Protecting Nature in Federal Systems: States, Private Interests, and Conservation Units in Brazil By Benjamin Stewart Allen A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Assistant Professor Alison E. Post, Co-Chair Professor Ruth B. Collier, Co-Chair Professor David Collier Professor Peter B. Evans Spring 2015 Copyright © 2015 Benjamin Stewart Allen All rights reserved. Abstract Protecting Nature in Federal Systems: States, Private Interests, and Conservation Units in Brazil by Benjamin Stewart Allen Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Assistant Professor Alison E. Post, Co-Chair Professor Ruth B. Collier, Co-Chair This research addresses the decentralization of policy making. Much of the literature argues that decentralization is more efficient because local policy makers are more responsive to local demands than are national policy makers. However, I find that centralization often provides greater environmental policy effectiveness. While both national and subnational tiers of government must weigh economic growth against environmental goals, the balance of these conflicting goals is different for subnational than for national governments. Through an empirical analysis of the location, type, and degree of implementation of federal and state conservation units (unidades de conservação, or UC) in Brazil, I argue that political incentives to establish more or less strict types of conservation units differ across levels of government due to the character and political influence of local economic interests. Two key variables explain variation in conservation unit types: the tier of government – national or subnational – enacting a conservation unit, and the type of industry present where a conservation unit is proposed, as well as the importance of that industry in the economy of the state. National governments have a geographically broader mandate, and so are less vulnerable to capture by local economic interests that oppose environmental policy than are subnational governments. Further, subnational governments are more dependent on local eco- nomic interests for revenue and income generation. As a result, subnational environmental protec- tion is often weaker than national environmental protection, because subnational governments ac- commodate the interests of powerful local economic actors. Nevertheless, the stringency of en- vironmental policy and outcomes vary across subnational jurisdictions, depending on the type of industry present in an area and the industry’s importance in the jurisdiction. Areas characterized by industries that require complete land conversion in order to produce – including urban develop- ment, ranching, and modern agriculture – pose considerable challenges to conservation efforts. In contrast, areas characterized by industries that do not require complete land conversion – including timber and mining firms, as well as small-scale “traditional” extractivism (e.g. rubber tapping, fruit gathering), are more amenable to compromises between environment and development. 1 I make this argument first on the basis of an analysis of federal and state UC creation and imple- mentation across all of Brazil’s 26 states and Federal District of Brasília (Chapter 2). I then analyze in depth three Brazilian states located in two regions of the country: Pará (Chapter 3) and Ama- zonas (Chapter 4), in the Amazon rainforest in Brazil’s north; and Minas Gerais (Chapter 5), which straddles the arid Cerrado savannah and the Atlantic forest, in Brazil’s southeast. Brazil is a parti- cularly good country in which to compare national and subnational environmental policy because the federal and state tiers of government in the country have common authority to establish and manage UCs, and operate under the same federal law. I chose these three states to maximize varia- tion in region, state-federal relationships, and strength of industries that require complete land conversion. My findings are based on 15 months of field research in Brazil, and build on data from over 90 interviews with key informants, large-N datasets of UC creation and management, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) spatial data to analyze UC proximity to or overlap with population centers and different types of economic activities. GIS and large-N data sets facilitate broad com- parisons across Brazil’s 312 federal and 600 state UCs, while key informant interviews provide historical background on national and state politics, as well as individual UCs. The conclusions drawn hold implications for debates about the advantages and disadvantages of decentralization for environmental policy effectiveness, as well as the challenges that federal democracies face in defining and implementing environmental policy goals across multiple tiers of government. 2 I dedicate this book to my parents, Jan and Gordy, my sister, Rebecca, and my nephew, Odin. i Table of Contents Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................iii Chapter 1. The Importance of Tier of Government and Local Economic Geography in the Creation of Federal and State Conservation Units in Brazil...............................................................................1 Chapter 2. The Evolution of Conservation Units in Brazil: National-Level Analyses...................................29 Chapter 3. Pará: Federal Pressure in a Difficult Environment Yields Accommodations with Ecologically Destructive Industries....................................................................................................................65 Chapter 4. Amazonas: Federal and State Governments Cooperate to Foster Sustainable Development in a Rural Interior Characterized by Small Ranching and Timber Sectors........................................103 Chapter 5. Minas Gerais: Timber Scarcity and Industrial Promotion Lead to Environmental Institution Building.......................................................................................................................................142 Chapter 6. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................179 Bibliography................................................................................................................................185 Appendices..................................................................................................................................198 ii Acknowledgments Nothing worth doing can be done alone, and that is true for this dissertation. Over the years, many people have helped me complete this project, and I fear that my fallible memory may cause me to thank only a few of them. Professors Alison Post and Ruth Collier have been superb mentors, and have seen me through the process of designing and carrying out this research project from start to finish. Alison has since 2009 been attentive, encouraging, and constructively critical in her oversight of my dissertation research. Beginning in 2009, she had me schedule regular meetings with her to discuss my draft dissertation prospectus. Prior to each meeting, she read my work carefully, and always had several suggestions for ways that I could sort out theoretical issues. She also guided me toward relevant literature and read my fellowship application drafts. During my field work, I updated Alison on my progress in monthly memos, and she consistently responded with encouragement and useful suggestions for next steps, including techniques to widen my network of contacts and get more key informant interviews. When I returned from field work and was having trouble figuring out what I had learned and how to begin writing the dissertation, Alison had me meet with her regularly to talk through my data and my ideas for how to proceed. Now I look back and realize that I developed most of my best ideas in dialogue with Alison. She is truly a source of intellectual insight and inspiration. Ruth’s contribution to this dissertation has been different, but equally valuable. Early in my prospectus-writing phase, she imposed specific assignments and hard deadlines to ensure that I was making incremental, but steady, progress. Later – this last year especially – she had me meet with her regularly to discuss draft chapters, and her hard-nosed interrogation of my logic, argu- mentation, and evidence has made this dissertation much better than it otherwise would have been. Field research can be a solitary endeavor, but several people made my time in Brazil enjoy- able. Good friends and colleagues at IPEA and the University of Brasília made field research in Brazil fun. Igor Ferraz da Fonseca generously invited me to participate in his research, and our collaboration on an article from 2010 to 2012 was a true pleasure. Félix Lopez kindly invited me to stay in the spare room of his apartment in Asa Sul, rent-free, for five months. Constantino Cro- nemberger Mendes gave me sage advice at several points along the way, both in Brasília and later, while he was in residence at UC Berkeley. Tânia Monteiro helped me navigate IPEA’s bureaucracy and along the way became a friend. Igor Brandão is a great friend and an equally valuable sounding board about the challenges of researching environmental politics in Brazil.