achieved. Resort to marine spatial planning and the designation of area-based tools
for the protection of the marine environment must come hand-in-hand with the
ample and collaborative participation of all interested stakeholders. If not so, resistance to the MPAs and disrespect of protective measures are to be expected by the
industry and individuals. In fact, due to lack of information, creating MPAs may be
often seen as an obstacle to fishing and, therefore, to the national socioeconomic
development. What opposers usually ignore is the key role of marine protected areas
and their importance for fish reproduction, including the replenishment of stocks of
the most consumed species. The phenomenon is a sort of “overflow”, in which fish
stocks located in protected areas grow and migrate to adjacent areas where fishermen
can catch them freely. Thus, fishermen are soon to benefit from the establishment
of MPAs.
Moreover, the creation of marine protected areas, if not followed by rigorous
management plans, are doomed to fail on their main goal, environmental conservation. Yet, the marketing effect triggered by them is considerable and explains why
the Brazilian government has opted to design such massive MPAs far from Brazil’s
mainland. Moreover, considerable problems concerning the management of such
areas emerge: it is not enough to just declare them on paper, one must enforce
legislation in the protected areas—a problem known to virtually every country in the
world. In fact, before the designation of the two massive MPAs mentioned supra,
whose efficacy is quite questionable, there was little attention within the Brazilian
MPAs “mosaic” to large marine ecosystems.
105
Overall, implementation of the Brazilian national plans—established in the
PSRMs—has been deficient. The evaluation of the sustainable potential of living
resources, as intended by the REVIMAR Action, foresaw the execution of twelve
Marine Management Units. Due to budgetary difficulties and vessels shortage, only
two were implemented: the sardine and lobster management unit; and the tunas one.
Other aspects that seem to hinder implementation are the different views and
perceptions of the ministries’ representatives interested in this action, in particular
the MMA, through IBAMA and ICMBio, and the Ministry for Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
106 After all, the reconciliation between conservation and production
is not as easy as one would have thought. The shared competences on fisheries
management between the two ministries seems to have hampered general coordination and implementation of plans, thus causing immobilism and the discontinuity of
living resources’ monitoring.
Problems with implementation are shared by other coastal countries as well.
Take, for instance, Portugal, where studies have shown that a boom of deep-seas
MPAs did not lead to more effective protection, either due to the insufficient nature
105 In fact, the Brazilian coastal environment is far more protected than the marine environment, at
least concerning the amount of declared MPAs. See Santos and Schiavetti (2014), p. 454.
106 The state administrative structure in Brazil (in particular the number of ministries and thematic
combinations) historically varies with the Presidency, depending on the political agenda of the
representative. Hence, certain tensions and challenges mentioned herein may reduce depending on
the administrative structure currently in place.
332
10 Brazilian Legal Framework Applicable to the Blue Amazon’s...
for the protection of the marine environment must come hand-in-hand with the
ample and collaborative participation of all interested stakeholders. If not so, resistance to the MPAs and disrespect of protective measures are to be expected by the
industry and individuals. In fact, due to lack of information, creating MPAs may be
often seen as an obstacle to fishing and, therefore, to the national socioeconomic
development. What opposers usually ignore is the key role of marine protected areas
and their importance for fish reproduction, including the replenishment of stocks of
the most consumed species. The phenomenon is a sort of “overflow”, in which fish
stocks located in protected areas grow and migrate to adjacent areas where fishermen
can catch them freely. Thus, fishermen are soon to benefit from the establishment
of MPAs.
Moreover, the creation of marine protected areas, if not followed by rigorous
management plans, are doomed to fail on their main goal, environmental conservation. Yet, the marketing effect triggered by them is considerable and explains why
the Brazilian government has opted to design such massive MPAs far from Brazil’s
mainland. Moreover, considerable problems concerning the management of such
areas emerge: it is not enough to just declare them on paper, one must enforce
legislation in the protected areas—a problem known to virtually every country in the
world. In fact, before the designation of the two massive MPAs mentioned supra,
whose efficacy is quite questionable, there was little attention within the Brazilian
MPAs “mosaic” to large marine ecosystems.
105
Overall, implementation of the Brazilian national plans—established in the
PSRMs—has been deficient. The evaluation of the sustainable potential of living
resources, as intended by the REVIMAR Action, foresaw the execution of twelve
Marine Management Units. Due to budgetary difficulties and vessels shortage, only
two were implemented: the sardine and lobster management unit; and the tunas one.
Other aspects that seem to hinder implementation are the different views and
perceptions of the ministries’ representatives interested in this action, in particular
the MMA, through IBAMA and ICMBio, and the Ministry for Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
106 After all, the reconciliation between conservation and production
is not as easy as one would have thought. The shared competences on fisheries
management between the two ministries seems to have hampered general coordination and implementation of plans, thus causing immobilism and the discontinuity of
living resources’ monitoring.
Problems with implementation are shared by other coastal countries as well.
Take, for instance, Portugal, where studies have shown that a boom of deep-seas
MPAs did not lead to more effective protection, either due to the insufficient nature
105 In fact, the Brazilian coastal environment is far more protected than the marine environment, at
least concerning the amount of declared MPAs. See Santos and Schiavetti (2014), p. 454.
106 The state administrative structure in Brazil (in particular the number of ministries and thematic
combinations) historically varies with the Presidency, depending on the political agenda of the
representative. Hence, certain tensions and challenges mentioned herein may reduce depending on
the administrative structure currently in place.
332
10 Brazilian Legal Framework Applicable to the Blue Amazon’s...