In order to enhance the Fisheries Act’s effectivity, enforcement jurisdiction is to be
exercised in combination with the Environmental Crimes Act—9.605/98,
94 so as to
have practices and activities damaging to fisheries and the marine environment
punished pursuant to the Environmental Crimes Act and its regulatory decrees.
95
The federal enforcing agency has been, since 1989, IBAMA—institute responsible for regulating and enforcing the conservation of marine biodiversity both on
land, in internal waters, and marine areas. Prior to IBAMA, the Department for the
Development of Fisheries was responsible for managing fisheries, but the organ
lacked an environmental perspective. Upon the creation of IBAMA, social and
economic perspectives were combined to a previously weak environmental rationale. Great institutional change took place in 2009, upon the creation of the Ministry
of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MPA) and the passing of the National Policy for the
Sustainable Development of Aquaculture and Fisheries (PNDSAP). At that moment,
fisheries management was given new objectives and the entire division of domestic
competences was revised, the main change being the creation of a joint management
scheme, in which the MPA and the Ministry of the Environment began to conjointly
draft and publish norms on fisheries.
In 2011, adoption of Complementary Law no. 140/11, on the administrative
competences to manage the environment, brought about more changes—this time
regarding competences’ arrangement between the Union, States and Municipalities.
With respect to fisheries management, member-states are chiefly responsible for
controlling fisheries within the limits of their jurisdictions, even though federal and
municipal bodies may be cumulatively called into action. Finally, in December
2015, the MPA was extinguished and all of its competences were fully transferred
to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Supply, as an attempt to reconcile environmental conservation and
production needs, which nonetheless maintained the joint management arrangement
with the MMA—having IBAMA and ICMBio as its enforcement organs.
Regrettably, the analysis of IBAMA’s statistics on enforcement operations was
extremely difficult, due to the Institute’s outdated and incomplete website. The
section on biodiversity, for instance, had just one single active link on fisheries,
96
while the last report with statistical data concerning fisheries available at the website
dates from 2007. Such a lack of transparency hardens the work of monitoring NGOs
and other civil society initiatives, thus contributing to the overall low implementation rate of domestic legislation on fisheries’ conservation. And that is one of the
easiest challenges ahead of Brazil, as the next items will show.
94 Fisheries Act, Art. 33.
95 Apart from those Acts, it should be reminded that regulations on this regard are supported by the
REVIMAR Plan, mentioned previously, and its objectives to evaluate, monitor and promote the
conservation of marine biodiversity with an ecosystem approach, aiming at establishing scientific
bases and integrated actions capable of subsidizing conservation policies and actions and shared
management strategies for the sustainable use of living resources.
96 See IBAMA’s website: http://ibama.gov.br/biodiversidade-aquatica/gestao-pesqueira/estatisticapesqueira. Accessed 12 April 2020.
10.2 How Far Has Brazil Gone?
329
exercised in combination with the Environmental Crimes Act—9.605/98,
94 so as to
have practices and activities damaging to fisheries and the marine environment
punished pursuant to the Environmental Crimes Act and its regulatory decrees.
95
The federal enforcing agency has been, since 1989, IBAMA—institute responsible for regulating and enforcing the conservation of marine biodiversity both on
land, in internal waters, and marine areas. Prior to IBAMA, the Department for the
Development of Fisheries was responsible for managing fisheries, but the organ
lacked an environmental perspective. Upon the creation of IBAMA, social and
economic perspectives were combined to a previously weak environmental rationale. Great institutional change took place in 2009, upon the creation of the Ministry
of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MPA) and the passing of the National Policy for the
Sustainable Development of Aquaculture and Fisheries (PNDSAP). At that moment,
fisheries management was given new objectives and the entire division of domestic
competences was revised, the main change being the creation of a joint management
scheme, in which the MPA and the Ministry of the Environment began to conjointly
draft and publish norms on fisheries.
In 2011, adoption of Complementary Law no. 140/11, on the administrative
competences to manage the environment, brought about more changes—this time
regarding competences’ arrangement between the Union, States and Municipalities.
With respect to fisheries management, member-states are chiefly responsible for
controlling fisheries within the limits of their jurisdictions, even though federal and
municipal bodies may be cumulatively called into action. Finally, in December
2015, the MPA was extinguished and all of its competences were fully transferred
to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Supply, as an attempt to reconcile environmental conservation and
production needs, which nonetheless maintained the joint management arrangement
with the MMA—having IBAMA and ICMBio as its enforcement organs.
Regrettably, the analysis of IBAMA’s statistics on enforcement operations was
extremely difficult, due to the Institute’s outdated and incomplete website. The
section on biodiversity, for instance, had just one single active link on fisheries,
96
while the last report with statistical data concerning fisheries available at the website
dates from 2007. Such a lack of transparency hardens the work of monitoring NGOs
and other civil society initiatives, thus contributing to the overall low implementation rate of domestic legislation on fisheries’ conservation. And that is one of the
easiest challenges ahead of Brazil, as the next items will show.
94 Fisheries Act, Art. 33.
95 Apart from those Acts, it should be reminded that regulations on this regard are supported by the
REVIMAR Plan, mentioned previously, and its objectives to evaluate, monitor and promote the
conservation of marine biodiversity with an ecosystem approach, aiming at establishing scientific
bases and integrated actions capable of subsidizing conservation policies and actions and shared
management strategies for the sustainable use of living resources.
96 See IBAMA’s website: http://ibama.gov.br/biodiversidade-aquatica/gestao-pesqueira/estatisticapesqueira. Accessed 12 April 2020.
10.2 How Far Has Brazil Gone?
329