Agro leaders see commercial interest in EU restrictions against deforestation

Leaders of agribusiness associations criticized this Tuesday (30) the position of the European Union and the United States against deforestation and in favor of restrictions on imports of products from areas of felled forests. There are economic interests behind it, they say.

In November, the European Commission proposed banning the importation of products considered related to deforestation and forest degradation, including soy and beef. The US, in turn, since Joe Biden took office, has discussed limiting the purchase of products from areas with illegal deforestation, which could reduce Brazilian imports of leather, meat, wood, coffee, cellulose and soy.

Foreign countries should “follow the examples of Brazilian farmers in preservation,” said Júlio Cézar Busato, president of Abrapa (Brazilian Association of Cotton Producers), at an event in São Paulo (western part of São Paulo) that was attended by videoconference by the ministers of the Environment, Joaquim Pereira Leite, and of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply, Tereza Cristina. The leader of the ruralist caucus, federal deputy Sérgio Souza, also participated.

Fernando Cadore, president of Aprosoja (Brazilian Association of Soy Producers), disagrees with what was proposed by the European Commission: if approved, the rule would even cover the cutting of trees considered legal in the legislation of the country of origin of the products.

“When we enter into this environmental issue, Brazil is a country that stands out,” he defended. “The expansion of agriculture in the country does not necessarily need to go through the conversion of forest into arable land. We can optimize the use of these pastures and increase agriculture in already open areas.”

The Commission justifies that illegal deforestation has been overcome by the expansion of agricultural areas as the main cause of forest destruction. Data from Inpe (National Institute for Space Research) show that 877 km² of Amazon rainforest were cut down in October, a record for the month since the beginning of the series, in 2016.

At COP26, a climate conference that took place in Glasgow, Scotland, Brazil presented an unrealistic 5% drop in devastation in the biome in 2021.

Wander Bastos, technical director of Abraleite (Brazilian Association of Milk Producers) approved the balance of Brazilian participation in the conference. “We will always have problems to fix but we have a lot of good stuff to show for it,” he said.

Caio Penido, president of Imac (Instituto Mato-Grossense da Carne) was present at COP26. “The impression is that there is much more Brazilian media wanting to address this topic 24 hours a day. I saw problems from all countries there,” he said.

He also criticizes the commodity restriction plans being discussed in other countries.

“They should reverse the conservation strategy. We are going to conserve, but valuing biodiversity, associating Brazil’s image with biodiversity. And not associating it with deforestation. I think this is a bit cowardly. Unfair,” he says. “We are going to encourage what is good, instead of just showing deforestation. There is deforestation because we have biodiversity. It is an indicator of life.”

Part of the leaders also defended land regularization. In August, the Chamber of Deputies approved a bill that facilitates the land tenure regularization of invaded Union or Incra lands, including areas in the Amazon that have been illegally deforested. Environmentalists call the project the Grilagem PL, as they understand that, if it enters into force, it will reward land invasion.

“We need to adapt some legislation, such as the new project that is being processed, for land regularization. This gives identity to those who are on top of the land,” said Cadore, from Aprosoja. “We understand that land title regularization shows who is there and then, yes, punishment can come.”