Beneficios y barreras de la transparencia pública en los datos del Registro Ambiental Rural

Verdasca, Stella; Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Ambient. soc. 24 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20200207r1vu2021L5AO copiar

Beneficios y barreras de la transparencia pública en los datos del Registro Ambiental Rural

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumen

La transparencia pública es importante para la sociedad aumentar la confianza en las autoridades, participar democráticamente en las decisiones y monitorear acciones gubernamentales relacionadas con control ambiental. Este trabajo tuvo como objetivo analizar beneficios y problemas/ riesgos relacionados con la divulgación de información sobre conservación en tierras privadas, en el contexto del Registro Ambiental Rural (CAR, siglas en portugués). Se realizó una revisión sistemática sobre transparencia pública en la conservación de tierras privadas. Los artículos seleccionados pasaron por Análisis de Contenido, generando listas con beneficios y problemas de transparencia pública, que basaron cuestionarios aplicados con las partes interesadas en el CAR. El principal problema identificado fue el miedo de los propietarios sobre el uso de la información declarada, mientras que el principal beneficio fue la contribución a la efectividad de los programas de conservación. Se concluyó que la función social de la propiedad privada justifica la divulgación jerárquica de información.

Palabras-clave:
Acceso a la información; Registro Ambiental Rural; Conservación en terrenos privados; Legislación forestal; Transparencia pública

First word			Second word		Third word
Transparen*	Accountability	A N D	Environment*	A N D	Private area*	Private land*
Public information	Information technology		Restor*		Private propert*	Land trust*
Access to information	Information access		Conserv*		Landhold*	Landowner*
Information asymmetry	Forest*		Conserv*		Landhold*	Landowner*

Category		Description
BENEFITS	General	Benefits applicable to more than one category or that improve the effectiveness of the conservation instrument
	Society	Benefits for all citizens
	Government	Benefits for the public functioning and accountability
	Landowners	Benefits for landowners involved with conservation instruments
	Economy	Financial benefits for any stakeholder
PROBLEMS/ RISKS	General	Problems/risks associated with information disclosure about private land conservation
PROBLEMS/ RISKS	Economy	Problems/financial risks associated with information disclosure about private land conservation

Category	No.	Benefit	No. docs
General	1	Contributes to the integration and coordination of efforts, ensuring the viability and benefits of the long-term conservation	6
	2	Increases the efficiency of the instrument aimed at private land conservation	2
	3	Assists in monitoring and evaluating the progress of conservation actions and in monitoring social, environmental, and economic impacts	4
	4	Reduces illegal deforestation	1
Society	5	Increases the engagement of all stakeholders in initiatives and practices related to private land restoration and conservation	3
	6	Helps society to assess whether public resources earmarked for private land conservation are being effective	2
	7	Increases citizens’ ability to learn about conservation-related projects and practices	2
	8	Increases public participation and social justice	2
Government	9	Improves accountability for government actions	3
	10	Contributes to the quality of environmental and financial planning of instruments aimed at private land conservation	4
	11	Helps public agents to make better decisions about priorities for conservation and management of natural resources	3
Landowners	12	Improves private sector compliance with environmental legislation	5
Economy	13	Increases profits for landowners and participants in financial incentive-based conservation programs	3
Economy	14	Increases the cost-effectiveness of financial instruments aimed at private land conservation	2

Publication title	Citation	Benefits	Problems/ risks
Accounting for Results: How Conservation Organizations Report Performance Information	RISSMAN; SMAIL, 2015	1	1
Assessment of USDA- NRCS rangeland conservation programs: recommendation for an evidence- based conservation platform	BRISKE et al., 2017	2	0
Auction design for voluntary conservation programs	CASON; GANGADHARAN, 2004	1	1
Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program	KONING et al., 2011	2	0
Concern for Information Privacy among Private Forest Landowners in Oregon	HUFF, 2015	0	1
Conservation auctions: Should information about environmental benefits be made public?	GLEBE, 2013	4	0
Easing conservation? Conservation easements, public accountability and neoliberalism	MORRIS, 2008	2	0
Economics of conservation easements ^a	EBERS; NEWMAN, 2014	2	1
Effects of Governance on Availability of Land for Agriculture and Conservation in Brazil	SPAROVEK et al., 2015	1	0
Environmental education programme with the community surrounding Una Biological Reserve, Bahia, Brazil	SANTOS; BLANES, 1997	1	0
Fairness and Transparency Are Required for the Inclusion of Privately Protected Areas in Publicly Accessible Conservation Databases	CLEMENTS et al., 2018	2	3
Grantocracy: Conservation grant-making and the territorialization of neoliberalism in Michigan’s Keweenaw Peninsula	CLARKE-SATHER; SOLOMON, 2012	1	0
Keeping Track of Conservation	OWLEY, 2015	4	0
Mapping properties to monitor forests: Landholder response to a large environmental registration program in the Brazilian Amazon	L’ROE et al., 2016	2	0
Markets for Conserving Biodiversity Habitat: Principles and Practice ^a	CROCKER, 2005	3	0
Priority setting for scaling-up tropical forest restoration projects: Early lessons from the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact	MELO et al., 2013	1	0
Public access to information on private land conservation: Tracking conservation easements	MORRIS; RISSMAN, 2009	10	2
Public access to spatial data on private-land conservation	RISSMAN et al., 2017	9	0
Public Accountability and Conservation Easements: Learning from the Uniform Conservation Easement Act Debates	KING; FAIRFAX, 2006	2	1
Quality information and procurement auction outcomes: Evidence from a payment for ecosystem services laboratory experiment	CONTE; GRIFFIN, 2017	4	0
Ranch Owner Perceptions and Planned Actions in Response to a Proposed Endangered Species Act Listing	KNAPP; STUART CHAPIN; COCHRAN, 2015	4	0
When Does Public Information Undermine the Efficiency of Reverse Auctions for the Purchase of Ecosystem Services?	MESSER et al., 2017	4	1

ANPPAS - Revista Ambiente e Sociedade Anppas / Revista Ambiente e Sociedade - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistaambienteesociedade@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Stella Verdasca ✉ stella_verdasca@hotmail.com