Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:30:12.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Framework for Analysing Ecological Fiscal Transfers: Case Studies from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2021

Gracie Verde Selva Open the ORCID record for Gracie Verde Selva [Opens in a new window] ,
Natasha Pauli ,
Julian Clifton  and
Milena Kiatkoski Kim
Gracie Verde Selva*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Perth Department of Geography and Planning, School of Social Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth
Natasha Pauli
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Perth Department of Geography and Planning, School of Social Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth
Julian Clifton
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Planning, School of Social Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth
Milena Kiatkoski Kim
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Perth
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: gracieselva@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes a framework for evaluating the development and evolution of economic instruments for environmental conservation through the examination of their design and the interactional and structural aspects of their implementation. The framework is applied to comparatively describe the historical evolution of the world's longest-running ecological fiscal transfer (EFT) scheme in two Brazilian sites. Results show that while legislative aspects of programme design, such as linkages and flexibility, are crucial for performance, interactional and structural characteristics during implementation, such as capacity, knowledge-sharing and transparency, can be determining factors in how the programme functions at the municipal level. Policy recommendations are provided for the development of this type of programme elsewhere. Results contribute towards the conceptual understanding of EFTs, an under-utilised mechanism with great potential for a role in conservation policy mixes.

Spanish abstract

Spanish abstract

Este artículo propone un marco para evaluar el desarrollo y evolución de instrumentos económicos para la conservación medioambiental a través del examen de sus diseños y aspectos interactivos y estructurales para su implementación. El marco es aplicado para describir comparativamente la evolución histórica del mayor esquema mundial de transferencia fiscal ecológica en dos sitios brasileños. Los resultados muestran que mientras los aspectos legislativos del diseño del programa, como vínculos y flexibilidad, son cruciales para su desempeño, las características interactivas y estructurales durante la implementación, tal como capacidad, difusión del conocimiento y transparencia, pueden ser factores determinantes sobre el funcionamiento del programa a nivel municipal. Se ofrecen algunas recomendaciones sobre tales políticas para el desarrollo de este tipo de programas en otras partes. Los resultados contribuyen al entendimiento conceptual de las transferencias fiscales ecológicas, un mecanismo subutilizado con gran potencial para jugar un papel en la cartera de las políticas para la conservación.

Portuguese abstract

Portuguese abstract

Este artigo propõe uma enquadramento para examinar o desenvolvimento e a evolução de instrumentos econômicos, em particular políticas de transferências fiscais ecológicas, para a conservação do meio ambiente através da análise da concepção dessas políticas e de aspectos interacionais e estruturais de implementação. O enquadramento é mobilizado para descrever comparativamente a evolução histórica do esquema de transferência fiscal ecológica de mais longa duração no mundo, em duas localidades no Brasil. Os resultados demonstram que enquanto aspectos legislativos de concepção de programa, tais como conexões e flexibilidade, são essenciais para performance, outras características estruturais e interativas da implementação, tais como capacidade, compartilhamento de conhecimentos e transparência, podem ser fatores determinantes para o funcionamento do programa em nível municipal. O artigo também discute recomendações para o desenvolvimento deste tipo de programa em outras regiões. Os resultados contribuem para a conceitualização das transferências fiscais ecológicas, um mecanismo com grande potencial para exercer um papel central nas políticas de preservação.

Keywords

ecological fiscal transfer (EFT)ecological ICMS (value-added tax)Brazilpolicy evaluationconservationeconomic instruments for conservationtransferencia fiscal ecológicaICMS (impuesto al valor agregado) ecológicoBrasilevaluación de políticasconservacióninstrumentos económicos para la conservacióntransferência fiscal ecológicaICMS (imposto sobre a circulação de mercadorias e serviços) ecológicoBrasilanálise de políticaspreservaçãoinstrumentos econômicos de preservação
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , May 2021 , pp. 269 - 296
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Adams, William M. et al. , ‘Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty’, Science, 306: 5699 (2004), pp. 1146–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sunderland, T. C. H., Ehringhaus, C. and Campbell, B. M., ‘Conservation and Development in Tropical Forest Landscapes: A Time to Face the Trade-Offs?’, Environmental Conservation, 34: 4 (2007), pp. 276–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Milder, Jeffrey C., Scherr, Sara J. and Bracer, Carina, ‘Trends and Future Potential of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Alleviate Rural Poverty in Developing Countries’, Ecology and Society, 15: 2 (2010), article 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Wilson Loureiro, ‘Contribuição do ICMS ecológico à conservação da biodiversidade no Estado do Paraná’, Unpubl PhD diss., Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, 2002, pp. 52ff.

4 Ring, Irene, ‘Integrating Local Ecological Services into Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers: The Case of the Ecological ICMS in Brazil’, Land Use Policy, 25: 4 (2008), pp. 485–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Borie, Maud et al. , ‘Exploring the Contribution of Fiscal Transfers to Protected Area Policy’, Ecology and Society, 19: 1 (2014), article 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Busch, Jonah and Mukherjee, Anit, ‘Encouraging State Governments to Protect and Restore Forests Using Ecological Fiscal Transfers: India's Tax Revenue Distribution Reform’, Conservation Letters, 11: 2 (2018), article e12416CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Santos, Rui et al. , ‘Fiscal Transfers for Biodiversity Conservation: The Portuguese Local Finances Law’, Land Use Policy, 29: 2 (2012), pp. 261–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schröter, Barbara et al. , ‘Multi-Level Governance through Adaptive Co-Management: Conflict Resolution in a Brazilian State Park’, Ecological Processes, 3: 1 (2014), article 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Kolinjivadi, Vijay et al. , ‘As a Lock to a Key? Why Science is More than Just an Instrument to Pay for Nature's Services’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–7 (2017), pp. 1–6Google Scholar; Clements, Tom J. et al. , ‘Payments for Biodiversity Conservation in the Context of Weak Institutions: Comparison of Three Programs from Cambodia’, Ecological Economics, 69: 6 (2010), pp. 1283–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Ring, Irene and Barton, David N., ‘Economic Instruments in Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Governance’, in Martínez-Alier, Joan and Muradian, Roldan (eds.), Handbook of Ecological Economics (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2015), pp. 413–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Barrett, Christopher B. et al. , ‘Economic Instruments for Nature Conservation’, in Macdonald, David W. and Willis, Katherine J. (eds.), Key Topics in Conservation Biology, vol. 2 (Chichester: Wiley, 2013), pp. 59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ring, Irene et al. , ‘Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Mitigation: What Role Can Economic Instruments Play?’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2: 1–2 (2010), pp. 50–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Ring, ‘Integrating Local Ecological Services’.

10 Milder et al., ‘Trends and Future Potential of Payment’; Borie et al., ‘Exploring the Contribution of Fiscal Transfers’.

11 Ring, ‘Integrating Local Ecological Services’; Nils Droste et al., ‘Ecological Fiscal Transfers in Brazil: Incentivizing or Compensating Conservation?’, Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE), Leeds, UK (2015).

12 Droste, N. et al. , ‘Ecological Fiscal Transfers in Europe – Evidence-Based Design Options for a Transnational Scheme’, Ecological Economics, 147 (2018), pp. 373–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Maurélio Soares, Ely do Carmo Oliveira Gomes and Jorge Ribeiro de Toledo Filho, ‘A repartição tributária dos recursos do ICMS nos municípios da Região Metropolitana de Curitiba’, Revista de Administração Pública, 45: 2 (2011), pp. 459–81.

14 Mello, Luiz de, ‘The Brazilian “Tax War”: The Case of Value-Added Tax Competition among the States’, Public Finance Review, 36: 2 (2008), pp. 169–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Denardin, Valdir Frigo, Loureiro, Wilson and Sulzbach, Mayra Taiza, ‘Distribuição de benefícios ecossistêmicos: o caso do ICMS ecológico no litoral paranaense’, Redes 13: 2 (2008), pp. 184–98Google Scholar; Rui Santos et al. (eds.), ‘Comparative Assessment of Policy Mixes across Case Studies – Common Design Factors and Transferability of Assessment Results’, POLICYMIX Report 1 (2014), online: https://policymix.nina.no/Publications/Policy-instruments/Comparisons-mixes; Velly, Gwenolé Le and Dutilly, Céline, ‘Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges’, PLOS ONE, 11: 2 (2016), article e0149374CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

16 Adams, William M. and Hutton, Jon, ‘People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation’, Conservation and Society, 5: 2 (2007), pp. 147–83Google Scholar; Rands, Michael R. W. et al. , ‘Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges beyond 2010’, Science, 329: 5997 (2010), pp. 1298–1303CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Barrett, Christopher B. et al. , ‘Conserving Tropical Biodiversity amid Weak Institutions’, BioScience, 51: 6 (2001), pp. 497–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Muradian, Roldan et al. , ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services and the Fatal Attraction of Win-Win Solutions’, Conservation Letters, 6: 4 (2013), pp. 274–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Ostrom, Elinor, Janssen, Marco A. and Anderies, John M., ‘Going beyond Panaceas’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 39 (2007), pp. 15176–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

19 Roth, Robin J. and Dressler, Wolfram, ‘Market-Oriented Conservation Governance: The Particularities of Place’, Geoforum, 43: 3 (2012), pp. 363–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simo Sarkki, Lauri Rantala and Timo P. Karjalainen, ‘Fit between Conservation Instruments and Local Social Systems: Cases of Co-management and Payments for Ecosystem Services’, Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological Systems, 2 (2015), pp. 59–78.

20 Le Velly and Dutilly, ‘Evaluating payments’.

21 Cleaver, Frances and Koning, Jessica de, ‘Furthering Critical Institutionalism’, International Journal of the Commons 9: 1 (2015), pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berkes, Fikret, ‘Community-Based Conservation in a Globalized World’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 39 (2009), pp. 15188–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Gert Van Hecken, Johan Bastiaensen and Catherine Windey, ‘Towards a Power-Sensitive and Socially-Informed Analysis of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Addressing the Gaps in the Current Debate’, Ecological Economics, 120 (2015), pp. 117–25; Young, Oran R., ‘Institutional Interplay: The Environmental Consequences of Cross-Scale Interactions’, in National Research Council, Ostrom, E. et al. (eds.), The Drama of the Commons (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002), pp. 263–92Google Scholar.

23 Ostrom, Elinor and Cox, Michael, ‘Moving beyond Panaceas: A Multi-Tiered Diagnostic Approach for Social-Ecological Analysis’, Environmental Conservation, 37: 4 (2010), pp. 451–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mickwitz, Per, ‘A Framework for Evaluating Environmental Policy Instruments: Context and Key Concepts’, Evaluation 9: 4 (2003), pp. 415–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Moulaert, Frank, Jessop, Bob and Mehmood, Abid, ‘Agency, Structure, Institutions, Discourse (ASID) in Urban and Regional Development’, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 20: 2 (2016), pp. 167–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Clements et al., ‘Payments for Biodiversity Conservation’.

26 Fikret Berkes, ‘Evolution of Co-Management: Role of Knowledge Generation, Bridging Organizations and Social Learning’, Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 5 (2009), pp. 1692–1702; Mickwitz, ‘A Framework for Evaluating Environmental Policy Instruments’; W. Neil Adger, Katrina Brown and Emma L. Tompkins, ‘The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks in Resource Co-Management’, Ecology and Society, 10: 2 (2005), article 9.

27 Unai Pascual et al., ‘Exploring the Links between Equity and Efficiency in Payments for Environmental Services: A Conceptual Approach’, Ecological Economics, 69: 6 (2010), pp. 1237–44.

28 Kofi Akamani, Eric J. Holzmueller and John W. Groninger, ‘Managing Wicked Environmental Problems as Complex Social-Ecological Systems: The Promise of Adaptive Governance’, in Assefa Melesse and Wossenu Abtew (eds.), Landscape Dynamics, Soils and Hydrological Processes in Varied Climates (Cham: Springer, 2016), pp. 741–62; Berkes, ‘Evolution of Co-Management’; Mickwitz, ‘A Framework for Evaluating Environmental Policy Instruments’.

29 Young, ‘Institutional Interplay’; Adger et al., ‘The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks’.

30 Ibid.

31 Peter G. H. Frost and Ivan Bond, ‘The CAMPFIRE Programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for Wildlife Services’, Ecological Economics, 65: 4 (2008), pp. 776–87.

32 Mickwitz, ‘A Framework for Evaluating Environmental Policy Instruments’.

33 Berkes, ‘Evolution of Co-Management’; Young, ‘Institutional Interplay’.

34 Jens Newig and Oliver Fritsch, ‘Environmental Governance: Participatory, Multi-Level – and Effective?’, Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 3 (2009), pp. 197–214.

35 Fikret Berkes, ‘Rethinking Community-Based Conservation’, Conservation Biology, 18: 3 (2004), pp. 621–30.

36 Rands et al., ‘Biodiversity Conservation’.

37 Newig and Fritsch, ‘Environmental Governance’.

38 Adger et al., ‘The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks’.

39 Ibid.

40 Louis Lebel et al., ‘Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems’, Ecology and Society, 11: 1 (2006), article 19.

41 Mickwitz, ‘A Framework for Evaluating Environmental Policy Instruments’.

42 Pranab Bardhan and Dilip Mookherjee (eds.), Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries: A Comparative Perspective (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).

43 Berkes, ‘Evolution of Co-Management’.

44 Adger et al., ‘The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks’.

45 Berkes, ‘Evolution of Co-Management’.

46 Unai Pascual et al., ‘Exploring the Links’.

47 Adger et al., ‘The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks’.

48 Katrina Brown, ‘Three Challenges for a Real People-Centred Conservation’, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12: 2 (2003), pp. 89–92.

49 Amir Limana, ‘O processo de descentralização política-administrativa no Brasil’, Scripta Nova: revista electrónica de geografía y ciencias sociales, special issue (1999), online: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn-45-21.htm (last accessed 15 Dec. 2020).

50 Gianpaolo Baiocchi, ‘Inequality and Innovation: Decentralization as an Opportunity Structure in Brazil’, in Bardhan and Mookherjee (eds.), Decentralization and Local Governance, pp. 53–80; Brown, ‘Three Challenges’.

51 Krystyna Swiderska et al., The Governance of Nature and the Nature of Governance: Policy that Works for Biodiversity and Livelihoods, International Institute for Environment and Development (2008), online: https://pubs.iied.org/14564IIED/ (last accessed 22 Dec. 2020).

52 Franks, Tom, ‘Capacity Building and Institutional Development: Reflections on Water’, Public Administration and Development, 19: 1 (1999), p. 513.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Vatn, Arild, ‘An Institutional Analysis of Payments for Environmental Services’, Ecological Economics, 69: 6 (2010), pp. 1245–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 SOS Mata Atlântica, Relatório anual 2019 (São Paulo: Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, 2019, online: https://www.sosma.org.br/sobre/relatorios-e-balancos/ (last accessed 24 Dec. 2020).

55 Ribeiro, Milton Cezar et al. , ‘The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How Much is Left, and How is the Remaining Forest Distributed? Implications for Conservation’, Biological Conservation, 142: 6 (2009), pp. 1141–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Tabarelli, Marcelo et al. , ‘Challenges and Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest’, Conservation Biology, 19: 3 (2005), pp. 695–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Joly, Carlos A., Metzger, Jean Paul and Tabarelli, Marcelo, ‘Experiences from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Ecological Findings and Conservation Initiatives’, New Phytologist, 204: 3 (2014), pp. 459–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

58 Ball, Alaine A., Gouzerh, Alice and Brancalion, Pedro H. S., ‘Multi-Scalar Governance for Restoring the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: A Case Study on Small Landholdings in Protected Areas of Sustainable Development’, Forests, 5: 4 (2014), pp. 599–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Scott, John, Social Network Analysis, 4th edn (London: Sage, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Bernard, H. Russell, Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2nd edn (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

61 Wilson Loureiro, ‘ICMS Ecológico – A consolidação de uma experiência brasileira de incentivo a Conservação da Biodiversidade’, presented at Congresso Brasileiro de Unidades de Conservação, 2002.

62 Protected areas in these categories imply significant restrictions on access and land use. For more information see IUCN, ‘Protected Area Categories’, https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories (last accessed 15 Dec. 2020).

63 Instituto Ambiental do Paraná (IAP), ‘ICMS Ecológico por biodiversidade’, online: http://www.iat.pr.gov.br/Pagina/ICMS-Ecologico-por-Biodiversidade#; Portaria (Decree) IAP no. 263/98, http://celepar7.pr.gov.br/sia/atosnormativos/form_cons_ato1.asp?Codigo=1404 (both documents last accessed 22 Dec. 2020).

64 Loureiro, ‘Contribuição do ICMS ecológico’, p. 83.

65 Municipal document seen by lead author.

66 Batista, Mariana, ‘Burocracia local e qualidade da implementação de políticas descentralizadas: uma análise da gestão de recursos federais pelos municípios Brasileiros’, Revista do Serviço Público, 66: 3 (2015), pp. 345–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Afonso, José R. and Araújo, Érika Amorim, ‘A capacidade de gastos dos municípios brasileiros: arrecadação própria e receita disponível’, in Cadernos de Finanças Públicas, 1: 1 (2000), pp. 19–31Google Scholar, online: https://joserobertoafonso.com.br/capacidade-de-gasto-dos-municipios-brasileiros-afonso-araujo/ (last accessed 22 Dec. 2020).

67 Bruna Ranção Conti, Marta de Azevedo Irving and Diogo de Carvalho Antunes, ‘O ICMS-Ecológico e as Unidades de Conservação no Estado do Rio de Janeiro’, Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 35 (2015), pp. 241–58.

68 Selva, Gracie Verde et al. , ‘Can Environmental Compensation Contribute to Socially Equitable Conservation? The Case of an Ecological Fiscal Transfer in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest’, Local Environment, 24: 10 (2019), pp. 931–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Programa Município VerdeAzul, ‘Eficiência da gestão ambiental’, online: http://verdeazuldigital.sp.gov.br/ (last accessed 15 Dec. 2020).

70 Batista, ‘Burocracia local’.