The Rio Rural program in Rio de Janeiro state: the canal Jurumirim microbasin experience, Macaé county
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130819948Keywords:
Family farming, Environmental, Participatory methodologyAbstract
The microbasin is a geographical unit bounded by a drainage network (small rivers) that lead to a main river. The Rio Rural program is a financial one and utilizes participative methodology. In the beginning of the process members of the microbasin join together in interest related groups to elect their representatives to compose the so called Microbasin Manager Committee, the COGEM, which will follow the executor technician during all the program phases, even control. Various practices are supported, among them there is water spring protection. The community in this study is Prefeito Celso Daniel settlement, which has 204 families. 35 PIDs (Individual Development Plans) have been made and near R$ 89.098,00 financed split in 38 subprojects. In general, it was observed that the community is satisfied with the financial incentive given by the program. The sense of environmental gain is high enough, as well as the anxiety of the people involved that everyone accesses it for the number of families is high. The biggest problem faced nowadays is the beneficiaries that are current out of stipulated deadline for the accountability and subprojects implementing.Downloads
References
ALVES, S. C. A água como elemento fundamental da paisagem em microbacias. Informe Agropecuário, Belo Horizonte, v. 21, n. 207, p. 9-14, nov./dez. 2000.
BRASIL. Lei nº 4.771, de 15 de setembro de 1965. Institui o novo Código Florestal. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 16 set. 1965.
BRASIL. Portaria n. 36 do Ministério da Saúde, de 19 de janeiro de 1990. Diário Oficial da União 1990; 23 jan.
BRASIL. Resolução CONAMA n. 357/2005. Dispõe sobre a classificação dos corpos de água e diretrizes ambientais para o seu enquadramento, bem como estabelece as condições e padrões de lançamento de efluentes, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União 2005; 18 mar.
CEDRO. Plano de Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Assentamento Prefeito Celso Daniel –PDA. Macaé, mimeo. 2006.
FRANCO, R. A. M. & HERNANDEZ, F. Qualidade da água para irrigação na microbacia do Coqueiro, 2009.
GOMES, M. A.; LANI, J. L.; COSTA, L. M.; PONTES, L. M.; FIGUEREDO, N. A. E BARDALES, N. G. Solos, manejo e aspectos hidrológicos na bacia hidrográfica do Araújos, Viçosa – MG. Revista Árvore. v.36, n.1, p.93-102, 2012.
KUMMER, L. Metodologia participativa no meio rural: uma visão interdisciplinar: Conceitos, ferramentas e vivências. Salvador, 2007.
PINTO, L. V. A., de ROMA, T. N., BALIEIRO, K. R. de C. Avaliação qualitativa da água de nascentes com diferentes usos do solo em seu entorno. Cerne, Lavras, v. 18, n. 3, p. 495-505, jul./set. 2012.
RAMOS, P. R.; RAMOS, L. A.; LOCH, C. Sensoriamento remoto como ferramenta para a gestão ambiental e o desenvolvimento local. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE CADASTRO TÉCNICO MULTIFINALITÁRIO, 2004, Florianópolis. Anais... Florianópolis: UFSC, 2004. p. 1-7.
RIO RURAL. Rio Rural alcança meta de 2016 nascentes protegidas um ano antes do previsto. Rio de Janeiro, 05 de agosto de 2015. Disponível em http://www.microbacias.rj.gov.br/pt/noticia/810/rio-rural-alcanca-meta-de-2016-nascentes-protegidas-um-ano-antes-do-previsto#sthash.56WPTprd.dpuf. Acesso em 07 de agosto de 2015.
Da ROCHA, C. M. ; RODRIGUES, L. D. S. ; COSTA, C. C. ; De OLIVEIRA, P. R. ; Da SILVA, I. J. ; De JESUS, É. F. M. ; ROLIM, R. G. Cadernos de Saúde Publica, 2006, Vol.22(9), pp.1967-1978
De SOUZA, L. M. ; FARIA, R. A. V. B. ; BOTELHO, S. A. ; FONTES, M. A. L. ; FARIA, J. M. R. Potencial da regeneração natural como método de restauração do entorno de nascente perturbada. Cerne, October 2012, Vol.18(4), pp.565-576 ScienceDirect (Elsevier B.V.)
VERDEJO, M. E. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo: guia prático DRP. Brasília: MDA/Secretaria da Agricultura familiar. 2007.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.