A Policy Mix to Prevent a Non-Commons Tragedy for Collective Forest Reserves in Agrarian Settlements in Northwest Mato Grosso

Abstract

Agrarian reform settlements have recently been identified as a major contributor to ongoing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Collective forest reserves were established in some settlements to thwart forest loss, but settlers usually do not recognize forest commons, opting instead for continued private accumulation through forest clearing, or a "non-commons" tragedy. Pathways toward ensuring the viability of common-pool management in settlements remain unclear. Our case study focused on two similarly sized settlements in neighboring municipalities in Northwest Mato Grosso, Brazil, each with formally designated collective forest areas. In one, deforestation shifted into the collective reserve and intensified; in the other, deforestation stabilized and the collective reserve was protected. In the latter, settlers understood their collective forest reserve as a commonly held asset, with two commercially viable settlement cooperatives involved in Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) extractivism and added value processing. We analyze differences between the two settlements using Elinor Ostrom's framework for analysis of socio-ecological systems, and identify the locally applied policy mix ensuring the viability of a forest commons. The study concludes that "top-down" efforts to institutionalize collective governance over remaining forests will likely fail in most settlements, without a focus on alternative livelihood opportunities synergetic with forest tenure.

A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges

“…Associated concepts and databases related to the framework are indicated. Partelow 2015, Partelow and Boda 2015, Guevara et al 2016, Oviedo and Bursztyn 2016, Blythe et al 2017, London et al 2017, Nakandakari et al 2017, Partelow et al 2018a) and forestry (Fleischman et al 2010, Oberlack et al 2015, Davenport et al 2016. However, use of the framework has expanded beyond those resource-use sectors to general food production systems (Marshall 2015), aquaculture systems (Partelow et al 2018b), terrestrial conservation and rangeland management (Falk et al 2012, Risvoll et al 2014, Baur and Binder 2015, Addison and Greiner 2016, Taggart-Hodge and Schoon 2016, Yandle et al 2016, Guariguata et al 2017, watershed management (Madrigal et al 2011, Bal et al 2011, Nagendra and Ostrom 2014, Villamayor-Tomas et al 2014, Bennett and Gosnell 2015, Naiga et al 2015, Silva et al 2015, Falk et al 2016, Hileman et al 2016, marine conservation and marine ecosystem management (Cinner et al 2012, Schlüter et al 2013, Stevenson and Tissot 2014, Ban et al 2015, 2017, Williams and Tai 2016, coastal development (Kanwar et al 2016, Schlüter et al 2019, ene...…”

Políticas forestales en Latinoamérica 2016-2021: revisión sistemática

“…https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v5i4.683 p 104 (Errejón et al, 2017;Coronel, 2020;Carbajal, J.,2020;Miola et al, 2021;Mijailoff,2019).Por otro lado, se analiza la política forestal desde las reducciones de emisiones por la deforestación y la degradación de bosques basándose en el cambio climático, conforme convención marco de las naciones unidas conforme prescribe (Che, H.,2021;Junqueira, F.,2021;y Libert & Trench., 2016).Sin embargo en otras ideas, la política forestal debe encaminarse con la participación activa con la gente local in situ donde se ubican los bosques, así como, de la participación de los gobiernos locales , precisando que los municipios son diferentes y necesitan una política pública forestal acorde a su territorio, conforme ( Anderson, K., 2016;Davenport et al,2016;y Gutiérrez et al, 2017). Respecto a lo local, ahora los lugareños oriundos netos tienen un reclamo interétnico de años e incluso basado en subjetividades, el cual debe ser tomado en las políticas de desarrollo local según (Crespo, 2018).…”

Potencial de oleaginosas nativas no desenvolvimento de cadeias produtivas da biodiversidade brasileira

“…Neste modelo, as ideias defendidas por Shiki (2010), de pagamentos por serviços ambientais, podem ser agregadas, auxiliando na sustentabilidade econômica dos empreendimentos envolvidos. Como exemplo de arranjo organizacional que já procura desenvolver esse novo modelo, Davenport et al (2016) pesquisaram o arranjo local de agregação de valor no processamento da castanha-do-brasil desenvolvido pela Cooperativa dos Agricultores do Vale do Amanhecer (COOPAVAM) e pela Associação de Mulheres Cantinho da Amazônia (AMCA), na região noroeste do estado de Mato Grosso. Baseadas em um arranjo de entidades e projetos de apoio e com o bom uso de políticas públicas, estas duas organizações criaram condições estruturais que incluem uma infraestrutura para coleta e processamento da castanha-do-brasil, assistência técnica e suporte financeiro apropriados.…”