The Harvest Guarantee (or Garantia Safra - GS) Program was initially designed to cover family farmers living in municipalities that had declared a state of calamity or emergency due to the drought phenomenon. The harvest insurance was intended to guarantee them a minimum income to survive, which would mitigate the effects of the loss of production due to the extreme weather event. More recent reforms abolished the requirement for exceptional decrees – state of calamity and emergency – for the release of benefits and began to include, in addition to drought, excess water as a climate phenomenon likely to cause crop losses. From then on, family farmers in municipalities systematically subject to crop losses due to climate events became part of the program's potential coverage.
The program targets the most impoverished segment of family farming: low-income family farmers with up to 10 hectares of land.
Family farmers may join the GS by registering and paying a contribution, which will go to the Harvest Guarantee Fund. In addition to the individual contributions of producers, the fund is made up of annual contributions from participating states and municipalities, with resources from the Union and with the result of the financial application of its resources.
Regarding specific approaches in the GS Program, Resolution No. 4, of July 2, 2014, stands out, establishing preferential criteria for joining the program, to be applied by the Municipal Councils for Sustainable Rural Development (CMDRS), according to the following weighting:
- Family with the lowest per capita income: weight 4;
- Family supported only by the woman: weight 3;
- Family with the presence of individuals with special needs: weight 2.
Coverage of Benefited Farmers
- Definition: Measures the number of family farmers who effectively joined the program and benefited from financial assistance in relation to the total number of eligible farmers in each harvest.
- Importance: Assesses the impact of the program in directly supporting small farmers who faced production losses. A higher percentage of participation means that the program is effectively reaching farmers who need the benefit.
- Example: If, in a region, there are 100,000 farmers eligible for Garantia-Safra and 80,000 joined the program, the coverage of beneficiaries would be 80%.
- In 2020-2021, 710,9 thousand farmers joined the Fund
Geographic Coverage by Municipality and State
- Definition: Indicates the number of municipalities and states that participate in the program in relation to the total number of eligible locations, especially in areas vulnerable to climate variations.
- Importance: Assesses the scope of the program in terms of geography, highlighting in which regions there is a greater concentration of participation and where there may be a need for greater reach.
- Example: The indicator may show that 90% of municipalities in a given region of the Northeast have joined the Garantia-Safra, reflecting the distribution of the program by geographic area.
- In 2021, 1111 municipalities joined the Fund
Coverage of Distributed Quotas
- Definition: Refers to the proportion of the program's membership quotas distributed to each state or municipality in relation to the total number of quotas available.
- Importance: This indicator ensures a balanced distribution of quotas between states and municipalities, taking into account demand and local climate vulnerability.
- Example: If a state has a quota of 50,000 family farmers and used 45,000, the coverage of quotas used would be 90%.
Budget Coverage
- Definition: Assesses the amount of financial resources available in the Garantia-Safra Fund in relation to the demands of farmers who have joined the program.
- Importance: Verifies whether the allocated budget is sufficient to cover the payment of benefits to farmers in a specific harvest, ensuring the continuity and sustainability of the program.
- Example: If the budget allocated to a harvest is R$600 million and the amount needed to cover registered farmers is R$550 million, the budget coverage would be 91%.
In-Person Registration Coverage (CAF/DAP)
- Definition: Measures the proportion of farmers who have an active National Registry of Family Farming (CAF) or Declaration of Eligibility for Pronaf (DAP) and who have registered in person for the program, in relation to the total number of eligible farmers.
- Importance: This indicator is crucial to ensure that only family farmers with an active CAF or DAP have access to the benefit, ensuring the correct application of the eligibility criteria.
- Example: If a municipality has 10,000 family farmers with an active CAF and 8,000 of them have registered for Garantia-Safra, the in-person registration coverage would be 80%.
Cost per Beneficiary
- Definition: Refers to the total cost of the program divided by the number of farmers benefited in each harvest.
- Importance: This indicator measures the average cost per farmer who receives the benefit, which allows for the assessment of the efficiency of resource allocation in relation to the direct impact on the target audience.
- Example: If the program distributes R$600 million in benefits and covers 500 thousand farmers, the cost per beneficiary would be R$1,200.00.
Total Cost of the Program
- Definition: Calculates the total financial resources used in Garantia-Safra, including the payment of benefits, operational, administrative and management costs.
- Importance: Assesses the financial dimension of the program and allows for monitoring whether expenses are aligned with the budgets established for each harvest.
- Example: The total cost includes not only the R$1,200 paid to each farmer, but also the operational and management costs at the federal, state and municipal levels.
Contribution Cost by Entity (Farmers, Municipalities, States and the Union)
- Definition: Refers to the value of contributions made by family farmers and federative entities (Municipalities, States and the Union), as established by Law No. 10,420/2002.
- Importance: This indicator measures the financial effort of each entity participating in the program and is crucial to understanding the financial sustainability of the Garantia-Safra Fund.
- Example: In the 2024/2025 harvest, farmers contribute R$24, municipalities contribute R$72 per farmer, states contribute R$144, and the Union contributes R$480 per participating farmer.
- In 2021, the Union paid R$ 245,7 million to the Fund
The GS Program operates according to a logic of vertical solidarity – which encompasses the three spheres of the Federation – and horizontal solidarity, which is carried out, level by level, between states, municipalities and farmers. Since the contributions will be integrated into the fund, the resources will be able to finance compensation in any municipality where a crop loss has occurred. This means that, when making their contributions, states, municipalities and farmers who did not suffer crop failures contribute to compensating farmers in municipalities and states whose production was harmed by climate factors.
Crop Assurance Management System - For internal audience
For the general public:
Intempérie Climática e Política de Proteção Social no Brasil: Uma Avaliação uma Avaliação Multidimensional do Impacto do Programa Garantia SAFRA: The program is effective in reducing the food insecurity of the treated farmers. In addition, it provides an improvement in the food situation for the other farmers in the municipality in months after the beginning of the payment.
Created to offer family farmers financial support to mitigate crop losses caused by droughts, the GS Program has undergone several improvements with a view to expanding its potential scope. These changes not only encompassed the risks of excess water and the inclusion of municipalities outside the semi-arid region, but also built an innovative institutional arrangement centered on the Garantia-Safra Fund. In just a few years, the level of participation by municipalities and family farmers increased considerably, so that the program assumed a scale of greater relevance on the government agenda. The implementation of the Garantia-Safra Program over the years has provided several valuable lessons that can guide future improvements and the replication of similar programs in other regions or contexts. Below are some lessons learned, including mistakes to avoid and points of attention:
1. Importance of Participants’ Participation and Commitment Lesson:
- Participation and commitment by both farmers and state and municipal governments are crucial to the success of the program.
- Mistake to Avoid: Underestimating the need for ongoing participant engagement can lead to low coverage and effectiveness.
- Key Takeaway: Ensure that all stakeholders understand the benefits and responsibilities associated with the program and actively promote enrollment.
2. Transparency and Clarity in Selection Criteria
- Lesson: Clear and transparent criteria for beneficiary selection help prevent fraud and increase trust in the program.
- Mistake to Avoid: Vague or poorly communicated selection criteria can lead to unfairness and dissatisfaction.
- Key Takeaway: Establish and widely publicize accurate and fair selection criteria, ensuring that processes are auditable and transparent.
3. Verification and Monitoring of Crop Losses
- Lesson: A robust system for verifying crop losses is essential to ensure that benefits are distributed fairly.
- Mistake to Avoid: Failure to verify can lead to unjustified benefit payments or exclusion of eligible farmers.
- Point of Attention: Invest in effective technologies and methodologies for verifying losses, such as the use of satellite imagery and meteorological data.
4. Integration with Other Programs and Policies
- Lesson: Integration with other agricultural programs and policies can maximize benefits for farmers.
- Mistake to Avoid: Operating Garantia-Safra Program in isolation can limit its impact and effectiveness.
- Point of Attention: Coordinate efforts with other programs that support farmers, such as technical assistance, rural credit, and agricultural insurance.
5. Training and Technical Assistance
- Lesson: Training farmers in sustainable agricultural practices and risk management techniques can increase crop resilience.
- Mistake to Avoid: Failure to provide adequate technical support can result in continued dependence on benefits without improvements in resilience.
- Point of Attention: Integrate technical assistance programs that enable farmers to implement more resilient agricultural practices.
6. Community Engagement and Social Participation
- Lesson: Active involvement of local communities and Municipal Councils for Sustainable Rural Development (CMDRS) is crucial for effective program implementation.
- Mistake to Avoid: Centralizing decisions without considering the voice of communities can lead to policy mismatches.
- Point of Attention: Strengthen community participation and ensure that CMDRS have an active role in program implementation and monitoring.
7. Continuous Evaluation and Adjustment
- Lesson: Continuous evaluation and the ability to adjust the program based on feedback are key to its improvement.
- Mistake to Avoid: Lack of evaluation mechanisms can result in an outdated and ineffective program.
- Point of Attention: Implement monitoring and evaluation systems that allow for periodic adjustments based on data and feedback from beneficiaries.
- Centro Nacional de Monitoramento e Alertas de Desastres Naturais (CEMADEN): Partnership for continuous monitoring of climate conditions and issuing of alerts for natural disasters, helping to quickly activate the benefits of Garantia-Safra in the event of extreme events.
- [[About:blank|Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia (INMET)]]: Provision of meteorological data and climate forecasts to plan the harvest and implement preventive measures against climate risks.
- Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE): Use of demographic and socioeconomic data to identify the most vulnerable areas and the farmers who most need support, in addition to measuring the socioeconomic impact of the program.
- EMBRAPA: A leader in agricultural research, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) develops technologies to increase the productivity and sustainability of family farming.
- Target 13.1 - Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
- Indicator 13.1.1 - Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population
- Indicator 13.1.2 - Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030
- Indicator 13.1.3 - Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies
- Target 13.1 – Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
- Indicator 13.1.1 – Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population
- Indicator 13.1.2 – Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030
- Indicator 13.1.3 – Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies
The Harvest Guarantee (or Garantia Safra – GS) Program was initially designed to cover family farmers living in municipalities that had declared a state of calamity or emergency due to the drought phenomenon. The harvest insurance was intended to guarantee them a minimum income to survive, which would mitigate the effects of the loss of production due to the extreme weather event. More recent reforms abolished the requirement for exceptional decrees – state of calamity and emergency – for the release of benefits and began to include, in addition to drought, excess water as a climate phenomenon likely to cause crop losses. From then on, family farmers in municipalities systematically subject to crop losses due to climate events became part of the program’s potential coverage.
The program targets the most impoverished segment of family farming: low-income family farmers with up to 10 hectares of land.
Family farmers may join the GS by registering and paying a contribution, which will go to the Harvest Guarantee Fund. In addition to the individual contributions of producers, the fund is made up of annual contributions from participating states and municipalities, with resources from the Union and with the result of the financial application of its resources.
Regarding specific approaches in the GS Program, Resolution No. 4, of July 2, 2014, stands out, establishing preferential criteria for joining the program, to be applied by the Municipal Councils for Sustainable Rural Development (CMDRS), according to the following weighting:
- Family with the lowest per capita income: weight 4;
- Family supported only by the woman: weight 3;
- Family with the presence of individuals with special needs: weight 2.
Created to offer family farmers financial support to mitigate crop losses caused by droughts, the GS Program has undergone several improvements with a view to expanding its potential scope. These changes not only encompassed the risks of excess water and the inclusion of municipalities outside the semi-arid region, but also built an innovative institutional arrangement centered on the Garantia-Safra Fund. In just a few years, the level of participation by municipalities and family farmers increased considerably, so that the program assumed a scale of greater relevance on the government agenda. The implementation of the Garantia-Safra Program over the years has provided several valuable lessons that can guide future improvements and the replication of similar programs in other regions or contexts. Below are some lessons learned, including mistakes to avoid and points of attention:
1. Importance of Participants’ Participation and Commitment Lesson:
- Participation and commitment by both farmers and state and municipal governments are crucial to the success of the program.
- Mistake to Avoid: Underestimating the need for ongoing participant engagement can lead to low coverage and effectiveness.
- Key Takeaway: Ensure that all stakeholders understand the benefits and responsibilities associated with the program and actively promote enrollment.
2. Transparency and Clarity in Selection Criteria
- Lesson: Clear and transparent criteria for beneficiary selection help prevent fraud and increase trust in the program.
- Mistake to Avoid: Vague or poorly communicated selection criteria can lead to unfairness and dissatisfaction.
- Key Takeaway: Establish and widely publicize accurate and fair selection criteria, ensuring that processes are auditable and transparent.
3. Verification and Monitoring of Crop Losses
- Lesson: A robust system for verifying crop losses is essential to ensure that benefits are distributed fairly.
- Mistake to Avoid: Failure to verify can lead to unjustified benefit payments or exclusion of eligible farmers.
- Point of Attention: Invest in effective technologies and methodologies for verifying losses, such as the use of satellite imagery and meteorological data.
4. Integration with Other Programs and Policies
- Lesson: Integration with other agricultural programs and policies can maximize benefits for farmers.
- Mistake to Avoid: Operating Garantia-Safra Program in isolation can limit its impact and effectiveness.
- Point of Attention: Coordinate efforts with other programs that support farmers, such as technical assistance, rural credit, and agricultural insurance.
5. Training and Technical Assistance
- Lesson: Training farmers in sustainable agricultural practices and risk management techniques can increase crop resilience.
- Mistake to Avoid: Failure to provide adequate technical support can result in continued dependence on benefits without improvements in resilience.
- Point of Attention: Integrate technical assistance programs that enable farmers to implement more resilient agricultural practices.
6. Community Engagement and Social Participation
- Lesson: Active involvement of local communities and Municipal Councils for Sustainable Rural Development (CMDRS) is crucial for effective program implementation.
- Mistake to Avoid: Centralizing decisions without considering the voice of communities can lead to policy mismatches.
- Point of Attention: Strengthen community participation and ensure that CMDRS have an active role in program implementation and monitoring.
7. Continuous Evaluation and Adjustment
- Lesson: Continuous evaluation and the ability to adjust the program based on feedback are key to its improvement.
- Mistake to Avoid: Lack of evaluation mechanisms can result in an outdated and ineffective program.
- Point of Attention: Implement monitoring and evaluation systems that allow for periodic adjustments based on data and feedback from beneficiaries.
Subsidized/tailored access to social insurance (monotax, reduced contribution level); Integrated programmes for climate and shock resilience, including programmes related to anticipatory, adaptive and shock-responsive social protection
- Centro Nacional de Monitoramento e Alertas de Desastres Naturais (CEMADEN): Partnership for continuous monitoring of climate conditions and issuing of alerts for natural disasters, helping to quickly activate the benefits of Garantia-Safra in the event of extreme events.
- [[About:blank|Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia (INMET)]]: Provision of meteorological data and climate forecasts to plan the harvest and implement preventive measures against climate risks.
- Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE): Use of demographic and socioeconomic data to identify the most vulnerable areas and the farmers who most need support, in addition to measuring the socioeconomic impact of the program.
- EMBRAPA: A leader in agricultural research, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) develops technologies to increase the productivity and sustainability of family farming.
The GS Program operates according to a logic of vertical solidarity – which encompasses the three spheres of the Federation – and horizontal solidarity, which is carried out, level by level, between states, municipalities and farmers. Since the contributions will be integrated into the fund, the resources will be able to finance compensation in any municipality where a crop loss has occurred. This means that, when making their contributions, states, municipalities and farmers who did not suffer crop failures contribute to compensating farmers in municipalities and states whose production was harmed by climate factors.
Coverage of Benefited Farmers
- Definition: Measures the number of family farmers who effectively joined the program and benefited from financial assistance in relation to the total number of eligible farmers in each harvest.
- Importance: Assesses the impact of the program in directly supporting small farmers who faced production losses. A higher percentage of participation means that the program is effectively reaching farmers who need the benefit.
- Example: If, in a region, there are 100,000 farmers eligible for Garantia-Safra and 80,000 joined the program, the coverage of beneficiaries would be 80%.
- In 2020-2021, 710,9 thousand farmers joined the Fund
Geographic Coverage by Municipality and State
- Definition: Indicates the number of municipalities and states that participate in the program in relation to the total number of eligible locations, especially in areas vulnerable to climate variations.
- Importance: Assesses the scope of the program in terms of geography, highlighting in which regions there is a greater concentration of participation and where there may be a need for greater reach.
- Example: The indicator may show that 90% of municipalities in a given region of the Northeast have joined the Garantia-Safra, reflecting the distribution of the program by geographic area.
- In 2021, 1111 municipalities joined the Fund
Coverage of Distributed Quotas
- Definition: Refers to the proportion of the program’s membership quotas distributed to each state or municipality in relation to the total number of quotas available.
- Importance: This indicator ensures a balanced distribution of quotas between states and municipalities, taking into account demand and local climate vulnerability.
- Example: If a state has a quota of 50,000 family farmers and used 45,000, the coverage of quotas used would be 90%.
Budget Coverage
- Definition: Assesses the amount of financial resources available in the Garantia-Safra Fund in relation to the demands of farmers who have joined the program.
- Importance: Verifies whether the allocated budget is sufficient to cover the payment of benefits to farmers in a specific harvest, ensuring the continuity and sustainability of the program.
- Example: If the budget allocated to a harvest is R$600 million and the amount needed to cover registered farmers is R$550 million, the budget coverage would be 91%.
In-Person Registration Coverage (CAF/DAP)
- Definition: Measures the proportion of farmers who have an active National Registry of Family Farming (CAF) or Declaration of Eligibility for Pronaf (DAP) and who have registered in person for the program, in relation to the total number of eligible farmers.
- Importance: This indicator is crucial to ensure that only family farmers with an active CAF or DAP have access to the benefit, ensuring the correct application of the eligibility criteria.
- Example: If a municipality has 10,000 family farmers with an active CAF and 8,000 of them have registered for Garantia-Safra, the in-person registration coverage would be 80%.
Cost per Beneficiary
- Definition: Refers to the total cost of the program divided by the number of farmers benefited in each harvest.
- Importance: This indicator measures the average cost per farmer who receives the benefit, which allows for the assessment of the efficiency of resource allocation in relation to the direct impact on the target audience.
- Example: If the program distributes R$600 million in benefits and covers 500 thousand farmers, the cost per beneficiary would be R$1,200.00.
Total Cost of the Program
- Definition: Calculates the total financial resources used in Garantia-Safra, including the payment of benefits, operational, administrative and management costs.
- Importance: Assesses the financial dimension of the program and allows for monitoring whether expenses are aligned with the budgets established for each harvest.
- Example: The total cost includes not only the R$1,200 paid to each farmer, but also the operational and management costs at the federal, state and municipal levels.
Contribution Cost by Entity (Farmers, Municipalities, States and the Union)
- Definition: Refers to the value of contributions made by family farmers and federative entities (Municipalities, States and the Union), as established by Law No. 10,420/2002.
- Importance: This indicator measures the financial effort of each entity participating in the program and is crucial to understanding the financial sustainability of the Garantia-Safra Fund.
- Example: In the 2024/2025 harvest, farmers contribute R$24, municipalities contribute R$72 per farmer, states contribute R$144, and the Union contributes R$480 per participating farmer.
- In 2021, the Union paid R$ 245,7 million to the Fund
Crop Assurance Management System – For internal audience
For the general public: