integrated management approach, to the inclusion of integrated management measures in concrete domestic decision-making procedures. In Brazil, to date, the
comprehensive package of laws and policies formally integrating all levels of
government (regional, state and federal) has been met with incipient implementation.
In a detailed study on the effectiveness of the Brazilian domestic marine environmental policies, Jablonski and Filet have found that the more incisive laws in relation
to ocean and coastal management are in the form of resolutions and not of decrees or
acts, thus hinting at the presumption of a weak system by those required to abide by
the resolutions and recommendations.
79
Besides, the Brazilian ocean strategy has been criticized thus far for being
excessively concentrated in the Executive branch of government, which does not
facilitate the effective regulation of marine issues at the national level.
80 Besides,
insufficient dialogue at the national level usually jeopardizes the selection of national
interests which will make it to oceans policies—not interests picked in hermitically
isolated offices in the Brazilian capital, located more than 1000 km away from the
coast, by technicians with little contact to the populations affected by governmental
measures. After all, “if one does not know where one is sailing, no wind is
favorable”.
In addition to that, effectiveness of marine governance is questioned by the
deficient flow of financial resources to ground-force agencies, so as to keep an
integrated ocean policy functioning with decent results.
81 Finally, the current institutional marine governance architecture tasked with implementing the national
policies, programs, plans and actions is considered unfit for the job. Scholars have
urged for immediate institutional reforms, in order to reduce number of leaderships
that unnecessarily bureaucratize the entire process, as well as to the update the tasks
of certain institutions towards more dialogue and better coordination between
authorities responsible for the ocean governance.
That panoramic insight onto the Brazilian marine environmental governance (its
policies, plans, programs, actions and institutions/agencies) paves the way for a
closer look at the Brazilian plan to delineate the outer limits of its continental shelf
and how such a plan is deeply informed by the rather recent concept of “Brazilian
Blue Amazon”, or the Brazilian maritime regions. An important part of this “Amazon” is composed of the seabed under national jurisdiction, and a considerable focus
of the “rhetorics” of the Blue Amazon was directed at raising awareness to the plan
79 Jablonski and Filet (2008), p. 541.
80 Barros-Platiau et al. (2015), p. 162.
81 Just as an example of the underfunding of domestic enforcement agencies and the monitoring of
protected areas, Brazil invests the least in Conservation Units (R$ 4.43/ha) in a comparison with
other biodiverse-rich countries. In the UNEP Report “Contribution of Brazilian Conservation Units
to the National Economy”, carried out in 2011, investments per hectare were analyzed in the
maintenance of protected area systems in: The United States, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Argentina and Brazil. Of those, Argentina, the second-worst ranked,
displayed an investment almost five times bigger than that of Brazil in the maintenance of protected
areas (R$ 21.37/ha). See Medeiros et al. (2011), p. 10.
9.1 Marine Environmental Governance in Brazil: Policies and Institutions
269
comprehensive package of laws and policies formally integrating all levels of
government (regional, state and federal) has been met with incipient implementation.
In a detailed study on the effectiveness of the Brazilian domestic marine environmental policies, Jablonski and Filet have found that the more incisive laws in relation
to ocean and coastal management are in the form of resolutions and not of decrees or
acts, thus hinting at the presumption of a weak system by those required to abide by
the resolutions and recommendations.
79
Besides, the Brazilian ocean strategy has been criticized thus far for being
excessively concentrated in the Executive branch of government, which does not
facilitate the effective regulation of marine issues at the national level.
80 Besides,
insufficient dialogue at the national level usually jeopardizes the selection of national
interests which will make it to oceans policies—not interests picked in hermitically
isolated offices in the Brazilian capital, located more than 1000 km away from the
coast, by technicians with little contact to the populations affected by governmental
measures. After all, “if one does not know where one is sailing, no wind is
favorable”.
In addition to that, effectiveness of marine governance is questioned by the
deficient flow of financial resources to ground-force agencies, so as to keep an
integrated ocean policy functioning with decent results.
81 Finally, the current institutional marine governance architecture tasked with implementing the national
policies, programs, plans and actions is considered unfit for the job. Scholars have
urged for immediate institutional reforms, in order to reduce number of leaderships
that unnecessarily bureaucratize the entire process, as well as to the update the tasks
of certain institutions towards more dialogue and better coordination between
authorities responsible for the ocean governance.
That panoramic insight onto the Brazilian marine environmental governance (its
policies, plans, programs, actions and institutions/agencies) paves the way for a
closer look at the Brazilian plan to delineate the outer limits of its continental shelf
and how such a plan is deeply informed by the rather recent concept of “Brazilian
Blue Amazon”, or the Brazilian maritime regions. An important part of this “Amazon” is composed of the seabed under national jurisdiction, and a considerable focus
of the “rhetorics” of the Blue Amazon was directed at raising awareness to the plan
79 Jablonski and Filet (2008), p. 541.
80 Barros-Platiau et al. (2015), p. 162.
81 Just as an example of the underfunding of domestic enforcement agencies and the monitoring of
protected areas, Brazil invests the least in Conservation Units (R$ 4.43/ha) in a comparison with
other biodiverse-rich countries. In the UNEP Report “Contribution of Brazilian Conservation Units
to the National Economy”, carried out in 2011, investments per hectare were analyzed in the
maintenance of protected area systems in: The United States, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Argentina and Brazil. Of those, Argentina, the second-worst ranked,
displayed an investment almost five times bigger than that of Brazil in the maintenance of protected
areas (R$ 21.37/ha). See Medeiros et al. (2011), p. 10.
9.1 Marine Environmental Governance in Brazil: Policies and Institutions
269