- Wiley Online Library

Brazilian Protected Areas
ANTHONY B. RYLANDS∗ † AND KATRINA BRANDON†
∗
Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 31270-910 Belo Horizonte,
Minas Gerais, Brasil, email [email protected]
†Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, 1919 M Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036, U.S.A.
Abstract: Although Brazil’s first park was established in 1937, the past two decades have witnessed an
explosion of protected areas. Until 1989 federal parks and reserves were created by the Brazilian Forest Development Institute (IBDF) and the Special Secretariat for the Environment (SEMA). In 1989 SEMA and IBDF
were united to form the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA).
A formal, unified system for federal, state, and municipal parks, the National System for Protected Areas, was
made law in 2000. In 1976 IBDF drew up a biogeographical model for siting protected areas for biodiversity
conservation in the Amazon, based on representation of phytogeographic regions. There are three ongoing
initiatives to determine the location of new protected areas: (1) protected areas were recommended for the
majority of 900 priority areas for biodiversity conservation identified in workshops held for Brazil’s major
biomes (1998–2000); (2) establishment of biodiversity corridors with parks and reserves as key elements; and
(3) the creation of protected areas in the 23 Amazonian ecoregions identified by World Wildlife Fund—Brazil
(the ARPA program). Federal and state strictly protected areas now number 478 and total 37,019,697 ha,
and there are 436 sustainable-use areas totalling 74,592,691 ha. Other categories of protected areas in Brazil
include private natural heritage reserves (RPPNs), which are generally small but proving important for the
conservation of restricted-range and highly threatened species, and indigenous reserves, which are increasingly
recognized as vital for biodiversity conservation because of their enormous size. Although Brazil has created
an enormous number of protected areas over the last two decades, enormous challenges remain—not only for
their administration and management—but also to protect the parks themselves as Brazil continues with its
ambitious developmental programs for energy, infrastructure, industry, and agriculture.
Áreas Protegidas Brasileñas
Resumen: Aunque los el primer parque de Brasil fue establecido en 1937, las dos últimas décadas han
atestiguado una explosión de áreas protegidas. Hasta 1989, los parques federales y reservas fueron creados
por el Instituto Brasileño de Desarrollo Forestal (IBDF) y la Secretarı́a Especial del Medio Ambiente (SEMA).
En 1989 SEMA e IBDF fueron unidos para formar el Instituto Brasileño para el Ambiente y los Recursos
Naturales Renovables (IBAMA). En 2000, se estableció legalmente un sistema formal, unificado para parques
federales, estatales y municipales, el Sistema Nacional para Áreas Protegidas. En 1976, IBDF adoptó un modelo
biogeográfico para situar áreas protegidas para conservación de biodiversidad en la Amazonı́a, basado en
la representación de regiones fitogeográficas. Actualmente están en curso tres iniciativas para determinar la
ubicación de nuevas áreas protegidas: (1) se recomendó el establecimiento de áreas protegidas en la mayorı́a
de las 900 áreas prioritarias para la conservación de la biodiversidad que fueron identificadas en talleres sobre
los principales biomas de Brasil (1998-2000); (2) establecimiento de corredores de biodiversidad con parques
y reservas como elementos claves; y (3) la creación de áreas protegidas en las 23 ecoregiones amazónicas
identificadas por el Fondo Mundial para la Vida Silvestre–Brasil (el programa ARPA). Actualmente, hay 478
áreas federales y estatales estrictamente protegidas que abarcan un total de 37,019,697 ha, y hay 436 áreas
de uso sustentable que totalizan 74,592,691 ha. Otras categorı́as de áreas protegidas en Brasil incluyen la
Reserva Privada de Patrimonio Natural (RPPN), generalmente pequeña pero importante para la conservación
de especies muy amenazadas y con distribución restringida; reservas indı́genas, cada vez más reconocidas
Paper submitted December 30, 2004; revised manuscript accepted February 15, 2005.
612
Conservation Biology, Pages 612–618
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Rylands & Brandon
Brazilian Protected Areas
613
como vitales para la conservación de biodiversidad debido a su gran extensión. Aunque Brasil ha protegido
una superficie enorme en las dos últimas décadas, hay enormes retos no solo para su administración y manejo,
sino especialmente para proteger a los parques mismos ya que Brasil continúa con sus ambiciosos programas
de desarrollo para energı́a, infraestructura, industria y agricultura.
Introduction
André Rebouças (1833–1898) was a pioneer in the birth
of a conservation ethic in Brazil. A civil engineer, botanist,
geologist, and abolitionist, he was inspired by the creation
of Yellowstone National Park, and eloquently and forcefully expounded on the need for national parks in Brazil
(Jorge Pádua 2004). He proposed the Island of Bananal on
the Rio Araguaia and an enormous area extending from
the Guaı́ra Falls (Sete Quedas) to Iguaçu Falls on the Rio
Paraná. Thirteen years after Rebouças died, Luis Felipe
Gonzaga de Campos, also arguing for parks, prepared a
map of Brazil’s ecosystems (published in 1912). This map
resulted in the creation of the Forest Reserve of the Territory of Acre in 1911—four strips along the upper Rio
Acre, upper Rio Purus-Envira, Rio Gregório, and upper
Rio Juruá in the southwestern Amazon (Costa 2004). Together these areas covered 28,000 km2 , but the forest
reserve was a false start because it was ignored (Garcia
1986).
The 1934 Forest Code established the legal status for national parks (Decree 23.793, 23 January 1934) and Brazil’s
first was Itatiaia, created in 1937 in the Atlantic Forest
mountains of the state of Rio de Janeiro. Rebouças’s proposal was met through the creation, along with the Serra
dos Órgãos National Park in Rio de Janeiro, of the Sete
Quedas (including the Guaı́ra Falls) and Iguaçu national
parks in 1939. The Araguaia National Park—the entire
Island of Bananal (2,000,000 ha)—was created 20 years
later. Ubajara (Caatinga in the state of Ceará) and Aparados
da Serra (Rio Grande do Sul) were also created in 1959.
Although Rebouças’s dream was fulfilled, the Guaı́ra Falls
were drowned by the Itaipú dam (Dean 1995), and the
Araguaia National Park was reduced in 1973 to the northern third of Bananal to make way for an indigenous reserve.
A single national forest was created in 1946 (AraripeApodi, 38,626 ha in Ceará), and 1961 saw the creation
of a second national forest (Caxiuanã) of 200,000 ha in
Pará, along with nine forest reserves, all in Amazonia and
totaling 1,879,400 km2 . Although the category of national
forest was included in the 1965 Forest Code (Law 4.771,
15 September 1965), forest reserves were not. Mapped for
many years, forest reserves were gradually turned over,
entirely or in part, to government settlement schemes
and indigenous reserves, national park status (Mountains
of Tumucumaque), or biological reserves (Gurupı́, Jaru,
Guaporé). Another 10 small national forests (19,130 ha)
were created outside Amazonia in 1968.
In 1970 the federal protected areas system comprised
14 national parks (then covering 2,756,513 ha) and 12
national forests (257,756 ha), totaling 3,014,269 ha or
0.36% of Brazil’s land area. There were also some 26 state
parks and reserves, including Monte Pascoal (later a national park); Rio Doce in Minas Gerais; Campos do Jordão,
Jacupiranga, and Morro do Diabo in São Paulo; Turvo and
Nonoaı́ in Rio Grande do Sul (in all 305,457 ha); and 13
state forests (equivalent to national forests; 39,539 ha).
The National Integration Program (PIN), the first infrastructure development program for the Amazon, was
begun in the early 1970s and was based on so-called
development axes along major highways, including the
Transamazon (east–west) and Cuiabá-Santarém (north–
south). The Altamira Polygon—6,400,000 ha between the
Rios Xingu and Tapajós—was the principal east–west axis
and was targeted for settlement 100 km on either side
of the Transamazon. Part (1,258,000 ha) of the area was
assigned to a national park—Amazonia National Park—
along the west bank of the lower Rio Tapajós (reduced to
994,000 ha in 1985). The construction of the Transamazon Highway alerted Brazil and the world to the vulnerability of the Amazon forests and was the incentive for a
groundbreaking biogeographic analysis ( Wetterberg et al.
1976; MA-IBDF & FBCN 1979).
With 1974 as the starting point, we describe the evolution, development, and current structure of the protected
areas system in Brazil, contrasting federal and state protected areas, allocation of protected areas to strict protection and sustainable use, and the level of protection by
biome.
Government Institutions
Federal protected areas were administered by the Forest
Service of the Ministry of Agriculture until 1967, when the
Department of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves
was established in the newly created Brazilian Forestry
Development Institute (IBDF). The Special Secretariat for
the Environment (SEMA) was created in 1973 within the
Ministry of the Interior, and in 1981, it initiated a program
of ecological stations (Nogueira-Neto & Carvalho 1979).
In 1989 SEMA and IBDF were united, along with the superintendencies of Fisheries and Rubber Production and
Commerce, to form the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) within
the Ministry of the Interior. The Directorate of Ecosystems
was given responsibility for national parks, biological
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
614
Brazilian Protected Areas
reserves, and ecological stations. A National Protected
Areas Council was created to provide general policies for
the creation, improvement, and use of protected areas.
The creation of IBAMA was part of a major government restructuring and organization of its environmental
institutions. The National Environment System was established in 1981 and regulated in 1990, with six components (MMA 1999). The IBAMA, initially in the Ministry
of the Interior, became part of a new Ministry of the Environment. Above the Ministry of the Environment was
the National Council for the Environment (CONAMA), a
consultative and deliberative organ with, notably, strong
representation from civil society, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (MMA 1999).
Protected Area System
Based on the Forest Code of 1965, IBDF worked with national parks and biological reserves (strictly protected)
and national forests (for use). In 1979 IBDF published its
first plan for a protected areas system (MA-IBDF & FBCN
1979), attempting to rationalize 16 protected area categories and their management objectives ( Jorge Pádua &
Coimbra-Filho 1979). The plan did not include forest reserve, the protected forest, or the “area of local interest for
tourism,” a category SEMA created in 1977. Forewarned
by SEMA, IBDF did include the ecological station but none
of the other categories SEMA was to create during the
1980s (ecological reserve, area of relevant ecological interest, and environmental protection area).
Provision for extractive reserves was included in
Brazil’s Constitution of 1988, and the protection of the
rights of extractivist communities was part of the government’s Nossa Natureza Program. The legal figure of a
private reserve was established in 1977 as private refuge
for native animals (Edict 327/77 P, 27 August 1977). The
1979 plan did not include this category; it indicated only
that faunal reserves and hunting parks could be either
public or private. The private refuge was later replaced by
the private reserve for fauna and flora (Edict 217, 27 July
1988), but neither had much effect (few were ever created) because they merely provided a legal mechanism for
landowners to prohibit hunting or logging on their land.
These edicts were subsequently replaced by the private
natural heritage reserve (RPPN) (Decree 98.914, 31 January 1990; IBAMA Edict 828, 1 June 1990), which had
stricter regulations but provided tax incentives for permanently registering private land parcels.
The IBDF’s 1979 plan was never legalized, and by 1986
the Brazilian protected areas system suffered from confused objectives and poorly defined categories at municipal, state, and national levels. In addition, functions were
duplicated between IBDF and SEMA (resolved in 1989
by the creation of IBAMA). Although IBDF was attempting to organize a system based on degrees of permitted
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Rylands & Brandon
disturbance, management, and function, SEMA was busy
trying to implement conservation legislation, particularly
the articles of the 1965 Forest Code and the Faunal Protection Law (5.197, 3 January 1967). In 1986 CONAMA
created a special commission to draw up a national system
of protected areas. The commission produced a series of
categories, but that was as far as it went.
A demand for a consolidated and rational protected
area system was included in the National Environment
Project in 1988 (MA-IBDF PNMA 1988), and IBDF asked
the Brası́lia-based NGO Funatura (led by Maria Tereza
Jorge Pádua, author of IBDF’s 1979 plan) to draft another
proposal. After more than 10 years of debate, in September 1989 the National Protected Areas System (SNUC) was
presented to CONAMA and the National Congress and
officially established in 2000 (Law 9.985, 19 July 2000)
(MMA SNUC 2000). A subsequent decree (Decree 3.834,
5 June 2001) determined that IBAMA should adjust the
categorization of the protected areas that were not complying with the new definitions.
Priority-Setting and Protected Areas
In 1976 Wetterberg et al. (1976) published an analysis
of priority areas for conservation in the Amazon, based
on achieving representation of the phytogeographic regions identified by Ducke and Black (1953; modified by
Prance 1973). Following an analysis of existing protected
areas, consideration was also given to Pleistocene forest refugia (Prance 1973), different vegetation formations
(Murça-Pires 1974), and proposals for protected areas arising from other government agencies (IBDF and SEMA)
and the RADAM project. The RADAM project—an ongoing survey (1975–1983) of the geology, geomorphology,
hydrology, soils, and vegetation carried out by the Ministry of Mines and Energy—eventually recommended 35.2
million ha of strictly protected areas and a further 71.5
million ha of controlled-use protected areas in the Amazon alone (Carvalho 1984). They were generally those
for which no other use was identified or that contained a
specific valued aspect of the landscape—a strategy clearly
inimical to modern conservation science (Pressey 1994).
This study marked the beginning of Brazil’s attempts to
create a systematic and considered approach to a parks
system, something that, however, would emerge only 20
years later.
The national parks Pico da Neblina (1979), Pacáas
Novos (1979), Jaú (1980), and Serra do Divisor (1989),
and the biological reserves Rio Trombetas (1979), Lago
Piratuba (1980), and Guaporé (1982) were created as a
result of this proposal. Momentum was lost, however, for
several reasons, including the creation of ecological stations in the early 1980s (established on public lands and
aiming to represent all of Brazil’s ecosystems), the reformulation of the protected areas system that began in 1988,
Rylands & Brandon
Brazilian Protected Areas
the merging of SEMA and IBDF in 1989, and the numbers
of state protected areas (which began to increase dramatically starting in the late 1980s).
In the mid to late 1990s, three major initiatives emerged
that are still influencing the location of new protected areas. The first is the biodiversity corridor concept, which
was introduced as a strategy of the parks and reserves
component of the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest (PP-G7; Ayres et al. 1997). The rationale is to create protected areas that increase connectivity through major landscapes and between existing protected areas. An example of this is the Amanã State Sustainable Development Reserve of 2,350,000 ha, established
in 1997, that connects the Jaú National Park (2,378,410
ha) to the Mamirauá State Sustainable Development Reserve (1,124,000 ha). This reserve’s establishment was a
dramatically rapid response to the proposal of Ayres et al.
(1997) to establish an east–west corridor of contiguous
protected areas through the central Amazon. Amapá is investing in establishing a single chain of protected areas, a
biodiversity corridor, which will eventually occupy 71%
of the state (Anonymous 2003). The corridor paradigm is
also orienting the establishment of new protected areas
in the Atlantic Forest (Ayres et al. 1997).
The second initiative, directly from the Ministry of the
Environment, was a series of priority-setting workshops
(in 1999 and 2000), that identified 900 areas for biodiversity conservation in Amazonia (385), Caatinga (82), Cerrado and Pantanal (87), marine and coastal zones (164),
and Atlantic Forest and Southern Grasslands (182) (MMA
2002). Recommendations were made for conserving each
biome, and protected area creation was the most frequent
in all the regions except for Amazonia. The Ministry of the
Environment (2002) reported that 57 protected areas cov-
615
ering 5,607,146 ha had already been decreed as a result
of the workshops.
Finally, the Ministry of the Environment’s Protected Areas Programme for Amazonia (ARPA) aims to increase the
area of the Amazon rainforest under federal protection to
500,000 km2 . Whereas Wetterberg et al.’s (1976) scheme
used phytogeographic regions as a surrogate for biodiversity, the ARPA program is based on providing for representation of 23 Amazonian ecoregions identified by the
World Wildlife Fund–Brasil (Ferreira et al. 2001).
Current Protected Areas Network
The National Protected Areas System (SNUC) defines and
regulates protected area categories at federal, state, and
municipal levels, dividing them into two types: strictly
protected, with biodiversity conservation as the principal
objective, and sustainable use areas, allowing for varying
forms of use or extraction, with biodiversity protection
as a secondary objective (MMA SNUC 2000). They correspond to the terms conservation unit of indirect use
(strictly protected) and direct use (sustainable use) used
prior to the SNUC.
Strictly Protected Areas
Strictly protected areas (as defined by SNUC) include national parks ( World Conservation Union [IUCN] category
II), biological reserves (Ia), ecological stations (Ia), natural monuments (III), and wildlife refuges (III). As shown
in Table 1, there are 111 of these federal areas totaling
28,245,720 ha (42% of all federally protected areas). National parks (54 covering 17,493,070 ha) are the largest
Table 1. A summary of the numbers and areas of the different protected area categories at the federal and state levels in Brazil (February 2005).
Federal protected areas
Strictly protected
national park
biological reserve
ecological station
wildlife refuge
natural monument
subtotal
Sustainable use
national forest
SDRa
extractive reserve
APAc
ARIEd
subtotal
Total
Number
Area (ha)
54
26
30
1
0
111
17,493,010
3,453,528
7,170,601
128,521
0
28,245,729
58
0
36
29
18
141
252
14,471,924
0
8,012,977
7,666,689
43,394
30,194,984
58,440,704
State protected areas
Strictly protected
park
biological reserve
ecological station
wildlife refuge
natural monument
Sustainable use
forest
SDRa
extractive reserveb
APAc
ARIEd
Number
Area (ha)
180
46
136
3
2
367
7,697,662
217,453
724,127
102,543
32,192
8,773,977
58
9
28
181
19
295
662
2,515,950
8,277,032
2,880,921
30,711,192
12,612
44,397,707
53,171,684
a Sustainable
development reserve.
three extractive forests totaling 1,438,907 ha in Rondônia.
c Environmental protection area.
d Area of relevant ecological interest.
b Includes
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
616
Brazilian Protected Areas
strictly protected areas and allow for education, recreation, and scientific research (Machado et al. 2004). Biological reserves are generally smaller than national parks
and are closed to the public except for environmental
education. Ecological stations are similar, differing only
in the emphasis of their prospective role as research stations. Up to 3% (maximum 1500 ha) can be subjected to
destructive experimentation.
State parks appeared in southern and southeastern
Brazil (Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Rio
Grande do Sul) in the 1930s and 1940s, and today in São
Paulo and Minas Gerais, for example, they represent the
majority of protected areas in number and area. In Amazonia, however, the first state parks were decreed only in
1989, in Rondônia (Samuel State Reserve, a compensatory
measure for the Samuel Hydroelectric Dam) and Amazonas (Nhamundá State Park) (Rylands 1990; Rylands &
Pinto 1998). Since then, though, many of the Amazonian
states have invested heavily in protected areas. Amazonas,
for example, now has 29 state protected areas totaling
15,585,817 ha. State strictly protected areas now number
367, many more than their federal equivalents, but they
are smaller—totaling only 8,773,977 ha, averaging 23,907
ha in size, and comprising only 16.5% of the state parks
system.
Protected Areas of Sustainable Use
Protected areas of sustainable use allow for different types
and levels of human use, with biodiversity conservation as
a secondary objective: national forest (VI), environmental
protection area (IUCN category V), area of relevant ecological interest (IV), extractive reserve (VI), fauna reserve
(VI), sustainable development reserve (VI), and RPPN
(IV). There are 141 federal protected areas for sustainable
use totaling 30,194,984 (58% of all federally protected
areas). Fifty-eight national forests (covering 14,471,924
ha) have been established for silviculture, sustainable logging, protection of watersheds, research, and recreation
(Machado et al. 2004). The majority in number (29) and
area (99%) are in Amazonia. Environmental protection
areas (APAs) constrain human activities to provide natural resource conservation and environmental quality for
local communities through management plans and zoning, including areas of strict protection for wildlife. This
mechanism has been widely adopted in Brazil as a buffer
for parks and reserves. Areas of relevant ecological interest (ARIEs) are small (5,000 ha or less), protect notable
natural phenomena or wildlife populations and habitats
in places with low human density, and allow for public
use.
Originating in Acre to support rubber-tapper communities in dispute with ranchers and suffering loss of their
livelihoods through deforestation, extractive reserves are
now used to promote the sustainable use of natural resources by local communities ( jointly administered by
government and civil society) for terrestrial and marine
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Rylands & Brandon
resources throughout Brazil. There are currently 36 federal extractive reserves, 28 (98% of their total area) in
Amazonia. The sustainable development reserve has objectives similar to extractive reserves, but only state, not
federal, areas have been created.
Private natural heritage reserves were included in
SNUC, exempting private landowners from land tax if
they set aside part of their land in perpetuity. To date some
450 have been created, covering approximately 500,000
ha. Although the total area is small, RPPNs protect key
habitat for numerous threatened species in the Atlantic
Forest, the Cerrado, and the Pantanal. They often protect
important patches of forest that are too small for federal
or state categories.
Federal versus State Protected Areas
Federal protected areas were predominant during the
1980s, especially in Amazonia, which had no state areas
at all. The decree of large numbers and vast areas by Amazonian states (and some of the southern states, notably
Minas Gerais) over the last 14 years has meant that overall state protected areas have almost caught up, lagging by
only 5,300,000 ha. Not including private and municipal
reserves, 52% of Brazil’s protected area system is federal
and 48% is under state dominion.
Across Brazil, federal protected areas are relatively balanced in terms of area protected between those of strict
protection (48%) and those of sustainable use (52%).
Across biomes, however, there are substantial differences
in the balance: strict protection is more common in
the Pantanal (100%) and the Cerrado (69%), whereas
sustainable-use areas occupy substantially more area in
the Atlantic Forest (74%), Caatinga (72%), and coastal and
marine areas (74%). Only in the Amazon is there an approximate balance between strict (49%) protection and
sustainable use (51%).
States have invested relatively little in strictly protected
areas, and they make up only 16.5% of the total area under
state protection. Instead, states have created protected
areas for sustainable use, establishing 295 areas covering
44,397,707 ha (Table 1). Most, in number (181) and area
(69%), are APAs throughout Brazil. The APAs are closer to
a mechanism for land-use management than an actual protected area, involving zoning that includes some strictly
protected areas. The same is true for the state sustainable
development reserves, which are also an important category. Although few in number (9), they total 8,277,032
ha. All are in Amazonia. State forests are numerous (58),
but generally small, totaling only 2,515,950 ha and averaging 43,378 ha. The state of Rondônia has established two
further categories for securing natural resources, state extractive forests and state sustainable production forests,
although neither is included in SNUC.
State sustainable-use areas average 6.5 times larger than
state strictly protected areas. State protected areas also
tend to be smaller than federal areas—there are more
Rylands & Brandon
than twice as many of them but they cover 5.3 million
ha less. There are many fewer federal strictly protected
areas than state areas (111 as opposed to 367), but they
protect an area 3.2 times larger (Table 1). In area under protection, federal strictly protected areas comprise
more than 25% of the state and federal protected areas
system. State strictly protected areas make up 7.9%. The
distribution of federal protected areas is uneven across
biomes, yet all biomes need substantially more area to be
protected to meet the recommendations established in
the priority-setting workshops mentioned previously.
Other Protected Areas
Apart from federal and state protected areas, there are
many other types of areas that are owned or managed
by a diverse group of interests and that make important
contributions to the Brazilian protected area system. Most
important of these are indigenous reserves, which in one
aspect—the enormous area they cover—are among the
most important areas for conservation, especially those
in the Amazon. Four-hundred and forty-one indigenous
reserves, areas, and territories total 98,954,645 ha (11.8%
of Brazil’s land surface). Of these, 361 (66%) cover about
20% of the Brazilian Amazon, with some playing a very
significant role in protecting the forest from ongoing destruction and development (Schwartzman & Zimmerman
2005 [this issue]). The growth in indigenous reserves has
paralleled that of protected areas, and most have been
demarcated in the past decade, although a further 139 indigenous areas are under evaluation. Other more formally
managed areas that contribute to conservation are owned
by municipal governments, NGOs, academic institutions,
and the private sector.
Brazilian Protected Areas
617
of defining what can be used, who can use it, and how
much use is sustainable. The effectiveness of protected
area systems as a whole depends on how well protected
areas can meet their mission at any given site and how
well they collectively represent and safeguard biodiversity within a given country. Yet protected area systems
must also function amid competing governmental institutions and the broader policy environment—perhaps the
greatest challenge.
Ironically, it may be easier to deal with the context of
individual protected areas through the array of initiatives
that are emerging in Brazil to improve connectivity between protected areas and manage land uses over large areas. Like everything else in Brazil, the scale needed to link
sites and orchestrate compatible management in areas
surrounding protected areas is huge. Some of these large,
landscape-scale initiatives include biosphere reserves and
conservation or ecological corridors. In the Brazilian context, biosphere reserves are regional initiatives, such as
the Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve (29,473,484 ha) and
the Cerrado Biosphere Reserve (29,652,514 ha). These
reserves are among the largest ever recognized by the
U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and,
with the Caatinga, Pantanal, and Central Amazon Corridor biosphere reserves, extend over nearly 15% of the
country’s land surface. Whether protected areas are successful in this context will largely depend on how well
these initiatives can orchestrate the actions of the disparate actors that affect land uses within each region.
Strengthening the management of existing protected areas, while creating the array of new protected areas of
sufficient size needed to conserve biodiversity, are essential for conserving biodiversity. Similarly, strengthening
alliances with other land managers, especially indigenous
peoples, will be vital to ensure the long-term viability of
Brazil’s federal and state protected areas.
Future Challenges
Brazil’s status as a megadiverse country confers a major
global responsibility to protect three biodiversity wilderness areas—the Amazon, Pantanal, and Caatinga—and
two biodiversity hotspots—the Atlantic Forest and the
Cerrado. Protected areas are the key to conserving what
remains. But there are a number of challenges that face the
protected area system: some internal to each protected
area, others to the protected area system, and still others in countering the set of human actions that protected
areas are intended to thwart. The circumstances and social context for the creation of a protected area influences
that area’s management, even years later (Brandon 1998).
How effective any given park can be is often shaped when
it is created, whether seen as a benefit or barrier to local
people and large-scale threats. Protected areas created to
strictly protect biodiversity must transform what are usually unmanaged lands into well-managed entities that effectively conserve biodiversity. Protected areas with sustainable use as their mission face the greater challenge
Acknowledgments
We remember here the untimely death of José Márcio
Ayres (1954–2003), beloved colleague who dedicated his
life to the Amazon forests. As a pioneer primatologist and
pioneer conservationist and the originator of the Sustainable Development Reserve, his accomplishments were
extraordinary. We are also grateful to S. B. Rocha, a tenacious, dedicated, unsung hero that since 1979 has been a
driving force behind the scenes in the parks departments
of IBDF and IBAMA. Conservation International do Brasil
kindly provided the framework for our state protected areas database, and we thank especially M. T. Fonseca and
R. B. Machado.
Literature Cited
Anonymous. 2003. Amapá biodiversity corridor. Neotropical Primates
11:191–192.
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
618
Brazilian Protected Areas
Ayres, J. M., G. A. B. da Fonseca, A. B. Rylands, H. L. Queiroz, L. P. de S.
Pinto, D. Masterson, and R. Cavalcanti. 1997. Abordagens inovadoras
para conservação da biodiversidade no Brasil: os corredores das florestas neotropicais. Volume 1. Aspectos gerais. Volume 2. Amazônia.
Volume 3. Mata Atlântica. Versão 2.0. Report for PP/G7 – Programa
Piloto para a Proteção das Florestas Neotropicais: Projeto Parques
e Reservas. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Recursos Hı́dricos e da
Amazônia Legal, Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
Brandon, K. 1998. Perils to parks: the social context of threats. Pages
415–439 in K. Brandon, K. H. Redford, and S. Sanderson, editors.
Parks in peril: people, politics, and protected areas. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Campos, L. F. G. de. 1912. Mapa florestal do Brasil. Map scale
1:5.000.000. Serviço Geológico e Mineralógico do Brasil, Rio de
Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Carvalho, J. C. de M. 1984. The conservation of nature in the Brazilian
Amazonia. Pages 707–736 in H. Sioli, editor. The Amazon: limnology
and landscape ecology of a mighty tropical river and its basin. Dr.
W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Costa, J. P. de O. 2004. Meio ambiente: áreas protegidas (in Portuguese).
Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Brası́lia. Available from http://
www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/port/meioamb/arprot/
apresent/index.htm (accessed 2 February 2005).
Ducke, A., and G. A. Black. 1953. Phytogeographical notes on the Brazilian Amazon. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 25:1–46.
Dean, W. 1995. With broadax and firebrand: the destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. University of California Press, San Francisco.
Ferreira, L. V., et al. 2001. Identificação de áreas prioritárias para a
conservação da biodiversidade por meio da representatividade das
unidades de conservação e tipos de vegeteção nas ecorregiões da
Amazônia brasileira. Pages 268–286 in A. Verı́ssimo, A. Moreira, D.
Sawyer, I. dos Santos, L. P. Pinto and J. P. R Capobianco, editors.
Biodiversidade na Amazônia brasileira. Editora Estação Liberdade,
Instituto Socioambiental, São Paulo (in Portuguese).
Garcia, F. 1986. E as reserves florestais, que fim levaram? Revista
Brasileira de Tecnologia 17:47–53 (in Portuguese).
Jorge Pádua, M. T. 2004. Pobre Rebouças (in Portuguese). Amigos da
Terra and Amazônia Brasileira. Available from http://www.amazonia.
org.br/opiniao/print.cfm?id = 123320 (accessed 1 February 2004).
Jorge Pádua, M. T., and A. F. Coimbra-Filho. 1979. Os parques nacionais
do Brasil. Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal, Brası́lia
(in Portuguese).
Machado, R. B., L. M. de S. Aguiar, M. B. Ramos Neto, A. Hass, and
F. B. de G. Aquino. 2004. Atlas de conservação da natureza brasileira:
unidades federais/Brazilian nature conservation atlas: federal areas.
Metalivros, São Paulo.
MA-IBDF (Ministério da Agricultura, Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvi-
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Rylands & Brandon
mento Florestal) and FBCN (Fundação Brasileira para a Conservação
da Natureza). 1979. Plano do sistema de unidades de conservação
do Brasil. MA-IBDF and FBCN, Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
MA-IBDF (Ministério da Agricultura, Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal) PNMA (Projeto Nacional do Meio Ambiente). 1988.
PNMA, componente: unidades de conservação. Report. MA-IBDF,
Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). 1999. First national report for the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Brazil. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, MMA, Brası́lia.
MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). 2002. Biodiversidade brasileira:
avaliação e identificação de áreas e ações prioritárias para conservação, utilização sustentável e repartição de benefı́cios da biodiversidade brasileira. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, MMA,
Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente) SNUC (Sistema Nacional de
Unidades de Conservação). 2000. MMA, SNUC, Brası́lia (in Portuguese). Available from http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/dap/
doc/snuc.pdf (accessed February 2005).
Murça-Pires, J. 1974. Tipos de vegetação da Amazônia. Brasil Florestal
5:48–58 (in Portuguese).
Nogueira-Neto, P., and J. C. de M. Carvalho. 1979. A programme of
ecological stations for Brazil. Environmental Conservation 6:95–104.
Prance, G. T. 1973. Phytogeographic support for the theory of Pleistocene forest refuges in the Amazon basin, based on evidence
from distribution patterns in Caryocaraceae, Chrysobalanaceae,
Dichapetalaceae and Lecythidaceae. Acta Amazonica 3:5–28.
Pressey, R. I. 1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps
in developing representative reserve systems. Conservation Biology
8:662–668.
Rylands, A. B. 1990. Evaluation of the current status of federal conservation areas in the tropical rain forest of the Brazilian Amazon. Volume
1. Review of conservation units system. Volume 2. National parks.
Volume 3. Biological reserves. Volume 4. Ecological stations and
reserves. Volume 5. Appendices. Final report, project 6083. World
Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
Rylands, A. B., and Pinto, L. P. de S. 1998. Conservação da biodiversidade na Amazônia brasileira: uma análise do sistema de unidades de
conservação. Cadernos FBDS 1: 65 pp. Fundação Brasileira para o
Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Schwartzman, S., and B. Zimmerman. 2005. Conservation alliances with
indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Conservation Biology 19:721–
727.
Wetterberg, G. B., M. T. Jorge Pádua, C. S. de Castro, and J. M. C. de
Vasconcellos. 1976. Uma análise de prioridades em conservação
da natureza na Amazônia. Projeto de Desenvolvimento e Pesquisa
Florestal, PNUD/FAO/IBDF/BRA-45, Série Técnica 8:63 pp. (in Portuguese).