Implementation of the Rapid Assessmentand Prioritization of Protected Area

Management by the Forestry Institute andthe Forestry Foundation of São Paulo

RAPPAM

Technical TeamGeneral Managers:Luciana Lopes Simões - WWF–BrazilLuis Roberto Camargo Numa de Oliveira - Forestry Institute

Coordination team:Forestry InstituteAdriana Mattoso, Kátia Pisciotta, Marcos da Silva Noffs and Sidnei Raimundo

Forestry FoundationSandra Leite

PPMAMonika Naumann

ConsultantCristina Onaga

Publishing:

OrganizationLuciana Lopes Simões - WWF–Brazil

DesignSupernova Design

TranslationLilian Faria

RevisionHelena Maria Maltez

The comprehensive RAPPAM Methodology can be obtained at the address:http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/what_we_do/protection/park_assessment/download_centre.cfm

Front page photograph: Serra do Mar State Park. Adriana Mattoso/Forestry Institute

3

Implementation of the Rapid Assessmentand Prioritization of Protected Area

Management by the Forestry Instituteand the Forestry Foundation of São Paulo

RA

PPA

M

4

FORESTRY INSTITUTE FORESTRY FOUNDATION

The Forestry Institute, a division of the EnvironmentSecretariat, is the main institution aimed at themanagement of strictly protected areas (State Parksand Ecological Stations) of São Paulo State. Itsembryo appeared at the end of the Empire, 1886, withthe establishment of the Botanic Department of theGeographic and Geologic Commission of the Provinceof São Paulo. Its first head was the Swedish naturalistAlbert Löfgren, and its attributions were enlargedthroughout the years, receiving its current name in1970. Today, the Forestry Institute manages 24 StateParks, 02 Ecological Parks, 22 Ecological Stations, 02State Reserves, 19 Experimental Stations, 13 StateForests, 02 Forest Nurseries and 06 Forest Gardens,totaling 90 Protected Areas distributed in all regions ofSão Paulo State, with an extent of 853,263.40 hectares- approximately 3.5% of São Paulo's territory -sheltering the most important and threatenedecosystems of the country as the Atlantic Forest andthe Brazilian Savannah (Cerrado). The concept ofsustainable development as a strategy for biodiversityconservation is handled by the Forestry Institutethrough the optimization of appropriate foresting withfast growing species and its rational exploitation,among other activities. About 27 thousand hectares ofplanted forests of Pinus and 3 thousand hectares ofEucalyptus produce 550 thousand cubic meters ofgross wood per year for sawmills and for the productionof energy. This means that near 3,700 hectares ofnative forests stopped being deforested annually. Thestrictly protected areas administered by the ForestryInstitute probably compose the most important andwide-ranging state system of the Atlantic Forest biomein the country. They provide development of researchesrelated to biodiversity study, protection of an importantportion of the state's water resources and opportunitiesfor leisure and environmental education for the public.

Therefore, the evaluation of protected areamanagement effectiveness presented in thispublication represents an important step for theForestry Institute in order to improve its managementand develop the potential of its protected areas, as itimplements the policy of the Environment Secretariatof the State of São Paulo.

Maria Cecilia Wey de BritoGeneral DirectorForestry Institute

The Forestry Foundation, linked to the EnvironmentBureau of the State of São Paulo, was established in1986 with the mission to contribute to themanagement, conservation and enlargement of theforests in São Paulo's territory. It supports, promotesand carries out integrated actions for biodiversityprotection, sustainable development and vegetationrestoration.

The Forestry Foundation is responsible for theadministration of the State Park Intervales, whichshelters in its area of 41,704 hectares, one of themost significant stretches of Atlantic Forest of thecountry. Located at 270 km to the southeast of SãoPaulo city, this protected area comprises one of thelast refuges for the survival of diverse endangeredspecies from the wild fauna. Moreover, it is thepioneer in the exploitation of ecological tourism inSão Paulo State, offering complete facilities forvisitors, including cozy inns and experienced guidesto facilitate the access to the most beautifulsceneries of the Atlantic Forest. These specialattributes favored the adoption of a unique type ofpark management, which has been carried out inconsonance with the planning principles:participatory management and sustainabledevelopment.

The results demonstrate that natural resourcessustainable use projects in the surroundingcommunities have positively reflected for themanagement and conservation of the Intervales Parkand the neighboring protected areas.

For this reason, the evaluation made by theRAPPAM is extremely important to improve theactivities that have been developed within theprotected areas, and also shows the managers'views and impressions about the system in whichthey are inserted.

Antonia Pereira de Avila VioExecutive DirectorForestry Foundation

RA

PPA

M

5

WWF-BRAZIL

Protected areas are the basis for life's conservationon Earth.

Conservationists from all over the world have madeefforts to expand the coverage of these areas and tocreate a system, which could be representative of thediversity of life forms on the globe. It is possible thatthis determination might mean one of the mostimportant land tenure changes ever. Today, more than100,000 established protected areas cover more than11% of the existent lands. The establishment of thesespaces bound primordially for nature conservation andnatural resources sustainable use represents afundamental step. However, a great challenge has tobe faced - to ensure management effectiveness.Having recognized this challenge, the BiodiversityConvention adopted in 2004 a Work Programme forProtected Areas that among other things, requestseach Convention part to accomplish a managementeffectiveness evaluation within its protected areasystems until 2010.

Anticipating to this international commitment, andleading this theme in Brazil, the State of São Paulohas made the decision to evaluate its protected areasystem. This system has global relevance for itshelters one of the largest remaining stretches ofAtlantic Forest, one of the richest, most diverse andendangered forest biomes of the planet. For thispurpose, the Environment Bureau adopted the RapidAssessment and Prioritization of Protected AreaManagement Methodology (known by the acronymRAPPAM) developed by WWF.

The results of the first stage of this work, whichinvolved the protected areas managed by DRPE/Forestry Institute and the Forestry Foundation, areherein presented. The inter-institutional cooperationnot only resulted in an analysis of this protected areasystem, as well as a series of recommendationsmade by whom better knows the analysed protectedareas: their own managers.

It is expected that the information contained in thisdocument and the proposed recommendationscontribute with the responsible agencies for themanagement of the analysed system in theimprovement process of its effectiveness, it alsomight help the establishment of partnerships andactions with society, research institutions, privateinitiative, governmental and non governmentalorganizations towards the conservation of thisnatural and cultural patrimony of invaluable richness.

It is also wished that this work inspire otherinitiatives in Brazil permitting an organization ofinformation related to the several systems.

Therefore, it will be possible to know them better andcoordinate actions that strengthen the NationalSystem of Protected Areas in all its levels and withall the singular complexity of a country that is theguardian of a significant parcel of the socio-biodiversity of the planet.

Leonardo LacerdaProtected Areas Programme ManagerWWF-International

Denise HamúGeneral SecretaryWWF-Brazil

Photos: Adriana Mattoso/Forestry Institute

Luciana Lopes Simões/WWF-Brazil

RA

PPA

M

6

Contents

INTRODUCTION 7The RAPPAM methodology 7Implementation of the RAPPAM in São Paulo 8Selected area 9Environmental characterization 11

METHODOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION 12Questionnaire adaptation 12Data collection from protected areas managers 13Workshop for final recommendations 13

Considerations about the methodology application 13

ANALYSIS OF DATA 14Context 15

Biological and socio-economic importance 15Vulnerability 17Pressures and threats 19

MAP 1 - Location of São Paulo State in South America and Brazil 22

MAP 2 - Protected areas managed by Forestry Institute and Forestry Foundation 23Management effectiveness 25Protected areas system 30

RECOMMENDATIONS 32Management 32Protection 32Finances 33

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS 34

REFERENCES 35

ANNEX - Adapted questionnaire for administering in São Paulo 36

List of TablesTable 1 - List of the PA analysed using the RAPPAM Methodology 10Table 2 - Questionnaire structure of the RAPPAM Methodology 12Table 3 - Scoring of statements for modules 3 to 19 14Table 4 - Scoring for pressures and threats module 14Table 5 - Distribution of frequency (total and percentile) of PA per result for the biological and socio-economic

importance module 16Table 6 - Distribution of frequency (total and percentile) of PA per result for the vulnerability module 19Table 7 - Total severity and amount of pressures per class of activity 19Table 8 - Distribution of frequency (total and percentile) of PA per results for modules and elements related

to management effectiveness 28

List of graphsGraph 1 - Biological and socio-economic importance module result per PA 15Graph 2 - Biological and socio-economic importance module result per statement 16Graph 3 - Vulnerability module results per PA 17Graph 4 - Relationship between PA size and vulnerability 18Graph 5 - Vulnerability module results per statement 18Graph 6 - Degree of cumulative pressures and threats 20Graph 7 - General trend of pressure occurrence within PAs (1999 to 2004) 24Graph 8 - General probability of threat occurrence within the PA (2004 to 2009) 25Graph 9 - Planning element results per module and statement 26Graph 10 - Input element results per module and statement 26Graph 11 - Processes element results per module and statement 27Graph 12 - Outputs element results per statement 28Graph 13 - Total results obtained for the modules considered in the management effectiveness calculation 29Graph 14 - Number of PA per class of management effectiveness 30Graph 15 - Results for modules related to PA system-level 30

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

7

The RAPPAM Methodology

In 1995, the WCPA1 established a task force toexplore issues related to protected areas managementeffectiveness. Based on the results of the task force'sfindings, the WCPA has developed an overallassessment framework in order to provide aconsistent approach to the evaluation of protected

area management effectiveness (Hockings et al.,2000). The WCPA framework is based on themanagement cycle, and includes six mainassessment elements: context, planning, inputs,processes, outputs and outcomes.

Introduction

WWF2 has developed a methodology for rapidassessment and prioritization of protected areamanagement - RAPPAM3, which is consistent with theWCPA Framework, in order to provide tools for thedevelopment of adequate policies for forest protectionand to promote the concept of viable networks ofprotected areas4.

The RAPPAM Methodology can:

identify management strengths and weaknesses;analyse the scope, severity, prevalence, anddistribution of a variety of threats and pressures;identify areas of high ecological and socialimportance and vulnerability;indicate the urgency and conservation priority forindividual protected areas; and,help to develop and prioritize appropriate policyinterventions and follow up steps to improveprotected area management effectiveness.

Vision, goalsand objectives

Managementand processes

Managementoutputs

Reflection andevaluation

Planningand design

What do we want toachieve?

How do external factorsaffect the objectives?

Were the objectivesachieved?

How well does planningachieve the objectives?

Are the outputsadequate for achieving

the objectives?

Are management processesconsistent with the objectives?

Are inputs sufficient forachieving the objectives?

ITERATIVEASSESSMENT

PROCESS

Contextand status

Inputs

Outcomes

Where are the weak links in themanagement cycle?

Assessment and the management Cycle (adapted from Hockings et al., 2000)

1 World Commission of Protected Areas of the World Conservation Union (IUCN).2 World Wide Fund For Nature.3 Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management.4 Ervin,J., 2003.

RA

PPA

M

8

The main objective of the RAPPAM is to promote theimprovement of the system management. In general,the RAPPAM methodology is designed for broad-levelcomparisons among many protected areas; its focusis the integrated analysis of a set of areas, that is, theprotected areas system. Although it can be applied toa single protected area, it is not designed to answerdetailed site-specific questions; it can serve as a 'trip-wire' for identifying individual protected areas that mayrequire more in-depth study, and identify programmeareas or issues that may warrant a more thoroughanalyses and review. It can also be used as aframework for developing site-level monitoring tools.To do so would require the identification of specific,site-level management criteria and indicators, usingthe questions in the Rapid Assessment Questionnaireas a guideline. The RAPPAM should not beunderstood and used as a performance auditing orjudgmental instrument of the evaluated areas. Itsimplementation assumes a favorable assessment

climate, as well as an adequate knowledge to providesufficient and reliable data. The quality of the datadepends on the willingness and participation ofprotected area managers and other stakeholders. Aclimate of trust and transparency is essential forobtaining reliable information that will providemeaningful and useful results. The RAPPAMMethodology, one of several ongoing efforts todevelop specific assessment tools that are consistentwith the WCPA framework, was developed between1999 and 2002, and has been tested in the field anddiscussed in workshops. The methodology wasapplied in 23 countries – South Africa, Bolivia, Brazil,Bulgaria, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cambodia, China,Colombia, the Ivory Coast, Slovak, Finland, Ghana,Georgia, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Laos, Nepal,Nigeria, the Czech Republic, Russia and Vietnam - iscurrently in implementation in four – India, Nepal, theFrench Guyana and Papua New Guinea and is planedto be applied in other 17 countries.

5 National Environment Programme.6 Atlantic Forest Preservation Project – sponsored by a financial cooperation between the German bank KfW – Entwicklungsbankand the Government of São Paulo State.

This was the first time that the RAPPAM was appliedin Brazil (see maps on pages 22 and 23). Itsapplication was developed in partnership with WWF-Brazil, the Forestry Institute and the ForestryFoundation; both last institutions belong to theEnvironment Secretariat of São Paulo State,responsible among other functions, for protectedareas management. The Forestry Institute has itsattributions divided in three actions: forest production,research and conservation. The Forestry Foundationhas in its attributions, besides the management of thepark under its protection, to develop and put intopractice actions for the sustainable development,especially in the areas surrounding protected areas,as well as for protection of sub-represented biomes(like São Paulo's Brazilian Savannah) andreforestation of environmentally vulnerable sites.Considering the protected areas management, theGovernment of São Paulo State has investedthroughout the years resources from the StateTreasure and external financing sources withprominence to the PNMA5 and the PPMA6 which wereresponsible in the last decade, for investments in

equipment, supplies, services and planning actions inSão Paulo's protected areas located in Atlantic Forestareas.

The RAPPAM represents an important tool for theassessment of São Paulo's protected area systemmanagement, as well as its effective implementation.For the managers of the evaluated system, besidesthe contributions inherent to the methodology,an additional advantage was obtained in participatingin this process: the systematization anddocumentation of information. Currently,documentation of activities developed in theprotected areas and the organization of the systemfunctioning are fragmented. The RAPPAM bringsthe possibility of a vision of the whole system.To apply the methodology a work team was created,composed by technicians from the Forestry Institute,the Forestry Foundation and the WWF-Brazil.The PPMA, through its independent consultation,supported and followed the work, focusingon the use of RAPPAM's results in its ownmonitoring system.

Implementation of the RAPPAM in São Paulo

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

9

Selected area

The area of study is located at the state's easternportion, including the coastline, Ribeira Valley, UpperParanapanema, Paraíba Valley, Mantiqueira MountainRange and São Paulo's metropolitan area. There arefive ecological stations, 18 state parks and twoecological parks. The Forestry Institute-DRPE7

administers these protected areas, except theIntervales State Park, which is administered by theForestry Foundation. According to the SNUC8, boththe ecological stations and the state parks arecategories considered as strictly protected areas,whose basic objective is to preserve nature admittingonly indirect uses of natural resources. In theinternational classification of IUCN, ecologicalstations correspond to category I – strictly naturalreserve, with mainly preservation and scientificresearch ends. Parks belong to category II – national

park, with mainly conservation, research and tourismends. The management category 'ecological park' isnot recognized by SNUC as protected area. However,according to its establishment decrees, bothecological parks included in the study area have theobjective to protect São Paulo's metropolitan regionsprings and recover tributaries of the GuarapirangaReservoir, among others, and for this reason they maybe reclassified in the future as strictly protected areas.The State Park Serra do Mar is located along thewhole area studied. Because of its wide range, it isorganized in administrative divisions that wereconsidered as eight different protected areas forgathering data and analysis. The list of protectedareas that comprise the evaluated system ispresented in table 1.

7 Division of Reserves and Parks. The other protected areas administered by the Forestry Institute are linked to the DFEE – Division of Forests and Experimental Stations.8 Protected Areas National System – Law nº 9,985, from 18 of July 2000.

Serra do Mar State Park, Picinguaba Division

Adr

iana

Mat

toso

/For

estr

y In

stitu

te

RA

PPA

M

10

Table 1 - List of the PAs analysed using the RAPPAM Methodology

Region Protected area Area (ha) Establish-ment date

PARAÍBA VALLEY ES do Bananal 884.00 1987SP Campos do Jordão 8,341.00 1941SP Mananciais de Campos do Jordão 501.96 1993SP Serra do Mar Cunha-Indaiá Division 12,000.00 1977SP Serra do Mar Santa Virgínia Division 17,000.00 1977

NORTHERN COASTLIN SP Ilha Anchieta 828.00 1977SP Ilhabela 27,025.00 1977SP Serra do Mar Caraguatatuba Division 13,769.60 1977SP Serra do Mar Picinguaba Division 47,500.00 1977SP Serra do Mar São Sebastião Division 30,000.00 1977

CENTRAL COASTLINE SP Marinho Laje de Santos 5,000.00 1993SP Xixová-Japuí 901.00 1993SP Serra do Mar Cubatão Division 116,000.00 1977SP Serra do Mar Curucutu Division 25,000.00 1977SP Serra do Mar Pedro de Toledo Division 55,000.00 1977

SOUTHERN COASTLINE ES de Chauás 2,699.00 1987ES Juréia-Itatins 79,820.00 1987ES Xitué 3,095.17 1987SP Carlos Botelho 37,644.36 1982SP Ilha Cardoso 22,500.00 1962SP Campina do Encantado 2,359.50 1994SP Intervales 41,704.00 1995SP Jacupiranga 150,000.00 1969SP Touristy Upper Ribeira - PETAR 35,886.00 1958

METROPOLITAN ES Itapeti 89.47 1987SP da Cantareira 7,916.52 1963SP do Jaraguá 491.98 1961SP do Juquery 1,927.70 1993SP do Jurupará 26,250.00 1992SP Alberto Löefgren 174.00 1896EP Guarapiranga 260.00 1983EP da Várzea do Embu 128.00 1983

TOTAL 772.696,26ES - ecological station SP - state park EP - ecological park

Ilha do Cardoso State Park, Lagamar

Adr

iana

Mat

toso

/ F

ores

try

Inst

itute

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

11

Environmental characterization

In spite of the fact that São Paulo State has thehighest indices of urbanization and industrialization ofthe country, it concentrates the largest remains ofAtlantic Forest. Those remains also function asecological corridors inter-linking the forested areas ofRio de Janeiro state at the north and Paraná state atthe south, forming the main Atlantic Forest stretch inBrazil. It is also noticeable that in São Pauloapproximately 50% of the vegetation coverageremains are strictly protected areas, and most of themare in the study area. Due to these attributes, the areahas received from UNESCO the title of Atlantic ForestBiosphere Reserve and one of its portions receivedthe title of São Paulo City Green Belt BiosphereReserve. Ribeira Valley, Upper Paranapanema and theIguape-Cananéia-Paranaguá Estuary Lagoon Complexreceived, also from UNESCO, the title of 'AtlanticForest Southeast Reserves World Heritage Site'. TheAtlantic Forest is one of the richest areas of theplanet concerning biological diversity and endemism.It is considered by Conservation International as the5th hotspot9 for biodiversity conservation in the planet,among 25 identified in the world. The environment isformed by coastline and marine ecosystems,coastline Atlantic Forest, forest with Brazilian pine,altitude fields and transition areas between plateauAtlantic Forest and Brazilian Savannah. This areacorresponds to the world ecoregion 01 in Olson &Dinerstein's (1988, apud REBIO, n.d.) classification.On the Brazilian coast, the soil, topography, andclimatic conditions produced a series of factors whichdetermined the existence of a rich and exuberantforest. This forest is located on mountainous relief

whose altitudinal amplitude varies from sea level toalmost two thousand meters in the Mantiqueira andSerra do Mar Mountain Ranges. The altitudinal andlatitudinal variation influences the environmentaldiversity. There are some ecosystems associated tothe forest, which do not exclusively present forestformation as mangroves, sand banks and altitudefields, among others. However, these environmentsdirectly depend on the forest, influencing and beinginfluenced by the fluxes of energy, material andprocesses that are developed in the scarp forest,which award a great diversity and richness of species.The Atlantic Forest shelters 80% of the Brazilianendangered animal species. From the 17 neotropicalspecies of primate known by science, nine areendemic within this environment. Its fauna presents261 species of mammals, being 73 endemic. It alsooccurs 160 species of birds, 260 of amphibious and143 of reptiles (Brazil, 1998; Lino, 1998; apud REBIO,n.d.). Besides the natural heritage, the area of studyhas a historical, cultural and social importance in theformation of the Brazilian and São Paulo's society.Economic cycles, mainly of sugar cane and coffee,interfered significantly in the area and even after theirdecline and recovery, cultivated species can still befound interspersed in the forest. In this context, SãoPaulo's landscape of parks and ecological stations isnot only constituted of one forest coverage of rich anddiversified Atlantic Forest, but also of a series of otherforms of land use resulting from human intervention,nowadays, in activity or abandoned. Therefore, thecultural heritage linked to the protected areas is alsorich and diversified.

9 Hotspot is a priority area for conservation, that is, of rich biodiversity and threatened at the highest degree. It is consideredhotspot an area with at least 1,500 endemic species of plants and which had lost more than ¾ of its original vegetation(www.conservation.org.br).

RA

PPA

M

12

The methodology implementation was basicallycomposed by four phases:

Questionnaire adaptation to the reality of theanalysed system;Questionnaire administering;

Data analysis;Recommendations for future strategic actions,in order to improve management effectivenessof the protected area system analysed.

Methodology implementation

Table 2 - Questionnaire structure of the RAPPAM Methodology

Element ModuleProfilePressures and threats 2 pressures and threatsContext

3 biological importance4 socio-economic importance5 vulnerability

Planning6 objectives7 legal security8 site design and planning

Inputs9 staffing10 communication and information11 infrastructure12 finances

Processes13 management planning14 management decision making15 research, monitoring, and evaluation

Outputs 16 outputsDesign 17 protected areas system-level designPolicies 18 protected areas policiesPolicy 19 policy environment

Questionnaire adaptation

The work was developed through participatoryworkshops, involving protected area managers andstaff, managers, representatives of advisory councilsand partner institutions. The first step after thetranslation was to work on the adaptation of thequestionnaire of WWF's methodology to the analysedsystem reality, whose structure is presented on table 2.The translated questionnaire was previously sent toprotected area managers for analysis with clarificationsabout the objectives, work schedules and request ofcontributions about the questions scope andpertinence. The contributions were discussed during aworkshop carried out on the16th of June, 2004, with theparticipation of all protected area managers, regionalcoordinators, employees, consultative councilrepresentatives and invited NGOs. Its objective was toadapt the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire to the

system necessities through the discussion of thestatements for each of its modules, defining themaintenance or withdrawal of statements and alsoadding new ones. Since it is a methodology withapplication in many countries of the world andconsidering the WWF's interest in maintaining acomparative basis among them, it was requested that,as much as possible, the questionnaire should bemaintained close to the original. The final consolidatedquestionnaire is annexed. The Methodologyimplementation warnings should be observed in order todecrease the most the subjectivity inherent to anymethodology based on questionnaires. Yet, thischaracteristic should be taken into account, even if itdoes not diminish the importance and applicability of themethodology, it limits its interpretation and the use of itsresults.

ME

TH

OD

OLO

GY

IMP

LEM

EN

TAT

ION

13

Between July and August 2004, several regionalworkshops were held for data collection, and one inSão Paulo, which answered protected areas system-level related modules (modules 17,18 and 19). Thepurpose of holding workshops was to promote a moreeffective participation of the people involved inanswering the questionnaires, which would not bepossible in bigger events. The modules 3 to 16 wereanswered by the managers, communityrepresentatives and stakeholders linked to eachprotected area. The respondents linked to theinstitutional management of the Forestry Institute andthe Forestry Foundation answered the modules aboutthe protected area system-level. The regionalworkshops were carried out in two days. The first daywas used for questionnaire filling up and the secondday for a review and adjustment of the answers given,aiming at allowing comparison and clarification aboutthe understanding of the group of satements and thepresentation of results obtained until that moment. Thequestionnaire of each protected area was answered bythe protected area manager and, whenever possible,with the consultative council representatives (for thePAs which had it), other community partners, andstaff. Therefore, the resulting data is an offspring of

Data collection from protected area managers

this group's vision and impression about the analysedprotected area and this characteristic contributes tounderstand how much the system knows about itself.In case of disagreement about any answer, theworkshop participants were asked to discuss andagree upon the answer before moving on working.

After the data collection period mentioned in the previoustopic, the findings were analysed and next steps andrecommendations identified. The final workshop carriedout for this purpose, took place on September 14th and15th, 2004, at the Serra do Mar State Park, PicinguabaDivision. The outputs of this workshop are available inRecommendations. The participants of the final workshopincluded the RAPPAM work team, protected areamanagers, regional coordinators, and technicians from theForestry Institute, the Forestry Foundation, the WWF-Brazil and the PPMA, totalizing of 42 people.

Considerations about the methodologyapplicationOne of the strengths of the methodology applicationwas the participatory format, for promoting thediscussion and reflection about the conceptsdeveloped in the questionnaire and its relationshipwith the protected area objectives, actions andmanagement effectiveness. In spite of beinglaborious, as it demands more time for implementingthe methodology, the integration among the peopleinvolved generated an exchange of information andpoints of view, which was beneficial for everyone andfor the protected area system. Another veryprofitable moment was the participants' discussionabout the outputs obtained in each region, for

Workshop for final recommentations

promoting the vision of each item under differentperspectives, and the managers' approach to theconcepts. The discussion and interpretations wereheld just after the questionnaire had been answered,which also helped understanding the assessmentobjectives and its benefits for the protected areamanagement. However, some points could beimproved for a future application of the methodology.Because of the originality and tight schedule, theprevious work of manager's familiarization with RapidAssessment Questionnaire in order to homogenizethe concepts, was not ideal. The regionalassessment workshops allowed participants tonegotiate a common interpretation of each statementby peer reviewing the questionnaire just after itsfilling up, in order to ensure more reliable andaccurate data, since the registered informationdepended on the respondent's views andperceptions. The list of example of pressures andthreats used was very broad and detailed leading todilution of pressures, like the influence of urbanareas, into various items (urban pressure,clandestine subdivisions, irregular settlement andreal estate speculation). This problem was minimizedby data treatment during the analysis process,grouping the pressures or threats in classes thatpresented similar characteristics.

Protected area managers workshop

Lu

cia

na

Lo

pe

s S

imõ

es

/ W

WF

-Bra

zil

RA

PPA

M

14

The methodology is based on dealing with thethemes of the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire,which are judged important for the understanding ofthe management effectiveness by giving anumerical index to the questionnaire responses.According to table 2 the questionnaire is structuredin 19 modules. The format of the questionnaire formodules 3 to 9 is a statement with four options:'yes', 'mostly yes', 'mostly no', or 'no' whose scoring

is shown on table 3. The indices used in the graphsrepresent the percentile obtained in relation to themaximum score in each module or element in order toprovide a visual display of each ones' performance. Inorder to analyse the specific strengths andweaknesses, the answers were classified in relationto the maximum score possible considering 'high' theresults above 60%, 'medium' from 40 to 60%(including both limits) and 'low' below 40%.

Analysis of data

Table 3 - Scoring of statements for modules 3 to 19

Options ScoringYes (y) 5Mostly yes (m/y) 3Mostly no (m/n) 1No (n) 0

In the analysis of pressures and threats assessed inmodule 2 of the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire,numerical indices were given to each evaluationcriterion shown in table 4. It is understood aspressures the forces, activities, or events that havealready had a detrimental impact on the integrity ofthe protected area, which occured in the last fiveyears. Threats are potential or impending pressures in

which a detrimental impact is likely to occur orcontinue to occur in the next five years. Both areevaluated through their trends over time and severity,and the later is measured by the multiplication ofextent, impact and permanence of the damage to theenvironment. The addition of the severity indices ofeach pressure and threat was used to show the totalresult that refers to each activity.

Table 4 - Scoring for pressures and threats module

Trends over time / Probability Extent Impact PermanenceIncreased sharply / Very high = 2 Throughout = 4 Severe = 4 Permanent = 4Increased slightly / High = 1 Widespread = 3 High = 3 Long term = 3Remained constant / Medium = 0 Scattered = 2 Moderate = 2 Medium term = 2Decreased slightly / Low = -1 Localized = 1 Mild = Short term = 1Decreased sharply / Very low = -2 - - -

First of all, the analysis of pressures and threats,biological and socio-economic importance andvulnerability modules show the protected areas contextof insertion, which forms a background panorama for

understanding the observed situation. Afterwards,results of the management effectiveness (planning,inputs, processes and outputs modules) and theprotected area system-level modules will be shown.

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

DAT

A

15

Context

Biological and socio-economic importanceThe biological importance of a protected area isassessed through statements related to presence ofrare, threatened or endangered species; level ofbiodiversity; degree of endemism; functions that arecritical for landscape ecological processes; range ofplant and animal diversity; representativeness of theprotected area system; sustainability of viablepopulations of key-species; structural diversityconsistent with historic norms; ecosystems whosehistoric range has been greatly diminished; andmaintenance of the full range of natural processes anddisturbance regimes. The socio-economic importance

presents statements related to the protected area as asource of employment for local communities; localcommunity's dependence upon the resources for theirsubsistence; opportunity for community developmentthrough sustainable resource use; its religious orspiritual significance; the existence of unusualfeatures of aesthetic importance; presence of animaland plant species of high social, cultural or economicimportance; recreational value ecosystem servicesand benefits to community; educational and/orscientific value; and the presence of archeologicalsites and historical and cultural heritage.

Graph 1 - Biological and socio-economic importance module results per PA

Atobás' nest and diving boats at the Laje de Santos Marine State Park.

Adr

iana

Mat

toso

/ F

ores

try

Inst

itute

RA

PPA

M

16

In the biological importance module, as shown ongraph 2, the outstanding role of the protected areasystem for the maintenance of critical landscapefunction, high levels of biodiversity and significantcontribution to the ecosystems representativeness

were demonstrated. The least relevant aspects werethe number of rare, threatened, or endangeredspecies, range of plant and animal diversity anddegree of endemism.

Graph 2 - Biological and socio-economic importance module results per statement

Both graph and table analysis reflect the already knowbiological and socio-economic importance of theAtlantic Forest.

Graph 1 shows the managers' perception about thebiological and socio-economic importance of eachprotected area. The average for the biologicalimportance module was high (80%), varying from 26%to 100%, with 25 of the protected areas with valuesabove 60%. The average for the socio-economicmodule was 65%, 15 protected areas were above70%, 12 below 60% and five presented values nearthe average (64% to 67%). As observed in table 5,

84% of the protected areas show a result above 60%for biological importance and 63% of the areas forsocio-economic importance.

The protected areas that show balance in therelationship between its biological and socio-economicimportance are mostly located at coastal regions (ornear) or in the Ribeira Valley region. In the first case,this fact seems to be related to the great demand ofthe protected area by society for recreational activitiesand, in the second case, to the presence and highsocio-economic importance of fauna and floraresources within the areas.

Table 5 - Distribution of frequency (total and percentile) of PA per result for the biological and socio-economicimportance module

Module High Medium Low

60% 40% to 60% < 40%Nº of % Nº of % Nº of %PA PA PA

Biological 27 84% 2 6% 3 9%importance

Socio-economic 20 63% 9 28% 3 9%importance

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

DAT

A

17

Graph 3 - Vulnerability module results per PA

The general perception about the degree ofvulnerability shown in graph 3, was relatively high,67%, 15 protected areas show values above 70%,five vary between 65% and 69% and 12 below 65%.Graph 4 shows that of the 13 protected areas with

more than 20 thousand hectares, 11 have vulnerabilitydegree above 70%. For the remaining areas (19) thevulnerability degree ranged from 25% to 88%, with59% of average.

The socio-economic importance indices were higherfor protected area educational and/or scientific valueand for unusual features of aesthetic importance, andlower for sustainable resources use, dependence forsubsistence and for religious or spiritual significance.

VulnerabilityThe vulnerability module is composed by statementsthat assess difficulties to monitor illegal activities; lawenforcement in the region; omission, bribery andcorruption occurrence throughout the region; civil

unrest and/or political instability; cultural practices,beliefs and traditional uses conflicting withpreservation objectives; existence of high marketvalue resources; easiness of access for illegalactivities; strong demand for vulnerable resources;pressure on manager for unduly exploitation ofresources; difficulty on recruitment and retention ofemployees; difficulty on obtaining other finances; lackof management effectiveness monitoring; deficientcontrolling structure and absence of clearlydemarcated boundaries.

RA

PPA

M

18

Graph 5 - Vulnerability module results per statement

Graph 4 - Relationship between PA size and vulnerability

The indices for this module, shown on table 6,indicate that most of the protected areas are veryvulnerable. From the fifteen statements that compose

the module, only one (political instability) showeda result lower than 40%, in other words, lowvulnerability.

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

DAT

A

19

Table 6 - Distribution of frequency (total and percentile) of PA per result of the vulnerability module.

Module High Medium Low

>60% 40% to 60% < 40%Nº of % Nº of % Nº of %PA PA PA

Vulnerability 22 69% 8 25% 2 6%

The graphs analyses show that the system presents ahigh degree of vulnerability, as it is already suggestedinternationally in the 'hotspots' definition.

The vulnerability items that show higher indices weredeficient controlling structure; difficulty on recruitmentand retention of employees and easiness of accessfor illegal activities (graph 5). The proximity of a denseand well-conserved road mesh also contributes toincrease vulnerability, since the traffic is facilitatedbetween large urban centers and protected areas. Onthe other hand, factors that have little influence arethe conflict with cultural practices; beliefs andtraditional uses; the occurrence of omission, briberyand corruption throughout the region; and theexistence of civil unrest and/or political instability.

This result is a consequence of a very unsatisfactoryprotection that includes the results of patrolling actionsof the Environmental Police together with otherinstitutions, the deficiency of staff and matters relatedto occupation of areas without clear land tenure, whereapplication of legislation is still controversial.

As the growing market demand for forest products,dead or alive wild animals, and even for new areas forurban occupation, it is urgent to solve severe issuesnot only related to the strengthening of protectionactions, including resolution of land tenure and use

rights, but also to public policies related withincentives to the sustainable use of surroundingareas, according to the recommendations of the lastworkshop (see Recommendations).

Pressures and threatsDuring the first workshop, an extensive list of thepressures and threats that are most common in theanalysed protected area was made to assist thequestionnaire respondents. Throughout the process,in each workshop, new pressures have been addedto the list.

Pressures or threats activities that directly affectliving beens and its environment were classified as'biota'; those involving the use of land in conflict withlegislation as 'conflicts'; those related with theconstruction of infrastructure (roads, dams, etc.) as'infrastructure'; and those which are caused byprotected areas visitation as 'public use'.

Table 7 shows severity indices (extent, impact andpermanence outputs) and the total number ofactivities mentioned in all assessed protected areas.It shows that activities related to the biota occur inhigher number and severity, both for pressure andthreat. Another observation is that threats presentslightly higher severity indices than pressures, withthe same or lower total number of cited activities.

Table 7 - Total severity and amount of pressures per class of activity

Class of activity Number of activities Pressure Threatper class Severity Quantity Severity Quantity

BIOTA 10 2.296 148 2.671 146CONFLICTS 9 1.394 89 1.481 89INFRASTRUCTURE 6 617 36 672 36PUBLIC USE 4 335 37 381 37

Based on data related to conflicts and infrastructureshown on graph 6, it is reasonable to supposethat construction of roads and irregular settlementsare closely related because easiness of access

increases the opportunity for settlements, generatingnew roads, many of them irregular, making theproblem even worse when it occurs near theconsolidated urban centers.

RA

PPA

M

20

Graph 6 - Degree of cumulative pressures and threats

The pressures and threats which average degree arepresented above for each class of activity aredescribed below. These descriptions are based on thetext that each respondent made for each pressure andthreat identified in their protected area.

HuntingIt is generally associated to the invasive action ofpalm heart collectors, but it is also practiced bycommunities living inside or in the protected areassurroundings looking for subsistence, recreation orpoaching for illegal trade to the market of wild animal

meat or live animals for traffic. The Indiancommunities periodically practice the activity forsubsistence or cultural reasons. The most huntedspecies are wild pig, paca, tapir, deer, capybara,jaguar, macuco, jacu, jacutinga, uru, nhambu, parrotsand other rare birds, armadillo, South Americananteater, and monkeys. Submarine hunting wasalso included in this item and it is carried outas leisure activity, usually in weekends, at differenttimes than the usually occupied by the divingagencies, which keep monitors on board and usuallydenounce illegal activities.

Capybara at the Ilha Anchieta State Park

Pho

tos:

Adr

iana

Mat

toso

/ F

ores

try

Inst

itute

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

DAT

A

21

Illegal collection of palm heartIt is an extraction whose proportions indicate thatit is not only for subsistence, but also relatedto income generation and, mainly, organized crime,which cuts, transports, processes and sells the palmheart for restaurants and pizza parlors.The extraction of palm heart has a directconsequence over fauna because more than 70animal species feed on the jussara palm heart(Euterpe edulis), the most exploited in this region.

Urban pressureSome protected areas do not have transition areasbetween their boundaries and the urban areas, thussuffering all negative impacts of the city developmentprocess, mainly on the northern coast, ‘Santos’coastal area and in the metropolitan region. Threat iscontinuous because urban growth is constant, asmuch inside the protected areas as in the surroundingareas. Real estate speculation, invasions forresidential use, sale of small properties for hobbyfarms or vacation homes are also frequent as well asillegal transactions – sale and purchase of land – forthe purpose of receiving government compensation.

Irregular settlementPeople living in of areas that were not compensated,given deeds or not, usually develop agricultural, livingand leisure activities, which in some cases occurredoccurred before the protected areas establishment andare always demanding enlargement. One of the reasonsfor thethe increasing number and enlargement ofexisting settlements inside the protected areas is thesale of part or entire areas as a result of inspectionpressure.

RoadRoads and highways which cross or facilitate theaccess to several points of the protected areas are themain reason for all kinds of pressure as invasions, realestate speculation, new buildings, uncontrolledvisitation, hunting, running over or interruption of wildanimal's territory, as well as flowing of illegal collectionaway.

Transmission linesThe building and maintenance of towers for electricalenergy or radio, TV, and mobile phones signalstransmission generally implies in the opening of roads,deforesting at hilltops and, in case of 'large cables', inperiodical cleaning up of large stretches of forestunder the cables generating new accesses for illegalactivity. Smaller lines that cross the forest oftencause wild animals' death, mainly medium sizedprimates.

Disorganized tourismIt is mainly characterized by groups of tourists whoenter the protected areas without the consent orknowledge of the administration looking for waterfallsand panoramic view sites, hiking on tracks and evenon motorcycles and jeeps. It is also promoted by

Roads and urban pressures at Serra do Mar State Park - Cubatão Division

Pho

to:

Adr

iana

Mat

toso

/ F

ores

try

Inst

itute

RA

PPA

M

22

Inp

uts

23

RA

PPA

M

24

tourism agencies on existent tracks that are notstructured for ecotourism. A signigicant volume of thisoccurs during weekends, holidays and, summer andwinter vacations. In protected areas that have marineenvironments, clandestine disembarking activity inemerged areas often occurs. Tourists with their ownboats fortuitously access prohibited areas. Humanpresence in those places damages the reproduction ofmarine birds as atobás and trinta-réis.

Track openingsThey are related to NTFP (non-timber forest products)collection and hunting, and may also occur forinhabitance access, clear land for planting and huntingranches, transportation of construction supplies, jeeptrackers, 'motocross' practitioners, bikers, trackers,horse riders and even religious cult practitioners.

Graph 7 - General trend of pressure occurrence within PAs (1999 to 2004)

Calçada do Lorena,Serra do Mar State Park - Cubatão Division

Pho

tos:

Adr

iana

Mat

toso

/ F

ores

try

Inst

itute

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

DAT

A

25

Graph 7 indicates that urban pressure is the one thathas been increasing the most for the last five years.From the total of 29 activities, 21 presented anincreasing trend in most protected areas. Three ofthem kept constant: building of reservoirs, use ofagrotoxins, and construction of ducts. The pressuresthat have been decreasing during the analysed periodwere deforesting, fire, logging and mining as well as

problems with lack of land property regulations.Although the behavior has been stable or evendecreased to the moment, probabilities of theseactivities to keep occurring for the next five years ishigh (graph 8). This shows that for the respondents'perception the present actions are not enough to stopor minimize the effects of these activities in thefuture.

Management effectivenessManagement effectiveness is the synthesis of theanalysis of modules 6 to 16 of the Rapid AssessmentQuestionnaire. It is composed by the correlationbetween planning, inputs, processes and outputs,being the sum of these elements.

Concerning the analysis of planning (graph 9), it canbe noticed that protection and maintenance ofbiodiversity were the best-scored statements,indicating that management policies and plans areconsistent with protected area objectives. Theunderstanding of the protected area objectives andpolicies by employees and administrators is anotherpositive point. The existence of tools for securing

long-term legal protection of PAs, PAs locationcontributing to its objectives and connectivity betweenPAs allowing gene flow also positively contribute tothe planning element.

The most deficient points of planning are related tothe number of staff which is insufficient to adequatelyconduct the various protected area activities, such asprotection, research and public use. Furthermore,actions that conciliate economical activities withconservation are also deficient, indicated in the graphas 'land use in the surrounding area'. The average ofeach module was 69% for objectives, 52% for legalsecurity and 68% for site design and planning ofprotected area.

Graph 8 - General probability of threat occurrence within the PAs (2004 to 2009).

RA

PPA

M

26

Graph 10 - Input element results per module and statement

Graph 9 - Planning element results per module and statement

Another issues included in the analysis ofmanagement effectiveness, indicated in this analysisas 'inputs', are staff, communication and information,,infrastructure and finances. All statements of the staffmodule had a low average score (17%). Add to thesethe most critical items were dissatisfaction about the

return of income generated in the protected area andlong-term financial outlook. The strongest items wereinvestments on infrastructure and funding from PPMA.The average of each module was 17% for staff, 46%for communication and information, 45% forinfrastructure and 38% for finances (graph 10).

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

DAT

A

27

The third element of the effectiveness analysis is'processes' (graph 11). The positive points were clearinternal organization, participatory decision makingand staff's regular collaboration with partners, localcommunities and other organizations. The mostdeficient points were inventories that do notcorrespond to the protected area objectives,

identification and prioritization of critical research andmonitoring needs, monitoring and recording of theimpact of illegal uses of protected area and researchon key social issues consistent with protected areaneeds. The averages for these statements were 41%for management planning, 64% for managementdecision making and 31% for research, monitoring andevaluation.

Graph 11 - Processes element results per module and statement

The last element of the management effectivenessanalysis is the ‘outputs’ (graph 12), which shows thatthe lowest indices were related to actions referent toresearch and monitoring outputs, that is, thoseoutputs have low application in the protected area

management. Other critical points are wildlife orhabitat management and the management planningand inventorying. The most positive point was thecommunity outreach and education efforts, with 68%of whole module and average around 44%.

RA

PPA

M

28

Table 8 - Distribution of frequency (total and percentile) of PA per result for modules and elements related tomanagement effectiveness.

Module High Medium Low

>60% 40% to 60% < 40%N° de % N° de % N° de %

PA PA PAPlanning 15 47% 15 47% 2 6%Objectives 19 59% 11 34% 2 6%Legal security 6 19% 13 41% 13 41%Site design and 19 59% 12 38% 1 3%planningInputs 4 13% 10 31% 18 56%Staff 0 0% 7 22% 25 78%Communication 10 31% 8 25% 14 44%and informationInfrastructure 9 28% 13 41% 10 31%Finances 5 16% 9 28% 18 56%Processes 10 31% 12 38% 10 31%Management 9 28% 4 13% 19 59%planningDecision-making 20 63% 8 25% 4 13%processResearch, monito- 4 13% 9 28% 19 59%ring and evaluationOutputs 10 31% 6 19% 16 50%

Based on this information, a protected area systemmanagement effectiveness synthesis module andaverage. Table 8 and graph 13 show these elementsdistribution according to the following classification:high - above 60%; medium - between 40 and 60%; andlow - below 40%. The low indices for inputs are

outstanding, and only four areas got high evaluation(above 60%) and more than half got low indices(below 40%). Low performance modules were obtainedfor staff and finances. The planning element was theone that got the best results, with only two areasbelow 40%.

Graph 12 - Outputs element results per statement

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

DAT

A

29

Graph 13 - Total results obtained for the modules considered in the management effectiveness calculation

The analysis using the, the analysis through theRAPPAM methodology of management effectivenessin protected areas managed by the DRPE and theForestry Foundation showed that six of 32 protectedareas (considering each Serra do Mar State ParkDivision as a single PA) achieved high managementeffectiveness, with indices above 60% (graph 14). Allof them present satisfactory managementeffectiveness because the protected areasestablishment conditions are consistent with theobjectives, legal security, site design and possibilityof connectivity between the protected areas in theregion studied. Besides these issues, the layout andthe shape of the protected areas optimizeconservation of biodiversity, consistent socio-environmental situation with its management category,partners, local communities and other institutionscollaboration, clear internal organization, participatorydecision teams, transparent decision making, andexistence of legal protection to interrupt environmentaldamage in a short term.

Seventeen protected areas had mediummanagement effectiveness average (between 40 and60%). The issues analysed didn't get a better scorebecause they presented specific deficiencies in

some modules. These protected areas showed thefollowing positive points: adequate boundarydemarcation to meet protected areas objectives,effective communication between offices involvedwith environmental protection, appropriate allocationof expenditures, investments on infrastructure,sharing of decisions in the institution, participatorymanagement, no unsettled disputes regarding landtenure or use rights and visitors control.

Nine protected areas got low evaluation (lower than40%). This situation is mainly related to insufficiencyof inputs as staff. Moreover, staff performance andprogress on targets are not periodically reviewed,training and development opportunities are notappropriate, and employment conditions are notsufficient to retain a highly qualified staff.

These protected areas also show deficiencies relatedto identification and prioritization of research andmonitoring needs, inventory of natural and culturalresources, research on key ecological and socialissues, and regular access to recent scientificresearch. Environment and impact monitoring(including information processing and availability)was also identified as a critical issue.

RA

PPA

M

30

Graph 14 - Number of PAs per class of management effectiveness

Protected area system-levelThe assessment of the protected area system-levelwas carried out through the responses for modules 17(protected area system-level design), 18 (protectedarea system policies) and 19 (policy environment).The protected area system-level design module is theindicator of the system's management effectiveness,since it verifies if the protection objectives, keyspecies and ecosystems preservation, have beenachieved. The protected area policies are the onesthat involve planning, and system's managementpractices. The policy environment module carries outa survey about the situation of public policies relatedto natural resources protection.

A workshop composed of nine experienced people inprotected area management and in the system wasorganized for collecting data. Only one RapidAssessment Questionnaire was answered. Thisquestionnaire was displayed to all participants andeach statement was discussed and agreed upon to getto a common answer. The process was very profitableto raise different points of view about the subject.However, it would have been interesting if there werecontributions of other stakeholders, external to theinstitution, from environmental organizations or otherorganizations related to natural resources protection,which would have been unbiased. This would bring newangles or interests to the discussion.

Graph 15 - Results for modules related to the PA system-level

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

DAT

A

31

As seen in graph 15, the lowest indices were achievedby protected area system-level design (34%). The onlystatement with high scores was related to intactecosystems. Three statements showed mediumresults indicating that the system fulfills the needs,but there are still deficiencies. The system representsthe full diversity of ecosystems within the region, butit still needs to be enlarged to include floodplains,montane grasslands, enclaves of Brazilian Savannah,mangroves, restingas, islands, ocean bottom andbeach environment. The maintenance of naturalprocesses at landscape level also shows weaknessesand improvement is needed for, floodplains, restingas,island and marine complexes, rocky coasts, and theMantiqueira piedmont environments. In addition, thesystem layout and configuration do not thoroughlyoptimize biodiversity conservation as it excludesareas that guarantee flows between ecosystems andabove-mentioned areas.

The remaining statements presented low scores: forthree of them the answer was categorically 'no',scoring zero. The most critical statements wererelated to systematic protection of sites of highbiodiversity and endemism, and the inclusion oftransition areas between ecosystems. Besides thefact that the system does not have systematicactions, it was considered that humid areas and lowslopes of Serra do Mar and Paranapiacaba have highbiodiversity and are not correctly represented. Theothers include systematically protected sites of highconservation value for key species and full rangesuccessional diversity. For the key species, theconclusion was that the current protected systemdoes not guarantee the protection of various key-species (carnivorous, primates, rapine and migratorybirds and migratory marine species) and importantareas able to maintain viable populations of thesespecies, as already mentioned in the statementsabout adequate representativeness of ecossystemsdiversity. Concerning successional diversity, it wasconcluded that only the diversity along Serra do Marand Paranapiacaba is represented. The large missingsites are the graben 10 of the Paraíba Valley, AtibaiaRidge, Lower Ribeira Valley and coastal plains. For theother two statements, the values were above 60%,indicating that protected area policies (67%) andpolicy environment (64%) present satisfactory results.

The strengths of module 18 were clear articulation ofa vision, goals, and objectives for the protected areasystem with national policies, the existence ofperiodical assessment of historical range of variabilityof ecosystem types in the region and restorationtargets for under-represented and/or greatlydiminished ecosystems. The statements of mediumperformance point to the lack of viable mechanismsfor land acquisition for protected areas and effectivestaff hiring and allocation with the finality of forming aviable and representative protected area network;systematization and complementation of informationto obtain a comprehensive inventory of the biologicaldiversity throughout the region; and protected areasystem periodical review for gaps and weaknesses.Even so, many protected areas were established inthe last ten years, aiming to fill the gaps observed.The fragility of policies was bigger for two statements.The first is about inexistence of routine evaluation ofprotected area management, including managementeffectiveness. The second indicates that the trainingand capacity-building programme for protected areastaff only occur for specific themes.

The module about policy environment pointed out asstrong items the existence of public policies thatpromote widespread environmental education at alllevels; sustainable natural resources management;environmental protection mechanisms; and nationalpolicies fostering for dialogue and participation withcivic and environmental NGOs, and localcommunities. As medium evaluated issues, two canbe mentioned: (i) even though the protected arearelated laws contribute to achieve these areasobjectives and management effectiveness, there isstill a lack on these laws regulation and enforcementand (ii) despite São Paulo state's governmentcommitment and funding for effective protected areasystem management, but problems related to staffquantity and quality still remain. The degree ofcommunication between natural resourcedepartments, considering the SEAQUA11,is satisfactory. However, there should be improvementof the processes related to licensing and of theestablishment of a formal union with somedepartments. The weaknesses were inexistenceof adequate environmental training for governmentemployees at all levels and necessity of effectiveenforcement of critical protected area related lawsand ordinances.

10 Stretch of land crust that is deepened by at least two normal failures and generally has more length than width; tectonic pit.11 Environmental Quality State System.

RA

PPA

M

32

The recommendations presented below raised duringa workshop carried out with the participation of allprotected area managers, technical teams andinvolved institutions' managers. Results obtained withthe Rapid Assessment Questionnaire supported thediscussions about three chosen priority themes:management, protection and finance.Although protected area management practices showstrongly transparency, joint decision-making sharingand good relation with the community, there are stillsignificant critical issues, mainly lack of action plansand monitoring and evaluation tools. High vulnerabilityand pressures and threats presence, added toprotected areas needs indicated the second theme(protection). The most critical protected area

management item was finance, except for infrastructureinvestments, which have set partnership with PPMA.

Participants were divided in five groups, and eachgroup discussed and presented recommendationsabout all themes, securing that everyone could reflectand give one's opinion about all subjects. At the end ofthe analysis of each theme, participants weregathered in a plenary session to share groupsconclusions and to search for the integrationof all recommendations.

For each recommendation, a timeframe was developedand the agencies and departments responsibleto implement actions were indicated.

12 Atlantic Forest Geographical Information System.13 Private Reserve of Natural Heritage – perpetually engraved private area, with the objective of conserving the biological diversity for scientific research ends and visitations with tourist, recreational and educational objectives.

Recommendations

Management

To establish guidelines, norms, and technicaland administrative procedures for all managementprogrammes considering regional peculiarities.To reorganize DRPE defining competences andresponsibilities according to positions and functions.To develop and revise management planswith monitoring and evaluation strategies.To document and systematize programme actions in order to promote feasible monitoring

and evaluation of management activities.To develop and execute the annual strategicplan and annual operational plan for protected areas.To suggest mechanisms of incentive and governmentpolicies for protected area surroundings sustainableactivities.To establish an articulation and communicationadvisory group to improve internal and externalinformation flux.

Protection

To revise, adjust and establish clear boundariesdelimitation starting with critical protected areas.To strengthen the protection structure of thefor protected area system through staff training,management partnership with the Public SecuritySecretariat to increase Environmental Policeaction in protected areas, weapon ownershipregulation, establishment of specific technicaladisory group for protection including emergencesupport team in field integrated with SIGMA12.To improve patrolling agents group and to regulatecompetences and procedures, including

application of environmental fines andimmediate reprisal.To develop articulated and inter-institutionalprotection strategies to integrate patrolling andsustainable development activities, enlargingand improving mechanisms for joint actions.To establish and implant a communicationprogramme for São Paulo State's protected areasystem, involving media and park-radio,institutional campaigns, surrounding communitiesand creation, implantation and incentiveto PRNH13.

RE

CO

ME

ND

ATIO

NS

33

To revise and improve the enforcement ofprotection legal norms for licensing and controlling.To implant new patrolling sites and administrativedivisions.

To regulate and improve the 'environmental crimes'law enforcement by Environmental Police withinprotected areas.

Finance

To develop strategies to define and establishteams for protected areas management.To fulfill vacant positions, improve a programmefor volonteers, promote professional training,organize SMA14(sobrescrito) staff, establishpartnerships and others.To implement funding generation and fund raisingprogrammes: financial agents bank, projects bank,environmental compensations, entrance andpublic use services charge, concessions for use,transparency and stimulus about return.of generated incomes, financial return from waterresource use and other environmental services.To develop public calls for proposals for sharedmanagement, third party hiring and concessionsin protected areas.To establish a continuous training programmeand performance evaluation.To implement a radio-communication systemand information system (SIGMA) within allprotected areas.To improve and secure the financial planningexecution, incorporating the ExecutiveCoordination Group of PPMA to the ForestryInstitute administrative division.

Environmental monitor groupin Serra do Mar State Park

14 São Paulo State Environmental Secretariat.

Adr

iana

Mat

toso

/For

estr

y In

stitu

te

During last ten years, a significant investmentwas made by the São Paulo governmentto consolidate protected areas. A set of initiativesstarted to be developed recently to obtain a generaleffectiveness assessment of the environmentalmanagement system.

The implementation of the RAPPAM Methodologypermitted the visualization and systematization ofimportant issues that were, up to the moment, only atthe level of individual perception for those somehowrelated to the protected areas management.

The first result of the RAPPAM application,considered very positive by all participants, was thedocumentation with reasonable accuracy of thecurrent situation of all evaluated system, as shownpreviously in the graph analyses. This portrait is thebaseline for future analyses and will subsidy thecreation of a monitoring and assessment system.

Recommendations that are part of the final productare operational and feasible. The majority of theserecommendations depends only on initiatives ofmanagement institutions for execution. Sinceparticipants of the assessment indicated that allrecommendations have to be implementedimmediately, the first step is the definition of the teamthat will develop each of them.

Final considerations

Meetings of regional groups to answer and revise theRapid Assessment Questionnaire were strategic toshare experiences among participants and to discussideas on concepts and evaluation. These ideas werevery important to agree RAPPAM procedures andanalysis related both with institutions involved than withprocedures and results obtained from 1999 to 2004.

The process of methodology implementation contributedto increase participants knowledge on managementconcepts and also allowed a rare socialization amongthe teams. Likewise, the consolidation of thequestionnaire answers can generate other possibilities ofconclusion. It is known that some regional and temporalspecificities were not considered, since the generalobjective was to assess the integral systemmanagement.

Therefore, the assessment process showed thecurrent state of the art of indirect use protected areasmanaged by DRPE and Forestry Foundation allowingthe development of a consensual proposal tostrenghten and improve the management of thisprotected areas system.

The continuity of the process will include more refinedanalysis and the development and implementation of therecommendations through an integrated strategy withother institutions and stakeholders (regional and local).

RA

PPA

M

34

1. Ervin, J. WWF Rapid Assessment andPrioritization of Protected Area Management(RAPPAM) Methodology. Gland: WWF, 2003. 48 p.

2. REBIO Conselho Nacional da Reserva da Biosferada Mata Atlântica Atlantic Forest BiosphereReserve National Council. Atlantic Forest S.E.(South East) Brazil. Internal Report, unpublished.

References

3. Hockings, M., Sttolton, S. Dudley, N.Evaluating effectiveness: a framework forassessing management of protected area.Cambridge: IUCN, 2000. IUCN CardiffUniversity Best Practice Series.

35

RE

FE

RÊ

NC

IAS

BIB

LIO

GR

ÁF

ICA

S

RA

PPA

M

36

AnnexAdapted questionnaire for administering in São Paulo

RAPID ASSESMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

PROTECTED AREA (PA) BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PROFILE

a) Name of protected area (PA)

b) Name of protected area recognized in the region

c) Protected ecosystems

d) Date established

e) Beginning of implantation (since exclusive respondent existence)

f) Normative acts (establishment legal aspect) of PA

g) Size of protected area

h) Name of respondent (position and function)

i) Date survey completed

j) Current annual budget: Total; Investment; Staffing; Finance.

k) Previous year budget: Total; Investment; Staffing; Finance.

l) Protected area staff number: Technicians; Operational; Administrative.

m) Management tools used

n) Specific management priorities

o) Critical protected area (PA) activities

PRESSURES AND THREATS

Pressure

( ) Has ( ) Has not been a pressure in the last 5 years.

In the past five years this activity has: Increased sharply; Increased slightly, Remained constant; Decreased

slightly; Decreased sharply

The overall severity of this pressure over the past 5 years has been:

Extent: Throughout (>50%); Widespread (15-50%); Scattered (5-15%); Localized (<5%)

Impact: Severe; High; Moderate; Mild

Permanence: Permanent (>100 years); Long term (20-100 years); Medium term (5-20 years);

Short term (<5 years).

AN

NE

X

37

THREAT

( ) Will ( ) Will not be a threat in the next 5 years

The probability of the threat occurring is: Very high; High; Medium; Low; Very low

The overall severity of this threat over the next 5 years is likely to be:

Extent: Throughout (>50%); Widespread (15-50%); Scattered (5-15%); Localized (<5%)

Impact: Severe; High; Moderate; Mild

Permanence: Permanent (>100 years); Long term (20-100 years); Medium term (5-20 years);

Short term (<5 years).

CONTEXT

BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

a) The PA contains a relatively high number of rare, threatened, or endangered species.

b) The PA has relatively high levels of biodiversity.

c) The PA has a relatively high degree of endemism.

d) The PA provides a critical landscape function.

e) The PA contains the full range of plant and animal diversity.

f) The PA significantly contributes to the representativeness of the PA system.

g) The PA sustains minimum viable populations of key species.

h) The structural diversity of the PA is consistent with historic norms.

i) The PA includes ecosystems whose historic range has been greatly diminished.

j) The PA maintains the full range of natural processes and disturbance regimes.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE

a) The PA is an important source of employment for local communities (direct and indirect).

b) Local communities depend upon the PA resources for their subsistence.

c) The PA provides community development opportunities through sustainable resource use.

d) The PA has religious or spiritual significance.

e) The PA has unusual features of aesthetic importance.

f) The PA contains plant species of high social, cultural, or economic importance.

g) The PA contains animal species of high social, cultural or economic importance.

h) The PA has a high recreational value.

i) The PA contributes significant ecosystem services and benefits to communities.

j) The PA has a high educational and/or scientific value.

k) The PA has archeological sites, or other historical and cultural patrimony.

RA

PPA

M

38

VULNERABILITY

a) Illegal activities within the PA are difficult to monitor.

b) Law enforcement is low in the region.

c) Bribery, omission and corruption is common throughout the region.

d) The area is experiencing civil unrest and/or political instability.

e) Cultural practices, beliefs, and traditional uses conflict with the PA objectives.

f) The market value of the PA resources is high.

g) The PA is easily accessible for illegal activities.

h) There is a strong demand for vulnerable PA resources.

i) The PA manager is under pressure to unduly exploit the PA resources.

j) Recruitment of employees is difficult.

k) Retention of employees is difficult.

l) The acquisition and maintenance of other inputs is difficult.

m) The PA does not have a monitoring system of actions management effectiveness.

n) The patrolling structure of the PA is deficient.

o) The PA does not have its boundaries clearly demarcated in field.

PLANNING

OBJECTIVES

a) PA objectives provide for the protection and maintenance of biodiversity.

b) Specific biodiversity-related objectives are clearly stated in the management plan.

c) Management policies and plans of the Forestry Institute and Forestry Foundation are consistent

with the PA objectives.

d) PA employees and administrators understand the PA objectives and policies.

e) Local communities support the overall objectives of the PA.

f) The socio-environmental situation of the PA is consistent with its established category.

g) Instruments for participatory management (Councils of management support) contribute to achieve

the PA objectives.

LEGAL SECURITY

a) The PA has long-term legally binding protection.

b) The PA has short-term efficient legal instrument to interrupt environmental damages.

c) There are no unsettled disputes regarding land tenure or use rights.

d) Boundary demarcation is adequate to meet the PA objectives.

e) Staff is adequate to conduct critical law enforcement activities.

f) Financial resources are adequate to conduct indispensable law enforcement activities.

g) Conflicts with the local community are resolved fairly and effectively.

AN

NE

X

39

SITE DESIGN AND PLANNING

a) The siting of the PA is consistent with the PA objectives.

b) The layout and configuration of the PA optimizes the conservation of biodiversity.

c) The PA zoning system is adequate to achieve the PA objectives.

d) The land use in the surroundings area enables effective PA management.

e) The PA is linked to another area of conserved or protected land.

INPUTS

STAFFING

a) The level of staffing is sufficient to effectively manage the area.

b) Staff members have adequate skills to conduct critical management activities.

c) Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the needs of the staff.

d) Staff performance and progress on targets are periodically reviewed.

e) Staff employment conditions are sufficient to retain high-quality staff.

f) Staff members are motivated and supported by the institution.

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

a) There are adequate means of communication between field and office staff.

b) Existing ecological and socio-economic data are adequate for management planning.

c) There are adequate means of collecting new data.

d) There are adequate systems for processing and analysing data.

e) There is effective communication with local communities.

f) There is adequate communication between environmental protection departments.

INFRASTRUCTURE

a) Transportation infrastructure is adequate to perform critical management activities.

b) Field equipment is adequate to perform critical management activities.

c) Staff facilities are adequate to perform critical management activities.

d) Maintenance and care of equipment is adequate to ensure long-term use.

e) Visitor facilities are appropriate to the level of visitor use.

f) Visiting impacts on infrastructure are monitored.

g) There have been investments on infrastructure in the last 5 years.

FINANCES

a) Funding in the past 5 years has been adequate to conduct critical management activities.

b) Funding for the next 5 years is adequate to conduct critical management activities.

RA

PPA

M

40

c) Financial management practices enable efficient and effective PA management.

d) The allocation of expenditures is appropriate to PA priorities and objectives.

e) The long-term financial outlook for the PA is stable.

f) The funding requests made by PA managers are dealt with.

g) The PA has obtained funding from PPMA in the past 5 years.

h) The PA has obtained funding from other partnerships in the past 5 years.

i) The PA has funding generation mechanisms.

j) The funding generated by the PA returns appropriately.

PROCESSES

MANAGEMENT PLANNING

a) There is a comprehensive, relatively recent written management plan (less than 10 years).

b) There is a comprehensive inventory of natural and cultural resources.

c) There is an analysis of, and strategy for addressing, PA threats and pressures.

d) A detailed work plan identifies specific targets for achieving management objectives.

e) The results of research and monitoring are routinely incorporated into planning.

f) There are periodical meetings for management planning of the PA.

MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING

a) There is clear internal organization in the PA.

b) There is clear internal organization in the institution.

c) Management decision making is shared with PA staff.

d) Management decision making is shared with institution staff.

e) Management decision making process is transparent.

f) There is an active consultative council.

g) Local communities participate in decisions that affect them.

h) There is effective communication between all levels of PA staff and administration.

i) PA staff regularly collaborates with partners, local communities, and other organizations.

RESEARCH, EVALUATION, AND MONITORING

a) The impact of legal and illegal uses of the PA are accurately monitored and recorded.

b) Research on key ecological issues is consistent with the needs of the PA.

c) Research on key social issues is consistent with the needs of the PA.

d) PA staff members have regular access to recent scientific research and advice.

e) Critical research and monitoring needs are identified and prioritized.

AN

NE

X

41

OUTPUTS

OUTPUTS

In the last two years, the following outputs have been consistent with the threats and pressures,

PA objectives, and annual workplan:

a) Threat prevention, detection and law enforcement.

b) Site restoration and mitigation efforts.

c) Wildlife or habitat management.

d) Community outreach and education efforts.

e) Visitor and tourist management.

f) Infrastructure development.

g) Management planning and inventorying.

h) Staff monitoring, supervision, and evaluation.

i) Staff training and development.

j) Research and monitoring outputs.

k) Local community interaction.

l) Implementing of land tenure or use rights in the PA.

PROTECTED AREA SYSTEM-LEVEL

PROTECTED AREA SYSTEM-LEVEL DESIGN

a) The PA system adequately represents the full diversity of ecosystems within the region.

b) The PA system adequately protects against the extinction of key species.

c) The PA system consists primarily of intact ecosystems.

d) Sites of high conservation value for key species are systematically protected.

e) The PA system maintains natural processes at a landscape level.

f) The PA system includes the protection of transition areas between ecosystems.

g) The PA system includes the full range of successional diversity.

h) Sites of high biodiversity are systematically protected.

i) Sites of high endemism are systematically protected.

j) The layout and configuration of the PA system optimizes the conservation of biodiversity.

PROTECTED AREA POLICIES

PROTECTED AREA POLICIES

a) Policies for São Paulo State PAs clearly articulate a vision, goals, and objectives for the PA system.

b) There is a demonstrated commitment to protect a viable and representative PA network.

c) There is a comprehensive inventory of the biological diversity throughout the region.

d) There is an assessment of the historical range of variability of ecosystem types in the region.

e) There are restoration targets for under-represented and/or greatly diminished ecosystems.

RA

PPA

M

42

f) There is ongoing research on critical PA-related issues.

g) The PA system is periodically reviewed for gaps and weaknesses (e.g. gap analyses).

h) There is an effective training and capacity-building programme for PA staff.

i) PA management, including management effectiveness, is routinely evaluated.

POLICY ENVIRONMENT

POLICY ENVIRONMENT

a) PA-related laws complement PA objectives and promote management effectiveness.

b) There is sufficient commitment and funding to effectively manage the PA system.

c) Environmental protection goals are incorporated into all aspects of policy development.

d) There is a high degree of communication between natural resource departments.

e) There is effective enforcement of PA-related laws and ordinances at all levels.

f) Public policies promote widespread environmental education at all levels.

g) Public policies promote sustainable land management.

h) Public policies promote an array of land conservation mechanisms.

i) There is adequate environmental training for governmental employees at all levels.

j) Public policies foster dialogue and participation with civic and environmental NGOs.

k) Public policies foster dialogue and participation with local communities.

The financial support for the implementation of the RAPPAM

methodology was guaranteed by WWF-Brazil, with assistance of PPMA.

We want to thank WWF-International's Forests for Life Programme.

BRAZIL