Brazil’s vast and highly biodiverse wetlands are under relentlessly increasing threat, and input from the scientific community is crucial to help minimize the impact of recent legislative setbacks. Terminologies and concepts in laws affecting wetlands are part of this, and Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) have contributed a comprehensive review of such elements. However, their treatment needs reinterpretation.
Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) evaluated wetland-related terms and definitions in Brazil’s federal and state legislations to contribute to the assessment of the efficacy of wetland conservation policies. Most of the terminologies they found had only regional application and poor or non-existent conceptualization. The generic term ‘wetlands’ (‘áreas úmidas’ in Portuguese), which is the most basic and important term in any wetland policy, was only used in one law: the Native Vegetation Protection Law (hereafter NVPL; Federal Law no. 12,651/2012; Brazil 2012). Based on this term being better defined than other designations, and given the precedence of the NVPL over state laws, Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) concluded that: (1) the term ‘wetlands’ represents all wetland types; (2) the clear descriptors of the term’s definition allow the identification of the totality of wetland ecosystems; and (3), due to (1) and (2), the NVPL ensures the protection of all wetlands.
Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) have provided important input for a better understanding of the adequacy of Brazil’s legislation on wetlands; however, the generalizations that these authors make regarding the NVPL’s protection of all wetlands is unfounded. The term ‘wetlands’ appears only twice in the NVPL and is not used in any conservation policy. Its first appearance is before its definition (Chapter I, Article III, Subsection XXV), and the second (Chapter II, Section I, Article VI, Subsection IX) is in a clause that specifies that wetlands (especially those of international relevance) may become protected only if declared to be of ‘social interest’ by an act of the President of the Republic. The term ‘wetlands’ and its definition therefore do not guarantee the protection of any wetland in Brazil.
Regardless of the effective use of terminologies, the elements reviewed by Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) lead to conclusions different from those that they drew. The term ‘wetlands’, although generic when considered in isolation, does not represent all wetland types in the context of the NVPL; because its definition is highly exclusionary, using this term cannot ensure the effectiveness of wetland-related conservation policies. Examples of wetlands that clearly do not fit the NVPL’s definition are those that are subject to unpredictable (i.e., non-periodic) flood pulses (e.g., riparian wetlands adjacent to streams and low-order rivers), all areas that are permanently flooded (e.g., permanent ponds, lakes and lagoons) and all or any parts of these areas that are not subject to flooding but are temporarily or permanently saturated (Junk et al. Reference Junk, Piedade, Lourival, Wittmann, Kandus, Lacerda and Bozelli2014, Mitsch & Gosselink Reference Mitsch and Gosselink2015).
An inclusive definition of ‘wetlands’ would also not guarantee the efficacy of wetland conservation strategies. As shown by Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018), Brazilian legislation is remarkably insufficient with regards to the representation and detection of singular wetland types (which is especially worrying in view of the extreme diversity and complexity of the country’s wetlands; see Junk et al. Reference Junk, Piedade, Lourival, Wittmann, Kandus, Lacerda and Bozelli2014). These shortcomings cannot be masked or overcome only by adoption of the generic term ‘wetlands’ (and hence its definition), since each wetland type has unique characteristics and therefore specific conservation needs (e.g., buffer zone width) that can only be met through their being recognized as particular landscape features. A single conservation measure cannot serve for ecosystems ranging from the vast Amazonian floodplains to small temporary ponds in the semi-arid zone. One of the main functions of the term ‘wetlands’ (if not the main one) is not to replace terms for specific wetland types, but to constitute elements representing and/or describing them (e.g., ‘upland-embedded wetlands’ as a description of ponds and lakes; Calhoun et al. Reference Calhoun, Mushet, Alexander, DeKeyser, Fowler, Lane and Lang2017a) in order to ensure that they cover the full range of wetland subtypes (e.g., from temporarily saturated to permanently flooded areas). However, this crucial auxiliary function is not fulfilled in any Brazilian law (Maltchik et al. Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018). Potentially negative consequences of the lack of this kind of application of the term ‘wetlands’ is exemplified by the NVPL’s term ‘ponds’ (‘lagoas’ in Portuguese), which lacks conceptualization. As comprehensively defined, ponds are upland-embedded wetlands of ≤2 ha (Hamerlík et al. Reference Hamerlík, Svitok, Novikmec, Očadlík and Bitušík2014). However, some researchers alternatively use the term ‘pools’ (‘poças’ in Portuguese) in place of ‘temporary ponds’ (e.g., De Meester et al. Reference De Meester, Declerck, Stoks, Louette, Van De Meutter, De Bie and Michels2005). It is therefore unclear whether temporary ponds are protected by the NVPL, which may lead to exclusionary conservation policies and, consequently, to the collapse of unique ecosystem services (Calhoun et al. Reference Calhoun, Mushet, Bell, Boix, Fitzsimons and Isselin-Nondedeu2017b) and communities (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Death, Mathers, Ryves, White and Wood2017, Volcan & Lanés Reference Volcan and Lanés2018) – in fact, the NVPL does not ensure the protection of any pond (Grasel et al. Reference Grasel, Mormul, Bozelli, Thomaz and Jarenkow2018b). Given the paramount importance of appropriate terms and definitions of wetland types in environmental policies, it should be recognized that Brazil’s legislation seriously jeopardizes wetland conservation.
Deficiencies related to the elements used to represent and identify wetland systems, however, are not the only problems that compromise the conservation of these ecosystems in Brazil. While a detailed analysis of the country’s wetland-related policies is beyond the scope of this comment article, it is also important to highlight that the NVPL’s enactment in 2012 (when it replaced the old 1965 ‘Forest Code’) imposed catastrophic risks to Brazil’s wetland heritage (Grasel et al. Reference Grasel, Fearnside, Vitule, Bozelli, Mormul, Rodrigues and Wittmann2018a). Setbacks or inadequacies in the NVPL that diverge from Maltchik et al.’s conclusions include:
Removal of the protection conferred to ponds of <1 ha and wetlands associated with intermittent springs and ephemeral streams.
Dramatic reductions in the requirements for restoration of ‘buffer zones’ (legally considered ‘Permanent Preservation Areas’; hereafter PPAs) cleared before 22 July 2008, especially for those around ponds and lakes (for which protection with PPAs is now only 5–30 m) and adjacent to streams and rivers (where protection is only 5–100 m). This protected vegetation is now delimited according to the size of the property, regardless of the size or width of the wetlands or waterbodies.
Alteration of the basis for delimiting PPAs adjacent to streams and rivers from the maximum water level to the ‘regular bed’ of watercourses, thus reducing or removing protection from many riparian areas, especially from the vast Amazonian floodplains, which can reach widths of tens of kilometres and be ‘protected’ by PPAs as narrow as 5 m (Souza Jr et al. Reference Souza, Piedade and Candotti2011, Brancalion et al. Reference Brancalion, Garcia, Loyola, Rodrigues, Pillar and Lewinsohn2016).
Authorization of aquaculture (including raising alien species) in converted PPAs around ponds and lakes and adjacent to either intermittent or permanent watercourses on rural properties with ≤15 fiscal modules (for details about fiscal modules, see Brancalion et al. Reference Brancalion, Garcia, Loyola, Rodrigues, Pillar and Lewinsohn2016).
Non-protection of mangroves, salt marshes and hypersaline areas (sensu Junk et al. Reference Junk, Piedade, Lourival, Wittmann, Kandus, Lacerda and Bozelli2014) through non-wetland PPAs (mangroves are themselves considered PPAs, but salt marshes and hypersaline areas are not).
Permission to use salt marshes and hypersaline areas for shrimp farming (including exotic species) and salt production (10% of the area of these ecosystems can be used in the Amazon biome and 35% in other Brazilian biomes) (see also Rovai et al. Reference Rovai, Menghini, Schaeffer-Novelli, Molero and Coelho2012, Oliveira-Filho et al. Reference Oliveira-Filho, Rovai, Menghini, Coelho, Schaeffer-Novelli and Cintrón2016).
Allowing 50% of any required restoration of PPAs around ponds, lakes and perennial springs and adjacent to intermittent/permanent watercourses and veredas (wetlands in the Cerrado biome) to be done using exotic woody species (even in grassy biomes).
Establishment of the Rural Environmental Registry (known as the ‘CAR’) with poor provision for monitoring compliance with the rules for protection of waterbodies and wetlands, especially in the case of narrow or small aquatic ecosystems (e.g., Taniwaki et al. Reference Taniwaki, Forte, Silva, Brancalion, Cogueto, Filoso and Ferraz2018).
Recognizing the limitations and problems of the NVPL is a pressing need in the current Brazilian political scenario. Although in force since 2012, the NVPL’s ‘regulation’ (setting of rules to implement a law) at the state level is still underway, offering a unique opportunity to supplant its inadequacies. Therefore, scientists and policy-makers must engage in dialogue to regulate environmental legislation with evidence-based criteria (Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Fearnside, Oliveira, Padial, Pelicice, Lima and Simberloff2017).
However, the legal mechanisms provided by the NVPL, even if improved at the state level, are clearly insufficient to promote wetland conservation in Brazil. Overcoming environmental challenges imposed, for example, by climate change (Junk et al. Reference Junk, An, Finlayson, Gopal, Květ, Mitchell and Mitsch2013), high rates of wetland loss (Creed et al. Reference Creed, Lane, Serran, Alexander, Basu, Calhoun and Christensen2017) and the spread of exotic species (e.g., Stenert et al. Reference Stenert, Ehlert, Ávila, Sousa, Esquinatti, Batzer and Maltchik2016) will require the adoption of effective integrated strategies for the protection, restoration, management, creation, mapping and monitoring of wetlands (e.g., Grasel et al. Reference Grasel, Mormul, Bozelli, Thomaz and Jarenkow2018b). We emphatically recommend the creation of a national policy specifically focusing on wetland conservation.
You have
Access
Brazil’s vast and highly biodiverse wetlands are under relentlessly increasing threat, and input from the scientific community is crucial to help minimize the impact of recent legislative setbacks. Terminologies and concepts in laws affecting wetlands are part of this, and Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) have contributed a comprehensive review of such elements. However, their treatment needs reinterpretation.
Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) evaluated wetland-related terms and definitions in Brazil’s federal and state legislations to contribute to the assessment of the efficacy of wetland conservation policies. Most of the terminologies they found had only regional application and poor or non-existent conceptualization. The generic term ‘wetlands’ (‘áreas úmidas’ in Portuguese), which is the most basic and important term in any wetland policy, was only used in one law: the Native Vegetation Protection Law (hereafter NVPL; Federal Law no. 12,651/2012; Brazil 2012). Based on this term being better defined than other designations, and given the precedence of the NVPL over state laws, Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) concluded that: (1) the term ‘wetlands’ represents all wetland types; (2) the clear descriptors of the term’s definition allow the identification of the totality of wetland ecosystems; and (3), due to (1) and (2), the NVPL ensures the protection of all wetlands.
Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) have provided important input for a better understanding of the adequacy of Brazil’s legislation on wetlands; however, the generalizations that these authors make regarding the NVPL’s protection of all wetlands is unfounded. The term ‘wetlands’ appears only twice in the NVPL and is not used in any conservation policy. Its first appearance is before its definition (Chapter I, Article III, Subsection XXV), and the second (Chapter II, Section I, Article VI, Subsection IX) is in a clause that specifies that wetlands (especially those of international relevance) may become protected only if declared to be of ‘social interest’ by an act of the President of the Republic. The term ‘wetlands’ and its definition therefore do not guarantee the protection of any wetland in Brazil.
Regardless of the effective use of terminologies, the elements reviewed by Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018) lead to conclusions different from those that they drew. The term ‘wetlands’, although generic when considered in isolation, does not represent all wetland types in the context of the NVPL; because its definition is highly exclusionary, using this term cannot ensure the effectiveness of wetland-related conservation policies. Examples of wetlands that clearly do not fit the NVPL’s definition are those that are subject to unpredictable (i.e., non-periodic) flood pulses (e.g., riparian wetlands adjacent to streams and low-order rivers), all areas that are permanently flooded (e.g., permanent ponds, lakes and lagoons) and all or any parts of these areas that are not subject to flooding but are temporarily or permanently saturated (Junk et al. Reference Junk, Piedade, Lourival, Wittmann, Kandus, Lacerda and Bozelli2014, Mitsch & Gosselink Reference Mitsch and Gosselink2015).
An inclusive definition of ‘wetlands’ would also not guarantee the efficacy of wetland conservation strategies. As shown by Maltchik et al. (Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018), Brazilian legislation is remarkably insufficient with regards to the representation and detection of singular wetland types (which is especially worrying in view of the extreme diversity and complexity of the country’s wetlands; see Junk et al. Reference Junk, Piedade, Lourival, Wittmann, Kandus, Lacerda and Bozelli2014). These shortcomings cannot be masked or overcome only by adoption of the generic term ‘wetlands’ (and hence its definition), since each wetland type has unique characteristics and therefore specific conservation needs (e.g., buffer zone width) that can only be met through their being recognized as particular landscape features. A single conservation measure cannot serve for ecosystems ranging from the vast Amazonian floodplains to small temporary ponds in the semi-arid zone. One of the main functions of the term ‘wetlands’ (if not the main one) is not to replace terms for specific wetland types, but to constitute elements representing and/or describing them (e.g., ‘upland-embedded wetlands’ as a description of ponds and lakes; Calhoun et al. Reference Calhoun, Mushet, Alexander, DeKeyser, Fowler, Lane and Lang2017a) in order to ensure that they cover the full range of wetland subtypes (e.g., from temporarily saturated to permanently flooded areas). However, this crucial auxiliary function is not fulfilled in any Brazilian law (Maltchik et al. Reference Maltchik, Caleffi, Stenert, Batzer, Piedade and Junk2018). Potentially negative consequences of the lack of this kind of application of the term ‘wetlands’ is exemplified by the NVPL’s term ‘ponds’ (‘lagoas’ in Portuguese), which lacks conceptualization. As comprehensively defined, ponds are upland-embedded wetlands of ≤2 ha (Hamerlík et al. Reference Hamerlík, Svitok, Novikmec, Očadlík and Bitušík2014). However, some researchers alternatively use the term ‘pools’ (‘poças’ in Portuguese) in place of ‘temporary ponds’ (e.g., De Meester et al. Reference De Meester, Declerck, Stoks, Louette, Van De Meutter, De Bie and Michels2005). It is therefore unclear whether temporary ponds are protected by the NVPL, which may lead to exclusionary conservation policies and, consequently, to the collapse of unique ecosystem services (Calhoun et al. Reference Calhoun, Mushet, Bell, Boix, Fitzsimons and Isselin-Nondedeu2017b) and communities (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Death, Mathers, Ryves, White and Wood2017, Volcan & Lanés Reference Volcan and Lanés2018) – in fact, the NVPL does not ensure the protection of any pond (Grasel et al. Reference Grasel, Mormul, Bozelli, Thomaz and Jarenkow2018b). Given the paramount importance of appropriate terms and definitions of wetland types in environmental policies, it should be recognized that Brazil’s legislation seriously jeopardizes wetland conservation.
Deficiencies related to the elements used to represent and identify wetland systems, however, are not the only problems that compromise the conservation of these ecosystems in Brazil. While a detailed analysis of the country’s wetland-related policies is beyond the scope of this comment article, it is also important to highlight that the NVPL’s enactment in 2012 (when it replaced the old 1965 ‘Forest Code’) imposed catastrophic risks to Brazil’s wetland heritage (Grasel et al. Reference Grasel, Fearnside, Vitule, Bozelli, Mormul, Rodrigues and Wittmann2018a). Setbacks or inadequacies in the NVPL that diverge from Maltchik et al.’s conclusions include:
Removal of the protection conferred to ponds of <1 ha and wetlands associated with intermittent springs and ephemeral streams.
Dramatic reductions in the requirements for restoration of ‘buffer zones’ (legally considered ‘Permanent Preservation Areas’; hereafter PPAs) cleared before 22 July 2008, especially for those around ponds and lakes (for which protection with PPAs is now only 5–30 m) and adjacent to streams and rivers (where protection is only 5–100 m). This protected vegetation is now delimited according to the size of the property, regardless of the size or width of the wetlands or waterbodies.
Alteration of the basis for delimiting PPAs adjacent to streams and rivers from the maximum water level to the ‘regular bed’ of watercourses, thus reducing or removing protection from many riparian areas, especially from the vast Amazonian floodplains, which can reach widths of tens of kilometres and be ‘protected’ by PPAs as narrow as 5 m (Souza Jr et al. Reference Souza, Piedade and Candotti2011, Brancalion et al. Reference Brancalion, Garcia, Loyola, Rodrigues, Pillar and Lewinsohn2016).
Authorization of aquaculture (including raising alien species) in converted PPAs around ponds and lakes and adjacent to either intermittent or permanent watercourses on rural properties with ≤15 fiscal modules (for details about fiscal modules, see Brancalion et al. Reference Brancalion, Garcia, Loyola, Rodrigues, Pillar and Lewinsohn2016).
Non-protection of mangroves, salt marshes and hypersaline areas (sensu Junk et al. Reference Junk, Piedade, Lourival, Wittmann, Kandus, Lacerda and Bozelli2014) through non-wetland PPAs (mangroves are themselves considered PPAs, but salt marshes and hypersaline areas are not).
Permission to use salt marshes and hypersaline areas for shrimp farming (including exotic species) and salt production (10% of the area of these ecosystems can be used in the Amazon biome and 35% in other Brazilian biomes) (see also Rovai et al. Reference Rovai, Menghini, Schaeffer-Novelli, Molero and Coelho2012, Oliveira-Filho et al. Reference Oliveira-Filho, Rovai, Menghini, Coelho, Schaeffer-Novelli and Cintrón2016).
Allowing 50% of any required restoration of PPAs around ponds, lakes and perennial springs and adjacent to intermittent/permanent watercourses and veredas (wetlands in the Cerrado biome) to be done using exotic woody species (even in grassy biomes).
Establishment of the Rural Environmental Registry (known as the ‘CAR’) with poor provision for monitoring compliance with the rules for protection of waterbodies and wetlands, especially in the case of narrow or small aquatic ecosystems (e.g., Taniwaki et al. Reference Taniwaki, Forte, Silva, Brancalion, Cogueto, Filoso and Ferraz2018).
Recognizing the limitations and problems of the NVPL is a pressing need in the current Brazilian political scenario. Although in force since 2012, the NVPL’s ‘regulation’ (setting of rules to implement a law) at the state level is still underway, offering a unique opportunity to supplant its inadequacies. Therefore, scientists and policy-makers must engage in dialogue to regulate environmental legislation with evidence-based criteria (Azevedo-Santos et al. Reference Azevedo-Santos, Fearnside, Oliveira, Padial, Pelicice, Lima and Simberloff2017).
However, the legal mechanisms provided by the NVPL, even if improved at the state level, are clearly insufficient to promote wetland conservation in Brazil. Overcoming environmental challenges imposed, for example, by climate change (Junk et al. Reference Junk, An, Finlayson, Gopal, Květ, Mitchell and Mitsch2013), high rates of wetland loss (Creed et al. Reference Creed, Lane, Serran, Alexander, Basu, Calhoun and Christensen2017) and the spread of exotic species (e.g., Stenert et al. Reference Stenert, Ehlert, Ávila, Sousa, Esquinatti, Batzer and Maltchik2016) will require the adoption of effective integrated strategies for the protection, restoration, management, creation, mapping and monitoring of wetlands (e.g., Grasel et al. Reference Grasel, Mormul, Bozelli, Thomaz and Jarenkow2018b). We emphatically recommend the creation of a national policy specifically focusing on wetland conservation.
Financial Support
DG was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) (grant number 1601741); grants from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) were received by PMF (573810/2008-7; 311103/2015-4), JRSV (310850/2012-6; 303776/2015-3), RRR (561897/2010-7) and RPM (300860/2016-1); and PMF and RRR were also supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (FAPEAM) (708565) and Rede Clima (01.13.0353-00), and by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (2013/50718-5; 1999/09635-0), respectively.
Conflict of Interest
None.
Ethical Standards
None.