completion report project - itto.int · 1 completion report of project pd 346/05 rev.2 (f)...

1

COMPLETION REPORT OF PROJECT

PD 346/05 Rev.2 (F)

CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY OF DEGRADED LAND IN FAMILY

AGRICULTURE UNITS IN THE EASTERN BRAZILIAN AMAZON

BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT

EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA

EMBRAPA EASTERN AMAZON

2

Project ITTO PD 346/05 Rev.2 (F)

Starting Date

December 01, 2007

Duration

110 months

Project Costs (US$)

ITTO 324,000.00

COUNTERPART 191,700.00

TOTAL 515,700.00

Report

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

Prepared at EMBRAPA CPATU Headquarters ‐ City of Belém, Pará State, July, 2016

Period covered by this Report

December 01, 2007 to July 30, 2016

Project Technical and Scientific Staff

Name Responsibility Institution

Silvio Brienza Júnior Project Coordinator. Responsible for implementing technical activities and supervising financial activities executed by Fidesa

EMBRAPA

Maria do Socorro Ferreira

Project sub‐coordinator. Responsible for training courses and monitoring of land recover units

EMBRAPA

Lucieta G. Martorano Project collaborator for the monitoring of recover plots units

EMBRAPA

Noemi Vianna Martins Leão Responsible for training course about seed collection and seedling production

EMBRAPA

Joice Ferreira Project collaborator related to monitoring of recover plots units

EMBRAPA

Edílson Carvalho Brasil Project collaborator related to monitoring of recover plots units

EMBRAPA

Sandra Holanda Embrapa Eastern Amazon Technician. Responsible for the supervision of financial activities executed by Fidesa

EMBRAPA

3

Maricélia Gonçalves Barbosa

MSc. In Family Farming and Sustainable Development ‐ INOVAGRI Project Consultant

FIDESA/ITTO

Syglea Rejane M. Lopes PhD in Environmental Law – INOVAGRI Project Consultant FIDESA/ITTO

Vanessa Sousa FAPESPA Fellow– collaborated in different activities EMBRAPA/FAPESPA

Rayssa Yuki K. Lima UFRA Student – collaborated in different activities EMBRAPA/UFRA

Edilce do Socorro Almeida Vieira

Representative of executing institution FIDESA/ITTO

Zilda Lima Administrative of executing institution FIDESA

Antônio J. P. Balderramas IBAMA Employee. Project collaborator for courses of techniques of use and prevention of forest fires

IBAMA

Samuel Freitas IBAMA Employee. Project collaborator for environmental discussion and results dissemination within IBAMA

IBAMA

Ricardo Rodrigues Project collaborator for courses about the recovery ofdegraded land

ESALQ‐USP

Lia Cunha de Oliveira Federal Rural University of Amazonian UFRA

Institutions

Name Address Phone / Email

Embrapa Eastern Amazon ‐ EMBRAPA Cx. Postal 48; CEP 66095‐100; Belém‐PA; Brazil

+55‐(91)‐3204‐1006 [email protected]

Foundation Institute for Amazon Development ‐ FIDESA

Av. Alcindo Cacela, n° 287; Bloco D, sala da reitoria. CEP 66060‐902; Belém‐PA; Brazil

+55‐(91)‐4009‐3013 [email protected]

Rural University of the Amazon ‐ UFRA Av. Tancredo Neves, 2501; CEP 66095‐100, Belém‐PA; Brazil

+55‐(91)‐3274‐2233 www.ufra.edu.br

Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources – IBAMA

Av. Conselheiro Furtado 1303; CEP 66035‐350; Belém‐PA; Brazil

+55‐(91)‐3224‐5899

www.ibama.gov.br

"Luiz de Queiroz" College of Agriculture ‐ ESALQ

Av. Pádua Dias, 11; Piracicaba/SPCEP 13418‐900; Brazil

+55‐(19)‐3429‐4419 [email protected]

Rural Workers Union of Garrafão do Norte ‐ STR / Garrafão do Norte

Setembro 07, 826; CEP 68665‐000; Garrafão do Norte‐PA; Brazil

+55‐(91)‐3434‐4151

Rural Workers Union of Capitão Poço ‐ STR / Capitão Poço

Trav. General Barata, 667; CEP 68.650‐000; Capitão Poço‐PA; Brazil

+55‐(91)‐3468‐1584 [email protected]

Rural Workers Union of Bragança ‐ STR / Bragança

Tv. Coronel Antonio Pedro, s/n; CEP 68600‐000; Bragança‐PA; Brazil

+55‐(91)‐3425‐1169 [email protected]

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 05

1. Project Identification 06

1.1. Context 06

1.2. Origin and problem 13

2. Project Objectives and implementation strategy 18

3. Project Performance (Project elements planned and implemented) 24

4. Project Outcome, Target Beneficiaries Involvement 25

5. Assessment and analysis 28

6. Lessons learned 31

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 32

Annex 1 Project financial statement

Annex 2 Project cash flow statement

5

Executive Summary

The "Conservation and recovery of degraded and in family agriculture units in the Eastern

Brazilian Amazon” Project ‐ PD 346/05 Rev.2 (F)" (INOVAGRI) stemmed from a plea made by a

group of farmers who were concerned about environmental liability areas (Áreas de Reserva

Legal ‐ Legal Reserve areas ‐ ARLs and Permanent Preservation Areas ‐ APPs) within their own

farms. At the time the project was drawn up, legislation in force already anticipated the need

to recover such areas, but little was in fact done. Studies pointed out a lack of information

about how to recover such areas, mainly those lying within family farmed lands. New

guidelines were adopted when the new Forest Code came into force in 2012, and the need

for information about this subject became indisputable. The INOVAGRI project is considered a

pilot initiative in this field. Its goal is to "contribute to the recovery of degraded areas in family

farms of the Eastern Amazon Region in order to increase forest productivity potential and

promote compliance to environmental legislation". A demonstrative network for recovery of

degraded legal reservations and permanent preservation areas within family farms in the

Brazilian Eastern Amazon region was created in order to achieve this goal. A monitoring

system for degraded areas under recovery was also planned. This project was initially planned

for a three year term, yet it extended 5 years longer and lasted 8 years in all. This increment

initially derived from bureaucratic delays in the transfer of disbursements, but it in fact

allowed for a longer period of observation and collection of information that resulted in an

improvement of results. The INOVAGRI project will bequeath a legacy comprising 28 recovery

units that were converted into demonstration units, 28 families trained to act as multipliers of

good environmental practices and disseminators of sustainable property management

practices, and several technicians trained to employ a participatory approach and in a cross‐

cutting understanding of their work. Additionally, the buildup of information and experience

may also be used to subsidize public policies. Among the noteworthy results achieved we may

mention the "Recovery of Degraded Areas Protocol in family farmlands", as well as some

proposals regarding the new Federal Forest Code. With respect to lessons learned, it is

important to highlight the adoption of a "knowledge building and knowledge exchange" point

of view, which considers the exchange of knowledge between researchers and farmers to be

a two‐way channel that encourages technology transfer. This helps farmers to become agents

that disseminate good practices and technicians to become more sensitive to a cross‐cutting

approach. New challenges have arisen since the conclusion of the project, and the mission of

promoting the sustainable development of the Amazon region is a work in progress.

6

1 Project identification

1.1 Context

EMBRAPA Eastern Amazon developed two important projects designed to emphasize the

importance of secondary forests (“capoeira”) in the northeast region of the State of Pará in

association with several national and international institutions, as follows:

• The Tipitamba Project began in 1991 as cooperation project between the German and

Brazilian governments. Several activities were carried out in farmlands to offer alternatives to

'slash‐and‐burn' agriculture techniques. They considered the secondary forest (capoeira or

fallow vegetation) as part of the traditional farming model. The changes that were

recommended and later tested included: i) replacing the traditional ''slash‐and‐burn'

preparation model by the 'cut‐and‐crush' system (mulching); and ii) enriching local fallow

vegetation with fast‐growing leguminous trees in order to shorten the fallow period and

increase the buildup of flora biomass. The Project’s financial resources were provided by the

German Government and by the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological

Development), the Prodetab Project (Support for Agricultural Technology Development in

Brazil) and Funtec, among other institutions.

• The "Secondary Vegetation Forest Management in Agricultural Properties" Project began in

1997. Its main focus was the conservation of secondary forest sites because of its benefits for

rural communities in places where primary forests no longer existed or were very

fragmented. The project was implemented in the Northeast region of the State of Pará.

Executing partners included international institutions (Center for International Forestry

Research ‐ CIFOR; Agronomic Center for Tropical Research and Education ‐ CATIE; Center for

International Cooperation in Agronomic Research for development ‐ CIRAD); Brazilian

governmental institutions (Embrapa Eastern Amazon, Federal Rural University of Amazonia

and Emilio Goeldi Paraense Museum) and Brazilian non‐governmental organizations (Rural

Workers Unions and Agricultural Producers Associations). Throughout time, project activities

were also funded by other institutions such as the IDB, World Bank, EMBRAPA's Prodetab

(Support for Agricultural Technology Development in Brazil) Project, the Pilot Program for the

Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil (PPG7), the ProManejo Project and the Ministry of the

Environment’s National Fund for the Environment. The project went through many periods,

and the number of participating institutions and partners steadily increased. Its outlook

regarding the participatory approach also evolved to include training in natural resource

management focusing on legal reservation and permanent preservation areas. The Project

ended in 2001. From 2001 to 2003 it restarted and ran another two years with financial

support from the Pilot Program for the Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil (PPG7) within

the scope of the Support for Sustainable Forest Management in the Amazon (ProManejo)

7

Promising Projects Initiative. From 2007 onwards all the acquired experience was assimilated

by the INOVAGRI project.

From 2003 to 2004 Embrapa Eastern Amazon was a partner in the "Review of Experiences

regarding the Recovery of Altered Areas in the Brazilian Amazon" Project run by the Center

for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), in partnership with the Environmental Research

Institute of the Amazon (IPAM) and the Emílio Goeldi Paraense Museum (MPEG). This project

was developed simultaneously in Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, China and Peru, and its goal

was to learn about experiences regarding the recovery of altered areas, analyzing them and

drawing conclusions that could steer public and financing policies and increase the chances of

recovery for altered areas in the Amazon. Approximately 350 innovative experiences were

identified throughout the Brazilian Amazon. In addition to its studies about the management

of secondary forests’ natural regeneration, from 2005 on Embrapa Eastern Amazon also

began to carry out research and development activities about the application of participative

strategies for the recovery of degraded areas in family farms, a need that had already been

recognized since 2000. The idea was to detect viable alternatives and test them in these

farms’ land‐use plan in order to reconstitute legal reservations and permanent preservation

areas.

1.1.1 Sector‐specific Policies

The Continental Amazon is a region spanning over 7.5 million square kilometers, about 55% of

which are located in Brazil. It corresponds to roughly 2/3 of the Brazilian territory. The

occurrence of altered/ degraded areas therein is directly related to human occupation. Major

anthropizing activities include livestock, predatory exploitation of timber and non‐timber

products, slash‐and‐burn agriculture and, recently, commercial grain farming. 23,750 km2

were deforested between 2002‐2003 and, during the last 10 years, an estimated 200 000 km2

were deforested, establishing what is today known as the deforestation belt (an arc that

ranges from the states of Maranhão and Tocantins in the east to the states of Pará, Mato

Grosso and Rondônia, and continues south of the State of Amazonas and east of the state of

Acre) (Figure 1).

8

Figure 1. Map showing the deforested area of the Amazon, also called the deforestation belt (Source: IPAM, 2013).

The Brazilian Government set up an Inter‐Ministerial Taskforce (Grupo Permanente de Trabalho Interministerial ‐ GPTI) in order to recommend measures and coordinate activities to diminish the rate of deforestation in the Legal Amazon Region. This taskforce included the following agencies: i) Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento ‐ MAPA); ii) Ministry of Science and Technology (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia ‐ MCT); iii) Ministry of Defence (Ministério da Defesa ‐ MD); iv) Ministry of Agrarian Development (Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário ‐ MDA); v) Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade (Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior ‐ MDIC); vi) Ministry of National Integration (Ministério da Integração Nacional ‐ MI); (vii) Ministry of Justice (Ministério da Justiça ‐ MJ); (viii) Ministry of the Environment (Ministério do Meio Ambiente ‐ MMA); ix) Ministry of Mines and Energy (Ministério das Minas e Energia ‐ MME); x) Ministry of Transport (Ministério dos Transportes ‐ MT); and xi) Ministry of Labor and Employment (Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego ‐ MTE). As of 15 March 2004, the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also became part of the taskforce. This cross‐cutting policy also allowed the MMA to launch a new model of agrarian reform in

the Amazon in partnership with the MDA’s National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian

Reform (INCRA). The results are settlements for sustainable forest use, in contrast to the

solely agricultural settlements of the past. Moreover, the Brazilian Institute of Environment

and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) had already been working on lessening

bureaucracy and simplifying the rules for forest management and reforestation activities.

Within the MMA structure, the Secretariats of Biodiversity and Forests (SBF), Sustainable

Development (SDS) and Amazon Coordination (SCA) also adopted programs/projects for the

restoration of degraded areas. Currently the SDS and SCA no longer exist and their duties

were assigned to the Secretariat of Extractivism and Sustainable Rural Development (SEDR).

9

The SBF’s attributions included recommending policies and standards, defining strategies and

engaging in programs and projects on issues related to the: i) shared management of natural

resources’ sustainable use; ii) information, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;

iii) access to genetic resources; iv) reforestation and recovery of degraded areas; v)

sustainable use of fish populations and fish stocks; vi) management of the national protected

areas system; and vii) sustainable use of forests, including the prevention and control of slash‐

and‐burn agriculture and forest fires.

The SDS’ attributions included recommending policies, standards and strategies, and engaging

in studies to improve the relationship between the economy and the environment, so as to :

i) contribute to the development of the National Sustainable Development Policy; ii) develop

economic instruments for environmental protection; iii) promote economic advancement of

natural resources and accounting; iv) create fiscal and credit incentives; v) foster the

development of technologies for environmental protection, recovery and the decrease of

environmental impacts; vi) encourage the adoption of voluntary codes of conduct by

companies, as well as environmentally sound technologies and investment opportunities

aimed at sustainable development; and vii) the promotion of ecotourism.

The SCA was created in 1993 to manage the Brazilian Amazon, and its attributions included

recommending regional policies and acting as the executive secretariat for the National Legal

Amazon Region Council (CONAMAZ). It implemented the following programs: i)

Environmental Management; ii) Pilot Program for the Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil ‐

PPG7; and iii) Agroextractivism and Proecotur / Green Tourism. The Pilot Program for Tropical

Forest Protection in Brazil (PPG‐7) was also found within the former SCA. The PPG7 was

created by the Government and Brazilian civil society in partnership with the international

community, and it was the most comprehensive international cooperation initiative for the

protection of tropical forests. This program was a unique partnership model for global

solutions concerning the environment. Demonstrative Type A Project (PD/A) was the result of

Brazil‐Germany bilateral cooperation in the Brazilian Amazon, funded by PPG7 resources. This

program stimulated the use of altered areas for sustainable agroforestry production.

The MMA appropriated the National Forest Program (PNF) launched in September 2000, and

created a target plan that assimilated lessons from the past and allowed the increase of the

planted base only in deforested areas, while prioritizing the inclusion of small producers and

the recovery of degraded areas with native species, thereby meeting the demands of settlers

and traditional populations (native peoples, rubber tappers) for the use of forests as a source

of employment and income. PNF goals also included the elimination of the annual

discrepancy of 200,000 hectares of forest between what was actually planted in the country

(300,000 hectares), and what should be planted (500,000 hectares), in order to meet the

industry’s needs and ensure the supply of wood, thereby reducing pressure on native forests.

The PNF’s investments prioritized the recovery of degraded areas, especially in permanent

10

preservation areas (primarily springs) that are essential for preserving biodiversity and the

quantity and quality of water. Consequently, jobs would be created and there would be

income generation for small and medium‐sized farms using areas that are not suitable for

agriculture.

1.1.2 National and Regional Programs

The Ministry of the Environment drew up a target plan for the National Forest Program (PNF)

in the 2004‐2007 period that delivered fundamental instruments for the sustainable

development of the Brazilian Forest. Its goals included expanding the planted forest regions in

the country to support initiatives that depend on raw materials, such as the pulp, paper,

sheet and furniture industries; increasing the managed forest area to supply 30% of the

industrial demand for (native) forest products from well‐managed areas, thereby raising the

overall number of small producers involved in sustainable forest production in the Amazon,

Atlantic Forest, Caatinga and Cerrado forests from one thousand to 30,000. In addition to the

interministerial taskforce constituted by the government to operate cross‐cutting activities, it

is important to mention a series of innovative experiments with great potential to contribute

to deforestation containment policies and to the feasibility of alternative strategies for the

protection and sustainable use of the forest. The following initiatives by government

agencies, civil society organizations and the private sector are noteworthy:

• Protect (Proteger) Project: part of the Pilot Program for the Protection of Tropical Forests in

Brazil (PPG7), coordinated by the Amazon Working Group (GTA), centered on social

mobilization and training for fire prevention and fire control;

• "Good Fire Management" Program: coordinated by the Amazon Environmental Research

Institute (IPAM), the program carried out studies on the effectiveness of prevention

techniques for accidents involving fire, and applied command and control regulatory

instruments, through fire management centers in partnership with FETAGRI, PROTEGER and

IBAMA, in several municipalities of the state of Pará, aided by PROMANEJO and the PD/A Pilot

Program;

• "Fire, a chronic emergency" Project, coordinated by the Amigos da Terra ‐ Brazilian Amazon

NGO, and the "Fire Program: the Amazon Finds Answers" coordinated by the Instituto Centro

de Vida (ICV), both financed by Italian Cooperation, developed innovative strategies for

negotiating "fire control and prevention pacts" that engaged the active participation of

municipalities and of several sectors of local society;

• Natural Resources Policy (NRPP) Subprogram of the Pilot Program: supported innovative

initiatives such as the development of an environmental licensing system in rural properties in

the State of Mato Grosso, as well as fire prevention and combat campaigns against forest fires

11

and slash burning in the state of Roraima, and the Amazon Keep Legal ( Amazonia Fique

Legal) campaign, involving partnerships between IBAMA and OEMAs;

• Forest Produce Control System (SISPROF): computerized system for managing information

related to deforestation permits and management plans. It was applied in IBAMA Executive

Management divisions in the Amazon. Also developed as a pilot‐scale project for a new tool

intended to control and monitor the transportation and production of wood using satellite

tracking and data transfer in real time under ProManejo / IBAMA / PPG7;

• Integrated Program Monitoring, Prevention and Control (PROARCO): coordinated by IBAMA,

and funded by the World Bank, in which an advanced system monitored hotspots;

• National System for the Prevention and Control of Forest Fires (PREVFOGO): created fire brigades in association with federal conservation units for the prevention and control of forest fires; • Air Operations Center (NOA): a department of IBAMA, worked with the General Coordinating Committee providing aircraft and helicopters, thus speeding up both inspection and firefighting activities • National Forest Program (PNF): brought together many segments of government and

society in the National Forest Program Management Committee (Conaflor). Its strategic

activities included:

1. Increase of the planted forest base and recovery of degraded areas: planted 800,000 hectares in small and medium‐sized properties by 2007; planted 1.2 million hectares through sustainable business programs; and recovered 200,000 hectares of degraded forest by 2007

2. Increase of managed forest area in association with the protection of areas of high ecological value:

added 15 million hectares of sustainably managed natural forests to supply 30% of domestic market needs;

ensured that one third of sustainable forest produce came from social forestry activities, whether family‐based, community‐based or extractivist; and

ensured the protection of two million hectares of high ecological value alongside areas intended for forest management.

• National Program for the Promotion of Forestry and Agroforestry Systems for Family Agriculture (Pronaf Florestal): a line of credit intended to stimulate farmers to practice forestry, agroforestry and sustainable forest management, thereby creating jobs and increasing family income by diversifying farming activities. The Pronaf was a partnership between the Ministry of Agrarian Development and the Ministry of Environment. This line of

credit’s essential requirement was that the recipient had to be a family farmer. The annual

12

interest rate was 4% per annum with a 12 year payback period that could be extended up to 16 years when financed with resources from Regional funds. It also offered a 25% rebate on the interest rate when installments were paid in due date. According to the 2015/2016 harvest plan, the government extended approximately R$ 187.7 billion for the agriculture

industry, and among the planned activities we also find the planting of forest species and support for family farmers in sustainable management of multiple use, reforestation and agroforestry projects. • The Amazon Altered Areas Recovery Project was created in 2000 to promote forest recovery and to produce or reinforce the sustainable alternative economic usage of altered forests in the Brazilian Amazon. It was applied to the Amazon Region as whole and prioritized interventions in municipalities with the highest deforestation rates, especially those within the so ‐ called deforestation belt. Other municipalities were also considered strategic in terms of anthropic pressure. Funding for Amazon Altered Areas Recovery Project comes from the Union budget and from congress amendments. As for the project’s results, recovery activities in Amazon Altered Areas were found to be in high demand. Between 2000 and 2001 93 bids for project funding were presented by 62

municipalities and/or states and by 31 non - governmental organizations. Twenty‐six of these bids were became partnerships, 15 of which with local governments / states at an amount of R$ 4.6 million, and 11 with NGOs, totaling R$ 1.4 million disbursed. These agreements promoted the recovery of a 2,052 ha area, including 1,350 ha of agroforestry systems and 702 ha of permanent preservation areas (APPs) and legal reservations (ARLs). This resulted in the establishment of 135 nurseries and the cultivation of 3.4 million seedlings, and also in 2,517 people trained in 89 courses. There were over 1,400 aired radio spots about environmental recovery and conservation and wide distribution of booklets, informative printed material and videotapes. These projects were located in the states of Rondônia, Pará, Acre, Amapá, Tocantins, Amazonas and Mato Grosso. In 2002 an agreement (N0 2000 CV / 000,122) between the Ministry of Environment, via the SCA and the Amazon Environmental Research Institute e (IPAM) came into force, with the collaboration of Embrapa Eastern Amazon and the Goeldi Museum. This project lay down the groundwork for a Degraded Areas Recovery Program for the Amazon. In short, the program’s suggested structure encompassed the: i) adaptation and creation of financial mechanisms for the recovery of degraded areas; ii) training of human resources; iii) interinstitutional and inter ‐ agency coordination; iv) research and evaluation of empirical experiments on recovery of degraded areas; v) technical assistance; and vi) monitoring. The program helped strengthen existing limitations.

1.2 Origins and problems

Economic models of occupation in the Amazon have rarely considered site‐specific environmental policies. As a result, annual deforestation rates tend to increase (23.750 km² between 2002‐2003) (INPE, 2004). Over the past 10 years, estimates assert that over 280 thousand kilometers were deforested, configuring what is known as the deforestation belt. The major landscape change agents are livestock activities, the predatory exploitation of

13

wood and non-wood products, slash‐and‐burn agriculture and, more recently, commercial grain farming. Schneider et al. (2000) have estimated that percentages of agricultural area abandoned in the Amazon range from 8.4% in the driest areas (under 1800 mm /year rainfall1) to 28.5% in former settlement areas with rainfall rates of 2200 mm year‐1.

In terms of the Amazon ecosystem alteration process, it is important to highlight the continuing increase in the appearance of secondary forests (capoeira) that may become the predominant ecosystem in the Amazon landscape, if the current pattern of land use continues. For example, in the Bragantina sub region, which was originally a tropical forest area in the northeast of the state of Pará, after 120 years of agricultural colonization less than 15% of the original vegetation cover remains, and secondary forests cover about 53% of the district (Alencar et al., 1996; Vieira, 1996). The municipality of Bragança, one of the oldest in the state, presents a combination of agricultural landscapes and secondary forests due to the type of farming practiced since the colonization period. It is considered the oldest region of the Amazon, where intensive exploitation of natural resources motivated by usage and disorderly land occupation processes led to the environmental degradation of large tracts of land (COSTA, 2006). The most prominent agricultural tradition in the municipality is the slash‐burn system, where 41% of the total income comes from the sale of agricultural and forest products, 33% of which are intended for their own consumption and 26% come from the farm’s extra income, especially from the sale of labor (GOMES, 2007). The subregion of Guamá, belonging to mesoregion northeast of Pará, is also considered one of the oldest areas in the agricultural colonization of the Amazon. Among the municipalities that constitute this subregion, Capitão Poço is noteworthy because only 6% native forest remains and cattle breeding processes take up 17% of the area, despite the high concentration of perennial crop areas (GOMES, 2007). These changes happened during the eighties and were still ongoing in the early years of the following decade, when a redirection from the typically shifting agriculture segment into mixed systems that combine temporary crops, permanent crops, cattle ranching, as well as small animal farming, occurred (COSTA 2000). The municipality of Garrafão do Norte is a more recently occupied area where about 30% residual forest area remains. Cattle breeding is more intensive, thereby reducing secondary forest areas (HURTIENE, 2004). According to Gomes (2007), the income originating from agricultural and forestry products corresponds to 44% of the total amount, 29% of which are destined for their own consumption and 27% come from revenues outside the farm. These three municipalities in the northeast of the state were the ideal setting for the Inovagri project (Figure 2) because of their old agricultural colonization and because their forests presented different gradients.

14

Figure 2. Partners of the "Conservation and Restoration of degraded areas in family production units of the Brazilian Amazon" ‐ PD346/05‐ITTO Project.

Secondary forests cannot be considered degraded and worthless areas in the Amazon landscape because they restore the soil’s physiological functions and are both seed and regional native fruit species reserves, allowing plant diversity and sustaining regional wildlife (Brienza Junior et al, 1995;. Vieira et al., 1996; Nepstad et al., 1996; Adams, 1997). Ethnobotanical studies confirm that secondary forests are also rich sources of useful species for native populations (Toledo et al, 1995; Chazdon and Goetz, 1998; Rios, 2001) and are extensively used as a source of fuelwood, food, medicine, dyes and building materials

15

(Withelm, 1993), although this vegetation is generally undervalued and is awarded little incentive in its trade and sustainable management.

From an environmental point of view, the growth of secondary forests contributes to atmospheric carbon immobilization, the restoration of hydrological functions, the restoration of biodiversity, diminishing potential nutrient losses by erosion and leaching and reducing landscape flammability (Nepstad et al., in press).

In terms of the recovery of degraded areas that have been family farmed, planting fast‐growing trees can optimize the accumulation of biomass and nutrients and improve agricultural productivity (Brienza Junior, 1999). In view of the legal requirements concerning forest cover and the right of land use (Lopes, 2003), many rural properties in the Amazon have exceeded allowed deforestation limits (20%) and now need to restore their Legal Reserve areas and / or permanent preservation areas. In such cases, secondary forests can be used as the ecological basis for the management of natural regeneration (Oliveira et al., 2001) or for enrichment planting using timber and / or non‐timber species (Yared et al., 1988).

The "Preparation of technical foundations for the degraded areas recovery program,"Project, MMA/IPAM Agreement 2000 CV/000,122, drawn up in 2002 by IPAM for the Amazon Management Secretariat (SCA), in partnership with the Emilio Goeldi Museum and Embrapa Eastern Amazon, found that there were no existent demonstrative pilot experiments for the recovery of Legal Reserve areas and Permanent Preservation areas.

Between 2000 and 2003 the Amazonian civil society created the Rural Family Socio‐Environmental Development Program (Proambiente), which then became a government program under the Environment Ministry, as of signature of PPA (2004/07). This program covered land management with training hotspots, rural credit, sustainable rural production systems, strengthening social organizations, technical assistance and rural extension, certification and payment for environmental services. Proambiente provided six types of environmental services: (1) avoiding deforestation, (2) atmospheric carbon sequestration, (3) water conservation, (4) soil conservation, (5) preservation and conservation of biodiversity and (6) decreasing risk of fires.

The INOVAGRI project provided the following activities to align environmental programs from different government bodies targeting the issue of recovery of altered areas: farmer training, discussion of environmental legislation compliance in the context of family farming, development of a monitoring system for degraded area recovery and institution of a demonstrative network for the recovery of degraded areas.

1.2.1 Economic aspects

Agricultural production is family‐based and mostly focused on subsistence crops (rice, beans, cassava and maize) in all three municipalities targeted by the project. Nonetheless, perennial and semi perennial produce such as black pepper, orange and passion fruit have increased in Capitão Poço, Capitão Bragança and Capitão Poço due to market issues such as labor, supplies, equipment, etc., as well as logistics infrastructure, with usable roads all year long. The three municipalities have significant areas of secondary forests.

16

In aggregate, five basic activities may be considered of interest to farmers in the municipalities where project activities were carried out (annual crops, perennial and semi‐perennial crops, agroforestry consortia and livestock).

The land’s productivity is currently much lower than when family farmers arrived due to the intense rotation the soil has undergone over the years, except in Garrafão do Norte. Only 43%, mainly bean farmers, use some form of agricultural input. Most farmers leave the area fallow after harvesting annual crops lo let secondary forests grow and restore soil fertility and control disease.

The use of secondary forest products is not included in farmers’ production priorities. However, Smith et al. (2003), in studies carried out in Northeast Pará (municipalities of Bragança, Maracanã, Igarapé Açu, Capitão Poço and Garrafão do Norte) affirm that secondary forest products (timber and non‐timber) play a significant role in domestic economy, such as firewood , wood for rural construction, fruits (ingá, bacuri, muruci, inajá, etc.), medicinal products and supplies for handicrafts, among others (Final Report ‐ Phase I, Secondary Forests Production Management Project, 1999). Moreover, in Capitão Poço, the yield of honey produced in secondary forests has grown in recent years (Smith et al, 2000).

About a third of the agricultural produce (33% in Braganca, 30% in Capitão Poço and 29% in Garrafão do Norte) is consumed on the farmer’s lot and is not part of official statistics, constituting an "invisible harvest" that is nevertheless important for survival strategies. The remainder is either sold in nearby cities or to brokers on farm grounds.

A part of the family’s total income comes from extra revenues (work outside the farm, retirement or help from children), 26% in Braganca, 32% in Capitão Poço and 27% in Garrafão do Norte (Smith et al, 2000).

1.2.2 Environmental aspects

Landscape Studies made in the Bragantina subregion show that some municipalities nowadays have only 15% of the original forest cover (Nova Timboteua, Peixe‐Boi and Capanema), and others have only 5% (Igarapé‐Açu). According to Smith et al, (2000 and 2003) 15‐20% of farm lands consist of secondary forests that are over 10 years old, and about 5% are forests older than 20.

The average usage of farmed land is almost the same (about 13%) in the municipalities under study. Grazing areas amount to 15% in Capitão Poço, 21% in Garrafão do Norte and only 2% in Bragança. Secondary forest areas, of several ages, occupy 79% of the lands in Bragança, 55% in Capitão Poço and 20% in Garrafão do Norte.

1.2.3 Social aspects

Social participation in this project took place in two different ways. The first had to do with specific courses for farmers and with the discussion of environmental legislation and property use plans. Furthermore, the results will constitute a foundation to underpin public policies.

17

The second mode of social participation was partnerships with class institutions that represented rural family farmers, directly related to the third project goal (Consolidating the implementation of a demonstration pole for the recovery of altered areas). In the municipalities that were chosen for project activities the origins of beneficiary families do not differ much. These are people who have always worked in rural areas and have some life experience in urban areas. Most live in their farms and all beneficiaries have control of the available natural resources in their areas.

Rural Workers Union partners stand out in the quest for living condition improvements in political, social and economic aspects. From the point of view of land use and ownership the project does not present conflicting situations.

2 Project objectives and implementation strategy

Brazilian environmental legislation stated that Amazonian rural properties should preserve 80% of their natural forest cover (Legal Reserve areas ‐ ARLs), excepting riverbanks and spring shores (permanent preservation areas ‐ APPs). This law, however, was not regularly observed in the Brazilian Amazon, and the consequences and causes were varied. After the new Forest Code No. 12,651 was approved in 2012, however, the Brazilian environmental legislation laid down more forceful new rules for the protection of vegetation, of Permanent Preservation areas and Legal Reserve areas, among others, increasing the need for information about the Recovery of Modified or Degraded Areas. Although it began in 2008, the present project envisaged the need to contribute information about this overarching subject. This project stated the following objectives:

2.1. Overall Objective To contribute to the recovery of degraded areas on family farms in the eastern Amazon in order to increase forest production potential and promote compliance to environmental legislation.

2.2. Specific Objectives

To set up a demonstrative network for the recovery of legal reservation and permanent preservation areas that have been degraded in family farms in the eastern Brazilian Amazon.

To develop a monitoring system for degraded areas in the recovery process.

18

During the project a network of partnerships involving farmers and their representatives was established and strengthened. These representatives, such as rural workers' unions and farmers associations, were considered potential multipliers of degraded area recovery techniques. Moreover, the strategy of working in partnership with high schools also impacted the dissemination of information on alternatives for the recovery of degraded areas to farmers’ children. In this sense, we must mention the participation of the municipal agricultural elementary schools in Bragança, the federal agroindustrial primary and secondary schools in Marituba, the Technological Federal Institute of Pará in Castanhal and the Federal University of Pará, Braganza campus, whose teachers were involved in project activities and contributed to train future best practice professionals and multiplier agents. On the other hand, it is expected that the results of discussions about compliance with environmental legislation for family farmers will result in guidelines that will help the government to develop more adequate public policies for the Amazon.

2.3 Project strategy The expression "altered areas" on which this study centers designates areas that were anthropized by agricultural activities. The study focuses on farms, including Permanent Preservation areas (APPs) and Legal Reserve areas (ARLs). Previous studies demonstrated that: i) there were no pilot demonstrative areas for the recovery of degraded forest in the Brazilian Amazon; and ii) the enrichment of the secondary forest for timber and non‐timber produce in family farming lots, besides having a profitable role in the family budget, could also contribute to environmental conservation (sources).

During the study all research and development activities were carried out by three field technicians who, in addition to fulfilling project goals, also provided technical advice for the family farmers’ day‐to‐day needs. In previous experiences this approach proved to be very efficient in motivating partners to work together.

The participatory management of the project via involvement in the Steering Committee and in Local Groups was employed as a strategy to motivate all participants to execute the activities and to update the progress of all project activities.

2.4 Target Beneficiaries Participants and their respective roles during the execution of the project:

Leading Institution (Embrapa Eastern Amazon): project coordination; fund administration; aided accountability and interacted with all participating institutions.

Technical staff of the research institutions (Embrapa Eastern Amazon, Federal Rural University of Amazonia, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Center for International Forestry Research ‐ CIFOR, Center for International Cooperation in Agronomic Research for Development ‐ CIRAD, Foundation for the Development of the Amazon ‐ FIDESA): teaching, research, training and development activities; encouraged new

19

partners to enter the project; publicized information about the management of secondary forests in different media (scientific, academic, general public) and provided technical assistance to partners.

Rural Workers Unions of Braganza, Capitão Poço and Garrafão do Norte: publicized secondary forest management internally and in different settings such as FETAGRI (Agricultural Workers Federation of the State of Pará), CONTAG (National Confederation of Agricultural Workers) and CUT (Workers' Central Union), organized demonstrations with Grito da Terra, with State and municipal Agriculture secretaries, financing agents, technical advisory bodies and municipal authorities; endorsed project activities, mobilizations and events (courses, meetings, seminars).

Teaching Institutions ‐ Agricultural School of Bragança (elementary school), Juscelino Kubitschek School (vocational high school to train forest technicians), advanced campus of the Federal University of Pará in Bragança: permitted their students to take part in courses and helped with farmers’ training (making inventories, among other activities).

Carrapatinho and Igarapé Grande Farmers Association (Capitão Poço): carried out the same activities as the trade unions and publicized secondary forest management techniques in collective management areas to their associates.

Partners/multipliers (family farmers and interested parties concerned with recovering tracts in their lands): promoted the recovery of ARLs and APPs; disclosed this idea to other farmers; took part in project‐related events; collected information and discussed issues with the technicians; welcomed people who wanted to know project areas; took good care of their lands and their accesses.

2.5 Technical and scientific aspects Courses and training Interested farmers were identified in each INOVAGRI project municipality to take training courses. These courses were held in agricultural communities or in other places with enough infrastructures for staff accommodation. Rotation between communities was done whenever possible. Technical planning staff meetings happened before each course run, in order to determine the persons responsible for the organization of material, aide mémoire, photographic records, logistics supply and transportation, and aiding teachers before class (preparation of posters, billboards, organization of brochures) and during class (distribution of educational material, hanging posters and passing attendance lists, etc.).

The technical team adopted adequate theoretical workloads, teaching material and language for each course, and applied practical activities, which were the courses’ highlight. Every course distributed printed material (booklet, handout) to participants for future reference. Each course lasted 2‐3 days (maximum), a workload that is compatible with these farmers’ way of life. Courses were scheduled on dates that would not interfere unduly with other activities. They chose weekends whenever possible and always booked courses in advance,

20

allowing partners to schedule themselves and plan logistics properly. During each course group dynamics helped to enhance learning, encourage participation and strengthen ties between participants and teachers. Graduate students, fellows and project trainees were assigned specific tasks when they took part in these courses, and also helped the teacher. Training was evaluated by participants at the end of each day or at the end of the activity. After each course was completed the technical team always did an internal review to correct any technical problems (content, method, material) and logistics.

Table XX – List of courses taught as project activities, place, date and number of participants sorted by gender (male and female)

Selection of degraded areas and monitoring of recovered areas In order to install the demonstrative ARL and APP recovery areas there was an initial debate in which the Steering Committee set down the criteria for choosing local partners in detail. The criteria suggested for consideration within the Steering Committee were:

a) Practicing family agriculture

b) Owning permanent preservation areas and / or Legal Reserve areas in need of restoration

c) Being interested in taking part of the project without financial compensation

d) Possessing the "entrepreneurial frame of mind"

e) Having enough time for project activities

The next step was to bring together potential partners and invite them to attend a presentation and debate (usually in the STTR headquarters). These partners were chosen among families who had already established ties with other projects and also met the predetermined criteria.

During this meeting partnerships with agricultural families were defined, resulting initially in 32 interested parties.

After selecting likely partners, the recovery systems were adjusted according to the type of area where they would be employed (Figure 3). (Summary table of partners and their arrangements).

21

Figure 3. Arrangement model planned for degraded pastures, fields and perennial crop sites.

The project mentions monitoring "at least nine areas in recovery" (Specific Objective 2, 2.1.2). However, 28 areas were monitored considering biophysical and geochemical variables that were examined for 12 months after installation. A monitoring system of degraded areas under recovery was designed based on collected information. This system was, therefore, compatible with the local situation.

Compliance to environmental legislation Syglea (including a summary of results or mentioning where there may be found would be desirable). The workshops where problems and possible solutions for environmental regulations were discussed with partner farmers were fundamental. Early partnership with IBAMA helped shape a more constructive and milder view of that institution. During the project environmental legislation changed significantly with the adoption of the new Forest Code in 2012, which brought new guidelines concerning recovery of focus areas. This entailed an in‐depth study of the new legislation by the project’s technical staff, re‐evaluating each institution’s responsibilities and pointing out adjustments consistent with the regional situation.

Project publicity Several products intended to publicize project activities were prepared to effectively reach the target audience. Booklets and handouts were designed to stimulate the interest of course participants, including the young, who make excellent family opinion leaders. Brochures and calendars were alternatives considered for different audiences. In addition to these products it is important to emphasize that the statement of results achieved by the project also took

22

place via technical and scientific and/or lay articles published in newspapers and magazines, besides related dissertations, monographs, etc. (Summary Table)

3 Project Performance (Project elements planned and Implemented)

As previously presented in the original project scope, two specific objectives were stated. The (following) activities were designed in order to achieve these goals, namely:

Specific Objective 1 – To set up a demonstrative network for the recovery of legal reservation and permanent preservation areas that had been degraded in family farms in the eastern Brazilian Amazon

ACTIVITIES Sub‐activities Performance

1.1 At least 150 family farmers in the eastern Amazon trained in recovery strategies for degraded areas

1.1.1: 1 course for 50 people on seed collection and seedling production (Altamira)

Scheduled and accomplished differently from the initial proposal (Annex 1 )

1.1.2: 3 courses for 150people on recovery strategies of degraded areas

Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope (Annex 2).

1.1.3: 3 courses for 150 people on prevention techniques and community control of fires


1.2 At least 20 demonstration units for recovery of altered areas installed

1.2.1: Selecting areas to be recovered Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope

1.2.2: Selection of species and creation of nurseries to produce 80 thousand seedlings

Programmed and changed according to attached account in Annex (x)

1.2.3: Participatory Development of land use plans and strategy for the recovery of degraded areas


1.2.4: Implementation of 20 demonstration units for recovery of altered areas

Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope.

1.2.5 Technical assistance for 60 families in monitoring recovery actions

Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope Annex XX

1.3 evaluated environmental legislation and adequacy of proposals to the conditions of small farmer suggested the eastern Amazon

1.3.1: 3 discussion workshops about current environmental legislation


1.3.2: Study about current environmental legislation and its adaptation to the socioeconomic conditions of Eastern Amazon communities

Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope

1.3.3: Report containing suggestions to adjust the legislation


23

1.4 Technical and Educational material about recovery strategies for degraded areas and environmental legislation produced and distributed

1.4.1: Publication of at least 5 technical‐scientific articles

Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope (Annex 06)

1.4.2: 1,000 wall calendars printed to advertise the project to farmers

Activity eliminated due to the devaluation of the dollar in Brazil at the time of project approval

1.4.3: Creation, printing and distribution of educational materials (4 booklets)


1.5 Participative Management of the Research and Development Project

1.5.1: Hiring and upkeep of technical staff Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope

1.5.2: Purchase and maintenance of vehicles, equipment and work infrastructure

The acquisition of the vehicle was replaced by maintenance of a vehicle provided by Embrapa due to dollar devaluation in Brazil at the time of project approval

1.5.3: Periodic meetings for planning and evaluation of management, training and recovery activities

Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope (Annex 8)

1.5.4: Administration of funds, accounting services and preparation of technical and financial reports


1.5.5: 2 Meetings to share project results Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope (Annex 9)

Specific Objective 2 – To set up a monitoring system for degraded areas in recovery

ACTIVITIES Sub‐activities Note

2.1 Monitoring System of degraded area recovery developed in accordance with circumstances in the Eastern Amazon

2.1.1: Development of a monitoring system for areas in recovery in accordance with local circumstance

Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope (Annex 10) ??

2.1.2: Monitoring of at least 9 areas in recovery

Scheduled and accomplished according to the scope.

4 Project outcome, target beneficiaries’ involvement The project mentored over 150 families and many technicians in recovery strategies throughout the years of partnership and knowledge production with partner families. The project ends having implemented and monitored 28 recovery demonstration units during

24

eight years old. Over seven Master's theses and end‐of‐course papers were presented. Discussions about the obstacles that current forest legislation poses for family farmers were carried out with project partners. Partner families were sensitized in regard to the use of fire on farmland. This has positive implications for the sustainable use of natural resources, improving the management of their systems and generating better quality of life for these families. The recovered environments show considerable physical improvements (soil, air, water, microclimate, etc.) that were noticed mainly by their owners (Ethnopedology) (Figure 4), as reported in the master's thesis presented by Raquel Poça in 2012.

Figure 4. Farmer participating in the seed bank collection in his Recovery Unit. Source: Inovagri Project, 2013

The INOVAGRI project provided partner farmers with experiences that directly impact land use plans from a sustainable perspective. We found that our partners have become multipliers of sustainable conservation practices and of the sustainable use of natural resources (Figure 4). The desire to expand the Recovery Units by planting woody species, to be set up and monitored in the farms, and the dissemination of experiences and teachings reflect a cultural shift that was gradually instituted and continues to evolve.

25

Figures 5 and 6. A Farmer and project partner welcomes a group of farmers on his lands and exchanges experiences. Source: Inovagri Project, 2016.

This project is considered central to the contribution of knowledge about the recovery of degraded areas in the Amazon, especially regarding native species arrangements in altered or common areas (pastures, perennial crops, clearings and secondary forests) in family farms. Another major project outcome was the adoption of a common methodological approach in all project activities. We believe that these eight years of project operation from a cross‐cutting perspective (SÁ & SILVA, 2014) were important for family farmers to become multipliers of sustainable conservation practices and of the sustainable use of natural resources. Likewise, researchers, students and technicians were also sensitized to a kind of holistic and profound knowledge that transcends technical training.

The activity of planting trees to recover environmental liability areas from a participatory perspective is a sustainable option in environmental recovery. It promotes the reintegration of these areas in the production cycle and may be adopted as a model for the environmental management of rural family farms. The project’s participatory approach allowed family farmers to partake of the whole process, starting from the choice of areas to be recovered, species for planting, collection of material for analysis and follow‐up of the research developed in the Recovery Units – URs. This made farmers feel like owners and research participants, and raised awareness of the importance of recovering these environmental liability areas and improving management of the property as a whole.

We observed hat the people who took part in this project have been sensitized, and in a certain sense have become multipliers of sustainable conservation practices and of the sustainable use of natural resources. The desire to expand the Recovery Units and plant more trees is a reflection of this cultural shift that was gradually instituted and continues to evolve. This cross‐cutting attitude regarding the need to recover environmental liability areas in farms was an important factor in the project’s success and should be taken into account in public policies for Amazon family farming.

5 6

26

Within the scope of the INOVAGRI project’s major impacts, an indicator of positive impact was the influx of other family farmers seeking information about the project, its activities and future partnerships for the recovery of other degraded areas, even in different Amazonian municipalities and regions. The environmental impact of planting native species in areas that were altered by family farming was assessed in Sheyla Cristina Tavares de Barros’ 2014 Master’s thesis. She observed that the use of native trees is a sustainable alternative for environmental remediation, promoting the reintegration of degraded areas in the production cycle and acting as a model for the environmental management of family farms. The study’s results also highlighted the said project’s environmental compliance, that is, its positive impact, indicating good environmental and social performance in regard to sustainability. 5 Assessment and analysis The INOVAGRI project stemmed from farmers’ requests. Concerns regarding the recovery of environmental liability areas first came up in the project team’s earlier activities with secondary forest areas management in family farms. This initial knowledge exchange between farmers and researchers led to the project’s general objective. This interchange is considered a breakthrough in knowledge building, with positive implications for the future adoption of technologies. The INOVAGRI project was based on a real need and the participation of directly involved stakeholders / beneficiaries was considered at all stages.

As for the project’s implementation, it is important to analyze both its positive and negative aspects. On the positive side we can point out that, although the said project was drawn‐out for several years, this supplementary contact with farmers allowed more and better project monitoring activities. The overtime allowed us to perform a more thorough monitoring of implanted species (a total of 7 measurements of diameter and height) and also permitted us to track the evolution of farmers as multipliers of sustainable practices of conservation and of the sustainable use of natural resources. Another important positive point was Dr. Syglea Lopes’ study on legislation concerning recovery of altered areas in light of the New Forest Code and its impact on farmers’ lives. This study points out important steps in the recovery of environmental liability areas in order to meet new legislation demands. Dr. Lopes is a specialist in Environmental Law from the Federal University of Pará and she considers that one of the major obstacles to the family farmers’ recovery of these areas is the Environmental clearance itself. In her final consulting report to the Inovagri Project she states some basic guidelines for the environmental clearance of Inovagri Project partner family farms. The guidelines are as follows:

The first step should be land clearance. The Inovagri Project identified legal ownership of the lands where partner farms are located. Certain segments belong to the federal government and others to state government. The lands under federal ownership are either on settlement projects or on Union plots. Some of the lands in settlement projects lack compliance and others don’t. Nevertheless, all should make an appointment with INCRA because even the lands that are in compliance must secure a CCU

27

(Land Use Permit). As for those on Union plots, they may contact the Special Secretariat for Family Agriculture (SERFAL) to check the possibility their farm’s clearance through the Terra Legal Program. The second step is registration in the CAR (Environmental Rural Register). Farmers who do not yet have the CAR license may address the pertinent institution bringing a geo‐referenced map of their farms, with due identification of APPs, ARLs and others required by law, and personal ID documents. In this case, there is legal provision for the settlers’ CAR to be issued by INCRA. As for the other farmers, the permit should be issued by EMATER, since in the State of Pará the registration of lands up to 4 ‘fiscal modules1’ large is the state’s responsibility. In order to extend these benefits to other farmers, the STR can formally ask City Hall to enter into agreement with the MPF and the PMV. This program is anticipated in the Amazon Fund project, whose goals include a register of rural properties up to 4 fiscal modules large. The third step is the recovery of environmental liabilities. After registering with CAR, the SEMAS (State Environment Secretariat) will analyze the records and may reach three conclusions: areas with no environmental liabilities, areas with environmental liabilities previous to 22 July 2008 and areas with environmental liabilities after July 22, 2008. In the first case, areas that have no environmental liabilities will be able to continue with the environmental clearance process. For the second scenario (those with environmental liabilities previous to July 22, 2008), because in this particular case farms are family owned and within settlement projects, the only type of recovery foreseen by law is that of APPs. Moreover, in the particular case of Inovagri Project partner farmers, the fact that they were not fined for the infraction means that they cannot be penalized. They will, however, have to join the PRA and sign a commitment agreement with SEMAS. To join the PRA the family farmer must submit a PRAD (Degraded Area Recovery Plan). Once again, if the farmer has been settled he/she must request INCRA support, and other farmers must request support from EMATER. In this case, both INCRA and EMATER may contact EMBRAPA, to inquire about these farmers’ situation in terms of the Demonstration Units in the recovery process of altered areas in their properties. In order to apply to SEMAS and join the PRA the farmer must be in possession of the PRAD certificate. After signing the

1 Translator’s note: INCRA established the Fiscal Modules (FM) criterion to classify rural properties into small

(under 4 FM), medium (between 4 and 15 FM) and large (over 15 FM). One fiscal module may vary between 30

and 100 há. This classification criterion considers the predominant industry in the municipality and its generated

income, as well as and other crops produced in the same municipality (Law no. 8,629/1993. Link:

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8629.htm

28

membership term the farmer will not be penalized, provided he/she complies with the agreed upon terms. The third case regards areas presenting environmental liabilities after July 22, 2012. In this situation Law No. 12,651/12 does not provide special conditions for offenders that promoted illegal deforestation, and punitive measures should apply as per current environmental legislation. For criminal cases the pertinent legislation is Law No. 9.605/1998. In administrative cases Decree 6,514/2008 is applicable. There is no provision for the offender to request conversion of the fine into community service and, if the environmental agency is willing, the offender may sign a term of commitment. The fourth and final step is requesting SEMAS to issue the Rural Environmental License (LAR). SEMAS will study the case to determine if there is in fact need for this license, because several agrosilvopastoral activities developed by family farmers may operate under a Waiver of Environmental Licensing as stated in Resolution No. 107 of the State Council for the Environment (COEMA). In this situation settlers should be assisted by INCRA and others by EMATER. (Extracted from the Final Report for the INOVAGRI Project by consultant Dr.Syglea Rejane Magalhães Lopes, unpublished)

Negative aspects include delays in availability of funds, which affected the timing of some activities and often discouraged the technical team and even some farmers. Some activities had to be reviewed and adjusted to circumstances because of these bureaucratic setbacks.

Due to delays and since funds are stated in a currency that suffers variations, some activities had to be resized, some costs had to be drawn‐out (vehicle maintenance, equipment, personnel, etc). and other had to be cut (acquisition of vehicles airline tickets, etc.). We would like to point out that all revisions of funds and activities were discussed and approved in Steering Committee technical meetings. However, over time, some of the agreed changes were forgotten, and had to be repeated several times in the project progress reports. This at times became tiresome and expressed a lack of communication and even of reading the Monitoring reports.

The beneficiaries’ participation in the project occurred since its very inception, as we mentioned earlier, as well as throughout project activities. This happened mostly in two ways. The first way dealt with direct training for family farmers and with discussions on environmental legislation and use of property plans. The second mode of social participation took place through partnerships established with class representatives, unions and with educational, research and extension institutions. Several courses and interactions favored the exchange of experiences and as well as environmental issues consciousness, and raised stakeholder awareness of more sustainable land management.

With regard to project sustainability, we believe that it shall occur in three ways: a) internalization of the concept of forest recovery and conservation by family farmers, as perceived by the shift in decision making within farmlands as well as by the desire to expand partner areas; b) with the new Forest Code there is greater demand for information on

29

recovery areas planting systems, forest species, arrangements and restoration methodologies, among others . Consequently, the project is considered a pilot in generating data about this subject and can share its experience with other regions of the Amazon; c) the network of recovery demonstrative units that were installed in 28 farms are already considered demonstration units by Embrapa and by the farmers themselves, who have welcomed farmers from other regions, as well as groups of students and researchers interested in the experiments. Embrapa already considers that this is an excellent opportunity for the inclusion of technology transfer activities in partnership with the newly created National Agency for Technical Assistance and Rural Extension ‐ ANATER; d) monitoring of Recovery Units. Monitoring plant growth is a long‐term activity that must take the different forest species cycles into account; this project enabled the implementation of a referral network in three cities, as well as the monitoring of the network for nearly 8 years. The continuity of this monitoring is the subject of other proposals along with the demand for installation of additional recovery units to increase the demonstrative network. Recently Embrapa Eastern Amazon approved a project concerning forest restoration in partnership with the MMA, financed by the German bank KFW. The 28 installed demonstration units will act as demonstration units for training geared towards farmers from those municipalities that deforested the most in the state of Pará. The project PD346 farmer partners will be the instructors for other farmers.

Embrapa’s mission, in its capacity as this project’s executing institution, is disseminating acquired knowledge. It has invested in project proposals to continue the activities developed under INOVAGRI and replicate the experience in other regions of the state.

6 Lessons Learned The bonds of trust and friendship that were established and strengthened during the INOVAGRI project mirror the countless lessons learned during eight years of work.

We have mentioned that the driving force in this venture was the participatory bias that permeated the entire project. Accordingly, this section was taken from the project’s last exchanges with farmers.

Learning is a two‐way process, an exchange of knowledge, where technicians and farmers took up the challenge of producing knowledge together. The breadth of activities is one of the most relevant subjects in terms of lessons learned. In this regard we emphasize the importance of ensuring the participation of as many people from surrounding areas as possible, in order to make sure that knowledge is widely disseminated to a greater effect. The course on fire prevention techniques was mentioned as an example because it generated a behavior change on the part of farmers. However, this did not occur with a partner farmer’s neighbor, who continued to slash and burn and put other farmers’ properties at risk.

7 Conclusions and recommendations The technical project team considers the results achieved by the project to be positive, considering both discussions that happened at the outset, before the new forestry code, and

30

the analysis carried out after the new forestry code came into force. One of the main results achieved in recovery areas was the farmer’s participation in the whole process. This means that the farmer chose the area to be recovered, chose the model he/she adopted and monitored it. This participatory process led to a sense of belonging ("this is the forest I created") which is now translated into a willingness to keep the trees that were planted on the farm. During exchange visits there were positive reactions to the recovery of degraded areas by planting trees and to the family farmer’s role as a "multiplier" in the tree‐planting process. In terms of continuity of work, we can highlight the will of many farmers to transform the recovered areas, as well as new areas, into agroforestry systems using trees.

We present the following recommendations:

Plan arrangements to restore altered areas bearing Agroforestry Systems (SAF) in mind, considering that family farm areas are not typically large. Associate timber‐related produce to other produce, and do not favor one over the other.

Create effective partnerships with families in which they participate since project inception (identification of needs), in participatory experience construction.

Study and strive for the possibility of offering compensation to families for environmental services rendered at a global level;

Work with family units as part of the local landscape and establish environmental recovery as ecological corridors in micro basins. Encourage families to produce their own forest seedlings (seed collection and building basic nurseries) within their workforce capabilities.

Enable families to keep up the systematic monitoring of the planted areas by means of a simple system.

Put together a simple monitoring system for families to continue monitoring experimental areas.

Responsible for the Report Name: Silvio Brienza Junior Position: project coordinator / EMBRAPA Eastern Amazon Date: July 15, 2016.

31

COSTA, F. A. et al. Secondary forests, innovation and rural technologies competing in the Amazon. In: COSTA, FA; HURTIENNE, T.; KAHWAGE, C. Innovations and technology diffusion for Sustainable Family Farming in the Eastern Amazon: results and implications of the SHIFT socioeconomics project. Bethlehem: NAEA / UFPA. p.278.2006. COSTA, F. A. et al. Family agriculture transformation in northeast Pará: the case of Capitão Poço. Bethlehem: UFPA / NAEA. 260p. 2000. GOMES, DMA chain marketing secondary forest products in the municipalities of Bragança, Capitão Poço and Garrafão do Norte. 2007.87p. (Master’s thesis on Family farming and sustainable development) ‐ Postgraduate Course in Agricultures Amazon, Federal University of Pará, Belém, 2007. HURTIENE, TP Family agriculture and sustainable rural development in the Amazon. New notebooks NAEA, Bethlehem v.8, no.1, p.19‐71. 2005.

Annex 1 Project Financial Statement – July/2016 – Funds ITTO Annex 2 Project Cash Flow Statement – July/2016 ‐ Funds ITTO Annex 3 Project Financial Statement – July/2016 ‐ Counterparts Annex 4 Project Cash Flow Statement – July/2016 ‐ Counterparts Annex 5 Project Financial Statement – November/2016 ‐ Funds ITTO Annex 6 Project Cash Flow Statement – November/2016 ‐ Funds ITTO

32

Annex 1

PROJECT FINANCIAL STATEMENT – Funds ITTO Project No. ITTO PD 346/05 Rev. 2 (F) Period ending on: dec07 a july16 Project Title: Conservation and recovery of degraded land in family agriculture units in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon

Component

Expenditures To-date (US$)

Modified Modified

Original Approved Approved Available Amount Amount Amount Accrued Expended Total Funds

(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

I. Funds managed by Executing Agency 10. Project Personnel 11 National Experts 11,1 Specialist for participatory approach and

community fire management (U$1550/mo) 37.200,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

11,2 Technician for advise in community management work (2 x $ 800/mo)

38.400,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

11,3 Assistant Researches ($ 800/mo) 19.200,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

11,4 Technician for advise in community management work (Altamira - part time) - $ 300/mo

7.200,00 39.290,68 39.290,68 39.290,67 39.290,67 0,01

11,5 Assistant coordinator ($625/mo) 15.000,00 56.863,00 56.863,00 56.640,96 56.640,96 222,04

12 National Consultants 0,00

12,1 Consultant in recuperation of altered areas (PPA) and legal reserves (LR) - for exchange knowledge porposes

1.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

12,2 Consultant in environmental legislation (PPA and LR)

5.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

12,2,1 Specialist in paticipatory approach and community fire management

0,00 13.482,19 13.482,19 6.252,13 7.230,06 13.482,19 0,00

12,2,2 Specialist in remote sensing 0,00 3.756,46 3.756,46 3.756,46 3.756,46 0,00

33

Component


Modified Modified


(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

14 Fellowships and Training 0,00

14,1 Fellowships and Training Students (5 x $167,60/mo)

7.200,00 22.558,67 22.558,67 20.159,93 20.159,93 2.398,74

14,2 Fellowships M.Sc. (US$ 1256,98 * 19) 0,00 22.186,05 22.186,05 21.632,58 21.632,58 553,47

14,3 Bolsa DCR for environmental legislation (PPA and LR) - (US$ 670,39 * 12)

8.044,69 8.044,69 8.302,00 8.302,00 -257,31

19 Total component Project Personnel 130.200,00 166.181,74 166.181,74 6.252,13 157.012,66 163.264,79 2.916,95 20 Sub-contracts

24,1 Printing services - didactic material 5.000,00 4.269,27 7.269,27 0,00 0,00 7.269,27 24,2 Translaation Services 0,00 4.416,03 4.416,03 5.086,14 5.086,14 -670,11 29 Total component Sub-contracts 5.000,00 8.685,30 11.685,30 0,00 5.086,14 5.086,14 6.599,16 30 Duty Travel 31 Daily Subsistence Allowance 31,1 Daily for training $25 2.000,00 3.311,34 3.311,34 0,00 0,00 3.311,34 31,2 Daily for field activities $20 9.120,00 41.941,40 41.941,40 42.509,27 42.509,27 -567,87 33 Transport Costs 0,00 33,1 Terrestrial passages 2.820,00 2.239,00 2.239,00 2.224,93 2.224,93 14,07 33,2 Aerial passages 8.960,00 1.586,31 4.586,31 2.339,50 2.339,50 2.246,81 39 Total component Duty Travel 22.900,00 49.078,05 52.078,05 0,00 47.073,70 47.073,70 5.004,35 40 Capital Items 43 Vehicles 43,1 Vehicle off-road 4x4 25.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 43,2 Motorcycles 5.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 44 Capital Equipment 44,1 Computers 3.000,00 5.143,12 5.143,12 5.143,11 5.143,11 0,01

34

Component


Modified Modified


(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

44,2 Equipments for field, monitoring (diameter tapes, makers, calipers, camera fotográfica, GPS, datashow-tele-caixa som)

650,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

49 Total component Capital Items 33.650,00 5.143,12 5.143,12 0,00 5.143,11 5.143,11 0,01 50 Consumable Items 51 Materials 51,1 Material for forest nurseries 5.620,00 1.443,50 1.443,50 1.443,50 1.443,50 0,00 51,2 Satellite images 2.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 51,3 Production of scientific articles 2.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 53 Fuel and Utilities 53,1 Fuel for research, courses, workshops,

technical assistance 10.520,00 8.765,41 8.765,41 8.761,96 8.761,96 3,45

53,2 Rent of vehicles 600,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 53,4 Maintaining vehicles and equipments

($300/mo) 7.200,00 4.745,49 4.745,49 4.562,23 4.562,23 183,26

53,6 Communication (telephones and internet - $100/mo)

2.400,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

54 Office Supplies 54,1 Office material 3.600,00 2.314,88 2.314,88 2.314,87 2.314,87 0,01 59 Total component Consumable Items 33.940,00 17.269,28 17.269,28 0,00 17.082,56 17.082,56 186,72

60 Miscellaneous

61 Sundry (5 x $1870) 9.350,00 13.679,99 13.679,99 14.040,17 14.040,17 -360,18

63 Food and supllies for courses, workshops and meetings

14.960,00 8.118,23 8.118,23 7.620,21 7.620,21 498,02

64 ABC Monitoring 0,00 1.953,93 1.953,93 1.952,22 1.952,22 1,71

69 Total component Miscellaneous 24.310,00 23.752,15 23.752,15 0,00 23.612,60 23.612,60 139,55 SUB-TOTAL 250.000,00 270.109,64 276.109,64 6.252,13 255.010,77 261.262,90 14.846,74

35

Component


Modified Modified


(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

80 ITTO Monitoring, Evaluation and Administration (*) (*)

81 ITTO Monitoring 20.000,00 20.000,00 b/

82 Costs of Mid-term Evaluation 5.000,00 5.000,00 b/

83 ABC Monitoring 10.000,00 0,00

84 Evaluation Ex-post 15.000,00 15.000,00 b/

89 Total component 50.000,00 40.000,00 b/

SUB-TOTAL 300.000,00 310.109,64 b/

90 Refund of Pre-Project Costs (Pre-Project Budget) 8%

24.000,00 24.000,00

100.

GRAND TOTAL: 324.000,00 334.109,64

Note: Budget Components are those detailed in the Project Document. a/ The Cash Flow Statement must be completed first, before the input into the Financial Statement. b/ Accrued expenditure: expenditures incurred during the reporting period, but not yet settled. c/ Amounts under the "Expended" column will be imported from the Cash Flow Statement (with direct link).

36

Annex 2

PROJECT CASH FLOW STATEMENT – FUNDS ITTO

Project No. PD 346/05 Period ending on: December 2007 a July 2016 Project Title: CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY OF DEGRADED LAND IN FAMILY AGRICULTURE UNITS IN THE EASTERN BRAZILIAN AMAZON

Component Reference Date Amount

in US$ Local Currency A. Funds received from ITTO: 1. First instalment 1,7727 05/12/2007 $100.000,00 R$ 178.821,00 2. Second Instalment 1,7679 22/06/2010 $60.000,00 R$ 104.619,01 3. Third instalment 2,0352 10/01/2013 $50.000,00 R$ 100.425,63 4. Fourth instalment 3,2152 09/07/2015 $50.000,00 $159.136,68 5. Interest earned to date 30/06/2016 $18.839,81 R$ 39.288,90 ETC.: Financial application income Total Funds Received: 278.839,81 R$ 582.291,22 B. Expenditures by Executing Agency: 10. Project Personnel

11 National Experts

11,1

Specialist for participatory approach and community fire management (U$1550/mo) $0,00 R$ 0,00

11,2

Technician for advise in community management work (2 x $ 800/mo) $0,00 R$ 0,00

11,3 Assistant Researches ($ 800/mo)

$0,00 R$ 0,00

11,4

Technician for advise in community management work (Altamira - part time) - $ 300/mo $39.290,67 R$ 69.650,59

11,5 Assistant coordinator ($625/mo)

$56.640,96 R$ 120.641,72

12 National Consultants

12,1

Consultant in recuperation of altered areas (PPA) and legal reserves (LR) - for exchange knowledge porposes

$0,00 R$ 0,00

12,2 Consultant in environmental

legislation (PPA and LR) $0,00 R$ 0,00

12,2,1

Specialist in paticipatory approach and community fire management $7.230,06 R$ 23.246,08

12,2,2 Specialist in remote sensing

$3.756,46 R$ 6.641,04

14 Fellowships and Training

37


in US$ Local Currency


$20.159,93 R$ 39.324,95

14,2 Fellowships M.Sc.

(US$ 1256,98 * 19) $21.632,58 R$ 39.982,83

14,3 Bolsa DCR for environmental legislation (PPA and LR) (US$ 670,39 * 12) $8.302,00 R$ 21.538,80

19 Total component Project

Personnel $157.012,66 R$ 321.026,01 20 Sub-contracts

24,1 Printing services - didactic material $0,00 R$ 0,00

24,2 Translation services $5.086,14 R$ 10.481,91 29 Total component Sub-contracts $5.086,14 R$ 10.481,91

30 Duty Travel

31 Daily Subsistence Allowance 31,1 Daily for training $25 $0,00 R$ 0,00 31,2 Daily for field activities $20 $42.509,27 R$ 81.496,17 33 Transport Costs 33,1 Terrestrial passages $2.224,93 R$ 5.471,01 33,2 Aerial passages $2.339,50 R$ 5.365,45 39 Total component Duty Travel $47.073,70 R$ 92.332,63 40 Capital Items

40,1 Facilities of Embrapa (offices,

laboratories, library...) $0,00 R$ 0,00 40,2 Facilities of FIDESA $0,00 R$ 0,00 43 Vehicles 43,1 Vehicle off-road 4x4 $0,00 R$ 0,00 43,2 Motorcycles $0,00 R$ 0,00 43,3 Depreciation Vehicles - Partners 44 Capital Equipment 44,1 Computers $5.143,11 R$ 9.117,21

44,2

Equipments for field, monitoring (diameter tapes, makers, calipers, camera fotográfica, GPS, datashow-tele-caixa som)

$0,00 R$ 0,00

44,3 Use of equipments - Partners

(internet, printers, computers) $0,00 R$ 0,00

49 Total component Capital Items R$ 5.143,11 R$ 9.117,21 50 Consumable Items 51 Materials 51,1 Material for forest nurseries $1.443,50 R$ 2.558,89 51,2 Satellite images $0,00 R$ 0,00 51,3 Production of scientific articles $0,00 R$ 0,00 53 Fuel and Utilities

53,1 Fuel for research, courses,

workshops, technical assistance $8.761,96 R$ 16.576,04 53,2 Rent of vehicles $0,00 R$ 0,00

38



53,4 Maintaining vehicles and

equipments ($300/mo) $4.562,23 R$ 9.397,90

53,6 Communication (telephones and

internet - $100/mo) $0,00 R$ 0,00 54 Office Supplies 54,1 Office material $2.314,87 R$ 4.103,58

59 Total component Consumable Items $17.082,56 R$ 32.636,41

60 Miscellaneous 61 Sundry (5 x $1870) $14.040,17 R$ 26.748,42

63 Food and supllies for courses,

workshops and meetings $7.620,21 R$ 14.650,27 64 ABC Monitoring $1.952,22 R$ 3.454,86 69 Total component Miscellaneous $23.612,60 R$ 44.853,55

Total Expenditures To-date: 255.010,77 R$ 510.447,72

Remaining Balance of Funds (A-B): (*)

23.829,04 R$ 71.843,50

Notes:

(1) Amounts in U.S. dollars are converted using the average rate of exchange when funds were received by the Executing Agency. (2) Amount of expenditures in US dollar should be the same as amount shown in column (C) of the Financial Statement (exported with direct link from the Cash Flow Statement). (3) Submit bank reconciliation statement along with the bank statements to support the remaining balances/funds in the Cash Flow Statement.

(*) Included the income from financial investments of 6,000.00 authorized by ITTO - NOL 16 May 2016. More US $ 2,730.17 until July 2016. It will be required for translation services of project publications.

39

Annex 3

PROJECT FINANCIAL STATEMENT - COUNTERPART

Project No. ITTO PD 346/05 Rev. 2 (F) Period ending on: December 2007 to July 2016 Project Title: Conservation and recovery of degraded land in family agriculture units in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon

Component

Modified Expenditures To-date (US$)

Original Approved Available Amount Amount Accrued Expended Total Funds

(A) (A') (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A' - D }

I. Funds managed by Executing Agency

10. Project Personnel

11 National Experts

11,6 Forest Engineer - coordinator - Embrapa 30.000,00 39.000,00 38.000,00 38.000,00 1.000,00

11,7 Ecologist - Embrapa 18.000,00 18.000,00 18.000,00 18.000,00 0,00

11,8 Timber Technologist Senior - Embrapa 6.000,00 6.000,00 6.000,00 6.000,00 0,00

11,9 Technology of Forest Seeds - Embrapa 4.800,00 4.800,00 4.800,00 4.800,00 0,00

11,10 Soils and Nutrition of Plants - Embrapa 15.000,00 15.000,00 15.000,00 15.000,00 0,00

11,11 Journalist - Embrapa 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 0,00

11,12 Publicity and Marketing - Embrapa 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 0,00

11,13 Public Relationships - Embrapa 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 0,00

11,14 Forest Engineer - UFRA 12.000,00 12.000,00 12.000,00 12.000,00 0,00

11,15 Botany Senior - MPEG 10.000,00 10.000,00 10.000,00 10.000,00 0,00

11,16 Project Development - FIDESA 4.000,00 4.000,00 4.000,00 4.000,00 0,00

11,17 Agronomist - IBAMA 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 0,00

11,18 Agronomist - IBAMA 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 1.500,00 0,00

11,19 Financial Analyst - Embrapa 0,00 27.667,98 27.017,98 27.017,98 650,00

40



Component



(A) (A') (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A' - D }

11,20 Botanist technician - Embrapa 0,00 6.771,24 6.771,24 6.771,24 0,00

11,21 Laboratory technician - Embrapa 0,00 6.771,24 6.771,24 6.771,24 0,00

11,22 Drivers - Embrapa 0,00 18.542,49 18.142,49 18.142,49 400,00

14 Fellowships and Training 0,00 0,00 0,00

14,4 Research fellowship of CNPQ (3xUS$750x24mouths)

0,00 54.000,00 54.000,00 54.000,00 0,00

15 International Experts 0,00 0,00 0,00

15,1 Forest Engineer Senior - CIFOR 10.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

15,2 Forest Engineer Senior - CIRAD 10.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

19 Total component Project Personnel 127.300,00 230.052,96 0,00 228.002,96 228.002,96 2.050,00

40 Capital Items 0,00

40,1 Facilities of Embrapa (offices, laboratories, library...)

12.000,00 12.000,00 12.000,00 12.000,00 0,00

40,2 Facilities of FIDESA 2.400,00 2.400,00 2.400,00 2.400,00 0,00

43 Vehicles 43,3 Depreciation Vehicles - Partners 12.000,00 12.001,00 12.001,00 12.001,00 0,00

44 Capital Equipment

44,3 Use of equipments - Partners (internet, printers, computers)

12.000,00 12.001,00 12.001,00 12.001,00 0,00

49 Total component Capital Items $38.400,00 $38.402,00 $0,00 $38.402,00 $38.402,00 $0,00

41



Component



(A) (A') (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A' - D }

50 Consumable Items

53 Fuel and Utilities

53,4 Maintaining vehicles and equipments ($300/mo)

2.400,00 2.400,00 2.400,00 2.400,00 0,00


2.400,00 2.400,00 2.400,00 2.400,00 0,00

54 Office Supplies

54,1 Office material 1.200,00 1.200,00 1.200,00 1.200,00 0,00

59 Total component Consumable Items $6.000,00 $6.000,00 $0,00 $6.000,00 $6.000,00 $0,00

60 Miscellaneous

61 Sundry (2 cursos-fogo) 0,00 8.379,89 8.379,89 8.379,89 0,00

62 Auditing 20.000,00 20.000,00 20.000,00 20.000,00 0,00 69 Total component Miscellaneous $20.000,00 $28.379,89 $0,00 28.379,89 $28.379,89 $0,00

SUB-TOTAL 191.700,00 302.834,85 0,00 300.784,85 300.784,85 2.050,00

100.

GRAND TOTAL: 191.700,00 302.834,85 0,00 300.784,85 300.784,85 2.050,00


42

Annex 4

PROJECT CASH FLOW STATEMENT - COUNTERPART

Project No. PD 346/05 Period ending on: December 2007 to July 2016 Project Title: CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY OF DEGRADED LAND IN FAMILY AGRICULTURE UNITS IN THE EASTERN BRAZILIAN AMAZON



A. Contributions Counterpart

Dec 5, 2007

to July 31, 2016

$300.784,85 R$ 538.404,89

Total Funds Received: $300.784,85 R$ 538.404,89

B. Expenditures by Executing Agency: 10. Project Personnel

11 National Experts

11,6 Forest Engineer - coordinator - Embrapa

$38.000,00 R$ 68.020,00

11,7 Ecologist - Embrapa $18.000,00 R$ 32.220,00

11,8 Timber Technologist Senior - Embrapa

$6.000,00 R$ 10.740,00

11,9 Technology of Forest Seeds - Embrapa

$4.800,00 R$ 8.592,00

11,10 Soils and Nutrition of Plants - Embrapa

$15.000,00 R$ 26.850,00

11,11 Journalist - Embrapa $1.500,00 R$ 2.685,00

11,12 Publicity and Marketing - Embrapa

$1.500,00 R$ 2.685,00

11,13 Public Relationships - Embrapa

$1.500,00 R$ 2.685,00

11,14 Forest Engineer - UFRA $12.000,00 R$ 21.480,00

11,15 Botany Senior - MPEG $10.000,00 R$ 17.900,00

11,16 Project Development - FIDESA $4.000,00 R$ 7.160,00

11,17 Agronomist - IBAMA $1.500,00 R$ 2.685,00

11,18 Agronomist - IBAMA $1.500,00 R$ 2.685,00

11,19 Financial Analyst - Embrapa $27.017,98 R$ 48.362,19

11,20 Botanist technician - Embrapa $6.771,24 R$ 12.120,53

11,21 Laboratory technician - Embrapa

$6.771,24 R$ 12.120,53

11,22 Drivers - Embrapa $18.142,49 R$ 32.475,06


14,4 Research fellowship of CNPQ (3xUS$750x24mouths)

$54.000,00 R$ 96.660,00

15 International Experts $0,00 R$ 0,00

15,1 Forest Engineer Senior - CIFOR

$0,00 R$ 0,00

43

PROJECT CASH FLOW STATEMENT - COUNTERPART

Project No. PD 346/05 Period ending on: December 2007 to July 2016 Project Title: CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY OF DEGRADED LAND IN FAMILY AGRICULTURE UNITS IN THE EASTERN BRAZILIAN AMAZON



15,2 Forest Engineer Senior - CIRAD

$0,00 R$ 0,00

19 Total component Project Personnel

$228.002,96 $408.125,30

40 Capital Items $0,00

40,1 Facilities of Embrapa (offices, laboratories, library...)

$12.000,00 R$ 21.480,00

40,2 Facilities of FIDESA $2.400,00 R$ 4.296,00

43 Vehicles

43,3 Depreciation Vehicles - Partners

$12.001,00 R$ 21.481,79

44 Capital Equipment $0,00 R$ 0,00

44,3 Use of equipments - Partners (internet, printers, computers)

$12.001,00 R$ 21.481,79

49 Total component Capital Items

$38.402,00 $68.739,58

50 Consumable Items

53 Fuel and Utilities

53,4 Maintaining vehicles and equipments ($300/mo)

$2.400,00 R$ 4.296,00


$2.400,00 R$ 4.296,00

54 Office Supplies $0,00 R$ 0,00

54,1 Office material $1.200,00 R$ 2.148,00

59 Total component Consumable Items

$6.000,00 $10.740,00

60 Miscellaneous

61 Sundry (2 cursos-fogo) $8.379,89 R$ 15.000,00 62 Auditing (CGU) $20.000,00 R$ 35.800,00

69 Total component Miscellaneous

$28.379,89 $50.800,00

Total Expenditures To-date: $300.784,85 $538.404,89

Remaining Balance of Funds (A-B): (R$ 0,00) R$ 0,00

Notes: (1) Amounts in U.S. dollars are converted using the average rate of exchange when funds were received

by the Executing Agency.

(2) Amount of expenditures in US dollar should be the same as amount shown in column (C) of the Financial Statement (exported with direct link from the Cash Flow Statement).

(3) Submit bank reconciliation statement along with the bank statements to support the remaining balances/funds in the Cash Flow Statement.

44

Annex 5 PROJECT FINANCIAL STATEMENT – Funds ITTO

Project No. ITTO PD 346/05 Rev. 2 (F) Period ending on: December/07 a November/16

Project Title: Conservation and recovery of degraded land in family agriculture units in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon

Component


Modified Modified


(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

I. Funds managed by Executing Agency

10. Project Personnel

11 National Experts

11,1

Specialist for participatory approach and community fire management (U$1550/mo) 37.200,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

11,2

Technician for advise in community management work (2 x $ 800/mo) 38.400,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

11,3 Assistant Researches ($ 800/mo) 19.200,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

11,4

Technician for advise in community management work (Altamira - part time) - $ 300/mo 7.200,00 39.290,68 39.290,68 39.290,67 39.290,67 0,01


15.000,00 56.863,00 56.863,00 222,04 56.640,96 56.863,00 0,00

12 National Consultants

45

Component


Modified Modified


(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

12,1

Consultant in recuperation of altered areas (PPA) and legal reserves (LR) - for exchange knowledge porposes 1.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00


legislation (PPA and LR) 5.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

12,2,1

Specialist in paticipatory approach and community fire management 0,00 13.482,19 13.482,19 6.252,13 7.230,06 13.482,19 0,00

12,2,2 Specialist in remote sensing

0,00 3.756,46 3.756,46 3.756,46 3.756,46 0,00

14 Fellowships and Training 0,00


7.200,00 22.558,67 22.558,67 2.398,74 20.159,93 22.558,67 0,00

14,2 Fellowships M.Sc.

(US$ 1256,98 * 19) 0,00 22.186,05 22.186,05 296,17 21.632,58 21.928,75 257,30

14,3

Bolsa DCR for environmental legislation (PPA and LR) (US$ 670,39 * 12) 8.044,69 8.044,69 8.302,00 8.302,00 -257,31

19 Total component Project

Personnel 130.200,00 166.181,74 166.181,74 9.169,08 157.012,66 166.181,74 0,00 20 Sub-contracts

24,1 Printing services - didactic material 5.000,00 4.269,27 7.269,27 7.269,27 0,00 7.269,27 0,00

46

Component


Modified Modified


(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

24,2 Translaation Services 0,00 4.416,03 7.146,20 2.060,06 5.086,14 7.146,20 0,00

29 Total component Sub-

contracts 5.000,00 8.685,30 14.415,47 9.329,33 5.086,14 14.415,47 0,00 30 Duty Travel

31 Daily Subsistence Allowance

31,1 Daily for training $25 2.000,00 3.311,34 3.311,34 2.743,47 0,00 2.743,47 567,87

31,2 Daily for field activities $20 9.120,00 41.941,40 41.941,40 42.509,27 42.509,27 -567,87

33 Transport Costs 0,00

33,1 Terrestrial passages 2.820,00 2.239,00 2.239,00 14,07 2.224,93 2.239,00 0,00

33,2 Aerial passages 8.960,00 1.586,31 4.586,31 2.246,81 2.339,50 4.586,31 0,00

39 Total component Duty Travel 22.900,00 49.078,05 52.078,05 5.004,35 47.073,70 52.078,05 0,00 40 Capital Items 0,00

43 Vehicles 0,00

43,1 Vehicle off-road 4x4 25.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

43,2 Motorcycles 5.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 44 Capital Equipment 0,00

44,1 Computers 3.000,00 5.143,12 5.143,12 5.143,12 5.143,12 0,00

47

Component


Modified Modified


(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

44,2

Equipments for field, monitoring (diameter tapes, makers, calipers, camera fotográfica, GPS, datashow-tele-caixa som) 650,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

49 Total component Capital

Items 33.650,00 5.143,12 5.143,12 0,00 5.143,12 5.143,12 0,00 50 Consumable Items 0,00

51 Materials 0,00

51,1 Material for forest nurseries 5.620,00 1.443,50 1.443,50 1.443,50 1.443,50 0,00

51,2 Satellite images 2.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

51,3 Production of scientific articles 2.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

53 Fuel and Utilities 0,00

53,1 Fuel for research, courses,

workshops, technical assistance 10.520,00 8.765,41 8.765,41 8.761,96 8.761,96 3,45 53,2 Rent of vehicles 600,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

53,4 Maintaining vehicles and

equipments ($300/mo) 7.200,00 4.745,49 4.745,49 186,72 4.562,23 4.748,95 -3,46


internet - $100/mo) 2.400,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

54 Office Supplies 0,00 54,1 Office material 3.600,00 2.314,88 2.314,88 2.314,87 2.314,87 0,01

59 Total component Consumable

Items 33.940,00 17.269,28 17.269,28 186,72 17.082,56 17.269,28 0,00

48

Component


Modified Modified


(A) (A") (A'") (B) (C) (D) (E) a/ { B + C } { A'" - D }

60 Miscellaneous 0,00 61 Sundry (5 x $1870) 9.350,00 13.679,99 13.679,99 14.040,17 14.040,17 -360,18


workshops and meetings 14.960,00 8.118,23 8.118,23 139,55 7.620,21 7.759,76 358,47 64 ABC Monitoring 0,00 1.953,93 1.953,93 1.952,22 1.952,22 1,71

69 Total component Miscellaneous 24.310,00 23.752,15 23.752,15 139,55 23.612,60 23.752,15 0,00

SUB-TOTAL 250.000,00 270.109,64 278.839,81 23.829,03 255.010,78 278.839,81 0,00

80 ITTO Monitoring, Evaluation and Administration (*) (**) b/

81 ITTO Monitoring 20.000,00 20.000,00 b/ 82 Costs of Mid-term Evaluation 5.000,00 5.000,00 b/ 83 ABC Monitoring 10.000,00 0,00 84 Evaluation Ex-post 15.000,00 15.000,00 b/ 89 Total component 50.000,00 40.000,00 b/ SUB-TOTAL 300.000,00 310.109,64 b/

90 Refund of Pre-Project Costs (Pre-Project Budget) 8% 24.000,00 24.000,00

100 GRAND TOTAL: 324.000,00 334.109,64


(*) Included the income from financial investments of 6,000.00 authorized by ITTO - NOL 16 May 2016. More US $ 2,730.17 until July 2016. It will be required for translation services of project publications.

(**) The financial balance of $ 23,829.70 committed to expenses until November 2016.

49

Annex 6

PROJECT CASH FLOW STATEMENT – FUNDS ITTO

Project No. PD 346/05 Period ending on: December 2007 a November 2016 Project Title: CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY OF DEGRADED LAND IN FAMILY AGRICULTURE UNITS IN THE EASTERN BRAZILIAN AMAZON

Component Referenc Date Amount in US$ Local Currency

A. Funds received from ITTO: 1. First instalment 1,7727 05/12/2007 $100.000,00 R$ 178.821,00 2. Second Instalment 1,7679 22/06/2010 $60.000,00 R$ 104.619,01 3. Third instalment 2,0352 10/01/2013 $50.000,00 R$ 100.425,63 4. Fourth instalment 3,2152 09/07/2015 $50.000,00 $159.136,68 5. Interest earned to date 30/06/2016 $18.839,81 R$ 39.288,90 ETC.: Financial application income 30/11/2016 $1.000,00 R$ 3.000,00 Total Funds Received: 279.839,81 R$ 585.291,22

B. Expenditures by Executing Agency:

10. Project Personnel 11 National Experts

11,1

Specialist for participatory approach and community fire management (U$1550/mo) $0,00 R$ 0,00

11,2 Technician for advise in community

management work (2 x $ 800/mo) $0,00 R$ 0,00

11,3 Assistant Researches ($ 800/mo) $0,00 R$ 0,00

11,4

Technician for advise in community management work (Altamira - part time) - $ 300/mo $39.290,67 R$ 69.650,59


$56.863,00 R$ 121.311,16 12 National Consultants

12,1

Consultant in recuperation of altered areas (PPA) and legal reserves (LR) - for exchange knowledge porposes $0,00 R$ 0,00


legislation (PPA and LR) $0,00 R$ 0,00

12,2,1

Specialist in paticipatory approach and community fire management

$13.482,19 R$ 42.096,00

12,2,2 Specialist in remote sensing $3.756,46 R$ 6.641,04


14,1 Fellowships and Training Students (5

x $167,60/mo) $22.558,67 R$ 46.557,06

14,2 Fellowships M.Sc. (US$ 1256,98 * 19) $21.928,75 R$ 40.875,77

50


14,3

Bolsa DCR for environmental legislation (PPA and LR) (US$ 670,39 * 12) $8.302,00 R$ 21.538,80

19 Total component Project Personnel

$166.181,7

4 R$ 348.670,42 20 Sub-contracts

24,1 Printing services - didactic material $7.269,27 R$ 21.916,56

24,2 Translation services $7.146,20 R$ 16.692,91 29 Total component Sub-contracts $14.415,47 R$ 38.609,47 30 Duty Travel

31 Daily Subsistence Allowance

31,1 Daily for training $25 $2.743,47 R$ 8.271,45

31,2 Daily for field activities $20 $42.509,27 R$ 81.496,17

33 Transport Costs 33,1 Terrestrial passages $2.239,00 R$ 5.513,43

33,2 Aerial passages $4.586,31 R$ 12.139,49

39 Total component Duty Travel $52.078,05 R$ 107.420,55 40 Capital Items

40,1 Facilities of Embrapa (offices, laboratories, library...) $0,00 R$ 0,00

40,2 Facilities of FIDESA $0,00 R$ 0,00 43 Vehicles 43,1 Vehicle off-road 4x4 $0,00 R$ 0,00 43,2 Motorcycles $0,00 R$ 0,00 43,3 Depreciation Vehicles - Partners $0,00 R$ 0,00 44 Capital Equipment 44,1 Computers $5.143,11 R$ 9.117,21

44,2

Equipments for field, monitoring (diameter tapes, makers, calipers, camera fotográfica, GPS, datashow-tele-caixa som) $0,00 R$ 0,00

44,3 Use of equipments - Partners (internet, printers, computers) $0,00 R$ 0,00

49 Total component Capital Items R$

5.143,11 R$ 9.117,21 50 Consumable Items 51 Materials 51,1 Material for forest nurseries $1.443,50 R$ 2.558,89 51,2 Satellite images $0,00 R$ 0,00

51,3 Production of scientific articles $0,00 R$ 0,00 53 Fuel and Utilities

53,1 Fuel for research, courses, workshops,

technical assistance $8.761,96 R$ 16.576,04

53,2 Rent of vehicles $0,00 R$ 0,00

53,4 Maintaining vehicles and equipments

($300/mo) $4.748,95 R$ 9.960,85


internet - $100/mo) $0,00 R$ 0,00 54 Office Supplies

51


54,1 Office material $2.314,87 R$ 4.103,58 59 Total component Consumable Items $17.269,28 R$ 33.199,36 60 Miscellaneous

61 Sundry (5 x $1870) $14.040,17 R$ 26.748,42


workshops and meetings $7.759,76 R$ 15.070,94 64 ABC Monitoring $1.952,23 R$ 3.454,86

69 Total component Miscellaneous $23.752,16 R$ 45.274,22 Total Expenditures To-date: 278.839,81 R$ 582.291,22 Remaining Balance of Funds (A-B): (*) 1.000,00 R$ 3.000,00

Notes: (1) Amounts in U.S. dollars are converted using the average rate of exchange when funds were received by the Executing Agency. (2) Amount of expenditures in US dollar should be the same as amount shown in column (C) of the Financial Statement (exported with direct link from the Cash Flow Statement). (3) Submit bank reconciliation statement along with the bank statements to support the remaining balances/funds in the Cash Flow Statement.

(*) Income from financial investments of 1,000.00 estimated until November 2016. It will be necessary to Assistant coordinator ($ 625 / mo) - item 11.5 of the project budget.

completion report project - itto.int · 1 completion report of project pd 346/05 rev.2 (f)...

Documents