STF wants extra resources to combat deforestation

The trial of actions under the so-called “green agenda” in the Federal Supreme Court (STF) resulted in a determination for the National Congress to allocate extra resources to combat deforestation in the Amazon. Two of the actions in this area, filed by left-wing parties in 2020, were judged last week. Three other actions, on preventing and fighting fires in the Pantanal and the Amazon, were judged on Wednesday (20).

The determination on the opening of extraordinary credit, made in the judgment of the first two actions of the “green agenda”, is not unprecedented. On previous occasions, the Court has already proceeded in the same way, indicating the need to allocate Budget resources to judgments related to other topics.

An example was the decision taken in the Claim of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precepts (ADPF) 709/DF, which dealt with the indigenous issue in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic. Another example was ADPF 347, in which the STF declared the “unconstitutional state of affairs” in relation to the prison system. In summary, in October 2023, the Supreme Court pointed out that the rights of prisoners were being violated in the Brazilian prison system and ordered the federal government to develop a plan to resolve several issues, such as overcrowding and prison time longer than the sentence.

Although this type of determination by the STF is nothing new, the decision on the “green agenda” was received with surprise by parliamentarians linked to agribusiness and lawyers specializing in Environmental Law. For the president of the Parliamentary Front for Agriculture (FPA), deputy Pedro Lupion (PP-PR), “it is not because a similar decision has already occurred that it should be naturalized”.

In the assessment of lawyer Georges Humberto, post-doctorate in Law and president of the Brazilian Institute of Law and Sustainability (Ibrades), the determination, by the Judiciary, to open credits in the Executive, is yet another “usurpation of competence resulting from judicial activism , the inertia of the Legislature and the lack of accountability of magistrates”.

On the other hand, environmentalist parliamentarians did not consider the measure to be interference by the Judiciary over the Legislature. The president of the Environmentalist Parliamentary Front in the Chamber, deputy Nilto Tatto (PT-SP), pointed out that this is not a question of undue intervention by the STF, nor of judging that the actions proposed and carried out by the Lula government have not been sufficient.

“In this case, it is also not about intervention, but rather the prevention of the Executive Branch from acting unconstitutionally, by resigning [de] its prerogatives imposed by the functions of the Ministry of the Environment to act in favor of the environment”, said Tatto.

The lawyer and legal consultant at BMJ Consultores Associados, Lui Fortes, pointed out that this is an “extraordinary measure”. “Often, the STF understands that imposing such an obligation would represent direct intervention by the court in other powers”, explains Fortes.

Parties accused Bolsonaro government for lack of action in the Amazon

By filing the Allegation of Non-compliance with Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 760 and the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO) 54 with the STF, the left-wing parties claimed that the government of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) abandoned, as of 2019, the deforestation prevention and control policy, provided for in the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm).

In the actions, the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), the Sustainability Network, the Democratic Labor Party (PDT), the Green Party (PV), the Workers’ Party (PT) and the Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL) requested the declaration of “unconstitutional state of affairs”, which occurs when there is a serious, widespread and prolonged violation of rights provided for in the Constitution, due to the lack of action by the responsible public bodies.

When judging the actions now in 2024, the STF ministers, however, denied the request for recognition of a massive violation of fundamental rights – the unconstitutional state of affairs – in Brazilian environmental policy. “This is because the Court recognized that, although it has not yet been concluded, a process has been underway since last year for the Brazilian State to resume the effective exercise of its constitutional duty to protect the Amazon biome,” stated the STF in a note on The judgement.

In his vote, Minister Alexandre de Moraes reinforced the understanding about the resumption of actions to combat deforestation under the PT administration and recalled a phrase said by former Environment Minister Ricardo Salles. “From the moment governmental conduct was practiced, there was an inflection on the part of the Executive Branch to stop the herd (as was said by a former Minister of the Environment) and from that point on, treat the environment with the necessary seriousness” , said Moraes.

STF decision on “green agenda” established deadlines for presenting a schedule

In the decision on the actions judged last week, unanimously, the STF plenary determined that the Union take measures to reduce deforestation in the Legal Amazon to the rate of 3,925 km per year by 2027 and to zero by 2030.

Thus, the STF determined that the federal government must present a schedule to provide guidelines, objectives, deadlines and targets for meeting the results of the PPCDAm Thematic Axes, at levels sufficient to effectively and continuously reduce the levels of illegal deforestation in the Amazon. The court also ordered the production of quarterly reports that demonstrate effective compliance with the schedule.

In the judgment of the Arguments of Non-compliance with Fundamental Precepts (ADPFs) 743, 746 and 857, the STF decided that the Union has 90 days to present a plan to prevent and combat fires in the Pantanal and the Amazon, with monitoring, georeferencing, goals and Statistics.

Furthermore, the Union must prepare a plan to recover the operational capacity of the National Forest Fire Prevention and Combat System and an action plan with concrete measures for processing the information provided to the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR).

Opposition points to interference and harm in the construction of public policies

The STF’s decision in the judgment of the “green agenda” actions was understood as interference by the Judiciary in the Legislature by parliamentarians linked to agribusiness and opposed to the Lula government.

The reason is the determination by the National Congress to open extraordinary credit in the 2024 financial year to ensure the continuity of government actions. In addition to the allocation of extra resources, the ministers also vetoed the budget blocking of resources for programs to combat deforestation already underway.

The president of the agribusiness bench, Pedro Lupion, highlighted that such a measure could even harm the construction of public policies. “The government measures that must be taken to adequately combat deforestation require due legislative debate when preparing the Budget. Surprises like these, determined by the STF, harm the very construction of public policies”, said the deputy from Paraná.

In the same sense, deputy Evair de Mello (PP-ES) highlighted the need for debate on the allocation of resources. “It is essential that there is an appropriate legislative debate when developing public policies, especially when it comes to the budget and government actions related to combating deforestation,” he said.

Lupion also questioned the measure given the crisis experienced by rural producers, due to the prospect of crop failure and the low prices paid for production. “[Essas medidas acabam] impacting, for example, the necessary and urgent creation of a way out of the crisis for rural producers with the drop in the price of production and the maintenance of high production costs. Will the STF also determine the opening of extraordinary credit to help the farmer?”, said the president of the FPA.

Deputy Luiz Phellipe de Orleans and Bragança (PL-SP) also opined that this is interference by the Judiciary. “This determination of the Court […] it is clearly an interference in the powers of the Legislative Branch in the name of the 2030 Agenda. The independence of the powers is at stake when the Judiciary assumes the role of legislator, ruler and bad judge”, he said.

The 2030 Agenda, mentioned by the deputy, is a document from the United Nations (UN) that presents a list of goals for the world to reach the year 2030 “more prosperous and less unequal”.

Matter of People’s Gazette showed that the list brings together important and generic objectives, such as “eradicating poverty and hunger”, “quality education and health”, “economic growth”, but that the UN 2030 Agenda is also made up of controversial themes, which generally they hide “pitfalls” such as “gender equality” and “climate action”.

Government leaders and environmental NGOs defend the STF’s decision on the “green agenda”

On the other hand, environmentalist Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and members of the Lula government considered the STF’s decision “important and historic”, and assessed that it will complement the actions of the PT administration.

“It is, rather, the treatment of environmental policies as State policy, which must be executed independently of the current governments in the Executive Branch”, said deputy Nilto Tatto (PT), president of the Environmentalist Front.

In a statement, the legal consultant for the Instituto Socioambiental (Isa), Mauricio Guetta, stated that the STF’s decision demonstrates the effectiveness of the Lula government’s actions. “The STF’s decision in favor of the environment and the fight against the climate emergency is historic. Environmental policies, especially those to combat deforestation in the Amazon, are expressly qualified as State policies, which cannot be neglected and must be fulfilled satisfactorily and progressively by this and the next governments, with setbacks being prohibited, including from a budgetary point of view. The goals and results defined by the STF give concreteness to the Court’s conclusion regarding the effectiveness of state actions”, he stated.

In the same vein, Greenpeace Brazil’s legal manager, Angela Barbarulo, also pointed out that the STF’s decision is historic. “Greenpeace Brazil celebrates this historic decision by the STF, which determines compliance with the targets on climate change established by national legislation and international agreements assumed by Brazil, as well as establishing that the Union and its respective bodies adopt sufficient and effective measures to comply with the constitutional duty to defend, protect and monitor the environment. This is a commitment by the Brazilian State to current and future generations, and cannot be subject to the fluctuations of the current government,” she said in a statement released to the press.