Funding deficits of protected areas in Brazil
Introduction
In a world where social and environmental transformations are occurring faster than ever before, and societies are struggling to adapt to such changes (Steffen et al., 2011), setting aside protected areas (PAs) continues to be the most effective public policy instrument to protect biodiversity and provide the ecosystem services that nations need to prosper (Pimm et al., 2014; Watson et al., 2014). In the last three decades, global agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, and financial mechanisms, such as the Global Environmental Facility, have fostered an unprecedented expansion of PAs worldwide (Lewis et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2014). Currently, there are more than 238,563 PAs covering 20 million km2 of terrestrial ecosystems and 6 million km2 of marine ecosystems (UNEP-WCMC et al., 2018). Most of these PAs are managed by public agencies and have national budgets as their primary source of income (Hein et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2014). Because governments allocate fewer financial resources than those required to cover PA management costs, PAs frequently present funding deficits.
Funding deficits are considered a major obstacle to the proper management of PAs worldwide (Coad et al., 2019). Without sufficient resources, agencies responsible for PA management cannot hire staff, build necessary PA infrastructure, engage with local stakeholders, design PA management plans, or enforce PA regulations. Without enforcement, PAs can be degraded by illegal human activities (e.g., Kauano et al., 2017), defeating the purpose for which PAs were initially designated. Currently, at least one-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure, and there is no sign that such a burden will be reversed soon (Jones et al., 2018). Thus, reducing or eliminating PA funding deficits is one of the most important topics for the next round of discussions of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Designing financial mechanisms that secure the current and future global PA estate requires high-resolution PA financial data (Coad et al., 2019; Waldron et al., 2013). Such data would make it possible, for instance, to estimate the actual magnitude of PA funding deficits at different spatial levels (from individual PAs to global PA systems), and to put in place financial instruments that are appropriate to each context (Waldron et al., 2013). However, financial information about PAs is not always available because most governments and agencies that support PAs (including non-profit organizations) do not make their investments in PAs publicly accessible for scrutiny (Lehrer et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2019). Furthermore, information documenting PA management costs is scarce and is not comparable because there are no global standards for collecting it (Iacona et al., 2018).
Studies on PA funding deficits have shown that they are influenced by ecological, social, and political factors (Bruner et al., 2004; Lehrer et al., 2019; Waldron et al., 2013). Such studies have found that although PA funding deficits are found everywhere, they are more pervasive in tropical countries (Coad et al., 2019). Several studies compared PA funding deficits across countries (Bovarnick et al., 2010; Bruner et al., 2004; Lindsey et al., 2018; Waldron et al., 2017), but few analyzed the variation in funding deficits within a country (Lehrer et al., 2019). Therefore, comprehensive studies examining funding deficits within tropical countries are a gap in the literature.
In this paper, we first describe the variation in PA funding deficits in Brazil's terrestrial federal PAs. Then, we propose a model that explains such variation by using the characteristics of PAs and their zones of influence as predictors. We chose Brazil as a study country because it is a large (8.5 million km2) megadiverse country (Mittermeier et al., 1997) with high social-environmental heterogeneity (Théry and Mello-Théry, 2014), and one of the world's largest PA estates (Medeiros et al., 2011). Our results contribute to the emerging field of protected area economics that seeks to understand the spatial distribution of the costs and benefits of land use policies aiming to conserve natural ecosystems (Mayer and Job, 2014). In addition, it provides a framework upon which comparative studies on protected area funding deficits across nation-states can be built.
Section snippets
Protected areas
We studied the funding deficits of 282 Brazilian federal PAs (Fig. 1) that altogether cover 741,782 km2. These PAs represent 93 % of the PA coverage managed by the country's PA agency (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, ICMBIO) and 46.7 % of all the country’s terrestrial PAs. We did not include marine PAs or PAs that did not have all of the information required for this analysis.
Information about PA age (in years in 2016), PA size (in km2), and management groups were
Results
We estimated that Brazil’s 282 PAs required US$ 468 million to meet their recurrent management costs in 2016. However, the Brazilian government invested US$ 72.8 million (15.5 %) (Table 1). PA's funding deficit ranged from 0% to 99.9 % (Table 1), with a national average of 58.5 %. Most PAs showed funding deficits (76.5 %), and those that did are found in all three regions (Table 2). In contrast, the 66 PAs with no funding deficit in 2016 are in the Atlantic Forest or Savannas and Drylands (
Discussion
We demonstrated that most (76.6 %) federal PAs in Brazil showed funding deficits in 2016 and that the system's overall funding deficit is substantial (84.4 % of the estimated management costs). Furthermore, we found that the funding deficit varied across PAs and that most of this variation can be explained by a simple linear model that combines attributes of the PAs and characteristics of their zones of influence. In general, our results revealed some general patterns that can be tested by
CRediT authorship contribution statement
José Maria Cardoso da Silva: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Teresa Cristina Albuquerque de Castro Dias: Conceptualization, Investigation. Alan Cavalcanti da Cunha: Conceptualization, Investigation. Helenilza Ferreira Albuquerque Cunha: Conceptualization, Investigation.
Acknowledgements
We thank Cristina Lemos (CR9) for helping us access the information on public spending, Luis Barbosa for preparing the map, and Julie Topf for reviewing the manuscript. We are grateful to Kym Keive Machado dos Santos (NTI & LQSMA/UNIFAP) for developing the tools that enable us to explore the large database extracted from the Transparency Portal as well as two anonymous reviewers for very insightful suggestions. J.M.C. da Silva is supported by the University of Miami and the Swift Action Fund.
References (34)
- et al.
Management costs for small protected areas and economies of scale in habitat conservation
Biol. Conserv.
(2011) - et al.
Return on investment of the ecological infrastructure in a new forest frontier in Brazilian Amazonia
Biol. Conserv.
(2016) - et al.
Payments for ecosystem services and the financing of global biodiversity conservation
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
(2013) - et al.
The drivers behind nature conservation cost
Land Use Policy
(2019) - et al.
Ecosystems as infrastructure
Perspect. Ecol. Conserv.
(2017) - et al.
Public spending in federal protected areas in Brazil
Land Use Policy
(2019) - et al.
Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance
(2010) - et al.
Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries
Bioscience
(2004) - et al.
Widespread shortfalls in protected area resourcing undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity
Front. Ecol. Environ.
(2019) - et al.
Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance
Ecography
(2013)
Brazil’s new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia’s environment, traditional peoples and the global climate
Environ. Conserv.
IFDM 2018 - Índice FIRJAN de Desenvolvimento Municipal, Ano Base 2016
Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation
Conserv. Biol.
Mapa de biomas do Brasil
Estimativa de população - 2015
One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure
Science
Illegal use of natural resources in federal protected areas of the Brazilian Amazon
Peer J
Cited by (38)
Using social media and machine learning to understand sentiments towards Brazilian National Parks
2024, Biological ConservationProtected areas are effective on curbing fires in the Amazon
2023, Ecological EconomicsContribution of the Amazon protected areas program to forest conservation
2023, Biological ConservationThe next step for China's national park management: Integrating ecosystem services into space boundary delimitation
2023, Journal of Environmental ManagementCitation Excerpt :Protected Areas (PAs) are leading in promoting ecological protection and sustainable development (Pekor et al., 2019). However, the contradiction between ecological conservation and economic development has posed significant challenges to the global management of PAs (Silva et al., 2021). The operation of PAs imposes a substantial financial burden on the government, which results in many PAs suffering funding deficits, thereby leading to many ecosystems and habitats remaining without adequate protection (Smith et al., 2021).
In the right place at the right time: representativeness of corals within marine protected areas under warming scenarios in Brazil
2023, Ocean and Coastal ManagementCitation Excerpt :In contrast, sustainable use areas allow the use of part of the resources and various human activities within their limits, such as regulated fishing, building, and tourism (BRASIL, 2011). Overall, there are differences in conservation investment among jurisdictions, possibly reflecting their ability to implement rules, with federal protected areas usually receiving more resources and potentially functioning better (Silva et al., 2021). Although Brazil has exceeded the area established by the Aichi goal, these newly protected areas lack representativeness of ecosystems, as they predominantly protect large pelagic areas and few reefs (Giglio et al., 2018; Magris et al., 2021), which are essential habitats for corals and harbor high diversity.
Chileans' willingness to pay for protected areas
2022, Ecological Economics