Agri-Environmental Policies in Brazil and Perspectives for Evaluation OECD Workshop on Evaluation of Agri-Environmental Policies

Braunschweig, GER June 2011

Matheus A. Zanella ([email protected])

Outline 1. 2. 3.

Introduction AEPs in the Brazilian context Main AEPs





4. 5.

Low Carbon Agriculture Programme (ABC) Amazon Fund Payment for Environmental Services Forestry Code

Perspectives for Policy Evaluation Conclusion

AEPs in the Brazilian context 





Term “Agri-Environmental Policy” finds no correspondence on policy-making or literature Using a broad definition, some important policies could be classified as AEPs No structural framework or national strategy (exception is climate change plan – ABC) incoherence and economic inefficiencies

AEPs in Brazil Information Instruments

EE Zoning Plans 2008

Forestry Code 1965/2011

Regulations

Amazon Fund 2009 Organics 2003

Low Carbon Agriculture 2010

Crosscompliance 2008 PES 2000’s

PGPMBio 2008

Economic Instruments

Sources: MAPA, MMA, MDA, MF, BC, Embrapa, BNDES, Conab, Zanella (2011). Elaborated by authors.

Low Carbon Agriculture (ABC) Environmental Objectives • Soil quality/protection; addressing adverse events (CC adaptation) • Reduce carbon emissions; other sustainable resources practices Type of Measure • Payments based on fixed farm assets and on investments • Research/education and technical assistance/extension Coverage / Eligibility • Nationwide and widespread (smallholders to big land owners) • Eligibility to financing varies, selection is defined by financial agents Agency / Pol Management • Ministries of Agriculture, Agrarian Development and Casa Civil • Executive Group related to the Climate Change National Policy

Amazon Fund Environmental Objectives • Generic/broad spectrum (capacity building and governance improvement) • Biodiversity; reduce carbon emissions Type of Measure • Mostly information instruments • Payments are allowed but connected to the project proposal Coverage / Eligibility • Relatively small, heterogeneous and independent projects • Eligibility varies, selection is defined during project design Agency / Pol Management • Management is decentralized (project-based). Some external funding • Funding is coordinated by public-private committee (attached to BNDES)

Payments for Environmental Services Environmental Objectives • To secure provision of environmental services to water, carbon and biodiversity Type of Measure • Payments based on land retirement, farming practices, and investments • Technical assistance, extension and community based measures Coverage / Eligibility • Relatively small, heterogeneous and independent projects • Eligibility varies, selection is defined during project design Agency / Pol Management • Completely decentralized. National policy only provides assistance in project design

Forestry Code Environmental Objectives • Generic / Broad Spectrum • Water resources, reduce water pollution, biodiversity Type of Measure • Land-use policies • Regulatory measures Coverage / Eligibility • Nation-wide • All private properties Negotiations / Legislation • Severe problems with enforcement led to intense discussions to reform current legislation

Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Low Carbon Agriculture

Amazon Fund 2009

2010

• Monitoring system under development

• Project-based monitoring (common methodology)

• Establishment of two “virtual laboratories” (research networks) to conduct evaluation studies

• Logical framework to conduct ex-ante evaluation (env. efficacy and eco. efficiency) and to monitor funding profile

• Baseline emissions from inventory submitted to UNFCCC, compared to “no policy situation”

• Ex-post (2y) Impact Evaluation is requested for each project

Policy Monitoring and Evaluation PES 2000’s

Forestry Code 1965/2011

• Project-based monitoring, decentralized (stylised environmental impact models, georeferenced data, etc) • Some projects include expost impact evaluation and consider counter-factual (support from WB)

• Enforcement was weak or inexistent until mid 2000’s • Monitoring varies according to institutional performance • Some States started to implement farms georeferenced databanks

Conclusions 

Relatively new policies (mostly at design stage)



Variety of plans, programmes, actors, instruments Policy innovation Dynamism



Policy incoherence Economic inefficiencies

Huge space for policy evaluation, development of monitoring protocols, regional and international comparisons, diffusion of best practices

Thank You Matheus A. Zanella ([email protected]) Consultant, Agri-Environmental Policies