The British magazine The Economist, one of the most influential media outlets in the world, gave as its cover story the acceleration of deforestation in the Amazon, linked to the election of President Jair Bolsonaro.
The magazine refers to the president of Brazil as "possibly the most dangerous head of state in the world in environmental terms".
In an editorial, the publication states that "the world must make it clear to Mr. Bolsonaro that it will not tolerate his vandalism" and suggests boycotts, by food, soy and meat multinationals produced in illegally deforested areas of the Amazon, in addition to urging countries and blocs, including China, to put pressure on Brazil in its negotiations with the country.
What the Bolsonaro government - as well as more retrograde sectors of agribusiness - seems not to have realized is that the environmental issue today does not oppose, on the one hand, capitalist businesses and companies and, on the other, dreamlike hippies in search of some kind of utopia.
On the contrary, the environment has entered deeply into the global business world, and calling the attention of the rest of the world as a destroyer of forests will be very damaging to the economy and business in Brazil.
Claudio Frischtak, a consultant specializing in infrastructure, is very concerned about what he sees as ideological radicalism giving direction to the government's environmental discourse.
"This deepening of government radicalism isolates Brazil, it is not good for the country, it is not positive to be identified as a separate case, particularly on the environmental issue," says Frischtak.
He adds that "the band out there currently plays in a very different way than it did 30 or 40 years ago.
The consultant specifically refers to changes in the governance rules of international funds and companies that operate in the financing, construction and operation of infrastructure projects.
According to Frischtak, two themes have become the subject of very restrictive rules for the highest quality long-term global investors: corruption and the environment.
"Today, the best companies and funds simply cannot invest in certain environments, and all a country in need of financing and investment in infrastructure does not want is to become an international pariah," warns the consultant.
The same kind of concern is expressed by Sandra Poland Rios, director of the Center for Integration and Development Studies (Cindes), a trade policy think-tank in Rio de Janeiro.
"I think that the government's stance (in the environmental area) could hinder both the Mercosur agreement with the European Union (EU) and the entry into the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)," says the economist.
Sandra notes that "Brazil has chosen access to the OECD and the agreement with the EU as the main axes of international integration in the short term.
She explains that about 40% of the OECD's so-called "acquis", the body of norms containing public policy guidelines and standards, is related to the environment. These standards are varied in nature, some more general and some more specific.
Sandra reports that "Brazilian legislation is quite convergent with the OECD, although it may still be necessary to make some reforms to bring it a little closer, but probably without much economic impact".
However, she warns, "if we begin to move backwards in this area, it will certainly make it more difficult for us to join the OECD.
In the case of the agreement between Mercosur and the EU, there is a chapter on sustainable development, which includes commitments to environmental preservation and the permanence of countries in international agreements and conventions, of which Brazil is already a member, including the Paris Agreement.
"It is necessary to avoid setbacks that could conflict with these axes of international integration", says the researcher.
Brazil is also negotiating with EFTA (a group that brings together Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland, European nations that are not part of the EU), and the controversy surrounding the Amazon Fund, which has 90% of its resources coming from Norway, "does not help," according to Sandra.
She adds that these trade agreements do not create additional obligations in relation to the status quo, but reinforce the obligation of countries to comply with their national legislation or commitments already signed in other international agreements to which they belong.
Finally, Sandra reminds us that, regardless of the agreements, there are a series of private norms and standards (valid for large European, North American or even Asian retail chains), which impose demands in relation to environmental and social care (fight against child labor, slave labor, right to unionization, etc.).
"In order to export to more sophisticated markets, Brazilian agribusiness has no way of avoiding compliance with these standards", he observes.
According to the economist, an anti-environmentalist posture does not interest the competitive and exporting agribusiness.
The magazine refers to the president of Brazil as "possibly the most dangerous head of state in the world in environmental terms".
In an editorial, the publication states that "the world must make it clear to Mr. Bolsonaro that it will not tolerate his vandalism" and suggests boycotts, by food, soy and meat multinationals produced in illegally deforested areas of the Amazon, in addition to urging countries and blocs, including China, to put pressure on Brazil in its negotiations with the country.
What the Bolsonaro government - as well as more retrograde sectors of agribusiness - seems not to have realized is that the environmental issue today does not oppose, on the one hand, capitalist businesses and companies and, on the other, dreamlike hippies in search of some kind of utopia.
On the contrary, the environment has entered deeply into the global business world, and calling the attention of the rest of the world as a destroyer of forests will be very damaging to the economy and business in Brazil.
Claudio Frischtak, a consultant specializing in infrastructure, is very concerned about what he sees as ideological radicalism giving direction to the government's environmental discourse.
"This deepening of government radicalism isolates Brazil, it is not good for the country, it is not positive to be identified as a separate case, particularly on the environmental issue," says Frischtak.
He adds that "the band out there currently plays in a very different way than it did 30 or 40 years ago.
The consultant specifically refers to changes in the governance rules of international funds and companies that operate in the financing, construction and operation of infrastructure projects.
According to Frischtak, two themes have become the subject of very restrictive rules for the highest quality long-term global investors: corruption and the environment.
"Today, the best companies and funds simply cannot invest in certain environments, and all a country in need of financing and investment in infrastructure does not want is to become an international pariah," warns the consultant.
The same kind of concern is expressed by Sandra Poland Rios, director of the Center for Integration and Development Studies (Cindes), a trade policy think-tank in Rio de Janeiro.
"I think that the government's stance (in the environmental area) could hinder both the Mercosur agreement with the European Union (EU) and the entry into the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)," says the economist.
Sandra notes that "Brazil has chosen access to the OECD and the agreement with the EU as the main axes of international integration in the short term.
She explains that about 40% of the OECD's so-called "acquis", the body of norms containing public policy guidelines and standards, is related to the environment. These standards are varied in nature, some more general and some more specific.
Sandra reports that "Brazilian legislation is quite convergent with the OECD, although it may still be necessary to make some reforms to bring it a little closer, but probably without much economic impact".
However, she warns, "if we begin to move backwards in this area, it will certainly make it more difficult for us to join the OECD.
In the case of the agreement between Mercosur and the EU, there is a chapter on sustainable development, which includes commitments to environmental preservation and the permanence of countries in international agreements and conventions, of which Brazil is already a member, including the Paris Agreement.
"It is necessary to avoid setbacks that could conflict with these axes of international integration", says the researcher.
Brazil is also negotiating with EFTA (a group that brings together Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland, European nations that are not part of the EU), and the controversy surrounding the Amazon Fund, which has 90% of its resources coming from Norway, "does not help," according to Sandra.
She adds that these trade agreements do not create additional obligations in relation to the status quo, but reinforce the obligation of countries to comply with their national legislation or commitments already signed in other international agreements to which they belong.
Finally, Sandra reminds us that, regardless of the agreements, there are a series of private norms and standards (valid for large European, North American or even Asian retail chains), which impose demands in relation to environmental and social care (fight against child labor, slave labor, right to unionization, etc.).
"In order to export to more sophisticated markets, Brazilian agribusiness has no way of avoiding compliance with these standards", he observes.
According to the economist, an anti-environmentalist posture does not interest the competitive and exporting agribusiness.
Comments
Post a Comment