Institutional Dimensions and Land-Cover Change: social groups, time of settlement, property size,...
1
Institutional Dimensions and Land-Cover Change: social Institutional Dimensions and Land-Cover Change: social groups, time of settlement, property size, and location and groups, time of settlement, property size, and location and access affecting intra-regional variation in the Lower access affecting intra-regional variation in the Lower Amazon Amazon 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Ambiental, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. [email protected] 2. Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change (ACT), Indiana University, USA. 3. Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change. Indiana University, USA. 4. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, USA. [email protected] ABSTRACT Type of land and resource ownership--public, private or common—has been recognized as a component of conservation and use of forests. We selected 14 areas of the Lower Amazon region to analyze inter- and intra-variations of land- cover changes across property regimes: public (n = 3; total area of 490,716 ha), private (n = 1,860; total area of 102,769 ha), and common (n = 15; total area of 197,499 ha). In this paper we focus on three main issues. First, we look at the influence of different types of ownership upon land-use and land-cover (LUCC) trajectories between 1986 and 1999. Second, we look at variations in LUCC trajectories within each property regime. We examine factors such as rules of use, size of property, time of occupation and social group, and location. Finally, we pursue a methodological question, that is, to examine the influence of measurement unit upon the interpretation deforestation rates in the region. Particularly, we compare absolute (ha) and relative (%) measurements of deforestation and areas in use in relation to property size. Results show that type of property regime alone does not guarantee conservation of forest. There exists great variability of land-use and land-cover forms across different types of ownership. Behind all types of property regimes, two aspects are important that affect maintenance of forest coverage or facilitate deforestation: adequate and efficient monitoring system and the economic role of forest for different group of actors. To conclude, strong governance in old and new frontiers and across properties--public, private and community--is fundamental to guarantee fairly economic return to local people and maintenance of natural vegetation. Private, Public and Common Property Systems, Intra and Inter-Institutional Variations, Land- Use and Land-Cover Changes, Lower Amazon INTRODUCTION In this paper we focus on the influence of different types of land ownership and institutional regimes upon land-use and land-cover (L.U. L.C.) trajectories (1986 to 1999) in the Santarém-Belterra region of Eastern Amazônia. We pay particular attention to heterogeneity and intra-institutional variability in L.U.L.C. trajectories while addressing factors such as type and size of property, time of occupation and social group, rules of use, and location. Finally, we address a methodological question whether measurement units influence interpretations of rates of L.U.L.C., particularly we compare absolute (ha) and relative (%) measurements of deforestation and areas in use in relation to property size. Type of land and resource ownership--public, private, and common—has been recognized as a component of L.U.L.C., particularly conservation and use of forests (Dietz et al. 2003; Futemma and Brondízio 2003). Privatization and parceling of land ownership has often led to conflicts and high rates of deforestation (Alston et al. 1999), whereas governance of the so- called “commons” has been characterized as struggle leading to both successful and unsuccessful stories (Dietz et al. 2003). To address these issues with respect to inter and intra-variations of land-use and -cover changes, we look at different social groups—caboclos and colonist farmers— representing different time of occupation, property regimes, and access to roads and rivers in the Lower Amazon region. Our analysis includes the following sample located in the municipalities of Santarém and Belterra, state of Pará, and representing five types of property regimes: National Forest (public property), n=1; Federal Research Forest (public property), n=2; Private properties organized into eight different size classes, n=1,860; community areas (overlapping with National Forest), n=15; and logging concession area (overlapping with National Forest), n=5. While varying regionally, small farmers have been often blamed guilty for high rates of deforestation despite the disproportional contribution of large-holders during the last 34 years of regional occupation. In fact, studying a small-holder settlement in the Lower Amazon region, Futemma and Brondízio (2003) indicate that within the same settlement small-farmers present different forms of using the land: extensive, intensive and abandonment of the lot. Most of households cultivated to fulfill food requirements and to provide a minimum source of income (Futemma and Brondízio 2003). Conversely, large-holders may contribute to large areas of clearance due to exclusively market- oriented agro-pastoral economy. These facts regarding size of property and changes in land coverage led us to assess whether absolute unit of measurement (e.g., hectares) would result different interpretation of deforestation rates from relative units (%). METHODS Three sets of data were gathered in order to tackle the goals of the present study: (1) Regional analysis: information on major property right regimes— public (forest reserves), private (small and large properties), and common (community areas) -- that were based on property grids. (2) Intra-regional analysis: household surveys carried out from 2001 to 2003 (3) Intra-regional factors on variability of changes in L.U.L.C. within each group of property, spatially and temporally, two set of data were collected and analyzed covering the period between 1986 and 1999: remotely sensed data (satellite images) and in situ data. Intra- and Inter-institutional Analysis: Set of Variables We analyzed four groups of variables in order to assess whether they have played important role in changing land cover during the period of 1986-1999, especially among private and community areas. (1) Set of Rules: Direct and Indirect Rules (2) Size of Property: Disaggregated intervals in ha (up to 10, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100, 100-200, 200-500, 500-2000, > 2000) and at an aggregated level (small (1-200 ha) and large (> 200 ha). (3) Location and Access: (1) Main road (along the two main corridors: BR-163 and the Santarém-Curuá Una PA-370 highways); (2) Secondary road (mostly non-paved roads connected to “main roads”); (3) Access to rivers (community only accessible through the river); and (4) River-road (community accessible through both, river and roads). (4) Time of Occupation: Areas and properties settled for over 50 years are considered “old-settled areas”, while younger settlements are categorized as “recent-settled”. Property Types in the Context of the Study Area: Public, Communal, and Private Public: National forest (Flona Tapajós) used for production and research, and two other forest reserves, mostly used for research (Palhão and Curuá). Inside the national forest we separated five areas representing logging concessions and 15 areas designated as community areas Communal: Twenty-five communities (over 4,832 residents). In this paper we analyze the 16 most representative and recognized (with a demarcated area) communities, being 15 riparian and one upland community settled next to BR-163. Private: Six groups of small private properties and five groups of large private properties (Figure 1, see ____). RESULTS I We organize our results to address inter and intra-institutional variation in land-use and -cover trajectories taking place between 1986 and 1999. Inter-institutional variation include comparing rates of deforestation, reforestation, and areas maintained in use as a function of property type, while controlling for location, time of occupation, and level of restriction (rules-in-use). Similarly, the same rates and control factors are analyzed across units representing private and communal areas, an intra- institutional analysis. In the case of private properties, we pay particular attention and present a disaggregated analysis of the role of property size and units of measurement (absolute [hectares] and relative [percentage]) upon the analysis of land- cover trajectories. INTER-INSTITUTIONAL Variation in L.U.L.C. Changes PRIVATE Private properties do contribute more to cleared areas (clearance of mature and secondary forests) than public and communal lands. There is an exception, one of the communities located in the intersection among Flona, Incra settlements, and the Cuiabá-Santarém highway: the upland-community case. Private areas-- small and large-- present on average a higher proportion of cleared areas (Figure 2). However, small-holders present great variability when compared to large-holders and other categories. In absolute terms, there are cases where an individual farmer deforests more than whole communities; while small-holders present minimal deforestation when compared to large-holders. In relative terms, the trend tends to reverse. Larger-holders present the second largest rate of deforestation (8%) since 1986, behind the upland community-private (15.5%). PUBLIC There is great variation in forms of land-use and land-coverage within public forests. The total FLONA-Tapajós area presents the largest area of mature forest (93.4 %) and within FLONA-Tapajós, the logging concession shows 99.6% of its forest, whose deforestation took place after 1986, around 0.4% (39.15 ha). SUDAM forest holds 79.1% of its mature forest and a high rate of regeneration (19.3%). Such high rate of secondary vegetation might be uncontrolled monitoring its boundaries, which has allowed some invasions to take place. COMMUNAL The riparian communities do present lower rates of clearance than the upland case, although they present the third highest rate of deforestation of mature forest since 1986 (6.5%) only behind private large-holders, 8%). On average, the riparian communities present the highest cleared areas than private properties (Figure 2) CONCLUSION There exists variation in L.U.L.C. trajectories within and across types of land ownership, such as in terms of rates of deforestation of forest and secondary vegetation and maintenance of clear areas in use. Type of land ownership alone does not guarantee lower rates of deforestation, but conservation units and community areas showed significantly reduced rates when compared to small and large private properties. Location (proximity to main roads versus river or secondary roads), social group and their relation to forest, and rules in use and monitoring, as well as time of occupation are important factors influencing these rates of deforestation. Despite having small areas and a huge technological divide in relation to large farmers, even very small-holders in the region have been able to maintain forest cover in their lots. While in relative terms (%), large-holders maintain higher areas in forest cover in their properties, in absolute terms (ha) their (large- holders) contribution to total deforestation is significantly higher. It is importance of paying attention to the mosaic of social, historical, and environmental conditions present in the Amazon region when analyzing factors influencing rates of land-use and -cover change and devising policies to control deforestation. Policies to monitor and control deforestation are clearly not working and are evidently contradictory with the vast majority of economic policies creating incentives for regional development. Attention to institutional and land ownership issues, and an agrarian policy that includes the full range of land users and types of forest uses may contribute to a different outcome in the Ownership Com munalRiparian Public U se Private Sm allholder Private Largeholder Percent (% ) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Land C overC lasses Areas In U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest O wnership CommunalRiparian Public U se Private Sm allholder Private Largeholder Area (ha) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Land C overC lasses Areas In U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest Figure 1. Map depicting the study area, Santarém surrounding area, Pará state, Brazil, with boundaries of different types of property regimes. Figure 2: Inter-variability Ownership LULC for areas of Direct and Indirect Uses class ofsize property 2000 above 500 up to 2000 200 up to 500 100 up to 200 50 up to 100 20 up to 50 10 up to 20 up to 10 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 Land C overC lasses Areas in U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest class ofsize property 2000 above 500 up to 2000 200 up to 500 100 up to 200 50 up to 100 20 up to 50 10 up to 20 up to 10 Area (ha) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Land C overC lasses Areas in U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest Figure 3: Inter-variability Institutional and Size of Property Tim e ofO ccupation O ld Sm allholders RecentLargeholders RecentSmallholders RecentLog C oncessio Percent(% ) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Land C overC lasses Areas in U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest Tim e ofO ccupation O ld Sm allholders RecentLargeholders RecentSmallholders RecentLog C oncessio Area (ha) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Land C overC lasses Areas in U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest Figure 4: Inter-Variability Institutional and Time of Occupation Location and Access Secondary Road River-Road M ain Road Percent(% ) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Land C overC lasses Areas in U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest Location and Access Secondary Road River-Road M ain Road Area (ha) 400 300 200 100 0 Land C overC lasses Areas in U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest Figure 5: Intra-Variability Institutional (Private) and Location and Access Communities O N M L K J I H G F E D C B A Percent(% ) 20 10 0 Land C overC lasses Areas in U se D eforestation SS D eforestation Forest Communities 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Percent (% ) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Land C overC lasses Regeneration M ature Forest Figure 6: Land Cover and Intra-Variability Institutional (Community) RESULTS II INTRA-INSTITUTIONAL Variability in L.U.L.C. Changes Different trajectories of land-use and land-coverage can be observed within each property regime, especially among private and community areas. By running regression models to test the role of some variables--size of property, presence of rules restricting use of forest, location and access to a property, time of occupation, and type of social group— in relation to land-cover classes great intra-institutional variation within private and community regime is observed. Absolute data show that size of property plays an important role in defining land-cover patterns, in other words, the larger the property, the larger the clearance of land. Conversely, relative data show that time of occupation and type of ownership are main factors affecting changes in land cover. SIZE OF PROPERTY Deforestation rate estimate is sensitive to the unit of measurement when assessed with relation to property size In percentage terms: small-holders = 0 and 25% and large-holders = 0 and 5% (Figure 3) In absolute terms: small-holder = not exceed 10 ha and large- holders = from 10 to 500 ha. Deforestation in aggregated terms small-holders together = 1,641.33 ha large-holders together = 6,063.93 ha Deforestation per property small property = 0.9 per ha large property = 3.33 per ha TIME OF OCCUPATION No significant difference in open areas and deforestation among old and recent small-holders. Both categories present high level of internal variability for both types of trajectories (Figure 4). However, significant difference exists in the clearing of secondary vegetation. Older small-holders tend to clear and use a higher proportion of secondary vegetation when compared to more recent small-holders and large-holders (Figure 4). LOCATION AND ACCESS Little difference in the clearing of mature forest between areas along main roads and others (Figure 5). The proportion of areas in use ranges from 5 to 40% along the main road, with outliers reaching 85%. Clearing of secondary vegetation along the main road ranges from 7 to 52% (outliers up to 80%), which coincides with the fact that approximately 63% of old-settled small-holders are placed along the main road. Result also shows that properties of all sizes (small and large) are fairly distributed along main highways. RESULTS III Small-holders who depend on land for production in areas smaller than 10 ha still are able to maintain forest cover and large areas of secondary vegetation. The majority of small- holders of lot size up to 10 ha maintain at least 25% of forest, while those from 10 to 20 ha maintain approximately 40% or more, and most small-holders of 20 to 50 ha maintain more than 50% in forest. In general, communities present low levels of deforestation and high levels of forest cover (>80%) with exception of two communities accessible by road and subjected to land market and well as land invasion (Figure 6). Twelve communities, those only accessible by river present above 80% in forest cover. The two communities accessible by road present around 65% of forest cover (Figure 6). Célia Futemma 1 and Eduardo Brondízio 2,3,4
-
Upload
hubert-reeves -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Institutional Dimensions and Land-Cover Change: social groups, time of settlement, property size,...
Institutional Dimensions and Land-Cover Change: social Institutional Dimensions and Land-Cover Change: social groups, time of settlement, property size, and location and groups, time of settlement, property size, and location and
access affecting intra-regional variation in the Lower Amazonaccess affecting intra-regional variation in the Lower Amazon
1. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Ambiental, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. [email protected]
2. Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change (ACT), Indiana University, USA.
3. Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change. Indiana University, USA.
4. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, USA. [email protected]
ABSTRACTType of land and resource ownership--public, private or common—has been recognized as a component of conservation and use of forests. We selected 14 areas of the Lower Amazon region to analyze inter- and intra-variations of land-cover changes across property regimes: public (n = 3; total area of 490,716 ha), private (n = 1,860; total area of 102,769 ha), and common (n = 15; total area of 197,499 ha). In this paper we focus on three main issues. First, we look at the influence of different types of ownership upon land-use and land-cover (LUCC) trajectories between 1986 and 1999. Second, we look at variations in LUCC trajectories within each property regime. We examine factors such as rules of use, size of property, time of occupation and social group, and location. Finally, we pursue a methodological question, that is, to examine the influence of measurement unit upon the interpretation deforestation rates in the region. Particularly, we compare absolute (ha) and relative (%) measurements of deforestation and areas in use in relation to property size. Results show that type of property regime alone does not guarantee conservation of forest. There exists great variability of land-use and land-cover forms across different types of ownership. Behind all types of property regimes, two aspects are important that affect maintenance of forest coverage or facilitate deforestation: adequate and efficient monitoring system and the economic role of forest for different group of actors. To conclude, strong governance in old and new frontiers and across properties--public, private and community--is fundamental to guarantee fairly economic return to local people and maintenance of natural vegetation. Private, Public and Common Property Systems, Intra
and Inter-Institutional Variations, Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes, Lower Amazon
INTRODUCTIONIn this paper we focus on the influence of different types of land ownership and institutional regimes upon land-use and land-cover (L.U. L.C.) trajectories (1986 to 1999) in the Santarém-Belterra region of Eastern Amazônia. We pay particular attention to heterogeneity and intra-institutional variability in L.U.L.C. trajectories while addressing factors such as type and size of property, time of occupation and social group, rules of use, and location. Finally, we address a methodological question whether measurement units influence interpretations of rates of L.U.L.C., particularly we compare absolute (ha) and relative (%) measurements of deforestation and areas in use in relation to property size.
Type of land and resource ownership--public, private, and common—has been recognized as a component of L.U.L.C., particularly conservation and use of forests (Dietz et al. 2003; Futemma and Brondízio 2003). Privatization and parceling of land ownership has often led to conflicts and high rates of deforestation (Alston et al. 1999), whereas governance of the so-called “commons” has been characterized as struggle leading to both successful and unsuccessful stories (Dietz et al. 2003).
To address these issues with respect to inter and intra-variations of land-use and -cover changes, we look at different social groups—caboclos and colonist farmers— representing different time of occupation, property regimes, and access to roads and rivers in the Lower Amazon region. Our analysis includes the following sample located in the municipalities of Santarém and Belterra, state of Pará, and representing five types of property regimes: National Forest (public property), n=1; Federal Research Forest (public property), n=2; Private properties organized into eight different size classes, n=1,860; community areas (overlapping with National Forest), n=15; and logging concession area (overlapping with National Forest), n=5.
While varying regionally, small farmers have been often blamed guilty for high rates of deforestation despite the disproportional contribution of large-holders during the last 34 years of regional occupation. In fact, studying a small-holder settlement in the Lower Amazon region, Futemma and Brondízio (2003) indicate that within the same settlement small-farmers present different forms of using the land: extensive, intensive and abandonment of the lot. Most of households cultivated to fulfill food requirements and to provide a minimum source of income (Futemma and Brondízio 2003). Conversely, large-holders may contribute to large areas of clearance due to exclusively market-oriented agro-pastoral economy. These facts regarding size of property and changes in land coverage led us to assess whether absolute unit of measurement (e.g., hectares) would result different interpretation of deforestation rates from relative units (%).
METHODSThree sets of data were gathered in order to tackle the goals of the present study: (1) Regional analysis: information on major property right regimes—public (forest reserves), private (small and large properties), and common (community areas) -- that were based on property grids. (2) Intra-regional analysis: household surveys carried out from 2001 to 2003 (3) Intra-regional factors on variability of changes in L.U.L.C. within each group of property, spatially and temporally, two set of data were collected and analyzed covering the period between 1986 and 1999: remotely sensed data (satellite images) and in situ data.Intra- and Inter-institutional Analysis: Set of VariablesWe analyzed four groups of variables in order to assess whether they have played important role in changing land cover during the period of 1986-1999, especially among private and community areas. (1) Set of Rules: Direct and Indirect Rules(2) Size of Property: Disaggregated intervals in ha (up to 10, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100, 100-200, 200-500, 500-2000, > 2000) and at an aggregated level (small (1-200 ha) and large (> 200 ha). (3) Location and Access: (1) Main road (along the two main corridors: BR-163 and the Santarém-Curuá Una PA-370 highways); (2) Secondary road (mostly non-paved roads connected to “main roads”); (3) Access to rivers (community only accessible through the river); and (4) River-road (community accessible through both, river and roads).(4) Time of Occupation: Areas and properties settled for over 50 years are considered “old-settled areas”, while younger settlements are categorized as “recent-settled”.
Property Types in the Context of the Study Area: Public, Communal, and PrivatePublic: National forest (Flona Tapajós) used for production and research, and two other forest reserves, mostly used for research (Palhão and Curuá). Inside the national forest we separated five areas representing logging concessions and 15 areas designated as community areasCommunal: Twenty-five communities (over 4,832 residents). In this paper we analyze the 16 most representative and recognized (with a demarcated area) communities, being 15 riparian and one upland community settled next to BR-163. Private: Six groups of small private properties and five groups of large private properties (Figure 1, see ____).
RESULTS IWe organize our results to address inter and intra-institutional variation in land-use and -cover trajectories taking place between 1986 and 1999. Inter-institutional variation include comparing rates of deforestation, reforestation, and areas maintained in use as a function of property type, while controlling for location, time of occupation, and level of restriction (rules-in-use). Similarly, the same rates and control factors are analyzed across units representing private and communal areas, an intra-institutional analysis. In the case of private properties, we pay particular attention and present a disaggregated analysis of the role of property size and units of measurement (absolute [hectares] and relative [percentage]) upon the analysis of land-cover trajectories.
INTER-INSTITUTIONAL Variation in L.U.L.C. ChangesPRIVATE Private properties do contribute more to cleared areas (clearance of mature and secondary forests) than public and communal lands. There is an exception, one of the communities located in the intersection among Flona, Incra settlements, and the Cuiabá-Santarém highway: the upland-community case. Private areas-- small and large-- present on average a higher proportion of cleared areas (Figure 2). However, small-holders present great variability when compared to large-holders and other categories. In absolute terms, there are cases where an individual farmer deforests more than whole communities; while small-holders present minimal deforestation when compared to large-holders. In relative terms, the trend tends to reverse. Larger-holders present the second largest rate of deforestation (8%) since 1986, behind the upland community-private (15.5%). PUBLIC There is great variation in forms of land-use and land-coverage within public forests. The total FLONA-Tapajós area presents the largest area of mature forest (93.4 %) and within FLONA-Tapajós, the logging concession shows 99.6% of its forest, whose deforestation took place after 1986, around 0.4% (39.15 ha). SUDAM forest holds 79.1% of its mature forest and a high rate of regeneration (19.3%). Such high rate of secondary vegetation might be a consequence of uncontrolled monitoring system of its boundaries, which has allowed some invasions to take place. COMMUNAL The riparian communities do present lower rates of clearance than the upland case, although they present the third highest rate of deforestation of mature forest since 1986 (6.5%) only behind private large-holders, 8%). On average, the riparian communities present the highest cleared areas than private properties (Figure 2)
CONCLUSION
There exists variation in L.U.L.C. trajectories within and across types of land ownership, such as in terms of rates of deforestation of forest and secondary vegetation and maintenance of clear areas in use.
Type of land ownership alone does not guarantee lower rates of deforestation, but conservation units and community areas showed significantly reduced rates when compared to small and large private properties.
Location (proximity to main roads versus river or secondary roads), social group and their relation to forest, and rules in use and monitoring, as well as time of occupation are important factors influencing these rates of deforestation. Despite having small areas and a huge technological divide in relation to large farmers, even very small-holders in the region have been able to maintain forest cover in their lots. While in relative terms (%), large-holders maintain higher areas in forest cover in their properties, in absolute terms (ha) their (large-holders) contribution to total deforestation is significantly higher.
It is importance of paying attention to the mosaic of social, historical, and environmental conditions present in the Amazon region when analyzing factors influencing rates of land-use and -cover change and devising policies to control deforestation. Policies to monitor and control deforestation are clearly not working and are evidently contradictory with the vast majority of economic policies creating incentives for regional development. Attention to institutional and land ownership issues, and an agrarian policy that includes the full range of land users and types of forest uses may contribute to a different outcome in the future.
Ownership
Communal Riparian
Public Use
Private Smallholder
Private Largeholder
Perc
ent (
%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Land Cover Classes
Areas In Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
O wnership
Communal Riparian
Public Use
Private Smallholder
Private Largeholder
Are
a (h
a)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Land Cover Classes
Areas In Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
Figure 1. Map depicting the study area, Santarém surrounding area, Pará state, Brazil, with boundaries of different types of property regimes.
Figure 2: Inter-variability Ownership LULC for areas of Direct and Indirect Uses
class of size property
2000 above
500 up to 2000
200 up to 500
100 up to 200
50 up to 100
20 up to 50
10 up to 20
up to 10
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
Land Cover Classes
Areas in Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
class of size property
2000 above
500 up to 2000
200 up to 500
100 up to 200
50 up to 100
20 up to 50
10 up to 20
up to 10
Are
a (h
a)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Land Cover Classes
Areas in Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
Figure 3: Inter-variability Institutional and Size of Property
Time of Occupation
Old Smallholders
Recent Largeholders
Recent Smallholders
Recent Log Concessio
Perc
ent (
%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Land Cover Classes
Areas in Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
Time of Occupation
Old Smallholders
Recent Largeholders
Recent Smallholders
Recent Log Concessio
Are
a (h
a)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Land Cover Classes
Areas in Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
Figure 4: Inter-Variability Institutional and Time of Occupation
Location and Access
Secondary RoadRiver-RoadMain Road
Perc
ent (
%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Land Cover Classes
Areas in Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
Location and Access
Secondary RoadRiver-RoadMain Road
Are
a (h
a)
400
300
200
100
0
Land Cover Classes
Areas in Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
Figure 5: Intra-Variability Institutional (Private) and Location and Access
Communities
ONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Perc
ent (
%)
20
10
0
Land Cover Classes
Areas in Use
Deforestation SS
Deforestation Forest
Communities
151413121110987654321
Perc
ent (
%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Land Cover Classes
Regeneration
Mature Forest
Figure 6: Land Cover and Intra-Variability Institutional (Community)
RESULTS IIINTRA-INSTITUTIONAL Variability in L.U.L.C. Changes Different trajectories of land-use and land-coverage can be observed within each property regime, especially among private and community areas. By running regression models to test the role of some variables--size of property, presence of rules restricting use of forest, location and access to a property, time of occupation, and type of social group— in relation to land-cover classes great intra-institutional variation within private and community regime is observed. Absolute data show that size of property plays an important role in defining land-cover patterns, in other words, the larger the property, the larger the clearance of land. Conversely, relative data show that time of occupation and type of ownership are main factors affecting changes in land cover. SIZE OF PROPERTY Deforestation rate estimate is sensitive to the unit of measurement when assessed with relation to property size In percentage terms: small-holders = 0 and 25% and large-holders = 0 and 5% (Figure 3)In absolute terms: small-holder = not exceed 10 ha and large-holders = from 10 to 500 ha. Deforestation in aggregated terms small-holders together = 1,641.33 ha large-holders together = 6,063.93 ha Deforestation per propertysmall property = 0.9 per halarge property = 3.33 per ha
TIME OF OCCUPATION No significant difference in open areas and deforestation among old and recent small-holders. Both categories present high level of internal variability for both types of trajectories (Figure 4). However, significant difference exists in the clearing of secondary vegetation. Older small-holders tend to clear and use a higher proportion of secondary vegetation when compared to more recent small-holders and large-holders (Figure 4).
LOCATION AND ACCESSLittle difference in the clearing of mature forest between areas along main roads and others (Figure 5). The proportion of areas in use ranges from 5 to 40% along the main road, with outliers reaching 85%. Clearing of secondary vegetation along the main road ranges from 7 to 52% (outliers up to 80%), which coincides with the fact that approximately 63% of old-settled small-holders are placed along the main road. Result also shows that properties of all sizes (small and large) are fairly distributed along main highways.
RESULTS III Small-holders who depend on land for production in areas smaller than 10 ha still are able to maintain forest cover and large areas of secondary vegetation. The majority of small-holders of lot size up to 10 ha maintain at least 25% of forest, while those from 10 to 20 ha maintain approximately 40% or more, and most small-holders of 20 to 50 ha maintain more than 50% in forest. In general, communities present low levels of deforestation and high levels of forest cover (>80%) with exception of two communities accessible by road and subjected to land market and well as land invasion (Figure 6). Twelve communities, those only accessible by river present above 80% in forest cover. The two communities accessible by road present around 65% of forest cover (Figure 6).
Célia Futemma1 and Eduardo Brondízio 2,3,4
