Forest Carbon Credits Generation in Brazil: The Case of Small Farmers

  • Sabina Cerruto Ribeiro
  • Laércio Antônio Gonçalves Jacovine
  • Mariana Barbosa Vilar
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Studies in Ecological Economics book series (SEEC, volume 4)

Abstract

A literature review was made to identify and discuss obstacles that Brazilian small farmers face to develop a CDM project. Technical and economic issues are the main barriers to the participation of small farmers in these project types. Small farmers’ low education and restrictive income associated with the projects’ vast bureaucracy and high transaction costs makes their insertion in this market difficult. To overcome these challenges is necessary to guarantee access to information and specialised technical assistance and to ensure financing opportunities. Projects destined to voluntary carbon market, REDD+ and PES programmes would be desirable alternatives. Forest carbon credits generation focused on small farmers is an opportunity to harness Brazil’s forestry potential, alleviate poverty and improve ecological conditions of degraded areas.

Keywords

Small Farmer Forest Carbon Carbon Market Carbon Credit Forestry Sector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank FAPEMIG, CNPq and CAPES for financial support and scholarship. We appreciated the valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. ABRAF. (2011). Anuário estatístico da ABRAF (Associação Brasileira de Produtores de Florestas Plantadas), ano base 2010. Brasília: ABRAF.Google Scholar
  2. Ahonen, H. -M., & Hämekoski, K. (2005). Transaction costs under the Finnish CDM/JI pilot programme (Discussion papers nº 12). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  3. Amaral, W., & Smeraldi, R. (2005). Relação entre cultivo de soja e desmatamento: compreendendo a dinâmica. São Paulo: GTF.Google Scholar
  4. Azuela, A. (2006). Illegal logging and local democracy: Between communitarianism and legal fetishism. Ambiente e Sociedade, 9, 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baskent, E. Z., & Keleş, S. (2009). Developing alternative forest management planning strategies incorporating timber, water and carbon values: An examination of their interactions. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 14, 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BB. (2011). Banco do Brasil. Linhas de crédito RSA (responsabilidade socioambiental do Banco do Brasil). Retrieved September 8, 2011, from http://www.bb.com.br/docs/pub/inst/dwn/LinhasCreditoRSA.pdf
  7. BCB. (2008). Resolução nº 3.559 do Banco Central do Brasil. Altera as disposições estabelecidas no Manual de Crédito Rural, Capítulo 10 (MCR 10) para financiamentos ao amparo do Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar (Pronaf). Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://comunidades.mda.gov.br/o/876354
  8. Boyd, E., Gutierrez, M., & Chang, M. (2007). Small-scale forest carbon projects: Adapting CDM to low-income communities. Global Environmental Change, 17, 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brasil. (1965). Lei nº 4.771, de 15 de setembro de 1965. Institui o novo Código Florestal. Retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L4771.htm
  10. Brasil. (1993). Lei nº 8.629, de 25 de fevereiro de 1993. Dispõe sobre a regulamentação dos dispositivos constitucionais relativos à reforma agrária, previstos no Capítulo III, Título VII, da Constituição Federal. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8629.htm
  11. Brasil. (2006). Lei nº 11.326, de 24 de julho de 2006. Estabelece as diretrizes para a formulação da política nacional da agricultura familiar e empreendimentos familiares rurais. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2004-2006/2006/Lei/L11326.htm
  12. Brasil. (2007). Projeto de lei nº 792, de 2007. Institui a política nacional de pagamento por serviços ambientais. Retrieved November, 29, 2011, from http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=348783
  13. Brasil. (2008). Plano Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima – PNMC. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/smcq_climaticas/_arquivos/plano_nacional_mudanca_clima.pdf
  14. Brasil. (2009). Lei nº 12.187, de 29 de dezembro de 2009. Institui a Política Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima – PNMC e dá outras providências. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2009/Lei/L12187.htm
  15. Brasil. (2011a). PLC – Projeto de Lei da Câmara, nº 30 de 2011. Texto substitutivo do Código Florestal. Retrieved November, 29, 2011, from http://legis.senado.gov.br/mate-pdf/100176.pdf
  16. Brasil. (2011b). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Programa ABC: agricultura de baixo carbono. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://www.agricultura.gov.br/abc/
  17. Brasil. (2011c). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Plano Agrícola e Pecuário 2011–2012. Brasília: MAPA/SPA.Google Scholar
  18. Cenamo, M. C., Pavan, M. N., Campos, M. T., Barros, A. C., & Carvalho, F. (2009). Casebook of REDD projects in Latin America. Manaus: TNC/IDESAM.Google Scholar
  19. CGEE, IPAM & SAE. (2011). REDD no Brasil: um enfoque amazônico. Fundamentos, critérios e estruturas institucionais para um regime nacional de Redução de Emissões por Desmatamento e Degradação Florestal – REDD. Brasília: Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos.Google Scholar
  20. De Gouvello, C., & Coto, O. (2003). Transaction costs and carbon finance impact on small-scale CDM projects (PCFplus Report 14). Washington, DC: PCF.Google Scholar
  21. DeFries, R. S., Houghton, R. A., Hansen, M. C., Field, C. B., Skole, D., & Townshend, J. (2002). Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations for the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States America, 99, 14256–14261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ecosystem Marketplace. (2011). Forest carbon portal: Tracking terrestrial carbon. Retrieved September, 18, 2011, from http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/projects
  23. FAO. (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010: Main report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  24. Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics, 69, 2060–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fearnside, P. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, rates and consequences. Conservation Biology, 19, 680–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferreira, M. A. M., & Braga, M. J. (2004). Diversificação e competitividade nas cooperativas agropecuárias. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 8, 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forsyth, T. (2007). Promoting the “development dividend” of climate technology transfer: Can cross-sector partnerships help? World Development, 35, 1684–1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gomes, I. (2004). Sustentabilidade social e ambiental na agricultura familiar. Revista de Biologia e Ciências da Terra, 5, 1–17.Google Scholar
  29. Greenpeace. (2006). Eating up the Amazon. Greenpeace international. Retrieved November, 28, 2011, from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/7/eating-up-the-amazon.pdf
  30. Guedes, F. B., & Seehusen, S. E. (2011). Pagamentos por serviços ambientais na Mata Atlântica: lições aprendidas e desafios (Série Biodiversidade, Vol. 42). Brasília: MMA.Google Scholar
  31. Hall, A. L. (1989). Developing Amazonia: Deforestation and social conflict in Brazil’s Carajas programme. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hamilton, K., Bayon, R., Turner, G., & Higgins, D. (2007). State of the voluntary carbon market 2007: Picking up steam. The Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance. Retrieved September, 20, 2011, from http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarket18July_Final.pdf
  33. IBGE. (2006). Censo Agropecuário 2006: Agricultura Familiar – primeiros resultados. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.Google Scholar
  34. Kanowski, P. J., Mcdermott, C. L., & Cashore, B. W. (2011). Implementing REDD+: Lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R., & Kostwinder, E. (2008). Business and partnerships for development. European Management Journal, 26, 262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kollmuss, A., Zink, H., & Polycarp, C. (2008). Making sense of the voluntary carbon market: A comparison of carbon offset standards. Germany: WWF.Google Scholar
  37. Krey, M. (2004). Transaction costs of CDM projects in India – An empirical survey (HWWA-Report 238). Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International Economics.Google Scholar
  38. Lira, E. M., Wadt, P. G. S., Galvão, A. S., & Rodrigues, G. S. (2006). Avaliação da capacidade de uso da terra e dos impactos ambientais em áreas de assentamento na Amazônia ocidental. Revista de Biologia e Ciências da Terra, 6, 316–326.Google Scholar
  39. Martinelli, L. A., Naylor, R., Vitousek, P. M., & Moutinho, P. M. (2010). Agriculture in Brazil: Impacts, costs and opportunities for a sustainable future. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2, 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. May, P., & Millikan, B. (2010). The context of REDD+ in Brazil: Drivers, agents and institutions (Occasional Paper 55). Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  41. May, P., Boyd, E., Chang, M., & Neto, F. C. V. (2005). Incorporating sustainable development into carbon forest projects in Brazil and Bolivia. Estudos Sociedade e Agricultura, 1, 1–23.Google Scholar
  42. Merger, E., & Pistorius, T. (2011). Effectiveness and legitimacy of forest carbon standards in the OTC voluntary carbon market. Carbon Balance and Management, 6, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MI (Ministério da Integração Nacional). (2011). FCO – Fundo constitucional de financiamento do Centro Oeste. Retrieved September, 26, 2011, from http://www.mi.gov.br/fundos/fundos_constitucionais/index.asp?area=FCO-Programação2011
  44. Moutinho, P. (2009). Desmatamento na Amazônia: desafios para reduzir as emissões de gases de efeito estufa do Brasil. Publicações IPAM. Retrieved August, 27, 2012, from http://www.ipam.org.br/biblioteca/livro/Desmatamento-na-Amazonia-desafios-para-reduzir-as-emissoes-de-gases-de-efeito-estufa-do-Brasil/254
  45. Mozzer, G. B. (2011). Agropecuária no contexto da economia de baixo carbono. In R. S. Motta, J. Hargrave, G. Luedemann, & M. B. S. Gutierrez (Eds.), Mudança do clima no Brasil: aspectos econômicos, sociais e regulatórios (pp. 111–125). Brasília: IPEA.Google Scholar
  46. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Neeff, T., Eichler, L., Deecke, I., & Fehse, J. (2007). Updates on markets for forestry offsets. Turrialba: CATIE.Google Scholar
  48. OCB (Organização das Cooperativas Brasileiras). (2011a). Números do cooperativismo por ramo de atividade. Retrieved September, 28, 2011, from http://www.ocb.org.br
  49. OCB (Organização das Cooperativas Brasileiras). (2011b). Carbono Cooperativo – Programa MDL Florestal. Retrieved September, 15, 2011, from http://carbono.brasilcooperativo.coop.br
  50. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2005). Agricultural policy reform in Brazil. Policy Brief. Retrieved August, 29, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/52/35543248.pdf
  51. Pereira, M. B. G., & Gutierrez, S. (2009). O mecanismo de desenvolvimento limpo setorial: perspectivas para o desenvolvimento sustentável brasileiro (Texto para discussão nº 1443). Brasília: IPEA.Google Scholar
  52. Peters-Stanley, M., Hamilton, K., Marcello, T., Orejas, R., Thiel, A. & Yin, D. (2012). Developing dimension: State of the voluntary carbon markets 2012. The Ecosystem Marketplace and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Retrieved August, 27, 2012, from http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3164.pdf
  53. Robledo, C., & Pfund, J. (2004). Climate change and forest-based livelihoods (InfoResources Focus nº 2/04). Zollikofen: InfoResources.Google Scholar
  54. Shanley, P., Silva, M. S., Melo, T., Carmenta, R., & Nasi, R. (2012). From conflict of use to multiple use: Forest management innovations by small holders in Amazonian logging frontiers. Forest Ecology and Management, 268, 70–80. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soares-Filho, B. S., Nepstad, D. C., Curran, L. M., Cerqueira, G. C., Garcia, R. A., et al. (2006). Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature, 440, 520–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas, S., Dargusch, P., Harrison, S., & Herbohn, J. (2010). Why are there so few afforestation and reforestation clean development mechanism projects? Land Use Policy, 27, 880–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. UNFCCC. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved September, 25, 2011, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf#page=12
  58. UNFCCC. (2007). Decision 9/CMP. 3. Implications of possible changes to the limit for small-scale afforestation and reforestation clean development mechanism project activities. Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its third session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. Document FCCC/KP/CMP/2007/9/Add.1. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from http://unfccc.int/
  59. UNFCCC. (2012). CDM in numbers. Retrieved August 27, 2012, from http://cdm.unfccc.int/Statistics/index.html
  60. WBI (World Bank Institute). (2011). Estimating the opportunity – Costs of REDD+: A training manual. Washington, DC: WBI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabina Cerruto Ribeiro
    • 1
  • Laércio Antônio Gonçalves Jacovine
    • 2
  • Mariana Barbosa Vilar
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciências FlorestaisFederal University of LavrasLavrasBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Engenharia FlorestalFederal University of ViçosaViçosaBrazil
  3. 3.Polo de Excelência em Florestas, Department of ScienceTechnology and Higher Education of Minas Gerais StateViçosaBrazil

Personalised recommendations