Search

Abstract: We quantified the avoided deforestation impacts of environmental land registration in Brazil's Amazonian states of Mato Grosso and Pará between 2005 and 2014. We find that the program reduced deforestation on registered lands. The magnitude of the effect implies that deforestation in the two states would have been 10% higher in the absence of the program. The impacts of registration varied over time, likely due to changing suites of policies linking environmental registration to land use incentives. Our results also reveal that agriculturally suitable lands and those located in regions undergoing the most land‐use change were more likely to be registered than those in less suitable, less dynamic regions. We conclude that environmental registration is an important first step in implementing avoided deforestation policies targeting private landholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rates of deforestation reported by Brazil's official deforestation monitoring system have declined dramatically in the Brazilian Amazon. Much of Brazil's success in its fight against deforestation has been credited to a series of policy changes put into place between 2004 and 2008. In this research, we posit that one of these policies, the decision to use the country's official system for monitoring forest loss in the Amazon as a policing tool, has incentivized landowners to deforest in ways and places that evade Brazil's official monitoring and enforcement system. As a consequence, we a) show or b) provide several pieces of suggestive evidence that recent successes in protecting monitored forests in the Brazilian Amazon may be doing less to protect the region's forests than previously assumed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our recent article, 'Are Brazil's Deforesters Avoiding Detection?' demonstrated that focusing illegal deforestation enforcement on the subset of forest monitored by the flagship PRODES system has caused PRODES to capture a declining share of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Deforesters may be purposively seeking out forests not monitored for enforcement. Addressing the problem would help Brazil maintain a cutting-edge forest governance model worthy of transfer to other nations. Two commentaries questioned our decision to investigate solely PRODES and not additional government monitoring systems. We focused on PRODES because it is the most salient deforestation monitoring system. Other key deforestation monitoring systems are all either limited to the same monitoring footprint as PRODES, not used for enforcement, or are rarely used for measuring forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon. We do agree with the commentaries that Brazil's new satellite monitoring protocol for greenhouse gas emissions estimation is critical progress of the type we were advocating in our original article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]