Some politicians have been suggesting that a consensus has been reached among different stakeholders supporting the modification on the Brazilian Forest Code. But is saying that a bonafide consensus has been reached among all parties involved really true?

To answer that question, we must look at how politicians have been conceptualizing this issue of the Brazilian Forest Code. They are positioning themselves on the economics and politician interests side of this issue, and are strongly aligned with and influenced by agribusiness.

Thereby, their conclusions aren’t neutral. When they say there’s a consenseus, it’s a consensus among only those that are already are aligned with the economic side of this issue. This type of “consensus” is not a win- win for all parties involved, but rather it clearly favors one side of the issue, leaving some to benefit and some to bear the costs of this perspective.

It’s important to remember that many don’t know of the disastrous consequences originated by the Code modifications, and when the issue is just painted as merely an economic one, the significant environmental consequences of the issue often get overlooked.
It’s not uncommon for politicians to boil down a complex issue to one specific point of contention to make it appear like a simple black-and-white problem to solve. This oversimplifying can be a dangerous practice indeed.

Environmental issues are systemic, interconnected, interdependent, and are not linear. So, to try to understand them as predictable systems with easy solutions to problems is unrealistic at best and potentially a very harmful practice that could threaten the very health of  natural systems.

If politicians want to be serious about protecting nature, they need to start addressing these issues in a way that really respects the true complexities of them. It’s a fact that total consensus on the Forest Code is probably never is going to happen. However, it seems like admitting a true consensus has not currently been met is a good place to start. Our time would be better used educating people about the true complexities of the matter so that we can start making more educated decisions about whether or not we support the modifications to the Brazilian Forest Code.