* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
As elections loom, Rousseff’s heel dragging on curbing deforestation needs to come under scrutiny
More than 400,000 people took the streets of New York City on September 21 to demand climate action two days before heads of state met for a Climate Summit at the United Nations. In solidarity with this massive march, more than 2,600 events took place in 162 countries - including Brazil - to protest against international apathy toward fighting climate change.
The goal of U.N. Climate Summit, called for by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, was to give a boost to U.N. climate negotiations with hopes to cement a strong global treaty in Paris by 2015, avoiding a failure like that in Copenhagen back in 2009.
The strategy was to get commitments from the nearly 120 heads of state who participated in the summit. However, no commitment came from Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.
Only two days after the large-scale climate mobilisation, the Brazilian leader surprised the international community by refusing to sign a document in which countries committed to halve deforestation by 2020 and eliminate it by by 2030 – a measure that could avoid the emission of approximately 4.5 to 8.8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
This refusal worried national institutions, which expressed their opposition to the president’s decision.
LACK OF ACTION
"It is more than clear that the greatest risk to development is the lack of action. This is a challenge for everyone, especially for the largest greenhouse gas emitters, such as Brazil. Definitely, President Dilma did not meet the expectations of society", declared the Observatório do Clima, a network of Brazilian civil society organizations that acts on climate change and seeks to promote effective public policies.
For those who know the current political situation in Brazil, Rousseff’s decision was not a surprise. On the eve of presidential elections - with the first round scheduled for October 5 – the Brazilian leader is steering away from causing any discomfort to her supporters. Polls indicate a very close race between her and former environment minister and activist Marina Silva.
In addition, a significant portion of the president’s supporters include the so-called “rural barons”, or agribusiness representatives in Brazil. Rousseff’s support for an agreement curbing deforestation would mean alienating this influential group and a loss of votes in the upcoming elections.
Considered the largest business sector in Brazil, agribusiness is currently responsible for 23 percent of Brazil’s GDP. But it is also the main source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. According to the Observatório do Clima, the sector is responsible for 59 percent of Brazil's emissions, in part because expansion of farming and cattle pastures often comes at the expense of forests.
Besides contributing to climate change, the rural barons are also responsible for serious social problems, such as relying on low-cost labour that amounts to slavery, making them the target of demonstrations led by social and environmental non-governmental organisations.
One such protest is the Não Vote em Ruralista (Don’t Vote for Rural Barons) campaign. Emerging on the eve of the elections, it is a campaign involving many civil society organisations aimed at raising public awareness about climate problems exacerbated by agribusiness.
"This is the right moment for society ask for a reduction of the climate impacts that agribusiness generates. The elections will happen in a few days and diminishing the power of the rural baron politicians through voting is one of the ways to have a fairer and more sustainable society" said Nicole Oliveira, the Latin America spokesperson for 350.org, one of the NGOs involved in organising the campaign.
"Brazil urgently needs to change its agriculture and cattle breeding development model and cut emissions before it is too late. These elections are a chance to put this issue at the forefront of the political discussions,” Oliveira said.
