From 2017 to 2020, there was a significant change in the priority given to the items in the environmental agenda of state governments. The management of water resources became a priority in 15 FUs, whereas environmental license, a priority for 19 FUs in 2017, fell to eight in 2020.

In 2020, 24 FUs had specific financial resources for state bodies in charge of the environment in the previous year's budget. The average percentage of the total budget allocated to this end was 1.6%, below the 2.0% of 2017. In addition, most (23) of the FUs used their own resources for the environment.

Of the 25 UFs that had an Environment Fund (FMA) in 2020, 19 used it for environmental initiatives.

In 2020, 18 FUs had legislation on Ecological or Socio-environmental Taxes (ICMS), and 14 passed the revenue collected on to municipalities. The most considered environmental criterion for the transfer in 2020 was the presence of conservation units (13 FUs), followed by the collection and final disposal of solid waste (eight).

The information can be seen in the 2020 Survey of Basic State Information (ESTADIC), which, in addition to the chapter on the Environment, provides information on Human Resources, Housing, Transportation and Agriculture.

The number of exclusive secretariats for agricultural management increased, from 10 in 2017 to 17 in 2020. In addition, all FUs had at least one agricultural management program or action and all had a state agency responsible for rural technical assistance and/or extension.

Between 2017 and 2020, there was a reduction in the management instruments linked to social participation in housing policy: the number of Federation Units with a Housing Council dropped from 25 to 21 and from 19 to 8 those that held Housing Conferences.

In transportation services, the concession regime was the main type of regulation, present in 18 FUs. In Piauí and the Federal District, the transportation service was provided directly by the public sector, and in Roraima, part of the service was provided without regulation. In 2020, the 27 FUs had an adapted fleet (6) or partially adapted (21) for accessibility.

There was a decrease of 3.1% in the number of employed persons in state and district governments compared to 2019. Of the total in 2020 (2,891,337), 85.7% were linked to direct administration and 14.3% to indirect administration. Direct administration was mostly made up of statutory employees: 79.8%. In indirect administration, statutory employees were also the majority (45.3%), but CLT holders were 35.3%.

Number of employed persons in state and district administrations drops

In 2020, the number of employed persons in direct and indirect state and district administrations was 2,891,337. There were 92,266 fewer persons, compared to 2019 (2,983,603 employed), which represents a drop of 3.1%. Of the 2020 total, 85.7% (2,478,010) were linked to direct administration and 14.3% (413,327) to indirect administration.

Direct administration had mostly statutory servants: 79.8% (1,977,758). Persons without permanent employment represented 15.9% (393,621); those only commissioned, 3.0% (73,651); and those governed by the Consolidation of Brazilian Labor Laws – CLT, 0.5% (12,648).

In indirect administration, statutory employees also predominated (45.3%), but employees with CLT were 35.3%, those without a permanent contract, 10.3%, and those only commissioned, 6.7%.

Housing policy management loses popular participation

Between 2017 and 2020, there was a reduction in management instruments linked to social participation in housing policy, from 25 to 21 Federation Units reported having a Housing Council and from 19 FUs to 8 held Housing Conferences.

A more moderate reduction was registered as to Housing Plans – from 25 FUs in 2017 to 23 in 2020. On the other hand, the existence of Housing Funds increased – from 23 in 2017 to 26 in 2020.

Seventeen FUs had a social rent concession program

Regarding the presence of programs or actions in the area of ​​housing, 21 Federation Units carried out the construction of housing units and land regularization, 14 carried out actions to urbanize settlements and 12 reported having carried out actions to improve housing units. Less frequently, there were actions to offer construction material (6), offer lots (5), and purchase of housing units (4). It is also noteworthy that 17 FUs had social rent concession programs.

Concession is the main regulation mode in transportation services

In 18 Federation Units, the regulation mode of the transportation service was the concession regime for the exploitation of the service by private companies, while in 14 there was the permission regime and in 13 the authorization regime. Two FUs provided the service directly by the public sector (Piauí and Federal District), and one stated that the service was provided without regulation by the state government (Roraima).

All Federation Units had intercity passenger transportation by bus. Intercity passenger transportation by rail and waterway was present in 13 and 12 states, respectively.

All FUs had an adapted or partially adapted fleet for accessibility

In 2020, six Federation Units had fully adapted intercity bus fleets for the accessibility of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility. The remaining 21 had partially adapted fleets. In 2017, 5 FUs had completely adapted fleets, 16 partially adapted and 6 reported that their intercity bus fleets had no adaptations.

Number of departments dedicated to agricultural management increases

In 2020, among the 27 FUs, 17 had an exclusive secretariat for agricultural policy, nine were secretariats operating together with other sectoral policies and there was only one case of a sector subordinated to another secretariat. In 2017, there was a predominance of secretariats operating together with other sectoral policies (16) and only 10 were exclusive secretariats.

Only one state lacks State Councils for Rural Development

Only Alagoas declared that it did not have State Rural Development Councils (CDR) in 2020, although in 2017 it had one. Most councils remained the same in 2020 (19 FUs). Rio Grande do Sul was the only one in which civil society had greater representation. There was a drop among the CDRs that were consultative - 19 in 2017 against 17 in 2020. There were 22 deliberative ones in 2017 and 21 in 2020. There were seven regulatory ones in 2017 and four in 2020, and of a supervisory nature, three in 2017 and five in 2020.

All FUs have an agricultural management program or action

As in 2017, in 2020 all Federation Units claimed to have at least one program or action to facilitate access to certain agricultural inputs, especially seeds/seedlings and fertilizers, both present in all FUs. In all Federation Units, the predominant form of access to these inputs was free distribution.

As for programs or actions to encourage activities related to small producers, in the period 2017/2020, there were advances in two of the five categories: aquaculture (from 24 to 27 FUs) and production of community gardens (from 19 to 22). Organic farming remained stable (26) as well as family farming (27). Fishing fostering was the only category that showed a decrease: from 23 to 21 Federation Units.

State programs or actions to prevent climate problems were reported by 21 states and 26 reported the presence of programs to encourage agribusiness. In 2020, 24 FUs had a herd vaccination program or action, two more than in 2017.

All FUs had a state body and agreement for rural technical assistance

In 2020, all Federation Units had a state body responsible for technical assistance and/or rural extension, as in 2017. Only five had municipal bodies (Roraima, Pará, Tocantins, Piauí and Paraná) and only Paraná had a federal public body in that area.

All FUs reported the existence of an agreement with institutions that technically supported agricultural activities in 2020. In 2017, three did not have this partnership. In 2020, 18 FUs had agreements that took place with public and private institutions, against 14 in 2017.

In four FUs, the rural technical assistance and/or extension services, contracted or in partnership with the state government, were performed by Private Companies (EP); in five, they were carried out by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs); in six, the provision of services was provided by other bodies.

Fairs boost in the infrastructure for the sale of agricultural products

In 2020, all FUs had infrastructure for the sale of agricultural products, just like in 2017. In 2020, the most common infrastructure were the Fairs (25), Marketing Centers (20) and the Exhibition Park for the agricultural producer (19).

In 2020, only Paraíba did not have programs or actions to acquire agricultural products.

Northeast now has exclusive environmental secretariats

In 2020, 17 FUs had exclusive secretariats for the environment, or 63% of the total. Another eight (29.6%) had a secretariat operating together with other policies and in two (7.4%) the management of the environmental policy was carried out through an indirect administration body.

Compared to 2017, there were changes in the structure of environmental policy in several states. In the Northeast, Maranhão, Piauí and Pernambuco now have an exclusive state secretariat. In the South, Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul had an exclusive secretariat in 2017 and changed to a secretariat operating together with other policies in 2020. São Paulo also no longer had an exclusive secretariat, but a joint secretariat. In Santa Catarina, environmental policy is no longer subordinate to another secretariat, with an exclusive secretariat emerging.

In 2020, 22 FUs responded that there was another body, in addition to the managing body, which dealt specifically with the environmental issue. Between 2017 and 2020, Mato Grosso and Goiás had another state agency, but Maranhão no longer had one. In 2020, 17 FUs had an environmental statistics agency and 24 had representation from a state agency in the municipalities.

Water resources predominate as a priority in the FUs

From 2017 to 2020, there was a significant shift in the priority of environmental issues. In 2020, the theme of water resources management was the most mentioned one, chosen by 15 FUs. Environmental licensing, which predominated in 2017 with 19 FUs, dropped to eight in 2020.

In 2020, there was management of forest resources in 15 FUs. Environmental management, fire control and solid and hazardous waste management were priorities for nine FUs.

Roraima and Pará, which comprise areas of the Amazon Forest, only adopted fire control as one of their priority issues in 2020. In Mato Grosso do Sul, which covers a large part of the Pantanal biome, the issue was not a priority in 2017 or 2020. The themes of land resource management and recycling were a priority for none of the FUs.

All FUs had an Environment Council, the majority being equal

All FUs had an Environment Council (CMA), a situation already found in the 2017 survey. The representation of the councils was equal in 22 FUs - against 16 in 2017 and 20 in 2013. In Pará and Piauí, CMAs had greater civil society representation, while in three (Rio Grande do Norte, Paraná and Goiás) there was greater governmental representation.

Average percentage of the budget for the environment falls from 2017 to 2020

Estadic 2020 pointed out that 24 FUs had specific financial resources for state environmental agencies in 2019 - the exceptions were Acre, Paraíba and Alagoas.

Only Tocantins claimed to have specific financial resources for the environmental area, but was unable to inform the percentage. In the other FUs, the average earmarked was 1.6% of the total budget. In 2017, the average amount of the budget allocated to the environment was 2%.

In 2020, the FUs with the highest percentage of financial resources specifically earmarked for the environmental area were Piauí and Rio Grande do Norte, both with 5%. In the North and Central-West regions, where the Amazon Forest and Cerrado biomes are located, the transfer of financial resources reached a maximum of 1% of the total budget. Between 2017 and 2020, Goiás and the Federal District had the percentage of resources even lower.

In most (23) of the FUs, the financial resources of the sector were their own.

19 of the 25 FUs with the Environment Fund used resources in environmental actions

According to Estadic 2020, 25 FUs had an Environment Fund (FMA). Among them, eight have the CMA as the manager of their resources and eight said that the fund has its own manager. The remaining 11 stated that neither the board nor its own manager manage the fund. Also among those that have the FMA, 19 FUs stated that in 2019 the fund's resource was used for environmental actions.

In 2020, 18 FUs had legislation on Ecological or Socioenvironmental ICMS, which redirects a portion of the tax collected to municipalities, under predefined environmental criteria. Of these, 14 transferred resources to municipalities considering the ICMS Ecological criterion in 2019. The environmental criterion most considered by the States in the 2020 survey was the presence of conservation units (13 FUs). The second most considered criterion was the collection and final destination of solid waste (eight).