1 THE EFFECTS OF CAR BON TRADING ON THE SMALL HOLDER LIVELIHOOD PRODUCTION SYSTEM. A CASE STUDY IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON REGION By RICARDO DE ASSIS MELLO A THESIS PRESENTED T O THE GRADUATE SCHOO L OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A 20 10
2 2010 R icardo de Assis Mello
3 To my family that loves me and believes that future is a collective construction
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thes is could not have been developed without the support of my family, friends, and mentors. First, I thank Dr. Peter Hildebrand, my advisor for all his help and friendly constructive criticism, which introduced me to a new way of thinking about smallholders I am very thankful to the members of my committee: Dr. Marianne Schmink for her constant support, especially when I had medical problems and Dr. Daniel Nepstad for his idealistic perspective about climate change. I e specially wish to express my deepest ap preciation to Marianne Schmink for being a constant source of support and encouragement since I first thought about coming to study at the University of Florida I specially wish to express my deepest appreciation to Jack Putz for encourag ing me to think a nalytically about of my work I would like to thank the Amazon Conservation Leadership Initiative and Tropical Conservation and Development Program at the University of Florida for funding my study at the University of Florida. My special thanks t o Robert Buschbacher for receiving me as a professional and afford ing to my family the friendship that made our newcomer life in Gainesville a pleasure. I am grateful to the wonderful people who live in Anap, Pacaj, and Xapuri who have taken me into their homes and share d their knowledge with me. I owe them my commitment to make my professional life a constant search for answers to their questions A special acknowledgment to all my friends that de dicate their lives to make rural communities a better place to li ve especially Ana Paula de Souza Marta, Bibiu, and Guilherme Brito from F undao V iver P roduzir e P reservar Adair Duarte and Hilza Arcos from Grupo de Pesquisa e Extenso em Sistemas Agroflorestais do Acre : My deepest respect for them. I am also grate ful to the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amaznia for the opportunity to work among the greatest team of professionals. I am
5 deeply thankful to the following colleagues from IPAM: Edivan Carvalho, Luzabeth Assuno, Rosana Gisele, Lucimar Lima, Marcos Rocha Ane Alencar and Erika Pinto for their friendship, precious support in this research, and insights; I am also grateful to Dan Nepstad and Paulo Moutinho for their elaborated ideas about Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation I also wish to thank my friends of University of Florida for their support in the academy and in my daily life. Es pecially to Patricia Sampaio and Jessica Caciedo for their facilitation through the university bureaucracy ; Wendy L in Bartels, Iran Rodrigues, Rutecleia Zarin, Rosana Resende Paula Pinheiro, and anonymous reviewers for accepting the challenge of revie wing my English in this thesis, and for shar ing part of your life with my family making Gainesville the greatest place to study. Last but definitel y not least, I would like to manifest all my love to my family for fulfill ing me with love and kindness Denyse, my sweetest partner in the journey of life I share this moment with you. I wish to express my deepest gratitude from the bottom of my heart. I also would like to mention the special participation of my sons Gabriel, Naue, and Guto for comprehend ing my moments of absence. Thanks for the gift that is having Joaquim and Deque as part of my family Finally, thanks my parents and my Sister Adriana fo r always support ing my decisions, even the strange st one that was move away from their company to work in the Amazon. Me! Aonde quer que esteja a gora saiba que eu sempre segui... e seguirei, seus ideais de vida
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 16 R esearch Sites ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 17 Organization of the Thesis ................................ ................................ ...................... 18 2 ARE TO BE ADDRESSED IN CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENTS? ............................ 20 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 20 The Rol e Played by the Brazilian Amazon Forest in Climate Change .................... 21 The Inclusion of Forests in the Carbon Market ................................ ....................... 23 Who is Driving or Ad vancing Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? .................... 25 Main Deforestation Drivers ................................ ................................ ............... 25 Linking Deforestation to the Actors through Land T enure ................................ 27 The Protected Areas Allowing Human Occupation ................................ ........... 28 Deforestation and Land Use Strategies among Actors ................................ ..... 29 ................................ .... 32 Four Reasons to Include Extractivists, Small Farmers, and Indigenous Groups .... 36 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 40 3 A TOOL TO ENGAGE THE AMAZONIAN SMALLHOLDER PRODUCTION SYSTEM WITH THE POST 2012 CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITMENT ................. 46 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 46 Smallholder Occupation in the Brazilian Amazon ................................ ................... 47 Land Use Strateg ies of Amazonian Smallholders ................................ ................... 50 Factors Affecting Traditional Land Use Strategy ................................ ..................... 52 Methodology and the Study Sites ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Current Land Use in Acre and Par ................................ ................................ 59 Understanding Family Land Use Decisions: Typology Based on Source of Income ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 63
7 Simulating Land Use Decisions in the Acre and Par Sites Using Ethnographic Linear Programming ................................ ................................ 66 Validating the Model: The Business as Usual Scenario ................................ ......... 71 Extractivist Production ................................ ................................ ...................... 71 Annual Crop Production ................................ ................................ ................... 73 Livestock Produ ction ................................ ................................ ........................ 74 Perennial Crop Production ................................ ................................ ............... 76 First Scenario: Increased Prices of Extractive and Perennial Products .................. 78 Second Scenario: Increased Prices of Annual Crop and Livestock Products ......... 79 Conclusions about the Potential of the Ethnographic Linear Program Models to Understand and Predict Land Use Change ................................ ......................... 80 Smallholder Heterogeneity ................................ ................................ ............... 81 Smallholder Decisions Linked to Market ................................ ........................... 83 4 MODELING EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES ON SMALLHOLDERS ................................ ................................ ................................ 101 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 101 Importance of the Brazilian Tropical Forest to Global Climate Change .......... 101 Forest Based Carbon Trade for Smallholders ................................ ................ 103 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 106 Study Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 107 Economic Analyses of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Project Using Ethnographi c Linear Programming ........ 108 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ............................... 110 Five Year Model Estimation of Carbon Balance in the Smallholder ............... 113 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 114 Land Use and Deforestation Patterns in the Study Area ................................ 114 The F amily Lev el M odel of a Type I Smallholder ................................ .......... 116 Discussion and Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................. 120 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ..................... 129 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL ................................ ............ 137 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 151 BIOGRAPHICAL S KETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 164
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Proportion of the Brazilian Amazon biome allocated for each land destination class. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 43 2 2 Deforestation patterns related to each one of the rural actors in the Brazilian Amaz on ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 43 2 3 Comparison of propositions for carbon mi tigation and adaptati on ...................... 44 3 1 clustered by main cash production. ................................ ................................ .... 93 3 2 Smallholder cash income for each productive cluster. ................................ ........ 94 3 3 Model results for b usiness as usual scenario Values are in percentage of total household a rea ................................ ................................ .......................... 95 3 4 Model results for b usi ness as u sual scenario Values are in percentage of total household cash income ................................ ................................ ............. 96 3 5 Model results for increased pri ces of ex tractive and perennial products Values are in percentage of total household area ................................ .............. 97 3 6 Model results for increased prices of extractive and perennial products Values are in percent age of total household cash income ................................ 98 3 7 Model results for increased prices of annual crop and livestock products Values are in percentage of total household area ................................ ............. 99 3 8 Model results for increased prices of annual crop and livestock products Values are in percentage of total household cash income .............................. 100 4 1 Simul ation results for car bon stock payments and business as usual scenarios. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 127
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Historical d eforestation patter n in the Brazilian Amazon and the relation with actors. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 45 3 1 Distribution of smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon. ................................ ......... 88 3 2 Study sites location showing the difference in deforestation pattern. ................. 89 3 3 Two indicators of carbon emission from the study sites. ................................ .... 90 3 4 Land use patterns in Acre and Para study s ites. ................................ ................ 91 3 5 Deforestation patterns for a five year model. ................................ ..................... 92 3 6 Cash income proportion that comes from forest and pere nnial crops in the five year modeled families. ................................ ................................ ................. 92 4 1 Location of the r ural s ettlement area in Anap, Par State. ............................. 126 4 2 Changes in land use cover during the five year model for a type I farm, in the business as usual scenario. ................................ ................................ .............. 118 4 3 Fiv e year model using the business as usual and carbon payment scenario s. 127 4 4 Change of annual income during the five years of simulation for the models with and without carbon payment to t ype I f arm in Anap, Par. ..................... 128
10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts THE EFFECTS OF CARBO N TRADING ON THE SMALLHOLDER LIVELIHO OD PRODUCTION SY STEM. A CASE STUDY IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON REG ION By Ricardo de Assis Mello December 2010 Chair: Peter E. Hildebrand Major: Latin American Studies The human civilization is nearing a global climate disaster, and any proposition to alleviate the crisis is welcome. Reducing carbon emission and increasing terrestrial carbon storage is the priority to avoid an increase in atmospheric carbon, the main atmospheric gas related to climate regulation. Reducing tropical deforestation as appears to be the cheapest an d quickest action to reduce carbon emission, nevertheless a wide range of political and technical issues about the mechanism of implementation are still unsolved. Meanwhile significant deforestation is expected to take place in the Amazon forest in the n ext decades Brazil is the fourth largest carbon emitter in the world, where nearly 40% of historical emissions from deforestation derive from smallholders activities. At the same time, smallholders could play a fundamental role in forest conservation due to their ability to adopt a highly diverse production system that does not require clearing of forest for production in the same way as agribusiness or cattle ranching. Programs and political commitment to avoid deforestation are in debate and soon will b e implemented (such as REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
11 Forest Degradation). Internal and external interventions in smallhold consist of the adoption of new technologies, policies and institutional arrangements. In this context it is essential to understand the implications of these programs for This study analyzes p otential effects of carbon trading policies on smallholders living in two sites in the Brazilian Amazon: the Transamazon highway, in the east, and Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, in the west. Land use change and cash income variations were estimated through an ethnographic linear programming model over a five year period encompassing twelve households in both r esearch sites. Carbon balance was estimated based on land use change and us ing aboveground carbon estimat ion developed for the Amazon region. The research findings show that the ethnographic linear programming model is a robust methodology to unde rstand a livelihood and land use changes This methodology could be adapted to predict carbon balance at the policy implementation level. Results show that the main constraints on implementing a Reduce Deforestation and Forest Degradation p rogram with smallholders consist of a lack of integration between carbon initiatives and development of alter native production systems and consolidated markets for forest and agroforestry products. Failure to consider these research findings in the design of climate change programs aimed to Consequently, social inequality in the Amazon may be increased by the exclusion of smallholders from the developmental agenda.
12 1 CHA PTER 1 INTRODUCTION Tropical deforestation avoidance has achieved a high priority status on the climate change agenda for two reasons. First, carbon stored in tropical forests and released to the atmosphere by deforestation rea ched 20% of annual globa l greenhouse gas emission. Second, it is the cheapest and fastest strategy for reduc ing carbon emission ( Verchot & Petkova, 2009 ) The emergence of the climate change agenda as one of the highest global political priorities may potentially change the fate of tropical forests. In this scenario, the huge forested area in the Amazon makes it extremely important for conservation. Before the 19 80s, tropical deforestation was not perceived by society as a great problem. The main Brazi lian and international development agen cies did not include forest loss reduction as a goal to be reached with development projects This situation only changed when the negative effects of large scale development projects, mainly in the Brazilian Amazon, became evident. This negative image associated with deforestation was presented to the world by a coalition of environmentalists from the N orth with l ocal grass roots movements and i ndigenous peoples affected directly by these projects. The assassination o leaders, by cattle ranchers in the area where one larg e scale development project had been established prompted the need to change developmental policies in the Amazon. The global dimension of tropical defore stat ion was exposed to stakeholders f rom all over the world during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The result was the establishment of international agreements to act against the main dri vers of deforestation. Inclusion of
13 environmental regulations in international development bank projects, creation of an international f und to protect tropical forests, and creation of a Convention on Biological Diversity and Framework Convention on Climat e Change were set as legally binding agreement s ( UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2005 ) This first global mobilizati on against tropical deforestation brought forest dwellers to the forest conservation arena as central actors to implement sustainable uses of forest ( Nepstad & Schw artzman, 1992 ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) Since then multilateral agencies have been promoting and supporting initiatives that link environmental protection with forest livelihood systems dev elopment. How ever, despite the effectiveness of this approach to change environmental policies that have brought some trends in deforestation during the last decade, the reality of tropical forest use has not been transformed on a large scale. As a consequence of macr o policies and market expansion of agricultural commodities, deforestation has increased in the proceeding decades. A l ack of political support for compliance with environmental treaties resulted in l imited advance of environmental propositions regulating the agricultural sector, commercial trade and research institution agenda. The main international regulation agencies such as the World Trade Organization do not design or apply any environmental regulations ( Fergusson, 2007 ) As a result, the first global action to reduce deforestation and improve local livelihoods based on f orest use was not consolidated despite political advances A new round of possibilities emerges now within the climate change debate.
1 4 Climate change officially beca me part of the multilateral agenda during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climat e Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. This convention defined that countries should establish a climate change treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since then new technologies have been developed to measure and model large scale atmospherics patterns and relate changes in atmospheric composition to human activities. More intense glacier melting, hurricanes, droughts, sea level rise and other at mospheric phenomena have been associated with increased greenhouse gases concentration promoted mainly by fossil fuel us e ( IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007b ) In this context c limate change issues have become a maj or global environmental concern Despite the long process of convincing policy makers regarding the relevance and efficiency of inc it was only in 2005 that these appeared as important issues to mitigate climate change ( Moutinho, Santilli, Schwartzm an, & Rodrigues, 2005 ; Santilli et al., 2005 ) In Copenhagen in December 2009 during the 15 st United Nations Climate Change Conference the importance of including tropical forest in climate change agr eements was emphasized being one of few agreements to emerge from me eting. The term Reduction Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) was forged to represent all policies linked with introduction of forest in climate change agreements ( UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008 ) A refining of the REDD acronym was adopted to stress the importance of including carbon enhancement (REDD+) and land use change (REDD++). The term REDD is used in this thesis to represent all three concepts.
15 As mentioned in the first paragraph avoided deforestation has gained momentum and is considered as a win win policy among developed countries, which are the largest carbon emitters, and developing countries holding most of the tropical forests. Because buying carbon related to avoided deforestation is cheaper for high carbon emitte r countries in comparison to changing their energetic matrix, tropical forest countries have the opportunity to receive large amounts of financial resources as payment for reducing emission from def orestation. For this reason is imminent the establish ment of a large tropical forest carbon trade. In this context environmentalists and forest dwellers that were responsible for introducing forest in the climate change arena see REDD as the most promising opportunity to reduce deforestation and social inequalit y in tropical forests. However, as REDD implementation advances, there is no consensus on how to balance equity outcomes, cost efficiency and effectiveness of climate change mitigation ( Lewis, 2009 ) smallholders and indigenous groups are concerned with equity in REDD implementation ( Peskett, Huberman, Bowen Jones, Edwards, & Brown, 2008 ; UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008 ) If REDD focus es only o n reducing deforestation, carbon market agents will target the main drivers of deforestation such as large soybean producers, loggers and cattle ranchers setting apart smallholders and indigenous groups which have a marginal role in the deforestation process Market trends will direct resource allocation to areas with l ow transaction costs, such as those controlled by large landowners, a n example that happened in the volunteer carbon markets ( Hall, 2008 ) Exclusion of these traditional
16 tive effects to the long term transformation of forest conservation representing a huge social problem to countries with populated tropical forest areas, such as Brazil. Research Objectives This thesis aims to understand how effective REDD schemes are to reduce carbon emissions and to improve smallholders productive systems in the Brazilian Amazon. This stu dy is especially relevant in light of the need to understand impacts of REDD in The main concerns are to: 1) determine the ca simulate the effects of REDD policy on smallholders productive system s and income generation and 3) determine effectiveness of maintaining reduced carbon emissions through fire and forest manageme nt, and combined strategies of agriculture and cattle ranching. To address these issues I analyzed data from two regions with distinct land use trajectories: Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, in the state of Acre, and one Transamazon settlement, in the sta te of Par. The research objectives were to: 1) understand smallholders role on REDD target achievements ; 2) test the ethnographic linear programming model as an analytical tool for understanding changes in productive system and land use resulting from RE DD implementation; and 3) understa nd the effect of REDD projects o n household cash incomes. Research Sites Selection of study sites was based on the following criteria: presence of smallholders with different land use patterns; availability of previous stu dies; and
17 personal experience about land use history. Studies were carried out in the summer of 2008 in the municipalities of Xapuri, Acre (western Amazon) and Anap/ Pacaj, Par (eastern Amazon) where the most successful ProAmbiente Poles were implemente d. ProA mbiente is a pilot public policy in Brazil aiming to pay smallholders for environmental services ( Bartels, Schmink, Borges, Duarte, & Arcos, 2009 ) Methodology There has been a wide range of methodologies used to understand and model land use evolution based on profit maximization. How ever, this methodology is not attributes such as labor endowment, subsistence requirements and risk aversion ( Caldas et al., 2007 ) In this research an ethnographic linear program (ELP) was used methodology maximizes a goal bas ( Hildebrand, Breuer, Cabrera, & Sullivan, 2003 ) The modeling objective was to account for carbon balance and understand cash income va riations inside households For each study site two sources of data were used: 1) dataset s provided by ProAmbiente from 2004 (Par) and 2007 (Par and Acre) consisting of information on land use, family life history, livelihood activities, and product price s for 307 households in Par and 258 in Acre ; a nd 2) a survey applied in 12 households selected from the ProAmbiente dataset to represent livelihood systems based on extractive, annual crops perennial crops and cattle. My previous personal experiences of work ing in these areas and with the ProAmbiente program were key to facilitate the interaction with households and social movements in both sites.
18 Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized in four chapters. Chapter two gives an overview of smallholder livelihood systems in the Amazon based on previous studies on land use, deforestation, land tenure and conservation strategies. It discusses their potential to reduce deforestation and shift to new land uses. Land users are classified based on land tenure large farmers, small farmers, extractivi sts and indigenous populations and compared in terms of relevant characteristics to REDD implementation. At the end of this chapter the reasons for prioritizing small farmers, indigenous populations and extractivists in the context of REDD implementation are discussed Chapter three describes the use of the Ethnograp hic Linear Programming Model with smallholders in Transamazon and Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve as a method ive is to d evelop a tool allowing analysis of the effects REDD policies. To test the sensitivity of the model to policies, the method is tested with policies of credit, that already have well s Fi rst, sampled households are clustered acco rding to their main income source as Extractivist, Annual crop, Perennial and Livestock. Then, for each type, families are modeled individually to business as usual, credit to annual s and livestock, and credit to p erennial s and extractivism. Results show how famil y income composition a nd land use parcel s have changed over a five year period after the intervention of a credit policy. Models are the literature. In chapter four the Ethnographic Linear Programming Model is used to predict for the cluster of
19 smallholders presenting a more intensive deforestation rate and within this clus ter households with larger forest area s were selected. These households were holding more carbon and, therefore were a more adequate group to model prospective REDD projects The objective is to develop a particular methodology that is able to capture carb on release and sequestration due to land use change, applying indirect carbon valuations through equations and quantities defined in other studies. The model is used based on land use evolution previous to pro ject implementations, and carbon balance to scenarios of business as usual, project with carbon price of US$5/ ton of CO 2 and project with carbon price of US$10/ ton of CO 2 The chapter concludes discussing the effectiveness of REDD to stimulate changes in smallholders production in a scenario of no deforestation and no fire use to manage the land. The last chapter (fifth) summarizes the main findings of the study and discusses the challenges faced by REDD pol icy implementation to include millions of smal lholders in the Amazon. It also discusses the adequacy of using Ethnographic Linear Programming Models to predict land use change and the applicability of this methodology at the project level implementation. F inally, some of the research limitations and p otential results that could be taken as i nsights to develop new research and to adapt this research to other contexts are present When REDD programs reach the implementation phase, this research shows that smallholders will represent a huge challenge. It also shows however, that this small, wide spread, and deep ly root ed social actor in the Amazon ha s many potential contributions to share about of how to use carbon credit money in an efficient manner.
20 2 CHAPTER 2 ARE FOREST DWELLERS IN THE BRAZILIAN A BE ADDRESSED IN CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENTS? Introduction Today there is a growing consensus among countries that climate change effects will not be stemmed without reducing the current tendency towards tropical deforestation, which releases at least 20% of the total global carbon into the atmosphere. Although the world debates in global meetings about the contribution of anthropogenic carbon emissions to changes in global climate since the industrial revolution, the same world harb ors 1 billion people ( Chomitz, 2007 ) living in forests distant from this debate, who are less concerned with global issues Rather, they worry about how to survive until the next crop season, maintain their lands fertile for crops, and cope if rains do not arrive on time. The emerging question is: how to apply most effectively the financial resources generated by a future carbon market to stop carbon emissions by deforestation? In this context, is it possible to support large producers, smallholders and indigenous people using the same mechanism ? Is t h e inclusion of equity and other soc ial issues in the climate change agenda wanted or will it represent a bias in a mechanism that aim s to reduce carbon emission from forest ? This chapter grapples with these questions for the Brazilian Amazon, the largest tropical forest in the world. It begins by highlighting some key factors that drive forest conversion from the point of view of diffe rent human agents. Then, it describes the proposals of the main Brazilian players -the larger farmers, small farmers, traditional populations, and indigenous groups -to avoid or reduce carbon
21 emissions, and finally argues that including forest dwellers 1 is more just than a social issue, but also a strategic partnership to change short and long term carbon emission in the Amazon. The Role Played by the Brazilian Amazon Forest in Climate Change As the primary causes of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Panel ( UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008 ) h ighlights fossil fuel use and land use change plus agriculture the latter accounting for roughly one third of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions ( IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007b ) Forests play a twofold role in cl imate change by sequestering large quantities of carbon: growing trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air and store carbon by the process of photosynthesis Forests can also become a major emission source when the stored carbon is released into the atmosp here by means of forest degradation and deforestation. The Brazilian Amazon covers around 60% of the country (5.217.423 km 2 ) and it is one of the least populated zones in the world. The Amazon rain forest is the 1 Forest dwellers in this text have a similar connotation to the term traditional populations adopted by the United Nations, with the addition of living in forested areas, a nd having part of their production activities linked with the forest. They can be Indigenous, extractivists, or small farmers. For the Brazilian case, the indigenous are not included in this category due to the extreme difference in land rights and land us e between these groups. So, forest dwellers is here used to designate the conjunction of colonists, extractivists, and riverines (living on the banks of a river), who are characterized by low family income and a productive system based on family labor.
22 largest continuous tropical forest and sto cks 15% of the carbon in the world ( Nepstad et al., 2007 ; Santilli et al., 2005 ) Histori cal deforestation shown in Figure 2 1 results in reduc tion of the total forested area by 18 percent by 2008 ( INPE Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 2009 ) The governmental strategies of occupation and development of the Amazon in the past few decades transformed Brazil into the fourth largest carbon emitter in the world. The annual emissions caused by deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon are estimated at 200 million tons per year ( Houghton, 2005 ) plus the unintentionally burned area that emits up to 150% more carbon than deforestation alone in el Nio years ( Cochrane, 2001 ; Nepstad et al., 2001 ) Global models simulating changes in weather conditions in Amazonia predict an increase in drought frequency and intensity ( Malhi et al., 2008 ) A recent study ( Phillips et al., 2009 ) about the effects in t he forest of the severe drought of 2005 shows that the Amazon forest, which usually absorbs 2 billion tons of CO 2 emitted about 5 billion tons of CO 2 in that year, more than all rtant to include tropical forests in global warming agreements. Despite the very recent slowdown in deforestation rates since 2005 ( INPE Instituto Nacional de Pesqu isas Espaciais, 2009 ) is still potential for huge deforestation in Amazonia, as more roads are built and as international demands for tropical timber, soybeans, and beef continue to grow. Figure 2 1 show two recent deforestation peak s in the 90s and 00 s related to smallholder credit expansion and agribusiness expansion simultaneously. Existing pressures might be exacerbated by accelerating worldwide demand for biofuels maybe the next proximate cause for deforestat ion ( Nepstad, Stickler, & Almeida, 2006b ) Current
23 development plans and lack of governance could reduce the forest area from 5.2 million Km in 2001 to 3.2 million Km by 2050 ( Soares Filho et al., 2006a ) This exceeds the likely threshold for rainfall maintenance and would emit 328 billion tons of carbon ( Malhi et al., 2008 ) more than the projected reduction in carbon emission by 2012, the end of the first international commitment to carbon emission regulation. T he Inclusion of Forests in the Carbon M arket The international forum about climate chan ge was organized by the United Nations in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), which was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 The main agreement negotiated as an amendment to the convention was the Kyoto Protocol, under whi ch industrialized countries agr eed to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. At this time, credits for forest maintenance were excluded until 2012 ( UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2005 ) due to doubts on how to control carbon storage and the negative effects on carbon price s of cheap forest carbon that could create disincentives for other initiatives of fossil fuel emission reduction. Until today the only way to com mercialize carbon credit s fr o m natural forests is through the volunteer market. But thi s market represents less than 2 % of the regulated market and the forest participation in this market is less than 1% ( Hamilton, Sjardin, Marcelo, & Xu, 2008 ) In the regulated market, developing countries are not obligated to reduce emissions until the end of the first climate change commitment in 2012. However, the aggravation of the carbon emission scenario by developing countries, mainly
24 China due to industrial growth, and forested countries, especially Brazil, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia beca use of rising deforestation rates, brought these countries to the center of the debate. If these countries continue to cut down their forests, all the carbon emission reduction due to changes in fossil fuel proposed by the Kyoto agreement will be overcome by the carbon release due to deforestation ( IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007b ) The most influential fact leading to inclusion of forests was the support of countries such as Costa Rica, Indonesia, Congo, and a posteriori Brazil, which together hold most of the threatened forests in the world ( UN FCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2005 ) Previously opposed, forested countries and environmental movements came to see the problem as a window of opportunity ( Karsenty, Pottinguer, Guneau, Capristano, & Peyron, 2008 ) Bringing value to the forests as carbon reservoirs, and associating deforestation with the low value of standing forest as well as the lack of resources to protect the forests, are the goals of these countries in getting financial resources to promote forest conservation and recuperation. the global arena of climate change, overcoming the init ial mistrust caused by the perception that their inclusion would make carbon prices fall, due to the abundance of carbon offered, then making infeasible the technological change needed to reduce industrial carbon emissions. Since the meeting held in Montre al in 2005, forested countries have presented proposals to include standing forests as one alternative for the carbon market in an attempt to include it in trades between annex I and anne x II countries (developed and develop ing nations, respectively).
25 Duri ng the COP 13, the Conference of the Parties from the UNFCCC, held in December of 2007, forests were officially included in annex II countries with the name of REDD, Reduction of Emission from Deforestation and Degradation ( UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008 ) This scheme will compensate tropical countries for their nation wide reduction in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in accomplishing the Policy makers per ceive this new carbon trading mechanism as a great opportunity for short term carbon reduction, while the fossil fuel en ergetic matrix changes. A n amount of more than 15 billion dollars for REDD payment is expected in the next 5 years ( Johns et al., 2008 ; Moutinho et al., 2005 ) Brazil, holding the greates t tropical forest in the world, should receive large amounts of carbon credit in this new regime under negotiation. Who is D riving or A dvancing D eforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? The ways to reduce deforestation have been discussed for more than three decades in the Amazon, and defining the agents and what the motivations are is the first approach to try to initiate it. Geist and Lambin ( 2002 ) analyzing 152 cases in tropical areas with high deforestation rates, deduc e that the most prominent underlying causes of deforestation and degradation are economic factors, lack of governance, and remote influences that drive proximate causes of agricultural expansion, timber extraction, and infrastructure extension. Main Defore station D rivers Deforestation and degradation in Brazil follow the same global pattern. The Brazilian policy makers perceived the Amazon forest as an empty frontier. The
26 the na tional vision that the Amazon forest must be colonized ( Hebette & Marin, 1979 ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) These policies catalyzed the greatest rural population growth trend ever in the Amazon, which increased from nearly 1 million inhabitants in the 1960s, to about 4 million at the beginning of the twenty first centur y ( Hall, 2008 ; IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica, 2006 ) Since then, large properties of cattle and soybean, timber extraction, as well as smallholder farmers, have changed the socio economic and environmental profile Until the 70s, t he main deforestation drivers we re cattle ranchers, subsidized by the Braz ilian Government, and small farmer colonization induced by government policy that brought a huge migratory fl ux to the heart of the Amazon. On this period, roads crossing a great part of the Amazon were opened ( Hebette & Marin, 1979 ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) During the 80s and the first half of the 90s, Brazil faced an intern al debt crisis that shrunk the s tate capacity to invest. Deforestation during this period was mostly related to illegal activities caused by spontaneous intraregional migratory fluxes of poor farmers from the Northeast region, and the illegal app ropriation of large land areas ( Costa, 2005 ) This period was characterized by large scale credit for the first time to small farmers. Most of this credit was used by th ese farmers to introduce livestock activities, resulting in a defo restation peak in 1995 ( Figure 2 1 ). After this period, Brazil adopted a neoliberal doctrine focused on opening the international market to producer s and increasing exports. Combined with currency devaluation, the export oriented sector became extremely competitive ( Laurance, 1999 ) leading to an agribusiness boom that was directed toward international markets. Moreover, the development of new
27 crop varieties and the increase of inte rnational food demand led to agr icultural expansion in the Amazon tropical forest. This new phenomenon driving deforestation, described by Nepstad et al. ( 2006b ) emphasizes the influence of global trade on deforestation, a process they ( Figure 2 1 ). As a result, the Amazon landscape became a mosaic of land u ses that already lost 18% of the original biome. With 78% of all open areas involved in cattle ranching, it is the most widespread activity, growing 77% between 1985 and 2000 Annual crops cover 10% of the deforested area, and the remaining open areas are covered by fallow, degraded areas and perennial crops ( Rodrigues, 2004 ) The forest products, which were traditionally the basis of the Amazon economy, are losing their importance in most of the Amazon, and even timber is not the priority in the new frontier dynamics ( Barreto, Pinto, Brito, & Hayashi, 2008 ) Linking D eforest ation to the A ctors through L and T enure Developing a deeper understanding of the relationship between Amazonian of these links is by attributing land rights to the main agents ( Barreto et al., 2008 ; Nepstad et al., 2001 ) In the Amazon there are f our main types of land designation: Con servation Units, Indigenous Reserves, private areas, and public lands without designation ( Treccani, 2001 ) This definition was used to link agents to the land in this chapter, and the results are showed in the Table 2 1
28 The clear separation of land among these groups is difficult d ue to the extent of irregularities associated with land titles. Barreto (2008) found that 92% of al l private land in the Amazon had some kind of problem in their legality, mainly in properties larger than 200 ha. Using the limit of area to categorize a div ision between what can be considered small farms and agribusiness, INCRA (National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform) defines small farms as those with areas up to 200 ha ( INCRA Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agrria, 2002 ) Using this classification, Barreto (2008) found that 36% of the private land areas and 94% of the number of properties is o wned by small farmers. Considering the whole Amazon, small farmers retain 4% and large farmers 12% of the area, the great majority illegally occupied. Deforestation on private properties is allowed by law up to 20% of the total area ; however the majority o f these properties have already been deforested more than the legal limits ( Pacheco, 2003 ) The P rote cted Areas Allowing Human O ccupation Conservation Units and Indigenous Lands which comprise 10.3% and 23.4% of the total Amazonia area respectively ( ISA In stituto SocioAmbiental, 2008 ) Conservation units r epresent 43% of the Amazon area. It was expanded by 28% during the last 5 years ( ISA Instituto SocioAmbiental, 2008 ) Despite the fact that sustainable use conservation units allow deforestation due to activities previously approved in their management plan, there are constraints regulated by law that make it more difficult to deforest, such as limiting cattle production 2 The most 2 F or more details about conservation units in Brazil see SNUC ( 2000 )
29 important conservation unit category that allows people to live inside is the Extractive Reserve (RESEX), which was designed to align the concept of cons ervation with development goals in this case for extractive populations ( Cronkleton, Taylor, Barry, Stone Jovicich, & Schmink, 2008 ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) Later, the importance of this land tenure for climate change mitigation an d adaptation will be discussed. Indigenous reserve legislation gives to the indigenous groups per manent use rights over their land, but they have no special benefits outside of the reserve, and most of the time they need official permission to sell their products ( Capobianco & Verissimo, 2001 ) Some indigenous lands have been act ively protected from outside invasion by their own indigenous groups, which exert efficient control over the border ( Capobianco & Verissimo, 2001 ; Ricketts et al., 2010 ) Deforestation and L and U se S trategies among A ctors The land use dynamics are very different among small farmers, extractivists, indigenous, and large farmers, leading to different pattern s of deforestation. The extent to which the forest is integrated into the livelihood strategy is one of the most important indicators of the degree to which carbon is emitted from the system. The relation between forest and poverty has been discussed exten sively in the literature ( Chomitz, 2007 ; Dasgupta & Maler, 1994 ; Pagiola, Arcenas, & Platais, 2005 ) These studies conclude that in general, people who have their economy based on extractive production are poorer than people whose economy is based on annual crops and cattle. Among extractivists, low deforest ation patterns are correlated with lack of financial resources, difficulties to access market, or low labor availability. If these constraints are overcome, extractive
30 people may become small farmers ( Gomes, 2001 ) Reynal et al ( 1995 ) studying small farmers in Marab, Brazil, found a tendency of specialization in cattle production after 20 years of lot occupation by the family. The forest and extractive production give way to cattle, the more profitable activity in that area. Farmers who are unable t o follow this sequence sell their pr operty to small farmers who are cattle specialists. Extractivist smallholders are different from small farmers because of two main characteristics that make the deforestation patterns different. The first is the intensive use of the forest biodiversity suc h as rubber, plant oils, game animals, fruits, fishes, and others ( Kainer & Duryea, 1992 ) that make the forest valuable for them. Second, social and cultural values mean that the traditional economic cost benefit analysis is not so meaningful, as is the case for small farmers. Interaction with forest in the same area for generations and contact with indigeno us populations make this actor introduce cultural values for forest, which is not perceived in small far mers or large landholders. The combination of this two characteristic makes deforestation be smaller than in small farmers ( Gomes, 2001 ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) The large landholders have a very different pattern of land use decisions. The forest does not interact with the production system. The most intense use of forest is timber exploitation, t hat later is converted to pasture or mechanized agricultural land. The rate of deforestation is determined by financial resource availability, market demands for commodities, and access to market, mainly defined by the presence and quality of roads ( Alencar et al., 2004a ; Nepstad, Stickler, Filho, & Merry, 2008 ; Soares Filho et al., 2006a )
31 Each of the above mentioned actors has different land use strategies that define their deforestation pattern over time, depending on internal and external factors such as currency valorization, commodity prices, subsidi es, infrastructure, and others. During the 1980s and 1990s, small landholders and cattle ranchers we re the most relevant actor s accounting for deforestation ( Pasqu is, 1999 ) ; however since 2000, deforestation within large soybean farms and large cattle ranches has increased dramatically ( Nepstad et al., 2006b ) Estimating deforestation from small farms is not easy due to difficulties of determining property boundaries by satellite images. Thus, estimates of total deforestation from smallholder land use in the Amazon r ange widely from 1% ( Pacheco, 2003 ) to 65% ( Sawyer, 2001 ) with a range of intermediate values ( Fearnside 2005 ; Nepstad et al., 2006b ; Nepstad et al., 1999 ) Brando and Souza Jr. ( 2006 ) overlapping official deforestation data with settlement polygo ns found that 15% of the total deforested area was implemented by small farmers. Deforestation inside extractive reserves and indigenous lands is less intense than outside the reserves. Nepstad and Schwartzman ( 2006a ) found deforestation to be 1.7 times and 8.2 times lower inside than outside extractive and indigenous reserves respectively, showing that people l iving inside these areas play a n active role in developing subsistence strategies that conserve forest bet ter, compared with others actors. In the last twenty years more than two thirds of all deforestation can be related to increases in livestock by medium and large farmers ( Margulis, 2004 ) These characteristics are compiled in Table 2 2
32 mplem ent Forest Carbon D eals T his section will present and discuss the processes that have been implemented in the Amazon to change deforestation patterns and carbon emissions by small farmers, extractivists, indigenous people, and large farmers. The results ar e synthesized in Table 2 3 The large farmers or agribusiness actors, deforest as a means to increase production in response to market stimuli for more commodities. The optimal solution for the landowner is conver ting all the available land into crop or pasture. Forest has no value, and its maintenance depends on the opportunity cost of the land ( Lemos & Roberts, 2008 ) Although t hey have no intention to include forest in their production system, they can take advantage of the carbon market by greening their farm s through increasing riparian forests or implementing specific best management practices such as contour s a nd zero fire p asture management This environmental compliance could represent a market advantage compared with non compliance farm s, and tie d to a process where farms are registered in a geo referenced database with activities au dited to monitor implementation of envir onmental compliance L arge producers could then sell the carbon from deforestation avoidance as an incentive for this land use change (Nepstad 2008). The great uncertainty is if carbon value of REDD payments will compensate the costs associated with impl ementing environmental ly friendly activities within a scenario of increasing demand for food and biofuels ( Johns et al., 2008 ) However, it is unlikely that the carbon market will successfully induce voluntary large scale carb on emission mitigation because the opportunity cost to produce agricultural commodities is so high. The more likely scenario to mi tigate carbon emission is
33 environmental law enforcement by the government, which will make it more expensive to grow soybean s and pasture in forested areas. However, without social pressure, the government has no interest to reduce private profit from gros s domestic production. Directed campaigns such as the one coordinated by Greenp eace links consumption of M caused by cattle ranching in the Amazon The subsequent threat of reduced market demand could effectiv ely reduce deforestation ( Greenpeace, 2008 ) The approach forces landowners to internalize the negative externality costs to the environment, that today are paid by th e global society, into their production costs. Deforestation by indigenous populations is minimal compared to the other actors ( Soares Filho et al., 2008 ) Some indigenous groups have been intensifying cattle and annual crops inside their reserves, but it is not the most common practice ( Carvalho, 2000 ) Th e greatest threat to their forests comes from outsiders entering in the reserve to practice illegal timber extraction and, in some cases, burning and deforesting and thus gra bbing the land illegally ( Elasquez, Villas Boas, & Schwartzman, 2006 ) Because indigenous reserves provide efficient barrie rs to deforestation (Nepstad et al 2006) they could be interpreted within a REDD framework as candidates for receiving massive financial resources On the other hand, however, REDD schemes need to prove additionality in deforestation (the difference in def orestation with and without REDD project), and this additionality might be considered small with indigenous lands because by law, they cannot be integrated to the commodity market. The proposal, very strong at this moment (WSF 2009), is that indigenous gro ups have been
34 historically acting as forest guardians, and REDD is the opportunity to reinforce this role for 23% of the Brazilian Amazon land, at low cost among all the other areas (Nepstad 2008). The extractive populations have low deforestation rates to o, mainly associated with the most intense use of forest and low demographic density when compared to small farmers in colonization areas. Extractive populations have three main constraints to maintaining their areas forested: The devaluation of the main extractive products, lack of viable production alternatives that conserve forest, and the presence of external pressures leading to illegal deforestation, such as timber extraction and cattle ranching ( Salisbury & Schmink, 2007 ) Like indigenous reserves, extractive reserves have proven effective in slowing deforestation when compared to land outside of the reserve border ( Nepstad et al., 2006a ) This fact associated with the history of extractive populations in the Amazon as forest guardians, enables the National Rubber Tapper Council, a social movement representative of the extractivists, to have the same argument as the indigenous movement. The Forest Alliance is an organization established in the 80s that unites non indigenous and indigenous peoples in a common pro environment agenda With the support of national and internationals NGOs, they are pr esent at the majority of international forums that discus REDD, requiring the inclusion of social issues in the debate and to guarantee the rights of traditional populations in the carbon market ( Aliana dos Povos da Floresta, 2008 ; UNEP United Nations Environment Programme, 2008 ) The small farmers differ from indigenous and extractivists in that their land use leads to more intense deforestation and results in a more heterogeneous
35 production system that produces forest loss ( Perz, 2001a ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ; Walker, Moran, & Anselin, 2000 ) Despite this general tendency, there is a consensus among scientists and producers that this production system does not pr omote long term sustainability f o r the families ( Tura & Costa, 2000 ) This evidence led the rural workers movement to start an ambitious movement to change this reality. The proposition was to help producers switch from the traditional slash and burn agricultural practices to more diversified and sustainable agricultural an d extractive practices, thus slowing down forest conversion and carbon emissions ( Bartels et al., 2009 ; Hall, 200 8 ; Wunder, Borner, Tito, & Pereira, 2008 ) Unlike existing a gricultural credit programs, ProAmbiente a Brazilian initiative of payment for environmental services would create an incentive for more su stainable economic activities by compensating, directly or indirectly, family based producers for good agricultural practices and associated environmental services. This program had massive support of small farmers, and engaged more than 4000 small propert ies in the Amazon. However, despite its success among the small farmers, the program has failed to attract the political power and investments needed to implement the production changes ( Hall, 2008 ) a s a consequence of the lack of governmental support to this initiative ( Bartels et al., 2009 ) In the REDD debate, small farmers and extractivists claim that the Brazilian governm ent should support them through resources from the Amazon Fund, recently created to receive donations supporting Brazilian initiatives of carbon emission reduction (Paulo Moutinho, personal communications). Preliminary studies found the potential of carbon emiss ion reductions from ProAmbiente to be
36 more than 430,000 ton of CO 2 that could result in more than US$ 1200/year/family ( Carvalho, Moutinho, Nepstad, Mattos, & Santilli, 2004 ) Four R easons to Include Extractivists, Small Farmers, and Indigenous G ro ups The REDD carbon offset scheme will not resolve all the environmental and economic concerns in the Amazon, and the best choice to apply REDD money should be where it presents the best opportunity cost to reduce deforestation, not only during the duratio n of the project, but promoting durable land use change. Using the criterion of permanence, w hich actor group should be the focus of a REDD program in the Amazon? The question is not easy to answer, and actually any answer could be contested. This section offers an overview of the issues that make the Brazilian Amazon forest interesting within the climate change agenda, and presents evidence that reduced carbon emissions from avoided deforestation can only be achieved if the interests of local actors are c onsidered in the next climate change commitment in 2012 was presented (UNFCCC, 2008). The previous sections in this chapter prese nt evidence that the main deforesters changed in the last two decades from large cattle ranchers to small farmer s in the 90 s t o large soybean producers in the last decade ( Morton et al., 2006 ) At least 70% of all deforested area becomes pasture (Nepstad et al., 2008). Howe ver, little evidence suggests that strat egies to avoid deforestation could pay the opportunit y cost necessary to avoid the expansion of soybean and beef into forested areas, due to the high profitability of these products ( Wund er et al., 2008 ) Another impediment is an important legal aspect
37 associated with this issue. The majority of large landowners have no legal property rights, which could represent a barrier to develop long term carbon projects ( Amacher, Koskela, & Ollikainen, 2009 ) If owners cannot be paid enough money to cover their opportunity costs and the costs to increase carbon socks in the short term, other market mechanisms, such as certification co u ld be more effective. Over the last decades, a series of new market interventions have been implemented, such as ce rtification of products, for which consumers would pay a bonus However, these initiatives have been failing in two main points: the market does not demand high scale certified products, and the bonus paid for certified product does not compensate increase s in production costs ( Taylor, 2005 ) Perhaps with climate change concerns growing within consumers, the pressure over government to change the world trade of commodities could be the best alternative to reduce deforestation over large owners of fore st areas inducing permanent changes in production system ( Greenpeace, 2008 ) The other group of actors, the indigenous, extractivists, and small farmers, control almo st forty percent of the Amazon area, a rate still increasing with the creation of new legalized lands (Barreto, 2008) They have deforested less than large farmers, despite having lived in the Amazon much longer and having produced the majority of food con sumed in the Amazon region ( Costa, 2005 ) If deforestation is gr e ater in large landhold ings what can justify discuss ing REDD to benefit small landholders? In the next paragraphs I present some reasons why investing REDD money to change permanently the productive systems of indigenous, extractivists and small farmers into low emission systems is a promising field.
38 The first argument relates to the issue of social justice. These peoples comprise more than two million individuals who live from the mouth of the Amazon River to its headwaters From highly threatened ecosystems to pristine forest areas there are Amazonians managing the f orest They produce about 93% of the cassava flour, 95% of the rice, 100% of the beans, and 58% of the cattle in the Amazon ( Costa, 2000 ) On the other hand, most of the smallholders in the Amazon live on less than two dollars per day, the poverty line established by the Word Bank. This poverty is the result of low prod uct prices associated with deficient market opportunities as well as inadequate roads and rural technical assistance ( Brner, Mendoza, & Vosti, 2007 ) REDD schemes could represent an opportunity to open markets to forest products and associate carbon monitoring with production monitoring allowing an increase in the price for some low carbon products and reducing the transactional costs of the certification process for both carbon and products ( Wunder, 2008 ) In the Amazon the main possibilities tested to reduce deforestation are to include perennial crops, pasture management, silvopastoral systems forest management, and fire management and control ( Perz, 2001a ) All are related to lessening the pressure on forest conversion and at the sa me time increasing family income. These initiatives have being spread all over the A mazon with promis ing results to increase family income ( Almeida, Sabogal, & Brienza, 2006 ) The second argument in favor of these actors is land tenure one of the main REDD problems to include tr aditional populations in many parts of the world In Brazil small farmers, extractivists and indigenous have land rights assured by law, despite implementation problems in land title policies (Barreto et al., 2008) Even
39 the doubt about the rights of indig enous groups to receive credits for their forest due to the special regime of land tenure was proved not to be a legal impediment ( The Katoomba Group, 2008 ) A third and compelling argument to include these groups relates to the capacity for their live lihood systems to change to low deforestation systems An effective way of reducing deforestation rates on small farms is to make agriculture more productive and sustainable and make the forest more valuable Agriculture will continue to be an important ac tivity for large numbers of people in tropical regions. An increase in productivity through intensification, for example, can lessen the pressure on the agricultural frontier and reduce deforestation. Von Ambserg ( 1988 ) argues that agricultural improvements will only have positive effects on deforestation if they do not increase the profitability of agricultural activities in newly cleared areas. It has been argued that technologies that promote the intensification of agriculture could lead to a decrease in deforestation rates; however, the link between technology and a decrease in deforestation rates is ambiguous ( Angelsen & Kaimowitz, 2001b ) Another possibility is to make the forest become economically a ttractive to local populations. Timber management practices ( FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2005 ) and non timber forest products ( Nepstad & Schwartzman, 1992 ) were considered some of the best ways to raise forest based incomes for local people ( Perez & Byron, 1999 ) The REDD mechanism can support both 1) an increase in the value of the forest through the payment for biomass carbon, and 2) a chan ge from the slash and burn crop system to lower carbon emission crops such as agroforestry systems and rotational crop systems.
40 The fourth reason to consider small farmers, extractivists, and indigenous groups relates to the opportunity cost of implement ing REDD schemes. Studies from Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amaznia IPAM ( Mattos & Nepstad, 2002 ; Mello, 20 08 ; Stella, Pinto, Rettmann, Mello, & Castro, 2009 ) show the mitigation cost for small farmers in the Transamazon ProAmbiente pole is about US$6 ton of CO 2eg or US$22 per ton of Carbon. This value is the amount needed to compensate small farmers to maintain family income during the project implementation phase Comparing with IPCC findings ( IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007a ) that only 25% of the carbon emitted by agricultural activities could be mitigated at carbon values less than US$60 per ton of carbon, the opportunity cost to invest in smallholders is highly competitive. Conclusions During recent years human beings have been challenged to reverse the pattern of carbon emission to the atmosphere, a global threat as never seen before. The United Nations c oordinates the main policy forum where international agreements have been discussed since 1997. However, only in 2005 was the Kyoto protocol ratified, becoming a legally adopted international regulation about climate change. Since then little progress occu rred in the implementation; the world not only missed the goal to reduce global greenhouse gas emission by 5.2% compared to the year 1990, but also, global emission increased by 38% ( UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008 ) In this scenario, forests become a major issue due to their twofold effect on the carbon balance. Defor estation in tropical areas is responsible for one quarter of the global emissions. Since 2005 during the COP 12 tropical forest stands have
41 become an issue to be addressed in the next climate change protocol that will replace Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Meanw hile polemic issues must be addressed in any future tropical forest agreement. The most important issues are how to keep track of forest carbon stocks changes as well as the socio economic effects brought about through reduced deforestation. The first issu e has been addressed by an improvement in the technology associated with remote sensing technics ( Angelsen, 2008 ) The Brazilian system, for instance, makes it possible to mo nitor deforestation at municipality level ( INPE Institu to Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 2008 ) The second issue is more complex and involves a rearrangement of the socio economy in forested areas to make a living without relying on deforestation. In this chapter, the case of the Amazon tropical forest in Brazil was analyzed in the context of its possible interactions with the main climate change issues, such as how to reduce deforestation without increasing poverty. The analyses focused on identifying the main drivers and actors converting forests, and di scussing the interactions between them and climate change forest policy. Small farmers, extr activists, and indigenous group characteristics enable these groups to request significative attention in REDD discussions. D iversified and labor intensive producti on system s and control over large forest areas even if individual possessions areas are small, makes them able to reduce deforestation based on a livelihood system adaptable to the introduction of low emission carbon systems, which are important for the s uccess of any carbon efficient project that aims to change the human carbon footprint. For this reason, transition to a new Amazon economy, which uses intensive forest biodiversity, fits better in these
42 groups than in the agribusiness model, that has no ec onomic use for forest resources, and payments to avoid deforestation are not likely to fit the opportunity cost to avoid expan sion of soybean, cattle, or other monoculture and at same time induce a permanent change in these production system Other options such as direct market forces driven by well informed consumers that require the certification of best management practices among large soy and beef producers are likely to have a much more positive impact on conservation of forests in this sector In the third chapter, the smallholder production system will be analyzed using two case studies: first the Transamazon Highway, one of the oldest small holder c olonization areas in the Amazon; second the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, one of the most representat ive example s of extractive population s that had the ir land rights recognized in the 90s.
43 Table 2 1 Proportion of the Brazilian Amazon biome allocated for each land destination class. Land allocation c ateg ory No. Area (Km) Proportion of the b iome (%) Military area 6 26,235 0.6 Indigenous land 281 987,219 23.4 Strict protection State 44 137,385 3.3 Federal 37 231,072 5.5 Sustainable use State 72 201,918 4.8 Federal 80 233,523 5.5 Total protected 520 1,817,355 43.0 Small farmer 918,225 4.0 Large f armer 524,700 12.0 Undesignated land 1,792,725 41.0 Source: Adapted from ( Barreto et al., 2008 ; Soares Filho et al., 2008 ) Table 2 2 Deforestation patterns related to each one of the rural actors in the Brazilian Amazon. Source: Chapter compilation. Actors Land t enure Deforestation d rivers Contribution to deforestation a Small f armers < 200 ha Credit, market, infrastructure 15% 40% Extractivists Extractive r eserves Extractive products market < 0.4% Indigenous Indigenous l and Illegal extraction, mining < 0.5% Large f armers >200 ha Market, roads, credit, currency valuation 30 % 60% Logging, roads, mining, dams, urbanization < 5% a Compilation of values present by authors cited in the text. The percentage is the total amount of deforestation.
44 Table 2 3 Comparison of propos itions for carbon mitigation and adaptation. Source: Chapter compilation. Actors Advantages Disadvantages Propositions Large f armers Large deforesters Large areas High cost to avoid deforestation High possibility of leakage Land tenure Receive the eq uivalent of their loss to stop producing Certification to environmental compliance Indigenous groups Land tenure Large areas Livelihood system Verify project additionality REDD to increase land borders security Money to guarantee culture values Extractivists Land tenure Large areas Livelihood system Lack of governmental support to implement the reserve management plan REDD as source of financing forest management Small f armers Land tenure High deforestation pressure Small areas Fragmented forest REDD resources to ProAmbiente program of payment for environmental services
45 Figure 2 1 Historical deforestation pattern in the Brazilian Amazon and the relation to actors. [Adapted from IN PE. http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/] S mallholders Credit (FNO) Large farmer (Market + Exchange)
46 3 CHAPTER 3 A TOOL TO ENGAGE THE AMAZONIAN SMALLHOLDER PRODUCTION SYSTEM WITH THE POST 2012 CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITMENT Introduction Annual land use decisions of smallholder farmers, estimated to approach a million in t he Amazon, have significant impacts on the future of the largest rain forest. Given the biodiversity and climate change consequences to humanity of the disappearance of this forest as well as in the livelihoods of marginalized and poor smallholders, it is of technologies, policies, and institutional arrangements and to predict their land use implications and reactions to internal and external factors. This chapter aims to find whether differe nt smallholder characteristics in the Brazilian Amazon contribute to land use change, and if they do, what is the impact of this land use evolution on deforestation and family incomes. Potential adoption of two market strategies and their economic and envi ronmental impacts were predicted using a farm level ethnographic linear programming model. The four production systems were centered on extractive products, centered on annual crops, centered on perenn i als, and centered on livestock. The chapter begins by presenting Amazonian smallholder characteristics that link their livelihood s to climate change issues. Then it describes field data for the Transamazon and Chico Mendes extractive reserve site s. This includes the family livelihood production system s ident ifying sources of income, impact on forests of the production system s as wel l as the main land use strategies. Then a n ethnogra phic linear programming model is applied to
47 understand smallholders land use decision making T he potential of this tool to pla nning household level intervention projects aiming to change production systems is then discussed Smallholder O ccupation in the Brazilian Amazon During the last century, almost all tropical rain forests have suffered some human intervention that drives f orest cover losses. At the same time, the population that depends on forest stands has doubled to approximately 800 million ( Scherr, White, & Kaimowitz, 2004 ) From 1990 to 1997, 5.8 1.4 million ha of humid tro pical forests were razed each year, and another 2.3 0.7 million ha of forests were degraded ( Achard et al., 2002 ) The actors and factors behind this phenomenon are diverse and range from local dynamics to global market teleconnections ( Geist & Lambin, 2002 ; Kaimowitz, Mertens, Wunder, & Pacheco, 2004 ) Brazil has a similar development pattern. The Brazilian policy makers perceived the Amazon forest as an empty fron the Amazon forest must be colonized ( Hebette & Marin, 1979 ) Since then large properties o f cattle and soybean, timber extraction, and smallholder farmers have changed the socio economic and e nvironmental profile resulting in 20% forest cover reduction, and the prediction that by 2050 current trends will eliminate a total of 40% of th e Amazon forests and degrade another 40% ( Nepstad et al., 2008 ; Soares Filho et al., 2006a ) The demog raphic trend in the rural population, from nearby 1 million in the 195 0s, mostly indigenous and ex tractive populations, to about 6 million at the beginning of the twenty first century, suggests the need to
48 implement Amazon forest conservation actions that have a strong link with the improvement of human welfare ( Hall, 2008 ; IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica, 2006 ) The occupation of the Brazilian Amazon by smallholders co mprises a wide range of different types of socio economic arrangements that have specific imprints on forest use a nd deforestatio n. The most widesprea d smallholder occupation was linked with forest extraction of rubber latex, which brought to the Amazon hundreds of thousands of immigrants from other Brazilian regions, mainly the northeast region. The migration occurred in two waves when the external de mand for rubber grew: the first due to expansion of manufacturing of bicycle and automobile tires at the end of nineteenth century, and the second came with the Second World War as a consequence of the interruption in rubber supply from Asia ( Barham & Coomes, 1994 ; Salisbury & Schmink, 2007 ) After 1945, when the war effort was abandoned rubber pro duction struggle d. In addition to the traditional rubber system, rubber tappers become diversifie d producers, commercializing annual crop production, other extractive products, such as Brazil nut and other seeds, and, recently raising cattle ( Gomes, 2001 ; Salisbury & Schmink, 2007 ) These new forms of extractivism, called neo extractivism or agro extractivism, reflect changes i n traditional extractivist systems, incorporating a wider variety of activities, including timber, diverse non timber forest products, agriculture and cattle product ion ( Rgo, 1999 ; Ricketts et al., 2010 ; Scherr et al., 20 04 ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) The smallholders that encompass these characteristics are called ( Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) for the purpose of this study.
49 Despite these changes in the livelihood system with the increase in livestock and annual crop production, extra ctivists still have low deforestation rates ( Salisbury & Schmink, 2007 ) Nepstad ( 2006a ) found that inside extractive reserves, a most deforestation was 1.7 times higher along the outside of the reserve perimeters versus the inside, with only about 3% of the reserve area deforested in 2007 ( Soares Filho et al., 2008 ) By 2008, 43 RESEX (Extractive Reserves) had been created in the Amazon with a total area of 118,204 km 2 representing 2.6% of the Amazon forest biome ( ISA Instituto SocioAmbiental, 2008 ) encompassing more than 123,000 families ( CNS Conselho Nacional dos Seringueiros, 2006 ) The foll owing sequence of smallholder migrations to the Amazon biome happened after the 1960s with governmental promotion of in migration from overpopulated regions of Brazil, mainly from the impoverished northeast and from southern farmer s who, with the advance o f the Green R evolution, were forced off their lands. To accommodate these new migrants and expand the occupation of the Amazon, the government implemented the most ambitious plan, transforming the Amazon landscape forever: 1) roads were opened in thousands of kilometers of forest to interconnect the region; 2) mining and dam projects attracted large contingents of poor northeast migrants ( Becker, 1991 ) ; and 3) large and ambitious smallholder colonization projects ( Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) w ere developed along the roads. As a result between a half million (IBGE, 2006) and two million ( CONTAG Confederao Nacional dos Trabalhadores na Agricultura, 2004 ) small farm families now controlling 4% of the biome ( Figure 3 1 ), generating 71% of the total rural production value, and growing 89% of the daily food ( IBGE Instit uto
50 Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica, 2006 ) The increase in production was accompanied with deforestation. A study by Pacheco ( 2004 ) compiling data from the National Aerospatiale Institute (INPE) and National Institute f or Agrarian Reform (INCRA) associated 35% of the deforestation accounted for by 2003 in the Amazon biome to small farmers, defined by the authors as farmers possessing less than 100 ha. Land Use Strategies of Amazonian Smallholders Understanding land use inside smallholder areas in the Amazon requires a holder interpreted as the Russian economist Chayanov described the farms in Russia after the revolution of 1917, in that smallhol der decisions could be explained by family subsistence requirements and labor availability in situations where land was abundant and labor limited ( Reynal et al., 1995 ) In this situation, family consumption and pr oduction had a strong relation. This situation characterizes the early Amazonian frontier, the situation where the Chayanovian model could be applied. However the existence of market conditions, even in early colonization areas, that absorbed production an theory was not sufficient to explain family decisions ( Walker, Perz, Caldas, & Silva, 2002 ) systems in the Amazon has been described by Reynal et al. ( 1995 ) as a sequence of three phases: installation, diversification and specialization. The first characterizes the moment when a farmer enters a property fully covered by forest; the household depends on forest products to survive. Small forest openings to
51 g row annual crops are the main labor investment. During the second phase, families start to have surplus annual crop production, which is mostly invested in cattle production. In the third phase, pasture becomes the dominant landscape that now has better in frastructural conditions, mainly roads, providing better access to market, which expands the possibilities of production. The land use evolution for extractivists follows a different logic than for small farmers despite carrying similar cultural values and migrating from the same region, the northeast in the great majority. One of the explanations is that extractivists (rubber tappers) migrated to the Amazon region as employees of rubber concessionaires to extract latex, and were not allowed to develop any other agricultural activity ( Almeida, 2006 ) Another possible reason is the contact with indigenous groups who taught them how use forest resources in multiple ways. Finally the constraint imposed by the rubber production system in the early stages of family occupation and the market for rubber made it possible for rubber tappers to learn how to use the forest resources instead of reproducing a traditional production system from the region of migra tion. This is one of the reasons why small farmer families usually start land use with slash and burn for annual crops before starting to diversify ( Walker, Homma, & Scatena, 1998 ) Despite the difference in land use among extractivists and small farmers, in the last decades the tendency to increase cattle production has grown among extractivists. This change is due to the end of subsidies for rubber and the reduction of the market price for rubber and other extractive products, such as Brazil nut. At the same time a credit line to finance cattle prod uction was created ( Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) In this context annual crops (rice, maize, and cassava
52 flour) became the main cash crops, and cattle the savings, a strategy similar to that developed by small farmers ( Muchagata & Brown, 2 003 ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) A good example of the extent of cattle ranching is a study by Salisbury & Schmink ( 2007 ) in which the percentage of families raising cattle grew from 4% in 1994 to 90% in 2004 in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, and there is no evidence that the Amazon cattle ranching expansion has reached a limit ( Kaimowitz et al., 2004 ) Understanding how cattle ranching became a success with smallholders who do not have knowledge of cattle breeding, nor the resources needed to start the activity, could be important to understanding the mechanism s to implement changes in the current production model driven by cattle ranching Factors Affecting Traditional Land Use Strategy Despite the fact that Amazonian smallholders follow the land use patterns described above, there are also many cases where farmers opt for different production systems. Over the last 20 years smallholder organizations have created allian ces to develop production alternatives that reconcile livelihood improvements with standing forest ( Almeida, 2006 ; Costa, Hurtinenne, & Kahwage, 2006 ; Mello, Souza, Carvalho, Assuno, & Pereira, 2006 ) The post UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio 92) environmental approach brought s ubstantial support for Amazon social organizations introducing the idea of co management, or appropriate sharing of responsibility between states, NGOs and local communities. As a result, the Amazon region experienced a boom of community based natural reso urce management initiatives ( Zhouri, 2006 ) Currently the main initiatives for diversification of production systems of Amazon smallholders are perennial crops, improved cattle ranching pra ctices, and
53 forestry. Perennial crops are based on the experience developed in C entral America by CATIE (Centro Agronmico Tropical de Investigacin y Enseanza) and called agroforestry system, in which multiple forest species are cropped in the same area, re producing the secondary forest growth system ( Ara ujo, 1997 ) The constraints are the req uirement of good infrastructure such as roads and electricity, and the necessary allocation of considerable labor and capital investments. The advantage is the diversification and intensification of production, pro ducing more per hectare. The second diversification system is an improved cattle ranching system. The traditional system is changed to increase the production per area and have perennial crop production associated, mainly timber species. The main constrain t of this system is the requirement of financial investment to introduce the improvements, most of the time not competitive with the opportunity cost of the land ( Walker et al., 2000 ) The third system is forestry, which involves management of timber and no n timber forest resources. The idea behind these initiatives is to develop new procedures to increase productio n of forest products and not degrade the resource. The main constraints are lack of knowledge and the limited market for managed products ( Zarin, 2004 ) The support for sustainable initiatives has been growing during the last two decades as a new market conservation too l through direct payments for environmental services (PES) ( Hall, 2008 ; Lemos & Roberts, 2008 ; Mayrand & Paquin, 2004 ; Wunder, 2007 ) The basic principle behind PES is that resource users and communities that are in the position to provide environmental services, such as water, forest, an d soil conservation, should be compensated for the costs
54 of their provision. In addition, those who benefit from these services should pay for them, thereby internalizing these benefits ( Mayrand & Paquin, 2004 ) The most ambitious PES schema designed in the Amazon was ProAmbiente. Unlike existing agricultura l credit programs, ProAmbiente, a Brazilian initiative of payment for e nviron mental services, aims to create an incentive for more sustainable economic activities by compensating, directly or indirectly, small farmers for good agricultural practices and as sociated environmental services. This program had massive support of small farmers, and engaged more than 2500 small properties in 12 poles across the Amazon. Families enrolled in the program received technical assistance to design a plan to change the pro duction system to reduce forest burning, water contamination, soil erosion, and initiate sustainable forest usage. Households received support to access credit and an additional $50 per month as a direct payment for the environmental services rendered. The payment was discontinued due a lack of funds but the program still exists in six poles. Acre and Transamazon poles are getting support from the state government and NGOs to continue the rural extension and payment for PES. Once a ProAmbiente program is im plemented, the potential to reduce carbon emission for participant families is about 430,000 Ton s of CO 2 in 15 years, which could result in more than US$1200 per year per family ( Carvalho et al., 2004 ) Although PES is still incipient, it represents the best option to provide the resources needed to implement diversified production systems. Wunder ( 2007 ) cites some reasons why PES was not able to promote large scale results to
55 conservation and remained at a pilot scale: failure to attract buyers, to have measurable impacts, and to be easy for the local population to understand and implement. ProAmbiente failed to attract buyers. However, a new factor that recently has been introduced in the debate about development in tropical forest areas is the significant impact of greenhouse gases (GHGs) accumulation in the atmosphere because of deforestation. Combining forest degradation caused by high impact logging, smallholder shifti ng cultivation, accidental wildfires, and forest fragmentation, the annual emissions from land use change during the 1990s produced about 20 25% of the total anthropogenic emissions of GHGs ( Houghton, 2005 ) Because of emerging knowledge about climate change and the urgency felt by governments to respond, the role of tropi cal forests to avoid global warming is getting closer to serving as a basis for international financial flows to conservation than are other PES such as biodiversity maintenance, water management, or non use values. During the 13th Conference of Parties th at occurred in Bali in 2007, the schema will compensate tropical countries for their nationwide reduction in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Climate chang e decision makers perceive this new carbon market as the best opportunity for short term carbon emission reduction, while the fossil fuel energetic matrix changes. If the lower REDD green gas emission reduction costs are confirmed, the commercialization of more than 15 billion dollars in the next 5 years is expected, much more than all the others PES jointly ( Johns et al., 2008 ; Moutinho et al., 2005 )
56 Many studies consider the REDD mechan ism to be the most important tool to change tropical forest use through the valorization of the forest by the non consumption market ( Hall, 2008 ; Karsenty et al., 2008 ) Moreover, this mechanism should catalyze sustainable forest use by rural communities, that now own or likely to d ouble again in the next 15 years ( Scherr et al., 2004 ) The question that remains unanswered is, what real contribution a future post Kyoto agreement including REDD mechanisms will make to change poverty, and to i nclude indigenous populations and marginalized smallholding forest dwellers. The concern was manifested by the organizations of the Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities of Latin America, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia, whi What is the impact of REDD on the traditional peoples and indigenous populations? May it represent the privatization of our forests? ( Aliana dos Povos da Floresta, 2008 ) traditional knowledge is key to resp ond to new times, and we (the traditional and indigenous populations) demand to participate in the REDD debate as prominent contributors ( UNEP United Nations Environment Programme, 2008 ) This demand refers to two main concerns that are related to the thesis objectives. First, carbon accountability needs to incorporate the heterogeneity of production and reproductio n livelihood strategies, allowing REDD to be more than Second, tools must be developed to facilitate capacity building inside smallholders groups to deal with carbon issues, such as linking land use to carbon balance
57 This chapter pursues part of the answer to these two questions using an Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) model ( Hildebrand et al., 2003 ) to develop a tool which makes it possible for small landholders to define for themselves how land use will change inside their production system due to some carbon related intervention In addition, this model, with small modifications, can be accessible to any extensionist to read and inte rpret the outputs, needing only a computer with Microsoft Excel To test accura cy and sensitivity of the ELP in capturing real family livelihood strategies, the study was carried out together with producers who have been working in ProAmbiente. They also have an innovative system of planning land use that fits with the ELP matrix. The heterogeneity of land use types is captured based on the annual family consumption and cash income requirements of extractivists, and is also cattle, annual crop, and perennial crop centered. The research was conducted in the Transamazo n and Acre Poles using ProAmbiente databases and field interviews. Methodology and the Study Sites There has been a wide range of methodologies used to understand and model land use evolution, mainly using the assumption of maximization of profit. However, this hat include a wide array of family attributes including labor endowment, subsistence requirements, and risk aversion ( Caldas et al., 2007 ) In this study an ethnographic linear program (ELP) was used to simulate land use evolution of different types of smallholder families.
58 To capture the heterogeneity of land use associated with small farmers in the Amazon this study was carried out in the summer of 2008 in the municipalities of Xapuri, Acre (western Amazon) and Anap/Pacaja, Par (eastern Amazon) ( Figure 3 2 ). The sites were defined based on the availability of previous studies about land use history, encompassing the entire range of land use trajectories, from extractivism to cattle ranching, and two of the most successful ly implemented ProAmbien te Poles. This range will facilitate the future use of the methodological tool to simulate land use changes. For each Pole I had access to questionnaires and databases generated by the Brazilian Ministry of Environment and FVPP 3 in the Par site, and PESAC RE 4 in the Acre site. Both have partnerships with IPAM 5 an NGO with large involvement in climate change policies. This dataset contained information for 307 households collected in 2004 and 2007 for Par, and for 258 households in 2007 in 3 FVPP Fundao Viver Produzir e Preservar Organization that congregate s small farm producers in the Transa mazon region with the objective of supporting intervention in public policies, providing technical assistance, and formal education. They are the main supporter of ProAmbiente since 2000. 4 PESACRE Agroforestry Research and Extension Group in Acre Organ ization with sound experience in develop ing research and extension activities for small farmers rubber tapper s and indigenous groups in Acre, and is the local ProAmbiente coordinator. 5 IPAM Environmental Research Institute for the Amazon has been work ing in this area since 1999 providing support to ProAmbiente implementation. IPAM also has participated in all the COPs since 2003 and is a member of the ProAmbiente National Council.
59 Acre. The data w ere collected in a one day period for each household. The procedures for data collection include d structured interviews, vegetation sampling along transects to survey the main land uses, and handwritten diagrams to collect information about production stra tegies and plans for the future ( APPENDIX A ). The data included information on land use, family life history, livelihood activities, and prices. There were also 12 interviews applied to selected households with th e objective of actualizing and checking information collected by the organizations in the process cited above. This section starts by describing current land use in the study sites in Acre and Par for each one of the types of household, then introduces th e model variables, constraints, and mathematical statements and finishes with model results for each type in situations of high and low marketable prices. Current Land Use in Acre and Par General characterization of the study sites : This section present s the general characteristic of the two study sites to contextualize the study sample with a broad view of processes, institutional arrangements and other aspects that help in understanding household land use decisions. Acre : The Acre study site was locate d in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (CMER), working with families that are part of the ProAmbiente program ( Figure 3 2 ). The field interviews were conducted in rubber tapper estates (seringal) Nazar and Flore sta. CMER is one of the first conservation units within this category, an innovative land allocation that congregates forest conservation with land use. The extractive reserve model was created as an answer to Acre rubber tappers and environmental group su pporters that complained about the
60 increased threat t o their forest and, as a consequence, against the rubber tapper livelihood strategy ( Salis bury & Schmink, 2007 ) The creation of RESEX was well received by the government that needed to contain growing deforestation rates and solve land tenure pro blems of extractive populations, disseminated to the media by Chico Mendes and the National Rubbe r T apper s Council ( Gomes, 2001 ; Nepstad & Schwartzman, 1992 ; Schmink & Wood, 1992 ) Each traditional resident receives a land use concession corresponding to the area of rubber trees exploited by the family to be used mainly for extractive production. Up to 10% deforestation of the area to implement other land uses is allowed. All land use is previously defined in a Reserve Management Plan defined in a common consensus between the IBAMA/ICMBIO, a Governmental institution responsible for conservation unities, and residents ( IBAMA Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovveis, 2006 ) The Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve was created in 1990 with a total area of 970,570 ha in six municipalities of Acre. It included 44 % of the 7,000 residents living in Xapuri County at the time, who lived from extractive pro duction of rubber and Brazil nuts, among others, and subsistence annual cropping. However a recent trend from forest extraction to more intensive cattle ranching is occurring as result of the decline in the price of rubber latex and the end of subsidies ( Gomes, 2001 ; Salisbury & Schmink, 2007 ) The results of land use strategy changes are reflected in deforestation inside the reserve polygon ( Figure 3 3 ). During the last 8 years the amount of standing forest decreased from 97 % to 93%, a loss of 38,800 ha in this period. Considering the 1,878 families inside the reserve, the average deforestation for each family was
61 20 ha, or 2.5 ha each year. The intensification of forest slash and burn associated with the very dry year of 200 5 originated the worst fire event in recent history of the reserve, burning 80,000 hectares of forest ( Brown et al., 2006 ) The two seringais sampled had some special characteristics. First, they have one road crossing the area that reduces the time from Xapuri to less than one hour; second, they have Brazil nut, a valua ble natural resource; third rubber exploitation started again in 2008 in response to demand for natural latex f rom a new enterprise founded in Xapuri to produce condoms. Par : Contrary to the Acre site that has a history of forest use, the second site was colonized to support agricultural production. The Par study site was located in Anap and Pacaj Counties, State of Par, in a settlement area located in the eastern part of the Brazilian Amazon, 600 km or 12 hours by car from Belm, the state capital a nd near the Xingu River ( Figure 3 2 ). The area receives annual precipitation exceeding 1,700 mm with five dry months per year with less than 50 mm precipitation ( ANA Agencia Nacional de guas, 2006 ) Th is seasonal rain pattern define s the agricultural cycles and the high inflammability index of the forest in the dry season ( Nepstad et al., 2004 ) This area was colonized in 1972 when the Transamazon highway was opened in the hea rt of the Amazon tropical ( travesso ) each 5 km long and running perpendicular to the highway ( Rocha, 2003 ) The total population of Anap and Pacaj is 56,152 with a demographic density less than 2.55 inhabitants/ k m living in a situation of low GINI index (0.40) revealing the lack of access to medical, educational, and infrastr uctural services.
62 Most of the population located in this rural area (75%) is living o n small farms. According to the IBGE ( 2006 ) census, 68% of the population more than 10 years old is involved in some kind of agriculture animal husbandry forestry, and fishing activities. The small farmers interviewed up t o 10 km from the Transamazon highway had been settled by the government 20 years ago, while migrants farther from the highway moved in without official permits. The former received subsidies and technical assistance to grow cacao and develop pasture and d eforested more area than the latter ( Rocha, 2003 ) Another notable characteristic is the increase in land conflicts between landless families, the timber industry and large landholders that culmi nated with the a ssassination of Sister Dorothy Stang in 2005. After this tragic, but common event in Amazon frontiers, the Brazilian government started to regularize land outside of the original settlement and now land titling is happening in the region ( Schwartzman, Alencar, Z arin, & Santos Souza, 2010 ) Current ly, the land is mainly used for cattle ranching and subsistence agriculture. Seventy f our percent of the deforested land is classified as cultivated grazing ; 29% of it is in differe nt degradation stages. This producti on of perennial and annual crops, mainly cacao/banana (25%) and manioc flour/corn (32%) is one of the largest in Par. Extractivism is restricted to timber extraction, mainly illegally, that accounts for the major ity of employment in the cities; however it generates only 8% of the rural income ( IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica, 2006 ) Yet this region has suffered the loss of 17% of the standing forest over the last 7 years and now only 64% of the forest cover remains ( Figure 3 3 ) the greater part degraded by high impact logging and fire.
63 Fire s have a strong positive correlation with land use in the Amazon. A study by Alencar ( 2004b ) showed that fires in dry years could spread over closed canopy f orest, degrading intact forests. Fire occurrence in the last seven years in the region clearly shows the intensity of land use change ( Figure 3 3 ) The tendency of reduction in fire occurrence after 2004 is an int eresting situation that proved the efficiency of command and control instruments to reduce environmental degradation. When the Federal Government started land regularization and enforcing environmental laws as a consequence of Sister Dorothy murder, fire declined. However fire occurrence is still high. Between 1986 and 2004, about 5,743,858 ton s of carbon per year w ere emitted from deforestation in 240,000 ha of forests alone ( Mello, 2008 ) Understanding F amily L and U se D ecisions: Typology Based on Source of Income To ascertain the land use patterns and ul timately the long term processes of landscape change among the smallholders of Acre and Par sites, the farm sample was grouped by similarities. The typology adopted for this work follows the division proposed by Pinchn ( 1997 ) for smallholders in the Ecuadorian Amazon r egion. The study used a combination of neo classical economic principles, where farmers manage the landscape as they would any other useful resource to maximize utility constrained by exogenous (market and environmental) and endogenous (household labor) ch aracteristics ( Browder, Pedlow ski, & Summers, 2004 ) with a demographic Chayanovian framework that emphasizes the role of family dynamics in farming ( Perz, 2003 ) Pinchn ( 1997 ) estimated the number of farms sharing common land use characteristics based on a statistical cluster
64 algorithm. The resulting typology consisted of four discrete classes of farms: Forest centered; diversified; past ure centered; and perennial centered farms. Browder et al. (2004) comparing other study results suggest that diverse factors have influenced land use and forest conversion decisions. The variables that appear as the most important correlating with differen t farming systems are soil fertility, available adult farm labor, age of farm, off farm income, land tenure security, and farm distance to market ( Browder et al., 2004 ) A similar typology was applied in this study using as the dependent variable householder income composition instead of area in a spe cific land use. The concept is that income expresses land use strategy more than land use area. Each smallholder was clustered based on its income in: Cluster 1: Extractivists if more than 50% of the income comes from timber or non timber extractive activ ities; Cluster 2: Annual crop if more than 50% of the income comes from annual crop activities, such as rice, maize, cassava flour, and beans; Cluster 3: Perennials if more than 50% of the income comes from perennial crops, including any production origi nated from a crop with more than a one year cycle and; Cluster 4: Livestock if more than 50% comes from livestock (cattle/diary/chicken/hogs). F our land use clusters emerged from the combined survey data: Cluster 1, was still in forest and 74% of income from extractive products; characterizing 23% of the households surveyed; Cluster
65 income from rice, maize, and cassava flour ; N NIAL includes 16% of the overall sample ; and households represent s the majority of the sample, with 48% of the cases. The descriptive statistics for each cluster and one show that the clust ers do differ significantly in the mean source of household income from extractive, annual crops, perennial, and livestock. The Acre sample did not have households defined as type 3 Perennial. Cluster Livestock in Par had the greatest concentration of inc ome (91.2%), and livestock in Acre had the lowest income concentration of any one activity (51.7%) ( Table 3 1 ). The annual crop clusters have no significant difference; all other types differed between sites. In ab solute values the total income was not significantly different among extractivists, perennials and livestock, but did differ from the annual crop cluster ( Table 3 1 ). The perennial cluster had the highest income ($ 3,882) and the lowest income occurred in the annual crops centered in Par ($1,113). Income in Acre was always greater than in Par. For rural producers, household income results from land use decisions. Each cluster has a footprint in the landscape that is associated with land use. The most important characteristic for land in the Amazon is the effect on forest stands. Annual crops, livestock and perennial clusters do not differ in terms of percentage of forest remaining. The extractivist cluster does dif fer from the others. There is also a significant difference between Acre and Par sites, where Acre had forest stands greater than Par within the cluster. Extractive types had the greater forest stand (91%) and perennials the least (60%) ( Figure 3 4 ). In absolute values
66 the forest area in Acre is six times greater than in Par, on average. The smallholder size in Acre is 386 ha while in Par the average is 90 ha. Larger pastures occur in the livestock cluster in Pa r (32.5 ha) and the smallest pastures are among extractivists in Acre (3.8 ha). Land allocated to annual crops had a significant difference between perennial and the other clusters. The perennial cluster showed a significant difference from other clusters in terms of area growing perennials. The largest area is on cluster 3 perennials (4.8 ha) and the smallest area of perennials occurs in cluster 1 extractivism (0.4 ha). Two demographic characteristics, family size and years in the area, and one spatial characteristic, distance from market, were included in the comparison ( Table 3 1 ). The Acre site differed from Par in both demographic characteristics. Acre has larger families (average of 4.8 persons) and a longe r time of residence (average of 15.7 years) than Par (2.1 persons and 8.3 years of residency). Livestock in Par had the longest residency time among other clusters in Par. Distance to the market was measured using hours from the household to the next ci ty. The results showed that perennial producers were located nearer the market than other clusters. In Para, extractivists are located farther from the market (3.9hr) and perennials nearer (1.8 hr). Simulating Land Use Decisions in the Acre and Par Sites Using Ethnographic Linear Programming The previous section shows that smallholder livelihood systems are a composite of diversified production systems, varying from household to household in a complex interaction among internal and external factors linked to family demography, biophysical conditions, and location, among other factors. The
67 explanation of land use decisions needs to account for this complexity ( Walker et al., 2002 ) To understand the reality, and how factors are interacting in a multi complex system, is not an easy task. The use of models helps to understand how one or more variable s can be predicted from the set of explanatory variables. Models in social science and elsewhere can be regarded as fulfilling two roles: explanation and prediction. The explanatory role allows relationships in the data to be understood more fully; the pre dictive role allows the results to be generalized to other datasets. The existence of a linear relationship between the x and y variables is often assumed ( Austin et al., 1998 ) The objective of this chapter is to, based on field data, develop a model that explains the reality observed in the pre vious section, and be able to predict land use changes. The conceptual framework of modeling smallholders : The conceptual framework to study small landholders place s a family at the center of decision making in resource allocation and consumption ( Hildebrand et al., 2003 ) All fluxes of inputs and outputs associated with production converge at and diverge from the family. The use of Ethnographic Linear Programming developed by Peter Hildebrand and colle agues at the University of Florida, was ch osen due to three main advantages: first it was designed to work in dynamic and complex multi year situations; second it diverge d from traditional linear programming -this method incorporates soci o cultural parameters, changing nutritional requirements, e volving household composition, and other factors to enhance the dynamism, representing a real world livelihood system ( Hildebrand et al., 2003 ) ; third the
68 model is developed in any ordinary computer with Microsoft Excel that facilitates a posteriori use by farming system extension agents in th e Amazon. Our model was created in Microsoft Excel with the standard Frontline System Solver add in, which maximizes the sum of the gross margins for all activities included in the model, following the objective function ; where X j are the production or other activities i n a small farm; c j the forecast gross margin of each X. Each activity is subjected to constraints R i : the use of the resource i needed to operate an activity j cannot exceed the available amount of th e resource held by the household ( Lewis, 2009 ) The equation form of constraints in the model is ; where b i is the amount of resource i available. The objective of this model is to maximize the sum of annual cash available for discretionary spending over five years after meeting subsistence needs of the household Each year is divided into two semesters to account for seasonal household activities. The cash flow is defined by the mix of products sold in the market, non farming activities, such as social security benefits and temporary work, and consumption requirements, such as purchase of food, clothes, and spending on leisure. The ELP model keeps track of how many hectares of forest and other land uses are contained in any year and the length of time of the different land uses, allocating household income each year to consumption and on farm investments. The ELP mode l is calibrated to a set of initial conditions that define the model's starting point in terms of the resources available (land, labor and cash), the existing land uses and the prevailing technology and prices for each one of the four householder clusters that aggregate the main variability among land
69 uses in the regions: 1 extractive; 2 annual croppers; 3 livestock producers (cattle and small animals); and 4 perennial producers. The model imposes t hree constraints on household decisions: 1 ) farm siz e: the area used for all farm activities cannot exceed the farm size; 2 ) labor: households use primarily family labor, but could hire people if cash is available or work for others to earn cash; and 3) household consumption requirements. The labor needed f or activities varies between semesters and gender and family composition evolution was calculated based on incremental yearly age and randomly generated probability of marriage and death, both based o n municipal census data A household must have money fo r farming and for the necessary household expenditures each year. For this model gender disaggregation for cash income was not introduced due to the limitation of information in the data collection methodology, de spite the importance of this kind of analys is in the model. The surplus generated in any semester is transferred to the next semester as beginning cash. Some staple crops are grown primarily for household consumption and requir e a minimum level of production to meet family needs Model sensitivity of land, capital and labor based on external market values is a current important issue related to change in land use in the Amazon ( Amacher et al., 2009 ; Boserup, 1973, c1965 ; Costa, 2005 ; Geist & Lambin, 2002 ; Nepstad et al., 2006b ; VanWey, ) Does an economic incentive such as the Acre government subsidies t o rubber have positive effects on slowing deforestation? Does an increase in beef price have a positive correlation with deforestation? These are questions always mentioned; however, they are difficult
70 to answer. An ELP model can help to understand and pre dict effects of interventions in small landholdings, a very current question when climate change issues are putting the focus on the Amazon to answer the question: how to slow deforestation without increasing the poverty of s mall landholders in the Amazon? The model was calibrated with information from four families, one from each cluster, whose livelihoods where explored in depth to feed the model variables. The model used the value of products found in the field data. This model was called Business as Usu al because it explains the situation as it is. It tested the influence of market price changes on land use and deforestation for increased prices for extractive and perennial products and for annual crop s and cattle. The models were first run for a 5year period to create a business as usual scenario against which results of product price oscillations c ould be compared. The baseline scenario incorporates prices running at the time of field research, for any property products, and collected in the place wher e the specific product wa s commercialized. Place of commercialization has a strong influence on prices for producers. In general, prices closer to the final consumer are higher. However rural producers generally do not have access to retail markets but rat her sell to a middleman, often receiving unfair prices ( Molnar et al., 2008 ) reducing producer capacity to increase production by intensification of labor and capital or increasing area where avail able ( Reynal et al., 1995 ; Walker et al., 1998 ) As previously discussed, most options to slow deforestation and reduce poverty of rural small landholders are the Amazon is based on intensification of the production system, applying more labor and capital. The result is increase d income pe r hectare of land. The effect of market price increases on household land use,
71 without introducing any new technological improvement, was tested using the business as extractive and perennia prices for extracti ve products and perennial crops, as a strategy to value standing forest and stimulate producers to introduce perennial crops in substitution of annual crops and cattle raising. T he second scenario is a simulation of householder reaction to commodity price increases as an answer to global food supply shortage s by increasing demand or decreasing p roduction due to climate change ef fects. The results for both scenarios are presented in the following section. Validating the Model: The Business as U sual Scenario Extractivist Production Households depending on extractivism represent 23% of the total sample of this study. Most of these households are located in the Acre study site. Extractivist families in Acre and Transamazon sites differ in their land use strategies. Extractivists in Acre use the forest as an important part of their livelihood strategy, while extractivists in Transamaz on use forest resources usually during their first years in the land to capitalize for future investment in cattle production. Extractivists in Acre have an average of 16 years of permanence in the same area; while extractivists o n the Transamazon usually stayed in the same area for only 2 years, the shortest period of stay. The household studied is located in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, in Acre. This site is the best place to develop extractivist activities among the two study sites. The household Seringal
72 from Xapuri city. Access to the area is facilitated by good road conditions during the entire year. The family of five has live d olocao The land encompasses 450 ha, of w hich 439.5 ha are covered by forests. The remaining 10.5 ha include 4 ha of secondary forests, 1.5 h a of annual crops, 1 ha of home garden and 4 ha of pasture. The household is composed of three male adults, two female adults, and three children. In ter ms of income, the main production systems are rubber and Brazil nut extraction. These production systems generate about 800 kg of latex and 6400 kg of nuts, producing 75% of the family annual cash income. Annual crop production of manioc and maize (15%) and cattle ranching (10%) make up the remaining 25% of the annual family cash income. A family member employed as a health agent provides an additional 26% to the total cash income. Business as usual model for e xtractivists : The model was used first to pro ject land use change tendencies. The five year smallholder production model shows a tendency to maintain the same rate of 0.6% forest loss per year, about 13 ha in the next five years. The forest area cleared is used to grow annual crops (93%), and a small portion is used for pasture. After the annual crop harvest, the area is abandoned and turns into fallow (62%) or is converted into pasture (38%). As result, the pasture area will double to 8 ha (1.8% land size) and the fallow area will triple during same period ( Table 3 3 ). Second, the model explored changes in household income sources. Table 3 4 shows that family cash income increased from US$ 4,100 to US$ 4,481 as a result of increases i n manioc and cattle production. Revenue from extractivist production decreased by 2%; however, proportional to the total family cash
73 income, the reduction was 11%. Revenues from annual crops and livestock increased, respectively, by 19% and 17%. Annual Cr op Production Households primarily engaged in annual crop production represent 13% of the sample, and are concentrated in the study site in Par. The production system is based on slash and burn agriculture. This practice is the least costly and most effi cient way for smallholders to produce annual crops, since the vegetation burned releases nutrients to the soil and reduces pests and diseases. Annual cropping is considered as transitional production because smallholders usually need to change from annual crops to cattle or to perennial crop production, or they need to migrate to another forest area before their current working area is completely exploited. Most producers primarily engaged in annual cropping are located in Par site, two and half hours by bus from Anap city. Access to the area during the rainy season is difficult due to bad road conditions. The family has 85 ha of land; sixty percent of the area is cover ed by forests impoverished by frequent burns and by timber exploitation. The famil y is composed of five adults (two males and three females) and one child. They moved onto the land seven years ago. At that time, the area was fully covered by forest. The 34 ha of area opened is used for pasture (14%), annual crops (6%), fallow (18%), and pere nnial crops (2%). At the time of the interview (baseline) annual family cash income ca me from on farm activities and off farm activities. The on farm cash income is composed of 61 % from annual crops ( 55% from manioc flour alone ) The second main source of cash income was livestock, mainly cattle (20%) and chickens (4%). Households
74 also had a small production of banana and cacao that represented 15% of the family cash income. Forest extractivism wa s practiced only for subsistence, and not so frequently. O ff farm activities complement ed their annual income by an additional 14%. Business as usual model for annual c roppers : The five year annual cropper smallholder model shows a tendency to maintain the same rate of 2.6% forest loss per year, the highest rate among the types of households studied. According to the model, forest cover will be reduced by about 60% to 52%, a loss of 7 ha of forest. The forest area cleared is used for annual crop production. The pasture area increased by 53%, from 14 ha to 26 ha; while the fallow area decreased by 24%. This indicates that the household production started to change from agriculture to cattle ranching. The total family cash income of annual crop producers incre ased from US$ 4,516 to US$5,568, 14% more than the income come from extractivist activities (table 3 4) Family production continued to r ely on annual crops, but it bega n to make a transition to cattle ranching. This change was expected to occur sometime during the family life cycle ( Perz, 2001b ) The relative contribution of annual crop revenue to the family income decreased from 60% to 53%, while the incom e from livestock production increased from 24% to 38%. Surprisingly, the relative contribution of perennial crop revenue to the family income decreased from 15% to 8%, with no area increment during the five year period. Livestock Production During the la st decades, cattle ranching grew among smallholder producers. Producers primarily engaged in livestock activities represent 48% of the study
75 sample, 68% of the sample of the Par study site and 12% of the sample of the Acre study site. The household studi ed for this model is located in the District of Anap about two hours by bus from the city of Belm Access to the area is difficult during the rainy season due to bad road conditions. The family, composed of four adults and two children, has lived in th e area for sixteen years. They are originally from Maranho s tate and had no previous experience with cattle ranching. The total land area i s 110 ha, 68% of the area covered by degraded forest. The area of 32 ha of forest that has been cleared is used for pasture (93%). The remaining area is used for annual and perennial crop s and fallow. There is a clear preference for cattle ranching over other activities. Cattle ranching accounts for 71% of the household income, mainly through the commercialization of d airy products and calves (table 3 4 Year 1). Perennial crops (cacao and coffee) contribute 20% of the total family income; while annual crops contribute 9% of the income, the lowest value for annual crops among the households studied. This family has no o ff farm income. Business as usual model for livestock producers : The five year smallholder livestock production model shows a tendency to reduce deforestation rates. Over 12 years since the family came to the land, forest stands decreased at an annual rate of 2.6%. The area of forest stands decreased from 110 ha to 75 ha. The model predicted a reduction in th e deforestation rate of 3.3% to 1.9% per year. This reduction of deforestation was also predicted by the household, who thought they would not be able to extend pasture area due to lack of labor. The pasture area increased by 9% in five years, covering 38% of the total land Perennial and
76 annual crops occup ied 2.2 ha of the area, and the fallow area occupie d less than 3.1 ha ( Table 3 3 ). Table 3 4 show s model results for family income. I ncome increased 16% in five years, reaching US$ 5,960. The income is still based on livestock (cattle) only and it increased from 71% to 77%. The relative contribution of perenni al crops to family income increased by 17%, while the contribution of perennial and annual crops decreased by 3%. Perennial C rop Production To stop deforestation in the Amazon, the government and often organizations indicate that perennial crops are the best solutions for smallholders. Despite some economic and environmental success, not many families have perennial crops as their main production system because of market limitations and technical issues. According to the study sample, 16% of households f ell in this category. This number is higher than the number expected for the entire Amazon, but households in Acre were not included in this category. The household studied moved from Maran ho s tate to the actual property sixteen years ago, with no experie nce with perennial crop production. This prope r ty is located 50 minutes away from Pacaj city; it has electricity and the road leading to the propriety is in good condition, even during the rainy season. The total area is 90 ha, and 69% is covered with fo rest degraded by timber exploitation and fire. The total deforested area is 28 ha; 50% is used for pasture, 25% for perennial crops, 7% for annual crops, and 18% is fallow. Perennial crop production of cacao, banana, and coffee contributes 54% of the hous ehol d cash income, while 31% is from cattle ranching and livestock, 14%
77 Revenue from these farm activities represents 77% of the total family cash income, while off f arm employment contributes 23%. Business as usual m odel f or perennial c roppers : The five year perennial cropper smallholder production model shows ( Table 3 3 ) that there is a tendency that deforestation will continue a t the same rate as the last twelve years, during which time forest stands decreased from 89 ha to 62 ha, at an annual rate of 2%. The model predicted the same rate for the next 5 years. The perennial crop area had an increase of 14% less than the pasture area, which increased 20%. The annual crop area decreased 76%. Eighty three percent of the area deforested annually was used to grow annual crops and 17% was converted into pasture. Family cash income ( Table 3 4 ) increased 5% over the five years, reaching US$ 5,004. The household continued to show a preference for perennials. The relative contribution of perennial crops increased from 54% to 59% to the family income. The i ncome from livestock (89% from cattle and 11% from small ani mals) increased from 31% to 40%. The decreasing relative importance of annual crops in the family income, from 15% to 1%, showed that labor allocation changed from annual crop production to perennial crop and livestock production. The ELP model solved is c onsistent in all study cases. It explains satisfactorily the income and land use patterns of householders in Acre and Par in the business as usual scenario. To increase the model accuracy, a larger number of families should be analyzed; however, limited t ime and financial resources have restricted the amount of fieldwork. In the following sections, the same households are studied to simulate the effects of market prices on income and land use.
78 First Scenario: Increased Prices of Extractive and Perennial Pr oducts As described in the methodology section, the ELP model was used to simulate the effects of subsidies on forest extractivism and perennial crop production. Over the practiced market price observed during the survey a n overprice of 100% was added to s imulate a situation where forest products, such as Brazil nut, rubber, liana, aai and copaiba and perennial crops including coffee, cacao, banana, pupunha ( Bactris gasipaes ) had econo mic stimuli In this simulation, environmental policies were not enfor ced. This was only a proposal to subsidize products proceeding from activities that show cumulative evidence of slowing deforestation. Road conditions, demands, and other issues affecting commercialization were excluded in order to simulate good market con ditions. The results were organized to show the effects of product price on land use ( Table 3 5 ) and household cash income ( Table 3 6 ) for extractivists, annual and perenni al croppers, and livestock producers, over a five year period. All smallholders still lose forest area at an average of 3% (17ha) at the end of the five year period. Extractivists lose an average of 0.7% of forest area, and annual crop producers lose an av erage of 11%. The dynamics of fallow and forest areas are a good indicator of household production strategies. In a perfect rotational shift ing cultivation system, the fallow area is constant. The reductions of the fallow area mean an increase in crop or p asture production, and vice versa. Yet in the model t he fallow area showed an increase of 5 ha as consequence of a reduction of 43% in the annual crop area, while the pasture area increased by 13%. The increase of the pasture area was higher among families primarily engaged in livestock production (31% increment), which already ha d a cattle
79 ranching tradition. The opposite occurred with producers primarily engaged in perennial crop production, who reduced their pasture area by 16%. The perennial crop area i ncreased an average of 5.3 ha; 44% of it occurred among families primarily engaged in perennial crop production. There was a small increment in perennial crop production among extractivists. The annual family income increased an average of 11%, from US$ 6 ,413 to US$ 7,207. The total expenditure to pay the subsidies (adding 100% to the existing market price) was US$ 2,230 per family, up to the fifth year. The relative contribution of annual crop and cattle production to the household income decreased from 2 4% to 19%. Extractivism and perennial crop production increased the average family income of all households studied by 23%. Second Scenario: Increased Prices of Annual Crop and Livestock Products In the second scenario, the effects of commodity price on h ousehold income and land use were tested using the ELP model. Nepstad et al. ( 2006b ) when studying commodity markets for the Amazon, found a positive correlation between marke t price for agricultural products and deforestation. The main commodities in the study sample were rice, maize, beans, cattle, chickens, and hogs. Each of these products had their price doubled in t he model. The results of land allocation and income for th e five year models are presented in Table 3 7 and Table 3 8 Results from the model showed an increase of 48% in the crop and pasture areas: pasture area increased by 38% and the annual crop area by 50% by the end of the fifth year. Compared with the business as usual model, in which the agricultural production area increased by 34%, the high prices had a strong
80 influence on land use decisions in all types of households stu died. This influence was significant especially among extractivists for whom the amount of land dedicated to production increase d 213%. The result of agricultural expansion on forest stands was astonishing. Forest was cleared and burned at a rate of 2% per year. Producers primarily engaged in annual crops cleared forests at a rate of 4.2% per year, while producers primarily engaged in livestock and perennial crops cleared forests at a rate of 2.8%. Extractivists cleared forests at a rate of 0.5%, the lowest rate among all types of households. Considering the deforestation area extractivists cleared 11.3 ha, almost the same amount of forest that annual (10.7ha) and livestock producers (10.4ha) had cleared. In general, the average size of the fallow area did not change, but fallow of perennial croppers increased by 13.2% and decreased in the other production systems. The average increase in income was 57.7%, from US$ 5,673 to US$ 8,948. The annual crop yield per hectare increased 8%. Extractivists had the high est increase in income (119%), and perennial crop producers had the lowest (42%). Livestock producers had an increase in income of US$10,483, an increase superior to the business as usual model by 56%. Extractivism and perennial crop production had a less significant participation in the family income in the four households studied, ranging from 55% among families primarily engaged in annual crop production to 19% among families primarily engaged in extractivism. Conclusions about the Potential of the Ethno graphi c Linear Program Models to Understand and Predict Land Use Change Overall, the findings of the study indicated a great potential to use ELP to describe and simulate the main types of land use practiced by smallholders in the
81 Amazon, and to predict t heir responses to external interventions. In this paper, we Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve in the State of Acre and the Transamazon in the State of Par. The model was test ed to predict how the payment of bonus for could affect land cover and family income. Using the business as usual model as a basis, we also tested the effect of increasing prices of agricultural commodities as a result of global food shortage, which is highly predictable due to population growth and a decrease in crop production. The analysis of these two scenarios aims to open the discussion about the future of smallholder production in the Amazon B oth a scenario where forest and other adapted production systems receive stimulus and the business as usual scenario, where forests have no value was considered Smallholder H eterogeneity The first conclusion is that smallhold ers are a heterogeneous economic category. This study used a cluster statistical analysis to distinguish smallholders by the income from different production systems. Nearly half of the households sampled had livestock production as the main source of inco me; nevertheless, smallholders primarily engaged in cattle ranching differ from large cattle ranchers in terms of market goals. Smallholders use cattle as savings, selling the product only on special occasions, such as sickness ( Muchagata & Brown, 2003 ) The income originating from smallholders primarily engaged in cattle ranching represents no more than 90% of the production sold and no more than 65% of household production. Cattle production appeared among all types of households,
82 and it is cited as the most important activit y for the future of the family. Annual crops are also a common activity among all types of households, and they are a common source of cash for households in their early stages of the life cycle ( Walker et al., 2002 ) These households represent 13% of the sample. Regarding production specialization, a quarter of the households have forest produc ts as their main source of income, 87% in the Acre study site. Acre and Transamazon extractivists have different realities. In the Transamazon, extractivism is practiced primarily in the early stage of farm occupation when the family occupies the land cov ered by forest and has no money. In Acre, extractivism is the main source of income throughout the entire family life cycle, even in places where cattle production is present. Family cash income is heterogeneous among the different types of smallholders s tudied. While the average annual family income is US$ 2,800, corresponding to one third of the Brazilian minimum wage, producers primarily engaged in perennial crops have an income 54% higher and producers primarily engaged in annual crops have an income 3 9% lower than the average. Other important parts of household cash income come from off farm earnings, which represent about 23% of the total family income, although, statistically, there is no significant difference between clusters. Off farm income has i ncreased during the last decade due to increments in distributive programs in Brazil ( VanWey, ) Further studies about the effects of off farm income, bolsa familia reveal the role of money allocation in the household, and how program requirements have been monitored and enforced. These cash transfer programs could provide clues
83 on how to transfer payments for environmental services to smallholders ( Viana, 2009 ) The diversity of production systems affects forest conservation. While extractivists in Acre lost 2.1% of forest, producers in Transamazon primarily engaged in livestock production lost 40%. The annual deforestation rate since the extractivist family moved to the land was 0.1% fifty times lower than the rate among producers primarily engaged in lives tock The use of ELP as a tool to analyze a baseline household scenario accomplished well the initial goals established for this research. It explained the reality in the four household types. This study offered a good explanation for the household decisio ns on land allocation, compared to other studies about smallholders that explained household strategies, deforestation patterns, and variations in income composition ( Agrawal & C.C.Gibson, 1999 ; Almeida et al., 2006 ; Andersen & Barnes, 2004 ; Angelsen & Kaimowi tz, 2001a ; Costa et al., 2006 ; Kaimowitz et al., 2004 ; Kainer, Schmink, Leite, & Fadell, 2003 ; Nepstad et al., 2006b ; Perz, 2003 ; Walker et al., 2000 ) The use of socio economic constraints and dem ographic variables, such as predicted by Chayanov, and the use of demographic theories ( Caldas et al., 2007 ; Perz 2001b ) have proved to be efficient to observe and pre dict s Smallho lder D ecisions L inked to M arket market signals. Nonetheless, the influence of market on s does not exert a determinant effect on their production, as it does to agribusiness. m is a unit of
84 consumption and production makes smallholders more willing to avo id risks to family reproduction over time ( Costa, 1993 ; Perz, 2001a ) and to be cautious of any proposed change to the production system. This behavioral characteristic is more int ense among families less dependent on markets and to which it is difficult to apply a model. Bias was minimized by the use of ethnographic research to compare results from the model with family perceptions about the future. The business as usual model was used as a baseline to simulate household reaction to different market conditions. Two scenarios were developed to simulate the effect of good market conditions (such as higher prices for products and no limitations in commercialization channels) on income and land use. The first model simulated good market conditions for forest products and perennial crops, which are recognized as potential mechanisms to reduce deforestation. The second model for livestock and annual crop production is traditionally associa ted with an increase in deforestation rates ( Nepstad et al., 2006b ) The results were shown in Figure 3 5 Increasing prices of extrac tivism and perennial crop products led to a 51% decrease in cumulative new deforested area, when compared to the business as usual scenario. As expected, deforestation decreased among all households studied, with a greater reduction among extractivists (71 %), and a smaller reduction among annual croppers (23%). The different effects of deforestation among smallholders indicated that improved market conditions for extractivist products from extractive reserves, where the forest resource is abundant, can redu ce deforestation rates. However, the effect of perennial crop production on reducing deforestation was inferior to the effect
85 observed for forest products. Comparing the three household types with no significant forest resources, newly deforested area was 46% less than observed in the business as usual scenario. A plausible explanation is the high cost of implementing perennial crop production, which is always a limitation among smallholders, and the long term return. For example, the harvest of some forest products, like timber, begins after 20 years. When we simulated the increase in price of agricultural commodities, agricultural production increased by 44% and boosted deforestation 31% more than the business as usual scenario. The phenomenon was more int ense among annual crop producers, with a 53% increase; and it was less intense among extractivists, with a 16% increase. Furthermore, the results of a reduction of initial fallow areas by 47%, after five years, indicated a process of agricultural intensifi cation and a continuous decreasing of deforestation rates. Smallholders respond to changes in market price as predicted in other studies that observe smallholder livelihood strategies. The results indicate that good commercialization channels and prices c ould lead to forest conservation. A n average of US$830 per year given as subsidy to each household was sufficient to avoid a forest loss of 5ha and changed the production system from extensive cattle ranching. In fact, the ELP model is effective to predict land use changes for two market scenarios and it proved to be accurate to understand household behaviors that explain land use decisions. Market prices changed land use and affected income. As expect, household income increased in both scenarios. It incre ased by 34% as a result of better prices for perennial and forest products, and 53% as result of better prices for agricultural
86 commodities. If the desirable scenario for smallholder production in the Amazon should focus on expand ed forest biodiversity use and an increase in perennial crops areas households need to have a comparative advantage to change the actual production system from annua l crops and cattle. Based on a scenario in which market prices for forest and perennial crops increase participatio n of forest and perennial crops production will increase family annual cash income from 41% to 62% ( Figure 3 6 ). This result was achieved using only forest and perennial production already practiced by producers. It is possible to have better comparative results, if other products are included; however, the introduction of new products will increase the risk that most smallholders try to avoid. To minimize risk, research programs need to be implemented and commerci alization channels need to be created, so that can be compared with other research programs, as a way to understand the socioeconomic effects of research proposals on smallhold er livelihoods and to reduce the risk of proposal failure due to family behavior socioeconomic. Even when the diversity of livelihood strategies is taken into consideration, increasing market prices for forest and perennial crop products can be an efficien t mechanism to reduce deforestation and can contribute to situations where extractivism or perennial crop production previously existed. Another important finding is that deforestation still occurs due to technical incapacity to produce annual crops with out slash and burning. These results have significant importance when we realize that smallholder production can contribute to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Considering that
87 smallholders have brought forest biodiversity to consumers and control large amount of forest, substantial efforts need to be implemented to use the potential of smallholders. Land use change and its effect on the Amazon forest is a current issue in climate change negotiations. Finding ways to reduce deforestation and poverty in tr opical areas is a central issue, to which we still do not have answers. This chapter shows the application of a tool that could help decision makers to plan interventions that are more efficient and interpret effects before they happen. In the next chapter an ELP model was developed to simulate the carbon baseline for a household and the possibilities to increase carbon stock within a scenario where payment f or this environmental service becomes a reality.
88 Figure 3 1 Distribution of smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon. Brown represents smallholder settlement. Dark a nd light green represent direct use conservation u nits with residents. (S ource: www.mma.gov.b r/servermap )
89 Figure 3 2 Study sites location showing the difference in deforestation pattern.
90 Figure 3 3 Two indicator s of carbon emission from the study sites. (A) Percentage of total study area covered by forest. Deforestation higher in Transamazon area and intensifying during the second half of 2000.(B) Number of hotspots in the same area. Indicate the amount of area b urning. Source: Brazilian National Aerospatiale Research Institute (INPE/DETER). Accessed: 08/09/2009 from http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter
91 Figure 3 4 Land use patterns in Acre and Para study sites. Values are percentage of study site total area. Yellow area in the graph represents deforested land.
92 Figure 3 5 Deforestation patterns for a five year model. Values are a percentage Figure 3 6 Cash income proportion that comes from forest and perennial crops in the five year modeled families. 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 1 2 3 4 5 (% of forest) Years Increased prices for Extractivism and perennials Business as usual Increased prices for annual crops and livestock 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 1 2 3 4 % of cash Income from Perennial and forest Years Increased prices for annual crops and livestock Business-as-usual Increased prices for extractivism and perennials
93 Table 3 1 Smallholder c haracteristics Cluster 1 Extractivist (E) Cluster 2 Annual c rop (A) Cluster 3 Perennial (P) Cluster 4 Livestock (L) Acre Par Acre Par Acre Par Acre Par n= 46 7 4 26 0 37 8 101 Area (ha) 519.9 (124.8) 97.8 (0.2) 221.3(32.0) 72.4 (28.3) 92.8 (55.7) 418.3 (102.3) 98.2 (37.9) Forest (ha) 509.7 (190.3) 83.5 (2.4) 195.6 (36.9) 47.2 (21.3) 56.2 (34.8) 387.0 (8 7.3) 60.3 (33.8) Annual (ha) 2.8 (1.0) 1.1 (0.4) 3.4 (1.2) 2.6 (2.7) 0.9 (1.2) 3.3 (1.9) 1.3 (1.9) Perennial (ha) 0.4 (0.5) 0.5 (1.2) 0.0 (0.0) 2.5 (2.4) 4.8 (4.9) 0.6 (1.9) 1.9 (2.1) Pasture (ha) 3.8 (1.3) 7.0 (3.4) 4.0 (1.1) 9.9 (9.5) 24.8 (22.2) 2 4.6 (20.3) 32.5 (27.0) Secondary forest (ha) 3.2 (1.1) 5.8 (2.6) 18.3 (2.8) 10.2 (4.9) 6.1 (3.0) 2.8 (2.3) 2.2 (4.2) Extractivism income (%) 67.4 (15.1) 89.4 (2.1) 36.5 (6.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 18.9 (8.3) 0.0 (0.1) Annual crop income (%) 26.0 (12.7) 10.2 (3.5) 55.3 (6.5) 84.0 (16.8) 3.0 (7.2) 29.1 (11.3) 2.8 (7.3) Livestock income (%) 8.7 (2.5) 0.4 (0.2) 8.2 (3.5) 12.9 (15.5) 15.7 (17.6) 51.7 (19.4) 91.2 (15.9) Perennials income (%) 0.9 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 3.0 (9.6) 81.3 (18.4) 0.3 (0.7) 6. 0 (11.4) Family size (number) 6.2 (2.1) 1.8 (0.6) 4.0 (1.1) 2.1 (0.9) 2.4 (0.7) 4.3 (2.7) 2.2 (0.8) Years in area 16.1(4.6) 2.1 (1.5) 15.0 (8.7) 7.1 (5.2) 9.4 (3.9) 14.1 (2.1) 8.7 (4.1) Distance market (hours) 1.8 (0.7) 3.9 (5.7) 1.2 (0.4) 2.8 (2.5) 1.8 (1.1) 1.3 (1.2) 2.2 (3.9) Note: Values represent means (standard deviation).
94 Table 3 2 Smallholder cash income for each productive cluster. Values indicate mean annual household cash income in dollar. Household Income ($) Cluster 1 Extractivist (E) Cluster 2 Annual Crop (A) Cluster 3 Perennial (P) Cluster 4 livestock (L) Acre Par Acre Par Acre Par Acre Par n= 46 7 4 26 0 37 8 101 Extractivism 2657 1276 709 0 0 0 734 0 Annual crop 93 0 143 972 847 0 38 1130 64 L ivestock 236 57 126 220 0 745 2007 2233 Perennials 28 0 0 46 0 3533 12 174 Total 3852 1477 1807 1113 0 4316 3882 2471
95 Table 3 3 Model results for b usiness as usual scenar io. Values are in percentage of total household a rea Parcels Year 1 2 3 4 5 Extractivist E (450ha) Annual c roppers A ( 85ha) Perennial c roppers P ( 90ha) Livestock p roducers Forest L (110ha) E 97.9 97.3 96.4 95.7 9 4.9 A 60.0 56.8 56.4 53.2 51.8 P 69.4 68.8 62.6 63.2 62.7 L 68.0 67.8 65.6 63.2 61.5 Secondary forest E 0.9 1.2 2.1 2.1 2.8 A 17.6 19.8 15.1 12.8 14.2 P 5.6 3.6 8.7 8.7 9.2 L 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 1.8 Annual E 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 A 5.9 6.4 5.8 5. 9 5.9 P 1.7 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 L 0.9 2.0 0.5 0.8 0.8 Perennials E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 P 7.8 7.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 L 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Pasture E 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 A 14.1 14.7 21.3 26.6 26.6 P 15.6 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 L 27.3 26.5 30.0 32.2 34.7 E Extractivist; A Annual Croppers; P Perennial Croppers ; L Livestock Producers
96 Table 3 4 Model results for b usiness as u sual scenario. Values are in percentage of total household cash income Types Productiv e s ystem Year 1 2 3 4 5 Extractivists Extractivism 75.1 72.5 71.1 63.5 63.5 Annual c rops 15.2 14.7 14.4 18.9 18.9 Perennial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Livestock 9.6 12.8 14.5 17.5 17.5 Total Income (US$) 4100 4247 4331 4881 4881 Annual c roppers Extractivism 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 Annual c rops 60.3 63.7 57.3 53.5 53.4 Perennial 15.3 13.6 8.8 8.1 8.1 Livestock 24.4 22.6 33.6 38.2 38.3 Total Income (US$) 4516 5073 5080 5558 5568 Perenni al c roppers Extractivism 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 Annual c rops 14.7 9.0 8.0 0.7 0.7 Perennial 53.8 53.4 54.3 58.6 58.8 Livestock 31.0 36.9 37.2 40.1 40.3 Total Income (US$) 4787 4816 5419 5017 5003 Livestock p roducers Extractivism 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 Annual c rops 8.8 22.5 3.1 6.6 6.3 Perennial 20.0 17.4 19.7 17.9 16.9 Livestock 71.2 60.1 77.2 75.4 76.8 Total Income (US$) 5049 5805 5121 5625 5960
97 Table 3 5 Model results for increased prices of extractive and perennial products. Values are in percentage of total household area. Types Year 1 2 3 4 5 Extractivists E (450ha) Annual c roppers A (85ha) Perennial c roppers P (90ha) Livestock p roducers L (110ha ) Forest E 97.9 97.8 97.6 97.2 97.2 A 60.0 60.0 58.7 56.8 53.6 P 69.4 67.7 67.1 66.8 65.2 L 68.0 69.3 66.1 66.1 64.2 Secondary f orest E 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 A 17.6 19.8 19.1 19.9 21.5 P 5.6 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.8 L 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 3.1 Annua l E 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 A 5.9 3.8 5.8 6.2 4.9 P 1.7 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 L 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Perennials E 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 A 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.9 3.4 P 7.8 8.9 9.4 9.4 10.4 L 1.1 1.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pasture E 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 A 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 16.5 P 15.6 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 L 27.3 26.5 28.6 28.6 30.2
98 Table 3 6 Model results for increased prices of extractive and perennial products. Values are in percentage of total household ca sh income. Year Type % of Income 1 2 3 4 5 Extractivists Extractivism 83.8 90.9 91.0 89.9 89.9 Annual c rops 10.8 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 Perennial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Livestock 5.4 5.8 5.8 6.9 6.9 Total Income (US$) 7350 6843 6878 6961 6961 Annual c r oppers Extractivism 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 Annual c rops 52.8 40.1 52.1 50.8 40.8 Perennial 25.8 32.4 26.0 29.1 35.0 Livestock 21.4 26.9 21.6 19.3 23.4 Total Income (US$) 5151 4094 5112 5706 5151 Perennial c roppers Extractivism 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 A nnual c rops 11.0 6.3 6.0 3.5 3.2 Perennial 67.7 70.5 71.8 73.7 75.6 Livestock 20.9 22.8 21.9 22.5 20.8 Total Income (US$) 7093 7789 8133 7917 8536 Livestock p roducers Extractivism 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Annual c rops 7.3 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.0 Perennial 33 .3 35.6 48.4 48.4 47.2 Livestock 59.4 61.6 49.5 49.5 50.8 Total Income (US$) 6057 5662 7629 7629 7833
99 Table 3 7 Model results for increased prices of annual crop and livestock products. Values ar e in percentage of total household land. Year Type Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 Extractivist E (450ha) Annual c roppers A (85ha) Perennial c roppers P (90ha) Livestock pr oducers L (110ha) Forest E 97.9 96.8 97.0 96.0 95.4 A 60 .0 55.2 54.6 51.8 47.4 P 69.4 67.3 62.2 60.7 59.9 L 68.0 67.0 61.5 61.5 58.5 Secondary forest E 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 A 17.6 19.8 15.8 11.4 15.8 P 5.6 3.6 8.7 8.7 9.2 L 2.7 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.9 Annuals E 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 A 5.9 6.4 6.8 6.4 6.4 P 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 L 0.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Perennials E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 P 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 L 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Pasture E 0.9 1.6 1.6 2.2 3.2 A 14.1 16.4 21.3 28.9 28.9 P 15.6 18.7 18.7 20.2 20.2 L 27. 3 27.3 33.5 33.5 36.5
100 Table 3 8 Model results for increased prices of annual crop and livestock products. Values are in percentage of total household cash income. Year 1 2 3 4 5 Extractivists Extractivism 62.5 40.6 53.4 40.5 50.7 Annual Crops 28.5 49.2 38.1 49.1 35.3 Perennial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Livestock 9.0 10.2 8.5 10.4 13.9 Total Income (US$) 4388 6921 8307 8891 9636 Annual c roppers Extractivism 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Annual Crops 61.1 66.0 66.2 58.6 58.6 Perennial 15.0 11.8 7.1 6.8 6.8 Livestock 23.9 21.8 26.3 34.3 34.3 Total Income (US$) 4610 5852 6315 6592 6592 Perennial c roppers Extractivism 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Annual Crops 33.2 45.6 45.6 45.0 47.3 Perennial 46.9 36. 0 36.0 35.5 34.0 Livestock 19.5 18.0 18.0 19.2 18.4 Total Income (US$) 6588 8569 8569 8698 9081 Livestock p roducers Extractivism 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Annual Crops 11.6 27.7 24.3 24.3 23.1 Perennial 14.2 11.6 10.2 10.2 9.6 Livestock 74.2 60.7 65. 5 65.5 67.3 Total Income (US$) 7107 8693 9907 9907 10483
101 4 CHAPTER 4 MODELING EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES ON SMALL HOLDER S Introduction Importance of the Brazilian Tropical Forest to Global Climate Change As primary causes of climate ch ange, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) report (UNFCCC, 2005) highlights fossil fuel use and land use change, the latte r accounting for roughly one fifth of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Forests play a double role in clim ate change : sequestering large quantities of ca rbon as growing trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air and storing carbon. Thus f orests can become a major source of carbon emission when the stored carbon is released into the atmosphere by means of fire, forest degradation and deforestation activities. Br azil is the fourth largest carbon emitter in the world. An nual emissions in the Brazilian Amazon are estimated at 200 million tons per year from deforestation ( Houghton, 2005 ) plus the accidentally burned area that emits from 10% to 150% more carbon than deforestation alon e ( Nepstad et al., 1999 ) S tudying 152 cases in tropical areas with high deforestation rates, Geist and Lambin (2002) found that carbon emissions in the Amazon are mostly due to anthropogenic activities of converting forests to non forested area. The actors vary over time depending on internal and external factors such as curr ency exchange rate, commodity prices, and subsidies. In the 1980s and 90s, smallh olders and cattle ranches emitted almost the same amount
102 of carbon; however, since 2000, emission from d eforestation for large farms producing soybeans for export increased ( Nepstad et al., 2006b ) The main international forum about climate change was organized by the United Nations in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The main agreement negotiated as an amendment to the convention was t he Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized countries agreed to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% com pared to the year 1990. Yet credit for forest maintenance was excluded in the agreement until 2012 ( UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2005 ) This spawned the volunt ary market for carbon stocked in tropical forests though still i n a limited scale. Be cause of emerging knowledge about global warming, and the urgency felt by governments, the role of tropical forests to alleviate global warming is attracting more attention as a target of in ternational financial flows f or conservation than are other environmental services such as biodiversity maintenance. During the UNFCCC 13th Conference of Parties COP13 held in established. This included tropic al forests in Brazil, which holds the greatest area of tropical forest in the world and could potentially gain carbon credit in this new, currently negotiated system. This carbon credit can compensate tropical countries for their nationwide reduction in e missions from deforestation a nd degradation (REDD) ( Moutinho et al., 2005 )
103 Forest B ased Carbon Trade for Smallholders There are two major reasons to consider smallholders as the main actors to be involved in the REDD mechanism. One is the socioeco nomic importance of this social segment. Between a half m illion ( IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica, 2006 ) and two million ( CONTAG Confederao Nacional dos Trabalhadores na Agricultura, 2004 ) smallholder families live in the Amazon biome. E xclud ing Mato Grosso transition forest, t hey cont rol 31% of the land, generate 71% of total rural production aggregate value, and grow 89% of the daily food ( IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica, 2006 ) They also produce about 93% of the cassava flour, 95% of the rice, 100% of the beans, and 58% of the cattle in the Amazon region ( Costa, 2000 ) On the other hand, most of the smallholders in the Amazon live on less than two dollars per person per day : the poverty line established by the Word Bank. The other and the most important reason for the importance of smallholders in carbon trade is the linkage between production and carbon emissions from deforestation This is due to the intense use of fire as t he widespread tool of clearing forests for farming ( Hedden Dunkhorst et al., 2003 ) Nepstad et al. (1999) found equal contribution s of small and large farms to total deforestation, although such an estimate typically varies with the methodol ogy used For example, Pacheco (2003), using census data and satellite imagery, estimated that deforest ation by small farmers constituted only one percent of the total area deforested between 1985 and 1995. On the other hand, Sawyer (2001) theorized that if each of the two million families living in forested rural areas deforested one
104 hectare carbon emissions by smallholder farms could reach 65% of the total carbon emitted by land use change in the Amazon. Many r esearchers see that an effective way of red ucing deforestation rates o f smallholders is to make agriculture more productive and sustainable and forest s more valuable. Agricu lture will continue to be an important activity for large population s in the tropics. An increase in productivity through int ensification, for example, can lessen the pressure on the agricultural frontier and thus reduce deforestation. Von Ambsberg ( 1988 ) argues that agricultural improvements will reduce deforestation only if they do not increase the profitability of agricultural activities in newly cleared area s. Yet it has been suggested that livelihoods of many settlers arriving in the Brazilian Amazon region as poor colonists have improved and that some achieved it at markedly higher rates than other populations in Brazil ( Braz et al., 1988 ; Reynal et al., 1995 ; Vosti, Witcover, & Carpentier, 2003 ) This suggests that the most profitable strategy for farm ing may be to clear forest for agriculture and ranching Still, with increases in the intensity of land use, it may be possible to reduce th ese incentives to clear forest ( Vosti, Gockowski, & Tomich, 2005 ) It has been also argued that technologies for intensifying agriculture could slow deforestation; however, the link between the two is ambiguous. In the Amazon the main possibilities for agricultural intensificati on for smallholders include cultivation of perennial crops, pasture management, silvopastoral systems, forest management, and fire management and control ( Carpentier, Vosti, &
105 Witcover, 2000 ; Mello & Pires, 2004 ) All of them can potentially lessen the pressure on conversion of forests Other researchers su ggest that deforestation in poor tropical communities will be reduced if forest s become economically attractive to local populations. Timber forest management practices ( FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2005 ) and management of forests for non timber forest products ( Nepstad & Schwartzman, 1992 ) have been considered the best ways to raise forest based incomes of local peop le ( Perez & Byron, 1999 ) More recent views have documented that forests with high biodiversity such as tropical forests are not ideal for commercial harvesting, because harvesting is difficult and yields are seldo m economically viable ( Neumann & Hirsch, 2000 ) I n contrast t he REDD mechanism can achieve both an increase in the value of forest s through payments for carbon sto r ed in biomass and reduc tion in carbon emission through a shift from the slash and burn agricultural system to low carb on emission systems such as agroforestry and rotational crop ping It is thus seen as a new, potential method to control deforestation in the tropics. A carbon market for forest is yet to be regulated, and there are still methodological issues that make imp lementation difficult. For the purchaser of carbon offsets, it is essential to be able to monitor and measure the net reduction in carbon emissions to enforce the agreements. The problems of measurement revolve around calculation of the net emission effe ct: the difference in carbon (without project) ( Moutinho et al., 2005 ; UNFCCC United Nations Framework
106 Conven tion on Climate Change, 2008 ) Another measurement problem stems from the Kyoto Protocol i nitiatives to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions must be considered additional to existing practices and governmental environmental laws For smallholders this implies the necessity to define carbon emissions for each parcel of land use on the property ( Achard, Eva, Mayaux, Stibig, & Belward, 2004 ) This chapter contributes to the REDD discussion by evaluating the potential costs and benefits when smallholders change their production systems to those of low carbon emission. This study was carried out in an eastern Amazon smallholder area in which the first governmental project of payment for environmental services started in 2004. We simulated the effect o n land use and family income over a five year period from the start o f the payment. Our focus was on evaluating the effectiveness of the new carbon income on reduc ing deforestation and improving family welfare. We hypothesized that participation in the carbon market affected the smallholder system in two ways: 1) the exte nsive agricultural system will lose economic competitiveness to higher carbon systems such as perennial crops and forest management; and 2) livestock and agricultural systems will be intensified due to reduced availability of land for agricultural expansi on plus funds available through the carbon market to invest in technological improvements. M ethods An ethnographic linear program (ELP) was used to analy ze the potential effects of REDD policies on land use decisions and farm income of small scale
107 farmers in the Transamazon settlement project near Altamira, in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. The model is briefly described below, and the effects of REDD policies on land use, farm income and carbon stocks were simulated Linear programming can be mathematical ly describ ed as: Max (or Min): Z = j C j X j (j = 1 n) Subject to: i A ij X j <= R i (i = 1 m) And X i >= 0 Z is the variable objective to be minimized or maximized ; C j is the cost (debit) or returns (credit) of each of the n activities X j ; A ij is the set of input or output coefficients for each activity j and resource or constraint i ; and R i is the set of m minimum or maximum constraints or restrictions. Study Area This study was conducted in Anap County, State of Par, in a settlement are a located near the Xingu River in the eastern part of the Brazilian Amazon, 600 km or 12 hours by car from Belm, the state capital ( Figure 4 1 ). The area receives annual precipitation exceeding 1,700 mm with five dry months a year with less than 50 mm precipitation ( ANA Agencia Nacional de guas, 2006 ) Th is seasonal rain pattern defines the agricultural cycles and the high inflammability of the forest in the dry season ( Nepstad e t al., 2004 ) This area was colonized in 1972 when the Transamazon highway was opened in the heart of the Amazon tropical rain forest. travesso ) each of which is 5 km long and running perpendicular to the highway. The total population of Anap is 9,407 and the demographic density is less than 0.79
108 inhabitants/ k m. Most of the population (67%) lives in smallholder. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics ( IBGE, 2 006) census, 62% of the population older than 10 years is involved in some kind of agriculture animal husbandry forestry, and fishing activities. The smallholders living within 10 km from the Transamazon highway had been settled by the government 20 year s ago, while migrants farther from the highway moved in without official permits. The former received subsidies and technical assistance to grow cacao and develop pasture and deforested more area than the latter ( Rocha, 2003 ) Economic Analyses of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Project Using Ethnographic Linear Programming Studies of smallholder systems require an understanding of the complexity of their livelih ood production and reproduction activities. The conceptual framework to study small farmers place s a family at the center of decision making in resource allocation and consumption ( Hildebrand et al., 2003 ) All fluxes of inputs and outputs associated with production converge at and diverge from the family. T he effect of carbon policies and their constraints on the livelihood system is added To work on this dynamic and complex multi year scenario, we chose ELP as a tool. As opposed to traditional linear programming this method incorporates soci o cultural parameters, changing nutritional requirements, evolving household composition, and other factors to enhance the dynamism, representing a real world livelihood system ( Hildebrand et al., 2003 ) Our model was created in Microsoft Excel with the standard Frontline System Solver add in which maximizes the sum of the gross margins for all
109 activities included in the model, following the objective function ; where the X j are the production or other activities; c j is the forecast gross margin of X Each activity is su bjected to constraints R i : the use of the resource i needed to operate an activity j cannot exceed the available amount of th e resource held by the household ( Mudhara & Hildebrand, 2004 ) The equation form of constraints in the model is ; where b i is the amount of resource i available. The objective of this model is to maximize the sum of annual cash available for discretionary spending over five years. Each year is subdivided to account for seasonal household activities. The mix ture of products s old in the market, non farming activities, such as social security benefits and temporary work, and consumption requirements, such as purchase of food, clothes, or spending on leisure define the cash flow. The ELP model keeps track of sizes of forested are as and areas of other land uses on a farm in any year, as well as the length of time of different land uses. Using this information, the carbon stock in a farm is calculated for each year providing a basis for evaluating the impacts of REDD policies. In th is scenario we assumed annual payments of REDD during the project period. This model has four main constraints: 1 ) farm size: the area used for all farm activities cannot exceed the farm size; 2 ) labor: the labor needed for activities varies by semester s and gender, and households use primarily family labor, but can hire people if cash is available, or to work for others to earn cash.; 3 ) cash: a household must have money for farming operation s and for the necessary household expenditures each year. The surplus generated in any semester is
110 transferred to the next semester; and 4 ) consumption requirements: some staple crops grown primarily for household consumption requir e a minimum level of production to meet family needs Two special constraints w ere in troduced to simulate household livelihood changes in a REDD project The first constrai nt is that deforestation is not allowed. All activities related to deforestation were adjusted to incorporate new technologies developed locally by small farmers and exp erimentation systematized by the Amazon Institute for Environmental Research (IPAM) and the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, ( EMBRAPA ) ( Mello, 2008 ; Veiga & Serro, 1990 ) The other constraint is that fire is not allowed without rigid control and management, which increas es pr oduction cost. The equation for the cost and efficiency of f ire prevention and control techniques was defined by the IPAM fire project ( Carvalho, Mello, Assun o, & Souza, 2008 ; Mello & Pires, 2004 ) for each type of vegetation and area where fire will be used. For this study we included the cost to control accidental forest fires while building firebreaks aro und the forest area. The model was validated to a set of initial conditions that define the model's starting point in terms of available resources (land, labor, and capital), existing land uses and prevailing technology and prices. Data Collection Devel opment of an ELP requires input and output details for all the livelihood activities. The a ggregate data available from the Brazilian demographic census were inappropriate to the lot level, thus we used the database generated by the Brazilian Ministry of E nvironment Fundao Viver Produzir e Preservar (FVPP) a
111 grassroots organization with a program of payments for environmental services, and IPAM, an NGO with experience in climate change policies. This dataset contained information for 307 lots collected in 2004 and 2007 ( Figure 4 1 ). The data were collected in a one day period for each lot. The procedures of data collection included structured interviews, vegetation sampling along transects to survey main land use s, and handwritten diagrams to collect information about production strategies and plans. The data included information on land use, family life history, livelihood activities, and prices. Due to the high variability of smallholder land use dyna mics, calc ulating the carbon stock using a direct measure ment is expensive and not viable for carbon trade on a large scale ( Pagiola et al., 2005 ) Remote sensing methods are becoming more accessible and accurate to measure carbon stocks through new algorithms. They can detect l andscape changes with less interference from clouds, and estimate the a mount of carbon in the landscape ( Nepstad et al., 2007 ) In this study carbon stock was estimated based on the type of land cover b y associating a carbon value for each land parcel. The land cover was defined using a combination of satellite imagery interpretation and field survey in which the smallholders delineated their property i n printed satellite images. The regional deforestat ion baseline was defined using the Brazilian official deforestation monitoring system ( INPE Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 2009 ) which wa s freely available and ha d classifications of forest and non forested area. T he values of carbon stock in the biomass used in this study were obtained from the studies conducted in easter n Amazonia by the Center for International
112 Forestry Research ( CIFOR ) and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture ( CIAT ) ( Braz et al., 1988 ; Palm et al., 2000 ) The aboveground carbon stocks in tons are defined as follows: primary forest: 160 ton/ha ; managed timber forest: 130 ton/ha ; agroforestry systems: 55 ton/ha ; young fallow: 15 ton/ha ; old fallow: 25 to n/ha ; pasture: 5 to n /ha ; and annuals: 5 ton/ha. Even though the average production system used by small farmers generally leads to a decrease of forest area, th e patt ern is heterogeneous. Thus, smallholders with similar income composition were aggregated t o reduce variability of land use, making possible generalizations from the model. The smallholders were classified into three categories: cattle dependent farms, perennial crops dependent farms, and annual crops dependent farms. The aggregate results were used to categorize and create a descriptive statistic of the sample. To solve the model, one smallholder was chosen among the category that ha d a higher rate of deforestation and large area of forest stands, two of the most significant characteristics for implementation of REDD program. Within the household s in the category, there were six that were willing to participate in the research and that had deforestation rate, income and pasture area close to the average f o r the farms in the category. Among the si x, the model smallholder was selected for the easiest access. Complementary data were collected to deepen information about family composition and history, market conditions, productive system, and forest degradation. The data collected and the model solve d were validated with the family to confirm the simulations.
113 Five Y ear Model Estimation of Carbon Balance in the Smallholder The goals of REDD projects in relation to carbon emission are, in essence, to reduce deforestation and degradation in comparison wi th the past. Thus, what is to be negotiated is the difference in carbon emissions between the projection from the past and the actual value achieved Establishing a carbon baseline for small farmers is difficult due to the small size and diversity among f arms. In addition, each farm has different patterns of deforestation and degradation and will have different strategies to reduce deforestation and degradation during a project period To meet the diversity of smallholders, a three step process based on E LP was proposed as a method to calculate the carbon to be traded. This method f irst determine d the current land cover and land use of a lot to estimate the existing carbon stock V alid ity of the model was tested by simulating the land use change in the re cent past and comparing the result with the actual change that occurred on the land. Second, two ethnographic linear programming scenarios were created to calculate projected carbon emissions with and without the project. The former assume d the conventiona l livelihood strategies of households in the study area and calculate d carbon emissions without carbon trade. The latter scenario incorporated the expected effects of payment for the aboveground carbon stock. Both were solved for five years. Third, the amo unt of carbon to be sold was calculated as the difference between the carbon emi ssion in the business as usual (baseline) scenario and that in the new production system Then the value of payment was calculated with two different prices for carbon.
114 Result s Land Use and Deforestation Patterns in the Study Area As of 2007 when the data were collect ed, the surveyed land was mainly used for cattle ranching and subsistence agriculture. Fifty seven percent of the land was classified as standing forest, 16% fallo w (of various ages), 21% pasture or crop fields This landscape was shaped by the loss of 30% of the standing forest over the previous 15 years. The remaining forests w ere highly vulnerable to forest fires due to logging activities that make forest more flammab le and frequent use of fire as a major tool for land management. About 30% of the remaining forests had been burned at least once by 2004. Between 1986 and 2004, 5,743,858 ton s of carbon per year was emitted from deforestation of 240,000 ha of forests alone. This figure equals an average of 20.5 ha of deforestation per farm including accidental forest fires in 164,000 ha of land in total The typical smallholder in Anap ha d 88 ha. The average annual family cash income wa s US$ 970 from the combination of perennial crops mainly cacao and banana (US$ 446); annual crops primarily cassava and rice (US$ 174); and other (off farm) employment ( e.g. teacher, retirement and other governmental sources) (US$ 350). Cattles we re sold only on special occasions, such as family deaths or weddings, and the number was increasing in this area to an average of 26 head per family, indicat ing an increas e of deforestation. This region is a perfect place to start a REDD project because it has a large forest area with high deforestation pressure, serious problems of poverty, and a very well organized social movement.
115 Similar to the third chapter, but using a small er sample, smallholders were categorized in three types of farms based on sources of cash income Type I (cattle centered farms) farms ha d 46 % of the annual income from cattle. Thirt y two percent of the farms belonged to this type, and t hey are mostly located within 10 km from the main road. They generally ha d poor soils. The average fa rmland consisted of 33% pasture, 8% annual crop, 2% perennial crops, 12% fallow, and 45% forest. Type II farms (perennial crop centered farms) ha d the more diverse annual income of which 38% c a me from perennial crops. They were situated in areas with th e same level of access ibility as the former type and with good basaltic soils, and constituted 19% of the total number of farms. The main crops were coffee, cacao, and banana. Land cover was more divers e than the other types with 17% pasture, 4% annual cro ps, 5% perennial crops, 8% fallow, and 66% forest on average Type III farms (annual crop centered farms) we re mostly located more than 10 km from the main road and constituted 49% of the total farms. They ha d problems of accessibility in the rainy seas on and land tenure wa s typically not consolidated. These families ha d the lowest income that was mainly from annual crops, and characterized by a subsistence economy. Land cover consisted of 2% pasture, 6% annual crop, 1% perennial crop, 14% fallow, and 7 7% forest. T he three classes had different deforestation rates ; the rate was highe st in Type I where pasture expansion was needed to accommodate increas ing number s of cattle and to make up for a decline in pasture productivity. Between 2001 and 2005 th e deforestation rate for this type measured by Real Time
116 Deforestation Detection (DETER) coordinated by the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research, was 4.3% per year while the rate was 2.1% per year f or Type II. Type III had an intermediate rat e of 2.8%, mainly due to a lack of financial resources and more difficult market access factors that limit development Thus Type I farms ha d the most suitable characteristics for REDD projects because they had the highest deforestation rates and a large area of highly threatened forest. The F amily L evel M odel of a Type I Smallholder The modeled farm was selected from the 207 properties in the database based on three criteri a. The first was that it had deforestation rates above the average The first sel ection reduced the sample to 98 Type I smallholders. The second criterion was smallholders with deforestation, income and pasture area near the average of the Type I, which theoretically have the higher transactional cost s to change their production system This reduced the sample to 11 smallholders. The last criterion was family interest in participat ing in the research, resulting in six households. The household selected had the easiest access. The holding selected was acquired in 1990 and the total area was 110 ha, consisting of 95 ha of forest, 3 ha of annual crops (rice) and 12 ha of fallow. The main production strategy was to produce large areas of annual crops (principally rice) together with pasture. After rice was harvested, the land was converted t o pasture. At the same time, they took out a loan to grow cacao because this region had a profitable and well established market for cacao. They also purchased cattle with a subsidized loan. The household had nine cattle, some fences, and a pen.
117 The pastur e ha d fences only on the boundaries of their property and its management involved slash and burn practices. The cattle received vaccines and salt throughout the year. The family raised chickens and pigs for consumption. Today, after 18 years since th e fam ily moved in the family has 22 head of cattle and the forest area has been reduced to 66 ha, with a deforestation rate of 4.3% per year in the last five years. The family wa s composed of six members, but only four work on the property ( one adult female a nd one adolescent female live in the city two hours away on foot). The family ha d one additional adult male, who was considered a family member, living with them for the last 10 years. One adult female receive d a wage for her work as a community health age nt. Men worked eight hours; 288 days a year, and wom e n and children between 8 and 13 years provide d 6 hours of labor per day. The annual family income wa s US$ 4,310: 36% from off farm activities; 18% from annual crops; 24% from cacao; and 22% from cattle and dairy products. Modeled land cover change is presented in Figure4 2. The comparison between the observed land use change and the modeled results confirm ed the tendency of forest losses for the next five years. The predicted forest area in the year 2012 is 59 ha, a reduction of 10.7% since 2007. The annual crop area was stable at 0.5 ha per year (ranging from 0.3 ha to 0.7 ha), only half of the average size for the Type I properties Seventy five percent of the land for annual crop was in forest. The bigg est change in the area was an increase in pasture, growing from 29% to 35% of the total smallholder area. The fallow area was reduced and perennial crop area did not change, staying at 3% of the area. The model
118 reproduced the loss of forest to pasture, a c ommon situation for this type of producer. In the business as usual scenario, income increased from US$ 4,310 per year to US$ 6,758 due to the increase in cattle sales Cattle revenue surpassed cacao and became the main income source by the third year. Th e present value of total income discounted 6% for a five year period was US$ 22,974. The income consisted of 29% from off farm activities, 11% from annual crops, 27% from cacao, and 31% from cattle and dairy products. Forest products we re collected sporad ically, mainly fruit ( aai ( E utherpia sp ) and buriti ( Mauritia f lexuosa ) ) which contributed two percent of the family cash income. Family labor was not sufficient at the end of the third year, so the family had to hire the equivalent of four percent of th e total available family labor. Carbon stock payment scenario Under this scenario, the smallholder receive s an annual payment equivalent to the difference in carbon retained on the farm in comparison to the baseline (scenario 1). The payment is added to the model as beginning year cash, and has no restriction on its use. With the constraints of no deforest ation fire management and no burn ing of pasture, the production cost increase d by 18% on average. The model was solved with a ton of carbon valued at US$ 5 and again at US$ 10, the average market price for forest carbon projects ( Nepstad et al., 2007 ) The results are presented i n the Figure 4 3 and Figure 4 4. The payment of US$ 5 per ton of carbon resulted in carbon emission reductions of 291 tons in five years as the result of preservation of 5.1 ha of forest
119 compared with the business as usual scenario. The carbon credit recei ved by the householder in five years was US$ 835.69. However, even with carbon payment, family income wa s reduced to US$ 19,806.86 : 14% less than the business as usual scenario. Thus, the payment for carbon emission reduction would be insufficient for a fa mily to change the production practices using fire. The model gives the option for the family to choose between annual crops with fire and without fire, and the transition to annual crop without fire occurred only on 35% of the crop area. With the scenar io of an annual payment of US$ 10/ton, 501 tons of carbon emission would be avoided and an income of US$ 2,745.34 would be generated The payment for carbon sequestration in only five years reduced deforestation from 9ha to 1.8 ha and increased carbon stoc ks by 1.2% from the start of the project owing to a 15% increase in the fallow area. Compared to the business as usual and US$5 scenarios, carbon stock would increase in the last year of the model, in spite of persistent carbon stock decline in the first two years, mainly due to the period of production system changes ( Figure 4 3 ). The effect of carbon payment on family income and land use wa s significantly different at this carbon price. Family income increase d to US$ 25,150.98, or 9.4% greater than the business as usual scenario. The family could reduce fire dependence on the production system without a loss in income. At the end of the five years of this analysis, the primary income continue d to be provided by c attle, but the new production system provide d additional income which is low in the first
120 two years but bec a me greater thereafter. Fire control enable d the use of aai and the collection of lianas viable in the riparian area, diversifying income sources. The contribution of these non timber forest products to the total income increased from 2% to 18%. O ther forest uses we re not incorporated in the model because of the previous timber extraction in the area, and in a five year model it would be impossible to change the forest condition to allow more intense forest management H owever this is an important element to consider in longer term models. The labor deficit increased from 4% to 9% in this scenario, and cash income was reduced by US$ 917 during t he first two years due to the investment needed to change the system in the short term. However, after the third year the income bec a me 24% greater than the business as usual system ( Figure 4 4 ) Discussion and Co nclusions D uring the last decade local smallholders, rural extension efforts, and national and international research centers developed n ew land management techniques which are now ad o pted to a limited extent by smallholders in the tropic s in the absence of carbon trade. These techniques had the goal of reducing deforestation while increasing forest value ( Perz, 2003 ) Despite the relative success of these techniques, they have never been adopted wide ly to reduc e deforestation. Part of the failure has been due to their high implementation costs, which are particularly a burden to poor farmers ( Almeida et al., 2006 ) The carbon trade can become a n important source to finance this change on a large scale.
121 This work simulated the effects of carbon trade as a means of achieving a low carbon emission system for small producers in Anap, in the eastern part of the Amazon. T he region is classified as a high potential area for REDD projects because of relatively well defined land tenure, well structured social organization, and a highly threatened forest with the loss of 30% of forest cover, mainly in the last 15 years ( Soares Filho et al., 2006b ; Wunder et al., 2008 ) We used ethnographic linear programming to seek answers to the effects of lihood system. This chapter showed that carbon trade could be economically viable, improve food security, and simultaneously increase carbon stock in livestock based smallholders. Such smallholders that are dependent on livestock constitute 3 2% of the smal lholders in this region and have the highest deforestation rate among the types analyzed. However, if carbon prices are not high enough to cover the transition costs to an intensive production system and good environmental protection practices the model p redicts a negative effect on the family livelihood. This result suggests the risk to smallholder farmers when Brazil enforce s environmental law s to reduce deforestation without implement ing policies to change the production system. This trend became eviden t in Brazil with recent efforts to reduce deforestation, where fines for violation of environmental regulations increased and credit was restricted to farmers who complied with environmental laws. In our single farm model at a fixed carbon price of US$ 5 per ton of carbon, a REDD project will reduce agricultural production and collapse the livelihood system with a negative cash flow. T he value of US$ 10 per ton of carbon a value twice as
122 much as th ose found in other studies of smallholders ( Brner et al., 2007 ; Wunder et al., 2008 ) was sufficient to compensate the cost of adapt ing the production system Such d ifference s in opportunity cost to reduce carbon emission from smallholders arise from the different methodological approaches used. In our case, the opportunity cost is defined for the whole property, not for each activity that is affected by limiting defo restation. This accountability is complex and is only possible using models such as ELP. Additional new forest uses, such as vegetable oil extraction, fruit collection or any other forest related production can lead to new profit that reduc es the adaptatio n cost for carbon projects T he opportunity cost as defined here is linked with the introduction of new technologies to reduce forest conversion rather than mechanism s of compensation for preserving the forest. An ELP model must capture changes in estab lished production systems as a consequence of an intervention, in our case REDD policy as its main objective It is possible to use ELP output to generate regional tendencies but it was not done in this chapter, as it was not the objective here A quick simulation using the results for cattle centered smallholders showed that the emission of 501 ton s of carbon was avoided on 110 ha of land during the five years. Since the study area has 2,000 type I producers (cattle specialists) holding an average of 10 0 ha, the simple calculation from the result yields 1 82 ,000 tons of avoided carbon emission per year in the total area of 200,000 ha. Regardless of how the carbon market will be established whether at a project level as the volunteer market is suppos ed to operate, or at the national level, as Brazil proposed the effective transformation of production systems from
123 high to low carbon emission will happen when income s of families living in forest areas increase. Our model can help carbon contractor s de cide how to elaborate the contract clauses, such as the definition of year ly goals for a household, changes in the production system, the cost and revenues, as well as carbon stored in the property. The results show that it is possible and feasible to es tablish a new level of discussion about REDD with small landholders in the Amazon by conditioning payment for carbon on change in productive systems. ELP models, once refined with better data, could be incorporated in programs like ProAmbiente one of the most advanced P ayment for Environmental Services (PES) like schem e s that include s the effect of deforestation and other environmental services such as fire control and water quality ( Hall, 2008 ) Yet t his PES program has been failing to attract buyers, mainly due to the difficulty of the certification process that does not clearly show the amount of services generated ( Wunder et al., 2008 ) Nor does it have a monitoring system to en sure that the services are being processed and a new low carbon emission system has been developed. Both limitations c an be minimized with the ELP method. Another good case where the methodology coul d be applied is the Amazonas bolsa floresta makes a fixed payment of US$25 per month per family for not deforest ing as well as for community improvements such as building school s and health center, and providing training. However, wh en understanding of family livelihood system is insufficient, a disconnection between environmental service rendered and payments can reduce success due to lack of comprehension
124 about family livelihood strategies. The application of ELP methodology c an fac ilitate the negotiation of a common platform between program managers and communit ies ELP model data collection and output of the simulations are helpful in planning and implement ing production system changes needed to reduce deforestation and increase in come. This way, the remuneration for environmental service could be better estimated. These two Brazilian PES programs are examples where ELP c an be used to improve results of the REDD program to reduce carbon emission. The m ethodological tool used in this chapter could be applied, with small adjustment s to the rural extension system in order to reduce uncertainty about the carbon transaction. In this preliminary work, we only examined the effect on one household. In the future, a number of different a nd diverse households should be analyzed to improve the validity of the model to measure potential effects of carbon trade on smallholder s living in tropical forests. Additional smallholders can be modeled with relatively few changes in the model, mainly t o account for smallholder size, current land use, and household composition. T his work show ed promising fields of study that can help decision makers see the impact of a carbon market on small households and the effectiveness of REDD projects In the who le Brazilian Amazon region there are nearly two million smallholders with high emission production systems W ith a little support such a system can be change d to systems with less carbon emissions.
125 The next chapter focus es on us ing model developed and p resented in this chapter to simulate the effects of introduc ing a REDD program in a smallholder system using a n innovative approach to determine the project carbon baseline and to establish targets to reduce emissions from land use change.
126 Figure 4 1 Location of the r ural s ettlement area in Anap, Par State. The dots are the interview locations. Source: Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amaznia (IPAM) remote sensing lab.
127 Figure 4 2 Changes in land use cover during the five year model for a type I farm, in the business as usual scenario Figure 4 3 Fiv e year model using the business as usual and ca rbon payment scenarios. The difference between the businesses as usual carbon scenario and the carbon stock in the carbon payment scenarios is the avoided emission.
128 Figure 4 4 Change of annual income dur ing the five years of simulation for the models with and without carbon payment to t ype I f arm in Anap, Par. Table 4 1 Simulation results for car bon stock payments and business as usual scenarios Scenario Business as u sual Carbon p ayment US$ 5 Carbon p ayment US$ 10 Fa mily i ncome a (US$) 22,974 19,807 25,151 Deforestation in 5 years (ha) 9.0 4.9 1.8 Fallow area change in 5 years (ha) 0.3 0.8 1.9 Avoided c arbon e mission b (Ton) 291 501 Increase in l abor d emand (% hired) 4 14 Carbon c redited c (US$) 835.69 2,745.34 a Present Value; b Included changes in all land use; c Present Value
129 5 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Arguments about the importance of tropical forest conservation for climate change mitigation have been dictating the tropical environmental agenda during the past years. Although these are likely to become stronger in the years to follow, two points are still unresolved: first, a consensus on how to trigger a global scale initiative that stops deforestation and degradation has not yet been established. In addition, it is not yet clear how effectively tropical forest conservation initiatives mitigate climate change. Large scale programs to stop def orestation in the Amazon will need to address the issue of smallholders. Part of the challenge is how to deal with some millions of smallholder families disperse d all over the Amazon who use a widespread production technique: the slash and burn of small f orest plots every year. Finding ways to change a production system from extensive agricultural dependence, mainly cattle and annual crops, to more intense use of forest products and the adoption of better agricultural practices is the challenge associated with reducing deforestation by smallholding families, agents that produced nearly 40 % of the cumulative deforestation in the Amazon. Now that the Brazilian government and the world aim to reduce greenhouse gas emission at a low cost and in a short time th rough reduced deforestation, a key requirement is the design of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation ( REDD ) policies that support product ion initiatives which have already been developed by smallholders but that historically have h ad no support. In t his way,
130 convert ing locally developed initiatives for better use of forest in to large scale production system s a nd at the same time reduc ing regional inequality is the most political ly ecological ly and economical ly adequate option to a chi e ve not only immediate reduction of deforestation, but a permanent trend in how human society looks at the forest. This research contributes to this discussion by analyzing the effects on smallholder land use of the implementation of REDD climate chan ge policies. It aimed to answer three main specific questions: 1) Are smallholders really an important social group to implement a program on reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in the Amazon? 2) Is it possible to develop a tool that helps smallholders to reduce risk associated with the implementation and management of carbon projects? 3) Is payment for avoided carbon emissions an attractive business for smallholders to change production system s and increase family income? Re search to answer these questions was conducted in Par and Acre states using Ethnographic Linear Programming model s to simulate livelihood strategies of diverse households and to evaluate effects of implementation of carbon payment schemas in smallholder l ivelihood systems The goal of any researcher is to provide a contribution, even a small one, to support decision makers and qualify their interventions through findings based on well qualified methods of research. This research is not an end in itself. It is but a step towards the comprehension of the social dynamic involved in climate change, illuminating issues about smallholders, maybe one of the most complex solutions. If I have been successful, these findings should lead to a better understanding of
131 the constraints and possibilities of including the Brazilian Amazon smallholders as This concluding section identifies and illuminates a number of contributions emerging from this research, as well some of its limitations. The second chapter shows the wrong focus that has been given to smallholders in the Amazon and the necessity of repositioning them to the center of the REDD debate. This statement is supported by two factor s: first, smallholders are largely t he most numerous and widely spread agent in forest areas; they have constructed the most effective and efficient capacity of interaction with forest biodiversity and, from this capacity, produce more economic outputs than any other agent does. Second, this agent could be transformed into a deforester under certain socio economic environments, as the discussion on credit availability proved. Such characteristics make smallholders the primary agent to be dealt with through a coherent payment policy for enviro nmental services that aims to reduce deforestation and increase forest value. The next chapters were dedicated to understand ing the effects and potentials observation is that inclusion of smallholders in the REDD mechanism does not guarantee that the family will change to a less carbon intensive productive system. In chapter four, the household modeled responded by applying most of the income generated by carbon trading to promote agric ultural intensification and not to intensify forest use or change to an agroforest system or reforestation. Intensification is seen as one of the possibilities to reduce deforestation. However,
132 the model does not capture behavior change in relation to the forest use. Understanding the causal agent of this behavior is key to promote long term forest conservation. One hypothesis is related to model limitation. I used only a 5year model, which is a short period of time for the family to implement long term cha nges. Further studies need to develop models that at least capture the project time line, which in this study was limited by the software analytical package used. Another possibility is t hat the production options might not be technically adequate to househ old constraints, such as labor, land use, or market. I ncreasing the number of households modeled could help identify behavioral patterns that promote intensification of forest and agroforest production even for models within the 5 year limitation. A secon d observation, the limitation of markets to leverage REDD permanen t effectiveness in other words, to guarantee that land use changes will be permanent when payments for carbon finish. In the third chapter, the application of models simulating market stimul i to traditional deforestation drivers cattle and annual crops shows a tendency t o increase deforestation in all household types, even extractivists. The response to market stimulus for implementation of forest products and agroforest systems that redu ce deforestation, however, was less intense than expected. Addressing this weak correlation between the increase in credit supply for forest products and the increase in use of forest opportunities is crucial to improving the permanence of deforestation re duction. In this sense, it is important to stress that market options for forest products are limited, and the model did not find good possibilities to optimize forest use and
133 perennial crops due to these limitations. These research results suggest as urg ent need of research focusing o n improving forest management for timber and non timber products, as well as devoted to agroforest ry and reforestation technical and marketing improvements. In Brazil, les s than 3 % of the available research resources are appl ied on the Amazon region ( Ministrio de Cincia e Tecnologia, 2008 ) It is important to stress that this kind of result could present some bias resulting f ro m the same model limitations presented above ; however it does not reduc e the importance of the result f o r REDD implementation. A third observation is the importance of deconstruction of the generic use of pe, which has been creating a bias in large scale analyses and policy design and implementation. The third chapter shows how different smallholders are that share the same geographic region. In the same vicinity, the deforestation patterns differ, as well as the drivers behind deforestation. Using the household the study shows that is possible to find some well defined patterns of family cash income composition, which defines some common land use strategies as a unit of analysis However, others factors sh ow influence in deforestation patterns such as time since occupation, which has a positive correlation with deforestation in settlement areas while a negative correlation in Extractive Reserves. The households modeled reflected this heterogeneity, reactin g differently to the same policy. The results of these policies in deforestation prove the point that the more efficient unit of int ervention is the household where the land use decisions take place.
134 However, acting at this level could represent a constr aint to establishing large scale projects. The accuracy and flexibility of Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) models indicates that this methodology has the potential to describe land use change at the household level. With some adaptations, such as the development of a friendly interface that works with Microsoft Excel this model could be used by rural extension systems to define a based o n past use, but also the projected trajectory. The sum of household independent baseline s could be used to collectively negotiate carbon resources. The high initial costs of defining a household level baseline need s to be internalized during project preparation, and this additional initial cost could represents a gain in efficiency during the implementation phase, for having individual projects, with individual targets, anchored in a large scale community project. This design, developed in the ed to quantify the environmental service produced, could ma ke use of this method to design future carbon projects. Further development of model friendly interfaces should include flexibility taking into account project specificities as well as different producti on systems in order to facilitate its application on a large scale. T o be used as a valid tool to define the carbon baseline, the ELP model should be validated in a larger sample of smallholders. A fourth observation and one of the most challenging and important research topics to the implementation of RED D on smallholders is how to define the amount of carbon credit and the value of this remuneration. The methodology developed with the use of ELP models, presented in chapter four, calculates the opportunity
135 cost differently from most of the studies. These studies define accountability as the opportunity cost to change from the deforester system to an other that preserves the forest. This methodology bias es the real opportunity cost to the family, by not considerin g the loss in food security; no r considering the parcel land use evolution. One parcel that today is planted in manioc; in the subsequent years could be maize, or cattle. The methodological option to solve this bias was to calculate the resource s needed to transform the productive on system in an en vironment restrict ed by REDD policy The use of this methodology changes the unit of analyses To the household, the cost of conserving the forest means not only the income lost with the not use option, but also the cost of t he marginal increment of production in other areas inside the property. This means that the concept of REDD ++ (including deforestation, forest degradation, and land use change) could be implemented using this methodology to households, which can account f or car bon balance o n the whole property as the sum of each parcel balance. This approach is incorporated in the livelihood production system better than just accounting for avoided deforestation. Programs such as ProAmbiente, described in the previous sec tions, could fit better in this carbon accountability than those intended only to immobilize forest as a property asset which does not directly link carbon balance with changes in the production system. The model developed here could prove to be a good to ol to simulate property level carbon accountability, including the flexibility needed to accommodate the full spectrum of livelihood production systems found in the
136 Amazon. Further studies need to be developed to improve the model accuracy to link carbon w ith land parcel uses; ne vertheless, the precision level in the model was more accurate than that based on remote sensing analyses alone today, and they could be used t ogether. The debate about the level of precision acceptable to measure carbon to REDD pro jects is still at the beginning, and this study could represent a new perspective from which to look at this topic from a property level. This research brings important insights to a variety of concerns involving REDD programs. While at the international l evel institutions and economic agents see forest carbon as the cheapest and quickest solution for the reduction of global carbon emission levels, seeming to be a good bargain However tropical forest dwellers have another perspective. Millions have the per spective that REDD money could supply part of their necessities that were never attained, such as credit, technical assistance, governance, land rights, infrastructure, etc. If REDD policies can integrate these two perspectives, so much the better. Otherwi this is a topic for other theses.
137 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL UNIVERSIDADE DA FLORIDA INSTITUTO DE PESQUISA AMBIENTAL DA AMAZNIA Adaptado do Projeto Bom Manejo de Fogo do IPAM QUESTIONRIO N: Comunidade:_____________________________ Data:____/____/2008. Entrevistador:____________________________________________________________________ DADOS GERAIS: I Entrevistado e famlia : 1 Qual o seu nome (completo)?_____________________________________ ________________ 2 Onde o Sr(a) nasceu (municpio/UF)?_______________________________________________ 3 Caso no tenha nascido aqui, em que ano o Sr(a) chegou a este municpio? ___________________________________________________________________________ _____ 4 O Sr(a) o(a) dono(a) desta propriedade? ( )sim ( )no 5 Caso no, qual o nome do proprietrio?______________________________________________ 6 Caso no, qual sua relao com a propriedade? ( )meeiro ( )arrendatrio ( )poss eiro ( )filho ( )irmo ( )outros____________________ 7 Caso no, quem toma as decises sobre as atividades produtivas de sua propriedade? ( )o proprietrio ( )o Sr.(a) ( )os dois ( )outros____________________________________ 8 Caso sim, qual a forma de acesso a propriedade? ( )compra ( )herana ( )ocupao ( )outros________________________________________ 9 O Sr.(a) possui documentos da propriedade? ( )sim ( )no 10 Caso sim, qual ou quais? ( )Titulo definitivo em seu nome ( )Recibo de compra ( )Procurao ( )Escritura Pblica ( )Carta de Posse ( )Outros _______________________________________________________ 11 Qual o tamanho de sua propriedade?______________________________________ _________ 12 O Sr. mora nesta propriedade? ( )sim ( )no 13 Caso sim, a quanto tempo ? _____________________________________________________ 14 Caso no, onde o Sr.(a) mora? ( )Outra propriedade rural ( )Cidade ( )Vila ______________ ( )Nos dois ______________ 15 O Sr. possui propriedades urbanas? ( )sim ( )no 16 Caso sim, quais e onde se localizam? ( )Casa _________________ ( )Comrcio _________________ ( )Terreno ________________ ( )Outro __________________ _____________________________________________________ 17 O Sr. possui outras propriedades rurais? ( )sim ( )no 18 Caso sim, especificar ano de acesso tamanho localidade natureza do morador e situao legal do imvel ? Ano de acesso Tamanho (ha, m, etc.) Onde fica (comunidade/municpio/UF) Tipo de morador(1) Situao legal do imvel(2)
138 Notas: 1 Tipo de morador: Famlia (1) Ningum (4) Meeiros (2) Outros (5) Empregados (3) 2 S ituao Legal: No tem ttulo(1) Escritura pblica(4) Ttulo definitivo(2) Carta de posse(5) Recibo de compra(3) Outros(6). 19 Qual dessas propriedades o Sr(a) considera mais importante (onde ele desenvolve a maioria de suas atividades de cultivo, plantio, criaes de animais e extrao de produtos do mato)? ________________________________________________________________________________ 20 O Sr(a). sempre trabalhou com agricultura( )/p ecuria( ) ? ( )sim ( )no 21 Caso no, o que o Sr.(a) fazia antes? ______________________________________________ 22 Caso no, h quantos anos trabalha com agricultura _________ / pecuria _________ ? 23 O Sr(a) j recebeu algum tipo de fin anciamento? ( )sim ( )no 24 Caso sim, qual o tipo de financiamento (especificar a linha de crdito, o ano em que recebeu ou vai receber, se foi para a agricultura, pecuria ou os dois, j recebeu as parcelas e se esta endividado ou no? Tipo de fi nanciamento Ano em que: Finalidade(*) Recebeu Vai receber Agricultura Pecuria (*)Marcar com um X, e no caso de ter recebido para os dois, marcar ambos.
139 25 Composio familiar: NOME /Parentesco(em relao ao entrevistado) Idade Estado civil Escolaridade Participa de organizao? Quais suas fontes de renda? Dirias (quant.) *itens 3, 4, 5 S N Qual? Nvel da Participao em: reunies, assembleias cursos, etc... ENTREVISTADO
140 II Caracterizao da propriedade: 26 Como esto distribudas as reas em us o e ociosas de sua propriedade (no caso de mais de uma propriedade, utilizar os dados daquela que o entrevistado considera mais importante)? Cobertura vegetal rea quando chegou rea hoje Mata Mata sapecada (atingida pelo fogo) Capoeira Roas (c ultivos temporrios/anuais) Outros plantios (1) Pasto Quintal SAFs (2) Total Obs.: A rea pode ser em hectares (ha), tarefas (tf), linha (ln), metros quadrados (m), alqueires(alq.), etc. (1) So os plantios de culturas perenes e semi perenes, como banana, caju, pimenta, etc. (2) Sistemas agroflorestais. 28 De onde retirada a gua utilizada no consumo domstico ou no trabalho?. Fontes de gua Usos Distncia/tempo gasto Domstico Agropecurio Fonte/casa Fonte/trabalho sim no sim no Rio Igarap Poo comunitrio Poo particular Grota Aude 29 Existe alguma rea na sua propriedade que apresente dificuldades em ser utilizada para plantaes ou para pasto ? ( )sim ( ) no 30 Caso sim, quais so essas reas (identificar a rea, o tipo de vegetao, tipo de solo e tamanho da rea e as causas da rea ter se tornado inaproveitvel para plantio ou pasto)? Tamanho Vegetao Solo Causa(1)
141 III Infra estrutur a da propriedade: 31 Quais as benfeitorias, meios de transporte, equipamentos e mquinas existentes em sua propriedade? Construes, mquinas e acessrios Quantidade Tipo Casa Casa de Farinha Curral Cerca Caminho Outro carro Moto T rator Pulverizador Carroa Canoas Barco motorizado Motosserra Motor 32 Existe energia eltrica em sua propriedade? ( )sim ( )no 33 Caso sim, de que tipo? ( )eltrica pblica ( )eltrica particular ( ) outros _____________ 34 Quais destes servios existem prximos a sua propriedade (Especificar a distncia e o tempo gasto entre a propriedade e o servio) ? Servios Distncia(casa/servio) Tempo gasto(em hs ou min) Escola Posto de sade Posto pol icial Estrada asfaltada
142 PRODUO: I Atividades Produtivas: 35 Quais os tipos de produtos o Sr(a) planta em sua roa (cultivos anuais, temporrias) e qual a produo da ultima safra (rea usada, produo, compradores, local de ven da e tipo de transporte) ? Roa (Cultivos anuais) rea usada (*) Produo/preo Tipo de Comprador (1) Local da venda (2) Tipo de transporte (3) Mata (ha) Capoeira (ha/idade) Consumo Venda Arroz( ) Feijo( ) Milho( ) Mandioca( ) Farinha Tucupi Goma No caso de outras roas Arroz( ) Feijo( ) Milho( ) Mandioca( ) Farinha Tucupi Goma (*) : A rea pode ser em hectares (ha), tarefas (tf), linha (ln), metros quadrados (m), alqueires(alq.), etc. Notas: 1 Tipo de comprador: Indstria (1) Cooperativa (2) Consumidor direto (3) Comerciante (4), Feirante (5), Atravessador (6) Outros (7) 2 Local da venda: No municpio (1) Vila (2) Na Comunidade (3) Outra Comunidade (4) Outro municpio(5) Na propriedade(6), Outros (7). (3) Tipo de transporte: Caminho (1) Outro carro (2) nibus (3) Bicicleta (4) Carroa com trao animal (5) Barco(6) Outro s (7). 37 Por quanto tempo o Sr.(a) deixa uma rea descansar para voltar a plantar?_________________
143 38 Quais destes procedimentos o Sr.(a) adota no preparo e cultivo das reas de plantio e de pasto (anotar o ms da atividade e o nmero de dias gasto na atividades por hectare ou tarefa) ? FASES ROA(ultima vez) PASTO rea Ms Dias gastos N. de pessoas rea Ms Dias gastos N. de pessoas Broca Derruba Aceiro Queima Coivara Plantio Capina 1 Capina 2 Colheita 39 Quais os outros plantios (banana, pimenta do reino, coco, aa, etc.) que o Sr(a) possui em sua propriedade e qual a produo da ultima safra (n de ps, totais consumidos e vendidos tipo de comprador, local de venda e tipo de transporte) ? Outros Plantios (Permanentes, etc) N de ps Produo (*) (ultima safra)/preo Tipo de Comprado r (1) Local da venda (2) Tipo de transport e (3) Total Produtivos Consumo Venda Banana Cacau Caf Caju Coco Cupuau Laranja Aa Pimenta do reino Pupunha Mogno Paric Cedro Andiroba Obs.: Permanentes envolve plantios em capoeiras e roas antigas, sistemas agrolflorestais, e cultivos de quintais. (*) Unidades(unid.), quilos(kl), sacos de 60 kl(sc), litros (l), etc. Notas:
144 40 Quais os principais produtos da pecuria e pequenas criaes produzidos por esta propriedade e quanto o Sr(a) ve ndeu ou consumiu na ultima safra (quantidade, consumo familiar, total comercializado, tipo de comprador, local da venda e tipo de transporte) ? Pecuria e Pequenas Criaes Quant hoje. Consumo () Venda (prod/pre o Comercializao Tipo de Comprador( 1) Local da venda(2) Tipo de Transporte(3) Boi(unid.) Leite(l) Queijo(kg) Carne(kg) Massa de queijo(kg) Porcos(unid.) Carne(kg) Galinhas(unid.) Ovos(unid.) Patos(unid.) Ovos(unid.) Notas : 1 Tipo de comprador: Industria (1) Cooperativa (2) Consumidor direto (3) Comerciante (4), Feirante (5), Atravessador (6) Outros (7) 2 Local da venda: No municpio (1) Vila (2) Na Comunidade (3) Outra Comunidade (4) Outro m unicpio(5) Na propriedade(6), Outros (7). 3 Tipo de transporte: Caminho (1) Outro carro (2) nibus (3) Bicicleta (4) Carroa c trao animal (5) Barco(6) Outros (7). 41 Quanto tempo por dia costuma gastar com as atividades pecurias(criaes, pas to, etc)? _______________________________________________________________________________ 42 O Sr. utiliza produtos de sua propriedade para alimentar suas criaes? ( )sim ( )no 43 Caso sim, quais so os alimentos retirados de sua propriedade que o Sr(a). utiliza para alimentar suas criaes? ____________________________________________________________
145 44 Quais os principais produtos extrativos (madeiras, frutas nativas, ervas e plantas medicinais, caa, peixe, mel de abelhas, fibras, cips, e outros) desta propriedade (identificar tipos de produtos, total extrado e vendido, perodo de extrao, local de venda, tipo de comprador e transporte utilizado para levar o produto ao mercado) ? Extrativismo Consumo () Venda Prod/preo Local d a venda(1) Tipo de comprador(2) Tipo de transporte Notas: 1 Tipo de comprador: Industria (1) Cooperativa (2) Consumidor direto (3) Comerciante (4), Feirante (5), Atravessador (6) Outro s (7) 2 Local da venda: No municpio (1) Vila (2) Na Comunidade (3) Outra Comunidade (4) Outro municpio(5) Na propriedade(6), Outros (7). 3 Tipo de transporte: Caminho (1) Outro carro (2) nibus (3) Bicicleta (4) Carroa com trao animal (5) Barco(6) Outros (7). 45 O Sr(a) faz carvo? ( )sim ( )no 46 Caso sim, quantos fornos( ) ou gaiolas( ) tira por ano?_______________________________ 47 Como feita a retirada da madeira da mata? ( )trao animal ( )caminho ( )trator ( )arraste manual( )outros _____________________ 48 Quando no vende o Sr.(a) troca madeira por outra coisa ? ( )sim ( )no 49 Caso sim, o que(abertura de ramal, rancho, etc.)? ____________________________________ ________________________ _______________________________________________________ 50 Quais os tipos de utenslios que o Sr(a) costuma utilizar para pescar?____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 51 Quantos vezes por m s o Sr(a). costuma ir pescar?___________________________________ 52 Quantas horas por dia costuma ficar pescando?______________________________________ 53 Quantos dias por ms o Sr(a).costuma caar?________________________________________ 54 Quantas horas por dia costuma caar?_______________________________________ 55 Qual o perodo do dia que o Sr(a). costuma caar? ( )manha ( )tarde ( )noite 56 O que o Sr(a). utiliza para caar (ces, armadilhas, faco, espingarda, bota, lanterna, etc)? ________________________________________________________________________________ 57 Quantos vezes por ms o Sr(a) costuma ir tirar fibras ou cips no mato?___________________ 58 Cada vez que o Sr(a) vai tirar fibras ou cip no mato, quantas hora s demora?______________ 59 Quantos vezes por dias por ms o Sr(a). costuma ir colher ou coletar frutas no mato?________
146 60 Quantas horas o Sr(a) costuma ficar colhendo frutas no mato? _____________ II Mo de obra e tecnologia: 61 O Sr(a) contrata mo de obra para ajudar nas atividades? ( )sim ( )no 62 O Sr.(a) tem ou j teve meeiros em sua propriedade? ( )sim, tem ( )sim, j teve ( )no 63 Caso tenha ou tenha tido meeiros, eles moram(vam) no lote? ( )sim ( )no 64 Qu ais as atividades que o Sr.(a ) tem em meia ultimamente?____________________________ 65 O Sr(a) trabalha em mutiro? ( )sim ( )no 66 Caso sim, quais as atividades que so realizadas em regime de mutiro?__________________ ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ 67 Caso sim, depois de realizado o mutiro em sua propriedade quantos dirias o Sr.(a) tem que trabalhar em outras propriedades? ____________________________________________________ 68 O Sr(a ) utiliza adubo qumico? ( )sim ( )no 69 Caso sim, de que tipo?_________________________________________________________ 70 O Sr(a) utiliza defensivos agrcolas? ( )sim ( )no 71 Caso sim, de que tipo?_______________________________ __________________________ 72 No ltimo ano, o Sr.(a) contratou diaristas para realizar as atividades listadas (especificar nmero de diaristas, remunerao e dias gastos? Diaristas Quantidade de diaristas Valor da diria Total de dias gastos Derrubada Aceiro Plantio Colheita Limpeza de roa Limpeza de pasto Cuidar do gado(vaqueiro) III Trocas no monetrias : 73 O Sr(a). costuma dar alguma coisa(produtos de consumo ou de uso domestico) que retirada de su a propriedade a seus vizinhos? ( )sim ( )no 74 O Sr(a)., costuma trocar alguma coisa(de consumo ou uso domstico) que retirada de sua propriedade com seus vizinhos? ( )sim ( )no
147 75 Caso o Sr(a). d ou troque alguma coisa com seus vizinhos, quais so aqueles que o Sr(a). d ou troca com maior frequncia com seus vizinhos, e em caso da troca, que produtos o Sr. costuma receber (no ultimo ano/2000)? PRODUTOS TROCADOS PRODUTOS RECEBIDOS PRODUTOS DADOS Obs.: Os produtos alvo da troca so aqueles retirados do mato (madeira, lenha, cips, plantas medicinais, caa, frutas, etc.), das plantaes (banana, coco, caf, pimenta, maracuj, caju, etc.), da roa (mandioca pura, farinha de mandioca, milho, feij o, arroz, etc.), das criaes (bovinos, porcos, galinhas, patos, etc.) e outros. FOGO: I Perdas : 76 frequente a ocorrncia de perdas com o uso do fogo em sua comunidade? ( )sim ( )no 77 Caso sim, quais as ocorrncias de fogo descontrolado em sua propriedade que o Sr(a) consegue lembrar ? Ano Causa(*) Quantos lotes afetou? Quantos dias durou? (*) Tipos de causa : Fogo na roa do vizinho, fogo na pastagem do vizinho, fogo na derrubada do vizinho, fogo de caador, fogo na prpr ia pastagem, fogo na prpria derrubada, e outros. 78 O que o Sr.(a). perdeu em benfeitorias e equipamentos ? Perdas Quant. Tipo Casa (material com que foi construda e tamanho) Utenslios domsticos ( redes, colches, foges, etc.) Cercas ( tamanh o em metros e quantos fios ) Curral ( material com que foi construdo e tamanho) Casa de farinha (n. de fornos e acessrios perdidos) Carroa (tipo de material com quer foi construda) Paiol ( quantas sacos de arroz, de feijo estavam dentro, e tc:)
148 79 O que o Sr.(a). fez para repor o que perdeu em benfeitorias e equipamentos ? Perdas recuperadas Quant. Tipo Casa (material com que foi construda e tamanho) Utenslios domsticos ( redes, colches, foges, etc.) Cercas ( tamanho em metros e quantos fios ) Curral ( material com que foi construdo e tamanho) Casa de farinha (n. de fornos e acessrios perdidos) Carroa (tipo de material com quer foi construda) Paiol ( quantas sacos de arroz, de feijo estavam d entro, etc:) 80 O Sr(a) j teve reas derrubadas, queimadas antes do perodo correto ? ( )sim ( )no 81 Caso sim, qual a rea queimada?__________________________________________________ 82 Houve aproveitamento da rea derrubada ati ngida pelo fogo? ( )sim ( )no 83 Caso sim, qual o tipo de aproveitamento? __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 84 Quais as perdas que o Sr teve em suas roas atingidas pelo fogo (a perda de roa que ele considera mais importante)? ESPCIES REA PERDIDA(*) PRODUO PERDIDA(se tiver) Mandioca Arroz Milho Feijo (*) Em tarefas(tf), hectares(ha), linha(ln), alqueire(alq.), metros(m), etc. 85 Q uais as perdas que o Sr(a) teve em suas plantaes (banana, pimenta do reino, coco, aa, etc...) por causa do fogo? ESPCIES N. DE PS PRODUO PERDIDA (se tiver) 86 O Sr(a) j perdeu algum animal (gado, cavalo, porco, galinha etc..) por causa do fogo (espcie e quantidade)?____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 87 O Sr(a) j teve pasto queimado fora de po ca em conseqncia de fogo acidental? ( )sim ( )no 88 Caso sim, qual a rea de pasto atingida pelo fogo?___________________________________
149 89 O Sr(a). j teve que alugar pasto em conseqncia de fogo acidental? ( )sim ( )no 90 Caso si m, qual o valor do aluguel por cabeas de gado, quantas cabeas foram colocadas no pasto alugado e por quanto tempo?____________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 91 O Sr(a) j teve reas de mata atingidas pelo fogo? ( )sim ( )no 92 Das espcies de madeira de seu mato que o Sr(a) vende ou utiliza, quais as mais atingidas pela ocorrncia de fogo(espcies e quantidade perdida)?___________________________________ ____ ________________________________________________________________________________ 93 Das rvores frutferas de seu mato(bacuri, cupuau, aa, etc.), cujos frutos o Sr(a) vende ou consome, quais as mais atingidas pela ocorrncia de fogo(espcies, qua nto colhia por safra antes do fogo e quanto colhe depois do fogo)?__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 94 Das fibras ou cips que o Sr(a) retira de seu mato, q uais as mais atingidas pela ocorrncia de fogo(espcies, quanto retirava antes do fogo por ano e quanto retira depois do fogo)?____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 95 Dos tipos de caa (tatu, paca, veado, cutia, etc...) que existem em seu mato, quais aqueles que se tornaram mais escassos aps a ocorrncia do fogo descontrolado no mato(espcies, quanto caava de cada espcie antes do fogo por ano e quanto caa depois do fogo)?__________________ _____ ___________________________________________________________________________ 96 Depois da ocorrncia do fogo, demora mais para o Sr(a) conseguir caar algum animal? ( )sim ( )no 97 Caso sim quanto tempo?_________________________________________ ______________ 98 Os problemas de sade aumentam na poca das queimadas? ( )sim ( )no 99 Caso sim, quais?______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ______ 100 O Sr(a) j teve algum benefcio em consequncia da ocorrncia do fogo descontrolado? ( )sim ( )no 101 Caso sim, quais ? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________ II Uso e preveno do fogo : 102 Para que atividades de seu lote o Sr(a). utiliza o fogo? ________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 103 Quem respons vel em sua famlia pela organizao da queima e por medidas de controle do fogo?___________________________________________________________________________ 104 Considera importante utilizar tcnicas de preveno e controle de queimadas? ( ) sim ( )no 105 Caso sim, Porque ?___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 106 O Sr(a) discute com algum sobre a preparao da terra ou sobre a queima? ( )sim ( )no 107 Caso sim, quem? ( )sindicato ( )vizinhos ( )IBAMA ( )comunidade ( )Ongs ( )igreja ( )famlia ( )no discute ( )outros____________________________ 108 Como o Sr(a). decide a poca e o dia certo para fazer a queima de sua rea?_______________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 109 Caso o Sr(a) faa aceiro com trator quantas horas gastou e quanto pagou pela d iria do trator? ________________________________________________________________________________ 110 Seus vizinhos tomam precaues para evitar a ocorrncia do fogo acidental em suas propriedades? ( )sim ( )no
150 111 O Sr(a) j teve problemas com vizinhos em consequncia do fogo acidental? ( )sim ( )no 112 Caso sim, quais? _____________________________________________________________ 113 A comunidade tem algum tipo de organizao para as queimadas? ( )sim ( )no 114 O Sr(a). p articipa das atividades comunitrias de preveno e controle de fogo? ( )sim ( )no 115 Caso sim, quais so essas atividades? ____________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ __ 116 O Sr(a) precisa de autorizao de algum rgo para fazer queimadas? ( )sim ( )no 117 O Sr(a) acha que a existncia de grupo organizado de controle e preveno do fogo influncia em sua praticas de uso do fogo?_______________________________ _______________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 118 Na sua comunidade, quais os rgos do governo ou da sociedade civil que orientam os agricultores sobre o uso do fogo? ( )IBAMA ( )EMATER ( )EMBRAPA ( )IPAM ( )STR ( )outros_______________________________________________________________________ 119 Quais as tcnicas que utilizou na ultima roa queimada? Fazer um desenho da rea mostrando: Que tipo de vegetao tinha no entor no da queimadas? Onde foi feito aceiro e ou varrida e tamanho? De que lado comeou o fogo e qual a direo do vento? Tinha paus secos ou for ? a derrubados? Levaram gua para o local e onde deixaram?
151 LIST OF REFERENCES Achard, F., Eva, H. D., Mayaux, P., Stibig, H. J., & Belward, A. (2004). Improved estimates of net carbon emissions from land cover change in the tropics for the 1990s. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18 (2), 1 11. Achard, F., Eva, H. D., Stibig, H. J., Mayaux, P., Gallego, J ., Richards, T., & Malingreau, J. P. (2002). Determination of Deforestation Rates of the World's Humid Tropical Forests. Science, 297 (5583), 999 1002. Agrawal, A., & C.C.Gibson. (1999). Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resou rce Conservation. World Development, 27 (4), 629 649. Alencar, A., Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Moutinho, P., Pacheco, P., Diaz, M. D. C., & Filho, B. S. (2004a). Desmatamento da Amaznia: indo alm da emergncia cronica Belem, Brazil: IPAM. Alencar, A., Solo rzano, L., & Nepstad, D. (2004b). Modeling forest understory fires in an eastern amazonian landscap. Ecological Applications, 14 (4), 139 149. Aliana dos Povos da Floresta. (2008). Manaus Declaration: Documento final do workshop Latino Americano sobre Muda na Climtica e Povos da Floresta Manaus: CNS, GTA, COIAB, IPAM, ISA, WHRC. Almeida, E., Sabogal, C., & Brienza, S., Jr. (2006). Recuperao de areas alteradas na Amaznia Brasileira: experincias locais, lies aprendidas e implicaes para polticas pb licas Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Almeida, M. (2006). Direitos Floresta e Ambientalismo:Seringueiros e suas Lutas. revista brasileira de ciencias sociais, 19 (55), 31 52. Amacher, G. S., Koskela, E., & Ollikainen M. (2009). Deforestation and land use under insecure property rights. Environment and Development Economics, 14 (03), 281 303. ANA Agencia Nacional de guas. (2006). Srie Pluviomtrica. Retrieved April 03, 2007, from htpp:// www.hidroweb.ana.gov.br Andersen, T., & Barnes, G. (2004). Inside the Polygon: Emerging community tenure systems and forest resource extraction. In D. Zarin, J. R. R. Alavalapati, F. E. Putz & M. Schmink (Eds.), Working forests in the n eotropics -conservation through sustainable management? (pp. 156 177). New York: Columbia University Press. Angelsen, A. (2008). Moving Ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
152 Angelsen, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (2001a). Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Angelsen, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (2001b). Introduction: the Role of Agricultural Technologies in Tropical Deforestation. In A. An gelsen & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation (pp. xiv, 422 p.). Wallingford, Oxford: Center for International Forestry Research Press. Araujo, A. A. (1997). Agroforestry systems as an economic alternative for small far mers in the state of Acre, Brazil Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Austin, E. J., Willock, J., Deary, I. J., Gibson, G. J., Dent, J. B., Edwards Jones, G., Morgan, O., Grieve, R., & Sutherland, A. (1998). Empirical models of farmer behavior using psychological, social and economic variables. Part I: linear modeling. Agricultural Systems, 58 (2), 203 224. Barham, B. L., & Coomes, O. T. (1994). Reinterpreting the Amazon Rubber Boom: Investment, the State, and Dutch Disease. Lati n American Research Review, 29 (2), 73 109. Barreto, P., Pinto, A., Brito, B., & Hayashi, S. (2008). Quem o dono da Amaznia?: uma anlise do recadastramento de imveis rurais Belem PA: Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amaznia. Bartels, W., Schmin k, M. A., Borges, E. A., Duarte, A. P., & Arcos, H. D. S. S. (2009). Diversifying livelihood systems, strengthening social networks, and rewarding environmental stewardship among small scale producers in the Brazilian Amazon: Lessons from Proambiente. In L Tacconi, S. Mahanty & H. Suich (Eds.), Livelihoods and Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons for Reduced Deforestation and Forest Degradation Massachustts: Edward Elgar Publishing. Becker, B. (1991). Gesto do Territrio e Territorialidade da Ama znia. In P. Lna & A. E. d. Oliveira (Eds.), Amaznia: A Fronteira Agrcola 20 Anos Depois (pp. 333 350). Belm: Museu Paraense Emlio Goeld. Brner, J., Mendoza, A., & Vosti, S. A. (2007). Ecosystem services, agriculture, and rural poverty in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon: Interrelationships and policy prescriptions. Ecological Economics, 64 (2), 356 373. Boserup, E. (1973, c1965). The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure Chicago: Aldine. Brando, A. & Souza, C. (2006). Deforestation in Land Reform Settlements in the Amazon Belm: IMAZON.
153 Braz, M., Evaldo, S., Oliveira, J. M., Santos, J. C., Cordeiro, D. G., Franke, I. L., Arajo, T. C., Gomes, R., Costa, S. C., Mendes, A. M., Araujo, H. J. B., Rodr igues, V., Rossi, L. M., Valentim, J. F., E.Barros, Feigl, B., Huang, S. P., S, C. P., Moreira, Carpentier, C. L. (1988). Relatrio do Projeto Alternativas para a Agri cultura de Derruba e Queima Acre: EMBRAPA. Browder, J., Pedlowski, M., & Summers, P. (2004). Land Use Patterns in the Brazilian Amazon: Comparative Farm Level Evidence from Rondnia. Human Ecology, 32 (2). Brown, I. F., Schroeder, W., Setzer, A., Maldonado M. D. L. R., Pantoja, N., Duarte, A., & Marengo, J. (2006). Monitoring Fires in Southwestern Amazonia Rain Forests. Eos, 87 (26), 253 264. Caldas, M., Walker, R., Arima, E., Perz, S., Aldrich, S., & Simmons, C. (2007). Theorizing Land Cover and Land Use C hange: The Peasant Economy of Amazonian Deforestation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97 86 110. Capobianco, J. P. R., & Verissimo, A. (2001). Biodiversidade na Amaznia Brasileira: Avaliao e Aes Prioritarias para a Conservao, Us o Sustentavel e Repartio de Benefcios So Paulo: Instituto SocioAmbiental. Carpentier, C. L., Vosti, S. A., & Witcover, J. (2000). Small scale farms in the western Brazilian Amazon : can they benefit from carbon trade? Washington, D.C.: International F ood Policy Research Institute Carvalho, E., Mello, R., Assuno, L., & Souza, L. (2008). Caixa de utilidade para trabalhar com manejo de fogo em reas de produtores familiares Belm: IPAM. Carvalho, G., Moutinho, P., Nepstad, D., Mattos, L., & Santilli, M. (2004). An Amazon Perspective on the Forest Climate Connection: Opportunity for Climate Mitigation, Conservation and Development? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6 (1), 163 174. Carvalho, G. O. (2000). The politics of indigenous land rights Brazil. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 19 (4), 461 478. Chomitz, K. M. (2007). At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests, World Bank policy research report (Vol. 17, pp. 284). Washington, DC: Wo rld Bank. CNS Conselho Nacional dos Seringueiros. (2006). Populaes extrativistas da Amaznia: processo histrico, conquistas socioambientais e estratgia de desenvolvimento econmico. Porto Alegre.
154 Cochrane, M. A. (2001). Synergistic interactions betwee n habitat fragmentation and fire in evergreen tropical forests. Conservation Biology, 15 (6), 1515 1521. CONTAG Confederao Nacional dos Trabalhadores na Agricultura. (2004). Grito da Terra. Retrieved January 11, 2007, from http://www.contag.org.br/ Costa, F. A. (1993). O investimento na Economia Camponesa: Consideraes Tericas, Papers do NAEA (Vol. 8, pp. 24). Belm/PA: UFPa. Costa, F. A. (2000). Formao Agropecuria da Amaznia: os desafios do desenvolviment o sustentvel Belm: UFPA/NAEA. Costa, F. A. (2005). Questo agrria e macropolticas para a Amaznia, Estudos Avanados (Vol. 53, pp. 131 156). So Paulo: USP. Costa, F. A., Hurtinenne, T., & Kahwage, C. (2006). Inovaes e Difuso tecnolgica para Agric ultura Familiar Sustentvel na Amaznia Oriental: resultados e implicaes do projeto SHIFT socio economia Belm: NAEA/UFPA. Cronkleton, P., Taylor, P. L., Barry, D., Stone Jovicich, S., & Schmink, M. (2008). Gobernanza Ambiental y el surgimiento de movim ientos forestales de base, CIFOR Occasional Paper (Vol. 4, pp. 36). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Dasgupta, P., & Maler, K. G. (1994). Poverty, institutions, and the environmental resource base, World Bank Environmen t Paper (Vol. 9). Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Elasquez, C., Villas Boas, A., & Schwartzman, S. (2006). A challenge for integrated environmental management in agricultural frontier territory in western Par, Brazil. Revista Admnistrao Pblica 40 (6), 1 061 1075. FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2005). State of the World's Forests (6 ed.). Rome: FAO. Fearnside, P. M. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, Rates, and Consequences. Conservation Biology, 19 (3), 6 80 688. Fergusson, I. F. (2007). The World Trade Organization: Background and Issues Washington D.C: Congressional Research Service. Geist, H. J., & Lambin, E. F. (2002). Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation: Tropical f orests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations. BioScience, 52 (2), 143 150.
155 Gomes, C. V. A. (2001). Dynamics of land use in an Amazonian extractive reserv e: the case of the Chico Mendes extractive reserve in Acre, Brazil Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Greenpeace. (2008). O rastro da pecuria na Amaznia Manaus: Greenpeace. Hall, A. (2008). Better RED than dead: paying the people for environmental services in Amazonia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 363 1925 1932. Hamilton, K., Sjardin, M., Marcelo, T., & Xu, G. (2008). Voluntary Carbon Market State and Trends : Ecosystem Marketplace & New Carbon Finance. Hebette, J., & Marin, R. E. A. (1979). Colonizao espontnea, politica agrria e grupos sociais. In J. M. Costa (Ed.), Amazonia: desenvolvimento e ocupao (pp. 141 142). Rio de Janeiro: IPEA/INPES. Hedden Dunkhorst, B., Denich, M., Vielhauer, K., Mendoza Escalante, A., Borner, J ., Hurtienne, T., Filho, F. R. S., S, T. A., & Costa, F. A. (2003). Forest based fallow systems: A safety net for smallholders in the Eastern Amazon? Paper presented at the International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forest and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germ any. Hildebrand, P. E., Breuer, N. E., Cabrera, V. E., & Sullivan, A. J. (2003). Modeling diverse livelihood strategies in rural livelihood systems using ethnographic linear programming. Staff Paper Series, 05 Houghton, R. A. (2005). Aboveground Forest Bi omass and the Global Carbon Balance. Global Change Biology, 11 (6), 945 958. IBAMA Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovveis. (2006). Plano de Manejo da Reserva Extrativista Chico Mendes (pp. 91). Brasilia: DISAM Diretoria d e Desenvolvimento Scio Ambiental. IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica. (2006). Censo Agropecurio Anurios Estatsticos Retrieved January 05, 2009, from http://www.ibge.gov.br/espanhol/estatistica/economia/agropecuaria/censoagro/2 006/default.shtm INCRA Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agrria. (2002). SIGER Sistema de Gerenciamento da Reforma Agrria. Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://www.sigerfao.hpg.com.br/ INPE Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. (2008). Sistema de Deteco do Desmatamento em Tempo Real na Amaznia DETER: Aspectos Gerais, Metodolgicos e Plano de Desenvolvimento So Jos dos Campos: INPA. INPE Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. (2009). Desmatamento em Tempo Real. Retrieved November 03, 2009, from www.obt.inpe.br/deter/
156 IPCC Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change. (2007a). Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. Retrieved October 01, 2009, from http://www.ipcc nggip.iges.or.jp/publ ic/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007b). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report : United Nations. ISA Instituto SocioAmbiental. (2008). Unidades de Conservao na Amaznia. Retrie ved March 10, 2009, from http://www.socioambiental.org/uc/quadro_geral Johns, T., Merry, F., Stickler, C., Nepstad, D., Laport, N., & Goetz, S. (2008). A three fund approach to incorporating gov ernment, public and private forest stewards into a REDD funding mechanism. International Forestry Review, 10 (3). Kaimowitz, D., Mertens, B., Wunder, S., & Pacheco, P. (2004). Hamburger Connection Fuels Amazon Destruction Bogor, Indonesia: Center for Inter national Forest Research. extractive reserves, acre, Brazil. Economic Botany, 46 (4), 408 425. Kainer, K. A., Schmink, M., Leite, A. C. P., & Fadell, M. J. d. S. (2003). Exper iments in Forest Based Development in Western Amazonia. Society and Natural Resources, 16 869 886. Karsenty, A., Pottinguer, A., Guneau, S., Capristano, D., & Peyron, J. L. (2008). Special Issue: REDD and the Evolution of an International Forest Regime. The International Forestry Review, 10 (3), 424 562. Laurance, W. F. (1999). Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biological Conservation, 91 (2 3), 109 117. Lemos, M. C., & Roberts, J. T. (2008). Environmental policy making networks and the futu re of the Amazon. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 363 1897 1902. Lewis, S. L. (2009). Carbon emissions: the poorest forest dwellers could suffer. Nature, 462 (7273), 567 567. Malhi, Y., Roberts, J. T., Betts, R. A., Killeen, T. J., Li, W., & Nobre, C. A. (2008). C limate Change, Deforestation, and the Fate of the Amazon. Science, 319 (5860), 169 172. Margulis, S. (2004). Causes of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon World Bank. Washington, D.C. Mattos, L., & Nepstad, D. (2002). An Agricultural and Environmental Cr edit Line for Amazon Farmers London: Forest Trends.
157 Mayrand, K., & Paquin, M. (2004). Payments for Environmental Services: A Survey and Assessment of Current Schemes Montreal: Unisfra International Centre McNabb, D. E. (2004). Research methods for polit ical science : quantitative and qualitative methods Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Mello, R. (2008). Calculo do potencial do polo Proambiente da Transamazonica para reduzir emisses de carbono. Relatrio Interno. Brasilia: IPAM. Mello, R., & Pires, E. C. S. ( 2004). Valorao Econmica do Uso de Tcnicas de Preveno e Controle de Queimadas em Cenrios de Produo Familiar na Amaznia: Um estudo de caso em comunidades rurais de Paragominas, Par, Brasil (pp. 79). Belm, Pa: IPAM/CSF/CI. Mello, R., Souza, L. L., Carvalho, E., Assuno, L., & Pereira, C. (2006). Efeito Perverso de Queimadas na Amaznia. Estudo das Perdas Ocasionadas em Sistemas Agroflorestais Implantados por Agricultores Familiares. Paper presented at the IV Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas Agrofl orestais, Campos Rio de Janeiro. Ministrio de Cincia e Tecnologia. (2008). Indicadores Consolidados de Cincia e Tecnologia. Retrieved 01/12, 2010, from http://www.mct.gov.br/index. php/content/view/8838.html Molnar, A., Gomes, D., Sousa, R., Vidal, N., Hojer, R. F., Arguelles, L. A., Kaatz, S., Martin, A., Donini, G., Scherr, S., White, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (2008). Community Forest Enterprise Markets in Mexico and Brazil: New Opportu nities and Challenges for Legal Access to the Forest. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 27 (1), 87 121. Morton, D. C., DeFries, R. S., Shimabukuro, Y. E., Anderson, L. O., Arai, E., del Bon Espirito Santo, F., Freitas, R., & Morisette, J. (2006). Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103 (39), 14637 14641. Moutinho, P., Santilli, M., Schwartzman, S., & Rodrigues, L. (2005). Why ignore tropical deforestation? A prop osal for including forest conservation in the Kyoto Protocol. Unasylva (FAO), 56 (222), 27 30. Muchagata, M., & Brown, K. (2003). Cows, colonists and trees: rethinking cattle and environmental degradation in Brazilian Amazonia. Agricultural Systems, 76 (3), 797 816. Mudhara, M., & Hildebrand, P. E. (2004). Assessment of constraints to the adoption of improved fallows in Zimbabwe using linear programming models. In J. R. R. Alavalapati & D. E. Mercer (Eds.), Valuing Agroforestry Systems: Methods and Applicati ons Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
158 Nepstad, D., Carvalho, G., Cristina Barros, A., Alencar, A., Paulo Capobianco, J., Bishop, J., Moutinho, P., Lefebvre, P., Lopes Silva, U., & Prins, E. (2001). Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, an d the future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 154 (3), 395 407. Nepstad, D., Lefebvre, P., Silva, U. L. D., Tomasella, J., Schlesinger, P., Solorzano, L., Moutinho, P., Ray, D., & Benito, J. G. (2004). Amazon drought and its implications fo r forest flammability and tree growth: a basin wide analysis. Global Change Biology, 10 704 717. Nepstad, D., Schwartzman, S., Bamberger, B., Santilli, M., Ray, D., Schlesinger, P., Lefebvre, P., Alencar, A., Prinz, E., Fiske, G., & Rolla, A. (2006a). Inh ibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks and Indigenous Lands. Conservation Biology, 20 (1), 65 73. Nepstad, D. C., & Schwartzman, S. (1992). Non Timber Products from Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy (Vol. 9). Bronx, N.Y.: New York Botanical Garden. Nepstad, D. C., Soares Filho, B., Merry, F., Moutinho, P., Rodrigues, H. O., Bowman, M., Schwartzman, S., Almeida, O., & Rivero, S. (2007). The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Carbon Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the Brazilian Amazon Report launched in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Conference of the Parties (COP), Thirteen session WHRC/IPAM. Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., & Almeida, O. T. (2006b). Globa lization of the Amazon Soy and Beef Industries: Opportunities for Conservation. Conservation Biology, 20 (6), 1595 1603. Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Filho, B. S., & Merry, F. (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects fo r a near term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363 (1498), 1737 1746. Nepstad, D. C., Verssimo, A., Alencar, A., Nobre, C., Lima, E., Lefebvre, P., Schlesinger, P., Potter, C., Moutinho, P., Mendo za, E., Cochrane, M., & Brooks, V. (1999). Large scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature, 398 (6727), 505 508. Neumann, R. P., & Hirsch, E. (2000). Commercialization of non timber forest products: review and analysis of researc h Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research. Pacheco, P. (2003). Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: A Review of Estimates at Municipal Level. In S. Margullis (Ed.), Causas do Desmatamento da Amaznia Brasileira Brasilia: Wor ld Bank.
159 Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., & Platais, G. (2005). Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America. World Development, 33 (2), 237 253. Palm, C. A., Woomer, P. L., A legre, J., Arevalo, L., Castilla, C., Cordeiro, D. G., Feigl, B., Hairiah, K., Alegre, J., Arevalo, L., Kotto Same, Mendes, A., Moukam, A., Murdiyarso, D., Njomgang, R., Parton, W. J., Ricse, A., Rodrigues, V., Sitompul, S. M., & Noordwijk, M. v. (2000). C arbon sequestration and trace gas emissions in slash and burn and alternative land uses in the humid tropics Nairobi, Kenya: CCGIAR/ASB. Pasquis, R. (1999). La dforestation en Amazonie brsilienne et son impact sur l'environnement Montpellier, FRANCE: C IRAD Fort. Perez, M. R., & Byron, R. N. (1999). A methodology to analyze divergent case studies of non timber forest products and their development potential. Forest Science, 45 (1), 1 14. Perz, S. (2003). Social Determinants and Land Use Correlates of A gricultural Technology Adoption in a Forest Frontier: A Case Study in the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology, 31 (1), 133 165. Perz, S. G. (2001a). From Sustainable Development to 'Productive Conservation:' Forest Conservation Options and Agricultural Income a nd Assets in the Brazilian Amazon. Rural Sociology, 66 93 112. Perz, S. G. (2001b). Household demographic factors as life cycle determinants of land use in the Amazon. Population Research and Policy Review, 20 (3), 159 186. Peskett, L., Huberman, D., Bowen Jones, E., Edwards, G., & Brown, J. (2008). Making REDD work for the poor Poverty Environment Partnership: UICN. Phillips, O. L., Arago, L. E. O. C., Lewis, S. L., Fisher, J. B., Lloyd, J., Lopez Gonzalez, G., Malhi, Y., Monteagudo, A., Peacock, J., Que sada, C. A., van der Heijden, G., Almeida, S., Amaral, I., Arroyo, L., Aymard, G., Baker, T. R., Banki, O., Blanc, L., Bonal, D., Brando, P., Chave, J., de Oliveira, A. C. A., Cardozo, N. D., Czimczik, C. I., Feldpausch, T. R., Freitas, M. A., Gloor, E., H iguchi, N., Jimenez, E., Lloyd, G., Meir, P., Mendoza, C., Morel, A., Neill, D. A., Nepstad, D., Patino, S., Penuela, M. C., Prieto, A., Ramirez, F., Schwarz, M., Silva, J., Silveira, M., Thomas, A. S., Steege, H. t., Stropp, J., Vasquez, R., Zelazowski, P ., Davila, E. A., Andelman, S., Andrade, A., Chao, K. J., Erwin, T., Di Fiore, A., C., E. H., Keeling, H., Killeen, T. J., Laurance, W. F., Cruz, A. P., Pitman, N. C. A., Vargas, P. N., Ramirez Angulo, H., Rudas, A., Salamao, R., Silva, N., Terborgh, J., & Torres Lezama, A. (2009). Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest. Science, 323 (5919), 1344 1347. Pichn, F. J. (1997). Settler households and land use patterns in the Amazon frontier: Farm level evidence from Ecuador. World Development, 25 (1), 67 91
160 Rgo, J. F. d. (1999). Amaznia: do extrativismo ao neoextrativismo. Cincia Hoje, 25 (147), 62 65. Reynal, V., Muchagata, M., Topall, O., & Hbette, J. (1995). Agricultura Familiares e Desenvolvimento em Frente Pioneira Amaznica Belm/PA: LASAT/CAT/GRE T. Ricketts, T. H., Soares Filho, B., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Nepstad, D., Pfaff, A., Petsonk, A., Anderson, A., Boucher, D., Cattaneo, A., Conte, M., Creighton, K., Linden, L., Maretti, C., Moutinho, P., Ullman, R., & Victurine, R. (2010). Indigenous Lands, Protected Areas, and Slowing Climate Change. PLoS Biol, 8 (3), e1000331. Rocha, C. (2003). Diagnstico da agricultura em quatro municpios da transamaznica: Altamira, Anap, Brasil Novo e Vitria do Xingu Altamira, Par: LAET Laboratrio Agroecologico d a Transamazonica. Rodrigues, R. (2004). Anlise dos Fatores Determinantes do Desflorestamento da Amaznia Legal. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, UERJ, Rio de Janeiro. Salisbury, D. S., & Schmink, M. (2007). Cows versus rubber: Changing livelihoods among Amazonian extractivists. Geoforum, 38 (6), 1233 1249. Santilli, M., Moutinho, P., Schwartzman, S., Nepstad, D., Curran, L., & Nobre, C. (2005). Tropical Deforestation and The Kyoto Protocol Brasilia: IPAM/ISA/WHRC. Sawyer, D. (2001). Evoluo Demogrfica, Qualidade de Vida e Desmatamento na Amaznia. In V. Fleischresser (Ed.), Causas e Dinmica do desmatamento na Amaznia (pp. 73 90). Brasilia: MMA. Scherr, S., White, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (2004). A new agenda for forest conservation and poverty reduction: M aking markets work for low income producers Washington,D.C.: Forest Trends, CIFOR, IUCN. Schmink, M., & Wood, C. H. (1992). Contested frontiers in Amazonia New York: Columbia University Press. Schwartzman, S., Alencar, A., Zarin, H., & Santos Souza, A. P (2010). Social Movements and Large Scale Tropical Forest Protection on the Amazon Frontier: Conservation From Chaos. The Journal of Environment & Development, 19 (3), 274 299. Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservao da Natureza. (2000). Lei Federal N o 9985 de 18 de Julho de 2000. Dirio Oficial da Unio, 138 1 6.
161 Soares Filho, B. S., Dietzsch, L., Moutinho, P., Falieri, A., Rodrigues, H., Pinto, E., Maretti, C. C., Scaramuzza, C. A. M., Anderson, A., Suassuna, K., Lanna, M., & Arajo, F. V. (2008). Reducing Carbon Emissions from Deforestation: the Role of Brasilia: UFMG/ IPAM/ WHRC/ WWF. Soares Filho, B. S., Nepstad, D. C., Curran, L. M., Cerqueira, G. C., Garcia, R. A., Ramos, C. A., Voll, E., McDonald, A., Lefebvre, P., & Schlesinger, P. (2006a). Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature, 440 (7083), 520 523. Soares Filho, B. S., Nepstad, D. C., Curran, L. M., Cerqueira, G. C., Garcia, R. A., Ramos, C. A., Voll, E., McDonald, A., Lefebvre, P., & Schlesinger, P. (2006b). Stella, O., Pinto, E., Rettmann, R., Mello, R., & Castro, I. (2009). Desmatamento Evitado no Plo do ProAmbiente da Transamaznica. Paper presented at the Aplicando a Economia Ecolgica para o Desenvolvimento Sustentvel, Cuiab. Taylor, P. L. (2005). In the Market But Not of It: Fair Trade Coffee and Forest Stewardship Council Certification as Market Based Social Change. World Development, 33 (1), 129 147. The Katoomba Group. (2008). Indigenous Engagement in REDD: Developing a project with the Surui in the Southwest Amazon of Brazil Washington: Forest Trends. Treccani, G. D. (2001). Violncia e grilagem : instrumentos de aquisio da propriedade da terra no Par Belm: UFPA, ITERPA. Tura, L., & Costa, F. A. (2000). Campesinato e Estado na Amaznia. Impactos do FNO no Par. (2 edio ed.). Brasilia: Braslia Jurdica. UNEP United Nations Environment Programme. (2008). Key Results of the 9th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD in Bonn. Retrieved November 05, 2009, from http://www.bmu.de/english/nature/un_conference_on_biological_diversity_2008 /p apers/doc/41651.php UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2005). Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its first session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://www.unfccc.int/FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1 UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2008). Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action. Decision /CP.13. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application /pdf/cp_redd.pdf
162 land use/land cover change in the Brazilian Amazon. Population & Environment, 28 (3), 163 185. (2004). Uso da terra, ciclo de vida da unidade domstica e ciclo de vida do lote na Amaznia Brasileira, XIV Encontro Nacional de Estudos Populacionais Caxamb MG Brasil: ABEP. Veiga, J. B., & Serro, E. A. S. (1990). Sistemas silvipastoris e produo animal nos trpicosmidos: a experincia da Amaznia brasileira. Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia 37 68. Verchot, L., & Petkova, E. (2009). The state of REDD negotiations: consensus points, options for moving forward and research needs to support the pr ocess. Unpublished manuscript. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Viana, V. M. (2009). Financiando REDD: mesclando o mercado com fundos do governo : International Institute for Environment and Development. Von Ambsberg, J. (1988). Economic patterns of deforestation. The World Bank Economic Review, 1 (12), 133 153. Vosti, S. A., Gockowski, J., & Tomich, T. P. (2005). Land Use Systems at the Margins of Tropical Moist Forest: Addressing Smallholder Concerns in Cameroon, Indonesia, and Brazil. In S. A. V. Cheryl Palm, Pedr o Sanchez, and Polly J. Ericksen (Ed.), Slash and Burn Agriculture: The Search for Alternatives (pp. 387 414). New York: Columbia University press. Vosti, S. A., Witcover, J., & Carpentier, C. L. (2003). Agricultural intensification by smallholders in the Western Brazilian Amazon: from deforestation to sustainable land use, Research Report 130 (pp. 135). Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Walker, R., Moran, E., & Anselin, L. (2000). Deforestation and Cattle Ranching in th e Brazilian Amazon: External Capital and Household Processes. World Development, 28 (4), 683 699. Walker, R., Perz, S., Caldas, M., & Silva, L. G. T. (2002). Land Use and Land Cover Change in Forest Frontiers: The Role of Household Life Cycles. Internationa l Regional Science Review, 25 (2), 169 199. Walker, R. T., Homma, A. K. O., & Scatena, F. N. (1998). A Evoluo da Cobertura do solo nas reas de pequenos produtores na Transamaznica. In A. K. O. Homma (Ed.), Amaznia Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Agrco la (pp. 321 339). Braslia DF: Embrapa CPATU.
163 Wunder, S. (2007). The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation. Conservation Biology, 21 48 58. Wunder, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence, Environment and Development Economics (Vol. 13, pp. 279 297). Wunder, S., Borner, J., Tito, M. R., & Pereira, L. S. (2008). Pagamentos por servios ambientais: perspectivas para a Amazonia Legal Brazil: Ministrio do Meio Ambient e (MMA). Zarin, D. (2004). Working forests in the neotropics : conservation through sustainable management? New York: Columbia University Press. Zhouri, A. (2006). O Ativismo Transnacional pela Amaznia: Entre a Ecologia Poltica e o Ambientalismo de Resul tados. Horizontes Antropolgicos, 26 (12), 139 169.
164 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ricardo de Assis Mello was Born in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He attended the Federal University of Viosa where he graduated as Agronomist in 1990. He moved to the Amazon to study at the Federal University of Par where graduated as specialist in smallholder was with Rubber Tappers in Xapuri, Acre State, in 1992. He worked also with riverines at low Xingu Ri ver, organizing community forest management plans. He have been working in IPAM (Amazon Institute for Environmental Research) since 1999 researching effects of fire use on rural smallholder livelihood productive system, and building institutional alliances to support strategies of fire reduction. In the last years, he works as advisory of Amazon social movements to incorporation of environmental services concept in Brazilian politics directed to rural smallholders. He was councilor of ProAmbiente program fr om 2004 to 2007 and Para State Environmental Council in 2004/2005. He comes to the University of Florida where he was part of the Amazon Leadership Initiative Program, and where he pursued his Master of Arts in the Center for Latin American Studies. He pur sued a minor in tropical conservation and development. He did his fieldwork in 2008, in the Anap, Pacaj and Xapuri, areas of different land use and colonization histories. His research was related to the use of Ethnographic Linear Programming Models to u nderstand the effects of climate change