Political and institutional review for biodiversity financing in Brazil: a Biofin approach for the federal government
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v14n1.2023.43758Keywords:
BIOFIN, NBSAP, Environmental LegislationAbstract
Institutions and their different management and governance configurations are increasingly related to the environmental changes experienced on the planet. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a political and institutional review of biodiversity within the Brazilian federal government. To do so, we use the Political and Institutional Review - PIR to assess the strengths and weaknesses of biodiversity-related policies and institutions as part of the Biofin methodology. The study raised the main elements of the normative and institutional landscape that guided biodiversity conservation actions at the federal level between 2000 and 2019. The results showed that in this period, at least 21 norms and about 195 instruments were provided in federal legislation to meet the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan – NBSAP. However, most of the budgetary actions carried out by the management bodies of biodiversity policies at the federal level distort the guidelines in these listed norms, along with the observed reduction in budget allocation for the Ministry of the Environment and biodiversity actions in other ministries. These elements seem to point to reduced prioritisation for biodiversity conservation at the federal level in Brazil over the 20 years analysed.
Downloads
References
ALMEIDA, L. T. de. Política Ambiental: uma análise econômica. Campinas - SP: UNESP, 1998.
ANTUNES, P. de B. Federalismo e competências ambientais no Brasil. 2. ed. São Paulo: Editora Atlas, 2015.
BEMELMANS-VIDEC, M. L.; RIST, R. C.; VEDUNG, E. Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation. 5. ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2010.
BLACKSTOCK, K. L. et al. Policy instruments for environmental public goods: interdependencies and hybridity. Land Use Policy, v. 107, n. May 2020, p. 104709, 2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104709.
BRASIL. Lei no 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981. Dispõe sobre a Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente, seus fins e mecanismos de formulação e aplicação, e dá outras providências. 1981.
BRASIL. Lei no 7.661, de 16 de maio de 1988. Institui o Plano Nacional de Gerenciamento Costeiro e dá outras providências. 1988, p. 1–3.
BRASIL. Lei no 9.795, de 27 de abril de 1999. Dispõe sobre a educação ambiental, institui a Política Nacional de Educação Ambiental e dá outras providências. 1999, p. 1–5.
BRASIL. Decreto no 3.420, de 20 de abril de 2000. Dispõe sobre a criação do Programa Nacional de Florestas - PNF, e dá outras providências. 2000a, p. 1–5.
BRASIL. Lei no 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. 2000b, p. 1–14.
BRASIL. Decreto no 4.339, de 22 de agosto de 2002. Institui princípios e diretrizes para a implementação da Política Nacional da Biodiversidade. 2002, p. 1–22.
BRASIL. Presidência da República. Lei no 11.284, de 2 de março de 2006. Dispõe sobre a gestão de florestas públicas para a produção sustentável e dá outras providências. 2006, p. 1–24.
BRASIL. Presidência da República. Lei no 11.516, de 28 de agosto de 2007. Dispõe sobre a criação do Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade e dá outras providências. 2007, p. 9–14.
BRASIL. Lei no 11.959, de 29 de junho de 2009. Dispõe sobre a Política Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentável da Aquicultura e da Pesca, regula as atividades pesqueiras e dá outras providências. 2009, p. 1–9.
BRASIL. Lei no 12.305, de 2 de agosto de 2010. Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos e dá outras providências. 2010, p. 1–20.
BRASIL. Decreto no 7.794, de 20 de agosto de 2012. Institui a Política Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção Orgânica. 2012a, p. 1–5.
BRASIL. Lei no 12.651, de 25 de maio de 2012. Dispõe sobre a proteção da vegetação nativa. 2012b, p. 1–35.
BRASIL. Lei no 12.805, de 29 de abril de 2013. Institui a Política Nacional de Integração Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta. 2013, p. 2013–2015.
BRASIL. Decreto no 8.375, de 11 de dezembro de 2014. Define a Política Agrícola para Florestas Plantadas. 2014, p. 11–12.
BRASIL. Estratégia e Plano de Ação Nacionais para a Biodiversidade. Brasília, DF: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 2017a.
BRASIL. Decreto no 8.972, de 23 de janeiro de 2017. Institui a Política Nacional de Recuperação da Vegetação Nativa. 2017b, p. 2018–2020.
BRASIL. Portaria no 3, de 16 de agosto de 2018. Institui o Plano de Implementação da Estratégia Nacional para Espécies Exóticas Invasoras. 2018, p. 2018–2019.
BRASIL. Decreto no 9.672, de 2 de janeiro de 2019. Aprova a Estrutura Regimental e o Quadro Demonstrativo dos Cargos em Comissão e das Funções de Confiança do Ministério do Meio Ambiente e dá outras providências. 2019a.
BRASIL. Decreto no 9.806, de 28 de maio de 2019. Altera o Decreto no 99.274, de 6 de junho de 1990, para dispor sobre a composição e o funcionamento do Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente - Conama. 2019b, p. 2020–2022.
BRASIL. Decreto no 10.234, de 11 de fevereiro de 2020. Aprova a Estrutura Regimental e o Quadro Demonstrativo dos Cargos em Comissão e das Funções de Confiança do Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade - Instituto Chico Mendes, remaneja cargos em. 2020a.
BRASIL. Decreto no 10.235, de 11 de fevereiro de 2020. Altera o Decreto no 4.703, de 21 de maio de 2003, que dispõe sobre o Programa Nacional da Diversidade Biológica - Pronabio e a Comissão Nacional da Biodiversidade. 2020b, p. 10–11.
CAPANO, G.; LIPPI, A. How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices. Policy Sciences, v. 50, n. 2, p. 269–293, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-016-9267-8.
CIRIACY-WANTRUP, S. Von. Resource Conservation: economics and policies. 3. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.
DENDURA, J.; LE, H. A Methodological Guidebook: climate public expenditure and institutional review (Cpeir). p. 1–72, 2015.
DUGGAN, A. R.; CARR, D. A.; YAN, W. Conditional impacts of political and fiscal factors on state environmental budgets. Public Budgeting and Finance, v. 42, n. 2, p. 127–147, 2022. DOI: 10.1111/pbaf.12308
HOWLETT, M. Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy Implementation: national approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, v. 19, n. 2, p. 1–21, 1991.
INSTITUTO DE PESQUISA ECONÔMICA APLICADA – IPEA. Governança Ambiental no Brasil: instituições, atores e políticas públicas. Brasília: Ipea, 2016.
JOLY, C. A. et al. Plataforma Brasileira de Biodiversidade e Serviços Ecossistêmicos – BPBES. São Carlos – SP, 2019.
KIM, Y.; VERWEIJ, S. Two effective causal paths that explain the adoption of US state environmental justice policy. Policy Sciences, v. 49, n. 4, p. 505–523, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-016-9249-x
KRAUSE, R. M. et al. Drivers of Policy Instrument Selection for Environmental Management by Local Governments. Public Administration Review, v. 79, n. 4, p. 477–487, 2019. DOI: 10.1111/puar.13025
MAO, W. et al. Barriers to implementing the strictest environmental protection institution: a multi-stakeholder perspective from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, v. 27, n. 31, p. 39375–39390, 2020. DOI:
1007/s11356-020-09983-8
MAO, Y. Decentralization, national context and environmental policy performance: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, v. 25, n. 28, p. 28471–28488, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-2846-9
MUKHERJEE, I.; COBAN, M. K.; BALI, A. S. Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review. Policy Sciences, v. 54, n. 2, p. 243–268, 2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09420-8.
PADMANABHAN, M.; JUNGCURT, S. Biocomplexity – conceptual challenges for institutional analysis in biodiversity governance. Ecological Economics, v. 81, p. 70–79, set. 2012. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912002273.
POLSKI, M. The institutional economics of biodiversity, biological materials, and bioprospecting. Ecological Economics, v. 53, n. 4, p. 543–557, 1 jun. 2005. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800904004598.
ROGGERO, M.; BISARO, A.; VILLAMAYOR-TOMAS, S. Institutions in the climate adaptation literature: a systematic literature review through the lens of the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Journal of Institutional Economics, v. 14, n. 3, p. 423–448, 2018. DOI: 10.1017/S1744137417000376
STERNER, T.; CORIA, J. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. 2. ed. NEW YORK: RFF Resources for theFuture, 2012.
TISDELL, C. Economics of Evironmental Conservation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2005.
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM – UNDP. Biofin Workbook: mobilizing resources for biodiversity and sustainable development. New York, 2016.
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM – UNDP. Biofin: the biodiversity finance initiative workbook 2018. Finance for Nature. New York, 2018.
VEEMAN, T. S.; POLITYLO, J. The role of institutions and policy in enhancing sustainable development and conserving natural capital. Environment, Development and Sustainability, v. 5, n. 3-4, p. 317–332, 2003.
VINOGRADOVA, T. Improving green budget decisions and transparency through public participation: evidence from Russia. Public Sector Economics, v. 46, n. 3, p. 386–401, 2022. DOI: 10.3326/pse.46.3.3
VYRASTEKOVA, J.; SOEST, D. Van. The effectiveness of centralized and decentralized institutions in managing biodiversity: lessons from economic experiments. In: Biodiversity Economics: principles, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. p. 481–500.
WORLD BANK. Five years after Rio: innovations in environmental policy. Monograph Series. Washington – DC, 1997.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Sustainability in Debate
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
SUSTAINABILITY IN DEBATE – Copyright Statement
The submission of original scientific work(s) by the authors, as the copyright holders of the text(s) sent to the journal, under the terms of Law 9.610/98, implies in the concession of copyrights of printed and/or digital publication to the Sustainability in Debate Journal of the article(s) approved for publication purposes, in a single issue of the journal. Furthermore, approved scientific work(s) will be released without any charge, or any kind of copyright reimbursement, through the journal’s website, for reading, printing and/or downloading of the text file, from the date of acceptance for publication purposes. Therefore, the authors, when submitting the article (s) to the journal, and gratuitous assignment of copyrights related to the submitted scientific work, are fully aware that they will not be remunerated for the publication of the article(s) in the journal.
The Sustainability in Debate Journal is licensed under Creative Commons License – Non-Commercial-No-Derivation Attribution (Derivative Work Ban) 3.0 Brazil, aiming at dissemination of scientific knowledge, as indicated on the journal's website, which allows the text to be shared, and be recognized in regards to its authorship and original publication in this journal.
Authors are allowed to sign additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the works published in the Sustainability in Debate Journal (for example, in a book chapter), provided that it is expressed the texts were originally published in this journal. Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their text online, following publication in Sustainability in Debate (e.g. in institutional repositories or their personal pages). The authors expressly agree to the terms of this Copyright Statement, which will be applied following the submission and publishing by this journal.
