The trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur is fundamental and should be one of the short-term goals of the European bloc, says Portuguese MEP Lídia Pereira, who was part of the European Parliament’s delegation at COP26, in Glasgow.
A member of the European People’s Party, a conservative political group that is the most numerous in the European Parliament, she was one of the participants in a meeting at the event with Environment Minister Joaquim Leite, and declared herself optimistic in an interview with sheet after the meeting in Glasgow.
Despite “failures on both sides” in recent relations between the two blocs, Lídia Pereira said she hoped that the change in attitude advocated at the COP by the Bolsonaro government could “open doors to greater cooperation” and lead to the signing of the trade agreement “a a good port”.
But official data released on Thursday (18), pointing to a 22% increase in the destruction of the forest in the last year, left her disappointed and “revolted”.
“The minister’s speech was very focused on the future. But the future cannot be the dustbin of the present, the place where we throw what we don’t want to do today. The green patch in the Amazon is not being managed, it is being destroyed,” said Lídia Pereira in addition to the interview in Brussels, this Friday (19).
Economist, she had evaluated as positive the plan presented by Joaquim Leite at the COP, to create forms of remuneration for forest conservation services, but already stressed that it was necessary to understand if the current speech of the Bolsonaro government “is in fact credible”.
This Friday, she added: “We must look more at what is done than what is said to be done. The Brazilian government proclaims the right direction, but the results are terrible.”
Do the data on the jump in deforestation somehow contradict the information provided by the Brazilian government at the meeting with the European Parliament delegation at the COP? It seems clear to me that the Brazilian government is not fully aware of the environmental, social and biodiversity heritage that it is responsible for managing. The Amazon is a unique and incomparable place, and its deforestation can only be seen as a crime against history, culture and fundamentally against the next generations.
The minister’s speech was very focused on the future. But the future cannot be the dustbin of the present, the place where we throw what we don’t want to do today. The green patch in the Amazon is not being managed, it is being destroyed. Brazil is burning and deforesting its greatest assets, so I can only appeal to the entire Brazilian society to make a transition of economic model in the Amazon as well.
What economic vocation do you see in the Amazon rainforest? It has great tourist potential, if properly and correctly used, which can and should be used to compensate for any loss of income due to the urgent end of deforestation.
According to Inpe, the numbers have been available since the end of October. Minister Joaquim Leite said that only Thursday, when they were released, did he know about it. Are you worried that the person responsible for the Environment in Brazil takes three weeks to find out about the main deforestation statistics in the country? I do not have concrete data that allow me to assess whether or not there was a deliberate intention to hide this data. But, more worrying than the timing of disclosure, I think we have to worry about what the data itself demonstrates. The overwhelming pace of deforestation and political inaction in the face of Amazon destruction.
Mrs. says the minister spoke about the future. Given this result from last year, do you think that the Bolsonaro government’s policies will be able to contain deforestation in the Amazon? It seems clear to me that not enough is being done and the minister’s words at the COP do not match his action. In politics for some time now I have realized that we should look at what is done more than what is said to be done. The Brazilian government proclaims the right direction, but the results are dire.
Respecting the legitimacy of the Brazilian government, I can only express disagreement, disillusionment and even anger at the destruction of a heritage that belongs to humanity. It’s up to us to take care of the Amazon for the next generations, and we have completely failed in this objective.
What was your impression of the meeting between the Brazilian government and the European Parliament delegation at the COP? What we heard from the Brazilian minister, in a way, gave us another comfort about what we could expect from Brazil going forward.
What steps did mrs. judged positive? First, the change in understanding regarding climate and environmental changes. By the way, that was one of my questions, I wanted to understand [entender, no português lusitano] what had prompted a government that for three years had been so skeptical about the environment to change its stance.
What was the explanation? From what we heard from the minister, today there is an understanding that something has to be done, especially against deforestation in the Amazon. An acknowledgment that it has to be treated differently from what has happened to date.
In the presentations in Glasgow, the Brazilian government has emphasized that the environmental issue has to be linked to the economic one. Do you agree? Yes, it is an opportunity for a positive agenda, to move from a linear economy to a more circular one and create new jobs, because others will eventually have to disappear, and it is necessary to find new ways of income for the communities, which do not go into questioning biodiversity and the balance we all need on the planet.
Did they even speak at the meeting of the project that prohibits imports linked to deforestation, which the Parliament should begin to analyze with priority? It wasn’t a subject we broached. We realized that there is a desire on the part of the Brazilian minister for us to be able to have a good relationship, so that, in the future, we can resolve any conflict of interests that may exist arising from situations like this.
Did the delegation then consider itself satisfied with the minister’s presentation? The only point that was raised was the need to realize that this new understanding of the Brazilian government is in fact credible, isn’t it? Because repeatedly, over the past three years, it has been an erratic position, not so much in line with climate goals. I believe there was a good explanation from the minister, but words are not enough.
We are very vigilant about what other geographies in the world are doing, not just Brazil. But Brazil is very important in this whole process and we want everyone to do their part.
Should the change in the position of the Brazilian government at the COP, in your opinion, reduce the opposition that the European Parliament has been making to the agreement with Mercosur? I believe that a trade agreement with Mercosur is essential. There were some failures, I would say from both sides, but this is one of our goals, I would even say in the short term, and I believe that a new attitude can open doors to greater cooperation and reach a good port with regard to the signing of the I wake up.
X-RAY
Lídia Pereira, 30
Member of the European People’s Party (EPP, Conservatives) group. Portuguese, she holds a degree in economics from the University of Coimbra and a master’s degree in European Economic Studies from the Colégio da Europa. She is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, is deputy coordinator of the Conservative group in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and a member of the Subcommittee on Tax Affairs. Chairs the Youth of the EPP.
.
