Perceptions of environmental legislation in Paragominas - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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 inefficient However

Source: www.obt.inpe.br/prodes

Deforestation in the Amazon

• 2004-2013:

deforestation decreased by 79%

• stabilized near 5000 km2
• 2020 target : 3800 km2

PPCDAM : Action Plan for Prevention of Deforestation in Amazonia Arco de Fogo Green municipality Program (PA) Towards sustainable solutions

Measure introduced by The New Forest Code

APP: Permanent Preservation Areas along water bodies(15 to 100 m)

• n slopes (>45)

Legal Reserve percentage of the property with preserved native vegetation (Amazonian region between 50%-80% )

New Forest Code: Rural Environmantal Registry (CAR)

• PES for conservation and restauration
• System of Legal Reserve Compensation

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

Proportion of properties Percentage

• f forest

cover Minimum required by law 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 Simplified procedures and documentation

• Ad-hoc technical norms

Smaller area of RL allowed Different guidelines for recomposing APP and RL

• Special exeptions for

traditional activities

Some exceptional activities allowed in conservation areas for agricultural purposes Use of fire allowed for traditional populations

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)
• Long history of deforestation due to: - illegal wood extraction
• sell land to logger or big land

tenures to wood extraction

• coal extraction
• 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

Lack of awareness of real forest value

• Very close relation with the forest: traditional use of non-wood

products

Our research question: «Smallholders’ motivations and barriers in forest restoration»

• Why in these two communities? (choice of study area)

Land exposed to big land tenures pressure Degradated river banks

High fire risk

Understanding motivation for environmental rules compliance

Extrinsic motivations

• Enforcement : law incentives/ sanctions

Government recognition Trust in law

• Market opportunities/ barriers

Depends on : state preconditions on compliance Depends on : market access & capacities

Intrinsic motivations

• Rule awareness

Depends on : information education Government information

• Rule acceptance

Depends on : Personal attitude and social norms

Theorethical Framework: What determines Compliance?

NEGATIVE INFLUENCE POSITIVE INFLUENCE

Research question: «Smallholders’ motivations and barriers in forest restoration»

• Education level
• Knowledge of New Forest

Code

• Knowledge of sustainable

agricultural practices

• Participation to reforest

activities

• Land ownership title
• Ownership of CAR

Improve Forest Law Compliance

• Small property area
• Large forest area
• Small family composition
• Age

Data collection

EXPLORATORY CAMP:

** field work done with Mayara Bessa, master student in Environment Management at UFPA

Methodology : Semi structured interviews Sample : 39 interviewees Sub-objective: Identify differences between tree nursery participants and non participants Issues studied:

• use of forest in the property
• knowledge and legitimacy of

environmental legislation

• forest restoration action and

possible incentives

CORE FIELD VISIT

Methodology : Q-methodology Sample: 28 interviewees Sub objective: Deepen barriers and motivations for law compliance (forest restoration) Issues studied:

• main barriers to reforestation
• personal perceptions relatively to

forest restoration

• government role in forest

restoration

• community role in forest

restoration

• Reforestation implementation

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

Opinion statements definition n = 28

Literature review Exploratory field results Previous studies Intrinsic motivations Extrinsic motivations

Main barriers (n=7): “I cannot reforest because I need land for agricultural activities” Restoration implementation(n=3): “It would be better if technicians would tell me how to reforest Role of community (n=4): “People in the community do not understand reforestation importance Government role (n=6): “Reforestation should be

• nly a governmental

issue” Personal perceptions (n=6) “”I reforest because forest is my main subsistence mean”

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

+1 +2 +3 Totally disagree I little disagree I do not agree indiffer ence I agree I little agree Totally agree

Interviews results

Variables Participants Non participants Hypothesis Average education level Alfabetização alfabetização No conclusion Average age 48 47.13 No conclusion Average Property areas 32.61** 48.80** Opposed to hypothesis Average family composition 3.6 4.08 No 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

• higher education level => higher legislation comprehension
• nursery participation => higher legislation comprehension
• higher preservation sensitiveness => nursery participation
• nursery participation => higher knowledge exchange

X √ √ X X

Groups identification

Four groups identified with Q methodology approach

“Most motivated people”

N = 8

“Lacking means”

N = 5

“Sensitive to enforcement”

N = 5

“Not interested”

N = 6

Differences in discourses

Group 1: “most motivated peolpe”(n=8) group 2 : “lacking means” (n=5) Group 3”sensitive to law enforcement” (n=5) Group 4 : “not interested” (n=6) Perception for forest restoration Feel responsible for environment preservation Would like to undertake forest restoration but are not capable Fear of sanction as main driver for forest restoration Understand importance of forest preservation but it is not in their priorities Role of the government important but not essential Has to provide means for forest conservation in order to have compliance essential a law on forest conservation difficult to follows the law. Need technical advice Main barriers to forest preservation lack of money Lack of money and support in forest management forest needed for agricultural activities Lack of water and support in forest management

Differences between groups

Goup 1: “most motivated people”(n=8) group 2 : “lacking means” (n=5) Group 3 : ”sensitive to law enforcement” (n=5) Group 4 : “not interested” (n=6) Social profile Average age > 46 years old Mean :55 > 46 years old Mean: 50 > 46 years old Mean: 53 Between 35/45 years old Mean: 36 education level intermediary basic basic basic Family composition

+ ++ +++ ++

Property profile Presence of water

+++ + ++ +

Property area

46 ha 28 ha 53 ha 29 ha

Forest coverage

16 ha 10 ha 20 ha 11 ha

Knowledge

• f Laws

Knowledge of Forest Code

+++

++

++

+

Knowledge of APP/ RL

++

++

+++

+

Intrinsic vs extrinsic motivations

Extrinsic Intrinsic

Theoretical framework : What does influece compliance?

X enforcement :

law incentives / sanctions Ignored law existence & lack

• f government presence

√ technical and

economical capacities

Extrinsic motivations

X market opportunities

Very difficult market access Technical and economical support needed

Intrinsic motivations

√ rule awareness

higher education & involvement in governmental projects for restoration Rule acceptance X social norms do not influence forest restoration

√ Strong influence of personal attitude,

characteristics and background

Conclusions

POSITIVE INFLUENCE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE

Conclusions :

 Education level  Knowledge of New Forest Code  Knowledge of sustainable agricultural practices  Participation to reforest activities X Land ownership title X Ownership of CAR Improve Forest Law Compliance  Small property area X Large forest area X Small family composition X Age => on the contrary “most motivated” people are the older ones

Final remarks

Future Perspectives

Policy suggestions: Future research suggestions

• Increase workshop and

trainings to improve legislation knowledge

• Increase technical

assistance

• Deepen community

role relatively to forest restoration

• Deepen role of market

and market

• pportunities for non

wood products

Thank for your attention