Nuevos Mecanismos de Gobernanza que incorporan las políticas nacionales de adaptación y mitigación al cambio climático en el nivel local en la Amazonia brasileña

New Governance Mechanisms Mainstreaming National Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Policies into the Local Level in the Brazilian Amazon

Carlos Germano Ferreira Costa

Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología, Innovación y Comunicaciones (MCTIC) (Brasil)

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0280-7281

carloscostainspira@gmail.com

NOTA BIOGRÁFICA

Doctor en Ambiente y Desarrollo Internacional (Conflictos y Gobernanza Ambiental) por la Universidad Federal del Ceará, con Posdoctorado en Gestión de Riesgos Agrarios y Medioambientales, en el centro mixto –Ceigram/itdUPM– de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Actualmente trabaja para el MCTIC (Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología, e Innovación de Brasil), como Consultor Técnico para la Cuarta Comunicación Nacional de Brasil para la UNFCCC. Su labor investigadora y docente se vincula a la gestión de reducción de riegos de desastres, gobernanza ambiental y territorial, y el análisis ambiental.

ABSTRACT

Research in the field of Global Environmental Governance (GEG) pays considerable attention to the emergence of New Governance Mechanisms (NGM). NGM poses profound challenges to governments and institutions in the Developed and Developing world alike, corresponding to new ways of participation. This article seeks to contribute to the debates on NGM by analyzing a municipal-level environmental governance scheme based on deforestation-free commitments emerged in 2011 in Brazil, that has successfully helped to reduce deforestation in the participant municipalities; the Green Municipalities Program (PMV). We also shed some lights on the risks represented by promises of changes in federal environmental legislation by the newly elected government of Brazil. It is secondary research based on official data analysis that provided a cost-effective way of gaining a broad understanding of the mainstreaming of National and State climate change mitigation and adaptation policies into the local level, as well as a report of the governance of policy instruments in NGMs. Methodologically we rely on the method of data and text analysis, based on the study of the PMV Statistical Database, which gives visibility to a broad range of environmental, social, and territorial data and information for the 144 municipalities of the Pará State, through six different types of official reports.

KEYWORDS

Amazon Biome; Sustainable Development Pathways; Climate Governance; Deforestation-Free Commitments; Policy Instruments; Green Municipalities Program.

RESUMEN

La investigación en el campo de la gobernanza ambiental global (GEG) presta una atención considerable a la aparición de Nuevos Mecanismos de Gobernanza (NMG). NMGs plantean desafíos profundos a los gobiernos e instituciones en el mundo Desarrollado y en Desarrollo por igual, correspondientes a nuevas formas de participación. Este artículo busca contribuir a los debates sobre NMGs mediante el análisis de un esquema de Gobernanza ambiental a nivel municipal basado en compromisos libres de deforestación surgido en 2011 en Brasil, que ha ayudado con éxito a reducir la deforestación en los municipios participantes; El Programa Municipios Verdes (PMV). También arrojamos algunas luces sobre los riesgos representados por las promesas de cambios en la legislación ambiental federal por parte del nuevo gobierno electo de Brasil. Es una investigación secundaria basada en el análisis de datos oficiales que brindó una manera rentable de obtener una comprensión amplia de la integración de las políticas de mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático en varios niveles y en el nivel local, así como un informe de la gobernanza de los instrumentos de política en NMGs. Metodológicamente, nos basamos en el método de análisis de datos y texto, basado en el estudio de la base de dados estadísticos del PMV, que da visibilidad a una amplia gama de datos e información ambiental, social y territorial de los 144 municipios del estado de Pará, a través de seis tipos diferentes de informes oficiales.

PALABRA CLAVE

Bioma Amazónico; Caminos de Desarrollo Sostenible; Gobernanza Climática; Compromisos Libres de Deforestación; Instrumentos de Política; Programa Municipios Verdes.

SUMARIO

1. INTRODUCTION. 2. METHODOLOGY. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. 3.1 THE WAY(S) TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE GOVERNANCE. 3.2 THE MOMENTUM THAT LED TO THE EMERGENCE OF INNOVATIVE FOREST GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS IN BRAZIL. 3.3 THE GREEN MUNICIPALITIES PROGRAM. 3.4 POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT AND PERCEIVED LIMITATIONS. 4. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS. FUNDING. REFERENCES. SOURCES.

1. INTRODUCTION1

Climate change, along with inequality, is one of the most significant moral and environmental issues of our time. A viable way to combat climate-related risks requires all –Developed and Developing nations, and the rich and the poor peoples alike, to limit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to what might be considered a «fair share» of safe global emissions2 . In turn, it will demand the highest attention to the moral imperatives of climate change based on the fact that all of 197 Parties have agreed to adopt policies and measures –through «Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)»– to prevent «dangerous anthropocentric interference with the climate system» under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (UNFCC, 1992: Art. 2; UNFCCC, 2019). As of March 2019, 185 Parties have ratified the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on 4 November 2016 (UNFCCC, 2019; UNTC, 2019). To date, the United States of America is the only Party expressing intention of exercise its right to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, as soon as it is eligible to do so under the Agreement (UNFCCC, 2017).

In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 12 of the Paris Agreement, NDCs are at the heart of the Paris Agreement and the achievement of these long-term goals. In this regard, 182 Parties have submitted their first NDCs, and 1 Party has submitted their second NDCs (UNFCCC, 2019a).

As the demands for agricultural production continue to grow, and the restrictions on where and how we can produce and protect become equally more prevalent, the comprehension of climate actions related to deforestation goes beyond a mere description of a vital environmental issue, we must review its concepts under a perspective of imbalance in power relations. For this reason, our approach focus on the analysis of innovative forest governance schemes as a manner to shed some light on the search for solutions to the current political and environmental challenging panorama.

Assuming that Brazil has been doing its best to fulfill its voluntary commitments to reduce GHG emissions3 , and taking into consideration the current profile4 of the Brazilian GHG Emissions (MCTIC, 2016; SIRENE/MCTIC, 2017). We aim to further encompass some contribution on this matter by addressing the potential contribution of a local governance scheme created in 2011 in the State of Pará, Brazil: the Green Municipalities Program (Programa Municípios Verdes-PMV). Inspired by the pioneering experience of the municipality of Paragominas, the government of the State of Pará launched the Green Municipalities Programme (PMV) in 20115 , aiming to drastically reduce deforestation and change the basis of the state rural economy –largely extensive and predatory (IMAZON, 2018). Several authors have described the PMV (Guimarães et al., 2011; Viana et al., 2012, and; Miccolis et al., 2014) as an innovative forest governance scheme supporting productive deforestation-free commitments.

Brazil is a Federative Republic composed of municipalities (local sphere), states (regional sphere), and federal (national sphere). The PMV works at the municipal level, and has successfully helped the local implementation of a set of State and Federal policies and actions in the territory that reduced deforestation and land degradation in the participant municipalities 6 .

In this regard, Brazil has numerous programs and initiatives7 to promote the reduction of deforestation and forest degradation, conservation, sustainable forest management and forest restoration (REDD+8 activities). The complementarity and consistency of these actions occur in the Amazon biome through the PPCDAm9 . The PPCDAm10 aims to coordinate and direct the different policies and initiatives identified as linked to the dynamics of deforestation and climate action11 (IPEA/GIZ/CEPAL, 2007; MMA, 2018; PPCDAm, 2004; PPCDAm, 2009; PPCDAm, 2013; MMA, 2016; MMA, 2016b, GTPI, 2016).

2. METHODOLOGY

The paper presents secondary research based on the official PMV Statistical and Territorial Database, and relevant national environmental and climate legislation analysis that we believe provide a cost-effective way of gaining a broad understanding of current research questions embracing different aspects of sustainability in the Amazon Basin. We base our analysis on the integration of multi-level climate change mitigation and adaptation policies, to analyze the governance of policy instruments in PMV. Methodologically we rely on the method of data and text analysis as an essential approach comparing data and information from different sources gathered in the PMV Statistical and Territorial Database, that gives visibility to a broad range of environmental, social, and territorial data focusing on the information for the 144 municipalities of the Pará State, through six different types of official reports. This research bases its discussion on the «comparatives» found in specific reports, concerning: CAR12 , Deforestation rates, Environmental Management, Adhesion to the PMV, and the Signing of Pacts to reduce deforestation made public by the Brazilian Law on Access to Information13 .

The PMV statistical database offers comparative territorial data and information from government sources such as PRODES14 , INPE15 , the municipalities, among others. At the current stage of this research, we focused on specific environmental policies and initiatives targeting the Amazon basin16 . Our research approach defends that the use of normative background is useful to provide an overview of local environmental governance mechanisms potentiality (as well as their limitations) to contribute further to Brazil’s GHG emissions reductions17 , considering its ability to control end reduce deforestation at the local level. We pay considerable attention to the emergence of the PMV as a result of political consensus, and sound environmental criteria agreed in Brazil, as well as a response to National and International Climate Negotiations, combined with market pressure putting Brazil in the route to elaborate a robust set of national and state climate policies and actions, implemented through a strong climate governance framework18 that influenced local governments and civil society (NPCC, 2007). Brazil experienced the emergence of many different innovative environmental governance schemes around the country in recent years, whereas the PMV represents one of the most emblematic opportunities for transformational change at the local level. Modern sustainable forest management standards started to be effectively implemented replacing previous economic and social patterns based on the degradation of the environment, livelihoods, and natural resources. In this sense, this research seeks to advance the debates about the GEG by analyzing the NGMs that contribute to integrate national and state policies for adaptation and mitigation of climate change at the local level. We focus our attention on a sole environmental governance scheme –The PMV. Since the PMV has established a well-structured framework to support deforestation-free commitments at the local level19 (originally induced by Federal policies and programs).

We aim to shed some light on how this environmental governance scheme emerged due to the application of federal environmental legislation, and its correlated climate governance framework, as a tool to integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation national policies and programs at the local level in the Brazilian Amazon. We, also, briefly discuss how the promises of weakening the environmental legislation made by the newly elected government of Brazil can affect this governance mechanism.

Issues relating to climate change, sustainability, and biodiversity are relevant, and this discussion should encourage integrated local participation. We wonder if such governance mechanism could be affected by the expected political changes arising in the new government. How local environmental governance mechanisms adhere to (if they will adhere), and how they respond to political changes, is still open for discussion and analysis.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. The way(s) to achieve sustainable governance

In the Anthropocene20 (Walter et al., 2016), governance is based on shared expectations, as well as on intentionally designed institutions and mechanisms. However, governance is at the same time a permissive concept –like globalization– in the sense that it gives one license to speak or write about many different things, from any pattern of order or deviation, from anarchy –which also has multiple meanings– to normative preferences about how people should organize and understand the world (Rosenau and Czempiel, 1992; Biersteker, 2009).

We foresee that normative approaches are critical to support strong critical thinking while giving us the basis for reliable conclusions. This approach gives us limits and boundaries (mostly because environmental issues demand discussion to reach consensus), but also because as in the case of Brazil, advanced environmental norms and laws strongly regulate environmental issues.

Our approach entails an objective perspective for current and future analysis, by seeking to establish clear rules on (i) how environmental goals can be established and maintained; (ii) how they can be adapted to achieve previously established goals exposed to a dynamic reality; and finally, (iii) how the political outcomes produced can be shaped in a way that positively re-fuels the advancement of policies and actions. Thus, under this perspective, we seek to reinforce the provision of solutions to the complex problems of environmental deterioration and human well-being in the field of natural resource management. We also adopted the belief that a system of rules and norms that extend from the global to the local level has been used to provide a basis for forest governance in the country. It has defined, constrained, and shaped actors’ expectations in different domains (Ostrom, 2005; Biersteker, 2009: 180). How it could work from the local to the global is still an open and promising field of research.

Nonetheless, our approach is consistent with observations of Arid Vatn and Paul Vedeld (2011). They stated that two main elements are fundamental to governance: (i) the type of actors involved, characterized by their capacities and competencies; and, (ii) the (formal and informal) institutions that facilitate the interaction and the coordination between them, and the different levels of actors (playing a fundamental role in this process). In this sense, environmental governance demands continuing policy-making at national and subnational levels, but also, accountability.

Granted that «global governance of the environment» is not limited to «governance that is global» (Overbeek et al., 2010; Latham, 2009). It is instead concerned with political power –as a basic concept– at all levels of the political system. To the best understanding of environmental governance, the analysis of how state and non-state actors actively shape policy actions and outcomes is inevitable (Biermann et al., 2010; Schroeder, 2010: 320). Global norm-setting requires local decision-making and implementation (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2014: 688; 696), once actors’ actions are not merely the result of functional gaps being filled in the governance structure, but they are –at least, partially– the result of political motives, oriented and constructed under normative directives.

3.2. The momentum that led to the emergence of innovative forest governance mechanisms in Brazil

The three branches of government in Brazil have historically issued a series of decrees and norms aimed at combating deforestation in the Amazon basin21 . These actions were commonly based on the restriction of credit to activities associated with illegal deforestation. However, the effect of these policies was often expressionless or short, since the market itself had most influenced deforestation rates (Barreto and Araújo, 2012).

However, since the beginning of the 21st century, Brazil has been witnessing a paradigm shift concerning deforestation. According to Maia et al. (2011), and Viana et al. (2012), the increase in farmers’ awareness concerning the market forces and their consequences regarding economic gains and losses, as well as command and control policies22 , have proved successful in reducing deforestation, by the promotion of change of mentality, and certainty of punishment. Despite the limited effects on the reduction of the environmental degradation in the Amazon Biome, and limited reduction of deforestation in the other Brazilian Biomes, a possible path of sustainability appears to be emerging in the country (MMA, 2018). This new view is based on the quest to evolve beyond merely isolated punitive measures designed to unsuccessfully promote sustainable land use and forest conservation.

During the period 200423 -200924 , Brazil has experienced the development of a vast set of environmental policies and multi-level actions, including the active participation of the civil society trying to cope with the challenges of reducing deforestation more consistently. This set of policies tried to hold entire value chains accountable for illegal deforestation, especially targeting logging, soybean farming, and cattle ranching; issuing hefty fines and shutting down illegal operations while also setting up a blacklist of perpetrators of deforestation and environmentally unsustainable practices with top-down approaches (MCTIC, 2016; MPF, 2012; MAPA, 2013).

As a result, the Amazon basin witnessed the emergence of several local-level environmental governance schemes –some based on deforestation-free commitments as the PMV–, as a response do federal actions. As a result, the country efforts to promote compliance with international environment and climate negotiations, and the construction of modern social laws, as well as the repositioning of Brazil as a key-actor in global climate negotiations contributed to recently reduced deforestation rates in the Amazon basin.

At the same time that international25 and national discussions26 on climate change, forest conservation, and GHG reduction emissions strongly influenced the strengthening of environmental policies combating deforestation and land degradation in Brazil (MMA, 2016b; SIRENE/MCTIC, 2017; OC, 2018). They have mobilized different actors –mainly the Federal Government, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), and large national entrepreneurs against environmental degradation, resulting in the creation of economic and political incentives to reduce deforestation and promote GHG emissions reductions in key sectors (MCTIC, 2016; SIRENE/MCTIC, 2017). Brazil has adopted voluntary commitments and established a robust climate strategy to achieve the national goals to reduce GHG emissions, as initially established in the PNMC, in 2009, evolving towards the establishment of even more ambitious goals, expressed in the Brazilian NDC, in 2015. Besides, the government altered the Forest Code, establishing monitoring and verification mechanisms such as CAR.

Initially, the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) established under the Federal Law No. 12,187/2009, and by Federal Decree No. 7,390/2010 –replaced by Federal Decree No. 9,578/201827 –, described a voluntary commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 36.1-38.9% compared to projected emissions by 2020 (according to the baseline of 3,236 GtCO2e), towards absolute emissions reductions between 1,168 GtCO2e, and 1,259 GtCO2e. Later, on September 27, 2015, the Brazilian Government submitted to the UNFCCC, its intended NDC to the new agreement under the Convention at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21), in Paris. By adopting an economy-wide, absolute mitigation target, Brazil voluntarily agreed to follow an even more stringent modality of contribution, compared to its voluntary actions pre-2020.

The Brazilian contribution became consistent with emission levels of 1.3 GtCO2e (GWP-100; IPCC/AR5, 2014) in 2025, and 1.2 GtCO2e, in 2030 (GWP-100; IPCC/AR5, 2014), respectively corresponding to a reduction of 37% and 43%, based on estimated emission levels of 2.1 GtCO2e, in 2005 (GWP-100; IPCC/AR5, 2014). The new voluntary commitment, represents an additional gross GHG emissions reduction of approximately 19% in 2025, compared to Brazil’s previous national voluntary commitment, which aimed to achieve gross GHG reduction emissions of approximately 2 GtCO2e28 in 2020 (ITAMARATY, 2015; GoB, 2015).

Regarding forest conservation, the Federal government established law No. 12,651, of May 25, 2012 –known as the new «Forest Code»–. It provides general norms on the Protection of Native Vegetation, including Areas of Permanent Preservation, Legal Reserve, and Restricted Use; logging, supply of forest raw material, control of the origin of forest products, control and prevention of forest fires, and the forecasting of economic and financial instruments to achieve its objectives; The Forest Code is inserted in the National legal framework and legal instruments that guide and discipline the use of land and the conservation of natural resources in Brazil.

It brought the creation of an important instrument: the CAR29 , regulated by Federal Decree No. 9,578/2018, within the scope of the SINIMA System30 , and the implementation of State level Environmental Regulation Programs31 (MMA, 2016; 2016a; 2016b; 2018; 2018b; 2018c; BRAZIL, 2018; SEMAS, 2018).

3.3. The green municipalities program

The Green Municipalities Program (PMV) is an innovative municipal-level environmental governance mechanism. It has been put into practice national and State provisions that incorporated changes in the Forest Code32 , introducing the CAR33 , the LAR34 –Licenciamento Ambiental Rural (Environmental Rural Licensing) as well as several subsidiary set of policies and programs35 , and others initiatives like Bolsa Verde36 (Green Grant). Technically, the PMV is a territorial policy with a significant impact on the legalization of land use. Moreover, it is also a complex policy of command, control, and ordering, implemented and executed through an established pact among the involved actors in the three scales of powers: Federal, State, and Municipal levels (Da Costa and Fleury, 2015).

In 2011, the PMV became a State Government program37 developed in partnership with municipalities, civil society, the private sector, IBAMA38 , and the MPF39 . It was launched through State Decree No 54/2011, being coordinated by the Civil House of the Government of Pará, specifically in the figure of the SEPMV40 .The objective of the PMV is to combat deforestation in the State of Pará, to strengthen sustainable rural production through strategic environmental and land management actions and also environmental management, focusing on local pacts, monitoring deforestation, implementing the CAR, and in structuring the environmental management of the participating municipalities. Figure 1 shows the institutional arrangements and governance framework articulating multi-level environmental policies, programs, and governance schemes.

Figure 1. Institutional Arrangements and Governance Structure of the PMV

Source: Programa Municípios Verdes (GoP), 2013.

The raw origins of the PMV date back to 2006-2008 period41 . The Brazilian government published a Critical Deforestation List 42 , with the inclusion of 17 Pará State municipalities43 in the deforestation list of the Brazilian Ministry of Environment (MMA). The list was a policy measure to prioritize efforts to combat deforestation in critical areas (Viana et al., 2012) –which was later updated to 43 municipalities44 –, in an attempt to tackle critical levels of deforestation in the Amazon basin. The government action served as an essential input for resource allocation through several environmental policies and programs to combat deforestation at the local level, followed by the signing of Terms of Adjustment of Conduct by the meatpacking industry and livestock producers (IPAM/IMAZON/ISA, 2013; GTS, 2013; GTPS, 2014; GoP, 2015).

The creation of the deforestation list, which included the municipality of Paragominas in the State of Pará, prompted the municipality to develop an innovative environmental concept called «Green Municipality»45 . The municipal response aimed at getting the municipality off of the blacklist and recover its access to federal credit and assistance46 , but according to several authors, ended up going much further due its success in combating the historical dynamics of deforestation in that municipality (PARAGOMINAS, 2008; Guimarães et al., 2011; MPF, 2012; MAPA, 2013; GoP, 2015).

The PMV is the result of a participative process enabled through trust-building, by the establishment of partnerships and agreements between NGOs47 (The Nature Conservancy-TNC, and IMAZON48 ), municipal governments, large-farmers, ranchers, and the government at the local, regional and national level. In the face of the success observed in the Municipality of Paragominas in responding to Federal environmental Laws and actions to combat deforestation, the State of Pará soon adopted the PMV as a State Policy framework, expanding the actions to many other municipalities in the State. The participant municipalities shared similar socioeconomic and environmental issues. Besides, the actions adopted under the PMV aimed at mainstreaming a set of federal and state policy, measures, and actions into the local level policy framework, providing critical inputs for the arrangement and promotion of better resource allocation and better management of natural resources.

The participation in the PMV is based solely on the voluntary co-management of natural resources. It has been enabled by pooling public and private interests to implement existing provisions for environmental protection under the context of the current environmental policy formulation, leveraging licensing mechanisms, such as the LAR49 and CAR, promotion of more sustainable value chains at the municipal level, adoption of more sustainable management pacts, and deforestation-free commitments.

The establishment of natural resource and land use management was facilitated by the adherence to the CAR, which has already covered more than 75% of the territory, within a target of 80% by 2017.

The PMV contains a specific axis for decentralization. It prioritizes shared environmental management in the participant municipalities. It works by pooling public and private interests among the main actors (e.g., the big companies involved in agricultural, cattle breeding, mineral, forestry supply chains). It seeks to set up and carry out their commitments at a common base. Also, the actors are subject to punitive political measures as well as fiscal and economic sanctions under the CAR and LAR schemes. In this framework, NGOs and universities offer technical and scientific instruments to advance the process and support informed compliance to environmental regulations (Da Costa and Fleury, 2015).

In a nutshell, Guimarães et al. (2011); Viana et al. (2012); and, Miccolis et al. (2014), also described this program as an innovative governance mechanism. Mostly because it promotes more sustainable value chains at the municipal level, by bringing stakeholders together to establish improved natural resource and land use management pacts. There is a strong normative framework behind all choices and actions, supported by federal and State provisions of technical assistance and resource availability for the adoption of more sustainable production techniques, ensuring land tenure and environmental regularization.

The decentralization, the governance structure as well as the clear definition of roles among partners remains as key features supporting the success in reducing deforestation rates under the PMV framework –19% drop in deforestation rates among participating municipalities, compared to 16% in the Brazilian Legal Amazon (GoP, 2019). However, the latest government data indicates most of the deforestation still occurred in the states of Mato Grosso and Pará, and marked a 13.7% rise over last 2017’s figures (PRODES, 2019). While the rate does mark a significant rise between 2017-2018 period –when the rate of deforestation dropped 16% in a 12-month period –, it still marks a 72% drop from 2004 (the year Federal government launched command and control measures and policies to combat deforestation).

Moreover, the PMV demonstrated to be a useful tool to raise awareness and commitment among local stakeholders through the implementation of deforestation-free commitments, and by increasing the adoption of sustainable forest management, reduction of deforestation, and improved agricultural and grazing practices (GoP, 2019). However, further studies are required to confirm the level of awareness and commitment implications through the implementation of deforestation-free commitments in the Amazon basin. The review of the PMV framework showed that strategies were developed in line with local realities, aligned with needed territorial interventions driven by national and sub-national policies, such as the Sustainable Amazon Plan (PAS)50 , the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAM)51 , and the Plan for Prevention, Control and Alternatives to Deforestation in the State of Pará (PPCAD/PA)52 . As result, by March, 2019, from the total of 144 municipalities in the State of Pará, a significant number of 124 had adhered53 to the PMV, reaching 75,61% of the municipalities registered in CAR. Also, 16 municipalities entirely comply with the Green Municipalities strict environmental rules and procedures.

3.4. Potential for improvement and perceived limitations

The PMV worked well to mainstream national and State54 climate change adaptation and mitigation policies and programs into the local level, as well as a mechanism to enforce the new Forest Code directives in the Brazilian Amazon (IMAZON, 2015). The success of the PMV can be attributed to national environmental policies well articulated with the market forces, and supported by a robust technical and institutional capacity. However, the ongoing weakening of the environmental legislation and the re-characterization of monitoring and control bodies may pose some real risks related to the constitution of existing political and environmental arrangements resulting incompatible with local environmental needs (BRAZIL, 2019; 2019a). It may create gaps and overlaps of power, reducing the room for collaboration in the next phases of the PMV, as they might affect how the stakeholders adhere and respond to this environmental governance mechanism. Moreover, some features of the PMV reflects historical patterns adopted to combat deforestation that proved unreliable to promote sustainable development in the Amazon Basin. For this reason, many questions remain, often related to the risks imposed by political changes, and the recent restructuration of political forces at all levels –an important aspect that relates to the origins of PMV. The emergence of this innovative governance mechanism has deep roots in the need to respond to Federal command and control policies and actions.

Also, the PMV is structured around market-driven components based on different programs and policies that have limited capability to considerate smaller actors participation (MAPA, 2012; MAPA, 2018; Ferreira Costa, 2014; 2016a). Big players benefit most of PMV actions, since it has strong productive features. They have more opportunities to seize the benefits of their commitments in this forest governance scheme, while smaller actors and traditional communities face enormous challenges to committ to this mechanism. Small­holder farmers and traditional communities lack reliable conditions to participate in the decision-making process in the PMV because they lack economic representativity. Therefore, it is common for them to lack power and access to benefit from policies aligned with the market that has been systematically developed by previous governments to support agribusiness activities. In this regard, Nepstad et al. (2014), adds that punitive measures need to be complemented by positive incentives and finance at scale for landholders, smallholders farmers, indigenous communities, counties, and States to allow a sustainable transition to achieve lower deforestation rates, GHG emissions reductions, productive inclusion, and sustainable rural development.

The study shed some lights on the risks represented by promises of weakening Federal environmental legislation by the newly elected government of Brazil. Recent political instability brought uncontable changes, mostly culminating in far-right forces rising to power in Brazil (PSL, 2019; BRAZIL, 2019; 2019a). These forces may pose a threat to the continuity of Brazil in the Paris Agreement, and future climate negotiations, as Brazil withdrew its offers to host the COP 25 UN Climate Conference55 . Besides, ongoing changes in Federal climate governance schemes56 , through the restructuring of key ministries, and prioritization of productive issues over the environment foresee a real risk of regression throughout the normative and environmental governance apparatus created over decades.

The threats to the rainforest57 and its people58 and a still possible withdraw from the Paris Agreement are among the promises of the newly elected government. These changes came into force with the weakening of the Federal environmental bodies and environmental legislation emptying the powers of the Ministry of the Environment, and strengthening the Ministry of Agriculture (MMA, 2019; BRAZIL, 2019; 2019a), coupled with the extinction of the climate and renewable energy divisions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs59 , with negative effects on the national climate governance framework. The recent government decision that pulled out Brazil of hosting 2019’s United Nations global summit meeting on climate change60 , may indicate that the Latin America’s largest nation no longer aspires to be an influential player in efforts to mitigate the negative effects of a human-induced climate change.

In this regard, a crucial aspect of the PMV –the environmental decentralization– is highlighted. As stated by Toni (2006); Sandbrook et al. (2010); and, Viana et al. (2012: 3), the decentralization of environmental policies can be positive if it delivers more power to the hands of municipal actors. However, some authors have claimed that in democratic countries special interest groups may enjoy disproportionate influence on policymaking (Mancur, 1965; 1982; Midlarsky, 1998). As a result, decentralization can have negative environmental impacts if governments (at all levels) lack the capacity for good governance. It allows major political and economic forces to have too much influence on what are often politically weak environmental arrangements (local level), negatively influencing enforcement of environmental legislation (Ribot, 2004). A situation that seems to be materializing in Brazil shortly, contrasting61 to what advocated Ferreira Costa (2016: 135), when he described the previous Brazilian political discourse on climate change –focused on the elimination of deforestation and conservation of lands and forests –as fundamental features of the new international strategic repositioning of the Brazilian government in international climate negotiations. Something that emerged from the country’s need to adapt to changing global circumstances62 .

If stakeholders find it harder to operate (and cooperate), that could mean less oversight of environmental responsible choices and actions, weakening voluntary commitments, which could have a negative impact far beyond the pooling of public and private interests. It may reduce the overall scrutiny on climate change actions and deforestation at the local level, contributing to increased deforestation rates and conflicts over land tenure in the Amazon Basin.

In this regard, the PMV still has some deficiencies, such as the lack of actor-tailored approaches to integrate less powerful actors, both in alternative production activities and in the provision of personalized technical assistance, as well as in the offer of high-quality, productive inputs and insufficiencies in transportation and infrastructure. In contrast, these productive features, and channels to new consumer markets, are significant factors that attract larger players (Heredia et al., 2010; Fernandes et al., 2012; Viana et al., 2012; and, Ferreira Costa, 2014). Still with much to evolve, the PMV must create bridges and involve countless potential actors. Smallholders farmers as well as traditional communities are still left on the sidelines under the PMV, as it has been struggling to include sufficient tools that go beyond productive features.

4. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The very success of the PMV can be attributed to the construction of sound environmental policies well articulated with the market forces, and supported by a robust technical and institutional capacity.

It seems that the Brazilian Amazon Basin has been witnessing a shift from merely regulatory and repressive initiatives towards more participative decision-making processes and actions aimed at protecting the environment. Enhanced awareness and planned actions to promote land cover conservation and reduce deforestation, tackling traditional predatory modus operandi along with international market demands, promoted a «new mentality», among stakeholders and, possibly, forged a higher and continued commitment to ordering supply chains, and environmental conservation processes at the local level; albeit landholders, smallholders farmers, indigenous communities, and small counties still face challenges to actualize its inclusion as a group (or groups) with decision-making power.

In this regard, the overarching challenge seems to relate to effectively reinforce the harmonization and coordination of conflicting policy agendas at multiple levels –international, national, subnational, and local–, while addressing the necessary articulation and coordination among different actors for effective implementation to fairly manage trade-offs between negotiated goals and voluntary commitments.

While the PMV showed excellent results in bringing together different partners and matching multi-level policies as well as promoting decentralization along with the effective political coordination and articulation among stakeholders, many aspects of this governance mechanism still rely on old national economic strategies: meet market pressures to maintain the exportation of raw materials, as Brazil have done since the beginning of its history. For this reason, this «innovative scheme» still need to evolve to be effective dissociate from traditional patterns, and bring productive innovation. Also, the PMV must prove that the success achieved in the reduction of deforestation rates does not succumb to the weakening of the environmental legislation and the reduction of the power of monitoring and control bodies, under the political choices and motivations of the new-elected government of Brazil, or future others. In this sense, civil society and international pressure can act as instruments for the maintenance of the commitments previously assumed.

Time is still needed to make sure that participative processes under the PMV will prove able to alter the dynamics of productive activities linked to deforestation and promote a lasting new sustainable economic basis, as well as lift people out of poverty in the participant municipalities on the short-to medium-term. However, the successes in the reduction of deforestation and the enhancement of compliance to progressive environmental legislation among the municipalities are achievements to be celebrated.

Moreover, further studies are still needed to understand better how forest governance mechanisms in Brazil will respond to the weakening of the environmental legislation –if it succeeds–, and how, large landowners and cattle breeders will behave when this process begin to affect some of their economic and productive interests. New challenges arise, while the needs for improved mechanisms for socioeconomic inclusion of the people of the forests, and the reduction of the rampant exploitation of Brazilian biomes remains. In this sense, the PMV, as well as other innovative governance mechanisms in Brazil struggle to evolve as robust tools to combat deforestation, land grabbing, and land degradation effectively.

REFERENCES

BARRETO, P., ARAÚJO, E. (2012): O Brasil Atingirá sua Meta de Redução do Desmatamento? Belém: IMAZON. Available at: http://imazon.org.br/PDFimazon/Portugues/livros/Brasil_Reduc_Desmatamento.pdf. Accessed on November 25, 2018.

BIERMANN, F., BETSILL, M., GUPTA, J., KANIE, N., LEBEL, L., LIVERMAN, D., SCHROEDER, H., SIEBENHÜNER, B., ZONDERVAN, R. (2010): “Earth system governance: a research framework”, in International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 277-298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3.

BIERSTEKER, T. J. (2009): “Global Governance”, in CAVELTY, M. D., MAUER, V. (eds.): Routledge Companion to Security. New York, and London: Routledge Publishers.

DA COSTA, J. M., FLEURY, M. (2015): “The «Green Cities» Program: Strategies for Enhancing Space in the Municipalities of Pará”, in Ambiente&Sociedade. São Paulo, vol. XVIII, no. 2. pp. 61-76. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422ASOCEx04V1822015en.

FERNANDES, B. M., WELCH, C. A., GONÇALVES, E. C. (2012): Land Governance in the 21st Century: Framing the Debate Series. Land Governance in Brazil. A Geo-Historical Review of Land Governance in Brazil. Rome: International Land Coalition (ILC). 62 pp.

FERREIRA COSTA, C. G. (2014): “A Agricultura Familiar e os Desafios Frente à Redução de Pobreza e Desigualdade no Brasil”, in Revista Sapientia, vol. 16, pp. 19-22. Available at: http://cursosapientia.com.br/images/revista/RevistaSapientia-Edicao16.pdf. Accessed on Novemeber 25, 2018.

FERREIRA COSTA, C. G. (2016): “Geopolitical Implications and Environmental Governance in the Regulation of the Brazilian INDC”, in Boletim Goiano de Geografia. Online. Goiânia, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 125-140, jan./abr. Available at: http://revistas.ufg.emnuvens.com.br/bgg/article/download/40373/20628. Accessed on November 12, 2018.

FERREIRA COSTA, C. G. (2016a): “Fairness and Equity Implications for New Governance Mechanisms”, in 2016 Berlin Conference on Global Environmental Change: Transformative Global Climate Governance «Aprés Paris». Freie Universität Berlin: Environmental Policy Research Centre. 32 pp. Available at: http://edocs.fu-berlin.de/docs/receive/FUDOCS_document_000000024757. Accessed October 25, 2018.

GUIMARÃES, J., VERÍSSIMO, A., AMARAL, P., DEMACKI, A. (2011): Municípios Verdes: Caminhos Para a Sustentabilidade. Belém: IMAZON. Informativo do Programa de Apoio à Conservação Ambiental. Available at: http://amazonia.org.br/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/GUIA_MUNICIPIOSVERDES.pdf. Accessed on October 21, 2018.

HEREDIA, B., PALMEIRA, M., LEITE, S. P. (2010): “Sociedade e Economia do «Agronegócio» no Brasil”, in Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, vol. 25, no. 74, pp. 159-176.

LATHAM, R. (2009): “Politics in a Floating World: Toward a Critique of Global Governance”, in Approaches to Global Governance Theory, vol. 23. 28 pp.

MAIA, H., HARGRAVE, J., GÓMEZ, J., RÖPER, M. (2011): Avaliação do Plano de Ação de Prevenção e Combate ao Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal 2007-2010 (PPCDAM/2007-2010). CEPAL/IPEA/GIZ. 54 pp. Available at: http://repositorio.cepal.org. Accessed on October 25, 2018.

MANCUR, O. (1965): The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 208 pp.

MANCUR, O. (1982): The Rise and Decline of Nations. Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. New Haven: Yale University Press. 276 pp.

MCGUIRE, S. (2013): “Multinationals and NGOs Amid a Changing Balance of Power”, in International Affairs, special issue: Negotiating the rise of new powers, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 695-710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12040.

MICCOLIS, A., ANDRADE, R. M. T., PACHECO, P. (2014): Land-Use Trends and Environmental Governance Policies in Brazil. Paths Forward for Sustainability. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Working Paper no. 171. 59 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005435.

MIDLARSKY, M. (1998): “Democracy and the Environment: An Empirical Assessment”, in Journal of Peace Research, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 341-361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343398035003005.

NEPSTAD, D., MCGRATH, D., STICKLER, C., ALENCAR, A., AZEVEDO, A., SWETTE, B., BEZERRA, T., DIGIANO, M., SHIMADA, J., DA MOTTA, R. S., ARMIJO, E., CASTELLO, L., BRANDO, P., HANSEN, M. C., MCGRATH-HORN, M., CARVALHO, O., HESS, L. (2014): “Slowing Amazon Deforestation Through Public Policy and Interventions in Beef and Soybean Supply Chains”, in Science, vol. 344, pp.1118-1123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248525.

OSTROM, E. (2005): Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 375 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7s7wm.

OVERBEEK, H., DINGWERTH, K., PATTBERG, P., COMPAGNON, D. (2010): “Forum: Global Governance: Decline or Maturation of an Academic Concept?”, in International Studies Review, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 696-719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00967.x.

PATTBERG, P., WIDERBERG, O. (2014): “Theorising Global Environmental Governance: Key Findings and Future Questions”, in Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 684-705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814561773.

RIBOT, J. C. (2004): Waiting for Democracy: the Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization. Washington D. C.: World Resources Institute (WRI). 154 pp.

ROSENAU, J. N., CZEMPIEL, E. O. (eds.) (1992): Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511521775.

SANDBROOK, C., NELSON, F., ADAMS, W. M., AGRAWAL, A. (2010): “Carbon, Forests, and the REDD Paradox”, in Oryx, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 330-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605310000475.

SCHROEDER, H. (2010): “Agency in International Climate Negotiations: the Case of Indigenous Peoples and Avoided Deforestation International Environmental Agreements”, in Politics, Law and Economics, vol. 10, no. 4, págs. 317-332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9138-2.

TONI, F. (2006): Gestão Florestal na Amazônia Brasileira: Avanços e Obstáculos em um Sistema Federalista. CIFOR/CIID/IDRC. 73 pp.

VATN, A., VEDELD, P. (2011): Getting Ready! A Study of National Governance Structures for REDD+. Nowergian University of Life Science. Department of International Environment and Development Studies, NORAGRIC, Report núm. 59. 43 pp. Available at: http://www.umb.no/statisk/noragric/noragric_report_no._59.pdf. Accessed on December 1, 2018.

VIANA, C., COUDEL, E., BARLOW, J., FERREIRA, J., GARDNER, T., PARRY, L. (2012): “From Red to Green: Achieving an Environmental Pact at the Municipal Level in Paragominas (Pará, Brazilian Amazon)”, in 12th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE 2012 Conference) «Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy», 16-19 June 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. s. l.: s. n., 33 pp. Available at: http://www.isecoeco.org/conferences/isee2012-versao3/pdf/66.pdf. Accessed on November 25, 2018.

WALTER, C. N., ZALASIEWICZ, J., SUMMERHAYES, C., BARNOSKY, A. D., POIRIER, C., GAŁUSZKA, A., CEARRETA, A., EDGEWORTH, M., ELLIS, ERLE C., ELLIS, M., JEANDEL, C., LEINFELDER, R., MCNEILL, J. R., RICHTER, D. D., STEFFEN, W., SYVITSKI, J., VIDAS, D., WAGREICH, M., WILLIAMS, M., ZHISHENG, A., GRINEVALD, J., ODADA, E., ORESKES, N., WOLFE, A. P. (2016): “The Anthropocene is Functionally and Stratigraphically Distinct From The Holocene. Review”, in Science, 8 January 2016, vol. 351, no. 6.269. DOI: 10.1126/science.aad2622.

SOURCES

BRAZIL (2019): Federal Decree No. 9,683, January 9, 2019. Approves the Regimental Structure and the Demonstrative Table of Positions in Commission and of the Confidence Functions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it reorganizes positions in commission and functions of confidence and turns Commissioned Functions of the Executive Power (FCPE). Available at: http://www.in.gov.br/materia/-/asset_publisher/Kujrw0TZC2Mb/content/id/58549274?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=extincao_da_area_de_clima_do_itamaraty_e_medida_ideologica_e_antipatriotica&utm_term=2019-03-14. Accessed on March 14, 2019.

BRAZIL (2019a): Provisional Measure No. 870, January 1, 2019. Explanatory memorandum Establishes the basic organization of the organs of the Presidency of the Republic and of the Ministries. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2019-2022/2019/Mpv/mpv870.htm. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

BRAZIL (2018): Federal Decree No. 9,578, November 22, 2018. Consolidated normative acts issued by the Federal Executive Branch that dispose of the National Fund on Climate Change, which is dealt with in Law No. 12,114, of December 9, 2009, and the National Policy on Change of Climate, which is dealt with in Law No. 12,187, of December 29, 2009. Available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/2018/decreto-9578-22-novembro-2018-787358-norma-pe.html. Accessed on March 14, 2019.

BRAZIL (2018): Federal Decree No. 9,395, May 30, 2018. It extends the deadline for registration to the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR). Presidency of the Republic. Civil House. Legal Sub-Office. 2018. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2018/Decreto/D9395.htm. Accessed on October 29,. 2018.

BRAZIL (2016): Ministerial Ordinance MMA No. 150, May 10, 2016. Establishes the National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change Climate, and gives other Provisions. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80182/Portaria%20PNA%20_150_10052016.pdf. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

BRAZIL (2012): Federal Law No. 12,651, of May 25, 2012. Provides for the protection of native vegetation; amends Laws 6,938 of August 31, 1981, 9,393 of December 19, 1996, and 11,428 of December 22, 2006; revokes Laws No. 4,771, September 15, 1965, and 7,754, April 14, 1989, and Provisional Measure No. 2.166-67 of August 24, 2001; and makes other arrangements. Presidency of the Republic. Civil House. Legal Sub-Office. 2012. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/L12651compilado.htm. Accessed on October 31, 2018.

BRAZIL (2010): Federal Decree No. 7,390, December 9, 2010. Regulates articles 6, 11 and 12 of Law No. 12,187 of December 29, 2009, which established the National Policy on Climate Change (PNCC), and other measures. Presidency of the Federative Republic of Brazil. Civil House. Subchefia of Legal Affairs. Brasilia - D. F. Official Diary of the Union. December 10, 2010. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato20072010/2010/Decreto/D7390.htm. Accessed on November 21, 2018.

BRAZIL (2009): Federal Law No. 12,187, of December 29, 2009. Establishes the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), and gives other Provisions. Presidency of the Republic. Civil House. Legal Sub-Office. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/lei/l12187.htm. Accessed on December 20, 2018.

BRAZIL (2007): Decree No. 6,321, of December 21, 2007. It provides for actions related to the prevention, monitoring and control of deforestation in the Amazon Biome, as well as amending and adding provisions to Decree 3,179, dated September 21, 1999, which provides for the specification of sanctions applicable to conduits and activities harmful to the environment, and makes other arrangements. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/Decreto/D6321.htm. Accessed on March 14, 2019.

GoB (2015): The Contribution of Brazil to the Paris Climate Agreement. The Government of Brazil. Press Secretariat of the Presidency of Brazil. Available at: http://www.secretariageral.gov.br/noticias/. Accessed on November 19, 2018.

GoB (2019): Programa Municipios Verdes. Government of the State of Pará. Available at: http://www.municipiosverdes.pa.gov.br/. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

GoB (2015): Programa Municipios Verdes (PMV). Government of the State of Pará. Available at: http://municipiosverdes.com.br/pages/quem_somos. Accessed on October 26, 2018.

GoP (2013): Green Municipalities Program: Lessons Learned and Challenges for 2013/2014.Coordination of WHATELY, MARUSSIA, CAM-PANILI, MAURA. Belém, PA: Pará State Government. Green Municipalities Program, 2013. Available at: http://www.municipiosverdes.pa.gov.br/files/999816d7a617e650c796109566e1337c/d67d8ab4f4c10bf22aa353e27879133c/PMV_Li%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20Aprendidas%20e%20desafios%20para%202013_2014.pdf. Accessed on November 1, 2018.

GTPI (2016): Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon. PPCerrado. Background Document and Data Analysis. Preliminary Version Approved by the GTPI in December 2016. Department of Policies to Combat Deforestation. DPCD/SMCQ/MMA. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80120/PPCDAm%20e%20PPCerrado%20-%20Encarte%20Principal%20-%20GPTI%20_%20p%20site.pdf. Accessed on November 10, 2018.

GTPS (2014): Grupo de Trabalho da Pecuária Sustentável. Available at: http://www.pecuariasustentavel.org.br/ institucional/sobre-o-gtps/. Accessed on November 25, 2018.

GTS (2013): Grupo de Trabalho da Soja. Mapeamento e Monitoramento do Plantio de Soja No Bioma Amazônia - 6.º Ano. Moratória da Soja. Available at: http://www.abiove.org.br/site/?page=relatorios&area=Ni05OTgtMw==&relatorio=771-Moratoria_da_Soja_-_Relatorio_do_6%BA_ano. Accessed on September 25, 2018.

IMAZON (2018): Green Municipalities. Imazon. Available at: https://imazon.org.br/en/slide/green-municipalities/. Accessed on March 14,2019.

IMAZON (2015): Recommendations for an Agenda for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change in the State of Pará. Organizers: SOUSA, ANTÔNIO JOSÉ DA SILVA... [et al]. Belém, PA: Imazon. Available at: https://www.semas.pa.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/forum_clima_para.pdf. Accessed on November 7, 2018.

IMAZON (2011): Green Municipalities: Pathways to Sustainability. IMAZON. Available at: https://imazon.org.br/PDFimazon/Portugues/livros/GUIA_MUNICIPIOSVERDES.pdf. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

IPAM/IMAZON/ISA (2013): O Aumento no Desmatamento na Amazônia em 2013. Um ponto for a da curva ou for a de controle?Brasilia. Available at: https://www.socioambiental.org/sites/blog.socioambiental.org/files/nsa/arquivos/aumento_no_desmatamento_na_amazonia_em_2013_vs_final.pdf. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

IPCC/AR5 (2014): “Summary for Policymakers”, in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. The Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [EDENHOFER, O., PICHS-MADRUGA, R., SOKONA, Y., FARAHANI, E., KADNER, S., SEYBOTH, K., ADLER, A., BAUM, I., BRUNNER, S., EICKEMEIER, P., KRIEMANN, B., SAVOLAINEN, J., SCHLÖMER, S., VON STECHOW, C., ZWICKEL, T. and MINX, J. C. (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. SPM 4.1, pp. 10-12.

IPEA/GIZ/CEPAL (2007): Independent Evaluation of the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (2007-2010). CEPAL/IPEA/GIZ. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80120/Avaliacao%20do%20PPCDAm%202007-2010.pdf. Accessed on November 9 2018.

ITAMARATY (2015): Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Towards Achieving the Objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Brazil. Available at: http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/images/ed_desenvsust/BRAZIL-iNDC-english.pdf. Accessed on April 21, 2016.

MCTIC (2016): Brazil’s Third National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. General-Coordination on Global Climate Change, Brasília. Ministry of Science and Technology of Brazil. October 16, 2010. Available at: http://sirene.mcti.gov.br/publicacoes. Accessed on October 18, 2018.

MAPA (2018): Plano Agrícola e Pecuário 2018/2019. Secretaria de Política Agrícola. Brasília: Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária, e Abastecimento (MAPA). 2018. Available at: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-agricola-e-pecuario/arquivos-pap/copy_of_PlanoAgricolaePecurio20182019.pdf. Accessed on Decemebr 14, 2018.

MAPA (2013): Financiamento Rural. Programação e Aplicação de Recursos. Secretaria de Política Agrícola. Ministério da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento. 2013. Available at: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/arq_editor/tabela%20plano%20agricola.pdf. Accessed on October 25, 2016.

MAPA (2012): Plano setorial de Mitigação e de Adaptação às Mudanças Climáticas para a Consolidação de uma Economia de Baixa Emissão de Carbono na Agricultura: Plano ABC (Agricultura de Baixa Emissão de Carbono)/Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário, coordenação da Casa Civil da Presidência da República. Brasília: MAPA/ACS. Available at: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-abc/arquivo-publicacoes-plano-abc/download.pdf. Accessed on December 13, 2018.

MMA (2019): MMA Circular Letter Number 5-MMA. Determines the 90-Day Raising and Suspension of Covenants and Partnerships, including Terms of Collaboration and Terms of Development with Third Party Agencies Agreed for by MMA, IBAMA, ICMBio, and JBRJ. Available at: https://ciclovivo.com.br/planeta/meio-ambiente/ministerio-meio-ambiente-suspende-contratos-ongs-meses/. Accessed on March 2013, 2019.

MMA( 2018): Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrado (PPCerrado) and Plan of Action for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm): phase 2016-2020. Ministry of Environment, Secretariat of Climate Change and Forests, Department of Forests and Combating Deforestation. Brasília, D. F.: MMA. Available at: http://combateaodesmatamento.mma.gov.br/images/Doc_ComissaoExecutiva/Livro-PPCDam-e-PPCerrado_20JUN2018.pdf. Accessed on November 13, 2018.

MMA (2018a): Rural Environmental Registry (CAR). Informative report. Brazilian Forest Service. Ministry of Environment. Data until October 31, 2018. Available in: http://www.florestal.gov.br/documentos/car/boletim-do-car/3936-tabela-calculos-boletim-sicar-outubro2018-rev-rej/file. Accessed on 31, 2018.

MMA (2018b): Rural Environmental Registry (CAR). Ministry of the Environment/Brazilian Forest Service. Available at: http://www.car.gov.br/#/. Accessed on October 31, 2018.

MMA (2016): Balance sheet report for the 3rd phase of the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm). Decree of July 03, 2003. Ministry of the Environment. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80120/PPCDAm%203%20fase_Balanco_versao%20BETA.pdf. Accessed on November 10, 2018.

MMA (2016a): Operational Plan 2016-2020 of the Plan of Action for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm). Objectives and lines of action. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80120/Anexo%20II%20-%20PLANO%20OPERATIVO%20DO%20PPCDAm%20-%20GPTI%20_%20p%20site.pdf. Accessed on November 10, 2018.

MMA (2016b): Ministerial Ordinance No. 150, May 10, 2016. Establishes the National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change, and gives other Provisions. 2016. Federal Official Gazette, Issue 89, section 1, p. 131. Ministry of the Environment. Available at: http://www.in.gov.br/web/guest/materia/-/asset_publisher/Kujrw0TZC2Mb/content/id/22804297/do1-2016-05-11-portaria-n-150-de-10-de-maio-de-2016-22804223. Accessed on November 02, 2018.

MPF (2012): Ministério Público Federal. Available at: http://www.prpa.mpf.mp.br/news/2012/rio-20-municipios-verdes-e-lancado-com-pacote-de-vantagens-e-proposta-de-desmatamento-zero. Accessed on December 01, 2018.

NPCC (2007): The Government of Brazil. Interministerial Committee on Climate Change Created by Decree No. 6,263, November 21, 2007. Established the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (Comitê Interministerial sobre Mudança do Clima – CIM), which was given the function of preparing the National Policy on Climate Change and the National Climate Change Plan Brasília. December, 2008. 132 pág. National Plan on Climate Change. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/smcq_climaticas/_arquivos/plano_nacional_mudanca_clima.pdf. Accessed on January 01, 2019.

OC (2018): Sectoral Plan for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change for the Consolidation of a Low Carbon Economy Economy (ABC Plan). Climate Observatory. Available at: http://observatorioabc.com.br/infograficos/#o-que-e-plano-abc. Accessed on December 14, 2018.

PARAGOMINAS (2007). Projeto Município Verde. Municipality of Paragominas. Available at: http://www.paragominas.pa.gov.br/cidade/municipioverde/. Accessed on November 1, 2018.

PARÁ (State) (2018): State Law No. 8,633 of June 19, 2018. It amends, includes and repeals provisions of Law No. 5,752 of July 26, 1993, which provides for the reorganization and creation of positions at the State Secretariat of Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS); amends, includes and repeals provisions of Law 6,963 of April 16, 2007, which provides for the creation of the Forestry and Biodiversity Institute of the State of Pará (IDEFLOR-Bio) and the State Fund for Forest Development (FUNDEFLOR); amends provisions of Law No. 8,096, dated January 1, 2015, which provides for the structure of the public administration of the State Executive Branch; creates the Environmental Compensation Fund of the State of Pará (FCA); creates the Environmental Performance Performance Bonus (GDGA). Government of the State of Pará. Secretary of State for Environment and Sustainability. Available at: https://www.semas.pa.gov.br/2018/06/20/lei-n-8-633-de-19-de-junho-de-2018/. Accessed on November 7, 2018.

PARÁ (State) (2009): State Decree No. 1,697 of June 5, 2009. Establishes the Plan for Prevention, Control and Alternatives to Deforestation in the State of Pará, and provides other measures. Government of the State of Pará Official Gazette No. 31,435, of June 08. Available at: http://www.fundoamazonia.gov.br/export/sites/default/pt/.galleries/documentos/prevencao-e-controle-do-desmatamento/Plano_Estadual_Para.pdf. Accessed on November 12, 2018.

PARÁ (State) (2009a): State Decree No. 1,900, of September 22, 2009. Establishes the Para State Forum of Climate Change and other measures. Government of the State of Pará. Secretariat of Environment and Sustainability. Available at: https://www.semas.pa.gov.br/2009/09/22/9699/. Accessed on November 7, 2018.

PPCDAm (2013): Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon: 3th Phase (2012-2015). For the Sustainable Use of the Forest. Ministry of the Environment, and Permanent Group of Interministerial Work. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80120/PPCDAm/_FINAL_PPCDAM.PDF. Accessed on November 9, 2018.

PPCDAm (2009): Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon: 2nd phase (2009-2011).Towards Illegal Zero Deforestation. Presidency of the Republic. Civil House. Standing Group on Interministerial Work. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80120/PPCDAm%202%20fase%20_%202009-11.pdf. Accessed on November 9, 2018.

PPCDAm (2007-2010): Avaliação do Plano de Ação para Prevenção e Controle do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal. GIZ/IPEA/CEPAL. 100 pp.

PPCDAm (2004): Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon. 1st phase (2004-2008). Presidency of the Republic. Civil House. Permanent Interministerial Work Group for the Reduction of Deforestation Rates in the Legal Amazon. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80120/PPCDAM_fase1.pdf. Accessed on November 09, 2018.

PRODES (2019): Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazonian Forest by Satellite. General Coordination of Earth Observation. INPE. Available at: http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

PSL (2019). Programa de Governo –em que Acreditamos. Partido Social Liberal. Available at: https://www.pslnacional.org.br/. Accessed on March 14, 2019.

SEMAS (2018): Environmental Regularization Program (PRA). Secretary of State of Pará for Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS). Available at: http://sistemas.semas.pa.gov.br/pra/consultaPublica/#/. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

SINIMA (2019): National Information System on the Environment. Ministry of Environment (MMA). Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/informma/item/8215-sistema-nacional-de-informa%C3%A7%C3%A3o-sobre-meio-ambiente. Accessed on March 14, 2019.

SIRENE/MCTIC (2017): 4th edition of the Annual Estimates of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in Brazil. National Emissions Registration System (SIRENE). Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications MCTIC Secretariat of Policies and Programs of Research and Development. SEPED. Climate General Coordination - CGC. 91 pp. Available at: http://sirene.mcti.gov.br/documents/1686653/1706227/4ed_ESTIMATIVAS_ANUAIS_WEB.pdf/a4376a93-c80e-4d9f-9ad2-1033649f9f93. Accessed on November 1, 2018.

UN (2015): Conference of the Parties. Twenty-first session. Paris. United Nations. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9. 31 págs.

UNFCCC (2019): Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/status-of-ratification. Accessed on March 3, 2019.

UNFCCC (2019a): NDC interim Registry. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/Home.aspx. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

UNFCCC (2017): UNFCCC Statement on the US Decision to Withdraw from Paris Agreement. UN Climate Statement/ 01 Jun, 2017. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: https://unfccc.int/news/unfccc-statement-on-the-us-decision-to-withdraw-from-paris-agreement. Accessed on March 13, 2019.

UNFCCC (2009): Decision –/CP.20. Lima Call for Climate Action. Advance unedited version. 43 pp. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/application/pdf/auv_cop20_lima_call_for_climate_action.pdf. Accessed on December 3, 2018.

UNFCCC (1992): 771 UNTS 107; S. Treaty Doc núm. 102-38; U. N. Doc. A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1; 31 ILM 849 (1992) Preamble. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

UNTC (2019): Status of Treaties - Paris Agreement - Environment. Chapter XXVII. Status as at: 14-03-2019 05:0048 EDT. United Nations Treaty Collection. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27&clang=_en. Accessed on March 13, 2019.