INSIGHTS | PERSPECTIVES

706 7 NOVEMBER 2014 • VOL 346 ISSUE 6210 sciencemag.org SCIENCE

Over the past two decades, Brazil has

emerged as an environmental leader,

playing a prominent role in interna-

tional fora such as the United Nations

(UN) Conferences on Sustainable De-

velopment. The country has earned

praise for the expansion of its protected area

(PA) network and reductions in Amazon

deforestation. Yet these successes are being

compromised by development pressures and

shifts in legislation. We highlight

concerns for the newly elected

government regarding develop-

ment of major infrastructure and natural

resource extraction projects in PAs and in-

digenous lands (ILs).

Brazil has the largest PA system of any

country, covering nearly 2.2 Mkm2 or 12.4%

of the global total ( 1). This network helps

conserve some of the most species-rich bi-

omes on Earth and safeguard regionally and

globally important ecosystem services [e.g.,

( 2, 3)]. Since 2008, Brazil has lost 12,400 km2

of PAs due to degazetting and 31,700 km2 due

to downsizing, with an additional 21,000 km2

threatened by proposals in the National Con-

gress to downsize or degazette reserves in the

Brazilian Amazon ( 4). Until now, unplanned

agricultural expansion has been the greatest

pressure on the environment, but new pres-

sures are being exerted in response to rising

demands for hydropower and mineral re-

sources (see the chart). Hydropower accounts

for 77% of Brazil’s energy supply, while 70%

of national potential, much of which is in the

Amazon and Cerrado, remains untapped ( 5).

The Brazilian government predicts that the

majority of this latent capacity will need to

be exploited by 2030 ( 5). Mining has grown

from 1.6% of gross domestic product in 2000

to 4.1% in 2011; production is expected to fur-

ther increase by a factor of 3 to 5 by 2030 ( 6).

Brazil has made concerted efforts to cre-

ate a political and legislative framework sup-

portive of mining and energy sectors. This

includes strategic plans and draft legisla-

tion (PL 1610/96) to develop new mines in

sustainable use reserves and ILs ( 5, 6). Leg-

islation being debated in the Congress (PL

3682/2012) calls for 10% of even strictly pro-

tected areas to open for mining concessions,

and general prohibition of new PAs in areas

of high mineral or hydropower potential.

Our analysis indicates that across Brazil

there are 1.65 Mkm2 of land with some form

of registered mining interest; 1.01 Mkm2 are

in Amazonia (chart, A). While relatively few

areas have been physically cleared for min-

ing, at least 20% of all strictly protected ar-

eas and ILs overlap with areas registered as

under consideration for mining (chart, B),

demonstrating the potential for widespread

effects if only a small fraction is authorized

( chart, D and E). In the Amazon alone some

34,117 km2 of strictly protected areas (8.3%

of their total area) and 281,443 km2 of ILs

(28.4% of the total) lie in areas of registered

interest for mining. Few PAs are free from

the influence of large hydroelectric dams

(chart, C).

This analysis raises four key issues. First,

the existing PA network plays a critical role

in conserving Brazil’s ecosystems, counter to

claims that PAs fail to serve their intended

function. Second, there is potential for last-

ing environmental damage from direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects associated

with many large-scale development projects.

Third, environmental mitigation policies are

poorly conceived, fall short of international

minimum standards for mitigation, and are

unlikely to succeed. Finally, systematic incon-

sistencies and contradictions in the political

process, if left unresolved, will undermine

the credibility, effectiveness, and transpar-

ency of Brazil’s PA system and ILs.

Politicians who support industrial devel-

opment within PAs argue that many PAs only

“lock away” mineral reserves and are nothing

more than poorly managed “paper parks,”

often embroiled in chronic land tenure dis-

putes. Many Brazilian PAs are understaffed,

yet there is strong and growing evidence of

their key role in conserving Brazilian ecosys-

tems. For instance, the probability of defor-

estation is 7 to 10 times lower in Amazonian

PAs than in surrounding areas ( 7).

Environmental effects of large-scale min-

ing and hydropower within PAs are likely to

be multiple and severe. Localized, direct ef-

fects can be particularly destructive within

hyperfragmented Cerrado and Atlantic For-

est biomes, where further loss or degradation

of native vegetation could undermine oppor-

tunities to restore ecological connectivity and

prevent extinctions ( 8). Yet direct local effects

of development within PAs may be eclipsed

by indirect environmental effects likely to en-

sue in surrounding regions over decadal time

scales, such as increased deforestation, illegal

logging, overhunting, and forest fires. Large-

scale in-migration of labor and subsequent

infrastructure and population growth in new

development areas can open up “internal”

deforestation frontiers in hitherto relatively

undisturbed regions.

Current proposals (e.g., PL 3682/2012) for

mitigating environmental damage caused

by extractive activities within PAs are inad-

equate, poorly conceived, and fail to meet

international best-practice standards pre-

scribed by the basic mitigation hierarchy:

avoid; minimize; mitigate; offset [for exam-

ple, (9)]. In presuming that extraction can be

authorized within PAs, the first mitigation

option—avoid effects—is discarded. The as-

sumption that there are no “no-go” areas for

development could result in irreversible en-

vironmental damage.

Mitigation actions can provide substantial

conservation benefits relative to a business-

as-usual “no mitigation” development sce-

nario ( 10). But mitigation actions for large

development projects in Brazil are rarely

designed before project approval and ini-

tiation and may never be implemented ( 11).

Restoration is often viewed as a magic wand,

yet there is little evidence that we can restore

complex natural ecosystems after large-scale

mining ( 12). Mitigation and restoration ef-

forts rarely address indirect and cumulative

effects. Recognizing that environmental ef-

fects cannot be fully mitigated on-site, pro-

posed legislation to open up to 10% of strictly

protected areas for mining recommends that

offset areas be twice the size of affected areas

(PL 3682/2012). Applying biodiversity offsets

here is, at best, inappropriate. Although a

case can be made to use offsets to enhance

protection of threatened PAs to compensate

By J. Ferreira *, L. E. O. C. Aragão,

J. Barlow, P. Barreto, E. Berenguer,

M. Bustamante, T. A. Gardner, A. C. Lees,

A. Lima, J. Louzada, R. Pardini, L. Parry,

C. A. Peres, P. S. Pompeu, M. Tabarelli,

J. Zuanon

ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

See the supplementary materials for author af liations. *E-mail: joice.ferreira@embrapa.br

Brazil’s new government should not squander the country’s hard-won environmental leadership.

Brazil’s environmental leadership at riskMining and dams threaten protected areas

POLICY

Published by AAAS

on

Nov

embe

r 10

, 201

4w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

o

n N

ovem

ber

10, 2

014

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

7 NOVEMBER 2014 • VOL 346 ISSUE 6210 707SCIENCE sciencemag.org

for environmental damage elsewhere, it is

counterintuitive to expect that protection

elsewhere can compensate, on an ecological

like-for-like basis, for effects on PAs. PAs es-

tablished in part on criteria of vulnerability

and irreplaceability may be too risky or im-

possible to offset ( 13), as is increasingly the

case in the most deforested areas of Brazil.

Brazil’s National System of Protected Ar-

eas was established in 2000 after more than

a decade of debate in the Congress, building

on public consultation across society and aca-

demia and representing a major contribution

toward Brazil’s international environmental

commitments, including UN Conventions on

Biological Diversity and Climate Change. In

contrast, the process of dismantling PAs to

allow industrial development has paid little

regard to criticism from Brazilian society,

exemplified by a recent campaign in defense

of Brazilian PAs by the federal Public Pros-

ecutor’s Office. To be credible and fair, any

attempt to change and downgrade this legis-

lation should involve the same level of public

consultation and democratic due process.

Beyond conservation and stewardship of

its own biodiversity and environmental re-

sources, Brazil has a vital role in motivating

and supporting adoption of more sustain-

able development trajectories around the

world. Yet, the integrity of Brazil’s ecosys-

tems and the credibility of its environmental

leadership are jeopardized by recent shifts

toward weaker and poorly negotiated en-

vironmental safeguards in the national PA

system and ILs. This is consistent with re-

cent changes in Brazil’s Forest Code, which

include an amnesty for large areas that were

illegally deforested in the past ( 14). Although

there are often strong economic and ethical

arguments for development, Brazil should

not squander its hard-won record of suc-

cess and leadership in favor of fast-tracking

short-lived development projects that leave

a long legacy of environmental damage. We

call on Brazil’s newly elected government to

ensure that individual development initia-

tives are subject to a comprehensive, socially

inclusive, and long-term cost-benefit analy-

sis that allows for any new proposal to be

compared against possible alternatives and

that takes full account of environmental and

social effects, including rights of traditional

and indigenous peoples. ■

REFERENCES

1. WDPA, 2012. World Database on Protected Areas. Database accessed in June 2014 from www.protectedplanet.net.

2. A. Veríssimo et al., “Protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon: Challenges and Opportunities” (Imazon, Belém, Brazil; Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2011)

3. D. V. Spracklen et al., Nature 489, 282 (2012). 4. E. Bernard et al., Conserv. Biol. 28, 939 (2014). 5. Brasil Ministério de Minas e Energia (MME), Plano Nacional

de Energia 2030 (MME, Rio de Janeiro, 2007). 6. Brasil Ministério de Minas e Energia (MME), Plano Nacional

de Mineração 2030 (MME, Rio de Janeiro, 2010). 7. T. H. Ricketts et al., PLOS Biol. 8, e1000331 (2010). 8. F. P. L. Melo et al., Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 462 (2013). 9. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP),

Guidance Notes to the Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (BBOP, Forest Trends, Washington, DC, 2012).

10. A. Villarroya et al., PLOS ONE 9, e107144 (2014). 11. P. M. Fearnside, Environ. Sci. Policy 38, 164 (2014). 12. M. Maron et al., Biol. Conserv. 155, 141 (2012). 13. J. D. Pilgrim et al., Conserv. Lett. 6, 376 (2013). 14. B. Soares-Filho et al., Science 344, 363 (2014).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following authors thank the following grants for support: L.E.O.C.A. (CNPq 304425/2013-3), T.A.G. (Formas 2013-1571), R.P. (CNPq 306715/2011-2), J.B. (CNPq 400640/2012-0), and E.B. (NE/K016431/1).

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6210/706/suppl/DC1

A B C

Unprotected areas

70°W 60°W 50°W 40°W 70°W 60°W 50°W 40°W 70°W 60°W 50°W 40°W

N

30°S

20°S

10°S

0.50.5–505–10

10–35

35–50

>75

Un

de

r c

on

sid

era

tio

n

Ap

pro

ved

0

375

750

1.125

1.500

km

0°

Percent of eachprotectedarea covered bymining areas

Hydroelectric damsenergy production (kw)

Operational status

Operating

Under construction

Approved but not yet under construction

Indigenous landsStrictly protectedareas

30,00030,001–252,000252,001–300,000300,001–370,000370,001–820,0001,820,000–11,250,000

D

Biomes Biomes Biomes

Strictly protected

Are

a (

km

2)

Are

a (

km

2)

40,000 400

300

350

250

200

100

150

50

0

34,117276

344

23.3

816

47.9

1,320359

1.01.2

0.10.0

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Amazo

nia

Caatin

ga

Cerr

ado

Atlantic

fore

st

Pampa

Pantanal

E F

Under consideration

Approved

Indigenous land No protection

350,000 800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

160 20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

2,000

4,000

0

281,443135

691,43318,001

209,2083,069

295,4185,764

105,4958,101

20,8011,214 4,467

1250.00.0

95.90.2

9990.0

7620.1

2.30.0

Amazo

nia

Caatin

ga

Cerr

ado

Atlantic

fore

st

Pampa

Pantanal

Amazo

nia

Caatin

ga

Cerr

ado

Atlantic

fore

st

Pampa

Pantanal

Under considerationApproved

Mining areas overlappingstrictly protected areas

No overlapUnder considerationApproved

Mining areas overlappingindigenous lands

No overlapUnder considerationApproved

Distribution of municipal, state, and federal strictly protected areas, indigenous lands, approved mining concessions, areas of registered mining interest, and

approved hydroelectric dams in Brazil (A and C). Areas officially approved as mining concessions and publicly registered as under consideration for extraction are compared

against the distribution of all strictly protected areas (D), ILs (E), and unprotected areas (F), in addition to the percentage of overlap between all protected areas and approved

mining concessions and areas of registered mining interest (B). See the supplementary materials for details.

10.1126/science.1260194

Published by AAAS