GHG Mitigation in Brazil's Land Use Sector - An Introduction to the Current National Policy Landscape

Full text

WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 1
| |
Suggested Citation: Gebara, Maria Fernanda and Alice
Thuault. “GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector: An
Introduction to the Current National Policy Landscape.”
Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Available online at http://wri.org/publication/ghg-mitigation-
brazil-land-use-sector
GHG MITIGATION IN BRAZIL’s LAND USE SECTOR:
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CURRENT
NATIONAL POLICY LANDSCAPE
Maria Fernanda Gebara and alice ThuaulT
CONTENTS
Executive Summary..............................................................1
Key Metrics ..........................................................................2
I: International Statements of Future GHG Mitigation ...........5
II: Relevant Government Institutions and Legal Authorities ...8
III: Overview of Major Land Use Policies ...........................11
IV: GHG Projections ...........................................................16
V: Looking Ahead ...............................................................20
Abbreviations and Acronyms ..............................................22
Endnotes ...........................................................................22
References .......................................................................... 23
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Brazil has developed a suite of sector-specic greenhouse
gas (GHG) mitigation actions that it estimates will result
in a reduction of 36.1 percent to 38.9 percent below a
projected hypothetical baseline in 2020.
1
Although framed
as voluntary at the international level, this pledge is
enshrined in Brazil’s National Policy for Climate Change
(PNMC), which mandates the development of sectoral
plans to implement specic mitigation actions.
Brazil’s sectoral mitigation plans are in different stages of
development and implementation. This paper focuses on
the plans to reduce deforestation in the Amazon and Cer-
rado regions, and the low-carbon agriculture plan. These
plans are critical for near-term GHG mitigation because
the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU)
sector is currently the largest source of GHG emissions in
Brazil. Initial observations on these mitigation plans point
to both successes and opportunities for improvement.
The Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation
in the Amazon (PPCDAm), although not yet fully imple-
mented, has helped to slow deforestation. Nevertheless,
emerging challenges could jeopardize the progress made
to date. Challenges include the bureaucratic difculties
for landowners to harmonize their property and produc-
tion with the law, the increasing demand for soy and beef
in the market, and the lack of alternative and equivalent
sustainable production options.
2
Also important have been
steps to soften legislation and weak law enforcement and
governance. A sustainable reduction in deforestation will
require not only monitoring and control but also positive
incentives and the resolution of governance problems.
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
Disclaimer: Working Papers contain preliminary
research, analysis, ndings, and recommendations. They
are circulated to stimulate timely discussion and critical
feedback and to inuence ongoing debate on emerging
issues. Most working papers are eventually published in
another form and their content may be revised.
Working Paper

2 | |
|
The Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation and
Fire in the Cerrado (PPCerrado) aims to reduce deforesta-
tion in the Cerrado biome by 40 percent by 2020 compared
to historical deforestation rates. The PPCerrado’s actions
are organized into four pillars; the sustainable activities
pillar is currently the most thoroughly implemented. A
key challenge facing the PPCerrado is devising a system to
monitor land use and land cover changes.
In the agriculture sector, key actors lack the capacity to
access resources for mitigation actions. In the rst year
of implementation of the Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan
(ABC Plan) (2010–11), only ve projects were approved
for funding. However, more projects were nanced in the
next year (2011–12), totaling 5,038 projects, the major-
ity in the southeast of Brazil. Actions are underway to
enhance the effectiveness of the ABC Plan, including the
provision of enhanced resources and capacity under the
Forest Investment Program.
Whether Brazil can meet its AFOLU mitigation targets
depends in part on its identication of and access to
different types of nancing to support actions. National
and international institutions can support these targets
through public investments, credits, taxes, carbon mar-
kets, and other nancial mechanisms. Currently, the
PNMC includes only a few national initiatives for nanc-
ing mitigation in the forest sector, including the Amazon
Fund and the National Fund on Climate Change. These
funds face challenges related to resources, program
implementation, and effectiveness. Additionally, Brazil’s
National REDD+ Strategy and new Forest Law, enacted
in May 2012, are likely to have a signicant effect on the
AFOLU sector (and are summarized below).
Our introductory review of Brazil’s national AFOLU policy
landscape indicates that the plans analyzed herein could be
implemented more effectively through efforts focused on:
engaging a broader range of civil society stakeholders in
the climate debate, and promoting more transparency
in policymaking;
enhancing policy performance monitoring and evaluation
of the short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of policy
investments and mitigation actions for climate change;
integrating different institutions, policies, and sectors in
Brazil, including better coordination between ministries and
different levels of government, as well as between climate
policies and major development policies; and
providing greater clarity regarding long-term funding.
In addition to a preliminary overview of the Government’s strat-
egies to reduce GHG emissions and actions in the AFOLU sec-
tor, this paper rst provides critical background information,
including key metrics and summaries of Brazil’s international
pledge and relevant government institutions. It also analyzes
Brazil’s estimated GHG emissions trajectory and highlights
policy development issues that may be important in the months
and years to come. An in-depth analysis of other sectors–
including energy, transport, and industry–is beyond the scope
of this paper, but will be prioritized in future research by the
Open Climate Network to provide a more comprehensive
view of Brazil’s approach to climate change mitigation.
KEY METRICS
Brazil is one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas
(GHG) emitters. The majority of Brazil’s GHG emissions
come from deforestation in the Amazon (see Figure 1),
driven by agriculture and livestock. With the world’s fth-
largest population (now exceeding 190 million people),
Brazil emitted 14.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO
2
eq) per capita in 2004, but these emissions have
generally declined since then as a result of reductions
in emissions from deforestation (Figure 2).
This working paper is part of a series that provides
an overview of the current policy landscape that key
countries have pursued in the interest of GHG mitigation.
For each country, the series:
Describes the country’s international mitigation
pledge (e.g., GHG reduction commitment, Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Actions), including assumptions
and conditions associated with the pledge, and in what
respect – if any – it is codified domestically
Outlines the country’s key government institutions
and legal authorities for mitigating climate change
Outlines major policy instruments related to GHG
mitigation, current, and under development
Explains what is known about the country’s
GHG trajectory
Identifies issues to watch in the coming years
About the Series

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 3
Data Source: 1990–2005 totals are from UNFCCC, 2012; 2006–10 totals are from MCTI, 2013.
Figure 1 | Total Brazil GHG Emissions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Million metric tons CO
2
-equivalent
Year
Figure 2 | Brazil GHG Emissions per Capita and GHG Emissions Intensity
Data Source: Calculated using UNFCCC, 2012; MCTI, 2013; and World Bank, 2012.
Note: GHG emissions totals include the land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector.
0
500
1000
Year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Metric tons CO
2
-equivalent per person
Metric tons per million (2005) $intl
18
16
14
10
8
4
2
12
6
0
1500
2000
2500
Total GHG emissions excluding LULUCF
Total GHG emissions including LULUCF
GHG Emissions per capita
GHG Emissions per GDP (PPP)

4 | |
|
Coal Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Renewables Other
Source: International Energy Agency, 2012.
Notes: Size of circles indicates total consumption. Btoe = billion tonnes oil equivalent.
1990
0.14 btoe
2000
0.19 btoe
2010
0.27 btoe
7%
7%
4%
2%
2%
1%
0% 2%
42%
47%
39%
47%
44%
40%
5%
1%
1%
9%
Figure 3 | Brazil Fuel Mix: 1990, 2000, and 2010
Data Source: International Energy Agency, 2012.
Notes: Size of circles indicates total consumption. Btoe = billion tonnes oil equivalent.
Source: Brazil, 2010.
Table 1 | Brazil’s Voluntary International Mitigation Commitments
MITIGATION ACTION
RANGE OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL REDUCTION IN 2020
RELATIVE TO BASELINE (MILLION TONNES OF CO
2
eq)
Reduction in Amazon deforestation 564
Reduction in Cerrado deforestation 104
Restoration of grazing land 83 to 104
Integrated crop-livestock system 18 to 22
No-till farming 16 to 20
Biological N
2
fixation 16 to 20
Energy efficiency 12 to 15
Increase the use of biofuels 48 to 60
Alternative energy sources 26 to 33
Increase in energy supply by hydroelectric power plants 79 to 99
Iron and steel (replace coal from deforestation with coal from planted forests) 8 to 10

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 5
Brazil is also characterized by a relatively “clean”
energy mix (Figure 3), primarily as a result of its
reliance on hydropower.
I: INTERNATIONAL STATEMENTS
OF FUTURE GHG MITIGATION
International Mitigation Pledge under
the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change
During the 2009 15th Conference of the Parties (COP)
under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, Brazil
announced voluntary targets to reduce its greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. The targets aligned with reduction
targets that Brazil announced in domestic climate legisla-
tion in December of that year (see Domestic Codication
of the International Pledge). Following the COP, in Janu-
ary 2010, Brazil communicated the status of its Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to Annex II of
the Copenhagen Accord (Brazil, 2010). In this communi-
cation, Brazil identied a suite of sector-specic actions
that it estimates will result in a reduction of 36.1 percent
to 38.9 percent below a projected hypothetical baseline in
2020. Table 1 lists Brazil’s voluntary mitigation commit-
ments as submitted to the UNFCCC.
Table 2 | Brazil’s Sectoral Plans Published as of December 2013
3
SECTORAL PLANS
Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAm)
Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation and Fire in the Cerrado (PPCerrado)
Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan)
Ten-Year Energy Plan (PDE)
Plan for Climate Change Mitigation for the Consolidation of a Low-Carbon Economy in the Manufacturing Industry
Low-Carbon Mining Plan (PMBC)
Plan on Transportation and Urban Mobility for Climate Change Mitigation
Health Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
Domestic Codification
of the International Pledge
In December 2009, shortly after the COP announce-
ment, the Brazilian Government launched the National
Policy for Climate Change (PNMC) through Law no.
12.187/2009. In line with its submission to the UNFCCC,
the PNMC committed Brazil to a 36.1 percent to
38.9 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, in
relation to a baseline scenario (Art. 12). In December
2010, the Brazilian Government approved Decree 7.390,
which regulates the PNMC.
Decree 7.390 states that the 2020 projections will be
achieved through sectoral plans and initiatives (see
Table 2). For the agriculture, forestry, and other land use
(AFOLU) sector, these include the Action Plan to Prevent
and Control Deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAm); the
Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation and Fire
in the Cerrado (PPCerrado); and the Low-Carbon Agricul-
ture Plan (ABC Plan). These plans are discussed further in
part III of this paper.
Decree 7.390 also includes GHG projections based, in
part, on Brazil’s second national GHG inventory, which
covers 1990 to 2005 and was published in October 2010 as
part of Brazil’s second ofcial national communication to
the UNFCCC.
4
The decree establishes 3,236 million tonnes
of CO
2
eq as the GHG emissions baseline projection for
2020. The methodology used to develop the projections-
with-actions scenarios was composed using the baseline

6 | |
|
Table 3 | Brazilian Baseline Projections for 2020 and Estimated GHG Reductions by Sector from Policy Actions
(Decree 7.390/2010)
SECTOR
2020 PROJECTIONS, WITHOUT
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS
ACTIONS
ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTION
FROM BASELINE (%)
5
Land Use,
Land-Use
Change, and
Forestry
1,404 million tonnes CO
2
eq 80% reduction in the annual rates of deforestation in the Amazon
compared to the average between 1996 to 2005
40% reduction in the annual rates of deforestation in the Cerrado
biome compared to the average between 1999 to 2008
20.9
3.9
Energy
868 million tonnes CO
2
eq Expansion of hydroelectric supply
Expansion of alternative renewable energy sources, notably wind
farms, small hydropower, and bioelectricity
Increased supply of biofuels
Improved energy efficiency
2.9–3.7
1–1.2
1.8–2.2
0.4–0.6
Agriculture
730 million tonnes CO
2
eq Recovery of 15 million hectares of degraded pastures
Greater use of integrated crop-livestock-forest practices on
4 million hectares
Expansion of the practice of direct planting on 8 million hectares
Adoption of biological nitrogen fixation on 5.5 million hectares
of cultivated land, replacing the use of nitrogen fertilizers
Growth of forest plantations on 3 million hectares
Development of technologies for treatment of 4.4 million m
3
of animal waste
3.1–3.8
0.7–0.8
0.6–0.7
0.6–0.7
Industrial
Processes
and Waste
234 million tonnes CO
2
eq Institutionalize carbon management in the industry sector
Promote increased recycling and the use of coproducts
Promote energy efficiency and cogeneration in industry
Strengthen emissions reduction from voluntary associations and
private sector companies
Facilitate the development and dissemination of sustainable technologies
0.3-0.4
TOTAL
3,236 million tonnes CO
2
eq 36.1–38.9
projection and mitigation actions described by sector in
Table 7 in part IV of this paper. However, the baseline
scenario excludes the effects of some policies that
predated the PNMC. Table 3 summarizes planned federal
actions and their anticipated emissions reductions.
Additionally, the governments of several states are
developing subnational policies and programs on climate
change as highlighted in Box 1.
Not surprisingly, there are differences that reect unique
subnational circumstances, especially in the composition
of emissions, accounting rules, and gas coverage. Accord-
ing to a 2012 Climate Forum study by the Ethos Institute
and the NESA/USP on climate change subnational poli-
cies in Brazil, the existence of different targets among
states is not necessarily problematic (Forum Clima, 2012).
However, failure to coordinate these diverse state targets
could hamper efforts at the national level. For example, if
subnational emissions reduction targets differ, businesses
operating across state lines may be required to comply
with conicting rules. If state actions are not coordinated,
measures to account for national targets to reduce emis-
sions may be complicated. In response to these challenges,
the federal government created a working group under the
existing Interministerial Committee on Climate Change.
This working group is charged with harmonizing national
and subnational climate change policies and laws.

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 7
Box 1 | Brazil State Climate Change Legislation
6
* Acre does not have a specific law, but Law No. 2.2308/2010 created the State System of Incentives for Environmental Services (SISA), the Incentives for
Environmental Services Program (ISA Carbono) and other environmental service programs and ecosystem products in the state.
Source: Adapted from Forum Clima, 2012, Table 1.
SECTOR
2020 PROJECTIONS, WITHOUT
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS
ACTIONS
ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTION
FROM BASELINE (%)
5
Land Use,
Land-Use
Change, and
Forestry
1,404 million tonnes CO
2
eq 80% reduction in the annual rates of deforestation in the Amazon
compared to the average between 1996 to 2005
40% reduction in the annual rates of deforestation in the Cerrado
biome compared to the average between 1999 to 2008
20.9
3.9
Energy
868 million tonnes CO
2
eq Expansion of hydroelectric supply
Expansion of alternative renewable energy sources, notably wind
farms, small hydropower, and bioelectricity
Increased supply of biofuels
Improved energy efficiency
2.9–3.7
1–1.2
1.8–2.2
0.4–0.6
Agriculture
730 million tonnes CO
2
eq Recovery of 15 million hectares of degraded pastures
Greater use of integrated crop-livestock-forest practices on
4 million hectares
Expansion of the practice of direct planting on 8 million hectares
Adoption of biological nitrogen fixation on 5.5 million hectares
of cultivated land, replacing the use of nitrogen fertilizers
Growth of forest plantations on 3 million hectares
Development of technologies for treatment of 4.4 million m
3
of animal waste
3.1–3.8
0.7–0.8
0.6–0.7
0.6–0.7
Industrial
Processes
and Waste
234 million tonnes CO
2
eq Institutionalize carbon management in the industry sector
Promote increased recycling and the use of coproducts
Promote energy efficiency and cogeneration in industry
Strengthen emissions reduction from voluntary associations and
private sector companies
Facilitate the development and dissemination of sustainable technologies
0.3-0.4
TOTAL
3,236 million tonnes CO
2
eq 36.1–38.9
STATE LAW OR BILL
FORUM
Acre (AC)* Law no. 2.308, October 22, 2010
Alagoas (AL)
Amapá (AP) Bill
Amazonas (AM) Law no. 3.135, June 5, 2007 Decree no.28.390, February 17, 2009
Bahia (BA) Law no. 12.050, January 7, 2011 Decree no. 9.519, August 18, 2005
Ceará (CE) Decree no. 29.272, April 25, 2008
Distrito Federal (DF)
Espírito Santo (ES) Law no. 9.531, September 16, 2010 Decree no. 1.833-R, April 19, 2007
Goiás (GO) Law no. 16.497, February 10, 2009
Maranhão (MA) Decree no. 22.735, November 29, 2006
Mato Grosso (MT) Bill Law no. 9.111, April 15, 2009
Mato Grosso do Sul (MS)
Minas Gerais (MG) Bill Decree no. 44.042, June 9, 2005
Pará (PA) Bill Decree no. 1.900, September 22, 2009
Paraíba (PB) Law no. 9.336, January 31, 2011
Paraná (PR) Bill Law no. 16.019, December 19, 2008
Pernambuco (PE) Law no. 14.090, June 17, 2010 Decree no. 33.015, February 16, 2009
Piauí (PI) Decree no. 12.613, June 4, 2007
Rio de Janeiro (RJ) Law no. 5.690, April 14, 2010 Decree no. 40.780, May 23, 2007
Rio Grande do Norte (RN)
Rio Grande do Sul (RS) Law no. 13.594, December 30, 2010 Decree no. 45.098, June 15, 2007
Rondônia (RO)
Roraima (RR)
São Paulo (SP) Law no. 13.798, November 9, 2009 Decree no. 49.369, February 11, 2005
Santa Catarina (SC) Law no. 14.829, August 11, 2009 Decree no. 2.208, March 17, 2009
Sergipe (SE)
Tocantins (TO) Law no. 1.917, April 17, 2008 Decree no. 3.007, April 18, 2007

8 | |
|
II: RELEVANT GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES
At the federal level, the Congress—composed of the House
of Representatives and the Senate—is the legislative body
responsible for creating directives, objectives, and instru-
ments of any policy, including the PNMC. The president
must approve legislation passed by the Congress before
it becomes law. Some policies, however, are created by
decrees and are not subject to this legislative process. Poli-
cies enacted by decrees are generally created to formalize
existing policies. Decrees can only be issued by executive
entities, such as federal, state, and municipal governments.
The PNMC allocates specic roles—including nancing,
public education and engagement, and intergovernmental
coordination—to several federal regulatory authorities and
relies on specic institutional arrangements to support
regulations and policy implementation. A partial list of
these entities is shown in Table 4.
PNMC INSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITIES
ROLE FURTHER DETAILS
Brazilian Chief of
Staff Office (Casa
Civil)
Overall coordinator of Interministerial Committee
on Climate Change (CIM).
Coordinate development of climate policies.
Brazilian Forum on
Climate Change
(FMBC)
8
Mobilize society on climate change issues and the
Clean Development Mechanism.
Monitor the implementation of sectoral plans.
The president presides over the forum, which includes 12
ministers, the director-president of the National Water Agency, and
civil society representatives.
FBMC has a seat at the Interministerial Committee on Climate
Change (CIM) and is part of the Executive Group for Climate
Change (GEX).
National Fund on
Climate Change
Finance climate change mitigation and
adaptation actions.
Sources of funds include the federal budget, additional
credits, and national and international donations.
The Brazilian Development Bank and the Ministry of the Environment
are responsible for operationalizing credit lines. Thefundis managed
bya steering committee,which is chairedby the executive secretaryof
the Ministry of the Environment and includes representatives from
different ministries and sectors, including civil society.
Amazon Fund
The Amazon Fund is aimed at raising donations for
nonreimbursable investments to prevent, monitor, and
combat deforestation, as well as to foster conservation
and the sustainable use of the Amazon biome.
9
The Amazon Fund is managed by the Brazilian Development Bank.
Interministerial
Committee on
Climate Change
(CIM)
Align different government initiatives related
to climate change.
Guide and coordinate the National Policy
on Climate Change.
The overall coordinator of this committee—as established by
Decree 6263/2007—is the Brazilian Chief of Staff Office (“Casa
Civil”). Other government agencies involved include: Ministry of
Environment; Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation;
Ministry of Foreign Relations; Ministry of Mines and Energy;
Ministry of Cities; Ministry of Agriculture; Ministry of Development
Industry and Foreign Trade; Ministry of Transport; Ministry of Health;
Ministry of Planning, Budget, and Management; Ministry of Finance;
Ministry of Agrarian Development; Ministry of Defense; Ministry of
Strategic Issues; and Brazilian Forum on Climate Change.
Interministerial
Commission on
Global Climate
Change (CIMGC)
Articulate government action with respect to the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and
subsidiary bodies of which Brazil is a member.
Set criteria and make decisions on Clean Development
Mechanism projects.
Coordinate discussions on climate change and integrate
the government’s policies between ministries.
The Interministerial Commission on Climate Change is composed of
11 ministries and headed by the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovation. The Ministries are Foreign Affairs; Transport; Agriculture;
Mining/Energy; Planning; Environment; Science and Technology;
Industry; Chief of Staff; Cities; and Finance.
Table 4 | Brazilian Institutions with Specific Roles Dictated by the PNMC
7

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 9
PNMC INSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITIES
ROLE FURTHER DETAILS
Commission of
Meteorology,
Climatology, and
Hydrology Activities
Generate and disseminate knowledge so Brazil can
respond to challenges exacerbated by the causes
and impacts of global climate change.
Housed by the National Institute of Spatial Research.
Ministry of
Science,
Technology,
and Innovation
Responsible for the National Communications to
the UNFCCC and for the National GHG Inventories.
Responsible for forest cover monitoring through
Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE).
Formulate national policy for scientific and
technological research and innovation; policies for
developing information technology and automation;
the national policy on biosafety; Brazil’s space policy;
and Brazil’s nuclear policy and the control of exports
of sensitive goods and services.
Hosts CEMADEN (National Centre for Monitoring and
Warning of Natural Disasters).
Secretariat for Research and Development of Policies and Programs,
General Coordination for Management of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity, General Coordination for Global Climate Change.
Ministry of
Environment
Formulate national policy on the environment and water
resources; policies on preservation, conservation,
and sustainable use of ecosystems, biodiversity,
and forests; strategies, mechanisms, and economic/
social instruments for improving environmental
quality and the sustainable use of natural resources;
policies for balancing the environment and production;
environmental policies and programs for the Legal
Amazon; and ecological and economic zoning.
Secretariat of Climate Change and Environmental Quality, Secretariat
for Extractivism and Sustainable Rural Development, Brazilian Forest
Service, Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable
Natural Resources (IBAMA), Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity
Conservation (ICMBio), Secretary for Biodiversity and Forests,
Secretary for Institutional Articulation and Environmental Citizenship.
Ministry of
Agriculture,
Livestock, and Food
Supply
Responsible for public policies aimed at boosting
agriculture and agribusiness and promoting the
regulation and standardization of services related
to the agricultural sector.
Seeks to integrate marketing, technological, scientific,
environmental, and organizational aspects of the
productive sector and supply sectors, storage and
transport of crops; oversees agribusiness-related
economic and financial policy.
Secretariat for Agricultural and Cooperative Development,
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa).
Ministry of Agrarian
Development
Responsible for public policies on familiar agriculture
and agrarian reorganization.
Coordinates implementation of policies related to
territorial development and land regularization in
the Amazon.
Department of Familiar Agriculture, Territorial Development
Secretariat, Department of Agrarian Reorganization, Special
Secretariat for Land Regularization in the Amazon.
Ministry of
International
Relations
Coordinate on international politics.
Participate in trade negotiations, economic,
technical and cultural relations with foreign
governments and entities.
Participate in programs of international cooperation
and trade promotion.
Support delegations in Brazilian agencies and
international and multilateral agencies.
Secretariat of Diplomatic Planning, General Secretariat of
Foreign Affairs, Division for theEnvironment(DEMA),Ministry
of Foreign Affairs.
Table 4 | Brazilian Institutions with Specific Roles Dictated by the PNMC
7
(continued)

10 | |
|
STEP
RESPONSIBLE
INSTITUTION
CURRENT STATUS OBSERVATIONS
Design of the Action
Plan
Interministerial
Permanent Working
Group (GPTI)
Completed In addition to the three existing activity pillars, a fourth pillar regarding
mitigation of infrastructure impacts in the Amazon was considered by the
drafters of the plan but does not appear in the final version adopted in 2004.
Implementation
of the First Phase
Federal executive
commission
Completed The Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation (PPCDAm)
was launched in 2004
and finalized its first phase in 2007.
13
Assessment of the
Results of First Phase
of the PPCDAm
and Revision of the
Action Plan
Federal executive
commission
Completed The assessment showed that activities from the “monitoring and control”
pillar had been implemented with satisfactory results.
The two other remaining pillars were not implemented to the same extent
(Abdala and Reis Rosa 2008).
Implementation
of the Second Phase
of PPCDAm
Federal executive
commission
In process A new version of PPCDAm was published in 2012.
Design of State Plans
State agency Completed By October 2009, all states, except for Roraima, had designed
and launched their plans.
Integration of Federal
and State Plans
Federal and
state executive
commissions
In process Since 2010, state and federal authorities have met annually to strengthen
coordination. However, actual coordination of activities and targets remains
weak. For instance, the state targets remain disconnected from the federal
target, making the structure of a potentially nested system more challenging.
Implementation
of State Plans
State executive
commissions
In process State plans include activities related to tenure and environmental
regularization, monitoring and law enforcement, and economic incentives.
Evidence shows a low level of implementation of the Amazon state plans in the
deforestation frontier (see for instance Box 2).
Integration into the
National Climate
Change Plan
Federal executive
commission
Completed Integrated through Decree 7.390, enacted in December 2010.
Assessment of the
Results of the PPCDAm
up to 2011
Federal executive
commission
Completed The assessment concluded that PPCDAm has achieved relative success.
Some independent analyses also conclude that PPCDAm contributed to
a downward trend in deforestation (Assunção et al. 2013; Barreto and
Ellinger, 2011). However, actions under the PPCDAm were not completely
responsible for the declining rates of deforestation–contributing factors
include the global economic crisis, which dampened demand, in turn
lowering deforestation rates. PPCDAm’s effectiveness relies heavily on
command and control actions. Initiatives that should foster a transition
toward a sustainable development model in the Amazon, such as ones for
sustainable production and technology transfer, have met with minimal
success. Issues such as land use regularization and organization of
sustainable production chains therefore remain the greatest challenges for
PPCDAm (Maia et al. 2011).
Revision of the PPCDAm
Federal executive
commission
In process Three working groups have been reviewing the federal action plan since
April 2012. The subsequent consultation process is unclear.
Table 5 | Implementation Steps of the Framework of Action Plans to Prevent and Control Deforestation
in the Brazilian Amazon

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 11
III: OVERVIEW OF MAJOR
LAND USE POLICIES
To date, the largest single source of GHG emissions in
Brazil has been deforestation linked to the expansion of
agricultural frontiers,
10
primarily in the Amazon region.
In this section, we briey assess the implementation status
of the PPCDAm and PPCerrado, as well as the Low-Carbon
Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan). According to ofcial
projections,
11
the PPCDAm is expected to produce between
53.7 percent and 57.8 percent of the total committed
emission reduction in 2020. The PPCerrado is expected
to produce between 10.2 percent and 10.8 percent, and
the ABC Plan between 12.5 percent and 16.8 percent.
Action Plan to Prevent and Control
Deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAm)
During its rst phase (2004 to 2007), the PPCDAm aimed
to reduce deforestation by 20 percent (Grupo Perman-
ente de Trabalho Interministerial, 2004). In its second
phase (2008–11), it is targeting an 80 percent reduction
in deforestation by 2020, relative to a 1996–2005 baseline
(Grupo Permanente de Trabalho Interministerial, 2009).
The third phase of PPCDAm (2012–15) will focus in areas
with less than 25 ha by strengthening actions of planning
and territorial development and agrarian sustainable
productive activities.
The activities under PPCDAm are organized into three
major pillars:
1. Tenure regularization and territorial management
2. Monitoring and control
3. Incentives for sustainable production
The rst two pillars aim to strengthen control of defores-
tation and lands; clarify tenure through registers, carto-
graphic data, and zoning plans; and strengthen monitor-
ing and enforcement capacities. The third pillar seeks
to incentivize sustainable practices, support sustainable
forest management, support extractive activities, enhance
agricultural productivity, and restore degraded areas.
The Brazilian Chief of Staff Ofce (Casa Civil) coordi-
nates the executive commission of the PPCDAm, and the
Ministry of the Environment monitors activities under
the national action plans. All states in the Amazon are
required to have state plans that reect PPCDAm actions.
State action plans are coordinated by state agencies. In
May 2008, the states of Acre, Mato Grosso, Tocantins, and
Pará began formulating action plans under the auspices of
the PPCDAm to reduce deforestation. By 2012, eight states
in the Amazon had completed their state action plans.
Roraima is now the only state within the Amazon that is
still developing its plan.
12
Table 5 presents a summary of
the implementation steps for PPCDAm.
The annual deforestation rate in the Brazilian Amazon
decreased from an average of 19,508 km² between 1996
and 2005 to 6,238 km² in 2011 (MMA/SECEX/DPCD,
2012). According to the established baseline, Brazil is on
track to meet its commitment—it has already achieved an
accumulated reduction of 68.2 percent compared to the
1996–2005 average deforestation rate.
The rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell
until 2011, and experts largely agree that the PPCDAm,
together with other conservation policies,
14
inuenced this
trajectory. A study conducted by the Climate Policy Initia-
tive in Brazil suggests that command-and-control poli-
cies were responsible for the avoidance of 62,100 km
2
of
deforestation from 2005 to 2009, representing 52 percent
of the total deforestation that would have occurred in the
absence of these policies. The remaining 48 percent of
avoided deforestation can be attributed to crop and cattle
price variation (Assunção et al. 2013).
Additional measures, such as the National Monetary
Council’s Resolution 3.545, also contributed to the decline
in deforestation. The resolution conditioned credit for agri-
culture and livestock production in deforestation hotspots
in the Amazon on proof of compliance with environmental
regulations. Without such measures, deforestation rates
would not have fallen as they did (Assunção et al. 2013).
Despite the decline in deforestation, much remains to
be done. Deforestation of smaller areas (less than 25 ha)
remains a challenge because of constraints on remote sens-
ing identication and law enforcement (May et al. 2011).
According to data from the Amazon Institute of People
and the Environment (Imazon), deforestation rates
increased from August 2012 until July 2013 by 92 percent
(which represents 2,007 km
2
) compared to the previ-
ous period, from August 2011 to July 2012 (Martins et al.
2013). Between August 2012 and July 2013, the state of
Pará was the largest contributor to deforestation, respon-
sible for 40 percent of the total deforestation area. Mato

12 | |
|
Grosso was responsible for 31 percent of deforestation,
15
Amazonas 14 percent, and Rondônia 13 percent. The main
drivers of deforestation in the region are the expansion
of agribusiness, cattle, and timber industries; challenges
associated with land tenure; and insufcient economic
incentives to protect the standing forest. The develop-
ment of adequate monitoring systems is a challenge under
the PPCDAm, in part because of a lack of funding. This
remains an issue despite government efforts to create
incentives for sustainable activity.
PPCDAm’s impact to date is largely attributable to
command-and-control actions implemented under the
“monitoring and control” pillar. Initiatives with a greater
likelihood of promoting a long-term transition to sustain-
able development in the Amazon, such as technology
transfer and incentives for sustainable production, have
been implemented less effectively
16
(Abdala and Reis Rosa,
2008; Maia et al. 2011). It is possible that there would
have been a greater reduction in deforestation had the
other pillars been successfully implemented.
Furthermore, implementation of state action plans within
the Amazon remains variable, which may mean that they
are not meeting their full potential to reduce deforesta-
tion. Moreover, since 2004, decentralization has shifted
some of the federal government’s responsibilities to state
governments. Many PPCDAm actions depend on state
actors and actions taken under state plans to prevent and
combat deforestation.
Finally, PPCDAm activities do not yet fully account for
large infrastructure projects, such as hydroelectric plants
and highways. Experts note that coordinating PPCDAm
activities is thus likely to remain a challenge (Millikan,
2009; Marquesini, 2008). This point is clearly illustrated
by increased rates of deforestation in the municipalities of
Porto Velho and Altamira, where hydroelectric plants are
under construction (MMA/SECEX/DPCD, 2012).
Although PPCDAm has shown promise in slowing
deforestation, its implementation must be improved.
A sustainable reduction in Amazon deforestation will
require not only improved monitoring and control but
also improved governance and positive incentives. Exist-
ing governance problems include uneven implementation
and variations in effectiveness among the three PPCDAm
pillars. The monitoring and control pillar has been the
most successful, but it demands more state-level has been
laws and actions, such as land tenure reform. At present,
states are unable to meet those demands. To develop an
effective implementation strategy, the federal and state
governments should prioritize PPCDAm actions. Positive
incentives include tax compensation, nancing lines for
sustainable production, and forest management.
17
Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation
and Fire in the Brazilian Cerrado (PPCerrado)
The Brazilian savannah—the Cerrado—covers 24 percent
of Brazil’s territory. By 2009, agriculture expansion in
this biome had led to the loss of 48.2 percent of its forest
cover. Between 2002 and 2008, an average of 14,200 km²
of the Cerrado’s forests was lost to deforestation each year.
Wildres are also a major problem. The main reason for
forest loss in the Cerrado is agriculture production (espe-
cially soybean), and currently it is the biome that is being
destroyed most quickly.
In September 2010, the government of Brazil launched the
Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation and Fire
in the Cerrado (PPCerrado). The PPCerrado was based on
the National Program of Sustainable Use of the Cerrado
18
and was integrated into the PNMC.
Between 2002 and 2008, 20 municipalities accounted for
18 percent of deforestation in the Cerrado. The PPCerrado
prioritizes these municipalities. Although deforestation
in the Cerrado has decreased signicantly, annual rates
remain high: between 2008 and 2010, the Cerrado’s origi-
nal and secondary vegetation shrunk from 1,043,346 km²
to 1,036,877 km²—a loss of approximately 0.32 percent of
original Cerrado forest cover. In total, the Cerrado has lost
48.5 percent of its original forest area.
19
The PPCerrado lists 151 actions that are managed by an
executive commission comprising representatives from
17 ministries and coordinated by the Casa Civil.
The PPCerrado targets a 40 percent reduction in defor-
estation by 2020 (based on the 2002–08 baseline) and
details activities for 2010 and 2011. Its actions are orga-
nized into four major pillars for 2011 and 2012:
1. Monitoring and control
2. Protected areas and territorial planning
3. Sustainable activities
20
4. Environmental education

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 13
Box 2 | Implementation in Mato Grosso of the Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation in the Amazon and the
Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Slash-and-Burn Agriculture for the State of Mato Grosso
Until recent years, the state of Mato Grosso was a major contributor to defores-
tation and agricultural expansion in Brazil’s Amazon region. From 1996 to 2005,
it deforested an average of 7,700 km² per year, which represented 39 percent of
the total deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Since 2006, however, national
deforestation rates have dropped. Sixty percent of the deforestation reduction in
the Brazilian Amazon since 2005 was achieved in Mato Grosso, which makes it
a key state for the prevention and control of deforestation in the Amazon.
The table below shows a synthesis of the main results of the Action Plan to
Prevent and Control Deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAm) and the Plan for
Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Slash-and-Burn Agriculture for the
state of Mato Grosso. The data highlight the significant decrease in deforesta-
tion and increase in degradation. The level of activity implementation shows
that tenure regularization is not being implemented effectively, monitoring and
control is only occurring in some areas, and economic incentives for sustain-
able activities are not being implemented uniformly. This indicates that defor-
estation is not fully controlled. Updated deforestation data from Imazon show
that deforestation increased 82 percent in Mato Grosso between August 2012
and May 2013 in relation to the same previous period (http://www.imazon.org.
br/publicacoes/transparencia-florestal/transparencia-florestal-amazonia-legal/
boletim-do-desmatamento-sad-maio-de-2013).
PILLAR ACTIVITY
STATUS
Overall Plan Deforestation From 2004 to 2011, annual deforestation evolved from 11.814 km²
to 1.126 km² (Prodes).
Forest degradation From 2009 to 2010, annual forest degradation evolved from 781 km²
to 3.847 km² (Hayashi et al. 2011).
Tenure Regularization Zoning plan State zoning plan was approved by the state House of Representatives
but was not accepted by the federal zoning council and has been
suspended by a state court.
Properties with land title In April 2011, 60 land titles had been issued. The 2010 target was
606 (Brito and Barreto, 2011).
Properties with environmental register In 2010, 39 percent of the area of rural properties with a legal obligation
to register had effectively registered.
Settlement with environmental register In 2012, 12.84 percent of the settlement area of Mato Grosso was registered.
State Conservation Units Between 2009 and 2010, the borders of six conservation units were
identified by GPS, seven management plans were established, and nine
were implemented.
Indigenous territories in
delimitation process
Approved: 40; declared: 7; identified: 4; in identification: 6 *
Monitoring and Control Monitoring tools implemented Federal monitoring tools implemented (Prodes, DETER, DEGrad).
State monitoring tools in terms of forest exploration not implemented.
Law enforcement In 2009, state police operations covered 162 percent of the area of forest
offenses in the same year. In 2011, state police operations only covered
47 percent. Between 2009 and 2010, the area of federal police operation
reduced 35 percent (Conceição, Micol, and Andrade, in press).
Fines paid Between 2009 and 2011, the amount of state fines paid fell from
BRL3.9 million to BRL2.2 million. It represents a very small portion of the
amount of fines actually issued (Conceição, Micol, and Andrade, in press).
Sustainable Activities Number of forest management
plans authorized
In 2007, 330 forest management plans had been authorized (Micol et
al. 2009), whereas in 2010, 2,103 forest management plans had been
authorized (Conceição, Micol, and Andrade, in press).
Access to credit for forest
sustainable activities
In 2009/2010, access to specific credit lines for sustainable forest
management and agroecology was very low (Cardoso, 2011).
*Source: Instituto Socioambiental, http://ti.socioambiental.org/#, accessed April 7, 2012.

14 | |
|
According to the only available document on PPCerrado
implementation, the third pillar—sustainable activities—
has been most thoroughly implemented. Activities falling
under the other pillars are limited by a lack of nancing
(Azevedo, 2012).
The PPCerrado’s greatest challenge is to structure a
monitoring system for deforestation and degradation in
the Cerrado biome. Unlike in the Amazon, attempts to
monitor deforestation and degradation in the Cerrado are
relatively new. To better analyze the dynamics of human
disturbance of the biome, more effective methods for
assessing and monitoring land use and land cover changes
are required. The PPCerrado aims to provide adequate
land cover classications and to implement an operational
monitoring system in the Cerrado, where historically there
have been few attempts to control land degradation.
Currently, the Ministry of Environment’s Biodiversity and
Forests Secretary is monitoring deforestation and degrada-
tion in the Cerrado, with nancial support from the United
Nations Development Programme and technical support
from the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renew-
able Natural Resources (IBAMA). The initiative, however,
has limited resources and, in the Amazon, for example, does
not measure deforestation and degradation in real time.
In 2010, the Brazilian Government announced a partner-
ship between the National Institute of Spatial Research
and IBAMA to improve the monitoring system and provide
annual deforestation rates. However, insufcient nancing
kept the partnership from becoming active until recently.
All actions approved under the Forest Investment Pro-
gram indicate that the Cerrado is a priority and that
investments should be made in monitoring systems (see
Box 3 for more information). The involvement of civil
society in monitoring actions that lead to GHG emissions
and deforestation is crucial in this biome.
Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan)
In 2010, the Brazilian Government designed the Low-Carbon
Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan) to provide resources and incen-
tives for farmers to adopt sustainable agricultural techniques.
The objective is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO
2
), methane (CH
4
), and nitrous oxide (N
2
O) from agri-
culture (Table 6). Specically, the ABC Plan aims to reduce
annual GHG emissions by 133 to 166 million tonnes of CO
2
eq
relative to projected future levels by the year 2020 (see part
STRATEGY ACTION TARGET
No-Till Systems
Rather than till the soil, which contributes to erosion, farmers sow directlyin the
strawof the previous crop.This practice protects the soil,reduceswater use,increases
crop yields,and reducesmachineryand fuel costs. The goalis to expand thecurrent
25millionhectaresunder no-till systems to 33 millionhectares.
To reducethe emission of16million
to 20million tonnes ofCO
2
equivalent
relative to projected 2020 levels
Degraded Pastures
Renovation
To transform degraded landintoproductive areasfor the production offood, fiber,
meat, andforests. The governmentaims to recover15millionacres.
To reduce between 83 millionand
104million tonnes ofCO
2
equivalent
relative to projected 2020 levels
Integrated Crop-
Livestock-Forestry
Systems
Thesystem aims tointegrate plant, animal, and forestry production in one system.
This replenishesthe soil, increasesincome, andcreates jobs. The goal is to convert
4 million hectares, which are currently used for crops, to an integrated system.
To reducebetween 18and 22 million
tonnes ofCO
2
equivalentrelative to
projected 2020 levels
Planted Forests
Planted eucalyptus andpinetrees providefuture income tothe producerand reduce
carbon dioxide by releasing oxygen. The goalis to increase thearea of 6million
hectares to9million hectares ofplanted forests.
To reducebetween 8and 10 million
tonnes ofCO
2
equivalentrelative to
projected 2020 levels
Biological Nitrogen
Fixation
Biological nitrogen fixation processes developmicroorganisms/bacteriato
capturenitrogenin the airand turn it intoorganic matterfor crops.This helps to
reduceproduction costsand improvesoil fertility. The government aims toimprove
the methodin the production of5.5 millionhectares.
To reduce the emission of10million
tonnes ofCO
2
equivalent relative to
projected 2020 levels
Animal Waste
Treatment
Waste frompigs andother animalsis collected and used to produce energy
(gas)andorganic compounds. Thegoal is to treat4.4 millioncubic meters
ofwastefrom pig farmingand other activities.
To reduce 6.9 million tonnes
ofCO
2
equivalent relative to projected
2020 levels
Table 6 | Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan Strategies and Targets

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 15
IV: GHG Projections). Other objectives include contributing
to the achievement of international GHG reduction commit-
ments; guaranteeing the continuous improvement of agri-
cultural practices that reduce GHG emissions and increase
carbon storage in vegetation and soil; incentivizing the
adoption of strategies that increase environmental protection
of plants and productive systems, while generating income
for vulnerable rural communities; and enhancing efforts to
reduce deforestation led by livestock and agriculture produc-
tion in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes.
As of April 2013, the ABC Plan had not yet been enacted by
decree and its governance structure was not yet fully imple-
mented. Nevertheless, a government program—known
as the ABC program—was already implementing the ABC
Plan’s activities.
21
State management groups are operating
in 13 priority states, and the agriculture ministry has thus
far focused on publicity and capacity-building activities.
The main problem of the ABC Plan is that it is being
implemented slowly. A recent study organized by the ABC
Observatory (ABC Observatory, 2013) identied a number
of limitations, ranging from producers’ ignorance of the
ABC Plan to the low capacity of technology transfer and the
chronic deciencies of the agricultural extension system in
Brazil. Overcoming such limitations, according to the study,
is urgent in order to meet Brazilian mitigation targets.
One of the bottlenecks is the nancial implementation of the
ABC program, which aims to promote, among other things,
the technologies recommended in the ABC Plan. Activities
are limited by challenges in accessing available nancial
resources. In 2012, the ABC program received a budget allo-
cation of 1.3 billion BRL (Conservation International, Insti-
tuto Socioambiental, and Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da
Amazônia, 2012), but initial assessments showed very weak
access to the plan’s main credit lines (Cardoso, 2011). The
ability of key actors to access credit is restricted by their lack
of capacity and uncertainty about the risks of new technolo-
gies. Furthermore, until recently, Banco do Brasil manag-
ers had no incentive to offer credits from the ABC program
because the provision of such credits was not factored into
their performance review in the same way as the provision
of other nancial products, such as loans. The Forest Invest-
ment Program (see Box 3) aims to provide resources and
capacity building to address these challenges.
22
In the rst year of implementation (2010–11), only ve
projects were approved under the ABC program. The govern-
ment attributed this low number to poor marketing.
23
In the
second year (2011–12), the credit line for the agricultural ABC
program grew to 3.15 billion BRL, with interest of 5.5 percent
per year. Of this total, 48 percent was used (1.5 billion BRL),
representing an increase of 262 percent over the previous
year (2010–11). In its second year, part of the funding for the
program was transferred by the Brazilian National Bank for
Social and Economic Development (BNDES) to Banco do
Brasil (1.2 billion BRL) and some public and private banks
(300 million BRL), leveraging the use of resources. In 2012,
5,038 projects were approved, with 2,022 in the Southeast
region, 870 in the Midwest, and 233 in the North. By January
2013 there were more than 4,500 contracts. Although growth
appears to be quite positive, the number of contracts is still
very small considering the many entities that can and need to
take advantage of credits provided by the ABC program (ABC
Observatory, 2013).
To qualify for a loan from the ABC program, farmers must
register with the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR, in
Portuguese). This registry is not yet available in all states,
however, which creates a barrier to the expansion of the ABC
program. The states that have accessed the ABC program the
most are, in order: Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul,
São Paulo, Goiás, and Mato Grosso do Sul.
24
Another signicant challenge for the ABC Plan is establish-
ing a monitoring system and a baseline for its activities and
impacts. The ABC Plan and the ABC program can help change
traditional, unsustainable agricultural practices and play an
important role in moving Brazil toward its voluntary emis-
sion reduction target, in accordance with the National Policy
of Climate Change. The plan’s implementation, however,
depends on the federal and state governments’ capacity to
make the Rural Environmental Registry available for rural
families. Moreover, rural families should be provided the
training and information needed to support a shift toward
more sustainable farming practices.
In 2011, only three states had established a management com-
mittee and developed an action plan. One of these states was
Mato Grosso. The Mato Grosso action plan consists of
45 proposed activities, organized around seven expected
results directly related to the national plan’s targets. State
action plans do not have a mechanism to absorb funding,
however, which limits their capacity for implementation
(Strassburg et al. 2012). In addition, there appears to be a
lack of harmonization and integration with other action plans
and policies that cover land use, including other deforestation
plans and sectoral plans for energy and industry.

16 | |
|
Other Land Use Policies
Two other policies likely to affect Brazilian emissions and
carbon stocks are the implementation of a legal or insti-
tutional framework for the Reduction of Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and revi-
sions to the forest code (see Box 4).
IV: GHG PROJECTIONS
Although this paper focuses on national policies in the
AFOLU sector, to consider Brazil’s GHG trajectory into the
future, we must analyze all economic sectors. The projec-
tions presented here are based on an independent analysis
of GHG emissions published by the Coimbra Institute
and Graduate School of Research and Engineering at the
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in January 2013.
28
Box 3 | Three Examples of Financing Instruments in Implementing Brazil’s Climate Policies:
The Amazon Fund, the Climate Fund, and the Forest Investment Program
Whether Brazil can meet its climate mitigation targets will depend on different types of financing instruments—such as grants, public investments, and taxes—pro-
vided through national and international institutions. Currently, Brazil has three finance initiatives at the federal level established by law: the Amazon Fund, the National
Fund for Climate Change, and the Forest Investment Program. However, not all climate funding sources are included in this assessment.
The Amazon Fund
Launched in 2008, Brazil’s Amazon Fund aims to combat deforestation and
promote sustainable development in the Amazon. Despite initial skepticism
about its potential to secure funding, the Amazon Fund attracted interest from
the government of Norway and later that of Germany. The Amazon Fund has
so far received a pledge for up to US$1 billion from the government of Norway,
contingent on achieving reduced rates of deforestation. To date, US$129 million
has actually been disbursed to the Amazon Fund for a first round of projects.
Thirty-six projects are contracted.
The Brazilian National Bank for Social and Economic Development (BNDES)
manages the Amazon Fund, which is available to finance the sustainable use
of forests, recovery of deforested areas, conservation, and sustainable use of
biodiversity, as well as environmental control, monitoring, and enforcement.
Grant awards follow guidelines established by a steering committee, which
includes civil society representatives, but actual grant decisions are made by
BNDES staff (see http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/ for further details on fund
management, including a listing of initial projects approved and in the pipeline).
In a 2011 report evaluating Norway’s support for REDD+ readiness activities
in developing countries, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
stressed the importance of the US$1 billion commitment for the initial thrust
of forestry policies in Brazil. The report‘s authors consider the implementation
of the Amazon Fund a “leading example of developing a national mechanism
for the disbursement of payments based on results.” However, the authors
note that despite the Amazon Fund’s success, interviews for the report
revealed areas for improvement in future support from Norway’s International
Climate and Forest Initiative; activities thus far had had limited impact, and
procedural constraints had restricted efficiency. The civil society organizations,
community associations, private sector organizations, and state governments
who see themselves as central actors and beneficiaries were frustrated with the
limitations, complexities, tight specifications, and lack of transparency in these
processes (May et al. 2011).
The National Fund on Climate Change
The PNMC established the National Fund on Climate Change (Climate Fund)
in 2009 to finance projects, studies, and projects targeting climate change
mitigation and adaptation. The Climate Fund is linked to the Ministry of Envi-
ronment and provides refundable and nonrefundable resources. The refund-
able resources are managed by the National Bank for Economic and Social
Development (BNDES). The nonrefundable funds are managed by the Ministry
of Environment. Up to 60 percent of the Climate Fund’s resources come from
the Ministry of Environment from the proceeds of oil production. Other sources
of funding include appropriations in the annual federal budget law, national
and international public or private grants, and other arrangements made by
law. However, the national climate change fund is currently under threat, which
could have significant implications for future climate change activities.
The Forest Investment Program
In September 2010, the government of Brazil confirmed its interest in
participating in the Forest Investment Program as a pilot country. The Forest
Investment Program aims to support the efforts of developing and emerging
economies to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degrada-
tion through public and private investments. Forest Investment Program
investments in Brazil will focus on the Cerrado biome. The Investment Plan
for Brazil identifies three priorities. First, it supports structuring activities
for sustainable forest management, aiming to enhance forest maintenance.
Second, it supports the development and implementation of monitoring and
planning tools for land-use planning, forest inventory, and the implemen-
tation of the rural environmental cadaster, (CAR, in Portuguese), aiming
to strengthen the governance and management transparency of the forest
resources. The rural environmental cadaster is a key instrument to assist in
the process of environmental regularization of rural properties. Third, it
targets the promotion of productive sustainable activities in already defor-
ested areas, aiming to reduce the pressure of conversion of new areas.
The Amazon Fund and the Climate Fund are the main funds for climate mitiga-
tion in Brazil and are established by the PNMC as financing mechanisms for
achieving Brazilian targets. To complement resources from these funds, Brazil
is also a pilot country under the Forest Investment Program.

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 17
Box 4 | National REDD+ Strategy & Forest Code Reform
National REDD+ Strategy
The government of Brazil has been developing its National REDD+ Strategy
since 2010, in consultation with civil society actors, including the private
sector. With the aim of generating inputs for the National Strategy, the
Ministry of Environment organized working groups to examine issues such
as financing, benefit-sharing, and institutional arrangements. In addition,
the Executive Group of the Interministerial Committee on Climate Change
created a REDD+ temporary interministerial group to develop the National
Strategy. State governments in the Amazon have been involved in this pro-
cess through meetings with the Ministry of Environment to define strategies
for nesting the subnational initiatives at the national level.
The draft strategy identifies the three sectoral plans analyzed here as the
primary channels for implementing REDD+ in Brazil. It supplements these
plans with cross-cutting measures, including a financial architecture for
REDD+ and a set of “safeguards” designed to ensure that REDD+ actions
do not inflict social or environmental harm. The safeguards cover a range
of issues, including respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous
peoples and local communities, transparent national forest governance
structures, effective participation of stakeholders, and conservation of
natural forests and biodiversity.
Defining legal rules and constructing safeguards are important steps
toward the regulation of REDD+ activities in Brazil. Rules and safeguards
promote harmonization among federal, state, and municipal levels and
establish the groundwork for further regulation of key aspects of the
development and operation of REDD+ projects or programs. Currently,
however, there is little coordination among existing REDD+ initiatives at
the different levels of government.
Moreover, several important elements of REDD+ remain unaddressed in the
draft strategy. The current draft does not include a mechanism to hold the
government accountable for REDD+ emissions reductions at the national
level or address the decentralization of REDD+ financing and benefit-
sharing. Furthermore, the draft does not address how other biomes can
benefit from the National Strategy, how REDD+ can be integrated into the
mix of conservation instruments, and how local actors can be adequately
engaged. According to some Ministry of the Environment representatives,
other federal ministries are now reviewing the draft National REDD+ Strategy
in preparation for public consultation.
Forest Code Revision
First enacted in 1934, the Forest Code, now replaced by the Forest Law n.
12.651/2012, is a fundamental component of Brazil’s environmental legal
framework. Among other things, it established a “legal reserve”—a percent-
age of any rural property that must be kept forested—and a “permanent pro-
tected area” status that applies to riparian zones, hillsides, and mountaintops.
The extent of the legal reserve has long been a matter of debate. The
original forest code set it at 50 percent for private properties within the
country’s northern (primarily Amazon) region. Following a major increase
in deforestation in the mid-1990s, an executive order expanded the legal
reserve for the legal Amazon to 80 percent. However, a significant share
of Brazilian agricultural properties does not meet the 80 percent standard
(Sparovek et al. 2010). Because compliance with the law would require
radical changes in Brazilian agriculture, the country’s agricultural interests
have pushed for reform.
The proposed changes to the Forest Code provoked protests from en-
vironmentalists and scientists (Grupo de Trabalho do Código Florestal,
SBPC, ABC, 2011; Metzger, 2010; Barreto and Ellinger, 2011). Indeed,
studies suggest that the new Forest Law could threaten Brazil’s efforts to
reduce deforestation. According to an analysis of initial set of proposed
reforms published by the Climate Observatory in 2010, the changes
could lead to additional emissions and loss of carbon sequestration of
6 to 24 times the total of the mitigation goal in tonnes of CO
2
equivalent
that was committed to in Copenhagen in 2009 (Martin, 2010).
25
Experts
have speculated that changes in deforestation rates can be attributed to
the expectation of amnesty (see Box 5).
Following intense national debate, the House of Representatives passed
a bill in May 2012
26
weakening several Forest Code provisions. President
Dilma Rousseff vetoed 12 of the more controversial revisions and issued
a provisional measure for 32 modifications to the bill including:
Diminished protection of riparian areas
Amnesty for select cases of illegal clear-cutting
Postponement of the requirement to use the Rural Environmental
Registry as a prerequisite to access credit
Complication of criteria for determining fines and restoration
of degraded land
In September 2012, the Senate approved bill 571/2012, which regulates
some of the issues that President Rousseff previously vetoed. The main
change is the reduction of riparian areas for large farmers, which was
later vetoed by the president.
27
It is important to note that there are many synergies and contradic-
tions between the National REDD+ Strategy, the new Forest Law, and
the plans to reduce GHG emissions in the forestry sector. Examples
of synergies include the implementation of the Rural Environmental
Registry, the provision of payments for environmental services, and the
improvement of monitoring strategies, all of which is set forth in the
Forest Law. Examples of contradictions, which are changes to the Forest
Code, include the reduction of Permanent Protected Areas, the inclusion
of Permanent Protected Areas in the Legal Reserve, and the reduction of
the re-composition area of the Amazonian Cerrado.

18 | |
|
Box 5 | Impact of the Zoning Plan Vote and
Negotiation on Forest Code Reforms
in Mato Grosso Deforestation
The study estimates GHG emissions are based in part
on the gures provided in the Inventory of Emissions
of the Second National Communication of Brazil to the
UNFCCC. These projections represent the most recent
review of Brazil’s possible future GHG trajectory and are
based on the emission gures provided in the federal
decree that regulates the PNMC.
The analysis is based on three scenarios—A, B, and C—
that together outline a range of possible GHG emissions
through 2030 (Table 7 and Figure 4). Scenarios A and B
extend the existing government assumptions from 2020
to 2030. Scenario C presents deeper mitigation potential.
Scenario A, which serves as the baseline, assumes that
average historic emission trends continue for land-use
change, forests, and industry. For energy, this baseline
scenario assumes that as of 2010, all new power genera-
tion is sourced from natural gas. (In fact, Brazil installed
new renewable capacity prior to 2010 and has continued
to do so.
29
) Scenario B takes into account mitigation
policies and measures approved by the Brazilian Gov-
ernment to date, and assumes the Government’s 2020
GHG reduction goals are met, and Scenario C assumes
implementation of policies under consideration but not
yet adopted.
The inputs to the projection model include, for all sce-
narios, a GDP growth rate of 5 percent per annum (pa)
from 2011 to 2020 and 4 percent from 2021 to 2030.
The six economic sectors are LULUCF, power generation,
transport, industry, agriculture, and waste.
Table 7 summarizes the assumptions in each of the three
scenarios, and Figure 4 presents the expected GHG
trajectory under each scenario. The study nds that –
assuming government GHG reduction goals for 2020 are
met – the energy sector will become the largest source of
GHG emissions by 2020. (As of 2012, energy emissions
had already approached those of agriculture and those
of land use change.
30
) Emissions would also continue to
increase from 2020 to 2030 in the absence of additional
mitigation actions.
As outlined above, however, there are challenges to
implementing the existing policies, including insufcient
nancing to support actions, inadequate monitoring
and control, and too few positive incentives to sustain
reduced deforestation.
Legislative actions can have clear—and sometimes unintend-
ed—repercussions on deforestation rates. In Mato Grosso, they
triggered illegal behavior and severely hampered mitigation.
Between August 2010 and March 2011, according to data from
Imazon’s Deforestation Alert System, deforestation in Mato
Grosso increased 22 percent and forest degradation 225 percent,
compared with the same period in 2009–10. In April 2011, field
operations revealed the reappearance of cases of large deforesta-
tion (deforestation over 1,000 hectares), which had not occurred
in Mato Grosso since 2006. From August 2010 to April 2011, 66
new deforestation areas were identified in Nova Ubiratã, totaling
approximately 37,000 hectares (see illustration).
The resurgence of deforestation resulted from a race to clear large
areas as quickly as possible in order to take advantage of the ex-
pected amnesty for illegal deforestation proposed in amendments
to the Forest Code. These actions were carried out in defiance of
the law, with the expectation of impunity.
The enactment of the state zoning plan on April 20, 2011 also
fueled increased deforestation in Mato Grosso. The zoning plan
provides a basis for regularizing any environmental liability in
areas deforested by the date of its publication.

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 19
Table 7 | Summary of Key Underlying Assumptions for Each Sector
SCENARIO A (BASELINE) SCENARIO B SCENARIO C
Overall
assumptions
Base values provided in Federal
Decree 7.390, excluding any
mitigation measures included
in Scenario B and extended
into the future based on trends
observed before 2009
Includes mitigation measures that were
outlined in Federal Decree No. 7.390 up
to 2020, with no further mitigation actions
after this date
Includes additional mitigation actions that are under
consideration but not yet adopted
Land-use change
and forestry
Average historic deforestation
rates (from 1996 to 2005)
Implementation of mitigation actions
outlined in PNMC for 2010–20
Amazon: Reduction of deforestation
by 80% from baseline by 2020;
maintained at this rate through 2030
Cerrado: Reduction of deforestation by
40% from baseline by 2020; maintained
at this rate until 2030
Expansion of planted forests by
3 million hectares in 2020; increase to
11.2 million hectares in 2030
Deeper mitigation that occurs in 2 phases: by 2020
and post-2020
Amazon: Reduction of deforestation by 85% from
baseline by 2020; by 90% from baseline by 2030
Cerrado: Reduction of deforestation by 45%
from baseline by 2020; by 60% from baseline
by 2030
Expansion of planted forests by 3 million
hectares in 2020, increase to 12.3 million
hectares in 2030
Reforestation of 7.5 million ha of forest cover
by 2030
Energy (demand
assumed to be
the same across
scenarios)
No expansion of renewable
energy sources as of 2010, all
new power needs met through
natural gas; only energy savings
achieved through technology
progress
As stated in Ten-Year National Energy
Plan (PDE) 2019 and the National
Energy Plan (PNE) 2030 (for 2020 – 30)
Mitigation measures include:
Expansion of hydro to 34 GW
Expansion of renewable energy to 20 GW
Energy efficiency actions to reduce
projected power consumption by 4.4%
Mitigation measures include:
Wind power to replace coal power growth
assumed in Scenario B
Energy efficiency actions to save 2% more energy
than in scenario B, reducing demand by 12% in 2030
No nuclear expansion
Energy efficiency shifts generation away from
natural gas
Transport (same
increase in energy
demand assumed
across all three
scenarios:
Lightweight vehicles:
6.8% pa up to 2020;
5.4% pa up to 2030
Heavyweight vehicles:
5% pa up to 2020;
4% pa up to 2030)
Consumption of ethanol and
biodiesel frozen at 2009 levels
until 2030
Consumption of gasoline
C
31
and diesel calculated
considering total demand and
discounting biofuel values
Proportion of anhydrous
ethanol in gasoline C reduced
progressively from 25% in
2009 to 20% by 2020
Increase in consumption of ethanol and
biodiesel:
Increase in consumption of ethanol:
13.9% pa up to 2020; 5.6% pa for
2021–30
Consumption of gasoline C
calculated as difference in lightweight
vehicle energy demand and ethanol
consumption
Proportion of anhydrous ethanol in
gasoline C maintained at 25%
Heavyweight vehicles: Blending of
biodiesel in diesel oil maintained at 5%
throughout period
More ambitious increase in consumption of ethanol
and biodiesel:
Increase in consumption of ethanol: 13.9% pa up
to 2020; 7% pa for 2021–30
Consumption of gasoline C and proportion of
anhydrous ethanol to gasoline assumed to be the
same as in scenario B
Heavyweight vehicles: Blending of biodiesel in
diesel oil maintained at 5% up to 2020; increase
to 6% in 2025 and 7% in 2030
Industry
Estimated based on Ten-Year
National Energy Plan (PDE)
2019 and the National Energy
Plan (PNE) 2030 (for 2020–30)
No gains from energy
efficiency
Mitigation measures include:
Increased energy efficiency
Materials recycling (5% in cement
manufacturing)
Incremental use of charcoal reducing
sector emissions by 10%
Mitigation measures include:
More rigorous energy efficiency measures,
including implementation of measures with no
economic returns for consumers
Adoption of modified industrial processes—
replacement of SF
6
, new-generation catalysts, etc.
Source: Adapted from La Rovere et al. 2013

20 | |
|
V: LOOKING AHEAD
If Brazil continues to drive down deforestation and
agriculture emissions, it could meet its targets for 2020.
However, Brazil faces challenges in designing and
implementing its mitigation plans. To meet its reduction
targets, Brazil will need to address these challenges. It
took an initial step in 2012 when the Executive Group
of the Interministerial Committee on Climate Change
launched a task force to review the National Plan for
Climate Change. The Brazil National Plan predates the
PNMC, and, while it includes Brazil’s commitments to
reduce GHG emissions across different sectors, it does
not implement specic actions or regulations. If rigorous
and comprehensive, the task force’s review may provide
an opportunity to harmonize the sectoral plans with the
overall objective of the PNMC, update GHG projections,
and better involve civil society.
Additional factors that could support Brazil in implement-
ing its National Strategy include the following:
Participation by civil society
and transparency in the design of policies
Climate policymakers in Brazil have historically recog-
nized the importance of including stakeholders in deci-
sions about, and implementation of, GHG emissions
reductions (May et al. 2011). The participation of these
stakeholders (including representatives of local popula-
tions, forest managers, and members of the public sector,
among others) is essential to ensure that the plans succeed
in reducing GHG emissions.
In 2000, the government of Brazil created the Brazilian
Climate Change Forum as a venue for communication
with civil society on climate change issues. The Climate
Change Forum, which is chaired by the president of Brazil,
includes representatives from all sectors of Brazilian
society focused on the climate agenda, including the pri-
vate sector, social movements, academia, and think tank
organizations. It coordinates and advises various climate
change initiatives and is intended to bridge government
and civil society. Although the forum has served its role as
an avenue for civil society inputs, it has been less effective
in accomplishing its intended goal of serving as a stra-
tegic advisory committee. A network of NGOs called the
Climate Observatory has facilitated stakeholder participa-
tion in the development and implementation of sectoral
plans. However, participation has been highly uneven and
variable across the different functions of each plan. The
Climate Observatory also engages in climate policymaking
processes through the forum.
Improved transparency and inclusion are essential for
creating a more open dialogue between civil society and
policymakers—and ultimately enabling civil society to
exert a positive inuence on the climate debate. Relevant
ministries will need to focus on the dissemination of
information among different actors and actively promote
capacity building on climate change. It is important to
involve all sectors of Brazilian society in national planning
in the short, medium, and long term. The establishment
of a transparent governance structure is important to bal-
ance different powers and interests related to the regula-
tory and enforcement processes of mitigation targets.
This could be achieved through increasing autonomy and
improving the technical quality of institutions responsible
for sharing information with different stakeholders, such
as the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change, which would
provide more regulatory stability.
Figure 4 | GHG Emissions Scenarios for Brazil
*Includes GHG impacts from reforestation. Source: La Rovere et al. 2012.
2005
2015
2020
2025
2030
Million tonnes CO
2
eq
Year
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
— Scenario A
— Scenario B*
— Scenario C*

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 21
Monitoring implementation of the policies
and reorientation of strategies
An underlying problem in Brazil has been the lack of
performance monitoring and the difculty of evaluating
the impacts of policy investments and mitigation actions
for climate change mitigation over longer timeframes.
Decree 7390/2010 (Article 2, paragraph 1) establishes that
sectoral plans will be reviewed and revised on a biannual
basis, with the rst review process expected in 2014–15.
The action plans that will drive achievement of the PNMC
targets are spread across different ministries, so effec-
tive joint monitoring of the plans’ progress must underlie
any assessment of the progress of the plan as a whole.
The current state of monitoring and assessment does not
meet that need.
32
For example, Brazil has not disclosed
any systematic assessments of the implementation of the
PPCerrado or the ABC plans. Open policy assessments are
necessary not only for accountability but also for inform-
ing the design and modication of new and existing poli-
cies and strategies. A lack of information can endanger
participation processes. In order to participate effectively,
civil society must have access to information on what has
already been implemented and with what resources, and
the level of success of those projects.
Improving policy coordination
and harmonization
In order to effectively mitigate GHG emissions, different
instruments and policies across Brazil must be integrated.
Policies and actions that may hinder mitigation should
also be taken into account. Two examples are the possible
increase in deforestation emissions due to infrastructure
and energy projects such as the Belo Monte dam, and the
project for extracting oil from the Pre-Salt Layer.
Successful coordination of these instruments and policies
will require the following:
1. Thorough assessments and denition of indicators
for measuring the impacts and effectiveness of poli-
cies in order to provide inputs to the reorientation
of the strategies.
2. Technical and political coordination across a variety
of complementary policy instruments. Although policy
instruments are complementary in principle, they rely
on institutional coordination at all levels—both hori-
zontal (among the same level of governance) and verti-
cal (among different levels of governance). To achieve
better coordination, the capacities of public managers
regarding policies and available instruments must be
enhanced. Absence of legal clarity on governance struc-
tures may make it impossible to implement the mix of
instruments for climate mitigation.
3. Alignment between the sectoral plans and climate
policies, and those implemented across different levels
of government (i.e., federal, state, and municipal).
The geographical scale of Brazil, and the complexities
of land use issues in key biomes like the Amazon and
Cerrado, makes this type of coordination especially
important. Ensuring the consistency of the various
instruments employed by the PNMC, coordinating
efforts in the regions, and sharing timely and relevant
information are challenges that call for building syner-
gies between various actors and activities with a view to
securing cost-effective solutions.
4. Participation of civil society, governmental, and pri-
vate sector actors is especially important when it
comes to integrating environmental and business
policies. Communication between these stakehold-
ers can help identify overlapping and contradicting
areas across policies. Participants can also help drive
implementation, ensuring that it remains consistent
with the original policy objectives.
5. Mainstreaming low-carbon and climate-resilient devel-
opment into major Brazilian development policies,
measures, and actions. On top of that, it is important to
develop a long-term low-carbon and climate resilient
development strategy.

22 | |
|
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ABC Plan Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan
AFOLU agriculture, forestry, and other land use
BDNES Brazilian National Bank for Social and Economic Development
COP Conference of the Parties
CO
2
eq carbon dioxide equivalent
GHG greenhouse gas
Imazon Amazon Institute of People and the Environment
INPE National Institute for Space Research
LULUCF land use, land-use change, and forestry
NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action
NESA Center for Socioenvironmental Economy
(Núcleo de Economia Socioambiental)
PDE Ten-Year Energy Plan
PMBC Low-Carbon Mining Plan
PNMC Brazil’s National Policy for Climate Change
PPCDAm Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation
in the Amazon
PPCerrado Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation
and Fire in the Cerrado
REDD+ Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation (REDD+)
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change
USP University of São Paulo
ENDNOTES
1. Equivalent to an estimated 1.17 to 1.26 billion tonnes CO
2
equivalent
reduction relative to the 2020 projection.
2. Avaliação do plano de ação para prevenção e controle do desmatamento
na Amazônia legal, December 2011, 47–49. http://www.cepal.org/dmaah/
publicaciones/sinsigla/xml/7/45887/IPEA_GIZ_Cepal_2011_Avali-
acao_PPCDAm_2007-2011_web.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2013.
3. See http://www.mma.gov.br/clima/politica-nacional-sobre-mudanca-do-
clima/planos-setoriais-de-mitigacao-e-adaptacao for more information.
The plan to reduce emissions from steel is still in preparation.
4. See http://www.mct.gov.br/upd_blob/0214/214078.pdf.
5. Comitê Interministerial sobre Mudança do Clima, 2010.
6. Further analysis of state policies is beyond the scope of this report.
For more information, see the 2012 Climate Forum study by the Ethos
Institute and NESA/USP: http://www1.ethos.org.br/EthosWeb/arquivo/0-A-
d2ePublica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Forum%20Clima_2012_com%20anexo.pdf.
7. The list of Brazilian institutions is not comprehensive.
8. Createdby Federal Decree No.3515, June 20, 2000.
9. http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/FundoAmazonia/export/sites/default/site_
en/Galerias/Arquivos/Relatorio_Atividades/RAFA_printed_ing_2012.pdf
10. The most recent national inventory of GHG emissions showed that land use,
land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) was responsible for 77 percent of
CO
2
emissions in Brazil in 2005.
11. See part IV.
12. http://forumempresarialpeloclima.org.br/observatorio-de-politicas-
publicas-de-mudancas-climaticas/
13. As previously noted, the PPCDAm predates the PNMC targets. The baseline
from which Brazil will reduce its emissions, however, does not account for the
measures outlined in the plan. The PNMC will benefit from the lessons learned
from its performance and also act as an incentive for its effective implementation.
14. As Barreto and Ellinger (2011) have stressed, several initiatives can claim partial credit
for the decline in deforestation, including municipal environmental governance
initiatives, enforced regulations in the meat production chain, and a soy moratorium.
15. For a deeper assessment of policy implementation in Mato Grosso, please see Box 2.
16. According to the Environment Ministry data quoted in the official assess-
ment of the PPCDAm implementation, 13 of the 17 activities of the pillar
“Monitoring and Control” were implemented from 75 to 100%, while only
1 of 5 of the activities under the “Tenure Regularization and Territorial
Management” pillar and 4 of 19 activities under the “Sustainable Production
Incentives” pillar were implemented (Maia et al., 2011, 29).
17. http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/bitstream/11058/885/1/Resultados%20
avaliacao%20PPCDAm_seminario%20avaliacao_JH03x.pdf
18. The National Program of Sustainable Use of the Cerrado, Federal Decree
5,577 from November 2005, aims to promote conservation, recovery, and
sustainable management of natural ecosystems in the Cerrado biome, as
well as to revert the present negative socioenvironmental impacts (http://
www.mma.gov.br/biomas/cerrado/conservacao-e-uso-sustentavel).
19.
Folha de São Paulo
, http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ambiente/974578-
desmate-no-cerrado-cai-e-ministerio-acena-com-revisao-de-meta.shtml.
20. Activities and approaches under this pillar consist mainly of credit lines for resto-
ration, funds for forest plantations and agroforestry, and minimal pricing policies.
21. Because a program is already implementing the ABC Plan’s activities,
we consider the ABC Plan an existing policy.
22. Not all climate funding sources are included in this assessment.
The funds described are limited to those that were established by law.
23. http://www.nature.com/news/brazil-s-fund-for-low-carbon-agriculture-lies-
fallow-1.11111.
24. http://www.gcftaskforce.org/documents/o_programa_agricultura_de_
baixo_carbono.pdf.
25. The quoted study is based on an earlier version of the forest code. Since
the extent of amnesty considered is quite similar, however, the study’s
results should be taken into consideration.
26. Bill nº1876/1999.
27. http://congressoemfoco.uol.com.br/noticias/veja-os-nove-vetos-de-
dilma-a-mp-do-codigo-florestal/
28. La Rovere et al. 2013.
29. ANEEL 2013.
30. Sistema de Estimativa de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa 2013.
31. Gasoline C is 75 percent pure gasoline and 25 percent anhydrous ethanol and
is used to fuel lightweight vehicles. Gasoline contributes the second largest
share of GHG emissions in the transport sector, after diesel.
32. According to the Environment Ministry, a specific monitoring project is being
developed and should be presented to the GEX in the second semester of 2013.
This project will encompass an electronic platform where methodologies to monitor
GHG emissions will be disclosed, as well as information on the result of this
monitoring, data on implementation of actions, identification and interviews of the
main stakeholders, and a list of activities to achieve the plan’s targets.

GHG Mitigation in Brazil’s Land Use Sector
WORKING PAPER | December 2013 | 23
REFERENCES
ABC Observatory (2013).
Agricultura de baixa emissão de carbono: A
evolução de um novo paradigma.
Coordenação Eduardo Delgado Assad.
Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV) Centro de Agronegócio da Escola de Econo-
mia de São Paulo. São Paulo: FGV.
Abdala, G. C., and M. Reis Rosa (2008). PPCDAM:
Avaliação 2004–2007;
Revisão 2008.
Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.
ANEEL 2013. Banco de Informações de Geração. http://www.aneel.gov.br/area.
cfm?idArea=15
Assunção J., C. Gandour and R. Rocha (2013).
Credit Affects Deforestation?
Evidence of a Rural Credit Policy in the Amazon.
Rio de Janeiro: Climate Pol-
icy Initiative. http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/
Does-Credit-Affect-Deforestation-Executive-Summary-Portuguese.pdf
Azevedo, A. (2012).
PPCerrado: Avaliação para Observatório do Clima.
Brasília: IPAM.
Barreto, P., and E. Araújo (2012).
O Brasil atingirá sua meta de redução do
desmatamento?
Belém: Imazon.
Barreto, P., and P. Ellinger (2011).
Código florestal: Como sair do impasse?
Belém: Imazon.
Brazil (2010). Correspondence to the UNFCCC Secretariat. http://unfccc.
int/files/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/application/pdf/brazilcphac-
cord_app2.pdf.
Brazilian Forum on Climate Change (2012).
Meeting of the Executive Group
on Climate Change
, 12/13/2011. Brasília.
Brito, B., and P. Barreto (2011).
A regularização fundiária avançou na
Amazônia?
Belém: Imazon.
Cardoso, L. V. (2011).
Financiamento agroambiental no Brasil.
São Paulo:
Instituto Socioambiental.
Comitê Interministerial sobre Mudança do Clima (2010). Implementação da
lei n° 12.187/2009.
Comitê Interministerial sobre Mudança do Clima
(p. 6).
Brasília: Presidência da República–Casa Civil, April.
Conceição, Micol, and Andrade (in press).
Transparência Florestal Mato
Grosso.
Ano III. Nº3. Cuiabá: Instituto Centro de Vida.
Conservation International, Instituto Socioambiental, and Instituto de
Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (2012).
Plano ABC: Avaliação para o
Observatório do Clima.
Brasília.
Decree 7390 (2010).
Política nacional sobre mudança do clima—PNMC.
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2010/Decreto/D7390.htm.
Forum Clima (2012).
O desafio da harmonização das políticas públicas de
mudanças climáticas.
São Paulo: Instituto Ethos de Empresas e Responsibili-
dade Social.
Grupo de Trabalho do Código Florestal, SBPC, ABC (2011).
O código florestal
e a ciência.
São Paulo: SBPC.
Grupo Permanente de Trabalho Interministerial (2004).
Plano de ação para
prevenção e controle do desmatamento na Amazônia legal.
Brasília: Presidên-
cia da República.
Grupo Permanente de Trabalho Interministerial (2009).
Plano de ação para
prevenção e controle do desmatamento na Amazônia legal, 2nda fase,
2009–2010.
Brasília: Presidência da República.
Hayashi, S., C. Souza Jr., M. Sales, and A. Veríssimo (2011).
Transparência
florestal Amazônia legal.
July. Belém: Imazon.
International Energy Agency (2012). Energy Statistics of Non-OECD Countries.
Paris: OECD/IEA. Available online at http://data.iea.org/ieastore/default.asp.
La Rovere, Emilio Lèbre, et al. (2012).
Estudo comparativo entre três cenários
de emissão de gases de efeito estufa no Brasil e uma análise de custo-
benefício.
Centro de Estudos Integrados sobre Meio Ambiente e Mudanças
Climáticas: Rio de Janeiro.
La Rovere, Emilio Lèbre, et al. (2013). “Brazil beyond 2020: From Deforesta-
tion to the Energy Challenge.”
Climate Policy
13 (supplement): 70.
Maia, H., J. Hargrave, J. Gómez, and M. Röper (2011).
Avaliação de Plano de
ação para a prevenção e controle do desmatamento na Amazônia legal: Versão
preliminar.
Brasília: CEPAL/GIZ/IPEA.
Marquesini, M. (2008).
O leão acordou: Uma análise do Plano de ação
para prevenção e controle do desmatamento na Amazônia legal.
São Paulo:
Greenpeace.
Martin, S. (2010).
Potenciais impactos das alterações do Código florestal
brasileiro na meta nacional de redução de emissões de gases de efeito estufa.
São Paulo: Observatório do Clima.
Martins, H., A. Fonseca, C. Souza Jr., M. Sales, and A. Veríssimo (2013).
Boletim transparência florestal da Amazônia legal
, July, 13. Belém: Imazon.
http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/transparencia-florestal/transparencia-
florestal-amazonia-legal/boletim-do-desmatamento-sad-julho-de-2013.
May, P.H., B. Milikan, M.F. Gebara (2011).
The context of REDD+ in Brazil:
drivers, agents and institutions.
Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR): Bogor.
Metzger, J. P. (2010). “O Código florestal tem base científica?”
Natureza e
Conservação
, 1–5.
Micol, l., I. Mônico, S. Guimarães, and R. Santos (2009).
Transparência
florestal.
Cuiabá: Instituto Centro de Vida.
Millikan, B. H. (2009).
Forests, Public Policy and Governance in the Brazilian
Amazon.
Assessment Report to the IUCN as a contribution to the Global Forest
Governance Project. Brasília.
Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI). 2013.
Estimativas anu-
ais de emissões de gases de efeito estufa no Brasil.
Brasília: MCTI, Secretaria
de Políticas e Programas de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (SEPED), Coorde-
nação Geral de Mudanças Globais de Clima (CGMC). http://www.mct.gov.br/
upd_blob/0226/226591.pdf.
MMA/SECEX/DPCD. (2012).
Dinámica do desmatamento na Amazônia (apre-
sentação)
. April 27. Brasília.
Sistema de Estimativa de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa (SEEG). 2013.
http://seeg.observatoriodoclima.eco.br/
Sparovek, G., G. Berndes, I. L. Klug, and A. G. Barretto (2010). “Brazilian
Agriculture and Environmental Legislation: Status and Future Challenges.”
Environmental Science & Technology
44: 6046–53.
Strassburg, B., L. Micol, F. Ramos, R. Seroa da Motta, A. Latawiec, and F.
Lisauskas (2012).
Increasing Agricultural Output while Avoiding Deforesta-
tion.
São Paulo: ICV/ISS.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2013.
GHG Data: Detailed Data by Party. Bonn: UNFCCC. Available online at http://
unfccc.int/di/DetailedByParty.do.
World Bank (2013). World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World
Bank Group. Available online at http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-
development-indicators.

|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Priya Barua, Rachel Biderman, Jenna Blu-
menthal, Thomas Damassa, Taryn Fransen, Catarina Freitas, Jennifer Hatch,
Emilio La Rovere, Carlos Rittl, Viviane Romeiro, and Natalie Unterstell for their
valuable research and review contributions which greatly improved the quality
of this paper. We would also like to acknowledge Thomas Faergeman, Hannah
Foerster, and Matthew Horne for providing feedback on earlier versions of this
paper. Thank you also to Hyacinth Billings, Alex Martin, Nick Price, Ashleigh
Rich, Emily Schabacker, and Alston Taggart for their editing and publication
design work.
Funding for this research was provided by the Oak Foundation.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Maria Fernanda Gebara, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, has been working
with climate change and forests since 2004. She is a PhD candidate at the
Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ) in institutions, markets,
and regulation and a researcher at the Center for Law and Environment at
the Fundação Getúlio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro. Her main topics of research
areeconomic and political incentives for forest and biodiversity conservation,
REDD+, benefit-sharing, institutions, andsustainable forestry management.
Alice Thuault, Instituto Centro de Vida, is a political scientist and holds
a master’s in the anthropology of development from Aix-Marseille University
(France). After two years as a trainee in Brazil with CIRAD, she joined the
Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV) in Cuiaba, Mato Grosso, in 2007 as a public
policy analyst. She has since then carried out several studies and developed
proposals focused on improving forest governance in Mato Grosso and in the
Brazilian Amazon. She has participated in the Governance of Forests Initiative
(GFI) since its creation in 2009. Her areas of expertise include transparency
and participation in forest-related policies, socioenvironamental safeguards
for REDD+, and indicator-based assessment of forest governance. She is cur-
rently coordinating the ICV’s Forest Transparency initiative.
ABOUT WRI
WRI is a global research organization that works closely with leaders to turn
big ideas into action to sustain a healthy environment—the foundation of
economic opportunity and human well-being.
ABOUT INSTITUTO CENTRO DE VIDA
ICV was founded in 1991 and is located in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Its mission
is to build collective solutions to promote sustainable land use.
ABOUT FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO VARGAS
Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV), founded in 1944, is a world renown center
for quality education and research dedicated to promoting Brazil’s economic
and social development. With eight schools, two research institutes, techni-
cal assistance projects and a publishing unit, FGV is ranked as one of the
top 25 think tanks and top 100 higher education institutions in the world.
ABOUT THE OPEN CLIMATE NETWORK
The Open Climate Network brings together independent research institutes
and stakeholder groups to monitor countries’ progress on climate change. We
seek to accelerate the transition to a low-emission, climate-resilient future by
providing consistent, credible information that enhances accountability both
between and within countries. http://www.openclimatenetwork.org.
Copyright 2013 World Resources Institute. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative
Works 3.0 License. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
10 G Street, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | www.WRI.org