Elis Araújo • Paulo Barreto • Heron Martins

Belém 2015

Copyright © 2015 by Imazon

Authors
Elis Araújo
Paulo Barreto
Heron Martins

Photos
Paulo Barreto

Editorial Design and Cover
Luciano Silva
www.rl2design.com.br

Editorial Revision
Glaucia Barreto

Translation
John Moon

INTERNATIONAL DATA FOR CATALOGUING THE PUBLICATION (CIP) AT THE NATIONAL BOOK DEPARTMENT

The data and opinions expressed in this work are the entire responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of funders of this study.

A663a
Araújo, Elis

Portuguese Title: Áreas protegidas críticas na Amazônia no período de 2012 a 2014 / Elis Araújo; Paulo Barreto; Heron Martins. – Belém, PA: Imazon, 2015.

Epub
ISBN: 978-85-86212-78-9

1. Critical conservation units. 2. Deforestation. 3. Public policies. 4. Land regularization. 5. Environmental preservation. 6. Brazil. 7. Amazon. I. Barreto, Paulo. II. Martins, Heron. III. Amazon Institute of People and Environment (Imazon). IV. Title.

CDD: 333.7509811

Trav. Dom Romualdo de Seixas nº 1698,
Edifício Zion Business, 11º andar • Bairro Umarizal - CEP: 66.055-200
Belém - Pará - Brasil
www.imazon.org.br

About Imazon

Imazon is a research institute whose mission is to promote sustainable development in the Amazon through studies, support for public policy formulation, broad dissemination of information and capacity building.

In 25 years of existence, Imazon has produced more than 600 technical papers, of which 225 were published as articles in international scientific journals or as chapters in books. Furthermore, the Institute has published an additional 66 books and 23 booklets, among other categories of publications.

Founded in 1990, the Institute is a nonprofit organization and is classified by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice as a Civil Society Organization of Public Interest (Oscip). Its head office is in Belém, Pará.

About the authors

Elis Araújo is an assistant researcher at Imazon, a lawyer with a bachelor’s degree in law and a specialist certification in Biostatistics from the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), in Belém – PA

Paulo Barreto is a senior researcher at Imazon, a forestry engineer from the Agricultural Science College of Pará (now UFRA), in Belém – PA, and with a Master’s in Forest Sciences from Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Heron Martins is an assistant researcher at Imazon and environmental engineer who graduated from the State University of Pará, in Belém – PA.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Carlos Souza Jr. and Adalberto Veríssimo for their comments during revision of the study; and Glaucia Barreto for the editorial revision. They would also like to thank the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for funding the study.

Summary

Conservation Units (UCs) have generally been one of the most effective measures against deforestation in the Amazon, and thus for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, some of them are in critical situation of deforestation. Generally, those areas present irregular occupations and are in the regions of influence of major infrastructure projects, such as highways and hydroelectric dams, and are vulnerable because of inefficient enforcement. Aware of these problems, enforcement agencies such as the Federal Audit Court (TCU) and the Federal Public Prosecution Service (MPF) have demanded that UCs be implemented throughout Brazil, especially in the Amazon.

In order to contribute to such initiative, we present the 50 UCs which are critical areas of deforestation that need to be priorities for implementation actions, especially, of land regularization – in other words, the removal of irregular occupants and the compensation and resettlement of those that have the right to it. Those critical areas concentrate 96% of the deforestation that occurred in Amazon UCs during the period of August 2012 to July 2014. Seven of the top ten most deforested areas and which account for 81% of the deforestation in the critical areas are suffering from a low level of implementation according to data from the TCU (in other words, they lack management plans, management council, and sufficient human and financial resources).

The success of UCs against deforestation and as a basis for local development (tourism, sustainable timber harvesting) depends upon investments. The government needs to prepare a long-term plan that takes into account the necessary resources and priority actions. The initial focus of those actions should be the critical areas of deforestation that are under the most pressure (near projects that attract migrants such as hydroelectric dams and paving roads) and are vulnerable because of irregular occupations. To guarantee the integrity of those areas, we recommend: punishment for all crimes associated with illegal deforestation, which will lead to confiscation of assets and stiffer penalties; removal of non-traditional occupants from UCs where their presence is not allowed; and taking back public lands outside UCs for the necessary resettlements.

Contents

Folha de Rosto

Ficha Técnica

Ficha Catalográfica

About Imazon

About the authors

Acknowledgements

Summary

Introduction

The critical areas

Recommendations

Bibliography

Appendix

Introduction

Conservation Units (UCs) have been one of the most effective measures against deforestation in the Amazon, and, consequently, for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The creation of 485 thousand square kilometers of Protected Areas (Conservation Units and Indigenous Lands) in the region from 2003 to 2006 helped to reduce the deforestation rate by 37% during that period (Soares-Filho et al, 2010); and Brazil reduced its GHG emissions by 38% from 2005 to 2012 (SEEG/OC, 2014). Despite the benefits those areas provide, some are at a critical situation of deforestation (Martins et al, 2012). Generally, the critical UCs are in the area of influence of major infrastructure projects such as highways and hydroelectric dams (Araújo et al, 2013). Both the projects already underway and those in the planning stage entail a large migratory influx to the region, improvements or the expectation of improvements for the distribution of local production and an increase of land value in the surrounding area.

In that context, facilitated access to UCs and inefficient enforcement allow people to exploit their resources illegally and even to appropriate their lands. The existence of occupants with or without title inside UCs that do not allow private properties inside their areas causes conflict over resource use, which can lead to environmental degradation and to the loss of their purpose. And delay in removing those occupants generates an expectation that the government will revoke or reduce UCs to allow people to remain in the area, or at least compensate or include them in land reform settlements (Araújo & Barreto, 2015). That situation encourages new occupations. Research indicates that UCs with land conflicts are less effective against deforestation (Nolte et al, 2013).

Aware of these problems, enforcement agencies such as the Federal Audit Court (TCU) and the Federal Public Prosecution Service (MPF) have demanded that UCs be implemented throughout Brazil, especially in the Amazon. In late 2013, the TCU carried out an environmental audit on UC management and governance in the Amazon biome and found that only 4% of the UCs presented a high level of implementation (TCU, 2013). That is because few UCs presented management plans, management council and sufficient human and financial resources; and had the uses laid down by law implemented, such as forest concessions and tourism.

Among the factors that keep UCs from achieving their objectives is the lack of land regularization. The Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) informed the TCU that there were 5.4 million hectares of private lands inside the federal UCs in Brazil needing expropriation at a cost of R$7.1 billion (TCU, 2013). In the Amazon, that would mean 3 million hectares and an expropriation cost of R$2.3 billion. Based on those numbers, the TCU estimated that the federal government would take 102 years to conclude land regularization of the federal UCs if it kept up the insufficient rate of investment presented from 2009 to 2012. To guarantee conservation of the UCs in the Amazon biome, the TCU and the State Audit Courts (TCEs) have demanded that the governments present action plans for their implementation. Those audit courts will follow up UC implementation using 14 indicators (Appendix). In 2014, the MPF launched a national campaign for UC land regularization and an instruction manual for guiding federal prosecutors in following up UC implementation and pushing forward their land regularization process (PGR, 2014). To contribute towards those initiatives, we present below the UCs that are critical areas of deforestation and that need to be priorities for implementation actions, especially land regularization.

The Critical Areas

From August 2012 to July 2014, 1,531,000 hectares were deforested in the Amazon, from which 158,400 hectares or 10% occurred in 160 UCs[1]. Of those, 50 UCs in eight states concentrated 96% of the deforestation (Figures 1 and 2), of which 87% occurred in only two states: Pará (48%) and Rondônia (39%).

According to TCU, implementation was low (46%) or average (46%) in most of the critical UCs. The low level of implementation predominates among the top ten most deforested UCs (7/10) that account for 81% of the deforestation in the critical areas (Figure 2). Only 8% of the 50 critical UCs presented a high level of implementation.

Among the 50 critical UCs, those under state management were the most deforested, with 101,611 hectares or 67%. However, in Pará, the federal UCs were more deforested than the state ones, while in Rondônia we observed the opposite (Figure 3). The State of Rondônia is notable for reducing and revoking UCs in order to legalize and promote occupations and allow construction of hydroelectric dams (Araújo & Barreto, 2010). These data indicate that both state and federal agencies need to improve management of UCs, and prioritize those with deforestation.

Figure 1. The 50 Conservation Units with the highest rates of deforestation in the Amazon from 2012 to 2014

Figure 2. Distribution of deforestation from 2012 to 2014 in the 50 critical Conservation Units in the Amazon

Continue Figura 2

Acronyms for UC groups and categories :
Groups: US – Sustainable Use/ PI – Full Protection
Categories: APA –Environmental Protection Area / Arie – Area of Relevant Ecological Interest/ Esec – Ecological Station / Flota – State Forest/ Flona – National Forest/ Florex – Extractive Forest/ Resex – Extractive Reserve/ Rebio – Biological Reserve/ Parna – National Park/ PES – State Park

Figure 3. Area deforested from 2012 to 2014 in the 50 critical Conservation Units of the Amazon, by state and level of management

The UCs in the sustainable use group represented 95% of the total deforested area among the critical UCs. The Environmental Protection Area (APA) was the most deforested category, with 43% of the total (Figure 4). That UC category allows the presence of private properties, but this does not mean that the deforestation that occurred in those areas had been authorized.

After APAs, National Forests (Flonas) and Extractive Reserves (Resexs) had the highest rates of deforestation, with 19% and 15%, respectively. Flonas and State Forests (Flota) allow sustainable use of native forests. However, according to TCU, most Flonas and Flotas in the Amazon are not yet being used for such purposes through concessions.

As for the Resexs, their basic objectives are to protect the livelihoods and culture of traditional extractive populations and assure the sustainable use of natural resources in such UCs. However, the TCU has found that Resexs in the Amazon have low implementation of Management Agreements, the instrument established to enable the population residing in the UCs to have access to and use extractive natural resources. Although this UC category allow occupation only by traditional populations[2], such as riverbank and beach dwelling people (ribeirinhos and caiçaras), it suffers from illegal logging and illegal occupation

Figure 4. Deforested area in the 50 critical Conservation Units, by protection category and by state

Recommendations

The success of UCs against deforestation and as the basis for local development (tourism, sustainable timber harvesting) depends upon investments. The government needs to prepare a long-term plan that takes into account the necessary resources and priority actions. Although the federal government has reduced spending on the Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (PPCDAM) by 72% (Infoamazonia, 2015), there are several sources of funding for investment in UCs, such as environmental compensation, effective levying of fines and the Rural Property Tax (ITR) and the sale of public lands, as noted by Araújo and Barreto (2015). The government should focus its actions in the critical areas of deforestation that are under the most pressure (near projects that attract migrants such as hydroelectric dams and paving roads) and are vulnerable because of irregular occupations. To guarantee the integrity of those areas we recommend:

Punishing all crimes associated with illegal deforestationBesides improving environmental enforcement (fines, embargoes, confiscation of assets), it is necessary to prosecute illegal deforesters for associated crimes such as occupation of public lands, conspiracy, tax evasion and money laundering. That is exactly what recently happened in Western Pará during the Castanheira Operation (MPF, 2014). The accumulated penalties from those crimes resulted in significant financial loss and prison terms of several years that have a greater potential for dissuasion than the penalties for environmental crimes, which are milder. However, the investigation of crimes associated with deforestation will require that Ibama, the Federal Police, Federal Revenue Service, and MPF work together cooperatively

Remove non-traditional occupants from the UCs in which their presence is not allowed, such as Flona, Resex and Rebio According to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ)[[3], those who occupy public lands, even in good faith, do not have the right to compensation for the investments they have made in such areas. Adoption of this interpretation by UC managers would save money spent on undue compensations. In the case of occupants who have a legitimate right to compensation for improvements, it is important to deduct from such payment the environmental fines for deforestation and illegal logging, as well as the costs for the recovery of degraded areas.

Taking back public lands outside Conservation Units. The retaking of illegally appropriated lands (with false titles) outside UCs, especially those already deforested, would increase the availability of lands for resettlement of non-traditional occupants of UCs who fit the profile for land reform program. In order to expedite things, land title agencies need to cancel false titles through administrative procedure, which is more rapid than using the courts (Araújo & Barreto, 2015).

Bibliography

Araújo, E. & Barreto, P. 2010. Anexo OEA 16 – Ameaças formais contra as Áreas Protegidas na Amazônia. O Estado da Amazônia nº 16. p. 4. Belém-PA: Imazon.

Araújo, E. & Barreto, P. 2015. Estratégias e fontes de recursos para proteger as Unidades de Conservação da Amazônia (p. 40). Belém: Imazon. Available at: <http://imazon.org.br/publicacoes/estrategias-e-fontes-de-recursos-para-proteger-as-unidades-de-conservacao-da-amazonia/>. Access on: 6 Mar. 2015.

Araújo, E.; Martins, H.; Barreto, P. & Lima, A. C. 2013. Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia Legal com mais Alertas de Desmatamento em 2012-2013. p. 32. Belém-PA: Imazon.

Infoamazonia. 2015. A política do desmatamento. Available at: <http://desmatamento.infoamazonia.org/analise/>. Access on: 6 Mar. 2015.

Martins, H.; Vedoveto, M.; Araújo, E.; Barreto, P.; Baima, S.; Souza Jr., C. & Veríssimo, A. 2012. Áreas Protegidas Críticas na Amazônia Legal (p. 94). Belém-PA: Imazon. Available at: <http://imazon.org.br/publicacoes/areas-protegidas-criticas-na-amazonia-legal/>. Access on: 6 Mar. 2015.

MPF. Ministério Público Federal no Pará. 2014. “Operação desmonta maior quadrilha de desmatadores da região amazônica.” Assessoria de Comunicação. Notícia de 28 de agosto de 2014. Available at: <http://www.prpa.mpf.mp.br/news/2014/operacao-desmonta-maior-quadrilha-de-desmatadores-da-regiao-amazonica>. Access on: 1º set. 2014.

Nolte et al. 2013. Setting priorities to avoid deforestation in Amazon protected areas: are we choosing the right indicators? Environmental Research Letters.

PGR. Procuradoria Geral da República. 2014. Lançada estratégia nacional do MPF para defesa das unidades de conservação. Secretaria de Comunicação. Notícia de 5 de junho de 2014. Available at: <http://noticias.pgr.mpf.mp.br/noticias/noticias-do-site/copy_of_meio-ambiente-e-patrimonio-cultural/lancada-estrategia-nacional-do-mpf-para-defesa-das-unidades-de-conservacao >. Access on: 6 jun. 2014.

SEEG/OC. Sistema de Estimativa de Emissões de Gases do Efeito Estufa – Observatório do Clima. 2014. Tabela Geral de Emissões. Available at: <http://seeg.herokuapp.com/tabela-geral-de-emissoes/>. Access on: 28 jan. 2015.

Soares-Filho, B. et al. 2010. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. PNAS 2010. Published before print version, May 26.

TCU. Tribunal de Contas da União. 2013. Processo nº TC 034.496/2012-2. Acórdão nº 3101/2013. Ata nº. 46/2013. Plenário. Auditoria Operacional. Governança das Unidades de Conservação do Bioma Amazônia.

Appendix

Indicators for implementation and management of Conservation Units

Box 1. Indicators for implementation and management created by the Federal Audit Court - TCU

Source: TCU, 2013.

[1] Prodes Project - Satellite Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazon, by National Institute For Space Research (Inpe). Available at: <http://www.dpi.inpe.br/prodesdigital/prodesuc.php>.

[2] Traditional peoples and communities are culturally differentiated groups that recognize themselves as such, with their own forms or social organization who occupy and use lands and natural resources as a condition for their cultural, social, religious, ancestral and economic reproduction, using knowledge, innovations and practices generated and transmitted by tradition. Definition of art. 3º of Decree 6.040/2007, which established the National Policy for Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities.

[3] See decisions of 2008 and 2009 in special appeal (Resp): REsp 863.939 - RJ (DJe 24.11.2008) and REsp 945.055 - DF (DJe 20.08.2009).