Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Behind Mato Grosso’s Ecological Socioeconomic Zoning (ESZ)
The government’s technical staff conducted a series of studies to come up with a viable proposal for ZSEE.
The study took 20 years and cost R$35 million to the public purse.
It was taken to the Legislative Assembly in 2008 and opened up to public consultation in the same year.
Michele Sato [Ph.D. in Environmental Education]: What was the result? We took part in every single official meeting,
we presented our proposal in every single official meeting. So, why wasn’t it taken into consideration?
Narrador: The discussion about the state’s ESZ was carried out in fifteen regions, which enabled the community to present thousands of proposals.
Domingos Sávio [public attorney]: It’s not a big surprise for me. I used to say: “Look, that will come to nothing. In the end, the deputies will meet in an office and they will decide about the areas, the ways, the categories.
They will come to a one-way decision in an office. And they will try to force it down our throats”. Everything was a bluff.
Narrador: Ecological Socioeconomic Zoning: the society has helped to bring it forth. Mato Grosso is thankful for that. Legislative Assembly. Citizens House.
Narrador 2: Last year, in December, the deputy Alexandre César, rapporteur of the special committee on zoning, prepared a report based on the analisis of the government’s technical staff and society’s proposals given in the public consultations.
The report was called Amendment 1, which was presented in December 19th, 2009.
Laurent Micol [ICV’s executive coordinator in Mato Grosso]: We did some calculations to see how the Amendment 1 would address the legal reserve liabilities issue.
The Amendment 1 would solve it a hundred percent. Eighty percent would be accomplished with the easing of fifty percent in the already consolidated areas.
One measure would solve the state’s issue concerning the legal reserve liabilities. The remaining twenty percent would be solved by the creation of preservation units. So the Amendment 1 would solve the problem of legal reserve.
But it wasn’t enough.
Narrador 2: The deputy Dilceu Dal Bosco, chairman of the committee, got dissatisfied with the rapporteur’s report and required a new study, which was done in three months and didn’t take into account any technical support or society’s proposal.
The Amendment 2 was presented in March 3rd, 2010.
Michele Sato: They hired a consultant. He was in of the meetings... I guess he was just a name.
João Andrade [eco-economist]: It seems to me that they didn’t think it through. They thought about it in the short term.
Narrador 2: The new proposal was done well away from the public eye and had serious technical inconsistencies, like legislating over indigenous lands.
The deputies met behind the scenes and then came to public saying that there was a new amendment.
The new document, the result of that meeting, was presented in March 30th, twenty-seven days after the presentation of the Amendment 2, and it’s not available on the Assembly’s website yet.
The new amendment was approved by the special committee and the CCJ [Constitution and Justice Commission].
The vote would happen in the next morning.
Without fuss
Saguas Morais: Alexandre’s report was the amendment to that original bill of the state government. I have some difficulty in voting for this report, so I vote against the report the way it is. Thank you very much.
The only deputy who voted against the bill
The press thought that the bill was still in the CCJ. But the chairman and the rapporteur had already collected the signatures.
Besides, the special committee’s chairman, who approved the Amendment 3, and the CCJ’s chairman, who considered the constitution of the bill,
were the same person.
Presidente da mesa: Those in favor must remain seated. Those opposed must express their vote. The zoning has been approved in the second vote. The text will be edited with one vote against, which has been given by the deputy Saguas.
Keka Wernek [Journalist]: I thought there wasn’t information in the media. And I don’t know how to say exactly what’s the reason for that difficulty in providing the information.
Téo Meneses [Journalist]: There was no fuss over the vote. When we got the news, it [the bill] had already been approved. Differently of past issues, there wasn’t advance notice.
If you ask many deputies... They still don’t know. They don’t know what amendments went through or how the approved text is.
Narrador 2: Now the bill can be sactioned or vetoed by the governor of Mato Grosso, Silval Barbosa.
In case of being sactioned, the bill goes to the special committee on zoning of the federal government and then to the Conama [National Council for Environment], in Brasília.
Laurent Micol: The special committee’s director has already said more than once that the Amendment 3 doesn’t fulfill the criteria. Conama is a council which has representation in society.
Domingos Sávio: Even if the governor vetoes the bill, it will be a make-believe veto, because he won’t do the work of sustaining his veto among his party and its allies.
He will veto the bill and, then, he will allow them to do whatever they want to do. This sort of concession will overturn his veto. I know its details well.
Michele Sato: Now I think it’s the same thing. They expect us to go there and demonstrate against the bill. So the governor will use his veto and they will override it.
João Andrade: Society calls for it, but in two years the producers of Mato Grosso will be compelled to comply with the laws by the international market.
They will have to base their production on requirements. And the zoning is one of them.
The bill won’t be accepted. The truth is that we won’t have zoning in Mato Grosso. The work will have to be done again.
Domingos Sávio: if the bill is rejected, we will have to do the whole process again. Unfortunately, we will lose all the work that has been done before.
Michele Sato: It’s shameful this going back and forth. Everything will have to start over.