5. CONTROL AND MONITORING OF FOREST MANAGEMENT IN SISPROF

5.1 The direction and management from Brasilia headquarters and the advanced bases: their functions and articulation in the planning of activities

Figure 5.1 presents the organizational structure of IBAMA, in which the monitoring and control of SISPROF’s activities are inserted in the Directorate of Forests and in the Executive Management Units corresponding to each state of the Federation.

Figure 5.1 - Organizational structure of IBAMA – Decree 3833 of June 2001

The reception and treatment of demands from the public and clients of the forestry sector are taken care of by the State Executive Management Units (GEREXs) of IBAMA in the states of the Federation, as well as by the respective local offices. In these offices, the processes of PMFS, deforestation authorizations and registry of obligatory forest replacement pass through technical and legal analysis and evaluation. It is the responsibility of headquarters in Brasilia, at the Directorate of Forests, to supervise and monitor the performance and work of GEREXs and local offices, to establish targets and methodologies, to elaborate proposals for altering norms and rules and to provide support for solving problems at state level, when their solution seems difficult.

Every year, the Directorate of Forests, through its general coordination of forest resource management (CGREF), promotes the execution of technical field visits to forest activities related to forest management, deforestation activities and reforestation linked to obligatory forest replacement. In order to carry out the annual technical field visits, besides the above-mentioned structure, the Directorate of Forests also establishes temporary support bases. These bases count on IBAMA’s infrastructure in the states, and are commanded by a civil servant of the Institute with a mandate to act as chief for a period equal to that of the operation. The organization in regional areas and bases is due to the large number of field visits and to the limited time available for carrying out such visits because of local climatic conditions. The number and location of the bases are established taking into account the concentration of the activities and the availability of physical infrastructure.

Due to the large geographical distances and communication difficulties, regional coordinators are established (eastern and western Amazonia), whose respective responsible coordinators have the function to widen contact between headquarters in Brasilia and the bases. Without any infrastructure of their own, the regional coordinators circulate among the two areas with the purpose of evaluating their performances and of speeding up the adoption of corrective measures related to the methodology of action, redistribution of personnel, vehicles and equipment. The diagram in Figure 5.2 illustrates the structure that is periodically built for the development and implementation of technical field visits to forest activities, in which the PMFS are inserted.

Figure 5.2 - Organizational structure of IBAMA for the control of forest activities

5.1.1 Functions of Brasilia headquarters (DIREF/CGREF/project coordination)

5.1.1.1 Evaluation of activities developed each year and planning for the following year

The planning of actions related to technical control and monitoring of forest activities every year - in which those directed towards SFM are included - begins at the evaluation meeting of the preceding year, organized by CGREF in Brasilia. At the annual meeting, on the basis of the accomplishments and fragilities identified in the development of the work during the year under evaluation, the general lines for the following year are defined. The elaboration of the budget is the responsibility of Brasilia headquarters and is carried out with the employment of three interlinked Excel sheets/schedules that deal, respectively, with forest management plans, deforestation authorizations and forest replacement. Thanks to these Excel sheets, the budget is quickly prepared, and for that the following information is enough:

• definition of the number of processes/projects to be visited in each of the three activities. The number is provided by the local offices in the states, or by DITECs (Technical Divisions of the state GEREXs), with an estimate of new processes to be incorporated during the execution of the actions;
• definition of the sampling intensity of the field visits in each activity given the available resources;
• definition of the training courses to be ministered to IBAMA technicians, on the basis of proposed methodological progress, such as: ArcView, GPS operation, low-impact forest management, and others;
• number and location of temporary support bases to be established.

The number of teams and the consequent number of external technicians to be hired are also indicated automatically with the electronic sheet, on the basis of the following parameters:

1. a minimum of approximately 120 days per year for the field actions, wherever the site in the Amazon region;
2. a maximum of 15 consecutive days per mission, per team;
3. a minimum interval of 10 days between missions of 15 days;
4. a recommendable maximum of 60 field days, per team, per year;
5. an average of two days for a field visit to each PMFS.

The picture in Figure 5.3 shows the diagram of flows of the electronic sheets responsible for the calculation of the budget of actions as described above. The sheets that refer to the actions of field visits and training related to forest management plans are on row 1.1, which deals with the number of PMFS per situation (apt, suspended, etc.) per unit of the Federation (UF).

Figure 5.3 - Sheets of the automated budget

As a result of the sheet illustrated above, Table 5.1 with the estimates of PMFS to be visited (row 2.1 in the diagram) is presented as an example, noting that the planning has foreseen a 100 per cent visit to existing PMFS, and includes a percentage relative to other new ones that normally are submitted to IBAMA before the operations begin.

Table 5.1: Example of calculating the number of PMFS to be visited

UF	Existing		To visit
	Apt	Suspended	Apt	Suspended	Total DIREF	Unforeseen	Global total
AC AM AP MA MT PA RO RR TO	7 45 21 63 107 82 60 0 4	1 9 34 14 81 175 34 0 13	7 45 21 63 107 82 60 0 4	1 9 34 14 81 175 34 0 13	8 54 55 77 188 257 94 0 17	2 11 11 16 38 52 19 0 4	10 65 66 93 226 309 113 0 21
Total	389	361	389	361	750	153	903

After the calculation of the budget for the actions related to forest activities (management, deforestation and replacement) the two final sheets present the total budget per activity and per UF, and per element of expenditure and UF. This latter is shown in Table 5.2 with the costs of control, monitoring and training actions of PMFS included in it.

Table 5.2: Example of final budget sheet

UF	Daily stipends (3490.14)	Tickets (3490.33)	Consumption material (3490.30)	O.S.T.P. corporate (3490.39)	O.S.T.P. person (3490.36)	Permanent equip. & mater. (4590.52)	TOTAL
Acré Amazonas Amapá Maranhão Mato Grosso Pará Rondônia Roraima Tocantins CGREF	15.031,2 91.440,3 39.327,5 61.460,2 153.282,7 199.994,0 114.472,4 12.336,0 44.298,9 272.777,4	9.035,50 19.850,00 1.951,20 3.017,00 2.350,00 20.750,00 8.116,26 2.916,12 4.114,88 131.669,57	5.887,43 23.401,43 10.667,88 15.791,19 38.151,80 48.312.69 28.855,31 3.783,68 12.824,17 84.531,64	12.550,00 52.750,00 15.214,29 36.071,44 64.485,71 91.550,00 56.185,71 4.071,43 15.785,71 102.862,11	6.213,33 34.733,33 17.973,33 14.933,33 35.840,00 55.666,67 30.293,33 5.760,00 15.360,00 74.694,07	129.349,70 138.307,30 131.327,40 256.238,40 573.322,15 699.923,35 321.281,25 2.461,00 135.798,70 55.082,0	178.067,21 360.482,38 216.461,68 387.511,62 867.432,38 1.116.196,79 559.206,33 31.328,23 228.182,42 721.616,83
TOTAL	1.004.421,0	203.772,53	272.207,22	451.526,40	291.467,40	2.443.091,25	4.666.485,87

5.1.1.2 Establishment of regional coordinators and bases

The regional coordinators do not have a structure of their own. Their structure is constituted from that of the bases, which have a chief, a secretary and their field teams. To facilitate the work of the coordinators, a room in the state GEREX or in the regional offices is normally reserved during the period of the field visits, which may take up to eight months. In the regional base, tables, chairs and one or two computers are arranged together with the PMFS, deforestation requests and forest replacement projects that are to be visited.

5.1.1.3 Definition of the regional coordinators and of the base chiefs

The base chiefs are chosen from among IBAMA technicians who have already participated in the field visits and have shown a good performance in previous years. The regional coordinators in their turn are chosen from the technical personnel in Brasilia headquarters. To the extent possible, technicians do not command the same bases in consecutive years. Under their command, the teams carry out visits independently of the type of forest activity, that is, once having departed in a certain direction, they will visit areas of forest management, deforestation and forest replacement that are located along their route, following the established methodology for each of the activities.

5.1.1.4 Selection and hiring of temporary personnel

Every year IBAMA announces, through its home page, the beginning of a selection process for candidates for the temporary service of technical field visits. The applications and submissions of candidatures are carried out via Internet, through filling out a specific form. Through the same page the criteria and results of the selection are announced. The evaluation criteria for the selection of candidates for the technical visits are described in Table 5.3. Once selected, the candidates present themselves at the bases for which they have been selected, and firm their respective contracts through Internet itself.

Table 5.3: Criteria for the scoring of candidates for temporary hiring for field visits in forest management plans, deforestation areas and forest replacement projects

5.1.1.5 Distribution of financial resources for daily stipends, hiring and repair of vehicles

Financial resources for the execution of visits are distributed in different forms – always from Brasilia headquarters – in accordance with the nature and destination of the resources. Originating from national Treasury, they may be distributed to the bases through a cooperation project with UNDP, or directly through IBAMA’s financial disbursement means. A UNDP cooperation project with IBAMA allows for the hiring of temporary personnel, and on some occasions it can be quicker in making payments.

The payment of wages and daily stipends for the temporary labour force is done by Brasilia headquarters directly into bank accounts. The payment of daily stipends for permanent personnel is done through the state GEREXs.

For eventual expenditures, the base chiefs and the permanent personnel of the teams receive an advance payment, which is later reimbursed with a statement of incurred expenses. Recently, the payment of two consecutive advances had to be made, due to the length of time that teams had to wait before the statement of expenses was approved and a subsequent payment made.

5.1.1.6 Elaboration of maps

In order that bases may plan the distribution of projects among teams in a rational manner – considering their geographical distribution – Brasilia headquarters elaborates maps with the location and characteristics of the projects. Figure 5.4 presents an example of a map with the location of PMFS in the state of Maranhão.

Figure 5.4: Location map of PMFS in Maranhão

In the case of technical visits to PMFS, their implementation and execution are registered in the map in accordance with the methodology described in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5: Registration of execution of visits to PMFS

	Before the visit: preliminary marking • tag 0.5x1.5 with number of PMFS; • pin with colour of the team responsible for the PMFS; • pin fixed within the limits of the municipality where PMFS is located.
	After the visit: definitive marking • a point is marked in the map with the geographical • coordinates of PMFS found in the visit; • a circle is drawn holding the point and number of PMFS; another circle in the tag of the pin shows that PMFS has been visited and the location is real; • the pin is fixed on the geo-referenced point in the map.

5.1.1.7 Promotion of training

Once the methodology of proceedings to be adopted in the year, which begins in the evaluation meeting of the previous year’s process, has been defined, DIREF/CGREF schedules the visits for the training. The annual training is programmed for 40 hours, with 32 hours in forest management and eight hours in deforestation and forest replacement. In the beginning they were carried out by Regional offices (eastern Amazonia and western Amazonia), with all permanent and temporary technicians. Later, in order to diminish the classes/groups and allow for a more specific approach, the training came under the supervision of each base chief. In these cases the base chiefs were trained in Brasilia. Nevertheless, this option has not shown good results due to very different interpretations of the manual by the base chiefs when they promoted the courses to their respective classes.

5.1.1.8 Definition of the methodology and of the sampling percentage, elaboration and distribution of the Manual

From the version of the previous year and on the basis of suggestions and criticisms of the evaluation meeting, DIREF/CGREF elaborates the Manual of Proceedings. The manual may be altered during the training meeting if any flaw or gap is observed. Other changes may still occur during the period of activities, provided they do not compromise the coherence of proceedings or the final analysis of the results.

The content of the manual is quite wide. Besides the proceedings to be adopted in the planning and execution of the visits to PMFS, deforestation areas and forest replacement, the manual includes all forestry legislation, statistical and unit conversion formulas, support software elaborated by DIREF/CGREF, speeches on related issues and other help items.

Due to the increasing volume of information in the manual, initially it was prepared and distributed through a CD. Thus, it is possible to transport it easily, consult its sections with the use of any machine and print only the parts that one judges necessary. Figures 5.6 and 5.7 show the images of the printed manual and the CD. Table 5.4 presents its contents.

Table 5.4: Contents of digital manual in which forest management sections are found

Technical visits 2001
Courses	Texts	Forms
Role of coordinators In order of date In order of UF and town Transparencies Communal Transparencies Entrepreneurial	Cover Introduction Forest management Deforestation Forest replacement Useful information Camping Legislation	Entrepreneurial PMFS Simple PMFS Other PMFS Heart of palms PMFS Varzea PMFS Deforestation report Forest replacement report Forms for forest inventory 100%
Programmes PMFS 2001 Forest inventory 100% Trackmaker	Others Manual GPS Manual forest inventory 100% Trackmaker manual Trackmaker files Speeches kit	Administrative Activities routine Budget lines UNDP GEREX speeches

5.1.1.9 Elaboration of specific software for support

DIREF/CGREF have the duty to develop and distribute the software for support of technical visits. They are destined for the planning of expeditions and control of the execution of visits, to be used by the teams of technical inspections, as well as for the processing of forest inventory data, distributed freely to communities and free lance professionals that deal with forest management.

5.1.1.10 Promotion of the year’s evaluation meeting and planning for the next

The evaluation meeting of each year’s activities, which marks the end of a year, is also the first of the following year. In the meeting all deficiencies and difficulties are discussed in a debate that is always concluded with suggestions for improvement of the process as a whole. Besides the products described, the meetings increase technicians’ knowledge who then carry out their duties in remote areas, giving adequate space for their opinions on the process of technical visits and allowing them to discuss and put forward their views on forestry policy as a whole.

5.1.2 Functions of field offices (regionals and bases in the states)

5.1.2.1 Analysis and approval of PMFS documents/plans, requests for deforestation authorizations and forest replacement projects

An analysis of process is carried out previously at the legal and technical divisions of each state GEREX. The analysis covers the evaluation of technical coherence, adjustments to prevailing legislation, land and agrarian documentation and other aspects. When problems are identified, and in order to solve them, the administrative running of a process is interrupted and the interested parties are duly informed. It is only when the documental part has been considered satisfactory that a PMFS, that a deforestation request or a forest replacement project may be forwarded to technical field visits, which will be part of the annual operation for which the provisional bases will be established.

5.1.2.2 Constitution of teams

The basic composition of each team of technical inspection/visit in PMFS, as we have said, is pre-defined. In the team there must be a forest engineer from IBAMA, a temporarily hired forest engineer, exclusively recruited for that purpose, and a third forest engineer from an OEMA. It is not always possible to compose teams as planned, mainly because of the deficiency of personnel in OEMAs. It remains for each base chief to constitute teams in the best possible way, in accordance with the personal affinity and experience of each individual.

5.1.2.3 Production of information for the elaboration of maps

As mentioned, the maps are prepared by DIREF/CGREF on the basis of geographical coordinates of PMFS, authorized areas for deforestation and areas of forest replacement. In each visit the teams proceed to geo-reference the areas with the use of GPS and provide the coordinates to headquarters by using a nomenclature standard. Besides providing the plotting of the area on the map, the archive/file is kept to allow future access to the area. Figure 5.8 presents the standard that must be followed in the denomination of geo-referencing of files about the inspected areas.

Figure 5.8: Nomenclature rule for digital files of geo-referenced inspected areas of PMFS, deforestation and forest replacement

5.1.2.4 Definition of routes

After assembling the processes to be inspected/visited, they are grouped in accordance with their geographical proximity and their accessibility. As such, PMFS, together with deforestation and forest replacement processes, are organized in groups, or routes, that allow the optimization of time for the expeditions. At the end of each journey, the team gives an account of its expenditure, its production and its reports, and proceeds to accomplish another route.

5.1.2.5 Carrying out inspections/visits

The visits, including those of PMFS, are the responsibility of the bases in most of the cases, except when there is need for a “re-verification” visit. In this case, independent teams defined by headquarters carry out inspections in processes of a determined base, already visited by itself, with the purpose of comparison for further checking the coherence and correctness of such process.

5.1.2.6 Contact with OEMAs

Although the publicizing of the process as a whole is carried out by DIREF/CGREF, in direct contact with the higher Direction of OEMAs, it remains for the bases to establish a day-to-day contact with OEMAs aiming at greater participation of the state government in the process.

5.1.2.7 Roster/registry in specific software for PMFS

DIREF/CGREF has developed specific software for following up the implementation of the process of inspections/visits in PMFS. In the software, the information on technical reports is filed and then transferred automatically, via Internet, to DIREF/CGREF. Figures 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12 present some of the software screens.

Figure 5.9: Initial screen of the follow-up programme of technical visits to PMFS

Figure 5.10: File of PMFS

Figure 5.11: File of technicians, holders and inspectors

Figure 5.12: Inclusion of inspection/visit results

The software programme, directed to utilization by the bases, allows the printing of lists of involved persons, of filed PMFS and results of visits to them. It also allows for the automatic transmission of information to Brasilia headquarters.

5.1.2.8 Evaluation of temporarily hired personnel

During implementation of technical visits, it is the base chief’s responsibility to evaluate technicians under temporary contracts. Such an evaluation may define the permanence or not of the contracted party during present and future periods.

5.1.2.9 Concession of exploitation authorizations (APEs) and authorizations for transportation of forest products (ATPFs)

APEs and subsequent ATPFs are issued by state GEREXs, after the PMFS has been considered “apt” by the technical field visit. The ATPF is issued in a computerized controlled form through SISPROF, as described in section 4.

5.1.2.10 Feeding the data bank of SISPROF/SISMAD

Independently of the information on the implementation and results of technical field visits – provided by the bases through the mentioned software – the GEREXs are responsible for feeding the SISPROF data bank, which processes and correlates the information on time.

5.1.3 Other shared actions

5.1.3.1 Evaluation of the year’s procedures

Annual evaluations are carried out jointly. On one side it is the duty of DIREF/CGREF to promote and organize the event – which has a five-day duration – in an isolated and independent place. On another, the dynamics and success of the event depend on the base chiefs and on the chiefs of GEREX technical divisions (DITECs) that actively participated in the process closer to the field. Temporary technicians who have shown outstanding performance also participate in the meeting, as well as other parties invited by DIREF/CGREF.

5.1.3.2 Flow of information and means of communication

Once the process of technical field visits is initiated, there are different forms of contact between DIREF/CGREF and the bases, and the employment of the “AutoTrac” system is the one that allows the most remote type of contact. The “AutoTrac” is a piece of equipment that has a global positioning system and is installed in the vehicles used in field visits. Through the satellite contact, it facilitates the transmission and reception of short messages, with the use of a keyboard that is coupled to it. Through the equipment it is possible for DIREF/CGREF, in Brasilia, to follow up the movement of teams in real time, to change their routes or to ask for an unforeseen service. On the part of the team, it is possible to ask for information on documents, individuals and transportation loads of forest products.

From DITECs and the remote bases, e-mail is the means that is mostly used for sending information referring to the results of activities. The information is transmitted already digitalized in software, which is specific for each subject (forest management, deforestation and forest replacement). DIREF/CGREF uses mainly the Internet to ask for clarifications, sending new versions of software and receipt of explanations, etc. IBAMA’s internal postal mail is used for sending various documents such as signed copies of reports of visits, photographs, maps and others. Its sole disadvantage is that it circulates only once a week. The telephone and fax are alternative means of communication, used mainly to clarify doubts and ask for urgent services or information.

5.2 Participation of private industry in SISPROF, with emphasis on PMFS: commitments and advantages

5.2.1 Technological level, past and present interest of private companies

A process intended to improve the control and monitoring of PMFS was initiated in 1996 when for the first time IBAMA carried out a full scrutiny of all documents pertaining to PMFS of Amazonia. For that purpose, a concentrated institutional effort was needed, involving the participation of more than 60 forest engineers of IBAMA from all different states of the country. Up to that time, the process of standardization of technical field visits to PMFS had not been initiated; the evaluation of that year was limited to documents. With it, for the first time, it became possible to know how many PMFS there were in the region, in which state they were located, the area involved and the volume of wood/timber that they comprised. Plans were classified according to minimum criteria, in order to allow them to be considered “apt” and ready for implementation. Table 5.5 shows the criteria used for the scrutiny of PMFS, and Tables 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 present the final situation after the scrutiny.

In terms of the three parameters – number, area and volume of timber – the situation after the scrutiny has been similar, that is, only about 30 per cent of existing PMFS had been considered “apt”. At the time, when the scrutiny was carried out, the normative regulation in force on PMFS was IBAMA’s normative instruction no. 048 of 1994, based on Decree 1282/94. The fundamental characteristic of that instrument was that it required basically one single and definitive document for liberation of all of the cutting cycle. This situation changed at the end of 1998, when IBAMA began to require POAs for the PMFS, of which the 100 per cent forest inventory for commercial-size trees was an integral part.

Table 5.5: Groups of reasons for the suspension or cancellation of PMFS in the operation of document evaluation

Reasons

Group

1. Without responsible technician 2. Without presentation of pre- and post-exploitation report or technical reason 3. Holder with consolidated debt. 4. Area with land regularity problems due to invasion 5. Continuous forest inventory with insufficient number of permanent parcels or not presented 6. Without notary registration of area under management 7. With unaccomplished pending pointed in technical appraisal of visit 8. Approved in disagreement with the legislation 9. PMFS of a bankrupt company without transfer of the plan 10. Paralysed PMFS for more than five years without technical justification 11. Cancelled before the scrutiny for being inside the RESEX Chico Mendes 12. To adapt to the legislation 13. Unaccomplishment of pointed pendings necessary to legislation adequacy 14. Legal pending issue 15. Land problem (lacking the creation of a state forest) 16. Proprietor/holder has asked for cancellation 17. Without visit/inspection 18. Without measurement of permanent parcels 19. Undue utilization of ATPF 20. Fire 21. PMFS inside indigenous area

2 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 2 4 4 1

Groups: 1-Agrarian; 2-Technician; 3-Legal; 4-Others

From a situation where frequently the forest engineer hardly knew the area under management, performing a much more bureaucratic than technical role, one has reached a point where each tree must be plated and geo-referenced before its exploitation is authorized. At the same time, the POA demands a detailed planning of the infrastructure, and finally the exploitation, of the effective presence of the technician in the field. This requirement may be attributed to the development of a technological package for the management of Brazilian Amazonian forests. The package, described below, marks the agreement between the academic milieu and private initiative on what is feasible from an ecological and economic point of view. Before the development of the technological package, the discussion on forest management in Amazonia was restricted to research institutions and forest engineering post-graduation schools of Brazil. For technicians that were responsible for the practice of forest management at commercial and entrepreneurial levels, the discussion was restricted solely to the requirements put forward by regulating bodies of forest authorities.

Table 5.6: Number of PMFS per situation and per state, after the 1996/97 scrutiny

UF	Apt	%	Suspended	%	Cancelled	%	Total
AC AM AP MA MT PA RO TO	6 5 7 34 232 183 16 1	19,35 8,20 36,84 51,52 39,26 24,73 21,92 9,09	20 56 12 28 352 479 35 10	64,52 91,80 63,16 42,42 59,56 64,73 47,95 90,91	5 - - 4 7 78 22 -	16,13 0,00 0,00 6,06 1,18 10,54 30,14 0,00	31 61 19 66 591 740 73 11
Total	484	30,40	992	62,31	116	7,29	1.592

Table 5.7: Area of PMFS per situation and per state, after the 1996/97 scrutiny - ha

UF	Apt	%	Suspended	%	Cancelled	%	Total
AC AM AP MA MT PA RO TO	50.685 64.194 3.086 48.662 281.823 468.896 39.460 40	26,25 14,07 60,94 47,22 35,35 30,63 37,17 1,18	134.250 392.161 1.978 51.566 503.972 949.317 29.822 3.351	69,54 85,93 39,06 50,04 63,22 62,01 28,09 98,82	8.114 - - 2.828 11.335 112.687 36.879 -	4,20 0,00 0,00 2,74 1,42 7,36 34,74 0,00	193.049,00 456.355,00 5.064,00 103.056,00 797.130,00 1.530.900,00 106.161,00 3.391,00
Total	956.846	29,95	2.066.417	64,67	171.843	5,38	3.195.106,00

This dichotomy existed due to a lack of consensus between the perfectionism of academia and the immediate pragmatism of private enterprise. With the development of the technological package the convergence of positions began to occur. If, from one side, the 100 per cent FI allows the public sector to control the exploitation of the resource, it also helps the private producer to control its assets or capital. The easy finding of a tree and its wood volume are also associated with the possibility of detailed planning and consequent reduction of expenditures with equipment and labour for exploitation.

Table 5.8: Commercial timber production volume of PMFS per situation and per state, after 1996/97 scrutiny – m³

UF	Apt	%	Suspended	%	Cancelled	%	Total
AC AM AP MA MT PA RO TO	2.314.233 4.565.273 296.623 4.055.451 10.905.429 25.604.580 1.188.462 919	47,34 16,16 77,22 53,34 36,59 28,60 33,45 1,50	2.473.017 23.686.409 87.484 3.371.508 18.480.728 57.386.114 801.614 60.507	50,59 83,84 22,78 44,34 62,01 64,09 22,56 98,50	100.939 - - 176.577 418.148 6.544.475 1.563.118 -	2,06 0,00 0,00 2,32 1,40 7,31 43,99 0,00	4.888.189 28.251.682 384.107 7.603.536 29.804.305 89.535.169 3.553.194 61.426
Total	48.930.970	29,82	106.347.381	64,81	8.803.257	5,37	164.081.608

IBAMA has been making efforts to clarify the package to producers and technical professionals of the sector. In 2000, 28 training courses were held, reaching about 1,400 people, among freelance professionals of intermediate and superior levels of education, businessmen and others. Also, in 2000, IBAMA created a nucleus of support to forest management (NAMF) with the purpose of guaranteeing regularity in the supply of courses and other forest promotion publicity material.

5.2.2 Advantages of SISPROF from the point of view of the client

5.2.2.1 A philosophical change

Before turning to the advantages of the present system, it is important to emphasize that it has a fundamental philosophical difference compared to the previous one. Traditionally, forest management activity had been regulated by an apparatus of rules and actions that mostly aimed at impeding fraud or making it difficult. Such philosophy has proved totally ineffective. Due to corruption practices and violatations of rules and regulations or to the technically incapable personnel, the result was that the same rules and regulation ended up causing an increase the price of bribes. Others that might even been capable of following the rules would refuse to do so given the disloyal competition of impostors in addition to the scarce practicality of the rules. For those who would follow the rules at any cost, which happens to be the minority, the system would penalize them through an increase in bureaucracy and other transaction costs. The fundamental change came when, instead of trying to make the activity more difficult for those who could fraud the system, it moved in the direction of stimulating the performance of those who took the system seriously and were being penalized by it.

Starting from a strict system, bureaucratic and inefficient, and moving into another (system) with better rules, from an entrepreneurial point of view, and which tend to reduce bureaucracy, honest managers started to experience advantages. At the same time, investment in information technology and computer automatization of the system not only increased control but also made dishonest activity more difficult without imposing a burden on private commercial/entrepeneurial activity.

5.2.2.2 Advantages

From the point of view of private activity there are numerous practical and economical advantages of the new system compared to the old one, such as:

- Digital PMFS: much cheaper and more practical to transport, mainly after the requirement of a 100 per cent FI, whose tables, depending on the area, consumed hundreds of pages.

- Pre-inspection/visit by crossing the satellite images with geo-referenced information: from geo-referenced maps, and in view of recent satellite images and an updated data bank, the system has allowed the execution of visits solely by cross-checking information. The objective of the pre-inspection/visit is thus reached more quickly and cheaply, without the need of going to the field.

- Follow-up inspection/visit of POA carried out during the implementation of the plan itself: besides enabling a more realistic evaluation of the activity, once it is carried out during execution and not before, the client is definitively freed from the traditional wait for the visit in order to be able to initiate his activities. Such problem always occurred given the limited number of personnel and the seasonality of field operations.

- Distribution of up-to-date satellite images: the fact that to operate the system the controlling institution needs to purchase the images, putting them at the disposal of the interested parties, lowers the cost of elaborating PMFS.

- Non-obligation to carry out the diagnostic forest inventory by sampling: due to their high cost, diagnostic forest inventories used to make management plans more costly, many times unnecessarily. Nowadays, the decision to estimate the available average commercial volume is an option of the technician responsible for the PMFS. The technician may make use of information from other forest inventories that have been carried out in nearby areas with similar forest physiognomy. In the case of low-intensity of exploitation and small areas – as in a simplified management category – with physiognomies of good timber potential, the technician may employ alternative estimation methods.

- Making software available to clients and technicians: three programmes have been produced and made available, free of cost, to technicians and holders of PMFS. One was destined for the planning and budgeting of campings and expeditions, and two for data processing of the 100 per cent FI (one for the modality of PMFS at entrepreneurial level and the other for the simplified level).

- Control of exploited timber: among other advantages, the census of trees to be exploited allows the producer to have better control over his production. In the past, since it was easier to smuggle/rob logs of higher value species, the producer was forced to develop a system of control of his own, frequently with various hierarchical levels (inspectors and inspectors of inspectors) in order to avoid the robbery.

- Control of team productivity: all the stages of the technological package offered/proposed for the practice of forest management are based on a sequential planning. To this end, all stages, from the opening of orientation tracks for the 100 per cent FI (first activity) until patio operations (last activity), make use of spreadsheets where the team’s components, production and time are registered. This information allows the evaluation of the performance of a determined team, as well as the comparison of different teams in performing a similar activity. The comparison of productivities of different activities among them allows the identification of limiting factors and priorities for training.

- Differentiated treatment: another characteristic of the present system for entrepreneurs and technicians that implement PMFS is the distinction between those that do what is technically recommendable and those that do not, thereby providing advantages for the first or punishments for the latter.

- Training and courses: through the nucleus of support to forest management (NAMF), free courses of short duration on modern techniques of management are administered. Such courses also work as motivation for the practical and theoretical courses of medium duration supported by the “Pro-Manejo”/PPG7/IBAMA. In these courses entrepreneurs can be trained and will in turn be able to train their teams.

- Technical orientation during visits: independently of courses and trainings, in each field visit the entrepreneur or forest engineer responsible for the PMFS may receive technical orientation when verifiers of quality of each activity are being applied. The copy of the field visit reckoning/judgement, that is sent to the PMFS holder, also works as an orientation for the improvement of his activities.

5.2.3 The role of verifiers and indicators

5.2.3.1 Evaluation of the quality of forest management and standardization of proceedings

The main function of verifiers and indicators is to give a critical evaluation of the technical quality of the practice of forest management in general, as well as of each one of the activities that compose it. Before verifiers were used, the evaluation depended on the personal experience of each technician. Such procedure hardly allowed for a complete assessment, given the wide extension of subjects that compose forest management. Partial evaluations, in their turn, have never permitted a good comparison, either at local, municipal or state levels. Consequently, they also did not allow for a uniform institutional response to similar situations.

The result of this type of procedure that has accompanied the history of technical inspections/visits of IBAMA depended, therefore, on the technician. On the one hand, the sectors that were accustomed to frauding the rules would do their utmost to influence the technician who would visit/inspect their projects. On the other hand, on the part of the technicians, it was easy to choose which aspects should be treated in the analysis and which should be omitted. The final result, besides the precarious control, was the impossibility of the institution establishing regional priorities and planning specific actions of information, or of capacity formation, for each reality.

5.2.3.2 Technical orientation, self-knowledge and quality improvement

The out-dating between the knowledge currently available about SFM and practices verified in the field, demonstrates that the country’s forest engineering schools may not be preparing professionals in such a way as to be able to act with native forests in the Amazon. At the same time, as in many cases, the professional may have been formed quite some time ago, when the available knowledge was even scarcer, and since then has never undertaken a course of professional updating. With the purpose of solving this problem, different strategies have been adopted. For long-term effects DIREF has been trying to widen the contact with universities, aiming at establishing the forest residence in the country, as is done with professionals in the medical field. For medium-term effects, DIREF has created the nucleus of support to forest management (NAMF), which will have the task of promoting professional updating courses in the Amazon region, as well as of distributing instruction material.

In the discussions between the team and the technician responsible for the execution of the PMFS/POA, various aspects are taken into consideration. Thus, the technician responsible becomes informed of the techniques that he so far did not know, and commits himself to undertaking certain improvements. Such commitments are registered in a specific place in the technical visit forms, and are then included in the data bank for future questioning and checking, independently of the next team that will visit the PMFS. When training IBAMA technicians about what should be seen in an analysis of a PMFS (verifiers), and having established standards for what would be adequate or not (indicators), the method allows the transference of updated information to the professional responsible for the execution of the plan

5.2.3.3 Scoring of verifiers for evaluation of PMFS/POA

The evaluation of a PMFS is carried out in accordance with the classification of the plan, as per the following characteristics:

• Object of management: wood/timber, heart of palms, or others.

• Environment: highlands or lowlands (várzeas).

• Social organization: individual or community.

• Intensity of exploitation: high ( ≥10m³/ha) or low (<10m³/ha)

• Control regime: area (through units of annual production, one exploited in each year until completion of the cutting cycle) or volume (1m³/ha/year in the whole AMF).

Once classified, the PMFS is evaluated in accordance with the verifiers presented in Table 5.11 and, as soon as the items to be selected in the evaluation of PMFS have been defined, the activities related to them are scored from one to five, considering the suggested verifiers in line with the concepts described in Table 5.9. The number referring to the score of each activity is multiplied by its weight or importance. The weight of each activity, varying from 1 to 5, in an increasing degree of importance, has been previously established in a technical meeting.

Table 5.9: Parameters for the scoring of forest management activities assessed on the basis of verifiers

Table 5.10 presents the list of weights for each activity, and the final grade or concept of the assessed PMFS is given by the weighted average of the scores received by the plan.

Table 5.10: Weight or importance attributed to each activity developed in a PMFS

Table 5.11: Items to evaluate in accordance with the classification of a PMFS

5.2.4 The criteria and indicators of the Tarapoto Process and the assessment of PMFS from the monitoring and control procedures established in SISPROF

Principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers of the sustainability of forest management are on the discussion agenda of various international fora. Brazil is a member of the agreement that started the Tarapoto Process for the implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainability of the Amazon forest, coordinated by the Secretariat of the Treaty for Amazon Cooperation (TCA) In Tarapoto (Peru) 37 indicators of the quality of SFM, corresponding to 11 criteria, have been discussed after a local evaluation in member countries. According to the Tarapoto Process⁴⁵, criteria and indicators for sustainability are defined as:

Criterion – a category of conditions and processes through which SFM can be assessed. A criterion is characterized by a set of related indicators that can be monitored periodically with the purpose of determining eventual changes.

Indicator – a measure (measurement) of one aspect of the criterion. A quantitative or qualitative variable that can be measured or described, and when periodically observed can demonstrate trends.

Of the 37 indicators selected by the member countries of the TCA, 15 have been considered possible of immediate application in the respective countries. Eighteen other indicators have been considered applicable in a second stage, and the remaining four have not been consensual, thus kept for discussion on future occasions. The criteria and indicators have been distributed in accordance with the following classification:

5.2.4.1 Criteria at national level

1. Socio-economic benefits: Eight indicators about production and consumption; three on investment and economic growth in the forestry sector and four on cultural, social and spiritual values.

2. Policy and institutional and juridical framework for sustainable development of forests: Four indicators.

3. Sustainable forest production: Five indicators.

4. Conservation of forest cover and biological diversity: Eight indicators.

5. Conservation and integral management of water and soil resources: Four indicators.

6. Science and technology for the sustainable development of forests: Six indicators.

7. Institutional capacity to support Amazonian sustainable development: Four indicators.

5.2.4.2 Criteria at management unit level

8. Juridical and institutional basis: Three indicators.

9. Sustainable forest production: Five indicators.

10. Conservation of forest ecosystems: Six indicators.

11. Local socio-economic benefits: Nine indicators.

5.2.4.3 Services at global level

12. Economic, social and environmental services of the Amazon forests: Seven indicators.

The indicators identified by the eight countries of TCA as having more conditions of applicability at the level of the forest management unit are described below, together with the treatment given to them by the SISPROF/PMFS module. The further, or remaining, indicators that have not been consensual, or that are not directly considered by SISPROF, are merely mentioned or indicated below.

Criterion 8: Juridical and institutional basis

Indicator: Sustainable forest management plan (PMFS) approved by the competent authority.

Forest exploitation based on a PMFS is ruled by the Forest Code (Law 4771/65) and by Decree 1282/94, with modifications introduced by Decree 2788/98. When submitted to IBAMA, the PMFS is inserted in SISPROF, and from then on all its implementation will also be registered. The PMFS is composed of a basic document, similar to a letter of intentions – in which one of the items is the issue of the legal documentation of the property – and of successive annual operational plans. The PMFS is constituted of the following items:

1. Information that must be part of the PMFS

1.1. Objectives.

1.2. Relation of species to be managed, average volume per hectare and total volume to be exploited annually.

1.3. Cutting cycle.

1.4. Property maps, in appropriate scale, with involved parallels and meridians, legend and conventions, showing location, access, confrontations, roads and rivers, forest types, areas of legal forest reserve, APP, etc., area of the PMFS, reforested areas, and areas used with agriculture, pastures, etc., all properly measured.

1.5. Annotation of technical responsibility (ART) of elaboration and execution.

2. Information that must be part of POAs, to be described in detail.

2.1. General items

2.1.1. Report of activities carried out that are part of the previous POA (from the second POA), including: brief report covering all activities carried out, positive and negative points of previous year’s planning, underscoring suggestions to improve the performance of the activities, including the issues of camping infrastructure and labour security; updated map of AMF and previous UPA showing the changes since last updating.

2.1.2. Map of UPA to be exploited in the current year with the points of the polygon defined in geographical coordinates, containing trees to be exploited and remaining trees, with symbols underscored in conventions, and sub-divided into units of work (UTs), in the scale 1:2,500.

2.1.3. Execution time-table.

2.1.4. Labour security.

2.1.5. Camping infrastructure.

2.1.6. Monitoring of the activities of the company.

2.2. Pre-exploitation phase

2.2.1. Delimitation of AMF and UPAs.

2.2.2.

Opening of orientation tracks of the forest inventory (IF 100 per cent).

2.2.3. Forest inventory of 100 per cent of the individuals of commercial size to be exploited, as well as of those destined for next harvest (including scientific name).

2.2.4. Micro-zoning: water courses, vine concentrations and other information obtained from the IF 100 per cent.

2.2.5. Vine cutting (when this is the case).

2.2.6. Exploitation infrastructure: primary roads, secondary roads, patios, crossing of water-courses and logging tracks, according to technical specifications (for highland PMFS).

2.3. Exploitation phase

2.3.1. Cutting/felling of trees.

2.3.2. Logging.

2.3.3. Patio operations (for highland PMFS).

2.4. Post-exploitation phase

2.4.1. Silvicultural treatments.

2.4.2. Forest protection.

2.4.3. Monitoring of forest development.

2.4.4. Maintenance of infrastructure (for highland PMFS).

Indicator: Periodicity of assessment of PMFS’s accomplishment and average percentage of accomplishment.

The POAs are analysed and later submitted to technical visits, yearly, with the employment of a set of methods and verifiers developed for this purpose. The general evaluation of the quality of forest management in Amazonia is published in a printed document, in a CD in digital form and on the Internet, through the home page.

The third indicator of Criterion 8, “the legal/juridical background that guarantees the stability of forest investments in the long run”, has not been consensual and is not directly reflected in the SISPROF package (in fact, a legal/juridical background that guarantees “long-term stability of forest investments”, as such, is something so broad as to clearly extrapolate forestry policy and legislation ).

Criterion 9: Sustainable forest production

Criterion 9 originally had five indicators. The first four, listed below, have not been consensual, and therefore have not been considered in SISPROF:

a) annual utilization of wood and non-wood products compatible with the sustainable capacity of the resource.

b) area and percentage of forest soils affected with significant alteration in their physico-chemical properties and erosion.

c) efficiency of the systems of management and control.

d) level of production diversification.

The fifth indicator – considered for immediate application – is taken into account by SISPROF, and is

described below.

Indicator: Level of utilization of environmentally friendly technologies.

Since SUDAM (1978)⁴⁶, with the help of research institutions and NGOs, Brazil has been developing a package of technical proceedings for the practice of SFM in Amazonia. Recently, Holmes et al. (2002)⁴⁷demonstrated the technical and economic superiority of the package developed for the region. At the same time, IBAMA has been discussing and testing a set of verifiers that is being used in the analysis of PMFS documents and respective POAs, as well as in the technical visits, which is described in Tables 5.12 and 5.13, corresponding to the pre-exploitation and exploitation phases of management, respectively.

Table 5.12: Verifiers of the level of utilization of environmentally friendly technologies in the pre-exploitation phase of forest management

Item/description/components		Verifiers
1. Delimitation of the forest management areas (AMF) and of the annual production units (UPAs) - opening of tracks (where necessary) - placing of indication plates	- delimitation tracks of UPAs and UTs - existence of identification plates of UPAs and UTs
2. Opening of orientation tracks - internal tracks of UTs for orientation of 100% forest inventory	- tracks preferably in the east-west direction - maximum distance of 50m between tracks - markings with plates at beginning and end - markings of 25m maximum length
3. 100% forest inventory - identification and plating of trees of the species object of management	- registration of trees with dbh 10cm below - commercial diameter per species - registration of physical status and quality class of stem - coherence between field and map
4. Micro-zoning - identification of vines, topography variations, water courses, permanent preservation areas, etc.	- coherence between field and map
5. Vine cutting - when necessary, one year before cutting of trees selected for exploitation	- vines cut one year before exploitation - vines decomposed at time of exploitation
6. Infrastructure - primary roads - secondary roads - stock patios	- width of 6m for primary roads and 4m for secondary roads (east-west direction) - presence of bridges and gutters - max. 1% of the area of secondary roads in the UT - damages to remaining trees - erosion - obstruction of water courses, dead vegetation in water catchments - excess of side litter on roads and patios - depth of machinery furrows - patios of approximate dimensions of 25x20m areas of 20 to 30m3 of exploitation per ha (at most 0.75% of the area of the UT)

Table 5.13: Verifiers of the level of utilization of environmentally friendly technologies in the exploitation phase of forest management

Item/description/components	Verifiers
1. Cutting/felling of trees - felling of trees selected for exploitation - sectioning of stems in logs (when necessary) - sectioning of usable parts of canopies - direction of fall in order to preserve remaining trees, optimise logging and natural clearings - numbering of logs	- personnel training - plating of stumps and identification of log sections (no. of tree+1/3 2/3 3/3) - height of cut (minimum) - broken trees - hollow fallen trees and abandoned in the field - waste of canopies - damages to remaining trees
2. Logging - primary transportation of logs (from felling site to stock-piling patios)	- area of logging in a maximum of 5% of the UT - maximum of 15 logged trees per main track - never cross or obstruct water courses or natural drains - damages to remaining vegetation - width of track as function of logging machine - area of soil exposure of maximum 10% of area of logging tracks (discontinuous) - erosion - lost logs (forgotten)
3. Patio operations - separation of logs for sawmilling and veneering - piling - measurement and sorting out - marking	- side litter and damage to remaining log species foreseen in the exploitation - numbering of logs (custody chain 1/3 2/3 3/3) - sorting out

Criterion 10: Conservation of forest ecosystems

Two indicators of Criterion 10 have been considered consensual and are described below:

Indicator: Proportion of areas of environmental protection in comparison with areas of permanent production.

Indicator: Measures for the protection of water courses by forest activity.

In Brazil, and in SISPROF, the two indicators are treated separately at management unit level. This is so because there is no pre-established proportion of permanent preservation area. Such protection will vary precisely due to the existence of water courses/rivers and topography. The protection of water courses is concerned with environmentally friendly practices and has been discussed above, when the indicator of criterion 9 was described, which is assessed through verifiers related to the planning of exploitation infrastructure (roads and patios) and logging tracks. In the case of Brazil, the APP are also related to the protection of water courses, and must be preserved (left untouched) at the level of the forest management unit, in accordance with the rules of article 2 of the Forest Code (Law 4771/65). The other indicators of Criterion 10, listed below, have not been consensual. Notwithstanding this, some of these indicators are considered by SISPROF, as one can see by the following comments.

Indicator: Measures to protect, recuperate and sustainably use wild populations of endangered species.

IBAMA’s normative instruction no. 113/97 requires the registration of persons and companies/firms that dedicate themselves to activities that are potentially dangerous to the environment or that involve mineral, fauna, flora and fisheries products in the “Federal technical registry of activities that are potentially pollutant or users of environmental resources”.

IBAMA’s normative instruction no. 37-N/92 establishes the official list of endangered species of the Brazilian flora, in which, for instance, there is no explicit prohibition on the use or exploitation of any of these species through SFM (any such specific prohibition must be established in another legal or normative rule). There is also no prohibition on deforestation or conversion of forested areas to other land uses where these listed species may occur, so that the list works as a warning or precaution to be taken into account in the analyses and evaluations of projects that may contain the species referred to. In this sense, for example, the recent normative instruction 17/2001 of IBAMA, that temporarily suspended all PMFS that contained exploitation/production of mahogany (a listed species in normative instruction 37-N/92), established only one exception for the continuity of operation of these mahogany plans: the obligation to have forest certification in order to continue operating.

Indicator: Area and percentage of forests affected by natural processes or diverse agents (plagues, illness and fire, among others) and by anthropogenic action.

Deforestation in the Amazon region is monitored by INPE, and by IBAMA through the control of deforestation authorizations (an action that will become more effective with the full implementation of SISPROF, and with its extension or application through federative pacts with the states of the region), as well as through the monitoring of forest fires (PREVFOGO). In SISPROF, the control of PMFS and of their authorized exploitations can easily provide information on the referred indicator, at the forest management unit level, for each rural property whose areas are subject to this type of activity, i.e. forest management.

Indicator: Regeneration rates and structure of forest ecosystems.

At the management unit level, the characterization of the forest structure of 100 per cent of the species to be exploited (from 10cm below the diameter to be exploited) is required. The issue of the regeneration rate of the forest, in its turn, is taken into account from the requirement that each company must have a monitoring plan of the development of the forest under management.

Indicator: Measures for conservation of the soils.

The measures for soil conservation are considered in items 8 and 10 of Tables 5.12 and 5.13, respectively.

Criterion 11: Local socio-economic benefits

Indicator: Number of direct and indirect jobs and income level.

In Brazil there still is a predominance of informal relations of employment in forest activities. Such informality is favoured by the existence of three main factors: the Brazilian labour legislation, which is out-dated and whose discussion and revision are in course; the seasonality of forest activities; and the traditional absence of the state in distant areas where the activity occurs. Once SISPROF is in the process of being established, the verifiers employed for the social indicator will be restricted to the conditions of work/labour and life in the forest campings, which are described in Table 5.14.

Table 5.14: Verifiers related to social conditions in the practice of sustainable forest management

Item/description/components	Verifiers
1. Security/safety in labour/work conditions - safety materials and equipment adequate for each activity - personnel training in labour safety - training in first-aid	- company’s plan for labour safety - use of individual protection equipment - availability of first-aid material - availability of transportation for work teams
2. Camping infrastructure - water, barracks, bathrooms, garbage, etc.	- conditions in relation to needs

The other indicators of this criterion discussed in the Tarapoto process have not been consensual, and thus have not been considered by SISPROF. They are:

a) quality of life of local populations;

b) profitability and rate of return of forest management;

c) efficiency of production systems and of transformation of forest products;

d) impact of economic use of the forest on the availability of forest resources considered important to local populations;

e) nature and quantity of benefits derived from forest management;

f) annual quantity of products per hectare;

g) added value of production;

h) mechanisms of consultation and effective participation of local communities in the management of forest resources, depending on the scale of management.

5.2.5 The home page of PMFS in SISPROF

Although most cities of Amazonia still do not have Internet services, all capitals and almost all cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants can count on these services. Even forest engineers responsible for the elaboration and execution of PMFS who reside in small towns – which is not very commom – frequently go to the bigger centres. The forest management website in IBAMA’s home page (see Figure 5.13) has been developed with the aim of reaching these professionals as well as the syndicates, forestry producer associations and the technicians of municipalities and OEMAs who deal with the issue.

Its main usefulness is to give technical support to the professional, through answers to questions that are forwarded through e-mail; to provide copies of and clarify doubts on legislation, besides getting suggestions in this regard aiming at its improvement; to publicize projects, businesses, enterprises and professionals; to disseminate training and update courses and other material. The home page was inaugurated in 1999. It has various internal links, totalling 338 files in 35 folders. Among the most useful sections for IBAMA’s technicians, who work in distant places, there is the possibility of getting any updated section of the manual of technical visits, as well as a copy of any piece of legislation related to forest management. Through the home page, there is also an assistance service to professionals of the sector on legislation interpretation, technical orientation, and others. Since its inception, the page has responded to more than 200 questions on the more different aspects of forest management and related areas. As has been said, the submission of applications and the selection results for the “forest residence” are also carried out through the home page. Another service that has had quite a success is the “bank of curricula vitae”, through which those interested in hiring forest professionals research among the more than 80 currently available, distributed in areas such as forest management of multiple use, community forest management, management of fauna, forest seeds, forest economics, forest products and international trade, among others.

Figure 5.13: Illustration of IBAMA’s home page on PMFS

5.2.6 The nucleus of support to forest management (NAMF)

NAMF was created by IBAMA’s normative instruction 182/2001 of 5 December 2001. Its necessity resulted in that year from the importance being attributed to the updating courses promoted by IBAMA. The need for a regular promotion of courses and the differences in specific conditions of each state or municipality is now more clearly demonstrated thanks to the assessment provided by the application of quality verifiers, requiring a structure of personnel exclusively dedicated to the subject.

The following attributions became the competence of NAMF, besides the promotion of courses: the production of technical manuals, the publicizing of businesses; direct support to small projects, mainly the community ones; and, more to the future, the conduct of the process of formalizing the “forest residence” and the creation of a national centre for the formation of professionals for multiple use sustainable forest management (CONFLORESTA).

5.3 SISPROF and local communities, with emphasis on sustainable forest management plans (PMFS)

5.3.1 Forest management and local communities: a brief history

Forest management for rural communities, such as rubber-tappers, riverains, indigenous people and peasants, really began to be discussed by IBAMA from the demand of the communities themselves, who began to practise forest exploitation in a technical way with the help of NGOs. In 1996 the first community forest management project was submitted to IBAMA. It was a rural agricultural settlement project, where the peasants, helped by EMBRAPA/Acré, decided to use the legal forest reserve areas of their properties through SFM. The second project to be submitted to IBAMA, in 1997, was conducted by an NGO of the state of Acré, the CTA/Acré, together with a community of rubber-tappers from the extractivist reserve of Porto Dias.

At the time, the submission of an environmental impact assessment report (RIMA) was legally obligatory in the case of areas bigger than 2,000 hectares, and since the Porto Dias project had 3,000 ha this seemed to be a necessity. Nevertheless, the 3,000 ha were composed of ten distinct usufruct rubber-tappers, whose areas were contiguous. Willing to save the resources that would have to be spent for the elaboration of RIMA, the CTA asked that the issue be discussed with IBAMA, which finally took place in Brasilia at the end of 1997. Officially, that was the first time that IBAMA discussed technically and legally not only the need for specific rules towards simplified forest management for smaller producers, but also rules for forest management to be practised by organized groups, that is, community forest management. The discussion evolved, and in 1998, through federal decree 2788 of 28 September 1998, simplified forest management and community forest management were formally admitted as categories in the legislation concerning forest management in Amazonia. Decree 2788 also excluded the obligation of RIMA’s submission for all modalities of forest management.

5.3.2 The specific norms for communities: all the advantages of companies and simpler bureaucracy

Since 1998 the rules for the practice of sustainable forest activity in general have been subject to simplifications, and those related to community forest management and small rural producers have also evolved in this sense. Until 1998, a rubber-tapper who decided to exploit commercially the timber of his forest – due to the low returns of rubber extraction – would be forced to hire a forest engineer and follow all the steps that any other company would have to undertake, in order to approve a PMFS. Of course, rubber-tappers and other traditional communities of the Amazon did not hire anyone. Most times they would sell timber illegally, abandoning forest activities, and go into agricultural practices that are all much less subject to any kind of bureaucracy. Currently, this same rubber-tapper, if owner of an area up to 500 ha and if choosing to exploit his forest in a low intensity intervention (up to 10 m³/ha), needs only to fill in an one--page form and submit it to IBAMA together with the list of trees that he intends to cut.

Organized in associations or cooperatives, the group may opt for community forest management, another alternative foreseen in the law, which would allow them to exploit their forest in a large-scale type of intervention, with a single PMFS valid for all the representatives of the association or cooperative. Another facility offered to the traditional inhabitant of the forest is the acceptance of a simple declaration by his cooperative or association proving his residence and the size of his area. This is a great step forward, since the previous requirement was that he have an approval document from an official land institution, and this prevented most traditional communities from using their forest resources in a legal and sustainable way.

5.3.3 The current participation of community projects in forest management

At the beginning of 1998, the first meeting of communities that practised SFM took place in Placido de Castro (Acré). There were 12 groups from the most different parts of the region, in different stages of practice. Since then, such meetings have been taking place every year, and at the last one, in Gurupá (Pará), there were more than 100 people, representing more than 60 organized groups involved and interested in SFM. On the whole, considering forest activity in general, the participation of community or simplified forest management is still insignificant, as Figures 5.14 and 5.15 show:

Figure 5.14: Relative weight of the number of PMFS per social aspect

Figure 5.14 shows the relative importance of community forest management in terms of the number of projects. The 1.2 percentage is yet greater than the weight of community management in terms of total volume of wood of PMFS. In this case, community management corresponds to only 0.3 per cent of the total volume. The simplified management category, in terms of complexity of the plans, has a bigger share in the total number of plans than community management, corresponding to 9.8 per cent of the total, as can be seen in Figure 5.15.

Figure 5.15: Relative weight of the number of PMFS per complexity

5.3.4 NAMF and communities

In accordance with its internal regulations, NAMF will give priority to activities with which communities are involved. This importance is clear when we look at Brazilian statistics that demonstrate that small and medium rural properties may be responsible for about 30 per cent of deforestation in the Amazon region. In its Brasilia office NAMF will make a room available, with computer, fax and a secretary, to receive representatives of communities when they come to Brasilia to solve problems related to their projects. At the same time NAMF will work with one person in each state who will be responsible for collecting the communities’ requests and for passing them through onto Brasilia.

5.4 Activities, equipment and methodology of action after the gathering of field data on PMFS

5.4.1 Geo-processing and geo-referencing in the control and monitoring of PMFS

5.4.1.1 Field equipment used for getting geo-referenced information

The field teams that carry out technical assessments of PMFS use GPS for the geo-referencing of areas. The model that is currently mostly used is the GARMIN 12. The information collected by it can be easily transported, through a cable, to the computer. Another piece of equipment that is also used is the AutoTrac, which is placed in the vehicles and allows not only the monitoring of the teams moving on their routes, through computer in Brasilia, but also immediate communication with them.

5.4.1.2 Field-data processing, elaboration of maps and readiness of data

While the SISPROF data bank is not fully operational in the Amazon, the bases will be using the PMFS-Base programme for the control and registration of the results of technical field visits. The processing of data initiates when, from the remote base, the programme button “Send data” is touched and the information is automatically transferred, via e-mail, to Brasilia. Once the SISPROF “data bank” pillar has been developed in parallel with the “validation of data” pillar (which includes the methodology of field visits, quality verifiers, annual report, amongst other items), specific software is also developed (for temporary/provisional use) for storage, transmission and processing of data related to the results of the field visits. For this temporary support, at and from the bases, the PMFS-Base programme has been developed to store the information that results from the visits and to transmit it to Brasilia.

The PMFS at headquarters programme has been developed also for the headquarters of DIREF in Brasilia, and is used for gathering all information from the PMFS-Base of each support base, and consolidating and processing the data for the elaboration of the annual report. The PMFS-Base’s function will lapse as soon as the SISPROF “data bank” is totally operational, which is foreseen for mid-2003. PMFS headquarters, in turn, will be replaced later because of the statistical routine activities of consolidating information, as long as friendly routines are developed for the processing of data in the “data bank” module.

The PMFS-Base programme (developed in Access) does not store all information gathered in the field visits. Some will be only a part of a process or specific PMFS. What the PMFS-Base programme compiles and sends to Brasilia, from the different parts of the region, is the necessary information for a more general assessment of forest activity, that is: holders of PMFS, responsible technicians, authorized volumes, areas, geographical location, level of quality of the operations of management and situation of PMFS after the visit (whether or not it has been considered apt for the continuation of its activities).

The other information, collected during the process of analysis and technical visits to each PMFS, refers to specific issues of each project, such as: details about the maps, minimum inventoried diameter, distance between orientation tracks of the 100 per cent FI, distance between stock-piling patios, commitments of improvement assumed by those technically responsible, etc. Such information is important for the follow-up of each PMFS, and thus remains stored in each project file and in the data bank. The file received from each base is stored in a specific directory, which is already linked to another programme (also in Access), the PMFS headquarters, which has the task of processing the information received from the bases. From then on, PMFS headquarters follows two distinct routes: the first carries out the cross-checking and the consolidation of information and provides the tables needed for the creation of graphs and assessment of the situation and quality of PMFS; the second provides the listings and geo-referenced information for the creation of location maps of PMFS in the states.

Tables and graphs

The tables of PMFS headquarters are forwarded to specific places of the Excel sheets. From there, they are automatically formatted and transported, with a standard layout, to the final document, which constitutes the report. At the same time, the Excel sheets also automatically produce the illustrative graphs of the consolidated information, which are also transported to the final report. Thus, besides writing the report, the writer also needs to interpret the tables and graphs.

Listings and geographical location

Another path of PMFS headquarters provides a table with the geographical location of PMFS and other basic information about them, which after being transformed in DBF format is exported to the ArcView, the software used for the elaboration of maps. In the ArcView, the data basis of maps is already totally finished (vegetation physiognomies, municipality limits, water basins, etc.), and it varies only in accordance with the table coming from PMFS headquarters, which renews the situation and location of the year’s PMFS in the region. From there, the maps are printed and distributed. At the same time PMFS headquarters provides the listings of management plans, which, after being formatted in Excel, are placed in another software, the Paint, in order to appear in the maps. The option for the transformation of tables into figures, through the Paint, is because of the greater ease of inserting figures instead of tables in the ArcView.

Time for preparing the report

The automation of the procedures of storing, transmitting, receiving and processing of information on PMFS, from 2002, through the linking of the employed software (Access, Excel,Word, Paint and ArcView) has proved very economical timewise. Unlike previous years, when each report was a distinct and time-consuming process, automation will allow that the 2002 report be concluded and made available in record time. Logically, it will still be necessary to work on the interpretation of data and the consequent writing. Nevertheless, if until 2001 the conclusion of the report and the updating of the home page had occurred between the months of June and July of the following year, it is expected that from 2002 these stages would be completed, at most, in March.

The diagram in figure 5.16 summarizes the described automated processing. The developed automation will allow IBAMA to issue a yearbook on the situation of forest management in Amazonia. A first volume was published for 2002, referring to the situation in 2001.

Figure 5.16: Processing of the results of technical field visits to PMFS

5.4.2 Advantages of SISPROF in the practical activities of forest management

From the point of view of monitoring and control, SISPROF already offers an advantage in the practice of forest management: as an instrument that makes monitoring and control more efficient, contributing decisively to the reduction of frauds and illegal practices that have traditionally permeated the abusive use of the forest resource in Amazonia, it can help to make unsustainable forest exploitation (and associated manufacturing and trade) more costly and, in this sense, work as an auxiliary tool in improving competitive conditions of sustainable forestry in the region.

Regarding legislation, until 1998 there was only one rule for sustainable forestry in Amazonia, and now there exist 48 basic possible combinations. Through the different forms of contact with the sector that SISPROF provides (home page, links with the remote bases during field operations, NAMF courses and the annual planning and evaluation meetings) it is possible to plan ahead and discuss the entire legislation with great command of the subject matter.

Accordingly, since it has been possible to establish which indicators and verifiers of quality were adequate for the technological, social and environmental realities of Brazilian Amazonia, and this has been incorporated in IBAMA’s control and monitoring actions, which are now greatly improved by the use of an automated system like SISPROF, the quality of forest management in the region can be more effectively assessed and continuously scrutinized, thereby providing a means for the improvement of forest management itself.

The employment of verifiers for the first time in 2001 confirmed an expected finding: the low quality of forest management activity in general. Nevertheless, the system of verifiers allows us to know now, in detail, not only the problems but also the particular conditions of states and municipalities. In this sense it is also possible to make adequate plans for future actions, such as courses and training that tend to promote sustainable practice even more. At the same time, the regular use of quality verifiers will allow the follow-up of their evolution, since their time-series analysis will provide access to the good and bad results of policies and actions.

From the practical point of view of forest management, the 100 per cent forest inventory of commercial trees serves the producer as well as the controlling institution. On the one hand, that of IBAMA, it is possible to check the volume and characteristics of the species of each tree. On the other, the location of the trees, together with details of the physical conditions of the site (micro-zoning), allows for the efficient planning of the exploitation. Therefore, costs of road-building and patios, as well as costs of logging, can be considerably reduced. Such reduction, in its turn, results in less interference in the forest and reduced impact on the environment.

5.4.3 Equations of volume used for the estimate of tree volumes

There is no standard equation for estimating the volume of standing trees. It is the task of the technician responsible for the management plan to choose one and to give its justification, among the existing alternatives. Various research institutions have published equations developed for different geographical regions and forest physiognomies, among them: EMBRAPA-Pará, INPA-Manaus, FUNTAC-Acré, CETEMM-Acré, EMBRAPA-Acré and others. Besides the research institutions, there are companies that developed their own equations; one of them, in particular, Mil Madeireira (Precious Wood), has one equation for each species. According to a minute of the normative instruction under discussion, a total of two years shall be given to each firm to develop its own equation(s).

5.5 Post-exploitation activities

5.5.1 Forest management and entrepreneurial activities

5.5.1.1 Monitoring of a company’s activities

The most important activity, as currently considered by IBAMA, is the self-monitoring that a company should undertake of its own practices. Technical field visits and the utilization of verifiers are already a kind of “subsidy” to companies for the planning and consequent improvement of their activities. However, field visits occur only once a year in each project. The technological package for forest management put at the disposal of companies provides a linkage of activities and requires a set of forms for the registration and planning of the activities. Such forms, once used, with date, team and registration of production, provide the means for companies to engage in practical and simple monitoring of their activities and for the identification of limiting aspects.

5.5.1.2 Monitoring the development of the forest

In 1991, when the first normative instruction on forest management was issued, in a more detailed way, establishing rules for forest activity, the method of monitoring the development of the forest had to be carried out through a continuous inventory, with the use of permanent parcels, in an intensity of 1 hectare per each 200 hectares of forest under management (0.5 per cent of sampling intensity) and measurements every five years. From the end of 1998, the choice of method for monitoring the forest was left to the discretion of the technician responsible for the management plan, together with the obligation of a 100 per cent forest inventory of the trees under management (FI 100 per cent). The DIREF/CGREF, considering the few trustworthy results obtained with the obligatory use of permanent parcels, has been recommending the inclusion of trees with 10 cm below the diameter of cut in the 100 per cent forest inventory. That is, those trees that will probably constitute the adult population of the next harvest. At the same time, it recommends that follow-up and monitoring of the remaining forest be done precisely on these trees.

IBAMA has also been promoting, through the Pró-Manejo (a sub-programme of PPG-7, Pilot programme for the protection of the tropical forests of Brazil), a series of meetings for the establishment of a “network of permanent parcels” in the Brazilian Amazon, which relies on the participation of research institutions, NGOs and private companies that carry out continuous forest inventories in a technically satisfactory manner. It is considered that information on secondary succession of different forests followed up by the “network” will be more reliable and consequently will allow sounder policy decision-taking.

5.5.1.3 Silvicultural treatments

The single obligatory silvicultural treatment is pre-exploratory: the cut of vines of the trees that will be harvested. It is also obligatory to carry it out at least one year before the harvest, and this has to do with the difference of the felling impact when vines are still interlacing the canopies. The other silvicultural treatments, besides being non-compulsory, have been discouraged because of the following considerations: (a) there is no certainty that the expenditure incurred with silvicultural treatments will be compensated by the forest increment at the end of the cutting cycle; (b) there is no certainty about which species will be giving better return to exploitation in the next decades, and thus which should be favoured or not.

5.5.1.4 Forest protection

Forest protection includes different aspects. Some are relatively easier to control, such as the garbage in the UTs produced by the company team itself (aluminium plates, plastic bottles, chains and knives, oil cans and others) or a forest fire that can have its risk substantially reduced through the classification of neighbours and the maintenance of regular contacts with them to previously identify possible days of pasture burnings, to build fire-dispersing roads or tracks, to establish brigades and vigilantes, and counter-fires on the day of burnings. Illegal hunting and fishing have not been particularly important and are relatively easier to control. The major problem in the Amazon region has been the invasion of forest lands by rural landless populations, which are more difficult to control and prevent, and which has provoked the interruption and cancellation of ongoing forest management plans or projects. Its final solution needs public policies that go beyond the frontier of forestry issues themselves.

5.5.1.5 Infrastructure maintenance

The maintenance of infrastructure refers mainly to surface levelling of stock-piling patios and roads, the unblocking of water and sewage gutters, and the refurbishing of bridges, when necessary. It is recommended that maintenance be undertaken just after exploitation, before the beginning of the rainy season. Otherwise, the defects and irregularities will be aggravated by the rain, thereby resulting in greater expenditure. The execution of infrastructure maintenance operations, in the year following that of exploitation, is advisable only when logging and transport activities are extended until the beginning of the rainy season; thus very little time is left for them. Most entrepreneurs and those technically responsible resist carrying out infrastructure maintenance operations after exploitation, due to the costs that they incur. Nevertheless, this trend is likely to change with time, on the one hand because of the possibility of multiplying the uses of the forest, due to the 100 per cent forest inventory, such as the exploitation of seeds and other products, and, on the other, because of the employment of the system of exploitation control by volume, as an alternative to the conventional system of control by area. Both alternatives will benefit from a well-conserved road network.

5.5.1.6 The cutting cycle and the control system by volume

For a high intensity exploitation of timber (bigger than 10m³/ha) the minimum cutting cycle to be planned is 25 years. This time-period can be adjusted in accordance with the results of the monitoring of the forest’s development. For low intensity exploitations (smaller or equal to 10m³/ha), that have specific rules, the cutting cycle is 20 years, though it can also be adjusted due to the growth of the forest. An alternative, recently incorporated in the legislation, is the “Regime of exploitation control by volume”, and not by area as those mentioned above. In this case, the exploitation intensity is limited to 1m³/ha/year and may occur in the whole area under management (AMF). The control regime by volume allows the holder of the PMFS to choose which individuals are going to be exploited considering their physical characteristics and the market, independently from their location.

5.5.2 The system of monitoring and control of post-exploitation activities of forest management

5.5.2.1 Quality verifiers

At regional level, monitoring will be carried out through two sources: (i) taking into account the information consolidated from the evaluations of the forest management units, and (ii) taking into account the discussions and the results obtained from the network of permanent parcels referred to above. At the management unit level, the verifiers employed for the evaluation of post-exploitation activities have already been discussed in item 5.2.3, together with the Tarapoto criteria and indicators.

The expression “indication of verifiers” is related to the environment (vegetation, topography) as well as to the social and economic (technological level) diversities found in the region. Such diversity permits a wide range of alternatives to be practised in disagreement with the parameters defined by the verifiers, without necessarily meaning a loss of quality to the activity.

For example, in Pará State, in flat areas, it is recommended that the UTs have 100 hectares, that the distance between secondary roads be 250m and that the logging tracks be previously planned. Nevertheless, in Amazonia, in the Manaus region, where topography is fairly accentuated, the UTs have only 10 ha and have no logging tracks, since logs are extracted with steel cables. Likewise, there are management plans in varzea forests, where not even patios or roads exist, and there are also management plans carried out by traditional populations where agricultural tractors and animal traction are used. The description and the parameters of verifiers related to post-exploitation activities are described below. The quality of post-exploitation activities in areas of PMFS is assessed from the following indicators and verifiers.

1. Silvicultural treatments

a) Description/components: suppression of remaining trees; vine cutting of remaining trees; substitution of vine areas to favour natural or artificial regeneration (when this is the case).

b) Indication of verifiers: coherence between planned and executed (not obligatory).

2. Forest protection

a) Description/components: protection against invasion, fire, illegal hunting and fishing, as well as of the environment in general.

b) Indication of verifiers: personnel education and fire prevention plans in burning season and firebreaks where necessary, environment protection agents, absence of garbage.

3. Maintenance of infrastructure

a) Description/components: operations for recuperation of primary and secondary roads, and stock-piling patios after exploitation activities, unblocking of gutters, levelling of road beddings after exploitation or in the coming summer.

b) Indication of verifiers: verify coherence between what was planned and executed, check field notes/slips.

4. Monitoring of forest development

a) Description/components: continuous inventory with permanent parcels, temporary parcels or periodical sampling of trees.

b) Indication of verifiers: check coherence between what was planned and executed.

5.5.2.2 Technical field visits/inspections

Until mid-2001 the exploitation authorizations (AUTEXs) could only be given to holders of PMFS through an appraisal of a technical visit to the area to be exploited. This procedure had two disadvantages. The first had to do with the resulting difficulties for entrepreneurs, because of the seasonality of exploitation activity, which tended to render them subject to the performance of the field visit teams, a performance that was frequently undermined by official institutional bureaucracy (notably slow in liberating resources for daily stipends, for the repair of vehicles, etc.).

The second disadvantage was that the technical field team could only assess what had already been carried out in the previous year, and therefore it would not be possible to alter or analyse the planning of activities in the face of an intact forest that was still dependent on the authorization to start business. Currently, the liberation of the exploitation authorization is done through the presentation and analysis of the POA, and the visit is carried out alongside the implementation of activities.

5.5.2.3 Projects in maintenance/recomposition

Maintenance or recomposition projects are those whose area of forest management does not have a sufficient number of annual production units (UPAs) for a complete cutting cycle. In these cases, after exploitation of available UPAs, the project enters into a stand-by situation until the first exploited UPA completes the cutting cycle. This situation is possible because Brazilian legislation allows that a forest management plan be elaborated for a single UPA. In this case, in the year following its exploitation, such PMFS would be in maintenance or recomposition.