IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v94y2020ics026483771831113x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes in Brazil’s Forest Code can erode the potential of riparian buffers to supply watershed services

Author

Listed:
  • Guidotti, Vinicius
  • Ferraz, Silvio Frosini de Barros
  • Pinto, Luis Fernando Guedes
  • Sparovek, Gerd
  • Taniwaki, Ricardo H.
  • Garcia, Lara Gabrielle
  • Brancalion, Pedro H.S.

Abstract

In Brazil, the Forest Code requires landholders to maintain fixed-width buffers of native vegetation along watercourses – legally called Areas of Permanent Preservation (APPs). In 2012, agricultural activities started to be partially allowed in APPs, but only if best management practices on soil and water conservation are adopted and if a narrow buffer strip with native vegetation is restored adjacently to the watercourse. In this paper, we present a modeling framework to investigate the capacity of legal compliant APPs to supply watershed services (erosion control and stream bank stabilization) in a 2,200 ha watershed in São Paulo State, Brazil. Our results suggest that the narrower the riparian buffer the lower the control of soil erosion dynamic within APPs, and that riparian buffers smaller than 8 m can act as a source of sediments to streams. The adoption of best management practices can contribute to controlling soil erosion within APPs but the presence of native forests in the first 15 m is necessary to guarantee equivalent protection to streams when compared to APPs completely covered by forests. Moreover, we observed that forest restoration within APPs helped to reduce the average soil loss of the watershed by only 20 %, compared to a reduction of 55 % when best practices are implemented in all watershed agricultural areas. We conclude that (i) the reduced requirements for APP restoration may contribute to stream sedimentation, which will likely affect the supply of watershed services by stream ecosystems; (ii) the implementation of best management practices in APPs will not have the same effect as native forests to reduce stream sedimentation; and (iii) the adoption of best management practices in all agricultural production areas – and not only within APPs as required by law – is the best strategy to promote the supply of watershed services to society.

Suggested Citation

  • Guidotti, Vinicius & Ferraz, Silvio Frosini de Barros & Pinto, Luis Fernando Guedes & Sparovek, Gerd & Taniwaki, Ricardo H. & Garcia, Lara Gabrielle & Brancalion, Pedro H.S., 2020. "Changes in Brazil’s Forest Code can erode the potential of riparian buffers to supply watershed services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:94:y:2020:i:c:s026483771831113x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771831113X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104511?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pushpa Tuppad & Narayanan Kannan & Raghavan Srinivasan & Colleen Rossi & Jeffrey Arnold, 2010. "Simulation of Agricultural Management Alternatives for Watershed Protection," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 3115-3144, September.
    2. Balvanera, Patricia & Uriarte, María & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía & Altesor, Alice & DeClerck, Fabrice & Gardner, Toby & Hall, Jefferson & Lara, Antonio & Laterra, Pedro & Peña-Claros, Marielos & Silva Mat, 2012. "Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 56-70.
    3. Paulo Teixeira de Sousa & Maria Teresa Fernandez Piedade & Ennio Candotti, 2011. "Brazil's forest code puts wetlands at risk," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7370), pages 458-458, October.
    4. Sparovek, Gerd & Reydon, Bastiaan Philip & Guedes Pinto, Luís Fernando & Faria, Vinicius & de Freitas, Flavio Luiz Mazzaro & Azevedo-Ramos, Claudia & Gardner, Toby & Hamamura, Caio & Rajão, Raoni & Ce, 2019. "Who owns Brazilian lands?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Lazdinis, Marius & Angelstam, Per, 2005. "Functionality of riparian forest ecotones in the context of former Soviet Union and Swedish forest management histories," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 321-332, March.
    6. Richards, Ryan C. & Rerolle, Julia & Aronson, James & Pereira, Paulo Henrique & Gonçalves, Helena & Brancalion, Pedro H.S., 2015. "Governing a pioneer program on payment for watershed services: Stakeholder involvement, legal frameworks and early lessons from the Atlantic forest of Brazil," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 23-32.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shinde, Nilesh N. & Do Valle, Stella Z. Schons & Maia, Alexandre Gori & Amacher, Gregory S., 2022. "Can an environmental policy contribute to the reduction of land conflict? Evidence from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) in the Brazilian Amazon," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Preto, Mayra de Freitas & Garcia, Andrea Santos & Nakai, Érica Silva & Casarin, Laura Piacentini & Vilela, Vívian Maria de Faria Nasser & Ballester, Maria Victoria Ramos, 2022. "The role of environmental legislation and land use patterns on riparian deforestation dynamics in an Amazonian agricultural frontier (MT, Brazil)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Natália Pezzi Fachinelli & Amaro Olímpio Pereira, 2023. "Effects of Restoration and Conservation of Riparian Vegetation on Sediment Retention in the Catchment Area of Corumbá IV Hydroelectric Power Plant, Brazil," World, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-16, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brownson, Katherine & Fowler, Laurie, 2020. "Evaluating how we evaluate success: Monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management in Payments for Watershed Services programs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Rocha, Samuel José Silva Soares da & Comini, Indira Bifano & Morais Júnior, Vicente Toledo Machado de & Schettini, Bruno Leão Said & Villanova, Paulo Henrique & Alves, Eliana Boaventura Bernardes Mour, 2020. "Ecological ICMS enables forest restoration in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    3. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Arturo Sanchez-Porras & María Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide & Ricardo Darío Peña-Moreno & María Laura Sampedro-Rosas & Sonia Emilia Silva-Gómez, 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential Change to the Ecosystem Service Provision Due to Industrialization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Carlos Quiroz Dahik & Patricio Crespo & Bernd Stimm & Felipe Murtinho & Michael Weber & Patrick Hildebrandt, 2018. "Contrasting Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Pine Plantations in the Páramo Ecosystem of Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, May.
    7. Richards, Ryan C. & Kennedy, Chris J. & Lovejoy, Thomas E. & Brancalion, Pedro H.S., 2017. "Considering farmer land use decisions in efforts to ‘scale up’ Payments for Watershed Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 238-247.
    8. Suich, Helen & Howe, Caroline & Mace, Georgina, 2015. "Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical links," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 137-147.
    9. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2020. "The montane multifunctional landscape: How stakeholders in a biosphere reserve derive benefits and address trade-offs in ecosystem service supply," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    10. Balvanera, Patricia & Pérez-Harguindeguy, Natalia & Perevochtchikova, María & Laterra, Pedro & Cáceres, Daniel M. & Langle-Flores, Alfonso, 2020. "Ecosystem services research in Latin America 2.0: Expanding collaboration across countries, disciplines, and sectors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    11. Jiang, Wei, 2017. "Ecosystem services research in China: A critical review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 10-16.
    12. Montoya-Zumaeta, Javier G. & Wunder, Sven & Tacconi, Luca, 2021. "Incentive-based conservation in Peru: Assessing the state of six ongoing PES and REDD+ initiatives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    13. Pires, Aliny P.F. & Amaral, Aryanne G. & Padgurschi, Maíra C.G. & Joly, Carlos A. & Scarano, Fabio R., 2018. "Biodiversity research still falls short of creating links with ecosystem services and human well-being in a global hotspot," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 68-73.
    14. Bastiaan Reydon & Gabriel Pansani Siqueira & Delaide Silva Passos & Stephan Honer, 2022. "Unclear Land Rights and Deforestation: Pieces of Evidence from Brazilian Reality," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Stępniewska, Małgorzata & Lupa, Piotr & Mizgajski, Andrzej, 2018. "Drivers of the ecosystem services approach in Poland and perception by practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 59-67.
    16. Carvalho Ribeiro, Sónia M. & Soares Filho, Britaldo & Leles Costa, William & Bachi, Laura & Ribeiro de Oliveira, Amanda & Bilotta, Patricia & Saadi, Allaoua & Lopes, Elaine & O'Riordan, Tim & Lôbo Pen, 2018. "Can multifunctional livelihoods including recreational ecosystem services (RES) and non timber forest products (NTFP) maintain biodiverse forests in the Brazilian Amazon?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 517-526.
    17. Xinmin Zhang & Ronald C Estoque & Hualin Xie & Yuji Murayama & Manjula Ranagalage, 2019. "Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on ecosystem services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & Ávila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    19. Delaroche, Martin & Le Tourneau, François-Michel & Daugeard, Marion, 2022. "How vegetation classification and mapping may influence conservation: The example of Brazil’s Native Vegetation Protection Law," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    20. Ricci, Giovanni Francesco & D’Ambrosio, Ersilia & De Girolamo, Anna Maria & Gentile, Francesco, 2022. "Efficiency and feasibility of Best Management Practices to reduce nutrient loads in an agricultural river basin," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:94:y:2020:i:c:s026483771831113x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.