Challenges

Much progress was achieved in the implementation of NBSAP and CBD objectives, as described throughout this report. Nevertheless, Brazil still faces important challenges for a more efficient and thorough implementation of biodiversity conservation objectives, as discussed below.

NBSAP Action Plan: The fact that the NBSAP is a broad set of instruments rather than a consolidated document presents a challenge to the clear definition of priority NBSAP actions and targets. The Action Plan for NBSAP implementation also requires the definition of responsibilities for priority actions and of the funding sources, for a more effective implementation.

Brazilian targets and indicators: As discussed in section 2.4.1, Brazil developed a set of 51 national biodiversity targets for 2010, which are closely linked to the global 2010 biodiversity targets. However, some of the targets identified in this first effort would be better classified as actions and directives, and some lack measurable indicators. One of the first challenges to achieve an efficient implementation of CBD and NBSAP objectives is a detailed revision and reorganization of this list of national biodiversity targets, with the identification of measurable indicators for each target. The revised list should also include clear definition of responsibilities for target monitoring and funding sources, to allow an enhanced monitoring of progress toward each target.

The revised list of biodiversity targets would also provide a solid basis from which to estimate the necessary institutional collaboration, as well as the financial and installed capacity needs to monitor and achieve the national targets.

Funding and capacity: Once the NBSAP Action Plan and the list of National Biodiversity Targets are revised and well defined, it will be possible to define funding and capacity needs and priorities, allowing in turn the enhanced implementation of NBSAP objectives. Climate Change: Brazil is playing a leading role in many aspects related to climate change issues, including its early commitment to reduce carbon emissions, the development of scenarios and studies, the Climate Change Plan and legislation, reforestation projects for carbon credits, and an active role in international technical debates, among other initiatives. The national effort to mitigate and adapt to climate change effects would nevertheless

benefit from a better integration between actors working on these issues and actors working on NBSAP/CBD issues.

Mainstreaming: The mainstreaming of biodiversity issues across sectors remains one of the greatest challenges. The National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO) is part of the effort to facilitate the dialogue with other sectors and increase awareness on the importance of biodiversity conservation, but the penetration of biodiversity issues discussed by the Commission into sectors through their representatives is much less effective than originally expected.

The PROBIO II project (National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project), currently under implementation, is one of the main instruments to put in practice the integration of biodiversity issues in other sectors. The project involves 10 governmental agencies of the environmental, health, agriculture, and science and technology sectors, each with biodiversity-related objectives funded through the project. As demonstrated in the previous sections, individual and often isolated initiatives of the private sector are increasing, but there is still a long process ahead to root environmental and biological issues into other sectors. The financial sector, for example, has already adopted some environmental criteria for specific lines of credit, but the challenge remains to provide adequate training to professionals on the front line of credit concession, providing them with the information and instruments necessary for providing guidance to clients and for decision making.

Awareness raising: Biodiversity related issues are still mostly seen as distant from the reality of the general public. The Ministry of the Environment is currently discussing a proposal for the development of an encompassing National Strategy for Environmental Communication and Education which, when implemented, should increase public support and participation in the implementation of CBD objectives.

Capacity and continuity: Environmental agencies at all three levels (federal, state and municipal) and including the Ministry of the Environment, face serious challenges regarding the contracting and maintenance of permanent technical staff in adequate numbers to efficiently and effectively carry out their missions. This chronic lack of staff and turnover of temporary staff results in the lack of continuity for important long-term actions and seriously delay the implementation of programs and projects, and even prevent the on-time delivery of commitments such as periodic national reports to international conventions. Environmental and biodiversity conservation would greatly benefit from a well staffed and continuous institutional structure. Stronger investment for adequately staffing these agencies and in the enhancement of the career program for environmental analysts, focused on environmental and biodiversity specialists, would contribute to fill the gap and halt the constant turnover and evasion of good professionals.

Biodiversity information systems: Brazil developed and maintains various important biodiversity-related information systems, such as the Authorization and Biodiversity Information System (SISBIO), BIOTA Environmental Information System (SinBiota – FAPESP), and Species Link (on scientific collections), as well as specific databases for

groups of taxa such as for marine turtles, fished species, among others. However, not all existing systems converse with one another, which presents difficulties to achieve information integration and exchange, as well as easy access. The Ministry of the Environment is currently mapping all existing systems connected to federal institutions, such as environmental agencies connected to the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Science and Technology, universities and research centers, among others, and promoting discussions among hosting institutions to define ways to integrate these systems. The second step towards the integration of these systems will be to make them compatible, allowing information sharing and access. The government is also studying the development of a Virtual Biodiversity Institute to act as a central platform to access information on biodiversity and to support a network of specialists, among other functions.

Lower-level NBSAPs: There are still only a few isolated efforts to develop and implement state and municipal BSAPs, such as the São Paulo and Curitiba municipal BSAPs. Of the 5,561 Brazilian municipalities, 78% have some governmental structure for the environment (a 10% advancement in comparison to 2005), and only 47.6% count with Municipal Environmental Councils, 13% of which created between 2005 and 2008110. In 2002, only 148 municipalities earmarked a portion of their budget to the environment. These data indicate that, even though important progress is happening, the decentralization of the National Biodiversity Strategy is still a challenge requiring stronger commitment from state and municipal governments and capacity building investments from the federal level. South-South collaboration: Brazil organized two regional meetings for South American countries: one in 2003 on the status of National Biodiversity Strategies, and a workshop in 2008 on capacity building for NBSAPs and biodiversity mainstreaming. However, south- south collaboration is still very limited. International agreements exist and are in force to allow collaboration among countries in South America in the environmental sector, although this is usually not the focus of the agreements. Brazil participates in three of these agreements: Mercosul, which is primarily a market/economy mechanism, under which environmental issues still have limited space. The Organization of the Treaty for the Conservation of the Amazon (OTCA) limits its work to the international Amazon Region and, even though its focus is Amazon conservation, it does not have a structured long term agenda for the environment. The Comunidade Sul-Americana de Nações (CASA), signed in 2004, is a political agreement among South American countries to integrate actions of the political, social, economic, environmental and infrastructure sectors among countries, but environmental issues are not yet present in the agenda. None of these agreements is focused in environmental issues and there is also no regional treaty or agency in South America for the environment, and no supporting mechanism for collaboration in this sector. In Brazil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosts the Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC). Its small team supports initial contacts between Brazil and other countries and assists in the coordination of specific international projects, but its limited budget does not allow continued support for international collaboration.

Environmental agencies are notoriously understaffed in most South American countries resulting in overloaded technical teams, which have no time to dedicate to international collaboration. There is also very limited funding to support this type of work. The greatest limitation for stronger South-South collaboration is three-fold: the lack of a regional environmental agenda; the lack of agencies to intermediate collaborative work; and the lack of financial mechanisms to support cooperation actions, including increased and continuous installed capacity.

In the broader international arena, Brazil is involved in the Group of Likeminded Mega- diverse Countries (17 countries), with the mandate to work on common biodiversity issues and which follows several international processes and agreements (including the CBD) and is currently focusing discussion in ABS issues. Two other international agreements in which Brazil participates include, to some extent, an environmental agenda: the Agreement of the Lusophone Countries, which has a primarily cultural agenda; and the Memorandum of Understanding among the Members of the Dialogue Forum India-Brazil-South Africa, with a strategic collaboration agenda.