IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p8096-d854379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recent Environmental Legislation in Brazil and the Impact on Cerrado Deforestation Rates

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos Henrique Pires Luiz

    (Graduate Program in Geography, Department of Geography, University of Brasília, Brasília 70.910-900, Brazil)

  • Valdir Adilson Steinke

    (Graduate Program in Geography, Department of Geography, University of Brasília, Brasília 70.910-900, Brazil)

Abstract

This study aims to relate the recent trajectory of Brazilian environmental policies with the last 20 years deforestation rates observed in the Cerrado through the PRODES-Cerrado monitoring initiative. The main hypothesis is that the improvement of environmental legislation in Brazil, mainly during the period between 2005 and 2012, influenced the decrease in deforestation rates. In addition, policies to control environmental compliance, such as the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) also influenced the reduction of deforestation. In the early 2000s, there was a significant increase in public environmental policies and implementation of an environmental management structure with the creation of conservation, protection, and management agency for conservation units (ICMBio), the Brazilian Forest Service for the management of public forests and Rural Environment Registry (CAR). Comparing the annual deforestation rate, it was observed that between 2000 and 2005, when 12.60% of the Cerrado was deforested, the annual deforestation average rate was 2.52%. Between 2006 and 2012, the period that precedes the revision of the Forest Code, the total deforestation is equivalent to 7.98%, which results in an annual average rate of 1.33%. After the enactment of the new Forest Code, between 2013 and 2020, there was a deforestation of 7.03% of the Cerrado area, which is equivalent to a deforestation annual average rate of 1.00%. One of the positive aspects of the new legislation was the creation of CAR, which obliges rural landowners to make an environmental attributes declaration of their property, this program being the main environmental management tool created in Brazil recently. After CAR regulation in 2014, there was a decrease in deforestation from 10,904 km 2 to 7905 km 2 in 2020. On the other hand, since 2016, changes occurred in the political scenario that increased agribusiness influence and the rise of a more conservative agenda, which jeopardizes the future of environmental quality in Brazil (illustrated, for example, by the increased release of pesticides from 104 in 2010 to 493 in 2020). As the main conclusion of this research, we showed that the state’s commitment to environmental management can contribute to deforestation reduction. The regulation of programs such as CAR can also contribute to the reduction of deforestation since it is one more tool for monitoring and ensure compliance of environmental regularization and recovery vegetation programs. At the same time, is necessary to keep on monitoring deforestation once the influence of the agricultural lobby has gained strength.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos Henrique Pires Luiz & Valdir Adilson Steinke, 2022. "Recent Environmental Legislation in Brazil and the Impact on Cerrado Deforestation Rates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8096-:d:854379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8096/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8096/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norman Myers & Russell A. Mittermeier & Cristina G. Mittermeier & Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca & Jennifer Kent, 2000. "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities," Nature, Nature, vol. 403(6772), pages 853-858, February.
    2. Jung, Suhyun & Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Watkins, Cristy & Newton, Peter & Agrawal, Arun, 2017. "Brazil's National Environmental Registry of Rural Properties: Implications for Livelihoods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 53-61.
    3. Roitman, Iris & Cardoso Galli Vieira, Ludgero & Baiocchi Jacobson, Tamiel Khan & da Cunha Bustamante, Mercedes Maria & Silva Marcondes, Nívea Jorgia & Cury, Kátia & Silva Estevam, Luciana & da Costa R, 2018. "Rural Environmental Registry: An innovative model for land-use and environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 95-102.
    4. Stefanes, Mauricio & Roque, Fabio de Oliveira & Lourival, Reinaldo & Melo, Isabel & Renaud, Pierre Cyril & Quintero, Jose Manuel Ochoa, 2018. "Property size drives differences in forest code compliance in the Brazilian Cerrado," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 43-49.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. Benzeev, Rayna & Wiens, Ashton & Piotto, Daniel & Newton, Peter, 2023. "Property size and forest cover were key determinants of forest restoration in Southern Bahia in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. Porro, Roberto & Porro, Noemi Sakiara Miyasaka, 2022. "State-led social and environmental policy failure in a Brazilian forest frontier: Sustainable Development Project in Anapu, Pará," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Suhyun Jung & Cecilie Dyngeland & Lisa Rausch & Laura Vang Rasmussen, 2022. "Brazilian Land Registry Impacts on Land Use Conversion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 340-363, January.
    5. Laxmi D. Bhatta & Sunita Chaudhary & Anju Pandit & Himlal Baral & Partha J. Das & Nigel E. Stork, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, June.
    6. McLennan, D. & Sharma, R., 2012. "The Delivering Ecological Services Index (DESI)," Working papers 119, Rimisp Latin American Center for Rural Development.
    7. Caviedes, Julián & Ibarra, José Tomás & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Álvarez-Fernández, Santiago & Junqueira, André Braga, 2024. "Indigenous and local knowledge on social-ecological changes is positively associated with livelihood resilience in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    8. Maeda, Eduardo Eiji & Clark, Barnaby J.F. & Pellikka, Petri & Siljander, Mika, 2010. "Modelling agricultural expansion in Kenya's Eastern Arc Mountains biodiversity hotspot," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 609-620, November.
    9. Jaiswal, Sreeja & Balietti, Anca & Schäffer, Daniel, 2023. "Environmental Protection and Labor Market Composition," Working Papers 0736, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    10. Chomitz, Kenneth M. & Thomas, Timothy S. & Brandão, Antônio Salazar P., 2005. "The economic and environmental impact of trade in forest reserve obligations: a simulation analysis of options for dealing with habitat heterogeneity," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 43(4), January.
    11. Elisa Barbour & Lara Kueppers, 2012. "Conservation and management of ecological systems in a changing California," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 135-163, March.
    12. Tyler M Harms & Kevin T Murphy & Xiaodan Lyu & Shane S Patterson & Karen E Kinkead & Stephen J Dinsmore & Paul W Frese, 2017. "Using landscape habitat associations to prioritize areas of conservation action for terrestrial birds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    13. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    14. Brannstrom, Christian, 2001. "Conservation-with-Development Models in Brazil's Agro-Pastoral Landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1345-1359, August.
    15. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    16. Pütz, S. & Groeneveld, J. & Alves, L.F. & Metzger, J.P. & Huth, A., 2011. "Fragmentation drives tropical forest fragments to early successional states: A modelling study for Brazilian Atlantic forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(12), pages 1986-1997.
    17. Paige, Sarah B. & Malavé, Carly & Mbabazi, Edith & Mayer, Jonathan & Goldberg, Tony L., 2015. "Uncovering zoonoses awareness in an emerging disease ‘hotspot’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 78-86.
    18. Stephanie D. Maier & Jan Paul Lindner & Javier Francisco, 2019. "Conceptual Framework for Biodiversity Assessments in Global Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-34, March.
    19. Sehgal, Shaina & Babu, Suresh, 2021. "Economic Transformation of the Nicobar Islands Post-tsunami: A Material Import–Export Analysis," Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE), vol. 4(02), July.
    20. Poonam Tripathi & Mukund Dev Behera & Partha Sarathi Roy, 2017. "Optimized grid representation of plant species richness in India—Utility of an existing national database in integrated ecological analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, March.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8096-:d:854379. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.