Local Environmental Governance Public Policies and Deforestation in Amazon by IsmarLima

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.
htm
MEQ 22,3
Local environmental governance, public policies and deforestation in Amazonia

Ismar Borges de Lima
cio-Ambientais/LABOTER, IESA Instituto de Estudos So nia, Brazil, and s (UFG), Goia Universidade Federal de Goia
292
Received 13 October 2010 Revised 5 December 2010 Accepted 6 January 2011
Leszek Buszynski
Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan, Niigata, Japan
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the problem of deforestation in Amazonia and the role of the Brazilian government with regard to the capitalist demands and development needs for the region. It offers a brief historical review of public policies and programs for Amazonia, and critically analyzes their conicting aspects. Local environmental governance (LEG) is proposed as a conceptual framework and a participatory forest management strategy for dealing with the forest destruction. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a qualitative-based study which provides a systemic analysis of the process of occupation and the key public policies for Amazonia from over the tat regime. Based on a literature review and ofcial last decades, particularly during the coup de documents, descriptive data are produced which helped in understanding the political phases of the Brazilian government administrations. Findings The study identied some participatory-based, decentralized models of forest management and existing forest regulatory frameworks which can serve as an illustrative sketchy arrangement on how local environmental governance can become operative and serviceable for a sustainable balance between the use of natural resources, conservation and regional planning. These ndings can help future investigations on governance models. The research also shows how the Brazilian government has perceived Amazonia throughout the decades and how this perception inuenced the implementation of development and settlement policies for the region. Originality/value The main focus of this article is the debate on the concept of local environmental governance (LEG) as a tool for empowering the local communities through the decentralization of decision making as well as the attempt to nd implemented normative and institutional structures within the Amazonian context which can translate aspects of LEG. Keywords Environmental management, Forests, Public policy, Regional development, Brazil Paper type Conceptual paper
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal Vol. 22 No. 3, 2011 pp. 292-316 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1477-7835 DOI 10.1108/14777831111122888
1. Introduction The aim of this article is to provide an outline of Brazilian government actions towards deforestation in Amazonia, and whether it has responded to environmental problems through a decentralized management of natural resources. There is also an attempt to develop further the concept of local environmental governance (LEG) as one of the cross-cutting institutional and participatory-based strategies for the Brazilian governments development paradigm for Amazonia in view of the importance of local responses to environmental problems (Gibson et al., 2000; Castellanet et al., 2002;
Bouman and Brand, 1997; Wood and Valler, 2001). Forest management models, institutional arrangements and forest protection systems are depicted in an attempt to identify LEG components. Environmental governance is rooted in the social movements and in poverty reduction strategies with a human-ecological concern (Wapner, 1995; Brunckhorst and Reeve, 2006) within the realm of global environmentalism (Davidson and Frickel, 2004), development, governability, environmental sociology, political ecology, and liberation ecologies (Wood and Valler, 2001; Watts, 2003. According to Bridge and Perreault (2009), the concept of environmental governance has been evolving since the mid-1990s, and it has been qualitatively applied by scholars to explain and examine a shift in the role of institutions and organizations, in terms of arrangements and spatial scales, and the way formal and informal decisions over the environment and natural resources have been taken. Bulkeley (2005, pp. 1-3) proposes new accounts of the geographies of environmental governance by advocating the approach must be sensitive to both the politics of scale and the politics of networks for understanding the emerging hybrid forms of governing the environment For Bridge and Perreault (2009), environmental governance implies institutional capacities, the coordination and coherence of economic processes, and social action (Bridge and Perreault, 2009, p. 475); a vague concept with resemblances to sustainable development and social capital serving to various academic interests and ideological views. Davidson and Frickel, 2004, p. 475-88) made a historical review on the conceptual development, applicability and uses of environmental governance, as it has been presented in the abstracts of sociological database, from 1963 to 2001, and they found that environmental governance is the result of a cumulative body of interdisciplinary knowledge; for them, a concept which still demands great empirical and methodological advancements, in order to understand the existing macro-structural connections among societal forces, nation and environmental phenomena. Consequently, LEG is a segmentation of this approach and conceptual development, at a local level, and is presented in this article as an avenue for a participatory-based, environmentally oriented Amazonian development which for the most part contrasts to previous Brazilian government interventions in the region. LEG is still an evolving concept (de Lima, 2002; Bridge and Perreault, 2009) with a great deal of debates on how it can become feasible at a regional level regarding local legislative provisions, customary legitimacy and regulatory frameworks (Bonglioli, 2004) which are needed expedients for democratically implementing a decentralized governing system (Gibbs and Jonas, 2000; de Lima, 2002; Bonglioli, 2004). The conceptual approach is outlined in order to contribute to forest management and preservation, and it demands an in-depth scholarly understanding. This paper is in part related to a Master thesis defended in 2002, in Japan, a study which offered the rst insights on local environmental governance, naming it accordingly. It was a research which antecedes the publication, Lands of the Poor: Local Environmental Governance and the Decentralized Management of Natural Resources. The publication was released by the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), in 2004, and reinforces that LEG provides a wider notion of democratic governance, with the recognition that local legitimate stakeholders seem to be rightfully positioned for advocating on the management of their biophysical environment (Bonglioli, 2004) as well as for playing a role as sustainability
Local environmental governance 293
MEQ 22,3
294
facilitators in accordance with national and global environmental agenda (Gibson et al., 2000; Castellanet et al., 2002). In 2005, a eldwork was performed in three states of , Marajo Island Amazonia with a focus on ecotourism community-based projects: Para s/Arapiuns); Roraima, and Amazonas (Presidente and Central Amazonia (Tapajo o, and Mamiraua ). The eldwork added greatly to this Figueiredo, Silves, Novo Aira article helping the authors to understand local contexts of projects, of programs (e.g. National Ecotourism Program Proecotur) and of policies which have sought to integrate economic development, forest protection and conservation (Kitamura, 1994; Bartholo and Bursztyn, 1999; de Lima, 2008). The next sections will provide some data on the Brazilian Amazonia and will critically present the historical facts about the public policies designed for targeting its contentious development (Browder, 1988). The conceptual framework will be debated at length and in sequence. 2. Amazonia in scope: a prospect Amazonia has been symbolically and metaphorically described and envisaged with far-fetched labels. Since the 1960s, the prevailing view is that Amazonia has been the heart and lungs of the planet, and Lessa (1991, p. 3) commented that such a saying is a mystication. For Godfrey (1993), some of the metaphors on the Amazonia have been recurrently monumentalist with misleading connotations such as El Dorado, Second Eden, Green Hell, and others like the Last Frontier. It is misleading because Amazonia has been reciprocally a mix of green hope (for the World) and economic hope (for Brazilian authorities). Deforestation is a real threaten to its equilibrium as an ecosystem service. The quote below presents the main facts and gures about Amazonia.
Amazonia is the largest area in the world with an incomparable supply of resources and biodiversity. The Brazilian Amazonia represents nearly 59 percent of Brazils land, but the largest tropical forest does not belong only to Brazil. It stretches among eight countries, that is, in gures, about 40 percent (2.4 million square kilometers) is distributed among Peru (10 percent), Colombia (7 percent), Bolivia (6 percent), Venezuela (6 percent), Guyana (3 percent), Suriname (2 percent), French Guyana (1.5 percent), and Ecuador (1.5 percent) (Pereira et al., 2010). There has been though a slight confusion between the two ways to refer to Amazonia. There is the Legal Amazonia, restricted to Brazilian territory, which encompasses nine o, Amapa nia, and Mato , Para , Roraima, Amazonas, Acre, Rondo states (Tocantins, Maranha Grosso). Legal Amazonia has more than 15 million inhabitants and gets special government subsidies to implement development and environmental projects. However, Amazonia Basin, the dense forest scattered along the rivers and that does not have relation with the provincial division, is composed of 6,500,000 km2 (The authors, 2010, with data available at IMAZON, 2001).
At rst sight, the destroyers of the forest seem to be the big farmers and ranchers (Kaimowitz et al., 2004), the logging companies, the settlement of landless migrants, and the mining sector (Stone, 1985; Lessa, 1991; Barbosa, 2000). The actors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazonia are various (see Table I), but the destruction of Amazonia has political and economic implications. The authors agree with Smith et al. (1995) and Barbosa (2000) that deforestation in the region has happened in the context of an expanding frontier of global capitalism and of an intense pursuit by the Brazilian government to colonize and to bring progress to the largest tropical forest. The following citation of Lessa (1991) illustrates the public authorities and peoples perception on progress for Amazonia:
Actors Big business farmers Slash-and-burn farmers Cattle ranchers Livestock herders Loggers Commercial tree planters
Connection to deforestation Clear the forest to cultivate commercial cash crops Promote the clear-cutting of forest to plant subsistence and cash corps Deforest to get land for pastures Herding activities can cause deforestation but it depends on their intensity Logging of commercial trees. This activity is strongly dependent of roads and/or rivers Promote tree plantations to supply timber, pulp and paper industry. The plantations usually occupy areas where there were original forests Firewood collection can result in deforestation
Firewood collectors
Mining and petroleum industrialists Road building and seismic lines provide access to other land users. There is localized deforestation related to their operation. Landless settlement planners Infrastructure developers Promote ux of people to forested regions Build roads and highways that contribute to access forest lands, and deforestation in reason of hydroelectric dams
Source: The authors, 2002, with information available at Browder and Godfrey (1997); Barbosa (2000); IMAZON (2001)
Table I. Actors in the deforestation process
In 1956, Juscelin Kubitschek assumed the presidency with the motto and claim of bringing 50 years of progress to Brazil within only ve years. With this leading macroeconomic development policy, Kubitschek built Brasilia in the West-Center region and transferred the capital from Rio de Janeiro to there. From 1955 to 1961, 13,000 kilometers of roads were built m-Brasilia road), linking the newest capital to North and far-reaching areas of the (e.g. Bele West in an attempt to integrate Amazonia to the rest of the country. Later, in 1970, during the military regime, the dictatorial government managed to have approved the National Integration Plan (PIN) which established the construction of Trans-Amazon and -Santare m highways (Lessa, 1991, pp. 39-41). Cuiaba
The authors argue that even the historical perception about what progress really means to Amazonia is a disputable matter, because progress has been the chief reason for irreversible environmental impacts, landscape change in the region with rampant overuse and overexploration of natural resources. And, the rates of deforestation in the last twenty years have brought serious concerns to the international community because of loss of biodiversity and of its relations to an increase in carbon gas emissions (Bunyard, 1987) and, more recently, climate change. Over the last two decades, the green areas have decreased badly mostly because of corporate farming and ranching (Kaimowitz et al., 2004; Miranda, 2005), and because of unplanned and/or unlawful settlements, slash-and-burning practices, and sawmill and rogue logging industry expansion (Laurance et al., 2004; Walker et al., 2000). As for the land tenure, the main issues are: the legal status of the land, land conicts (Pinto, 1980; Kohlhepp, 2002; Hall, 2000), failure of settlements with deforestation and social conicts
MEQ 22,3
296
s programme (Hall, 1989), industry related to land disputes, such as happened in the Caraja of expropriation, of invasion, migration ows (Fearnside, 1993. 2001), and scams for public land appropriation known in Brazil as grilagem (Pinto, 1980; de Lima, 2002). Legal Amazonia counts with nearly 42 percent of its area under the status of being protected (Barreto et al., 2009), amounting to more than 2.1 million of square kilometers, which includes 301 conservation units, 307 indigenous territories, and the quilombola (Brazilian Afro-descendants community lands) as well as the military zones (Brasiliense, 2008). 3. Brazilian government, Amazonian integration and development projects By analyzing the government public policies, projects and programs for the integration and development of Amazonia, particularly between 1930 and 1985, it is patent that environmental planning was not a priority taken into account for the occupation of the region (Stone, 1985; Kitamura, 1994). In other words, the development lacked sustainability strategies even though by the time of the 1980s there were already a global trend and concerns about anthropic irretrievable impacts on the ecosystems. In a macro view, the core of the current problem lies in two historical governmental strategies: rst, to integrate Amazonia into the national economy aiming to have economic surplus with its (over)exploration, which unfortunately was done with few inquiries into the ecological feasibilities of land-clearing activities in the jungle (Andersen et al., 2002); secondly, to have Amazonia settled in order to secure Brazilian sovereignty over the region, and during the military regime prevailed the binomio: security and development (Lessa, 1991, pp. 40-2). According to Mahar (1979, p. 1), there are two main challenges to the policy makers over Amazonia, the rst is that the territory itself has been the most sparsely populated, unexplored, inaccessible, and undeveloped part of the country; and the second challenge lies in the fact that the forest itself does not allow diverse economic practices. Developmental projects to populate and integrate Amazonia with the rest of the country were initiated from the 30s to 80s (Stone, 1985; Browder, 1988; Geist and Lambin, 2002), and they boosted deforestation to high levels. The major economic force for this type of development was a prevalent ination in the country, aggravated by large-scale projects nanced with borrowed foreign funds resulting in massive foreign debts and the need to service it with an increase of natural resources exploration and agriculture and ranching expansion for export (Cleary, 1991). The need of an economic surplus in terms of production and exports became imperative for the Brazilian government to maintain a political system which sustained the occupation of vast rainforest (Calvert, 2001, p. 158) and savannah areas, with an imbalance of 30 percent of the eastern Amazonia belonging to just 0.1 percent of the ranchers (Hall, 1991; Moran et al., 2000) in what Hecht (1983, 1985), Hecht et al. (1988) and Faminow (1998) said to be an economy of cattle ranching. As Cleary (1991, p. 128) underlines, as long as Brazilian ination remains high, and as long as the economic outlook in the country is fundamentally unstable, a speculative land market will be the dominant feature of life in rural Amazonia, and one of the most direct causes of deforestation. Between 1964 and 1985, Brazil was governed by a military regime that envisioned the occupation and development of Amazonia. The main target of the military regime was to industrialize Brazil at any cost. The rst idea was to populate the forest in order to prevent other countries of intruding into the area (Stone, 1985). With this purpose, the government implemented several mega projects aimed at building dams and
hydroelectric plants with colossal environmental impacts and unlearned lessons for development (Fearnside, 2000), roads, and mining to promote the expansion of corporate ranching and farming, and settlements in isolated areas were encouraged (Pinto, 1980; Stone, 1985; Barbosa, 2000). Road construction had huge environmental impact on Amazonia opening it up to easy access and exploration, settlements, and subsequent extensive deforestation (Stone, 1985; Lessa, 1991), northwestward from proceeds one of the worlds more remarkable roads: 877 miles of red dirt, hacked Cuiaba o (desert) and dense jungle to Porto Velho by machete and bulldozer through arid serta (Stone, 1985, p. 86). Some projects such as POLOAMAZONIA, POLONOROESTE, Amazonia Operation, the Transamazonia, Calha Norte Project, the Jari Project, and the s project caused immeasurable damage to Amazonia, and can be classied Caraja regarding either a populist or corporate frontiers (Stone, 1985; Lessa, 1991; Browder and Godfrey, 1997; Gonc alves, 2001; de Freitas, 2004; Miranda, 2005). 4.0 Brazilian political re-democratization, world environmental summits and the continuation of a forest in depletion However, the 1980s were a moment of political change in Brazil resulting in a process of re-democratization (Lessa, 1991). In 1985, pressured by public opinion and the media, the military regime started to move itself out of the political scene when the civilian Sarney was indirectly elected and established a transitory government president Jose (Alcoforado, 1998). Nonetheless, during the government of President Fernando Collor (1990-1992), the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) took place in Rio de Janeiro. The UNCED generated ve important treaties and documents. The Conference registered many disagreements by reason of the clash of interests between developing and developed countries. Such conicts bogged down the attempt to maximize the benets of the Summit (de Lima, 2002). Agenda 21, the main document signed in Rio, spells out how development is to take place in the twenty-rst century. However, a forest treaty was not concluded because of divergences between developing and developed countries and the United States. Instead of an agreement (accord) on forest treaty, a more exible document, the Forest Principles, was duly signed (de Lima, 2002). From 1992 to 1994, Presidents Itamar Franco governed Brazil and, in sequence, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, widely known as FHC, assumed the presidential post s Ina cio Lula da Silva, from 1995 to 2002 with a re-election (de Lima, 2002). Lu popularly known as Lula, had its administration from 2003 to 2010. Figure 1 is based on data available at PRODES/INPE and shows the deforestation rates from 1988 to 2009. Within the eight years of Cardosos administration (1995 , 2002), deforestation increased 45 percent with a total of 6,755 km2 of forest loss. During the seven years of Lulas administration, the rates of deforestation declined 66 percent. In both administrations occurred the highest deforestation rates in the Amazonias history: in 1994 because of the expansion of the agricultural frontier, and in 2004, because of the expansion of the beef frontier. Over the past decades, Amazonia has been forcibly included in the agricultural frontier, causing high environmental destruction rates and low social and economic return, the international conservation movement is growing (Fearnside, 1987; Goodman and Hall, 1990; Pennaforte, 2006), but needs to mature to better judge the causes that determine the environmental degradation in the region. It is, nonetheless, imperative not
MEQ 22,3
298
Figure 1. Deforestation rates in Amazonia from 1998 to 2009
to have a simplistic and reductionist approach about the Amazonias depletion (Stone, 1985; Lessa, 1991). Institutional and policies failures (Mahar, 1989; Margulis, 2004), lack of institutional structure and infrastructure, lack of human and nancial resources for monitoring and law enforcement, and the economic driving forces of deforestation (Amelung and Diehl, 1992; Pfaff, 1999; Frey, 2002; Geist and Lambin, 2002) which have extensively demanded natural resources and crop-pasture lands, combined with corruption and huge far-reaching forested areas are issues that bluntly translate how complex it is to tackle the deforestation (Fearnside, 1989; Goodman and Hall, 1990; de Freitas, 2004; Silva, 2005; Pennaforte, 2006). For Kelly and London (2007), during 20 years of democracy, Brazil has tried to balance economic growth with international environmental claims, and they mention that the former Brazilian environmental minister Marina Silva, who grew-up an unschooled peasant of an impoverished rubber-plant tapper, had a leading role struggling to have a sustainable rainforest. The authors argue that there has been a shift in terms of government perception and political culture in relation to development of Amazonia, even though the deforestation in the region is still distraughtly alarming, it has been steadily decreasing in the last ve years, from 2005 to 2009. This preservation-development paradigm shift has gained dimension after the edition of the current Brazilian Constitution on 5 October 1988. The latest Brazilian Magna Carta has been one among very few ones in the world with a whole chapter on the environment (Chapter 6), which consists of basic concepts and measures necessary for the protection of the countrys biodiversity, as stated in Article 225:
All have the right to an ecologically balanced environment which is an asset of common use and essential to a healthy quality of life, and both the Government and the community shall have the duty to defend and preserve it for present and future generations (1988 Brazilian Constitution, Article 225, as cited in the Brazilian Embassy website, Ottawa) (Brazilian Embassy in Ottawa, 2011).
The Chapter translates an ofcial Brazilian position and view on the challenging environmental demands:
[The Chapter demonstrates] signicant progress in the environmental conscience of Brazilian society, and have proved to be very important in terms of the countrys capacity to fulll the terms established in the Convention on Biological Diversity (as cited in the Brazilian Embassy website, Ottawa) (Brazilian Embassy in Ottawa, 2011).
The rates of deforestation in the Legal Amazonia are the result of a mosaic of causes propelled by Brazilian domestic policies, national security, a world economic system, trade, and a lack of environmental perception, views and planning in respect to the real value of the forest (de Lima, 2002). An understanding of the deforestation in the region requires a profound analysis beyond the obvious fact that there is an expanding beef-soybean frontier in the region and, if not timely tackled, it will be a vanishing frontier (Stone, 1985). The point for debate is on how much human impacting intervention is manageable. Development and nature conservation, what are the acceptable trade-offs? Which development models are the proper ones? Are they community forestry, forest concessions, or a democratic, legitimate, participatory-based governing system built upon on the decentralization of the natural resource management? In the literature review, it was found that some authors critically analyzed the current and past models of development in Amazonia and have showed themselves deeply concerned by the challenges policy makers and planners will face in order to ` -vis agribusiness, bring a tangible sustainability to it in the twenty-rst century vis-a mining industry, and agro-ranching activities (Kitamura, 1994; Gonc alves, 2001; Andersen et al., 2002; de Freitas, 2004; Silva, 2005; Miranda, 2005; Pennaforte, 2006; Kelly and London, 2007; Loureiro, 2009; Banerjee et al., 2009; BNDES, 2010), and the way they need to deal with a local and global geopolitics which historically permeates most relations and networks in the region (Becker, 2009). 5. Conceptual reasoning on governance 5.1 Environmental governance Environmental governance has two different approaches. There are two tracks for understanding environmental governance regarding its scope of action. In this sense, environmental governance as a concept can be applied either locally or globally (Rolen et. al., 1997). In the literature, authors have approached it as an international task force to be operated at state-nation level, country to country level; an international governance (Young, 1994; Rolen et al., 1997; Dalby, 2002; Kanie and Haas, 2004;) for dealing with transboundary environmental issues which imply a state of affairs. It includes the management of water resources (Uitto, 1997) and of natural disasters, the observance of multilateral and bilateral environmental agreements, and international actions aiming at promoting forms of sustainable development to avoid the tragedy of the common natural resources (Hardin, 1968) and to govern the commons through collective actions (Ostrom, 1990). For Colfer and Pfund (2010), the collective actions are described as a collaborative governance of tropical landscapes. Other authors have approached environmental governance, at international level, by perceiving it as a new change in the world politics, a sort of governance without government (Rosenau, 1992). Some scholars have had an economic focus on environmental governance by debating the nexus between nature and the neoliberal
MEQ 22,3
300
system (Robertson, 2004; McCarthy, 2005; Himley, 2008). Other researchers have discussed environmental issues and culture in environmental governance, and others have dealt with specic matters such as the centrality of information and informational processes claiming for an informational governance (Mol, 2006); and governmentality to describe environmental governance (Luke, 1999). For Gordon (1991, p. 1), governmentality entails actions for achieving a governmental rationality. The term governance is etymologically linked to other word families such as government and govern. But, governing implies a set of norms, rules, policies, and decisions that has to harmonize the different perspectives of interest groups inside the borders of the country (Rhodes, 1996; de Lima, 2002). Governance refers to political economic and social issues (Gould et al., 1996; Goldman, 2001). Governance has a broad scope and focuses on a wide array of issues most of which are intertwined. The term governance originally derives from the Greek word kybermetes, which means navigation or helmsman ship. Rhodes (1996, p. 652-7) highlights that governance is popular but imprecise; and he refers to this term with the following six separate uses: (1) minimal state; (2) as corporate governance; (3) as the new public management; (4) as good governance; (5) as a socio-cybernetic system; and (6) as self-organizing networks. Governance encompasses a complex set of values, norms, processes, and institutions by which society manages its local and regional development and to solve conicts (IGES, 2001), and it has to be designed to include accountability and policy networks (Rhodes, 1996; Wood and Valler, 2001) as well as civic politics (Wapner, 1995). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2001b) states that the goal of governance initiatives should be to develop capacities that are needed to promote development that gives priority to the poor, sustains the environment and creates needed opportunities for employment and other livelihoods (UNDP, 2001a). Paterson (2000) understands that a governance system as an institution that specializes in making collective choices on matters of common concern to the members of a distinct social group. Governance materializes itself through imposition of authority in the economic, political and administrative areas as a way to manage the affairs of the state (Wood and Valler, 2001). It includes the institutions, processes and instruments through which citizens and groups promote their common interests, rights, and also meet their responsibility and reconcile their differences (Dorvilier, 2001; Wapner, 1995). Governance is introduced as relevant to promote equity, end poverty and improve quality of life (Badshah, 2001; Bonglioli, 2004). Political governance is the process of decision-making to formulate policy. Administrative governance is the system of policy implementation, good governance encompasses the state, but it transcends the state by including the private sector and civil society organizations (UNDP, 2001a). For Young (1994), the state is a big force for development but it is not the only one. As for environmental governance, it has been reformulated through the attempts to bring together the ideas related to governance-environmental nexus (Mugabe and
Tumushabe, 2001). It has been an approach introduced by scholars who advocate that the presence or absence of democratic or good governance is essential in natural resource management given the multi-faceted dimensions of the environmental problems (Gibbs and Jonas, 2000; Davidson and Frickel, 2004; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). Bonglioli (2004) classies environmental governance into three levels in scope taking into account the means to deal with the environmental problems in terms of decision-making, planning, managing, and monitoring: (1) International and global environmental governance (GEG) which deal with the transboundary aspects of nature destruction. (2) The concept of eco-governance is employed in reference to conict resolutions between local people and state over natural resources, environmental laws and policies. Esty and Ivanova (2002) and Speth (2002) sponsor the viewpoint of a global environmental governance which has been inherently imbricated in a world environmental agenda. (3) Local environmental governance (LEG) which gives emphasis to the role of ` -vis environmental issues as well as the role of local local civil society vis-a government towards the communities because of its closeness to them; it also regards as essential to LEG service any signicant sustainable development initiatives at the local level. In the literature review, the authors came across various terms which are sometimes used interchangeably with environmental governance or, somewhat, are directly related to it, such as: eco-governmentality (Goldman, 2001), environmental governmentality (Watts, 2003), environmental states; sustainability governance (Frickel and Davidson, 2004), environmental stateless society, civic environmentalism ( John, 1993), eco-civic resource governance (Brunckhorst and Reeve, 2006), collaborative governance (Colfer and Pfund, 2010); non-state environmental governance (Cashore et al., 2004); forest governance (Fuller, 2006). 6. Local environmental governance (LEG) As for the concept of local environmental governance (LEG), Hempel (1996) succeeded in identifying the main points of environmental governance such as empowerment of local communities, greater participation of nongovernmental organizations, redistribution of nancial resources, enhanced public-private sector cooperation in the elaboration of a framework for green markets, educational reform and the development of ecologically literate citizens, and so forth. An extensive understanding of (local) environmental governance can compensate for the uncertainties of the effectiveness of international regimes, the limits of international and national institutions, and limits of local environmental agencies and organizations (Gibbs and Jonas, 2000; Davidson and Frickel, 2004; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). For Bonglioli (2004, p. 32), under the conceptualization of LEG what is important are the interactions between formal and informal institutions and actors in society, and their inuence on the identication and framing of environmental problems. By taking into account all these aspects, the rst attempt to explain local environmental governance as a concept leads to the view that, local environmental governance materializes through the existence of a relatively permanent institutionalized arrangement composed by state, civil society, and private sector
MEQ 22,3
302
with a direct or indirect participation, to decide on the local and regional environmental matters and to manage the natural resources based on the principles of sustainable development, rationality, and environmental management. The authors endorse Bongliolis understanding that local environmental governance is supposed to be socially redistributive and environmentally benign through the devolution of environmental power to local communities and legitimate stakeholders, and this includes local government and pertinent authorities, a sort of eco-civic resource governance system (Brunckhorst and Reeve, 2006). For Bonglioli (2004, p. 30):
The concept of local environmental governance denes the capacity of local stakeholders (particularly freely elected authorities) to manage local peoples relationships with their physical environment in accordance with the principles of participation, transparency, efciency, equity and accountability.
According to Bonglioli (2004), a structure for local environmental governance demands institutional and environmental assessments, to enable political and institutional frameworks and to use technologies properly for sustainably managing the natural resources in order to achieve sustainable livelihoods (see Figure 2). Local environmental governance has not been yet entirely institutionalized in terms of practice and structure. It is a fragmented governing system in its genesis and foundations; it needs to be framed, and for it to happen it requires shifts in political and institutional cultures. Brazilian authorities and politicians have taken some steps forward in order to build up institutional and regulatory frameworks which allow natural resource management by the local government, civil society and local organized communities. In Brazil, the major executing agency accountable for putting environmental policies into practice and for monitoring the environmental situation in the country is the Institute for Environment and Renewable Resources (IBAMA). It is a semi-autonomous agency which belongs to the Ministry for the Environment (MMA), but it has faced logistical and structural problems to accomplish its monitoring missions, because of the huge extension of Amazonia, and because of a shortage of human and nancial resources (de Lima, 2002).
7. The national system of nature conservation units (SNUC) and local environmental governance (LEG) It is important to underline that the most noticeable parliamentary action towards the implementation of a somewhat locally based-governing system for the conservation of the ecosystems and biomes was the creation of the National System of Nature Conservation Units (SNUC), on July 2000, by the law 9985 (Milano et al., 2004; Rodrigues, 2005; Guerra, 2009). The SNUC was created to fulll the Brazils commitments and ratication in the Convention on the Biological Diversity, and was formerly instituted by the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 (Rodrigues, 2005; Orth, 2007). The SNUC has ordered and regulated the protected areas of the country at municipal, state and national levels, thus, reducing the risks of conicting policies as well as the government disputes over management of and decision making on forest areas (Bernardes, 2000; Paz et al., 2006; Guerra, 2009). The SNUC provides lawful expedients and representative openness to some protected land categories in a way it empowers the
Figure 2. Local environmental governance: an institutional framework
local legitimate stakeholders, and seeks to link their interests to conservation policies (Orth, 2007; Guerra, 2009). It is a model of democratic management of natural resources. Under the SNUC, there are two categories of conservation units whose goals are to preserve fauna, ora, soil and rivers: the Strict Protection Units and the Sustainable Use Units (Paz et al., 2006). The former one only allows indirect use of natural resources and natural processes without human interventions. Even traditional communities and indigenous people are not as a rule allowed residing in these areas. The Biological and Ecological Reserves/Stations (ESEC); National and State Parks (PARNA); Natural Monuments (MONAT); and Wildlife Sanctuary (RVS) belong to this type of conservation unit (Guerra, 2009). On the other hand, the sustainable use conservation unit allows monitoring of small-scale exploration of the natural resources as well as the permanence of local communities as long as they can develop sustainable activities for their livelihoods
MEQ 22,3
304
(Milano et al., 2004). This sort of unit is represented by: the Environmental Protection Areas (APA), the Areas of Relevant Ecological Value (ARIE), National Forest (FLONA), Sustainable Development Reserves (RDS), National Heritage Private Reserves (RPPN), and Extraction Reserves (RESEX). All these units have a pivotal role for the conservation of forest areas (SNUC) (Milano et al., 2004; Rodrigues, 2005; Paz et al. 2006; Orth, 2007; Guerra, 2009), particularly in Amazonia, and are part of the current phenomenon of green islandization, green areas which contrast to surrounding deforested ones as in 2005 (see Table II). 8. Advisory and deliberative councils: pathways towards democratic governance? In essence, the Environmental Protection Area (APA), National Forests (FLONA) and Extraction Reserves (RESEX) seem to be one of the closest models Amazonia may assemble aspects of local environmental governance with Councils holding advisory, deliberative and monitoring roles. As for the strict protection areas only Advisory Councils can be formally created rather than deliberative ones (Milano et al., 2004; Guerra, 2009). The status of each Council is constituently decided in the municipalities in which the Conservation Units belong to, and in compliance to lawfully recognized higher legislative and authoritative stances (Rodrigues, 2005). For example, the Executing Council of an APA can gather advisory and/or deliberative roles, and in either ways it holds layers of decentralized participation of the civil society, representatives of local communities, local government and its related municipal agencies, and of formal and non-formal organizations responsible for decisions over their own social and environmental issues, and future. With the existence of the councils and committees, there has been a kind of power devolution and decision delegation to a local level through a vertical-horizontal institutional arrangement which makes possible the exercise of citizenship, legitimacy, representative democracy, and constituency. In Brazil, there has been a process of municipalization of health and education sectors with the delegation of decision-making, power, budget as well as scal responsibilities and rights to local governments which have sought to manage it through partnerships with the private sector and civil society. Following the decentralization of public services as a form of governance, Philippi et al. (2001) proposes the municipalization of environmental management, transferring to the municipalities the responsibility and task to create and maintain institutional means and mechanisms in order to promote sustainable development by locally mitigating negative environmental impacts. However, the authors are skeptical about a complete self-governing model for natural resource management, because under the political and territorial arrangements of Western countries, central and state governments will hardly transfer their whole power and administrative authority to lower jurisdiction levels or to any community-governing schemes. Another problem is how to guarantee equitable distribution of power among local stakeholders (Howitt, 2001) who have already beneted from a decision-making delegation. Rather, the authors take the position that LEG is under construction as a system, but once it has been nally implemented it will still be abided by higher political and jurisdictional stances with levels of power delegation. Nonetheless, the implementation of an APA to work under a participatory and democratic process is a complex mission. For example, Rente (2006) developed a study
No. Federal conservation units Sustainable use (federal level) National Forest (FLONA) Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) Extraction Reserve (RESEX) Environmental Protection Area (APA) Area of Relevant Environmental Value (ARIE) Sub-total Strict protection units (federal level) National Parks (PARNA) Biological Reserve (REBIO) Ecological Station (ESEC) Wild Life Sanctuary (RVS) Ecological Reserve (RESEC) Natural Monument (MONAT) Sub-total Total State conservation units Sustainable use (state level) State Forest (FES) Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) Extraction Reserve (RESEX) Environmental Protection Area (APA) Area of Relevant Environmental Value (ARIE) Extraction State Forest (FLOREX) Sustained Income State Forest (FLORSUR) Sub-total Strict protection units (state level) State Park (PES) Biological Reserve (REBIO) Ecological Station (ESEC) Wild Life Sanctuary (RVS) Ecological Reserve (RESEC) Natural Monument (MONAT) Sub-total Total
Area (hectares)
32 1 44 04 03 84 24 09 14 0 1 0 48 132
15,945,621 64,735 11,801,180 2,402,732 20,864 30,235,132 21,399,679 3,710,821 6,252,301 0 109 0 31,362,910 61,598,042
17 9 28 34 01 02 18 116 41 05 10 03 02 2 63 179
13,380,351 10,990,102 2,149,077 20,486,292 25,000 1,085,688 1,470,759 49,587,269 7,108,684 1,257,750 4,658,997 106,367 103,900 32,410 13,268,108 62,855,377 Table II. Total of Federal and State Conservation Units (SNUC) in legal Amazonia
Notes: Total regarding the whole legal Amazonia number of conservation units, 311; total area in hectares, 124,453,419 ha; currently 22.15 percent of the Brazilian Amazonia ofcially belongs to the Conservation Units National System (SNUC) either being of strict protection or of sustainable use. All gures and data cited in this table have an undated reference date: May 2010 Source: The authors, 2011, adapted from Socioambiental Institute (ISA) 2010, and at the Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics (IBGE)
on the implementation of the APA of Alter-do-Chao, in Central Amazonia, in order to identify the social actors and their intervention power over local issues. Rente (2006) was also concerned about why the Alter-do-Chao communities and municipal government foresaw the possibility of a local alternative development model with a participatory management foundation grounded in an APA.
MEQ 22,3
306
o was created on m municipality, in Para state, APA Alter-do-Cha Situated in Santare July 2003, and it has 16,180 hectares and encompasses seven communities. It was created with the participation of local communities, staff of the National Institute for Amazonian Research (INPA), and ofcials and representatives of the Council for Tourism and Environment (CONTUMA) as well as of the Municipal Tourism Agency o is a popular tourism destination and has been m (SANTUR). Alter-do-Cha of Santare broadly marketed as the Caribbean of Amazonia because of its white river sands, scenic views, and the quality of water for swimming. It has a typical geological s, rivers, lakes, and an formation with forest and Amazonian savannah spots; igarape exuberant ora and fauna (Albernaz, 2001). Other examples of participatory management of natural resources are found in the s-Arapiuns area (de Lima, 2008). For example, the Maripa community located at Tapajo the RESEX and involved with ecotourism activities for income generation. Maguari communities placed at the National Forest (FLONA) of Tapajo s, and and Jamaraqua , and Silves municipality in Amazonas State (de Lima, 2008), and the FLONA of Amapa Reserve for Sustainable Development: Mamiraua
Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) was created in 1990, situated between The Mamiraua es, Japura and Auati-Parara River, distant about three hours by boat from Tefe city, the Solimo Reserve began to belong to the National System of the closest urban area. In 2000 Mamiraua Conservation Units (SNUC). The Reserve has an area of 1,124 million hectares with a local population of 11,000 riverbank dwellers (including the Reserves outskirt communities) living in Institute was created to become a research center in 218 communities. In 1999, the Mamiraua the Reserve as well as an administrative body dealing with biodiversity and biophysical research, and with sustainable activities such as ecotourism project and the Uacari Ecolodge, shing and maintenance of sh stocks, forest products extraction, subsistence agriculture, and handicraft. The Institute works in partnership with the local communities not only in Reserve with an area of 2,313 million hectares. Reserve, but also in Amana Mamiraua Reserve was originally under the responsibility and control of the Amazonas state Mamiraua government, but through concessions and partnership its control was delegated to the Institute , which is a Social Organization of Public Interest (OSCIP) linked and sponsored by Mamiraua is an innovative model the Brazilian Ministry for the Science and Technology. Mamiraua because it harnesses conservation, development and poverty reduction, and works through partnerships with an array of actors, including international partners and donors. It seeks to promote academic-scientic research, sustainable practices, community-based natural resource management, monitoring, nature conservation and improvement of the quality of life of the locals. The Reserves icon is the Uacari monkey (The authors, 2010, with information available at www.mamiraua.org.br/, and Koziell and Inoue, 2006).
These are examples of participatory forest management under a specic regulatory and institutional framework which can possibly become a palimpsest for a local environmental governance model. LEG as a democratic managing system with regulatory and legitimacy components are not only found in the Conservation Units. In 1990, the World Bank approved nancial resources to Brazil for implementing the National Environmental Project (PNMA) which nished its rst phase in 1998 (Bernardes, 2000), and the second phase, in 2003. But it was mainly after the United Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992, the central government started implementing environmental policies, programs and projects guided by sustainability principles, following a global environmental agenda and the compromises assumed during the UNCED (Cavalcanti, 1999).
Apart from the strategic role of the Ministry for the Environment and IBAMA, some organizations such as the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA), and the Amazon Institute for Man and Environment (IMAZON) have provided data, research, and reports on the Amazonia which have been extremely relevant for policy makers and for those in charge of controlling the deforestation in the region. In the same sense, the role of the Amazon Working Group (GTA) and of the Brazilian Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) should be cited. New technologies such as satellite images, GIS, georreference (Morton et al., 2005; Fuller, 2006), and GPS have also been an asset with a pivotal role in helping to monitor Amazonia, particularly the work of the National Space Research Institute (INPE, 2000) and its deforestation monitoring system (PRODES). The quotes below have some government policies, programs and environmental achievements for Amazonia after the UNCED-92:
PPG-7 Pilot Program for Tropical Rainforest Presentation is a multilateral initiative of the Brazilian government, the international community, and civil society with the objective of conserving Brazils rainforests by using innovative tools and methodologies. It was launched in 1992 with a US$428 million nancial allocation provided by the G-7 donor countries, by the European Commission and by the Brazilian government. PPG-7 is an example of global environmental governance and it has contributed to the decentralization of the Brazilian environmental policy. Sustainable Amazonia Plan (PAS) it was elaborated by the Ministries of National Integration and for the Environment, and it is a plan to be executed through partnered actions and common agreements among the central, state and municipal government, private sector and the civil society in order to implement and cooperate to ward: environmental management, policies targeting social inclusion and citizenship, innovative and competitive sustainable production, development infrastructure construction, and the denition of standards for nancial aid and funds concession. PROBIO I and II Brazilian National Project for Public-Private Integrated Actions for the Biodiversity. Law for Public Forests Management (Law 11,284) it is a law known as Forest Concessions which allows the private sector and other social segments, local stakeholders and communities, to have access to public forest aiming at promoting sustainable development. The law keeps the forest areas under the government jurisdiction with a monitoring role delegated to civil society. The Law 11,284 also set up two new forest protection tools: (1) Brazilian Forest Service (SFB) for creating inventory by cataloguing the existing public forests. (2) National Fund for Forest Development (FNDF) which has been used to improve forest sector technologies, technical assistance, revitalization and re-planting of deforested areas, and the creation of public forest control mechanisms. SIVAM The Integrated Amazonian Vigilance System is a US$ 1.7 billion megaproject idealized by the Brazilian army in the 90s to monitor the Brazils space, to map and combat the deforestation, the narcotrafc, and to identify the burnings sites in Amazonia. SIVAM works with the assistance of 25 radars, equipped airplanes, and satellite images, and it works in integration with the Protection System for Amazonia (SIPAM) and with the Air Space Control System/CINDACTA 4. The system was built with equipments and technical assistance provided by the American company Raytheon and by the Atech and Embraer, two
MEQ 22,3
Brazilian companies. SIVAM began its operation on 25 of July 2002 and it also has the mission to ensure the Brazilian sovereignty over the Legal Amazonia in response to possible external threats (de Lima, 2002). According to a news report on Magazine Veja, issued on the 18 of July 2007, SIVAM has been unable to accomplish its monitoring operations because of failures in the equipments and radars. The Magazine Veja reports that the System is not reliable to what it has been created to. The central government authorized the use of 19.5 million hectares of forest land to set 21 new Conservation Units, 13 of them in Amazonia. The central government ofcially sanctioned the creation of indigenous territories totaling 10 million hectares of land and of extraction reserves. In 2003, the Brazilian Genetic Heritage Management Council (CGEN) began its activities; it has the task to dene the rules for sustainable use and protection of the Brazilian biodiversity. In 2003, it was set up the Federal Police Stations specialized in environmental matters which largely contributed to monitoring the natural areas (Authors, 2010, with information available at MMA, 2010; IMAZON, 2001; and INPA).
308
Conclusion In contrast to Brazilian central government administrations between the 1930s and ` -vis the development of Amazonia as critically analyzed in this paper, mid-1980s vis-a the twenty-rst century development and environmental policies have been underpinned by the engagement of local stakeholders, civil society and the private sector in a participatory-based management of forest areas. There have been government concerns to link the local actors and pertinent groups to environmental policies. Central government with its Ministry for the Environment and related Agencies has propitiated the decentralization of actions and decisions breaking up with centralized, clientelistic, and patrimonialistic practices. The authors argue that the creation of the National System of Nature Conservation Units (SNUC), on July 2000, represented a watershed in terms of environmental policies and development for Amazonia, because the SNUC has been idealized to be inclusive, participatory and democratic. It breaks with a historical record of a discontinuous, selective and fragmentary environmental policies implementation. Moreover, the SNUC has the sustainability as an action platform in order to preserve and conserve the various biomes and ecosystems of Brazil without disregarding the importance of a planned economic development. LEG is a system which demands revisions and adjustments, and SNUC can become one of the avenues in order to build a local environmental governance system. LEG as an environmental governing model can potentially facilitate the implementation of international environmental accords at a domestic level (e.g. Kyoto Protocol and carbon gas emissions) by overcoming uneven local realities and to deal with a plenty of diversities, particularly in Amazonia, as well as by overcoming historical obstacles such as budgetary constraints, disrespect of laws, existence of lobbying by interest groups, corruption, and lack of political will for changing the situation which does not help much for achieving sustainable development targets. Maybe the decentralized governing model is an avenue for the balancing of relations between nature and society, achieving economic and preservationist goals through the rational application of necessary comprises. In order to it to happen, local
environmental governance (LEG) must achieve a supraparty status, free of individual or group biases which can go against the collective advantages. The authors highlight that the solely power devolution of local stakeholders without capacity building, availability of nancial aid, and without nurturing and strengthening their human and social capitals, may not become fully responsive to the expectations of policy makers and planners. As a result, institutional and policies failures can take place as an undesirable historical recurrent phenomenon, frustrating the design of a LEG. Yet, the local stakeholders must be better-off equipped to carry out a social and environmental agenda successfully. What is necessary is a down-to-down implementation in which solutions for environmental problems can come up through the dialogue and actions of local population (Crook and Manor, 1998; Agrawal and Ribot, 1999). The strategy is to reduce the size of the state in order to maximize its effectiveness; an environmental governance with a minimal state (Rhodes, 1996). In conclusion, it is possible to argue that there has been an evolving embryonic decentralized governing model based on the Units of Conservation which bear a resemblance to a local environmental governance (LEG) because of their regulatory instruments, managerial tools and forums for public debates and decision-making. Reserve and the Advisory and Deliberative Councils of APA, FLONA and Mamiraua RESEX are the object of study for dening a functional model of LEG. And, a desirable LEG model is one which can favor an emancipatory and empowering process at a local or regional scale, centered on the common interests and collective advantages, operating through all kinds of partnership and cooperation (public-private; intersectoral; inter-governmental, etc.) for webbing economic growth and nature protection across the borders of nation states. A type of environmental governance a civic environmentalism ( John, 1993) which can transcend the static role of traditional institutions by including various representative groups and actors from the civil society in political decision-making processes ( Johnston, 2000, pp. 84-5).
References Agrawal, A. and Ribot, J.C. (1999), Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and African cases, Journal of Developing Areas, Vol. 33, Summer, pp. 473-502. o de Alter do Cha o, Para : Um Exerc cio de Albernaz, A.L.K.M. (2001), Zoneamento da Regia o de Uso Direto,Doctoral thesis, Instituto Planejamento para uma Unidade de Conservac a nia, Universidade do Amazonas, Manaus, 130 pp.. Nacional de Pesquisa da Amazo Alcoforado, F. (1998), De Collor a FHC: o Brasil e a Nova (Des)Ordem Mundial (From President Collor to President Fernando Henrique Cardoso FHC: Brazil and the New World o Paulo. [Dis]order), Editora Nobel, Sa Amelung, T. and Diehl, M. (1992), Deforestation of tropical rain forests: economic causes and impact on development, Kieler Studien, Vol. 241 No. 97. Andersen, L.E., Granger, C.W.J., Reis, E.J., Weinhold, D. and Wunder, S. (2002), The Dynamics of Deforestation and Economic Growth in the Brazilian Amazon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Badshah, A. (2001), Good Governance for Environmental Sustainability, background paper, Public Private Partnership Programme of UNDP, available at: www.undp.org/ppp/library/ les/akhtar01.doc (accessed 23 November 2001).
MEQ 22,3
Banerjee, O., Macpherson, A.J. and Alavalapati, J. (2009), Toward a policy of sustainable forest management in Brazil: a historical analysis, The Journal of Environment Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 130-53. Barbosa, L.C. (2000), The Brazilian Amazon Rainforest: Global Ecopolitics, Development, and Democracy, University Press of America, Lanham, MD. nia, No. 13, jo, E. and Brito, B. (2009), O estado da Amazo Barreto, P., Mesquita, M., Arau Imazon, available at: www.imazon.org.br/novo2008/arqiivosdb/OEA_13.PDF (accessed 11 January 2011). nia Sustenta vel Uma Estrate gia de Bartholo, R.S. Jr and Bursztyn, M. (1999), Amazo nia 2020, Edic es IBAMA, Bras lia. Desenvolvimento para Rondo o nia: Geopol nio, Garamond, Sa o Paulo. tica na Virada do III Mile Becker, B.K. (2009), Amazo o Federais. Projeto Biodiversidade no Bernardes, A.T. (2000), Brasil Unidades de Conservac a o Europe rie Estudos de Caso, Comissa ia (B7-6200), Department for Desenvolvimento, Se International Development (DFID), The World Conservation Union (IUCN), London. mico e Social (2010), Amazo nia em Debate: BNDES Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econo es, BNDES, Rio de Janeiro. Oportunidades, Desaos e Soluc o Bonglioli, A. (2004), Lands of the Poor: Local Environmental Governance and the Decentralized Management of Natural Resources, United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), New York, NY. Bouman, O.T. and Brand, D.G. (1997), Sustainable Forests: Global Challenges and Local Solutions, Food Products Press, Binghamton, NY. nia protegida, news report published a O Brasiliense, R. (2008), Falta de scais ameac a Amazo Globo, 9 March, available at: www.fazenda.gov.br/resenhaeletronica/MostraMateria. asp?page&cod447551 (accessed 15 October 2010). Brazilian Embassy in Ottawa (2011), The Federal Constitution of 1988, available at: www. brasembottawa.org/en/environment/legislation/federal_constitution.htm (accessed 5 January 2011). Bridge, G. and Perreault, T. (2009), Environmental governance, in Castree, N., Demeritt, D., Liverman, D. and Rhoads, B. (Eds), A Companion to Environmental Geography, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 475-88. Browder, J.O. (1988), Public policy and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, in Repetto, R. and Gillies, M. (Eds), Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 247-98. Browder, J.O. and Godfrey, B.J. (1997), Rainforest Cities: Urbanization, Development, and Globalization of the Brazilian Amazon, Columbia University Press, New York, NY. Brunckhorst, D. and Reeve, I. (2006), A geography of place: principles and application for dening eco-civic resource governance regions, Australian Geographer, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 147-66. Bulkeley, H. (2005), Reconguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks, Political Geography, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 875-902. Bunyard, P. (1987), The signicance of the Amazon basin for global climatic equilibrium, Ecologist, Vol. 17 Nos 4/5, pp. 139-41. Calvert, P. (2001), Deforestation, environment, and sustained development in Latin America, in Vajpeyi, D.K. (Ed.), Deforestation, Environment, and Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis, Praeger, Westport, London, pp. 155-72.
310
Cashore, B., Auld, G. and Newsom, D. (Eds) (2004), Governing through Markets: Regulating Forestry through Non-state Environmental Governance, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Castellanet, C., Florentino, L.G., Megevand, C. and Mancorps, S. (Eds) (2002), Living with the Forest: Local Management of Natural Resources in Brazilian Amazonia and Costa Rica, Comite francais pour lUICN, Paris. vel e Pol ticas Pu blicas, Cavalcanti, C. (Ed.) (1999), Meio Ambiente, Desenvolvimento Sustenta o Paulo. Cortez Editora, Sa Cleary, D. (1991) in Goodman, D. and Redclift, M. (Eds), Environment and Development in Latin America: The Politics of Sustainability, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 116-40. Colfer, C.J.P. and Pfund, J. (2010), (Eds) Collaborative Governance of Tropical Landscapes, Earthscan Publications, London. Crook, R.C. and Manor, J. (1998), Democracy and Decentralization in South-East Asia and West Africa: Participation,Accountability, and Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dalby, S. (2002), Environmental governance, in Taylor, P. and Watts, M. (Eds), Geographies of Global Change: Remapping the World, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 427-40. Davidson, D.J. and Frickel, S. (2004), Understanding environmental governance, Organization and Environment, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 471-92. nia e Desenvolvimento Sustenta o Paulo. vel, Editora Vozes, Sa de Freitas, M. (2004), Amazo de Lima, I.B. (2002), Local Environmental Governance and Deforestation in Amazonia, Masters thesis, International Relations Graduate School, International University of Japan, 169 pp.. de Lima, I.B. (2008), The micro geopolitics of (eco) tourism. Competing discourses and collaboration in New Zealand and Brazil, doctoral thesis, Department of Geography, Tourism and Environmental Planning, The University of Waikato, Hamilton. Dorvilier, L.O. (2001), Challenges for development and social stability LDCs social alert governance, peace and stability, paper presented at LDCs. Third United Nation Conference on Least Developed Countries, Brussels, 9 May, available at: www.socialalert. org/doc/PMAMay9-louis(en).htm (accessed 22 November 2001). Esty, D.C. and Ivanova, M.H. (Eds) (2002), Global Environmental Governance: Options and Opportunities, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Winters, CA. Faminow, M.D. (1998), Cattle Deforestation and Development in the Amazon: An Economic and Environmental Perspective, CAB International, New York, NY. Fearnside, P.M. (1987), Causes of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, in Dickinson, R.F. (Ed.), The Geophysiology of Amazonia: Vegetation and Climate Interactions, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 37-61. Fearnside, P.M. (1989), A prescription for slowing deforestation in Amazonia, Environment, Vol. 31 No. 4, p. 16-20, 39-40. Fearnside, P.M. (1993), Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: the effect of population and land tenure, Ambio, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 537-45. dam: unlearned lessons for Fearnside, P.M. (2000), Environmental impacts of Brazils Tucuru hydroelectric development in Amazonia, Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 377-96. Fearnside, P.M. (2001), Land-tenure issues as factors in environmental destruction in Brazilian , World Development, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1361-72. Amazonia: the case of southern Para
MEQ 22,3
312
Frey, E.F. (2002), Tropical deforestation in the Amazon: an economic analysis of Rondonia, Brazil, Issues in Political Economy, 11(1, available at: http://org.elon.edu/ipe/Frey1.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2010). Frickel, S. and Davidson, D.J. (2004), Building environmental states: legitimacy and rationalization in sustainability governance, International Sociology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 89-110. Fuller, D.O. (2006), Tropical forest monitoring and remote sensing: a new era of transparency in forest governance, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 15-29. Geist, H.J. and Lambin, E.F. (2002), Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation, Bioscience, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 143-50. Gibbs, D. and Jonas, A.E.G. (2000), Governance and regulation in local environmental policy: the utility of a regime approach, Geoforum, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 299-313. Gibson, C.C., McKean, M.A. and Ostrom, E. (2000), Explaining deforestation: the role of local institutions, in Gibson, C.C., McKean, M.A. and Ostrom, E. (Eds), People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance, The MIT Press, London. Godfrey, B.J. (1993), Regional depiction in contemporary lm, Geographical Review, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 428-40. Goldman, M. (2001), Constructing an environmental state: eco-governmentality and other transnational practices of a green World Bank, Social Problems, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 499-523. nia: Amazo nias, Contexto, Sa o Paulo. Gonc alves, C.W.P. (2001), Amazo Goodman, D. and Hall, A. (1990), The Future of Amazonia: Destruction or Sustainable Development?, Macmillan, London. Gordon, C. (1991), Governmental rationality: an introduction, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (Eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 1-48. Gould, K.A., Schnaiberg, A. and Weinberg, A.S. (1996), Local Environmental Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill of Production, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. o. Abordagens e Caracter sticas Geogra cas, Guerra, A.J.T. (2009), Unidades de Conservac a o Paulo. Bertrand Brasil, Sa s Hall, A. (1989), Developing Amazonia: Deforestation and Social Conicts in Brazils Caraja Programme, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Hall, A. (1991), Developing Amazonia: Deforestation and Social Conict in Brazils Carajas Programme, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Hall, A. (Ed.) (2000), Amazonia at the Crossroads: the Challenge of Sustainable Development, University of London Press, London. Hardin, G. (1968), The tragedy of the commons, Science, Vol. 162, pp. 1243-8. Hecht, S. (1983), Cattle ranching in the eastern Amazon: environmental and social implications, in Moran, E.F. (Ed.), The Dilemma of Amazonian Development, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 155-88. Hecht, S. (1985), Deforestation in the Amazon basin: magnitude, dynamics, and soil resource effects, Studies in Third World Societies, Vol. 13, pp. 61-108. Hecht, S.B., Norgaard, R.B. and Possio, C. (1988), The economics of cattle ranching in Eastern Amazonia, Interciencia, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 233-40. Hempel, L.C. (1996), Environmental Governance: The Global Challenge, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Himley, M. (2008), Geographies of environmental governance: the nexus of nature and neoliberalism, Geography Compass, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-19. Howitt, R. (2001), Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous Peoples, Routledge, London. IGES Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (2001), Environment and governance, available at: /www.iges.net/environment/governance/gov-1a.html (accessed 16 October 2001) IMAZON (2001), Sustainable Amazonia limitation and operation for rural development, World Bank and Imazon, available at: www.imazon.org.br (accessed 23 October 2001). INPE Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais/National Institute for Space Research (2000), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais/National Institute for Space Research, available at: www.inpe.br/Informacoes_Eventos/amz1999_2000/Prodes/html/pag_8.htm (accessed 20 April 2000). John, D. (1993), Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives to Regulation in States and Communities, CQ Press, Washington, DC. Johnston, R.J. (2000), Civil society, in Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, M. (Eds), The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell, Oxford. Kaimowitz, D., Mertens, B., Wunder, S. and Pacheco, P. (2004), Hamburger connection fuels Amazon destruction, available at: www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_les/media/ Amazon.pdf (accessed 10 January 2011). Kanie, N. and Haas, P.M. (Eds) (2004), Joining Forces for Environmental Governance. Emerging Forces in Environmental Governance, United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Kelly, B. and London, M. (2007), The Last Forest: The Amazon in the Age of Globalization, Random House, New York, NY. nia e o Desenvolvimento Sustenta vel, Embrapa, Bras lia. Kitamura, P.C. (1994), A Amazo nia brasileira, Kohlhepp, G. (2002), Conitos de interesse no ordenamento territorial da Amazo Estudos Avanc ados, Vol. 16 No. 45, pp. 37-61. Sustainable Development Reserve. Lessons learnt in Koziell, I. and Inoue, C. (2006), Mamiraua integrating conservation with poverty reduction, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9168IIED.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2010). Laurance, W., Albernaz, A., Fearnside, P., Vasconcelos, H. and Ferreira, L. (2004), Deforestation in Amazonia, Science, Vol. 304 No. 5674, pp. 1109-11. Lemos, M. and Agrawal, A. (2006), Environmental governance, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 31, pp. 297-325. nia: as Ra o, Editora Atual, Sa o Paulo. zes da Destruic Lessa, R. (1991), Amazo a nia no Se culo XXI: Novas Formas de Desenvolvimento, Empo rio Loureiro, V.R. (2009), A Amazo o Paulo. do Livro, Sa Luke, T. (1999), Environmentality as green governmentality, in Darier, E. (Ed.), Discourses of the Environment, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 121-51. McCarthy, J. (2005), Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in environmental governance, Antipode, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 731-53. Mahar, D.J. (1979), Frontier Development Policy in Brazil: A Study of Amazonia, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY. Mahar, D.J. (1989), Government Policies and Deforestation in Brazils Amazon Region, World Bank Publication, Washington, DC.
MEQ 22,3
314
Margulis, S. (2004), Causes of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, World Bank Publications, Washington, DC. o: Atualidades e Milano, M., Takahashi, L. and Nunes, M. (2004), Unidades de Conservac a ncias, Fundac o O Botica rio, Curitiba. Tende a rea Cobic nia: A o Paulo. Miranda, J.B. (2005), Amazo ada, Editora Age, Sa Mol, A.P.J. (2006), Environmental governance in the information age: the emergence of informational governance, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 497-514. Moran, E.F., Brondizio, E.S., Tucker, J.M., Forsberg, M.C.S., Falesi, I. and Mccracken, S.D. (2000), Strategies for Amazonian forest restoration: evidence for afforestation in ve regions of nia at the Crossroads: the Challenge of the Brazilian Amazon, in Hall, A. (Ed.), Amazo Sustainable Development, Institute for Latin American Studies, London, pp. 129-49. Morton, D.C., De Fries, R.S. and Shimabukuro, R.E. (2005), Rapid assessment of annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon using MODIS data, Earth Interactions, Vol. 9 No. 16, pp. 1-22. Mugabe, J. and Tumushabe, G.W. (2001), Environmental governance: conceptual and emerging issues, available at: www.acts.or.ke/GE-Chapter1.pdf (accessed 3 October 2001). o, Insular, Sa o Paulo. Orth, D. (2007), Unidades de Conservac a Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Paterson, M. (2000), Understanding Global Environmental Politics Domination, Accumulation, Resistance, Macmillan Press, London. o no Brasil: Histo ria de Paz, R.J., Freitas, G.L. and Souza, E.A. (2006), Unidades de Conservac a o, Ed. Universita o Pessoa. ria, Joa Legislac a nia Contrastes e Perspectivas, Colec o Geograa Sem Fronteiras, Pennaforte, C. (2006), Amazo a o Paulo. Editora Atual, Sa es, J. and Ver ssimo, A. (2010), Fatos orestais da Pereira, D., Santos, D., Vedoveto, M., Guimara nia 2010, IMAZON, Bele m. Amazo Pfaff, A.S.P. (1999), What drives deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? Evidence from satellite and socioeconomic data, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 26-43. pios e Meio Philippi, A. Jr., Maglio, I.C., deCoimbra, J.A.A. and Franco, R.M. (2001), Munic o da Gesta o Ambiental no Brasil, Editora Ambiente: Perspectivas para a Municipalizac a o Paulo. Signus, Sa nia: no Rastro do Saque, Hucitec, Sa o Paulo. Pinto, L.F. (1980), Amazo reas de protec o ambiental como inspirac o para o desenvolvimento Rente, A.S.G. (2006), A a a o da APA Alter do Cha o/PA, Masters vel com liberdade: o caso da criac sustenta a Dissertation Society, Agriculture and Development, Institute of Social and Human Sciences, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996), The new governance: governing without government, Political Studies, Vol. 54, pp. 652-67. Robertson, M. (2004), The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance, Geoforum, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 361-73. o, Revista dos Tribunais, Rodrigues, J.E.R. (2005), Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservac a o Paulo. Sa
Rolen, M., Sjoberg, H. and Svedin, U. (1997), International Governance on Environmental Issues, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. nia: ticos e socioambientais da governanc Silva, A.T. (2005), Desaos pol a global na Amazo ncia do programa piloto para a protec o das orestas tropicais do Brasil (PPG-7), a emerge a m. NAEA/UFPA, Bele Smith, N.J.H., Serrao, E., Alvim, P. and Falesi, I. (1995), Amazonia Resiliency and Dynamism of the Land and its People, The United Nations University, Tokyo. Speth, J.G. (2002), The global environmental agenda: origins and prospects, in Esty, D.C. and Ivanova, M.H. (Eds), Global Environmental Governance: Options and Opportunities, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Winters, CA, pp. 1-20. Stone, R.D. (1985), Dreams of Amazonia, Penguin Books, New York, NY. Uitto, J. (1997), Environmental governance and the impending water crisis, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 167-73. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2001a), Globalization with a Human Face, Report, 1999. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2001b), Governance for Sustainable Human Development, Chapter 1, available at: http://magnet.undp.org/policy/chapter1.htm (accessed 30 October 2001). Walker, R., Moran, E. and Anselim, L. (2000), Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: external capital and household processes, World Development, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 683-99. Wapner, P. (1995), Politics beyond the state: environmental activism and world civic politics, World Politics, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 311-40. Rosenau, J.N. (1992), Introduction, Governance without Government: Order and Changes in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Watts, M. (2003), Development and governmentality, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 6-34. Wood, A. and Valler, D. (2001), Turn again? Rethinking institutions and the governance of local and regional economies, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1139-44. Young, R.O. (1994), International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society, Cornell University Press, New York, NY.
Further reading Borgese, E. (1999), Global civil society: lessons from ocean governance, Futures, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 983-91. Eckerberg, K. (2001), Sweden. Problems and prospects at the leading edge of LA21 Implementation, in Lafferty, W.M. (Ed.), Sustainable Communities in Europe, Earthscan, London, pp. 15-33. Fearnside, P.M. (1990), The rate and extent of deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia, Environmental Conservation, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 213-26. nia Brasileira Conitos entre ticas Pu blicas Territoriais na Amazo Mello, N.A. (2002), Pol o ambiental e desenvolvimento 1970-2000, doctoral thesis, Geography conservac a o Paulo (USP), Sa o Paulo. Department, Universidade de Sa Putnam, R.D. (1988), Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games, International Organization, Vol. 42, Summer, pp. 427-60.
MEQ 22,3
316
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997), Understanding Governance Policy Networks, Governance, Reexivity, and Accountability, Open University Press, London. o brasileiras, Megadiversidade, Rylands, A.B. and Brandon, K. (2005), Unidades de conservac a Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-35. o da gesta o ambiental no Brasil, Scardua, F.P. (2003), Governabilidade e descentralizac a vel CDS, Universidade de Bras lia doctoral thesis, Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustenta lia. (UnB), Bras Thurdin, G. (1997), Political dimensions of international environmental governance issues, in Mats, R., Svedin, V. and Berg, H.S. (Eds), International Governance on Environmental Issues, Vol. 196, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. reas protegidas na Amazo nia: oportunidades para conservac o e ssimo, A.R. (2008), A Ver a vel, in Albuquerque, A.C.S. and da Silva, A.G. (Eds), Desenvolvimento da usosustenta es tecnolo cadas de inovac gicas, institucionais e pol ticas, agricultura tropical: quatro de o o Tecnolo gica-CGIAR, Bras lia, pp. 125-62. Vol. 1, Emprapa Informac a About the authors Ismar Borges de Lima works full-time at the Institute for Social and Environmental Research (IESA), hosted at the Federal Unviersity of Goias (UFG). He develops ecotourism investigation based on contextual mapping and on the ecological territorial tourism units (ETTUs). The researcher is committed to produce an inventory of ecological tourism activities in Goias state, Brazil. His PhD in human geography and tourism was awarded by the University of Waikato, New Zealand, in August 2008. Ismar holds a Masters degree in international relations awarded by the International University of Japan (IUJ) and his thesis dealt with the concept of local environmental governance (LEG), the public policies, and deforestation in Amazonia. His academic background is interdisciplinary with research interests and publications in the following themes: human geography, ecotourism; sustainable tourism; Amazonia, deforestation, and development; environmental public policies; global environmental issues and international relations; and environmental matters and the role of mass media communication. Ismar Borges de Lima is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ismarlima@yahoo.com.br Leszek Buszynski is Professor of International Relations at the International University of Japan (IUJ); previously Dean of the Graduate School of International Relations and Director of the IUJ Research Institute; also Director of the Research Institute of Asian Development from (RIAD) 1995 until 1997; from 1987 to 1993 Senior Research Fellow and Coordinator of the Graduate Program in Strategic Studies at the Strategic and Defense Studies Centre (SDSC) at the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia; before then lecturer and later senior lecturer at the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore (NUS) from 1980 until 1987. Qualications are: PhD (International Relations), London School of Economics and Political Science, in 1980; Master of Science (International Relations), London School of Economics and Political Science, in 1975; Bachelor of Arts (Political Science), Australian National University, in 1972. Teaching interests are: international politics and security; international conict resolution; Asia Pacic international relations; ASEAN governance and development.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Local Environmental Governance Public Policies and Deforestation in Amazon by IsmarLima

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Local Environmental Governance Public Policies and Deforestation in Amazon by IsmarLima

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.

Local environmental governance, public policies and deforestation in Amazonia

Local environmental governance 293

Local environmental governance 295

Table I. Actors in the deforestation process

Local environmental governance 297

Figure 1. Deforestation rates in Amazonia from 1998 to 2009

Local environmental governance 299

Local environmental governance 301

Local environmental governance 303

Figure 2. Local environmental governance: an institutional framework

Local environmental governance 305

Local environmental governance 307

Local environmental governance 309

Local environmental governance 311

Local environmental governance 313

Local environmental governance 315

You might also like