United Nations Environment Programme

environment for development

 
Division of Environmental Law and Conventions
Manual on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Alert someone to this resource Leave Feedback Home > Enforcement > Institutional Frameworks > Designation of Responsibilities > Case Study
Brazil’s Participatory Process for Gathering Information on Biodiversity

Article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity requires each Party to identify the components of biological diversity in that State that are important for conservation and sustainable use. In order to comply with these commitments, from 1997 to 2002, the Ministry of the Environment planned, supported, and coordinated a broad national consultative process that mobilized more than 1,000 specialists from public and private agencies to carry out an “Assessment of Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Brazilian Biomes.” This process included workshops for the Brazilian Amazon, the Cerrado and the Pantanal, the Caatinga, the Atlantic Forest, the Southern Fields, and the Marine and Coastal Zone.

To carry out this project, the MMA entered into agreements with consortia of academic institutions. The overall project was supported by resources from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The methodology for the assessment involved the identification of priorities of different biological groups that were then superimposed and used to generate priority maps. The different areas were designated as being of extreme importance, very high, high, and insufficiently known area but with probable biological importance. Altogether, 900 areas were singled out. In 2004, a Presidential Decree (No. 5092 of May 21, 2004) and a directive acknowledged these areas and defined rules for their conservation and sustainable use.

These areas now guide the creation of new protected areas, development of projects for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and provide an important instrument in discussions with economic entities to minimize the impacts of infrastructure and energy on biodiversity.

For more information, see http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/index.cfm, or contact maria-carolina.hazin@mma.gov.br or raquel.breda@mma.gov.br

A A Print this page
Search the Manual
Guidelines Search
Case Studies Search
» More Search Tools
Resources for
Guideline 41(a)
Case Studies
Kenya’s Environmental Institutional Framework
Jamaica’s Natural Resources Conservation Authority
Vertical Designation of Enforcement Responsibilities for Enforcing Pollution-Control Laws in the United States
Mapping Brazil’s Coral Reefs
Participatory Management and Monitoring of Protected Areas in the Philippines
Remote Sensing and other Emerging Information Sources
Mekong River: Sub-Regional Environmental Information and Monitoring System
Recording of Environmental Violations in The Gambia
Indian Government Environmental Information System
Public Disclosure of Corporate Environmental Performance in Ghana
Use of Affidavits in Argentina’s Water Law
Self-Monitoring Required by U.S. Environmental Laws
Brazil’s Participatory Process for Gathering Information on Biodiversity
Capacity Building for Judicial Officers and Practitioners in Uganda
Court-Appointed Experts in Croatia
Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the United States
UNEP’s Judges Programme
Specialised Environmental Administrative Tribunals and Prosecutors in the United States
EU Forum of Judges for the Environment
Cameroon’s Efforts to Strengthen the Capacity of Magistrates and Other Legal Officers
Checklists
Checklist for Prosecuting Environmental Cases
Checklist for Assistance to Courts
Additional Resources
Additional Resources For Monitoring And Evaluation
© UNEP | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Site Map