THE PATHWAYS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE MORRO DO OSSO MUNICIPAL PARK, SOUTHERN BRAZIL

LOS CAMINOS DE LA PARTICIPACIÓN EN EL PARQUE MUNICIPAL MORRO DO OSSO, SUR DEL BRASIL

Abstract

This work aimed to promote, observe and describe the restructuring process of the Morro do Osso Nature Park Management Council (PNMO). To that end the study used participatory diagnostic methodologies and the data were analysed using QSR International software. As a result, it was possible to verify information and leadership failures in the process of construction of the management council that generated demotivation of the members leading to their disaggregation. However, the potential for mobilization and restructuring was identified provided the collaborative process is structured by a leadership that mobilizes stakeholders to drive collaboration and extend the scope of the (PNMO) council. In conclusion, the Management Council must engage in a continuous activism and its members must be constantly prepared to act as articulators in the various spaces related to the Conservation Unit.

Keywords:
Participative Management; Nature Park; Biodiversity

Resumen

Este trabajo tuvo por objetivo promover, observar y describir el proceso de reestructuración del Consejo Gestor del Parque Natural Morro do Osso (PNMO) el cual fue desmovilizado en la última década. Para ello, se utilizaron metodologías de diagnóstico participativo (DRP) y los datos fueron analizados por el software QSRInternacional. Como resultado fue posible verificar fallas de información y liderazgo en el proceso de construcción del consejo gestor que generaron desmotivación de los integrantes llevando a su desagregación. Sin embargo, se percibió el potencial para una movilización y reestructuración, cuando el proceso colaborativo fue estructurado por un liderazgo que permitió movilizar a las partes interesadas para impulsar la colaboración y extender el alcance en el consejo del (PNMO). Así, se concluye que el Consejo Gestor debe estar en un activismo continuo y sus miembros necesitan estar en constante preparación como articuladores en los diversos espacios referentes a la Unidad de Conservación.

Palavras-clave:
Gestión Participativa; Parque Natural; Biodiversidad

Resumo

Este trabalho teve por objetivo promover, observar e descrever o processo de reestruturação do Conselho Gestor do Parque Natural Morro do Osso (PNMO), o qual foi desmobilizado na última década. Para tal, foram utilizadas metodologias de diagnóstico participativo (DRP) e os dados foram analisados pelo software QSRInternacional. Como resultado, foi possível verificar falhas de informação e liderança no processo de construção do conselho gestor que geraram desmotivação dos integrantes levando à sua desagregação. Contudo, percebeu-se o potencial para uma mobilização e reestruturação, quando o processo colaborativo foi estruturado por uma liderança que permitiu mobilizar as partes interessadas para impulsionar a colaboração e estender o escopo no conselho do (PNMO). Assim, conclui-se que o Conselho Gestor deve estar em um ativismo contínuo e seus membros precisam estar em constante preparo como articuladores nos diversos espaços referentes à Unidade de Conservação.

Palavras-chave:
Gestão participativa; Parque Natural; Biodiversidade

1 Introduction

Concern for biodiversity conservation has increasingly come to the fore in government circles of countries around the world and notably intensified after the United Nations Organization’s Human Environment Conference held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, which proved to be a historic, international, political milestone for environmental management policies (PASSOS, 2009). One of the strategies the Conference adopted to guarantee Nature Conservation was the creation of Protected Natural Areas. In Brazil such areas are called ‘Conservation Units’ (Unidades de Conservação) and they are regulated by the National Protected Areas System (Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação - SNUC) instituted by the enactment of Law 9.985/2000 and administered by the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (Instituto Chico Mendes de Proteção à Biodiversidade - ICMBio)(BRASIL, 2000). The law defines the Protected Areas as portions of land legally instituted by the public authorities with the intention of protecting their natural resources.

In Brazil, the category ‘Park’ was modelled on the United States model of a protected area embracing ‘untouchable Nature‘ (DIEGUES, 1996). However, that traditional excluding model which led to conflicts and disputes was explicitly rejected as a global policy by the 5^th World Parks Conference in 2003 (IUCN, 2005) and indeed in some parts of the world it had already been abandoned in practice long before. The idea of ‘adaptive management areas’ put forward at the 3^rd World Conservation Congress in Bangkok in 2004 (DUDLEY et al., 2010), reflected considerable conceptual changes away from reductionism to a systemic vison of the world, the inclusion of human beings in the ecosystems and participative approaches to the question of managing ecosystems, considering their aspect as complex adaptive systems of which human beings are an integral part (BERKES, 2004; HÉRITIER, 2010; MEFFE et al., 2012; CLARK et al., 2013).

Loureiro and Irving (2006) consider that, even when there are conflicts, the community needs to be integrated to PA management so that its members can reassess their perception of it and become PA partners. In that sense Héritier (2010) posits that participation helps to reduce tensions arising from divergent interests among the various interested parties involved in a given area. When there is participation, the issue of power and decision-making capacity becomes clearly democratized

In the perspective of participation’s being a way to achieve biodiversity conservation, community participation is understood to be an intrinsic part of PA management, bringing to the discussion of the ‘environmental issue’ other themes such as citizenship and watchdog control (AYRES; IRVING, 2006). Ansell and Gash (2007) state that ‘collaborative governance’, as it has come to be known, brings together the public and private interested parties and government entities in collective forums to take part in decision-making based on consensus..

That kind of management model is only feasible when there is participation of the groups, communities and institutions of relevance for the Protected Area. The term ‘stakeholders’ is used by Ruitenbeek and Cartier (2001) to designate those who share responsibility for management and can learn from their actions (FOLKE et al., 2002; RUIZ-MALLÉN et al., 2013; OLDEKOP et al., 2015).

That type of composition is known in Brazil as the Conselho Gestor, or Management Council and it was instituted by the National Protected Areas System. Those councils do their work by means of dialogue, discussions, articulations and negotiations (CASTRO, 2009). The existence of an active council of that kind is indispensable for the effective existence of a Protected Area, ensuring the conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of environmental services in a participative and democratic manner.

Brazil’s democratization process brought with it various tools for enabling grassroots participation in decision-making in different spheres of institutional power, one of them being the Management Councils (LOUREIRO; CUNHA, 2008). The National Protected Areas System, SNUC (2000), requires that all protected areas should have an Management Council and, according to Castro (2009), the councils should be representative of the groups, communities and institutions that are active or should be active in the region of the PA.

Furthermore, that participation should include different social groups embracing diversity of gender, schooling levels and age groups, in order to enrich the interpretation and comprehension of the respective reality and duly legitimate the decisions made (GEOHHEGAN; RENARD, 2003) For those reasons care should be taken with the composition of the council and its participation profile; it is important to encourage empowerment of the local population so that the social actors involved can take an active part in the regional planning (VIMAL et al., 2018). Accordingly, it is also important to qualify the council members in regard to the specific concepts and practices involved in managing protected areas and to ensure that the possibility for full participation and expression of communities with different cultures is duly ensured and respected.

Thus, community participation is not merely for consultative ends because it implies that communication and influence should flow in both directions between Protected Area stakeholders and managers, creating an overall process that is both multilateral and collective (BROOKS et al., 2012).

This study set out to promote, observe and describe the process of restructuring the Management Council of the Morro do Osso Nature Park which was demobilized in 2010.

2 The Morro do Osso Nature Park: a verdant island in the greyness of Porto Alegre

The study was carried out in the Morro do Osso [Bone Hill] Nature Park (Parque Natural Morro do Osso - PNMO), in the municipality of Porto Alegre, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The regional climate is type Cfa according to the Köppen classification and the average annual rainfall is 1,348 mm, according to Ferreira et al. (2010). The soils in the region are mainly lithosols and neosols (KOHL et al., 2015). The Morro do Osso (30°07’ S, 51°14’ O) (Figure 1) is located at the extreme western end of a chain of granitic hills known as the ‘Porto Alegre Crest’ which, according to Menegat (1999), has limited urban expansion of the city into the southern zone. The Porto Alegre Master Plan of 1999 defined that chain of hills as one of the municipality’s Areas of Natural Environment Protection and attributed top priority to it for Nature Conservation (KOHL et al., 2015).

Figure 1
Map showing the location of the Morro do Osso Municipal Park.

Veloso and Góes-Filho (1982) describe the region as an ‘area of ecological tension‘ and it is endowed with representative species of Deciduous Seasonal Forest and Dense Ombrophilous Forest formations as well as Savannah and Restinga formations. 80% of those vegetation formations are made up of 171 native tree species that occur naturally in Port Alegre. The non-forest flora is also very diverse and is the type of vegetation with the highest number of species under threat of extinction and endemic to the Moro do Osso Nature Park. This important fragment shelters 29 species that are on the List of Threatened Flora Species for the state of Rio Grande do Sul, as set out in State Decree 42.099/03 (RIO GRANDE DO SUL, 2003). In addition the Park has a rich fauna; 137 vertebrate species have been registered and that includes representatives of 65% of the avifauna to be found in `Porto Alegre as a whole (MIRAPALHETE, 2001 apud BASTOS, 2006).

Thus the PNMO is an urban Protected Area located in the southern zone of Porto Alegre near to the Guaíba lake between the Cavalhada and Wenceslau Escobar avenues. It was created to protect the biodiversity that was being suppressed by unplanned urban expansion (BASTOS, 2006). Surrounding the Park area are the neighborhoods of Cavalhada, Camaquã, Ipanema, Jardim Isabel, Pedra Redonda, Sétimo Céu, Tristeza and Vila Conceição. They originated as much from real estate speculation on the part of the wealthier classes as from irregular housebuilding on the part of the poorer classes. Furthermore there is a Kaingang settlement located inside the Park area as a result of an occupation movement in 2004 (FUHR, 2012).

In their analysis of urban PAs in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Gama et al. (2005) came up with the idea that a re-functionalizing process occurs with the environment in the areas surrounding them due to the accelerated urbanization so that, as a result of that external pressure, the PAs are converted into ‘green islands’ in spite of the legal framework in force which determines that there should be a buffer zone demarcated around them. In the PNMO, that external pressure takes the form of continuous real estate expansion in the southern zone taking over the areas around the hills and the slopes with their natural vegetation. .

Complementary Act nº 334, dated December 27, 1994, instituted the Nature Park (PORTO ALEGRE, 1994), defining an area of 114 hectares which was later increased to 127 hectares, but the Municipal authority only actually owns 27 hectares of the total and the rest of the area is the object of a purchasing process currently in course.

2.1 Background to the creation: the struggle for the conservation of the Morro do Osso

The aim of creating the Morro do Osso Nature Park was to protect it from the degradation being caused by economic exploitation of its natural resources. Up until the 1980s the main threat came from the exploitation of stone quarrying and the conversion of its natural vegetation into plantations of Acacia mearnsii (De Wild) commonly known as black wattle. As the urbanization process of the city of Porto Alegre gradually advanced into the southern zone, the main threat became that of real estate speculation according to a pamphlet of the campaign in defence of the Morro do Osso (CPDMO, 1990), which is preserved in the collection of the Municipal Department for the Environment and Sustainability (Secretaria Municipal de Meio Ambiente e Sustentabilidade - SMAMS).

In her analysis of the process of unplanned urban settlement in big cities, supposedly responsible for the de-characterization of natural landscapes and the fragmentation of native vegetation, and which became more intensive after the 1970s, Costa (2004) stated that it was mainly due to real estate speculation which created a housing deficit. That in turn meant that, due to the State’s inefficiency in addressing the housing problem, poor people had to migrate to areas unoccupied because they were under some form of protection either as Parks or Areas of Permanent Protection.

In the case of the Morro do Osso, faced with a project to divide up a considerable part of the natural area into housing, residents in the surrounding areas, alerted by the Jardim Isabel Community Association (Associação Comunitária Jardim Isabel - ASCONJISA), set in motion a grassroots mobilization process with the aim of getting a protected area created. Later, in 1986, the Association for the Defence of the Morro do Osso (Associação de Defesa do Morro do Osso - ADEMO) was created, made up of neighbourhood associations, mother’s unions, schools, students unions, scout groups, and ecological NGOs which later became the Permanent Committee for the Defence of the Morro do Osso (Comissão Permanente de Defesa do Morro do Osso - CPDMO). Those grassroots movements were respected by the Municipal Authority and in 1994 the Park was created.

After the creation of the PNMO, the CPDMO automatically set up the original Protected Area Council which, at first, used to meet informally until it was officially instituted by Decree n° 15.300, dated September 14, 2006 (PORTO ALEGRE, 2006). From then on, representatives of those Public Authorities that had any kind of relation with the Morro do Osso Nature Park had representatives in the Council composition.

In 2004 a Kaingang indigenous group occupied an area of the PNMO clamouring for the demarcation of a local Indigenous Territory. The presence of that group in the Park, according to Kohl (2005), has caused environmental impacts insofar as they have collected lianas to produce their handicrafts in addition to interfering with the fauna and with the circulation of people. The occupation also became a starting point for other conflicts in regard to the use of the Morro do Osso lands, involving groups dedicated to defending the rights of indigenous peoples on the one hand and groups defending the idea that the area of the Park should not have any kind of human occupation on the other and there was a third group that considered the presence of the indigenous group undesirable insofar as it jeopardized the interests of real estate speculation (FUHR, 2012).

Today, artificial corridors for the fauna have been constructed connecting the Park to the Morro do Sabiá (Thrush Hill). The corridors have been created by means of a project that involved persons frequenting the PNMO disseminating information regarding the kind of behaviour that reduces the impacts of human presence on the fauna (ECONSCIÊNCIA, 2016).

3 Methodology

There now follows a presentation of the methodological process involved at each stage of the research (Figure 2). The investigation was carried out in response to a request the administration of the Protected Area made to a public research and teaching institution in order to improve the operationalization of its administration.

Figure 2
Methodological organization scheme

Data gathering began with a documental survey at the offices of the PNMO and the SMAMS, Later data gathering took place in the field in the form of administering semi-structured interviews (DIETSCH et al., 2016; LEE et al., 2018) using a questionnaire with 14 questions addressing topics that included visions and values, involvement with the Park and changes in the course of time (ATTACHMENT 1). The choice of persons to be interviewed was made according to the Snowball technique described by Baldin and Munhoz (2011) that consists basically of a non-probabilistic sample in which the first participants indicate the next ones and so on. The first participants were indicated by the SMAMS personnel who took into account those persons who had participated in the creation of the park and in the former Management Council. That technique made it possible to expand the range of interviewees with characteristics similar to those of the PNMO council, thereby contributing to the mobilization process. The data obtained from the interviews was processed using the NVivo 11 program (QSRINTERNATIONAL, 2017) and based on that a word cloud was obtained extracted from the main expressions present in the material.

After a significant number of interviews had been obtained, two workshops were prepared to bring together the various social actors that had been interviewed as well as others who had been mentioned in the interviews and other persons connected in some way to the PNMO. The workshop was announced on the Park’s Facebook account, accessible in the Internet.

1st Workshop: ‘Getting to Know the History of the Morro do Osso’.

The workshop took place at the Park headquarters in April 2017 with the aim of reviving a feeling of belonging and ,mobilization of the community living in the areas around the Park and acquiring an understanding of the history of the said community in relation to the Park. To that end the historical diagram technique was used to construct a narrative with a view to understanding changes in environmental, social and cultural aspects. The narrative construction involved a long line marked out on paper along which historical periods were identified and then participants fixed copies of photographs, old newspaper cuttings and old pamphlets all related to the previous mobilizations in defence of the Morro do Osso. The information acquired using the diagram technique was then organized in the form of a timeline divided into three periods (Figure 4), Issues were raised with the participants associated to the time line such as (a) The PNMO today, (b) What is a ‘Management Council?, to stimulate a discussion on the current participative management of the Park. At the closure of the workshop, with the intention of creating a perspective of temporal continuity that the restructuring of the Management Council is part of and as a means to strengthening workshop participants’ commitment and fostering a sense of belonging, there was a symbolic planting of seeds of native species.

2nd Workshop: ‘Management Council and Councillors Roles’

The workshop was held in the same place as the previous one, in June of 2017 and made use of the ‘Agree/Disagree’ technique proposed by Di Pierro and Ortiz (2011) which consisted of analysing four statements regarding possible roles for the Management Council and its Councillors, namely: (1) “The council does not have an auxiliary role in the Morro do Osso Nature Park because its function is merely consultative”; (2) “It is the responsibility of the Council to demand from, and propose to the respective government entities actions and policies that promote the conservation of natural resources and the socio-environmental development of the Protected Area and its Area of Influence”; (3) “The councillor should put the demands of the Park before the group that he represents, and seek to meet them”; and (4) “At council meetings, councillors should only consider the demands of the group that they represent”. Those statements were presented to the group which had to position itself opting for “agree’ or ‘disagree’ or ‘agree in part’. Participants were made to move their positions within the circle formed according to their response options.

4 Results

4.1 Interviews

The word cloud results showed that those interviewed knew the Morro do Osso either because they visit it or because they are employed in it (administrators, guards) and their knowledge of the history of the Morro do Osso Nature Park was because they belonged to environmentalist entities, or scout groups or other groups that had been mobilized in favour of the creation of the Park.

In that way the interviewees showed that they understood the importance of the Protected Area for the conservation of biodiversity in the municipality of Porto Alegre and the importance of preserving the memory of the Environmentalist Movement, They also considered it important for the activities of environmental education activities, scout group activities and for visitation for sport, recreational or scientific research purposes.

The interviewees considered that the PNMO administration was efficient insofar as there were different professional staff for the different (administrative and technical) functions and also because there were park guards and good structures including an auditorium in the headquarters that made it possible to carry out a variety pf activities.

Figure 3
Word cloud derived from the semi-structured interviews.

Nevertheless, interviewees mentioned problems in regard to security and the impact of the presence of indigenous people in the Park. A similar situation was reported by Lee et al., (2018) in the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in Texas USA, where the park management considered that the objective of the protected area was incompatible with historical presence of native Indians and their cultural rituals in the region. Another problem mentioned was the difficulty faced by the Park administration due to the lack of financial resources and the discontinuity of the Municipal Government’s environmental policies (Figure 3).

Furthermore there was considerable diversity of understanding about the Management Council among the interviewees although there was a general convergence on the idea that it was a collegiate body taking an active part in assisting the administration, giving support to its financial management activities, accompanying the elaboration of the Management Plan and monitoring it to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity (Figure 3). What was questioned however, was the effectiveness of participation of such councils in government administration insofar as the municipal authority has adopted an environmental policy that favors real estate speculation to the detriment of the natural ecosystems that typify the southern zone of the municipality, in complete disagreement with the position of the council.

Another point mentioned was the need for something ‘motivating’, something to struggle for and ensure not only active participation (Figure 3) but also the permanent nature of the council since the persons who had fought for the creation of the park and the installation of its structure had viewed those actions, once achieved, as marking the end of their struggle, not realizing that the function of the council is to involve itself in all the activities of the Protected Area; in other words the Council is an integral part of the PA administration and needs to be constantly renewed to perform effectively. In that regard Warner (2006) states that participation incentives partly depend on the expectations of the interested party as to whether the collaborative processes will produce significant results, particularly in regard to justifying the amount of energy and time that collaboration demands. Furthermore, incentive is heightened when the interested parties perceive a direct relation between their participation and the results of concrete, tangible and effective policies (BROWN, 2002).

It must be underscored that the councils themselves need to be constantly monitored, evaluated and, whenever necessary, modified. To that end Article 17 of Decree 4.340/02 (BRASIL, 2002), which regulates the SNUC, determines that councillors may serve a mandate of two years renewable for an additional two years. Thus, through the use of such instruments it is possible to evaluate any changes that need to be made to the council such as the sectors it is made up of, the number of seats on the council, the prorogation of councillor’s mandates or a change of councillors (ALBIRACHED et al., 2014).

Another need that was identified was for the councillors to fully understand their role and the role of the council and the extent of whatever power the Management Council effectively possesses. In that regard one of the interviewees remarked how limited the Council’s powers are insofar as its formation is a mere formality and what is needed is for the discussion in the Council meetings to explicitly address management and procedural issues. In that same line Futrlal (2003) states that incentive to participate wanes whenever the interested parties perceive their participation to be merely consultative or largely ceremonial.

Other reasons given for the evasion of council members were the lack of technical support for the councillors, an excessively large number of council members and the announcement of meetings too close to the date of the meeting. It must be stressed that capacity building for councillors also involves technical capacity and that is a source of stimulus for continued participation and involvement (ANSELL; GASH, 2008).

4.2 The first participative workshop

4.2.1 Historical Diagram/Time Line

The results indicated for the three periods established along the line of time can be identified in the interviewees’ reports by the way they were experienced by the participants, as follows:

a) Period 1 (The decade starting in 1980- constant quest for visibility regarding the importance the conservation of the Morro do Osso.).

The workshop discussion began based on a photograph of the event ‘Embracing the Morro do Osso’ (Figure 4) which took place around 1987 The image brought up various elements regarding the mobilization of the community in defence of the Morro do Osso, ranging from the first demonstration, to the possibility of dividing it up into building plots and including technical opinion documents and dossiers that attested to the creation of a protected area in the location. The involvement of city councillors was a definitive factor for the constitution of the Permanent Committee in Defence of the Morro do Osso (Comissão Permanente de Defesa do Morro do Osso - CPDMO) (4), which acted vigorously through its publicizing and technical-scientific initiatives and in the fight to preserve the Morro do Osso fauna.

b) Period 2 (End of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s - visibility for the conservation of Morro do Osso achieved).

The pamphlet (3) represented a reference for the participant in regard to the historical valuing of the struggle to effectuate the PNMO and to how that historical aspect is always mentioned in visits to the Park and that the municipality of Porto Alegre owes a debt of gratitude to those who mobilized in defence of the creation of the Protected Area. The fifth photocopy (Figure 4) was also of a pamphlet because that was the main means of publicizing the Morro do Osso at that time and the main means of communication with the communities at the social movements’ disposal. The photographs (7 and 8) of the Environmental Cultural Excursion that took place in 1990 introduced the debate on the planting of trees in that area and the introduction of exotic invasive species such as the Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii De Wild.). In regard to the newspaper report, the participant remembered going to the Morro as a child to collect litter; a habit that they keep up to this day in visits to the Morro and other PAs and green areas in the city. After that came a report on the demonstration that brought together 3,000 people, most of them children, mentioning that at the time there was an entity called the ‘green patrol’ which was an environmental education group targeting children.

c) Period 3 (The end of the 1990s: PA created and instituted)

The clipping referring to the publicizing of the PNMO (2) brought to the memorial an account of the participant’s childhood relationship with the Morro do Osso which he had only revisited quite recently on the occasion of a course for trail guides. Given that colocation, there was a comment on the importance of environmental education for children and adolescents in the PNMO in collaboration with the schools and how that encouraged an increase in the number of visits to the Park. The next clipping (6) was a pamphlet referring to an activity that brought citizens together in favor of good environmental practices; in other words, people involved in the CPDMO had endeavoured to involve other people and raise their awareness in favour of the consolidation of the Morro do Osso Municipal Park.

Figure 4
Time line constructed using Historical Diagram methodology.

All of the colocations in the time line activity reflected the community’s will to have the Protected Area created and its involvement in the process which in turn was reflected in their interest in participating in the Management Council. Thus immediately after the creation of the PNMO, the CPDMO automatically set up the Council, albeit in an informal manner until it was later officially instituted by Decree n° 15.300, dated September 14, 2006 (PORTO ALEGRE, 2006).

On that subject it is worth reflecting on the need to conduct the performance of the Management Council by stages. Palmieri and Verissimo (2009) propose that the first stage should be the identification of the sectors that are to compose the council and then define which entities are going to represent each sector. It could be said that the conversion of the CPDMO into the Management Council partly followed those stages but some aspects such as the role of the Management Council were poorly understood by some of the councillors and that led to a reduction in participation.

The park administrator and some of the staff mentioned how difficult it was to obtain a quorum for the Council meetings due to the large number (24) of councillors. In that respect, Yaffee and Wondolleck (2003) state that some councillors do not have the time or the energy or the freedom to engage in collaborative processes that take up a lot of time.

In turn, Bernard (2009) made a comparison of the number of seats on PA councils and on the councils of public and private entities and found that the average number for the PA councils was 26.6 seats whereas for the other entities it was 11.3. At first glance it might seem to be positive that a management council should be made up of many entities, for considerations of representativeness, however when the patterns of quorums are examined it can be seen that such representative participation is not effectuated. To reduce the number of councillors, the Serra dos Órgãos National Park has a scheme whereby the government representative and the civil society representative alternate in their occupation of each chair every year.

Another important aspect to stress is the need to understand the Management Council’s role in its aspect as co-management tool and that is essential to fostering the councillors’ feeling of belonging. That feeling is boosted in the case of the PNMO because it was created from the inception with the participation and mobilization of the community. Nevertheless, it is up to the PA administrators to provide means to intensify the councillors’ involvement so that they increasingly take responsibility for questions concerning the Park

On that matter Von der Weid and collaborators (2009) refer to participation as a movement of power distribution but that it is a movement that does not take place spontaneously. It is therefore necessary to create conditions to ensure that all the actors are duly engaged in the decision-making process, intervening in a qualified manner in the PA administration. Those conditions are feasible when the real possibilities for getting to and remaining in the meetings are taken into consideration; as well as aspects such as access to data and information, the support infrastructure that each social group or institution can offer to its representatives and to the very functioning of the Council itself, and mastery of the respective scientific and bureaucratic language.

4.3 The econd participative workshop

4.3.1 The agree/disagree technique

Six potential council members took part in this workshop. They had been identified in the first workshop as the work team mentioned by Abirached et al (2014) that would conduct the rest of the process (planning activities, awareness raising, mobilization and the formation of the Council itself).

After each participant had expressed a position in regard to the four enunciations regarding the possible roles of the Management Council, discussions took place during which each one endeavored to justify his or her opinion. Based on the collocations in those discussions, alterations to the statements were devised to align them with the participants’ opinions. In the course of that activity some points were raised regarding the Park and conflicts stemming from the presence of an indigenous occupation and the problem of dogs in the Protected Area.

The original statements put forward for discussion and agreement or disagreement and the versions duly modified in accordance with the workshop participants’ understanding are set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1
Statements proposed for the Agree/Disagree technique and the alterations resulting from the participants’ debate.

PROPOSED STATEMENTS	PARTICIPANTS’ UNDERSTANDING
The council does not have an auxiliary role to play in the Protected Area because its function is merely consultative.	The council does have an auxiliary function in the Protected Area because its role is participative.
It is the responsibility of the Council to demand from, and propose to the respective government entities, actions and policies that promote the conservation of natural resources and the socio-environmental development of the Protected Area and its Area of Influence	It is the responsibility of the Council to demand from, and propose to the respective government entities actions and policies that promote the conservation of natural resources and the socio-environmental development of the Protected Area and its Area of Influence and to oversee their management
The councillor should put the demands of the Park before the group that he represents, and seek to meet them	The councillor should put the demands of the Park before the group that he represents and bring the demand of the group before the Park encouraging measures to meet them.
At council meetings, councillors should only consider the demands of the group that they represent	At council meetings, councillors should consider not only the demands of the group that thy represent but also those of society as a whole.

• Source: Elaborated by the authors (2017).

As regards the first statement, all of the participants disagreed because they felt the council had an important role to play in the actual administration of the PA. That was due to its ability to agglutinate various different groups in the PA management thereby boosting the conservation of the natural environment. The participants agreed with the second affirmation but added to it the need for the Council to also undertake the role of inspection of the conservation policies and the public administration. In that aspect there was a discussion of the role of the Council in solving conflicts associated to biodiversity conservation and the need for it to publicize the PA’s objectives. As for the third statement, one participant only partly agreed while the others fully agreed. The justification for only partly agreeing was that the institutions whose representatives are also part of the Council ought to be heard as well and so words were added to represent the need for the councillor to also bring the demands of the respective entities in regard to the Park before the Council. Finally, the fourth affirmation set off a discussion regarding not only the question of demands from the PA’s surrounding areas but also the question of protecting a public common asset, in this case the natural heritage that the PA is designed to conserve.

The other matters that were touched on during the workshop and were considered important for discussion by the Council were the indigenous occupation and the presence of domestic animals in the Park, especially dogs. The presence of the indigenous group which, according to Fuhr (2012), is a village set up inside the park in 2004, was mentioned by the persons interviewed and by the workshop participants. Given the divergence of opinions it gives rise to, it was cited as one of the causes of the former Management Council’s dissolution. According to their accounts, there were three positions adopted by council members at the time namely (a) an anti-indigenous presence attitude on the part of those who considered that the PNMO is a Protected Area in the ‘integral protection’ category and accordingly no human occupation, extractive activities or management of natural resources is permitted; (b) an anti-indigenous presence attitude adopted by those who consider that the settlement would lead to a devaluation of real estate and properties in the region; and (c) those who considered the area should be recognized as an indigenous territory.

It is worth observing that only one person mentioned the possibility of constructing a dialogue between the objective of biodiversity conservation and the rights of indigenous people to the demarcation of their land that would be based on the Kaingang people’s knowledge concerning the Porto Alegre ecosystems and their management. Thus there is a need to reflect on the profile of the councillors insofar as they need to know how to listen to and respect the different positions of others. Furthermore, the Management Council’s role consists of articulating the diverse interests of the various groups involved with the PA territory with the interests of biodiversity conservation.

Another theme that came up for hot discussion during the workshop was the presence of dogs in the PNMO and in other PAs in Porto Alegre. Vilela and Lamim-Guedes (2014) point out that dogs can transmit diseases to wild animals as well as persecute, harass wound or even kill them or cause them to flee the park area. That being so it was the Council’s duty to approach the PNMO administration and that of the other PAs in Porto Alegre in order to conduct an educational informative and awareness raising campaign directed at Park users reminding them of the consequences of taking their domestic animals into protected natural areas.

5 Final consideration

With the finalization of the study, the cause of the demobilization of the original management council became clear. It was the failure to understand the council as being a space for participation in an ongoing process that involves various aspects beyond the background of cooperation; that had led to the disarticulation of the councillors. We found that after the initial formation of the PNMO’s management council there was a lack of incentive to participate, a lack of leadership and a lack of a routine connection with the practical administration of the Park that would develop a bond of shared commitment and understanding. Thus, this case corroborates the affirmation that commitment is intimately related the original motivation to participate.

Nevertheless it was possible to descry the potential for mobilizing and restructuring the council insofar as the study identified various groups suitable for participating in its composition provided the collaborative process is structured by a leadership that allows for the involvement, mobilization and empowerment of the interested parties in order to boost collaboration and expand the Council’s scope.

That movement is essential because the Management Council must be integrated to the Protected Area’s administration in an ongoing process and its members must be vigilant in regard to the variables that influence the Park and its surrounding areas thereby fulfilling its vocation as an articulator of the various spaces of dispute associated to the Protected Area.

6 References

• ANSELL, C.; GASH, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, p.1-29, 2007.
• ALBIRACHED, C. F.; MENDONÇA, F. C.; LUZ L.; TALBOT V.; LASMAR V. Conselhos Gestores de Unidades de Conservação Federais. Um guia para gestores e conselheiros. Brasília: ICMBio, 2014
• AYRES, H. H. F.; IRVING, M. A. O olhar psicossocial para a gestão participativa de áreas protegidas: refletindo sobre possibilidades e desafios. In: IRVING, M. (Org.). Áreas protegidas e inclusão social: construindo novos significados. Rio de Janeiro: Aquarius, 2006.
• BALDIN, N. E MUNHOZ, E. M. B. Snowball (Bola de Neve): Uma técnica metodológica para pesquisa ambiental comunitária. X Congresso Nacional de Educação - EDUCERE. I Seminário Internacional de Representações, Subjetividade e Educação - SIRSSE. Curitiba: 2011.
• BASTOS, M. C. S. Plano de Manejo Parque Natural Morro do Osso. Editora Prefeitura de Porto Alegre, 2006.
• BERKES, F. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology, v.18, n.3, p.621-630, 2004.
• BERNARD, E. Sobre bons e maus conselhos. [Article made available on the Internet in 2009] Available at <http://www.oeco.org.br/colunas/colunistas-convidados/22360-sobre-bons-e-maus-conselhos/> Consulted on June 8, 2017.
  » http://www.oeco.org.br/colunas/colunistas-convidados/22360-sobre-bons-e-maus-conselhos/
• BRASIL. Lei 9985 de 18 de julho de 2000. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação. Diário Oficial da União. Brasília, 2000.
• BRASIL. Decreto 4340 de 22 de agosto de 2002. Regulamenta o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação. Diário Oficial da União. Brasília, 2002.
• BROWN, A. J. Collaborative governance versus constitutional politics: Decision rules for sustainability from Australia’s South East Queensland forest agreement. Environmental Science and Policy, v.5, p.19-32, 2002.
• BROOKS, J.S.; WAYLEN, K.A.; BORGERHOFF-MULDER, M.. How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, v.109, p:21265-21270. 2012.
• CASTRO, I. Aprendizados com conselhos gestores das unidades de conservação no Programa ARPA. Programa Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia-ARPA e Cooperação Técnica Alemã-GTZ, Brasília: MMA, 2009.
• CLARK, N.E., BOAKES, E.H., MCGOWAN, P.J.K., MACE, G.M. & FULLER, R.A. Protected areas in South Asia have not prevented habitat loss: a study using historical models of land-use change. PLoS ONE, v.8, n.5, p.265-278, 2013.
• COMISSÃO EM DEFESA DO MORRO DO OSSO - CPDMO. Preserve o Morro do Osso. 1990.
• COSTA, H.S.M. Natureza e mercado imobiliário na redistribuição da população metropolitana: notas a partir do Eixo-Sul de Belo Horizonte. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE ESTUDOS POPULACIONAIS, 14., Anais... Caxambu, Abep, 2004.
• DIEGUES, A. C. S. O mito moderno da natureza intocada. Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 1996.
• DIETSCH, A.M.; TEEL, T.L.; MANFREDO, M.J. Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world. Conservation Biology, v.30, n.6, p.1212-1221, 2016.
• DI PIERRO, G. E ORTIZ, M. Gênero fora da caixa. Guia prático para educadores e educadoras. São Paulo: Instituto Sou da Paz, 2011.
• DRUMOND, M. A. Técnicas e Ferramentas Participativas para a Gestão de Unidades de Conservação. Programa Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia-ARPA e Cooperação Técnica Alemã-GTZ. Brasília: MMA, 2009.
• DUDLEY, N.; GROVES, C.; REDFORD, K. H.; STOLTON, S. Where now for protected areas? Setting the stage for the 2014 world Parks Congress. Oryx, p.1-8, 2010. doi:10.1017/S0030605314000519.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000519
• ECONSCIÊNCIA. Corredores de Vida Nativa do Morro do Osso. [Instiitutional video made available on the Internet September 30, 2016] Available at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euvamj4Yf3c> Consulted on June 30, 2017.
  » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euvamj4Yf3c
• FERREIRA, P. M. A.; MÜLLER, S. C.; BOLDRINI, I. I.; EGGERS, L. Floristic and vegetation structure of a granitic grassland in Southern Brazil. Revista Brasil. Bot., v.33, n.1, p.21-36, jan.-mar. 2010
• FOLKE, C. Resilience for sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world transformations. Rainbow series 3. International Council Scientific Unions (ICSU) Paris. http://www.sou.gov.se/mvb/pdf/resilienspdf Consulted in April 2019.
  » http://www.sou.gov.se/mvb/pdf/resilienspdf
• FUHR, G.; GERHARDT, C. H.; KUBO, R. R. Entre Aldeia Kaingang ou Parque Natural: o processo de configuração de um conflito socioambiental na disputa pelo Morro do Osso, Porto Alegre, RS. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, v. 26, UFPR: Curitiba, 2012.
• FUTRELL, R. Technical adversarialism and participatory collaboration in the U.S. chemical weapons disposal program. Science, Technology, & Human Values v.28, p.451-82. 2003.
• GAMA, S.V.G.; DUTRA, F.F; XAVIER, T.F. Os vetores de pressão em unidade de conservação urbana: a problemática ambiental da APA e do Parque do Mendanha – zona oeste do Rio de Janeiro (RMRJ). 10p., X Encontro de Geógrafos da América Latina, Anais... Universidade de São Paulo/USP. Available at: http://observatoriogeograficoamericalatina.org.mx/egal10/Procesosambientales/Impactoambiental/07.pdf 2005
  » http://observatoriogeograficoamericalatina.org.mx/egal10/Procesosambientales/Impactoambiental/07.pdf
• GEOHHEGAN T., RENARD Y. Beyond community involvement: lessons from the insular Caribbean. Parks, v.12, n.2. p. 16-27. 2002.
• HÉRITIER, S. Public participation and environmental management in Montain National Parks. Journal of Alpine Research, v.98, p.170-188, 2010.
• IUCN. Benefits Beyond Boundaries: Proceedings of the Vth. IUCN World Parks Congress. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2005.
• KOHL, C. A.; SILVA, C. S. S.; SOUZA, C. L. L. Impactos ambientais na unidade de conservação Morro do Osso em Porto Alegre/RS. VI Congresso Brasileiro de Gestão Ambiental: Porto Alegre, 2015.
• LEE, J.H.; MATARRITA-CASCANTE, D.; XU, Y.; SCHUETT, M. Examining the conflicting relationship between U.S. National Parks and host communities: understanding a community’s diverging perspectives. Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, v. 10, n.10, p.1-17, 2018.
• LOUREIRO, C. F. B.; CUNHA, C. C. Educação Ambiental e Gestão Participativa de Unidades de Conservação: elementos para se pensar a sustentabilidade democrática. Revista Ambiente e Sociedade, v. XI, n. 2. Campinas, 2008.
• LOUREIRO, C. F. B. E IRVING, M. A. (Coord.) Gestão Participativa em Unidades de Conservação. Rio de Janeiro: Ibase, 2006.
• PASSOS, P. N. C. A Conferência de Estocolmo como ponto de partida para a proteção internacional do meio ambiente, Revista Direitos Fundamentais e Democracia, vol. 6, Curitiba, 2009.
• MEFFE, G.; NIELSEN, L.; KNIGHT, R.L.; SCHENBORN, D. Ecosystem Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1559638241.
• MENEGAT, R. Atlas ambiental de Porto Alegre/Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais. Editora UFRGS. Porto Alegre. 1999.
• MIRAPALHETE, S. R. (Coord. e Org.). Flora e Fauna do Parque Natural Morro do Osso. Porto Alegre: SMAM, 2001 apud SESTREN-BASTOS, M. C. (Coord.) Plano de Manejo do Parque Natural Morro do Osso. Porto Alegre: Secretaria Municipal do Meio Ambiente, 2006, p. 10.
• MORRO DO OSSO [Página de divulgação] Available at <https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006361741201> Consulted on March 29, 2017.
  » https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006361741201
• OLDEKOP, J. A.; HOLMES, G.; HARRIS, W.E.; EVANS, K.L. A global assessment of the social and conservation out comes of protected áreas. Conservation Biology, v.30, n.1, p.133-141, 2015.
• PALMIERI, R.; VERÍSSIMO, A. Conselhos de Unidades de Conservação: guia sobre sua criação e seu funcionamento. Imaflora: Piracicaba, São Paulo, SP; Imazon: Belém, PA, Brasil, 95 p., 2009.
• PORTO ALEGRE. Decreto 15300 de 14 de setembro de 2006. Cria o Conselho Consultivo do Parque Natural Municipal Morro do Osso. Diário Oficial do estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2006.
• PORTO ALEGRE. Lei Complementar n°334, de 27 de dezembro de 1994. Cria o Parque Natural Municipal Morro do Osso. Diário Oficial do estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 1994.
• QSRINTERNACIONAL. O software global de análise de dados qualitativos. https://www.qsrinternacional.com/nvivo/home, Acesso março 2017.
  » https://www.qsrinternacional.com/nvivo/home
• RIO GRANDE DO SUL. Lista Oficial da Flora Ameaçada de Extinção do Rio Grande do Sul. Diário Oficial do estado do Rio Grande do Sul, n 1, 2003.
• RUITENBEEK, J.; CARTIER, C. The invisible wand: adaptative co-management as na emergente strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Occasional paper 34. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. 2001. www.cigor.cgiar.org , Consulted in April 2019.
  » www.cigor.cgiar.org
• RUIZ-MALLÉN, I.; DE LA PEÑA, A.; MÉNDEZ-LOPEZ, E.; POTER-BOLLAND, L. Local participation in community conservation: methodological contribuitions. Ed. PORTER, L.; RUIZ MALLÉN, I.; CAMACHO-BENAVIDES, C.; MAcCANDLESS, S. R. Community action for conservation: Mexican Experiences. Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London, 2013. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-7956-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7956-7
• VELOSO, H. P.; GÓES-FILHO, L. Fitogeografia Brasileira – Classificação Fisionômico-ecológica da Vegetação Neotropical. Boletim Técnico do Projeto RADAM Brasil, Série vegetação, v. 1, 1982.
• VIMAL, R.; KHALIL-LORTIE, M.; GATISO, T. What does community participation in nature protection mean? The case of tropical national parks in Africa. Environmental Conservation, p.1-9, 2018.
• VILELA, A. L. O.; LAMIM-GUEDES, V. Cães domésticos em Unidades de Conservação: Impactos e controle. HOLOS Enviroment, v. 4, n. 2, 2014.
• VON DER WEID, N. F. (Org.) Conselhos Deliberativos em Resex/RDS Brasília: ICMBio, 2009.
• WARNER, J. F. More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms formintegrated catchment management. Water Resources Development, v.22, n.1, p.15-35, 2006.
• YAFFEE, S. L.; WONDOLLECK, J. Collaborative ecosystem planning processes in the United States: Evolution and challenges. Environments, v.31, n.2, p.59-72, 2003.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1: Semi-structured interview sheet for the identification of possible PNMO councillors

Interview nº _____Date:____/____/____

Entity: ___________________________

Type: ____________________________

1. Do you know or have you heard of the Morro do Osso? ( ) Y ( ) N How did you get to know/hear about it?

2. Did you often visit it (at the time you got to know it)? ( ) Y ( ) N

3. Do you frequent the park nowadays or know people who do?

( ) I do,.

( ) I do not.

( ) I know other people who frequent it.

( ) I do not know other people who frequent it.

4. Do you know the Parks headquarters building? Have you ever participated in an event in the auditorium?

5. What do you know about the history of the Morro (hill) or of the Park?

6. Do you think the Park is important? Why? To whom?

7. Do you think the Park is well administered? Why?

8. Are you interested in participating in the PNMO management council? ( ) Y ( ) Why?

9. Do you know what a management council is? ( ) S ( ) N What do you think a management council is supposed to do?

10. Would you be able to take part in a workshop on April 1^st? ( )Y ( ) N

11. Would you be available to attend council meetings? ( ) Y ( ) N

12. How often would you be able to take part in meetings? Once a month ( ) once every 2 months ( ) Once every three months ( ) Some other frequency (____________________).

13. What times and which days are best for you?

14. Do you think it is hard to get to the Park buildings to attend meetings? ( ) Y ( ) N Why?

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  11 May 2020
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  15 May 2018
• Accepted
  15 Nov 2019