Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Santos, Ana Maria Ferreira, Guerra, Renan Gonçalves Pinheiro, Queiroz, Liana Rodrigues, Menezes, Marcelo Oliveira Teles, Moro, Marcelo Freire
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
eng
Título da fonte: Sociedade & natureza (Online)
Texto Completo: https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481
Resumo: Among the targets of the Aichi Accord, of which Brazil was a signatory, was the commitment to protect at least 17% of its terrestrial and continental waters and 10% of all marine and coastal areas by 2020. When the target window closed, Brazil had 30% of those projected continental and 27% of the marine areas protected. Those areas, however, are unevenly distributed throughout the country, with the Amazon region exceeding 30% of the projected protection, while only approximately 8% of the Caatinga region has been considered. In this study, we computed the coverage of 98 designated Conservation Areas (CAs) and an ecological corridor in Ceará State (CE) and evaluated their distributions among that state’s various natural environments. Our results indicated that 92.6% % of the total officially protected areas corresponded to Uso Sustentável categories (US), which means sustainable use in English ,largely distributed among ecosystems outside the Caatinga domain, including coastal areas and humid and sub-humid enclaves. Those CAs contain rich bio- and geo-diversities of significant socioeconomic interest, although they do little to protect caatinga vegetation – the predominant ecosystem in the state. Additionally, the predominance of US CAs provide limited legal safeguards to biodiversity, especially among those CAs with low levels of legal protection, such as the category of Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA), which means Environmental Protection Areas in English , which account for the greatest coverage in the state. We conclude that the spatial configuration of state CAs is distant from ideal in terms of their extensions and representativeness, with few areas of protected caatinga vegetation and limited areas with full protection.
id UFU-6_8161748c63c000cc8d6a5d19232543ff
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.www.seer.ufu.br:article/64481
network_acronym_str UFU-6
network_name_str Sociedade & natureza (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, BrazilRepresentatividade ecológica e extensão total de áreas protegidas pelas unidades de conservação no estado do Ceará, BrasilPlanejamentoSemiáridoSNUCProtocolo de AichiConservação Planning ConservationSemiaridSNUCAichi ProtocolAmong the targets of the Aichi Accord, of which Brazil was a signatory, was the commitment to protect at least 17% of its terrestrial and continental waters and 10% of all marine and coastal areas by 2020. When the target window closed, Brazil had 30% of those projected continental and 27% of the marine areas protected. Those areas, however, are unevenly distributed throughout the country, with the Amazon region exceeding 30% of the projected protection, while only approximately 8% of the Caatinga region has been considered. In this study, we computed the coverage of 98 designated Conservation Areas (CAs) and an ecological corridor in Ceará State (CE) and evaluated their distributions among that state’s various natural environments. Our results indicated that 92.6% % of the total officially protected areas corresponded to Uso Sustentável categories (US), which means sustainable use in English ,largely distributed among ecosystems outside the Caatinga domain, including coastal areas and humid and sub-humid enclaves. Those CAs contain rich bio- and geo-diversities of significant socioeconomic interest, although they do little to protect caatinga vegetation – the predominant ecosystem in the state. Additionally, the predominance of US CAs provide limited legal safeguards to biodiversity, especially among those CAs with low levels of legal protection, such as the category of Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA), which means Environmental Protection Areas in English , which account for the greatest coverage in the state. We conclude that the spatial configuration of state CAs is distant from ideal in terms of their extensions and representativeness, with few areas of protected caatinga vegetation and limited areas with full protection.As metas de Aichi, das quais o Brasil foi signatário, previam que, até 2020, pelo menos 17% de áreas terrestres e águas continentais e 10% das áreas marinhas e costeiras fossem englobados em áreas protegidas. Finalizado o prazo da meta, o Brasil conta, oficialmente, com 30% da área continental e 27% da área marinha protegidas, todavia distribuídas desigualmente em seu território. Neste estudo, computou-se a cobertura de 98 UCs e um corredor ecológico no estado do Ceará (CE) e foi avaliada sua distribuição entre os vários ambientes naturais do estado. Destarte, buscou-se avaliar a representatividade da conservação promovida pelas UCs em relação aos diferentes ecossistemas estaduais. Os resultados apontam que 92,4% da área protegida corresponde ao regime de Uso Sustentável, distribuída prioritariamente em ecossistemas de exceção do bioma Caatinga, como as áreas costeiras e encraves úmidos e sub-úmidos. Essas áreas apresentam relevância ambiental com rica biodiversidade e geodiversidadade, com interesse socioeconômico, mas o desenho atual de UCs deixou pouco protegida a vegetação de caatinga, ecossistema predominante do estado. Ademais, a predominância de UCs de uso sustentável trazem menos proteção jurídica para salvaguardar a biodiversidade, especialmente aquelas com baixo grau legal de proteção, como a categoria Área de Proteção Ambiental que corresponde à maior cobertura estadual. Conclui-se que a configuração espacial das UCs estaduais ainda está distante do ideal em termos de extensão e representatividade, com poucas áreas protegidas na vegetação de caatinga e pequena extensão de UCs de proteção integral.Universidade Federal de Uberlândia2022-09-06info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/6448110.14393/SN-v34-2022-64481Sociedade & Natureza; Vol. 34 No. 1 (2022): Sociedade & Natureza; v. 34 n. 1 (2022): 1982-45130103-1570reponame:Sociedade & natureza (Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)instacron:UFUporenghttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481/34609https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481/34610Copyright (c) 2021 Francisco Vladimir Silva Gomes, Ana Maria Ferreira Santos, , Liana Rodrigues Queiroz, Marcelo Oliveira Teles Menezes, Marcelo Freire Morohttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGomes, Francisco Vladimir SilvaSantos, Ana Maria Ferreira Guerra, Renan Gonçalves PinheiroQueiroz, Liana RodriguesMenezes, Marcelo Oliveira TelesMoro, Marcelo Freire2023-04-06T20:32:29Zoai:ojs.www.seer.ufu.br:article/64481Revistahttp://www.sociedadenatureza.ig.ufu.br/PUBhttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/oai||sociedade.natureza.ufu@gmail.com|| lucianamelo@ufu.br1982-45130103-1570opendoar:2023-04-06T20:32:29Sociedade & natureza (Online) - Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
Representatividade ecológica e extensão total de áreas protegidas pelas unidades de conservação no estado do Ceará, Brasil
title Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
spellingShingle Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva
Planejamento
Semiárido
SNUC
Protocolo de Aichi
Conservação
Planning
Conservation
Semiarid
SNUC
Aichi Protocol
title_short Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
title_full Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
title_fullStr Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
title_full_unstemmed Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
title_sort Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
author Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva
author_facet Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva
Santos, Ana Maria Ferreira
Guerra, Renan Gonçalves Pinheiro
Queiroz, Liana Rodrigues
Menezes, Marcelo Oliveira Teles
Moro, Marcelo Freire
author_role author
author2 Santos, Ana Maria Ferreira
Guerra, Renan Gonçalves Pinheiro
Queiroz, Liana Rodrigues
Menezes, Marcelo Oliveira Teles
Moro, Marcelo Freire
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva
Santos, Ana Maria Ferreira
Guerra, Renan Gonçalves Pinheiro
Queiroz, Liana Rodrigues
Menezes, Marcelo Oliveira Teles
Moro, Marcelo Freire
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Planejamento
Semiárido
SNUC
Protocolo de Aichi
Conservação
Planning
Conservation
Semiarid
SNUC
Aichi Protocol
topic Planejamento
Semiárido
SNUC
Protocolo de Aichi
Conservação
Planning
Conservation
Semiarid
SNUC
Aichi Protocol
description Among the targets of the Aichi Accord, of which Brazil was a signatory, was the commitment to protect at least 17% of its terrestrial and continental waters and 10% of all marine and coastal areas by 2020. When the target window closed, Brazil had 30% of those projected continental and 27% of the marine areas protected. Those areas, however, are unevenly distributed throughout the country, with the Amazon region exceeding 30% of the projected protection, while only approximately 8% of the Caatinga region has been considered. In this study, we computed the coverage of 98 designated Conservation Areas (CAs) and an ecological corridor in Ceará State (CE) and evaluated their distributions among that state’s various natural environments. Our results indicated that 92.6% % of the total officially protected areas corresponded to Uso Sustentável categories (US), which means sustainable use in English ,largely distributed among ecosystems outside the Caatinga domain, including coastal areas and humid and sub-humid enclaves. Those CAs contain rich bio- and geo-diversities of significant socioeconomic interest, although they do little to protect caatinga vegetation – the predominant ecosystem in the state. Additionally, the predominance of US CAs provide limited legal safeguards to biodiversity, especially among those CAs with low levels of legal protection, such as the category of Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA), which means Environmental Protection Areas in English , which account for the greatest coverage in the state. We conclude that the spatial configuration of state CAs is distant from ideal in terms of their extensions and representativeness, with few areas of protected caatinga vegetation and limited areas with full protection.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-09-06
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481
10.14393/SN-v34-2022-64481
url https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481
identifier_str_mv 10.14393/SN-v34-2022-64481
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
eng
language por
eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481/34609
https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481/34610
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Uberlândia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Uberlândia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade & Natureza; Vol. 34 No. 1 (2022):
Sociedade & Natureza; v. 34 n. 1 (2022):
1982-4513
0103-1570
reponame:Sociedade & natureza (Online)
instname:Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)
instacron:UFU
instname_str Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)
instacron_str UFU
institution UFU
reponame_str Sociedade & natureza (Online)
collection Sociedade & natureza (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Sociedade & natureza (Online) - Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sociedade.natureza.ufu@gmail.com|| lucianamelo@ufu.br
_version_ 1799943982941208576