MANUAL TO THE FINANCIAL MODULE OF MICOSYS FOR THE “SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVAÇÃO (SNUC) OF BRAZIL

Daan Vreugdenhil, PhD

Worlds Institute for Conservation and Environment

Washington, April 2007

1

ACRÓNIMOS E SIGLAS

ANA Agencia Nacional de ÁguasAPA Áreas de Proteção AmbientalAPP Áreas de Preservação PermanenteARIE Áreas de Relevante Interesse EcológicoARPA Programa de Áreas Protegidas da AmazôniaBM Banco MundialBID Banco Interamericano de DesenvolvimentoCAE Comissão de Assuntos Econômicas do Senado CCA/IBAMA Câmera de Compensação AmbientalCDBCBD

Convenção de Diversidade BiológicaConvention of Biological Diversity

CNPT Conselho Nacional de Populações Tradicionais COBRAMAB Comissão Brasileira para o Programa "O Homem e a Biosfera"CONAMA Conselho Nacional do Meio AmbienteCOP Conferência dos parceiros

Conference of the partiesCOPAM Conselho Estadual de Política AmbientalCTUC Câmara Técnica de Unidades de Conservação e demais Áreas ProtegidasDAP/MMA Diretoria de Áreas Protegidas da Secretaria de Biodiversidade e FlorestasDF Distrito FederalDIREC/IBAMA Diretoria de EcossistemasDIREF Diretoria de Florestas/IBAMAEIA/RIMA Avaliação de Impacto AmbientalEMBRATUR Empresa Brasileira de TurismoESEC Estações EcológicasEUA Estados Unidos de AméricaFCA Fundo de Compensação AmbientalFEMA Fundação Estadual do Meio AmbienteFLONA Florestas NacionaisFNAP Fórum Nacional de Áreas ProtegidasFNMA Fundo de Compensação AmbientalFPE Verde Fundo de Participação Estadual VerdeFUNBIO Fundo Brasileiro para a BiodiversidadeFUNATURA Fundação para a Conservação da NaturezaGBGoB

Governo BrasileiroGovernment of Brazil

GEF(FMMA)

Global Environment Facility (Fondo Mundial do Meio Ambiente)

GEREX Gerência ExecutivaGT grupo de trabalhoIBAMA Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais RenováveisIABIN InterAmerican Biological NetworkIIEB Instituto Internacional de Educação de BrasilIBDF Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento FlorestalIBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e EstatísticoICMS Imposto sobre Circulação e ServiçosIEB Instituto de Ecoturismo do BrasilInBio Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidade (de Costa Rica)IPCA Índice nacional de preços ao consumidor amploITR Imposto Territorial RuralLAC Limits of Acceptable ChangeMAB O Homem e a Biosfera

Man & BiosphereMICT Ministério da Indústria, Comércio e TurismoMMA Ministério de Meio Ambiente

2

M&A Monitoramento e AvaliaçãoMtur Ministério de TurismoNURUC Núcleo de Unidades de ConservaçãoONGNGO

Organização no GubernamentalNon Governmental Organisation

OSCIP Organizações da Sociedade Civil de Interesse PúblicoPARNA parque nacionalPLC Projeto de Lei ComplementarPN Parques NacionaisPNF Programa Nacional de FlorestasPNT Plano Nacional do TurismoPOA Programa Operativo AnualPPA Plano PlurianualPRODETUR/NE Programa de Desenvolvimento do Turismo no NordestePROECOTUR Programa de Desenvolvimento do Ecoturismo na AmazôniaPSA Pagamento por Serviço AmbientalPSE pagamento por serviços ecosistêmicosRamsar Convenção Mundial de Humedales de Importancia Internacional

(Convention on Wetlands of International Importance)REBIO Reservas BiológicasRVS Refúgios de Vida SilvestreRESEX Reservas ExtravistasRL Reservas LegaisRPPN Reservas Particulares do Patrimônio NaturalSBF/MMA Secretaría de Biodiversidade e FlorestasSEMA Secretaria Especial do Meio AmbienteSEMAD Secretaria de Maio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento SustentávelSEMAM/PR Secretaria do Meio Ambiente da Presidência da RepúblicaSIG Sistema de Informação GeográficaSISNAMA Sistema Nacional de Meio AmbienteSIUC Sistema de Informações de Unidades de ConservaçãoSNUC Sistema Nacional de Unidades de ConservaçãoSUDEPE Superintendência do Desenvolvimento da PescaTIs terras indígenasTNC The Nature ConservancyUNESCO United Nations Education and Scientific OrganizationUSAID United States Agency for International Development

Agencia dos Estado Unidos para o Desenvolvimento InternacionalUE União EuropeaUICNIUCN

União Internacional para a Conservação da NaturezaWorld Conservation Union (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)

UC Unidade de ConservaçãoPNUMAUNEP

Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio AmbienteUnited Nations Environment Programme

VA Valor adicionadoWCPA Comisión Mundial de Áreas Protegidas de la UICNWICE World Institute for Conservation of NatureWWF worldwide Fund for NatureWTO World Tourism OrganisationWTTC World Travel & Tourism Council

3

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................................ 4

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 6

1 SHEETS I AND II ....................................................................................................................... 7

2 SHEET III, RPPN ...................................................................................................................... 13

3 SHEET IV, TOTAIS ................................................................................................................. 13

4 SHEET V .................................................................................................................................... 27

5 SHEET VI .................................................................................................................................. 28

6 SHEET VII ................................................................................................................................. 28

7 SHEET VIII: CRESCIMENTO ORNIMENTARIO FINALÍSTICO ................................. 31

4

1 INTRODUCTION

The current document is a manual to the financial module of the MICOSYS programme for the Brazilian reality. The document functions as an annex to the document “Pilares para o Plano de Sustentabilidade Financeira do Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação (SNUC)” by the Fórum Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, Grupo Temático de Sustentabilidade Financeira.

When designed in 1992 for the World Bank to prioritize a protected areas financing for the conservation areas system of Costa Rica, MICOSYS was the first computer-based protected areas analysis tool to be developed to assess biodiversity representativeness. It is unique in the sense that it links protected areas system alternatives to costing. The programme has been used in a variety of countries, as well for a worldwide costing of the the protected areas systems of developing countries and countries with economies in transition, presented during the World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003 (Vreugdenhil, 1994). Once the programme has been used to identify a “minimum conservation system”, it may serve in the design of different alternative models with higher levels of conservation security. It can be used for a variety of analytical tasks that require the mutual comparison of protected areas, like:

• Relative weighting of protected areas for the purpose of declaring new lands or for management and financing purposes;

• Biodiversity representation analysis of ecosystem and/or species representation in protected areas systems;

• Cost estimates; • Budgeting; • Monitoring and Evaluation practices to evaluate management success or setbacks.

For the financial cost analysis of the SNUC, only the financial module of MICOSYS has been used, which is the focus of this manual.

The programme is organized in 8 sheets:I.UCs federaisII.UCs estaduaisIII.RPPNIV.TotaisV.SumáriosVI.Orçamentos_estimativosVII.VisitaçãoVIII.Series de crescimento

Each is interlinked and acquires information from other sheets. Cells referring to other cells may not be changed with primary data.

Each cost factor has been customized to the conditions of Brazil; many of which were done so during a workshop in December 2005. Once entered into the system, they are automatically calculated throughout the programme.

5

1 SHEETS I AND IISheets I and II provide information specific for governmental protected areas and calculates their individual costs. Their design is identical, sheet I for Federal areas and Sheet II for State areas.

Protected areas data tablesFor Brasil the programme has been designed to organise the protected areas in the following categories:

Unidades de conservação com fins de proteção integral (categorías UICN I – IV);Unidades de conservação com fins de uso sustentável (categoría UICN VI);Areas de protecção ambiental (categoría UICN, mais relacionado V, paisagens terrestres e costeiros protegidos) Reservas Particulares do Patrimonio Natural (RPPN)

As Categorías do SNUC e a categoría UICN mais parecida

The area tables are grouped in pairs and many data are linked. Only enter data where necessary. The green columns list the protected areas; once entered in the left-hand tables, they automatically populate the green column in the right-hand table.

The yellow columns require the entry of area-specific data. The primary quantifying data consist of the area sizes in ha. These have to be entered for each area.

The white columns are generated automatically and may be locked if desired. No data should be entered.

Many costs are related to staff (e.g.: equipment, some infrastructure, uniforms, etc.). The density of staff is proportionate to the square root of the areas, multiplied by a staff density factor. The staff density factor is related to external pressures, often reflected by the to the density of the surrounding population. It is assumed that the higher the density of the surrounding population, the higher the need for staffing with relevant equipment and infrastructure. The staff density is reversely proportionate to the staff density factor. These factors have been calibrated during a workshop by experimentation with a few well-known areas. Their application for each area has been done based on area knowledge and professional judgment with representatives of the MMA.

6

CATEGORÍA ACRÓNIMO Categoría UICN

TIPO DE USO

ESTAÇÃO ECOLÓGICA ESEC IPARQUE NACIONAL PARNA IIREFÚGIO DE VIDA SILVESTRE RVS I ou IVRESERVA BIOLÓGICA REBIO IFLORESTA NACIONAL FLONA VRESERVA EXTRATIVISTA RESEX VÁREA DE PROTEÇÃO AMBIENTAL APA VIÁREA DE RELEVANTE INTERESSE ECOLÓGICO ARIE V

Uso sustentáve l

Proteção integral

AREA DATA TABLESThe area tables are on the left sides of Sheets I and II.

The staff-density needs vary per management category, assuming the highest density for national parks. Per management category a fraction of the highest category has been established by the workshop and systematically applied to each category.

In general, data on private land ownership are poorly known, and only known information is entered. Absence of information, therefore does not mean that no private lands are present in the protected area concerned, but rather, that no information is available.

The bottom rows in black of each tables list the accumulated data for the category.

The right hand tables calculate the costs per protected area for:• total projected investment; • pending investments; • staffing costs;• operational costs without staff;• total operational costs; and

7

• costs per hectare.

The operational costs without staff are specified, because protected areas managers don't receive the budgets for the payment of their staff, and yet, it is useful to know the cost per conservation unit.

The costs per hectare are given for each area to show how much the costs are size-dependent. The annual cost per hectare varies from

• more than US$60,000 per ha for an area of about 2 ha (i.g. Tupinambás); to• US$0.45 per ha for Uatumã with the size of almost 1,000,000 ha.

Consistent with the IBAMA and MMA policy, the areas are divided into strictly protected areas – areas belonging to IUCN categories I – IV – and sustainable use areas.

AREA COSTS TABLESThe area costs tables are on the right hand side of Sheets I and II.

Most cost categories have a column for investment costs, realised costs, pending costs and recurrent costs. In the column for realised costs, the number of established units are entered, which in turn calculates pending costs by deducting the realised units from the required units in the left tables. This shows how many units still needs to be established and financed. For about 90 areas information on equipment and infrastructure was available. Usually, the value of infrastructure was considerably lower than the prices set in this study and investment in upgrading is probably needed, but often this may be established under “maintenance” in a more remote future.

Yearly returning operational or recurrent costs are calculated over the total investment costs on the basis of the factors write-off and maintenance as percentages of the investment costs. Some of the principal factors presented:

Staffing costsPerhaps the most important function in a protected area is the function of the ranger. These multi-functional field staff members are the eyes and ears of the protected areas and the first line representatives to the public. Rangers need to carry out:

• basic monitoring of the condition of the protected areas through registering their observations on indicator species;

• communication with local populations;• basic extension functions to channel benefits of the PA to local populations;• law enforcement against poaching, illegal deforestation, illegal encroachment, etc.;• provide interpretation services to visitors;• fire prevention and combat programmes;• carry out minor maintenance of trails and infrastructure.

Given the importance of the tasks of the rangers, the rangers have been taken as the calculation unit for many cost factors and densities. Mid-level and high-level staff has been assessed as a

8

percentage over the number of rangers in the PAs, as well as several types of equipment and ranger stations.

BOX 1: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON INTERPRETATION PROGRAMMES

Area-specific-education (presentations in neighbouring villages and schools, school visits to the area, etc,) on and resource interpretation are tasks, which involve the education of the direct users of the areas, in casu the visitors, and the local population. Promotion of goodwill and appreciation of the on-site conservation program require intensive involvement of the field staff at all levels as well as full-time educational staff as interfaces between the PA and the public. Area specific education and interpretation not only helps the public appreciate the values of the area, but it also justifies the existence of an area and its management. The task requires specific area related knowledge on the resource and its management. In theory, the task could be contracted out or delegated to third parties. However, by doing so the area administration would forgo an opportunity to relate and communicate with the public, and it would restrict its task to primarily law-enforcement and monitoring, which would be experienced as respectively negative or mainly go unseen by the general public. Such would be a strategic public-relations disadvantage, and MICOSYS incorporates area-specific education/interpretation as a primary task of a protected areas system. In many countries where private guides form the main interface between protected areas and the public, the protected areas administrations are suffering from a regretful negative image.

Ranger stationsRanger stations are structures of decent quality where rangers can stay overnight and carry out their professional functions. The investment costs of ranger stations is referenced from Tabela 31. Costs are calculated with standard equipment costs, solar energy units, including GPS, portable radios, binoculars, an amount for monitoring equipment, basic furniture (beds, table, chairs, kitchen gear, etc.). Equipment write-off and maintenance is included in the relevant factors of the buildings. The same principle applies for the other types of buildings. For Brazil, ranger stations are budgeted one for every 4 rangers in shifts of 2 at the time.

In areas with nearby villages or towns, ranger stations may not need living quarters, as the rangers may return home daily. Alternatively, in remote areas, staff may be housed in housing belonging to the administration, in which case at least part of the ranger stations may not need living quarters.

9

VehiclesVehicles are considered any kind of transportation for several persons and may include regular cars, motorized canoes, speedboats, etc. The price unit is set at a double cabin four wheel drive pickup, which may vary per type of vehicle. Recurrent costs consist of write off, maintenance and fuel. Larger boats are not under this item but in sheet IV under “barcos”.

Multiple Use CentresThe need for Multiple Use Centres is set for areas over 250,000 ha. Costs are calculated with standard equipment costs, including a fixed radio, solar energy units, GPS, walkie talkies, binoculars, an amount for monitoring equipment and basic furniture (basic furniture, kitchen gear, etc.). The total is summed up in Table V and may be changed according to need.

Visitor CentresVisitor centres are the “business cards” of a protected areas system and are very effective for communication with visitors (Eagles 2002). It is better to only have a few high profile, well-designed and well-operated ones on key locations than a poor-looking structure in every area. Good quality infrastructure in the touristically most attractive protected areas allows the administration to charge considerable entry fees. As a rule of thumb, a good visitor centre with a high quality exhibition should cost about US $50,000. Costs are calculated in the same fashion as

10

for multiple use centres. The MMA selected 19 parks to receive the first visitor centres considered in this study. When park visitation increases throughout the system, additional investments are needed.

TrailsThe trail densities are determined on professional judgement for different management categories. For areas with high visitation, short interpretative trails are included with high density interpretation signs, overlooks and picknick sites. The costs of trails are estimated on the assumption that they are built with local materials, mainly involving labour for construction. Occasionally, simple stairs must be built or muddy or swampy sections must be bridged with shelves or steps. For such conditions, wood is assumed as construction material. A cubic meter factor per kilometre (see Vreugdenhil 1992).

PeripheryThe periphery has been generated assuming a square shape for the protected areas. In practice they are likely to be a bit longer, but the length in kilometres is a reasonable indication. These data are not used in the cost calculations.

11

2 SHEET III, RPPNNo cost data are entered on the RPPN, as their management and investment costs are the responsibility of their owners. The only government costs involved are the creation and the supervision. The creation has been estimated by the workshop at US$20,000 while it was estimated that supervision requires 5 days of work per year by mid-level staff. In Sheet IV, Totais, this is translated into a monetary value.

3 SHEET IV, TOTAISSheet IV, Totais, provides information on:

• The territory of SNUC per management category;• Recurrent costs;• Investment costs;• Reference data.

These cost data are generated for:• The Federal protected areas• The State protected areas• The entire SNUC

Data on State protected areas are on the right hand side of the sheet.Another distinction is per management category.

REFERENCE TABLECentral in the programme is the Reference table The cost factors can be found in Tabela 31, “Reference table” on Sheet IV, Totais. It provides primary data that are referenced throughout the table and any condition generic for the programme as a whole needs to be changed in the reference table.

12

Tabela 31VALORES DE REFERENCIA E FATORES DE CUSTOS

Territorio nacional em ha 854,546,635Taxa de câmbio US$/R$ 2.1580Despesas de criação $20,000Despesas de demarcação $1,000Despesas de regularização fundiaria $2.00Conselhos das UCs $3,000Despesas de criação de um RPPN $20,000Dias anuais de inspecção 5Salario neto de guardaparque $324

Salario bruto do pessoal administrativo técnico e auxiliar (supervisores de guardaparques, pessoal administrativo, extensionistas) $1,019Salario bruto dos analistas $2,317% contribuição do Governo à Previdência e Contribuição Social 22% do Governo aos Beneficios 40% de beneficios e encargos sobre salario neto dos guardaparques 92% pessoal administrativo para as UCs sobre os guardaparques 5% pessoal profissional para as UCs sobre os guardaparques 4% pessoal administrativo das gerências executivas sobre o pessoal de campo 1% pessoal profissional das gerências executivas sobre o pessoal de campo 1% pessoal administrativo dos escritorios regionais sobre o pessoal de campo 5% pessoal profissional dos escritorios regionais sobre o pessoal de campo 4% pessoal administrativo da sede sobre o pessoal de campo 5% pessoal profissional da sede sobre o pessoal de campo 4% pessoal administrativo da seção pelo SNUC no MMA sobre o pessoal de campo 0.5% pessoal profissional da seção pelo SNUC no MMA sobre o pessoal de campo 0.4Meses pagos por ano 13Salario anual de guardaparque $8,096Salario anual nivel medio $21,470

1

VALORES DE REFERENCIA E FATORES DE CUSTOSSalario anual pessoal profissional $48,795Valor sede IBAMA $50,000,000% da sede de IBAMA para apoyar al SNUC 35Valor seção política do SNUC no MMA $500,000Valor gerências executivas (partes de escritorios estaduais) $500,000Infraestrutura de administração e gestão da UC $200,000Tamanho mínimo da UC em ha para ter infraestrutura de administração e gestão 5000Estações de guardaparques $25,000Centro de visitantes $2,000,000Exposição no centro de visitantes $50,000% para equipamento de serviços comuns sobre predio (biblioteca, servidor, rede interna, manutenção, etc.) 5% anual sobre equipamentos e exposição para sua manutenção e depreciação 20Número de pessoal nivel medio para um centro de visitantes 4Número de guardaparques por estação 4Número mínimo de guardaparques por UC 3Número de guardaparques por veículo (carro, canoa motorizada) 10Número de pessoal especializado por veículo 20Tamanho mínimo em ha para ter um CUM 250000Centro de uso múltiplo (CUM) $250,000Número de guardaparques por CUM 5Veículo (com tração, cabine dupla ou lancha motorizada) $30,000Barcos de patrulha $150,000Barco de patrulha marinha $500,000% anual sobre um barco de patrulha para sua depreciação 5% anual sobre um barco de patrulha para sua manutenção 10Combustível anual para um barco de patrulha $10,000Aluguel de helicóptero $1,000Aluguel de avião de 6 - 8 pessoas $450

1

VALORES DE REFERENCIA E FATORES DE CUSTOS

Estações de guardaparqu

es

Centro de uso

múltiplo (CUM)

Centro de visitantes

Infraestrutura de

administração e gestão da

UC

Radio base 1 1 1 1 $1,500Radio e/o telefone móvel 2 3 5 5 $350Antena radio 1 1 1 1 $500Conjunto de campo: binóculos, mochila, GPS, bússola, altímetro, kit primeiros socorros, faca, diversos 2 3 2 3 $1,000Telefone 0.5 2 2 2 $100Câmera digital 1 1 $250Equipamento de monitoramento e estação meteorológica 1 1 $6,000Mobília segundo necessidade: camas, cadeiras, estantes, mesas de reunião, etc 1 4 10 5 $1,000Escrivaninha 1 1 5 $500Equipamento de cozinha 1 1 1 $1,000Kit de ferramentas de manutenção de carpintaria e de mecánica 1 1 $5,000Equipamento solar 1 5 5 5 $2,000Projetor digital e tela de projeção 1 $1,000Computadores e impressoras 1 1 1 5 $2,000Fotocopiadoras 1 1 $3,000Equipamento para a infraestrutura do campo $11,000 $34,750 $31,450 $50,700 Uniformes e botas $250Madeira por m3 $100m3 de madeira por km de trilha 12Mão de obra por km de trilha $1,500Sinais interpretativos $200Número de sinais por km 5Mirante $500Área de piquenique $2,000Despesas de trilha simples por km $2,700Despesas de trilha interpretativa por km $6,200Despesa media por ha para compra no contexto da regularização fundiaria $250% anual sobre predios para sua manutenção e depreciação 4% anual sobre equipamentos para sua manutenção e depreciação 25

1

VALORES DE REFERENCIA E FATORES DE CUSTOS% anual sobre veículos para sua manutenção e depreciação 20% anual sobre trilhas para sua manutenção 10% sobre despesas de custeio para pesquisas orientadas a gestão e monitoramento 2% sobre despesas de custeio para compensação de matanças de gado por predadores 1% sobre despesas de custeio para gestão de especies ameaçadas 1% sobre despesas de custeio para erradicação de especies invasoras 2% sobre despesas de custeio para combate de fogo 3% sobre despesas de custeio para promoção do SNUC 0.5Litros de gasolina por veículo por ano 4000Preço de gasolina $/l $1Despesas em gasolina por veículo/ano $4,000Despesas de comunicação da sede $2,500,000Despesas de comunicação gerências executivas e escritorios estaduais $15,000Despesas de comunicação UCs $5,000Despesas de internet da sede $120,000Despesas de internet gerências executivas e escritorios estaduais $12,000Despesas de internet UCs $600Despesas de eletricidade sede $240,000Despesas de eletricidade gerências executivas e escritorios estaduais $480,000Despesas de eletricidade UCs $12,000Despesas de agua sede $30,000Despesas de agua gerências executivas e escritorios estaduais $5,000Despesas de agua UCs $1,000Fator de densidade de pessoal alto 7Fator de densidade de pessoal intermediario 10Fator de densidade de pessoal baixo 15Fator de densidade de pessoal muito baixo 20Correção por categoría de manejo, densidade de pessoal baixo 0.5Correção por categoría de manejo, densidade de pessoal intermediario 0.7

1

VALORES DE REFERENCIA E FATORES DE CUSTOSCorreção por categoría de manejo, densidade de pessoal alto 1.0Fator de densidade de trilhas alto 14Fator de densidade de trilhas intermediario 30Fator de densidade de trilhas baixo 60Fator de densidade de trilhas muito baixo 120% sobre salarios para treinamento e eventos profissionais 5Média anual para viagens do pessoal $200Días anuais de supervisão por RPPN 5Periodicidade em anos de atualização dos planos de manejo 10Plano de manejo $150,000

TERRITORIAL INFORMATIONTerritorial information on SNUC is given in:TABLE 16: INFORMAÇÃO TERRITORIAL The data on Federal protected areas are based on updates until from the MMA until July 2006 and are considered rather accurate, even though minor discrepancies exist between calculated and GIS generated sizes. These however have no noticeable baring on the accumulated territory of the Federal protected areas.

The accuracy on State protected areas is unknown and the MMA did not have a full list of all the protected areas protected under State mandate. The Ministry estimates that the areas available represent about 80% of the total number of areas. It also expects that an unknown number of State protected areas overlaps Federal protected areas either in part or completely. This clouds the overall accumulated territory of SNUC.

Data on RPPN could not be acquired sufficiently during the time of the study and the MMA expects the list to possibly represent only half of the registered areas. Given the relatively small sizes of the RPPN, this has little bearing however on the accumulated territory of SNUC.

No data could be acquired on Municipal protected areas, but it is expected that their sizes are relatively small and that their number is rather limited, thus having little bearing on the accumulated territory of SNUC. If data of Municipal protected areas become available in the future, a new sheet should be inserted after Sheet II, using the design of the previous sheets.

INVESTMENT COSTSAccumulated investment costs are listed in:

• Tabelas 19 and 20: System totals, respectively for Federal and State;• Tabelas 23 and 24: Totals for Integral protected areas, respectively for Federal and State;• Tabelas 27 and 28: Totals for Sustainable use areas, respectively for Federal and State;

1

• Tabela 30: Totals for the entire SNUC.

RECURRENT COSTSAccumulated recurrent costs are listed in:

• Tabelas 17 and 18: System totals, respectively for Federal and State;• Tabelas 21 and 22: Totals for Integral protected areas, respectively for Federal and State;• Tabelas 25 and 26: Totals for Sustainable use areas, respectively for Federal and State;• Tabela 29: Totals for the entire SNUC.

Some costs are not determined for each area, but only for the system as a whole. These include:• Headquarters;• Gerências executivas;• Escritorios Estaduais;• Public services like water, light, communication, internet;• Large patrol boats• Helicopter and airplane rental• Monitoring• Predator's prey compensation fund• Threatened species management programme• Invasive species eradication programme;• Fire prevention and combat programme;• Marketing of SNUC

Headquarters and Gerências executivasFrom its headquarters in Brasilia, IBAMA carries out a multitude of functions in support of the SNUC, such as:

• PA Policy development;• Support of the political apparatus and the Ministry;• Normation;• Budget management;• Common contracting and hiring;• Staff administration;• Juridical support;• Supervision of UCs, Etc.

These are essential tasks for which a minimum staff is required. Nevertheless, as much as possible, work that can be delegated to the Gerências executivas and the protected areas themselves should not be carried out in the headquarters. Therefore only low percentages have been set over the total number of rangers of the system, being intermediate and professional level staff. Equipment, some vehicles, etc. have been calculated for the thus estimated staff.

1

The headquarters of IBAMA in Brasilia is a large complex with many buildings which has been estimated at a value of $50,000,000. For the costing of the headquarters, factors are involved such as write-off and maintenance of buildings, equipment, and vehicles, fuel and public services. These have been established as percentages over the total value of the real estate, and equipment. An attempt has been made to estimate the percentage of the budget of IBAMA being spent on SNUC. This would could then be used to assess the percentage of the headquarters' value should be ascribed to management of SNUC. In absence of such percentage an estimate has been made.

The MMA develops the policy of environment, including on biodiversity and the SNUC. The Ministry does not carry out operational tasks, and its staffing has been set at 10 percent of that of IBAMA.

In each state, IBAMA has a Gerência executiva for desconcentrated tasks. Primarily these Gerências executivas, should function as liaisons between the Federal and State institutions of environment.

It is assumed that each state has an environmental institution that deals with the state protected areas. As these institutions have similar functions at the state level for the state protected areas as the IBAMA headquarters has for the federal protected areas, the staffing of the escritorios estatais has been set at the same percentage as for the IBAMA headquarters.

Public servicesNo good data on public services could be found. Some contracts appear to be contracted at a national level, while others are contracted locally. The estimates are estimates based on some telephone interviews, but they must not be considered very accurate. Better data must be acquired, but in the total SNUC costs, they will always play a rather small role.

Large patrol boatsThe need for large patrol boats cannot be set on an average generated area-base calculation, as their need is very area-specific. They may be needed in the Amazon region, in the Pantanal and in insular and coastal protected areas. For the total system, the needs have been set at 20 boats, but it would be desirable to assess a need per-area, based on professional judgement.

Airplanes and helicoptersAirplanes and helicopters are needed for a variety of purposes, including

• Transportation of staff and goods to and from very remote areas;• Reconnaissance• Surveillance;• Fire fighting.

In general these are rather occasional services and have been set for SNUC as a whole, based on an estimate.

Monitoring

1

In order to budget the monitoring system for SNUC, we must review some monitoring principles for the system.

Any M&E system is subject to its own objectives and methods, and its results vary accordingly. In general terms, a protected areas monitoring system should focus on the well-being of the areas of the system and not on the monitoring of development or investment projects such as roads, industrial investments, urbanization, etc., outside protected areas which usually require the collection of specific data. The achievements and changes generated by such concrete projects should be monitored and financed within the context of the projects themselves, particularly under financing of Compensação Ambiental.Above all, an M&E program should be a tool for park management, designed to maintain the viability of managed areas. The M&E program should thus exhibit the following characteristics:

• low cost and high cost-efficiency;• facilitate management and administrative adaptability, and have self-adaptability;• incorporate field personnel;• transparent and able to be verified, internally and externally;• designed through a participatory process;• compatibility with the IABIN standardisation for the Americas.

The main users of the SNUC M&E Programme are considered the following:• The Minister of Environment, needs information to enable them to formulate, adapt and

defend his/her biodiversity conservation policies before the general public and specific actors (NGOs), and defend / justify any budgetary modification;

• The directors of the biodiversity related programmes in the MMA and IBAMA are responsible for the policy development concerning SNUC and for its management respectively. They needs information to make decisions on policy development and the administrative and organic management of the SNUC;

• Financial institutions / donors require information on the progress of the projects they finance and on the impact of their programs on the sector which is being intervened in order to justify these investments before their board of directors (national representatives of international organizations, or foreign ministers in the cases of bilateral cooperation entities),

• The directors of each protected area need information on the impact of their interventions on the local actors to justify specific measures (both positive measures which promote economic benefits as well as corrective measures). They also need timely information on changes and threats in order to respond accordingly;

• The “scientific world” needs verifiable and statistically sound ecological data for scientific research which advances ecologic knowledge and understanding, with benefits for humankind and better long-term management;

• NGOs require information to assess the impact of government programs and to apply pressure according to their point of view (which may differ from one NGO to another);

• Local actors (ethnic groups and farmers) demand transparency and information to enables them to dialogue and participate in decision-making processes related to

2

management programs, which may well have a bearing on their rights, economic opportunities and cultural life.

• The tourist sector requires information for its clients, data on environmental tolerance, best visitation options, etc.

• Project executors require data on the effects of their projects, whether they are development or infrastructure projects. In the case of the latter, the data which have already been collected for an area may be part of an in-depth baseline research for an environmental impact study. In the context of the project, the program for the measurement of impact would be intensified.

Protected area managements everywhere are subject to strong pressure to execute costly research studies and monitoring and evaluation programs. Main actors (scientists, NGOs, international donors, etc.) in countries all over the world recognize the need for a monitoring program, but each one wants his particular parameter of interest to be monitored. It will never be possible to satisfy the needs of all the users, however, so it will always be necessary to decide which data, from which clients, can be generated by a general monitoring program. Experienced administrators have concluded that a management administration should not spend more than 10% of its budget (including costs of the time invested by internal personnel with their equipment, such as transportation, computers, buildings) in monitoring programs and applied research addressed to the evaluation of data. This practical rule of thumb significantly reduces the scope of a monitoring and applied research program. The current program will lend support to the selection of parameters to be monitored and their intensity.

Rangers should play an important role in protected areas monitoring as they are the eye and ears on the ground of the management organisation. Rangers fulfill multiple functions as we have seen previously. When using rangers in the a monitoring programme, the effective contribution to monitoring is much higher: Assuming equivalence for monitoring, visitor service, community support and law-enforcement1 in the tasks of the rangers, the budget spent on monitoring would be about 20% (including the salaries of professional monitoring coordinators). Given the high percentage of costs of field staff (rangers), the specific budget costs of M&E are kept at only 2% of the total budget, which should be spent on monitoring equipment, certain monitoring collaboration programmes with universities and periodic change detection analyses.

1 Salaries of rangers, ranger stations and transportation amount to about 50 - 60%.

2

BOX 2: SOME CASES OF MONITORING COSTS

For the Netherlands, water management is essential for the physical continuation of 50% of the national territory. In 1987, Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch equivalent of the US Corps of Engineers, contracted an accountant study to analyse how much of its budget and personnel was spent and should be spent on M&E of the Dutch system of National Waters. It was assessed that annually, the equivalent of about 1987 Euro 53 million was spent on - both physical and environmental - monitoring in national waters (excluding considerable monitoring by provincial institutions and Water Boards). During a discussion at management level it was assessed that no more than 5 - 10% of the budget for water management (including personnel costs) should be spent on monitoring; The study showed that Rijkswaterstaat spent closer to 5% and expenditure on monitoring was well within its range of need. This example is given as it reflects one of the few cases of solidly institutionalised monitoring in the world – with some series dating back for centuries – of which all the costs are known in detail.

With National Parks Service (of the USA) budget-analyst K. Mueller (pers. com.), a very coarse approximation was made on the percentile expenditure on monitoring and contract research of the NPS. Of the regular 2002 NPS budget of US $2.3 billion plus an additional US $500 million on external funding for the national parks (inter alia road funds comes from a different budget), two/third or US $1.9 billion is spent on natural heritage and US $900 million on cultural heritage. A further analysis of the budget sub-activity “Resource Stewardship” indicates that about US $39 million2 is spent on management related research and monitoring, bringing the total percentage of management related research and monitoring of natural resources at about 2% of the annual budget for natural heritage conservation by the USA National Parks Service. This percentage does not include the costs of park staff3 time budget. The real percentage is probably somewhat higher. The purpose of this example, however, is not to accurately assess the expenditure by the NPS, but to give an indication of the order of magnitude spent by one of the most advanced protected areas systems in the world.

Threatened species management fundA percentage can be generated to dedicate funds for management of threatened species; usually no more than one percent.

Indemnity fund for losses caused by rare speciesA small indemnity fund may be created to compensate for damages caused by rare animals leaving protected areas, such as large predators. Compensation should be applied with restraint and only after negotiating an agreement with local communities to forgo hunting threatened animals outside a reserve. Strict rules of use must be set and claims must be carefully verified to prevent the fund from becoming abused as a source of subsidy.

2 Natural Resources Research support $9.3 million, Everglades Restoration and Research, US $10.9, Vital signs monitoring $8.4 million, accelerated inventories $7.3 million, assess watershed conditions, $3.1 million. 3 E.g. monitoring activities include registration of infractions of the law performed by ranges staff and the sales of entry tickets, which provides the NPS with valuable information on visitation intensity.

2

BOX 3: EXAMPLE OF A COMPENSATION FUND

“Through The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust, if a landowner suspects that a grizzly has killed livestock, he or she should cover the remains with a tarp, to protect the remains, and immediately call state or federal officials(http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/grizzly/grizcomp.html 2003). The trustees, ‘Defenders’ rely on those officials, tribal biologists or animal damage control experts to examine suspected losses and confirm or deny the claims. If agency officials

verify that a grizzly bear killed the livestock, an agency representative fills out a report and sends it to Defenders of Wildlife. There is no paperwork for the rancher.

Defenders then contacts the producer and asks for his or her assessment of the livestock's value. That figure is compared with current auction reports and livestock prices as reported in local newspapers. A check is then sent to the producer to compensate for the loss.”

Invasive species and ecosystem restaurationAs worldwide transportation increases while climates change and protected areas become more accessible, invasive species are becoming an ever-increasing phenomenon. A percentage can be generated over the general management costs to dedicate funds for the eradication of evasive species and ecosystem restauration; the percentage has been set by the workshop.

Box 4: US National Parks Service expenditure on restorationThe USA National Parks Service (2002 and Mueller, pers. com.), spends about 7% of the national parks budget dedicated to the conservation of its natural heritage on active natural resources restoration4. It should be noted, however, that in its more than 130 years of existence, the NPS has entered in a phase of fine-tuning, where it has started to spend on restoration programmes (e.g. the restoration of the Everglades). Resources management in newly created protected areas systems would probably be more effectively spent on protecting what is still in tact then on restoring what is already lost, by focussing on establishment issues, like

demarcation, management planning, patrolling and basic monitoring. One should bear in mind that it is far more expensive to restore nature than it is to conserve intact nature and it would not make sense to spend proportionately large part of the budget if the conservation targets of intact ecosystems cannot be met. Therefore, the programme only proposes a species management fund, which as a default would receive 2% of the national annual budget for in situ conservation. This would primarily be dedicated to species of special concern that cannot be incorporated in the protected areas system.

MarketingOne of the greatest problems of protected areas in developing countries is not excessive visitation pressure, but rather the opposite: a lack of visitation. Without visitation, protected areas risk losing public and political interest and pressure rises to make alternative use of them, particularly converting land for agro-productive purposes. Also, visitation is one of the few direct sources available for generating income for management purposes. To raise visitation, protected areas administrations need to market. Important marketing media are internet and advertisements in nature magazines in the USA, Europe, Japan and Australia. A percentage can be generated over total management costs. The percentage has been set by the workshop.

4 The budget is $153 million minus about $19 million for monitoring and research activities within this budget.

2

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/grizzly/grizcomp.htmlhttp://www.defenders.org/wildlife/grizzly/grizcomp.html

Value of private landsThe monetary values of privately owned land are calculated on the basis of a nationwide average, using the Reference table. The column calculates automatically, but the calculation may be adapted for individual areas by replacing the cell reference by a region specific value or by entering the total land value in the cell if known. As this information was not available at the time of the study, the data have not been entered.

Not includedThe enhancement of sustainable use of the natural resources and cessation of the advance and expansion of the agricultural frontier in the bufferzones and biological corridor areas outside the core protected areas require many interventions of a very different nature. The programmes needed to put the necessary mechanisms of sustainable development in place are far different from those needed to manage core protected areas. They require agricultural extension and agro-forestry interventions, and sometimes, even health and social programmes. Such programmes require inputs of a very different technical nature, which is available in institutions related to the ministries of agriculture and forestry departments. For successful implementation and technology transfer, NGO and community participation is crucial. Interventions of such nature in the buffer zones and biological corridors are not vested efficiently with a management unit for biodiversity conservation, but rather with institutions specialised in those fields. As the management success of both types of areas depends on a full integration of both core areas and their bufferzones, the coordination function can be carried out by the area administration. No budget lines have been created for specific expenditure related to activities of extension of sustainable agriculture and social services in bufferzones and biological corridors or their coordination with the parks administration. They are assumed normal tasks of the administration and must be carried out as part of their work.

Biodiversity conservation may be directed at many values of different characteristics and levels of relevance. Within bufferzones and biological corridors, the intensive interaction of society and biodiversity would need area specific platforms for a continuous dialogue between the management unit and the stakeholders involved. In each area, the stakeholders should be allowed to choose, whether to vest the coordination with the management unit or with a representative of the local stakeholders.

Economists usually include opportunity costs and their interests. In government financing this is not done, because governments don't work on the basis of profit and losses. They only finance real expenses. This argument has been emphasised in a dialogue between Andrew ... (year) when they discussed the difference between the outcomes of their worldwide costs estimate. Vreugdenhil (2004) does not include opportunity costs in MICOSYS, given that such costs don't need to be financed by governments.

Some observations on the over-all costsWherever MICOSYS was used, the results of the financial component have caught a lot of attention. When confronted with the data, there usually is disbelief at first. Some think the costs are exaggerated, while others believe them to be underestimated. The convenience of the programme is in simple changes of common factors allowing the variation of parameters and

2

indices. Since the programme is so simple to use, the users can play with it themselves, argue back and forth among themselves, until they reach agreement on the parameters. Invariably, politicians and political appointees are shocked by the height of the costs and ask if the costs can be reduced or privatised. Unfortunately, the private sector prefers to privatise the benefits, not the costs. The benefits, however, are usually already privatised, and lie with the environmental services, like tourism and water production. Martínez et al. 2002, has convincingly demonstrated how big those benefits are for the tourism sector in Central America. Unfortunately, the costs cannot easily be charged to commercial beneficiaries. Conservationists on the other hand usually ask if the personnel density is high enough. Scientists from universities ask why there is so little budget for research. The spreadsheet allows the different stakeholders to search an outcome by consensus through debating the levels of different factors of expenditure.

2

4 SHEET VSheet V, SUMÁRIOS, presents the same cost data as Sheet IV, Totais, in a different format for reporting purposes. It does not generate any additional information on costs, as it seeks its values from the tables in Sheet IV and no further explanation is needed for costing.

Tabela 34: DEFICIÊNCIA DE PESSOALA small table however, presents the difference between the available staff and the needed staff. The current staffing data are from IBAMA and the MMA. It is expected that the numbers provided may be slightly underestimated.

The PROVOGO staff, is actually low-level field staff that is hired 6 months at the time, so that in terms of real staff-time, PROVOGO only provides half of what is listed.

2

5 SHEET VISheet VI, ORĆAMENTO ESTIMATIVO, attempts to make an estimate of the proportions of the different budget lines and the staff are actually spent on financing SNUC.

Tabela 35: EXECUÇÃO ORÇAMENTARIA DO EXERCÍCIO DE 2005 lists all the liberated funding of the programme-budget-lines of the MMA larger than R$5,000,000 with their proportionate contribution to the total budget of the Ministry. Staff is not included.

Tabela 36: PROGRAMAS USADOS PELO FINANCIAMENTO DO SNUC EM 2005This table lists all the budget lines higher than R$5,000,000 while it provides estimates in percentages on the proportion of each line that is utilised to finance expenses for the SNUC, based on established by the MMA.

With regard to the budget for staffing, it should be noted that “Pensões de pessoal pensionado” are funds for the social benefits of retired and disabled staff. These funds are not available for any use by the SNUC and in reality should be discounted from the total budgets of both the MMA and IBAMA.

6 SHEET VIISheet VII, VISITAÇÃO, generates income estimates from the most visited areas of the SNUC.

Tabela 42: VARIÁVEIS DE MODELAÇÃO provides the key variables that may influence the income from protected areas.

Tabela 38: MODELO DE CRESCIMENTO DAS RECETAS DE VISITAÇÃO DO SNUC TOTAL is based on two groups of protected areas, based on their visitation level: Iguaću, and the other protected areas.

The visitation level of UC is based on the latest known figures as given in Tabela 37: VISITAÇÃO NAS UCS MAIS VISITADAS. This table is based on the latest data provided by the MMA.

Recetas VisitaçãoThe Recetas Visitação are based on the series in Sheet VII.

Tabela 37 provides the visitation data on park visitation from 2000 – 2005. Those data are not very complete, as park administrators have not all recorded their data equally or completely. Some parks don't charge all visitors and probably a number of visitors have not entered in the records. We have been very conservative in the sense that we only work with the registered paying visitors.

2

Tabela37 shows the percentile annual growth of visitation in PARNA Iguaçu, which has the most complete and accurate data among the PARNAS with visitation records. It shows that over the last 4 years of visitation, the annual growth was well over 15%. Our assumption of 10% growth per year therefore must be assumed very conservative.

Tabelas 38 and 39 show the annual growth of numbers in visitation and in income per category (1) nationals, (2) Mercasul foreigners and (3) non-Mercasul foreigners.

The 2006 numbers are taken from Tabela 42. It generates the Iguaçu visitation + 10% and for the other PARNAs the total numbers of visitors of all PARNAS minus the Iguaçu visitors. These are then subdivided by nationality groups.

2

IGUAÇUAno 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Número total de visitantes 982.232 1.080.455 1.188.501 1.307.351 1.438.086 1.581.894 1.740.084 1.914.092 2.105.502 2.316.052 2.547.657Número de visitantes nacionais 687.562 756.319 831.951 915.146 1.006.660 1.107.326 1.218.059 1.339.865 1.473.851 1.621.236 1.783.360Número de visitantes do Mercasul 196.446 216.091 237.700 261.470 287.617 316.379 348.017 382.818 421.100 463.210 509.531Número de visitantes internacionais 98.223 108.046 118.850 130.735 143.809 158.189 174.008 191.409 210.550 231.605 254.766

RecetasRecetas de visitantes nacionais 8319505,04 9151455,54 10066601,1 11073261,21 12180587,33 13398646,06 14738510,67 16212361,73 17833597,91 19616957,7Recetas de visitantes do Mercasul 3457456,64 3803202,3 4183522,53 4601874,79 5062062,27 5568268,49 6125095,34 6737604,88 7411365,36 8152501,9Recetas de visitantes internacionais 4321820,8 4754002,88 5229403,17 5752343,48 6327577,83 6960335,62 7656369,18 8422006,1 9264206,71 10190627,38Totais reais 16.098.782 17.708.661 19.479.527 21.427.479 23.570.227 25.927.250 28.519.975 31.371.973 34.509.170 37.960.087

Unidade 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP

Amazônia 89 94 51 44 78 208Aparados da Serra 30.600 32.085 37.844 56.478 40.695 7.808 41.061 8.909Brasilia 182.744 218.124 256.634 203.150 195.265 274.386 6.630Caparaó 23.875 1.869 27.044 2.598 23.260 2.306 26.859 3.600 25.622 4.414 23.379 4.012Emas 691 967Iguaçu 722.776 44.381 670.391 65.484 587.836 57.996 699.089 65.620 886.133 94.804 982.232 102.009Chapada dos Guimarães 40.869Chapada dos Veadeiros 5.070 2.957 13.461 3.019 20.380 1.778 22.167 2.431 17.302 2.204 12.882 1.707Itatiaia 68.298 28.703 74.200 53.513 65.107 54.628 68.164 57.469 66.723 60.217 66.661 11.341Jaú 83 239 438 372 110 86Marinho de Fernando de Noronha 47.450 57.568 62.551 51.463 50.357 723 15.716 8.893Marinho de Abrolhos 12.685 12.788 8.879 8.626 8.024 723 6.674 920Monte Pascoal 3.460 2.156 1.139 1.422 1.048 1.252Serra da Bocaina 8.454 8.672 6.232 6.728 5.838 3.876Serra da Canastra 19.571 459 25.129 1.373 28.805 1.457 33.128 2.284 25.173 2.287 23.342 4.328Serra da Capivara 2.432 2.842 1.477 1.537 2.595 1.313 2.405 4.702 4.682 2.296Serra das Confusões 1.104Serra do Cipó 432 11.918 14.342 13.132 12.587 313Serra dos Órgãos 28.674 39.501 10.411 43.794 10.051 49.797 10.197 34.905 11.784 56.646 18.430Serra Geral 14.989 16.629 17.832 32.551 31.112 12.628Sete Cidades 16.566 1.075 10.280 6.650 21.566 21.212 17.951 13.525 3.537Tijuca 622.038 635.498 497.808 493.305 90.887 627.890 385.741 706.338 362.728Ubajara 30.610 14.177 31.168 11.878 33.077 8.790 39.006 9.291 40.888 6.964 25.281 17.550Totais P 1.811.561 1.850.002 1.701.425 1.789.425 2.052.915 2.266.401Totais NP 120.524 185.225 163.746 283.793 620.369 614.385

Ano 2002 2.003 2004 2.005Número de visitantes no PARNA 587.836 699.089 886.133 982.232%% de Crescimento 19% 27% 11%

Tabela 41 shows the accumulated visitation numbers and income in Reais and USD.

Tabela 42 is the lookup table for the previous tables. For these calculations we have assumed a differentiation between national, Mercasul foreigners and non-Mercasul foreigners with the differentiated visitation percentages and entry fees. The entry fee for non-Mercasul foreigners has been raised from the current R$20 to R$40, which is a reasonable price given the quality of the infrastructure and the phenomenal scenery of the falls. The percentages and pricing for the other parks are speculative. Many parks charge only one price, some as low as R$3 per visitor.

The look up table allows rapid alteration of visitation and income predictions. It may also be considered to have te same entry fees for foreigners and nationals, as the overal impact is not all that significant on the overall, budget of SNUC.

For budgeting purposes, each year, the actual numbers should replace the generated numbers. Accurate visitation recording and a higher charging discipline would probably boost both visitation insight and income.

2

Outros PARNASAno 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Número total de visitantes 1.412.586 1.553.844 1.709.229 1.880.152 2.068.167 2.274.984 2.502.482 2.752.730 3.028.003 3.330.804 3.663.884Número de visitantes nacionais 1.130.069 1.243.076 1.367.383 1.504.121 1.654.534 1.819.987 2.001.986 2.202.184 2.422.403 2.664.643 2.931.107Número de visitantes do Mercasul 141.259 155.384 170.923 188.015 206.817 227.498 250.248 275.273 302.800 333.080 366.388Número de visitantes internacionais 141.259 155.384 170.923 188.015 206.817 227.498 250.248 275.273 302.800 333.080 366.388

Recetas das Outros PARNASNúmero de visitantes nacionais 6215377,96 6836915,76 7520607,33 8272668,06 9099934,87 10009928,36 11010921,19 12112013,31 13323214,64 14655536,11Número de visitantes do Mercasul 1553844,49 1709228,94 1880151,83 2068167,02 2274983,72 2502482,09 2752730,3 3028003,33 3330803,66 3663884,03Número de visitantes internacionais 3107688,98 3418457,88 3760303,67 4136334,03 4549967,44 5004964,18 5505460,6 6056006,66 6661607,32 7327768,05Totais reais 10.876.911 11.964.603 13.161.063 14.477.169 15.924.886 17.517.375 19.269.112 21.196.023 23.315.626 25.647.188

Recetas do SNUC total2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Totais visitantes 2.634.300 2.897.730 3.187.503 3.506.253 3.856.878 4.242.566 4.666.823 5.133.505 5.646.855 6.211.541Totais SNUC em Reais 26.975.694 29.673.263 32.640.590 35.904.649 39.495.113 43.444.625 47.789.087 52.567.996 57.824.796 63.607.275Totais SNUC em US$ 12.500.322 13.750.354 15.125.389 16.637.928 18.301.721 20.131.893 22.145.082 24.359.590 26.795.549 29.475.104

Dados Iguaçu Dados outras UCs% nacionais 70 % nacionais 80% Mercasul 20 % Mercasul 10% internacionais 10 % internacionais 10

% incremento annual 10% 10%

Entrada nacional R$ 11 5

Entrada Mercasul R$ 16 10

Entrada internacional R$ 40 20

% incremento annualEntrada nacional R$Entrada Mercasul R$Entrada internacional R$

7 SHEET VIII: CRESCIMENTO ORNIMENTARIO FINALÍSTICOSHEET VIII: CRESCIMENTO ORNIMENTARIO FINALÍSTICO provides a growth scenario for the period 2007 – 2016. This scenario is based on the growth assumptions of visitation from Sheet VII and growth expectations for the different contributions listed in chapter IV.

Tabela 43: CENÁRIO DE SUSTENTABILIDADE FINANCEIRA calculates the budgetary needs to reach sustainable financing in 2016. The first half of the table, RECURSOS DISPONÍVEIS, calculates the costs as they may be expected for each year.

For the expected available budget, the cycle starts out with the currently available budget, and lets it increase annually based on the growth expectations of each contributing item. Their growth expectations are given in Tabela 44: % DE CRESCIMENTO POR FONTE DE FINANCIAMENTO.

In the second half of the table, it is calculated how much is available for investments or the deficit by deducting needed recurrent costs from the available funding calculated in the first half of the table. The realized investment are then deducted from the pending investments.

Orçamento finalísticoIt is assumed that the current Orçamento finalístico remains the same. However, an option is built in to vary this by percentage, positively or negatively.

Recetas das inversões do FAPThe recetas das inversões do FAP are based on expected growth of the patrimony of the fund coming from new contributions from donors, thus effectively increasing the earnings on the investments.

Consessões FlorestaisEach year, the volume of the Consessões Florestais increase with the set percentage of the mature expected volume, until it reaches the expected mature volume in the target year 2016.

Recurrent costsRecurrent costs increase with the set percentage until it reaches the actually needed funding in the target year 2016. By varying the percentage along with the length of the series, it is possible to influence the funding deficit.

Inversões pendientesThe inversões pendientes are generated by deducting the investments from the previous year from its investments' needs.

Totais anuais requeridosThe totais anuais requeridos are calculated by adding the Recurrent costs and the inversões pendientes.

3

Investment deficitAt the bottom of the table, the total investment deficit is calculated.

3

1INTRODUCTION1SHEETS I AND II2SHEET III, RPPN3SHEET IV, Totais4SHEET V5SHEET VI6SHEET VII7SHEET VIII: CRESCIMENTO ORNIMENTARIO FINALÍSTICO