ENVIRONMENT BULLETIN-BRAZIL: New Law Still on Government Rollercoaster

By Fabiana Frayssinet and Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Fabiana Frayssinet and Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Sep 5 1998 (IPS) - Heated protests led the Brazilian government to partially back down from its plans to waive enforcement of a new environment law for up to 10 years.

Environment Minister Gustavo Krause had agreed to extend the timefram granted companies to “adapt” to the guidelines of the Law on Environmental Crimes, approved by Congress in January, from 90 days to five years, extendable for five years.

The extended time limit was authorised by a “provisional measure” – a decree with the immediate force of law that does not require parliamentary approval – signed Aug. 7 by President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

But when the ecision drew heavy fire from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other sectors, Krause said the timeframe could be reduced to two and a half or three years, and that his ministry was studying how to bring state legislation into line with national laws in order to do so.

The protests came from several fronts. The leftist Workers Party, the leading opposition force, questioned the constitutionality of the measure before the Supreme Court.

In Sao Paulo, representatives of NGOs marched out of an Aug. 26 meeting of the state’s Environment Council, where they fill half of the 36 seats, accusing the government of “defending companies that damage the environment.”

“The worst polluters, which have long been breaking the law, will triumph,” protested Antonio Herman Benjamin, coordinator of the Prosecutors of Environmental Justice of the state of Sao Paulo.

The measure “formalises impunity,” criticised Roberto Kishinami, director of Greenpeace Brazil. Several of the international watchdog organisation’s activists were arrested Aug. 19 in Brasilia for placing a clown’s nose on a statue in front of the Ministry of Justice during a protest.

The US-based Environmental Defence Fund called on activists worldwide to send messages to Cardoso asking himto revoke the “10-year moratorium” on enforcement of the law.

When it was approved in January after seven years of debate NGOs welcomed the new law, which provided for jail sentences of up to five years and fines of up to 45 million dollars, as a major step forward.

But they criticised the gaps created by government concessions, which eased the sanctions. On Mar. 30 Cardoso signed the bill into law, but he vetoed clauses that stipulated jail terms of up to three years for those found responsible for setting fires in forests and rural areas, making excessive noise in urban areas and importing toxic waste.

The fires that devastated the northern state of Roraima in February and March fanned the flames of criticism of the government’s “delaying tactics,” and the protests heated up further with the recent spread of fires in the eastern and southern parts of the Amazon region, which are threatening protected lands of indigenous peoples.

The decree which suspends enforcement of the sanctions has now added a new delay, environmentalists complain.

Krause replied that the Cardoso administration’s decision only granted authorisation to the environmental authorities of states to grant the new timeframes to local businesses.

According to Under-Secretary of the Environment of the state of Rio de Janeiro, Carlos Abreu Mendes, “there was no delay.” He argued that due to their complexity, some companies needed “at least five years of investment to adapt to the law.”

He cited the state-run Refineria Duque de Caxias in Rio de Janeiro, antiquated chemical companies in Sao Paulo, and the Compania Siderurgica Nacional, Brazil’s leading steel producer, which was privatised five years ago. The steelworks is the biggest polluter of the Paraba do Sul river, which supplies Rio de Janeiro with water.

Equipment for preventing emissions of air pollutants cost 30 million dollars and treating solid waste cost 3,000 dollars a tonne, he added.

Stressing that negotiations and flexibility were indispensable, he pointed out that many state governments found themselves facing the dilemma of living up to the terms of the new law or maintaining production – and the jobs of thousands of workers.