Coalizões de advocacia e estratégias de negociação na revisão do Código Florestal / Coaliciones de causa y estrategias de negociación en la revisión del Código Forestal Brasileño / Advocacy coalitions and negotiation strategies in the revision of the forest code

Resumo Este artigo analisa as coalizões de advocacia (meio ambiente e agricultura) estabelecidas durante a revisão do Código Florestal brasileiro e as principais estratégias de negociação adotadas. Entrevistas, análise de documentos e notícias de jornais de grande circulação possibilitaram captar como os gestores do Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA) e do Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (Mapa) lideraram tais coalizões. A teoria do Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) foi utilizada na análise das coalizões. Os resultados demonstram que esses ministérios recorreram à negociação como estratégia principal. A coalizão agricultura também investiu em informação científica, ao passo que a coalizão meio ambiente investiu em mobilização social.

Resumen El trabajo tiene como objetivo analizar las coaliciones de causa (medio ambiente y agricultura) establecidas durante la revisión del Código Forestal Brasileño y las estrategias de negociación principales que se utilizan. Entrevistas, análisis de documentos y de los principales periódicos de noticias permiten captar como gestores de los ministerios de Medio Ambiente (MMA) y de Agricultura, Ganadería y Abastecimiento (Mapa) lideraron estas coaliciones. La teoría de advocacy coalition framework (ACF) se utiliza para el análisis de las coaliciones. Los resultados mostraron que ambos ministerios utilizan la negociación como estrategia principal. La coalición agricultura invirtió en información científica, mientras que la coalición medio ambiente invirtió en movilización social.

Abstract This study aims to analyze the advocacy coalitions (classified as 'environment' and 'agriculture') established during the revision of the Brazilian Forest Code and the main negotiation strategies used. Interviews, analysis of documents and newspaper' reports allowed capturing how the managers of the Ministries of Environment (MMA) and Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (Mapa) led these coalitions. Coalition analysis used the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Results showed both ministries used negotiation as their main strategy. The agriculture coalition invested in scientific information, while environment coalition carried out social mobilization.

Threshold responses of Amazonian stream fishes to timing and extent of deforestation.

Deforestation is a primary driver of biodiversity change through habitat loss and fragmentation. Stream biodiversity may not respond to deforestation in a simple linear relationship. Rather, threshold responses to extent and timing of deforestation may occur. Identification of critical deforestation thresholds is needed for effective conservation and management. We tested for threshold responses of fish species and functional groups to degree of watershed and riparian zone deforestation and time since impact in 75 streams in the western Brazilian Amazon. We used remote sensing to assess deforestation from 1984 to 2011. Fish assemblages were sampled with seines and dip nets in a standardized manner. Fish species (n = 84) were classified into 20 functional groups based on ecomorphological traits associated with habitat use, feeding, and locomotion. Threshold responses were quantified using threshold indicator taxa analysis. Negative threshold responses to deforestation were common and consistently occurred at very low levels of deforestation (<20%) and soon after impact (<10 years). Sensitive species were functionally unique and associated with complex habitats and structures of allochthonous origin found in forested watersheds. Positive threshold responses of species were less common and generally occurred at >70% deforestation and >10 years after impact. Findings were similar at the community level for both taxonomic and functional analyses. Because most negative threshold responses occurred at low levels of deforestation and soon after impact, even minimal change is expected to negatively affect biodiversity. Delayed positive threshold responses to extreme deforestation by a few species do not offset the loss of sensitive taxa and likely contribute to biotic homogenization.