Brazil is home to the largest extent of tropical forests in the world but with a yearly annual deforestation rate of 1.8 to 2.0 million hectares between 1995 and 2000 (Ruiz-Pérez, 2005). Extractive reserves, drawing on traditional land use techniques are thought to be an innovative approach to land use; protecting biodiversity, promoting development and preserving traditional ways of life (Barnes,1999).  

Rubber tapping is considered a method for sustainable development as it incurs very little damage to the forest as only a small amount of biomass os removed from select trees (Barnes, 1999). During the 1980s the state of Acre in western Brazil was the site of protest led by the rubber tapper Chico Mendes against environmentally destructive national development plans. His assassination and subsequent international condemnation led to the establishment of extractive reserves and the 1999 Chico Mendes Law (IUCN, 2008). The law provided subsides for rubber tappers registered with the executive secretary of forest and extractivism and the state government. These reserves are organised into seringais, a traditional rubber estates, surrounding colocação, a rubber tapping unit containing a family home, agricultural plot and rubber trees. These were divided up according to the number of rubber trail units, typically three each at approximately 100-125ha her unit. Each colocação are members of the national council of rubber tappers who distribute the subsides (Vadjunec, 2009. Each tapper receives US$0.20 for every kilogram of rubber extracted and between 1999 and 2002.  the total paid to rubbers increased from R$305,000 to $1600000 (Barnes, 1999). 

The reserves and law would be considered successful if they promoted the redistribution of resources and participation resulting in the strengthening of social capital. This refers to the networks of relationships and values binding groups together for collective action. Originally, the social structure of rubber economy was vertical; patron-clientage and from estate owners or intermediary merchants downwards ensuring the workers were trapped in cycles of poverty and dependence. The protest and subsequent reserves attempted to democratise and unionise the workers. Although this did improve conditions and social capital in some instances, it also resulted in additional conflict amongst the rubber tappers. For example, rubber tapper groups better organised and loyal to the unions are likely to be favoured and this undermines improvements to social capital and collective resource governance (Hall, 2004). 

The Chico Mendes Law and the subsides it provides was an attempt to reboot the rubber tapping industry as since the mid 1990’s it became apparent that rubber tapping and nut harvesting alone  were unlikely to generate adequate levels of income. Between 1992 and 2002, a total of R$1.2 million was paid in subsides to rubber tapper communities with the state receiving 70% back in tax. Furthermore, the total paid to rubbers increased from R$305 000 to $1600000 (Barnes,1999). Although the rubber tapping economy has seen a boost, it is unclear whether this has led to poverty alleviation, partly due to the social difficulties discussed above. Furthermore, many families have adapted, increasingly relying on beans instead of rubber as a key commodity with developments also made in rubber processing plants and livestock (Ruiz-Perez, 2005). 

Since the reserves were implemented, 12 000 km2 of rainforest have been designated protected areas (Barnes, 1999). Furthermore, studies by Vandjunec et al among others have assessed the impact of extractive reserves on forest preservation. They selected two sites of similar geographical characteristics and in close proximity linked to the same municipality. However, one was increasingly focusing on non timber forest products and the other cattle production. Satellite imagery and measures of diversity including the Margalef index were calculated to compare species richness, abundance, composition and distribution of trees. By 2003, the cattle community had cut 8.26% of its forest with an average annual rate of 0.38%/year across the 18 year study. The rubber tapping community however had only cut 3.835 of its forest with an average annual deforestation rate of 0.20%/year.  However, when comparing species richness, the cattle ranching community scored greater (Vandjunec, 2004). It is unadvisable to extrapolate out from this study although it suggests that although rubber tapping reserves may preserve forests from deforestation, they may result in some damage to species richness and biodiversity. 

On paper extractive reserves seem like the ideal form of sustainable development with wide reaching economic, social and environmental benefits. However, the nature of these problems are complex and relying on one management technique too naive particularly as the benefits are so uncertain. Further studies are needed on the specific effects of various types of non timber forest products along with dominant production such as logging and cattle ranching that also look at the impacts on forest structure and composition not just area preserved. Furthermore, to generate conclusive evidence these studies are needed on local and national scales over long time periods.  As it stands, these reserves and subside programmes are not viable on very large scales. Further mechanisms need implementing and testing if we are to slow deforestation and the rates of biodiversity loss whilst still supporting local communities. 

Sources:

Barnes, A. et al. 1999. Chico Mendes Law. USAID. [online]. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/financial/pes/brazil-pesrubbertappers.pdf. [Accessed 22.12.14]. 

Hall, A. 2004. Extractive Reserves: Building Natural Assets in the Brazilian Rainforest. Political Economy Research Institute. [online]. Available at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=peri_workingpapers [Accessed 22.12.14]

IUCN. 2008. Supporting local forest use in Amazonian Brazil: The Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve. [online]. Available at: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/rubber_story.pdf [Accessed 22.12.14]

Ruiz-Pérez, M. et al. 2005. Conservation and Development in Amazonian

Extractive Reserves: The Case of Alto Jurua´. Ambio. Vol. 34.(3). pp 218-223. 

Vadjunec, J. M., and D. Rocheleau. 2009. Beyond forest cover: land use and biodiversity in rubber trail forests of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve. Ecology and Society 14(2): 29. [online]. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art29/ [Accessed 22.12.14]