MPEG Symposium

21 Nov 2007

Environmental legislation and forest biodiversity retention in a tropical deforestation frontier

Carlos Peres Fernanda Michalski Alexander Lees
Centre for Ecology, Evolution & Conservation University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK C.Peres@uea.ac.uk

Cdigo Florestal Brasileiro

1) Reservas Legais (RLs)
Every private property is required to set aside 20% of forest cover, increasing to 80% in Amazonia; Sustainable forest management can be authorized within the RLs on the basis of a management plan.

Cdigo Florestal Brasileiro

2) Permanent Preservation Areas (APPS)
Private landholdings are legally required to set aside riparian forest strips Riparian buffers are protected by fixed minimum widths alongside waterways CONAMA Resolution (2002)

Stream/river width <10m 10 50m 50 200 m 200 - 600

Buffer strip width 30 m 50 m 100 m 200 m

Two key questions

Q1 To what extent these poorly enforced legal requirements effectively protect forest cover within private properties? Q2 To what degree does the remaining forest cover within RLs and APPs effectively retain forest biodiversity?

Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso

37.5% forest

Drivers of forest loss

(1984 2004)

1975
Ri

Te les

Pi re s

1984

1990

1996

2004

Evolution of the landscape

Michalski, Peres & Lake, in press

Question 1: Levels of legal compliance

Landscape Structure 1981 Plano de Colonizao -- 2004

Alta Floresta

Remaining forest cover and rates of illegal deforestation scale to property size

ATIVOS

PASSIVOS

Width of remnant forest corridors

(N = 200 corridors)

Question 2: Levels of biodiversity retention

Large vertebrates: 144 forest patches Large mammals: 23 patches Birds: 31 patches Trees: 23 patches Drosophilids: 30 patches

Mammal species-area relationships

Species records based on all sampling techniques

Mean (SD) species per 10 detections based on line-transect census Michalski and Peres 2007. Conservation Biology

Bird species area relationships

Lees and Peres in press

Species richness of forest vertebrates

50

Observed species richness

R2 = 0.737
40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Species richness fit (PA + % CCF + % Forest in 1km buffer)

GLM, R2 = 0.737
Coeff. 5.069 8.151 Std Error 0.610 3.052 t value 8.308 2.670 P(>|t|) 0.0000 0.0085

Source Patch area (log10) % CC forest within the patch (arcsin) % Forest within a 1-km buffer

5.267

1.734

3.038

0.0028

Nest survivorship increases in larger patches

1.0

0.8

Terrestrial Arboreal

Nest Predation Rate

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

log Forest Patch Area (ha)

Experimental data: 956 ground nests + 956 arboreal nests 29 Forest patches

Carmenta & Peres, unpubl. data

Different sources of predation

are spatially correlated

Carmenta & Peres, unpubl. data

Nest predation elevates local extinction rates

16

40

UNDERSTOREY
0.3 0. 4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0. 8 0.9 1.0

12

30

GROUND

20

10

0 0.2

0 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

MEAN PREDATION RATE

20

MEAN PREDATION RATE

90 80

15

70 60

FOSSORIAL

10

WOOD
0.3 0. 4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0. 8 0.9 1.0

50 40 30 20

0 0.2

10 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

MEAN PREDATION RATE

MEAN PREDATION RATE

Peres, Carmenta & Lees, unpubl. data

Species-area relationship

Nonrandom species loss

Truncating species assemblages

Species persisting in small patches are supertramps

Mean occupancy (p)

Species disassembly in increasingly impoverished patches is highly predictable

Occupancy probability

Mammals
48 species 144 patches Fill: 57.9%

20%

100% Birds
336 species 31 patches Fill: 29.6% 72 species 30 patches Fill: 16.6%

Drosophilids

Trees
148 genera 60 patches Fill: 20.9%

Patch area effects: Nonrandom compositional changes

Size of forest fragments

150

1984
100
Count

150

150 0.14 0.12

Proportion per Bar

150

1988
100
Count

0.10 0.08

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

Count

2004
0.12 0.10
Proportion per Bar

0.14

0.14 0.12

1992
Proportion per Bar

0.14 0.12
Proportion per Bar

100

0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

50

0.06

100
Count

50

50

0.04 0.02 0.00

0.10 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0 1 1 10

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0 1 1 10

0.00

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0 1 1 10

Fragment size (ha)

Fragment size (ha)

150

50

Fragment 0.06 size (ha)

150 0.14 0.12

Proportion per Bar

150

1996
100
Count

2000
100
Count

0.14 0.12
Proportion per Bar

0.04 0.02 0.00

2004

0.14 0.12
Proportion per Bar

0.10 0.08

0.10 0.08

100
Count

0.10 0.08

50

0
0 0 .0

0.06 0.04

01

0 0.02 0 .0
0.00

10

50

0.06

1 0 .0

00

0 0 .1

00

0 1 .0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 01 00 00 10 00 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0 1 1 10

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 00 01 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0 1 1 10

00 000 000 000 000 .0 .0 .0 .0 10 100 0.020 000 0 0 10.00 10 0

0.04

50

0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

Fragment size (ha)

Fragment size (ha)

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 01 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0 1 1 10

Fragment size (ha)

Fragment size (ha)

Alta Floresta Property size structure

Regional metacommunity collapse

Metacommunity size is defined as (pred. no. of forest vertebrate populations per patch * forest patch area)

Metacommunity size declines faster than the total forest cover

Riparian forest corridors

24 connected corridors
connected to patches >1000 ha

8 unconnected corridors 5 control riparian sites

within large areas of primary forest (>11,000 ha)

Vertical structure of corridors

100 m

Lees & Peres. In press. Conservation Biology

Species richness, corridor width and habitat quality

Lees & Peres. In press. Conservation Biology

Remnant forest corridors

below the recommended width

Pontos principais
A taxa de desobedincias s leis do Cdigo Florestal altssima, mas ainda muito mais grave em pequenas propriedades rurais; Programas de reassentamento do Governo e as leis do Cdigo Florestal favorecem o processo de fragmentao de mata em frentes agropecurias, resultando numa enorme predominncia de pequenas manchas de mata; O papel de pequenas manchas de mata muito limitado tanto em termos da riqueza, quanto a composio, das espcies persistentes, e isso se agrava em manchas de baixa qualidade; Um Mecanismo de Compensao eficaz permitiria que os proprietrios com um passivo de RL possam se adequar adquirindo reas excedentes de reservas em outras propriedades, ou ento arcando com os custos de indenizao de propriedades privadas dentro de Unidades de Conservao.

Policy bottlenecks in Mato Grosso

Apesar da alta tecnologia dos sistemas de licenciamento e controle (SIPAM, PRODES, DETER, SIAD, and SLAPR) operando desde 1999, isso no tem sido suficiente para efetivamente coibir o desmatamento ilegal. Baixo ritmo de adeses ao SLAPR desde 2005; somente 2.8% da rea total de imveis rurais do MT ao ano; Grandes problemas tcnicos e de falta de infraestrutura e pessoal no monitoramento e fiscalizao do desmatamento; Grande passivo acumulado de fiscalizao do desmatamento; 1.8 Mha e ~5,000 polgonos de desmatamento ilegal no autuados; Do total de multas aplicadas desde 2000 a passivos acumulados, somente 1-4% foram recolhidas.