The London School of Economics and Political Science Reaping the Seeds of Discord: Advocacy Coalitions and Changes in Brazilian Environmental Regulation Flavia M. M. Donadelli A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2016. DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 79,240 words. 1 ABSTRACT This is a thesis about the main drivers of regulatory change. Departing from theoretical approaches focused on the ‘policy process’ – such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) – this work investigates the main reasons behind the marked changes that occurred in the regulation of three Brazilian environmental policy areas between 2005 and 2015. The policy areas under investigation are Forestry, in particular the approval of a new Forest Code in 2012; Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing, specifically the new 2015 law on the topic (Lei 13.123/2015); and Pesticides, in particular, regulatory changes concerning the registration and use of new products. In order to assess the reasons for regulatory change in these three areas, this thesis qualifies the latest version of the Advocacy Coalition Framework's explanation for policy change as developed by Weible and Nohrstedt (2013). The thesis explores the role of the four causal factors advanced in the ACF – external events, internal events, learning and negotiated agreement – and assesses them in relation to the three case studies. It does so through process-tracing of each sector’s history and content analysis of arguments proffered in National Congress debates, interviews with key actors and in the national media. The findings of this thesis qualify the ACF expectations regarding policy change and suggest that events external and internal to the policy areas analysed might be sufficient sources of regulatory change. Negotiated agreement and learning were not necessary sources of regulatory change in two of the three cases investigated. Among the external events identified as relevant for the regulatory changes are the increased relevance of commodity production and export between 2008 and 2013 and the consequent increase in the political and economic power of the agribusiness sector. The main internal events identified point to the importance of the beginning of the enforcement of previously non-enforced regulations; the limits of the state’s capacity to enforce previous regulations; international negotiations; and media scandals. Finally, incentives generated by international negotiations were found to be crucial determinants of negotiated agreement and learning between coalitions, in the only case in which these occurred (Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing). 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply grateful to all those who contributed to this work. I own the conclusion of this thesis to the time, patience and generosity of so many people that listing a few names is certainly unfair. A few people, however, cannot go unremarked. First and foremost, my supervisor Professor Martin Lodge was a crucial guidance and inspiration throughout this process. He read the endless versions of these chapters in a diligent and timely manner and provided me with constructive and vital feedback that rescued me from the several tides of confusion and deadlock through which I navigated over the past 4 years. Most of all, I am sincerely grateful to him for believing in, welcoming, and nurturing my aspiration to pursuing a PhD when I first came to LSE as a MSc student 5 years ago. In a similar way, my adviser Dr. Kira Matus provided me with invaluable comments and support at the initial stages of this project. Although at later stages she embarked on the fascinating journey of motherhood, the lessons I grasped from her sharp, objective and clear reasoning certainly accompanied me throughout this entire project and are reflected in the final results. Second, I am immensely grateful to all those people who helped me during my fieldwork in Brasilia. Those six months would not have been so insightful and enjoyable without the generosity of Professor Cristina Inoue from University of Brasilia, who received me with open arms, generously sharing her ideas about Brazilian socio-environmentalism and her own office space with me. I could not sufficiently express my gratitude, moreover, to Dr. Francisco Gaetani, who opened so many doors of Brazilian bureaucracy to me and introduced me to the machinery of Brazilian Ministry of Environment. Finally, the 58 interviewees who dedicated one or more hours of their time to answering my questions and to sharing the amazing universe of their professional experiences with me provided not only with much needed information, but also nurtured my admiration and curiosity about the engines of public administration and regulation. Third, this research would not have been possible without the financial support of CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel), 3 a governmental agency within the Brazilian Ministry of Education. The support they provided was decisive for the continuation of this project, which was initially pursued without funding for one year. They allowed me to focus my entire attention to this research for three years which was an inestimable help. Fourth, my colleagues from ‘the PhD room’ (and LSE in general) were a fundamental point of support during this often solitary journey. The daily lunches and conversations with Takuya Onoda, Nimrod Kovner, Ricardas Juskevicius, Izabella Correa, Bernando Rangoni and Heidi Wang were much appreciated opportunities to share the joys and distresses of this process, and to cultivate friendships that will certainly last beyond the conclusion of our theses. In a similar way, I am immensely indebted to my friends from Closer (Challenges of Multidisciplinarity in Socio- Environmental Research), Carolina Schneider Comandulli, Giovanna Grandoni, Grace Iara Sousa, Larissa Boratti, Rafael Morais Chiaravalloti, and Tiago Ávila Martins Freitas, who enriched my life with their wonderful researches, experiences, dreams and also provided important feedbacks to my research. Also a big thank you to Dr. Thomas Eimer, with whom I share the interest for Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing in Brazil, and who has provided me with valuable feedbacks and stimulating conversations about the topic. Finally, I am the most indebted to my family which has always unconditionally supported me and provided me with the necessary confidence to venture on new roads. Their care and love is at the very base of any of my achievements and they can be warmly felt, even across the ocean that so frustratingly physically separates us. At last, there would be no words to tell Philipe how grateful and lucky I am to have had him by my side during this entire process. This thesis is dedicated to him, who had to endure not only the practical difficulties involved in accompanying me to the UK, but also the emotional challenges involved in completing it. 4 CONTENTS LIST OF GRAPHS ................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... 8 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 10 PART 1: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................ 12 CHAPTER 1 - FRAMING THE PROBLEM ....................................................... 13 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.2. Importance .............................................................................................................. 16 1.2.1. Why the Advocacy Coalition Framework? .................................................................... 16 1.2.2 Why Environmental Regulation? ................................................................................... 19 1.2.3 Why Brazil? .................................................................................................................... 19 1.2.4 Why these Cases and Timeframe? ................................................................................ 22 1.3. Research Design ...................................................................................................... 24 1.4. Methods of Data Analysis and Collection ................................................................ 26 1.4.1. Methods of Data Analysis ............................................................................................