Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing of Brazilian Biological Diversity

Transcrição

1 Ministry of the Environment Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing of Brazilian Biological Diversity Secretary of Biodiversity and Forests Ministry of the Environment

2 PRIORITY AREAS FOR THE CONSERVATION, SUSTAINABLE USE AND BENEFIT SHARING OF BRAZILIAN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY UPDATE: MMA Administrative Ruling n 9, of 23 January 2007

3 Federative Republic of Brazil President LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA Vice-President JOSÉ ALENCAR GOMES DA SILVA Ministry for the Environment Minister MARINA SILVA Executive Secretary JOÃO PAULO RIBEIRO CAPOBIANCO National Secretariat of Biodiversity and Forests MARIA CECÍLIA WEY DE BRITO Director of the Department of Biodiversity Conservation BRAULIO FERREIRA DE SOUZA DIAS

4 Ministry of the Environment National Secretariat of Biodiversity and Forests Department of Biodiversity Conservation PRIORITY AREAS FOR THE CONSERVATION, SUSTAINABLE USE AND BENEFIT SHARING OF BRAZILIAN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY UPDATE: MMA Administrative Ruling n 9, of 23 January 2007 BIODIVERSITY 31 Brasília 2007

5 PRIORITY AREAS FOR THE CONSERVATION, SUSTAINABLE USE AND BENEFIT SHARING OF BRAZILIAN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. UPDATE: MMA Administrative Ruling N 9, of 23 January Technical Coordination Marcos Reis Rosa Biome Coordinators Amazon Protected Areas Program: Ronaldo Weigand Jr.; Cerrado and Pantanal Nucleus: Mauro Oliveira Pires; Caatinga Nucleus: Antônio Edson Guimarães Farias; Atlantic Forest and Pampas Advisory and Planning Nucleus: Wigold B. Schaffer; Coastal and Marine Zone Nucleus: Ana Paula Prates. Technical Biome Coordinators Amazon: Ana Luisa Albernaz; Cerrado and Pantanal: Paula Hanna Valdujo; Caatinga: Manuella Andrade de Souza; Atlantic Forest and Pampas: Leandro Baumgarten; Coastal and Marine Zone: Luis Henrique de Lima. Information consolidation Marcos Reis Rosa Technical Revision Helio Jorge da Cunha Translation Agnes L. Velloso Cover, Design and Editing Mayko Miranda Daniel A. Miranda e Marcelo Rodrigues S. Sousa Bibliographical Standardization Cilulia Maury Photos kindly provided by Carlos Terrana, F.S.E. Santo, Leandro Baumgarten, Maria Carolina Hazin, Miguel Von Behr, and Vinícius Lubanbo Support United Nations Development Program UNDP - Project BRA/00/021 Ministry of the Environment MMA Luís Eduardo Magalhães Information, Environment Documentation, and Editing Center Environmental CID Esplanada dos Ministérios Bloco B térreo Brasília/DF cid@mma.gov.br Printed in Brazil

6 Foreword The Convention on Biological Diversity CBD, signed in 1992, represents a global effort for maintaining biodiversity and faces the challenge of developing directives to conciliate economical development with the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. Brazil, as Party to the CBD, is committed to support actions that provide the government and society with the information needed for establishing priorities that lead to the conservation, sustainable use, and sharing of benefits from the Brazilian biological diversity. One of the major challenges to the decision-makers on biodiversity conservation is to establish national, regional, and local priorities, which are fundamental to transform political decisions into concrete actions, with the efficient use of the available financial resources. Therefore, the Ministry of the Environment carried out, between 1998 and 2000, the first Assessment and Identification of Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation of Brazilian Biomes. At the end of that process, 900 areas priority were delimited, established by Decree n o 5092, of 24 May 2004, and instituted by MMA Administrative Ruling n o 126, of 27 May 2004 (both attached to this publication). The Administrative Ruling determines that these priority areas should be periodically revised at intervals no longer than ten years, to reflect knowledge gains and changes in environmental conditions. It is with satisfaction that we now present the updated Priority Areas, revised with a methodology that incorporates the principles of the Systematic Planning for Conservation tool and its basic criteria (representativeness, resilience and vulnerability), and favors participatory negotiation and consensus building processes. A larger number of sectors and groups connected to environmental issues was involved, providing legitimacy to the process, which considered the various interests to produce these results. These updated Priority Areas, instituted by MMA Administrative Ruling nº 09, of 23 January 2007, will be useful for guiding public policies, something that is already occurring, for example, in the licensing procedures for ventures; in the bidding processes of concessions for oil extraction by the National Oil Agency ANP, guiding research and studies on biodiversity (bidding processes of the Project on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biological Diversity PROBIO/MMA, and of the National Environment Fund FNMA/MMA); and in the definition of areas for creating new federal and state protected areas. It should be noted that this is a new tool that is still in the process of being integrated in the various governmental and society sectors, and its use should gradually increase. We believe that using these updated Priority Areas as a basis for guiding public policy will contribute to achieving the desired acceleration of the country s economical growth in a way that is compatible with the conservation of our biological resources, their sustainable use, and the sharing of benefits derived from their use. Marina Silva Minister for the Environment 5

7 Introductory Remarks Between 1998 and 2000 the Project on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biological Diversity PROBIO/MMA conducted broad consultation for defining the Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use, and Sharing of Benefits from the Biodiversity in the Amazon, Cerrado and Pantanal, Caatinga, Atlantic Forest and Pampas, and in the Coastal and Marine Zone. This project allowed not only the identification of priority areas, but also the assessment of the socio-economical conditionalities and trends of human occupancy of the Brazilian territory, in addition to listing the main actions for managing our biological resources. New biological information became available since these areas were first defined, as a response to the demand created by Decree n 5092 of 21 May 2004 (annex 11.1) and by MMA Administrative Ruling nº 126 of 27 May 2004 (annex 11.2) which, while instituting these priority areas, foresee their revision according to the advance of knowledge. Updating the Priority Areas is also in agreement with the strategies suggested by the Convention on Biological Diversity CBD, by PAN-Bio Directives and Priorities of the Action Plan for Implementing the National Biodiversity Policy (Decision n o 40 of 7 February 2006, of the National Biodiversity Commission CONABIO), and by the National Protected Areas Strategic Plan PNAP (Decree nº 5758 of 13 April 2006). The methodology used to revise the Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use, and Sharing of Benefits from the Brazilian Biodiversity was discussed in the workshop Updating the Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Sharing of Benefits from Biodiversity Targets and Tools, held in November 2005, and was later approved by CONABIO Decision nº 39 of 14 December 2005 (annex 11.3). This methodology adopted the Map of Brazilian Biomes (IBGE 2004) as its starting point, and applied an approach that promotes greater objectivity and efficiency; creates a memory of the procedures to identify priorities; promotes greater participation; and generates information to allow informed decisions and capacity to assess opportunities. MMA made available the ways and means necessary to update the Priority Areas, ensuring public participation and the achievement of results, which reflect the decisions of the working groups that participated in the regional workshops, and were supported by the databases compiled during the preparation steps of the process. The process of updating the Priority Areas and Actions for Biodiversity was conducted simultaneously for all Brazilian biomes and counted with the support of the following institutions: IBAMA, FUNBIO, Fundação Biodiversitas, GTZ, WWF, TNC, CI, IPAM, ISA, COIAB, CNS, GTA, SOS MATA ATLÂNTICA, GEF CAATINGA, and APNE. The first step of the process was represented by the Technical Meetings held from May to September 2006, which defined conservation targets, conservation goals, the relative importance of the areas for each target, and prepared a Map of the Important Areas for Biodiversity. These products were used as resource information in the Regional Biome Workshops, which were held from October to December The results of the Regional Biome Workshops were systematized in the map containing the updated Priority Areas, which was approved by CONABIO Decision n o 46, of 20 December 2006 (annex 11.4). These updated Priority Areas were officially recognized by MMA Administrative Ruling n 9, of 23 January 2007 (annex 11.5), to 6

8 be applied in the development and implementation of public policies, programs, projects, and activities directed at: the in situ conservation of biodiversity; sustainable use of biodiversity components; sharing of benefits resulting from the access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge; research and inventories on biodiversity; recuperation of degraded areas and of overexploited species or species threatened with extinction; and the economic valuation of biodiversity. João Paulo Ribeiro Capobianco Executive Secretary 7

9 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ACAS ANA ANP APA APNE ARIE ARPA CBD CEC CENPES CEPENE CEPLAC Central Waters of the South Atlantic; Água Central do Atlântico Sul National Water Agency; Agência Nacional de Águas National Oil Agency; Agência Nacional do Petróleo Environmental Protection Area; Área de Proteção Ambiental Northeastern Plants Association; Associação Plantas do Nordeste Area of Relevant Ecological Interest; Área de Relevante Interesse Ecológico Amazon Protected Areas Program; Programa Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia - MMA Convention on Biological Diversity Key Ecological Characteristics; Características Ecológicas Chave Petrobras s Research Center; Centro de Pesquisas - Petrobras Northeastern Coastal Fisheries Research and Management Center; Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão de Recursos Pesqueiros do Litoral Nordeste - IBAMA Executive Commission of the Cocoa Cultivation Plan; Comissão Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira CGZAM General Coordination of Environmental Zoning and Management; Coordenação Geral de Zoneamento e Monitoramento Ambiental - IBAMA CI CIRM CNS Conservation International - Brazil Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources; Comissão Interministerial sobre os Recursos do Mar National Rubber Tappers Council; Conselho Nacional de Seringueiros COIAB Coordination of the Brazilian Amazon Indigenous Organizations; Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira CONABIO National Biodiversity Commission; Comissão Nacional de Biodiversidade COP Conference of the Parties to the CBD COZAM Environmental Zoning Coordination; Coordenação de Zoneamento Ambiental - IBAMA CPB Brazilian Primates Protection Center; Centro de Proteção de Primatas Brasileiros - IBAMA CPP Pantanal Research Center; Centro de Pesquisa do Pantanal CPRM Brazilian Geological Service; Serviço Geológico do Brasil CSR Remote Sensing Center; Centro de Sensoriamento Remoto - IBAMA DAP Protected Areas Directorate; Diretoria de Áreas Protegidas - MMA DCBIO Department of Biodiversity Conservation; Departamento de Conservação da Biodiversidade - MMA 8

10 DIFAP Fauna and Fisheries Directorate; Diretoria de Fauna e Recursos Pesqueiros - IBAMA DIPRO Environmental Protection Directorate; Diretoria de Proteção Ambiental - MMA DIREC Ecosystems Directorate; Diretoria de Ecossistemas - IBAMA DISAM Socio-environmental Development Directorate; Diretoria de Desenvolvimento Socioambiental - IBAMA EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation; Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária ESEC Ecological Station; Estação Ecológica FLONA National Forest; Floresta Nacional FNMA National Environment Fund; Fundo Nacional do Meio Ambiente - MMA FUNAI National Indigenous People s Foundation; Fundação Nacional do Índio FUNBIO Brazilian Biodiversity Fund; Fundo Brasileiro para a Biodiversidade FUNCATE Space Technology, Application and Science Foundation; Fundação de Ciência, Aplicações e Tecnologias Espaciais FVA Vitória Amazônia Foundation; Fundação Vitória Amazônia GEF Global Environment Fund GERCO National Coastal Management Program; Programa Nacional de Gerenciamento Costeiro - MMA GERCOM Information System of the Coastal and Marine Management; Sistema de Informações do Gerenciamento Costeiro e Marinho GIS Geographical Information System GT Working Group; Grupo de Trabalho GTA Amazon Working Group; Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico GTZ German Technical Cooperation; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit IBAMA Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources; Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis IBGE Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute; Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística IMAZON Amazon Man and Environment Institute; Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia INPA National Amazon Research Institute; Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia INPE National Space Research Institute; Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais IPAM Amazon Environmental Research Institute; Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia ISA Socio-environmental Institute; Instituto Sócio-Ambiental ISPN Society, Population and Nature Institute; Instituto Sociedade, População e Natureza IUCN World Conservation Union MMA Brazilian Ministry of the Environment; Ministério do Meio Ambiente MN Natural Monument; Monumento Natural 9

11 MNRJ Rio de Janeiro National Museum; Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro MONAPE National Fishermen Movement; Movimento Nacional de Pescadores MPEG Emílio Goeldi Museum of Pará; Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi NAPMA Atlantic Forest Advisory and Planning Nucleus; Núcleo de Assessoria e Planejamento da Mata Atlântica - MMA NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration USA NBC Caatinga Biome Nucleus; Núcleo do Bioma Caatinga - MMA NCP Cerrado and Pantanal Nucleus; Núcleo Cerrado e Pantanal - MMA NGO Non-Governmental Organization NZCM Coastal and Marine Zone Nucleus; Núcleo da Zona Costeira e Marinha - MMA OEMA State Environmental Organization; Organização Estadual de Meio Ambiente PA Protected Area; Unidade de Conservação PAN-Bio Directives and Priorities of the Action Plan for PNB implementation; Diretrizes e Prioridades do Plano de Ação para implementação da PNB PARES; PE State Park; Parque Estadual PARNA; PN National Park; Parque Nacional PNAP National Protected Areas Strategic Plan; Plano Estratégico Nacional de Áreas Protegidas PNB National Biodiversity Policy; Política Nacional de Biodiversidade PPP/ECOS Small Eco-social Grants Program; Programa de Pequenos Projetos Ecossociais PROBIO Project on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity; Projeto de Conservação e Utilização Sustentável da Biodiversidade - MMA PRODES Satellite Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazon Forest; Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite - INPE ProVárzea Floodplain Natural Resources Management Project; Projeto Manejo dos Recursos Naturais da Várzea - IBAMA RAN Center for the Conservation and Management of Reptiles and Amphibians; Centro de Conservação e Manejo de Répteis e Anfíbios - IBAMA RAPPAM Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management RDS Sustainable Development Reserve; Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável RVS Wildlife Reserve; Reserva de Vida Silvestre REBIO; RB Biological Reserve; Reserva Biológica REMAC Continental Shore Survey Program; Programa de Reconhecimento da Margem Continental - Petrobrás/CENPES RESEX Extractive Reserve; Reserva Extrativista REVIZEE Program on the Assessment of the Sustainable Potential of Living Resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone; Programa 10

12 de Avaliação do Potencial Sustentável de Recursos Vivos na Zona Econômica e Exclusiva - MMA RPPN Private Reserve of the Natural Heritage; Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural SBF Secretariat of Biodiversity and Forests; Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas - MMA SDS Secretariat of Sustainable Development; Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Sustentável - MMA SDS-AM Amazon State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainable Development; Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável/AM SEMA Secretariat of the Environment; Secretaria de Meio Ambiente SEPLAN Secretariat of Planning; Secretaria de Planejamento SIPAM Amazon Protection System; Sistema de Proteção da Amazônia SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission TI Indigenous Land; Terra Indígena TNC The Nature Conservancy UFAM Amazonas Federal University; Universidade Federal do Amazonas UFG Goiás Federal University; Universidade Federal de Goiás UFGs Phytogeographical Units; Unidades Fitogeográficas UFMA Maranhão Federal University; Universidade Federal do Maranhão UFMG Minas Gerais Federal University; Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais UFMT Mato Grosso Federal University; Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso UFPE Pernambuco Federal University; Universidade Federal de Pernambuco UFRGS Rio Grande do Sul Federal University; Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul UFRJ Rio de Janeiro Federal University; Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro UnB Brasília University; Universidade de Brasília UNDP United Nations Development Program UP Planning Unit; Unidade de Planejamento USP São Paulo University; Universidade de São Paulo WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WWF World Wide Fund for Nature ZEE Exclusive Economic Zone; Zona Econômica Exclusiva ZEE Ecological-Economic Zoning; Zoneamento Ecológicoeconômico 11

13 Index 1. Introduction to the Assessment Process Technical Meetings Data processing Regional Workshops Preparation of the Final Map Amazon Biome Background Technical Meetings and data processing Definition of Conservation Targets Definition of Conservation Goals Regional Workshops Results Pantanal Biome Background Technical Meetings and data processing Definition of Conservation Targets Definition of Conservation Goals Regional Workshop Results Cerrado Biome Background Technical Meetings and data processing Definition of Conservation Targets Definition of Conservation Goals Regional Workshops Results Background Technical Meetings and data processing Definition of Conservation Targets Definition of Conservation Goals Description of UPs and use of the natural formation databases Regional Workshop Results Atlantic Forest Biome Background Technical Meeting and data processing Definition of Conservation Targets Definition of Conservation Goals Regional Workshops Results Background Technical Meetings and data processing Definition of Conservation Targets Definition of Conservation Goals Regional Workshop Results Coastal and Marine Zone Background

14 8.2. Technical Meetings and data processing Regional Workshops Results Results Overall Results References Decree No. 5092, of 21 May MMA Administrative Ruling n o 126, of 27 May CONABIO Decision nº 39, of 14 December CONABIO Decision n 46, of 20 December MMA Administrative Ruling nº 9, of 23 January Guidance for Regional Workshops Background Objective of the Regional Workshops Participants Invited to the Regional Workshops Main Information Sources Main activities of the regional events The first activity will be the revision of the limits of the priority areas The second activity will be the Characterization of the Defined Areas The third activity will be Detailing the most adequate Actions for the Area: The fourth activity will be to set the PRIORITY degree for each area Questions and Answers: Lists of Participants of the Technical Meetings by Biome Lists of Participants of the Regional Workshops by Biome List of Priority Areas by Biome List of Conservation Targets and Goals by Biome

15 1. Introduction to the Assessment Process The process to update the priority areas for the conservation, sustainable use and sharing of benefits from Brazilian biodiversity was based on some initial assumptions: recognition of the importance of the previous priority-setting process and of the advances achieved with the Priority Areas for Biodiversity; need to incorporate up-to-date knowledge on biodiversity and more current methodologies for planning and processing available information; greater governmental participation in the leadership of the process, to ensure incorporation of the results in governmental actions; and the final product should not only have sound technical basis but also result from a negotiation process among representatives of various sectors. Based on these assumptions, the methodology adopted for the process to update the Priority Areas for Biodiversity incorporated the concepts and tools of the Systematic Planning for Conservation, which are: conservation targets biodiversity components (e.g.: species, habitats, ecosystems, etc.) that should be conserved, and that had their areas of occurrence spatially defined; conservation goals quantitative measure necessary to ensure resilience of the various targets in the long term; representativeness the selected set of areas must contain a representative sample of the region s biodiversity; complementarity new areas should be incorporated with the purpose of maximizing the number of conservation targets/goals covered; irrepleaceability the candidate areas must be classified according to their potential contribution to achieve the defined conservation goals and the effect of their unavailability in relation to other areas; efficiency and flexibility the selected areas must provide maximum biodiversity protection with the smallest spatial distance among the various possible options, determined by the cost/protection ratio; and vulnerability areas must be selected giving priority to those biodiversity conservation actions with the highest probability or imminence to eliminate threats to biodiversity targets. The approach of the Systematic Planning for Conservation and the prioritysetting tools are constantly evolving, especially the procedures involving geoprocessing and mathematical modeling. These technological tools support the decision-making process reducing its subjectivity, but should not replace the participatory process and negotiation for defining priorities and actions. To legitimate the definition of priority areas it was fundamental to maintain the participatory aspect, with extensive consultation and incorporation of interests and information from various sectors. To organize the process and to ensure the integration of the information produced, the Map of the Brazilian Biomes (IBGE 2004) was adopted as the reference for borders to establish the priority areas. 14

16 As general guidance, the officially Protected Areas were considered priority areas for biodiversity with no need for qualification, since specific studies were already conducted as part of the process to create them. Nevertheless, the priority actions, opportunities, threats, degree of importance, and priority for action for each Protected Area were defined during the regional workshops Technical Meetings Technical meetings were held for each Biome, with the participation of representatives from the government, academia, research institutions, and environmental organizations. The objective of these meetings was to define the conservation targets, establish their respective conservation goals, relative importance, and databases (see the lists of participants of the technical meetings per biome in annex 11.7). The following target categories were considered: Biodiversity Targets: species that are endemic, of limited distribution, or threatened; habitats; phytophysiognomies; exceptional or rare biological phenomena; and biodiversity substitutes (environmental units which indicate biological diversity, e.g.: geomorphological and oceanographic phenomena, watersheds or interfluve areas, among others); Sustainable Use Targets: species of economic, medicinal or phytotherapic importance; areas/species which are important for traditional populations and for maintaining their knowledge; flag species that can provide incentives to conservation and sustainable use actions; key species on which the sustainable use of biodiversity components depends; areas that are important for conservation-based development; areas providing environmental services to agricultural areas (such as crops that depend on pollination and biological control); areas that are important to the cultural and social diversity associated to biodiversity; and Resilience and Process Targets: areas important for maintaining environmental services (climate maintenance, bio-geochemical cycles, hydrological processes, aquifer recharge areas); areas with high endemism rate and evolutionary processes; areas important for clustering, migratory and pollinating species; climatic refuges; connectivity and gene flow areas; areas protecting watersheds; areas important for maintaining the flood regime of wetlands; extensive areas for long-ranging species. Objective, quantitative goals were set for each conservation target. Existing international policies and commitments were taken into consideration to define goals (e.g.: the Convention on Biological Diversity goals), as well as the specific characteristics of each target (e.g.: rarity, extension of the area of occurrence, current condition, vulnerability) (see the list of conservation targets and goals defined for each biome in annex 11.10) Data processing A process of data inventory and systematization was initiated based on the results of the technical meetings. Maps indicating irreplaceable areas were generated using decision-making supporting tools such as the C-Plan software (NPWS-NSW, 15

17 2003). These maps set forth the degree of biological importance of each selected area to attain the conservation goals established for the identified conservation targets. Simulations of the best combination of areas to address the established set of targets and goals were generated using the MARXAN mathematical modeling software (Ball and Possingham, 2000). The Ministry of the Environment endeavored to systematize an information set, including maps and satellite images, to support the identification of priority areas and actions. It is important to note the fundamental role of the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map at the 1:250,000 scale, based on 2002 data, commissioned by MMA with PROBIO resources, which was essential to identify the current status of the areas Regional Workshops Representatives of the government, academia, environmental organizations, organizations representing traditional peoples and communities, and the private sector were invited to participate in the regional workshops (see the list of participants of the Regional Workshops per Biome in annex 11.8). The systematized information set was used to support discussions held in the regional workshops, allowing each sector s interests and perspective to be considered during negotiations (annex 11.6). The regional workshops also took into consideration the areas instituted by MMA Administrative Ruling n o 126, of For each identified area, the participants described its characteristics, threats, opportunities for conservation, degree of importance, and priority for the implementation of the set of conservation, sustainable use, and benefit-sharing actions which were considered most adequate: Conservation actions: creation of protected areas, expansion of existing protected areas, establishment of no-fishing zones, incentive to the establishment of mosaics of protected areas, enforcement and control, among others; Management actions: implementation and consolidation of protected areas, management of watersheds and water resources, recuperation of degraded areas, establishment of ecological corridors, sustainable management of natural resources, management of pests and invasive species, resolution of management conflicts in protected areas, enforcement and control, among others; Research actions: biological inventories, biodiversity monitoring, specific studies on population dynamics, long-term research, among others; Institutional actions: ratification of Indigenous Lands, recognition of Quilombo Lands, implementation of Watershed Committees, Ecological- Economic Zoning, implementation of environmental education programs, implementation of economic mechanisms to support biodiversity conservation, among others; and Other required actions. The areas identified in this process were classified according to their degree of importance to biodiversity and urgency for the implementation of suggested actions. To that end, the following symbols were adopted: 16

18 Biological Importance: Urgency for action: 1.4. Preparation of the Final Map Strong effort was applied to eliminate overlap in the preparation of the final map of priority areas, since this would increase the estimates of the total area without actually representing an effective increase of the priority areas. To that end, all new indicated areas that overlapped with areas that were already protected were partially or completely excluded, maintaining the original shape of the protected area. Among areas already under protection, the Indigenous Lands were always considered untouchable and were left intact. On the other hand, overlaps among existing protected areas were maintained, considering the strongest protection category for the analysis: existing full protection protected areas prevail over the existing sustainable use protected areas with which they overlap; among the older protected areas, when falling in the same category of protection: federal areas prevail over state areas (and the same is valid for the state/municipal areas). Only the broader categories (full protection vs. sustainable use) were considered for these analyses, ignoring the specific category of the area (park, ecological station ESEC, biological reserve REBIO, etc.). Since borders were altered and some protected areas were excluded to eliminate overlap (maintaining the limits of the protected area providing stronger protection), the priority areas map does not include all protected areas and presents modified polygons for several protected areas. Therefore, this map should not be considered a source of information on protected areas. More precise maps of the officially protected areas can be obtained with MMA, IBAMA and OEMAs. Additionally, when overlap occurred for areas indicated by different workshops, the project coordination made the necessary spatial adjustments in the final map, also adjusting the database and incorporating the information on overlapping areas. The project coordination team organized recommendations and actions recorded in the database prepared by each working group in a hierarchy to define the priority actions for each area. For that purpose, the following order was adopted: (1) the creation 17

19 of protected areas, whenever recommended, was considered a priority action; (2) specific recommendations, such as recuperation of degraded areas or watershed management, received priority over broader actions, such as conducting biological inventories, enforcement, and environmental education. 18

20 2. Amazon Biome 2.1. Background The Amazon biome is characterized by its vast dimension: it occupies almost 50% of the national territory; this is where the largest watershed is located, with the largest volume of freshwater in the world; and it represents the largest continuous block of tropical forest in the world. Unlike the other Brazilian biomes, most of the Amazon is still relatively well conserved, which represents an extraordinary opportunity for a society increasingly aware of the importance of biodiversity and environmental services. This is the opportunity to implement development while maintaining the natural and cultural richness that comprise the fantastic socio-biodiversity of the Amazon. To seize this opportunity is everyone s challenge: government, society, business sector, communities, and individuals. The challenge is expressed by the destruction of the forest which, despite having significantly decreased in the past few years, still places Brazil among the five largest emitters of carbon dioxide, with the consequent impact on global warming. Of the Brazilian emissions, approximately 70% result from deforestation. Studies have shown that forest losses may have strong impact on the region s water cycle. By reducing leaf area, the conversion of forest into pastures enormously reduces evapotranspiration, which may have drastic effects on the rain regime, since half of the Amazon rain is attributed to water recycled through the forest. Alteration of the rain regime could be one of the main drivers of the savannization of a large portion of the biome, which is predicted by simulations of global warming effects. It was estimated that, to maintain the present rain regime, it would be necessary to maintain approximately 70% of the original forest cover (Silva-Dias et al.2002). Although the Amazon biodiversity currently receives less media attention than environmental services, the biodiversity is one of the most valuable attributes of the region. The biome s vast area and enormous variety of ecosystems are home to a biological diversity that figures among the largest in the world but the complexity of its habitats and the limited knowledge about its fauna and flora make it difficult to estimate numbers. To this date, research expeditions continue to reveal species that are new to science, and to change the known patterns of distribution at a surprising frequency (Peres 2005; Cohn-Haft et al., in press). The loss of biodiversity, associated to the environmental degradation processes, is therefore invaluable. Many of the current and potential uses of biodiversity also justify efforts to avoid its loss (Fearnside, 2003). Experts have recommended the creation of protected areas as one of the most effective measures to contain the advance of deforestation (Ferreira and Venticinque, 2005). According to this approach, even though the full protection protected areas are the most efficient, sustainable use protected areas and indigenous lands are significant, given the area they cover (approximately 35% of the biome) and their relevant role in maintaining socio-biodiversity. Social diversity represents the conservation of knowledge on nature and management techniques that are important for maintaining biological diversity, in addition to representing the maintenance of the large variety of cultural and ethnic features of the Amazon. Therefore, considering the enormous importance of the Amazon forest to the sustainability of the region and of the planet, and its great potential for the region s 19

21 economic development, the various social groups involved in this priority updating process recognize over 80% of the biome as Priority Areas for Biodiversity. These areas reflect concern with biodiversity, social sustainability, economic development, and maintenance of environmental services, and include the recommendation of actions that go beyond the creation of protected areas Technical Meetings and data processing The technical meetings had the objective to provide resource information to the preparation of the Biological Importance Map, through the definition of conservation targets and their respective goals. Initially, only one technical meeting was proposed for the Amazon biome, and held in Cuiabá/MT, from 11 to 15 September, This meeting counted 101 participants, including experts from governmental agencies, academia, and non-governmental organizations. It also included other representatives from governmental agencies and from the organized civil society, since the involvement of the various stakeholders from the beginning of the process would ease their commitment with the subsequent steps (see the list of participants in annex ). All work related to the Amazon biome was supported by the Amazon Protected Areas Program ARPA, and its partners. The objective of the meeting was to prepare the Biological Importance Map during the event, to allow its examination by the plenary and any adjustment, if needed. This event was named a Technical Meeting, since very specific products were expected from it. To make this strategy viable, the updating of the Priority Areas for Biodiversity was broadly publicized about a month prior to the meeting, and all possible stakeholders were requested to organize themselves and to make available any electronic and georeferenced database that could collaborate with the process. To support the preparation of the map during the technical meeting, and the opening presentation on the history of the process and proposed methodology, strong investment was made to prepare a summary presentation on the Systematic Planning for Conservation and its basic criteria, to explain the software s role in supporting decision making in each step of the process. Specific presentations defined and exemplified conservation targets and goals, and discussed case studies where this methodology was applied. The event comprised three different types of group work: (1) identification of conservation targets; (2) definition of conservation goals; and (3) discussion and identification of proposals to improve the next steps of the process. For the next steps, the working groups proposed a few important changes in the process. Among these, holding smaller technical meetings was recommended, to be convened in renowned academic organizations such as the Emílio Goeldi Museum of Pará MPEG, the Amazon National Research Institute INPA, and the Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science SBPC, to allow a larger number of experts to assess the proposed conservation targets and goals. These meetings were convened on October 11 (MPEG), 13 (INPA), and 16 (SBPC), 2006 with 31, 10, and 9 participants, respectively. Since the conservation targets proposed by the Cuiabá Technical Meeting resulted in a homogeneous prioritization of the entire biome, these additional meetings assisted the project coordination team to adjust the originally proposed targets, particularly those considered less consistent by the experts. These adjustments were presented and discussed with the participants of the subsequent steps of the process. 20

22 Definition of Conservation Targets Four working groups GTs were formed to define targets. The composition of these groups was defined by the team coordinating the event. Efforts were made to keep the size of the groups as similar as possible, yet selecting participants from various backgrounds to each working group. All GTs worked simultaneously on the task of proposing conservation targets and defining how to select them based on the available information. For that purpose, each meeting room was equipped with a datashow and a computer containing all available databases. The coordination team ensured that all GTs counted with at least one participant capable of using the GIS databases so that all GTs had adequate access to the available information, and could indicate which databases were the most appropriate to represent each conservation target identified. The final definition of targets resulted from the comparison of the proposals made by all working groups and from the plenary discussion to resolve divergences. One of the main divergences encountered during the process was related to including information on species among the selected targets. Those defending the inclusion of this information argued this is the only direct information available on biodiversity distribution, while those opposing it considered this information always includes biases, and as such can over-value those areas that are better known. Consensus was sought by using only the best quality information available. However, this divergence was not completely overcome, and throughout the process both sides expressed dissatisfaction. At the end of the process, the categories of selected targets included: aquatic habitats; terrestrial habitats; species; centers of endemism; processes; and sustainable use. The definition of the information to be used for composing the sets of targets was the primary object of discussion in the Target GTs, except for the processes and sustainable use targets, the definition of which was discussed by the Goals GTs. For all other target types, the proposals presented by the Target GTs were discussed by the plenary, and the best possible composition was defined (see the list of conservation targets and goals in annex ). Aquatic habitats The map of the watersheds classified as level 3 by the Ottobacias system (Galvão and Meneses, 2005) was the basis to define aquatic habitats. This level subdivides the Rio Negro watershed, for example, into Upper Negro, Lower Negro, Branco, and Jauaperi, and the Rio Juruá watershed into Upper, Middle, and Lower Juruá. Overall, the level 3 watersheds map provided by ANA subdivides the biome into 90 portions. Although this was considered the most adequate level of watersheds to reflect differences among large groups of aquatic fauna, it was argued that this level of subdivision alone was not enough, since it does not reflect differences among river segments above and below waterfalls. Geological age was considered the best database to define waterfall areas which, in the Brazilian Amazon, are associated with Paleozoic formations. The geological age map, containing 7 classes, was provided by the INPA GIS Laboratory. The overlap of these two maps generated 299 conservation targets. Given the strong relationship between aquatic and terrestrial habitats in the Amazon, it was considered that at least a portion of the priority areas should be located next to the water bodies to obtain the desired effect of conserving a proportion of each watershed. With this strategy, riparian forests and small water bodies would be addressed, which are important for maintaining breeding and lateral migration habitat for the aquatic fauna. These border areas were also considered important for the terrestrial fauna, since they ensure access to water. To protect these habitats, the establishment of 10-km buffer zones around the main rivers was proposed. The database 21

23 used to define these buffer zones was the hydrography polygons database, at the 1:250,000 scale, provided by SIPAM. To ensure the distribution of these buffer zones among watersheds, the 10-km strip was overlapped with a level 3 watershed map, making the buffer zone around each water body in each watershed a new conservation target. This procedure generated 78 conservation targets. Terrestrial Habitats The definition of the terrestrial habitats was based on the vegetation map at the 1:250,000 scale, provided by SIPAM. In this electronic database, the vegetation types were labeled as fractions of vegetation types, composed of two- or three-letter codes. Since these codes were the same as those used by RADAMBRASIL, a name field was created before the technical meeting, based on the RADAMBRASIL codes and considering the first code in each fraction as the dominant type. A new field was created using, whenever possible, the oldest vegetation type described for each location. This work was performed by Bruce Nelson, from INPA, assisted by Ekena Rangel from WWF-Brazil, and generated 49 vegetation classes. In addition to the vegetation map, the effect of rivers as barriers, particularly for primates (Ayres and Clutton Brock, 1992) and birds (Haffer, 1992) was considered important for the characterization of the terrestrial habitats. Since no map of the interfluve areas was available within these databases, a map containing 15 interfluve areas among the main rivers was generated during the technical meeting. This map was based on the hydrography map prepared by SIPAM (1:250,000) and the Brazilian Biomes Map (IBGE, 2004). The map of interfluve areas was considered an important contribution to differentiate among forest formations longitudinally but, especially for the broadleaf forests, there were important latitudinal differences that were not detected by any of these databases (vegetation or interfluve areas). It was argued that this differentiation could be associated with variation in geological age, and it was proposed that the final terrestrial habitats map should be composed by the intersection among the vegetation map, the interfluve area map, and the geological age map. This composition generated 511 conservation targets. Species The only databases available at the species level included information on lizards and primates, both provided by CI and MPEG. The Species GT recommended the inclusion of all 95 primate species and of the 35 lizard species for which the species distribution had been mapped. However, the lizard maps inspired doubts about the uniformity of sampling and the type of information each map represented (whether areas or events of occurrence). A previous selection of those species for which data was reliable would be necessary to include this group. Since this previous selection had not been made, a recommendation was made to the smaller technical meetings to exclude the lizard databases from the analyses. The Species GT also recommended that goals should be set for sub-basins, given the isolation between headwaters and consequent high level of endemism for fish species but their inclusion among targets was already addressed by the set of aquatic habitat targets. Centers of Endemism It was decided to include the centers of endemism for Papilionidae butterflies and for birds, since the sampling for their definition was considered more consistent. There are 14 centers of endemism described for Papilionidae butterflies (Tyler et al. 1994) and 9 for birds (Cracraft, 1985). The endemism databases were added to the main resource databases and made available by Conservation International. The smaller technical meetings argued that even these centers are not widely accepted within the scientific community and that more recent sampling efforts, especially for birds (Borges 22

24 et al. 2001), are proposing modifications for these standards. These discussions resulted in the centers of endemism being one of the target groups that suffered the greatest reduction of goals during the adjustment phase of the analysis. Processes One of the proposed targets was a forested area large enough to maintain climatic function. For that purpose, the suggested target was a set of forested areas in the southeastern watersheds of the Amazon (watersheds of the Araguaia, Tocantins, Xingu, Tapajós, and Madeira rivers). At the smaller technical meetings, however, it was discussed that this was not the area of greatest importance for climatic functions. The main areas should be located along the dry corridor, which passes through the Tapajós river towards the Guianas, and which is the first area to suffer severe savannization due to global warming, and where conservation would have the challenge of avoiding this process; together with the extreme northeast (cabeça-do-cachorro, or dog s head) which, according to simulation models, will remain forested under any scenario of predicted emissions, conserving a portion of tropical forest in the long term (Salazar et al., in press). To maintain the hydrological regime of the largest rivers, it was proposed that conservation targets should include 40% of the better conserved level 4 sub-watersheds within each level 3 sub-watershed. The plenary discussions recommended the additional maintenance of a portion of the region s rivers free from infrastructure works (hydroelectric dams, water ways, ports, or similar works), but this proposal was not quantified. Sustainable Use Species and habitats important to the Amazon human populations for the obtention of natural resources were selected as sustainable use targets. Among these, the ones that could be mapped in the short-term were further selected: (1) areas with high potential for wood exploitation (broadleaf evergreen forest, excluding those portions over Proterozoic formations, which present highly irregular relief that hinders exploitation); (2) flooded areas, given their high potential for fisheries (ISA et al, 2001); (3) areas of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) occurrence, which were mapped based on Grogan et al. (2002); (4) areas of jarina (Phytelephas macrocarpa) occurrence, defined as the Upper Purus, Upper and Middle Juruá, and Javari river watersheds; (5) areas of piassava palm (Leopoldina piassava) occurrence, which include the Demini, Padauiri, and Xié river watersheds. The smaller technical meetings argued that the mahogany map may reflect the past distribution of the species instead of the current distribution. However, it was also underlined that the mahogany distribution pattern, as for jarina and piassava, are common to many species and even if these species already had their distribution patterns altered by human use, the inclusion of their known original areas allowed the conservation of many other species that present the same distribution patterns Definition of Conservation Goals The Goals GTs were organized by theme, and participants joined these groups at their choice. Even though some participants observed that centers of endemism are more closely related to processes than to species, the coordination team considered that the working group discussing goals for species would be most familiarized with biogeographical issues and would be better prepared to discuss this theme than the group working with processes. Therefore, the working groups to define conservation 23

25 goals were: (1) aquatic habitats; (2) terrestrial habitats; (3) species and centers of endemism; (4) processes; and (5) sustainable use. Aquatic habitats: at the Cuiabá meeting, the group considered that waterfall areas should have the highest conservation goals, due to the numerous endemisms present in this type of habitat, followed by headwater areas and the remaining aquatic habitat targets. The smaller technical meetings observed that waterfalls would not have water if the headwaters were not conserved, and therefore proposed that goals should be equivalent for these two habitat types, at 30% of the conservation target. The goals for the remaining watersheds were defined at 20% of the conservation target. The buffer zones around rivers in each level 3 watershed had goals defined at 60% of the conservation target. Terrestrial habitats: considering that intersections rendered all vegetation types endemic to the interfluve areas and geological age strata, goals were set based mainly on the area of occurrence of each habitat. Habitats with size smaller than 50,000 hectares had their conservation goal defined at 100% of the conservation target. For the other habitat sizes, the goals were set at 60% of the target for those between 50,000 and 500,000 hectares, 40% for habitats between 500,000 and 5 million hectares, and 20% of the conservation target for those larger than 5 million hectares. Primate species: conservation goals were set at 100% of the target for those primate species with total distribution size smaller than 3 million hectares. Area size for conservation goals was estimated as the minimum area to maintain viable populations of species in this group, particularly those of smaller primates, which in general have more limited distribution. For the remaining species, the conservation goal was set at 20% of the conservation target when species distribution exceeded 3 million hectares. Centers of endemism: the conservation goal for Papilionidae butterflies was set at 10% of the target for the Manaus-Guiana center of endemism, which is the largest one for this group and was used as the basis to estimate this goal, and at 15% of the conservation target for the remaining centers. The Belém Endemism Center was the basis to define the goals for bird endemism centers. The centers smaller than or equivalent to the Belém center (Sub-center Duidae, Sub-center Gran Sabana, Imeri, Inambari, and Napo) had goals set at 15% of the target. The goals for the larger centers (Guiana, Inambari, Rondônia, and Tapajós) were set at 10% of the target. The forested area within the southeastern watersheds of the Amazon was given a conservation goal of 20% of the target, as for all the sustainable use targets. The goal proposed for the most untouched watersheds was of 40% of the target, meaning that for the total area of each level 3 sub-watershed 40% of the level 4 watersheds should be conserved. This latter was the only object not expressed in the relevant areas map, and a recommendation was made to the regional workshops to consider the conservation of watersheds. Description of the Planning Units and use of the natural formation bases The planning units used for assessing priority areas in the Amazon were hexagons of 50,000 hectares, generated by a Patch Analyst extension of the Arc-View software. Hexagons located within the limits of full protection protected areas only were dissolved to respect the actual borders of the protected areas. The contours of the other types of protected area and indigenous lands were inserted in the planning units database, but the shape of the hexagons was maintained. 24

26 An irreplaceability map was generated with C-Plan. To avoid extremely degraded areas, hexagons that were over 80% deforested according to PRODES 2005 data (INPE-OBT, 2007) were excluded from the solution. This procedure altered some irreplaceability values, but also revealed the impossibility to achieve the conservation goals for 63 of the 1012 conservation targets, noting that for 10 of them the goals were reduced by more than 50%. The MINSET algorithm of the C-Plan was used to generate the polygons map, with the following selection criteria: (1) maximum irreplaceability; (2) maximum proportion of contribution; (3) rarity of the target; (4) overall rarity; and (5) number of targets addressed. The maximum irreplaceability and rarity criteria were most effectively used by the system. To simplify future references to this map, from now on this text will refer to it as the system proposal. Technical Team Ronaldo Weigand Jr. (MMA-ARPA- General Coordinator); Ana Luisa Albernaz (ARPA-GTZ/MPEG- Technical Coordinator for the Amazon Biome); Daniela de Oliveira e Silva (MMA-ARPA- Executive Coordinator); Rejane Andrade and Isabel Castro (MMA-ARPA- Logistics), Walkyria Moraes (ARPA-GTZ- Moderator), Eduardo Felizola and Javier Fawaz (ARPA-FUNBIO/Greentec - Geoprocessing). Figure Biological Importance Map of the Amazon Biome 2.3. Regional Workshops Three regional workshops were convened for the Amazon biome. The first was held in Brasília, from October 24 to 27, 2006 and included discussions on the states of Maranhão, Tocantins, Mato Grosso, and Rondônia (see list of participants in annex ). The second regional workshop was held in Belém, from November 6 to 9, 25

27 2006, including discussions on the sates of Acre, Amazonas, Roraima, Pará, and Amapá (see list of participants in annex ). The third workshop, held in Manaus from December 6 to 7, 2006, discussed the priority classification of indigenous lands and had the same geographic scope as the second workshop (Acre, Amazonas, Roraima, Pará, and Amapá) (see list of participants in annex ). The fist two workshops counted, respectively, with 105 and 119 participants, including representatives from academia (16%), environmental NGOs (19%), social and indigenous organizations (22%), and federal and state governmental agencies (43%). The third workshop had 61 participants, including the technical support team (10%), and representatives from indigenous peoples (42%), organizations working with indigenous groups (12%), academia (anthropologists and specialists on indigenous issues 18%), and the federal government (MMA, FUNAI 18%). As suggested by the Technical Meeting s Next Steps GTs, each Regional Workshop was preceded by a one-day Preparatory Meeting to discuss social demands. The objective of these meetings preceding the first and second regional workshops was to organize the demands for the creation of sustainable use protected areas, which were collated into a single proposal presented by the institutions supporting the organization of these events: IBAMA - DISAM, ISA, and CNS. The preparatory meeting for the third regional workshop had the purpose of presenting information and providing guidance to representatives of indigenous groups for participating in the activities; as well as to define criteria to classify the indigenous lands according to importance and urgency for action. In addition to the partners listed above, this meeting also counted with support from COIAB. Participants of the regional workshops were organized in discussing groups according to the Amazonian states, mostly due to the fact that many states have their own territorial planning instruments, such as ZEEs. Biogeographical or environmental dynamics similarities led the coordination team to group some areas from different states, and the size or occupancy complexity of particular areas led to the subdivision of other states. As a result, the state of Mato Grosso had two working groups corresponding to the Xingu and Tapajós watersheds; the state of Rondônia was also divided in two, one for the area to the north of BR-364 highway, and one for the area south of this highway; the state of Amazonas was divided in two by the Solimões- Amazonas river. The northern portion of Amazonas was joined with the Roraima state for discussion. The state of Pará was divided into east and west portions separated by the Xingu river, and a third portion identified as Northern Arm, to the north of the Amazonas river. The Northern Arm was joined with the Amapá state for discussions. Since the second regional workshop was held simultaneously with the Coastal Zone workshop, priority areas were defined separately by the teams of both biomes, and later both teams gathered for the final decisions. The regional workshop working groups generally followed the same methodology: first, the respective focus area was separated into large blocks defined according to the human occupancy dynamics, environmental characteristics, and/or predominant economic activities. Some examples of dividing lines are major roads such as BR-174 and BR-163, floodplain areas, groups of settlements, or pristine forest blocks. For each of these smaller divisions, the preliminary areas proposed by the analysis software were evaluated first, particularly regarding the presence of protected areas, deforestation, and human occupancy. The main databases used to assess deforestation were PRODES-2005, Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007), Google Earth, and Biota-Pará (provided by CI and MPEG for eastern Pará state). 26

28 Human occupancy was assessed based on the IBGE localities database, which was processed and provided by TNC, combined with direct knowledge of local inhabitants. This approach indicated whether the polygon should be considered a new priority area and if it should be maintained where the analysis software placed it, or if it should be moved. To move polygons, the irreplaceability map was consulted to identify hexagons of greater value for conservation close to each polygon under evaluation. The outline of each polygon was adjusted following this analysis, mostly based on natural features, particularly hydrography (SIPAM database 1:250,000) and level 4 and 5 watersheds (both databases were provided by ANA). Many outlines were also adjusted according to the limits of existing protected areas, to increase connectivity among priority areas. This methodology was also used by most working groups to analyze the locations proposed by social demand for the creation of protected areas. These proposals were organized during the preparatory meetings and presented by the states or IBAMA, and incorporated most of the proposed areas as priority areas. Conflicts between proposals of the same group were negotiated, but consensus was not always reached. In those cases, both recommendations were included in the database. After the priority area outline was defined, the coordination team provided the average values of biological relevance and threat for each polygon to the working groups, for the adjustment of the area s classification according to urgency for action. Biological relevance was based on the irreplaceability values obtained from the map generated from conservation targets and goals defined in the technical meetings. Importance of the polygons was increased based on information not included in the systematic planning, such as the presence of endemic species, abundance of important natural resources, size of the area (larger areas were considered more important), or relevance for connecting other protected areas. These decisions were made mostly based on individual knowledge detained by the participants of the working groups. The degree of threat to each priority area was based on the model developed by Britaldo Soares (Nelson et al., 2006). In general, greater urgency was attributed to the most threatened areas. Because this model is mostly focused on the advance of deforestation, the base values provided by the coordination team were altered when other threats not included in the model caused strong stress on the defined areas. For instance, the dog s head (extreme northwest of the biome) is very far from the deforestation frontiers and therefore was given a low threat value by the model. However, since it is located on the country s border, several other threats are present, such as drug traffic and wood smuggling. The knowledge of people who live or work in these regions was the main source of information to include these other threats. The work of IMAZON and IPAM was of great importance for the analysis of Pará state. The presence of endemic and threatened species, the size of the area, and its importance for connecting protected areas were also considered to classify the importance of protected areas. The degree of implementation of each protected area was also considered to define the urgency for action. Protected areas already implemented, with management plan and management councils, were considered as having less urgency for action than protected areas under implementation. For this evaluation, in addition to individual knowledge of participants in the working groups, information from the RAPPAM database (IBAMA) was used to analyze full protection protected areas, and the ISA database was used to assess the status of indigenous lands. There was some confusion between the words urgency and priority, which were used alternatively during the regional workshops. Due to this confusion, many working groups defined the priority value as equal to the degree of urgency, while other working 27

29 groups obtained the priority value through an average between importance and urgency. Given the use of these different criteria, at the end of the process it was suggested that, in the next update of the priority areas, a clear distinction is made between these two concepts. Technical Team Ronaldo Weigand Jr. (MMA-ARPA - General Coordinator); Marcos Reis Rosa (MMA/Arcplan - General Technical Coordinator); Daniela de Oliveira e Silva (MMA- ARPA - Executive Coordinator); Ana Luisa Albernaz (ARPA-GTZ/MPEG - Technical Coordinator for the Amazon Biome); Rejane Andrade and Isabel Castro (MMA-ARPA - Logistics); Maria Alice and Márcia Tagore (ARPA-GTZ Moderators of the 1 st Workshop); Márcia Tagore and Ana Rosa M. de Figueiredo (ARPA-GTZ Moderators of the 2 nd and 3 rd Workshops); Javier Fawaz (ARPA-FUNBIO/Greentec - Geoprocessing). Collaborators Preparatory Meetings on Social Demands Collaborating Institutions: ISA, CNS, IBAMA-DISAM, and COIAB Coordination: Alicia Rolla (ISA), Cristina Velasquez (ISA), Francisco Apurinã (COIAB), Leonardo Pacheco (IBAMA-DISAM), Luciene Pohl (CNS), Manuel Cunha (CNS), and Rodrigo Rodrigues (IBAMA-DISAM). 1 st Regional Workshop Maranhão: Anselmo Oliveira (IBAMA-ProVárzea - Facilitation and Geoprocessing); Tocantins: Eduardo Felizola (Greentec - Facilitation and Geoprocessing); Mato Grosso- Xingu: Daniela de Oliveira e Silva (MMA-ARPA Facilitation) and Diogo Regis (Greentec Geoprocessing); Mato Grosso-Tapajós: Laura Dietzsch (IPAM - Facilitation and Geoprocessing). Rondônia-North: Isabel Castro (MMA-ARPA Facilitation) and Marcelo Cavallini (IBAMA-DIREC Geoprocessing); Rondônia- South: Ekena Rangel (WWF-Brazil - Facilitation and Geoprocessing). 2 nd Regional Workshop Acre: Isabel Castro (MMA-ARPA Facilitation) and Laura Dietzsch (IPAM Geoprocessing); Amapá and Pará-Northern Arm: Daniela de Oliveira e Silva (MMA- ARPA Facilitation) and Diogo Regis (Greentec Geoprocessing); Amazonas-South: Leonardo Pacheco (IBAMA-DISAM Facilitation); Marcelo Cavallini (IBAMA- DIREC- Facilitation) and Alicia Rolla (ISA Geoprocessing); Pará-East: Anselmo Oliveira (IBAMA-ProVárzea Facilitation) and Eduardo Felizola (ARPA- FUNBIO/Greentec Geoprocessing); Pará-West: Fernanda Carvalho (MMA-SBF Facilitation) and Cícero Augusto (ISA Geoprocessing); Roraima and Amazonas- North: Marina Fonseca (ISA Facilitation) and Rogério Vereza (MMA-DAP Geoprocessing). 3 rd Regional Workshop Acre: Dan Pasca (GTZ Facilitation) and Anselmo Oliveira (IBAMA-ProVárzea Geoprocessing); Amazonas-North: Isabel Castro (MMA-ARPA Facilitation) and Daniela de Oliveira e Silva (MMA-ARPA Geoprocessing); Amazonas-South: Leonardo Pacheco (IBAMA-DISAM Facilitation) and Alicia Rolla (ISA Geoprocessing); Pará: Fernanda Carvalho (MMA-SBF Facilitation) and Sylvain Desmoulière (INPA Geoprocessing); Roraima, Northern Arm of Pará and Amapá: Ronaldo Weigand (MMA-ARPA Facilitation); Juliana Schietti (INPA Geoprocessing) and Eduardo Felizola (ARPA-FUNBIO/Greentec Geoprocessing). 28

30 2.4. Results The final map of the Amazon priority areas is composed by 824 areas, of which 334 are new priority areas and 490 are already protected (see list of the Priority Areas for the Amazon Biome in annex ). The total set of priority areas covers approximately 80% of the biome, of which over half (44.3% of the biome) is already under some type of protection Protected Areas or Indigenous Lands. In comparison to the previous process to define priority areas, conducted in Macapá in 1999, despite the reduction of the total area under analysis (the previous process encompassed the entire Legal Amazon, while the present effort reduced the area to the limits of the biome), there was an increase in the total number of priority areas. Under the previous process, approximately 59% of the Amazon had been recognized as priority. The result of this process to update the priority areas is presented below: comparison of the frequency of biological importance classes among themselves and between the two processes conducted in 1999 and 2006 (Table 2.4.1); comparison of the frequency of the urgency for action classes (Table 2.4.2); distribution of the main action indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 2.4.3); distribution of all actions indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 2.4.4); and the final map of the Priority Areas for the Amazon Biome (Figure and insert to this publication). Table Total extension and number of priority areas in the Amazon Biome, by Biological Importance class, as defined in 1999 and New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 1999 Total Area (km 2 ) % Total Area (km 2 ) % Total Area (km 2 ) % Biological Importance Number of Areas Number of Areas Number of Areas High , , ,919 1 Very High , , , Extremely High , ,301, ,812, Insufficiently Known 5 28, , ,713 1 TOTAL 316 1,485, ,914, ,496,888 Table Total extension and number of priority areas in the Amazon Biome, by Priority for Action class, as defined in New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 2006 Total Area (km 2 ) % Total Area (km 2 ) % Total Area (km 2 ) % Priority for Action Number of Areas Number of Areas Number of Areas High , , , Very High , , , Extremely High , , ,666, TOTAL 316 1,485, ,914, ,399,642 Table Distribution of the main priority action indicated to the priority areas of the Amazon Biome. Type of Priority Action Number of Areas Total Area (km 2 ) Percent of the BIOME Creation of Full Protection Protected Area , Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area , Creation of Protected Area undefined category ,

31 Creation of Mosaic/Corridor , Fostering Sustainable Use 18 73, Biological Inventory 2 1, Watershed Management 13 91, Territorial Planning and Regularization , Fisheries Planning and Regularization 12 83, Recognition of Indigenous/Quilombola Lands 18 33, Recuperation of Degraded Areas , Environmental Education 3 10, NEW AREAS TOTAL 334 1,520, Areas already under protection 490 1,873, TOTAL 824 3,393, Total Area of the Biome 4,228,533 Table Distribution of all actions indicated to the priority areas of the Amazon Biome. Indicated Actions Number of Areas Total Area (km 2 ) Enforcement 247 1,156,810 Environmental Education ,218 Biological Inventory ,676 Recuperation of Degraded Areas ,291 Creation of Mosaics/Corridors ,250 Fostering Sustainable Use ,406 Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area ,273 Socio-anthropological Studies ,708 Studies on the Physical Environment ,558 Recuperation of Endangered Species ,879 Creation of Full Protection Protected Area ,217 Creation of Protected Area undefined category ,562 Management of Biological Resources 23 49,052 30

32 Figure Map of the Priority Areas of the Amazon Biome 31

33 3. Pantanal Biome 3.1. Background The Pantanal covers approximately 140,000 km 2 of the Upper Paraguai River Watershed (including the Paraguai river tributaries) and is characterized as one of the largest continuous wetlands of the planet. The Pantanal was recognized as National Heritage by the 1988 Constitution, as Wetlands of International Importance by the Ramsar Convention, and as Biosphere Reserve and World Natural Heritage by UNESCO. However, only 2.5% of the Upper Paraguai River Watershed is officially under protection as federal and state protected areas and private reserves (Harris et al., 2005). Vegetation in the Pantanal is heterogeneous and influenced mainly by the Cerrado, but also includes elements from the Amazon Forest, Chaco, and Atlantic Forest. This characteristic, together with the different soil types and flood regimes, is responsible for the large variety of vegetation formations and for the heterogeneity of the landscape, which harbors rich aquatic and terrestrial biota (Pott and Adámoli, 1999). The main ecological factor determining patterns and processes in the Pantanal is the flooding regime, (Junk and Silva, 1999; Oliveira and Calheiros, 2000), with pulses amplitude varying between two and five meters, and lasting from three to six months. Species diversity is higher in the south than in the north of the biome, and there is practically no endemism, probably due to the recent history of the biome. However, the high abundance of wildlife should be noted. Approximately 124 mammal species occur in the Pantanal, and the biome notably harbors the largest known populations of pampas deer, marsh deer, jaguar, and giant river otter (Alho and Lacher Jr., 1991; Mourão et al., 2000; Tomas et al., 2000; Sanderson et al., 2002). Currently, 463 bird species are known to this biome (Mittermeier et al., 2003; Tubelis and Tomas, 2003); 117 of these figure in endangered species lists, and 130 are migratory species flying in from the south of the country, from the northern hemisphere, or from the Atlantic Forest (Antas, 1994; Nunes and Tomás, 2004). Additionally, 41 species of amphibians, 177 species of reptiles (Médri and Mourão, 2004), and over 260 fish species (Britski et al., 1999) have already been recorded in the Pantanal. Among the various threats to the conservation of biodiversity in the Pantanal, deforestation is notable, occurring both on the floodplain and on the adjacent plateau, resulting in severe erosive processes that cause deposition of sediments in the depressions and alter the water flow patterns and hydrological regimes (Harris et al., 2005). Other threats to the conservation of the ecosystems and ecological processes of the Pantanal are the infrastructure projects (particularly hydroelectric power plants, waterways, and mining ventures), hunting, alien invasive species, and pollution originated from pesticide use in agricultural areas along the headwaters of the major rivers of the floodplain (Alho et al., 1988) Technical Meetings and data processing The first Technical Meeting was held from July 12 to 14, 2006 in Brasília/DF, in partnership with IBAMA-COZAM, and with support from Rede Cerrado, Rede Pantanal, CI, TNC, and WWF. This meeting had 108 participants, mostly researchers 32

34 connected to universities or research institutions, third-sector organizations, and federal and state governmental agencies (see list of participants in annex ). Discussions in this first technical meeting focused the conservation targets to be included in the analyses of the Systematic Conservation Planning, selected based on the analysis of a previously prepared list of endemic and threatened species of the biome. The participants were organized in thematic groups, with the objective of listing conservation targets and discussing the available databases to be included in the analysis. Seven thematic working groups were formed: Fishes, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals, Flora, Environmental Units and Environmental Services, and Socioenvironmental Aspects. Given the heterogeneity of the discussed themes, the methodology and results varied among working groups. The participant researchers discussed each of the listed species, and were allowed to include new taxa according to personal knowledge. For each species, a conservation goal was discussed according to its area of occurrence, a weight according to the species vulnerability, and the databases that could be used to define its distribution. A second technical meeting was held in Brasília on October 10 and 11, 2006, with support from the same institutions mentioned above, and with the objective to revise the databases that supported the analyses, as well as to redefine conservation targets to some species (see list of participants in annex ) Definition of Conservation Targets Environmental Units A total of 18 Environmental Unit targets were identified based on the division of the pantanais according to Hamilton et al.(1996) for areas subject to flooding, and based on the land system (Silva et al., 2006) for plateau areas included in the biome. Processes in aquatic ecosystems Three systems considered important for maintaining aquatic biodiversity were identified, considering rare and threatened fish species as indicators. Species A total of 13 rare and/or threatened plant species were identified as indicators; while the following indicators were identified for wildlife: 50 bird species, 25 mammal species, 47 reptile species, and 12 amphibian species. Most of these were selected in conjunction with the selection of the Cerrado targets, given the strong association between the two biomes (Cerrado and Pantanal). An important step that counted with the fundamental participation of researchers was the compilation of the available databases for all listed targets, which also involved researchers that could not participate in the technical meeting, but contributed significantly to the process by providing lists of points of occurrence for the selected target species. The following databases were provided by researchers and/or research institutions, and used for the analyses: Geographical distribution of threatened species in the Pantanal, produced by experts for the Threatened Wildlife Red Book and provided by Fundação Biodiversitas; Pantanal Biodiversity Databases from Conservation International Brazil. The following databases were used specifically for the thematic groups selected for the analysis: 33

35 Amphibians: Herpetological Collection (UnB); Zoology Museum (USP); Global Amphibian Assessment (IUCN, CI and NatureServe, 2006). Birds: Professor Miguel Marini and collaborators, based on collection records from UnB, Zoology Museum (USP), MPEG, UFMG; Professor Luis Fábio da Silveira (USP); Dr. Paulo de Tarso Zuquim Antas; Alessandro Pacheco Nunes (Fundação Pantanal and Ciência/EMBRAPA Pantanal) Mammals: primates database from IBAMA CPB; distribution of small mammals provided by Dr. Ana Paula Carmignotto (USP); giant anteater distribution by Dr. Guilherme Miranda (Federal Police); geographical distribution of mammal target species of the Pantanal by Dr. Walfrido Tomás and Dr. Guilherme Mourão (EMBRAPA Pantanal); Reptiles: Herpetological Collection (UnB); Collection of the USP Zoology Museum; Dr. Cristiano Nogueira (USP/CI); Professor Christine Strussmann (UFMT) Definition of Conservation Goals The conservation goals and weights were defined by researchers taking into account the distribution and vulnerability of each species, from a scale between 20% and 100% of the targets for goals, and from 1 to 4 for weights. The species selected as targets were analyzed individually concerning distribution scope (broad, endemic, limited) and shape (set of punctual occurrences, minimum convex polygon), with lower goals given to species of broad distribution and higher goals to species of restricted distribution, reaching 100% of the target in those cases of species known exclusively to one location. The critically endangered species and those known to only one location were given weight 4, and smaller weights were attributed to species in lower threat categories and/or with broader distribution (see list of conservation targets and goals in annex ). As defined by the methodology applied for this assessment, a map of UPs was produced, composed by a grid of 20 thousand-hectare hexagons, covering the entire area of the Pantanal. The full protection protected areas were included as UPs in the grid, and internal or intercepting hexagons had their limits dissolved to respect the shape of the protected area. The maps of species distribution with occurrences represented by dots were converted to polygons for processing, according to criteria defined in both technical meetings. Later, each distribution map was compared with the map of remnants of Cerrado native vegetation (prepared by a team led by Dr. João Villa) to obtain the actual area size with original vegetation available to each species in the biome and in each UP. The maps and information produced were used for preparing the biological importance map, which supported the definition of Priority Areas during the regional workshop. The following databases on federal and state protected areas were used: DAP/MMA database, CI database, and Map of the Mato Grosso State Protected Areas (SEMA/MT). Technical Team Marcos Reis Rosa (MMA General Technical Coordinator); Mauro Oliveira Pires (NCP/MMA General Coordinator for the Cerrado and Pantanal Biomes); Paula Hanna 34

36 Valdujo (NCP/MMA Technical Coordinator for the Cerrado and Pantanal Biomes); Adriana Niemeyer Pires Ferreira (SBF/MMA); Adriana Panhol Bayma (NCP/MMA); Avay Miranda Junior (NCP/MMA); Bráulio F. S. Dias (DCBio/MMA); Débora Leite Silvano (NCP/MMA); Guilherme Déstro (COZAM/IBAMA); Gustavo de Oliveira Silva (MMA); Isabel Belloni Schmidt (IBAMA/DIREF); Jailton Dias (COZAM/IBAMA); Laura Tillmann Viana (NCP/MMA); Leandro Baumgarten (NAPMA/MMA); Paulo Kageyama (DCBio/MMA). Figure Biological Importance Map of the Pantanal Biome Regional Workshop The Pantanal Regional Workshop was held in Campo Grande from December 6 to 8, 2006, with support from IBAMA-COZAM and Rede Pantanal. This workshop had a total of 100 participants, with representatives from the state and federal government, researchers from universities and research institutions, nongovernmental sector, social movements, indigenous groups, quilombolas and other traditional communities, and from the business sector (see list of participants in annex ). For discussions, the participants were organized in working groups by state, as follows: (1) Pantanal of Mato Grosso; (2) Pantanal of Mato Grosso do Sul; and (3) 35

37 Cerrado of Mato Grosso do Sul. The third group was formed at the request of the participants of the Cerrado regional workshop. A preparatory meeting was also held with representatives of indigenous groups, quilombola communities, and other traditional communities, to ensure their better understanding of the process and objectives of updating the Priority Areas. Each regional working group met in a room equipped with a datashow and two computers: one to access the cartographic databases and to produce the Priority Areas map, and another to input information into the database containing files for each priority area. The regional workshop discussions used the following databases to prepare the final Priority Areas map: Preliminary map of priority areas produced by the coordination team based on the analysis result produced by the software, compared with the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007) and with a Digital Landscape Model; Biological Importance Map, produced by the coordination team according to databases provided by collaborating researchers; Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007); Satellite images obtained from GoogleEarth; Digital Landscape Model from NASA, with 90m definition; and Map of local initiatives of Cerrado use and conservation supported by projects (SDS/MMA, PPP/ECOS ISPN, Solidary Commercialization Network [Rede de Comercialização Solidária], North of Minas Gerais Alternative Agriculture Center [Centro de Agricultura Alternativa do Norte de Minas], and DISAM/IBAMA). Technical Team and collaborators Mauro Pires (NCP/MMA - General Coordinator for the Cerrado Biome); Paula Hanna Valdujo (NCP/MMA - Technical Coordinator for the Cerrado Biome); Adriana Panhol Bayma (NCP/MMA - Facilitator); Gustavo Oliveira (SBF/MMA Logistics); Giovana Bottura (COZAM/IBAMA - Facilitator); Ana Elisa Bacellar Schittini (COZAM/IBAMA - Geoprocessing); Guilherme Déstro (COZAM/IBAMA - Geoprocessing); Avaí Miranda (NCP/MMA - Support); Cleide Noêmia Amador de Souza (Pantanal Program /MMA Support); Gloria Spezia (SBF/MMA Logistics); Juliana Bragança (UnB Logistics); Camila Bastianon (UnB Logistics); Elisa Coutinho (UnB Logistics); Geraldo Lucatelli Dória de Araújo Junior (ANA - Geoprocessing); Sérgio Ricardo Travassos da Rocha (SBF/MMA - Facilitator); Marcos da Silva Alves (SBF/MMA Logistics) Results At the end of the updating process 50 priority areas were indicated for the Pantanal, of which five are already protected and 45 are new indications, representing a substantial increase in comparison to the 19 areas proposed in 1998 (see list of Priority Areas for the Pantanal Biome in annex ). The total extension of the priority areas 36

38 also increased by more than 32% in the target area (from 59,866 to 79,143 km 2 ). Considering only the new areas, the most notable difference regarding the proportion of importance categories was the reduction of the number of areas considered insufficiently known, and a better balance between the number of areas classified as being of high and very high importance. The predominance of areas qualified as being of extreme importance, however, was maintained. Considering both the new and already protected areas as a group, there was an increase in the proportion of areas considered as being of extremely high importance, from 47% to 52%. The results of the process to update the priority areas are presented below: comparison of the frequency of biological importance classes among themselves and between the 1998 and 2006 identification processes (Table 3.4.1); comparison of the frequency of urgency for action classes (Table 3.4.2); distribution of the main action indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 3.4.3); distribution of all actions indicated for each of the identified areas (Table 3.4.4); and the final map of the Priority Areas of the Pantanal Biome (Figure and insert to this publication). Table 3.4.1: Distribution of the number and extension of the priority areas for the Pantanal Biome, by category of Biological Importance, as defined in the 1998 and 2006 priority-setting processes. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 1998 Biological Importance Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % High 11 17, , Very High 12 19, , Extremely High 21 39, , , Insufficiently Known 1 3, , TOTAL 45 79, , ,866 Table Distribution of the number and extension of the priority areas for the Pantanal Biome, by Priority for Action class, as defined in the 2006 updating process. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 2006 Priority for Action Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % High 11 17, , Very High 12 30, , Extremely High 22 31, , , TOTAL 45 79, , ,562 Table 3.4.3: Distribution of the main priority action indicated to the priority areas of the Pantanal Biome. Type of Priority Action Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) Percent of the BIOME Biological Inventory 8 17, Creation of Full Protection Protected Area 6 14, Recuperation of Degraded Areas 9 12, Creation of Protected Area (Undefined Category) 8 10, Fostering Sustainable Use 5 9, Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area 5 8, Other 2 5, Creation of a Mosaic/Corridor 2 1,

39 NEW AREAS TOTAL 45 79, Areas Already under Protection 5 4, TOTAL 50 83, Total Area of the BIOME 151,487 Table 3.4.4: Distribution of all actions indicated for the priority areas of the Pantanal Biome. Indicated Actions Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) Biological Inventory 28 47,269 Enforcement 18 39,072 Socio-anthropological studies 15 33,437 Fostering Sustainable Use 13 29,054 Environmental Education 14 27,372 Studies on the Physical Environment 12 22,458 Recuperation of Degraded Areas 15 18,170 Creation of Mosaic/Corridor 10 17,870 Creation of Full Protection Protected Area 6 14,305 Creation of Protected Area (Undefined Category) 8 10,031 Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area 5 8,648 Biological Resources Management 3 2,515 38

40 Figure Map of the Priority Areas of the Pantanal Biome. 39

41 4. Cerrado Biome 4.1. Background The Cerrado is the second largest Brazilian biome, covering 21% of the national territory. It comprises the group of ecosystems that occur in Central Brazil: savannas, forests, grasslands, wet areas, and gallery forests (Eiten, 1977; Ribeiro et al., 1981). The Cerrado contains high species richness, making this biome the most diverse tropical savanna in the world: herbs, bushes, trees, epiphytes and lianas add up to over 7,000 species (Mendonça et al., 1998), 44% of which are endemic. The large variety of habitats results in a notable alternation of species among different phytophysiognomies (Klink and Machado, 2005). At least 199 species of mammals are known to the Cerrado (Redford and Fonseca, 1986; Klink and Machado, 2005), and the rich bird fauna comprises at least 837 species. The number of fish species (1,200), reptile species (180) and amphibian species (150) are also high. The number of endemic fish species is yet unknown, but the number of endemic species is high for amphibians and reptiles: 28% and 17%, respectively (Fonseca et al., 1996; Fundação Pro-Natureza et al., 1999; Aguiar, 2000; Colli et al., 2002; Marinho-Filho et al., 2002; Oliveira and Marquis, 2002; Aguiar et al., 2004). Concerning social diversity, the Cerrado is home to various indigenous, traditional, and quilombola communities, all of which possess elements of their culture strongly associated to the land and other natural resources of the biome. Although there is no broad inventory of these communities, except for indigenous peoples, it is known that they are concentrated in places that still hold significant remnants of Cerrado vegetation, which brings out the importance of considering their roles and requirements for environmental conservation. There are 93 indigenous lands in the biome, adding up to approximately 11 million hectares (5.4% of the biome). Their land tenure status varies, and the greater concentration of these areas is located in the states of Maranhão and Mato Grosso. There are also officially recognized quilombola lands, such as the Kalunga area, located in northeastern Goiás. Traditional communities such as the geraizeiros, located between Minas Gerais and Bahia, and in the babassu forests in the transition zone between Cerrado and Amazon Forest, generally face growing difficulties to access natural resources, given the advance of the agricultural frontier and increasing price of land. Their territories, although not recognized, are fundamental to form biological corridors when associated to protected areas, and also for the conservation of water resources and natural landscape. Despite the Cerrado s high biodiversity and high social diversity, attention to the conservation of this biome has been low, resulting in only 2.2% of the biome being under legal protection in full protection protected areas, and estimates indicate that at least 20% of the endemic and threatened species are not protected by the existing parks and reserves (Machado et al., 2004a). Approximately half of the original 2 million km 2 of the Cerrado were transformed in planted pastures, annual crops and other types of land use, and the destruction of the Cerrado ecosystems continues at an accelerated pace (Klink and Machado, 2005). A recent study found that 55% of the Cerrado has already been deforested or transformed by human action (Machado et al., 2004), which is equivalent to 880,000 km 2, i.e., almost three times the deforested area of the Brazilian Amazon. The annual deforestation rate is also higher in the Cerrado: between 1970 and 1975, the average deforestation rate in the biome was 40,000 km 2 per year (Klink and Moreira, 2002). 40

42 These changes in land use in the Cerrado resulted in severe environmental damages, such as ecosystem degradation, habitat fragmentation, extinction of species, invasion of alien species, soil erosion, pollution of aquifers, alteration in fire regimes, unbalance in the carbon cycle, and possibly regional climate changes. The degradation of soil and native ecosystems and the dispersion of alien species are the highest and broader threats to biodiversity. Erosion caused by deficient soil management can result in the loss of 130 ton/ha/year (Goedert, 1990). Agricultural practices in the Cerrado include extensive use of fertilizers and lime (Müller, 2003), which pollute streams and rivers. Tansey et al. (2004) estimated that 67% of the area burned in Brazil during the year 2000 were located in the Cerrado. Although fire is part of the Cerrado natural dynamics, frequent burning negatively affect the establishment of trees and bushes (Hoffmann and Moreira, 2002), in addition to releasing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Krug et al., 2002). As a result of the outstanding agricultural expansion and intense local exploitation of native products, at least 137 animal species of the Cerrado are threatened with extinction (Fundação Biodiversitas, 2003; Hilton-Taylor, 2004). The accelerated destruction of native Cerrado formations combined with the high diversity of endemic species determined the inclusion of the Cerrado among the global biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al., 2000; Silva and Bates, 2002) 4.2. Technical Meetings and data processing The first technical meeting was held from July 12 to 14, 2006, in Brasília, DF, in partnership with IBAMA-COZAM and with support from Rede Cerrado, Rede Pantanal, CI, TNC, and WWF. A total of 108 people participated in this first technical meeting, most of which researchers from universities and research institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the federal and state government (see list of participants in annex ). This first technical meeting discussed the conservation targets to be included in the analyses of the Systematic Conservation Planning, through the evaluation of a previously prepared list of endemic and threatened species of the biome. Participants were organized into thematic groups, with the objective of listing conservation targets and discussing the available databases to be included in the analysis. Seven thematic discussion groups were formed: Fishes, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals, Flora, Environmental Units and Environmental Services, and Socio-Environmental Aspects. Given the heterogeneity of themes, methodology and results varied somewhat among discussion groups. The participant researchers discussed each of the listed species, and were given the opportunity to include new taxa according to personal knowledge. A conservation goal was discussed for each species according to its area of occurrence, and a weight was defined according to its vulnerability. Additionally, the databases that could be used to define geographical distribution were also discussed for each species. The second technical meeting was also held in Brasília, on October 10 and 11, 2006, with support from the same institutions listed above, with the objective of revising the databases that informed the analyses, and redefining the conservation goals for some species (see the list of participants in annex ) Definition of Conservation Targets Environmental Units 41

43 A total of 118 units were produced based on the Land Systems map (Silva et al., 2006) overlapped with the map of sub-watersheds provided by ANA. During the technical meeting, the best base to represent environmental units was discussed at length, and the participants proposed the use of a geology map overlapped with the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007). However, the vegetation classification was not available in time; so instead, the Land Systems map was used, produced based on the classification proposed by Cochrane et al. (1985), which considers as a land system a group of areas presenting recurrent patterns of climate, landscape, and soils. Environmental Services A total of 31 units were identified with the potential to recharge aquifers and maintain the perenniality of rivers, based on the analysis of the IBGE map at the 1:1,000,000 scale (IBGE, 2001), under guidance of Dr, Jamilo Thomé Filho (CPRM). However, it was not possible to obtain other databases on environmental services for the biome. Processes in aquatic ecosystems A total of 20 systems were considered important for maintaining aquatic biodiversity, using rare and threatened fish species as indicators, and the ANA Watersheds database. Species A total of 443 rare and/or threatened plant species from the Cerrado were considered for the analysis. Concerning wildlife, 56 bird species, 70 mammal species, 127 reptile species, 80 amphibian species, and 30 fish species were considered, all threatened and/or endemic to the Cerrado, according to the National List of the Brazilian Threatened Fauna (MMA, 2003) and the Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2005). The selection of target endemic species was based on the knowledge of the participant researchers. The databases available for all listed targets were compiled with the fundamental participation of researchers, and the contribution of people who could not participate in the technical meeting, but collaborated significantly to the process by providing lists of points of occurrence of the selected target species. The following databases were provided by researchers and/or research institutions and used for the analyses: Geographical distribution of threatened species of the Cerrado, prepared by experts for the Threatened Wildlife Red Book and provided by Fundação Biodiversitas; Biodiversity database provided by CI Brazil. The following databases were used for the analyses of the thematic groups: Amphibians: geographical distribution of the amphibian target species of the Cerrado of the UnB Herpetological Collection; USP Zoology Museum database; Global Amphibian Assessment database (IUCN, CI, and NatureServe, 2006). Birds: geographical distribution of Cerrado bird target species, prepared by Prof. Miguel Marini and collaborators based on the collections of UnB, USP Zoology Museum, MPEG, and UFMG; geographical distribution of Cerrado bird target species prepared by Dr. Adriani Hass, Vivian Braz (UnB) and 42

44 collaborators, Prof. Luis Fábio da Silveira (USP), Leonardo Lopes (UFMG), Dr. Paulo de Tarso Zuquim Antas, and Dr. Fábio Olmos. Mammals: geographical distribution of Primates of the IBAMA-CPB database; and databases provided by Dr. Ana Paula Carmignotto (USP) and Dr. Guilherme Miranda (Federal Police). Reptiles: geographical distribution of the Cerrado reptile target species of the UnB Herpetological Collection, USP Zoology Museum and IBAMA-RAN; databases provided by Dr. Cristiano Nogueira (USP/CI), Dr. Larissa Barreto (UFMA), and researcher Adriano de Lima (MNRJ) Definition of Conservation Goals The conservation goals and weights were defined by researchers considering the distribution scope and vulnerability of each species, on a scale from 20% to 100% of the target for goals, and from 1 to 4 for weights. The species selected as targets were individually analyzed concerning distribution scope (broad, endemic, limited) and shape (set of punctual occurrences, minimum convex polygon), with smaller goals given to species of broad distribution and larger goals to species of limited distribution, reaching 100% of the target in those cases of species known exclusively to one location. The critically endangered species and those known to only one location were given weight 4, and smaller weights were attributed to species in lower threat categories and/or with broader distribution (see list of conservation targets and goals in annex ). As defined by the methodology applied for this assessment, a map of UPs was produced, composed by a grid of 20-thousand-hectare hexagons, covering the entire area of the Cerrado. The full protection protected areas were included as UPs in the grid, and internal or intercepting hexagons had their limits dissolved to respect the shape of the protected area. The maps of species distribution with occurrences represented by dots were converted to polygons for processing, according to criteria defined in both technical meetings. Later, each distribution map was compared with the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007) to obtain the size of the area with original vegetation available for each species in the biome and in each UP. The maps and information produced were used for preparing the biological importance map, which supported the definition of Priority Areas during the regional workshop. The following databases on federal and state protected areas were used: DAP/SBF/MMA database; CI database; updated database on Tocantins protected areas and information for post selection provided by SEPLAN TO; Map of the Mato Grosso State Protected Areas provided by SEMA/MT. Technical Team Marcos Reis Rosa (MMA General Technical Coordinator); Mauro Oliveira Pires (NCP/MMA General Coordinator for the Cerrado and Pantanal Biomes); Paula Hanna Valdujo (NCP/MMA Technical Coordinator for the Cerrado and Pantanal Biomes); Adriana Niemeyer Pires Ferreira (SBF/MMA); Adriana Panhol Bayma (NCP/MMA); Avay Miranda Junior (NCP/MMA); Bráulio F. S. Dias (DCBio/MMA); Débora Leite Silvano (NCP/MMA); Guilherme Déstro (COZAM/IBAMA); Gustavo de Oliveira Silva (MMA); Isabel Belloni Schmidt (IBAMA/DIREF); Jailton Dias 43

45 (COZAM/IBAMA); Laura Tillmann Viana (NCP/MMA); Leandro Baumgarten (NAPMA/MMA); Paulo Kageyama (DCBio/MMA). Figure Map of Biological Importance for the Cerrado Biome Regional Workshops The Cerrado Regional Workshop was held in Brasília from November 20 to 23, 2006, with support from IBAMA-COZAM. The meeting had 138 participants, with representatives from the state and federal government, non-governmental organizations, social movements, traditional communities, researchers, and from the production sector (see list of participants in annex ). The participants were organized in groups by state for the discussions, as follows: (1) Maranhão and Piauí; (2) Bahia and Tocantins; (3) Goiás and Federal District; (4) Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul; (5) Minas Gerais; (6) São Paulo and Paraná. The representatives of indigenous communities chose to form a separate group 44

46 to define a general directive to address priority setting and to define priority actions in indigenous lands. Each regional working group gathered in a room equipped with a datashow and two computers: one for accessing the cartographic databases and producing the Priority Areas map, and the other for entering information into a database containing files for each priority area. The Regional Workshop based the preparation of the final Priority Areas map on the following databases: Preliminary priority areas map produced by the coordination team based on the analysis results produced by the software, overlapped with the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007) and with the Digital Landscape Model; Biological Importance Map; Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007); Satellite images obtained from GoogleEarth; NASA s Digital Landscape Model with 90m definition; Map of the local project-supported initiatives for the use and conservation of the Cerrado (SDS/MMA, PPP/ECOS ISPN, Rede de Comercialização Solidária, Centro de Agricultura Alternativa do Norte de Minas, DISAM/IBAMA). Technical Team and collaborators Marcos Reis Rosa (SBF/MMA General Technical Coordinator); Mauro Pires (NCP/MMA General Coordinator for the Cerrado and Pantanal Biomes); Paula Hanna Valdujo (NCP/MMA Technical Coordinator for the Cerrado and Pantanal Biomes); Paulo Kageyama (DCBio/MMA - Coordinator); Bráulio Dias (DCBio/MMA - Coordinator); Débora Silvano (NCP/MMA Coordinator); Adriana Panhol Bayma (NCP/MMA Facilitator); Gustavo Oliveira (SBF/MMA Logistics); Giovana Bottura (COZAM/IBAMA - Facilitator); Ana Elisa Bacellar Schittini (COZAM/IBAMA - Geoprocessing); Jailton Dias (COZAM/IBAMA - Geoprocessing); Guilherme Déstro (COZAM/IBAMA - Geoprocessing); Avaí Miranda (NCP/MMA Logistics); Gloria Spezia (SBF/MMA- Logistics); Fernanda Carvalho (SBF/MMA - Facilitator); Danielle Lima da Cunha Nunes (SBF/MMA Logistics); Anselmo Cristiano de Oliveira (ProVárzea/IBAMA - Facilitator); Daniela Oliveira (ARPA/MMA - Facilitator); Juliana Bragança (Voluntary collaborator Logistics); Camila Bastianon (UnB Logistics); Crizanto Brito de Carvalho (COZAM/IBAMA - Geoprocessing); Carlos Eduardo Ribeiro Cândido (Voluntary collaborator - Logistics); William Souza de Paula (Voluntary collaborator - Logistics); Elisa Coutinho (Voluntary collaborator - Logistics); Ricardo Campos da Nóbrega (DIREC/IBAMA - Geoprocessing); Marcos da Silva Alves (SBF/MMA Logistics) Results The review indicated 431 priority areas in the Cerrado, 181 of which are already under protection and 250 are new areas, which represent a substantial increase compared to the 68 priority areas proposed in 1998 (Table 4.4.1) (see list of Priority 45

47 Areas for the Cerrado Biome in annex ). The review also resulted in a 37% increase in the total extension of priority areas (from 686,668 km 2 to 939,752 km 2 ). The results of the priority areas update are presented below: comparison of the frequency of biological importance classes among themselves and between the 1998 and 2006 identification processes (Table 4.4.1); comparison of the frequency of urgency for action classes (Table 4.4.2); distribution of the main action indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 4.4.3); distribution of all actions indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 4.4.4); and the final map of the Priority Areas for the Cerrado Biome (Figure and insert to this publication). Table 4.4.1: Distribution of the number and extension of priority areas of the Cerrado Biome, by Biological Importance category, in the 1998 and 2006 identification processes. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 1998 Biological Importance Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % High , , ,289 4 Very High , , , Extremely High , , , Insufficiently Known 7 9, , , TOTAL , , ,668 Table Distribution of the number and extension of priority areas of the Cerrado Biome, by Priority for Action class, as defined in the 2006 identification process. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 2006 Priority for Action Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % High , , , Very High , , , Extremely High , , , TOTAL , , ,752 Table 4.4.3: Distribution of the main priority action indicated to the priority areas of the Cerrado Biome. Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) Percent of the BIOME Type of Priority Area Creation of Protected Area Undefined Category , Creation of Full Protection Protected Area , Recuperation of Degraded Areas , Creation of Mosaic/Corridor , Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Areas , Fostering Sustainable Use 11 27, Biological Inventory 13 24, No Information 11 16, Other 2 15, Territorial Planning and Regularization 2 9, Environmental Education 4 1, NEW AREAS TOTAL , Areas already under protection ,

48 TOTAL , Total area of the Biome 2,052,041 Table 4.4.4: Distribution of all actions indicated to the priority areas of the Cerrado Biome. Number of Proposed Actions Areas Area (km 2 ) Biological Inventory ,242 Recuperation of Degraded Areas ,512 Environmental Education ,747 Fostering Sustainable Use ,762 Enforcement ,591 Studies on the Physical Environment ,812 Creation of Mosaic/Corridor ,922 Creation of Protected Area Undefined Category ,095 Socio-anthropological Studies ,290 Creation of Full Protection Protected Area ,497 Creation of Sustainable Use Protection Area ,911 Recuperation of Threatened Species 20 77,560 Management of Biological Resources 17 41,000 47

49 Figure Map of Priority Areas for the Cerrado Biome 48

50 5. Caatinga Biome 5.1. Background The Caatinga is the only exclusively Brazilian biome, encompassing an area of approximately 734,478 km 2, equivalent to about 11% of the national territory (IBGE, 1993). The biome covers mainly the northeastern portion of Brazil, and extends into the northern portion of Minas Gerais state. The Caatinga is characterized by the steppesavanna vegetation, long dry season (Eiten, 1982), and irregular rain regime (Andrade- Lima, 1981). The annual rainfall average varies between 400mm and 600mm (Ab Saber, 1977), contributing to the intermittent and seasonal characteristic of most rivers in the region (Rosa et al., 2003), which also present limited water volume, insufficient for irrigation. Even though the Caatinga is a semi-arid region, it is extremely heterogeneous, with 12 recognized vegetation types prompting particular attention given their fascinating and varied examples of adaptation to semi-arid habitats. Some of its most notable features are the temporary lagoons or wetlands, mountainous refuges, and permanent rivers such as the São Francisco river (MMA, 2003). The Caatinga had previously been described as a poor region, with few species (Rizzini, 1963; Willig and Mares, 1989) and low endemism rate (Sick, 1965; Haffer, 1985; Vanzolini, 1974, 1976; Mares et al., 1981). However, recent studies increased the list of known species for several groups in the region (Silva and Oren, 1997), particularly woody plants (Prado 1991, 2003), reptiles (Rodrigues, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1996), birds (Silva et al., 2003; Cracraft, 1985; Rizzini, 1997), and mammals (Oliveira et al., 2003), also revealing the importance of this region as an area of endemism for these groups. Estimates have recorded at least 932 plant species in the region, 318 of which are endemic. The same is true for other groups such as birds, with 348 recorded species, of which 15 species and 45 subspecies are endemic. Two mammal species were described as endemic to this biome (Oliveira et al., 2003). Two areas of dune formations in the Middle São Francisco River region (dune fields of Xique-Xique and Santo Inácio, and dune fields of Casanova) are notable for concentrating unique groups of endemic reptile species. For example, of the 41 lizard and amphisbaenian species recorded for the set of dune fields, approximately 40% are endemic. Additionally, four genera are also exclusive to the area. Although many species were described in the region (Silva and Oren, 1997), scientific knowledge on the Caatinga is still limited (MMA, 1998), given the small number of inventories conducted in the region in comparison to the other biomes (MMA, 2005). Its unique position among the Brazilian biomes was not enough to ensure to the Caatinga the notability it deserves. On the contrary, the biome has always been placed low in the list of priorities during discussions on public policies for biodiversity studies and conservation in the country, as attested by the small number of protected areas (Tabarelli and Vicente, 2002). In addition, the Caatinga is also one of the most threatened biomes, and one of the most altered by human action, particularly deforestation, with extensive degraded areas (MMA, 2002) and areas where the soil is undergoing intense desertification process (Garda, 1996). Historically, agriculture in the region of the Caatinga is itinerant, which resulted in a disorganized and high-impact territorial occupancy, causing a significant reduction of biodiversity (MMA, 2002). In 1993, agriculture activities occupied almost 28% of the total Caatinga area (MMA, 49

51 1998), and recent estimates based on agriculture activities maps and road maps of the Caatinga region indicated that the biome already has approximately 50% of its area altered by human action (Castelletti et al., 2003). Promoting the conservation of Caatinga biodiversity is not a simple action, since great obstacles need to be overcome. The first one is the lack of inclusion of environmental components in the regional development plans. Without this first step, the subsequent governmental actions to improve life quality of the sertaneja 1 population have increasingly contributed to the destruction of biological resources. The second obstacle is the lack of an efficient protected areas system in the region. In contrast to the high percentage of altered areas, the Caatinga has a small number of protected areas (Tabarelli e Vicente, 2002), with less than 5% of the biome protected under federal full protection and sustainable use protected areas (IBAMA, 2004). The indigenous lands, also important to maintain biodiversity in other regions of the country, occupy less than 1% of the biome (Souza, 2004). In addition to the small extension of Caatinga inside protected areas, these do not represent well the endemic and threatened birds of the biome (Souza, 2004). The combination of lack of protection and continuous loss of biological resources contributes to the extinction of species that are exclusive to the Caatinga, such as the Spix macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii), extinct in nature at the end of Technical Meetings and data processing One technical meeting and three specific consultations were held with experts from various institutions, to define conservation targets and goals. The technical meeting was held from September 25 to 27, 2006, at the Vilarica hotel in Recife, with the participation of 42 researchers (see list of participants in annex ). Experts were organized in groups according to the field of knowledge, resulting in three working groups: fauna, flora, and landscape and sustainable use units. Three specific consultations were held later, in Fortaleza, Recife and Salvador, on October 26, November 1 and November 6, 2006, respectively. These consultations had the objective of collecting information to prepare the conservation target distribution maps. In total, 30 experts were invited: 13 for the Fortaleza meeting, 5 for the Recife meeting, and 12 for the Salvador meeting (see list of participants in annex ) Definition of Conservation Targets The biodiversity targets were defined by specialists invited to the Recife technical meeting. Some species targets were excluded from the process due to the lack of information on their distribution. This was a result of two main problems: lack of information on the location where the presence of the species was recorded, or lack of the geographical coordinates of the place of observation/collection. Some species were added to the target list, according to the criteria of being a threatened species, followed by its geographical distribution data. 1 Sertaneja: of or from the sertão (back-country, caatinga). 50

52 For each species, a dot distribution map was generated and, based on these, a map of polygons was prepared. The geographical distribution of the biodiversity targets was derived from the combination of the dot distribution maps with the map of the Caatinga Geo-environmental Units (EMBRAPA, 2000), excluding the areas with high degree of human interference. The Geoprocessing Wizard extension was used to generate maps of potential species distribution. A total of 713 targets were identified for the conservation of the Caatinga. Of these, 480 are biodiversity targets (217 plant species, 12 invertebrate species, 12 fish species, 132 amphibian and reptile species, 74 bird species, and 33 mammal species). The sustainable use discussion group identified 89 targets. The distribution of these targets was mapped separately in the Caatinga. Any species presenting disjoint distribution was considered as two separate targets, so that the maintenance of population viability could be considered in the definition of conservation goals. The map of geo-environmental units (EMBRAPA, 2000) was considered in addition to the biodiversity targets, resulting in a total of 136 targets. The map of geoenvironmental units is the result of a combination of information on natural resources (relief, soils, vegetation, climate, and water resources) and socio-economic information (production systems, land tenure structure, main products, and population density) of the Caatinga. Seven permanent rivers were selected in the Caatinga to be included as conservation targets. These rivers were added to the list due to their extreme importance for maintaining regional biodiversity. Later, a 5-km buffer on each bank was added to the rivers shapefile, to simulate the area influenced by each river Definition of Conservation Goals The Recife technical meeting defined goals for the sustainable use targets only; all the other suggested targets did not have goals defined in that meeting. The conservation goals for the biodiversity targets and geo-environmental units were calculated according to the methodology proposed by Rodrigues et al. (2003). The method applied by this analysis admits that species of limited distribution, being more susceptible to extinction (Purvis et al., 2000), should have their entire range of occurrence conserved in protected areas, while the taxa presenting broad distribution should have at least 10% of their range of occurrence protected. Species with a distribution smaller than 1,000 km 2 should have 100% of their distribution protected, while species with distribution above 250,000 km 2 should have at least 10% of their area protected. For species with intermediary distribution extension, a logarithm was used for the calculations (methodology proposed by Rodrigues et al., 2003), with the formula y= log(x) * (-37.53) The river targets had goals set at 100% of their area, since the scarcity of water resources in the biome endows them with a fundamental role in biodiversity maintenance. The conservation goals for the sustainable use targets were defined by the group of experts during the technical meeting, held in Recife. Goals were set according to the distribution area, in hectares, of the species managed by the regional population, and considering the characteristics necessary for their maintenance (see list of conservation targets and goals in annex ). 51

53 Description of UPs and use of the natural formation databases A map of Planning Units - UPs (6,500-ha hexagons) was generated for the Caatinga, covering the entire region. The full protection protected areas were added to this shapefile, and each was considered as an individual UP. The hexagons encompassed by these protected areas had their limits dissolved to respect the protected area s limits. This map was then overlapped with the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007), which is divided in 6 classes according to predominant vegetation type. The categories corresponding to human alteration listed in the first class were excluded from the analysis. Technical Team and collaborators: Marcos Reis Rosa SBF/MMA; Enrique Riegelhaupt Technical Consultant; José Luiz Vieira Cruz Filho APNE; Antônio Edson Guimarães Farias NBC/SBF/MMA; Francisco Barreto Campello GEF Caatinga; Maria da Penha E. de Barros NBC/SBF/MMA; Paulo Magno Gabeto Martinez NBC/SBF/MMA; Renato Prado MMA; Mônica Maria Bezerra Farias - Banco do Nordeste; Sônia Araújo Frota - Banco do Nordeste. Figure Map of Biological Importance for the Caatinga Biome. 52

54 5.3. Regional Workshop The regional workshop for the preparation of the final map of priority areas for the Caatinga biome was held from December 13 to 16, 2006, in the Banco do Nordeste Training Center, in Fortaleza. The event had the participation of 131 experts from 13 states (see list of participants in annex ). The participants were grouped by state for discussions, as follows: Piauí Ceará Rio Grande do Norte and Paraíba Pernambuco and Alagoas Bahia, Minas Gerais, and Sergipe To obtain a better characterization and assessment of the region, and to facilitate discussions among participants in each working group, the following tools and maps were used: Cartographic database at the 1:1,000,000 scale, containing information on roads, hydrography, and natural features; and a municipal database at the 1:500,000 scale. Both documents were produced by IBGE (2001); Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA, 2007); Data on the distribution of caves, provided by IBAMA/CECAV; Satellite images available on GoogleEarth; Digital Landscape Model from NASA, with 90m definition; and subwatersheds map prepared by ANA; Map of Priority Areas and Actions for Biodiversity (MMA, 2004); Map of biological importance and map of priority areas, automatically generated by the system based on targets and goals distribution data. The group discussing the Pernambuco and Alagoas states also used the Pernambuco Biodiversity Atlas (SECTMA/PE), which defines priority areas and actions for the conservation of ecosystems in the state. This Atlas resulted from the overlap of the biodiversity, socio-economy, and abiotic aspects maps. The group discussing the Minas Gerais state also used the State Biodiversity Atlas (Biodiversitas). This Atlas presents the 112 areas that are most important for biodiversity conservation in the state, and resulted from the overlap and analysis of maps generated by 13 thematic groups working on biotic and abiotic aspects. Technical Team and collaborators: Bráulio Dias DCBio/SBF/MMA; Marcos Reis Rosa SBF/MMA; Manuella Andrade de Souza IBAMA; Ana Elisa Bacellar Schittini COZAM/CGZAM/DIPRO/IBAMA; Anselmo Cristiano de Oliveira ProVárzea/IBAMA; Antônio Edson Guimarães Farias NBC/SBF/MMA; Daniele Blanc Technical Staff at NZCM/SBF/MMA; Elizabete Lemos de Carvalho DCBio/SBF/MMA; Giovana Bottura COZAM/CGZAM / DIPRO/IBAMA; Guilherme Déstro COZAM/CGZAM/DIPRO/IBAMA; Hélio Jorge da Cunha - DCBio/SBF/MMA; Jailton Dias COZAM/CGZAM/DIPRO/IBAMA; José 53

55 Luiz Vieira Cruz Filho APNE; Luciene Marilac GEF Caatinga; Maria da Penha E. de Barros NBC/SBF/MMA; Marina Landeiro - DCBio/SBF/MMA; Núbia Cristina Silva Stella DCBio/SBF/MMA; Paulo Magno Gabeto Martinez NBC/SBF/MMA; Rogério H. Vereza de Azevedo DAP/SBF/MMA; Rosiane Maria Bezerra GEF Caatinga; Rosimere Ana Bezerra GEF Caatinga; Sergio Ricardo Travassos da Rosa SBF/MMA; Viviane Mazim SBF/MMA; TNC; Fundação Biodiversitas Results A total of 292 priority areas for biodiversity conservation were identified in the Caatinga, of which 72 are already under protection and 220 are new areas (see list of Priority Areas for the Caatinga Biome in annex ). The 292 priority areas occupy approximately 51% of the total area of the biome, covering 442,564 km 2. This corresponds to a significant increase in the number of priority areas without a proportional increase in total extension in comparison to the prior Priority Areas map (2000), noting, however, greater detail in the identification of areas and actions in this review process. The 2000 process identified 82 areas, in contrast with the 292 currently suggested (Table 5.4.1). The results of the process to update the priority areas are presented below: comparison of the frequency of biological importance classes among themselves and between the 2000 and 2006 identification processes (Table 5.4.1); comparison of the frequency of urgency for action classes (Table 5.4.2); distribution of the main action indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 5.4.3); distribution of all actions indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 5.4.4); and the final map of the Priority Areas for the Caatinga Biome (Figure and insert to this publication). Table Distribution of the number and extension of priority areas of the Caatinga Biome, by category of Biological Importance, as defined in the 2000 and 2006 priority-setting processes. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 2000 Biological Importance Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % High 45 76, , , Very High , , , Extremely High , , , Insufficiently Known 28 35, , TOTAL , , ,457 Table Distribution of the number and extension of priority areas of the Caatinga Biome, by class of Priority for Action, as defined in the 2006 review process. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 2006 Priority for Action Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) % High 59 69, , , Very High , , , Extremely High , , , TOTAL , , ,566 54

56 Table Distribution of the main priority action indicated to the priority areas of the Caatinga Biome. Type of Priority Action Number of Areas Area (km 2 ) Percent of the BIOME Creation of Protected Area Undefined Category , Creation of Full Protection Protected Area 40 94, Recuperation of Degraded Areas 52 80, Creation of Mosaic/Corridor 22 43, Fostering Sustainable Use 11 18, Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area 8 18, Biological Inventory 12 14, Fisheries Planning and Regularization 2 11, Other 11 4, No information 14 4, Territorial Planning and Regularization NEW AREAS TOTAL , Areas already under protection 72 34, TOTAL , Total area of the BIOME 852,262 Table Distribution of all actions indicated to the priority areas of the Caatinga Biome. Number Indicated Actions of Areas Area (km 2 ) Enforcement ,641 Environmental Education ,543 Biological Inventory ,096 Recuperation of Degraded Areas ,612 Fostering Sustainable Use ,554 Studies on the Physical Environment ,007 Socio-anthropological Studies ,441 Creation of Mosaic/Corridor ,096 Creation of Protected Area Undefined Category ,296 Recuperation of Endangered Species ,707 Creation of Full Protection Protected Area 40 94,629 Management of Biological Resources 23 41,086 Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area 8 18,534 55

57 Figure Map of Priority Areas for the Caatinga Biome. 56

58 6. Atlantic Forest Biome 6.1. Background In 1500, when the first Europeans arrived in Brazil, the Atlantic Forest covered approximately 15% of the territory. Currently, the native vegetation cover of the biome was reduced to approximately 27% of its original extension, including in this total the remnants of natural grasslands, restingas (coastal scrub) and mangroves. Approximately 7% are well preserved forest remnants, and the rest is composed by vegetation at the initial and intermediary stages of regeneration. The Atlantic Forest encompasses 18 Brazilian states, completely or partially, and is recognized by the Federal Constitution as National Heritage. The forest enclaves and inland altitudinal forest enclaves of the northeast are also considered part of the biome. The Atlantic Forest also reaches part of the Goiás and Mato Grosso do Sul states in the mid-west portion of the country, and extends inland through southern Brazil, reaching parts of Argentina and Paraguay (Oliveira Filho et al, 2000). Approximately 120 million people live in the Atlantic Forest region, distributed through over 3,400 municipalities, or 62% of the Brazilian municipalities (IBGE, 2000). Life quality of these people, which comprise almost 70% of the Brazilian population, depends on the preservation of the forest fragments for the maintenance of springs and headwaters, regulation of water supply to inland cities and communities, contributing to climate, temperature, humidity, and rain balance, ensuring soil fertility, and protecting steep inclines and mountain slopes. The impact of human occupancy and the rate of destruction in this biome have increased in the last three decades, resulting in severe alteration of these ecosystems due to habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss. The current result is the almost complete loss of original forest and continuous destruction of existing forest remnants, sadly placing the Atlantic Forest among the most threatened set of ecosystems in the world. The Atlantic Forest contains a complex network of watersheds formed by large rivers such as the Paraná, Tietê, São Francisco, Doce, Paraíba do Sul, Paranapanema, and Ribeira do Iguape. This network is extremely important not only for supplying human needs, but also for developing economic activities such as agriculture, ranching, industry, and the entire urbanization process of the country. The Atlantic Forest biome is composed by a group of forest formations and associated ecosystems that include the Broadleaf Evergreen Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Forest, Seasonal Semideciduous Forest, Seasonal Deciduous Forest, as well as mangroves, restinga, altitudinal fields, Atlantic Forest enclaves, and altitudinal forest enclaves (northeastern Brazil). The group of phytophysiognomies that compose the Atlantic Forest provides significant environmental diversification, creating adequate conditions for the evolution of a rich ecological community with numerous animal and plant species. For this reason, the Atlantic Forest is currently considered one of the biomes with the highest biological diversity value in the world. Even severely reduced and fragmented, the Atlantic Forest still harbors high plant diversity. For angiosperms alone (plants with seeds protected inside fruit), it is believed that Brazil has between 55,000 and 60,000 species, i.e. between 22% and 24% of the total estimated number of angiosperm species in the world. It is estimated that the Atlantic Forest is home to approximately 20,000 species, which is between 33% and 36% of the country s total. 57

59 For comparison purposes, the following numbers are estimates for angiosperm diversity in other continents: 17,000 species in North America, 12,500 in Europe, and between 40,000 and 45,000 in Africa. The Atlantic Forest is also the richest forest in the world concerning tree diversity per area unit. Studies conducted by researchers from the New York Botanical Garden and Executive Commission of the Cocoa Cultivation Plan (CEPLAC) found 454 tree species per hectare in the Serra Conduru State Park, in southern Bahia. It should be noted that 50% of the known Atlantic Forest vascular plants are endemic, i.e., they don t occur anywhere else on the planet. Endemism rates increase when plant species are separated by group, reaching 53.5% for trees, 64% for palm trees, and 74.4% for bromeliads. Estimates indicate the biome is home to 1.6 million animal species, mostly insects. Some species are widely distributed and can be found in other regions, such as the jaguar, puma, oncilla, tapir, collared peccary, white-lipped peccary, some parrots, owls, hawks, and many others. In total, the Atlantic Forest is home to 849 bird species, 370 amphibian species, 200 reptile species, and approximately 350 fish species. Nevertheless, the striking characteristic of this biome is the enormous amount of endemic species. Of the 270 mammal species recorded for the biome, 73 are endemic, among which 21 primate species and sub-species. However, this high biodiversity faces a very uncertain future, since 350 of the 396 animal species officially listed as threatened with extinction in Brazil (MMA Normative Ruling nº 03, of May 27, 2003) belong to the Atlantic Forest. Of the 265 threatened vertebrate species, 185 occur in the Atlantic Forest (69.8%), 100 of which (37.7%) are endemic. Of the 160 listed bird species, 118 (73.7%) occur in this biome, 49 of which are endemic. Among the amphibians, the 16 threatened species are considered endemic to the Atlantic Forest. Of the 69 threatened mammal species, 38 (55%) occur in this biome, 25 of which are endemic, such as the woolly spider monkey (Brachyteles arachnoides) - the largest monkey of the Americas and the largest endemic mammal in Brazil. Among the 20 threatened reptile species, 13 (65%) occur in the Atlantic Forest, 10 of them endemic and most with distribution restricted to restinga (coastal scrub) habitats, which are among the most threatened by urban development. Species such as the sand lizard (Liolaemus lutzae) and Cropan s boa (Corallus cropanii) fall in this category. Loss of habitat and wildlife traffic are among the greatest threats to the Atlantic Forest fauna. In a country such as Brazil, where biodiversity is still little known, there may be species that have become extinct even before they were scientifically recorded and others that, as soon as found, join the list of threatened species. Examples of this last case are the black-headed-lion-tamarin (Leontopithecus caissara) and the marsh antwren (Stymphalornis acutirostris), both discovered by researchers on the Paraná coast less than 300 km from São Paulo, the largest metropolis in South America. Currently, only approximately 3% of the biome is protected in full protection protected areas. This low percentage of protected areas is one of the main gaps for the long term conservation of the Atlantic Forest. Even more serious is the fact that these 3% are not evenly distributed among the various forest formations and associated ecosystems, making the measures to create and implement new protected areas a matter of greater urgency. This underlines the importance of immediate efforts to protect all the main remaining fragments of the biome that are still well conserved, thus complying with international and national commitments of the Brazilian government. These facts 58

60 also demonstrate the need to adopt measures to promote the recuperation of degraded areas, especially to connect the remaining fragments, allowing gene flow of plant and animal species. The 6 th Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP-6) approved as a global 2010 target for the plant conservation strategy to: effectively conserve at least 10% of each global ecological region; protect 50% of the most important areas for plant diversity; and the in situ conservation of 60% of the threatened plant species of the world. During the 7 th Global Conference on Biological Diversity (COP-7), the Parties committed to reduce extinction levels by 2010, under the warning that human activities are causing species loss at an unprecedented rate. Specifically, the Deliberation of the 2 nd National Environmental Conference (November 2005) pointed out that Brazil must increase the number of protected areas (both of full protection and sustainable use) and ensure their integrity and sustainability to reach at least 20% of the original area of each biome under protection, ensuring at least 4% of full protection protected areas in five years. CONABIO also approved the 2010 target to conserve, inside protected areas, at least 10% of the biome. The approval, after 14 years, of Law n o by the National Congress, sanctioned on December 22, 2006, was an important landmark for the conservation of the remaining fragments of the Atlantic Forest. The Atlantic Forest Bill, as it is known, rules on the use and protection of the biome s native vegetation and establishes use criteria and restrictions for the remaining fragments of native vegetation, which are specifically designed considering primary vegetation, and secondary vegetation at initial, intermediate and advanced stages of regeneration. Thus, it establishes concrete prospects to ensure the protection and recuperation of the remaining fragments, as well as for the recuperation of degraded areas, especially through the establishment of ecological corridors Technical Meeting and data processing The technical meeting on the Atlantic Forest biome was held from April 10 to 12, 2006, in the city of São Roque SP. A total of 56 biodiversity experts from various research institutions, non-governmental organizations, and from the state and federal government participated in this meeting, to detail conservation targets and define conservation goals. This event was organized by the NAPMA/MMA technical team and supported by SOS Mata Atlântica (see list of participants in annex ) Definition of Conservation Targets The participants were organized into three thematic groups for discussions: (i) Mammals and Birds; (ii) Invertebrates, Amphibians and Reptiles; and (iii) Phytogeographical Units, Scenic Landscapes and Unique Habitats. The three main objectives of these working groups were to: (1) prepare the list of conservation targets that would guide the preparation of the Biological Importance Map; (2) indicate the possible databases to be used; and (3) define the conservation goals for each listed target. The following databases were used to achieve these objectives: Species listed in the National List of Brazilian Threatened Fauna (MMA, 2003); Species figuring in the Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2005); Some species listed in state lists of threatened fauna; 59

61 Endemic species of the Atlantic Forest; Species of limited distribution that occur in the biome. During the technical meeting, 409 species conservation targets were indicated, distributed as follows by taxonomic group: Invertebrates (98 spp); Fish (84 spp); Amphibians (13 spp); Reptiles (15 spp); Mammals (86 spp); Birds (113 spp). During the technical meeting, it was also defined that phytogeographical unit targets would also be selected, based on geomorphology, vegetation, soils, altitude, and the RADAM BRASIL and SRTM maps. The final map was generated to create coherent units that include the particular aspects of the Atlantic Forest biota. The geographical scope for updating the priority areas and actions for biodiversity conservation in the Atlantic Forest followed the biome borders established by the Brazilian Biomes Map (IBGE 2004). Additionally, this updating process also considered the Atlantic Forest enclaves present in other biomes. The enclave areas in other biomes that were considered priority had their recommendations submitted to those responsible for updating priorities for those particular biomes Definition of Conservation Goals Species The researchers participating in the updating process decided to use a set of standard conservation goals for all species, based on the threat category of each species. In those cases where a species was listed both in the IBAMA and in the IUCN threatened species lists, the highest threat classification was considered for this analysis. Conservation goals for species were defined as a percentage of the area of remaining vegetation fragments present within the distribution range of each species. The four categories were attributed the following goals: Critically Endangered: 100%; Endangered: 75%; Vulnerable: 50%; Endemic: 50%. It was also defined that all conservation targets with geographic distribution smaller than 100,000 hectares would have the entire remaining distribution as its conservation goal. For targets where the percentage generated a value smaller than 100,000 hectares, the minimum goal was set at 100,000 hectares. Phytogeographical Units Participating experts suggested the adoption of a Standard Conservation Goal of 35% of the remaining vegetation fragments for each phytogeographical unit. They also suggested that all units with less than 10,000 hectares in remaining fragments would 60

62 have all remnants as their goal. For targets where the percentage generated a value smaller than 100,000 hectares, the minimum goal was set at 100,000 hectares. Adjustment of Conservation Targets and Goals Despite all this effort and the participation of several institutions and researchers who provided information, it was not possible to consider all targets listed during the technical meeting, and it was therefore necessary to adjust the conservation targets and goals. The groups of conservation targets and goals considered in the preparation of the biological importance map for the Atlantic Forest are listed below (see list of conservation targets and goals in annex ): Conservation Targets Species Targets (114 targets ) o Amphibians (8 spp); o Reptiles (12 spp); o Mammals (48 spp); o Birds (40 spp); o No information/no remaining fragments. Phytogeographical Unit Targets o A total of 93 environmental units were generated based on geomorphology, vegetation, soils, and altitude. Conservation Goals Goals for Species: o Critically Endangered: 100% (above 100,000ha - 80%) o Endangered: 75% o Vulnerable: 50% o Endemic: 50% Minimum Goal: 100,000 ha Fragment Filters: 50ha; 1,000ha; 10,000ha Goals for Phytogeographical Units o Base goal of 35% and minimum goal of 10,000ha. o Units with remaining area less than 10%: 55% goal. o Units with remaining area between 10% and 20%: 45% goal. Preparation of the Biological Importance Map Two decision-making supporting tools (C-Plan and MARXAN) were used in the preparation of the Biological Importance Map for the Atlantic Forest. Hexagons of 6,000 hectares were adopted for application of the software, and the Patch Analyst extension was used to generate the UP theme. Only the full protection protected areas had the borders of hexagons within their limits dissolved, to respect the protected area limits. All other protected area categories and indigenous lands had their limits inserted into the UP database, but hexagons were maintained. The Biological Importance Map for the Atlantic Forest provided to the working groups at the regional meetings resulted 61

63 from the Irreplaceability Map generated by C-Plan which, later, informed the preparation of the map containing MARXAN s Best Solution. Technical Team: Wigold B. Schaffer (NAPMA/SBF/MMA - Biome General Coordinator); Marcos Reis Rosa (MMA - Technical General Coordinator); Leandro Baumgarten (MMA Biome Technical Coordinator); Paula Hanna Valdujo (MMA); Luis Henrique de Lima (MMA); Ana Elisa Bacellar (CGZAM/IBAMA); Sofia Campiolo (Dríades); Cristhiane Holvorcem (NAPMA/MMA); Ricardo Brochado Alves da Silva (NAPMA/MMA); Luis Fernando Barros (NAPMA/MMA). Figure Biological Importance Map for the Atlantic Forest Biome Regional Workshops To comply with the methodology to update the Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Sharing of Benefits from Brazilian Biodiversity approved by CONABIO, who determined the process should be participatory, three regional workshops were organized for the updating process. Representatives from 62

64 various institutions (federal, state and municipal government, private sector, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and research centers) were invited to each workshop, to ensure participation from the various sectors. A broad database was prepared to support discussions, gathering general and specific information on each region: Landsat Images Set, from 2000 to Source: NASA, MMA and CSR/IBAMA; IBGE Cartographic Database 1:1,000,000 (2001): containing information on roads, hydrography, and natural features; IBGE Municipal Database - 1:500,000 (2001): containing information on the administrative borders of municipalities; ANA Watersheds Database: containing the map of level 3 sub-watersheds; Remaining Vegetation Map produced by SOS Mata Atlântica/INPE 2005, at the 1:250,000 scale; Map of Priority Areas and Actions for Biodiversity (MMA 2004); Federal and state protected areas map, and map of indigenous lands; NASA Digital Landscape Model with 90m definition; Map of Phytogeographical Units: result from the overlap of geomorphology information from the RADAM BRASIL Project with the Map of Phytophysiognomies (IBGE 1970); Preliminary proposal for new priority areas, generated by the analysis of the biological importance map; Biological Importance Map: generated based on the Conservation Targets and Goals defined by experts during the regional technical meetings. In addition to the database prepared by MMA, other data provided by participants during the event, such as shapefiles containing priority areas for conservation prepared by SEMA/ES, were incorporated to the supporting materials. These data supported the identification, characterization, priority setting, and the definition of actions proposed for priority areas. South Region Workshop The first event in this series of workshops was the South Region Workshop, held in Florianópolis from November 7 to 9, This meeting had 55 participants, representing various institutions from the three southern states: Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Paraná. The participants were organized in four working groups, as follows: Coastal Zone; Central Corridor; Northeast; and Southwest (see list of participants in annex ). Technical Team Wigold B. Schaffer (NAPMA/SBF/MMA Biome General Coordinator); Leandro Baumgarten (MMA Biome Technical Coordinator); Luis Fernando Barros (NAPMA/SBF - facilitating); Sofia Campiolo (Dríades - geoprocessing); Cristhiane Holvorcem (NAPMA/SBF - geoprocessing and facilitator); Ricardo Brochado Alves da Silva (NAPMA/SBF - geoprocessing and facilitator); Marina Landeiro 63

65 (DCBIO/SBF/MMA - facilitator); Viviane Mazin (MMA - geoprocessing and moderçaão); Paula Hanna Valdujo (MMA - geoprocessing and facilitator); Raquel Monti Henkin (MMA - support). Southeast and Northeast Regions Workshop The two last workshops were held in partnership with the teams discussing the Coastal and Marine Zone, since it was considered that most of the Atlantic Forest on the coast includes transition areas leading to ecosystems composing the Coastal Zone, and it would therefore be of extreme importance to obtain results expressing and respecting these interactions, providing the basis for the integrated management of these complex systems. Following this reasoning, the second workshop (on the Southeast Region) was held from November 21 to 23, 2006 in Rio de Janeiro/RJ, with 133 participants (see list of participants in annex ), and the third meeting (on the Northeast Region) was held in Salvador/BA from December 5 to 7, 2006, with 74 participants (see list of participants in annex ). Participants of these two meetings represented institutions from all three sectors: government (federal, state and municipal), private sector, and civil society. To make better use of the specific local knowledge detained by the various participants, each workshop designed its own set of working groups (GTs). The Southeast Region Workshop organized working groups according to states, while the Northeast Region Workshop separated working groups according to regional characteristics to respect social, ecological, and cultural particularities. Participants of the Southeast Region Workshop were distributed into eight working groups, four of which (GT1 São Paulo Coast; GT2 Rio de Janeiro; GT3 Espírito Santo; GT6 Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul) discussed and defined coastal priority areas that included the Atlantic Forest, and two of which (GT7 ZEE south of Chuí/RS up to Santa Marta Cape/SC; GT8 Santa Marta Cape/SC up to the state line between Espírito Santo and Bahia) discussed and defined marine priority areas. The other two groups (GT4 Minas Gerais; GT5 São Paulo Inland) discussed exclusively the inland areas within the Atlantic Forest domain. On the Northeast Region Workshop, seven working groups were formed, five to discuss terrestrial areas and two to discuss marine areas. Among the working groups discussing terrestrial areas (GT3 from eastern Rio Grande do Norte up to Alagoas; GT4 Sergipe and north of Bahia; GT5 from Salvador/BA to Canavieiras/BA; GT7 from Belmonte/BA up to the Espírito Santo state line), only the area discussed by GT1 (Ceará and northern Rio Grande do Norte) did not encompass areas within the Atlantic Forest domain. Technical Team Southeast Region Workshop Marcos Reis Rosa (MMA Technical General Coordinator); Ana Paula Prates (NZCM/SBF/MMA Biome General Coordinator); Wigold B. Schaffer (NAPMA/SBF - Biome General Coordinator); Leandro Baumgarten (MMA Biome Technical Coordinator); Luis Henrique de Lima (MMA - Biome Technical Coordinator); Cristhiane Holvorcem (NAPMA/MMA - Geoprocessing and facilitator); Daniele Blanc (NZCM/MMA); Leonel Graça Generoso Pereira (SBF/MMA - Facilitator); Luis Fernando Barros (NAPMA/MMA - Facilitator); Maria Carolina Hazim (NZCM/MMA - moderçaão); Marina Landeiro (DCBIO/MMA - facilitator); Ricardo Brochado Alves da Silva (NAPMA/MMA - geoprocessing and facilitator); Rogério H. Vereza de Azevedo (DAP/MMA - geoprocessing); Sandra Nunes Flores (CSR/IBAMA - geoprocessing); Ana Lídia de Araújo Ramos (CSR/IBAMA - geoprocessing); Helio Jorge da Cunha 64

66 (DCBIO/MMA - facilitator); Raquel Barreto (CSR/IBAMA - geoprocessing); Renato Prado dos Santos (SBF/MMA - geoprocessing); Viviane Mazin (MMA - geoprocessing); Raquel Monti Henkin (MMA - support); Francoli Thiago Reis (DCBIO/MMA - support); Daniel de Oliveira Wiechers (DCBIO/MMA - support). Technical Team Northeast Region Workshop Marcos Reis Rosa (MMA Technical General Coordinator); Ana Paula Prates (NZCM/SBF/MMA Biome General Coordinator); Wigold B. Schaffer (NAPMA/SBF Biome General Coordinator); Leandro Baumgarten (MMA Biome Technical Coordinator); Luis Henrique de Lima (MMA Biome Technical Coordinator); Cristhiane Holvorcem (NAPMA/MMA - geoprocessing and facilitator); Daniele Blanc (NZCM/MMA - facilitator); Leonel Graça Generoso Pereira (SBF/MMA - facilitator); Luis Fernando Barros (NAPMA/MMA - facilitator); Ricardo Brochado Alves da Silva (NAPMA/MMA - geoprocessing and facilitator); Rogério H. Vereza de Azevedo (DAP/MMA - geoprocessing); Sandra Nunes Flores (CSR/IBAMA - geoprocessing); Ana Lídia de Araújo Ramos (CSR/IBAMA - geoprocessing); Helio Jorge da Cunha (DCBIO/MMA - facilitator); Raquel Barreto (CSR/IBAMA - geoprocessing); Renato Prado dos Santos (SBF/MMA - geoprocessing); Viviane Mazin (MMA - geoprocessing); Raquel Monti Henkin (MMA - support); Daniel de Oliveira Wiechers (DCBIO/MMA - support) Results The final results of the process to update the priority areas of the Atlantic Forest biome indicated 880 areas distributed through 428,409 km 2. Of this total, 522 are new areas and 358 are areas under some type of protection (Table 6.4.1). According to the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA 2007), the current remaining area of the Atlantic Forest biome is 1,129,760 km 2, of which only 37.9% are covered by the priority areas. Of these, 30.6% are new areas and only 7.3% are currently under some form of protection protected areas or indigenous lands (see list of Priority Areas for the Atlantic Forest Biome in annex ). When compared with the previous prioritysetting process, conducted in Atibaia/SP in 1999, a slight increase is noted in territorial expansion of priority areas, in contrast to the 5:1 increase in the number of priority areas. It is important to note that, despite the fact that the area analyzed by the first priority-setting process was smaller (due to the non-inclusion of the Coastal Zone), the main explanation for this increase is the improvement of the spatial distribution of the information available for the analyses of the second process. The results of the process to update the priority areas for the Atlantic Forest biome are presented below: comparison of the frequency of biological importance classes among themselves and between the 1999 and 2006 priority-setting processes (Table 6.4.1); comparison of the frequency of urgency for action classes (Table 6.4.2); distribution of the main action indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 6.4.3); distribution of all actions indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 6.4.4); and the final map of Priority Areas for the Atlantic Forest Biome (Figure and insert to this publication). Table Distribution of the number and extension of priority areas for the Atlantic Forest Biome, by category of Biological Importance, as defined in the 1999 and 2006 priority-setting processes. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 1999 Biological Importance Nº of Area Nº of Area Nº of Area Areas (km 2 % ) Areas (km 2 % ) Areas (km 2 % ) 65

67 High , , , Very High , , ,592 9 Extremely High , , , Insufficiently Known 46 20, , , TOTAL , , ,516 Table Distribution of the number and extension of the priority areas for the Atlantic Forest Biome, by Priority for Action class, as defined in the 2006 review process. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 2006 Priority for Nº of Area Nº of Area Nº of Area Action Areas (km 2 % ) Areas (km 2 % ) Areas (km 2 % ) High , , , Very High , , , Extremely High , , , TOTAL , , ,481 Table Distribution of the main priority action indicated to the priority areas of the Atlantic Forest Biome. Type of Priority Action % of the Nº of Area (km 2 ) Total Area of Areas the Biome Creation of Mosaic/Corridor , Creation of Protected Area Undefined Category 76 70, Recuperation of Degraded Areas and/or Population of Threatened Species 84 46, Creation of Full Protection Protected Area 62 39, Biological Inventory 27 22, Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area 37 16, No Information 8 14, Fostering Sustainable Use 17 11, Fisheries Planning and Regularization 3 4, Definition of No-Fishing Zone 3 2, Other Actions 4 2, Territorial Planning and Regularization 5 2, Environmental Education 7 2, NEW AREAS TOTAL , Areas already under protection , TOTAL , Total area of the BIOME 1,129,760 Table Distribution of all priority actions indicated to the priority areas of the Atlantic Forest Biome. Type of Priority Action Nº of Areas Area (km 2 ) Recuperation of Degraded Areas ,121 66

68 Biological Inventory ,908 Enforcement ,087 Environmental Education ,214 Creation of Mosaic/Corridor ,488 Fostering Sustainable Use ,326 Recuperation of Threatened Species 90 73,612 Creation of Protected Area Undefined Category 76 70,709 Studies on the Physical Environment ,725 Socio-anthropological Studies 62 48,757 Creation of Full Protection Protected Area 62 39,591 Management of Biological Resources 62 36,045 Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area 37 16,640 67

69 Figure Map of the Priority Areas of the Atlantic Forest Biome 68

70 7. Pampas Biome 7.1. Background The Pampas biome covers an area of approximately 700,000 km 2, shared by Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. In Brazil, the biome covers 176,496 km 2 and is restricted to the Rio Grande do Sul state, representing 2.07% of the national territory and approximately 63% of that state s area (IBGE 2004). According to IBGE (2004b) the Pampas biome comprises an environmental collection of different geological formations and soils covered by natural grassland phytophysiognomies. It is characterized by a rainy climate with no systematic dry season, but with a typical frequency of cold fronts and negative temperatures during winter, which produce a plant physiological seasonality that is typical of dry and cold climates, underlining an intense evapotranspiration process, particularly on the Campanha Plateau. The grassland landscapes of the Pampas biome are naturally invaded by a number of tree elements from the Seasonal Deciduous Forest and Broadleaf Evergreen Forest, notably in its north and east portions, characterizing a natural substitution process transforming steppes into forest formations, due to changes in the climate from cold/dry to hot/humid in the current interglacial period. The Pampas biome shares borders with the Atlantic Forest biome only, and is composed of four main collections of natural grassland phytophysiognomies: Campanha Plateau, Central Depression, Rio Grande do Sul Plateau, and Coastal Plains. The first type has a predominantly smoothly undulated relief of basaltic origin covered by grasswoody steppe, and can be considered the core area of the biome in Brazil (IBGE 2004b). In general, the Campanha Plateau is used as natural and/or managed pasture, but agricultural activities are also present, especially rice crops cultivated in the sparse alluvial plains. This phytophysiognomy also presents Steppe Savanna disjunctions typical of the Chaco environment, which are physiognomically homologous to the Caatinga of northeastern Brazil (such as at the mouth of the Quaraí river, at the extreme southwest of Rio Grande do Sul). The Central Depression is characterized by woody grassland associated to degraded gallery forests which, in general, are composed by deciduous tree species. This phytophysiognomy has greater availability of humidity due to a more regular rain regime and/or greater concentration of drainage and relief depressions. Extensive alluvial sedimentary plains have formed associated to the dense drainage network, such as those along the watersheds of the Jacuí, Vacacaí, and Santa Maria rivers, in which the pioneer formations and gallery forests were substituted by crops and pastures (IBGE 2004b). Evidence obtained from the analysis of pollen and charcoal particles in sediments indicate that the grasslands are natural ecosystems that already existed when the first human groups arrived approximately 12 thousand years ago (Behling et al. 2004, 2005). Due to the drier climate, these grasslands probably presented then a species composition slightly different from the current one, but in essence there were three prairie habitats with the predominance of grasses. Approximately 4,000 years ago, the natural expansion of forests begun, irradiating from refuges in deep valleys and forming, in some regions such as on the Plateau, thick forests and riparian forests, indicating a change to a more humid climate, similar to the current one, but still the landscape in Rio Grande do Sul remained predominantly grassland-like. Therefore, the existing grasslands are not the result of deforestation, as some might erroneously believe. 69

71 The Rio Grande do Sul Plateau presents greater rain intensity, given the marine influence. This results in a more complex natural vegetation cover, composed by Open Tree Steppe, Park Steppe, and Grassy-Woody Steppe, with the notable presence of seasonal semideciduous forest formations, especially on the eastern portion close to the Patos Lagoon. In general, natural or managed pastures predominate (IBGE 2004b). The Coastal Plains are formed by sedimentary soils of fluvial and marine origin, mainly covered by pioneer woody-grassy formations, typical of the lagoon complex composed mainly by the Patos, Mirim, and Mangueira Lagoons (IBGE 2004). The predominant land use is natural pasture associated with rice crops. As a very old collection of ecosystems, the Pampas is home to its own flora and fauna and presents high biodiversity. Estimates indicate the presence of approximately 3,000 plant species, over 100 mammal species, and almost 500 bird species. Among the various typical plant species of the Pampas are the bushes algarrobo (Prosopis algarobilla) and nhandavaí (Acacia farnesiana), the last remaining individuals of which are found in the Espinilho State Park, in the Barra do Quaraí municipality. This ecosystem is home to a rich fauna with numerous endemic species, such as: the rodent tuco-tuco (Ctenomys flamarioni); blue-tufted starthroat (Heliomaster furcifer), redbellied toad (Melanophryniscus atroluteus); and threatened species such as the pampas deer (Ozotocerus bezoarticus); marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus); ruddy-breasted seedeater (Sporophila hypoxantha); and chequered woodpecker (Picoides mixtus) (MMA 2003). The Pampas suffered great loss of biodiversity and habitats due to the accelerated agricultural expansion process initiated in the 1970s and recently intensified by the conversion of broad expanses of natural grasslands into forest monocultures. According to the latest Agricultural Census (IBGE 2006), these processes resulted in enormous conversion of natural grasslands into other land uses. From 1970 to 1996, the natural grasslands reduced from 14 to 10.5 million hectares, corresponding to a 25% conversion (IBGE 1996; DIEA 2003; Bilenca and Miñarro 2004). Large-scale agricultural activities are important factors contributing to the degradation of this biome. There are no official numbers on the total area of wetlands already lost, but it is known that extensive flooded areas were drained and replaced largely by rice crops and, at a smaller scale, by fruit crops. Currently, large eucalyptus plantations are a major concern, given that in addition to the impacts of this economic activity and its entire production chain, plantations of alien tree species in native grasslands result in the loss of the biodiversity of rocky field habitats, and significant alteration of the landscape and regional economy, which are the basis of the gaucho culture (Pillar et al, 2006). Cattle raising is one of the main economic activities of the southern grasslands, given the plant diversity with high foraging value that exists in the biome (Nabinger et al., 2000) and the vast areas of natural pasture which, according to the latest Brazilian Agricultural Census (IBGE 2006), comprise 44% of the vegetation cover of Rio Grande do Sul state, and correspond to 70% of the total area for cattle raising in the southern region of Brazil. As a consequence, intensive grazing became another important degradation agent for the natural grasslands, since it strongly accelerates the degradation process of sandy soils that is transforming a large portion of the state into expansions of naked sand. However, the Pampas have been used for raising cattle since the 17 th century, when the Jesuits began the Missions to Christianize the Guarani Indians. The activity of raising cattle in vast open grasslands is the very image of the gaucho culture, 70

72 the identity of the people who call themselves gaucho instead of a native of Rio Grande do Sul state. This extensive cattle raising present throughout the Pampas has contributed to maintain and preserve the vegetation and may also contribute to maintain the integrity of its grassland ecosystems; however, the borderline between sustainable use and degradation is very tenuous. Conserving the natural grassland habitats is of fundamental importance for biodiversity. These habitats maintain a collection of biota that is characteristic of the natural grasslands, and their conservation represents the protection of various known and still unknown elements of fauna and flora, as well as the ecosystem processes. Particularly important for conservation are the headwaters of the natural grasslands, springs, and recharge areas of the Guarani aquifer. The recent discovery of new fish and crustacean species (Bond-Buckup et al. 2006, Malabarba, L. R. et al., 2006) in water bodies of the natural grasslands of Rio Grande do Sul underlines the importance of maintaining these areas, since they are home to organisms still unknown to science. Furthermore, the maintenance of well-preserved natural areas is essential for maintaining water quality of rivers and ground water (Pillar et al., 2006). Currently, with the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA 2007), it is possible to determine what extension of these remaining habitats are still native grasslands and/or under regeneration, and how much was degraded by crops, inadequate grazing management, or invasion of alien species such as the Annoni grass (Eragrostis plana). In addition to this effort, the MMA has updated the Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Sharing of Benefits from the Pampas Biodiversity as another public policy tool that will guide actions for the conservation, recuperation, and sustainable use of the natural resources of the southern grasslands. All steps of this updating process are described below Technical Meetings and data processing Definition of Conservation Targets The technical meeting was held in Porto Alegre/RS on March 9 and 10, 2006, at UFRGS, with 60 participants (researchers, government technical staff, and representatives of the third sector) (see list of participants in annex ). During the meeting, experts defined the conservation targets and goals, which informed the preparation of the biological importance map of the Pampas Biome (see list of targets and goals in annex ). The participants were organized into two working groups, one focusing the definition of species targets and the other focusing the definition of Planning Units (UPs). By the end of the meeting, 116 conservation targets were indicated, separated into two large groups as follows: 86 Species Targets o Sponges (2 spp); o Mollusks (4 spp); o Crustaceans (3 spp); o Insects (5 spp); o Amphibians (6 spp); o Reptiles (3 spp); 71

73 o Mammals (21 spp); o Birds (42 spp); o No information/no remaining original habitat (18 spp); 30 UP targets (based on geomorphology, vegetation, and soils RADAM BRASIL and SRTM). The final UP map was generated considering the particular characteristics of the Pampas biota. The geographical scope for updating the priority areas and actions for the conservation of biodiversity in the Pampas Biome followed the limits established by the Brazilian Biomes Map (IBGE 2004) Definition of Conservation Goals Species The participants of the technical meeting decided to use a set of standard goals to define conservation goals for all species, based on the threat category of each species. In those cases where a species was listed both in the IBAMA and in the IUCN threatened species lists, the highest threat category was considered in the analysis. The conservation goals for species were defined as a percentage of the remaining habitat area within the distribution of each species. The various categories were attributed the following goals: Critically Endangered: 80% Endangered: 60% Vulnerable: 40% Endemic: 40% It was also defined that no species target would have a conservation goal smaller than 10,000 hectares or greater than 1,000,000 hectares. Phytogeographical Units (UFGs) Participating experts decided to organize UFGs in three target categories (70%; 50%; 30%). This ranking was based on vulnerability, distribution area, and threat status. The conservation goal for wetlands was set at 50%. It was also decided that all UFGs with less than 10,000 hectares of remaining habitat area would have all remaining fragments as its conservation goal. For goals where the percentage resulted in a number smaller than 10,000 hectares, the minimum goal was set at 10,000 hectares. Preparation of the Biological Importance Map Two decision-making supporting tools were used for preparing the Biological Importance Map for the Pampas: C-Plan and MARXAN; and 2,500-hectare hexagons were adopted as UPs, using the Patch Analyst extension to generate the UP theme. Hexagons inside full protection protected areas had their limits dissolved to respect the borders of the protected area. The shape of all other protected areas and indigenous lands was included in the UP database, but hexagons were maintained. The Biological Importance Map of the Pampas provided to the working groups in the regional workshops was a result of the Irreplaceability Map generated by C-Plan which, later, informed the preparation of the map containing MARXAN s Best Solution. Technical Team 72

74 Wigold B. Schaffer (NAPMA/SBF/MMA General Coordinator); Marcos Reis Rosa (MMA General Technical Coordinator); Leandro Baumgarten (MMA Technical Coordinator for the Biome); Anthony Chatwin (TNC); Paula Hanna Valdujo (MMA); Luiz Fernando R. de Barros (MMA); Ana Elisa Bacellar (CGZAM/IBAMA) Regional Workshop The regional workshop for consolidating the process to update the Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Sharing of Benefits from the Pampas Biodiversity was held in Porto Alegre/RS, from October 30 to November 1, The event had 65 participants representing different governmental levels, academia, business sector, NGOs, social movements, and traditional and indigenous communities (see list of participants in annex ). For a better use of the specific local knowledge detained by participants, they were organized into four working groups according to sub-region (Figure 7.3.1). Figure Distribution of the Sub-regional Working Groups of the regional workshop held in Porto Alegre/RS. The NAPMA/MMA technical team prepared a complete database to inform discussions, collating general and specific information on each region: Set of Landsat Images from 2000 to Source: NASA, MMA and CSR/IBAMA IBGE Cartographic Database 1:1,000,000 (2001): containing information on the road network, hydrography, and natural features; IBGE Municipality Database - 1:500,000 (2001): containing information of the administrative borders of municipalities; ANA Watersheds Database: containing the map of level 3 sub-watersheds; Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA 2007); 73

75 Map of Priority Areas and Actions for Biodiversity (MMA 2004); Map of federal and state protected areas and map of indigenous lands; NASA Digital Landscape Model with 90m definition; Phytogeographical Units Map: result from the overlap of the geomorphology information from the RADAM BRASIL Project with the Phytophysiognomies Map (IBGE 1970); Preliminary proposal for the new priority areas: generated through the analysis of the biological importance map; Biological Importance Map: generated based on the Conservation Targets and Goals defined by experts in the regional technical meetings (Figure 7.3.2). In addition to the database prepared by MMA, other data provided by participants during the event (e.g.: shapefile with priority areas for conservation produced by SEMA/RS; etc) were also used by the working groups in the identification, characterization, priority setting, and definition of actions proposed for the priority areas. Figure Biological Importance Map for the Pampas Biome. Technical Team Wigold B. Schaffer (NAPMA/SBF/MMA General Coordinator); Marcos Reis Rosa (MMA General Technical Coordinator); Leandro Baumgarten (NAPMA/MMA 74

76 Technical Coordinator for the Biome); Cristhiane Holvorcem (NAPMA/MMA); Luis Henrique Lima (NZCM/MMA); Marina Landeiro (DCBIO/SBF/MMA); Paula Hanna Valdujo (NCP/MMA); Ricardo Brochado Alves da Silva (IBAMA); Sofia Campiolo (Dríades); Ana Elisa Bacellar (CGZAM/IBAMA); Luiz Fernando R. de Barros (NAPMA /MMA); Raquel Monti Henkin (MMA); 7.4. Results The final results of the process to update the Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Sharing of Benefits from Biodiversity of the Pampas generated a map with 105 priority areas, 17 of which are already under protection and 88 are new indications (see list of the Priority Areas for the Pampas Biome in annex ). The total area covered by the priority areas occupies a little over half of the Biome (52.9%), of which 49.3% are new areas and only 3.6% are already under some type of protection protected areas or indigenous lands (Table 7.4.2). In comparison with the previous priority-setting process, held in Atibaia/SP in 1999, there was a significant increase in the number of priority areas, from 5 to 105, and a smaller increase in the total extension, from 77,293 km 2 to 94,595 km 2. The new process also resulted in a better distribution among categories of biological importance. In 1999, 77.1% of the priority areas were classified as of Extremely High biological importance, while the new process indicated 38.9% of the priority areas to this category, followed by 41% of Very High importance, and 18.8% of High importance. The results of the process to update the priority areas are presented below: comparison of the frequency of biological importance classes among themselves and between the 1999 and 2006 priority-setting processes (Table 7.4.1); comparison of the frequency of urgency for action classes (Table 7.4.2); distribution of the main action indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 7.4.3); distribution of all actions indicated to each of the identified areas (Table 7.4.4); and the final map of Priority Areas for the Pampas Biome (Figure and insert to this publication). Table Distribution of the number and extension of priority areas of the Pampas Biome, by Biological Importance category, as defined in the 1999 and 2006 processes. Biological Importance Nº de Areas New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 1999 Area (km 2 ) % Nº of Areas Area (km 2 ) % Nº of Areas Area (km 2 ) High 17 16, , Very High 28 36, , , Extremely High 41 34, , , Insufficiently Known TOTAL 88 88, , ,293 % Table Distribution of the number and extension of priority areas for the Pampas Biome, by Priority for Action class, as defined in the 2006 process. New 2006 Protected 2006 Total 2006 Priority for Action % % % Nº of Areas Area (km 2 ) Nº of Areas Area (km 2 ) Nº of Areas Area (km 2 ) High 25 29, , , Very High 22 30, , , Extremely High 41 28, , , TOTAL 88 88, , ,595 75

77 Table Distribution of the main priority action indicated to the priority areas of the Pampas Biome. Type of Priority Action Nº of Areas Area (km 2 ) Percent of the BIOME Creation of Protected Area undefined category 19 18, Creation of Mosaic/Corridor 21 16, Fostering Economic Activities of Sustainable Use 5 11, Recuperation of Degraded Areas and/or Populations of Threatened Species 13 10, Creation of Full Protection Protected Area 13 9, No information 3 8, Biological Inventory 5 8, Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area 6 4, Environmental Education Planning and Regularization NEW AREAS TOTAL 88 88, Areas already under protection 17 6, TOTAL , Total area of the BIOME 178,820 Table Distribution of all actions indicated to the priority areas of the Pampas Biome. Type of Priority Action Nº of Areas Area (km 2 ) Enforcement 60 59,951 Environmental Education 49 40,273 Biological Inventory 46 39,302 Studies on the Physical Environment 31 28,669 Recuperation of Degraded Areas 47 27,678 Creation of Mosaic/Corridors 34 23,279 Creation of Protected Area undefined category 19 18,338 Socio-anthropological Studies 9 9,431 Creation of Full Protection Protected Area 13 9,118 Creation of Sustainable Use Protected Area 6 4,359 Recuperation of Species 6 3,391 Management 3 2,610 76

78 Figure Map of the Priority Areas for the Pampas Biome 77

79 8. Coastal and Marine Zone 8.1. Background Brazil holds the largest biodiversity in the planet, with at least 10% - 20% of the total number of species. This richness is distributed through several biomes, such as the Amazon, Atlantic Forest, Pampas, Cerrado, Pantanal, Caatinga, and Coastal and Marine Zone. The Coastal and Marine Zone 2 occupies approximately 3 million km 2 under Brazilian jurisdiction. Brazil has one of the longest coastal lines in the world, with over 7,400 km between the mouth of the Oiapoque river ( N) and the mouth of the Chuí river ( S), with extraordinarily diverse ecological systems. Still, in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Brazil requested to the UN that 900,000 km 2 be added to this area, in locations where the continental shelf extends beyond the 200 nautical miles (according to the Convention, this strip may be stretched up to 370 km). This request was recently accepted, increasing the Brazilian jurisdictional waters to approximately 4.5 million km 2. This total area is being referred to by CIRM as the Blue Amazon 3. The Brazilian coast is bathed by cold waters on the south and southeast coast lines and by warm waters on the northeast and north coast lines, which support a variety of ecosystems including mangroves, coral reefs, dunes, restingas (coastal scrub), sandy beaches, exposed rocky coastlines, lagoons, and estuaries, with numerous species of animals and plants, many of which are endemic and some threatened with extinction (MMA 2002a and 2002b). The Coastal Zone is the region that makes the interface between the continent and the sea, dominated by processes that originate in the watershed of the affluent rivers, and by oceanographic and atmospheric processes. The high concentration of nutrients and other environmental factors such as temperature gradients, variable salinity, and exceptional conditions to provide shelter and support to the reproduction and feeding of young individuals of most species that inhabit the oceans, give this area a fundamental role in the connection and gene flow between the terrestrial and marine ecosystems. This fact makes the Coastal Zone a complex and diversified environment of extreme importance to support coastal and marine life, and for this reason it should be one of the main focuses of attention for environmental conservation and maintenance of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. 2 According to the definition of the National Program for Coastal Management, the coastal and marine zone also includes, in its original definition, in addition to the coastal zone itself (which comprises a strip 8,698 km long and with variable width, encompassing a collection of contiguous ecosystems covering an area of approximately 388,000 km², including a terrestrial portion and a marine portion, which correspond to the Brazilian territorial sea, with a width of 12 nautical miles from the coast line source: GERCO/MMA), the coastal and oceanic islands, the marine continental shelf, and the Exclusive Economic Zone ZEE, which extends from the external limit of the 12-mile territorial sea to 200 nautical miles from the coast. 3 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) signed by Brazil on December 10, 1982 and ratified on December 22, 1988 introduces and ratifies the concepts of territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. Law nº 8617 of January 04, 1993, sanctioned the UNCLOS, making the Brazilian marine limits coherent with the limits preconized by the Convention. See also the site: 78

80 Currently, these regions of the world encompass less than 20% of the planet s surface, but are home to over 45% of the human population, harboring 75% of the large cities with over 10 million inhabitants, and provide approximately 90% of the global fisheries production. The coastal region is also an important zone for food production through agriculture, hoofstock raising, fisheries, and aquaculture; it is the focus of industrial and transportation development; significant source of mineral resources, including oil and natural gas; main touristic destination in all continents; and abundant reservoir of species and ecosystems, on which the planet depends for functioning. Numerous marine species may be considered as products for the direct use of human beings, both for consumption and for commercialization. The living marine resources may be, in addition to important food source, used as components for drugs, cosmetics, or other medical use, fertilizers, genes for biotechnology, raw material for the industry, or even for construction works, in addition to all aquaculture uses (Thorne- Miller, 1999). Moreover, over half of the global oil production comes from the oceans. In the 1970s, methane hydrate reserves were found in the sea (methane molecules trapped in water crystals), and the energy potential of this resource is equivalent to twice as much as all the existing oil, natural gas, and coal. In Brazil, the coastal zone concentrates one fourth of the country s population, or approximately 36.5 million people (IBGE, 1996), living in about 400 municipalities with an average population density of 87 inhabitants/km 2 (five times the national average of 17 inhabitants/km 2 ). The number of inhabitants in urban areas corresponded, in 1991, to 87.66% of the total, noting that 13 of the 17 state capitals of the coastal states are located by the sea. The coastal economic activities are responsible for approximately 70% of the national GNP (MMA 2007). The growth of the human population that lives, works, and uses these natural resources causes pressures that, combined with other natural pressures, deserve to be monitored and understood to allow the preservation of this environment and the maintenance of human life quality. The loss of habitats is proof of the negative effects of human pressure, such as the loss of intertidal areas, restingas, mangroves, and coral reefs, among other ecosystems, and the decreased quality of coastal and ground water, algal blooms, decrease of commercial and artisanal fisheries, reduction of living and non-living resources, pollution of beaches, increased erosion processes and coastal floods, among others. The pressures from use conflicts affecting the environmental integrity and balance of coastal regions place these regions among the most threatened on the planet, and the conservation of these resources tends to be increasingly problematic and expensive, both politically and environmentally. The coastal zone fauna and flora compose a complex and sensitive biological system, with extraordinary processes and pressure inter-relationships, playing a fundamental role on most coastal regulatory mechanisms. These ecosystems are responsible for a broad range of ecological services, such as the prevention of floods, saline intrusion, and coastal erosion; protection against storms; nutrient recycling and processing of polluting substances; and provision of habitat and resources to a variety of directly or indirectly exploited species (MMA 2002). However, the biological diversity is not evenly distributed along the various coastal and marine ecosystems. Sandy beaches and mudflats, for instance, are low diversity systems holding specialized organisms, given the absence of surfaces necessary for fixation and limited food availability. Restingas (coastal scrub) and exposed rocky coastlines are at an intermediary position concerning biodiversity, while 79

81 coastal lagoons and estuaries are fertile systems, serving as shelter and breeding grounds for numerous species. The mangroves present high structural and functional diversity and, together with estuaries, play the role of biomass exporters to adjacent systems. Finally, the coral reefs support a variety of animal species close in number to that observed in tropical rainforests, and are therefore one of the most diverse environments on the planet (Wilson, 1992; Reaka-Kudla, 1997). As a transition area, the coastal zone overlaps significantly with the Amazon and Atlantic Forest biomes, and also maintains interface areas with other important biomes such as the Caatinga, Cerrado, and Pampas. For this reason, the coastal zone is not characterized as a unit, nor delimits a specific biome; rather, it forms numerous ecosystem complexes. Despite the tropical and subtropical characteristics that dominate along the entire coast, the regional phenomena are responsible for defining the particular oceanographic and climatic conditions that determine the distinctive traits of biodiversity. On the northern coast, at the mouth of the Amazonas river, the discharge materials and the energy expansion (tides, currents, waves, winds), given their magnitude, produce endless interdependent and complex oceanographic processes that strongly influence the distribution of the region s living resources. The large Marajoara and Maranhense Gulfs represent highly dynamic estuarine complexes, as the natural paths for large solid discharges. The estuaries, coastal lagoons and mangroves are present along the entire northern coast, where turtles, mammals (notably the marine manatee), birds, and various fish species are found. Several threatened bird species, such as the scarlet ibis, occur and reproduce in this area, which is also a migratory corridor and wintering grounds for other species. The coastline in this region is very diverse in shape. The Amapá coast is straight, while northeastern Pará and northwestern Maranhão present a highly irregular coastline. To the east of Tubarão Bay, on the Maranhão coast, the coastline becomes straight again and oceanic waters are typically very transparent (El-Robrini et al., 1992). Off the northeastern region, the absence of large rivers and the predominantly warm waters of the Southern Equatorial Current determine a favorable environment for the constitution of coral reefs, which support high biological diversity. The reefs form highly diversified ecosystems that are rich in natural resources and of high ecological, economic, and social importance, contributing to the subsistence of various traditional coastal communities (Prates, 2006). The coral reefs are distributed along 3,000 km of the northeastern coast, from Maranhão to the south of Bahia. These are the only reef ecosystems of the South Atlantic Ocean, and the main species that form these reefs occur only on Brazilian waters (Maida e Ferreira, 1997). The Atol das Rocas is the only atoll with coral formations in the South Atlantic, characterized as important nesting area for tropical marine birds and important breeding grounds for marine turtles. The Abrolhos Bank is the most extensive area of coral reefs in Brazil and holds all eighteen species that inhabit the reef substrates of the country, half of which occur only on Brazilian waters. The four large coral groups rocky corals, fire corals, octocorals, and black corals are represented among the species of the Abrolhos Bank, two of which (Mussismilia brasiliensis and Favia leptophylla) are endemic to the state of Bahia (Laborel, 1969 and Leão, 1994). The extreme south of Bahia is thus a notable region that holds a rich and diverse mosaic of ecosystems that include native forests, rivers, mangroves, beaches, estuaries, coral reefs, and marine islands. This large variety of habitats ensures the maintenance of high biodiversity in the region, notably in the marine environment, where the resident species and those that use the area as breeding 80

82 grounds attribute great environmental and socio-economic importance to the Abrolhos Bank. Along the south and southeast coast, the Central Waters of the South Atlantic Ocean are over the continental shelf and their eventual resurgence along the coast contribute to increasing productivity. Further to the south, during the winter months, the northbound displacement of the Subtropical Convergence, formed by the meeting of the waters from the Brazilian Current with the Falklands/Malvinas Current, confers to the region climatic characteristics that are closer to the temperate climate, profoundly influencing the composition of the local fauna. The Marine Zone begins on the coastal region and, in the Brazilian case, extends to 200 miles off the coast, constituting the Exclusive Economic Zone (ZEE). The Brazilian ZEE has an extension of approximately 3.5 million km 2, limited to the north by the mouth of the Oiapoque River, and to the south by the mouth of the Chuí River, extending east to include the areas surrounding the Atol das Rocas, the Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, the São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago, and the Trindade and Martin Vaz Islands (figure 8.2.1). The Marine Zone is less environmentally vulnerable than the Coastal Zone, since it presents strong resistance forces against human intervention, such as great depths and strong marine currents, storms, and greatest distances from high density terrestrial areas, and these resistance forces increase with the distance from the coastline. The geomorphology of the Brazilian continental shelf is fairly diversified, from 8 km off the Bahia coast to 370 km wide in the region of the mouth of the Amazonas river. In the northern region, the width of the continental shelf varies from 146 km off the Amapá coast, reaching 292 km off the Amazonas coast, and shrinking to only 73 km off Tubarão Bay. The depths included in the ZEE vary from 11m to a little over 4,000m, and the continental shelf drop-off between 75m and 80m. The ZEE also includes a stretch of the Abyssal Flats of Ceará, where some deep seabeds can be observed (Knoppers et al., 2002) The Internal Continental Shelf of the Amazonas, between the estuary of the Pará River and the border with French Guiana is covered by muddy deposits that favor the operation of trawl fishing due to the enormous deposits of crustaceans and other fisheries resources this substrate contains. The region is also strongly influenced by the Brazilian North Current (Guianas Current), which transports water from the external shelf and continental slope towards the northwest (Kuehl, 1986). The macronutrient flow derives exclusively from the numerous estuaries in the region, and is found in low concentrations at the surface and high concentrations at greater depths. Space-time variations of macronutrients are still little documented. The northeastern coastline presents a reasonably regular profile starting at the mouth of the Parnaíba River, broken only by the estuaries and deltas of large rivers, notably the Parnaíba and São Francisco rivers. The northeastern continental shelf has an average width between 36 km and 55 km, and the continental drop-off varies from 40m to 80m, basically composed by irregular bottom and calcareous algae formations. A notable characteristic of this coast, especially between the cities of Natal and Aracaju, is the coastal barrier reef that borders it, as previously mentioned. In addition to the oceanic islands Atol das Rocas, Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, and São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago a series of shallow oceanic 81

83 banks with depths between 50m and 350m, belonging to the North-Brazilian Chain of Fernando de Noronha, occurs off the continental shelf, notably off the coasts of Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte states. Most of the oceanic domain, however, is formed by areas of great depth, between 4,000m and 5,000m, which correspond to the Ceará and Pernambuco Abyssal Flats. Off the Sergipe and Bahia coasts, the environment is determined by tropical oceanographic characteristics, and the continental shelf is narrow, with average width of 10 km, except around the Abrolhos Bank, which presents an expressive expansion of the shelf (over 300 km). This region is dominated by irregular bottom with calcareous algae formations, extending almost up to the São Tomé Cape on the north of Rio de Janeiro state (Knoppers et al., 2002). A notable exception in the southeast region is the eastward expansion of the continental shelf, with widths up to 240 km. This region is formed by submarine banks of the Vitória-Trindade and Abrolhos banks, which cause a detour on the Brazilian Current and disturb the vertical stratification, bringing deep waters to the surface. The nutrient enrichment of this area allows the presence of relatively abundant fisheries resources. The region between the São Tomé Cape and Frio Cape is characterized as a transition strip between the calcareous bottom, dominant to the north, and the extensive areas covered by sand, mud and clay to the southeast-south. From Frio Cape down, a flow regularization of the Brazilian Current is observed, and its direction changes to southwest, due to the alteration of the coastline direction and the greater width of the continental shelf, which reaches 220 km (Knoppers et al., 2002). At the extreme south of the country, the Brazilian Current meets the Falklands/Malvinas Current, forming the Subtropical Convergence. Part of the cold water coming from the south dives and occupies the lower layer of the Brazilian Current along the continental slope, originating the Central Water of the South Atlantic (CWSA), a water mass that is rich in nutrients, with low temperatures and low salinity (Knoppers et al., 2002). During summer, a penetration of the CWSA is observed over the continental shelf off the southeast region, which reaches the coastal zone and directly influences the increase of primary production. To the south, a coastal arm of the Falklands/Malvinas Current reaches the eutrophic zone over the continental shelf. The nutrient availability derived from this water and from the waters of continental origin contributes to the region s richness, favoring the presence of important fisheries resources. This characterization demonstrates the variation of marine ecosystems that occur in the Brazilian jurisdictional waters. In terms of species diversity, in addition to those that comprise the fisheries stocks (fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, and algae) and the corals, there is a great number of mammal species, bird species, and chelonian species both in the coastal and marine regions. At least 43 cetaceans are recorded in the Brazilian ZEE, four of which inspire concerns about their conservation: the right whale (Eubalaena australis); the humpback whale (Megaptera navaeangliae); the franciscana or La Plata dolphin (Pontoporia blainvillei); and the tucuxi dolphin (Sotalia fluviatilis). There are only four species of the Sirenia order in the entire world, two of which occur in Brazil; only one of these latter is a marine species: the marine manatee (Trichechus manatus). This is the most threatened marine mammal in Brazil, with disjoint residual populations distributed from Alagoas to Amapá, totaling at most a few hundred individuals. Seven piniped species are known to the Brazilian waters, of which two are relatively common: the sea lion (Otaria flavescens) and the South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis). The presence of a southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) was recorded in the Fernando 82

84 de Noronha Archipelago, which is considered the northern-most limit for the occurrence of pinipeds in the country (Rossi-Wongtschowski et al., 2006) Over 100 bird species were recorded as associated to the Brazilian coastal and marine ecosystems, according to Rossi-Wongtschowski et al. (2006). Some of the marine birds found in Brazil are resident species, and other are migratory species coming from the northern hemisphere and from regions to the south of Brazil. Threatened species such as the scarlet ibis (Eudocius ruber) occur and breed in the northern region, which is also a migratory corridor and wintering grounds for Nearctic Charadriiforme birds and colonial breeding grounds for Ciconiiforme birds. The coastal islands of the southeast and south regions are nesting grounds for terns (Sterna spp.), Audubon s shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri), magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens), brown booby (Sula leucogaster), and kelp gull (Larus dominicanus). Of the seven species of marine turtles that exist in the world, five live in Brazilian waters: loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea). These species seek coastal beeches and oceanic islands to lay their eggs and for shelter, food, and growth. This diversity of ecosystems and species requires specific and integrated actions for conservation. Some significant advances in public policies can be reported in this field. Based on the CBD decisions, the Brazilian government committed to prepare the National Protected Areas Plan (PNAP), taking into consideration the coastal and marine particularities. PNAP was officially recognized by Decree 5758/2006, which defined principles, directives, objectives, and strategies to the establishment of an encompassing, representative, and effectively managed system of terrestrial protected areas by 2010, and of marine areas by Particularly notable is the directive to create and manage marine protected areas focusing on biodiversity conservation and the recuperation of fisheries stocks. To this end, the process to revise and update the Priority Areas for the Conservation of Brazilian Biodiversity concluded one of its objectives to design a system of protected areas in the various Brazilian biomes, including the coastal and marine zone Technical Meetings and data processing Given the territorial extension and biological and ecological heterogeneity of the Brazilian coastal and marine zone, the NZCM/MMA technical team decided to hold four technical meetings, each focusing one portion of this zone, according to the division shown in figure In these meetings, experts on biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources of the various coastal and marine ecosystems used the Ecoregional Planning methodology (TNC and WWF, 2006) adapted to the Systematic Conservation Planning methodology (Margules and Pressey, 2000). Participants were organized in working groups to define regional conservation targets and identify their respective threats and conservation goals. The possible databases containing local and regional data on these conservation targets were also listed. The NZCM/SBF technical team formed technical partnerships with TNC and CRS/IBAMA to organize these meetings, which also received local and regional institutional support at each meeting location. Financial support was provided by TNC, DIFAP/IBAMA, and SOS Mata Atlântica. 83

85 Divisão das Regiões de Trabalho -Norte -Nordeste -Sudeste -Sul Figure Map of the regional division adopted for the Technical Meetings and Regional Workshops for updating the Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Sharing of Benefits from Biodiversity of the Coastal and Marine Zone. South Region Technical Meeting The first technical meeting focused the South Region, and was held on March 9 and 10, 2006, at UFRGS in Porto Alegre, parallel to the technical meeting on the Pampas Biome. A total of 22 experts from Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina participated in this meeting (see list of participants in annex ) and, as shown in figure 8.2.1, discussions and definition of targets were limited to the territorial strip from Arroio Chuí/RS to Santa Marta Cape/SC. The experts, organized in a single working group, defined 50 regional conservation targets separated into two large groups (27 ecosystem targets and 23 species targets) and identified their threats. Discussions were completed during the technical meeting focusing the Southeast/South region. The meeting on the South Region was supported by TNC, NAPMA/MMA, and UFRGS. North Region Technical Meeting The technical meeting focusing the North Region was held from May 24 to 26, 2006, in São Luís/MA, with the participation of 35 experts from the states of Amapá, Pará, Maranhão, and Piauí (see list of participants in annex ). This meeting was supported by TNC, IBAMA/MA, and São Luís Municipal Government. The experts defined conservation targets and other parameters that supported the definition of conservation goals for each target. A total of 74 conservation targets were listed, organized into two large groups: coastal (17 ecosystem targets and 13 species targets) and marine (14 ecosystem targets and 30 species targets). Northeast Region Technical Meeting 84

86 The third meeting focused the Northeast Region and was held from July 11 to 13, 2006, in Tamandaré/PE, with the participation of 48 experts from seven states (Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba, Pernambuco, Alagoas, Sergipe, and Bahia) (see list of participants in annex ). On the first day, participants were organized in two working groups (coastal and marine) and defined the conservation targets. The next two days were used for characterizing the conservation targets and identifying their main threats. This information was organized to support the definition of conservation goals for each target. For this meeting, the NZCM received support from TNC, DIFAP/IBAMA, and CEPENE/IBAMA. The 72 conservation targets defined by participating experts were organized into three large groups (22 coastal targets; 17 marine targets; 33 species targets). Southeast/South Region Technical Meeting The last technical meeting was held in Teresópolis/RJ, from September 26 to 28, 2006, and had the participation of 72 experts from six states (Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul) (see list of participants in annex ). During the first two days, the participants worked in two separate groups (Coastal and Oceanic), to prepare the list of conservation targets and their respective threats. On the third day, participants worked in small groups to characterize each target and define the criteria (target conservation status and vulnerability) to be used for determining the conservation goals. For this step, the NZCM team received support from SOS Mata Atlântica, from the management team of the Serra dos Órgãos National Park/IBAMA and, again, from TNC. Experts selected 43 conservation targets, which were organized into two groups (26 Coastal targets and 17 Oceanic targets). The mangrove experts, in a different procedure from what was applied for the other regions, decided to subdivide the Mangrove target (tree feature and tannes feature) into 32 sub-areas, which they considered deserved differentiated attention. Adjustment of Conservation Targets and Goals After four technical meetings with the participation of 177 experts on biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources with knowledge on the different coastal and marine ecosystems, 239 conservation targets were selected, 85 of which are coastal ecosystems, 55 are marine ecosystems, and 99 are coastal and marine species targets. It is important to note that many of these targets, especially the ecosystem targets, are listed as targets in more than one region (e.g.: mangrove, coastal islands, beaches, exposed rocky coastline, among others). Several species targets were listed as a single target with the possibility of unfolding into several targets when specific information becomes available (e.g.: endemic and threatened coral species; threatened sand banks bird species; threatened marine invertebrate species). This resulted from the fact that each meeting was an independent event and, for each region, the participating experts had the freedom to list all targets they deemed relevant, so that at the end of each event an ideal set of targets to be conserved could be obtained. On the other hand, according to the methodology, the participating experts were informed that only those conservation targets in the spatial distribution format (preferably in shapefile format) would be considered for the preparation of the biological importance map. Thus, the NZCM put great effort into gathering secondary georeferenced data from the various governmental (federal and state) and private institutions prior to the technical meetings, starting to compose the Coastal and Marine Zone Biodiversity Database. During the meetings, experts identified new databases that 85

87 were incorporated into the Coastal and Marine Zone Biodiversity Database. This Database was the main source of information for the process to update the Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Sharing of Benefits from Biodiversity of the Brazilian Coastal and Marine Zone. Another relevant aspect to be considered is the fact that the technical team from the Coastal and Marine Zone Nucleus decided to map the main coastal ecosystems as a basis for discussions on this biome, instead of using the Brazilian Biomes Vegetation Cover Map (MMA 2007), which was the basis for the technical meetings on the other biomes. Thus, parallel to the meetings, the NZCM technical team, in partnership with CSR/IBAMA, digitalized restingas (coastal scrub), beaches, salt marshes, mangroves, estuaries, coastal lagoons, dunes, marshes, and islands along the entire Brazilian coast at the 1:50,000 scale, based on LANDSAT images from 2000 to After all these ecosystems were digitalized, the technical team validated the work by overlapping this map with the shapefiles obtained from federal and state institutions and from experts from different states, correcting small distortions and improving quality of the final map. The conservation goals for each target were defined using the Ecoregional Planning methodology (TNC). During the technical meetings, in addition to defining conservation targets, experts also evaluated the current conservation status and the vulnerability of each target. For that, the Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) of each target were defined (biodiversity; connectivity among ecosystems; community structure; sedimentation regime; among others), selecting characteristics the experts considered essential for assessing the biological health of the target. The next step was to determine the current status of each target, based on the classification of each KEA and using the following categories: Very Good (VG); Good (G); Regular (R); Poor (P). This classification later received numeric values (VG = 4.0; G = 3.5; R = 2.5; P = 1.0). The mean of the KEAs indicated the current status of each target (from 1.0 to 4.0). To determine the vulnerability of each target the experts used questionnaires to define the main threats to each Coastal and Marine target separately. The degree of influence of each main threat to the KEAs was thus classified (80% of the appointments) according to the following scale: High (H); Moderate (M); Low (L); Insignificant (I). This classification was again replaced by numeric values (H = 4.0; M = 3.5; L = 2.5; I = 1.0) and the mean of the KEAs indicated the vulnerability value for the target. The mean of the Current Status and Vulnerability of each target was calculated and the means of all targets were distributed to create variation classes. During the technical meetings, the experts determined the number of goal variation classes (3 or 4), as well as their minimum and maximum values. It is important to note that the substitution of the categories by numeric values and the calculation of means was a step carried out after the technical meetings. The Biological Importance maps of the three regions (North; Southeast/South; Northeast) were prepared based on the targets and goals database. For that, 6,000- hectare hexagons were used as Planning Units (UPs), generated with the Patch Analyst extension. Only hexagons inside full protection protected areas had their sides dissolved to respect the protected area s limits. The borders of all other categories of protected areas and indigenous lands were included in the UP database, but the hexagons intersecting these areas were maintained. The maps of Biological Importance of Coastal Zones (North; Southeast/South; Northeast) provided to working groups in the technical meetings resulted from the Irreplaceability Maps generated by C-Plan, which later informed the preparation of maps containing MARXAN s Best Solution to reach the 86

88 conservation goals for all coastal targets. The process for generating maps of Biological Importance of the Marine Zone was limited to using the Irreplaceability maps generated by C-Plan. Despite all effort to provide information to the meetings and the strong participation of numerous institutions and researchers, it was not possible to consider all targets included in the regional lists (see list of conservation targets and goals in annex ). Technical Team and Collaborators Ana Paula Leite Prates (NZCM/ MMA ZCM General Coordinator) ; Wigold Bertold Schaffer (NAPMA/MMA General Coordinator for the Atlantic Forest and Pampas Biomes); Luis Henrique de Lima (NZCM/ MMA ZCM Technical Coordinator); Leandro Baumgarten (NAPMA /MMA Technical Coordinator for the Atlantic Forest and Pampas Biomes); Anthony Chatwin (TNC); Lívia de Laila Loiola (NZCM/ MMA); Daniele Blanc (NZCM/ MMA); Adriana Carvalhal Fonseca (DIREC/IBAMA); Ana Lídia de Araújo Ramos (CSR/IBAMA); Beatrice Padovani Ferreira (UFPE); Claudia Cavalcanti Rocha Campos (COFAU/DIFAP/IBAMA); Eduardo Godoy (DIREC/IBAMA); Estevão Vieira Tanajura Carvalho (CSR/IBAMA); Gabriel Daldegan (TNC); Javier Fawaz (GEF Mangue/MMA); João Luiz Nicolodi (GERCOM/ MMA); Juliana Cristina Fukuda (IBAMA/Maranhão); Luiz Otávio Frota (DIFAP/IBAMA); Mônica Brick Peres (CEPERG/IBAMA); Raquel Barreto (CSR/IBAMA); Roberto Sforza (TAMAR/IBAMA); Rogério H. Vereza de Azevedo (DAP /MMA); Sandro Klippel (IBAMA/RS). Figure a 87

89 Figure b 88