Panorama de médias e grandes propriedades rurais do município de Araras, SP, com base no Cadastro Ambiental Rural (CAR)

Abstract

The need to protect the environment for conserving natural resources and native vegetation has been extremely urgent, and in Brazil, the Brazilian Native Vegetation Protection Law (LPVN) - Law No. 12.651, May 25th, 2012 - has described the Permanent Preservation Area (AAP), the Legal Reserve (RL), and Restricted Use Areas; forest exploitation, the supply of forest raw materials, control of the origin of forest products, control and prevention of forest fires, and the provision of economic and financial instruments to achieve its objectives. We aimed to verify the scenario of medium and large rural properties in the municipality of Araras, São Paulo, Southeast Brazil, and analyze the self-declaratory data of rural properties, which we selected from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) database. We collected information for Araras that was available on the CAR website in shapefile format, which contained the characteristics of the scenario declared by rural landowners regarding the total area of the properties, RL, APP, and restricted use. We processed data through a Geographic Information System (GIS) to provide greater detail and ease of understanding the data. Additionally, we selected randomly six rural properties were, three medium (between four to 15 fiscal modules), and three large ones (over 15 fiscal modules), to characterize them and verify that they followed the rules established in the LPVN. We found are 1,099 rural properties in Araras, 135 of which are medium-sized, and 75 large ones. Considering the total extension of Araras, 60,460 ha refers to rural areas, with 5,050 ha corresponding to native vegetation; 7,365 ha to the Legal Reserve; 360 ha, to consolidated areas; 40 ha, to administrative easement; 12 ha, for restricted use; and 793 ha, to hydrography. The medium and large rural properties, together, are responsible for occupying 50,184 ha (85%) of the entire rural territory. We found that 5,050 ha, 10% of the total areas related to medium and large rural properties, correspond to native vegetation, 7,365 ha (14%), to RL; 360 ha (<1%), to the consolidated area, 40 ha (<1%), to the administrative easement; 12 ha (<1%), to restricted use and 793 ha (<1%), to hydrography. Four of the six properties selected for characterization did not comply with the guidelines established by the LPVN. We argued about the possible lack of interest in using alternatives to deal with environmental liabilities, referring to the recovery of native vegetation in the areas, for the benefit of new amnesties, as occurred from the LPVN. To revert this scenario, we think that will be necessary to establish public policies that promote the maintenance and/or restoration of native vegetation and that prioritize inspections regarding compliance with the LPVN.