Perceptions of environmental legislation in Paragominas municipality, Pará, Brasil Federica Romagnoli : Erasmus trainership programme UR Green Intern Supervisors : Emilie Coudel , Cirad Joice Ferreira, Embrapa Livia Navegantes, UFPA
Why is it necessary to talk about forest conservation in Brasil? Source: forest trends.org
What does it mean? • 71 million of Amazonian forest deforested between 2000 and 2010 • Loss of 44 % of total forest coverage • Contribution to 51% of global deforestation in the last decade • Deforestation was the main responsible for greenhouse gases emission in Brazil
Forest legislation in Brasil • Brazilian government started to take consciousness and react to deforestation only in 1980. laws introduced were mostly However inefficient Deforestation in the Amazon PPCDAM : Action Plan for Prevention of Deforestation in Amazonia Arco de Fogo • 2004-2013: Green deforestation decreased municipality by 79% Program (PA ) • stabilized near 5000 km2 • 2020 target : 3800 km2 Towards sustainable Source: www.obt.inpe.br/prodes solutions
Measure introduced by The New Forest Code New Forest Code: Rural Environmantal Registry (CAR) APP: Permanent Preservation Areas - PES for conservation and restauration along water bodies(15 to 100 m) - System of Legal Reserve Compensation on slopes (>45) Legal Reserve percentage of the property with preserved native vegetation (Amazonian region between 50%-80% )
Forest Code and new approches in forest conservation New focus and stakeholder in forest conservation problem : Smallholder • priorization The majority of properties do not comply with Legal Reserve forest coverage. • Small-holders do have structural problem The new Forest Code has a particular recognition of smallholder’s need , introducing: • Administrative semplification and support Forest exploitation for non commercial purposes accepted Eventual suppression of APP • Ad-hoc technical norms Simplified procedures and documentation Smaller area of RL allowed Percentage Different guidelines for recomposing APP and RL of forest cover • Special exeptions for traditional activities Use of fire allowed for traditional populations Proportion of Some exceptional activities allowed in conservation areas Minimum properties for agricultural purposes required by law
Our research question : «Smallholders’ motivations and barriers in forest restoration» Local actors involved Smallholders living in two colonies of Paragominas rural region (Nazaré and São sebastião communities)
Our research question : « Smallholders’ motivations and barriers in forest restoration» Why in these two communities? (choice of study area) Very close relation with the forest: traditional use of non-wood • products Long history of deforestation due to: - illegal wood extraction • - sell land to logger or big land tenures to wood extraction - coal extraction Lack of awareness of real forest value Several governmental projects have already been implemented to • give alternative to timber extraction Tree nursery project recently implanted to combine forest restoration • with agricultural production
Our research question : « Smallholders’ motivations and barriers in forest restoration» Why in these two communities? (choice of study area) High fire risk Land exposed to big land tenures pressure Degradated river banks
Understanding motivation for environmental rules compliance Extrinsic motivations • Enforcement : law incentives/ sanctions Depends on : state preconditions on compliance Government recognition Trust in law Theorethical • Market opportunities/ barriers Framework: Depends on : market access & capacities What determines Compliance? Intrinsic motivations • Rule awareness education Depends on : information Government information • Rule acceptance Depends on : Personal attitude and social norms
Research question : « Smallholders’ motivations and barriers in forest restoration» Improve Forest Law Compliance POSITIVE INFLUENCE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE - Small property area - Education level - Large forest area - Knowledge of New Forest - Small family composition Code - Knowledge of sustainable - Age agricultural practices - Participation to reforest activities - Land ownership title - Ownership of CAR
Data collection EXPLORATORY CAMP: CORE FIELD VISIT ** field work done with Mayara Bessa, Methodology : Q-methodology master student in Environment Sample: 28 interviewees Management at UFPA Sub objective: Methodology : Semi structured Deepen barriers and motivations for interviews law compliance (forest restoration) Sample : 39 interviewees Issues studied: Sub-objective: - main barriers to reforestation Identify differences between tree - personal perceptions relatively to nursery participants and non forest restoration participants - government role in forest Issues studied: restoration - use of forest in the property - community role in forest - knowledge and legitimacy of restoration environmental legislation - Reforestation implementation - forest restoration action and possible incentives
How does Q-methodology work? “Foundation for the systematic study of subjectivity” A methodology that combines quantitative and qualitative techniques to capture and describe divergent views and consensus in a group Literature review Exploratory field results Previous studies Opinion statements definition n = 28 Main barriers (n=7): Role of community “I cannot reforest (n=4): because I need land “People in the for agricultural Restoration Personal community do activities” implementation(n=3): perceptions (n=6) not understand Government role (n=6): “It would be better if “”I reforest because reforestation “Reforestation should be technicians would tell forest is my main importance only a governmental me how to reforest subsistence mean” issue” Extrinsic motivations Intrinsic motivations
How does Q-methodology work? “Foundation for the systematic study of subjectivity” A methodology that combines quantitative and qualitative techniques to capture and describe divergent views and consensus in a group -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Totally I little I do not indiffer I agree I little Totally disagree disagree agree ence agree agree
Interviews results Variables Non Participants Hypothesis participants No Average education level Alfabetização alfabetização conclusion No Average age 48 47.13 conclusion Opposed to Average Property areas 32.61** 48.80** hypothesis Average family No 3.6 4.08 composition conclusion Knowledge exchange** √ Confirmed Preservation sensitiveness √ Confirmed ** T-test and X square test:; **p<0,05
Interviews results Hypothesis: - smaller property area => lower involvement in conservation initiatives X X - higher education level => higher legislation comprehension X - nursery participation => higher legislation comprehension √ - higher preservation sensitiveness => nursery participation - nursery participation => higher knowledge exchange √
Groups identification “ Most motivated people” N = 8 Four groups “ Lacking means” identified with N = 5 Q methodology “ Sensitive to enforcement” approach N = 5 “ Not interested” N = 6
Differences in discourses Group 3”sensitive Group 1: “most group 2 : “lacking Group 4 : “not to law motivated means” interested” enforcement” peolpe”(n=8) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) Understand Feel responsible for Would like to undertake Fear of sanction as importance of Perception for environment forest restoration but main driver for forest preservation forest restoration preservation are not capable forest restoration but it is not in their priorities in order to have difficult to follows Role of the important but not Has to provide means compliance the law. Need government essential for forest conservation essential a law on technical advice forest conservation Main barriers to Lack of money and forest needed for Lack of water and forest lack of money support in forest agricultural support in forest preservation management activities management
Differences between groups Goup 1: “most group 2 : Group 3 : ”sensitive to Group 4 : “not motivated “lacking means” law enforcement” interested” people”(n=8) (n=5) (n=5) (n=6) Between 35/45 > 46 years old > 46 years old > 46 years old Average age years old Mean :55 Mean: 50 Mean: 53 Mean: 36 Social education level intermediary basic basic basic profile Family + ++ +++ ++ composition +++ + ++ + Presence of water Property 46 ha 28 ha 53 ha 29 ha Property area profile Forest coverage 16 ha 10 ha 20 ha 11 ha Knowledge of ++ + +++ ++ Forest Code Knowledge of Laws Knowledge of ++ + ++ +++ APP/ RL
Intrinsic vs extrinsic motivations Intrinsic Extrinsic
Recommend
More recommend
