Executive summary of the report in English

The conTribuTion of brazilian conservaTion uniTs To The naTional economy

Catalogue SourceUNEP-WCMC

The contribution of Brazilian conservation units to the national economy: Executive Summary /

Rodrigo Medeiros, Carlos Eduardo Frickmann Young, Helena Boniatti Pavese & Fábio França

Silva Araújo; Editors. – Brasilia: UNEP-WCMC, 2011.

44 p.

1. Conservation Units. 2. Environmental Economy. I. Medeiros, Rodrigo. II. Young, Carlos

Eduardo Frickmann. III. United Nations Environment Programme. IV. World Conservation

Monitoring Centre.

CDU 502

This document should be cited as follows:

Medeiros, R.; Young; C.E.F.; Pavese, H. B. & Araújo, F. F. S. 2011. Contribuição das unidades de

conservação brasileiras para a economia nacional: Sumário Executivo. Brasília: UNEP-WCMC, 44p.

The conTribuTion of brazilian conservaTion uniTs To The naTional economy

4

The conTribuTion of brazilian conservation units To The naTional economy

UNEP-WCMC

Team General Coordination

Helena Boniatti PaveseUNEP-WCMC

Technical CoordinationDr. Rodrigo Medeiros

Laboratório de Gestão Ambiental IF/DCA/UFRRJInstituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Políticas Públicas, Estratégias e Desenvolvimento

Dr. Carlos Eduardo Frickmann YoungGrupo de Pesquisa em Economia do Meio Ambiente IE/UFRJ

Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Políticas Públicas, Estratégias e Desenvolvimento

Fabio França Silva AraújoMinistry of Environment

Research Team UFRRJ/UFRJBruna Stein, Camila Rodrigues, Elizabeth Machado, Felipe Araujo, Gustavo Simas, Inês Infante,

Vanessa Godoy e Yara Valverde

Research Team – Ministry of EnvironmentFabiana Pirondi dos Santos, Helen Gurgel, Luis Henrique Neves e Marco Antônio de Souza Salgado

PartnersJorge Hargrave

IPEA

André Cunha GIZ

Ana NassarLuiz de Andrade FilhoEmbaixada do Reino Unido

Graphic Design and Layout

Vendo Editorial (www.vendoeditorial.com.br)

Review and Final EditingMarco Antonio Gonçalves / Paxiúba Informação Ltda.

TranslationJanaína Reginaldo Mendes

5UNEP-WCMC

1. INTRODUCTION PÁG 62. CONSERVATION UNITS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PÁG 82.1. Current challenges to the implementation and management of the National System of Conservation Units

3. CHALLENGES TO THE VALUATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSERVATION UNITS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY PÁG 13

4. ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE EXPLOITATION OF FOREST PRODUCTS IN CONSERVATION UNITS PÁG 144.1. Timber products4.2. Non-timber products4.3. Conclusions on the economic potential of forest products in the conservation units of the Amazon biome

5. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES IN CONSERVATION UNITS PÁG 205.1. Estimated economic impact of visitation to National Parks in the local economy5.2. Estimated economic impact of visitation to the set of federal conservation units5.3. Estimated economic impact of visitation to State Parks in the local economy5.4. Estimated economic impact of visitation to the set of federal and state conservation units5.5. Conclusions on the economic impact of public use activities in conservation units

6. ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF CARBON RESERVES IN CONSERVATION UNITS PÁG 266.1. Estimate of the potential value of carbon stock in conservation units6.2. Conservation units in the context of REDD and REDD Plus6.3. Conclusions on the economic potential of carbon reserves in conservation units

7. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CONSERVATION UNITS ON THE PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION OF WATER RESOURCES PÁG 307.1. Hydro energy generation 7.2. Water capture for public supply7.3. Water capture for agriculture and irrigation7.4. Conclusions on the impact of conservation units on the production and conservation of water resources

8. CONSERVATION UNITS AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAX REVENUES PÁG 348.1. Ecological VAT and Conservation Units8.2. Conclusions on conservation units and the distribution of tax revenues

9. FINAL MESSAGE PÁG 38

10. ANNEX PÁG 39 Notes and bibliographical references Acronyms and Abbreviations used in this publication

summary

6


UNEP-WCMC

1. Introduction

In 2010, Brazil ranked as the world’s eighth lar-gest economy, with an average annual growth of

4% in the last eight years. This growth is possibly, among other reasons, attributable to the abun-dant availability of the country’s natural resources such as fertile land, water, forest resources and varied mineral reserves. Nevertheless, the avai-lability of these resources is limited in time and space, therefore making good management of the natural resource base is essential to ensure the production of wealth in the long term. The crea-tion of protected areas - areas specially created by the government in order to, among other things, protect relevant natural resources - is one of the most effective ways available for society to meet this need.

Conservation units meet a series of roles whose benefits are shared by a great part of the Brazilian population - including by economic sectors expe-riencing continuous growth, even though they mi-ght not realize it. For example: a significant part of the quality and quantity of water that makes up the reservoirs of hydroelectric power plants, provi-ding energy to cities and industries, is provided by protected areas. The tourism that stimulates the economy of many cities in the country is only pos-sible by the protection afforded by conservation areas. The development of drugs and cosmetics consumed daily which, in many cases, make use of species protected within conservation areas.

At the same time, conservation areas contri-bute effectively to face one of the major challenges of our time: climate change. When mitiga-ting CO

2 emissions and other greenhouse gases resulting from the deterioration of natural ecosys-tems, protected areas help to prevent the concen- tration of these gases in the atmosphere. This shows that protected areas play a crucial role in the protection of strategic resources for the country’s development, an aspect that is not fully noticed by most part of society, including de-cision makers, and that, additionally, they global warming.

Contrary to what some sectors of society would think, conservation areas are not “untouchable” protected spaces, completely aside from any human activity. As the results contained in this publication show, they provide direct or indirect goods and services that meet the various needs of the Brazilian society, including productive needs. Nonetheless, since these goods and servi-ces are public and are provided diffusively, their value is not perceived by users, which, in most cases, do not pay directly for their consumption or use. In other words, the role of conservation units is not easily “internalized” in the national economy. One of the causes might be the lack of systematic information which could make clear its role in providing goods and services that con-tribute to the economic and social development of country1.

In order to meet this need, the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Mo-nitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the Brazilian Ministry of Environment, under the technical coor-dination of researchers from the Federal Universi-ty Rural of Rio de Janeiro and Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, with the technical support of the Deutsche Gesellscäft für Internationale Zusam-menarbeit (GIZ) and the Institute for Applied Eco-nomic Research (IPEA) and the financial support from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair (DEFRA)2, developed the study THE CONTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN CONSERVATION UNITS TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY.

This publication presents the results of an analysis on the economic impact and the poten-tial of five of goods and services provisioned by conservation units for the Brazilian economy and society: forest products, public use, carbon, wa-ter and sharing of tax revenue. In summary, this analysis shows that:

The set of ecosystem services evaluated in this study generates economic contributions that, when monetized, significantly exceed the amount that has been assigned by the public administra-tion for the maintenance of the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC);

7UNEP-WCMC

The production of timber in the Amazon’s national and state forests, from areas managed according to the model forest concession, has the potential to generate between $ 1.2 billion to $ 2.2 billion per year, more than all of the native timber cur-rently extracted in the country;

Rubber production in the 11 Extractive Reserves identified as producers, results in R$ 16.5 million per year, whereas the production of Brazil nuts has the potential to generate R $ 39.2 million per year, considering only 17 of the Extractive Reserves analysed. In both cases, these gains can be increased significantly if the conservation units receive investment to develop their produc-tive capacity;

Visitors in the 67 existing National Parks in Bra-zil have the potential to generate between R$ 1.6 billion and R$ 1.8 billion per year, based on es-timates of the projected flow of tourists (approxi-mately 13.7 million people, including Brazilians and foreigners) by 2016, the year of the Olympic Games;

The sum of estimates of public visitation in fe-deral and state conservation units considered by the study indicates that if the potential of the units are adequately exploited, some 20 million people will visit these areas in 2016, with a po-tential economic impact of approximately R$ 2.2 billion that year;

The creation and maintenance of Brazilian con-servation units has prevented the emission of at least 2.8 billion tonnes of carbon, with a moneta-ry value estimated of at least R$ 96 billion;

The estimated value for the annual “rental” of the carbon stock whose emissions were prevented by conservation units totals ranges from R$ 2.9 billion and R$5.8 billion per year. This amount exceeds the current spending and investment ne-eds for further consolidation and improvement of these units;

In relation to the different uses of water by socie-ty, 80% of the country’s hydroelectricity comes

from sources that have at least one tributary do-wnstream of a conservation unit, 9% of drinking water is directly collected in conservation units, 26% is collected from sources downstream of conservation units, and 4% of the water used in agriculture and irrigation is taken from sources inside or downstream of protected areas;

In watersheds and water sources with the grea-test forest cover, the cost associated with trea-ting water for public supply is less than the cost of treatment in areas with low forest cover;

In 2009, the actual revenue of Ecological VAT passed on to municipalities by the existence of protected areas in their territory was R $ 402.7 million. The potential revenue for the 12 states that do not yet have legislation on Ecological VAT would be $ 14.9 million, assuming a rate of 0.5% for the criterion “conservation unit” that the mu-nicipalities are entitled to.

Other important environmental services, such as the protection of human settlements against landslides, floods and other accidents, the conser-vation of fishery resources and biodiversity conser-vation per se - the major goal of conservation units - still do not have appropriate valuation techni-ques associated with them that can yield meanin-gful results. –Therefore they could not have their values estimated due to the lack of information and appropriate methodologies. For this reason, the figures presented in this document constitute an underestimation of the total environmental ser-vices provided by conservation units.

8


UNEP-WCMC

2. Conservations units and their importanc to biodiversity conservation

TABLE 1: Federal Conservation Units by group and management categories

TOTAL

GrOup/CATeGOryStrict protection

National Park

Biological Reserve

Ecological Station

Natural Monument

Wildlife Refuge

Subtotal

Environmental Protection Area

Area of special ecological interest

Extractive Reserve

National Forest

Sustainable Development Reserve

Subtotal

67

29

31

3

7

137

16

32

59

65

1

173

310

245,756

38,091

69,019

442

1,840

335,147

Number AreA (km2)

Sustainable use

445

90,486

117,552

190,314

644

399,441

754,588Source: CNUC, NovEMBER 2010

Conservation units are territorial areas and their associated environmental resources,

including territorial waters, with relevant natural features, legally established by the Government, with conservation objectives and defined limits, under special administration, which apply ap-propriate protection safeguards (as stated in Law no. 9.985 of 2000). These specially protected territorial areas are internationally recognized as fundamental tools for the on-site conservation of species, populations and ecosystems, inclu-ding systems and traditional means of survival for human communities, having legal status and different administration regimes.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the most important international agreement on the issue, establishes that signatory countries have the mission of creating and maintaining adequately their network of protected areas, or any equivalent instrument capable to meet the Convention’s three core objectives: the conser-vation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. The importance of territorial areas was reinforced by this Convention in 2004 with the creation of the Program of Work on Pro-tected Areas, during the CBD’s 7th Conference of Parties. According to the program, member countries must achieve:

The “establishment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial and by 2012 for marine areas of comprehensive, effectively mana-ged, and ecologically representative natio-nal and regional systems of protected areas that collectively, inter alia through a global network that contribute to achieving the three objectives of the Convention and the 2010 target to significantly reduce the cur-rent rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels”3.

Being aware of these commitments and in line with advances in conservation policy throu-ghout the world, Brazil mobilized major efforts over the past ten years to expand and streng-then its system of protected areas, adjusting its goals to the Work Programme of the CBD so as to achieve the targets established by the Convention. Since the creation of the National System of Nature Conservation Areas (SNUC) in 2000, the country has promoted significant expansion of the land covered by conservation units, especially in the Amazon - which at the end of 2010 covered 23.8% of its total area , equivalent to about 100 million hectares. Brazil was responsible for 74% of all protected areas created between 2003 and 2008, representing a significant contribution to the protection of na-tural environments worldwide4.

9UNEP-WCMC

Source: CNUC, NovEMBER 2010. Note: thE ExtENSioN oF 14 UNitS (9 PARkS, 2 ECologiCAl StAtioNS, 1 NAtURAl MoNUMENt AND 2 ENviRoNMENtAl PRotECtioN AREAS)

WAS Not iNClUDED iN thiS tABlE DUE to iNSUFFiCiENt iNFoRMAtioN.

TABLE 2: State Conservation Units by group and management categories

TOTAL

GrOup/CATeGOryStrict protection

State Park

Biological Reserve

Ecological Station

Natural Monument

Wildlife Refuge

Subtotal

Area of special ecological interest

Environmental Protection Area

Extractive Reserve

State Forest

Sustainable Development Reserve

Subtotal

144

14

47

11

6

222

19

109

3

17

18

166

388

67,786

12,513

44,771

602

1,252

126,923

Number AreA (km2)

Sustainable use

103

186,510

6,674

93,959

95,288

382,534

509,457

This effort placed Brazil substantially closer to the accomplishment of the CBD’s goals and within the established deadlines. According to data from the National Register of Protected Areas (CNUC) maintained and managed by the Brazilian Ministry of Environment (MMA), in November 2010, 698 conservation units were created and managed by federal and state go-vernments in Brazil. This set adds to the 973 Private Reserves of Natural Heritage (RPPNs), which, managed by their owners, totalled seven thousand square kilometers5. Together, the di-fferent categories of SNUC (see box) are distri-buted across all biomes, covering approximately 15% of the country (Tables 1 and 2)6.

Nonetheless, the pace of expansion of the SNUC recorded in recent years has not been ac-companied by an equivalent effort to implement and manage the conservation units. Consequen-tly, in the coming years there will be the need to face the enormous challenge of enabling the consolidation of these areas so they can perform effectively the functions that justified their creation – nature conservation, public visit, scientific rese-arch and sustainable use, among others.

2.1. Current challenges in the implementation and management of the National System of Nature Conservation Areas

Brazil has the world’s fourth largest land area co-vered by protected areas, 1,278,190 km2, only

behind the United States (2,607,132km2), Rus-sia (1,543,466km2) and China (1,452,693km2)7. Despite this position of prominence on the inter-national scene, the effective implementation of the SNUC faces several problems, such as regu-larization of land declared as conservation units, lack of staff and basic infrastructure, and lack of management plans or non-reviewed management plans, among others. A lack of investment is the

main cause of most of these problems, which may be aggravated by the prospect of integrating new units to the system in coming years.

According to the Brazilian Ministry of Environ-ment (MMA), the budget for federal conservation units is practically the same since 2001 - about R$ 300 million per year. While in 2009 there has been an increase of 9% compared to the previous year, the amount decreased again in 2010 and 2011. In that same period, however, the total area of federal conservation units has had an expan-sion of 83.5%. Therefore, the resources allocated per federal protected hectare have been reduced by around 40% between 2001 and 2010.

Aiming at developing the full potential of conser-vation units to provide products and services to the Brazilian society, it is necessary to take consistent steps that focus on the effective implementation of these areas. The MMA believes that achieving this target would require an annual expenditure of R$550 million to the federal system, and R$350

10


UNEP-WCMC

20000

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

So

ur

ce

: S

NU

C, 2

000

1.1762.125 2.352 2.400 2.678

5.257

7.104

18.600

Africa do Sul estados unidos Nova Zelândia

Hectares por funcionário

Argentina Costa rica Canadá Austrália brasil

FIGURE 3: Number of employees per hectare protected in Brazil and in other countries.

FIGURE 2: Investment per hectare of conservation unit in different countries.

So

ur

ce

: C

NU

C, N

ov

EM

BE

R 2

010

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

04,43

21,3732,29

39,71

53,33 55,167,09

110,39

156,12

brasil Argentina Costa rica méxico Canadá Austrália África do Sul N. Zelândia estados unidos

r$ por Hectare

million for all state systems, in addition to about R$600 million for investments in infrastructure and planning in the federal system, and $1.2 billion in state systems. These values were estimated consi-dering the investments needed to meet minimum standards of effective management, taking as re-ference consolidated systems in the same order of magnitude as the Brazilian system – for example, United States, Canada, Australia and Mexico.

A comparison between the budget for protected areas in Brazil and other nations shows that even countries with lower GDP invest, per hectare protec-ted, between 5 and 25 times more on the mainte-

nance of their systems (figure 2). At the same time, the ratio between the area protected by conserva-tion units in the SNUC and number of employees allocated to their management is among the worst in the world. For example, while in South Africa this ratio is one employee for every 1,176 hectares in Brazil it is one employee for every 18,600 hectares (figure 3).

This enormous deficit of employees can be ex-plained both by the long period without public exa-minations for public servants or other strategies for hiring staff and by the recent remarkable increase

11UNEP-WCMC

WhaT is The naTional sysTem of naTure coNServatioN areaS (SNuc)?

in Brazil, conservation units are governed by Law nº 9885 of 2000, which created the National System of Nature conservation areas (SNuc) (figure 1), composed of a set of federal, state and municipal conservation units. this Law establishes two groups of conservation units: strict protection units, with five management categories, and sustainable units, with seven management categories (table 3).

according to the SNuc, the basic purpose of the units of strict protection "is to preserve nature with only the indirect use of its natural resources being accepted”, i.e., uses not involving the consumption, collection, damage or destruction of such resources. as for the sustainable use units, their aim is to "harmonize nature conservation with the sustainable use of natural resources”, with sustainable use being understood as the “exploitation of the environment in order to guarantee the sustainability of renewable resources and ecological processes, in a socially fair and economically viable way."

FIGURE 1: Distribution of conservation units in the Brazilian territory

Limites Estaduais

UNIDADES DE CONSERVAçãO FEDERAIS

Proteção Integral

Uso Sustentável

UNIDADES DE CONSERVAçãO ESTADUAIS

Proteção Integral

Uso Sustentável

BIOMAS

Amazônia

Caatinga

Cerrado

Mata Atlântica

Pampa

Pantanal

in the surface area of the national territory protected by conservation units. The availability of adequate “in field” personnel is fundamental to provide effec-tiveness to the management of conservation units and cannot be provided only by procedures such as the adoption of integrated management strate-gies, remote sensing or other means.

The solution to these issues, which weaken the management of conservation units in the country,

12


UNEP-WCMC

STrICT prOTeCTION uNITS

Ecological StationBiological Reserve

National ParkNatural Monument

Wildlife Refuge

Environmental Protection AreaArea of Special Ecological interest

National ForestExtractive Reserve

Fauna ReserveSustainable Use Reserve

Private Natural heritage Reserve

SuSTAINAbLe uSe uNITS

TABLE 3: SNUC’s conservation units (Law 9.985 of 2000)

Source: SNUC, 2000

depends a great deal on an increase in the volume of financial resources allocated to these areas. In order to achieve this increase, it is necessary for society in general and decision makers in particu-lar to understand the importance of the SNUC for the country’s economic and social development, in

the short and long term. Unlike what some sectors of the Brazilian society postulate - that protected areas constitute obstacles to development - these areas provide essential services to the country.

13UNEP-WCMC

The project The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), in its report for policy

makers, argues that the lack of market value for ecosystem services, or environmental services (see box on the issue), produces neglect or undervaluing of benefits, usually of a public nature, generated by them in the processes of decision making8.

sical aspects (“what is this service for?”)- lack of this knowledge impedes the economic calculation - even though common intuition may deem that the resource “has value”.

In some cases, the valuation of environmen-tal services is much simpler, as in the case of the supply of timber and non-timber and non-timber products (timber, rubber, cashew nuts, yerba mate, etc.), which already have market prices. Other ser-vices face greater difficulties in valuation, such as the economic impact of public visitation to a pro-tected area on the local economy or the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases due to the defo-restation avoided by maintaining a protected area.

In this case study, the analysis of goods and services effectively or potentially provided by the Brazilian conservation units was carried out on the following five themes:

Forest products, Public use, Carbon, Water and Sharing of tax revenue.

The choice of these themes within the vast ran-ge of goods and services provisioned by the con-servation units took into account the availability of methods and consistent data, and the interest on delivering results on sectors more easily perceived by society as part of their daily lives, regardless of education or social class. Therefore, it was not possible to present estimates for critical services due to the lack of data and/or methodologies.

The analysis and results presented below, con-sidered, in most cases, the set of 310 federal con-servation units and 388 state conservation units registered in CNUC in November 2010, unless otherwise indicated.

WhaT are environmenTal or ecoSyStem ServiceS

the environment provides both goods (tangible) and services (intangible). recently, the expression “environmental services” started to be used to refer to all the free benefits generated by environmental resources, referring not only to goods (e.g. timber) but also to services (e.g. water conservation and leisure). the millennium ecosystem assessment9, launched in 2001 by the united Nations, follows this recent approach using the term “environment service” to describe the environmental positive externalities associated with the maintenance of natural areas all around the world.

3. Challenges to the valuation of goods and services associated with conservation units and their contribution to the national economy

The theoretical basis of this work is the Princi-ple of Total Economic Value, which states that the value of an environmental resource can be obtai-ned from the sum of goods and services supplied by it, regardless of the market prices its benefits receive10. In the absence of these prices, tech-niques known as environmental valuation can be applied to provide monetary values to such bene-fits in order to prevent the removal of those goods and services - mentioned herein as environmental services – is considered as “zero cost”.

The quality of the economic valuation of envi-ronmental services depends on knowledge of the ecosystem dynamics in terms of natural and phy-

14


UNEP-WCMC

Brazilian forests are fundamental to the main-tenance of ecological processes and an im-

portant economic asset for Brazil, with huge po-tential for exploitation. According to the Brazilian Forest Service (Serviço Florestal Brasileiro)11, the country has about 524 million hectares of forests, representing 61.5% of the national land territory. About 98.6% of the total (517 million hectares) consists of natural forests, of which approxima-tely 75 million hectares are protected by federal conservation units, which equals only 15% of this area. Amazon forests occupy nearly 356.5 million hectares, representing 68.93% of the area’s na-tural forests in Brazil12, as summarized in table 4.

The analyses on the exploitation of timber and non-timber forest products presented in this

study have only focused on the Amazon biome (see box on the issue), the source of the largest share of forest production in Brazil13 and 14. The smallest share of the remaining biomes is a con-sequence of various factors, including the reduc-tion of forest remnants due to conversion to other land uses.

The choice of products to be analyzed took into account their importance for the regional economy and the availability of data according to study’s ne-eds. Therefore, in the case of timber products, the analysis was restricted to roundwood and in the case of non-timber products, to rubber and Brazil nuts. The analysis considered only the economic

TABLE 4: Area of the Legal Amazon and the Amazon Biome

legal Amazon

Amazon Biome

Amazon biome’s forest cover

60% of Brazil

49,29% of Brazil

68,93% of Brazil’s

forest cover

perCeNTuAL

510,981,200

419,694,300

356,429,362

ÁreA (HeCTAreS)

So

ur

ce

: MM

A/C

NU

C, 2

010

4. The economical potential of forest product exploitation in conservation units

potential of the National and State Forests (roun-dwood) and Extractive Reserves (rubber and Brazil nuts), categories of conservation units that, besides allowing the direct exploitation of natural resources, had the data required by the study .

WhaT are Timber and NoN-timBer foreSt productS

timber products are those derived from the woody parts of a plant, that is, its trunk and branches. this is the case for roundwood, charcoal, timber and timber waste for plywood. Non-timber forest products are those non-timber products, which also constitute a source of income and supplies, including food for communities living off the forest. these include the vegetable oils, resins, essential oils, fruits, nuts and seeds, fibres, dyes and parts of plants with therapeutic use, among others15.

Between 2006 and 2008, the exploitation of timber and non-timber from natural forests has generated approximately r$ 3.79 billion in Brazil16. the contribution of Brazil nuts, rubber, charcoal, fuelwood and roundwood totalled 86.1% of this amount.

4.1. Timber products

How tHiS Study waS deveLoped

This study was developed from litera-ture on this topic in governmental and non-governmental organizations, asso-ciations, and cooperatives, among others, complemented by semi-structured inter-views with managers and analysts per-forming environmental activities in the identified categories of conservation units. The study focused on National and State forests - the most compatible with the exploitation of forests under con-

15UNEP-WCMC

cession - from the Amazon biome, from where over 76% of the total volume of timber currently produced in the country originates.

Estimates for the production of roun-dwood were generated considering the production and the income obtained in one of three parcels operated under concession in the National Forest of Ja-mari (in the State of Rondonia) and the observed values for the sector between 2006 and 2008, according to IBGE. With indicators and characterization of forest production stages, an estimated productivity and potential revenue to be generated in a year and at the end of a 25-year cycle were produced. The adop-tion of a 25-year cycle is due to the fact that this is the minimum period in force necessary to restore the area of land un-der the concession scheme for logging in the country.

When performed in a sustainable manner, forest exploitation promotes the conservation of the natural resources exploited. With the ap-proval of the Law of Public Forest Management (Law no 11.284) in 2006, Brazil is experiencing the implementation of a sustainable exploitation model for forest products including timber from the Amazon’s protected areas. Managed by the Brazilian Forest Service, this process is based on the model of forest concession, which adopts the plan of forest management for multiple use (PMFS) as a tool to define the total volume of re-sources to be exploited in a given time period by the concessionaires.

This study chose to evaluate a PMFS appro-ved by the Brazilian Forest Service for the Natio-nal Forest of Jamari (in the State of Rondonia), Amazon’s first conservation unit to be the object of a forestry concession. From the data obtained in this grant, estimates were made on the potential for sustainable timber extraction in the group of 43 National and State Forests registered in the CNUC in the region (table 5).

From the productivity dataset from PMFS on the grant forf the Jamari National Forest, and con-sidering the literature consulted, two scenarios were established to calculate the potential econo-mic exploitation of timber in these categories of protected areas, as detailed below :

SCENARIO 1: production as observed in the first batch of forest concession (the Jamari National Forest), i.e., an operational area of 56% with productivity of 19.4 m3/ha for a 25-year cycle and annual production unit (UPA) corresponding to 1/25 of total area;

SCENARIO 2: using the limits of maximum produc-tion, based on the forest concession model and the survey of the literature, i.e., an operational area of 78% to 25 m3/ha of productivity for a 25-year cycle and the corresponding UPA to 1/25 of total area.

For both scenarios, the value per cubic meter of roundwood was set at R$ 102.00, a price that corresponds to the average market price traded in 201017 e 18. The results of the estimates for the economic potential for the two scenarios are pre-sented in table 6.

According to these scenarios, the production of roun-dwood in National and State forests in the Amazon, from areas managed according to the model of forest con-cession, has the potential to generate from R$ 1.2 to R$ 2.2 billion annually. At the end of a 25-year cycle, that total could reach between R$ 31.4 and R$ 56.3 billion, without taking into account the likely appreciation of the average price of roundwood during this period.

These estimates for both scenarios can generate even greater gains, if part of the roundwood, can be conver-

TABLE 5: National and State Forests in the Amazon Biome

Number

331043

FOreSTS (HeCTAreS)

18,952,7279,367,868

28,320,595

CONServATION uNIT’S SpHere

FederalEstatestotal

Source: MMA/CNUC, 2010 Note: updated in August 30th, 2010

16


UNEP-WCMC

TABLE 6: Estimate of production and economical potential of roundowood exploitation in Federal and State Forests in the Amazon Biome

SCeNArIOS perCeNTAGe OF OperATIONAL

AreA

TOTAL AreA (HeCTAreS)

prOduCTIvITy(m3/HA)

vOLume prOduCed (m3/yeAr)

pOTeNTIAL vALue prOduCed

(mILLION r$ per yeAr)

pOTeNTIAL vALue prOduCed IN 25

yeArS (mILLION r$)

1

2

56

78

28,320,595

28,320,595

19.4

25.0

12,306,998

22,090,064

1,255

2,253t

31,383

56,330

ted into value added products, whose average value return can reach 35%.

• Although the processed timber varies in price ac-cording to its characteristics, it is possible to make an estimate of the average trading price in 2010 to be around R$ 891.00 per cubic meter, a value nearly nine times superior to the average market price for roundwood.

4.2. Non-timber productsHow tHiS Study waS deveLoped

The estimates of economic potential for non-timber products focused only on rubber and Brazil nuts. To do so, various technical documents on their production in the Amazon have been analysed, sup-plemented by consultations with profes-sionals working in the area. Data on rub-ber and Brazil nut production in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (AC) were used as reference.

Although the exploitation of rubber and Brazil nuts is possible in other cate-gories of conservation units, estimates of productivity and revenue were generated considering 11 Extractive Reserves, in the case of rubber, and 17 in the case of the Brazil nut, identified as those with greater potential for these products. With the ave-rage productivity data collected from di-fferent sources, it was possible to prospect scenarios for the production of rubber and Brazil nuts and their economic potential for the entire Amazon biome for a year. In

order to generate time data comparable to the production cycle of roundwood, esti-mates were made also for 25 years.

eStimateS for ruBBer productioNThe exploitation of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis)

is a traditional activity in the Amazon region and its production has been strengthening in recent years, due both to an increased domestic demand and to the establishment of a minimum price paid by the federal government. Its exploitation con-sists of a production unit, the “estate”, an area of about 400 hectares which has an average of 562 trees of Hevea brasiliensis, and is equivalent to 1.4 trees per hectare. Annual average productivity per estate is 835.6 kg; each person produces ap-proximately 417.8 kg of rubber per year. The ave-rage production of rubber derived from extraction in the Amazon biome between 2006 and 2008 was 3,859 tons, sold at an average price of R$ 2.04 per kilo19.

Among the 41 Extractive Reserves (category of conservation unit more compatible with rubber production) existing in the Amazon biome, only 11 units indicated the production of rubber, ac-cording to the CNUC and to the Department of Conservation Units for Sustainable Use of the Chi-co Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio)20 (table 2). In order to assess the eco-nomic potential of rubber exploitation, this study adopted the value of R$ 4.50 per kg, as establi-shed by the Brazilian National Supply Company (Conab) as the guaranteed minimum price for the purchase in 2010.

In the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (AC), used as a reference for this study, in 2005, 1,400 families produced 400 tons of rubber21. In 2010,

17UNEP-WCMC

NoteS: i) EStiMAtE oF tRADitioNAl PoPUlAtioNS iN thE 11 RESERvES; ii) A FAMiliy iS CoMPoSED oF AN AvERAgE oF FivE iNDiviDUAlS; iii) tWo iN EvERy FivE iNDiviDUAlS WoRk iN RUBBER ExtRACtioN; iv) AN iNDiviDUAl ExtRACtS 417.8 kg oF RUBBER PER yEAR; v) AvERAgE PRiCE oF R$ 4.50 PER kilo oF RUBBER

the existence of approximately 1,500 families in the same Reserve should result in about 900 tons, according to an estimate by the unit’s manager. From the information from the Chico Mendes Re-serve, it was possible to estimate the annual pro-duction and revenue generated in the 11 extrac-tive reserves considered (table 2). In addition to that, an estimate of the volume of production and potential revenue for 25 years has been made, for both the 11 Reserves analyzed and the Ama-zon biome, given the aforementioned data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in 2008, summarized in table 8.

The projection of future (potential) contained

in table 8 can be substantially increased, both in volume and in revenue, due to factors such as the inclusion of other unidentified Extractive Reser-ves and other categories of federal conservation

units, such as rubber producers in Sustainable Development Reserves, an increase in the num-ber of individuals who work in rubber production per hectare and/or estate, a raise in the market value of rubber and an increase of efficiency in the process of rubber extraction, elevating the average production per estate.

The total amount to potentially be raised annually by rubber, only in the 11 Extractive Reserves, is R$ 16.5 million. In 25 years there is a possibility to reach R$ 413 million, without taking into account the possible appre-ciation of the average price of rubber in this period.

The difference between the data observed in the Ama-zon and the potential for the 11 Federal Reserve shows that current production in the region can be extended if the Extractive Reserves develop their productive capa-city. Thus, an addition of more than R$ 8.6 million per year can be generated, which corresponds to R$ 217 million over 25 years, if there is no overlapping of ex-ploitation areas.

eStimateS for BraziL Nut productioN

Brazil nuts are a forest product derived from the Brazil nut tree (Bertholletia excelsa), whose fruit is known as the Brazil nut or Para nut22. The extraction of parts of the Brazil nut tree has diffe-rent applications:

its fruits, known as “ouriços” (shells), are used as fuel or raw material for making objects;

the nut or almond, is the product of greater eco-nomic interest - it is a nutrient rich food and can be eaten roasted or used for oil extraction;

TABLE 7: Estimate of volume and potential revenue of rubber production in the 11 Federal Extractive Reserves (Amazon biome)

FOr THe 11 exTrACTIve reServeS ANALySed

AreA (HA)

TrAdITIONAL pOpuLATION (INdIvIduALS)I

TrAdITIONAL pOpuLATION (FAmILIeS)II

prOduCerS (INdIvIduALS)III

eSTImATed vOLume (kG)Iv

eSTImATed GeNerATed reveNue (mILLION r$/yeAr)v 16.6

3,679,815

8,808

4,404

22,019

4,143,169

1

So

ur

ce

: MM

A/C

NU

C, 2

010

TABLE 8: Comparison between the production and potential revenue of rubber in the 11 Federal Extractive Reserves and in the Amazon biome

mILLION r$/yeAr

16.6i

7.9iii

-8.7

mILLION r$ IN 25 yeArSIv

413.9

196.8

-217.1

TOTAL AreA (HeCTAre)

4,143,169

nd

vOLume prOduCed (kG/yeAr)

3,679,815

3,859,000

179,184,73

SCOpe

Potential in the 11 Federal Extractive Reserves

Current production in the Amazon biomeii

difference between potential and current

NoteS: i) vAlUE oF RUBBER At R$ 4.50/kg FoR 2010; ii) ACCoRDiNg to iBgE DAtA (2008), USiNg REvERSE EStiMAtE to DEtERMiNE vAlUES oF PRoDUCtioN AND REvENUE; iii) RUBBER PRiCE At R$ 2.04/kg FoR thE PERioD FRoM 2006 to 2008; iv) FoR thE 25-yEAR PERioD, thE vARiAtioN iN thE MARkEt vAlUE oF RUBBER FRoM thE BASE yEAR hAS Not BEEN CoNSiDERED; NA=NoN-AvAilABlE DAtA.

TOTAL

18


UNEP-WCMC

NoteS: i)EStiMAtED tRADitioNAl PoPUlAtioN WithiN RESERvES; ii) oNE iN EvERy thREE iNDiviDUAlS iN A FAMily iS A CollECtoR; iii) A CollECtoR PRoDUCES 2,815 kg oF BRAzil NUtS/yEAR; iv) AvERAgE PRiCE oF R$ 1.49/kg FoR BRAzil NUtS

its pie or meal, obtained from oil extraction, is used as a blend in flour or feed;

the milk extracted from the nut has great value in regional cuisine, and

its timber, which has varying applications.

The lack of consistent information on produc-tivity, location of specimens, the exploitation area and the product measurement unit made it diffi-cult to analyze the production of Brazil nuts23. The study of the fruit’s productive chain, made by Ima-zon24, and adopted as reference in this analysis, points out that:

a family collects around 112.6 boxes of nuts in a five-month season, with a daily average of betwe-en two and three boxes of nuts;

a box contains between 20 and 30 kg of nuts;

each family extracts between 2,252 and 3,378 kg per season, which equals an average of 2,815 kg per harvest.

A survey of Extractive Reserves producing Brazil nuts, along with MMA and ICMBio resul-ted in the identification of 17 units, which toge-ther equals about 47% of the Extractive Reserves or 41% of the category’s total in the biome25. The

production of these 17 Reserves can reach a va-lue close to the current production of the entire Amazon biome, which is equivalent to 98.8% of the total production in Brazil.

From the information observed in the Chico Mendes Reserve, it was possible to estimate the potential annual production and generated re-venue from the 17 Extractive Reserves studied (table 3). An estimate of the production volume and revenue potential for 25 years, for both the 17 analyzed Reserves and for the Amazon bio-me, considering the data from the IBGE (2008), is summarized in Table 10.

The results may be significantly increased by the refinement of the available data; the identifica-tion of new Extractive Reserves and the incorpora-tion of other categories (National and State Forests and Sustainable Development Reserves) that can potentially produce nuts; the involvement of the surrounding population in the production effort; by stimulating production and greater incentives to sell derivatives that increase the added value; and by making improvements in the distribution

The total amount to potentially be raised annually by Brazil nuts in the 17 Extractive Reserves is R$ 39.2 million, resulting in R$ 980 million at the end of 25 years, without considering a possible enhancement in the average product price in that period. The estima-ted volume of production reaches 26,300 tonnes.

4.3. Conclusions on the economic potential of forest products in the conservation units of the Amazon biome

The total estimate of economic potential due to the exploitation of timber forest products (roun-dwood) and non-timber products (rubber and Bra-zil nuts) for the conservation units located in the

TABLE 9: Estimate of volume and potential revenue of Brazil nuts production in 17 Federal Extractive Reserves (Amazon biome)

FOr THe 17 exTrACTIve reServeS IdeNTIFIed

AreA (HA)

TrAdITIONAL pOpuLATION (INdIvIduALS)I

TrAdITIONAL pOpuLATION (COLLeCTOrS)II

eSTImATed vOLume (kG)III

eSTImATe GeNerATed reveNue (mILLION r$/yeAr)Iv 39,201,793

26,309,928

9,346

28,039

6,678,924

TOTAL

19UNEP-WCMC

Amazon biome (Forests and Extractive Reserves) can vary from R$ 1.3 billion, in a more conserva-tive scenario, to $ 2.3 billion annually, conside-ring a more optimistic scenario. When predicting this value in 25 years, which equals the produc-tion cycle of timber products, these values may reach between $ 32.7 billion and $ 57.7 billion in each scenario.

Positive impacts of this activity may include: in-creased circulation of money, generation of di-rect and indirect jobs in the cities near exploi-tation areas and increased surveillance of the forest by the dealer and/or communities.

The study proved that sustainable exploitation in conservation units can increase the production of timber harvested in a sustainable operation mo-del, which would reduce demand for products of illegal origin and help to reduce deforestation.

Estimates presented in the study, for the three cases, may increase considerably due to an in-crease in the marketing price of forest products (for example, with forest certification and main-tenance of a minimum price by the federal gover-nment); the processing of products, such as the production of the oil, nuts derivatives and timber processing (where each cubic meter reaches an average of R$ 891); increasing the efficiency of the production chain; and inclusion of other sus-tainable use conservation units of, among others.

Appreciation of forest extraction in these conser-vation units can provide greater effectiveness in social and ecological ways by integrating com-munities into the production process, increasing the income of families, reducing illegal extrac-tion of natural resources and reducing degrada-tion of these areas’ biodiversity.

TABLE 10: Comparison between production and potential revenue of Brazil nuts in 17 Federal Extractive Reserves and in the Amazon biome

mILLION r$ per yeAr

39.2i

44.4iii

5.2

mILLION r$ IN 25 yeArSIv

980

1.109

129

TOTAL AreA (HeCTAreS)

6,678,924

Na

vOLume prOduCed (kG/yeAr)

26,309,928

29,643,550

3,333,621.62

Type

Production potential in 17 Federal Extractive Reserves

Current production in the Brazilian Amazonii

difference

So

ur

ce

: MM

A/C

NU

C, 2

010

NoteS: i) vAlUE oF BRAzil NUt = R$ 1.49/kg FoR 2010; ii) oBSERvED ACCoRDiNg to ExiStiNg iBgE DAtA (2008), MAkiNg USE oF REvERSE EStiMAtE to DEtERMiNE thE vAlUES oF PRoDUCtioN AND REvENUE; iii) vAlUE oF NUt At R$ 1.50/kg FoR thE 2006 to 2008 PERioD; iv) FoR thE 25-yEAR PERioD thE vARiAtioN iN MARkEt vAlUE FRoM thE BASE yEAR hAS Not BEEN CoNSiDERED; NA = NoN AvAilABlE DAtA.

20


UNEP-WCMC


Aiming at generating estimates of the current and potential economic impact re-sulting from public visiting in protected are-as, this study used the Money Generation Model (MGM) methodology, adapted to the Brazilian situation26. In general, the GMM methodology aims at determining which be-nefits are brought to the local economy by visitors to a conservation unit. Such a calcu-lation is obtained by the following equation:

ECONOMIC IMPACT =number of visitors x average spending

per visitor x multiplier27

For this study, the number of visitors was determined from access control information done by the administration section of those units with structured visitation, which allo-wed the calculation of the current and po-tential economic impact of visitation in fe-deral and state units. The average spending per visitor was obtained from the definition of different spending classes (travel, meals, accommodation, tickets and souvenirs), considering different types of visitors (day visitors, overnight visitors and campers). Calculations also took into account the lo-cation of the visited unit (rural, small town, large town or capital).

The term “public use” represents a form of use of conservation units by means of visitation, regardless of the visitor’s motivation - contempla-tion, recreation, sports, or bird watching, among others - or the tourism industry in question – such as ecotourism or adventure tourism, among others.

This study evaluated the economic impact of

current and potential visitation to National Parks, where one purpose is the protection of places of great scenic beauty, which can be enjoyed throu-gh recreation and tourism. This category also pre-sents the highest availability of data and studies on the dynamics of visitation in national and inter-national contexts.

In addition, assuming that public use is possi-ble in all categories, when the legal limitations of each category, as well as the planning and ma-nagement of each unit are observed, an estimate for all federal, state conservation units registered in the CNUC at the time of this study has been made. For these estimates, different multipliers have been adopted, depending on the characte-ristics of the assessed areas (see box “multipliers adopted by the study”).

mulTipliers adopted By tHe Study

Generally speaking, for the analysis of the economic impact of tourism in a given location, Stynes (2010) recommends the adoption of multipliers between 1.0 and 2.0. considering this variation and the reality and the location of protected areas in Brazil, this study adopted multipliers according to two scenarios: one conservative and the other optimistic (table 11).

5.1. Estimated economic impact of National Parks visitors n local economies

Of the 67 national parks registered in the CNUC, only 18 have structured visiting, with control-

led flow of visitors and the collection of entrance fees. In the case of national parks, the spending

5. Economic impact of public use activities in conservation units

21UNEP-WCMC

classes defined (see box “How was this study was developed”) are based on the average prices ob-served in the market for a number of items and the average spending in the Serra dos Órgãos Na-tional Park in the State of Rio de Janeiro and Igua-çu National Park in the State of Paraná28. Table 12 presents the spending categories, considering the type of visitors and the characteristics of the area concerned.

Estimates of the impact of tourism in national parks on local economies - as well as estimates of the state and federal conservation units, presen-ted below - were calculated on two scenarios:

CURRENT SCENARIO: estimates the economic impact of visitors based on the current flow in these areas;

POTENTIAL SCENARIO: estimates the economic impact of visitors considering a projection of the number of visitors to parks, from the consolida-tion of the minimum needed infrastructure in the-se areas.

Table 13 presents an estimate of the economic impact for the current scenario, with added value for the 18 National Parks with structured visitation that, in 2009, received approximately 3.9 million visitors.29

CHART 11: Adopted multipliers for estimating the economic impact of tourism in conservation units

muLTIpLIer’S CATeGOry

Category 1Category 2Category 3Category 4

muLTIpLIer IN A CONServATIve

SCeNArIO

1.31.41.51.6

muLTIpLIer IN AN OpTImISTIC

SCeNArIO

1.51.61.71.8

CHArACTerISTIC OF THe LOCATION wHere THe

CONServATION uNIT IS bASed

Rural areaSmall townLarge town

Capital/urban centre

Number OF INHAbITANTS

Up to 50 thousandOver 50 thousand and up to 500 thousand

Usually between 500 thousand and up to 1 millionOver 1 million

TABLE 12: Estimate spending per category for visitors to National Parks

SpeNdING CATeGOry/ vISITOr Type OverNIGHT vISITOrS (r$) dAy vISITOrS (r$) CAmperS/dAy (r$)

d

0

11

20

8

8

47

c

0

6

10

7

5

28

B

0

6

7

7

5

25

a

0

6

6

6

5

23

d

0

11

20

8

8

47

d

0

0

30

10

20

60

B

0

0

15

5

10

30

a

0

0

12

5

20

37

d

120

0

50

15

30

215

c

70

0

40

15

20

145

B

40

0

30

10

15

95

a

30

0

20

10

10

70

hotel, lodge

Camping

Restaurants and bars

grocery and convenience stores

local transportation

total

a) Rural regions = R$ 40

B) Small towns = R$ 50

c) large towns = R$ 72.6

d) Cities/capital = R$ 107.4

Average spending

TABLE 13: Estimate of the current economic impact of visitors to 18 National Parks

eCONOmIC ImpACT: OpTImISTIC SCeNArIO

(mILLION r$/yeAr)519.2

Number OF vISITOrS (2009)

3,836,195

eCONOmIC ImpACT: CONServATIve SCeNArIO


Number OF CONServATION uNITS

18 National Parks

22


UNEP-WCMC

TABLE 14: Estimate of the potential economic impact of visitors in the 67 Nation Parks in 2016


(mILLION r$/yeAr)1,776.3


13,759,367



Number OF uNITS INCLuded IN THe

CATeGOry67

The trend of increased demand for recreational activities in natural environments and the struc-turing of National Parks allows for a predicted in-crease in the benefits from tourism, both for local economies and to meet the financial needs of main-taining these areas. In addition to improvements already planned by the governing bodies aimed at consolidating the structure of these units, in the coming years there is an expectation of substantial investments in the National and State Park’s areas of influence because of two major sport events that Brazil will host - the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016. Embratur (a Brazilian Tourism Company) estimates a 60% increase in internatio-nal arrivals by 2016, an increase from the current 5.5 million to 8.9 million international tourists, with potential to generate approximately $ 12.5 billion in foreign currency.

In order to estimate the potential increase in vi-sitor numbers to the 18 National Parks with struc-tured visitation, an average increase in the number of visitations in the past five years has been forecas-ted, reaching a potential of 12.6 million visitors per year by 2016. Moreover, it is estimated that the 49 National Parks in the process of consolidation can reach, in the same period, 1.2 million visitors per year, generating a potential total of 13.8 million visi-tors per year in 2016 for these 67 units (table 14) .

Visitation to the 67 existing national parks in Brazil has the potential to attract some 13.7 million people per year including Brazilians and foreigners, conside-ring planned investments and the projected increase in tourism by 2016. This flow of visitors can genera-te approximately between $ 1.6 billion (conservative scenario) and $ 1.8 billion (optimistic scenario) to the regions where national parks are located, ensuring resources for their maintenance and boosting local economies.

5.2. Estimated economic impact of visitation for the set of federal and state conservation units

All categories of SNUC’s conservation units may be opened to public visitation, provided that

their different objectives and functions are obser-ved, as well as their instruments of planning and management. Therefore, estimates for the num-bers of visitors to the different categories of conser-vation units should consider the potential and ran-ge of recreational opportunities in each category.

The projection of the total number of visitors per year and for the year 2016 in federal conser-vation units, considering the potential and mission of each category, was calculated using reference values for each category, taking into account the li-mitations imposed by poor data. Current estimates of the impact of visitation on the federal conserva-tion units is equivalent to the result found for the added value of the 18 national parks which control the number of visitors.

Taking these numbers as a reference and the projected increase in visitation in national parks and other categories of federal units by 2016, it was possible to estimate the economic impact of visitation on the 310 federal units in two scenarios (table 15).

Visiting in the 310 federal conservation units consi-dered by the study has the potential to attract around 17.5 million people in 2016. The estimated economic impact of this type tourism is of approximately be-tween R$ 1.8 (conservative scenario) and R$ 2 billion

23UNEP-WCMC

TABLE 15: Estimated economic potential impact of visitation in the set of federal conservation units in 2016




17,508,367



Number OF uNITS INCLuded IN THe CATeGOry

310

(optimistic scenario) in regions where these protected areas are located, ensuring resources for maintenance and boosting the local economy .

5.3. Estimated economic impact of visitation to State Parks in the local economy

In order to estimate the current economic impact of visitation to state parks, the conservation status

of the State of Espírito Santo was used as referen-ce due to the availability of information at the time of writing the present study. The State of Espírito Santo has six state parks, four of which control the number of visitors; in 2009, 108,792 people visi-ted these parks. Considering an average spending close to the Serra dos Órgãos National Park (R$ 40.00 per visitor/day), the current economic im-pact in the state parks’ areas of influence of Espí-rito Santo’s state parks would vary between R$ 5.8 million and R$6.7 million.

144 state parks across the country are registe-red in the CNUC. Given the lack of consistent data on visitation to these areas - since few states can control the number of visitors - it was only possible to draw the potential scenario of economic impact for all of the Brazilian state parks. For this purpose, the flow of visitors to non-structured national parks was used as reference.

Therefore, an average of 8,000 visitors per year was estimated for 2016 in these areas and about 1.4 million visitors in all the state parks in the country. Table 16 presents the potential econo-mic impact of all the state parks in the conservative scenario and the optimistic scenario, considering the different average spending per visitor.

Visitation to the 144 state parks registered in the CNUC has the potential to attract approximately 1.4 million people, including Brazilians and foreigners, in 2016. This flow of visitors can generate between R$ 90 million (conservative scenario) and R$ 103.3 million (optimistic scenario) to the regions where these con-servation units are located, ensuring resources for maintenance and boosting the local economy.

5.4. Estimated economic impact of visitation to the set of federal and state conservation units

The estimated economic impact for the set of 388 conservation units of state systems in

2016 is presented in Table 17. Table 18 presents estimates of the potential economic impact of the public visiting the set of federal and state conser-vation units in 2016, according to the two scena-rios adopted.

TABLE 16: Estimated potential economic impact of visitation to state parks in 2016




1,405,389




144

24


UNEP-WCMC

TABLE 17: Estimated economic impact of visitation to the 388 state conservation units in 2016




2,443,389




388

TABLE 18: Estimated economic impact of visitation to the 388 state and federal conservation units in 2016


(mILLION r$ /yeAr)

2,036.9184.6

2,221.5


17,508,3672,443,389

19,951,756

eCONOmIC ImpACT: CONServATIve

SCeNArIO (mILLION r$/yeAr)

1,797.2161.2

1,958.4


310388698

SpHere OF CONServATION

uNIT

FederalStatetotal

Visitation to the 388 state parks considered by this stu-dy has the potential to attract approximately 2.4 million tourists in 2016. The estimated economic impact in this case varies from R$ 161 million (conservative scenario) to R$ 184.6 million (optimistic scenario) in the regions where these conservation units are located, ensuring re-sources for maintenance and boosting the local economy.

The sum of the estimates for public visitation in fede-ral and state conservation units considered by this study indicates that approximately 20 million people will visit these areas in 2016. The potential economic impact of visitation may reach about $ 2.2 billion that year, whi-ch will bring significant resources for the maintenance of these units, as well as boosting substantially these regions’ economies.

5.5. Conclusions on the economic impact of public use activities in conservation units

There is a mismatch between the resources in-vested in the management of conservation and the socio-economic benefits that these areas could generate, as demonstrated by the analysis

of public visitation. To illustrate this situation, the Serra dos Órgãos National Park (State of Rio de Janeiro) expended about R$2.2 million in its management in 2009, considering only expendi-tures on consumable and permanent materials, outsourced services and administrative support. When considering an average spending per visitor of R$ 51 and the current number of visitors of 100 thousand (2009), it is possible to estimate a local economic impact between R$ 7 million and R$ 8 million. This means that the resources invested in the park’s maintenance were significantly lower than the funds generated with its participation in tourism in this mountainous region of Petrópolis and Teresópolis.

Considering the current trends of increasing num-bers of visitors to conservation units, increasing investments directed to federal and state con-servation units in recent years and prospects for investments, including those related to the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics, it is possible to envisage a promising scenario for the economic impact of visitation in these areas. An increase of between 15 and 25% in visitor numbers by 2016 would result in a flow of approximately 20 million tourists in the 698 federal and state units consi-dered by the study, with an estimated impact on these regions’ economies of R$ 1.9 billion and R$ 2.2 billion in 2016.

25UNEP-WCMC

However, for this potential economic impact to be achieved in 2016 it is absolutely necessary that conservation units receive the necessary invest-ments for their consolidation, so as to be prepared to receive the estimated number of visitors.

Besides the impact on the economy of the regions where these conservation units are located, an in-creased number of visitors should represent a sig-nificant rise in resources to maintain these areas.

26


UNEP-WCMC


Although some studies estimate the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions due to the existence of conservation units in the Brazilian Amazon30, , none of these studies estimate avoided deforestation for these units throughout the country. The-refore, this work adopted the hypothesis that the creation of a conservation unit avoids deforestation equivalent to the le-gal limits of vegetation removal establi-shed by the Forest Code: 20% of the units in the Amazon and 80% for the rest of the country31. Besides, the premise has been adopted that not all of a unit is co-vered by forest, so only 90% of the strict protection units and 70% of sustainable use were accounted.

After obtaining the estimate of avoi-ded deforestation per unit, factors were applied to the average carbon density by biome (118tC/ha for the Amazon, 80 tC/ha for the Atlantic forest and 55 tC/ha for the Cerrado, Caatinga and Pantanal bio-mes), which equals, quite conservatively, the amount issued when a hectare of nati-ve vegetation is converted to pasture land or cultivation. Therefore, the total stock of emissions avoided by the establish-ment of SNUG throughout its history was estimated.

In order to express this in monetary ter-ms, the value of environmental services provided by conservation units to climate regulation, and the total carbon emissions avoided were multiplied by R$ 34/tC, the average value of forest carbon transactions in key markets worldwide, which is below the average price of carbon emissions avoi-ded by other means. Finally, we applied

“rental fees” of 3% or 6% to the total in-ventory as a way to express the value of “climate control” as an environmental ser-vice in annual terms.

Forest ecosystems cover about 15% of the planet’s continental land and contain approxima-tely 25% of the carbon in the earth’s biosphere. The IPCC32 estimates that emissions from the des-truction of tropical forests worldwide contributes to approximately 20% of all greenhouse gases, ranking deforestation or “changes in land use” as the second largest factor responsible for glo-bal warming33. Hence, reducing or preventing de-forestation is the strongest and most immediate impact to mitigate greenhouse gases emissions in the short term.

In Brazil, change in land use is the main source of greenhouse gases emissions. Brazil’s Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change re-ports that deforestation was responsible for more than 60% of the total emissions of greenhouse gases in 200534. Therefore, the conservation of forests, including conservation units, plays a vital role in any initiative to combat climate change, since:

the existence of conservation units avoids defores-tation that would occur if the protection measures had not been adopted; in tropical forests, the chan-ge in land use results in large emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases;

besides avoiding emissions by burning forests, conservation units prevent greenhouse gas emis-sions from activities such as livestock and agricul-ture, especially methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which have greater warming potential than CO2; their emissions were responsible for betwe-en 10% and 19% of Brazilian greenhouse gases emissions in 2005;

6. Economic potential of carbon reserves in conservation units

27UNEP-WCMC

although it is still a subject of scientific controver-sy, recent studies show that forests are still absor-bing carbon from the atmosphere even when they are already mature, constituting “sinks”, and that the South American forests are extremely effective in this process35.

Therefore, the creation and maintenance of pro-tected areas play a key role in the provision of servi-ces of “atmospheric regulation”, especially in Bra-zil, where the burning of forests and subsequent occupation of land for agricultural activities contri-butes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.

6.1. Estimate of the potential value of carbon stocks in conservation units

The results for the estimates of avoided emis-sions and carbon stocks in the state and fe-

deral conservation units in the different Brazilian biomes are presented in Table 19.

In order to calculate the annual value of this stock, a factor of “rent” was applied as a compen-sation for the economic activities that could not be developed in the area designated for conservation units due to legal restrictions. This value can be defined from the opportunity cost of capital in real terms, discounting inflation.

Considering the limits of the opportunity cost of ca-pital between 3% and 6% a year, the value of “rental” of the annual carbon stock in conservation units can be estimated between R$ 2.9 billion and R$ 5.8 billion per year, values that substantially exceed the actual spending and even the needs for additional invest-ment to consolidate and improve these units.

6.2. Conservation units in the context of REDD and REDD+

The role of conservation units in preventing de-forestation in tropical forests is the subject of

vALue OF THe STOCk OF AvOIded emISSIONS (mILLIONS OF r$)

28,6617,0064,6331,222824

42,346

vALue OF THe STOCk OF AvOIded emISSIONS (mILLIONS OF r$)

34,1317,5088,1124,107

053,858

AvOIded deFOreSTATION IN THe CONServATION uNITS (HA)

7,937,4804,162,5601,892,480726,080489,680

15,208,280

AvOIded deFOreSTATION IN THe CONServATION uNITS (HA)

12,153,3206,308,8804,260,4003,451,360

026,173,960

vOLume OF C (TC)

1842,960,376206,046,720136,258,56035,940,96024,239,160

1,245,445,776

vOLume OF C (TC)

1,003,864,232220,810,800238,582,400120,797,600

01,584,055,032

AreA OF THe CONServATION uNITS (HA)

39,687,4005,203,2002,365,600907,600612,100

AreA OF THe CONServATION uNITS (HA)

60,766,6007,886,1005,325,5004,314,200

0

bIOme

AmazonCerrado

Mata AtlânticaCaatingaPantanal

total

bIOme

AmazonCerrado

Mata AtlânticaCaatingaPantanal

total

STrICT prOTeCTION CONServATION uNITS

SuSTAINAbLe uSe CONServATION uNITS

total value 96,204

TABLE 19: Estimated value of the carbon stocks in the Brazilian conservation units*

* iNClUDES thE UNitS iN thE CAtEgoRy PRivAtE NAtURAl hERitAgE RESERvE (RPPN)

28


UNEP-WCMC

increasing international recognition. Such recog-nition could become a concrete support to enable conservation through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) projects or projects of “avoided deforestation”. REDD comes from a simple idea: countries that are willing and able to reduce their emissions from deforestation should be financially rewarded for doing so.

This principle was incorporated into the Bali Ac-tion Plan, established at the 13th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, which stated that efforts to mitigate climate change should include “policy approaches and positive incentives on issues rela-ted to the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries”. Although there is no consensus on how REDD ac-tions will be accounted for and paid, there is great expectation that, in addition to mitigating emissions from forest destruction, these mechanisms will contribute to alleviating rural poverty and preserve biodiversity and other environmental services.

REDD, however, is a mechanism designed to encourage future actions to combat deforestation, not to reward conservation in areas already esta-blished, where deforestation has been avoided in the past. For that reason, the REDD+ scheme is being discussed to also finance conservation and forest management. Incentives like REDD+ should strengthen protected areas, recognizing the efforts of countries like Brazil, which have invested in es-tablishing a system of effective conservation units, and therefore obtained reductions in historic le-vels of emissions from deforestation and tropical forest degradation.

Although it is not possible to determine how the incentive REDD+ will be operated, the integration of conservation units’ systems with national programs aimed at reducing emissions could result in concrete financial benefits - revenue generated from carbon credits - and, simultaneously, enable the implemen-tation of climate goals, the reduction of rural poverty, biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of vi-tal environmental services, such as REDD.

The amazon fund raises donaTions for The reductioN of deforeStatioN

aiming at obtaining resources to encourage amazon rainforest conservation and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation, the Brazilian Government created in august 2008 (decree 6527) the amazon fund. managed by BNdeS (Brazilian development Bank), the fund aims to support projects preventing and combating deforestation and forest conservation and sustainable use of forests in the amazon biome. additionally, up to 20% of its resources may be used to support the development of systems to monitor and control deforestation in other Brazilian biomes and in biomes of other tropical countries.

the amazon fund is made up by voluntarily granted international donations due to the effective reduction of greenhouse gases emissions from deforestation, brought about by the implementation of national policies. the first donation commitment to the fund came from Norway, an amount of approximately 107 million dollars. a second donation commitment was signed with the federal republic of Germany, with a total value of up to 21 million euros. (Source: http://www.fundoamazonia.gov.br/)

29UNEP-WCMC

the creation of conservation units and the con-solidation of existing ones. Besides the revenue obtained with carbon credits, such projects can generate relevant benefits for other countries, such as supporting the achievement of climate change targets, rural poverty alleviation, biodi-versity conservation and the maintenance of vital environmental services.

6.3. Conclusions on the economic potential of carbon reserves in conservation units

Protected areas are essential to reduce defores-tation and forest degradation, so the establish-ment of systems of conservation units can consi-derably reduce emissions from land use change. The quality of management in these units is a key factor, because better governance of the area leads to better results and, consequently, emis-sions reduction.

Although the estimates presented in this study should be considered as preliminary and con-servative, the value obtained is considerable: the set of Brazilian conservation units have pre-vented the release into the atmosphere of about 2.8 billion tons of carbon, approximately 1.3 times the Brazilian total emissions since 2005. Expressing this magnitude in monetary terms is a difficult and controversial task; however, even in conservative terms, the total stock of carbon emissions avoided reaches nearly R$ 100 billion.

The implementation of economic instruments to support forest conservation, such as REDD and REDD+, may represent new sources of funding for

sTudies confirm The effectiveNeSS of tHe protectioN provided by conservaTion uniTs

Several studies were conducted to evaluate the effective capacity of protected areas in controlling deforestation. de fries et al.36 analysed between 1981 and 2001 forest cover in a sample of 198 protected areas in tropical forest biomes, including parts of Brazil. results showed that in 2001, protected areas of rainforest in Latin america, including the amazon and atlantic forest, presented about 90% of forest cover. another research37 study proved that deforestation in the amazon between 2001 and 2003 was approximately ten to 20 times less within the conservation units and indigenous lands in adjoining areas.

a third research38 project, undertaken in the regions of the atlantic forest and the amazon, concluded that the amazon’s conservation units contain high levels of forest cover, as well as their surrounding areas. in this region, forests are protected because they are inaccessible and will probably remain so if they continue being isolated. conversely, the atlantic forest protected areas have forest cover under their limits, being comparatively very fragmented from there.

30


UNEP-WCMC


In order to assess the contribution of conservation unts on the production and conservation of water resources, the study’s authors chose to analyze three major types of water uses: a) power generation, b) cap-ture for human consumption and c) capture for irrigation. For each of these uses a study of secondary data has been made with fe-deral and state government agencies (such as regulatory agencies, agencies responsible for water resources management, among others), water companies and plans for wa-tersheds. In the analysis of the use “water capture for human consumption” data from the Brazilian Atlas of Human Development of 1998 were also used.

Estimates of the contribution of con-servation units in each of these uses were made as follows: a) for the use “power ge-neration”, the coordinates of the 310 fe-deral conservation units were overlaid with the location information of watersheds and location of enterprises of hydroelectric po-wer generation in the country (granted or in operation); b) for “water capture for human consumption” data was overlaid ongran- ting and collection of water points and the location of conservation units in watersheds basins; c) for the “capture for irriga-tion” for agricultural enterprises, data was overlaid on the granting and collection of water points and the location of conserva-tion units in watersheds.

A goal of the SNUC (Law 9.985/00) is to protect and restore water resources. The supply of water of good quality and in sufficient volume to meet the di-verse uses of the society is one of the leading envi-ronmental services provided by conservation units.

7. Economic impact of conservation units on the production and conservation of water resources

Many protected areas around the world have been created with the aim of ensuring conditions for water sources satisfactorily meet the main human uses such as public supply, agriculture and power generation. In Brazil, several conser-vation units play this role, such as the Serra da Canastra National Park (State of Minas Gerais), which has hydroelectric plants located in its boun-daries, or the Brasília National Park (in the Federal District), where a dam of the district’s sanitation company is located39.

One of the essential requirements to determi-ne the impact of a conservation unit on the water use is to quantify its contribution to the flow of a river or even to the volume of water captured by an enterprise. Hence, it is possible to deter-mine the loss of volume directly related to defo-restation and also monetize this loss. However, such estimates and the appropriate methodology have not been established, therefore this study has used punctual case studies to illustra-te the specific contribution of conservation units for the different evaluated uses.

7.1. Hydro eneregy generation

October 2010, Brazil had 2,253 power gene-ration enterprises in operation, generating

109 GW of controlled power40. On that date, an additional 37 GW to that amount was expected, through 126 enterprises under construction and another 455 granted. The analysis of the data showed that, out of 109 GW generated and monitored by the government, 854 enterpri-ses consisted of hydroelectric generation, tota-ling 72.33% of power from water use. If we also consider the granted enterprises of hydroelectric power, under construction or not, that number reaches 1,164 enterprises, with a total genera-

31UNEP-WCMC

ting capacity of 120 GW - about 114 GW in ope-ration, with 5 GW from granted power plants un-der construction and 1 GW from granted power plants not yet being constructed41.

The overlap of conservation units’ polygons to points of water capture for power generation, both in the main river and its tributaries, indicate that:

Of the 1,164 enterprises of hydroelectric power generation, including granted and under cons-truction, with technical information (location, power, energy destination, name of the plant), 447 (38.4%) are located downstream of federal conservation units;

Of the 120.6 GW42 originating from operating hydroelectric sources, under construction and granted, 96.9 GW (80.3%) are generated by hydropower plants located downstream of federal conservation units, receiving their input through the main river or its tributaries.

7.2. Water capture for public supply

Forested watersheds tend to offer better quali-ty water than water basins submitted to other

uses such as agriculture, industry and settlements. This happens because such uses tend to increase the amount of different types of pollutants carried to headwater streams. Hence, in most cases the presence of forests can substantially reduce the need of treatment of drinking wa-ter and therefore reduce the costs associated with water supply.

About a third of the world’s largest cities ob-tain a significant proportion of their drinking water directly from forested areas43. In the study from which this fact was obtained, many municipalities mention the need to grant a source of pure wa-ter as the reason for the deployment of protection measures to forested areas or reforestation areas. Another study, made by Troughton and reviewed by Salati & Vose44, concluded that maintaining 65% of the natural vegetation of a watershed pro-vides 50% of the average river volume.

Data collected by the National Register of Users of Hydro Resources (CNARH), overlaid with the location of federal conservation units, genera-ted table 20.

Approximately 34.7% (1,326,879,131 m3) of the non-seasonal annual volume of water capture (3,819,610,238 m3) comes from capture sources loca-ted within or downstream of federal conservation units.

coSt of water treatmeNt x foreSt cover

The specific cost of chemicals rises as the percentage of forest cover in the basin supply is reduced46. According to Reis, data on forest cover per se can be used as an indicator of wa-ter quality and therefore the health of a specific river basin Table 21.

Table 21 shows that the three areas studied have the lowest costs associated with chemicals, below R$ 20.00/1000m3 of treated water (Cotia River, Cantareira System and Analândia/tribu-taries of the Corumbá River), are those with the highest rates of forest cover, over 15%. The two

%

8.626.165.3

100.0

%

2.810.087.2100

NON-SeASONAL ANNuAL CApTure vOLume (m3)

329,633,421997,245,710

2,492,731,1073,819,610,238

Number OF CApTure pOINTS

77273

2.3772.727

deSCrIpTION

Capture within conservation unitsCapture downstream of conservation units

Capture without the contribution of conservation unitstotal

TABLE 20: Water capture for public supply and federal conservation units (CU)

32


UNEP-WCMC

CHART 21: Cost of water treatment x Forest cover

% OF THe bASIN FOreST

COver

SpeCIFIC COST OF eLeCTrIC

eNerGy CApTure wTS

SpeCIFIC COST OF eLeCTrIC eNerGy wTS

pOpuLATION SuppLIed

(INHAbITANTS)

SpeCIFIC COST OF wTS +

CApTure

SpeCIFIC COST OF prOduCTS

+ eLeCTrIC eNerGy wTS

SpeCIFIC COST OF

CHemICALS wTS*

TreATed FLOw rATe

(m3/S)

muNICIpALITy/SprING

Analândia Affluent of

Corumbataí River

Rio Claro/ Corumbataí River

Piracicaba/ Corumbataí River

Piracicaba/ Piracicaba River

Campinas/ Atibaia River

RMSP/ Cantareira

System- Damn

Cotia and others/ Cotia River (High

Cotia) - Damn

0.015

0.430

1.045

0.267

3.273

32.000

1.200

3,480

104,715 (60% da pop.)

330,000

911,800 (95% da pop.)

9.000,000

450,000

18.30

47.47

62.62

92.61

81.89

7.20

19.22

0.00

33.10

28.94

11.17

6.81

0.97

29.03

18.30

80.57

91.56

103.78

88.70

8.17

48.25

50.00

79.10

101.30

6.01

60.33

36.00

0.07

68.30

159.67

192.86

109.79

149.02

44.20

48.33

17.7

12.3

12.3

4.3

8.2

27.2

92.0

units that have presented the lowest percentage of forest cover (Piracicaba River and Atibaia River), both below 10%, have the highest specific costs associated with chemicals.

Another conclusion is that the cost of water tre-atment (cost of chemicals and electric power sup-ply for the Water Treatment Station for 1,000 m3 of water) of the Piracicaba River is 12.7 times higher than the cost of water treatment in the Cantareira System. While the basin supply of the Cantareira System maintains 27.2% of its area covered by fo-rest, the basin of Piracicaba maintains only 4.3%.

The case of the Piracicaba River certifies that actions to protect forest cover in the watershed re-gion constitute a central point to ensuring urban water supply, since civil engineering resources and modern water treatment did not prevent the

sharp reduction in the quality of its waters, requi-ring replacement of the stock supply47.

Studies conducted in different countries have proven that conservation units play a relevant role in the con-servation of water resources, ensuring the quality and the flow rate necessary to meet human needs. When ensuring the provision of water quality, the

maintenance of forest cover in watersheds, especially by means of conservation units, contributes to the reduc-tion of costs related to its treatment for public supply.

7.3. Water capture for agriculture and irrigation

The Brazilian agricultural sector contributes to 5.2% of the national GDP, which corresponds

conTribuTion of conservaTion uniTs To The puBLic SuppLy iN tHe State of sao paulo

in the State of São paulo the non-seasonal annual volume of captured water reaches 18,043,481.5m3, from capture points located within conservation units, which corresponds to a flow rate of 1, 503,623.5 m3 per month. considering a monthly fee of r$ 6.1045, the managing company accounts for a collection of approximately r$ 9,172,103.118 per month, of which r$ 4,586,051.6 (50%) can be attributed to the presence of a conservation unit with the minimum 65% of preserved forest cover.

*wtS= WAtER tREAtMENt StAtioN. SoURCE: REiS, 2004

33UNEP-WCMC

TABLE 22: Water capturefor agriculture in Brazil/ irrigation and conservation units

to R$ 166.7 billion (base year 2008). The num-ber of people employed in this sector totals 17.1 million, or 17.8% of all occupations in the Brazi-lian economy (IBGE, base year 2008). Due to its peculiarities, agribusiness and family agriculture can be treated separately without losing sight of what makes them relate in different ways. Accor-ding to the 2006 Agricultural Census, agricultu-ral production occupies 59.8 million hectares in the form of permanent and temporary crops and 158.8 million hectares in natural or planted pastu-res. Table 22 shows the correlation of conservation units with water capture points for irrigation.

Federal conservation units contribute to the protec-tion of about 4% of water captured and used for agri-culture and irrigation. From the non-seasonal annual volume of water captured (12,103,260,984 m3) appro-ximately 463,179,140 m3 comes from sources located within or downstream of conservation units.

otHer BeNefitS from coNServatioN uNitS to Society iN reLatioN to water

Forests alleviate the effects of flooding and prevent erosion of mountainous terrains, preventing the fall of barriers. Most authors state that the vegetation found on slopes has a positive effect on its stability.

Riparian forests maintain the hydrological balance by stabilizing riverbanks, through the interlinking of roots, the control of nutrients and chemicals input into the water courses, filtration and control of tem-perature changes in the ecosystem water and the formation of barriers for the drift of sediment to wa-tercourses, preventing the silting up of watersheds. They are also essential in providing food for fish and other aquatic organisms.

7.4. Conclusions on the impact of conservation units on the production and conservation of water resources

All economic activities depend on the use of water, for most of them, the quality of this re-source is an essential requirement; generally, water quality is directly related to the percen-tage of vegetation existing in its watershed.

The existence of conservation units contribute in an important way to ensuring the water supply for the present and future in terms of quantity and quality, for the different uses of society.

In watersheds and springs with greater forest cover, the cost associated with treating water for public supply is less than the cost of treatment in are-as with low forest cover. Thus, the protective role played by the Permanent Preservation Areas (PPA), which involve springs, trails, slopes, hilltops and riparian forests, is very important.

%

0.13.8

96.2100.0

%

1.930.2

67.94100

NON-SeASONAL ANNuAL CApTure vOLume (m3)

7,599,020455,580,120

11,640,081,84412,103,260,984

Number OF CApTure pOINTS

4116,530

14,70621,647

deSCrIpTION

Capture within conservation unitsCapture downstream of conservation units

Capture without the contribution of conservation unitstotal

34


UNEP-WCMC


The study analyzed tax distribution re-lated to Ecological VAT (ICMS Ecológico), from the data on tax revenues transferred to municipalities obtained from the ICMS Ecológico website48 and from the Finance Departments of each state. The database for evaluating the importance of Ecologi-cal VAT was extracted from the Finance of Brazil National Treasury (Finbra) for the year 2009. Data was collected on thequo-ta-share of the Ecological VAT total for municipalities per State, the municipal budget revenue, expenditure on sanita-tion (rural and urban) and expenditure on environmental management (environmen-tal preservation, environmental control, recuperation of degraded areas and water resources).

The following Indicators were analy-sed: a) annual revenue of the Ecological VAT per municipality (R$), b) Ecological VAT/State population (R$/inhabitant); c) Ecological VAT revenue by the criteria of existing CU/ Ecological VAT criteria on existence of CU/State budget revenue (%) d) Ecological VAT revenue by the criteria of existence of CU/environmental mana-gement costs (%) e) Ecological VAT re-venue by the criteria of existence of CU/sanitation expenses (%) f) Ecological VAT revenue by the criteria of existence of CU/state transfers for environmental progra-ms (%).

One of the recurrent problems associated with the creation of conservation units is the limitation of productive activities in the area declared as pro-tected, whether these are industrial, agricultural or extractive49. However, the restriction of certain economic uses of land and other natural resour-

ces, which would not create gross value added, can be replaced by other economic activities such as public visitation (see Chapter 5), while genera-ting different benefits related to biodiversity con-servation and other environmental services.

8.1. Ecological VAT and Conservation Units

The creation of conservation units contributes to land-use regulation for productive activities

that degrade the environment, whether industrial, agricultural or extractive. Therefore, there is gro-wing recognition that these units, when impeding the implementation of certain economic activities, stimulate others capable of generating social be-nefits that conserve natural resources and other environmental services.

Considered an intergovernmental tax incentive based on the “protector-recipient” principle, the Ecological VAT is a mechanism that introduces en-vironmental criteria in the calculation of the 25% share of transfers that municipalities are entitled to50, constituting an incentive mechanism for mu-nicipalities that invest in conservation of natural resources in order to decrease pressures from ur-banization and the processes of agricultural and industrial production. The tax benefit distributed to municipalities depends on the coefficient de-termined by the state law of Ecological VAT, and should be calculated according to the quota-share of the tax distributed to the municipality.

A portion of the economic and social benefits of conservation is measured by the revenue gene-rated by municipalities for the existence of protec-ted areas. The relationship between conservation and development consists mainly of assigning a value to the positive externalities generated by the conservation units51. The additional revenue

8. Conservation units and sharing of tax revenues

35UNEP-WCMC

all states to define their transfers. The greater the extent and number of protected areas in the municipality, the greater the amount of Ecological VAT transferred to the municipality. Some states have incorporated parameters that are not directly related to the environment to the calculation that establishes the value of the Ecological VAT to be distributed to municipalities.

The results presented in Table 24 refer to the volume of Ecological VAT that 11 of 14 sta-tes transferred to municipalities in 200952. Note

TABLE 24: Ecological VAT distributed to municipalities, Ecological VAT per capita and participation of Ecological VAT in the budget revenue in 2009

eCOLOGICAL vAT FOr CONServATION uNITS IN

2009 (r$ mILLION)

eCOLOGICAL vAT per CApITA

(r$/INHAbITANT)

TOTAL budGeT reveNue IN 2009

(r$ mILLION)

eCOLOGICAL vAT FOr Cu CrITerIA/budGeT

reveNue (%)

pOpuLATION (2009)

STATeS

Acre

Amapá

Mato Grosso

Mato Grosso do Sul

Minas Gerais

Paraná

Pernambuco

Rio de Janeiro

Rondônia

São Paulo

Tocantins

691,132

618,807

2,915,428

2,354,467

19,798,130

10,633,673

8,755,159

15,355,607

1,503,928

40,935,326.00

1,289,526.00

1,5

1,0

68,4

39,4

22,7

62,1

13,5

17,1

90,7

78,2

8,0

2,1

1,6

23,5

16,8

1,1

5,8

1,5

1,1

60,3

1,9

6,2

821,7

583,7

4.464,0

4.312,7

26.836,6

15.504,2

9.184,9

24.780,8

2.088,6

77.536,6

1.788,8

0,18%

0,17%

1,53%

0,92%

0,08%

0,40%

0,15%

0,07%

4,34%

0,10%

0,45%

transferred increases the municipality’s budget, causing secondary effects on local development.

curreNt SceNario iN tHe StateS witH ecoLoGicaL vat LeGiSLatioN

In Brazil, 14 Federation Units have adopted specific legislation for the implementation of the Ecological VAT in their territories. The criteria for the transfers to municipalities and their calcula-tion coefficients vary in each state. The existen-ce of conservation units is a criteria adopted by

So

ur

ce

: DAt

A o

BtA

iNE

D F

Ro

M t

hE

BR

Az

iliA

N N

Atio

NA

l

tR

EA

SU

Ry

DAt

AB

AS

E (F

iNB

RA

), 20

09

vALue OF THe eCOLOGICAL vAT GeNerATed by THe Cu CrITerIA (r$ mILLION)

COeFFICIeNT AdOpTed FOr THe Cu CrITerIA

vALue OF THe eCOLOGICAL vAT IN 2009 (r$ mILLION)

TOTAL perCeNTAGe OF THe eCOLOGICAL vAT

STATe

Acre

Amapá

Mato Grosso

Mato Grosso do Sul

Minas Gerais

Paraná

Pernambuco

Rio de Janeiro

Rondônia

São Paulo

Tocantins

5%

1.4%

5%

5%

1%

5%

15%

2.5%

5%

0.5%

13%

5%

1.4%

5%

5%

0.5%

2.5%

1%

1.1%

5%

0.5%

3.5%

total

-

1.0

-

39.4

45.4

124.1

-

37.9

90.7

78.2

29.7

446.4

1.5

1.0

68.4

39.5

22.7

62.1

13.5

17.1

90.7

78.2

8.0

402.7

TABLE 23: Ecological VAT (ICMS Ecológico) generated in 2009 by Federation tUnit and individual contribution of the criteria “conservation units” in its composition

So

ur

ce

: DAt

A o

BtA

iNE

D F

Ro

M t

hE

WE

BS

itE

WW

W.iC

MS

EC

o-

log

iCo

.oR

g.B

R A

ND

StA

tE

S’ D

EPA

Rt

ME

Nt

S o

F F

iNA

NC

E..

36


UNEP-WCMC

that the coefficient determined by the legislation influences considerably the volume of Ecological VAT revenues transferred to municipalities, de-fining the return budget due to the existence of protected areas - not only conservation units but also, in some cases, indigenous lands. The study, however, assessed only the coefficients adopted for conservation units.

The actual values of the Ecological VAT distribu-ted totalled R$ 402,7 million in 2009. Among the 11 Brazilian states analyzed, Rondônia allocated the largest volume of the Ecological VAT by the “con-servation units” criteria to municipalities, totalling R$ 90.7 million in 2009. Rondônia was followed by the states of São Paulo and Mato Grosso, with R$78 million and R$ 68.4 million, respectively. Rondônia distributes a superior amount when compared to other states due to the fact that their coefficient for the “conservation units” is 5%.

The Ecological VAT can also be analyzed per capita, allowing the assessment of the volume of tax collected per capita by municipalities which prioritize environmental quality. Rondônia and Mato Grosso are the states with highest Ecological VAT per capita. Moreover, the Ecological VAT may play an important role in municipal tax revenues -

in the case of Rondônia it represents 4.3% of the total budget revenue of municipalities (Table 24).

poteNtiaL SceNario for tHe StateS witHout ecoLoGicaL vat LeGiSLatioN

Some Brazilian states are discussing the envi-ronmental criteria that will guide the percentage of transfers of ICMS (state value-added tax on ser-vices and circulation of goods) to municipalities. Given the lack of definition on the percentage as-signed to “conservation units” criteria for the 12 states without legislation, the study considered an estimated potential Ecological VAT based on a hy-pothetical rate of 0.5%, the minimum allocated for states that adopted the tax. This percentage was applied on the total quota-share of ICMS distribu-ted to municipalities of the 12 states that do not yet have Ecological VAT legislation.

After obtaining the value of the transfer to the municipality, a share of 25% was calculated - allo-cated according to the criteria established by state law. As presented in Table 25, the potential re-venue that would be transferred to municipalities, adopting a percentage of 0.5% Ecological VAT, would total R$ 14.9 million.

eSTImATed vALueS OF eCOLOGICAL vAT (0,5%) GeNerATed ACCOrdING TO THe CuS CrITerIA (r$ mILLION)

0.51.32.62.02.00.71.20.60.70.12.80.4

14.9

SHAre-quOTe OF ICmS IN 2009 (r$ mILLION)

416.61,047.42,067.41,577.91,564.1576.7945.9496.0545.085.8

2,276.0349.5

11,948.3

STATeS wITH NO LeGISLATION ON eCOLOGICAL vAT

AlagoasAmazonas

BahiaEspírito Santo

goiásMaranhão

ParáParaíba

Rio grande do NorteRoraima

Santa CatarinaSergipetotal

TABLE 25: Estimated value of potential Ecological VAT for the states with no specific legilastion (in R$)

So

ur

ce

: ElA

Bo

RAt

ED

Wit

h D

AtA

oB

tAiN

ED

FR

oM

th

E

BR

Az

iliA

N N

Atio

NA

l t

RE

AS

UR

y D

AtA

BA

SE

(FiN

BR

A),

2009

37UNEP-WCMC

In 2009, the actual revenue of the Ecological VAT in the 11 states with available data, transferred to municipalities due to the existence of protected areas in their territories, totalled R$ 402,7 million.

In the case of the States of Ceara, Piaui and Rio Grande do Sul, which have Ecological VAT legislation, but did not have data on transfers to municipalities, an estimate of transfers was calculated totalling ap-proximately R$ 76.7 million.

The potential revenue from Ecological VAT to the sta-tes with no legislation would total R$ 14.9 million, considering a percentage of 0.5% for the “conservation unit” criteria.

8.2. Conclusions on conservation units and the distribution of tax revenues

From the perspective of the Ecological VAT, the existence of conservation units in the territory of municipalities gives them access to a larger sha-re of the ICMS, increasing their income. Besides being a fiscal incentive for municipalities to cre-

an example of ecoLoGicaL vat in The sTaTe of rio de Janeiro

in the State of rio de Janeiro, ecological vat was created by Law 5.100 of october 2007. in 2009, the first year of its implementation, the value of the tax transfer to municipalities for the "conservation units" criteria, reached r$ 17 million, distributed among 63 of the 92 municipalities.

in that year, the cities of resende, mesquita, Nova iguaçu and cachoeiras de macacu received over r$1 million each of the ecological vat for maintaining conservation units in their territories. these transfers represented 1.7% of the budget revenue for the city of conceição de macabu, 1.2% of the city of itatiaia and 0.9% of the revenue of mesquita and cachoeiras de macacu. in contrast, 11% of the population of the rio de Janeiro cities were not benefited by transfers from the ecological vat due to the inexpressive or non-existence of conservation units in their territory.

eight of the 63 municipalities of rio de Janeiro benefited from ecological vat, the values transferred in 2009 were higher than the expenditure on the environment in the reference year. in relation to the expenditure declared by the municipalities on basic sanitation in 2009, conceição de macabu and Nova friburgo received an amount of ecological vat equivalent to 20.7% and 32% (respectively) of the expenditure in this sector.

ate and maintain conservation units, the Ecologi-cal VAT leads to other indirect effects related to additional public investment.

The increase in budgetary revenues via Ecologi-cal ICMS gives municipalities the opportunity to invest in environmental services whose budget is insufficient, such as solid waste management (for the construction of land waste sites and imple-mentation of selective waste collection program-mes, for example), education, and health, among others. According to Loureiro53, “this rationale of management is being developed in several counties where there is an Ecological VAT state law” so that “the beginning of a virtuous circle is started, bearing in mind that the better the quality of municipal environmental management, the bet-ter rates of participation in the amount of ICMS”.

38


UNEP-WCMC

9. Final message

A country long known for its rich biological and cultural diversity, Brazil has had a major part

of its economic development based on the exploi-tation of natural resources, often in a non-sustaina-ble way. Nevertheless, in the last two decades the belief that the natural resource base, including its biodiversity, is crucial for the country’s future deve-lopment due to the goods and services it provides has grown in the Brazilian society’s governmental and non-governmental sectors. In this context, con-servation units are key places that promote conser-vation and the provision of environmental services that contribute to growth of in a series of economic sectors.

Through the economic analysis of the rela-tionship between a selected group of environmental goods and services and economic activities asso-ciated with conservation areas, the results presen-ted in this publication show that the contribution conservation areas provide for the maintenance of these services is significant, although they do not have sufficient recognition by the society.

As demonstrated by the studies presented, be-sides the aggregated economic contribution at the national level, the creation and implementation of conservation also generates business opportuni-ties, as well as income and employment within the conservation units’ areas of influence. It also sho-ws that if protected areas are properly structured, there can be contribute to the growth of different economic sectors associated to them, as well to the better provision of systemic services produced by these areas.

Additionally, the presence of conservation units has proved to be a good deal for municipalities: the Ecological VAT mechanism has guaranteed an an-nual transfer of over R$ 400 million for local govern-ments to compensate for the presence of these areas in their territories. This tax redistribution, added to the resulting economic drive of environmental ser-vices provided by conservation units, promotes the regional decentralization of income, improving the

economy in municipalities that are usually remote from the main axes of development. Moreover, these areas provide services which are not yet measured, but essential to the welfare of society, such as the stabilization of hilltops and slopes and avoidance of sedimentation of rivers and landslides.

Nonetheless, despite the significant social and economic contribution provided by these areas, their actual implementation is hindered by the li-mited availability of resources. Securing more than 15% of the country, the National System of Conser-vation Units receives approximately R$ 450 million annually, a value that represents half of the mini-mum required for the annual cost of management expenses and the basic functioning of the system. In addition to the operating expenses, investments of R$1.8 billion in infrastructure and planning would be needed, considering the set of all state and federal conservation units. This situation puts Brazil among the countries with the lowest financial support per protected hectare in a group of nations with systems of conservation units of similar size.

Therefore, enabling new investment in the im-plementation and expansion of the system of con-servation units is critical not only for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, but also to ensure social and economic development of the country in the medium and long term. In addition to increasing the resources invested, it is necessa-ry to adopt a strategic vision for promoting econo-mic activities related to conservation units, such as tourism and the exploitation of forest products, so that they may have relevance to local development, providing an effective improvement in the quality of living for the people in these regions.

Reconciling development and conservation is an efficient, sustainable and socially fair strategy to guarantee the economic growth according to a model in which the economy and nature are treated as complementary elements, not antagonist. Con-serving biodiversity not only ensures more growth but better growth.

39UNEP-WCMC

1 GURGEL, H.; Hargrave, J; França, F.; Holmes, R. M.; Ricarte, F. M.; Dias, B. F. S.; Rodrigues, C. G. O.; Brito, M. C. W. 2009. Unidades de conservação e o falso dilema entre conservação e desenvolvi-mento. Boletim Regional, Urbano e Ambiental, n3, dez. 2009, pp109-120.

2 GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zu-sammenarbeit) is the cooperation agency of the Fe-deral Republic of Germany; IPEA, the Institute for Applied Economic Research of the Brazilian Gover-nment and DEFRA, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom.

3 The CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas is available at http://www.cbd.int/protected/pow/le-arnmore/intro/.

4 Jenkins, C.; Joppa, L.N. 2009. Expansion of the Global Protected Areas System. Data from the Na-tional Federation of RPPNs of November, 2010.

5 Biological Conservation, doi:10.1016/j.bio-con.2009.04.016 Dados da Confederação Nacio-nal de RPPNs, referentes a novembro de 2010.

6 Although the SNUC is also composed of mu-nicipal conservation units, until this survey was completed only 32 of these were registered at the CNUC, a number surely underestimated. MMA con-servative estimates indicate that there are at least 600 municipal conservation nowadays, covering about 10 million hectares. It is also estimated that at least 300 more state units have not yet been officially registered in the CNUC, with an approxi-mate area of two million hectares.

7 Gurgel et al, 2009.

8 TEEB in National Policy (2011). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and In-ternational Policy Making. Edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London

9 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.

Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Is-land Press, Washington, DC.

10 PEARCE, D. W. 1993. Economic values and the natural world. Earthscan, London.

11 The Brazilian Forest Service is the agency res-ponsible for forest management in Brazil. Its ac-tivities are provided by the Law of Public Forest Management (Law 11.284 of March 2, 2006).

12 IBGE. 2004. Mapa de Biomas e de Vegetação. Available at http://www.ibge.gov.br /home/presiden-cia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=169. Acessed on August 29, 2010.

13 SMERALDI, R. & Veríssimo, A. 1999. Acertan-do o Alvo: consumo de madeira no mercado interno brasileiro e promoção da certificação florestal. São Paulo: Amigos da Terra, Imaflora e Imazon. 41p.

14 OIMT. 2006. Reseña anual y evaluación de la situación mundial de las maderas. Internacio-nal de las Maderas Tropicales. Yokohama, Japón. OIMT. 210p.

15 Source: CPAFAC Embrapa. Availabe at: http://www.cpafac.embrapa.br/pdf/mnj_flor_nmade.pdf.

16 IBGE. Produção da extração vegetal e da sil-vicultura 1990-2008. Available at http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pesquisas/pevs/default.asp?o=24&i=P. Acessed on August 21, 2010.

17 COOPERFLORESTA. 2010a. Recursos para uma economia solidária sustentável. Available at http://cooperfloresta.com/noticia.php?id=4. Aces-sed on August 17, 2010.

18 COOPERFLORESTA. 2010b. Notícias. Avai-lable at http://cooperfloresta.com/noticia.php?id =5[25/08/2010 17:02:14]. Acessed on August 17, 2010.

19 IBGE, 2008.

Annex Bibliographical notes and references

40


UNEP-WCMC

20 The Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) was established in August 2007 with the assignment of carrying out the ma-nagement of federal conservation units in Brazil.

21 IBAMA. 2006. Plano de Manejo Reserva Extra-tivista Chico Mendes. Acre. p. 91.

22 EMBRAPA. 2005. Cultivo da Castanha-do-Bra-sil em Rondônia. Available at http://sistemasdepro-ducao.cnptia.embrapa.br/FontesHTML/Castanha/CultivodaCastanhadoBrasilRO/index.htm. Acessed on September 22, 2010.

23 IMAZON. 2010. Potencial econômico nas flo-restas estaduais da calha norte: madeira e casta-nha-do-Brasil. 23p.

24 The Amazon Institute of People and the Envi-ronment (Imazon) is a non-governmental research institution dedicated to the socioeconomic survey, with special focus on the region covered by the Amazon rainforest. Its work on monitoring the dy-namics of deforestation in the region is recognized nationally and internationally.

25 Since the distribution of the Brazil nut tree is not homogeneous, not all of the Extractive Reser-ves in the Amazon exploit this forest product.

26 STYNES, Daniel; PROPST, Dennis; CHANG, Wen-Huei; SUN, YaYen. 2000. Estimating Natio-naPark Visitor Spending and Economics Impacts. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan (USA). The MGM methodology was developed by the University of Michigan in a partnership with the US National Park Service. Updated versions of the study are available at http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mgm2/.

27 Multipliers are used to translate and convert in-come and expenses in “jobs” in a certain area, be-sides estimating the side effects of visitation. For example, a multiplier of 1.5 means that for every dollar received directly from the tourist, fifty cents of additional revenue is generated in the region through indirect or induced effects. Only spending captured by the local economy must be considered by the income multiplier, disregarding goods and

services produced outside the region studied, such as fuel. (STYNES et al., 2000; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, s.d).

28 In the case of the Serra dos Órgãos National Park, the average spending was estimated based on primary data obtained with park visitors in a survey coordinated by the Department of Protected Areas (Ministry of Environment) in May 2005. The avera-ge spending of R$ 51/day considered expenditure on food, lodging and transportation of 58 park vi-sitors. In the case of the Iguaçu National Park, the average visitor spending, R$ 86.92 per day, refers to the value of recreational services (US$ 34.771/year) found through the travel cost method (Ortiz et al ., 2001), divided by the annual average of park visitors in the period when the survey was conduc-ted (800,000 visitors/2001).

29 It is worth mentioning that 70% of total visitor arrivals were concentrated in only two national pa-rks: Tijuca National Park (State of Rio de Janeiro) and Iguaçu National Park (State of Paraná).

30 SOARES-FILHO, B; Dietzsch L.; Moutinho P.; Falieri A.; Rodrigues, H. et al. 2009. Redução das emissões de carbono do desmatamento no Brasil: O papel do Programa Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia (ARPA). Brasília, Brazil: UFMG, IPAM, WHRC, WWF.

31 This procedure is very conservative if we consi-der that the Brazilian Forest Code is far from being effectively implemented and that there was a great chance of the deforestation to exceed the legal li-mits if the conservation unit was not.

32 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chan-ge (IPCC) was created in 1988 by the UN with the aim of analyzing the scientific, technical and so-cioeconomic information to enhance the unders-tanding of climate change and its effects. IPCC studies subsidize governments and groups of ex-perts involved in the debate and in international negotiations on the issue within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

33 According to the Food and Agriculture Organi-zation (2010), emissions from forest burning ac-

41UNEP-WCMC

counted for an average of 0.5 Gt of carbon in the period 2005-2010. Also according to this study, the average annual loss of forests in the period 1990-2000 was of 16 million hectares, an area superior to the territories of countries like Greece or Nicaragua.

34 When using the methodology of the Global War-ming Potential (GWP), land use changes were res-ponsible for 61% of the Brazilian equivalent CO2 emissions (CO2e) in 2005, while using the Global Temperature Potential (GTP) methodology this va-lue reaches 68%.

35 For example, see Phillips et al. 1998, Phillips et al. 2002, Baker et al. 2004.

36 DeFRIES, R.; Hansen, A.; Newton, A.C.; Han-sen, M.C. 2005. Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications, 15(1), 19–26.

37 FERREIRA L. V., VENTICINQUE E., ALMEIDA S. 2005. O desmatamento na Amazônia e a impor-tância das áreas protegidas. Estudos Avançados, 19 (53), p.157- 167.

38 JOPPA, L.N.; Loarie, S.R.; Pimm, S.L. 2008. On the protection of “protected area”. PNAS, vol.105 no 18, pp6673–6678. Disponível em www.pnas.org/content/105/18/6673.full.pdf, acesso em 12 janeiro 2009.

39 IBASE. 2006. Água – Bem público em unida-des de conservação. Available at www.ibase.br. Acessed on July 7, 2010.

40 ANEEL. 2010. Banco de Informação de Ge-ração - BIG. Available at http://www.aneel.gov.br/aplicacoes/capacidadebrasil/capacidadebrasil.asp. Acessed on July 5, 2010.

41 In accounting the power generation capacity in Brazil, the Generation Information Database of the Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency (ANEEL) does not provide information on plants in operation that are in the process of regularization of their granting acts.

42 In calculating the total of installed capacity in Brazil, provided by the the Generation Information Database of the Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency (ANEEL), plants located on the dividing line between two states are listed in both states, resulting in an installed capacity for all states of 120,628,457 kW. When the power (kW) is indivi-dualized to obtain installed capacity of Brazil, the database informs a power granted 115,903,179 kW, resulting in a difference of 47,252,278 kilo-watts of power from plants that are in the bounda-ries of two states.

43 DUDLEY, N. & Stolton, S., (Eds). 2003. Run-ning pure: a importância de áreas protegidas de flo-restas à água potável. Gland, Suíça, WWF/Banco Mundial, Aliança para a Conservação de Florestas e Uso Sustentável.

44 SALATI, E. & VOSE, P. B. 1983. Amazon basin: A system in equilibrium. Submitted for Publication in Science.

45 Price established by Communiqué no 07/10 of the Basic Sanitation Company of the State of Sao Paulo (SABESP), valid from September 11, 2010 for the class of consumption of normal residences, above 50 m3/month.

46 REIS, L.V.S. 2004. Cobertura Florestal e Cus-to do Tratamento de Águas em Bacias Hidrográ-ficas de Abastecimento Público: Caso do Manan-cial do Município de Piracicaba. Tese (Doutorado em Recursos Florestais) - IPEF, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, 215p. Available at http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/11/11150/tde-14122004-113308/pt-br.php. Accessed on Au-gust 20, 2010.

47 Reis, 2004.

48 Available at www.icmsecologico.org.br.

49 It is worth clarifying in this regard that the cate-gories of conservation units of sustainable use are less restrictive as to the economic use of natural resources in its limits. In areas of Environmental

42


UNEP-WCMC

Protection, for example, these economic activities are allowed.

50 For a detailed explanation on the methodology used in this calculation, it is worth accessing the website www.icmsecologico.org.br.

51 Externalities are effects that in the production of goods or services focus on people who are not directly involved with the activity and that are not internalized by the market. Externalities, both po-sitive and negative, include the impact of a de-cision on those who participated in this decision. In the case of positive externality, the effects of benefit agents for the increase in welfare or inco-me of a particular company. In the case of negati-ve externality, the effects damage agents, causing loss of welfare or income loss, with no monetary compensation.

52 52 The states of Ceará, Piauí and Rio Grande do Sul are not part of this table because they lack data on the values of the Ecological VAT transfer-red to their respective municipalities. However, an estimate was calculated for transfers based on the coefficient established in their respective laws whi-ch, together, totalled R$ 76.7 million

53 LOUREIRO, W. 2009. ICMS Ecológico, a opor-tunidade do financiamento da gestão ambiental municipal no Brasil. Available at: www.icmsecolo-gico.org.br. Accessed on December 7, 2010.

ANA Agência Nacional de Águas

(National Water Agency)

ANEEL Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica

(Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency)

BIG Banco de Informações de Geração

(Energy Generation Information Database)

BNDES Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico

e Social (Brazilian Development Bank)

CNARH Cadastro Nacional de Usuários de Recursos

Hídricos (National Register of

Users of Hydro Resources)

Conab Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento

(Brazilian National Supply Company)

Conabio Comissão Nacional de Biodiversidade

(National Commission for Knowledge

and Use of Biodiversity)

CDB Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica

(Convention on Biological Diversity)

CNUC Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservação

(National Register of Protected Areas)

Ibama Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente

e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis

(Brazilian Institute for Environment and Natural

Renewable Resources)

IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística

(Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics)

ICMS Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias

e Prestação de Serviços

(State Value-added Tax on Services and

Circulation of Goods)

ICMBio Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação

da Biodiversidade (Chico Mendes Institute for

Biodiversity Conservation)

Imazon Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente

da Amazônia (Amazon Institute of People

and the Environment)

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPEA Institute of Applied Economic Research

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation

MMA Ministério do Meio Ambiente

(Ministry of Environment)

Acronyms and abbreviations in this publication

43UNEP-WCMC

ONU Organização das Nações Unidas (United Na-

tions)

PMFS Plano de Manejo Florestal Sustentável

de Uso Múltiplo (Plan of Sustainable

Forest Management of Multiple Use)

REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation

and Degradation

RER reference emissions rate (Extractive Reserve)

Resex Reserva Extrativista

RPPN Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural

(Private Reserve of the Natural Heritage)

SFB Serviço Florestal Brasileiro

(Brazilian Forest Service)

SNUC Sistema Nacional de Unidades de

Conservação da Natureza (National System

of Nature Conservation Areas)

TEEB The Economics of Ecossistem and Biodiversity

UC unidade de conservação (Conservation Unit)

UPA unidade de produção anual

(Annual Protection Unit)

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change

WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Date post:	07-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vannhan
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Executive summary of the report in English

Documents