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.

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).

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.

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. 

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.

The Hilsa Conservation Foundation would act as a conservation trust fund (CTF). The CTF would provide some financial stability to Bangladesh’s overall hilsa fishery management programme, the efficacy of which has been impacted by lack of resources. A successful CTF would provide a source of finance that remains stable and reliable even in times of national economic or political shock, for supporting both ecological and social activities related to hilsa fishery management, such as BBI and BBII respectively.