CRITICAL
Protected
Areas in the
Amazon
in the
period of
2012 to 2014
Elis Araújo • Paulo Barreto • Heron Martins
CRITICAL
Protected
Areas in the
Amazon
in the
period of
2012 to 2014
Elis Araújo • Paulo Barreto • Heron Martins
Belém, 2015
Copyright © 2015 by Imazon
Authors
Elis Araújo
Paulo Barreto
Heron Martins
Photos
Paulo Barreto
Editorial Design and Cover
Luciano Silva
www.rl2design.com.br
Editorial Revision
Glaucia Barreto
Translation
John Moon
INTERNATIONAL DATA FOR CATALOGUING THE PUBLICATION (CIP)
AT THE NATIONAL BOOK DEPARTMENT
A663a
Araújo, Elis
Portuguese Title: Áreas protegidas críticas na Amazônia no período de
2012 a 2014 / Elis Araújo; Paulo Barreto; Heron Martins. – Belém, PA: Imazon, 2015.
20 p.
ISBN 978-85-86212-77-2
1. CRITICAL CONSERVATION UNITS. 2. DEFORESTATION.
3. PUBLIC POLICIES. 4. LAND REGULARIZATION. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION. 6. BRAZIL. 7. AMAZON. I. Barreto, Paulo. II. Martins, Heron. III. Amazon Institute of People and Environment
(Imazon). IV. Title.
CDD: 333.7509811
The data and opinions expressed in this work are the entire responsibility
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of funders of this study.
Trav. Dom Romualdo de Seixas nº 1698,
Edifício Zion Business, 11º andar • Bairro Umarizal - CEP: 66.055-200
Belém - Pará - Brasil
www.imazon.org.br
About Imazon
Imazon is a research institute whose mission is to promote sustainable development in the
Amazon through studies, support for public policy formulation, broad dissemination of information and capacity building.
In 25 years of existence, Imazon has produced more than 600 technical papers, of which 225
were published as articles in international scientific journals or as chapters in books. Furthermore,
the Institute has published an additional 66 books and 23 booklets, among other categories of
publications.
Founded in 1990, the Institute is a nonprofit organization and is classified by the Brazilian
Ministry of Justice as a Civil Society Organization of Public Interest (Oscip). Its head office is in
Belém, Pará.
About the authors
Elis Araújo is an assistant researcher at Imazon, a lawyer with a bachelor’s degree in law and a
specialist certification in Biostatistics from the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), in Belém
– PA.
Paulo Barreto is a senior researcher at Imazon, a forestry engineer from the Agricultural Science
College of Pará (now UFRA), in Belém – PA, and with a Master’s in Forest Sciences from
Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Heron Martins is an assistant researcher at Imazon and environmental engineer who graduated
from the State University of Pará, in Belém – PA.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Carlos Souza Jr. and Adalberto Veríssimo for their comments during revision of the study; and Glaucia Barreto for the editorial revision. They would also
like to thank the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for funding the study.
SUMMARY
Conservation Units (UCs) have generally been one of the most effective measures
against deforestation in the Amazon, and thus
for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, some of them are in critical
situation of deforestation. Generally, those
areas present irregular occupations and are in
the regions of influence of major infrastructure projects, such as highways and hydroelectric dams, and are vulnerable because of inefficient enforcement. Aware of these problems,
enforcement agencies such as the Federal
Audit Court (TCU) and the Federal Public
Prosecution Service (MPF) have demanded
that UCs be implemented throughout Brazil,
especially in the Amazon.
In order to contribute to such initiative,
we present the 50 UCs which are critical areas of deforestation that need to be priorities
for implementation actions, especially, of land
regularization – in other words, the removal
of irregular occupants and the compensation
and resettlement of those that have the right
to it. Those critical areas concentrate 96% of
the deforestation that occurred in Amazon
UCs during the period of August 2012 to July
2014. Seven of the top ten most deforested
areas and which account for 81% of the deforestation in the critical areas are suffering
from a low level of implementation according
to data from the TCU (in other words, they
lack management plans, management council,
and sufficient human and financial resources).
The success of UCs against deforestation and as a basis for local development (tourism, sustainable timber harvesting) depends
upon investments. The government needs to
prepare a long-term plan that takes into account the necessary resources and priority ac-
tions. The initial focus of those actions should
be the critical areas of deforestation that are
under the most pressure (near projects that attract migrants such as hydroelectric dams and
paving roads) and are vulnerable because of irregular occupations. To guarantee the integrity of those areas, we recommend: punishment
for all crimes associated with illegal deforestation, which will lead to confiscation of assets
and stiffer penalties; removal of non-traditional occupants from UCs where their presence
is not allowed; and taking back public lands
outside UCs for the necessary resettlements.
Contents
Introduction
8
The critical areas
10
Recommendations
16
Bibliography
18
Appendix
19
Critical Protected Areas in the Amazon in the period of 2012 to 2014
Introduction
causes conflict over resource use, which can
lead to environmental degradation and to the
loss of their purpose. And delay in removing
those occupants generates an expectation that
the government will revoke or reduce UCs to
allow people to remain in the area, or at least
compensate or include them in land reform
settlements (Araújo & Barreto, 2015). That
situation encourages new occupations. Research indicates that UCs with land conflicts are
less effective against deforestation (Nolte et al,
2013).
Aware of these problems, enforcement
agencies such as the Federal Audit Court
(TCU) and the Federal Public Prosecution
Service (MPF) have demanded that UCs be
implemented throughout Brazil, especially in
the Amazon. In late 2013, the TCU carried out
an environmental audit on UC management
and governance in the Amazon biome and found that only 4% of the UCs presented a high
level of implementation (TCU, 2013). That is
because few UCs presented management plans,
management council and sufficient human and
financial resources; and had the uses laid down
by law implemented, such as forest concessions
and tourism.
Among the factors that keep UCs from
achieving their objectives is the lack of land regularization. The Chico Mendes Institute for
Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) informed the TCU that there were 5.4 million hectares of private lands inside the federal UCs in
Brazil needing expropriation at a cost of R$7.1
Conservation Units (UCs) have been one
of the most effective measures against deforestation in the Amazon, and, consequently, for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The
creation of 485 thousand square kilometers of
Protected Areas (Conservation Units and Indigenous Lands) in the region from 2003 to 2006
helped to reduce the deforestation rate by 37%
during that period (Soares-Filho et al, 2010);
and Brazil reduced its GHG emissions by 38%
from 2005 to 2012 (SEEG/OC, 2014). Despite
the benefits those areas provide, some are at a
critical situation of deforestation (Martins et al,
2012). Generally, the critical UCs are in the area
of influence of major infrastructure projects such
as highways and hydroelectric dams (Araújo et
al, 2013). Both the projects already underway
and those in the planning stage entail a large
migratory influx to the region, improvements
or the expectation of improvements for the distribution of local production and an increase of
land value in the surrounding area.
In that context, facilitated access to UCs
and inefficient enforcement allow people to
exploit their resources illegally and even to
appropriate their lands. The existence of occupants with or without title inside UCs that do
not allow private properties inside their areas
8
billion (TCU, 2013). In the Amazon, that
would mean 3 million hectares and an expropriation cost of R$2.3 billion. Based on those
numbers, the TCU estimated that the federal
government would take 102 years to conclude land regularization of the federal UCs if it
kept up the insufficient rate of investment presented from 2009 to 2012. To guarantee conservation of the UCs in the Amazon biome,
the TCU and the State Audit Courts (TCEs)
have demanded that the governments present
action plans for their implementation. Those
audit courts will follow up UC implementation
using 14 indicators (Appendix). In 2014, the
MPF launched a national campaign for UC
land regularization and an instruction manual for guiding federal prosecutors in following
up UC implementation and pushing forward
their land regularization process (PGR, 2014).
To contribute towards those initiatives, we present below the UCs that are critical areas of
deforestation and that need to be priorities for
implementation actions, especially land regularization.
9
The Critical
Areas
From August 2012 to July 2014, 1,531,000
hectares were deforested in the Amazon, from
which 158,400 hectares or 10% occurred in 160
UCs[1]. Of those, 50 UCs in eight states concentrated 96% of the deforestation (Figures 1 and 2),
of which 87% occurred in only two states: Pará
(48%) and Rondônia (39%).
According to TCU, implementation was
low (46%) or average (46%) in most of the critical
UCs. The low level of implementation predominates among the top ten most deforested UCs
(7/10) that account for 81% of the deforestation
in the critical areas (Figure 2). Only 8% of the 50
critical UCs presented a high level of implementation.
Among the 50 critical UCs, those under
state management were the most deforested, with
101,611 hectares or 67%. However, in Pará, the
federal UCs were more deforested than the state
ones, while in Rondônia we observed the opposite (Figure 3). The State of Rondônia is notable for
reducing and revoking UCs in order to legalize
and promote occupations and allow construction
of hydroelectric dams (Araújo & Barreto, 2010).
These data indicate that both state and federal
agencies need to improve management of UCs,
and prioritize those with deforestation.
[1]
Prodes Project - Satellite Monitoring of the Brazilian
Amazon, by National Institute For Space Research (Inpe).
Available at: <http://www.dpi.inpe.br/prodesdigital/prodesuc.php>.
10
Figure 1. The 50 Conservation Units with the highest rates of deforestation in the Amazon from 2012 to 2014
Critical Protected Areas in the Amazon in the period of 2012 to 2014
11
Deforestation 2012/2014 (ha)
Figure 2. Distribution of deforestation from 2012 to 2014 in the 50 critical Conservation Units in the Amazon
UC
category
APA
PA
Protection
group
US
Year of
creation
2006
Triunfo do Xingu
Florex
Rio Preto-Jacundá
RO
US
1989
1,055,000
APA
Rio Pardo
RO
US
2010
Flona
Jamanxim
PA
US
144,417
17,683
1,301,120
Resex
Jaci Paraná
RO
Flona
Altamira
APA
Tapajós
UC name
8,244
APA
Leandro (Ilha do Bananal/Cantão)
4,018
Resex
Chico Mendes
3,289
APA
Lago de Tucuruí
2,731
PES
Guajará-Mirim
2,655
Flota
Antimary
2,079
Flota
Mutum
1,774
Upaon-Açu/Miritiba/High
APA
Preguiças
1,745
APA
Baixada Maranhense
1,599
Parna
Mapinguari
1,555
Flona
Itaituba II
1,505
Resex
Verde para Sempre
1,338
Flota
Paru
902
Parna
Jamanxim
898
Flota
Rio Madeira (B)
876
Resex
Rio Ouro Preto
802
Rebio
Gurupi
720
Flona
Bom Futuro
697
Flota
Amapá
606
State
PA
10,146
PA
2006
14,511
US
1996
14,063
US
1998
UC area
UC deforested
Implementation
(ha)
percentage 2012-2014
level
1,679,281
1.65%
Low
20,233
27,700
1.92%
Low
12.24%
Low
1.12%
Low
197,364
7.13%
Low
689,012
1.47%
Average
US
2006
2,039,580
0.40%
Low
TO
US
1997
1,678,000
0.24%
Low
AC
US
1990
970,570
0.34%
Average
PA
US
2002
568,667
0.48%
Average
RO
PI
1990
216,568
1.23%
Average
AC
US
1997
65,965
3.15%
High
RO
US
1996
11,471
15.46%
Low
MA
US
1992
1,535,310 0.11%
Low
MA
US
1991
1,775,040
0.09%
Low
AM
PI
2008
1,744,852
0.09%
Average
PA
US
1998
405,701
0.37%
Low
PA
US
2004
1,288,720
0.10%
Average
PA
US
2006
3,612,914 0.02%
Average
PA
PI
2006
859,722
0.10%
Low
RO
US
1996
51,856
1.69%
Low
RO
US
1990
204,583
0.39%
Low
MA
PI
1988
341,650
0.21%
Average
RO
US
1988
97,357
0.72%
Average
AP
US
2006
2,369,400
0.03%
Low
Acronyms for UC groups and categories:
Groups: US – Sustainable Use/ PI – Full Protection
Categories: APA –Environmental Protection Area / Arie – Area of Relevant Ecological Interest/ Esec – Ecological Station / Flota – State Forest/ Flona – National
Forest/ Florex – Extractive Forest/ Resex – Extractive Reserve/ Rebio – Biological Reserve/ Parna – National Park/ PES – State Park
UC
category
Flona
592
Esec
590
APA
508
Flota
503
Rebio
499
Resex
486
Resex
486
Deforestation 2012/2014 (ha)
APA
468
Resex
448
Resex
443
Resex
441
APA
383
Resex
379
Flota
357
Flona
350
Parna
324
Resex
282
Resex
275
Arie
266
Flona
266
APA
251
Flona
244
Flota
242
Resex
236
Flona
233
Saracá-Taquera
PA
Protection
group
US
Terra do Meio
PA
PI
2005
3,373,110
0.02%
Low
Arquipélago do Marajó
PA
US
1989
5,998,570
0.01%
Low
Mogno
AC
US
2004
143,897 0.35%
Average
Nascentes da Serra do Cachimbo
PA
PI
2005
342,478
0.15%
Average
Cazumbá-Iracema
AC
US
2002
750,795
0.06%
High
High Juruá
AC
US
1990
506,186
0.10%
Average
Caverna do Maroaga (Presidente
Figueiredo)
AM
US
1990
374,700
0.12%
Average
Ituxi
AM
US
2008
776,940
0.06%
Average
Rio Cautário
RO
US
2001
73,818
0.60%
Average
Renascer
PA
US
2009
211,741
0.21%
Average
Margem Direita do Rio Negro
AM
US
1995
461,741
0.08%
Average
Riozinho do Anfrísio
PA
US
2004
736,340
0.05%
Average
Iriri
PA
US
2006
440,493
0.08%
Low
Amana
PA
US
2006
540,417
0.06%
Average
Amazônia
PA/AM
PI
1974
1,070,737
0.03%
Average
Rio Cajari
AP
US
1990
501,771 0.06%
Average
High Tarauacá
AC
US
2000
151,200
0.18%
Average
Seringal Nova Esperança
AC
US
1999
2,576
10.33%
Low
Carajás
PA
US
1998
411,949
0.06%
High
Igarapé São Francisco
AC
US
2005
30,000
0.84%
Low
Roraima
RR
US
1989
167,268
0.15%
Low
Araras
RO
US
1996
965
25.12%
Low
Rio Preto-Jacundá
RO
US
1996
95,300
0.25%
Low
Tapirapé-Aquiri
PA
US
1989
190,000
0.12%
High
UC name
State
State UCs
Year of
creation
1989
Federal UCs
UC area
UC deforested
Implementation
(ha)
percentage 2012-2014
level
429,600
0.14%
Average
Critical Protected Areas in the Amazon in the period of 2012 to 2014
Figure 3. Area deforested from 2012 to 2014 in the 50 critical Conservation Units of the Amazon, by
state and level of management
32,198
Pará
57,761
Rondônia
Acre
Maranhão
2,833
3,344
Tocantins
Amazonas
40,316
1,942
4,802
720
4,018
850
2,003
Amapá
606
282
Roraima
244
State
Federal
Hectares
The UCs in the sustainable use group
represented 95% of the total deforested area
among the critical UCs. The Environmental
Protection Area (APA) was the most deforested category, with 43% of the total (Figure 4).
That UC category allows the presence of private properties, but this does not mean that the
deforestation that occurred in those areas had
been authorized.
After APAs, National Forests (Flonas)
and Extractive Reserves (Resexs) had the highest rates of deforestation, with 19% and 15%,
respectively. Flonas and State Forests (Flota)
allow sustainable use of native forests. However, according to TCU, most Flonas and Flotas
in the Amazon are not yet being used for such
purposes through concessions.
As for the Resexs, their basic objectives
are to protect the livelihoods and culture of
traditional extractive populations and assure the sustainable use of natural resources in
such UCs. However, the TCU has found that
Resexs in the Amazon have low implementation of Management Agreements, the ins-
14
Critical Protected Areas in the Amazon in the period of 2012 to 2014
trument established to enable the population
residing in the UCs to have access to and
use extractive natural resources. Although
this UC category allow occupation only by
traditional populations[2], such as riverbank
and beach dwelling people (ribeirinhos and
caiçaras), it suffers from illegal logging and
illegal occupation.
Figure 4. Deforested area in the 50 critical Conservation Units, by protection category and by state
80,000
70,000
Hectares
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Pará
Rondônia
Acre
Maranhão
Tocantins
Amazonas
Amapá
Roraima
266
Arie
Esec
590
Rebio
499
720
2,655
Pes
Parna
1,222
Flota
1,259
2,892
1,555
Resex
2,158
15,544
Flona
27,603
697
APA
39,183
17,683
2,583
606
20,233
Florex
4,536
448
282
244
251
3,344
4,018
850
Traditional peoples and communities are culturally differentiated groups that recognize themselves as such, with their
own forms or social organization who occupy and use lands and natural resources as a condition for their cultural, social,
religious, ancestral and economic reproduction, using knowledge, innovations and practices generated and transmitted by
tradition. Definition of art. 3º of Decree 6.040/2007, which established the National Policy for Sustainable Development of
Traditional Peoples and Communities.
[2]
15
Critical Protected Areas in the Amazon in the period of 2012 to 2014
Recommendations
The success of UCs against deforestation
and as the basis for local development (tourism,
sustainable timber harvesting) depends upon investments. The government needs to prepare a
long-term plan that takes into account the necessary resources and priority actions. Although
the federal government has reduced spending on
the Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (PPCDAM)
by 72% (Infoamazonia, 2015), there are several
sources of funding for investment in UCs, such
as environmental compensation, effective levying
of fines and the Rural Property Tax (ITR) and
the sale of public lands, as noted by Araújo and
Barreto (2015). The government should focus its
actions in the critical areas of deforestation that
are under the most pressure (near projects that
attract migrants such as hydroelectric dams and
paving roads) and are vulnerable because of irregular occupations. To guarantee the integrity of
those areas we recommend:
Punishing all crimes associated with
illegal deforestation. Besides improving environmental enforcement (fines, embargoes, confiscation of assets), it is necessary to prosecute
illegal deforesters for associated crimes such
as occupation of public lands, conspiracy, tax
evasion and money laundering. That is exactly
what recently happened in Western Pará during the Castanheira Operation (MPF, 2014).
The accumulated penalties from those crimes
resulted in significant financial loss and prison
terms of several years that have a greater potential for dissuasion than the penalties for environmental crimes, which are milder. However,
the investigation of crimes associated with deforestation will require that Ibama, the Federal Police, Federal Revenue Service, and MPF
work together cooperatively.
Remove non-traditional occupants from
the UCs in which their presence is not allowed,
such as Flona, Resex and Rebio. According to
the Superior Court of Justice (STJ)[3] , those who
occupy public lands, even in good faith, do not
have the right to compensation for the investments they have made in such areas. Adoption of
this interpretation by UC managers would save
money spent on undue compensations. In the
case of occupants who have a legitimate right to
compensation for improvements, it is important
to deduct from such payment the environmental
fines for deforestation and illegal logging, as well
as the costs for the recovery of degraded areas.
Taking back public lands outside Conservation Units. The retaking of illegally
appropriated lands (with false titles) outside
UCs, especially those already deforested, would
increase the availability of lands for resettlement of non-traditional occupants of UCs who
fit the profile for land reform program. In order to expedite things, land title agencies need
to cancel false titles through administrative
procedure, which is more rapid than using the
courts (Araújo & Barreto, 2015).
See decisions of 2008 and 2009 in special appeal (Resp): REsp 863.939 - RJ (DJe 24.11.2008) and REsp 945.055 - DF
(DJe 20.08.2009).
[3]
16
17
Critical Protected Areas in the Amazon in the period of 2012 to 2014
Bibliography
mp.br/news/2014/operacao-desmonta-maior-quadrilha-de-desmatadores-da-regiao-amazonica>. Access on: 1 Sep. 2014.
Araújo, E. & Barreto, P. 2010. Anexo OEA 16
– Ameaças formais contra as Áreas Protegidas
na Amazônia. O Estado da Amazônia nº 16. p.
4. Belém-PA: Imazon.
Nolte et al. 2013. Setting priorities to avoid deforestation in Amazon protected areas: are we
choosing the right indicators? Environmental
Research Letters.
Araújo, E. & Barreto, P. 2015. Estratégias e
fontes de recursos para proteger as Unidades
de Conservação da Amazônia (p. 40). Belém:
Imazon. Available at: <http://imazon.org.br/
publicacoes/estrategias-e-fontes-de-recursos-para-proteger-as-unidades-de-conservacao-da-amazonia/>. Access on: 6 Mar. 2015.
PGR. Procuradoria Geral da República. 2014.
Lançada estratégia nacional do MPF para defesa
das unidades de conservação. Secretaria de Comunicação. Notícia de 5 de junho de 2014. Available at: <http://noticias.pgr.mpf.mp.br/noticias/
noticias-do-site/copy_of_meio-ambiente-e-patrimonio-cultural/lancada-estrategia-nacional-do-mpf-para-defesa-das-unidades-de-conservacao >. Access on: 6 Jun. 2014.
Araújo, E.; Martins, H.; Barreto, P. & Lima, A.
C. 2013. Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia Legal
com mais Alertas de Desmatamento em 20122013. p. 32. Belém-PA: Imazon.
Infoamazonia. 2015. A política do desmatamento. Available at: <http://desmatamento.
infoamazonia.org/analise/>. Access on: 6 Mar.
2015.
SEEG/OC. Sistema de Estimativa de Emissões de Gases do Efeito Estufa – Observatório do Clima. 2014. Tabela Geral de Emissões.
Available at: <http://seeg.herokuapp.com/tabela-geral-de-emissoes/>. Access on: 28 Jan.
2015.
Martins, H.; Vedoveto, M.; Araújo, E.; Barreto, P.; Baima, S.; Souza Jr., C. & Veríssimo, A.
2012. Áreas Protegidas Críticas na Amazônia
Legal (p. 94). Belém-PA: Imazon. Available at:
<http://imazon.org.br/publicacoes/areas-protegidas-criticas-na-amazonia-legal/>. Access
on: 6 Mar. 2015.
Soares-Filho, B. et al. 2010. Role of Brazilian
Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. PNAS 2010. Published before print
version, May 26.
TCU. Tribunal de Contas da União. 2013.
Processo nº TC 034.496/2012-2. Acórdão nº
3101/2013. Ata nº. 46/2013. Plenário. Auditoria Operacional. Governança das Unidades de
Conservação do Bioma Amazônia.
MPF. Ministério Público Federal no Pará.
2014. “Operação desmonta maior quadrilha de
desmatadores da região amazônica.” Assessoria de Comunicação. Notícia de 28 de agosto
de 2014. Available at: <http://www.prpa.mpf.
18
Critical Protected Areas in the Amazon in the period of 2012 to 2014
Appendix
Indicators for implementation and management of
Conservation Units
Box 1. Indicators for implementation and management created by the Federal Audit Court - TCU
Indicator
Theme
G
Management plan
H
Human resources
$
Financial resources
E
Physical structure, furniture and services
T
Territorial consolidation
F
Enforcement and fighting environmental emergencies
P
Research
B
Biodiversity monitoring
C
Advisory or deliberative council
M
Community management
A
Access by resident populations to public policies
U
Public use
N
Onerous forest concessions
L
Local articulation
Source: TCU, 2013.
19
Critical Protected Areas in the Amazon in the period of 2012 to 2014
20
Trav. Dom Romualdo de Seixas nº 1698,
Edifício Zion Business, 11º andar
Bairro Umarizal - CEP: 66.055-200
Belém - Pará - Brasil
www.imazon.org.br