Advertisement

Curbing Corruption in Brazilian Environmental Governance: A Collective Action and Problem-solving Approach

  • Rafael Küster de Oliveira
  • Cleverson Vitório AndreoliEmail author
  • Priscila da Mata Cavalcante
Chapter
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

Brazil is much privileged with biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, the poor implementation of its environmental policies may offer fertile ground for corruption, thereby endangering ecosystem protection. It is widely agreed that corruption thrives where impunity prevails. This view lies with principal-agent theory. Nevertheless, the limited outcomes of anti-corruption interventions worldwide cast doubts on whether corruption can be sufficiently explained by principal-agent theory alone. In this context, we discuss corruption in Brazil’s environmental governance in light of the theoretical viewpoints of collective action and problem-solving. Drawing on these two perspectives, we argue that environmental policy instruments, such as environmental licensing, might be less prone to corruption by eliminating their major inefficiencies. That is, procedural problems (e.g., excessive bureaucracy, ambiguity in legal procedures and lack of electronic information systems) and absence of legitimacy and scientific credibility. Finally, we introduce the anti-corruption coalition Watershed Environmental Net—Coastal Watershed, from Public Prosecutor’s Office of Paraná State, and touch on corruption from a more closely principal-agent perspective. These three perspectives shed light on distinct and yet important issues regarding curbing corruption in Brazil’s environmental governance. Therefore, it is imperative that they be viewed as complementary rather than alternative approaches.

Keywords

Environmental licensing Environmental impact assessment Ecosystem services Amazon Corporate social responsibility 

References

  1. ABEMA. (2013). Novas propostas para o licenciamento ambiental no Brasil. Brasília: Associação Brasileira de Entidades Estaduais de Meio Ambiente.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoli, C. V. (1992). Principais resultados da política ambiental brasileira: o setor público. Revista de Administração Pública, 4, 10–31.Google Scholar
  3. Ashford, N. A. (2002). Government and environmental innovation in Europe and North America. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1417–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo-Santos, V. M., Fearnside, P. M., Oliveira, C. S., Padial, A. A., Pelicice, F. M., Lima, D. P., Simberloff, D., Lovejoy, T. E., Magalhaes, A. L. B., Orsi, M. L., Agostinho, A. A., Esteves, F. A., Pompeu, P. S., Laurance, W. F., Petrere, M., Mormul, R. P., & Vitule, J. R. S. (2017). Removing the abyss between conservation science and policy decisions in Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26, 1745–1752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee, O., Macpherson, A. J., & Alavalapati, J. (2009). Toward a policy of sustainable forest management in Brazil – A historical analysis. The Journal of Environment & Development, 18, 130–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett, R. V., & Kurian, P. A. (1999). The theory of environmental impact assessment: Implicit models of policy-making. Policy and Politics, 27(4), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batory, A. (2012). Why do anti-corruption laws fail in Central Eastern Europe? A target compliance perspective. Regulation & Governance, 6, 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benjamin, A. H. (2001). Um novo modelo para o ministério público na proteção do meio ambiente. In A. B. Alves, A. G. Rufino, José A. F. Silva, (Org.). Funções institucionais do ministério público (pp. 391–400). Saraiva: São Paulo.Google Scholar
  9. Benjamin, A. H. (2003). Introdução ao direito ambiental brasileiro. In J. R. Soares, F. Galvão (Coord.). Direito ambiental na visão da magistratura e do Ministério Público (pp. 11–118). Belo Horizonte: Del Rey.Google Scholar
  10. Bragagnolo, C., Lemos, C. C., Ladle, R. J., & Pellin, A. (2017). Streamlining or sidestepping? Political pressure to revise environmental licensing and EIA in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65, 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briassoulis, H. (1999). Who plans whose sustainability? Alternative roles for planners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(6), 889–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brito, B., & Barreto, P. (2011). A regularização fundiária avançou na Amazônia? Os dois anos do programa Terra Legal. Belém, Brasil: Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia.Google Scholar
  13. Brito, B., & Barreto, P. (2015). Regularização fundiária no Pará: Afinal qual é o problema? Belém, Brazil: Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia.Google Scholar
  14. Brondizio, E. S., Ostrom, E., & Young, O. R. (2009). Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: The role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., Defries, R. S., Diaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., Perrings, C., Reid, W. V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R. J., & Whyte, A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 1305–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Hilding-Ryedvik, T., & Emmelin, L. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. CNI. (2013). Proposta da Indústria para o Aprimoramento do Licenciamento Ambiental. Brasília: Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI).Google Scholar
  18. Crawford, C. (2009). Defending public prosecutors and defining Brazil’s environmental “public interest”: A review of Lesley McAllister’s making law matter: Environmental protection and legal institutions in Brazil. The George Washington International Law Review, 40(3), 619–647.Google Scholar
  19. Costanza, R., et al. (2014, May). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 26, 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daiberth, A. (2009). Historical views on environment and environmental Law in Brazil. The George Washington International Law Review, 40, 779–840.Google Scholar
  21. Defries, R. S., Foley, J. A., & Asner, G. P. (2004, June). Land-use choices: Balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(5), 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. (2014). Lei Anticorrupção Um retrato das práticas de compliance na era da empresa limpa. Accessed September 5, 2017, from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/br/Documents/risk/Lei_Anticorrupcao.pdf
  24. Dirzo, R., & Raven, P. H. (2003). Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Drummond, J., & Barros-Platiau, A. F. (2006). Brazilian environmental laws and policies, 1934–2002: A critical overview. Law & Policy, 28, 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duchelle, A. E., et al. (2014). Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: Lessons from REDD plus Initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 55, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review, 96, 1611–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fearnside, P. M. (2003). Conservation policy in Brazilian Amazonia: Understanding the dilemmas. World Development, 31(5), 757–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fearnside, P. M. (2005, June). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 680–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fearnside, P. M., & Lima de Alencastro Graca, P. M. (2006). BR-319: Brazil’s manaus-porto velho highway and the potential impact of linking the arc of deforestation to central Amazonia. Environmental Management, 38(5), 705–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fearnside, P. M. (2016). Brazilian politics threaten environmental policies. Science, 353, 746–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. FMASE. (2013). Proposta de Diretrizes Institucionais para o Novo Marco Legal do licenciamento ambiental dos empreendimentos do setor elétrico. Brasília: Fórum de Meio Ambiente do Setor Elétrico (FMASE).Google Scholar
  33. Foley, J. A., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway, T., Howard, E. A., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J. A., Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N., & Snyder, P. K. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Foley, J. A., et al. (2007, February). Amazonia revealed: Forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fonseca, A., Sanchez, L. E., & Ribeiro, J. C. J. (2017). Reforming EIA systems: A critical review of proposals in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Franco, J. G. O. (2005). Direito Ambiental Matas Ciliares – Conteúdo Jurídico e Biodiversidade. Curitiba: Juruá.Google Scholar
  37. Gasparatos, A. (2010). Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1613–1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gibbs, H. K., Brown, S., Niles, J. O., & Foley, J. A. (2007). Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: Making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters, 2, 13.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gibbs, H. K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D. C., Noojipady, P., Soares-Filho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L., & Walker, N. F. (2015). Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science, 347, 377–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guesnerie, R., & Laffont, J. J. (1984). A complete solution to a class of principal-agent problems with an application to the control of a self-managed firm. Journal of Public Economics, 25, 329–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hochstetler, K. (2011). The politics of environmental licensing: Energy projects of the past and future in Brazil. Studies in Comparative International Development, 46, 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hooper, D. U., et al. (2005, February). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1), 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. INPE. (2016). Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. Available at http://www.inpe.br/
  44. Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 71–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., & Wood, C. (2007). Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kareiva, P., et al. (2007, June 29). Domesticated nature: Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science, 316(5833), 1866–1869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klink, C. A., & Machado, R. B. (2005). Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Biology, 19, 707–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lawson, L. (2009). The politics of anti-corruption reform in Africa. Journal of Modern African Studies, 47, 73–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lopes, C. (2005). Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Humano: a agenda emergente para o novo milênio. Unesp: São Paulo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mackendrick, N. A. (2005). The role of the state in voluntary environmental reform: A case study of public land. Policy Sciences, 38, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Malhi, Y., Roberts, J. T., Betts, R. A., Killeen, T. J., Li, W., & Nobre, C. A. (2008). Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science, 319, 169–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marengo, J. A., & Espinoza, J. C. (2016). Extreme seasonal droughts and floods in Amazonia: Causes, trends and impacts. International Journal of Climatology, 36, 1033–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marquette, H., & Pfeiffer, C. (2015). Corruption and collective action. In Developmental leadership programme (Research paper 32). University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  55. Mcallister, L. K. (2008). Making law matter. Environmental protection and legal institutions in Brasil. Stanford: Stanford Law Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meppem, T., & Bourke, S. (1999). Different ways of knowing: A communicative turn toward sustainability. Ecological Economics, 30(3), 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2006). Corruption: Diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Democracy, 17, 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D. R., Chan, K. M. A., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T. H., & Shaw, M. R. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nepstad, D., Mcgrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., Bezerra, T., Digiano, M., Shimada, J., da Motta, R. S., Armijo, E., Castello, L., Brando, P., Hansen, M. C., Mcgrath-Horn, M., Carvalho, O., & Hess, L. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344, 1118–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Soares-Filho, B., & Merry, F. (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: Prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 1737–1746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., & Barreto, P. (2013). Setting priorities to avoid deforestation in Amazon protected areas: Are we choosing the right indicators? Environmental Research Letters, 8(1).Google Scholar
  62. OECD. (2015). OECD Environmental performance reviews: Brazil 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Ondro, W. J., Couto, L., & Betters, D. R. (1995). The status and practice of forestry in Brazil in the early 1990s. The Forestry Chronicle, 71(1), 106–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Oreskes, N. (2004). Science and public policy: What’s proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ozono, H., Jin, N., Watabe, M., & Shimizu, K. (2016). Solving the second-order free rider problem in a public goods game: An experiment using a leader support system. Scientific Reports, 6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38349
  67. Patriota, A. A. (2009). An introduction to Brazilian environmental law. The George Washington International Law Review, 40, 611–617.Google Scholar
  68. Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013, July). Why anticorruption reforms fail systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 26(3), 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Philipp, J. R. A., Andreoli, C. V., Collet, B. G., & Fernandes, V. (2014). Histórico e Evolução do Sistema de Gestão. In J. R. A Philippi, M. R. Andrade, & B. G. Collet (Org.), Curso de Gestão Ambiental (2a ed., Vol. 1, pp. 19–50). Barueri: Manole.Google Scholar
  70. Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Retief, F. (2013). Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Prieur, M. (2012). O Princípio da Proibição do Retrocesso Ambiental. Princípio da Proibição do Retrocesso Ambiental. Senado Federal (pp. 11–54). Brasília: Comissão de Meio Ambiente, Defesa do Consumidor e Fiscalização e Controle.Google Scholar
  72. Rands, M. R. W., et al. (2010, September). Biodiversity conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science, 329(5997), 1298–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reydon, B. P., Fernandes, V. B., & Telles, T. S. (2015). Land tenure in Brazil: The question of regulation and governance. Land Use Policy, 42, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ribeiro, M. C., Metzger, J. P., Martensen, A. C., Ponzoni, F. J., & Hirota, M. M. (2009). The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 142, 1141–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rodrigues, M. C. (2016a). A Regionalização como Estratégia de Proteção ao Meio Ambiente. Revista Jurídica do Ministério Público, ano 03, no 04, agosto de.Google Scholar
  76. Rodrigues, Melissa Cachoni. A Regionalização como Estratégia de Proteção do Meio Ambiente. Revista Jurídica do Ministério Público do Estado do Paraná, ano 3 - n° 4, 2016b, p. 235–265.Google Scholar
  77. Rothstein, B. (2011). Anti-corruption: The indirect ‘big bang’ approach. Review of International Political Economy, 18, 228–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rylands, A. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). Brazilian protected area. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sampaio, R. S. R. (2012). Direito ambiental – doutrina e casos práticos. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier/FGV.Google Scholar
  80. Sánchez, L. E. (2013). Development of environmental impact assessment in Brazil. UVP Report, 27, 193–200.Google Scholar
  81. Sano, H. (2012). The Brazilian National Environmental Policy: The challenge of plural environmental governance. Development, 55, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sappington, D. E. M. (1991). Incentives in principal-agent relationships. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Segerson, K., & Miceli, T. J. (1998). Voluntary environmental agreements: Good or bad news for environmental protection? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. SFB. Serviço Florestal Brasileiro. (2016). Available at http://www.florestal.gov.br/
  85. Sistema Ambiental Paulista. (2016). Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Governo do Estado de São Paulo. Madeira legal vs. Madeira ilegal. Available at http://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/madeiralegal/madeiralegalvsmadeirailegal/
  86. Soares-Filho, B., et al. (2010, June 15). Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(24), 10821–10826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Soares-Filho, B., et al. (2014, April 25). Land use cracking Brazil’s Forest code. Science, 344(6182), 363–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sunderlin, W. D. (1995). Global environmental-change, sociology, and paradigm isolation. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 5(3), 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. TEEB. (2010). TEEB report for business. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  90. Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8, 857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ugur, M., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). Evidence on the economic growth impacts of corruption in low-income countries and beyond: A systematic review. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  93. UNDP. (2008). Corruption and development: Anti-corruption interventions for poverty reduction, realization of the MDGs and promoting sustainable development. New York: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  94. UNEP. 2009. Environmental governance. Accessed November 27, 2017, from http://staging.unep.org/pdf/brochures/EnvironmentalGovernance.pdf
  95. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  96. Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Morin, E. (2011). Introdução ao Pensamento Complexo: Tradução de Eliane Lisboa (p. 5). Porto Alegre: Sulina.Google Scholar
  98. Williams, A., & Dupuy, K. (2017). Deciding over nature: Corruption and environmental impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65, 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. World Resources Institute. (2012). The corporate ecosystem services review. Guidelines for identifying business risks and opportunities arising from ecosystem change. Available at http://www.wri.org/publication/corporate ecosystem services review
  100. World Resources Institute. (2008). Ecosystem services – A guide for decision makers. Available at http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystem_services_guide_for_decisionmakers.pdf
  101. World Bank. (2008). Licenciamento Ambiental de Empreendimentos Hidrelétricos no Brasil: uma Contribuição para o Debate. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/03/10155469/environmental-licensing-hydroelectric-projects-brazil-contribution-debate-vol-1-3-summary-report
  102. Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology, 21, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Küster de Oliveira
    • 1
  • Cleverson Vitório Andreoli
    • 2
    Email author
  • Priscila da Mata Cavalcante
    • 3
  1. 1.Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR)CuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.Higher Institute of Administration and Economy of Mercosur (ISAE/FGV)CuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.Public Prosecutor’s Office of Paraná State (MPPR)ParanaguáBrazil

Personalised recommendations