COMMENTARY
Removing the abyss between conservation science
and policy decisions in Brazil
Valter M. Azevedo-Santos
1
•
Philip M. Fearnside
2
•
Caroline S. Oliveira
1
•
Andre
´
A. Padial
3
•
Fernando M. Pelicice
4
•
Dilermando P. Lima Jr
5
•
Daniel Simberloff
6
•
Thomas E. Lovejoy
7
•
Andre
´
L. B. Magalha
˜
es
8
•
Mario L. Orsi
9
•
Angelo A. Agostinho
10
•
Francisco A. Esteves
11
•
Paulo S. Pompeu
12
•
William F. Laurance
13
•
Miguel Petrere Jr
14,15
•
Roger P. Mormul
10
•
Jean R. S. Vitule
3
Received: 8 December 2016 / Revised: 4 February 2017 / Accepted: 9 February 2017 /
Published online: 16 February 2017
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017
Abstract The executive and legislative branches of Brazilian government have either
proposed or taken a variety of initiatives that threaten biodiversity and ecosystems.
Opposition by the scientific community has largely been ignored by decision-makers. In
this short essay, we present recent examples of harmful policies that have great potential to
erode biodiversity, and we suggest ways to communicate scientific knowledge to decision-
Communicated by David Hawksworth.
& Valter M. Azevedo-Santos
valter.ecologia@gmail.com
1
Laborato
´
rio de Ictiologia, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Ju
´
lio de
Mesquita Filho’’, Botucatu, SP 18618-970, Brazil
2
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazo
ˆ
nia (INPA), Manaus, AM 69067-375, Brazil
3
Po
´
s-Graduac¸a
˜
o em Ecologia e Conservac¸a
˜
o; Laborato
´
rio de Ecologia e Conservac¸a
˜
o,
Departamento de Engenharia Ambiental; Laborato
´
rio de Ana
´
lise e Sı
´
ntese em
BiodiversidadeDepartamento de Bota
ˆ
nica, Universidade Federal do Parana
´
, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
4
Nu
´
cleo de Estudos Ambientais, Universidade Federal de Tocantins, Porto Nacional, TO 77500-000,
Brazil
5
Laborato
´
rio de Ecologia e Conservac¸a
˜
o de Ecossistemas Aqua
´
ticos, Universidade Federal do Mato
Grosso, Campus Universita
´
rio do Araguaia, Pontal Do Araguaia, MT 78698-000, Brazil
6
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996,
USA
7
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030,
USA
8
Programa de Po
´
s-Graduac¸a
˜
o em Tecnologias para o Desenvolvimento Sustenta
´
vel, Universidade
Federal de Sa
˜
o Joa
˜
o Del Rei, Ouro Branco, MG 36420-000, Brazil
9
Departamento de Biologia Animal e Vegetal, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina,
PR 86057-970, Brazil
123
Biodivers Conserv (2017) 26:1745–1752
DOI 10.1007/s10531-017-1316-x
makers. If the current gap between conservation science and policies is not filled, the
country will threaten the maintenance of its natural capital and, consequently, the sus-
tainability of essential societal activities in the long term.
Keywords Environmental laws Scientific advice Forest Code Biodiversity,
Translational scientists, Environmental impacts, Neotropical biodiversity
Introduction
Brazil has a prominent place in maintaining global biodiversity. The country has conti-
nental dimensions, covers tropical and sub-tropical latitudes, and contains a huge diversity
of biomes, ecosystems, and species (Lewinsohn and Prado 2005; Silva 2005), many of
which are still poorly known or critically endangered (MMA 2014; IUCN 2015; Vitule
et al. 2016). Efforts to conserve biodiversity have increased in recent years: for instance,
the ‘‘Plan of Action for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon’’
(PPCDAm) launched in 2004 (MMA 2013), a shift in 2007 in Brazil’s position in climate
negotiations to allow compensation for avoiding deforestation (Fearnside 2012), creation
of protected areas (Soares-Filho et al. 2010) and improvements in systems for satellite
monitoring of deforestation in near real time beginning in 2006 (Assunc¸a
˜
o et al. 2013).
However, much greater effort is needed to effectively stem unsustainable environmental
policies (Loyola 2014; Lima-Junior et al. 2015). Virtually all major biomes and ecosystems
have been significantly impacted by human activities; some have been extensively trans-
formed or destroyed (e.g. Atlantic rainforest, Parana
´
River Basin). In recent years,
unsustainable policies have stimulated a series of harmful initiatives, with great potential to
damage biodiversity and ecosystem functioning because they consistently ignore scientific
consensus and advice. This scenario adds urgency to the need to connect decision-makers
with scientific knowledge in both the executive and legislative branches of government.
In this short essay, we provide a brief overview of recent unsustainable policies and
stress the need to connect environmental science with policy decisions as an unavoidable
step to preserve Neotropical biodiversity and its services. We hope researchers in other
nations in which science is also far from decision-making will propose similar initiatives.
10
Programa de Po
´
s-Graduac¸a
˜
o em Ecologia de Ambientes Aqua
´
ticos Continentais (PEA),
Universidade Estadual de Maringa
´
, Maringa
´
, PR 87020-900, Brazil
11
Nu
´
cleo em Ecologia e Desenvolvimento So
´
cio Ambiental de Macae
´
, Universidade Federal do Rio
de Janeiro, Macae
´
, RJ 27965-045, Brazil
12
Laborato
´
rio de Ecologia de PeixesSetor de Ecologia, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade
Federal de Lavras – UFLA, Campus Universita
´
rio, Lavras, MG 37200- 000, Brazil
13
Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science (TESS) and College of Marine and
Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4878, Australia
14
Programa de Po
´
s-Graduac¸a
˜
o em Planejamento e Uso de Recursos Renova
´
veis, Universidade
Federal de Sa
˜
o Carlos, Sorocaba, SP 18052-780, Brazil
15
Programa de Po
´
s-Graduac¸a
˜
o em Sustentabilidade de Ecossistemas Costeiros e Marinhos,
UNISANTA, Santos, SP, Brazil
1746 Biodivers Conserv (2017) 26:1745–1752
123
Unsustainable policies
A variety of proposed laws (Projetos de Lei—PL, in Portuguese), constitutional amend-
ments (Proposta de Emenda a` Constituic¸a˜o—PEC, in Portuguese), and provisional mea-
sures (Medida Proviso´ria—MP, in Portuguese) have surfaced in recent years (see Pelicice
et al. 2014; Fearnside 2016a; Magalha
˜
es et al. 2017; Ruaro and Mormul 2017). We offer
some examples of harmful initiatives under consideration or approved in Brazil today.
Proposed federal law No. 5989/09, which designates non-native fishes as ‘‘naturalized,’’
will enhance the use of non-native species in Brazilian aquaculture (Azevedo-Santos et al.
2011; Pelicice et al. 2014). The scientific community has criticized the proposal (e.g.
Azevedo-Santos et al. 2011; Lima-Junior et al. 2012; Vitule et al. 2012; Pelicice et al.
2014), but it continues to progress through the federal legislature and will likely became a
reality. Similarly, a state law (No. 4330/2016) was recently sanctioned allowing aqua-
culture with non-native fish (e.g. Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus) in Amazonas state
(To
´
foli et al. 2016; Padial et al. 2017). Both laws can boost fish invasions across Brazil
(Pelicice et al. 2014), posing significant threats to the natural environment (e.g. Vitule et al.
2009) and possibly causing important socioeconomic consequences (e.g. Pimentel et al.
2005) in biomes of global interest.
Other threats include a variety of assaults on the environmental licensing system. PEC
65, for example, would effectively eliminate licensing by automatically approving projects
with the mere submission of an environmental impact study; this proposal is close to a final
vote in the Senate plenary. This case is similar to another proposed law (PLS 654/2015)
that would greatly abbreviate the licensing process for major infrastructure projects
(Fearnside 2016a). In the House of Deputies, a similar proposed law (PL 3729/2004) was
recently promoted to ‘‘urgent’’ status and is progressing towards a vote (Fearnside 2016b).
Another law (MPV 727, renamed PL de conversa˜o 23/2016) was approved in September
2016, with clauses similar to the proposed laws that abbreviate licensing. All these pro-
posals will have enormous negative impacts on biodiversity (Fearnside 2016a, b), as large-
scale development projects will grant approval regardless of their environmental costs.
Finally, attempts to weaken the Brazilian System of Conservation Units are frequent
(Bernard et al. 2014). Although processing of the proposal (PL 3682/2012) that ‘‘calls for
10% of even strictly protected areas to open for mining concessions, and general prohi-
bition of new PAs in areas of high mineral or hydropower potential’’ (Ferreira et al. 2014,
p. 706) has been suspended, decreases in some protected areas continue to be implemented
through provisional measures (e.g. ISA 2016). In a context in which several scientists have
warned about the importance of protected areas (e.g. Scarano et al. 2012), decreasing them
is a substantial setback.
A bridge between science and policy decisions
Brazilian environmental policy has been weak because environmental issues have little
influence on government. Surely, the limitation on participation of the scientific commu-
nity at all political levels (federal, state, and municipal) is a major impediment to policies
being formulated based on high-quality information. In Brazil, communication between
scientists and policy-makers is historically deficient: while decision-makers do not consult
scientists, scientists do not act efficiently to be heard. Some suggestions to try to bridge the
gap between conservation scientists and decision makers are presented in Fig. 1.
Biodivers Conserv (2017) 26:1745–1752 1747
123
Executive level
Many countries have a science advisor at the executive level, although there is variation in
the degree to which these advisors affect policy. A well-known example of executive
decisions without scientific input was US President George W. Bush’s unilateral decision
to withdraw the United States from the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001, before he had
appointed a science advisor. In Brazil a clear example is the construction of the Belo
Monte Dam in the Amazon Basin; this expensive megaproject was much criticized by the
scientific community, including a specialist panel (see Santos and Hernandez 2009) that
was ignored by the Brazilian government. This is not an exception, because formal
technical opinions (pareceres, in Portuguese) by technical staff have been overridden by
high-level political decisions in other cases, such as the environmental licensing of the
Santo Anto
ˆ
nio, Jirau, and Belo Monte hydroelectric dams (Fearnside 2014, 2017). Brazil
has no presidential science advisor despite the existence of scientific committees in various
ministries, e.g., the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communication and
the Ministry of the Environment. We emphasize that these ministries include strong sci-
entific staff, i.e. professors and scientists working at different research institutes and uni-
versities. Decision-makers can consult these committees and specialists when advice is
desired, but they may also choose to ignore them.
Fig. 1 Paths to improve the connection between scientific knowledge and decision-makers, with the
objective to propose sustainable policies
1748 Biodivers Conserv (2017) 26:1745–1752
123
Legislative level
The existing committee system is the logical conduit for scientific input to the legislative
process. Brazil’s House of Deputies has a committee whose purview includes science
(CCTCI = Comissa
˜
o de Cie
ˆ
ncia e Tecnologia, Comunicac¸a
˜
o e Informa
´
tica) and another
committee for the environment and sustainable development (CMADS = Comissa
˜
ode
Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustenta
´
vel). The Federal Senate also has committees
for these two areas (CCT = Comissa
˜
o de Cie
ˆ
ncia e Tecnologia and CMA = Comissa
˜
ode
Meio Ambiente). Elected politicians constitute these committees, and in principle, they
must consult specialists to make decisions. The effectiveness of these committees, how-
ever, is dubious. An example is provided by the 2011–2012 debates over reforming
(gutting) the country’s ‘‘Forest Code’’, which is a package of regulations that governs
deforestation (e.g. Metzger et al. 2010; Nazareno et al. 2012; Soares-Filho et al. 2014;
Brancalion et al. 2016). The law that was approved in 2012 (Law No. 12,651/2012), for
example, reduced protection requirements on private properties and pardoned 43 years of
violations of the previous ‘‘Forest Code’’. Various scientists questioned the reform in
committee hearings, and ample literature was provided by the Brazilian Society for the
Progress of Science (SBPC) and the Brazilian Academy of Science (ABC) (e.g. Silva et al.
2011). This input, however, had no effect on the vote, which mostly followed political
parties’ guidelines; the House of Deputies passed the reform by a margin of seven to one
(see Fearnside 2016a). It should be mentioned that the Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural
and Ranching Research (EMBRAPA), which is the main scientific arm of the Ministry of
Agriculture, explicitly prohibited its researchers from expressing any opinions on the
proposed revision of the ‘‘Forest Code’’ when the revision was being debated in the
National Congress (Angelo 2011 ).
Turnout in committee hearings is often low unless a high-profile topic is on the agenda,
as occurred during the recent presidential impeachment case. The poor turnout is evident
when sessions are focused on acquiring information rather than producing a vote, yet
gaining information is a crucial step in guiding legislators toward wise decisions. There-
fore, a mechanism is needed to force authorities to give serious and regular consideration
to scientific advice. Of course, scientists cannot wield a veto over decisions of elected
officials. Nevertheless, researchers are armed with high-quality information that may
influence elected officials. One suggestion is to develop a mechanism that demands tes-
timony from relevant scientists indicated by credible organizations such as SBPC, ABC
and ABECO (Brazilian Association for Ecological Science and Conservation). In addition,
to have an effect, a minimum level of participation by committee members must be
assured, for example by a required minimum quorum (as in the case of sessions for voting).
Actual presence is essential, not simply signing an attendance sheet and leaving (as often
occurs). The relation between legislative sovereignty and the need to incorporate scientific
concerns therefore entails a delicate balance.
Translational scientists
Equally important is improving capacity for ‘‘translational scientists’’ (see Brosnan and
Groom 2006 for more details), who are still somewhat unusual among conservation sci-
entists in Brazil. Modern science is loaded with concepts, methods, and theories that are
impenetrable to non-specialists. This bulk of information is difficult to grasp if proper
assistance is limited. To bridge this gap, translational scientists would catalyze
Biodivers Conserv (2017) 26:1745–1752 1749
123
