Decentralization and REDD+ in Brazil

Forests

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 66-85

  Toni, Fabiano ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRASILIA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Amazonia; Brazil; Decentralization; Federalism; Protected areas; Redd+; Subnational governments; Tropical forests

Indexed keywords

AMAZONIA; BRAZIL; DECENTRALIZATION; FEDERALISM; PROTECTED AREAS; REDD; SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS; TROPICAL FOREST;

CONSERVATION; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; GLOBAL WARMING; GOVERNORS;

DEFORESTATION;

CARBON EMISSION; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DECENTRALIZATION; DEFORESTATION; DEVELOPING WORLD; ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION; FINANCIAL SYSTEM; FORESTRY POLICY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; PROTECTED AREA; STATE ROLE; SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE;

BRAZIL; CONSERVATION; DEFORESTATION; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; FORESTRY; TROPICAL ATMOSPHERES;

BRAZIL;

EID: 84863532751     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19994907     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/f2010066     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Santilli, M.; Moutinho, P.; Schwartzman, S.; Nepstad, D.; Curran; L.; Nobre, C. Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol: An editorial essay. Climatic Change 2005, 71, 267-276.
2. Nepstad, D.; Soares-Filho, B.S.; Merry, F.; Lima, A.; Moutinho, P.; Carter, J.; Bowman, M.; Cattaneo, A.; Rodrigues, H.; Schwartzman, S.; et al. The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 2009, 326, 1350-1351.
3. Phelps, J.; Webb, E.L.; Agrawal, A. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 2010, 328, 312-313.
4. Irawan, S.; Tacconi, L. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and decentralized forest management. Int. Forest. Rev. 2010 11, 427-438, doi:10.1505/ifor.11.4.427.
5. Rondinelli, D. Government decentralization in comparative perspective: theory and practice in developing countries. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 1981, 2, 133-145.
6. Parker, A. Decentralization: The Way Forward for Rural Development? Policy Research Working Paper 1475; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1995.
7. Manor, J. The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
8. Ribot, J.C. Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
9. Toni, F.; Kaimowitz, D. O papel dos municípios na gestão florestal: lições dos estudos de caso. In Municípios e gestão florestal na Amazônia; Toni, F., Kaimowitz, D., Eds.; A.S. Editores: Natal, Brazil, 2003; pp. 23-63.
10. Toni, F.; Pacheco, P. Gestão ambiental descentralizada: um estudo comparativo de três municípios da Amazônia Brasileira; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brazil, 2005.
11. Valle, R.S.T.; Yamada, E.M. Brasil: Titularidade Indígena sobre Créditos de Carbono gerados por Atividades Florestais em Terras Indígenas. Parecer Jurídico sobre a titularidade de Créditos de Carbono gerados por atividades florestais em Terras Indígenas no Brasil; Instituto Socioambiental: Brasília, Brazil, 2010.
12. Nepstad, D.; Schwartzman, S.; Bamberger, B.; Santilli, M.; Ray, D.; Schlesinger, P.; Lefebvre, P.; Alencar, A.; Prinz, E.; Fiske, G.; Rolla, A. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 65-73.
13. Larson, A.M.; Ribot, J.C. Lessons from forestry decentralisation. In Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options; Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W.D., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Eds.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2009; pp. 175-187.
14. Nickson, R.A. Local Government in Latin America; Lynne Rienner Publishers: Boulder, CO, USA and London, UK, 1995.
15. Stepan, A. Para uma nova análise comparativa do federalismo e da democracia: federações que restringem ou ampliam o poder do demos. Dados 1999, 42, 197-251.
16. Abrucio, F.L. Os barões da federação e a redemocratização Brasileira; Hucitec: São Paulo, Brazil, 1998.
17. Article 23 of the Constitution lists as state duties the protection of sites of scenic beauty and archaeological sites (point III); environmental protection and the fight against contamination (point VI); preservation of forests, fauna and flora (point VII); and the registry, follow-up and inspection of water and mineral resources (point XI). Article 24 deals with urban planning rights (point I); forests, hunting, fishing, fauna, natural conservation, defence of the soil and natural resources, environmental protection and control of contamination (point VII); landscape patrimony (point VII); and responsibility for damage to the environment (point VIII).
18. Hochstetler, K.; Keck, M.E. Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in State and Society; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2007.
19. Jenkins, C.N.; Joppa, L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol. Cons. 2009, 142, 2166-2174.
20. Ferreira, L.V.; Venticinque, E.; Almeida, S. O desmatamento na Amazônia e a importância das áreas protegidas. Estud. Av. 2005 19, 157-166.
21. Soares-Filho, B.; Moutinho, P.; Nepstad, D.; Anderson, A.; Rodrigues, H.; Garcia, R.; Dietzsch, L.; Merry, F.; Bowman, M.; Hissa, L.; et al. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 10821-10826.
22. Brazilian protected areas (PAs) are divided in two groups: strict use PAs and sustainable use PAs. Strict use PAs aim to preserve nature and, therefore, allow only indirect use of natural resources. There are five categories of strict use PAs: ecological stations and biological reserves, in which only scientific and educational activities are allowed, and national parks, natural monuments and wildlife refuges, which also allow public access. Sustainable use PAs aim to reconcile conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. There are seven categories of sustainable use PAs, including extractive reserves and national forests, which together comprise the largest share of sustainable use PAs in Brazilian Amazon. Residents of extractive reserves can manage the forest for timber and non-timber products and can manage small agricultural plots. Cattle ranching is illegal in such areas.
23. Data shown on Figures 1-3 and on Table 2 draw on data obtained from Instituto Socioambiental, and refer to area of PAs as of 2009. Data discount overlaps between PAs. Available online: http://www.socioambiental.org/loja/detalhe_produto.html?id_prd=10333 (accessed on 1 August 2010)
24. Toni, F. Gestão florestal na Amazônia brasileira: avanços e obstáculos em um sistema federalista; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2006.
25. Ferreira, I.N.R. Parcerias para a gestão ambiental em propriedades rurais: O caso de Lucas do Rio Verde-MT; Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Universidade de Brasília: Brasília, Brazil, 2010.
26. Muanis, M.M. Quanto custa uma unidade de conservação federal?: uma visão estratégica para o financiamento do Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação (Snuc); Funbio: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2009.
27. Toni, F.; Santos, J.C.; Menezes, R.S.; Wood, C.H.; Sant'Ana, H. Expansão e trajetórias da pecuária na Amazônia: Acre, Brasil; Editora UnB: Brasília, Brazil, 2007.
28. Sillsa, E.; Shubhayu, S. Subsidies for rubber: Conserving rainforests while sustaining livelihoods in the Amazon? J. Sustain. Forest. 2010, 29, 152-173.
29. MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. Pilares para a Sustentabilidade Financeira do Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brazil, 2009.
30. GCF. Governors' Climate and Forests Taskforce homepage. Available online: http://gcftaskforce.org/index.html (accessed on 2 June 2010).