Measuring The Initial Impacts On Deforestation Of Mato Grosso's Program For Environmental Control

Abstract

Although private forest use in Brazil has been regulated at least since the Forest Code of 1965, cumulative deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon reached 653,000 km 2 by 2003 (INPE 2004). Much of this deforestation is illegal. In 1999, the State Foundation of the Environment (FEMA) in Mato Grosso introduced an innovative licensing and enforcement system to increase compliance with land use regulations. If successful, the program would deter deforestation that contravenes those regulations, including deforestation of riverine and hillside forest (permanent preservation areas), and reduction of a property's forest cover below a specified limit (the legal forest reserve requirement).This study seeks to assess whether introduction of the program affected landholder behavior in the desired direction. Simple before/after comparisons are not suitable for this purpose, because there is considerable year to year variation in deforestation due to climatic and economic conditions. Nor is it valid to assess program impacts by comparing licensed and unlicensed landholders, even though the program focused its enforcement efforts on the former. This is because, first, landholders with no intention of deforesting may choose to become licensed; and second, unlicensed landholders may be deterred from deforestation by the mere existence of a serious program that aims for universal licensing.To meet these challenges, the study applies a difference-in-difference approach to geographically explicit data. It looks for, and confirms, post-program declines in deforestation in high-priority enforcement areas relative to other areas; in more easily observed areas relative to less easily observed areas; in areas of low remaining forest cover (where further deforestation is probably illegal) relative to high remaining forest cover. Thus, even against a backdrop of higher aggregate deforestation (driven in part by higher agricultural prices), there is evidence that the program in its early stages (before 2002) did shift landholder behavior in a direction consistent with reduced illegal deforestation. (The legality of deforestation was not however directly observed). We hypothesize that this behavioral change resulted from an initial perception of increased likelihood of the detection and prosecution of illegal deforestation, following announcement of the program. The study does not assess SLAPR impacts following the change of state administration in 2003.

Assessing the Role of Tourism in Poverty Alleviation: A Research Agenda

“…Eventually, these data can then be used to assess the impact of tourism projects by comparing regions in which intervention has occurred with those where no activities have been undertaken. The approach mirrors that taken by Chomitz and Wertz-Kanounnikoff (2005) who faced a similar problem in evaluating a programme to reduce deforestation in Brazil. In this case, the deforestation programme explicitly targets areas where deforestation is easily observed and is likely to be unauthorised.…”

Are Brazil's Deforesters Avoiding Detection?

“…In the mid-2000s, the States of Pará and Mato Grosso began requiring large landowners to register their properties in their respective Rural Environmental Registries, known more commonly as CAR (Chomitz & Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2005;Azevedo & Saito 2013;Richards & VanWey 2016). To register in the CAR system, property owners needed to create geospatial information on property boundaries and forest cover.…”

Relationship between Evapotranspiration and water Availability in the Tropical Regions: A Case Study of a South Western City in Nigeria

“…YEAR capacity of the soil in an area, which, however is crucial in the determination of water balance. Also, [33] and [36] noted that urban water protection is potentially one of the most important services that forest provides to sustain spatial and temporal water availability. Even though the evapotranspiration rate is high throughout the year, any avenue to reduce water contents could aggravate the evapotranspiration leading to dryness or water supply deficit situation.…”