IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v112y2022ics0264837721005251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policies to encourage agroforestry in the Southern Atlantic Forest

Author

Listed:
  • Urruth, Leonardo Marques
  • Bassi, Joana Braun
  • Chemello, Davi

Abstract

Agroforestry is recognized as a friendly land-management practice because it can contribute to improve soil productivity, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functions, climate change mitigation, landscape connectivity and the delivery of ecosystem services, optimizing livelihood benefits for people. The Atlantic Forest, a worldwide biodiversity hotspot, which presents large areas in natural regeneration and a promising scenario for ecological restoration has great potential for agroforestry. According to Brazilian legislation, the agroforestry conducted on remnants of Atlantic Forest depends on previous environmental authorization regarding both the vegetation management and the commercialization of native flora products. Although Brazilian legislation provides incentives for agroforestry, there are important barriers to its development regarding to the vegetation management for production, processing (enforcement of health and sanitation laws), and trading of timber and non-timber products. In the Rio Grande do Sul, the procedures for obtaining environmental authorization concerning the management and trading of native plants were too bureaucratic, unattractive, and infeasible for small rural landowners because the environmental legislation was not translated into effective public policies. Since the agroforestry and extraction of native flora products needs to comply with legislation and the key point is to guarantee the legal and sustainable origin of the products, and the management carried out, the appropriate procedure for the regularization of such practices is a certification of forest management. The SEMA’s agroforestry certification (SAC) is a simplified procedure to legal compliance and sustainable management of native vegetation and mainly attends family farmers, indigenous peoples, maroons, and traditional populations. Until September 2019, nearly 130 landowners requested the SAC from 65 municipalities of Rio Grande do Sul. According to the applicants, around 99% of rural properties are considered small, ranging from 1.3 to 156 ha. Altogether, they add up to almost 380 ha of agroforestry in anthropic areas, some of them degraded by intense historical land use. The extraction of fruits and seeds and the planting of native tree species (59% and 48%, respectively) were the most mentioned agroforestry management by the applicants. The main products or species of interest mentioned were fruits and heart of palm from Euterpe edulis (52%), fruits of Citrus spp. (51%), native timber (49%), non-native fruits (44%), native Myrtaceae fruits (39%), other native fruits (32%), banana crops (29%), Yerba-mate (26%), non-native timber (16%), other non-native plants (9%), ornamental plants (9%), Butia catarinensis fruits (7%), and Butia odorata fruits (2%). The SAC has brought stakeholders (farmers, technical assistants, and researchers) closer to the environmental agency, creating a broad new regional agenda on agroforestry, and a myriad of conservation opportunities. The strengthening of agroforestry-support policies must be an important conservation strategy in the Atlantic Forest. However, to carry out such policies, it is necessary to create conditions and incentives beyond the legislative scope, translating the legal provisions to procedures and actions.

Suggested Citation

  • Urruth, Leonardo Marques & Bassi, Joana Braun & Chemello, Davi, 2022. "Policies to encourage agroforestry in the Southern Atlantic Forest," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005251
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721005251
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105802?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. 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. Current, Dean & Lutz, Ernst & Scherr, Sara J, 1995. "The Costs and Benefits of Agroforestry to Farmers," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 10(2), pages 151-180, August.
    3. Sosinski, Ênio Egon & Urruth, Leonardo Marques & Barbieri, Rosa Lía & Marchi, Marene Machado & Martens, Silvano Gildo, 2019. "On the ecological recognition of Butia palm groves as integral ecosystems: Why do we need to widen the legal protection and the in situ/on-farm conservation approaches?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 124-130.
    4. Brooks, Kenneth N. & Gregersen, Hans M. & Ffolliott, Peter F., 1995. "Agroforestry Policies Contribute To Sustainable Land Use," Policy Briefs 11902, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Training Project.
    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. Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa & Rodríguez-Rigueiro, Francico Javier & Santiago-Freijanes, José Javier & Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio & Silva-Losada, Pablo & Pantera, Anastasia & Fernández-Lorenzo, Juan L, 2022. "European agroforestry policy promotion in arable Mediterranean areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Júlia Graziela da Silveira & Sílvio Nolasco de Oliveira Neto & Ana Carolina Barbosa do Canto & Fernanda Figueiredo Granja Dorilêo Leite & Fernanda Reis Cordeiro & Luís Tadeu Assad & Gabriela Cristina , 2022. "Land Use, Land Cover Change and Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture and Livestock in the Amazon and the Atlantic Forest in Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Yaquan Dou & Ya Li & Ming Li & Xingliang Chen & Xiaodi Zhao, 2023. "The Role of Agroforestry in Poverty Alleviation: A Case Study from Nujiang Prefecture, Southwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-20, August.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Davis, Katrina & Pannell, David J. & Kragt, Marit & Gelcich, Stefan & Schilizzi, Steven, 2014. "Accounting for enforcement is essential to improve the spatial allocation of marine restricted-use zoning systems," Working Papers 195718, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. Juliana Silveira dos Santos & Fausto Miziara & Hayla da Silva Fernandes & Renato Cezar Miranda & Rosane Garcia Collevatti, 2021. "Technification in Dairy Farms May Reconcile Habitat Conservation in a Brazilian Savanna Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.
    12. Sándor KESZTHELYI & Zsolt PÓNYA & Ferenc PÁL-FÁM, 2017. "Climate-induced seasonal activity and flight period of cerambycid beetles in the Zselic forests, Hungary," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 63(11), pages 503-510.
    13. Feng Dong & Chih-Ming Hung & Shou-Hsien Li & Xiao-Jun Yang, 2021. "Potential Himalayan community turnover through the Late Pleistocene," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-10, January.
    14. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Tim Theissen & Annette Otte & Rainer Waldhardt, 2022. "High-Mountain Landscape Classification to Analyze Patterns of Land Use and Potential Natural Vegetation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    16. Laurent Debroux & Giuseppe Topa & David Kaimowitz & Alain Karsenty & Terese Hart & Awono Abdon & Fidele Amsini & Conrad Aveling & Alain Bertrand & Mohammed Bekhechi & Carlo Bravi & Eric Chezeaux & Ken, 2007. "Forests in Post- Conflict Democratic Republic of Congo: Analysis of a Priority Agenda," Selected Books, CIRAD, Forest department, UPR40, edition 1, volume 1, number 10.
    17. Amir, Sulfikar, 2023. "Scrutinising Nusantara: the making of an authoritarian city," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119201, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. World Bank, 2017. "Brazil’s INDC Restoration and Reforestation Target," World Bank Publications - Reports 28588, The World Bank Group.
    19. Carlos Cerrejón & Osvaldo Valeria & Jesús Muñoz & Nicole J Fenton, 2022. "Small but visible: Predicting rare bryophyte distribution and richness patterns using remote sensing-based ensembles of small models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Kevin Thellmann & Marc Cotter & Sabine Baumgartner & Anna Treydte & Georg Cadisch & Folkard Asch, 2018. "Tipping Points in the Supply of Ecosystem Services of a Mountainous Watershed in Southeast Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.

    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:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005251. 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.