Marine Biome (PNCMar).
158 To embrace complicity, in context, does not mean that
domestic legal and policy frameworks should be unnecessarily tortuous. In fact, a
certain degree of harmony among the policies and laws ought to exist, if the overall
governance is to be effective. A too complex ocean governance system is likely to
lead to internal conflicts of formal competence, as well as to material contradiction,
consequences which are to be avoided by every policy- and law-maker.
Regarding the Brazilian Blue Amazon, environmental conservation efforts are
not left aside in theorization efforts of Brazilian political strategists, though it is also
not given much of a relevance either. Overall, there are praises and criticisms to be
made to the “Brazilian ocean strategy”. Predominantly, the national policies
(in particular the PNRM) have been serving the interests of the Brazilian society.
They are responsible for initiating an ongoing process which has lasted for almost
40 years, expected to continue for many years more. Much has been achieved, but
there is still much work to be done.
Besides, there is strong need for Brazilian authorities to improve domestic
coordination within such a complex web of plans and programs, which is expected
to become difficult by the day, thus adding more pressure to the work of the CIRM.
Another obstacle to effective policies is posed by recent budgetary cuts to environmental agencies, including those tasked with monitoring the oceans. Despite the
afore-mentioned marine riches under Brazilian jurisdiction, it is hardly disputable
that insufficient funds to marine scientific research will hamper increased knowledge
of the shelf and harden the drafting of environmentally sound exploration and
exploitation strategies.
In addition to that, one should warn against the lack of or insufficient follow-up
reports on the actions and objectives set out in each Action set out in different
PSRMs, as REMPLAC or REVIMAR. The CIRM’s website is not updated, as of
April 2020, and several Actions contain several years-old reports.
159 The same
situation was identified at the IBAMA website with respect to statistics on fisheries
off Brazilian waters, the latest having been published in 2007.
160 That situation is
beyond worrisome, what brings to surface yet another challenge to Brazilian marine
environmental governance efforts. Communication and dialogue between public
158 The National Policy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Brazilian Marine Biome is
currently under discussion in the Brazilian Parliament, under the proposed Bill no. 6.969/2013. The
draft bill recognizes that “the oceans are suffering the impact of human action, as overfishing,
pollution and acidification” and closes with the objective of “providing the country the ability to
respond to climate change and ocean acidification providing mitigation measures and adaptation”.
That document, if passed by the Parliament, will be proof of Brazil’s concern with climate change
impacts on the marine environment, and represents a significant step towards special legislation on
key threats to ocean health off the Brazilian coast.
159 Navigation on the CIRM website is far from intuitive, with important actions and plans (such as
the REMPLAC, BIOMAR and others) lacking follow-up reports and info on results or impacts of
each measure. Available at: https://www.marinha.mil.br/secirm/ Accessed 12 April 2020.
160 The criticism formulated herein may be confirmed at the following webpage: https://www.
ibama.gov.br/biodiversidade-aquatica/gestao-pesqueira/estatistica-pesqueira.
Accessed
12 April 2020.
9.3 Partial Conclusions
293
158 To embrace complicity, in context, does not mean that
domestic legal and policy frameworks should be unnecessarily tortuous. In fact, a
certain degree of harmony among the policies and laws ought to exist, if the overall
governance is to be effective. A too complex ocean governance system is likely to
lead to internal conflicts of formal competence, as well as to material contradiction,
consequences which are to be avoided by every policy- and law-maker.
Regarding the Brazilian Blue Amazon, environmental conservation efforts are
not left aside in theorization efforts of Brazilian political strategists, though it is also
not given much of a relevance either. Overall, there are praises and criticisms to be
made to the “Brazilian ocean strategy”. Predominantly, the national policies
(in particular the PNRM) have been serving the interests of the Brazilian society.
They are responsible for initiating an ongoing process which has lasted for almost
40 years, expected to continue for many years more. Much has been achieved, but
there is still much work to be done.
Besides, there is strong need for Brazilian authorities to improve domestic
coordination within such a complex web of plans and programs, which is expected
to become difficult by the day, thus adding more pressure to the work of the CIRM.
Another obstacle to effective policies is posed by recent budgetary cuts to environmental agencies, including those tasked with monitoring the oceans. Despite the
afore-mentioned marine riches under Brazilian jurisdiction, it is hardly disputable
that insufficient funds to marine scientific research will hamper increased knowledge
of the shelf and harden the drafting of environmentally sound exploration and
exploitation strategies.
In addition to that, one should warn against the lack of or insufficient follow-up
reports on the actions and objectives set out in each Action set out in different
PSRMs, as REMPLAC or REVIMAR. The CIRM’s website is not updated, as of
April 2020, and several Actions contain several years-old reports.
159 The same
situation was identified at the IBAMA website with respect to statistics on fisheries
off Brazilian waters, the latest having been published in 2007.
160 That situation is
beyond worrisome, what brings to surface yet another challenge to Brazilian marine
environmental governance efforts. Communication and dialogue between public
158 The National Policy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Brazilian Marine Biome is
currently under discussion in the Brazilian Parliament, under the proposed Bill no. 6.969/2013. The
draft bill recognizes that “the oceans are suffering the impact of human action, as overfishing,
pollution and acidification” and closes with the objective of “providing the country the ability to
respond to climate change and ocean acidification providing mitigation measures and adaptation”.
That document, if passed by the Parliament, will be proof of Brazil’s concern with climate change
impacts on the marine environment, and represents a significant step towards special legislation on
key threats to ocean health off the Brazilian coast.
159 Navigation on the CIRM website is far from intuitive, with important actions and plans (such as
the REMPLAC, BIOMAR and others) lacking follow-up reports and info on results or impacts of
each measure. Available at: https://www.marinha.mil.br/secirm/ Accessed 12 April 2020.
160 The criticism formulated herein may be confirmed at the following webpage: https://www.
ibama.gov.br/biodiversidade-aquatica/gestao-pesqueira/estatistica-pesqueira.
Accessed
12 April 2020.
9.3 Partial Conclusions
293