economic gains stand out, given the (not yet fully known) exploitation potential of
living and non-living resources of the outer continental shelf, namely deep seabed
minerals, hydrocarbons, and sedentary species. Another advantage relates to foreign
policy achievements, viz. the strengthening of cooperation links with neighboring
countries of the South Atlantic Ocean, given the Brazilian ability and willingness to
provide technical assistance and consultancy to states currently preparing submissions for the delineation of outer continental shelf limits.
On the side of the risks, the most notable one, according to this work, is having
the country ill-suited to manage the extended Blue Amazon both in legal and
institutional terms. For instance, the situation of Brazilian official agencies engaged
in marine conservation efforts did not look promising in the last years, as highlighted
in Chap. 9. To make it worse, since 2014 a domestic political crisis has added to the
unfavorable international context, thus shaking Brazilian economics and politics and
throwing the country into a calamity that is referred to by scholars as the “international rollback” of Brazil.
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.
It is necessary to improve 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, exploitation, and conservation strategies.
In addition to that, one should warn against the lack of or insufficient follow-up
reports on the actions and objectives set out by each Action of the different PSRMs,
as REMPLAC or REVIMAR. The CIRM’s website is not updated, as of December
2018, and several actions have reports which date from years ago. The same
situation was identified at the IBAMA website with respect to statistics on fisheries
off Brazilian waters, the latest having been reported in 2007. Such carelessness is
worrisome, what brings to surface yet another challenge to Brazilian marine environmental governance efforts: communication and dialogue. Public authorities
ought to reach out for the interested public and better inform stakeholders about
the objectives, actions and the consequences of all marine policies. That is a major
challenge, as the specialty and technicality of public discussions may drive out
crucial stakeholders and the population at large, a consequence that would irreparably crack the objective of developing a “maritime mentality” in Brazil.
The final chapter of this work dwelled on the question whether the Brazilian
marine environmental legal framework, with particular regard to the continental
shelf, is consistent with international law and UNCLOS. Following a field research
in the Brazilian federal capital, Brasília, and 4 years of intensive examination of
368
11 Conclusions
living and non-living resources of the outer continental shelf, namely deep seabed
minerals, hydrocarbons, and sedentary species. Another advantage relates to foreign
policy achievements, viz. the strengthening of cooperation links with neighboring
countries of the South Atlantic Ocean, given the Brazilian ability and willingness to
provide technical assistance and consultancy to states currently preparing submissions for the delineation of outer continental shelf limits.
On the side of the risks, the most notable one, according to this work, is having
the country ill-suited to manage the extended Blue Amazon both in legal and
institutional terms. For instance, the situation of Brazilian official agencies engaged
in marine conservation efforts did not look promising in the last years, as highlighted
in Chap. 9. To make it worse, since 2014 a domestic political crisis has added to the
unfavorable international context, thus shaking Brazilian economics and politics and
throwing the country into a calamity that is referred to by scholars as the “international rollback” of Brazil.
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.
It is necessary to improve 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, exploitation, and conservation strategies.
In addition to that, one should warn against the lack of or insufficient follow-up
reports on the actions and objectives set out by each Action of the different PSRMs,
as REMPLAC or REVIMAR. The CIRM’s website is not updated, as of December
2018, and several actions have reports which date from years ago. The same
situation was identified at the IBAMA website with respect to statistics on fisheries
off Brazilian waters, the latest having been reported in 2007. Such carelessness is
worrisome, what brings to surface yet another challenge to Brazilian marine environmental governance efforts: communication and dialogue. Public authorities
ought to reach out for the interested public and better inform stakeholders about
the objectives, actions and the consequences of all marine policies. That is a major
challenge, as the specialty and technicality of public discussions may drive out
crucial stakeholders and the population at large, a consequence that would irreparably crack the objective of developing a “maritime mentality” in Brazil.
The final chapter of this work dwelled on the question whether the Brazilian
marine environmental legal framework, with particular regard to the continental
shelf, is consistent with international law and UNCLOS. Following a field research
in the Brazilian federal capital, Brasília, and 4 years of intensive examination of
368
11 Conclusions