(ii) identifying and detailing areas of relevant mineral potential; (iii) collecting basic
geological information for the management and integrated management of the shelf
and the adjacent coastal zone. Nonetheless, the Action progresses on a rather slow
rhythm, what suggests a lack of priority from national stakeholders to surveying the
mineral potential of the Brazilian shelf. Thus, it is unlikely that mineral exploitation
of deep-sea areas under national jurisdiction will start anytime soon—even though
that may not be the case of the exploitation of offshore hydrocarbons, a superior
Brazilian interest.
Every policy must count on domestic institutional actors in their implementation
cycle. The first and crucial governmental body tasked with the coordination of the
Actions referred to supra is the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources
(CIRM). From what this investigation could assess, CIRM presents a truly impressive service sheet throughout its almost 40 years of existence. It seeks to fill—and
achieves, to a large extent—the institutional vacuum in the Brazilian marine space.
Another chief actor in designing and upholding the Brazilian ocean governance
scheme is the Brazilian Navy. Despite the Navy’s awareness of its broader institutional role of not only protecting Brazilian waters and mainland, but also caring for
the conservation of the marine environment, the latter is not the Navy’s primary
concern. Enforcement of marine environment-related regulations falls under the
responsibilities of the Brazilian Institute for Renewable Resources and the Environment (IBAMA), a situation which could potentially trigger institutional conflicts
between the Navy and IBAMA, due to the overlap of tasks, and makes one wonder
whether a shared protagonism between these two institutions exists.
In addition to junctural uncertainties regarding the place of environmental public
policies in the new government, Brazil struggles with more structural issues, namely
the quests for coherence and effectiveness in complementing and enforcing the
complex web of domestic marine environmental policies. This book faced two
different views on that quest. For a parcel of the specialized literature, striving for
coherence means reducing fragmentation in policy-making, understood here as the
tendency of having different sectors and stakeholders overlap in domestic ocean
decision-making spheres. Yet, one should also recognize the complexity inherent to
the governance of the oceans. A quick glimpse at the policies, programs, actions and
institutions participating in the Brazilian ocean governance reveals the complexity of
such a process in the historic era that scientists have agreed to refer to as the
“Anthropocene”. Yet, Brazil is not alone in dealing with a “horrendogram” of
domestic policies, rules, programs and agencies that interact on marine environmental issues.
This book considered both arguments compatible with each other. To acknowledge the intrinsic complexity of regulating the management of the marine environment is equivalent by no means to defending unnecessarily labyrinthine domestic
rules and policies. Indeed, a too intricate 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 policy- and law-makers. It is also far from
implying that public authorities should refrain from harmonizing policies and plans
for the marine environment. Quite the contrary, to expect a handful of documents to
11 Conclusions
365
geological information for the management and integrated management of the shelf
and the adjacent coastal zone. Nonetheless, the Action progresses on a rather slow
rhythm, what suggests a lack of priority from national stakeholders to surveying the
mineral potential of the Brazilian shelf. Thus, it is unlikely that mineral exploitation
of deep-sea areas under national jurisdiction will start anytime soon—even though
that may not be the case of the exploitation of offshore hydrocarbons, a superior
Brazilian interest.
Every policy must count on domestic institutional actors in their implementation
cycle. The first and crucial governmental body tasked with the coordination of the
Actions referred to supra is the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources
(CIRM). From what this investigation could assess, CIRM presents a truly impressive service sheet throughout its almost 40 years of existence. It seeks to fill—and
achieves, to a large extent—the institutional vacuum in the Brazilian marine space.
Another chief actor in designing and upholding the Brazilian ocean governance
scheme is the Brazilian Navy. Despite the Navy’s awareness of its broader institutional role of not only protecting Brazilian waters and mainland, but also caring for
the conservation of the marine environment, the latter is not the Navy’s primary
concern. Enforcement of marine environment-related regulations falls under the
responsibilities of the Brazilian Institute for Renewable Resources and the Environment (IBAMA), a situation which could potentially trigger institutional conflicts
between the Navy and IBAMA, due to the overlap of tasks, and makes one wonder
whether a shared protagonism between these two institutions exists.
In addition to junctural uncertainties regarding the place of environmental public
policies in the new government, Brazil struggles with more structural issues, namely
the quests for coherence and effectiveness in complementing and enforcing the
complex web of domestic marine environmental policies. This book faced two
different views on that quest. For a parcel of the specialized literature, striving for
coherence means reducing fragmentation in policy-making, understood here as the
tendency of having different sectors and stakeholders overlap in domestic ocean
decision-making spheres. Yet, one should also recognize the complexity inherent to
the governance of the oceans. A quick glimpse at the policies, programs, actions and
institutions participating in the Brazilian ocean governance reveals the complexity of
such a process in the historic era that scientists have agreed to refer to as the
“Anthropocene”. Yet, Brazil is not alone in dealing with a “horrendogram” of
domestic policies, rules, programs and agencies that interact on marine environmental issues.
This book considered both arguments compatible with each other. To acknowledge the intrinsic complexity of regulating the management of the marine environment is equivalent by no means to defending unnecessarily labyrinthine domestic
rules and policies. Indeed, a too intricate 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 policy- and law-makers. It is also far from
implying that public authorities should refrain from harmonizing policies and plans
for the marine environment. Quite the contrary, to expect a handful of documents to
11 Conclusions
365