Facebook Twitter RSS

Notícia

Versão para impressão
A-
A+


02/09/2013

SFB lança estudo sobre carga tributária no setor florestal madeireiro

Foco foi sobre florestas nativas da Amazônia, e compreensão sobre impostos nos produtos madeireiros fomenta debate sobre competitividade

A madeira em tora é o produto com maior produção e valor

O Serviço Florestal Brasileiro (SFB) mapeou a carga tributária que incide sobre produtos florestais madeireiros da Amazônia e apresentará os resultados desse levantamento em uma reunião aberta ao público nesta sexta-feira, 30, em Brasília.

Segundo a diretora de Fomento e Inclusão do SFB, Claudia Azevedo-Ramos, “fomentar o debate e informar o público é o primeiro passo rumo a coibir distorções e fortalecer uma economia florestal sustentável que permitirá que a floresta Amazônica permaneça em pé e saudável”.

Com o encontro, o SFB busca trazer especialistas do governo, do setor florestal e da academia para suscitar um debate plural e avançar em direção a propostas de solução que contribuam para o aumento de competitividade do setor florestal.

Dados

O setor florestal desempenha um importante papel na economia do País. Em 2011, a produção primária florestal somou R$ 18,1 bilhões, dos quais a silvicultura contribuiu com 72,6% (R$ 13,1 bilhões) do total apurado, enquanto a extração vegetal participou com 27,4% (R$ 5,0 bilhões). Os dados são da pesquisa Produção da Extração Vegetal e da Silvicultura 2011, do Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE).

A madeira em tora se destaca como o produto com maior produção e valor, com 14 milhões de metros cúbicos de madeira provenientes da Amazônia. Somada às florestas plantadas, seu valor de produção ficou em R$ 17 bilhões. Dados de um estudo realizado pelo SFB e pela ONG Imazon, de 2009, apontam ainda que o setor florestal na Amazônia gera em torno de 200 mil empregos e conta com cerca de 2,2 mil empresas.

O estudo que será apresentado na próxima sexta mostrará, além da carga tributária, qual o tributo que mais onera a cadeia, além de avaliações de vários cenários potenciais de desoneração tributária que, caso adotados, fortaleceriam a economia florestal local. Esta iniciativa teve o apoio da cooperação técnica alemã por meio da GIZ. O resumo executivo e o estudo completo poderão ser acessados no site do SFB a partir de 2 de setembro.

Serviço

Lançamento do estudo “Fortalecimento do setor Florestal no Brasil: Mapeamento da carga tributária incidente sobre produtos florestais madeireiros e proposição de medidas de desoneração”

Local: auditório do Cenaflor (Centro Nacional de Apoio ao Manejo Florestal/SFB) – Av. L4 Norte, Trecho 2 (dentro do complexo do Ibama) - Brasília - DF

Horário: 9h às 12h

Data: sexta-feira, 30/8

 


Fonte: Painel Florestal



Publicidade


Deixe seu comentário no espaço abaixo ou clique aqui e fale conosco.


Nome: Email (não aparecerá no site):




Comentário(s) (1)


UUFaxZ04MT disse:

28/09/2013 às 08:27

, I remain unveccinnod. And as hard and bold as might be the arguing with a Harvard PhD, I?m about to dare. Just for the record: I am not professing the final truth, neither here nor in my article; I am merely expressing my personal opinion?which I?m ready to change if presented with the arguments I deem solid.So, here are few remarks on ?Persistent Hunting? and more generally, on human evolution and adaptation.1.I might be wrong but ?Persistent Hunting? seems highly dependent on restrictive external factors, such as:a.The environmental factor (climate, nature of ground and terrain), which seems crucial for the ?cost? part of the ?cost/benefit? equation?injury risk, exposure, and energy cost of a long distance running are different from sand to rocks to swamp to snow.b.Even more restrictive is the eventual presence/absence of the ?concurrence??bigger and stronger or more numerous predators; the linked video was shot in the Kalahari desert; in slightly more humid regions of Africa hyenas are well known to systematically attack lions to rip off their kill. This is to say that ?Persistent hunting? and thus, long-distance running might not have been widespread enough to provoke adaptations but locally. Actually, it might be quite the opposite: our ancestors would already be ?adapted? enough for running to undertake such a form of hunting when conditions presented themselves. More on it below.2.I might be wrong but Dan Lieberman presents the ?Persistent Hunting? in a way that makes one think that all Homo Erectus were running ?from 9 to 15 km a day?. He may have his own sources but in the very same video he uses for his presentation (the one you linked in your comment) the story is slightly different. There are three hunters hunting for the whole tribe and only one of them?the ?best runner??actually runs down and kills the scared animal. Women and most men of the tribe do not hunt/run. So running is the primary activity of, well, runners. Or would be?if they didn?t have to bring their kill back to their tribe. I?d bet they were walking, not running back home.3.I might be wrong but even if ?Persistent Hunting? was a widespread hunting method, to surmise it provoked adaptation you must be sure the hunters/runners were also the breeders. As we know, in animal groups the healthiest females breed with the group?s Alpha and possibly his lieutenants. Alpha is usually the biggest/meanest male, enough so to scare/fight off the contenders. Or the meanest and smartest. Anyway, smart or mean enough to delegate the strenuous and ungrateful tasks (such as running down animals all alone in the heat, while the tribe is ?unattended?) to his ?soldiers? (I suspect not even lieutenants but of course, I might be wrong).But even if runners/hunters did breed, all other things equal, their injury and hence early death rate were probably higher than average, which mechanically weeded out their genes from the gene pool over a long period of time.That means our skill/capacity in long distance running should diminish over a long period of time, while on the contrary our sprinting skill/capacity should rise because better sprinters were better survivors: remember that joke, ?You don?t need to run faster than the lion, only faster than the other guy?? Natural selection.4.I might be wrong but to illustrate his theories Dan Lieberman mostly uses as example long-distance runners. Those are usually people who have freely selected that form of physical activity, stuck to it, and actually got good at it. All of which suppose predispositions, mainly anatomical/physiological. What about people ?too heavy? for their height? Those, for example, who have naturally large and heavy bones? What are the long-term effects of long-distance running on their health? Joint health, especially? I mean, we might be theoretically good at something and ?adapted? to it, but that doesn?t necessarily means it?s good for us. Look at sitting.5.I might be wrong but Dan Lieberman himself says this method of hunting started to decline with the invention of the throwing weapons somewhere around 300,000 years ago. Then another, hunting method took over and is still in use today: get close to the animal undetected, shoot/throw to injure, follow the blood trail (easier to track and does not require running), kill, carry home. So, from this point of view, in terms of ?shaping the human body? over the last 100 000 of years (as I suggested in the article in reference to the age scientists give to our species?, Homo Sapiens Sapiens) ?Persistent Hunting? would simply be irrelevant. 6.I might be wrong but there is a difference between ?being adapted? and ?having adapted?. Is our adaptation to long-distance running the result of extensive running during some period of our evolution? Or is it incidental to our adaptation to long-distance walking? I?m wondering. Dan Lieberman illustrates the difference between walking and running gaits showing the legs? use as ?inverted pendulum? in the first case and ?springs? in the second. True but that implies walking on flat surface only. Actual walking in wilderness implies climbing up and down more or less steep slopes, hopping, jumping, even short sprints?hence, using the legs both as springs and ?inverted pendulum?. Wouldn?t it prepare/?adapt? one for long-distance running? Actually, it makes me think about how we prepare for the Snatch Test. One will do a lot of Snatches?and ruin his/her shoulders. The other will do a lot of Swings and Get-ups and just a few Snatches to refine the technique?and nail the test no problem.7.I might be wrong but beyond all that looms the controversy of human origins. I won?t get into it here, this post already being way too long.Thanks for reading.

Novidades do Site


Quer divulgar sua empresa ou está buscando uma empresa florestal?

As mais lidas


Pensamento

A melhor maneira de realizar os seus sonhos é acordar.
Paul Valéry

Vídeo

Bureau de Inteligência

Análise Conjuntural
Editais
Produções Técnicas

Patentes
Cartilha Florestal
Legislação



Publicidade

Mercado

Cotações
Câmbio
Mapa Empresarial


Enquete

O que você acha da implantação do Cadastro Ambiental Rural (CAR)?

Trará benefícios aos produtores rurais
Trará benefícios ao meio ambiente
Trará benefícios apenas para o governo
Trará benefícios aos produtores rurais, ao meio ambiente e ao governo
Não muda a situação dos produtores rurais, nem do meio ambiente

Receba no seu email

Análise Conjuntural

Estudo e análise de especialista sobre o mercado de florestas.

Newsletter

Receba as novidades do setor de florestas no seu email.

Nuvem de Tags


1855 visitas nesta página

Polo de Excelência em Florestas

Parceiros

AMS  |   ECOTECA DIGITAL  |   EMBRAPA FLORESTAS  |   EPAMIG  |   FAEMG  |   INTERSIND  |   LARF  |   MAIS FLORESTAS  |   MAPA  |   SEAPA  |   SEBRAE  |   SECTES  |   SEDE  |   SEMAD  |   SIF  |   UFLA  |   UFV  |   UFVJM  |   UNIFEMM  |  

Colaboradores

ACELERADORA DE  |   AGROBASE  |   AGROMUNDO  |   APABOR  |   BRACELPA  |   CIENTEC  |   FAPEMIG  |   FINEP  |   IEF  |   LATEKS  |   PAINEL FLORESTAL  |   TRATALIPTO  |   UFV JR. FLORESTAL  |  
Desenvolvido por Ronnan del Rey