The Protected Area Mosaics (Mosaicos de Áreas Protegidas, MAP) are formed when there are Protected Areas (PA) in close proximity to each other or overlapped in a same territory, even if they are managed by different... [ view full abstract ]
The Protected Area Mosaics (Mosaicos de Áreas Protegidas, MAP) are formed when there are Protected Areas (PA) in close proximity to each other or overlapped in a same territory, even if they are managed by different governmental or private scopes. They aim to improve the management of PA through ecosystem connectivity and also through an integrated and efficient management of both material and human resources of those areas. MAP are managed by councils formed by governmental and civil society entities from the territory. This study refers to Mico-Leão-Dourado Mosaic (Mosaico Mico-Leão-Dourado, MMLD), which has an area of 209,000 hectares, along 8 municipalities. It is composed by 5 Federal, 1 state and 13 private PA, and it’s entirely located in Rio de Janeiro state, in a region of coastal lowland. Once it is the Golden Lion Tamarin habitat, this Mosaic has been formed in order to strengthen the integrated management among PA, in such a way to improve the species preservation. Being an instrument of public politics, it is crucial that the efficiency of Mosaics is analyzed and that the principle of continuous improvement is followed. This work intended to analyze the efficiency of Mico-Leão-Dourado Mosaic management, and such analysis has been performed through a protocol designed to this end. This protocol is qualitative and quantitative, presenting 46 indicators divided into 4 scopes: Governance, Management, Sociodiversity and Biodiversity. Each counselor assigns each indicator a score from 0-3: 0 (non occurrent), 1 (rarely occurs), 2 (usually occurs), and 3 (occurs a lot). The mean of each indicator is calculated and the T-Test is applied to verify the effectiveness of the indicator, taking into account those with a mean above 2. The number of effective indicators determines the scopes and mosaic effectiveness in a percentage, being 35% Not Effective, 36%-50% Low Effectiveness, 51%-75% Medium Effectiveness, and 76%-100% High Effectiveness. 39 indicators and 2 scopes were considered effective. From this 39 indicators, 19 presented low but effective means according to the T-Test. The two failed areas were Management and Sociodiversity. The indicators ranged from 76%-100%, but the scopes from 36%-50%, so, we have classified MMLD as a MAP with a Medium Effectiveness, which effective areas were Governance and Biodiversity, requiring greater attention to the Management and Sociodiversity of the territory. In order to do so, it is necessary for the Mosaic Management Council to pay more consideration to issues involving local populations, as well as to provide a better dissemination of the MMLD to them and integration with the public management bureaus that influence the territory. MAP are examples of collaborative governance of the territory, integrating the Government and civil society, so, its proper functioning is crucial for the sustainable development of the territory and protection of both local communities and biodiversity. The study shows how a truly integrated work between government and society, with divided responsibilities and decision power is essential to build scenery of efficient collaborative governance.
