Search

Environmental policies that require native vegetation conservation can be challenging to implement, especially in productive agricultural landscapes. In Brazil, the Brazilian Native Vegetation Protection Law mandates ‘Legal Reserves’, protected native vegetation that landowners must retain on their properties. If landowners do not have the required minimum amount of native vegetation on their properties (the Legal Reserve ‘target’), they must either restore vegetation on the same property to meet the target, or compensate by protecting existing vegetation or restoring it on another property, ideally in ecologically equivalent areas. Here, we evaluate how different strategies (on-site/off-site protection and/or restoration), and different requirements for ecological equivalence when off-site strategies are used, affect the ability to achieve Legal Reserve targets, while minimising the need to restore native vegetation on productive farmland. We used a novel iterative tool to build scenarios that reflect different combinations of strategies to meet the minimum conservation target under different requirements for ecological equivalence, and compared their ability to achieve the target and their likely cost. The Atlantic Forest was the only biome where it was not possible to achieve the Legal Reserve target by protection of existing native vegetation, even when ecological equivalence rules were relaxed. As a consequence, vegetation restoration is required in this biome. Directing this required restoration to pasturelands that are less-suitable for agriculture allowed the target to be achieved in all states of Brazil, as long as only minimal ecological equivalence was required; however, for most states, the need to restore native vegetation on productive areas on farmlands could still be avoided while requiring medium to high ecological equivalence. These findings show the potential for moderate ecological equivalence to be achieved across most of Brazil in a cost-effective way and without impairing productive lands when seeking to meet the Legal Reserve targets.

Natural ecosystems are under severe threat worldwide and environmental policies are essential to minimize present and future impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services and climate change. The New Forest Act in Brazil is the main policy to protect native vegetation in private lands, which comprise 54% of the remaining Brazilian native vegetation. However, conflicts between environmental and agricultural concerns in its implementation demand for balanced solutions based on scientific evidence. To face the challenge of applying science in environmental policy establishment, we developed a scientific project funded by the São Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP) to support the implementation of the New Forest Act in São Paulo State, as part of the Biota/FAPESP Program. The project was conducted differently from a regular research project: the broad objective was to provide scientific support to the State’s implementation of the New Forest Act, based on a participatory interaction among stakeholders to build specific objectives, methods, and discussion of results, within an interdisciplinary and intersectoral research team. Here, we present the lessons learned during and after the four years of the research project development to evaluate how scientific knowledge can be produced and adopted in the implementation of a specific environmental policy. We present the main outcomes and the challenges faced in trying to include scientific data in the decision-making process. We also present current and future challenges in the New Forest Act implementation that could be solved with scientific evidence. The lessons learned showed that even designing the project in order to meet the needs to support the implementation of the environmental policy, avoiding difficulties normally pointed out by similar projects, there was a great difficulty for scientific contributions to be adopted in the decision-making process. Most of the scientific information and advice, even after discussion and common understanding among a diverse stakeholder group, were ignored or over-ruled in the final decision-making phases. Resumo Os ecossistemas naturais estão sob grave ameaça em todo o mundo e as políticas ambientais são essenciais para minimizar os impactos presentes e futuros na biodiversidade, nos serviços ecossistêmicos e nas mudanças climáticas. O Novo Código Florestal no Brasil é a principal política de proteção da vegetação nativa em terras privadas, que compreende 54% da vegetação nativa remanescente brasileira. No entanto, os conflitos entre as preocupações ambientais e agrícolas na sua implementação exigem soluções equilibradas e baseadas em evidências científicas. Para enfrentar o desafio de aplicar a ciência no estabelecimento de políticas ambientais, desenvolvemos um projeto científico financiado pela Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) para apoiar a implementação do Novo Código Florestal no Estado de São Paulo, como parte do Programa Biota/FAPESP. O projeto foi conduzido de forma diferente de um projeto de pesquisa regular: o objetivo amplo foi fornecer suporte científico para a implementação do Novo Código Florestal pelo Estado, a partir de uma interação participativa entre as partes interessadas para construir objetivos específicos, métodos e discussão de resultados, dentro de uma equipe de pesquisa interdisciplinar e intersetorial. Aqui, apresentamos as lições aprendidas durante e após os quatro anos de desenvolvimento do projeto de pesquisa para avaliar como o conhecimento científico pode ser produzido e adotado na implementação de uma política ambiental específica. Apresentamos os principais resultados e os desafios enfrentados na tentativa de incluir dados científicos no processo decisório. Apresentamos também desafios atuais e futuros na implementação do Novo Código Florestal que podem ser resolvidos com evidências científicas. As lições aprendidas mostraram que mesmo concebendo o projeto de forma a atender as necessidades de apoio à implementação da política ambiental, evitando dificuldades normalmente apontadas por projetos semelhantes, houve uma grande dificuldade para que contribuições científicas fossem adotadas no processo decisório. A maioria das informações e conselhos científicos, mesmo após discussão e entendimento comum entre um grupo diversificado de partes interessadas, foi ignorada nas fases finais de tomada de decisão.

Compensation is one of the forms of compliance provided by Brazilian legislation as a mechanism to offset environmental impacts, which allows landowners of rural properties that do not meet their Legal Reserve requirements on their property, to compensate in third-party properties with surplus native vegetation. Failure to meet liabilities will result in the owner being punished with administrative sanctions. However, the current Forest Act (Federal Law 12.651 / 2012), provides in its article 68 that the rural owners and possessors who carried out native vegetation suppression before July 22, 2008, are obliged to fulfill the liability in accordance with the legislation in force at the time, without administrative sanctions. The complexity of the interpretation of the article due, for example, to the different concepts about phytophysiognomies contained in previous laws, in addition to the difficulty of proving historical suppression data in relation to the framework established by law, can slow down the coverage of the analysis of the deficit of native vegetation of rural properties and, consequently, the signature of a Term of Commitment by the owner in order to comply with the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA), thus increasing transaction costs in law enforcement and generating insecurity regarding validity of the chopped documents. This project aims to analyze the interpretation of the rules for the demarcation of conserved areas in rural properties in the legislation prior to current Forest Act, to generate maps of native vegetation in past data based on this interpretation, as well as maps of deficit and surplus of native vegetation to compensate for Legal Reserve, providing the government with tools for the effective implementation of PRA in the State of São Paulo. A compensação é uma das formas de cumprimento de passivos de vegetação nativa prevista na legislação brasileira como um mecanismo de contrabalanceamento de impactos ambientais, a qual permite aos proprietários ou possuidores de imóveis rurais que não cumprirem suas metas de Reserva Legal em sua propriedade, compensar em propriedades de terceiros com excedentes de vegetação nativa. O não cumprimento da compensação dos passivos acarreta ao proprietário punição com sanções administrativas. Entretanto, o Código Florestal atual (Lei Federal 12.651/2012), prevê em seu artigo 68 que os proprietários e possuidores rurais que realizaram a supressão antes de 22 de Julho de 2008, são obrigados a cumprirem o passivo de acordo com a legislação vigente na época, sem que haja sanções administrativas. A complexidade da interpretação do artigo em função, por exemplo, das diferentes conceituações sobre fitofisionomias contidas nas leis pregressas, adicionada à dificuldade de comprovação histórica da supressão em relação marco estabelecido por lei, pode tonar lentos os processos de análise de déficit da cobertura da vegetação nativa das propriedades rurais e, consequentemente, a assinatura de um Termo de Compromisso por parte do proprietário a fim de cumprir o Programa de Regularização Ambiental (PRA), aumentando assim os custos de transação na aplicação da lei e gerar insegurança em relação a validade dos documentos necessários. Esta tese tem por objetivo analisar a interpretação das regras para demarcação de áreas conservadas em propriedades rurais nas legislações anteriores ao Código Florestal atual, gerar mapas da cobertura vegetal nativa em datas pretéritas com base nessa interpretação, bem como mapas de déficit e excedente de vegetação nativa para compensação de Reserva Legal, munindo o poder público com ferramental para a efetiva implementação do PRA no Estado de São Paulo.

Native vegetation in private lands plays an important role in providing ecosystem services and safeguarding biodiversity worldwide. Legal protection rules of this vegetation are thus crucial. In Brazil, since 1934, there has been a requirement for landowners to preserve a percentage of their land covered with native vegetation, the Legal Reserve. However, the 1934 legislation applies only to arboreal vegetation, while the protection of savannahs and grasslands begins after 1965 and 1989. The reference year for the application of Legal Reserves can thus have significant impacts on the amount of native vegetation legally protected. Here we tested the effects on Legal Reserve cover in Sao Paulo State, considering two different legal benchmarks as starting points: 1934 and 1965. Given that the 1934 law precedes the first aerial mapping in Brazil, we developed a methodology to estimate past native vegetation cover through a probabilistic approach. The forest deficit considering 1934 as the initial point is 3% lower than the one starting with the 1965 benchmark. Comparing both scenarios, the 1934 led to a reduction of 1255 farms with Legal Reserve deficit from a total of 30,417. For both scenarios, Legal Reserve deficits were concentrated in the West, Northwest, and Mid-west regions of the state. The outcomes showed that the benchmark change does not significantly affect the total area of Legal Reserves protection, the number of farms potentially benefited by this mechanism, and the amount of native vegetation deficit. However, the use of the 1934 as an initial date for considering protection of Legal Reserve can delay the implementation of the law due to a time-consuming farm-by-farm analysis, once the probabilistic map has an intrinsic limitation for an automatic process. Thus, the environmental gains with the adoption of 1934 as the initial date do not overcome the limitations of using a probabilistic map, suggesting that effective law enforcement depends on reliable and more recent baselines, allowing semi-automated analyses. This scientific evidence can be adopted by the other Brazilian States that have not yet defined the initial legal benchmark, balancing the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the 1934 Forest Act.

Although offsetting schemes may avoid biodiversity loss, the implementation of these schemes can be challenging, given the difficulty of balancing biodiversity benefits with the resulting increase in compensation costs. Here we have developed a novel offsetting methodological approach to balance environmental gains and land availability to support the decision-making process and negotiations among stakeholders. We applied this approach for the compensation of Legal Reserves, a percentage of native vegetation area that landowners have to set apart in their rural properties in Brazil to maintain native vegetation. If landowners do not reach the Legal Reserves requirements on their land according to the law, they may compensate it in other equivalent properties. To balance environmental gains and land availability, we have developed a dynamic tool that allows users to objectively analyze results from multiple offsetting scenarios. These scenarios can combine different levels of abiotic and biotic equivalence requirements, along with the possibility of trading up, i.e. compensating in priority natural vegetation areas and/or priority areas for restoration, even without high equivalence, with the resulting balance on land availability. The proposed approach seeks to find acceptable solutions, balancing stakeholder requirements for ecological equivalence, land availability, and possibilities of trading up. This procedure can enhance the local trade of Legal Reserves compensation, minimizing biodiversity losses, and also reducing costs. Our case study shows that it is possible to apply ecological equivalence in a balanced manner for Legal Reserve compensation. Owing to its flexibility, the proposed approach and tool can be easily adopted by other compensation schemes worldwide, supporting the negotiation and decision-making processes, to reduce biodiversity loss.

The Native Vegetation Protection Law - 2012 - (NVPL) is the main Brazilian regulation for protecting native vegetation (NV) on private land. The NVPL, currently in the implementation phase, reduced Legal Reserves (LR) requirements compared to its previous version, the 1965's Forest Act (FA), through several legal mechanisms. Among them, Article 68 (Art.68) exempts landholders from LR obligations if NV was converted without offending the legislation in place at the time of the conversion. The technical implementation of Art. 68 is controversial and its effects are still unknown. We developed a model to estimate the effects of Art.68 on LR using São Paulo State (Brazil) as case study. We analyzed former environmental laws to identify key periods in which NV preservation requirements had changed. After, we searched for past spatial data on NV cover with sufficient accuracy for each legal benchmark. Combining legal benchmarks with spatial data, we created two scenarios for Art.68 effects, plus a baseline scenario. The first scenario considered a single legal benchmark, the 1965's FA (scenario "1965"), while the other included the 1989 Cerrado's protection Federal Law as a second benchmark (scenario "1965/89"). The baseline scenario did not include Art.68 effects. Scenario "1965" reduced LR deficits in 49% compared to the baseline scenario, waiving landholders from restoration or offsetting needs in 423 thousand hectares (kha) of NV. Scenario "1965/89" waved 507 kha of NV from restoration needs and represented a 59% reduction in LR deficit compared to the baseline scenario. The LR reduction by scenario "1965/89" assumed particular importance considering that the additional cutback was concentrated on Cerrado, an already very fragmented and impacted region. Together with reductions from other NVPL rules, the additional effects of Art. 68 unfolded great concerns about the role of LR as a tool for NV preservation on private land, threating governmental restoration commitments, and pointing that conservation command and control approaches should be complemented with incentive policies to achieve the desired and committed standards.