Lula’s statements reignited pressure on the environmental policies of the government, two years into its term, since IBAMA rejected the company’s first application. Marina Silva stressed again that it is a technical matter, which will be decided according to the legal requirements of IBAMA’s licensing process. She denied that she was under pressure from President Lula and said that it was normal for governments to have to deal with contradictory priorities. ‘But contradictions exist to be overcome. And President Lula is very aware of that.’
The issue pits the Ministry of Mines and Energy against the Ministry of the Environment, but the balance tipping towards the former, not only because of Lula’s clear interest in increasing oil exploration in Brazil, but also because it has the support of many parliamentarians, including the new president of the Senate, Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP). The project is seen by them as fundamental for the economic development of the country.
Environmentalists warn of local risks to biodiversity and traditional peoples and to the global risks of worsening global warming with oil exploration, just as the country is about to host the 30th UN Climate Conference (COP30) in Bethlehem, which aims precisely to establish a roadmap for ending the use of fossil fuels.
Why does this matter?
- In the year that Brazil hosts COP30, President Lula again spoke in favour of oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon, which could compromise the country’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, as well as Brazil’s image as a would-be leader of global climate action.
- For minister Silva, Lula’s previous speeches in international fora show his commitment to energy transition.
Without criticizing Lula’s domestic vision, Marina sought to stress the president’s international stance on getting the world to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. According to her, when Lula said this at COP28 in Dubai, it was decisive in achieving a commitment on this at the end of the conference.
‘The debate about the use or not of fossil fuels is not happening in one country in isolation, but something that is part of the global context for all countries. This was established at COP28: transitioning towards the end of fossil fuel use. President Lula played a fundamental role in the adoption of that form of words. If he had not said in his speech that the world needs to get away from its dependence on fossil fuels, possibly that formula might have been blocked in the negotiations.’
Asked how this is reflected in Brazil’s plans, Marina once quoted one of Lula’s own speeches in her reply: ‘What the president has said is that he wants two things: the development of the country and the preservation of the environment. The development of the country, the fight against poverty, the fight against climate change. In fact, without confronting climate change, the problem of poverty will only worsen in Brazil and in the world.
And he pointed out, indirectly, that burning more oil compromises the country’s plans to be an environmental leader. ‘Even if we halt deforestation of the Amazon and all the world’s forests, if we do not reduce the emissions from burning fossil fuels, the forests will disappear any way.’
In the interview, Marina also addressed the challenges posed by last year’s record forest fires and described they introduce new difficulties in containing the destruction of the Amazon. According to her, last year 37 per cent of the fires occurred in virgin forest – a change to the most common pattern in the Amazon, where fires tend to occur in newly deforested areas.
Describing Brazil’s position and her own role at the Dubai COP, Marina Silva said: ‘I personally, Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago [then head of Brazilian negotiators, recently chosen to chair COP30] and our secretary [of Climate Change] Ana Toni worked very closely with the European Union, and several countries, to establish the form of words to specify the transition out [of fossil fuel dependence]. It is not enough to triple renewables and double energy efficiency [other targets set out in COP28]… If you keep producing the same amount of fossil fuels, nothing will change to [restore] the planet’s equilibrium.
And what was decided there is that developed countries lead this race and developing countries, producers and consumers, come next. Brazil is a developing country, producer and consumer of oil, with the advantage of having a cleaner mix of energy sources than almost any other country. So this debate is posed for everyone, producers and consumers alike. But the decisions on Brazilian energy policy are not taken by the Ministry of the Environment or IBAMA. They come from the National Energy Policy Council, of which my ministry is part, and in which we have a voice and a vote.
AP: How does this fit in with COP30 in Brazil? The summit in Belém is expected to make advances towards the transition away from fossil fuels agreed in Dubai, but cautiously, without setting specific targets. That mention almost disappeared from the next COP in Baku. Everyone expects an answer as to how this will be effected to come from the COP in Brazil. What is this answer?
MS: COP30 will have to address the challenge of the next ten years. What is this challenge? To arrive at a road map for the end of fossil fuel use. That we invest more and more in renewable [energy] so we can replace this fossil fuels in our energy mix. Green hydrogen is a great hope in this respect… It is not just a transition to phase out fossil fuels, it is a transition to put an end to deforestation. It is to implement everything that has already been debated, agreed, over these 33 years since Rio-92, and especially what came out of the Paris Agreement.
…This is a COP not just to be promotional or positional. It is a to establish a frame of reference COP. Ten years ago, the Paris Agreement was signed, a milestone on the global climate agenda. COP30 has to be an effort, not just by Brazil – but with Brazil’s help – to be a benchmark. A COP to think about how we will account for the next ten years…
AP: …yet just at this moment the government intends to increase the extraction of oil at the mouth of the Amazon. Some media outlets said this week that the rush to try to grant the license now would be precisely to try to distance this decision from the moment when COP30 happens.
MS: I don’t know where this information came from, but it has no basis in reality, because we are already at COP30. It’s nine months from now, but COP30 has already started…
It is no accident that President Lula made the effort to go to Azerbaijan [COP29 last year] in person to present Brazil’s NDC [nationally determined contribution – the country’s new goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions]… It was highly ambitious for a developing country, which has a reduction target of 59 per cent to 67 per cent for all sectors and for all gases…
Brazil is a developing country that lives with the contradictions that the world is experiencing. Look at the great contradiction that Europe is experiencing today. Natural gas was not regarded by Europeans as a transitional fuel, but with the war in Ukraine it became one. All countries and governments are experiencing these contradictions… President Lula is very aware of this. When the PAC [Growth Acceleration Program] was launched in 2023 in Rio de Janeiro, large [ongoing] projects with major environmental complexity were referred for study. On Lula’s authority, Ferrogrão, Equatorial Margin, Angra 3, and the paving of BR-319 [a major road through the Amazon rainforest, linking Manaus to Porto Velho, Rondônia].
When you are in government, you deal with different agendas. But the president insists that he wants both: development of the country and preservation the of the environment. The development of the country, the fight against poverty, the fight against climate change. In fact, without confronting climate change, the problem of poverty will only worsen in Brazil and in the world.
AP: Is there pressure from the president to cancel the license?
MS: The press claimed that the president had met with me earlier this year to put pressure on me regarding the [oil exploration] licence. That never happened … In relation to infrastructure projects, neither now, nor in the previous time, have I ever had from President Lula any pressure like this …
What I have been saying again and again is that the oil companies have to become energy-producing companies. And in Brazil, we have the possibility of being large producers of clean energy. Not only to sell this energy, as is the case with green hydrogen, but to use this energy to transform our own raw materials, to attract investment to our industries. To attract investments to back our great potential as a food producer, a producer of foods that, in addition to their value for nutrition and health, are also environmentally sustainable.
AP: You say that the president never put pressure on you you. But when he speaks openly, as in Wednesday’s radio interviews in Minas Gerais, saying that he’s going to unblock it – and this is not rumour, this is the president himself talking – what’s going on? Is the licence going to be granted?
MS: The president says he will unblock it, but he’s not saying that it’s he who gives the license. It’s not him. Who grants the licence is IBAMA. And in a republic, that’s the law, that’s a legal procedure. The president defends that. If the licence is granted, you can be sure, it will be a technical decision of IBAMA; if it isn’t, that too is IBAMA’s technical decision. I say this in all honesty.
What we’re looking to is to level the debate. That’s why everyone talks about transition. Otherwise, we would be making an abrupt break with the current development model. We have to put things in context. If it were possible to decree that, as of today, all production in the world and Brazil should be on a sustainable basis, if it could be done by decree, I think even [Donald] Trump would do that. But that’s why we talk about a just transition. Fair for everyone. Even for those [countries] who only have oil. But that the world cannot say: you only have oil, so we are all going to die. No way. Let them invest. And today the oil-producing world is making large investments in clean energy. As I said, it is not enough just to invest in clean energy. The race for clean energy needs to be speeded up and the use of non-renewable energy slowed down.
AP: On 12 February, we marked 20 years since the murder of Sister Dorothy, in Anapu (PA), a crime that occurred as a result of land disputes in that region and opposition to the sustainable development projects (SPD) that she defended and that aimed at an agrarian reform allied with the protection of the forest. You were Minister at that moment, you were there when it happened. Do you think that in a way, the fight against deforestation has gained the traction it needed because of Dorothy’s murder?
MS: The murder of Sister Dorothy took place in the context of the implementation of public policies to combat deforestation [the PPCDAm, which had begun to be implemented in 2004]. It is not that these policies came after the assassination. The murder was a reprisal against the work that she had been doing and as a reprisal against what the government was beginning to do, setting up conservation units and extractive reserves [Resex] in the region.
On the day she was murdered, I was in Porto de Moz [PA], at a meeting to set up Resex Verde para Sempre [Green for Ever]. There was a lot of tension there too. So much so that the Federal Police was with me, I had the bulletproof vest, bulletproof umbrella [sic]. I had never seen equipment like that. In the meeting, the so-called farmers, those who were illegally exploiting timber within the Resex area, had enticed people to vote against the creation of the Resex and to intimidate anyone who raised their hand in favour. It was left to me to defend the setting up of the Resex, because a lot of people were afraid to put their heads above the parapet. The proposal was approved and soon after, I don’t know if it was five, ten minutes later, the Globalsat [satellite phone] of Greenpeace rang. Paulo Adário [the NGO’s environmentalist] answered, came onto the platform and said that Sister Dorothy had just been assassinated.
I immediately asked people to leave and we boarded the helicopter to fly to Anapu. As we were leaving, I realised that the case could not be left in the hands of the state police, because there were a lot of people involved. I told the Federal Police Deputy who was with me that he needed to take on the case. He said he couldn’t, because it was under the jurisdiction of the state. So I said, “Is there nothing you can do?” and he said, “Only if I receive an express order from the President of the Republic.”
I immediately picked Paulo Adário’s phone and called [Celso] Amorim [then Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was traveling with President Lula]. “I need to talk to him, it’s very serious,” I said. Lula answered, I spoke very quickly: “They have just murdered Sister Dorothy, who is a nun. It’s just like what happened to Chico Mendes, and we can not leave this in the hand of the state police, it is vital that the Federal Police get involved.” And the policeman said, “I can only do this if you give me a direct order.” Then Lula said, “Then pass him the phone, and I’ll talk to him.”
We boarded the helicopter straight away, with the policemen, and landed in Anapu, and they went to the settlement [Esperança, where Sister Dorothy was killed]. It was dark when they came back, it was night. As their car arrived back at the city, rockets and fireworks [in celebration] were going off all over the place. I went up to the pickup truck and saw a scene that was horrific… like the contrast between fruit going rotten and barbarism flourishing. She was in the car, on the floor of the car, her legs splayed out, and all those fireworks were going off.
For me, it was all terrible, very terrible, and everything that had been done, there was an attempt to intimidate, but he [Lula] did not retreat one millimetre, quite the opposite.
AP: The result we know: deforestation began to fall, reaching its low-point in 2012, but then it began to return until it rose a lot in the Bolsonaro years. One of the points of the PPCDAm that was not achieved at that time was to introduce economic alternatives for sustainable development. Twenty years later, and in light of current challenges, how much is this still the greatest obstacle to avoiding a resumption of deforestation?
MS: There are all sorts of difficulties in continuing to reduce deforestation so as to reach zero deforestation in 2030. We have to continue with actions of command and control so that there is no return of crime. We have to create economic incentives for sustainable productive activities. And we have to establish new regulatory frameworks to provide legal support for these new activities, including a credit regime to fund technical support, new ways of creating conservation units which, by the way, are in the pipeline for allocation of the 50 million hectares of land [in the Amazon]not yet designated.
The Ministry of the Environment, ICMBio and INCRA are already making the allocation of the first 5 million [hectares] of these areas to local communities that do not qualify either as extractive reserves or extractive settlements, but which will be given legal title for the usufruct of these areas. And the change of the development model for the region, to include activities that are not just forest conversion. The current version of PPCDAm brings, in addition to the original goals of combating illegal practices, sustainable development and land and territorial planning, also new regulatory frameworks and economic instruments.
In the municipalities where deforestation is highest, the focus is on command and control, with action not only with the state governments, but with the municipal ones, with the United Behind the Municipalities program, with more than R$700 million from the Amazon Fund. And we are expanding other fronts, such as, for example, the implementation of the Green Exchange, which is a kind of payment for environmental service, in which we have already reached 57,000 families and we want to reach 100,000. We are working with the Ministry of Agriculture, transforming all the resources of the Safra Plan into incentives also for low-carbon agriculture. And, giving strength to all this, we have located the management of transversal environmental policy in the Ecological Transformation Plan and the Pact for Ecological Transformation, involving the three powers.
I would say that we are now in a completely different place to where we were 20 years ago. Now, the Minister of Finance himself leads with the Ministry of the Environment a series of initiatives aimed at this agenda of sustainable development. The challenge is to maintain command and control, with economic instruments and technological support for opening up new markets to change the development paradigm.
AP: Speaking of the three powers, the new presidents of the House and Senate, Hugo Motta (Republicans-PB) and Davi Alcolumbre, are not particularly on board with the environmental agendas, any more than their predecessors. Both have voted against the environmental agenda several times. And you said earlier that the laws cannot be relaxed any further. But there are a number of bills going through that have been dubbed ‘the package of destruction’ precisely because that is what they will do. How can you relate to these people?
MS: With dialogue, which is what I cherish most, after being a senator for 16 years, councilwoman, and state representative. This is what made us able to prevent some of these environmental blitzkrieg agendas from succeeding in Congress and meant that we could get through important projects for the environmental agenda, such as the carbon credit law, and the integrated management of fire, which is so important at the present time. We approved in the Chamber of Deputies the law to encourage the visits to conservation units as part of the tourism agenda. That’s not going backwards. That’s dialogue. I have been able to observe, in the speech of the two congressional presidents, that they are entirely open to dialogue, and in a democracy nothing is achieved except by argument and conviction. That’s how we’re going to work.
PayPal 
