participatory manage• ment models and the rules and norms established by the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC – Lei #, July 18, ). On July 18, , through Law , the Brazilian Government created the National System of Protected Areas (SNUC, in Portuguese), in order to establish a. 15 mar. Lei nº / – SNUC, a PROGE foi, em casos específicos, consultada sobre a legali- dade de retomada de mineração em Flona, tendo as.
|Published (Last):||11 January 2006|
|PDF File Size:||10.91 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.90 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
However, it does not incur in land expropriation as long as the activities conducted within the property snucc in compliance with the goals of the protected area. The current study consists of an exploratory eli that sought to deepen the knowledge about the RVS by investigating the possible sources of the category within the context of the National Protected Areas System Law.
It raises hypotheses about the concepts involved in the creation of federal RVS and about the possible meaning managers attribute to this category. It could be concluded that the difficulties generated by the category location in an intersection between full protection and sustainable use, combined with the lack of regulation, are 998 in many different levels of relationship with the RVS.
However, these difficulties are not strong enough to consider it as an unviable category.
The RVS category is a conservation unit in the full protection group, i. The peculiarity of this category, which is shared only with Natural Monuments, lies on the fact that, by being a full protection category, it does not involve land expropriation once the activities held within the properties are compatible with the Unit creation goals.
The current study is a call for reflection and it does not intend to exhaust the debates and implementations that are essential to understand the role played by the Wildlife Refuge Conservation Unit category in Brazil. The herein proposed reflection is organized in seven sections, namely: The current study comes from an exploratory research GIL, and it has the aim to deepen the knowledge about an underexplored conservation unit category, namely: The study investigated the possible origins of the aforementioned category in the SNUC context as well as the inspirations for its definition.
It also raised hypotheses about the concepts involved in the creation federal CUs belonging to this category and about the possible meaning managers attribute to RVS. The herein presented research encompasses literature review and documentary research, as well as interviews done with a key-informant who participated in decisive moments related to the preparation of the National Conservation Unit System, which is a public policy that set the Wildlife Refuge category in It also analyzes the answers given by the managers of the seven existing federal RVS.
On the other hand, the documentary research focused on investigating bills, minutes of meetings and public hearings, standards and relevant legislation in order to reconstruct the history of the Brazilian Conservation Units’ creation and management, especially that of the RVS category. Based on this survey, the study sought to identify the critical points in the SVR category concept within the SNUC preparation context.
It is worth emphasizing that this concept did not exist at the time conservation units were being discussed and created; the term used at lri time was protected areas. However, the current study is not interested in discussing this differentiation; thus, it is important to keep in mind that only the protected areas in the form of conservation units are herein analyzed.
A questionnaire comprising 12 questions was sent by email to the key-informant. The leu to the questions were sent back on May 22, Questionnaires comprising 27 questions were snyc sent by e-mail to the federal RVS managers. The managers responded between May and August The bibliographic and documentary surveys allowed investigating the possible origin and the inspiration to define the category as well as its reflection in reality, based on the analysis of the existing federal RVS creation goals.
Finally, the opinions of the federal RVS managers about their view on the category and on some perceptible obstacles to the management of these conservation units were analyzed. Firstly, it is worth clarifying the difference between protected areas and conservation units.
Protected areas are thus defined by some legal mechanism. The big difference lies on the purpose of the protected areas and on the fact that the exclusive prerogative of Conservation Units is conserving the nature. The first debates held in the country aiming at creating protected areas date back to the Nineteenth Century.
However, these initiatives were inspired by international experiences, especially those of the United States and Europe.
According to Medeiros snic, p. According to Medeiros, Irving and Garaythe s were particularly relevant to the management of protected areas. The authors attribute this progress to the new development ideology in Brazil – since it enabled a political environment conducive to the modernization process that characterized the country at that time – as well as to “the influence and pressure made by organized nature-protection movements, which began to better equip themselves” MEDEIROS,p.
Also according to Medeirosthe Republican Constitution attributes to natural resources the snucc of national heritage to be preserved, and it definitely includes the management of protected areas in the Brazilian political agenda.
As for the management of protected areas, the period from to was featured by inconstancy. The units were created according to policies that encouraged environmental devastation “sometimes on behalf of the development, sometimes as a result of the abandonment of territorial planning, sometimes as a consequence of the pursuit for national integration, or as a result of the most absolute administrative negligence” OLIVEIRA,p. According to Medeirosthe Animal Protection Law creates CU categories such as National Biological Reserve only indirect use and Federal Hunting Park providing direct useand it also creates spaces called refuges and reserves, which are geared to animal preservation.
According to Drummond and Barros-Platiauthe Forest Code and the Wildlife Code were responsible for the future CU categories of full protection and sustainable use, since they envisioned protected areas that could not be used 9958, state and local parks and biological reserves as well as those where the direct use was snc national forests and hunting parks.
Since the ‘s, the focus fell on the industrial pollution control, and it was especially influenced by the United Nations Conference on Environment, held inin Stockholm UN, However, the international debates had some influence in Brazil, so that one snkc the goals of the Second National Development Plan was “achieving development without deteriorating the quality of life and, 99885, without devastating the national heritage of natural resources” MEDEIROS,p.
Regarding the Amazon, the same plan determined the immediate establishment of National Parks and Forests. It encompassed, among its goals, the management of the hitherto existing conservation units National Parks, Biological Reserves and National Forests. It was repealed by Decree No. It became the basis for developing the “Brazilian Snuf Unit System Plan”, which first stage was published inand the second one, in Dias and Pereira describe the change that occurred in the environmental and political lsi regarding the development and management of Conservation Units since The authors highlight that no one paid attention to the interests of traditional communities at any time during the period of developmental actions by the military governmentlwi in the second half of the s.
The incentives were essentially directed to the expansion of agricultural and urban sncu and to the deployment of infrastructures. Thus, the delimitation of protected areas emerged as a response to international criticism, and many of these initiatives excluded and sometimes expelled local populations.
SNUC – Leis de Crimes Ambientais by Elder Santos on Prezi
As it was previously mentioned, the practice complied snucc the international hegemonic strategy especially in the USwhich, until the mids, considered that “in order to really conserve natural resources it was necessary to exclude the populations” BRITO, p.
Thus, extractive reserves were created by the Executive Ordinance No. The new Constitution was promulgated in and it had a specific chapter on the environment. This chapter explicitly determined the creation and delimitation of protected areas and confirmed the common duty of both the society and the State in maintaining and protecting nature. In addition, according to Dias and PereiraBrazil was strongly criticized in the early due the fires in the Amazon and nsuc Chico Mendes assassination.
According to the author, the different CU types were born from multiple factors, namely: As for the trajectory of the environmental issue discussion, protected areas proliferated worldwide since the s and human presence in CUs became subject of debates.
Inthe predecessor of the concept of sustainable development emerged in Stockholm. According to the same author op. IUCN is currently the leading international organization that directs global policies concerning protected areas.
Factsheet: SNUC | S2BIOM
The Third World Congress on National Parks was held in and it started the debate about a policy able to correlate regional, state and national development, local populations, natural resources and environment in the management of protected areas.
The concept of people as users evolved into that of managers. According to Britoit was an important step for the legal establishment of Conservation Units with human presence. The proposal contained 09 conservation unit categories divided in three groups, namely: In this context, Brazil, which has one of the greatest biodiversity rates on the planet, appears as strategic target of the Biodiversity Convention developments. It is worth highlighting that the ECO 92 Earth Summitin which such a report was presented, was held in However, Brazil only ratified the Biodiversity Convention in At that time, the government started the debates about the SNUC.
According to the bill BRASIL,the RVS must ensure conditions for the existence and reproduction of local flora species or communities as well as of resident or migratory fauna. Whenever the owner does not give consent to the coexistence between the Wildlife Refuge and the use of the property, the land will be expropriated on behalf of the effective public interest. Quite crowded public hearings were held in six cities during this period.
As for the RVS category proposal, the subtle and main change it was subjected to was the focus on protection. According to the bill and to Feldmann’s clean bill, protection referred to the “conditions for the existence and reproduction of species or communities”.
According to Gabeira, it began to be described as the protection of “natural environments that ensure the conditions for the existence and reproduction of species or communities” SOUZA,Annex A.
This last definition was kept in the SNUC publication. In other words, the focus shifted from species and communities to the environment. This shift has important consequences, which we will discussed later. Another innovation from Feldmann’s clean bill in the present case is also extremely relevant for the RVS category analysis. However, the bill did not present the definition of ‘indirect use’.
This definition was included in Feldmann’s clean bill as “the one that does not involve consumption, collection, damage or destruction of natural resources” SOUZA,Annex A and thus, it was kept in the SNUC publication. This definition of indirect use involves serious limitations, since it is almost impossible to identify any production activity that does not imply at least consumption or collection.
By making a more accurate and strict analysis, one can assume that the only human activities that could be allowed within full protection CUs would be non-productive in terms of production of goods, such as tourism, education or research.
The bill also prohibited the introduction of non-native species in the CUs, but it did not mention the exceptions related to the RVS category. On the other hand, Feldmann’s clean bill stated that “the private properties held in the Wildlife Refuges may breed domestic animals compatible with the unit’s purposes, according to its Management Plan” SOUZA,Annex A.
This exception was kept in SNUC publication, and the cultivation of compatible plants was also added to it change made by Gabeira’s clean bill. However, the exception is limited to what is provided in the management plan – the management document based on the CU overall goals – which establishes the unit zoning as well as the natural resources management standards. It is worth highlighting that the bill made clear that the Executive Power could limit or prohibit activities in conflict with the RVS creation purposes; however, such an item was deleted in Feldmann’s clean bill and it did not appear in SNUC.
However, according to Law No.
However, although this standard is applicable to the RVS, the Snic Law did not contemplate snu incentive; thus, it means more bureaucratic procedures for the owners whose lands are covered snucc a Refuge. According to Rodriguesthe Wildlife Refuge category was inspired by the American National Wildlife Refuges, which purpose is to preserve the wildlife snu in the country by focusing on endangered species, and it also provides recreation sbuc environmental education.
This link is consistent with the statements by the key-informant interviewed during the development of current research. The first stage of the Brazilian National Conservation Unit System Plan proves that inspiration, since the plan states that the goal of the Wildlife Sanctuary or Refuge is to ensure the survival of species or populations of migratory or resident fauna, endemic and unique biotopes, with regional, national or global significance.
Pureza shows another understanding of the possible inspiration for the RVS category definition. According to this understanding, this category may have been considered as a sort of Natural Lsi i concept applied to the biological context. In addition, it is in a way linked to species, rather than to the overall environment, and it is also related to small areas. Thus, it would be applied to a context in which it would not be possible to protect the entire system, but only a key aspect of the process.
Three of the four other statements obtained by Pureza about the RVS concept explicitly relate the category function to wildlife protection.
It is worth highlighting again that, according to SNUC law, the RVS category is focused on protecting “environments” rather than “endangered species”, as it occurs in the American National Wildlife Refuges.
This change in the RVS definition puts it away from its inspiration sources, as well as from the almost unanimous view that the category 99855 have the primary function of protecting the fauna. By analyzing the decrees that created the Federal Refuges, it was possible to see that only one of the seven existing refuges has some direct relation to the protection of fauna species among its goals. It is Boa Nova RVS, which, among other goals, seeks to protect viable slender antbird Suc ardesiacus populations.
The Santa Cruz RVS also relates to the initial category concept, since its main purpose is to protect sea- or riverbeds colonized by algae and by other benthic communities as well as to protect their associated fauna.