“THE HIDRIC LAW IS A STEP BACK FROM THE STEP BACK.”

On October 30th, the country elected the new president, Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. What is your evaluation of the environmental policy that is ending? What is the scenario that awaits the elected president?

In four years, we experienced a huge setback in environmental policy. There were setbacks in various areas, but in the environment, there was a deconstruction. To avoid just using rhetorical language, I would highlight some fundamental issues. The first big mistake was the transfer of the National Water Agency and Basic Sanitation (ANA) from the Ministry of the Environment to the Ministry of Regional Development. Since its creation in the early 2000s, the foundation of this agency was the establishment of a governance structure that took into account the management of multiple water uses. Obviously, ANA could not be subordinate to a power field that prioritizes a single use. And the Ministry of Regional Development works on irrigation policies.

When ANA was created, you were the Minister of the Environment, correct?

Yes. The creation of ANA was not an easy task in the National Congress. It replaced the old National Department of Water and Energy (Denae). Therefore, a water management model subordinate to energy policy was replaced by an entity that would be in a neutral political space. The Bolsonaro government has trampled on this basic principle. Similarly, the Brazilian forest service was transferred from the Ministry of the Environment to the Ministry of Agriculture.

In theory, a contradiction.

I am part of a current of thought that defends the participation of the Ministry of Agriculture in environmental issues, but not in this way. Another fundamental point of our environmental policy dismantled by the Bolsonaro government was collegial and participatory management. Surprisingly, this contemporary model began to be implemented even during the military dictatorship, thanks to the leadership of Professor Paulo Nogueira Neto of the University of São Paulo (USP). The military of that time had a more modern vision of environmental asset management than Captain Bolsonaro. Nogueira Neto, from the University of São Paulo (USP), argued that the military rulers of that time had a more modern vision for managing environmental heritage than Captain Bolsonaro.

How would you translate the idea of “gestão colegiada e participativa” to non-experts?

When we talk about environmental heritage, we are referring to diffuse rights, also known as third-generation rights, which are collective rights. The enjoyment of these rights requires a collegial and participatory governance so that the community and the population can participate in the formulation and implementation of public policies. This was undermined by the decision of former Minister Ricardo Salles to restructure the National Environment Council (Conama), reducing its representation by half. To make matters worse, Conama was also a federal space. All states had representation, but this was reduced from 27 to five states. In short, the body ceased to be a national council and became a federal council, where the government now has a monopoly on decision-making.

In broad terms, what path had we been following from the re-democratization period until 2018, when Bolsonaro assumed the presidency?

It was a continuous and positive evolution that started in 1973, shortly after the first environmental conference organized by the United Nations (UN) in Sweden. During the Medici government, the height of the dictatorship, the Special Secretariat for the Environment (Sema) was created. In 1981, during the Figueiredo government, the National Environmental Policy, Law No. 6,938, was enacted, which still stands as a modern law. From this law, the National Environment Council (Conama) was established, an absolutely innovative achievement. Then, in 1988, we had the Constituent Assembly, an extraordinary moment of solidifying Law No. 6,938/1981, instituting the National System for Managing Water Resources, later regulated by Law No. 9,433, in 1997. In my opinion, Law No. 9,433 is the most modern public policy established in the country to this day.

By the way, the so-called “Water Law” is completing a quarter of a century. What do you think about the new water management bill that is being processed in Congress?

A precious mechanism of Law No. 9,433/1997, which Brazil has not yet known how to use, is the possibility of establishing the hydrographic basin as the space for territorial planning and public policies. Establishing the hydrographic basins as a planning unit allows for an integration gain in the Brazilian federative system. We have always had a verticalized federalism, with monocratic and monolithic decisions. The revolution would be to share the decision-making process. In the Basin Committees, a horizontal model is already being proposed, creating mechanisms for multilateral cooperation among federative entities to carry out public policies of collective interest..

After the confirmation of the election results, world leaders celebrated the victory for the environment. What was the expectation in case of Bolsonaro’s reelection?

There was no expectation, there was panic. The world, represented by the most progressive nations, was in panic with Bolsonaro. As I already mentioned, we had been making progress since 1973, regardless of ideological differences. Each government added to the construction. What Bolsonaro did was to remove the bricks. In addition to the setbacks we have already mentioned, there were others: the deliberate weakening of IBAMA and the Chico Mendes Institute, the prohibition of fines, and the facilitation of illegal mining. What places Brazil in the world today is the Amazon. As the government demonstrated permissive policies for the destruction of the forest, it caused immense discomfort abroad

Where to start to resume a positive environmental agenda? What would you say to the next Minister of the Environment?

Let’s talk about profile. I think it has to be a person with an open profile. The moment requires a lot of dialogue. The Bolsonaro government stressed. The Lula government has to de-stress. Including with opponents of the environment. The environmental area has the mission of redoing the undone policies and dialoguing. Everyone criticizes agribusiness. But the ruralists who are in Congress are the backward, the retrograde. On the other hand, we have the exporting agribusiness that is modern, which is not interested in this policy of scorched earth, this creates restrictions on the foreign market. The person who will lead the ministry has to reach out to these and isolate the backwardness.

Humanity is facing its greatest challenge: survival. However, we have not seen a task force with the depth that science points to. Instead, climate deniers have gained prominence. Why? Are we in denial?

In my view, what is happening is a major civilizational crisis. A crisis of values, values that give a humanistic dimension to life. An extreme individualism of contemporary society. We are living under three very dangerous paradigms: unbridled consumerism, unprecedented hedonism without regard for collective interests, and individualism. Obviously, all of this reflects in public policies and strengthens right-wing ideologies. Although the Brazilian middle class likes to speak ill of politics, politics has never been so necessary.

How would you translate what we can expect for the next decades if drastic measures are not taken? What are the most pessimistic and optimistic predictions?

I do not believe in the end of the world, but I strongly believe that one world is replaced by another. We forget that throughout history, we have already had five major extinctions. The current civilization acts as if we are in the last evolutionary stage. What is climate change? It is a sign of an evolutionary process that will transform the Earth. We are so anthropocentric that we say the planet is in danger. Well, the planet is not in danger, it has had several appearances, what is in danger is humanity. The planet will continue to exist, probably with other beings replacing Homo sapiens. This individualistic view that we have already talked about is heavily fueled by anthropocentrism, the most visceral we have ever had. What is at risk is humanity, not the planet.