jmn zeeinbrazil

7/27/2019 JMN ZEEinBrazil

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jmn-zeeinbrazil 1/33

Ecological-economic zoning in Brazil – an analysis of its application to

date and relevance as a strategic land-use planning tool1

Summary

This paper examines the strategic land use planning tool, Ecological-Economic Zoning(EEZ), developed in Brazil in the 1980s and applied extensively in the Amazon regionto date. It introduces EEZ origins and evolution; definitions and implementationmethodologies; and briefly reviews critiques to date and its application in the Amazonregion. A framework is then established for analyzing this tool, covering theoretical,policy and practical issues and is applied to five key groups of aspects: economic,socio-political, environmental, spatial and operational. This leads to recommendationsas to how the key issues identified can be the basis for learning from internationalexperience; for future application of EEZ; and/or alternative and appropriate

mechanisms for urban and rural areas in Brazil.

KeywordsLand use planning; regional planning; zoning; Latin America; Brazil

1 This paper has been prepared under the aegis of the Research Project entitled“Methodological Discussion and Application of Ecological and Economic Zoning (EEZ) toUrban Areas”, which is jointly financed by the British Council andNEPAMA/PRONEX/FINEP/MCT in Brazil. The research team is composed of researchersfrom the following institutions: the Centre for Regional and Urban Studies (NEUR) and

Centre for Research on Agricultural and Environmental Economics (NEPAMA) in theUniversity of Brasilia; and the Centre for Environment and Human Settlements (CEHS) in the Edinburgh College of Art/Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.



Ecological-economic zoning in Brazil – an analysis of its application to date andrelevance as a strategic land-use planning tool.

Contents

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 22. Background.............................................................................................................. 33. Analysis of EEZ........................................................................................................8

3.1 Framework for Analysis ..................................................................................... 83.1.1 Critiques to date..........................................................................................83.1.2 Application of EEZ to date......................................................................... 103.1.3 Analytical framework.................................................................................13

3.2 Application of analysis .....................................................................................153.2.1 Economic Aspects.....................................................................................153.2.2 Environmental Aspects ............................................................................. 173.2.3 Socio-political aspects...............................................................................193.2.4 Spatial aspects..........................................................................................203.2.5 Operational aspects .................................................................................. 22

4 Conclusions on the future of EEZ .......................................................................... 234.1 Key issues.................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Specific recommendations ........................................................................... 264.3 On-going investigation..................................................................................31

5. References............................................................................................................. 31

Total word count body of text – approx 7896 words to date(World Development does not specify maximum word length but maximum pagelength: 30 to 35 double-spaced pages including everything – summary, main text,bibliography, notes. Using double spacing and font 11 for the main text only we arealready at 33 pages.)

1. Introduction

Strategic land use planning is applied in many different ways across the world, with

varying degrees of involvement of the main actors in land development – government

and private sectors as well as actors within civil society. Strategic land use planning

(“territorial ordering” 2) has been a government priority in Brazil for some time and has

been manifested since the 1980s through a government-led mechanism entitled

“Ecological-economic zoning” (EEZ). EEZ has been used as one of the instruments of

national environmental policy and has been applied mainly, though not exclusively, in

the Legal Amazon region.

2 In this paper the term ‘strategic land use planning’, more familiar to an English-speakingreadership, is used to refer to what in Brazilian planning is known as “ordenamentoterritorial” or ”territorial ordering”.

20/06/082




EEZ sets out systematically and holistically to analyze the dynamics and inter-relations

of biophysical and socio-economic phenomena. In so doing, ecological-economic

zoning should guide the occupation of land, reduce negative externalities of production

growth, protect biological diversity and, consequently, lead to a sustainable pattern of

development. The basic assumption underlying the use of EEZ in the Brazilian Legal

Amazon, for instance, was that the occupation and development of the region was

occurring in a chaotic way, leading to high environmental and social degradation.

According to this view, this state of things was due to erroneous government planning

and policies, and to ignorance of the potential and vulnerability of natural resources in

the region. In this context, it was proposed that through a comprehensive inventory of

natural resources and social and economic data, better planning and policies could be

devised. EEZ would thus be a basic tool towards a more sustainable occupation of

land.

This paper examines EEZ as a strategic land use planning tool. It introduces its origins

and evolution, definitions and implementation methodologies (Section 2), and briefly

reviews critiques to date and the application of EEZ in the Brazilian Legal Amazon

region (Section 3), as an example. In the same section, a framework is then

established to analyze the mechanism, covering theoretical, policy and practical issues.

This is applied to five key groups of aspects: economic, environmental, socio-political,

spatial and operational. This analysis leads to the identification of key issues and the

formulation of recommendations in Section 4.

2. Background

Various types of zoning have been applied in strategic land use planning in Brazil for

many decades. However, environmental zoning only appeared during the 1970s,

seeking the protection of the environment against perceived negative impacts of

economic growth. The Second National Development Plan (II PND, 1975-79)

20/06/083




reinforced the need for “rational zoning” to define rural and urban land use under an

environmental policy. In the beginning of the 1980s, the National Environment Policy

included “environmental zoning” as one of its instruments. Also from this period is one

of the first references to “ecological-economic zoning” (EEZ) for a new forestry policy

for the Brazilian Amazon. Henceforth EEZ would develop primarily as a regional

planning tool.

A first official conception of EEZ was proposed by the Brazilian Census Bureau

(IBGE)3. In order to address the impacts that the diffusion of economic activities into

undeveloped areas would have, an Environmental Commission was created, under the

coordination of the Secretariat of Planning of the Presidency (SEPLAN/PR). The

commission was created to allow collaboration between various public institutions and

it adopted EEZ as its basic policy instrument. EEZ experiments were set up to identify

zones in two priority areas: the Amazon and the Southeast (IBGE, 1986). In its initial

conception, EEZ was a model of decision-making centered in government,

predominantly at the federal level, and it was to propose and establish spatial divisions

and classifications based on ecological and socio-economic factors.

The Brazilian government developed a National Policy of Regional Development

(PNDR) in 1990, aiming to reduce differences among its regions and to consolidate a

socially balanced and self-sustaining economic development process through four

levels of planning: federal, regional, state and sub-regional (SDR/PR, 1990). Its

operational strategy relied on a Permanent Macro Program (focused on providing

economic and social equity among people from different regions) and a Strategic

Program (ensuring that the “interior” would increase its share in the national and

3 In 1986, IBGE produced a paper that is considered to be a landmark in the development of EEZ in the federal government. For a critical analysis of the objectives, justifications,criteria and methodology of IBGE’s proposal, see Leite (1991).

20/06/084




instrument to rationalize the occupation of land and to endow the government with a

technical basis to incorporate spatial considerations into public policies. EEZ was to be

used as a dynamic and continuous process in agreement with national, regional and

local priorities. It was to be based on integrated decentralized action of the Federal

Government with effective participation of states and municipalities in planning and

implementation processes.

In 1994, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) also became involved with EEZ. This

meant a change in the direction of EEZ, given that the MMA was chosen as the main

Brazilian partner to drive the Pilot Program for Protection of the Tropical Forests of

Brazil (PP-G7).6 The PP-G7 intended to implement a structured partnership so as "to

facilitate the formulation and implementation of healthy environmental policies by the

public sector institutions, in cooperation with the private sector and with society in

general" (Banco Mundial, s/d, p. 4). Under this new approach, EEZ was to be an

instrument of environmental management, with which state public investment and

policies had to be compatible in order to access PP-G7 funds.

In this manifestation of EEZ a methodology developed by Becker & Egler (1997) was to

be followed. These authors proposed that, by studying nature and society in a given

territorial unit, the vocation of the land for agriculture or forestry, for conservation or any

other use, could be detected anddetermined

(Nitsch, 1998). Naturalvulnerability

and

socio-economic potentiality were to be defined and mapped so that their super-

imposition resulted in a matrix of sustainability or contributions to territorial

management.7 Furthermore, Becker and Egler emphasized that EEZ would provide

the states of Mato Grosso, Rondônia and Acre.6 This program is funded by the G7 countries and its finance is managed by the World Bank.

7 High vulnerability and low potential indicate conservation. High vulnerability and highpotential characterize a critical area, destined for recuperation. Low vulnerability and lowpotential indicate consolidation. Low vulnerability and high potential characterize an area

20/06/086




land use regulation based upon three principles: effectiveness, “valorization of

differences” (i.e. comparative advantage) and decentralization. It was assumed that

EEZ was an instrument of land use management and, at the same time, a technical

and political tool. EEZ was not to be a product in itself, but a dynamic process in which

physical division of the territory into homogeneous, static zones was one part of the

wider process of planning.

Advocates of EEZ [refs???] highlight aspects that make it a different planning tool

from previous regional planning instruments. Firstly, the emphasis on decentralized

land use management:8 the geographical area of some Brazilian states, the territorial

dispersion of economic activities and the weakness and lack of integration of public

institutions make welcome any instrument that promises to manage land use in a

decentralized fashion. Secondly, the constructive partnership among all stakeholders:

social movements, NGOs and private enterprises have exerted political pressure to

play a more important and increasing role in policy making in Brazil; in this context, the

emphasis in planning was seen to be on the principle of power sharing instead of

centralized administration. And third, the interaction of two dynamic processes, the

natural and the social processes: this interaction is considered as the essence of the

fundamental difficulties behind the selection of a sustainable pattern of development.

[refs throughout paragraph???]

forexpansion.8 Becker and Egler use the term “decentralized territorial management”; in this paper theterm “decentralized land use management” is used instead. See also footnote 2.

20/06/087




3. Analysis of EEZ

3.1 Framework for Analysis

3.1.1 Critiques to date

EEZ has been the subject of a number of critiques to date. Ab'Saber (1989) has argued

that EEZ was initially developed for new settlement in areas with extremely low levels

of human occupation and hence the "anthropic" element is subsidiary, limiting its

application in areas where human settlement is more pronounced. Schubart (1994)

argues that the nature of zoning is regulatory but that its relationship with public policy

formulation in Brazil is weak and that this is not resolved as yet.9 Nitsch (1994) on the

other hand considers that there is a fundamental problem with "zoning" per se,

indicating that this is an essentially negative instrument.10 In addition, Nitsch criticizes

the implicit concepts of “holism”, ecological “vocation”, and “harmony” between man

and nature. Nitsch thus fundamentally questions the nature of the assumption of

common values and the inherent "ecological determinism" which he perceives as

implicit in the EEZ methodology, and which he claims can be "hi-jacked" by eco-

technocratic blocks involving the national government, international agencies, planners

and NGOs, as a means to undermine existing democratic processes. He proposes that

"traditional regional planning”11 is a more positive instrument that relates better to the

actual interest groups at a state and local level, and hence is more democratic.

9 Schubart expresses concern with the problems of linking "technical" processes with "policy"processes. In fact most of the policy instruments he mentions have had negativerepercussions in Amazonia to date, according to Mahar (1989). Over and above this thereare serious problems of reconciling different sectoral public policies in Brazil (Millikan,1998).

10 Nitsch does not make a distinction between mandatory zoning and indicative zoning,however.

11 Nitsch understands traditional regional planning as being that with concrete infrastructure

projects as well as zoning. These projects are “traditionally” phased territorial occupationas zones of land use within the reach of the projected infrastructure (Nitsch, 1994, pp. 502-504).

20/06/088




Steinberger (1997a, 1997b, 1997c), on the other hand, has focused on the need to

clarify what EEZ actually is with reference to its role in developing regional equity or

celebrating regional "difference"; its role in integration of urban and regional issues;

problems inherent in the concepts of "zones" and "scale"; and problems encountered in

realizing the potential role of EEZ with reference to local authorities12. She stresses

the potential role of EEZ as a dynamic decision-making mechanism for policy

formulation with relevance for urban and regional scales/zones, although noting that a

more appropriate methodology for urban application has not been developed as yet.13

Steinberger also focuses on some of the structural and logistical problems of

implementation of EEZ (e.g. lack of organization and "conscientization" or awareness

in civil society of relevant issues; weak institutional capacity at state and municipal

levels; and problems of representativeness of NGOs).14

Based on the literature to date, additional queries about EEZ that can be raised include

that, in Becker & Egler's (1997) methodology, the essential decisions have been taken

in a purely technocratic exercise through which the zones have been labeled. All that is

left is the finer detail of the policies to be attached to the zones whose “vocation” is

already essentially technically decided. The definition of zones is thus still very "top-

down", with the recognition of wider participation coming late in the process - i.e. after a

series of factors have been surveyed - and hence the definition of interests is not

permitted in the essential criteria. As defined in this methodology, and despite its

attempts to widen participation, EEZ is essentially a supply-led mechanism, focused on

predominantly federal government interests, which may include major national and/or

12 Particularly in the context of the PPG-7 project development in Amazonia.13 In this context Steinberger argues that EEZ needs to incorporate urban sustainability

issues and thus urban land use factors.14 Nitsch however considers these to be secondary to the conceptual issues of the essentiallynegative nature of zoning.

20/06/089




international business and other interests, with some attempt to involve state

governments.

There is thus no real attempt to build on, or stimulate, any clear demand from potential

stakeholders for a strategic land use process that balances ecological, economic and

social uses - despite the rhetoric about municipalities and local private sector/civil

society interests (these latter being generally assumed to be represented mainly by

NGOs). This is patent in the initial review of participation in Steinberger (1997c).

However, possible refinements to the participatory process would seem to be

conceived in terms of defining existing interest groups, and thus assume underlying

common interests. This does not recognize that (a) the objectives of EEZ themselves

may be understood in radically different ways, or that (b) these understandings may be

essentially non-reconcilable. EEZ is currently not structured to either act as a tool to

build consensus where possible or allow negotiation around conflict where consensus

is not possible.

3.1.2 Application of EEZ to date

Despite its legislative position and definition as a key strategic land use planning tool,

actual application of EEZ in Brazil has been relatively limited to date. The main focus

for activity has been in the Legal Amazon,15 where EEZ is sponsored as part of the

PP-G7 Natural Resources Policy Project. All nine states within Legal Amazon have

committed themselves to develop EEZ programs, but these are at very different stages,

and in fact are being developed in significantly different ways, with various states

opting to follow approaches which differ from the proposed methodology proposed by

Becker & Egler (1997). Nevertheless, the basic thrust of the processes under way

remain similar: “macro-zoning”, definition of priority areas, survey of bio-physical and

15 Nogueira et al (2000) briefly lists 8 other areas in Brazil where EEZ is, or has been,applied, as well as various countries bordering on Brazil where EEZ is being developed.

20/06/0810




social data and definition of zones, prior to socio-political discussion. A detailed

description of the status of the process in the nine states is given in Nogueira et al

(2000), but is briefly summarized here.

Acre – The latest state to begin the EEZ process (April 1999), Acre has adopted a

participatory approach from the onset, with the first step being “political articulation”

before any “diagnosis”. The process also prioritizes socio-economic issues and the

institutional means for negotiation to solve socio-environmental conflicts. By the end of

1999, areas for 4 key economic-ecological activities had been identified (wood

extraction, extraction reserves, small-scale agriculture, and conservation and

preservation) as the basis for negotiation with stakeholders.

Amapá – Has concluded the first (macro) zoning phase and the technical detailed

zoning of one priority area, and is now beginning the socio-political discussion of this

detailed zoning.

Amazonas – Is only beginning the process, and is trying to involve the local population

in a similar way to Acre.

Maranhão – A “geo-environmental and socio-economic zoning” experience began in

1991, with results published in 1997. An EEZ using the Becker & Egler (1997)

methodology is still to be started, although initial preparation of logistical capacity is

underway.

Mato Grosso – An early experience with agro-ecological zoning was developed in this

state from the late 1980s, but was considered too complex for use in planning and

management. It was then decided to simplify the approach with an EEZ similar in

substance to that used in Rondônia (see below). The subsequent legislation of an

"ecological-economic-social" zoning (at 1:1,500,000 scale) was to be followed by a pilot

detailed zoning, which was contracted to an engineering firm. The results are not yet

Very little empirical data is available as yet on these experiences, however.

20/06/0811




available, although state personnel have complained that they are not informed of the

process being applied.

Pará – One of the most advanced in the process, piloted in a limited number of

municipalities. Following the Becker & Egler (1997) methodology, the technical part is

complete in some of these and the socio-political process is underway, albeit with

some difficulties as key stakeholders – such as powerful loggers and ranchers -

perceive this as being against their interests.

Rondônia – Also far advanced, as agro-ecological zoning was developed in this state

from the mid 1980s. The situation is also the best documented to date (Mahar &

Ducrot, 1998; Millikan, 1998). EEZ was piloted here through a separate World Bank

financed project (PLANAFLORA), effectively from 1996. However, these zoning

experiments have been characterized by institutional conflicts and low involvement of

local stakeholders. In addition, the passing of the first “approximation” zoning (scale

1:500,000) as a state law in 1988 led to considerable subsequent incompatibility with

public policies (within the state and between state and federal agencies) and with

activities on the ground, and led to the law being de facto ignored. Currently the

institutions responsible for zoning are attempting to increase stakeholder participation,

and a more detailed second approximation has been recently finalized. However, as

Mahar & Ducrot (1998) indicate, some of the strongest support for zoning is coming

from external stakeholders at national and international level.

Roraima – An EEZ for a 20,000 km² area on the border with Venezuela is in the final

stages, but no more information is as yet available.

Tocantins – This state is in fact undertaking a traditional agro-ecological zoning

process, top-down and technical in nature. This to some extent reflects the less

pressing environmental concerns in the region. Stakeholder participation is only

planned after the technical zoning is complete.

20/06/0812




3.1.3 Analytical framework

The analysis of EEZ as a strategic land use planning instrument can be structured in

an analytical framework (Figure 1):

OBJECTIVES:

• "philosophy"

• general intentions

CONCEPTUAL BASIS:

• explicit ?

• implicit

METHODOLOGY:

• technical

• policy

CONSTRAINTS:

• structural

• logistical

OPERATION:

• implementation

• evaluation

THEORETICAL

ISSUES

PRACTICAL

ISSUES

POLICY

ISSUES

Figure 1. Framework for analysis of EEZ

The objectives of EEZ, as defined earlier, have implicit “philosophical” positions,

represented in the general intentions – e.g. that ecological “vocation” can exist and be

technically determined; that rational analysis is the necessary basis for resource

allocation; that consensus can be found between different interest groups, etc. In

general, the conceptual basis for EEZ has not been made explicit, thus raising a series

of theoretical issues, such as those discussed by Nitsch (1998).

The methodology for operationalization of EEZ focuses on the relationship between the

technical instrument and policy-making, which has raised another set of policy issues,

such as those of Schubart (1994), focusing on the nature of public policy and ultimately

20/06/0813




political economics. However, the operationalization of the instrument in practice

(implementation and evaluation) has encountered a number of constraints that are both

structural (e.g. the weakness of civil society) and logistical (e.g. the technical capacity

of implementing institutions) – such as those raised by Steinberger (1997a, 1997b,

1997c) – and which pose a number of practical issues.

A full analysis of EEZ and its relevance to strategic land use planning needs to

incorporate these various levels of analysis and distinguish between them in any

recommendation. This is the basis for the next section of this paper. Given the size

limitations of a paper of this nature, we have grouped the aspects of EEZ analyzed

under this framework into five main categories, and in each of these theoretical, policy

and practical aspects are considered jointly:

• Economic aspects, including issues such as effectiveness, integration of

ecological and economic principles, efficiency and equity;

• Environmental aspects, including issues such as the assumption of shared

values, ecological determinism and principles of sustainable development;

• Socio-political aspects, including the basis of decision-making, participation,

decentralization, social inclusion and integration of social, cultural and political

aspects;

• Spatial aspects, including aspects such as the spatial basis (scale and territory),

strategic nature, ‘zonality’ and ‘valorization of difference’ [Jorge, do you want

to add in some text on this? If not we shall simply delete this]; and

• Operational aspects, including the relationship between planning and

management, relevance, viability, up-to-datedness and ability to deliver.

20/06/0814




3.2 Application of analysis

3.2.1 Economic Aspects

As in any zoning experiment, the effects of EEZ can be contradictory. In regulating

possible uses of the land, one is regulating, indirectly and simultaneously, the value of

the land (Henneberry and Barrows, 1990). The creation of zones may have effects

upon the demand for land, the supply of land, the strategic behavior of stakeholders

and the environment, generating negative externalities itself (Podogodzinski and Sass,

1990). These effects of zoning may generate inefficiencies and inequities, leading to

zoning being questioned (including in the court of law), altered or even completely

abandoned.

The effectiveness of EEZ in integrating ecological and economic aspects is

questionable in the light of experience in the Amazon. A clear example is the rate of

deforestation, leading to loss of biodiversity, one of the main negative externalities that

EEZ is supposed to avoid. This has not been reduced after the “first approximation” of

EEZ in Rondônia, for example. EEZ as yet has been unable to surmount the problem

of enforcement encountered by other protectionist legislation in Brazil since the

1960s.16 One of the reasons for this is that mandatory zoning regulations do not take

into account the economic behaviour of farmers, ranchers and loggers who undertake

“nutrient mining” in the Amazon – abandoning fields when yields diminish and clearing

new land, which is abundant.

It can be argued that EEZ could pre-empt these practices by inducing land scarcity

through the creation of parks, reserves, etc., thus raising land prices and fostering

16 The Código Florestal (Forest Law) (Brasil, 1965) states inter alia that it is forbidden to

exploit primary forests in the Amazon basin without a proper forest management plan. It ispublic knowledge that this law is seldom enforced and, in the general case in the Amazon,logging is often illegal: high-grading, trespassing and encroachment are common practices.

20/06/0815




more sustainable farming and forestry practices.17 This still does not address the basic

problem at the root of ineffectiveness, which is that of legitimacy. Some argue that this

problem could be solved through increased participation of stakeholders in the

decision-making process. However, we can only expect the local population to

cooperate if their opportunity cost of giving up land is somehow covered.18

Any EEZ produces costs and benefits, and different stakeholders will bear them

differently. Who and how much depends on many variables: land tenure arrangements,

definition of property rights, time horizon, population density, to name only a few.

These become more empirical than theoretical questions. Indeed, economic factors are

influential also at a macro level. It is argued that environmental degradation could have

been much worse without implementation of EEZ, and the reduced pressure for land

occupation in some states where EEZ has been implemented is cited as proof

[ref???]. However, degradation is observed equally in parts of the Amazon subjected

to EEZ and in those not so. This suggests that the rate of occupation of Amazonia has

been more influenced by macroeconomic and social factors originating outside the

region (e.g. economic incentives to move there) than by any control mechanism within

the region generated by an EEZ.

Besides not demonstrating effectiveness to date, has EEZ generated any benefits that

can justify its costs, i.e. is it efficient? A frequently mentioned benefit from all EEZ

experiments in the Brazilian Legal Amazon is the unprecedented provision of training

17 This seems to be what Nitsch (1998, p. 4) has in mind when he suggests that “Zoning byitself is restrictive (“zoning is negative”). If you want to avoid massive protests, do yourzoning in a piecemeal fashion, starting with highly critical areas. Protected areas are notwithout reason called national parks everywhere in the world, because the decision of turning a certain area into a protected one, is taken on the national, not the local level.”

18 This could be done in several ways, e.g.: 1) increasing the profitability of sustainableactivities through subsidies; 2) tax unsustainable activities to reduce their profitability;

and/or 3) reduce interest rates. These measures would reduce the need for new land, asstaying in “old” land would still be profitable. But, the adoption of these measures is subjectto the uncertainties of political process, making EEZ highly dependent on aspects beyond

20/06/0816




opportunities for technical staff in the public sector in some fields, such as geographical

information systems (GIS). In addition, it is argued that EEZ has yielded much

previously unknown information on the Amazon that can be fed into policy-making

[refs???]. Nevertheless, efficiency has to do with benefits in relation to costs, and from

this point of view it is clear that training and data collection could be achieved with a

much lower investment.19 Moreover, we have argued above that the information has

not been effectively fed into policy making.

Finally, advocates of EEZ claim that it will have equity impacts favorable towards the

poorest social groups, noting that economic and politically powerful interests tend to be

the principal opponents of EEZ [refs???]. This argument, however, ignores that the

apparent acceptance of EEZ by the poor and weak may be due in reality to their lack of

awareness of it. This interpretation finds support in their negative reaction where the

EEZ process definitely is known by them.20 Indeed, if EEZ is implemented and the

price of land rises due to restricted access, only economically powerful stakeholders

will be able to buy land at these higher prices. In other words, in the longer run, poor

small farmers may have to bear the costs of zoning.

3.2.2 Environmental Aspects

Nitsch (1994) questioned the assumption of shared values and ecological determinism

apparent in EEZ (see 3.1.1 above). We hold it as self-evident that concepts of nature

are socially produced. Therefore there can be no objective concept of what is “right for

the planners’ control, and therefore not dependable as a policy instrument.19 It is not easy to ascertain how much has been spent on EEZ so far, due to data

aggregations in the Brazilian budgetary system. However, it can be estimated that betweenUS$ 250 and US$ 350 million were expended on EEZ in Brazil in the last five years(source: Nogueira et al (2000)). Pogodzinski and Sass (1990) remind us that zoning willonly increase social welfare if the negative externalities it prevents exceed what it costs toimplement and monitor.

20 Rondonia’s “first approximation” failed to recognise the rights of small farmers who had

established themselves in Zones 4 and 5 before the passage of the State Zoning Law. These have resented EZZ ever since. Many small farmers also resent the fact that EEZ

20/06/0817




the land”. Agronomist, ecologist, timber merchant, rancher, seringueiro, indigenous

Indian - each holds a different view of what is right for the land founded on his or her

cultural and economic circumstances. It follows that the allocation of a tract of land to a

use can be determined only through some political process which mediates between

such stakeholder interests.

Becker and Egler (1997, p. 7 and pp. 9-10) emphasize that, in the Brazil of today, this

political process needs to be increasingly democratic. Yet their methodology first

assigns land a vocation through a technical procedure, which does not recognize its

value-laden nature, and only afterwards opens these decisions to review through a

political consultation process. The land allocation process also rather uncomfortably

cross-matches a narrow conception of natural vulnerability, focused on erodibility, with

a contrastingly broad-brush assessment of socio-economic development potential.

There is a suspicion here of a supply-driven approach to appraisal: the abundance of

earth science data is driving the methodology.

We suggest that, instead, a set of sustainable development operating principles should

be identified, from which can be derived criteria for appraising development proposals.

These principles should be agreed by negotiation between stakeholders (e.g. through

the CEZSEEs21) and, in keeping with our advocacy of a demand-led approach to

planning, applied toissues

of land use allocation raised through an open process in

which stakeholders participate from the outset. We outline a set of such principles in

the recommendations (see 4.2.c).

limits the amount of land available for settlements (Mahar and Ducrot, 1998).21 CEZSEEs are the State Commissions for Ecological and Socio-economic Zoning.

20/06/0818




3.2.3 Socio-political aspects

The socio-political objectives of zoning are crucial, as ignoring these can represent

serious obstacles to its implementation. To date EEZ has been promoted by the federal

level, and it has taken considerable time to be promoted at state level in the Amazon

states, with different approaches as noted above (3.1.2). This has paralleled the

widening of the democratic basis of the State itself in Brazil through decentralization to

state and municipal level, although it is also closely associated with reduced State

capacity at all levels. This, in turn, is feeding a growing political recognition of the need

to involve key stakeholders in the decision-making process – whether this emanates

from an ideological position as in Acre, or from a pragmatic reaction to the political

realities, as in Rondônia. In states such as Amapá, which have initiated the EEZ

process based on the methodology of Becker & Egler (1997), problems arise because

of its technocratic approach.

As argued above (3.1.1), the socio-political problems arise from two fundamental

weaknesses of the Becker & Egler methodology: (1) its basis in technical rationality

and the inherent conceptions and manifestations that this entails (“vocation” of territory,

and weak links with political and social processes); and (2) the concept that harmony

between man and nature, and consensus between interest groups, can inevitably be

reached around rationally defined goals. The result is a supply-driven methodology with

admittedly a broadening of socio-political involvement, though in a limited way, rather

than a demand-driven process which starts from socio-culturally and politically defined

needs and positions, and which seeks to negotiate resource use between different

local, national and even international interests, whether politically powerful or not. This

latter would entail a radical revision of the process, and indeed of the nature of the

appropriate strategic land use planning instruments, whether zoning or other.

20/06/0819




The outcome of the inherent technical determinism is usually precarious, as the

experience in Rondônia shows, and can undermine quite legitimate strategic land use

and environmental issues. An important aspect of creating an adequate socio-cultural

and political basis for land use planning is the definition of agreed objectives,

mechanisms and processes – i.e. defining the “arena” and rules” for decision-making,

and not just agreeing to or rejecting pre-defined proposals. This entails social inclusion

as an explicit objective – i.e. both avoiding creation of inequality, and decreasing

existing inequality – as well as wide participation and decentralization of decision-

making. Only in this way can a legitimate basis for the practical operationalization of

the results be created, given the vast areas and difficulties in regulation within

Amazonia. The planning process in addition has to accept that consensus may not be

reached, but that different interests can negotiate an acceptable equilibrium. It also

entails instituting processes to allow this equilibrium to be maintained and re-negotiated

in time.

Overall what is necessary is a strategic land-use planning process which establishes

certain rights and objectives, as well as access to resources (financial and technical),

and which allows decentralized initiatives to develop the most appropriate processes to

deal with the priority issues, as defined by the stakeholders. Rather than starting with a

technical exercise, inevitably loaded with values, the first step is therefore to establish a

socio-political process and suitable institutions to implement this, such as is being

proposed in Acre. However, the mechanisms to negotiate and balance conflicting

interests between local and (probably more powerful) national and international entities

also need to be created, with clear definition of institutional infrastructure and rights.

3.2.4 Spatial aspects

Two issues concern us here: scale and strategy.

20/06/0820




Legal Amazonia confronts the land use planner with a vast range of spatial scales from

the near-continental to the local urban. We would argue, however, that it is not quite so

vast a range as space alone suggests, because it is moderated by the very low density

of human settlement. Thus we should more properly speak of socio-spatial scale. As

indicated above (3.1.1), commentators have suggested that an EEZ formulated for the

occupation of relatively empty lands is not a useful instrument at the opposite end of

the socio-spatial spectrum. The very exclusion to date of urban areas from the EEZ

exercises in Legal Amazonia demonstrates this. The denser the settlement, the more

anthropic the landscape, the less the population is living directly off the land, and the

less appropriate is a planning instrument which is conceptually founded in agro-

ecological zoning concerned with the biological and physical potential of the land. The

question then becomes whether EEZ can still be valid as a conceptual framework, from

which may be derived variants adapted to different socio-spatial scales. The arguments

presented in the preceding sections indicate that it would need radical surgery to be so.

EEZ has from the outset been put forward as a strategic land use planning tool (see

section 2). The concept of strategy may be confused with that of scale, as reflected in

the common expression “strategic scale”. We interpret a strategic approach as

fundamentally consisting of two elements: concern with establishing general principles

rather than with applying them in specific instances; and intent to integrate the actions

of players or sectors. This implies no automatic linkage between strategy and scale. It

does, however, imply that to be a strategic land use planning tool, EEZ must be

integrative and founded on general principles. Does it pass these tests? It certainly is

founded on principles, but, as we have argued, ones which we believe render it

inappropriate at least to more anthropic contexts. We suggest that it also fails the test

of integration, because the crucial determinations are made first through a technocratic

process and only subsequently exposed to a political participative process likely to tie

in with policy making and to generate legitimacy (3.2.3).

20/06/0821




3.2.5 Operational aspects

An important operational aspect of ecological and economic zoning is how amenable it

is to a management rather than a planning approach. Whilst planning predicts and

fosters end states on the basis of previous states, management is based on continuous

(or more appropriately cyclical) interaction between goals, monitoring and feedback.

The EEZ methodology proposed by Beckler and Egler (1997) is a process leading to

the definition of zones, but little is said about how these zones (or indeed zoning itself)

are to be managed thereafter. In practice, in the case of Rondônia conflicts have arisen

in the management of the zoning process itself, where many commissions other than

the CEZSEE have had a remit in EEZ planning, monitoring and evaluation.

Closely related to the above is the viability of EEZ, which has to do with the availability

of sufficient resources to apply it, as well as with the necessary institutional, social and

political support. From the point of view of policy-making, EEZ is viable for the purpose

of defining zones. The production of zoning maps and documents can be a relatively

straightforward process if kept at a technical level, as in Tocantins, and the decreasing

costs of information technology can be seen to favor this kind of approach. However, it

is the subsequent implementation of EEZ that raises questions about its viability,

especially in terms of institutional, social and political support, which is raised through

other approaches rather than specifically through zoning.

Plans need to be up-to-date to be credible and relevant. Up-to-date means being

based on recent data, addressing contemporaneous issues and being within the plan’s

formal lifespan. The EEZ process tends to produce zoning documents that are ‘static’,

risking obsolescence in the face of rapidly changing realities. The EEZ policy-making

process in Amazonia does not take this into account as there is no legal determination

as to how long EEZs are to be valid. Indeed, the ‘top-down’ character of EEZ is

20/06/0822




• What new contributions, if any, has EEZ as a technique brought to strategic land

use planning in theory and practice?

• What is the relevance of EEZ, as currently conceptualized, as a strategic land use

planning tool for use in the context of Brazil, at both policy and operational levels?

• How can it contribute to a strategic land use planning process which is not only

environmentally but also politically, economically, socially and culturally sensitive,

and thus take into consideration a wide range of probably conflicting interests?

• How can it allow local, state and federal interests to be balanced with international

interests, and how can these be expressed in resource terms, as well as with an

appropriate legal basis?

• How can EEZ – or a strategic land use planning mechanism which involves land

use specification – be developed to support development of areas more affected by

human agency such as urban and rural/urban interfaces?

The authors query the innovative nature of EEZ in theory and practice. While the

techniques associated with EEZ in Brazil – and especially the Becker & Egler (1997)

methodology – have been innovative in drawing together physical and socio-economic

data as the basis for land use planning, and instituting a level of participatory decision-

making, this is arguably no more than would have been expected of a well prepared

regional or urban strategic land use plan such as a structure plan, which might well

have been better related to the real policy and operational environment. In addition, the

inherently top-down and technically-led planning tendency contains a series of

assumptions at the theoretical and policy-making level which are open to criticism.

The difficulties of instituting a standard methodology across such a vast territory with

many different potential stakeholders, and in a time of significant national and

international changes in the political economic context, have been very influential in the

20/06/0824




difficulties in: (1) promoting EEZ application at state level; (2) relating the exercise to

political realities and public policy formulation; and (3) its realistic implementation.

There is no doubt that states have used the international and national resources made

available to increase their institutional knowledge and capacity, but these, whilst useful

products, are not the overall objectives. It could be argued that the process is still in

course. Nevertheless, the considerable time and costs expended to date might have

been better directed to creating socio-political processes and institutions to underpin

strategic land use planning, as opposed to what have been seen as externally imposed

technical exercises that do not respond to significant local demands.

As a result we suggest that, if EEZ is to continue in its present forms, then it needs to

have a counterpart level of activity. This, rather than starting at a macro scale with a

strong technical determination and being seen as a fairly finite process, would start at

the micro scale with strong socio-cultural and political determination and be structured

as an on-going process. This counterpart activity needs the definition of legal rights

within the international, national and state contexts, and allocation of resources to

permit its economic operationalization – not only as a spatial planning instrument, but

also as a public policy instrument. Hence instead of financing a finite process through

international funding there is a need to establish economic incentives for different state,

national and international interests to be balanced with local needs and market

opportunities. This may well entail the application of some form of international

resource accounting system that integrates international and national concerns with

state and local level concerns, providing socio-economic as well as political

incentives.23

23 The potential loss of carbon in the tropical forests of Brazil has been likened to a "carbonsink" (reference? JR). To maintain a global balance of carbon emissions there isinternational pressure to reduce the destruction of the forests through burning. This raises

the potential for negotiation between Brazil and other interested parties (nations and supra-national bodies) at a political level to create socio-economic incentives to avoid forestdestruction - possibly through funding alternative forms of development. The economic basis

20/06/0825




Fundamentally we would suggest that zoning should primarily be seen not as

mandatory and regulatory, but as indicative, with public policy at the various state

levels supporting the desired land uses. The process of zoning needs to be

subordinated to the socio-political process, and this entails identifying the main interest

groups and their interests, and creating space for negotiation between these on

specific issues, building up to strategic issues at larger scales, instead of vice versa.

This process, instead of institutionalizing the top-down planning process, will create

institutions for managing equilibrium between external and internal interests. We

propose that such an approach can be practical and beneficial, efficient and equitable,

and moreover be applicable in both rural and urban areas – i.e. whether human

intervention is at a lower or higher intensity.

4.2 Specific recommendations

The following are specific recommendations for the future development of an

appropriate land use planning tool for Brazilian rural and urban areas:

(a) EEZ as a demand driven and cost effective planning instrument

Consideration must be given to the cost effectiveness of EEZ applications. EEZ has

been applied to date without much consideration of what is the social benefit (actual or

expected) from each unit of cost. In this context, it seems that Nitsch’s (1998)

suggestion of a more piece-meal approach to EEZ might be considered in future

selections of priority areas for EEZ application, with a more rigorous application of cost-

benefit analysis. In particular the specific activity of strategic land use planning should

be encouraged at local level through identification by stakeholders of key issues and/or

conflicts, on the basis of which strategic implications would be identified to apply EEZ

for this could be contributions from the other interested parties which would otherwise haveto invest more highly in carbon emission reduction.

20/06/0826




ctors.

in its new form. In addition some form of cost-benefit accountability needs to be

developed that can allow the equation of national and international strategic interests

with those at state and local levels.

(b) EEZ as a participatory decision-making process

The need to create a micro-level “bottom-up” approach in counterpart to the macro-

level “top-down” approach needs legal and institutional definition of the participatory

and socially inclusive decision-making mechanism that should underpin the planning

process. States are currently taking the initiative for EEZ application, and have a

certain amount of installed technical capacity. This would be the most obvious starting

point to ‘kick-start’ a more inclusive process, since states have legal definition powers.

Ideally the definition of the powers relevant to strategic land use planning would be

drafted at national level for refinement and promulgation of the operationalisation at

state level – i.e. the final definition of which stakeholders would be involved and in what

institutional/legal forms needs to follow similar structures nation-wide, but represent

socio-political reality at state level. These state powers would include the need to

reflect the rights of the identified stakeholders in the composition of the State

Commissions of Strategic Land Use Planning;24 the definition of rights at varying

levels of government; and the definition of rights and responsibilities between State,

private and civil society se

At national government level National Policy Guidelines for strategic land use planning

would be developed and promulgated to guide this process.25 These would be

24 These commissions would replace the current State Commissions of EEZ, thus building onexisting institutional capacity. Likewise, it is suggested the Commission for Coordination of the Ecological and Economic Zoning of the National Territory (CCEEZ) would become theNational Commission for Strategic Land Use.

25 National Planning Guidelines was initially introduced in Scotland in 1974, where it has been

developed as a structure for national policy and advice through National Policy Guidelines(NPPGs) and Planning Advice Notes (PANs). Similar guidance was introduced in Englandand Wales from 1988 (Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Minerals Planning Guidance

20/06/0827




indicative, but state governments would have to demonstrate their adherence to (or

justify their deviation from) these when applying for fund transfers to assist with

strategic land use planning. Existing institutional set-ups for inclusive decision-making

(where these exist) would be strengthened, and their creation encouraged where these

do not exist. The national policy guidelines would be reviewed on a regular basis by the

National Commission for Strategic Land Use Planning, based on submissions from

state-level commissions, which in turn would respond to guidance from the subordinate

levels of government and other stakeholder sectors within each state, permitting the

“valorization of differences” to be expressed.

(c) EEZ founded on principles of environmentally sustainable development

We suggested in 3.2.2 that, operating in a demand-led context, EEZ should follow a set

of principles of environmentally sustainable development. One such approach which is

gaining ground in Europe is a sequential approach along the lines of avoid Æ

mitigateÆ remedyÆ compensate:

1. Establish whether a proposed development is needed, within the planning horizon

appropriate to the matter at hand.

2. If it passes that test, establish whether the site proposed for it is one which would

minimize damage and maximize benefit to the environment. In particular, siting

should ensure that natural assets which provide essential environmental services,

and/or are not renewable within the timescale of planning (at least a human

generation), are protected.

Notes). In the 1990s Regional Planning Guidance was also developed in England. These arestatements prepared by central government to guide local governments’ implementation of strategic land use planning. These are indicative rather than mandatory although have beenseen as material in legal evidence. This "legal imperative" reinforces the economic incentivefor incorporation of national guidance in that central government can withhold needed centralfunds from local government, if strategic land use plans are not seen as adequatelyincorporating or justifying differences from this. The advantage of this system over directcentral government legislation is its flexibility in that it is finally applied and developed at local

level, while incorporating strategic national guidance, and can be adapted as needs evolvemore readily than legislative instruments - a disadvantage already encountered in EEZapplication in Brazil. See Jenkins et al (2000 forthcoming) for detail.

20/06/0828




3. If the proposal passes this second test, then consider how any residual damage the

development would cause to the environment could be mitigated (reduced).

4. Any adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated should be remedied (put right),

preferably at the developer’s expense.

5. If satisfactory remedy is not practicable, then the developer should provide

compensation, preferably in kind and close to the development.

One decision or action may in real life accomplish more than one step in the sequence.

Note that there is no assumption about who the developer may be – it could as well be

a public agency as a private firm.

Such an approach would implement five universal principles of sustainable

development:

• The precautionary principle, that we should hold back from actions for which there is

good evidence that they would damage the environment, even if doing so carries an

economic penalty, and even if we lack definite proof that damage would ensue. This

is particularly the case where the asset at risk cannot be renewed.

• Protection of critical natural capital, which provides services which cannot be

substituted by other natural, human or man-made assets.

• The polluter pays principle, that whoever is ultimately responsible for or benefits

from the damaging development should pay for it (this may involve the developer

passing on costs to the consumer of it, if they are not the same party).

• The best practicable environmental option, that which offers the best deal for the

environment while meeting the purpose of the development at an acceptable cost.

• Demand management, which rejects the notion that demand should automatically

be met, in favor of managing it to husband natural resources.

20/06/0829




The details of how such an approach would be implemented would depend on the legal

and planning regimes obtaining in each state. However, two “process principles” which

could be applied to implement it would include strategic environmental appraisal of

EEZ and similar planning exercises, and the use of sustainability indicators to assist

such appraisals and more generally to monitor progress towards adopted targets.

(d) EEZ as an open knowledge sharing mechanism

In close relationship to point (b) above, access to information and knowledge through

institutional channels needs to be opened up. This would avoid, for instance, situations

in which the Secretariat of the Environment of a given state has almost no information

on an EEZ that has been developed by the Secretariat of Planning of the same state.

Allied to this, a better defined “division of labor” among public institutions seems to be

essential if EEZ is to be established as one of the permanent tools of strategic land use

planning in the region. It is recommended that regional universities and research

institutions must have a clear and active role in that "division of labor”. Related to this

point, technicians in the region complained of the “black box” type of product that has

been delivered by consultant firms contracted to develop the EEZ, in particular by

national engineering firms (Nogueira et al, 2000). Technicians do not know how the

results (usually maps) have been arrived at; promised training courses have not been

delivered; and in contracting these firms a “top-down approach” is almost automatically

implemented. It seems that states must be more selective in contracting consultant

firms; in particular they must decide beforehand very clearly what they really want.

(e) EEZ as an educational tool

The production of information and knowledge through EEZ at micro- and macro-levels

should be used both as a process to increase both technical/planning skills within

relevant institutions, and also as a general educational tool to permit changes of

20/06/0830




attitudes and a broadening of the understanding of issues related to environment and

development. This is essential in any process of socio-political negotiation and is also

essential to the operationalisation of the decisions reached. To be effective EEZ has to

produce something recognized to be of value by the wider community who will support

its application. Without this form of popular support the results of strategic land use

planning will not go much further than colored maps and declarations of intent.

4.3 On-going investigation

This paper has raised a wide number of issues concerning various aspects of

ecological-economic zoning – concerning its past, its recent application, and its future.

It has reviewed theoretical, policy-related and operational issues and made a wide-

ranging analysis, albeit limited in depth due to space. The objective of the paper has

been to stimulate debate on ecological-economic zoning per se, and its specific

relevance to urban areas, as a strategic land use planning instrument. Many of the

issues raised have not been resolved, and the general and specific recommendations

above represent work in progress. The institutions indicated in the first footnote

continue to develop research into appropriate methodologies for strategic land use

planning in urban areas which incorporates ecological-economic zoning experience in

Brazil, as well as international experience. The results of this work will be disseminated

internationally through appropriate publications and the Internet.

5. References

Banco Mundial (s/d) Programa Piloto para a proteção das Florestas Tropicais noBrasil. Banco Mundial, Brasília.

Becker, B. K. and Egler, C. A. G. (1997) Details of the methodology for execution of ecological-economic zoning by the states of the legal Amazon region. MMA/SAE,

Brasília.

20/06/0831




Brasil (1965) Código Florestal, Lei no. 4,771, 15/09/1965.

IBGE (1986) Termos de referência para uma proposa de zoneamento ecológico-econômico do Brasil. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), Rio de J aneiro.

J enkins, P., Raemaekers, J . and Smith, H. (2000 forthcoming) An overview of planningexperience in the United Kingdom possibly relevant to EEZ. Caderno de Pesquisa emDesenvolvimento Agrícola e Economia do Meio Ambiente. Série NEPAMA.Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.

Mahar, D. J . (1989) Government policies and deforestation in Brazil's Amazon region.World Wildlife Fund and World Bank, Washington.

Mahar, D. J . and Ducrot, E. H. (1998) Land–Use Zoning on Tropical Frontiers.Emerging Lessons from the Brazilian Amazon. Economic Development Institute, WorldBank, Washington.

Millikan, B. H. (1998) Zoneamento Sócio-Econômico-Ecológico no Estado deRondônia: Análise de um Instrumento de Ordenamento Territorial na Fronteira Amazônica. Projeto BRA/94/007 (PNUD/PLANFLORO), Porto Velho, Rondônia.

Nitsch, M. (1994) Riscos do planejamento regional na Amazônia Brasileira:observações relativas a lógica complexa do zoneamento. In Amazonia e a crise damodernização, M. A. D'Incao and I. Maciel da Silveira (eds.). Museu Parense EmilioGoeldi, Belem, 501-512.

Nitsch, M. (1998) Planejamento sem rumo. Avaliação critica do ZoneamentoEcológico-econômico nos Estados da Amazonia Brasileira. Parecer elaborado para a

Secretaria de Planejamento do Estado de Rondônia. Projeto de Cooperação TecnicaPNUD/PLANAFLORO (BRA/94/007), Berlin.

Nogueira, J . M., Chaves, F. T., de Medeiros, M. A. A. and Versiani, L. (2000)Ecological-economic zoning. Its conception, development and application in Brazil andrelevance as a strategic planning tool for urban areas. Caderno de Pesquisa emDesenvolvimento Agrícola e Economia do Meio Ambiente. Série NEPAMA 009.Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.

Pogodzinski, J . M. and Sass, T. R. (1990) The economic theory of zoning: a criticalreview, Land Economics, 66(3), 294-314.

Schubart, H. O. R. (1994) O Zoneamento Ecológico-econômico como instrumento parao desenvolvimento sustentâvel da Amazônia. In Amazonia e a crise da modernização,M. A. D'Incao and I. Maciel da Silveira (eds.). Museu Parense Emilio Goeldi, Belem,493-500.

SDR/PR (1990) Um Modelo de Administração para a Política Nacional deDesenvolvimento Regional: Sistema Integrado para o DesenvolvimentoRegional/SIDER. Documento de Trabalho n. 3 (Versão Ampliada), Projeto FAO/PNUD,BRA/87/037. Secretaria do Desenvolvimento Regional/Presidência da República(SDR/PR), Brasília.

Steinberger, M. (1997a) O Zoneamento Ecológico-econômico como instrumento deordenamento territorial urbano e regional, Revista Agora, [vol no? Issue no? Pages?]

20/06/0832




Steinberger, M. (1997b) O Zoneamento Ecológico-econômico e o poder local.Conference proceedings of the VII Colloquium on Local Authorities, [Organisinginstitution?], Salvador.

Steinberger, M. (1997c) O Zoneamento Ecológico-econômico como instrumento paratomada de decisões campartilhada. Paper presented at the Inter-American ConferenceDimensões humanas da mudança climática global e do manejo sustentável dasflorestas das Americas, Brasília.

jmn zeeinbrazil

Documents