{"id":11927,"date":"2020-09-22T04:40:41","date_gmt":"2020-09-22T04:40:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/?p=11927"},"modified":"2023-08-15T19:47:37","modified_gmt":"2023-08-15T18:47:37","slug":"adpf708-climate-fund-what-to-expect-from-brazils-first-public-hearing-on-climate-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/?p=11927","title":{"rendered":"ADPF708 \/ Climate Fund. What to expect from Brazil\u2019s first public hearing on climate policy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Maria Antonia Tigre & Alex Goodman<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This week, on September 21 and 22, 2020, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) will hold the country\u2019s first public hearing on environmental and climate policy. The hearing, on Case ADPF 708 (previously ADO60), has the goal of producing an official report on the state of Brazil\u2019s environmental policy. In calling for the public hearing, STF Judge Lu\u00eds Roberto Barroso stated that the country\u2019s inaction, if proven, is \u201cpotentially harmful from any perspective: environmental, social, cultural or economic.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case ADPF 708 involves Brazil\u2019s\u00a0Climate Fund<\/a>, which was established in 2009 as a financial instrument of the\u00a0National Climate Policy Plan<\/a>. The Climate Fund is mandated to direct its annually authorized budget to projects, enterprises, and studies that are working towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. The Secretariat of Climate Change, overseen by the Ministry of the Environment, is responsible for the Climate Fund.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 5th<\/sup>, 2020, four political parties filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality for Omission, alleging that the Brazilian government inaction regarding the Climate Fund is a violation of its  constitutional and international legal environmental obligations. The Climate Fund was established in 2009 as a financial instrument of the National Climate Policy Plan. The Fund operates from an annually authorized budget and is directed to appropriate resources to projects, enterprises, and studies that address climate change mitigation and adaptation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs allege that the Climate Fund\u2019s operations and governance have been paralyzed and effectively defunct under the Bolsonaro administration in 2019-2020. According to the plaintiffs, only  R$ 718 thousand of the Fund\u2019s authorized  R$ 8.050 million budget was actually used in 2019, and that the BNDES, the bank which manages the fund, did not receive its expected transfer of R$ 543 million earmarked for environmental projects. They challenge the government\u2019s failure to appropriate the Fund\u2019s authorized budget. Additionally, the plaintiffs question the government\u2019s dissolution of the Secretariat of Climate Change, the government agency responsible for the Fund, as the stripping down of the Fund\u2019s institutional governance. These actions have furthered a disregard from the current administration of environmental policies, leading to a trend of environmental regression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs therefore request the Court\u2019s issuance of (i) a declaration of the Brazilian government\u2019s unconstitutional omission and (ii) an injunction that compels the government to actualize the Climate Fund, by resuming operations and reactivating its institutional governance of the Fund. Specifically, the plaintiffs are requesting that the Ministry of the Environment immediately disburse the Fund\u2019s existing resources and to promptly develop plans for the next two years on channeling the Fund\u2019s resources. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff\u2019s claims rely on Brazil\u2019s international commitments, constitutional obligations, and accountability to protecting emerging fundamental rights, such as the right to a healthy environment. In its petition, the Plaintiffs recalled the precautionary principle and Brazil\u2019s commitments under the Paris Agreement and argued that failing to implement the Climate Fund is one of many examples of how Brazil is disrespecting its \u201clegal obligation to implement measures that are compatible with the achievement of these goals.\u201d The plaintiffs argued that Brazil\u2019s inaction on the Climate Fund is a violation of the federal Constitution\u2019s Article 225, which provides that all government bodies must \u201cprotect the environment and fight pollution in any of its forms\u201d, and \u201cto preserve forests, fauna and flora,\u201d in addition to recognizing the right to a healthy environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his decision to hold a public hearing, Judge Barroso stated that \u201cenvironmental protection is not a political option, but a constitutional duty,\u201d and noted that the situation of Brazilian environmental policy has \u201cexponentially worsened in the last year and a half.\u201d From this, Judge Barroso concluded that this state of affairs affects each person\u2019s right to a healthy environment, as well as other fundamental rights that the Brazilian constitution protects, such as the right to life, health, and security of food and water. The Judge went even further, by indicating that the worsening state of Brazil\u2019s environment is linked with fundamental rights to housing, work, and could impact \u201cthe right to cultural identity, the way of life, and the livelihood of indigenous peoples\u2026\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The public hearing is expected to engage a multi-sectoral range of voices – from government and academics, conservationists and the private sector \u2013 who will have a forum to weigh in on questions that could both elevate new climate litigation and deepen the foundation for  emerging fundamental rights, such as the right to a healthy environment.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the morning of the first day of the public hearing, government authorities will take the floor,  including Vice President (General) Hamilton Mour\u00e3o, President of the House Rodrigo Maia, and President of the Senate Davi Alcolumbre. Various Ministerial representatives are expected to present, hailing from Ministries as divergent as Mining and Energy to Justice and Public Security to Technology and Innovation. Other key representatives during the hearing\u2019s first presentation including the President of BNDES, the President of IBAMA (Brazil\u2019s environmental agency), Directors and technicians from FUNAI (Brazil\u2019s indigenous agency), regional environmental departments, and the President of Federa\u00e7\u00e3o das Ind\u00fastrias de SP. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later that afternoon, representatives from various NGOs and research institutes will participate in the hearing. Among the national organizations presenting will be the Articulac\u00e3o dos Povos Ind\u00edgenas do Brasil (APIB), the Centro de Empreendedorismo da Amaz\u00f4nia, the Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazonia (IMAZON),  and the Instituto Socioambiental, among others. Various international organizations are expected to present as well; including UNEP, Greenpeace Brazil, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Human Rights Watch. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the second day of the public hearing, expect to see the morning dominated by academia and researchers, including presentations by Brazil\u2019s leading universities, such as USP and PUC, as well as global institutions, such as Columbia University and LSE (Grantham Institute). During the afternoon, private sector companies and financial institutions will weigh in on the discussion. Among the companies expected are Natura Basil, Vale do Rio Doce, AMAGGI, Suzano Papel e Celulose, and Agropalma. Financial institutions entering the forum include Ita\u00fa, Bradesco and Santander, and representatives from the World Bank and the Frente Parlamentar Agropecu\u00e1ria. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case effectively expands the role of the judiciary in determining environmental and climate policies, following a global trend that has been observed worldwide. Another similar case was brought by the same parties, this time questioning Brazil\u2019s handling of the Amazon Fund, which has a significant role in curbing deforestation in the Amazon region through REDD+ projects. A similar public hearing will be held in October. Throughout this semester, the country\u2019s highest court will weigh in on Bolsonaro\u2019s environmental policies \u2013 or lack thereof \u2013 and likely open the door for new climate litigation cases to be brought in the future. Although Brazil has flooded the media with news of unprecedented fires and deforestation rates lately, these cases bring hope that we will soon have news of how democracy uses the balance of powers to effectively provide responses to the disregard of constitutional environmental rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Maria Antonia Tigre & Alex Goodman This week, on September 21 and 22, 2020, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) will hold the country\u2019s first public hearing on environmental and climate policy. The hearing, on Case ADPF 708 (previously ADO60), has the goal of producing an official report on the state of Brazil\u2019s environmental policy. In calling […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":83,"featured_media":11928,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"wp-custom-template-posts","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[128,420],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-climate-change-2","category-community"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/83"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11927"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11927\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11934,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11927\/revisions\/11934"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/11928"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}