It looks like Jair Bolsonaro (PL), but it’s Itamaraty. Brazil has blocked the main UN negotiation items for a new global biodiversity agreement, scheduled to be signed in December. This action by Brazilian diplomacy follows the country’s historic position and wants to change the direction of the conversation about conservation — as it has done in the past.
​The main goal of the new agreement, which is well accepted by countries, is called 30 by 30 — it establishes the conservation of 30% of the Earth’s surface by 2030.
Brazil blocks the proposal, arguing that the target should be national rather than global. With that, instead of identifying priority areas for conservation —which would increase the responsibility of megabiodiverse countries like Brazil—, each nation would be charged to identify and conserve a common percentage in their territories.
The Brazilian message, according to negotiators from different blocs, is that there is no reason to sign an agreement if responsibility is not distributed among the countries. The sum of protected areas in Brazil already exceeds 30% of territory conservation.
The country also puts a stop to the negotiation by asking that the goal of restoring biodiversity has pre-industrial levels as a parameter, similar to the basis used in the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. The argument has no practical but rhetorical application.
While industrialization has boosted the emissions of gases that cause global warming and therefore serves as a reference, in the case of biodiversity it is the recent loss that concentrates the priorities for action, due to the greater potential for regeneration.
The agenda brings more responsibility to megabiodiverse territories, most of them in developing countries.
Brazil is first in this ranking, as it is home to 15% to 20% of the planet’s biodiversity, according to UNEP (United Nations Environment Program).
Since the first UN environmental conference, held in Stockholm in 1972, Brazil has sought to combat a vision of conservation in developed countries that foresees the creation of reserves of natural areas without human interference. For Brazilian diplomacy, the proposal attacks sovereignty by creating an external limitation on the management of its territory.
The proposals articulated by the Brazilian government currently provide for the sharing of benefits with countries that hold biodiversity, such as the payment of royalties on biodiversity resources and payment for environmental services.
The idea is that financial incentives support a sustainable development model based on biodiversity conservation.
To achieve its vision, Brazil needs to regain international trust.
Diplomacy took advantage of the tacit authorization given by the Bolsonaro government – ​​which is accumulating international attrition over its environmental policy – ​​to bet on more aggressive positions against the main goals of the biodiversity agreement. But this also increases the country’s difficulty in gaining support for its proposals in the area.
Brazil also faces European resistance when proposing incentives for the bioeconomy — which refers to the exploitation of non-timber forest products that do not generate deforestation, such as açaÃ, cocoa, Brazil nuts.
After a prior agreement for the term to be included in the text as “encouraging products from biodiversity”, the European Union changed its position and manifested itself against it. The Europeans argue that this could open a loophole for the country to ask for incentives for agricultural products.
Brazil is also against a goal of the agreement that foresees the end of the use of agricultural pesticides, an item defended by the Europeans. For Brazilian diplomacy, cutting back on subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity must be defined according to national criteria.
To complete the picture of international distrust, Brazil has avoided supporting the demands of indigenous peoples, although they are also opposed to the conservation model that vetoes human interference.
