Transcript CHILE – Evaluating And Improving The Ministry Of Agriculture’s Environmental Agenda (MAEA) Integrated Assessment and Planning for Sustainable Development Second Review Meeting Geneva, September 21-22, 2005 Victoria.

CHILE – Evaluating And Improving
The Ministry Of Agriculture’s
Environmental Agenda (MAEA)
Integrated Assessment and Planning for
Sustainable Development
Second Review Meeting
Geneva, September 21-22, 2005
Victoria Alonso - Edmundo Claro
RIDES
Background (1)

1.
2.
3.

1.
2.
3.
4.
What was the original focus of the assessment?
Assessment. To assess the sustainability impacts of the MAEA and to suggest
necessary adjustments to it so that it promotes better environmental
performance, reinforces sustainable trade in the agriculture sector and helps
at reducing poverty.
Participation. To make relevant actors’ participation an important factor in the
assessment, so that the MAEA is coherent in relation to the strategic goals of
the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Commission on Environment, the
Trade Liberalization strategy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Clean
Production strategy of the Ministry of Economics.
Capacity building. Enhancing capacity to undertake integrated assessment
and planning for sustainable development and therefore facilitating the design
of policies, plans and programs that take into account economic, social and
environmental aspects of development.
Why was it selected?
Political pluralism: to promote the adoption of a plural perspective in policy
matters.
Substantive pluralism: to ensure environmental and social aspects were
considered on a par with economic ones in the design of the MAEA.
Procedural pluralism: to make certain that participation of different public
bodies, civil society and the private sector in the design of the MAEA.
Methodological pluralism: to expand the repertoire of analytical and
participatory techniques used in the design of policies.
Background (2)

What were the original key objectives of the project?
a)
To contribute to the planning process of the MAEA so that it can be a
factor towards sustainable development. More specifically, to promote
an environmentally progressive MAEA which reinforces sustainable
trade in the agriculture sector and helps in reducing poverty.
b)
Improving policy coherence of the MAEA in relation to the strategic
goals of the Ministry of Agriculture, the objectives of the National
Commission on Environment, the Trade Liberalization strategy of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Clean Production strategy of the
Ministry of Economics.
c)
To evaluate the sustainability impacts of the MAEA and to suggest
necessary adjustments to it.
d)
To disseminate the experience of this assessment in other policy
planning processes within the country, as well as in the region and
internationally.
Background (3)


a)
b)
What are the new focus and objectives (if there
have been any changes) and why?
After the preliminary assessment of the MAEA, two
of the objectives became more specific:
Assessment: focus on three selected productive
sectors (forestry, pork meat and wheat), construct
future scenarios for the MAEA under these sectors,
and assess their sustainability impacts, and then
derive recommendation of specific policies.
Participation: to define who should participate,
including authorities, the private sector and civil
society
Background (4)
What are the key policy scenarios, why?
• The MAEA is a general document with
important elements for improvement but,
• Does not include specific tools to constitute
a policy document
• Key policy scenarios are: a) Without
Environmental Agenda b) With a medium
Environmental Agenda and c) With a full
Environmental Agenda
Background (5)



What are the productive sectors to be assessed
under each scenario, why?
Since the Agricultural Policy of Chile is organized in
sub-sectors of agriculture, the project analyzed the
main economic, social and environmental issues in
some of these sub-sectors: forestry, pork meat and
wheat
These sectors were selected because they represent
the following criteria: economic relevance, impact on
poverty, environmental impact and trade relevance.
Background (6)

What are the key methods for assessing economic, social, and
environmental impacts in this project?

Scenario approach under the following structure:
– Description of the sector
– Barriers to the sustainability of the sector (economic, social and
environmental)
– Policies attributable to the Environmental Agenda of the Ministry of
Agriculture: incentives, regulations, voluntary programs, and research and
development
– Scenario building for the year 2010 based on policies identified on 3): a)
Without Environmental Agenda b) With a medium Environmental Agenda
and c) With a full Environmental Agenda
– Scenario assessment in terms of its contribution towards sustainable
development: trade, poverty and environmental impacts.
– Policy recommendations.
Background (7)

What have been the processes of implementing this project?
– Constitution of a Steering Committee
– Background paper
– Specific interviews
– National Workshop
– Selection of methodology and specific agriculture sectors
– Sector description
– Validation with ODEPA
– Constitution of a Working Group for each sector
– First Group discussion
– Scenario Construction
– Second Group Discussion
– Definite sector documents
Assessment framework
Selected sector: pork meat
Scenario 1:
without
MAEA
Economic indicators:
State investment
Exports level
Social indicators:
Employment
Rural poverty
Environment indicators:
Water quality
Odour emissions
Scenario 2:
medium
MAEA
Scenario 3:
full MAEA
Scenario construction
Policy or instrument
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Economic instruments:
financial instruments to
promote application to CDM
by SMEs

Information systems:
underground water baseline

Voluntary mechanism: third
clean production agreement


Land use planning: to reduce
conflict for land use between
urban development and
agriculture


Initial effects

How does each scenario affect the price of the related product or
incentive of using a related natural resource?

Scenario 2 will affect incentives to produce pork meat but not very
significantly.
Land use planning will certainly put some obstacles to the siting of new
nurseries. However, due to the scale of incoming new projects, these
new costs are expected to be very low in comparison to normal
investment costs.
The clean production agreement will rise production costs due to more
stringent guano application regulations: there will be limits to the amout
of guano to be applied and there will periods under which guano can be
applied to agricultural land. However, this instrument is voluntary, so
that all participating producers will have analysed their participation in
economic terms before joining the agreement.
Scenario 3 should not affect incentives to produce pork meat further to
what happened with Scenario 2. This is mainly because the two extra
measures in Scenario 3 (financial instruments to promote application to
CDM by SMEs and an underground water quality information system)
should mostly imply costs to the state and not necessarily to the private
sector.



Initial effects (continued)

How will the changes in price or incentive
in turn affect production or use of the
natural resource
 It is expected that the measures contained in
scenarios 2 and 3 will not affect the growing
tendency in the production of pork meat. In
effect, it might actually provide with new
international market opportunities for clean or
environmentally friendly pork meat products.
Economic/trade effects
For the ONE selected sector:
 How will the changes in production or use
of resource affect economic and trade
performance under each scenario?
Econ/trade
indicators
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
1. State investment
(cost)
0
+
++
2. Export level
0
+
+
Environmental effects
For the one selected sector:
 How will the changes in production or use
of resource affect the environment under
each scenario?
Environment
indicators
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
1. Water
quality
0
+
++
2. Odour
emissions
0
+
+
Social effects (1)
For the ONE selected sector:
 How will changes in production or use of
resource affect social well-being and
poverty in each scenario? Use no more
than 3 indicators.
Social indicators
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
1. Employment
0
+
+
2. Reduction of
rural poverty
0
+
+
Social effects (2)

Who are the winners and losers from the changes
in production and use of resources?
– In general, MAEA is a good thing for the future of
environmental sustainability of Chilean agriculture
– Facilitate construction of agreements within the
public sector
– Increases competitiveness of the Chilean pork
meat sector, especially of big producers
– Bring health benefits for workers, consumers and
local communities
But:
– Might put more pressure on small and medium
farmers by forcing them to comply with new
environmental requirements
Secondary effects (1)



Please describe any further, long-term social &
economic/trade implications of the projected
environmental changes?
Social implications: a) due to better water quality,
health improvements; b) due to less odour emissions,
less conflicts between local communities and nearby
pork nurseries.
Economic implications: a) due to better
environmental performance of the pork meat sector,
more competitiveness in international markets; b) due
to stringent environmental requirements, expansion
of the environmental industry in Chile.
Secondary effects (2)



Please describe any further, long-term environmental &
economic/trade implications from the projected changes in
social well-being?
Winners: a) big pork meat producers will be more able to switch
to cleaner production technologies and benefit from more
resource efficient production; b) lower poverty levels for rural
workers might bring higher pressure on natural resources:
water, energy, land, etc.; c) health benefits for workers,
consumers and local communities might imply higher labour
productivity; d) b) and c) together might push the creation of new
small entrepeneurs.
Loosers: small and medium farmers not able to comply with
MAEA requirements might switch to even lower environmental
standards in order to compete in the national pork meat market.
Recommendations (1)

For ex ante or concurrent assessment, how should the
policy/plan be re-formulated or revised?
– A third Clean Production Agreement that World not only
promote the measurement of nitrogen emissions but would
include concrete measures to minimize those emissions.
– A national plan for Land Use that would reinforce and
broaden the environmental and sustainability considerations
for land use planning, especially when addressing rural
territories.
– An underground water baseline that would inform on the
pollution levels in the major agriculture basins.
– Financial instruments to promote the making of collective
studies to apply for the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) for small and medium size producers
Recommendations (2)

How to improve the process of
policy/plan-making? Consider:
– Complement with all relevant sectors
– Reach decision makers
– Reach political consensus
– Further engagement of the private sector
– Cost evaluation
– Election year
Enabling conditions

What needs to happen in order to implement the
recommendations?
 To continue with the capacity building process related
to the IAP project with key decision makers.
 To proceed with other relevant sectors in the Chilean
agriculture
 To gather the required financial and human resources
for the MAEA implementation
 To get the private sector’s commitment to support the
future MAEA
Lessons learned so far...

Integrated assessment: has provided elements for
policy improvement in at least 3 ways:
– Has allowed for consideration of different elements of the Chilean
agriculture’s reality
– Has integrated a broad range of relevant actors
– Has expanded the repertoire of analytical and participatory
techniques


To address the agenda from a productive sector’s
perspective instead of enviromental aspects
To widen the participatory y process has proved
successful in many ways:
– Has allowed different relevant actors to seat at the same table
– Has promoted dialogue between actors from different relevant
institutions in the public sector
– Has produced an agreed upon document