PHILIP M. FEARNSIDE
The Brazilian system of protected areas has evolved significantly in the last three decades. Protected areas were classified between the categories of “direct” and “indirect” use, the former being for parks and reserves without a resident population living in them.
In 2000, the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC) was enacted (Law nº 9985/2000), but the “regulation” process to establish the system in practice lasted until 2002.
The SNUC changed the classification of conservation units to areas of “integral protection” and “sustainable use”. The “sustainable use” category includes National Forests (FLONAs) for timber forest management, extractive reserves (RESEX) for rubber tappers, nut collectors and other traditional non-timber forest product harvesting groups, and Sustainable Development Reserves (RDS) which is a category of state reserve that includes the local populations of fishermen and small riverside farmers. A controversial aspect is the inclusion of “Environmental Protection Areas” (APAs), a category that allows for many harmful activities and may even include urban areas. This category allows large areas to be “painted green” on the map without much real protection.
Full Protection Areas include National Parks (PARNAs), ecological stations and biological reserves. Different categories of protected areas have different levels of success in preventing deforestation, with federal areas performing better than state areas, and strictly protected areas performing better than sustainable use areas. [1, 2].
Note that effectiveness in preventing deforestation is not the same as effectiveness in preventing forest degradation by processes such as logging and forest fires. Indigenous areas, for example, generally have high effectiveness in resisting deforestation, but their effectiveness against degradation is much lower. Forest degradation is fast becoming a major destroyer of environmental services in the Amazon [3-6].
The creation of new conservation units has changed considerably, from full protection to the category of sustainable use. The political ease of creating sustainable use areas is much greater, because the creation of strictly protected areas usually requires the resettlement of a resident population. Resettlement has historically been marked by social injustice and broken promises about compensation and programs to support the displaced population (eg, [7]), although programs for protected areas aim to do better (eg, [8]).
In the sustainable use category, people on reserves often gain greater security against eviction by more powerful actors and against the loss of natural resources to external actors, such as logging companies and commercial fishing boats. Various other forms of benefits, such as the Bolsa Floresta program in the State of Amazonas, also make it more attractive to be living within a sustainable use area. [9]. This generates political support for the creation of more of these areas.
The creation of protected areas quickly becomes unfeasible when human occupation advances in the forest. The relative ease of creating sustainable use areas makes this the most logical way to achieve some of the necessary protection ahead of the advancing frontier. The Brazilian Government’s massive plans for infrastructure, such as roads and dams, can be expected to increase migration to many potential areas for the creation of reserves, making any plans for protection unfeasible.
Indigenous Land of the Yawanawa in Acre. (Photo: Odair Leal)
The future of indigenous lands is fundamental for the maintenance of biodiversity in the Amazon. Indigenous lands are not “conservation units”, included in the SNUC, but are a type of “protected area”. Indigenous lands are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, while federal conservation units are under the Instituto Chico Mendes de Biodiversidade (ICMBio) or, in the case of national forests, under the Brazilian Forest Service (SFB), which are part of the Ministry of the Environment. State conservation units are under the corresponding bodies of state governments.
Indigenous lands have a better history than conservation units in inhibiting deforestation, and in many parts of the deforestation arc, the only significant areas of remaining natural forests are in indigenous lands. [10-12]. However, indigenous lands are not immune from deforestation, and it cannot be assumed that indigenous peoples will continue to perform their valuable role in maintaining environmental services to be “pocketed for free” by the rest of society. [13, 14].
GRADES
[1] Vitel, CSMN; Fearnside, PM & Graça, PMLA 2009. Analysis of the inhibition of deforestation by protected areas in the Southwest part of the Deforestation Arc. P. 6377-6384. In: Epiphanio, JCN & Galvão, LS (Eds.). Anais XIV Brazilian Symposium on Remote Sensing, Natal, Brazil 2009 . National Institute for Space Research (INPE), São José dos Campos, SP. Available at: http://sbsr.dpi.inpe.br/col/dpi.inpe.br/[email protected] /2008/11.13.14.42/doc/6377-6384.pdf
[2] Ferreira, LV, Venticinque, E. & de Almeida, SS 2005. Deforestation in the Amazon and the importance of protected areas. Advanced Studies 19(53): 1-10.
[3] Asner, G.; Knapp, D.; Broadbent, E.; Oliveira, P.; Keller, M. & Silva, J. 2005. Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. science 310: 480-482.
[4] Foley, JA; Asner, GP; Costa, MH; Coe, MT; DeFries, R.; Gibbs, HK; Howard, EA; Olson, S.; Patz, J.; Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P. 2007. Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(1): 25-32.
[5] Merry, F; Soares-Filho, B.; Nepstad, D.; Amacher, G. & Rodrigues, H. 2009. Balancing conservation and economic sustainability: The future of the Amazon timber Industry. Environmental Management 44: 395-407.
[6] Nepstad, DC; Carvalho, G.; Barros, AC; Alencar, A.; Capobianco, JP; Bishop, L.; Moutinho, P.; Lefebyre, P.; Silva, Jr., UL & Prins, E. 2001. Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 395-407.
[7] Fearnside, PM 1999. Social impacts of Brazil’s Tucuruí Dam. Environmental Management 24(4): 483-495. doi: 10.1007/s002679900248
[8] World Bank. 2002. Populations and protected areas in the ARPA project. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA 7 p.
[9] Viana, V.; Tezza, J.; Solidade, V.; Marostica, S.; Salviati, V. & Soares, A. 2013. Impacts of the Bolsa Floresta Program: A Preliminary Assessment. 2nd Edition. Amazonas Sustainable Foundation (FAS), Manaus, AM,. 30 p. Available in:
[10] Nepstad, DC; Schwartzman, S.; Bamberger, B.; Santilli, M.; Ray, D.; Schlesinger, P.; Lefebvre, R.; Alencar, A.; Prinz, E.; Fiske, G. & Rolla, A. 2006. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20:65-73.
[11] Schwartzman, S.; Moreira, A. & Nepstad, D. 2000. Rethinking tropical forest conservation: Perils in parks. Conservation Biology 14: 1351-1357.
[12] Schwartzman, S.; Moreira, A. & Nepstad, D. 2000. Arguing tropical forest conservation: People versus parks. Conservation Biology 14: 1370-1374.
[13] Fearnside, PM 2005. Indigenous peoples as providers of environmental services in Amazonia: Warning signs from Mato Grosso. P. 187-198. In: A. Hall (Ed.) Global Impact, Local Action: New Environmental Policy in Latin America , University of London, School of Advanced Studies, Institute for the Study of the Americas, London, UK. 321 p.
[14] This is an updated partial translation of Fearnside, PM 2014. Conservation research in Brazilian Amazonia and its contribution to biodiversity maintenance and sustainable use of tropical forests. P. 12-27. In: 1st Conference on Biodiversity in the Congo Basin, 6-10 June 2014, Kisangani, Democratic Republic of Congo . Consortium Congo 2010, Université de Kisangani, Kisangani, Democratic Republic of Congo. 221 p. The author’s research is funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (proc. 304020/2010-9; 573810/2008-7), by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (FAPEAM) (proc. 708565). ) and the National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA) (PRJ1).
Read too:
Research on conservation in the Amazon 1: series summary Research on conservation in the Amazon 2: conservation versus destruction in the Amazon
Research on conservation in the Amazon 3: the Forest Code and the change in political power Research on conservation in the Amazon 4: opportunism versus scientific prioritization Amazon Conservation Research 5: Planned Reservation Choices
Research on conservation in the Amazon 7: weakness of parks and reserves Research on conservation in the Amazon 8: recovery of degraded areas versus forest protection
P hilip M. Fearnside he received his doctorate at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan (USA) and is a researcher at the National Institute for Research in the Amazon (Inpa), in Manaus (AM) since 1978. Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, he also coordinates the INCT (National Institute of Science and Technology) of the Environmental Services of the Amazon. He received the Nobel Peace Prize by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007. He has more than 500 scientific publications and more than 200 dissemination texts of his authorship that are available through
