Due to the sugarcane project being taken from them, and their thoughts that they were not to blame for the erosion, it is unsurprising that the residents were initially reluctant to participate in the project. As was established in the previous chapter, the Green Action Institute claimed that participation of the local community was important to them interview (CS4, full quote page 103). They claim they went to each individual property and performed a socio-economic evaluation in the hope they could convince people to participate disseminating information through social media. In fact, as shown in chapter 6, this claim was contradicted by SEMA:
‘We had meetings with the communities, there were 5 in total. But these meetings were not to ask the community what they wanted, we had already decided on the project before we entered the village. We only had the meetings to tell them what was going to happen and what they had to do’ (Interview S8)
Then in an interview in 2010, the director of the Green Action Institute, Paul Borges, attributed the initial poor participation by residents to their lack of education, moreover he stated ‘their levels of environmental consciousness is very low’ (Galvão and El-Jaick, 2010). In the same interview he says the Green Action Institute do not want to enforce the environmental law and use fines as this ‘would not conserve the environment and would do nothing to help sustainability’. Nonetheless, this is exactly what they proceeded to do. In order to overcome villager’s passive resistance the Green Action Institute took the socio-environmental assessments to the Public Prosecutors in 2010 and asked them to issue a Terms of Adjusted Conducted (TAC) to ensure compliance.
Subsequently, in my interview, the Green Action Institute claimed this benefitted many people in Barranco Alto I and II as most did not have documentation of their land ownership. Moreover, he claimed at this time some villagers were under pressure from residents in Cuiabá who wanted to buy land.
168 The TAC is a document compiling the information collected during the socio-economic survey of the land and has guidelines for future actions. Copies of the TAC were stored in the offices of the Green Action Institute, SEMA and the public prosecutor, these were very detailed. The TAC document I viewed in the Green Action Institute office contained detailed drawings, photos, annotations and comments of roughly 40 pages. In contrast, residents were given a more concise summary.
Most villagers had heard about the TAC at the village assembly and had to travel to Cuiabá to sign it. Senhor Rodrigo recalled the hardship of going to the building. At the time he did not have access to a boat and had to pay a neighbour to take him 35km by river to Santo Antonio do Leverger, he then had to get a bus to Cuiabá where he changed to another bus to get to SEMA’s office. Inside he was made to wait for a technician to become available who then read the TAC to him. He is functionally illiterate and he remembered not being given time to think about the TAC or discuss it, he was just told to sign it and leave. He then had the repeated journey home where he had to wait for another neighbour to pick him up in Santo Antonio do Leverger, he recalled this as taking all day (PP 7).
The two TACs I saw were in the communities were both very similar. One was from Pesqueiro Florida, the other from Barranco Alto I. The TAC issued to Jacinto Pinto Tapajos in Barranco Alto I, exemplifies the document. As he told me, he had lived in Barranco Alto is whole life and like most people he found out about the TAC at the village assembly meetings (interview PP3).
Senhor Tapajos’s TAC was signed in December 2011 by SEMA and himself. Significantly, the TAC opens by stated that Mr Tapajos was contributing to river bank erosion. It then gave clear, detailed instructions of what his necessary actions were to comply with the law:
- Isolate 27 metres of APP (up to the road) along the 33m length of land running parallel to the river. This is to prevent access of people, domestic animals and cars. A fence is to constructed by only using the specified materials, this is to allow the free movement of wild animals.
169 - Access to river is allowed by wooden walkway only, a maximum of 2 metres in diameter. This
should also be suspended above the river bank to prevent stepping directly onto the slope. - Plant seedlings of native species with maximum spacing of 2x2m, more dense on the slope of
the river bank. For three years maintain and monitor the seedlings, including pest control, irrigation, fertilization and replanting.
- Not clean the understory of the trees and do not plant vegetables and exotic species such as mango, banana and lemon.
- Currently he does not have a floating fishing platform, if he wants to install one at a later date he must register with SEMA before installation.
- His house is 108m2 and built 51m from the embankment with the river, he cannot increase the size of his house.
- Use the rubbish bins provided for waste
- Adopt preventative measures to stop fires during the drought period if necessary.
In March 2013 SEMA returned to the village to verify whether residents had complied with the TAC. The monitoring report for Senhor Tapajos stated that although he had planted trees the density was not adequate; he had created a walkway as the TAC demanded, however, it was not a wooden structure, but a cleaned area of vegetation; he had also put wooden stakes into the soil but did not have the wire in place to form a fence. It also noted cattle on the boundary of the APP but conceded this was allowed because of the lack of wire. The TAC went on to conclude senhor Tapahos had 30 days to comply with the TAC or face a fine. It was not stipulated how much this fine would be. In our 2014 interview, senhor Tapajos confirmed that SEMA had never returned to verify if he had completed the required actions. The experience of senhor Tapajos is typical of Barranco Alto I and II where residents had to take similar actions to comply with the TAC.
170 While most residents were unhappy at planting their most fertile land with threes, they were also frustrated about other terms of the TAC which they felt was unreasonable. Perhaps the requirement they were most upset about was the fact that the TAC prohibits ‘cleaning’ under the trees in the APP. ‘Cleaning’ is the clearance of shrubs and cutting the grass between the trees. The President of Barranco Alto I described why they felt this was unreasonable:
They came and said we couldn’t cut under the trees that we have to leave it to be natural. But I have two young children and the front of my house is in front of the APP. It is not safe for them, the long grass is where snakes are. How can I let my children play here with snakes? If they are bitten who will pay for a doctor? I bet it will not be them (the Green Action Institute) (interview CS8).
Dona Matilia spoke of the impact of not ‘cleaning’ on her property. She told me that wild animals were able to hide in the dense vegetation and take her livestock. After this, fearing for own safety, she resumed cutting under the trees (interview PP24). The danger of dense vegetation (Fig 23) within the village gathered a mixed response.
Figure 23. Reforestation left naturally to the left and a cleaned area to the right, author photo 21/7/14
While many residents did not comply with the TAC, in some instances it was due to the Green Action Institute failing to supply material. An example of this is the fence at Dona Nancy’s property (Fig 24):
‘The TAC we have says we need a fence with wooden posts and wire. The Green Action Institute are supposed to supply us with the wood and wire, they are also to give us wood to make the walkway to the river…The fence is so cows cannot go in the APP but wild animals can. This is fine, so far I have wooden stakes for the fence and no wire’ (interview PP6).
171 This corresponds with the monitoring report in Mr Japatos’s property, which suggests cows were found on the APP boundary because the fencing did not have wire.
Figure 24: Example of a typical boundary in Barranco Alto I, author photo 21/7/14
In contrast to the residents of Barranco Alto I and II, the residents of Pesqueiro Florida experienced the TAC as a nuisance. For these much wealthier land owners, it did not impinge on their lives or livelihoods in a significant way. In some cases, these wealthy property owners were able to mobilise personal connections to negotiate better terms. This is exemplified by the way Robson responded to the TAC:
‘Other residents along the river here were hostile towards them. But that’s not how I do things. I invited them in, told them [SEMA representatives] to sit down at my table- gave them drinks and said ‘what is it you want me to do?’ There were some things that were impossible, I had to say no. But plant some trees and pay a little fine. Sure, we can discuss this. But I was lucky, I had to pay a fine just for the bathrooms, not the restaurant. So it was fine. I think also, I know the manager of Dr Ana so perhaps this helped me a little too. But we paid the fine, and planted those trees. Actually, they wanted us to remove the Bamboo and Lemon trees here and plant native trees instead. I told them this is ridiculous, the Bamboo is so big and strong, it is basically holding the whole bank together. But we agreed that I could leave the Bamboo and Lemon trees and plant some native trees elsewhere…I remember the Public Prosecutor coming here. For me, it was lucky we had Dr Ana, if we had Domingo things would be different. We do not get along. But Dr Ana came, with two
172 more people, they were from the Green Action Institute or SEMA, I do not know. But it was fine’ (interview C2).
Robson had to pay a fine of R$6,000 (£1,408) which was paid over three months, after this, he heard nothing more from the Green Action Institute. Other residents in Pesqueiro Florida had different dealings with the TAC. The owner of the other hotel in Pesqueiro Florida refused to allow the SEMA representatives on his property which resulted in him being fined significantly more. Additionally, some residents were absent when the TAC was issued. The owner of one holiday home in Pesqueiro Florida, lives in Sao Paulo. As he recounted when I interviewed him, he only visits his property in Pesqueiro Florida once every two months. He was away when the TAC was issued and did not have the
opportunity to negotiate the terms. He also alluded to the fact that as he was from Sao Paulo he did not have the personal connections to do so. Although he felt aggrieved at having to pay the fine,
nonetheless, the amount was insignificant in relation to his income.