Para case one billion trees for the amazon

Pará Case: “One Billion Trees for the Amazon” The use of the base of the pyramid to alleviate climate change issues, recover biodiversity and improve socio-economic standards

Renata A Soares

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 4 Climate change ............................................................................................................... 5 Forestry context .................................................................................................................... 5 Local climate impact on forestry – The Amazon Case....................................................... 14

Base of the Pyramid: recovery of biodiversity and alleviation of climate change issues as well as poverty levels ................................................................................................ 20 Agriculture production ....................................................................................................... 26 Agricultural extensification: .......................................................................................................... 27 Agroforestry systems: .................................................................................................................... 28

Timber and non-timber forest production ......................................................................... 28 Community forest management ...................................................................................................... 29 Plantations .................................................................................................................................... 30

Infrastructure...................................................................................................................... 30 Alternative employment...................................................................................................... 32 Forest conservation ............................................................................................................. 32 Protected areas ............................................................................................................................. 32 Payment for ecosystem services ..................................................................................................... 33

Commercialization .............................................................................................................. 35 Cooperatives ................................................................................................................................. 36 Partnerships with companies ......................................................................................................... 37 Multi Stakeholder Value Chain ...................................................................................................... 38

Key levers for shifting to more sustainable production ..................................................... 39 Valuing carbon and other ecosystem services ................................................................................. 39 Policy incentives for sustainable production practices.................................................................... 40 Demand-side measures in consumer countries ............................................................................... 41 Legality assurance......................................................................................................................... 41 Sustainability certification ............................................................................................................. 43 Public awareness........................................................................................................................... 44

Practical case: “One Billion Trees for the Amazon” – Pará Case................................ 45 The Amazon Forest ............................................................................................................. 45 Pará context ........................................................................................................................ 48 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 53 Local cases analysis ............................................................................................................. 55 Global knowledge applied to Pará case: recommended strategy....................................... 57 Solutions & Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 58 Stakeholders’ roles and analysis .................................................................................................... 60 Communities ................................................................................................................................. 61 Specific Dynamics ......................................................................................................................... 62 Main Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 63 Key success factors........................................................................................................................ 64

Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 66

1

Appendixes ................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix 1: Examples of impacts associated with global average temperature change ......... 67 Appendix 2: Examples of possible impacts of climate change due to changes in extreme weather and climate events, based on projections to the mid- to late 21st century................... 68 Appendix 3: Characteristics of post-TAR stabilization scenarios and resulting long-term equilibrium global average temperature and the sea level rise component from thermal expansion only.a {WGI 10.7; WGIII Table TS.2, Table 3.10, Table SPM.5} ......................... 69 Appendix 4A: The natural carbon cycle................................................................................ 70 Appendix 4B: Effects of deforestation and degradation on the carbon cycle.......................... 70 Appendix 5: Average carbon stocks for different types of land cover .................................... 71 Appendix 6: Average net primary productivity (sequestration) for different types of land cover ............................................................................................................................................. 72 Appendix 7: Global emissions path required for stabilization at 475ppm CO2e overshooting to 500ppm................................................................................................................................. 73 Appendix 8: Key elements of the Bali Action Plan ............................................................... 74 Appendix 9: Global anthropogenic GHG emissions .............................................................. 75 Appendix 10A: Projections for world population in 2050 ..................................................... 76 Appendix 10B: Growth in global middle class ...................................................................... 76 Appendix 10C: Land requirements for producing different types of food .............................. 76 Appendix 10D: Correlation between deforestation in the Brazilian Amazonia, farmgate prices of beef and rainfall (2001-2003) ............................................................................................ 77 Appendix 10E: Demand for major food crops (difference from previous year in millions of tones) .................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix 10F: Selected land use returns in some forest nations ........................................... 78 Appendix 11: Comparison of annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions with annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration ................................................................................................................. 79 Appendix 12: Major classes of forestry services ................................................................... 80 Appendix 13: The underlying drivers of deforestation .......................................................... 81 Appendix 14: Governance drivers of deforestation in the three major rainforest regions ....... 82 Appendix 15: Deforestation externalities: the current and true prices of products from deforested land ...................................................................................................................... 83 Appendix 16: Amazon region............................................................................................... 84 Appendix 17A: Deforestation fines and agents involved in regulation .................................. 85 Appendix 17B: Environmental agents .................................................................................. 85 Appendix 17C: IBAMA profile and financials ..................................................................... 86 Appendix 18A: Amazon land, population and GDP figures compared to Brazil ones ............ 87 Appendix 18B: Human development indexes ....................................................................... 87

2

Appendix 18C: Environmental management annual budget and Public security annual budget per state in Brazil .................................................................................................................. 88 Appendix 19A: Level of deforestation per state in Brazil ...................................................... 89 Appendix 19B: Pará is currently the most relevant deforestation region in the Amazon ........ 89 Appendix 19C: Deforested area in Pará ................................................................................ 90 Appendix 20A: Deforestation scheme in Pará....................................................................... 91 Appendix 20B: Deforestation scheme in Pará in East Zone................................................... 92 Appendix 20B: Deforestation scheme in Pará in West Zone ................................................. 93 Appendix 21: Timber extraction hubs is Pará ....................................................................... 94 Appendix 22: Steps of the implementation of the One Billion Trees for the Amazon ............ 95 Appendix 23: Geographic region focus of the project One Billion Trees for the Amazon ...... 96 Appendix 24A: Description of Agriforest Systems ............................................................... 97 Appendix 24B: Examples of Agriforest Systems .................................................................. 98 Appendix 25: FVPP and CAMTA Cooperatives ................................................................. 100

Tables ......................................................................................................................... 101 Table 1: The carbon sink effect .......................................................................................... 101 Table 2: Estimated annual change in forest area since the 1980s: continent and global ........ 102 Table 3: Forest tenure and distribution (million ha)............................................................. 103 Table 4: Governance drivers of deforestation in the three major rainforest regions .............. 104 Table 5: Scolel Te: Plan Vivo ............................................................................................. 105 Table 6: Community forest management: two examples ..................................................... 106 Table 7: A scientific and technological revolution for the Brazilian Amazon....................... 107 Table 8: Burung Indonesia – rural nature conservation agreements and participatory boundary demarcation ........................................................................................................................ 108 Table 9: Positive variables in the success of communities‟ self-regulation resources ........... 109 Table 10: Tomé-Açú case, CAMTA ................................................................................... 110 Table 11: Blue Skies Case in Africa ................................................................................... 111 Table 12: Michelin Case in Brazil ...................................................................................... 112 Table 13: Deforestation externalities: the current and true prices of products from deforested land..................................................................................................................................... 114 Table 14: Cikel Brasil Verde Madeiras Ltda, Rio Capim Farm ........................................... 115 Table 15: Bolthouse case .................................................................................................... 116 Table 16: The Bolivian strategic plan and communication case ........................................... 118 Table 17: Indian communication case - The Challenge of Farm Forest in India ................... 120

Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 122

3

Abstract Many developed countries are already largely deforested. Deforestation is now principally happening in developing countries, especially in the tropics, as they follow a similar path to meet their development needs. With an increasing wealthy global population, demand for land and for agricultural and forest products will continue to increase. Without a value on the local and global services provided by standing forests, there is little economic incentive to meet this demand other than through deforestation.

Firm and urgent action is needed. If not, it is highly unlikely that a CO2 stabilization target that avoids the worst effects of climate change will be reached. Action on deforestation needs to be taken as part of the international negotiations. A step change is needed in the way land is used and commodities are produced and consumed. A shift to more sustainable production will be complex and challenging, but not impossible if local communities are involved in the process. Reforestation projects are also needed to help recover what was lost.

There are many areas and fields producing CO2 negatively contributing to climate change effects. Why forests? Forests make crucial contributions to livelihoods, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity conservation, in addition to many other local and global ecosystem services. Indeed, forests contributions to local livelihoods far exceed their territorial extent; more than a billion people are estimated to depend at least partially on different kinds of benefits drawn from forest1.

Considered the world‟s largest forest restoration program, “One Billion Trees for the Amazon” is an initiative of the state of Pará Secretariat for Environment (SEMA-PA).

The main objective is to encourage citizens and society at large so that the goal of planting one billion trees until the year 2013 is achieved. This project has the potential to reduce global GHGs by 5% until 2030 2, restore biodiversity, improve the quality of water and preserve threaten of extinction species.

The goal of this paper is to analyze how mechanisms of reforestation can contribute to poverty reduction and preserve ecosystems services e.g. biodiversity and water services in the state of Pará, Brazil so to alleviate climate change pressures.

1 2

Chhatre at all (2008) SAGRI, SEMA (2008)

4

Climate change Forestry context Climate change is a major global threat. Over the last hundred years, global temperatures have risen by 0.7°, sea levels are rising at three millimeters a year, and Arctic sea ice is melting at almost three per cent a decade. Continued warming of the atmosphere at the same rate and increase in carbon emissions will result in substantial damage to water resources, ecosystems, coastlines, food supplies and health; with increase in drought, heat waves, heavy precipitation events, and high sea level worldwide. See Appendixes 1 and 2 for more details. Moreover, according to the Stern report, if nothing changes climate change will reduce welfare by an amount equivalent to a reduction in consumption per person of between 5 and 20% now and into the future3. The economic costs of climate change impacts have been estimated at between 5 and 20% of global GDP and could be considerably higher 4.

To avoid the worst effects of climate change, the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) should be stabilized at 445-490 parts per million CO2-equivalent (CO2e is the amount of CO2 emission that would cause the same time-integrated radioactive forcing, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of a long-lived GHG or a mixture of GHGs) or less. This is the same that limiting global warming to 2°C increase in temperature over pre-industrial levels to minimize the risk of dangerous climate change 5.

3

Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change 2008 The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 1 5 IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report 4

5

Early action could significantly reduce the risk of severe climate change impacts. In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs emissions in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and then decline. The lower the stabilization level, the sooner this peak would have to occur. Appendix 3 illustrates required emission levels and timescales for different stabilization trajectories.

To achieve the target levels of global stabilization identified by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for CO2e emissions and temperature increase, strong and urgent international action on a number of fronts will be needed; forests have a central role in it due to their carbon cycle (see Appendix 4A), storing carbon above and below ground and removing it from the atmosphere as they grow, thus deforestation and forest degradation not only reduce the amount of forest cover and vegetation and release stored carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 emissions (effects on the carbon cycle follow on Appendix 4B), but also extinguish the natural carbon sink, which plays a significant role in offsetting some of the total anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (See Table 1).

Forests currently cover about 30% of the earthâ€&#x;s land surface, yet they represent the most significant terrestrial carbon store, containing some 77% of all carbon stored in vegetation and 39% of all carbon stored in soils 6. They also store twice as much carbon than is present in the atmosphere7. The amount of carbon in a forest varies geographically but all forests store, on average, more carbon per hectare than other types of land cover (see Appendix 5). Tropical rainforest can contain at least four times more carbon per

6 7

WBGU (1998), IPCC (2007) WG3, Chapter 9 WBGU (1998), IPCC (2007) WG1, Chapter 7

6

hectare than cropland in the tropics 8. When growing, forests generally have higher carbon sequestration rates than other types of vegetation (see Appendix 6)9.

In the absence of any mitigation efforts, emissions from the forest sector alone will increase atmospheric carbon stock by around 30ppm by 2100. Moreover, current atmospheric CO2e levels stand at 433pp10 if nothing happens it will continue to grow as Appendix 7 illustrates. Consequently, in order to stabilize atmospheric levels at a 445490ppm target, forests will need to form a central part of any global climate change deal.

Therefore, institutional reforms will need to include forestry fully into a climate change framework post-201211. They started to do so in the meeting of the UN Conference of the Parties held in Bali in December 2007, which action plan recognizes the importance of reducing deforestation emissions (See Appendix 8). This action plan is important because it sets out the areas for negotiation for the Copenhagen conference that will be held in December 2009 giving importance to forestry issues.

Given the high rates of global forest loss currently, reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) would make a major contribution to meeting an emissions stabilization target. At the same time, afforestation, reforestation and restoration (ARR) increase forest carbon stocks by sequestering and storing carbon from the atmosphere as new forests grow. In addition, natural standing forests maintain carbon stocks and transfers and, under the current climate, act as a carbon sink.

8

Houghton (1999) Houghton (2007); IPCC (2006) 10 The Eliasch Review (2008) p.6 11 The Eliasch Review (2008) p. xv-xvii 9

7

Forestry, as defined by IPCC, produces around 17% of global emissions including emissions from biomass decay, drained peat and peat fires (see Appendix 9), through deforestation and degradation making it the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after energy supply and industrial activity; it is larger than the entire global transport sector. Annual forest emissions are comparable to the total annual CO2 emissions of the US or China 12. The global forest sector produces an estimated 5.8 Gt CO2 annually13, around 96% of which is estimated to come from developing countries in the tropics. Since 1980, global forest cover is estimated to have declined by 225 million hectares due to human action. Deforestation is occurring rapidly in the tropics, where an estimated 13 million hectares – an area the size of England – are converted to other land uses each year. Deforestation in tropical regions generally emits significantly more CO2 than forests elsewhere in the world. By contrast, afforestation and reforestation are estimated at 5.5 million hectares every year, mainly in the temperate regions14. However, temperate forests do not sequester as much CO2 as is released in emissions through tropical deforestation. And the amount of CO2 sequestered each year is only a fraction of the amount released each year through deforestation and degradation. If deforestation is not tackle, it is highly unlikely that the goal to achieve a CO2 stabilization target that avoids the worst effects of climate change will be reached.

Modeling for the Eliasch Review estimates that the global economic cost of the climate change impacts of deforestation will rise to around $1 trillion a year by 2100 if nothing 12

The Eliasch Review (2008) p. xv IPCC (2007) WG 3 Chapter 9 14 The Eliasch Review (2008) p.1 13

8

occurs. The total damage cost of forest loss for the global economy could be $12 trillion in net present value terms. These costs are additional to climate change damage caused by emissions from other sectors.

As long as population, especially in and near forests, global income per capita, economic pressures placed upon forests by demand for timber, agricultural commodities and biofuels continue to grow and the costs of lost forest carbon and other ecosystem services are not reflected in the price of the products supplied from converted forest land (see Appendixes 10A-F); then, in financial terms, forests will often be worth more to landholders cut than standing. For instance, in Brazil, reduced logging impact would yield $128 profit per hectare from an initial selective harvest. If the forest were left alone to regenerate, another harvest would be possible in 30 years. This gives a net present value, using a 20% discount rate, of only $0.24 per hectare 15, which is very unattractive when compared to the returns presented in Appendix 10F.

In addition, institutional and political conditions prevailing in many rainforest nations may amplify the economic pressures on forests. Moreover, the past half century has seen dramatic improvements in agricultural yield, but future productivity increases may not be enough to keep up with demand, particularly if biofuel is in competition with food production for land 16. Therefore, the decisions of the developed world and consumer, such as whether they purchase non-certified timber and foodstuffs, are just as important a factor for driving deforestation.

15 16

Boltz et al (2001), discussed in Chomitz et al (2006) Gallagher (2008)

9

Therefore, a sustainable system of global production and consumption which can meet increasing demand for commodities and lead to reduced carbon emissions, better livelihoods for the poor and preservation of non-carbon ecosystem services such as biodiversity and water services is needed. To do so, a global change in mentality, policy, production and consumption has to occur.

In the short run, at the international level, forest carbon has to have a value taking into account the global impact on climate change. At the national level, governance reforms are required to shift policy incentives towards sustainable production. Consumer awareness toward sustainable forest products can provide incentives for forest nations to promote sustainable production. The full participation of forest communities and indigenous peoples will make reforms more likely to succeed and benefit the poor.

In the long run, including REDD in a global cap and trade system could reduce deforestation rates by up to 75% in 2030. With the addition of sequestration from ARR, this would make the forest sector carbon neutral. In addition, due to the relatively low cost of forest abatement compared to mitigation in other emitting sectors, the cost of halving global carbon emissions from 1990 levels could be reduced by up to 50% in 2030 and up to 40% in 2050 if the forest sector is included in a global trading system. These lower costs could allow the international community to meet a more ambitious global

10

stabilization target. Forest carbon finance could also make a significant impact on reducing poverty through increased financial flows to developing countries 17.

According to the Eliasch Review, the post-2012 transition path towards a long term goal of full inclusion in a global carbon cap and trade market will need to meet the needs of sovereign nations at different levels of development, particularly the poorest. The most effective transition path to global cap and trade is likely to be a national, incentive-based approach with increasing finance from emissions trading schemes, but also drawing on additional funding sources while carbon markets grow over time. In the short term, the main objectives should be capacity building and filling the funding gap. Over the medium term, four building blocks are key: effective national-level targets; robust measuring and monitoring of forest emissions; a well designed system for linking forest credits to carbon markets and other sources of finance; and strong governance.

Regarding governance, nations need to implement a successful system to tackle deforestation. Key areas of reform include clarifying and securing land tenure rights and strengthening the institutional capacity of national, regional and local institutions. The full participation of forest communities will make reforms more likely to succeed and benefit the poor. Many policy and programme options exist for reducing emissions from deforestation that do not require cash transfers to individuals. However some options will do so, including transfers to subsistence farmers and foresters. Such transfers will involve costs and capacity requirements which may be challenging for many forest nations in the

17

The Eliasch Review (2008) p. xvii

11

short term. Capacity building and demonstration activities to test these approaches will be needed18.

To help promote transparency, countries may choose to manage carbon revenues through a special fund and should report on the policies and measures they have put in place to reduce deforestation. Premium credits generated from programmes with voluntary higher standards that achieve wider social and environmental goals could be made available for preferential treatment in the market 19.

As a conclusion, forests, particularly tropical rainforests, play a key role in climate regulation. They also provide a range of other benefits such as rainfall for agriculture, flood prevention, biodiversity and opportunities to alleviate poverty. Although the overall area under forest has declined, the rate of forest loss has slowed as Table 2 demonstrates.

Current net deforestation rates are 18% lower than in the 1990s and 26% lower than in the 1980s20. The lower rate of global net forest loss most probably reflects increased forest cover in the mid-latitudes rather than a decrease in deforestation in the tropics. So much so that rates of tropical forest deforestation are substantial and projected to continue over the next half century. Therefore, ARR activities play an important role in alleviating climate change effects. However, forest plantations still account for less than five per cent of the total forest area21, and current estimates suggest that, as yet, ARR activities have not had a significant impact on the global terrestrial carbon sink (see

18

The Eliasch Review (2008) p.xix The Eliasch Review (2008) p.8 20 The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 23 21 FAO (2006) 19

12

Appendix 11)22. Thus, while global forestation has increased in recent decades, it is not on the scale of deforestation and takes place largely in mid-latitude regions such as China and Europe23, where the potential for carbon sequestration is lower than in the tropics.

Therefore, there are great opportunities for the development of ARR activities in the tropics so to diminish the effects of climate change.

22 23

IPCC (2007) WG 1 Chapter 7 The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 33

13

Local climate impact on forestry – The Amazon Case While forests have a role in regulating climate, changes in local climate can in turn lead to changes in forest characteristics. The effects of global warming on local climate and the responses of ecosystems to these changes are uncertain, especially in the Amazon region.

The Amazon region contains a large portion of the world‟s biodiversity, supports thousands of people through agriculture and silviculture, and provides the world with commodity and non-commodity products such as building supplies and medicine. The Amazon contains one of Earth‟s richest assortments of biodiversity with recent compilations indicating at least 40,000 plant species (at least 12% of all flowering plant are found within the Amazon24), 427 mammals, 1294 birds, 378 reptiles, 427 amphibians, 3,000 fishes, and likely over a million insect species 25. The Amazon basin is estimated to contain about 10% of the carbon stored in land ecosystems, and to account for 10% of global net primary productivity 26 . The Amazon River is the largest single source of freshwater runoff on Earth, representing some 15 to 20% of global river flow 27 . In addition, water and aquatic resources provide essential services to the Amazon communities. The region‟s native fisheries provide a large proportion of animal protein and source of income. River and lake water satisfies nearly all of the water supply needs of Amazonian inhabitants, including drinking, cooking, bathing, and waste removal.

24

Gentry (1982) WWF (2006) 26 Melillo et al (1993) 27 Salati and Vose 1984 25

14

While little water is used for irrigation, river channels and lakes are important avenues of transportation and shipping and provide opportunities for recreation 28.

As the Amazon has a great global environment impact, global climate is sensitive to changes in the Amazon. Climate change threatens to substantially affect the Amazon region, which in turn is expected to alter global climate and increase the risk of biodiversity loss.

Studies and models point to long-term climate impacts such as increased Amazonian drying and forest die-back 29 . General Circulation Models (GCM‟s) project a regional increase of 2 to 3°C by the year 2050 and a decrease in precipitation in the Amazon during dry months, leading to widespread drying 30. Ecosystem models that use expected climatic changes show large declines in net primary productivity (NPP) and release of carbon as a result of Amazonian forest dieback 31. Climate change effects may change the current status of Amazonian forests from a net sink of atmospheric CO2 into a source, which will increase the levels of CO2 32 . GCM‟s also suggest that a globally warmer world may result in a permanent El Niño-like state33, which if manifested by drought conditions, could have huge impacts on the Amazon.

28

McClain, 2001 Malhi et al (2008) 30 Mitchell et al (1995), Kattenberg et al (1996) 31 Friend et al (1997) 32 IPCC 2001 33 Wara et al (2005) 29

15

Projected changes of warmer temperatures and decreased precipitation during already dry months could manifest in longer and perhaps, more severe droughts and substantial changes in seasonality. Together with land use changes, the impacts could be devastating: increased erosion, degradation of freshwater systems, loss of ecologically and agriculturally valuable soils, loss of biodiversity, decreased agricultural yields, increased insect infestation, and spread of infectious diseases.

Some models project that evergreen forests are succeeded by mixed forest, savanna and grassland in eastern Amazonia and savanna expand into parts of western Amazonia 34.

Others project an expansion of savanna, grasslands and desert ecosystems into northeastern Amazonia35. Large-scale modeling shows widespread forest loss over most of the Amazon, accelerated by positive feedback between warming, forest dieback, and emissions of carbon from soil and vegetation36.

In addition, Amazon forests are also threatened by secondary effects of climate change, such as a potential increase in the frequency and possible intensity of fires. It is suggested that fire poses the greatest threat to Amazon forests and numerous studies have shown a well established link between forest fires, habitat fragmentation, climate change, and extreme El NiĂąo events in the Amazon37.

34

Cramer et al (2001 and 2004) White et al (1999) 36 White et al (1999); Cox et al (2000 and 2004 ); Jones et al (2003) 37 Nepstad et al (2001); Laurance and Williamson (2001); Laurance et al (2001); Cochrane and Laurance (2002) 35

16

Brazilian government released figures showing deforestation has exceeded 520,000km2 since 1978, with the second worst year of forest loss occurring in 2004 38. Species specific modeling suggests that 43% sampled Amazon plant species may become non-viable by the year 2095 because their potential distributions will have changed due to climatic shifts 39 . Moreover, human activities such as deforestation, logging, and settlement increase the drying effect that leads to forest fires. For instance, mortality of trees, which increases the fuel load for fire, has been observed to increase under dry conditions that prevail near newly formed edges in Amazonian forests from land clearing and harvesting 40 . Therefore, it is crucial that international institutions and the Brazilian government take actions to stop deforestation and increase ARR initiatives. As the problem is complex and has global importance these actions should act in the cause of the problems.

Amazon rivers and water source are also important regarding climate change issues.

Climate change threatens the Amazonâ€&#x;s water regime and freshwater ecosystems because warming temperatures will result in greater evaporation from water surfaces and greater transpiration by plants, which will result in a more vigorous water cycle 41. If projected declines in precipitation during dry months occur, climate change impacts to the Amazonian water regime may be exacerbated42.

38

National Institute for Space Research, 2005 Miles et al (2004) 40 IPCC 2001 41 Allen et al (2005) 42 Nijssen et al (2001) 39

17

For example, species will disappear; nutrients levels will decrease; population will have less access to water usage; agriculture will be affected, particularly subsidence farming, negatively impacting the quality of life of Amazon inhabitants. Pest infestation, will undoubtedly negatively impact agricultural yields and then plantations will require larger areas of land to meet the current levels of demand 43 . In fact, according to Fearnside (1999) predicts that the total plantation area will have to increase up to 4.5 times the 1991 area by 2050 worsening deforestation problems. The most affect cultures will be wheat, maize, and potentially soybean44. Other climate change studies in the Amazon found that some extreme weather events, such as floods, may be responsible for outbreaks of vectorborne diseases such as malaria and dengue45 and for outbreaks of infectious diseases such as cholera and meningitis46. According to IPCC, sea-level rise would eliminate mangrove habitat at an approximate rate of 1% yr-1. As a consequence species composition shifts and will affect the regionâ€&#x;s fisheries that depend on mangrove habitat as nurseries and refuge.

Based on all these models measures to detain deforestation regarding climate change are urgent and need to start as soon as possible in Amazon basin, since it has 10% of carbon storage and represents 10% of carbon productivity47. Moreover, The Amazon is critical to global climate because it helps regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere by locking away vast quantities of carbon into rainforest trees. It is also an

43

IPCC 2001 Siqueira et al (1994) 45 Moreira (1986), PAHO (1998a,b) 46 Patz (1998) 47 Melillo et al (1993) 44

18

“engine� of the global atmospheric circulation that affects rainfall patterns in places as far away as Europe and Central Asia 48.

48

Assessing the risk of Amazonian forest dieback (2008)

19

Base of the Pyramid: recovery of biodiversity and alleviation of climate change issues as well as poverty levels As global temperatures rise, these impacts will become more severe. Millions of people, particularly the poor, will be exposed to an increased incidence of droughts and floods, food and freshwater shortages, disease and the loss of their livelihoods and homes.

Developing countries are particularly exposed to the effects of climate change because their economies are so heavily dependent on climate-vulnerable sectors such as agriculture. In addition to the direct costs to humankind, the IPCC suggests that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5°C49.

Forests are home to 350 million people, 60 million indigenous people are almost wholly dependent on forests, and over 90% of those living on less than $1 per day depend to some extent on forests for their livelihoods50. Forest provides fuel wood, medicinal plants, forest foods, shelter and many other services for communities. Forests also deliver additional ecosystem services such as regulating regional rainfall, flood defense, maintaining soil stability and supporting high levels of biodiversity. Forest ecosystems provide many and varied benefits from their natural resources and processes. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment categorizes forest ecosystem services into five major classes: resources, social services, ecological services, amenities and biospheric services (see Appendix 12).

49 50

IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report - relative to 1980-1999 www.fao.org

20

Many of these ecosystem services are crucial for maintaining life and livelihoods, with 1.6 billion people depending on them for their welfare and livelihoods to some extent 51: Wood energy accounts for around nine pr cent of energy consumed worldwide, and up to 80% in some developing countries.

Bushmeat can account for up to 85% of the protein intake of people living in or near forests52.

In addition to the use of forests for subsistence food and fuel, community enterprises that generate income from trading sustainable harvested forest resources are on the increase in many countries.

Global employment in the formal forestry sector is estimated to be around 13 million people53, and it has been estimated that for every one job in the formal sector there are another one or two jobs in the informal sector – up to one per cent of the global labor force54.

Around 3.5 billion cubic meters of wood are harvested each year from the worldâ€&#x;s forests and global trade in primary wood products was worth $204 billion in 200655.

Forests are also an important supply of other products including latex, handicrafts and medicines.

Leisure time in forests has increased with economic development and urban living.

This has led to a growth in social forest services such as recreation, sport and ecotourism56.

51

World Bank (2004) UNDP, UNDESA and World Energy Council (2003) 53 Sunderlin et al (2008) 54 Lebedys (2004) 55 www.fao.org 52

21

People value forests according to cultural, spiritual and historical factors. These amenities can range from intrinsic and aesthetic value to more geographically specific values relating to the traditional homelands of indigenous people.

Forests provide a range of ecological services including flood protection, pollination, soil formation and erosion control. Forests stabilize their landscapes and offer protection from extreme events such as storms, floods and droughts, which are forecast to become increasingly frequent and intense under future climate change57.

Resilient forest ecosystems could therefore have an important role in helping people adapt to climate change in the future. They also regulate and supply water and rainfall, which can be particularly important for agriculture. For instance, the Amazon forest supplies water to the Rio Plata basin, which generates 70% of the GDP of southern South America through agricultural produce58.

Biospheric services include biodiversity as well as climate regulation. Forests contain the majority of terrestrial biodiversity, with tropical forests supporting an estimated 50-90% of the worldâ€&#x;s species59. The value of biodiversity ranges from genetic resources to biological control. Maintaining high levels of biodiversity also aids ecosystem functioning and therefore all other ecosystem services.

Therefore, forests play an important role in regulating the earthâ€&#x;s climate and offer opportunities to reduce poverty levels. However, the links between forests and poverty

56

Millennium and Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Macqueen and Vermeulen (2006) 58 Mitchell et al (2007) 59 Reid and Miller (1989) 57

22

are complex. Forest communities in remote areas are more likely to be poor, with limited access to services, information and markets. Forest communities are also often politically, economically and commercially marginalized, many lack ownership and use rights over their traditional lands and most of them do not have access to production techniques60.

There is a global trend towards increased recognition of the rights of forest communities and indigenous groups over their land, although progress on human, civil, political and gender rights for forest and indigenous communities is slow 61.

Before starting an ARR program with local communities, it is important to take into account major drivers of deforestation, see Appendix 13.

Lack of clear and secure land tenure. Only when property rights are secure, on paper and in practice, long term investments in sustainable management become worthwhile62. This is a main issue for Brazil as Table 3 demonstrates the number of hectares and local communities that the country has.

The lack of clear and secure tenure is also a feature of the broader political and economic marginalization of forest communities, who often struggle to assert and exercise their rights over forest land and use forest resources as they wish. In the confusion and conflict over land rights, it is often indigenous people and forest communities who are disadvantaged63.

Weak law enforcement in many countries allows illegal logging to take place on a large scale. It is estimated that, in five of the ten countries with the largest forest

60

Scherr et al (2003) Chomitz et al (2006) 62 Kanninen et al (2007) 63 The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 44 61

23

cover in the world, more than half of trees cut are felled illegally. Even where policies and laws to help protect forests exist and are clear, many forest nations lack the capacity to implement and enforce them. According to World Bank governance indicators high levels of forest loss, or net deforestation, tend to be correlated with lower government effectiveness as follow on Appendix 14.

Governance weaknesses related to deforestation also overlap with the underlying drivers of poverty in developing countries and are particularly relevant to forest communities. Ambiguous or overlapping laws, regulations and jurisdictions provide opportunities to exploit „grey areasâ€&#x; and circumvent forest protection policies64.

Policy incentives (whether direct, such as subsidies, or indirect, such as for building roads into forests, or encouraging migration to them).

Given the uncertainties about land availability over the coming decades, any system to reduce deforestation will need to address rising demands for biofuels and commodities Lambin and Geist identified the main policy and capacity factors underlying deforestation in the three main rainforest regions, see Table 4. Forest transition theory suggests that unless major policy interventions are made on a sustained basis and are effective, then regions with high forest cover will eventually lose a large proportion of forest as a result of economic development 65.

64 65

Kanninen et al (2007) The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 35

24

The Eliasch Review report believes in a system of sustainable and efficient production to meet demand for commodities that leads to reductions in carbon emissions, better livelihoods for the poor and preservation of other ecosystem services such as biodiversity and water services. Better livelihoods for the poor can be grouped in three main areas, according to London (2007): economic well being, changes in capacity to draw upon economic resources for the purpose of consumption, production, exchange, or investment; capacity well-being, changes in the capability to draw upon capacity resources for the purpose of knowledge, physical or psychological development; and relational well-being, changes in the capability to draw upon capacity resources available in relationships, networks or ecosystems.

The picture below illustrates its rationale. While there may be trade-offs between environmental and social goals in the short term, long-run sustainability means that new models of land use will need to benefit poor people and forest communities 66.

The levers, on the left of the diagram, are: Valuing carbon and other services that forests provide; Shifting policy incentives to more sustainable and efficient production practices; Using demand-side measures to support sustainable production.

66

The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 52

25

Figure 1: Mechanics of forestry sustainable production

More resilient ecosystems will be better able to withstand shocks and support communities in adapting to the effects of climate change

67 .

Projects to reduce

deforestation that take a holistic approach to mitigation, adaptation and livelihoods could therefore be a particularly efficient and equitable response to climate change.

Forests provide a large variety of other ecosystem services, on top of carbon store and sink. They regulate water supply used for agriculture nearby. They also support considerable biodiversity and play an important role in global atmospheric circulation.

Forest use that damages the forest structure not only produces carbon emissions but also damages the ecosystem services they provide. Therefore, methods that reduce CO2 emissions can preserve other forest ecosystem services that are crucial to maintaining life, livelihoods and biodiversity.

In order to obtain an efficient sustainable production, a shift of policies and practices in seven main areas will be required: agriculture, timber and wood products, infrastructure, alternative employment, forest conservation and commercialization.

Agriculture production Increased demand for commodities and biofuels strengthen the pressure on forests lands.

Therefore, agricultural intensification with increase in productivity in a sustainable and well-managed expansion onto non-forest land and agroforestry will diminish the pressure on forests by meeting demand more efficiently. According to the World Bank, 50-70 67

Corbera (2007)

26

million hectares of pasture land could be made available in Brazil if the productivity rate in SĂŁo Paulo was extended to the rest of the country.

There is a range of technologies that could improve incomes and environmental outcomes, such as technological and bioengineering improvements (including new generation biofuels) and improved pest control measures

68

. However, the challenges are

considerable and significant development and wider diffusion of agricultural technologies appropriate for rainforest nations will be required. Achieving intensification while maintaining biodiversity is a further challenge, although good practice examples exist according to World Bank. There are two main practices to follow:

Agricultural extensification: plantations occur in non-forested land not being used for agriculture. For instance, the Brazilian Cerrado has an estimated 106 million hectares of currently unused land which would be suitable for agriculture, outside forested land 69 . Estimates also indicate that there are at least 16 million hectares of lands which were converted to agriculture and cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon and have now been abandoned 70. The Gallagher Review from World Bank also looked at the potential for policies that promote biofuels expansion onto land not being used for agriculture, including the ones that are marginal or degraded and are not suited for food production due to deforestation. However, this approach may have the problem of the land being used by landless people for subsistence purposes. The potential to pursue this option will depend on local circumstances and 68

Chomitz (2006) Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture 70 Brazilian Government (2004) 69

27

again there is considerable uncertainty over the availability and suitability of these kinds of lands.

Agroforestry systems: this system intersperse trees across pasture and cultivated land. It can be one way to achieve the combined benefits of improving income streams from agriculture, protecting biodiversity and maintaining or increasing forest cover. As with agricultural intensification, the technical and capacity building challenges are significant, though successful examples are available. See Table 5 that describes the Plan Vivo approach, in which carbon

finance

provides

supplementary income

to

sustainable

forest

management/agroforestry practices which aim to improve livelihoods 71. The RISEMP72 scheme in Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua is another example that aims to use payment for ecosystem services to catalyze adoption of silvopastoral systems by paying landowners for beneficial changes in land cover. After two years, the projects had tripled the share of the project areas considered to be „improved pasture with high tree density‟73.

Timber and non-timber forest production “Global adoption of sustainable forest management (SFM) is required to meet timber needs. The role of communities as environmental stewards will be particularly important”74. SFM aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations 75 . The 71

Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Ecosystem Management Programme www.planvivo.org 73 Chomitz et al (2006) 74 The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 55 75 United Nations Economic and Social Council (2007) 72

28

potential benefits of SFM are considerable: simultaneously contributing to adaptation (through maintaining resilient ecosystems), climate change mitigation and poverty reduction. Examples include agroforestry; reduced impact logging, which can lead to a gain of as much as 50% in the „carbon stocksâ€&#x; from remaining vegetation 76 ; and conservation and regeneration/rehabilitation.

However, the long-term sustainability of these activities will depend heavily on forest planning, monitoring and adaptive management strategies to ensure the successful maintenance of the ecosystem services 77 . Although SFM is a stated national policy objective of many forest nations, it is achieved by relatively few. Less than five per cent of global tropical forest area is considered to be sustainable managed 78. Investment in forestry has mostly taken a short-term perspective. Companies and communities exploiting forests need to see the economic returns from SFM for it to become widely viable.

Community forest management is a model for SFM which recognizes forest communitiesâ€&#x; comparative advantage as environmental stewards and their strengthening political voice79. There is evidence that community forest management, where successfully applied, has reduced deforestation, generated more sustainable income streams for communities and contributed to the acquisition of technical skills. In some cases it has also led to greater transparency in

76

CIFOR (1998) Sajwaj et al (2008) 78 ITTO (2006) 79 White and Markin et al (2004) 77

29

decision-making80. Communities may face particular entry barriers to playing their part in SFM however. Policies and subsidy schemes to encourage SFM have usually been designed with large formal industry in mind. Regulatory frameworks are often slow and costly to negotiate81. Many communities also need considerable and long-term technical, management and administrative support to take advantage of community forest mechanisms 82. Table 6 describes two community forest management set-ups in Brazil and the Congo Basin.

Plantations can also be used to meet demand for wood. Planting extensive monocultures of nonnative tree species can increase carbon stocks while providing little support for local biodiversity, so the impact on ecosystem services will again depend on the planning and management techniques used 83.

Infrastructure Infrastructure expansion needs to be managed taking into account minimal environmental impacts and benefits to local populations. Partnerships between companies and communities could help make this happen84. Avoiding negative environmental impacts from infrastructure expansion requires that climate change, deforestation, and livelihoods considerations are mainstreamed into national policy and growth and development strategies.

80

Moss et al (2005), Chomitz (2006) Molnar et al (2006) 82 Chomitz et al (2006) 83 Sajwaj et al (2008) 84 The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 58 81

30

Application of environmental and social impact assessments to all major policy developments, particularly road building, will be a key means for governments to expose the inevitable trade-offs between different policy objectives, make decisions in the full knowledge of the likely impact on deforestation and rural livelihoods, and put in place mitigation strategies where necessary.

Companies establishing new infrastructure can work with government and communities to ensure they make a net positive contribution to reducing emissions and deforestation impacts, promoting local livelihoods and enhancing other ecosystem services. For example, Conservation Internationalâ€&#x;s guide to responsible large-scale mining, Lightening the Lode, suggests how mining companies could provide “financial or in-kind support for management of the national park system, support for research scientists, participation in the creation and management of a new local protected area or indigenous reserve, or contributions to local governmental or non-governmental conservation and community development programsâ€?85.

These types of partnership are relevant for all activities where industrial production could threaten forests and communities if safeguards are not put in place. For instance, in the Northern Republic of Congo, the Wildlife Conservation Society is working with logging company Congolaise Industrielle des Bois (CIB) to put in place more sustainable practices and ensure that local biodiversity is protected in areas around the logging

85

Sweeting and Clark (2000)

31

concession86. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is working with 210 soy farmers to help them develop environmentally sustainable practices that conform to Brazilian environmental legislation. TNC estimates that this project has the potential to conserve nearly 1.2 million acres of tropical forest 87. Full evaluation of the impacts of these types of projects, including of the extent to which they can provide benefits for companies and communities, will be critical to feed into the development of future partnership projects.

Alternative employment As demand for agriculture and timber products continues to grow, the need for labor to produce them will as well continue. In some areas, however, deforestation from subsistence farming may occur through a lack of alternative livelihoods for communities living in and near forests. In these areas the promotion of industries generating off-farm employment

opportunities

may help

to

reduce

deforestation.

Solutions

and

implementation projects will depend on the development trajectory of countries and regions, and will form part of a broader strategy. For instance, increases in agricultural productivity may be a pre-condition for the generation of off-farm opportunities. Table 7 describes one vision of the development of technology centers in the Amazon that could drive growth and reduce pressure on Brazilâ€&#x;s rainforests.

Forest conservation Protected areas

86 87

www.itto.or.jp www.tnc.org

32

It is known that leaving forests intact is the most effective way to conserve forest carbon and the biodiversity and other ecosystem services they provide. However, many protected areas also incorporate peripheral zones where managed economic activity can take place.

Evidence of their social impacts is mixed 88. They can generate additional income from tourism, create employment in the form of park rangers and improve local environmental services such as water. However the potential for high levels of carbon finance from protected areas has prompted fears of a militaristic approach to mass forest management for carbon, potentially increasing the marginalization of vulnerable populations 89 .

Stringent restriction of human activity within some protected area boundaries can cause harm when communities are displaced or lose access to forest products they depend on or to land which has cultural/social value 90. Income from tourism often does not reach the poorest and employment generated within protected areas is generally less than for other land uses91. Overall, protected areas have a significant role in preserving global forests, but their design and management require the full participation of affected communities, and the challenges of ensuring sustainable livelihoods in and around parks should not be underestimated. Table 8 illustrates a protected area project in Indonesia and the methods it has established for resolving conflicts over land.

Payment for ecosystem services

88

Scherl et al (2004) Griffiths (2007) 90 Smith and Scherr (2003) 91 Peskett et al (2008) 89

33

“A payment for ecosystem (or environmental) services (PES) is a transaction in which units of environmental service (ES), or a form of land use likely to secure that service, is bought by at least one ES buyer from a minimum of one ES provider if and only if the provider continues to supply that service (conditionality)� 92.

Payments can be for carbon and/or non-carbon ecosystem services. There are several large-scale PES schemes already in operation. For instance: Costa Rica hosts a national project that rewards forest landholders for carbon sequestration,

watershed

protection,

biodiversity

conservation

and

the

preservation of landscape beauty. Participants receive around $45 a hectare. The system is managed by FONAFIFO, a government agency.

Chinaâ€&#x;s sloping land projects pays farmers to replant trees on sloping land to prevent sedimentation, a potential; cause of flooding in the Yangtze 93.

However, there are challenges in meeting equity and efficiency criteria through such schemes 94 . Efficiency requires that only the most at risk forest is targeted, but the political viability of the scheme may depend on benefits being spread more widely.

Logistical and administrative challenges are also considerable, and transaction costs in managing contracts can be high. Small landholders are underrepresented in the Costa Rica project because it is cheaper to enroll large properties

95

. Moreover, the

92

www.cifor.cgiar.org/pes/_ref/about.index.htm Chomitz (2006) 94 Chomitz (2006) 95 Zbinden and Lee (2004) 93

34

establishment of PES schemes can help strengthen local institutions, but increasing land value can also exacerbate conflict and elite capture in less stable areas 96.

The sustainability PES is questionable given its reliance on external finance, leading to concerns about the emergence of „carbon dependencyâ€&#x;. Leaving rainforests intact generates considerably less meaningful employment, for instance, than other land uses.

PES may be most appropriate as a complement to some of the production methods described above that extract value from land in a sustainable way.

Commercialization Stakeholders can organize themselves in different ways so they can produce, commercialize and distribute their outcomes. Usually government and some NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) put all the efforts on the production side of the chain, which is crucial, because without production nothing after it can help. However, to the sustainability of the model, it is important to find a success way to commercialize the production, so local communities can have a source of income and the production and sale cycle is closed and the model can auto sustain. Local communities can become consumers of what they produce, their buying power can be enhanced, so to increase their commercialization options. Therefore, the generation of continue and sustainable revenue growth is fundamental to the success of projects that aim to increase localsâ€&#x; quality of life.

The structure and participants in the commercialization phase varies according to the nature of region, products, people and so forth. This paper will analyze three main 96

Peskett et al (2008)

35

structures, cooperatives; partnerships between business and local communities; and multi-stakeholder interaction throughout the multi stakeholder value chain.

Cooperatives A cooperative is one example of an institution that local communities can form to self manage its own resources. “A cooperative (also co-operative or coöperative; often referred to as a co-op or coop) is defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it”97. Cooperative is one example of commons operating in areas of common pools resources. However, to form one cooperative is not easy. There are several factors contributing to success of it.

According to Agrawal, based on the literature he analyzed, “small size of a user group, a location closer to the resource, homogeneity among group members, effective enforcement mechanisms, and past experiences of cooperation are […] significant to achieve cooperation. In addition, [he highlights] the importance of external aid and strong leadership” 98 . Agrawal adds, “members of small local groups can design institutional arrangements to help manage resources sustainably”. However, doubts exist whether local communities are able to self-manage their resources. Nevertheless, Agrawal points

97 98

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative Agrawal (2001)

36

that the success of community self-management relies mostly on four main characteristics. See Table 9. As this table illustrates four main characteristics are important to the success of cooperatives: characteristics of resources and local communities, regime and government specifics that rule resources, and the relations between local communities and other stakeholders.

In Pará, state of Brazil, there is a community that fulfills all these characteristics and has been successful throughout the years, it is the Japanese Tomé-açú community. See Table 10 for the description of Tomé-açú community case. As the case illustrates, this is a singular community and culture influence is one of the key success factor of it. Tomé-açú culture, is therefore very different from Pará local communities 99.

Partnerships with companies Companies such as Blue Skies in Africa and Michelin in Brazil found their way to improve their production and increase their economic return by including the communities in their production cycle. See Tables 11 and 12. Companies have the resources and capabilities to train and partner with local communities so to obtain what is better for all players. In this type of model, usually companies do most of the work alone.

They contact local communities and learn how to deal with them through each interaction.

Government has a smaller participation, in some cases it participates to legalize part of the project or to offer some kind of tax incentive to business.

99

Local interviews

37

Multi Stakeholder Value Chain A Multi Stakeholder Value Chain is a model that leverages the capabilities of government, business and citizen sectors to enable the delivery of needed goods and services to low-income populations in a more cost-effective way. Companies tap into new markets and expand their client base. Usually companies are the ones that produce any kind of products and services. In the service arena, financial institutions have a large role in this chain. Usually they are the ones that offer access to credit for low-income populations. Government increases its impact by generating leveraging its resources and expanding its service range to beneficiaries. In some cases, social organizations such as NGOs enter in the chain to facilitate the process as well as access to local communities.

Additionally, low-income populations improve their livelihoods as their basic human needs are met and new economic opportunities arise.

Assuring legacy to the process • Assure legal practices and rules to the players in the process • Do the enforcement process • Offer subsides • Provides infrastructure

“Product” design / Training • Co-design of products together with consumers and/or communities

Production

• Inclusion of local communities as producers, not only as consumers

Distribution /Logistics • Assure access to local communities areas and remote regions

Marketing and sales • Offer a way to sell local communities production

Financing

• Offer financial mechanisms to the success of the project e.g. microcredit

Service

• Assure continue assistance to local communities throughout the process

• Capacity training of communities

Most common players in the chain • Government • International Institutions

• Businesses • Communities • NGOs

• Businesses • Communities

• Businesses • Communities • Government

• Businesses • Financial • Communities institutions • International institutions

• Businesses • Government • NGOs

• Foundations

Figure 2: Multi Stakeholder Value Chain

38

This model is most relevant for essential goods and services that represent a significant investment for low-income populations and that typically require complementary services to develop markets and maximize customer value. This model was created with basis on C.K. Prahalad 100 , Stuart Hart 101 and Ted London 102 Base of the Pyramid models and Ashoka Hybrid Value Chain. Depending on the nature of the project the importance and the role of each player varies.

Key levers for shifting to more sustainable production According to the Eliasch Review, three key levers can help make the shift from deforestation to more sustainable policies and practices: valuing carbon and other services that forests provide; shifting policy incentives to more sustainable and efficient production practices; and using demand side measures to support sustainable production.

These levers operate at different levels, for example, carbon strategies operate more at the international level, policy incentives occur more at the national level and consumers countries should help to enhance production and commercialization global standards.

Valuing carbon and other ecosystem services Since the costs of the deforestation are not reflected in the price of the timber or agricultural produce, it is cheaper to deforest. The costs of deforestation can therefore be described as externalities (see Appendix 15). This therefore is a market failure: the market will supply more timber and agricultural produce from deforested land than is efficient. If the costs of deforestation were factored into the price of products, their 100

Prahalad (2006) Hart (2007) 102 London (2007) 101

39

production would tend to shift to other land where they could be grown without deforestation.

It is difficult to calculate all the externalities costs and include them in the price of the product. Some estimations of the cost of forest ecosystems currently lost in just one year amounts to 1.35-3.1 trillion 103 . However, there are several ways in which such externalities could be calculated, herewith follows the main three ones: Regulation: a ban on deforestation or a ban on growing, selling or purchasing of products that have been produced from deforested land; Tax: on deforestation or on the growing, selling or purchasing of products that have been produced from deforested land; Cap and trade: focusing on forest carbon services, under which forest owners could be given allowances to emit only up to a limited amount of carbon through deforestation and degradation.

These measures are difficult to implement because gains are achieved locally and losses are felt globally. So, national governments have to have the will and strengthen to implement such measures. Therefore, in order to pursue such policies, governments of forest nations need first to receive incentive by the international community to bear down on deforestation.

Policy incentives for sustainable production practices

103

Braat and Ten Brink (2008) NPV over 50 years. The lower figure uses a 4% discount rate; the higher figure uses a 1% discount rate.

40

The policy and regulatory environment in forest nations needs to provide the right incentives to producers to make the shift to sustainable production. The policy and regulatory environment in many forest nations will need to be reformed to take advantage of an international system of financial incentive and in recognition of the forest carbon externality. Appropriate laws, policies and projects will be required to channel the financial incentive offered into the kind of sustainable production methods described above. Successful implementation of these policies is also likely to require a major capacity building effort for state and non-state institutions and actors.

Demand-side measures in consumer countries Demand-side policies in consumer countries, including preferential procurement of certified products as well as effective biofuels sustainability criteria that include the indirect effects of land use change, can also support the shift to sustainable practices.

Demand side measures can help drive policy change, promote international cooperation on research and technology transfer, promote co-benefits, stimulate markets, and establish internationally agreed standards on what constitutes sustainability. Key areas to address are Legality assurance, sustainability certification and public awareness.

Legality assurance means developing systems that can ensure timber comes from legal sources. Where governance is weak, legality assurance is a more feasible way of improving the quality of forest management than certification. States would find it an easier option to deliver in

41

the short term, as well as it acting as a stepping stone to sustainable production in the longer term104. See Table 13 for main differences between verification and certification.

“A major legality assurance initiative underway is the EUâ€&#x;s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. This blends measures in producer and consumer countries to facilitate trade in legal timber and eliminate illegal timber from trade with the EU. The Action Plan sets out a range of measures including support to timber producing countries; activities to promote trade in legal timber; public procurement policies; and support for private-sector initiatives to promote corporate social responsibility. Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) commit both parties to develop systems for licensing legally produced timber from FLEGT partner countries and ensuring that only this timber is then allowed into the single EU market.

FLEGT explicitly recognizes that some partner countries will require significant support to meet the requirements of the VPA, and that this technically and politically complex process may take some years of consistent and committed investments of time and technical expertise.37 But engagement by rainforest nations in legality assurance schemes will be crucial to reducing deforestation, and the capacity they build in processes such as establishing legal clarity, broad stakeholder consultation and independent monitoring will be highly relevant when it comes to implementing wider measures.

Rapidly growing economies such as China and India are an increasing source of demand for timber (often for processing and export to EU markets) and their active promotion of

104

www.verifor.org

42

legality assurance would be a major contribution to international efforts to reduce deforestation�105.

Sustainability certification aims to promote sustainable forest management, and add value for those who practice it.

Preferential procurement of certified products from major importers can work with a carbon price to drive the adoption of sustainable production methods.

Certification through standards such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and national standards such as Brazilâ€&#x;s CERFLOR promotes broader high standards of environmentally and socially sustainable management than basic legality verification. See 14 for an example of the operations of one FSC certified logging company in Brazil.

Standards are also being developed to cover agricultural products, given increasing awareness of the GHGs emissions from land use change. Sustainability criteria for biofuels used by suppliers to meet their targets under the Renewable Fuels and Fuel Quality Directives are currently being agreed by the EU. To be effective, it is essential that these criteria take into account indirect land use change impacts, for example the potential displacement of agriculture onto forest lands caused by increased production of biofuels.

Governments have an important role in driving markets for legal and sustainable timber, as recognized in the FLEGT Action Plan. They can have responsible purchasing patterns.

105

The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 65

43

In many cases, the private sector looks to government to lead by example, adopting similar responsible purchasing policies as part of its broader Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) commitments.

Forest certification has proved challenging in natural tropical rainforests (rather than plantations) and in situations of weak forest governance, particularly in parts of Africa 106.

Furthermore, despite the development of standards designed for small-scale producers, small and community-based enterprises have found certification prohibitively expensive and complicated. Linking certification, of agricultural products as well as forests, to international carbon finance may make it more viable for a wider range of producers.

Public awareness about the environmental impacts of producing wood and agricultural products is low. The role of the public in putting pressure on major procurers to insist on sustainable methods is an important one. Investment in public awareness campaigns and labeling relating to standards and certification could therefore add further pressure to make the shift to sustainability happen. Companies have a role in pressuring their supply chain to adopt sustainable standards and CSR strategies. For example, in early 2008, for example, Staples cancelled contracts with Asia Pulp and Paper, one of the worldâ€&#x;s largest paper companies, because of what Staples called “their clear lack of progress in improving their environmental performanceâ€? in particular in relation to forest clearance in Indonesia 107.

106 107

www.verifor.org Bloomberg News (2008)

44

Practical case: “One Billion Trees for the Amazon” – Pará Case The Amazon Forest The world‟s tropical forests are disappearing at alarming rates. Estimations say that about 100,000 km2 are deforested each year, and another 100,000 km2 are degraded. Tropical forests once occupied 16 million km2, today about half of it 8-9 million km2 remains. It is estimated that Latin America and Asia have already lost 40% of their original forest; Africa a little more than half. In many countries the rate of deforestation is increasing rapidly. For example, most of the forested areas of Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and parts of Brazil's rain forest could be gone by the end of the century. Only in the Congo Basin and some of the more isolated areas of the Amazon Basin does the forest remain largely intact 108.

Brazil contains about 3.5 million km2 of tropical forest, which is approximately 30% of the world's total. Almost all of Brazil's standing tropical forests are in the Amazon Basin, a region known as Amazonia. About half of Amazonia comprises upland areas in which the original vegetation was tropical rain forest. Perhaps another 0.5 million km 2 consist of transitional forests. In addition, there are large areas of savanna in the southern reaches of Amazonia109. The Amazon forest is being cleared mainly across a large belt extending from eastern to southern Amazonia. Drivers of deforestation there include expansion of cattle and soybean production. Pockets of cleared forest also occur around settlements and roads. See Appendix 16 for an illustration of the area. Although Amazon region has suffered high deforestation rates, it has seen an increase in the amount of controls and

108 109

University of Michigan (2006) Ibid

45

fines over the last 5 years see Appendix 17A. Nevertheless, Amazon region is big and according to its environmental minister 4.5 more agents would be needed to improve legislation110, see Appendix 17B. Thus, other methods of self-regulation are needed so to protect the forest. To build on that IBAMA, (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais RenovĂĄveis) the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, has limited resources to policy and regulate region area. It is the main Federal autarchy related to Ministry of Environment, and has a budget limited to approximately US$ 500 million for entire Brazil111, see Appendix 17C.

Amazonia has been characterized as the "single richest region of the tropical biome." A single hectare of rain forest near Manaus yielded 235 tree species over 5cm in diameter and 179 species over 15cm in diameter. There are 2000 known species of fish in the waters of the Amazon Basin. This is eight times the number found in the Mississippi River system and 10 times the number found in all of Europe112.

Although Amazonia has a large geographic extension and a rich environment quality, it has poor economic indexes. It represents 55% in land area, but only 13% in population and 8% in GDP 113. See a graphic illustration in Appendix 18A. Human development of the Amazonia states is lower than the Brazilian average 114 , see Appendix 18B. In addition, Amazon states budget for environmental management is limited to

110

AgĂŞncia Folha MMA website; press clipping 112 Ibid 113 IBGE, Ipeadata (2005) 114 UNPD, Human development report and Atlas do desemvolvimento humano do Brasil (2000 data) 111

46

approximately US$ 65 million per year, while security budget per capita is half of SĂŁo Pauloâ€&#x;s115, see Appendix 18C.

115

States annual budget report

47

Pará context Nowadays, Pará has 90% of its land deforested; it is the state that has the greatest deforested area in the Amazon region. See Appendix 19A-C. It also suffered the most devastation in Brazil. Appendixes 20A-B illustrates deforestation mechanisms.

Pará had these higher levels of deforestation due to several factors. Timber extraction hubs are in Pará, see Appendix 21, it had high population growth. People decided to migrate to Pará due to land concession and finance incentives. The demographic explosion occurred in 1970, when population grew 2.9 times versus the national average of 1.8 times. Silviculture and agriculture grew from Brazilian Cerrado to Pará116.

Pará has large scale activities: forest management in large scale; energy generation based on wood scraps; cellulose production from eucalypt; vegetal coal production from eucalypt; local agriculture, intense agriculture (commodities) to sell internally and to export; biomass industry that generates approximately 35 MWH; rubber production, sustainable management of forest products; extractives activities and Silvopastoril.

Pará has big companies such as Vale do Rio Doce is multi billion mining company with more than 100,000 employees and it intends to plant 165 million trees to reforested part of the Pará area 117 ; Orsa Florestal does sustainable forest management with lower

116 117

IBGE, PRODES-INPE, SEMA (2007) http://www.vale.com/vale_us

48

environment impact 118; Floresteca does high quality sustainable wood management 119; Biopalma produces palm oil and is a Canadian company120 and so forth.

Pará also has small scales activities that encompass small farmers, such as many fruits extrativism, Açaí, Passion fruit, Guava, Star fruit and Acerola. Pepper, palm oil, cocoa, coffee and cassava are also cultivated.

Therefore, Pará state has some characteristics favorable to the implementation of “One Billion Trees for the Amazon” project (described in the next session). It has a great environment area to be restored; this area is geographic concentrated as showed in the graphics, it has a reasonable level of infrastructure with big companies operating in the area for some years and most important its government is willing, developing and supporting the implementation of the project.

Pará offers room for several activities: Sustainable management of forest products, wood extraction and utilization based on low environmental impact practices and integrated with the region‟s socioeconomic development, such as certified woods (FSC); Sustainable agriculture, biodiversity friendly practices, developing ecological corridors and organic systems, fair trade, etc; Non wood forest products, cosmetic and medicinal use and trade of forest products examples: Brazil nuts, seeds, straw, honey, flowers; Fishing and fish farming, fishing using mechanisms to ensure the maintenance and replenishment

of

target

species;

Biocarbon,

carbon

sequestering

through

118

http://www.orsaflorestal.com.br/ http://www.floresteca.com.br/default.asp?lang=en 120 Brazil of Biofuels (2008) 119

49

forestation/reforestation and by avoiding deforestation; Water (watershed) protection payment, payment for protecting potable water reserves e.g. Costa Rica; Bioprospecting, a systematic search for assets (genes, organisms) that have potential economic use (e.g. pharmaceuticals); Biodiversity offsets, conservation activities to compensate for activities that harm biodiversity, including mandatory (e.g. SNUC Law) and voluntary markets; Biodiversity management services, professional activities and services for government and private entities, such as the development of biodiversity restoration programs; Ecotourism, tourism in natural areas to improve the wellbeing of the local population and preserve the environment; and Recreational hunting and fishing, hunting for sport in a way that ensures the sustainability of animal species 121.

121

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

50

Project Description The “One Billion Trees for the Amazon” program was launched by President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Governor of State of Para Ana Julia Carepa in May 2008 in the city of Belem.

Considered the world‟s largest forest restoration program, “One Billion Trees for the Amazon” is an initiative of the state of Para Secretariat for Environment (SEMA-PA).

The main objective is to encourage citizens and society at large so that the goal of planting one billion trees until the year 2013 is achieved. In addition, one of the goals is to “consolidate the image of the state of Pará as guardian and restorer of the Amazon rainforest” (Valmir Gabriel Ortega, Secretary of State of Environment). This project has the potential to reduce global GHGs by 5% until 2030122, restore biodiversity, improve the quality of water and preserve threaten of extinction species.

Some of the program tools are: Economic-Ecological Zoning – ZEE Rural Environmental Registration – CAR Ecological Value Added (ICMS) Tax Public system of financing of the forest restoration Economic incentives to environmental conservation and recovery by paying for environment services Formalize/register forest based industries Encourage reforestation using native trees species State climate change plan 122

SAGRI, SEMA (2008)

51

A network of research into native species and forest extensions

The program is highly commented by Governor Ana Júlia, she said to the press: “We want to achieve half of the target from the “One billion trees for Amazon Forest” program in association with the small farmers. This initiative will be able to improve the local families‟ live in consequence of their access to the forest‟s richness.” Gazeta Mercantil (08/21/2008) “With some companies‟ single initiatives and the “One billion trees for Amazon Forest” program, we will be able to easily attract pulp and paper industries in a close future.” Gazeta Mercantil (08/21/2008) “We aspire economic growth with social embedding.” Pará State Government (08/21/2008) “The Pará State will not only plant one billion trees, we will develop mechanisms to encourage reforestation as an economic activity. This is our main response to the deforestation.” Agência Estado (05/30/2008) “The state‟s land and climate conditions are very favorable to forestry. Based on this, we can plant it focusing in different industries, energy, charcoal and food products. We will replace cut down native forest with reforestation.” Pará State Government (08/22/2008)

52

Project Objectives The main objects are to restore degraded areas of Amazon rainforest, help to improve the quality of the environment and create a new model of sustainable rural development for the state of Parรก involving society as a whole.

Foster environmental registration of rural properties, starting a serious land legalization campaign Restore legal and permanent environmental reserves in the east zone Stop deforestation, possibly do some Afforestation, promote Reforestation and Restoration. These ARR activities sequester carbon from the atmosphere and increase forest carbon stocks.

Reforestation describes the establishment of trees on land that has been cleared of forest within the recent past123.

Restoration is the enhancement of damaged forest to re-establish a forest to its natural structure and carbon stock 124 . This is generally achieved through planting, seeding or assisting natural regeneration of the structure, productivity and species diversity of the forest originally present Afforestation is the planting of new forests on lands that, historically, have not contained trees125.

Develop a new economic model for the Amazon forest Encourage and support reforestation with native species Encourage the development of scientific knowledge that can be used to foster forest output 123

IPCC (2000) UNEP-WCMC FRIS (2008) 125 IPCC (2000) 124

53

Create a sustainable rural development model that restore depredated areas through economic activities, which involve 120 thousand families and business that want to invest in the region. See Appendix 22.

Almost half of the trees 480 million will be planted by the partnership of businesses, government, local communities and social organizations.

The other half will be planted though larger projects that involve big companies and through society engagement

The project will focus on the East Zone geographic area of Parรก state, as illustrated on Appendix 23. The reasons to choose this area are: this is a region with high levels of deforestation, it has a reasonable infrastructure and a good level of public presence, it has several economic activities, such as silviculture, mining, and wood extraction and plantations, the region has high concentration of low income people. The region suffered from deforestation, its biodiversity is threatened, and the project aim to restore it.

54

Local cases analysis The Agricultural and Environmental government ministers collected 52 ParĂĄ local agriforest cases were. All the 52 cases were analyzed. Most of them were agriforest systems. See Appendix 24A and B. Appendix 24A describes the most common cases.

Appendix B illustrates with pictures the agriforest systems. Out of the 52 cases, 20 were led by families, 17 by associations, 14 by small to medium businesses and one wasnâ€&#x;t specified. Most of them were agriforest systems. These small producers mentioned the efficacy of the agriforest systems against plagues. In fact first they choose the agriforest systems in order to fight plague. Then, they realized the economic potential of it.

Unfortunately only three cases had some financial and economic information, which are not sufficient to conduct a more precise analysis in relation to the economic return of agriforest systems.

Although the data lack on statistical information, there is also almost no data in relation to production improvements, all the 52 cases qualitatively mentioned some kind of gain with the agriforest systems. Some struggled initially due to lack of training and pests, but as the learning curve improved, they started to plant more cultures. These results although qualitatively indicate the efficiency and success of agriforest systems.

In addition, the agriforest systems are very diverse. Appendix 24A shows some of the native species that were planted. Agriforest systems therefore offer a concrete possibility to recover biodiversity. Which species are better to plant to restore ecological balance are

55

out of the scope of this paper. The Governor of Parรก has excellent technical and environmental personal that can offer precise environment analysis.

56

Global knowledge applied to Pará case: recommended strategy Based on what was written above the suggested model to the success of the local communities part of the project is to develop a multi stakeholder value chain, strengthening the business, local communities and government partnership through an agriforest system. The business, community and government partnership is fundamental to enable production and commercialization in a sustainable manner, increasing low income population quality of life. It also helps self-regulation, dealing with government insufficient resources to regulate the region. The agriforest system is ideal to not only reforest but also to recover biodiversity, contributing to diminish climate change effects.

Bolthouse case is an example of the success of a business and local community partnership. See Table 15 for a description of the case. Basically Bolthouse, an American juice company producer, opened a branch in the state of Pará to produce a concentrate of Açaí juice to export to its headquarters in LA. Bolthouse was able to train local communities to harvest Açaí and deliver to the company. Although this is a great case, it is in some extent simple. Açaí grows in the borders of rivers, and local communities are used to harvest and sell it to survive. Therefore, despite all challenges, Bolthouse had to organize what was already in place. Most important Açaí was ready available so it wasn‟t necessary to think over what complimentary cultures should be available so local communities could survive in case of long period of years until the first harvest is available. It did not demand previous investment, or financial funding, since Açaí culture is based on extractives activities. These more complex issues are present in an agriforest

57

system that intends to recover 30 to 40 years trees diversity and offers an intermediate environmental sustainable source of income to communities. That is why the agriforest system has cultures with shorter harvest times, for instance, Acerola fruit start to generate fruits in 1.5 years in average 126.

As mentioned above an agriforest system is more complex and need more stakeholders in the process, mainly the government. Financial institutions are not analyzed in this paper because the Pará project is well funded by government and other institutions 127 so funds are not an issue to the success to this project. Moreover, although this project target 120 thousand families and aims to plant 480 million trees, it will start focusing on 30 thousand families and 80 million trees (see Appendix 22).

Based on Pará characteristics mentioned above, the social model should be one that has a production-commercialization self generate revenue model, for this case the multi stakeholder value chain, with focus on government, business and local communities stakeholders. The agriforest systems should be the environment solution. The mechanics of both follows below.

Solutions & Alternatives “Commons researchers have repeatedly highlighted the importance of collective action and institutions to successful governance of forest commons” 128 . Therefore the multi stakeholder value chain offers solution to the whole chain. In this project, the governor of 126

http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/acerola.html SEMA and SAGRI 128 Chhatre at all (2008) 127

58

Pará is responsible for funding, infrastructure, technical training and communication plan.

Business will support government in enforcement issues by taking care to vast areas of land, will complement government technical training capacity and will develop a distribution channel for the local communities‟ production. Local communities will reforest the devastated area in exchange for an economic activity that will improve their quality of life.

Alternatively, a cooperative model could be used; however local culture and other local mechanics are not favorable to it. Tables 9 and 10 illustrates the conditions needed for a successful model with cooperatives. The Tomé-Açú case is successful because it fulfills almost all requirements presents on Table 9. However, it is a unique case in the state of Pará. Generally the areas in the state are big, communities have different values, and so diversity is big, boundaries are not clear, there are confusion among policies and to which law to follows, region resources in most cases are not the same that families resources.

Even in the 20 families cases analyzed above (Appendix 24A), although all used an agriforest systems each one was different from the other, not only in terms of culture, but also in terms of practices, funding, management, use of the production. All this to conclude that the state of Pará in general has characteristics that do not foster autonomous process through which families get united to create an association/cooperative that will help the group as a whole.

In addition, the region has two main cooperatives related to forest issues CAMTA and FVPP among others. See Appendix 25 for a description of both. One of the two is very

59

unique, since it is the Tomé-Açú one. Moreover, the region has an average of 308 small associations /cooperatives129 that do not have required resources to find production and commercialization activities in larger scale. As illustrated on the 17 associations‟ cases of Appendix 24A, these associations were dealing with most 30 families and were focused on the production value of the chain.

Therefore the partnership among government, business and local communities has all the resources to reforest the Zone East of Pará adequately.

Stakeholders’ roles and analysis Government Government will take care of some crucial steps in the multi stakeholder value chain: it will offer infrastructure, funding and will improve land regulation. Moreover, government knows production is important, that is why it will offer technical training for four years to local farmers

130

. However, government is not focusing on

commercialization. This part of the chain is as important as production. It needs to be taken care of to close the loop to generate a sustainable growth. As government has limited resources, it cannot perform all parts of the chain. Therefore, it can offers mechanisms should to make commercialization feasible. Government can provide incentives to and make agreement with business. So the latter can structure and manage the commercialization peace of the chain.

129 130

SEMA SEMA

60

Businesses Business has an opportunity to improve its production, increase its sales enhancing its economic bottom line. Michelin, Blue Skies and Bolthouse cases are examples of it. By sourcing part of its production to communities, business finds an access to cheap inputs.

In addition, as it will control the process they can train these communities to produce according its specifications. However, interactions with communities are not easy and require specific skills, which are different form pure business skills. It is difficult to gain access to communities and that they trust business and the project. The Bolivian and Indian cases illustrates this. So it is important to companies either to develop these communications skills and/or to partner with some local NGO or association that can intermediate the process. Usually it is easier and faster for business to reach the community through a kind of NGO/Association. The Bolivian case also illustrates this point.

Communities Communities have a lot to gain in this kind of multi stakeholder value chain project. They can find a more sustainable source of income that increases family income. As a consequence quality of life increases and possibly the next generation will have a better life. Through this ParĂĄ project, families will have funds to initiate a better economic activity and will acquire training skills, which they can use for others use if necessary.

They will have access to a channel to sell their production. It is important that can see the big picture and be opened to test new agricultures. Culture is a crucial point and some times families just donâ€&#x;t understand why the new culture is better than the ones they have

61

been doing their entire life (See Indian case). Thus, communities have to be exposure to the benefits of the project in a language that they can fully understand.

In addition, government has to have a plan to involve surrounding communities. As the Bolthouse case illustrated, surrounding communities that are not involved in the process may undermine it by having a worse quality of life with no perspective to improve it.

Specific Dynamics The main dynamic of this solution is that it not only allows to a self-generate revenue model, but also creates a mechanism to self regulation. When the government obtains help from local businesses and communities to regulate the region, it increases the chance of success of the project. Parรก has high levels of violence and corruption131 and it is a vast region, so it is difficult to patrol all of it. Building on the knowledge that forest commons are complex social-ecological systems, it is imperative that the role of enforcement be analyzed, taking into account the complexities of potential relationships. Local government is aware of the challenges it face and knows it does not have sufficient resources to assure legality throughout the region. By partnering with other stakeholders, government finds a way to increase its enforcement power helping to reduce violence and corruption. On one hand, when business can use its resources to patrol the areas they are responsible for and can add its efforts and resources to the ones of government the power of enforcement increases. On the other hand, when local communities see an opportunity to increase their quality of life, they help to regulate the process. They are the ones that

131

Local interviews

62

have great reach and cause the most violence, so when they are engaged in the process, they tend to care for it and fight for it as an opportunity in life.

Main Challenges The biggest challenge of this project is to manage the size and complexity of it. Most cases that were described above involved up to 50 thousand families. The Parรก project has more than double number of families. It is the first project in the world to deal with one billion trees. It deals with multiples stakeholders. It is crucial for the government to have an efficient strategic plan as well as a communication plan. See Tables 16 and 17 that illustrate how a Bolivian Case did not succeeded due to failure in the strategic and communication plan and a case on India, sponsored by IFC (International Finance Corporation) that highlights the importance of a well structured communication plan.

Seeking partnerships will be also fundamental to assure enforcement and increase the rate of success and return of the project.

In addition, the characteristics of the area pose more challenges to the success of the project, especially biodiversity regeneration. Chhatre (2008) analyzed 152 forest cases distributed across nine countries. His analysis indicates that forests with a higher probability of regeneration are likely to be small to medium in size with low levels of subsistence dependence, low commercial value, high levels of local enforcement, and strong collective action for improving the quality of the forest. Larger forests in with high subsistence dependence, low enforcement, and high commercial value have a higher probability of having degraded. This illustrates why Parรก, which has a large forest area,

63

and all the characteristics appointed by Chhatre, is the state that suffered the most degradation in Brazil.

This paper addressed some of the characteristics listed above, such as increasing commercial value of forest products, improving enforcement systems, and most important finding a sustainable subsistence mechanism for local communities.

Nevertheless, these issues go beyond the scope of this paper and government has to plan how to address them, such as plantation systems, intense agricultural production, major politic and economic inefficiencies and so forth.

Key success factors Communities that are direct involved in the process should be listened in the planning phase of the project. Local communities have local wisdom, as presented in the Indian case. In addition, government has to have a plan for surrounding communities.

E.g. Bolthouse case, other families create violence and can undermine the success of the project. They have to be in the plan. Only enforce policy structure does not solve problem, it can increase business security and give them less cost and more trust but for local communities it has to go beyond.

Early engagement of business in the process so government can understand their needs, commitment, training capacity, scale and quality requirements, and production estimation so to plan how many families will be affected in what circumstances.

64

Funding to initiate and sustain first years of the project and generation of activities that generate revenues for the following years.

Technical support

Well structured communication plan to deal with communities and society as a large.

This point is well illustrated on the Indian case as follows on Table 17.

Obtain trust from local communities.

65

Conclusion To be able to reforest Zone East of Pará recovering its biodiversity and improving local communities‟ quality of life with the plantation of 480 million trees among 120 thousand families, government should create a multi stakeholder value chain model as described above. The project is big and the key success of it relies on the partnership and planning communication strategy government will use. If this project succeeds, it will diminish climate change CO2 effects by decreasing GHGs levels emission in the Amazon region.

Therefore, the Pará case can set the example for other countries that are suffering higher levels of deforestation, especially the tropical ones. If this project succeeds in the Amazon forest, the complex and biggest living forest nowadays, similar projects can learn with this one and can create a big world impact in reducing climate changes effects globally.

66

Appendixes Appendix 1: Examples of impacts associated with global average temperature change

Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report p.51

67

Appendix 2: Examples of possible impacts of climate change due to changes in extreme weather and climate events, based on projections to the mid- to late 21st century

Obs: These do not take into account any changes or developments in adaptive capacity. The likelihood estimates in column two relate to the phenomena listed in column one. {WGII Table SPM.1} Notes: a) See WGI Table 3.7 for further details regarding definitions. b) Warming of the most extreme days and nights each year. c) Extreme high sea level depends on average sea level and on regional weather systems. It is defined as the highest 1% of hourly values of observed sea level at a station for a given reference period. d) In all scenarios, the projected global average sea level at 2100 is higher than in the reference period. The effect of changes in regional weather systems on sea level extremes has not been assessed. {WGI 10.6} Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report p.53

68

Appendix 3: Characteristics of post-TAR stabilization scenarios and resulting long-term equilibrium global average temperature and the sea level rise component from thermal expansion only.a {WGI 10.7; WGIII Table TS.2, Table 3.10, Table SPM.5}

Notes: a) The emission reductions to meet a particular stabilization level reported in the mitigation studies assessed here might be underestimated due to missing carbon cycle feedbacks (see also Topic 2.3). b) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379ppm in 2005. The best estimate of total CO2-eq concentration in 2005 for all long-lived GHGs is about 455ppm, while the corresponding value including the net effect of all anthropogenic forcing agents is 375ppm CO2-eq. c) Ranges correspond to the 15th to 85th percentile of the post-TAR scenario distribution. CO2 emissions are shown so multi-gas scenarios can be compared with CO2-only scenarios (see Figure 2.1). d) The best estimate of climate sensitivity is 3°C. e) Note that global average temperature at equilibrium is different from expected global average temperature at the time of stabilization of GHG concentrations due to the inertia of the climate system. For the majority of scenarios assessed, stabilization of GHG concentrations occurs between 2100 and 2150 (see also Footnote 30). f) Equilibrium sea level rise is for the contribution from ocean thermal expansion only and does not reach equilibrium for at least many centuries. These values have been estimated using relatively simple climate models (one low-resolution AOGCM and several EMICs based on the best estimate of 3°C climate sensitivity) and do not include contributions from melting ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps. Long-term thermal expansion is projected to result in 0.2 to 0.6m per degree Celsius of global average warming above pre-industrial. (AOGCM refers to Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model and EMICs to Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity.)

Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report p.67

69

Appendix 4A: The natural carbon cycle

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 16

Appendix 4B: Effects of deforestation and degradation on the carbon cycle

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 19, based on Malhi et al (1999)

70

Appendix 5: Average carbon stocks for different types of land cover

v

v

Notes: Averages taken using two datasets and error bars represent the maximum values Forests have higher carbon stocks per hectare than other types of land cover. Total average forest carbon stocks vary geographically between tropical, temperate and boreal regions, as does the relative proportion of carbon held in vegetation and soil.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 17, based on data from IPCC (2001) WG1, Chapter 3

71

Appendix 6: Average net primary productivity (sequestration) for different types of land cover

Notes: Averages taken using two datasets and error bars represent the maximum values.

Averages are net primary productivity for different types of land cover.

Through the process of photosynthesis, plants convert CO2 into biomass using the energy from sunlight.

Net primary productivity is the net flux of carbon from the atmosphere into green plants per unit time. It is, effectively, a measure of carbon sequestration. Forests store more carbon per hectare than other types of land cover, because lignified tissues, i.e. wood, decompose more slowly than soft tissues132. In addition, tropical regions have higher sequestration rates than other regions largely because of the longer growing season.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 17, based on data from IPCC (2001) WG1, Chapter 3

132

Franco (2008)

72

Appendix 7: Global emissions path required for stabilization at 475ppm CO2e overshooting to 500ppm

Note: Heiligendamm refers to the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm , 6-8 June 2007. The current levels of emission together with the stabilization trajectory have come from the SiMCaP model. Forecast business as usual emissions have come from three GHG models. Energy CO2 from the POLES model, forestry emissions from the IIASA cluster model and non-CO2 emissions from the IMAGE model.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 85

73

Appendix 8: Key elements of the Bali Action Plan

Source: Based on Bali Action Plan Decision 1/CP.13 (2007)

74

Appendix 9: Global anthropogenic GHG emissions

Notes: (a) Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to 2004.5 (b) Share of different anthropogenic GHGs in total emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (c) Share of different sectors in total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (Forestry includes deforestation.) {WGIII Figures TS.1a, TS.1b, TS.2b} Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report p.36

75

Population (billions)

Appendix 10A: Projections for world population in 2050

Source: UN Economic and Social Affairs Department (2004)

Appendix 10B: Growth in global middle class

Source: UN Economic and Social Affairs Department (2004)

Appendix 10C: Land requirements for producing different types of food

Source: Gerbens-Leenes et al (2002)

76

Appendix 10D: Correlation between deforestation in the Brazilian Amazonia, farmgate prices of beef and rainfall (2001-2003)

Source: Chomitz et al (2006)

Appendix 10E: Demand for major food crops (difference from previous year in millions of tones)

Source: IMF (2008)

77

Appendix 10F: Selected land use returns in some forest nations

Note: Returns are net present value in 2007 $ at discount rate of 10 per cent over 30 years Source: Grieg-Gran (2008)

78

Appendix 11: Comparison of annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions with annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration

Note: stepped line shows annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Bars show the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 22, based on IPCC (2007) WG1, Chapter 7

79

Appendix 12: Major classes of forestry services B

v

B

v

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 9, based on The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)

80

Appendix 13: The underlying drivers of deforestation

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 36

81

Appendix 14: Governance drivers of deforestation in the three major rainforest regions

Note: Each point represents a forest nation. The worldâ€&#x;s 40 largest forest countries, based on area of forest cover, were included in the analysis. Governance index scores range from -2.5 (less effective) to +2.5 (more effective).

Source: FAO (2005). Government Effectiveness index scores from World Governance Indicators for 2000, World Bank (2008)

82

Appendix 15: Deforestation externalities: the current and true prices of products from deforested land

Note: Each point represents a forest nation. The worldâ€&#x;s 40 largest forest countries, based on area of forest cover, were included in the analysis. Governance index scores range from -2.5 (less effective) to +2.5 (more effective).

Source: FAO (2005). Government Effectiveness index scores from World Governance Indicators for 2000, World Bank (2008)

83

Appendix 16: Amazon region

Slovakia Italy France

Brazil landscape Amazon

Half of Europe could fit in the Amazon region

Port.

Germany Neth.

Czech Belgium

U.K. Switz.

Neth

Spain

Parรก

Most of the forest is still intact

Source: Imazon

84

Appendix 17A: Deforestation fines and agents involved in regulation

Agents involved in integrated policing operations

Deforestation fines applied

Number of agents

US$ million

3.102 +70%

2.528

494

1.076

Ibama agents

1.162

Army agents

+65%

2.029 1.078 580 454

549 370

2003

2004

836

763

2005

2006

2007

219

State police agents Federal and road polices agents

110

112

2

2

3

3

2002

2003

2004

2005

Source: DIPRO, IBAMA, Brazilian Forestry Service, Barreto p. 2007

Appendix 17B: Environmental agents

km2/ agent, environmental agents density 19,883

8,050 4,502

2,955 590

545 Brazil

EUA

• Brasil has 8,25 times less agents per unit of area than EUA

Amazonas

Pará

SP

RJ

• Environment Ministry agrees that 4,5 times more agents are needed

Source: Agência Folha

85

Appendix 17C: IBAMA profile and financials Ibama profile

Ibama financials

Foundation: 1989, as government strategy to integrated forces related environmental management that were spread in different ministries and secretariats

• Ibama represents ~70% of total Ministry of Environment

Structure • Federal autarchy related to Ministry of Environment • Administrative and financial autonomy over executive power • ~6.000 employees

• Financial sources

budget

• The institution defines its annual budget and send it to the National Congress for approval

Functions • Actions related to Federal attributions • Recently, lost part of its original attributions (creating and maintaining conservation units) to the new Chico Mendes Institute • Current functions: – Concession of environmental licenses – Control of environmental quality – Authorization of natural resources – Prevention and control of deforestation, forest burning and support to environmental emergencies Articulation: Ibama is able to work in partnership with other entities of government – federal, states and municipalities and social sector organizations

– Federal government: taxes – Ibama: licenses, penalizations, inspections, products selling, services, forest repositions – External: donation, partnership, sponsorship and cooperation treats with international organizations, NGOs and private sector Ibama’s annual budget (government resources) R$ million +15% 770

972

Expenses composition – year 2007 • ~90% (R$ 929 million) expenses with employee payment and structure maintenance • ~5% (R$ 52 million) on National Plan to Avoid Deforestation

Source: MMA website; press clipping

86

Appendix 18A: Amazon land, population and GDP figures compared to Brazil ones Year 2005 100% = 9 M km2

Rest of Brazil

181 M hab

Rest of Brazil

45

87

Amazon region

GDP per capita* US$

US$ 556 billion

92

Amazon region

55

Land area

3,258

13

8

Population

GDP*

1,911

-41%

Constant prices of 2000

Source: IBGE, Ipeadata

Appendix 18B: Human development indexes

São Felix do Xingú (PA), Marcelândia (MT) and Lábrea (AM)

Human development

Infrastructure and basic services

Inhabitants older than 15 years that are literate (%)

Households with improved water supply (%)

Life expectancy at birth (years)

Municipalities with highest deforestation rates

79

67

Amazonia

84

67

São Paulo state

94

71

Brazil

89

72

Indonesia

90

70

Canada

99

80

46

Physicians per 1000 inhabitants

0.5

54

0.5

96

1.6

90

77

1.2

0.1

100

2.1

Source: UNPD, Human development report and Atlas do desemvolvimento humano do Brasil (2000 data)

87

Appendix 18C: Environmental management annual budget and Public security annual budget per state in Brazil

Environmental management annual budget

Base year

Share of total budget

US$ million/ yr

Public security annual budget

Base year

Share of total budget

2007

8%

2006

7%

US$ million/ yr

Mato Grosso Amazonas*

12.8

Pará

8.0

Maranhão

6.5

28.1 2006

0.66%

Pará

2007

0.37%

Mato Grosso

2007

0.19%

Rondonia

193

2007

13%

2007

0.11%

Amazonas*

191

2007

6%

337 248

Tocantins

3.3

2006

0.07%

Tocantins

115

2006

3%

Rondonia

3.3

2007

0.19%

Maranhão

106

2007

2%

Roraima

1.7

2007

0.40%

Acre

14

2008

2%

Acre

1.2

2008

0.13%

Roraima

9

2007

3%

Amapá

0.8

2007

N/A

Amapa

0

N/A

N/A

• Total environment budget of states in the Amazon: US$ 65 million/ yr

• Total security budget of Amazon states: US$ 1.3 billion

• Low average per capita expense US$ 50/ hab compared to São Paulo, with US$ 100/ hab

* Amazonas also accorded to contribute R$ 20 million to Fundação Amazonia Sustentavel

Source: States annual budget report

88

Appendix 19A: Level of deforestation per state in Brazil Level of deforestation per state in Brazil (Mha) Pará

24

Mato Grosso

20

Maranhão Rondônia Amazonas Tocantins

11 8 4 3

Acre

2

Roraima

1

Amapá

0

Total

72

Source: IBGE, PRODES-INPE, SEMA (2007)

Appendix 19B: Pará is currently the most relevant deforestation region in the Amazon Deforestation evolution in Brazil km2 Mato Grosso

14,000 12,000

Rondônia

Facts about Pará (PA) deforestation

Amazonas

‘000 km2 1.200

Pará Others

10,000 270

8,000

5 6,000

PA state area

4,000 2,000 0 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07

• ~24% of •

Amazon region ~14% of Brazil

Area deforested Average deforestation per year

• ~39% of deforested area in the Amazon

• 25% of yearly deforestation rate in the Amazon

Source: FAO, IBAMA, Imazon

89

Appendix 19C: Deforested area in Parรก

Source: FAO, IBAMA, Imazon

90

Appendix 20A: Deforestation scheme in Pará

Deforestation: setting people in land Main causes • Resources were available from land reform • People had to deforest in order to leave • Credit subsided • Wood companies interest in low cost wood

Illegal wood harvest • Harvest wood from small farmers • Payment for wood or wood tools • Big wood companies promised to small wood harvest to finance their activities

1 Wood delivery • Legal wood – With no law security • Wood cut

2

6 3 5 Wood commercialization • Internal market • Other states • With no documentation

Land cleaning • Wood cut • Fire in the area to clean it and obtain wood

4

Wood transportation • Illegal wood (no fiscal receipt)

Deforestation: illegal wood extraction Illegal wood harvest • Wood is cut by woodmen contracted by wood companies

Wood commercialization – Brazil South and Southeast market region – Exports – Internal market 4a

• Illegal document

4b

• Legal and illegal

Wood transportation to company • Illegal wood, no receipt

1

2

4

3

3a Wood received from company • Wood cut from company that does not have legal permission

3b Wood received from wood company • Wood cut from legal company

documentation

91

Deforestation: silvoculture and agriculture Deforestation – Main causes

• Migration from people from other states

• Government

Migration to Pará state • People who came from other states and do not know how to deal with forest • People who do not know how to deal with forest • See for land • Economic incentives to populate Amazon

Deforestation • High and expensive wood harvest • Wood cut using chain • Land fire so to use the land

1

2

4

3

incentives to populate the region

• Land exhaustion that lead to population of other areas

• Deforestation wasn’t seen as environmental crime

Wood • Companies that buy wood that come from fire and aggressive cut • Wood with no papers • Illegal wood • Wood sales internally and externally

Land use • 100 ha land use • Less land productivity due to extreme land use in the past • Land use expansion • Migration to other land seeking for more productive areas

Appendix 20B: Deforestation scheme in Pará in East Zone Strong deforestaion on East Zone....

12 main economic regions defined by Pará government % of preserved area

Metropolitana

Main economic activities

• Capital of the state, service and industry

N.A. • Mining, wood,

Guamá

agriculture, fish, services e tourism

N.A.

• Mining, wood, Rio Caeté

0-25%

agriculture, silvoculture, fish, services e tourism

• N.A. Rio Capim

25-50% • Biggest mining area

Carajás

0-25% • N.A.

Araguaia

25-50%

Source: Secretaria do Estado do Pará de Meio Ambiente – SEMA

92

Appendix 20B: Deforestation scheme in Pará in West Zone ...and preservation on the West Zone 12 main economic regions defined by Pará government % of preserved area

Main economic activities

• Wood, silvoculture, Marajó

Baixo Amazonas

75-100%

extractives, fish e ecotourism

• Mining, industry, 75-100%

agriculture, silvoculture and wood

• – Tocantins

50-75%

Lago de Tucuruí

50-75%

• Electrical energy • Sea transportation

• agriculture, silvoculture, Xingu

75-100%

75-100% Tapajós

mining, wood, fish

• Hydroelectric project

• Extractives activities (wood e fish)

• Incentive to tourism and agriculture, silvoculture

Source: Secretaria do Estado do Pará de Meio Ambiente – SEMA

93

Appendix 21: Timber extraction hubs is Pará

100 – 200 thousand m3 200 – 600 thousand m3 >600 thousand m3

Source: FAO, IBAMA, Imazon

94

Appendix 22: Steps of the implementation of the One Billion Trees for the Amazon Implementation in 5 years Million of planted trees 350

1.000

250 200 80

120

Number of families who will benefit from the program per year (000) 30 0 120 30 30 30 2009

10

11

12

2013 Total

Source: SAGRI, SEMA (2008)

95

Appendix 23: Geographic region focus of the project One Billion Trees for the Amazon

Baixo Amazonas

Marajó Marajó

Tocantins Capim Xingú Xingú

Lago Tucuruí Tucuruí Carajá Carajás

Tapajó Tapajós Araguaia

Borders of geographic focus

Legend : Main roads Defostation until 2007 Borders of geographic focus

Note: Neighborhoods included in program: Abel Figueiredo, Água Azul do Norte, Anapú, Bannach, Bom Jesus do Tocantins, Brejo Grande do Araguaia, Breu Branco, Canaã dos Carajás, Conceição do Araguaia, Curionópolis, Eldorado do Carajás, Floresta do Araguaia, Goianésia do Pará, Ipixuna do Pará, Itupiranga, Jacundá, Marabá, Moju, Nova Ipixuna, Ourilândia do Norte, Pacajá, Palestina do Pará, Parauapebas, Pau D'Arco, Piçarra, Redenção, Rio Maria, S. Domingos do Araguaia, São Geraldo do Araguaia, São João do Araguaia, Sapucaia, Senador José Porfírio, Tailandia, Tomé-açu, Tucumã, Tucurui, Xinguara Main neighborhoods to focus in order to detain deforestation: Cumaru do Norte, Dom Eliseu, Novo Repartimento, Paragominas, Rondon do Pará, Santa Maria das Barreiras, Santana do Araguaia, São Félix do Xingú, Ulianópolis, Source: IBGE, SEMA, SEDECT

96

Appendix 24A: Description of Agriforest Systems

Agriforest System

2 species: Mogno Wood (Swietenia macrophylla ) and Pepper (Piper nigrum ) 6 species: Castanheira (Bertholletia excelsa ), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum ), Mogno (Swietenia macrophylla ), Feijão de corda (Vigna unguiculata ), Mandioca (Manihot esculenta ), milho (Zea mays ), Embaúba (Cecropia sp ) 9 species: Açaí (Euterpe Oleracea ), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum ), Café (Coffea sp ), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum ), Andiroba (Carapa guainensis ), Virola (Virola surinamensis ), Morototó (Dydimopanax morototoni ), Ipê (Tabebuia sp ), Cumaru (Dipteryx odorata ) 10 species: Andiroba (Carapa guainensis ), Copaíba (Copaifera sp ), Mogno (Swietenia macrophylla ), Banana (Musa sp ), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum ), Pupunha (Bactrys gasipaes ), Pimenta do reino (Piper nigrum ) 5 species: Café (Coffea sp ), Ipê (Tabebuia sp ), Cedro rosa (Cedrela Fisilis ), Cacau (Theobroma cacao ), Teca (Tectona grandis ) 4 species: Muruci, feijão guandu, feijão-de-porco, paricá 8 species: Café (Coffea sp ), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum), Pupunha (Bactrys gasipaes), Coco (Cocus nucifera), Castanheira (Bertholletia excelsa), Laranja (Citrus sp), Limão (Citrus limon) and Abacate (Persea americana) 9 species: feijão-de-porco (Canavalia ensiformis), canafista (Senna spectabilis), acácia (Acacia mangium), paricá (Schyzolobium amazonicum) and palheteira (Clitoria racemosa) with abacaxi (Ananas comosus), pupunha (Bactrys gasipaes), acerola (Malpighia punicifolia), cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum) 10 species: Andiroba (Carapa guainensis), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum), Açaí (Euterpe Oleracea), Cedro (Cedrela odorata) plus fish and chicken 11 species: Andiroba (Carapa guainensis), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum), Açaí (Euterpe Oleracea), Cedro (Cedrela odorata), Abacaxi (Ananas comosus), Limão (Citrus limon), Banana (Musa sp), ipê, copaíba, cumaru, laranja

Land/hectare Market Type of Organizatoin 220 Wood Exports Family

50 N.A.

Reforestation

Wood business

5 Wood species: Parapará (Jacaranda copaia ), Ucuúba (Virola surinamensis ), Marupá (Simarouba amara ), Mogno (Swietenia macrophylla), Cedro (Cedrela odorata), Teca (Tectona grandis), Paricá (Schyzolobium amazonicum), Amapá (Brosimum sp) and Freijó (Cordia goeldiana) 3 species: paricá (Schyzolobium amazonicum), teca (Tectona grandis) and eucalipto (Eucalyptus sp)

Agribusiness

1

28 families

N.A. N.A.

Association

30 families

Family Association

1 28 families

N.A.

N.A. Association

N.A.

N.A.

N.A. Association

28 families

N.A.

N.A.

30 N.A. 15 Subsistence

30

N.A.

N.A. Association

Market

900 Wood factory Market

Type of Organizatoin

Type of Organizatoin

Business

32 Wood factory

Business

Market

Type of Organizatoin

N.A. Fruit business Association

10,000 Agribusiness

N.A.

30 families

Number

Business

86 Wood factory

Land/hectare

20 species: dendê (Elaeis guineensis ), pupunha (Bactrys gasipaes ), açaí (Euterpe oleracea), acácia (Acacia mangium), breu sucuúba, (Trattinnickia burseraefolia), andiroba (Carapa guianensis), castanheira, (Bertholletia excelsa), cedro (Cedrela odorata), eucalipto (Eucalyptus sp), ipê (Tabebuia sp), ingá (Inga edulis), jacarandá (Dalbergia spruceana), jatobá (Hymenaea courbaril), marupá (Simarouba amara), mogno africano (Khaya ivorensis), mogno (Swietenia macrophylla), pará-pará (Jacaranda copaia), paricá (Schyzolobium amazonicum), sumaúma (Ceibapentandra), teca (Tectona grandis) and ucuúba (Virola surinamensis).

Family

Association

Land/hectare

4 species: Açaí (Euterpe Oleracea), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum), Acerola (Malpighia punicifolia), Taperebá (Spondias brasiliensis)

1

N.A. Açaí sale

Land/hectare

6 Wood species: Mogno africano (Swietenia macrophylla), Teca (Tectona grandis), Paricá (Schyzolobium amazonicum), Andiroba (Carapa guainensis), Sumaúma (Seiba Pentandra), Acrocarpos (Acrocarpus sp)

Number

Business

3 Number

1 several Number 90 families

1

Source: SAGRI, SEMA

97

Appendix 24B: Examples of Agriforest Systems

Mogno Wood and Pepper

Ipê (Tabebuia sp) and Cacau (Theobroma cacao)

Castanheira (Bertholletia excelsa), Cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum), mogno (Swietenia macrophylla), feijão de corda (Vigna unguiculata), mandioca (Manihot esculenta), milho (Zea mays), embaúba (Cecropia sp)

Silvopastoril and Castanheira plantation

98

Castanheira and Cupuaçu

Mogno, Cupuaçu and Coco

Açaí, Fish and Chicken

Mogno, Cumaru, Andiroba, Café, Pupunha and Cupuaçu 3 year system

Source: SAGRI, SEMA

99

Appendix 25: FVPP and CAMTA Cooperatives FVPP: Foundation for Life, Production and Preservation - FVPP (Fundação Viver Produzir e Preservar) is a NGO located in the state of Pará. It was created in 1991 by local farmers and rural and urban movements. Today 113 organizations belong to FVPP and help in its operations.

Its goal is to formulate public policy that foresees sustainable development. It was crucial for the development of family rural agricultural and its stabilization in difficult economic times. While most of the Amazon areas were abandoned by local families due to economic problems, the families that participated in FVPP programs stayed in the region.

CAMTA: Mixed Agriculture Cooperative of Tomé-Açu CAMTA - Cooperativa Agricola Mista de Tomé-Açu is a Cooperative that Japanese immigrants created in the state of Pará to support their vegetables cultures. In 1929 the Brazilian government was supporting an immigration programme into Amazon.

The cooperative also had the goal to secure market to sell their products, and hence to save their lives. It was a challenge since people in Belém, the closest and largest market for C.A.M.T.A in 1930's, did not have a habit of eating vegetables. This introduction of vegetables was a small contribution which these immigrants and previous body of C.A.M.T.A made.

Later on, C.A.M.T.A became a first producer and exporter of black pepper in Brazil, which seedlings were brought into Amazon from Asia in 1933.

With a wealth from the sales of black pepper, C.A.M.T.A contributed to the social development in Tomé-Açú, with the service of a hospital, a school and a supermarket.

As the society and its infrastructure has developed little by little, C.A.M.T.A now concentrates on the production and sales of agro-products from its cooperative members as well as non-members in the community of Tomé-Açú.

Source: http://www.fvpp.org.br and http://www.21food.com/showroom/48414/aboutus/COOPERATIVAAGRICOLA-MISTA-DE-TOME-ACU---CAMTA.html

100

Tables Table 1: The carbon sink effect Standing forests, particularly in the tropics, act as a natural carbon sink, absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis than they release through respiration.

Carbon sinks play a significant role in offsetting some of the total anthropogenic emissions of CO2. IPCC shows that current annual rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is about 57% as high as it would have been from fossil fuel emissions without the sink effect and about 40% as high as it would have been from all emissions including those from land-use change133. This indicates that without carbon absorption by forests and other carbon sinks effects (e.g. oceans), the rise in CO2 caused by anthropogenic emissions would have been considerably higher. One climate-carbon cycle model showed that if the tropical forest carbon sink had not been present, the CO2 increase due to past emissions would have been 10% higher 134.

Old-growth tropical forests are estimated to absorb about 4.4 +/- 1.5 Gt CO2 a year through the sink effect, equal to 15% of annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions135. Deforestation leads directly to emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere but it also results in the loss of this forest carbon sink. This could have an additional effect on the rate of rise of CO2, termed the „land use amplifierâ€&#x;136, since it amplifies the effect of emissions from other sources.

The removal of a forest carbon sink has long-term implications for the atmospheric CO2 concentration. While the emissions resulting from the removal of an area of forest occur over a short period, the absence of the sink persists unless the forest is replaced. For example, if a hectare of forest was sequestering three tones of CO2 per year 137 , the presence of this forest over 40 years would result in the absorption of 120 tones of CO2.

If, in addition, that hectare of forest stored carbon equivalent to 600 tones of CO2 138, deforestation of that hectare would not only result in the emission of most of the 600 tones of CO2 in the short term, but would also mean that the forest would not absorb the 120 tones of CO2 over a 40 year period. The long-term impact on cumulative net emissions over those 40 years is therefore 20% greater than would have been expected if only the initial emissions were taken into account.

133

Betts et al (2008) Betts et al (2008) using a model by Huntingford et al (2008) 135 IPCC (2007) WG 1 Chapter 7 136 Gitz and Ciais (2003) 137 Phillips et al (1998) 138 Using an average estimate of plant carbon density from House et al (2002) 134

101

Table 2: Estimated annual change in forest area since the 1980s: continent and global

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 23, based on FAO (1990); IPCC (2007) WG 3, Chapter 9, after FAO (2006)

102

Table 3: Forest tenure and distribution (million ha)

Source: Sunderlin et al (2008)

103

Table 4: Governance drivers of deforestation in the three major rainforest regions

Source: Lambin and Geist (2003)

104

Table 5: Scolel Te: Plan Vivo “Plan Vivo programmes aim to: Sequester carbon through forest and agricultural pr �� actices which contribute to sustainable livelihood systems; Assist farmers and communities to develop more sustainable land management and better livelihoods through the provision of carbon services; Target low-income farmers who often live in marginal areas, bringing together smallholders and communities to deliver benefits in the markets for environmental services.

The Scolel Te programme in Southern Mexico includes over 2,000 families of indigenous Mayan and Mestizo farmers in 30 communities. The programme provides support to develop sustainable forestry and agroforestry techniques to improve livelihoods. It includes supplementing landholders‟ income with carbon finance from offsets sold on voluntary carbon markets. It has the potential to sequester around 100,000t CO2 per year.

Several forestry systems are used in the Scolel Te project to sequester carbon: the establishment of tree plantations on areas previously used as pasture may increase carbon stored in vegetation by about 440t CO2/ha; by growing timber and fruit trees interspersed with annual crops such as corn or perennial crops such as coffee, around 256t CO2/ha can be sequestered; where closed forests are threatened, protection can prevent emissions of up to 1100t CO2/ha; and where forests are degraded, careful management and restoration can increase carbon storage by around 440t CO2/ha.

More than $30,000 in carbon payments was made to Scolel Te producers across around 20 communities in 2006”.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 55

105

Table 6: Community forest management: two examples “Projeto Ambé, National Forest of Tapajós, Santarém, State of Pará, Brazil The National Forest of Tapajós comprises 600,000 hectares of forests on the right margin of the Tapajós river in the region of Santarám, State of Pará. In 2006, Projeto Ambé, an initiative on sustainable community forestry on 32,000 hectares of the National Forest, began with support from PPG7 (Pilot Program to Conserve Brazilian Rainforest). This is the largest initiative in Brazil on community forestry. COOMFLONA (Cooperativa Mista Flona Tapajós Verde), a cooperative involving 132 families from communities in the National Forest of Tapajós, organizes the project. In 2007, timber harvest in 400 ha of forests produced about 5,000m3 of timber, from 60 different species. COOMFLONA sold the timber, investing 50% in the 2008 production and 15% in community projects within the National Forest; 20% was shared among cooperative partners; 10% was destined to a reserve fund and five per cent to a fund for technical, educational and social assistance. In 2008, 13,497m3 of timber has been produced by communities. An auction of timber took place in September 2008. At the time of going to press, communities expected to sell the whole set of timber for R$3.1 million (around $2 million).

Congo Basin – sustainable timber harvesting The Review Team saw an example of sustainable timber production in the Congo Basin where an international non-governmental organization had provided up-front costs and produced the plan required to obtain a community logging license. The community was allowed to harvest 1400m3 of timber per year, but had only achieved 40m3 in its best year. The economic contribution was small and ownership of the scheme was limited.

This failure to reach its potential was a result of bureaucratic obstacles (it had to reapply every year for a logging license, and this was delayed for several months), and a lack of equipment and expertise. Several interlocutors the Review Team met warned against a too simplistic understanding of „community‟. There is rarely homogeneity between or within communities, and they may neither be organized nor have an agreed representative to engage with external processes and organizations. Thus, although the potential for community forest management in reinforcing communities‟ rights, improving livelihoods and contributing to climate change mitigation is clear, it is by no means a quick fix”.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 57

106

Table 7: A scientific and technological revolution for the Brazilian Amazon “A number of proposals have been put forward for shifting regional economies from land use to service sectors. Below are extracts of an article (Nobre, 2008) setting out one vision for the development of technology centers in the Amazon. …Science and technology must play a key role in sustainable development of the Amazon, considering the pressing necessity of new knowledge to fully develop the productive chains, starting with biodiversity and for valorizing environmental services of ecosystems. It has thus become vital to develop a real scientific and technological revolution for the Amazon, a revolution held as the central and strategic priority of the regional development policy and that may possibly represent the greatest challenge to be faced by the Brazilian scientific community for the next thirty years….

Technological capacity building has proved to be a fundamental tool to maintain the emerging economies of sizeable developing countries such as China, India and Brazil.

Over the last fifty years, Brazil has been capable of creating islands of excellence in science and technology, which are more similar to those of developed countries than those of lower or middle income. However, historical regional inequalities, especially those in education, have created impediments drastically limiting intensive use of science and technology for the economies and social development of the poorer, less favored regions, including the Amazon and the Brazilian Northeast….

A new vision of science and technology is imperative. Among other general conditions, such as the improvement of basic education, it is essential to create a network of new institutions for higher learning, post-graduation, basic research and advanced technology with specific focus on both the forest and the aquatic resources. These institutions should be created so as to radically decentralize science and technology throughout the vast Amazon, maximizing the diversity and the potential of its sub-regions. Such an innovative network of science and technology should include five or six new technological institutions, grouping together from 500 to 600 faculty, researchers, engineers and technicians in each one, thereby multiplying the number of active researchers in the Amazon by three or four. In addition, these institutions – connected to a network of associated laboratories reaching every distant corner of the Amazon and interconnected by cutting-edge information technology – would serve as regional poles of this new technological development model….

What the Amazon needs is many of these Amazon Technological Institutes to seed an innovative industrial model for that region. These institutes should be involved with the development and value aggregation in the entire productive chain of dozens of products from the Amazon, from bioprospecting, product development to commercialization and global marketing. Although it may seem a simplistic recipe for regional development, no tropical country has ever adopted it on a large scale. Cutting-edge technology would make it possible for some institutions to develop sophisticated research in biotechnology and nanoscience applied to biomimicry, that is, learning about the way complex biological systems find answers on a nanomolecular scale, to be reproduced in practical applications, a new scientific area to be explored for the tropical ecosystems”.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 59-60

107

Table 8: Burung Indonesia – rural nature conservation agreements and participatory boundary demarcation “The Review Team met representatives of Burung Indonesia (BirdLife Indonesia), which works to: Provide support for improved planning and management of important sites, species and habitats; Introduce and advocate new ideas for integrating biodiversity conservation into planning and policy, for example through collaborative management and sustainable use of natural resources; Stimulate greater public interest in birds and biodiversity conservation; Develop improved management capacity; Provide information on biodiversity and protected areas to planners, policymakers and other interest groups.

Burung Indonesia has developed a participatory process for villages surrounding the Manupeu Tanadaru National Park on Sumba Island, Karakelang Wildlife Sanctuary on Karakelang Island and Sahendaruman Protection Forest on Sangihe Island.

The Rural Nature Conservation Agreement (RNCA) is a participatory agreement between government and communities within or adjacent to protected forests. The aim is to support the conservation and sustainable management of forest areas based upon traditional rules and norms of resource use. All stakeholders are brought into the process to reach agreements that are accepted by all involved. The final document typically consists of several agreements on how to solve problems such as addressing forest fires, protecting forest resources and the use of water sources such as springs.

After the RNCA is reached, the first step is to implement the agreement through participatory boundary demarcation. The process results in agreement over the protected area boundary. In the Manupeu-Tanadaru National Park, Sumba, 270,860km of boundary has been agreed through facilitating the process with 18 villages�.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 61

108

Table 9: Positive variables in the success of communitiesâ€&#x; self-regulation resources

Source: Agrawal (2001) p. 1659

109

Table 10: Tomé-Açú case, CAMTA As mentioned on Appendix 25, CAMTA is a Cooperative managed by Japanese.

CAMTA produces several vegetables through the agriforest system and is able to export black pepper.

This cooperative is highly successful by doing research and providing techniques to farmers and offering a channel to sell their production. The export most of the goods to Japan due to the contacts they have. In addition they have two distributors who sell internally.

The cooperative is in general small; well locate in Tomé-Açú with low levels of mobility.

The techniques and culture pass from generation to generation. The families share the same values and because of that they form a cohesive group, which is different from most of Pará inhabitants. In fact in real life what happens is a cultural chock between “the Japanese” and locals from Pará. As they have been growing and selling vegetables since 1929 they have a superior quality of life. Their income is higher when compared to locals that do not belong to the cooperative. In this culture family and business are mixed together, it is difficult to separate. They are the ones that decide internal rules. They have been learning with market demands but so far so good.

Initially, the cooperative did not choose an agriforest system. They want to plant black pepper extensively. However, plague attacked and they were forced to develop agriforest systems. The most commons ones are two kind of woods seringueira and mogno together with pepper and passion fruit; cocoa, cupuaçu and acerola (the last two are fruits) together with açaí, another fruit.

They have been doing these agriforest systems for more than 30 years and some experts advised the Japanese they should cut some trees so to improve the whole ecosystem, but the Japanese do not want to do so “I do not want to cut the forest” said one of them.

Moreover, they also think that the wood trees serve as collateral for future generations.

Although all these data is based on interviews and qualitative analysis, no figures were available it is more than well known that this cooperative has higher standards of leaving as well as environmental ones. This is such an unique culture in the middle of Pará.

Source: Local interviews

110

Table 11: Blue Skies Case in Africa Blue Skies is a fruit production and processing company that purchases fruit from BoP (Base of the Pyramid) farmers, processes fresh-cut fruit, and exports these goods to Europe Blue Skies has expanded its successful model into Egypt, Brazil, and South Africa. It was established in 1998 by European businessman with his own capital.

Blue Skies saw a market opportunity to sell to European consumers who want fresh and convenient fruit. Therefore, Blue Skies decided to source its production to local farmers.

Blue Skies provides market access to Ghanaian farmers by purchasing produce from them on a regular basis. Blue Skies provides agricultural training to farmers to ensure meet quality standards. It also employs BoP staff to cut and package produce per European specifications. See its business model below.

Blue Skies Business Model and Value Chain Analysis F AR MING P R O DUC T IO N WHO: BoP Producers WHERE: Field ROLE: Suppliers as entrepreneurs

B oP P roducers

P R E P AR AT IO N/ P AC K AG ING Blue Skies Company Blue Skies Factory Employees: • BoP labor • Upper Management • Quality Assurance

B lue S kies

DIS T R IB UT IO N E XP OR TS Blue Skies Company Ghana to Europe Transport shipment to Europe

B lue S kies

R E T AIL S T O R E S IN E UR O P E Blue Skies Company Europe Distribute to retail outlets in Europe

E UR O P E

Local Suppliers 1. Factory to Airport in Ghana 2. Ghana to Europe

International Suppliers E gypt

B razil

S outh Africa

Functions • Chopping/ Slicing • Packaging • Labeling per Retail Partner requirements

3. Transport to Warehouse

4. Transport to Retail Outlets in Europe

Blue Skies supplies major supermarket chains in Europe (Marks & Spencer, Sainsburys, Waitrose) and Starbucks. It grew 30% per year for the past 10 years. It hasEurepGAP, Organic, FairTrade, LEAF certifications.

As a result of this work, Blue Skies raised income of BoP Producers. It works with 77 farmers across 4 farming villages and pays villages more than £2000 a week, 5 times more than farmers can fetch in the local market. Farmers are paid within 2 weeks.

Source: http://www.bsholdings.com/, http://www.usaid.gov/gh/ecgrowth/stories/pineapple/index.htm, http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/psweb.nsf/77080a2b4f261f0380256a6a00485fbe/0777428074797c4 280257287005ce1ec/$FILE/airfreight_blue_skies.pdf, http://www.africa-investor.com/article.asp?id=462, http://www.bsholdings.com/, http://www.accra-mail.com/mailnews.asp?id=3279

111

Table 12: Michelin Case in Brazil Michelin is rubber factory, which also processes rubber of local farmers, and is responsible for the production of 10% of total Brazilian rubber output.

Michelin faced major issues wit its hevea tree plantation in the state of Bahia, Brazil: poor productivity due to structural factors, trees diseases decreasing price of natural rubber presence in an ecological wealth area.

Due to these production and economic difficulties the jobs of 600 local employees was at stake. By talking to the community and explaining the situation, Michelin was able to get support of another 1,000 local families, who wanted to participate in the program. The solution found was the creation of a sustainable agriculture program, which encompasses community, environmental and economic variables.

The basic idea was to divide the original plantation in 12 medium-sized plantations of 400 hectares each and sell them to Brazilian Michelin managers, enabling them to replant with the new varieties of rubber tree resistant to Microcyclus, and to develop other types of culture between the lines of hevea, such as cocoa and banana. Michelin provided technological guidance and seeds to local families, so they could participate in the program. It was able to train 1,000 local families to plant according its specifications.

These families did not belong to any local association or cooperative.

Although the region had a reasonable level of local infrastructure, which enable Michelin to start its operations, Michelin needed more. To keep growing, Micheling was helping to create a new village, a hospital, paths and road. Therefore, Michelin created supporting infrastructure (more than 200 km of paths and road infrastructure were renovated or constructed). It also worked on local governance and systems required for the rehabilitation of the local community and the management and sale of these farmsâ€&#x; cocoa production, on top of the rubber production.

In addition, Michelin created “ecological corridors� that link the three patches of Atlantic forest in order to create continuity from the ocean coast to the inland areas covering some 3,000 hectares. Michelin is working closely with the local government and biodiversity groups to develop these corridors. The rubber tree plantations that flourish in this area will be temporarily exploited, while efforts of replanting forest in the corridor will be continuous. A reforestation program was initiated. It reintroduced animals and encouraged ecotourism in the area surrounding the waterfall to better protect the environment.

These investments and projects were made possible by the many partnerships forged by Michelin with local officials, non-governmental organizations, regional associations, unions, banks and public authorities, such as the State of Bahia and Banco Nordeste do Brasil for the loans granted to the new owners to buy the land and invest in replanting.

112

The plantation had a total turnover of US$ 3.1 million in 2006, beating the forecasted US$ 2.5 million. Michelin aims to increase that to US$ 10 million in 2023, with US$ 8 million of that coming from rubber and the rest from cocoa. The project aims to bring in about US$ 40,000 a year for a medium-sized landowner. Michelin expects to buy the rubber from the mid-sized plantations but local farmers are under no obligation to sell all their output back to the company.

As a consequence of this project natural rubber production increased by 11%.

Source: Michelin Case Study (2008)

113

Table 13: Deforestation externalities: the current and true prices of products from deforested land

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 65

114

Table 14: Cikel Brasil Verde Madeiras Ltda, Rio Capim Farm “The Review Team visited the FSC certified Cikel timber company in Brazil. Cikel produces a range of wooden flooring products. 85% of their products is exported, since there is low domestic demand for FSC products Sustainable forest management for Cikel means: It is audited annually to retain certification (requiring multi-annual visits for the first 3 years); Cut timber is tagged for traceability; Extraction damage assessments, forest inventories and biodiversity inventories are carried out in the six-month rainy season during which logging ceases; It practices silviculture on a 35-year cycle, so 1/35th of its forest area is logged each year (in Rio Capim it is 4000ha) with around three to five trees taken from each ha producing 13-20m3 ; It also reforests pasture (6000ha at Rio Capim) using native species such as mahogany which can be harvested after seven years and helps subsidize RIL of natural forest.

Acquiring certification from the FSC incurred up-front and additional running costs for Cikel, but it has brought with it the following advantages: Fewer accidents; Access to more profitable markets; More efficient process; A 75%reduction of illegal logging; Fewer invasions (land grabs).

Cikel is working with research institutes, communities and NGOs to increase the success of SFM by: Working with the Tropical Forest Foundation to provide training for its forest technicians and help aid domestic education about SFM; Linking with a university to investigate the feasibility of up to eight species plantations; Supporting a successful study showing that removal of residuals (wood left after logging) increased regeneration and biodiversity and is profitable as a source for a charcoal industry that runs all year round on its site in Rio Capim; Providing a school for the community�.

Source: The Eliasch Review (2008) p. 66-67

115

Table 15: Bolthouse case Bolthouse Farms is a 4th generation family farm, located in California's fertile San Joaquin Valley. After more than 90 years of dedication to farming and distributing premium fresh produce, we are uniquely suited to provide you with the highest quality and freshest tasting all natural products anywhere.

It has added an entire line of acai juices to their existing 15 flavors of health drinks. The açaí line called Bom Dia, which means "Good Morning" in Portuguese (the national language of Brazil) consists of three flavors including cacao, mangosteen and pomegranate. The Bom Dia drinks are different than their açaí counterparts because Bolthouse has developed a proprietary process to retain more of the nutritional aspects of the açaí while eliminating the gritty texture, normally found in the pulp of this berry. But the difference isn't in just how the product tastes but how the company is choosing to work in Brazil.

Bolthouse has built its own manufacturing plant in the city of Belém, located at the mouth of the Amazon River, to provide its U.S. beverage operation with the highest quality of açaí possible. The manufacturing plant was built out of need when the company could not acquire açaí pulp from other suppliers that met their quality specifications. But, by actively doing business in Brazil (through its Brazilian company called “Bolthouse do Brasil”, located in the state of Pará), Bolthouse decided to train local families to be its açaí supplier. Bolthouse works with approximately 200 inhabitants.

Bolthouse train the families in how they can better harvest açaí, taking care to maintain its cleanness. In order to maintain its quality standards Bolthouse gives box and tarps to the families so they can store the fruit in a safe and clean place. They also provided a smart and safe way to secure payment. Bolthouse demanded the families to belong to an Association, so Bolthouse pays this association and each family goes there and receives its share. This system avoids robbery. The violence problem is in deed strong, specially for those families that do not participate into Bolthouse supply chain. These surround and excluded families remains with a lower level of income and as nothing was made to reach them they decide to rob their “richer” neighbors. This is a problem that Bolthouse will have to deal with if it intends to stay in this business in the long run.

116

Women harvesting açaí.

Other than this, Bolthouse Farms is also providing these community programs to help build a better Brazil: Sanitary Water Supply Program Free Daycare Facility Free Boat Driveshaft Covers Children's Annual Holiday Party New Grade School Sustainable Harvesting Practice "One of our goals in Brazil is to provide effective support and develop relationships with the people there so we can identify their needs and give back to their community in tangible ways," says John Lake, brand manager for Bom Dia. "We wanted to do more than just 'support the rainforest,' we wanted to make a difference and be an active part of their community." It is great the company has this view, but it is also important to deal with social issues that direct impact its business, as the surrounding excluded families.

Maybe to deal with it a partnership with local government and/or associations can help to solve the problem.

However, in the beginning Bolthouse suffered attacks from locals because they though the company would steal their market. Because of that, Bolthouse had to increase security and had to find an efficient way to talk to the local communities. This process took Bolthouse a year. One year to start to gain locals trust. After three years of operation, now locals want to work together with Bolthouse.

Source: http://www.bolthouse.com/, http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Bolthouse-Farms762831.html and local interviews

117

Table 16: The Bolivian strategic plan and communication case The Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project ( NKMCAP) is a carbon emissions and leakage avoidance project with a community-development component that was developed in a national park in Bolivia.

The project seeks to avoid the release of carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and forest harvesting through conserving forests, in addition to combining this with leakage avoidance using two key complementary activities: monitoring of indemnified logging companies and assisting communities (2,000 people) to enhance local sustainable agriculture, forest management, and provision of social development benefits.

Initially the communities were opposed to the park expansion. Local communities have local knowledge, which has been transmitted generation after generation. It took 2 years so the project could really start. The main cause was fear of elimination of subsistence rights. Second was that access to traditional lands would be prohibited. In addition, government failed to provide road maintenance (this illustrates the challenge that communities face in ensuring that the municipality fulfils its development obligations to them). Another significant issue raised is that of ensuring that community members understand which organizations are responsible for which tasks and how to ensure accountability.

At the local level it was voiced that poor communication between the park/project and the community led to resistance. From the project perspective, one of the key challenges faced was the absence of organized local representation To be able to deal with communities several organizations were involved in the project: • Central Indigena de Bajo Paragua (CIBAPA) is a group that represents the local communities, created during the project process. CIBAPA was created to represent four key communities, among its objectives is using the land-title process to ensure that proceeds from future forestry activities are disbursed at community level • Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN) is a Bolivian conservation NGO and serves as project administrator.

• The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a US conservation organization and the broker in the indemnification of logging concessions and raised donor interest in the project. Its mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities.

• Personnel of this program have also been involved in internal negotiation processes between community leaders.

After an efficient communication process, communities recognized that this late start on their part limited the extent to which community development activities could be implemented.

Local communities have being relying on the forest to survive for several generations.

They had no knowledge of agricultural practices, so the project had to offer capacity 118

training to team members in the communities, and had to provide technical support to the Central Indigena de Bajo Paragua (CIBAPA). Despite the training effort, the project did not have a formal structure to help communities to sell their crops. But mostly significant, the project did not used plants that have a short cycle. In average a family should wait 30 to 40 yeas to harvest and this undermined the whole structure of the project.

Small numbers of poor families were involved in experimenting with planting trees on their plots of land. One of the technicians noted that the uptake was poor, and that the link between credit and agricultural practice had significant implications for the perceptions of the farmers, their confidence, and interest in the long-term efforts.

The project is still going on, but the rates of success are not high. Now that communication efforts and structure were adjusted it seems the project has higher chances of succeed if it can solve the credit and revenues issues.

Source: May at al (2004)

119

Table 17: Indian communication case - The Challenge of Farm Forest in India IFC has partnered with the Ballarpur Industries Ltd (BILT) paper mill in Orissa, one of India‟s poorest states, to encourage pulpwood forestry among farmers, who plant rice.

Results clearly reveal the challenges faced are, the difficulty of convincing farmers to change their practices, and what not to say in an agribusiness information campaign.

Participating communities are clearly benefiting from the income received from selling trees grown on previously non-cultivated degraded land after the 3-year growing period.

Despite program returns of US$350-400 profits per acre, participation rates have historically been quite low (<10%). People often resist undertaking long-term beneficial activities that have immediate costs.

“Earning money” (64%) was the primary reason farms were interested in farm forestry.

In the presence of credit specifically for tree planting, farmers would do it but if the credit were unrestricted, they would use it for other purposes. Forestry requires these poor farmers to wait 4-5 years before harvesting their crop and obtaining a profitable return on investment, and farmers may know that the temptation to harvest early (at a loss) would be too great to make the endeavor worthwhile.

Moreove, one of the largest banks in India offered financing to farmers on the condition that they produce a land certificate in their own name, which turned out to be a major obstacle because most of the land is registered under the name of a deceased father or grandfather. Changing the name on a land certificate is costly, non-transparent and bureaucratic. Farmers that did qualify for these loans were not able to reap the full benefit: loan distribution was delayed, which delayed the purchase of fertilizers and pesticides beyond the time considered optimal for their application.

Farmers who successfully grow and harvest their crop can sell pulpwood directly to the paper mill for $32/ton whereas selling pulpwood through a contractor or middleman fetches around $25/ton. Some middlemen cheat on weight; pay only a portion of the full price, take the pulpwood, and tell the farmers that the remaining balance will be paid once the pulpwood is sold to the contractor; but never return with the balance. Moreover, government may exploit the farmers: farmers need a “No-objections Certificate” (NOC).

Farmers report that forest officials often require bribes for NOC clearance.

Rice farmers had very little knowledge of the potential benefits, profitability and market dynamics of tree plantations. IFC found that some farmers simply plant the seedlings and return five years later, failing to take the time and effort to maintain plantations according to BILT‟s recommendations. In addition, Farmers have great faith in rice farming because it has been their primary means of livelihood for several generations. In an effort to increase knowledge about the potential benefits from tree planting and to boost participation, IFC designed four different communication scripts.

“Rice” script compared pulpwood farming with rice farming, making the argument that pulpwood was a more lucrative and secure source of income. From this experiment IFC 120

learned that it is counterproductive to disparage rice farming. Farmers have great faith in rice farming because it has been their primary means of livelihood for several generations. The success was to prove that with forestry products marriages could be done. For projects such as this to have a chance of success, it is necessary to provide farmers with more than just information campaigns and technical assistance on growing practices.

To encourage a more active forest stewardship that would in turn promote higher yields, BILT now teaches farmers to intercrop wheat, peas, potatoes, and other vegetables between rows of trees in the hope that this will lead to more time tending saplings instead of planting the seeds only to return 5 years later for the harvest.

Source: Monitor (2007)

121

Bibliography Allan, J. D., M.A. Palmer and N.L. Poff. (2005). Climate change and freshwater ecosystems. Pp. 272-290.

In T.E. Lovejoy and L. Hannah (eds.), Climate Change and Biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven CT., USA. Agrawal, A. (2001), Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources. Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, Betts, R, Gornall, J, Hughes, J, Kaye, N, McNeall, D and Wiltshire, A (2008) Forests and Emissions: a contribution to the Eliasch Review, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter. New work commissioned for the Eliasch Review Bloomberg News, 7 February 2008 Staples Ends Contracts with Asia Pulp on Environment, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acXOtxbg7KDs&refer=home Boltz, F et al (2001) „Financial Returns under Uncertainty for Conventional and Reduced Impact Logging in Permanent Production Forests of the Brazilian Amazon‟, Ecological Economics, Vol 39, pp387-398 (referenced in Chomitz et al (2006)) Braat, L and Ten Brink, P (eds) (2008) The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target, Alterra, Wageningen/Brussels Brazil of Biofuels: Palm, Cotton, Corn and Jatropha (2008), NGO Repórter Brasil Brazilian Government (2004) Presidência da República – Casa Civil – Grupo Permanente de Trabalho Interministerial para a Redução dos Índices de Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal. 2004. Plano de Ação para a Prevenção e Controle do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal. Brasília, DF, Brazil Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture. Brazil and agribusiness overview. Brazil Chhatre, A. and Agrawal, A. (2008), Forest commons and local enforcement, PNAS, vol. 105, no. 36 Chomitz, K et al (2006) At Loggerheads: agricultural expansion, poverty reduction and the environment, The World Bank, Washington DC CIFOR (1998) CIFOR Annual Report, CIFOR, Bogor Cochrane, M. A., and W. F. Laurance (2002). Fire as a large-scale edge effect in Amazonian forests.

Journal of Tropical Ecology 18: 311-325.

Corbera, E (2007) „Climate change and forest livelihoods: impacts and synergies‟, Arborvitae: the IUCN/WWF Newsletter, Issue 34, October 2007 Cramer, W., Bondeau, A., Woodward, F.I., Prentice, I.C., Betts, R.A., Brovkin, V., Cox, J., Fisher, V., Foley, J.A., Friend, A.D., Kucharik, C., Lomas, M.R., Ramankutty, N., Sitch, S., Smith, B., White, A. & Young-Molling, C. (2001). Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Global Change Biology 7: 357–373.

FAO (2006) Global Ecological Zones http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=1255&curr Tab=simple Fearnside, P.M. (1999). Plantation forestry in Brazil: the potential impacts of climatic change. Biomass and Bioenergy 16(2): 91–102.

122

Franco, M (2008) „Carbon absorption and storage‟, University of Plymouth, Plymouth. New work commissioned for the Eliasch Review Friend, A.D., A.K. Stevens, R.G. Knox, and M.G.R. Cannell (1997): A process based, terrestrial biosphere model of ecosystem dynamics (hybrid v. 3.0). Ecological Modelling, 95, 249–287.

Gallagher, E (2008) The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels, Renewable Fuel Agency, East Sussex Gentry, A.H. (1982). Neotropical floristic diversity. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 69: 557–593.

Gerbens-Leenes, P W et al (2002) „A method to determine land requirements relating to food consumption patters‟, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol 90, pp47-58 Gitz, V and Ciais, P (2003) „Amplifying effects of land-use change on future atmospheric CO2 levels‟, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17 Grieg-Gran, M (2008) The Cost of Avoiding Deforestation: Update of the Report prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, International Institute for Environment and Development, London. New work commissioned for the Eliasch Review.

Griffiths, T (2007) Seeing ‘RED’? ‘Avoided deforestation’ and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, Forest People‟s Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh Hart, S. (2007), Capitalism at the Crossroads. Aligning business, earth, and humanity, Wharton School Publishing, New Jersey, USA Houghton, R A (1999) „The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use 1850-1990‟, The Woods Hole Research Center, Tellus 51B:298-313 House, J I et al (2002) „Maximum impacts of future reforestation or deforestation on atmospheric CO2‟, Global Change Biology, 8, 1047-1052.

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística), www.ibge.gov.br/english IMF World Economic Outlook (2008) Housing and the business cycle, available at: http://www.imf. org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/pdf/text.pdf IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,1032p.

IPCC (2000), www.ipcc.ch IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, IPPC Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, New York ITTO (2006) Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005, ITTO, Yokohama IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Kanninen, M et al (2007) Do trees grow on money? The implications of deforestation research for policies to promote REDD, Centre of International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia Kattenberg, A., F. Giorgi, H. Grassl, G.A. Meehl, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J. Stouffer, T. Tokioka, A.J. Weaver, and T.M.L. Wigley (1996): Climate models—projections of future climate. In: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the

123

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 289–357.

Laurance, W.F., and G.B. Williamson (2001). Positive feedbacks among forest fragmentation, drought, and climate change in the Amazon. Conservation Biology 15 (6): 1529-1535.

Laurance, W.F., G.B. Williamson, P. Delamonica, A. Oliveira, T.E. Lovejoy, C. Gascon, and L. Pohl (2001). Effects of a strong drought on Amazonian forest fragments and edges. Journal of Tropical Ecology 17: 771-785.

Londo, T. (2007), Improving the Lives of the Poor? Assessing the Impacts of Base-of-Pyramid Ventures, Willian Davidson Institute / Stephen M. Ross School of Business at University of Michigan Macqueen, D and Vermeulen, S (2006) Climate change and forest resilience, Sustainable Development Opinion, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London Malhi, Y et al (1999) „The carbon balance of tropical, temperate and boreal forests‟, Plant, Cell and Environment, Vol 22, p 715–740 Marengo J.A., Nobre C.A., Vergara W., Scholz S., Deeb A., Cox P., Lucht W., Kondo H., Alves L., Pesquero J. (2008). Assessing the risk of Amazonian forest dieback: an assessment from the World Bank May, P. H., Boyd, E., Veiga, F., Chang, M. (2004), Local Sustainable Development effects of forest carbon projects in Brazil and Bolivia, Environmental Economics Programme.

McClain, M.E. (2001). The Relevance of Biogeochemistry to Amazon Development and Conservation. In The biogeochemistry of the Amazon Basin. McClain, M.E., Victoria, R.L., and Richey, J.E. (eds.). London, Oxford University Press.

Melillo, J.M., A.D. Mcguire, D.W. Kicklighter, B. Moore III, C.J. Vörösmarty and a.l. Schloss (1993).

Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature 363, 234–240.

Michelin Case Study (2008), Sustainable Rubber Sourcing, World Business Council for Sustainable Development Miles, L. A. Grainger, Phillips, O. (2004). The impact of global climate change on tropical biodiversity in Amazonia. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 553-565.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Volume 1, Island Press, New York Mitchell, A W, Secoy, K, and Mardas, N (2007) Forests First in the Fight Against Climate Change: The Vivo Carbon Initiative, Global Canopy Programme, Oxford Mitchell, J.F.B., R.A. Davis, W.J. Ingram, and C.A. Senior (1995). On surface temperature, greenhouse gases and aerosols: models and observations. Journal of Climate 10: 2364–2386.

Molnar, A et al (2006) Community-based forest enterprises in tropical forest countries: status and potential, ITTO, RRI and Forest Trends Monitor (2007), The Challenge of Farm Forest in India, sponsored by the International Finance Corporation (IFC)

124

Moreira, C.J.E. (1986). Rainfall and flooding in the Guayas river basin and its effects on the incidence of malaria 1982–1985. Disasters 10(2): 107 – 111.

Moss, C, Schreckenberg K, Luttrell C and Thassim, L (2005) Participatory forest management and poverty reduction: a review of the evidence, ODI, London National Institute for Space Research (INPE) (2005). Figures obtained from the National Institute for Space Research website, www.inpe.br, cited August 29, 2005.

Nepstad, D., G. Carvalho, A.C. Barros, A. Alencar, J.P. Capobianco, J. Bishop, P. Moutinho, P. Lefebvre, U. Lopes Silva Jr., E. Prins. (2001). Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests.

Forest Ecology and Management 154 (3): 395-407.

Nijssen , B. O'Donnell, G.M., Hamlet, A.F. and Lettenmaier, D.P. (2001). Hydrologic Sensitivity of Global Rivers to Climate Change. 50(1-2): 143 – 175.

Patz, J.A., W.J.M. Martens, D.A. Focks, and T.H. Jetten, 1998. Dengue fever epidemic potential as projected by general circulation models of global climate change. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(3): 147–153.

Peskett, L et al (2008) Making REDD work for the poor. DRAFT paper prepared by ODI/IUCN on behalf of the Poverty and Environment Partnership Phillips, O L et al (1998) „Changes in the carbon balance of tropical forests: Evidence from longterm plots‟, Science, 282, 439-442 Prahalad, C.K. (2006), The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Eradicating poverty through profits, Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA Reid, W V and Miller, K R (1989) Keeping Options Alive: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Biodiversity, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC SAGRI (Secretaria de Estado de Agricultura), www.sagri.pa.gov.br Sajwaj, T, Harley, M and Parker C (2008), Eliasch Review: Forest Managements Impacts on Ecosystem Services, AEA, Didcot. New work commissioned for the Eliasch Review.

Salati, E., and P. B. Vose (1984). Amazon basin: A system in equilibrium. Science 225: 129– 138.

Scherl, L et al (2004) Can protected areas contribute to poverty reduction? Opportunities and limitations, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Scherr, S, White, A, Kaimowitz, D (2003) „A New Agenda for Forest Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Making Markets Work for Low Income Producers‟ Forest Trends Washington DC. SEMA, Secretaria De Estado Do Meio Ambiente, www.sectam.pa.gov.br/ Siqueira de, O.J.F., J.R.B. Farías, and L.M.A. Sans (1994). Potential effects of global climate change for Brazilian agriculture: applied simulation studies for wheat, maize and soybeans. In: Implications of Climate Change for International Agriculture: Crop Modeling Study [Rosenzweig, C. and A. Iglesias (eds.)]. EPA 230-B-94-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Smith, J and Scherr, S (2003) „Capturing the Value of Forest Carbon for Local Livelihoods‟, World Development, Volume 31, Issue 12, December 2003, Pages 2143-2160 Stern, N (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review Cambridge University Press,

125

Cambridge Stern, N (2008) „The Economics of Climate Change‟, American Economic Review, 98(2): 1-37 Stern, N (2008) Key elements of a global deal on climate change available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/ collections/granthamInstitute/publications/KeyElementsOfAGlobalDeal_30Apr08.pdf Sunderlin, W et al (2008) From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform, Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC Sweeting, A and Clark, A (2000) Lightening the lode: a guide to responsible large-scale mining, Conservation International, Washington DC The Eliasch Review (2008), Climate Change: financing global forests, published from the UK government UNPD, Human development report and Atlas do desemvolvimento humano do Brasil (2000 data) UNDP, UNDESA and World Energy Council (2000) World Energy Assessment, UNDP, New York UN Economic and Social Affairs Department (2004) World Population to 2300. Available at: http:// www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

UN Economic and Social Council (2007) United Nations Forum on Forests. Report of the seventh session, UNESC Official records, 2007. Supplement No 22 UNEP-WCMC FRIS (2008) United Nations FCCC (2007) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007 Addendum Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its thirteenth session University of Michigan (2006) http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/ lectures/deforest/deforest.html Wara, M.W., Ravelo, A.C., Delaney, M.L (2005). Permanent El Niño-Like Conditions During the Pliocene Warm Period. Science, 309 (5735): 758-761.

WBGU (1998) Die Anrechnung biolischer Quellen und Senken in Kyoto-Protokoll: Fortschritt oder Rückschlang für den globalen Umweltschutz Sondergutachten, Bremerhaven, Germany White, A., M.G.R. Cannel, and A.D. Friend (1999). Climate change impacts on ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink: a new assessment. Global Environmental Change, 9, S 21–S 30.

White, A and Martin, A (2004) Who owns the world’s forests?, Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC World Bank (2004) Sustaining Forests: a development strategy, World Bank, Washington DC World Bank (2008) World Development Report 2008: Agriculture and Development, World Bank, Washington DC WWF (2006), Climate Change Impacts in the Amazon: Review of the Scientific Literature, Prepared by Michael Case, Research Scientist, WWF Climate Change Programme

126

www.21food.com/showroom/48414/aboutus/COOPERATIVA-AGRICOLA-MISTA-DE-TOME-ACU--CAMTA.html www.accra-mail.com/mailnews.asp?id=3279 www.africa-investor.com/article.asp?id=462 www.bolthouse.com/ www.bsholdings.com/ www.cifor.cgiar.org/pes/_ref/about.index.htm www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/acerola.html www.fao.org www.floresteca.com.br/default.asp?lang=en www.fvpp.org.br www.itto.or.jp www.marketwire.com/press-release/Bolthouse-Farms-762831.html www.orsaflorestal.com.br/ www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/psweb.nsf/77080a2b4f261f0380256a6a00485fbe/0777428074797c428025 7287005ce1ec/$FILE/airfreight_blue_skies.pdf www.tnc.org www.usaid.gov/gh/ecgrowth/stories/pineapple/index.htm www.vale.com/vale_us www.verifor.org Zbinden, S and Lee, D (2004) „Paying for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Participation in Costa Rica‟s PSA Program‟, World Development, Volume 33, Issue 2, February 2005, Pages 255-272

127