-
extracted text
-
National Parks in Brazil:
A Study of 50 Years of Environmental Policy
{With Case Studies of the National
Parks of the State of Rio de Janeiro)
"w
--\d as a partial requirement
^*
for the conclusion of
•V
the Masters in Environmental Studies Program
-~\t
The Evergreen State College
-
•<y^y
••
—>
X
Committee Members
^s^r
_,
.«»•
-^
Thomas B. Rainey, Chair
Ralph
Murphy
Eduardo Viola
3
by Jose Augusto Drummond
*sJ
Olympia, Washington, September 1988
VOLUME I
This Thesis
accepted bj
approved as the final requirement
of
Committee
for the title of Master of
Environmental Studies, issued by The Evergreen State College
EduarcLo Viola
Ralph Murphy
V
Thomas B, Rainey, Chair
ABSTRACT
National Parks in Brazil
A Study of 50 Years of Environmental Policy
(With Case Studies of the National
Parks of the State of Rio de Janeiro)
Jose Augusto Drummond
Q
Part I analyses the evolution of the Brazilian National Park
system since its inception in 1937.
-^
The objective is to study the
guidelines and results of a specific environmental policy during
x^
•«^.
->••
a period
->
Historic and contemporary
•~\
of
extremely rapid
economic and demographic
growth.
environmental laws and regulations are
vW
O
evaluated.
Existing
government
agencies with
authority
over
^
environmental problems are discussed, particularly Brazil's park
-W
^
—x
y
service.
All types
of public
protected
lands
in Brazil are
mentioned and briefly described to provide a context for a more
- vsy
-^
^
detailed examination
of Brazilian National Parks
and National
a,
Biological Preserves. Topics discussed in the analysis of the park
0
and preserve system include age, area, land ownership situation,
^
infra-structure for visitation, personnel, management guidelines,
w1
^)
--—*
_.*^
w
-~!
research projects, criteria for location, ecological quality and
ecosystem representation.
Policy recommendations are presented for crucial issues such
-S3^'
^
w
^
as land
acquisition,
adequate
staffing and funding, research
policy, creation of new units and private funding. The conclusions
-at
are that Brazilian national parks are inadequately managed public
"—••,
^
goods and that their ecological qualities are being jeopardized for
*j
-"-^
"""\
-~}
lack of proper control and management.
,J
public
^
«*
3
plantations, mining and coffee plantations combined to make Rio de
Part II presents an environmental history of Rio de Janeiro
state to provide a background for the evaluation of all types of
protected
lands
extant
in
the
state.
Sugar
cane
Janeiro one of the most depleted states in Brazil, with very little
"*
natural areas to be protected. Despite that, four of the country's
w
-~\8 National Parks are located in it.
Each of the four parks,
s£a^
Itatiaia, Serra dos Orgaos, Tijuca and Serra da Bocaina is briefly
-^
-—;
-•W
O
examined.
^
^
main features and current situation. The main conclusions are that
-JS^
Topics
examined
in
each
park
are
natural
characteristics, history of human occupation, context of creation,
-**'
3
J
^
Rio de Janeiro's national parks have many
chronic
managerial
problems and that they protect only precariously a combination of
-W
3
—s
reclaimed, second growth and scarce original natural areas.
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Acknowledgements ....... ........................................1
Preface........................................................3
Notes on the Text ............................ ................. 10
Abbreviation and Acronyms
Part I
............................
._ ........ 11
The National Park System in Brazil
Chapter
1
Introduction ........................................ 13
2
Institutional Framework Of National Parks in Brazil. 19
3
The Brazilian Park Service in Action ................ 57
4
Brazilian National Parks and Other Protected Areas:
A Comparative Analysis .............................. 96
5
Park Policy, Park Service and the Park System:
Prospects , Conclusions and Proposals ............... 190
Part II
National Parks in the State of Rio de Janeiro
Chapter
6
Paradise Lost, Found and Depleted: Human Occupation
and Natural Characteristics of the State of Rio de
uaneiro. ............. ........ ....... ............. . . <
,^^\
"••*,
^.J
—"">
^y
^
-W
7
Protected Lands in Contemporary Rio de Janeiro
275
8
Itatiaia National Park - Beyond Brazilian Geology..307
9
Serra dos Orgaos National Park - The Pipe Organ
Peaks
327
10
Tijuca National Park - The Garden in the Machine... 344
11
Serra da Bocaina National Park - The Last Frontier.3S4
12
Conclusions, Prospects and Policy Proposals
3S7
Addendum
403
Notes
407
Sources
425
List of Tables
1 - Brazilian Economic Growth, 1946-1987: Yearly GNP Growth
Rates Per Capita Income Growth Rates and Figures
2 - Types of Conservation and Protected Areas Existing in
Brazil, with Respective Legal Basis and Objectives, as of
1988
97
3 - State Parks and Equivalent Preserves in Brazil: Number and
Approximate Composite Percentage of State Area, as of 1982....IOC
4 - Brazilian National Forests: Name, Location, Date of
Creation and Approximate Area, as of 1987
103
5 - Brazilian Ecological Stations Created, Being Created and
Planned by SEMA: Names, Location, Date of Creation and Areas,
Per Ecosystem, as of 1987
108
6 - Brazilian Environmental Protection Areas Created by SEMA:
Name, Location, Date of Creation and Approximate Area, as of
June 1986
114
7 - Brazilian Ecological Preserves Created by SEMA: Name,
Location, Date of Creation and Area, as of 1987
118
8 - Brazilian Areas of Relevant Ecological Concern Created
by SEMA: Name, Location, Date of Creation and Area, as of
1987.
120
9 - Brazilian Forest Preserves: Name, Location, Date of
Creation and Area, as of 1988
125
-^
10 - Brazilian National Parks: Name,
Alteration, with Respective Legal Act
and
132
O
11 - Brazilian National Parks: Location and Approximate Area,
as of November 1986.....
140
^
-
12 - Brazilian National Parks: Land Ownership Situation, as of
May 1988
146
Date
of
Creation
13 - Brazilian National Parks in Good Conditions for
Visitation (I): Management Plan, Yearly Visitation and
Access, as of 1988
14 - Brazilian National Parks in Good Conditions for
Visitation (II): Lodging, Camping, Picnic and Visitor
Center
Facilities, as of 1988
..161
15 - Brazilian National Parks in Good Conditions for
Visitation
(III): Hiking Trails, Nature Trails,
Literature and Food Facilities, as of 1988
Published
1£2
16 - Brazilian National Parks with Potential for Visitation
(I): Management Plan, Yearly Visitation and Access,
as of 1988
16C
17 - Brazilian National Parks with Potential for Visitation
(II): Lodging, Camping, Picnic and Visitor Centers
Facilities, as of 1988
....167
18 - Brazilian National Parks with Potential for Visitation
(III): Hiking Trails, Nature Trails, Published Literature
and Food Facilities, as of 1988
168
19 - Approximate Combined Areas of Brazilian Federal
Conservation Units, Per Type of Ecosystem, as of 1988
171
20 - Brazilian National Biological Preserves: Name, Date of
Creation and Alteration, with Respective Legal Act
.'
174
21 - Brazilian National Biological
Approximate Area, as of January 1988
22 - Brazilian National
Situation, as of May 1988
Biological
Preserves:
Location
Preserves: Land
and
181
Ownership
183
23 - Brazilian National Biological Preserves: Management
Plans, Research Facilities and Administrative Facilities,
as of 1988
.187
24 - Federal Conservation and Preservation Units in the
State of Rio de Janeiro (I): National Parks and National
Biological Preserves, Name and Location
231
25 - Federal Conservation and Preservation Units in the
State of Rio de Janeiro (II): Ecological Station and
Environmental Protection Areas, Name, Location and Area
2S3
26 - Federal Conservation and Preservation Units in the
State of Rio de Janeiro (III): Union Protective Forests,
Name and Area
283
27 - State Conservation and Preservation Units in the State
of Rio de Janeiro (I): State Parks, Name, Location and Area...232
28 - State Conservation and Preservation Units in the State
of Rio de Janeiro (II): State Biological Preserves, Name,
Location and Area
29 - State Conservation and Preservation Units in the State
255
of Rio de Janeiro (III): State Forest Preserves, IJair.e,
Location and Area
237
30 - State Conservation and Preservation Units in the State
of Rio de Janeiro (IV): State Environmental Protection
Areas, Name and Location
298
31 - Population Growth in the Kunicipios of Mage, Petropolis
and Teresopolis, between 1960 and 1980
336
32 - Number of Seedlings Planted in the Tijuca Forest for
Selected Years or Periods Between 1862 and 1872
360
;j
1 - Distribution of National Parks and National
Biological Preserves in Brazil
between 133/134
2 - Location of National Parks in the State of
Rio de Janeiro
between 236/237
Acknowledgements
Concluding this text has had the unavoidable effect of putting
an end to an extremely positive period of my professional and
personal life. The two years I have spent in Washington and in The
Evergreen State College's MES Program have been most stimulating
and renewing. I tried hard to take advantage of the many favorable
circumstances that brought me here and made my stay so worthwhile.
"Circumstances"
is just another name for people and the
institutions they work in. I will try here to do justice to some
of them, hoping that those unmentioned are confident that I did
not forget them.
First of all, I owe my colleagues at the Political Science
Department of Universidade Federal Fluminense (in Rio de Janeiro)
the opportunity of an extended leave of absence for studies abroad.
I would like to thank Maria A. P. Leopoldi, head of the department,
and all others. Also at UFF, Jacob Binsztok kept me informed about
the Environmental Planning Graduate Program under his direction.
Brazil's National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development awarded me a full scholarship that made my stay abroad
possible. Maria Celina Soares d'Araujo handled my boring personal
affairs back in Brazil and let me have lots of time for work and
fun over here.
At Evergreen the MES faculty went beyond their duties in
helping a foreign student through the mazes of local academic
requirements. Oscar Soule, James Stroh, Jaime Kooser, Paul Butler,
Steve Hunter, Betty Tabbutt, John Perkins and my thesis committee
members Tom Rainey and Ralph Murphy shared their expertise with me.
Unknowingly, they also taught me an incredible amount about the
business of teaching, in which I am also involved. Jane Lorenzo
and Bonita Evans, of the MES Secretary, kept me informed about
procedures and deadlines, always helping me in a most friendly way.
My 1986 MES class was a lively group from which I was happy enough
to recruit quite a number of friends.
The research for this thesis was done mostly in Brazil, in
April and May of 1988.
In Rio de Janeiro I am grateful to the
staff of the Fundacao Brasileira para a Conservacao da Natureza,
specially Head-Librarian Carmen Moretzsohn Rocha, who helped me
find precious documents.
Jose Augusto Padua, my most constant
Brazilian source of ideas, information and projects about
environmental and political ecology issues, was most kind in
supplying some sources and arranging some contacts for me.
Jairo C. M. Nicolau organized the excellent abstract and news
clip files that I read at the Institute Brasileiro de Analises
Socio-Economicas. He was also a voluntary research assistant who
came up with several precious sources and leads. Frederico R.C.D.
Britto was my official research assistant and his work was
extremely well done.
In Brasilia Fabio de Jesus was my host at the Departamento de
Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equivalentes, Brazil's equivalent to
2
_
3
,,
3
~>
^
•J
3
X
Q
~,
^
«J
->.
Z
^
"
0
~\r
.
Q
^
w
^
^
7
0
"•'-:
^
3
^
~~
CD
~\e
^
^
1^
3
—•.
•^
3
^
a National Park Service.
He helped me gather up-to-date and
unpublished information still being prepared by a small and
dedicated staff for future publication. Margarene M. L. Bezerra,
Antonina Ornelas and Aureo Faleiros were also helpful in that same
Department. Maria Tereza Jorge Padua, Director of the Fundacao
Pro-Natureza (FUNATURA) and Brazil's utmost authority in National
Parks and related issues, shared her knowledge with me in a
congenial manner and provided me with important leads. I thank her
also for giving me access and permission to cite texts that she is
in the process of concluding. Nikolaus H.J.M. von Behr briefed me
about FUNATURA and found some valuable reference materials for me
in its library. Elimar P. Nascimento and his family exhibited the
very best traditional Brazilian hospitality during my stay in
Brasilia.
I was kept well informed on environmental issues in Brazil
over the last two years by letter-writing friends and relatives,
some of which have been mentioned in other "capacities". To them
I must add my parents and Paulo Kramer {Universidade de Brasilia) .
Herbert Martins did volunteer research about federal, state and
municipal parks in the state of Minas Gerais. Warren Dean (New
York University) was most kind in responding to inquests related
to my thesis project.
Eduardo Viola, a Political Scientist from the Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina, in Brazil, was my Brazilian committee
(although he is actually from Argentina). He is Brazil's
leading scholar in social-environmental
issues.
Our recent
acquaintance is a reassurance that I will have an intellectual and
academic setting for my incursions in this rather unexplored
territory of Brazilian academia.
Ralph Murphy, a Political Scientist of interdisciplinary
training and interests, was responsible for keeping my thesis on
a definite track with his sharp comments on my research and
writing.
Tom Rainey had a major role in my Evergreen experience as
teacher in several programs, as course adviser, as MES Program
director, as Chair of my Thesis Committee and as stimulator of my
quest for new fields of work. This thesis owes very much to his
outlook on environmental and social issues and my future
professional work will certainly reflect his teachings and those
of the many authors with whom he put me in contact.
I came to
Evergreen looking for something just a little bit short of a midcareer change and Tom Rainey was for me the right man, at the right
and at the right time. He fully understood my objectives in
the MES Program and helped me achieve them.
There is only one bad thing about concluding this thesis: it
means that my good days in Evergreen's MES Program are over. Then,
again, a new chapter is just around the curve. I am committed to
making the best of it as I tried to do here. Time will tell.
I dedicate this text to Maria and Helena, my daughters, hoping
that they will have parks to enjoy.
Jose Drummond
Olympia, Washington, September 1988
Rio de Janeiro, February 1989
Preface
Brazil
is currently
territorial size.
surface.
the world's fifth largest nation in
It has about 1.7%
of all the planet's land
Inside its borders are the largest share
(33%) of the
world's remaining tropical forests, about 80% of the Amazon Basin
and the richest and most densely populated zoological province of
the Americas, the Ma to Grosso Swampland. There are extensive and
biologically rich savanna-like areas and more than 7,000 kilometers
of
Atlantic
landscape.
coastline,
plus
large
areas
of
other
types of
Many biologists believe that Brazil today hosts more
living species than any other single country, including the largest
number of developed plants, 15% of all birds, the largest diversity
of primates and fresh water fish, a great number of mammals and
reptiles and an unsuspected amount of arthropods.
This territory
has, therefore, a crucial importance in any worldwide strategy of
nature conservation and preservation and in the planet's ecological
fate.
On the other hand, no country in the world has experienced in
the last 40 years more economic growth than Brazil.
Although still
a poor and underdeveloped country overall, Brazil's economic output
is the eighth in the capitalist world and the tenth among all
nations
combined.
This was due mainly
to the rather recent
industrialization of the economy, which combined with a modernized
agricultural plantation system to form a dynamic combination of
voracious natural resource consumption
and extremely concentrated
4
wealth distribution.
Population growth was fast, too. The yearly
rates were consistently above 2,4% between 1940 and 1980 and the
total population tripled in the same period.
In 1940 there were
41 million Brazilians; today, there are 144 million, the sixth
largest population in the world.
Many fields of Brazilian environmental policy are today packed
with severe problems generated by all this economic and demographic
•«J
growth.
._
pesticide contamination in modernized rural areas are probably the
o
Environmental
health
in
rapidly
growing
cities and
,w
Q
most prominent inside Brazil.
Depletion of rain forests is still
^*
more an international issue than a Brazilian one.
I chose to
VV^
-N
s$y
y
examine
in
this
text
environmental policy.
a somewhat more
"traditional" field of
The creation and administration of national
->>W
~,
parks was a policy started in the 1930's, before Brazil's recent
•*^
Q
growth upsurge.
This thesis topic came to me as a consequence of
^
some readings and discussions in the MES Program, particularly in
Q
the core program Ecological and Societal Processes
(Fall of 1986}
and the elective cluster contract Environmental History
(Summer
-^
of 1987}.
-\,
about the importance of National Parks for nature preservation and,
more important, as an expression of a nation's commitment to
-y
preserve nature: Roderick Hash's Wilderness in the American Mind
•—\
and Alfred Runte's National Parks - The American Experience.
*")
^
/7V
Two books in particular produced persistent thoughts
I was surprised
to discover how little I knew about the
origins of the Brazilian National Parks, although I have visited
a good number of them as a hiker.
I also discovered that I did
•J
"0
_X
not know much about their current situation nor about the current
directions of the country's park policy.
I decided to develop my
•=«s=-'1
"0
-~)
""^"•>
W
-")
thesis around these issues.
In my thesis project I proposed to concentrate on the National
Parks located in the state of Rio de Janeiro, where I have lived
, f-^.
--—-,
^
for most of my life.
Although
that emphasis remains
I spent
-.s-s-'
considerably more space than I originally planned on issues related
VS$^
3
'3
!1
to the National Park policy and system.
in
this
development,
but
there
was
Serendipity had its hand
also
my
mid-research
w
^
- '-"-i
'^
™*i
consciousness of the extremely poor state of published information
and of comprehensive technical and scholarly writing about the
•?s^
•~\y
and the system.
^sss*'
In contrast, I found that Rio de Janeiro's
parks are among the most studied and visited.
I then decided that
,;,y
it
was
worthwhile
to
strike
a
better
balance
between
my
^s?1
w
--•*%
X
investigations of Rio de Janeiro's parks and a broader analysis of
the park system and its institutional framework.
Therefore, in
w^y
3
Part II used Rio de Janeiro's
parks to illustrate some of the
-sa*^
^
issues pertaining to the park system.
•SSJS^
I have tried, therefore, (1} to analyze the National Park
-^
-^
system as the result of a specific type of environmental policy
,:'f^
and (2) to focus Rio de Janeiro's National Parks as particular
.,,,-. V
fi'-f^,
landscapes
with a social
and natural history
-'-*
^
w
D
approach.
If
is the state of national parks as public goods?
3
ecological values of these parks?
overall policy.
affected by the
This emerged as a more original and more needed
The two central questions of my analysis were: (1) What
(2) What are the
Indeed, the literature about
D
^^
6
-,:V
Brazilian
National
Parks is still in the stage of
X
manuscripts,
D
administrative reports, with the exception of the comprehensive
w
scattered
Pianos de Manejo
articles
(Management Plans)
and
scarcely
unpublished
available
published for 14 of the 28
•v^V
-~j
existing parks.
However, these excellent texts are specific to
-... ---^
w
each park.
Q
--^
I could
find only
two books
and one small
article that
^W
w
conveyed substantive analytical views of the national park policy
X
and system and of their ecological quality.
Both books are by
^3»v
"X)
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua, then Brazilian Park Service Director.
X
The article is by Angela Tresinari, at the time also a Park Service
~)
staff member.
~\
~^*&^
•*w
X)
.,D
X
Padua's books
(Os Paraues Nacionais e as Reservas
Biologicas do Brasil and Os Parques Nacionais do Brasil, this
second
one
co-written
with
Adelmar
Coimbra
Filho)
composed with short sketches of each National Park
are both
(and National
Biological Preserves) , with excellent photographic illustrations
v^?
3
and
detailed descriptions of natural features. Both books are much
X
more about each park than about the system or the policy, but
Padua's comprehensive knowledge of the system and the policy shines
-^s,'j*\h in many passages.
I found Tresinari's article to be the
-*«*v
1
«-y
only published attempt to correlate national parks and Brazil's
overall park policy with its recent stages of economic growth.
X
Besides these three texts, the rest of the available published
X
information about National Parks is either specific to one unit,
X
°r general and superficial, or policy statements not necessarily
^W
implemented.
*—
I studied the legislation about National Parks and
7
related preservation and conservation issues.
I read every law and
--x
decree I could find creating or altering parks and preserves; I did
O
the same for all other
X
units.
existing preservation and conservation
I studied all available policy evaluation documents and
,cJ
j
critical
reports
issued
groups.
I read
the in-depth
(Management Plans)
by the Park Service and environmental
interdisciplinary
investigations
on several Parks and various other shorter
0
reports on the state of specific parks, drafted by people inside
T
•v>y
Q
and outside the Park Service.
against the background of a surprisingly large number of other
^
types of preservation and conservation units currently extant in
-—%
I tried to focus on National Parks
^W
-)
Brazilian legislation; some have actually been created and managed
to some degree.
To obtain updated information on all parks and
-^
preserves, I went to Brasilia, the national capital, to gather it
3
directly from the Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
*c»y
-^
Equivalentes, Brazil's National Park Service.
D
As for Rio de Janeiro's National Parks, I tried to convey
if
their creation and situation in the context of the state's social
^
•^
and environmental history.
This approach was specially important
because Rio de Janeiro is one of Brazil's most ravaged states,
••^y
-^
thanks
to a combination
W
erodible
-^
^.j
Ti
industrialization.
1"
coastal Rio de Janeiro state, because Brazil is one of the few
"^
countries
soils
twenty-eight
on
of sugar cane and coffee plantations,
hilly
topography,
urbanization
and
It is in itself intriguing that four out of
national
parks
are located in densely populated,
in the world still having vast sections of unsettled
8
territory.
Therefore this thesis is an original contribution to the state
of knowledge
about national
parks in Brazil.
It
synthesizes
secondary and some primary material, most of which is readily
available to anyone, although in a scattered form. The originality
lies in (1) the comparison of national parks with other types of
preserves, (2) in the analysis of four parks which illustrate to
some degree the virtues and problems of the park system and (3) the
simultaneous analysis of political and natural characteristics of
national parks. Hopefully, this text has also established some new
trails
for
my
future
professional
scholarship,
research and
teaching.
I
reached
disheartening
national parks in Brazil.
conclusions
through.
conclusions
about
the
state of
They are, indeed, in poor shape.
These
imposed themselves through all the sources I sifted
Personally it has not been easy studying the subject
because I am not prone to negativity.
As I see it, the extremely
precarious situation of Brazil's National Parks, after 50 years of
park policy, is a particularly grim side of a wider picture: the
breakdown in minimum efficiency patterns of public administration
in general.
citizenry
public
Not only are parks abandoned, but the whole Brazilian
is paying for and not receiving even the most basic
services.
efficiency
The
recovery
in all levels
several decades.
of
acceptable
of Brazilian
administrative
government
will demand
The prevailing patrimonial spoils-system has
simply depleted government's coffers and paralyzed its ability to
—
act. Things will probably get worse before they get any better and
national parks will continue to suffer.
In the meantime, parks and other preserves will have to be
defended mainly by citizen groups and by a handful of dedicated
individuals,
inside
and outside government.
national parks are currently orphans.
park system were beginning again.
situation to be.
As public goods,
In a way, it is as if the
This is how bad I consider the
The new beginning will not be from a scratch, to
be sure, but from a starting point very much behind what 50 years
of park policy would allow to expect.
Until government can be
forced to do a better job, the biological diversity of Brazil is
still the best hope for a future park system that is ecologically
sustainable, culturally valuable and politically viable.
10
-^5^
0
Notes
w!
~)
—^
~w
!!,
-3
Q
Z^
1 - Rio de Janeiro is the name of both a state and a city. I have
distinguished them by referring explicitly to "Rio de Janeiro
state" and "Rio de Janeiro city". Occasionally I refer to the city
as "Rio". "Province of Rio de Janeiro" refers to the present state
during the Brazilian Empire (1822-1889) .
2 - All distances and areas are expressed in the metric system.
Here are some conversions relevant to the text:
1 kilometer (km) = .62 miles
1 meter (m) =1.09 yards (or 3.27 feet)
1 square kilometer (km2) = 247 acres
^3^
Q
—>
^
w
3 - Municipio is the smallest administrative unit in current
Brazilian governmental structure to have independent tax revenues.
I chose to retain the term in Portuguese and graph it in bold
rather to dubiously translate it as county or city.
—x
^
Q
-,
s"
Q
•~j
4 - 1 have preserved Portuguese denominations for states,
Buinieipios, cities, regions, mountains, rivers, government
agencies,etc. I used bold to enhance only those geographical names
which also designate preservation or conservation units, with the
exception of Serra do Mar, the major mountain range in the state
of Rio de Janeiro.
Other Portuguese terms are underlined and
translated into English when I use them for the first time.
^J
5 - Native American leagues and tribes names are graphed in bold.
11
Abbreviations and Acronyms*
Conselho
- Conselho
Nacional de Meio Ambiente, National
Environmental Council, Brazil's highest ranking agency for
environmental policy.
Departamento - Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentesf Brazil's park service; subordinated to the
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal.
EMBRATUR - Empresa Brasileira de Turismo, a federal government
company dealing in tourism.
EPA - Environmental Protection Area, a type of conservation unit.
ES - Ecological Station, a type of preservation and research
unit.
FEEMA - Fundacao Estadual de Engenharia do Meio Ambiente, Rio de
Janeiro state's government environmental quality company.
Fundacao - Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, a
major Brazilian private environmental group based in Rio
Janeiro.
de
Institute - Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal,
Brazil's equivalent to the U.S. Forest Service, responsible
for
Brazil's
National
Parks.
Parent
agency
of
the
Departamento.
NBP - National Biological Preserve, also referred as preserve.
NP - National Park, also referred as park.
Secretaria - Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente, Brazil's
equivalent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
UPF - Union Protective Forest, a type of conservation unit.
* Only the most used ones.
—•*>(
PART I
-"**-,
The National Park System in Brazil
-•"*.
^x
_.^
w-1
- —v>.
w
\f
.
0
.
W
•«s,^
^Zi,
-J*^
-&&
***,
V
-^
^Ox
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
w
^
28 National Parks and 15 National Biological Preserves exist
today
in
Brazil
government.
The
under
direct
total
area
responsibility
covered by
of
these
the
two
federal
types
of
O
preservation units is approximately 110,000 km2, which corresponds
!;
to only 1.3% of the country's territory.
Q
protected lands exist
jurisdictions.
under
Several other types of
federal and state and even local
A few others have been proposed.
But these 43
units clearly encompass the largest areas and the most diversified
•**>
sampling of Brazilian ecosystems under public protection.
They
--,
still are the country's best potential basis for a broad effort in
serious landscape and species preservation, for whatever purposes,
scientific, educational, recreational or even intrinsic value.
This study will focus first on Brazil's 28 National Parks,
although
the
15
supporting role.
National
Biological
Preserves
will
play
a
Brazil's park system recently celebrated its
fiftieth birthday, if the date of creation
National Park is taken as a starting point.
(1937)
of the first
But this is misleading
because the average age of Brazil's parks is much lower than that,
around 20 years.
One of the striking characteristics of Brazil's
14
park policy is precisely the irregular pattern of park creation
over the 50 year period from 1937 to 1986.
Geographical location,
site selection criteria and political momentum have been other
changing aspects of Brazil's park policy.
All this irregularity is reflected, among other things, in
the fact that the "fourth generation" of parks
text), established
Amazon region.
after 1974,
(as defined in this
was the first one to reach the
It was also the first to include significantly
large areas, in proportion with the extensive national territory.
The largest parks are the youngest and were created mostly in the
relatively remote Amazon and Mid-Western regions.
The older parks
are smaller, sometimes minimal, and closer to the most densely
settled areas.
Other countries created first extensive parks in
remote and frontier areas.
way around.
The Brazilian case evolved the other
Other oddities and some virtues of Brazilian parks
will be discussed at length.
The second focus will be on the environmental history and
current situation of the four parks in the State of Rio de Janeiro.
The guiding research hypotheses was that Brazilian National Parks
resulted from a combination of (1) government initiative and (2)
scientific community demands.
As a consequence, (3) little or no
active participation of citizen or environmental
groups in the
decisions to establish National Parks was expected to be found.
Rio de Janeiro's parks confirm all three hypotheses.
Admittedly these were not wild speculations for someone with
experience in studying Brazilian politics and society.
The role
^j
of government in Brazil's social life is so great as to practically
undercut
-—^
possibilities
of
widespread
and
durable
democratic
institutions in the Western European and North American sense.
In
fact, capitalism deserves many adjectives by whomever studies it
^
O
7^
^
in Brazil: "authoritarian", "patrimonial", "regulated" and "state"
are
^ne most common. These qualifications
stress the political
restrictions on economic activity and citizen participation.
Government is a strong element in Brazilian society and it
has developed the ability to act preemptively to control activities
-^
which might further the civil liberties of Brazilian
,J
This is evident in political organizations such as workers' unions,
-^
which have been under effective government control for more than
Q
50 years, and in productive economic enterprises, such as oil and
"^
energy production
~)
industry
(strictly
citizens.
(both government monopolies), or the computer
regulated
and
in part
run
by
government).
Science and scientists are also subject to government direction and
-*\l and a majority of scientists
in any given field works
•^
directly or indirectly in government agencies or with government
^
funding.
O
government.
^
The author himself is a civil servant of the federal
It is not surprising,
therefore, that whatever systematic
~~)
pressures there have been towards the creation of National Parks
7
and Biological Preserves have been generated by or filtered through
the scientific community.
-•J
^
Citizen groups, including
the ones
interested in preservation, are in a very hostile environment for
democratic participation.
The scientific community, though, is
16
closer
to
government
than
in
other
economies
where
private
enterprise has a larger expression. Therefore, scientists are able
to influence many decisions more effectively than any citizen
group .
The location of many parks and preserves is a clear indication
of
the influence
of
scientists.
Brazil's very
first park -
Itatiaia - was created in an area of geological, geomorphological
and
biological
uniqueness
studied
by
scores
of
foreign
Brazilian scientists ever since the early 19th century.
and
Brasilia
National Park is strategically located in the interconnection of
three major river basins
(Amazon, Parana-Plate and Sao Francisco) ,
an area certainly selected with the help of geographers.
Emas
National Park is similarly on the divide of the Parana-Plate and
Araguaia rivers.
Tapajos National Park, the first one created in
the heart of the Amazon region, contains samples of the different
;"*
geological and botanical settings of the Tapajos river as it flows
o^
•~\m the Northern tip of Brazil's ancient Central Plateau into the
lower
Q
Amazon basin.
,m^
scientific
O
participation.
o
^
ecological
Some
All younger parks were
considerations
biological
and
preserves
established with
active
scientists!s
are indeed
direct
outgrowths of field work developed by Brazilian field naturalists.
,-^V
~)
^
^
But government did not simply react to scientists' interests
and demands.
—]
national capital was Rio de Janeiro city, two parks - Itatiaia and
It had its eyes on its own interests too. While the
s--*^,
Serra dos Orgaos - were created in the state of Rio de Janeiro,
3
'»S
both along major roads.
In 1959, while Brasilia, the new capital,
_.»,
X
Q
—•».
17
was being built in the Central Plateau region, three parks were
established in the neighboring state of Goias: Axaguaia, Emas and
w1
~
Chapada dos Veadeiros. Another called Brasilia was created in 1961
only 20 minutes away from the capital on a good road.
;
_Z^
,.»•'
Q
^
w
cases government certainly envisioned the parks as recreation and
leisure areas for its legions of employees and numerous other
national capital inhabitants.
Rio de Janeiro's four parks have several characteristics that
•
make them an illustration of the park system.
'D
^
In all these
as case studies of Brazilian park policy.
They are analyzed
First of all, these
v.yaf/
Q
parks have an average age of almost 40 years, in sharp contrast
X
^•J
Q
"~)
^
W
Q
with the overall average of 20.
Rio de Janeiro had the first and
third national parks to be created
(the ones mentioned above).
Another one, Tijuca, derived from lands publicly managed for a
whole
century
for
the
purpose
of
water
supply
and
public
""~\. The older age of these parks allows a more substantial
D
—N
view of the managerial efficiency of the park service.
•---"
A second characteristic is that Rio de Janeiro's parks were
,^
created in the wake of the destructive coffee plantation system.
10
Rio de Janeiro, city and province, was between 1780 and 1880,
;^
roughly, the main producer of coffee in Brazil.
This gave it the
•^-V
^
dubious distinction of being one of the three most ravaged states
in the country, together with Sergipe and Alagoas, two small
.*^
-^
~\n states secularly affected by sugar cane plantations.
- v.0-^
Cw
At least three of Rio de Janeiro's parks once had extensive stands
J3*~.,
"X
of
coffee inside their borders.
Serra dos Orgaos seems to be the
17
was being built in the Central Plateau region, three parks were
established in the neighboring state of Goias: Araguaia, Emas and
Chapada dos Veadeiros. Another called Brasilia was created in 1961
only 20 minutes away from the capital on a good road.
In all these
cases government certainly envisioned the parks as recreation and
leisure areas
for its legions of employees and numerous
other
national capital inhabitants.
Rio de Janeiro's four parks have several characteristics that
make them an illustration of the park system.
as case studies of Brazilian park policy.
They are analyzed
First of all, these
parks have an average age of almost 40 years, in sharp contrast
with the overall average of 20.
Rio de Janeiro had the first and
third national parks to be created
(the ones mentioned above).
Another one, Tijuca, derived from lands publicly managed for a
whole
century
recreation.
for
the
purpose
of
water
supply
and
public
The older age of these parks allows a more substantial
view of the managerial efficiency of the park service.
A second characteristic is that Rio de Janeiro's parks were
created in the wake of the destructive coffee plantation system.
Rio de Janeiro, city and province, was between 1780
roughly, the main producer of coffee in Brazil.
and 1880,
This gave it the
dubious distinction of being one of the three most ravaged states
in the country,
together
with
Sergipe
and Alagoas, two
small
Northeastern states secularly affected by sugar cane plantations.
At least three of Rio de Janeiro's parks once had extensive stands
of coffee inside their borders.
Serra dos Orgaos seems to be the
!
18
"~\
.^W
3
• ij
exception.
Studying
these
parks
means
discovering
how they
included the meager floral remains and the second growth of the
^-^^
—
lush tropical rain forests that once covered 95% of the state's
w
territory.
X
almost void of undisturbed stretches.
Rio de Janeiro's parks were thus plotted in a landscape
\>W^
;^)
-~)
A third aspect is that these four parks are in the roost
urbanized state in the country.
92% of the population is urban.
v**>
Rio de Janeiro was Brazil's largest city from roughly 1800 until
Q
,,-w
,
largest urban concentration in the world and grows faster than the
;D
rest of Brazil's population.
X
for overuse of these parks are, therefore, great, specially as
„,„...'
compared with the younger parks created in what are still remote
—N
,w
—
1950 and still is the second largest one by far.
regions.
This
It is the ninth
The "visibility" and the potential
situation brings up
the
issues
of visitation
pressures, potential for environmental education and competing land
>^^
•^
~\'
---,
use interests.
These
are
some of
the
topics
examined
in
the
following
, -^
-v
,v
^
chapters.
Part I will analyze what seems to have been mostly a
O
detailed
^
^
situation of four of the 28 national parks, the ones located in the
haphazard national park policy.
account
of the origins,
state of Rio de Janeiro.
Part II will present a fairly
characteristics
and current
CHAPTER 2
The Institutional Framework of National Parks in Brazil
Becoming Modern
When Brazil created its first national park in 1937 it was a
very different country then it is now.
This section will show how
?J
^
~;
^
Brazil went through exponential rates of economic growth exactly
as it developed its park system.
This growth obviously affected
VK>V
"j
the patterns of natural resource use and the occupation of the
national territory, conditioning
3
^
all types of preservation and
conservation policies.
V?V
v2-
In 1937 more than 70% of the population of 41 million was
, ^
^
rural.
Export agriculture of coffee, sugar, cocoa and other rural
v**"'
Q
activities were predominant in the economy.
A modest light and
;^
^
vW
^
traditional industry was coming out of years of severe recession.
Heavy and capital goods industries were still in the planning
stages, at the most.
There were no major metalworks plants, no oil
Q
~\, no chemical industry, no automotive industry, little
v5
D
^
mechanical industry or shipbuilding.
Infra-structure was modest
or non-existent. Not even the road between the two main cities of
«J
13
O
Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo was paved. Energy sources were modest
^3
•^
20
and local, communications were slow.
Transportation around the
•^fJ
country,
even in coastal areas, was a minor
adventure.
Vast
\-^y'
3
,J
w
3
"~>
-->
--ss^
portions of the interior were all but unreachable, even by plane.
Beginning
in
the
1940's
the
country
changed
Government investments and government-stimulated investments, with
a heavy participation of foreign capital, both public and private,
expanded
chemical,
mechanical
and
automotive
shipbuilding, mining, oil and energy production,
9
---s
rapidly.
industries,
road-building,
transportation, communications and related services.
Important
x^y
Q
sections of agriculture were also modernized.
Brazil began a trend
tT
of accelerated growth which is still to be matched by another
vssss*'
Q
~j
country in this half of the century.
144 million Brazilians now dwell the land, more than 70% now
Q
•—\n the cities.
For better or worse, Brazil became a modern,
^SSB*
-^
Q
—>,
•«*
w
Q
^
industrial and urban nation, although not exactly a developed one
because
of
its
massive
poverty,
low
health
standards and inefficient government services.
and
educational
This change was
based mainly on the transfer of resource-consuming industries from
XSB'
.Q
^
CD
~)
other countries.
Industrialized
Brazil intensified its use of
resources and pushed back its frontier while it was shaping its
park system.
In 1957 Brazil was already de llth national economy in output,
'••
-^
—,
ahead of Australia, Belgium, Argentina and Spain.
O
the eighth economy in the non-socialist world, behind only the
o1^
-w
3
major
developed
countries:
Germany, Italy and Japan.1
US,
Canada, England,
By 1984 it was
France, West
The dream of becoming a "first class
Table 1
Brazilian Economic Growth, 1946-1987: Yearly GNP
Growth Rates, Per Capita Income Growth Rates
and Inflation Rates
Year
1S46
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
GN? Growth
7.4
6.6
6.5
6.0
8.7
2.5
10.1
6.9
3.2
8.1
7.7
5.6
9.7
10.3
5.3
1.5
2.9
2.7
3.8
4.8
11.2
10.0
8.8
12.0
11.1
13.6
9.7
5.4
9.7
5.7
5.0
6.4
7.2
-3.4
0.9
-2.5
Per Capita Income
Growth
-4.7
4.3
4.0
2.8
5.6
-0.5
7.0
3.7
0.2
4.9
4.6
2.4
6.6
7.2
2.3
-1.3
0.0
-0.1
0.8
1.9
8.1
6.8
5.8
9.3
8.4
10.8
7.1
2.9
7.1
3.2
2.5
3.8
4.6
-4.0
-1.5
-5.5
Inflation
22 . 6
2.7
8.3
*! •"}
O
J.^ . A
12.4
11.9
12.9
20.8
25.8
12.4
24.4
7.0
24.3
39.5
30.5
47.7
51.3
81.3
91.9
34.5
38.8
24.3
25.4
20.2
19.2
19.8
15.5
15.7
34.5
29.4
46.3
3 On .r,O
40.8
77.2
41.5
95.2
9S.7
200.0
^
1984
1985
1986
5.7
8.3
8.2
3.1
5.0
5.0
232.0
233.6
62.3
Sources:
Based on Tables I and II in Wanderley Guilherme dos
Santos.
"A Pos-Revolucao Brasileira".
Brasil, Sociedade
Democratica. Rio de Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1985.
Data included
also from Almanague Abril - 1988. Sao Paulo, Editora Abril, 1988,
pp.698-699.
world power" has spread to all established political elites, from
the
right-wing
socialists.
military
to
the
underground
communists
This includes nationalists whose only complaint nas
been the excessive
importance of foreign capital.
"Bigger is
better" would be a good motto for Brazilian elites.
trickles
and
down
to
the
common
people
who
have
The ideal
supported
all
government policies related to economic growth.
Table 1 has some numerical data on Brazil's sweeping rates of
change
in the last
decades.
The GNP growth rates speak for
themselves.
Only twice was there "negative growth".
Per capita
income
consistently
Occasional
grew
over
the whole
period.
setbacks were compensated for, except for the 1981-1983 period.
As one illustration of the costs implied by such rates, Table 1
includes
the yearly
official inflation
started being recorded.
rates
sustained
wealth
consumer
in
since they
Inflation, associated with strict control
over workers' unions and an export-oriented
concentrate
ever
a
degree
society,
economy, combined to
incompatible
in sharp
contrast
with
with
nations. One more cost figure should be added here:
a
locally-
developed
Brazil's non-
payable foreign debt, which at the last controversial counts soared
~D
23
at 120 billion dollars.
X
Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos, a ranking Brazilian Political
O
Scientist, has stated that Brazil's "conservative modernization"
^
made it look today as distinct from Brazil in the 196O's as post-
^
Meiji Japan
—/
comparison is not with Brazil of the 1930's, as this chapter is
---•)
-J
proposing.
differed
from pre-Meiji Japan.
Notice that his
The contrast with the 193O's is much sharper.
Santos
summarizes the changes in these words: Brazil
_Z
grew, urbanized, industrialized, capitalized
itself, expanded private enterprise, became
more educated, reorganized itself and became
extraordinarily more complex.2
O
-—-,
His extensive demonstration will be summarized here.
The
X
added percentages of population for each decade between 1940 and
Q
1980 were 26.0%, 34.9%, 32.9% and 27.9%.
^
in the same decades were 2.39%, 2.99%, 2.89% and 2.49%.
^
urbanized
f
shown by the very impressive figures for urban population growth
^
in those decades: 4.9%, 8.6%, 11.2% and 11.7%.3
Population growth rates
Brazilians
at "unprecedented" rates in modern world history, as
Between 1940 and 1980 industry expanded its share in the
3
~s
O
liquid national product from 13.0% to 34.0%. Between 1968 and 1980
industrial goods jumped from 20.2% to 56.5% of the value of total
Z
exports.
Industrial
capital goods were produced in a massive
Q
scale, growing from almost nothing at an average geometrical rate
;;
of 12.8% between 1947 and 1980.
Agriculture was vastly modernized,
~\y in the South and Southeast, through mechanization, modern
—-.
-•*'
fertilizers, pesticides and other modern inputs. By 1980 salaried
o
24
work
became
widespread
for
the
first
time
in
Brazil,
autonomously employed workers were reduced to only 30.1%
when
of the
economically active population, as compared with 50.0% in 1960.4
At
least
485 publicly
owned
and
operated companies deal
directly with oil drilling, prospecting and refining, electricity
generation,
transmission and distribution, metalworks,
mining,
airplane manufacturing, telecommunications, computer hardware and
software, port and airport administration, tourism and dozens of
other activities.
In 1982 they invested 3 billion dollars and
employed 1.5 million Brazilians, around 3.5% of the economically
active population.
Despite this, Santos argues that 85% of all
wealth is produced by private enterprise.
Santos does not compute
here voluminous public subsidies in many areas.
Rural workers declined from 65 . 9% of the economically active
population in 1940 to only 29.9% in 1980.
from
56.9%
to
25.5%
in
the
same
40
Illiteracy rates fell
years.
Enrollment
in
universities grew faster than the population and women's enrollment
in
universities
population.
surpassed
the
proportion
of
women
in
the
From 1960 to 1980 the proportion of industrial workers
employed in traditional
industries
(textiles, leather, clothing,
wood, food and beverages) fell from 81.8% to only 41. 7%. 5
Santos summarizes Brazil's modernization in a sentence:
From the innards of a patriarchal society,
from a network of social relationships borne
out of kinship, primary group loyalties and
personal relations, another society starts to
emerge:
it
is
open,
porous,
fluid;
'traditional society' traits are starting to
loose their grip.6
Not all was "positive" in the process of modernization, to be
sure.
Santos
himself
points
"conservative modernization".
became more distant
from
out
the
many
drawbacks
of
Income levels of rich and poor
each other; wealth became much mere
concentrated; more workers have been working per family unit in
order to compensate
for real wage losses; for the same
reason
average years of schooling is falling; illiteracy is again on the
rise; Blacks and people of mixed blood are consistently poorer than
the rest of the population.
On the political side, the "modern" economy is contrasted with
what
Santos
calls
"regulated citizenship" , which means simpiy
curtailed citizenship.
The Brazilian state is most impermeable to
modern citizenship demands and institutions.
way
that
Brazil' s modern
citizenship patterns.
economy
could
Santos proposes one
help
engender
modern
It could become the basis of policies aiming
at a wider and more efficient scope of substantive "public goods".
He mentions health, sanitation, urban renewal, education ana even
"environmental protection".7
The impacts of recent economic growth on the environment was
assessed in 1975 by Brazil's equivalent to the US Forest Service,
the Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal
(Institute', .
In a comprehensive policy statement about national parks, for which
it is responsible, the Institute warned that between 1960 and 1970
Brazil had occupied 340,000 km2 of virgin land for agriculture and
cattle-raising.
105,000
km2
of
forests
suffered
"predat-cry
devastation" in the same period, without replanting, reciaiuauion
"3
_^
w
7~Q
-J
_rvt\,
26
and sometimes without even a chance of natural regeneration.
The Institute is a pragmatic conservation agency which earns
revenue
from forest products at the same time as it runs the park
It stated openly, as if it were itself non-existent, the
system.
•vs**
urgent need of a "...policy for rational use of renewable natural
!_-,
resources", for "harmonizing urban, agricultural, animal husbandry
~O
and
^
—"2
industrial
development
the original
[with]]
ecosystems"
ecological
"Samples
of
therefore
be set aside from development.8
imperatives".
of the country
should
Considering that in
1970-1980 economic growth rates were even higher than in 1960-1970,
-er>
-^
the Institute's warning were realistic.
~":
It was in this time of development that Brazilian national
Z,
parks came into being.
0
economic growth, of geographical expansion, of extensive use of
*^
vast reserves of land and resources.
^}
abundance into scarcity, one of humankind's favorite occupations,
•-•"'
and of little action to protect dwindling natural resources and
—**\.
It was almost half a century of accelerated
It was a time of turning
A sense of scarcity, which seems to be the major moving
force behind any serious drive for preservation or conservation,
A,
has arisen only very recently in the minds of Brazilians, and even
O
more
^
•**
'" 3
recently
among
policy makers.
believe in development at any cost.
Most policy
makers
still
Unfortunately, as will be
shown, park policy, park creation and effective management of
.rf^s
^
existing parks lagged much behind the dynamics of economic growth.
-^V
•"*N
~*sJ
The Political Setting
•:-D
^
_
\\
27
_Z^
Brazil's national parks are managed by the central government.
0
A brief background of Brazil's political history is needed here.
""
Brazil
—^j
is an
outgrowth
of
European
expansion.
Its
enormous
territory was carved out by Portuguese sailors and explorers, who
managed to control indigenous populations along the coastline and
—s~\o introduce scores of Black slaves to work in vast sugar cane
~O
plantations.
JX
into
the
Brazil became independent only in 1822 and turned
only
monarchy
on
the American continent.
3
officially an Empire for more than 60 years.
^i
introduced
^
oligarchy
in 1889
It was
Republicanism was
and it has gone through various
forms of
(coalition of local and regional political bosses),
authoritarian populism, democratic populism and, more recently,
3
-~\l security" military dictatorships.
0
Since 1985 a civilian government has been in power.
This
X
brought extensive political reforms, including a total rewriting
3
of the Constitution.
This rewriting started in early 1987 and is
X
expected
in October
^:
because the 21 years of military dictatorship
to conclude
1988.9
The rewrite
is needed
(1964-1985) brought
unprecedented institutional chaos to Brazil's political system.
" *}
^
For the time being, Brazil is a Federative Republic, with a
presidential
regime
and
separate
Executive, Legislative
and
^
Judiciary powers.
"y
survive with varying degrees of independence. The new Constitution
X
will establish
• ^
A two-chamber Legislature and a Judiciary system
26 States and a Federal District.
divided into municipios
States are
(roughly equivalent to American counties)
and below them are distritos
(districts).
Distritos have no
28
independent source of taxpayer's money, but municipios have a few
sources.
Central government's fiscal power is strong.
three
Brazilian
States have
enough
local
independent and substantive public policies.
ones
with
chronically
big
cities,
have
a very
Only two or
tax revenue
to run
Municipios, even the
narrow
tax-base
and are
dependent on grants and transfers from the federal
administration.
It should be noted that State capitals are always
located in their largest cities, which helps concentrate federal
and state investments in them. A wider tax tax-base for States and
municipios is certain to arise from the new Constitution and could
change this picture.
This would allow a larger number of locally
decided and funded government policies, including environmental
ones.
Central government has today 27 Ministerios
(Departments).
They formulate and implement the most important public policies,
tapping central governments extensive tax-base, its virtual freedom
to emit currency and its privileged access to foreign loans. Many
of these policies
patterns.
affect environmental resources
and land use
Of course there are important differences in the budgets
of these Departments.
Brazil does not have a Department of the Environment, although
the
idea has been
government
in
the
brought
last
up continually
decade.
inside
and outside
Comprehensive environmental
policies in Brazil had a start only in 1973 with the creation of
the Secretaria
Especial do Meio Ambiente
(or Secretaria}, a
-^
T'
-o
—>
:
29
Special Secretariat for
the
Environment.
The
Secretaria was
originally under the Interior Department, a powerful agency that
o
-~s
managed a vast unemployment compensation fund earmarked for urban
-^
in
J^
institutional base for environmental policy, although much of what
^}
_*^
"""'
it did was itself worthy of environmental concern and regulation.
Q
known that Brazilian national parks have since 1937 been under the
renewal, popular housing and sanitation and had responsibilities
draught
relief
and
irrigation.
Interior
was
a
strong
Bureaucratic fragmentation is immediately evident when it is
jurisdiction of a different Department, that of Agriculture.
1930's
Agriculture
-^
the
,-,/'
importance has decreased along with the rise of industrialization.
__X
This
Q
discontinuities
probably
helps
was
a
explain
in park
"strong"
the
Department,
many
but
In
shortcomings
policy, which has a poor
its
and
record when
compared with some more recent areas of environmental policy.
Environmental Policy Agencies in Brazil
In order to better evaluate the role of the Departamento of
Agriculture's Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal as
manager of the park system, this section will develop a discussion
about other government agencies and institutions with environmental
policy responsibilities.
There is hardly a shortage of them.
Ranking above all is the
Secretaria, mentioned in the previous section, created by Decree
73030, October 30, 1973.
mandated
^
to
"monitor
It deserves a few paragraphs.
environmental
changes,
identify
It was
adverse
,a>,
0
30
^
developments and act to correct them", assist other agencies in the
3
"rational
7"
standards", "train personnel", procure funds for "reclamation of
^
polluted or depleted areas", help preserve "endangered species",
use
of
natural
resources",
establish
"rules
and
establish a checklist of "polluting agents and noxious substances"
<=*,
and develop "environmental education" . *0
0
worthy of a whole Department, or at least an agency similar to the
X
US Environmental Protection Agency.
^
Indeed, these were tasks
Eduardo Viola states that the agency was created "with the
7
sole
purpose
^
agencies" worried about environmental impacts of large development
projects.
of
complying
with demands
of some
international
Another source considers the Secretaria as a consequence
-=*j
of the famous Environmental Conference in Stockholm, in 1972.
0
Secretaria's head for 12 years - a very long tenure for Brazilian
^
standards - was Paulo Nogueira Neto, a Biologist.
tO
of the Secretaria vary from fining local governments which destroy
;'
mangroves, developing pollution control techniques with World Bank
•'*)
funding or allotting funds for
execute
pollution
abatement
Routine duties
local governments who
projects.1!
Over
The
the
agree to
years
the
Secretaria broadened its responsibilities, including the creation
0
and management of two types of protected areas to be studied in
^
Chapter 4: ecological stations and environmental protection areas.
tO
The Secretaria's broadest arm is the Conselho Nacional do Meio
^
Ambiente
(or Conselho}, a National Environmental Council, created
^
in 1983 by Decree
88351.
The Conselho is coordinated
Secretaria and is the nation's
by the
highest forum for environmental
31
policy.
It met for the first time in June 1S85.
56 members representing
It currently has
federal and state government agencies,
workers' and employers' unions
and environmental groups.
It has
taken some landmark decisions, such as requiring environmental
impact statements for all projects affecting the environment and
a ban on all alcohol mills in the vicinity of the Mato Grosso
Swampland.
It achieved the feat of making Brazilian "nucleocrats"
bend to the law and produce impact statements on nuclear plants
under construction.
A list of the Conselho's priorities for 1985
included pesticide legislation, training teachers for environmental
education
and fixing
emission
standards
for motor vehicles.12
Although the Secretaria and the Conselho have been reshuffled into
newly created Departments after 1985 they are both very active.
They will the backbone of an Environment Department, if ever one
comes to be in Brazil.
The next section will have more to say
about both.
In
the
environmental
impacts.
may
help
federal
Executive
protection
area
duties
many
and/or
other
generate
agencies
have
environmental
The list cannot possibly be exhausted here but a sampling
envision
the
complex
environmental policy in Brazil.
institutional
framework
of
The Brazilian Census agency, for
instance, has an office called Supren dedicated exclusively to
natural resource data and research.
Recently this office even
adventured itself to coordinate an ambitious "Ecological-Economic
Zoning Plan Proposal", although void of any executive powers to do
so.
Surprisingly, the Census
agency
also has a small nature
32
preserve of its own, 1.3 km2 of cerrado
'
near Brasilia.
(savanna-like terrain)
'
~
*
H
"
'
i
!
T
:
™
M
'
In 1986 the agency closed this facility and was
trying to pass it on to another agency with activities acre akin
to running preserves.13
A new Irrigation Department created in 1985 brought together
two agencies which generate large impacts on the environment: the
Departamento Nacional de Obras Contra as Secas
(drought-relief)
and the Departamento Nacional de Obras de Saneamento
(sanitation).
The Institute Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia researches rational
use of forests and supports
the crucial project that seeks to
determine "minimum critical areas" of tropical forests required to
sustain biological diversity.
Espaciais
monitors
fires,
The Institute Nacional de Pesquisas
atmospheric -pollution
and
logging
operations through satellite pictures.
Even the inconspicuous and recently
created Department of
Culture affects environmental policy and park policy in particular.
Ordinance 818/87 extended a tax incentive law
cultural and artistic purposes)
efforts.
(originally
for
to environmental preservation
The Conselho reacted quickly and defined how private
citizens and companies could help preserve the environment and get
tax breaks.
They can now donate money, specimens or equipment or
otherwise sponsor research and educational activities in ecological
stations, national parks and preserves, environmental protection
areas,
botanical
gardens
and
other
preservation
units.
The
Department of Culture also spent some of its meager budget money
in
the
identification
and
preservation
of
Brazil's
"natural
-^
^
^
heritage".
33
Some of this money was injected directly into the Sete
Cidades National Park, for purposes not specified.14
—^
An experimental farm for the breeding of a sub-species of
J^
cattle was created by the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agro-
^
Pecuaria, an agriculture technology research company.
/
—^
-^
—"*i
The purpose
was to preserve the sub-species, very well adapted to the arid
landscape of the Brazilian Northeast.
Also under the Department
of Agriculture is the Superintendencia Nacional da Pesca, the major
fisheries authority.
A regional development agency, seemingly on
__^
its own initiative, created three "ecological preserves" in areas
~O
affected by its projects.
Army, Navy and Air Force personnel have
^
participated together with the Federal Police in the repression of
3
illegal hunting in the Mato Grosso Swampland.^
~"
Mining and Energy, Land Reform and Transportation Departments
--**•>
have agencies that regulate or affect the environment in many ways.
Dozens of federal government companies active in natural resource
^
use
0
mining, etc) could also be mentioned. Most of these companies are
^
now investing considerable sums of money in pollution abatement,
^
reclamation and environmental impact studies, under the pressure
^
of international financial agencies.
^
(oil production, hydroelectric plants, energy transmission,
On the state level the proliferation of agencies is more
-'
recent and just as impressive.
Nowadays just about every State
a*
government has one or all of three kinds of environmental agencies.
The first are Environment Departments,
X
sometimes autonomous and
sometimes lumped together with Health, Public Works or Agriculture.
-X
34
-~^
Their activities are still in the stage of definition, for most of
—^
them are less then five years old.
State parks and preserves are
under their authority, for example.
Nonetheless, they seem to act
more through the other two type of agencies.
^
O
'^
-^)
Environmental pollution control and monitoring companies are
the second type.
They are much like Washington State's Department
of Ecology in their personnel and responsibilities, but they are
public
foundations.
Their
staffs
are
typically
composed of
Engineers, Biologists, Chemists and experts in sanitation.
-^
\
Some
of these companies have acquired a fame for being very strict with
polluters and with impacting projects.
They monitor air and water
J^
quality, do clean-ups, set standards, research, license activities,
O
map pollution sources and apply fines.
^
than the respective Departments, they are under their authority.
•*)
More
^
recently,
these
companies'
Although in general older
powers
were
enhanced
by
the
Conselho, as will be explained below.
-=•*.
The third type of state environmental authority are "councils"
or "commissions". They bring together state and local authorities,
,^
tD
.'XA\
business and community representatives and environmental groups.
Several States have them.
role, but
they
are
instrumental
in
extracting
Generally they have only a consultive
regulations and
«y
-*}
action from otherwise sluggish local agencies and in publicizing
/7/iSb.
~* .3^
important
issues.
They
are
particularly
important
for local
••^
environmental groups, which frequently will have in them their only
rf3*\
***,
real chance of influencing public policy.16
An important recent
trend are the special "Environmental
-5
~^)
Curator" offices.
Several State General Attorneys have created
them and assigned
attorneys
dedicated exclusively to prosecute
3
-—',
-^
violators of environmental regulations and laws.
major
At least four
States have adopted such a procedure, including Rio de
_^
Janeiro and Sao Paulo.
O
than 500 suits
Between 1985 and 1987 this resulted in more
in those
four States.
This is a surprising
development, considering how slowly the Brazilian Judiciary system
O
reacts to "modern" issues such as environmental ones.1?
One reference source for 1986 mentions the existence of 285
_3
•"•**)
governmental agencies dedicated to environmental protection in
3
-~-™\
Brazil, although no list or source is given. Considering the many
agencies in the federal and state levels and the numerous ones in
O
larger cities's governments, the figure is not absurd.
^
conservation
O
1974,
^
environmental agencies in activity at that time.
-")
point,
•^
^
quantitative and qualitative" to evaluate environmental problems,
-^
despite so many
w
upsurge of supervisory control for better use of natural resources
^
and
"^
inefficiency is not a privilege of environmental agencies, but
;^
bureaucratic fragmentation does seem to be a major feature of the
;^)
institutional framework of Brazil's environmental policy.
-s.
Environmental Laws and Regulations
activist, Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros, writing in
estimated
though,
better
A veteran
in
as
more
he
than
wrote,
agencies.
environmental
one
was
hundred
that
Barros would
Brazil
the
number
The decisive
still
prefer "...a
management" .*• 8
of
"lacks
serious
Administrative
36
^
A very long chapter could be written about the origin and
ss^
^
current state of Brazilian environmental laws and regulations, even
SF
^
**>,
if restricted to the ones directly applicable to land use and park
policy.
This section will present a sketch of the more immediate
*-N
—/j
**>.
_-|l
^
legal setting in which Brazilian parks, preserves and similar units
survive.
3
for the analysis of park policy
^
democratic land policy.
3
the enfiteuse romana system of land grants.
^
leased vast portions of land to "respected and chosen" men who
-^
would pay annual fees for the "rights to use, transfer to heirs
Probably the most relevant historical trend in Brazilian law
is the total absence of a
Portugal applied to its Brazilian colony
The king of Portugal
0
and sell".
Leasers had full judicial, fiscal and military powers
^
and could sub-lease at their will.
3
tried to stimulate the occupation of its vast colony by its not too
This was how small Portugal
numerous subjects without spending the crown's money and actually
collecting
some.
It
should
be
noted
here
that
Portugal's
inquisitional Catholic conservatism barred any meaningful stream
of Protestant, Puritan, Jewish or Moslem migration to Brazil until
late in the 19th century. Portugal's colonial enterprise in Brazil
was therefore strongly conditioned by its small population, its
religious intolerance and by the absence of vast legions of free
men seeking smaller tracts of land.
Although the enfiteuse romana system was changed over three
centuries
of
colonial
rule,
even
the more
recent
Portuguese
occupation of parts of the Amazon region still relied on the same
^
37
basic
system.
Until
today
Portuguese
royal
charters may be
——,
exhibited as titles by local landowners, although their legal
~3
validity is now "questionable".
The leasing
system survived
^
through the Brazilian Imperial regime (1822-1889).
The Emperor
2)
issued documents called cartas-sesmarias, donating "uncultivated
^
lands" to persons who could create "rural establishments".
^
really meant giving large tracts of non-cultivated land exclusively
This
to rich men who could build extensive, slave-worked plantations.
^
In 1824 the first Brazilian Constitution guaranteed unrestricted
~O
private property of the land, although government could buy out any
^
3
owner for reasons of "public welfare".*9
Tne
first Republican Constitution
(1891)
maintained the
-.-f'3e\y invoked "public welfare" acquisition clause but it also gave
..?&>,.
all public lands to each State to do as it pleased.
Restrictions
-«*•'
~^*).
^
_,../^\
applied only to international borders, military installations and
railroads. A Brazilian park expert says that the 1891 Constitution
O
failed to put government as "controller and protector" of the land
^
and its natural resources, certainly an unrealistic role to expect
^
of the Brazilian government at that time.
^
privately owned
-*";
latif undios, even though Brazil received between 1890 and 1914 a
massive
-*,
/»,
^
-*"
^
influx
immigrants.
workers
in large
of
2
or extremely
million
Land continued to be
large holdings called
land-hungry
European
and
Asian
With few exceptions, they were absorbed as salaried
in farms and cities, not as smallholders.
With the
exception of some sections of the States of Santa Catarina and Rio
Grande do Sul, not even then was there an important democratic land
policy.
The second Republican Constitution
(1934), in its Article 10,
included a first and vague environmental provision.
The Union and
the
beauties and
States
should
"cooperate
to protect natural
valuable historic and artistic monuments".
with the States, though.
conditioned
States
"Historical,
The third Republican Constitution
concession of public lands of 100 km2
to Senate
protecting
Public lands remained
approval.
scenic
But
landscapes.
artistic
and
it was
Its
natural
more
or
(1937)
"ore by the
emphatic
about
Article
135
stated
that
monuments
and
particularly
important scenery and natural sites warrant the protection of the
Union, States and Municipios".
Any crime against these features
was equalled to crimes "against the national heritage".
The fourth Republican Constitution reintroduced
the "public
welfare" clause for government buy-outs of private property not
contributing
lands
to the "social welfare" of all Brazilians.
lingered
on
in the
hands
of
the
States.
Public
Article
175
reinstated the 1937 "environmental" provision: "Works, monuments
and documents of artistic value, and also monuments and sites of
particular beauty, are to be protected by government".
Public
lands and associated taxes returned to the authority of central
government only
after a Constitutional
November 10, 1964).
Amendment
(number 10,
Buy-outs would be paid with special "public
debt titles", and not necessarily in cash.20
The truth is that Brazilian government, colonial, Imperial or
Republican, federal, state or local, never controlled public lands
39
with a clearly stated policy of democratic land tenure.
Nothing
resembling a Jeffersonian agrarian democracy was ever active in
Brazilian public land policy.
tracts
by powerful
trends.
Public lands were occupied in large
individuals,
according
to local
expansion
Although Brazil did not and does not have a "frontier
democracy", the reason was not an active
state that directly
withheld land from prospective smallholders.
The private power of
the landed classes and the absence of the state combined to control
access to land.
This historical non-policy guaranteed an overall
pattern of large holdings, with very few micro-regional exceptions.
No class of smallholders
emerged in Brazil.
In other words,
central government's record in dealing with public lands has been
an unconditional surrender to the interests of the landed classes,
or plain
lack
extensive
of will
latifundios
to act against
were
never
those
object
of
interests.
The
conservation
or
preservation meausres by their wasteful owners.
As industrial modernization hit Brazil, land reform became a
delicate
issue.
Populist
military
dictatorships
democracy promised
broke
the
promise.
land
reform but
Anyway,
it
is
interesting to stress here that Brazil's park policy developed, for
some
time,
an
uncomfortable
explosive land reform issue.
but
inevitable kinship
with the
This was caused by Law 4504, November
30, 1964, called Estatuto da Terra
(Land Law).
This progressive
land reform law stated that "private property of the land plays its
full social role only when, together with its fair distribution and
adequate use, it assures the conservation of natural resources".
O
-j•>,
~^)
40
In other words, conservation became
a legal
reason for
government acquisition of private property for purposes of land
reform, on the same and controversial status as "fair" distribution
w
^
~***r
and "adequate" use.
The central government could legally select
.-^7'
O
private lands for reform or for conservation, and eventually for
}
X
w
O
both. The fifth Constitution
(1967) reinstated the principle of
"public welfare" for private property and kept public lands under
_-_.JEa^
^
o
federal control.
But a specific Decree-Law
(554, April 25, 1969}
~)
authorized the acquisition of lands for national parks with a
w
conspicuous exception
•sie*'
3
-^
in the case of "rural enterprises", or
private productive farms as defined by the Land Law.2l
This was
•*#&*
3
JL^
3
for all practical purposes a veto on national parks in the vicinity
of such "productive" properties.
No national parks were created out of the 1964 Land Law,
-- •^"^
~
though.
^.
dictatorships
-»'
incorporated public lands that had been set aside for land reform
-^
projects, but this seems to have been incidental. Serra da Bocaina
"O
Most
of
was
the
timid
executed
on
land
reform
public
of
lands.
the
military
Some parks
vasa-V
^
National Park, in Rio de Janeiro state, studied in Chapter 11, was
Z,
one of these parks.
As will be shown, other legislation and
Q
^a»,
7'
rationales prevailed
for
,:J4A.,
the park
policy.
This
temporary
convergence of land reform policy and conservation or preservation
•^
^
policy did more harm than good to the cause of national parks. As
,»zrsi^
landowners successfully resisted the application of the 1964 Land
•=^y
—,.
-^
Law, conservation, preservation and national parks acquired a "bad
name" by being in the company of landless peasant issues.
41
Frequently cited in articles on Brazilian conservation laws
are two otherwise obscure colonial statutes.
The Regulamento do
Pau Brasil
("Brazil-Wood Statute"), issued on December 12, 1605,
instituted
"special
licenses"
for
cutting
the
brazil-wood
(Caesalpina echinata) , a dye-bearing tree that lent its name to the
colony.
"^
remaining trees, calling for "...precautions for the conservation
of
-—»
A royal ordinance of 1797 still strived to protect the
forests
in
destruction".22
Brazil,
in
order
to
avoid
their
ruin
and
Both statutes were ineffectual: wild brazil-wood
w
trees are rare, even having long outlived their industrial utility
_X
as sources of dye. Besides, the Portuguese authorities were caring
D
much more about their royalties in the wood trade than about the
^
\
preservation of forests in far away Brazil.
Portuguese legal tradition did give Brazil's land-use laws at
least one more substantial and utterly underrated trait.
--^
•^y
*&*,
^J
^
^
3
Squeezed
against the Atlantic Ocean, the sea-faring Portuguese established
that shorelines could
Guaranteed
public
never be under
access
to
"full private property".
the seashore
commercial and military reasons.
was important for
This principle was transferred
Z
to the Brazilian colony.
In 1670-1680, for example, the population
^)
of Rio de Janeiro confronted the private Jesuit order when it
^
blocked public access to local mangroves.
The Jesuits lost the
•asSP'
**.
--<*&
case. Shoreline properties were "conceded" by the Portuguese crown
atr^
^^
>v
—
in colonial times, but beaches and intertidal areas were always
under the "public domain".
--^
-~s
The principle survived until today.
On September 4, 1946,
w
42
-X
Decree Law 9760 reaffirmed it and extended it to river and lake
0
banks with tidal activity.
^
this means an extensive area on both banks for almost 1,200 km up
~"^
from the Atlantic, not including smaller areas in tributaries.
Therefore,
these
lands
In the case of the Amazon river alone
cannot
be
legally
owned
by
anyone.
--5.
Government, if it wants, can
control all human activities on
-.-'
them.23
.1 I
CD
the extension of Atlantic and riverine intertidal lands. Extensive
This legislation is indeed a neglected one, considering
shoreline management can be based on this statute.
^
A landmark legislation with conservation purposes and effects
^}
was the Codigo de Aguas
("Water Code"), Decree 24643, July 10,
-"'
1934.
^
resources, which became both government controlled resources.
^
water works
X
all mineral prospecting and extraction
O
ever since been done directly by federal government agencies or
^
companies or by private enterprise through specific concessions.24
It dissociated private land ownership from water and mineral
All
(dams, hydroelectric plants, supply, irrigation) and
(including petrol)
have
-d
^
Given
government's
massive
participation
in
economic
jif-^
activities, though, water and mineral resources have frequently
•^
-\n used with little or no rationality.
In a fast-growing economy
--
with intense government investments, state operated companies can
^
be
J)
Development is the overriding concern of government companies, for
whom conservation, preservation and reclamation are still very
J&>!\
as rapacious
and short-sighted
as any private business.
fj
"2s
alien
concepts.
-•"-
hydroelectric
As
and oil
mentioned
companies
earlier, Brazil's
big
mining,
are currently being forced by
43
foreign and international finance groups to present environmental
impact statements about their activities.
They resist this more
than many private companies.
1934 brought another important statute, Decree 23793, dated
January 23.
first
It was called Codigo Florestal
article
considered
as
stated
being
flatly
of
("Forest Code").
that all forests
"common
Its
in Brazil were
interest" to all
Brazilians.
Private property rights over them were therefore limited. In this
sense, no forest had been privately owned in Brazil since 1934.
Forests were classified in Articles 4 through 7 as "protective"
"remaining", "model" and "productive".
Protective forests were
those conserving water, soils and dunes, defending borders (sic),
public health, natural beauties and rare species.
those in national, state and municipal parks
the time) .
least
a
(there were none at
Model forests were the planted ones
few
extensive
eucalyptus
Productive forests were all others.
Remaining were
(there were at
plantations in
Sao
Paulo).
The first two types were to
be "permanently conserved",25
Article 9 brought the first legal reference ever to national,
state and municipal parks.
They were defined as
public natural monuments perpetuating in their
original floral composition sections of the
country that for special circumstances deserve
to receive such treatment.
All
activities
prohibited.
detrimental
to
their
flora
and
fauna
were
The Department of Agriculture was mandated to decide
where parks should be created.
Privately owned forests could be
V3S/
x
—-^
44
included in them, with adequate compensation
for owners.
3
Many other articles spelled out details of forestry practices
X
and procedures for public bidding for logging rights in productive
'~~'"j
^
—3
forests.
A
do Ri°
de Janeiro
O
Florestal
("Federal
Forestry
Janeiro
do Brasil
(natural history museum), Jardim Botanico do Rio
(botanical garden), Universidade Federal do Rio de
(Brazil's
Producao Vegetal
;_I^
Federal
Council") was created with representatives from the Museu Nacional
de Janeiro
-^
Conselho
largest university), Service de Fomento da
(an Agriculture Department office), Touring Club
(a private tourism organization), Departamento Nacional
de Estradas
(road-building
^
Florestal
'j
"four specialists".26
authority) and the Service Federal
(another office of the Agriculture Department), besides
This Council had an important role in the
creation of the first Brazilian national parks, between 1937 and
w
1939.
The Service Federal Florestal
been created in 1921.
At
first
(Federal Forest Service) had
it dedicated itself only to
3
planting trees in the city of Rio de Janeiro.
It lacked funding,
^
authority and even public lands to manage.
Only with the 1934
Q
Forest Code did it start some long range forestry work.
/%&,
•^
least it had a mandate for managing some forests lands in public
and private lands.
Now at
The agency was active also in the selection of
some areas later instituted
as national parks.
It was also the
flf^^
^
first agency to manage national parks. It was reorganized in 1942.
^y
0
Apparently, only on September 9, 1944, did it gain a specific park
^
office,
called
Secao
de
Parques
Nacionais
("National
Park
45
Section"), which managed Brazilian parks until 1967.
1934, according to one author, brought about an "authentic
conservation movement" in Brazil, with the Water Code, the Forest
Code, the creation of Animal and Plant Health Services, the Hunting
and Fishing Code and the Irrigation, Reforestation and Colonization
Service.
It should be added, though, that this not correspond to
any important social movement in favor of conservation and that
actual initiatives were quite rare in the following years. Neither
was the legacy great.
Warren Dean found only two forest preserves
extant in Brazil before 1934.
One was in Sao Paulo, donated by
Herman von Ihering, a foreign conservationist to be mentioned in
Chapter 3.
The other was in Rio de Janeiro state, in the future
site of Brazil's first national park.2?
Significantly, it was a
forest practices act that brought the first legal reference to
national parks.
Parks were created by a forestry law and managed
by a forestry agency from the beginning.
As will be shown, this
situation remains until today.
For more
than
30 years
the general
legal
framework for
environmental policy and specifically for national parks policy did
not go through any substantive change.
remarkable enough to be mentioned.
Only two legal acts are
First came the Codigo de Caca,
a new Hunting Code, introduced by Decree Law 5894 in 1943.
other
things
it determined
that government
private breeding of wild animals.
should
Among
"stimulate"
It could use public lands as
"breeding and refuge areas" and later transform them into national
parks. This seems to have been practically ineffectual, except for
_r;
46
•aJ
~^)
a single case.
_^
•w1
~~~)
studied in Chapter 4, had its origin in such a preserve.
Second
Sooretama National
came a very rare
Biological Preserve, to be
Legislative Decree, number
3, of
A^»/
S3^
—'
-^
—^
February 13, 1948, by which the Brazilian Congress approved the
"Convention for Protection
of Flora, Fauna and Natural
Scenic
-W
-^
Beauties
of
the American
Nations".
This
was
a
comprehensive
-^x,
_^
international
agreement signed by a Brazilian representative on
"3
December 27, 1940.
This allegiance was belated and formal.
It
^
took almost 20 years more for the Brazilian Executive to ratify the
-^
Convention, through the Decree 58054, of March 26, 1966.28
The Novo Codigo Florestal
-^
("New Forest Code") established by
Law 4771, September 15, 1965, was the first major legal innovation
to affect park policy since 1934.
_.,^
It was in preparation
since
1948, when Congress created a committee to review the 1934 Forest
0
Code, already seen as ineffectual.
Article 1 again considered
^
forests and "other vegetation forms" as being common interest of
^
all Brazilians, justifying
"limits" to their private ownership.
Violations of the Code were classified as "harmful use of private
^
property" and subject to Civil Code punishments.
Article 2 spelled
out the floral covers to be "permanently preserved": along rivers
(according
to
width),
around
lakes,
lagoons,
reservoirs
and
watersheds, on hilltops, on steep slopes, on beach dunes and,
finally,
all vegetation
above
the altitude
of 1,800
m.
The
consideration of floral covers in general - as opposed to only
forests - and the stricter definition of which vegetation was to
be protected permanently were an improvement.
Article 3 warned
47
that other vegetation forms could also be declared as permanently
preserved to avoid erosion, fix dunes, protect roads, preserve
sites of extraordinary beauty or scientific and historical value,
save habitats and protect indigenous populations.
Article 5 defined parks and preserves should be:
Government will create...National, State and
Municipal Parks and Biological Preserves, with
the objective of safekeeping
exceptional
natural
attributes,
reconciling
full
protection
of flora, fauna and
natural
beauties
with
use
for
educational,
recreational and scientific purposes.
This was the most authoritative
national parks until its day.
and broad legal definition
It remains as the ultimate legal
basis for Brazil's 28 national parks.
breath, introduced
of
But Article 5, in the same
"National, State and Municipal Forests", with
"economic, technical and social" purposes.
This was a modernized
definition of the "productive" forests of the 1934 Forest Code.
"Protective" forests were not mentioned, although many of them had
been created under the authority of the 1934 statute.29
Therefore,
national parks were again defined by a forest practices act.
At
least there was a better definition of parks and a clear, distinct
concept of national forests.
Article 6 of the New Forest Code included a provision that
allowed privately owned forests to be classified as "permanent
private preservation" units.
As pointed out by one experienced
Brazilian conservationist, this procedure could be important in
view of government's continual
ineffectiveness in preservation.
He recalls several other statutes and even an Institute ordinance
V
:3
X
3
48
(327/1977)
giving tax breaks to land owners who voluntarily adopt
_T
•*-*
3
preservation and conservation measures.30
••y'
5197, January 3, 1967, called Animal Protection Act.
"~,
further details about the "National, State and Municipal biological
—
preserves" announced in the New Forest Code.
^
preservation of rare or unique specimens of fauna or flora.
O
wild or domestic animals could be used, hunted or introduced in
^
them. All changes in the environment were prohibited.
"^j
-**
j*
research, with restrictions, could be authorized in them. The same
-^
•^
-^
hunting parks".3!
Another Brazilian law directly related to preservation is Law
It gave
They were for the
No
Scientific
law created also the possibility of "National, State and Municipal
This act is the legal basis of Brazil's current
15 national biological preserves.
-^
Two years later the new Constitution drafted by a military
v«9^
D
junta,
**
separation of land ownership from the ownership of all mineral and
O
hydric resources.
-^
of art and sites of historical or artistic value, as well as
"^
monuments, exceptional natural features and archeological sites"
•«!-•
were under "special protection" of government authorities .3 2
o•^
in
principle
its Article
of
168,
reinstated
the 1934
Water
Code
Article 180 reiterated that "documents, works
preserving
cultural
and
natural
sites
The
seems,
^s?^
/&f&^
,y
therefore, to have found a secure niche in Brazilian Constitutions.
X
From 1979
until 1988 there has been a surge of important
•v*?*"
Q
environmental
legislation
conservation drive of 1934.
park
policy.
and
policies.
broader
than
the
Some of this effort affected directly
Others proposed new
types of protected lands.
-MY
"3
-—*)
-^
49
Others, still, were of a more broad nature.
On September 21, 1979,
^e-^
Decree
84017 approved the first Management Code for Brazilian
— JG*^
national parks.
~J
—^
84973,
June
This code will be analyzed in Chapter 4.
29,
1980,
came
as
environmental
reply
O
..«^
J^
inefficiency, secrecy and high costs.
~2)
localization" of nuclear plants and ecological stations.
Decree
from
the
Brazilian nuclear energy program to the rising criticism about its
It established
the "coAt that
_^ga^
~~*
time the nuclear program was thriving and aiming at 18 power plants
-^
in 20 years.
"...do
a
Ecological stations next to each power plant would
precise
observation
obviously
the
_^
environment."
O
expression was not used in the statute.33
X
Although
of
characteristics
of
this meant monitoring,
the
this
Some nuclear agencies' money did go into ecological stations
'^}
on the shoreline of Sao Paulo state, where nuclear plants were
^
planned
"^
Janeiro, where the first three nuclear plants were actually being
-"
built without ecological stations in their vicinity.
-^
the nuclear program has come to a virtual halt and it is very
w
unlikely
^
concluded in the near future.
O
nuclear policy and public protected lands seems to have failed.
to be built.
But no funds were released for Rio de
At any rate,
that any of the 18 projected nuclear plants will be
Therefore, this combination of
^
The Secretaria had already begun creating its ecological
^
stations and environmental protection areas since the late 1970's
•^
when they were codified by Law 6902, April 27, 1981.
Decree S617£,
July 6, 1981, created "special areas of tourist interest" and
.j
"sites of tourist interest".34
These units will be studied in
50
Chapter 4 .
The most important of all recent environmental statutes is Law
6938, August 31, 1981, called National Environmental Policy Act.
It pulled together many different laws and regulations and gave the
Secretaria Especial do Meio Ambiente a leading role in a so-called
"National Environmental System".
"preservation,
-**)
-J
upgrading
and
The law expected to foster the
restoration
of
the
level
of
environmental quality proper for life".
Its "principles" were the
maintenance
the
of
ecological
balance;
conception
of
the
environment as a "public heritage to be necessarily guaranteed and
protected"; the "rational use" of soil, water and air; ecosystem
protection; "planned use" of natural resources; zoning of pollutant
activities;
incentives
for
technological
research
in
use
of
resources; reclamation of degraded areas and protection of areas
threatened with degradation
and environmental education
in all
levels of schooling.
The law's ambition was to "make social-economic development
compatible with environmental quality and ecological balance". The
elaborate
"National Environmental
Conselho Nacional
"superior"
and
System"
do Meio Ambiente
"central"
is
described.
and the Secretaria
agencies.
The
states'
The
are its
environmental
quality companies are " regional'1 and other existing agencies are
termed as "sectional". The Conselho was to establish standards for
environmental
environmental
quality
and
for
polluting
impacts and alternatives for
projects, create fines and control
activities,
public
study
and private
fiscal benefits received by
51
polluting industries.
The law broadened the scope of lands to be protected by the
Secretaria.
Besides
ecological
stations
and
environmental
protection areas, now it gained the authority to create and manage
"ecological preserves" and "areas of relevant ecological concern",
to be studied in Chapter 4.
All permanently preserved forests and
other floral formations cited in Article 2 of the 1965 Forest Code
were
transformed
into
"ecological
preserves"
or
stations" under the authority of the Secretaria.a5
Secretaria powers were multiplied by this act.
"ecological
Therefore, the
It even put its
hands on the Institute's forest preserves without any recorded
resistance from the latter.
In 1984 a war went on between several state governments and
the Federal Executive about environmental legislation.
At least
10 states passed legislation banning or restricting severely the
manufacture, use and transportation
of pesticides.
The federal
government, under the overt pressure of multi-national pesticide
manufacturers, tried to move out of its laissez faire position on
the subject by sending a bill to Congress.
all state regulations on the matter.
Congress.36
This bill would delete
The bill was blocked in
In this case, the lack of federal initiative was
challenged by a coalition of strong states, something that has not
happened in the field of preservation and conservation.
Law 7347, July 24, 1985, was a major breakthrough for active
citizenship in Brazil.
legislation and policy.
It also had consequences for environmental
It allowed civil suits to be initiated
J
52
_X
against all who committed aggressions to consumers' rights, the
^}
historical and artistic heritage and the environment.
—/
violations in these field were until then misdemeanors subject only
-"">
to fines after violations were officially posted.
Most of the
Now, judges,
~/
civil servants, government attorneys, public agencies, foundations,
-^
private citizens and any civil association
a year"
could
initiate
suits
"constituted for at
O
least
against
violators.
If
,^
accusations are confirmed, violators are fined, charged for damages
~^)
and repairs and mandated "to do or not to do" certain things.
^
One expert judge stated that this law gave "...legitimacy to
-"}
civil associations that defend diffuse interests and seek judicial
against losses inflicted to the heritage which the association is
-"-'.
,v
-*•>
organized
ID
gained standing for legal initiative in the defense of public goods
^
to defend".3?
In other words, environmental
groups
such as parks, forests, rivers, lakes, shorelines and so on.
Q
Resolution 001, January 23, 1986, by the Conselho Nacional de
^
Meio Ambiente, opened the era of environmental impact statements
^
in Brazil.
-^
them.
/*•*
studies" for all development projects and the elimination of all
For some time environmentalists had been claiming for
J.L. Belart, for example, was in 1976 proposed "mandatory
tax breaks, fiscal incentives and credit for projects not observing
"conservation methods" spelled out in existing legislation.
The
O
Conselho's resolution
^
atmosphere of environmental concern in business, community affairs
^j
and public agencies.
Statements
became
did not go so far but it created a new
mandatory
for
licensing
any "activity
~J
53
^
capable
of
transforming
0
railroads, airports, ports, oil and gas pipelines,
^
lines,
-^
mining,
sanitation,
environment",
irrigation,
landfills,
districts.
the
drainage,
metalwork plants,
The
statements
are
including
reviewed
transmission
channelling,
log mills
and
by
roads,
dikes,
industrial
each
state's
-•**,,
environmental control company, a procedure which has strengthened
O
their authority.
_,^
for the final decisions about licensing, however.38
O
^
T^e
finally
The Conselho and the Secretaria are responsible
legislative and regulatory upsurge of the last 8 years
found
its way into
the higher
law of the land, the
~-^
"")
Constitution drafted in 1987-1988.
An "environmental front" of 60
—'
out of 550 legislators put together an environmental "chapter" and
. s%f\
-^
negotiated
it into the Constitution.
For
the first
time the
Brazilian Constitution has a chapter dedicated exclusively to the
j%*\
environment,
by
the way
still
a
rarity
in
the
international
--•*y
O
constitutional scene.
/Sa£X
^
"*;
Two articles, four paragraphs and seven items comprise this
constitutional feat.
Its main sponsor was Fabio Feldman, a young
representative
Sao
^r-.^
-*'
from
Paulo
with
a
record
in
the
local
^.-sfc.J
/x*
environmental movement.
The main provisions are:
s%f\s responsibility for "preserving and restoring basic
(1) public
- ~,:*fS
^
,D
ecological processes"; (2) preservation of the "genetic pool"; (3)
mandatory environmental impact statements; (4) obligation of all
^i»S
^
.^
3
States and Territories
to create and manage preservation and
conservation units, to be altered only by law; (5) public control
--•^
over toxic substances, from manufacture to usage; (6) environmental
Z"
54
'•^
education in all levels of schooling; (7) protection of flora and
t^
«*»,
-^
•~J
^
fauna; (8) reclamation of mining lands; (9) aggressions to the
environment
are
to
be
treated
as
crimes,
as
opposed
to
misdemeanors; (10) "national heritage" status for all forests,
•"**,
~^
^
3
shorelines and the Mato Grosso Swampland;
(11) prohibition of
selling public lands without owners or squatters.39
.,£>*,
-"
^
-~i
,-*»,
It is clear that these constitutional provisions did not mean
a great leap from the standing legislation.
The most innovative
were the transformation of environmental law violations in crimes
jvfTfc,
-«*/'
^h)
and the veto on sales of unsettled public lands.
The most relevant
for park policy was the one mandating states to create, manage and
X
^^
^
protect parks and preserves.
Other than that, the constitutional
chapter on the environment is a summary of the best or most needed
'^H
policy instruments.
""*•
Environmentalists spent a lot of energy to see this chapter
--^
//flGfc,
through the floor of a very conservative Constitutional Assembly.
/2*s
-»V
/^
^
Of course they expect to benefit from the overriding authority of
constitutional principles.
Two crucial points remain: (1) how much
'^
citizen activism will be needed to make government agencies perform
^
their mandated responsibilities; (2) how permeable will regulatory
/,*x
~~^
and executive agencies be to such activism?
-_!5~'
^
A veteran conservation activist and scientist, Ibsen de Gusmao
X«-.
Camara, writing in 1976, concluded that Brazil "..already has a
-of*
.. ^_&s
reasonably adequate legal structure" for environmental protection.
rfSafe,
Ee was writing before the 1979-1988 surge of laws.
^T
What really
worried him was the reality of the general population's "lack of
3
3
3
—•'
----,
55
interest"
in
environmental
matters,
government
agencies's
inefficiency and business1 attraction to "easy profits".40
He was
3
obviously correct in worrying about these things, because they do
3
not change with laws, decrees, regulations or constitutions.
;^
Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros, also writing in the 1970's, noted
"^
that many existing "conservation laws" lacked "technical basis".
Practical and specific laws are immediately revoked, he said, while
-~)
unpractical and generic laws survive despite their inapplicability.
He pointed to the deficiencies of national park legislation: no
3
prior geographical or ecological studies and no appropriations for
3
personnel, installations or land acquisition.
3
these traits "assure the reversibility
^
national parks.4!
The comments
Barros argued that
of decisions" related to
of both Camara and Barros are
relevant to other field of environmental law and policy.
•>**..
Good laws
still need social support and bad laws fizzle even with social
support.
3
In conclusion, Brazil's environmental problems will not be
3
left unchecked for lack of agencies and laws.
3
..*.-•
fin)
is the effectiveness of both.
"*••
"^
The central issue
It should be mentioned, though, that
a fast growing country under authoritarian rule like Brazil did
more progress than could be expected in the fields of environmental
law and policy.
Anyway, national park and preserve statutes can and should be
—,
perfected. National parks are part of forestry policy; biological
preserves are defined in a hunting code.
„,"
Serious problems arise
in preservation units because of these ambiguities, as will be
56
shown in subsequent chapters.
Another problem is the existence of
so many other types of preserved
different agencies.
lands under the authority of
This has contributed to blur the tentative
identity of national parks and preserves and to disperse scarce
managerial energies.
A more concerted effort for managing public
protected lands is clearly needed.
legislative
management
reform
defining
objectives
and,
This could start with a general
better
of
each
course,
type
of
guaranteeing
unit,
its
adequate
funding.
Citizens organization
and input are crucial, together with
government permeability to both.
Democratic rule and institutions
are needed for environmental regulations to be minimally effective
in
Brazil.
Many
recent
decades
and
different
types
of
authoritarian rule have only stimulated bureaucratic fragmentation,
administrative inefficiency and political irresponsibility, in all
field of government.
^
CHAPTER 3
The Brazilian Park Service in Action
0
Preservation and Conservation Ideas in Brazil
Brazilian nature preservation
and conservation
have contributed to shape the national park system.
ideas couid
Thus, a short
sketch on the matter will be presented before a more extensive
discussion
of the Brazilian park service and policy.
there
a
was
string
of
environmentally
concerned
Although
writers, no
autonomous Brazilian strain of environmental thought presided the
creation of the country's national parks.
From the beginning the
concept of national park was an imported idea. The oldest specific
reference
to national parks
known
to be made by
a Brazilian
continues to be a statement by
•* Andre Reboucas in 1876.
(1838-1898)
engineering
was
a rare
degree
and
case of a free Black who
became
a
very
well
Reboucas
earned an
accomplished
professional. He was active in tne construction or rerorm oi maj^j.
Brazilian coastal ports, including Rio's.
An outstanding slavery
reform activist, he wrote regularly about Brazil's agriculture,
forests, railroads, transports and social problems.
^
He was particularly worried
His 1876
plea
about deforestation
for national
parks
and land
X
depletion.
^5
America's recent Yellowstone
~"
followed.
«,
Two national parks were created exactly in areas that he suggested:
National Park as an example to be
A curious detail has kept alive the memory of his plea.
Bananal island
(the largest fluvial island in the world, on which
--•«>,
Araguaia NP is located)
"—•'
where the extinct Sete Quedas NP was located) .
: X
in Brazil cited
and Sete Quedas
(the Parana river rapids
More than an environmentalist or a nature appreciator, though,
O
Reboucas was a dedicated social reformer.
^
fought for slavery abolition, free labor, free enterprise, land
^}
reform for Black slaves and public education.
author puts
it,
Reboucas
He wrote about and
As one Brazilian
was not against modernization.
He
considered large land holdings and Black slavery responsible for
the waste of natural resources in Brazil.1
i ^
Therefore, Reboucas'
pioneer Brazilian national park proposal was sparked directly by
O
the
~^
remembered today essentially as a progressive social reformer and
~' ^
American
example
of
Yellowstone.
Anyway,
Reboucas
is
an efficient engineer, not as an environmentalist.
Colonial
accounts, according
to
the
pioneering
study of
Brazil's "political ecology" by Jose Augusto Padua, were dominated
by two perspectives: the religious or magic
earthly
"paradise"
and
"renaissance-mercantile"
third perspective.
the
view.
scientific
"discovery"
or
of an
entrepreneurial
Pious missionaries
introduced a
Rather frequently they tried to defend Native
Americans from slavery, displacement and death.
But at the same
time they systematically broke the Natives' cultural backbone with
relentless Catholic preaching.
More often than not, the two first
perspectives
were
and
environmental
disasters"
one
party
or
compatible
led
to
the
"succession
of
which composes Brazil's history: while
generation
ecstatically
admired
the "paradise",
another party or the next generation conquered and subdued it for
profit.2
J.A. Padua concentrates
observers
who escaped
his study on the few writers and
the environmentally
lethal dichotomy of
"laudatory rhetoric" and "relentless destruction".
even
those who
were most
enthusiastic
about
In general,
Brazil's natural
landscape were not practical in their suggestions to conserve it.
Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva, a leading Brazilian politician
in the country's Independence process, was a conservation pioneer.
Although politically moderate, as a constitutional monarchist, he
strongly favored slavery abolition.
This was enough to leave him
stranded from vital elite support.
Silva proposed a "new type of
relationship between man and nature" in Brazil, in a way that
Donald Worster would
exploitation"
deem
of resources
"imperialist".
on
He wanted "rational
sustainable bases, warning
that
almost all countries that "lost their forests" were "sterile ana
uninhabited".
As First Minister
of Brazil's first independent
government in 1822, Silva planned to gradually abolish slavery,
"integrate" Native Americans, take advantage of Brazil's abundant
natural resources without plundering them and stimulate a stable
or resource conserving agriculture.3
Of course Silva did not last
"O
60
^
long in his post. The environmentally destructive combination of
-^
slavery, large holdings and export agriculture was unharmed by his
short tenure.
-^
Joaquim Nabuco was a contemporary of Andre Reboucas.
Like
O
Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva, he combined a preference for
_X,
constitutional monarchy and the proposal of slavery abolition in
^)
his political credo.
He is better known as a leading slavery and
^
social reformer, but his opposition to slavery had environmental
^
colorings.
-^
responsible for depleting soils without building a stable social
legacy.
Nabuco
thought
that slave-manned plantations were
He considered even Sao Paulo's late 19th century fabulous
3
coffee richness as an illusion, because
it was a
monoculture.
^
Nabuco scolded slavery in memorable words for not populating the
\*)
territory in an adequate manner and for its failure to build a
,n^
;^
stable social structure.4
Euclides da Cunha was a late 19th century essayist with much
•*sS>
jfMt,
to say about the relationship between Brazilians and nature. Born
in a stagnant section of Rio de Janeiro Province where once coffee
had
thrived, he
scoured
Brazilians
agents" of nature destruction.
as "biologically nefarious
His critique included the Natives'
itinerant agriculture, colonial farming, mining and deforestation.
Cunha's frame of mind was that the natural setting conditions
social
evolution
and
that
rampant
nature
destruction
jeopardizing Brazil's prospects as a civilized nation.5
was
Cunha is
also remembered more as a writer and social reformer with racist,
anti-Black tendencies than as an environmental writer of any kind.
"Z
61
_.X|
Alberto Torres was another Rio de Janeiro born-essayist who
~3
wrote in the early 20th century. His little known text As Fontes
_..^x
—«»•,
-»s
da
Vida
*™~~—~-———
("The Sources of Life"), published in 1915, will certainly
put him in a preeminent position among the founding fathers of
.-*&-**,
Brazilian environmental consciousness, if ever such a consciousness
_^f^
-^
becomes widespread. Torres is for the moment very well known as
0
a political essayist and thinker. In 1915, though, he stressed the
joa,
^
"finitude
-*j
conservation, criticizing
_-af*^
resources" and for the need
of their
"scientific ideas" that defended their
perennial character. Torres criticized itinerant, export-oriented,
-s^
^
.^^
of natural
""
wasteful agriculture, specially the coffee plantations he knew so
well in Rio de Janeiro.
He defended widespread "reforestation"
^,
and
conservation" in
CD
predominantly agrarian economy with free workers and small to
/*&>*,
-ss^'
^..v
3
"natural
resource
the
context
of
a
^
medium land owners. A strong central government should command the
^
use of the nations resources,
concentrate population in regions
^a^
^
already exploited and reclaim ruined areas.
A "Friends of Alberto
•*^'
"^
Torres Society" was active in environmental and preservation causes
in the late 1920!s and early 1930's.
^
Torres most probably read
Gifford Pinchot and knew about American "progressive" conservation
•=K^
policies in the Theodore Roosevelt era.
Warren Dean states thai.
•yr^_
^
many Brazilian statesmen and scientists were well informed about
->.>
3
recent American conservation issues.6
^J'i^
"J^
Torres'
"^
contemporary
political
authoritarianism
authoritarians.
But
his
is
ideal
cherished
of
Brazil
as
by
an
agrarian country was totally ignored by modern elites addicted to
,J
—^
62
industrial
development
at
all
costs,
including
the
"social
-^
3
-t,
^
problems" characteristic
-~)
Brazilian industrial boom after World War II produced a major shift
much wanted
of industrial societies that Torres so
to avoid in Brazil.
As J.A. Padua puts it, the
-3*^
,_-*a^
—•'
in the assessment of environmental degradation, obliterating the
- —s
-—s
debate sustained
O
They correctly saw depletion as the "price of backwardness", mainly
o
^
,w
~^)
by Reboucas, Silva, Nabuco, Cunha and
slavery
and large
implied
bad
land holdings.
stewardship
the
of
the
idea
of
Torres.
They perceived that slavery
land.
The
depletion
industrial
as
the
boom
o
publicists
imposed
"price of
-~}
progress".
Modern capitalistic industrialization accelerated the
xs^
-•""^l
^
-J
-—}
rate of environmental destruction, continuing the large amount of
destruction
0
efforts.7
. stf*^
:Q
^
^
Q
produced
Manuel
Gomes
by
400
Archer
years
of
agricultural
(1821-1905)
forester, as will be shown in Chapter 10.
and mining
was Brazil's
pioneer
Between 1862 and 1874,
ST^
^\
while he was planting tens of thousands of seedlings on Rio's naked
Q
slopes,
he
wrote
reports
in
which
he
went
beyond
daily
^
accomplishments and problems, developing some far reaching ideas
/&&
~\t forestry. Archer worried about the extensive plundering of
^ae^,
Brazilian forests.
He believed his reforestation project in Rio
lla^;
-,f^
-N
could be extended
to other parts of the country, through forest
- ^-.-^5'
.^
legislation
and
forestry
schools.
Development
of
rational
1^
silviculture techniques would reclaim extensive portions of ravaged
-W
^)
forests and could even allow the State substantial revenues in
timber sales.
Archer pointed out Germany's Saxonian forests as an
63
example.8
Through his reforestation experiences and his readings
and insights. Archer was actually a predecessor - an obscure one,
to be sure - of Gifford Pinchot.
But his experience and ideas have
been all but totally forgotten in Brazil's later guidelines for
reclamation and reforestation.
An interesting and utterly obscure conservationist was Herman
von Ihering, a German forester who directed the Museu Paulista, a
natural history museum in Sao Paulo.
He was mentioned in Chapter
2
the first tract of public
as creator
of what probably
protected natural
was
area in Brazil.
In a 1911
text with strong
Pinchotian overtones, Ihering criticized Brazilians for "wasting"
their forests and for not replanting them.
He experimented with
reforestation and found that some Brazilian tree species, such as
the conifer Araucaria auaustifolia. had growth cycles of only 20
to 30 years, as compared with minimum cycles of 50 to 60 years of
European tree species.
term activity.
This made reforestation a viable, medium-
Ihering proposed the creation of a federal forest
agency to experiment with and stimulate reforestation, restrictions
on squatting and further governmental control over public lands.9
Conservation and preservation policies and initiatives were
also recorded in Brazil before and after the creation of the first
national parks.
movement
in
government
experienced
Carvalho,
But there seems not to have existed a specific
favor
signed
of national parks.
an "Egret Convention".
Brazilian
Brazil
In
conservationist,
"actively"
1895
Brazilian
In the words
Jose
participated
the
in
Candido
the
de
of an
Melo
preservation
64
efforts of several species of Amazonian egrets and herons hunted
for
their
feathers.
In 1902
Brazil
signed
an
"International
Convention for the Protection of Agriculturally Useful Birds".
1921, as mentioned, a Federal Forest Service was created.
In
In 1934
a Brazilian "Tree Friends Society" sponsored the First Brazilian
Conference for Nature Protection, in Rio, under the leadership of
the Botanist Alberto Jose Sampaio and Leoncio Correia.
Carvalho
states
results,
that
this
meeting
had
"positive"
legislative
probably referring to the 1934 preservation and conservation laws
mentioned in Chapter 2.10
Brazil has been active in the International Union
Conservation
of Nature
and Natural
Resources
ever
for the
since
1958.
Private and government representatives have been on its Board,
Councils, General Assemblies
active in UNESCO's
and Technical Meetings.
Brazil is
"Man and the Biosphere" program.
Brazilian
representatives attended all three international conferences on
national parks, in Seattle
Indonesia
(1982).
As
(1962), Yellowstone
of 1979,
(1972)
the Institute
and Bali,
Brasileiro de
Desenvolvimento Florestal and several other government and private
organizations
numerous
were affiliated to IUCN.
treaties,
international,
conventions
referring
to
and
Brazil has also signed
agreements,
fisheries,
hunting
regional
and
ana
endangered
species.13
Maria Tereza
Jorge Padua, Brazil's ranking
national
park
expert, does not consider that national parks in Brazil were in
any sense an "autonomous" idea.
She recalls that ever since Andre
Reboucas' 1876 proposal, foreign concepts and examples have shaped
the Brazilian park effort.
"rivalry"
1930's,
that spurred
when
She mentions, for example, a sense of
the Brazilian
conservation
government to act in the
minded
officials
realized
that
neighboring Argentina had a considerably large area preserved in
national parks, while Brazil had none.
In fact, Argentina created
Latin America's first national park, called Nahuel Huapi, in 1902.
Padua and Dean both mention that the Argentinian park on its side
of Iguacu falls was a major motivation for the creation of Brazil's
Iguacu NP in 1939.
this
rivalry.
A 1960 text still conveys the importance of
Jair Tovar
evaluated Brazilian
national
parks
against the background of Argentina's, which at the time had six
times more park areas than Brazil,
smaller.
although being
three times
Tovar chauvinistically reported that Brazil was "making
a comeback" and could "take the lead" thanks to its extensive
territory and geographical diversity.12
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua considers that Alceo Magnanini, Darcy
Azambuja, Jose Candido de Melo Carvalho and other members of the
Federal Forest Service in the 1930's and 1940's were responsible
for putting Brazil's first national parks on the map.
access
to
first-echelon
authorities
and
extensive
They had
first-hand
knowledge of many stretches of the Brazilian landscape.
In an
important park service policy statement tu be examined iii n^w^^
later
in
this
following
the
chapter, Alceo
Magnanini
guidelines
a
of
U.S.
openly
National
admits
Park
to be
Service
publication, because of America's "exceptional tradition" in park
_~
_
O
-^
J'
66
issues.
In his text he cites America's pioneer position in
national parks and Andre Reboucas' reference to them.13
-^
In 1945 Raymundo Ottoni de Castro Maya, who was then directing
the
restoration
of
a
future
national
park
area
(Tijuca),
-*-N,
criticized the incipient Brazilian park service and policy.
In
O
1937 he says that he proposed a "National Park Department" through
__^
legislation
O
should
"^
facilities, fishing, hunting, "like in America and South Africa".
-~)
His proposals had been rejected by the Department of Agriculture's
inspired
in Argentinean
statutes.
National parks
be dedicated
to "leisure",
with hotels, pools, sport
Secao de Parques Nacionais, on the grounds that national parks
->•*..
should be
w
facilities.
"Z,
in "picturesque" areas with "good climate", attractive to visitors
3
seeking leisure.
^
"simply
forest preserves", without
hotels or
other
Maya insisted that national parks should be plotted
The Secao de Parques Nacionais, through Paulo de Souza, its
-a-?''
3
^
head, responded immediately.
Brazil's three young national parks
were considered as grand as those of "America, Canada and South
x-*y
<**,
Africa", an absurd comparison,
of course.
Iguacu National Park's
,-r^
hotel was being completed
and Itatiaia
3
(true)
would be built
Canada and America".
and hotels in Serra dos Orgaos
(they never were), "like the ones in
Paulo de Souza concluded saying that his
*&*,
,^
office
was
""^
Service.14
in
"constant1' contact witn America's
wationa-L
raru
The major point in mentioning this exchange is that
^
both Maya and Souza referred to the foreign park scene to support
^
their not radically different positions.
67
The
first
comprehensive
text
published
about
Brazilian
national parks/ written in 1947 by Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros,
long time director of Itatiaia National Park, starts out precisely
by showing how Brazilian parks were part of an international trend.
His introduction mentions park policies and parks created in the
US, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Santo Domingos, Uruguay
and Venezuela.
He stressed that Brazil was among "the last" Latin
American nations to create a national park, although he does not
present a reason for it.
Barros concluded that Brazilian national
parks were a result of "cultural exchange" with other nations.13
In summary, nothing indicates that national parks in Brazil
resulted
from
concepts.
an independent
source of preservation
Classic Brazilian writers with environmental
ideas and
concerns
continue to be known in other capacities, mainly as political
activists or social reformers.
Even though, they sharply pointed
to the inevitable environmental disasters caused by the combination
of slavery, large holdings and export agriculture. Park proponents
and officials invariably refer to foreign concepts and examples.
However, much more research is needed on this issue, particularly
on the role of the Federal Forest Service and the Federal Forest
Council, which shaped the first decades of Brazilian park policy.
The Instiuuto crasileiro de Desenvoivimento FJ.orestaI
Chapter 2 gave an outline of Brazilian environmental agencies
and laws.
Most of
the basic
legislation
relating
to parks,
biological preserves and to some of the other types of publicly
68
protected lands in Brazil was mentioned.
The remaining of this
Chapter will analyze the Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento
Florestal
(IBDF, or Institute).
The Institute deserves this
distinction for being the legal administrator of Brazilian national
parks and national biological preserves, the main subject of tr.ii
text.
The Institute, as stated before, belongs to the Agriculture
Department, which in 1986 ranked 8th in budget appropriations for
the 27 existing Departments.
It was created by Decree-Law 289,
February 28, 1967, in a reshuffling
of several agencies of the
Agriculture Department: the Office of Renewable Natural Resources
(with its National
Park Section), the Hunting Division
Federal Forest Council.
agencies
formerly
and the
Also absorbed by the Institute were two
located
in the Labor
Department:
Institute
Nacional do Mate and Institute Nacional do Pinho, which carried
government
incentive
plantations.
programs
for
developing
tea
and
pine
The Institute was established as an "autarchy", an
autonomous type of federal agency.
It was mandated to "formulate
forest policy and to direct, coordinate and execute... the necessary
action for rational use, protection and conservation of renewable
natural resources and for the forestry development
(sic) of the
country".
The
Institute
should
dedicate
itself
to
forestry
aria
reforesting with "economic, ecological, tourism and landscaping1'
ends.
Its mission was to guarantee
a "balance between
forest
reserves and the consumption of forest products and sub-products,
69
aiming
towards
the
Another
perpetual
satisfaction
mandate was to manage
of
the
consuming
a system
of fiscal
^
markets".
0
incentives
^
mandated
^)
biological preserves ana national hunting parks, besides Ric u^
-'
Janeiro's Botanical Garden.
for reforestation.
to manage national
The agency was also explicitly
parks,
national
forests,
national
/jr®&.
^
Pinchotian principles of rational use, sustained yield, and
—-'
tree cultivation, rampant throughout the law's text, are further
^
celebrated in article 10 with the institution of the career of
3
"forest
engineer"
cadres.
Besides budget and special appropriations, the Institute
X
(forester)
in government's
civil
service
1
^
would
survive
forest
on revenue
products",
from
obtained
from
transactions
"exploring
with
lands
and selling
under
its
-mf>
^
^--V
jurisdiction and from all fines it was mandated to enforce.16
As
its name clearly spelled out, the Institute was similar to the U.S.
„»/
HN
Forest
Service,
involved
primarily
in forest
conservation or
--wss-''
C
^^,,_
Z
w
'^
,.:7^\d
development, not in preservation of forests or, for that matter,
any other type of Brazilian landscape.
This was clear again in Decree 62018, December 29, 1967, which
the
Institute's
internal
statute.
Listed
last
(and
42*t^
•&&?
'^
least?)
in the agency's 16 "objectives" was the administration of
a^
parks
^
^
and
preserves;
conservationist
all
or plainly
other
15
commercial.
objectives
were
utterly
In Article 9, "National.
. ^
"D
Parks, National Biological Preserves, National Hunting Parks and
X
Experimental Forestry Stations" were assigned to the Institute's
^
^)
Regional Centers for Research and Nature Conservation, subordinated
^3
70
to its Regional Offices.
Revenue generating national forests,
—.-a*!
—*^
3
_X
3
^
—^)
though,
would
be run from national
headquarters.
Therefore,
national parks, 14 of which already existed in 1967, were not the
concern
of a single department
original national administration.
low priority
or office
in the Institute's
This is clear evidence or tne
of preservation in the Instituto ever
since its
inception.
—'
Some years
later, however,
the Institute's Department of
-^
Research and Nature Conservation was broken in two and a Division
-J
for Nature Protection was created in the new Nature Conservation
X
Department.
3
same Department.
This Division was later promoted to the rank of
Department,
the name Departamento de Parques Nacionais e
"
"^
Later a Division for National Parks was created in the
with
Reserves Equivalentes
(DPNRE, or Departamento}, "National Park and
Equivalent Preserves Department".
^
This is the name and the status
of Brazil's current park service.17
Over the years, therefore,
national parks and preserves pushed their way into the Institute's
—,
national organizational chart, from which they had been excluded.
'3
Between 1967 and 1974 the Instituto added only three national
3
parks to the prior 14 and created only one national biological
^
preserve
created
-^
-^
by state
government
initiative).
It seems
that the
Instituto, just like every other government agency in that period
of
^
(accepting provisional "custody" of other three preserves
high
policies.
economic
growth,
got
carried
away
with development
Only one official park policy statement was issued in
the period, a shy one, as will be shown. Between November 1974 and
71
May 1979 not a single national park or biological preserve was
created in Brazil, although a major policy proposal was elaborated
and publicized.
Between May 1979 and September 1984 that major
policy was put into effect. Nine national parks were established,
expanding the park area 3.8 times, from 22,292 km2 to 85,990 km'.
Eight new biological preserves expanded the preserve area 53.3
times, from 372 km2 to 19,844 km2.
one preserve were created
Chapter 4).
Since 1984 only two parks ana
(See Tables 10, 11, 20 and 21, in
This is only a first glance of the Institute's record
as park creator and administrator.
This record will be explored
in more detail in the following sections.
A Time for Planning: IBDF Park Policy Statements, Proposals and
Activities, 1967-1974
The park
discussed
at
and preserve policy
length.
relatively poor heritage.
Suffice
it
prior to 1967
to
say
that
will not be
it
yielded a
In 1967, 30 years after Brazil's first
national park was created, the Institute inherited only 14 parks
protecting a minimal .12% of the national territory.
biological preserve was officially established.
amounted to no more than the original decrees.
No national
Some of the parks
Warren Dean is
correct when he suggests that the conservationist impulse behind
the 1934 Forest Code had been stifled.
Many suggestions for new
national parks and other preserves presented at the time were never
implemented. *•a
The first major Institute document on the park and preserve
"0
_^X
72
situation was published in 1969.
As if illustrating the tentative
•^
^
merge of park policy with land reform issues, mentioned in Chapter
_. sS**._:
^
2, the text was co-written
by the Institute and the Institute
-aa>
^
Nacional de Colonizacao e Reforma Agraria, the land reform agency.
This document naturally contains the Institute's view of its park
»w
_^
w
^
_^
heritage. The very title called for a "review" of the park policy.
It was drafted by a task
force assembled by the Department of
Agriculture to "review" park and preserve policy.
Harold Edgard
•,-,-aS?'
-^
Strang, a Soils Engineer
involved in conservation, drafted the
final report, with the help of Henrique Pimenta Velloso, another
—i
conservationist.
In their "explanatory note", they point out that
this was the first time government officials visited all parks and
,*,
preserves.
C
transformations, extinctions
^,
^
"
They
were
ordered
to
evaluate the
units,
suggest
and areas suited for new units.
The report was carefully enthusiastic about the park heritage
and decisively critical about its lack of management.
After ISO
days of travelling and drafting, the group recommended "persistent
work" by the Department of Agriculture to secure the "exceptional
heritage" of national parks and other preserves.
other
types of conservation
countries, including
the US.
units, citing
They suggested
examples in several
They gave vivid, updated details
about the situation of each unit. The picture was grim.
The most
serious problem - a chronic one, as will be shown throughout this
text - was the land ownership situation. None of the 14 parks were
fully under government property, allowing for private and public
development or invasions.
Some parks were limited to the original
73
"•-•""**-,
^
decrees.
Park
personnel
was
insufficient
in
size
and
qualification; high school and university graduates were lacking.
1^
Park directors, when extant and residing in the parks, were thus
O
overwhelmed with administrative and public relation tasks, which
j^
jeopardized their "true roles" of scientific research.
^
suggested
hiring
administrative
--'.
pursuits.
"superintendents"
routines,
Lack
of
liberating
equipment,
who
would
directors
vehicles,
for
The report
care
for
scientific
infra-structure
and
research activities was also noted.
IN
The task force considered that only the three oldest parks,
0
created in the late 1930's, operated in an acceptable manner.
^
Abandonment had precluded
^
caused
^
absence of parks in the Amazon region was criticized.
•<»•,
research in parks should be stimulated, but executed by specialists
"irrecoverable
the establishment
losses"
not linked to the Institute.19
in areas
of some parks and
to be preserved.
The
Scientific
Although this was a detailed and
-^
carefully drafted document, it is more properly read as a revealing
Q
report. Its suggestions were timid and almost defensive, specially
^
when compared to later Institute documents.
^
was even suggested.
No major policy shift
In fact, no clear policy was stated at all,
except the obvious need to save the park heritage.
-•-••
***>*
-~~>
Two Institute staff persons published that very same year 1969 - an extensive article in an environmental group's journal.
-^
They revealed further details on the park situation as seen by the
0
Institute.
T
highest authority
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua - who was to become Brazil's
in national parks and preserves - and Alcec
74
Magnanini,
acquisition
already
an
expert
in
as "problem number
the matter, pointed
one" of Brazilian
to
parks.
land
They
classified Brazilian parks in three categories for description and
evaluation
purposes.
maintained" parks
First
came
"established,
developed
and
(Itatiaia, Iguacu, Serra dos Orgaos, Tijuca and
Brasilia); second came those only "partly established" (Aparados
da Serra, Caparao, Sete Cidades and Monte Pascoal); third came
those in "initial phase of planning"
(Ubajara, Araguaia, Emas,
Chapada dos Veadeiros and Sao Joaquim). Significantly, the authors
excluded two parks, one extinguished and the other on the verge of
extinction
(Paulo Afonso and Sete Quedas).
From other sources it
is clear that in the last category very little or nothing at all
3
«,
^
had been done to establish the five parks.
Therefore, in 1969 more
•***)
of development, according to the informed opinion of two Institute
'""
insiders.
than two thirds of all parks were in initial or even crude stage
Magnanini and Padua gave precise figures on land acquisition.
As of December 31, 1968, the decreed areas of the 14 HP's, 31,422
,^
km2, had been reduced by more than 50%, to 15,207 km2 "estimated as
3
necessary"
^
Institute effectively owned only 2,959 km2, or 19,5% of actual park
"*;
lands.
~
private, or public but not under Institute control.
^
not only in the 11 parks created between 1959 and 1961, which could
by the pre-Instituto park administration.
But the
In other words, more than 80% of park land was either
This occurred
~3
75
~"_
criteria for any area aspiring to be a national park according to
-"*:
-u.—'
standards set by the International Union for the Conservation or
Nature.
The authors were aware of this and worried about the
~^
possibility of the land ownership problem becoming a chronic one.
~0
Unfortunately, it did become chronic.
X
In 1970 Alceo Magnanini wrote and the Institute published a
"3
text that perhaps was the first lengthy policy statement for parks
j"
and preserves in the Institute era.
^
overdue and could easily be attributed to the 1940's or 1950's
--'
because of the absolutely basic nature of its contents.
-~s
Even though, it was long
Magnanini
was consciously pulling together what 30 years of park management
should have forged as second-nature
knowledge or at least the
X
institutional sub-culture of all park service personnel.
So crude
3
was the state of park management that Magnanini had to start from
X
a scratch. He informed park personnel - to whom the document was
"'^
addressed - that parks should have their own research projects and
•*"^\t other researchers, have museums and herbariums, have
^
"defined limits", have public recreation areas and camping grounds.
^r^
He was
therefore stating
the obvious.
Parks should have
^
"lodging facilities" for staff and tourists and should establish
^
<**>
X
public visitation routines.
recreation and preservation and the main management rule was to
"2,
"perpetuate all natural resources".
All parks should be "zoned" for
Magnanini could not avoid
/dfe,
f
listing
"direct use" activities prohibited
in parks,
such as
-^
—••.
agriculture,
grazing,
hunting,
fishing,
logging,
draining,
.f*~.
irrigation and hydroelectric power generation.
Magnanini had to
76
be so basic because in his opening paragraphs he pointed out that
the Institute "lacked any directives" for park administration.21
Magnanini's apparent simple-mindedness, writing as if his intended
public were logging or mining companies, was really an adaptation
to the crude stage of park policy inside the Institute.
Indeed,
Magnanini was at the time one of the ranking park experts in Brazu.
and his document did include brief references to more advanced
topics such as fauna management, master plans, public hearings and
scientific research proposals.
Preservation
Institute.
in 1974.
and
that
continued
to
have
low
priority
inside
the
This was revealed in a speech by a new agency president
He considered the park and preserve system as "incipient"
parks,
preserves
and
identity" inside the agency.
even national
forests
"lacked
He proposed bringing them into the
mainstream of the Institute's work and making them "functional".
About a year later, the Brazilian scientific community acknowledged
its concern about the same issue.
Brazilian
Society
for
resolution recommending
restricted to forestry.
to the Department
the
The 27th Annual Meeting of the
Advancement
that
of
Science
the Institute's duties
issued
should
a
be
Parks and preserves should be transferred
of Interior
and fauna protection
agency inside the Department of Agriculture.22
to another
This suggestion is
still valid after a decade, as will be shown.
A Time for Groundwork, 1975-1979
Only
in
1975
emerged
an ambitious
and consistent
policy
—•>>
77
proposal for Brazilian parks and preserves.
This was due mainly
to a younger group of Institute technicians, rising through the
J*,
ranks and dedicating themselves exclusively to park and preserve
O
issues. They were the founding members of the Institute's national
^
park and preserve office, the Departamento de Parques Nacionais Q
'jj
-^
Reservas Equivaientes.
-•^
^
name has already come up and will continue to do so throughout this
a Soils Engineer dedicated to conservation and preservation.
text.
X
O
X\
Their leader was Maria Tereza Jorge Padua,
Her
A career staff at the Institute, she was head of the park
office from 1974 to 1982.23
The first published statement by this group came out in 1975.
It is ambitious, realistic,
highly technical and well informed
It starts by pointing out
about park problems all over the world.
^
how Brazil ranked low by international standards, with its 65
^
.«**
—'
w
,«=,
preservation and conservation units covering 187,202 km2, only 2.2%
^
of the Brazilian territory.
and forest preserves.
was a meager .28%.
This area included national forests
For parks and preserves proper the figure
Comparisons were made with the USA, where 715
X
units preserve 15.95% of the territory and Japan, whose 23 national
'f;
parks protect 7.3% of the country.24
^
"^
The modest Departamento stated its high aims: consolidate
existing
parks
and
preserves
and
create
new
ones;
make
reforestation compatible with "ecological imperatives"; train park
-^
and preserve personnel, specially technicians and rangers; promote
--—•
environmental awareness; draft "management plans" for parks and
X
preserves; acquire private lands in several units; establish ar
78
least six new parks, nine new preserves and even a novel "roadpark" on a stretch of the Transamazon road being built at the
time.25
The document proposed working together with a wide number of
public and private organizations, which meant still more work for
the tiny Departamento.
At the time, it had a staff of only four;
21 was its own estimate
of its ideal staffing, including non-
existent Foresters, Botanists, Ecologists, Architects, Biologists,
Zoologists,
Museologists and Communication experts.
A crucial
proposal to clear the way for registering park land owned by the
Institute
in
the
government's
Property
Office
(Service
de
Patrimonio da Uniao) unfortunately was not accomplished.
Land acquisition was still a serious problem.
In 1975 only
13.1% of the land of 18 national parks were owned by the Institute,
against 19.5% in 1968.
Institute.
Preserve land was only 30.3% owned by the
In 1975 Monte Pascoal was the only park fully owned
'
by the Institute.
'™~S™*""~
~*=™-,v™«a
*~-
.**,
~
~~"
——————
It had originally been a state park donated to
the federal government, not really requiring any land acquisition
effort by the Institute.
Three small state created biological
preserves in Espirito Santo were also owned by the Institute.
area
of
the
four
only
units
entirely owned by
the
The
Institute
represented only 1.83% of all park and preserve lands.
With the Fundacao Nacional do Indio, the indigenous peoples
bureau, the Departamento proposed to work out solutions for the
borders between parks and indigenous territories in some areas.
The Departamento wanted weather observation facilities installed
~3
^-n
a1^
Parks
and
preserves, which meant contacting the weather
authority in the Agriculture Department.
The International Union
—«»)
for the Conservation of Nature and the World Wildlife Fund would
~3
—.*»,
_^
be asked to help fund research in parks and preserves.
"~O
-—"*%
^
—/ar^l
devising ways to attract tourists to national parks. Government's
--"*^
preserves that were not to be cut by new r o a d s . 2 6
Embratur,
the federal government tourism company, was to be contacted for
road building agency would be informed about future parks and
._^ea,
---
This fresh set of ideas and proposals went much beyond what
—^
.<*^
-
the Institute as a whole could absorb and, possibly, tolerate.
_ -ftr^]
Coincidence or not, the truth is that from mid-1974
(when this
sx^
^-
document was probably drafted)
O
preserve
was created.
until mid-1979 no national park or
Existing
ones were
not significantly
ySZX
^
consolidated.
O
years.
In terms of results, park policy stagnated for five
Undaunted, the small Departamento kept on its "internal" work.
^
In 1977 it promoted the first and still the only park management
course
in
Brazil.
Between
October
17
and
29,
the
"First
•^
Administration and Management Course for National Parks" was staged
!'"j
in Brasilia, the national capital. Attending were a few dozen park
^
and preserve personnel and other Departamento and Institute staff.
O
Padua
and her
available.
the
team
together
the
"best
specialists"
They wrote up their contributions and lectured about
following
topics:
regulations, park
.^
brought
management
development,
plans,
nature
trails, park
leisure, dealing with visitors,
conservation and preservation laws, ecology, animal habitats, land
--,
80
3
policies, land reform and conservation units in Latin America.27
^
By any standards, it was an excellent course in scope, in quality
"j
and in teachers' qualifications.
The Departamento's staff kept on working, although no parks
^
were being created.
,--
document sensed that a new phase of park policy was about to start.
^
Natural resource conservation and preservation was coming out of
O
a
^
"administrative abandonment" and "lack of funding and staffing".
^
An updated listing of park and preserve problems sounded like the
"profound
A 1978
hibernation"
reinstatement of the 1975 policy
caused
1969 report mentioned above.
,.,,:I
-^
and
rangers,
little
by
"political
swaying",
It cited lack of trained personnel
infra-structure,
isolation
and difficult
communication with some park areas, no visiting rules and many land
^,
acquisition problems.28
^^P
CD
•*»)
^
^
•••*->
^
Personnel
problems
were
becoming
as
chronic
as
land
acquisition. The only parks with an adequate number of rangers in
1978 were Igxiacu and Tijuca, because their directors had hired out
guards
from
private
security
companies.
Some parks
had no
]
•
O
•
^
protection at all.
An "ideal" staffing of 857 rangers for all
parks and preserves
was contrasted by the reality of only 138
actually hired and working, a deficit of 719.
even the stipulated
"minimum" of 533.
directors, administrative
This was far below
When park and preserve
personnel and scientists were included
in the ideal staffing figures, the deficit of 719 rose to 934.
Funds were short for hiring new personnel.
Only three parks had fire control services; only five had
g 2.
-—^
—^
long-distance radios.
—«*,
adequate for
All parks had vehicles, not necessarily
the local
terrains, but no preserve had
its own
-5
vehicles, depending on borrowed ones from other Institute offices.
_^
A intended "receipts versus costs" study of the 18 parks had to
3
^
settle for only three with consistent financial data for the 1975-
~^
1977 period.
Itatiaia, Iguacu and Serra dos Orgaos were all in the
_x
-^)
._.«,
red, although being the three oldest and best equipped parks and
among the most visited.29
Land acquisition had improved some.
3
~J
Z.
—••
\
^T
^
^
-<**,
^*
O
^
In 1978 the Institute
effectively owned 36.9% of the 24,575 km2 of parks and preserves,
as compared with 19.5% a decade earlier.
low.
Still, the figure was
But the Departamento was straightforward in stating that
"...[the Institute] does not have budget resources to run a broad
acquisition program".
It would take "30 to 40 years" to complete
such a program on budget money alone, and even then only currently
existing parks and preserves would be secured.
The Departamento
vW
preferred
to
negotiate
case-by-case
special
credits with the
SZH&,
^
•*^'
0
powerful
Planning
Department
than to inflate
its budget with
requests for costly and uncertain land acquisition appropriations-30
00^
^
Administrative
creativity
played
an
important
role
in
•^jf1'
^
;'
alleviating this problem to a significant degree.
In late 1978
Maria Tereza
fund
Jorge
Padua spotted
a large unused
in
the
^J3S/
^
Institute's revenue: the Fundo de Reposicao Florestal
(Forest
vvs*-
,;a^
Restoration Fund).
It was made up by contributions from industrial
-iits
-^
and commercial consumers of lumber not interested in doing their
- -^
^)
own reforestation projects.
Padua asked the Institute's Attorney
~"
General to rule whether this fund could be used for acquisition of
^
private lands inside park and preserve lands.
-^
a "legitimate use" for the fund.
X|
had "unlimited access" to the fund and that 12,000 km2 of park and
O
preserve
^
represented almost 50% of all park and preserve land acquired
^)
between 1937 and 1978, a major victory of her administration and
~/
the last significant acquisition of park lands by the Institute to
land
were
bought
He found it to be
Padua says that the Departamento
between
1979
and 1983.31
This
"O
-<•=}
date.
The
^
•^
0
same
activities.
1978
document
reported
on
recent
Departamento
It mentioned the publication of an illustrated book
on the Brazilian fauna, aimed at students, probably the only of
.t&^
'^
^»v
"*j
,n,
*~*
/f^
w
***,
~,^
*r*,
->
•**>
*•<--,_
its kind ever made in Brazil.
Posters, leaflets and booklets on
parks, reserves and fauna were also published, also for the first
time.
Foreign
organizations
{International
Union
for
the
Conservation of Nature, World Wildlife Fund and New York Zoological
Society) donated publications and money for preservation projects,
fauna studies and the drafting of management plans for parks and
-v&eS
-*y
preserves.
Exchanges
were made with
several other
Brazilian
,2*,
^
government and non-government organizations.32
These activities
•-.=*-'
3
//3^\
and exchanges were unheard of before Padua's administration.
An unpublished text by Padua and Jose ManuelC.Vasconcellos,
-=W
-^
probably from the same year of 1978, focused on how national
-iM"/
planning standards had incorporated new ideas - developed by the
W
^
Departamento itself - about nature conservation and preservation.
-~^
O
They mention provisions of Brazil's pretentious five-year "Second
S3
National Development Plan", for 1974-79.
mentioned
in
the
plan
was
to
One "national objective"
"promote
development
without
destroying the population's life quality and, particularly, without
devastating the country's natural resource heritage".
Indeed, the
preservation of this heritage was considered by Brazilian planners
as
"part of the country's development" and required
the "prior
definition of areas reserved for National Parks, National Forests,
Biological Preserves and Hunting Parks".33
The official development plan included numerical goals of such
areas to be set aside: 10% of the Amazon Region
and 5%
(250,000 km2)
(360,000 km2)
of the rest of the country.
The authors
contrasted this grand proposal of 610,000 km2 with the scant 24,000
km2 of existing
conservation
units.
They
considered
that the
plan's goals could be tuned down respectively to 185,000 km2 and
50,000 km2 without compromising
qualitative conservation
goals.
Padua and Vasconcellos worried about the creation of more parks on
an ad hoc basis.
manage
and
This would forge a system both "expensive1' to
"inefficient"
in
the
protection
of
the
country's
ecosystems.
Anyway, Padua and Vasconcellos were not feeling comfortable
about the situation.
They criticized the way current parks and
preserves were managed, considering them "static" and "defensive",
with no visible benefits to the community.
They pointed out the
"international
the need
technical
consensus"
about
for urgent
action by the Brazilian government if a solid conservation unit
system was
to be established.
The rapid
occupation
of many
84
X
stretches of the country's frontier areas was raising land prices
'*j
at fantastic rates.
~
Departamento experience, was cited.
^
extremely remote swamp lands evaluated at 50 cruzeiros per hectare
One example of this, stemming from a recent
In the State of Mato Grosso,
in 1970 were bought for 1,500 cruzeiros in 1976
(they were later
-^
included
O
national development plan was not enough for Brazilian parks.
X
sense of urgency is conveyed by this document.
^
A Time for Action: Expanding the Park and Preserve System, 1979-
^
in the Pantanal Mato Grossense NP).34
Being in the
A
1984.
A new chapter of Brazilian park policy and action started in
^
1979.
A major policy proposal was issued by the Departamnento,
O
entitled "Piano do Sistema de Unidades de Conservacao do Brasil",
~n,
roughly "Conservation Unit System Plan".
'^
"^
r^
of groundwork by the Departamento staff and scientific personnel
•^
•&,
de Conservacao da Natureza, the most important of its kind in
It pulled together years
linked to a private conservation group called Fundacao Brasileira
Brazil.
It is a master plan
for park and preserve creation,
^
classification, management, research and consolidation.
~>
never had such a serious, dense and long range proposal for dealing
^
,^
O
^
^
with parks and associated preserves.
five
stages.
Only
two
have
been
Brazil
It was to be developed in
executed
so
far
and,
unfortunately, only in part.35
.^
"^
The plan stated its "basic concept": "nature conservation can
fT^-,
be represented by the rational use of natural resources, with the
85
^
objective of a continuous production of the renewable ones - soils,
3
flora, fauna - and the maximum yield of the non-renewable ones".
X
This
3
conservation
^
purposes. A "planned development" of resource use could make these
-^)
"apparently antagonistic" objectives compatible with each other.
could
only
be
achieved
by
"careful
management"
for
purposes and by "non-direct use" for preservation
The plan proposed to
(1) select areas with potential conservation
-=*,
or preservation value, (2) point out "gaps" in the current park and
0
preserve system, (3) use technical and scientific criteria for
X
selecting areas, (4) revise management objectives and (5) propose
3
priorities for creating and managing conservation units.36
~"
*^)
The existing park and preserve system was classified as "poor"
in the representation of the country's ecosystems.
was deemed as the major
Land ownership
threat to the system's survival.
The
«•*
existing legal framework was considered narrow because it allowed
O
only national parks, national biological preserves, ecological
^
-^
CD
stations
(direct use).
^
"expand" the scope of conservation units.
""^)
units were selected after "five years of field work" .
(indirect use)
and national forests and hunting parks
Legislative review was considered necessary to
Areas nominated for new
They were
still considered "unsatisfactory" in number, area and ecosystem
•"•>
representation, even though their selection was guided by "new
technical and scientific criteria".37
-X
The
results
^
impressive.
X
until mid-1982.
of
the
"first
stage"
(1979-1982)
were
Of 13 areas proposed in 1979, nine had been created
The 24,000 km2 of parks and preserves created
-^
—^
between 1937 and 1974 had been expanded in 80,000 km2 between 1979
and 1982.
From .28% of the Brazilian territory in 1974, parks and
preserves now rose to 1.2%.
physical
expansion,
the
Just as important as the much needed
24
national
parks
and
10
national
biological preserves of 1982 were now "more representative" of the
rich Brazilian tropical territory, flora and fauna.38
The Departamento and environmentalists
Fundacao
Brasileira
institutions
de
presented
conservation units.
Conservacao
suggestions
da
engaged through the
Natureza
and
other
for future preservation and
For the "second stage" 30 new units with a
combined area of 60,000 km2 were proposed, some of them under new
headings to be legally created, such as wildlife refuges, natural
monuments, road parks and natural parks.
The success
creation of the nine new units and their
favorable impact in
"international
mentioned.39
scientific
and conservationist
in the
communities"
are
This crucial policy proposal will be mentioned again
several times.
Needless to say, its proposals and results were a
revolution in Brazilian park history.
The success or, at the very least, the impact of the 1979 park
- ^S
,-f&\6
expansion plan, had its background in many years of anonymous work
by
the Institute's small park staff.
mentioned in the previous sections.
attention.
first.
Part of this work was
Other parts
deserve special
The "pianos de manejo", or management plans, are the
Since 1972 Maria Tereza Jorge Padua published her concerns
about the importance of what she then entitled "master plans" for
parks
and preserves.
She
proposed
that
they
be
drafted
by
-^
--«•*
87
"scientific teams" comprised of professionals familiar with nature
conservation, ecology, landscaping, biology, geography, economy,
park
and
preserve
planning,
natural
resource
management,
engineering, architecture, archeology and history.40
Each park area should be painstakingly studied.
rare or endangered
history,
successful
leisure
parks.
species,
and
access,
lodging
Each
land
should
park was
be
to be
standards adopted in American national
Ecosystems,
ownership,
analyzed
zoned,
land use
to
create
according
to
parks, which Padua had
observed personally in an intensive study-travel course in Park
Management in the US.
Scientific institutions, scientists and
private citizens would be consulted or involved in drafting the
master plans.
Padua admitted, though, that they were still in a
very elementary stage at that moment.41
Considering the state of
the art of park management at that time this probably seemed pure
fantasy to many inside and outside the Institute.
Nine years later, in 1981, Padua announced the conclusion of
20 Management Plans, some of them already published
applied.
and being
The Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Katureza was
co-author and co-publisher of all plans.
Overall, 87 professionals
of many different areas had participated in the research, field
work and drafting of these texts, over a period of five years
(1976-1981).
They were drafted in a consistent format.
All have.
the same general outline, with comparable chapters, tables, maps
and lists of sources.
Padua today views them as "extremely well
done", but also "very expensive".
Institute budget money and
X
-•*)
88
foreign
contributions
through
the
Fundacao
Brasileira
de
Conservacao da Natureza helped support large teams that travelled
^
around the country, sometimes
for weeks,
O
costs.
^
says that today she would spend that money
-"j
"urgent" measures.42
or cover
publication
Considering that many plans were not applied at all, Padua
on "short range" or
--'
For the general public, for the concerned citizen and even
-^
for the researcher, the Management Plans, even outdated in some
aspects, are
still
the most
complete and available source of
information on parks and preserves.
In fact, for the first time
3
in 40 years of park policy, park authorities disclosed a broad set
Z,
of publications about the parks.
-^j
non-application of some of the plans, sometimes because of the lack
Most regrettable indeed was the
of qualified personnel in the parks, sometimes for their innovative
^
character, but mostly for lack of funding.
If they were not used
/a*,
as administrative tools, it certainly was not because of the lack
AK,
of quality.
0
were, in this
^
administrative capability and funding possibility of the Institute.
tt)
;t
'^
!
-^
T*
The truth of the problem is that the Management Plans
author's view, at least a decade
ahead of the
Decree 84017, September 21, 1979, which set a "Statute for
National Parks", was mentioned in Chapter 2.
result of Padua's groundwork
fT) } _ , ^ _ ^ —
^.^.
iiic a u a c u u c
j^a^T*!
^3
f
0*
«**•*
This was another
in park policy and administration.
*-
"5
•_
' ^
CaxiSCi £OZ luaiiay clucii u pxeiiiS alxu
i.Oi
i_
'
—
_. __
uiic ZO^ia.Hy
,~
^
wj-
—
:
'—
q;a.wii
existing park "in five years".
Zones were named and defined, again
based on American standards:
(1) "closed", pristine areas to be
secluded and left solely to "natural evolution"; (2) "primitive",
w
-"*<,
.X
89
—''
'^*
-•*->
with minimum human impact, limited to scientific research and
wilderness experiences; (3) "extensive use", a buffer around zones
_,5>»,
^
1 and 2, with limited facilities for recreation; (4) "intensive
-X^s
use", altered for visitors, with visitor centers, museums, nature
-00^
***.,
t5
.t&\
^;
-^
—'
x3S»,
trails,
leisure
and
environmental
education
facilities;
(5}
"special use", for administrative and maintenance facilities and
staff.
Land
fills,
slope
containment,
reclamation were prohibited, together
---*-\, dikes and flood control.
fertilizing
and
soil
with dams, hydroelectric
Collection of animal and floral
j^ar^
specimens and introduction of exotic species were also prohibited.
D
^
All scientific studies in parks would need Departamento clearing.
CD
-*)
^
w
^
.**
Proposals
"**}
•^
''•*-,
for new parks were
to be
"preceded by studies with
scientific and technical arguments and socio-economic reasons".43
Although specific effects of this management code are unclear, in
1979
the park system finally gained
a set of sound rules ror
management, public enjoyment and scientific
research.
At least one more aspect of the Departamento's innovative park
w
policy must be mentioned and evaluated: its procedure and criteria
for selecting areas to be preserved with parks and other preserves.
Almost any Brazilian with experience
in travelling around
tne
country could easily conclude what was the dominant factor in the
selection of national park areas from 1937 to IS74 - scenic beaui-v .
Itatiaia has awe-inspiring
and unique
mountains, boulders and
meadows; Iguacu has a world renown waterfall; Serra dos Orgaos has
ragged peaks visible from the city of Rio de Janeiro; Ubajara
90
3
contains a vast cavern; Aparados da Serra has a section of the rim
Z,
of Brazil's Southern Plateau region, with beautiful canyons 400 m
~3
deep; Araguaia is on the largest fluvial island in the world,
^
surrounded by crystal clear river waters; Caparao has what until
'^
_^»,
the
late
1960's was
considered Brazil's
highest peak,
called
Bandeira, an impressive formation for Brazilian standards; Sete
_/**
Cidades has internationally famous erosion patterns on massive rock
3
formations; Sao Joaquim is on a high forested ridge in the only
X
region of Brazil where it snows regularly;
Q
a beautiful stretch of beach with the forested slopes of the first
*^
mountain sighted by Portuguese sailors.
^
Quedas
w
subsequently flooded or impaired by hydroelectric plants.
^
and Paulo
Obviously,
Afonso
many
contained
of these
Monte Pascoal combines
Even the extinguished Sete
impressive
scenic
beauties
river
canyons,
are located in
important ecosystems and associated with unique plant and animal
^
species and communities.
In 1947
^
..-**>
X
suggested 14 specific sites for new national parks, most of them
out of their scenic value alone;
Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros
two of his suggested sites later
.^y
^
gained park status.
Barros
states that "exceptionalism" of a
-/y/'.X,
landscape should be the most important criteria for locating parks.
f'f/if'*,.
-,.^
«**:
In 1969
the Institute's first statement about parks revealed a
,,—^
trend
-^
»jv
D
^
towards
potential
ecological
sites
for
criteria.
national
55 areas were
parks,
preserves,
listed
as
forests
ci
monuments, most of them based on "representation of ecosystems",
"fauna and flora protection"
and, curiously,
"areas studied by
-.o**
't;
pioneer naturalists".
The authors of the 1969 report noted that
91
O
-••—^
most park areas had been chosen solely
characteristics.
for their "remarkable"
They thought the remoteness of many of them
"3
^)
justified only a status of "preserve for future designation". This
-J
type of preservation unit did not exist legally.44
-^
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua's administration, without discarding
•^
scenic considerations and the associated aspects of tourism and
^
environmental education, followed the trend of the 1969 report and
O
developed decidedly more ecological criteria for locating new parks
^
and preserves.
Q
currently available instruments and sources.
^
In 1975, a detailed study was started using all the
Padua explained how
this was done:
<i^>-.
;
vg^y'
Q
X
'^f
"'"j
<ssy
^^-^
-"
19 thematic maps were used in order to avoid
any possible
interference
[with national
parks] by agriculture, cattle-raising, roads,
indigenous
populations, mineral deposits,
etc
W W W .45
The proposed parks and preserves were plotted, as it were, between
and around areas that might spark resistance.
Padua states that
•sSC"'
Q
because of this the proposed areas met "no resistance" from State
t$~*,
'X
-^
""Z
governments and the federal agencies connected to road building,
^
way Padua's group tried to avoid future confrontations which would
indigenous populations, mining, land reform and so on.46
In this
-^•^
"^
—*-\o
>J
-y
threaten the new generation of parks and preserves.
Thematic maps allowed new park areas to be plotted according
"phytogeographic
"morphoclimatic
regions",
regions",
"biogeographic
"drainage
provinces",
basins",
"climatic
92
differences", indigenous peoples lands, prospective mining areas,
"regional
development
projects",
"limits
of
Legal
Amazonia",
political divisions, "geological and geomorphological areas", roads
_^
and, of course, existing
preservation
and conservation units.47
J)
Ecological variables and land use patterns could be inferred and
^
cross-referenced with these maps.
-"^j
But the Departamento had decided to give "more emphasis to
X
the Brazilian Amazon region", where only one national park existed,
-"*>,
-^
created in 1974.
This called in another important criteria. Four
maps of a different kind gave a particular ecological blend to the
Departamento's work.
They were "pleistocene refuge" maps plotted
\J
for the Amazon region by recent scientific investigations done
X
mostly by foreign biologists.
"^
major biological holdouts during several dramatic climate changes
"
^
*^«
in the late Pleistocene
These refuges were supposed to be
era.
In other words, they had been
"islands" of biological diversity that survived adversities and
afT**..
-•>
managed to repopulate the Amazon Region to its present day levels.
—..
These refuges had "high probability of hosting endemic species".
The four refuge maps referred to areas in which different sets of
**,
species saved themselves from extinction: selected birds, lizards,
ID
butterflies
X
referenced
3
before.
and
plant
communities.
with each other
and with
These
maps
were
cross-
all the others mentioned
A second phase was "field work", in which most of the refuge
areas
-•^
- nicknamed
"forest
islands"
- were selected
priority potential sites" for parks and
as
"hign
preserves; the second
93
J^
highest priority was assigned to "unique floral formations".
'^)
course, other areas, inside and outside the Amazon, were selected
o
-^
for other reasons.
---'
Of
This was the first time in the world that park
and preserve areas were selected with this type of criteria and
evidence.
Other countries followed suit, among them Peru.48
-^
As all this remarkable preparation was going on, the Brazilian
O
Amazon region had only one national park, no biological preserves
_X
and eight sizable
3
Departamento and the many scientists who were working to select
^
areas
^
biological
for
new units
preserves
region alone.
.-"».,
but legally undefined forest preserves.
proposed
12 national parks,
and 21 ecological
The
16 national
stations for the Amazon
The conclusion was that none of the nine existing
Amazonian conservation units protected first and second priority
^
areas.
The existing units, by the new standards, were therefore
X
100% peripheral.
O
region was stated as the preservation of "three grand samples of
X
each phytogeographic region, each one with 5,000 km2' plus 24 units
Q
for "unique micro-habitats", each one with 1,000 km2.49
^
national parks had taken from 1937
**>
region, but in 1979 they were being proposed in a massive scale and
In biological terms, the "ideal" for the Amazon
to 1974
Brazilian
to reach the Amazon
with wise ecological criteria.
-^
Field work for final selection of the proposed areas, inside
-v
and
outside
the
X
collaboration
t)
international institutions.
with
Amazon
a
region,
score
of
was
local
At least 34
done
in
national,
1977-1978
in
foreign
and
expeditions were done.
Participating in field work were scientists from Federal and State
-^
-^fe
94
universities, Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro
(a natural history
museum
linked
to the origins of preservation in Brazil), Museu
Goeldi
(specialized in Amazonian natural history, anthropology and
archaeology),
(specialized
Institute
in
Nacional
Amazon
region
de
Pesquisas
ecology),
Desenvolvimento do Centro-Oeste
da
Amazonia
Superintendencia
de
(a regional development agency),
Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, World Wildlife
Fund, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and wew
York Zoological Society.50
Through them Brazilian and foreign
scientists participated intensely in this crucial chapter of park
policy renewal.
The
"Conservation
Unit
proposals for park areas.
System
Plan"
credits
individual
Besides the institutions named above,
the text mentions the Departamento itself, the Brazilian Society
for
the
Advancement of
Nacional do Indio
Science,
other
universities, Fundacao
(indigenous peoples bureau). As stated earlier,
of 13 units proposed for 1979-1982,
nine were created by 1982.
Eighteen other units were proposed for a "second stage" which, as
we will see, was not completed.51
Before proceeding any further with the analysis of park policy
proposals and park selection criteria, it is now time to take a
look at the national parks themselves, to evaluate the net results
of these policies.
Unit
System
Plan"
It must be stated here that the "Conservation
designed
by
Maria
Tereza
Jorge
Padua's
administration and launched in 1979 represented nothing less than
a new beginning for the Brazilian park and preserve system. It was
95
the result of a decade of serious and innovative professional work
by
a
small
institutional
staff
which
niche
inside
apparently
the
had
to
carve
development-oriented
its
own
Institute
Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal in order to dedicate itself
to park policy.
with
preservation
abroad.
/^
*^
'
This staff also made the necessary connections
and
conservation
scientists,
in
Brazil
It was certainly the park policy's best moment.
and
CHAPTER 4
Brazilian National Parks and Other Protected
Areas: A Comparative Analysis
Protected Lands in Brazil
There is a surprisingly large variety of public protected
lands
in
Brazil.
Even
Brazilians
fairly
informed
about
preservation and conservation have difficulty identifying all the
different types of protected lands, their location, purposes, legal
status and administrative fate.
The first part of this chapter is
basically a review of all identified types of protected areas.
National parks and national biological preserves exist in a rather
complex context of protected areas that must be clarified.
They
will receive a more detailed analysis later in this chapter.
This
summary of protected lands is certainly not complete nor totally
correct, but
still
it goes
way beyond all analysis
available
summaries and overviews.
Table 2 shows designation, legal basis, main objective and
the approximate number of each type of protected area in Brazil.
There are at least 20 types of preservation or conservation units,
97
some of them with unclear legal status and objectives.
Each type
will be briefly defined and evaluated.
Table 2
Types of Conservation and Protected Areas Existing
in Brazil, with Respective Legal Basis
and Objectives, as of 1988
Designation
National Parks
Legal Basis
Objective1
Law 4771,9/15/65
Preservation
State Parks
Number2
28
28
Municipal Parks
1
National Forests
Conservation
16
Preservation
15
State Forests
Municipal Forests
National Biological
Preserves
Law 5197,1/3/67
State Biological
Preserves
"
Municipal Biological
Preserves
"
National Hunting
Parks
"
17
Sport Hunting
State Hunting
Parks
Municipal Hunting
Parks
^v
^-\
"
Ecological Stations
Law 6902,4/27/81
Preservation/
Monitoring
273
Environmental
Law 6938,8/31/81
Land Use/Zoning
II4
9s
Protection Areas
Ecological Preserves
"
?
4
Areas of Relevant
Ecological Concern
"
?
9
Tourism
?
Special Areas of
Tourist Interest
Dec 86176,7/6/81
Areas of Tourist
Interest
"
"
?
Union Protective
Forests
?5
Erosion
Control
236
Forest Preserves
?7
Notes
1 - Preservation includes scientific research, environmental
education and, in the case of parks, public visitation and
recreation;
conservation allows for multiple-use; monitoring
includes purposefully induced changes; zoning includes land-use
restrictions and preservation; erosion control applies to secondgrowth and primitive forests on unstable slopes.
2 - Indicates only existing areas positively identified by the
author; question marks indicate imprecise number or unknown number.
3 - Only federal ones.
4 - Only federal ones.
5 - Not specified in the 1965 Forest Code.
6 - Only the ones created in the State of Rio de Janeiro.
7 - Same as 5.
Sources; Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza. Sao Paulo, CESP;
Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza,
1986.
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua. Interview.
Brasilia, May 18,
1988.
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua.
Unidades de Conservacao.
Brasilia, 1988. [typewritten]; Departamento de Parques Nacionais
e Reservas Equivalentes, IBDF.
Harold Edgard Strang et al.
Parques Estaduais do Brasil; Sua Caracterizacao e Essencias Nativas
Mais Importantes. Tese Apresentada ao "Congresso Nacionai sonre
Essencias Nativas", Campos do Jordao (SP), 12-18 de setembro de
1982. [mimeographed], pp. 8-10.
99
a - National, State and Municipal Parks
The 1965 Forest Code is the statute for these three units,
although
older
ones were
created
under
predecessor, the 1934 Forest Code.
the authority
of its
The 1979 "Conservation Unit
System Plan" defines national parks as areas larger than 10 km2
with "spectacular or unique natural traits", terrestrial or marine.
They must also have "representative samples of ecosystems" and be
manageable in a "natural or almost natural state". They must allow
for visitors, tourists and environmental education.1
Parks have been created in Brazil.
30 National
Two of them were extinguished
and two are expected to be created in 1988.
Specific tables and
further comments about national parks will follow later in this
chapter.
Census data puts the number of state parks at 44, but further
research revealed that some are not parks, but other kinds of nonidentified preserves, ecological stations and leisure areas. Table
3 groups 103 state units identified in 1982 by three experts in
Brazilian parks, in a pioneer and still unique study.
Only 28 of
them are officially called state parks, although there is no
assurance that they were all created under the 1934 or 1965 Forest
Codes.
The authors used state government reports and documents,
but relied on their own travels and field work experience and even
on verbal communications to complete tne listing.
^
first to consider it provisional.
^
reliable than Census data, though.
3
Tftey are cnt
Their search is certainly more
Therefore 28 is a safer
—-«*
100
estimate for the number of state parks existing in Brazil.
Table 3
State Parks and Equivalent Preserves in Brazil:
Number and Approximate Composite Percentage
of State Area, as of 19821
State
^
_I^
O
-}
^
D
•^
X
w
o
^
Espirito Santo
Minas Gerais
Rio de Janeiro
Sao Paulo
Parana
Santa Catarina
Rio Grande do Sul
Distrito Federal
Goias
Mato Grosso do Sul
Number of Units
5
18
10
34
12
4
142
2
33
1
% of State
Area
. 47
.15
1.36
2.88
.43
1.02
.20
1.82
.02
Total 103
Notes
1 - Denominations found: Forest Preserve, Biological Preserve,
Forest Park, Ecological Station, State Park, State Leisure Area,
Biological and Archeological Preserve, State Preserve, Ecological
Preserve and Municipal Park.
2 - Only 6 out of the 14 areas had available area measurements.
3 - Only 2 out of the 3 areas had available area measurements.
Source: Harold Edgard Strang et al. Pargues Estaduais do Brasil;
Sua Caracterizacao e Essencias Nativas mais Importantes.
Tese
Apresentada ao "Congresso Nacional sobre Essencias Nativas", Campos
do Jordao (SP), 12-18 de setembro de 1982. [mimeographed], pp. 810.
Some comments on the 103 units in Table 3 should be made here.
^
—--,
101
They are all concentrated in only nine States and the Federal
-^
District.
«,
Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais alone have 62 of the 103
O
units.
~3
X
3
Brazil's other 14 States and two Territories have none.
The only other non-coastal state besides Minas Gerais in
the table is Goias, with three units. No Amazonian or Northeastern
State has a state park or similar unit.
Even though concentrated
.._^r»,
-^
in a few states state parks are considered "extremely deficient"
--•**-
for the purpose of protecting local ecosystems.
-o
-^
2.88%
protected by these units.
O
different designations
.^
authors.
"j
unclear legal status and variation of names all point to a very bad
o""•>^
situation of the system of state parks.
-&e?
(Sao Paulo)
A reasonable
is the largest section of any single state
Notice also that nothing less then 10
for these 103 units were found
by the
Geographical concentration, scarcity of information,
As stated in Chapter I, few states have enough revenue to
/s£^
pursue
autonomous policies.
State parks
are certainly not a
^
priority.
Sao Paulo, Brazil's richest state, has a not surprising
-J
leadership in
1.
national park affects Sao Paulo territory.
^
de Janeiro's state parks serves as an illustration, though, one can
^
suppose that state parks all over Brazil are the most precarious
"^
preservation units in the country. Rio de Janeiro's state parks
state protected
areas.
will be briefly evaluated in Chapter 7.
Incidentally, only
one
If the situation of Rio
As for municipal parks,
~.
only one was found with that name. Available information did not
^
allow to check if it was created under one of the Forest Codes.
.^
It is Gasta Municipal Park, in Brasilia.2
102
b - National, State and Municipal Forests
Also based on the 1965 Forest Code, these units are defined
by the Departamento
as "extensive
areas, well forested, with
commercial lumber and watersheds, besides wildlife and recreational
possibilities".
They are to be managed for "multiple use" (forest
products, water, recreation,
environmental
education, wildlife
^
management and esthetics) , with "sustained yield" as the overall
O
objective.3
^
J>
Five decrees created five national forests in 1946,
O
1961, 1974 and 1984.
^
before the 1965 Forest Code, the first to establish the category.
3
The decrees referred them to the "productive" forest category of
•*«%
^^
the
^
national forests extant in 1986, including four of those mentioned
1934
Forest
Three national
1959,
Code.
forests were thus created
Maria Tereza
Jorge Padua
mentions 16
,^x
-»"'
above.
^
currently
O
independently mentioned by Padua were not found. National forests
X
are
"^
Florestal.
™
•^
Therefore Table
extant,
managed
by
4 considered
although
the
The transformation
decrees
Institute
16 national
creating
Brasileiro
de
forests
the
11
as
ones
Besenvolvxmento
of eight huge "forest preserves" created
in 1961 into national forests was recommended in the 1969 report
that evaluated the Institute's park heritage.
This transformation
—•
was not done.
.*-
of the Amazon region should be put under national forest status.
Z
Each
one
The same report proposed that, a "minimum of 10%'
should
be
extensive
enough
to
contain
"biological
103
preserves" with 500 km2.
This was not done, either.
Tapajos
National Forest, for example, was established by Decree 73684,
February
19, 1974,
with
6,000 km2;
"biological preserves" and
"tourist areas" were to be created in it, but were not.
Table 4
Brazilian National Forests: Name, Location, Date
of Creation and Approximate Area, as of 1987
Name
Araripe-Apodi
—/
o
Jaiba
Caxiuna
Tapajos
Jamari
Mario Xavier
Capao Bonito
Passa Quatro
Passo Fundo
Canela
Sao Francisco
de Paula
Tres Barras
Chapeco
Cacador
Ibirama
Irati
Location
(State or
Territory)
Ceara/Piaui/
Pernambuco/
Rio Grande
do Norte
Minas Gerais
Para
Para
Rondonia
Rio de Janeiro
Sao Paulo
Minas Gerais
Rio G. do Sul
Rio G. do Sul
Rio G. do Sul
Date of
Creation
Approximate
Current
Area(km2)
2/25/46
5/26/59
11/28/61
3/19/74
9/25/84
2,000
2,000
6,000
2,150
Santa Catarina
Santa Catarina
Santa Catarina
Parana
Parana
Sources: Leaislacao de Conservacao da Natureza. Sao Paulo, CESP;
Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza,
1986;
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua.
Unidades de Conservacao.
Brasilia, 1988.
[typewritten]
104
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua considers that the area of national
^
forests in the Amazon region is very small: only 10,150 km2, none
of them in the State of Amazonas, Brazil's largest and most densely
^
forested.
She thinks this is surprising because national forests
O
are "more easily
accepted"
than parks
o
^
authorities
-^5
investments and jobs.4
—'
or municipal forests were found.
-^
3, however, are called "state forest preserves", but their precise
and populations,
are expected
to bring
No specific references to existing state
^
"0
^
of national forests appeared
O
probably under
CD
as they
and preserves by local
Some state units listed in Table
legal status remained unclear. No information about the management
very loose
in available sources.
They are
control by the Institute, just as
national parks and preserves.
w
"^
c - National, State and Municipal Biological
Preserves
-~\e 1967 Animal Protection Law is the legal basis for these
units.
The Departamento defines them as "areas essentially not
^
disturbed by human activity" created to protect "scientifically
^
significant" species of flora and fauna.
They should be managed
^
to "preserve representative
samples"
3
"genetic resources".
^
not attract visitors.
^
be
-*1
controlled.5
«-.
vetoed;
ecological
and maintain
They do not have to be extensive and should
All human activities in their area should
scientific
research
should
be
stimulated, but
The 15 existing national biological preserves will be assessed
-X,
105
3
in detail later in this chapter. One preserve was extinguished but
-*f~3*^^
"^
was incorporated into a national park.
—=*^
Table 3 includes 17 units
called "state biological preserves"; nine others with the same name
^»A
—
—^
—^
are said by Strang et al to exist in the state of Minas Gerais.
~O
in the list of state units summarized in Table 3.
^
—-^5
s~»\"
-~}
But their "undefined situation" precluded them from being included
In 1988 Herbert
Martins confirmed the existence of six "parks" and 13 "ecological
preserves" in Minas Gerais, but could not positively identify their
legal status.
Brazilian Census
preserves.
data records 32 state biological
As in the case of state parks, this Census information
—'
is probably incomplete or inaccurate.
-«^
preserves established by Strang et al seems the best estimate, even
O
though the study is 6 years old.
J^
preserves, at least one exists in the outskirts of the city of Rio
'3
de Janeiro with the name Jacarepagua. It will be evaluated briefly
^
The 17 state biological
As for municipal biological
in Chapter 7.6
i
d - National, State and Municipal Hunting Parks
-^
Considered by the Departamento as an "additional" type of
**j
conservation unit, hunting parks are for "rational direct use of
^
resources, with sustained yield".
ID
Animal Protection Law.
^
hunting parks can be either government-owned or owned jointly by
"^
government
•^
resources, but
—>
officially created hunting parks in Brazil was found in available
and
Their legal basis is the 1967
In contrast to the units so far analyzed,
private
citizens;
that is not
they
might
a "priority".7
help
conserve
No reference to
_^
' "3
—-»i
-^*\^
.i*
106
sources.
Brazil,
preservation units proper.
Although sports hunting is not
this
type
of
unit
could
help
a widespread habit in
diminish
poaching
in
e - Ecological Stations
0
Ecological stations are a more recent type of conservation
^
unit, created under the authority of Law 6902, April 27, 1981.
"5
They
~^
ecosystems in which basic and applied ecological research, natural
^*)
environment
protection
developed".
90% of the area of each ecological station are to be
o
^
are
defined
as
"...
representative
and
areas
of
Brazilian
environmental education are
to
be
"fully preserved", while the remaining 10% are to be used for
J
research and experimentation that intentionally "change the local
^
ecosystem".
^)
of natural and altered ecosystems.
^
Ambiente
^
management.
.—'
^
-*^>
—•
research projects" to dedicate "special attention" to proposals
-
Interestingly, Paulo Nogueira Neto, head of the Secretaria,
^
admits that he arrived at this concept of simultaneous research
O
and preservation during his experience as Vice-President of United
^
Nation's "Man and the Biosphere" Program, in 1979.
^
that human induced changes, like fire and overgrazing, should be
^
-^
included in ecological research.
is
The objective is to allow for "comparative studies"
the
agency
Article
The Secretaria Especial de Meio
responsible
5 mandates
for
their
creation and
"federal agencies
supporting
involving ecological stations.
patterns
can
thus
receive
He understood
Society's land and resource use
scientific
feedback.
Originally
~oX
3
107
"3
ecological stations were conceived strictly as preservation units.
This
concept of integrated
management is unique in
Brazilian
•^stS
^)
preservation policies and is in this author's view extremely well
-J
adapted to a country of vast natural resources, rapid economic
—-^
growth
and
enormous
social
problems.
The
presumption
of
3
controlling induced changes, though, is obviously a prime example
^
of arrogant humanism.8
~O
Ecological stations are the most modern and well conceived
~^
conservation units in Brazil and they deserve further attention.
^)
Table 5 shows the 27 ecological stations created, being created or
proposed
•~)
^
by
the
Secretaria
since
1978.
Some
of
them were
established before Law 6902 but most of them came after.
proposed ecological stations
A few
are not in the table, for lack of
Z
information.
O
according to their "macroecological domain" or "morphoclimatic
^
domain" and "phytogeographic regions" established by Aziz Ab'Saber,
3
a ranking Brazilian Geographer; this criteria was retained in Table
'f
5.
-^
scientific criteria not entirely dissimilar from the ones developed
^
These units are always listed in Secretaria sources
Ecological
stations
are
located
according
to
between 1975-1979 in the park service's Departamento.
The common
trait is the search for "ecosystem representation".
Ecological
stations have been deliberately plotted throughout Brazil's four
;^
tropical and two sub-tropical
^
between them.9
^
therefore
domains or in "transition areas"
Several other reasons besides the criteria for location
-\d management objectives make ecological stations a more
and
.08
Table 5
Brazilian Ecological Stations Created, Being Created and
Planned by SEMA: Names, Location, Date of Creation
and Areas, Per Ecosystem, as of 19871
Name
Location
(State or
Territory)
Date of
Creation
Approximate
Current
Area(kmz)
1 - "Forested Lowlands of the Amazon Region"
Anavilhanas*
Maraca*
Rio Acre+
Juami-Japuraf
Jari+
Cunia+
Caracarai-Niquia*
Maraca*
Ique-Juruena*
Urucui-Una*
Areazonas
Amapa
Acre
Amazonas
Para
Rondonia
Roraima
Roraima
Mato Grosso
Piaui
6/2/81
- •
6/2/81
4/12/82
4/12/82
6/3/85
6/2/81
6/2/81
6/2/81
3,501
700
775
5,726
2,271
1,000
2,886
920
2,000
1,350
2 - "Northeastern Intermontane and Interplateau Semi-Arid
Depressions"
Aiuaba*
Serido+
Raso da Catarina*
Itabaiana-i-
Ceara
Rio G. do Norte
Bahia
Sergipe
1/16/78
5/31/82
-
130
350
2,000
30
3 - "Forested Hills'
Mamanguape+
Praia do Peba#
Tamoiost
Pirai+
Jureia*
Guaraquecaba+
Carijos+
Paraiba
Alagoas
Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro
Sao Paulo
Parana
S. Catarina
30
30
1980
5/31/82
40
300
136
^
~^«s
~"~*:
A
109
^_~/
3
4 - "Tropical Interior Plateaus Covered with Savannas and
Penetrated by Gallery Forests"
0
-*s
^
Parapitinga+
Coco-Javaesf
Serra das Araras+
Taiama*
^
3
—-,
Minas Gerais
Goias
Mato Grosso
Mato Grosso
5/31/82
6/2/81
100
370
287
120
5 - "Sub-Tropical Plateaus with Araucaria augustifolia"
Aracuri-Esmeralda* Rio G. do Sul
Taim*
Rio G. do Sul
3/7/77
1978
2.7
320
-\ - "Sub-Tropical Hills with Mixed Prairies"2
Notes
1 - * = Created; -i- = Being Created; # = Planned.
2 - No ecological stations were created yet in this ecosystem.
Sources ; Eugenic Camargo Bruck et al . "Unidades de Conservacao".
Revista do Service Publico. Ill (4) : 21-27 ; Secretaria Especial de
Meio Ambiente.
Programa de Gerenciamento das Unidadss de
Conservacao.
Brasilia, 1986;
Secretaria Especial de Meio
Ambiente.
Estacao Ecoloqica de Jureia.
Brasilia, 1984;
Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente. Estacao Ecologica de Taim.
Brasilia, 1984. Legislcao de Conservacao da Natureza. Sao Paulo,
CESP; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da
Natureza, 1986.
modern type of unit.
One striking aspect is research. Besides the
"special attention"
they
should
receive from research support
agencies, ecological stations were included in the Second National
Development Plan for 1974-1979.
More important, research in them
is supported by the National Plan for Technological and Scientific
Development,
which manages massive public financial aid for all
types of scientific research in Brazil.
110
what is being done in operational units, then it seems that almost
all
basic
ecological
research
in
Brazil's
preservation
conservation units is being done in ecological stations.
ES,
on Sao Paulo's coastline,
12 research projects
concluded and 24 others are in progress.
from
several
Sao
Paulo
universities
and
In Jureia
have been
Instructors and students
received
grants
and
scholarships for these projects, allotted by the Secretaria through
negotiations
with two major federal government research support
^
agencies.
The same is happening in Taim ES, in Rio Grande do Sul,
^
with 14 concluded projects and 15 in progress.
^^
~^
"»,
natural history, biology, geology, hydrology and soils.
-^
Jureia ES
All studies are in
Research
grants are for individuals or institutions, Brazilian or foreign.
seems
to
have
received research
support
also from
zZ**,
^
^
3
.^
-^
'2
Nuclebras, Brazil's major nuclear energy agency, on account of its
"co-localization" with projected nuclear plants.10
In contrast,
research activities in national parks and preserves are very poor,
as will be shown.
fs»,
i-'-a\;
is
A last
trait of the ecological stations reveal how elaborate
The Secretaria creates and manages another
their conception.
<.__T3^
.-'/-r,
type of unit called environmental protection areas.
Among other
/"/-2i,
^
-of
-—<''
a
things, environmental protection areas have been located around
some ecological stations and managed as "buffer" zones.
This
,,*s
^
combination of protected lands has a great potential for obtaining
^/
"2
f'~>**\
effective results.
In 1983
Paulo
Nogueira
Neto
said
that
the Secretaria
was
-**•
"-*
aiming at 40,000 km2 of ecological stations before 1985 was over.
— .—
111
By the end of 1987, however, the total reached only 25,400 km2.
Considering that ecological stations are not defined as necessarily
extensive units, 40,000 km2 was not a small ambition.
In fact, the
combined area of existing ecological stations is actually large.
In about 10 years they amounted to 30% of what national parks did
.
J)
^
in 50 years and 10% more than national biological preserves in 20
years
A Secretaria staff member was probably right when in 1979 he
said that ecological stations were the "main instrument of the
Secretaria's
action".
More
recently,
through
the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1981, the Secretaria was entrusted with
many other tasks and means of action in environmental policy.
But
the
its
ecological
momentum.11
station
program
seems
to
have
retained
The land ownership situation of ecological stations
is not mentioned by available sources.
It must be just as complex
as in national parks and preserves and is just as crucial for
obtaining effective results.
Ecological
preserves
are
stations
supposed
monitoring activities.
are
"similar"
and
are
to be,
much
like
except
national
for induced changes and
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua agrees that they
considers
this
a
"regrettable"
duplication of activities by different agencies.
,«/
,^
biological
case
of
Probably inter-
agency competition influenced this development, but Padua says that
Paulo Nogueira Neto, her "personal friend", was really trying to
make
ecological stations fill in for
initiative.
the Institute's lack of
The first national biological preserve was created
112
3
only in 1974.
..^
Institute did not create a single park or preserve.
"j
this,
•~/
"beneficial" to the cause of conservation in Brazil.12
Padua
Between 1974 and 1979, as mentioned before, the
qualifies
the
ecological
station
Considering
program
as
o
-**\l stations can also be created by state and municipal
-^**\, in agreement with the Secretaria. Besides one created
J^
,_>
O
;^
in Minas Gerais, I found that at least one more was created in
February of 1986 by the State government of Sao Paulo: JureiaItatins.
This unit is located in the Southern coastline of the
•JSiSs'
'^j
State, not far from the federal Jureia ES mentioned above. It
contains one of the few extensive remains of the Atlantic Coastal
Forest, besides some of the world's most productive and important
mangroves, crucial for Atlantic Ocean marine food-chains.
Its area
was decreed as 820 km2, of which 620 km2 are private lands to be
acquired.
Jureia ES is located near four state parks and one state
biological preserve, which compose a large protected area of this
important and scarce landscape.
Other ecological stations have
probably been created by state governments but were not identified.
No
municipal
ecological
stations
were
recorded in available
sources .13
f - Environmental Protection Areas
Created by the same law as ecological stations, environmental
protection
conservation
designed
areas
are
on
a
borderline.
and land-use planning or zoning.
They
lie
between
They are legally
to "...guarantee the welfare of human populations and
113
O
conserve or enhance local ecological conditions".
_X
be created in all levels of government, upon agreement with the
^}
Secretaria. l «
Table 6 lists environmental protection areas directly created
..-&&\
-»\d managed by the Secretaria.
They can also
Their main objective is to "control
land use, in public and private lands".
This type of unit can be
^
used for many purposes.
It is certainly the most complex one in
O
Brazilian legislation and policy.
^
been be created around ecological stations, to "protect" them, as
^:
mentioned earlier.
~"
zones", which might coincide with "permanent preservation" areas
For one thing, they can and have
But they can also have their own "wildlife
~;
-~)
established by the 1965 Forest Code.15
In other words, this type
of unit can be used to protect areas already protected under other
^
status.
O
Environmental protection areas are defined by the Secretaria
^
as similar to Portuguese and English
"^
German "Landschaftschutz", but similarities are not described.
^
j
striking
-;
though, is land ownership status.
difference with
intentionally
other
"Natural Parks" and West
conservation units
A
in Brazil,
Environmental protection areas
"avoid the problems implied by land acquisition",
—,
which we have already seen to be a most difficult one for national
^
parks and preserves.
X
an<^
managed areas.
natural
They are not intended to be publicly owned
They aim at "adequate zoning and managing" to
3
"conserve
resources"
according
to local
—,
integrating decisions about private and public lands.
conditions,
114
Table 6
—^
Brazilian Environmental Protection Areas Created by
SEMA: Name, Location, Date of Creation and
Approximate Area, as of June 1986
(in order of creation)
Name
Location
(State or
Territory)
Date of
Creation
Petropolis
Piacabucu
Bacia do S.Bartolomeu
Bacia do Descoberto
Rio de Janeiro
Alagoas
Distrito Federal
Distrito FederalGoias
Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro
Sao Paulo
9/13/82
6/21/83
11/7/83
11/7/83
12/27/83
9/25/84
10/23/84
338
143
2,028
Ceara
Parana
Rio de JaneiroMinas GeraisSao Paulo
Fernando de
Noronha
10/29/84
10/31/85
6/3/85
68
2,915
4,025
Cairucu
Guapi-Mirim
Cananeia-IguapePeruibe
Jericoacoara
Guaraquecaba
Mantiqueira
Fernando de Noronha/
Rocas de S.Pedro e
Sao Paulo
Approximate
Current
Area (km2)
440
86
841
391
6/5/86
Sources; Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente. Areas de Protecao
Ambiental: Abordagem Historica e Tecnica.
Brasilia, 1987;
Leqislacao de Conservacao da Natureza. Sao Paulo, CESP; Rio de
Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, 1986.
Although the Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente sets "generaj.
rules" for all environmental protection areas and the Secretaria
has a "National Coordination" for their., the crucial managing rcler
in each unit is supposedly played by a directive body of community
and government agency representatives. This body decides about the
-~3
.;.:.
us
"installation of pollutant industries", the "opening of roads",
—»j
J
"erosion
causing
preservation
of
rare
appoints
" "3
environmental protection area.
-"=*!
Forces"
from these groups.
threats
or endangered
,_^
^
"Task
activities",
to
prepare
the
and
The Secretaria
creation
of
each
It was not a priority for the first
planning
authority is obvious.
X
environmental protection areas are designed to be located exactly
"j
in
^
intensifying.
**i
where
human
preservation
presence
and
and
In sharp
contrast
•W
other
The kinship with an integrated
^
areas
with
species.
quality
"Community participation" is now deemed as
"important" by the Secretaria.
government-community
water
The governing bodies are recruited
environmental protection areas.16
i—«,
to
conservation
activity
is
units,
intense
or
Natural landscape or species preservation is not a
•": •
priority and public ownership is not a requirement.
Piacabucu EPA, for example, was created as a buffer for Praia
«^
do Pefoa ES, in the state of Alagoas, on the mouth of the important
^
Sao Francisco river. The objectives of the ecological station are
^
to fix sand dunes, protect marine turtles who spawn there and save
0
habitat for shoreline birds. The largest environmental protection
;.
area of all, Mantiqueira, protects high altitude forests and slopes
^
- -^t^
"^
**
^
in the mountainous region where the borders of Rio de Janeiro, Sao
•^
state, has two "wildlife areas".
Paulo and Minas Gerais meet.
Petropolis EPA, in Rio de Janeiro
These three units have a more
preservationist emphasis. Rio Sao Bartolomeu EPA, in contrast, was
—
created to "protect the last watershed capable of supplying the
D
future needs of Brasilia", the national capital.
In this case
—"^
--^
116
0
urban and rural planning and conservation dictated the creation of
__~
'~*j
the unit.
Unclear
situations
occur,
though,
as
when
the mentioned
;^
Piacabucu EPA, created to protect an ecological station, is at the
^)
same time defined as an "area of relevant ecological concern" and,
still, has its own "wildlife area", distinct from the ecological
^
station.17
"0
protection units, for reasons not at all clarified.
._J^
"O
The Secretaria here is overlapping
four types of
State and municipal governments can create their environmental
protection areas, under the Secretaria's supervision.
In Rio de
^
Janeiro state, for example, three such units were created by the
^}
state government to protect natural characteristics of areas under
-*
o
siege of tourism and development.
At least eight similar units
were created by the city of Rio's government, inside city limits.
-v
In these cases, urban planning and enforcement of building codes
^
are the rationales.
tD
Janeiro state and municipal environmental protection areas. Other
Chapter 7 will deal briefly with Rio de
^
states and municipios have probably created these units but no
Q
record was found in available sources.18
^
g - Ecological Preserves
s*^
Ecological preserves are defined by Decree 89336, January 31,
1984.
All "permanent preservation areas" cited in Article 2 of the
1965 Forest Code are now considered ecological preserves.
These
areas, mentioned in Chapter 2, were river, lake and lagoon banks,
watersheds, hilltops, slopes with 45° or more, sand dunes, canyon
~>
edges and all floral formations above the altitude of 1,800 m.
X
these
O
jurisdiction of the Institute and were passed on to the Secretaria.
X
This is one of those typical "generic" legal provisions, pointed
^
out by Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros, that survive despite lack of
extensive
applicability.
-<=»,
areas
were
formerly
under
the
All
(fictional)
By the Forest Code and now by Decree 89336, a
large, scattered and utterly unmanageable portion of Brazilian
territory is automatically considered as "permanent preservation
_X
areas". Their name was simply changed to "ecological preserves".
O
No special decree or law is required to protect them.
!
X
*j
But at least four ecological preserves were created in 1983
and 1984 by specific statutes.
They are listed in Table 7.
are very different from each other.
They
The extensive Raso da Catarina
**•.
ecological preserve, with 997 km2, created by Decree 89268, January
-*
3, 1984, was
~0
^
said to be instrumental
Ecological Station".
in the "establishment an
Indeed, an ecological station exists with
"s^
"3
that name. It can be deduced that ecological preserves can be used
X
to set aside areas for further designation
as preservation or
^
conservation units, although neither the general nor the specific
^
decrees mention this role. Another ecological preserve is Ilha dos
•^
*+.
Lobos, a tiny marine island with only 1.6 km2, off the coast of Rio
Grande do Sul.
~.
-"^
X
•<*>
3
Its objective is to protect populations of sea-
lions which use the small island in their migration.
The same status of ecological preserve was given to an immense
area of 2,881.7 km2 called Jutai-Solimoes, created by Decree 88541,
July 2, 1983.
The decree included the ominous provision that
3
11 s
— "-SB^
-^
mining deposits eventually discovered there will be exploitable
"=*
with the permission of the President of the Republic.
3
first act creating any kind of Brazilian preserve to include such
a proviso. On the same day, with the same proviso, Decree 88542
.^*^
s&\
This was the
-~s
f*j
created Juami-Japura ecological preserve, also an immense area of
^*x
^
^J
2,650 km2.
It is part of Juami-Japura ES , the largest unit created
f^a-^
.^.
Table 7
_-'
^
^
^
Brazilian Ecological Preserves Created by SEMA: Name,
Location, Date of Creation and Area, as of 1987
{in chronological order)
Name
Location
(State)
Ilha dos Lobos
Jutai-Solirooes
Juami-Japura
Raso da Catarina
Rio G. do Sul
Amazonas
Amazonas
Bahia
Date of
Creation
7/4/83
7/21/83
7/21/83
1/3/84
Approximate
Current
Area (km2)
1.6
2842.8
2650.0
997.0
^
^
Source; Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza. Sao Paulo, CESP;
Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza,
1986.
-J
<**.
by the Secretaria.
units, without
Again the agency overlapped different types of
a clarified reason.
Both these huge ecological
^
preserves are located in the state of Amazonas, Brazil's largest
O
and most forested.19
X
"3
The continuing non-management of all the immense non-decreed
ecological preserves, the dissimilarities
among the
four only
decreed ones and the conspicuous mining proviso really do not allow
• -*&*
^3
119
^
for any conclusion about these units.
^
when Article I of Decree 89336 says that ecological preserves can
—'
be public or private and when Article 4 says that the Conselho
^
Nacional de Meio Ambiente will establish criteria for the "rational
^
use of environmental resources".
Z
status is grossly contradicted by both articles, which collide with
3
-^3
^
the 1965 Forest Code.
The confusion is amplified
The "permanent preservation"
In summary, published Secretaria material
and basic legislation do not furnish a real identity and purpose
-^}
of ecological preserves.
—•^t
-^
n - Areas of Relevant Ecological Concern
"0
'»••,
^
^)
<*)
^
/ir~\y
Created by the same Decree as the ecological preserves, areas
of relevant ecological concern are just as mysterious.
They are
supposed to be selected for "extraordinary natural characteristics"
or "rare specimens of regional fauna and flora".
They are to be
located in areas without human occupation and have 50
km2 or less.
But they can also be located inside environmental
'-*:
^
protection areas, not as "wildlife areas", as might be expected,
-v
but as "part of wildlife areas"
X
is responsible for these units.
tv
3
national biological preserves if only their resources were not
"^
*•—,
••*
preserves.
(emphasis added).
The Secretaria
They would be very similar to
liable also to the same "rational use" proposed for ecological
The first areas of relevant ecological concern were created
by Decrees 90791 and 90792, January 9, 1985, in Sao Paulo and Rio
O
de Janeiro.
Decrees 91884 through 99890, November 5, 1985,
120
created a new surge of similar units.
They have a combined total
of only 247.9 km2 and are located in the states of Amazonas, Sao
Paulo, Parana and Paraiba
(see Table 8).
The legislation gives
Table 8
Brazilian Areas of Relevant Ecological Concern Created
by SEMA: Name, Location, Date of Creation
and Area, as of 1987.
(in chronological order)
Date of
Creation
Name
Location
(State)
Approximate
Current
Area(km2)
Matao de Cosmopolis
Floresta da Cicuta
"Minimum Critical
Areas of Tropical
Rainforests"
Mata de Santa
Genebra
Javari-Buriti
Queimada PequenaQueimada Grande
Pinheiro e
Pinheirinho
Ilha do Ameixal
Rio Mamanguape
Sao Paulo
Rio de Janeiro
Amazonas
1/9/85
1/9/85
11/5/85
32.9
Sao Paulo
11/5/85
2.5
Amazonas
Sao Paulo
11/5/85
11/5/85
150.0
.2
Parana
11/5/85
1.1
Sao Paulo
Paraiba
11/5/85
11/5/85
4.0
57.2
1.7
Source: Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza. Sao Paulo, CESP;
Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza,
1986.
only one hint of why these areas were selected.
In Amazonas, areas
under research in the "minimum critical areas" of tropical rain
forests were given relevant ecological concern status.20
objectives of this type of unit remained a mystery.
The
An educated
guess is that they are designed to preempt private activities in
as,,
~3
J^
121
selected areas preserving them for future classification.
,,^
^
Remarkable indeed is how the Secretaria acquired such a wide
—*&&*,
—''
.-**•»<*,
•^
^
range of conservation and preservation responsibilities in little
more than a decade.
The older Institute remained tied up with a
narrow framework consisting only of national parks, preserves and
Z
forests.
Besides
ecological
stations,
the
Q
established environmental protection areas, ecological preserves
J^
(subtracted from the Institute)
Q
concern.
and areas of relevant ecological
This is an impressive record for a young agency with so
many other environmental policy responsibilities.
~j
Secretaria has
Employing these
different units separately, or lumping them together or still
inside each other, the Secretaria has diversified significantly the
—,
scope of existing conservation units.
The Departamento tried to
Q
do the same without success, as will be shown below.
^
to be seen is the Secretaria's ability to manage all these units,
What remains
N.W
^
a subject that will not be explored here.
"•)
i - Special Areas of Tourist Interest and Sites of Tourist
w
-N
Interest
Special
areas
of
tourist
interest
sites
tourist
interest were mentioned in
X
December 20, 1977, they are not preservation or conservation units
Q
proper.
^
protected areas eventually included in tourist areas and sites.
law's
ambition
however
Created by
of
v.W
The
Chapter 3.
and
is to help
Law
£51.,
consolidate
-\e are defined, predictably, as "places of historic, artistic,
^
archaeologic and pre-historic value", with cultural and ethnic
122
—-V
^
"manifestations", "remarkable landscapes", appropriate sites for
O
"leisure and recreation", or with a "special climate".
^
preserves
")
or stations"
"protecting renewable
resources" are also mentioned as desirable components of tourist
areas and sites.
_^
-^
and other areas
"Ecological
federal
These units would be managed by Embratur, the
government
tourism
agency.
The
Institute
and
the
-^
3
^
Secretaria would participate in all decisions pertaining to these
T)
units.
J^
areas and buildings with touristic value or potential.21
units when created in the vicinity of their respective conservation
Unclear limits are established to private ownership of
~~j
Embratur has no preservation or conservation authority but
^
this law can help direct streams of visitors to existing protected
•^
areas and consequently help establish them as visible and selfsustainable units. This is the only reason to include them in this
or,.,
w
discussion.
No evidence was found of the creation of any tourist
w
areas or sites.
Currently Embratur is stimulating travel agencies
^
X
to organize "ecological tourism" travel programs around Brazil's
3
less remote national parks, as will be shown in Chapter 5.
^
seems that these programs are not linked to these proposed areas
It
•
^
x--*Ei\
and sites, though.
j-Union Protective Forests
-^
_*D
X
^
Q
Union protective forests are still another uncertain type of
protected land in the Brazilian scene.
the authority of the 1934
"protective" forests.
They were created under
Forest Code, under the heading of
Union protective forest seems to be an
_^
-^
123
unofficial designation.
The first such forest was created by
Decree-Law 6565, June 7, 1944, in the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro
_«,
city, then national capital.
O
flow" of two small rivers that were part of the city's water supply
_X,
network.
^j
December 16, 1946.
~J
buffer around some borders of Itatiaia NP.
--^
Its objective was to "guarantee the
A second protective forest was created by Decree 22287,
This was a much larger area designed as a
not mentioned in the decree, curiously.
This important fact was
A third protective forest,
created by Decree 28879, November 20, 1950, was established in
.~»s
Araras, in the municipio of Petropolis, next to Rio de Janeiro
J>
city.
Z
belonged to the state government.
3
"v
-^
The decree includes the information that the area already
Between 1944
and 1964
at least 23 still extant protective
forests were created in the state of Rio de Janeiro, some of them
very near or inside Rio de Janeiro's city limits.
""
protect
unstable
slopes
'"-,
primitive forests along
covered
with
second-growth
control
deforested
"^
successional
^
forests were incorporated into Tijuca NP, in 1961.
19th
second
rare
and watershed
Their main purposes
^
.--'
O
by
or
the Eastern faces of the Serra do Mar
ridge, parallel to Rio de Janeiro's coastline.
were erosion
All of them
century
coffee
protection
of these slopes
plantations
growth afterwards.
Nine
and
left
to
other protective
A new national
park, Tingua, is scheduled to be created in 1988 in one of the 22
<*f*
^
remaining protective forests in Rio de Janeiro.
This would be Rio
de Janeiro's fifth national park and the second one created in
-*^.
-,
protective forest areas .
-<•*,
-~\4
--^
Strangely, the 1965 Forest Code does not mention the union
~-
protective forests, but they are extant and are managed by the
__^
Institute.
"3
Pernambuco, Mato Grosso, Santa Catarina, Minas Gerais and Rondonia,
^
—^)
Other protective forests were created in Sao Paulo,
between 1949 and 1964.22
The inconsistency
and the vagueness of
available data did not allow for a table with protective forests.
jf*^
"~O
—-%
k - Forest Preserves
A
*^yj
last
mysterious
category
concludes
this
discussion of
...^j
existing yprotected lands in Brazil.
- .
Nine forest preserves were
O
"~*\
created by individual decrees, all dated July 25, 1961. They were
located in Maranhao, Mato Grosso, Amazonas, Para, Roraima and
vssa^'
^
Rondonia
{see Table 9).
Again the authority was the 1934 Forest
/*2S
Code. They were not incorporated
^
into the 1965 Forest Code and
survive until today based on the individual decree
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua says that they are "provisional11
—s
units, liable to redefinition or even extinction.
The objectives
D
~)
^
of the forest preserves are not explained in the decrees, which
"^
populations in the vicinities and the need to respect their rights.
^
All areas were to be put under "permanent, preservation" status.
-^
With the exception
mention only their general location, the existence of indigenous
of one, all of these very large units were
located in the Amazon region.
Therefore, these forest preserves
--
were the first conservation units to be created there in a massive
^
scale.
Their combined area was a very impressive 168,870 km2, 21
times all the national park areas existing before 1961 and still
125
twice as much as current park areas.
Surprisingly, no reliable
updated information about the situation of these forest preserves
is available.23
Table 9
Brazilian Forest Preserves: Name, Location, Date
of Creation and Area, as of 1988
Name
Location
(State or
Territory)
Jaru
Pedras Negras
Gurupi
Juruena
Rio Negro
Gorotire
Mundurucania
Parima
Tumucumaque
Rondonia
Rondonia
Maranhao
Mato Grosso
Rio Negro
Para
Para
Roraima
Para
Date of
Creation
7/25/61
7/25/61
7/25/61
7/25/61
7/25/61
7/25/61
7/25/61
7/25/61
7/25/61
Approximate
Current
Area(km2)
10,850
17,610
16,740
18,080
37,900
18,340
13,770
17,560
17,930
Source: Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza. Sao Paulo, CESP;
Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza,
1986.
In summary, national parks and preserves are far from being
the only significant types of protected lands in Brazil. The other
types
are
based
on
rationales
that
vary
from
preservation,
conservation and erosion control to tourism and urban and rural
planning.
,.„'
The precise roles and identity of some of these units
are unclear.
Some affect very large areas, larger even than many
parks and preserves.
Some also protect important natural areas
near parks and preserves or far away from them. Unfortunately, the
^
126
-^
management of all these types of protected lands is divided through
~/;
many agencies, mainly the Secretaria and the Institute, besides a
ssto^
—^,
^J
~0
score of state agencies.
National parks are the oldest type of
protected land but the lack of momentum in park policy has allowed
fH^
_X
*^!
the emergence of competing or complementary types of protected
areas.
This reflects bureaucratic fragmentation and inter-agency
*7^
^
-r^
-^*i
*T«\O
^
^
-J
rivalries.
This certainly puts a strain on the scant governmental
energy available for managing public lands.
Other Types of Protected Lands in Brazil
'~
Native American populations in Brazil claim considerable
**^
J^
amounts of land all over Brazil as reservations or "indigenous
O
territories".
The legal status and the future of these lands are
'SZ**.
^
^J
"^
very uncertain but they are extensive areas where national society
is not supposed to introduce its technologies and where native
^r'jt>
••^*\
societies are expected to live more or less in their traditional
ways, not as consumptive of natural resources.
It is true that
some Native American groups have shown interest
in agriculture,
--SB*'
*ar3».
—*,
-^y
^
0
^
„!'
•W
^
^
w
—i
—^
->
• V
mining and forest products, but they are still a minority in the
less than 200,000 Native Americans of Brazil.
Any land set aside
for indigenous populations is, in this sense, liable
to a much
lower rate of exploitation than if opened to national society. The
complex and bitter issue of Native American lands in Brazil cannot
be summarized here, but the fact remains that about 10% of the
Brazilian territory is being claimed by Indigenous nations.
•--"v
1
-v**
-s
huge reserves have been legally secured.
Many
_Z
127
~3'
On the anecdotal side of this issue, the relationship between
^
--""")
preservation and indigenous lands is illustrated by the fact that
a major Indigenous Territory, called Xingu, was by mistake created
with the denomination of National Park, by Decree 50455, April 14,
-~>
1961.
O
was a national park for landscape preservation purposes.
"^
\
-^
-f£?t
For years many people inside and outside Brazil thought this
On the
serious side, some national parks and national biological preserves
have had their borders successfully contested by Native American
tribal groups.
In some parks this problem is still extant.24
Decree-Law 4146, March 4, 1942, declared "fossil deposits" as
"national property" and ordered that any fossil prospecting and
^j
^
excavation
O
Producao Mineral, the powerful agency which grants permits for all
X
mining activities in Brazil. Considering that some national parks,
O
such as Serra da Capivara, have deliberately included archeological
^
sites and cave paintings
"j
heritage")
-^
case of fossils.25
was to be authorized the Departamento Nacional de
(constitutionally protected as "cultural
inside their boundaries,
the same might happen in the
Q
s*\_
^*K
^
Proposed Protected Areas in Brazil
V"<«\y
^
The Departamento * s proposals for new types of conservation
3
^
.1,
w
^
units, publicized along with its 1979 park policy and proposals
analyzed in Chapter 3, give an idea of what is necessary fcr th-
^y
of its natural resources.
- ~-y
adequate protection of the Brazilian landscape and the rational use
None of these categories were created
- ~--.y?
~j
by law, although the Secretaria at the same time managed to legally
^
128
^—/
-^
create new types of protected areas. The Deapartamento's proposals
.__^i^
_^
are based on a publication
by the International
Union for the
O
Conservation of Nature entitled Objectives. Criteria and Categories
_/3»x
"*'
_^a^
-^
for Conservation Areas.
~"-**"™"™'~™™™™™™™*™™"™™"*"™™™"™i™™"™
"Natural
Monument"
status
was
proposed
for
"nationally
managed
for
recreation,
SZZri^
--'
o
-^
^v
o
.^
significant"
natural
areas",
to
be
environmental education and research.
to be extensive nor encompass
Such areas would not have
a whole sample of an ecosystem;
mentioned as examples are caverns or dunes.
Ubajara NP, with only
~^.'^tf
O
-^
X
^
•^
~^
-V
«*i
^.^
5.36 km2, is mentioned as a candidate for this status.26
"Wildlife
Refuges"
were
proposed
for
areas
designed
essentially to protect species of flora, local or migratory fauna
endemisms and unique biological resources.
public
or
jointly owned,
with
limited
They can be private,
access
for recreation,
SO*,
^
scientific research and environmental education.
^
small, limited to nesting grounds, lakes, swamps, etc.27
^^
^w
They should be
ID
"Scenic Rivers" were to be "linear and continuous" units along
Zt
w
'5
rivers with outstanding scenic values, managed to protect islands,
,&*,
banks, slopes
and canyons in their natural
state.
Alteration
.•:""•*-,
^*
should be avoided and use for public education and recreation is
^•j?
"'^
permissible.28
"Road-Parks" were conceived as "linear and continuous" areas
«**f
--'
_**,
u/
"j.
along both sides of roads with exceptional ''scenic, cultural or
recreational"
value.
Development, signs
and
billboards
are
forbidden in order to maintain a natural or semi-natural state for
recreation and education. The Departamento proposed that a stretch
-^
129
O
of the Transamazon Road be selected as the first Road-Park, but
_
this was never implemented.29
^)
;^
"Natural Parks" were proposed as "relatively large areas with
natural
scenery
recreation,
as
environment
of
a
rule
should
,**,
necessary, including
\J
industries.
^
,^J
Q
•
^
^
-^/
"-)
-~3rf
w
^
"0
^
national
be
importance", managed
located
near
cities
"semi-natural",
with
and
for outdoor
roads.
The
reclamation
if
agriculture, animal farming and handcrafts
Although not designed for conservation, they can help
conserve water, soils and other resources.
They must be able to
receive large numbers of visitors, have easy access and provide
recreation.
A Caraca Natural Park has been created recently in
Brazil, comprising a pastoral setting typical of some parts of the
state of Minas Gerais;
although it lacks the legal status, it is
"managed as a Natural Park".30
"Resource Preserves" or "Forest Preserves" were proposed to
rescue the above mentioned forest preserves from legal oblivion.
O
They are defined as "temporary" units, covering "extensive, non-
T^
inhabited, hardly accessible and pristine areas" about which little
•^
is known.
They would serve to preempt any private occupation and
buy time for future permanent designation.31
"Fauna
^
Preserves"
were suggested for
relatively extensive and preserved areas.
fauna management in
Important species in
^
regional diets, specially protein yielding ones, are to be bred ana
0
protected, by government or jointly by government and private land
owners.
They would
also
allow
for visitation,
education and scientific research.32
environmental
Some national biological
—*^
130
O
preserves have been developing the management activities designed
"i
_X"
for proposed fauna preserves, as will be mentioned later.
3
"Cultural Monuments" were to be selected by Brazil's National
;^
Historic and Artistic Heritage office. They should encompass areas
•^J
^
with archeological, historic or cultural values, in government or
.. /^*s
private lands, for purposes of education and recreation.33
../zt^
-^
These
O
preservationist
Z,
preservation program.
Q
.
units
would
certainly
Institute
to
have
develop
helped
a
an
more
actively
encompassing
On the other hand, the Institute's energies
for national parks, preserves and forests waned after 1984.
It is
^
most doubtful
^las-
"
decisive difference in the agency's performance in the field of
--rj
landscape and species preservation.
-*'
National Parks
a^
that the new types of units would have made a
As seen, national parks are one out of almost 30 types of
^
publicly
protected
;IT
legislation.
areas
existing
or proposed
in Brazilian
More than enough context for an analysis of the
\*V
**
/-j?"\
Brazilian national park system has been given.
protected
areas
competing
for
scarce
funding
and
The variety of
managerial
-.-•a*
-^
capabilities will help understand some of the problems in which
-cv,
-•«••
- ^^
-.<>/
0
national parks are immersed.
Much of the basic information about, the nationax parx. system
has been organized in Tables 10 through 19.
Table 10 has the
'***••
^
names, the dates and the specific
legal acts creating and/or
.^y
7i
altering all 28 existing parks.
A first important aspect to be
~3
131
--^*,
analyzed is the extremely irregular time pattern of park creation
-^4,
in
Brazil.
The
intervals
almost
call
for
a
"generational"
classification. A first generation includes only Itatiaia, Iguacu
_^
and Serra
\j
composed by the next 11 parks created between 1959 and 1961.
^
dos Orgaos, created in 1937-1939.
A second one is
third is composed of only three parks created between 1971 and
-^
1974.
--"
started in 1979 and includes the remaining 11 parks.
--*i
A
The fourth and last generation is still in the making; it
The intervals of 20, 10 and 5 years between the succeeding
generations pull the average age of national parks much below than
j
^,
what could be supposed of a system born in 1937.
CD
average age of Brazilian parks is in fact only 20.4 years.
The current
The
s,i~,
~^
expected creation of two more parks in 1988 will bring this average
^
down to less than 20.
"
directed towards each park has an average span of only two decades.
-^
The park system is, therefore, quite young.
Therefore, the net administrative effort
This could be used as
an argument for optimism about the situation of Brazilian national
parks, but only if the older parks were considerably better off
-*yg$
O
than the younger ones.
CL,
clear that some of the older parks in fact suffer chronic problems
CD
that longer years of administration have not soothed.
C
"^
A
second
national parks.
This is not entirely true.
topic refers
to
the
legal
origin
It will become
of
Brazilian
Executive decrees or decree-laws created and/or
altered all parks.
Contrary
to park creation procedures in the
US, for example, in Brazil parks do not go through any sort of
congressional approval.
This has at least two consequences worth
_--***
13;
^—?
_-«=K
Table 10
Brazilian National Parks: Name,Date of Creation and
Alteration, with Respective Legal Act
(in chronological order)1
Name
Date
Itatiaia
Iguacu
Serra dos Orgaos
Ubajara
Aparados da Serra
Araguaia
Emas
Chapada dos Veadeiros
Caparao
Sete Cidades
Sao Joaquim
Tijuca
Brasilia
Monte Pascoal
Serra da Bocaina
Serra da Canastra
Tapajos
Serra da Capivara
Pico da Neblina
Pacaas Novos
Cabo Orange
Jau
Lencois Maranhenses
Pantanal M. Grossense
Abrolhos
Serra do Cipo
Chapada Diamantina
Lagoa do Peixe
Creation
Legal Act2
6/14/37
1/10/39
11/30/39
4/30/59
12/17/59
12/31/59
1/11/61
1/11/61
5/24/61
6/8/61
7/6/61
7/6/61
11/29/61
11/29/61
2/4/71
4/3/72
2/19/74
6/5/79
6/5/79
9/21/79
7/15/80
9/24/80
6/2/81
9/24/81
4/6/83
9/25/84
9/17/85
11/6/86
1713
1035
1822
45954
47446
47570
49874
49875
50646
50744
50922
50923
241
242
68172
70355
73683
83548
83550
84019
84913
85200
86060
86392
88218
90223
91665
93546
Alteration
Date Legal Act3
9/20/82
6/14/44
8/2/84
4/26/73
3/17/72
3/1/73
4/6/72
5/11/72
87586
4587
90023
72144
70296
71879
70375
70492
2/28/67
60183
6/8/72
/74
1/18/5
70964
74477
90823
Notes
1 - Excluding two extinguished national parks: Paulo Afonso,
created 11/24/48 (Decree 25865) and extinguished 6/2/65 (DecreeLaw 605);
Sete Quedas, created 5/30/61
(Decree 50665)
and
extinguished 6/4/81 (Decree 86071).
2 - All creation acts have been federal government Decrees, except
for the case of the Serra dos Orgaos National Park, established by
a Decree-Law.
3 - All alteration acts have been federal government Decrees,
~"*>
~~*1
133
except for the case of the Iguacu National Park, decided by a
Decree-Law. For parks with more than one alteration only the first
one is given.
-•**)
1^
-Q
-^
Sources;
Departamento
de
Parques
Nacionais
e
Reservas
Equivalentes, Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal;
IBDF. Proieto de Implantacao e Consolidacao de Parques Nacionais,
Reservas Ecruivalentes e Protecao a Natureza. Brasilia, [1975] ;
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao
Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza.
Piano do Sistema de
Unidades de Conservacao no Brasil. Brasilia, 1982; Secretaria
Especial de Meio Ambiente. Proleto Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
Brasilia, 1988
[typewritten]; Brasil. Leis e Decretos, etc.
Leoislacao de Conservacao da Natureza.
Sao Paulo, Centrais
Eletricas de Sao Paulo; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza, 1986.
-"~\
mentioning.
0
J~
;y
O
-^
^
for
.,*-,
gauging
creation.
Congressional records are not the convenient
interest
conflicts
eventually
Proposals, controversies
arising
and negotiations
source
with their
are
to be
^s**'
O
found
^
correspondence, park agency files, executive documents and so on,
^
harder to be gathered and studied.34
;^
"•^
in more widespread sources such as local press, politicians'
Another consequence of Executive creation does not affect the
study of national parks.
affects their very existence.
^
a single
national
It is much more serious because it
Not having approved the creation of
park, Congressional
houses
have no special
"affection" for them. This will soon become a more serious problem
X
for Brazilian parks in the next few years.
Congress's budgetary
3
powers, severely cut since the mid-1960's, are scheduled to be
^
restored in full as soon as the new Constitution is finished.
";
National parks
and even the Institute have suffered budgetary
shortages when the Executive power was deciding almost sovereignly
n
LOCATION OF BRAZILIAN NATIONAL PARKS
AND BIOLOGICAL PRESERVES, AS OF 1988
NATIONAL
1
PICO
2
JAd N. P.
DA
NEBUNA
3
AMAZONAS
4
CABO
N. P.
N.P.
ORAWSE N.P.
5
PACAA*S
6
LENCOtS MARANHENSES
7
NOVOS
N.R
N.R
SETE CIDAOES N.P,
8
SERRA DA CAP1VARA
9
UBAJARA N.P.
10
CHAPADA
DiAMANTiNA
11
MONTE
12
MARfNHO
13
ARA6UAIA
14
CHAPADA
N.P.
N.P.
DOS ABROLHOS kP
N.P.
VEADEIROS N.R
BIOLOGICAL
I
15
EMAS
16
BRASI'LIA N.P
17
PANTANAL
N.P.
H
MATOSROSSENSE N.P.
18
SERKA DA CANASTRA N.P.
19
SERRA DO CIprf
£0
CAPARAO' N.P
21
PASCOAL N.P.
DOS
PARKS
SERRA
22
ITATIAiA
23
SERRA DA
N.P
H
JARU B.F?
24
TiJUCA
25
I6U*fU
26
SAO JOAOU1M
27
APARADOS
28
LASOA DO PEIXE
TOI
3HE
BOCAINA
N.R
N.P.
N.P.
N.P.
GUAPORE B.P
ATOL DAS ROCAS B.P.
SERRA
NEGRA
SALTINHO
B.P.
B P
UNA
x
CO'RRESO DO VEADO B.P
HI
DA SERRA N.P.
B.P.
PIRATUBA B.P
TX
E
N.P
B.P.
LASO
IT
DOS OR«£OS N.P.
ABUFARi
RIO TROMBETAS
m
T
N.R
PRESERVES
B.P
SOORETAMA B.P.
COMBOiOS
6.P.
Zni
NOVA
LOMBARDIA B.P
ZOT
POQO
DAS ANTAS
IT
eURUPI
B.P
B.P.
LEGENDA
•
NATIONAL
H
BIOLOGICAL
SOURCE:
PARKS
PRESERVES
INSTITUTO
BRASILEIRO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO FLORESTAL
Figure I
134
about appropriations. The Institute is an Executive branch agency.
Therefore, the situation tends to get worse if no congressional
lobbying is done by the Institute or whomever on behalf of the
already impoverished parks.
A third topic raised by the data in Table 10 is the areas of
national parks.
tell us?
What do the alteration dates listed in Table 10
11 parks have been object of alteration decrees, issued
on the average 17.3 years after their creation. These decrees have
generally changed the size and/or relocated the proposed borders
of each park.
Three parks were expanded: Itatiaia, Iguacu and
Serra dos Orgaos.
Veadeiros
decree).
Four
were
reduced: Araguaia, Chapada dos
(twice), Tapajos and Monte Pascoal
(without a specific
Other parks currently have expansion proposals: Aparados
da Serra, Emas, Sao Joaquim, Brasilia and Monte Pascoal.
Others
still are liable to reduction: Serra da Bocaina, Pico da Neblina
and Pacaas Novos.
Alterations have brought a net loss in decreed park areas over
the years, as pointed out
in Chapter 3.
Even
though a few
individual parks were expanded, the park service gave up more than
50% of the total decreed areas.
parks' original
decreed
ownership situations.
suffer
losses
and,
Alteration decrees bring the
limits closer
to the reality
of land
Surely the original areas are calculated to
in
this
statements of intention.
has been one constant
sense,
are
deliberately inflated
The presence of indigenous populations
reason for reductions; the inclusion of
expensive real estate in the original areas is another.
Loosing
"
135
=^
_
altered areas, developed sections or Native American hunting and
fishing
territories
is
not
necessarily
tragic.
But
loosing
?zt^
stretches
of
expensive
ocean
coastline , though , might mean a
*N
serious setback in a proposed continuum of habitats.
Worst of all
-ra*,
are the long battles for the definition of park borders and all the
^ae^
~)
expensive field work and litigation that goes together with them.
These disputes are a great drain on the Institute's scant energies
"^
^
^j
3
for development of the park system.
17 years on the average separate the first legal alteration
J**N
or consolidation measures from the creation of each park.
That is
•sd*''
a lot of time for any agency to dedicate to one isolated facility
-"'
or
installation.
This
is
specially
~\, because its priority is not preservation.
true
in
the
case of
the
Several parks
^-v'
^>N
^
>
-y
__
have been altered more than once , pulling
_
up the average of I /
years which I computed using the dates of only the first alteration
-&y
of each national park.
years,
^
^
*,.
'^
is
therefore
The average age of Brazilian parks, 20.5
only
slightly
higher
than
dedicated on the average to the consolidation
could be argued
that Brazil ' s national
the
17 years
of each one.
It
parks have been managed
-aS?'
almost exclusively for their mere physical consolidation, leaving
•if°*,
little time and energy for their development as areas destined for
^
--^
^
-W
leisure, recreation, research, education and preservation.
This pattern leads to a reflection about younger national
~
•^>*
-».•
parks.
The entire fourth generation of parks, by far the one with
the largest share of park area, still awaits alterations which will
.-T
confirm or not
their decreed areas.
In
the
late 1970 's the
—^
->
...=»,
136
--«-)
Departamento's preference for plotting
new
parks in unoccupied
O
public lands had this point in mind: it is always easier and faster
-*21*!
_^
to "clean up" the land ownership situation where private owners are
"^
non-existent or squatters lack proper titles.35
^
^)
national parks depends on the land
examined below.
ownership
Consolidation of
situation, to be
In this crucial sense, all younger parks lack
consolidation.
-^
The decrees
that created national parks and other
sources
--'
-"*^
^_^
^
mentioned in Table 10 yield background information relevant to the
,.
analysis of the park system. In many cases preserve or designated
0
public land status have preceded the creation of national parks.
^
Itatiaia, Brazil's first
^}
"Biological Research Station" maintained in the area since 1914 by
^
the Botanical
^
supported natural history research in the area.
Garden
park, for example, originated
of Rio de
Janeiro,
which
from a
conducted or
Part of Iguacu HP
was set aside by the Parana state government in October, 1930.
was later donated to the federal government
•J
time were in the states' hands).
^
Experimental
^
Department.
Forestry
Station
It
(public lands at the
Ubajara HP had its origin in an
managed
by
the
Agriculture
^
Aparados da Serra NP was partially acquired and donated to
3
the federal government by the state government of Rio Grande do
^
Sul, in 1957. A federal union protective forest was created inside
•^
or in the vicinity of the present day park in 1952.
Araguaia i\iP
was also donated by the state government of Goias in 1958.
Monte
Pascoal NP was originally a state park, created in 1943 and donated
137
«i
I
=J
to
the federal government.
>
*i
-^
union protective forests with Tijuca Forest, in which the federal
government
had
conducted
Tijuca NP was created by joining nine
a
major
reforestation
for watershed
,J
*"
protection between 1861 and 1887.
^
forest preserve, created in 1948.
^
Caparao NP was first a state
Serra do Cipo NP was originally
*)
*-\"
created as a state park in 1978.
1958 for park status by the
Sao Joaquim NP was indicated in
Agriculture Department's Forest
J
^
Service, as representative
temperate forest
—V
~'"*.:
^
conifers
of
with
dominant
(Araucaria aucmstifolia, one of Brazil's two only native
conifers).
Brasilia NP was also indicated by the Forest Service
D
to protect the integrity of the watershed that would supply the new
^
capital's water supply.
"'^
Therefore,
there
is
a
pattern
of
prior
research
and/or
^
conservation decisions giving a direction, or several directions,
"^
to the park system.
This is specially
true for the first and
second generations of parks. Further inquiry is needed to evaluate
-*-•*•
this, but
it is not altogether surprising.
The long intervals
between park creation acts, the slack administrative support for
^
the
0
institutional interest by the Institute in its first years combined
X
^
;^
**•
to
older
parks,
the absence
of
criteria
and
the
lack of
Put park policy on the haphazard trail of absorbing dispersed
initiatives.
In reference to Table 10 the extinction of Paulo Afonso and
Sete Quedas NP' s deserves comments.
of two major Brazilian rivers
Plotted next to scenic canyons
(Sao Francisco and Parana), both
parks were subsequently erased by hydroelectric projects.
Paulo
'—^
1
:
-T5
-3
—'
-"^
~
3
138
~
^
Afonso had part of its area flooded or taken for city development
and Army barracks when a great dam was built in the vicinity.
Apparently, no care was taken to spare the park, although its
"'")
^
-^)
^
original decree mentioned
building.
the
park
that a section would be ceded for dam
The 1969 Institute report suggested the extinction of
and
the
salvage
of
consisting of natural caatinaa
a
national
(arid scrub)
biological preserve
vegetation, besides
-"*\ "national monument" status for the nearby waterfall. Extinction
-^
^
was the only suggestion enacted.
Sete Quedas - literally Seven Falls - was a Parana river white
O
3
^
water rapids canyon, as it fell from the edge of Brazil's basaltic
^)
Itaipu hydroelectric dam, the largest in the world, built in the
^
mid-1970's.
By
^
deteriorating.
It was invaded by loggers, farms and Army barracks;
-^
the single park staff lived 200 km away; a small hydroelectric
Southern Plateau.
The rapids were flooded by the huge lake behind
1969,
the
park's
situation
was
rapidly
D
s-*\t was operational inside the park's borders. The design of the
^
dam deliberately included the flooding of Sete Quedas rapids, the
^
~~^
^
only visitor attraction of the park. The feeble protest rising in
^
plans.36
^}
destruction of the sites of these two parks, although resistance
^
must have existed. Both parks were fairly well known despite their
-^
relative remoteness
the height of the military dictatorship did not affect construction
It is not clear whether park authorities resisted the
Brazil's Southeast.
from
the more densely
populated areas of
The precedent was established, therefore, that
national parks can be wasted in the name of progress.
139
Table 11 gives the location and approximate current areas of
Brazilian national parks.
"j
^
A first important finding is that parks
were created from the coastline areas towards the interior.
"3
I helps visualize this fact, which has
-^\s of public visitation, a topic discussed below.
implications
With tne
Figure
for the
.D
-^)
exception of Iguacu NP, with its attractive waterfalls, the firsc
five parks were less than 100 km away from the coastline, where the
—>,
largest Brazilian
cities were and still are located.
The parks
W
created in inland Goias state and Brasilia in 1959 and 1961 were
^
the first ones located in Brazil's vast sertao
3
for the Brazilian hinterland).
^
the federal government's overall policy of "interiorizing" its
"*)
action.
(the popular name
But they were clearly linked with
This policy was symbolized by Brasilia, a huge Utopia of
monumental buildings and avenues built in concrete on the Central
-Sis'
Plateau, between 1956 and 1960, to be Brazil's new capital.
was
the
government
highest
priority
(1956-1961).
project
in
Juscelino
This
Kubitschek's
Those four parks were in part conceived
as leisure areas for government workers who would be forced to move
to Brasilia in the ensuing years.
Monte Pascoal NP, also created in 1961, was still another
coastline
park,
in
historical coloring.
touristic
Bahia
state,
with
a
particular
Mount Pascoal, although not very high, was
the first sighting of Brazilian territory by Portuguese sailors.
Sao Joaguim NP was created in a relatively remote area of the
South, but close enough to the coastline to attract many Brazilians
to its yearly snowfalls, the only regular ones in Brazilian
140
Table 11
Brazilian National Parks: Location and
Approximate Area, as of November,1 9 8 6
(in order of creation) J
Name
Approximate
Current
Area (km2)2
Location(State
or Territory)
Rio de Janeiro Minas Gerais
Parana
Iguacu
Rio
de Janeiro
Serra dos Orgaos
Ceara
Ubajara
Rio Grande do Sul
Aparados da Serra
Santa Catarina
Goias
Araguaia
Goias
Em as
Goias
Chapada dos Veadeiros3
Minas Gerais Caparao
Espirito Santo
Piaui
Sete Cidades
Santa Catarina
Sao Joaquim
Rio de Janeiro
Ti juca4
Federal District
Brasilia
Bahia
Monte Pascoal
Rio de Janeiro Serra da Bocaina
Sao Paulo
Minas Gerais
Serra da Canastra
Amazonas - Para
Tapajos3
Piaui
Serra da Capivara
Amazonas
Pico da Neblina
Rondonia
Pacaas Novos
Aroapa
Cabo Orange
Amazonas
Jau
Maranhao
Lencois Maranhenses
Pantanal Mato-Grossense Mato Grosso
Bahia
Abrolhos
Minas
Gerais
Serra do Cipo
Bahia
Chapada Diamantina
Rio Grande do Sul
Lagoa do Peixe
Itatiaia
Total
300.0
1,700.8
110.0
5.6
102.5
5,623.1
1,318.6
600.0
161.S
62.2
200.0
31.9
280.0
140.0
1,000.0
715.2
S,940.0
979.3
22,000.0
7,658.0
6,190.0
22,720.0
1,550.0
1,350.0
913.0'
338.0
1,520.0
340,0
87,850.4'
141
Notes
1 - Excluding two extinguished national parks: Paulo Afonso and
Sete Quedas.
2 - In cases of conflicting figures the smallest was chosen. Areas
proposed to be incorporated were not computed.
3 - Original name: Tocantins.
4 - Original name: Rio de Janeiro.
5 - Original name: Amazonia.
6 - Being a marine park, its area includes Atlantic Ocean surfaces.
7 - 1.02% of the Brazilian national territory.
Sources: Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equivalences,
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal; IBDF. Proieto
de Implantacao e Consolidacao de Pargues Nacionais, Reservas
Eauivalentes e Protecao a Natureza. Brasilia, [1S75]; Instiruto
Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza.
Piano do Sistema de Unidades de
Conservacao no Brasil. Brasilia, 1982; Secretaria Especial de Meio
Ambiente. Projeto Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
Brasilia, 1988
[typewritten]; Brasil. Leis e Decretos, etc.
Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza.
Sao Paulo, Centrais
Eletricas de Sao Paulo; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza, 1986.
territory.
Sete
Cidades
NP,
although
only
coastline, was plotted in a remote area.
150
km
from the
From Tijuca NP the
fashionable beaches of Rio de Janeiro can very easily be seen.
Ten years later, in 1971, Serra da Bocaina NP was created right on
Rio de Janeiro's and Sao Paulo's coast, in an area of great tourism
potential two hours away from Rio de Janeiro and three hours away
from Sao Paulo, Brazil's largest cities.
Serra da Canastra NP is
a definitely inland park but it lies 200 km from Belo Horizonue,
Brazil's third largest city.
in
the
Amazon
region,
Tapajos NP, the first to be created
was
a
spin-off
of
the
national
administration's enthusiasm about the never concluded Transamazon
road.
A national forest and a national park were set ac-iiu -~
142
survive the wave of "progress" that was supposed to inundate thac
remote area.
It was only after 1979, as seen in the previous chapter, that
"interiorization" of national parks became an independent policy
or guideline for park location.
Large parks and preserves were
created in the Amazonian lowlands and along remote international
borders.
This resulted
from an ecological
approach
that also
yielded coastal parks such as Lencois Maranhenses NP, a remote sand
dune area, Cabo Orange NP, an even more remote mangrove shoreline
and even the first marine park, Abrolhos NP.
Therefore, it took more than 40 years for Brazilian national
parks to systematically reach remote areas, including some on its
7,400 km Atlantic
necessarily
protected
shoreline.
In other
words,
landscapes
not
"attractive" or accessible to human eyes have been
only
very
recently
in
Brazil.
This
affects
the
ecological quality of the park system in a negative way, as will
be shown later.
Another
striking
"geographical"
detail
about
Brazilian
national parks is their total absence from the relatively small
states of the Northeast
(Sergipe, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Paraiba
and Rio Grande do Norte) .
The prevailing
criteria of "scenic
beauty" left very little to be included in national parks in the
area.
The Brazilian Northeast was an early victim of extensive
sugar cane plantations and mills, which ravaged the coastal forests
for cropland and other forested areas for fuel.
The Northeast is
Brazil's /aosc impoverished and arid, regicr., '.rich ;r.any stretches ir_
-^)
-^
143
advanced stages
of desertification.
It is not exactly a place
-3
^
_^
where Brazilians want to go for leisure and scenic beauties, with
the exception of its hundreds of kilometers of attractive beaches,
..._/55^
,_._^
on which there is not a single national park.
"O
3
~
~>
-^
stretch of Northeastern
-~>
o
state
of
Bahia,
mentioned
above.
in
The only small
beaches inside a national park is in the
Monte
The
Pascoal
park,
caatinga,
an
far
arid
from
scrub
the
states
environment
characteristic of the Northeastern hinterland, is precisely the
-«#
--"--^
least protected type of Brazilian landscape.
••sassy1
-2
^
-^
As shown above, some ecological stations in the Northeast were
. .--Sa^
located
in sites
undisturbed
enough
or with enough
ecological
•s^
3
importance to warrant protection and management.
resulted
from
the
ecological
criteria
stations were located from the beginning.
with
This probably
which
ecological
The prevailing "scenic
beauty" principle for national parks therefore shows out again in
this virtual absence of parks from the Northeast's vast hinterland
and coastline.
Table 11 has the areas for each national park and the total
area of all national parks.
The four generations of parks proposed
by this analysis have a consistently rising score in created park
area.
The
territory.
first
generation
set
aside
.02%
of the Brazilian
This minute figure remained the same for 20 years.
In
1959-61 the second generation pulled in .10% more. About ten years
later the third generation added
outdid
the
three
others
.13%.
combined, by
The fourth generation
far,
putting
.77%
into
nationax park status. J^.11 this adds co th^ current figure cf 1.C1";
~3
144
of Brazilian
territory
in national parks.
This is a very low
~3
—~S)
figure considering not only international standards but also recent
official policy statements by the Departamento, the Institute and
^
~O
even the all-powerful Second National Development Plan of 1974-
1979.
II
3
The average area of a Brazilian park is an impressive 3,137.5
km2.
This average is larger than 21 of the 28 parks;
this means that the three
Tapajos)
largest
obviously,
(Jau, Pico da Neblina and
pull the average up in a disproportional manner.
When
they are excluded, the average for the remaining 25 parks drops
3
-assr
sharply to 1,327.6 km2.
Before the surge of parks created from
«y
*y
1979
on, the average park size was very similar
figure: 1,311 km2.
to this last
The three large parks mentioned above are,
therefore, the ones that really account for the physical greatness
of the Brazilian park system.
"^
All of them lie deep in the Amazon
region but their borders are not at all safe from encroachment.
Their survival is, in more than one way, crucial for consolidating
<*»•
the progress in park policy represented by the first and second
stages of the "Conservation Unit System Plan" issued in 1979.
<->
Brazil's smallest national park is Ubajara, which is basically
~*s
a small area with a remarkable cave and scenic flat top geological
_
formations.
As mentioned earlier, the Departamento suggested it
to be Brazil's first national monument because it does not meet the
international minimum size requirement for national parks, which
is 10 km2.
Brazil
largest national park is Jau, in Amazonian
j-owlands, reachable only
oy boat, or small plane.
The
second
~3
^
—-^
145
largest
park,
Venezuela.
Pico
da
Neblina,
is
on
Brazil's
border
with
A Venezuelan park called Serrania de la Neblina adjoins
it and they compose the second largest continuous protected area
--~—;
"^J
_,«*,
in the American Continent, second only to the vast wilderness and
park areas created in 1980
in Alaska.
According to Institute
sources, this park is subject to being reduced due to indigenous
3
land claims in the area.
^
Novos, is also subject to reduction, because it lies entirely
--*)
Brazil's fourth largest park, Pacaas
inside a proposed indigenous territory.
Considering the criteria
—
adopted by the Departamento to select non-conflictive areas for new
^
parks, the plotting of this park in indigenous lands is intriguing.
,J
No explanation for this choice emerged.
•ss-y1
X
The small size of some parks, the extension of others and
-^y
O
urban
or rural
3
~'
permanence as protected lands.
"j
controlling public lands in general is very weak, as discussed in
7"
Chapter
*-*
suffer from this.
2.
encroachment
on both pose
the issue
of their
The federal government's record in
National parks are suffering
and will continue
to
This brings up the crucial topic of the land
ownership situation of Brazilian national parks.
attempt to summarize a very complex situation.
Table 12 is an
Some explanations
3
are needed to understand the meaning and the limitations of this
,Iy
table.
^
National park lands go through several stages before they are
;^'
considered fully under public ownership, as required by Brazilian
7)
park legislation and by international park standards.
After a
146
Table 12
Brazilian National Parks: Land Ownership
Situation, as of May 1988 1
Name
% of Land
Owned by
IBDF2
Itatiaia
Iguacu
Serra dos Orgaos
Ubajara
Aparados da Serra
Araguaia
Emas
Chapada dos Veadeiros
Caparao
Sete Cidades
Sao Joaquim
Tijuca
Brasilia
Monte Pascoal
Serra da Bocaina
Serra da Canastra
Tapajos
Serra da Capivara
Pico da Neblina
Pacaas Novos
Cabo Orange
Jau
Lencois Maranhenses
Pantanal M.Grossense
Abrolhos
Serra do Cipo
Chapada Diamantina
Lagoa do Peixe
5
95
20
90
75
0
90
0
95
90
0
95
100
100
30
100
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
50
0
0
% of Land
Not Owned
by IBDF3
95
5
80
10
25
100
10
100
5
10
100
5
0
0
70
0
100
50
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
50
100
100
Defined
Limits4
N
Y
N
y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y*
Y6
N
N
N
Notes:
1 Percentages indicate only current estimated areas.
All
figures are provisional.
2 - Lands owned by IBDF, duly bought or donated and registered in
Notary Publics.
3 - (1) Lands belonging to the public domain but not registered in
Notary Publics and/or (2) private lands with acceptable titles
and/or (3) posses {squatters settlements) . The three types of land
are not discriminated for all parks in any available source.
"3
w
O
-^
^
3
--=*
-^j
_X
~'^j
-^,
^
O
-^
X
-~
3
^
3
-^
X
147
4 - Y = Yes; N = No. Yes indicates the existence of at least a
provisional closed perimeter of land, i.e., a tentative borderline
for the park and a more precise estimate of ownership situation.
5 - First and only national park created with 100% government owned
land.
6 - Being a marine park, operated in conjunction with the Brazilian
Navy, it can be considered as having defined limits.
Sources: Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equivalentes,
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal; IBDF. Projeto
de Iroplantacao e Consolidacao de Pargues Nacionais, Reservas
Equivalentes e Protecao a Natureza. Brasilia, [1975]; Institute
Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza.
Piano do Sistema de Unidades de
Conservacao no Brasil. Brasilia, 1982; Secretaria Especial de Meio
Ambiente. Proieto Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
Brasilia, 1988
[typewritten]; Brasil. Leis e Decretos, etc.
Leqislacao de Conservacao da Natureza.
Sao Paulo, Centrais
Eletricas de Sao Paulo; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza, 1986;
Margarene Bezerra et Fabio de
Jesus. Situacao Atual das Unidades de Conservacao.
Brasilia,
February 1988.
[typewritten]; Aureo
Faleiros.
Interview.
Brasilia, May 24, 1988; IBDF. Observacoes Gerais [sobre a Situacao
Fundiaria dos Parques Nacionais e Reservas Bioloqicas]. Brasilia,
[circa 1985]
[typewritten].
D
w
decree specifies
,Z
names of the state and municipios and a round number of hectares,
O
the Institute must proceed to identify the area, establish its
^
limits and mark out these limits. This is mainly topographic work,
^
which can be difficult, costly and slow.
As
j*.-*^
limits
the area of a park, generally
become
reasonably
clear,
giving only the
the Institute
starts
-*efj
"^
surveying properties to evaluate lana and investments ror later
-y
reimbursements to legal private owners.
--,
IL2J-.
0
»i
expropriate
them.
"administratively"
Public
incorporated
sometimes, into INCRA
lands
into
Decrees creating parks do
without
Institute
(the land reform agency)
squatters
are
holdings
or,
holdings, when
148
land reform decrees expropriate tracts inside proposed park areas.
As the land reform agency also belongs to the federal government
agency, there is no technical need for a transfer to the Institute.
When specific private tracts are considered to be definitely
inside proposed park boundaries the Institute proposes prices for
lands and other values to be acquired.
The legal situation of
private owners will expedite or retard this process.
Good private
titles are easily accepted by the Institute and no litigation is
necessary if the owner accepts its offer.
Dubious titles have to
be checked by the Institute and eventually contested in a court of
law, both processes demanding
time.
The most serious problem,
thought is when two or more private parties present equally good
(or equally dubious)
titles to the same tract of land.
This is
exceedingly common all over Brazil, specially in recently settled
areas.
Anything might happen
solution.
in this situation
except a quick
The different owners might not want to sell or might not
accept the Instituto's offer.
The different owners might get into
litigation among themselves, stifling Institute action.
One owner
might decide to accept the agency's offer, while the others hold
out.
In these cases the Institute will not buy, fearing further
litigation for the same tract of land.
This has happened more than
once.
Deadlocks easily arise in many situations.
Some become so
entangled that the Institute eventually gives up acquiring specific
tracts.
What happens then is that the tentative limits have to be
redrawn
in
order
to
exclude
the
deadlocked
area(s).
More
o
_^
149
O
topographic work, more title examining and more litigation might
X
„>
^
arise. After a reasonable area of contiguous land has been bought,
-/
the Institute must register its holdings in a Notary Public and
^
await challenges, which happen rather frequently.
—'
""*)
^
negotiations start again.
O
Institute registers
^
Patrimonio da Uniao, the National Government Property office. Not
O
a single square kilometer of national park or national biological
;I
preserve
'j
government property office, as of May 1988.
-*/
has legal possession of a considerable
s~..
land, it has not yet registered
"P
published Institute material tells why this is so.
An Institute
X
official responsible
issues
^*)
parks, preserves, national
donated or otherwise secured
This
complex
lands
process
had
(in case of identified public lands),
has its legal
conclusion
its uncontested holdings
been
registered
by
Litigation or
the
when the
in the Service de
Institute
in
Although the Institute
percentage of total park
it as government property.
for following
forests
the
land ownership
and reforestation
No
(in
projects)
^
informed that the Service de Patrimonio da Uniao is very strict
"j
about registering national park land as government property.
fears costs of possible litigation.
^
-._
It
The same official added that
this problems applies to other types of conservation units and even
v
y-^
to public lands with revenue generating reforestation plans.37
In
summary, federal government conciiiucs L.U lack control over public
lands of all designations and national parks and preserves are no
If
-,y
^
exception to the rule.
Now Table 12 can be properly
assessed.
The percentages of
-^
-^
150
land owned by the Institute refer only to (a) private lands bought
or
donated and {b) public lands without squatters, both of which
registered in Public Notaries.
The percentages of land not owned
by the Institute refer to (a) public lands with squatters, or (b)
private lands with acceptable titles to be bought, or (c) private
lands with unacceptable titles in process of litigation or
private lands with multiple ownership.
(d)
The percentages are updated
to May 1988 and are the best estimates available at the Institute's
national office.
The first finding is that only five of 28 national parks are
fully owned by the Institute, corresponding
lands.
policy.
This is an extremely
to only 3.9% of park
poor record for 50 years of park
But even these few national parks are far from being in
a stable situation.
Brasilia NP needs to be expanded to protect
watersheds, to guarantee adequate habitat for fauna and to include
Rodeador peak (1,349 meters), on the pivotal divide between the
three major Brazilian river basins
(Sao Francisco, Amazon and
Parana-Plate). The inclusion of this divide was one of the reasons
for
the park's
indemnified.
location.
Some
ex-owners
still
await
to de
Monte Pascoal NP also needs expansion to guarantee
a continuous stretch of viable territory from its ocean shores to
its mountain area.
Three private farms must be acquired.
Pantaaal
Mate Grossense NP was the first and only park to be created on 100%
Institute owned land.
But it has a serious problem as far as
management and public visitation
is concerned.
completely inundated in the long rainy season.
It is almost
Although typical
of this swampland region, the problem is that no high land exists
—-,
0
_A»*
^
^j
^
—J
-^)
in the park on which
to build permanent buildings
visitors or researchers.
for staff,
A new tract of land is needed.
Abrolbos NP could hardly be expected to have land ownership
problems.
It is an oceanic string of islands and reefs, owned by
the Brazilian Navy.
The area of this park was secured by prior
ownership by the Navy, not by Institute action.
The conclusion is
that only one Brazilian national park has an ecologically
_..-•>*.
sound
amount of land fully owned by the Institute thanks to its
own
action: Serra da Canastra, wherein lie the headwaters of the Sao
Francisco river.
Even in this case, though, a few ex-owners are
suing for further compensation.
The other four parks entirely
owned by the Institute need to be expanded and/or were secured by
another agency.
All five seem secure, though.
Six other national parks are in the 90 or 95% category of
Institute-owned
land.
consolidated park.
is
definitely
Brazil's
most
It is the second most visited and the most
famous internationally.
problem.
Iguacu
The 5% of private lands are not a grave
Ubajara NP awaits a donation of extra land by Ceara
state government but is also secured in the system.
More serious
than the 10% not owned by the Institute is its size, far below
minimum park standards.
Emas NP also seems not to be seriously
affected by the 10% of private lands and xs actually subject to
expansion.
It seems secure as government property.
Caparao and
Sate Cidades NP' s also seem secure despite still not being totally
owned by the Institute.
Tijuca NP is not seriously affected by the
3
152
5% of private land inside
its borders.
Its many problems are
generated by its immersion in a megalopolis,
the city of Rio de
Janeiro, as will be shown in Chapter 10.
Aparados da Serra NP comes next in the order of decreasing
Institute owned land.
identification procedure.
Its problems
stemmed from the original
By mistake, the first plotted area did
not include a single section of the Itaimbezinho canyon, which was
the main reason for creating the park in the first place.
This
most probably gave chance to speculation and drove up prices for
additional areas along the canyon edge.
half owned by the Institute.
Serra da Capivara NP is
As the first national of the latter
generation, this is not a bad record.
The park lies in state
public lands, although a small village lies within its boundaries.
Serra do Cipo NP is also half owned by the Institute and seems
secured.
Rio de Janeiro's three other national parks have all been
faced with serious and chronic land ownership problems.
30% of their lands are owned by the Institute.
NP
ran
into
expensive
real
estate
on
its
Less than
Serra da Bocaina
ocean
border
and
unfortunately is being "redefined" to exclude a great part of the
expensive but ecologically crucial shoreline areas it was designed
to have.
land.
Squatters have actually resettled on Institute-acquired
Serra
dos Orgaos NP seems to have met a deadlock with
private owners
and squatters
on most of
currently being "surveyed and redefined".
its borders.
It is
Itatiaia NP , Brazil's
oldest, has a chronic problem of resort houses and hotels inside
^
—---*,
J
153
its borders.
These private holdings are scheduled to be cut off
from the park, but most of the non-Instituto land is actually owned
__^:
by farmers and ranchers in other sections.
•~^5
Eleven national parks are entirely out of Institute control
^
as far as land tenure is concerned.
They account for a staggering
^)
89.2% of park land.
—''
Orange and Jau are Brazil's five largest parks. Coincidence or not,
Tapajos, Pico da Neblina, Pacaas Novos, Cabo
-*»>
the Institute owns not one square kilometer of them.
This is the
~3
gravest problem of the entire park system, not only because of the
__^
area of these parks but also for being exactly the five only
O
Amazonian parks. Although created in supposedly unoccupied public
i
;^
lands, the historical record of government's lack of control over
""
public lands is enough to erase any assurance that these five parks
•
w
are safe from occupation and exploitation.
:
-—,
Indigenous populations
and/or squatters have been officially recognized by the Institute
as existing in all five of the parks.
The undefined situation of
. -M/
these five parks is the single most serious threat to the Brazilian
park system.
If a valuable and viable park system is to survive,
these five parks will be its backbone.
Araguaia and Chapada dos Veadeiros NP's, almost 30 years old
each, have not seen their land tenure situation improve at all.
On the contrary, their original
forfeited
lands
to
nearby
areas were reduced.
indigenous
peoples.
Araguaia
Chapada
ice
Veadeiros was reduced twice, loosing 90% of its decreed area to
invading cattle ranchers.
Recent Institute documents show that
indigenous populations and cattle ranchers are still extant inside
-
J^
,
154
the reduced areas of both parks.
Sao Joaquim NP, of the same
j
2)
generation, lies completely abandoned by the Institute, although
^
-^
—'
being almost a coastal park in Brazil's populated Southern region,
where tourism is intense. The fact that its land is still entirely
private speaks for itself.
Its situation is so unstable that it
-~,
is not included even in the parks considered to have good potential
~3)
for tourism.
J^
parks, can still be imagined to have time on their side.
'^j
Chapada Diamantina and Lagoa do Peixe, the youngest
Table 12 gives further
^
evidence of unsatisfactory public
ownership of Brazilian national parks.
--"j
18 of the 28 parks do not
have even "defined limits", tentative perimeters that allow park
authorities to at least visualize the amount of land that has to
<*.
be bought or otherwise secured for the consolidation of each park.
'w
Six of the 14 oldest parks are among those still without defined
X
limits.
This gives a final measure of how slow land acquisition
• *v
CD
has been evolving or, more properly, stagnating. This overview of
^'
the land tenure situation furnishes
""•,
about Brazil's national park system. There is much reason to fear
-«\r
the
future
of
many
national
parks
due
the most discouraging note
to
the federal
vV
***.
government's inability to secure them as public property.
/•'&--,
Public visitation of national parks could in itself be a
,,-a^
,^
-^
""3
^
source
of
pressure
consolidation.
environmental
towards
their
physical
and
institutional
Besides scenic value, scientific research and
education, public
visitation
igenerally
duDoeu
v-_v
"^
"leisure" or "recreation")
is the most widely mentioned rationale
•^
for creating Brazilian national parks.
In a sense, the possibility
155
of
receiving
large
amounts
of visitors is the most important
"public value" of a park system and policy.
Public visitation figures proved impossible to assess through
Institute and Departamento published materials. In order to obtain
updated information
parks,
this
on public
author
had
personnel, in Brasilia.
to
visitation Brazilian
speak
directly
with
in national
Departamento
They compile visitation figures sent in
annually from each park that (1) effectively receives visitors and
(2} records their numbers.
a
recent
conditions
w
^
~j
D
survey
of
done
national
by
The following analysis benefited from
the
parks.
Departamento
This
survey
about
helped
visitation
plan
the
"Ecological Tourism" campaign by which tourism companies are being
stimulated to include national parks in their tour routes.38
- 'ar^;
'^
•^
Q
""v
Tables 13, 14 and 15 refer to 14 Brazilian national parks
considered by the Departamento to have "some infra-structure" for
.«<--,
w
^
-^
•^,
-^
"r-',
-^
—,
visitation.
C
in the opinion of the Departamento itself.
•*&
The first remarkable detail is the absence of all
fourth generation parks.
This means that besides problems with
land ownership, remoteness and lack of personnel, these parks will
not be supported by significant public visitation in the short run,
^
The analysis will follow the order of decreasing number of
3
visitors and illustrate what types of recreation each park allows
^
for. Brazil's most visited national park, by far, is Tijuca.
This
---•^
~^
is not surprising because it lies inside a major metropolitan area.
y
The visitation figure was obtained by estimate because there is no
-,->•
--,
control of public influx in this utterly urban park cut by numerous
156
public roads.
Iguacu NP comes in second, with its internationally
famous waterfalls.
Although
not too close to Brazil's larger
cities, the core area of Iguacu NP is a mainstream national and
international tourist attraction.
Access to outlying park areas
is all but prohibited.
Table 13
Brazilian National Parks in Good Conditions for
Visitation (I): Management Plan, Yearly
Visitation and Access, as of 1988 1
Name
Sete Cidades
Serra dos Orgaos
Iguacu
Brasilia
Tijuca
Ubajara
Caparao
Era as
Serra da Canastra
Itatiaia
Araguaia
Tapajos
Aparados da Serra
Chapada Diamantina
Management
Plan2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Yearly
Average
Visitation3
16,840
100,000
1,043,000
300,000
1,818,000
28,000
10,000
600
5,000
72,000
55
21,000
-
Access4
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Variable
Variable
Good
Good
Variable
Variable
Variable
Notes
1 - Ranked by the Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentes as having "some infra-structure".
2 - Y = Yes; N = No. 3 - Period not cited. 4 - Road Conditions.
Sources: Margarene Bezerra et Fabio de Jesus. Situacao Atual das
Unidades de Conservacao. Brasilia, February 1988 [typewritten];
Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente. Projeto Nacional de Meio
Ambjente. Brasilia, 1988.
[typewritten]
X
-^
-^
157
Brasilia NP is third, much behind.
Most of its visitors are
weekend bathers and picnickers who drive 20 minutes on a good road
^
to reach the crystal clear waters of a managed river beach. No
O
hiking is stimulated in its plateau terrain covered with inviting
X
savanna vegetation.
-*2)
away from downtown Rio de Janeiro on a good road and also receives
Serra dos Orgaos NP, fourth, is only an hour
"/
many weekend visitors attracted by its river water pooxs.
Q
some very beautiful and demanding mountain trails that attract
^
hikers and climbers.
~ ~^
It has
Rio de Janeiro city, on a clear day, is
•a)
-—^
close enough to be easily seen from its ragged peaks.
Q
Canastra NP, fifth, is also reachable in about three hours of
X
driving by automobile-owning inhabitants of Brazil's third largest
3
city, Belo Horizonte, 200 km away.
Camping is available, but no
~y
trails
seems
^
headwaters of the Sao Francisco river.
-^
regional tourist attraction with its intriguing cave.
•">
at all remote for the motorized inhabitants of Fortaleza, Brazil's
D
exist.
The main attraction
Serra da
to be bathing
in the
Next comes Ubajara NP, a
It is not
fifth largest city, about 220 km away.
X
Sete Cidades NP, seventh in number of visitors, is the first
^
"remote" park on this list.
X
experience in national park leisure.
X
coastline it lies in a isolated area of a sparsely populated state
(Piaui).
It allows for a more characteristic
Although relatively near th=
Its trails winding around awesome rock formations and
its relative isolation are an invitation to camping and hiking.
Aparados da Serra NP ranks eighth in number of visitors.
is a relatively remote area not far from the coast.
It tc~>
Trails are
X
-~>.
--•
15£
available
to
lead
the
visitor
to
the
edges
of beautiful
Itaimbezinho canyon, part of the edge of Brazil's basaltic South
J^
Plateau.
On the top of the canyon there are temperate coniferous
~O
forests; on the bottom, subtropical Atlantic
^
Caparao NP, ninth, is also relatively remote, although accessible
^
through
-'
leisure, as do the two prior ones.
good
roads.
It propitiates
coastal
forests.
more characteristic
park
Trie relatively easy Wd.iK-ciir.ii;
-~J
-^,
up to Bandeira peak, 2,890 meters high, is a big attraction for
—'
O
..^
adults and young.
0
-*•>
^
^
^
,s*\
60% of its visitors, in 1979, came from small
cities in the vicinity; only 20% came from other states or abroad.
The average stay in the park was short, between one and two days.
Only
two definitely
remote
parks
are on
this
list
of
"visitable" national parks, but they receive only a trickle of
visitors.
Emas, located deep in Brazil's Central Plateau, is
*»s
--*>,
apparently void of trails through its inviting savanna-covered,
^*H.
flat or gently waving terrain.
-^
Tapajos, deep in Amazon region
s*^
*J
^
territory, has little infra-structure.
Both lie far away from
<^_x
O
large cities and have relatively difficult access.
j£^
X
3.4 million visitors
a year is the average for these 14
•*3>
"^
national parks for a non-mentioned period, probably very recent.
^-^
"^
No
averages
"2
comparisons.
for
earlier
periods
were
available
to
allov
Departamento personnel consider park visitation to
,0,
be "on the rise" and are disappointed with the fact that some parks
cannot receive visitors for lack of personnel or infra-structure,
or both.
They
are optimistic
about
the
growing interest of
Brazilian and foreign travellers in parks but are very unsure as
-^
3
;r
159
to how parks will be able to respond to the increased demand.39
The conclusion is that these 14 national parks allow mostly
1
^)
for an almost urban park experience or for day trips out of big
cities.
Nature
trails,
mountain
museums,
climbing,
bird-watching,
camping
and
more
hiking,
-=*,
backpacking,
demanding
~)
activities such as wilderness experiences are possible in a few
^
parks but not at all possible or stimulated in most.
O
visitors a year is a meager figure for a population of 144 million,
^
specially when so many parks are close to large cities.
3.4 million
Brazilian
•ail
^}
national
parks
are,
-*'
*">
^
-^
constituting an alternative for leisure and recreation even for the
Cv.
still
very
far
away
from
small part of the general population which can afford to reach them
in private automobiles.
w
^
therefore,
A constituency of park visitors is still
to be formed in Brazil.
One
high
ranking
park
official considers
that
increased
^
visitation will be a positive pressure
for securing parks.
But
^
she also admits that recently several parks were closed for lack
;^
of personnel to guarantee that visitation remained "compatible"
with conservation. As far as societal interests go, national parks
,'<*+.
~-
will for
long
be defended almost exclusively by environmental
activists, a handful of hiking
and mountain climbing groups and
^
jf-*^
natural scientists.
<-?•*. « « concerned
* ' , . _ . ,
aiien to Brazilian national
In this sense, nothing could be more
parks
than
the problem o£
"ovez-
--.^
0
visitation", so frequently mentioned as a problem for American
^
national parks, for example.40
"^
In this respect, it is more
proper to say that Brazilians "ignore their parks to death", in
—•}
160
contrast with Americans who seem to "love their parks to death".
—^
Table 13 tries to correlate the existence of Management Plans
. D
with minimum conditions for visitation.
Indeed, 13 out of the 14
_XS
listed parks have published Management Plans, although they are not
3
necessarily being applied. A few of them are "updating" the plans.
^
All plans, incidentally, have detailed prescriptions for handling
^
and stimulating visitation.
•^
is one of the youngest and could hardly be expected to have a
-—
3
.X
^)
"O
^
concluded plan.
truth
is that
groundwork
Chapada Diamantina NP, the exception,
The correlation might be a coincidence but the
most
"visible"
parks
at least have
for adequate visitation management.
the basic
This can help
consolidate their streams of visitors and, preferably, expand them.
Brazilian national parks need, almost desperately, to be visited
and their Management Plans seem to be helping in this.
National parks need infra-structure to attract significant
-vV
^
number of visitors.
**-'
features that can attract visitors to the same 14 national parks.
^
As can be easily seen, the infra-structure of even the most visited
W
parks is at most fair, and in general humble or poor.
~^
analysis will follow the order of their visitation figures. Tijuca
^
NP, only 20 minutes from downtown Rio de Janeiro, could hardly be
^'
expected to have lodging and camping grounds.
~-
center is really an unofficial gathering of snack bars, restau.ro.iiui;
and souvenir stands.
Tables 14 and 15 present a summary of man made
Again the
But its visitor
The absence of nature trails - a constant in
-,
all Brazilian parks - is almost unbelievable.
After all, the
Z*
park's flora, fauna, geology and social history are very well known
161
J
and studied.
Table 14
Brazilian National Parks in Good Conditions for
Visitation (II): Lodging, Camping, Picnic
and Visitor Center Facilities,
as of 1988 i
-—^
Name
Sete Cidades
Serra dos Orgaos
Iguacu
Brasilia
Tijuca
Ubajara
Caparao
Emas
Serra da Canastra
Itatiaia
Araguaia
Tapajos
Aparados da Serra
Chapada Diamantina
Lodging2
CC
PC/0
PC/H
N
N
PC
N
O
N
CC/PC/H
PC
O
PC/H
N
Camping3
Picnic
Areas4
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Visitor
Center3
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Notes
1 - Ranked by the Bepartamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentes as having "some infra-structure".
2 - CC = Collective cabin(s); H = Hotel; N = None; PC = Private
cabins; 0 = Other. Does not refer to outlying facilities.
3 - Y = Yes; N = No. 4 - Y = Yes; N = No. 5 - Y = Yes; N = No.
Sources; Margarene Bezerra et Fabio de Jesus. Situacao Atual das
Unidades de Conservacao.
Brasilia, February 1988
[typewritten];
Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente. Proieto Nacional de Meio
Ambiente. Brasilia, 1988.
[typewritten]
162
Table 15
Brazilian National Parks in Good Conditions for
Visitation (III): Hiking Trails, Nature
Trails, Published Literature and
Food Facilities l
Name
Hiking
Trails2
Sete Cidades
Serra dos Orgaos
Iguacu
Brasilia
Tijuca
Ubajara
Caparao
Emas
Serra da Canastra
Itatiaia
Araguaia
Tapajos
Aparados da Serra
Chapada Diamantina
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Nature
Trails3
P
N
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Pub.
Lit.4
R
Y
R
R
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Food
Fac.5
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Notes
1 - Ranked by the Departassento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentes as having "some infra-structure".
2 - Y - Yes; N = No. 3 - N - No; P = Planned. 4 - Y = Yes; N = No;
R = Revision needed. 5 - Y = Yes; N = No. Restaurants and/or Snack
Bars
,"Z>
^x
Sources; Margarene Bezerra et Fabio de Jesus. Situacao Atual das
Unidades de Conservacao. Brasilia, February 1988 [typewritten];
Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente. Proieto Nacional de Meio
Ambiente. Brasilia, 1988.
[typewritten]
<=*>
~—^
^
There is not a single tree or plant with even common name
identification
in
this
densely
forested
and
heavily
visited
national park located right in the heart of a city that, prides
itself of being Brazil's "cultural capital".
The park does have
3
—'
163
a small museum with samples of local fauna and flora.
The museum
00^
,J
•=*)
is located outside park limits, though.
A "social history museum"
^
-''
is being proposed by Carlos Manes Bandeira, an Archeologist who
sa^
^
unearthed
many
artifacts
that illustrate
the history
of human
--.~/
O
occupation of the area.
Hiking trails, very steep, can take more
/-^*^
^
~j
^
hardy visitors to several scenic peaks.
But a great part of Tijuca
NP visitors in fact see no more than the famous statue of Christ,
—'
the Redeemer.
All they do is ride a very comfortable tram up and
..^0f^_
^
^
^&*
down, which is not even an urban park experience proper.41
Iguacu NP is the best equipped
,-v
^
-•-*,
0
O
^
in Brazil, with a visitor
center, a major hotel, private cabins, picnic areas, restaurants,
but
it lacks
mainstream
camping
grounds
tourist attraction,
and trails
for hikers.
As a
it is excessively "manicured" in
•^&r
•^
^
*'
its core area.
^,
certainly appeal to hikers not satisfied with strolling around the
though.
Outlying
Trails
into
park areas are closed to visitation,
its
native
sub-tropical
forests
would
-0-3^*
.
^
**\g
^
-^
amazing
grounds.
stretch of waterfalls.
Brasilia NP
could
The same public
develop
trails,
would
demand
lodging
facilities and camping grounds for the hiking public, too.
recently inaugurated
toward
making
Its
visitor center is hopefully the first step
the park more
than a day
trip
resort
area for
motorized picnickers and swimmers.
Serra dos Orgaos NP is the second best equipped park in the
country. It has a visitor center, lodging, camping grounds, picnic
areas, natural swimming pools, hiking and mountain climbing trails,
a
natural
history
museum
and
food
facilities.
Nature
and
3
164
J^
^j
"3
•=->>,
"
wilderness experiences are possible here, but a nature trail is
*"}
hiking and mountain climbing, but its natural history museum and
jC*i&^
called for in a section of its almost pristine Atlantic Coastal
forest areas.
Itatiaia NP is also well equipped and allows for
t**~^
all the scientific studies over the last 160 years should by now
i
^
have generated good nature trails.
O
'':"*^,
X
Ubajara NP is fairly well equipped but camping grounds are
necessary to hold of hikers overnight.
^
the Ceara state tourism company, who used to co-manage this park,
/^
was closed by the Institute on account of "scenic impairment".
A chairlift installed by
•K*^
j
-"^.
-"-•)
,*,
Opinions
were
divided
by this measure
and reopening
equipment, which has not been taken apart, is possible.
of this
Aparados
-S3*
O
/j*^
-«•/
3
da Serra NP, lacking a visitor center, could easily attract more
visitors, mainstream tourists and hikers alike.
is another easily improvable park.
Sete Cidades NP
Additional lodging and an
interpretative trail along its unique geological formations would
rj^
^:•
probably be enough for a major improvement.
Caparao NP needs
'"*}
-'•~i
lodging and
w
because hotels and restaurants are very scant and modest in the
better camping grounds, besides a food facility,
f/:^-
nearby small cities. Maybe its new visitor center and picnic areas
vs3^
are
a
first
step
towards
substantially
improved
visiting
X- f
^
conditions.
,x>y
0
^
Serra da Canastra NP also
needs
lodging,
better
camping
grounds and a food facility, besides trails, if it is to become
,/
^
more than a day trip park.
adventures
even for hardy
Emas and Tapajos NP' s are still
backpackers.
They
have no camping
—-*,
3
D
165
J^
grounds, no trails, no visitor center and no published information.
D
Why Chapada Diamantina NP was included in the list of parks with
~"
o
—)
good conditions for visitation is a mystery, because it lacks all
eight items under consideration. The only plausible reason for the
inclusion of this park in the list is its location in the state of
Bahia, which has the second tourist trade in the country. Although
O
400 km away from Bahia's coastal beach resorts on dirt roads with
.~
variable conditions, maybe the Departamento considers that some
3
tourists can be convinced to take a quick glimpse at one edge of
^
this remote park deep in state territory.
Q
-~)
'
•-
Six other Brazilian national parks are considered by the
Departamento to have "potential" for visitation.
Data in Tables
..-*,
16, 17 and 18 allow a similar analysis of these parks.
Q
has a concluded and published management plan.
Z
no visitation figures and the other two receive only a trickle of
D
visitors.
o
^
"variable" for another.
^)
is not necessarily an attraction considering the virtual absence
""
of dependable and safe river boats in the Amazonian region that are
Four of them have
Access is considered "good" for three of. them, and
Jau NP can only be reached by boat, which
not also extremely expensive.
same
Only one
problem.
The
Abrolhos NP, a marine park, has the
Departamento recommends
that prospective
^3^
•—,,
visitors choose "carefully" boats contracted for visiting that
3
remote island and reef area, about 100 km away from the Southern
4
coast of Bahia.
•».y
Of these six parks only Monte Pascoal has a
•*.T*
^
visitor center and any published information.
Lodging and camping
are precarious or non-existent in all six parks.
No hiking and
166
nature trails are available.
Serra do Cipo NP is only 100 km away
from Brazil's third largest city, Belo Horizonte, and close to a
mainstream tourist attraction, a string of ex-colonial mining towns
with baroque art and architecture.
Table 16
-o
Brazilian National Parks with Potential For
Visitation (I): Management Plan, Yearly
Visitation and Access, as of 1988 1
Name
Monte Pascoal
Serra do Cipo
Serra da Bocaina
Abrolhos
Jau
Chapada dos Veadeiros
Management
Plan2
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Yearly
Average
Visitation3
3,000
5,000
MD
MD
Access"
Good
Good
Variable
Fluvial
Good
Notes
1 - Ranked by the Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentes as having "no infra-structure".
2 - Y = Yes; N = No.
3 - Period not cited. MD = "much demand".
4 - Road conditions, except for Jau National Park; Abrolhos
National Park is marine and its access is not mentioned.
Sources; Margarene Bezerra et Fabio de Jesus. Situacao Atual das
Unidades de Conservacao. Brasilia, February 1988 [typewritten];
Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente. Proieto Nacional de Meio
Ambiente. Brasilia, 1988. [typewritten]
167
Table 17
Brazilian National Parks with Potential for
Visitation (II): Lodging, Camping, Picnic
and Visitor Centers Facilities,
as of 1988 *
Name
Monte Pascoal
Serra do Cipo
Serra da Bocaina
Abrolhos
Jau
Chapada dos Veadeiros
Lodging2
Camping3
Picnic
Areas4
Visitor
Center3
0
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Notes
1 - Ranked by the Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentes as having "no infra-structure".
2 - N = No; 0 = Others (different from Collective Cabins, Hotels,
Private Cabins). Does not refer to outlying facilities.
3 - Y = Yes; N = No.
4 - Y = Yes; N = No.
5 - Y = Yes; N = No.
Sources: Margarene Bezerra et Fabio de Jesus. Situacao Atual das
Unidades de Conservacao. Brasilia, February 1988 [typewritten];
Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente. Projeto Nacional de Meio
Ambiente. Brasilia, 1988.
[typewritten]
The conclusion is that these six parks have difficulty in
attracting even the most rugged hikers and backpackers, not to
mention mainstream tourists.
Their potential is in fact great
but much work has to be done to really attract larger numbers of
visitors.
168
Table 18
Brazilian National Parks with Potential for
Visitation (III): Hiking Trails, Nature
Trails, Published Literature and
Food Facilities l
3
Hiking
Trails2
Name
Monte Pascoal
Serra do Cipo
Serra da Bocaina
Abrolhos
Jau
Chapada dos Veadeiros
3
3
O
Nature
Trails3
Pub.
Lit.4
Food
Fac.5
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Notes
1 - Ranked by the Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentes as having "no infra-structure".
2 - N = No.
3 - N = No.
4 - Y = Yes.
5 - N » No.
3
3
.3
3
Sources: Margarene Bezerra et Fabio de Jesus. Situacao Atual das
Unidades de Conservacao. Brasilia, February 1988
[typewritten];
Secretaria Especial de Meio Aiabiente. Projeto Nacional de Meio
Ambiente. Brasilia, 1988.
[typewritten]
Eight national parks are missing
from these two listings.
Some comments apply.
Lagoa do Peixe NP, being the youngest, could
hardly
for
visitation,
even
been
actively
resisting
qualify
population
has
Matogrossense NP, although
more
because
the
extremely remote,
park.
the
local
Pantanal
is located in an
O
'
^)
ecosystem that has begun to attract scores of visitors from Brazil
and the world, the Mato Grosso Swampland.
with visiting this park.
vast swampland.
There are two problems
First, it lies in a remote corner of the
Second, there is the already mentioned problem of
^
most of its land being under water for about four months out of the
3
year.
X
Some
"O
^
-Q
No permanent buildings nor campgrounds can be established.
sort
of
floating
facility
must
be
figured
out
or,
alternatively, a stretch of non-submersible land must be acquired
to solve this problem.
Lencois Maraahenses NP apparently has no
administrative or visitation facilities at all but its coastal
location
and
unique
dune-beach-mangrove
landscape
have great
—>,
potential for attracting beach-addicted Brazilians. Incidentally,
**>
this park needs to expand its decreed area in order to secure a
X
viable stretch of coastline.
Serra da Capivara NP is a definitely
•W
0
remote park still unprepared for visitors.
^
Pico da Neblina, Pacaas Novos and Cabo Orange parks are on
7)
the extreme of the park remoteness scale. For many years they will
~"
suffer from Brazilians' little enthusiasm about going to the Amazon
^
region in general. They are in frontier territory that even mining
and logging companies have difficulty in hiring stable workers for.
«y
Only the most rugged
field naturalists
can be expected to do
3
scientific research in these parks.
Finally, there is Sao Joaquim
^
NP, almost 30 years old and still practically fictional.
Most of
-^
Q
the time it has no rangers.
Even park directors live far away.
^'
This is Brazil's most abandoned park, considering its age and its
-SJ
7,
coastal
location.
Consisting
of
private
lands
and
lacking
i
-^
17°
visitors, its future is indeed uncertain.
These
eight
visitor
a
significant
constituency
potential
O
particularly Pantanal Matogrossense and Lencois Maranhenses. But
^
they are still going through the preliminary stages of Brazilian
^)
park evolution.
national
parks,
Their lands are still to be secured; at least twoexpansion;
management
^
drafted.
-^
consolidation
.^,
attractiveness to the general public.
O
for
for the
development
crucial
a
add
^
require
of
units
plans
are
still
to be
It is more realistic to work and hope for their physical
than
for
their
Table 19 illustrates
immediate
or
medium
range
a very different manner of evaluating
^
Brazil's national park system: ecosystem representation.
It was
^)
composed with data collected and analyzed by Maria Tereza Jorge
jfjc^
-;
Padua.
She broke down the Brazilian
territory into six major
"*>
ecosystems and estimated the percentage of their respective areas.
She then added up the areas of four types of conservation units
<~,
(national parks, national biological preserves, ecological stations
O
and national forests) in each of the six ecosystems.
^
computed the combined
O
ecosystem.
^
^)
percentage of protected
Finally she
areas
in ea-h
Her objective is to correlate conservation units with
different ecosystems and to cneck for a Balance.
She
finds
"excessively
the
six
percentages
discrepant" among
in
the
"b/a"
column
as
themselves, besides
•a)
^
"insufficient"
—^
landscape with surprisingly rich biological diversity, interfacing
^
—X
-
in
themselves.
The
cerrados,,
a dry savanna
with the more fashionable biological treasures such as Amazon rain
171
forests and Atlantic coastal forests, occupy about a quarter of
Table 19
Approximate Combined Areas of Brazilian Federal
Conservation Units, Per Type of Ecosystem,
as of 1988 l
Ecosystem
Approximate
Extension
and % of Braz,
Territory
(km2)
(a)
**»,
Approximate
Area of all
Local Cons.
Units (km2)
(b)
Approximate %
of Ecosystem
in Cons.
Units
(b/a)
%
Amazon Basin
Tropical
Forests
4,681,050
55
109,000
Savanna
(cerrado)
2,127,750
25
10,000
.46
Dry Scrub
(caatinaa)
936,210
11
3,120
.32
Atlantic
Coastal
Tropical and
SubTropical
Forests
348,951
4.1
3,000
.85
Mato Grosso
Swampland
(Pantanal)
187,242
2.2
1,480
.79
Southern
Plateau
229,797
2.7
3,200
1.39
2.3
Note
1 - Includes only national parks, national biological preserves,
ecological stations and national forests.
Source: Extracted from Maria Tereza Jorge Padua.
Unidades de
Conservacao. Brasilia, 1988.
[typewritten] Provisional figures
cited with permission.
Some computations are my own.
--
172
"3
the Brazilian territory.
,^
of protected
O
Americas, the Mato Grosso Swampland, is also under-protected, with
^
only .79%.
-^5
areas.
They deserve much more than a mere .46%
The
richest
zoological
province
in the
The caatinga, composing 11% of the Brazilian territory,
is extremely under-represented, with only .32%.
The remains of
Atlantic Coastal Tropical and Subtropical forests, considering the
—
amount of destruction
w
dense
population,
suffered over centuries and the generally
are
in
Padua's
opinion
almost
adequately
_\. There are many small protected areas but surely a few
O
^
"j
^
~)
^sr
more are needed.42
Therefore, it is clear that if the Brazilian conservation unit
system in general, and the park system in particular, is to be
fairly representative
of the country's diversified landscapes,
climates, ecosystems and biological forms, a considerable number
of new units is necessary.
Some of them have to be huge units in
w
-^
remote areas.
0
should serve to expand the protected areas of specific landscapes.
^
Therefore, much basic work of creating parks and other preserves
^
remains to be done to give the Brazilian conservation system a
"^
quantitatively adequate expression and a qualitatively ecological
-^
profile.
Others can be smaller and less remote. Others still
The 1979 "Conservation Unit System Plan", interrupted in
J^*N,
'
the middle of its second stage for all practical purposes, is being
—s
redrafted for
-^
•**-%
X
suggested for parks and preserves.
^y
sound.43
a "third
stage".
It
contains
dozens of areas
Those suggestions are still
What remains to be seen is the Institute's commitment
^y
r,
and momentum to implement the second-priority
park and preserve
173
policy,
not
to
mention
its
first-priority
forest
development
policy.
National Biological Preserves
An analysis of some aspects of Brazil's 15 national biological
preserves will conclude this chapter.
As they are also managed by
the Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal, they allow
a more immediate comparison with the park system.
through
23 have most
biological preserves.
are
designed
to
of
the data needed
to analyze
Tables 20
Brazil's
Biological preserves, it should be recalled,
preserve
and
protect
unique
or
important
populations of floral and fauna species in areas secluded from any
^
human activities, including public visitation.
^
Table 20 has the names and creation decrees of all national
^
biological preserves and the alteration decrees of five of them.
<«*
^*t*
^
Creation dates in these cases give a mistaken impression that must
^
not created
O
actually started only in the 1970's, not in the 1940!s. Sooretama,
be corrected.
The first four national biological preserves were
as such.
The federal biological preserve policy
ZXfr,
^
Augusto Ruschi and Corrego do Veado were originally created by
^^
^3
*^*\e
Espirito Santo State government acts.
"Refuge
for
Wild
Animals"
and
the
other
two
others
The first originated as a
as
- "-.^^
-^
"*••
-^
^^
—.
"Forest Preserves".
To this author's knowledge, no other "refuge
for wild animals" was created in Brazil.
Sooretaasa
was the 1943 Hunting Code.
The legal uasis 01
The two "forest preserves"
-N,y'
were based
on the 1934
Forest Code.
The three still contain
3
-J
3
174
-^""s
Table 20
Brazilian National Biological Preserves: Name, Date
of Creation and Alteration, with Respective
Legal Act
(in chronological order) 1
Name
Date
3
o
3
3
3
3
3
Q
O
3
3
3
3
Sooretama
Augusto Ruschi4
Corrego do Veado
Serra Negra
Comboios
Poco das Antas
Atol das Rocas
Jaru
Rio Trombetas
Lago Piratuba
Una
Abufari
Guapore
Saltinhos
Gurupi
9/21/43
9/20/48
9/20/48
6/7/50
1953
3/11/74
6/5/79
7/11/79
9/21/79
7/16/80
12/10/80
9/20/82
9/20/82
9/20/83
1/12/88
Creation
Legal Act2
14977
55
55
28348
73791
83549
83716
84018
84914
85463
87585
87587
88744
95614
Date
Alteration
Legal Act3
9/20/82
6/5/86
4/23/84
9/20/82
9/25/84
7/10/84
-
8758S
52573
89569
87591
90222
—
—
-
89932
—
—
Notes
1 - Excluding the Cara-cara National Biological Preserve,
extinguished and incorporated into the Pantanal Mato-Grossense
National Park.
2 - All creation and alteration acts are federal government
Decrees, with the exception of the first three creation acts, which
were Espirito Santo state government Decrees.
3 - Only the roost recent alterations for each preserve.
4 - Original name : Nova Lombardia
Sources:
Departamento
de
Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalences, Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal;
IBDF. Proieto de Iroplantacao e Consolidacao de Parques Nacionais,
Reservas Equivalentes e Protecao a Natureza. Brasilia, [1975];
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao
Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza.
Piano do Sistema de
Unidades de Conservacao no Brasil. Brasilia, 1982; Secretaria
175
Especial de Meio Ambiente. Projeto Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
Brasilia, 1988
[typewritten]; Brasil. Leis e Decretos, etc.
Lecrislacao de Conservacao da Natureza.
Sao Paulo, Centrais
Eletricas de Sao Paulo; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza, 1986; Institute Brasileiro de Reforma
Agraria et Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal.
Parques Nacionais e Reservas Eauivalentes no Brasil: Relatorio com
Vistas a uma Revisao da Politica Nacional nesse Campo. Rio de
Janeiro, IBRA-IBDF, 1969. [mimeographed]; Institute Brasileiro de
Desenvolvimento
Florestal.
Reserva
Biologica
de
Comboios.
Brasilia, 1984.
[typewritten]; "Exposicao de Motives" [Criacao da
Reserva Biologica de Atol das Rocas]. [Brasilia], April 1S7S.
[FBCN Files] .
untouched samples of Atlantic coastal forest, otherwise depleted
in the late 1960's in Espirito Santo State.
Sooretaraa NBP was "donated" to the federal government in the
same year it was created, 1943.
It resulted from the efforts of
Alvaro Aguirre, a pioneer Brazilian conservationist.
On September
19, 1945, Agriculture Department ordinance 322 considered it a
"Wild Animal Preserve, Breeding and Protection Park".
handled after that remained a mystery.
Institute
ordinance
939
considered
How it was
Only on January 6, 196S,
it
a
national biological
preserve, although technically a Presidential decree was required.
Another Institute ordinance, number 2015, March 4, 1971, expanded
D
-,
the preserve's area.
What
is called
in Table
20 "alteration
?i^s
0
decree"
(87588, September
20, 1982) was technically
the legal
-Sx
^
creation
of Sooretama national
biological preserve.
~)
spanned a period of almost 40 years."4
All this
Augusto Ruschi NBP, originally called Nova Lombardia, went
~N
through a similar process.
Created as a state "Forest Preserve"
in 1948, a state government decree donated it to federal government
176
in 1955.
Institute ordinance 1414, April 17, 1970, considered it
as a national biological preserve.
20, 1982, confirmed that status.
5,
1986,
renamed
established
it
after
Federal decree 87589, September
Later, federal decree 92573, June
its
founder,
who
originally
had
it a "Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro Biological
Preserve".45
Corrego
do
Veado
NBP
followed
the
same
trail:
"Forest
Preserve" in 1948, donation to federal government by the same 1955
state
government decree, preserve status
ordinance
preserve
(1415, April
by
federal
through
an
Institute
17, 1970), official recognition
decree
87590,
September
20,
1982.
as a
The
alteration decree mentioned in Table 20 expanded the preserve.46
Comboios NBP, a coastal area of the same state of Espirito
Santo, was also originally researched by Ruschi and protected by
a 1953 state Decree.
The Institute made it a national biological
preserve only in 1984.
It includes spawning areas for several
species of marine turtles, the most undisturbed restinqa (a coastal
scrub vegetation associated with dunes and lagoons)
on the whole
Brazilian coastline and undisturbed coastal tropical forests, which
—,
combine to form a superb ecological preserve site.
The
1969
Institute report mentioned it and suggested its "donation" to the
^
federal government, which happened only in 1984.47
^
All Institute published materials failed to inform more than
^'
the dates and decrees of these four preserves that seem to date
VtV
~)
the national biological preserve policy as beginning in the 1940's.
The only exception was the 1969 Institute report, which recommended
3
177
_^
their transformation into national biological preserves, although
O
without mentioning the Augusto Ruschi unit.
Maria Tereza Jorge
^
Padua informed that Augusto Ruschi and Corrego do Veado were direct
^)
consequences of decades of field work and environmental activism
of Augusto Ruschi (1915-1986), a natural historian from the Museu
^
Nacional do Rio de Janeiro.
These
two areas were originally
»-'
researched and later plotted as preserves by Ruschi, who negotiated
^
their creation and their transfer to the federal government through
O
the Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro with several state governors.
_^
He fought for their official national biological preserve status
3
when later state governors started granting logging rights near or
inside the three preserves. By then he was defending Sooretama NBP
^
too.
Accordingly, Nova Lombardia was renamed for Ruschi after his
3
death, in 1986.48
**,
Therefore, these four preserves were not the result of any
D
park or preserve policy, federal or state, but an outgrowth of the
•^v
*F7^
X
scientific work of individual researchers - Aguirre and Ruschi -
'"
who happened to settle down long enough in one place to create and
^
personally protect the preserves.
"•)
of what remained from the lush tropical forests that until the mid-
•--"
-^.
—x
1960's still covered considerable areas of Espirito Santo state.
'
^
^
1;
The Institute capitalized
These units today contain most
on these initiatives when it granted
federal preserve status to these units decades after their actual
creation.
Another
"pre-historic"
biological
preserve
is tiny
Serra
Negra. Together with Saltinho NBP, also very small, it is the only
;:
-^
-*3^
__^^i
_^
-j
O
^
"~ i
~*j
_-.»»,
178
conservation
unit
of
any
kind
recorded
Northeastern state of Pernambuco.
union protective forest.
in
the
important
In 1950 it was created as a
The preserve was carved out of this unit.
It followed the same route as Espirito Santo's units: an Institute
ordinance,
biological
1416,
April
preserve
condition official.
and
17,
a
1970,
federal
considered
decree
in
it
1982
a national
made
that
Very little information is available about
_->53^
--*-,
•W
this unit.
It is a rare "island" of tropical coastal forest in an
1
..~-5*\n of caatinaa landscape.49
-••^
,«y
,D
o^
The first national biological
preserve actually created by
the Institute was Poco das Antas, in the State of Rio de Janeiro.
This happened only in 1974.
It was an outgrowth of a scientific
^V
3
^
"*y
D
project,
namely
population.
the attempt to manage an endangered species
Ever since the late 1960's, a group of biologists
linked to the Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza was
*&&*
XA,
•^
seeking a site for a long term project of managing the few dozen
0
<~\g specimens of a small primate, Leontopithecus rosalia,
-W
-J
known in English as golden marmoset or golden tamarin.
Endemic to
^
the dwindling coastal forests of the state of Rio de Janeiro, this
0
animal was in extreme danger of extinction.
^
Bank" was located inside Tijuca NP for L. rosalia breeding and
At first a "Biological
•an'
^
research.
**""\
integrated project
Later scientists plotted an area in central Rio de
Janeiro state
covered with second growth forests to develop an
of breeding and reintroduction into the wild.
Several
zoos
from
all
over
the world
donated
specimens
•0>
• -,
expanding the genetic pool of the managed population.
for
_x
179
^
The Institute responded
to the project's need of a fairly
large area under permanent preservation status and created the
-—>,
_T
__X.
preserve in 1974.
The agency is to be commended for this and is
partially responsible for the project's success but once again
scientists were two steps ahead.
They were plotting out reserves
3
through their field work and, as it were, giving the Institute the
"^
cue.
^
Institute, the Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, Rio
w
Poco das Antas NBP has been managed with funding by the
de Janeiro's Primatology Center, the Smithsonian Institution and
3
-^
the World Wildlife Fund.50
Therefore, the first five national
0
-~\
preservation
Q
nothing to do.
^
exclusively
Q
journal Brasil Florestal, as will be seen below.
biological preserves were outgrowths of scientific efforts or prior
efforts
with
which
the
Institute
originally
had
Its own scientific research projects are almost
in forestry,
as indicated by
the contents
of its
w
As with national parks, the Institute developed firm criteria
Q
for plotting national biological preserves only through the same
W
groundwork that prepared the 1979 "Conservation Unit System Plan".
^
Q
**">
X
-IJ
D
This
document
preserves.
included
A major
specific
innovation
requirements
for
biological
was the creation of the sixth
preserve on a string of marine islands, coral reefs and shallows
called Atol das Rocas.
This formation lies off the coast of Rio
Grande do Norte, in Brazil's Northeast.
in
the whole
of
the
Atlantic
Ocean.
It is supposedly
Three
huge
unique
biological
preserves - Jaru, Rio Trombetas and Lago Piratuba - were created
in 1979 and 1980 in remote and pristine areas in the Amazon region.
-
180
*-;
These preserves followed the trend of the new Amazonian national
—•
.J
.-^
parks created in the same period.
O
RBP.
Una RBP, by its turn, came in the footsteps to Poco das Antas
It was designed to guarantee forest habitat for wild and
extremely endangered populations
^}
^
—N
of another endemic species of
marmosets or tamarins, Leontopithecus chrysomelas, called goldenfaced in English.
Two other huge Amazonian preserves followed:
Abufari and Guapore.
Saltinho NBP came next. It had origin in an
"Experimental Forestry Station", of which the Institute has many
-—,
throughout
13
plotted inside a union protective forest created in 1960.
~.^
the
country.
Gurupi, the youngest
As far as areas are concerned,
preserve, was
the Departamento' s new
1979
Q
policy determined more than 97% of all preserve lands.
Considering
';'
individual
and
V5B'
units,
though,
scientific
research
prior
conservation initiatives determined nine out of the 15 national
biological
preserves.
directives have
not
been
Therefore,
Institute
consistent
enough
to
initiatives
allow
for
or
the
conclusion that a specific preserve policy was effectively pursued
before 1979.
Table
21
has
biological preserve.
the
location
and
area
of
each
national
The average area is 1,555 km2, just under 50%
of the average national park area.
This average is larger than
nine of the 15 preserves and is considerably pushed up by the five
huge Amazonian preserves created after 1979; without them, the
average plummets to only 475 km2.
tiny 74 km2.
Before 1979 the average was a
This pattern is similar to the national parks.
The
181
Table 21
Brazilian National Biological Preserves:
Location and Approximate Area, as of
January,1988
(in order of creation) x
Name
Location (State
or
Territory)
Approximate
Current
Area (km2)2
Sooretama
Augusto Ruschi
Corrego do Veado
Serra Negra
Comboios
Poco das Antas
Atol das Rocas
Jaru
Rio Trombetas
Lago Piratuba
Una
Abufari
Guapore
Saltinho
Gurupi
Espirito Santo
Espirito Santo
Espirito Santo
Pernambuco
Maranhao
Rio de Janeiro
Rio Grande do Norte
Rondonia
Para
Amapa
Bahia
Amazonas
Rondonia
Pernambuco
Maranhao
242.42
44.92
23.92
11.00
8.33
50.63
362.493
2,681.50
3,850.00
3,570.00
114.00
2,880.00
6,000.00
5.48
3416.50
Total
23,261.19"
Notes
1 - Excluding the Cara-Cara National Biological Preserve,
extinguished.
2 - In cases of conflicting figures, the smallest was chosen. Areas
proposed to be incorporated were not computed.
3 - Being a marine preserve, its area includes Atlantic Ocean
surfaces.
4 - .27% of the Brazilian national territory.
Sources;
Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentes, Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal;
IBDF. Projeto de Implantacao e Consolidacao de Parques Nacionais,
Reservas Equivalentes^ e Protecao a Natureza. Brasilia, [1975];
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao
Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza.
Piano do Sistema de
Unidades de Conservacao no Brasil. Brasilia, 1982; Secretaria
182
Especial de Meio Ambiente. Projeto Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
Brasilia, 1988
[typewritten]; Brasil. Leis e Decretos, etc.
Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza.
Sao Paulo, Centrais
Eletricas de Sao Paulo; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza, 1986; Institute Brasileiro de Reforma
Agraria et Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal.
Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equivalentes no Brasil: Relatorio com
Vistas a uma Revis_ao__da Politica Nacional nesse Campo. Rio de
Janeiro, IBRA-IBDF, 1969. [mimeographed]; Institute Brasileiro de
Desenvolvimento
Florestal.
Reserva
Biologica
de
Comboios.
Brasilia, 1984. [typewritten]; "Exposicao de Motives" [Criacao da
Reserva Biologica de Atol das Rocas]. [Brasilia], April 1979.
[FBCN Files] .
Amazonian preserves are the youngest and are the ones that really
inflate area figures to impressive levels.
It should
necessarily
be recalled
defined
that biological
as extensive
policy
terms.
units
They
preserves
are not
in international
should
have only
or in
Brazilian
park
the size
necessary
for protecting certain species of plants or animals.
Anyway, when the Departamento decided to create the large Amazonian
preserves and proposed others just as large it was consciously
taking land ownership and ecological criteria into consideration.
The crude state of knowledge about the preservation of biological
diversity in tropical forest areas more than justifies the decision
of establishing these and other huge preserves.
Land ownership
preserves.
is a serious problem for national
biological
Table 22 is analogous to Table 12.
All explanations
given about Institute land ownership problems
and criteria are
valid
for national biological preserves.
Eight preserves are
totally owned by the Institute, representing a dismal 3.2% of
preserve land.
Seven of these were forged by scientific
183
Table 22
Brazilian National Biological Preserves: Land
Ownership Situation, as of May 1988 l
Name
Sooretama
Augusto Ruschi
Corrego do Veado
Serra Negra
Comboios
Poco das Antas
Atol das Rocas
Jaru
Rio Trombetas
Lago Piratuba
Una
Abufari
Guapore
Saltinho
Gurupi
% of Land
Owned by
IBDF
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
90
0
50
0
0
100
0
% of Land
Not Owned
by
IBDF
Defined
Limits
0
0
0
0
Y
Y
(
0
0
100
10
100
50
100
100
0
100
y
N
Y
Y
Y2
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Notes
1 - See Table 3, Notes 1,2,3 and 4 for IBDF ownership criteria.
2 - Being a marine Preserve, operated in conjunction with the Navy,
it can be considered as having defined limits.
Sources:
Departamento
de
Parques
Nacionais
e Reservas
Equivalentes, Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolviiaento Florestal;
IBDF. Proneto de Implantacao e Consolidacao de Pargues Nacionais.
Reservas Equivalentes e Protecao a Natureza. Brasilia, [1975];
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao
Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza.
Piano do Sistema de
Unidades de Conservacao no Brasil. Brasilia, 1982; Secretaria
Especial de Meio Ambiente. Projeto Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
Brasilia, 1988
[typewritten]; Brasil. Leis e Decretos, etc.
Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza.
Sao Paulo, Centrais
Eletricas de Sao Paulo; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza, 1986;
Margarene Bezerra et Fabio de
Jesus. Situacao Atual das Unidades de Conservacao.
Brasilia,
184
February
1988.
[typewritten]; Aureo
Faleiros.
Interview.
Brasilia, May 24, 1988.
IBDF.
Observacoes Gerais [sobre a
Situacao Fundiaria dos Parques Nacionais e reservas Biologicas].
Brasilia, [circa 1985].
[typewritten]
investigation and/or prior conservation measures.
In this sense,
national biological preserves are better off than national parks,
because even older parks have serious land ownership problems.
The eighth preserve entirely owned by the Institute is Atol
das Rocas.
Its situation is analogous to Abrolhos NP: it is a
marine preserve, managed in cooperation
liable to land ownership problems.
with the Navy, and not
Rio Trombetas NBP, one of the
larger ones, has an encouraging 90% of its lands under Institute
ownership.
10% are under litigation with 150 squatters settled on
the fringes of this remote preserve area.
Next comes Una NBP, a
small area in which the Institute is facing serious challenges from
local landowners and logging companies.
The agency had to pay
twice for some properties in this preserve because it made the
mistake of buying out title holders whose documentation was later
successfully challenged by other parties.
Five preserves are entirely out of Institute control. Jaru,
Lago Piratuba, Abufari and Guapore are four of the five Amazonian
preserves, relatively young but crucial for the national biological
preserve
system.
Jaru awaits
only
lands; squatters were indemnified.
number
of public
Lago Piratuba has a small
and squatters.
Abufari and Guapore have an
undetermined number of squatters.
Gurupi is the youngest preserve
but
of owners
the registration
its area is threatened by
the ominous information chat it
~3
-**1
185
confronts three indigenous reservations. This, as seen in the case
of national
parks,
has
been
a recurrent
cause for park land
shrinkage.
Only six of the 15 national biological preserves have "defined
limits", as described for national parks.
Even Serra Negra and
Saltinho have this problem, although considered to be entirely
owned by the Institute.
This lack of a recognized perimeter is an
invitation for private encroachment even on these apparently secure
preserves.
Poco das Antas NBP, although consolidated, is planning
to expand, to guarantee habitat for the growing number of golden
tamarin families.
This is a positive kind of uncertainty, though.
As might be expected, none of the Amazonian preserves have defined
limits.
In
summary,
the
land
ownership
situation
of
national
biological preserves is just as bad as in the case of national
parks. The only encouraging difference is that all older preserves
are more secured than all older parks.
Five of the six largest
preserves, with 80% of preserve lands, are still completely beyond
Institute control.
Table 23 gives complementary information on the management
situation of Brazilian national biological preserves.
Only five
have published Management Plans, although plans were partially
drafted
for
facilities,
some
which
of
the
others.
include
Only
nothing
three
more
than
have research
lodging
for
researchers, small offices and libraries, eventually vehicles or
boats
and
little
else.
One
park
has
only
"minimal1'
researcn
186
~O
^
facilities, which were not described.
-^
Although the topic of research projects in preserves was not
--''
thoroughly investigated, very little is found about the subject in
~-^
available sources.
The Espirito Santo preserves, founded and
^
defended by Ruschi, have continued field research in birds and
X
flowers, through the Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro and the Museu
O
de Historia Natural Mello Leitao
which
today
(founded by Ruschi in the
^
preserve
carries his name).
Poco das Antas NBP
'^
continues its golden tamarin. management project.
In all these
preserves the Institute gives unspecified support, probably lodging
-^3?-'
-^
researchers and securing equipment and material for them.
->
Rio Trombetas and Comboios NBP's both have on-going management
projects respectively for fresh water and marine turtles.
In both
,D
cases, beach spawning areas are protected, hatchlings reared for
X
•«*•
'"^
decreasing predation rates and breeding is experimented.
The
objectives are the preservation of the species and the improvement
^3^
"::'
of a rich source of animal protein for local populations.
The
••^
Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza provides scientific
•*s>
aV>\l and the Institute funds these activities, apparently on
jfa*^
-^y
-~s
-•* ^
its
own.
There
are
sparse
protection project for manatees
X
manatus)
references
to a management and
(Trichecus inunguis and Trichecus
in Lago Piratuba NBP, again with Fundacao Brasileira de
..-,->-
^
Conservacao
da
Natureza
personnel
~
support.
3
fluvial and the other marine.
Both are extremely
and
endangered
funding
and
Institute
aquatic mammals, one
Their joint occurrence in that area
was one of the reasons for creating the preserve.
187
Table 23
Brazilian National Biological Preserves: Management
Plans, Research Facilities and Administrative
Facilities, as of 1988
Name
3
Sooretama
Augusto Ruschi
Corrego do Veado
Serra Negra
Comboios
Poco das Antas
Atol das Rocas
Jaru
Rio Trombetas
Lago Piratuba
Una
Abufari
Guapore
Saltinho
Gurupi
Management
Plans1
Research
Facilities2
Administrative
Facilities3
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
M
N
Y
Y
M
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Notes
1 - Y = Yes; N = No. 2 - Y = Yes; N = No; M = "minimal".
3 - Y = Yes; N = No; M « "minimal".
vV
Sources; Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equivalentes,
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal; IBDF. Proieto
de Iroplantacao e Consolidacao de Pargues Nacionaisf Reservas
Equivalentes e Protecao a Natureza. Brasilia, [1975] ; Institute
Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza.
Piano do Sistema de Unidades de
Conservacao no Brasil. Brasilia, 1982; Secretaria Especial de Meio
Ambiente. Projeto Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
Brasilia, 1988
[typewritten]; Brasil. Leis e Decretos, etc.
Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza.
Sao Paulo, Centrais
Eletricas de Sao Paulo; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de
Gonservacao da Natureza, 1986; Institute Brasileiro de Reforma
Agraria et Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal.
Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equivalentes no Brasil: Relatorio com
Vistas a uma Revisao da Politica Nacional nesse Campo. Rio de
Janeiro, IBRA-IBDF, 1969. [mimeographed]; Institute Brasileiro de
Desenvolvimento
Florestal.
Reserva Bioloqica de Comboios.
Brasilia, 1984. [typewritten]; "Exposicao de Motives" [Criacao da
Reserva Biologica de Atol das Rocas]. [Brasilia], April 1979.
[FBCN Files].
188
O
In summary, there is no evidence of even a timid Institute
,_
policy of research or research support, neither in national parks
j
nor in national biological preserves.
Secretaria
•"*->
It is very clear that the
Especial de Meio Ambiente is doing
a better job in
stimulating scientific research in its ecological stations.
secret
here
is
obtaining
financial
support
from
The
appropriate
.,**,
government agencies, something that the Institute does not seem to
V
have done or even tried.
X
A
search
in
the
Institute's
quarterly
journal
Brasil
-s=*"!
'^}
Florestal, with almost 200 articles in 60 issues published over 15
years, yielded many dozens of articles on forestry science, but
•^
only five articles on park policy or park history and only four on
park ecology.
a-,
This is a dependable gauge on the Institute's own
research priorities.
No major park or preserve research project
will emerge easily in the forestry-dominated Institute.
^
^
"
The following chapter will concentrate on the prospects of the
park and preserve systems.
is that Brazil's
The major conclusion of this chapter
28 national parks and 15 national biological
preserves are extremely vulnerable to all sorts of threats.
The
isolated squatter crosses their boundaries in search of land, gold
or game.
The powerful landowner lets his cattle and bulldozers
into park lands.
Many government projects, such as roads, dams and
^
mining, do not acknowledge parks and preserves.
The rightful
^
demands of Native American peoples for homelands threat some units.
Visitation is minimal and a constituency of park users is still in
189
-**.
the making.
Parts of
the
park and
preserve seem secure and
0
established, but all younger, larger and ecologically unique areas
Z^
are unsafe as public goods, for lack of government control over
O
their areas.
Even though these parks are not necessarily under
.,-^FB^
~
immediate siege, the poor record of park management and public land
--^
policy is more than enough to make one worry about the prospects
of Brazilian parks and preserves.
-<*%,
and preserves
3
compromises their
X
units.
The overall quality of the parks
as public goods is very low and
often good
this definitely
quality as natural or ecological
"
CHAPTER 5
Park Policy, Park Service and the Park System: Prospects,
Conclusions and Proposals
This chapter will conclude my analysis of the Brazilian park
system and discuss its prospects.
Some policy proposals will be
^
added.
A consistent park policy was formulated in Brazil only in
O
the mid-1970's and executed for five or six years between 1979 and
^
1984.
^
••>
Plan", studied in Chapter 3.
This
corresponds
to the 1979
"Conservation Unit System
Most of the remaining analysis will
therefore apply to the more recent years of park policy.
•^--.y
0
Criteria for Locating and Creating Parks
The 1979
plan established for the first time adequate and
explicit criteria for locating parks and preserves.
It was a much
belated definition because it came more than 40 years after the
first national park was created.
In another sense, though, it came
just in time to guarantee adequate preservation in the Amazonian
and Mid-Western regions, as the economic
frontier was rapidly
moving towards them.
The fourth generation of parks and the preserves created after
191
1979
(which were actually the first preserves to be created by
Institute initiative)
were plotted with a keen sense of ecological
significance, political realism and managerial viability.
Maria
Tereza Jorge Padua is right when she says that "random criteria"
adopted earlier were responsible for the large gaps between park
creation,
park
consolidation.
-"";
-^,
^
-^
-•*>%
.-^^,
~~>
—'
,3
establishment,
land
acquisition
and
park
Scenic beauty, isolated scientific investigations
and scattered preservation initiatives were the three forces that
shaped the park system until 1974, when Tapajos NP was deliberately
designed to be set aside from the intended consequences of the
Transaroazon road.
Padua considers the 1979 as a "new stage" in Brazilian park
./sZS^
"^
policy, reflecting the maturation
of park
service
personnel's
•of
^
"^
effort to consolidate a viable system.
that
Brazil
had
about
"two
In 1975 that group felt
decades"
to
do
so,
working
^v
'^
-J.-SS--'
simultaneously to salvage existing units and to create new ones.1
^^\n fact, in this author's view the 1979
plan was not a new stage
but actually the first consistent Brazilian park policy proposal,
~-^f'
a long overdue relinquishing of an ad hoc
^
non-policy.
Scenic
value was now integrated with ecosystem representation. Scientific
• .^
3
..^
^
investigation was incorporated into park service routine.
All this
was cross referenced with political and administrative viability.
•*!&
^
The result was a sound, long term plan for a serious preservation
^
effort.
—
*-.&>
Much of the knowledge necessary to put the 1979 plan together
was available some tisae earlier, inside and outside Brazil.
But
192
the subordination
policy
of preservation policy to forest development
retarded the tapping
personnel.
of this knowledge by park service
Overall, the Brazilian park system, including all older
parks, should be managed and expanded as a precious natural and
national heritage.
The 1979
plan is still the only adequate
managerial tool for this .
Unfortunately the 1979
plan was abandoned
not long after
Padua's resignation from the direction of the park service in late
1982.
She resigned
as a protest against
a decision
by the
Secretary of Agriculture to allow a road through one of the new
Amazonian parks.
This was a first step towards the suppression of
the 1979
plan.
Its second
mentions
that
the plan
was
stage was never completed.
personally
President Joao Figueiredo in 1979.
approved
by Brazilian
But its status remained that
of an administrative plan designed by a second echelon office
Departamento)
of
a
third
Padua
echelon
belonging to a second class Department
agency
(the
(the
Institute)
(Agriculture) . The current
intention to redraft the 1979 plan and proceed towards a third
stage is coirmiendable but still unclear in its precise meaning. 2
Whatever the content of a possible third stage, its original
basis, the 1979
plan, remains the only existing, technical and
politically viable proposal for a long term park policy in Brazil.
Actually, a shift to a new and more aggressive mode is needed too.
The Departamento, currently reduced again to a staff of only four,
as in 1975,
units.
is overwhelmed by the task of caring for existing
Significantly, since 1984 no new published information has
O
193
^
been issued about parks and preserves and only two parks and one
""i
preserve were created.
>-
Ecological Quality of Brazilian National Parks and Preserves
Because scenic value was the overriding consideration in the
^
establishment of most Brazilian national parks, their quality as
^
ecological sound units must be discussed.
Scenic landscapes are
^
not necessarily
Two expert
^
field Biologists, active in the only recorded Institute-sponsored
viable biological units.
fauna management project, remarked the following in 1971:
Brazilian
"Almost
all parks and preserves in Brazil...suffer from having areas too
small for preserving their fauna...[because] [t]hey were chosen for
their scenic value".
^
They were working in Tijuca NP, particularly
unsuited for wildlife management because of its location inside the
*3l^
,;;*'
city of Rio de Janeiro.
This has happened in American national
*af
'^
parks, like Everglades, Olympic and Grand Teton: political limits
ie»».
#3*^
•^
•*s
of a park not coinciding
with biological
or ecosystem
limits.3
Although this does not occur in most parks and preserves created
after 1974 it still plagues many of the older units.
?^X
It is a
s
I
X
serious
problem
D
particular.
for
the preservation
of
endemic
species, in
This is why it was so important to create huge units
•r*^
^
in the Amazon region.
The intention was to avoid units incapable
-*
;")
of supporting
the scarcely studied biological diversity of the
region.
^
In 1984
Maria Tereza
Jorge Padua and Antonio Audi did a
detailed search relevant to the topic of preservation capability
~3
__^
^
194
of Brazilian parks and preserves.
The compared the Institute's
^)
•—-**,
—*z*\
official list of Brazilian endangered animal species
-~,
occurrence of these species in 25 national parks and 13 biological
by ordinance 3481, May 31, 1973)
(established
with recorded or "probable"
™#fS
~i
_^
preserves.
Well informed about conservation biology issues, they
pointed out that adequate fauna protection requires units with
O
"minimum areas", "migration areas" and predators.
^i
course, that the mere occurrence of a species in one or more units
~^j
does not by itself guarantee its protection from extinction.
They concluded
--^
This means, of
that 72 of the 86 endangered species were
probably or positively resident in at least one park or preserve.
Far from rejoicing, though, Padua and Audi pointed out threats like
'""'.
^
hunting,
0
animals.4
T
J
^
have a good potential for helping in the preservation of endangered
road
building
and introduction
of domestic
In conclusion, the park and preserve systems seem to
animal species, an indicator of good ecological quality.
;^
"*)
fishing,
Currently,
the
park
and
preserve
systems
are
representative of Brazil's ecosystems than before 1979.
important blanks continue to exist, though.
more
Some
The Northeastern
caatinga hinterland, the Atlantic coastline in general and the Mato
D
II
,-v
"O
Grosso swampland require much more protected areas, for example.
The
1979
country's
plan
had
ecosystems
in mind the better representation of the
in
the parks
and preserves.
Pantanal
;"
Matogrossense NP, for example, is one of the two only protected
^
sections of the vast swampland, considered to be the "major fauna
•*""
- —
concentration
in the Americas".
21 of Brazil's 86 endangered
195
species are found there.
-^
Lencois Maranhenses NP is a unique
combination of sand dunes, mangroves and ocean beaches in constant
reshaping.
Una NBP, besides being the only known habitat of the
-/a,,
golden-faced marmoset or tamarin, contains samples of Southern
"0
Bahia's tropical rain forests, extremely rich floral formations.
_^
'O
Other examples of ecosystem representation must be mentioned.
Jau
NP and Jaru NBP are located deep in the Amazonian rain forests.
^
Pacaas Novos NBP contains cerrados, open and dense rain forests,
^5
riverine areas and transitions between all of them. Lago Piratuba
NBP preserves coastal mangroves, open fields and dense rain forests
...«,
D
,^^*\
in the lower Amazon basin.
Cabo Orange NP has 200 km of beaches
and mangroves, 2,000 km2 of seashore, open fields, cerrado and
dense rain forests, a rich combination of habitats for dozens of
-*&>'
O
Amazonian mammals, birds and reptiles.
Rio Trombetas NBP protects
x?»s
^
w
Q
sandy river beaches used by several species of fresh water turtles
for spawning.
The small area of Atol das Rocas NBP hosts around
60,000 specimens of five species of sea birds and is a spawning
-•*;
area for rare marine turtles.
-*'
^
«*,
sample
--D
/=».
^
of
caatinoa
with
Serra da Capivara NP combines a good
ancient
human
dwellings
and
cave
paintings.3
The success of some on-going management projects - marmosets,
marine and fresh water turtles, manatees - in some preserves and
- -.«/
3
"*\"
the huge size of the Amazonian ones allow a qualified optimism
about the ecological qualities of the Brazilian park and preserve
"^
systems.
Some of the Secretaria's units - ecological stations,
mainly - also try to combine location in different ecosystems with
196
ecological sustainability.
The conclusion is that the situation
is reasonably good in this respect.
But new parks and preserves
still have to be added to improve ecosystem representation and
ecological
biology
quality.
and
ecology
Also,
of
field scientists
parks
and
should
study the
in
thorough,
preserves
systematic manner, with Institute support.
a
It is obvious that the
ecological quality of parks and preserves needs to be supplemented
by their political stability.
Relationship
of
the
Park
System
with
Economic
Growth
and
Geographical Expansion
Scenic value, decentralized scientific research and scattered
preservation
initiatives
Brazilian park system.
combined
for
40 years
to
shape
the
It could be expected, therefore, that the
system's profile resulted utterly random.
This problem is alluded
by Maria Tereza Jorge Padua when she says that older parks were
created "...in many cases...in a ad hoc manner, responding to local
pressures, opportunistic situations arising from the enthusiasm of
conservationists or, still, from aesthetic considerations".6
Brazilian parks and preserves have many contrasting aspects
indeed,
such
as
size,
age,
landscape,
manageability,
structure, attractiveness to visitors and others.
infra-
Could there be
any logic in the development of the system? Angela Tresinari wrote
the only available text that explicitly argues for a comprehensive
logic in the shaping of the park system.
policy's
results
against
the
background
She examines the park
of
recent
Brazilian
197
economic and social development and its consequences on frontier
dynamics.
Although
she
considers
ad hoc
factors,
Tresinari
proposes the existence of a guiding principle in the shaping of the
-*;
park system.
0
different views will be added at each point.
X
Her analysis will be summarized and this author's
Tresinari's premise
is that the "dates
distribution"
of
Brazilian
of creation" and
tD
"geographical
national
parks
are
;^
"closely linked to different stages of the country's development".
*£
" Basically, she sustains that the creation of parks "...precedes or
coincides [with] the penetration of frontier waves into unsettled
HI
territories.
.J
by her to be linked to the "more extensive knowledge" about scenic
^
-V
Q
^^
^
The first stage of parks, in 1937-1939, is considered
beauties and to the concentration of Brazilian population in the
Southeastern
region
of
the country.
Indeed,
58.4%
of all
Brazilians lived in the South and Southeast in 1940 and the figure
•vff^
Q
remained stable until 1980, at 58.7%.
Ever since the mid-19th
vy
century coffee plantations commanded the national economy from the
«?
*^j
'•**\
Southeast.
More important and more contemporary with national
parks, Brazil's largest cities and industrial sectors were
•^*~-l
,w
^
concentrated in the Southeast.
Tresinari confirms what was stated in Chapter 4.
Brazil's
first parks were created close to populated, economically dynamic
coastal areas.
Paulo Afonso, deep in the Northeastern region, was
an exception that time would delete.
But the local waterfalls were
a fairly well known feature of Brazil's important Sao Francisco
river and, therefore, they easily qualified as scenic beauty.
On
198
the other hand, though, Tresinari
does not deal with the total
absence of parks and preserves in the small Northeastern states
which were in fact were historically the first areas to be hit the
"pioneer" waves of Portuguese colonists.
It could be argued that
these states were devastated and that no natural areas remained to
be preserved. But Rio de Janeiro state was devastated just as much
and two of the first three parks were located in it.
Therefore,
Brazilian national
Northeast,
parks
skipped, as it were,
the
Brazil's first frontier as a colony and nation.
What Tresinari calls the "second stage" of parks was, in her
words,
"influenced
by
the
construction
of
Brasilia",
the new
national capital on the Central Plateau, on the edge of the vast
Brazilian frontier.
Chapter 4 mentioned the four parks created
between 1959 and 1961 in the state of Goias and in the Federal
District itself as a result of government's intention to secure
recreation areas for its employees.
But Tresinari does not notice
that the forces active in the first stage were alive and well in
the second one.
three
in
the
Eight other parks were created in the same period,
South,
three
in
the
Southeast
and
two
in
the
Northeast. As pointed out in Chapter 4, all were coastal or nearly
coastal, a few hours away by car from Brazil's largest cities.
This continual "coastal bias", not acknowledged by Tresinari, was
actually tipping the balance of parks away from the frontier of the
Brazilian West, contrary to her basic premise.
Tresinari's "third stage" parks, created between 1971 and
1974, are not argued as having a joint meaning, probably because
199
^^
O
they were so different from each other.
It is safer to consider
them a case of randomness, although not forgetting that one of them
;
_^
~ Serra da Bocaina - was still another coastal unit plotted midway
-^5
between the nation's two largest cities, again far away from the
J
-^
frontier.
Tresinari's
"fourth
stage"
is the one
created
under the
inspiration of the 1979 "Conservation Unit System Plan", with which
she was involved
D
;X
as an Institute staff.
The encroachment of
national society on the core of the frontier regions brought about,
as sne was
writing, four new parks and five new preserves.
They
3
resulted from a deliberate policy to protect significant samples
;^
of ecosystems.
3
service but even in a well publicized military government plan
This policy was spelled out not only by the park
called National Integration Plan, mentioned also by
Tresinari.
^
This plan proposed 15 grand "development poles" for the Amazon
w
region.
Inside each there should be national parks, preserves and
jf^--,.
^
O
forests, besides indigenous territories.7
This grand development plan may have been an independent
^
source of inspiration
for the 1979
"**!
hypothesis need further research.
park
service plan.
This
But it is important to stress
that the "national integration" plan slowly expired as the 1970's
-•*.
«&?
waned.
That was exactly when the park service 1979 plan began to
„***,
be implemented.
1,
In other words, the park service policy had its
own momentum while the mega-projects of the military dictatorship
v^J
~O
^
were reaching their last years of dynamism.
not noticed by Tresinari.
This is another point
200
A simple, "logical" explanation of the Brazilian park system
is too much to demand from Tresinari. Anyway, this author must add
two
further criticisms.
She does not deal at all with two
important and related issues: (1) why did Brazil create parks so
late when compared to other Latin American nations?
(2) why did
Brazil's parks take so long to reach deep frontier regions, when
other
countries' examples
show
that this
has been
a general
priority in park policy?
In this author's view, the Brazilian park system was forged
by a complex combination of (1) foreign influences
(including the
idea of national park itself) , (2) scenic beauty considerations,
(3)
scientific
research
findings,
(4) scattered preservation
initiatives and (5) a belated park policy
-*y
(1979).
The first four
factors shaped a larger number of preservation units but the last
^s>>
factor, combined with more systematic scientific research, shaped
much larger preservation areas.
The generally ambivalent attitude
of Brazilians towards the Amazon region - boasting about it but
loathing to go there - has certainly been a diffuse and independent
factor for holding the park system away from the region for so
long.
It is a cultural factor acting on park policy, worthy of
specific research.
Management Problems
Angela Tresinari points to four central problems of park and
preserve "consolidation": administration
finances
(lack of personnel),
(lack of funding), land acquisition and management
^
-^
201
plans.8
As all these problems were analyzed in Chapter 4, only
--*>^
_-^
-^j
-*^\
brief comments remain to be made.
Personnel
..—^
X
3
The latest information on park and preserve personnel shows
a definitely
deteriorating
situation.
--J1B*\"
Chapter 3 are larger and growing.
^}
had only 289 permanent staff.
degrees.
^/
-~*\s
total
of
Deficits
mentioned in
As of May 1988 28 national parks
Only 23 of them had university
15 biological preserves had only 74 permanent staff.
363
employees
for
the
43
units
is
grossly
^2^
-"
insufficient and "50% lower" than the already low level of 1984.
^V
—x
Recent decisions
by
the federal government
3
banned temporarily
IT
branches of government.
the hiring
have restricted or
of new public
employees for all
Even substitutions have been restricted.
According to a well informed park service official, rangers and
manual laborers are quitting the parks for two main reasons: (1)
better salaries in neighboring
cities, farms, mines and logging
•"•"s
„->
operations
and
(2) fear of violence, as
they have
no police
authority to confront armed invaders, speculators and poachers.9
Therefore, the Institute cannot hold
humble
and lowest paid
laborers.
Salary
systematically
personnel,
as
lower
on even to its most
employees, such as rangers and manual
levels
than
government
in
urban
the
Brazilian
salaries,
employees,
have
but
interior
Institute park
"urban"
generally considered good even in remote regions.
are
salaries,
For the poor all
over Brazil, working for the federal government and taking care of
202
_**,
_>
-->>,
_.«•»,
-•
-•*A
..**,
a local permanent preservation unit is certainly a good job.
much higher salaries, but lay-offs, turnover, itinerancy and harsh
~D
working conditions are conspicuous drawbacks.
Private farms or logging and mining companies may eventually pay
~t>
~^
On the other hand, being a lowly ranger in a semi-abandoned
3
-~5
park without clear boundaries
or adequate
titling is a very
dangerous position if poachers, powerful landowners and speculators
-<r<s*;
-"^
are present.
~J
guns, authority to identify violators and other prerogatives that
3
Rangers lack police authority, permission to carry
.,-—,
should be a natural part of their jobs.
Confronted with the
-"~^
'-X
private power of landowners and speculators, federal government
3
and preserve policies. Rangers and other staff are left to act at
•^
their own risk or to look the other way.
once again fizzles in its public land policies, in this case park
r^f>
^
P
-~N
The situation grows even worse in the case of administrative,
'
technical and professional personnel. Brazilians in general resist
' '
leaving their home regions and cities. Middle and upper class are
:^-^
the least mobile.
Jobs in remote parks and preserves are simply
—,
not attractive to qualified Brazilians in terms of pay, working
3
conditions, prestige and professional advancement.
"
no special incentives for attracting them to parks and preserves,
-^^
^
If there are
-
this situation could go on for decades.
Two veteran conservation activists and professionals, writing
•"->,
in 1972, proposed an ideal curriculum of a university degree course
to
-^
prepare top
park
personnel
(directors,
researchers and
administrators) . They considered programs in forestry, biology and
203
administration as insufficient. They suggested instruction in park
policy and history, natural resources, economic geography, land use
in parks and preserves, ecology, wildlife management, pollution,
tourism, museology, journalism and planning.X0
If the jobs were
attractive in the first place, such a program indeed would be
adequate.
As
it is, though,
this
author
considers
that the
difficulty of hiring qualified people would actually increase if
such a course was to be demanded of prospective candidates.
Almost any professional administrator or natural scientist
would tend to consider his resume impoverished by a lengthy stay
in a Brazilian park or preserve.
A field biologist who takes the
chance can very well find himself cluttered with administrative
work, litigation, visitation management or even social conflicts.
Isolation in remote areas is feared.
More than one park director
has been known to live in cities hundreds of kilometers away from
the parks.
Without adequately prepared personnel, of course, a
secure park system cannot exist, much less a system that supports
research and attracts visitors.
D
—s
Even the toughest field scientists
and backpackers need minimal information about trails, weather
patterns and other details.
Without true administrators and well-
trained rangers basic information is hard to obtain.
Finances
No extensive comments will be made about financial shortages
of parks and preserves.
Research unearthed
only
inconclusive data on park and preserve finances.
sketchy and
Interviews with
j;
204
-—•;.
—*»,
park service personnel revealed that financial difficulties are not
—-«x
^
peculiar to preservation units.
The Institute itself has been in
budgetary difficulties for some years.
Low salaries, for example,
-^
^
have caused a net loss of over a thousand qualified employees since
- ^a«S| '
_^
1986.
"0
^
News coverage confirms this.
Institute president,
proposed
In mid-1986, Jayme Santiago,
a Department
of the Environment
-:^>
^
. .-^
-^
—^
v^
comprising
the Institute,
authority.
He
alleged
the Secretaria
that
the
three
and the fisheries
agencies
had
their
"preservation" duties impaired by the "development priorities" of
T.-yvzf'
their respective Departments.
Months later, Jordan Valladares,
X
w
O
Institute Special Programs director, said the same in other words.
~
personnel
He
stated
that
the Institute had
only
30% of the necessary
to protect national forests, parks and preserves.
He
x^y"
added that the agency had only itself to blame for that because it
"was more interested in development than in conservation".
In
late
1987
another
Institute
president,
Antonio
Jose
Magalhaes, informed the recent loss of 500 out of 3,700 Institute
employees attracted to "private enterprise" by "higher salaries".
He
stressed
that
all
applications
for
tax
incentives
for
reforestation were withheld for the time being due to the lack of
a single specialized forester to evaluate them.
Approving such
applications is a basic and revenue-generating Institute duty. The
same Magalhaes illustrated how bad the situation was with park
personnel mentioning the example of Tapajos NP.
Three of a staff
of only six, all of them rangers, had recently quit their jobs and
,
-X
205
*
the agency could not substitute them. In March 1988, the Institute
--
had less then 3,000 employees, down from 6,000 in 1982.11
-"—
_«»,
-„-••
--*-.,
H,
It is in itself intriguing
how
the Institute, which is
mandated to make money out of each of the two million trees
CD
It does not seem to care adequately even for its commercially
^
oriented national forests.
^)
financial distress of the Institute would conduct this analysis too
allegedly cut in Brazil every day, is running so bad in finances.
But searching for the reasons of the
_ -^^
^
far away from the main topic.
The obvious conclusion is that
-w'
.--—-iyW
w
preservation units will be hurt proportionally more than anything
else in an ailing forest development agency such as the Institute.
•&S
^f''
. .,.
i -.^
Land Acquisition
The last significant amount of park and preserve lands to be
acquired by the Institute were the 12,000 km2 bought by Maria
Tereza Jorge Padua's administration in 1979-1982.
Departamento' s current policy
Even so, the
on this matter is based on the
assumption of the preemptive effects of park and preserve decrees.
"It is worth creating new units even before consolidating the older
ones because the decreed areas are protected from at least some
activities which threat their ecology". These are the words of an
experienced park service official.
She illustrates the point mentioning the procedure of the
Departamento Nacional de Producao Mineral, the powerful prospecting
and mining rights authority. It simply denies any permits in areas
included in park or preserve decrees.
She admits, though, that
206
land acquisition has progressed only "slowly" in the last years due
to lack of funding.
But she emphasizes that the 1979 policy
decision to create new units in public lands will help solve the
problem in the future.
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua considers Brazil
to have "one of the worst records" in public ownership of park
lands in Latin America.
But she adds that the problem is "serious"
in all Latin American nations.12
Therefore, everything indicates
that land ownership will continue to be a serious problem for the
Brazilian park and preserve system, unless a deep policy change
happens.
Otherwise the problem will linger on for decades, as
predicted by the Departamento in the mid-1970's.
Management Plans
Writing in 1983, Tresinari witnessed the loss of momentum of
park
policy
in
general
and,
in
particular,
of
the
renewed
management procedures codified in the Management Plans.
This is
why
of the
she emphasized
the
importance
of
recently concluded and published plans.
documents need to be updated.
the
application
Today, of course, these
Their plain abandonment would be a
most costly waste.
New National Parks and National Biological Preserves
There are much need and much room for new preservation and
conservation units in Brazil.
numerical exercise
It is worth developing a 'simple
to illustrate this.
Development Plan mentioned
The 1974-1979 National
in Chapter 3 included a proposal of
207
610,000 km2 of public protected lands in Brazil
(7.2% of Brazilian
territory). At the same same two experts in Brazilian park issues,
Maria
Tereza
Jorge
Padua
and
Jose
Manuel
C.
Vasconcellos,
considered 235,000 km2 as a suitable and realistic goal.
Eleazar Volpato, a high ranking
Institute
official,
In 1986
suggested
500,000 km2 as an "ideal" amount of natural areas to be protected
by the federal government.
All these figures include national
parks, national biological preserves and national forests.
The confirmed area for these three types of units is currently
123,261 km2.
Adding the area of the mysterious forest preserves
the total goes up to 292,131 km2.
Ecological stations, although
not strictly for preservation, can be included in this exercise.
With them the new total is 324,083 km2.
This total excludes state parks, state preserves, areas of
relevant
ecological
concern,
union
protective
forests
and
environmental protection areas, which either are not preservation
units proper, or have only small areas or have undetermined areas.
It includes some units that partly overlap.
So, 300,000 km2 seems
to be a safe estimate of the current existing area of Brazilian
preservation and conservation units, narrowly defined.
This is less than half of what the 1974-1979 development plan
proposed but also more than twice the expectation of leading park
specialists at the same time.
the Brazilian territory.
Still, it represents only 3.5% of
As of 19SG Brazil was in this respect
well behind countries such as Indonesia, Venezuela and Costa Rica,
with respectively 16%, 8% and 8% of protected areas.
Ibsen de
-^
208
~-
Gusmao Camara recently ranked the Brazilian percentage of protected
-^
lands as just a little above half the international average.i:
3y
D
official and park expert estimate alike, therefore, Brazil still
owes itself at least 200,000 km2 of protected lands, at the least.
-"j
The
consideration
of
the country's
biological diversity would
•^
justify much more protected areas.
New parks and preserves can and
^
hopefully will help fill this quota.
—'
1979 park service plan are still needed and their creation should
—>
•^
O
integrate the agency's strategy for the near future.
-
parks in 1988: Tingua and Fernando de Noronha.
3
de Janeiro, with a proposed
^
largest of the union protective forests.
Many units suggested in the
As for now the Institute plans to create at least two national
Tingua NP, in Rio
500 km2, has been designed
in the
The area is supposedly
an undisturbed remain of Atlantic coastal tropical forests on a
•
y
Serra do Mar East-facing slope.
It lies less than 80 km from
V-.V
^
downtown Rio de Janeiro.
In recreational terms it will be another
dKk.
small, mountain slope, forested park plotted close to a major urban
concentration.
Ecologically it will be a needed replica of other
national parks in the state, which consist mainly of forested
slopes and mountain tops.
Fernando de Noronha NP will be plotted
around a string of small oceanic islands in the Atlantic.
They
have become a growing tourist attraction over the last decade.
It
would be Brazil's second marine park.
•^
In Maria Tereza Jorge Padua's ranking, Brazil's park system
-s
presently comes in sixth place in the Latin American context.
Q
ranking
considers
Her
quality, quantity and effective management.
209
Brazil
comes after
Argentina.14
Chile, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Equador and
As far as quantity goes, Brazil will not attain a
better position in this ranking because no other national parks or
preserves are scheduled for creation anywhere else in the country.
It is clear that the Amazonian and Mid-West priority of the 1979
plan must be revived soon if new units are to be viable and Brazil
is to reach a better position
standards.
in
term of
international park
Therefore, it is more than time for a new aggressive
drive in the establishment of new parks and preserves.
Public Visitation, Participation and Interest
The current "Ecological Tourism" program, managed jointly by
Embratur
(the
Secretaria
and
Service,
federal
tourism
the National
besides
company),
Cultural
State Environment
and
the Institute,
Historical
Departments, is
the
Heritage
maybe the
beginning of a new stage in public visitation to Brazilian national
parks. The motto is corny enough it"
- but
the program is
"Learn about nature to Respect
indeed making
national parks more
accessible to Brazilians who do not own cars, a vast majority of
the population.
The program means little more than funneling bus
tours to the parks that can receive visitors.
The park ranking
used in Chapter 4 was specially designed for this program.
No
special activities or improvements were planned in any park for the
purpose of the program, though.
their
current
and
not
The new public will see them Iii
encouraging
situation.
campaign will over the years help Brazilian
Hopefully
the
"become aware of
210
environmental
visitors
preservation issues"
and admirers of national
and create a constituency of
parks.
In their enthusiasm
Embratur spokesmen included national biological preserves among the
area
to
be
visited,
forgetting
that
they
preclude
public
visitation.
Referring to the campaign, Embratur officials stated that
"Brazilian nature is what attracts people to the country", hoping
that foreign tourists will join the ranks of the nationals.
could be right about this.
They
The theme of Brazilian nature as a part
of its national identity seems to be on the rise in preservation
minded groups, but it is still far away from being a widespread
rationale for creating and adequately managing national parks and
other
preservation
areas.
There
is
a
long
tradition
of
"geographical chauvinism" in many Brazilian essayists, journalists
and writers, but is has not come to the aid of the creation of a
sound park system.
on
the
value of
Available sources contain no emphasis at all
Brazil's
distinctive natural
heritage
as an
argument for parks and preserves.15
Brazilians
participating
in
institutionalized
could
their
be
attracted
creation.
to
But
national
only
one
parks
by
instance
of
citizen participation in the creation of parks
was recorded by available sources.
In 1977 the Departamento opened
its "Priority List for Conservation Units in the Amazon Region" for
a period of public comment.
That was almost certainly the first,
time any public agency in Brazil did such a thing.
a vital part of the 1979 park service plan.
The list was
Only 20 comments were
211
filed.
Some of them came from foreign preservation groups.
The
rest came from Brazilian groups, research institutes or government
agencies.
All comments were favorable to the list.
the Oepartamento
claimed
that
it receives
More recently
many petitions
and
suggestions for creating parks. These requests are studied and the
Institute almost always suggests the creation of a state park, an
intriguing procedure not at all clarified.16
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua says that only "eventually" have
Brazilian parks been created by any type of popular demand.
She
mentions only three existing parks that had such support: Caparao,
Pantanal Matogrossense and, more recently, Fernando de Noronha.
In her evaluation, there has been "more resistance than support"
on the local levels for proposed national parks.17
This issue of public support is related to the need and the
possibilities of creating new protected areas in Brazil.
to
Padua there
is
a gradient in
the public
According
acceptability
of
different conservation and preservation units.
National forests
are
authorities
the
"easiest"
to
create
because
local
and
populations expect them to generate jobs, investments, profits and
regional development, on a sustainable basis.
are national parks.
states
"Less acceptable"
They do lend a type of "prestige" to host
and municipios but
the
amount
of land
set
aside from
development is always seen as a loss to be compensated only by
uncertain streams of future visitors and tourists.
acceptable" are
biological
preserves, of
The "lease
course, because they
withdraw land from development and attract no visitors.
Benefits
o
_-•>,
212
^
like the "preservation of genetic pools" are too indirect and vague
^
to be understood and accepted by locals.
Consequently, Padua is
tactically favorable
expansion
-.x-ak
-
to
a
considerable
of
national
_.^s^
-J
--K
_^^&k,
o
J^
forests, specially in the Amazon region, not precluding new parks
and
preserves.18
Teaming
national
forests with
parks and
preserves is indeed a good way to expand the area of Brazilian
^J
3
conservation and preservation units up to the reasonable figure of
^
-^
"^
500,000 km2 with less community resistance
and more community
participation.
VSS*'
.SVS*^
The issues of environmental awareness and activism are too
•**!>
~\d
^ to be studied in depth here. Brazil is today an urbanizing
-J
nation.
A widespread "longing for nature" is probably
two
„=-,
generations
are
O
upgrading, developing or just muddling through urban lifestyles in
;t
rapidly growing cities.
away, at
least.
Right now
most Brazilians
All available data shows that since the
early 1980's Brazilian are on the average working more hours and
making less money.
Leisure time for travelling, camping, hiking
and outdoor activities in general will continue to be scarce for
many years.
/•
Environmental activism is very much in the initial stages, as
any type of citizen participation in Brazil.
Some sectors of the
environmental movement are extremely dedicated to park and preserve
issues, like the
frequently mentioned Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza.
Other groups are more interested in
alternative projects and lifestyles and prefer to remain aloof
about public policy issues.
Others, still, are more political and
213
support party and electoral activism through a recently created
Green Party.19
Overall, public support for the park and preserve
system is small and has a very low profile.
Political Democracy
The possibilities of effective action by environmental groups
is conditioned by the state of political democracy.
types of environmental
The three
groups just referred have at least one
common need: stable democratic institutions.
A democratic process
will allow their consolidation and bring about a clear picture of
possible coalitions and inevitable cleavages. Since 1985 Brazilian
society has been living through the longest period of political
democracy
since
its
industrial
modernization
started.
Anti-
democratic trends are still strong in civilian and military circles
alike.
But even though most Brazilians are not exactly enthused
with the current civilian administration, the first in two decades,
prospects of a return to outright authoritarian rule are small.
If political modernization
is ever
to catch up with economic
modernization, the largest and most important steps are being
secured right now.
National parks are only one of many public policy issues that
will be put to the test of expanded political participation.
A
nation of extremely poor people will certainly be more interested
in other types of "public goods" to be secured through government
policy. Housing, education, health care, public transportation and
land reform are the most prominent on the current public policy
214
agenda. But genuine environmental issues such as sanitation, water
and air quality, coastline management and pollution control score
very high in public attention, specially in Brazil's crowded and
^
deteriorated cities.
O
a widespread popular attention towards parks and preserves is still
^
several curves down the road, in this author's view.
^
In no sense are these secondary issues. But
A consistent park policy will no doubt have to be demanded by
societal groups, by a constituency of nature appreciators.
Even
" i
--**,
in many present-day developed countries this is generally a small
—'
and segmented interest group.
.—,
up of (1) a handful of preservation-minded environmental groups,
D
(2) part of the "deep ecology" groups, (3) part of the "Greens",
1^
w
3
(4) a few hiking, camping and mounting climbing associations, (5)
scientific
In Brazil this constituency is made
organizations and (6) local communities
absorbed parks or want to host one.
which have
Foreign or international
environmental groups can be included in this constituency, as so
much attention is currently being given by them to whatever happens
to the Brazilian environment.
This is the current societal basis for a park movement in
Brazil. It is more potential than real. The enemy is gigantic and
multifaceted.
Its general name is "economic development", or
"national integration". Fabio Feldman, the federal representative
who pushed the environmental chapter through the floor of the
Constitutional Assembly, includes government itself in the ranks
of the enemies of nature conservation in Brazil:
"...government
is the first to trash protection areas, building roads through
"j
215
_
them".
"**;
"Environmental issues are more widespread in [Brazilian] society
-
as
^
downright ignorant about environmental issues".
—
is correct, he is the first to acknowledge that government projects
^
for economic development have widespread popular support.
"3
D
a
In
whole
As
seen,
more
general
than
in
even
terms,
the
same
government...government
high
ranking
Institute
Feldman
says:
authorities
are
Although Feldman
personnel
mention
^
publicly and in critical terms the agency's emphasis on forest
"^
development as a drawback for its preservation policies.
^
Ruschi, the naturalist who carved out preserves in Espirito Santo
Augusto
NsV
"-i
fighting
almost
politicians
and
alone
against
Institute
loggers,
forest
pulp-mills,
policies,
local
considered
--->
"inconceivable that forest economics and forest preservation be
0
handled by the same agency".
X
One
recent
incident
suffices
to
show
how
undependable
3
Brazilian authorities can be when the issue is national parks.
^
After
^
Santiago tried to put an end to Parana state governor Jose Richa's
w
insistent requests for a permit to build a road through Tguacu HP.
months
of constant
pressure,
Institute president
Jayme
Santiago mentioned the "exhaustive" technical and legal work done
^
by the Institute when it denied prior requests.
Santiago finally
stated that there were "no reasons" to grant the permit.20
^
Recall that Iguacu NP is the most consolidated in the whole
'*'*
system.
^
comment
The mere insistence of such requests is a bad enough
on the Institute's
weak
stand
in park policy.
The
Institute's willingness to accept repeated requests and study them
216
thoroughly is even worse. Therefore, Brazilian nature appreciators
and the incipient coalition of park defenders are on the safe side
considering government as a whole as another name of their main
enemy, at least for the time being.
It could be argued, however, that the Brazilian park and
preserve system experienced its greatest expansion during the years
of military dictatorship.
political
democracy
This would contradict the need of
that
is being
argued here.
Indeed,
the
correlation between dates of park and preserve creation and recent
military dictatorships
truth is different.
seems to support the argument.
But the
The first two general-presidents did not
create a single national park between 1964 and 1969 and actually
extinguished one.
The third general-president created only three
parks between 1969 and 1974.
and 1979.
The fourth created none between 1974
Only the fifth and last in the dynasty of four-star
presidents can be credited with the creation of many parks and
preserves between 1979 and 1985.
extinguishing
one
and by
But he tainted his record by
allowing
a road
to
cross
another.
Besides, his was the most leeble of the military governrr.c-nt-.
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua admits that in Brazil and in other
countries
under
military
rule
officers have a professional
she
has
noticed
that
military
bias towards parks and preserves.
They tend to see conservation and preservation units as "strategic
instruments" aiding in "territorial integrity". They are therefore
prone
to nod
favorably
international borders.
to
their
establishment,
specially
in
Padua mentions as examples, besides Brazil,
217
Chile, Argentina, Peru and Zaire.
Al expanded their park areas
considerably under military dictatorships. But she also emphasizes
how Brazilian military dictators extinguished two national parks
and created none between 1974 and 1979
(when the ruling general
was oblivious to the issue) .21
The military mind's sympathy towards preserves and parks as
instruments
of
territorial
opinion - and Padua's -
consolidation
is in
this
author's
a poor argument for military rule.
This
sympathy does not necessarily contain ecological or preservationist
feelings.
The same border "defended" today by a park can later be
better defended by settlement and development.
the
environmental
movement
would
dictatorships, because the movement
resist the military governments
not
Besides, most of
support
new
military
was in part originated to
that ended in 1985.
Actually,
institutional disorder and disbandment of the organized citizenry
are
the more
relevant
considerations
for
evaluating
policy
prospects of any issue in military dictatorships, park policies
being indistinct in this particular.
The conclusion is that continuing political democracy is still
the best bet for consistent environmental policies.
The young ana
small coalition of Brazilian environmentalists, scientists, nature
appreciators, political activists and ordinary citizens who will
comprise a social movement in favor of national
parks will be
better off in the vagaries of the democratic process than in the
grim
and ultimately
false certainty
of authoritarianism.
The
"economic growth coalition" has already shown its ability to thrivs
218
under
authoritarianism.
subsidies,
exemptions
officials.
physical
-*
o
<-}
-,
3
It knows how
to extract incentives,
and favors from irresponsible government
Last, but not least, it should be reminded that the
expansion
of
parks
in
deterioration as public goods.
Brazil
was
parallel
to their
In other words, park management
standards plummeted in the last 20 years, even though the park
system s area was in expansion.
*^
^"\
Policy Proposals
^
^
**)
throughout
-)
^
formulations of the author, who agrees with and supports all of
^
them, though.
^
The
^
the
proposals
text.
have
They
are
been
not
hinted
or
necessarily
mentioned
original
A central authority for protected lands should be established.
The
J
following
Institute's preservation
duties should
be absorbed by the
Secretaria. Departamento and park and preserve personnel would be
*5
_
transferred to the Secretaria.
^
preservation duties and is located in a slightly less development
oriented
Department.
The
The Secretaria today has extensive
institute
can
iejiicu.ii' as
a
ioi'esl
*..-*-"*
•}
^
development agency and should strive for efficiency in this field.
^
^
With existing and new national forests the Institute would have its
-3 more than full.
**\s
It might even create wilderness or roadless
^
-J
areas in national forests, two types of units still non-existent
'<**
in Brazil.
^
^
Legislative creation of national parks and preserves should
~
be required. Future parks and preserves should be created through
-3
219
Congress, with adequate budget appropriations for personnel, land
acquisition, equipment and installations.
This would require a
legal reform probably not very complicated.
in
the
creation
of parks by
decree
would
The loss of agility
be
compensated by
dependable funding and by political support. Other types of units,
such
as areas of relevant
created
—s
O
swiftly
by
ecological
decree
and
be
concern,
used
as
could
still be
instruments
for
temporarily preempting development or occupation of selected areas.
Personnel
qualification
should
be enhanced.
Qualified,
•*"s
^
university-degree
*"j
attracted to parks and preserves with incentives such as flexible
^
tenures, research
^
structure.
-''
locally
**
authority inside park limits.
'--1'
administrators
grants,
research
and
researchers
teams
should
and adequate
be
infra-
Administrative clerks and rangers should be recruited
or regionally.
All
park personnel
should have police
A consistent research policy should be devised.
As ecological
^K
stations, national parks and specially biological preserves should
"*j
**-\_
try to link up with Brazilian and foreign institutions which
support scientific researcn. The parK service would not nave to
^)
plan or execute research itself, but only allocate grants and
furnish infra-structure for selected individual or institutional
^
researchers.
Allocation can be decided by a team of experts and
environmental group representatives funded by the same sources.
^
Management Plans should be immediately updated and applied as
^
funding and personnel allow.
New parks and preserves should have
X
plans drafted for them, using the existing plans as models.
220
|
|
y
Public visitation should be stimulated.
A few less remote
«-,
parks could be improved with relatively inexpensive additions such
i.
•v
as hiking trails,
I
*
facilities.
camping grounds, collective lodges and food
This would attract campers and hikers willing to go
beyond day-trip experiences.
•^)
The park agency should try an aggressive drive to attract
I.J
'•**;
private investments or donations that allow tax breaks for private
,-J
public, designated activities
j^
publications) and installations
(labs, buildings, nature trails,
museums)
donated
citizens or companies.
can
be
Although parks and preserves must remain
supported
or
a
for this
pool
of private
benefactors.
'^t
Private funds can be funneled also through private foundations
{""
which receive tax-exempt donations for purposes of preservation,
:
allowing
by
scientific,
^
J
Legislation
(educational,
already
exists.
'
t^i
such as has happened through the Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao
r-;
da Natureza and the Fundacao Pro-Natureza.
. ^}
^^
^
Wj
New conservation and preservation units must be created. The
}-J
third
stage of
y.
redrafted
^)
creating parks in the next decade.
^
, -1
*j
!***>.
Finally, and most important, a new drive for acquisition of
.
•
'
park and preserve lands must be started immediately.
This the
W
.^
_J
that but probably it will continue to be difficult to obtain
,
.
.
necessary funds from the public treasury. Again a pool of private
:^.
v
benefactors could
and
the
"Conservation Unit
publicized,
including
system's most urgent priority.
build
a
System
Plan" should
comprehensive
goals
be
for
Public funding will be needed for
fund
large
enough
for
significant
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
O
3
3
3
221
acquisitions over
a relatively short
period of
time.
But no
further land should be acquired until at least a substantial part
of Instituto-owned park and preserve land is finally registered in
the government property office.
VOLUME
II
PART II
National Parks in the State of Rio de Janeiro
CHAPTER 6
Paradise Lost, Found and Depleted: Human Occupation and the
Natural Characteristics of the State of Rio de Janeiro
Those who saw the Paraiba do Sul
Valley in those times, proudly
displaying the ocean of its coffee
plantations, today see the desolation
of its naked lands, the decline of
its cities, the depreciation of its
properties, the skeletons of its
barns, the farm houses resembling
bone yards, and they feel a great
sadness in their hearts.
Nilo Pecanha, 1S04
1
Vision of Paradise: Native Americans in Brazil
The particular corner of the Earth which today is the seat of
the ephemeral political entity called Rio de Janeiro state remained
relatively undisturbed by Homo sapiens until late in the recorded
history of humanity.
This chapter will summarize the cumulative
effects of human activities on the environment of the area.
will provide
a background
and a local
context
for
This
the later
chapters dealing with the four national parks located in the state
of Rio de Janeiro.
Native Americans
Brazilian
are believed
territory many
to have arrived to current
human generations
after
the original
224
populating waves crossed the Bering Straight into the territory of
North America.
Recent research, though, has discovered evidence
that opposes the traditional theory of human population of the
American continent.
Some human dwellings and implements in the
Brazilian Northeast have been dated back to 32,000 years ago.
Based
on
this
and
other
evidence,
an
independent
source
of
population for some parts of the South and Central American subcontinents is currently being argued: Pacific Islanders who managed
to reach their West coasts.
Even though, the difference between the extreme estimates of
the presence of Homo sapiens in current Brazilian territory is not
drastically large: from 6,000 years to 32,000 years ago.
Still,
the occupation of the Southern Brazilian coastline, where Rio de
Janeiro
state is located, would be more recent than any date
settled upon for Northern regions, because penetration routes in
both theories
are supposed
to have been Northern or tropical,
originated from the Pacific Ocean or its coastline.
The impacts of Native Americans on the environment were a
consequence
of
their
numbers
and
technologies.
estimates of Native Americans living
Population
in Brazil at the time of
Europeans arrivals have varied considerably, with an upward trend.
Early explorers were impressed by the Natives' numbers, knowledge
of the territory, vigor and health.
Q
But their estimates of total
Native population are today considered
wild guesses based on
strictly
centralized
local
organizations
observations.
brought
together
No
even
the
Native
political
groups
with
225
linguistic and religious affinities. No centralized empire existed
to yield a dependable head count of tribute-paying subjects.
All Natives in Brazilian
territory lived
in a primitive
community mode. Village sizes varied from a few hundred to a few
thousand individuals.
nomadic.
Besides, many groups were nomadic or semi-
Portuguese estimates suffered also from a coastal bias.
Current estimates of the total indigenous population in Brazilian
territory in 1500 vary from 2 to 5 million.
of estimates proceeds.
The upward tendency
Roger Stone mentions recent archeological
research that pushed estimates of the Native population in the
f5'
• ^^
Amazon region alone to 3.6 million, or even 4.8 million.2
Warren Dean recently calculated with extreme care the possible
i ^>30
' —\*
human carrying capacity
'w
-,
Janeiro
.W
V
of a substantial part of current Rio de
state and
a
small
part
of
current
Sao
Paulo state
territories in the years immediately before and after 1500.
'( Q
X
He
notes that the more recent Tupinamba peoples were more independent
, «J
Q
'3
on agriculture and thus were more likely to have denser populations
'
than the hunter-gatherers
driven out of the area by them.
His
-3
~)
^SSr
minimum and maximum density estimates are 4.8 and 5.3 inhabitants
^
per km2 .
-Q
-^
**^p
,3
;Q
Considering
only
translate into a population
coastal
ranges,
these
densities
of 57,000 to 63,000 Tupinamba.
His
estimates do not include other populations, possibly as large,
^
living in the rest of the Rio de Janeiro area.
^
_Q
population density estimate can be extended to neighboring areas,
3
^
the total population could reach the impressive figure of 150,000,
*")
including the Goiana to the South and the Goitaca to the North.3
.Q
,J
If his optimum
3
226
The
Tupinamba,
as
many
other
Native
"swidden" or "slash and burn" agriculture.
groups, practiced
They burned sections
of the local forests, cleaned them, used them for agriculture
during a few years and abandoned them for new plots.
productive, this itinerant agriculture
required
amount of forest reserves for each village.
Although
a rather large
Enough "burnable"
second growth had to establish itself to make old plots useful
again.
If forest humus had not been depleted, three or four
decades
were
Burning
vegetation,
probably
enough
original
for
substantial
or not,
was
second
crucial
growth.
for adding
nutrients to the soil, adding to its initial fertility.
As they
were seemingly becoming more and more dependent on agriculture,
Native Americans in the Rio de Janeiro area lived in part off the
"climax forest's complex biotic stockpile", to use Dean's words.
The Native population was, therefore, large enough to impact
the local environment and ancient enough for their agriculture to
have affected any "pristine" ecological balance existing prior to
their presence.
Nonetheless, Tupinamba, Goiana and Goitaca were,
in this author's view, far from being a disruptive factor to the
local
ecology.
Their
agriculture was still incipient.
Their
population was moderate and dispersed in villages with an average
of less than 1,000 individuals.
subtracted many Natives
resources.
Large
European diseases and enslavement
from the ranks
stretches
of
of consumers
of local
territory, even on
the more
populated coastline, were disputed and not used systematically by
rival groups.
227
The Natives' rich diet included renewable resources such as
fish, shellfish, mammals, birds and reptiles, not to mentions ants.
They gathered nuts, fruit and honey.
coivara. required only
Itinerant agriculture, the
20 km2 per village to help support the
estimated population with beans, maize, mandioc, yams, peanuts,
pumpkins, pineapples and potatoes.
clear
again, were
almost
Second growth areas, easier to
certainly
preferred
reducing the destruction of original forests.
for
new
crops,
The Natives knew no
metal instruments and therefore could not control weeds on their
plots.
Second growth established itself faster on plots abandoned
only after a few years of use.
There are still more qualifications to Natives' impacts on the
local environment. Natives and their agriculture were concentrated
-j
on the Coastal Plain.
^
for sporadic hunting and gathering.
Q
-,
Extensive mountainous areas were used only
There is no record of any
resource being extracted or produced on a large scale for barter
•5k^
vJ
or commerce.
"X
W
Q
mythical in their beliefs and relationship with the elements of the
"^
Q
•~)
natural resources, similar to the ones described by Frederick
landscape.
Just as important, Native Americans in Brazil were
There were many cultural constraints on the use of
Turner for the Natives in Central and North America.4
In summary,
~*&s-
"--^
^y
—
European sailors and colonizers did not find an untouched landscape
W
Natives' impacts were subsumed in a rich and awesome tropical
^3
_^
^
^
Q
in the Rio de Janeiro area.
Nonetheless,
to European eyes the
landscape.
.
1
Dean's conclusions about the environmental impacts of Native
D
-•*,
228
^3^
^
o
populations in the Rio de Janeiro area are quite different than
this author's.
He argues that a peak hypothetical density of 9
inhabitants per km2 over a period of five centuries might have
caused the total clearing of coastal forests once every 110 years,
not allowing for climax community restoration.
In another text,
though, about Sao Paulo's different and more extensive forests and
fields,
^
3
-^
••«•
Q
~
W
Q
^
Dean calculates that only "5%" of the original landscape
were transformed over five centuries by the swidden agriculture of
numerous Natives before European arrivals.5
In this author's
view, Natives concentrated their impacts on the Coastal Plain, less
than a third of the Rio de Janeiro area. Furthermore, a great part
of these impacts was on renewable resources.
When the European sailors reached the Brazilian coast, in the
*Sr
Q
year 1500, the sights, smells, tastes and sounds engendered in them
^
.3
Q
the "visions of Paradise" they were seeking, to use the expression
3
Q
-v
vgf
of a keen Brazilian
Historian.
"pristine"
of
condition
the
They were
landscape
alterations caused by the Natives.
and
impressed
by the
all but
ignored
From the Amazon delta to the
^
Southern coast, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, German and
^
Dutch sailors and explorers were struck by the "paradise" of this
• s^F
Q
~)
3
lavish but "lost" land.
wilderness
to
be
They considered to be entering a biblical
"conquered
and
subdued",
in
the
name
of
^
civilization.
^
and priests proceeded to secure the land, search for riches and
3
_
^
-3
-.3
Portuguese colonizers, merchants, farmers, military
convert the heathen to Catholicism.6
3
-->
w
—
- —i
—>
229
Portuguese Colonization
The
tiny country of Portugal colonized
Q
Eastern board of South America.
3
^
Brazil emerged as a modern nation.
almost the entire
From this colonial enterprise
Not only did Portugal secure
mr
Q
the Eastern board but it expanded to the West, with a keen geo-
^y
political perception of the Spaniards' lack of interest in the
vQ
Q
heart of the South American mainland.
^
Portugal's success.
;3
J '
„_
: <-^
*Q
. „
<s*»
,«*
Many reasons explain
For one thing, Portugal was on the cutting
edge of sailing and exploring technology, as shown by Alfred Cosby
in his instigating digression on the subject.
Portuguese sailors
accumulated vast experience in sailing the South Atlantic, around
Africa, into the Indian Ocean and all the way to India, China and
^
Q
^
Japan.
^
exploration and commerce that Portuguese colonization was mainly
;Q^
They developed a taste for the profits and adventures of
long distance commerce.
So strong was their attachment to marine
coastal in Brazil for almost two centuries.
Q
3
-^
>^
^
were taken to be sold in Europe.
^
religious
From the coast highly
valued commodities such as brazil-wood, peppers and mainly sugar
Another explanation for Portugal's colonial success was its
content.
Portugal and Spain remained bulwarks of
V!f
^
i *^
,
:Q
• *~\s explorations
. -^
-3
.^
traditional Catholicism amid the crisis of Reformation. The Roman
Catholic church therefore gave its blessing and support to the
of the two dependable Catholic nations.
Pope himself
sanctioned
the
1494
The
Tordesisles
treaty by which
Portugal and Spain divided among themselves all new lands to be
.- ^sy
Q
found.
Although futile in the long run, the treaty stimulated
230
Portuguese and Spanish exploration and kept mutual rivalries under
control.
presence
The
Portuguese
of non-Catholics
were
in
particularly strict
their
colonies.
This
about the
became a
permanent check on the size of the European population in Brazil
and forced Portuguese
Black slaves.
colonists
to mingle with Natives and with
This formed a sizeable population of mestizos
which
engendered combinations of European, Native and Black cultures,
including their ways of viewing nature.
The religious factor in Portuguese colonization is present in
their urge to convert the numerous heathen.
Portuguese Catholic
authorities considered Natives Americans as an ideal compensation
for the heavy losses in the ranks of European Catholicism due to
the Reformation.
Portuguese
The urge to convert in fact originated some
settlements, influencing
colonization effort.
the human geography of the
This helped Native and Portuguese land use
patterns to mingle and Portuguese adoption of swidden agriculture
is a clear proof of this.
In summary, the Portuguese simply could not leave the Natives
to their own ways.
Mingling, preaching and conflicts with the
large Native coastal population contributed to hold Portuguese
colonization
to Brazil's
Atlantic seaboard.
Catholic priests,
specially Jesuits, were sometimes the first to put foot ashore in
areas of lesser commercial or military interest but well populated
with Natives who supposedly longed to hear the word of the Lord.7
Those who did not hear the word of course received the sword.
Geo-politics and commercial opportunity also determined many
O
^
Q
-->
.?J
3
"1
"""
^
***
231
settlements, trading posts, ports and garrisons, of course.
The
Portuguese tried to secure the rather slender slice of South
American territory that fell to them according to the 1494 treaty
with regular sailing expeditions.
Even though, in the early
decades of the 1500 's the Portuguese were more interested in their
dealings with India and the Far East.
This contributed to dilute
\im&
Q
Portuguese colonial efforts along Brazil's vast coastline and to
"*
W
->
\ggp
hold them away from the interior.
^
in the Northeastern tip of Brazil, about 2,000 km North from the
_
^
f»f
^
future site of the state of Rio de Janeiro.
^
to Africa, simplifying commerce of colonial goods and Black slaves.
The Portuguese made their first attempts at stable settlement
The coastal area
between the cities of Salvador and Recife was closer to Europe and
yap
~^
The area had a continuous stretch of fertile soils close to the
W
coast,
^s**
3
~\e
<**'
V
^ -^
«aJ
^
propitious
had experience.
for
sugar-cane
plantations
with
which
the
Sugar was a highly valued commodity in
Europe.
By the mid-16th century Portuguese colonists established in
. vjir
^
the Brazilian Northeast the first permanent, large-scale and highly
^
'W
^
lucrative European enterprises on the American continent: vast
•; «*
.3
-^,
less dynamic.
f'
sugar- cane plantations and mills. The rest of the colony remained
gold
Meanwhile, the Spaniards were making fortune with
and silver mines and other European nations were still
'-*^^
>«**
'-3
:
3
-.3
involved in internal strife or religious wars.
The Portuguese were
the first European to set foot on the American continent on a
stable basis.8
Therefore, the Portuguese started exploiting
3
o
232
Brazilian natural resources with large-scale commercial agriculture
very soon in the 16th century.
Sugar cane plantations
destructive
as
environmental
in Northeast were as ecologically
they
were
impacts
were
lucrative.
superbly
Their
expounded
devastating
by
Brazilian
Sociologist Gilberto Freyre in Nordeste. a pioneering environmental
history published in 1936.
These plantations were also a matrix
of Brazilian social structure.
Basic Brazilian social traits were
engendered in them: large land holdings, export monoculture, the
extended patriarchal family, absence of smallholders, staunch if
not devout Catholicism, Black slavery pervading field and home,
displacement
of
free
Natives
to
frontier
areas
and
intermingling between Portuguese, Blacks and Natives.
sexual
Each of
these traits had effects on environmental resource use.
Sugar-cane plantations, for example, were an "intensification"
of Native swidden farming, as Warren Dean keenly puts it.
Forests
were burned, cleared and the soil was exploited until exhaustion
because iron hoes could control weeds.
Forest humus was thus
depleted in many areas and successional processes retarded or
totally frustrated.9
Brazilian
Historian
Sergio
Buarque
de
Holanda,
less
enthusiastic than Freyre about the "agricultural civilization" of
the Portuguese in Brazil, published in 1936 a classic text in which
he
keenly classified sugar-cane
"mining"
than
to
agriculture.
plantations as more
Holanda
noted
akin to
that
truly
agricultural peoples have a class of land tenderers who struggle
233
to protect the soil from depletion, something that the Portuguese
did not do at all in Brazil.
The intense use of gang labor of
Black slaves, the lack of smallholders and the availability of
virgin land all conspired against the conservative use of the land.
Shortage
of workers made the adoption of itinerant agriculture
"rational"
for Portuguese
colonists.
Burning
forests was an
"economic" way of clearing the land and controlling weeds in
conditions of scarce labor.
However, the simple use of the plow,
very rare anywhere in Brazil until late in the 19th century, could
probably have enhanced labor productivity to a great degree.10
Whatever
their
disagreements,
Freyre
and
Holanda
both
acknowledge the environmental impacts of sugar-cane plantations and
their importance for the permanent occupation of Brazil by the
Portuguese and the Blacks.
•**
the wastefulness of Black slavery gang labor ultimately led to
extensive
^
The availability of virgin lands and
deforestation
and
eventual
sections of land in the Northeast.
park
or
biological
desertification
of many
Significantly, not a single
X,
national
preserve
exists
today
in
the
Q
Northeastern coastal region, for absolute lack of natural areas,
^
preserved or naturally restored. The Rio de Janeiro area, as will
"^
^\e shown below, also had its own extensive sugar-cane plantations
^
f***,
since early colonial days.
W
o
...
^*
W
'•*)
European Colonial Enterprise in the Rio de Janeiro Area
During the first 50 years of colonial exploration the entire
Brazilian Southeast had a tertiary status for the Portuguese.
A
o
3
234
^
few trading posts were established in the area to support passing
-^
vessels, such as in Cabo Frio
-•
(1503).
D
(1502)
and possibly Guanabara bay
A new settlement was founded in Guanabara bay in
1511.
These settlements stimulated the exploration of two local resources
with
good
commercial
value:
native peppers
and
brazil-wood.
Natives gathered these natural products and bartered them with
Portuguese or French explorers.
Brazil-wood
(Caesalpina echinata) was indigenous to Atlantic
coastal forests and was valued for yielding a dependable red dye.
Natives called it ibirapitanga. It is curious to note how the name
Brazil prevailed over two official religious denominations of the
colony: Island of the Holy Cross and Land of the Holy Cross.
As
Jose Augusto Padua puts it, the erasure of such "sacred" names was
a triumph of the European mercantile view over its religious
view.11
It would indeed be naive to consider the prevailing name
as a sign of "environmental" concerns of any kind.
Brazil-wood was
intensively exploited and became a very rare tree in the wild, even
->
xQ
today in the few undisturbed remains of the coastal forests.
Geo-politics or colonial competition put the Rio de Janeiro
X
area on the Portuguese maps with greater emphasis.
Q
French expedition
^
establish an "Antarctic France", a projected haven for French
Q
Huguenots. No sizeable Portuguese settlement was there to resist
-**
the French. The inquisitional Portuguese catholic Church and Crown
-
considered the occupation of the area by French Protestants simply
Q
intolerable.
...3
In 1555 a
invaded the safe port of Guanabara bay to
235
A first Portuguese expedition disbanded the French settlement
in 1560 but surviving French gathered again on an island inside
Guanabara bay.
Many Tupinamba Natives supported them.
In 1565 a
second Portuguese expedition arrived to destroy the remaining
French settlement. At the time, the nearest Portuguese settlements
lay 120 km to the North
(Cabo Frio)
and 130 km to the South
(Angra dos Reis), both small trading posts.12
Two years of bloody fighting were necessary to defeat the well
entrenched French and their Tupinamba allies.
villages
sided with the Portuguese.
Winners
Some Tupinamba
and losers, the
Tupinamba were thus involved in European rivalries and paid a heavy
toll in lives, health, cultural integrity and land use rights.
In
1575, the Goitaca around the Cabo Frio region, who also sympathized
with the French, were exterminated or driven inland.
By 1580,
therefore, the Coastal Plain from Guanabara bay to Cabo Frio was
void of hostile or independent Natives.
They had been killed in
war or by diseases, enslaved or led into non-tribal life in aldeias
(villages controlled by Catholic priests),13
Alarmed by
the
French invasion, Portugal stimulated the
occupation of the Rio de Janeiro area, although not relinquishing
emphasis on Northeastern sugar-cane plantations.
3
-3
**\
-3
3
3
.3
Sesmarias were
leased around Guanabara bay as early as 1567, the year the French
were finally disbanded.
Janeiro,
founded
inhabitants,
in
much
averaged around 600.
At this moment, the city of Rio de
1565,
smaller
had
than
no
local
more
than
Native
140
European
villages, which
x
••<*»!
^V
—•*,
-3
O
236
Z
Rio de Janeiro was now a port, a city and a region in the
Q
' ">
"'
European sense, borne out of inter-European colonial and religious
rivalries.
-•^)
Natives themselves.
^
Native American "geography" was deleted along with the
By 1570 a substantial portion of the coast of
future Rio de Janeiro state was under Portuguese control.
It was
-N
not a populous settlement but it proved to be a beachhead strong
Q
enough to guarantee future colonial expansion. European geography
'xjb'
_^
superceded Native geography.
The validity of mythical descriptions
of the landscape was totally lost on the Bible bearing Portuguese,
such
as
with
colonization
European
in Brazil
colonists
was
another
everywhere.
important
Portuguese
chapter
in the
European effort to go "beyond geography".14
The Natural Geography of Rio de Janeiro
The natural geography of the Rio de Janeiro area is relevant
to the study of its environmental history and to the understanding
of its national parks, created in the 20th century.
For the
purpose of this analysis, the Rio de Janeiro area is a region
between the Paraiba do Sul river to the West and the Atlantic
coastline to the East, limited by latitudes 21° and 23° South and
by longitudes 41° and 45° West.
the tropical zone.
wide,
with
an
It lies on the Southern edge of
It is a rectangle about 400 km long and 120 km
area
of
approximately
predominantly East-West direction
48,000
km2,
(see Figure II).
set
in a
This area is
roughly equivalent to the territory of the Province and later State
of Rio de Janeiro,
entities
which
emerged
only
in the 19th
MAPA CHAVE
STATE OF
MINAS GERAIS
MG
1 5 0 ) U (L) (u & & O O 4.J 4-; Cj
N
O O C../O ^ O 1' O 1,' C; <1J O C; ^.K.) 1; C..J O C. » 1.) "j (.) 13 (. ') CJ 1.) 13
TIJUCA
DOS ORGAOS N.P
N.P
PARKS
STATE OF ESPWITO SANTO
ES
NATIONAL PARKS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF RIO DE JANEIRO
1
SERRA
NATIONAL
2
ITATIAIA N.R
N.R
SERRA
BOCAINA
3
DA
4
^
century.
Q
The local climate is a combination of tropical
location,
w
proximity
to the Atlantic ocean, a Northward bound cold ocean
^j
current,
^
mountain ranges and tropical atmospheric currents.
—>
the Rio de Janeiro area has four different climates: hot, sub-hot,
O
moderate
^
•**
altitudes.
intense
solar
mesothermal
radiation,
and
relatively high
medium
mesothermal,
and
abrupt
Technically,
according
to
Altitudes vary from 0 to 2,787 m above sea level.
Itatiaiacu, the state's summit, lies within Itatiaia National Park.
For Brazilian standards
the Rio de Janeiro
area has a highly
Q
convoluted morphology, with extensive mountain and hill ranges.
*^
Rainfall varies from humid to super-humid, between 1.5 m to 4,0 m
-^
annually, with positive hydraulic balances.
Q
coast of Rio de Janeiro has in fact the highest recorded average
_
rainfall in the country.
Q
The extreme Southern
Rio de Janeiro's geology shares with the generally ancient
condition of Brazilian geology in general.
rocks
are the predominant
Medium and late Pre-
Q
Cambrian
feature, in metamorphic,
**
migmatite, gneiss, charnoquit and granite forms.
-A
magmatic-alkaline rocks from the Tertiary Cretacean.
3
Plain
^
deposits.
is constituted mostly by Quaternary
There are also
The Coastal
coastal and fluvial
Sixty million years ago, seismic activity derived from the
formation of the Andes caused the collapse of immense sections of
the Serra do Mar into the Atlantic ocean.
More to the interior,
the same forces opened a breach between the Serra do Mar and the
*»,
"5
238
__^
Serra da Mantiqueira, eventually forming the Paraiba do Sul river
"3
valley.
~
the Rio de Janeiro area the basic forms by which it became known
—^
to humans.
Therefore, this seismic event was responsible for giving
^
Three basic "topographical provinces" are discernable: the
—,
Coastal Plain, the Serra do Mar mountain range and the Paraiba do
Sul river valley.
The Coastal Plain is a mostly flat area between
the
and
ocean
shore
the
Serra
do
Mar
foothills,
formed by
Q
Quaternary coastal and fluvial deposits.
In the Southern coast the
^
plain is very narrow and frequently deleted by the mountains'
Eastern intrusion all the way to the shoreline.
The most common
landscape of the Southern coast are granite and gneiss outcrop
cliffs stranded between narrow, arc-shaped beaches, which in their
turn are squeezed against nearby
foothills.
The plain widens considerably behind Sepetiba and Guanabara
bays, reaching an average of 50 km in width.
proceeds with an average of 30 km in width.
To the North it
From Sepetiba bay to
Macae the plain was shaped by fluvial deposits from the Paraiba do
Sul river.
beaches.
There
are many
coastal
lagoons,
sand
bars, sand
Inside Guanabara and Sepetiba bays, extensive mangroves
were an important feature of the landscape.
Paraiba do Sul river the Coastal
Near the mouth of the
Plain fuses with the river's
lowland deposits and with extensive fresh water lagoon deposits.
The fusion is called Baixada Campista and the plains penetrate 60
or more km into the interior.
Several isolated hills and mountain
ranges exist in the Coastal Plain area, specially around Guanabara
-,-*»,
-J**
239
^
—^
and Sepetiba bays.
The Serra do Mar
("Ocean. Range")
is the continuation of a
-^
massive coastal mountain range.
Q
the state of Santa Catarina and proceeds North through the states
^
of Parana, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, where it dies off.
Q
Rio de Janeiro area it forms an "impressive" mountainous barrier"
*y
parallel to the coast and always visible from the Coastal Plain.
-~j
Its Eastern face resulted from the collapse occurred 60 million
W
years ago.
.-^
Janeiro area is around 1,000 m, with impressive peaks like Pedra
Q
do Sirio
^
proceeds North of latitude 22°, in again approaches the coast, but
Q
average altitudes fall sharply and mountains spread out, until the
*^
ridge is definitely
-—-)
The
It starts in the Eastern edge of
In the
The average altitude of the main ridge in the Rio de
(2,263 m)
Paraiba
and Caledonia
(2,284 m) .
As the ridge
severed by the lower Paraiba do Sul valley.
do
Sul
Valley
is
a
thin
string
of
mountain
•^
squeezed between the Western slope of the Serra do Mar and the
—^
Eastern slope of the Serra da Mantiqueira.
Q
river is the mightiest to empty into the Atlantic Ocean in Southern
^
Brazilian territory.
_Q
Paulo state, the Paraiba do Sul reaches Rio de Janeiro as a large
3
river.
The Paraiba do Sul
Born outside the area, in present day Sao
It receives many short tributaries from valleys on both
•~\15
-J?
Early
descriptions
and
evidence
produced
by
studies
in
' ~
biology, climate and geology allow specialists to estimate that the
^)
present territory of Rio de Janeiro state was once covered from 95
to 97% with tropical rain forests.
These forests were part of a
^
240
3
Q
much
-*v
Tropical and Sub-Tropical Rain Forest", which once ran continuously
larger
floral
formation
broadly
called
"Atlantic
Coastal
^fSf
—^
w
^
from the state of Rio Grande do Sul to the state of Rio Grande do
•*y
coastal forest had varying widths and different floral communities,
Norte,
about
3,300 km, from
latitudes 29° to 6°.
W
^
according to latitudes and altitudes.
^
estimated
today
as only
This grand
.Even its meager remains,
5% of the original
formation,
contain
Q
-^
-*y
^
Q
-x
• ^y
Q
striking~
contrasts
formation
owed
biological
and
nothing
diversity.
local
endemisms.
t
to Amazonian
It hosted
trees, shrubs, lianas,
This
rain
immense
forests
grasses
and other
forms and a wide variety of fauna, with numerous
Q
Q
in terms of
a grand number of
epiphytes,
floral
species of
vegetation
confirmed and
suspected endemisms.
^
In the Rio de Janeiro area these forests covered most of the
3
*~)
three "topographical provinces" described above.
The remaining 3
.jw-s
-^
to 5%, on the Coastal Plain, were covered with mangroves or with
Q
—%
a
formation
called
restinga,
a
coastal
scrub
associated
with
•HP
•*y
•3
_.
*s?
.Q
3
lagoons,
dunes,
sand
bars
and
beaches.16
In
the
extensive
"tropical paradise" uncovered to European eyes in the early 16th
century, the Rio de Janeiro
awesome landscapes.
area was
certainly
among the most
Towering forests with compact canopies covered
•+3?
•~\e
-•*?
coastal
plains
arid
the
clearly
visible
mountain
slopes.
Forests sometimes came very close to the beautiful coastal lagoons
•a**""\3
«_
-=€P
_3
- 3
ir
and clear water beaches, the privileged point of view of early
sailors arid chroniclers.
It was indeed a "vision of paradise".
Portuguese occupation of the Rio de Janeiro area was limited
tr
241
,~B)
until 1565 to a few small coastal settlements or trade posts, such
as Cabo Frio, Rio de Janeiro and Angra dos Reis.
In 1565 a new
"2
settlement called Rio de Janeiro was established inside Guanabara
^
bay, the best port in the area.
-N
By 1585 the village of Rio de
Janeiro still had less than 800 European inhabitants, being only
ms)
slightly
t"
preexisted in the area.
^
larger than the average
Native American
villages that
Right after the French were pushed out the Portuguese crown
"**"
leased
several sjesmjar_ij3j3 in
-^
Portuguese colonists
known
the
Guanabara bay
as the
area.
In
1627,
"Seven Captains" leased huge
sesjnarias between Guanabara bay and Macae, introducing sugar-cane
^
plantations and cattle.
In the beginning
of the 17th century,
*•»
therefore,
were
plantations
\,
there
already
known
some
large
as Campos dos Goitacazes.
in
this
In 1650
^
counted 40 sugar mills in the area.
Deforestation for cropland,
"^
grazing
altered
areas
and
fuel drastically
the
Coastal
a traveller
Plain
*s*
Q
landscape in many of its sections.
For raariy decades these sugar-
**"
cane plantations were the most important economic activity in the
iff
^
"^2^
-••«»
-^
area.
The ports of Rio de Janeiro, Angra dos Reis and Parati
offered the only other dynamic settlements in the area.17
The Serra do Mar range would lay for 200 years as a steep
.^
frontier cut only by a few trails leading to the interior.
•""**
Paraiba
do
Sul
Valley
remained
almost
totally
unsettled
The
by
-^
Europeans for 250 years, with the exception, of its delta.
-~\ •••*#
Therefore, the overall coastal pattern of Portuguese colonization
^
in Brazil prevailed in the Rio de Janeiro area almost until 1800.10
-3
^
,Q
~)
w
~~\
242
The mountain range and the river valley remained a lavish local
frontier
for the small
Portuguese, Black and Native population
—\s established on the more inviting Coastal Plain.
As a
W
W
textbook cliche puts it, the Portuguese stuck to Brazil's coast
v^
--,
"like crabs scratching the sandy beaches".
is)
Q
Q
^
Portuguese colonization in Rio de Janeiro illustrates this,
v^
The first 250 years of
Sugar-Cane Plantations and Mining Routes in the Rio de Janeiro Area
^
W
—j
pepper extraction and cattle raising, the ecology of the Rio de
«i
Janeiro
—s
^
W
Q
economic enterprises.
^
^
W
Q
supply routes between port areas and inland mining regions.
came coffee plantations.
^
responsible
for the patterns
~A
distribution
that would
<s*
Q
-N
national park areas in the 20th century.
-«*
areas depended on the Natives for their food supply.
X
have starved if not for the food cultivated, hunted or gathered by
Q
•«y
Besides selective logging for brazil-wood, fuel and housing,
area was
radically
altered by
three distinct European
First came the sugar-cane plantations in
the Campos dos Goitacazes regions, the North.
These
Then came mining
Third
three enterprises were largely
of resource
ultimately
use and population
condition
the
selection
of
The first Portuguese and French settlers in the Rio de Janeiro
They would
*&
Q
the Natives.
Portuguese
colonists
*•*•
staples in their subsistence
immediately adopted Native
crops, such as mandioc, corn
and
--^
Q
>~^
.-•**
_..:O
^
beans.
In fact, Portuguese diets did not differ very much from
the Natives' , much to the disgust of many a European traveller.
The high value of sugar in Europe naturally led colonists to
-3
F
-^
243
O
concentrate
their agricultural efforts on sugar-cane.
W
motivation
"1
prevent or cure scurvy, a common ailment in sailors.
was the mistaken
belief
that consuming
Another
sugar
could
Sugar-cane
•*v&
Q
plantations required full clearing of the forests and other floral
^
covers.
Sugar mills required timber for fuel.
Scattered plots of
^
sugar-cane appeared in all coastline settlements, although Campos
^
dos Goitacazes concentrated the largest and most durable ones. Its
Q
-x
flat terrains, high humidity and temperatures and rich alluvional
*sr
soils
^
were propitious
for
this introduced plant.
Until today
sugar-cane plantations are the main economic pursuit of the area.
•VS*
^
In 1705, for example, a solid 20% of all sugar exported from
^
Brazil
was produced
^
Northeast, plantations were associated with cattle raising, because
•**
the animals furnished much of the energy necessary to prepare land
*~\d to process cane.
in the Rio de Janeiro
area.
As
in the
Donkeys, mules and horses were needed for
«*
transportation.
So, considerable areas were needed for grazing.
-.
•«*
^
Like croplands, most grazing areas were cleared from their original
forest condition.19
Very few natural pastures existed
in the
original landscape of Rio de Janeiro.
...^
""*•
Sugar-cane plantations had, therefore, three direct effects
on original
floral
communities
and
associated
landscapes:
(1)
-~\g for monoculture of an introduced species, (2) clear__.-*£
Jl
~*«*
Q
cutting for timber and new crop lands and (3) clearing pastures for
domestic
animals.
Extensive
draining
indirect effects on flora and fauna.20
eventually depleted
in plantations
of
wetlands
had
other
Although forest humus was
and pastures, flat
terrains
o
3
-,
244
"BUT
w
precluded massive soil erosion. Periodical flooding maintained the
fertility of large sections at a satisfactory level.
Sugar-cane
iW
Q
plantations have thus gone through almost four centuries in the
Campos dos Goitacazes region.
~~)
In the late 17th century Portuguese explorers found gold and
***
precious stones in a vast perimeter of the colony's backlands.
Q
area
-^
Mines".
*1
Sul river, Western limit of the Rio de Janeiro area, the mining
was
accordingly
called
Minas
Gerais,
literally
The
"General
Although located more than 200 km West of the Paraiba do
*Sr
^
district affected the patterns of human occupation in coastal Rio
"**"
de Janeiro.
~~}
ports of Rio de Janeiro, mainly Parati, Angra dos Reis and Rio de
'**'
Janeiro city itself, benefitted from an intense traffic of gold,
-^
precious stones, mining equipment, animals, supplies, Black slaves,
*s?
miners, merchants and government officials.
^
For one thing, throughout the 18th century the coastal
Salvador
and
Recife,
the
important
sugar
ports
of
the
^
Northeast, started loosing their edge in colonial affairs with the
"*"
gold rush more to the South.
Rio de Janeiro city was closer to the
•49
^
mining district and had a good port.
By 1763 it was important
"^
enough to be elevated to colonial capital, substituting Salvador.
Q
Rio was by then still smaller than Salvador, but it was growing
^
.3
^
^
fast and became Brazil's largest city around 1800.
Angra dos Reis
and Parati had their days of glory in the mining period, but Rio's
better geographical position and port would eventually drive them
"y
out of the port business in the 19th century.
Therefore, mining
*»•}
in Minas Gerais had the effect of establishing Rio de Janeiro and
—,
W
«v
245
other coastal cities as major ports.
X
The Serra do Mar and the Paraiba do Sul Valley were affected
^J
>.
^
also.
" ~j
"Donkey trains", sometimes with more than a hundred animals each,
^
They were finally transversed, although not occupied or
settled, by a number of trails leading towards the raining areas.
were the only means of transportation between the coast and the
—x
mines,
A few stopover areas, and trail junctions developed into
W
small permanent settlements.
Blacksmith services, grazing areas
-,
and small emporiums provided logistical support for the "donkey
Q
trains" on their long and harsh trips.
m*
km long and daily progress was rarely more than 20 km.
7j
areas required by donkeys, mules and horses were human made.
^
subsistence crops supported the stopover areas' populations.
-^
of the most important cities on the Serra do Mar ridge and in the
Trails were from 400 to 500
Grazing
Small
Some
•*&
•**j
Paraiba do Sul Valley originated in these small settlements.
The
^K,
"donkey train" trails also laid out the basic design of the modern
^
roads that connect Rio de Janeiro's coastal areas to the interior
^
of the state and the country.
~^
Another way
in which the mining surge affected the Rio de
"**-
Janeiro area was the draining of Black slaves away from sugar-cane
--N
plantations in Campos dos Goitacazes.
Mine owners and operaters
W
offered better prices for new slaves.
Besides that, slaves ran
""*"
away from plantation areas to try a shot at becoming free workers
^
*~
!D
—^
or even mine operators, something quite common even though the bulk
of the work force in the mines was composed of slaves.
In 1720,
for example, 8,000 Black slaves entered Rio de Janeiro ports and
^
246
^
went to mining areas, against only
^
Recife for the vast local sugar-sane plantations.
"^)
Campos dos Goitacazes probably did not recede, but stagnated for
W
several decades
_^
is*
sugar.21
due
to
lack
of
5,600 entering Salvador and
workers
arid
Plantations in
bad
prices
for
This helped retard the depletion of remaining forests and
other floral covers in the area.
^
There
was
still
another
way
in which
mining
operations
^
affected the occupation of the Rio de Janeiro area.
When the first
^
coffee plantations reached sections of the Paraiba do Sul Valley,
^
around 1790, most of the new farmers were ex-mine operators and
"***
owners.
They were escaping the depletion of gold and precious
-j
stones.
Mining peaked between 1741 and 1761.
*&
Gerais mines started to decline in the 1770's.
—s
boom, some of the more successful and smart operators transferred
The bulk of Minas
As bust followed
^
their fortunes, slaves and entrepreneurship to coffee cultivation.
^
Coffee farms were already growing rapidly around the city of Rio
^
de Janeiro.
'"**
"donkey train" trails in the Paraiba do Sul Valley.22
Ex-mine operators naturally chose to settle along the
In a true
sense, therefore, the valley was invaded and colonized partly by
Europeans coming from East to West.
Coffee Plantations: Origins and Expansion in the Rio de Janeiro
Area
Coffee
plantations
were
the
single
most
important human
activity to shape the Rio de Janeiro area's landscape.
Compared
to coffee, only the more local sugar-cane plantations in Campos dos
-.*»>
_v
-o
o
--~\
-Q
«^
Q
^^
W
^
~-\"^
247
Goitacazes had environmental effects at. all considerable.
though, Charles Darwin was
thrilled to cross
stretches
Even
of the
Coastal Plain in Rio de Janeiro province in the late 1830's, in the
vicinity
of
sugar-cane
plantations
arid
grazing
areas
almost
200
vV
"y^
- -^
^
Q
~N
^e»
years old.
W
biological diversity.23
-^
^
*s*
^
no such samples of original ecosystems in its vicinities.
^
^
^
^
v*
3
""^
•^
^
Q
—,
W
^
_,
^
^
^
Q
Q
^
•**
Although far from pristine, the complex of streams,
rivers, freshwater and salt lagoons, marshes, foothills and ocean
beaches still made a strong impression on Darwin's sensitivity to
The combined effect of brazil-wood logging, pepper extraction,
fishing, hunting, city and port development, fuel consumption and
subsistence agriculture on the environment was all but obliterated
by the impacts of the "green wave of coffee" as it hit the Rio de
Janeiro
area in the 1760's.
the
Therefore, an adequate
view of Rio de Janeiro state's environmental history demands a more
detailed analysis of coffee plantations.
Cc^fJ_e_a__ar_abd£3. is originally an Ethiopian plant, transported
to the Middle East and from there to Southern and Central Europe.
The dark beverage made from its toasted, ground beans was a well
known albeit not popular
Ages.
It
remained
gained popularity
.^5
England
^
This was almost exactly when
mining activities were loosing momentum.
•3
-^
iSf
Q
^_
As will be shown., coffee plantations left
and
revolution.
a gourmet
beverage
among the working
other
The
stimulant in Europe
European
Dutch
plantations in Java.
were
a
long
time
until
it
classes, urban and rural, in
countries
the
for
in the late Middle
during
first to
try
the
industrial
colonial
coffee
In France coffee became a favorite beverage
A
^
w
248
vs*1
of
•—%
entrepreneurs and colonial officials introduced coffee in French
W
colonies in America, namely Martinica and Guyana.
^
"^
the uneasy
class of
intellectuals.
In 1720
more practical
In 1729 a Portuguese military expedition was sent from the
North of Brazil to the borders of the French Guyana.
w
border
—^
Francisco de Melo Palheta, a Sargearit-Major of the Portuguese Army,
W
was secretly
-A
markers
seedlings.
was the official
but explicitly
mission.
Checking
ordered
But the commander,
to, steal
coffee
seeds or
It seems that he had no trouble at all in executing the
IS**
xW
secret mission for he brought back five seedlings and a thousand
.""-^
seeds.
^
Amazonian town of Belem, out of which the expedition originated.24
They were distributed among councilmen and farmers from the
^
After a few years of small scale cultivation in the Belem
^
area, one of the councilmen, Joao Alberto Castello Branco, migrated
*«*
to Rio de Janeiro city in the early 1760's and took coffee seeds
—,
and seedlings
with him.
This
episode is considered
to be
the
^*S»
^
_^
-s
origin of all large coffee plantations in Brazil.
CgfjEgja— ajcjabica
immediately took a liking to the Rio de Janeiro city area.
Rio was
US'
^
"**
at the time a modest but thriving port city soon to be declared
colonial capital.
It had less than 40,000 inhabitants.
Q
Several large coffee plantations were created in the 1770's
^f
and 1780's, some right next to Rio's incipient downtown, like on
3
^
current Evaristo da Veiga street.
..Q
Others were further away, on the
foothills of Gavea mountain, today well within city limits.
Some
'*"
plots developed even further, in the present day neighborhoods of
Q
a*
Jacarepagua and Campo Grande, 40 to 60 km away from downtown.
Some
\
249
vv
W
~
farms in Gavea had more than 30,000 coffee bushes.23
W
cleared and colonized by coffee farms.
x-v'
-,,
Most of
contemporary Rio downtown and outlying urban areas were originally
A boom cash crop opened the
way for urban growth.
vv1
Q
Iri the 1790's C o f f e a _ar ab_i ca found
its way up one of the
^
w*
~)
isolated mountain ranges in the outskirts of Rio.
Serra da Tijuca.
^
slopes had been selectively logged for brazil-wood and lumber. But
Portions
It was called
of the lush tropical forests on its
VK**
^
Coffea- arabica had
——
W
Q
•—,
forests on mountain slopes specially cleared for its cultivation.26
Coffee plants
there its
thrived with
first experience
the
combination of
in substituting
heat, humidity,
vg?
Q
rainfall, soils
and altitude.
Significantly, the core area of
^T
Tijuca National Park is composed of a replanted forest on the Serra
v^
Q
da Tijuca.
,,?
forests on nearby slopes that also hosted pioneer rows of coffee
Other park areas include successional
second growth
0
—\.
«s»
^
Q
-,,
•<&
W
3
*-^
This was an ominous event.
For the next 60 years this was to
become the basic pattern for the expansion of coffee plantations
in the whole Rio de Janeiro ax~ea.
§i2£^§L was
followed
by
the
Total1__de_f_o_re_s_t_atj. on of mount-a in
introduction
of rows of dark
green
«s»
^
coffee shrubs. This pattern progressively deforested foothills arid
3
'^'
slopes on the Eastern face of the Serra do Mar, then on its high
Q
—^
ridges arid finally in the entire extension of the Paraiba do Sui
^
Valley.
The native forests on the ridge and in the valley had
r
remained
virtually
^
,Q
undisturbed
for
250
years
of
Portuguese
colonization and thousands of years of Native American occupation.
o
..an.
Q
—•,
^
250
But in the seven decades between 1790 and 1860 they were almost
•««y
• ~}
-~\
Q
-N
W
v$
'"*
entirely obliterated. A frontier of approximately 30,000 km 2 , two
thirds of the Rio de Janeiro area, was cleared of xts original or
second growth flora in 70 years.27
This pattern of coffee expansion affected also portions of the
current states of Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo.
The rapacious green
ve»
Q
~\^
wave of coffee "stopped" only 160 years later, in the late 1920 's,
in the Southern state of Parana, 1,500 km< away from Rio, where it
~A
^
*ss*
started.
"**
Frosts and persistent diseases killed shrubs while international
«5
«s»
<?J
'••«.«•
_
<^
^
In Parana coffee met
depression killed prices.
ecological and economic limits.
After more than a century growing on the
basis of coffee plantations the Brazilian economy was forced to
shift
rather
growing.
abruptly
to
industrialization
in
order
to keep
As seen in Chapter 2, the shift was quite successful.
m
Q
Q
Planting and Harvesting Coffee in 19th Century Rio de Janeiro
^
Before tracing
3
~\_of_fea______ar_abiLca. i-11
the
^
in more
Rio
detail the destructive routes of
de
Janeiro
area,
the
basic
a
,,
characteristics
of the species
farms
analyzed.
W
^
understanding of the wide range of environmental impacts of coffee
Q
*
farming.
must
be
and of its cultivation
This
analysis
will
lead
in local
to
the
-3
•~\a is a perennial,
woody,
evergreen shrub of the
~ - .- ~
*,
., ™ _«™_..
.__.-^«y
JJ J
-•*-•*
iJiki^c_ea. family.
3
^
^
In its original Ethiopian range it grew in moist
savannas under tree cover, but not under closed canopies. The main
stem
of a mature specimen,
10 to 15 cm in diameter, can be
3
3
251
considered a trunk.
Lateral branches arise low above the ground,
"J
—\l to it or slightly tipped upward.
large
Leaves are opposite,
•W
J
-s
\
•i«sp
(8 to 15 cm long), leathery, dark and glossy green on the
regularly pruned and kept at a height of 2.5 to 3.0 m.
"!r
specimens exposed to sunshine can reach 9 to 10 m.
top and dull green underneath.
Mature commercial specimens are
Wild adult
Branches reach
W
Q
a length of 1.5 to 2.0 in in commercial specimens and 3.0 in in wild
^
ones.
__^
^
Flowers and subsequent berries
(sometimes called cherries)
W
3
-^
W
<«J
green berries and ripe berries coexist for several weeks.
_^
as
^
Q
arise on all branches, along the extension of each, in bunches near
leaf bases.
Blooming occurs once a year, generally, but blossoms,
seedlings,
CQjj[ea___a_rajgdc.-a.
shrubs
start
to
Planted
produce
on
a
«9»
3
commercial scale only three or four years later.
populations
Although wild
thrive in partial shade, mature commercial
specimens
^S^
'"}
tolerate full sun exposure.
^
periods.
*5^
However, they cannot resist long hot
Draught and frost are also lethal.
After harvesting it
v5
-}
w
—\
-3
-^
•^f
5
is necessary to prune old and broken branches, besides new ones at
the top of the shrub, in order to keep productivity stable. 2e
Brazilian Historian
Maria Celina Whateley wrote a precious
monograph about the development of coffee plantations in Resende,
3
^
a Rio de Janeiro locality where incidentally Brazil's
- -*&*
~\l park
(Itatiaia)
was created in 1937.
Her brief
"*1
-^
description of
the procedures
^
pioneer
plantation
~£
provided an outline for this author's account of Coffea arabica's
3
coffee
area
and
techniques
adopted
first
in the Paraiba
in
do Sul
this
Valley
O
o
t^
252
impact on the environment.29
^
x^
J
«l
^w*
W
Q
-^
W
v«J
Coffee plantations were an intensified, large-scale, European
version of Native American "slash and burn" farming.
They were
highly complex commercial and agricultural operations, involving
hundreds
of men and women
(farmers, slaves,
overseers, free
workers, craftsmen, etc), besides equipment and animals.
They were
typically i^t_j^undj,jos_, large or extremely large properties.
3
•^
W
Q
first step in the establishment
'<»
de Janeiro's landscape.
The
of a coffee plantation was, of
course, the clearing of the tropical forests which dominated Rio
This was a heavy and- dangerous
job in
vQ
-7\h expensive Black slaves were never used. Snake and insect
VHP
«p
3
-x
**f
V
3
^
bites, falling limbs, uncontrolled fires and numerous other types
of accidents could hurt them.
free
workers
somehow
extended family.
related
Instead, the job was always done by
to
the
landowner's
patriarchal
Often the job was done in exchange for the right
^?y
5
J"
to use temporarily the cleared areas for subsistence
Following
the
rainy
season,
which
ends
in
farming.
early
April,
^•sjP
Q
underbrush
was cut and left
to dry for several weeks.
Dry
•^
underbrush was lit in strategic locations and huge fires sometimes
Q
-\d for weeks. A farm in need of lumber or close enough to a
W
"A
nig
market for it would first log "noble" tree specimens. Established
.Q
or isolated
farms would
not necessarily
care
for
commercially
— ,-«3>
j^
Q
'**
/*-%
^
^
valuable specimens, which were left to burn.
Portuguese colonists and Brazilian nationals alike obviously
inherited
this
method
from Native Americans'
swidden
farming.
Indeed, burning released a load of nutrients into the forest humus,
253
making
it
extremely
and
immediately
fertile.
The
crucial
difference for the environment in plantations was technological.
The iron hoe enabled Europeans, through the back-braking labor of
the slaves, to control unwanted weeds and to continue cultivation
on the same plot until forest humus was depleted.
~3
,X
•*&
^
"^
Ij
~~^
instruments for the effective control of weeds.
and more
extensive
successional
forest
plantations
regrowth
severely
and
Natives had no
The longer lasting
impaired
frequently
made
spontaneous
it
totally
impossible.
***
After
clearing
—-,
individual
W
Plantations were invariably located on cool slopes, never on the
„
warm riverbottoms or valley floors.
Q
intriguing habit developed in Rio de Janeiro coffee plantations.
^
Planting
^
^*^
;-"'
perpendicular
planting
holes
were
to
snags,
dead
holes
drawn
wood
for
in
foothills.
and
Cof f ea
ar abica
slaves
dug
seedlings.
A wasteful and altogether
straight
The
debris,
neat
lines
rows
along
slopes,
of individually
distinguishable shrubs growing on the recently "tamed" landscape
-~\d a quite "disciplined" agricultural design.
«-J
visible proof
^
contoured rows would have produced the same effect, but they were
2
harder
^
wastefulness of pioneer colonial agriculture. Terracing was simply
**)
out of the question.
•-**'
soothingly geometrical but nowhere did it prevail.
OD^
^J
of
their
dominion
over
Landowners had
the
land.
to design and obviously not compatible
Horizontally
with the general
Even a slanted vertical design would seeiu
The pastoral
landscape here had this strictly vertical bias.
The crux of the matter here, though, is not so much aesthetics
W
3
~\r
254
psychological security, but care for the land.
For accelerating
N
w
erosion on slopes, the vertical perpendicular design simply could
^
•
not have been better conceived.
Tropical
rain
run-off
rushed
Q
vertically from one coffee shrub to the next a few meters below it,
~—\
at maximum speed, peeling off soil around stems and roots.
To make
^4
Q
things worse, remaining tree trunks were purposefully left parallel
^
to the rows, whereas a horizontal position could have helped retard
-\r avoid widespread erosion.
^
After a few decades of coffee planting it was common knowledge
^
among planters that shrubs on hill tops and steep slopes would soon
Q
stand
**
exposed roots to direct sunlight.
Q
recovered with soil, coffee shrubs were sure to die or would topple
^
^
on nutrient poor
soil, or on sterile sub-soil.
Erosion
If roots were not immediately
over first.
Farmers
apparently
considered
that
such
losses
were
•**
compensated for.
-^
stretches,
Q
However, sometimes shrubs on lower areas had to be rescued from
X
exce_s_s soil and debris, adding to maintenance costs.
^
and drawbacks probably cancelled each other out.
-1
Erosion added nutrients to soils on more level
specially
on
foothills,
at
least
for
some
time.
Advantages
In a few cases,
**
some properties benefited from the process, for some time, because
"--•,
«*'
^»^\W
they had larger percentages
developed slower.
of gentle
slopes
on which
erosion
3
^
Warren Dean suggests that at least in the rolling plains of
^
Sao Paulo's plateau the straight rows were required by slave labor
~~*~
discipline.
Fewer overseers could supervise the work of the same
^
~O
255
^
number
of slaves
in plantations
with
straight
~\y leaved shrub, C ojE _fej|_a.r;a. bica blocks human vision.
•w'
rows.
Being a
Slaves
were known to hide behind shrubs to avoid working.
In the case of
-^
Rio de Janeiro state's mountain slopes, the need to economize on
W
workers supervision would also justify the rows, although rows did
not
necessarily
have
to
be
vertical
and
perpendicular
to
W
Q
foothills.30
Whatever their short-term advantages for individual farms or
•
^)
their utility in controlling the work force, the perpendicular rows
*&
of coffee plants caused an enormous loss of fertile soil.
-x
an absurdly wasteful practice, an open invitation to depletion and
*s)
disaster.
\^
years,
because
It was
Farmers usually abandoned coffee stands after 15 to 25
they
stood
on
depleted
soils.
On
many
slopes
^j
Q
topsoil was entirely washed
^
away.
For many years after being
abandoned, grasses and ferns were all that would grow between dead
"^
•*^
or ailing coffee shrubs.
«^
never recover a fraction of their lost fertility during humankind's
—\e span.
Rio de Janeiro's soils will most probably
The bare, rounded mountains and hills and the silted
vg^/
**>
rivers are the vivid consequences of eroded soils.
-^
The
iiiunicipio
of
Itaperuna,
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
state's
^
Northwest, was the most productive coffee area in the world in
^*
1870's. Nutrient depletion, conversion to pastures arid overgrazing
"~\d
today
to
desertification.
Neighboring
municipios suffer
-.-»»'
similar problems.
Reclamation of the area will demand extremely
^
expensive investments in a very poor area.
O
engineers and agricultural economists admit that the history of
Even the most pragmatic
256
coffee plantations followed by overgrazing was a prime example of
wastefulness.
Carefully aligned in their rows, coffee seedlings were planted
and protected from sun rays in their first months by ar_ap_u_c_a_s..
These were scraggly man-made contraptions devised with twigs and
leaves.
No
original
trees
were
spared
for providing
shade.
3.0 m separated rows.
In the
VQ
Spacing between shrubs was 2.6 m.
w
first two or three years subsistence crops, like corns or beans,
~\d be planted between rows.
This added to nutrient consumption
^
but at least
cover
--N,
elevations between 150 and 300 in, where temperatures were warmer,
-ax1
coffee plants were located preferably on shade protected slopes.
,-.
*&
D
Above
X
•3
O
^**>i
300
m
helped
maximum
solar
soils
for part
exposure
could
of the year.
be
sought
At
because
altitudes moderated temperatures.
Shrubs produced
years.
on a commercial
scale after three or four
Shrubs reached "maturity" in their sixth year, entering
"*
their "useful life", which lasted until the 25th year.
-^
productive stands were harvested until the 30th year, after which
*&
they were almost invariably
—^
- •*»>
*»>
emphasized that over the years no fertilizers of any kind were
abandoned
as "old".
Healthy and
It should
be
added to the original soil nutrients and the ones released by the
burning of the forests.
According
This obviously accelerated the "aging" of
Q
the shrubs.
to climatic,
topographic and geologic
*"
variables, these time spans changed slightly from area to area.
3
,
But depletion was always a generation away.
.Q
Holarida puts it, "...rarely two [human] generations went by without
As Sergio Buarque de
257
m
••-N
a farm moving away or changing owners".31
3
~3
--.
W
^
•^
_„
on line.
When an "old" stand was abandoned, new plantations had to be
They were planted on virgin soils invariably recruited
from primitive forests.
An individual
might be on the same property
existed
farmer's new
plantation
or, if no more original
there, on a new property, nearby or far away.
forests
Native
^3P
Q
Americans, with their subsistence farming, could wait a few decades
^
and use old agricultural plots again.
3
^
W
3
^^
•«*
,ss>
x^
farmers, producing for a thriving international market, could not
wait.
If necessary,
coffee farmers would migrate with family,
extended family, qualified workers, slaves, overseers and others,
sometimes taking with them more than 1,000 people,, besides animals
and equipment.
•&
^
Old plantations had several fates. Many were simply abandoned
"^
to c_a-p_o_e_ir_a_s, successional
*~)
(1)
*&
3
-N
<SP
allow
Q
But European and Brazilian
second growth.
This was possible only
where there were significant remains of original fox"ests to
repopulation
survived.
In
and
general,
(2)
where
abandoned
enough
coffee
fertile
soil
had
plantations
were
not
<s»
Q
^
immediately destroyed, mainly because it demanded quite an amount
Q
reclaimed by grasses and ferns or even by successional capoeiras.
"*"
of labor.
It was therefore common to see old coffee plots being
Occasionally
old farms would serve as seedling suppliers, or
~*&
*^
***\
for subsistence farming or urban development, in the hand of some
lesser family member. Later in the 19th century many farms were
.o^
overhauled and became pastures.
.,O
remaining or second growth forests for lumber arid timber.
Not uncommon was the cutting of
This was
3
-
l^\t
3
i •" r-,
2D5
.._,
done even by established
farmers pressed
for cash on account of
Q
declining revenues from "aging" coffee stands.
w
in its depleted wake did the large holdings leave a slim chance for
Therefore, not even
•vgy
~"i
the
emergence of
^
matter, a class of smallholders.
-^
a hard time making the exhausted lands produce.
Q
plantation dynamics continually pulled human, population away from
")
^
declining
^)
population distribution.
^
areas,
extensive
creating
second
growth
forests or,
for
that
Anyway, smallholders would have
Rio
de
Janeiro's
As a rule, coffee
extremely
uneven
Mobile coffee plantations quickly gobbled up the Serra do Mar
~)
ridge and the Paraiba do Sul Valley frontier' areas.
•**
new plantations were being established in the neighboring provinces
-x
of Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo.
Q
1850's, 1860's arid 1870's, Rio de Janeiro state's coffee production
^
peaked in 1882, only to plummet immediately after.
Q
less mobile farmers were trapped with depleted lands, aging coffee
"^
stands and legions of Black slaves.
Q
Paulo
**'
immigrants.
—)
wei'e
being
staffed
In 1860 most
After three severe slumps in the
with
Indebted or
New coffee plantations in Sao
free
workers,
mostly
European
Slavery abolition became increasingly palpable by the 1870's,
*»""
when
the
largest
concentration
of
slaves
was
located
-.,
declining farms of the Paraiba do Sul Valley.
.^)
their owners so dearly were now virtually unmarketable.
'**'
lands were commercially worthless.
in
the
Slaves that had cost
Abused
Faulknerian dramas of pathetic
—•)
decline of once powerful "coffee barons" became commonplace and
--*>'
were later captured by novelists like Lucio Cardoso and Mortteiro
259
Lobato.
Maintenance and harvesting of coffee plantations also had
aspects relevant to the environmental history of the Rio de Janeiro
^V
W
_^
«*
Q
--~)
"v
\
-^
area.
They added to Co ff e a arab i ca's numerous impacts.
At least
twice a year plantations were thoroughly weeded, once to disband
competition,
once
to allow
harvesting.
Coffee
berries
wex~e
harvested in the drier season, between May and September. July was
the peak of the harvest.
Collee ting coffee berries was and still
^s?^
•~\
^
is a very complex operation for which until today no acceptable
^
mechanical device had been devised.
^
v^
^
The very morphology of coffee shrubs complicates harvesting.
-»>
Q
vQ
It is a rather tall and bulky shrub for human proportions.
•">*'
shrub.
leafs and long branches
make it difficult to reach inside the
Also, berries are spread along a considerable length of
~\h branch. Green berries are mixed with ripe ones.
-a?*
Q
Large
Slope areas
increase the difficulty of maneuvering around shrubs.
Harvesting coffee is until today done mostly in the same way
•**
as in the
_,
describe it.
Q
teenagers
"f*
operation is quite crude.
—-
branch while the other
"scrapes" the berries off using
x»s>
"clamp"
the
,_
Scraping is done from the inside to the outside of the shrub.
Q
operation is popularly called d e rr ic a.
"'"'
small ladder or a stool to reach higher branches.
••a?
19th century.
So the present tense can be used to
Actual harvesting has to be done by adults or older
with
long
consisting
and
of
strong
arms.
The basic
harvesting
One hand holds firmly an individual
thumb
and
four
opposing
a hand
fingers.
This
Harvesters have to use a
Lower branches
3
-3
3
Q
are harvested in a kneeling position.
^
single adult shrub may require 20 minutes of an experienced adult
Q
worker.
•*y
Scraping all branches on a
This rough and demanding work results
in many injuries
to
--~\, arms, faces and eyes, besides falls from ladders arid stools.
«3
The toughest slaves were not selected for harvesting, though.
the contrary, sheer
force is detrimental
On
to the health of the
•«£*
Q
_)
plant.
Scraping tears off leafs and twigs and not every worker has
the correct gauging on his "hand clamp" to avoid excessive damage
•*er
~^
to shrubs.
*-
heavy tasks such as weeding, digging and hauling.
~i
Field hand slaves, therefore, were usually reserved for
Part of the scraped berries remain in the harvesters' hands.
<s?
Unavoidably, though, many
-^
immediately collected by children or less vigorous adults.
Q
is why the ground has to be carefully cleared of weeds before
3
_^
harvesting.
^
be easily lost under weeds.
"**
removed from the harvesting area, so the ground will be "clean".
^
This of course increases
•«-•
accelerating
-^
ground
<^
substitutions or new plantations.
^T
^t
and
The small berries
erosion.
sometimes
Some farms
cloths are
berries
laid
adopt
fall
and
are
This
(hardly 2.0 com in diameter)
can
In fact, pulled weeds are usually
green berries are
generate
seedlings
an alternative
shrubs
being
berries can be more easily gathered.
*JP
-a
the ground
exposure of bare soil to the elements,
Very
around
to
not
system.
harvested
abandoned
rarely
Large
so
on
the
used
for
raw
cotton
that fallen
But even then weeds cannot
be allowed to grow high or else cloths will not spread properly.
~
261
0
^
Weeding and weed removal are still necessary.
When cloths are used
sometimes workers use slender poles to beat the shrubs and release
~**
"_~5
berries, avoiding dreary scraping.
^
present, poles are used even in the absence of cloths.
--N
w
bushes can be hit
just
so hard
and
When enough adults are
the heaviest hand
not
Again
is
not
necessarily the best. Children can do "first line" harvesting when
poles are used.
Q
Sometimes they also scrape lower branches.
Whether scraped or knocked down with poles, both ripe and
green berries are harvested. Mixing them is a basic cause for poor
^
coffee ground quality.
***
standards demanded the manual separation of ripe berries from green
^
w
^
ones.
In 19th century conditions, better quality
This additional labor-intensive step was rarely adopted in
Rio de Janeiro's plantations, jeopardizing the quality of the endproduct.
^
Harvested berries
are sifted on site
in individual
straw
^
**^
^
strainers to separate them from leaves, twigs, pebbles, sand and
"^
to a large, flat, sun-bathed court, cemented or otherwise-isolated
^
from soil humidity.
•^
which begins to separate the bean from its skin, pulp and peel.
chunks of soil.
Depending
Q
-3
_
^
"*"
^\.
days
Berries are then put in large containers and taken
They are subjected to a natural drying process
on the amount of sunshine, ripe berries take 15 to 30
to dry.
They
are spread
on the court,
shuffled
around
constantly and carefully piled up every afternoon to escape dew.
In the pioneer farms of the Paraiba do Sul Valley, coffee
beans were separated from peel and pulp by manual or hydraulic
Beans would then be roasted and, for local consumption,
"3
_
262
jjp
O
hand ground.
3
places.
^
**
Raw beans could be stored for months in cool, dry
Many farms preferred to roast them before shipping, an
additional step which demanded timber.
Roasted or raw, coffee beans were transported to a port area
~\h "donkey trains" following the old mining
•«*
supply trails.
Only 18 to 24 km were covered each day..
Since each animal
could
-\y only 90 to 120 kg of coffee, tens of thousands of donkeys,
^IS^
Q
mules and horses were needed for transportation.
The large animal
population required grazing areas and/or subsistence crops along
^
the numerous resting or camping areas.
^
living along the trails.
^
Blacksmiths still made a
Behind Guanabara bay, a string of small port towns thrived:
•^
Porto das Caixas, Mage, Porto da Estrela, Piedade, Surui, Itambi
-}
and Pilar.
They were located next to the foothills of the Serra
do Mar, near trail heads, on the banks of small rivers that flowed
-^
^^
^
into the bay.
""
transportation was cheaper than "donkey trains".
^
There coffee bags were transferred to small boats
and barges and shipped to nearby Rio de Janeiro city port.
Water
Rio de Janeiro city, after 1854, started to connect itself
"**
with the producing areas through railroads.
3
first railroad connected Porto da Estrela to trail heads in the
*J
Serra do Mar foothills, behind Guanabara bay.
Railroads wiped out
the "donkey train" business in a few years.
The stopover ports
-J^
just mentioned also ran out of business.
In fact, Brazil's
Not only did coffee flow
**'
directly to Rio via railroad, but also ports were blocked by the
^
silting caused by local coffee plantations.
^
Cutting of mangrove
__
3
263
vegetation in Guanabara bay also contributed to block access to
these ports, most of which simply disappeared.
The first Brazilian railroad, just mentioned, was only 14 km
long.
Soon,
though,
tracks
were
producing areas directly to Rio.
connecting
distant
coffee
By 1869, 478 of Brazil's 736 km
of tracks were located in Rio de Janeiro province and their design
was entirely shaped by coffee plantations.
known as "coffee railroads".
were,
coffee plantations,
nature with easy
They were popularly
Brazilian.railroads followed, as it
further
stimulating
their
itinerant
transportation.
Some technical innovations were introduced in post-harvest
phases of coffee production.
They included imported machinery to
select berries, to dry berries and separate beans from peel and
pulp and to roast and grind beans.
Most of Rio de Janeiro's
farmers
19th
could
not absorb
these
late
century innovations,
because they could not afford them or were impervious to them.
Therefore, they will not be analyzed here, even though they did
affect
energy
consumption
patterns
demanding timber or coal for fuel.
where
they
were
adopted,
Water consumption was also
changed because some mechanical operations demanded the soaking of
coffee berries.32
In summary, coffee plantations in the Rio de Janeiro area were
vast commercial operations in which natural resources of the vast
Rio
de
Janeiro
conservation.
entirely
area
were
used
Native forests
denuded.
Forest
without
were
humus
a
minimal
obliterated.
was depleted
and
dose
Slopes
of
were
successional
~3
3
•^
264
•^
processes impaired or totally blocked.
—v
elements and erosion washed
w
Pastures
X
Replanting trees was unheard
^
erosion and depletion.
^
interrupted
Soil was exposed
away topsoil.
eventual
Rivers were silted,
successional
of.
to the
second
growth.
Overgrazing produced further
Coffee planters and their dependents considered the landscape
~}
to be blessed with endless abundance.
Only a few decades were
•«*
enough to contradict their assumptions.
The availability of free,
-x
unregulated, virgin lands was the mirage that made coffee planters
,-c*
avert their
eyes
from the
immediate destruction
X
surrounding them.
^
cleared for another farm, they thought.
^
W
9
3
^
forest frontier was consumed under the delusion of the mirage.
There would always be another
and
depletion
forest
to be
The whole Rio de Janeiro
The Green Wave of Coffee in Rio de Janeiro Province and State
-~\s stated earlier, sugar-cane
plantations in the Campos dos
<**
Goitacazes area were the major agricultural enterprise in the Rio
^
de Janeiro area before the introduction of coffee plantations.
t^
ranking social historian and essayist from Rio de Janeiro, Oliveira
X
Viana, writes that all local large land owners in the 16th arid 17th
^
centuries were typical s_e_n_ho,re,§__ cle__enjaenho,, sugar mill masters.
""*
Sugar-cane plantations were attracted to the warm coastal plain.
Q
Their main environmental "enemy" were the wetlands that impressed
-*&
*•
J3
Darwin
so much.
In a sense,
sugar-cane plantations
A
have been
"drying up" the Paraiba do Sul delta for almost centuries, and the
process continues.33
Mountains and even hills were mostly spared
^
265
by sugar-cane plantations, although forests on them were cleared
for fuel and grazing areas.
Viana and Bruno stress how population centers in the Rio de
Janeiro area were all coastal, as late as 1800.
dominance of sugar-cane plantations.
This expressed the
Rio, Campos, Atafona, Sao
Joao da Barra, Macae, Sao Pedro da Aldeia, Cabo Frio, Araruama,
Saquarema, Marica, Itaborai, Mage, Sao Goncalo, Inhomirim, Iguacu,
Mangaratiba, Angra dos Reis and Parati were indeed all coastal
settlements.
The Serra do Mar Range and the Paraiba do Sul Valley
had only pale signs of European
occupation, namely the "donkey
train" stopovers of Paraiba do Sul, Resende and Barra Mansa.
Most
of the valley was "void of any civilized elements... and culture".
Indeed, only "uncivilized" Goitaca and Sacuru Natives roamed the
central valley and the headwaters of some Atlantic.flowing rivers.
Coroado and Puru Natives lived on the Western bank of the Paraiba
do Sul river.311
Coffee plantations, in Viana's words, "subdued and civilized"
this entire frontier area in a few decades.
Although sugar-cane
plantations actually expanded in the meantime, political power and
social prestige shifted away from the coast toward the Serra do Mar
and the Paraiba do Sul Valley coffee farms and "coffee cities".
Since
then
[1790],
the
coastal
plain,
prestigious during the sugar-cane cycle, lost
its hegemony. The new gravitational center of
economic and social activities in the Rio de
Janeiro area shifted gradually towards the
mountains.35
-3
266
In fact, the Valley coffee plantation owners were the single most
powerful social group in Brazil from Independence
late
1870's.
They
controlled
the largest
(1822)
share
of
to the
Brazilian
wealth, which showed out in Brazil's burgeoning coffee exports.
From 1821 until 1882
(when Rio de Janeiro's production peaked)
Brazil's coffee exports grew from 7,740 to 401,220 tons.35
But an important detail is that many Coastal Plain areas had
remarkable coffee plantations of their own, before or at the same
time as the "mountains" and the Valley.
As shown, CofjEe a arjabica
actually had its first tests on the lowlands and isolated mountains
in Rio de Janeiro city.
In fact, while it lasted, Serra da Tijuca
coffee was considered the best in the country.
plains
around
Guanabara
and
Sepetiba
bays,
In the extensive
only
a
few
dozen
kilometers away from Rio, coffee had several expansion poles, such
as in Sao Goncalo.
course along
From there it followed a generally Northeastern
the Serra do Mar
foothills
and adjoining plains,
between 1800 and 1840.
Mage,
Itaborai,
Rio
Bonito,
Macacu, Araruama,
Saquarema,
Marica, Silva Jardim, Casimiro de Abreu, Sao Pedro da Aldeia, Cabo
Frio, Macabu, Macae and even Campos were hit by the "green wave'1
of coffee plantations.
Many sugar-cane farms in the area adopted
coffee as a "complementary" culture.
Forested hills and slopes not
used for sugar-cane were cleared.
This particular pathway of
coffee
plantations
Madalena
1840.
sent
and Cantagalo,
important
offshoots
to Nova
Friburgo,
on the top of the Serra do Mar,
around
267
A
crucial detail
is necessary
to understand
the
enormous
expansion of coffee plantations in the Rio de Janeiro area.
an
export
crop
arid
international
prices
for
coffee
It was
grew
continuously during the whole 19th century, with only short slumps.
This of course stimulated widespread planting.
Brazil's coffee
exports grew 50 times in volume and even more in value between 1822
and 1889.
^^
Viana
stresses
that by 1840-1850 coffee was being
planted even in areas "climatically and economically" inadequate,
-\l over Rio de Janeiro province.
This included slender coastal
•i
plains and steep mountain slopes to the South, around Parati, Angra
v^
dos Reis, Mangaratiba and Itaguai, where coffee grew but did not
^
thrive.
Even mountain tops subject to lethal frost had coffee
*^
farms.
Q
mentioned as "modest starts" for coffee by Caio Prado Junior, a
•«*
ranking
-^
continued to predominate on the Coastal Plain.
•«*?
thrive in the mountains.
These coastal coffee farms were anyway large enough to be
Brazilian
Historian.37
Overall,
though,
sugar-cane
Coffee would really
-x
In this movement around and sometimes up the Eastern slopes
Q
of the Serra do Mar, coffee plantations managed to miss a few areas
-Q
_
later
singled
out
for
environmental
preservation.
The
most
vQ
notorious was the site of Serra dos Orgaos National Park, which for
-'*''
undetermined reasons exhibits considerable extension of original
^
undisturbed forests.
-Q
a union protective forest was established in the 1950's and a new
Another spared stretch was Tingua, in which
y**»-N
^
national
park
is scheduled
for creation
in 1988.
It is also
. -,^t»*
^
supposed to contain undisturbed remains of original forests, even
268
though
an ancient
borders.
These
"donkey
train"
trail
is visible
inside
its
Why this area was spared is also a mystery.
were
exceptions,
though.
The
rule
was
the
total
obliteration of original forest covers on all Eastern slopes of the
Serra do Mar from Sepetiba arid Guanabara bays to the North.
in the
191)0's and 1960'u numerous union protoctivu i.uiaota wuro c.iuoLod
on these slopes by the federal government.
The purpose was to
control erosion and protect watersheds and second growth forests.
But extensive deforested slopes further away from Rio de Janeiro
city
did
not
attention.
Preserve,
receive
The
for
even
area
of
example,
this
Poco
belated
das
Antas
and
mostly
National
in the municipio of
passive
Biological
Silva
Jardim, was
totally logged and covered with coffee plantations.
Somehow it
X^s^
~~\*
escaped being converted to pastures and second growth forests could
->
establish themselves.
^
of Eastern, slopes of the Serra do Mar were occupied by declining
v^
^
"**
Overall, before 1850 the entire extension
coffee plantations or were a continuous wasteland later converted
to pastures.
The Paraiba do Sul Valley had the same fate.
Viana
points
^
Resende as a focal point for coffee plantations in the Valley.
•«*
Q
From there coffee plantation spread up and down the Valley
Q
as in Tijuca and Serra dos Orgaos park sites, again a future park
"^
area was in the path of coffee expansion.
Q
Brazil's first, was created close to Resende, in areas partially
"*•
deforested for pioneer Valley coffee plantations.
later xnto Sao Paulo's "purple soil" basaltic plateau.
and
In Resende,
Itatiaia National Park,
o
.^
-•**'
269
"~)
These plantations probably derived from the ones located on
^'y
the coastal areas around Parati and Angra dos Reis.
~~N
originated from a "donkey train" stopover between those two ports
W
and the mining district.
—,
lies Serra da Bocaina National Park.
Q
de Janeiro national park was also affected by coffee plantations,
'^
although no extensive ones could be established on its steep and
VQ
unstable slopes.
w
1790's.
Exactly between Resende and the coast
Therefore, this fourth Rio
Resende established its first coffee farm in the
By 1810
it was "exporting"
Valley.
*»J
reaching
—-,
Coastal Plain were declining or had been abandoned.38
Affonso
By this
d'Escragnolle
plantations started
time, many plantations
Taunay,
the major
Resende
a
distinguished
on
the
Brazilian
^
Historian,
,Q
Brazil.
t^
Province in the early 19th century, including adjoining areas such
~^
as Pirai and Barra Mansa.
^
of famous naturalists who explored the nearby Itatiaia region.
-Q
produced
1830
and know-how
throughout
their prime.
In
seedlings
~>
w
the
Resende itself
study on coffee plantations in
He also mentions Resende as a major coffee area in the
Interestingly
he mentions the accounts
->,
Spix and Martius, two young German naturalists, crossed Resende in
x*s<
1817
^
. -3
Q
^
and mentioned no coffee farms near Itatiaia.
Auguste de
Saint-Hillaire, French, was impressed by enormous coffee farms in
1822, only five years later.
Some farms had more than 100,000
shrubs each.
:3
Q
Taunay stresses the importance of another pioneer coffee areas
-^
in the Paraiba do Sul Valley: Vassouras, Valenca and Paraiba do
I
27°
^
Rio de Janeiro
^
Brazilian coffee" in the 1810's and 1820'si39
—s
these
w
converted
_
future preservation in the vicinities.
~)
three
city
and had its golden days
areas declined
to pastures.
sharply before
as "capital o£
The coffee farms in
1840
and
No natural landscapes were
were
later
spared for
It is by now clear that Co ffea..__arabi_ca found what Viaria calls
its "biological
optimum" in the mountains.
Viana
distinguishes
-^M^
•")
coffee's "dispersion area" from its "productive area".
Although
**
cultivated
province
—\n
<**)
area") ,
almost
coffee
everywhere
plants
thrived
sections of its mountains
in
best
Rio
is
de
Janeiro
specific
("productive area") :
^
This was the so-called
w
^
-}
comprising North-facing slopes of the Serra do
Mar and West-facing slopes of the Serra da
Mantiqueira...generally called the 'Paraiba
*;
Plateau' .40
^
"upward range area",
More specifically, coffee plants bloomed faster, healthier and
•"^
longer on slopes between 200 and 550 m of altitude in the Paraiba
-~)
do Sul Valley.
•**
over its own Western slopes made the adjoining Mantiqueira slopes
-,
slightly more propitious.
Q
too warm.
Probably the rain shadow caused by the Serra do Mar
The "lowlands" of the Valley floor were
Lands above 600 m were a bit too cool.
Coffee survived
in them but did not attain the same productivity.
Prado Junior
^
stresses how the common range of Valley altitudes, between 300 and
^
900 m,
^
protected CofjEea arajxLjgja from excessive heat.
_.ZJ
how the closely knit hills and mountains combined protection from
moderated
the
temperature
of
this
tropical
area
and
He also points out
strong winds with adequate exposure to sunshine.
Dean mentions
^
271
0
that
^
planting on South-facing slopes.40
Q
"^
farmers avoided
lethal
frost
in higher
altitudes by riot
Viana summarizes his findings about coffee's distribution as
follows:
—^
^
W
Q
-^
Coffee plants got started on the [Coastal]
Plain but quickly left it behind, climbing up
the mountains. They marched on through Rio de
Janeiro
territory... searching
for
their
biological optimum.42
Q
Had coffee found its optimum right away it would already have been
^
destructive enough of the local environment.
Q
Paraiba do Sul Valley and parts of the Serra do Mar held vast
^
optimum sections.
~>
led to their establishment in almost every nook of Rio de Janeiro
^
territory, even if in a secondary
—s
there seems not to exist a single stretch of original forests on
Q
the Western slopes of the Serra do Mar nor in the Paraiba do Sul
Valley proper.
After all, the whole
But the high profitability of coffee plantations
status.
The result was that
K small hill top area on the Northern edge of the
Q
Serra do Mar is the site of a Rio de Janeiro state park called
^*
Desengano.
Q
original forests.
•*&
depletion in the whole Northern section of Rio de Janeiro stale.
It
is
supposed
to
contain undisturbed
remains
This is probably the only exception of overall
~-\e boom and bust cycle of coffee in the Rio de Janeiro area
«^
«a>
is shown by just a few figures.
Fx-om 1813 until 1886 Rio
^
Janeiro was Brazil's
Q
peaked twice at 2.3 million bags
leading
coffee producer.
(of 60 kg)
*
all-time peak with 2.6 million bags.
de
Its production
in 1855 and 1867,
with a significant slump of only 1.2 million in 1864.
*2
of
1882 was the
From their the province's
-3
3
o
*
272
^.J
3
o
^
****
^
production plummeted.
continually
Plundered soils with aging stands produced
decreasing
yields.
In 1886
Sao Paulo
province's
production assumed first place and quickly rushed to 5.0 million
bags a year in 1900, while Rio de Janeiro's production dropped to
•stay
"_")
1.4 million, close to the 1864 slump level.
^
In 1860 Rio de Janeiro produced more than 80% of Brazil ' a
A
coffee.
Q
Railroad track mileage also gives a measure of the decline of Rio
_^
de Janeiro plantations.
vQ
against Rio de Janeiro's 800, practically inverting the proportion
**"
of 1869.43
^
province similar figures reveal even shorter boom and bust cycles.
^
In a few decades massive coffee production figures were substituted
—i
by others showing human depopulation, expansion of fallow land and
9
In 1900
it was down to only 20% and falling sharply.
In 1889 Sao Paulo had 1,200 km of tracks
For each coffee producing municipio .in Rio de Janeiro
growth of cattle population.
-N
Imminent disruption was clear in the minds of Rio de Janeiro
-,-J
coffee growers even during the all-time peak production of 1882.
"^
The end was looming and the fact was clear even for established
v^
local politicians.
"***
produced
•~}
••s*
•
\
a report
fertility had
[Paraiba
do
Sul]
valley
into
deep
been
bogs
that
In 1880 Rio de Janeiro's province Legislature
which
stated
exhausted
generate
that
and
"...the
lack of
[province's]
care had
turned
soil
the
health
_
hazards".
Slavery abolition in 1888 simply closed down scores of
_Q
farms, many of them permanently.
^*
coffee production was virtually disrupted.
^
aging plantations
For a few years Rio de Janeiro's
Harvesting of extensive
still guaranteed a significant but declining
--5
^
273
coffee production in the first two decades of the 20th century.
o
—)
In 1904 the state's Legislature discussed but typically did not
•~s
approve a much belated bill that would forbid cutting trees on
^
public lands and restrict it on private lands."'1
^s#
^
^
Even if the political will had existed at all, time had long
run out for Rio de Janeiro's
forests.
Little or nothing of a
Q
~)
"natural" quality was left to be preserved.
"^
3
-^
^
•«*
forest
difference because there were no more forests to conserve.
^
century of coffee plantations, the Rio de Janeiro area became a
^3y
conservation
policies
would
have
Not even drastic
made
any
immediate
land reclamation could - and was not - be implemented.
Only
After a
IS*
^
"**•
vast wasteland.
In conclusion, the local history of coffee plantations is the
Q
^
major consideration for the analysis of Rio de Janeiro's national
^
Q
•^
parks as ecological units.
<*
Q
-,
W
Q
^
<^>
Q
~^
<**
by coffee farms, which practically
1800's.
surrounded
it in the early
Tijuca and Itatiaia HP's were ravaged by them.
Serra da
Bocaiiia NP is plotted in the most extensive area in the state left
untouched by coffee, although even its foothills once had important
stands.
Almost every other public protected land in the state was
to some degree affected by coffee plantations, as will be shown in
Chapter 7 .
•-\t national
^
-^
Serra dos Orgaos NP was barely missed
parks are supposed to preserve areas in their
"natural" condition, then Rio de Janeiro was certainly one__o_f__t.he
—\s for them anywhere in Brazil.
Decades
^
••^
^
before any extensive industrialization,
the coffee plantation
-3
_._-*?»a
V
--*•)
^v
^
V
w
O
.
274
_^
w
Q
system broke the area's ecological integrity and depleted flora,
w
state.
fauna, land
and water resources
As
Sergio
Buarque
de
in almost every
Holanda
says
corner
about
of the
Brazilian
^s/
-—\e in general,
v§y
W
W
_>
W
^;
farmed.
Rio de Janeiro's lands were mined, not
The following chapters will therefore try identify the
main natural traits of Rio de Janeiro's national parks and other
local public protected lands.
CHAPTER 7
J
J
—-,
Protected Lands in Contemporary Rio de Janeiro
The State of Rio de Janeiro Today
This chapter will first bring the social . and environmental
history account developed in Chapter 6 up to date. This will give
an idea of the Rio de Janeiro state's contemporary
importance in the national scene.
situation and
A second part of the chapter
Q
will present
an account of all types of public protected
lands
Q
existing in the state.
'^
Q
four chapters, which examine in more detail the state's national
~i
"^
y
parks.
This will give a context for the following
-^
^
The decline of Rio de Janeiro's coffee plantations undermined
^
-3
-^
the hegemony of local "coffee barons" in the national political and
economic scene.
Even before the abolition of slavery in 1888 all
•*9
*&
but wiped them out, the "coffee barons" were loosing ground to new
coffee farmers from Western Sao Paulo, who had new stands, better
•">&
-^
topography and soils, salaried workers and modern equipment.
*-^
de Janeiro's agriculture, already weakened by soil depletion, never
-3
^
.3
O
Rio
recovered from the blow of slavery abolition and probably never
276
will.1
.._
Despite this, Rio de Janeiro state managed to hold a leading
Q
position in national issues in the last century.
Several reasons
N
"^
helped it overcome the disruption of its commercial agriculture
^e"p
^)
caused by soil depletion and slavery abolition.
*"*
factor was that the city of Rio de Janeiro remained the national
—s
capital
^
educational
^
metropolitan
^
industrial boom that started in the 1940's.
"~
1905 responsible
^
coffee production, even though local crops had declined sharply.
**
Even today Rio has the second port in the country.
until
1960,
concentrating
and cultural
area
and
administrative
institutions.
state
for exporting
One important
agencies
Rio de Janeiro
participated
in
the
and
city,
country's
Rio's port was until
most of Brazil's
still
soaring
Related to
•~\e factors, Rio de Janeiro's city and metropolitan areas had
W
immense population growth. Until the early 1950's Rio was Brazil's
^
largest city.
^j
In demographics Rio de Janeiro state today runs third in
^
Brazil, behind Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais states.
Q
state
^
population.
Q
Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro
state is the most
«*#
urbanized in Brazil, with 91% of city dwellers.
It has only 44,268
^
km2
.^
had
(.52%
12.7
million
inhabitants,
9.1%
of
In 1987 the
the
Brazilian
11 million live in Rio's metropolitan area and 6.5 in
of
city alone.
the Brazilian
population density.
territory)
and Brazil's
This means that the state
highest
has remained a
^
leading one in the Brazilian scene.
Its preserved areas, including
^
national parks, therefore have a high public visibility.
.-*
277
O
- —>
—^
The
inefficient agriculture is the key point for understanding the
O
current natural resource situation of the state of Rio de Janeiro.
After
combination
coffee's
quick
of
a
level
decline
no
high
other
of
urbanization
important
and
agricultural
«ST
Q
pursuit
replaced
it
in
state
territory.
The
high
level of
w
—\^
urbanization in no way corresponds to high agricultural production
or productivity of local crops. Although Brazil's agriculture in
Q
general is efficient in export crops
_,
citric juices) it does not supply the country with enough staples.
(coffee, sugar, soya, cocoa,
^
Brazil is a traditional importer of basic foodstuffs such as
^
milk, meat, rice, beans, wheat, potatoes, corn and even onions and
~A
garlic.
\
respect.
Rio de Janeiro's situation is particularly
bad in this
Its population can only be supported by voluminous food
-A
imports from other states and abroad.
Many states have their own
w
considerable staple crops.
-^
foodstuffs mentioned above, basic or perishable items such as salt,
Q
tomatoes, lettuce, cabbage, cauliflower, poultry, eggs, fish and
^
dozens of others. Coffee's social arid environmental legacy was not
But Rio de Janeiro imports, besides
*s#
Q
suited for a "green belt" and no such entity has developed yet in
"*•
-Q
Q
Rio de Janeiro state.
W
will give an idea of the poor agricultural lands left behind by
}l
coffee plantations.
Q
«~\
lowlands are still present. They were modernized but have chronic
low productivity.
They survive only with enormous public
—•}
subsidies.
A brief overview of the state's current agricultural profile
Sugar cane plantations
around
the Campos
Coffee plantations are making a slow comeback in parts
..^
278
O
of the Paraiba do Sul Valley in lands once depleted by the original
.."X
plantations.
"^)
agricultural techniques and their prospects
w
good.
-•~\y wetlands.
They
are
planted
with
modern
conservation
arid
and productivity are
Rice has developed rather well in the lower Paraiba do Sul
The larger part of old coffee lands in the North
Q
and Northeast mountains
^
dairy farming with ridiculously low productivity figures.
Q
to
^
smallholders cultivates gardens, orchards and fowl in the mountains
^
of Teresopolis,
***
Paraiba do Sul Valley is also dedicated to dairy farming but it has
-^
some
Rio's
metropolitan
"islands"
is still used as pastures for extensive
area
an
incipient
"green
Nova Friburgo and vicinities.
of
high productivity.
along
belt"
reasonable
commercial fishing
_^
Southern coast produces a considerable amount of fruit.
amount
the state's coastline.
of
The
A careful reading of the official statistics of agricultural
^
production in Rio de Janeiro state yields dismal findings.
Q
the state's 34 products
"*"
sinall.jgjr than its territorial expanse in Brazil.
Q
products
has
yields
are cultivated in areas
proportionally
percentage of Brazil's population.
^
of
The Southwestern
^
Q
is done
A
Closer
larger
17 of
proportionally
None of the
than
the
34
state's
1_5 of the 34 products have
productivity figures below national averages, including bananas,
.sef1
**"x
potatoes, onions, oranges and corn.
"^
than average productivity, two are export crops (coffee and sugar)
^
and seven are minute experimental cultures.
-3
-•«*'
^
.
animal products and forest products
.
Of the 19 products with higher
Data on animal herds,
are even worse.2
It is a
commonplace to say that Rio de Janeiro state's agriculture is the
^
w
"^*S
279
W
worse in the country.
^
it certainly is true in the relative sense of its deficit in
^
feeding the local population.
^
resource depletion caused by 19th century coffee plantations.
Q
This is not true in an absolute sense but
Urban and industrial
All this illustrates the extensive
activities can be briefly
summarized.
^
-Q
^
Heavy and light industries
and all kinds of services in Rio's
metropolitan area; smaller
industries
<«)
cities; major metalworks in the Volta Redonda - Barra Marisa, where
^
in the 1940's the federal government located Brazil's first large
^)
steel plant;
**"
vicinity of Rio; mining and manufacture of cement in the Mid-North,
•
~^
~\v
in Cantagalo; burgeoning oil arid natural gas production on the
Northern continental shelf; alcohol production in the sugar cane
in outlying
medium
sized
tourism and leisure in the Serra do Mar range in the
-->
plantation areas around Campos; ship building and tourism in the
«**
Southern coast.
The city of Rio de Janeiro also has educational,
Q
^
cultural and leisure activities, besides the largest tourist trade
• -*y
Q
in the country.
^
In conclusion, the state of Rio de Janeiro is certainly not
Q
as bad off as an isolated boom arid bust cycle of coffee would have
'**'
left it.
Q
presence and investment and the industrial
«*^
the city of Rio de Janeiro have held the state in an overall second
3
^
place in the Brazilian scene, behind Sao Paulo and still slightly
_Q
in front of Minas Gerais, which gains ground quickly.
It is not a backward, depressed area.
Federal government
and service center of
Far from
~**~\*
3
Q
being a stagnant state,
Rio de Janeiro's cities, industries and
agriculture still demand natural resources in a grand scale.
The
<**
~J
-—•,
-.—,
-m)
O
280
Paraiba do Sul Valley, though, is mostly a stagnant region.
Many
municipios suffered continual depopulation over the last decades.
Indeed, most
of
the state's
rural
disruption of coffee plantations.
sector
still
reflects the
It pulls the state's economy
w
W
back and nothing indicates that coffee's legacy will ever allow for
!^
D
anything but a mediocre agriculture.
3
3
"***}
w
Conservation and Preservation Units Extant in the State of Rio de
Q
~
Janeiro
_
v*sr
'3
•~>
The rest of this chapter will consider
the entire set of
preservation units existent in Rio de Janeiro state.
The following
^BW
^
chapters will analyze
**
parks.
in more detail the state's four
national
There are at least 62 preservation and conservation units
Q
~-\n Rio de Janeiro state. Not much more than the names and general
tg>
—'
location are available for some. E'er others basic information is
o
**,
Q
•*•)
^
•W
Q
available but current situations proved impossible to assess.
will be analyzed by level of administration
objective
is to evaluate
their
situation
They
and by type.
as public
goods
The
arid
examine the types of landscapes they protect.
Q
3
-""",
•^
•****\
a - National Parks and National Biological Preserves
Four national parks and one national biological preserve
3
^
listed in Table 24 are managed by the Institute.
-V
_Q
As argued in
Chapter 6 the parks and the preserve are located in areas affected
/J*»N
^
.J
'"'•)
by coffee plantations.
Two parks are located in areas which were
major focal points for coffee: Tijuca and Itatiaia.
Serra da
281
Table 24
Federal Conservation and Preservation Units in the
State of Rio de Janeiro (I): national Parks
and National Biological Preserves,
Name and Location
Name
Parks
Itatiaia
Serra dos Orgaos
Municipios
Affected in
the
State
Tijuca
Serra da Bocaina
Resende
Teresopolis, Mage,
Petropolis
Rio de Janeiro
Parati, Angra dos Reis
Preserve
Poco das Antas
Silva Jardim
^
W
S o u r_c e : Departarnerito de Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equivalentes ,
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimerxto Florestal
^*
Bocaina was designed to protect the state's largest continuous area
-^
not covered by coffee plantations,
*&
Parati and Angra dos Reis once did have stands remarkable
-^
to be mentioned in many economic history books.
although its lower areas in
enough
Serra dos Orgaos
is the only Institute unit to have escaped from coffee although a
few of its foothill areas were most probably covered with stands.
Poco das Antas biological preserve was cleared in the early 19th
century, although maybe not in its entirety because substantial
second growth developed.
All five units therefore protect mountain tops and slopes,
282
the
preferred
range
of
Cottea
ar a b i cja.
successional second growth, some disturbed
artificially reforested slopes.
Tijuca
encompasses
original forests and
Serra dos Orgaos and Serra da
Bocaina have mostly undisturbed forest stands.
Itatiaia combines
successional second growth,
original forest
disturbed
Poco das Antas has well developed
alpine meadows.
successional
introduced
forests
that have been
populations
of
the
able
endemic
remains
and partly
to support
golden
recently
marmoset.
The
Institute's units in Rio de Janeiro were, therefore, plotted in the
wake of the "green wave" coffee plantations, combining undisturbed,
successional and replanted forests.
They are basically mountain
top parks with forests.
b - Ecological Station aad Environmental Protection Areas
Table 25 lists one ecological station and five environmental
protection areas in Rio de Janeiro state,
^
3
->
only one small ecological station, Pirai.
^
extensive inundated area called Ribeirao das Lajes, a mountain
X^
under the responsibility of the Secretaria.
These six units are
Rio de Janeiro has
It is located inside an
river dammed for energy and water supply purposes.
It lies about
*&F
^
60 km Northwest from the city of Rio de Janeiro, on the top of
^
Serra
do Mar Range.
The dammed
area is managed by a federal
~-\c utility company.
The station was negotiated by the
^
—•&
-^
Secretaria with the utility, on a temporary basis.
Although
-3
^
densely vegetated the area was almost altered. Deforestation for
•«?*
-^
coffee plantations, grazing, successional second growth and the
-•***
283
O
o
Table 25
Federal Conservation and Preservation Units in the
State of Rio de Janeiro (II): Ecological Station
and Environmental Protection Areas, Name,
Location and Area
Maine
Muni dpi os
Affected in
the
State
Ecological Station
Pirai
Approximate
Area (km2)
Pi r a i
Env. Protection Areas
Petropolis
Cairucu
Guapi-Mirim
40
Petropolis
Parati
Mage, Sao Goncalo,
Itaborai
Resende
Anara dos Reis
Mantiqueira
Tamoios
440
338
143
4,025
Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente.
^
• Brasilia, 1987;
Sao Paulo, CESP; Rio de
Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, 1986.
large lake formed behind the dara completely changed the original
landscape.
Ecological
preservation
particular
landscape.
other
areas
and
induced
circumstances
stations'
changes
of
integrated
has
massive
to
human
be
objective
tailored
alteration
to
of
of
the
this
It is unfortunate that the Secretaria did riot elect
in
the
state
for
ecological
stations.
It
could
certainly find in Rio de Janeiro state less altered sites than
3
.3
Firai.
284
The
five
environmental
protection
areas
have
considerably
•-~)
large areas but
it should
be recalled that they are not
under
•~
public
and are not preservation or conservation
units
—x
proper.
^
ownership
They
regulations.
are
submitted
only
to
hopefully
strict
zoning
Petropolis EPA was the first of its kind created by
the Secretaria.
It recently generated harsh controversy.
^
a small and slightly altered
"^
spared by coffee planters probably due to excessive cold.
."}
the municipal government of Petropolis decided to build a water
**
supply dajn in the heart of the small unit.
^^
^
allowable, the reservoir
with
the Secretaria.
irregular
^
decision
Serra do Mar high
It is
altitude
slope
In 1985
Although perfectly
could be built only after consultation
Local
and
the
environmentalists
Secretaria
publicized
eventually
managed
the
to
interrupt construction work already under way.3
^
It is evident that this environmental protection area was not
3
created with adequate "community participation".
But Secretaria
***
published material claims that a task force with
representatives
-^
of
<&
create the
-,
watersheds, steep slopes and densely forested areas and even of
Q
neighboring
"*
environmental protection area borders with three of them: Serra dos
^
Orgaos NP, Araras
^s^
•9
--«*•
^
,3
community
"technical
and
unit.
government
organizations
Priorities
preservation
was
agreed upon
units.
put
together
were protection of
Interestingly,
Petropolis
UPF and Araras State Biological Preserve.
governance"
board
with
to
government
and
A
community
representatives was instituted in 1982 but it did not avoid the
serious
conflict
mentioned
above.4
Actually,
Petropolis
o
.-.
government behaved as if the unit did not exist at all and as if
O
it were not part of the governance body.
X
Petropolis EPA can help
Although very small,
the neighboring preservation
units to
TOIP
Q
withstand encroachment
"^
Cairucu was
pressures.
created
on the extreme
Southern
coast of the
3
Q
state.
•^
representatives of government and private institutions on the task
Q
-^
This
time
the
Secretaria
put
force responsible for creating the unit.
no
less
than
17
Its priorities are the
^SE'
W
preservation of original forest remains, protection of endangered
_^
W
Q
species
*v
with
(some of them endemic) , preservation of mangrove areas
climax
vegetation
^ descend
and
stability
of
from native populations
caic_ar^_
living
~j
controlled ajj3ejj|s:.
**
borderline between native and national cultures.
life
style.
in Portuguese
They are small farmers and fishermen on the
~\e unit has a "technical governance" board comprised by the
**»
municipal government of Parati, the Brazilian Navy, the Institute,
X^
the federal land reform authority, the federal fisheries authority,
Q
the Fundacao Estadual de Engenharia de Meio Ambiente
^
environmental quality
Q
agencies.
•^
with a national
park, Serra da Bocaina.3
Cairucu area
-^
stretches
covered
cane
authority)
(the state's
and other state and federal
Once again this environmental protection area borders
once
by
coffee,
sugar
and
includes
subsistence
farming on this relatively isolated part of Rio de Janeiro State's
_t
coastline.
This unit is well located to preserve natural areas and
Q
assist in the establishment
**"
Guapi-Mirim lies
of a neighboring national
inside Guanabara bay,
in the
park.
geometrical
286
Q
\r of Rio de Janeiro's metropolitan region.
It is a highly
n*
^
"X
altered area.
For centuries
it has been
used
for shellfish
collection. Mangrove vegetation cutting contributed to the silting
•v*
^P
of
^
3
Q
mentioned in Chapter 6.
v-j
Q
-^
the
Guanabara
bay
port
towns
in
the fflid-19th century,
as
The main purpose of this unit is to save
remains of the once extensive Guanabara bay mangroves, crucial in
local marine life cycles and food chains.
Fourteen government and
private institutions sat on the creating task force, including the
V*1
^
Brazilian,
^
Q
Q
metropolitan development authority, FUNDREM. The area is regularly
^
Q
^
<*
3
—,
«d*
,j*
^j
^
^
Q
^
^y
"j
~%*^--
Society
for
the Advancement
of
Science
and
Rio ' s
used for shellfish gathering, fishing, subsistence agriculture and
logging.
These salty lowlands were certainly never used for sugar
cane or for coffee farms but urban and industrial development have
effectively claimed the larger part of Guanabara bay's mangroves.6
Guapi— Miriffi
protecting
EPA
therefore
natural
or
has
little
undisturbed
or
areas.
no
importance
It
is
designed
for
to
conserve resources in an altered area.
Serra da Maiitiqueira EPA is a large, ambitious, preservationoriented environmental protection area.
The creation task force
proposed aa 'even larger area for it but the Secretaria decided to
"}
*include only summits, alpine meadows and important slopes of the
3
~\a Range. This unit is more properly assessed as located
.-^
in Sao Paulo or in Minas Gerais because respectively 16 and seven
-«5'
^^
raueicipios of those states comprise it.
^
Q
municipio is affected: Resende.
••*-
protection area to border with a local national park, in this case
Onlv one Rio de Janeiro
This is the third environmental
—~
-~>
.
287
—s
Itatiaia.
W
rational use of resources and "interconnection" of local protected
.^
areas.7
"Q
affected by coffee plantations in the 19th century. The areas that
"f'
escaped were too steep or too high and cold.
—)
EPA
^
Q
-,
is
Its priorities are the protection of flora and fauna,
Obviously
an
important
probably
too large
Brazilian
conditions.
^
a good
unit
deal of these areas were directly
for
Serra da Mantiqueira
preservation
to be managed
purposes,
effectively
Mo details were available about Tamoios.
although
under
current
Front knowledge of
^
the area this author assumes that the unit was designed to control
Q
urban and tourism development in the marine island of Ilha Grande,
^
which strongly appeals to inhabitants of both Rio de Janeiro and
Q
~-)
Sao
^
conservation units are plotted on this island, as will be shown
-—x
Paulo
metropolitan
areas.
Three
other
preservation
or
below.
W
~)
Z
**
Q
threatened by development and human occupation.
'^
3
the kind of areas suited for their purposes,
^
~j
'"-
is that four of the five units are neighbors of other protected
Q
-N
Therefore
areas
Rio de Janeiro
have been
located
state's environmental protection
in areas
with soroe natural
value arid
These are exactly
A striking feature
areas, a detail that raost certainly is not casual.
With these five
units the Secretaria will face a difficult test of its managerial
i*2!^
-^
3
^
3
capacity to control economic expansion through cooperative planning
arid zoning.
c - Union Protective Forests
««•*»
*^*
ooo
<£ O O
• -"^
V
~)
As mentioned
^ff
^
W
—s
in Chapter
4, union protective forests were
massively created in the Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area between
1944 and 1964.
They were all located on Eastern slopes of the
•a*
„./
'Serra do Mar mountains hit by coffee plantations early in the 19th
_
W
^)
century and. close to Rio de Janeiro's metropolitan area.
**^
some of it more than a centurv and a half old.
They
include essentially slopes with successional second growth flora,
Recurrent land-
O
-N
slides and mud-slides affecting vital roads and excessive silting
W
of lowland river's prompted the federal government to create these
3
—,
units .
Q
W
**>
^
^
V
""}
^^
^
Table 26 has a listing of 23 protective forests located, in Rio
de Janeiro.
It xs only tentative because available sources are
inconsistent. Names change from one source to another and possibly
two units have been listed twice under different names . They are
managed by the Institute.
A few comments apply.
Many of these
second growth forests are associated with other preservation and
^W
—s
conservation
^
Petropolis EPA.
Q
Preserve.
^
Pedra Branca
-Q
Branca State Park.
"~\^
Araras
protective
forest
adjoins
with
Maatiqueira was created around part of Itatiaia
^
<&
.Q
Q
NP
units.
boundaries.
Petropolis
contains
Araras
State
Biological
Garrafao is "subordinated" to Serra dos Orgaos NP.
(in Rio de Janeiro Huinicipio)
adjoins with Pedra
Tingua, the largest,, is scheduled to become a national park
,
^
before 1988 is over.
..O
**\_
created with nine other protective forests.
In 1985 Luiz Toledo
Filho, the Institute's regional director, intended to transform
..- --*y
It should be recalled that Tijuca NP
-3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
-\s
3
3
3
3
3
^
"**
3
3
3
O
-^
3
3
0OQ
*£• tJ -2
Table 26
Federal Conservation and Preservation Units in
the State of Rio de Janeiro (III) ; Onion
Protective Forests, Name and Area
1 in alphabetical order)
Name
Araras
Batalha
Caboclos
Camorim
Colonia
Covanea
Curicica
Eg a 1 en
Engenho Novo de Guaratiba
Garraf ao
- Guaratiba
Jacarepagua
Mantiqueira
Mendanha
Pedra Branca (Rio de Janeiro)
Pedra Branca (Nova Friburgo)
Petropolis
Quininha
Rio do Ouro
Rio Grande
Sao Pedro
lingua
Xerem
Approximate Area
(km8)
20.6
12.0
15.0
• 26.0
8.0
3.0
2.0
10.0
9.0
_
10.0
50.0
14.0
2.8
85.0
10.0
120.0
18.0
50. 0
500.0
85.0
3
3
3
-^^
3
.3
SOUXCJJJL:
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal.
Projeto de Implantaeao e Consolidacao de Parques Nacionais,
Brasilia, 1975,
Reservas Equivalentes e Protecao a Natureza.
"Anexo IV"; Leqislacao de Conservacao da Natureza . Sao Paulo,
CESP; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da
Natureza, 1986,
^
-.-3
"19" protective forests into national parks or national biological
JD
preserves.
This has not happened yet.8
w
--^
290
Overall
it
effectively
seems
that
precluded
union
development
extensions of second growth.
protective
and
forests
allowed
have
substantial
At least 1,050 km2 of Rio de Janeiro
state, a respectable 2.4% of its territory, has protective forest
status.
Some
preservation
*T
of
them
units
have
proper.
even
But
helped
these
protect
protective
or
create
forests
are
covered mainly with second growth vegetation and were designed to
control
erosion
significant
and protect watersheds.
"natural"
landscapes
nor
do
They
they
do not preserve
provide
leisure,
education, research or fauna and flora management.
d - National Forests
^
A national forest exists in Rio de Janeiro state, with the
—\"
name
"}
probably
^
Mario
Xavier.
Its
exact
was
location
remained
created
uncertain.
very
It
recently
encompassing
adjoining protective forests mentioned above.
one
or
more
Therefore, it most
-}
certainly contains second growth forests.
Q
responsibility.9
-->
<*?
^
should plan to cut second growth on unstable slopes acquired by
It seems
It is under Institute
strange, though
that
the Institute
government to control erosion and preserve watersheds.
3
e - Areas of Relevant Ecological Concern
One of these Secretaria units was created in the munic:
of Volta Redonda.
This is one of the most ravaged sections of the
Paraiba do Sul Valley and for the last 40 years home of Brazil's
most important steel plant.
What reportedly motivated the creation
291
of this unit was the discovery of a species of fresh-water turtle
believed to be extinct for decades.10
"natural" area to be preserved
protection
of
the
hardy
There is hardly an acre of
anywhere in Volta Redonda.
turtle
species
that
survived
The
the
—..
destruction of its habitat was the sole motivation for this unit.
"^
«*9
f - State Parks
Rio de Janeiro state has three state parks, listed in Table
27,
State parks are under the authority of a new State Forest
~)
Institute, from the state Department of Agriculture.
*-
a rare extensive remain of original forests.
->
state's otherwise ravaged Mid-North Serra do Mar range.
*J
created in 1970.
^
lodging for researchers and rangers.
Even though, it'was described
Q
3
^
as "invaded" by hunters and loggers.
Recent press accounts stress
Q
inside the park by the state government,11
"*"
this unit is enormous because it is the only extensive remain of
•-}
original forests anywhere in the North of the state.
-•*-•
—,
continuing
Desengano is
It is located in the
It was
In 1982 it had a director, a central office and
invasions and also
the acquisition
of private lands
The natural value of
Its political
situation is extremely insecure, though.
Ilha Grande was created in 1971 and seems to have been reduced
Q
by a state decree in 1978.
*"
One source states that the park occupies 25% of Ilha Grande and
Q
that it has only 80 km2
- •»
^
forest cover.
Information about it is conflicting.
(as opposed
to 150 km2)
of original
Strangely, the same source states that "permanent
preservation" status is restricted to areas above the altitude
292
Table 27
State Conservation arid Preservation Units in the State
of Rio de Janeiro (I): State Parks, Name,
Location and Area
(in order of creation)
Name
Approximate
Areas (km2)
Municiploi
affected
Desengano
220
Santa Maria Madalena,
Sao Fidelis, Campos
Angra dos Reis
Rio de Janeiro
Ilha Grande
Pedra Branca
150
125
|[oirr_ce_s_ : Harold Edgard Strang et al. PMaM£s_J^J;a^Aiaj:.^_do^
Sua__ Caracterizacao e ..._jE_ss_encia_s_ _ Mat i.va_s Mais Importarit.es .
Tese
Apresentada ao "Congresso Nacional sobre Essencias Mativas", Campos
do Jordao (SP), 12-18 de setembro de 1982;
C• ons e r y _a c ao d a_..Na_tur _e_z_a . Sao Paulo, CESP; Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao
Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, 1986.
3
Q
of 200 in.
This puzzling proviso utterly disqualifies it as a 1965
Forest Code State Park which requires permanent preservation status
for the entire areas of parks.12
3
-Q
Taiaoios
environmental
This park is a neighbor of
protection
area
and
Praia
biological preserve, located on the same island.
do
Sal state
Once again, the
ecological importance of Ilha Grande State Park is threatened by
3
-O
.<"^
its unclear political definition.
Pedra
Branca
BHiaieipio of Rio
state
de
park
Janeiro,
was
30%
created in
of
protective forest with the same name.
sparsely
populated
nook
of
the
its
1974 inside
area
came from
the
the
It is located in a rare
bristling
Rio
de
Janeiro
293
metropolitan area.
Its altitudes are above 100 in.
It is plotted
along a ridge that overlooks the populous lowland neighborhoods of
Jacarepagua, Bangu, Campo Grande and Barra de Guaratiba.
It has
some original forests and rare local fauna, but most forests are
second growth.
Coffee farms were recorded there; and "natural"
water reservoirs are tapped for supplying
Janeiro neighborhoods.
by the state.
those outlying Rio de
Private properties remain to be acquired
Recently new power transmission lines were built
across the park, requiring the cutting of tall original or second
growth trees,la
This unit protects important natural areas not far
away from city limits but also lacks adequate public control.
There is an isolated reference to a fourth state park called
Nascentes do Rio Sao Joao,
"headwaters of the Sao Joao river",
affecting the municipios of Cachoeiras de Macacu, Nova Priburgo,
Silva Jardim and Casimiro de Abreu,
the more recent materials.
It does not show up in any of
It probably never really got off the
paper of the State Decree Law 131, October 24, 1969, which created
it.
The
Sao
Joao
river
environmentalists, hikers
government protection.
has
been
recently
defended
by
and white-water rafters as worthy of
But this proposed park is not mentioned by
them nor in the comprehensive search on state units made by Strang
et
al.
It
seems
a
"forgotten"
unit, both
by
government
and
citizens.
g - State Biological Preserves
Three state biological preserves exist in Rio de Janeiro. They
294
^
•«"v
.^
are listed in Table 28,
The Fundacao Estadual de Engenharia de
Meio Ambiente , the state environmental
Q
these units.
quality
company,
manages
Araras was created in 1977 and is a neighbor of Serra
da Orgaos NP , Petropolis EPA and Araras UPF, from which it was
•*-~\" . Available sources do not clarify to what degree these
^
four units overlap or border with each other.
3
•*-,
contains undisturbed mountain forests on an Eastern Serra do Mar
w
Q
^
slope.
Araras State Park
Flora and fauna are rich arid
diversified.
It has a central office, a director, lodging for
^
researchers and in 1982 a management plan was being drafted, Praia
~)
^
do Sul is a fourth protected area located on Ilha Grande. It was
3
~\d in 1981 with a precious combination of undisturbed seashore
^^
•*-}
^
landscape and sites of archeologicai value.
It contains what
W
—•>
probably is the only undisturbed JLesJrdjjxOi f o r m a t i o n in the state
V
and
^1
-*•'
^
Jacaranda
_^
^
<8#
^
-~\*
Serra
~~^
^
has
accounts.
a
stretch
state
park
of
mountains
was
with
mentioned
original
only
in
forests,* 4
superficial
press
It was created in 1983 and is still another neighbor of
dos Orgaos NP
and other nearby
units.
All
three state
biological preserves therefore seem to have high ecological value.
Their political stability is at least unclear.
The
same 1969 state Decree Law
do P^io
Sao Joao
State
which created
Park
established
the cryptic
^
Maseentes
an equally
3
mysterious fau Brasil State Biological Preserve, affecting areas;
of the launicipios of Casimiro de Abreu, Araruama, Ceibo
Sao Pedro da Aldeia.
This preserve includes the most productive
original range of EauHbrjysiJ,.,,
Again the only reference to this
*
295
Table 28
3
3
State Conservation aad Preservation Units in the State
of Rio de Jaaeiro (II): State Biological Preserves,
Haiae „ Location and Area
(in order of creation)
m
%
•
Name
Araras
3
+
Praia do Sul
Jacaranda
Municipios
affected
Approximate
Areas (km2 }
Petropolis, Miguel
Pereira
Aiigra dos Reis
Teresopolis
20.7
36.0
*
^
3
3
3
3
Source: Harold Edgard Strang et al . Largiiej3__ Estaduais do Brasil:
Sua Caracterizacao e Essencias Nativas Mais 13riE2Ht_MLt^s • Tese
Apresentada ao "Congresso Nacional sobre Essencias Nativas", Campos
do Jordao (SP), 12-18 de setembro de 1982.
unit was the decree creating it.
combining Serra do Mar slopes, Coastal Plain stretches, coastal
lagoons arid beach areas.
human occupation, though.
3
3
3
3
3
Its design is ecologically sound,
The area has been deeply disturbed by
This state units is probably fictional.
h - State Biological and Archeological Preserve
Located in a remote corner of the municipio of Rio de Janeiro
is a unique Guaratiba State Biological and Archeological Preserve,
created by a state decree in 1974.
unclear.
Its legal status remained
It is managed by the State Forest Institute.
information
describes
it
as
a
25
km2
stretch of
Available
seashore
in
Sepetiba bay behind the elongated Marambaia sandbar, containing
296
-'-*)
and
res ting a and
mangrove vegetation.
—^
archeological sites that reveal the life style of ancient human
O
populations.
.1^
probably
,Q
Incidentally, the neighboring and scenic Marambaia sandbar is Navy
^
territory,
—}
preservation of these two military controlled areas is unclear, but
•"sr1
they are
crucial if the
—,
seashore
stretches.
Q
scantly protected by federal or state preservation units.
^w
A
and
stone
sjutibja^uijL,
concentrations
Q
^
shells
contains
•—'
^5?
of
It
instruments,
The area is "occupied" by the Army.15
disturbed
used
by
for
similar
human
maneuvers
occupation
and
drills.
to
valuable
The area is
some
The
degree.
degree
state is to have significant
preserved
Rio de Janeiro's coastline landscapes
unit
was
proposed
but not
created.
of
A
are
field
archeologist from the Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, Lina Maria
Kneip,
drafted
a proposal
for
a biological
and
archeological
Q
preserve in Barra Nova, in the municipality of Saquarema.
The area
-"'
combines a fairly undisturbed
-^
landscape and sambaquis already under archeological investigation.
•***
This proposal was probably directed to the state government, but
—,
never enacted.16
sample of restinga-coastal lagoon
<<&
*#
^
Q
o
i - State Forest Preserves
Three
sources.
State
Preserves
were
They are listed in Table 29.
^>,
manages them.
O
"**)
based on the 1965
"^
Forest
recorded
in
available
The State Forest Institute
Their legal status is unclear but they are probably
Forest Code.
The only relevant detail about
these units is that tiny Grajau, inside Rio de Janeiro city, is a
297
"replanted" forest.
Considering its proximity with the replanted
section of Tijuca NP
it would
be interesting
to explore
this
information and try to establish some sort of relationship between
these two reforestation efforts.
Table 29
State Conservation and Preservation Units in the State
Rio de Janeiro (III): State Forest Preserves,
Manie, Location and Area
(in order of creation)
^
-^
Name
•3
^
-,
<*
j^
•^
Municipios
affected
Parati
Grajau
Crubixas
Approximate
Areas (km2)
Parati
Rio de Janeiro
Macae
.5
7.1
Sources : Harold Edgard Strang et al : Parques Estaduais.,. do Brasil.:..
Su a C a r a c t e r i z a c a'o _ e_ E s s e n c i, a s Ma t i.y a s Mais Impo r t an t e s .
T es e
Apresentada ao "Congresso Nacional sobre Essencias Nativas", Campos
do Jordao (SP), 12-18 de setembro de 1982; IBASE News Files.
j - State Environmental Protection Areas
As explained in Chapter 4, environmental protection areas can
be created by state and municipal governments.
state has at least three of these units.
30.
Rio de Janeiro
They are listed in Table
They are created and managed by the Fundacao Estadual de
Engenharia de Meio Ambiente, FEEMA .
Relevant information is scarce but a striking detail is that
both
Jacaraada
and
Desengano
were
plotted
inside
existing
preservation units, respectively a biological preserve and a park.
Jacaranda EPA was aimed to control human encroachment in the
3
D
Table 30
State Conservation arid Preservation units in. the State
of Rio de Janeiro (IV): State Environmental
Protection Areas, Name and Location
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Name
Municipios
Jacaranda
Marica
Desengano
affected
Teresopolis
Marica
Santa Maria Madalena,
Sao Fidelis, Campos
Sourc_e_: IBASE News Files.
respective
preserve.
Desengano was
created
explicitly
as an
instrument to "interrupt predatory activities" occurring in the
respective state park. Establishing environmental protection areas
to save protected areas indicates more the inefficiency of state
J
3
3
preservation units proper than anything else of a positive tone.
If environmental protection areas can help "preserve preserves",
it
is
all
the
better.
But
the
sheer
necessity
of
further
protection of designated preserves is clearly a bad sign.
A few comments on proposed environmental protection areas are
appropriate.
Ambiente
In 1984 the Fundacao Estadual de Engenharia de Meio
asked
environmental
for and received community
protection
areas.
Besides
suggestions
for new
several non-protected
areas the agency was asked to create units around Itatiaia and
Tijuca HP's and Pedra Branca State Park.
Again this is a clear
indication of the inefficiency of the existing units, at least in
-3
.9
the eyes of concerned citizens.
The agency's own priority, on the
D
O
D
2"
O
other hand, reflects its original water quality responsibilities.
^
It values the "protection of watersheds" along the Eastern slopes
of Serra do Mar range, the ones with rivers flowing to the densely
populated
Coastal
Plain.
As
if
recognizing
the
general
inefficiency of environmental protection units in the state, agency
officials declared
that it intended to "overlap" environmental
protection areas and other preservation units.17
,~)
This is at least
awkward, even though it was not announced or reported as such.
^
State
^
Engenharia
^
areas" in the state.
~\e than 60 days.
Law
690/1984
do Meio
mandated
Ambiente
the-'
to define
Fundacao
"permanent
Estadual
de
preservation
By August 1984 it had missed the deadline by
The delay was justified as a chance to allow
**
for community inputs.
-^
will be subject to "control" until each is later defined as a park,
Q
a preserve, an environmental
station
These proposed units are provisional.
(or maybe none) .
protection
They
area or an ecological
In 1986 the agency was still in the
Q
process of selecting areas for "50'new preservation units", a very
v^
ambitious goal for a state where existing units are in a generally
^
poor situation.
"*
The agency's official position is that "at least 40%" of Rio
--N
de Janeiro
<•#
cover,
^T
purposes.
State should
original
or
not,
have some form of permanent vegetation
for
erosion
control
and
water
supply
Its own estimate of the state's permanent floral cover
- -~^y
^
—-•
^
is 14%, of which less than one third is original.
Fundacao Estadual
de
Engenharia
de
Meio
By 1986 the
Ambiente proposed
as
"worthy of protection" all ocean islands, many rjj_sj:l_.naa and coastal
3
300
^
3
lagoon areas
from
Saquarema to Sao Joao da Barra, mangroves,
-—v
remaining Coastal Plain forests, slope forests and areas behind
3
dams.
3
-^
conservation
The agency
and
is now bidding to take over all non-federal
preservation
units
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
state,
•^B'
3
including municipal ones.18
The agency's listing of areas worthy
of protection is indeed impressive but entirely redundant with (1)
*S^
Q
existing preservation units or (2) environmental groups' demands,
"^
not to mention common sense.
3
k - Other State Units
-v
^
''
Flumitur, the Rio de Janeiro state tourism company, runs a
"state leisure area" called Parati—Mirim, located in the mimicipio
of Parati, on the extreme South coast.
It was created in 1976 with
^
only 11.5 km2 in an area originally set aside in 1972 for a state
"*
park.
Preservation objectives were certainly erased or lowered by
-~\e unclear status of "leisure area".
Flumitur also manages a
•**
Pumas do Catete park.
It was donated by the municipal government
-^
of Nova Friburgo, which created it but never defined its limits.
<*#
It is an extremely
d~
remarkable rock f orraations . 1 I J
^
environmental protection authority.
small mountainous area
(.7 km2}
with souse
Flumitur, of course, has no mandated
The state's artistic and cultural heritage agency has two ill^
defined "natural areas".
state's coastline:
Both lie in outstanding spots of the
their names are Grumari and Dunas de Cabo Frio.
The legal status and the preservation capability of this type of
unit remained a mystery.
Grumari is a beach area near Rio.
Cabo
o
o
-3
301
3
3
- Frio
dune
areas
construction
are
under
companies.20
siege
The
by
urban
creating
development
agency
also
and
lacks
authority for environmental protection,
The
"3
^**
- -\'
o
—v
Centre
de
Primatologia
(Primatology
Center)
is
riot
exactly a preservation unit. It is a unique research institution.
50 of the 200 known species of primates occur exclusively in
Brazilian territory and a majority of these 50 species are endemic
^SP*
Q
to several stretches of the Atlantic coastal rain forests.
"
>•?
^
Centre de Primatologia has been studying many species of primates
"*"
•V
Q
of these species has been dwindling, the Centre- de Primatologia is
and using them for laboratory research.
The
As the original habitat.
now also dedicated to the non-anticipated role of reproducing them
^
in captivity and even helping their reintroduction in the wild.
<?
-\e Centre de Primatologia has been active in the golden and
«?
golden-faced marmoset management projects in Poco das Antas and Una
3
—,
national biological preserves.
Its own modest facilities, though,
^9^
^
"*"
«a?
^
"*"
*^P
~\c
•«*
*f
3
*&
^
"c3
*->
look more like a small zoo than a preservation unit of any kind.2-8
Finally there are at least 10 other areas considered part of
the state's "cultural heritage".
They were set aside by a series
of specific ordinances issued jointly by the federal and the state
and artistic
heritage
agencies
between 1965
and
1980.
These ordinances restrict development and encroachment, but neither
. agency
has executive, supervisory or police powers.
have openly stated that they do not recognize
the legitimacy of
these ordinances.
All
areas are
small hilltops
Janeiro
the
exception
of
city, with
Developers
inside
the municipal
Rio
de
Jacarepagua
-«.
o
JO 2
-^
-^_^
"-•
Biological Preserve
(to be
studied below) ,22
The
long term
—s
preservation effects of these ordinances is most doubtful .
--*g*r
"3
_"^L
1 - Municipal Conservation and Preservation Units
•*5<
"Q
—>,
w
.
This sub-section I will deal exclusively with municipal units
in the area of Rio de Janeiro city.
Environmental protection areas
^«?
~-~)
^
Q
—x
W
^
have
been
created
government.
They
vvs~
w
^
the
last
are being
two
used
years
by
to redefine
Rio ' s
city
municipal
zoning and
building codes or to enforce existing codes in' an effective manner.
Preservation
of natural
present at all.
W
^
in
landscapes is a tertiary
priority, if
At least eight units were created, some of them
in the heart of the city.
Other municipal governments in Rio's
metropolitan area announced their intention of using environmental
protection areas as an urban planning instrument.23
^^^
"*Q
~N
how urban sprawl can delete protected natural areas with government
—\
cooperation.
Q
-^
«y
^
^
Jacarepagua Municipal Biological Preserve is a sad example of
preserve
that
Incidentally, it is the only municipal biological
appeared
in
available sources.
Jacarepagua
is
located in the coastal lowlands South of Rio, about 5Q km away from
downtown.
Res^insa. vegetation
and coastal
lagoons
merge
with
«Sf
Q
forested, slopes of the Tijuca ridge, on top of which is the Tijuca
"^
National Park.
Q
-^
•*&
_-3
..-^3
In 1947 a famous Brazilian architect, Lucio Costa,
developed a master plan for Jacarepagua ' s incorporation into city
limits.
Until then it was a sparsely
because ot the abrupt mountain ridges
inhabited farm area, mainly
that isolated it from the
. -- -^9
^
city.
Costa 1
plan
included preservation areas and established
3 3
-^
303
zoning patterns adequate for them.
-—\n 1953 one of the land development companies active in the
3)
area generously "donated" the preserve area to the city government.
At that time Rio was still Brazil's capital and was governed by
^)
federally
appointed administrators.
The federal administration
and, after 1960, the state government never really established or
3
^
otherwise secured the preserve area although better roads and even
tunnels
were
making
In
Jacarepagua
1965
regular
W
Archeologist, was dismayed when he set out to explore the area of
_
the biological preserve.
^
by the removal of sand for construction purposes.
^
Q
Q
find broken pieces of bones, instruments and shells carelessly dug
late"
in
his
Bandeira,
outlying
neighborhood.
years
Manes
a
-%
out of local sanibaquis.
Carlos
into
an
energetic
Several valuable sites-had been destroyed
He could still
Bandeira emphatically says that he was "20
frustrated
research
attempt.
Lack
of
a
•~\" mentality had left a designated preservation area
«*
3
vulnerable to the vagaries of urban expansion.
In 1980 the city government established new zoning ordinances
^
for the already damaged preservation area.
^"
clubs and sport activities were permitted to locate there.
Q
~1
****
Edgard
Strang,
an
activist, predicted
experienced
that
this
Restaurants, social
preservation
new
zoning
Harold
professional
would
"destroy
and
the
3
integrity" of the lagoon ecosystem and "frustrate" the preserve.
-O
Today the ill-defined area of Jacarepagua
-Q
"
cut by
^
automobile racing track, an enormous municipal fair complex and is
a major
federal
road,
has
a
Biological Preserve is
small
airfield,
a major
304
surrounded by social clubs, supermarkets and shopping malls. The
preserve's beach area was open to the public.
The Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, a Rio
based environmental group, tried to save the trashed preserve.
^)
3
1978
it proposed that a "Brazilian Oceanographic
preserve to manage it for
Institute" be
'""^
created on
"^
preservation, public
*•*
recreation.
3
->
government redefined the preserve as a "Zoo-Botanical Park" where
w
Q
_
the
In
scientific research.*
education, wildlife management
The proposal was never enacted.
and public
In 1979 the city
animals could live in their natural habitat and leisure could be
offered to the population.
Environmentalists and scientists spoke
'^S^
^
tm
out against this transformation.
The city government replied that
no other choice was left due to "urban encroachment" around the
area, a direct consequence of both government inaction and action.
The park project included several buildings, a marina, observations
decks, picnic areas, trails arid a play ground.2'"'
The Zoo-Botanical Park
was not established,
though.
The
municipal government still refers to the area as a biological
preserve.
The Jacarepagua area was only gradually occupied by city
expansion and the preservation unit was plotted ever since its
master plan.
Considering these two facts, Jacarepagua biological
preserve provides a discouraging example of what can happen to a
highly visible preservation unit located in the nation's selfproclaimed "cultural capital", thanks to the combined indifference
of federal, state and city governments.
about
the security
It rises somber thoughts
of all preservation units located in
less
3
3
3>
"^
305
visible or highly remote areas .
An Assessment
of Conservation and Preservation Units in Rio de
Janeiro State
A definite conclusion about conservation and preservation in
Rio de Janeiro states requires further research.
can be stated, though.
Some main points
First, there is a wide variety of units,
some of them ill-defined in purpose and in geographical
limits.
~2
Second, there is the intriguing fact that quite a number of units
^
overlap or juxtapose.
This leads this author to suspect about the
~\y of each unit and of the combination of several.
**
Third,
there is a great difficulty in obtaining the simplest information
about these units.
Fourth, a considerable number of units are
•
^
"passive", like union protective forests, in which no recreation,
"t
research, education or wildlife management occurs.
^
political situation of most units is unstable and many times in
"f
visible
^
estuaries, coastal lagoons and fresh water marshes remain mostly
**
unaffected by preservation
^
certainly not least, a good number of all types of units preserve
~3&
altered areas with JLe_cjDjid_j3jrj2wJ^^
_
something
^ji
deterioration.
all
plantations.
but
Sixth,
landscapes
and conservation
unavoidable
in
a
state
like
units.
ravaged
Fifth, the
shorelines,
Last, but
by
coffee
A more detailed assessment of the efficiency of some
of Rio de Janeiro state's preservation units will follow in the
next four chapters.
Each chapter is dedicated to the analysis of
one of the state's national parks.
^
CHAPTER 8
Itatiaia National Park - Beyond Brazilian Geology
Matural Characteristics
Itatiaia National Park is located in Rio de Janeiro's extreme
Southwest, with a section in the
South of the state of Minas
Gerais.
of the raunicipios of Reseride
It comprises territories
(Rio de Janeiro) and Aiuruoca, Liberdade
3
Gerais).
<&
of
and Itamonte
(Minas
Its "geographical center" is roughly on the intersection
latitude
22°
and
longitude
45°.
Itatiaia
National
Park
3
^
(hereafter Itatiaia NP) lies on the most convoluted geoinorphology
^
in the whole Brazilian territory, in a section of the Mantiqueira
^
^
*r
^
mountain
range.
In Aziz Ab'Saber's division
of the Brazilian
territory Itatiaia NP is located in the Tropical Atlantic Region.
3
Itatiaia NP is in an area where the coastal Serra do Mar Range
'3
^\y called Bocaina} comes closest to the Inland Mantiqueira
•sir
Range.
.
The Paraiba do Sul river cuts between both.
the local name of the Mantiqueira range.
Itatiaia is
From the highest peaks
--- ^^^
^
Q
^-
to
the floor of the Paraiba do Sul valley sometimes the difference
in altitude runs over 2,000 m.
Altitudes in the park vary from 831
~
307
***^
^)
m -to 2787 m
"""'
"steps" of at least 200 m.
-~)
2,400 m lie inside Itatiaia NP .
•**'
"W
Each
(Itatiaiacu peak, the state's summit}, in succeeding
"step"
or
At least five peaks with more than
plateau
has
its
own
set
of
massive
rock
^
outcrops and boulders, interspersed with steep slopes covered with
'
original or second growth vegetation and with meadow areas. The
^
last plateau has grand rock boulders that divide the waters rushing
3
^KP
Q
to two major rivers.
The Grande, in Minas Gerais, more to the
3
^
West, forms the Parana. The Negro runs Eastward into the Paraiba
•—\
~\o Sul basin. The headwaters of both rivers have many waterfalls
*"*
and rapids.
Q
-x
The
Their flows are very irregular.
yearly
average
temperature
on
the
highest
Itatiaia
^B^
Q
plateaus is a chilly 11° C.
^
^
W
^
~)
"*"
dry
Q
climate is "medium mesothermal" .
•^
slightly below 14° C.
3
{common) ,
and
even
They are subject to frosts and hail
slight
snowfalls
(rare) .
The "moderate
mesothermal" climate of the high plateaus has a mild summer and a
winter.
Below
these
higj plateaus and
above 1,600
in
the
Yearly average temperature are
Summers are mild but winters are rainy.
The
*d
-\y average temperature on the high plateaus of the Minas Gerais
,
3 side
are slightly higher, around 18° C. The yearly average rainfall
_
<*»
^
-j
"^
in medium range altitudes is 2.22 m, slightly lower than in higher
-x
^
only 5.
altitudes.
The park area has 191 days of rain a year.
the wettest month with 27 days of rain; August is the driest with
The
Average relative humidity is 75%.
gigantic
eruptive origins,
dp
January is
boulders
laying
on
the
upper
although they are not volcanic.
plateau
have
The entire
308
"^5
' geologic formation has
an area of 1,450 km2 and
riefelehn cienitro or foyatic rock
is composed of
from the Jurassic. It is the
•—')
largest alkaline rock formation in the world with the exception of
—'
the
~
evidence of local glaciation.
O
flat-sided
Kola
formation .in
boulders
the
combine
Scandinavian
peninsula.
There
is
Ragged rocky peaks and "square",
to form a geomorphology
extremely
unfamiliar to Brazilians. Local soils are classified as latosoils,
•»y
Q
podzolic
and litosoils.
The latter predominate
in the park.
^
Litosoils are "incomplete" and "shallow", without distinguishable
•*p
~\, composed of incompletely weathered rock fragments.
«*
Although bare rocky soils, ragged rocky outcrops and naked
•^
boulders command the attention in the landscape,
Itatiaia NP flora
^
has a grand combination of original forests, successional second
growth communities and high altitude meadow communities with many
^
wild flowers.
Up to 1,200 m altitude tropical rain forests are
^"
predominant, original arid second growth.
Between 1,200 m and 1,600
•**?
~j|
m the predominant vegetation is alpine rain forests.
•**
J
^
m there are meadows and sub-tropical mixed conifer arid tropical
•&
Above 1,600
forests of altitude.
Plentiful rainfall helps preserve dense original forests of
-^
"noble" woods and palms in medium range slopes.
^
and stunted alpine trees and respective communities on higher parts
"*"
and the high meadows are subject to winter fires.
J
entire range of altitudes, cacti, orchids, lianas, likens, mosses,
««f
bromelias,
begonias
3
associated
among
,3
and
ferns
and
many
The more scraggly
others
Considering the
can
be
found
themselves and with representative species of
-
309
~O
tropical
forest
__-.
paineiras,
trees
such
indaguassu,
as
cedro,
jequitiba,
carigerana,
bicuiba,
imbirueu,
sapucaia,
canela,
•SBr
"O
^
—-s
Q
_
guatambu, copaibeira, macaranduba, grumixas, cabreuva
ferro.
arid pau-
Present at higher altitudes are Brazil's only two native
conifers,
pinheiro-do-parana
pinheirinho
(Aj^aucjyQji___j^u^^
and
(Podocarpus 1ambertii), characteristic of sub-tropical
and temperate forests.
Intensely studied by foreign and Brazilian
Q
naturalists in the last 160 years, the local flora has more than
^
a hundred recorded endemic species
^
flowers
*"
particularly in the higher plateau areas.
_^
«*
-x
^
yerjgei^acae,
o_enotjgjr_acae, _ l_abiadae
More than 100,000
species
of birds
live
hummingbirds, hawks
(specially land orchids and
and
(estimated)
regularly
and
ajuyrjjyjyfijaciae.) -
species of insects and 300
in
toucans.
the
park
area,
Several rare
or
including
endangered
species of felines, rodents, wild dogs, deer, sloths, peccary and
^_
primates inhabit Itatiaia NP, besides tapirs, snakes, lizards and
Q
amphibians.
*'
streams.
^
qualified Itatiaia NP as the single
^
ecological
-^
probably meant is that among the older parks Itatiaia NP is the
^
most studied in its rich geology, fauna, flora, climate and natural
"l"
history.
^
the landscape
'-•&
,-
No
large
fish
have been
recorded
in the park's
Field scientists working for the Park Service recently
preserve
"most important
in the form of a national
park".
[Brazilian]
What they
They justify their claim with the following arguments;
has different geological
towards different directions,
the
origins
and is tipped
climate is unique
and
human
occupation was conducted in a manner that allowed for survival of
5
O
-•%
....
original flora and fauna or its natural reconstitution.L
31°
For all
this, Itatiaia NP definitely qualifies as a unique natural area in
Brazil.
o
~~)
•***
Human Occupation
Puri natives, from the Tupinaiaba federation, seem to have been
-^
the original human dwellers of the region around Itatiaia NP.
«D
probably
^
Valley floor,
Q
meaning "mountain ridge full of peaks" or "ragged crest" . This is
"~
a very adequate description of what they could see distinctly from
kept to lower altitudes, closer
They
to the Paraiba do Sul
Itatiaia is a name originated from the Puri language
^
the valley floor, even if they never ventured up the hills.
The
^
Itatiaia region lies between the Portuguese port areas of Angra dos
-->
Reis and Parati and mining regions of Minas Gerais.
<•*
of the region was included in a huge tract leased by the Portuguese
_
crown to Garcia Rodrigues Paes Leme.
Q
was constant
^
inland Aiuruoca to search for new gold mining areas in the high
^
sections of Mantiqueira Range. No gold was found but the expedition
*^
originated
Q
present day city of Resende.
*&
of the Resende area.2
^
only after 1744,
a "donkey
In 1715 part
But presence of Europeans
when an expedition was sent from
train" trail arid a stopover area near
the
Puri natives were soon driven out
Resende was one of those "donkey train" stopovers mentioned
J3*
^n Chapter 6 that eventually turned into a permanent settlement.
*
In 1747 it earned that invariable sign with which the Portuguese
^
signaled
their
permanent
settlements:
a
chapel.
Commerce
3
o
311
f l o u r i s h e d and in 1757 the area was designated as a frjaauesia
;
administrative
•"••)
mixed
w
exhaustion of most Minas Gerais mines around 1780, Resende became
3
_
a
w
O
business of farming.
*"
in the area around
,Q
important enough to be mentioned as assets in contracts, leases and
convenient
option
and
for
religious
ex-mining
jurisdiction) .
operators
looking
With
(a
into
the
the
Coffee seeds and seedlings were introduced
1780 and by 1802 coffee stands were already
sales recorded in Public Notaries .
7%
Resende was raised to the rank of village in 1801, when the
*&
name Resende became official. It quickly became the pioneer area
^
for coffee plantations and related black slavery in the Paraiba do
Q
Sul Valley.
I"
«*
^
.**
Hillaire was impressed by large coffee farms around Resende, some
In 1822 the French
with 100,000 plants
responsible
each.
for moving
status of city.
Augusts de Saint-
The great production
Resende
again: in 1848 the Imperial
naturalist
up
of coffee was
the administrative
hierarchy
government elevated Resende
to the
Population figures for 1852, when Resende's coffee
production was almost peaking, illustrate the importance of Black
slavery.
Of 34,500 inhabitants, 10,300 were slaves.3
The boom and bust cycle in the Resende area shows out clearly
in the following figures and dates.
traditional
.kilograms)
Portuguese
In 1842 200,000 arrobas.
weight measure roughly
equivalent to 15
of coffee were produced by some 400 farms.
production peaked with 413 farms producing
(a
In 1852
800,000 arrobas..
In
1860 the same number of farms produced only 200,000 jrr^cxDas,, the
1842 level.
From there it went downhill
all the way to coffee
"O
•9
^
plant
"eradication"
and
adoption
of
dairy
farming
in
many
"•)
properties late in the 19th century.
^
division located in higher Mantiqueira range slopes, had 40 coffee
--,
farms in 1850, about 10% of the total.
O
are today
*^_
Resende farms produced
the lower
sections
Cainpo Belo, a Reseiide sub-
Sections of these 40 farms
of Itatiaia NP.
important staple
Besides
coffee
crops such as mandioc,
~m?
Q
rice, beans and corn.4
^
Maria Celina Whateley notes that average farm sizes in Reseiide
~\e somewhat smaller than in the contemporary important Valenca•w'
Vassouras
coffee
^
American
scholar
^
prosperous.
plantation
Stanley
area
downstream,
J. Stein.
studied
by
the
Resende 'farmer's were
less
This lead to a relative disadvantage of the Resende
ax~ea when slave prices started to soar in the early 1850's, as a
Q
result of the Brazilian government
^
forbidden
slave
trade.
This
finally cracking down on the
crackdown
happened
exactly
when
*")
Resende ' s coffee production were starting to decline.
•*•'
slaves soared 150% between 1850 and 1875 and even more after that.
-^
Resende's
Q
plantations employing rented slaves and free Blacks.
coffee farmers had
to tend
their stands
Prices for
or open
new
~
Probably due to ecological changes, a "white moth" disease
Q
plagued Resende's coffee stands in the mid-1850's, exactly when
^
labor became scarce and local plantations were "aging".
^
insect deposited eggs on the bushes' leaves and the growing larvae
—J
ate
^
berries until the next year.
,Q
coffee production hit almost a rock-bottom.
their
stems.
Although bushes
survived, they
The adult
produced no
By 1856 the disease made Resende's
It fell more than 90%
313
-.
as compared with
the
1852
peak.5
All
this
Q
regional downfall.
""*'
w
•--•}
~%
coffee declined continuously in Resende, apparently without any
After a slight comeback
only accelerated
in the late 1860's
further diseases.
Coffee beans
were
at first
transported
out
of Resende in
exactly the same manner and through the same trails as gold and
Q
Q
precious stones had come across from Minas Gerais.
The old "donkey
train" trails took coffee to Parati and Angra dos Reis port areas.
^»
^
The difficult trip over the Bocaina range and down to the coast
^
took several days. - From there coffee was shipped to Rio.
This
•*y
~\e was predominant until 1864.
—\'
From 1864 to 1872 sail boats and row boats took the declining
Q
--,.
•<f
^
3
Resende production downstream to Barra do Pirai.
less than a day.
In Barra do Pirai coffee bags were transferred
,~
to railroad cars bound to Rio de Janeiro.
^
river
Q
rapids
This trip lasted
with
expensive
channels
Proposals to tame some
came up in this
period.
"^
-*^
^
Although these proposals were not put into practice they reveal how
"•^
environment.
-^
^
1872 the first regular cargo and passenger train entered the city.
«
Local production was now taken by rail directly to Rio de Janeiro
3
^
in just a few hours.6
,^
^\:"
.3
•^
<**~\*
coffee
plantations
pressed
for
even
further
changes
in the
Railroad tracks were soon extended to Resende.
In
The arrival of the railroad came too late to rescue Resende
from decline.
In 1879 a few farmers developed a system for
centralized handling of harvested berries for drying, removing pulp
and peel, roasting and packaging.
Smaller farms could dedicate
314
themselves exclusively to planting and harvesting.
benefits
from this division of labor
Possible scale
were erased by declining
production and productivity.
In 1874
a great part of Resende' s coffee plants
for lack of workers.
In 1886
were not
^J
harvested
Resende' s coffee
still
_
retained enough quality to win prizes in international fairs, but
Q
quantity never stopped plummeting. More mobile farmers were buying
^
lands in Sao Paulo's Western plateau areas, in search of virgin
V-
Q
forest stands to be cut for new coffee plantations.
When Resende
•"^
farmers moved out they took workers, slaves, masons, carpenters,
—x
merchants, craftsmen and othei~s with them.
*5
family moved from Resende to the frontier Ribeirao Preto area, in
---.
Sao Paulo.
Q
towards
_
itinerancy of coffee plantations was working
^L)
depleted area, socially stagnant and ecologically impoverished.
Part of Whateley's own
After slavery abolition in 1888 even ex-slaves moved
Sao Paulo
in search of jobs
The fall was dramatic.
and a new start.7
The
to leave Resende a
In the 1860's Resende was still "the
"^
most important city" in the Paraiba do Sul Valley.
*?
the third most important city in Rio de Janeiro province, after Rio
--^
iff
and
Campos.
It was probably
It had several daily or weekly newspapers, religious
events, a theater, a Free Mason Lodge, good schools, commerce, a
horse race track and easy access to the coast.
Later
it had one
^
of the first movie houses in Brazil's interior.
*
of coffee changed Resende very fast.
•^
w"
-*.
moved away with their extended families and assets. Merchants and
professionals followed them.
But the decline
Socially ranking families
Impoverished farmers no longer cared
o
~3
3
i5
for their plantations.
~Q
By 1874 Resende had only 329 km2 under cultivation, against
^
more than 920 km2 Under c_ap_o_ei,r_a_
-^
fallow.
•^
high Mantiqueira range area.
—
the Resende
Only 65 km2 were considered "virgin", all of them in the
In 1899 an outside expert hired by
Farmers' Association
~^p
prospects, bluntly
""
•v*
^
production.
^
(successional second growth) or
wrote
to assess
that Resende
was
local
agricultural
"ruined" for coffee
In 1906 Resende already produced 33% of the state's
milk, using its depleted slopes as pastures after eradication of
coffee
shrubs.0
Itatiaia
NP
would
later
be
plotted
on a
~\n of capoeira
and virgin
areas
in the higher sections of
.
'
'
"
IS*
«*
Resende
—^
municipios in Minas Gerais.
Q
and neighboring
lands of other
three
coffee
producing
A belated federal government sponsored colonization
project
^
affected the future site of Itatiaia NP, adding to coffee's already
~>
extensive
destruction.
Between
"Visconde de Maua" Colonial
1908
and
1918
"Itatiaia"
Settlements attracted a few hundred
^
foreign immigrants
"**
scale cultures" exactly in the
-^
region.
*£
altitudes of 700 m and 1,200 m, where many original
3
been spared by coffee plantations.
These
(Italian and Scandinavian)
colonies
to develop "small
steep slopes of the Campo Belo
deforested
steep
slopes
between
government
initiative
to
Fear of frost had
establish
the
forests had
probably
dictated the absence of coffee plantations on these slopes.9
rare
and
smallholders
This
in
a
plantation-dominated state therefore gave a further blow to the
original ecological balance of the higher areas of Resende, leading
-3
—.,
w
316
to their deforestation.
It is true, though, that at least on the
Q
Minas Gerais Mantiqueira Range coffee had been planted at even
X
higher
altitudes,
including
areas
today
within
Itatiaia
NP
boundaries.
Many naturalists
w
-—i
travelled and collected specimens in the
mountains slopes and meadows around Resende and specifically in
^KJ*^
3
tos'
the area of Itatiaia NP.
_^
^*?^
Q
Janeiro
^
W
Q
expeditions were made by technicians and scientists linked to the
***
*s*
-^
*s^
**»
—s,
Botanical
From 1908 to 1928, at least, the Rio de
Garden
(subordinated
to
the
Department
Agriculture), managed a "Biological Station of Itatiaia",
Botanical Garden staff.10
of
Regular
Agriculture Department personnel gained
first-hand knowledge of the area.
This was
certainly
a basic
reason for the selection of the area as Brazil's first national
park in 1937.
Additionally, the station must have contributed to
control human encroachment at least on. the biologically rich high
~sf
W
-J
meadows.
In the early 1940's another type o£ human land use started to
•<*^
^
affect the higher Itatiaia area.
^
Q
Q
new officers'
training included extensive hiking and wilderness survival drills
**
and even occasional simulated war maneuvers in the Mantiqueira
academy
The Army built and operated its
in the outskirts
of Resende.
Officer
Q
—,
*t
.'***
^^%
mountain areas.11
^
-•&
Q
was the 17th most populous municipio of Rio de Janeiro's G4.
-***\
In 1985 the municipio of Resende had 102,000 inhabitants. It
In
the state's geography Resende is a medium-sized city-municipio, but
rather remote due to its extreme Western position.
Ironically,
317
most Rio de Janeiro
inhabitants
know
Resende
in its
original
capacity: as a stopover for buses and cars travelling between Rio
and Sao Paulo
cities.
farming, poultry
Its present day
raising
and small
food
activities
industries,
are
dairy
besides a
dependable flow of tourists attracted to the nearby mountains of
Bocaina and Mantiqueira, and to Itatiaia NP itself.
^
and small hotels
Leisure homes
survive in plots marked out for the federal
-v
t^
colonial settlements and some of them lie inside park boundaries.12
j^
_,
Creation of Itatiaia National Park
^)
The creation of Itatiaia NP coincides with the beginnings of
^
park history in Brazil.
~^
Botanist Alberto Loefgren as the main champion of the park and
***
mentions
-\.
In
a
Swiss
1913
An Institute publication credits the
naturalist
text
Hubmeyer
Joseph
Hubmeyer
emphasized
the
as
its
original
area's
my
*y
"inexhaustible potential" for scientific research and its adequate
—,
location
(near Rio, Sao Paulo and Belo Horizonte)
«?
hiking.
With the 1934 Forest Code still very recent, the 1937
^
creation decree mentioned the Botanical Station as a reason for
Q
creating
^"
"scientific" purposes were more emphasized in the creation decree
-^
than "recreational" ones.
H**1
•***\
***
Q
the Itatiaia
NP.
One park
expert
for leisure and
has stated that
Anyway, Itatiaia NP's location, almost
equidistant from Brazil's three major population centers
is; a
major factor of its recreational potential.
The creation decree also mentions the existence of primitive
forests "entirely different from other mountain forests in Brazil",
318
the
need
to
attract
"foreign
and
national
tourists"
and
the
recommendation of the area made by the Federal Forest Council.
The
decree text referred to private colonization plots existing in the
proposed park area and ordered their acquisition by government.
Some tracts of public land should be "reserved" for hotels.
The first Brazilian national park was initially managed by a
specific "Itatiaia National Park Commission" , created inside the
Agriculture Department by Decree Law 337, March 16, 1938.
statute
again
mentions
the
private
plots
"Visconde de Maua" Colonial Settlements.
3
of
This
"Itatiaia"
and
The wording now pointed
towards a compromise with their owners.
Plots now could be leased
for
for
lodging
park
boundaries.13
The
visitors
problem
or
of
traded
these
areas
private
outside
holdings
park
inside
Itatiaia NP was not solved and became chronic.
The "Itatiaia National Park Commission" was extinguished by
Decree Law 4084, February 4, 1942,
Even before that Decree Law
982 had reorganized the Service Florestal Federal, which gained a
"National Park Section" ,
Q
This small third-echelon office in. the
Department of Agriculture was responsible
for Brazilian national
parks until 1967, when the Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvirnento
Q
Florestal was created.
In 1946 a union protective forest, named
Mantiqueira, was created as a buffer zone around some of Itatiaia
NP ' s boundaries.14
..Q
Administration of Itatiaia National Park
Until 1959
there were only four national parks in Brazil.
-"
319
^
Itatiaia NP thus had an important role in forging Brazilian park
"^
administration standards.
Scientific research was an Itatiaia NP
3
•*\y that unfortunately did not flourish in other parks.
In
O
the late 1940's and early 1950's, the park's energetic
and long
~L
time
best
~3
establish the unit as a natural history research center.
At least
*~
two
must
Q
mentioned here.
^
Zoology
director, Wanderbilt
of
his
initiatives
Duarte
left
de
Barros,
published
did
recox'ds
his
that
to
be
Between 1949 and 1951 Oliverio Pinto, from the
Service of Sao Paulo State's Department of Agriculture,
-\h the help of park personnel, did extensive and detailed field
•3
study of local bird fauna.
_.
Barros.
^
This was done out of an invitation by
Besides establishing a check
list of 240 positively
identified species, Pinto described them, speculated about their
preferred ranges inside, park boundaries and later helped organise
^jglF
~^)
a museum of stuffed specimens, still extant in 1988.
In his most interesting report Pinto puts his own research in
•"^
the context of prior efforts which had helped to enhance the fame
-*?
of the Itatiaia area.
^
Ernesto Ule, from the Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro
^
In 1901 and 1921 new expeditions sponsored by the same institution
^
^
^
studied fauna and flora.
••**'
-^
^
He mentions the expedition by the botanist
an expedition in 1906.
initiative of
Itatiaia,
Frank
directed
(1894) .
The Museu Paulista, from Sao Paulo, sent
The American Museum of Natural History, by
Murphy
by
expedition is not clear.
Chapman,
E.G.
Holt.
sent
a
research
The precise
date
team
of
to
this
Pinto ' s work added 53 species to the 187
identified by the Holt group.13
3
3
..-.
320
O
Almost at the same time Barros invited botanist Alexandre Curt
""
Brade to do an "inventory" of the park's flora.
O
with the area since 1913.
•"*
text and check list, Brade too put his
—s
context
TS*
explored
^
Frederick Sellow
mentioning
Itatiaia
Fernsee
Besides presenting a very well organized
scores
since
of
research in historical
naturalists
1822:
Auguste
and
expeditions
Saint-Hillaire
(1830) , Auguste F. M. Glaziou
(187S), Per Dusen
(1927), P. Porto
Brade was familiar
that
(1822) ,
(1872) , Ritter von
(1902-1903), Alberto J. de Sampaio
(1914-1938) and Firmino Tamandare de Toledo
«a*
^
Junior
^
active in the landscaping of a future section of Tijuca NP.
;^
(1913).10
After his expedition, incidentally, Glaziou was
Through Barros'
long
tenure
Itatiaia HP was managed in a
***
highly professional manner. Besides scientific research many other
-~s
activities and plans reveal concern about preservation, visitation
"V
and public education.
^
cabins were built; four collective lodges were placed on trails to
^
shelter hikers.
Campgrounds were established and managed by a Boy
^
Scouts chapter.
Many trails were built along the park's different
^
landscapes.
*8-"'
exists in the Fauna Museum.
Q
and education was an important part of the park's role arid was
•&
specially
Buildings
and facilities were expanded;
The park was adequately staffed.
optimistic
about
A small library
Barros believed that public visitation
the
park's
future because
of
its
location and easy access.'7
,^
3
"•'"-**&
•^
Starting in the mid-1960"s, though, Itatiaia NP suffered from
the general abandonment of national parks and trom the aging of its
infra-structure.
Trails, cabins, collective lodges, museum, staff
3
~
321
W
housing and even the visitors center were in need of repairs or
^
restoration.
Private plots with hotels arid resort houses became
O
a
3
"^
were not met with enough substitutions.
o
permanent problem.
—^
Staff dwindled, as retirements and dismissals
In 1977 Marc Dourojeanni, a foreign park expert, presented
V—''
3
-.—s
the Institute with a report on the state of selected Brazilian
parks.
He
was
positively
it to have
impressed
with
"unquestionable
Itatiaia
scientific
NP.
He
Q
considered
and aesthetic
_
interest", although it was excessively "small".
Q
extremely worried about private houses and hotels and not only
o
^^
because they occupy at least 10% of the park.
Dourojeanni
was
In his opinion the
*«**
Q
worse was that they "loosen control [over the park] and produce a
^
great deal confusion in the minds of visitors".
--,
could witness blatant violations of park rules right in its core
Indeed visitors
-«e-
area
(landscaping,
plants,
etc).
by
domestic
"Elementary
«J
violated
hotel
and
^
behavior among visitors,
house
animals,
principles
owners,
introduction
of
of
exotic
conservation"
stimulating
were
destructive
<B?
^
^
Dourojeanni suggested cutting off all private plots from the
park
and,
in
the meantime,
curbing
"\n of domestic animals and alien plants.
-es?
development and further
He proposed
the expansion of park boundaries to some lower slopes and plateaus,
_
--,«•*
.Q
to guarantee adequate habitat for certain animal species.
In his
opinion park management should try to restrict, and not stimulate,
~'*~
hiking on the higher plateau areas.
•-}
was damaging important wild flower areas.18
Trail erosion arid trampling
"3
In 1982,
visited
acting
Itatiaia
NP
as a private citizen, Mario N. Borgonovi
and
presented
a
report
about
it
to
the
^J
direction of the Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza,
.^1
the
private Rio
de
Janeiro
environmental group
so
many
times
•X*)
mentioned in this text.
The problem of private lands, houses and
hotels inside the park lingered on.
Private owners even formed an
association to protect their interests, although private hotels arid
houses inside park boundaries are obviously against better park
«*
Q
management standards and, indeed, against the letter of the law.
Borgonovi collected a suggestion
to divide the park
in two; a
^
national park proper and a "natural park".
Private holdings would
Q
all be comprised by this second area.
^
as an "adaptation" to the reality of resort houses and hotels,
He favored the suggestion
^S?
^
intensively
*^
reminded that "natural parks" are still non—existent in Brazilian
3
legislation.
•«r
unclear reasons.
".
used by owners,
leasers
and guests.
It should be
Anyway, the owners association opposed the idea, for
The stalemate continues until this day.
Park personnel in 1982 was reduced to 44, down from more than
5)
120 in
"
•«•?
^
workers,
helper,
the
late
four
1950's.
clerks,
two watchmen,
four
There
were
gardeners,
one biologist
22 rangers,
four office
five craftsmen
and
and one forester.
one
Park
buildings and facilities included nine staff houses, nine visitor
cabins, three collective lodgings, a garage for repairs, one wood
shop, seven observation posts, eight outposts, a school, a central
office and visitor center, a deposit, a dressing room, a greenhouse
and two camping grounds, besides the wildlife museum, a library.
3
a
-3
323
a h e r b a r i u m arid a w e a t h e r s t a t i o n . 1 9
3
-\i pointed out other problems such as telecommunication
•^
a^
towers and TV transmission antennas located on conspicuous ridges
inside park boundaries.
Domestic animals were still present.
^
concluded
with
suggestions:
fences
around
^_
qualified
rangers, visitation restrictions, extinction
He
critical boundaries,
of park
tiSSr
^
cabins
and collective
""^
ecologically critical areas, research projects, hiring of guides
:m
arid environmental education hikes for children.20
£
from Borgonovi's report that Itatiaia is Brazil's best equipped
->
national
•il
proper maintenance.
^
or, at least, visitor impact in ecologically sensitive areas is
park.
lodges,
However its
concentration
installations
of
and
personnel
in
It is clear
facilities
lack
Borgonovi ' s suggestion to restrict visitation
understandable given the destruction caused by visitors.
In 1982 the park's Management Plan was published. It blended
together the Institute's official opinions and proposals with those
of scientists and environmentalists engaged through the Fundacao
Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza.
Itatiaia NP was again
hailed as a "unique sample" of coastal tropical rain forests in a
singular geological and geomorphological landscape. The "excellent
potential"
for
headwaters
of
public
mountain
visitation
streams
and
and
the
rivers
protection
are
also
of
the
cited as
important features.
An important detail about private holdings is added.
Most of
the park's own buildings and facilities are built very close to
privately owned plots.
If the unit is in fact divided into a
~J
"*)
_.«.
324
national
31
current administration buildings and facilities will be located in
"^
the
Q
Besides
^
developed, adding to their negative effects on park ecology and
park
and
a
"natural park"
this,
natural
section,
private
pai'k,
as
obviously
areas
were
suggested
not
the
sub-divided
by
ideal
the
plan,
location.
and intensively
---\.
•^
The plan suggests
that new
areas be added to the park to
_~
compensate for the natural park area loss and to guarantee adequate
^v
habitat
^
responsible for recent mountain-climbing accidents, lost hikers and
for
animals.
Lack
of
"educational effort"
is
deemed
*e>>
^
destruction of natural features.
^
because visitation grew in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
~\n considers that the park
•**
This is all the more serious
offers visitors many good
trails
through varying scenic and natural landscapes.
~\s proposed.
The
A detailed zoning
Five extensive areas were classified as "closed".
^
They should be left to entirely natural processes, including the
tT
"repopulation of
Q
allowed
>!"~
Sensitive and biologically rich plateau areas were included in the
Q
"closed" zone.
•***
Regulation
-^
"conflictive use" one, where microwave and TV antennas are located.
_^
The plan suggests
-Q
concludes
in
fauna
them
supervision
are
The
and
meticulously
their
detailed
^*
^
flora".
only
human activities
scientific
observation.
Other zones, according "to the 1979 National Park
law,
with
are
and
"operational" programs.21
described,
immediate dismantlement.
"environmental",
including
a
The document
"public
use"
and
325
Current Situation
Itatiaia NP is undoubtedly the best equipped national park in
"*"
Brazil.
With the exception of Iguacu NP, more famous for
its
—\s then for its limited park recreation facilities, it is
—\
the best known park in Brazil. Being the oldest park, this would
o
-—s
be expected.
Ideally it should be a model for park management.
W
However, land ownership problems have plagued park managers for
^
half
a century
with
serious
implications
for park
integrity,
^Sr
^
visitation
^
ecological quality of this intensively studied region seems to be
"^
holding
^
increasing visitation.
-A
at least 163 endemic floral
•*?
continual occurrence of numerous amphibians, reptiles, birds and
-s
mammals .22
-^
standards
despite
Itatiaia
and
growing
NP's
environmental
pressures
from
preservation.
neighboring
farms
The
and
E. Gouveia, a field Biologist, still found
location
species in 1985 and confirmed
is
ideal
for
the
the
environmental
"^
education of visitors from the country's three largest cities and
^
metropolitan areas.
^f
resort industry in an otherwise stagnant local economy. Its access
~^
is easy.
It can be a source of seeds and seedlings of rare plant
•*•*
species.
But the park service has to put in much more effort for
^
It has helped establish a solid tourism and
all this potential to be reached. The park has performed better in
_Q
•-s5
^
the past than now.
Q
were on duty.
As of 1987 the park was almost abandoned: only
12 rangers and a handful of administrative and crafts personnel
K "Pro-Itatiaia National Park Association", based
in Resende, was in June of 1987 actually defending its closure to
-^
^
326
visitors so that its "infra-structure could be reorganized" and its
natural features evaluated.23
3f
Therefore, the oldest and best equipped Brazilian national
O
park is today so vulnerable
"3*"'
being requested by environmentally concerned citizens.
•^^
^
discouraging
•*?
country.
^
that its shutdown
to visitation is
This is a
comment on the situation of national parks in the
Even a 50-year
old,
highly
visible, nationally
and
internationally famous, thoroughly studied and relatively popular
'•s*^
^D
park is muddling through basic problems that political will could
^
have solved long ago.
Q
3
-3
-•">
-^-^
^-f
^)
0
CHAPTER 9
-^
Serra dos Orgaos National Park - The Pipe Organ Peaks
3
"'
•"*^
w
-N
—\
natural Characteristics
Serra dos Orgaos National Park is located in the CentralEastern portion of. Rio de Janeiro's Serra do Mar mountain range.
—.
The park's name derives from the local denomination of the Serra
Q
do Mar in the raunicipios of Teresopolis and Petropolis.
3
^
roughly on the intersection of Latitude 22° with Longitude 42° .
Q
Climatically it lies inside the Tropical Atlantic Region defined
3
"-»"
0
by Azis Ab' Saber.
•~)
Southeastern
•^
(hereafter Serra dos Orgaos NP)
—x
slope of the Serra do Mar.
•^
of Teresopolis, Petropolis and Mage.
^
It lies
In phytogeographic terms it is located in the
Atlantic
Region.
Serra dos
Gi-gaos National
Park
is basically a steep East-facing
Its boundaries affect the municipios
Serra dos Orgaos NP slopes rise abruptly from
the Coastal
i«r
^
Plain only
«&
terrain is steep and convoluted. Its short rivers run directly to
^~\e
vV
^
plain
and
20 km away from Guanabara bay's innermost edge.
into
Guanabara
bay.
They
gradients for Brazilian standards.
have
extremely
The
high
No large river flows through
the park nor is supplied by its tumbling waters.
_
^)
328
The area's geology is dominated by gneiss and granite peaks
-T<|
*""*'
and outcrops from the Pterozoic, estimated to belong to the Late
—s
Superior Pre-Cambrian era.
Laurentian granite outcrops are also
t^BT
^
present.
These Eastern-facing rocks are the most impressive result
-.
of the geologic faulting that occurred 60 million years ago as a
^D
consequence of seismic activity generated by the formation of the
^_
Andes.
O
broke off and sunk into the Atlantic Ocean.
^
At that time a long and massive section of the Serra do Mar
Ten peaks inside the park stand above 2,000 m and six others
•^
above 1,500 m.
V
The catchy Dedo de Deus
—..
lies within the park.
Q
foothill area inside the mostly
1^
V
2>
areas inside the park are very rare.
^
National Park.
""")
^*
from hot, sub-hot, moderate mesothermal to medium mesothermal.
^
Pedra do Sino, with 2,263 m, is the park's summit.
("God's Finger")
peak, with 1,692 in, also
The park's lowest altitude is 145 m, in a
flat municipio of Mage.
Level
Climate varies sharply with altitudes in Serra dos Orgaos
From lower to higher sections, the climate changes
The
upper ridges of the park are the coldest areas in the state of Rio
••-^
de Janeiro together with the summits of Itatiaia National Park.
V
Along the whole slope gradient temperatures are on the average 5
>^
to 6° below the ones recorded on the warm Coastal Plain.
^
^
^
«
^
Frost and
hail are common at higher altitudes.
The average yearly temperature at 1,000 in is a cool 17.8°.
The average yearly
rainfall is between 2.0 and 2.5 m, growing
sharply with altitude to a maximum of 3.6 m.
Hydraulic balances
are positive. Average relative humidity is steadily between 80 arid
329
90%, commonly reaching 99% at higher altitudes.
Yellow,
throughout
altitude.
red-yellow
the park.
and
Flora
red
has
latosoils
four
main
are
types
predominant
according
to
Below 1,400 in there are tropical coastal rain forests.
Tropical mountain rain forests predominate between 1,400 and 1,800
m.
A formation called tropical rain forests of altitude thrives
between 1,800 and 2,000 m.
Above 2,000 m there are open meadows
with bushes and grasses; likens cover boulders and shaded outcrops.
Floral species and communities are much like Itatiaia's, except for
^^
^
*"
Q
^
™
«
~\,
«?'
Itatiaia's much richer wild flower display.
Much of
undisturbed
the
flora at medium and
by human
activities.
sampling of Brazil's Atlantic
felines,
reptiles,
to
amphibians,
the
biogeographic
altitudes
The park's
coastal
insects
higher
and
fauna
remained
is a rich
forest animals,
including
birds.
«?
3
According
theory
of
"pleistocene
refuges"
^
proposed by K.S. Brown, Serra dos Orgaos NP lies inside a major
3
Atlantic Coastal refuge.
This means that the area has a great
number of endemic species of fauna and flora that survived harsh
conditions and repopulated neighboring areas.
Even the c_ap_oe_ixa_s_
m
^
park
boundaries
seem
(successions! second growth)
to proceed
rapidly
towards
found inside
the
climax
<&
^^
**
^
•^
^
formation of the park's best preserved original forests, located
^
~<£
species.
in the Soberbo valley.
closed
canopy
have
Altitude, climate, intense rainfall and the
represented
barriers
to exotic
or invader
Natural fires are rare due to humidity but in 1955 a
major man-made fire blazed for three months along one of the parks
330
edges.
Two experts
consider
that the "lush Atlantic tropical
forests of altitude" in Serra dos Orgaos NP probably contain "non-described species" of flora.
They also recorded 13 of Brazil's
officially endangered species as occurring in the park.1
Human Occupation
Serra dos Orgaos means literally "pipe organ mountain range".
^5
The most probable origin of this denomination is the Portuguese
Q
^
colonists' religious imagination.
^
peaks a semblance with the long organ pipes of some European
^
cathedrals.
They saw in the area's slender
Steep slopes, dense forests and cold probably kept
^ef
^
Native Americans away from the park area, except for occasional
^
hunting and gathering expeditions.
-N
been
•*?
Americans inside current park boundaries.
~
lowlands, Timbira Natives met the first European arrivals and were
found
indicating
even
No archeological evidence has
temporary
settlements
of
Native
On the adjoining Mage
*&&
Q
X
quickly pushed out of the area by them.
Early Portuguese and French settlers in nearby Guanabara bay
Q
may have explored the nearby plains and mountains.
*"
example, four Portuguese explorers roamed for several weeks through
Q
the mountains behind Guanabara bay, following orders of a ranking
^f
Portuguese colonist. Martini Afonso
-*,
probably crossed park areas .
...Q
The
de
Souza.
In 1531, for
These
men most
earliest Portuguese settlement anywhere near
Serra dos
X
Orgaos NP was a Coastal Plain sesniaria called Mage, located on the
;Q
innermost
edge of Guanabara bay.
It was leased in 1567
to a
331
colonist called
Siraao da Mota.
This was immediately after the
French Huguenots had been pushed out of Guanabara bay.
another
large jsesmaria was leased,
current city of Petropolis.
comprising
In 1632
the area of the
It was not occupied, though.
In 1696 coastal Mage was raised to the rank of £r_e_g_ue^ia.
In
1703 a royal ordinance proposed to stimulate cattle raising along
the "donkey train" trails between Rio and Minas Gerais mines by
leasing new sjysmaxjjas^ specifically for that purpose. The ordinance
mentioned the trail crossing Serra dos Orgaos. . This illustrates
how the Serra do Mar range remained a local frontier for Rio until
at least 1700, as emphasized in Chapter 6.
By 1788
there were maps on which
Teresopolis was plotted.
the small settlement of
By then the Serra do Mar range had been
crossed regularly for almost a century by "donkey trains".
The
major trail between Rio and Vila Rica, the most important city in
the mining district, passed very close to current park boundaries.
The same trails were later used for transporting coffee from the
Paraiba do Sul Valley to Maua port, near Mage.
Mage became a
village in 1789, when it had become a busy stopover port between
Rio and the mining district.
A few years later it would serve the
coffee trade in the same capacity.
Mage also had considerable
sugar-cane and cattle farms of its own.
In 1857 Mage was elevated to the rank of city due to its busy
port and coffee plantations.
It benefited also from Brazil's first
railroad, which in 1854 connected the nearby port of Maua to the
Serra do Mar foothills behind Guanabara bay.
The decline of its
^
332
—'
-^5
_.^
own coffee farms and Rio's direct railroad connections to coffee
producing regions wiped out Mage's economic dynamism and literally
O
erased its port in. the 1860's.
"""'
3
^
---•N
•^
rivers flowing
breeding areas for disease-carrying mosquitoes.
..~*
flat, Coastal Plain nmnicipio, but its territory
into Guanabara
Extensive silting of the modest
bay
also helped eliminate Mage's
—'^^i
o
port.
Health standards dropped sharply as stagnant waters became
Mage is a mostly
extends up the
•^&r
w
Serra dos Orgaos range and actually includes the Dedo de Deus peak.
o
Rio de Janeiro city residents started using,.early in the 19th
i^
•tsy
Q
century, areas close to the park as refuges from Rio's strife, heat
w
and diseases.
«•'
^
"•j\*
In 1818
an English
citizen
called George March
established a farm in the slopes of the Teresopolis area.
This
farm was better known as a haven for English families escaping
Q
~\s summers than for its agricultural production.
Just a decade
•**
later the Brazilian Imperial family followed suit.
Q
-.,
establish nearby Petropolis as the summer city for the court and
Q
the Imperial government. Around 1850 marshy Rio's health standards
3
«•)
Q
*^
were appallingly low.
Nobles,
politicians,
It started to
Yellow fever and cholera were epidemic.
foreign
diplomats,
merchants
and
families began to live part of the year or year around
their
in the
2
^
<e*
2
-Wp
Q
Q
*
••«&
nearby mountain areas, near Teresopolis and Petropolis.
Coffee plantations
were rampant in extensive
parts of
the
, •
territories
of Petropolis, Teresopolis and Mage but they somehow
spared Serra dos Orgaos NP slopes.
No articulated explanation for
this appears in available sources.
Two educated guesses can be
presented.
for
First, . resort
houses
Rio's
elite
certainly
..^
^
P
~
333
precluded
large-scale
vegetation.
coffee
farms
and
preserved
natural
Second, two German explorers, Spix and Martius, did
3
extensive species collecting in the Serra dos Orgaos in 1817. They
""'
most probably called the attention of influential politicians and
Q
administrators to preserve the area.
•^
drawn
o
-•v
w
Q
with
the
help
of
By the late 19th century maps
unspecified
"military
personnel
Belgium" already pointed to the need of protecting the area.
from
Other
foreign travellers and explorers reportedly studied and wrote about
the area.
Q
Teresopolis,
had its
territory
Q
crossed by a latter day "donkey train" trail that went through a
**
5
~\r
farm called Serra dos
easier
than
rounicipios
inunicipio,
carved out
and
the
top
"*"
3
of
a mountain
the
of Mage and Nova - F r i b u r g o .
Orgaos.
others.
This trail was
Probably
because
designed
of
It
was
to be
its
**
location in a very convoluted area, stopovers on this trail did not
D
~
originate a permanent settlement as happened in some other places.
Q
In this case it was the progress of the Serra dos Orgaos farm which
^
colonized the area.
This big coffee farm populated the area and
^6P^
Q
O
3
Q
"D
•**
3
~
--^
Q
-Q
^
was later broken down into urban lots, a very common pattern in the
origin of Brazilian inland cities.
When Teresopolis was considered
already was a solid church house?.
Antonio do Paquequer.
a f_r_egjae_s_ia_ in 1855 there
The settlement's name was Santo
The current city of Teresopolis developed
in the lots around the farm and the church.
derived
from
the Brazilian
Empress'
name
Teresopolis was a name
(Teresa
•«£F
Q
...3
Indeed, the Imperial family enjoyed touring the area.
Cristina).
O
334
v'y
Local coffee farms were all but disrupted with the abolition
-~\f
slavery
in
1888.
A
civilian-military
coup
instituted
-**
republicanism in 1889 and sent the Imperial family to an European
-N
exile.
W
farms
_
fleeting year, in 1893, it was the capital of the state of Rio de
Q
Janeiro during
^
almost a half a year made coastal Rio and Niteroi
^
capital) dangerous places for government officials. The President
•**
of Brazil himself at the same time governed the country out of
-,
nearby Petropolis.
^
^A
Teresopolis managed to survive the collapse of its coffee
and the absence
As
with
of its most
a dire emergency.
Teresopolis,
A, Navy rebellion that lasted
Petropolis'
mountain
occupation.
Only
(the state's
top location
retarded
Q
sejima_ria_s_ leased and effectively occupied by Portuguese colonists
in the area.
European
For a
X
^
permanent
illustrious guests.
in
1686
were
Bernardo Scares Proenca, a Portuguese Army Sergeant-
-*j
Major, was in 1721 granted a sj^sjjsjyrJLja in the exact location of the
^
city of Petropolis.
-^
important shortcut for a "donkey train" trail through his property.
He is credited with the construction of an
"SSS*
<s?
Several other farms were established around Proenca's arid heirs
~.,
leased parts of them to other farmers.
Q
In the 1820's even the Emperor Pedro I bought a property in
'^
the area, later explored by his son Pedro II.
~j
F. Koeler, a German army officer incorporated into the Brazilian
"&
Army, was ordered to make a road out of the "donkey train" trail
--.
,,^
between Rio
and
Petropolis.
This
was
the
In 1828 Major Julio
first
step to make
Petropolis the Emperor's summer city and, indeed, Brazil's summer
-^
3
3
^
335
capital.
•^S^
---%
At the public's expense, the Imperial government hired in 1840
•**
a French immigration company to select at least 600 couples of
_^_J
_-\s (Swiss, French and German)
to settle in the Petropolis
^
area.
1^
a royal palace and associated buildings and facilities.
^J
slave-ridden social scene of Rio de Janeiro province this was an
^
uncommon
7)
Europeans.
^
They would establish farms and work in the construction of
example
of
massive
immigration
of
In the
non-Portuguese
By 1843 two heavy wooden crosses were posted in the area of
-N
the projected Imperial summer city.
w
in road and city building.
Major Koeler was active both
The first German colonists arrived in
-,
Petropolis in 1845.
^
and in 1B51
^
government's summer city and permanent or part time residence for
Q
many of Rio's
^
urbanized Teresopolis area, 50 km away.
was
In 1846 Petropolis was considered a frj3qu.es i a
elevated
social
to the rank
and political
of
city.
elite, much like
It became
the less
-s*
^
As with Teresopolis,
the end of slavery and of monarchy
^
affected Petropolis in negative ways.
-^
«^"»
^
naval revolt mentioned above - brought the federal government to
-^
de Janeiro state from 1893
^
*
3|
^
-•^P
Petropolis in 1893.
Political vagaries - the
Petropolis in fact remained as capital of Rio
to 1902, a condition
that somewhat
soothed the impact of loosing the status of "Imperial city".2
The current situation of the municipios of Mage, Teresopolis
and Petropolis is much different from Resende's.
Rio de Janeiro's metropolitan area.
All three are in
Mage is today mostly a Rio
-^
-3
""'
w
•^
336
suburb, on the way to become a "dormitory" area for low-income
commuters.
Its rural areas are a depressed combination of small
-—'
-—
w•-,
--K
subsistence plots and a few dairy farms.
O
slopes are hardly inhabited at all.
the foothills are sparsely
"!l
populated
Mage sections close to
and the Serra dos Orgaos
Teresopolis and Petropolis cities have retained their original
O
quality of mountain resort areas.
Hotel, lodges, camping grounds
**""
and social clubs attract rich and middle-class Rio inhabitants, if
-*SF
"2
they do not have their own resort houses.
-^
Q
middle-class commuters is noticeable.
-N
peak in the summer, when Rio ' s inhabitants
Q
3
_
«?
Q
mountains
winters also attract a number of Rio dwellers less idiosyncratic
!T
Table 31
Q
*-,
Population Growth in the Municipios of Mage, Petropolis
and Teresopolis between 1960 and 1980
3
7^
y^-'
A growing population of
Populations of both cities
for cooler days and nights.
still drive up the
Cool and often
frosty
about cold.3
Municipio
^
Mage
Petropolis
Teresopolis
Population
I960
I91Q
1980
59,076
113 , 023
180,600
150,000
189,140
245,700
52,318
73,128
97,000
Source:
Brazilian Census results cited by IBDF-FBCN.
Piano de
Mane jo - ParqueL.Macip_nal__jda__S_err^_dos Orgaos.
Brasilia, 1980.
p. 34.
~ ""
. a*.
--3
«)
w
o
-*•)
337
Table 31 shows how the three munlcipios had rapid population
growth in the last three decades. Mage, Petropolis and Teresopolis
-2
-^
-—s
respectively rank 10th, 7th and 15th in population among Rio.de
O
O
much visitation pressures from nearby cities and Rio de Janeiro
o
^
o
Q
Janeiro's 64 municipios . Serra dos Orgaos is therefore subject to
city itself, which lies less than SO km away.
Creation of Serra dos Orgaos National Park
Serra dos Orgaos NP was Brazil's third national park.
•"•'
O
-^
dated September 25, 1938, credits Edgard Chagas Doria with the
Q
original proposal of a national park in the area with the purpose
Q
created in 1939.
It was
.
A newspaper article in the Jornal do CommerciQ,
.
of protecting watersheds.
Warren Dean suggests that an important
•+f
Q
textile factory pressed for the park in order to guarantee its own
*"*"
water supply.
Q
municipal government of Teresopolis and by an unidentified private
^
land owner.
The park was plotted around two areas donated by the
Donated areas totalled only 10 km2 but the decreed
3
-}
•**
area of the park was 100 km2 .
The creation decree stated as objectives the protection of
3
3
Teresopolis
watersheds,
^
undisturbed
forested
Q
conservation
and
•~l
anticipated the role of the numerous union protective forests later
-*J
,3
the
slopes
tourism.
created on nearby slopes.
preservation
for
The
of
scientific
purpose
of
original
and
research,
soil
conserving
soil
As for tourism, the park is indeed
located near Rio, along a major federal road.
Only 8O km from
:-m
Q
downtown
Rio, the park
is easily accessible
to a large
urban
'°
±)
"
338
population.
An
Institute
document
stresses
the
park's
-*5^
Q
^
accessibility and considers it to be another "urban national park",
similar to Tijuca.4
--•v
Many reasons, therefore, explain the creation of the park.
^
Rio's elite resort houses helped spare the area from coffee farms.
-~
Spix
O
scientific
"^
activity.
^}
nearby cities.
--}
Administration of Serra dos Orgaos national Park
•w1
and Martius ' botanical
fame.
Resort
findings gave
the
tradition, became
a
area
major
a
certain
economic
Easy access guarantees a large flow of visitors from
As with Itatiaia, the golden days of Serra dos Orgaos NP are
•-,
long past.
Elyowald
Chagas Oliveira, its
long
time director,
O
states that between 1942 and 1950 he had enough financial support
_
to open trails, build bridges arid lodges and establish facilities.
Q
He used mainly "hired workers".
"^
personnel were federal government workers, ill-paid and much less
In 1951, in contrast, most park
^ss*
~)
^
~~\d
- - "SSP^
productive. Oliveira considers that the park "decayed" after 1951.
In 1959 the nearby federal road was modernized.
exactly
when
personnel
was
lacking.
Road
Visitation
building
V
reportedly originated a major fire which affected some sections of
_
the park.
^
NP never again had personnel and support comparable to the 1940's . n
^
Oliveira personally reported that in 1967 more than 500,000
...3
Despite growing visitation pressures, Serra dos Orgaos
visitors had flooded the park in more than 30,000 vehicles, most
of them touring buses.
The original infra-structure still resisted
339
and was actually the third best among Brazilian national parks,
"5
•fUr
-3
2)
behind Itatiaia and Iguacu.
flower beds, four parking
"3
. . . . river
. . swimming
. .
_ . artificial
~O
-3
3
~2)
-3
"*•*
3
-•->
3
3
-^
The core area has paved roads, lawns,
lots and a dirt road
pool.
leading
to an
Around the pool are locker-rooms
and bathrooms, a snack bar, a restaurant for 300 people and a
picnic area for another 250.
Administration facilities included
six offices, a garage, storage buildings, a nursery and herbarium,
metal
and
wood
shops,
a
laundry
area,
a
medical
center,
a
restaurant, seven staff houses and two apartments "reserved for the
Secretary
of Agriculture
and the President
of
the Institute
Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal".
fSf
3
Q
Visitors also had camping grounds and cabins, served by a
third restaurant.
Four collective lodgings were placed on hiking
«7
^
and mountain climbing trails.
"*"
«?
•^
altitude, in Mage.
natural history museum named Martius
•*&
a chapel, camping grounds
3
-
-*?
Q
—\
^
Q
- **~^
W
3
It has natural river pools, a farm house, a
and
(for the German explorer) ,
a soccer
field.6
For
Brazilian
standards, therefore, Serra dos Orgaos is indeed a well equipped
park.
3
A second core area lies at a lower
Although its peaks can be seen from downtown Rio on a clear
day, the park provides demanding hikes and mountain climbs as well
as day trips.
The
It therefore appeals to a wide variety of visitors.
park's
Management
Plan
was
published
in
1980.
An
interesting revelation not mentioned in other sources is that the
park's
main
Teresopolis.
core
area
Urban
is
sprawl
located
inside
the
city
limits
of
therefore is a major threat to the
-•if
Q
park's integrity.
The plan states the park's "intended" area as
O
"""
340
93,7 km 2 , not very far from the original 100 km2.
But it suggested
^&P
Q
a drastic reduction to 40 km2 . The document mentions specific park
—^
areas occupied by small farms and even a small water supply dam
-~N
-\e park limits.
w
Plan drafters proposed a very strict zoning: 80& of "closed
areas", 15% of "primitive" areas
Q
between
w
"special"
"intensive",
"extensive",
(administrative)
Q
""**
m-~s
two
researchers.
importance"
in
The
and the remaining
-"historical-cultural"
and
uses. The ideal staff should add up
\>
to 66: 11 administrative, 19 ranger
document
accordance
5% divided
with
considered
its
the
original
unit
of
"great
objectives.
But
W
another Institute document states that Serra dos Orgaos NP would
-,
have to be at least "three or four times more extensive" in order
O
to properly perpetuate its fauna.7
Again acting as a private citizen, Mario N. Borgonovi visited
Q
the Serra dos Orgaos NP in 1982 and filed a report to the Fundacao
w
Brasileira
"~)
discouraging.
•^
a
--}
controlled only
Q
proposed a 60% reduction in park area, but Teresopolis developers,
defined
de
Conservacao
da
Natureza.
His
findings
42 years after its creation the park still
perimeter.
Of
the
proposed
a controversial 23.5.
100
The
km2
the
Management
-^
Q
-•&
right
on the
edge of the park.
The
substantial
lacked
Institute
Plan had
Borgonovi noted, were still pressing to build on unstable
^)
were
slopes
concession
to
alternative land use interests had backfired into further pressures
on the park.
although
Basic equipment and facilities were still operational
much
of
it
was
in
need
of
repair
and
maintenance.
.
D
341
Borgonovi noticed faulty waste management, an almost complete lack
—
Q
of public
information
and farms inside
park
boundaries.
The
Management Plan was being applied only in part.
~\s in Itatiaia, Borgonovi
felt that personnel
and
infra-
*SB^
•^
structure were excessively directed towards visitation.
"Q
-^
parking
Q
crowds
Q
_
personnel numbered 70, consistent with the Management Plan's ideal
lots, locker rooms
and picnic
Expensive
areas attracted weekend
"not interested" in the park-' s preservation.
In
1977
ISC'
Q
of 66.
But in 1982 the number was down to 36, mainly because of
retirees not being substituted.
12
rangers,
nine
Borgonovi gave a breakdown of the
"}
staff:
gardeners,
three
stone
masons,
two
•^
painters, two watchmen, seven office workers and a director ( the
~\y one with a university degree) . The park had six vehicles, all
•**
of them more than five years old.
--•>
Q
Borgonovi
presented
"minimized".
Facilities
preservation, education
-«y
^
suggestions.
fenced off.
and
Visitation
staff
and research.
should
be
concentrate
on
Park borders should
be
should
Rangers should have proper training.
*
be
closed
and
overnight
^
Visitation
areas
should
<«**
"reactivated"
and
camping
along
be restricted.
trained
guides
should
Cabins should
trails
prohibited.
Research
offer
should
be
environmental
^
education tours for school children.
Q
similar to the ones Borgonovi offered for Itatiaia NP, mentioned
3
*
in Chapter 8.
~|
visitation.
Q
-*•
NP
is
These suggestion were quite
The main point of his suggestions was to restrict
The Institute itself recognizes that Serra dos Orgaos
located
inside
a
"chain
of
cities"
which
generates an
->
--K
O
342
"aggressive" level of visitation.
Borgonovi presented additional material on the land ownership
situation.
In 1941
a private construction
firm called
"Brasil
^)
Construtora" plotted the park's limits.
Based on this work the
-*-
park director stated in 1949 that the "identified area" of the unit
O
was 105 km2.
•3
how much the situation had deteriorated.
-^
"searching"
Q
ownership of a mere 8.4 kmS..
.
10 km2 donated in 1939.
Q
of being repossessed by the family of its original owner.
"**
director offered a contradictory figure of 23.5 km2 under Instituto
A 1979 report by another director, however, showed
Public
Notaries
for
His administration was
documents
"proving"
Instituto
This was less even than the original
The Martius Museum building was in danger
The same
Q
-^
control.7
—-,
Current Situation
Q
The park's political situation is clearly unstable.
Serra
dos
Orgaos
NP's
current
situation
is
much
like
Z^
Itatiaia's.
It is one of the oldest parks; it had golden, days of
Q
good management and proper financial
^
started declining
Q
infra-structure is deteriorating; its land ownership situation is
••&
unresolved, to say the least; personnel is dwindling.
>~
the peculiar problems of urban encroachment and insufficient size.
,^
The lack of natural areas for leisux~e in Rio de Janeiro's
when
visitation
support in the 1940's; it
pressures
mounted;
its good
It also has
*
~3&
^
metropolitan area will continue to push large numbers of visitors
-<*
whether the park is going to continue as a haven for weekend and
towards Serra dos Orgaos NP.
Its managers must decide, therefore,
-~;
343
D
^
holiday visitors.
^
something that seems perfectly feasible.
^
public of hikers, backpackers and mountain climbers can- still have
^)
access
^
education potential of the park is enormous
~)
order to legitimize it.
^
Q
to
If so, they must manage this type of visitation,
primitive
areas.
Bedsides
The smaller but faithful
this,
the
environmental
and must be used in
The most serious problem is clearly the park's insufficient
-v
size.
Q
km2.
^
its fauna.
^
growth areas, with lower fauna supporting capability.
NP,
•*»
"5
\?\
Most probably
it will never consolidate its intended 100
Even if it does, the area is not large enough to perpetuate
Any further expansion will inevitably include second
Serra dos Orgaos NP is plagued
by numerous
As Itatiaia
problems
political determination could have easily solved decades ago.
that
o
W
D
Chapter 10
Tijuca National Park - The Garden in the Machine1
Q
Natural Characteristics •
**?
Q
Tijuca National Park is located inside the city limits of Rio
"*"
de Janeiro.
~^
and longitude 43°.
*^
measures officially 33 km2 .
-}
Park, in New York
•0*
crossed by several paved public roads which connect densely and
,-,
moderately populated areas and divide it into three sections.
*)
of the seven official gates into Tijuca NP lie between 15 to 20
^
minutes by car from downtown Rio de Janeiro and from one or another
^
of
*••
its
It lies roughly on the intersection of latitude 23°
older
phytogeographic
Tijuca National Park
(hereafter Tijuca NP)
It is ten times larger than Central
City, a comparable urban park.
neighborhoods.
and
climatic
The
areas
park
as
is
The park is
inside
Itatiaia
and
All
the
same
Serra
dos
-~\.
<&
Tijuca NP consists primarily of hilly to mountainous areas,
__
with
^
level.
altitudes ranging mostly
The park's
lowest
from 400 m to 1,021 m above sea
altitude is 80 m.
There
are many
^4&
outcrops of steep slopes, vertical walls and- peaks all over the
">
Park.
-—i
-—.,
do Mar range surrounded by sections of the Coastal Plain and by the
0
of this
—.
structure and granitic bases, frequently fractured and eroded by
Q
weathering.
^
conspicuous
Q
^
—\x
sea.
The park lies on an isolated Eastern offshoot of the Serra
Serra do Mar's main ridge lies about 40 km West.
offshoot
is constituted
It has several
outcrop
ridge
of crystal
"pontoes"
called
rock
(bulky
Sumare.
It
The geology
with
gneiss
peaks)
and a
is
itself
in
remarkable for a city of the size of Rio de Janeiro to have grown
around ragged peaks ranging from 720 m
(Corcovado)
to 1,021 m
(Tijuca, the park's summit) right in the middle of its urban area,
*•»>
some of them less than 5 linear kilometers away from the nearest
~
seashore.
Both peaks lie within park boundaries.
Rio's beaches
'SB'
Q
are easily visible from the park's belvederes.
TN
Cachoeira and Maracana rivers, two modest and short streams,
Q
divide Tijuca NP into two main sections: Serra da Carioca and Serra
3
""
^
da Tijuca
(or Tres Rios).
Serra da Carioca comprises the hills
of Santa Tereza, Corcovado, Dona Marta, Cochrane, Gavea and Pedra
•*?
Bonita.
Annual average rainfall is between 1.7 and 2.4 m. The
_
3
average yearly temperature is a pleasant 22° C.
*&
days of rain a year and rainfall is consistently higher than in the
low parts of the city.
than the city's.
The park has 153
Park temperatures are consistently lower
The famous statue of Christ the Redeemer
top of Corcovado peak) is in this section of Tijuca NP.
.^>
•^\s major tourist attraction. On a clear day Rio can be seen
-t£
_
in its entirety from there.
center"
for
Rio's
lower
(on the
It is the
Serra da Carioca is a "water dispersal
areas,
through
a
number
of
streams
-3
-~*
346
3
__
3
including Trapicheiro, Comprido
(which flow down to Rio's North
-V
sector),
towards
Carioca
(flowing
---\) , Cabeca, Rainha and Macacos
the
neighborhood
of
(which flow into Rodrigo
~*s&
V
de Freitas lagoon).
.X.
The Serra da Tijuca section of the park is higher and not so
•**&''
^
entrenched
in the city's
urban
center.
Even
though
it also
""*
-—N
--}
—**
disperses water into many of Rio's neighborhoods, through streams
called Jacare, Joana, Maracana, Anil, Panela, Retiro e Cachoeira.
Rainfall and temperatures are similar to Serr.a da Carioca.
in Tijuca NP slopes
sediments.
Soils
are composed mainly of incompletely eroded
They have varying textures and depths.
The original
X
vegetation was the common one in Brazil's Southeastern coastal
Q
slopes:
"tropical rain
"complex
and
Q
diversified
forest of altitude", with its usually
structure
common
to
stable
tropical
systems".2
•3*^
*$e&
~~\n Occupation
•^
—N
A good deal of Rio de Janeiro city's history has been dealt
with in Chapters 6 and 7.
Original and Tupinamba natives and first
•nff
Q
Europeans
X,
coastline or along the marshy edges of Guanabara bay.
Q
preference for the coastal areas is thus evaluated by a careful
3
*'
study of the park's origins:
^\. [The
"^
*&
^}
^
---
(Portuguese and French) preferred to live along the
The Natives'
Natives]
concentrated
themselves
mainly on the coastline, living off fishing,
hunting and cassava planting.
Although they
had
a relatively developed
agricultural
technology, they do not seem to have lived in
the forested areas. They located their plots
o
\
—s
"^
in areas with a more sparse vegetation. Of
course, they searched the nearby forests for
game, essences and fruit.3
^
3
—\
™
An anecdote with
here.
environmental
coloring
must be •mentioned
Extremely efficient sailors and explorers, the Portuguese
were fooled by Guanabara bay. The first Portuguese expedition to
sail into it, in 1502, called it Rio de Janeiro
(which means
"River of January").
They thought it was the outlet of some big
-^
river comparable to the Plate or the Amazon.
v3
discovered the mistake ~ the bay receives only the waters of
^
rivers
and streams
~ the name
continued
Even after they
to be used
small
and was
V***
vp
eventually sanctioned by tradition despite lack of geographical
v
a
support.
~)
reason for the extensive replanting of forests in the Serra da
•^
Carioca area, more than 350 years later: the protection of the
Q
small streams that supplied the already big city with most of its
^
P
__
drinking water.
,P
The anecdote is relevant because it suggests the exact
This 19th century watershed management effort was
actually the origin of Tijuca NP , as will be shown in this chapter.
It is important to mention that both Native Americans and the
^
first French and Portuguese colonizers in Rio de Janeiro
city
^P
relied almost solely on the small streams rolling down from the
""*'
nearby slopes for their water supply.
•~2
existed around Guanabara bay.
-,-J
than not suffered from salt water intrusion.
"
their water flow, these streams
Q
most important)
As noted, no major river
Wells on coastal lowlands more often
Although modest in
(Carioca and Maracana were the
were permanent and close to the city.
Their water
-3
O
3
348
O
was remarkably clean and it was cheaply tapped with the help of
_
gravity into public fountains located in downtown Rio de Janeiro
^^
^)
and in the main residential neighborhoods.
"**
3
••-s
In fact, by 1720 the Carioca river was channeled by the city's
government through a huge aqueduct leading its waters to downtown
•*m?
w>
Rio.
This grand urban improvement was conceived in 1602, started
-^
in 1657 and concluded only in 1720.
By 1750 it was being expanded
•m)
O
due to increasing demand for water.
"^
fed by this aqueduct.
Q
the 1760's these fountains were the main source of drinking water
"*"'
for all residents
-}
Century
w
Century.
-^
Janeiro was fetching water in public fountains for their masters '
W
houses.4
Even after the city began to grow faster in
(rich, poor and slaves)
and, in some parts of
throughout the 19th
the city, until
the early
20th
One of the main occupations of domestic slaves in Rio de
>»,
^
Q
had sugar cane plots.
3
lower slopes of Jacarepagua.
Q
Public water fountains were
The first small Portuguese trading posts in Guanabara bay
In 1569 Jesuits ran a sugar mill on the
This is the first recorded permanent
^
European settlement in Tijuca NP areas.
•<•*
18th centuries, sugar cane plsintations arid mills existed in several
^
areas around Guanabara bay.
^J
and trees were burned
^
these enterprises seems to have been small they must be mentioned
^
as the first
-•**
forests
/^
Significantly, these sugar cane plantations do not seem to have
by
source
the
Obviously lands were opened for crops
as fuel for them.
of systematic
Portuguese
Later, in the 17th and
in
Although the scale of
exploitation
the
Rio
de
of the nearby
Janeiro
area.
"1
349
O
"climbed" the forested slopes. They remained at lower altitudes in
_^
the city's outskirts.3
'xQ
The nearby forested slopes of Serra da Carioca were useful to
'*y
the local human population in another curious way.
—•)
pirates attacked Rio and part of the population took cover in the
vW
forested hills.
-,
stable basis, though, the area's first permanent inhabitant
..O
most probably small
"^
mixed-blood sml_at_o_s_ who supplied city dwellers with
O
wood and fuel.
'"*"'
higher terrains that today comprise Tijuca NP remained "virtually
-}
untouched" until 1750.
*-J
long enough to shelter a large gjiiljambjo, an illegal community of
-v
<**>
*•)
escaped Black slaves, all the way up to the early 1800's.6
da Carioca and Serra da Tijuca forests were therefore an immediate
_
frontier
Q
Paraiba do Sul Valley
"*"'
Janeiro area as a whole.
""}
In 1711 French
This, of course, was an emergency.
"loggers" and
It is a general
On a more
"coal-makers", free Blacks or
construction
opinion that the forests on the
Some stretches of those forests survived
for Rio de Janeiro
Serra
city, much as the Serra do Mai" and
forests
Rio' s local forest frontier
were
a frontier
for the Rio de
was the first victim of large-
•^
scale coffee plantations in Brazil.
~-,
ever since its port thrived with mining region trade.
f--.
were
Rio had been gx-owing quickly
In 1763,
w
when it became colonial capital, Rio had an estimated population
^
of 40,000 and was growing fast.
^
•*"'
In the late 1760's coffee farms
spread from 6 to 8 km around Rio' s core area.
A few yeax~s latex-
some coffee plantations were established on Serra da Carioca and
~-\a da Tijuca slopes.
They excelled, both in productivity
and
-**>
.-•«%
—''
350
quality.
Some
.. ^
Paineiras)
were spared but lower or gentler ones
O
Grajau and Jacarepagua) were covered with Coffea arabi.c_a before
"O
^
1800.
o
•^
^)
*"*)
w
3
^
steep
Serra
da
Carioca
slopes
(Suinare
and
(Gavea, Andarai,
Serra da Tijuca slopes were affected at the same time.
From
the
1780's
until
the
1820',
roughly,
a
curious
combination of local farmers, Portuguese nobles, French nobles
(exiles
from
the Revolution, or from Napoleonic
wars
or from
O
Napoleonic defeat) , English soldiers arid foreign diplomats made
O
_
fortunes with big coffee plantations inside or on the outskirts of
*m?
Jl
Rio de Janeiro.
*"
Sugar
cane
Some farms had 60,000 to 100,000 coffee plants.
plantations,
cassava,
corn
and
other
staples
were
^uC
~)
^y
dislodged from established fields.
"^
Q
~}
**&
virtually
•*
mountain coffee was considered, in fact, the very best produced in
*~^
^
^
Q
Brazil.1'
untouched
neighboring
Dozens of square kilometers of
forests
decades, starting in the mid-1780 ' s.
were
ravaged
in
two
By the early 1800's Rio ' s
Rio' s mountains were therefore the testing ground for
coffee as a major plantation crop in Brazil.
Q
Q
Besides its status of capital, its busy port arid its booming
Q
coffee farms, the early 19th century brought: n now stitnuliir. ro
"")
*?
Rio's growth.
In 1808,
fleeing Napoleonic
troops
that invaded
.3
Q
Portugal,
packed
his precious
•**
belongings and scrambled over the Atlantic Ocean.
He took with
^
^
him his crazy mother, Maria I, the official Queen of Portugal, and
Q
3
• <*#
Q
more than 20,000 people, between nobles and their families,
-. .
,
soldiers, administrative personnel and clergymen.
Between 1808
and 1821
Regent
Prince
Joao
VI
hastily
(the year prior to Brazil's independence)
Rio de Janeiro
->
--—^
^
played
the ambiguous role of colonial capital and seat of the
.
• —,
Portuguese Empire.
0
351
The shift in international political status was important, in
itself.
,~)
~**
^
—\i
But
the
sudden
arrival
of
20,000
new
and powerful
inhabitants probably meant a 20% overnight increase in the city's
population, estimated as less than 80,000 before 1808.
This
brought deep changes in Rio's social life multiplied the city's
mJ^
•**
stress
on
the
local
environment.
Recently
arrived
nobles,
~,
soldiers, politicians and priests were given privileged access to
^?
available housing and land.
"^
by lucrative coffee plantations
^}
city's "native" elite, was a naturally attractive option for these
"*"
uprooted but still rich and powerful arrivals.8
The Tijuca area, already penetrated
and populated by a part of the
^
"Imperial Tijuca", as it was unofficially called after 1822,
^
when Brazil became an Empire, therefore received an influx of new
residents.
They
were
attracted
by
its
lucrative
coffee
plantations, its still mild climate and its easy access to and from
-..
^y
downtown, only 15 to 20 km away on good roads and streets. Some
^)
families had summer houses in "Imperial Tijuca". There still were
^
no established summer resort towns in the neighboring mountains of
Q
the Province of Rio de Janeiro which Europeans could use to escape
™
Rio's stuffy summer.9
-^
pressures on local forests grew sharply in the years after 1808.
D
So, pre-existing demographic
and economic
As early as August of 1817 Joao VI, still living in Rio de
"1
Janeiro despite Napoleon's final defeat in 1815, ordered the end
Q
of tree cutting in watersheds and stream banks near Rio.
A year
J
O
3
later he ordered land appraisals for- government acquisition of
watershed
areas.
His royal
ordinances are the first recorded
^)
attempt at public management
—
•^
~-x
mountain sections.10
•«y
supply against pressures inflicted or worsened by his own pathetic
^_
•^y
Q
of the city's outlying
hill
and
This blue-blooded, conservative, Portuguese
king had to spend his royal time to guarantee the city's water
and massive escape from Portugal.
Indeed,
action
was
needed.
Rio's
environment
quickly
^
responded to population growth and to coffee's imperial plundering.
<«y
~)
The city was hit by severe draughts in 1824, 1829, 1833 and 1844.
*-
o
—^
The destruction of watershed vegetation combined with lower than
*y
small streams dwindled or dried up.
—,
reestablished their flow their once crystal-clear waters were now
"D
3
silted with eroded particles from the naked hills.
average rainfalls to produce major water supply deficits.
The
When the rainy summer season
One chronicler
estimates than in those years only 15% of the city's water needs
Q
were satisfied through the all-important public fountains.
^v
figure is probably exaggerated because the city's population was
--}
overestimated.
••*
is 35% of the city's needs, still very low indeed.
a
^
'*)
A safer figure for the water supply of those years
deficit, the 1844 draught
Brazilian
This
Imperial
was so evidently
government,
administration, admitted
for
the
which
first
ran
time
Whatever the
severe
the
that the
capital's
the necessity of
Q
acquiring private lands near watersheds in order to protect or
*-
restore their forest cover.11
*~\y the decade of 1840-1850, as mentioned before, the main
-3
.^
353
"~O
coffee plantations
3
immediate
3
Coastal Plain, up the Serra do Mar and in the Paraiba do Sul
"*
o—
Valley, sometimes more
}
*cr
country
**
commercial agriculture was leading to, that country was Brazil in
Q.
the first half of the 19th century.
of
no
outskirts.
European
longer
were
inside
Rio
C_o_fJ!_eia___arjy2_i_c_a_ was
or
even in
spreading
along
than 150 km away from Rio.
culture
had
a clear
warning
its
the
If ever a
of
what
its
There in the nation's very
^
Q
~D
^
Q
Q
capital
^
depleted flora and fauna and - most important from the point of
o
-}
^v
3
-^
were
the eloquent
and unmistakable
signs
of coffee's
aftermath: naked, scoured, eroded slopes, sometimes covered with
local
and alien
(European
and African)
grasses
and ferns,
view of this chapter - a sharp decline in the volume and quality
of the city's water supply.
The alternative of reaching for a more distant and abundant
*3<^
«5
water supply
source
was
not
seriously
considered before
1870.
^
Therefore, the city's administrators in the 1040's were pressed to
Q
protect the modest local streams that quenched the thirst of the
**~
•*y
^
nation's capital and largest city.
An expert on the Tijuca area,
Raymundo Ottoni de Castro Maya, considers that the replanting of
local forests, even in those trying circumstances, was a "chance"
development.12
This author believes
that the barren slopes of
Serra da Tijuca
arid Serra da Carioca would most certainly have
remained exactly as they were or used for pastures or housing, if
not for the pressing water supply issue.
As it was, though, they
had to be managed for watershed restoration.
origin of Tijuca NP.
This was the remote
-/*,
~O
. .rf*t
-"'
-"•>,
w
-s
w
-^,
—'
--s
. -~
w
^)
^
354
Rio de Janeiro's continual growth from a remote trade post to
an important city, colonial capital and national capital was by
1840 threatened by the severe damages inflicted on the sources of
its water supply.
The
fact that there was no "River of
was making itself painfully evident now.
January"
Beginning in 1844 and for
a period of almost 50 years, a series of environmental policy
-vr
"^
^v
decisions was enacted in order to secure the city's watersheds.
•**
w
—N
Although the situation
was pressing the Imperial government was
remarkably slow to start and displayed very little determination
°*s^
•3
Q
^
in its task of restoring
the health or, better stated, the very
existence of the Tijuca forests and streams.
^v
^
^
After coffee moved on to other areas, ". . .the great farms
[in the Tijuca
area]
were gradually broken down into smaller
^
Q
holdings in which important members of the Imperial Court took
•*-
residence".
'T)
•*y
pleasant place to live in Rio de Janeiro even after the 1830 's,
-^
thanks to its altitudes and to the remains of its own forest and
3
3
^
<&?
W
2
Q
of nearby
Grajau) .
Therefore, "Imperial Tijuca" continued to be a very
and much
less
disturbed
ones
(like Paineiras and
The mild climate and easy access downtown were still
attractive to Rio de Janeiro's elite.13
It should be recalled
that the Imperial family, ranking politicians and foreign diplomats
were at that precise time starting to seek refuge in the <
- -i£?
-~-\d slopes of Teresopolis and Petropolis, considerably further
.-i*»
away from Rio.
It is facile to state that the Tijuca Forest was
restored because of its rich and powerful neighbors.
^
But a careful
look at the chronology of the issue reveals that government action
-A,
-•")
v*)
355
-4*.
-^
was far too slow for the sake of Rio's urban growth and the welfare
-*
of the nation's elite.
D
population, rich and poor alike.
Joao
^
VT's
watersheds
Besides, water shortage affected the whole
original
and
making
1817
and
1818
appraisals
of
orders
private
for
protecting
properties
for
government acquisition were simply ignored for more than 30 years.
--*>
Several tanks and reservoirs were bui,lt in the 1830's and 1840's
~J
in the Tijuca and Paineiras forests and small streams were diverted
3
-«,
towards
these
facilities.
In
1833
and
O
government created unspecified "forest preserves" in the Tijuca
~
area, without any practical effects. 14
^5
avoided by government.
A dependable
in
1837
the
national
The basic issue was being
flow of water was needed
before any significant storage could be done.
^
^
w
2
In 1844 the national Department of the Empire
a Department of the Interior)
finally started evaluating a number
of properties in the nearby hills.
before
money
actually
(equivalent to
changed
But it took another 12 years
hands.
In
1856
the
Imperial
government finally bought a number of strategically located farms
and properties along Serra da Carioca watersheds, streams, slopes
and ridges.
At that time Joao VI ' s original ordinances were 40
years old.
Between 1845 and 1848 small-scale tree planting and
forest protection measures had been tried on public and private
lands
in
the
Tijuca
forests,
under
government
supervision.
Coincidence or not, the streams affected by these initiatives held
their water flow during those years.
occurred
and
further damages
were
But water shortages still
being
inflicted
on private
356
forests by logging and coal production.10
In 1853
the Tijuca hills gained a strategic ally
inside
Emperor Pedro II ' s Cabinet: Luis Pedreira do Couto Ferraz, later
Viscount of Bom Retire.
He lived in "Imperial Tijuca" and was a
personal friend of the Emperor.
^L
3
the
Department
of
the
It was in his tenure as head of
Empire
that
the
appraisals
of
private
properties were actually done and that government appropriated
CD
^
o
money for the 1856 and later acquisitions.
•^
•"\
1856 were on the slopes of the Papagaio and Tijuca peaks, between
the Alto da Boa Vista, the Pedra do Conde arid the Acude da
w
-^
-^
Solidao.16
Government
was
finally
The areas acquired in
spurred
to action
by the
-«•'
^
•»y
^
personal advocacy of a Tijuca forest "friend" and resident who also
happened to be the Emperor's friend and close political aide.
-<OF
Q
^
J)
^)
.*"**
^
Still, actual forest management practices did not get under
way immediately.
The water supply problem was in 1859 transferred
to the newly created Department of Agriculture, Commerce and Public
Works.
After a fair number
of adjoining
properties had been
Q
Q
purchased by government
-^
Manuel
Q
^
Q
Felizardo
"provisional
de
the first head of the new Department,
Souza,
instructions"
published
on
December
for the area's
11,
management.
1861
This
document for the first time tried to set rational regulations for
o
reforestation
Q
considered the founding document of Tijuca National Park.
and
conservation.
Today
these
instructions
are
They
-^
called for "regular planting of trees" in the "Tijuca arid Paineiras
^
.....
3
Q
Forests", based on a "system of seedlings" of "native species".
*r**\
Each forest would have an "administrator" - a paid position - an
^
-^
357
overseer and a number of slaves.17
^
At this point, stepped in Manuel Gomes Archer
(1821-1905) ,
~*j
the main character of the Tijuca Forest story.
^
O
^j
as "Tijuca Forest administrator" on December 18, 1861.
slaves
were
assigned
to
him:
Eleuterio,
He was designated
Six black
Constantino,
Manuel,
Mateus, Leopoldo and Maria, together with an overseer.
Brazilian
~)
government owned
shipped
into
the
•^
country,
withheld
from
the
^
regular slave market.
O
in public works.
^
to, was not an officer of the Imperial Army. Although available
Qi
sources do not mention the possibility, he might very well have
^
3
Q
been a regular officer of the Guarda Nacional
a civilian militia that at the time was more important than the
^
professional Army.
many black
apprehended by
illegally
authorities
and
It was rather common for them to be employed
"Major" Archer, as he was arid still is referred
(National Guard),
Born in Rio de Janeiro, Archer was a farmer and
*^
land
-^
seemingly lacked any formal training in botany or forestry but was
—^
>*s*
Q
already known iri 1861 as an expert in local vegetation, especially
^1
Q
owner
the
slaves
in Guaratiba,
about
80 km
South of
the
city.
He
in forests.18
Archer
commanded
the
most
important
part
restoration of a crucial section of Rio's forests.
of
the
actual
The 16 km2 of
forests replanted by Archer and his crew became known as the Tijuca
^
_J
-Cy
.^
Forest.
It is still considered the first and only
experiment
world.
in
tropical,
multiple
species
large scale
reforestation
in the
Archer started working two weeks after his appointment: on
January 4, 1862 he was in the field planting the first set of the
O
,
of
..-».
thousands
Q
jurisdiction
^
systematically, covering selected slopes with certain combinations
~)
of
^
Although the possibility is not mentioned in available sources,
-N
Archer's combination of species might have reflected his knowledge
^v
of natural floral populations and distributions in successional or
X
climax stages.
species,
Q
seedlings
in
the
attending
introduced
12
years
first
of
the
in
the
358
his
more
area
under
tenure.
severely
He
his
worked
eroded
areas.
He used seedlings, as opposed to seeds or young trees employed
'^
before by others.
^j
insights
^*'
many seedlings gathered directly in the neighboring
Q
preserved Paineiras Foi'est, which had another administrator.
•^
received
—N
established in 1810 at the edge of the Gavea Forest.
ty
had also been victimized by coffee and was originally connected to
X
the
Q
recommended the use of the Garden's seedlings.
^
the origin of the exotic specimens introduced by Archer because the
"^
Botanical Garden was widely used to adapt exotic plant species.
^
Archer also used seedlings developed at the nursery on his farm in
^
Guaratiba or collected in local undisturbed forests.
. J)
created and
";f
itself.
^
on Rio's environmental history.
seedlings
Tijuca
In 1867
area.
The origins of his seedlings provide further
Forest.
ran
a
from
The
Rio
de
He initially employed
Janeiro's
"provisional
tree seedling nursery
Botanical
in
already
lie
Garden,
This forest
instructions"
in
fact
This was probably
the
government acquired more properties
By 1873 Archer was
and better
Later he
Tijuca
Forest
in the Tijuca
cutting some isolated
"wild
I
0
'O
• -»-,
W
^
^y'1
^
359
trees" whose canopies had protected, the young planted seedlings.
The use of proper seedlings - natural or from nearby nurseries -
-*—i.
w
with a methodical, long-range plan in mind was enough to contrast
**&
t}
xs*
^
*^
w
--••>
Archer's work from the scattered, discontinuous
faulty reforestation efforts of the 1840's.
and
technically
In 1870 a new draught
hit Rio and gave his work more publicity and further government
v*-
support.19
But Archer's work had At least three other aspects
Q
^
that made xt a unique and pioneering experience in forestry; the
W
Q
rate of planting, the rate of survival and the option of using many
species of trees, mostly native and local species.
W
Q
aspects will be analyzed here.
v-
later in this chapter.
The first two
The third one will be addressed
V*1
Q
Between 1862 and 1874, when he resigned his post, Archer must
W
Q
—-,
have worked
Q
One of the reasons for his resignation in 1874 was precisely the
X
shortage of workers.
overseer.
with
an
average of
less
than
10 slaves
and one
Frequently he had no more than the six original ones.
In 1865, for example, Archer lost a number
*y
Q
^
3
Q
•^
*•'
-->
of workers.
All chores fell upon the small crew: clearing and
surveying the land, marking out the area's limits, falling of sick
or dead trees, digging plantation, transportation and planting of
seedlings,
continuous
checking
for
their
survival,
providing
replacements, caring for successful seedlings, running
the local
. - -*^F
^
O
^
..-V
Q
"2
nursery, purchasing and transporting implements, home-keeping and
so on. Archer himself, besides his activities in the field, wrote
extraordinarily
detailed
annual
reports
of his activities. He
surely had to go downtown for eventual administrative matters at
o
-->,
•vy
W
Q
360
the Department of Agriculture.
He also went frequently
to his
farm, which at that time must have been at a distance of more than
two days travel f r o m R i o . 2 0
vy
V0
The data in Table 32 gives an idea of the intense rate and
^
vy
—^
\.y
the great amount of work done by Archer and his overworked crew of
slaves between 1862 and 1872:
v^
xW
-x
v"*
vV
Table 32
'
Number of Seedlings Planted in the Tijuca Forest For Selected
Years or Periods Between 1862 and 1872 (including
survival rates)
Q
^)
^
Year
^V
v}
^
^J*
^
^V
1862
1865 !
1868 2
1869-1871
1872
"^
<-*
3
->.
Notes
1 - Probably 1863-1865
2 - Probably 1866-1868
3 - Estimation
•v
-,
*•*
-^
<v-'*
Number of Trees Planted
Survival Rate
13,613
11,282
12,932
23.658
3,585
79%
84%
77%3
79%
•
_Source : Atala et a l , F 1 or e_s t a da T i luc a , pp.
A r c h e r ' s o f f i c i a l reports.
_
31-35, citing
Although available sources do not present a precise total of
3
j*
•*.'*
-^
-3
Sk
—*??
^
-3
""
planted seedlings,
60,000 is a good estimate for Ax'cher's whole
tenure. His own figure is 61,852.
These figures refer only to
. .
surviving trees, though. Considering the available survival rates
(averaging around 80%), we can suppose that at least 20% more trees
(12,000)
were planted and
died.
The
total number of planted
-A
--'*)
^—^
'"3
361
~O
-^
seedlings in Archer's tenure must have been, therefore, 72,000.
—^
^
Considering an average of 6 slaves for the period, each one must
__~
have planted 12,000 trees in 12 years, or a 1,000
^)
This figure, by today's standards, may seem ridiculously low.
w
it impresses this author as a very good rate, considering that (i)
-^
the operation was run by government, (2) the workers were unpaid
.^
^
slaves, (3) most of the planting was d6ne on very steep slopes, (4)
-^
^•^
"-,
w
no modern equipment
^
same crew.
or
technology
was
trees-per year.
available and
But
(5) a_ll.
preparation, maintenance and complementary chores were done by the
^)
The 80% survival rate of seedlings seems extremely high.
The
^
intensive use of native species and of locally produced seedlings
Q
seems to have been a basic reason for this success.
vvV
his last report as administrator, Archer complained about the small
In 1874, in
•~\r of workers at his disposal:
•**
Q
-^
If the number of workers does not reach 30,
as is indispensable, it will be necessary to
interrupt further planting in order to
w
care exclusively for the trees already
_P
planted; if the present workers cannot
^~\m all the chores demanded by the 61,852
^
planted trees, how would they be able to open
•^
up new plantations?2j
^
Actually, Archer's question was derived from the very success
,^J
of his work.
^
his crew became overworked with the mere task of caring for them.
Q
Further replanting, which was still necessary to consolidate the
—-*-
So many trees had been planted and had survived that
Tijuca Forest, required more labor.
^^
o
-^
~) ,— -~t
J O «1
In the same report he mentioned another eloquent proof of his
-^
good work, stating that all "...stream headwaters that have been
-A
covered with trees have released more water or remained at a stable
(I
level [as compared to the period before 1862]".
^K.
had been the major objective of the reforestation project.
0
growing
^
Census, in 1872, found 275,000 inhabitants in the city of Rio de
~;
Janeiro.
^
1822, when it had an estimated 95,000 inhabitants.7*
-^
city needed
that water.
After all, this
The first official
The
Brazilian
Its population had almost tripled in the 50 years since
It
should
be
added
that
a
large
part
of
the
government
w
acquired properties on Rio's slopes remained untouched by Archer's
-,
reforestation efforts.
Q
growth and established as union protective forests in the mid-2Gth
!T
J
Q
century.
^
number
-^
reforested much of these slopes as well as he did in the 16 kin2 of
^
the Tijuca Forest.
They
This helps explain
were left to successional second-
the concentration
of this type of
conservation unit in the Rio de Janeiro city area.
•*-}
of
workers
it
is
conceivable
that
"With a larger
Archer
could
have
Appax'ently skeptical about the response to his demands for
-^
more workers, Archer resigned his post in mid-1874.
X
significant that he was invited to work in Petropolis, the imperial
^
resort city established
It is very
80 km away from Rio de Janeiro, in the
"^
mountains of the Province of Rio de Janeiro.
'Q
summers in cool Petropolis and Archer was hired by the Emperor
3
Pedro
3
^
II himself
forests.
to work
Archer was hired
on
Rio's elite now spent
the preservation
of Petropolis'
to save Petropolis forests from the
J6J
O
depletion that had crippled the ones in Tijuca.
occupied
the
Jl
administrator,23
•^
Archer's
--%
3
position
Petropolis
Available
achievements
conservation
of
pioneer
in
might
sources
Imperial
yielded
Petropolis,
well
He eventually
but
have
been
Palace
nothing
this
about
Brazilian
involved
in
the
preservation of areas later included in Serra dos Orgaos NP and
•-—s
X
Q
other local preservation units in the Petropolis area.
Archer and his slave crew performed the basic groundwork of
""*
restoring
TJ
reestablished their modest water supply.
*•**
of Tijuca
^
the
Tijuca
Forest.
They
Forest administrator
successor, lieutenant-colonel
was
saved
its
streams
and
For three years, the post
vacant.
In 1877
Archer's
Gastao de Escragnolle, an ex-Army
-5
officer and descendant of a French family that lived for many years
-,
in the Tijuca area, continued the work.
3
had much more
_
planting trees, although working on a much smaller scale.
^)
crucial Serra da Carioca slopes had been mostly covered by 1874.
v
So Escragnolle
Q
Tijuca Forest accessible and pleasant to its neighbors
«*
himself and his family)
^
Q
support
than Archer.
Escragnolle seems to have
He completed the task of
The
concentrated his efforts on making the replanted
(including
and visitors.
No available policy documents indicate an official government
decision to add leisure and visitation to what until then had been
strictly a reforestation and watershed management effort. With the
•Q
help of a French naturalist and landscaper, Auguste F. M. Glaziou,
<*
Escragnolle seems to have decided on his own to open roads, parks,
^
belvederes,
fountains,
trails,
bridges
and artificial
lakes.
b
D
' 364
'_X
v^
-"•s
xW
Glaziou, it should be recalled, was one of the many naturalists who
Z|
w
\^j
-3
explored
x
\
-—>
the Itatiaia region and added to its fame.
landscaped two important Rio public parks
Campo de Santana)
and
He also
(Passeio Publico and
the Emperor's Palace grounds
in Rio.2'1
Escragnolle's administration was therefore the first to manage the
v*^
Q
^w1
„
w
Q
V7*
Tijuca
Forest
as
a
leisure
area
Watershed restoration
was still
the
general
important, though.
worth mentioning that in his tenure of 11 years
Escragnolle
,w
Archer's total for a similar period.
—s
for
population.
v*&
^
Q
intended
planted 21,500 new seedlings,
less
It is
(1877 to 18S7)
than a third of
No figure for survival rates
is available but they probably remained stable at 80%. So we can
v^
*•*
Q
_,
-^*^
^)
estimate that the Tijuca Forest was replanted from 1862 to 1887
with some 95,000 seedlings, which translates into 76,000 surviving
Q
^T
and seedlings naturally generated from planted trees push
trees.
An unspecified number of survivors from the original forest
this
v-*1
Q
figure up.
^y
•—•x
•^
"•)
least 4,750 planted trees per km2 over a period of 25 years.23
-<sf
fate of the Tijuca Forest and other government owned slopes. In
Q
The Tijuca Forest was therefore reestablished with at
A last note on Rio' s water supply issue is relevant to the
^-^
1889 the Imperial government hired the
^
^
to tap water from watersheds of the Cachoeira da Serra Velha e Gao
"^'
Pedro River.
•^
^
v*»
-i*~\r
^
engineer Paulo de E'rontin
Besides having a much larger volume of water these
sources were considerably further away from the city.
Frontin was
immediately and
and
completely
successful
in
his
task
in
the
following years the Tijuca Forest's streams soon became unimportant
^x
365
—-^
for
~^
Frontin's waterworks would certainly have affected the replanting
'"^)
of the Tijuca Forest in a negative way.
^
Rio's
general
water supply
water1
would
supply.26
If
have certainly
accomplished
earlier
An alternative source of
meant still
more government
^.*s
.~2
procrastination
and
lack
of
initiative
in
the
Tijuca
Forest
restoration effort.
<**)
<«
***
o^
From the point of view of the local population's life quality,
therefore, Frontin's water works came just in time. Not only did
they bring
more water but they
eillowed
for the completion of
w
O
Archer's and Escragnolle's reforestation. Significantly, after the
o
"
early 1890's the Tijuca
^
total administrative abandonment.
^
shortage lasted long enough for the reforestation and conservation
Q
Fortunately
the water supply
policies to be almost fully implemented.
•^
—^
Forest went through 50 years of almost
Available
information
about
the
fate
of
the
extensive
D
government owned lands inside the national capital becomes scarce
_
for the 54-year period between 1889 and 1943. The third and last
Q
~
19th
O
sources was Luis Pedreira de Magalhaes Castro.
3
short, 1890-1894.
•Q
his activities. 27
•^
^
century Tijuca
An
excellent
administrator
recorded by available
His tenure was
Nothing was found about the administrator or
and very
detailed
study
of
the
area's
occupation, by Tereza Scheiner, reveals nothing more than
J3
jurisdiction
'"
From
^
Forest
1874
human
numerous
shifts for the half century between 1890 and 194U.
to an
unspecified
date
the
government owned areas were considered
Tijuca
Forest
and
other
"forest preserves" of the
-^
_ <*>
^
366
Department of Agriculture.
From an unspecified date until 1941
_~
they were under the Department of Education and Health.
"O
3889,
^
~"^5
"^
••—•i
December
5,
Agriculture's
three
part
of
returned
them
to
the
Service E'lorestal Federal, which
Brazilian
Nacionais.
1941,
national
parks
through
its
Decree Law
Department
of
by then managed
Secao
de
Barques
The replanted Tijuca Forest, a smaller but more urban
the
area,
was
put
under
Federal
District
government
3
•~*\^
responsibility in 1944, either by Decree Law 7182 or Decree Law
7459.
It was managed by a local water supply and waste water
,Q
agency.
In 1946 the Tijuca Forest was shifted inside the Federal
District government, landing in another Service E'lorestal, under
Q
the district's Department of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce. 28
^*
No
^
*"i
information
about
tree
planting
or
available for the period between 1887
Tijuca
Forest and other outlying
forest
and 1943.
management
is
The replanted
second growth forest preserves
~-\m to have held their flora and boundaries despite Rio ' s enormous
9
population growth between 1890 and 1940.
„
This
shift
to the federal capital's
jurisdiction
was the
•»y
Q
resurrection of the Tijuca areas as far as active conservation and
*
preservation are concerned.
*~}
under loose federal jurisdiction and were subsequently transformed
*&
into
^
Dodsworth,
_Q
union
protective
invited
Other government owned areas remained
forests.
Raymundo
"restore the Tijuca Forest".
The
Ottoni
mayor
de Castro
of
Rio,
Maya
Henrique
in 1943 to
Maya was -a rich local industrialist
^
and a patron of art and community activities. His tenure went from
Q
1943 to 1947.
Maya is proud to say that he was a "one dollar man",
o
-•^)
--**)
-fl*./
3G7
"^
a volunteer administrator, and that he put some of his own money
*~s
—\o
~2
the
area's
development.
20
years
later
he
stated
his
objectives in the following words:
O
-"'
0
-}
^
W
^
*^
^
^
I wanted to show the general public what a
national park could be; the Tijuca Forest
would be a miniature sample of what could be
done throughout the whole country, taking
advantage of scenic beauties and protecting
them from "civilization", which comes in with
destructive axes and falls the forests, only
to use its humus and soon abandon it,29
0
Maya did not criticize the area's prior administration. All
V
Q
^\
Q
—i
>*'
he says
is that until
1943
no one was
"responsible"
for it.
Indeed, he probably was the area's first specific administrator
since 1894,
Maya himself
stated vaguely
that after 1894
the:
Federal District's government maintained roads, while the federal
•~\
^•,,
*&?
Agriculture
Department,
and
later
the
Education
and
Health
Q
Q
^
Department, cared for forests and watersheds.
He emphasized that
rorests and watersheds remained protected.
Much ot
Glaziou's
"&?
Q
ittprovements had been reclaimed by the forest, though.
^
trails, roads, houses, lakes and other features were in "very bad"
"
)
*9P
condition.
3
•***}
•**
3
^
Some of the forest's limits were unclear.
Plazas,
As his
restoration works proceeded Maya felt his efforts "rewarded" by the
regular stream of visitors attracted to Tijuca Forest on Sundays,
•^*
_^3
"O
with crowds he estimated at "5,000" big
194/) ,
An
interesting
(the year was probably
detail: Maya says he found
"systematic
—-*ir
Q
--•*^
opposition"
from
the
federal
Service
Florestal
against
his
intentions to make a "miniature" national park out of the area.--"
^
Inter-agency
rivalries might have played a role in either
-^)
retarding
or selecting the Tijuca area for future choice
as a
"O
•^
national park area. Anyway, Maya's brief administration saved many
•*ir
-^
of the area's visitation and leisure installations and equipments
•^
--•"^i
~)
~
from almost 50 years of neglect.
•«y
of the city
Considering the enormous growth
in those five decades
it is surprising
Q
•"^
artifacts could be restored at all.
^
3
Q
or tree planting seems to have done by him, .though.
successional
*-v
established
Q
-A
•«*
^
—,
•*?
—
«*
^
and remaining
that the
No further forest management
Replanted,
original
forests were already well
and formed a continuous
green canopy that enhanced
Rio's fame for natural beauty.
A few observations about Tijuca HP's flora are relevant here.
The park's forests are considered by its present day managers to
be in a state of "regeneration" . Natural reproduction of trees was
^
W
"~)
slopes and a rich selection of bushes, herbs, vines, flowers and
~*
grasses reconstituted itself.
Q
considered a second growth forest whose maturity was accelerated
•**
by proper reforestation.
3
.2
restored. A lush and continuous green canopy covered all preserved
Technically, the park's flora is
At least 148 streams still roll down the
•*--.
park's slopes and some of them furnish drinking water to isolated
V
Q
^
--,<J
Q
houses, farms and small neighborhoods on the park's Southern and
"**
...3
-^
-~4>
«^
Surprisingly , the replanting of the Tijuca Forest has had little
Western outskirts.31
The replanted garden fared well, considering
the rate
of
of growth
the urban
machine
that
surrounds
it.
or no influence on Brazilian forestry practices, management or law.
It seems to be a forgotten episode of pioneering tropical, large
3
-J
"""
•w
•~)
-^
369
scale, multi-species reforestation.
Forests inside Tijuca NP are "...mostly similar to the ones
occurring in other coastal areas of Brazil; [there are] a large
O
•-}
number
of
species
in
W
convoluted
Q
~
disturbed original ones
terrains".
small
The
areas,
Tijuca
a
humid
Forest
(such as Paineiras)
environment. and
(replanted),
the
and the successional
•V*
Q
—^
**^
w
^
*D
^
second-growth
forests
in
the
park
have
consolidated
"...a
continuous series of vegetation forms, from trees, bushes and herbs
to vines and epiphyts", besides grasses and flowers.
A dense
canopy created a heavily shaded, humid environment that sustains
•nt
~\l conditions for the forest's regeneration and succession.:! '^
Q
—^
«v
Q
engendered a rich and diversified floral community.
^
is replanted.
Successional communities in. c_ap_oe_J.i^as- can also be
Q
identified
the expert.
^
3
Q
laypersons are struck by the diversity and richness of floral life
Q
Archer's
tree
planting
and
natural
regeneration
have
The trees'
age distribution reveals to experts' eyes that the Tijuca Forest
by
inside the park.
Even
though,
both
scientists and
At least 30 species of native hardwoods and some
**'
10 species of exotic fruit trees are present. Hundreds of native
-Q
—\, bushes, herbs, flowers, ferns, vines, epiphyts and lianas
•**&
V
crowd the forest floors.
Lichens, algae, mosses and grasses add
.Q
_
.-*$
^
to the "authentic biological treasure" of Tijuca NP.33
Two final observations on Lhe park's
tlora
are relevant.
Q
First, Archer's reforestation was deliberately done- with a large
-^
^
number of tree species - mostly native - a detail that obviously
"""">
--**>
distinguishes it from other large scale reforestation practices
i/aa.
O
37°
'**
executed at the time and from 20th century reforestation canons.
^
^»y
This
•^
J
—,
W
m5
W
i
«»
remained unclear.
directive was decided by Archer himself
for reasons
that
Second, the combination of the restored Tijuca
Forest with original remaining ones and with successional
growth forests makes
the park
a unique
living
second
laboratory
for
studies in tropical forest ecology, enabling
scientists to develop
/
\
long range, comparative observations.
In 1988, replanted,
~^
«*
remaining and second growth forests inside Tijuca National Park and
^«y
~~~\n nearby union protective forests still covered the considerably
^
\*
-\.
•«*
<*&
3
^
Q
large area of 175 km 2 , almost six times the .area of the park
The
relative abundance
of
information
techniques is another asset for these scientific observations.3'1
Creation of Tijuca National Park
.^
In 1960
the Tijuca Forest
Q
^
government
*'
•«sy
")
•«^
«
Brasilia became Brazil's capital.
..Q
^
-«s?
about Archer's
of Guanabara
State,
was
passed
created
on to the ephemeral
in the Rio
area
when
In 1961 the federal government
created Tijuca National Park, with the original name of Rio de
Janeiro.
It was not possible to establish if the park was created
contrary to park service personnel opinion, as suggested by Maya's
Q
remarks written later in the 1960 's. Managed by the Department of
Q
Agriculture's Secao de Parques Nacionais, Tijuca NP indeed became
~~*p
^\ti*^Maya had envisioned: a miniature national park inside a major
______
-•*•3
--,
.-t^f
-Q
city.
The park was composed with the replanted Tijuca Forest, its
leisure facilities and nine union protective forests
(their names:
Tijuca, Andarai, Trapicheiro, Gavea Pequena, Paineiras, Silvestre,
-3
-•*^
-^
3
3
3
3
"3
--)
371
Sumare, Tres Rios and Covanca}.
The Tijuca Forest proper, though,
remained under Guanabara state jurisdiction until 1975, when the
state was extinguished.33
3
***
The Maracana river basin divides the park into two separate
but neighboring parts.
The dividing valley floor arid lower slopes
—•)
have highly
Rio
3
separated from the other two by public roads and private lands.
3
—v
The whole park is surrounded by urbanized areas -of Rio de Janeiro
3
city and cut by public roads connecting them with each other.
3
major
urban
developed
tunnels
mountains. They
neighborhoods.
have been
carved
A
third
section
through- the base
is
Two
of the
absorb much of the traffic of cars, trucks and
buses between Rio's neighborhoods.
Tijuca NP is a mountain top
national park inside a bristling Third World metropolis.
Rio is
actually the ninth largest urban agglomeration in the world.
This
location has been from the start a serious handicap to the park's
integrity.
In 1967 the park was redefined and renamed as Tijuca.
of Covanca and Andarai
areas were lost
(urban mountain slope slums).
to encroaching
Part
fayelas
In 1967 Tijuca NP was inherited by
^
the Institute, which manages it jointly with Rio de Janeiro city
^
government,
^
section of the park.36
still
responsible
for managing
the Tijuca
Forest
m
^
^
Administration of the Tijuca National Park
As might be expected Tijuca NP is a highly visible national
park and abundant information is available about its virtues and
O
-3
372
problems.
•"*
"3
Only a few dimensions will be discussed to convey its
current situation.
The Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao
da
-x
Natureza, for example, has dedicated much attention to Tijuca WF.
O
In 1967 it created its Natural and Historic Monument Preservation
"Q
Committee.
The
initial
work
of
this
committee was
entirely
•K!f
^
dedicated
to Tijuca NP and the park's
administration provided
^
office space for it in the modest building of the park's Fauna
Q
~\. Since 1967 park lands have been extensively researched by
^«^
**
Q
--,
Archeologist
Architects
Carlos
and
Manes
Bandeira
Museologists .
This
and
is
a
team
the
of
longest
Historians,
continuous
>^^
Q
«•)
_^
•^
^
archeological project ever done in Brazil.
have located, plotted
and
excavated
Bandeira and his team
86 remains of farm houses,
slave houses, warehouses, waterworks, fountains, stretches of roads
and other artifacts belonging to the coffee farms acquired by the
•*e^
•j
Imperial government in the 1850 's and 1860 's or simply abandoned
•**
3
-^
at the same time.
thousand objects have been retrieved, restored and identified.
**
3
--,
«^
Q
All sites were described in detail and several
Bandeira today wants to create a "Coffee Farms Museum" inside
the park.
This museum will have originals or reprints of ail known
paintings, engravings, drawings
Txjuca area.
and photographs of the Serra da
Its main attraction, though, will be a sampling or
^
!
^
^
the plethora of household and farm objects retrieved by his team,
— *-•
which
-^
-~%
stoves, chairs, pens, tools and so on.
.^y
located at least one extensive remain of a coffee plantation, where
-3
'
^
include
clocks, pottery, silverware, kitchen implements,
Interestingly, Bandeira
"thousands" of doomed Caff_ea_ a.r_ab_ica bushes hopelessly compete with
second growth.37
The educational importance of this work
^)
and of the proposed museum is enormous.
^
the general population
^
coffee farm past.
•3
environmental group's initiative than to Institute interest, even
^
w
so easily
Nowhere else in Rio can
be informed about the city's
This archeological project owes much more to the
though the park administration has consistently supported it.
An important park administration project, mentioned in Chapter
_
5, was developed between 1969 and 1974.
Q
NP director, and Adelmar Coimbra Filho, a Biologist from the Museu
"^
o
Nacional
Q
conceived project of floral and faunal management.
•*•'
consisted of two parts.
do Rio
de
Janeiro,
The
directed
Antonio Aldrighi, Tijuca
a pioneer
first was
and
carefully
The project
the planting of floral
Q
—\s capable of supporting certain animal species.
Fruit trees
•<*
and berry bushes were planted, some of them native, some of them
—,
exotic
,J
introduced by Archer or Escragnolle.
X,
planted
Q
numbers of specimens of 30 species of mammals, 100 species of birds
"**
"*~^
-*-)
and several species of reptiles were released into park areas.
•^
articles
_
-*&
^)
conditions.
golden
" *"
frustrated by
species
that
already
existed
in
the
park's
forests,
Rare native orchids were also
The second part was the introduction of animals.
Coimbra
Filho
which
and Aldrighi
reveal
several
described
aspects
their work
of
the
park's
Modest
in three
natural
The reintroduction of the locally extinct, endemic
marmoset
the
(Leontopithe cus
existence
Q
(Call i t hr ix j a c_chus^)
—*
niche.
of
an
ros ali a) ,
for
introduced
which successfully
was
marmoset species
occupied
This introduced species, originally
example,
the specific
from the Brazilian
D
3
"3
374
-TJ
Northeast,
is
a
-"'
'3
—x
reproduced
in the
common
pet.
Strayed
"wilderness"
marmoset populations
of
specimens
successfully
the park's forests.
Golden
were later reintroduced in Poco das Aritas
^fOff
Q
Q
^
National Biological Preserve, 100 kin to the North, as described in
Chapter 4.
"^18^
^
^
Other
lesser
locally
extinct,
anteater
(Tamandua
Q
'
-\^
native
r
t.
species
were
reintroduoed:
tetradac.ty 1 a) ,
common
sloth
'
striped
sloth
(Brady pus
•*!#>
"**
3
—^
tjor^g_uatjas_} , mammals.
Many birds, including p s i t a c i d e s
(parrot'., " ~.
like species), ranphastides
(toucans)
and songbirds were
xQ
released.
_
^»
Q
marsupials
W
^*^
Q
'"""
At
least
and
two
several
besides some amphibians.
to illustrate
species
species
of
of
snakes.,
two
butterflies
species
of
were released,
This project was mentioned in Chapter 5
a problem that plagues some of Brazil's national
•^f
^
parks: insufficient area to support viable populations of native
**
Q
-j
fauna.
•*«?
Q
-x
the Serra da Tijuca from the nearby Serra do Mar range slopes is
Coirnbra Filho and Aldrighi
limited by Tijuca NP's small size
also
mentioned
as
a
restrictive
considered
(33 km2).
factor
to
their
prospects
The "isolation" of
the
local
fauna's
4?
^
survival.
3
and mostly urbanized stretches of the Coastal Plain.
Q
^
Indeed, the two mountain areas are separated by large
Coimbra Filho and Aldrighi mention how the intense lights that
•«*
-Q
^
illuminate the statue of Christ, the Redeemer, kill insects that
_,Q
.Q
third
,3
integrate the food chain and/or pollinate floral species.
and
last
article
describing
the
project,
the
In the
authors
acknowledge a "clear improvement" in the local flora and
fauna
~o
-^
375
Q
since the beginning of their work.
Years later Aldrighi still
•^
mentioned
the
--N
considered the possibility of closing the park's gates at night in
W
order to restrict access of a new wave of human plant and fruit
3
the
positive
effects
of
1969-1974
effort
and
gatherers and hunters attracted by the improvement of the park's
Q
flora and fauna.38
Q
^
only project of its kind done in a Brazilian national
Q
w
Another
It should be recalled here that this was the
curious aspect of the park's ecology
park.
is that many
stray pets find their way into the forests and remain there, even
-\f not necessarily well adapted to them.
Besides the marmoset
«^
C a 11 i t h r i x 2 a cchu s mentioned above, many cats .and dogs live and
—N
reproduce on park fringes or near visitor areas.
Q
regions
^
Helmut Sick, a leading ornithologist in Brazil, made a checklist
Q
of birds sighted in the municipality of Rio de Janeiro, based on
*""
travellers' and naturalists' accounts and on his own observations.
~~i
He found the impressive total of 410 species, of which only five
•*#
have become locally extinct.
—-s
Northern "visitors", stragglers and introduced species.39
«s?
diversified landscape of
~
mangroves, lagoons and forested mountains is responsible for the
Q
variety
or countries
of the bird
**
shelter bird species
^*~^
-•**
-^\,
*&? including alien species.
**
3
Birds from other
take shelter in the dense park
He
canopies.
included native, Southern and
The
the municipio, with beaches, marshes,
fauna.
Tijuca NP forests
attracted
to
closed,
certainly
shaded,
help
isolated
Some floral management has been done recently in Tijuca NP.
An anonymous and undated report, probably
from 1978, describes a
-'-*»>
376
flora "restoration" project developed by a scientific consultant
and a landscaping
firm on some of the park's boundaries.
The
objective of this .work, contracted by the park's administration,
was
to
"reduce"
the possibilities
of
vegetation of some of the park's edges.
fires
by
upgrading
the
Although "90%" of the park
were described as "covered with forest canopy", the remaining 10%
were "degraded" and easily invaded by grasses, coloniao
maximum) , g or dura
^
••W
^)
cojitr_ac_t_a) .
( MeJJj2Jj3___jnimj^^
and
sape
(Panicuin
(
In Rio ' s relatively dry winter these three species
of grass are highly subject to fire.
The project's rationale was to control grasses
and enhance
"\^
~\s for "climax" tropical rain forest communities, naturally
^S*--
"^
resistant to fire.
--X
*&
•^
bushes and ground cover vegetation, combined in a way to control
x^
3
^.,
W
Q
Nf"
grasses.
The consultant selected 28 species of trees,
The selection favored native, fast-growing and wind-
resistant species.40
The report indicates that actual planting
was started but its completion is uncertain. Fires are still common
in and around Tijuca NP , specially in the dry months of June ana
Human artifacts introduced over the centuries in park areas
allow a bx^oad view of its different uses. The most, obvious ones
are listed below:
1 - ditches, pipes, reservoirs and tanks, an extensive network
of waterworks for the city's water supply, some of them underground
or hidden, others quite conspicuous
and complex pieces of
equipment;
2 - roads, streets, bridges, gates, street-car rails and a
railroad, a large network of routes for getting into and across
the park in vehicles; some more level road stretches have been
intensively used in recent last years for jogging and distance
o
-~.
377
•%!^
Q
~i
'•%-ir
._
**
^
—.
"^
-.Q
"^
..-^
^
^
—
'^
W
--)
X
^
,^)
-A
""*"'
W
Q
markers have been painted on the asphalt or road-side rocks or
nailed to road-side trees;
3 - trails
(for hikers, campers, horse riders and off-road
vehicles) ;
4 - power transmission lines that lead to several conversion
stations in the lower parts of the hills;
5 - Radio and TV transmitters and antennas, conspicuously
located on the park's highest ridges;
6 - More than 40 buildings, including a chapel, Escragnolle's
house, administration facilities, sheds, railroad stations,
restaurants and others;
7 - plazas, belvederes,lawns, playgrounds and picnic areas;
8 - an unofficial visitor center, with bars, restaurants and
souvenir stands;
9 - a hotel with 42 apartments, plazas, parking lots and a
railroad station;
10 - The statue of Christ, the Redeemer, about 25 m tall,
surrounded by extensive belvederes, stairways, souvenir stands, a
restaurant, bars, a railroad station, parking lots, bathrooms, a
powerful illumination system and ranger residences;
11 - 10 private houses still occupied .by their owners,
scheduled to be acquired;
12 - a gliding platform
Q
VW
i;
•J
Q
"^
Less evident artifacts can'be found by a careful observer.
Some of them are no longer
useful: old public water-fountains;
'
artificial, road-side waterfalls; old railings, benches and larnpposts; old trails; old fence posts,
stakes and stone markers.
Q
^
"~~\'
Q
—N
-•jar
-^
Q
^^
Small and big artifacts somehow
probably
down)
the
slopes, mainly
as urban
rubbish:
car
found
their way up
(or more
tires,
street car rails, decayed arid non-identifiable pieces of metal,
coins, keys.
in the
There are x-eferences to Portuguese cannons being set
1600's
in the city's higher
slopes,
maybe
inside park
.s?sr
Q
boundaries, in order to protect Guanabara bay's narrow entrance
-^
^j
—s
- v^^P
against invaders.
Actual sites or arms have never been found.
In
the 1930's at least some of the park's roadways were used for car
»?**)
races.41
All these artifacts trace the variety and intensity of
O
378
many centuries of human presence in and around, the stranded Tijuca
NP.
Environmental education has not been a strong component of
Tijuca NP.
There is a Federal Fauna Museum which dates back to
Maya's administration in the 1940's.
Besides not being located
inside park boundaries, it is an exceedingly modest museum for a
city
as large as Rio
de Janeiro.
In the mid-1970's
"guided
educational tours" through forest trails were offered by the park
administration
interrupted
problems.
to the general population.
for
lack
of
personnel
and
In 1976
other
they were
administrative
As of 1987 a semi-professional theater company hired by
the park's administration was conducting tours and skits along the
park's
trails on weekends,
attracting a sizeable
public.
As
mentioned in Chapter 4, no nature trails exist in Tijuca NP.42
In 1981 the park's Management Plan was published.
It is a
deep reflection on the arena's past, present and future. Tijuca NP
was evaluated as an "important" unit for a number of reasons.
It
has a "sample of tropical rain forest in regeneration" and several
watersheds still used for water supply.
for
the
local
potential".
population
Tijuca NP
arid
it
is ranked
has
as
It is a. "leisure" option"
"exceptional
the second
tourism
most visited
national park in Brazil, behind Iguacu. As for "management goals",
the park should preserve regenerated forests "inside a metropolitan
area", protect endangered species of fauna and flora, preserve
watersheds and scenic beauties,
allow for scientific
research,
preserve "historic" sites and provide "interpretative, educational
-3
X
_j
O
^
379
and recreational programs".
The plan contained important recommendations.
Zoning was
"^5
considered crucial to ease the gigantic pressures on this utterly
'""'
o
"^,
urban park.
Redeemer, should be closed.
^
only way to reach it by vehicle.
^,
trails.
O
restrict the entry of a great number of private automobiles and
X^
iv
O
tour buses into the park's roadways.
"*
o
to be adopted.
Q
facilities were described and budgeted.
^
was proposed with 335 positions
•"s
laborers and 200 rangers) .
The road leading towards the statue of Christ, the
This was
The modern tram would remain as the
just one
of
Hikers could
reach it through
several proposals
designed to
The plan describes in detail
"environmental management", "public use" and "operational" programs
Specific projects for construction or repair of
An ideal personnel chart
(35 administrative, 100 manual
At the time Tijuca NP had a staff of
-*ar
O
only 98.
^
*?
O
open only to hikers and authorized scientists. Significantly, no
0
"closed"
X.
Most peaks and high ridge areas were zoned as "primitive",
(pristine)
zone was proposed.
"Extensive use" zones,
-*3#?
Q
including more remote trails and a wing gliding platform would
o*
buffer
Q
easier trails, plazas, picnic areas and environmental education
«*•'
facilities. A "Historic-Cultural" zone was established for a few
3
"primitive"
facilities,
such
areas. "Intensive use" areas included roads,
as
Mayrink
restored archeological sites,
Chapel,
Escragnolle's
house
and
"Restoration" zones were sprinkled
over the park map for areas where natural or cultural restoration
projects were proposed.43
The Management Plan is on the whole
380
optimistic about the survival of Tljuca NP despite all the many
problems
generated
by
its
location
inside
a
fast
growing
metropolis.
An undated report by park director Antonio Aldrighi, probably
from the early 1980's, stated that his administration keeps up a
"...constant
activity of
preservation
and
restoration
natural aspects", performed by "specialized personnel".
of
its
He cited
the planting of trees and shrubs and the reintroduction of animals,
probably referring to the 1969-1974 efforts described a few pages
above.
He mentioned the existence of "many" biological research
projects and papers and the Fauna Museum as an indicator of the
park's educational value.
would be built
^J
~-}
-^
^
w
-^
NP
He also mentioned that a visitor center
(this has not happened).
At that time the Tijuca
administration was receiving private financial support from
Brazil's
1ar g es t
c i g a r e 11 e
in a a u f a c t:. u r e r ,
So u 2 u
C r u'/,,
fo t
unspecified "improvement" projects.
-^*
3
-W
_,
*&*
In 1986, though, Aldrighi was giving a more grim picture of
the park.
Trash and refuse were increasingly being dumped along
3
public r o a d s ;
3
*
bikers could not be controlled; park security was being performed
O
^
by non-trained
•^
services were also hired out. Several favela houses had been torn
3
^
down, , On the good side, more birds and land animals had been
,3
released and
-V
O
^
•^
rangers were i n s u f f i c i e n t ;
guards
hired
from
hunters
private
and rnotocross
companies;
cleaning
a small reforestation project: h.id been complo t.t-d.'" •'
Carlos Manes Bandeira, the Archeologist, filed an alarming
personal report about Tijuca NP in 1984. Private lands still
3
3
0
. j»<s
381
^
subsisted inside the units and absolutely nothing was being done
3
• —^
•^
•3
—>
*-^
^
\
—,
to solve the problem.
He identified a "frightening increase" of
hunters, tree cutting, stream tapping, flower and fruit gathering
and
fires.
boundaries.
Crops
and
gardens
were
cultivated
inside
park
The private operator of a park restaurant was openly
hiring people to furnish local wood for its fanciful fireplaces.
v™"^
O
Clearings were in need of reforestation;
^
damaging hiking
trails;
rangers
were
rnotooross bikers were
insufficient
in number;
***^
Q
-
security officers from private companies knew nothing about park
policy or local natural features,
*
•*}
^
Q
In 1985 Bandeira pointed out other problems: tourism areas
were
the only
ones
cared
ornamental
granite miners
had
~x
actually been authorized
Q
W
V
Q
boulders and proceeded to mine outcrops; hunters left traps along
trails, injuring hikers.
by
for;
the Institute to withdraw isolated
Re concluded saying that Tijuca MP should
be managed as a "permanent preservation unit", and not as a mere
"^
"park and plaza area" for tourists.45
w
Q
-")
*'
Current Situation
Q
•~^\a NP is clearly on the path of disruption if it is not
^.
-^
immediately and decisively managed as a national park.
^
^
Q
^*\
*—^
-,,«»
Q
-^
The great
resilience of the area's flora and fauna in the last. 130 years is
amazing, specially considering that at least 50 of those years,
between 1390 and 1940, were a period of passive management or total
abandonment.
Rio de Janeiro's population has gone from 275,000 to
5.0 million between 1872 and 1980 and will continue to grow rapidly
'O
382
"^
for many decades.
-^
populated its mountain slopes resulted from a century of total
The millions
of coffee
bushes
that
once
plantation farming. The resulting destruction almost
D
^
put Rio's growth in check.
w
a relentless
_
were leveled, marshes, lagoons
^5
beaches were pushed further away into,the sea, tunnels punctured
~^
mountains, streets and houses climbed hills and mountains, islands
•—}
•m^
were
^
In historical perspective Rio has had
growth pattern.
connected
with
the
No landscapes v/ere spared: hills
and mangroves were filled
mainland.
Left ' to
in,
l^iJLse^^faire,,
therefore, Tijuca NP will be destroyed, as once were its original
*\.
O
^
In the 19th century active public management of a part of the
destroyed areas restored
the city's water supply.
The result,
'S^J*
2)
today, is the soothing of the landscape, the conservation of soils,
<~~
'"^
opportunities
^
sports and so on.
*^
«j
-^
the park area from depletion.
national community decide whether Tijuca NP is to be preserved or,
*^
again, turned into a scar of depleted slopes or, alternatively, a
Q
*~.
cluster of skyscrapers and slums resembling the rest of the city,
^
O
^
for
No modern
leisure
and
recreation,
scientific research,
A slack government effort was enough to reclaim
day pirates
It is time that the local and
are available
to chase
the local
population into the forests such as in 1711, but Tijuca NP areas
*-\y perform many other vital services
for
the
chaotic
«**:
.-•&
metropolis of Rio de Janeiro.
While lack of decision and of
^
environmental
concern plagues the community, the Instituto would
Q
do well to perform its mandated duties of managing the park for
-3
-3
-3
D
383
permanent preservation.
Most Rio residents barely envision that
f*td
-"•"I
"-K
—'
D
the park's forests emerged from scoured and naked slopes,
Institute
knows
..—>
•^
•w
O
^
pioneering
~^j
chance to manage
much
experiments
better.
Tijuca
NP
was
in multi-species tropical
the,-
a minimum sense
of perpetuating
Tijuca NP.
The
result
of
reforestation,
forest and watershed management and urban planning.
with
But the
Any agency
itself would welcome the
f-orest garden is once again
±)
threatened, by the urban machine. Tijuca NP is an improbable legacy
^*)
-*\f
the city's social and environmental history but it is also an
^y
^
D
."•s
3
3
important
asset
against
thoughtless
trends that can be averted.
repetition of destructive
Chapter 11
' National Park - The Last Frontier
Serra ' da Bocaina
3
O
S
«
Natural Characteristics
Q
D
_
state's extreme Southwest with a section in the Western tip of the
Serra da Bocaa.ua National Park is located in Rio de Janeiro
state of Sao Paulo.
Its boundaries affect seven municipios in the
•H&
Q
3
two states: Angra cios Reis and Parati
(Rio de Janeiro); Ubatuba,
Sao Jose do Barreiro, Cunha, Areias and Bananal
(Sao Paulo) ,
Its
")
"geographical center" lies roughly on the intersection of latitude
**
*^
23°
-~^
National Park
•*ej
Eastern slopes and hill tops of the Serra do Mar, locally called
Q
—.
(Tropic of Capricorn)
and longitude 44.5°,
(hereafter Serra da Bocaina NP}
Serra da Bocaina
is plotted on the
Bocaina, in a stretch where the mountains come very close or escarp
«sS»
Q
directly into the Atlantic Ocean.
It is located in the same
^
•*#
phytogeographic
as Rio de Janeiro's
^
national parks.
O
-^
-*s*
^
Q1
,Q
3
.
and climatic
areas
other
Serra da Bocaina NP includes a marine island, small bays,
b e a c h e s , cliffs, n arrow
coastal p 1 a i n s , g o r g e s , v a 1 1 e y s , s t e e p-
slopes and high meadows, with a large variety of habitats and
3
385
*J
'3
-,-fc
ecosystems.
coast.
"0
between 1,000
Serra da Bocaina mountains run
"parallel" to
Higher ridges reach from 800 to 2,000 rn, with an average
and 1,200 m.
Fifteen peaks rise
although not all of them lie inside the park,
3
3)
the
2,123 m, is the park's summit.
above 1,800 rn,
Tlra Chapeu peak,.
Extremely steep slopes with gneiss
or granite outcrops are covered with dense forests dive towards the
•"*)
Atlantic ocean.
•J
park's geology, but granite, olivine, feldspar, basalt and bauxite
~
rocks are also found.
.3
are predominant.
m
Facoidal g n e i s s a n d blot i t: e p r e d o rn i n a t e I n the
Podzollc, latosoil and hydromorphic soils
They are shallow and mostly acidic,
28 short
rivers tumble through rapids and falls from the mountains Into the
-V&?
Q
narrow coastal plains or sometimes almost directly Into the ocean.
Some of them flow inland and form Paraiba do Sul tributaries.
Q
"*-
No
major river occurs inside Serra da Bocaina HP.
From sea
level to 200 m the
climate is
"tropical hot
and
~\, with "lush vegetation" of tropical forests and abundant
V
year around rain.
_^
or moderate
From 200 to 1,800 m the steep slopes are "warm
mesothermal"
in
climate
and
have
"dense
original
•ar
^)
tropical forests".
Above 1,800 in temperatures are moderate and
"^
natural meadows are interspersed with Islands of tropical humid
Q
forests of altitude.
Yearly rainfall averages reach 2.5 rn at lower
altitudes and range between 1,5 and 2,0 m at higher altitudes.
80%
Q
is the yearly average relative humidity.
£
park, next to Parati, have in fact the highest recorded average
_
rainfalls in Brazilian territory, above 4.0 m.
Q
The lower sections of the
Floral communities found in Serra da Bocaina
NP areas are
D
386
•o
mangroves, restinoa and Atlantic coastal tropical hurnid forests
--^)
(interspersed with meadows).
"^
slender coastal plains.
'
The first two are restricted to the
Serra da Bocaina MP has the most extensive
-~\s
*** of original tropical rain forests in the state of Rio de
•^
Janeiro.
60%
•—1
capoeira;
30%
of
its
vegetation
are
native
high
are
native
meadows
forests;
with
forest
10%
are
"islands".
'^D
Communities and. species are much like Serra dos Orgaos NP.
"""
conspicuous difference are
O
auqusti folia and _JPodjD£ajrpJi§L-JL£^^
^-'
native conifers.
—>
has not been well studied as in the other Rio de Janeiro national
•^
parks.
^
sure about the existence of many non-described species.
Q
the richest in the state.
^
•^
large populations
of
Ajra_uc^r_iji
the two only Brazilian
They occur at higher altitudes.
The park's flora
Scientists suspect of many endemisins and they are almost
felines,
^j
the
A
deer,
rodents,
There
edentates,
amphibians, fish and shellfish.
occur in the park.
are many
Fauna is
forms of primates,
peccary,
birds,
reptiles,
At least 16 endangered
species
The area's insects remain to be studied. 1
Human Occupation
-7j
Some of the region's history was given in Chapters 6 and 3.
Q
In January of 1502 the first Portuguese explorers sailed into a
^
wide bay which they named Angra dos Reis . They met Goiana Natives,
^P
from
•**
-V
**.,
protection and had abundant fresh water rolling down the nearby
.-«?
'&
.Q
•—s
the
Tupinainha nation.
mountain slopes.
Angra
dos
Red s
bay
offered good
It immediately beccime a stopover for South bound
Portuguese and Spanish fleets.
The first Portuguese colonists, the
3>
^
.
387
sons of Antonio de Qliveira, established residence in Angra dos
-^r
-3
Reis in 1556.
Vicente da Fonseca and his family followed in 1559.
~Ji
Angra dos Reis was officially founded as a settlement in 1560, five
3
-|
~*^p
"""-Ss
'9
"3
-..
3P
Q
years before Rio.
It was already a "busy" port.
Reis
a
was
indeed
stable
settlement,
By 1580 Angra dos
connecting
with
Rio
de
Janeiro, 130 km to the North, and with several coastal settlements
to the South, on the coast, of Sao Paulo.
By that time small sugar-
^x
cane farms and mills were recorded in Angra dos Reis. In 1593 it
**
Q
became a district and in 1608 a village, with the name of Vila dos
-~5
•^
Reis Magos da Ilha Grande.
1
—\r unclear reasons, in 1624 the village moved to~ a new site
•*^y
•**
O
—
Q
O
Q
Q
which proved to be permanent.
In 1626 the population started to
build a new stone church in order to earn the ranking of £
By 1749 Angra dos Reis was an established city and port, with 15
large sugar mills and 91 small ones producing much sugar, molasses
and brandy.
Since 1700
it had been connecting with the Manas
"Q
"^
Gerais mining district, shipping gold and precious stones to Rio
•^
ordered that all gold and stones be shipped out exclusively from
Q
-^
or directly to Portugal.
For
Rio, hoping to control smugglers.
some years the Portuguese; crown
This restriction was eventually
•%S^
Q
dropped
but Angra
dos Reis
had a taste of what would
happen
permanently in the second half of the 19th century, when it lost
Q
its competition with Rio as a port,
**
Q
^
port thrived with new coffee plantations.
-3
stands did not prove to be very productive, its port was flooded
,J
But in the early 19th century Angra dos Reis agriculture and
Even if its own coffee
"5
3
--«\h
3 8a
coffee bags brought
by
"donkey
trains"
from
the
highly
-?
-~\
productive plantations of nearby Sao Joao Marcos, Barra Mansa,
Reseride, Cunha, Bananal, Barrei.ro and other areas. Besides having
Q-
some agriculture and industry of its own, Angra dos Reis was Rio
^
"•)
de Janeiro's second port probably from 1800 until 1865.
Prosperity was short lived, though.
As Rio was connected by
•"*!£*
•^
rail directly with inland coffee producing regions fewer "donkey
- —^
trains" made the strenuous trip over the Serra da Bocaina ridge to
o
-*<'
reach Angra ' s port.
In 1864 Angra dos Reis still exported a
-^
substantial volume of coffee but in 1870 its port was virtually
^y
Q
stagnant.
**
W
Q
and sugar-cane plantations .
Only
18 years later slavery abolition disrupted local coffee
in
1926
Angra
dos
Reis
stagnation, when its port was renewed.
woke
up
from
decades
of,
^
Q
-}
•*?
•*"'
3
--N
A railroad reached the port
products began a modest but steady flow through the renovated port .
Q
\
In the 1950 's a major shipyard was built in Angra dos Reis.
Economic stagnation and the aggressive geomorphology combined
«*>
Q
-~£
"^
Q
Q
'
to preserve flora and fauna in large sections of the municipio, in
in 1928, connecting it with Rio de Janeiro's interior and with the
states of Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais.
Agricultural and mineral
stark contrast with the rest of the state.
Only in the 1930's was
Angra dos Reis permanently connected by a steep mountain road to
•^
the interior of Rio de Janeiro arid Sao Paulo states.
3
-^
been mainly through the sea until then.
«&
Q
^"
Access had
In the early 1970 ' s a
major federal road was extended from Rio to Angra.
The area was
opened for tourism, resort hotels and weekend residences.
The new
-3
389
stream of tourists generated what one source calls
"irrational
exploitation of the environment" and "social conflicts".
Angra dos Reis has today around 67,000 inhabitants.
20th most populated municipio in Rio de Janeiro's 64,
activities,
tourism
processing,
sugar-cane
handcrafts.
and coal,
and ship building,
farms,
it has
orchards,
food
It is the
Besides port
fisheries,
fish
industries
and
The mountain sections produce dairy, fruit, wild birds
Angra dos Reis has also the dubious privilege of hosting
Brazil's only operational nuclear plant, an obsolete facility that,
will probably closed down soon.
two new nuclear plants.
Next to it are the foundations of
Their construction has been
interrupted
for almost five years.2
Parati is the other Rio de Janeiro municipio affected by Serra
da Bocaina NP.
Angra
Its history is quite similar to that of neighboring
dos Reis, which
lies
only
50 km away.
Natives lived there when the Portuguese arrived.
The same Goiana
A good port and
abundance of fresh water attracted ships and fleets.
Parati's
official date of foundation is 1646, but it seems that some Angra
^
dos Reis inhabitants
Q
area much earlier,
^
abandoned when the 1646
"^
In 1660, over the protests of Angra dos Reis residents, Parati was
*^
raised to the rank of district, with the name Vila de Nossa Senhora
0
_.^)
v"
dos Remedies.
leased and occupied ge^smarj.a^ in the Parati
A very modest original urban settlement was
site - "more favorable" - was occupied,
In 1667 Parati became a village, again with protests
from Angra dos Reis.
Parati's "golden days" were right in the beginning of the
•~\g boom in Minas Gerais, around 1700.
The first major "donkey
^
train" trail between the coast and the mining district started in
.-^
Parati.
Q
Parati.
"^
equipment and animals followed the same route.
Q
trail" from Angra dos Reis shifted mining traffic away from Parati,
^
Much of Brazil's gold was
Obviously,
slaves,
shipped to Portugal through
merchants,
officials,
Almost a century of stagnation followed,
supplies,
But in 1725 a "new
A new boom came when
-—,
Resende coffee plantations started their prime, in the 182,0's.
^y
~)
X
"old tra.il" was reactivated and for some time Parati was probably
^
Angra dos Reis and Parati were jointly pushed out of the coffee
the third port in the province of Rio de Janeiro.
export activity by Rio and its railroads.
The
Around 18G5
Local agriculture, very
Q
modest, suffered from slave reform in 1888,
v-
agricultural disruption of Parati that lowland rivers and channels
-^
became silted and. obstructed.
^
So complete was the
The results were swamps and marshes
which contributed to lower health standards,
—
Parati's location, once a privilege, became a handicap.
^
was extremely difficult to reach by land and its port was silted.
^
After decades of virtual isolation, Parati was finally connected
C^
to ' Cunha
J^
The same federal road that reached Angra dos Reis in the 1970's was
"j
later extended to Parati, connecting it more easily with a growing
^
^
Q
(Sao Paulo)
It
by a permanent steep road in the 1950's.
tourism and resort trade,
Parati's
monument"
by
original
Decree
architecture and urban
urban
58007,
design
center
March
was declared
24,
1966.
cannot be altered.
a "national
Its
external
Surrounding
3
~"3>
x
forests
were
protected
by
the
same
act,
architecture thus became a major tourist
Parati's colonial
attraction in Brazil,
-~\h 23,000 permanent residents, Parati today is the 40th most
W
populated of Rio de Janeiro's 64 municipios.
X,
remote area in the state.9
^)
A
rather
recent
federal
government
It remains a very
colonization
project
v?"
affected areas later included in Serra da Bocaina NP.
Q
"Senador Vergueiro Colonial Settlement" was established by the
^
Department of Agriculture in the municipio of Angra dos Reis.
3
attracted
•«J
relatively unoccupied Eastern slopes of the Serra da Bocaina.
--,
soils quickly stifled agricultural
^
thousands
of
small
farmers
and
efforts.
In 1952 a
squatters
to
It
the
Poor
Government official
tried to keep the project alive by stimulating settlers to start
X
commercial reforestation with introduced conifers. The Department
Q
of Agriculture operated a small experimental orchard, also called
^
Senador
Vergueiro,
to acclimate
temperate
fruit
plants.
The
~~\d was active between 1954 and 1968.
<T
*^
Walter Wolf
Saur, a member of
the Fundacao Brasileira
de
Conservacao da Natureza, presented a report about Serra da Bocaina
NP to its chairmen in 1977.
in 1968
According to him the Institute created
a committee to evaluate
the "alarming"
area of the colonization project.
destruction were
rampant.
The
situation
in the
Social conflict and resource
failed colonization project line!
attracted scores of squatters who were ravaging
forests on soils
known to be unstable and of poor agricultural quality.
The federal land reform agency worsened things by ranking a
^
-«^y
nearby area with a "priority" status for land reform.
Hundreds of
3
other family of landless families flocked to the area.
Despite
O
"=»
social
tensions,
O
national
O
^
recommended
O
Preserve" .
"D
proposed national park limits.4
park
the
in
committee
the area.
recommended
In 1969
on. its own the creation
Its intended
the
creation
the land
of
area was in 1971
a
reform
"Parati
of
a
agency
Biological
incorporated into the
One government agency brought in
>j^
^
thousands
of settlers and failed to, settle them.
Now another
•A
—'
•">
w
-*,
w
O
O
^
agency was trying to buy them out to establish a national park.
A pool
region.
of
other
agencies
All this indeed
was
stimulating
mass
tourism
in
added to a very complex setting
the
for a
national park
-*z$*
3
^L
Creation of Serra da Bocaina National Park
-s^r
"j
•*'
Serra
proposed
da
area
Bocaina NP
of
1,340
was
km2
created in
made
it
at
1971.
that
Its
time
ambitious
the
largest
O
•—\l park in the Southeast. The proposed park included (1) the
area of a Mambucaba National Pa;rk proposed by Rio de Janeiro
•wr
-—\
Q
—*.
*&
3
Q
<^*
Q
„
•*-
Q
^
-•^r
>^^\
-Q
-^i
3
Senator Vasconcellos Torres, (2) a "botanical preserve" belonging
to the federal
government's
colonial -settlement,
private lands.
railroad
company,
(3) the entire
(4) the government operated orchard and
(^0
The complex land ownership situation has until this
day made it impossible for the Institute to take possession of park
lands. The park still lacks a defined perimeter.
There is no administration to discuss in the case of Serra cl.a
Bocaina NP.
All the Institute's managerial energies
have been
-5
393
O
consumed in land ownership issues.
^
D
Soils Engineer, was the park's first director.
"^)
of the park included a continuous stretch from a marine island to
-^
.—^
-—x
Serra' da Bocaina summits, including shallows, beaches, mangroves,
foothills and slopes.
O
from the federal cultural heritage agency, IPHAN.
"^L
inclusion of the small coastal c_a_i_ca,r_a_ village of Mambucaba in the
Q
park.'
"^
descending from Natives living in non-tribal villages .
-^
The
Recall
Qtavio Caldas de Oliveira, a
The original design
This design was reinforced by a suggestion
that caicar_a_s_
are small
It proposed the
farmers
Institute's identification procedures
and
quickly
fishermen
realized
^
that the cost
^
prohibitive for the agency's budget.
Z?
Serra da Bocaina NP's proposed limits, extending them to Ubatuba
_^
(Sao Paulo), where better preserved
Q
decree excluded
_^
populated rural areas.
^y
the
^
outsi.de the new park limits,
"^
10,000
of real estate* in the expensive beach areas was
areas
people
close
So a 1972 decree redefined
forests existed.
to Parati city
limits
The same
and densely
Institute officials estimated that 90% of
inhabiting
the
Saur's 1977 report considered
original
park
that the new
area
were
now
"described park
•^
limits" were still not ideal because they still included expensive
—,
beach real estate and "excluded forests and stream headwaters of
Q
great interest to the park".
^
slightly lower than the original area.
Q
owned land were being "acquired" by the Institute.
•^
Institute held only the 45 km2 of the colonial settlement and the
The new proposed area had 1,140 km 2 ,
In 1977 50 kin2 of privately
At the time the
10 krn2 of the orchard, a dismal 4.5% of the intended park area.
65
km2 of Sao Paulo state public lands and 100 km2 of federal railroad
company lands awaited only the Institute's initiative to take them
over.
Despite all compromises 3,200 people were still living inside
the new park area in 1977.
situation
as
"complex",.
Saur described
mentioning
the land ownership)
sky-high
squatting, speculation and false land deeds.
prices,
illegal
He suggested that the
Institute should "give up" expensive -coastal areas and take care
to include more original forests.
Saur pointed out that until 1977 no visitation infra-structure
had been built.
year,
A
watchmen,
staff
25
included
drivers
the
and
director
three
and
21
unspecified
rangers,
"tourism"
Saur proposed that at least 50 rangers were necessary
the 12 outposts built, in crucial park areas.
suggestions.
boundaries.
should
of
custodials,
personnel.
to man
Only 200 people officially visited the park that
Saur had
Fences should be raised around some sensitive park
Radios and telephones should connect rangers.
be built
(a very
ambivalent suggestion indeed).
Roads
Saur
recommended also a management plan r scientific research zoning and
fire control services.6
Therefore,
in
1977
Serra
da
Bocaina
NP
was
less
than a
hypothetical choice for leisure and recreation, although plotted
halfway between the two major metropolitan areas in the country.
The situation, remains today.
A primitive camping grounds and a
small picnic area are all the park has to offer to its visitors as
of early 1988.
m
^^^
C5
^
395
The Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, active as
usual, planned and executed a detailed survey on the land ownership
^^r
"^
situation in the park in 1977.
42.2 private plots were measured and
"-•
described.
--^
was presented
Q
properties
_.
described 250 km2 of Institute or otherwise government-owned land,7
Q
The total of 1,115
Their assets and titles were evaluated.
for their acquisition
had
a combined
km2
area
intended area for the park.
by the Institute.
of
was still
A total sum
865 km2 ,
The
The
survey
422
also
consistent with the original
Budget shortages, inflation and lack
Q
of Institute action outdated many aspects of this thorough survey,
vw
specially
*->
comprehensive acquisition drive will probably require a whole new
K«rf
survey.
vW
Current Situation
X
property
evaluations
and
title
assessments,
Any
As of 1988 the Institute owns no more than 30% of Serra da
v5*»
Qi
Bocaina NP land.
^
for the third or fourth time.
~^
^
The park's limits are currently being "redefined"
Apparently the Institute has given
up about all beach areas because :recent printed material announces
3,00 m as the park's lowest altitude.
The park tends, therefore,
->
to be another hilltop national park, similar to other three in the
v?<
state of Rio de Janeiro.
X
Rio de Janeiro's internationally famous coast will be included in
Q
a federal preservation unit.
--•--*
Bocaina NP as the single most "difficult" Brazilian national park
-^
to consolidate, due to "high real estate values","
If this happens, not a single stretch of
Two park experts consider Serra da
3
396
"*)
Although the park includes ecologically valuable areas of both
D
"^
9
"^
*~>
Rio
de
Janeiro and
Sao
attention it deserves.
Paulo
states,
it does not
receive the
Serra da Bocaina NP alone has more natural
\s to be preserved than Rio de Janeiro's other three national
w"
^
parks combined.
It has a great potential for leisure, hiking,
&*^
>>y
&*\W
mountain climbing and environmental education.
It is discouraging
to see the last frontier of the nation's two leading states treated
by the park service with such lack of'decision.
Chapter 12
Conclusions, Prospects and Policy Proposals
w^
Q
^
The following concluding statements refer specifically to the
national parks of Pxio de Janeiro state.
This author's conclusions
•«N»
4H
and more generic comments about the national park
system were
^
stated in Chapter 5, which also contains general recommendations
,5j)
"•>
concerning park policy.
^y
,qe
XSS3*
Janeiro
state
All these statements are applicable to Rio
national
parks
and
some
will
be
inevitably
Q
—•,
repeated here.
v»?*
w
Q
—^
Rio de Janeiro's four national parks, taken as case studies
of
the
park
virtues.
many
system,
illustrate
more
park
problems
than
park
The Individual chapters on each park have already given
indications
of
this.
But
the
statement can
be
further
vW
XQ
certified
^f
V
-"^
analyze the park system, in Chapter 4.
•**
W
parks
^
through
brief
references
to the topics developed
to
In reference to their combined area, Rio de Janeiro's national
cover
territory.
only
a small
percentage
- 3.2% - of
the
state's
Although twice the average age of Brazilian national
sW
Q
,3
-3
•o,
.-,«s
,3
parks, they have not attained an acceptable degree of stability as
39 3
-/a,
-5
public
.^
management have not contributed to their stability as preservation
O
units.
"
goods.
In other
words,
significantly
longer
years of
Therefore, age has not been a factor of consolidation.
Private properties survive in all four parks.
All of them
•w'
"^
have undefined limits, even after major concessions to competing
^
land
use
interests.
Three
parks
rank
between
small
^
insufficient in area in term of political stability and ecological
"^
sustainability.
^~
prone to being reduced.
3
not consolidate its significantly large intended area on account
^
of park service inaction and real estate
They need to be expanded but are actually more
The other, Serra da Bocaina, will probably
speculation.
Visitation in Tijuca and Serra dos Orgaos is intense
follows
mostly
and
urban
park
standards:
activities, picnics, car rides, bathing.
strolls,
quick
but
sport
Management of the large
flow of visitors is inadequate or non-existent.
Park personnel,
however, are concentrated in visitation areas, leaving remote park
boundaries unprotected.
Itatiaia has far less visitors and much
more infra-structure to receive them for camping, hiking, mountain
climbing,
backpacking
and
other
characteristic of park leisure.
faulty there.
visitation
tourists.
forms
of
recreation
more
But visitation management is also
Serra da Bocaina has almost no Infra-structure for
although
located
in
a
highly
attractive area
for
Visitation potential of all four parks will remain great
because (1) the resident state population is large and dense, (2)
tourists from other
states and
countries are attracted
parks' areas and (3) access is easy and permanent.
to the
-|j
399
The environmental education potential of all four parks is
3
'£
equally
"^
minimally
3
great
but
still
very
acceptable level.
for
from
Tijuca
being
and
Serra
dos
in
Orgaos
are
4^
activities for a large public of visitors and students.
^
interest and support for parks will certainly rise if education is
3
adequately
^
activities in national
In
parks
will
of
surely
youths,
Community
educational
help develop
a wider
The ecological qualities of the 'four parks are very different
-N
from each other.
•&
morphology, flora and fauna.
3
case
education
public of visitors and nature appreciators.
^
^^
the
environmental
a
particularly
developed.
permanent
developed
3|
,~5
suited
far
Itatiaia is a unique sample of Brazilian geology,
It contains original and
slightly
altered natural areas, together with deeply altered ones.
^D
unfortunately
too
small
to
support
!_
-<&&
Q
animal species.
'^
most
"^
scientific
•***
Brazilian ecological processes,
viable populations
-^
of
some
Additional areas would necessarily include second
growth or depleted stretches of land.
intensely
It is
studied
observation
landscapes
is
an
It remains as one of the
in Brazil
asset
for
and
better
its
continual
knowledge
of
Serra dos Orgaos has precious samples of the dominant original
«•**
landscape of Rio de Janeiro.
Unfortunately it is too is small for
-s
the proper protection of some animal species.
Tijuca is for all
..^
practical purposes an urban park.
"'*'
it
Q
disturbed
^*l
scientific observations in the field of forest ecology.
a combination
of
original
But its social history has given
replanted, successional
forests.
This
blend
second
can
growth
allow
and
important
Location
400
#2»
inside Rio de Janeiro has been a source of enormous stress for
^
Tijuca but it can still support scientific studies.
Serra da
A
"^
Bocaina encompasses the largest state areas untouched by coffee
^)
plantations and covered with the dominant original flora.
•-••'
sense, it is the state's last frontier.
-*,
quality of course depends on the consolidation of its
w:
area, including the proposed marine and shoreline stretches,
X,
Being
one
of
the
country's most
In a
Its continual ecological
ravaged
intended
states, Rio
de
3>a*t
^
Janeiro's national parks are located in areas of fair and high
^f
ecological quality.
^
All four parks, were created before the park
"*•'
explicitly ecological criteria.
•^
parks
IP
recreation.
—^ •
sense that all of them are forested slopes and mountains.
,v
X
were
This
scenic
This was not their prime motivation, though,
value,
The
service developed
rationales for these four
scientific
research,
tourism
and
But the four parks are partially redundant in the
leads
to
the
topic
of
ecosystem
representation.
Unfortunately, no other type of landscape in the state benefits
*~)
:
from federal preservation units.
The four parks are, of course,
"0
T
important remains or reminiscences of the state's dominant original
•^
Q
^
landscapes not covered by national parks.
«*)
basically forested slopes and mountains.
^»
other important natural areas, even though disturbed or altered,
**}
•3sSr
would deserve federal *•preservation status.
^
landscape.
But Rio de Janeiro state
still has a variety of
Even the biological
preserve and the ecological station existent in the state contain
The point is that many
They are on the Coastal
Plain., on the Atlantic shoreline and even in the lower Paraiba do
401
Sul Valley.
Rio de Janeiro's parks therefore suffer from a bias
that favored mountain forests,
^•^
"•)
^
-»*>
•*J
—^
suffer
•^
recreational pressures.
X
w
Q
•™\,
in the country.
Rio de Janeiro's
from
national
growing
parks
are and will
agricultural,
industrial,
continue to
urban
and
The state's economy is still the second
The large population, although mostly poor, lacks
significant leisure areas, with the exception of ocean beaches,
Rio's middle class is one of the sources of the not very numerous
v
"j
ranks of hikers, mountain climbers, backpackers and bird watchers,
**
-^
^V
-*N
W
W
Local national parks will be safe from these pressures only if they
are adequately managed.
Itatiaia and Serra dos Orgaos still have good infra-structure
Q
^
and sound management
^
Q
professional staffing they can continue
^*
still provide protection of their natural
Q
~_\*
their lands must be defined and secured. Tijuca, on the contrary,
must be protected from visitation.
Many roads and trails must be
CD
3
-^
^~*
^
3
—,
plans.
With funding, adequate zoning and
closed, some of them permanently.
be controlled.
to attract visitors and
features.
Of course
Motor vehicle circulation must
A nature trail through the replanted' forest area
should be established,
together with natural history
and social
^*
^J
history museums.
«V
"
Serra da Bocaina, the least consolidated of the state's national
_.^s
parks, should have its
^
^
-<s3r
-«**
Park
gates should
close at specified hours.
land acquired and controlled.
This
is
currently much more important than creating infra-structure for
visitation.
It is a blessing for a state as ravaged as Rio de Janeiro to
*i
402
^
have four national parks and maybe gain a new one this year.
jl)
it is too much to expect other parks in shoreline and lowland areas
m^
before the existing
3
national parks as public goods is lacking.
3
^
governmental lack of control over public lands will have to be
3
checked and reversed before any national parks or any preservation
3
_
units
3
significant sections of the country's
3
3
D
'***i
3
.3
ones are consolidated.
problems remain, though.
in
Brazil
become
Effective
stable
Maybe
The most difficult
control and .management of
political
The historic trend of
entities
landscapes.
protecting
-3
'3
3
3
ADDENDUM
3
y .
•3
3
3
*
The final draft of this text was concluded in February
3
—,.
3
1989, in Rio de Janeiro.
of
Ninety days in Brazil allowed the author
' to gather information relevant to- several topics discus r-ed in the
text.
3
~)
In January the federal government created an Institute for the
•^•E^
~)
^
W
—^
***
3
-^
•W
W
• \^
Environment
the
and Renewable Natural Resources,
assets,
agencies:
(.manager
personnel
and
mandates
EPA)
and
the
three
"extinguished"
the Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolviinento Florestal
of
national
parks
and
biological
Secretaria Especial do Meio Ambiente
US
of
It was composed by
Superintendencia
de
Desenvolviinento
da
preserves),
the
(Brazil's equivalent to the
Pesca
•>&&
Q
(fisheries authority).
The three agencies were responsible for
3
3
Q
3
^
most
Q
be under the Interior Department.
^j
«*
,*•*,
•^
^
response to growing environmental problems in Brazil, specially in
Q
of
what
was
done
preservation in Brazil.
in
the
fields
of
conservation
and
The unification was, in fact, one of the
policy suggestions presented in Chapter 5. The new institute will
the face of international
It, was obviously designed as a
pressures towards effective policies.
-*^F
Q
Most environmentalists seem to have approved the fusion of the
^
..^
^
3
3
three agencies.
In fact, this unification had been suggested for
many years by several environmental activists and organisations,
In this author's view, the most desirable development for park and
preserve policy in this new institutional framework would foe the
^^F
3
prevalence of the Secretaria's personnel and directives.
by far the most effective of the three agencies.
can
indeed
enter
a
new
era
in
Preservation
j|
policy
-^
Secretaria's higher professional standards and stronger political
3
3
,
will is applied to the park service's 1979 policy directives,
3
proper
It was
Brazil
if
the
Last December, at the opening'of the Brazilian summer vacation
3
season,
3
national parks would be closed to visitation.
the
most probably
Institute
officially
announced
that
22 of
the
28
The alleged reason,
true, was lack of personnel to manage visitation.
Q
The Institute's chronic loss of personnel, discussed in Chapter 5,
~)
^
finally caused a major breakdown
in national park management.
A
Q
—\n of nature appreciators and potential park constituents was
W
w
therefore deprived of the possibility of visiting the country's
*
,„
national parks.
Q
^T
The recent assassination of Francisco
sent Shockwaves throughout Brazil and abroad.
(Chico)
Mendes has
His violent, death
^•^
^
gave further publicity to a type of protected land not mentioned
Q
"""
in Chapter 4: "extractivist preserves".
2
3
were
•**
extreme West, where Mendes lived and worked as a rubber tapper.
established
by
At least four such units
the state government of Acre,
in Brazil's
2
^
Their legal status is unclear.
Q
of sustained yield of forest products, they are not State Forests
.^
...Q
Although created with the objective
-3
-3
^
"3
405
as defined by the 1965 Forest Code.
3
^)
j|
3
Their concept was developed by the rubber tappers unions, who
have
been
defending
resisting
deforestation
the natural
populations
for
the
of Hevea
obvious
reason
brasiliensi_s_
~ '"
of
trees
-*)
scattered in Acre's dense tropical rain forests,
•29*
union leader and the national spokesman for the rubber tappers, and
^
-K
—)
Meiides was a
riot a scientist or an environmental activist proper,
Rather than being preservation units, though, "extractivist
~
preserves"
^)
sustained yield of raw rubber and a' few dozen, other forest products
"^
(fruit, leaves, roots, barks, etc) supposedly
Q
stable basis. There should be some caution about the claim that
the extraction of these products is not harmful to tropical forest
~\
Q
—•^
ecology.
are typical
The
conservation
intensive
units.
exploitation of
They
aim
at the
harvestable on a
any
floral
may
have
or
faunnl
**&?
w
Q
W
Q
^
Q
resource
in
such
implications, even
a
complex
ecosystem
on a short-term basis.
Hevea bra si1i en G i s
trees, for example, can and have been killed by excessive tapping,
Nonetheless, extractivist preserves are obviously much more
^)
appropriate
*^
w
-•}
clearcutting and monocultural reforestation.
•&
3
^
-•**
Q
unsuspected
for
the
Amazon
region
than
grazing,
farming,
Their widespread
adoption throughout the region would indeed mean a radical shift
in current land use patterns for the simple fact of aiming at
ecological sustainability.
For park and preserve policy, though,
this author does not believe that extractivist preserves would
3
^_
necessarily eliminate pressures on Amazonian preservation units,
•£
1
Pressures might change in degree, but systematic extraction of
-- - i t o "
~
-3
floral and faunal resources remains incompatible with preservation.
-3
-3
3
O
O
3
D
Q
^s^'
w
3
3
3
3
3
^
3
3
-|
3
-%
Notes
Chapter 2
1 - Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos. "A Pos-Revolucao Brasileira".
Brasil, Sociedade JDemocratica. Rio de Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1985,
p.233.
3
2 - Santos, "A Pos-Revolucao...", p.233.
3
3 - Santos, "A Pos-Revolucao..."f pp.234-238.
—.
4 - Santos, "A Pos-Revolucao...", pp.234,239,243-245.
-*
5 - Santos, "A Pos-Revolucao...", pp.247-249,251,256-257,265;
O
FIBGE.
Ajvujj^Q-_E^^j^isjyico__do Brasil- 19J$6_.
Rio de Janeiro,
Q
FIBGE. 1987, p.102, Table 8.1.
^
6 - Santos, "A Pos-Revolucao...", p.255.
-^
7 - Santos, "A Pos-Revolucao..,". pp.268-275,276-309.
^
8 - Departamento de Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equivalentcs.
*~\ r o .1 e t o d e Implant a c a o _ e^^^on^o^l id a c a p d e jP a_r _gu_e js ... N a c i on a is,
""^
Reservag, _Equiyalente5. e; ^ Pro tj3cao_a Mature za.
Brasilia, [1975],
Q
p f3 .
^
9 - Thomas E, Skidmore.
£^2iMu£S__Jji__J3rj_zjJ.JL___^^
Oxford University Press, 1967; Alfred C.
Stepan. The Mil.j.tary,,_.in_J^^i^^j__Ch_an^.ng.^ajbt_er^n_s in_grazil.
Princeton University Press, 1971, are both good English language
analysis of contemporary Brazilian politics and institutions.
10 - Tasso Vilar de Aquino. "Importancia da Estacao Ecologica no
Sistema Nacional de Conservacao do Meio Arnbiente". B2l_e_tijn__£B2N,
14, pp.82-83.
11 - IBASE News Files, Jornal do Brasil, 2/5/88; O Globo, 7/18/86,
11/16/86; Eduardo Viola. 0 Movimento Ecologico no Brasil (19741_9_8,CL/_.. 1_._. D Q __ Arab i e n t a 1 i s mo __.. a... E c o p o 1 i t i c a, Cadernos de Ciencias
Sociais, Volume 5, Numero 4. Florianopolis, Universidade Federal
de Santa Catarina, 1986, p.18.
12 - L e PLJ si a c a q.,^d_e. _C p n s e_r y a c a^p _d.a _N _a_ t ur ez.a . Sao Paulo, CESP; Rio
de Janeiro, FBCN, pp. 491-505,592-596;
IBASE Files, Jojrnal___ch2.
Brasil, 9/19/85, O Globo, 9/27/1986, 12/2/1986, 5/26/85.
13 ~ L. egi sjl a c_a o^._^, pp.586-587; Alma_nagu_e _ Abr i 1 - _19 8 8 . Sao Paulo,
Editora Abril, 1987, p. 703;
IBASE Files, Jornal do _Br_a_sil,
6/10/86; 0 Globo, 6/12/86;
Fundacao Institute Brasileiro de
Geografia e Estatistica - SUPREN.
Projjgrjta_ ..paraji_j.im Pl_ano cle
_Z on e am en t o E c o 1 p g i c_o - EC onomi c o do B r a s i I_.
[Brasilia], May 1986.
[typewritten];
Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros. "Legislacao de
Conservacao da Natureza". FgCN__--_J3 p 1 e t iin.._Inf-Q. y.in.a t i yo , 9, p. 34.
408
14
"
*?§
- David Quammen .
"Brazil's Jungle Blackboard".
Iiar_p_ejrs.
March 1988, pp. 65-70; IBASE Files, F.o.lha d_e_.. Sao Paulo ,
8/23/86, 3/11/87; Q__£lobo, 2/7/36, 6/10/86.
15 - IBASE Files, 0 Globo, 6/22/1986, 6/17/1986; Jornal do Brasil,
3f
6/6/1983.
^
3
3
~
16 ~ Data for the last four paragraphs came from many clips and
abstracts in IBASE Files, 1983-1988.
17 - IBASE Files, Visao, 4/29/1985; Is to E, 12/31/1986; O Globo,
9/6/1987.
18 - Alm.ana_que_A_bril. - 1987.
Sao Paulo, Editora Abril, 1986;
Barros , "Legislacao . . . " , p. 35.
19 - Maria Tereza Jorge Padua, [ Eg bo c o JH i_s to ri_c:p__da____L e g is_ l_ac_a o
Fundiaria Bra_si.leira . ] n.p., 1980. [typewritten], pp. 1-2.
20 - Padua, [EstK>c_o_..^,_.,] , pp. 2-3; Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros,
£§JigjJLgsJNaj^i_oja^^_do_Jxa-g-JJ^- P-i° de Janeiro, Service de Inforrnacao
Agricola do Ministerio da Agricultura, 1952, pp. 15, 17; Sonia Maria
Pereira. "Legislacao Arnbiental: Problernas Fundiarios".
Bp_l_e_tini
FBCN , 15, p. 10; Jair Tovar , "Parques Nacionais".
Revista , do
S e r vi c o. _P u b li c o , 87(3), p. 131; Warren Dean.
"Forest Conservation
in Southeastern Brazil, 1900 to 1955". Environmejr^a^^view, 9,
p. 56, mentions the lack of "any real control" over public lands by
the Brazilian government and the systematic favoring of the
"richest and most powerful of the pretenders" to them.
21 - Padua, [Esboco. ._. ] , pp. 3-4; Pereira, "Legislacao...", p. 11.
22 - Pereira. "Legislacao...", p . 9 ; Maria Tereza Jorge Padua et
Adelmar Coimbra Filho. O s __P; a r^u _e_s_N_a c!i_g^n^aj. s _ d_g_ JBjr jisjjl . Madrid,
Institute de la Caza Fotografica y Ciencias da la Natureza;
Institute de Cooperacao Ibero-Ainericana , 1979, p. 8; Barros, ^argues.
Naciignai..s_, _dp Brajsi^l , p. 14.
23
The point is made by Luiz Claudio Pereira Leivas .
"A
Legislacao Patrimonial da Uniao e a Conservacao do Meio Ambiente:
Urn Elemento Esquecido". FBCN - Bol e t im Infp_rma tl vo , 12, pp. 55-58.
24 - Legislacao. . _. , pp. 3- 6.
25 - Co d i go __F' 1 o_r e _st _a I , Decree 23793, January 23, 1934, Articles
1,4,5,6,7,8; Warren Dean. "Forest Conservation...", pp. 57 ,63,
26 - Codigo Florestal, Articles 9,11,37,101.
21 - Maria Tereza Jorge Padua. Interview . Brasilia, May 19, 1988;
Angela B. Quintao Tresinari.
"Evolucao do Conceito de Parques
Nacionais e sua Relacao com o Processo de
Desenvolvimento" .
^§Mi_JliPXes_tal, XIII (54), p. 19; Jose Candido de Meio Carvalho,
"Dia Mundial do Meio Ambiente: Consideracoes sobre a Participacao
do Brasil em Organizacoes , Programas e Convencoes Relativas a
Conservacao do Meio Ambiente". B o l_e t i in_^jL_J! BjCIJ . 14, p. 8; Dean,
"Forest Conservation...", pp. 60, 63.
28 - L e_g i s l_a c a o _. . _,_ , pp. 25, 122.
29 - Le g i s la c__a o _.__._._ , pp. 104-113; Dean, "Forest Conservation,..",
p. 64.
30 - Legislacao . . . , p. 105 ; Harold Edgard Strang et al . Ear_gii§_3_
Es.taduais__ do _Brasilj ..._Su^_^a^_act_erj._z_a_c_a_o__.e __Es:senci_a5______Na ti_ vas_ ma is
ImpQrtantes_.
Campos do Jordao (SP), 12-18 de setembro de 1982.
[mimeographed]
I did not find a single instance of this actually
happening. Although I did not do a search any such development"
3
^
-*
•3
3
-K
-^
3
^
-^
^
-*
O
^
_
^
3
Q
^_
^
^
-•}
***
^
--}
**
Q
^,
Q
Q
^X
•*
Q
^
'"
,Q
Q
*
-3
409
-3
^)
.«.
^
0
-*••,
X
3
^
^
~*"
O
-s
^
O
^
X,
^
3
-*)
^1
-3
'O
^
^
would be mentioned in many of my sources.
31 - Maria Tereza Jorge Padua.
"Sistema de Parques Nacionais e
Reservas Equivalentes do Brasil".
Reyj. s t a , __dg_. S ery i,c g _ _P_ubl icj) ,
111(4), p. 17.
1 did not find, any acts creating hunting parks,
I heard media references to State Hunting Parks in Rio Grande do
Sul but I could not check their legal status.
32 - Legislacag._. . , p. 2 21.
33 - Legislac_ao ._.,_._ , p. 421.
34 - Eugenic Camargo Bruck et al.
"Unidades de Conservacao" .
Reyisjba do_,S_ervi_co_Publi_co. , 1 1 1 ( 4 ) , p . 2 2 ; Ijegj.j5JLacag . . . , pp. 456-467.
35 - The last three paragraphs are based on Le^^Ia^ao^.^^^ , pp. 467474.
36 - IBASE Files, specially Folha de Sao Paulo, 10/12/1984,
10/17/1984.
37 - IBASE Files, Folha_de_S ao_Pa,ulo. - 7/25/1985;
10/9/1985; Leaisj^CaO-^ju^. , pp . 610-612 ; O_ JEs_ta_do_
5/20/1986.
"
~ ...... ~
38 - J. L. Belart. "For uma Politica Nacional de Conservacao".
_FBCN - _Boletirn Inf ormativo , 11, pp. 47-48; .Legislacag . . , , pp. 662667.
39 - IBASE Files, Jornal do Brasil, 5/26/1988.
40 - Ibsen de Gusmao Cainara. "Necessidade de uma Politica Nacional
^e Conservacao do Meio Ambiente"". FBCN - _B_olLetji_m. Inf.ornia ti vo , 11,
p. 32.
41 - Barros, "Legislacao . . . " , pp, 32-33.
Chapter 3
1 -Jose Augusto Padua.
Na^r_e2JL™§__Zil2i§iL2_Ji^^i^I^^
d a EC o 1 og i a,.......P p.l i t ic a no Bra s i 1 . Rio de Janeiro, IUPEPJ, 1986.
[mimeographed], p. 26; see also Padua, "Sistema ..,", p. 17.
2 - Padua , Na t ur e 2 a e Pr o j_e t o_ Nacional . . . , pp .3,4-6,8,
3 - Padua, Nature_za_ _ e_ ^Pro^J8t.Q•__ Nacional^ .., pp. 12-24;
Donald
W or s t e r .
Nat ur e ' s_______E c o n omy .__.-,_ _ A _., , H i s t o r y o £ E c g 1 o g i pal Idea s .
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985, divides ecological
thinkers into two broad categories, "arcadians" and "imperialists".
4 - Padua, Na tureza.., e JProj e to Nacional ... , pp. 24-26.
^ - Padua, Natureza e Pro jeto Nacignal . r . , pp. 29-31.
6 - Padua, ES^KSS^L~S~^£^As£i9-^^S^StSJi^ni^^i PP - 32-46; Jose Candido
de Melo Carvalho,
"O Papel das Entidades Nao-Governamentais na
Conservacao da Natureza". FB CM -_ _B g l_e t im..,_ J..nf prma. t. i_vq , 12, pp,4953; Dean, "Forest Conservation...", pp. 58-59; Barros, PjyiJlIi§LS
p. 15, implies that Torres read Pinchot and
_
used the term "conservation" in a "correct" way
7 - Padua, Natureza e Projeto Nacignjil . , . , p. 47.
8 - Atala et al , F 1 o r e s t a d a T i j u c a . Rio de Janeiro, Centro de
Conservacao da Natureza, 1966, pp. 40-41, expands on Archer's
"vision" of forestry;
Dean, "Forest Conservation...", p. 56,
mentions that the city of Sao Paulo decided in the 1890 's to
protect its watersheds, probably spurred by Rio's troubles i n
.**
--?
^
-«,
^J
0
-"*]
-3
3
^
'~/
O
«*5
^
J
^
^
w
O
**)
^X
^
O
^^
~^
O
*»\d
"^1
•3
Q
-^
410
replanting its own watersheds.
9 - Herman von Ihering.
"Devastacao e Conservacao das Matas",
FBCjI. . ._._. -. Boletim Inf ormati.Y,Q,7r
pp. 40-51;
Dean,
"Forest
Conservation..,",
p. 57.
Dean
mentions
other
Brazilian
conservationists of the early and mid-20th century.
10 - Carvalho, "Dia Mundial do Meio Ambiente . . . " , pp . 6 , 7 ; Sajnpaio
was a scientist and a leading conservation activist, as shown by
Dean in "Forest Conservation...", pp. 60-61,
11 - Carvalho, "Dia Mundial do Meio Ambiente...",
pp. 8 , 9, 10 , 11 ,12, 13 , 14 ,15; see also Carvalho, "O Papel,..",
12 - Padua, In_terv_iew;
Dean, "Forest Conservation...", p. 63.;
Tresinari, "Evolucao . . . " , p. 14;
Tovar,
"Parques Nacionais",
p. 126; Barros, P ar cjue s Na c ion a is do Br a s i 1 , p. 21, written in 1947,
also mentions Argentina's pioneer parks.
13 - Padua, in^_ejrvi_e_w ; Alceo Magnanini . Poli t ica_ e D_ir e tr jjses dog
P a r g u e s n a c i o n a i s d o Eras i 1 . 'Rio de 'Janeiro, IBDF, 1970, pp . 3 , 4 .
14 - This controversy was publicized in Q_GOabo_, 6/19/1945 and
6/20/1945;
1 thank Jairo Cesar Marconi Nicolau for retrieving
these news clips from Maya's papers in the Fundacao Castro Maya.
15 - Barros, Pargu_es N_acignai_s__do^ _.Brasj._l , pp. 9, 10, 20.
16 - IBDF-FBCN. Piano_______de _Ma.neJp__-_ Pargue ITacional da Tijuca.
Brasilia, 1981, p. 44; Legislaca.0 , . . , pp. 163-170; A 1 man a gu e Abri 1
r_A9Mr p,703.
17 - LeqislacjLO^. __._._ , pp. 173-184; Padua, Interview; Mai'garene Mnria
Lima Bezerra.
Interview . Brasilia, May, 20, 1988. I could not
obtain precise dates for this administrative evolution, which
in the early 1970 's.
18 - Dean, "Forest Conservation...", p. 63.
19
Institute Brasileiro de Reforma Agraria et Institute
Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal,
P_ar gu_e%s__ Nac i pnai s e
R_e_sg_J-"Yas _Eguiy.alent_es_.. no Brasil ; Relatorio coin yistas a:...uina_ Re^lgao
Rio &e Janeiro, IBRA-IBDF, 1969.
[mimeographed] , "Nota Explicativa" , pp . 1 , 2 , 6-10 , 11 , 20 , 69 , 72 , 88-94 .
20 - Alceo Magnanini et Maria Tereza Jorge Padua. "Situacao dos
Parques Nacionais no Brasil".
FJB CM _-_ __ _ B_g_1 e_t i m In to r m at i y o , 4,
pp. 28-58.
21 - Alceo Magnanini. Pj2JJLlLiJL9_JiLJ2J^
dp _B_rasil . Rio de Janeiro, Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvirrsento
Florestal, 1970, pp. 3, 6-10.
22 - Paulo Azevedo Berutti. "Politica de Conservacao da Natureza".
Bra s_i 1 . F 1 o r e s ta 1 , V(20), pp. 4-5;
"Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Equivalentes" .
Resolution of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the
Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science.
n.p., 1975.
[typewritten] .
23 - Padua, Inter_yiew .
24 - Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal.
de___Implanta_ca_p e Consolidacao de Parquejs _ _ J j a c A o B ^ i g - j _ _ - . .
Sffii5Sij@lltgs__g_£jlOtjg^^o^
. Brasilia, [1975], pp . 1 - 2 .
25 - IBDF, Projeto de .. Iinplantacap ..... ._, pp. 4-5, 7-8.
26 - IBDF, projeto de Irnplantacao . . . , pp. 20-24, 28, "Anexo 1-A" ,
27 - Padua, inj^rv_iew_; "I Curso sobre Adrainistracao e Mane jo de
Parques Nacionais".
Brasilia, October 17-29, 1977.
Filo in
411
Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza's library.
Some
lectures unfortunately are missing.
Also Marc J. Douro jeanni .
Fljar e s t a 1 en P a r que s Na c i on a_l es_ . n.p., 1977.
[typewritten]
Dourojeanni is an Argentine park expert who lectured in the course.
23
Institute
Brasileiro
de
Desenvolvimento
FlorestaL.
D_ij_g_n o_s t i c o d o Sjab s i s t_e m a d e Co n s e r v a c a o _e_ j? r e s e r v a c a o d e Recur s o s
Na^tirra^is^^RenQvavgis,. Brasilia, 1978, "Introducao" and pp. 53-54,
29 ~ IBDF, Diaqnostico. . . , pp. 55-56, also Table 2; pp. 111-133,
Tables 03-25; pp. 61-65.
30 - IBDF, D i agno s t i c o ._. . , pp. 7 5, 77. •
31 - Padua, Interview; Padua, "Situacao . . . " , p. 86.
3 2 - Diagnpstico. . . , ' p . 5 7 .
33 ~ Maria Tereza Jorge Padua et Jose Manuel C. Vasconce] los ,
_P argues Macionais e Reseryas Equivalentes . n.p,, n . d . , [ c i r c a
1978].
[typewritten], pp. 1-2.
""" '
34 - Padua et Vasconcellos , Pa.r._q_ue_s Mac ion a is . . . , pp . 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 .
35 - Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao
Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza.
PI ano do Si s t ema_ de
Unidades.. dj|__Cpnser.yacap..._.do_ Brasil __- II Etapa.
Brasilia, 1982.
Hereafter cited as IBDF-FBCN, Piano .._dp .Si^stema^^. . I used only
the "second stage" issue of the plan, because it contains the first
stage's premises, • proposals and results and because no "third
stage" document has yet been put together.
The "first staap"
version of the plan was published in 1979.
36 - IBDF-FBCN, Plajio___do_J^i_s_^^
p. 11.
37 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema. . . , p. 11.
38 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Siste.ma. . . , "Prefacio" and p. 12.
3 g _ IBDF-FBCN, Piano _do Sistema. . . , "Prefacio":
an example of
international recognition is in Paul Ehrlich et Anne Ehrlich.
Extinction: The Cau5_e_s and Consequences of the DJLs_ap_ngaJiancg__of.
Species . New York, Ballantine, 1983.
40 - Maria Tereza Jorge Padua. "Aplicacao de Pianos Diretores parn
Parques Nacionais". FJB.CN 7 B o 1 e t im . I_nf jorjLa t i vo , 7,p.l7; Barros,
P argues N a c i pn_a_is__d.g_JBr.as i 1 , p. 27, in 1947 called for "detailed
plans" for park management.
41 - Padua, "Aplicacao.-.", pp. 18-20; Padua, Irrjtervi_ew .
42 - Maria Tereza Jorge Padua.
"Situacao Atual do Sistema de
Parques Nacionais e Reservas Biologicas". Bo_l_ejtj.m__F_BCN- , 16, p. 36;
Padua, Interview; Padua et Coimbra Filho, Q^.jjvrcoae s.....Nacionais _dg_
Hl^lii.. P-14, emphasize that IBDF alone could not have produced the
management plans, showing how vital was the participation of FBCN,
a private group.
43 - Legislacao . . . , pp. 378-387; Barros, Parques Na c ion a i s _ djD
Bjra_s_i_l_, p. 27, suggested for park "rules" in 1947.
44 - IBRA-IBDF, Pa r _g u e s M a n i n n a i._&__ _e_Re^e.r vas . . _._ , p. 6 7; Padua,
Interview, agrees that "scenic beauty" was the most important
criteria for creating national parks until 1974; Barros
Nacionais do Brasil , pp.26, 30-35.
45 - Padua, "Situacao...", p. 35.
46 - Padua, "Situacao...", p. 35.
47 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema,-., p
412
-3
48 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema.
p.29,31,39.; Padua
S tone, Drjeams_._
•p . 27-28 , 111, 112 mentions the scientific studies
leading to the ple tocene refuge theory.
49 ~ IBDF-FBCN,
pp.39-40,42.
50 - IBDF-FBCN, Plano d^_i
pp.4 4- 4 5.
51 - I BDF-FBCN , Piano d o Si s , tejim .__
pp.45,48.
Chapter 4
'3
J
%Ss?
1 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema.
pp.20,25.
2 - Strang et al,
i_§_,,_,_^_, pp. 2,3 , 5, 8-10; FIBGE,
tistico.
P 30, Table 2.6; Padua, Ijlt^ejrvi_ew, s t a t e s
Paulo's numerous state units are generaly "well managed".
FBCN f Piano do S_is tema .
IBRA-TPDF,
R e se rv as .
Padua, lM±dades_.
pp .13-21; Padua, Intejrview . R e c e n t
press stories announced the imminent creation of new national
forests in 1988, but I did not obtain confirmation.
5 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do. Sistema..., pp.20,26.
6 - FIBGE, Anuario Estatistico..., p.32, Table 2.7; Strang
Parques Estaduais do Brasil..., pp.8-10; Herbert Martins.
Bel o
Relato
Parque Ambiental" de Minas GeraisHorizonte, 1988. [typewritten]
7 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema. _._, pp. 19-20.
"Urn Move
8 - LeQiL5lacao_:_._._, pp. 441-443; Paulo Nogueira Neto.
Conceito de Estacao Ecologica". Boletiro FBCN, 15, pp,37-39; the
theme of scientific optimism in environmental matters is explored
Oxf ord, Oxf ord
by David Ehrenfeld.
The Arrogance of Humanism.
University Press, 1981.
9 - Bruck et al, "Unidades de Conservacao", p.22
d e E s t a c o e r.
10 - Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente.
Brasilia, 1977, p. 5; SEMA. Es_tacao
Jurei_a. Brasilia, 1984, pp. 10,12,27 -41; SEMA. Es t ac ao Ecol ogi.ca
de Tajjm.
Brasilia, 1984, pp. 29-37; Bruck et al , "Unidades drConservacao" p . 2 4 .
Areas de Protecao
11 - IBAS
IBASE Files, I§JLO_E, 8/3/1983, p 33; ; ;EMA
1987, p. 11;
Ambiental: Abordagem Historica e Tecnica.
Brasilia
t hP
n .83;
Aquino,
"Importancia
da
Estacao Ecologica.
computation of combined ES areas is mine.
12 - Pad ua, Int e r v iew.
13 - IBASE Files, 0 Globo, 2/9/1986; Strang et al
ities
Estaduais do Brasil. . . , p.i.
14 - Legislacao. . . , pp. 4 41-4 43.
15 - Bruck et al , "Unidades de Conservacao ", p. 25.
16 - SEMA, Areas de Protecao Ambiental. . . , PP, 9-12,1 4 r 16-17
17 - SEMA, Areas de Protecao Ambiental. . . ,pp . 2 0 , 2 3 SEMA.
;
Brasilia, n.d.; IBASE
de Protecao Ambiental de Sao Bartolomeu.
Files , 0 Globo, 10/24/1987; Legislacao..., pp. 505-50
18 - IBASE Files, Jornal do Brasil, 2/9/1986, 9/25/1987; 0 Globo
3/9/1986; Jairo Cesar Marconi Nicolau, Personal Communication.
..3
-3
-3
3
3
413
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.3
w
-3
3
3
,0
3
3
3
3
3
.-3
de Janeiro April 1988.
pp.509 510-511,512 529-530,544-546; SEMA, Areas
19 _
pp.10,26,
de Protecao Ambiental
20 - Legislaca.o . . . , pp.554 546 , 579 , 580 , 618-617 ; Quainmen "Brazil'B
Jungle Blackboard"; Roger Stone, Dreams of Amazonia.
New York,
Penguin, 1986, Chapter 6,
21 - IdL2i§JLiL£L£L2^_±-.^.' pp. 354-356.
22 - Legislacao. ,... , pp. 21, 24, 21 -45; Bezerra,
E1 a b i. o d e
-JIE,
Antonio Domingues
Jesus.
IlLtL§^liew. •
Brasilia, May 19, 1988;
Aldrighi .
Pargvie Nacional da Tijuca.
n.p. , IBDF, n.d.
_._,_, Anexo IV;
[typewritten],
p.l; IBDF, Projetode
Barros, director of Itatiaia National Park mentions the 1946 union
protective forest as a buffer for the p a r k ; see Es a r r o s , Pax3.u.es.
Naciqna is do. B r a s i1, p.17.
I found nothing about the fate of
protective forests outside Pvio de Janeiro state.
pp.70-83; Padua, Interview a re-a computations
23 are mine.
24 - Claudia Meneses , Personal Communication.
Espirito Santo,
December 1987, informed me about the current status of Native
American lands; Magnanini et Padua, "Situacao. . . " , p. 21.
25 - L_e_gislacao . , . , p. 20.
26 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema . , , , pp. 20, 25.
27 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema , . ., pp. 20, 2,5.
28 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema . . ., pp. 21, 25.
2,9 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema . . ., pp. 20, 25.
30 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema . . ,, pp. 21, 26; Padua, Interview.
31 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema . . . p,21;
Padua, Interview; Padua,
,
Uni dades . . . , pp .12-13
32 ~ IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema . . ,. pp. 22, 26.
33 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano do Sistema . , . ,pp. 22, 26; Gary B. Wetterberg
et
3f Progress of South American National Parks- 1974!1M- Washington B.C. USDI, National Park Service, 1985, pp.1620, has a brief Engli h language summary of Brazilian protected
areas, existent and proposed. The vague legal definition of some
existing units is also mentioned.
34 - Two books have used congressional records in analyzing
American National Parks: Roderick Nash.
Wilderness and the
American Mind. 3 ed. Cambridge, Yale University Press, 1982; and
Alfred Runte. National Parks :The American ExiDerience. Lincoln a n d
London, University of Nebraska Press, 1984,
35 - Padua, Interview.
36 - IBRA-IBDF, Parcmes Nacionais e Reservas jEguivalentes ,
pp. 35-37 ,58-61.
37 - Faleiros, Interview; Padua, [Esboco. . .] ,
38 - Jesus, Interview; I thank Fabio de Jesus, Margarene Maria Ijima
Bezerra and Antonina Ornellas for providing these figures and other
data on visitation.
'39 - Bezerra, ]^iJie_r\riew.; Jesus, Ijrtjsjrvii
Herbert Martins.
[ typewitten]
Nacioria_l_ do C a p a r a o . B e 1 o H o r i z o n t e19 8.
40 - Bezerra, Interyiew
C h a p t e r 15 ; R, u n t e ,
. ; Nash, Wildejrness
Natg _p_ n a 1 P arks. . ._,. Chapter
;
Joseph 1 Sax. M o u a t_a ijns_ __ w i t h gu t
Ha nd r a iIs: Ref1e c t i o ns on t h e N n. t i o n a 1 P a r k s . Ann Arbor,
~?
^~•^J
O
414
University of Michigan Press, 1987, dedicates a whole book to
several controversies which divide specific sub-constituencies of
visitors of American national parks.
41 - Carlos Manes Bandeira.
"Escavacoes Historicas no Parque
Nacional da Tijuca".
FBCM - Bpl.e.tim Inf ormatiyg.. 10, pp. 87-93;
Carlos Manes Bandeira et al . Pe serais as e Escavacoes Arqueolggicas
em S i t i oj;,__Hi_st or i co s do Parque
de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, 1984.
[typewritten]
42 - Padua, Interview; Padua, Unidades de Cons_erya_c_a_o.
I thank
the author for permission to cite provisional figures of this ongoing study about Brazilian conservation units.
43 - B ez er ra, Inte
44 - Padua et Coimbra F i l h o , C^s___J^rgjy[ej3__J^
JjL§jlil.'
pp.184-188; B a r r o s , Ilaj^i8j3_j>la_ej^
p . 17.
45 - Padua et Coimbra Filho, Qs_-JPaLr3Uies__J^^ionai-s .dp Br_a_s_il_,
pp.181-182 .
46 - Padua et Coimbra Filho, Os__^aj^3]ies_JJa_c_2jOjia4s___do Brasil,
pp.176-177.
"~ ~' ~~"
~"
47 - IBDF-IBRA, P argue s Na c i ona i s e Res e r y a 5 _E_g_u iy;a 1. en_t_e: s_.__._.__, p. 43.
48 - IBRA-IBDF, P a r g u e s N a c i o n a is e R^^^jtva_s_^_cim.val^ivt_e^_.._._._,
pp.40-42; Padua, Interview; Augusto Ruschi.
do EspiritoSanto.
Sao Paulo, Editora Rios , 1982, has some
references to R u s c h i ' s pioneer p r e s. e r v e c r e a t i o n c a m p a i g n ; S t r a n g
et al, Par.quesi Est:adua.is__do Brasil. . . , p. 26, also mentions Ruschi ' s
role .
49 - Padua et Coimbra Filho, Os P argue s Na c i ona i s do Brasi1,
pp. 183-184.
- - -~
—
50 - Padua et Coimbra Filho,
180; Padua et Audi, "Especies
OJL_JL§Jl!lLi?JLJ[32^
...", p.58.
P-
Chapter 5
1 - Padua, Intjervijew.
2 - Padua, Interview; Stone, Dr,eajns_. . . , pp. 160-161; Bezerra,
Interview.
3 - Adelmar Coirobra Filho et Antonio Doiiiingues Aldrighi .
A
_^l__Zs\ma¥__d£__£j£2Qi®__JL^^
,4.1 ^TLiy.cJLt- 2,ll§H§32^JLii.j,.
B_r_as_i_l.
Publicacoes Avulsas, numero 57.
Rio de Janeiro, Museu
Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, 1971, p,6; Runte, Na^jtO|ial_JParj£SiiJ,_._r
chapter 7.
4 - Padua et Audi, "Especies...", pp.49,50,52,55-75,77 .
5 - Padua, "Situacao...", pp.37-40,
6 - Maria Tereza Jorge Padua.
"Areas de Preservacao: Parques
Nacionais e Reserves Biologicas". B r asi1 . F1 or e s t a1, VII(31), p,9.
7 - Tresinari, "Evolucao...", pp.20-22; it is by now obvious that
my "generational" classification of Brazilian national parks is
akin to Tresinari's "stages".
8 - Tresinari, "Evolucao...", PP- 22-23.
9 - SF.MA, Projeto Nacional do Meio.. ..Amb_i_emt_il; Bezerra, llLtcjrvi_£.w.
415
-N
>s*
*
^
-•**'
Barros et Strang, "Capacitacao . . , , pp. 12-13; Wetterberg et
2.0
D^£ad_e_,_,__
u , p. 19, mentions "lack of qualified personnel" as a
al
major problem for Brazilian NP ' s .
11 - IBASE Files, O_Globo, 6//1/1986, 10/24/1987, 3/5/1988; FoJLha
_ _ _ _
10/21/1986.
12 - Bezerra, Interview
Padua, iivt^rvigw; Wetterberg et al ,
19.
Dec^de
1 3 - IBASE Files
_ _ _
, 4/5/1986,
I used area
Folha _ 3e__j3a^_JPajilo
figures from Tables in Chapter 4;
Padua, Unidades , . . , p.l,
mentions other countries' figures; Ibsen de Gusmao Camara.
Licao
l,
de Itatiaia".
Cpn_sexy.a_^ap__^_§L_NgLtM-g:e.gA> XI (2), p
14 . - IBASE Files, 0_Globo, 5/9/1988; Bezerra, Irrtjsrvlew; Padua,
jBte£vi§w,' Wetterberg et al , D^ca,d €_,_.__,_, pp. 101-103 mentions four
other Brazilian parks scheduled for imminent creation,
15 - IBASE Files, O_Globo., 2/27/1988, 4/28/1988; Runte, National
PajJi§_^jL_i. / dedicates Chapter 1 to the recurrent preservationist
argument of parks as part of American national identity,
16 - IBDF-FBCN, Pl^£__A2^JiMiM™^^^> pp. 42-43; IBASE Files, 0
Siobo., 6/1/1986,
\.~
17 - Padua, Interview; IBDF-FBCN, PMll2_-42--MsMffiij-t_i.' pp. 83, 84,
mentions community support for Caparao and Serra da Canastra NP ' s ;
Wetterberg et al , E[e_ca_dj3Ji_ ,_,_ , p. 19, mentions the problem of "lack
of public recognition and support".
18 - Padua, Interview;.
19 -- Ndsh, Wji_l_de rrie^ji . . . consistently refers to urbanization as an
underlying cause for the emergence of a significant social movement
of American nature appreciation; Viola, O_Jdpjnjj\enJtci_Eooj.ip_gl£p___n o
E d u a r d o Viola. MojdU!L§rit^
Tese Apresentada
ao XI Encontro Anual da ANPOCS. Aguas de Sao Pedro, October 2029, 1987; both are pioneer studies of the different strands of
emerging environmental groups in Brazil.
Jose Augusto Padua et
Antonio Lago . O___flMjg__e__£colg3i^.Sao Paulo, Drasiliense, 1981,
explores different emphasis of environmental groups, inside and
outside B azil.
20 - IBASE Files, 0__G 1 obo , 5/31/1987; SenhoXr 3/7/1988; Jornai__dg
Bra_§H, 9/1/1985;
Santiago to Richa, official letter 167/1986.
Brasilia, March, 3, 1986.
FBCN Files. Jose Richa was elected by
popular vote and through an opposition party; Viola considers him
to have a good environmental record; Viola, Q_ ..M_oyim_ento. Ecol-ogico
H2_^Il§JLiAj^_i. • P • 1 8 .
21 - Padua, In t e r y i e w .
........
Chapter 6
1 - Cited in Ernani da Silva Bruno, Historia do
jral
JiJ._-E.g-P.ir.i t o S ant o , R i o de, J ane i. r o Gu an.aj:>ar a......e ...Mi n a s __G e r a i_s .
Sao Paulo, Cultrix, 1967, p. 143. Nilo Pecanha was a major Rio de
Janeiro politician, President of Brazil in 1909-1910.
2 - Stone, BjOLil!!LS_._._^ , pp. 29-30; the upward tendency of the
-9
-a
.=«•
116
"**
^P
.4
~
-^
3
^
estimates is clue mainly to the consideration of the life-sustaining
capability of Native American agriculture,
3 - Warren Dean, "Indigenous Populations of the Sao Paulo-Rio de
Janeiro Coast: Trade, Aldeamento, Slavery and Extinction". Rj?_vist.a
de_JHisJtp_ri.a. , 117, pp. 3-9; the estimate for the population of the
entire Rio de Janeiro area is mine. Dean notes that his estimate
for 1555 is probably below the "contact" population of 1500, due
to epidemic diseases that wiped out thousands of Natives over 50
3
years of constant contact with European sailors,
U
4
Dean,
"Indigenous
Populations.,.",
pp. 12-14 , 16-17 , 24 ;
Frederick Turner, §JOL2IL4_Ji©<!>SCO^
__
A
th_e__J£ijLd_errie_s_s, .
New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University
Press, 1983..
5
Warren Dean.
"Ecological and Economic Relationships in
Frontier History: Sao Paulo, Brazil", George Wolf skill and Stanley
Palmer, ejd_s_.
|5§jij|£S__iOji-J|^^
___
Hi.@J^ojt'j^,
Arlington,
University of Texas Press, n.d., p. 77.
6 - Sergio Buarque de Ho land a.
_ _ _ _ _
~"~"
Edeni£os , _no Dj3scgbi"iraerrt-o e na Cgloiiizacao do Brasi.1 . 4 ed .
Sao
^3
Paulo, Nacional, 1985, is a superb historical account of "visions
~\f paradise" and "conquest myths" developed, by different European
_
colonizers in their contact with the American continent; Viana
£r
Moog. Bange irant.es e Pi one ir o s . 12 ed , Porto Alegre, 0 Globo,.
^J
1971, also compares European colonial enterprises in Brazil and
^
North "America ,
7 - Alfred W.
3
^
11
&
^
^
£
^
^
**
Q
-~^
Expans ion of____Europe t 9 0 0-1900 . Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1986, specially Chapter 5, "Winds", expounds Portuguese
sailing tec h n o 1 o g y ; Gilberto F r e y r e , Casa_ Grande__ e _ Sen gala . 2 3 e d .
Rio de Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1984, specially Chapter 1, has plenty
of social and cultural background on the Portuguese and Spanish
colonial and missionary efforts.
There is an English language
edition of this basic book on Brazilian social history, entitled
'S1-6 .Mast ers; and the __S laves .
8 - Freyre, Casa Grande ... , defends the colonialist virtues of the
Portuguese, as compared with European rivals and evaluates their
sugar cane plantations as a distinctly Portuguese colonial effort.
9 - Gilberto Freyre.
Nor_d_e_s_t_e ,
5 ed.
Rio de Janeiro, Jose
Olympic; Recife, Fundacao do Patrimonio Historico e Artistico de
^
Pernambuco,
1985;
Freyre,
"Deforestation,,..", pp. 53-56.
Q
^
•**
^)
^
-^
^
•Q
'"
-•&
Q
10 - Sergio Buarque de Holanda, R aj^ze^__j3o__j3^,a_s_i. 1, . 19 ed , Rio de
Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1987, pp. 17, 18; Dean, "Deforestation...",
p. 55, discusses the economics of swidden agriculture.
11 - Bruno, Histpria. do .Brasil . . . , pp. 16, 18 5; Pac.ua, Najtu_r_e_za__e_
Proleto Nacional . , . , p. 14.
12 - Bruno, Hi s t o r i a_ _do_ B r; as i_l _. , _._ , pp. 19 ,21.
'13 - Dean, "Indigenous Populations-.."; Bruno,
Iii§_tpJLiJl__Jl0
Bjrasil . . . , pp. 16, 32.
"
— - - ............
14
- Turner,
Beyond _ Geogrjaphy . . _._ ,
explores
the
different
geographies of Natives and Europeans in Central and North America
c o 1 o n i a 1 p r o c e s s e s ; 6 r u n o , Hi_sJ:j^iji_jiO_^r_ajy^
, p .23.
Crosby.
EjcoJj:L£lijCL§i^
CjLsa__ , _^ir_§.B,dj;U,_i_r.. ' ?
Dean,
3
417
3
15 - IBDF-FBCN.
OjyiSL-JilJL-Jiiyi^
pp. 23-24 was the basis for this geographical description; I have
added numerous personal o b s e r v a t i o n s .
16 - I B D F - F B C N , Pljiao_j3.e__jy^^
p. 2 5 ;
Alves Motta Sobrinho, A__£4ziliz_acao__do__C-af_e . 3 ed.
Sao P a u l o ,
O
B r a s i l i e n s e , 1978.. p. 11; D e a n , "Indigenous P o p u l a t i o n s . , , " , p. 4;
•*)
Dean,
"Forest
Conservation...".
p. 55;
Warren
Dean.
^»
" D e f o r e s t a t i o n in Southeastern B r a z i l " . Richard B . Tucker and J.F.
-^
R i c h a r d s , eels. .
G lobjj^_^JLJLgjrg .st at ion a n. d t he
3
Wpxl<I_J;!l£2Ii2I[LZ. •
Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press,
-«s
1983, pp. 50-67, describes in more detail the coastal forests in the
Sao Paulo-Rio de Janeiro area, which he calls
"sub-Tropical
D
Atlantic Coastal Forest".
17 - Bruno, HigJk££ia_J^_Jr^^ll^_,^,. , pp . 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 .
18 - Holanda, Eu£li.zejLi^_i, -• pp. 66-73,
evaluates the
preference for Brazil's coastal areas and compares
Spaniards' tendency to create all their main colonial
the mountain ranges of Central and South America.
19 ~ Bruno, Hi^t^rj.j_^s_JJLSSJJiz^s. ' pp. 24, 28; Dean, "Indigenous
Populations . . . " , p. 19 .
20 - Freyre, No_r_d_e jg_t_e , gives a detailed statement of the ecological
effects of sugar cane plantations in the Brazilian Northeast, in
all similar to case in study here; B r u n o , K j._st_q rjLa_. ji£__Br_a s iJL. _^r ,
p. 25, mentions now little cattle the Rio de Janeiro area had in
comparison to all other colonial settlements in Brazil; Dean,
"Deforestation...", pp. 60-61.
21 - Bruno, Historia. ...do Brasil . . . , pp. 58 , 62-63 , 67 ; Freyre, Cas_a
j_z_. f both mention the incidence of free Blacks in the mini no
_^
business;
Dean,
"Deforestation.. .",
briefly
explains
the
***
environmental impacts of mining in the Minas Gerais area.
Q
22 - Orlando Valverde. EjLtj4djgj;_j|j3_j^
Br_asiie_ir_a.
*~\, Vozes, 1985, pp.22; Bruno,
X,
23
Charles Darwin.
3^1l§__22i§SS
^
Doubleday and American Museum of Natural History, 1962, Chapter
Q
24 - Valverde, Es_tJido_s_.__.._.__, pp, 17-18.
-^
25 - Affonso d'E. Taunay.
BjJlJL2£JJL_j|j2._J^
Rio
"^
Janeiro, Departamento Nacional do Cafe, 1939, v 1, p. 60; v 2, pi
^f
V a l v e r d e , Ej3jDUjdoj3_. ,_i_._f p . 19.
^
26 - Taunay, Iiis.j;j2£JJL_^j2-_-£§J^-_,^_-_' v 2, p. 129; Fuad Atala et al,
^J_
£3j2JL§JiJL§_^5_Jtiiyci3.Rio de Janeiro, Centro de C'onservacao da
•***
Natureza., 1966; Raymundo Ottoni de Castro Maya.
A^__Fl^re_st,a__d_a,
Q
Ti jj_uca. Rio de Janeiro, Bloch 1967.
^,
27 - In my estimation I did not include Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo
•^
areas also opened for coffee. Incidentally, 1 find Dean's estimate
lQ
of 30,000 km2 as the total area of forests cleared for coffee in
*-^
Brazil during the whole 19th century very conservative,
'^
discounting sizeable Sao Paulo areas where coffee occupied
.,>
already
used
for
sugar
cane
plantation.
See
"^
"Deforestation...", p.63.
"i-v
^S - Valverde, Estudos. . ., , p. 17; Enci,cj,OEe^i.,>a__Aj)erJ.5ajia.; Dean
---""'
"Deforestation . . . " , p . 62 .
Q
29 - Maria Celina Whateley. p Cafe em_ Res ejnjie_no_^e.culo XIX. K i t
-3
"3
«,
418
de Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1987. pp , 14-16.; Warren Dean,
_
_
^
Stanford, St-. a n ford University
3
Press, 1976, specially Chapters 1 and 2, has a much longer
*"|
evaluation of the environmental impacts of coffee plantations in
^
the different landscape of Sao Paulo's Plateau; I also used
-<-'
Valverde, Es_tudo^._._;_; Dean,
"Forest
Conservation.,.": Dean,
D
"Deforestation..,"; Bruno, Ei^tqri^__^_B_r^^±l^^^, pp. 111-137. T
—\e included in the following pages many observations from
~"
personal visits to old and young coffee farms in the Paraiba do Sul
3
Valley,
^3
30 - Warren Dean.
Sa£__j>jiyJLo_j^^
[typewritten], p. 8. I thank the author for
giving me access to this unpublished text.
31 ~ Holanda, Rai^e_s_._^._ , p. 20,
3 2 - Wh a t e ley,fi__CaJE^___eni_^.^sjend_e_._._.., p - 1 6 , b r i e f 1 y d e s c r i b e s
innovations and shows that at least some Resende area farmer P
adopted them;
Bruno, HiS_tjoxi^__^S__Br_agi.l_._._,,, p. 120, lists some
innovations,
33 - Francisco Jose de Oliveira Viana.
"Distribuicao Geografica
3-° Cafeeiro no Estado do Rio de Janeiro".
—N
C€^it^iar_i_o_ de _ Sua Introducao no Brasil.
Rio
de Janeiro,
Departamento Nacional do Cafe, 1934, p.79; Artur Soffiati Meto.
w
"A Agonia das Lagoas do Norte Fluminense" . C i^n£:Lj_^_,_J^lt_ii r n ,
^)
3 7 (10 ): 16 2 7 -1638,
pres e n. t s
a
c o n te m p o r ar y
e n v i r o n rn e n t a 1
.~
preservation perspective on the drainage of the freshwater lake
"**
system in present day Campos,
^
34 - V i a n a , " D i s t r i b u i c a o . . . " , p. 80; B r u n o , HJLj3_toria_ d o_j3 rjjjQjl. . . , ,
-}
P. 51.
"™
"
^
35 - Viana, "Distribuicao...", p.82.
HP
36 - FIBGE, Estatisticas Historiccis_,,dg _Br_as
O
p_emogr af i c a s e S o c i a i s de 15 50 a 1985 .
Series Estatisticas
^
Retrospectivas, numero 3. Rio de Janeiro, FIBGE, 1987, Table 6,43;
-*y
Bruno, Historia do Brasil... , p. 85.
j|
37 - Viana, "Distribuicao..,", pp. 84, 88; Valverde, Estud_ojL,,,„:...: ,<
Q
pp.20--22; Caio Prado Junior. EiJS.tcn'j^a Eccm9jTi;[cja_do_|y:a^2j«.. Sao
^
Paulo, Editora Brasiliense, 1956, p.165.
"^
38
Whateley,
0
Cafe
em
Resende. . ..,
p. 14;
Viana,
Q
"Distribuicao...", p.88.
^
39 - Alfonso d'E. Taunay.
I^i^u j! nj\JS L?j^
xv"
Rio de Janeiro, Departamento Nacional do Cafe, 1945, pp.39~
...^
40,50,121,233.; this area is studied by an American scholar,
,"-\y J. Stein.
Grande_zj.__e_ De_cadencia $£L^1§JLSL--BSL
*
Par_a.ib_a_. Sao Paulo, Brasiliense, 1961.
,3
40 - Viana, "Distribuicao...", p.90.
41
Prado
Junior,
His tori, si _ jE^^n_ojaic_a_^_i_i. >
p. 165 5;
Dean,
"Deforestation...", pp. 61-63.
42 - Viana, "Distribuicao...", p. 91.
43 - Valverde, EstjJid.os_1_._.. , pp. 31-33.
4 4 - p a d u a , N_§r1^ rjj_z_a__e__£rj)jj^
, p . 2 5 ; D e a n , " F o r e- B t
Conservation...", p. 59.
41'
3
3
3
3
D
O
O
3
Chapter 7
1 - Dean Sao Paulo. , has a brief account on how Sao Paulo
coffee plantations substituted Rio de Janeiro's.
2 - FIBGE, ArmaricLj
]l!!LtajLijttjtco__d^
Rio de Janeiro
FIBGE, 1984, is rny ?ource for the data on contemporary Rio df
Janeiro agriculture; all rankings and comparisons are mine.
3'~ IBASE Files, 0_Globo 9/1/1985.
, pp.20~2 2.
4 - SEMA, A_re_as_dj;_ ££2tje_c^^_JAjmM:^rvjtal_.
5 ~ SEMA, Areas de Protecao Ambiental
-,> pp. 30-32. SEMA. Area_
de Protecao A|Sib_i^nt^l___de £§,lOlcu_,_lPj,r^tix__jAl|__._; Informacoes
Ba_s_i_cjL§.. Brasilia, 198?"."" [leaflet]
._, pp . 3 3~3 5 ; SEMA . AjrejL^dj5
6 - SEMA, Areas de Protecao Ambiental
P r o t e c a o Ambiental de
:j LROLL_r I&f.2Oia.£ °-ts_ _T (. :CnjLoas ,
Brasilia, 1987
[leaflet]
IBASE F i l e s , J o r n a l do B r a s i l ,
2/9/1986.
7 - SEMA, Areas de; Protecao Ambiental
45
8 - IBASE Files, 0__Gi£bo_, 9/22/1985,
9 - P a d u a , yjlida^S^jjuA., P . 18 .
10 - Jairo Cesar Marconi Nicolau, IL§Jlj3J2Jl§J.._j^0^
Rio de
Janeiro May 1988.
11 - Sprang et al , Pajr^UtE^Stjdi^aJ^.^^, pp. 7 0-7 2; IBASE i 1 (•: K
numerous clips from 1986-1988.
•1 O
_L A
Flumitur.
Anara^djDj? Reis. Rio de Janeiro. n,d • , p.3
1
13 - IBASE Files, Q_Globo, 1/25/1987,9/1/1985.
14 - Strang et al , Parques Estaduais..., pp . 64 , 66-67 .
15 - Strang et al , Parcjujes Estaduais..., pp. 65-66,
16 - Lina Maria Kneip. Reserva Biologica de Barra Nova - !
Rio de Janeiro, n.d. [typewritten]
iMl
17 - IBASE Files, Jornal do Brasil, 8/19/1984.
18 - IBASE Files, Jornal do Brasil, 8/19/1984; O Glofoo,, 2,
3/9/ 1986.
19 - IBASE Files, several clips from 1986 and 1987.
20 - IBASE Files, several clips from 1985 and 1987.
21 - Brasil Florestal, XIV (61), p. 18.
22 - "Tombameiitos - Baixada de Jacarepagua", FBCN Fi les
23 - IBASE Files, several clippings from 1987 and 198 8,
24 - The last four paragraphs are based on Harold Ed gar< Strang.
"Reserva Biologica de Jacarepagua: Urn Projeto Frustrado". J3ol_et,i_m
F3CN, 16, pp. 52-6.1; Carlos Manes Bandeira.
"A Destruicao dos
Monuraentos Arqueologicos da Baixada de Jacarepagua" .
FBCN___--_
5, pp. 19-21; FBCN News Clip Files, Q_J2ia,~
1/22/1978,
1/23/1978; O_ Globo , 12/9/1979;
J o r:n a l__d.o._ B r a si 1
12/15/1979.
Chapter 8
420
1 - The preceding paragraphs were based on IBDF-FBCN,
£limo__c[e_
M a n eijiL-Jl-J^i-^^
• B r a s i 1 i a , 1982 , p p . 2 3 , 3 0 32,35,38-39,41,43,47,53-54,57,63
(hereafter cited as P_lano__de
n.d. [leaflet]; Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros. "O Parque Nacional
de Itatiaia". AmjjirjuD_^rj|j3ii^^
Rio deJaneiro, Institute Nacional do Pinho, 1958; Barros, Pj3JCSL\I§JL
N 5L£i£BJii^--^2__BX§^il.' PP-16, 43-52; Padua et Coimbra Filho, Os
^
H
i—I
3
-"I
^
N_ ~?
^3
^P-•%
^
^
^
*^)
-•%
•&
_^)
^
«*
_^
Q
^
•^
-••*
Q
—.
-~&
Q
.3
2 - IBDF, iL§JL<iyiJL_JN§^l^
Whateley, Q_J^ajEe_,ejn
Re^ende^_i_i,, P • 7; Conselho Nacional de Geografia et Conselho
Nacional d e E s t a t i s t i c a . Encyclopedia Brasileira . dos Municip ios .
Rio de Janeiro, IBGE, 1959. v XXII, entry "Resende" ." Hereafter
this reference source will be cited as Ericiclo^edji..a_, followed by
the name of the respective municipio,
3 - Wh a t e 1 e y, 0 C_af e em.... __Re s en.de . . . , pp.7 - 9 ; j
"Resende",
4 - Whateley, 0_CMjg_^I!LJRjesen^e_._._._, pp. 9, 11, 45.
5 - Whateley, 0 CaJ^__ejtMRe_s^nJ.^_:_._._, pp. 9 ,11 > 43 , 47-48 ; Stanley J .
Stein.
Gr_a_nd_e_z.a_ e Decadencia do Cafe no XaJLe_^yo^_Pa£aJJba..
Sao
Paulo, Brasiliense, 1961.
6 - Whateley, 0 C^fe___ern__R^§.£MLd§_:_±_i, > PP . 20 , 23 , 25 , 28 .
7 - Whateley, 0_Cafe em Resende...» pp.12,51-52, 54; Enciclopedia,
"Resende " ; Bruno , HijsJtojlijLJ^^^
PP - 14 2-14 3 .
8 - Whateley, 0^jy:j3__j2m_j^^
pp. 35-39 ,46,65, 68 ; Barros , "O
Parque Nacional de Itatiaia", p.327, explains the main succesionai
species and communities in the Itatiaia area and how they are
affected by coffee plantations.
9 - E. Gouvea. "Balance Ecologico do Parque Nacional do Itatiaia".
l^JLe,tJjii_FBCN, 20, pp.109-111.; IBDF-FBCN, P_l_an o_j3je J^nejjO^^jTtartiajji <
P-77; Enc_i_c3^ojDej3i_a,., "Resende"; I could not. check what happened.
exactly to the colonies after 1918, when they are supposed to have
"failed"; Dean, "Forest Conservation...", p.63, states that the
areas were "bought" by the federal government, by suggestion of the
Botanist Albert Loefgren.
This does not seem to be entirely
correct because private owners subsist in some of the colonies'
plots until today,
10 - Gouvea, "Balance Ecologico..."; Magnanini , £o_Mjy_j^___e
P.,i£j|-tr.i2JLsJLJ-JL' P-4, also mentions the Biological Station as an
important background fact in the creation of INP.
"Resende" .
12 -- IBDF-FBCN, Plsino_de_Mane_J_CL_- It_a_tijajja , pp . 49 , 50 , 66 , 75 .
13 - IBDF-FBCN, PJ^an^_deJtiajieJjjD_^^^
p p . 15-17, 18; T r e s i n a r i ,
"Evolucao. . . " , p. 15.; Padua et Coimbra F i l h o , Q^_Pj«;cjuj|s_Jiaj^ij2j^a^ij^
^ o ____Br_asiJL_,
p. 122;
IBDF,
E3£2M^__™liS£i2IlS2t «dg____i|_ati^i^a;
pp.10-12.
14 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano., d e_. Man e j o - _ I tat i a i a., pp. 17-18.
15 - Oliverio Pinto.
"Aves do Itatiaia - Lista Remissiva e Novas
Achegas a Avifauna da Regiao".
Boletim do .Pargjiie . Nacio_nal d_e
iia t_i_a_i^a_, 3, pp. 1-87.
Rio de Janeiro, 1954; Gouvea, "Balance...",
mentions the stuffed bird museum.
16 - Alexemdre Curt Brade .
"A Flora do Parque Nacional dp
11,-
-$
~3
3
3
~ JB
3
3
^
3
ji
_
3
.3
~3fc
Itatiaia".
lLllij§JLll!L-JI<L™J^
, 5, pp. 1 - 8 b .
Rio de Janeiro, 1956* I could not locate copies of other editions
of this unique park periodical.
With the exception of a small
project of wildlife management in Tijuca National Park, in the
early 1970's, these two scientific investigations were the only
ones originated by park service initiative revealed in my sources.
17 - Barros, "0 Parque Nacional de Itatiaia"; Padua et Coimbra
F i 1 ho , Os_ P a r que s N a c i on.a_i s T. do „ Br a s jl 1, p. 12 9 ,
18 - Dourojeanni, IjlJLQOaSti_!_s.' pp. 21, 22, 23, 24; Padua et Audi,
"Especies...", p.61, also
mention. INP ' s excessively
small
dimensions for the survival of 12 occurring endangered species of
animals .
19 - Mario N. Borgonovi.
Ij:atiai_a. [Presented to the Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da
Natureza] . Pvio de Janeiro, September 9, 1982.
[typewritten] , pp.
4,5.; IBASE Files , JornjO_d^^»Jiaj3_il., 8/19/1984 .
20 - Borgonovi, Re 1 a_t.or io...... ... I ta t i ai a , pp. 6-8.
21 - IBDF-FBCN, PJ;ajiOjd^J3anejjo_^^aJaaj.a,, pp.72,75,76,77,78,79,8288,89-102,102-1067
~
22 - Gouvea, "Balanco..."
23 - IBASE Files, Jornal do Brasil, 8/19/1984; 0 Globo, 6/21/1987.
3
3
Chapter 9
1 - The preceding paragraphs were based on IBDF-FBCN.
£i§n.o__,.de
li§IlJLdJL_JI~-_Jl§J^^
• Brn s i 1 i a , 198 0 ,
pp.10, 14, is", 17 ,"l8 , 22-26, 27-33,42, 44, 46, 49, 56, 57 , 60 , hereaf tercit ed
as £i§^S____4^__-JlMl!li2L__JL_~^S£Il§- dos jDrgaos;
Padua et Audi,
"Especies...", p.6 6; IBDF. PjLLSLMiLJi§£i^^
n.p., n.d.
[leaflet];
Padua et Coimbra Filho, Os___Paxgues
Nacionais do Brasj.,1, p. 152, argue that SONP' s forests are mostly
second growth, but "well evolved" towards climatic forms.
2 - The preceding paragraphs were based on IBDF.
^§_Jie£!3™_dos_Or2S£l.. n.p., n.d., [leaflet]; IBDF-FBCN, £lano__^e
ll§iIl^i2__Jl__S^rra__dos_ Or_ga_os., pp. 38,39; Enc_ic_lop_e|jdiiai, "Mage";
,, "Teresopolis"; E n c i c 1 p p_e d i a , "Petropolis " .
3 - IBDF-FBCN, PJjyio_j:|e_Jlajn^
p. 35.
4 - Padua, [Esboco...]; IBDF-FBCN,
,, p. 3; IBDF, Pjyr<I!ie_Njacj^^
Padua et
Coimbra Filho, Q^^§XS01S£_Ji§fii5iaiA^_^ja«^OtSii' P-152; Dean, "Forest
Conservation...", p.63.
5 -- Oliveira Is cited In IBDF-FBCN, ILl^n^^e_JMajie^^_j^_^erxa^._d^.s
Orjgaxus, pp.5-6,7.
6 - Elyowald Chagas de Oliveira. ^i^^^S^^^Q^K^^^^S^^^^MSS^^Ii^J:.
Teresopolis,
Institute Brasilelro de
Desenvolvimento Florestal, December 5, 1967.
[mimeographed],
PP.2,3,4.
7 - IBDF-FBCN , Ojrio_,_d£_Jiaji8JLo_^^
pp.1,65,69,70 72,73-84,116; IBDF,
13L_dos^
8 - Mario N. Borgonovi.
-%
19
^
3>
422
dos Orj3JLOS_. [Presented to the Fundacao Brasileira cie Conservacao
da Natureza] . Rio de Janeiro, August 4, 1982.
[typewritten],
p . 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 and " Anexos " ; IBDF , £ajrgiieJla^ion^J^_da^
3
3
3
a
Chapter 10
1 - This title is obviously inspired by Leo Marx's The_Machin_e _jln,
tlie_Gj|rJ.eji_^_Jte_cJin_ol^^
. London,
Oxford University Press, 1964.
2 - The preceding paragraphs were; based on IBDF-FBCN.
£iJL'|l°__j3-§
-3
MarTgj.0,______- P a r q u e Na,cional da Tijuca .
B r a s i 1 i a , 1 9 8 1 , pp , 3 1 , 3 2 ,
|
hereafter cited as Z3L§JL°__jilL_JEl§Il^^
;
Arner_i^:an a_ ; Tereza Cristina Holetta Scheiner. "Ocupacao Humana no
Parque Nacional da Tijuca - Aspectos Gerais". BrjigJjL_JFlo^r_esJtaJL f
VII (23), pp . 5 , 6 , 7 ;
Carlos Cesar Landini V. cle Mattos et al .
"Aspectos do Clima e da Flora do Parque Nacional da Tijuca ",
» VIK25) , pp. 3-12; Padua et Coimbra Filho, Os,
, pp.160 - 1 7 1 .
3 - IBDF-FBCN, Eljano_J[j5j^ii8^
p. 39.
4 - IBDF-FBCN, P!,ajio^e_J^^^^
p. 39; Gilberto Freyre.
S^p_bra.dos e Mocambos . 6 ed. Rio de Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1981,
captures this and other urban life scenes in vivid detail; Atala
et al , F 1 ores t a d a Tijuca , p. 20, mentions constant brawls between
slaves in water fountain lines during draught periods; Scheiner,
"Ocupacao Humana...", p. 14; Bruno, Hi._sjtoir_i^__^o__Eras ijL , pp. 43,6869.
'
.......
.........
5 - IBDF-FBCN, Piano^cle^ Mane .jo - _Ti _jy_ca , p. 38; Scheiner, "Ocupacao
Humana . . . " , p . 8 .
6 - Scheiner, "Ocupacao Humana..,", p. 8 ,14.
7 - Scheiner, "Ocupacao Humana..,", pp. 11, 12, 13; IBDF-FBCM, Piano.
:,a. r
p p . 4 0 - 4 1 ; A t a 1 a. e t a 1 ,
'^
A
pp. 15-17; Maya, A_Jll^r^s^a__da_jHJuca., pp, 19-22.
8 - Atala et. al, Flioj^j3_tji__d_a_jrijjj_ca_L_ pp. 16-17, evaluates the
impacts of this sudden population increase.
9 - Maya, A_F1.Qr^st.a^da.JTi j uc a, , p. 18.
10 - Atala et al , • Flprest:_a da Tijuca , p. 16; Scheiner, "Ocupacao
Humana. . . " , p. 14 .
11 - Atala et al,
Flora sta. __da Tijuca , p. 13, presents the 15%
estimate; and 12.
12 - Atala et al , FJ:_gjre^ia_J;^__^lJiica_ , p. 51; IBDF-FBCN, P_lano__d_6
M.aj],ejip__I_jrij_uc_a , pp . 4 2 - 4 3 .
13 - IBDF-FBCN, Eiajis_^e_^ajieio_r_T ijuca. , p. 41.
14 - Atala et al, Ilor^gtaw_da_^lluca,f pp. 23-24; IBDF, FBCN , Piano.
, p. 9 .
et al , Flores ta da Tijuca , pp. 23-24, lists the acquired
properties; and 21.
16 - Atala et al , F_l pjr e s_t a d a , T i ;j u c a , p. 22; Scheiner, "Ocupacao
Humana . , . " , p . 18 .
17 - Atala et al, F l_or_es,t a__d^_rjDijjac_a , pp. 2 3.....2 9 .
18 - Atala et al, .Flojre£ta__da_JLLili ca / pp. 28-;": 9.
3
3
3
3
-3
3
3
O
3
O
O
D
19 ~ Atala e t a1, Flpresta da Tijuca pp. 33-35.; IBDF FBCN, Plaj
Scheiner, ' Ocupacao Humana , . " , p . 1 5 .
de _M_anej o_ _JLiJLUcJL, p. 9;
has more details on Archer
20 - Atala et al,
routines.
21 - Atala et al, F1 or e s t a _
_daT i .1 ucja , p.42,
Floresta da _Tijuca p.42; FIBGE, Anuario
22 - Atala et al,
Es^^tJ;^!^^^!!^^!^. •
j_u_ca_, p. 42; Carlos Manes Bandeira.
23 - Atala et al, FJ
Personal Co rmoTuni_c_at i on . Rio de Janeiro, April 1988.
Atala et al,
p p . 4 6 - 5 0 ; Bruno, H i S t o r i a_jio.
24
p . 13 0 .
p . 5 0 ; t h e c o in p u t a t i o n s ~,
25 - Atala e t al
own
.
my
p. 51.
26 - Atala e t a 1,
da
T
i.j_uc_a
,
p
.
2
8
27 - Maya, A Floresta
Scheiner, "Ocupacao Humana
pp . 18 -19 ; Maya , A_Flo,r_es_ta ...da
28
Tjju_ca_, p . 13 .
Maya, A Floresta
29
30
Maya, A Floresta
3 0 , 33 .
IBDF-FBCN,
31
IBDF-FBCN,
37-39.
32
IBDF-FBCN,
Mane 10 - f iruca ;
Laroche et Mariza
33
Vieira de Mattos . "Aspectos do Clima e da Flora do Parque Nacional
da Tijuca".
B:ra_sil_.__.FJLor es t al. ,
C? ) [1976];
Mattos et al ,
"Aspectos..,"; Nilo Santos. "Plantas Existentes no Parque Nacional.
da Tijuca". gr^sjJ._Flores^al., VIK26), pp.54.....68. All four sources
have partial checklists of TNP flora.
34 - Scheiner, "Ocupacao Humana...", p. 19, also mentions this
second point;
XBASE Files, ^OI§i-jdo_Bra.si 1. , 2/14/1988. .
35 - Scheiner, "Ocupacao Humana...", pp. 20 1.
36 - Scheiner, "Ocupacao Humana . . . " , p. 21 .
37 - Carlos Manes Bandeira et al .
s
eiri Sit_ig_s His tor icos do Parque Mac iona 1 da Tijuca .,.g.
Arr_edor_es. •
Rio de Janeiro, Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da
[typewritten], pp. 1,3-5; Carlos Manes Bandeira,
Natureza, 1984.
E.DCII__
"Escavacoes Historicas no Parque Nacional da Tijuca
Personal
Bo 1 et iiii JIiyLQJOE§J=JJ<L2. t 1 ° ' P • 8 9 ;Carlos Manes Bandeira.
Rio de Janeiro, April 1983.
38 - The preceding paragraphs were based on Coimbra Filho et
Co irr.br a Filho et
Aldrighi,
Ad el mar F
..Q
Antonio Domingos Aldrighi.
"Restabeleciinentc da Fauna do Parque
B rjasjQ Jlio,r_§_,s_t_al_,
Nacional da Tijuca: Segunda Contribuicao."
111(11), pp.19 , 20, 22, 23-32; Adelinar F. Coimbra Filho et al . "Nova
Contribuicao ao Restabelecimento da Fauna do Parque Nacional da
Tijuca, Guanabara, Brasil."
Bj^s,i_l__F_lJ2£JLS,t.a 1,, IV (16) , pp,7-25;
IBASE Files, Q_Glabo., 8/24/1980. The three articles describing the
project have precise listings and numbers of reintroduced floral
and fauna species and specimens. Incidentally, it «;eems that no
extensive research on insect species in the Rio area has ever been
published.
39 - Helmut Sick.
Aves da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro - Lista
B r as i1 c i r a
.[Checklist) - 410.. E species . Rio de Janeiro
-•a
~
—'
3
^
-
de Conservacao da Natureza, 1983,
[leaflet]
40 - Restauracao Florestal em Areas de Vegetacao Degradada no
Parque
Nacional
da
Tijuca.
[Rio
de
Janeiro],
[1978].
[typewritten], pp. 1,2 ,5,
41 - IBDF-FBCN, Plajio_cle_J>lajne^
Maya, A__. F_lo r_e.s_ta_ ^_da
Ti_j_uca_f
pp. 13-14; Scheiner, "Ocupacao Humana...", p. 8; many
personal observations were included in the two previous paragraphs.
42 - Brasil Florestal, VIK27), p. 62; IBASE Files, O_Glo.bp ,
9/26/1987 .
43 - IBDF-FBCN, £ilaJio_^e__Ma^^_^^
pp. 39, 45, 49-50 , 5158,71,72-77.
44 - Antonio Domingos Aid r i g h i . P_ajrgu_(3__Na_c_i ona_l_d[a JTiJuc. a. . n , p . ,
IBDF , n . d . . [ typewr i t ten] , pp .3,4,;
1DASE Files, Q___G.lobo ,
8/24/1980, 6/29/1936.
45 - Bandeira, Re 1 a tor i o s obr e . . . , pp. 1,2-10; IBASE Files, 0 Gl_o_bo ,
12/27/1985; Jornai do , "Brasil, 4/3/1988.
Chapter 11
3
*-%
^
—•*
3
~
^
Q
^
1 - The p r e c e d i n g paragraphs were based on Padua et A u d i , "Especi.es
da F a u n a . . . " , p. 6 6 ; SEMA, < AjrejELj3e_J?£gJ;ej^aj2^^
W a l t e r , Wolf S a u r . ZjiJLSOiiLJiJ^^
IjEIsL-?__su. a__A r_ea_
A gj_aj^nit j3^jr_ Jg si: ud o _Ap r e s e n t a do a pi r e c a o da F und a c a o B r a s i 1 _e i r a _ d e
Conservacao da TJa tur e z a .
Rio de J a n e i r o , 1977.
[typewritten] ,
p p - 7 , 8, 9 , 1 0 , 1 7 , 19, 21, 2 2 , 3 9 ;
Padua et Coimbra F i l h o f
d^_j£§sii.' pp. 14 4- 151.
2 ~ The preceding paragraphs were based on iJl£i£i2J2L§^i§, ™ "Angra
dos Reis"; SEMA, |yrea__de_£roie£a£_Ajnbj.eivba^
Saur,
pp. 11, 12, 14.
3 - The preceding paragraphs were based on ISns_i,c_lopea.i,_a - "Parati";
Saur, Pj|IJlujLJi§£icm
pp. 13, 14; Padua et,
Coimbra Filho, 0^__Pajrgiij2s_Nj3_cj^jia^i^_d_o
pp. 144 -151, 1 have
not included a discussion of the quite similar backgrounds of the
Sao Paulo municipios affected, by SBNP ,
pp . 24 , 25 - 2G . ;
**
IBDF , Diagngstico _.__. . , p . 18 .
^
5 - Padua e Audi, "Especies . . . " , p. 66; Flumitur, Ari^ra__jdos__^._§i_s_ ,
--\. 10; Padua et Coimbra Filho, QjL_Jl§IiaMtl§__liiJ"io:QJjiA_^2~
^
p. 14 4.
-«#
Q
6 - Padua et Coimbra Filho, ^^^^^S^]^£^S]&^§^.^L^£^^lf.' P-144;
Saur, PsniaiL^_Jl§j^L>on.a3,___dja_^
, PP - 1 & , 1 7 ,24,26, 3 0 -
_
-**
31,32,33,36,37,38."
7 - IBDF-FBCN. E y r < M N a c . .
SJe__P _a d o s C ad as t r a is . Brasilia, IBDF, 1977, pp. 19-25 describes the
exhaustive survey; "Anexo", v.3, has individual description
e v a 1 u a t i o n s of e n c h h o 1 d ing. I n c i. d e n t a 1 1 y , t h e p a i: }; ' s m a n a g e m r- n
plan was never concluded.
8 - Padua et Audi, "Especies...", p. 66.
—*"•**
,-^2
a
3
•**
S_g_urc^s.
E
3
-^
"3
I - Books, journal articles, leaflets, booklets, government
publications and original documents *
^
3
Aldrighi, Antonio Domingos .
£arj][uj5_Jiajr^
Insituto
Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento
[typewritten]
~^
3
3
Aquino, Tasso Villar de . "Importancia da Estacao Ecologica no
Sisterna Nacional de Conservacao do Meio Anibiente".
DoitiLiiii
FBCN, 14:81-84. Rio de Janeiro, 1979,
O
Atala, Fuad et al, Fljor_es_tj._d_a_J^ij_u_ca, .
Conservacao da Natureza, 1966.
^
^
3
Bandeira, Carlos Manes . "A Destruicao dos Monumentos Arqueologi cos
da Baixada de Jacarepagua" , FBCN - Boletim iJLtS^ELSLS-t-iJL0-'
5:19-21. Rio de Janeiro, 1970.
•**
W
O
^
V
^
^
Q
Q
_^
•^
HP
^-^
V
0^--,
W
-^
Floras tal,
n.p.,
n.d.
Rio de Janeiro, Cent.ro de
__
"
. "Escavacoes Historicas no Parque
FBCN - Boletim Inf orinatiyo, 10:87-93.
_
_ . Re la t or i o s pbr e o P argue M a c i. gna 1 d a T 1 3 uc a e S u a P r o t e c ao
e .P_re_ser_y^c_ajj__Ainbi.Lental . Rio de Janeiro, Setor de Parques
Nacionais e Reservas Equivalent.es da Fundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza, 1984. [typewritten]
_
Kacioiial daTijuca".
Rio de Janeiro, 1975.
et al . P^sj^ii_s_as___j|_^s^_aj/a_cjDj3_s_^
4£3Ji§Si5ili£S^-_~ML~_^i£io-§.
Historicos do Pargue Nacional da
!EiJJi£^__^__Jtil£Sdor_es..
Rio
de Janeiro, Bnundacao Brasileira de
Conservacao
da
Natureza, 1984. [typewritten]
Barros , Wanderbilt D. . "Legislacao de Conservacao da Natureza".
FBCN
9:28-35.
Rio de Janeiro, 1974.
"~ ' - "Boletim Informative,
™
_
_ __ . "O Parque Nacional de Itatiaia" .
SLg.on.Qmia Flores tal , 1:318-337.
Rio
Nacional do Pinho, 1958.
An^aa_r_io__EL
de Janeiro, Institute
_jio_J3_r^^
Rio de Janeiro, Service de
Informacao Agricola do Ministerio da Agricultura, 1952.
et Strang, Harold Edgard . "Capacitacao de Fessoal em Parques
Nacionais". FBCN.....Boletim
Informative, 7:8-16.
Rio de
426
Janeiro, 1972.
3
3
3
3
3
'3
3
Belart, J.L.
"For uma Politica Nacional de Conservacao", FJBCM
, 11:47-48. Rio de Janeiro, 1976,
Berutti, Paulo Azevedo . "Politica de Conservacao da Natureza".
Bjr^^iju_Floir_£Sjfcal. , V(20):3-7. Rio de Janeiro, October-December
1974.
Bezerra, Margarerie Maria Lima et Jesus, Fabio de , SjJ:ujac:ajD_jy:uaj._
das Unidades de Conservacao: Infra Estrutura |>ara_^i^s_it^ac a_ot .
[Internal document by the Departamento de Parques MaclonaiF,
e
Reservas
Equivalentes
Institute
Brasileiro
da
Desenvolvimento
Florestal] .
Brasilia,
February
1988.
[ typewritten]
Borgonovi, Mario 'N. . Rej^atori_o_S_gibre o ......P argue _. .Nax;ijgr^l_^_d_a__S_e_rra.
djDj5___J3ircjj3j3s_ .
[Presented
to the Fundacao ' Brasileira de
Conservacao da Natureza].
Rio de Janeiro, August 4, 1982.
[typewritten]
__
. R e 1 a t o r i o S o b re _g P a r g u e _ JSj; a c. 1, o n a 1. d e JTtja t^ i^a i._a . [Presented
to the Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza] . Rio
de Janeiro, September 9, 1982.
[typewritten]
Bouvier, Leon F. . "Planet Earth 1984-2034: A Demographic Vision".
Population Bulletin , 39(1). Febr u ary , 1984.
3
Brade, Alexandra Curt . "A Flora do Parque Nacional de; Itatiaia" .
yL§_ Naciojia],. . .__de_______Ii:atiaia , 5 : 1 -85,
Rio d e
Janeiro, 1955,
Brasil. Legislacao e Decretos, etc. CocLicjQ. JD-j31LJLSta3._.
23793, January 23, 1934.
[leaflet]
Decree
.
Legislaca,o de Conservacao da Matureza. 4 ed,, revised and
updated until 1986. Compiled by Carmen Moretzsohn Rocha. Sao
Paulo, Centrais Eletricas de Sao Paulo; Rio de Janeiro,
Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza, 1986.
Brasil. Ministerio da Agricultura. Institute Brasileiro
Desenvolvimento Flo r e s t a 1 , D i_a_g.np_.s_t i c o do
Conservacao e _ _ P.re_s_g.i;yacao de Recur_s_os HajturjLJ
Brasilia, 1978.
de
ica Florestal Brasileira - Periodo
Brasilia, 1979.
Brasil. Ministerio
da Agricultura. Institute Brasileiro da
Desenvolvimento Florestal. Depai'tamento de Parques Nacionais
e Reservas E q u i valentes . Pa^r£l]ie_Jia_c_ic^nja.J-__<ia__Sjerjra_do^_J?_ r a a Q s .
11 . p . , n . d . . [leaflet]
j?_argue Na, c i on a li d e I tat i a i a .
B]^^
[1975].
.
n .p . , n . d . .
^.JL_e_ £L2t.e_cj^___a__
flatjarjez_a .
""'
[leaflet]
Brasilia,
Brasilia,
[typewritten]
"5
,A
_
^
9
A
-^
^
^
'^
^
A
*y
^
-K
"3
3
—v
O
-*"")
^
^
Z)
Brasil. Minister io da Agricultural
Institute Brasileiro cle
Desenvolvimento
Florestal
et
Fundacao
Brasileira
de
Conservacao da Natureza . JLljyi°__dj:>_J;yj3tj^
C o n s_e E y ac_a o dp Bra S i 1 ~ 1 1 E. t a p a . Brasilia, 1982.
.....
Brasil. Ministerio da Agricultura. Institute Brasileiro de RafaaiB
Agraria e Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal.
Reseryjis Eguivalent8s_no^^B^^^
_ ^ ^ ^
com , V_ij5t_a5___ei uma ,. Revisao da P o l i t i c a Nacional_ .nesse __Ca_mp_o .
Rio de Janeiro, IBRA-IBDF, 1969. .[mimeographed]
....-._...--.
Brasil. Ministerio do Desenvolvimento Urbano e Meio Ambiente,
Secretaria Especial de Meio Ambiente.
Areas_ ^e___£r_o,t^£ao.
Arub i e n t a 1 ; _ A bo r da gem H i s t o r i c a e T e c n i c a . Brasilia, 1987.
___
^
"
~ ~~
A p r i l 1988.
___
......
^
. Project o _Na c i on a 1 d_o Me i_o Amb_i en t e - Re s_u 1 1 ad o s, ^ Pr e 1 iini. n a r e s
dci_Jj evajvtamje n_t o_ s_ob_re _Unidades , cle_ Cons erv_ac_a o_ .
Brasilia,
[typewritten]
.
P_rogr_ari\a_. - de_Geren.ciamen to
Brasilia, 1986.
das _ JJnidad_ e_s__d iL_£oriSjer vj3_ili-io_ .
Brasil. Ministerio da Habitacao, Urbanismo e Meio Ambiente.
Secretaria E] special de Meio Ambiente.
Ar^<5___de__P_roJ:_§_ca_o
Ambient a.1____de _ Cairucu (jParati, RJ.) ~ Inf orgiacoes ^ Basicas .
Brasilia, 1987. [leaflet]
•
Ar e a __ d e___________P r o t e c a o _ Ainb i en t a 1 d e
In f or ma. go e s _, T e c n i c a s . B r a s i l i a , 1 9 8 7 .
*~\.
G u a p i -Mi, r i IIL___LHJ^L.___I.
[leaf 1st]
,
Area _ de Prot_e_cag__________Ambieiital do Rio
Brasilia,
n.d..
Ministerio do Interior.
Secretaria Especial de
Arabiente
.
Sao _ B a_r tjo _lo in e u_ .
Meio
Estacao Ecologica de Jureia.. Brasilia, 1984.
"
Es_t a c_a^__E c^^g_i_c_a_dj2__ __Tjai rn .
Brasilia, 1984,
£as,.
B r a s i l i a , 1977.
Bruck, Eugenio Camargo et al . "Unidades de Conservacao". Revista
dj:^__S^rjvicio.j;
)ublico_,
...............
". . . . .^ 111 { 4 ) : 21-27 . Brasilia, Oc tober-December
:S
428
1983.
Bruno, Ernani da Silva . Hls^or.iaL_do__Brasil ..-_ Ger_al e Regional:
Espirito Sarijt_o^__R^_de_____J_ane_ir_o_,_ _guan_ajjar^_ e._JMina_s__Ger_a_i^ .
Sao Paulo, Cultrix, 1967. v,4.
0 CAFE no -Segundo Centenario de sua Introducao no Brasil,
Janeiro, Departamento Nacional do Cafe, 1944.
15v.
Rio cle
Camara, Ibsen de Gusinao . "A Licao de Itatiaia" .
Natureza , XI (2) :1. Rio de Janeiro, July-September 1987.
.
"Necessidade de uina Politica Nacional de Conservacao do
Meio Ambiente". FBCN-Bol e t im Inf_or mat i vo. , 11:28-40. Rio de
Janeiro, 1976.
Cardoso, Elizabeth Dezouzart et al . !£ijjica_.__j3j^^
Rio
de Janeiro,
.
.
Engenharia e Index, 1984.
Joao
Fortes
Carvalho, Jose Candida de Melo . "Aspectos Relatives a Conservacao
da Fauna Brasileira" . F B C M ._ ~ ____E o 1 e t i m Inf o r m a t i y o , 10:5-13.
Rio de Janeiro, 1975.
A
z?
^
^.
, ,
.
______ • "Detinicoes e Conceituacao de Parque Nacional e Reserva
Equivalents". IOI£]LjIl_Jlo2^^
4:33-38. Rio de
Janeiro, 1969.
Q
^
^
3
_
3
^
•**
3
'J^
•^
Q
"^
^
_
__
;
.
"Dia Muridial do Meio Ambiente: Consideracoes sobre a
Participacao do Brasil em Organizacoes , Programas e Convericoes
Relativas a Conservacao do Meio Ambiente".
Bj3l_eJ:iiii__j[j3CJtf ,
14:5-16. Rio de Janeiro, 1979.
__ . "0 Papel das Entidades Nao-Governamentais na Conservacao
da Natureza". FBCK - Bpletim Informativo, 12:49-53. Rio de;
Janeiro, 1977.
.
Parques Nacionais e Reservas Equiyalentes .
Paper
Presented to the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Society
for the Advancement of Science. rx.p., 1975.
[typewritten]
Coimbra Filho, Adelmar F. et Aldrighi, Antonio
Bjrasil .
Publicacoes Avulsas, numero 57.
Museu Nacional, 1971.
^
-^
a|
^
Domingues
.
A
Rio de Janeiro,
,
"Restabeleciraeiito
da Fauna do Parque Nacional da
Tijuca: Segunda Contribuicao" . BjCasjJ^FlorjSSLtajL, III (11): 1933. Rio de Janeiro, 1972.
"......................"
Coimbra Filho, Adelmar F. et
Restabeleciroento da Fauna
al
do
.
"Nova Contribuicao ao
Parque; Macional da Tijuca,
c;
|W
3
«S
3
3
Guanabara, Brasil".
Janeiro , 1973 .
Brasj-.l_£l ores_ta 1. , IV (16 ) : 7-25 .
Crosby, Alfred W.
Expansion
of
Europe ,
i.Q_Qjil..?_Q_Q.University Press, 1986.
Rio de
§I!L_ I__ T_.he__Bi_oioajLCLfbk
Cambridge, Cambridge
Darwin, Charles . The Jfoyage. . . ..of the Beagle . Edited by Leonard
Engel.
New York, Doubleday and American Museum of Natural
History, 1962,
Ss
*s
*0
*o
SB
*§
Dean, Warren . "Deforestation in Southeastern Brazil", Richard
D. Tucker et J.F. Richards, e_d_s, G
t h e _.M i n e t e en t h C e n t u rj____Ei co no my , pp 50-67.
Durham, Duke
University Press, 1983.
. "Ecological and Economic Relationships in Frontier History:
Sao Paulo, Brazil", George Wolf skill and Stanley Palmer, ecljS^,
PP 71-100. Arlington,
University of Texas, n.d..
- "Forest Conservation in Southeastern Brazil, 1900 to 1955".
Environmental Review , 9:55-69. Spring 1985.
. "Indigenous Populations of the Sao Paulo-Rio de Janeiro
Coast: Trade, Aldeamento, Slavery and Extinction".
S|e_Hisjtoria. , 117:3-26. Sao Paulo, 1984.
Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1976.
:3
Sao Paulo arid the Green _Wave of Coffee _: Beginings of
Scientific Rj; search in the Product ion of a Trqp_i.cal. Product
1- n.p., 1988. [typewritten]
Dourojeanni, Marc J.
Informe sobre Asesoramento al Institute
Bjrasileno de Desarollo_ Flores tal en_ .P argue, s. Nacipnales. . n . p . ,
[1977].
[typewritten]
Dunning, G lend a . Naj^ijDTjjal^J^^^
g_£__t he H a t i on a 1 P a r k S er y i ce and
n.p., 1985.
3
^
S e ry i c e.
E h r e n f e l d , David .
TjQjj^yrrioiaii^e_^^f^lyjtmnJ.^in,.
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981.
n,p. ,
Oxford,
Oxford
E h r l i c h , Paul et E h r l i c h , A n n e .
l2^ill£M£Ql__TJl§ ;C_§_use.s. and,
^2Ilsj^iUj2n_c_e_s_ of the D i s a p p e a r a n c e ... o f . . J3 JCKJ cjLe_s_.
New Y o r k ,
B a l l a n t i n e , 1~983.
"
™ ""
~"
Everhart, William C.
Praeger, 1972.
The Nationeil Park
Service.
Net-; York,
430
Flumitur . Angr_a__dos_JRe_is_.
Rio de Janeiro, n.d..
[mimeographed]
Freyre, Gilberto. C a s a Gr_ande _ .e, S en z a 1.a . 23 ed . Rio de Janeiro,
Jose Olympic, 1984.
S^bj^ad_o^^__e_Jio£aKibo_s,.
1981.
6 ed. Rio de Janeiro, uose Olympic,
.
Nordeste. 5 ed.
Rio de Janeiro, Jose Olympic; Recife,
Fundacao do Patrimonio Historico e Artistico de Pernambuco,
1985.
Fundacao Brasileira para a Conservacao da Natureza .
Homem,
Eoo 1 ogi a _ e Me i o Am_b i en t_e . Rio de Janeiro, FBCN, 1971.
Fundacao Institute Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. SUPREN.
gjropj^sta. para um^^
o B r_a sjJL • [Brasilia], May 1986.
[typewritten]
Furtado, Celso. Economic Development of Latin America.
Berlinguer Press, 1974.
Cambridge,
Gouvea, E. . "Balance Ecologico do Parque Nacional de Itatiaia" .
Boletim FBCN, 20:109-111. Rio de Janeiro, 1985.
Hays, Samuel P.
CjQ^^
2 ed.
New York, Atheneum,
1980.
Holanda, Sergio Buarque de
R.aizes do Brasil, 19 ed .
Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1987.
Rio
yisao do Paraisp - Os Motivos Edenicos no. DescobrimentQ
e_n a. C o 1 o n i z _a c _aq_dp _ Bra s i 1 . 4 ed . Sao Paulo, Nacional, 1985.
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal..
Gerai_s _ [ S obr e a S i t_ua c ao Fund i aria
R_e s e.r;y a s_._Bd_oJLggj._cci.sJ_ • Brasilia, [circa 1985].
[typewritten]
Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal et Fundacao
Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza . Parqu_e_..Na_c.ion.al da
_S_erra da Bocaina - Levantamento de Dados........ Cadastrais .
Brasilia, Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal,
1977.
PJLan Q_ d e M ang j_ o __ - Par gue N a c i o n a l__d a _J/ta_tji a_i_a .
1982.
[mimeographed]
— • PJIang:,. de Mane jo _- Parque Maciona.1 da
Brasilia, 1980.
[mimeographed]
Brasilia,
431
PJuano de, Mjine j g _-• P argue Na_c_iori_al_ d_a. __Ti_ .j.u.c_a .
Brasilia,
1981.
Ihering, Herman von . "Devastacao e Conservacao das Matas".
- Bo let iiji_JEjif_orjTia_ti_y;o_, 7:40-51. Rio de Janeiro, 1972.
Ise,
John .
Our National Park P.o_lic.Y.1. •& _C_ri tical
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961.
Kneip, Lina Maria . RejL§JOLJL_JELij2JL°S^^
__
R J . Rio de Janeiro, n.d..
[typewritten]
FJ3CJM
History .
r_
Laroche, R. et Vieira de Mattos, Mariza L. . "Aspectos do Clima
e da Flora do Parque Nacional da Tijuca". Bj^.;:3Jj,_JJ.j2a^s_t^.jl ,
(?).
Rio de Janeiro, [1976].
[xerox]
Leivas, Luiz Claudio Pereira . "A Legislacao Patrimonial da Uniao
e a Conservacao do Meio Ambiente: Um Elemento Esquecido." FJ3.CN
:
_ _._Boletim Inf prmativo , 12:54-62. Rio de Janeiro, 1977.
Machado, Olavo F. . "Conservacao da Natureza" . B r a s i I F 1 o res t a 1 ,
VII (26) : 32-35. Rio de Janeiro, April-June 1976.
_
Machlis, Gary E. et Tichnell, David L. . Tk
P_a.,
_ ,r^s..: -ft-n Irit erna t ional As s e s smerit for R.esour_ce Management
Policy and Research.
n.p., Wsetview, 1985.
'
Magnanirii, Alceo . "Conceitos de Conservacao".
o. , 1:13-22. Rio de Janeiro, 1966.
,
•
n.p,, n . . .
[typewritten]
-^
••5
"_
9
-3
^
-^
^}
_
_
. Pol it i c a _e D i r e t: r i z e s do s P argues K a c i ona i s__ d o___B r ja sjA .
Rio de Janeiro, Institute Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento
Florestal, 1970.
____et Padua, Maria Tereza Jorge .
"Situacao dos Parques
Nacionais no Brasil". FJBCN_^_ B ol^e_tijiL_ Infc\rjfi atj. vo. , 4:38-58.
Rio de Janeiro, 1969.
Martins, Herbert .
ILOlZ§__JL§illi2J^^
&ISfei§lLk§LiII_ de__Iiinaj___jGer_ais. •
Belo
[typewritten]
•
^
3
"^
-^
3
______ E§5^ii§__JNaci5jial_ d o ^J^jyDajnao. .
'
[typewritten]
Marx,
Belo
Horizonte,
Horizonte,
1
1988.
Leo .
The; _M_acjiin_e____i_n____th_e Garden -.__T_echno logy and the
Pastoral Ideal in America . London, Oxford University Press,
1964 .
432
Mattos, Carlos Cesar Landini V de et al. "Aspectos do Clinna e da
Flora do Parque Nacional da Tijuca" .
Brasil F],,ore_stal,
VII (25) :3-12. January-March, 1976,
Maya, Raymundo Ottoni de Castro
Janeiro. loch, 1967.
Merchant, Carolyn.
ll
•-<§
&
.
4_Jll2Il§SJfejL_^^>_XiijiSJL«
Ri°
3Lb^_J3j2§J^_c^JN^^
_ EdlQiQSLY,___§il$L_Lh§.
San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1982.
Merrick, Thomas W. et PRB Staff . "Population Pressures in Latin
America". IL°BMlAti2,n_J3ujy.et_in , 41(8). July 1986.
Moog , Vianna . Bandeirantes e Pioneiros.
O Globo, 1971.
~
12 ed.
Porto Alegre,
Mota Sobrinho, Alves . ^_Ci^ij.j^^c_ao_j|o__Ca£e_ . 3 ed.
Brasiliense, 1978.
Sao Paulo,
N a s h , R o d e r i c k , ed.. . The__Anmr4£^J[Lj|lIZiEOJ^
Hi~j3
1"""o _r_Y_o f__ _C_o n_s e r vat ..ion . 2 ed . New Y o r k , Knoph, 1976.
.....
^ ed.
Cambridge, Yale
University Press, 1982.
National Parks Centennial Commision . Pt^eseJOLijQIOL^
.
^
3
Nogueira Neto, Paulo . "Urn Novo Conceito de Estaceio Ecologica".
Boletiin FBCN, 15:37-39. Rio de Janeiro, 1980.
*
Q
Oliveira, Elyowald Chagas de .
'
Teresopolis, Institute Brasilei.ro de
Desenvolvimento Florestal, December 5, 1967.
[mimeographed]
"**
Padua, Jose Augusto .
ii5y^uj:j2jza_j;^^
Ecoloala-JP^liM£aLJio_^ra^
[mimeographed]
Rio de J a n e i r o , I U P E R J ,
1986.
***
.Q
Q
Padua, Maria Tereza Jorge . "Aplicacao de Pianos Eiretores para
os Parques Nacionais". FBj:ii_^i_B_oJLe_tjjn__^^
7:17- 20.
Rio de Janeiro, 1972.
-•&
Q
"Areas de Preservacao: Parques Nacionais e Reservas
Biologicas". BiLasJJ^lor_e_staJ,, VII (31): 6-14. Brasilia, 1977.
**•
-3
,3
.
. "Categorias de Unidades de Conservacao: Objetivos
Manejo". Boietajn^FBCN, 13:78-84. Rio de Janeiro, 1978.
de
433
O
•">"}
^T
—'
3
--""\/
0
-T)
^w
^
V
-Q
1
n.p., 1980.
_ . 0§LJ?jyLSMJlJLJ3i^^
Brasilia, Institute Brasileiro de Deserivolvimerito Florestal.,
1983.
. "Sistema de Parques Nacionais e Reservas Biologicas do
Brasil". Rev i s t_a d o S• _erv i_c_g_Pub 1i. co , 111 (4) : 17-20 . Brasilia,
October-December 1983.
. "Situacao Atual do Sistema de Parques
Nacionais
Reservas Biologicas".
iLoljiJLiJ!L_JLi^N , 16:35-41.
Rio
Janeiro, 1981.
^J
^
.
^^
[typewritten]
,
Uni_d_ad. es_ ^e_Con sj3Tvj& c^ao. -
B r a s i l i a , 1988.
e
de
[typewritten]
et Audi, A. . "Especies da Fauna Silvestre Ameacadas de
Extincao -- Sua Ocorrencia e Protecao nos Parques Nacionais e
Reservas Biologicas".
BjoJL_e_tirn__J 'BCR, 19:49-80.
Rio de
Janeiro, 1984.
et Coimbra Filho, Adelmar F. .
0_s_ Sl§£9ii£S MsLSiSBJliS SlQ
Brasil. Madrid, Institute de La Caza E"otograf ica y Ciencias
de La Natureza; Institute de Cooperacao Iberoarnsricana, 1979.
et
Vasconcellos , Jose
Manuel C. . JLiTXiuj^s__Na_cJ,_pj)jy,j3 e
n.p., [circa 1978].
[typewritten]
Q
PARQUE Estadual do Tabuleiro . Conservacao__da____NaJ:jU_rez_a , XI ( 3 ) : 5 ,
•"~\o de Janeiro, October-December 1987.
•aP
~~
PARQUES Nacionais e Reservas Equivalentes. Recommendation of the
Q
XXVIII Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Society for the
—\t of Science. n.p., 1975.
[typewritten]
*gr
•«&
"2
*>§y
Pereira,
Sonia
Maria
.
"Legislacao
Ambiental:
Problemas
Fundiarios". Brasil Florestal, X{43):7~15. Brasilia, 1980.
~.u..imiJ,.»,_..L™L., .-..-.
.'.....I... ,LU_,.«—™—.
_™™™™™
"^
^
. "Politica e Legislacao Ambiental: Generalidades" . Boietijn
F_B C N, 15:67-75. Rio de Janeiro, 1979.
^
•**
*~j
^P
Pinto, Oliverio .
"Aves do Itatiaia - Lista Remissiva e Novas
Achegas a Avifauna da Regiao" . B_oJueJ^jri_^^Jla:r^,ij^1£a£^n^
Itatiaia,
3:1-87. Rio de Janeiro, 1954.
_™
™_™...
__„—™
"~
Qj
^
«?
Pires , Fernando Dias de Avila . "Papel dos Parques Nacionais e
Reservas Equivalentes na Conservacao dos Ecossisteiuas" . £BCM
Informativo,
12:13-14, Rio de Janeiro, 1977.
.-__Bgletim
,_
_ .
m
. " R e c u r s o s F a u n i s t i c o s do Estado do Rio de J a n e i r o " . FJBCJtf
~ Bol_e t_iin _ Inf oriua_t i vo, 10: 2 2 - 2 8 . Rio de J a n e i r o , 1975.
'
3 •
m
434
vsD
~*~)
Prado Junior, Caio.
His tpria Economic: a do Brasil.
Brasiliense, 1956.
'-"'
^
-,
PRIMEIRA Seinana de Conservacao da Natureza, Rio de Janeiro,
Setembro de 1962. [Anais] FBCilj-^B^cO^tim^Inf ormatiyo, 12:14552.. Rio de Janeiro, 1977.
w
Q
Quammen, David
.
"Brazil's Jungle
Magazine, March, 1988: 65-70.
***
~^
Redden Billy E. . A _ Sgcioj-EcpnQinic SJtudy of National_..._Par_k__and
Mo_minje^n.t_JJ_se_.^ n.p., n.p., 1955.
Q
^
Reis, Mauro Silva . "Recursos Florestais no Brasil", ES2i§J&S~_^^
Servico Publico, 111(4):7-16.
Brasilia, October-December
1983.
^
^
RESTAURACAO Florestal em Areas de Vegetacao Degradada no Parque
Nacional da Tijuca. Rio de Janeiro, [1978].
[typewritten]
"X
-a»
Runte, Alfred . National, Pa. jrksL_i_J? h e^rArn e r ic an ___E xp_ e r i_e n c g_.
Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press, 1984.
*f
*
-^
"X
^
X
Sao Paulo,
Blackboard".
H§x£sr_s.
Ruschi, Augusto . Beija-Flores do Estado do jSspirito Santo.
Paulo, Editora Rios, 1982.
Sao
Saint-Hillaire, Auguste de . Segunda_yiagem_..dojlig_ i de j Janeiro a,
Mijias, _Ge r ai. s e _S ag Pau Ij3 . Sao Paulo, Nacional, 1932.
Santos, Nilo. "Plantas Existentes no Parque Nacional da Tijuca".
Brasil Florestal, VII(26):54-68. April-June, 1976.
- ^P^
-^
^
X
Santos, Wanderley Guilherme dos . "A Pos-Revolucao Brasileira".
Helio Jaguaribe et al, BjrjajyJ-j^J^ojj^
Rio ed
Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1985. pp.223-335.
^
Saur, Walter Wolf . Parquf Ncxcional_ .da ^Serjra da Bocaina^e^sua Area
Rio de Jsineiro, 1977.
[typewritten]
Sax, Joseph L. . Mj3Jii!ijyj!j5._wijy^
Njry^onal Parks.
Ann Arbor, University
1980.
of Michigan
Press,
Scheiner, Tereza Cristina Holetta . "Ocupacao Humana no Parque
Nacional da Tijuca: Aspectos Gerais".
Bjr^^i{^_JOiO_rej;jta_l ,
VII (28) : 3-27. Rio de Janeiro, October-December, 1976.
Shrader-Frechette , K.S. . En v ir oninen ta. !!,„_E_th i c s .
California, Boxwood, 1981.
Pacific Grove,
435
Sick,
Helmut
.
Avejs___da Cida.de do .....Rio. __.de_ Janeiro - List a
__I_-^^
Rio cle Janeiro, Fundacaso
Brasileira cle Conservacao da Natureza, 1983. [leaflet]
Silva, Eduardo .
B_aroe_s__e_______Escr_a vi_dao, .
Fronteira, 1984.
Rio
de
Janeiro, Nova
Skidmore, Thomas E. . Politics in Brazil_,_ .
in Democra_cy . Oxford Univbersity Press, 1967.
Soffiati Neto, Artur. "A Agonia das Lagoas do Norte Fluminense " .
C: ienc i a e Cu 1 1 ur a , 37 (10 ): 1627-1638 .
Stein, Stanley J, .
Grand.ez_a e_ pecadencia do Cafe no Vale do
Paraiba . Sao Paulo, Brasiliense, 1961.
S t e p an , Alfred , The . Mili tary in politics : •Changing Patterns in
B r a z i. 1 . Princeton University Press, 1971.
Stone, Roger.
D r _e gjjjs^_JD fa A ma z o a i a .
New York, Penguin, 1986.
Strang,, Harold. Edgard .
"Reserva Biologica de Jacarepagua: Urn
Projeto Frustrado". Bol_e_t im__JFB C_N , 16:52-61. Rio de Janeiro,
et al . Parques Es baduais do Brasil : _ Sjua Car_ac_terizacao e
Essencias Nativas mais Importantes .
Tese Apresentada ao
"Coiigresso Nacional sobre Essencias Nativas", Campos do Jordao
(SP) , 12-18 de setembro de 1982. [mimeographed]
""-
^"r""r;™"'™^*------------—.n-^t-JUNUiJ-J-l -- .T-mTr-rrjTV---._. --,__. ...._---~---------™_™,
:. __ ... ....... ,. IU,.LJ™J..
Taunay, Afonso d'E. . Hi.s_t_orii^^g__C_ajEg_n.o_B_ra.Siil .
Janeiro, Departamento Nacion.al do Cafe, 1939.
_
... . i.-^. ^ , . . ...... —lmm.----.„,„. ._—^. ...,.,... ^,»,.t ..,„„-. , ,.— .r-^.^—.^—~~-
Rio de
. Peouena Historia do Cafe no Brasil(1727r
Sl«ia3 SSsrt^HiiSteJE «•- SftWEseSiSt^^S™*--™—--™--™™™---"—^™_K-~=-~>--«^™™._^-,™™_—=—^~-—9n—^^l^J._va^-c-^^»..m^--m--V-.^J~.. ----- _ ,~^~».
Ri° de Janeiro* tJepartaroento Nacional do Cafe, 1945.
Q
3
-<*
Q
^
«J
Q
^
"^
m^
"^T
PP
^
Tovar, Jair . "Parques Nacionais" , R e v i s t a._._d.g___S
87 (3) :122-134. Rio de Janeiro, June 1960.
Tresinari, Angela B. Quintao . "Evolucao do Concetto de Parques
Nacionais e Sua Relacao corn o Processo de Desenvolvimento" .
Brasil Florestal, XIII ( 54 ): 13-28 . Brasilia, April-June 1983.
' ............
Turner, Frederick . Be_y_ojiJ^ji^>^rj|£!v^
.
the_ Wilderness . New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutg-ers University
Press, 1983.
Valverde , Orlando
. E s t ud o s d e Ge og r a f_ia__^g.r ax_i a__.....B_r a s i 1 e i r a .
Petropolis, Vozes,
Vance, Mary A. .
1985.
Mational Parks and Reser_ve.s.:. Monographs .
n.p. ,
436
n. p. ,1986.
Viana, Francisco Jose de Oliveira.
"Distribuicao Geografica do
Caf eeiro no Estado do Rio de Janeiro" . Q Caf e no S_egun_do
Centenarig_______4g.__^A_JLlltxod.iic6ip__ no Bras il.
Rio de Janeiro,
Departainento Nacional do Cafe, 1934.
Viola, Eduardo . Q .Movimento Ej^_lpgicj3____np_Br^^ij^_J_l_g^4j^l^_6_) :__Do.
Ambient alismo.....a ...Ec_op_o].ijb_ica.
Cadernos de Ciencias Sociais,
Volume 5, Numero 4. Florianopolis , Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina, 1986.
. MQvimentg___Ecologico e Parb.ido Verde no_ Brasil : Motas Sgbre
UJHa_-Rg_l a.cao. JMuijto C omp_l. exa . Tese Apresentada ao XI Encontro
da ANPOCS. Aguas de Sao Pedro. October 20-29, 1987,
Wetterberg, Gary B. et al . fi§L£§£i§_J2JLJJ!!J^^
^M.' Washington, D.C., USD1 -'National
Park Service, 1985.
Whateley, Maria Celina . 0_._Ca_f-e_^jn_jRe s ende no S e culp^XIX . Rio de
Janeiro, Jose Olympic, 1987.
Wirth,- Conrad Louis . Parks , Politics and _th_e _ Peopl e .
University of Oklahoma Press, 1980.
n.p.,
WORLD Conference on National Parks, 1 (Seattle, Washington, June
30-- July 7 1962).
Projceedin.gs. .
n.p., U.S. National Park
Service and U.S. Government Printing Service, 1964.
WORLD
Conference on National Parks, 2
(Yellowstone and Grand
Teton, 1972) . Proceedings . n.p. , International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and National
Parks Centennial Commission, 1972.
WORLD Conference on National Parks, 3
(Bali, Indonesia, 11-22
October 1982) . Pr^^e_edi. ngs, . Edited by Jeffrey McMeely and
Kenton Miller, n.p., International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources and Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1984.
Worster, Donald . Nature's Econoiiri - A History of E c_Q_l_Q_g_i_c a 1 Ideas.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
II - Reference Materials
43 7
Almanaque Abril - 1987 .
Sao Paulo, Editora Abril, 1986.
Almanaque Abril - 1988 .
Sao Paulo, Editora Abril, 1987.
Conselho Macional de Geografia et Conselho Nacional de Estatistica.
En^ij-LiUlEy^^
Rio de Janeiro, IBGE,
1959. 22 v.
ENCICLOPEDIA AMERICANA.
30v.
New York, Americana Corporation,
1971.
ENCICLOPEDIA MIRADOR INTERNACIONAL . Sao Paulo e Rio de Janeiro,
Enciclopedia Brittanica do Brasil, 1975. 20v
GRANDE ENCICLOPEDIA DELTA-LAROUSSE . Rio de Janeiro, Librairis
Larousse e Editora Delta, 1970.
15v
Fundacao Institute Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica .
Estatistico_do_J^rasi.l_J_19_8_3__t_l 9_8 _6 . Rio de Janeiro, FIBGE, 1984
and 1987.
_
.•
E s t a t i_s t i c a s H i s t o ri c a s do B r as i 1 - S e r i e s Economicas,
Demograf ias... e _,Sociais de. 1550 3,1935 . Serie Estatisticas
Retrospectivas , nurnero 3. Rio de Janeiro, FIBGE, 1987.
International Commission on National Parks - United Nation
United Nations L_i_s _t__pf_Natipnal_ Parks and Equivalent Reserves .
n.p., Hayez, 1971.
United States National Park Service .
and ^Afi.l.l.i^ated:.^r_^_s___as_pjE__Jaiiuaj:y _1 f__l_9_75 . n.p., U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975.
III - Files (news clippings, news abstracts and manuscipts)
1 - Fundacao Brasileira de Conservacao da Natureza (FBCN)
18
-
a - Newspaper clippings files.
1970-1988.
b - File "I Curso sobre Adrninistracao e .Manejo de Parques
Nacionais".
Brasilia, October 17-29, 1977.
c
- File "Tornbamentos - Baixada de J acarepagua " .
[1971]
3
9
•9
d - uayme Costa Santiago to Jose Richa, official letter
167/86. Brasilia, March 3, 1986.
3
3
3
3
3
3
e - "Exposicao de Motives - Criacao da Reserva Biologica de
Atol das Rocas,"
[Brasilia], April 1979.
[typewritten]
2 - Institute Brasileiro de Analises Socio-Economicas
a - Newspaper abstracts:
''Accidents". 1983-1988.
"Pesticides",
"Ecology",
b - Newspaper arid weekly magazine clippings:
"Ecology", "Accidents". 1983-1988.
3
3
3
IV
(IBASE)
"Pesticides",
Interviews
Margarene Maria Lima Bezerra.
Brasilia, May 20, 1988.
Aureo Faleiros.
Brasilia, May 24, 1988.
Fabio de Jesus.
Brasilia, May 19, 1988
Maria Tereza Jorge Padua.
Brasilia, May 18, 1988.
V - Maps
3
Brasil.
Secretaria de Planejainento da Presidencia da Republica.
B'undacao Institute Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica.
E_stadg_ do Rio _ d e Janeiro. 2 ed. Rio de Janeiro, FIBGE,
1975.
[Scale 1:400,000]
Regiao Metropolitana do Rio de Janeir_o.
FIBGE, 1975.
[Scale 1:200,000]
Repub 1 i c a F e d era t i y _a__ d o Brasil. 13 ed.
FIBGE, 1985. ' [Scale 1:5,000,000]
Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro,
Centre Indigenista. Missionario et al. Areas...Indigenas e Grandes_
£r_oj_e_to_s_.
Berlin, Iristitut fur Angewandte Geodasie Berlin,
1985.
[Scale 1:5,000,000]
