SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE ECOLOGICAL ICMS TRANSFERRED TO PARANÁ MUNICIPALITIES IN 2000 AND 2017
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24325/issn.2446-5763.v6i17p136-155Palavras-chave:
environmental conservation; ecological tax transfers; spatial data analysisResumo
The replacement of natural vegetation was the way by which certain food crops could be produced in different regions of Brazil. The state of Paraná has undergone such process of replacing its natural vegetation, but the state is considered a pioneer in the adoption of a measure entitled Ecological ICMS for biodiversity. The aim is to promote the conservation of natural vegetation by creating conservation units and preserving water sources that supply the population living in the municipality and in other locations. The objective of this study is to perform a spatial analysis of the transferring of Ecological ICMS resources per municipality of the state of Paraná in 2000 and 2017. These years comprise the period with availability of information. Spatial data analysis was used as methodology. Data refer to the amounts of Ecological ICMS transferred to the municipalities during the years of analysis, the origin of the resources, and their share in the total revenue of these municipalities. The results indicate that the number of municipalities that received Ecological ICMS increased between the first and the last year of analysis. The main source of collection is the creation of conservation units. In addition, the eastern macroregion of the state of Paraná concentrates the municipalities with the highest share of income provided by this tax.
Downloads
Não há dados estatísticos.
Referências
ALMEIDA, E. Econometria espacial aplicada. Campinas: Alinea, 1-498. 2012.
ANSELIN, L. Local Indicators of Spatial Association - LISA, Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93–115, 1995.
BACHA, C.J.C. Economia e política agrícola no Brasil. Atlas: São Paulo. 2004.
BERKE, P.; SPURLOCK, D.; HESS, G.; BAND, L. Local comprehensive plan quality and regional ecosystem protection: The case of the Jordan Lake watershed, North Carolina, U.S.A. Land Use Policy, 31, 450-459, 2013.
BRASIL. Lei n° 9.985. Dispõem sobre o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação – SNUC. 2000.
CDB. COP 10 – Decision Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. 2017. Disponível em: <https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
CHAPE, S.; HARRISON, J.; SPALDING, M.; LYSENKO, I. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 360 (1454), 443-455, 2005.
DAILY, G.C.; DASGUPTA, S. Ecosystem services, concept of. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2, 353-362, 2001.
EDUFUL, M.; SHIVELY, D. Perceptions of urban land use and degradation of water bodies in Kumasi, Ghana. Habitat International, 50, 206-213, 2015.
FARINHA, M.J.U.S.; BERNARDO, L.V.M.B.; SOUZA, V.A.; FERREIRA DA SILVA, L. Characterization of conservation units of the Central-West region of Brazil. Multitemas, 25(54), 205-224, 2018.
FARINHA, M.J.U.S.; BERNARDO, L.V.M.B.; SOAREA FILHO, A.; BEREZUK, A.G.; FERREIRA DA SILVA, L.; RUVIARO, C.F. Opportunity cost of a private reserve of natural heritage, Cerrado biome – Brazil. Land Use Policy, 81, 49-57, 2019.
FERNANDES, G.W. Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop Grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, 1-567, 2016.
FIGGIS, P.; HUMANN, D.; LOOKER, M. Conservation on private land in Australia. Parks, 15(2), 19-29, 2005.
FIRJAN. Índice FIRJAN de Gestão Fiscal: recorte municipal abrangência nacional. Rio de Janeiro. 1-34, 2017.
FISHER, J.R.B.; DILLS, B. Do private conservation activities match science-based conservation priorities? PLoS ONE, 7(9), 2012.
GOLDSTEIN, J.H.; CALDARONE, G.; DUARTE, T.K.; ENNAANAY, D.; HANNAHS, N.; MENDOZA, G.; POLASKY, S.; WOLBY, S.; DAILY, G.C. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America - PNAS, 109, 7565-7570, 2012.
IAP – Instituto Ambiental do Paraná. ICMS Ecológico por Biodiversidade. 2018. Disponível em:< http://www.iap.pr.gov.br/pagina-418.html>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Brasil em síntese: território. 2004. Disponível em: < https://brasilemsintese.ibge.gov.br/territorio.html>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
IPARDES – Instituto Paranaense de Desenvolvimento Econômico do Paraná. Base de dados do Estado – BDEWeb. 2019. Disponível em: <http://www.ipardes.pr.gov.br/imp/index.php>. Acesso em: nov. 2019.
IPEADATA. Dados. 2018. Disponível em: < http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/Default.aspx>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
KRUG, W. Private supply of protected land in southern Africa: a review of markets, approaches, barriers and issues. World Bank/OECD International Workshop on Market Creation for Biodiversity Products and Services. Paris, France: World Bank. 1-42, 2001.
MORAN, P.A.P. The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 10(2), 243-251, 1948.
MYERS, N.; MITTERMEIER, R.A.; MITTERMEIER, C.G.; FONSECA, G.A.B.; KENT, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858, 2000.
OECD. Environmental Outlook to 2050. Publishing, OECD, 2012.
OVERBECK, G.E.; VÉLEZ-MARTIN, E.; SCARANO, F.R.; LEWINSOHN, T.M.; FONSECA, C. R.; MEYER, S.T. Conservation in Brazil needs to include non-forest ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 21, 1455-1460, 2015.
PARANÁ. Lei Complementar n° 91. Dispõe sobre a repartição do ICMS, a que alude o art. 2º da Lei nº 9.491, de 21 de dezembro de 1990, aos municípios com mananciais de abastecimento e unidades de conservação ambiental. 1990. Disponível em: <https://www.legislacao.pr.gov.br/legislacao/listarAtosAno.do?action=exibir&codAto=8383&indice=1&totalRegistros=9&anoSpan=1995&anoSelecionado=1991&mesSelecionado=0&isPaginado=true>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
RAIHER, A.P.; FERREIRA DE LIMA, J.; OSTAPECHEN, L.A.P. Crescimento Econômico Regional no Sul do Brasil. Revista de Economia e Agronegócio, 15(2), 224-249, 2017.
RAIHER, A.P.; OLIVEIRA, R.A.; CARMO, A.S.S.; STEGE, A.L. Convergência da Produtividade Agropecuária do Sul do Brasil: uma análise espacial. RESR, 54(3), 517-536, 2016.
RING, I. Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 25, 485-497, 2008.
RING, I.; SCHRÖTER-SCHLAACK, C. Justifying and Assessing Policy Mixesfor Biodiversity and Ecosystem Governance. In: Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. Policymix: Alemanha. 1-212, 2011.
RODRIGUES, A. S. L.; ANDELMAN, S. J.; BAKARR, M. I.; BOITANI L.; BROOKS, T. M. et al. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428, 640-643, 2004.
RYLANDS, A.B.; BRANDON, K. Brazilian protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19, 612-618, 2005.
SÃO JOSÉ DOS PINHAIS. Lei n° 257/2001. Destina 50% de cada parcela do ICMS Ecológico, para exclusivo atendimento à Zona Rural. 2001. Disponível em: < http://externo.sjp.pr.gov.br:65368/atoteca/upload/12526/12526_95473165087_F_D_200112311312.pdf>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
SUI, D. Z. Tobler's First Law of Geography: A Big Idea for a Small World?. Annals of the Association of American Geographers: Washington, 94, 269 – 277, 2004.
VIEIRA FILHO, J.E.R. Efeito poupa-terra e ganhos de produção no setor agropecuário brasileiro. IPEA, 7-41, 2018.
ANSELIN, L. Local Indicators of Spatial Association - LISA, Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93–115, 1995.
BACHA, C.J.C. Economia e política agrícola no Brasil. Atlas: São Paulo. 2004.
BERKE, P.; SPURLOCK, D.; HESS, G.; BAND, L. Local comprehensive plan quality and regional ecosystem protection: The case of the Jordan Lake watershed, North Carolina, U.S.A. Land Use Policy, 31, 450-459, 2013.
BRASIL. Lei n° 9.985. Dispõem sobre o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação – SNUC. 2000.
CDB. COP 10 – Decision Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. 2017. Disponível em: <https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
CHAPE, S.; HARRISON, J.; SPALDING, M.; LYSENKO, I. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 360 (1454), 443-455, 2005.
DAILY, G.C.; DASGUPTA, S. Ecosystem services, concept of. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2, 353-362, 2001.
EDUFUL, M.; SHIVELY, D. Perceptions of urban land use and degradation of water bodies in Kumasi, Ghana. Habitat International, 50, 206-213, 2015.
FARINHA, M.J.U.S.; BERNARDO, L.V.M.B.; SOUZA, V.A.; FERREIRA DA SILVA, L. Characterization of conservation units of the Central-West region of Brazil. Multitemas, 25(54), 205-224, 2018.
FARINHA, M.J.U.S.; BERNARDO, L.V.M.B.; SOAREA FILHO, A.; BEREZUK, A.G.; FERREIRA DA SILVA, L.; RUVIARO, C.F. Opportunity cost of a private reserve of natural heritage, Cerrado biome – Brazil. Land Use Policy, 81, 49-57, 2019.
FERNANDES, G.W. Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop Grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, 1-567, 2016.
FIGGIS, P.; HUMANN, D.; LOOKER, M. Conservation on private land in Australia. Parks, 15(2), 19-29, 2005.
FIRJAN. Índice FIRJAN de Gestão Fiscal: recorte municipal abrangência nacional. Rio de Janeiro. 1-34, 2017.
FISHER, J.R.B.; DILLS, B. Do private conservation activities match science-based conservation priorities? PLoS ONE, 7(9), 2012.
GOLDSTEIN, J.H.; CALDARONE, G.; DUARTE, T.K.; ENNAANAY, D.; HANNAHS, N.; MENDOZA, G.; POLASKY, S.; WOLBY, S.; DAILY, G.C. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America - PNAS, 109, 7565-7570, 2012.
IAP – Instituto Ambiental do Paraná. ICMS Ecológico por Biodiversidade. 2018. Disponível em:< http://www.iap.pr.gov.br/pagina-418.html>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Brasil em síntese: território. 2004. Disponível em: < https://brasilemsintese.ibge.gov.br/territorio.html>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
IPARDES – Instituto Paranaense de Desenvolvimento Econômico do Paraná. Base de dados do Estado – BDEWeb. 2019. Disponível em: <http://www.ipardes.pr.gov.br/imp/index.php>. Acesso em: nov. 2019.
IPEADATA. Dados. 2018. Disponível em: < http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/Default.aspx>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
KRUG, W. Private supply of protected land in southern Africa: a review of markets, approaches, barriers and issues. World Bank/OECD International Workshop on Market Creation for Biodiversity Products and Services. Paris, France: World Bank. 1-42, 2001.
MORAN, P.A.P. The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 10(2), 243-251, 1948.
MYERS, N.; MITTERMEIER, R.A.; MITTERMEIER, C.G.; FONSECA, G.A.B.; KENT, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858, 2000.
OECD. Environmental Outlook to 2050. Publishing, OECD, 2012.
OVERBECK, G.E.; VÉLEZ-MARTIN, E.; SCARANO, F.R.; LEWINSOHN, T.M.; FONSECA, C. R.; MEYER, S.T. Conservation in Brazil needs to include non-forest ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 21, 1455-1460, 2015.
PARANÁ. Lei Complementar n° 91. Dispõe sobre a repartição do ICMS, a que alude o art. 2º da Lei nº 9.491, de 21 de dezembro de 1990, aos municípios com mananciais de abastecimento e unidades de conservação ambiental. 1990. Disponível em: <https://www.legislacao.pr.gov.br/legislacao/listarAtosAno.do?action=exibir&codAto=8383&indice=1&totalRegistros=9&anoSpan=1995&anoSelecionado=1991&mesSelecionado=0&isPaginado=true>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
RAIHER, A.P.; FERREIRA DE LIMA, J.; OSTAPECHEN, L.A.P. Crescimento Econômico Regional no Sul do Brasil. Revista de Economia e Agronegócio, 15(2), 224-249, 2017.
RAIHER, A.P.; OLIVEIRA, R.A.; CARMO, A.S.S.; STEGE, A.L. Convergência da Produtividade Agropecuária do Sul do Brasil: uma análise espacial. RESR, 54(3), 517-536, 2016.
RING, I. Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 25, 485-497, 2008.
RING, I.; SCHRÖTER-SCHLAACK, C. Justifying and Assessing Policy Mixesfor Biodiversity and Ecosystem Governance. In: Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. Policymix: Alemanha. 1-212, 2011.
RODRIGUES, A. S. L.; ANDELMAN, S. J.; BAKARR, M. I.; BOITANI L.; BROOKS, T. M. et al. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428, 640-643, 2004.
RYLANDS, A.B.; BRANDON, K. Brazilian protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19, 612-618, 2005.
SÃO JOSÉ DOS PINHAIS. Lei n° 257/2001. Destina 50% de cada parcela do ICMS Ecológico, para exclusivo atendimento à Zona Rural. 2001. Disponível em: < http://externo.sjp.pr.gov.br:65368/atoteca/upload/12526/12526_95473165087_F_D_200112311312.pdf>. Acesso em: nov. 2018.
SUI, D. Z. Tobler's First Law of Geography: A Big Idea for a Small World?. Annals of the Association of American Geographers: Washington, 94, 269 – 277, 2004.
VIEIRA FILHO, J.E.R. Efeito poupa-terra e ganhos de produção no setor agropecuário brasileiro. IPEA, 7-41, 2018.
Downloads
Publicado
2020-08-22
Como Citar
Bernardo, L. V. M., Farinha, M. J. U. S., Alves, L., Filho, A. S., Ruviaro, C. F., & de Souza, V. A. (2020). SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE ECOLOGICAL ICMS TRANSFERRED TO PARANÁ MUNICIPALITIES IN 2000 AND 2017. South American Development Society Journal, 6(17), 136. https://doi.org/10.24325/issn.2446-5763.v6i17p136-155
Edição
Seção
Artigos
