Search

In international debates on climate change mitigation and forests, there is increased recognition of the importance of a landscape approach to effectively address tropical deforestation. Such an approach, although increasingly promoted, remains only loosely defined and requires further development in order to effectively integrate different interventions at landscape level. In particular, it is important to understand the possible interactions between different landscape interventions at local level—where they are intended to have effect—and the challenges associated with them. Inspired by the complexity of policy mix analysis, this article seeks to shed light on these interactions by analysing how different policies and measures for reducing deforestation and degradation have played out in a jurisdiction with wide-ranging actors and interventions aimed at shaping their behaviour. Focusing on smallholders, we examine the Sustainable Landscapes Pilot Programme in São Félix do Xingu, looking at how different policies interact—categorising interactions as “complementary,” “mutually reinforcing” (synergistic), “in conflict,” “interdependent,” and/or “redundant”—and explain how proponents of this pilot programme seek to integrate them. Most analysis is based on primary data collected through quantitative (i.e., random stratified sampling and surveys) and qualitative (i.e., observation and focus groups) methods. The São Félix do Xingu case shows that understanding effects of different policies and measures on people's behaviour requires a deeper look at local perceptions and reactions to such policies and measures, something most studies on the topic have overlooked. Ultimately, the heterogeneity and complexity of social practices that permeate landscapes must be recognised in order to integrate diverse measures to reduce deforestation.

Recent research on deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has rarely included empirical observation of how land managers perceive and respond to forest governance rules. In this case study, we consider how two decades of pilot projects for integrated conservation and sustainable development (ICDPs) variously influenced forest governance across three agrarian reform settlements in northwestern Mato Grosso state. The analysis combines: i) remote sensing of deforestation from 1997–2015; ii) land use and economic data for individual settler farms and cooperatives; iii) settlers' perceptions regarding legitimacy and relevance of state policies, including land use regulations under the Brazilian Forest Code. Deforestation across settlements varied in association with synergies – or lack thereof – between policy instruments and socially embedded rules organizing economic alternatives to the dominant regional pattern of cattle ranching. In two of the settlements deforestation surpassed or was approaching 80% of their total area. In the third settlement deforestation stabilized at 45%, corresponding with the initiation of ICDP support for a pilot project focused on Brazil nut extractivism to consolidate community management of the settlement's collective forest reserve. The latter process involved a ‘policy mix’ or sequence of overlapping components: technical assistance, cooperative organization, environmental licensing, infrastructure, equitable contracts with surrounding indigenous communities and market development. Comparing with the two counterfactual cases, we suggest a framework for analysis of systemic socio-ecological change in settlements in the Brazilian Amazon, and reconsider the role of ICDPs in landscape approaches to environmental governance in tropical forests. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Ecological fiscal transfers in Brazil, the so-called ICMS-Ecologico or ICMS-E, redistribute part of the state-level value-added tax revenues on the basis of ecological indicators to local governments. We analyze whether the introduction of this economic instrument in a state offers incentives to municipal responses in terms of further protected area (PA) designation. We provide a microeconomic model for the functioning of ICMS-E and test the derived hypothesis empirically. Employing an econometric analysis on panel data for two decades we estimate the correlation of the introduction of ICMS-E in Brazilian states with PA coverage. We find that the introduction of ICMS-E correlates with a higher average PA share. While the introduction of ICMS-E schemes may be a compensation for a high share of federal and state PA, we also find an incentive effect for municipalities to designate additional PA. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol display a broad international consensus for biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit sharing. Yet, the Aichi biodiversity targets show a lack of progress and thus indicate a need for additional action such as enhanced and better targeted financial resource mobilization. To date, no global financial burden‐sharing instrument has been proposed. Developing a global‐scale financial mechanism to support biodiversity conservation through intergovernmental transfers, we simulate three allocation designs: ecocentric, socioecological, and anthropocentric. We analyze the corresponding incentives needed to reach the Aichi target of terrestrial protected area coverage by 2020. Here we show that the socioecological design would provide the strongest median incentive for states which are farthest from achieving the target. Our proposal provides a novel concept for global biodiversity financing, which can serve as a starting point for more specific policy dialogues on intergovernmental burden and benefit‐sharing mechanisms to halt biodiversity loss.

In this commentary we critically discuss the suitability of payments for ecosystem services and the most important challenges they face. While such instruments can play a role in improving environmental governance, we argue that over-reliance on payments as win-win solutions might lead to ineffective outcomes, similar to earlier experience with integrated conservation and development projects. Our objective is to raise awareness, particularly among policy makers and practitioners, about the limitations of such instruments and to encourage a dialogue about the policy contexts in which they might be appropriate.