PARTICIPATORY LAND USE PLANNING IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON: CREATING LEARNING ...

167 Pages·2009·2.58 MB·English

PARTICIPATORY LAND USE PLANNING IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON: CREATING
LEARNING NETWORKS AMONG FARMERS, NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS, AND GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

By

WENDY-LIN BARTELS

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2009
1
© 2009 Wendy-Lin Bartels

2
To Proambiente families, extension agents, and management council members who believe in a
sustainable future for the Amazon and who shared their hopes with me

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Even in his absence, my father continues to inspire me. As a child I observed the patience
he practiced while nurturing life on the farm – despite the unpredictability of the elements. His
faith in the resilience of nature, his commitment to hard work, and his spiritual devotion to a
divine creative force shaped my understanding of this world and my place in it.
The greatest part of my academic journey is that I did not make it alone. I would like to
thank my mother and Aunty Leigh for teaching me that learning is a lifelong endeavor, and for
continually supporting my educational pursuits. I am grateful to my sister Hayley for her love
across the oceans and for the blessings of my nephews Jonty and Lewis. I thank Alicia for being
my friend (and my family) for the past 13 years during both the darkest and the lightest of times.
I owe a great debt to Matthew and Vito for their emotional support and culinary gifts that have
sustained me during the final push of this academic ordeal.
I am grateful to Dr. Marianne Schmink, my committee chair, who guided me as I
developed my proposal, built partnerships in Brazil, and refined concepts relating to this study.
Her unwavering belief that I had an important story to tell about Amazonian smallholders was
very much appreciated as I tried to complete this dissertation. Dr. Tracy Irani and Dr. Chris
McCarty provided much of the theoretical foundation for this study early on in my Ph.D.
program. As members of my committee, they continually challenged me to broaden the scope of
my study. Dr. Bob Buschbacher drove me to question my research decisions and his knowledge
of the complexities of land use change and decision making in the Amazon proved invaluable.
I am grateful to the partner organizations Group of Research and Extension in Agroforestry
Systems of Acre (PESACRE) and the Foundation Live, Produce, and Preserve (FVPP) in Brazil
for their logistical support that facilitated this study. I thank rural agricultural extension agents,
4
and in particular, Adair and Hilza. Many rural families opened their homes to me in Acre and
shared their hopes, dreams, and fears with me, making this study possible. I thank them all.
I am thankful to the Social Learning Team group on campus, which grounded me and
inspired me to better understand group dynamics and how people learn together. Guru Jon Dain,
Franklin, Tita, and Samantha contributed to molding me into a skilled facilitator (who never
panics). I thank my friends for getting me away from the computer to watch the moon rise or
sun set over Paynes Prairie in order to balance my life as a student (Lin-Pin, AmyS, Anna,
Maria, AmyD, Vava, Gera, Shoana, Claudia, Merriment, Richardsss, John, Christine, Bibia,
Kathleen, Sylvia, AmyW and ChristineL).
I am thankful to the administrative staff at the University of Florida (UF) who supported
the red tape involved in such an endeavor, Nancy Peterson, Candy Kaswinkle, Hannah Covert,
Patricia, Meisha and Cathy. Finally, I acknowledge the funders of this dissertation. I received a
National Science Foundation (NSF) preliminary dissertation grant through the Working Forests
in the Tropics Program at UF. Through Roberto Porro, the World Agroforestry Center supported
my fieldwork in Brazil for 16 months in addition to the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) Linkage Funds. In Gainesville, I was afforded graduate assistantships
through the Tropical Conservation and Development Program and from the Natural Resources
Leadership Institute. During the final stages of this study, I received funding from the Delores
Auzenne Grant though the Minorities Program at UF.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ 10
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 14
Research Goals ............................................................................................................................ 15
Structure of this Dissertation ...................................................................................................... 17
Literature Review of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) ........................................ 17
Underlying Assumptions, Concepts, and Definition of PES ............................................ 18
Elements of PES Design ..................................................................................................... 20
Types of activities being compensated ....................................................................... 20
Stakeholders involved .................................................................................................. 20
Types of financing and benefit schemes ..................................................................... 22
Enrollment, targeting, and constraints to participation .............................................. 23
Conditionality and monitoring .................................................................................... 24
Transaction costs .......................................................................................................... 26
Meeting Conservation and Poverty-Reduction Goals: Challenged for PES .................... 27
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 30
Findings and Importance of this Research................................................................................. 32
Limitations of this Research ....................................................................................................... 33
2 DIVERSIFYING LIVELIHOOD SYSTEMS AND REWARDING
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AMONG SMALL-SCALE PRODUCERS IN
THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON ................................................................................................... 34
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 34
Market-Based Incentives, Amazon Smallholders, and Environmental Stewardship.............. 35
Proambiente, Participatory Land Use Planning, and PES ........................................................ 36
Transformation of Small-Scale Rural Producers in the Brazilian Amazon............................. 38
A Case Study in the State of Acre .............................................................................................. 40
The Design of Proambiente ........................................................................................................ 42
Geographical Coverage ....................................................................................................... 42
Participants: Socio-Economic Characteristics and Family Selection ............................... 44
Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................. 45
Proambiente’s Implementation Process ............................................................................. 49
Definition and Monitoring of the Environmental Services ............................................... 52

6
PES: The Nature of Rewards ............................................................................................. 53
Transaction Costs................................................................................................................. 55
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 59
3 SEEKING COMMON GROUND IN PROAMBIENTE: STAKEHOLDER
PRIORITIES AND FRAMING OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ................................. 62
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 62
Framing: A Theoretical Framework and a Method for Data Analysis .................................... 64
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 66
Study Site ..................................................................................................................................... 66
Seringal Porto Carlos .......................................................................................................... 67
Vila Nari Bela Flor .............................................................................................................. 68
Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................................ 69
Data Analysis Techniques .......................................................................................................... 71
Issues of Reliability ..................................................................................................................... 72
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 74
Framing Proambiente .......................................................................................................... 74
Stakeholder Priorities in Proambiente ................................................................................ 83
Stakeholder Understanding of “Environmental Services” ................................................ 85
Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 90
Variation in Interpretations of “Conservation” within Proambiente ................................ 91
The Importance of the “P” in PES ...................................................................................... 94
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 95
4 PLANNING SUSTAINABLE FUTURES IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON:
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOCIAL LEARNING AMONG FARMERS, NON-
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS ......................................... 98
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 98
Learning as Participation .......................................................................................................... 100
Research Goals and Questions ................................................................................................. 107
Research Methods ..................................................................................................................... 108
Results ........................................................................................................................................ 114
Community Networks, Internal Brokers and External Alliances ................................... 114
Levels of Participation among Stakeholders on Proambiente’s State Management
Council............................................................................................................................ 122
Stakeholder Utilization of Program Planning Tools and Program Impacts at the
Community and Institutional Level .............................................................................. 127
Discussion and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 138
Brokers Within and Beyond Networks ............................................................................ 138
Management Plans as Platforms for Learning ................................................................. 140
Democratic Environmental Governance .......................................................................... 142
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................... 144
Issues of Reliability and Instrument Validity .................................................................. 144
The Importance of Non-Participating Families ............................................................... 145
7
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 146
APPENDIX
A PROAMBIENTE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL .................................................................... 155
B SOCIAL NETWORK RESULTS ............................................................................................ 156
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 157
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 166

8
LIST OF TABLES
Table page

2-1 Costs associated with Proambiente since 2005 in the State of Acre ................................... 58
2-2 Payment of technical and community agents in Acre, showing months they received
salaries..................................................................................................................................... 58
3-1 Stakeholders interviewed in Acre. ........................................................................................ 67
3-2 Text responses analyzed and number of frames identified.................................................. 74
3-3 Categorization of frames ........................................................................................................ 74
4-1 Recoded data for community groups Porto Carlos (PC) and Nari Bela Flor (NB). ....... 112

9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page

2-1 Map of Amazonian states, indicating the 11 original poles of Proambiente. ..................... 43
2-2 Family distribution in the Alto Acre pole within the State of Acre .................................... 43
2-3 Proambiente stakeholders in Acre: non-governmental organizations and government
institutions constitute the management council.................................................................... 48
2-4 The evolution of Proambiente in the Acre Pole 2000-2008 ................................................ 52
2-5 Proposed mechanism of payment .......................................................................................... 55
3-1 Families prioritizing aspects of the Proambiente program. ................................................. 70
3-2 Stakeholder framing of Proambiente .................................................................................... 81
3-3 Frames used by stakeholder groups ...................................................................................... 81
3-4 Stakeholder group use of sub-frames within the “conservation” frame ............................. 82
3-5 Frames used by participating famlies.................................................................................... 83
3-6 Stakholder ranking of program aspects according to importance ....................................... 84
3-7 Program aspects ranked as most important by stakeholder groups..................................... 84
3-8 Program aspects ranked as least important by stakeholder groups ..................................... 84
3-9 Respondents who can explain the concept of “environmental services”............................ 85
3-10 Framing of “environmental services” ................................................................................... 88
3-11 Perceived needs covered with Proambiente payments ........................................................ 89
4-1 Personal relationship network diagram for Nari Bela Flor (NB) ...................................... 116
4-2 Personal relationship network diagram for Seringal Porto Carlos (PC) ........................... 119
4-3 Self ranked levels of participation by council members .................................................... 122
4-4 Peer ranking of participation levels in program implementation ...................................... 123
4-5 Prioritization of Proambiente among other tasks ............................................................... 124
4-6 Capacity to contribute resources to Proambiente ............................................................... 125
10