Paola Gevaerd, Universidad Nacional de San Martín
Relevance of the Practice
Environmental policy has been a controversial issue when addressing the possibilities of development in Argentina, due to the contradictions between environmental protection and the productive specialization of the country in international trade. There is a permanent tension between exploiting natural resources for exporting them in the international market and their local use by communities which live in that environment. That tension translates into policy demands towards national and subnational governments[1] and has social and economic consequences on development.[2]
In recent years, the Secretary of Environment and Sustainable Development of Argentina determined that the high levels of deforestation in the country were the consequence of agricultural and livestock activities.[3] In 2007, the Federal Congress sanctioned the Low 26.331 or Native Forest Low (NFL) and gave the Environment Federal Council (COFEMA) the authority to establish the provincial obligations in environmental policies. In particular, and as a result of the native forest, provinces have to implement and regulate the Native Forests Territorial Planning (NFTP). This law sets ecological, social, and productive conservation categories for the implementation of NFTP. It also fixes national level standards on the matter (Articles 41 and 124 of the Argentinian Constitution) and obliges Argentina to give access to information on its environment following international regulations.[4]
However, the NFLN had also consequences for the most vulnerable sectors living in rural areas and using natural resources for subsistence. This is mainly due to the lack of information and monetary resources required by the state bureaucracy to grant permits for the use of natural resources. The law also meant an increase in the cost of access to legal advice, because the formal requirements for its use do not differentiate between actors or the final use of natural resources. Only the well-informed and resource-capable actors can use the land and therefore also to the social benefits provided by law, mainly harming the populations that use it as a means of subsistence. This practice demonstrates the complex intergovernmental relations in this area.
Also, this practice connects with local finance and local structures, because the provinces receive funds for the application of the national forest law in their provincial territories and this is directly related to local structures. The provinces that are more dependent on natural resources applied this law more quickly.[5] Furthermore, as of the sanction of the national law, the provinces could not deforest until they have applied their corresponding provincial laws.
Description of the Practice
One of the main incentives that led to the approval of the native forest was the economic compensation of the National Fund for the Enrichment and Conservation of Native Forests (NFECNF), a promise for all provinces once they have implemented the territorial ordering of native forests.[6] Articles 30 and 31 regulate the compensation of environmental services through Non-Reimbursable Donations (ANR) to all subnational states that carry out processes of conservation of native forests.
Article 32 of the law establishes the amounts to be received by the provinces for environmental services, subject to the number of hectares with the highest degree of conservation.
In 2010, the central government assigned an item in the national budget to the provinces under the NFECNF. Applicants must submit forest management plans ranging from 10 to 15 years to ensure continuity of resources to beneficiaries. The main objective is to guarantee constant assistance and sustainable production over time. Any type of private sector activity that has an impact on the native forest must have prior authorization from the Forest Directorate. The sectors that have the greatest influence on deforestation and environmental degradation are agriculture and livestock.[7]
In turn, an agronomist or forestry engineer must prepare a management plan and present it at the headquarters of the Forest Directorate or at its delegations in the province, according to the requirements and procedures established for each activity.
In general terms, the NFLN assumes that the target community is in a position to request permits and authorizations, and that the role of the provincial state is to meet those demands. Demand is what guides the destination of funds.
While medium and large producers (those having more than 2,000 hectares) have access to permits and the benefits of the native forest law, indigenous and local communities do not. In most cases, it is due to problems in the access to information and in others due to the legal conditions of land tenure required for the granting of forest management plans.
The native forest low provides mechanisms to support small producers and peasant communities,[8] through comprehensive community plans. However, the national state does not have legal mechanisms to require provincial governments to effectively allocate funds to rural communities, and provincial governments justify this practice arguing that the national government does not meet the compromised budget obligations.
Assessment of the Practice
To date, all provinces have implemented their NFTP. One of the objectives of the NFL was the implementation of the NFTP to stop the deforestation derived from Argentina’s productive specialization. But it also sought to have a social impact due to the fact that communities that use forests’ natural resources as a means of subsistence suffer the damage caused by deforestation. This mainly occurs in the Parque Chaqueño region where the administrative units (departments) most affected by deforestation had a high percentage of indigenous population.[9] In Salta, three departments where 131 indigenous communities live represent 21 per cent of the total deforestation nationwide.[10] In the Province of Formosa, only one department with 46 indigenous communities concentrates 12 per cent of the national total.[11] In the Province of Chaco, the second department with the highest levels of deforestation accounts for 5 per cent of the national total and 36 indigenous communities live in it.[12]
Despite the law, the latest report from the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development reveals that from its implementation until 2018, 2.8 million hectares of native forests were lost; 87 per cent of them corresponding to the Parque Chaqueño. The main cause is the preparation of the soil for agricultural production.[13] Any regulation of the forest could hinder this activity. Hence, the flexibility of the regulation in the provinces with higher levels of deforestation is because the application of the NFTP has an economic incentive behind, access to the NFECNF Then, the areas could be recategorized, mainly those of medium conservation value[14] and thus ‘avoid blame’.[15]
The provinces applied different criteria to legislate their NFTP. These must be carried out by public consultations according to ecological, productive and social criteria. Therefore, according to the conservation category, the areas should be classified according to the conservation value in different colors.[16] However, according to the demand for land use, the provinces have varied these criteria, classifying areas with lower conservation value to allow deforestation under apparently legal conditions.[17]
In sum, it is essential to review the actions of the national state regarding the implementation of the NFL in the provinces, mainly in the Parque Chaqueño, since it currently concentrates 64 per cent of the total native forests in the country,[18] 69 per cent of deforestation in 2019,[19] 50 per cent of the indigenous population,[20] and the highest record of social conflicts associated with land grabbing by foreigners.[21] In addition, it represents 46.2 per cent of the 51.2 million hectares under NFTP.
In 2011, COFEMA determined the areas most affected by deforestation to carry out a focused conservation program: ‘Native Forests and Community’ approved on 11 August 2015, by decree no 1645/2015.[22] The funds come from a World Bank loan executed by ‘Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD)’ (94 per cent) and the rest are national funds through the Secretary of Environmental Policies and Natural Resources.[23] The objective of the program is to promote productive use through the implementation of sustainable forest management plans that benefit small producers, native communities and peasants through comprehensive community plans, where it works with close families, generating an economic circuit of activities and resources provided by the Native Forest to promote its conservation.
Although this is also the objective of the LB (Article 2(c)), the NFECNF finances livestock and forestry activities. However, the Nation cannot require the provinces to allocate funds especially to the communities. [24]The Nation-Province tension is found in the conservation requirements that derive from the National enforcement body towards the Provincial, while the funds for this to happen have not historically arrived since the Law was applied in the province.
References to Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications
Legal Documents:
National Constitution of Argentina, Law no 24,430/1994
National Law no 26,331/2007 on Minimum Budgets for Environmental Protection of Native Forests
Provincial Law no 7543/2008 on Territorial Management of Native Forests in the Province of Salta
Provincial Law no 6942/2009 on Territorial Management of Native Forests in the Province of Santiago del Estero
Provincial Law no 6409/2009 on Territorial Management of Native Forests in the Province of Chaco
Provincial Law no 1552/2010 on Territorial Management of Native Forests in the Province of Formosa
Decree no 1645/2015 on IBRD Loan Agreement – Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of the Argentine Nation
Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications:
Adámoli J; Ginzburg R and Tortella S, ´Escenarios productivos y ambientales del Chaco Argentino: 1977-2010’ (FCEN-UBA and Fundación Producir Conservando 2011)
Azerrat JMI, ‘El Acuerdo Escazú y la accesibilidad a derechos ambientales en la Provincia de Río Negro, Argentina: un paso hacia el desarrollo sostenible’ (2018) 7 Revista REDpensar 1
Costantino A, ´La extraccion del territorio. Extranjerizacion de la tierra y modo de desarrollo en Argentina’ (doctoral thesis, FLACSO 2015)
Di Paola MM, ‘Pagos por servicios ambientales: Análisis de la implementación en Argentina y situación específica del Fondo de la Ley de Bosques Nativos’ (annual environmental report, Fundación de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 2011)
Engel K, ‘Environmental Federalism: A View from the United States’ (discussion paper no 15-28, Arizona Legal Studies 2015)
Figueroa L, ‘Coordinación Intergubernamental en políticas ambientales. La ley de Bosques Nativos en las regiones forestales: Parque Chaqueño y Bosque Andino Patagónico’ (2019) 19 Revista documentos y aportes en administración publica y gestión estatal 7
Gutiérrez R and Alonso GV, ‘Gobierno municipal y coordinación interjurisdiccional de políticas públicas’ (2018) 18 Documentos y Aportes en Administración Pública y Gestión Estatal 57
Gutiérrez RA and Isuani F, ‘Luces y sombras de la política ambiental argentina entre 1983 y 2013’ (2013) 7 Revista S A A P 317
Juliá MS, ‘La Ley de Protección del Bosque Nativo en Argentina: Algunos Impactos Jurídicos e Institucionales del Proceso de Implementación’ (2010) 6 Pampa: Revista Interuniversitaria de Estudios Territoriales 169
—— Del Campo C and Foa Torres J, La institucionalización ambiental en Argentina (Lerner 2009)
Laterra P, Jobbagy E and Paruelo J (eds), Valoración de servicios ecosistémicos: Conceptos, herramientas y aplicaciones para el ordenamiento territorial (INTA 2011)
MAyDS – Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, ‘Causas e impactos de la deforestación de los bosques nativos de Argentina y propuestas de desarrollo alternativas’ (MAyDS 2020).
Quispe Merovich C and Lottici MV. ´Los desafíos del Ordenamiento Ambiental del Territorio y los Servicios Ecosistémicos en la Ley de Bosques Nativos’ in Pedro Laterra, Esteban Jobbagy and José Paruelo (eds), Valoración de servicios ecosistémicos: Conceptos, herramientas y aplicaciones para el ordenamiento territorial (INTA 2011)
SAyDS – Secretary of Environment and Sustainable Development, ‘GEO Argentina 2004’ (Ministry of Health and Environment and United Nations Environment Programme 2006) <http://www.ecopuerto.com/Bicentenario/informes/GEOArgentina2004.pdf>
—— ‘Ley N° 26.331 de Presupuestos Mínimos para la Protección Ambiental de los Bosques Nativos’ (report on the state of implementation, 2013)
SCCDSeI Secretary of Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Innovation, ‘Tercer informe bienal de actualización de la República Argentina a la Convencion Marco de las Naciones Unidas para el Cambio Climático’ (2019) <https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ambiente/cambio-climatico/tercer-informe-bienal>
Schmidt M, ‘Situación de la tierra en la provincia de Salta. Una aproximación al contexto previo al Ordenamiento Territorial de Bosques Nativos’ (2012) 1 Estudios Rurales 75 —— ‘Bosques nativos en Salta. Entre el ordenamiento territorial y los re-(des) ordenamientos posibles’ (2014) 10 Geograficando. Revista de Estudios Geográficos
[1] As of the constitutional reform of 1994 in Argentina, subnational states have the original domain of natural resources.
[2] Kalyani Robbins. The Law and Policy of Environmental Federalism. A Comparative Analysis (Edward Elgar 2015); Marta S Juliá, ‘La Ley de Protección del Bosque Nativo en Argentina: Algunos Impactos Jurídicos e Institucionales del Proceso de Implementación’ (2010) 6 Pampa: Revista Interuniversitaria de Estudios Territoriales 169; Kirsten Engel, ‘Environmental Federalism: A View from the United States’ (discussion paper no 15-28, Arizona Legal Studies 2015); Ricardo A Gutiérrez and Fernando Isuani, ‘Luces y sombras de la política ambiental argentina entre 1983 y 2013’ (2013) 7 Revista S A A P 317.
[3] SAyDS – Secretary of Environment and Sustainable Development, ‘GEO Argentina 2004’ (Ministry of Health and Environment and United Nations Environment Programme 2006) <http://www.ecopuerto.com/Bicentenario/informes/GEOArgentina2004.pdf>.
[4] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992, Rio Agreement on Environment and Sustainable Development, Escazú Agreement, Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and Caribbean. Juan Martín I Azerrat, ‘El Acuerdo Escazú y la accesibilidad a derechos ambientales en la Provincia de Río Negro,
[5] MAyDS Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, ‘Law no 26,331 on Minimum Budgets for the Environmental Protection of Native Forests. Implementation status summary report’ (2016) <https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/informe_de_implementacion_2010_-_2016.pdf>.
[6] Made up of 2% of withholdings on exports and 0.3% of the Government Budget.
[7] MAyDS Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development ‘Causas e impactos de la deforestación de los bosques nativos de Argentina y propuestas de desarrollo alternativas’ (MAyDS 2020) <https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/desmontes_y_alternativas-julio27_0.pdf> and SCCDSeI Secretary of Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Innovation, ‘Tercer informe bienal de actualization de la Republica Argentina a la Convencion Marco de las Naciones Unidas para el Cambio Climático’ (2019) <https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ambiente/cambio-climatico/tercer-informe-bienal>.
[8] Art 21 of the Native Forests National Law no 26,331/2007.
[9] Data from deforestation: Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MayDS) and data base for monitoring deforestation in the Argentine Gran Chaco. Built by the Laboratory of Regional Analysis and Remote Sensing of the Faculty of Agronomy of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) and the Chaco Argentina Agroforestry Network (REDAF). Data from indigenous communities: National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism (INADI).
[10] Santa Ana, Orán and Rivadavia departments.
[11] Patiño department.
[12] General Guemes department.
[13] MAyDS – Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, ‘Causas e impactos de la deforestación de los bosques nativos de Argentina y propuestas de desarrollo alternativas’ (MayDS 2020).
[14] The provincial laws that regulate the NFTP allow the recategorization of conservation areas. In the provinces of the Chaqueño Park this is reflected in: Art 3 Provincial Law 6942; Art 13 Provincial Law 6409; Art 3(g) Provincial Law 1552 and Art 8 Provincial Law 7543.
[15] Ricardo Gutiérrez and Guillermo V Alonso, ‘Gobierno municipal y coordinación interjurisdiccional de políticas públicas’ (2018) 18 Documentos y Aportes en Administración Pública y Gestión Estatal 80, cited in Lucas Figueroa, ‘Coordinación Intergubernamental en políticas ambientales. La ley de Bosques Nativos en las regiones forestales: Parque Chaqueño y Bosque Andino Patagónico’ (2019) 19 Revista documentos y aportes en administración publica y gestión estatal 7.
[16] Red, higher conservation value; yellow, medium conservation value; and green, low conservation value.
[17]Jorge Adámoli,, Rubén Ginzburg and Sebastián Tortella, ´Escenarios productivos y ambientales del Chaco Argentino: 1977-2010’ (FCEN-UBA and Fundación Producir Conservando 2011); Quispe Merovich, C and Lottici, MV ´Los desafíos del Ordenamiento Ambiental del Territorio y los Servicios Ecosistémicos en la Ley de Bosques Nativos. In Laterra P
[18] MAyDS and data base for monitoring deforestation in the Argentine Gran Chaco. Built by the Laboratory of Regional Analysis and Remote Sensing of the Faculty of Agronomy of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) and the Chaco Argentina Agroforestry Network (REDAF).
[19] Data of Global Forest Watch, <https://www.globalforestwatch.org/>.
[20] National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism (INADI).
[21] Agostina Costantino, ´La extraccion del territorio. Extranjerizacion de la tierra y modo de desarrollo en Argentina (doctoral thesis, FLACSO 2015). Mexico observes that 55.5% of all social conflicts derived from land grabbing by foreigners throughout the country were concentrated in the northwest and northeast on average>.
[22] Available at <https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/decreto-1645-2015-250572/texto>.
[23] Available at <https://www.ar.undp.org/content/argentina/es/home/projects/bosques-nativos/>; <https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ambiente/bosques/comunidad>.
[24] Interview carried out with executing technicians of the Native Forests and Communities program, Ministry of the Environment of the Argentine Nation.