The Bolsonaro government’s failure to contain deforestation overshadowed Itamaraty’s efficient performance at COP26, says Izabella Teixeira, former environment minister from 2010 to 2016 and one of the main negotiators of the Paris Agreement, by which, in 2015, countries became pledged to act to curb global warming.
According to her, Brazilian diplomacy managed to reverse the erosion of the country’s image, but the government’s actions kept alive the international distrust of Brazil’s commitment to the climate crisis.
“The Ministry of the Environment’s omission on record deforestation showed an immediate contradiction with the efficiency of Brazilian diplomacy and suggests a ‘fake green’ action”, says the current co-chair of the international research panel of the UN’s environmental program.
In the opposite direction of leaders such as the US climate envoy, John Kerry, and Itamaraty itself, the Executive has not realized the power of responsible business and civil society, says Izabella.
“The environmental issue does not exist without a market vision, which is part of the solution. But this government came only with backward sectors and makes Brazil disembark from the contemporary world.”
At the Brazilian civil society stand, excluded from the country’s delegation, the biologist and doctor in energy planning spoke with the sheet between meetings with diplomats and MEPs, last Thursday (11) and Sunday (14), after the end of the COP, the UN Climate Conference held in Glasgow (Scotland) from October 31st to November 13th.
Izabella, who worked in the Dilma and Lula administrations, but is not affiliated with parties and defines himself as a technical cadre, says that Brazil has overcome the condition of pariah, but has sold an image unmasked by reality. “Investors made it clear that it’s no use blah blah blah; the government will have to deliver results in deforestation.”
As mrs. summarize in one sentence the result of COP26? The Paris Agreement is alive.
It is still possible to restrict heating to 1.5º C [até 2100, em relação ao perÃodo pré-industrial]? Still, but only because the text requires countries to have effective plans to reduce emissions by next year. It’s possible, but not guaranteed.
Who were the main actors in this COP? The US and China, with the agreement announced on Wednesday (10), a very strong sign of the relevance of the climate issue, the European Union and India, which were tough in negotiations to protect their geopolitical space. It is a country that is clear about its national interests.
The importance of pressure from the private sector and civil society was cited by several leaders. Was it a difference from this COP? It was very clear that the world moved, and governments responded with statements, such as those on forests and methane, that combine political, economic and social interests.
In other COPs, there was a dissociation between the negotiations in the rooms and the elections outside them. In Glasgow, the concerns of the private sector and civil society, which participated strongly, are reflected in the diplomatic negotiations.
Was Brazil in the middle of the road, getting closer to the business community, but not to civil society? The problem is that this government has formed an alliance with the conservative private sector, the CNI [Confederação Nacional da Indústria] and CNA [Confederação Nacional da Agricultura], not with Entrepreneurs for the Climate, with CEBDS [Conselho Empresarial Brasileiro para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável].
The competent private sector –not this extemporaneous one– came here with an interest in the carbon market because they know that this is the mechanism by which, in the Paris Agreement, it is part of the game.
The environmental issue does not exist without a market vision, everyone is co-responsible. But the government’s private bias here is not that of a businessman responsible for the country, in line with development and climate responsibility. It’s just a short-term view. People who have political dialogue come to operate only in the microcosm.
Not even the relationship with the market that this government is able to take advantage of. They come with the past and make Brazil disembark from the contemporary world.
Has it lost relevance in the environmental discussion? The official Brazil that came to this COP is a smaller Brazil, and by pushing civil society away, it forced it to talk to the world, not through activism, but prepared to speak in political language.
The real country was at the civil society stand, not just on the climate issue. Human rights, racism, the indigenous issue were discussed in the award-winning photographs of the Amazon taken by Sebastião Salgado, not those from an image bank, purchased by private sector entities.
Entities such as Observatório do Clima, Concertação pela Amazônia and Instituto Clima e Sociedade know that a standing forest is Brazil standing up, not on its knees, agreeing with everything and not delivering anything.
Many people do not realize that a COP is not restricted to environmental issues; it is a space of development geopolitics strategy, of knowing how to develop with the climate variable on the compass, either because of climate uncertainty or because of the need to find new low-carbon economic models.
The governors occupied this space, made their agreements. The subnational is here to stay, while the Union becomes smaller.
There is a modern, contemporary business community, looking for spaces, and very disappointed that we do not have a carbon market law. And a businessman “Jurassic Park”, financing this government “fossil fuels” [combustÃveis fósseis].
The government presented the approval of the carbon market rules as a Brazilian victory. Do you agree? Approval of the rules was important and Brazil made some changes that interested the industry, but when it comes to reducing emissions, Brazil’s great victory would be to end deforestation.
It is still necessary to understand in detail what the changes mean and why the government threw out the regulated carbon market law that was in Congress.
The problem is that the current Brazilian government is a denialist and, in the first years, it placed the Ministry of the Environment on the line of destruction of environmental policies and foreign affairs. The sign that came to the world was that Brazil had put into reverse gear.
Environmental activists accuse Brazil of “greenwashing” [promessas que não se traduzem em menos emissões], but leaders praised the country’s position. What is the balance for the country’s image? Brazil is important to the world because it is the Amazon that makes it possible to hold warming up to a maximum of 1.5 ºC.
Itamaraty, still timid, showed the capacity for negotiation and dialogue and managed to control the government’s damage to the country’s image.
This COP showed that Itamaraty is back. But the impact of statements by the president and the minister [Joaquim Leite] and the absence of environmental policies does not allow diplomacy to operate with its excellence. And the disclosure of record deforestation in October clearly dismantles the minister’s speech.
The omission on record deforestation, disclosed at the COP, shows an immediate contradiction with the efficiency of Brazilian diplomacy and suggests a “fake green” action.
It is a country that signs declarations but does not deliver results. Recognizing mistakes is part of good policy. By pretending to ignore what is bad, the minister only sabotages the country’s credibility, strengthening the view that it is “fake green”.
Is not the anticipation of the end of deforestation to 2028 a positive sign? The problem is that they presented a linear regression, as if it were interest on own house, 15% each year. That does not exist. It has no scientific credibility, no financial or economic credibility, no political credibility.
The government needs to wake up, because Brazil is leaving with a huge bill for this COP. The US, China, Europe and corporations and funds, that is, the main buyers and investors, have made it very clear that they will not accept deforestation. And this is not resolved with bravado alone.
But in this government, not even the basics, of taking care of the yard, were done. Deforestation has exploded. Environmental management was destroyed and the ministry became a “Ministry of Agriculture in B”.
The minister highlighted that the Brazilian plans were praised, for example, by Kerry. There are people who are deluded when the international world welcomes them. Yes, diplomacy is polite, and it wants Brazil to re-align itself with global interests. Diplomacy is made up of gestures and greetings, and it has memory. You won’t forget what Brazil signed.
It’s like a driver going back to racing, but for now he’s not even on the grid; will start from the pits. Signed approval but believe? I doubt. They’re going to wait for another government to see if that stays put.
​
X-RAY
Izabella Teixeira, 60, is co-president of the International Resource Panel at Unep, the UN’s environmental program, and senior researcher at the Arapyau Institute. Master in energy planning and PhD in environmental planning by Coppe/UFRJ. An environmental server since 1984, she was the Minister of the Environment (2010-2016), during which the new Forest Code was approved and the Paris Agreement carried out.
.
