A federal environmental assessment of a proposed trade deal between Canada and the Mercosur countries ignores major environmental and human rights violations in Brazil, environmental advocates say.
The assessment, which was released last week, is a standard part of trade deal negotiations meant to flag any proposed environmental issues that could arise from increased trade. Focused largely on potential impacts in Canada, it makes scant mention of devastating deforestation and fires in the Brazilian Amazon driven by cattle ranching and soy production.
Brazil is the region鈥檚 largest economy and the deal could increase its agricultural exports to Canada by about $10 billion.
鈥淭his environmental assessment of the Canada-Mercosur trade deal appears completely divorced from the reality unfolding in Brazil,鈥� said Reykia Fick, nature and food campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, in an email.
Deforestation in the Amazon increased by 30 per cent in 2019, boosted by the Bolsonaro government鈥檚 anti-environment agenda. In 2020, more than 12 per cent more fires burned between January and September than last year, covering roughly 1.8 million hectares.
The region plays a critical ecological role, capturing vast amounts of carbon, regulating the region鈥檚 climate and hosting some of the planet鈥檚 most biodiverse ecosystems. It鈥檚 also home to hundreds of Indigenous nations whose human rights and cultural survival are threatened by deforestation and violence from ranchers and loggers.
There is 鈥渁 possible risk鈥� of deforestation, soil erosion and biodiversity loss arising from increased agricultural production as a result of the deal, the environmental assessment notes. However, a 2019 report by a coalition of climate and environmental researchers about the situation in Brazil found a close correlation between deforestation, fires and industrial soy production and ranching.
The document states that the deal would include provisions that 鈥渕ay 鈥� help mitigate negative (environmental) impacts, notably in relation to 鈥� agricultural practices,鈥� a note that doesn鈥檛 convince Scott Sinclair, director of the Trade and Investment Research Project at the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives.
鈥淲e have a model of free trade agreements that have powerful enforceable rights for traders and investors, but the environmental standards are weak, and they鈥檙e largely unenforceable. And the same is true of labour standards,鈥� he said.
Sinclair sees no reason this lax approach to environmental and labour regulations would be any different with this agreement, a concern reinforced by recently leaked documents from a similar deal now being negotiated between the European Union and Mercosur countries.
Environmental violations are not considered 鈥渆ssential elements鈥� in that document, meaning that sanctions or other enforcement measures can鈥檛 be implemented if a country violates the environmental standards outlined in the deal. Similar provisions could easily be included in the proposed Canada-Mercosur deal 鈥� a bad sign, especially in light of Brazil鈥檚 current political situation.
Brazil鈥檚 environmental legislation is currently being gutted by the Bolsonaro government, Fick said, with the administration attempting to legalize land grabs of protected areas and Indigenous territories while defunding the country鈥檚 environmental protection agency.
And despite thrice mentioning that Canada and Mercosur countries will 鈥渕aintain high levels of environmental protection鈥� and 鈥渋mprove their (environmental) laws and policies,鈥� the assessment offers no details on how those legislative standards will be enforced.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a perfect storm where the regime is indifferent or even supportive of encroachment on this vital ecosystem to the point where experts think it鈥檚 threatened with collapse, but somehow that doesn鈥檛 factor into this environmental assessment,鈥� said Sinclair. 鈥淚f we entered into an agreement with Mercosur 鈥� we鈥檇 be sanctioning (and) legitimizing those practices.鈥�
This is especially true as the environmental assessment skirts around the direct relationship between the Brazilian government鈥檚 policies and deforestation and fires driven by agriculture and cattle ranching.
Instead, it frames the environmental devastation as a technological problem that free trade between Canada and the Mercosur region could help solve by 鈥渂roaden(ing) farmers鈥� access to new tools (and) enable(ing) a reduction in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.鈥� That鈥檚 a baseless claim in light of Brazil鈥檚 current political, social and economic situation, Fick said. Nor is it the only red flags she sees in the document.
鈥淭he trade and Indigenous Peoples chapter is particularly worrying and disconnected from reality,鈥� she said.
The document states that the agreement would 鈥渁cknowledge鈥� the need for Indigenous people and businesses to benefit from the proposed deal and does not include any mention of the current situation for Indigenous people in the country.
Still, the deal is not yet complete.
鈥淭here have been no new negotiations since last year鈥檚 forest fire season in the Amazon. In any potential future negotiations on an investment chapter for a Mercosur free trade agreement, Canada would reaffirm our right to regulate to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as respect for Indigenous peoples, and the protection of the environment,鈥� said a spokesperson for the office of Mary Ng, minister of small business, international trade, and export promotion in an email.
鈥淚ndigenous leaders in Brazil are warning that the conditions (in the Amazon) threaten their survival 鈥� as land grabbers move into their lands, violence increases and the government refuses to recognize their rights,鈥� Fick explained.
The assessment also only considers the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian companies that might result from increased trade with the region, not the overall rise in emissions from pre-existing trade arrangements or deforestation and forest fires in Brazil. Sinclair explained that such a narrow focus 鈥� standard practice for these kinds of environmental assessments 鈥� makes it possible to avoid the thornier environmental issues. And it also misses the point.
鈥淚t misses the big picture. It doesn鈥檛 look at the impacts of a free trade agreement as an institutional framework that鈥檚 destroying the Amazon rainforest in Brazil,鈥� he said.
