Uehara, Glehn, 2011. Improving Public Policies for the Restoration of Riparian Ecosystems in Private...

8/11/2019 Uehara, Glehn, 2011. Improving Public Policies for the Restoration of Riparian Ecosystems in Private Properties. In

1/24

Biodiversity Conservation in the Americas: Lessons and Policy / E. Figueroa B. (Ed.)

301

Chapter 12

IMPROVING PUBLIC POLICIES FOR THE RESTORATION OF

RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS IN PRIVATE PROPERTIES: THEBIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROGRAM OF THE STATE

OF SAO PAULO, BRAZIL

Thiago Hector Uehara1Center for Sustainability Studies, Fundao Getulio Vargas

and

Helena Carrascosa von Glehn

Sao Paulo State Secretariat of Environment,Brazil

1. INTRODUCTION

The Project for the Restoration of Riparian Ecosystems (PRRE or, in Portuguese,Projeto de Recuperao de Matas Ciliares) was an initiative of the StateSecretariat of Environment (SSE) of So Paulo, Brazil. It was co-funded by grantsfrom the Global Environment Facility with The World Bank as the implementingagency. The PRRE started in 2005 and its completion was scheduled for 2009, butit has been extended to early 2011.

The PRRE aimed at making feasible the restoration of riparian ecosystemsin large scale within the state of So Paulo. The PRREs strategywas based on the

association of public policies for biological conservation with both the participativemanagement of water resources and with the rural development policy.The environmental management evolved systems evolved considerably

since the beginning of the PRRE. Currently, the restoration of riparian ecosystemspopularly known as "eyelashes forests" in Brazil is a concern of the organizedsociety of the state of So Paulo, and is also a government priority.

This chapter presents some results from the evaluation2 of the PRRE,describing its purposes and characteristics and assessing capacities, limits and

1Email:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/24

Improving public policies for the restoration of / T. H. Uehara & H. Carrascosa / 2011

302

potential of public policy instruments with special focus on the restoration ofriparian ecosystems, which are protected by Brazilian law. Strengths andweaknesses of the PRRE and some strategies towards the success of complex

projects/programs of environmental management are highlighted at the finalsection.

2. A SCENARIO OF DEGRADATION AND THE PLANNING OFTHE PRRE

This section presents the natural area focused by the Project for the Restoration ofRiparian Ecosystems (PRRE) and the policy instruments used before its beginning

in 2005. At the end of this section, the motivations to redesign public policies andthe objectives of the PRRE are described.

2.1. The Riparian Areas of Permanent Preservation: Degraded AreasAlthough Legally Protected

The environmental objects of the PRRE are the riparian areas of permanentpreservation located in the countryside of the state of So Paulo 3, Brazil. An Areaof Permanent Preservation (APP) is, by Brazilian law, one [....] whether coveredor not by native vegetation, with the environmental function of preserving waterresources, landscape, geological stability, biodiversity, gene flow of wild fauna andflora, soil protection and ensuring the well-being of human populations (FederalLaw #4771 of 1965).

Any vegetation surrounding rivers or water bodies with well defined ordiffuse drainage, whether natural or artificial, is considered riparian. Riparian APPsare usually defined by areas delimited and protected by federal laws and theypartly correspond to the riparian zone and corridor. Along streams and springs inthe vicinity, the riparian ecosystems have vegetation characteristics definedaccording to vegetation heterogeneity (Mantovani et al. 1989; Catharino 1989;Rodrigues 2000).

Figure 1 shows people preparing a technical project for forest restorationon the banks of a stream by measuring the size of the legal riparian APP. One can

2The evaluation of the effectiveness of the PRRE is the subject of Cadernos da Mata Ciliar,5(Ueharaand Casazza, in press). It will be available at www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/mataciliar3 Located in the southeast region of Brazil, the state of So Paulo has an overall standard of living andeconomy comparable to that of a developed country. Besides being the Brazils most populated state,

So Paulo is 3 times larger than Chile.


3/24


303

observe in both sides of the stream thepresence of natural regeneration indifferent stages which, if well managed, may constitute an area that will contributeto biodiversity conservation.

Figure 1 - Delimitation of riparian APP in the valley of the Paraiba do Sul river basinSource: SSE collection, 2006.

Riparian corridors preserve biodiversity as they maintain an unusualdiversity of habitats and ecological services (Naiman, Dcamps and Pollock 1993).

In riparian areas there are typical mainland species in addition to theusual riparian species. Riparian zones are considered important sources of

seeds for natural regeneration process (Lima and Zakia 2000; Kageyama andGandara 2000).The riparian ecosystems also have many hydrological functions,

intervening on important processes for the stability of watersheds, maintaining thequality and amount of water, as well as preserving the aquatic ecosystem itself.The following functions are highlighted by Lima and Zakia (2000): generation ofdirect runoff in watersheds, the amount of water, water quality, nutrient cycling, anddirect interaction with the aquatic ecosystem.

The conservation of riparian ecosystems also contributes to the landscape,

environmental comfort, to the increase of fish stock (Barbosa 2000); to the


4/24


304

navigability of watercourses, watershed protection (Mueller 2000); and to developproper conditions for permeation (Lima 1989).

The set of Atlantic forests and the Cerrado (the Brazilian savannah)

occurring at the state of So Paulo are considered hotspots, i.e., priority areasfor conservation with high biodiversity and endangered species (Mittermeier etal. 2005).

80% of the state of So Paulo used to be covered by forests, but theoccupation of the countryside, primarily driven by agricultural expansion, hascaused a drastic reduction in that rate (Kronka 2005). The Instituto Florestalof theState Secretariat of Environment (SSE) of So Paulo found out that only 17.5% ofthe state area was covered by native vegetation between 2008 and 2009, aremaining area of 4,343,000 hectares. Besides being fragmented, the remaining

vegetation is concentrated in the coastal region with vast areas virtually lackingnative vegetation. In the countryside, the forests are spread and fragmented,isolated by agricultural activities, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Map of remaining forests in the state of So Paulo, Brazil.The dark color represents forest remnants.Source: Instituto Florestal, SSE (2010).


5/24


305

In the state of So Paulo, between 1.0 and 1.2 million hectares of riparianecosystems have been devastated at the minimum range of 30 meters required bylaw to constitute riparian APPs (SSE 2007; Barbosa et al. 2008, p. 62). That is the

minimal extent of riparian area where restoration is legally desirable in the state.The restoration of riparian ecosystems on a large scale could be of greatvalue to the connection of fragments of the southern and southeastern states ofBrazil, recovering the biodiversity of these widely degraded areas (Kageyama andGandara 2000).

Just a small portion of the riparian ecosystemss of the state of So Paulo islocated at protected areas. Disregarding thereas de Proteo Ambiental(a kindof sustainable usage protected area usually extensive), only 3.5% of the state areprotected areas managed by the government (Rodrigues and Bononi 2008).

Hence, promoting the restoration of riparian ecosystems is a hugechallenge. Restoration projects in private properties are significantly more sensitivethan those projects in public areas.

2.2. Isolated Initiatives and the Prevalence of Command and ControlInstruments

Before the PRRE, the SSE of So Paulo did not have a universal program (long-term, statewide) for the restoration of riparian ecosystems. At that time, before

2005, the SSE used to apply regulatory (command & control) instruments, and itused to act in scattered projects in order to recover portions of rivers banks, on anad hoc manner, non-integrated to programs. Among those projects, we highlightthe Pomar projectfor environmental remediation and revegetation of the banks ofthe Pinheiros River in So Paulo city, which turned out to alert the population aboutthe importance of reclaiming areas bordering rivers.

Some studies carried out by research institutes of the state (mainly theInstituto de Botnica and the Instituto Florestal) in partnership with universities(primarily Unicamp, Unesp and the Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de

Queiroz and the Instituto de Biocincias of the Universidade de So Paulo)supported the conception of regulations and promoted standards for compulsoryprojects. Those researches also served for the planning stage of the PRREespecially to identify obstacles to large-scale restoration.


6/24


306

Before the beginning of the PRRE, the State Secretariat of Agriculture andSupply (SSAS) of So Paulo has been executing the State Program ofWatersheds4(Programa Estadual de Microbacias Hidrogrficas), which subsidized

the restoration of riparian ecosystems in private properties. In that program, therewas a lack of involvement of the SSE or agents of the nonprofit sector to promoteconservation initiatives amidst of infrastructure and productivity increase activities.

As mentioned above, the SSE used primarily command and controlinstruments such as environmental licensing and inspection performed by theEnvironmental Company (Cetesb), by the Coordination of Inspections andProtection of Natural Resources and by the Environmental Police. The SSE usedto inspect degradation and deforestation of areas of permanent preservation(APPs) such as riparian ecosystems responding to complaints, and used to

issue terms of adequacy and mitigations signed by entrepreneurs. However, thesecommitments were not effectively followed up by the small team of inspectors.Moreover, some entrepreneurs who wanted to fulfill their commitment hardly usedto find available areas in order to execute mitigation projects.

With that set of non-integrated activities and projects and with the adverseopportunity cost of deforestation of the few remaining forests, Kronka et al. (2003)observed the low rate of native vegetation coverage in So Paulo has remainedfairly stable.

That scenario reflects the limited effects of command and controlinstruments. These instruments applied apart from a program (combining acomplex set of economic, information, regulation and educative instruments) hadbeen insufficient to promote the restoration of APPs.

The transition from the 20th to the 21st century in Brazil was remarkable bythe approval of environmental management based on stakeholders collaborationand public participation in general the so-called "integrated environmentalmanagement" as proposed by Margerum (1999). In addition to enhancing theregional planning approach, by watershed, one may note the participation ofdifferent segments of society in public management is crucial for policy formulation.Public hearings, regional forums with broad participatory processes andconsultations with public, private and civil society agents have become popular.

4The State Program of Watersheds aimed at improving the sustainability of agricultural production,farmers productivity and income, and support the conservation of natural resources through (a)

encouraging the adoption of sustainable land management, planned and implemented at the watershedlevel, with strong community involvement; (b) awareness and involvement of the community inenvironmental protection; (c) reducing the soil exposure by increasing vegetation cover (in length andtime); and, (d) improving soil structure and drainage characteristics, favoring water infiltration and

reducing erosion.


7/24


307

2. 3. The Formulation of the PRRE: Objectives, Structure andProcedures

The PRRE was prepared by several technicians and researchers from differentunits of the SSE, the SSAS, and other stakeholders, including advisors of theWorld Bank and the professor Jos Goldemberg.

The resources allocated for the implementation of the PRRE were USD19.52 million, of which USD 7.75 million corresponded to a donation from theGlobal Environment Facility and the remainder was provided by the state, throughthe SSE and the SSAS.

The PRRE had multiple goals: supporting biodiversity conservation andsustainable use of natural resources; reducing poverty in rural areas; contributing

to the mitigation of global climate change; and also educating society about theimportance of these matters. Its specific objectives were: expanding productioncapacity of seedlings; implementing payment for environmental services schemes;validating restoration models; strengthening institutional capacity to coordinateinter-sector interventions; monitoring project impacts and exchanging information;informing and empowering farmers; and raising awareness and mobilizingpopulations.

The core problem that motivated the PRRE was the lack of tools andmethodologies for large scale restoration of riparian ecosystems in the state of So

Paulo. So we consider that the PRRE aimed at redesigning and formulating publicpolicy instruments for a statewide program of riparian ecosystems restoration.PRRE's actions focused to overcome the following obstacles: (i) socio-

educational: difficulty in engaging landowners in restoration projects and societyslack of conscience about the importance of riparian ecosystems; (ii) technical: lackof effective models to restore degraded areas applicable to different situations;deficit (qualitative and quantitative) on seedlings of native species; (iii) financial:insufficient and ineffective use of resources, and (iv) managerial: lack of tools forintegrated planning and monitoring of restoration projects.

Five components were established to overcome the identified barriers. Todeal with the inefficient use of financial resources, Component #1 of the PRRE,called "Policy Development", was designed to implement a statewide programbased on technology, legal and taxes resources supplies and on payment systemsfor environmental services. The management of that component was theresponsibility of the PRRE Coordination Unit with the support of the Instituto deEconomia Agrcolaof the SSAS.

PRREs Component #2, "Support to the Sustainable Restoration ofRiparian Ecosystems", had to develop and validate methodologies for forestrestoration, as well as to increase the supply of seeds and seedlings of native


8/24


308

species. The coordination of that component was assigned to the Instituto deBotnica in partnership with the Instituto Florestaland the Fundao Florestal, allof them under the structure of the SSE.

Component #3, named On-the-ground investments in sustainable landmanagement practices, arose from the difficulty in implementing restorationmodels. It was based on partnerships with local associations such as NGOs andfarmers groups, aiming at strengthening them, generating income and promotingcommunity involvement. Component #3, sometimes called "demonstrationprojects"5, was managed by the Coordination Unit of the PRRE in partnership withthe Coordination of Technical Assistance (CATI) of the SSAS, which had theresponsibility to provide seedlings and technical assistance for landowners.

The difficulties of communication, mobilization, training and coaching led to

the creation of Component #4. That component aimed at incorporatingenvironmental education in formal education, mobilizing community leaders, andproviding training with regards to environmental agents and watershed populations.It was initially coordinated by one department of the Coordination of Planning andEnvironmental Education of the SSE, which later on evolved to the Coordination forEnvironmental Education.

Finally, Component #5 of PRRE, "Management, Monitoring and Evaluationand Information Dissemination" was thought to encompass the administrative andfinancial management and coordination of the project, coupled with the monitoringof its activities, and promoting information and institutional communication. ThePRRE Coordination Unit had been in charge of that component.

The five components were connected by a triple management: theexecutive manager, which main task was to mobilize and coordinate the projectwith other agencies; the technical manager that should follow up and support theactivities of all components; and the administrative and financial manager.

The PRRE coordination team was initially composed by an average of sixtechnicians from the extinct Department of Landscape Projects as well ascoordinators of components from the Instituto de Botnica and from theCoordination of Planning and Environmental Education in addition to a couple ofresearchers from the Instituto Florestal, all of them reporting to the SSE. ThePRRE had been operated by an outsourced team of management supportincluding five administrative staff, one systems analyst and two planning analysts.Its executive team was initially composed by five outsourced technicians, but with

5In versions of the Project in Portuguese, the component #3 is simply called "Demonstration Projects". Theproject approved by the World Bank, in English, presented this component as "On-the-ground investmentsin sustainable land management practices", whose goal was to recover riparian forests, on a trial basis,through the implementation of investments in the field in selected watersheds, as well as promote and

publicize well tested technologies for sustainable management of land (The World Bank, 2005).


9/24


309

experts being hired through a public tender in 2009, the PRREs team had theaddition of the decentralized network of the new Coordination of Biodiversity andNatural Resources (CBNR) in their 10 Regional Technical Centers in addition to

the support of the new Restoration Center of the Department of BiodiversityProtection. At its beginning in 2005 the PRREs team consisted of less than 10direct employees while in its last execution year more than 40 people from the SSEhad collaborated with the PRRE.

The PRRE's activities had been focused on three scales: state, regional(within five water resources management units) and local (15 watersheds) levels.At the state level, there was the definition of general guidelines, the coordinationand establishment of interorganizational networks, and the support of studies,experiments and consultations aimed at formulating and developing public policy

instruments for a statewide program.Regional initiatives were carried out in five water resources managementunits that hosted 15 demonstration projects in watersheds (Figure 3). The fivewater resources management units were selected because they cover priorityareas selected for biodiversity conservation located on an east-west axis crossingthe territory. Moreover, one expected those regions representing the diversity ofthe state, both as to physical and biotic environment, as with regards tosocioeconomic aspects. Those units were composed by Aguapei; Tiete andJacar; Mogi-Guau; Piracicaba, Capivari and Jundiai; and Paraiba do Sul rivers.The regional activities involved environmental education, training and mobilizationactivities, in addition to fostering the production of seeds and seedlings of nativespecies.

The 15 watersheds were selected according to criteria defined by the riverbasin committees with support of the SSE, considering socioeconomic andenvironmental issues through a public selection process with wide divulgation.


10/24


310

Figure 3. Geographical location of the five water resourcesmanagement units and the 15 watersheds chosenfor implementing demonstration projects.

The demonstration projects aimed at testing, consolidating and allowingthe replication of tools, techniques and methodologies proposed by the PRRE. ThePRRE articulated networks in order to get support and participation of landowners,farmers and the local community towards the sustainability of conservationinitiatives.

The implementation of the demonstration projects was not the ultimate goalof the PRRE. Besides being the main axis of the PRRE, the implementation wasthe scheme used to develop and refine instruments in order to compose astatewide program.

The PRRE was aligned with global, national, state and regional prioritieswith regards to nature conservation and restoration of degraded areas. Itresponded to Brazils commitments associated to its National Biodiversity Strategy

(2002), to the international conventions it has ratified, such as the United NationsConvention to Combat Desertification (1997), the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (1994), the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1994), and to thenational movement Pact for the Restoration of the Atlantic Rainforest.

The linkages among the multiple stakeholders had been the support for thePRRE, demanding much of the energy supplied by the PRREs coordination team.


11/24


311

The involvement of several governmental and non-governmental organizations(NGOs) was encouraged at all levels. Crucial partnerships were established withmunicipal governments, state government agencies, research institutions, NGOs

and farmers associations.The advisory structure of the PRRE was composed by municipal ruraldevelopment and environmental committees, by regional water resourcescommittees, and by the state environmental council. All of those forums have non-governmental and state members.

The vital partnership has been established between the SSE and theCoordination of Technical Assistance (CATI) of the SSAS through the StateProgram of Watersheds. CATI is the state organization in charge of agriculturalextension and it has promoted the organization of rural populations into residents

and farmers associations, allowing an easier implementation of the PRRE.Furthermore, the Program of Watersheds had provided tree seedlings of nativespecies for the implementation of the PRREs demonstration projects. One can

note complementary goals: the PRRE was focused on forestry restoration and theProgram of Watersheds, in turn, was focused on rural development.

In order to strengthen interorganizational networks, the SSE establishedpartnerships with municipal governments, watershed committees, universities andthe private sector for implementing 15 demonstration projects. Strategicpartnerships were established with local organizations, such as NGOs andresidents and/or farmers associations. In addition to help searching for

collaborators and to encourage landowners participation in the project, suchorganizations had been hired to provide operational services for restoring riparianecosystems, which involve the isolation of areas, implementation of restorationprojects, and maintenance/management of ecosystems. With the participation ofthese citizens organizations and the composition of local networks, one expected

that the conservation initiatives would be sustained over time.

3. THE NEW PROGRAM FOR RESTORING RIPARIANECOSYSTEM OF THE STATE OF SAO PAULO

As explained in the previous section, the State Secretariat of Environment (SSE) ofSo Paulo did not have a universal program (long-term, statewide) for therestoration of riparian areas of permanent preservation (APPs). Formerly, the SSEused to apply command and control instruments such as environmental licensingand inspections. The new approach is shortly exposed hereinafter.


12/24


312

3.1. The Ecosystem Restoration Agenda Integrating the Climate ChangeLaw and The New Organizational Structure of the SSE

The current state program of riparian ecosystems called Environmental StrategicProject of Eyelash Forest (Projeto Ambiental Estratgico Mata Ciliar) intends toinduce the restoration of 1.7 million hectares, including riparian zones, areas notsuitable for agriculture, and those important for the creation of ecological corridorsand biodiversity conservation in order to promote restoration of riparian areas, thuscontributing to broadening the area of vegetation coverage in the state of SoPaulo from 14%6to at least 20% within the following two decades (Rodrigues andBononi 2008).

The Forest Remnants Program (FRP) recently established under the State

Climate Change Law of So Paulo (Law #13.798 of 2009) aims at promoting thedelimitation, demarcation and restoration of riparian forests and other forestfragments. The FRP may provide payment for environmental services (PES) tolandowners and economic incentives to voluntary policies in order to reducedeforestation and environmental protection (State Decree #55.947 of 2010).

The FRP is one of the main products of the Project for the Restoration ofRiparian Ecosystems (PRRE). The FRP establishes several instruments improvedby the PRRE such as the dissemination of techniques, criteria and guidelines forrestoration; the definition of criteria for monitoring restoration projects, promoting

the use of diagnostic tools and methodologies to choose techniques for therestoration projects; the technical support for regional projects and integratedservices for PES to landowners and the registration of: areas under restorationprocesses, areas available for restoration, and providers of nursery stock of nativetrees as well as disseminating all these data. As seen, the FRP covers a statewideprogram of riparian restoration.

The initiatives of PES are being held in all water resources managementunits of the state. The Spring Water project (Projeto Mina dgua), included in theFRP, aims to encourage landowners to preserve native vegetation surrounding

springs that contribute to public drinking water sources. Its strategy is based onPES, an economic instrument applied through agreements with municipalgovernments which will take over the role of local executors. The Spring Waterproject may have additional environmental management instruments. Forexample, the municipal governments may develop environmental educationinitiatives and establish partnerships with other organizations in order to fundrestoration projects. However, there is still a lack of studies to support the WaterSpring project which should be monitored and evaluated very carefully in order to

6Datum of 2005. In 2010 the Instituto Florestalrealized that 17.5% of the state area was covered by

native vegetation as mentioned previously.


13/24


313

check if the economic instrument itself induces a landowner to a change in thepattern of soil use and management.

Between 2008 and 2009, the SSE7 underwent a restructuring which

established new responsibilities and opened the opportunity to promote therestoration by using economic and information instruments, in addition to improveregulatory instruments.

Due to the experiences of the PRRE, the new Coordination of Biodiversityand Natural Resources (CBNR) was established with three departments, all ofwhich deal with the restoration of riparian ecosystems.

The Department of Biodiversity Protection has to develop and implementmentoring, publicity and technical training programs related to ecologicalrestoration. The Department of Sustainable Development has to develop and

implement economic instruments to encourage restoration and preservation ofnatural resources, particularly payment for environmental services mechanisms, inaddition to implementing forest restoration. The Department of Inspection andMonitoring must define steps to be taken for restoring degraded areas andmonitoring compliance of penalties imposed, as well as of obligatory forestreplacements, in addition to monitoring the restoration of degraded areas.

The inspection and licensing systems are nowadays centralized in thehands of the Environmental Company (Cetesb) of the SSE. Roughly, the inspectionoperates by imposing compensation activities for one who produces a negativeenvironmental impact such as vegetal suppression. As a requirement in processesof environmental licensing, Cetesb requires the conservation or restoration of allareas of permanent preservation (APP) of the property. The environmental Policekeep its track, preventing and repressing the environmental degradation.

One may note that technical instruments still prevail. The renovatedpolicies and projects maintain the command and control approach, includeeconomic instruments and even some information instruments but there is noguaranteed educational tools or suasive instruments nor a wide room for socialparticipation. However, the management of riparian ecosystems has gained a moreactive approach in the new organizational structure of the SSE, making room for amore incisive role in developing projects and programs aiming at restoringecosystems.

3.2. Other initiatives of the state, municipalities and the productive sector

The subject of the restoration of riparian ecosystems was strengthened and settledon the state agenda. The Multi-Year Plan 2008-2011, the main strategic law for thegovernmental management, considers the restoration of riparian ecosystems a

7State Decrees #53027 of 2008 and #54653 of 2009.


14/24


314

major environmental project, and highlights the possibility of funding throughcarbon credits or voluntary compensations. The Coordination of Biodiversity andNatural Resources (CBNR) of the SSE is reinforcing the importance of that subject

for the formulation of the next Multi-Year (2012-2015) Plan.The transfer of resources from the state to municipal governments withgood environmental management performance is another economic instrument toencourage municipalities to participate in environmental policy. One of theguidelines of the state project currently called "Green-Blue City" (MunicpioVerde-Azul) is the preservation of forests and restoration of riparian ecosystems.Thus, municipalities are encouraged to set goals for increasing the rate of nativeforest coverage, just like the state did. There was an expansion of municipalprojects for the protection and restoration of riparian vegetation, from 280 in 2008

to 488 in 2010, as well as local nurseries, which jumped from 216 to 434 in thesame period. The number of projects to protect spring water sources rose from130 to 429 between 2008 and 2010 totalizing 119,536 protected andgeoreferenced springs, pointing towards a successful mobilization anddecentralization of environmental management.

Another state initiative in partnership with private initiatives focusing on therestoration of riparian ecosystems is the Green Ethanol Protocol, which aims toencourage sustainable ethanol production, a major product of the state of SoPaulo. The certified agro-industrial units have jointly committed to the restoration of207,471 hectares of riparian vegetation. The agreement signed with the suppliersof sugar cane resulted in the restoration of more than 65,513 hectares of riparianvegetation. In total, the sugarcane industry is committed to the restoration of272,984 hectares (Jan/2011 data). Given the importance of the sector whosemonoculture covers about 22% of the state area its cooperation is essential tothe growth of riparian APPs covered by native vegetation.

The PRRE established parameters for the management of agroforestrysystems (AFS) in APPs, consorting species of economic interest (such as fruit,honey and other income-generating) with native species, in order to ensure foodsecurity for small landowners. However, the publication of the SSE decision (#44 of2008) did not contribute significantly to the growth of areas in restoration.Nevertheless, its creation introduced the agroforestry system in the legal contextfor environmental restoration of protected areas in the state, which is a stepforward for the restoration of areas with economic and social benefits. Nowadays,that decision is under review.

The concern of the PRRE was also incorporated in the Sustainable RuralDevelopment Project (SRDP) conducted by the State Secretariat of Agriculture andSupply (SSAS) in partnership with the SSE. The SRDP will seek to combineentrepreneurship with nature conservation. It will be structured so that small


15/24


315

producers access and benefit from the market under the paradigm that changes infavor of the environment on a significant scale should only occur when the agentsconsider that the nature conservation may become an important competitive, long

lasting advantage when the opportunity cost is favorable. Among other activities,the SRDP will support restoration and conservation of riparian APPs activities.Information tools8 have been improved by the PRRE, such as the

provision of books with basic concepts for forest restoration, environmentalrestoration manuals for farmers, technical-scientific articles that support theinitiatives for ecological restoration including information about invasivespecies, biomass estimation, and indicators for monitoring forest restoration ,and books for elementary school teachers. Another important tool in use,developed by PRRE, is an open database with information about areas available

for restoration. That tool is called Bank of Areas for Forest Restoration. Frommid-2007 until mid-2010, just that system had promoted private sectorinvestment in restoration of about USD 637,000.

All those initiatives policies, programs and projects were developedtowards integration and coordination of the government with the organized societyand the productive sectors, trying to value the landowner as an environment agentwho has the greatest influence on the management of its own property. Meanwhile,the SSE has sought to stimulate interorganizational networks in favor ofenvironmental conservation, performing an integrative (political) role towards thesustainability and to the reversal (overcoming the stabilization) of the path ofdeforestation and degradation.

4. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: PRRES STRENGHTS,WEAKNESSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The PRRE was a complex project which involved multiple dimensions of theenvironmental management, several organizations and public concerns. Its

appraisal, which identified barriers to large-scale restoration, showed it would benecessary to make efforts on several fronts to achieve effective results.A key aspect was to develop governmental capacity to carry on inter-sector

initiatives. Therefore, it was anticipated an integration between the StateSecretariat of Agriculture and Supply (SSAS) and the State Secretariat ofEnvironment (SSE), and an intra-organization integration as well, i.e., amongdifferent departments of the SSE itself.

8Information available at http://www.sigam.ambiente.sp.gov.br/sigam2/Default.aspx?idPagina=6563
http://www.sigam.ambiente.sp.gov.br/sigam2/Default.aspx?idPagina=6563http://www.sigam.ambiente.sp.gov.br/sigam2/Default.aspx?idPagina=6563


16/24


316

The inter-organization and inter-sector integration, although theoreticallyideal, proved to be just as complex as the PRRE itself. One can note difficulties toalign goals and to guarantee organizations commitments.

The partnership between the SSE and nonprofit organizations in thedemonstration projects was moderately collaborative: the state planned andcontrolled the activities in a centralized fashion while the non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) performed an intermediation role between the state andrural communities by executing activities in compliance with SSEs instructions (Uehara 2010).

The Program of Watersheds (a SSAS action) achieved better results wherethe PRMCs demonstration projects were deployed. The locations affected by bothprojects concurrently had a performance 56.3% higher than the average

performance of the Program of Watershed implemented alone. The performance ofpublic management was amplified, both the environmental conservation andagricultural production associated with the improvement of the quality of life of ruralpopulations. Thus, one can say that the integration of government programs withcomplementary goals benefits the society and save money.

The experiences of the PRRE showed that the engagement of landownersis not a major obstacle to restoration of riparian forests. However, many traditionalinstruments especially the command and control instruments applied inisolation are not strong enough to promote restoration of riparian ecosystems inprivate properties. The development of projects with technical assistance, grants,and involving local actors was a functional tactic to encourage adherence of rurallandowners to conservation initiatives.

The name of the initiative Project for the Restoration of RiparianEcosystemsdid not contribute to the alignment of goals, nor to communicate theactivities and achievements of the PRRE. With that fancy name, many partnersand even direct employees of the PRRE had understood that the PRRE aimed atrecovering ecosystems instead of improving public policy instruments for astatewide program.

Another problem came from the incorrect naming of one PRREscomponent. The management of the entire technical team hired to start theimplementation of demonstration projects has been assigned to the component #3,which should be especially directed to on-the-ground investments. According to theoriginal plan, the executive manager and the technical manager were the ones whoshould coordinate the activities, integrating the strategies of all five PRREscomponents (TWB 2005). Thus, the progress of activities of the five componentswas unbalanced.

The breadth of the PRRE and the multiplicity of specific goals led todispersion of focus. The experience of PRRE in its five components shows that


17/24


317

restoration and maintenance of riparian ecosystems are not feasible without theintegration of activities within the several sectors of public management, such asagricultural and environmental departments, and the effective support of

stakeholders, e.g. farmers, mayors, and NGOs.The evaluation of effectiveness of the PRRE was initiated in the last yearof its implementation. Nonetheless, it has enabled the spread of some evaluationpractices within the SSE and the encouragement of the culture of managementfor results.

Finally, some strengths and weaknesses of the PRRE are highlightedhereinafter, followed by recommendations for policymakers and evaluators.

4.1. PRRE Strengths

Capability to broaden awareness and to increase government andpopulation recognition of the importance of riparian ecosystems;

Stakeholder approval: farmers, NGO partners, the SSAS and the SSEevaluated positively the PRRE as a whole;Capability to broaden the dialogue at local level (among producers and ofthem with local NGOs and/or rural associations) encouraging partnerships,introducing restoration in local agendas and increasing dialogue andcooperation between organizations and society;

Strengthening interorganizational networks, creating conditions forsustainability, renewal or extension of the activities of biologicalconservation;Dissemination of tools for planning (to choose an adaptative technology ofecological restoration considering the environmental heterogeneity) and forthe monitoring of areas under restoration (protocols and guidelines withselected indicators of environmental and project quality);

Construction of an instrument for identification, registration anddissemination of data about areas available for restoration;

Creation of legal basis and standards that have established economic andinformation instruments to increase the restoration of riparian ecosystems;

Providing the exercise of evaluation of projects. This self-evaluationprocess (with its shortcomings, findings, and learnings) was a pioneeringexperience in capacity building for policy evaluation at the SSE.

4.2. PRRE Weaknesses

The planning stage was overly optimistic, causing a mismatch with some

stakeholdersexpectations;


18/24


318

High staff turnover in project coordination and inefficiency of intra-institutional coordination (among institutes and departments of the SSE);Lack of fluidity in the development of some activities and for the

implementation of certain instruments, due to administrative andbureaucratic barriers, both at the state and the partner organizations;Low functionality of communication tools and the inexistence of acommunication and visibility plan;Low effectiveness of the environmental education component;

Slowness to define mechanisms and indicators to monitor technicalactivities beyond the financial monitoring, which eventually led to thepostponement of the PRRE conclusion;Lack of depth in this evaluation due to its implementation compressed in

the final months of the PRRE.

4.3. Recommendations for Policymakers and Program Evaluators

Some of the recommendations hereinafter were extracted from the PRREevaluation results and there are also certain general guidelines known in the

literature of project management.

4.4. Some notes about public management

Public environmental management is a process with multiple layers in whichstate actors and non-governmental organizations manage the environment(Wilson and Bryant 1997). One expect a transparent management run byqualified professionals who share the commitment to reduce the asymmetricdistribution of costs and benefits, conducted through a participatory, integratedand continuous practice.

Thus, NGOs and governments should publicly promote the importance ofenvironmental issues, guiding the population towards a more inclusive vision ofdevelopment, not restricted to economic growth.

Its important to understand and apply different methods of conflictresolution to deal with inevitable conflicts arising from complex processes inherentto the implementation of projects to avoid discouraging participation of differentstakeholders in the program.

The establishment of clear rules and commitments by all stakeholders isrecommended for initiatives carried out by an interorganizational network. Itincludes the statement of a precise projects aim shared by all stakeholders.


19/24


319

In order to generate appropriate relationships among stakeholders, it isrecommended: clear and negotiated procedures; training available for all theparties involved; monitoring and maintenance of conservation areas involving local

stakeholders such as landlords, neighborhood associations, and local NGOs.NGOs participating in government projects should conduct careful strategicplanning (especially its mission statement), establishing productive partnershipsand tactics to influence the systems the way they desire.

It is necessary to equip organizations with human resources required tocarry on environmental policy, and provide adequate incentives to collaborators inorder to avoid a high staff turnover. Some stability prevents disruptions and delays.

Distinct areas cannot be treated employing one-fit-all packages. A carefulconsideration of locations specificities from the very beginning of the project, and

also during the project implementation, can avoid costly detours.An effective project of public management requires political will and a welldesigned governance system.

4.5. Obtaining financial resources

There are some mechanisms to demand resources for the implementation ofecosystems restoration projects in Brazil. Grant funds and financing for forestryactivities (including agroforestry management and forest restoration) are

available at the Fehidro (State Hydric Resources Fund), the National Program toStrengthen Family Agriculture (Pronaf), the Program for Commercial Planting andForests Restoration (Propflora), the Program to Promote Sustainable FarmingProduction (Produsa), the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES). It is possible todemand resources from socio-environmental responsibility initiatives fromcorporations and foundations.

One may grow food in the beginning of a restoration process, mixingagricultural species with native ones. Furthermore, for small farmers, thelegislation allows the management of agroforestry systems at their riparian APPs,

generating incomes through the production of food/supply consorted withconservation practices.Other mechanisms are the Bank of Areas for Forest Restoration operated

by the SSE and payment for environmental services schemes.

5.6. Building partnerships

PRMC's experience demonstrated that synergy between organizations areessential to promote development.


20/24


21/24


321

formulation and implementation of public policies. Environmental managementteams should handle socio-educational approach and extension techniques.

Much remains to be developed within the set of information and educative

instruments for biological conservation. Although regulatory instruments and, quiterecently, economic instruments are in the spotlight, the great potential ofinformation and educative instruments has not yet been revealed. Thedevelopment of these instruments can yield a lot of savings for biologicalconservation initiatives.

We need to better use communication tools, both internal and external.One needs a communication plan, as well as monitoring from a press office, toensure more capillarity to the project/program. Otherwise, target audiences do notknow what happens, and cannot join or provide all the assistance they could.

The communication strategy must be understood and internalized as anintrinsic part of project management, in which the publishing of selected contentsstrengthens and improves the management, facilitating integration of public directlyor indirectly relevant and eventually the achievement of goals.

Finally, developing policy tools without disclosing them (and training peopleto handle them) results in no positive effect.

5.9. Monitoring and evaluation activities

As in any other kind of project, the coherence and effectiveness of its activities arecrucial for environmental management projects/programs.An appropriate monitoring system contributes to the efficiency and quality

of the project/program activities. Designing and producing adequate indicators formonitoring the results of the projects should be an early concern of the projects bythe time that goals and targets are being formulated. That concern should remainduring the implementation of action plans and when projects are evaluated. It islikewise important to evaluate the impacts of projects beyond its financial closure.

It is necessary to provide staff and define procedures for collecting and

processing specific and reliable information assuring the transparency necessary toany governmental or public project/program.As long as there is a well agreed goal, it becomes easier to choose the

parameters and procedures to monitor performance and evaluate the results of theactivities of a project. That is even more important in complex projects involvingmultiple dimensions and targets like the PRRE.

Delaying the formulation of monitoring and evaluation schemes facilitatesthe occurrence of the flying blindphenomenon, whose manifestation distorts thevision, objectives and targets of a project/program.


22/24


322

The pursuit for effectiveness should be always a priority. Otherwise,environmental management will become a tool for political rather than environmentsustainability and will integrate an ideological toolbox to maintaining the status quo,

which includes the continued degradation of ecosystems and social inequalitydriven by relentless search for growth and the promotion of consumerism.The lessons and recommendations derived from all experiences in

biodiversity conservation should be reported and disseminated. Those obtainedfrom the PRRE are still being reviewed and may yield new insights to promoteeffective policies for biological conservation9. They may also help otherorganizations and governments to plan more effective nature conservationprograms, projects and activities, taking advantage of shared learnings.

Since the inception of the PRRE, quite considerable progress has been

conveyed to the political and practical agendas. However much remains to bedone. Three are the aspects highlighted here: 1) The methodologies used for thepayment for environmental services schemes as well as its impact should becarefully evaluated; 2) The main effects of ecosystem restoration (of biologicalconservation in general) are rarely perceived in the short term so one need to keepmonitoring selected indicators such as the land use beyond the financial closure ofa project/program; and 3) It is crucial to acknowledge that neither economics norcommand & control instruments will solve complex problems by itself. Onerecommends to develop and apply strong educational and information instruments(suasive instruments) to compose a well-balanced biodiversity conservationprogram or project.

9 The full presentation of the results of the effectiveness evaluation of PRRE will be available at

Cadernos da Mata Ciliar, 5(Uehara & Casazza, in press): www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/mataciliar


23/24


323

REFERENCES

BARBOSA, L. M. (2000). Consideraes gerais e modelos de recuperao de

formaes ciliares. In R.R. Rodrigues; & H.F. Leito, Filho (eds.). Matas Ciliares:conservao e recuperao (pp. 289-320). So Paulo: Edusp; Fapesp.BARBOSA, L. M.; BARBOSA, K. C.; BARBOSA, J. M.; FIDALGO, A. O.; RONDON,

J.; NEVES, N.; JUNIOR; MARTINS, S. E.; CASAGRANDE, J. C. & CARLONE,N. P. (2008). Estabelecimento de Polticas Pblicas para Recuperao dereas Degradadas no Estado de So Paulo: o Papel das Instituies dePesquisa e Ensino. Revista Brasileira de Biocincias, 5, 162-164.

CATHARINO, E. L. M. (1989). Florstica De Matas Ciliares. In 1Simpsio SobreMata Ciliar (pp. 61-69). Campinas: Fundao Cargilll.

FEDERAL LAW #4771 of sep/15/1965. Dirio Oficial da Unio. Braslia:Presidncia da Repblica.KAGEYAMA, P. Y. & GANDARA, F. B. (2000). Recuperao de reas Ciliares. In

R.R. Rodrigues; & H. Leito, Filho (eds.). Matas Ciliares: conservao erecuperao (pp. 249-269). So Paulo: Edusp; Fapesp.

KRONKA, F. J. N.; NALON, M. A.; BAITELLO, J. B.; MATSUKUMA, C. K.; PAVO,M.; YWANE, M. S. S. I.; LIMA, L. M. P. R.; KANASHIRO, M. M.; BARRADAS,A. M. F.; & BORGO, S. C. (2003, ABRIL). Levantamento da vegetao naturale caracterizao de uso do solo no Estado de So Paulo. In 11 Simpsio

Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto (pp. 2779-2785). Belo Horizonte: INPE.KRONKA, F. J. N. (coord.). (2005). Inventrio florestal da vegetao natural doEstado de So Paulo. So Paulo: Secretaria do Meio Ambiente; InstitutoFlorestal, Imprensa Oficial.

LIMA, W. P. (1989). Funo hidrolgica da mata ciliar. In 1 Simpsio sobre mataciliar(pp. 25-42). Campinas: Fundao Cargill.

LIMA, W. P. & ZAKIA, M. J. B. (2000). Hidrologia de matas ciliares. In R.R.Rodrigues; & H. Leito, Filho (eds). Matas ciliares: conservao erecuperao (p. 34-44). So Paulo: Edusp.

MANTOVANI, W.; ROSSI, L.; ROMANIUC NETO, S.; LUDEWIGS, I. Y. A.;WANDERLEY, M. G. L.; MELO, M. M. R. F.; TOLEDO, C. B. (1989). Estudofitossociolgico de reas de mata ciliar em Mogi-Guau, SP, Brasil. In 1Simpsio sobre mata ciliar(pp. 235-267). Campinas: Fundao Cargill.

MARGERUM, R. D. (1999). Integrated environmental management: the foundationsfor successful practice. Environmental Management, 24(2), 151-166.

MITTERMEIER, R. A.; GIL, P. R.; HOFFMANN, M.; PILGRIM, J.; BROOKS, T.;MITTERMEIER, C. G.; LAMOUREX, J. & FONSECA, G. A. B. (2005).Hotspots revisited: Earths biologically richest and most endangered terrestrialecorregions. Cemex, Agrupacin Sierra Madre.


24/24


MUELLER, C. C. (2000). Gesto de matas ciliares. In I.V. Lopes; G.S. Bastos,Filho; D. Biler; & M. Bale (orgs.). Gesto ambiental no Brasil: experincia esucesso (2a ed). Rio de Janeiro: Fundao Getulio Vargas.

NAIMAN, R. J.; DCAMPS, H. & POLLOCK, M. (1993, may). The role ofriparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. EcologialAppl icat ions, 3(2), 209-212.

RODRIGUES, R. R. (2000). Uma discusso nomenclatural das formaes ciliares.In R.R. Rodrigues; & H.F. Leito, Filho (eds.). Matas Ciliares: conservao erecuperao (pp. 91-99). So Paulo: Edusp; Fapesp.

RODRIGUES, R. R.; BONONI, V. L. R. (coord.). (2008). Diretrizes para aconservao e restaurao da biodiversidade no Estado de So Paulo. SoPaulo: Instituto de Botnica.

STATE SECRETARIAT OF ENVIRONMENT [SSE] OF SO PAULO. (2007). Manualoperativo do Projeto de Recuperao de Matas Ciliares. So Paulo: Author.THE WORLD BANK [TWB]. (2005, may). Project Appraisal Document on a

Proposed Grant from the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund in theAmount of US$ 7.75 million to the State of So Paulo for a EcosystemRestoration of Riparian Forests in So Paulo Project.Recuperado em 10 de dezembro de 2010, de http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/06/03/000012009_20050603154953/Rendered/PDF/321510rev.pdf

UEHARA, T. H. K. (2010). Desempenho de projetos de gesto ambiental pblica:parcerias entre o Estado de So Paulo e organizaes sem fins lucrativos.Dissertao de Mestrado, Instituto de Eletrotcnica e Energia, Universidadede So Paulo, So Paulo.

UEHARA, T.H.K. & CASAZZA, E. F. (orgs.). (in press).Avaliao da efetividade doProjeto de Recuperao de Matas Ciliares do Estado de So Paulo: umacontribuio ao desenvolvimento de instrumentos de polticas pblicas para aconservao ambiental. So Paulo: SMA.

WILSON, G. A.; BRYANT, R. L. (1997). Environmental management: new directionsfor the twenty-first century. London: UCL.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thiago-uehara
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Uehara, Glehn, 2011. Improving Public Policies for the Restoration of Riparian Ecosystems in Private...

Documents