Final Report
An Impact Assessment and
Framework for Discussing
the 2003ñ2007 Strategic Plan of the
USAID/Brazil Environment Program
April 2001
Task Order No. 17
Contract No. OUT-PCE-I-00-96-00002-00
Final Report
An Impact Assessment and Framework for
Discussing the 2003ñ2007 Strategic Plan of the
USAID/Brazil Environment Program
Prepared by:
Richard E. Saunier, IRG
Donald Sawyer, ISPN
Nicholas Shorr, IRG
Eduardo de Souza Martins, e.labore
Marcondes Moreira de Ara˙jo, e.labore
Prepared for:
USAID / Brazil
April 2001
Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract (EPIQ)
Partners: International Resources Group, Winrock International,
and Harvard Institute for International Development
Subcontractors: PADCO; Management Systems International; and Development Alternatives, Inc.
Collaborating Institutions: Center for Naval Analysis Corporation; Conservation International;
KNB Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.; Keller-Bliesner Engineering; Resource Management International, Inc.;
Tellus Institute; Urban Institute; and World Resources Institute
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ix
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2. Brazil Context ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Biomes ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Amazon Basin................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Cerrado............................................................................................................ 6
2.1.3 Pantanal........................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Caatinga .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.5 Atlantic Forest................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Social, Economic and Political Context........................................................................ 7
2.3 Environmental Problems............................................................................................... 9
2.3.1 Deforestation................................................................................................. 11
2.3.2 Fires............................................................................................................... 11
2.3.3 Desertification............................................................................................... 12
2.3.4 Urban Environmental Problems.................................................................... 12
3. Environmental Initiatives and Programs in Brazil ....................................................... 14
3.1 Governmental .............................................................................................................. 14
3.2 External Donors........................................................................................................... 15
3.3 NGOs ....................................................................................................................... 16
4. The USAID/Brazil Environment Program and Its Impacts......................................... 17
4.1 General Comments...................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Impacts beyond Target Areas...................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Technology Transfer ..................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 Organizational Development ........................................................................ 20
4.2.3 Training and Human Resources.................................................................... 21
4.2.4 Information, Education, and Communication (IEC)..................................... 23
4.2.5 Advocacy....................................................................................................... 23
4.2.6 Networking.................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Assessment .................................................................................................................. 25
5. USAID/Brazilís Comparative Advantage....................................................................... 26
5.1 The Importance of Integration of Conservation and Development............................. 26
5.2 Long-term Interest and Experience in Working with Civil Society............................ 26
5.3 Working with Communities and Long-term Projects ................................................. 27
5.4 Flexibility, Creativity, Responsiveness, and Mobilization.......................................... 27
ii
5.5 Experience in Implementing Education, Training, and Capacity-Building Projects... 28
5.6 Successful Operation at Many Scales.......................................................................... 29
6. Recommendations............................................................................................................. 30
6.1 Rationale and Framework for Discussion ................................................................... 30
6.1.1 Program Successes........................................................................................ 30
6.1.2 Gaps and Opportunities................................................................................. 30
6.2 Thematic Recommendations....................................................................................... 32
6.2.1 Support Intensification of Agricultural Production....................................... 32
6.2.2 Facilitate Incentives for Sustainable Production and for the Development
 of Commercialization Chains ....................................................................... 33
6.2.3 Build Bridges to Link Urban and Rural Environmental Management
Priorities........................................................................................................ 34
6.2.4 Build Bridges between Technology and Good Governance ......................... 34
6.2.5 Increase Efforts to Certify Forest Operations and Establish Effective
 Production Forests......................................................................................... 35
6.2.6 Engage the Private Sector ............................................................................. 35
6.2.7 Monitor Major Infrastructure Projects That Can Bring About
 Significant Environmental Change ............................................................... 36
6.2.8 Improve Monitoring of Best Practices in Sustainable Production Systems.. 37
6.3 Geographic Recommendations................................................................................... 37
6.3.1 The Program Should Maintain Its Primary Focus in the Amazon ................ 37
6.3.2 The Program Should Intensify Its Activities in Other Important Biomes
 of Brazil......................................................................................................... 38
6.4 Programmatic Recommendations................................................................................ 40
6.4.1 Request Proposals from the Partners ............................................................ 40
6.4.2 Support Critical Cross-Cutting Programs..................................................... 40
6.4.3 Adjustments to the Agency Objectives (AO) of the SO1 Framework.......... 41
6.4.4 Adjustment to the Strategic Goal of the SO1 Results Framework................ 42
iii
Appendices
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference for the Assessment of USAID/Brazilís
Environmental Program.................................................................................. A-1
Appendix 2: Program Personnel Contacted by the Assessment Team ........................... A-12
Appendix 3: Documents Consulted .................................................................................... A-14
Appendix 4: Federal Protected Areas in Brazil................................................................. A-17
Appendix 5: Major Recent Highlights on Environmental Programs
Carried Out by the MMA. ............................................................................. A-18
Appendix 6: Activities under USAID/Brazil Environmental Program
(Strategic Objective 1) .................................................................................... A-23
Appendix 7: Characterization of Private Sector Actions in Brazil.................................. A-27
iv
List of Acronyms
A2R A2R Environmental Investment Fund (A2R Fundos Ambientais)
ANA National Water Agency (AgÍncia Nacional de Aguas)
AO Agency Objectives
BDFFP Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (Projeto de Din‚mica BiolÛgica
de Fragmentos Florestais)
BNDES National Bank of Economic and Social Development (Banco Nacional de
Desenvolvimento EconÙmico e Social)
CCD Convention to Combat Desertification
CDB Convention on Biological Diversity (ConvenÁ„o de Diversidade BiolÛgica)
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CDSA21 Agenda 21 Committee on Sustainable Development
CE Ecological Corridors Project (Projeto de Corredores EcolÛgicos )
CI Conservation International
CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research
CNA National Confederation of Agriculture (ConfederaÁ„o Nacional da Agricultura)
CNI National Confederation of Industry (ConfederaÁ„o Nacional da Ind˙stria)
CNS National Rubber Tappers Council (Conselho Nacional dos Seringueiros)
CONTAG National Confederation of Rural Workers (ConfederaÁ„o Nacional dos
Trabalhadores na Agricultura)
CONAMA National Environment Council (Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente)
CTO Cognizant Technical Officer
DfID U.K.ís Department for International Development
ED Environmental Defense
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Enterprise (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecu·ria)
EMBRATER Brazilian Agricultural Extension Agency (Empresa Brasileira de AssistÍncia
TÈcnica e Extens„o Rural)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPIQ Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract
FAB Brazilian Air Force (ForÁa AÈrea Brasileira)
FAOR Eastern Amazon Forum (FÛrum da AmazÙnia Oriental)
FASE Federation of Organizations for Social and Educational Assistance (FederaÁ„o de
Org„os de AssistÍncia Social e Educacional)
FETAGRI Federation of Agricultural Workers (FederaÁ„o dos Trabalhadores na
Agricultura)
FFT Tropical Forest Foundation ñ Brazilian Branch (FundaÁ„o Florestas Tropicais)
v
FIOCRUZ Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FundaÁ„o Oswaldo Cruz)
FLONAS National Forests (Florestas Nacionais)
FNMA National Environment Fund (Fundo Nacional do Meio Ambiente)
FOE Friends of the Earth
FORAM Permanent Forum for Debates on the Amazon (FÛrum Permanente de Debates da
AmazÙnia)
FPE State Participation Fund (Fundo de ParticipaÁ„o dos Estados)
FPM Municipal Participation Fund (Fundo de ParticipaÁ„o dos MunicÌpios)
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
FUNAI National Indian Foundation (FundaÁ„o Nacional do Õndio)
FVA FundaÁ„o VitÛria AmazÙnica
FY Fiscal Year
GCC Global Climate Change
GEF Global Environment Facility (Fundo para o Meio Ambiente Mundial)
G/ENV Global Bureau Environment Center (USAID)
G7 Group of Seven Leading Industrialized Nations
GIS Geographic Information System
GNP Gross National Product
GOB Government of Brazil
GTA Amazon Working Group (Grupo de Trabalho AmazÙnico)
IBAMA Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto
Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renov·veis)
IBASE Brazilian Institute for Social Analysis (Instituto Brasileiro de An·lises Sociais)
IBDF Brazilian Forestry Development Institute (Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento
Florestal)
ICMS Value Added Tax
IDB Inter-American Development Bank (Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento)
IEC Information, Education and Communication
IESB Institute for Social and Environmental Studies of Southern BahÌa (Instituto de
Estudos SÛcio-ambientais do Sul da Bahia)
IFI International Financial Institution
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
IMAZON Amazon Institute of Man and the Environment (Instituto do Homem e Meio
Ambiente da AmazÙnia)
INCRA National Institute of Resettlement and Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de
ColonizaÁ„o e Reforma Agr·ria)
INPA National Research Institute of the Amazon (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da
AmazÙnia)
INPE National Space Research Institute (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais)
vi
IPAM Environmental Research Institute of the Amazon (Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental
da Amazonia)
IPE Institute of Ecological Research (Instituto de Pesquisas EcolÛgicas)
IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract
IRG International Resources Group, Ltd.
ISA Socio-environmental Institute
ISPN Institute for Society, Population and Nature (Instituto Sociedade, PopulaÁ„o e
Natureza)
ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization (OrganizaÁ„o Internacional de
Madeiras Tropicais)
LAC Latin America and Caribbean Bureau of USAID
LBA Large Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia
LCA Environmental Crimes Law
LEAD Leadership for Environment and Development (ABDLñAssociaÁ„o Brasileira
para o Desenvolvimento de LideranÁas)
MA Ministry of Agriculture and Supply (MinistÈrio da Agricultura e do
Abastecimento)
MCT Ministry of Science and Technology (MinistÈrio de CiÍncia e Tecnologia)
MDA Ministry of Agrarian Development (MinistÈrio do Desenvolvimento Agr·rio)
ME Ministry of Education (MinistÈrio da EducaÁ„o)
MERGE Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis
MF Ministry of Finance (MinistÈrio da Fazenda)
MI Ministry of National Integration (MinistÈrio da IntegraÁ„o Nacional)
MJ Ministry of Justice (MinistÈrio da JustiÁa)
MMA Ministry of Environment (MinistÈrio do Meio Ambiente)
MPEG Emilio Goeldi Museum of Par· (Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi)
MPOG Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management (MinistÈrio de Planejamento,
OrÁamento e Gest„o)
MPP Mission Program Plan
MS Ministry of Health (MinistÈrio da Sa˙de)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NGO Non-governmental organization (organizaÁ„o n„o governamental)
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OTS Organization for Tropical Studies
PAHO Pan American Health Organization (OrganizaÁ„o Panamericana da Sa˙de)
PDBFF Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (Projeto de Din‚mica BiolÛgica
de Fragmentos Florestais)
vii
PESA Participatory Socio-environmental Research Methodology for Rural Areas
(Metodologia de pesquisa participativa em ·reas rurais desenvolvida pela
Universidade da FlÛrida)
PESACRE Research and Extension in Agroforestry Systems Group-State of Acre (Grupo de
Pesquisa e Extens„o Agroflorestal do Acre)
PiP Parks in Peril
PLANAFLORO RondÙnia Natural Resources Management Project (Plano Agropecu·rio e
Florestal de RondÙnia)
PNMA National Environment Program (Programa Nacional de Meio Ambiente)
POEMA Poverty and Environment in Amazonia (Pobreza e Meio Ambiente na AmazÙnia)
PPA Pluriannual Plan (Plano Plurianual)
PPC Policy and Program Coordination Bureau of USAID
PPG-7 Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest (Programa Piloto para
ProteÁ„o das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil)
PPTAL Integrated Project for Protection of Indigenous Lands and Populations in the Legal
Amazon (Projeto Integrado de ProteÁ„o ‡s Terras e PopulaÁıes IndÌgenas da
AmazÙnia Legal)
PROBEM Brazilian Program of Molecular Ecology for Sustainable Use of the Biodiversity
of the Amazon (Programa Brasileiro de Ecologia Molecular para o Uso
Sustent·vel da Biodiversidade da AmazÙnia)
PRODEAGRO Program of Agroenvironmental Development of the State of Mato Grosso
(Programa de Desenvolvimento Agroambiental do Estado do Mato Grosso)
PROECOTUR Program for Development of Ecotourism in the Legal Amazon (Programa de
Desenvolvimento do Ecoturismo da AmazÙnia Legal)
PRONABIO National Program of Biological Diversity (Programa Nacional da Diversidade
BiolÛgica)
PROTEGER Fire Prevention, Mobilization and Training Project (Projeto de MobilizaÁ„o e
CapacitaÁ„o em PrevenÁ„o aos IncÍndios Florestais na AmazÙnia)
PSW Pacific Southwest Research Station (USDA/FS)
PVO Private Voluntary Organization
R4 Results Review and Resource Request
RMA Atlantic Forest Network (Rede Mata Alt‚ntica)
RPPN Official Private Natural Reserve
RSD Regional Sustainable Development of USAID/LAC
SAE Secretariat of Strategic Affairs (Secretaria de Assuntos EstratÈgicos)
SAF Agro-forestry Systems (Sistemas Agroflorestais)
SCA Secretariat of the Amazon (Secretaria de CoordenaÁ„o da AmazÙnia)
SEFE Executive Secretariat of Forests and Extractivism (Secretaria Executiva de
Florestas e Extrativismo)
viii
SI Smithsonian Institution
SIPAM System of Amazon Protection
SISNAMA National Environment System (Sistema Nacional de Meio Ambiente)
SIVAM System of Amazon Surveillance (Sistema de Vigil‚ncia da AmazÙnia)
SNUC National System of Conservation Units (Sistema Nacional de Unidades de
ConservaÁ„o)
SO Strategic Objective
SOW Statement of Work
SP Strategic Plan
SPVS Society for Wildlife Research and Environmental Education (Sociedade de
Pesquisa em Vida Selvagem e EducaÁ„o Ambiental)
SUDEPE Superintendency for the Development of Fishing (SuperintendÍncia para o
Desenvolvimento da Pesca)
SUDHEVEA Superintendency for Rubber (SuperintendÍncia da Borracha)
SUNY State University of New York
TFF Tropical Forest Foundation
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UF University of Florida
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Program (Programa das NaÁıes Unidas para o
Desenvolvimento)
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDA/FS USDA Forest Service
USG United States Government
USGS United States Geological Survey
WB World Bank
WHRC Woods Hole Research Center
WWF World Wildlife Fund (Fundo Mundial para a Natureza)
ZEE Ecological-Economic Zoning (Zoneamento EcolÛgico-EconÙmico)
ix
Executive Summary
From November 6 to December 4, 2000, a five-member team fielded under the EPIQ IQC undertook
an assessment of the USAID/Brazil Environment Program and, based on its findings, proposed
recommendations for the 2003ñ2007 Environment Program Strategy. During this period, the
Assessment Team met with representatives of all the projects that make up the USAID/Brazil
program, interviewed many of its participants, and reviewed program-related reports and other
documents.
The Assessment Team found that, despite a relatively limited financial resource base and the absence
of a formal bilateral agreement, the USAID/Brazil Environment Program has influenced public
policies and has laid the groundwork for significant progress in reducing the threat of biodiversity
loss and towards a more complete response to global climate change. At the same time,
USAID/Brazilís unique and innovative use of partners has allowed these globally relevant
achievements to be translated into on-the-ground efforts of economic value.
More specifically, the Assessment Team found that the Programís impacts had consistently exceeded
targets. Program impacts were analyzed according to six categories: 1) technology transfer; 2)
training and human resources; 3) organizational development; 4) information, education, and
communication; 5) advocacy; and 6) networking. Additionally, the Assessment Team identified
several comparative advantages of the USAID/Brazil Environment Program, particularly the
integration of conservation and development, experience in working with civil society, work with
communities on a long-term basis, flexibility in the mobilization of resources, training and capacity
building, and an ability to operate at many scales.
Based on this assessment of impacts and comparative advantages, the Team proposed more than 20
recommendations in three general areas: thematic (12 recommendations), geographic (five
recommendations), and structural (seven recommendations). Overall, the Assessment Team
recommended a continuation of the Programís general thrust of working with non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and science center partners in the Amazon Basin.
The Team also suggested that, given an increase in the Missionís budget, the same general model
should be used to move into other biomes and subject matter areas of international importance in
Brazil. Without major changes and in a suggested order of importance, the Program could be
extended into the Cerrado to evaluate the potential for sequestration of carbon in biomass and soils
and for the protection of its significant biodiversity; to the Pantanal for work in international waters,
as well as for continued work on biodiversity protection; to the Caatinga for work on the mitigation
of desertification processes; and, finally, to the Atlantic Forest for work on potentially sustainable
land uses and their impacts. The Assessment Team encouraged the Program to continue its efforts
x
to conserve biodiversity and mitigate global climate change and to systematize its work in the
institutional development of civil society organizations and small communities within the larger
socio-economic and political context of Brazil. The Team further recommended that the model be
adapted to include efforts for the integration of private enterprise into the overall process of
sustainable development.
Thematic recommendations included support for the following efforts: 1) intensified agricultural
production that incorporate more crops and livestock in agro-forestry systems, reduce accidental
fires, facilitate land-tenure security, and strengthen extension services; 2) credit and investment for
rural families; 3) improved settlement projects through better selection of sites and settlers and
appropriate extension services; 4) bridging urban and rural environmental management priorities by
linking efforts to reduce deforestation with those to increase economic security; 5) More effective
environmental monitoring and enforcement using new monitoring technologies; 6) Certification of
forest operations and the establishment of effective production forests; 7) Employ mutual benefits
to engage private sector conservation support; 8) training in project environmental impact
assessments for economic development projects; and 9) training in quantitative evaluation of
ongoing economic and environmental impacts of sustainable production alternatives.
The Team recommended that the Program continue its primary geographic focus on the Amazon,
with work following, in priority order, on the Cerrado, Pantanal, Caatinga, and Atlantic Forest
biomes.
Programmatic recommendations suggested that the Program request proposals from partners on
themes supporting strategic goals under a competitive process and that it should support critical
cross-cutting themes, i.e., capacity building, monitoring, and information dissemination. Finally, the
Team recommended that the Strategic Goal of the SO1 Results Framework should be adjusted to
include work on desertification and international waters.
1
1. Introduction
In August 2000, the USAID Mission in Brazil requested that the EPIQ IQC assess the USAID/Brazil
Environment Program and begin the process of developing a new five-year strategic plan. (Terms
of Reference appear in Appendix 1.) During the period November 6 to December 4, 2000, a five￾member team met with representatives of all USAID/Brazil Environment Program projects;
interviewed many of its participants (Appendix 2); and reviewed relevant, Program-related reports
and documents (Appendix 3).
This assessment report focuses on observations and conclusions concerning the Programís successes,
as well as on gaps and opportunities not covered in the Missionís current environmental strategy,
which looks toward ìenvironmentally and socio-economically sustainable alternatives for sound land
use adopted beyond target areas.î Based on these findings, the Assessment Team recommendations
open a discussion on a strategic framework that will guide USAID/Brazil Environment Program
work for five years, beginning in 2003.1
 The social and economic problems facing Brazil are
enormous, and the national search for solutions correctly emphasizes these aspects. However,
Brazilís influence as both a source of and solution to major global environmental problems is well
known. With 40 percent of the worldís tropical forests, Brazil is thought to have the richest
biodiversity on the planet. However, poverty, the countryís use of the natural resources originating
in its forested lands, and other factors have caused Brazil to suffer one of the worldís highest rates
of deforestation. Though its per capita contribution to the exacerbation of global climate change is
small, the value of its forests as a sink for carbon makes Brazil a focal point for research and other
interests in the growing fight to curtail anticipated global warming.
USAID/Brazilís participation in the search for solutions to these environmental problems is unique.
Because Brazil has reached the GNP cut-off level for receiving USAID support, direct international
development assistance of the more traditional kind is difficult to justify. Thus, the USAID Mission
in Brazil now works only on issues of global importance, such as the study and mitigation of climate
change, the reduction of biodiversity loss, renewable energy and energy conservation, and HIV/AIDS
prevention. Among these, environmental and the social concerns are highly relevant because of
Brazilís natural and socio-economic history. The current arrangement for assistance in Brazil by
USAID allows for much more flexibility and quickness of response on emerging problems, and it
 
1
As stated in the Terms of Reference, the objective of this assessment was ìTo provide a review of the effectiveness of the
USAID programmatic efforts in the environment in meeting the Mission Strategic Objectives (SOs) and the Mission Program
Plan (MPP). To conduct an analysis of gaps and opportunities in the sector to provide a foundation for the review of the Mission
Resource Request (Spring 2001) and the next Strategic Plan (2002).î However, USAID staff in Brazil felt that work on the
Results Review and Resource Request (R4) should not be part of this assessment effort and that the team should only ìdevelop a
framework for discussing the 2003-2007 strategic plan.î (See Appendix 1).
2
allows for the development of special relationships with the local non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), universities, and research centers that are the strength of the Programís effort.
The USAID/Brazil Environment Program has focused its attention and relatively limited resources
on the Amazon. Through its partner institutions from the U.S. and, in turn, their cooperative alliances
with NGOs in Brazil, USAIDís fairly broad Environment Program consists of applied research on
biodiversity, the dynamics of forested ecosystems, and socio-economic analysis of natural resource
management decisions made by communities and individuals. Work on globally significant
problems, supported by the enthusiasm and nascent capabilities of small domestic NGOs and science
centers, has contributed to the solution of major global problems. Interestingly, this approach has
also brought about Program impacts that have influenced many of the socio-economic adjustments
required to improve the life quality of the Brazilian population (see box below).
3
Impact of USAID/Brazil Environment Program
Technology Transfer

 Reduced-impact forest management principles and practices becoming established in commercial operations

 Establishment of a sophisticated forest fire monitoring system through USDA/FS contribution to the Fire Prevention
and Control Program at IBAMA

 Application of participatory techniques to achieve a good understanding of local communities

 Application of GIS technologies as a planning tool

 Biological corridor models being adapted from small scale to larger scales

 Capability to monitor, evaluate, and adjust agro-forestry systems, thus facilitating their replication in other areas
Organizational Development

 Support for numerous local NGOs in strategic planning, project design, budgeting, accounting, reporting, management,
and fundraising, leading to a better understanding of relationships between societies and their environments

 Work with pre-existing local community organizations leading to improved production and commercialization strategies

 New organizational models based on community participation and stakeholder negotiation emerging from field
experiences

 Civil society participation in sustainable development councils at municipal, state, and federal levels

 Pioneer work on land trusts and easements for conservation on private land
Training and Human Resources

 Formal training programs continuing over time, with spreading effects through training efforts of former trainees leading
to an expanding environmental capability base

 Shifting formal training from US-based to Brazil-based, thus reducing costs and expanding the pool of potential
participants

 Short-course training for mid-career professionals in a wide range of environmental and managerial subjects, mainly
targeting land managers, civil service personnel, researchers, and NGO managers

 On-the-job training through the Program partnersí activities to prepare personnel for working with government, the
private sector, and international agencies

 Environmental awareness development through training lawyers and journalists, who have systemic impacts on the
legal structure and public opinion
Information, Education and Communication

 Dissemination of scientific information with published articles appearing in major scientific journals

 Development of environmental education programs for public schools

 Radio and television programs reaching broad sectors of the population, as well as frequent print-media articles

 Web sites development to disseminate Program activities-related information
Advocacy

 Participation of Program partners in advocacy activities focusing on major environmental policy issues, such as the
World Bank forest policy, the National System of Conservation Units, and the Environmental Crimes Law

 Development of alliances between partners and non-partners to carry out advocacy work
Networking

 Annual meetings leading to increasing communication and cooperation within the Program

 Networking between Program partners and non-partners through various environment-related forums, working groups,
and committees

 Some spontaneous networking has emerged to help the Program reach beyond target areas, especially in
dissemination of production practices and products commercialization
4
This report begins with a discussion of the natural, political, and social context of Brazilís
environment sector, followed by an overview of environmental initiatives and programs.
Subsequently, it discusses current Program impacts and the comparative advantages of
USAID/Brazil for conducting an environmental management program. Lastly, recommendations to
facilitate discussion for the preparation of the upcoming strategy for the USAID/Brazil Environment
Program appear with a proposed framework for such discussion.
5
2. Brazil Context
While addressing the context in which the USAID/Brazil Environment Program operates, this
section offers a brief synopsis of Brazilís environment sector. It describes the most important
biophysical ecosystems (biomes); discusses the main social, economic, and political conditions
affecting the sector; and summarizes the major environmental problems affecting Brazilian society.
2.1 Biomes
Notwithstanding the Amazonís significant problems and opportunities, a country as immense and
dynamic as Brazil offers many value-added opportunities elsewhere. Brazilís natural biomesóboth
well-known and globally importantóplay a significant role in biodiversity conservation and in
global climate change mitigation. While the Amazon basin forests are chief among these, the
Cerrado, Pantanal, Atlantic Forest, and Caatinga biomes offer equally significant character; the
management of the environmental services they provide, including biodiversity conservation and
climate change regulation, can serve as models to guide development activities elsewhere in Brazil
and in the rest of Latin America.
2.1.1 Amazon Basin
USAID/Brazil has focused 90 percent of its Environment Program in the Amazon Basin, which in
Brazil comprises about four million square kilometers of tropical forests and amounts to 47 percent
of the countryís territory. An estimated 50 percent of the worldís biodiversity may be stored in these
forests, and their total biomass is claimed to be one of the worldís major carbon sequestration sinks.
Thus, some 3.78 percent and 6.12 percent of the Basin have been set aside as strictly protected and
areas of sustainable management (primarily Extractive Reserves), respectively.2
 Still, deforestation
in this biome, which averages close to 15,000 km² a year and reached a figure of almost 30,000 km²
in 1994ñ1995, alarms many. The regionís complexities, extremes of heat and humidity, and lack of
infrastructure have made much of the Amazon Basin one of the worldís least populated areas. These
conditions have also led to various less-than-successful efforts at its sustainable development.
Despite this, development projects and programs are still attempted, and these initiatives are
expected to increase in the years to come.
 
2
 Conservation Units in Brazil are divided into two distinct categories: those that receive complete protection, such as the
National Parks and Ecological Reserves, and those that allow ìsustainableî uses such as Extractive Reserves and Official Private
Natural Reserves (RPPN). (See Appendix 4 for a listing of Brazilís conservation categories).
6
2.1.2 Cerrado
The Cerrado covers nearly two million km² in the central, drier portion of the country. Its open,
savanna-like vegetation is important for carbon sequestration, especially in its root systems, and the
Cerrado also contains a unique and threatened biodiversity. Technological advances to deal with
acidity and highly toxic soils have facilitated the biomeís agricultural expansion, including ranching
and soybean production. However, extensive livestock management, which uses fire to clear woody
vegetation and renew the grasses, remains the dominant land use. Although water is scarce during
certain seasons, most of the countryís rivers have their source in the Cerrado. Unlike the Amazon
Basin, which still contains vast areas with little or no human intervention, only a few remnants of
pristine Cerrado remain, and these are generally located on private property. Land officially under
protection amounts to only 1.47 percent of the biome, and land officially within the sustainable land￾use category (primarily Official Private Natural ReservesñRPPN) amounts to only 0.78 percent.
Because of its rich biodiversityócalled ìmegadiversityî3
ó and high degree of threat, Conservation
International has classified the Cerrado as one of the worldís 25 ìhotspots.î4
2.1.3 Pantanal
Compared to the previous two biomes, the Pantanal is small; although at 330,000 km², it is sill the
largest freshwater wetland in the world, equal in size to Greece or The Philippines. Located in the
central-west part of the country, the Pantanal also includes nearly 100,000 km² in Bolivia and
Paraguay. This biome provides a major service in that it holds back the floodwaters of the Upper
Paraguay River until those of the neighboring Paran· River system have subsided. Without this
flood-control function, the combined flow of the Paraguay and Paran· rivers would threaten all of
the population centers located below their confluence at EncarnaciÛn, Paraguay.5
 Officially
recognized national-level conservation units in this biome are the Pantanal Mato-grossense National
Park (140,000 ha) and the Taiama Ecological Station (11,200 ha). More conservation units are
proposed, and other state and municipal conservation units exist. However, only about 1 percent of
the land is under state or federal control.
 
3
 Mittermeier, R.A., P. Robles-Gil, and C.G. Mittermeier. 1997. Megadiversity:Earthís Biologically Wealthiest Nations. Cemex,
Mexico.
4 Russell A. Mittermeier, Normal Myers, Cristina Goettsch Mittermeier, Norman Myers. March 2000. Hotspots: Earthís
Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions.
5 Although still a threat, this phenomenon has been abated somewhat by the construction of several reservoirs within the Rio
Paran· system.
7
2.1.4 Caatinga
The Caatinga covers 800,000 km² of Brazilís northeast region and is home to nearly 20 million of
the countryís poorest people. The northeast, although hot and dry with extremely erratic weather
patterns and low rainfall (between 300 and 800 mm annually), boasts an estimated 20,000 plant
species. Cattle and goat ranching, as well as irrigated farms along the rivers, have been the primary
land uses since colonial times. Firewood cutting to supply steel mills and brick factories has taken
its toll on the vegetative cover and, in the last 15 years alone, these combined activities have left a
legacy of 40,000 square kilometers of the biome suffering from desertification. Only 0.45 percent
of the Caatinga is under complete protection, while an additional 2.91 percent has been placed within
a sustainable land-use category.
2.1.5 Atlantic Forest
This forest, located along the Atlantic Coast throughout the length of Brazil and into Paraguay and
Argentina, supported the first historical occupation in Brazil. Nearly 70 percent of Brazilís people
now live in this region, and continued growth of population centers has severely depleted the
Atlantic Forest so that only fragmentsó7.5 percent of its original 1.2 million square kilometersó
remain. Conservation International has classified this forest as one of the five most threatened
regions in the world. Despite the fragmentation, however, the forest still contains extremely high
levels of diversity and endemism; 50 percent of its tree species and 92 percent of the amphibians
occur nowhere else in the world. National and international NGOs have focused their efforts on the
Atlantic Forest and, as a result, nearly 6.8 percent of the remaining forest is under protection, while
another 21.45 percent is included in the sustainable land-use category. Increasing ecotourism may
also help reduce this biomeís deforestation rate.
While not as large and complex as the Amazon, Brazilís other biomesóthe Cerrado, Pantanal,
Atlantic Forest and Caatingaóoffer substantial biodiversity values and environmental services of
international and local consequence but receive little international attention.6 Meaningful work on
these ecosystems to mitigate desertification processes and to improve our understanding and
management of the water cycle can be undertaken through arrangements similar to those that have
worked so well for the USAID/Brazil Environment Program.
2.2 Social, Economic and Political Context
Brazil, an advanced developing country of continental size (8.51 million square kilometers), has a
population of 169 million inhabitants, according to the year 2000 census. Eighty percent of this
 
6 At the time this was being written, however, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) announced a US$82 million loan for
a ìPlan to Protect Brazilís Pantanal.î
8
population lives in urban areas. The nationís economy, the tenth largest in the world, has an annual
GNP of approximately US$930 billion; it also has one of the largest external debts among the
developing nationsónearly US$265 billion. Servicing of this debt has major repercussions on the
shape, pace, and environmental impact of the nationís development.
The external debt is a critical factor in the federal governmentís current policies to maximize exports
via a range of initiatives, including large-scale infrastructure projects (e.g., roads, Hydrovia) to
facilitate transport to coastal ports. It also affects the wide-ranging cuts in federal programs, which,
in turn, influence efforts to reduce biodiversity loss and mitigate global climate change.
Until World War II, Brazil was predominantly rural with an agriculturally based economy, but only
a few of its commodities entered international markets in significant amounts (e.g., sugar, coffee,
rubber). The population, although concentrated in the eastern coastal areas, was far less urban than
today. Since then, the country has witnessed several waves of migration to urban areas, stimulated
by large-scale investments in industrialization. Migration to the interior was initiated with the new
federal capital, built in 1960, and by the policies of the military governments during the late 1960s,
1970s, and 1980s, which directed efforts toward major state-led development projects in the
Amazon, including roads, railroads, hydroelectric plants and mining operations. Large ranching
operations, timber enterprises, and planned settlement programs received incentives. Funds for these
initiatives, borrowed from international financing institutions, increased Brazilís external debt.
Early efforts at planned Amazon settlement are considered flawed. Many of the colonists who settled
along the new roads were forced to sell their lands cheaply, or the land was simply abandoned for
lack of adequate inputs, credit, markets, education, health care, and tenure security. This led to a new
wave of ruralñurban migration within the Amazon that increased environmental and social problems
in the regionís major cities.
The dynamics of land use in the Amazon over the past 40 years have entailed both social costs and
the loss of natural resources. Historically and currently, small and large-scale farming, ranching, and
forestry activities place minimal investment in labor and capital per unit area and pay little attention
to long-term productivity. The landís short productive span is followed by degradation and
abandonment, whereupon colonists move to areas of uncut forest. Insecure land tenure, a lack of
sustainable production models, and the absence of regulations governing the clearing of mature
forest all contribute to the further deterioration of the Amazonian biome.
In the 1990s, the government lowered fiscal and financial incentives to cattle ranching, mining, and
timber extraction projects, but illegal logging, mining, and cattle grazing are still commonplace. The
government now implements a strategy to expand and improve transportation infrastructure to
increase grain exports, particularly soybeans, but this approach lacks adequate study of its likely
environmental impact. This expansion will certainly add even greater pressure along the
9
ìdeforestation belt,î which covers roughly the southern and eastern portions of an imaginary line that
reaches from RondÙnia through northern Mato Grosso to eastern Par·.
Efforts to establish a conservation-oriented environmental program in Brazil must take into account
the countryís overwhelmingly urban nature. Approximately 80 percent of its population live in urban
areas with extensive poverty and inadequate public
investment in sanitation and health infrastructure.
The vast majority of Brazilís remaining indigenous
populations (325,000) live in the North. The
Northeast is the countryís poorest region, and the
Center-West houses the federal capital. The
Southeast is the most industrialized area, and the
South has high levels of development.
After the 1964 coup, the country remained under
military control until 1985, when a civilian
president took office. The 1988 Constitution formally established citizen rights (e.g., freedom of
speech, right of labor to strike, abolition of torture), as well as rights to health and a ìbalanced
environment.î The federal government has a bicameral congress. In state government, the governorís
power is balanced by a state legislature. Brazil has some 5,500 municipalities, where the mayor
shares power with the municipal council. ìRe-democratizationî efforts begun in the late 1980s have
paid attention to the traditionally excluded (the poor, children, and women); decentralization of
programs, expertise, and resources to states and municipalities; and greater civil participation in
society, improved government accountability, and increased transparency of decisions and
operations.
2.3 Environmental Problems
Biodiversity loss and global climate change are often identified as major problems in Brazil because
it has an estimated 50 percent of the worldís biodiversity. While the Amazon Basin has the countryís
richest biodiversity, it is under less pressure than the highly fragmented Atlantic Forest and the
Cerrado, identified by Conservation International as two of the worldís 25 biodiversity ìhotspots.î
Biodiversity loss in Brazil is directly related to the expansion and intensification of agriculture,
logging, and ranching in the Amazon, Cerrado, and Atlantic Forest.
Popluation Distribution in Brazil
Region Territory Population
North 42% 17 million
Northeast 18% 46.5 million
CenterñWest 22% 12 million
Southeast 10% 68.5 million
South 8% 24.7 million
10
There is also deep concern about Brazilís forest loss and global climate change. Tropical forests play
an important role in the dynamics of carbon flux in that they
remove carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, from the
atmosphere and store it in biomass and soils. Carbon
sequestered in the Brazilian forests is estimated at between
518 and 1,245 billion tons (140 to 350 tons/ha).7
 Brazilian
contributions to global carbon emissions, estimated at six
percent of the worldís net emissions, come mainly from
land-use practices, unlike contributions of developed
countries.
A 1992 study previous to the United Nations (UN) Earth
Summit showed that Brazilians considered their major
environmental problems to be somewhat different than those
expressed by non-Brazilians (see box). While deforestation
ranked highest in concern, urban, water, social, and political
issues followed. In 1997, a broader but similar study carried
out in conjunction with the Rio+5 conference, came to the
same conclusions except that the urban issues replaced
forestry issues.
Brazilian public opinion regarding environmental quality
priorities displays important differences between the
northern and southern parts of the country. For the majority
in the Southeast and South, the integrity of the Amazon has
become a centerpiece of national values. This segment of
the population expects significant areas of the region to be
protected and its natural resources to be used in sustainable
ways. In addition, Amazonian development through major
projects with international capital is generally opposed.
However, those living in the Amazon, most of whom live in
urban areas, generally desire more development,
infrastructure and jobs to reduce the enormous poverty of
the region.
 
7
 The large variation in the figures is due to differences in evaluation methods, accuracy of original data, and how the data are
extrapolated.
Priority Environmental Issues
for Brazilians

 Forestry, mainly deforestation

 Urban

 sanitation

 waste

 transportation

 subnormal housing

 population density

 industrial pollution

 Water

 Social

 poverty

 unemployment

 poor education

 lack of land reform

 health questions

 Political,

 lack of integrated
environmental and
development policies

 poor sustainable
development models

 lack of political will

 market limitations

 shortcomings of the NGOs

 Soil, especially erosion

 Nuclear

 Preservation

 Global
11
2.3.1 Deforestation
Some 15 percent (560,000 km2
) of the Amazon rain forest has been deforested and rates oscillate
between 11,000 and 22,000 km2
 of deforestation each year. The reasons for this highly complex
phenomenon are only partially known. For example, private investors with sufficient capital and
competence to take advantage of public incentives for infrastructure and production are a part of the
deforestation problem, as are social movements that gain access to land. Small farmers in
colonization or settlement areas also increase deforestation, as do electoral politics. On the other
hand, migration from rural to urban areas decreases deforestation but contributes to urban problems.
Public environmental management, satellite monitoring, and enforcement of command-and-control
legislation help to decrease deforestation as well. Finally, changes in economics and climate can
either increase or decrease deforestation depending on cyclical movements. These factors all interact
in a dynamic fashion and make precise identification of causes difficult to determine. The net result,
though, is often harmful to local populations.
2.3.2 Fires
Fire poses one of the most serious problems in the Amazon. Fires cause biodiversity loss, destroy
the potential goods and services available from mature forests, impoverish and degrade soils in the
long term, release carbon to the atmosphere, reduce carbon sequestration, create health problems,
and make the disturbed landscapes even more susceptible to future fires.While fire is a traditional
tool used to clear and prepare land for agriculture, farmers often have limited understanding of fire
dynamics. Further, with few tools and equipment to limit its spread, fire frequently burns out of
control and moves beyond the intended area of treatment.
In the last few years, especially after the 1997/1998 wild fires in Roraima, authorities increased fire￾control efforts. Improved satellite technology for fire monitoring has been used, and more accurate
fire detection is expected when the environmental monitoring component of the System of Amazon
Surveillance (SIVAM) becomes operational in 2001. Training and information dissemination on fire
suppression and management techniques are being made available.8
Fires can occur in primary forests and in areas that have been cleared. In each case, the dynamics and
consequences are different, and only recently have experiments begun to reveal the workings of
water and mineral cycles and how they interact with fire.9
 
8
 The USAID Environment Program has provided Amazon NGOs and communities with funds to successfully train around
120,000 rural farmers in simple fire prevention practices.
9
 USAID Environment Program Partners, i.e., Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC), Environmental Research Institute of the
Amazon (IPAM) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-funded Large Scale Atmosphere-Biosphere Experiment
in Amazonia (NASA-LBA), have done much of this work.
12
2.3.3 Desertification
Desertification is a common threat in 110 countries and affects 70 percent of the total arid land used
for agriculture. As elsewhere, desertification in Brazil (primarily in the Northeast) is linked to
poverty. Some 980,000 km2
 of arid land in the Northeast are currently subject to some form of
degradation and desertification because of frequent and lengthy droughts and inadequate land-use
practices. This zone, known as the drought polygon, covers 11.5 percent of the country and is home
to 18 million inhabitants. Besides hunger, health problems, unemployment, and infant mortality,
desertification causes migration from the rural, poverty-stricken communities of the Northeast into
the Amazon and the large urban areas in south and central Brazil, thus increasing the size and
number of social problems.
Deforestation, fire, agriculture, mining, and extensive cattle raising are the major causes of
desertification in the northeast. Movement of these processes to less degraded areas as production
becomes economically unfeasible aggravates the problem. Cear·, Pernambuco, and ParaÌba suffer
most from desertification (70 percent of ParaÌba is plagued by the problem). Losses to agriculture
and ranching due to desertification are estimated to be US$ 300 million annually. As a response to
the problem, apart from granting inefficient temporary humanitarian aid, the Brazilian Government
plans to divert part of the flow of the Northeastís largest river, the S„o Francisco, to provide water
for arid areas in four northeastern states.
2.3.4 Urban Environmental Problems
Brazil suffers from a series of urban environmental problems created by poor sanitation and pollution
in the highly populated areas of the Southeast and in small areas of the Northeast and South.
Although Brazilís environmental protection policies have been in place for 29 years, several
pollution problems remain, and the costs of economic, health, and ecosystem losses greatly exceed
the countryís expenditures in pollution control. Brazilís major urban environmental problems are
derived from: 1) a lack of basic sanitation (safe water supply and sewage treatment); 2) surface water
pollution in bays, beaches, rivers and creeks; 3) localized pollution by hazardous industrial
substances; 4) air pollution in large cities; and 5) municipal-level deficiencies in solid waste
collection, treatment, reuse, and disposal.10
An estimated 18 million citizens in urban areas and 29.6 million in rural areas still lack safe drinking
water. In addition, 35 percent of the countryís urban population has no access to safe sewage disposal
and, in rural areas, sewage networks are unavailable, although septic tanks are adequate for areas
 
10 According to a 1998 World Bank study (World Bank 1998 a & b), these problems are related to 1) excessive reliance on
government funding; 2) lack of prioritization of problems and cost-effective interventions; 3) lack of integration in sectoral and
spatial policies and planning; 4) outdated approaches of command and control rather than economic and market-based strategies;
and 5) lack of effective implementation, application, and enforcement of anti-pollution laws.
13
with low population. Rivers and other water bodies in urban areas are commonly used for open
sewage and industrial discharges or solid waste dumps and cause health problems that affect all
major cities in Brazil. The total costs from surface water pollution in urban areas are estimated at
US$300 million annually without considering damage to ecosystems and lost tourism.
Modernization of water supply and sewage services will require startup investments of US$13 billion
plus US$1.7 billion for annual maintenance.
Localized hazardous waste contamination is evident in all major metropolitan areas, both inland and
in coastal regions where clusters of large industrial plants are found. Most industrial facilities have
poor effluent emission controls and cause socio-economic and environmental damages. Toxic
substances, such as mercury from mining activities, also cause problems, especially in the Amazon
Basin. Air contamination, a common problem in major metropolitan areas, affects nearly 17 million
people in S„o Paulo and 10 million people in Rio de Janeiro.
Problems with solid waste collection, treatment, and disposal; urban land-use planning; storm
drainage systems; landslides and flooding; and housing availability all reduce the quality of life in
urban areas. An estimated 60 percent of the countryís daily production of solid waste is collected and
only 28 percent of that receives adequate treatment and disposal. An estimated US$420 million per
year would be necessary to collect and properly dispose of the 40 percent that remains uncollected.
Resolution of urban pollution problems in Brazil will require significant funding and an integrated
approach to development planning. More private financing based on cost-effective strategies in water
and sanitation and industrial siting and contamination are needed.
14
3. Environmental Initiatives and Programs in Brazil
3.1 Governmental
A reciprocal relationship between ìnaturalî ecosystems and societal dynamics makes integrated
interventions by society a requirement for maintaining healthy a ecosystem. Yet, Brazil still
experiences little integration between public policies for economic development and those for
resource conservation and preservation. Although many government initiatives address the problems
of environmental quality in Brazil (Appendix 5), contradictory policies exist between development
and the sustainable use of resources for agriculture, land tenure, transportation, infrastructure,
forestry, fisheries, sanitation, tourism, and urban development. While development banks and some
government programs, such as agrarian reform and national integration, understand the need to
reduce conflicts that arise in development
planning and implementation, the
government most often perceives the
environment as a hindrance to development
rather than an opportunity to use natural
wealth for social and economic
development.
Brazilís 1988 Constitution joined the 1981
National Environment Policy in
establishing a basis for public
environmental policy. The National
Environment System (SISNAMA) includes
the National Environment Council
(CONAMA), formed of representatives
from federal, state, and municipal
governments; the private sector; and civil
society. Environmental councils are
required by law in municipalities of more than 20,000 inhabitants. In 1989, the Brazilian Institute
for Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) grew from three government
agenciesóBrazilian Forestry Development Institute (IBDF), Superintendency for the Development
of Fishing (SUDEPE), and Superintendency for Rubber (SUDHEVEA). The Ministry of
Environment (MMA) was created in 1992 after the UN Conference on Environment and
Development, with a mandate to formulate national environmental policy, which IBAMA is required
to implement. However, a lack of integration and long-term planning, along with inadequate funding,
Brazilís Environmental Protection History
1930s Water Code
1966 Forest Code
1981 National Environment Policy created the
National Environment System (SISNAMA)
SISNAMA includes the National
Environment Council (CONAMA)
1988 Constitution joined SISNAMA in
establishing a basis for public environmental
policy
1989 Institute for Environment and Renewable
Natural Resources (IBAMA) created from
three government agencies; required to
implement environmental policy
1992 Ministry of Environment (MMA) created
after the UN Conference on Environment
and Development to formulate national
environmental policy
15
contribute to the perception that the two agencies compete rather than cooperate on a common
environmental agenda.
The Ministry of Environment does not deal directly with the problems created by economic
development; these are addressed by other ministries or agencies. This arrangement creates, rather
than resolves, environmental conflictsóobvious in recent development initiatives, such as the
Araguaia-Tocantins and Paraguay-Paran· waterways, and the Cuiab·-SantarÈm road. The 1990s saw
the creation of many state and municipal environmental agencies wielding uneven institutional
power and linked to planning or science and technology secretariats. Only agencies in the most
developed states and larger cities have the clout to deal with environmental compliance issues.
Brazilís environmental legislation is poorly enforced; this must change if the countryís overall
environmental quality is to improve. Progress was achieved after the Law of Environmental Crimes
was enacted (1998) in that the environmental agencies can now enforce the law and collect large
finesóas, for example, in the case of the year 2000 oil spills in Rio de Janeiro and the IguaÁu River.
Economic instruments, despite their potential, especially in pollution-related cases, are still not used
and remain a promising area for advancement.
Beyond all these constraints, Brazilís overall fiscal and economic crisis and the limited funding for
public environmental management remain the primary impediments to effective government action.
Hiring and maintenance of qualified staff; training; enforcement and field inspection; and creation
and maintenance of protected areas all require money.
3.2 External Donors
In the 1980s, the burning forests of the Amazon attracted world attention. Since then, external donors
have focused on global concerns about biodiversity conservation and carbon emissions due to
deforestation. While many Brazilians initially saw international environmental concerns as an
infringement of their sovereignty, the 1990sí Rio Conference and G7 Pilot Program to Conserve the
Brazilian Rain Forest (PPG-7)11 made ìsustainable developmentî a legitimate topic for public
discussion, and the reduction of deforestation has become an official goal of the Government of
Brazil.
Loans from abroad focused on projects that included basic sanitation and pollution cleanups, while
international grants tended to concentrate on a conservation agenda for the Amazon and the Atlantic
Forest. Approximately 86 percent of funding directed to Atlantic Forest and the Amazon goes for
ëpureí scientific, principally biological and ecological, research. Grants from national sources
 
11 Sponsored by the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations, i.e., Germany, U.S., U.K., Japan, Italy, France, Canada.
16
addressed conservation efforts in the southeast region. A relative lack of funding exists for the
Caatinga, the Pantanal, the V·rzea,12 coastal plains, and urban ecosystems, and for applied research
such as for the use and management of biodiversity and other natural resources. Social sciences,
laws, and environmental education also lack funding. Conversely, some thematic areas have received
considerable financial support. These include satellite image analysis, analysis and mapping of
biodiversity spatial distribution to assist in priority setting for protected areas and biological
corridors, and micro- and macro-data collection on the atmospheric effects of different vegetation
regimes.
3.3 NGOs
The number of Brazilian national and regional NGOs multiplied in the 1980s and 1990s and received
substantial support from abroad. In recent years, support has subsided, despite issues of institutional
stability and viability, leaving NGOs to generate their own resources. Many use a socio￾environmental approach to problem solving. Generally, they have moved away from being purely
critical and now take a more constructive approach in dealing with government at many levels. In
addition, they are becoming more adept at project implementation and resource management. These
new forms of action require equipment, technical expertise, and higher fixed costs.
Some NGOs receive funding from outside sources and do not always reflect the best interests of the
regionís populations. In other cases, NGO participation in the governmental deliberation has become
more frequent and, in some areas, even a requirement. Questions thus arise concerning how well
NGOs represent civil society. Numerous small NGOs in the interior, especially in the Amazon and
Cerrado, for example, act as watchdogs and advocates for certain kinds of land use over vast areas.
Networks, horizontal exchanges, and various forms of international support are fundamental to the
viability and orientation of these organizations.
 
12 ìV·rzeaî is the term used in Brazil for an intermittently flooded alluvial plain found along the rivers of the Amazon system.
17
4. The USAID/Brazil Environment Program and Its Impacts
4.1 General Comments
The concept of ìpartnersî is pivotal in the structure of the USAID/Brazil Environment Program.
Generally, partners are strong American institutions that work with local organizations on globally
important issues surrounding environmental quality. These institutions understand that humans are
the cause of, and the solution to, environmental problems, as well as the ones who gain by having
them solved. USAID/Brazilís partners facilitate the transfer of globally relevant ideas and
information into the daily activities of communities, at the same time that the partners themselves
go about the tasks of discovery and elucidation. This model also provides a means for the transfer
and broad acceptance of the sustainability concept while demonstrating its utility at the level of
individual activities.
This section analyzes USAID/Brazil Environment Programís impacts outside of its target areas. The
findings are based on an analysis of quantitative data supplied by the partners and their allied
institutions; on independent evaluations of individual portions of the Program; on site visits,
interviews, and reports of annual meetings; and on reviews of a substantial and up-to-date literature.
In addition to noting formal goals and their indicators of achievement, the ripple effects that are
created when goals are achieved were also considered, as were, where possible, their unintended or
unforeseen impacts.
USAID/Brazil has developed a detailed system of performance indicators for intermediate results
associated with the first Strategic Objective of the Program (SO1), i.e., ìEnvironmentally and
socioeconomically sustainable alternatives for sound land use adopted beyond target areas.î The four
intermediate results (IRs) are:
Intermediate Result 1: Systems for sound land use identified, promoted and adopted in target
areas.
Intermediate Result 2: Target institutions and local human capacity strengthened.
Intermediate Result 3: Target policies to support environmentally sound land use adopted
and/or implemented.
Intermediate Result 4: Sound land use systems disseminated beyond target areas.
18
Each IR relates to a series of activities, such as information gathering, planning, and training, and
the results can be aggregated for the Program as a whole. According to the USAID/Brazil Mission,
reported results consistently exceeded expectations by a large margin and clearly show that the
Program achieved far more than was originally planned, although goals within target areas may have
intentionally been cautious to avoid the risk of disappointing results. At the same time, grantees seem
reluctant to take credit for impacts that may not be theirs alone.
4.2 Impacts beyond Target Areas
Impacts beyond target areas consistently exceeded the modest character of the targets. To understand
the strengths and weaknesses of the Program and to make recommendations, the Assessment Team
analyzed impacts beyond target areas according to six categories (technology transfer; organizational
development; training and human resources; information, education and communication; advocacy;
and networking). While categories may overlap, their differences affect strategy development.
4.2.1 Technology Transfer
Technology may be ìhardî or ìsoft,î depending upon physical facilities, equipment, and remote
sensing on the one hand, and institutional arrangements on the other. Technologies may be ìhigh￾techî or, as is often the case in the Amazon, ìmiddle-tech.î Technology transfer occurs through
direct inputs or replication, and these can be pooled, made available at a distance, or embedded in
something else.
Some projects, like the USDA Forest Service (USDA/FS) contributions to the Fire Prevention and
Control Program at IBAMA, provide fairly high-level technical inputs into government programs
or institutions and, to a lesser extent, NGOs. As a result, IBAMA now has a more sophisticated fire
monitoring system than that of the US. The risk map, the systemís centerpiece, consists of
sophisticated overlays originally developed by the Environmental Research Institute for the Amazon
(IPAM). Science centers, such as the National Research Institute of the Amazon (INPA) and the
Emilio Goeldi Museum of Par· (MPEG), received support for critical infrastructure needs from the
G7 Pilot Program through its Science and Technology component.
Middle-level technology is transferred directly through initiatives that involve the various land use
systems, such as agro-forestry, reduced-impact forest management, and management of protected
areas and biological corridors; community-level socio-economic diagnostics; and ecological￾economic zoning (ZEE).
Middle-level technology often requires adaptation. For example, although most agro-forestry systems
are considered sound, their appropriateness may not be clearódo these systems meet poor rural
farmersí needs while making a net contribution to overall environmental quality? The Program has
19
used its experience with partners and sub-grantees to produce excellent studies to monitor, evaluate,
and adjust agro-forestry systems that can be introduced elsewhere with success on both counts.
Further, reduced-impact forest management, which is sound in principle, has successfully moved
from experimental situations in favorable locations to becoming established in large-scale
commercial operations in more remote areas.
Middle-level technology limitations appear as they are applied to new areas and new themes.
Management plan development in the Serra do Divisor National Park used rapid ecological
evaluation techniques to good advantage, but the method requires further refinement for on-the￾ground monitoring use at the scale needed in the Amazon. Biological corridors, a well-established
conservation model at smaller scales, also have promise at larger scales, as the Program has shown.
Likewise, PESA technology,13 which resembles rapid or participatory rural appraisal, has been useful
at the community level, especially in Acre. The FundaÁ‚o VitÛria AmazÙnica (FVA) and the
Environmental Research Institute of the Amazon (IPAM) have also used participatory techniques
to achieve a good understanding of local communities. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
in Acre supports ecological-economic zoning exercises using geographical information systems
(GIS) technologies that can serve as planning tools. Technical challenges, such as those surrounding
efforts to combine natural and social data, biodiversity maps, appropriate scales, and implementation
or enforcement mechanisms, are slowly being overcome.
Grantees or sub-grantees often induce technology replication (for example, the extension of Woods
Hole Research Center work in the Capim River area to a neighboring community), and third parties
also play a part in impromptu copying. Replication is often accomplished with funding from
USAID/Brazil or other sources, and either can be considered Program impact if the idea originated
or was refined with USAID support. Replication apart from direct Program effort is more difficult
to trace and evaluate; agro-forestry systems (SAFs) occur as small experiments all over the Amazon,
making it awkward to claim direct Program responsibility for their establishment. On the other hand,
18 companies have adopted reduced-impact forest management models that originated with the
Program.
ìHardî technology can affect ìsoftî technology and vice versa. Computers offer basic, multiple, and
long-lasting benefits, powerful tools, and access to the Internet, along with comparatively rapid and
inexpensive communication. Program-funded infrastructure and equipment have facilitated
unprecedented efforts in strategic planning and a commitment to applied research in major science
centers. Brazil is eager to acquire advanced technology and adapt it to Brazilian conditions; for
example, information technology will help overcome Amazonian distances. Dialogue with the
Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT) attempts to increase funding for the North, Northeast
 
13 Participatory Socio-environmental Research Methodology for Rural Areas.
20
and Center-West regions of Brazil, as well as for other scientific and technological institutions, such
as the Brazilian Agricultural Research Enterprise (EMBRAPA) and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation
(FIOCRUZ). Although the Program has few formal links with the larger US technology programs
in Brazil, informal links and synergy are high.14
4.2.2 Organizational Development
Organizational developmentís high and middle levels correspond respectively to government and
to communities or NGOs. Through the activities of the WWF, the Program worked directly on
organizational development in strategic planning, project design, budgeting, accounting, reporting,
management, and fundraising. Technical support was provided for numerous local NGO and
community Partners, as well as for the Amazon Working Group (GTA) as a whole. Examples of
WWFís work with community-level groups include support for organizing a hearts of palm
cooperative in Cajari and for support given to the Research and Extension in Agroforestry Systems
Group ñ State of Acreís (PESACRE) effort to establish the Novo Ideal rural community association.
The 2000 evaluation report shows that WWF has scaled down its organizational development
program, suggesting that the content of explicit organizational development efforts, which are based
mainly on models designed for large organizations, may not yet be appropriate for the Brazilian
context and for communities at the grassroots level. Thus, such models may become
counterproductive without careful analysis of appropriateness. Further, their success involves a risk
of promoting parallel structures that could isolate the environmental movement or splinter it into
dissident groups.
On the other hand, higher-level organizational models involving public-private interfaces do hold
promise for being adapted to local conditions. For example, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is doing
pioneer work on land trusts and easements for conservation on private land. Additionally, new
organizational models have emerged from experience in the field. One of the most remarkable
examples is community fire management, originally developed by the Woods Hole Research Center
(WHRC) in the Del Rei community in Paragominas. This seminal idea, based on community
participation and stakeholder negotiation, was later adopted and adapted by PROTEGER (the Fire
Prevention, Mobilization and Training Project) after the fire emergency in Roraima in 1998, and by
the Ministry of Environment and Friends of the Earth for their work on municipal fire protocols.
Another organizational model, which deserves further support, is that of civil society participation
in environmental or sustainable development councils at the municipal, state, and federal levels.
 
14 These projects include the Large Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA) ówhich has funding of US$80
million from NASAóand both the System of Amazon Surveillance (SIVAM) and the System of Amazon Protection (SIPAM),
which involve a US company (Raytheon) and a loan of US$1.4 billion.
21
Various sub-grantees participate in such councils where they have voice and, in some cases, enough
votes to influence outcomes. In time, the issues of representation, qualification, co-optation, cost
recovery, and negotiation will be resolved. The same applies to participation in public hearings and
licensing processes, where WHRC and IPAM have outstanding experience as both up-front and
behind-the-scenes advisors.
Organizational development efforts have yet to realize their enormous potential to influence
economic, social, and political structures that determine sustainability. Efforts at the community
level can be stymied by socio-cultural differences within localities. At higher levels, however,
involving government processes and relations between the public and private sectors, there appears
to be greater and increasing potential for international cooperation. The Program can learn lessons
from its experiences at the community and NGO levels, and these can be used at the higher levels
so that the efforts can be more cost effective. It should be borne in mind, however, that the grassroots
have been its primary clientele and are key to systemic changes.
4.2.3 Training and Human Resources
Formal and informal training and on-the-job experience clearly have large multiplier effects and
reach far beyond any immediate target. Benefits continue to accumulate over time and become more
effective as former trainees either move up in their organizations or move elsewhere. Training,
accomplished through work with individuals as well as through institutions, helps increase awareness
of the problems of forest and biodiversity loss and climate change and encourages use of this
information in the course of normal activities. The Program conducted training activities for lawyers
(including public attorneys) and journalists, who have systemic impacts in the legal structure as well
as on public opinion.
Perhaps the most significant training efforts of the Program are being handled by the State University
of New York (SUNY), the Smithsonian Institution (SI) and the Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF).
Since 1990, the SUNY program, which was absorbed by the WWF/SUNY Natureza e Sociedade
training program in 1997, has directly trained more than 1,000 people in individual or group
programs of short, medium and long duration. Survey results from 1995 and 2000 show that former
trainees later train an average of more than 100 others in one to three years; that these numbers
increase over time; and that the training had high impact on research, community development,
training, and policy. Trainees report that the Program ìopens doorsî and is important in helping them
qualify for other programs, such as the Brazilian Leadership for Environment and Development
(LEAD) program and graduate study. Outstanding former trainees include the attorney for IBAMA,
the Coordinator of the National Environment Fund (FNMA), an analyst at the Environmental
Investment Fund (A2R), a public attorney in the Federal District, the Technical Secretary for Natural
Resources Policy of the PPG-7 Pilot Program, and the Secretary of Environment of Corumb·, who
is also a leader among the forest police in Mato Grosso do Sul. Many of the high-level staff of the
22
Ministry of Environment and IBAMA were Program-sponsored trainees. Almost all of the Institute
of Man and Amazon and the Environment (IMAZON) research staff have studied abroad with
support from SUNY.
Former trainees identify with the Program and return to help out in other training efforts. They often
form networks of mutual exchange and support, and they are important channels of communication
between the Program and their own institutions.
Current programs include training courses in environmental policy, environmental communication,
environmental law, and environmental economics, and participants include government authorities,
public attorneys, journalists, NGO members, and representatives from the private sector. In the early
1990s, training normally took place in the U.S., but in-country training programs now drastically
reduce costs, expand the pool of potential clients, and open the program to non-English speakers.
An important characteristic of the SUNY program is its ability to make decisions based on the
strategic relevance of the training and the trainee.
The Program has supported various kinds of fellowships for graduate-level scientific training and
research. The Smithsonian Institution very early in the Program provided scientific field training
through a course in tropical ecology and has now added courses for decision makers and for local
university students, who often remain as interns. SI staff can teach at the University of Amazonas.
Likewise, the research staffs from IMAZON and IPAM use trainees in their projects. Project
participants also reach students in classroom settings and by advising theses, especially at the
University of Florida, the Federal University of Acre, and the Federal University of Par·. The
Tropical Forest Foundation has provided specific training in reduced-impact forest management and
has plans to establish a training center.
In addition to training, on-the-job experience in NGOs helps prepare personnel for government, the
private sector, and for work with the international agenciesóall of which need human resources who
know the region, have worked in the field, and have managed or administered environmental
management projects. For example, former participants are, or have been, government authorities
(a Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and the former President of IBAMA), Banco Axial staff,
and World Bank staff, among others.
The Assessment Team concluded that the Program has exceeded expectations and still has great
potential regarding training and human resources. Training individuals strategically supports
institutional change without formal and costly inter-governmental agreements. It reaches far beyond
targets, which are not isolated points, and offers a strong multiplier effect. Impacts are immediate,
but also long lasting, and they increase over time. Training supports partners and influences powerful
actors, such as government authorities, the legal and judicial system, civil society organizations, and
mass media, and makes them allies of new causes. Former trainees interact with each other and the
23
Program and consolidate the results. For these reasons, training seems to be one of the best
investments the USAID/Brazil Environment Program has made and can continue to make.
4.2.4 Information, Education, and Communication (IEC)
Dissemination of information means the diffusion of both scientific and popular information. IPAM,
IMAZON, and the Smithsonian Institution have been responsible for the dissemination of scientific
information with published articles appearing in journals like Science and Nature. There are also
student theses, especially at the University of Florida. IMAZON has its own technical publication
series. The IPAM experience was shown to millions of viewers on Jornal Nacional on November
28, 2000. The WWF and FVA Web sites offer excellent examples of new technology used for
information dissemination.
WWF has an important national environmental education program and ìSOS AmazÙniaî has worked
in public schools in Acre. Such efforts contribute to the fact that the younger generations in Brazil
have become more aware, as a matter of course, of causes, consequences, and linkages regarding
environmental quality. However, relatively little has been done to reach the school system as a
whole, from the elementary to university levels.
Information, education, and communication components of the Program are important because of
their wide reach and their successful impact: the Natureza Viva radio program reaches the entire
Amazonian population; WWF provides program material for the Globo television network and
frequently appears on its news and feature programs; dissemination through the printed media
include articles in Time (mentioning WHRC) and in Veja (mentioning SI, IPAM, WHRC, IMAZON
and WWF). IPAM projections of deforestation appeared in a major national newspaper (the Folha
de S„o Paulo). NGOs and private-sector organizations, which command vast resources and welcome
new material, have made significant contributions to the effort.
4.2.5 Advocacy
Policy advocacy can be conducted through position papers, NGO networks, campaigns,
consultancies, public hearings, and by participating in licensing processes, among other things.
IMAZON participated in the 1999 review of World Bank forest policy and PESACRE
recommendations have been incorporated in state and regional planning processes. Policy actions
that were of early interest to the Partners and grantees at the federal level include the National
System of Conservation Units (SNUC) and the Environmental Crimes Law (LCA). At the state level,
the WWF helped to get the Value-Added Tax (ICMS) approved in Mato Grosso.
24
Advocacy has emerged in recent years as a means to multiply impacts by several orders of
magnitude. Where the Program is concerned, advocacy is carried out by local partners and requires
alliances with non-partners and non-environmentalist groups, that is, by networking.
4.2.6 Networking
Although the USAID/Brazil Environment Program began as a group of isolated projects, networking
within the Program has grown over time, particularly as a result of annual meetings. Likewise, the
training of groups leads to networking among former trainees, who form a community, exchange
ideas, and provide mutual support. Communication and cooperation within the Program has
expanded.
Networking outside the Program has also grown. For example, IPAM is active in the Eastern
Amazon Forum (FAOR), and it has organized regional and national meetings with the Brazil
Sustainable and Democratic group, and in the inclusion of forests in the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM). The FundaÁ„o VitÛria AmazÙnica (FVA) is active in the Permanent Forum for
Debates on the Amazon (FORAM), the Amazon Working Group (GTA), the Brazilian NGO Forum,
and the Agenda 21 Committee on Sustainable Development (CDSA21).
However, other NGOsónamely the Socio-environmental Institute (ISA), the Federation of
Organizations for social and Educational assistance (FASE), the Brazilian Institute for Social
Analysis (IBASE), Poverty and Environment in Amazonia (POEMA), Friends of the Earth,
Greenpeace, Environmental Defense (ED) and the National Rubber Tappers Council (CNS)óare
not as active in the Program as they could be. The powerful Atlantic Forest Network (RMA) is not
active in the Program, and the Amazon Working Group (GTA), with its hundreds of member
organizations all over the Amazon, does not participate as a full partner. Additionally, labor
organizations such as the Federation of Agricultural Workers (FETAGRI), in particular the state￾level organization in Par·, and the National Confederation of Rural Workers (CONTAG), which
includes small farmers, might benefit from being associated with the Program. Likewise, contact
with business associations such as state federations or National Confederations of Agriculture (CNA)
or Industry (CNI) and private sector organizations, which represent the large farmers, ranchers and
loggers, could also be profitably engaged.
Although some of the grantees are themselves international networks (WWF, TNC and CI), and at
least one of the sub-grantees is essentially a network (PESACRE), further networking among
projects or Partners may be advantageous. Relatively spontaneous networking has occurred and has
helped reach beyond target areas, but how institutionalized the networking should become depends
on specific issues and circumstances. As one Partner put it, the networks are like ìmegaphonesî that
make government and business listen to otherwise isolated voices.
25
4.3 Assessment
Of the six mechanisms analyzed above, trainingís vast and traceable impact continues to grow. The
impacts of IEC and advocacy have enormous potential and should probably be conducted more
deliberately rather than being left to each project to do in isolation and in its own way.
The Program appears to contribute most directly to biodiversity conservation in the Atlantic Forest,
which faces immediate threats of species and ecosystem extinction. In the Amazon, the Program
contributes to biodiversity conservation in the long run, since protected areas, such as Serra do
Divisor and Ja˙, are currently under little pressure.
Contributions to biodiversity conservation in both these biomes generally depend on direct
conservation efforts involving protected areas. Promotion of alternative land uses has not been as
successful; agro-forestry systems are essentially experimental and have yet to be proven as a viable
alternative over the long term. Reduced-impact forest management, however, has been shown to be
better than conventional logging, as reflected by an increasing number of operations being certified
according to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards, but requires dissemination to ensure its
continued adoption in the Amazon.
The Program offers possibilities for a reduction of Brazilís carbon emissions through the control of
fire over thousands of square kilometers. Although this activity was not foreseen in the original
Global Climate Change (GCC) Program design, a large reduction in accidental fires between 1999
and 2000 occurred because of the Programís explicit and direct monitoring and control efforts.
An ecosystem approach to planning, which includes attention to biodiversity conservation and
integrated management of the hydrological regime, would also be in the national interest. The
Program has focused most of its efforts on biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Some
partners have extended their work to water resources management (Conservation International has
worked in the Pantanal wetlands and IPAM has worked with hydrological cycles in the Amazon).
However, partners have not explored extensively the interrelations among water, biodiversity, and
carbon sequestration. This, as well as issues surrounding international waters, desertification, and
work with the private sector, may be the major gaps that the future strategy must address.
26
5. USAID/Brazilís Comparative Advantage
Because of its unique history, USAID/Brazil has enjoyed relative freedom in the allocation of its
resources and has exercised this freedom in funding a talented, committed and successful set of
partners and projects, which has allowed a wide range of interests to be included in the Missionís
ìfamily.î This is but one of the many comparative advantages and special strengths of USAID/Brazil
that should be considered in the overall context of Brazilian society and to the overall panorama of
other donors and their interests, experience, and expertise. If the Mission has a clear sense of these
comparative advantages, the more consciously and strategically it can position itself within these
contexts, communicate this focus to its community of partners, and receive proposals that share this
focus.
The following are the comparative advantages heard most frequently from USAID/Brazil partners:
5.1 The Importance of Integration of Conservation and Development
Major international donors have contributed generous funding for several areas, including
biodiversity assessment, large-scale physical/chemical/climatological research (satellite imaging,
mapping, carbon storage and flux, etc.), as well as the purchase and protection of land for
conservation units. While these are important areas of research and conservation, USAIDís Program
stands out in recognizing that secure, long-term biodiversity conservation and deforestation reduction
depend on the participation and support of the Brazilian people and that successful conservation and
development require interdependent activities. When these facts are ignored, Brazilians can perceive
biodiversity and forest conservation as a negative agenda, fueled by ëeco-imperialism.í When public
participation and interdependence are resepcted, however, conservation can gain its necessary
constituency.
5.2 Long-term Interest and Experience in Working with Civil Society
USAID/Brazilís support for NGOs began partly as a consequence of the absence of a bilateral accord
with the Government of Brazil. This is a particularly fruitful association, because it is precisely
among the environmental NGOs that the relationships between societies and their environments are
now being understood. NGOs in Brazil now play seminal roles, together with the press and other
media, in the transition from the institutional and cultural habits of years of military government
towards a truly participatory democracy. NGOs are among the most organized groups in civil society
and have working relations with a range of other civil organizations. They also have flexible
positioning vis a vis the federal ministries and private corporations. While NGOs have been
essentially outside the official structure and, therefore, able to observe and critique the actions of the
27
most powerful of groups, the versatile composition of their staffs (drawn from and maintaining
contacts with academia, government and the private sector) allows them to contribute to their own
growing awareness of ecological and social realities.
5.3 Working with Communities and Long-term Projects
Site-based sustainable development projects include those which have worked with associations of
producers (e.g., projects in agro-forestry and organic production of PESACRE in Acre, of IPAM in
Par·, and of the Institute for Social and Environmental Studies of Southern Bahia [IESB]); with
municipalities as communities with common concerns (e.g., PROTEGER fire prevention); in
ecotourism (IESB); in areas adjacent to protected areas (FVA) and in biological corridors (CI in the
Atlantic Forest, Cerrado, and Pantanal). In each case, attention is focused on local realities and social
contexts and on ways local actors can help find solutions. USAID/Brazilís Missionís partners have
learned that a project can achieve greater impact if it works with already existing local social
organizations.
The Missionís NGO partners have worked successfully with local community organizations in rural
areas, including trade unions, cooperatives, associations, and church groups. This has been
strategically effective, since pre-existing local organizations facilitate land tenure rights and credit,
both of which are necessary to develop alternative production strategies. These organizations also
provide built-in networks to disseminate promising production practices and offer economies of
scale for the processing, transportation, and commercialization of products. NGOs at national and
regional levels have recognized the advantages of working with community organizations and
modified their approaches to maximize collaboration with them. Participatory research approaches
have become standard practice for several NGOs (e.g., PESACRE, IPAM, IESB). When combined
with a long-term working relationship with community organizations, these approaches provide a
number of benefits, like incorporation of social realities in the agenda of researchers in agro-ecology;
greater trust and credibility regarding NGO knowledge, and, therefore, greater willingness to
incorporate insights and elements of practice; and empowerment of producers as fellow researchers.
This attention to local, on-the-ground realities gives the Missionís partners a comparative advantage
in attending to the potential gaps between rhetoric/laws/rules and Program goals, on the one hand,
and actual on-the-ground practices and impacts, on the other.
5.4 Flexibility, Creativity, Responsiveness, and Mobilization
The Missionís ability to respond to events rapidly and creatively comes from its own rich network
of contacts in all sectors, both in Brazil and the U.S.; from the absence of onerous bureaucratic
requirements; and from its long-term support for Brazilian NGOs, who enjoy a certain autonomy of
action and resourceful membership with cross-cutting contacts and lateral links. This rapid, creative
28
mobilization was revealed most successfully in response to the massive outbreaks of fires in the
Amazon in 1998 in the form of USAID/Brazil funding of GTA and in its project PROTEGER.
PROTEGERís content was inspired by IPAMís work in the Del Rei community in Paragominas.
Working on an agro-forestry project, staff soon learned from conversations with farmers of the
critical problem of accidental fires. In response, they developed a participatory approach to fire
prevention and combat based on community meetings, diagnostics, negotiation, and grassroots
consensus building. For its structure, PROTEGER utilized the GTA, a network of some 400
community organizations in the Amazon. Using both the community techniques in fire-prevention
and fire fighting and the community participatory approach learned by IPAM, PROTEGER was
considered quite effective. New projects under the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain
Forest often take years to negotiate, as they depend on the complex bureaucracies of governments,
international funding institutions, and other bilateral donors. USAID/Brazil Missionís flexibility and
contacts allowed channeling funds to PROTEGER in a remarkably short time.
5.5 Experience in Implementing Education, Training, and Capacity￾Building Projects
Contributing to the Programís success is that
some projects deal directly with
environmental problems and others help build
a critical mass of people and institutions with
a range of cross-cutting abilities (e.g.,
scientific, managerial, and fiscal). This
advantage clearly relates both to the Missionís
recognition of the critical role of people in
meeting global environmental challenges and
to its flexible engagement and articulation
with all sectors of society. Mission-supported
projects have covered a wide range of topics
and clientele (see box).
A common element in the most successful of
these programs is that they tap the expertise
and interests of a number of social sectors,
including government ministries, businesses,
academia, pre-university education, and rural
producers and land-managers.
Mission-Supported Projects
Environmental education in public elementary
schoolsóManaus, BelÈm, SantarÈm and Marab·
Masterís and doctorate researchó SUNY and
WWF
Mid-career professional training in various fields:

 Private and public land managersóTFFís 14
courses in reduced-impact logging

 Civil service personnel in several ministriesó
University of Florida (UF)/PESACRE/University
of Acreís courses in both agro-forestry and the
methodology of participatory research

 Researchers and managers of forest
biodiversityóSmithsonian/Organization for
Tropical Studies (OTS) courses in Forest
Ecology

 NGO managersóWWFís courses and
workshops in organizational development,
including fund-raising, bookkeeping, and conflict
management
29
5.6 Successful Operation at Many Scales
Many partners indicate an increasing interest in working at a larger scale, beyond the site-based pilot
project and towards impacts on commercialization, legislation, education at various levels, the
private sector, and the media. Two main concerns influence any scale-of-effort increase while
maintaining the best aspects of a site-based, community-level, pilot-project tradition. One regards
incorporating sustainable development models based on local NGO pilot projects into government
programs and incorporating sustainable development practices into large-scale private sector efforts.
The other concern is that, while government programs receive funding critical for replicating models
at the scale of a state or even the nation, on-the-ground monitoring will require attention. For
example, powerful interests (government, NGO, commercial, and consumer) want forest production
method certification to proceed rapidly. USAID/Brazil partners have the skills, resources, and
neutrality to certify and monitor the production practices on a broader scale.
30
6. Recommendations
6.1 Rationale and Framework for Discussion
This report represents an early stage in the effort to build a sound strategy to guide USAID/Brazilís
Environment Program between 2003 and 2007. The assessment reviewed the Programís impacts and
offers a description of selected gaps and opportunities for USAID/Brazil to consider as it continues
to evolve its strategy.
Several strategic recommendations consider the current context of the Brazilian economy,
government, and society and on the global need to reduce biodiversity loss and slow climate change.
These recommendations reflect USAID/Brazilís experience and comparative advantages and are
based on recognition of the specific differences among Brazilís major biomes, the environmental
services they provide, and the major threats to their integrity. The recommendations fall into three
broad setsóthematic, geographic, and structuralóand build on the Environment Programís current
strengths, extend them into other areas of critical need, and look to improve the Programís already
strong coherence and efficacy.
6.1.1 Program Successes
The Program has done an excellent job in fulfilling its mandates to work on the global issues of
biodiversity conservation and the mitigation of global climate change. The partnership model seems
to work well and appears cost effective.
The Program has used these successes to work on some of Brazilís more important social and
economic issues. For example it has slowed unwanted migration while strengthening settlements,
reduced fire losses, disseminated valuable forest management practices, and improved natural
resource management policy. In addition, the Program has trained experts and lay people in
environmental management, and activities have generated a ìripple effectî so that the Programís
products are now used or accepted outside of the original target areas.
6.1.2 Gaps and Opportunities
Several gaps and opportunities for future strategy development were identified and converted into
a series of thematic, geographical, and programmatic recommendations. Although the Team did not
perform an analysis to set priorities on these recommendations, selected suggestions may help to set
priorities.
31
Thematic recommendations. The current priority could remain fulfillment of Agency Objective 5.1
(ìThreat of global climate change reducedî) and Agency Objective 5.2 (ìBiological diversity
conservedî). However, work on alleviating desertification and the problems created by different
demands on international waters (e.g., Hydrovia watershed) and their catchments are important and
justified.
Institutional memory of the procedures and history of the USAID/Brazil Environment Program
should be maintained. No ìgraduationî of Partners or grantees is called for at this time.
USAID should engage the private sector. Brazilís development will continue to pursue economic
growth, and the private sector will increase in importance. Examples of opportunities include the
following:

 Developing conservation corridors and private conservation areas, with less emphasis on
establishing new national parks.

 Engaging the private sector in best practices for forestry and ranching, with less emphasis on
the establishing and consolidating settlements, except perhaps developing produce markets
for already established settlements.

 Disseminating reduced-impact logging practices, with more effort spent on training and
extension and less on research.

 Extending the sustainable forest management best practices, including reduced impact
logging and training.
Geographic recommendations. The Amazon remains a high priority because it supports USAIDís
Environment Program in biodiversity (AO 5.1) and GCC (AO 5.2). A geographic priority would be
as follows: 1) Amazon, 2) Cerrado, 3) Patanal, 4) Caatinga, and 5) Atlantic Forest.
Programmatic recommendations. The different problems of environmental quality facing Brazil
call for different strategies. Both the Amazon and Cerrado biomes must be developed according to
sustainable land use practices that conserve the regionsí natural resources. The extensive, long-term
challenges to protect and develop these ecosystems require a delicate balance between the demands
and pressures of local poverty, a global economy, and the conservation of tropical forests.
Special strategies need to be developed to meet the conservation objectives and protect the rights of
individuals. In the Caatinga, methods must be developed to interrupt the advance of deserts and meet
the needs of the poorest of the population. Further, only a low percentage of the territory is
conserved, sustainable land use strategies must be promoted among private landholders to make
32
them active participants so that the objectives of both conservation and development are met, and
the fruits of the effort are well distributed.
When the Program was working primarily with community-level demonstration projects, it was
appropriate for it to consider impacts beyond target areas. However, in the case of public policy and
other areas, targets have become broader and should be institutionalized so that target areas are not
isolated points, but rather more systemic objectives. Evidence shows that the Program can influence
millions of people over many square kilometers and leverage the use of billions of dollars at the
national level. At the same time, community-level work should not be abandonedóadvocacy and
dissemination can be done best if the Program keeps its feet on the ground and works locally, as
well.
6.2 Thematic Recommendations
6.2.1 Support Intensification of Agricultural Production
Much of the Amazonís forest degradation can be attributed to the dynamics of extensive land-use
that increases areas with low productivity by destroying mature forest. The most important efforts
to protect wildland areas and their particularly rich biodiversity, therefore, involve maximizing land￾use intensification in areas that have already suffered forest degradation. Such techniques are
available and include the insights, crops, and trees of traditional indigenous and cabolco land-use,
as well as insights and methods derived from scientific research. Still, four major activities could
require greater attention on the part of the Mission:
The incorporation of more field crops and livestock into agro-forestry. Field crops and livestock
are integral parts of production strategies of the many rural households along the edge of the mature
forests. Additionally, there is a strong cultural and economic tilt towards cattle raising by both small
and large landholders. Given the large areas of the Amazon in degraded pasture, a critical need exists
for research and extension to incorporate additional crops and livestock in management schemes
throughout areas that are being degraded.
A reduction of the spread of accidental fires and the use of fire as a management tool. Fire
remains the least expensive and fastest way to clear land, to control weeds, and to give a nutrient
boost to soils. Since the practice will not be abandoned as a management tool in the foreseeable
future, a number of research projects to reduce the accidental escape of fire as well as to use fire
correctly are underway and require further validation and extension. The Mission and its Partners
could help to organize and fund these efforts.
Facilitation of land tenure security. Insecure land tenure also encourages deforestation. Unclear
plot boundaries, contradictory and fraudulent titles, distant bureaucratic mazes, and naked
33
intimidation have forced families to move on to ìnewî areas. Without security of tenure, producers
simply have no reason to be concerned about a piece of landís future productive capacity. Many rural
associations and cooperatives began as community organizations in the struggle to secure land rights,
and Program partners assisted in these efforts. Capacity building in cadastral surveys and land tenure
law, as well as practical training to facilitate movement through the various bureaucratic mazes,
could help frontier families gain secure land title.
Reinforcement of extension services. USAID/Brazilís partners most frequently express the critical
need for extension services. Despite the last decadeís changes in production basis along with the
realities and challenges of smallholder production, the Amazon has only two percent of the countryís
scientists. Moreover, EMBRATER, the federal agricultural extension agency, has been dismantled,
and research needs a new orientation. On a positive note, the Ministry of Science and Technology
has invited civil society to present its research priorities, and partners should take this invitation
seriously. The Mission should encourage research decentralization and help make findings more
broadly accessible, disseminating them beyond in-house reports and academic journals.
6.2.2 Facilitate Incentives for Sustainable Production and for the Development of
Commercialization Chains
Several programs offer incentives in the form of subsidies for sustainable production (rubber
production, agroforestry) from governments and NGOs. Sustainable production deserves targeted
incentives at least for the short and mid-term. For example, most of the rural producers depend on
market sales-generated cash. Often, sustainable techniques require up-front investments to generate
returns in the future, e.g., planting trees and nitrogen-fixing cover crops, composting, stall-fed
livestock, and systematic manure application.
Several parts of the Missionís Program could support viable commercialization chains. In addition
to having access to U.S. expertise in processing technology, sanitation, quality control, market
analysis, business planning, and advertising, the Mission could do the following:
Support credit and investment for rural families. Sustainable production systems often require
greater labor per unit area than non-sustainable systems. Both public and private lenders indicate
growing interest in providing credit to projects and small producers for sustainable development.
However, if credit is not linked to effective extension, efficient marketing systems, and independent
monitoring of production practices, it will only increase smallholder debt, leading to eventual
foreclosures, further concentration of land in the hands of large landholders, and further expansion
of extensive land-use practices.
Support efforts to improve settlement projects. A similar recommendation is to support present
and future settlement projects. Despite years of disappointing results regarding planned settlement,
34
a strong interest among both the rural and urban poor for such projects remains. Present and future
settlement projects must learn from past mistakes, and EMBRAPA-Acre is now training staff from
the National Institute of Resettlement and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) in other states of the Amazon
to include more complete analysis in the selection of sites and settlers and to provide appropriate
extension services. The Mission should support programs to link settlement projects with extension
in sustainable production practices and in commercialization strategies.
6.2.3 Build Bridges to Link Urban and Rural Environmental Management Priorities
Public opinion between northern and southern Brazil differs in that the South expresses strong ideas
concerning conservation and protection of the Amazon, while the North expresses values favoring
maximum economic and employment benefits from development of the Amazon. The Mission
should work to develop links between these different priorities because any successful effort to
conserve the Amazon Basin must have the support of a critical mass of the Brazilian society,
government, and business community. Further, foreign-funded efforts cannot be perceived as running
counter to Brazilian priorities.
Given the overwhelmingly urban nature of the Brazilian society, priorities should link efforts to
reduce deforestation with efforts to increase employment and economic security in urban areas. Four
potential bridges offer promise:

 Develop industries in regional mid-size cities to process and package rural products for
regional, national and international markets;

 Increase benefits to regional mid-size cities from ecotourism and research on biodiversity and
global climate change;

 Increase the variety and marketing of goods produced in a regionís rural areas to its urban
consumers; and

 Improve access to clean water for urban consumption via watershed protection.
6.2.4 Build Bridges between Technology and Good Governance
Brazil has a rigorous body of environmental regulations although little is known about their
effectiveness. USAID/Brazil has a comparative advantage in combining technology with good
governance, and a valuable example of this is SIVAMóthe satellite-based system that will soon
monitor a variety of useful parameters for enforcing environmental regulations. Originally conceived
to monitor and control potential military threats over vast areas, it now will be used to monitor and
evaluate natural resources, analyze environmental damage, and support planning activities.
35
6.2.5 Increase Efforts to Certify Forest Operations and Establish Effective Production
Forests
The lack of effective governmental monitoring and enforcement regarding logging operations creates
incentives for illegal activities and adversely affects deforestation dynamics. National and
international support is growing for the view that independent certification of production forestry
could help mitigate deforestation and even strengthen forest conservation through improved
production systems. Many Brazilian timber buyers and forest products manufacturers agree, and
Brazil is actively developing national forest certification standards within the FSC framework to help
improve forest management sustainability. Brazilís large domestic market consumes 86 percent of
Amazon timber production, leaving only a modest export market for Brazilian forest products.
Therefore, promotion of certified timber should concentrate on the Brazilian urban population.
The Mission, in collaboration with the Tropical Forest Foundation and the USDA Forest Service,
WWF, and IMAZON, has made significant contributions toward improving the quality of
production-oriented forest management, mainly through training and demonstration efforts focusing
on reduced-impact harvesting. While a certification process involves a number of principles and
criteria covering ecological, social, and economic aspects of forest management, controlling the
environmental impacts of logging is an essential component of the process. This is particularly true
in natural tropical forests, where most of the damage is caused by the activities of the logging
operation itself (e.g., poor road and skid trail construction, over-cutting, careless felling and
skidding).
The Mission should continue to support research, demonstration, and training on reduced-impact
harvesting, build on the experience gained over the past several years, and continue to assist in
developing the planning tools and harvesting standards to include in certification programs for the
natural forests of Brazil. Additionally, based on its experience in community-based forest
management, (e.g., through the Paragominas Project) the Mission can also assist in developing
technical standards for the certification of small producers under the ìGroup Certificationî concept.
6.2.6 Engage the Private Sector
One of the few weaknesses of the approach taken by the Program and its partners is that their focus
on smallholder production challenges has meant a lack of engagement with the economically
powerful in both rural and urban areas. The private sector can be a critically important ally to
conservation and to the other aspects of sustainable development.15 Vast tracts of land throughout
Brazil are in the hands of private citizens and corporations that can affect land-use directly through
 
15 Appendix 7 contains a matrix describing a number of private sector environmental actions.
36
their own land-use decisions, and indirectly, through their participation in, or resistance to, projects
to settle such areas. Many of the largest landowners are also connected to regional industries and
commercial centers. Consequently, their cooperation is critical to efforts to conserve biodiversity,
reduce the threat of global climate change, and market sustainably produced goods from both large
and small producers. Given the critical shortage of capital, equipment, and managerial and
entrepreneurial expertise in much of the rural North, their participation in sustainable development
is an absolute necessity.
Many of the economically powerful elite in the Northís rural areas also dominate municipal and state
governments. As such, their attitudes towards settlement programs, environmental regulations and
enforcement, and large-scale development projects are critically important. The elite are more likely
to support conservation and resources management efforts if they see greater economic and other
benefits for their own enterprises as a result. The Mission should support projects that increase the
possibilities for mutual benefit: 1) the private sector can be appealed to for donations to support
NGOs or to support the purchase of protected areas; 2) it can be appealed to for political support of
conservation initiatives or to resist environmentally destructive projects; and 3) it can be made aware
of the close relationship between high rates of material consumption and environmental degradation.
Likewise, the private sector can sponsor projects and participate as a research partner in the study
and analysis of productionñdistribution systems and as an incubator of sustainable and socially aware
enterprises. The private sector can also be a patron of environmental campaigns and link itself to
environmental causes. Finally, it can provide expertise in a variety of established areas of knowledge,
and it can co-promote sustainably-produced goods, certification, and labeling.
The Mission and its partners should acknowledge that the large economic development projects are
related to national integration and imply that the region will be both settled and economically linked
with the rest of the country and the world with the inevitable participation of the private sector.
Sustainable production systems in forestry, agriculture, livestock, and fisheries should be presented
to the most powerful economic and political actors and to the general public as viable and supportive
means to these ends.
6.2.7 Monitor Major Infrastructure Projects That Can Bring About Significant
Environmental Change
Despite Brazilís many conservation and sustainable development projects implemented over the past
decades, the future of biodiversity and carbon sequestration may ultimately depend on how plans for
large economic development projects materialize. Campaigns against such projects would be unwise
without the existence of convincing, substantive, realistic, and attractive alternative development
models. Thus, efforts should not only assist the spread of good practices, but also entail evaluation
37
of their environmental, economic, and social impacts, along with wide dissemination of evaluation
findings.
6.2.8 Improve Monitoring of Best Practices and Sustainable Production Systems
Quantitative data on sustainable production systems supported by the Program and its partners
should be systematically gathered. For instance, Acre lacks records of yields or income in the five
agro-forestry communities visited. First, the collection of actual yields and incomes by area and
product, as well as ongoing impacts on a range of ecosystem and social variables, is essentialó
scientists and NGOs require such data to identify weak links in these systems and to guide further
research and project design. Second, NGOs, extension agents, and producers need information about
particularly successful production systems so that they can make recommendations to other
stakeholders. For example, considerable progress has been made in the collection and organization
of quantitative forest management information. Third, data will be required by any attempt to certify
or label a product as sustainably produced.
6.3 Geographic Recommendations
With some notable exceptions, international donors over the last ten to 15 years have focused their
environmental programs on the problems and potential of the forests of the Amazon Basin. Recently,
however, many NGOs and governments have seen that other biomes in Brazil are equally important
for meeting the goals and objectives of a globally relevant environmental program. The Assessment
Team, therefore, offers the following recommendations for consideration by the USAID/Brazil
Environment Program:
6.3.1 The Program Should Maintain Its Primary Focus in the Amazon
The size of the region, its importance for biodiversity conservation, and for slowing climate change,
together with the continuing public and private efforts to mount major infrastructure and agriculture
projects in the region, all argue that this focus be maintained. Furthermore, several of the Missionís
comparative advantages have special importance in the Amazon Basin because of the differences
between formal law and actual practice and the need for exchanging ideas in promoting technology
transfer based on applied research results. Additionally, differences in opinion on environmental
issues between the urban majority and the rural minority, as well as between the countryís northern
and southern regions, require the Mission and its Partners to help integrate social and environmental
concerns and processes. The Mission and its partners have extensive experience with community
organizations and their broadly based staffs and contacts with scientists, government officials,
ranchers, loggers, and small farmersóall of which argue for maintenance of the Amazon portion of
the Program.
38
6.3.2 The Program Should Begin Work in Other Important Biomes of Brazil
Brazil has vast natural ecosystems in addition to the Amazon, and two of them, the Cerrado and the
Atlantic Forest, are among the 25 most threatened ecosystems in the world. Further, the Pantanal lays
claim to being the earthís largest wetland system, and the Caatinga is Brazilís focal point in the
international effort to halt desertification. USAID/Brazil Environment Programís reasons to
strengthen its activities in these biomes include the need to reinforce the few underfunded and
understaffed efforts now underway in these areas and to take advantage of the new, relevant lessons
that can be learned by working in these places. Comparative advantages of the Mission for work in
all of these biomes include its experience with local groups, producers, scientists, and extensionists;
its ability to leverage funding from other sources; and its contacts in the US and Brazilian academia,
government, and the private sector. In priority order, entry is recommended in the Cerrado, the
Pantanal, the Caatinga, and the Atlantic Forest.

 The Cerrado. In Brazil, the Cerrado is second only to the Amazon forest in terms of its
contribution to the two global environmental services identified as the current Agency
Objectives (i.e., threat of global climate change reduced and biodiversity conserved). In
addition, over 90 percent of Brazilians get a portion of their electrical energy from waters
that drain from this biome, and irrigated agriculture has become an important, if conflictive,
alternative use for the lands and waters of the Cerrado.
Of the Missionís current partners, Conservation International has been working to develop
a biological corridor to connect the Cerrado with the Pantanal and, eventually, with the
Caatinga in Tocantins. Several strategies used by other of the partners in the Amazon would
be appropriate in the Cerrado, for example, efforts to reduce the rate of land conversion by
stabilization of existing producers, intensification of sustainable production systems, and
lowering the rate and extent of accidental fires.
Further, the critical needs in this biome would allow the Mission to move in important but
relatively undeveloped directions. For instance, the development of agricultural systems that
require less water, less pesticides and fertilizers, and maintain more groundcover, would help
to stem the degradation and depletion of aquatic diversity and other freshwater resources.

 Pantanal. The Pantanal, another unique biome rich in biodiversity, is threatened by planned
and existing infrastructure projects. Its biomass is enormous and includes that held beneath
the waters. The carbon sequestration capacity of this system and its biodiversity are
threatened by drainage, polders, and canals, which would dry out large areas if built. As
mentioned in section two, the Pantanal also provides other critical environmental services
of international scale, primarily the control of water flows through the Paraguay and Paran·
river systems.
39
The land ownership pattern is quite different from that of the Amazon, although similar to
that elsewhere in Brazil. It is almost entirely private and has only two officially recognized
conservation units. Over much of the biome, private, deeded land of moderate size ranches
has been held in the same families for generations. For conservation to claim a significant
place and help meet the Environment Programís overall objectives, it must move outside the
gates of the protected areas and convince private landowners of its value. The landowners
in the Pantanal may be more amenable to adopting conservation practices. Approaches
developed while working there (e.g., conservation easements) could be a stepping-stone to
working with private landowners elsewhere.

 Caatinga. The Caatinga is home to some 20,000 species of plants, many of them endemic
to this biome. While its contribution to climate change amelioration is less than that of the
Amazon forests or the Cerrado, its living biomass is also increasingly threatened by land
clearing. Not unrelated to this high level of land clearing is the fact that the Caatinga has the
most polarized landholding system in all of rural Brazil, comprising latifundios and
minifundios with little in between. This land ownership structure creates the social conditions
which, together with the arid characteristics of the biome, lay a base for its increased
desertification.
With only one-third of the average annual rainfall of the Cerrado, the Caatinga suffers severe
droughts, and these seem to have increased in both length and frequency. As a result, in the
past 15 years, some 40,000 km2
 of the Caatinga have become increasingly desertified,
threatening efforts to conserve its biodiversity and to improve social justice.
The October 2000 U.S. Senate ratification of the International Convention for the Control
of Desertification, along with substantial experience of U.S. institutions (including USAID)
in the evaluation and remediation of aridity, favor the Missionís movement into this biome.
Worthwhile efforts would include testing and extension of agricultural production and
household systems that use minimal amounts of water; techniques to reduce evaporation
from irrigation projects; and the development of agro-silvo-pastoral systems that incorporate
native trees, improved pasture, and adapted perennial crops. Support to integrated water
resource planning would also be of value given plans to divert major rivers into the biome.

 Atlantic Forest. The Atlantic Forest has the smallest remaining portion of its original area,
and its value and vulnerability is receiving much local attention. The biome enjoys proximity
to the greatest concentrations of highly educated people, scientific institutions, and media,
and it receives the most intense pressure from urbanization. Despite its greatly reduced size,
its biodiversity is enormous and globally significant. Conservation Internationalís strategy
to preserve this biodiversity focuses on ëconnectivityí among the scattered remnants of forest
through working with private landowners. Landowners must sign a legal agreement
40
prohibiting land uses other than conservation (which includes ecotourism) in these areas for
perpetuity. In return, IBAMA promises to provide personnel to monitor and protect these
properties, although it has not done so.
Thus, there are several critical needs: research on a range of potentially sustainable land-uses
and their impacts; the development of the highest possible standards for any enterprise to be
labeled ecotourism, and the development of local capability for consistent monitoring of
these enterprises and their actual impacts.
6.4 Programmatic Recommendations
In general, the USAID/Brazil Environment Program and its implementation by the Mission and its
partners has been widely successful. Many of the recommendations in this section may go against
the rule that says, ìIf it ainít broke, donít fix it.î Nevertheless, the Assessment Team did become
aware of a few areas of the Program and its execution that could be improved with slight
adjustments.
6.4.1 Request Proposals from the Partners
The Mission might consider presenting calls for proposals to the NGO community on themes that
support its strategic goals, such as fire, sustainable land use, protected area management, and
sustainable forest management. Such a competitive process would give the Mission greater control
in shaping its program strategies and in influencing the projects and programs of its partners.
6.4.2 Support Critical Cross-Cutting Programs
To improve both the coherence and the effectiveness of the Program, the Team suggests that the
Mission build on its experience with cross-cutting programs (e.g., capacity-building of Natureza e
Sociedade) in the following directions:

 Capacity building for NGOs and local communities. Although the citizens of Brazil are
sympathetic to environmental and social causes, private funds donated to NGOs are still not
a common practice, and the majority of local community organizations have limited
resources. Therefore, the Mission should continue to fund capacity-building programs. These
should improve institutional and individual skills and should include training in strategic
planning, accounting, report preparation, fund raising, conflict management, networking,
evaluations, and extension methods.

 Independent project monitoring. The Mission has several important reasons to evaluate
the Programís impact independently. The impartial collection of quantitative data should be
41
an integral part of every sustainable development and conservation project. These data
should include information on biodiversity, soil analysis, tree cover, biomass, economic
yields, prices, and gross and net incomes for individual producers and groups. Social
variables, such as length of residence, continuity of settlement, conflicts and their solution,
and the kind and amount of participation by the younger generation should also be looked
at.
Two recommendations concerning independent monitoring include: 1) the Mission should
offer workshops for all partners in monitoring methods to include simple mapping and record
keeping (e.g., work diaries, yields, costs of inputs, and gross and net income); and 2) the
Mission could fund a particular NGO whose sole responsibility would be to monitor the
impacts of granteesí projects.

 Dissemination of information. All Mission projects should have clear mechanisms for 1)
internal communication regarding problems, strategies, and coordination among partners;
and 2) dissemination of achievements and lessons learned to broader audiences. These
mechanisms should consider the validation and systematization of data, the identification of
the various key audiences, and the most appropriate means to reach them, including training
and materials. Successful dissemination mechanisms, usually defined by concrete situations
rather than generically, focus on specific themes and audiences, such as manuals on specific
practices or targeted workshops.
6.4.3 Adjustments to the Agency Objectives (AO) of the SO1 Framework
The two agency objectives currently being used (AO 5.1 ìThreat of global climate change reduced,î
and AO 5.2 ì Biological diversity conservedî) have guided the Environment Program for
USAID/Brazil since the mid-1990s. Though certainly still needed, the changing context may also
suggest that additional objectives could be added with no real loss of focus:

 Desertification. The addition of an objective regarding the evaluation and control of
desertification is recommended. In October 2000, the U.S. Senate ratified the International
Convention to Combat Desertification, because the problem of increasing desertification is
recognized as global. Significant opportunities exist for cross-fertilization that could help the
U.S. solve its own desertification problems as well as those of Brazil. Support can come from
U.S. universities in the Southwest that have substantial installed capacity to work on the
problem (e.g., University of Arizona, Texas Tech University, University of New Mexico).
42

 Other environmental security issues. An objective regarding the mitigation of security
threats from conflicts concerning international water should also be added.16 The U.S. has
demonstrated its interest in international waters through its participation in the Global
Environment Facility and through ongoing studies of ìenvironmental security.î Further, it
has shown its understanding of the security issues of international waters through treaties
with its neighbors that regulate international waters shared with Canada and Mexico. Work
on the questions of environmental security and international waters is relevant in the upper
reaches of the Amazon Basin, the Pantanal, and the Paraguay/Paran· River System (e.g.,
Hydrovia). Support can come from U.S. universities and the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), which have considerable experience in modeling hydrologic systems, and U.S.
NGOs with experience in the establishment and management of Peace Parks.
6.4.4 Adjustment to the Strategic Goal of the SO1 Results Framework
The Strategic Goal of the SO1 Framework requires some adjustment to explicitly reflect the
Environment Programís current interest or emphasis in climate change. As it is now, the goal
specifically recognizes the biodiversity protection objective of USAID (AO 5.2) but not the climate
change objective (AO 5.1).17 A clear objective to orient work on desertification and international
waters should also be specifically included in the Goal of the SO1 Results Framework. Work on both
desertification and international waters could be justified on the basis of climate change and
biodiversity objectives. However, they may also be justified on the basis of their own ìglobalî
importance, as indicated in the U.S. ratification of the ìDesertification Treatyî and the interest of the
U.S. Government in ìinternational environmental security.î If these adjustments are made, the
changes should also be expressed more explicitly in the relevant Performance Indicators, most
particularly in community preparedness. Other recommendations concerning Performance Indicators
are to separate ìindigenous reservesî from conservation units, and to rethink the use of ìnumbers
of individuals reachedî as being a representative indicator, since the figures are somewhat artificial
and susceptible to inflation.
Likewise a clarification needs to be made on ìsound land use systems.î The use of the terms
ìsustainableî and ìenvironmentally soundî do not accomplish such clarification unless these terms
themselves are definedónot an easy task. Finally, while attempting to ensure success in the short
run, the new framework should also consider the middle- and long-term impacts.
 
16 Other issues are potential flows of refugees moving from the upper to the lower Amazon resulting from narco-traffic activities,
and clandestine cross-border exploitation of timber and fauna.
17 The Goal states: ìRate of deforestation and land conversion reduced while maximizing biodiversity conservation,î and does
not specifically mention ìclimate change.î (R4 SO1 Results Base Framework: Environment). Deforestation and land conversion
could be interpreted as being important for their influence on any number of phenomena including biodiversity loss, erosion,
sedimentation, flooding, and the loss (or gain) of other system services.
43
Plans and indicators, of course, should be based on actions that have shown convincing results and
that continue to show promise given the problems and potentials of interest to the USAID/Brazil
Environment Program. However, room should be left to take advantage of opportunities not defined
or known in advance. Generally the major difference between a strategy that works and a ìplanî that
does not work has to do with ìflexibility.î Success of the 2003ñ2007 Environment Program Strategy
will require that the strategy be flexible and move beyond the successes of the past. As discussed in
section five, flexibility has been part of the Missionís comparative advantage.
Appendices
An Impact Assessment and Framework for
Discussing the 2003ñ2007 Strategic Plan of
the USAID/Brazil Environment Program
A-26
Appendix 1:
Terms of Reference for the Assessment of
USAID/Brazilís Environmental Program
1.1 Background
Brazil has tremendous importance to the United States. As the worldís tenth largest
economy and a significant trading partner, Brazil has proven itself a dependable
partner in the hemisphere. Brazil is also critical to U.S. citizens because of important
global issues, such as the effects of environmental degradation of Brazilian
rainforests and the associated impacts on Global Climate Change and the loss of
biodiversity and tropical forests.
USAID/Brazil is beginning the process of preparation for the development of a new
strategic plan that is to be submitted in 2002 for the period 2003ñ2007. In the spring
of 2001, the Mission will submit the Resource Request for FY 2003. This R4 needs
to be informed by and will itself inform the development of the new Strategic Plan
(SP) for the Mission. This task order is designed to provide a review and analysis that
will provide a foundation for those efforts.
The overall dollar value of USAIDís program in Brazil is modest relative to other
donorsí investments. However, because of its comparative advantage, USAID is able
to catalyze other efforts and have significant secondary and tertiary effects. USAIDís
advantages include: the ability to design, implement and evaluate programs; the
flexibility and ability to react quickly to new developments; the ability to marshal
local and global expertise with experience in all sectors; and, experience with a wide
array of stakeholders, ranging from indigenous communities to the leaders of
government and industry. In the health sector, USAID has leveraged its efforts by
assisting local and state institutions in the design and management of larger
programs. In environment, the objective has been to improve natural resource
management beyond project boundaries. This has been accomplished by providing
information and models that have been replicated in areas adjacent to project sites
and that have been utilized in the design of other programs, enterprises, regulations
and institutions. Impacts beyond target areas also are facilitated directly through
capacity-building and training programs.
A-26
The majority of the USAID/Brazil program focuses on the environment, and the bulk
of that program is centered on three issues of global environmental concernóforest
and biodiversity loss and global climate change. Brazil has globally important
biodiversity and several ecosystems have been identified as priority areas for
biodiversity conservation in global and regional analyses. These biodiversity-rich,
priority ecosystems include: the Amazon; the Atlantic Coastal Rainforest; the
Pantanal wetlands and the Cerrado (savanna). The Amazon forests form the largest
forested ecosystem left on earth. The importance of the Amazon, not only for
biodiversity but also for global climate change and the hydrologic cycle, should not
be underestimated.
Since the late 1990s, USAID/Brazil has had an environment program which has
focused its attention on the Amazon. The portfolio of projects has primarily consisted
of applied, biophysical research on biodiversity and the forest ecosystem dynamics,
and socio-economic analysis of natural resource management decisions by
communities and individuals that impact on forests and protected areas. The current
Strategic Objective (SO) of the environment program calls for ìenvironmentally and
socio-economically sustainable alternatives for sound land use management adopted
beyond target areas.î However, there has not been a systematic review of the entire
portfolio, its strengths and weaknesses, in relationship to the evolving nature of the
environmental problems, the programís overall impact, and the evolving context of
other donor programs and the societal and governmental context within Brazil. In
light of evolving needs and capabilities, new partnerships and priorities need to be
considered. Beyond the Amazon, there is recognition that there are other globally
important ecosystems in Brazil that deserve attention. These other ecosystems may
offer a greater return on investment as lessons learned over the past decade in the
Amazon may be modified and applied with lower investment costs.
USAID does not have a formal bilateral agreement with the Government of Brazil
(GOB) and implements its activities through: US PVOs and NGOs such as World
Wildlife Fund (WWF), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Conservation International
(CI), Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC), Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF) and
their Brazilian affiliates; USG agencies such as USDA Forest Service and the
Smithsonian Institute; and U.S. academic institutions (University of Florida and State
University of New York ñ SUNY/Albany). As such, USAIDís ability to influence
policy is possible through its ability to provide information and examples, which are
made available and can be utilized by anyone who wishes. Also, there is considerable
A-26
sensitivity by parts of the overnment of Brazil (GOB) to possible U.S.
interventionism, particularly in regard to the Amazon.
The Mission believes that this evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs
ìbeyond target areasî and a strategic analysis of gaps and opportunities is a crucial
first step in the Missionís strategic planning process, which will be fully underway
in 2001ñ2002.
1.2 Title
Mission Strategic Plan PreparationñProgram Impact Evaluation: An analysis of
Impacts, Gaps and Opportunities for USAID/Brazil in addressing Global Issues
1.3 Objective
To provide a review of the effectiveness of the USAID programmatic efforts in the
environment in meeting the Mission Strategic Objectives (SOs) and the Mission
Program Plan (MPP). To conduct an analysis of gaps and opportunities in the sector
to provide a foundation for the review of the Mission Resource Request (spring
2001) and next Strategic Plan (2002).
1.4 Statement of Work (SOW)
The purpose of this SOW is to design a process for and the content of a two-phased
report which USAID/Brazil needs in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of the majority of its programs as one of the first steps in its overall strategic planning
process. In addition, the Mission requires weekly summaries of documents reviewed;
interviews and any preliminary analysis which takes place and upon which the two
documents will based. These documents will provide a basis for preparation of
portions of the R4 submission in spring 2001 and for its SP in 2002.
The first part of the report, an ìassessment of impacts beyond target areas,î will
examine the broad impacts of USAID programs in SO1 in Brazil. This phase will
examine the evolving nature of the issues and threats related to the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity and forest issues. It will also document gaps and
opportunities in the portfolio and the institutional capacity of partners. The first piece
of work will feed into a strategic planning session of an annual environmental
A-26
partnersí meeting, as a point of departure for an overall Mission Strategic Planning
Effort.
The second part of the report, a ìframework for discussion of the strategic plan,î will
build on information in the review to provide a starting point for the discussions of
the new SP. This report will examine the programs of other USG agencies, other
donors, IFIs and the GOB; it will also examine other ecosystems, strategic
approaches, and new potential partners for the USAID/Brazil program.
The report will be based on reviews of existing documents; discussions with USG
employees and representatives of partners; and interviews with other NGOs, donors,
and local and national GOB officials.
1.4.1 The documents should address the following questions:
A) Assessment of impacts beyond target areas
How effective are current programs in target areas?
How effective are current programs in catalyzing change beyond target areas? In
buffer zones and surrounding areas? As models of action supported by other donors?
As models of action by other communities, NGOs, businesses and individuals within
Brazil? As models for the GOB to consider in the formulation of programs, policies
and regulations?
What are the key components or activities, which influenced the impacts beyond,
target areas? What more could have been or should be done to influence impacts
outside target areas?
How sustainable are the programs that USAID is currently funding?
How sustainable are USAID partners and USAID-financed programs in Brazil. Will
currently funded programs continue if USAID chooses not to fund them as part of the
new strategy? Will USAID partners and their counterparts survive in Brazil if USAID
chooses not to implement programs through them in the new strategic plan?
What is the synergy with the energy SO insofar as Global Climate Change?
A-26
B) Framework for discussion of the Strategic Plan
What ecosystems are the conservation and sustainable use priorities in Brazil?
How important are they regionally and globally?
What are the threats to the priority ecosystems? 
What are other donors doing in these ecosystems? Are they adequately addressing the
threats?
What is the GOB doing?
Are there gaps?
Are there opportunities? E.g., are there management or training interventions USAID
might finance which would cause other programs to function better; interventions
that would leverage other sources of funding such as the Development Credit
Authority?
Where does USAID have a comparative advantage in its ability to make a positive
contribution to the global issues of: the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity; and, the mitigation of global climate change effects of deforestation?
 1.4.2 Tasks
i) Review and analysis of existing USAID planning, reporting and assessment
documents e.g., lessons learned, quarterly and annual reports from partners,
reports from mission annual meetings, SP and R4s, and program reviews
(WWF, TNC, PESACRE). (See annex 1 for a complete listing)
ii) Weekly contact with Mission Technical Lead to report on progress towards
results including timeline and allocation of resources and review any
modifications of the work program
iii) Meetings with partners on success and viability of programs and institutions,
successes beyond project borders, and gaps and opportunities for future
programs.
A-26
iv) Field visits and interviews with project participants and ìnon￾partners/participantsî e.g., local officials, community leaders, representatives
of non-participating NGO representatives, academics and businessmen. These
interviews will be used to determine the success and lessons of the programs,
the sustainability or ongoing need for the program, the impacts beyond
project boundaries and gaps and opportunities going forward. Approximately
six trips are envisioned outside of Brasilia; they would include the Pantanal,
Mata Atlantica, and several to the Amazon. Details to be worked out with
Technical Leads.
 v) An analysis of overall effectiveness of ìinfluence on land use decisions
beyond target areas, what has worked what has not and why. 
vi) Review other programmatic efforts (beyond USAID) addressing similar
issues of the loss of forests and biodiversity and global climate change issues,
e.g.,

 USAID/W

 IFIs

 UN Agencies

 Other donors

 Brazilian Government

 NGOs and academic

 Other USG agencies

 Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain forest (PPG-7) member
vii) Consultation and interviews with representatives of other programmatic
actors. Several other donors active in the sector have expressed an interest in
participating in the process (most notably, the U.K.ís Department for
International Development, DfID). Effort should be made to accommodate
their participation. This effort should include an attempt to include them on
field teams and should go beyond the review of documents and interviews
that should be undertaken for most major donors.
A-26
viii) Consultation with national leaders of civil society NGOs and academics. A
list of crucial and recommended contacts will be developed in consultation
with the Technical Leads.
ix) Meeting in Brasilia, arranged by the Contractor, with USAID/Mission reps
and other participants in the field trips from USAID and other donors and
other key personnel designated by the Mission Technical Lead to discuss
preliminary findings before the final reports are drafted.
x) Presentation of the second draft to and discussion with a group of experts
gathered together by the Mission to provide input on the upcoming Strategic
Plan, on or about November 16.
1.5 Reports and Deliverables
The contractor will provide the following specific deliverables in form and substance
acceptable to USAID. (See Section 1.6 Report Presentation for language requirements and
numbers of copies.) An estimated completion date for the presentation of intermediate drafts
and the final report is given in each case. These dates may be adjusted and confirmed by
approval of the final work plan by the Technical Leads.
Product #1 Work Plan
The contractor, and the technical team will work closely with and be supervised by
the Technical Leads from Washington and the Mission, under the overall supervision
of the CTO to produce a detailed workplan for the overall assignment. The work plan
shall include a timeline, for all activities, which will lead to completion of an
approved draft, to the Technical Leads by November 13. This will provide the basis
for a Mission discussion with environmental leaders identified, which the contractor
team leader will attend and present a draft report to (see task x above). The timeline
will include the dates and schedules for presentation, of each product, team member
participation in the preparation of products and appropriate refinements which must
be agreed to by technical leads concerning the content, format and presentation of
products 3ñ6 below. It will also include a tentative schedule for field trips and
interviews and review meetings. (See 1.4.2 Tasks, above). The work plan will also
include a refined budget for allocation of resources and identify the personnel for
each position. All personnel must be approved by the Technical Leads. The
contractor shall also work with other counterparts including other key USAID/Brazil
A-26
personnel, non-contractor members of the team, and key contacts suggested by the
Technical Leads, as appropriate. Work plan will be discussed weekly by the team
leader and the Mission Technical Lead, as described in task 1.4.2 ii, above. Activities
and changes to the work plan may be approved by either technical lead. A record of
all such changes will be given in writing to both technical leads and the CTO.
Product #2 Weekly summaries of documents reviewed, interviews and analysis
to the Mission Technical Lead.
Product #3 Fortnightly reports, to the Technical Leads, on progress towards
completion and work plan implementation, including allocation of
resources and timeline.
Product #4 Assessment of impacts beyond target areas
Phase One of a report covering the effectiveness of USAID programs beyond target
areas (approximately 20 pages + annexes.) Review of the G-7 Pilot Program to
Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest (PPG-7) project should not be included the
review of USAID programs. However, the results of an on-going Mid Term Review
of the PPG-7 should be taken into account for the purposes of this Evaluation. Phase
one, of the report, should address the Questions listed above in Section 1.4.1 (A)
Assessment of impacts beyond target areas. It should be organized to include the
following sections:

 Executive summary,

 What has worked,

 What has not worked,

 Analysis,

 Gaps and opportunities suggested by the current program portfolio, and

 Conclusions.
Product #5 Framework for discussion of the Strategic Plan
Phase two of the report should be an annotated framework of possible directions and
components of a future Brazil Mission Strategy to address global environmental
issues and natural resources management (Approximately 20 pages + annexes.) The
A-26
report should address the questions listed above in Section 1.4.1 (B) Framework for
discussion of the Strategic Plan. It should be organized to include the following
sections:

 Executive summary;

 The importance of Brazilian ecosystems for Global issues, especially biodiversity,
climate change and tropical forest conservation and sustainable use;

 What are other donors doing;

 What is the Brazilian Government doing;

 Comparative advantages of USAID;

 Opportunities for programs with multiplier effects, which catalyse other efforts
or which have an impact beyond target areas; and

 Conclusions.
Product #6 Donor coordination matrix
Prepare a matrix of current and planned assistance of other donors in the environment
based on ecosystem and activity type and with funding amounts and dates included.
To be included as an annex to work product #5.
1.6 Report Approval and Presentation
Products 1, 2, 3 and 6 are necessary only in English.
For Products 4, 5 and 6, draft copies should be available to the Technical Leads, for
comments and recommendations, two weeks following the completion of field work
and the meeting described above in Section 1.4.2 ix.
Products 4 and 5 should include a Portuguese translation of the executive Summary,
starting with the second draft.
A second draft, suitable for distribution and discussion, of Products 4, 5 and 6 will
be consolidated and 200 copies and a diskette of the entire document will be
delivered to the Mission by November 13.
A-26
The final draft of products 4, 5 and 6 should incorporate input gained in the Mission
arranged ìexperts strategic discussionî to be held in Mid November (see 1.4.2 (x)
above).
The final draft will be required Two weeks after approval of the final draft by the
Mission.
 1.7 Technical Direction
Technical directions during the performance of this task order shall be provided by
the Technical Leads, John Matuszak, G/ENV and Eric Stoner, Mission/Brasilia, in
cooperation with Kim Sais, the G/ENV CTO.
Technical Leads will supervise field reports, visits, and writing. USAID Environment
team with selected participation from USAID/W, G/ENV, LAC/RSD and PPC will
assist as appropriate as members of the team. Representatives of other donors,
designated by the Technical Leads may also participate in the team based upon their
availability. In addition, both of these groups and any other key personnel identified
by the Technical Leads may participate in the field review session at the end of the
fieldwork, which is described in 1.4.2 ix, above.
1.8 Terms of Performance
The work will commence on the date noted in Block 7 of the cover page., on or about
Aug 28. Completion of the Final product is targeted for January 2000. The draft
reports are time sensitive and must be completed in time for the Experts Meeting
being arranged by the Mission in mid-November.
1.9 Personnel and workdays ordered
See annex 3ñproposed budget
All contractor personnel on the field team must be bilingual in English and
Portuguese. The contractorís field team is envisioned to include three experts, one
from the U.S. who is familiar with USAID procedures, products and requirements
and two members of the contractorís field team should be Brazilian nationals or
residents with experience in the environment sector.
A-26
Contractor personnel will be supplemented, as appropriate, with representatives from
USAID and from other donors active in the environment sector (see 1.4.2 vii above).
Technical Leads will assist the contractor in identifying appropriate individuals.
Mission requires approval of all personnel.
Personnel should have appropriate, MS level training and experience.
Expertise necessary includes:

 NMR Economics/Policy Expertiseñteam leader (U.S.)

 Natural Resource/Forestry/Biodiversity Management Expertise (U.S.)

 Economics/Natural Resource Policy Expertise (CCN)

 Natural Resource/Forestry/Biodiversity Management Expertise (CCN)

 Other Expertise (to be determined) (CCN)

 Note CCN = Client country national
.
A-26
Appendix 2:
Program Personnel Contacted by the Assessment Team
Name Organization City
Alex Moad USDA/FS Washington, DC
Ana Cristina Fialho de Barros IPAM BelÈm
Carlos Antonio Rocha Vicente SEFE Rio Branco
Claudia Becker CI Washington, DC
Claudio Valladares Padua IPE BrasÌlia
Daniel Nepstad WHRC Woods Hole, MA
Darrell A. Jenks U.S. State Department BrasÌlia
David Cleary TNC/Brazil BrasÌlia
Eric Stoner USAID BrasÌlia
Ernani J. S. Pilla USAID BrasÌlia
Evandro Bayeri Togneri IBAMA/Acre Rio Branco
Heraldo Luis Vasconcelos PDBFF/INPA Manaus
Humberto Candeias Cavalcanti IBAMA/PROARCO BrasÌlia
Idelcleide Rodriques Lima IBAMA/Acre Rio Branco
Irving Foster Brown WHRC Rio Branco
Jacqueline Villarreal PESACRE Rio Branco
Jamie Cavelier WWF Washington, DC
Jan Engert USDA/FS Washington, DC
Janice Weber USAID BrasÌlia
Jeff Brokaw USAID Washington, DC
Johan C.Zweede FFT BelÈm
John Matuszak USAID Washington, DC
Leandro Valle Ferreira WWF BrasÌlia
Lou Ann Dietz WWF Washington, DC
Luis Paulo Pinto CI Belo Horizonte
Mara Regia di Perna WWF-Pro. Nat. Viva BrasÌlia
Marcelo Ara˙jo IESB Ilheus
Maria Isabel Lessa da Cunha MCT BrasÌlia
A-26
Name Organization City
Maria Jose Gontijo SUNY BrasÌlia
Mario Cohn-Haft SI/PDBFF Manaus
Marianne Schmink UF Gainsville, FL
Miguel Morales USAID AsunciÛn, Paraguay
Miguel Scarcello Ass.SOS Amazonia Rio Branco
Monica Borges Gomes Assad IBAMA-PROARCO BrasÌlia
Muriel Saragoussi FVA Manaus
Patricia Delamonica Sampaio PDBFF-INPA Manaus
Paulo Barreto IMAZON Ananindeua
Peter Cronkleton UF Rio Branco
Reinaldo Lourival Francisco
Ferreira
CI Campo Grande
Roberto Smeraldi FOE S„o Paulo
Roberto Cavalcanti CI BrasÌlia
Rosa Maria Lemos de Sa WWF BrasÌlia
Rui Rocha IESB Ilheus
Solange Maria G. de Loveira IBAMA-Acre Rio Branco
Thomas T. Ankersen UF Gainesville, FL
Victor Bullen USAID La Paz, Bolivia
A-26
Appendix 3:
Documents Consulted
1. Anon. 2000. ëCollaboration and Communication in the ìCaatingaî of Brazil.í New
Agriculturist On Line. http://www.new-agri.co.uk/00-2/develop.
2. Crespo. S. et al. 1998. O que o Brasileiro pensa do meio ambiente, do desenvolvimento
e da sustentabilidade/What Brazilians Think of the Environment, Development and
Sustainability. MAST/ISER/MCT. Rio de Janeiro.
3. Conservation International. 2000. Where Are the Hotspots: The Atlantic Forest of Brazil.
Hotspots. CI. Washington, D.C.
4. Crisman. Thomas L. 2000. ëWetland Ecotones and the Role of the Private Sector in
Conservation and Management of the Pantanal.í In The Pantanal of Brazil, Bolivia and
Paraguay. Waterland Research Institute. Gouldsboro, PA.
5. Dourojeanni, Marc. 2000. IDB Investments in Brazilian Protected Areas During the
1990s. Working Paper. Inter-American Development Bank. Washington, D.C.
6. Dourojeanni, Marc. 1999. The Future of the Latin American Natural Forests.
Environment Division Working Paper. Inter-American Development Bank. Washington,
D.C.
7. Ferraz de Lima, JosÈ A. 2000. ëThe Integrated Effort of the Brazilian Government
Towards Areas under Federal, State and Private Protection.í In The Pantanal of Brazil,
Bolivia and Paraguay. Waterland Research Institute. Gouldsboro, PA.
8. Friends of the Earth. 1998. PolÌticas P˙blicas para a AmazÙnia. 97/98 Rumos,
TendÍncias e Propostas. Grupo de Trabalho AmazÙnico. S„o Paulo.
9. Gottgens, Johan F. 2000. ëThe Paraguay-Paran· Hidrovia: Large-scale Channelization
or a ìTyranny of Small Decision.îë In The Pantanal of Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay.
Waterland Research Institute. Gouldsboro, PA.
10. Hoffmann, William A. 1998. Demographic Effects of Fire on Woody Plants of the
Cerrado Savanna of Central Brazil. EPA. IBGE/JBB. BrasÌlia.
11. Holmes, Thomas P. et al. 2000. Financial Costs and Benefits of Reduced-Impact Logging
in the Eastern Amazon. TFF/USAID/USDA/CIFOR/ITTO. Alexandria, VA.
A-26
12. IDB. 2000. Plan to Protect Brazilís Pantanal Gets $82.5 Million IDB Loan. Inter￾American Development Bank Press Release, December 7, 2000.
http://www.iadb.org/exr/PRENSA/2000/cp22300e.htm.
13. IISD. 2000. ëA brief Introduction to the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD).í
IISD/Linkages. http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/desert/ccdintro.html.
14. Indufor, STCP and E.labore. 2000. Report of the Mid-term Review of the Pilot
Programme to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forests (PPG-7). BrasÌlia.
15. IRG. 2000. Assessment of USAID Brazilís Environmental Program. Draft Workplan.
September 29, 2000. International Resources Group, Ltd. Washington, D.C.
16. Lele, Uma, et al. 1999. Forest in the balance: Challenges of Conservation with
DevelopmentóAn Evaluation of Brazilís Forest Development and World Bank
Assistance. Operations Evaluation Department. Washington, D.C.
17. Nepstad, D.C., A.G. Moreira, and A.A. AlenÁar. 1999. Flames in the Rain Forest:
Origins, Impacts and Alternatives to Amazonian Fire. PPG-7. BrasÌlia.
18. New York Botanical Gardens. 1999. The Atlantic Coastal Forest, an Overview.
http://www.nybg.org/bsci/res/bahia/AF-Over.html.
19. Sawyer, Donald. 2000a. Current Status and Future Prospects for Action on Environment
in Brazil. Report prepared for the Brazil Office of the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP). ISPN. BrasÌlia.
20. Sawyer, Donald. 2000b. USAID Annual Meeting on Environment, 2000. ISPN. BrasÌlia.
21. Sawyer, Donald. 2000c. Influence of the GEF/UNDP Small Grants Program on Public
Policy in Brazil. ISPN. BrasÌlia.
22. Sawyer, Donald. 1999. USAID Annual Meeting on Environment. ISPN. BrasÌlia.
23. Sawyer, Donald. 1997a. Cooperative Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institutionís
Activities under the USAID/Brazil Global Climate Change Program. ISPN. BrasÌlia.
24. Sawyer, Donald. 1997b. Cooperative Evaluation of Woods Hole Research Center
Activities under the USAID/Brazil Global Climate Change Program. ISPN. BrasÌlia.
25. Sawyer, Donald. 1997c. Cooperative Evaluation of Environmental Protection Agency
Activities under the USAID/Brazil Global Climate Change Program. ISPN. BrasÌlia.
26. Secretariat for Biodiversity and Forests. 1999. First National Report for the Convention
on Biological Diversity. Ministry of Environment. BrasÌlia.
A-26
27. Schwartz, Christian. 2000. ëAtÈ Onde a AmazÙnia Pode Resistir?í Veja. No 47. 22 de
novembro.
28. USAID/Brazil. 2000a. Results Review and Resource Request (R4) FY 2002. 4 April,
2000. BrasÌlia.
29. USAID/Brazil. 2000b. Brazil Environment Program Profile (Draft). USAID. BrasÌlia.
30. U.S. Congress. 1999. H.R. 2870-3. Debt Reduction for Developing Countries with
Tropical Forests (Tropical Forest Conservation Act). Washington, D.C.
31. U.S. Embassy-Brazil. 2000. Mission Program Plan. U.S. Embassy. BrasÌlia.
32. USDA/FS. 2000. Semi-Annual Report. Brazil Program. USDA Forest Service.
International Programs. Washington, D.C.
33. Vasconcelos, Heraldo L. 1999. BDFFP Semi-Annual Report on Enhanced Training and
Outreach. INPA. Manaus.
34. Vincent, Carol Hardy. 1998. 98-576 ENR: Desertification Treaty: Evolution, Status, and
Key Issues. Congressional Research Service, Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.
35. World Bank. 1998a. Brazil: Managing Pollution Problems. The Brown Environmental
Agenda. Volume I: Policy Report. World Bank. Washington, D.C.
36. World Bank. 1998b. Brazil: Managing Pollution Problems. The Brown Environmental
Agenda. Volume II: Policy Report. World Bank. Washington, D.C.
37. World Bank. 1996a. Brazil: Managing Environmental Pollution in the State of Rio de
Janeiro. Volume I: Policy Report. World Bank. Washington, D.C.
38. World Bank. 1996b. Brazil: Managing Environmental Pollution in the State of Rio de
Janeiro. Volume II: Policy Report. World Bank. Washington, D.C.
39. WWF. 2000. Biomes, Caatinga. http://www.wwf.org.br/wwfeng/evec07.htm.
A-26
Appendix 4:
Federal Protected Areas in Brazil
Category Units Number Total Area (Km²) % of National
Territory
Strict
Preservation National Parks 44 112,730 1.31
Biological
Reserves 24 25,061 0.29
Ecological
Stations 21 21,659 0.25
Ecological
Reserves 5 6,857 0.06
Areas of relevant
ecological
interests
17 677 <0.01
Subtotal 111 166,984 1.95
Sustainable Use Environmental
Protection areas 26 68,358 0.79
National Forests 49 152,337 1.78
Extractive
Reserves 17 33,118 0.36
Subtotal 92 253,813 2.96
Total 203 420,797 4.92
Source: FundaÁ„o Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia EstatÌstica (http://www.Ibge.gov.br), and IBAMA,
2000.
A-26
Appendix 5:
Major Recent Highlights on Environmental Programs
Carried Out by the MMA
 In 2000, the pioneer National Environment Program (PNMA), created in 1991 with a
US$117 million loan from the World Bank and loans and grants from Germany and
counterpart funds, enters its second stage. At the beginning, it avoided use of
international funds in the Amazon, a taboo which has now been overcome.
 The National Environment Fund (FNMA) received a loan of US$50 million from the
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to support projects of government agencies and
NGOs up to US$700,000.
 By August 2000, the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest (PPG-7),
which includes numerous sustainable development projects, has used only US$102
million or 29 percent of the overall commitment (US$ 351 million), and 44 percent of
already contracted funds (US$232 million). The Participantsí Meeting in October 1999
established increased Brazilian ownership of the program in a managed partnership with
a Joint Steering Committee.
 Sustainable tourism is being promoted for the first time in Brazil through the Program
for Development of Ecotourism in the Legal Amazon (PROECOTUR), with support
from the IDB. A total amount of US$212 million is expected to be invested until 2004
in infrastructure in the Amazon.
 Biotechnology in the Amazon is the focus of the SCAís Brazilian Program of Molecular
Ecology for Sustainable Use of the Biodiversity of the Amazon (PROBEM), another
pioneer attempt to take advantage of Brazilís vast biodiversity.
 In 1999, the SCA undertook groundbreaking negotiation of Positive Agendas to reduce
deforestation in the nine states of the Legal Amazon, negotiating with government
agencies, private enterprise (primarily loggers and ranchers), and civil society. This was
the first time the MMA went beyond promoting conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity (e.g., ecotourism and biotechnology) to deal directly with the causes of
deforestation and biodiversity loss, which had previously been skirted. A joint working
agenda was set up in June 2000.
A-26
 The revolutionary National Water Resources Policy of 1997, which involves a watershed
approach and provides for participatory river basin committees and charging for use of
water, previously a free resource, is in the process of being implemented through creation
of the National Water Agency (ANA). The greatest challenges are to implement
management systems that do not coincide with political boundaries, to control the
broader development processes that affect water quantity and quality, and to collect fees
and administer financial resources.
 The National Program of Biological Diversity (PRONABIO) carries out studies, supports
research, organizes data bases, manages the clearinghouse mechanism, works with
indicators, and prepares the national reports for the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CDB), among other activities related primarily to information and analysis.
 PRONABIO is supporting development of an integrated environmental strategy and
action plan for the Cerrado, an important and threatened but neglected biome.
 The MMA is now responsible for the EcologicalñEconomic Zoning (ZEE), which was
previously under the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs (SAE) and which may be transferred
to the Ministry of National Integration (MI). Zoning has been difficult to put into practice
because of conceptual problems (whether zoning should be descriptive or prescriptive),
technical difficulties of combining natural resources and socioeconomic data, and the
inherent limitations of zoning enforcement
Other Government Agencies and Policies
 The overarching public policies that have environmental impacts include the Pluriannual
Plan (PPA) and the AvanÁa Brasil program, which provides for nine National Axes of
Integration and Development. The environmental impacts of the PPA and the axes have
not been evaluated. The MMA has begun negotiations with the National Bank of
Economic and Social Development (BNDES) regarding such evaluations. It would be
important to include their results in future annual revisions of the PPA.
Other federal programs explicitly related to environment are located in other ministries or
agencies. Some of the main examples are:
 Sanitation activities are supported by the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management
(MPOG), which spent 69 percent of the budget funds allocated for all environmental
purposes in Brazil between 1995 and 1998, much more than MMA.
A-26
 Activities of the new Ministry of National Integration (MI) include the PLANAFLORO
and PRODEAGRO programs, which are being carried out in the states of RondÙnia and
Mato Grosso with support from the World Bank.
 The Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT) is responsible for the Pilot Program
projects related to science centers and directed research as well as various research
programs related to environment.
 The National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) in the Ministry of Justice (MJ) is responsible
for the Integrated Project for Protection of Indigenous Lands and Populations of the
Legal Amazon (PPTAL), which has supported the demarcation of 22 million hectares.
 The Green Protocol program provides for limits on credit from official banks, most of
which are in the Finance Ministry (MF), to enterprises that do not conform with
environmental legislation, constituting a novel combination of economic instruments and
command and control.
Highlights of policies in other sectors that are relevant to environment include:
 Because of international and domestic pressure, the energy sector began to absorb
environmental concerns in its planning for generation of hydroelectric power in the
1980s. Plans for expansion were scaled down, at least in the 1990s. Privatization is under
way. The nuclear program, on the other hand, has been less open to pressure. A plan to
conserve electric power and work on wind energy is being undertaken in the Northeast.
Thus, there are both opportunities and contradictions in the energy sector.
 In the transportation sector, the government has actively promoted the automobile
industry through incentives for installation of new factories in Brazil and tax cuts for
consumers. Public transportation has received little attention. The government has also
promoted infrastructure projects such as roads, waterways, and railroads with little
concern for environmental consequences. The transportation sector is one of the most
reluctant to take environment seriously.
 The Agricultural Policy of 1991 is advanced conceptually but has not been put into
practice by the Ministry of Agriculture and Supply (MA). Agricultural programs and
research emphasize expansion of exports without much concern for environment.
Pesticides are not under strict control. There is great need to incorporate environmental
concerns in the MA, which remains reluctant.
A-26
 The Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA), which recently became responsible for
family agriculture, in general, in addition to agrarian reform, has begun to seek
environmental sustainability in its programs. It prohibited settlement in primary forest
and is implementing the Green Factory concept of integrated family farming,
incorporating environmental concerns.
 The Ministry of Health (MS) supported the participatory preparation of a National Plan
of Health and Environment in 1995 for a Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
conference, but the plan has not been put into practice and the links between health and
environment have been neglected because of the urgency of improving health care
services.
 Through their specialized agencies, the Ministries of Education (ME) and of Science and
Technology (MCT) play an important role in training human resources for work in the
environmental area. Environmental education is regulated by a new law, which seeks
integration into regular school curricula.
 The new Ministry of National Integration (MI) is defining its role, which will necessarily
involve some environmental concerns. These might include environmental and social
impact studies and application of environmental criteria in the use of constitutional funds
and fiscal incentives for regional development.
 Ecological value-added tax (ICMS ecolÛgico), providing state-level incentives for local
governments to create conservation units and improve waste disposal, among other
measures, have been approved in the states of Minas Gerais, Paran·, RondÙnia and Mato
Grosso and could be extended to other states. The State Participation Fund (FPE) and the
Municipal Participation Fund (FPM), managed by the federal government, could
incorporate similar environmental criteria. In 1999, a bill for this purpose was almost
approved in the Senate.
On the whole, environmental and social programs have been secondary under the current
administration, as compared to the goals of economic stabilization and reduction of the
federal deficit. However, the President recently affirmed that he will increase the emphasis
on social and environmental priorities in his second term.
The PPA for 2000ñ2003 signals incorporation of some principles of sustainable
development, at least at the level of discourse, which can be considered a major
accomplishment of the 1990s and a basis for more effective results in the next decade.
A-26
International cooperation will continue to play an important role in the environmental area.
More than 70 percent of the total value of environmental projects surveyed in 1992 was for
sanitation, urban pollution control, and other urban environmental projects. Thus, the
allocation of resources did not confirm the common belief that funding was influenced
unduly by alarmist views on deforestation in the Amazon.
A-26
Appendix 6:
Activities under USAID/Brazil Environmental Program
(Strategic Objective 1)18
Main Component: Biodiversity Conservation
Subcomponent: Conservation Management
1. Management Plan for Ja˙ National Park in the Central Amazon
U.S.-based partner: WWF
Local partner: FundaÁao VitÛria AmazÙnica (FVA)
2. Extractive Reserves Project
U.S.-based partner: WWF
Local partner: Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA), a GOB
agency
3. Ecotourism
U.S.-based partner: Conservation International (CI)
Local partner: Institute for Social and Environmental Studies of Southern BahÌa
(IESB)
4. Biodiversity Policy Initiative
U.S.-based partner: WWF, CI
Local partner: various local NGOs
5. Protection of the Atlantic Coastal Rainforest
U.S.-based partner: CI
Local partner: IESB
 
18 Strategic Objective (SO 1): Environmentally and socio-economically sutainable alternatives for sound land use
adopted beyond target areas
A-26
6. Management Plan for Serra do Divisor National Park in the Western Amazon
U.S.-based partner: TNC
Local partner: IBAMA and SOS AmazÙnia
7. Parks in Peril (PiP) Project in the GuaraqueÁaba Environmental Protection Area in
Paran· State
U.S.-based partner: TNC
Local partner: Society for Wildlife Research and Environmental Education (SPVS)
8. G-7 Science Centers and Directed Research Component
U.S.-based partner: WB
Local partner: Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology
Main component: Sustainable Forest Management
Subcomponent: Reduced-Impact Forest Management
9. Models of improved forest management
U.S.-based partner: TFF, USDA/FS, UF
Local partner: Institute for Man and the Amazon Environment (IMAZON), FFT
10. Training in Sustainable Forest Management
U.S.-based partner: WWF/SUNY joint program; USDA/FS, TFF
Local partner: FFT/CIKEL
11. Community Forestry and Forest Inventories
U.S.-based partner: WHRC
Local partner: WWF/SUNY
A-26
Subcomponent: Fire Science and Management
12. Fire preparedness activities
U.S.-based partner: WHRC, USDA/FS
Local partner: Amazonian Institute for Environmental Research (IPAM)
13. G-7 Fire Prevention Control
U.S.-based partner: WB
Local partner: Amazon Working Group (GTA)
14. Fire Monitoring and Fire Risk Information Dissemination
U.S.-based partner: WB, USDA/FS (PSW), NASA, NOAA, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Local partner: IBAMA, Brazilian Air Force (FAB) Brazilian National Space
Research Institute Weather Forecast and Climate Studies Center (INPE/CPTEC)
15. Fire Control Techniques
U.S.-based partner: WHRC
Local partner: IPAM
16. Fire Risk and Control
U.S.-based partner: USDA/FS, TFF, WHRC
Local partner: IPAM
Subcomponent: Agroforestry Systems
17. Agroforestry Development Program for Small Producers in the State of Acre
U.S.-based partner: UF
Local partner: Research and Extension in Agroforestry Systems Group (PESACRE)
A-26
Subcomponent: The G-7 Pilot Program to conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest
18. G-7 Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest (PPG-7)
U.S.-based partner: WB
Local partner: Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology
19. NASAís ìLarge Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazoniaî
U.S.-based partner: NASA
Local partner: Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi (BelÈm); National Research Institute
of the Amazon (INPA), EMBRAPA
Main component: Environmental Education and Communication
Subcomponent: Environmental Education and Training
20. Training of Brazilian Conservation Professionals (Natureza e Sociedade Program)
U.S.-based partner: WWF/SUNY
Local partner: several local NGOs
21. Environmental Education
U.S.-based partner: WWF
Local partner: several local NGOs
22. Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (BDFFP)
U.S.-based partner: Smithsonian
Local partner: National Institute for Amazonian Research (INPA)
Main component: Cross-Cutting Programs
23. Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis (MERGE) Program
U.S.-based partner: UF
Local partner: Various Brazilian NGOs
A-26
Appendix 7:
Characterization of Private Sector Actions in Brazil
Categories of Enterpriseís Environmental Behavior
Business
Sector Conservative19 Legal-Abiding 20 Strategic 21 Eco-Development22 Agriculture and cattle raising
- Legal disobedience
- Dependent on new land
conversions
- Low economic profit
- Control over the majority
of remaining natural
areas
- Low-level technology
use
- Intensive use based on
increased technology
use
- Targeted to
commodities (global
markets)
- Targeted to better
geographic and
infrastructure conditions
- Favorable to
environmental
compensation
- Focus on reduction of
raw materials
- Interest in voluntary
certification
- Fears environmental
barriers
- Success in reduced
tillage farming
- Refuses transgenics
- Focus on organic
production
- Interest on ethic
consumption
- Limitations on cost of
production and supply
capacity
Timber production
- Responsible for market
supply
- Legal disobedience
- Unsustainable practices
- Continuous migration
after resource depletion
- Middlemen for
commercialization
- Informal (unregistered)
operation
- Constraints to abide by
the law
- Constraints on
economic profit
- Dependent on large
tracts of land
- Potential client of the
National Forests
(Flonas)
- Interest to reach
international market
and developed
countries
- Interest to add value
- Interest in voluntary
certification
- Difficulty to organize
productive chain
- Restricted to few
community based
initiatives
 
19 Refers to enterprises with conservative (traditional, legal noncompliance) environmental behavior.
20 Refers to enterprises complying with the environmental law only. Their standing is more pro-active than the
conservative group although they lag behind the strategic or eco-development groups.
21 Refers to enterprises which go beyond legal compliance and perceive the environment as an strategic opportunity to
improve competitiveness and market position.
22 Refers to enterprises which couple production ethics and social accountability with environmental concerns. For
them, social and environmental aspects of the operations are as important as the business goals.
A-26
Business
Sector Conservative19 Legal-Abiding 20 Strategic 21 Eco-Development22 Fisheries
- Responsible for
majority of market
supply
- Unsustainable
production practices
- Disputes with local
communities
- Low-level technology
use
- Informal organization
- Partly linked to
processing industry
- Increasing investments
in fish and seafood
farming
- More intensive use of
technology
- Focused on sports
fishing
- Interested in protecting
rivers and watersheds
- Potential conflict with
commercial fishing
- Targeted to some
communities
- Great potential for
organizing models of
sustainable
development
associated to
ecological corridors
Oil and Gas Activities
- Legal disobedience
- Technological
obsolescence
- Incapacity to deal with
environmental crises
and accidents
- Conflicting relationship
with local communities
- Interested in legal
counseling
- Investment in
technology
- Focused on
international standards
- Great understanding of
environmental costs
- Proactive legal standing
- Use of principles of
social accountability
- Use of voluntary
certification systems
- Transparency
Mining
- Legal disobedience
- Environmental liabilities
- Operates mainly on
informal basis
- Uses environmental
licensing
- Reclaims degraded
areas
- Does not partake with
communities nor has
social programs
- Proactive legal standing
- Seeks international
certification
- Strong environmental
management
- Investments in social
and environmental
programs
- Conservation units
within property
- Investment in
prevention
- Transparency
A-26
Business
Sector Conservative19 Legal-Abiding 20 Strategic 21 Eco-Development22 Food processing industry
- Legal disobedience
- Low profile with
environmental liabilities
- Operates mainly on
informal basis
- Environmental licensing
- Complies with legal
pollution emission
levels
- Focus on internal
market
- Strong corporate
environmental policy
- Investment in
environmental
marketing
- Investment in social
programs
- Sustainable practices
not used by raw
material contractors
- Supply restricted
markets
- Concerned with
traceability
- Abhors transgenics
- Interested in ethical
environmental
consumption
- Limitation of production
costs and capacity to
supply the market
demand
Textile industry
- Legal environmental
disobedience
- Low profile with
environmental liabilities
- Use of forced labor
- Operates on informal
basis
- Large dependency on
imported raw materials
- Environmental licensing
- Complies with legal
pollution emission
levels
- Focus on internal
market
- Legal labor relations
- Looks for certification
- Environmental care in
production
- Investment in
environmental
marketing
- Investment in social
programs
- Restricted to
community-based
handicrafts
- Based on natural
materials
Paper and cellulose
- Environmental licensing
- Low participation in
social programs
- Legal labor relations
- Occupational health
- Focus on internal
market
- Proactive legal standing
- Focused on external
market demands
- Full certification
- Important natural areas
- Community support
programs
- Promotes transparency
to improve constituency
with neighbors
A-26
Business
Sector Conservative19 Legal-Abiding 20 Strategic 21 Eco-Development22 Rubber and Plastic
- Small informal
enterprises are sources
of major pollution
- Complies with
environmental
legislation
- Responds to a major
part of packaging
market
- Focuses mainly on
supply of tires
- Participates in
sustainable initiatives
but has difficulty in
implementing recycling
- Some enterprises make
efforts in the complete
cycle of their products
- Participates in business
associations for
recycling
- Products with raw
materials of natural
origin
- Initiatives oriented
toward sustainable
products
Steel and metal industries
- Energy inputs from
illegal sources
- Use of forced labor in
production processes
- Market competitiveness
based on
unsustainability of
inputs and informality
- Oriented toward foreign
market
- Regulation of activities
- Difficulties in adjusting
production processes
and in compensating
environmental liabilities
of industrial sites
- Seeks certification
- Interested in finding a
place in international
markets
- Investment in improving
the development of
partners in the
production process
Electronic equipment and
computers
- Major network
assembling equipment
with smuggled
components
- Informal labor
- Directs its waste toward
public urban collection
systems
- Majority of the
enterprises operating in
the market
- Not engaged in
sustainability aspects
- Suffers from illegal
competition
- Exhibits improvement of
environmental aspects
according to
internationally
developed standards
- Participates in social
programs
- Has potential for
environmental
programs
Beverages
- Multiplicity of small
initiatives without
capability to satisfy
basic legal
requirements
- Growing market share
- Most of the market
- Problems in working
with the chain, mainly
inputs and packaging
- Concerns with
marketing usually
linked to natural inputs
- Some enterprises
exploit their traditional
roots
- Potential to support
environmental
programs
- Products looking for a
market niche
- Local and traditional
organizations
attempting to find a
place in the market
A-26
Business
Sector Conservative19 Legal-Abiding 20 Strategic 21 Eco-Development22 Automotive industry
- Smaller-scale
enterprises importing
cheap vehicles
- Show below-average
environmental
compliance
- Most of the market
- Manages to improve
environmental
compliance depending
on requirements and
cost reduction
- Interested in supporting
environmental, social
and cultural programs
- Environmental
improvements are
added in small
increments due to high
costs
- Major improvements
are restricted to
prototypes
Recycling industry
- Operates informally
based on collection
through ìtrash dealersî
- Is not licensed and
produces high levels of
pollution
- Has basic
documentation
- Has difficulty in
organizing a chain of
legal suppliers
- Usually associated with
large enterprises for
recycling waste and
packaging
- Regulation initiatives
through ìtrash dealersî
- Reutilization and
recycling with strict
environmental
standards
Energy
- Co-generators without
anti-pollution
investments
- Large-scale projects
initiated in the past,
which do not satisfy
present-day
requirements
- Most of the sector
- Have important
environmental liabilities
and need time to adjust
- Invest in marketing with
support for social and
environmental
programs
- Operate with
alternative solutions
- Occupy a growing,
although still marginal
market
- Few initiatives offering
integrated solutions
Water, drainage and sewerage
services
- Many of these services
do not measure up to
legal criteria
- Costs are brought up
as a major argument
- There is an enormous
environmental liability
due to lack of service
delivery to match up the
demand, and to
inadequate solutions
- Gradually new projects
are complying with
environmental rules
- Opportunities for
privatization will put
pressure on resolving
liabilities
- Potential for activities
through private
operators
- Some enterprises
attempt to offer
differentiated services
A-26
Business
Sector Conservative19 Legal-Abiding 20 Strategic 21 Eco-Development22 Construction
- There are still
enterprises operating
informally
- Waste volumes are
enormous due to lack
of planning, appropriate
technology and
technical assistance
- Large-scale enterprises
use subcontracting,
which often conceals
problems
- Concerns with safety
and environment are
growing
- They are adopting
corporate policies for
compliance with rules
- Introduction of recycling
and waste reduction
goals
- Investments in social
and environmental
programs
- Focusing on real estate
market interested in
differentiated products
- Initiatives for
sustainable
settlements focused on
life and nature
integration
Tourism industry
- Operation of mass
tourism
- Environmentally
irresponsible tourism
increases problems of
destinations not
prepared to receive
visitors
- Lack of concern for
local contexts
- Attempts to implement
environmental
education campaigns
- Licensing initiatives
- Initiatives of carrying
capacity for
destinations
- Concern with
architectural standards
- Investment in labor and
basic services
- Interested in
certification and foreign
markets
- Seeking integration of
investments with local
interests
- Restricted to few
initiatives
- With growth potential
dependent upon
market position
Transportation
- Dominates the supply
of this service
- Has difficulties in
obtaining licensing
- Has an enormous
environmental liability
- Does not deal with
negative externalities
- Position of concession
holders
- Needs time to resolve
liability
- Potential for parkways
- Waterways attempt to
show their advantages
but are not convincing
due to externalities
Telecommunications
- Position of concession
holders
- Difficulties with
aesthetic aspects
- Highly competitive
market based on price
and quality of service
- Few initiatives
supporting
environmental projects
A-26
Business
Sector Conservative19 Legal-Abiding 20 Strategic 21 Eco-Development22 Financial sector
- There are no social or
environmental
initiatives
- Most of the sector
- ìMoney does not have
marks from the places
where it has been if the
operation is recorded
and legitimateî
- Consistent initiatives to
separate the roles of
sustainable activities
- Support to corporate
environmental
programs
- Several support efforts
based on major players
in the sector
- Legal requirements for
public credit operations
- Experience with micro￾credit
- Initiatives oriented
toward specific areas
(e.g., extractivism)
Real estate sector
- Dominates the market
- Creates ìde factoî
situations which avoid
environmental
evaluations
- Occupies illegally public
areas and of restricted
use
- Utilizes spontaneous
occupations to
consolidate urban
expansion strategies
- Occupies part of the
market
- Has difficulties with
legal conflicts at the
municipal, state and
federal levels
- Usually does not
implement licensing
agreements due to lack
of means and control
- Occupies a
differentiated market
that provides quality in
properties
- Uses strong marketing
- At times, the design of
properties shows
elements of integration
with the natural
landscape
- Alternative properties
that attempt to
integrate sustainability
products harmonizing
the proximity of natural
areas, low
consumption, recycling
and respect for socio￾cultural contexts.
Hygiene and cosmetic products
- Small products without
the capacity to invest in
environmental concerns
- Most of the market
- Complies with legal
requirements
- Seeks to be associated
with environmental
themes
- Attempts to utilize
natural products with
origin certification
- Invests in training for
traditional producers
- Fears being accused of
appropriating traditional
knowledge
- Invests in research and
development, and
adopts ethical
agreements in
laboratory tests
- Strong environmental
and social marketing
A-26
Business
Sector Conservative19 Legal-Abiding 20 Strategic 21 Eco-Development22 Pharmaceutical industry
- No relation with
environmental
initiatives
- Weak quality control
- Systematic problems
related to failures in
production processes
- Complies with rules, but
does not have
environmental
initiatives
- Invests in
environmental
development with
strong corporate policy
and structure
- Associates with
environmental projects
as a sponsor
- Seeks to associate its
products with corporate
environmental values
- Complains about lack
of rules of access to
biodiversity
- Initiatives that seek to
organize sustainable
production chains of
medication usually
originating from
medicinal plants
Chemicals
- Enterprises with
frequent accidents
- Occupies the market
that supplies raw
materials for other
industries
- Has no adequate
monitoring of waste
disposal
- Frequent conflicts with
surrounding
communities
- Complies with general
rules
- Usually evaluates the
possibility of
certification
- Has regular safety
procedures
- The safety theme is
part of the institutional
culture
- Is active in social and
environmental
programs
- Has a structure
dedicated to
environmental
management and
safety
- Invests in adequate
certification of residues