FAO.org

This chapter focuses on the roles of various stakeholders in the national planning and budgeting processes, and the available policy tools and instruments that governments have at their disposal to promote climate-smart agriculture. A variety of examples are presented from Africa, Asia and Latin America, which draw from findings and lessons from work done at the national and regional level.

The decisions that men and women farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists and foresters make regarding the adoption locally adapted climate-smart agriculture practices and production systems are informed and influenced by a range of factors, including the need to provide for the family, available risk management tools, their level of knowledge, and their access to inputs, financing and markets. 

By providing incentives and removing barriers to adoption, governments can create a conducive environment for producers to adopt climate-smart agriculture practices. To establish this enabling environment for farmers and other private sector stakeholders, financing institutions and civil society – all of which have an important role to play in climate-smart food systems ¬– it is also essential for governments to adapt existing policies and regulations; design new coherent policies, strategies, plans and programmes for climate-smart agriculture development where necessary; and allocate adequate resources for their implementation.

Whether climate smart agriculture objectives will be achieved depends in large part on the engagement of civil society (see module C1 on system-wide capacity development). NGOs from the North and the South can contribute to providing extension services and advocating for climate-smart agriculture policies. An example of civil society engagement is the Kenyan agricultural carbon project (2010-2017), which was funded by the World Bank and operated by Swedish NGOs. The project involved over 60 000 smallholder farmers, roughly half of them women, in local formal and informal organizations that promoted group-based learning and implemented improved land management practices. NGOs can also support the testing and scaling up climate-smart agricultural systems. For instance, a local non-profit organization Tefy Saina promoted the development of the System of Rice Intensification (see module B1) in Madagascar (SRI-Rice, 2015). The System of Rice Intensification is a farming practice that has the potential to help farmers adapt to increased rainfall variability resulting from climate change, as the system is better able to withstand drought and can help keep fields from becoming waterlogged (Styger and Uphoff, 2016). NGOs have also initiated or contributed to region-wide scaling up of climate-smart agriculture. In Africa, the five international NGOs (World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, CARE International, Concern Worldwide and OXFAM) played a fundamental role in establishing the Africa Climate-Smart Agriculture Alliance. 

The private sector – farmers and co-operatives businesses, other agribusinesses, and financial institutions ¬– can also promote, support and finance climate-smart agriculture. Agribusinesses, with supply chains in developing countries, can buy sustainably produced products and promote the adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices by investing in research, input supply and advisory services. Many private sector companies are also committed to reducing the environmental footprint of their operations and are the principal players in building value chains that connect farmers with markets. For instance, the World Business Council of Sustainable Development (WBCSD) works with its member companies to create a set of solutions that are supportive of sustainable businesses. Currently, climate-smart agriculture is one of WBCSD's focus areas (WBCSD, 2017). Private financing institutions are needed to provide credit, saving opportunities and insurance services to farmers and other value chain stakeholders who want to transform their practices and operating systems. Both large private entities and individuals can contribute indirectly to financing climate-smart agriculture projects. For instance, they can seek to offset their carbon footprints by purchasing emission reductions on the carbon markets, which can help finance mitigation projects (see more on climate financing in module C4). 

Coordination in climate-smart agriculture planning and budgeting among different agencies at the national and local levels is critical for ensuring coherence in the implementation of national objectives (see module C1). Cross-sectoral climate-smart agriculture policy interventions also need to consider current legislation and regulations and, if needed, incorporated them into existing legal and regulatory frameworks. There are many areas where synergies can be created and where a particular policy instrument or a particular regulation intended to support climate-smart agriculture can serve to meet several other objectives (e.g. an expansion of social safety transfers, sustainable energy development, improved land-use regulations and disaster risk reduction), See modules C7 on social protection and safety nets, module B9 on energy and module C5 on disaster risk reduction. 

Each country has its own planning and budgeting cycle. Annual budgets, in which national planning and expenditure frameworks are transposed into the budget allocation for the responsible sectoral agencies, drive the implementation of climate-smart agriculture programmes or action plans. To reach the objectives of climate-smart agriculture, it is critical to align appropriate financing with the agencies responsible for implementing actions. This planning phase should also encompass broader national objectives, including those outlined in NAPAs or NAPs. In addition to the investment budgets, budgets for operations and maintenance also need to be considered. Annual planning in a specific sector is often based on a sectoral medium-term plan, such as a time-bound agriculture sector development plan that sets medium-term goals and priorities. 

The annual implementation of sectoral plans is usually supported by a monitoring mechanism, which may include a mid-term review. Monitoring is expected to generate information on the performance of a project or a sectoral or national plan, and provide advice on adjustments to correct the course if necessary. Towards the end of the cycle, an evaluation of the value obtained for the money that was invested will inform the next planning cycle. 

The integration of climate change into policy-making processes follows the steps of this cycle. It starts from conducting climate-risk assessments, cost-benefit analyses and prioritization during planning; moves to securing adequate funding for climate-related measures during budgeting; carrying out activities and monitoring the results during implementation; assessing the value added from the climate-smart agriculture interventions during mid-term review; and adjusting the plans if necessary, and evaluating economic, social and environmental benefits towards the end of the planning cycle. This process should be linked with the overall adaptation and mitigation planning. 

Many developing countries do not have the information needed to analyse systematically the performance of the expenditures that have been directed to the food and agricultural sectors. Governments often acknowledge the need to gather and process this information on a regular basis in order to make rational, evidence-based policy choices, and that the development of appropriate indicators is an important prerequisite for policy analysis and efficient budgetary processes. Incorporating information about climate-smart agriculture policies is particularly important given the increasing recognition of the role that the agricultural sectors has to play in raising incomes, reducing poverty, improving food security and mitigating climate change. 

In many countries, policy making for climate change and the coordination of related actions have been partly decentralized to local governments. In these cases, local development plans, which document the specific development objectives, may also refer to the challenges posed by climate change. This is often typical in areas suffering from acute climate risks that threaten lives and physical security, and where the economy is strongly affected by weather variability. For instance, in Isiolo and Kitui Counties in the dryland regions of Kenya where severe droughts occur every 3-5 years, county adaptation planning committees have been established to coordinate funding for ward-level projects (NDMA, 2014). Broader inter-ministerial action has also been undertaken to address the impacts of climate change in this area. The coordination between national and subnational planning and implementation is essential for fostering  coherence among higher-level objectives and local implementation. 

Where decentralized government institutions (provinces, regions, districts and counties) have the responsibility for certain elements of climate-smart agriculture planning or implementation, it is important that financial flows from the central government are sufficient to allow these authorities to carry out their responsibilities in ways that are consistent with the law. In a majority of countries, local institutions have the authority over certain areas (e.g. extension services) and have access to their own budget sources (e.g. local taxes) on top of their nationally allocated budgets. In these situations, they are the primary agents determining their own strategy. 

In addition to channelling investments to climate-smart agriculture, it is advisable to climate-proof other budgetary decisions and investments in the agriculture sectors. This involves screening the investment plans through a 'climate change lens' to assess the potential impacts of climate change on the achievement of the investment goals (GTZ, 2010). Climate-proofing may also have a mitigation perspective, in that it can be used to assess the potential impact of the investment on greenhouse gas emissions. Specific carbon calculators can support these assessments. For example, the FAO Ex Ante Carbon-balance Tool (Ex Act) is a widely used appraisal system that provides estimates of the impact of agriculture and forestry development projects, programmes and policies on the carbon balance. For additional information, see module C4 on investments and financing. Designing and implementing climate-smart agriculture budgeting processes across various levels of government requires system-wide capacity development. In many countries, decentralization processes have not been accompanied with adequate strengthening of local human resources and institutional capacities (see also module C1 on capacity development). 

Financing can be considered at several levels: at the national and international level where the public sector allocates resources to promote the scaling up of climate-smart agriculture (e.g. investment in research, extension and infrastructure); at the household level where farmers’ decisions to adopt climate-smart agriculture practices often depend on availability of funds; and at wider private sector level, where companies may want to decrease their environmental footprint of their investments or look for different, more sustainable, markets. 

At the national level, policies and actions are needed to reduce the financial risks associated with the shift to climate-smart agriculture practices, lower transaction costs, facilitate monetary transactions, enable access to financial services and facilitate long-term investments. This can be done by promoting mechanisms, such as safe-savings deposits that provide incentives to save, low-priced credit (e.g. joint-liability group lending), and insurance schemes (e.g. index-based weather insurance). The financial needs of smallholder farmers for working capital expenditures (e.g for sustainable mechanization equipment) and quality seeds and planting materials also have to be addressed and supported (FAO, 2016c). By creating a conducive enabling environment, governments can support the development of markets for inputs that can support of climate-smart agriculture. 

At the household level, financial incentives need to focus on supporting the adoption of climate-smart agriculture systems and mitigating the potential risks of testing and adopting new practices. There are two main problems related to financing: the difficulties in obtaining upfront investments for implementing climate-smart agriculture practices that often that take time to generate gains in productivity; and the fact that current markets cannot accurately account for the value of the environmental benefits that climate-smart agriculture delivers. To reap the long-term benefits that climate-smart agriculture brings in terms of to increased productivity, greater resilience and enhanced climate change mitigation, farmers and governments need to take advantage of a range of available financing sources (see module C4 on climate-smart agriculture financing and investment). The most successful programmes often blend different sources of funding and include a mix of other policy support measures.

Many private sector companies are committed to reducing the environmental impact of their operations and communicating their results through different instruments, such as the independent and certified Global Reporting Initiative. By taking into account the importance of improving the nation-wide business environment through simple, transparent regulations and tax structures, finance regulations can incorporate climate-smart agriculture requirements into lending conditions. The example of the Brazilian National Development Bank (BDNES) is illustrative. Using screening guidelines to determine whether loans are consistent with the Equator Principles (a credit risk management framework for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in project finance transactions), the BDNES has improved its environmental and social screening process; developed specific guidelines for sustainable agriculture, livestock and forest management; heightened the attractiveness of green lines of business; increased the focus on social inclusion; and decreased its carbon footprint (World Bank, 2011). 

The most effective way of supporting climate-resilient, low-carbon agricultural systems is to incorporate climate change into other policies and use public climate financing as a catalyst. One example of such an approach is the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), which operates in 30 countries and is supported through the Climate Investment Funds (CIF). Over 40 percent of the PPCR funds have been allocated to making agriculture and water management more resilient (CIF, 2016). The Programme has found innovative ways to enhance resilience, including proposing new financing mechanisms, investing in information and communication technologies and encouraging the engagement of the private sector. The lessons learned from effort to integrate climate change into national and sectoral policies and plans can help countries gain access to climate finance for adaptation through a number of international financing sources (e.g. the Adaptation Fund and GCF) (see module C4 on climate financing). 

At the national level, raising new sources of revenue for implementing climate-smart agriculture strategies may also be possible by establishing an integrated investment framework to attract national and international climate funds from different public and private sources. An example is Zambia’s National Agriculture Investment Plan, which integrates climate change concerns into its situational analysis and in the actions proposed for financing (GRZ, 2014).

Instead of designing new policies, it is often sufficient to analyse and adjust existing policies and ensure their enforcement to increase support for scaling up climate-smart agriculture. New policy measures can potentially be designed to fill the gaps that are not adequately covered by existing policies, or compensate for trade-offs that are made in efforts to achieve the different objectives of climate-smart agriculture. If necessary, governments can use fiscal or regulatory instruments where policy gaps exist, or when public benefits may need to be strengthened. When designing and adjusting policies to reinforce the adoption of regulatory instruments for strengthening climate-smart agriculture, local entities and governments should engage in a proactive dialogue that includes farmers and other stakeholders.

Taxes and subsidies on inputs and outputs

Governments support farmers and agri-businesses by providing various forms of stimulus for agricultural production (e.g. input or output subsidies). Governments may also opt for taxing particular inputs or outputs to discourage harmful activities, such as those that pollute the environment, or to implicitly stimulate green alternatives. For instance, in many developed countries, governments have increased the tax level on diesel used for agricultural production. Recently Austria and the Netherlands phased out the fuel tax concessions for farmers (OECD, 2015).

Much of the existing production support in both developed and developing countries involves subsidies on inputs, such as fertilizer and energy, or direct payments to farmers (FAO, 2016a). It is not always straightforward task to determine whether a particular policy instrument is supportive of efforts to achieve climate-smart agriculture objectives. Subsidies for mineral fertilizer may be an adaptive measure when they fill nutritional deficits, if they are done using site-specific nutrient management in a production system that practices crop rotation to ensure nutrient cycling. Their application, however, will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. 

In Viet Nam policy makers recognized the potential flaws of fertilizer subsidies and introduced compensatory measures. Under this policy, which is known as the 'five reductions, one must' policy, farmers are encouraged to use rice varieties with clear origin, pure breed and guaranteed quality ('one must'). The 'five reductions' are: the reduction of the number of seeds planted per unit; the reduction of the amount of water used (at certain times); the reduction of the amount of fertilizer applied; the reduction of the amount of pesticides applied; and the reduction of post-harvest losses. Under this policy, the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, labour and water declined from earlier levels, while farmers earned higher incomes from rice production (Chi et al., 2013). 

Agriculture-specific input subsidy programmes (e.g. for fertilizers, seeds or pesticides) are usually implemented by ministries of agriculture. However, they are often considered as part of both social protection policies and agricultural policies because they target low-income farmers and because they aim to improve household food security and reduce hunger (FAO, 2015). Input subsidies in crop production are addressed in module B1 (chapter B1-5). Social protection is addressed in module C7.

In general, energy or water use subsidies contribute to higher production, but they may also lead to unsustainable practices. For example, energy subsidies have contributed to aquifer depletion in water-scarce countries, such as India (Ignaciuk, 2015). Inadequate water regulation and pricing regimes, which create a lack of incentive to conserve water, have contributed to widespread drainage and salinity problems in a number of irrigation-dependent economies (e.g. Pakistan and Uzbekistan). In Egypt, for example, farmers receive irrigation water free of charge, but an indirect payment is transferred to the government for this service. To finance the irrigation system the government in Egypt imposes a fixed price on cotton at the market gate. Since this price is lower than the world market price, the government obtains revenues by selling cotton at the international markets. These revenues finance the irrigation system. A similar situation has prevailed in Uzbekistan (IWMI, 2010). Water management for climate-smart agriculture is addressed in module B6.

Subsidized credits

Inadequate access to financial instruments, including credit services, especially among women, is one of the greatest obstacles to scaling up climate-smart agriculture. Studies in southern Africa have pointed out that only 16 per cent of the agriculture households in Malawi and 10 per cent in Zambia have access to some form of credit from both formal and informal sources (FAO, 2012a). Gender and climate-smart agriculture are addressed in module C6.

In many developing countries, long-term financing for smallholder agriculture is not available, but short-term credit and micro-credit facilities may be an option. However, improved access to long-term finance remains important for tree cultivation where replacing older trees with newer, higher yielding varieties may lead to short-term revenue losses. In general, medium- and long-term finance is needed to cover the up-front investment in technologies that over the long-term will increase productivity, improve the efficiency in the use of resources, build resilience to climatic shocks and reduce emissions. 

Given the often limited amount of public resources available, it is important that governments engage with the private sector and empower it to provide long-term, inexpensive credit to producers so that they can invest in climate-smart agriculture systems. 

Payments for environmental services

Payment for ecosystem or environmental services (PES) is a policy instrument that can be used to provide incentives to adopt climate-smart agriculture practices. In forestry, for example, it is based on the legal and monetary recognition of the environmental services that forests offer, such as carbon sequestration, watershed protection or biodiversity conservation. PES schemes typically involve ‘service users’, such as governments, NGOs or the private sector, who pay forest owners, or ‘service providers’, to manage forests sustainably (IIED, 2012). A PES programme in Costa Rica has been used to pay land managers to conserve and sustainably manage forested areas, or to reforest degraded land. By 2012, the programme had signed nearly 13 000 contracts, worked in nearly 800 000 hectares of forests, and distributed almost USD 280 million to land managers (IIED, 2012). 

Another example is the The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (Kagera TAMP), which was implemented by FAO with financing from the GEF. The project, which operated in the border area of the Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania, has promoted PES schemes for a range of environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, watershed management, and biodiversity and landscape preservation.  These schemes have delivered financial and non-financial benefits to farmers (Bertram, 2011). 

Forest conservation interventions and programmes in developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and strengthen the role of conservation and sustainable management of forests to enhance of forest carbon stocks are grouped under the acronym 'REDD+'. The REDD+ mechanism under UNFCCC requires REDD+ countries to promote and support a set of environmental and social safeguards, which stipulate that REDD+ actions should be in line with conservation of natural forests and biodiversity, and respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. The REDD+ mechanism offers incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon pathways to sustainable development in the forest sector. Through REDD+, developing countries can receive results-based payments for additional efforts made towards climate change mitigation in the forest sector. REDD+ goes beyond reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. It also offers incentives for conserving and enhancing forest carbon stocks through sustainable forest management. 

Conditional social protection measures

One of the challenges in making the transition to climate-smart agriculture is ensuring that it delivers benefits to the most vulnerable households and communities. In some regions, climate change, which is expected make impoverished and food insecure communities even more vulnerable to risks, will likely increase the importance and need for social protection measures to reduce hunger and poverty. A challenge and opportunity at the national level is to identify options to bring together and better coordinate social protection and climate-smart agriculture interventions. Social protection encompasses initiatives that provide cash or in-kind transfers to the poor and school meals to children; protect the vulnerable against risks; and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized. These initiatives all have the goal of reducing poverty and economic and social vulnerability. Social protection includes three broad components: social assistance, social insurance and labour market protection (FAO, 2015).

Conditional social protection programmes may provide cash to help overcome credit constraints that agricultural communities, and particularly women, face, and that are a common barrier to investments in climate-smart agriculture practices. 

Social protection programmes also play an important role in managing risk and building the overall resilience for households and individuals. They have been shown to have positive and significant impacts on coping strategies. For example, in periods of crisis, participants in these programmes are less likely to undertake harmful coping strategies, such as reducing food consumption or selling off productive assets, which can lead to a long-term decline in income and food security (FAO, 2016c). Social protection programmes can also contribute to resilient livelihoods by improving nutrition, health and educational opportunities in vulnerable households. This, in turn, increases their capacity to engage in productive activities, including climate-smart agriculture. See more on social protection and safety nets in module C7.

In many countries, agricultural and food markets are imperfect, or even non-existent for many specialized products. Linking smallholder farmers to local, national and regional markets improves farmers’ access to the inputs and knowledge required to make the shift to climate-smart agriculture and opens channels for selling more products. For example, developing a market for crops used in crop rotations would be a major driver for the adoption of climate-smart crop systems that are resilient to the impacts of climate change and that may mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This is important for both input and output markets. Seed production, for instance, provides economically viable opportunities for producers to tap into new markets and for customers who are typically dependent on a limited supply of seed. Market integration for climate-smart crops is dealt with in module B1-5.

As noted in module C1 on system-wide capacity development, addressing inadequate markets in rural areas requires innovative institutional arrangements and partnerships that improve market linkages and offer more stable and better prices to producers. Tapping into the potential of climate-smart agriculture to deliver benefits to agricultural producers will depend on establishing an enabling institutional environment. Institutions at various levels will need to be able to convey market information to agricultural producers, coordinate production and marketing, provide market infrastructure, define and enforce property rights and contracts, mobilize producers to engage with markets, and enhance the competitiveness of agro-enterprises (FAO, 2012a). 

Trade-based instruments

Extreme price volatility in both input and outputs markets may be a disincentive to the adoption of climate-smart systems, particularly when adoption requires major investments. Some degree of price volatility can be attributed to extreme weather events as they can provoke changes in production patterns and increase the risks of disruptions in local and regional supply chains (FAO, 2012b).  In addition to the direct impacts of climate change on primary production, changing socio-economic conditions can affect comparative advantages and trade flows, and potentially alter food trade and the future international competitiveness of some producers, especially those in developing countries (FAO, 2016d). To reduce price volatility from the international market, governments have tested various trade-based instruments, such as tariffs, export and import restrictions, price controls, intervention buying, rationing, user subsidies and deficiency payments. All of these instruments come at an economic cost, and many can create unintended consequences (FAO, 2016c) (see also Chapter C3-4). The policy responses of individual countries to food price volatility can make prices on international markets even more volatile (FAO, 2012a, OECD, 2017). Trade restrictions, such as tariff and non-tariff barriers, which limit the ability of global agricultural and supply chains to response to change, should be minimized.

Securing tenure rights 

Secure land and water rights are part of the enabling environment that can help channel investments into sustainable land and water management, which are crucial elements of climate-smart agriculture. Issues related to tenure are central to many climate-smart agriculture strategies (e.g. agroforestry, integrated food-energy systems) because tenure security creates incentives for long-term investment. Unclear land tenure can create difficulties in establishing benefit distribution mechanisms for PES schemes (Runsten and Tapio-Bistrom, 2011). In the United Republic of Tanzania, insecure land tenure was also identified as a major barrier to adoption for some key climate-smart agriculture practices, including soil and water conservation and agroforestry (Rioux et al., 2016). 

There are several reasons why good governance of tenure is becoming an essential element for the successful implementation of activities related to climate-smart agriculture.

• Tenure is a decisive factor in the identification of stakeholders whose food security and livelihoods are affected by climate change.
• Strengthening smallholders’ tenure rights can contribute to empowering them to become drivers for climate change actions and custodians of over natural resources.
• Agricultural producers with insecure tenure face the risk that their rights to resources will be threatened by competing claims, or completely denied in cases of eviction.
• Insecure tenure discourages long-term planning in favour of maximizing short-term profits, and complicates the implementation of effective climate change action plans.

Land tenure is a complex issue. It covers a mix of rights, rules and institutions. Some systems emphasize individual ownership, while others are based on communal approaches. Policy makers and other stakeholders working to design and implement climate-smart agriculture systems need to consult with land tenure specialists to understand different tenure systems and operate within them. A good example of this is the provision of land users’ rights to trees, which helped promote re-greening in Niger (Stickler, 2012). Land rights are a key part of the enabling environment for investing in sustainable intensification, landscape restoration, and sustainable woodland and forest management. Effective land tenure regimes can create the link between sound agricultural and forest land-use planning.

Land tenure has also a strong gender dimension. Women may have little incentive to adopt sustainable land and soil management practices, plant trees or extend irrigation facilities on their plots because they face the risk of losing access to their land and investments (see module C6 on gender issues in climate-smart agriculture). A multistakeholder dialogue, engaging women and other marginalized and vulnerable groups, is important for ensuring that the benefits of any climate-smart agriculture intervention are equitable and reach those most in need. Experience over the past decades has shown for example, when local communities are involved in decision-making and have the support from legitimate decentralized institutional arrangements that have been developed through participatory consultative processes, forests can be sustainably managed and degradation can be reversed (FAO, 2016a). 

Land use and land planning

Land management regulations and practices also play a key role in climate-smart agriculture (see module A3). For example, requirements that call for the controlled grazing of animals can protect streambeds or erosion control mechanisms. However, these measures only work where they can be properly implemented and enforced. The public must accept them and understand why they are needed. Voluntary mechanisms and incentives are equally important. 

For larger landscape restoration initiatives, cross-sectoral coordination is essential. Agencies often work in relative isolation and even at cross-purposes, even when they may be dealing with shared resources. This is partially due to the way institutions are structured and their lack of capacity to cooperate closely in land-use planning and management (see module C1 on system-wide capacity development). Institutions dealing with ecosystem and land-use issues need to follow an integrated approach to the management of natural resources, especially forests, trees, soil and water, by engaging in multisectoral land-use planning (Braatz, 2012).

Governments can enhance integrated landscape planning and implementation processes through improved governance and facilitation of:

• planning, decision-making and negotiation processes; 
• landscape-level conflict resolution;
• landscape management mechanisms (e.g. watershed and territorial management committees, territorial planning, water-user associations) that are defined based on the local conditions and issues; and
• incentives for supporting ecosystem services.

Regulatory mechanisms for input use and management practices

Many countries put in place specific regulatory measures for the use of a particular input or management method. For instance, in 2013 the European Commission imposed a temporary ban on the use of the three key neonicotinod insecticides, which are harmful to bees. Currently, the European Union is contemplating the complete ban on these insecticides. Measures that target management practices include regulations related the sustainable use of residues. In India and France, for example, there is a ban on the burning of residues.