New Forest Code effects over smallholder’s intention to trade non-timber forest products

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

ALICE DANTAS BRITES

Abstract

Abstract. Brites AD. 2020. New Forest Code effects over smallholder’s intention to trade non-timber forest products. Asian J For 21: 41-45. The Brazilian new Forest Code (NFC) allows the sustainable economic use of one of its main mechanisms for native vegetation protection: the Legal Reserves. Smallholders' intention to trade non-timber forest products (NTFP) from such areas was accessed. Data were collected through 350 in-person surveys in two municipalities from Bahia, Brazil. Outcomes showed that more than half of the respondents do not intend to trade NTFP from their Legal Reserve areas and, the lack of knowledge about the process to obtain government permission for the economic use of these areas, was the main reason gave to justify it. Further, higher household incomes showed a negative correlation with the intention. Incentives from public or private policies and dissemination about the steps needed to obtain permission for Legal Reserve’s sustainable use are needed for engaging smallholders in NTFP trade. With these incentives, it would be possible to increase the NFC potential for adding economic value to the protected native vegetation and for linking conservation with the economic development of rural areas inhabitants. Thus, these outcomes add up to previous findings of the benefits of NTFP trade, and in terms of practice and policy, they can help in the development of environmental policies that incentivize the NTFP trade, contributing to increase landholders’ incomes and to the NFC compliance.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

References
Brancalion, PHS, Garcia, LC, Rodrigues, R et al. 2016. A critical analysis of the Native Vegetation Protection Law of Brazil (2012): Updates and ongoing initiatives. Nat Cons 14: 1–15.
Brasil. 1993. Lei No 8.629, de 25 de fevereiro de 1993.
Brasil. 2012. Lei no 12.651, de 25 de maio de 2012.
Gelman, A. 2008. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statits Med 27: 2865–2873.
Gibbs, HK, Rausch, L., Munger, J et al. 2015. Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Sci 347(6220): 377–378.
Giulietti, AM., Harley, RM, de Queiroz, LP et al. 2005. Biodiversity and Conservation of Plants in Brazil. Conserv Biol 19(3): 632–639.
Grimes, A., Loomis, S. Jahnige, P et al. 1994. Valuing the Rain Forest: The Economic Value of Nontimber Forest Products in Ecuador. Ambio 23(7): 405–410.
Holmes, G. 2013. What role do private protected areas have in conserving global biodiversity? SRI working papers 46: 3–26.
IBGE. 2019. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. https://www.ibge.gov.br/.
Kusters, K., Achdiawan, R., Belcher, B et al. 2006. Balancing development and conservation? An assessment of livelihood and environmental outcomes of nontimber forest products in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Ecol Soc 11(20): art. 20.
Lewis, DJ, Plantinga, AJ. 2007. Policies for Habitat Fragmentation: Combining Econometrics with GIS-Based Landscape Simulations. Land Econ 83(2): 109–127.
Mahapatra, AK, Shackleton, CM. 2012. Exploring the relationships between trade in natural products, cash income and livelihoods in tropical forest regions of Eastern India. Int Forest Rev 14(1): 62–73.
Melo, J. 2006. Artesanato em palha de buriti eleva renda de comunidade baiana. ETUR.
Nagendra, H, Munroe, D, Southworth, J. 2004. From pattern to process: landscape fragmentation and the analysis of land use/land cover change. Agric, Ecosyst Environ 101: 11–115.
Pattanayak, SK, Sills, EO. 2001. Do Tropical Forests Provide Natural Insurance? The Microeconomics of Non-Timber Forest Product Collection in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Econ 77(4): 595.
Prasad, R, Das, S, Sinha, S. 1999. Value addition options for non-timber forest products at primary collector’s level. Int Forest Rev 1(1): 17–21
Rizek, MB, Morsello, C. 2012. Impacts of Trade in Non-timber Forest Products on Cooperation among Caboclo Households of the Brazilian Amazon. Hum Ecol 40(5): 707–719.
Shackleton, C. 2007. The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Forest policy econ 9: 558–577.
Shanley, P, 2002. Introduction. In: Shanley, P., Pierce, AR, Laird, SA, Guillen A (eds). Tapping the Green Market. Earthscan, London.
Shanley, P, Laird, S. 2006. Além da madeira: a certificação de produtos florestais não madeireiros. CIFOR, Bogor.
Sparovek, G, Barretto, A, Matsumoto, M et al. 2015. Effects of Governance on Availability of Land for Agriculture and Conservation in Brazil. Environ SciTechnol 49(17): 10285–10293.
Stickler, C, Nepstad, D, Azevedo, A et al. 2013. Defending public interests in private lands: compliance, costs and potential environmental consequences of the Brazilian Forest Code in Mato Grosso. Philos T R Soc B: 368(1619) 20120160.
Stolton, S, Dudley, N, Avc?o?lu Çokçal??kan, B et al. 2015. Values and benefits of protected areas. In: Worboys, Gl, Lockwood, M, Kothari, A et al. (eds). Protected Area Governance and Management. ANU Press, Canberra,
Tambosi, LR., Martensen, AC, Ribeiro, MC et al. 2013. A Framework to Optimize Biodiversity Restoration Efforts Based on Habitat Amount and Landscape Connectivity. Restor Ecol 22(2): 169–177.
Tewari, D. 1998. Income and Employment Generation Opportunities and Potential of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). J SustainForest 8(2): 55–76.
Zarin, D, Harris, N, Baccini, A et al. 2016. Can carbon emissions from tropical deforestation drop by 50% in 5 years? Glob Chang Biol 1336–1347.
Zuur, A, Leno EN, Walker, N et al. A. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York.