05/30/2024 – 4:37
Shortly before the floods, the government of Rio Grande do Sul made the use of Permanent Protection Areas, the APPs, more flexible. The measure is criticized by experts, who point out an environmental setback. In the “hierarchy” of native vegetation areas to be protected by the Forest Code, Permanent Protection Areas (APP) can be considered especially valuable for the proper functioning of nature. These are untouchable natural areas, where direct economic exploitation is not permitted, close to any watercourse: river, stream, wetlands, streams, ponds, swamps or estuaries, covered or not by native vegetation, located in rural or urban areas.
When preserved, APPs function as a specially protected “oasis” within rural or urban properties. In this permanent protection area, it is prohibited to build, plant or explore economic activities. The objective is to protect the “generative nucleus” of life in that region: the source of the river, the riparian forests. In cases of planting, for example, the farming area must extend to where the native vegetation on the banks of the rivers begins, without exceeding or suppressing them.
For rural producers, it may seem counterintuitive to have water on their property and not be able to use it to irrigate crops. Not draining river sources, however, is essential so that they do not dry up and disappear.
“Rivers are the cradles that generate life. So, in an area where you are going to plant, what do you do then? Protects the rivers. Remove the bush from other areas, but later if you want to recover that area, restore the vegetation one day, with the forest close to the river you can expand. From the core that contains the important elements you can recover the nature that was there”, says researcher Rualdo Menegat, geologist, PhD in Sciences in the area of Landscape Ecology and professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).
In Rio Grande do Sul, it is easy to observe in the landscape when the protection limits for APPs are being infringed, says Ana Paula Moreira Rovedder, forestry engineer and professor at the Department of Forestry Sciences at the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM) and coordinator of the Center of Studies and Research in the Recovery of Degraded Areas (Neprade/UFSM).
“In the case of soybeans, it is very common to see the replacement of river banks for agricultural monoculture. So we see environmental crimes, because the riverbank is a permanent protection area”, he highlights.
Preserving APPs is fundamental to preserving the environment and making it more resistant to climate change: they keep the soil “alive”, with microorganisms that absorb and filter rainwater, and vegetation protects river banks, preventing flooding and erosion. Furthermore, when free from human intervention, APPs store rainwater underground and “return” it to rivers when the rain stops, preventing rivers from drying out.
“APPs have a great role in keeping the water system functioning. When they are destroyed, two things happen: rainwater runs off more quickly, rivers rise and floods increase, and, as rain does not charge aquifers [armazéns subterrâneos naturais da água]the rivers dry up soon after the rain”, says Menegat.
APPs in Justice
Researchers and academics consulted by the report see a recent environmental setback in state laws relating to APPs, protected by the 2012 Forest Code. Such areas are coveted by the agricultural sector and have been the target of irregular works and interference by producers attracted to draining their fertile lands and storing water to supply crops.
This debate will be analyzed in court. At the request of the Green Party, the Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) Edson Fachin last week gave a period of ten days for the Legislative Assembly of Rio Grande do Sul and the government of Eduardo Leite (PSDB) to forward information about the law which relaxed rules on the construction of dams in APPs: State Law No. 16,111, sanctioned by the governor in early April.
The project, according to the Legislative Assembly, had the support of the Federation of Industries of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (FIERGS), which in February presented studies on ICMS incentive models for producers who invest in irrigation on their properties.
In the Green Party’s view, the changes to Rio Grande do Sul’s law characterize a setback in state environmental protection, in violation of the Federal Constitution.
The author of the bill approved in March by the state Legislative Assembly, state deputy Delegado Zucco, from the Republicans, argues that the legislation will allow the fight against droughts, a climate event that hit Rio Grande do Sul for three years in a row until 2023. The works in the APPS would guarantee irrigation for agricultural production, he claimed.
The 2012 Forest Code provides that only environmental agencies can make an exception to the restriction and authorize the use and even deforestation of rural or urban permanent preservation areas; but, to do so, they must prove the hypotheses of public utility, social interest of the enterprise or low environmental impact of the activity.
It is precisely in this exception that the argument of those who defended changing the state law lives: supplying producers during the drought would be in the public interest. “Fallacious” argument, in Menegat’s view. “What they wanted is the proliferation of dams, which actually encourage flooding. These dams have been installed at the sources, in the upper areas of the rivers, and lead to the interruption of the water cycle. We can build dams on rivers, but never on springs.”
A 2023 study by Instituto Escolhas, dedicated to analyzes of sustainable development, points out that Rio Grande do Sul has 1.16 million hectares in permanent preservation areas and legal reserves that need to be urgently recovered to increase water infiltration capacity on the ground. “Rio Grande do Sul’s reconstruction plans need to incorporate the recovery of native vegetation, which is a natural infrastructure to prevent the repetition of tragedies”, says Sergio Leitão, executive director of Escolhas.
Water for farming
According to the National Water Agency (ANA), the largest use of water in Brazil and the world is returned to irrigated agriculture, corresponding to half of all water removed from springs in the country, followed by urban human supply, which corresponds to around of 24% of the total withdrawal. Essential for any rural property, water is used to quench the thirst of humans and animals, raise fish, irrigate, wash food before it is sold, among other activities.
Rio Grande do Sul, which accounts for 70% of Brazilian rice production, is the state that withdraws the most water annually, according to ANA, with irrigated rice responsible for the largest portion of water withdrawal for irrigation in Brazil, an annual average of 350 m³/s, which is equivalent, for example, to 70% of the demand of all Brazilian cities, according to a bulletin from the National Water Resources Information System.
The agricultural sector’s desire to store water has degraded APPs and caused rivers to dry out, says Menegat. The drainage of APP areas and the construction of ditches, dikes and dams to guarantee water for crops and livestock have made typical wetland landscapes increasingly rare.
“The most relevant environmental impacts in the state, related to irrigated rice cultivation, are associated with the transformation of flooded floodplains for the use of flood irrigation systems; and the drainage of wetlands”, points out an analysis by the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul on environmental issues in wetlands. “In the Gravataí River Basin, in the northeast of the state, actions related to rice farming have caused, over the years, a series of changes in the hydrological dynamics of the river and in the wetlands, resulting in relevant environmental impacts. Furthermore, the withdrawal of water for irrigation of crops in the summer months has generated conflicts between the demands of the agricultural sector and public supply”.
APPs, when well used, also favor agricultural production, as explained in the Embrapa document on ecosystem services. “Multifunctional landscapes benefit productive systems as they maintain the flow of ecosystem services between natural areas, such as Permanent Preservation Areas and Legal Reserves, and cultivated areas, maintaining their sustainability”.
In agriculture, according to Embrapa, science has also been dedicated to reconciling the benefits of preserving native forest on properties in favor of production. Such techniques involve producers planning “managed” agricultural landscapes, alternating crops with preserved stretches of natural vegetation and habitat for local fauna.
Rovedder says that, in times of extreme climate events, protecting APPs is just one of the efforts necessary to prevent new disasters. “Because even where we have permanent preservation areas, hillsides and rivers, at this extreme moment the landscape was unable to resist,” he says.
In addition to the risks of new disasters, allowing the agricultural sector to access water from APPs in times of water scarcity increases competition for water, making it more scarce for the population that shares the same river basins. “Allowing these interventions in APPs is a big mistake”, assesses ecologist Marcelo Dutra da Silva, PhD in science and professor of Ecology at the Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG).
“I increase competition for APP water, which is already little for the basin. And, in addition, I interfere even more with nature”, highlights Silva, recommending different strategies. “I would encourage us to have more water storage systems, in the form of dams, for periods of rain. It’s more expensive, but we have to preserve APPs. There has to be an effort in the opposite direction of what we have tried to do to date.”
#preservation #riverbanks #generates #debate #STF