Local Environmental Governance Public Policies and Deforestation in Amazon by IsmarLima

8/13/2019 Local Environmental Governance Public Policies and Deforestation in Amazon by IsmarLima

1/25

Local environmental governance,public policies and deforestation

in AmazoniaIsmar Borges de Lima

IESA Instituto de Estudos Socio-Ambientais/LABOTER,Universidade Federal de Goias (UFG), Goiania, Brazil, and

Leszek BuszynskiGraduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan,

Niigata, Japan

AbstractPurpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the problem of deforestation in Amazonia and therole of the Brazilian government with regard to the capitalist demands and development needs for theregion. It offers a brief historical review of public policies and programs for Amazonia, and criticallyanalyzes their conflicting aspects. Local environmental governance (LEG) is proposed as a conceptualframework and a participatory forest management strategy for dealing with the forest destruction.

Design/methodology/approach The paper is a qualitative-based study which provides asystemic analysis of the process of occupation and the key public policies for Amazonia from over thelast decades, particularly during the coup detat regime. Based on a literature review and officialdocuments, descriptive data are produced which helped in understanding the political phases of theBrazilian government administrations.

Findings The study identified some participatory-based, decentralized models of forestmanagement and existing forest regulatory frameworks which can serve as an illustrative sketchy

arrangement on how local environmental governance can become operative and serviceable for asustainable balance between the use of natural resources, conservation and regional planning. Thesefindings can help future investigations on governance models. The research also shows how theBrazilian government has perceived Amazonia throughout the decades and how this perceptioninfluenced the implementation of development and settlement policies for the region.

Originality/value The main focus of this article is the debate on the concept of local environmentalgovernance (LEG) as a tool for empowering the local communities through the decentralization ofdecision making as well as the attempt to find implemented normative and institutional structureswithin the Amazonian context which can translate aspects of LEG.

KeywordsEnvironmental management, Forests, Public policy, Regional development, Brazil

Paper typeConceptual paper

1. IntroductionThe aim of this article is to provide an outline of Brazilian government actions towardsdeforestation in Amazonia, and whether it has responded to environmental problemsthrough a decentralized management of natural resources. There is also an attempt todevelop further the concept of local environmental governance (LEG) as one of thecross-cutting institutional and participatory-based strategies for the Braziliangovernments development paradigm for Amazonia in view of the importance oflocal responses to environmental problems (Gibsonet al., 2000; Castellanetet al., 2002;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm

MEQ22,3

292

Received 13 October 2010Revised 5 December 2010Accepted 6 January 2011

Management of EnvironmentalQuality: An International JournalVol. 22 No. 3, 2011pp. 292-316q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1477-7835DOI 10.1108/14777831111122888


2/25

Bouman and Brand, 1997; Wood and Valler, 2001). Forest management models,institutional arrangements and forest protection systems are depicted in an attempt toidentify LEG components.

Environmental governance is rooted in the social movements and in poverty

reduction strategies with a human-ecological concern (Wapner, 1995; Brunckhorst andReeve, 2006) within the realm of global environmentalism (Davidson and Frickel, 2004),development, governability, environmental sociology, political ecology, and liberationecologies (Wood and Valler, 2001; Watts, 2003. According to Bridge and Perreault(2009), the concept of environmental governance has been evolving since themid-1990s, and it has been qualitatively applied by scholars to explain and examine ashift in the role of institutions and organizations, in terms of arrangements and spatialscales, and the way formal and informal decisions over the environment and naturalresources have been taken. Bulkeley (2005, pp. 1-3) proposes new accounts of thegeographies of environmental governance by advocating the approach must besensitive to both the politics of scale and the politics of networks for understandingthe emerging hybrid forms of governing the environment

For Bridge and Perreault (2009), environmental governance implies institutionalcapacities, the coordination and coherence of economic processes, and social action(Bridge and Perreault, 2009, p. 475); a vague concept with resemblances to sustainabledevelopment and social capital serving to various academic interests and ideologicalviews. Davidson and Frickel, 2004, p. 475-88) made a historical review on the conceptualdevelopment, applicability and uses of environmental governance, as it has beenpresented in the abstracts of sociological database, from 1963 to 2001, and they foundthat environmental governance is the result of a cumulative body of interdisciplinaryknowledge; for them, a concept which still demands great empirical and methodologicaladvancements, in order to understand the existing macro-structural connections amongsocietal forces, nation and environmental phenomena.

Consequently, LEG is a segmentation of this approach and conceptual development,at a local level, and is presented in this article as an avenue for a participatory-based,environmentally oriented Amazonian development which for the most part contraststo previous Brazilian government interventions in the region. LEG is still an evolvingconcept (de Lima, 2002; Bridge and Perreault, 2009) with a great deal of debates on howit can become feasible at a regional level regarding local legislative provisions,customary legitimacy and regulatory frameworks (Bonfiglioli, 2004) which areneeded expedients for democratically implementing a decentralized governing system(Gibbs and Jonas, 2000; de Lima, 2002; Bonfiglioli, 2004). The conceptual approach isoutlined in order to contribute to forest management and preservation, and it demandsan in-depth scholarly understanding.

This paper is in part related to a Master thesis defended in 2002, in Japan, a study

which offered the first insights on local environmental governance, naming itaccordingly. It was a research which antecedes the publication, Lands of the Poor:

Local Environmental Governance and the Decentralized Management of NaturalResources. The publication was released by the United Nations Capital DevelopmentFund (UNCDF), in 2004, and reinforces that LEG provides a wider notion ofdemocratic governance, with the recognition that local legitimate stakeholders seemto be rightfully positioned for advocating on the management of their biophysicalenvironment (Bonfiglioli, 2004) as well as for playing a role as sustainability

Localenvironmental

governance

293


3/25

facilitators in accordance with national and global environmental agenda (Gibsonet al.,2000; Castellanet et al., 2002). In 2005, a fieldwork was performed in three states ofAmazonia with a focus on ecotourism community-based projects: Para, MarajoIslandand Central Amazonia (Tapajos/Arapiuns); Roraima, and Amazonas (Presidente

Figueiredo, Silves, Novo Airao, and Mamiraua). The fieldwork added greatly to thisarticle helping the authors to understand local contexts of projects, of programs (e.g.National Ecotourism Program Proecotur) and of policies which have sought tointegrate economic development, forest protection and conservation (Kitamura, 1994;Bartholo and Bursztyn, 1999; de Lima, 2008). The next sections will provide some dataon the Brazilian Amazonia and will critically present the historical facts about thepublic policies designed for targeting its contentious development (Browder, 1988).The conceptual framework will be debated at length and in sequence.

2. Amazonia in scope: a prospectAmazonia has been symbolically and metaphorically described and envisaged with

far-fetched labels. Since the 1960s, the prevailing view is that Amazonia has been theheart and lungs of the planet, and Lessa (1991, p. 3) commented that such a saying is amystification. For Godfrey (1993), some of the metaphors on the Amazonia have beenrecurrently monumentalist with misleading connotations such as El Dorado, SecondEden, Green Hell, and others like the Last Frontier. It is misleading becauseAmazonia has been reciprocally a mix of green hope (for the World) and economichope (for Brazilian authorities). Deforestation is a real threaten to its equilibrium as anecosystem service. The quote below presents the main facts and figures about Amazonia.

Amazonia is the largest area in the world with an incomparable supply of resources andbiodiversity. The Brazilian Amazonia represents nearly 59 percent of Brazils land, but thelargest tropical forest does not belong only to Brazil. It stretches among eight countries, thatis, in figures, about 40 percent (2.4 million square kilometers) is distributed among Peru (10percent), Colombia (7 percent), Bolivia (6 percent), Venezuela (6 percent), Guyana (3 percent),Suriname (2 percent), French Guyana (1.5 percent), and Ecuador (1.5 percent) (Pereira et al.,2010). There has been though a slight confusion between the two ways to refer to Amazonia.There is the Legal Amazonia, restricted to Brazilian territory, which encompasses ninestates (Tocantins, Maranhao, Amapa, Para, Roraima, Amazonas, Acre, Rondonia, and MatoGrosso). Legal Amazonia has more than 15 million inhabitants and gets special governmentsubsidies to implement development and environmental projects. However, Amazonia Basin,the dense forest scattered along the rivers and that does not have relation with the provincialdivision, is composed of 6,500,000 km2 (The authors, 2010, with data available at IMAZON,2001).

At first sight, the destroyers of the forest seem to be the big farmers and ranchers(Kaimowitz et al., 2004), the logging companies, the settlement of landless migrants,

and the mining sector (Stone, 1985; Lessa, 1991; Barbosa, 2000). The actors ofdeforestation in the Brazilian Amazonia are various (see Table I), but the destruction ofAmazonia has political and economic implications. The authors agree with Smith et al.(1995) and Barbosa (2000) that deforestation in the region has happened in the contextof an expanding frontier of global capitalism and of an intense pursuit by the Braziliangovernment to colonize and to bring progress to the largest tropical forest. Thefollowing citation of Lessa (1991) illustrates the public authorities and peoplesperception on progress for Amazonia:

MEQ22,3

294


4/25

In 1956, Juscelin Kubitschek assumed the presidency with the motto and claim of bringing 50years of progress to Brazil within only five years. With this leading macroeconomic

development policy, Kubitschek built Brasilia in the West-Center region and transferred thecapital from Rio de Janeiro to there. From 1955 to 1961, 13,000 kilometers of roads were built(e.g. Belem-Brasilia road), linking the newest capital to North and far-reaching areas of theWest in an attempt to integrate Amazonia to the rest of the country. Later, in 1970, during themilitary regime, the dictatorial government managed to have approved the NationalIntegration Plan (PIN) which established the construction of Trans-Amazon andCuiaba-Santarem highways (Lessa, 1991, pp. 39-41).

The authors argue that even the historical perception about what progress reallymeans to Amazonia is a disputable matter, because progress has been the chiefreason for irreversible environmental impacts, landscape change in the region withrampant overuse and overexploration of natural resources. And, the rates ofdeforestation in the last twenty years have brought serious concerns to the

international community because of loss of biodiversity and of its relations to anincrease in carbon gas emissions (Bunyard, 1987) and, more recently, climate change.

Over the last two decades, the green areas have decreased badly mostly because ofcorporate farming and ranching (Kaimowitzet al., 2004; Miranda, 2005), and because ofunplanned and/or unlawful settlements, slash-and-burning practices, and sawmill androgue logging industry expansion (Laurance et al., 2004; Walkeret al., 2000). As for theland tenure, the main issues are: the legal status of the land, land conflicts (Pinto, 1980;Kohlhepp, 2002; Hall, 2000), failure of settlements with deforestation and social conflicts

Actors Connection to deforestation

Big business farmers Clear the forest to cultivate commercial cash crops

Slash-and-burn farmers Promote the clear-cutting of forest to plant subsistence and cashcorps

Cattle ranchers Deforest to get land for pastures

Livestock herders Herding activities can cause deforestation but it depends ontheir intensity

Loggers Logging of commercial trees. This activity is stronglydependent of roads and/or rivers

Commercial tree planters Promote tree plantations to supply timber, pulp and paperindustry. The plantations usually occupy areas where therewere original forests

Firewood collectors Firewood collection can result in deforestation

Mining and petroleum industrialists Road building and seismic lines provide access to other landusers. There is localized deforestation related to their operation.

Landless settlement planners Promote flux of people to forested regions

Infrastructure developers Build roads and highways that contribute to access forest lands,and deforestation in reason of hydroelectric dams

Source: The authors, 2002, with information available at Browder and Godfrey (1997); Barbosa(2000); IMAZON (2001)

Table I.Actors in the

deforestation process

Localenvironmental

governance

295


5/25

related to land disputes, such as happened in the Carajas programme (Hall, 1989), industryof expropriation, of invasion, migration flows (Fearnside, 1993. 2001), and scams for publicland appropriation known in Brazil as grilagem (Pinto, 1980; de Lima, 2002). LegalAmazonia counts with nearly 42 percent of its area under the status of being protected

(Barretoet al., 2009), amounting to more than 2.1 million of square kilometers, whichincludes 301 conservation units, 307 indigenous territories, and thequilombola(BrazilianAfro-descendants community lands) as well as the military zones (Brasiliense, 2008).

3. Brazilian government, Amazonian integration and development projectsBy analyzing the government public policies, projects and programs for the integrationand development of Amazonia, particularly between 1930 and 1985, it is patent thatenvironmental planning was not a priority taken into account for the occupation of theregion (Stone, 1985; Kitamura, 1994). In other words, the development lackedsustainability strategies even though by the time of the 1980s there were already aglobal trend and concerns about anthropic irretrievable impacts on the ecosystems.

In a macro view, the core of the current problem lies in two historical governmentalstrategies: first, to integrate Amazonia into the national economy aiming to haveeconomic surplus with its (over)exploration, which unfortunately was done with fewinquiries into the ecological feasibilities of land-clearing activities in the jungle(Andersenet al., 2002); secondly, to have Amazonia settled in order to secure Braziliansovereignty over the region, and during the military regime prevailed the binomio:security and development (Lessa, 1991, pp. 40-2). According to Mahar (1979, p. 1),there are two main challenges to the policy makers over Amazonia, the first is that theterritory itself has been the most sparsely populated, unexplored, inaccessible, andundeveloped part of the country; and the second challenge lies in the fact that theforest itself does not allow diverse economic practices.

Developmental projects to populate and integrate Amazonia with the rest of the

country were initiated from the 30s to 80s (Stone, 1985; Browder, 1988; Geist andLambin, 2002), and they boosted deforestation to high levels. The major economic forcefor this type of development was a prevalent inflation in the country, aggravated bylarge-scale projects financed with borrowed foreign funds resulting in massive foreigndebts and the need to service it with an increase of natural resources exploration andagriculture and ranching expansion for export (Cleary, 1991). The need of an economicsurplus in terms of production and exports became imperative for the Braziliangovernment to maintain a political system which sustained the occupation of vastrainforest (Calvert, 2001, p. 158) and savannah areas, with an imbalance of 30 percentof the eastern Amazonia belonging to just 0.1 percent of the ranchers (Hall, 1991;Moranet al., 2000) in what Hecht (1983, 1985), Hecht et al.(1988) and Faminow (1998)said to be an economy of cattle ranching. As Cleary (1991, p. 128) underlines, as longas Brazilian inflation remains high, and as long as the economic outlook in the countryis fundamentally unstable, a speculative land market will be the dominant feature oflife in rural Amazonia, and one of the most direct causes of deforestation.

Between 1964 and 1985, Brazil was governed by a military regime that envisioned theoccupation and development of Amazonia. The main target of the military regime was toindustrialize Brazil at any cost. The first idea was to populate the forest in order toprevent other countries of intruding into the area (Stone, 1985). With this purpose, thegovernment implemented several mega projects aimed at building dams and

MEQ22,3

296


6/25

hydroelectric plants with colossal environmental impacts and unlearned lessons fordevelopment (Fearnside, 2000), roads, and mining to promote the expansion ofcorporate ranching and farming, and settlements in isolated areas were encouraged(Pinto, 1980; Stone, 1985; Barbosa, 2000). Road construction had huge environmental

impact on Amazonia opening it up to easy access and exploration, settlements, andsubsequent extensive deforestation (Stone, 1985; Lessa, 1991), northwestward fromCuiabaproceeds one of the worlds more remarkable roads: 877 miles of red dirt, hackedby machete and bulldozer through aridsertao(desert) and dense jungle to Porto Velho(Stone, 1985, p. 86). Some projects such as POLOAMAZONIA, POLONOROESTE,Amazonia Operation, the Transamazonia, Calha Norte Project, the Jari Project, and theCarajas project caused immeasurable damage to Amazonia, and can be classifiedregarding either a populist or corporate frontiers (Stone, 1985; Lessa, 1991; Browder andGodfrey, 1997; Goncalves, 2001; de Freitas, 2004; Miranda, 2005).

4.0 Brazilian political re-democratization, world environmental summits

and the continuation of a forest in depletionHowever, the 1980s were a moment of political change in Brazil resulting in a processof re-democratization (Lessa, 1991). In 1985, pressured by public opinion and the media,the military regime started to move itself out of the political scene when the civilianpresident JoseSarney was indirectly elected and established a transitory government(Alcoforado, 1998). Nonetheless, during the government of President Fernando Collor(1990-1992), the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) took place in Rio de Janeiro. The UNCED generated five important treatiesand documents. The Conference registered many disagreements by reason of the clashof interests between developing and developed countries. Such conflicts bogged downthe attempt to maximize the benefits of the Summit (de Lima, 2002).

Agenda 21, the main document signed in Rio, spells out how development is to take

place in the twenty-first century. However, a forest treaty was not concluded because ofdivergences between developing and developed countries and the United States.Instead of an agreement (accord) on forest treaty, a more flexible document, the ForestPrinciples, was duly signed (de Lima, 2002).

From 1992 to 1994, Presidents Itamar Franco governed Brazil and, in sequence,Fernando Henrique Cardoso, widely known as FHC, assumed the presidential postfrom 1995 to 2002 with a re-election (de Lima, 2002). Lus Inacio Lula da Silva,popularly known as Lula, had its administration from 2003 to 2010. Figure 1 is basedon data available at PRODES/INPE and shows the deforestation rates from 1988 to2009. Within the eight years of Cardosos administration (1995 , 2002), deforestationincreased 45 percent with a total of 6,755 km2 of forest loss. During the seven years ofLulas administration, the rates of deforestation declined 66 percent. In both

administrations occurred the highest deforestation rates in the Amazonias history: in1994 because of the expansion of the agricultural frontier, and in 2004, because of theexpansion of the beef frontier.

Over the past decades, Amazonia has been forcibly included in the agriculturalfrontier, causing high environmental destruction rates and low social and economicreturn, the international conservation movement is growing (Fearnside, 1987; Goodmanand Hall, 1990; Pennaforte, 2006), but needs to mature to better judge the causes thatdetermine the environmental degradation in the region. It is, nonetheless, imperative not

Localenvironmental

governance

297


7/25

to have a simplistic and reductionist approach about the Amazonias depletion (Stone,1985; Lessa, 1991). Institutional and policies failures (Mahar, 1989; Margulis, 2004), lackof institutional structure and infrastructure, lack of human and financial resources formonitoring and law enforcement, and the economic driving forces of deforestation(Amelung and Diehl, 1992; Pfaff, 1999; Frey, 2002; Geist and Lambin, 2002) which haveextensively demanded natural resources and crop-pasture lands, combined withcorruption and huge far-reaching forested areas are issues that bluntly translate how

complex it is to tackle the deforestation (Fearnside, 1989; Goodman and Hall, 1990; deFreitas, 2004; Silva, 2005; Pennaforte, 2006). For Kelly and London (2007), during 20years of democracy, Brazil has tried to balance economic growth with internationalenvironmental claims, and they mention that the former Brazilian environmentalminister Marina Silva, who grew-up an unschooled peasant of an impoverishedrubber-plant tapper, had a leading role struggling to have a sustainable rainforest.

The authors argue that there has been a shift in terms of government perception andpolitical culture in relation to development of Amazonia, even though the deforestationin the region is still distraughtly alarming, it has been steadily decreasing in the lastfive years, from 2005 to 2009. This preservation-development paradigm shift hasgained dimension after the edition of the current Brazilian Constitution on 5 October1988. The latest Brazilian Magna Carta has been one among very few ones in the world

with a whole chapter on the environment (Chapter 6), which consists of basic conceptsand measures necessary for the protection of the countrys biodiversity, as stated inArticle 225:

All have the right to an ecologically balanced environment which is an asset of common useand essential to a healthy quality of life, and both the Government and the community shallhave the duty to defend and preserve it for present and future generations (1988 BrazilianConstitution, Article 225, as cited in the Brazilian Embassy website, Ottawa) (BrazilianEmbassy in Ottawa, 2011).

Figure 1.Deforestation rates inAmazonia from 1998 to2009

MEQ22,3

298


8/25

The Chapter translates an official Brazilian position and view on the challengingenvironmental demands:

[The Chapter demonstrates] significant progress in the environmental conscience of Braziliansociety, and have proved to be very important in terms of the countrys capacity to fulfill theterms established in the Convention on Biological Diversity (as cited in the BrazilianEmbassy website, Ottawa) (Brazilian Embassy in Ottawa, 2011).

The rates of deforestation in the Legal Amazonia are the result of a mosaic of causespropelled by Brazilian domestic policies, national security, a world economic system, trade,and a lack of environmental perception, views and planning in respect to the real value ofthe forest (de Lima, 2002). An understanding of the deforestation in the region requires aprofound analysis beyond the obvious fact that there is an expanding beef-soybeanfrontier in the region and, if not timely tackled, it will be a vanishing frontier (Stone,1985). The point for debate is on how much human impacting intervention is manageable.Development and nature conservation, what are the acceptable trade-offs? Whichdevelopment models are the proper ones? Are they community forestry, forest

concessions, or a democratic, legitimate, participatory-based governing system builtupon on the decentralization of the natural resource management?

In the literature review, it was found that some authors critically analyzed thecurrent and past models of development in Amazonia and have showed themselvesdeeply concerned by the challenges policy makers and planners will face in order tobring a tangible sustainability to it in the twenty-first centuryvis-a-visagribusiness,mining industry, and agro-ranching activities (Kitamura, 1994; Goncalves, 2001;Andersen et al., 2002; de Freitas, 2004; Silva, 2005; Miranda, 2005; Pennaforte, 2006;Kelly and London, 2007; Loureiro, 2009; Banerjee et al., 2009; BNDES, 2010), and theway they need to deal with a local and global geopolitics which historically permeatesmost relations and networks in the region (Becker, 2009).

5. Conceptual reasoning on governance5.1 Environmental governanceEnvironmental governance has two different approaches. There are two tracks forunderstanding environmental governance regarding its scope of action. In this sense,environmental governance as a concept can be applied either locally or globally (Rolenet. al., 1997). In the literature, authors have approached it as an international task forceto be operated at state-nation level, country to country level; an internationalgovernance (Young, 1994; Rolenet al., 1997; Dalby, 2002; Kanie and Haas, 2004;) fordealing with transboundary environmental issues which imply a state of affairs. Itincludes the management of water resources (Uitto, 1997) and of natural disasters, theobservance of multilateral and bilateral environmental agreements, and international

actions aiming at promoting forms of sustainable development to avoid the tragedy ofthe common natural resources (Hardin, 1968) and to govern the commons throughcollective actions (Ostrom, 1990). For Colfer and Pfund (2010), the collective actions aredescribed as a collaborative governance of tropical landscapes.

Other authors have approached environmental governance, at international level,by perceiving it as a new change in the world politics, a sort of governance withoutgovernment (Rosenau, 1992). Some scholars have had an economic focus onenvironmental governance by debating the nexus between nature and the neoliberal

Localenvironmental

governance

299


9/25

system (Robertson, 2004; McCarthy, 2005; Himley, 2008). Other researchers havediscussed environmental issues and culture in environmental governance, and othershave dealt with specific matters such as the centrality of information and informationalprocesses claiming for an informational governance (Mol, 2006); and

governmentality to describe environmental governance (Luke, 1999). For Gordon(1991, p. 1), governmentality entails actions for achieving a governmental rationality.

The term governance is etymologically linked to other word families such asgovernment and govern. But, governing implies a set of norms, rules, policies, anddecisions that has to harmonize the different perspectives of interest groups inside theborders of the country (Rhodes, 1996; de Lima, 2002). Governance refers to politicaleconomic and social issues (Gouldet al., 1996; Goldman, 2001). Governance has a broadscope and focuses on a wide array of issues most of which are intertwined.

The term governance originally derives from the Greek wordkybermetes, whichmeans navigation or helmsman ship. Rhodes (1996, p. 652-7) highlights thatgovernance is popular but imprecise; and he refers to this term with the following sixseparate uses:

(1) minimal state;

(2) as corporate governance;

(3) as the new public management;

(4) as good governance;

(5) as a socio-cybernetic system; and

(6) as self-organizing networks.

Governance encompasses a complex set of values, norms, processes, and institutionsby which society manages its local and regional development and to solve conflicts(IGES, 2001), and it has to be designed to include accountability and policy networks

(Rhodes, 1996; Wood and Valler, 2001) as well as civic politics (Wapner, 1995).The United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2001b) states that the goal of

governance initiatives should be to develop capacities that are needed to promotedevelopment that gives priority to the poor, sustains the environment and creates neededopportunities for employment and other livelihoods (UNDP, 2001a). Paterson (2000)understands that a governance system as an institution that specializes in makingcollective choices on matters of common concern to the members of a distinct social group.

Governance materializes itself through imposition of authority in the economic,political and administrative areas as a way to manage the affairs of the state (Woodand Valler, 2001). It includes the institutions, processes and instruments through whichcitizens and groups promote their common interests, rights, and also meet theirresponsibility and reconcile their differences (Dorvilier, 2001; Wapner, 1995).Governance is introduced as relevant to promote equity, end poverty and improvequality of life (Badshah, 2001; Bonfiglioli, 2004). Political governance is the process ofdecision-making to formulate policy. Administrative governance is the system ofpolicy implementation, good governance encompasses the state, but it transcends thestate by including the private sector and civil society organizations (UNDP, 2001a).For Young (1994), the state is a big force for development but it is not the only one.

As for environmental governance, it has been reformulated through the attemptsto bring together the ideas related to governance-environmental nexus (Mugabe and

MEQ22,3

300


10/25

Tumushabe, 2001). It has been an approach introduced by scholars who advocate thatthe presence or absence of democratic or good governance is essential in naturalresource management given the multi-faceted dimensions of the environmentalproblems (Gibbs and Jonas, 2000; Davidson and Frickel, 2004; Lemos and Agrawal,

2006). Bonfiglioli (2004) classifies environmental governance into three levels inscope taking into account the means to deal with the environmental problems in termsof decision-making, planning, managing, and monitoring:

(1) International and global environmental governance (GEG) which deal with thetransboundary aspects of nature destruction.

(2) The concept of eco-governance is employed in reference to conflict resolutionsbetween local people and state over natural resources, environmental laws andpolicies. Esty and Ivanova (2002) and Speth (2002) sponsor the viewpoint of aglobal environmental governance which has been inherently imbricated in aworld environmental agenda.

(3) Local environmental governance (LEG) which gives emphasis to the role of

local civil society vis-a-vis environmental issues as well as the role of localgovernment towards the communities because of its closeness to them; it alsoregards as essential to LEG service any significant sustainable developmentinitiatives at the local level.

In the literature review, the authors came across various terms which are sometimesused interchangeably with environmental governance or, somewhat, are directlyrelated to it, such as: eco-governmentality (Goldman, 2001), environmentalgovernmentality (Watts, 2003), environmental states; sustainability governance(Frickel and Davidson, 2004), environmental stateless society, civic environmentalism(John, 1993), eco-civic resource governance (Brunckhorst and Reeve, 2006),collaborative governance (Colfer and Pfund, 2010); non-state environmental

governance (Cashoreet al., 2004); forest governance (Fuller, 2006).

6. Local environmental governance (LEG)As for the concept of local environmental governance (LEG), Hempel (1996)succeeded in identifying the main points of environmental governance such asempowerment of local communities, greater participation of nongovernmentalorganizations, redistribution of financial resources, enhanced public-private sectorcooperation in the elaboration of a framework for green markets, educational reformand the development of ecologically literate citizens, and so forth. An extensiveunderstanding of (local) environmental governance can compensate for theuncertainties of the effectiveness of international regimes, the limits of internationaland national institutions, and limits of local environmental agencies and organizations(Gibbs and Jonas, 2000; Davidson and Frickel, 2004; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). ForBonfiglioli (2004, p. 32), under the conceptualization of LEG what is important are theinteractions between formal and informal institutions and actors in society, and theirinfluence on the identification and framing of environmental problems.

By taking into account all these aspects, the first attempt to explain localenvironmental governance as a concept leads to the view that, local environmentalgovernance materializes through the existence of a relatively permanentinstitutionalized arrangement composed by state, civil society, and private sector

Localenvironmental

governance

301


11/25

with a direct or indirect participation, to decide on the local and regional environmentalmatters and to manage the natural resources based on the principles of sustainabledevelopment, rationality, and environmental management.

The authors endorse Bonfigliolis understanding that local environmental

governance is supposed to be socially redistributive and environmentallybenign through the devolution of environmental power to local communities andlegitimate stakeholders, and this includes local government and pertinent authorities, asort of eco-civic resource governance system (Brunckhorst and Reeve, 2006). ForBonfiglioli (2004, p. 30):

The concept of local environmental governance defines the capacity of local stakeholders(particularly freely elected authorities) to manage local peoples relationships with theirphysical environment in accordance with the principles of participation, transparency,efficiency, equity and accountability.

According to Bonfiglioli (2004), a structure for local environmental governancedemands institutional and environmental assessments, to enable political and

institutional frameworks and to use technologies properly for sustainably managingthe natural resources in order to achieve sustainable livelihoods (see Figure 2).

Local environmental governance has not been yet entirely institutionalized in termsof practice and structure. It is a fragmented governing system in its genesis andfoundations; it needs to be framed, and for it to happen it requires shifts in political andinstitutional cultures. Brazilian authorities and politicians have taken some stepsforward in order to build up institutional and regulatory frameworks which allownatural resource management by the local government, civil society and localorganized communities. In Brazil, the major executing agency accountable for puttingenvironmental policies into practice and for monitoring the environmental situation inthe country is the Institute for Environment and Renewable Resources (IBAMA). It is a

semi-autonomous agency which belongs to the Ministry for the Environment (MMA),but it has faced logistical and structural problems to accomplish its monitoringmissions, because of the huge extension of Amazonia, and because of a shortage ofhuman and financial resources (de Lima, 2002).

7. The national system of nature conservation units (SNUC) and localenvironmental governance (LEG)It is important to underline that the most noticeable parliamentary action towards theimplementation of a somewhat locally based-governing system for the conservation ofthe ecosystems and biomes was the creation of the National System of NatureConservation Units (SNUC), on July 2000, by the law 9985 (Milano et al., 2004;

Rodrigues, 2005; Guerra, 2009). The SNUC was created to fulfill the Brazilscommitments and ratification in the Convention on the Biological Diversity, and wasformerly instituted by the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 (Rodrigues, 2005; Orth, 2007).

The SNUC has ordered and regulated the protected areas of the country at municipal,state and national levels, thus, reducing the risks of conflicting policies as well as thegovernment disputes over management of and decision making on forest areas(Bernardes, 2000; Pazet al., 2006; Guerra, 2009). The SNUC provides lawful expedientsand representative openness to some protected land categories in a way it empowers the

MEQ22,3

302


12/25

local legitimate stakeholders, and seeks to link their interests to conservation policies(Orth, 2007; Guerra, 2009). It is a model of democratic management of natural resources.

Under the SNUC, there are two categories of conservation units whose goals are topreserve fauna, flora, soil and rivers: the Strict Protection Units and the SustainableUse Units (Paz et al., 2006). The former one only allows indirect use of natural

resources and natural processes without human interventions. Even traditionalcommunities and indigenous people are not as a rule allowed residing in these areas.The Biological and Ecological Reserves/Stations (ESEC); National and State Parks(PARNA); Natural Monuments (MONAT); and Wildlife Sanctuary (RVS) belong to thistype of conservation unit (Guerra, 2009).

On the other hand, the sustainable use conservation unit allows monitoring ofsmall-scale exploration of the natural resources as well as the permanence of localcommunities as long as they can develop sustainable activities for their livelihoods

Figure 2.Local environmental

governance: aninstitutional framework

Localenvironmental

governance

303


13/25

(Milanoet al., 2004). This sort of unit is represented by: the Environmental ProtectionAreas (APA), the Areas of Relevant Ecological Value (ARIE), National Forest(FLONA), Sustainable Development Reserves (RDS), National Heritage PrivateReserves (RPPN), and Extraction Reserves (RESEX). All these units have a pivotal role

for the conservation of forest areas (SNUC) (Milanoet al., 2004; Rodrigues, 2005; Pazet al. 2006; Orth, 2007; Guerra, 2009), particularly in Amazonia, and are part of thecurrent phenomenon of green islandization, green areas which contrast tosurrounding deforested ones as in 2005 (see Table II).

8. Advisory and deliberative councils: pathways towards democraticgovernance?In essence, the Environmental Protection Area (APA), National Forests (FLONA) andExtraction Reserves (RESEX) seem to be one of the closest models Amazonia mayassemble aspects of local environmental governance with Councils holding advisory,deliberative and monitoring roles. As for the strict protection areas only Advisory

Councils can be formally created rather than deliberative ones (Milano et al., 2004;Guerra, 2009). The status of each Council is constituently decided in the municipalitiesin which the Conservation Units belong to, and in compliance to lawfully recognizedhigher legislative and authoritative stances (Rodrigues, 2005). For example, theExecuting Council of an APA can gather advisory and/or deliberative roles, and ineither ways it holds layers of decentralized participation of the civil society,representatives of local communities, local government and its related municipalagencies, and of formal and non-formal organizations responsible for decisions overtheir own social and environmental issues, and future.

With the existence of the councils and committees, there has been a kind of powerdevolution and decision delegation to a local level through a vertical-horizontalinstitutional arrangement which makes possible the exercise of citizenship, legitimacy,

representative democracy, and constituency. In Brazil, there has been a process ofmunicipalization of health and education sectors with the delegation ofdecision-making, power, budget as well as fiscal responsibilities and rights to localgovernments which have sought to manage it through partnerships with the privatesector and civil society. Following the decentralization of public services as a form ofgovernance, Philippi et al. (2001) proposes the municipalization of environmentalmanagement, transferring to the municipalities the responsibility and task to createand maintain institutional means and mechanisms in order to promote sustainabledevelopment by locally mitigating negative environmental impacts.

However, the authors are skeptical about a complete self-governing model for naturalresource management, because under the political and territorial arrangements ofWestern countries, central and state governments will hardly transfer their whole powerand administrative authority to lower jurisdiction levels or to any community-governingschemes. Another problem is how to guarantee equitable distribution of power amonglocal stakeholders (Howitt, 2001) who have already benefited from a decision-makingdelegation. Rather, the authors take the position that LEG is under construction as asystem, but once it has been finally implemented it will still be abided by higher politicaland jurisdictional stances with levels of power delegation.

Nonetheless, the implementation of an APA to work under a participatory anddemocratic process is a complex mission. For example, Rente (2006) developed a study

MEQ22,3

304


14/25

on the implementation of the APA of Alter-do-Chao, in Central Amazonia, in order toidentify the social actors and their intervention power over local issues. Rente (2006)was also concerned about why the Alter-do-Chao communities and municipalgovernment foresaw the possibility of a local alternative development model with aparticipatory management foundation grounded in an APA.

No. Area (hectares)

Federal conservation unitsSustainable use (federal level)

National Forest (FLONA) 32 15,945,621Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) 1 64,735Extraction Reserve (RESEX) 44 11,801,180Environmental Protection Area (APA) 04 2,402,732Area of Relevant Environmental Value (ARIE) 03 20,864Sub-total 84 30,235,132

Strict protection units (federal level)National Parks (PARNA) 24 21,399,679Biological Reserve (REBIO) 09 3,710,821Ecological Station (ESEC) 14 6,252,301Wild Life Sanctuary (RVS) 0 0Ecological Reserve (RESEC) 1 109Natural Monument (MONAT) 0 0

Sub-total 48 31,362,910Total 132 61,598,042

State conservation unitsSustainable use (state level)

State Forest (FES) 17 13,380,351Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) 9 10,990,102Extraction Reserve (RESEX) 28 2,149,077Environmental Protection Area (APA) 34 20,486,292Area of Relevant Environmental Value (ARIE) 01 25,000Extraction State Forest (FLOREX) 02 1,085,688Sustained Income State Forest (FLORSUR) 18 1,470,759Sub-total 116 49,587,269

Strict protection units (state level)State Park (PES) 41 7,108,684Biological Reserve (REBIO) 05 1,257,750Ecological Station (ESEC) 10 4,658,997Wild Life Sanctuary (RVS) 03 106,367Ecological Reserve (RESEC) 02 103,900Natural Monument (MONAT) 2 32,410Sub-total 63 13,268,108Total 179 62,855,377

Notes: Total regarding the whole legal Amazonia number of conservation units, 311; total area inhectares, 124,453,419 ha; currently 22.15 percent of the Brazilian Amazonia officially belongs to theConservation Units National System (SNUC) either being of strict protection or of sustainable use. Allfigures and data cited in this table have an undated reference date: May 2010Source: The authors, 2011, adapted from Socioambiental Institute (ISA) 2010, and at the BrazilianInstitute for Geography and Statistics (IBGE)

Table II.Total of Federal and State

Conservation Units(SNUC) in legal

Amazonia

Localenvironmental

governance

305


15/25

Situated in Santarem municipality, in Para state, APA Alter-do-Chao was created onJuly 2003, and it has 16,180 hectares and encompasses seven communities. It wascreated with the participation of local communities, staff of the National Institute forAmazonian Research (INPA), and officials and representatives of the Council for

Tourism and Environment (CONTUMA) as well as of the Municipal Tourism Agencyof Santarem (SANTUR). Alter-do-Chao is a popular tourism destination and has beenbroadly marketed as the Caribbean of Amazonia because of its white river sands,scenic views, and the quality of water for swimming. It has a typical geologicalformation with forest and Amazonian savannah spots; igarapes, rivers, lakes, and anexuberant flora and fauna (Albernaz, 2001).

Other examples of participatory management of natural resources are found in theTapajos-Arapiuns area (de Lima, 2008). For example, the Maripacommunity located atthe RESEX and involved with ecotourism activities for income generation. Maguariand Jamaraquacommunities placed at the National Forest (FLONA) of Tapajos, andSilves municipality in Amazonas State (de Lima, 2008), and the FLONA of Amapa, andMamirauaReserve for Sustainable Development:

The MamirauaSustainable Development Reserve (RDS) was created in 1990, situated betweenthe Solimoes, Japuraand Auati-PararaRiver, distant about three hours by boat from Tefe city,the closest urban area. In 2000 MamirauaReserve began to belong to the National System ofConservation Units (SNUC). The Reserve has an area of 1,124 million hectares with a localpopulation of 11,000 riverbank dwellers (including the Reserves outskirt communities) living in218 communities. In 1999, the MamirauaInstitute was created to become a research center inthe Reserve as well as an administrative body dealing with biodiversity and biophysicalresearch, and with sustainable activities such as ecotourism project and the Uacari Ecolodge,fishing and maintenance of fish stocks, forest products extraction, subsistence agriculture, andhandicraft. The Institute works in partnership with the local communities not only inMamiraua Reserve, but also in Amana Reserve with an area of 2,313 million hectares.MamirauaReserve was originally under the responsibility and control of the Amazonas state

government, but through concessions and partnership its control was delegated to the InstituteMamiraua, which is a Social Organization of Public Interest (OSCIP) linked and sponsored bythe Brazilian Ministry for the Science and Technology. Mamiraua is an innovative modelbecause it harnesses conservation, development and poverty reduction, and works throughpartnerships with an array of actors, including international partners and donors. It seeks topromote academic-scientific research, sustainable practices, community-based natural resourcemanagement, monitoring, nature conservation and improvement of the quality of life of thelocals. The Reserves icon is the Uacari monkey (The authors, 2010, with information availableat www.mamiraua.org.br/, and Koziell and Inoue, 2006).

These are examples of participatory forest management under a specific regulatoryand institutional framework which can possibly become a palimpsest for a localenvironmental governance model. LEG as a democratic managing system with

regulatory and legitimacy components are not only found in the Conservation Units.In 1990, the World Bank approved financial resources to Brazil for implementing the

National Environmental Project (PNMA) which finished its first phase in 1998(Bernardes, 2000), and the second phase, in 2003. But it was mainly after the UnitedConference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992, thecentral government started implementing environmental policies, programs andprojects guided by sustainability principles, following a global environmental agendaand the compromises assumed during the UNCED (Cavalcanti, 1999).

MEQ22,3

306


16/25

Apart from the strategic role of the Ministry for the Environment and IBAMA, someorganizations such as the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), NationalInstitute for Research in the Amazon (INPA), and the Amazon Institute for Man andEnvironment (IMAZON) have provided data, research, and reports on the Amazonia

which have been extremely relevant for policy makers and for those in charge ofcontrolling the deforestation in the region.In the same sense, the role of the AmazonWorking Group (GTA) and of the Brazilian Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) shouldbe cited. New technologies such as satellite images, GIS, georreference (Mortonet al.,2005; Fuller, 2006), and GPS have also been an asset with a pivotal role in helping tomonitor Amazonia, particularly the work of the National Space Research Institute(INPE, 2000) and its deforestation monitoring system (PRODES). The quotes belowhave some government policies, programs and environmental achievements forAmazonia after the UNCED-92:

PPG-7 Pilot Program for Tropical Rainforest Presentation is a multilateral initiative of theBrazilian government, the international community, and civil society with the objective of

conserving Brazils rainforests by using innovative tools and methodologies. It was launchedin 1992 with a US$428 million financial allocation provided by the G-7 donor countries, by theEuropean Commission and by the Brazilian government. PPG-7 is an example of globalenvironmental governance and it has contributed to the decentralization of the Brazilianenvironmental policy.

Sustainable Amazonia Plan (PAS) it was elaborated by the Ministries of NationalIntegration and for the Environment, and it is a plan to be executed through partnered actionsand common agreements among the central, state and municipal government, private sectorand the civil society in order to implement and cooperate to ward: environmentalmanagement, policies targeting social inclusion and citizenship, innovative and competitivesustainable production, development infrastructure construction, and the definition ofstandards for financial aid and funds concession.

PROBIO I and II Brazilian National Project for Public-Private Integrated Actions for theBiodiversity.

Law for Public Forests Management (Law 11,284) it is a law known as Forest Concessionswhich allows the private sector and other social segments, local stakeholders andcommunities, to have access to public forest aiming at promoting sustainable development.The law keeps the forest areas under the government jurisdiction with a monitoring roledelegated to civil society. The Law 11,284 also set up two new forest protection tools:

(1) Brazilian Forest Service (SFB) for creating inventory by cataloguing the existing publicforests.

(2) National Fund for Forest Development (FNDF) which has been used to improve forestsector technologies, technical assistance, revitalization and re-planting of deforested

areas, and the creation of public forest control mechanisms.

SIVAM The Integrated Amazonian Vigilance System is a US$ 1.7 billion megaprojectidealized by the Brazilian army in the 90s to monitor the Brazils space, to map and combatthe deforestation, the narcotraffic, and to identify the burnings sites in Amazonia. SIVAMworks with the assistance of 25 radars, equipped airplanes, and satellite images, and it worksin integration with the Protection System for Amazonia (SIPAM) and with the Air SpaceControl System/CINDACTA 4. The system was built with equipments and technicalassistance provided by the American company Raytheon and by the Atech and Embraer, two

Localenvironmental

governance

307


17/25

Brazilian companies. SIVAM began its operation on 25 of July 2002 and it also has themission to ensure the Brazilian sovereignty over the Legal Amazonia in response to possibleexternal threats (de Lima, 2002). According to a news report onMagazine Veja, issued on the18 of July 2007, SIVAM has been unable to accomplish its monitoring operations because of

failures in the equipments and radars. The Magazine Veja reports that the System is notreliable to what it has been created to.

The central government authorized the use of 19.5 million hectares of forest land to set 21 newConservation Units, 13 of them in Amazonia.

The central government officially sanctioned the creation of indigenous territories totaling 10million hectares of land and of extraction reserves.

In 2003, the Brazilian Genetic Heritage Management Council (CGEN) began its activities; ithas the task to define the rules for sustainable use and protection of the Brazilian biodiversity.In 2003, it was set up the Federal Police Stations specialized in environmental matters whichlargely contributed to monitoring the natural areas (Authors, 2010, with informationavailable at MMA, 2010; IMAZON, 2001; and INPA).

ConclusionIn contrast to Brazilian central government administrations between the 1930s andmid-1980s vis-a-visthe development of Amazonia as critically analyzed in this paper,the twenty-first century development and environmental policies have beenunderpinned by the engagement of local stakeholders, civil society and the privatesector in a participatory-based management of forest areas. There have beengovernment concerns to link the local actors and pertinent groups to environmentalpolicies. Central government with its Ministry for the Environment and relatedAgencies has propitiated the decentralization of actions and decisions breaking upwith centralized, clientelistic, and patrimonialistic practices.

The authors argue that the creation of the National System of Nature ConservationUnits (SNUC), on July 2000, represented a watershed in terms of environmental policiesand development for Amazonia, because the SNUC has been idealized to be inclusive,participatory and democratic. It breaks with a historical record of a discontinuous,selective and fragmentary environmental policies implementation. Moreover, theSNUC has the sustainability as an action platform in order to preserve and conservethe various biomes and ecosystems of Brazil without disregarding the importance of aplanned economic development. LEG is a system which demands revisions andadjustments, and SNUC can become one of the avenues in order to build a localenvironmental governance system.

LEG as an environmental governing model can potentially facilitate theimplementation of international environmental accords at a domestic level (e.g.

Kyoto Protocol and carbon gas emissions) by overcoming uneven local realities and todeal with a plenty of diversities, particularly in Amazonia, as well as by overcominghistorical obstacles such as budgetary constraints, disrespect of laws, existence oflobbying by interest groups, corruption, and lack of political will for changing thesituation which does not help much for achieving sustainable development targets.Maybe the decentralized governing model is an avenue for the balancing of relationsbetween nature and society, achieving economic and preservationist goals through therational application of necessary comprises. In order to it to happen, local

MEQ22,3

308


18/25

environmental governance (LEG) must achieve a supraparty status, free of individualor group biases which can go against the collective advantages.

The authors highlight that the solely power devolution of local stakeholders withoutcapacity building, availability of financial aid, and without nurturing and strengthening

their human and social capitals, may not become fully responsive to the expectations ofpolicy makers and planners. As a result, institutional and policies failures can take placeas an undesirable historical recurrent phenomenon, frustrating the design of a LEG. Yet,the local stakeholders must be better-off equipped to carry out a social andenvironmental agenda successfully. What is necessary is a down-to-downimplementation in which solutions for environmental problems can come up throughthe dialogue and actions of local population (Crook and Manor, 1998; Agrawal and Ribot,1999). The strategy is to reduce the size of the state in order to maximize itseffectiveness; an environmental governance with a minimal state (Rhodes, 1996).

In conclusion, it is possible to argue that there has been an evolving embryonicdecentralized governing model based on the Units of Conservation which bear a

resemblance to a local environmental governance (LEG) because of their regulatoryinstruments, managerial tools and forums for public debates and decision-making.MamirauaReserve and the Advisory and Deliberative Councils of APA, FLONA andRESEX are the object of study for defining a functional model of LEG. And, a desirableLEG model is one which can favor an emancipatory and empowering process at a localor regional scale, centered on the common interests and collective advantages,operating through all kinds of partnership and cooperation (public-private;intersectoral; inter-governmental, etc.) for webbing economic growth and natureprotection across the borders of nation states. A type of environmental governance acivic environmentalism (John, 1993) which can transcend the static role of traditionalinstitutions by including various representative groups and actors from the civilsociety in political decision-making processes (Johnston, 2000, pp. 84-5).

References

Agrawal, A. and Ribot, J.C. (1999), Accountability in decentralization: a framework with SouthAsian and African cases,Journal of Developing Areas, Vol. 33, Summer, pp. 473-502.

Albernaz, A.L.K.M. (2001), Zoneamento da Regiao de Alter do Chao, Para: Um Exerccio dePlanejamento para uma Unidade de Conservacao de Uso Direto,Doctoral thesis, InstitutoNacional de Pesquisa da Amazonia, Universidade do Amazonas, Manaus, 130 pp..

Alcoforado, F. (1998),De Collor a FHC: o Brasil e a Nova (Des)Ordem Mundial(From PresidentCollor to President Fernando Henrique Cardoso FHC: Brazil and the New World

[Dis]order), Editora Nobel, Sao Paulo.

Amelung, T. and Diehl, M. (1992), Deforestation of tropical rain forests: economic causes andimpact on development, Kieler Studien, Vol. 241 No. 97.

Andersen, L.E., Granger, C.W.J., Reis, E.J., Weinhold, D. and Wunder, S. (2002),The Dynamics ofDeforestation and Economic Growth in the Brazilian Amazon, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Badshah, A. (2001), Good Governance for Environmental Sustainability, background paper,Public Private Partnership Programme of UNDP, available at: www.undp.org/ppp/library/files/akhtar01.doc (accessed 23 November 2001).

Localenvironmental

governance

309


19/25

Banerjee, O., Macpherson, A.J. and Alavalapati, J. (2009), Toward a policy of sustainable forestmanagement in Brazil: a historical analysis, The Journal of Environment Development,Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 130-53.

Barbosa, L.C. (2000), The Brazilian Amazon Rainforest: Global Ecopolitics, Development, and

Democracy, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.Barreto, P., Mesquita, M., Araujo, E. and Brito, B. (2009), O estado da Amazonia, No. 13,

Imazon, available at: www.imazon.org.br/novo2008/arqiivosdb/OEA_13.PDF (accessed11 January 2011).

Bartholo, R.S. Jr and Bursztyn, M. (1999), Amazonia Sustentavel Uma Estrategia deDesenvolvimento para Rondonia 2020, Edicoes IBAMA, Braslia.

Becker, B.K. (2009),Amazonia: Geopoltica na Virada do III Milenio, Garamond, Sao Paulo.

Bernardes, A.T. (2000), Brasil Unidades de Conservacao Federais. Projeto Biodiversidade noDesenvolvimento, Serie Estudos de Caso, Comissao Europeia (B7-6200), Department forInternational Development (DFID), The World Conservation Union (IUCN), London.

BNDES Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social (2010),Amazonia em Debate:

Oportunidades, Desafios e Solucoes, BNDES, Rio de Janeiro.

Bonfiglioli, A. (2004),Lands of the Poor: Local Environmental Governance and the DecentralizedManagement of Natural Resources, United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF),New York, NY.

Bouman, O.T. and Brand, D.G. (1997),Sustainable Forests: Global Challenges and Local Solutions,Food Products Press, Binghamton, NY.

Brasiliense, R. (2008), Falta de fiscais ameaca Amazonia protegida, news report published a OGlobo, 9 March, available at: www.fazenda.gov.br/resenhaeletronica/MostraMateria.asp?page&cod447551 (accessed 15 October 2010).

Brazilian Embassy in Ottawa (2011), The Federal Constitution of 1988, available at: www.brasembottawa.org/en/environment/legislation/federal_constitut ion.htm (accessed

5 January 2011).Bridge, G. and Perreault, T. (2009), Environmental governance, in Castree, N., Demeritt, D.,

Liverman, D. and Rhoads, B. (Eds), A Companion to Environmental Geography,Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 475-88.

Browder, J.O. (1988), Public policy and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, in Repetto, R.and Gillies, M. (Eds), Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 247-98.

Browder, J.O. and Godfrey, B.J. (1997), Rainforest Cities: Urbanization, Development, andGlobalization of the Brazilian Amazon, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

Brunckhorst, D. and Reeve, I. (2006), A geography of place: principles and application fordefining eco-civic resource governance regions, Australian Geographer, Vol. 37 No. 2,

pp. 147-66.Bulkeley, H. (2005), Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and

networks,Political Geography, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 875-902.

Bunyard, P. (1987), The significance of the Amazon basin for global climatic equilibrium,Ecologist, Vol. 17 Nos 4/5, pp. 139-41.

Calvert, P. (2001), Deforestation, environment, and sustained development in Latin America,in Vajpeyi, D.K. (Ed.), Deforestation, Environment, and Sustainable Development:

A Comparative Analysis, Praeger, Westport, London, pp. 155-72.

MEQ22,3

310


20/25


21/25

Frey, E.F. (2002), Tropical deforestation in the Amazon: an economic analysis of Rondonia,Brazil, Issues in Political Economy, 11(1, available at: http://org.elon.edu/ipe/Frey1.pdf(accessed on 26 December 2010).

Frickel, S. and Davidson, D.J. (2004), Building environmental states: legitimacy and

rationalization in sustainability governance, International Sociology, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 89-110.

Fuller, D.O. (2006), Tropical forest monitoring and remote sensing: a new era of transparency inforest governance, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 15-29.

Geist, H.J. and Lambin, E.F. (2002), Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropicaldeforestation,Bioscience, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 143-50.

Gibbs, D. and Jonas, A.E.G. (2000), Governance and regulation in local environmental policy:the utility of a regime approach,Geoforum, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 299-313.

Gibson, C.C., McKean, M.A. and Ostrom, E. (2000), Explaining deforestation: the role of localinstitutions, in Gibson, C.C., McKean, M.A. and Ostrom, E. (Eds), People and Forests:Communities, Institutions, and Governance, The MIT Press, London.

Godfrey, B.J. (1993), Regional depiction in contemporary film, Geographical Review, Vol. 83No. 4, pp. 428-40.

Goldman, M. (2001), Constructing an environmental state: eco-governmentality and othertransnational practices of a green World Bank,Social Problems, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 499-523.

Goncalves, C.W.P. (2001), Amazonia: Amazonias, Contexto, Sao Paulo.

Goodman, D. and Hall, A. (1990), The Future of Amazonia: Destruction or SustainableDevelopment?, Macmillan, London.

Gordon, C. (1991), Governmental rationality: an introduction, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. andMiller, P. (Eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, IL, pp. 1-48.

Gould, K.A., Schnaiberg, A. and Weinberg, A.S. (1996), Local Environmental Struggles: Citizen

Activism in the Treadmill of Production, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Guerra, A.J.T. (2009), Unidades de Conservacao. Abordagens e Caractersticas Geograficas,

Bertrand Brasil, Sao Paulo.

Hall, A. (1989), Developing Amazonia: Deforestation and Social Conflicts in Brazils CarajasProgramme, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Hall, A. (1991), Developing Amazonia: Deforestation and Social Conflict in Brazils CarajasProgramme, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Hall, A. (Ed.) (2000), Amazonia at the Crossroads: the Challenge of Sustainable Development,University of London Press, London.

Hardin, G. (1968), The tragedy of the commons, Science, Vol. 162, pp. 1243-8.

Hecht, S. (1983), Cattle ranching in the eastern Amazon: environmental and social implications,

in Moran, E.F. (Ed.),The Dilemma of Amazonian Development, Westview Press, Boulder,CO, pp. 155-88.

Hecht, S. (1985), Deforestation in the Amazon basin: magnitude, dynamics, and soil resourceeffects,Studies in Third World Societies, Vol. 13, pp. 61-108.

Hecht, S.B., Norgaard, R.B. and Possio, C. (1988), The economics of cattle ranching in EasternAmazonia,Interciencia, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 233-40.

Hempel, L.C. (1996),Environmental Governance: The Global Challenge, Island Press, Washington,DC.

MEQ22,3

312


22/25

Himley, M. (2008), Geographies of environmental governance: the nexus of nature andneoliberalism,Geography Compass, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-19.

Howitt, R. (2001), Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and IndigenousPeoples, Routledge, London.

IGES Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (2001), Environment and governance,available at: /www.iges.net/environment/governance/gov-1a.html (accessed 16 October2001)

IMAZON (2001), Sustainable Amazonia limitation and operation for rural development,World Bank and Imazon, available at: www.imazon.org.br (accessed 23 October 2001).

INPE Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais/National Institute for Space Research (2000),Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais/National Institute for Space Research, availableat: www.inpe.br/Informacoes_Eventos/amz1999_2000/Prodes/html/pag_8.htm (accessed20 April 2000).

John, D. (1993),Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives to Regulation in States and Communities,CQ Press, Washington, DC.

Johnston, R.J. (2000), Civil society, in Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, M. (Eds),The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell, Oxford.

Kaimowitz, D., Mertens, B., Wunder, S. and Pacheco, P. (2004), Hamburger connection fuelsAmazon destruction, available at: www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/media/Amazon.pdf (accessed 10 January 2011).

Kanie, N. and Haas, P.M. (Eds) (2004),Joining Forces for Environmental Governance. EmergingForces in Environmental Governance, United Nations University Press, Tokyo.

Kelly, B. and London, M. (2007), The Last Forest: The Amazon in the Age of Globalization,Random House, New York, NY.

Kitamura, P.C. (1994), A Amazonia e o Desenvolvimento Sustentavel, Embrapa, Braslia.

Kohlhepp, G. (2002), Conflitos de interesse no ordenamento territorial da Amazonia brasileira,Estudos Avancados, Vol. 16 No. 45, pp. 37-61.

Koziell, I. and Inoue, C. (2006), MamirauaSustainable Development Reserve. Lessons learnt inintegrating conservation with poverty reduction, International Institute for Environmentand Development, London, available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9168IIED.pdf (accessedon 10 August 2010).

Laurance, W., Albernaz, A., Fearnside, P., Vasconcelos, H. and Ferreira, L. (2004), Deforestationin Amazonia, Science, Vol. 304 No. 5674, pp. 1109-11.

Lemos, M. and Agrawal, A. (2006), Environmental governance,Annual Review of Environmentand Resources, Vol. 31, pp. 297-325.

Lessa, R. (1991), Amazonia: as Razes da Destruicao, Editora Atual, Sao Paulo.

Loureiro, V.R. (2009),A Amazonia no Seculo XXI: Novas Formas de Desenvolvimento, Emporiodo Livro, Sao Paulo.

Luke, T. (1999), Environmentality as green governmentality, in Darier, E. (Ed.), Discourses ofthe Environment, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 121-51.

McCarthy, J. (2005), Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in environmental governance, Antipode,Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 731-53.

Mahar, D.J. (1979), Frontier Development Policy in Brazil: A Study of Amazonia, PraegerPublishers, New York, NY.

Mahar, D.J. (1989), Government Policies and Deforestation in Brazils Amazon Region, WorldBank Publication, Washington, DC.

Localenvironmental

governance

313


23/25

Margulis, S. (2004),Causes of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, World Bank Publications,Washington, DC.

Milano, M., Takahashi, L. and Nunes, M. (2004), Unidades de Conservacao: Atualidades eTendencias, Fundacao O Boticario, Curitiba.

Miranda, J.B. (2005),Amazonia: Area Cobicada, Editora Age, Sao Paulo.

Mol, A.P.J. (2006), Environmental governance in the information age: the emergence ofinformational governance,Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 24No. 4, pp. 497-514.

Moran, E.F., Brondizio, E.S., Tucker, J.M., Forsberg, M.C.S., Falesi, I. and Mccracken, S.D. (2000),Strategies for Amazonian forest restoration: evidence for afforestation in five regions ofthe Brazilian Amazon, in Hall, A. (Ed.), Amazonia at the Crossroads: the Challenge ofSustainable Development, Institute for Latin American Studies, London, pp. 129-49.

Morton, D.C., De Fries, R.S. and Shimabukuro, R.E. (2005), Rapid assessment of annualdeforestation in the Brazilian Amazon using MODIS data, Earth Interactions, Vol. 9No. 16, pp. 1-22.

Mugabe, J. and Tumushabe, G.W. (2001), Environmental governance: conceptual and emergingissues, available at: www.acts.or.ke/GE-Chapter1.pdf (accessed 3 October 2001).

Orth, D. (2007), Unidades de Conservacao, Insular, Sao Paulo.

Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Paterson, M. (2000),Understanding Global Environmental Politics Domination, Accumulation,Resistance, Macmillan Press, London.

Paz, R.J., Freitas, G.L. and Souza, E.A. (2006), Unidades de Conservacao no Brasil: Historia deLegislacao, Ed. Universitaria, Joao Pessoa.

Pennaforte, C. (2006), Amazonia Contrastes e Perspectivas, Colecao Geografia Sem Fronteiras,Editora Atual, Sao Paulo.

Pereira, D., Santos, D., Vedoveto, M., Guimaraes, J. and Verssimo, A. (2010), Fatos florestais daAmazonia 2010, IMAZON, Belem.

Pfaff, A.S.P. (1999), What drives deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? Evidence from satelliteand socioeconomic data, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 37No. 1, pp. 26-43.

Philippi, A. Jr., Maglio, I.C., deCoimbra, J.A.A. and Franco, R.M. (2001), Municpios e MeioAmbiente: Perspectivas para a Municipalizacao da Gestao Ambiental no Brasil, EditoraSignus, Sao Paulo.

Pinto, L.F. (1980), Amazonia: no Rastro do Saque, Hucitec, Sao Paulo.

Rente, A.S.G. (2006), Areas de protecao ambiental como inspiracao para o desenvolvimentosustentavel com liberdade: o caso da criacao da APA Alter do Chao/PA, Masters

Dissertation Society, Agriculture and Development, Institute of Social and HumanSciences, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996), The new governance: governing without government, Political Studies,Vol. 54, pp. 652-67.

Robertson, M. (2004), The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation bankingand problems in environmental governance, Geoforum, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 361-73.

Rodrigues, J.E.R. (2005), Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservacao, Revista dos Tribunais,Sao Paulo.

MEQ22,3

314


24/25

Rolen, M., Sjoberg, H. and Svedin, U. (1997), International Governance on Environmental Issues,Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.

Silva, A.T. (2005), Desafios polticos e socioambientais da governanca global na Amazonia:a emergencia do programa piloto para a protecao das florestas tropicais do Brasil (PPG-7),

NAEA/UFPA, Belem.Smith, N.J.H., Serrao, E., Alvim, P. and Falesi, I. (1995), Amazonia Resiliency and Dynamism of

the Land and its People, The United Nations University, Tokyo.

Speth, J.G. (2002), The global environmental agenda: origins and prospects, in Esty, D.C. andIvanova, M.H. (Eds), Global Environmental Governance: Options and Opportunities, YaleSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Winters, CA, pp. 1-20.

Stone, R.D. (1985),Dreams of Amazonia, Penguin Books, New York, NY.

Uitto, J. (1997), Environmental governance and the impending water crisis, GlobalEnvironmental Change, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 167-73.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2001a),Globalization with a Human Face, Report,1999.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2001b), Governance for Sustainable HumanDevelopment, Chapter 1, available at: http://magnet.undp.org/policy/chapter1.htm(accessed 30 October 2001).

Walker, R., Moran, E. and Anselim, L. (2000), Deforestation and cattle ranching in the BrazilianAmazon: external capital and household processes, World Development, Vol. 28 No. 4,pp. 683-99.

Wapner, P. (1995), Politics beyond the state: environmental activism and world civic politics,World Politics, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 311-40.

Rosenau, J.N. (1992), Introduction, Governance without Government: Order and Changes inWorld Politics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Watts, M. (2003), Development and governmentality,Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography,Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 6-34.

Wood, A. and Valler, D. (2001), Turn again? Rethinking institutions and the governance of localand regional economies, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1139-44.

Young, R.O. (1994),International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society ,Cornell University Press, New York, NY.

Further reading

Borgese, E. (1999), Global civil society: lessons from ocean governance, Futures, Vol. 31 No. 9,pp. 983-91.

Eckerberg, K. (2001), Sweden. Problems and prospects at the leading edge of LA21Implementation, in Lafferty, W.M. (Ed.),Sustainable Communities in Europe, Earthscan,

London, pp. 15-33.Fearnside, P.M. (1990), The rate and extent of deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia,

Environmental Conservation, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 213-26.

Mello, N.A. (2002), Polticas Publicas Territoriais na Amazonia Brasileira Conflitos entreconservacao ambiental e desenvolvimento 1970-2000, doctoral thesis, GeographyDepartment, Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP), Sao Paulo.

Putnam, R.D. (1988), Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games,International Organization, Vol. 42, Summer, pp. 427-60.

Localenvironmental

governance

315


25/25

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997), Understanding Governance Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity,and Accountability, Open University Press, London.

Rylands, A.B. and Brandon, K. (2005), Unidades de conservacao brasileiras,Megadiversidade,Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-35.

Scardua, F.P. (2003), Governabilidade e descentralizacao da gestao ambiental no Brasil,doctoral thesis, Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel CDS, Universidade de Braslia(UnB), Braslia.

Thurdin, G. (1997), Political dimensions of international environmental governance issues,in Mats, R., Svedin, V. and Berg, H.S. (Eds), International Governance on Environmental

Issues, Vol. 196, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.

Verssimo, A.R. (2008), Areas protegidas na Amazonia: oportunidades para conservacao eusosustentavel, in Albuquerque, A.C.S. and da Silva, A.G. (Eds), Desenvolvimento daagricultura tropical: quatro decadas de inovacoes tecnologicas, institucionais e polticas,Vol. 1, Emprapa Informacao Tecnologica-CGIAR, Braslia, pp. 125-62.

About the authors

Ismar Borges de Lima works full-time at the Institute for Social and Environmental Research(IESA), hosted at the Federal Unviersity of Goias (UFG). He develops ecotourism investigationbased on contextual mapping and on the ecological territorial tourism units (ETTUs). Theresearcher is committed to produce an inventory of ecological tourism activities in Goias state,Brazil. His PhD in human geography and tourism was awarded by the University of Waikato,New Zealand, in August 2008. Ismar holds a Masters degree in international relations awardedby the International University of Japan (IUJ) and his thesis dealt with the concept of localenvironmental governance (LEG), the public policies, and deforestation in Amazonia. Hisacademic background is interdisciplinary with research interests and publications in thefollowing themes: human geography, ecotourism; sustainable tourism; Amazonia, deforestation,and development; environmental public policies; global environmental issues and internationalrelations; and environmental matters and the role of mass media communication. Ismar Borgesde Lima is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Leszek Buszynski is Professor of International Relations at the International University ofJapan (IUJ); previously Dean of the Graduate School of International Relations and Director of theIUJ Research Institute; also Director of the Research Institute of Asian Development from (RIAD)1995 until 1997; from 1987 to 1993 Senior Research Fellow and Coordinator of the GraduateProgram in Strategic Studies at the Strategic and Defense Studies Centre (SDSC) at theAustralian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia; before then lecturer and later seniorlecturer at the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore (NUS)from 1980 until 1987. Qualifications are: PhD (International Relations), London School ofEconomics and Political Science, in 1980; Master of Science (International Relations), LondonSchool of Economics and Political Science, in 1975; Bachelor of Arts (Political Science),Australian National University, in 1972. Teaching interests are: international politics andsecurity; international conflict resolution; Asia Pacific international relations; ASEANgovernance and development.

MEQ22,3

316

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Local Environmental Governance Public Policies and Deforestation in Amazon by IsmarLima

Documents

Transcript of Local Environmental Governance Public Policies and Deforestation in Amazon by IsmarLima