Conservation Polices and Control of Habitat Fragmentation in The Brazilian Cerrado Biome

CONSERVATION POLICES AND CONTROL OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
IN THE BRAZILIAN CERRADO BIOME

ROSELI SENNA GANEM
1
, JOS AUGUSTO DRUMMOND
2
,
JOS LUIZ DE ANDRADE FRANCO
3
Introduction
Fragmentation of habitats caused by human interventions is defined as the pro-
cess by which a continuous stretch of habitats is broken up into several smaller units
(CERQUEIRA et al., 2003). It occurs when these interventions remove incomplete and
large areas of habitats, resulting in smaller areas of original native ecosystems separated
from each other by an anthropogenic matrix of landscapes shaped by agriculture, animal
husbandry, mines, roads, transmission lines and lakes behind reservoirs, etc. (ARAJO,
2007). This occurs in almost every biome that supports long-lasting human settlement
and has been a notorious and historic feature of the human occupation of the Brazilian
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes.
Originally, the Brazilian Cerrado biome covered about 2,039,386 km
2
, just under
24% of the national territory, with smaller areas in Paraguay and Bolivia (MMA, 2009a).
The Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, on the basis of satellite images from 2002, clai-
med that the biome, up to that point, had lost about 40% of its original expanse in Brazil.
More recent data allowed the Ministry to state that an additional 127,564 km (6.2%)
were lost between 2002 and 2008. In late 2009, the total deforestation figure computed by
the Ministry rose to 48.2%. These rates translate into a formidable average deforestation
rate of approximately 21,300 km/year. This is more than the corresponding rate for the
much larger Amazonian biome between 2001 and 2008 (16,893 km
2
/year) (INPE, 2009).
This large-scale deforestation, combined with the Cerrados high incidence of endemic
life forms, has placed the biome among the worlds hot spots (MITTERMEIER et al.,
1999; JENKINS & PIMM, 2006; ALHO, 2005). Figure 1 shows us that the biome is being
subjected to an intensive process of habitat fragmentation.
1. Doutora em Desenvolvimento Sustentvel, Consultora Legislativa da Cmara dos Deputados. E-mail: roseli.ganem@
camara.gov.br
2. Ph. D. em Land Resources, Professor Associado do Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentvel da Universidade de
Braslia. E-mail: jaldrummond@uol.com.br
3. Doutor em Histria, Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Histria da Universidade de Braslia e do Centro de
Desenvolvimento Sustentvel da Universidade de Braslia. E-mail: jldafranco@terra.com.br
Ambiente & Sociedade n So Paulo v. XVI, n. 3 n p. 99-118 n jul.-set. 2013
100 Ganem, Drummond e Franco
A revision of Brazils major biodiversity conservation strategies is necessary in
order to contain fragmentation. Historically, these strategies have been centered around
conservation units. Rambaldi & Oliveira (2003) state that this strategy does not lead to
the long-term conservation of biodiversity, as conservation units end up being scattered
spatially and are not associated with a more far-reaching perspective of their respective
landscapes. A simultaneous strategy is needed which addresses the management of
lands adjacent to conservation units. Conservation units have become an archipelago
of isolated parks and preserves, frequently pressured on all sides and inadequate for the
long-term protection of the plant and animal species that they contain (MMA/SCA/
IBAMA, 2001, p. 10). As the isolation of forest fragments rapidly leads to their deterio-
ration, conservation units alone will not prevent the collapse of native ecosystems and
their associated biodiversity (Prado et al., 2003). Although parks and reserves are the
oldest form of protecting biodiversity, the protection that they offer is far from satisfactory
due to failures in related policies, among them land-use policies focused on private land
(DRUMMOND et al., 2005).
This text investigates if governmental and non-governmental initiatives in the field
of biodiversity conservation have encouraged the emergence of an integrated policy for
the protection and connectivity of remnants of the Cerrado biome. This necessitated the
Figure 1. Left: Cerrado biome in Brazil, 2008, contrasting deforested areas (brown) and
remaining native formations (green), as well as major rivers (blue). Source: MMA, 2009a.
Right: Priority Areas for the Conservation of the Cerrado: high importance (yellow); very
high importance (orange); extremely high importance (red); insuffciently studied areas
(blue). Source: MMA/SBF, 2007.
101 Conservation polices and control of habitat fragmentation the Brazilian Cerrado biome
examination of relevant policies introduced across the entire biome (particularly federal
policies) and of specific projects implemented by government agencies and/or NGOs.
The main sources of data we used were analytical and descriptive texts and in-
terviews with policy makers, NGO project leaders and private landowners. Field trips
generated first-hand material also used in the text. Brazils Federal District and the Nor-
theastern region of the state of Gois were selected for case studies. They were chosen
because they have large Cerrado remnants, although agribusiness frontiers are closing in
on them. The region also has two national parks Braslia and Chapada dos Veadeiros
and several other conservation units that are representative samples of such units in
the Cerrado biome.
Conservation plans
Federal government initiatives for the conservation of biodiversity in Brazil are (not
exclusively in the Cerrado biome): (i) the National Biological Diversity Policy; (ii) the
National Plan for Protected Areas; (iii) the identification of Priority Areas for Conserva-
tion; and (iv) the identification of floral cover. Specifically covering the Federal District
and Northeastern Gois, there is also (v) the Environmental Zoning of the Integrated
Development Region of the Federal District and Adjacent Areas. Each is examined in
turn below.
(i) Created by Decree 4,399/2002, it defines directives for in situ conservation. Its
goals for 2010 include: protection of at least 30% of the Amazonia biome and of 10% of
all other biomes by means of conservation units; conservation of the biodiversity of at least
two thirds of the Priority Areas for Conservation, using conservation units, indigenous
homelands and quilombola
1
lands; a 100% reduction of deforestation in the Atlantic Forest
biome, 75% in Amazonia and 50% in other biomes; a 25% reduction of heat focal points
in all biomes; and the creation of a national biodiversity monitoring network.
(ii) Approved by Decree 7,578, it lists initiatives to be taken until 2015 relative
to conservation units, indigenous homelands and quilombola
i
lands. Among its goals are
connectivity between ecosystems, integration between landscapes and protected areas,
and the creation of conservation units in priority areas and in places where species and
ecosystems require special protection.
(iii) This was completed in 1998 and updated in 2007 (MMA/SBF, 2007). It identi-
fied and mapped well-preserved areas, taking into account their vulnerability to settlement
and ranking their priority for emergency conservation measures (Figure 1, above). 431
areas were identified for the core area
ii
of the Cerrado, and of these, 181 were already
under the protection of federal and state conservation units or indigenous homelands.
The other 250 areas correspond to 37.58% of the biome. For this second group the policy
proposed new conservation units, the reclamation of degraded areas, the establishment of
corridors or mosaics and support to the sustainable use of biodiversity (MMA/SBF, 2007).
(iv) Identification of Brazils floral cover was based on Landsat images from 2002.
The only previous nationwide flora survey in Brazil had been done by Projeto Radam (1970-
1985), employing side-looking radar technology combined with extensive field research
(MMA, 2007a). This new survey defined as native all areas in which native vegetation
(including recovering secondary formations) was prevalent, even if human-induced
changes were recorded in these areas. Therefore, native grasslands used for grazing were
classified as native (MMA, 2007a).
Native floral cover in 2002 amounted to 60.41% of the core area of the biome.
36.73% (752,000 km
2
) were native forests and 23.68% (485 mil km
2
) were non-forest
formations. When native grazing areas are excluded, the figure for native floral cover
drops to 46.74% (MMA 2007a). Previous non-official surveys cited by Ribeiro et al. (2005)
and Machado et al. (2005) had indicated much higher losses, ranging from 40% in 1995
to 55% in 2002. However, comparisons based on the results of these studies are difficult
to make, as they employed different methodologies. Nonetheless, all the studies point to
the urgent need to implement control measures. The Ministry of the Environment itself
calculated total Cerrado deforestation in 2008 to be 48.2% (983.091 km
2
), indicating
that the aforementioned goal of reducing the deforestation rate by 50% in relation to
2006 is not being attained.
Conservation units in the Cerrado biome
iii
According to our data, federal conservation units protect only 3.9% of the biome.
This is far below the corresponding figure of 14.74% in the Amazonian biome (BARBOSA,
2009). Fully protected units cover 4,421,848 ha while sustainable use units cover 3,401,210
ha. These figures correspond to 2.2% and 1.7% of the area of the biome, respectively
iv
.
The first conservation unit in the biome was the Araguaia National Park, establi-
shed in 1959, covering 2,000,000 ha. By 1961, three new parks expanded the protected
area to approximately 2,800,000 ha. However, considerable reductions in the size of the
two parks reduced that figure substantially over the following 12 years. Therefore, the
growth of the number of units did not result in a larger total protected area. New units
were created in the Cerrado in the 1980s, but only in 2000 was the 1961 figure (2,395,660
ha) surpassed. After 2004, fully protected areas in the biome stagnated (Figure 2).
The first sustainable use units in the Cerrado were created in 1983 - the Environ-
mental Protection Areas So Bartolomeu and Rio Descoberto, both in the Federal District.
Since then, their numbers and areas have grown continuously (Figure 2). Since 1996 many
large units have been added, including the largest one in the biome, the Environmental
Protection Area of Serra do Ibiapaba, with more than 1,500,000 ha. Fully protected units
are, on average, larger than sustainable use units. However, the combined area of the
former type only surpassed that of the latter in the mid-2000s, after the creation of three
national parks (Appendix I).
The state conservation units (fully protected and sustainable use) account for
9,102,352 ha, or 4.4% of the biome. Fully protected units amount to only 1,828,996 ha
(0.9%) while sustainable use units cover 7, 272,356 ha (3.6%).
The total of 167 federal and state conservation units comprise 6,250,844 ha fully
protected and 10,674,566 ha designated for sustainable use (3.1% and 5.2% of the biome
respectively). The total area of these units is 16,925,410 ha, or 8.3% of the biome. This
figure should be treated with caution, as it does not consider overlapping. In any case, it
was below the official target of protecting 10% of the biome by 2010.
While conservation units have grown slowly, the agricultural frontier has expanded
rapidly since 1970. Cerrado fragmentation has made it difficult to find areas for large
conservation units.
Other conservation initiatives in the Cerrado biome
Other identified conservation initiatives in the Cerrado are (i) the National Pro-
gram for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Cerrado Biome; (ii) the Fire and
Deforestation Prevention and Control Plan for the Cerrado; (iii) the Cerrado Biosphere
Reserve; (iv) the Strategic Development Plan for the Midwest, 2006-2020; and (v) bio-
diversity corridors.
(i) The Ministry of the Environment has managed this program since 2005. It aims
to implement socioeconomic policies, such as monitoring, conserving and supporting the
sustainable use of biodiversity and the sustainability of agriculture, cattle farming and
tree planting. The Ministry signed an agreement with the World Bank and the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF), with funding of about US$ 50 million (MMA, 2007b). A
committee was established to steer the program, but it made little progress (GANEM,
2007).
Figure 2. Cerrado Biome: total area protected by federal conservation units, 1959-2009
(1.000 ha). Source: compiled by authors based on MMA (2009b).
(ii) Launched in late 2009, this program is still in the phase of public hearings. It
was devised to monitor floral cover, create new conservation units, devise the macro-
-zoning of the biome and promote local productive chains (MMA, 2009a).
(iii) The first of the four predicted phases of the Cerrado Biosphere Reserve was limi-
ted to the Federal District. It was created in 1992, with 230,000 ha. It was extended three
times (2000, 2001 and 2002), reaching areas of the states of Gois, Tocantins, Maranho,
Piau, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Bahia, Minas Gerais, So Paulo and Paran. Its
goal is to protect core and transition areas of the biome (COBRAMAB, 2002), but so
far it has failed to create a significant number of new protected areas (GANEM, 2007).
(iv) This plan was proposed by the Ministry of National Integration, as part of
a National Policy for Regional Development. It includes several initiatives concerning
biodiversity protection, such as recovery of watersheds and floodplain vegetation, pro-
tection of endangered species, control over deforestation, sustainable use of biodiversity,
sustainable forest management, creation of new conservation units and solutions for
their land tenure situation, and creation of ecological corridors (MIN, 2006). However,
all these initiatives are under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment and
state environmental agencies who did not subscribe to the plan. It remains unclear how
the agencies involved should work together.
(v) Five governmental projects concerning biodiversity corridors in the Cerrado
biome were identified - Araguaia-Bananal, Cerrado/Pantanal, Guapor-Itenez/Mamor
(part of the West Amazonian Corridor), Jalapo and Paran-Pireneus (CASES, 2006).
Only the final one is examined in this text.
NGOs have also been active in relation to biodiversity corridors. Conservation
International (CI) participated in the creation of a network of protected areas in the
Cerrado biome, in conjunction with efforts to make rural property owners comply with
legal requirements concerning the preservation of remnants of native flora. In 2007 CI
was working on five corridors: Uruu-Mirador, Jalapo-Oeste da Bahia, Espinhao,
Emas-Taquari and Araguaia.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has also worked with Cerrado corridors. In Lucas
do Rio Verde (Mato Grosso), the TNC is working with individual agribusiness farmers to
encourage compliance with native flora preservation requirements in order to promote
connectivity among remnants. Instituto Sociedade, Proteo e Natureza (ISPN) manages a
GEF-funded Small Ecosocial Projects program that affects dozens of small agricultural
or extractive communities in Cerrado areas. Residents receive support for engaging in
sustainable activities (GUIMARES, 2005; NOGUEIRA, 2009). Between 1995 and
2006, the program has supported 228 projects and 161 organizations (ISPN, 2007). These
projects were concentrated in the states of Gois, Tocantins, Distrito Federal and Minas
Gerais (GANEM, 2007).
Conservation measures in the Federal District and in northeastern Gois
The conservation measures that we identified in connection with these two areas
are: (i) the Paran-Pireneus Ecological Corridor; (ii) Zoning of the Integrated Develop-
ment Region of the Federal District and Neighboring Areas; and (iii) Conservation and
Management of the Biodiversity of the Cerrado Biome. Additionally, (iv) we observed
local measures taken in the Federal District.
(i) This resulted from cooperation between IBAMA (the national environmen-
tal policy agency) and JICA (Japans international cooperation agency) between 2003
and 2006. The project included eight federal conservation units and nine state units,
although it focused on two pilot areas located in Gois. However, it did not help to ex-
pand protected areas in the affected municipalities. Indeed, JICA (2006) claims that this
goal was not clearly defined. It offered educational programs, trained guides, supported
the management council of Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park and helped form the
management council (still not operational) of another conservation unit. Very little was
achieved in terms of defining the limits of protected areas and training and involving
farmers in the creation of privately protected areas and environmental compliance. No
new conservation units were created. The organization of extractive production and sales
of Cerrado extractive products was also unsuccessful.
(ii) This zoning encompasses the Federal District and 21 neighboring municipalities.
An environmental assessment, funded by the ministries of the Environment and National
Integration, was undertaken with the cooperation of the Army and the Census Agency.
Although suitable areas for conservation were identified, by 2007 the project had even
failed to define its own area of intervention (RODRIGUES, 2007).
(iii) This project was executed between 1997 and 2005 by EMBRAPA (an agricul-
tural research company owned by the federal government). It was funded by DFID, the
United Kingdoms international cooperation agency. Its goal was to train local partners
and disseminate knowledge about conservation and management of the Cerrados natural
resources. It was active in 34 municipalities of the state of Gois (EMBRAPA/CPAC,
2005). Among its main accomplishments are the compilation of numerous scientific
texts about social and natural aspects of the biome, and the support given to 20 small,
community-based projects (household pharmacies, production of native seedlings, rearing
of wild animals, environmental education and eco-tourism) (EMBRAPA/CPAC, 2005).
(iv) Federal District agencies have only engaged in small-scale, short-term local
projects. Funding has been quite irregular. No progress has been made in establishing new
conservation units, controlling deforestation or conserving Cerrado remnants in private
properties. Extensionists do not have mandates to engage in environmental conservation
activities. Thus, the number of properties that comply with environmental laws is still
minimal (GANEM, 2007).
NGOs based in the Federal District engage in a variety of projects. Small envi-
ronmental organizations invest in environmental education, in training for sustainable
use of biodiversity and in organizing market-oriented production. The Rede Cerrado, for
example, disseminates information, advertises products and supports access to programs
that provide resources (TEIXEIRA et al., 2005). FUNATURA stimulated landowners
to create private preserves around the edges of Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park. It
organized meetings, supported the drafting of management plans and helped devise trails
and visitor areas (SANTO, 2006).
Between 1996 and 2006 the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) had an office in Alto
Paraso (Gois). Its work was focused on the area surrounding the Chapada dos Veadeiros
National Park. It stimulated the creation of private preserves, ran environmental education
projects, supported ecotourism and agroforestry systems, and trained community-based
environmental leaders (GANEM, 2007).
Overlap and lack of coordination of conservation initiatives
As can be seen from the brief descriptions above conservation initiatives in the
region under study frequently overlap. There is no shortage of initiatives. If each of them
had attained their goals, the region would now have economic-ecological zoning, new
conservation units and biodiversity corridors would be in place. Additionally, private
preserves would be numerous, private properties would have a high degree of compliance
with environmental requirements, environmental training and education would be active,
farmers and communities would be engaged in conservation, and extractive goods would
be produced more consistently and would find their way to local, regional, national and
even international markets. None of this has happened. Although not environmentally
damaged, northeastern Gois remains threatened by the expanding wave of frontier
settlement, against which nothing has been done.
Overlaps illustrate the lack of coordination between governmental agencies. The
ministries of the Environment and National Integration do not have common initiatives.
The best example of this is the overlap, geographical and managerial, of the Cerrado
Biosphere Preserve, the Paran-Pireneus Ecological Corridor and the Planalto Central
Environmental Protection Area, all of which fall under the responsibility of the Ministry
of the Environment and its executive agency IBAMA
v
. This entails three different ma-
nagement councils and three different management teams. Much of the work is focused
on the same area, making it redundant.
This leads to serious managerial gaps. Poorly spent resources reduce the scope of
important programs which, despite their ambitious goals, end up as pilot programs. These
types of programs are important, but insufficient, because long-lasting, far-reaching public
policies are required for the conservation of the biome. Efforts designed specifically to
pull together these numerous initiatives have not flourished.
Pertinent information is not lacking either. There is more than enough information
available to plan efficiently and synchronize conservation measures throughout the biome.
For instance, priority areas for conservation coincide to a great degree with larger blocks of
remaining native vegetation (Figure 1). It is thus reasonable to expect that federal and state
agencies take advantage of this background work to create adequately zoned biodiversity cor-
ridors and conservation units, and to support conservation in lands under private ownership.
Effectiveness of conservation policies
Government agencies and environmental groups have little interaction with local
actors. Rural landowners and workers should be major targets of conservation policies
because the permanence of the native floral cover majorly depends on them. Given this,
conservation policies, even when designed in a participatory manner by local govern-
ments, have little effectiveness. These policies do not generate lasting partnerships with
local communities.
This is especially true in the Federal District, despite the large numbers of conser-
vation units and various master plans for territorial settlement. Biodiversity lying outside
conservation units is practically unprotected and the units themselves are largely in a
fragile state in the face of the pressures generated by neighboring populations.
A huge gap remains between planning and implementation of environmental po-
licies. Most citizens usually ignore plans and regulations, unless they are confronted by
an authority who informs them that they are doing something illegal. Rural extensionists
informed us that environmental agencies only act when prompted by complaints. Even in
the nations capital the authority of the state is absent in rural areas. Farmers are able to
constantly ignore laws and regulations concerning the protection of biodiversity as they
receive no sanctions. A number of measures, although taken in a participatory manner
and comprising a large number of partnerships, are focused on planning (not execution)
and are strongly dependent on international funding.
Partnerships between NGOs and farmers are rare. Large NGOs made efforts to
engage in such partnerships and in relationships with international sources of funding.
Nonetheless, agribusiness, environmental policies and environmental organizations are
worlds apart. As highlighted by rural extensionists, farmers are suspicious of environmen-
talists because the absence of productive activities from parts of their properties entails
losses. Farmers believe that environmentalists understand nothing about the rural world
and should focus on urban environmental problems.
This line of argument draws attention to a specific issue the ingrained manner
in which Brazilian society looks at nature. There seems no clear perception about the
importance of ecological processes and biodiversity. Dean (1996) argues that this percep-
tion has deep roots in Brazilian society as the Portuguese colonizers engaged in a biotic
conquest, introducing exotic agricultural species and ignoring local biodiversity. Many
Brazilians continue to ignore the potential of the countrys biodiversity. In Braslia, the
national capital located in the core of the Cerrado, ice creams made by a local company
(Sorb) from native Cerrado fruit and their inclusion in school lunches is still a novelty.
The prevalence of exotic species in Brazilian agriculture is also evident in the
germoplasm collection of the countrys major agricultural research institution, Embrapa.
It is the second largest collection in the world though most items are cultivated exotics.
Native flora species are a small minority of the collection (DIAS, 2007). A genuine bio-
diversity conservation program, if geared toward stimulating commercial opportunities,
would necessitate research involving native species.
Surveys conducted regularly since 1992, however, show that Brazilians have beco-
me more sensitive to environmental issues (ISER/Vox Populi, 2009). Respondents have
been increasingly concerned about deforestation, biodiversity, transgenic organisms and
organic agriculture. However, such changes have not been deep or extensive enough to
change traditional behaviors.
The instability of environmental regulations is also significant. Brazils forest code
has been under attack for years from dozens of congressmen linked to agricultural interests.
This creates the expectation that farmers who have not complied with legal conservation
requirements will be absolved (GANEM, 2009). This indicates that among farmers the
centuries old urge for opening up new frontiers with virgin lands (Dean, 1996) strongly
prevails over the notion of better stewardship of currently used lands.
Deforestation in the Cerrado biome has been exacerbated by the production of
charcoal which is mostly used in metallurgical plants, particularly in the state of Minas
Gerais where the worlds largest concentration of plants fired exclusively by charcoal
is located. Farmers commonly sell wood from deforestation to charcoal producers who
sometimes manufacture charcoal in the same place where deforestation is occurring.
Another common arrangement sees landowners hiring charcoal producers to cut trees
and open pastures. Payment is made in wood or charcoal (ALHO & MARTINS, 1995;
CIRAD, 2007; CAMPOS, 2007). The Carajs Metallurgical Pole, operational since the
1980s, opened another charcoal producing front, located in Cerrado lands further to the
north. Martins (2007) states that Brazil has a deficit of tree plantations in order to supply
enough wood for charcoal. This generates logging pressures on native Cerrado formations.
A new production model based on the value of biodiversity
Recently, there has been a positive evaluation of the products of biodiversity and
of the environmental services provided by native ecosystems. This opens up new oppor-
tunities for economic gains by private landowners. Natura is a company that produces
cosmetics based on Amazonian biodiversity. The use of Amazonian products is part of
the marketing strategy of many companies and this may expand to the Cerrado, as seen
in the aforementioned Sorb ice-cream brand, based in Braslia. This company has been
so successful that it was obliged to bring Cerrado fruit from other states (GANEM, 2007).
No governmental regulations exist to induce landowners to maintain native floral
cover or to create business opportunities linked to the sustainable use of biodiversity,
inside or outside the Cerrado. The PPP-Ecos program supports such opportunities with
small grants given to community-based projects, but it is not a public initiative and lacks
the scale to become an all-encompassing policy. Such a policy would also have to support
agroforestry systems, processing plants and marketing efforts.
The creation of economic incentives for landowners who comply with environ-
mental regulations and/or go beyond them may be yet another way to engage them more
closely with environmental conservation values. This can be achieved by mechanisms
which foster payments for ecosystem services.
Measures that support sustainable agricultural practices also aid the conservation
of biodiversity. Direct planting and integration of plant and animal cultivation aid in the
recovery of degraded pastures (WWF, 2009; LANDERS, 2006; SANO, 2007). Financial
and technical support should be made available to those who adopt such technologies.
It should be taken into account that modern agribusiness ventures have no technical
need for continuous deforestation. The best option for intensifying agribusiness farms is
a better use of available infrastructure, and not a move into isolated or remote areas in
which biodiversity is less altered. However, land speculation has a dynamics of its own
and stimulates illegal deforestation in isolated areas. Here, logging and cattle farming
generate strong financial returns which stimulate more deforestation, regardless of the
technical and logistical needs of the agribusiness sector.
The adoption of a new productive agricultural model depends on the level of in-
formation among landowners. Dependence between ecological processes and agriculture
should be strengthened among landowners. For example, in our interviews we found that
threats to the availability of water is a very important issue for them It is a topic that is
likely to bring them closer to the concerns of environmentalists.
Private reserves, in association with rural tourism and ecotourism, are a distinct
topic to be explored. The creation of private reserves is an initiative that merits better
official recognition and much more support (Cmara, 2001). A private NGO (FUNA-
TURA) supported the creation of 14 private reserves in the vicinity of the Chapada dos
Veadeiros National Park (ICMBio, 2009). The federal government has no similar program.
On the contrary, farmers interviewed complained that IBAMA drags its feet in approving
private reserves. Several private reserves around the Chapada dos Veadeiros National
Park were recognized by the municipality of Cavalcante, but this initiative received no
support from federal government. Support for rural tourism and ecotourism is also lacking
according to the farmers interviewed.
Farmers interested in conservation face a lack of funding and a lack of information
about technology and partnerships. They also have difficulty in writing grant proposals,
business plans and technical projects. Again, we see that environmental agencies, NGOs
and extension workers fail to provide support to landowners.
Conservation and bioregional management
In many areas that are appropriate for conservation measures there is a different
and more wide-ranging set of obstacles the lack of infrastructure and socioeconomic
policies. Productive activities and tourism, for example, require transportation, energy
and communication infrastructure as well as heath and educational services, police, etc.
Local and regional development therefore affects the success of biodiversity protection
initiatives. This does not mean spending the scarce resources allotted for conservation on
socioeconomic policies or infrastructure, but moving towards an integrated bioregional
planning model (MILLER, 1997). In this model, other agencies and sources of funding
assist conservation merely by doing their own jobs, with their own resources. In Brazil,
the lack of integration between conservation policies and local development policies is
very visible when parks are created in remote or isolated regions. The people who work
in the park are immediately overwhelmed by all sorts of demands and conflicts that per-
tain to other agencies and that they cannot solve. Confusion and frustration can spread
among park personnel and the local population. Social participation occurs during the
process of the creation of conservation units so as to build trust and cooperation betwe-
en local interests and conservation goals. However, such trust rapidly erodes when the
environmental agency in charge fails to solve local social problems and fails to interact
with other agencies responsible for different types of policies.
It must be conceded that conservation measures are often negatively perceived
by local populations, as they restrict their use of resources. We understand, however,
that conservation can benefit local populations, attracting investments and introducing
initiatives based on the principles of sustainability.
Effective Cerrado conservation implies an additional requirement society and
public authorities must develop a new outlook on the biome. Brazilians concerned with
environmental issues are prone to focus on rainforests. They are also the focus of con-
temporary issues such as climate change because the huge number of large trees osten-
sibly accumulate large stocks of carbon. The small trees typical of the Cerrado seem to
be poor competitors. However, IPCC estimates do not compute carbon present in roots
(MCT, 2006). Indeed, most of the Cerrado biomass is stored in root systems. Therefore,
the biomes contribution to the carbon balance is likely to be seriously underestimated
(KLINK & MACHADO, 2005).
Conclusion
Our research demonstrated that the creation of parks and reserves remains the
most important conservationist public policy in the Cerrado. Nonetheless, the percen-
tage of the biome protected by these units is very low 8.3% (this figure includes state
units), less than half of this in the form of fully protected units. The low percentage of
fully protected units is a handicap, because they serve as nuclei for broadly conceived
protection policies, such as biosphere reserves and biodiversity corridors.
We also found that while government agencies have been involved in planning,
they are rarely engaged in execution. Most stated goals are not achieved. Large remnants
of Cerrado were identified but not protected. Biodiversity corridors have not gone beyond
the stage of public hearings, educational events and participatory planning. Even their
design has serious problems, as corridors should conform to Cerrado remnants rather
than municipal borders.
At the property level, productive activities and technologies have not been chan-
ged, recovery of degraded areas is rare, geo-referencing of properties has not taken place,
control of deforestation and fires is weak, production of charcoal persists, little support
is given to extractive activities, private reserves are not stimulated and eco-tourism sites
have not been pinpointed.
The federal government announced a program to monitor Cerrado deforestation,
following the technical standards applied in the monitoring of the Amazonian biome,
but it was not implemented.
Many programs and projects are too dependent on international funding. Con-
servation initiatives within properties under private ownership lack financial support.
Compliance with environmental regulations in private properties could benefit from both
a policy of payments for ecosystem services and economic incentives that support farmers
who conserve and penalize farmers who deforest.
It should be remembered that deforestation in the Cerrado biome has not been the
sole responsibility of agribusiness farms as native vegetation removal was supported by
federal government programs that implicitly considered the Cerrado to be expendable.
These programs had the same general approach and destructiveness of previous extractive
and agricultural cycles in other parts of the country. The more recent biofuels program,
focused on the Cerrado, threatens to be as destructive to native vegetation, fauna and
landscapes as older programs. Many voices defend the Amazonian biome while the Cer-
rado remains undervalued and under-protected.
Cerrado conservation depends both on the expansion of conservation units and on
the induction of conservation in lands under private ownership. Private landowners must
be included in conservation policies. So much land and so many resources are at stake that
it is possible to maintain a powerful agricultural sector (including family farming), expand
protected areas and even make strides towards a zero deforestation policy in the Biome.
Notes
i
Quilombolas is a term that designates people who belong to communities descending from escaped slaves. These
communities themselves are called quilombos.
ii
This core area comprises the continuous formations that affect all or sections of the following states - Gois, Tocantins,
Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Bahia, Maranho, Piau, Rondnia, Paran, So Paulo and the Distrito
Federal (Figure 1), as IBGEs map (2004). Smaller Cerrado enclaves in other states were excluded.
iii
IBGE, 2004 was used to define the limits of the biome. Isolated formations were excluded. Also excluded were RPPNs,
privately held reserves. Although rather numerous (ICMBio 2009 recorded 532 of them), they are usually very small.
iv
Fully protected units only allow visits, recreation, research and education. Sustainable use units allow a variety of uses
hunting, fishing, collecting, agriculture, animal husbandry, mining, logging etc.
v
The Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservao da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) (created in 2007) inherited IBAMAs
responsibilities for biodiversity conservation projects and conservation units.
References
ALHO, C. J. R. Desafios para a conservao do Cerrado, em face das atuais tendncias
de uso e ocupao. In: SCARIOT, A.; SOUSA-SILVA, J. C. & FELFILI, J. M. (org.).
Cerrado: ecologia, biodiversidade e conservao. Braslia: Ministrio do Meio Ambiente.
2005. p. 376-381.
ALHO, C. J. R. & MARTINS, E. de S. (eds.). De gro em gro, o Cerrado perde espao.
Braslia: WWF. 1995.
Ambiente Brasil. Unidades de conservao. http://www.ambientebrasil.com.br/. Accessed
on 17 March 2009.
ARAJO, M. A. R. Unidades de conservao no Brasil: da repblica gesto de classe
mundial Belo Horizonte: SEGRAC, 2007.
BARBOSA, S. M. da S (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservao da Biodiversidade).
Personal contact via e-mail, on 19 November 2009.
CMARA, I. de G. Megabiodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro: Sextante, 2001.
CAMPOS, M. G. Speech made at a public hearing of the Commission on the Environ-
ment and Sustainable Development. Braslia, Chamber of Deputies. 25 October 2007.
CASES, M. O. Sntese das experincias existentes de corredores no Brasil. Documento-
-base da Oficina de Consulta sobre Metodologias de Gesto de Corredores Ecolgicos
no Brasil. MMA/Ibama. Braslia, 16 e 17 de novembro de 2006.
CERQUEIRA, R.; BRANT, A.; NASCIMENTO, M. T. & PARDINI, R. Fragmentao:
alguns conceitos. In: RAMBALDI, D. M. & OLIVEIRA, D. A. S. (orgs.). Fragmentao
de Ecossistemas: causas, efeitos sobre a biodiversidade e recomendaes de polticas
pblicas. Braslia: MMA/SBF. 2003. p. 23-40.
CIRAD (Centre de Coopration Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le
Dveloppement). A viso do CIRAD sobre a biomassa em siderurgia: novos processos
de carvoejamento em desenvolvimento. Painel sobre a indstria do gusa produtores
independentes. Salvador, Bahia. 18 a 21 de setembro de 2007.
COBRAMAB Comisso Brasileira para o Programa Man and Biosphere. Cerrado Biosphere
Reserve. Braslia, Cobramab. 2002. Trabalho no publicado.
DEAN, W. A ferro e fogo: a histria e a devastao da Mata Atlntica brasileira. So
Paulo: Companhia das Letras. 1996.
DIAS, J. M. C. de S. Pesquisa e desenvolvimento na Embrapa Recursos Genticos e
Biotecnologia. Palestra proferida na visita de alunos do CDS/UnB. Braslia (DF), 24 de
agosto de 2007.
DRUMMOND, J. A.; FRANCO, J. L. de A. & NINIS, A. B. O estado das reas
protegidas no Brasil. Braslia: UnB/CDS. 2006. http://www.unbcds.pro.br/pub/index.
cfm?code=01&cod=27&x=219.Extrado em 18 de novembro de 2009.
EMBRAPA/CPAC (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuria/Centro de Pesquisa
Agropecuria do Cerrado). Relatrio de Produtos do Projeto de Conservao e Manejo
da Biodiversidade do Bioma Cerrado. Braslia, CPAC. 2005. Trabalho no publicado.
GANEM, R. S. Polticas de conservao da biodiversidade e conectividade entre re-
manescentes de Cerrado. Tese de doutorado. Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentvel,
Universidade de Braslia, Braslia. 2007.
_____. Prazo para destruio do bero esplndido: at quando? Boletim Anlise de
Conjuntura n 33, p. 1-10. 2009. http://camara.gov.br/internet/publicacoes/estnottec/
copy_of_analisedeconjuntura/Boletim%20no%2033.pdf. Acesso em 6 de novembro de
2009.
GANEM, R.S. & SCHWINGEL, A.C.F. Reserva legal: por que conservar. Braslia: Cmara
dos Deputados, Consultoria Legislativa. Estudo, maio/2007. Trabalho no publicado.
GUIMARES, S. H. Cerrado que te quero vivo! Produtos e meios de vida sustentveis
apoiados pelo Programa de Pequenos Projetos Ecossociais (PPP-Ecos). Braslia: ISPN. 2005.
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica). Mapa de biomas do Brasil escala
1:5.000.000. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. 2004.
ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservao da Biodiversidade). 2009. Relatrio
resumido das RPPN por Estado. http://www.ibama.gov.br/rppn/. Acesso em 27 de outubro
de 2009.
IEF. reas protegidas. http://www.ief.mg.gov.br/. Extrado em 17 de maro de 2009.
INPE (Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais). Projeto Prodes: monitoramento da Floresta
Amaznica por satlite. www.obt.inpe.br/prodes. Extrado em 18 de novembro de 2009.
ISER/Vox Populi (Instituto de Estudos da Religio/Instituto Vox Populi). O que os brasilei-
ros pensam sobre a biodiversidade. http://www.wwf.org.br/informacoes/bliblioteca/?3640.
Extrado em 6 de novembro de 2009.
ISPN (Instituto Sociedade, Populao e Natureza). Lista de projetos aprovados. www.
ispn.org.br. Extrado em 06 de agosto de 2007.
JENKINS, C. N. & PIMM, S. Definindo prioridades de conservao em um hotspot de
biodiversidade global. In ROCHA, C. F. D.; BERGALLO, H. G.; SLUYS, M. V. & ALVES,
M. A. S. (orgs.) Biologia da conservao: essncias. So Carlos: RiMa. 2006. p. 41-52.
JICA (Agncia de Cooperao Internacional do Japo). Projeto de conservao de
ecossistemas do Cerrado: Corredor Ecolgico do Cerrado Paran-Pireneus. Relatrio de
Avaliao Final. Braslia: JICA BRAZIL. 2006.
KLINK, C. A. & MACHADO, R. B. A conservao do Cerrado brasileiro. Megadiver-
sidade, 1 (1), julho de 2005: 147-155.
LANDERS. J. (ASSOCIAO DE PLANTIO DIRETO NO CERRADO). Entrevista
concedida a Roseli Senna Ganem, em Braslia (DF), 18 de outubro de 2006.
MACHADO, R. B.; RAMOS NETO, M. B.; PEREIRA, P. G. P.; CALDAS, E. F.; GON-
ALVES, D.; SANTOS, N. S.; TABOR, K. e STEININGER, M. Estimativas da perda
do Cerrado brasileiro. www.conservacao.org. Extrado em 09 de novembro de 2005.
MARTINS, E. Passivo ambiental decorrente da explorao de carvo vegetal. Audincia
Pblica da Comisso de Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentvel. Braslia, Cmara
dos Deputados. 25 de outubro de 2007.
MCT (Ministrio de Cincia e Tecnologia). Primeiro inventrio brasileiro de emisses
antrpicas de gases de efeito estufa - Relatrios de Referncia. Emisses e remoes de
carbono por converso de florestas e abandono de terras cultivadas. Braslia: MCT. 2006.
MILLER, K. R. Em busca de um novo equilbrio: diretrizes para aumentar as oportu-
nidades de conservao da biodiversidade por meio do manejo biorregional. Braslia:
IBAMA. 1997.
MIN (Ministrio da Integrao Nacional). Plano Estratgico de Desenvolvimento do
Centro-Oeste 2006-2020. Braslia. 2006. CD-Rom.
MITTERMEIER, R. A.; MYERS, N. & MITTERMEIER, C. G. Hotspots: earthss bio-
logically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Mxico: Agrupacin Sierra
Madre. 1999.
MMA (Ministrio do Meio Ambiente). Mapas de cobertura vegetal dos biomas brasileiros.
Braslia: MMA. 2007a.
_____. Comit GEF-Cerrado anuncia sub-projetos selecionados. www.mma.gov.br. Acesso
em 06 de agosto de 2007. 2007b.
_____. Plano de ao para preveno e controle do desmatamento e das queimadas no
Cerrado. http://www.mma.gov.br/sitio/index.php?ido=conteudo.monta&idEstrutura=1
&idConteudo=9410. Consulta pblica em setembro de 2009. Acesso em 11 de setembro
de 2009. 2009a.
_____. Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservao. http://www.mma.gov.br/sitio/in-
dex.php?ido=conteudo.monta&idEstrutura=119. Acesso em 2 de maro de 2009. 2009b.
MMA/SBF (Ministrio do Meio Ambiente/Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas).
reas Prioritrias para a Conservao, Uso Sustentvel e Repartio de Benefcios da
Biodiversidade Brasileira: atualizao Portaria n 9, de 23 de janeiro de 2007. Braslia:
MMA, 2007.
MMA/SCA/IBAMA (Ministrio do Meio Ambiente/Secretaria de Coordenao da
Amaznia/Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovveis).
Programa Piloto para a Proteo das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil PPG7; Projeto Cor-
redores Ecolgicos. 2001.
NOGUEIRA, M. C. R. Gerais a dentro e a fora: identidade e territorialidade entre Geraizeiros
do Norte de Minas Gerais. Tese de Doutorado apresentada ao Departamento de Antro-
pologia como requisito parcial obteno do ttulo de doutora. Orientador: Prof. Paul E.
Little. Universidade de Braslia, Braslia, 2009.
PRADO, P. I.; LANDAU, E. C.; MOURA, R. T.; PINTO, L. P. S.; FONSECA, G. A. B.
& ALGER, K. (orgs.). Corredor de Biodiversidade da Mata Atlntica do Sul da Bahia.
Publicao em CD-ROM, Ilhus, IESB/CI/CABS/UFMG/UNICAMP. 2003.
RAMBALDI, D. M. & OLIVEIRA, D. A. S. (orgs.). Fragmentao de Ecossistemas:
causas, efeitos sobre a biodiversidade e recomendaes de polticas pblicas. Braslia:
MMA/SBF. 2003.
RIBEIRO, J. F.; BRIDGEWATER, S.; RATTER, J. A. & SOUSA-SILVA, J. C. Ocupao
do bioma Cerrado e conservao da sua diversidade vegetal. In: SCARIOT, A.; SOUSA-
-SILVA, J. C. & FELFILI, J. M. (org.). Cerrado: ecologia, biodiversidade e conservao.
Braslia: Ministrio do Meio Ambiente. 2005, p. 383-399.
RODRIGUES, J. Entrevista concedida a Roseli Senna Ganem em Braslia (DF), 05 de
fevereiro de 2007.
SANO, E. (Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuria do Cerrado). Entrevista concedida a Roseli
Senna Ganem, em 7 de maro de 2007.
SANTO, C. V. do E. Entrevista concedida a Roseli Senna Ganem, em Braslia (DF), 8
de novembro de 2006.
SEDUMA (Secretaria de Desenvolvimento urbano e Meio Ambiente do Distrito Fede-
ral). 2009. Unidades de conservao. http://www.semarh.df.gov.br/. extrado em 12 de
maro de 2009.
SEMA-BA. Unidades de conservao. http://www.meioambiente.ba.gov.br/default.aspx.
Acesso em 18 de maro de 2009.
SEMA-MA. Unidades de conservao. http://www.meioambiente.ba.gov.br. Extrado em
19 de maro de 2009.
SEMA-MT/CUCO (Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de Mato Grosso/Coordena-
doria de Unidades de Conservao). 2009. Unidades de Conservao no Estado do Mato
Grosso. http://www.sema.mt.gov.br/cuco/arquivos2 Extrado em 13 de maro de 2009.
SEMA-PR (Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente e dos recursos Hdricos). 2009. Lista
geral de unidades de conservao estaduais. http://www.sema.pr.gov.br/. Extrado e, 13
de maro de 2009.
STRAUBE, F. C. O Cerrado no Paran: ocorrncia original e atual e subsdios para sua
conservao. Cadernos de Biodiversidade, 1, dez/1998:12-24.
TEIXEIRA, A. C. C.; ALMEIDA, A. L.; BRANCO, A. L. C.; S, F. de O.; ANDRADE,
J. C. S.; FERREIRA, M. C. L.; VIANA, M. B.; GANEM, R. S. & AGUIAR JNIOR, S.
R. Redes sociais, estudo de caso: Rede Cerrado de ONGs. Braslia: CDS. 2005. Trabalho
no publicado.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund). Plantio direto. http://www.wwf.org.br/index.cfm. Acessado
em 6 de maro de 2009.
Submetido em: 22/06/12
Aceito em: 15/07/13
CONSERVATION POLICES AND CONTROL OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
IN THE BRAZILIAN CERRADO BIOME
ROSELI SENNA GANEM, JOS AUGUSTO DRUMMOND,
JOS LUIZ DE ANDRADE FRANCO
Resumo: O Cerrado constitui a savana mais biodiversa e mais ameaada do Planeta. O
bioma j perdeu 48,2% de sua cobertura original e sofre com um intenso processo de
fragmentao de habitats. Este trabalho verificou em que medida as aes governamen-
tais e no-governamentais de conservao da biodiversidade proporcionam uma poltica
integrada que proteja os remanescentes de vegetao nativa do Cerrado, com intuito de
e fomentar a sua conectividade. A pesquisa mostrou que os efeitos do esforo de criao
de unidades de conservao neste ambiente ainda so poucos, pois apenas 3,1% do bio-
ma esto protegidos em unidades de proteo integral. Alm disso, os rgos pblicos
envolvem-se com o planejamento da conservao. Devido falta de articulao, ocorre
comumente a sobreposio de projetos num mesmo territrio e, consequentemente, h
desperdcio de recursos e falta de efetividade. Os projetos dependem de recursos inter-
nacionais e h carncia de aes bsicas de fomento conservao nas terras privadas,
incluindo a adoo de estmulos econmicos aos proprietrios rurais.
Palavras-chave: Cerrado; Conservao da natureza; Biodiversidade; Fragmentao de
habitats; Polticas pblicas.
Abstract: The Brazilian Cerrado is the most bio-diverse and threatened savannah on the
planet. This biome has already lost 48.2 percent of its original floral cover and is being
affected by an intense process of habitat fragmentation. The purpose of this article is to verify
if and how governmental and non-governmental conservation measures are protecting the
remaining native Cerrado vegetation and whether these measures are encouraging connec-
tivity. Results show that the effects of conservation units are limited, since only 3.1 percent
of the biome is within fully protected areas. It was also found that public agencies are much
more involved in conservation planning than actions in the field. Conservation projects
are often implemented in the same territories, leading to the squandering of resources and
ineffective results. Another problem is that many projects are dependent on international
organizations and resources. Conservation initiatives in areas under private ownership are
rare and economic or fiscal incentives that support such initiatives are sporadic and ina-
dequate. The article concludes by suggesting that the Cerrado should become the focus of
specific conservation policies, integrating governments, civil society and economic sectors
and actors, especially farmers.
Keywords: Cerrado; Nature conservation; Biodiversity; Habitat; Fragmentation; Environ-
mental policies.
Resumen: El Cerrado es la sabana de mayor biodiversidad y la ms amenazada de la Tierra.
El bioma ha perdido 48,2% de su cobertura original y est sufriendo un proceso de intensa
fragmentacin de sus hbitats. El objetivo de este articulo fue evaluar el grado en que
las acciones gubernamentales y no gubernamentales de conservacin de la biodiversidad
resultan en una poltica integrada para proteger los remanentes de vegetacin nativa en
el Cerrado y fomentar su conectividad. La investigacin ha demostrado que los efectos
del esfuerzo de creacin de reas protegidas en el cerrado son escasos, ya que slo 3,1%
del bioma estn protegidos en unidades de proteccin integral. Adems, los organismos
pblicos estn involucrados en la planificacin de la conservacin. Debido a la falta de
articulacin, proyectos comunes sobreponen-se en el mismo territorio y por lo tanto hay
desperdicio de recursos y falta de efectividad. Los proyectos dependen de los recursos in-
ternacionales y no hay acciones bsicas que fomenten la conservacin en tierras privadas,
como la adopcin de incentivos econmicos a los propietarios rurales. Concluimos con la
sugestin de que el Cerrado debe ser objeto de una poltica especfica de conservacin que
integra el Gobierno, la sociedad civil y los sectores econmicos importantes en la regin,
especialmente en el campo.
Palabras clave: Savannah; Conservacin de la naturaleza; Biodiversidad; Fragmentacin
del hbitat; Polticas pblicas.

Conservation Polices and Control of Habitat Fragmentation in The Brazilian Cerrado Biome

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conservation Polices and Control of Habitat Fragmentation in The Brazilian Cerrado Biome

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conservation Polices and Control of Habitat Fragmentation in The Brazilian Cerrado Biome

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSERVATION POLICES AND CONTROL OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

IN THE BRAZILIAN CERRADO BIOME

You might also like