrence of the impacting
activity in the protected area sites. The last two columns point to the tendency of increasing occurrence of
pressure and also if there is high probability for occurrence of the activity as a threat.

4.2.2.4 Effectiveness of are still considered average, Graph 26 shows

Management that Planning (55%) and Processes (42%) are the
elements that most contribute to effective
National
Forests The average effectiveness of management management (55%). Results (37%) and Inputs
of national forests is of 40%. Even though results (30%) present low levels.
60
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Graph 26 – Effectiveness of management of National Forests per management element and analysis
module.

Only the module that assessed national
forest objectives presented values greater than
60%, but decision-making and legal framework
(about 59%) are also worthy of mention. The most
critical modules include assessment of human
resources, infrastructure, financial resources,
management planning, research, assessment,
monitoring and results (values under 40%).
As regards planning of national forest
objectives, the following aspects stand out:
inclusion of biodiversity protection and
conservation among these areas’ objectives and
their staffs’ and managers’ understanding of
such objectives.
The existence of officially-acknowledged
legal instruments, the legalization of the land,
the demarcation of frontiers and the just and
effective resolution of conflicts strengthen the
protected area sites. On the other hand,
management of these areas is weakened by
the lack of human and financial resources
with which to carry out measures pertaining
to implementation of the law. The location
and connection with other protected area
sites and the design are favorable for national
forests to attain their objectives, despite the
fact that the process for choosing, delimiting
and defining management and zoning
categories is generally not a participatory one,
and that use of surrounding land does not
foster proper management of protected sites
(Graph 27).

National
Forests

Graph 27 – Planning element of National Forests, per analysis module. 61

 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

As regards the Inputs element, the
strongest aspect is the communication with local
communities. Average scores were obtained by
the following items: capacity to raise financial
resources; means of communication between
management, boards of directors and other
protected areas; and communication among
communities. Nonetheless, all other aspects are
considered critical, especially the insufficiency of
human resources, funds that existed in the past
and long-term stability of the financial perspective
(Graph 28).

Graph 28 – Inputs element of federal National Forests, per analysis module

As regards the Processes element councils be implemented. Matters pertaining

(Graph 29), the decision-making module was
the most noteworthy. The aspects that most
stand out are: flow of communication among
employees and manager of the protected area
sites; collaboration with partners; and
transparency during the decision-making
process. It is necessary that management
to management planning and to research,
assessment and monitoring obtained less
favorable assessment scores. Better scores
were obtained by the definition of strategies
with which to face pressures and threats, and
access and identification of needs for research,
both of which attained average results.

National
Forests

62 Graph 29 – Processes element for federal National Forests, per analysis module.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Finally, development of measures personnel, monitoring of results attained,

for the recovery of degraded areas and for and visitor control stand out as the
the management of wildlife and other elements that most call for attention in
natural resources, implantation and order for management results to be more
maintenance of infrastructures, training of effective (Graph 30).

Graph 30 – Outputs element for federal National Forests.

National
Forests

63
 Extractivist
Reserves and
Sustainable
Development
Reserves
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

4.2.3 Extractivist Reserves9 and Chico Mendes Resex, in Acre; Rio Cajari Resex
Sustainable Development in Amapa; and Ouro Preto Resex in Rondônia)
Reserves10 and 2005 (8 extractivist reserves in the state
of Pará) (Table 26 and Table 27). The total
Forty-four protected area sites area of this set of protected area sites is of
belonging to this management category were 8,371,505.75 hectares, varying between
assessed – 43 extractivist reserves and one 601.00 hectares (Batoque Resex in Ceará) and
sustainable development reserve. These sites 1,300,000.00 hectares (Verde para Sempre
were created between 1990 (Alto Juruá and Resex in Pará).
Table 26 – Federal Extractivist Reserves assessed through the Rappam methodology, per biome, state,
area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation.
Biome State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation
Extractivist Reserve(Resex) 8.306.772,75
Amazon AC Resex Alto Juruá 538.000,00
01/01/90
Resex Alto Tarauacá 162.000,00
08/11/00
Resex Chico Mendes 932.000,00
12/03/90
Resex do Cazumbá-Iracema 750.794,70
19/09/02
Resex Riozinho da Liberdade 225.000,00
17/02/02
AM Resex Auatí-Paraná 147.548,50
07/08/01
Resex Baixo Juruá 188.000,00
01/08/01
Resex do Lago do Capanã Grande 304.146,00
03/06/04
Resex do Rio Jutaí 275.532,88
16/07/02
Resex Médio Juruá 253.226,50
04/03/97
AP Resex Rio Cajari 501.000,00
12/12/90
MA Resex Ciriaco 7.523,00
20/05/92
Resex da Mata Grande 9.000,00
20/05/92
Resex de Cururupu 185.042,00
02/06/04
Resex Quilombo do Frechal 9.542,00
20/05/92
PA Resex Arióca-Pruanã 83.445,13
16/11/05
Resex Chocoaré-Mato Grosso 2.785,72
13/12/02
Resex Ipaú-Anilzinho 55.816,10
14/06/05
Resex Mãe Grande de Curuçá 37.062,09
13/12/02
Resex Mapuá 94.563,93
20/05/05
Resex Maracanã 30.018,88
13/12/02
Resex Marinha de Araí-Peroba 11.479,95
20/05/05
Resex Marinha de Caeté-Taperaçu 42.068,86
20/05/05
Resex Marinha de Gurupi-Piriá 74.081,81
20/05/05
Resex Marinha de Soure 27.463,58
22/11/01
Resex Marinha de Tracuateua 27.153,67
20/05/05
Resex Riozinho do Anfrísio 736.340,20
09/11/04
Resex São João da Ponta 3.203,24
13/12/02
Resex Tapajós Arapiuns 647.610,74
06/11/98
Resex Verde para Sempre 1.300.000,00
09/11/04
RO Resex Barreiro das Antas 106.248,47
07/08/01
Resex do Rio do Cautário 73.817,00
07/08/01
Resex do Rio Ouro Preto 204.583,00
13/03/90
Resex Lago do Cuniã 55.850,00
10/11/99
TO Resex do Extremo Norte do Tocantins 9.280,00
20/05/92
Coastal and AL Resex da Lagoa do Jequiá 10.203,90
21/09/01
Marine Zone
9
Resex - Extractivist Reserve is an area used by traditional extractivist populations, whose subsitence is Extractivist
based on extractivism and is complemented by agriculture and small-animal ranching. Their objective is to protect Reserves and
these populations’ ways of life and to ensure sustainable use of the site’s natural resources. Article 18 of Sustainable
Brazilian Law 9985/2000. Development
10
RDS - Sustainable Development Reserve is a natural area that is home to traditional populations whose subsistence Reserves
is based on sustainable systems for using natural resources, which were developed over generations and
adapted to the local ecological conditions, and which have a fundamental role in protecting nature and maintaining
biological diversity. Article 20 of Brazilian Law 9985/2000. 67
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Biome State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

Extractivist Reserve(Resex) 8.306.772,75
BA Resex da Baía do Iguape 8.117,00 11/ 08/00
Resex do Corumbau 90.000,00 21/ 09/00
CE Resex do Batoque 601,00 05/06/03
PI Resex do Delta do Parnaíba 27.000,00 16/11/00
RJ Resex do Arraial do Cabo 57.000,00 03/01/97
SC Resex do Pirajubaé 1.444,00 20/05/92
SP Resex do Mandira 1.178,90 13/12/02

Table 27 – Federal Sustainable Development Reserves assessed through the Rappam methodology,
per biome, state, area of extension (in hectares), and date of creation.

Biome State Protected Area Site Area (hectares) Date of Creation

Sustainable Development Reserve 64,735.00
Amazon PA Itatupã-Baquiá RDS 64,735.00 06/14/05

The Amazon biome corresponds to representativity of ecosystems that have been

8,111,227.95 hectares. In other words, it
corresponds to 98% of extractivist reserve
areas of 35 protected area sites. The state of
Pará has the greatest area – 3,173,093.90
hectares distributed among 15 extractivist
reserves. The only sustainable development
reserve is located in Pará and encompasses
an area of 64,735.00 hectares.
4.2.3.1 Biological and
Socioeconomic Importance
The 43 federal extractivist reserves and
the one sustainable development reserve
present high biological importance (73%) and
socioeconomic importance (72%). Among the
analysis elements pertaining to biological
importance, the following stand out:
suffering from significant reduction; presence
of key species; high biodiversity; process and
regimes of disturb to the natural diversity;
critical role in ecological landscape processes;
presence of species whose populations are
being reduced by different pressures; and
structural diversity. The socioeconomic
importance is highlighted by: the values for
the subsistence and sustainable use of natural
resources; benefits and services yielded by the
ecosystem to the communities; educational
and scientific value; and presence of animal
and plant species of socioeconomic
importance. Approximately 91% of the
protected area sites present high biological
importance, and 73% of them present high
socioeconomic importance (Graph 31 and
Table 28).

Extractivist
Reserves and
Sustainable
Development
Reserves

Graph 31– Biological and socioeconomic importance of federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable
68 Development Reserve.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Table 28 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of the biological and
socioeconomic importance of federal Extractivist Reserves and Sustainable Development
Reserve.

High (> 60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (< 40%)

Module Number of Number of Number of
% % %
Sites Sites Sites

Biological Importance 40 91% 3 7% 1 2%

Socioeconomic Importance 32 73% 11 25% 1 2%

4.2.3.2 Vulnerability to the sites; low incidence of law enforcement;

The federal extractivist reserves and
the sustainable development reserve present
average vulnerability (62%). The main aspects
that influence vulnerability are: the difficulty
in recruiting and maintaining staff; easy access
elevated market value of natural resources;
and the demands for vulnerable resources.
Twenty-one sites presented high vulnerability
(48%), 16 presented average vulnerability
(36%), and seven presented low vulnerability
(16%) scores (Graph 32 and Table 29).

Graph 32 – Vulnerability of federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable Development

Reserve.

Table 29 – Absolute frequency and percentage of protected areas per assessment of the vulnerability
of federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable Development Reserve.

High (> 60%) Average (40% a 60%) Low (< 40%)

Module Number of Number of Number of
% % %
Sites Sites Sites

Vulnerabilidade 21 48% 16 36% 7 16%

4.2.3.3 Pressures and Threats most frequent and presented the greatest Extractivist
tendency for growth over the last five years, Reserves and
Sustainable
Hunting, urban expansion, fishing and as well as the greatest probability of occurring Development
the negative aspects resulting from the over the next ten years in federal extractivist Reserves

presence of human populations are the most reserves and in the sustainable development
critical activities. Such activities were also the reserve (Table 30). 69
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Table 30 –Summary of analysis elements of activities that negatively impact federal Extractivist Reserves
and the Sustainable Development Reserve*.
Extent of Frequency Positive Positive
Extent of Frequency of
Pressure of Pressure Tendency of Probability of
Impacting Activity Threat and Threat and
and and Increased Occurrence as
> Average > Average
> Average >Average Pressure a Threat

Hunting + + + + + +
Urban Expansion + + + + + +
Fishing + + + + + +
Presence of Human Populations + + + + + +
External Influences + + + +
Conversion of Soil Use + + + + +
Lumbering + + +
Collection of Non-Wood Products + +
Construction of Infrastructure + +
Waste Disposal + +
Invasive Exotic Species + +
Fires due to anthropic influences + +
Pasture Lands + +
Semi-natural Processes + +
Tourism and Recreation +
Mining
The “+” sign is used when the element analyzed presents a value greater than the average attained in each
impacting activity for both pressures (activities that took place over the last five years) as well as for the threats
(activities that may take place within the next five years). The first two columns present the analysis of the extent
of pressures and threats. The third and fourth columns point to the frequency of occurrence of the impacting
activity in the protected area sites. The last two columns point to the tendency of increasing occurrence of
pressure and also if there is high probability for occurrence of the activity as a threat.

4.2.3.4 Effectiveness of Management Planning is the element that most contributes

to effectiveness of management (61%). The
The average effectiveness of remaining elements present low results:
management of extractivist reserves and the processes (31%); outputs (25%) and inputs
sustainable development reserve is of 35%. (23%) (Graph 33).

Extractivist
Reserves and
Sustainable
Development
Reserves

Graph 33 – Effectiveness of management of federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable

70 Development Reserve per management element and analysis module.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas
Modules pertaining to the objectives
and planning design of extractivist reserves and
the sustainable development reserve were the
ones that most contributed to the effectiveness
of management of this group of protected
areas, and both pertain to the management
planning element. Decision-making, legal
framework and existing resources for
communication and information also stood
out in relation to the other aspects. Among
the most critical modules are: human
resources; infrastructure; management
planning , research, assessment and
monitoring, all of which scored under 20%.
As regards the planning element
(Graph 34), only the item that analyzes if the
protected areas’ objectives are clearly stated
in the management plans, yielded critical
scores, as there is lack of management plans
for this set of protected area sites.
Graph 34 – Planning element for federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable Development Reserve,
per analysis module
The strongest Inputs (Graph 35) pertain
to the effective communication among and
within local communities. There is relative fund
raising capacity and allocation of these resources
in accordance with the protected area’s priorities
and objectives. All other elements are critical,
The existence of officially-acknowledged
legal instruments and the fair and effective
resolution of conflicts with the communities
strengthen the extractivist reserves and the
sustainable development reserve. On the
other hand, the insufficiency of human and
financial resources with which to enforce the
law and the legal situation of the land, weaken
these sites.
The location and connection with
other protected area sites and the design
are favorable for federal extractivist reserves
and the sustainable development reserve
to attain their objectives, as is the society’s
participation in the process for choosing,
delimiting and defining management
categories. On the other hand, the zoning
and use of surrounding land does not
foster proper management of protected
sites.
especially the insufficiency of human resources,
assessment of staff performance, workplace
conditions, means for processing data, funds that
existed in the past and long-term stability of
the financial perspective (all of which obtained
scores of under 10%). Extractivist
Reserves and
Sustainable
Development
Reserves
71
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Graph 35 – Inputs element of for federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable Development Reserve,
per analysis module.

As regards the Processes element the collaboration of partners. All aspects

(Graph 36), the decision-making module pertaining to planning management, research,
stands out as decisions were jointly-made with assessment and monitoring are more critical.
the community, transparent and counted on The lack of management plans stand out.

Graph 36 – Processes element for federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable Development
Reserve, per analysis module.
Extractivist
Reserves and Finally, with the exception of measures aspects are critical, especially the development
Sustainable
Development pertaining to outreach, threat prevention, and of measures for the recovery, implantation
Reserves
relationships with local communities, which and maintenance of infrastructure,
yielded average analysis results, most results professional training , and monitoring of
72 obtained were not satisfactory. All other results (Graph 37).
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Graph 37 – Outputs element for federal Extractivist Reserves and the Sustainable Development Reserve,
per analysis module.

Extractivist
Reserves and
Sustainable
Development
Reserves

73
 4.3 General Overview on the
Effectiveness of
Management of Federal
Protected Areas
Of the 246 protected areas that were
assessed, 32 (13%) present high effectiveness
of management, 125 (51%) average
effectiveness, and 125 (51%) low effectiveness
(Graph 38).
Graphs 39 and 40 respectively show
the number and percentage of protected area
sites per management category and
effectiveness of management. It can be noted
that a smaller number of protected area sites
present high rates of effectiveness in all
management categories (from 0% to 20%).
The average percentage of management
effectiveness varies between 27% and 46%
among categories, and the low percentage of
effectiveness varies between 40% and 66%.

Graph 38 – Number of federal protected area sites per rate of management effectiveness.

74
75
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

EE/RB PN/RVS APA/Arie Flona Resex/RDS

Graph 39 – Number of federal protected area sites per management category and rate of management
effectiveness.

Graph 40 – Percentage of federal protected area sites per rate of management effectiveness and groups
76 of management category.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Regardless of management category, effectiveness in all groups assessed (values

some standards can be observed in the
management cycles of federal protected areas.
The five sets or groups of protected areas have
similar rates of management effectiveness
(between 35% and 44%), and high biological
importance and inputs as the element that
most hinder protected areas management
(Table 31). Furthermore, the planning element
is that which most contributes to management
between 55% and 61%).
Although the products and services
generated depend on increased investment
in other management elements, the results
attained are worthy of further development
in order to foster improvement to the
management effectiveness of most
management categories (low results in four of
the five groups).

Table 31 – Summary of analysis elements of the context and management aspects of federal protected
areas, per groups of management category.

Groups of Management Category

Element Assessed
EE/RB PN/RVS APA/ARIE FN Resex/RDS
Biological Importance 79% 85% 76% 69% 73%
Context Socioeconomic Importance 48% 68% 69% 57% 72%
Vulnerability 56% 58% 63% 48% 62%
Planning 55% 55% 57% 55% 61%
Aspects of
the Inputs 35% 36% 34% 30% 23%
Management Processes 43% 47% 42% 42% 31%
Cycle
Outputs 41% 38% 32% 37% 25%
Management Effectiveness 43% 44% 41% 40% 35%

The Environmental Protection Areas,
Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest and the
Sustainable Development Reserves are the
most vulnerable categories of protected area
sites. Although the factors that yield
vulnerability were similar among all groups,
the easy access to sites that belong to these
groups favor the development of illegal
activities. Furthermore, these areas face
difficulty in recruiting and maintaining staff,
great demand for vulnerable resources, and
the high market value of their natural
resources. The difficulties in monitoring illegal
activities are common in four out of the five
sets of protected areas assessed, and the low
incidence of law enforcement is evident in
three of them (Table 32).
Hunting, presence of invasive exotic
species, external influences, and the negative
aspects resulting from the presence of human
populations were considered to be the most
critical pressures and threats. These activities
also presented the greatest tendency for
growth over the last five years, as well as the
greatest probability of occurring in upcoming
years, in three out of the five groups of
protected areas that were assessed.
Impacts pertaining to fishing more
intensely concern managers of ecological
stations, biological reserves, extractivist
reserves and sustainable development
reserves. Urban expansion is the factor that
most worries managers of environmental
protection areas, areas of relevant ecological
interest, extractivist reserves, and the
sustainable development reserve. Soil
conversion greatly concerns managers of
national parks, wildlife refuges, environmental
protection areas and areas of relevant
ecological interest. As extremely critical
impacts, which are present in all analysis
elements in their greatest intensity, are:
lumbering in national forests; construction
of infrastructure; and waste disposal in
environmental protection areas and areas of
relevant ecological interest.
As regards management analysis
itself, aspects pertaining to the protected
areas’ objectives, which are included in the
planning element, positively contribute to the 77
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

effectiveness of areas belonging to all groups infrastructure and outputs are critical in four
assessed. of the five groups assessed. It is worth noting
On the other hand, human resources, that analysis modules that obtained low scores
financial resources, and matters pertaining to are common to at least four groups. Such fact
research development, assessment and allows us to conclude that the problems
monitoring are critical throughout the entire pertaining to the management of federal
system, whereas management planning , protected area sites of Brazil are systemic.
Table 32 – Consolidation of vulnerability, pressures, threats and management effectiveness elements
per different groups of management category.
RB and EE PN and RVS APA and ARIE Flona Resex and RDS
Vulnerability Easy access Easy access Easy access Easy access Difficulty in
(values above the favoring favoring favoring favoring the recruiting and
group’s average) illegal activities illegal activities illegal activities development of maintaining staff
illegal activities
Difficulty in Difficulty in Great demand Difficulty in maintaining staff
recruiting and recruiting and for vulnerable recruiting and favoring illegal
maintaining staff maintaining resources maintaining staff activities
staff
Market value Difficulty in Difficulty in Market value of Low incidence of
of natural monitoring illegal recruiting and natural resources law enforcement
resources activities maintaining
Great demand for Market value of
Great demand staff
Great demand vulnerable resources natural resources
for vulnerable for vulnerable Difficulty in
resources Difficulty in Great demand for
resources monitoring illegal
monitoring illegal vulnerable resources
Difficulty in Low incidence of activities
activities
monitoring illegal law enforcement
activities Market value Low incidence of
Market value
of natural law enforcement
of natural
resources resources

Pressures and Hunting Hunting Construction of Presence of Hunting

Threats (most Infrastructure invasive exotic
Presence of Conversion of Urban expansion
critical and most species
invasive exotic soil use Conversion of
frequent Fishing
species soil use Lumbering
activities, the Presence of
greatest tendency Negative aspects
External invasive exotic Waste disposal External influences
for growth over resulting from the
influences species
the last five Urban expansion presence of human
years, as well as Fishing External populations
Negative aspects
the greatest influences
resulting from the
probability of
occurring over Presence of human presence of human
populations populations
the next years).
Management Objectives Objectives Decision-making Objectives Objectives
Effectiveness Area design and
Decision-making Decision-making Objectives
(modules with planning
results above 60%)
Management Human resources Human resources Financial resources Human resources Human resources
Effectiveness
(modules with Financial resources Infrastructure Human resources Financial resources Infrastructure
results under Management planning Infrastructure Management planning
40%) Management Financial resources
Research, assessment Management Research,
planning Pesquisa,
and monitoring planning assessment and
Outputs monitoring
Research, Research, Research, assessment
assessment and assessment and Infrastructure and monitoring Outputs
monitoring monitoring
78 Outputs Financial resources
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas
4.4 Protected Areas System
The protected areas system is assessed
through questions regarding system design,
policies pertaining to protected areas and to
the current political context (Graph 41).
In general, the design module is part
of effectiveness assessment as it verifies if the
objectives of protected areas, conservation of
species, ecosystems and local cultures are being
fulfilled. The assessment of this module yielded
average results (47%) and thus positively
accentuated the pertinence of the system’s
management categories. Thus, it can be stated
that the different roles of the different
categories observe the principles of biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources. One of the least positive aspects
regarding system design is the inadequate
protection of vulnerable species that, among
other factors, points to the unsatisfactory
connection among areas as the conservation
of species may demand the maintenance of
migration standards and reproduction and
feeding areas throughout protected segments.
Another aspect that obtained low assessment
results is ecosystemic integrity, thus pointing
to the need to include a greater variety of
natural landscape processes and standards in
the protected areas system.
The policies pertaining to protected
areas are critical and involve system planning
and other management practices (23%). Such
policies hinder the attainment of national
conservation objectives as the extension of
protected areas is considered to be inadequate
for the conservation of biodiversity and
sociocultural aspects. There is little
commitment to a viable network of protected
areas. Research on biological diversity is
insufficient, as is gap assessment to identify
species that are inadequately protected. There
is need for investment in professional training
programs. The management of protected
areas is deficient. The strategies geared toward
the sustainability of natural resources and the
development of traditional populations are
defective. System management needs
improvement to its organizational structure.
Finally, environmental legislation that
is complementary to legislation specifically
directed at protected areas contribute to the
attainment of system objectives, as mentioned
in the political context analysis, a module that
also obtained low results (23%).
Average results were obtained by the
national policies that favor society ’s
participation and dialog among governmental
and non-governmental institutions and the civil
society. On the other hand, there are not
enough commitments and financial resources
for the effective management of protected
areas. Conservation objectives are not
included in all aspects of development policies.
Inter-institutional communication is defective.
There are serious problems regarding effective
law enforcement. National policies pertaining
to environmental education and to the
management and conservation of natural
resources need to be improved. There is not
enough professional training of public
employees of the various environmental
sectors.
In this manner, such systemic
problems negatively influence the
management of protected areas in the
country. Acknowledgement of these problems
points to the need for greater articulation and
development of a strategic inter-sectorial plan,
if the conservation of biodiversity and
sociocultural aspects are to be at least partially
reached through an effective system for the
management of protected areas within the
country.
79
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Graph 41 – Analysis on the Federal Protected Areas System, per module and question.

80
 5R ECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for improvement Brazil. In coherence with the most critical

to management effectiveness of protected management elements, measures pertaining
areas were made during six workshops: three to the improvement of inputs were most
focusing on the Amazon biome, and three frequent and the ones that were most
focused on the remaining protected areas of prioritized.
Table 33 – Number of measures raised during the planning workshops for the Federal Protected Areas
System.
Recommendations Recommendations
for other biomes and for the Amazon
regions Biome
Total Total
number Measures number Measures
Elementos Modules of (%) of (%)
measures measures
Planning Objectives 7 3,9% 15
6,5% 6,5%
Legal framework 17 12,2% 32
13,7% 13,7%
Area design and planning 5 2,9% 23
5,8% 5,8%
Total for Planning 29 19,0% 70 26,0%
Inputs Human resources 24 18,6% 56
19,4% 19,4%
Communication and information 13 9,5% 42
7,4% 7,4%
Infrastructure 12 7,2% 22
7,6% 7,6%
Financial resources 21 17,6% 44
14,0% 14,0%
Total for inputs 70 52,9% 164 48,4%
Processes Management planning 22 16,1% 42
13,6% 13,6%
Decision-making 9 6,9% 21
7,8% 7,8%
Research, assessment and monitoring 8 5,1% 29
4,2% 4,2%
Total for Processes 39 28,1% 92 25,6%
Grand total 138 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
326

As shown in Table 33, nearly half of
all measures and recommendations pertain
to inputs (52.9% for Brazil and 48.4% for the
Amazon biome). Of these, the most frequently
mentioned items during all workshops pertain
to human and financial resources. Measures
pertaining to management planning
(management plans and other management
tools) were also numerous, as were those
pertaining to the legal framework (legalization,
fiscalization, delimitation of land). The most
frequently mentioned items pertain to area
design and planning. The measures that were
mentioned regard implementation of the
buffer zone and ways to form the protected
81
areas mosaics.
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas
In a consolidated manner, the
following measures, which pertain to the
inputs observed in the federal system of
protected areas, were considered: investments
in infrastructure, equipment and maintenance
for the improvement of work conditions;
establishment of human resource policies that
foster permanence of staff in remote areas;
staff rotation and definition of the minimum
number of persons for the management of
protected areas; and the development of
82
mechanisms for raising funds in a way that
ensures predictability and constancy in the
decentralization of financial resources.
Despite the various planning practices
and management processes having been
appointed as strong aspects of management,
they are also noteworthy due to their
frequency and prioritization, demarcation
and legalization of protected areas land, as
well as to their elaboration of management
plans.
 6F INAL REMARKS
Analysis of the effectiveness of
management of federal protected area sites is a
pioneer initiative of IBAMA, in partnership with
the WWF-Brasil. The results obtained through
application of the Rapid Assessment and
Prioritization of Protected Area Management
Method – Rappam – yield an important tool
with which to subsidize stakeholders in their
planning for future actions with the objective of
ensuring better management of the Federal
Protected Area System.
This work is also the most complete
diagnostic ever carried out on the Federal
Protected Area System and closes a cycle of
improvement on the management of
protected areas administered by the
Ibama.
Furthermore, the assessment
provides the newly created Chico Mendes
Institute for Biodiversity Conservation an
instrument that can be used in its definition
of programs, priority measures and resource
allocation. Above all, the diagnostic opens
way for the possibility of a continuous process
for monitoring and assessing system
management.
83
 7B IBLIOGRAPHY

ERVIN, J. Metodologia do WWF para avaliação rápida e a priorização do manejo de unidades

de conservação (Rappam). São Paulo, SP, WWF-Brasil. 2003(a). 70 p. (Tradução WWF-Brasil.).

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

HOCKINGS, M.; STOLTON, S.; DUDLEY, N. Evaluating Effectiveness – A Framework for

Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Areas
Guidelines Series 6. Swizertland: University of Cardiff and IUCN, 2000. 121 p.

IBAMA. Ecossistemas Brasileiros. Moacyr Bueno Arruda (org.). Brasília: Edições Ibama, 2001.
49 p.

WWF-Brasil; Programa de Preservação da Mata Atlântica; Fundação Florestal; Instituto Florestal.

Rappam - Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management:
implementação da avaliação rápida e priorização do manejo de unidades de conservação do
Instituto Florestal e da Fundação Florestal de São Paulo. 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, 2004. 42 p.

85
 8T ECHNICAL TEAM

Consultants
Cristina Aragão Onaga
Maria Auxiliadora Drumond
WWF-Brasil
Marisete Inês Santin Catapan
Marco Aurélio Rodrigues

Assistant
Blanche Levenhagen
Jacqueline Rutkowski

Support
Ana Cíntia Guazzelli
Fernando Vasconcelos
José Maria de Freitas Fernandes

Ibama11
Diget - Mônica Borges G. Assad
Direc - Pedro Eymard Camelo Melo
Diref - Ana Lúcia Chagas
Disam - Paulo Oliveira

Focal Points
Amarílio Coutinho Fernandes
Carlos Augusto de Alencar Pinheiro
Daniel Rios de Magalhães Borges
Eduardo Junqueira Santos
Emerson Austin Nepomuceno Marcondes
Fernando Siqueira
Maria Fernanda Scian Meneghin
Maria Iolita Bampi
Jorge Moritzen
Kátia Cury Roselli
Rodrigo Rodrigues
Sebastião Santos da Silva

11
These participants were responsible for adequating the Rappam questionnaire for its application in 87
federal protected area sites.
 9P ARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCESS
Focal Points – Direc
Angélica de Souza Griesinger
Carlos Henrique Fernandes
Kátia Cury Roselli
Leide Jane Abrantes
Luiz Roberto Bezerra
Training Workshop
Adriana Maria de Jesus
Ana Lúcia Chagas
Andréa Curi Zarattini
Angélica de Souza Griesinger
Carlos Henrique Fernandes
Danielle Dias Danaga
Eduardo Junqueira Santos
Eugênia Vitória Silva Medeiros
Fátima Pires de A. Oliveira
Guadalupe Vivekananda
Leide Jane V. Abrantes
Luciano Petribu
Luiz Roberto Bezerra
Marco Aurélio Rodrigues
Maria Helena Reinhardt
Maria Iolita Bampi
Mônica Assad
Paulo Henrique M. Carneiro
Rosa Lia G. Castro
Process Application Workshop
Phase 1 – Amazon
Workshop held in Belém
Admilson Stephano
Amarílio Coutinho Fernandes
Carlos Alberto de Souza Braga
Carlos Augusto de Alencar Pinheiro
Christoph Bernhard Jaster
Eduardo Gomes
Emerson A. N. Marcondes
Emmanuel Souza
Euvaldo Pereira da Silva
Evane Alves Lisboa
Fabiano Gumier Costa
Fábio Bakker Isaías
Giovanna Palazzi
Girolamo Trecanni
José Francis M. da Trindade
Júlio César Pinho
Kátia Cury Roselli
Kátia Regina Aroucha Barros
Leo Bento
Luis Carlos Araújo de Farias (Altemar)
Manoel Carlos dos Santos
Marcelo Creão
Marcos da Silva Cunha
Marisete Inês Santin Catapan
Mary Jane Costa Fonseca
Nelson Almeida Santa Brígida
Patrícia Greco Campos
Paulo Amorim da Silva
Pedro Alves Vieira
Raimundo Façanha Guedes
Rodrigo Rodrigues
Valdemil da Gama Medeiros
Viviane Lasmar Monte
Willem Andries Kempers
Workshop held in Manaus
Anael Jacob
Andréa Von der Heyde Lamberts
Anivaldo Chaves
Antônio César Melita
Antônio Galdino de Souza
Antônio Lisboa
Cláudio H. Oliveira Ramos
Cristina Ísis da Silva
Daniel Rios M. Borges
Darcy J. Santos
Fábio de Mello Osolins
Felipe Orlando Marron de Souza
Fernando B. Pinto Gouvêa
Francisco Pinto dos Santos
Geomar da Silva Carneiro
Inara Auxiliadora Rocha Santos
Jaime Tadeu França
Jully Anne Araújo Brizolla
Kátia Cury Roselli
Lauri Corso
Lauro Henrique de Paiva Júnior
Leila Sena
Leonard Schumm
Marcelo Chassut Bresolin
Marcelo Bastos Françozo
Maria Fernanda Scian Meneghin
Maria Goretti M. Pinto
Mário Douglas Fortini de Oliveira
Marisete Inês Santin Catapan
Mônia Laura Faria Fernandes
Rogério Eliseu Egewarth
Silvia M. Alves
Valdir Ribeiro da Cruz
Workshop held in Rio Branco
Ana Rafaela D' Amico
Arlindo Gomes Filho
Camila Garcia Gomes
Carla Cristina de Castro Guaitanele
Carlos Francisco Augusto Gadelha
Carlos Renato de Azevedo
Cibele Lima Barreto
Cynira Alves de França Lopes
Erni Drombrowski
Felipe Cruz Mendonça
Fernando Miguel Tristão Fernandes
Francisco de Assis Teixeira
Gerson Meirelles Filho
89
Hebert Rondon
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Jorge Henrique Moritzen Darlan Alcântara de Pádua

José Alberto R. Rodrigues Dulcilene S. A. Lima
José Caputi Eduardo Barcellos
José Maria dos Santos Eduardo Junqueira Santos
Kátia Cury Roselli Ely Eneas Florentino de Sousa
Laura Cristina França Ferraz Gilson Luiz Souto Mota
Lílian Letícia Mitiko Hangae Grasiely Costa
Luciano de Souza Malanski Hevila Peres da Cruz
Luiz Sérgio Ferreira Martins Isa Dorian
Marcelo Bastos Françozo Ivan Salzo
Mariana Fava Chead Jackson, João A. Madeira
Marisete Inês Santin Catapan João E. Vieira
Nanci Rodrigues Joaquim Maia Neto
Poliana de Almeida Francis Jorge Luís Vieira Santos
Ricardo Bernhardt Jose Augusto Ferraz de Lima
Rodrigo Rodrigues Jose Fernando S. Rebello
Rogério Vargas Motta José Wilkingston P. Landim
Sandro Leonardo Alves Keiko Fueta Pelizzano
Sebastião Santos Silva Marcelo Afonso
Thiago Beraldo Márcia Regina de Alencar
Verônica Passos Maria Helena Reinhardt
Ridalvo Batista de Araújo
Phase 2 - Brazil Rogério Osar
Direc Valdomiro P. Neves
Workshop for the Coastal and Marine Zone
Workshops for the Atlantic Forest and Campos
Amuri Sena Motta
Sulinos Biomes
Apoema C. Figueirôa
Augusto Cesar Coelho Alfredo T. de Oliveira
Breno Herrera Andréa Zarattini
Carla Marcon Ângelo de Lima Francisco
Carlos Fernando Pires de Souza Apolônio N. de Sousa Rodrigues
Cecil Maya Carlos A.F. de Giovanni
Clarismundo Benfica do Nascimento
Diana Floriani
Dalton Marques Novaes
Fernando Duarte Acioli
Deonir G. Zimmermann
Gisela Carvalho
Dione A. Corte
José Osmar Fonteles
Eduardo Junqueira Santos
Juarez Scolfoni Eliton de A. Lima
Juliana C. Fukuda Eridiane Lopes da Silva
Julio de Andrade Ernesto B. Viveiros de Castro
Marcelo B. Pessanha Estevão J. Marchesini Fonseca
Márcio Barragawa Eurípedes P. Júnior
Marcos Cesar Silva Fábio Adonis
Maria Elisa M. Vieira Fernando Roberto Sivelli
Maria Elizabeth Gabriel Fernando Rezende
Maria Tereza Melo Gabriela Leonhardt
Mariana A. O. Sousa Guadalupe Vivekananda
Mario L. M. Pereira Helaelson de Almeida
Maurizélia Brito Isaac Simão Neto
Ney Cantarutti Ivaldo M. da Silva
Ney P. França Jailton José F. Fernandes
Osmar Correa João Arthur Soccal Seyffartjh
Patrícia. P. Serafini José Maria Assis Poubel
Rodrigo A. Peixoto José Olímpio Vargas
Selma C. Ribeiro José Paulo Fitarelli
Sylvia Chade Leonardo G. M. Rocha
Thiago Straus Rabello Leide Jane V. Abrantes
Letícia Domingues Brandão
Workshop for the Caatinga, Cerrado and Luis Henrique dos S. Teixeira
Pantanal Biomes Luiz F. D. Faraco
Caren Dalmolin Luiz A. G. Brutto
Christianne B. Soares Marcos César da Silva
90 Maria Catarina C. Cabral
Cristiana Castro Lima Aguiar
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Marco A. Rodrigues Disam

Maria de Lourdes Figueira Nilson F. Pantoja Sousa
Maridélia Liliany Z. Cardoso
Marcus Machado Gomes
Milene Maia Oberlaender
Carlos Antonio S. Oliveira
Paulo César Cruz
Ronaldo Freitas Oliveira
Rodrigo Varella Mayerhofer
Águeda Maria Garcia Coelho
Rodrigo Bacelar Mello José Maria Barbosa da Silva
Sandro Roberto da Silva Pereira Deolindo Moura Neto
Valdineide B. de Santana Maria Lúcia Mota Miranda
Waldomiro de Paula Lopes Valtency Negrão da Silva
Walt Silva Sobrinho João Prado
Whitson José da Costa Júnior Genoína Battistini de Pinho
Walter Behr
Participants in the Planning
Diref Workshops
Workshop held in Curitiba Phase 1 – Amazon
Antonio César Caetano Direc
Artur José Soligo Ana Rafaela D'Amico
Caio P. S. de Medeiros Andréa Lamberts
Carlos Alberto Stutz Antonio Galdino
Carlos J. R. da Silva Antonio Mauro G. Anjos
Cláudio B. Ordine Bruno C. Pereira
Ewerton Ferraz Caio Pamplona
Gustavo Nabrzecki Christoph B. Jaster
Homero de O. Salazar Filho Daniel Rios de M. Borges
Luís Cláudio Lande Lot Érica Tieko Fujhaki
Remi Osvino Wetqzeh Evane A. Lisboa
Ricardo Augusto Ulhoa Fábio Osolins
Fernando A. di Franco
Workshop held in João Pessoa Gabriella Carmelita Cardoso
Adalberto Ianuzzi José Ponciano Dias
Carla Marcon Juliano Rodrigues Oliveira
Damião Dantas Kátia Cury Roselli
Fernando Cela Lauri Corsa
Leonardo T. S. Cândido Leo Bento
Manoel Silveira Leonard Schumm
Miriam Ferreira Leonardo Brasil M. Nunes
Paulo Cezar Reys Bastos Luiz Felipe de Luca de Souza
Paulo Roberto F. de Medeiros Luiz Sérgio Ferreira Martins
Verônica Maria Figueiredo Lima Mara Patrícia Pais
Verusca Cavalcante Marcelo Chassot Bresolin
Márcio Ricardo Ferla
Vinícius Garcia Mattei
Marcos da S. Cunha
Workshop held in the Passa Quatro National Patrícia Pinha
Forest Paulo A. C. Flores
Alfredo Antônio Neto Poliana de A. Francis
Ana Chagas Samuel dos S. Niemam
Dalson Willian Chain Sebastião S. Silva
Edgard de Souza Andrade Thaís Farias Rodrigues
Evandro Gonçalves Chaves Thiago Beraldo
José Delcídio Duarte Vieira Valdir Ribeiro da Cruz
José Nivaldo de M. Machado
Diref
José Olimpio Vargas
Leony Wand-Delrey de Oliveira Adimar Amaral
Marcel Redling Moreno Amarílio Coutinho Fernandes
Anivaldo Libério Chaves
Paulo César Martins Ferreira
Carlos Augusto de Alencar
Rosa Lia G. Castro
Carlos Renato de Azevedo 91
Rosângela Ribeiro Silva
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas
Cláudio Augusto Pereira
Cynira Alves de França Lopes
Emmanuel Soares P. de Souza
Fabiano Gumier Costa
Felipe Cruz Mendonça
Fernando Miguel Tristão Fernandes
Francisco Corrêa de Souza
Geomar S. Carneiro
Giovanna Palazzi
Laura C. F. Ferraz
Najja Mª Santos Guimarães
Viviane Lasmar Pacheco
Disam
Arlindo Gomes Filho
Bruno Gueiros
Cláudio H. Oliveira Ramos
Daniel G. B. Penteado
Erni Dombrowski
Errolflynn de Souza Paixão
Euvaldo P. da Silva
Fernando Siqueira
Francisco de Assis Teixeira
Gerson Meireles
Gustavo Henrique de Oliveira
José Carlos Silva
José Maria dos Santos
Júlio César Gomes Pinho
Jully Anne A. Brizolla
Kátia Regina Aroucha Barros
Lauri Corso
Lourival Romano
Márcio Lima de Matos
Marco Antônio Cunha Solimões
Maria Fernanda Scian Meneghin
Maria Goretti de M. Pinto
Mary Jane Costa Fonseca
Mônia L. F. Fernandes
Mônica Pinheiro
Pablo Saldo
Paulo Amorim da Silva
Paulo Oliveira
Paulo Sérgio Nascimento
Priscila P. Amaral
Raimundo F. Souza
Rodrigo Rodrigues
Rosária Sena Cardoso Farias
Sílvia Maria Alves Carlos
Vilani Alves da Costa
Waldemar V. Filho
Phase 2 – Other Biomes and Regions
Direc
Alessandro Marcuzzi
Angélica de Souza Griesinger
Ângelo Lima Francisco
Beatriz N. Gomes
Breno Herrera
Carla Marcon
92
Carlos Henrique Fernandes
Daniel Rios de M. Borges
Dione A. Araujo Corte
Eridiane L. Silva
Ernesto B. Viveiros de Castro
Eugenia de Medeiros
Fátima Pires de A. Oliveira
Isaac Simão Neto
José Augusto Ferraz de Lima
João Arthur Soccal Seyffarth
Joaquim Maria Neto
Juliana Cristina Fukuda
Leide Jane V. Abrantes
Luiz Fernando Guimarães Brutto
Luiz Francisco D. Faraco
Manoel Alessandro Machado de Araújo
Marcelo Bastos Françozo
Maria Iolita Bampi
Maria Tereza Q. Melo
Pedro Eymard
Ricardo Araújo
Ricardo Castelli
Selma C. Ribeiro
Wajdi R. Mishmish
Wilson Luiz Souto Mota
Diref
Aléxis Oliveira
Alfredo A. Neto
Dalson W. Chain
Damião Dantas
Divina Paula B. Oliveira
Edgard de Souza Andrade Jr.
Edenice B. A. Souza
Elda R. Oliveira
Fernando C. Pinto
Gustavo Nabrzecki
Juares Andrew
Leony W.Oliveira
Luís Claúdio L. Lot
Manoel Rodrigues Silveira Neto
Maria Cláudia Camurça
Miriam A. C. Ferreira
Paulo Cezar Reys Bastos
Paulo Roberto F. de Medeiros
Disam
Carlos Antonio S. Oliveira
João Prado
Marco Aurélio Rodrigues
Marcus Machado Gomes
Maria Lúcia Mota Miranda
Marisete Catapan
Nilson F. P. Sousa
Rodrigo Rodrigues
Ronaldo Freitas Oliveira
Valtency Negrão da Silva
 A NNEX

RAPPAM Questionnaire Applied for Assessement of Management Effectiveness

of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

Profile
a) Name of protected area site
b) Date on which PA was created
c) Date on which PA was established
d) Area of the PA
e) Full name of the person responsible for providing the information
f) Title of the person responsible for providing the information
g) Time of office of the person responsible for providing the information in the PA
h) Date on which questionnaire was completed
i) Financial budget of the last year
j) General objective of the PA
k) Specific management objectives
l) Critical measures for management of the PA
m) Number of Ibama employees working in the PA: permanent and temporary
n) Number of persons from third-party contracts
o) Number of persons from formal partnerships established

Pressures and Threats

• Hunting
• Collection on non-wood products
• Construction of infrastructure
• Conversion of soil use
• Waste disposal
• Invasive exotic species
• Urban expansion
• Lumbering
• Fires due to anthropic reasons
• External influences
• Mining
• Pasture lands
• Fishing
• Presence of human populations
• Semi-natural processes
• Tourism and recreation
Context
3. Biological Importance
a. The PA contains a high number of species that are on the Brazilian or state lists of endangered
species.
93
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

b. The PA contains a high number of species whose populations are decreasing as a result of several
pressures.
c. The PA has relatively high levels of biodiversity.
d. The PA has a relatively high level of endemism.
e. The PA plays a vital role in the landscape.
f. The PA greatly contributes to the representativeness of the EPA system.
g. The PA has minimum viable populations of key species.
h. The PA’s structural diversity is coherent with historic standards.
i. The PA includes ecosystems whose scope has been greatly decreasing.
j. The PA conserves a significant diversity of natural processes and regimes of natural disturbs.
4. Socioeconomic Importance
a. The PA is an important source of employment for the community.
b. The local communities depend upon natural resources of the PA for subsistence.
c. The PA provides opportunity for community development through the sustainable use of natural
resources.
d. The PA has religious or spiritual importance.
e. The PA has special aesthetic characteristics.
f. The PA has plants species that have high social, cultural or economic importance.
g. The PA has animal species that have high social, cultural or economic importance.
h. The PA has high recreational value.
i. The PA contributes with services or significant benefits of the ecosystem to the communities.
j. The PA has high educational and/or scientific value.

5. Vulnerability
a. It is difficult to monitor illegal activities in the PA.
b. Law enforcement in the region is not strong.
c. The PA is suffering from civil unrest and/or political instability.
d. Cultural practices, beliefs and the traditional uses are conflicting with the PA’s objectives.
e. The market value of resources from the PA is high.
f. The protected area is easily accessible for illegal activities.
g. There is a great demand for vulnerable resources of the PA.
h. The head of the PA site suffers pressure to manage or exploit the PA’s natural resources in an
undue manner.
i. Recruiting and maintaining staff is difficult.

Effectiveness of Management
Planning
6. Objectives
a. The PA’s objectives include biodiversity protection and conservation.
b. The specific objectives related to biodiversity are clearly stated in the management plan.
c. The policies and action plans are coherent with the PA’s objectives.
d. The PA’s employees and administrators fulfill the PA’s objectives and policies.
e. The local communities support the PA’s global objectives.

7. Legal framework
a. The PA is legally grounded.
b. The situation of the land is regular.
c. Demarcation of frontiers is appropriate for the clear identification of the site’s limits.
d. Financial resources are appropriate so that critical measures pertaining to implementation of the
law can be carried out.
e. Conflicts with the local communities are settled in a just and effective manner.

8. Area design and planning

94 a. Location of the PA is coherent with its objectives.
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

b. PA model and configuration optimize biodiversity conservation and/or socio-cultural and economic
aspects.
c. The PA’s zoning system is appropriate for PA objectives to be attained.
d. Use of surrounding land fosters effective management of PA.
e. The PA is associated with another protected area site.
f. Definition of PA design and category was a participatory process.

Inputs
9. Human resources
a. There are sufficient human resources for the effective management of the PA.
b. Employees are apt to carry out the critical management activities.
c. There are training and development opportunities that are appropriate to employee needs.
d. There is period evaluation of employee performance and progress concerning objectives.
e. Labor conditions are sufficient so as to maintain high-quality staff.

10. Communication and information

a. There are adequate means for communication between the PA, management, boards of directors
and other sites.
b. The existing ecological and socioeconomic data are appropriate for management planning.
c. There are appropriate means for the collection of new data.
d. There are appropriate systems for storing, processing and analyzing data.
e. There is effective communication between the PA and local communities.
f. There is effective communication among local communities.

11. Infrastructure
a. The transportation infrastructure is appropriate for carrying out critical management measures.
b. Field equipment is appropriate for carrying out critical management measures.
c. PA facilities are appropriate for carrying out critical management measures.
d. Infrastructure for visitors is appropriate for visitor use.
e. Maintenance and care for the equipment and infrastructure is appropriate to ensure their long-
term use.

12. Financial resources

a. Financial resources of the past 5 years were enough to carry out critical management measures.
b. Financial resources are foreseen for the next 5 years to carry out critical management measures.
c. The PA’s financial administration practices foster its effective management.
d. Resource allocation is in accordance with the PA’s priorities and objectives.
e. Long-term financial plan for the protected area is stable.
f. The protected area has capacity to raise external funds.

13. Management planning

a. There is an encompassing and current management plan.
b. There is an encompassing inventory of the natural and cultural resources.
c. There is an analysis and also a strategy with which to face the threats and pressures in the
protected area site.
d. There is a detailed work plan that identifies specific goals so that management objectives can be
attained.
e. Results of research, monitoring and traditional knowledge are routinely included in the planning.

14. Decision-making process

a. Internal organization of the protected area is clearly noticeable.
b. Decision-making of PA management is transparent.
c. PA staff regularly collaborates with partners, local communities and other organizations.
95
 Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

d. Local communities participate in the decisions that will affect them.

e. There is effective communication between PA staff and manager.
f. There is an implemented and effective council.
15. Research, assessment and monitoring
a. Impact of legal PA activities is precisely monitored and registered.
b. Impact of illegal PA activities is precisely monitored and registered.
c. Research on key ecological matters is coherent with the PA’s needs.
d. Research on key socioeconomic matters is coherent with the PA’s needs.
e. PA staff has regular access to recent research and scientific orientation.
f. Critical needs for research and monitoring are identified and prioritized.

16. Outputs
a. Management plan.
b. Recovery of areas and mitigatory measures.
c. Management of wildlife or wildlife habitat, and of natural resources.
d. Education and outreach to society.
e. Control of visitors and tourists.
f. Infrastructure implantation and maintenance.
g. Prevention and detection of threats and law enforcement.
h. Supervision and evaluation of staff performance.
i. Training and development of human resources.
j. Organization, training and development of local communities and councils.
k. Development of research in the PA.
l. Monitoring of results.

Protected Area System

17. Design of the protected area system
a. The Protected Area System adequately represents the entire diversity of the region’s ecosystems.
b. The Protected Area System adequately protects species from extinction or population reduction.
c. The Protected Area System primarily consists of healthy ecosystems.
d. Areas of high value for the conservation of key species are systematically protected.
e. Areas of high value for the sustainable use of natural resources are systematically protected.
f. The Protected Area System maintains natural landscape processes.
g. The Protected Area System includes the protection of transition areas (ecotones) between
ecosystems.
h. The Protected Area System includes all successor stages.
i. Areas of high biodiversity are systematically protected.
j. Areas of high endemism are systematically protected.
k. Design and configuration of the Protected Area System optimize biodiversity conservation.
l. The Protected Area System allows for maintenance of traditional culture and populations.
m. The Protected Area System ensures protection of relevant cultural characteristics.
n. Categories that exist in the System are pertinent.

18. Protected area policies

a. National PA policies reflect the view, goals and objectives of the Protected Area System.
b. The protected lands’ area is adequate for the conservation of natural landscape processes.
c. There is clear commitment with the protection of a viable and representative network of protected
area sites.
d. There is an encompassing inventory of the region’s biological diversity.
e. There is an evaluation of the historic variability of the region’s ecosystems.
f. There are recovery goals for ecosystems that are sub-represented and/or that are greatly reduced.
g. There is continued research on critical matters pertaining to the protected areas.
h. The Protected Area System is periodically reviewed so that gaps or weaknesses are identified
96 (ex. gap analyses).
Management Effectiveness of Brazil’s Federal Protected Areas

i. There is an effective training and professional development plan for protected area staff.
j. There is effective professional development training for stakeholders involved in the management
process.
k. Protected area management is routinely assessed.
l. There are guidelines, goals and strategies geared toward the sustainability of natural resources,
both within and around the protected area site.
m. There are guidelines, goals and strategies pertaining to the socio-cultural aspects and that are
committed with the development of traditional populations both within and around the protected
area site.
n. The organizational structure for the Protected Area System fosters Effectiveness of Management.

19. Political Context

a. The legal framework pertaining to the protected areas complement their objectives and foster
Effectiveness of Management.
b. There is enough commitment and financial resources for the effective management of Protected
Area System.
c. Environmental protection goals are included in all aspects of the development policy.
d. There is high level of inter-institutional communication.
e. There is effective enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to protected areas at all levels.
f. National policies call for ample dissemination of environmental education at all levels.
g. National policies foster sustainable management of natural resources.
h. National policies foster a set of mechanisms for natural resource conservation.
i. There is adequate training on the environmental area for all governmental staff at all levels.

97
 Jalapão National Park / GO
IBAMA image bank - Ricardo Maia

Fernando de Noronha
National Park / PE
Xingu River / PA Banco de Imagens - Ibama
WWF-Brasil/Alex Silveira

Jalapão National Park / TO

Emas National Park / GO
IBAMA image bank
IBAMA image bank Ricardo Maia

Desespero Falls – Tumucumaque

Guaraqueçaba Ecological Station / PR National Park / AP

Miguel von Behr WWF-Brasil/Zig Koch

Lençóis Maranhenses
Chapada dos Veadeiros
National Park / MA
National Park / GO
Álvaro D’Antona Allan Crema

Sloth
Floresta Amazônica / AM
IBAMA image bank
Ricardo Maia IBAMA image bank

Riozinho do Anfrísio Extractivist

APA Cavernas do Peruaçu / MG
Reserve / AP
Banco de Imagens - Ibama WWF-Brasil/Clóvis Miranda

Maps elaborated by: Ana Paula Rocha Medeiros and Bernardo Ferreira Alves de Brito