The Protected Areas Assets: Case Study in Wetlands
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37002/biobrasil.v9i2.774Keywords:
Resources and values, management, conservation unitsAbstract
Protected áreas (PAs) are globally recognized as the main mechanism to ensure the conservation of natural systems and their biodiversity, namely in high conservation priority areas such as wetlands. Although PAs are essential to secure support for the protection of iconic landscapes, threatened species and ecosystem services, they often have important social and economic costs that are increasingly difficult to justify in periods of economic and food insecurity. A recently proposed conceptual model to support PA management (re-)defines these areas as a system of biophysical, human, infrastructure, institutional and cultural assets. According to this model, PAs can be managed and planned to generate different forms of value for society, thus contributing to increase their social and political resilience and facilitating the identification of potential investments that can help to identify and capture value by multiple sectors of the society. In this study, we apply the PA asset framework to characterize the presence of assets in Brazilian National parks located in wetlands through the systematic revision of their management plans. Specifically, we identify which assets are present and most frequently identified in these areas. Our results suggest that the number of identified assets in management plans is limited, focusing mostly on biophysical assets associated with biodiversity conservation (e.g. species of conservation importance, economically valuable species) and the infrastructure necessary for park management and maintenance activities (e.g. permanent workers and managers, management infrastructure, electricity and vehicles, and planning and zoning strategies). On the other hand, given the national and global socio-cultural importance of wetlands, a lack of recognition of human and cultural assets suggests that their inclusion in management plans may benefit their value generating potential. In summary, we argue that identifying PA assets and revealing their benefits and values, which may be neglected in management plans, offers an innovative approach for managers to explore new investment and management opportunities for value generation in PAs.
Downloads
References
Amano, T.; Székely, T.; Sandel, B.; Nagy, S.; Mundkur, T.; Langendoen, T.; Blanco, D.; Soykan, C. & Sutherland, W.J. 2018. Successful conservation of global waterbird populations depends on effective governance. Nature, 553: 199-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25139
Bragagnolo, C.; Gamarra, N.C.; Malhado, A.C.M. & Ladle, R.J. 2016. Proposta metodológica para padronização dos estudos de atitudes em comunidades adjacentes à s unidades de conservação de proteção integral no Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira, 1: 190-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v6i1.543
Brasil, 1996. Decreto nº 1.905, de 16 de maio de 1996. Promulga a Convenção sobre Zonas Úmidas de Importância Internacional, especialmente como Habitat de Aves Aquáticas, conhecida como Convenção de Ramsar, de 02 de fevereiro de 1971. Diário Oficial da União. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ ccivil_03/decreto/1996/D1905.htm. (Acesso em 20/01/2018).
Brasil, 2000. Lei nº 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, § 1º, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituição Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985. htm. (Acesso em 10/01/2015).
Brasil, 2017. Instrução Normativa nº 7/2017/Gabin/ICMBio, de 21 de dezembro de 2017. Estabelece diretrizes e procedimentos para elaboração e revisão de planos de manejo de unidades de conservação da natureza federais. Diário Oficial da União. Disponível em: http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/ stories/portarias/intrucao_normativa_07_2017.pdf. (Acesso em 21/10/2018).
Bardin, L. 1977. Análise de Conteúdo. Edições 70, Lda. 226p. Berelson, B. 1952. Content Analysis in Communications Research. The Free Press. 220p.
Bernard, E.; Penna, L.A.O. & Araújo, E. 2014. Downgrading, downsizing, degazettement, and reclassification of protected areas in Brazil. Conservation Biology, 28: 1523-1739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12298
Blare, T. & Donovan, J. 2018. Building value chains for indigenous fruits: lessons from camu-camu in Peru. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33: 6-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000181
Börner, J.; Baylis, K.; Corbera, E.; Ezzine-de-Blas, D.; Honey-Rosés, J.; Persson, U.M. & Wunder, S. 2017. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development, 96: 359-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020
Caldecott, B. & Jepson, P. 2014. Towards a framework for Protected Area asset management. Smith Sch. Enterp. Environ. Univ. Oxford. 14p.
Campos-Silva, J.V. & Peres, C.A. 2016. Community-based management induces rapid recovery of a high value tropical freshwater fishery. Scientific Reports, 6: 34745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34745
Campos-Silva, J.V.; Peres, C. A.; Antunes, A.P.; Valsecchi, J. & Pezzuti, J. 2017. Community-based population recovery of overexploited Amazonian wildlife. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 15(4): 266-270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.08.004
Chaikumbung, M.; Doucouliagos, H. & Scarborough, H. 2016. The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis. Ecological Economics, 124: 164-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.022
Clarkson, B.R.; Ausseil, A.G.E. & Gerbeaux, P. 2013. Wetland ecosystem services. In: Dymond J.R. (ed.) Ecosystem services in New Zealand: conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, 192-202.
Correia, R.A.; Malhado, A.C.M.; Lins, L.; Gamarra, N.C.; Bonfim, W.A.G.; Valencia-Aguilar, A.; Bragagnolo, C.; Jepson, P. & Ladle, R.J. 2016. The scientific value of Amazonian protected areas. Biodiversity Conservation, 25: 1503-1513. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1122-x
Correia, R.A.; Jepson, P.; Malhado, A.C.M. & Ladle, R.J. 2018. Culturomic assessment of Brazilian protected areas: Exploring a novel index of protected area visibility. Ecological Indicators, 85: 165-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.033
Ferraro, P.J.; Hanauer, M.M. & Sims, K.R. 2011. Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108: 13913-13918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011529108
Ferraro, P.J. & Hanauer, M.M. 2014. Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine how protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111: 4332-4337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307712111
Foley, J.A. 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science, 309(5734): 570-574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772
Gamarra, N.C. 2017. O valor das áreas protegidas para além da conservação da natureza: identificação de assets em unidades de conservação federais. Dissertação (Mestrado em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos Trópicos). Universidade Federal de Alagoas. 124p.
Gamarra, N.C.; Correia, R.A.; Bragagnolo, C.; Campos-Silva, J.V.; Jepson, P.R.; Ladle, R.J. & Malhado, A.C.M. 2019. Are Protected Areas undervalued? An asset-based analysis of Brazilian Protected Area Management Plans. Journal of Environmental Management, 249: 109347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109347
ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade), 2018. O que fazemos: Parque Nacional Marinho de Abrolhos. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade. Disponível em: http://www.icmbio.gov.br/parnaabrolhos/o-que-fazemos.html. Acesso em: 20/10/2018.
Junk, W.J.; Piedade, M.T.F.; Lourival, R.; Wittmann, F.; Kandus, P.; Lacerda, L.D.; Bozelli, R.L.; Esteves, F.A.; Cunha, C.N.; Maltchik,L.; Schöngart, J.; Schaeffer-Novelli,Y. & Agostinho, A.A. 2013. Brazilian wetlandas: their definition, delineation, and classification, for research, sustainable management, and protection. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 4(1): 5-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2386
Jepson, P.R.; Caldecott, B.; Schmitt, S.F.; Carvalho, S.H.C.; Correia, R.A. & Gamarra, N. 2017. Protected area asset stewardship. Biological Conservation, 212: 183-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.032
Kleijn, D.; Cherkaoui, I.; Goedhart, P.W.; van der Hout, J. & Lammertsma, D. 2014. Waterbirds increase more rapidly in Ramsar-designated wetlands than in unprotected wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(2): 289-298 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12193
Ladle, R.J.; Jepson, P. & Gillson, L. 2011. Social Values and Conservation Biogeography, p. 13-30. In: Ladle, R.J. & Whittaker, R.J. (eds.) Conservation biogeography. Oxford University Press. 301p. Machlis, G. & McNutt, M. 2015. Parks for science. Science, 348: 1291-1291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444390001.ch2
Mascia, M.B.; Pailler, S.; Krithivasan, R.; Roshchanka, V.; Burns, D.; Mlotha, M.J. Murray, D.R. & Peng, N. 2014. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, 1900-2010. Biological Conservation, 169: 355-361. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: wetlands and water. Synthesis reports. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 80p. Disponível em: https://www. millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf. (Acesso em 22/01/2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.021
Miller, D.C.; Agrawal, A. & Roberts, J.T. 2013. Biodiversity, governance, and the allocation of international aid for conservation. Conservation Letters, 6(1): 12-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00270.x
MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente), 2015. Recomendação CNZU n° 7 de 11 de junho de 2015. Dispõe sobre a Definição de Áreas Úmidas Brasileiras e sobre o Sistema de classificação destas Áreas. Comitê Nacional de Zonas Úmidas (CNZU).
MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente), 2016. Áreas Úmidas - Convenção de Ramsar. (Acesso em 25/01/2018).
Oliveira, A.P.C. & Bernard, E. 2017. The financial needs vs. the realities of in situ conservation: An analysis of federal funding for protected areas in Brazil's Caatinga. Biotropica, 49: 745-752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12456
ONU (Organização das Nações Unidas), 2005. The millennium development goals report. 75p. Disponível em: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20 (July%201).pdf. (Acesso em 21/10/2018).
Pack, S.M.; Ferreira, M.N.; Krithivasan, R.; Murrow, J.; Bernard, E. & Mascia, M.B. 2016. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in the Amazon. Biological Conservation, 197: 32-39. Papayannis, T. & Pritchard, D.E. 2008. Culture and wetlands - a Ramsar guidance document, Ramsar Convention, Gland, Switzerland. 78p. Disponível em: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/ library/cop10_culture_group_e.pdf. (Acesso em 21/10/2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.004
Ramsar, 2009a. Factsheet 9: Recreation & Tourism. Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Disponível em: http://archive.ramsar.org/pdf/info/services_09_e.pdf. (Acesso em 21/10/2018). Ramsar, 2009b. Factsheet 8: Cultural values. Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Disponível em: http://archive.ramsar.org/pdf/info/services_08_e.pdf. (Acesso em 21/10/2018).
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2011. Ramsar's Liquid Assets. 40 years of the Convention on Wetlands. In Ramsar Convention Secretariate, Switzerland. Disponível em: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/ default/files/documents/pdf/Ramsar40_booklet/Ramsar_LiquidAssets_E.pdf. Acesso em: 21/10/2018.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2013. The Ramsar Convention Manual: a guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). 6th ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. 112p.
Ricciardi, A. & Rasmussen, J.B. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology, 13: 220-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98380.x
Russi, D.; ten Brink, P.; Farmer, A.; Badura, T.; Coates, D.; Förster, J.; Kumar, R. & Davidson, N. 2013. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. IEEP, London and Brussels; Ramsar Secretariat, Gland. 78p. Sala, O.E. et al. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science, 287: 1770-1774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770
Swenson, J.J.; Carter, C.E.; Domec, J.C. & Delgado, C.I. 2011. Gold mining in the Peruvian amazon: Global prices, deforestation, and mercury imports. PLoS One, 6(4): e18875 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018875
Symes, W.S.; Rao, M.; Mascia, M.B. & Carrasco, L.R. 2016. Why do we lose protected areas? Factors influencing protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement in the tropics and subtropics. Global Change Biology, 22: 656-665. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13089
Vucetich, J.A.; Bruskotter, J.T. & Nelson, M.P. 2015. Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. Conservation Biology, 29: 321-332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12464
Watson, J.E.M.; Dudley, N.; Segan, D.B. & Hockings, M. 2014. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515: 67-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors retain copyright to the published works, which may be reused and disseminated in other media, provided that the original publication source (Biodiversidade Brasileira journal) is cited.
