Potential as a Transferable Model

According to Costa et al, “Brazil was the first country in the world to implement a National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production”. It is therefore worthy of notice that the Policy has been widely implemented in the country, succeeding as a good example of a multi-sectoral public policy, despite the challenges it still faces. Furthermore, PNAPO has served as inspiration for Brazilian States (such as Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, Goiás, São Paulo and Amazonas), the Federal District and Municipalities to elaborate their own state and municipal policies, following the guidelines of the National Policy and adapting them to their own realities and necessities. Hence PNAPO is likely suitable to be transferred to other situations.

Indeed, there were many exchanges with other Latin American countries, thanks to (and within) REAF – Rede Especializada da Agricultura Familiar. Within this context, a number of the strategies, initiatives and programmes set out by and developed under the umbrella of the PNAPO, such as the Segunda Água Programme and the public calls for ATER, are highly transferable to other countries with common characteristics and issues, with emphasis to those from the global south with large agricultural areas.

In particular, Brazil’s National School Feeding Programme has been recognized by various actors (UNDP, WFP, FAO) and has spiked interest from governments in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Implementation of PNAPO

The National Policy (PNAPO) has been implemented in Brazil since 2012, aiming at fostering sustainable agricultural practices and healthy food consumption habits; empowering family farmers, traditional communities, women and youth; and promoting sustainable rural development through specific programs and financing for smallholder farming. It is a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder interdisciplinary policy on a federal level, whose initiatives have been implemented throughout the five Brazilian regions, with verifiable results.

Some programmes and initiatives currently included in the flagship of PNAPO already existed before its creation. Nonetheless, with the establishment of the policy and the creation of CNAPO, those programmes have been strategically articulated and integrated into PNAPO’s general objectives and working plan, guaranteeing more participative planning, implementation and monitoring processes.

One of the PNAPO’s main instruments is the National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO), which must always include at least the following elements: overview/diagnosis, strategies and goals, programmes, projects, actions, indicators, deadlines and a management structure (Article 5 of Federal Decree 7,794).

 

The main goals and initiatives of PLANAPO are to strengthen agroecological and organic production networks, increase the supply of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (ATER), focusing on agroecological practices; increase access to water and seeds, strengthen government procurement of products, increase consumers’ access to healthy food, without the use of agrochemicals or transgenics in agricultural production, thus strengthening the economic value of the farming families. PLANAPO seeks also to expand access to land.

 

Despite “civil society proposals have not been fully included in the final version of the PLANAPO, there is a general consensus on the fact that the Plan marks an historic moment, an important step forward in the direction of a more sustainable peasant agriculture, especially in a country such as Brazil where the agribusiness model still keeps on maintaining a great influence on government policies, due to its economic importance”.

According to ANA, there are several good points to be highlighted in the first PLANAPO (2013-2015). Among the positive aspects are the actions that had a budget for implementation and which made an important contribution to the advancement of agroecology. Among the negative aspects of the first PLANAPO are the very small budget for policies such as the Ecoforte Programme and Technical Assistance and Rural Extension.

 

Setting up institutions for the coordination of implementation

Responsible for the implementation of PNAPO are the Interministerial Chamber of Agroecology and Organic Production (CIAPO) and the National Commission of Agroecology and Organic Production (CNAPO):

The CIAPO is the government body composed of nine Ministries and six invited Independent State Agencies. It is coordinated by the Special Secretariat for Family Farming and Agrarian Development (SEAD), which also provides technical and administrative support. CIAPO’s attributions are: building up and executing the National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO), coordinating the Government Bodies and Entities committed to PNAPO’s implementation, promoting liaison among and with State, District and Municipal Bodies and reporting to the CNAPO on the monitoring of the PLANAPO.

The CNAPO, on the other hand, represents the government-civil society liaison. It is composed of fourteen representatives from the public administration and fourteen representatives from civil society organizations, each one with a designated alternate representative. It is coordinated by the Secretariat of Government of the Presidency of the Republic (Segov), through the National Office of Social Articulation (SNAS), which also provides technical and administrative support.

As PNAPO’s overall aim is to integrate and articulate policies, programmes and actions for the promotion of agroecological transition, it is a key success factor that it is governed by the Interministerial Chamber of Agroecology and Organic Production (CIAPO) and the National Commission of Agroecology and Organic Production (CNAPO). In the latter 50 per cent are civil society representatives.

Currently Brazil is facing a rather intricate political and economic situation. PNAPO’s second cycle, PLANAPO 2016-2019, is still ongoing, but due to political turmoil in the country and a severe economic crisis (2014-2016), it faces drastic budget cuts that hamper its implementation. Nonetheless, much was achieved and PNAPO’s bodies have continued working and secured some funding.

Besides the aforementioned problems, the current President Bolsonaro and his administration have been making controversial decisions regarding to the environment/food sector, and been approving several highly toxic pesticides. Decisions that are not in line with the goals of PNAPO.

Developing a pioneer framework policy on agroecology

The National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO) is a pioneer Brazilian national public policy on agroecology. It was enacted through a participatory process, in which civil society played a pivotal and leading role in pushing forward the agenda and in ensuring that some relevant demands were effectively included in the policy’s final text.

On 20th August 2012, the PNAPO was adopted by President Dilma Rousseff, by means of the Federal Decree No 7,794. It is relevant to point out that within the Technical Board for Organics (CT-ORG) there was in the early 2010s a proposal to create a national policy on organic agriculture. However, with the decision of the President to establish a policy on agroecology, both issues were incorporated into the same agenda.

During the enactment process of the policy, the most relevant spaces for dialogue between the Government and civil society were the five Regional Seminars (from February to April 2012) and the National Seminar (May 2012) entitled “For a National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production” jointly organized by ANA and ABA with the support of the Ministry of the Environment (MMA).

As a result, civil society (farmers, civil society organizations, etc.) had become increasingly articulated over the years, thanks to the National Encounters and the Brazilian Congress of Agroecology, and finally, ANA formulated the document “Proposals of the National Articulation of Agroecology for the National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production”.

In 2012, the National Council on Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA)* forwarded to the Presidency the Explanatory Memorandum No 005-2012, supporting the approval and effective implementation of PNAPO. Given all that, in May 2012, the meeting “Dialogues between Government and Civil Society” was held by the Federal Government to engage civil society in the draft of the latest version of PNAPO’s text. It is relevant to stress that not all the civil society priorities and demands were in fact incorporated into the definitive text of Decree No 7,794. Nonetheless, PNAPO still represented a milestone in Brazilian policies for rural development and an accomplishment of the Brazilian agroecological social movements. All in all, PNAPO has established at the national level a set of provisions and guidelines regarding the promotion of agroecology, outlining a legal and political pathway for the promotion of more sustainable, socially inclusive, environmentally friendly food production systems in the country.

* Sadly, the new Government abolished the CONSEA at the beginning of 2019

SEAD
Developing a pioneer framework policy on agroecology
Setting up institutions for the coordination of implementation
Implementation of PNAPO
Potential as a Transferable Model
Commitment to explicit, attainable conservation objectives through long-term Conservation Agreements

Conservation Agreements (CAs) are binding grant contracts created and agreed upon by specific communities and the ECF. CAs set out clear, attainable and realistic conservation objectives and determine the scope of conservation measures to be implemented within communities that demonstrate the have the organization, motivation and commitment to follow 10-year habitat management plans. Conservation objectives are determined by the ECF and the local community using expert and local knowledge. Each agreement is tailored to the identified needs in the target community and the local landscape. These contracts bind communities to protect ecosystems but also assist traditional land users to use the land in a sustainable way. 

 

The communities that sign Conservation Agreements have been selected to do so because they show initiative, community involvement and potential through the FPA process and establishment of a CBO. In order to ensure the sustainability of the projects, the compliance of Conservation Agreements is monitored. Each community must submit annual technical reports. In case they fail to perform the planned activities, the payments under the agreement may be suspended until they meet the requirements, or subsequently terminated if they don’t comply for more than a year.

  1. Successful application of the FPA; communities practice using tools, models, financing
  2. Development of a philosophy of support and education, not policing
  3. Careful selection of communities which demonstrate the skills, organization and involvement to commence conservation measures
  4. Providing training and education to make decisions and manage landscapes in cooperation with nature conservation ideals
  5. Clearly defining activities being paid for creates a sense of purpose for CBOs
  6. Assisting communities secure additional funding 
  • Technical expertise is needed in very few cases for specific questions related to agreeing on habitat management plans.
  • The cost estimates were developed in cooperation with the local community representatives based on their knowledge of local markets. The final result is that a fair full cost reimbursement is set by the conservation agreements that allows the CBOs to implement the Conservation Agreements and secure their economic sustainability over the contracted period.
  • Annual community reports include: a comparison of targeted and actual values for the planned measures; developments in project time frames; general financial report; information on problems and identification of possible solutions.
  • Each year a sample of conservation agreements are selected for independent audit of performance by ECF or a third party. This is an opportunity to examine monitoring and reporting as a method to test performance of the conservation agreement process.
  • Examining connections between conservation objective and resilience/livelihoods of locals helps direct future projects.
Securing long term land-use rights for the community and conservation objectives

Clear land ownership and land tenure (the right to use land) are the basic preconditions for the implementation of any habitat management measure. Land-use rights of all beneficiaries needs to be clear and secure before project initiatives commence to avoids risk of undocumented dimensions in the planning and implementation of conservation measures. It also secures long-term interest of the land user to manage the land sustainably. The purpose of this measure is to clarify, legally regulate, obtain and hold land tenure rights needed for conservation actions and for sustainable livelihood. Land tenure rights encompasses land ownership, lease of land and/or other rights related to the use of land. 

 

In Georgia, most land is state owned. But after the breakdown of the Soviet Union land tenure rights have not been properly documented or registered. Today, traditional land-use rights based on verbal agreements and traditions are translated into legally documented/registered leases by the CBOs representing their respective villages. Resolving uncertain land tenure is one of the major benefits the ECF is bringing to partner communities, providing them with a clear economic perspective for the future while preserving the existing community management of shared pastures and meadows. 

  1. Readiness of state property authorities to document and register the existing community land use rights 
  2. Completion of a land tenure study to understand the land tenure uncertainties and existing rights 
  3. Accurate mapping of entire conservation area and communication of these findings (maps, figures, reports) accessible to the community and authorities
  4. Active involvement of local governments (municipality and department levels) 
  5. Voluntary involvement of local authorities, departments and administration
  6. Proper compensation for land-use
  • Properly identify land-use rights and open issues including research, data collection and GIS analysis performed i) formally (municipal and regional data collection), and ii) informally (discussions with locals).
  • Consideration of information documentation and lack of documentation. Locals may use pasturelands/meadows in a traditional way, with little or no documentation of their user rights. In the frame of the project, the land-use needs to be considered in both formal/political contexts and informal/traditional contexts. 
  • Communication between multiple land management bodies in Georgia (state, municipality, community, private) and land-use designations (forests, agricultural, protected areas, private land). Positive relationships and active communication with all stakeholders leads to healthy working relationships.
  • Consideration of national and regional politics integral to securing land-use rights. 
  • Sufficient budgeting of costs required to obtain land-use rights.
Identify priority conservation areas using habitat suitability models for key animal species.

Selecting 3-4 native animal species that best represent the landscape helps to embody the specific ecosystems in need of protection/management. Identifying target species allows ECF to create an approach to wildlife conservation that is easy for locals to understand - linking a charismatic species directly to landscape management practices - and helps provide locals with a tangible connection between their day-to-day conservation efforts and long-term landscape impacts. For example, if native grassland ecosystems are healthy, the Caucasian red deer will return even if they were previously locally extinct. The presence of these key native animal species is later used as an indicator of biodiversity when Conservation Agreements are created.

Using a combination of remote sensing and field data, a study of the existing and potential habitats of key species is performed. Using Maximum Entropy Modeling (MAXENT) software, habitat suitability models for each key species is created, resulting in maps showing the suitability of the habitats for key species. This approach allows locals to make a clear connection between conservation objectives, measures to be implemented and the expected impacts and helps set priorities for further studies and monitor the species/habitats.

1. Access to current and accurate remote sensing landscape data – ESRI, USGA NOAA etc. 

2. Trained and educated staff to use GIS and run modelling software 

3. Combination of local and specialist data and knowledge on key species

4. Access to field data from NGOs who presently/previously worked in the region

  • Habitat suitability modelling offers a cost and time effective method to set geographic and thematic conservation priorities within a complex landscape.
  • Even with limited availability of field observation data, the results are useful in the initial stages of planning, although the limitations of the quality of the input data needs to be kept in mind.
  • Habitat suitability maps represent a good basis for discussion of conservation objectives, priorities and measures with various stakeholders, including the local population.
WHH
North and Central Asia
Deutsche
Welthungerhilfe
Preparing compost
Crop Rotation
Harvest and post-harvest management
Community-based seed banks
WHH
North and Central Asia
Deutsche
Welthungerhilfe
Preparing compost
Crop Rotation
Harvest and post-harvest management
Community-based seed banks