The forest transition in São Paulo, Brazil: historical patterns and potential drivers

Agricultural expansion has caused extensive deforestation throughout the tropics in the last decades, nevertheless, some countries have experienced native forest gains. In the 20th century, the state of São Paulo, Brazil, transitioned from an agricultural frontier to an agro-industrial state, and in parallel, from a high deforestation rate to a net gain in native forest. Here we examine the biophysical and socioeconomic factors that best explain land use and forest cover change in the state, at the municipality scale, over four consecutive intervals between 1960 and 2006. We hypothesized that factors that increase the productivity of agricultural land or reduce pressure on land development would lead to regeneration. Although results differed among intervals, our analyses demonstrate that forest gains were greater in municipalities with high forest cover percentage and steep slopes, and in areas that employed a large number of workers and relied on intensive fertilizer inputs. At the same time, forest loss was higher in municipalities with a large portion of agricultural land and soils with higher water retention capacity. These results reveal that land-use expansion led to forest loss in areas more suitable for agriculture, while forest gains occurred mainly in less suitable areas. Over time, agricultural expansion leveled off and agriculture intensification enabled forest gains, which were most marked in areas with a high percentage of forest remnants. Ultimately, however, these proximate drivers of forest change were driven by governmental policies to modernize agriculture and to protect natural ecosystems

Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot

Ecological set-asides are a promising strategy for conserving biodiversity in human-modified landscapes; however, landowner participation is often precluded by financial constraints. We assessed the ecological benefits and economic costs of paying landowners to set aside private land for restoration. Benefits were calculated from data on nearly 25,000 captures of Brazilian Atlantic Forest vertebrates, and economic costs were estimated for several restoration scenarios and values of payment for ecosystem services. We show that an annual investment equivalent to 6.5% of what Brazil spends on agricultural subsidies would revert species composition and ecological functions across farmlands to levels found inside protected areas, thereby benefiting local people. Hence, efforts to secure the future of this and other biodiversity hotspots may be cost-effective.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP

Response to comment on "Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot"

Finney claims that we did not include transaction costs while assessing the economic costs of a set-aside program in Brazil and that accounting for them could potentially render large payments for environmental services (PES) projects unfeasible. We agree with the need for a better understanding of transaction costs but provide evidence that they do not alter the feasibility of the set-aside scheme we proposed

Crédito rural e código florestal: irmãos como Caim e Abel?

A lei do Crédito Rural (CR) e o Novo Código Florestal (NCF) nasceram em 1965 e, ao contrário do que se poderia supor, tinham o objetivo comum de incrementar a produtividade agropecuária. Entretanto, o CR não exige o cumprimento do NCF e nem das obrigações tributárias e previdenciárias, o que prioriza os retornos econômicos em detrimento da conservação ambiental e do desenvolvimento social rural.<br>The Rural Credit (RC) law and the New Forest Code (NFC) were both born in 1965 and, contrarily to what one might suppose, they shared the common goal of increasing agricultural productivity. However, the RC neither requires compliance with NFC nor with tributary and social security laws, what takes economic returns as priority against environmental conservation and rural social development