Interview: Brazil Will Suffer Economically Unless it Cooperates in Environmental Area

By Mathias Alencastro

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – One of the main allies of French president Emmanuel Macron on the environmental area, European Parliament deputy Pascal Canfin, 46, says that the continent’s market for Brazilian products that contribute to deforestation will be progressively closed.

“Brazil can’t figure on the international scene as the country that doesn’t want to cooperate. It would be a terrible economic decision,” says Canfin.

Member of Republique En Marche, Macron’s party, he is president of the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

In this position, he is one of the leading figures responsible for drafting a bill that could close the economic bloc’s market to Brazilian products unable to prove they have no link to deforestation. The most important product on this list is soy.

Last January 12th, Macron associated Brazilian soy to the deforestation in the Amazon.
He wrote on social media that to continue to depend on the import of Brazilian soybean would be to endorse the destruction of the forest, and proposed that the European continent should have its own plantations of the product.

Although only 4% of Brazilian soy originates in the Amazon, the association between production and deforestation is very attractive to the European public. Brazil annually exports 14 million tons of the product to the 27-country bloc.

Canfin confirms the intention of growing soy in the continent, and says that the increase in production of vegetable protein will be discussed in the next edition of the bloc’s common agricultural policy.

He also denies that there is a protectionist motivation by the European Union on the plan to restrict Brazilian soy.

“The goal is not to stop importing Brazilian soybeans, but rather Brazilian soybeans that are unable to prove that they do not contribute to deforestation. We are not against Brazilian soy itself, but against a production method that we no longer want to endorse,” he said.

In an interview, the deputy made it clear that the approval of the trade agreement between the European Union and MERCOSUR is unviable unless there are changes in Brazilian environmental policy.

Q: French President Emmanuel Macron recently said that buying Brazilian soybeans is endorsing deforestation. Is this also the position of the European Union?

A: This is more and more the position of the European Union. We are preparing for the spring of 2021 [in the Northern Hemisphere, which occurs between March and June] a text to close the European market to raw materials – coffee, cocoa, palm oil – that are unable to prove they do not contribute to deforestation.

To do this, we will base ourselves on the practices of companies that have engaged in zero deforestation policies and that have developed satellite tracking technologies, to identify their products and the respective environmental impacts of the production chain.

Q: What is the timetable for this text? Is there consensus within the European Parliament?

It will take a year to negotiate the text and we will have a final version in 2022, and implementation in 2023 or 2024. We will progressively close the European market to all products that contribute to deforestation.

This is a pledge by the European Commission [the bloc’s executive arm] that is settled. On the European Parliament’s side, a large majority of members supported this project. The report that will substantiate European law enjoys majority support in Parliament. We know that there is high expectation from European citizens towards the protection of forests, whether in the Amazon, Indonesia or Central Africa.

Q: Brazilians accuse the European Union of protectionism. Does the text have commercial motivations?

The goal we pursue is twofold: to stop being complicit in the purchase of products that contribute to deforestation, which we have condemned on several occasions. We have a duty to align our actions with our values and be coherent. This is the first aspect.

The goal is not to stop importing Brazilian soybeans, but rather Brazilian soybeans that are unable to prove that they do not contribute to deforestation. We are not against Brazilian soy itself, but rather against a production method that we no longer want to endorse. In the same countries, in the same ecosystems, there are players who play the game, who take care of their soils and develop taking forests into account. In this case, we protect them.

Our stance is anything but nationalistic or protectionist. Our action aims to render the economic circuits sustainable. Soy must change to show that it is sustainable.

Q: Should we expect a reaction from European partners in case of a new fire crisis [in Brazil] in August, a few months away from the UN Climate Conference, or in relation to other topics of debate?

A: The law I just described is directly linked to the 2019 crisis. The President of France [Macron] was at the forefront of the G20 to denounce and launch the debate on the law. The Brazilian government cannot think that there is any form of impunity. It is not true.

In relation to MERCOSUR, there is no majority in the European Parliament to ratify the text as it is written, due to its consequences on biodiversity and deforestation. The other countries in the region are also victims of this stalemate.

Q: Can this answer not be regarded as an attack on Brazil’s sovereignty?

A: I reiterate that the issue is not about protectionism. The issue is the preservation of forests and the implementation of sustainable production models. If the Brazilian government’s policy were different, the European Union’s position would also be different. The European Union is the most open area to the world, we have the largest number of trade agreements. We will not sign an agreement unless we are sure that this agreement is compatible with climate and biodiversity. We hope to use the power of Europe, the second market in the world, to promote more sustainable models.

Q: Does the European Union act in coordination with other major powers?

A: The return of the United States to the Paris Agreement, and the fact that the Chinese have taken on a carbon neutrality goal, has as a consequence that the world’s three largest economic zones have set the same goals and are engaged in the same path. If Brazil thinks it can continue on its own without taking this new reality into account, it will lose its markets. Brazil cannot appear on the international scene as the country that does not want to cooperate. It would be a terrible economic decision.

Q: Does the European Union have plans to replace Brazilian soy, which it could stop importing after the text on deforestation has been ratified?

A: We are negotiating the next European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), around EUR 389 billion (R$ 2.5 trillion) in seven years, and one of the points we are discussing is the integration of systems to produce more vegetable protein in Europe.

Q: Does the European Union have other measures to control deforestation on the horizon, in the financial sector for instance?

A: The European Parliament explicitly asked that Europe’s financial institutions be subjected to the duty of vigilance. We asked the European Commission to also endorse this proposal, which would make a difference, because it would lead financial players to consider the impact of investment actions on the environment.

Source: Folha de S.Paulo