Percepção do setor privado sobre a redução do desmatamento no Brasil: análise dos desafios de 2010 a 2019

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32358/rpd.2023.v9.637

Palavras-chave:

REDD+, stakeholder, policy network analysis, governance, policy domain, Brazil

Resumo

Objetivo: Este artigo visa esclarecer a perspectiva do setor privado sobre REDD+ no Brasil e como essa perspectiva evoluiu ao longo do tempo. Metodologia/Abordagem: Esta pesquisa faz parte do Estudo Comparativo Global sobre REDD+ (GCS REDD+) sobre políticas e processos políticos do Centro de Pesquisa Florestal Internacional (CIFOR). Constatações: Os nossos resultados indicam que as organizações empresariais nacionais acreditam que o REDD+ é uma forma acessível de mitigar as alterações climáticas. Sugere que, embora este setor procure benefícios financeiros das atividades de REDD+, é cauteloso e avesso ao risco. O setor privado não está envolvido e não se identifica nos desafios operacionais que os decisores políticos de REDD+ enfrentam à medida que procuram abraçar as possibilidades deste mecanismo. Limitação/Implicação da Pesquisa: Explorar como esses atores do setor privado percebem o REDD+, se tal perspectiva mudou de 2010 a 2019, e suas implicações para um futuro desenho de REDD+ no contexto nacional. Originalidade/Valor do documento: Examinámos as posições dos intervenientes privados sobre as principais declarações sobre financiamento, partilha de benefícios e equidade, governança e desafios ao longo de três períodos de tempo diferentes. Uma melhor compreensão de como o setor privado encara o REDD+ contribuirá para uma governança mais eficaz.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Patricia Gallo, BluoVerda Deutschland

Doutora em governança e gestão florestal, engenheira florestal, pesquisadora social e ambiental do Brasil com muitos anos de experiência em desenvolvimento de projetos e consultoria de políticas, trabalhando com diferentes atores (de comunidades tradicionais ao setor privado e governo, por exemplo). Patrícia sempre se interessou por temas multidisciplinares que afetam questões ambientais e de desenvolvimento, principalmente por serem altamente relevantes e intimamente relacionados em seu país de origem. O foco de seu trabalho está relacionado a medidas verdes para reduzir as mudanças climáticas e o desmatamento e mudanças de comportamento social em direção ao desenvolvimento sustentável e valorização dos recursos naturais.

Maria Fernanda Gebara, Technische Universität Dresden

Graduação em Direito pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (2005), mestrado em Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento pela London School of Economics and Political Sciences (2009) e doutorado em Instituições, Mercados e Regulação pelo Programa de Pós Graduação em Desenvolvimento, Agricultura e Sociedade da Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (2015). Trabalha com povos indígenas, comunidades tradicionais, pequenos e grandes produtores na Amazônia desde 2004. O foco do meu trabalho são questões relacionadas ao conhecimento tradicional, espiritualidade indígena, ontologias, cosmopolítica, além dos seres humanos e das mudanças climáticas. Também trabalhei como consultor para diferentes organizações, como o Ministério do Meio Ambiente do Brasil, o Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento e a Nature Conservancy.

Tatiane Micheletti, Universidade da Colúmbia Britânica

Bacharel em Biologia pela Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, mestre em Ciências Veterinárias pela Universidade Federal do Paraná, e mestre em Manejo Sustentável de Florestas Tropicais pelas Universidades de Bangor e Universidade Técnica de Dresden (Double-degree realizado na Europa). Possui Doutorado Pleno no Exterior com bolsa integral do CNPq em Zoologia Florestal. Pós-doutorado em modelagem ecológica pela University of British Columbia / Pacific Forestry Center (Canada). Tem experiência na área de zoologia, com ênfase na conservação e manejo de vida silvestre e já trabalho com endocrinologia e monitoramento hormonal não invasivo.

Alice Dantas Brites, University of São Paulo

Bióloga e pesquisadora de pós doutorado no Geolab, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz. Doutora em Ciência Ambiental pela Universidade de São Paulo com período de estágio na Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Espanha), Mestre em Ciência Ambiental pela Universidade de São Paulo e Bacharel e Licenciada em Biologia pelo Instituto de Biociências da Universidade de São Paulo. Ganhadora do Prêmio Dow-USP de sustentabilidade em 2011 e selecionada pelo Latin American and Caribbean Environmental Economics Program (LACEEP) para participar do curso de Economia Experimental oferecido no Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseanza (CATIE, Costa Rica) em 2013.

Referências

[Brazilian REDD+ Alliance] (2020). Programa Floresta+ and voluntary carbon markets. Acessed 24 April 2021.

[CIF] Climate Investment Funds. (2013). Incentivizing the involvement of the private sector in REDD+: a review of early experiences and lessons learned in the Forest Investment Program. Accessed 14 June 2020.

[GEF] Global Environmental Facility. (2011). Revised strategy for enhancing engagement with the private sector. GEF Council, GEF/C.41/09/Rev.01.

[IETA] International Emissions Trading Association. (2018). Guidance and Conditions for Attracting Private Sector Investments to National REDD+. International Position Paper. Accessed 14 June 2020. https://www.ieta.org/resources/REDD/IETA%20%20Guidance%20and%20Conditions%20for%20Attracting%20Private%20Sector%20Investments%20to%20National%20REDD_Final.pdf

[MMA] Ministry of Environment. (2016). ENREDD+ Estratégia Nacional para Redução das Emissões Provenientes do Desmatamento e da Degradação Florestal, Conservação dos Estoques de Carbono Florestal, Manejo Sustentável de Florestas e Aumento de Estoques de Carbono Florestal. Accessed 03 February 2020.

[MMA] Ministry of Environment. (2018). REDD+ results-based payments for results achieved by Brazil in the Amazon biome in 2014 and 2015. GCF Documentation Funding Proposal, pdf version. Accessed 26 April 2020.

[NORAD] - Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. (2011). Real-Time Evaluation of Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative. Contributions to National REDD+ Processes 2007-2010: country report Brazil. Evaluation Report 13/2010. Evaluation Department, Oslo, Norway.

[PRODES] Projeto de Monitoramento do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal por Satélite (Program to Calculate Deforestation in the Amazon). (2020). Observação da Terra. Accessed 22 June 2021. http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes

[PRODES] Projeto de Monitoramento do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal por Satélite (Program to Calculate Deforestation in the Amazon). (2016). Observação da Terra. Accessed 22 June 2021. http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes

[UNFCCC] United Nations Framework on Climate Change. (2019). Forest protection in Brazil boosted through REDD-plus. Accessed 14 June 2020.

Adler, N.J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. MA: PWSKENT Publishing Company, 2nd edition, pp. 63-91, Boston, USA.

Agrawal, A., Nepstad. D., Chhatre, A. (2011). Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 373-396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042009-094508

Agrawal, S., Ambury, H., Parida, D., & Joshi, N. (2022). Understanding risk communication in practice: Insights from municipalities in Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 79, 103175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103175

Angelsen, A., Martius, C., De Sy, V., Duchelle, E., Larson A.M. & Pham T.T. (eds.). (2018). Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Assunção, J., & Chiavari, J. (2015) Towards efficient land use in Brazil. The New Climate Economy, 28 pp. https://doi.org/10.1289/isee.2015.2015-708

Atmadja S., Arwida, S., Martius, C., & Pham, T.T. (2018). Financing REDD+: A transaction among equals, or an uneven playing field? In Angelsen A, Martius C, De Sy V, Duchelle AE, Larson AM and Pham TT, eds. Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. 29-39.

Azevedo, A., Rajão, R., Costa, M. Stabile, M., Macedo, M., Reis, T., Alencar, A., Soares-Filho, B., & Pacheco, R. (2017). Limits of Brazil's Forest Code as a means to end illegal deforestation. PNAS, 114, 7653-7658. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604768114

Azevedo-Ramos, C. & Moutinho, P. (2018). No man's land in the Brazilian Amazon: Could undesignated public forests slow. Amazon deforestation? Land Use Policy 73, 125-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.005

Bernard, F., Mcfatridge, S. & Minang, P. (2012). The private sector in the REDD+ supply chain: trends, challenges and opportunities. IISD Report, 62 pp.

Bidone, F., & Kovacic, Z. (2018). From nationalism to global climate change: analysis of the historical evolution of environmental governance in the Brazilian Amazon. International Forestry Review, 20(4), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818825240656

Böcher, M., & Toller, A.E. (2003). Conditions for the emergence of alternative environmental policy instruments, Paper presented at the Second European Consortium of Political Research Conference (ECPR), Marburg, Germany, 18-21 September.

Bodin, Ö., Sandström, A., & Crona, B. (2016). Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses. Policy Studies Journal, 45(2), 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12146

Brockhaus, M., & Di Gregorio, M. (2014). National REDD+ policy networks: From cooperation to conflict. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06643-190414

Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., & Carmenta, R. (2014). REDD+ policy networks: Exploring actors and power structures in an emerging policy domain. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07098-190429

Bureekul, T. (2000). Public participation in environmental management in Thailand. Center for the Study of Thai Politics and Democracy, King Prajadhipok's Institute, Thailand, pp. 67.

Cabello, J., & Gilbertson, T. (2012). A colonial mechanism to enclose lands: a critical review of two REDD+ focused special issues. Ephemera, 12, 162-180.

Carrer, M., Maia, A., Vinholis, M., & Filho, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of rural credit policy on the adoption of integrated crop-livestock systems in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 92, 1044-1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104468

Chesoh, S. (2010). Community perception, satisfaction and participation toward power plant development in Southernmost of Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(2), 84-88. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v3n2p84

Cleaver, F. (2012). Development through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management. London: Routledge, 224 pp.

Cotula, L. & Mayers, J. (2009). Tenure in REDD: start point or afterthought? Natural Resource Issues, No. 15. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development, 67 pp.

Da Silva A, Cenamo M & Chávez G. (2017). Mapeamento dos Fluxos Financeiros para REDD+ e Uso da Terra no Brasil: análise nacional e subnacional para período de 2009 a 2016. [In Portuguese]. Forest Trends/IDESAM Report, Brazil. pdf version, 33pp. Accessed 03 April 2020. https://idesam.org/ publicacao/Mapeamento-fluxos-REDD.pdf

Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2005). The contribution of network governance to sustainable development. Idées pour le débat (ex-Les Séminaires de l'Iddri n° 13), 15pp.

DeShazo, J., Lal Pandey, C. & Smith, Z. (2016). Why REDD will fail. Studies in Environmental Policy. Published by Routledge Focus, Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK and New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851105

Di Gregorio, M. & Brockhaus, M. (2010). A brief overview: Component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. CIFOR Brief 13. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Di Gregorio. M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom, E., Mardiah, S., & Santoso, L. (2015). Deadlock or transformational change? Exploring public discourse on REDD+ across seven countries. Global Environmental Politics, 15(4), 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00322

Duchelle, A., Simonet, G., Sunderlin, W. & Wunder, S. (2018). What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32:134-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.07.001

Fatorelli, L., Gebara, M. F., May, P., Zhang, S., & Di Gregorio, M. (2015). The REDD+ governance landscape and the challenge of coordination in Brazil (Vol. 115). CIFOR.

Fosci, M. (2013). The Economic Case for prioritizing governance over financial incentives in REDD+. Climate Policy, 13:170-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.745112

Fujisaki, T., Hyakumura, K., Scheyvens, H., & Cadman, T. (2016). Does REDD+ Ensure Sectoral Coordination and Stakeholder Participation? A Comparative Analysis of REDD+ National Governance Structures in Countries of Asia-Pacific Region. Forests, 7(195), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090195

Gallo, P., & Albrecht, E. (2019). Brazil and the Paris Agreement: REDD+ as an instrument of Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution compliance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Journal 19(1), 123-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-018-9426-9

Gallo, P., Brites, A., & Micheletti, T. (2020). REDD+ achievements and challenges in Brazil: Perceptions over time (2015-2019). Infobrief 288. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Gebara, M., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Beyond rewards and punishments in the Brazilian Amazon: Practical implications of the REDD+ discourse. Forests 2017(8), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8030066

Gebara, M., Fatorelli, L., May, P., & Zhang, S. (2014). REDD+ policy networks in Brazil: constraints and opportunities for successful policy making. Ecology and Society 19(3), 53. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06744-190353

Gebara, M., Gallo, P., Brites, A. & Micheletti, T. (2020). The Pluriversality of Efforts to Reduce Deforestation in Brazil over the Past Decade: An Analysis of Policy Actors' Perceptions. Forests, 11, 1061-1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101061

Gebara, M.F., May, P., Carmenta, R., Calixto, B., Brockhaus, M., & Di Gregorio, M. Norman, Marigold & Nakhooda, Smita, The State of REDD+ Finance (May 2015). Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 378, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2622743 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2622743

Gibbs, H., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D., Noojipady, P., Soares-Filho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L., & Walker, N. (2015). Brazil's Soy Moratorium. Science, 347(6220), 377-378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0181

Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for good governance in the 21st Century. Institute on Governance, Policy Brief 15, 9 pp.

Greenpeace (2015). The Amazon's silent crisis: license to Launder. Greenpeace Brazil Report, pdf version.

Gregersen H., Lakany H. E., Karsenty A., & White A. (2010). Does the opportunity cost approach indicate the real cost of REDD+. Technical Report, Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, USA.

Guéneau, S. (2018). Neoliberalism and the emergence of private sustainability initiatives: the case of the Brazilian cattle value chain. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27, 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2013

Guerra, R. & Moutinho, P. (2020). Challenges of Sharing REDD+ Benefits in the Amazon Region. Forests 11(9):1012 https://doi.org/10.3390/f11091012

Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Adshead, D., Bogaerts, M., Maguire-Rajpaul, V., Pinto, L., McDermott, C., Milder, J., Wollenberg, E., & Agrawal, A. (2019). Scaling up sustainability in commodity agriculture: transferability of governance mechanisms across the coffee and cattle sectors in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206: 124-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.102

Henderson, I., Coello, J., Fischer, R., Mulder, I., & Christophersen, T. (2013). The Role of the Private Sector in REDD+: The Case for Engagement and Options for Intervention. UN-REDD Policy Brief, 4:12.

Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Koch, N., Ermgassen, E., Wehkamp, J., Filho, F. & Schwerhoff, G. (2019). Agricultural productivity and forest conservation: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(3), 919-940. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay110

Laing, T., Taschini, L. & Palmer, C. (2016). Understanding the demand for REDD+ credits. Environmental Conservation, 43(4):389-396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000187

Lambin, E., Gibbs, H., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, k., Fleck, L., Garret, R., le Polain de Waroux, Y., McDemort, C., McLaughlin, D., Nweton, P., Nolte C., Pacheco, P., Rausch, L., Streck, C., Thorlakson, T., & Walker, N. (2018). The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, Perspective. Macmillan Publishers, 8pp. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1

Larson, A.M., Corbera, E., Cronkleton, P., van Dam, C., Bray, D., Estrada, M., & Pacheco, P. (2010). Rights to forests and carbon under REDD+ initiatives in Latin America. CIFOR InfoBrief 33. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Leventon, J., Kalaba, F., Dyer, J.., Stringer, L., & Dougill, A. (2014). Delivering community benefits through REDD+: lessons from joint forest management in Zambia. Forest Policy and Economics, 44, 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.005

Lima, P.G.B. (2014). Strengthening livelihood flows on Payment for Environmental Services through local lenses: evidences from the Bolsa Floresta Programme. Journal of Sustainable Development Studies 7(1), 52-83.

Lima. P.G.B. (2017). Brazil in the global forest governance: The Brazilian initiative of developing a national strategy on REDD+ policies [PhD Thesis]. Cottbus, Germany: BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg.

Lindsay, P. & Norman, D.A. (1977). Human information processing: An Introduction to psychology. 2nd edition, Academic Press Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-450960-3.50010-5

Loft, L., Ravikumar, A., Gebara, M. F., Pham, T. T., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Assembe, S., Tovar, J. G., Mwangi, M., & Andersson, K. (2015). Taking stock of carbon rights in REDD+ candidate countries: concept meets reality. Forests, 6(4), 1031-1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6041031

Lubowski, R., & Rose, S. (2013). The potential for REDD+: Key economic modeling insights and issues. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 7(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/res024

Lujan, B., & Sliva-Chávez, G. (2018). Mapping Forest Finance: a Landscape of Available Sources of Finance for REDD+ and Climate Action in Forests. Environmental Defense Fund, Forest Trends, and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Working Paper. New York, USA.

Maniatis, D., Scriven, J., Jonckheere, I., Laughlin, J., & Todd, K. (2019). Toward REDD+ Implementation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44, 8.1-8.26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060839

May, P. H., Millikan, B., & Gebara, M. F. (2011a). The context of REDD+ in Brazil: drivers, agents, and institutions. Occasional paper 55. CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia. Revised edition.

May, P.H., Calixto, B., & Gebara, M.F. (2011b). REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Brazil. Working Paper 55. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Mbatu, R. (2016). Redd + research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.010

Moeliono, M., Brockhaus, M., Gallemore, C., Dwisatrio, B., Maharani, C., Muharrom, E., & Pham, T.T. (2020). REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project? Forest Policy and Economics 121, 102-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102316

Myers, R., Fisher, M., Monterroso, I., Liswanti, N., Maryudi, A., Larson, A. M., ... & Herawati, T. (2022). Coordinating forest tenure reform: Objectives, resources and relations in Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Peru, and Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics, 139, 102718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102718

Nepstad D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., Bezerra, T., DiGiano, M., Shimada, J., Motta, R., Armijo, E., Castello, L., Brando, P., Hansen, M., McGrath-Horn, M., Carvalho, O., & Hess, L. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344(618), 1118-1123. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248525

Newig, J., D. Günther, & C. Pahl-Wostl. (2010). Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and Society 15(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03713-150424

Norman M. & Nakhooda S. (2015). The state of REDD+ finance. Center for Global Development Working Paper 378. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2622743

Norsworthy, L. A. (2000). Rural Development, natural resources and the environment: lessons of experience in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. World Bank, n. 20265, 136 pp. Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-4717-9

OECD. (2012). Measuring regulatory performance: a practitioner's guide to perception surveys, OECD Publishing.

Ozinga, S. (2012) The Impact of REDD on Forest Governance. In: Moving Forward with Forest Governance. ETFRN news, 53, 141-148.

Peskett, L., & Brodnig, G. (2011). Carbon Rights in REDD+: Exploring the Implications for Poor and Vulnerable People. World Bank and REDD-net Working Paper. Accessed 14 June 2020. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/700581468331843375/pdf/658640WP00PUBL0ng0and0Carbon0Rights.pdf

Peters, B. G. (2018). The challenge of policy coordination. Journal Policy Design and Practice, 1(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1437946

Pham, T.T., Moeliono, M., Yuwono, J., Dwisatrio, B. & Gallo, P. (2021b). REDD+ finance in Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam: Stakeholder perspectives between 2009-2019. Global Environmental Change, 70, 1023-1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102330

Pham, T.T., Ngo, H.C., Dao, T.L.C., Hoang, T.L. & Moeliono, M. (2021a). Participation and influence of REDD+ actors in Vietnam, 2011-2019. Global Environmental Change, 68, 1022-1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102249

Phan T.H.D., Brouwer, R., & Davidson, M. (2014). The economic costs of avoided deforestation in the developing world: a meta-analysis. J Forest Econ 20(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2013.06.004

Picoli, M., Rorato, A., Leitão, P., Camara, G., Maciel, A., Hostet, P., & Sanches, I. (2020). Impacts of public and private sector policies on soybean and pasture expansion in Mato Grosso - Brazil from 2001 to 2017. Land, 9(20),15. Basel, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9010020

Pierre, J. & Peters, G. (2000). Governance, politics, and the state. New York, St. Martin's Press.

Purnomo, H., Okarda, B., Puspitaloka, D., Ristiana, N., Sanjaya, M., Komarudin, H., ... & Brady, M. A. (2023). Public and private sector zero-deforestation commitments and their impacts: A case study from South Sumatra Province, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 134, 106818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106818

Rao, V. S. P., & Narayana, P. S. (1998). Organisation theory and behaviour. Delhi: Konark Publishing Company, pp. 329-330.

Ravikumar, A., Larson, A., Myers, R. & Trench, T. (2018). Inter-sectoral and multilevel coordination alone do not reduce deforestation and advance environmental justice: Why bold contestation works when collaboration fail. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. SAGE, 36(8), 1437-1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418794025

Sanches, J. & Bataglia, W. (2015). The Legal institutional environment in Brazil and the collective and private guarantee mechanisms for economic transactions. 10th Research Workshop on Institutions and Organizations - RWIO Center for Organization Studies - CORS.

Sheng, J. (2020). Private sector participation and incentive coordination of actors in REDD+. Forest Policy and Economics, 118, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102262

Simonet G., Atmadja, S., Agrawal A., Bénédet F., Cromberg M., de Perthuis C., Haggard D., Jansen N., Karsenty A., Liang W., Morel, A., Newton P., Sales A-M, Satwika, A., Schaap B., Seyller C., Selviana, V., & Vaillant G. (2020). ID-RECCO, International Database on REDD+ projects and programs: Linking Economics, Carbon and Communities.

Skole, D., Chomentowski, W., Salas, W. & Nobre, A. (1994). Physical and human dimensions of deforestation in Amazonia. BioScience, 44(5), 314-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312381

Skutsch, M., Torres, A. & Fuentes, J. (2017). Policy for pro-poor distribution of REDD+ benefits in Mexico: How the legal and technical challenges are being addressed. Forest Policy and Economics, 75, 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.014

Sparovek, G., Reydon, B., Pinto, L., Faria, V., Freitas, F., Azevedo-Ramos. C., Gardner, T., Hamamura, C., Rajão, R., & Cerignoni, F. (2019). Who owns Brazilian lands? Land Use Policy 87, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104062

Thompson, M.C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E.R. (2011). Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environental Science Policy, 14, 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.006

Tyler, T., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal Criminal Law, 6, 231-276.

Van der Hoff, R., Rajão, R., Leroy, P. & Boezeman, D. (2015). The parallel materialization of REDD+ implementation discourses in Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 55, 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.005

Vatn, A. and Angelsen, A. (2009). Options for a national REDD+ architecture. In: Angelsen, A. with Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W. D. and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. (eds) 2009. Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 5, 57-74.

Virah-Sawmy, M., Duran, A., Green, J., Guerrero, A., Biggs, D., & West, C. (2019). Sustainability gridlock in a global agricultural commodity chain: Reframing the soy-meat food system. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18, 210-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.01.003

Walker, N., Patel, S. & Kalif, K. (2013). From Amazon pasture to the high street: deforestation and the Brazilian cattle product supply chain. Tropical Conservation Science. Mongabay.com Open Access Journal, Special Issue, 6(3), 446-467. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291300600309

Wensing D. (2021). Why forest-based carbon trading is poised to go mainstream. Greenbiz.com. Accessed 28 June 2021. https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-forest-based-carbon-trading-poised-go-mainstream

Wong, G., Luttrell, C., Loft, L., Yang, A., Pham, T., Naito, D., Assembe-Mvodo, S. & Brockhaus, M. (2019). Narratives in REDD + benefit sharing: examining evidence within and beyond the forest sector, Climate Policy, 19(8), 1038-1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1618786

Wunder, S., Duchelle, A., Sassi, C. Sills, E., Simonet, G. & Sunderlin, W. (2020) REDD+ in Theory and Practice: How Lessons From Local Projects Can Inform Jurisdictional Approaches. Frontiers in Forest and Global Change, 3(11), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00011

Downloads

Publicado

2023-09-05

Como Citar

Gallo, P., Gebara, M. F., Micheletti, T., & Brites, A. D. (2023). Percepção do setor privado sobre a redução do desmatamento no Brasil: análise dos desafios de 2010 a 2019. Revista Produção E Desenvolvimento, 9(1), e637. https://doi.org/10.32358/rpd.2023.v9.637

Edição

v. 9 n. 1 (2023): Janeiro-Dezembro

Seção

Assuntos Territoriais

Licença

Copyright (c) 2023 Revista Produção e Desenvolvimento

Creative Commons License
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Todo o conteúdo do periódico é licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons BY - Atribuição 4.0 Não Adaptada (CC BY 4.0). Autores e co-autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de publicação, sem retribuição financeira para os autores, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação.

Os artigos são livres de usar, com suas próprias atribuições de licença CC BY.

A revista não se responsabiliza pelas opiniões, ideias e conceitos emitidos nos textos, por serem de inteira responsabilidade de seu(s) autor(es). Os artigos aqui publicados são de responsabilidade exclusiva do(s) autor(es), observando a Lei de Direito Autoral n 9.610, de 19 de fevereiro de 1998. Salientamos que cabe ao periódico apenas a responsabilidade da avaliação dos artigos, sendo um veículo de publicação científica.

O editor possui o direito de rejeitar os artigos que no processo de avaliação tenham sido detectados indícios de plágio. Os artigos que tenham sido detectados indícios de plágio posteriormente à publicação, serão excluídos da edição. E a indicação do problema será informada no lugar do texto, mantendo-se a mesma quantidade de paginas.

Esta Revista adota os princípios de conduta ética do Comitê de Ética na Publicação (COPE) da qualidade internacional, bem como os parâmetros de Integridade na Atividade Científica indicados pelo SCOPUS e SCIELO.