smallholder livelihoods and land use in the eastern brazilian amazon: lessons for redd+ from...
Post on 29-Nov-2014
1.371 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Smallholder Livelihoods and Land Use in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon: Lessons for REDD+
from Proambiente
Marina Cromberg (UDESC), Amy E. Duchelle (CIFOR)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Proambiente in the Transamazon • Proambiente:
- Articulation of small farmers and civil society to conciliate
smallholder production + environmental conservation
- Became a federal pilot program in 2004
- 11 pilot sites in the Amazon Basin
- Transamazon site: 15 community groups; 350 families
- Interventions in the Transamazon: Land use planning,
community agreements, technical assistance and PES
- Ended prematurely in 2006 due lack of a national framework
for PES, limited funding and implementation capacity…
- To provide continuity to this initiative IPAM has proposed a
REDD+ pilot project with the same families
THINKING beyond the canopy
Sustainable Settlements in the Amazon
• Proponent: Amazon Institute of Environmental Research
(IPAM)
• Scale: 350 families of Proambiente (318 km²) ; 3
reference settlements (2,288 km²);
• Target actors: Colonist settlers
• Drivers of D&D: cattle ranching, swidden agriculture,
Illegal logging
• REDD+ intervention mechanisms:
- Land tenure regularization;
- Assure environmental compliance;
- Incentive based mechanism: PES and sustainable land
use alternatives.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Research objective
• Analyze the possible outcomes of Proambiente
related to conservation and livelihood
improvement:
- land use
- agropastoral management
- capitalization level and means of obtaining
income
• Identify implications for the REDD+ project
interventions.
CIFOR’s GCS-REDD Component 2 in Brazil
Map: CIFOR GCS-REDD
Transamazon site
IPAM & FVPP, 2009
THINKING beyond the canopy
Data collection methods
• Timing of fieldwork: July and August 2010
• 10 enumerators
• 4 village meetings
• 137 interviews in 4 villages
67 participants of Proambiente
70 non participants of Proambiente
THINKING beyond the canopy
4
4
12
12
28
41
2
8
11
17
35
28
0 10 20 30 40 50
Business
Forest
Wage
Govt.support
Agriculture
Livestock
% household income (cash + subsistence)
Income Share
Non Proambiente
Proambiente
Results: Income
Anual per capita income (2009 -2010) Pro: USD 3,310
NPro: USD 2,084
=
THINKING beyond the canopy
2
7
5
13
24
53
2
6
8
12
32
46
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Agroforestry
Crops
Initial Secondary Forest
Mature Secondary Forest
Pasture
Primary Forest
%
Non Proambiente
Proambiente
Results: Land Use
Recent deforestation 2008-2010 (Pro: 3.4; Npro: 3.7 ha)
% land cover (2010)
- Forest cover (Pro: 66% e Npro: 58 %) - No differences related to the mean % land area allocated for each use between the groups
15
64
21
30
51
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PrimaryForest
SecondaryForest
Did not clear
%
Proambiente
Non Proambiente
THINKING beyond the canopy
Results: Agropastoral management
• More cultivated species diversity (Pro:12; NPro:
9.5) p=0.025
• Pro households obtained higher mean
agricultural income per hectare (2009-2010)
(Pro:USD 632; Npro: USD 445) p=0.057
• Reduced fire use in the last two years
• No differences related to the % of households
that use pesticides
• No differences between livestock income/ha and
number of cattle heads/ha (0.6 animals/ha)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Take-home messages
• Lessons learned from Proambiente
• Although there were no differences related to income,
Proambiente participants engaged in some practices that
reflected the program’s values:
- used agricultural land more efficiently
- preferred to clear secondary forest
- reduced fire use
• However, we can not affirm that these differences were
determined by the program, since we do not have
baseline data for the period before the start of the
program.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Take-home messages
• Implications for proposed REDD+ Interventions
• The Importance of income from livestock and agriculture
show the need for more intensive and diversified
production techniques, as already anticipated by the
project proponent.
• Given the fact that the families are not compliant with the
current forest code reforestation on degraded lands are
important to promote environmental compliance
top related