Diego Trindade D´Ávila Magalhães
Laís Forti Thomaz
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira
(Organizers)
EUROPEAN UNION
AND BRAZIL
Innovative and Sustainable
Strategies for Cooperation
Diego Trindade , Laís Forti e Marcelo Fernandes (Org.)
EUROPEAN UNION AND BRAZIL
EUROPEAN UNION
AND BRAZIL
Innovative and Sustainable
Strategies for Cooperation
Marília/University Workshop
São Paulo/Academic Culture
2025
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães
Laís Forti Thomaz
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira
(Organizers)
EUROPEAN UNION
AND BRAZIL
Innovative and Sustainable
Strategies for Cooperation
Affiliate publisher:
Academic Culture is the publishing imprint of UNESP Publishing
University Office is the publishing imprint of UNESP - Marília campus
Copyright © 2025, Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências
CIP – Catalogin-in-Publication
E89 European Union and Brazil : innovative and sustainable strategies for cooperation / Diego
Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz, Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira
(organizers). – Marília : Oficina Universitária ; São Paulo : Cultura Acadêmica, 2025.
86 p. : il.
Support: European Union, Jean Monnet Chair at UFG
Includes bibliography
ISBN 978-65-5954-581-0 (Print)
ISBN 978-65-5954-580-3 (Digital)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36311/2025.978-65-5954-580-3
1. European Union. 2. Brazil. 3. International cooperation. 4. Sustainability. 5.
Environmental protection. I. Magalhães, Diego Trindade D’Ávila. II. omaz , Laís Forti. III.
Oliveira, Marcelo Fernandes de.
CDD 327.17
Telma Jaqueline Dias Silveira – Librarian – CRB 8/7867
is work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License.
Director
Dra. Ana Clara Bortoleto Nery
Vice-Director
Dra. Cristiane Rodrigues Pedroni
Editorial Board
Mariângela Spotti Lopes Fujita (Presidente)
Célia Maria Giacheti
Cláudia Regina Mosca Giroto
Edvaldo Soares
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira
Marcos Antonio Alves
Neusa Maria Dal Ri
Renato Geraldi (Assessor Técnico)
Rosane Michelli de Castro
Cover and back cover image
Cairo José Alves Guimarães
Translator
Marcel Jacobus de Weert
International Cataloguing in Publication Data
Scientific Council
Angélica Szucko (Pontifícia Universidade Javeriana
e UnB)
Carlos Gustavo Martins Hoelzel (UFG)
Diego Trindade D'Ávila Magalhães (UFG)
Drielli Peyerl (University of Amsterdam)
Ema Cláudia Ribeiro Pires (Universidade de Évora,
UE, Portugal e UFG)
Laís Forti omaz (UFG e Ministério de Minas e
Energia)
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (UNESP)
Noemia Ramos Vieira (UNESP)
Roberto Goulart Menezes (UnB)
Translation of the book: "União Europeia e Brasil:
Estratégias Inovadoras e Sustentáveis para
Cooperação"
Campus de Marília
Table of contents
7Introduction
Laís Forti omaz
13 e European Union and Brazil: a brief analysis of the application
of articial intelligence in environmental protection and its global
impacts
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira e Victória Eduarda Flauzino
29 Environmental regulation strategies as a basis for the agricultural
trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur
José Neto Cassiano de Camargo e Karla Emmanuela Ribeiro Hora
41 Climate Governance in Perspective: a Comparison between
Brazilian and Spanish Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Policies
Diego Tarley Ferreira Nascimento e Javier Martín-Vide
55 About the European Union’s Deforestation Regulation:
Sustainability Policy or Economic Protectionism?
Filipe Prado Macedo da Silva
67 Sustainable Transformation: e role of INYAGA/UFRJ in the
Brazil-Eu connection
Kelyane Silva, Fabiana dos Santos e Souza Frickmann,
alissa Pádua Gilaberte, Eliane Ribeiro Pereira,
Ana Paula Sperling Mendes, Antônio José Barbosa de Oliveira,
Rosário Mauritti, Vicente Antônio de Castro Ferreira e
Rodrigo Antunes Malvar Hermida
79 Final Considerations
Diego Trindade d’Ávila Magalhães
83 Authors’ Mini Biographies
7
Introduction
is book seeks to provide a comprehensive in-depth reflection
on cooperation between the European Union (EU) and Brazil,
especially in the field of sustainability and environmental governance.
Although the project is funded by the European Union, the views and
opinions expressed here are the authors’ alone and do not necessarily
reflect those of the European Union. e work explores, through
different contributions, the complex political, economic and scientific
relationships that shape the environmental policies of these two regional
blocs. At the heart of these discussions, the Jean Monnet Chair (JMC) at
the Federal University of Goiás (UFG) has presented itself as a structure
that pursues the innovation and integration of academic knowledge and
public policies, thus creating practical solutions to global challenges,
with a focus on promoting sustainability.
e first chapter, “European Union and Brazil: a brief analysis of the
application of artificial intelligence in environmental protection and its
global impacts”, by Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira and Victória Eduarda
Flauzin, deals with one of the most innovative tools in the fight for
environmental protection: artificial intelligence (AI). e authors discuss
how the EU has used AI to monitor and mitigate environmental problems
such as deforestation, pollution and climate change, using technologies
https://doi.org/10.36311/2025.978-65-5954-580-3.p7-11
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
8
like satellite monitoring, predictive modeling and real-time data analysis.
e research highlights how these technologies can be applied in Brazil
and how, through closer cooperation, it is possible to transform these
tools into solutions for the country’s environmental challenges. In a global
scenario where environmental denialism is gaining traction, especially
with the rise of political movements like the one led by Donald Trump, the
contribution of AI has become crucial. e chapter discusses the interaction
between the practices of the European Union and the possibility of these
serving as a model for Brazil, with an emphasis on the global impact of
such innovations. e JMC-UFG fits into this context, as its objective is
to promote exactly this type of integration of scientific knowledge with
public policies, while expanding international collaboration.
e second chapter, “Environmental Regulatory Strategies as a Basis
for the Agricultural Trade Agreement Involving the European Union and
Mercosur”, by José Neto Cassiano de Camargo and Karla Emmanuela
Ribeiro Hora, delves deeper into the impact of environmental policies on
the negotiation of the trade agreement between the European Union and
Mercosur. e study reveals how the EU has introduced environmental
provisions into trade negotiations, with the aim of ensuring that products
imported into Europe do not come from degraded or deforested areas.
is approach reflects a growing concern for sustainability, but also reveals
the tensions that arise due to the different economic and social realities
of the countries involved. is chapter discusses how Brazil may benefit
from strengthening its environmental policies through these negotiations,
especially with regard to the monitoring of protected areas and the inclusion
of new actors in environmental regulation. Within the scope of the
JMC-UFG, the analysis of how the European Union uses environmental
practices and regulations in its foreign policy becomes even more relevant.
e JMC-UFG aims to study these commercial and political dynamics, in
order to understand how EU best practices can be applied in the Brazilian
context, while promoting the development of sustainable solutions and
the adaptation of local policies to global demands.
Chapter three, “Climate Governance in Perspective: A Comparison
between Brazilian and Spanish Policies for Climate Adaptation and
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
9
Mitigation,” by Diego Tarley Ferreira Nascimento and Javier Martín-
Vide, offers a comparative analysis of Brazil and Spain’s respective climate
policies, with a focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation. e
analysis reveals that, although both countries face similar challenges,
there are important lessons to be learned. Spain, with its consolidated
experience in regional and local climate policies, offers a model that can
be adapted by Brazil, especially with regard to the integration of local,
regional, and national spheres in climate governance. e authors suggest
that Brazil, inspired by Spanish practices, could more effectively integrate
its climate governance policies, thus ensuring climate finance and social
justice, as well as facilitating an inclusive and sustainable energy transition.
In this context, the JMC-UFG has encouraged the debate on climate
governance, promoting an exchange of experiences and the development
of public policies that are both effective and adaptable to local realities.
e training of students and researchers through undergraduate courses,
events and workshops, and the Climathon itself, as proposed by the JMC-
UFG, constitutes an effective strategy for engaging society and public
policymakers in the process of adapting international best practices to the
Brazilian reality.
e fourth chapter, “On the European Union’s Deforestation
Regulation: Sustainability Policy or Economic Protectionism?”, by Filipe
Prado Macedo da Silva, examines the new ‘Regulation on Products Not
Associated with Deforestation’ of the European Union, included in the
European Green Deal. e analysis details the impact of this regulation on
global trade, questioning whether it represents a true sustainability policy
or a form of economic protectionism, especially in relation to Brazil, one
of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products. e regulation
aims to ensure that products imported into the EU are not associated
with deforestation practices, through a rigorous system of monitoring and
tracking of supply chains. e chapter discusses the challenges for Brazil,
but also points out opportunities, provided there is a joint effort to improve
traceability and transparency in agricultural practices. Along these lines,
the JMC-UFG seeks to assess the impact of international regulations and
how they can be implemented effectively in Brazil. erefore, integration
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
10
of European and Brazilian sustainable policies is one of the main lines of
action of the JMC-UFG, which promotes a dialogue between academics,
the government and civil society in order to apply these practices.
Finally, chapter five, “Sustainable Transformation: e Role of
INYAGA/UFRJ in the Brazil-European Union Connection”, by Kelyane
Silva, Fabiana dos Santos e Souza Frickmann, alissa Pádua Gilaberte,
Eliane Ribeiro Pereira, Ana Paula Sperling Mendes, Antônio José Barbosa
de Oliveira, Rosário Mauritti, Vicente Antônio de Castro Ferreira and
Rodrigo Antunes Malvar Hermida, highlights the work of Inyaga, a
socio-environmental impact incubator at the Federal University of Rio
de Janeiro (UFRJ). Inyaga is a concrete example of how innovation and
sustainability can be incorporated into the academic environment and
engage both the public and private sectors. e chapter explores how
the collaboration between the UFRJ and ISCTE (University Institute of
Lisbon) has generated significant results in terms of scientific research,
social innovation projects and the development of sustainable solutions.
Inyaga acts as a link between Brazil and the European Union, promoting
the exchange of knowledge and experiences and contributing to the
formation of an innovation ecosystem that integrates sustainability. e
role of the JMC-UFG in supporting this international collaboration is
reflected in its commitment to training students, academics and other
stakeholders and, as such, prepare them to apply the EU’s sustainability
practices in the Brazilian context.
e JMC-UFG has set a goal to integrate knowledge acquired
in the different chapters and transform it into concrete action. By
promoting the exchange of knowledge between Brazil and the European
Union, and by supporting the adaptation of European policies to the
Brazilian context, the organ not only contributes to the construction of
a more sustainable future, but also trains the next generation of leaders
and experts in environmental governance and sustainable innovation.
Its main purpose is to build a bridge between the two realities, helping
to create solutions for shared global challenges like combating climate
change and preserving ecosystems.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
11
is work, together with other activities developed by the JMC-
UFG, represents an attempt to deepen and expand cooperation between
the European Union and Brazil, not only in the academic field, but also
in the political, economic and social spheres, with the aim of promoting a
transition to a greener and more sustainable global economy.
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the authors of
this book, whose dedication and intellectual input form the foundation
of this project. We also thank the scientific committee and the organizing
committee of the seminar who, through their commitment and
competence, made this event an important milestone in the dissemination
of knowledge. Furthermore, we extend our gratitude to Editora UNESP -
Cultura Acadêmica, represented by Prof. Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira,
for their indispensable partnership and support. Finally, we thank everyone
who contributed directly or indirectly to the activities of the JMC-UFG
from 2023 to 2025. Without the collective effort and commitment of each,
we could not have achieved the proposed objectives and achievements of
this academic journey.
Laís Forti omaz
Coordinator of the Jean Monnet Chair at UFG
12
13
e European Union and Brazil:
a brief analysis of the application of artificial intelligence
in environmental protection and its global impacts
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira
Victória Eduarda Flauzino
Abstract: is research explores the potential of using artificial intelligence (AI) in
environmental protection. It investigates how third sector institutions, government
agencies and private corporations have implemented these technologies for ecological
purposes in the European Union, and how they might be applied in Brazil. e study
sought to understand how AI can be used to monitor and mitigate environmental
problems, including deforestation, pollution and climate change, through techniques like
real-time data analysis, satellite monitoring and predictive modeling. Furthermore, the
research analyzed the impact of these initiatives on the relations between the European
Union and Brazil, and how the production and application of AI technologies can
influence global regulations and guidelines in a context of rising environmental denialism
during Donald Trump’s second term as president of the United States.
Keywords: European Union-Brazil; artificial intelligence; environmental protection; and
global impacts
IntroductIon
Artificial intelligence (AI) has already become part of contemporary
society, impacting various sectors of daily life. Generative AI tools
exemplify the transformative potential of these technologies, by providing
near-human interactions and innovative solutions to complex problems
like environmental issues.
https://doi.org/10.36311/2025.978-65-5954-580-3.p13-27
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
14
Generative AI is designed to create new content, using advanced
models to produce texts, images, music and various data autonomously. It
is capable of simulating human creativity and create new content that can
be used in various contexts, including environmental protection.
With this in mind, the private sector has been investing heavily
in the development and improvement of AI algorithms. e report
“Global Artificial Intelligence Study: Exploiting the AI Revolution”, by
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) projects global investment in AI at US$
15.7 trillion by 2030. is magnitude of investment indicates that AI will
become a centerpiece in the innovation and sustainable growth strategies
of corporations seeking competitive advantage.
Nevertheless, the application of AI in the public sector to date has
been slow. is research aims to help fill this gap, mainly by exploring the
potential of using AI for environmental purposes. In this sense, we seek to
understand how this technology can be applied to monitor and mitigate
environmental problems, such as deforestation, pollution and climate
change, using real-time data analysis, satellite monitoring and predictive
modeling. e research will also examine the impact of these initiatives on
global environmental regulations and guidelines, and was carried out in
light of the Philosophy of Information.
As for the structure, section one presents the employed methodology.
Next, we demonstrate the quantitative results obtained from surveys of public
opinion on environmental issues using the Brand24 tool. e third section
addresses the theoretical foundations of the Philosophy of Information that
underpins this study. In the fourth section, we report on the experiences of
the European Union (EU) in using AI for environmental protection and
its potential for application in other parts of the world, more specifically in
developing countries like Brazil. Finally, our conclusions are presented.
1. Methodology
e qualitative approach of this research was chosen for its
suitability in exploring the impacts of AI on environmental protection
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
15
and its international repercussions. We combined a quantitative analysis,
including statistics on the adoption of AI in environmental practices and
indicators, with a solid theoretical and practical foundation. In summary,
the methodological strategy consists of a literature review complemented
with case studies and quantitative data.
e literature review was carried out in IEEE Xplore and Google
Scholar, where we prioritized scientific articles, systematic reviews
and technical studies related to the application of AI in environmental
protection and its ethical and political implications. e remaining
documentary research focused on reports, official documents, publications
of non-governmental, governmental and business organizations, as well as
international regulations and treaties related to the topic.
e case studies analysis centered around ongoing EU efforts, such
as the Emissions and Pollution Monitoring System; the Environmental
Data Platform; Artificial Intelligence and Water Resource Management;
Data Analytics for Environmental Policy; and Early Warning and
Intervention Systems. All of these are integrated and supported by the
EU’s Copernicus Program.
In terms of quantitative data collection, we used the Brand24 media
monitoring tool to track in real time public opinion and discussions about
the use of AI in environmental protection in the EU and Brazil. is tool
made it possible to identify contemporary trends and debates on social
media, blogs and news sites, thus complementing the academic analysis
with data from public and commercial discourse. e data collected
through Brand24 was triangulated with the results of the bibliographic
and documentary research, ensuring a comprehensive and well-founded
analysis on the issue.
2. results of the data analysIs on Keywords In the Brand24 tool
for the european unIon and BrazIl
e results obtained from the application of the Brand24 media
monitoring tool on public opinion, using the keywords “artificial
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
16
intelligence (AI)” and “environmental preservation” in the context of the
EU and Brazil were:
• 58,369 mentions of the keywords, 19,397 on social media and
38,972 outside those platforms;
• On X, we found 2,358 mentions, while TikTok had 1,665
mentions;
• e remaining mentions occurred on blogs specialized in
technology and the environment, news sites (BBC, CNN,
Reuters), Podcasts (272) and Forums (227).
e reach of the mentions on social media was 144 million people;
outside of these, another 238 million people were reached. Sentiment
analysis of the keyword mentions resulted in:
• Positive sentiment: 5,192 mentions highlighted benefits or
positive impacts of using AI in environmental protection;
• Neutral sentiment: 36,309 mentions; and
• Negative sentiment: 2,868 mentions associated with concerns,
criticisms or problems related to the use of AI in environmental
issues.
e trends identified in the material were: a) increased interest in
the use of AI in sustainability initiatives like monitoring deforestation
and pollution; b) discussions on ethics and privacy in the use of
environmental data collected by AI; and c) expansion of the debate on
the application of AI in environmental conservation projects and the
prediction of natural disasters.
e main emerging themes found were: a) monitoring deforestation
in the Amazon using AI; b) smart city projects that employ AI for urban
environmental monitoring; and c) AI as a tool for predicting natural
disasters and monitoring climate change.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
17
e key actors involved in the discussions are: a) technology companies
(Google, IBM, Microsoft); b) environmental NGOs (Greenpeace, WWF);
c) academic and research institutions; and d) governments and regulatory
agencies (UN, EU, Brazil).
Upon analyzing the collected data, it can be stated that they
demonstrate a clear convergence between the growing use of AI in
environmental monitoring and an increase in the volume of mentions of
this topic. is suggests a growing interest and relevance of the subject,
both in public discussions and in practical initiatives.
e positive sentiment analysis indicates a favorable perception
regarding the use of AI for environmental purposes. e emerging themes
and the main actors involved reflect a growing integration of AI technology
in sustainability and conservation projects, as well as a focus on regulations
and ethical guidelines within the EU.
To contemplate this quantitative content, in the next section
qualitative analysis methods will be used, applied to information on
concepts from the Philosophy of Information, such as ethics, social
implications and human-machine interaction. is analysis will allow for
an in-depth assessment of AI-related practices and policies, highlighting
both the benefits and the ethical and social challenges. Issues such as
data privacy, algorithmic bias and trust in automated decisions will be
briefly examined in light of the ethical principles established by authors
like Floridi (2019) and Ganascia (2010). Human-machine interaction
will be explored to understand how collaboration between humans and AI
systems may be optimized to achieve sustainable and fair environmental
outcomes in both the European and Brazilian contexts.
3. theoretIcal foundatIons
Philosophy of Information is an emerging discipline that seeks to
understand and articulate the role of information in different contexts.
According to Floridi (2019), it investigates the nature of information,
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
18
how it is processed and used, and the ethical and social implications of
these processes. is field of study is essential in analyzing how AI systems
organize and interpret data, and how these interpretations impact society
and the environment.
Ganascia (2010) explored the epistemology of AI from the
perspective of Philosophy of Information, emphasizing that AI should
be considered as an informational phenomenon that interacts with the
human information ecosystem. He argues that AI can transform the way
information is created and used, and that it is essential to adopt an ethical
approach to ensure that this transformation is beneficial and fair.
Information ethics refers to the moral issues that arise in the
collection, use, and dissemination of information, especially involving AI.
is concept encompasses the responsibility to ensure that information is
treated with respect and that AI systems do not perpetuate injustices or
inequalities (Floridi, 2019).
Mittelstadt et al. (2019) and Savin (2020) discussed how
information ethics should guide the development and implementation of
AI technologies, ensuring that they are designed and operated in a manner
that respects privacy, avoids algorithmic bias, and promotes equity.
Algorithmic bias may result in the amplification of existing
inequalities by making decisions based on historical data that reflect
prejudice and social injustice. is is particularly critical in environmental
contexts where the application of AI affects vulnerable communities. For
example, if environmental monitoring systems do not adequately consider
socioeconomic data from local communities, it can result in policies that
inadvertently disadvantage these populations. erefore, it is critical that
AI implementation incorporates mechanisms to identify and correct biases,
thus ensuring that decisions made are fair and equitable.
Regarding data privacy, the collection and analysis of large volumes
of environmental data often involves capturing sensitive information about
human activities, such as consumption patterns and mobility. e way
in which this data is managed, stored and used can significantly impact
individuals’ privacy and data security. Ethical guidelines should ensure that
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
19
data is collected in a transparent manner and with appropriate consent,
and that it is protected against unauthorized access.
Human-machine interaction is a central concept in the Philosophy of
Information, which analyzes how humans and AI systems can collaborate
effectively and ethically. According to Floridi (2019), this interaction
involves not only the use of technologies, but also the co-evolution of
human and artificial capabilities. is collaboration should be designed
to maximize benefits for humans and the environment, promoting an
integration respectful of ethical and social values. e study of human-
machine interaction is crucial to understanding how AI technologies
can be developed and applied in ways that contribute to environmental
protection and social justice.
e advancement of the dimension of AI in environmental protection
requires international support and collaborative partnerships to improve
access to technologies and the development of local human capabilities
in human-machine interaction. erefore, it is crucial to promote global
initiatives for cooperation and technical support, in order to ensure a more
equitable adoption of AI and to achieve the sustainable environmental
goals on a global scale for the benefit of all.
Although philosophical discussions take place with reference to the
practice of using AI in environmental protection, the development of
such technologies has been taken up by the private sector. For example,
the company Planet Labs uses a constellation of satellites to capture high-
resolution images of the Earth and, in conjunction with AI algorithms,
detects changes in vegetation cover with great precision. ese systems allow
for the early identification of illegal deforestation and the implementation
of corrective measures before greater damage occurs (Planet Labs, 2024).
Additionally, Google Earth Engine has been a powerful tool in
environmental analysis, using AI to process large volumes of satellite
data and provide insights into climate change, air quality, and land use
patterns. Studies have shown that integrating AI with satellite data can
significantly improve the ability to predict and mitigate natural disasters
(Google Earth Engine, 2024). Real-time data analysis has also played a
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
20
crucial role in environmental protection. NASA’s Crops in Space system
uses AI to monitor crop health and predict crop failures, providing
valuable data for sustainable natural resource management (NASA,
2024). Another example is Microsoft’s Air Quality Index, which uses AI
to analyze air quality sensor data and predict pollution patterns, allowing
cities to adjust their pollution control policies more effectively (Microsoft,
2024). As we can see, the implementation of AI technologies has the
potential to significantly influence environmental policymaking at the
international level. AI tools are increasingly being used to process large
volumes of data and provide detailed analyses, enabling policymakers to
develop more effective strategies based on empirical data. e problem
is that these solutions are, in most cases, being developed by the private
sector. Moreover, they require significant expenditures that most countries,
including Brazil, cannot afford by themselves. Nonetheless, environmental
protection should be part of a global effort, even though at the beginning
of 2025, Donald Trump’s inauguration as president of the United States
has turned the country into an environmental denier.
Given this twofold difficulty, EU initiatives are becoming even
more relevant to the world and Brazil in particular. is is because the
EU has the economic resources and international political clout to face
the challenges posed by the United States at this historic moment. It is
even generating broader partnerships, including with China. In the next
section, we will present some European experiences of good use of AI for
environmental protection that can be internationalized in the logic of
the Philosophy of Information.
4. the eu’s use of aI for gloBal envIronMental Best practIces
e EU’s Copernicus program uses satellite data combined with
AI algorithms to monitor emissions and air pollution patterns in real
time (Copernicus, 2024). is information has been used to adjust
environmental policies and respond quickly to local and regional crises,
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
21
demonstrating how AI can enable policy decisions with greater precision
(UNFCCC, 2020).
e EU has adopted AI as a strategic tool to strengthen its
sustainability policies and ensure compliance with environmental
regulations. e integration of AI into its policies is evidenced by several
projects and initiatives to effectively monitor and manage environmental
issues. Examples include:
• Emissions and Pollution Monitoring System: e European
Commission has developed advanced AI-based monitoring
systems to track pollutant emissions and air quality in real time.
AI is used to process large volumes of data and provide detailed
information on pollution sources and their impacts (European
Commission, 2024). is allows authorities to respond quickly
to pollution events and adjust control policies according to local
and regional needs.
• Environmental Data Platform: e EU has launched the
European Union Environmental Data Platform, which uses AI
to consolidate and analyze environmental data from different
sources, including sensors, satellites and monitoring reports
(European Environment Agency, 2024). is platform provides
an integrated view of the environmental situation across Europe
and makes it easier to identify areas that are not in compliance
with environmental regulations. AI helps identify patterns and
anomalies that may indicate compliance issues or areas that
require urgent intervention.
• Artificial Intelligence and Water Management: e EU has
implemented AI technologies to monitor water quality and
manage the allocation of water resources. Projects like Horizon
2020 Water-IF use AI to analyze sensor data in real time and
predict potential water-related crises such as droughts and
pollution (Horizon 2020, 2024). is allows for more efficient
resource management and rapid responses to emerging issues.
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
22
• Data Analytics for Environmental Policy: Researchers in
Europe are using advanced technologies like artificial intelligence
in conjunction with contributions from civilian scientists to
monitor and protect threatened habitats and species. ese tools
help track changes in ecosystems and provide valuable data to
support conservation policies (Horizon Magazine – European
Commission, 2025).
As can be seen above, the EU’s use of AI for monitoring and enforcing
environmental regulations demonstrates the potential of technology
to improve environmental governance and promote international
cooperation. is is in line with public opinion on the topic measured in
the quantitative data collection carried out using the Brand24 tool.
e EU’s use of AI in environmental matters is supported by a
network of its own satellites, as well as commercial and public satellite
networks. As part of the Copernicus Program, since the launch of Sentinel-
1a in 2014, the EU will place 20 satellites in orbit by 2030. is is a high-
cost infrastructure that most countries cannot afford (Copernicus, 2024).
In other words, the adoption of AI in environmental policies,
although promising, faces a number of significant challenges in developing
countries, which are often linked to limitations in access, implementation
and technical capacity. ese challenges can create considerable disparities
in the way different countries achieve global environmental goals.
Developing countries like Brazil often face difficulties in accessing
advanced AI technologies due to economic constraints and lack of
infrastructure. e high cost of the necessary equipment and software
can be prohibitive, and many of the most advanced technologies are
developed and maintained by private companies based in developed
countries (ISRO, 2019).
Furthermore, even when technologies are available, the lack of an
adequate infrastructure and human resources can limit their effective
implementation. In Brazil, for instance, a shortage of technology experts
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
23
and a lack of adequate training have prevented a broader and more effective
adoption of AI in environmental policies (Cesar et al., 2021).
ese barriers to accessing and implementing AI may negatively
impact the achievement of global environmental goals. Developing
countries that struggle to adopt and implement AI technologies face
difficulties in monitoring and reducing their greenhouse gas emissions
and managing their natural resources sustainably. e lack of accurate
data and limited capacity to respond to environmental crises can result
in a slower progression towards global goals, exacerbate inequalities and
comprome international efforts to address environmental challenges
(UNFCCC, 2020).
As such, we can state that the implementation of AI in developing
countries faces significant barriers related to costs, infrastructure and
human resources, which can create disparities in the achievement of global
environmental goals. is highlights the need for international support
and collaborative initiatives to ensure a more equitable and effective
adoption of AI technologies.
Against this backdrop, the EU’s Copernicus program can be a model
for the universalization of AI use in environmental protection, notably
Brazil. Studies in the field of Philosophy of Information, specifically the
ethical dimension of information, are of importance here. Copernicus
may well serve as a guide to build a collaborative approach that transcends
national borders, aiming to establish global standards and guidelines that
promote the responsible use of AI for environmental protection.
Initiatives like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and
the Regulation on Artificial Intelligence are important advances in creating
a regulatory framework for the use of AI in various sectors, including
environmental protection. Among other issues, both regulations require
that AI systems be transparent and auditable, promote equity in access
to and application of technology, and that they should not reproduce or
amplify existing inequalities (European Commission, 2021).
Notwithstanding, the implementation of such laws in developing
countries faces significant obstacles. It is therefore up to the EU to make
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
24
efforts from an ethical perspective of information, in a collaborative sense,
with countries that have limited capacities in this area, including Brazil.
conclusIon
is study has revealed the transformative impact of AI on
environmental protection, highlighting its innovative capabilities to
monitor and manage critical issues like deforestation, pollution and climate
change. Satellite technologies and real-time data analysis systems have
enabled more accurate detection and faster responses to environmental
crises. ese advances demonstrate the potential of AI to provide detailed
insights and proactive solutions, improving the global approach to
environmental protection. e integration of AI into the European Union’s
environmental policies, as can be seen within the scope of the Copernicus
Program, is testament to this.
e continued advancement of AI offers new opportunities and
challenges for environmental protection, but also requires constant
vigilance to ensure its ethical and responsible use. e integration of AI with
emerging technologies (quantum computing and big data analysis) can
further expand environmental monitoring and management capabilities.
However, the disparity in access to technology and capacity
to implement it in developing countries raises questions about the
equity of these advances. In this sense, to maximize the benefits of AI
in environmental protection and ensure its ethical and responsible use,
transparency and accountability must be emphasized. Clear guidelines for
the collection, storage and use of data must be implemented, ensuring
that AI systems respect privacy and avoid algorithmic bias. e creation
of regulatory frameworks, such as the European Union’s Regulation on
Artificial Intelligence, can serve as a model, provided they are adapted to
local needs and contexts to promote more inclusive and fair governance.
Additionally, international cooperation is essential to overcome the
barriers faced by developing countries. Initiatives should be expanded to
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
25
include technical and financial support, enabling these countries to adopt
and implement AI technologies effectively. Collaboration should focus on
the transfer of knowledge and resources, promoting the construction of
infrastructure and local human technical know-how. ese actions will
contribute to a more equitable adoption of AI, and a sustainable and
inclusive environmental protection for all.
e collaborative and adaptive approach advocated by the Philosophy
of Information literature will allow for a continuous integration of AI-
based solutions into environmental protection. It is desirable that the EU
becomes a hub for initiatives for the public dissemination and regulation of
AI in overcoming inequalities in access and implementation of technologies
to promote environmental protection. By establishing global standards
and promoting international cooperation, it will be possible to ensure
that AI is used in a fair and inclusive manner, thus contributing to the
achievement of global environmental goals and sustainable development
in all regions of the world.
Both the EU and Brazil have much to gain by cooperating in this type
of initiative. Most of all, to establish a foothold in the geopolitical dispute with
the United States to guarantee the use of AI for environmental protection.
references
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK. Africa’s AI Landscape: Unlocking the
Potential of Artificial Intelligence in Africa. Abidjan: African Development
Bank, 2020.
BOSTROM, Nick. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2014.
BRAND24. Brand Monitoring and Social Listening Tool. Breslávia: Brand24,
2024. Disponível em: https://brand24.com/. Acesso em: 26 jul. 2024.
CESAR, E.; ALMEIDA, R.; SILVA, T. Desafios na implementação da
Inteligência Artificial no Brasil: infraestrutura e capacitação técnica. Revista
Brasileira de Tecnologia e Sustentabilidade, São Paulo, v. 5, n. 3, p. 45-67, 2021.
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
26
COPERNICUS. European Union’s Earth Observation Programme. Bruxelas:
Comissão Europeia, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.copernicus.eu/en.
Acesso em: 26 jul. 2024.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (COM(2021) 202 final).
Bruxelas: Comissão Europeia, 2021.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Climate Report Shows the Largest Annual Drop
in EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Decades. Bruxelas: Comissão Europeia,
2024. Disponível em: https://commission.europa.eu/news/climate-report-
shows-largest-annual-drop-eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-decades-2024-11-05_
pt. Acesso em: 24 jan. 2025.
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. Environmental Data Platform
DataHub. Copenhague: Agência Europeia do Ambiente, 2024. Disponível em:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/datahub?size=n_10_n&filters%5B0%5D%5B-
field%5D=issued.date&filters%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=any&filters%5B0%-
5D%5Bvalues%5D%5B0%5D=All%20time. Acesso em: 24 jan. 2025.
FLORIDI, Luciano. e Ethics of Information. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2019.
GANASCIA, Jean-Gabriel. Epistemology of Artificial Intelligence. Londres:
Routledge, 2010.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. GPAI
Principles. Paris: GPAI, 2021.
GOOGLE EARTH ENGINE. A Planetary-Scale Platform for Earth Science
Data & Analysis. Mountain View: Google, 2024. Disponível em: https://
earthengine.google.com/. Acesso em: 26 jul. 2024.
HORIZON 2020. Water-IF Project: AI for Sustainable Water Management.
Bruxelas: Comissão Europeia, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.h2020.net/.
Acesso em: 24 jan. 2025.
HORIZON MAGAZINE – EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Researchers
combine citizens’ help and cutting-edge tech to track biodiversity. Bruxelas:
Comissão Europeia, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.biodiversity.europa.eu/.
Acesso em: 16 jan. 2025.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
27
ISRO BHUVAN. Indian Geo-Platform of ISRO. Bengaluru: Organização
Indiana de Pesquisa Espacial, 2024. Disponível em: https://bhuvan.nrsc.gov.in/.
Acesso em: 26 jul. 2024.
MICROSOFT. Air Quality Index: AI-driven pollution forecasting. Redmond:
Microsoft, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/
sustainability. Acesso em: 24 jan. 2025.
MITTELSTADT, Brent et al. e Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Nature,
Londres, v. 587, n. 7838, p. 38-45, Nov. 2019.
MUEHLENBACH, K. et al. Machine learning for forest fire risk prediction:
a case study in Mediterranean Europe. International Journal of Wildland Fire,
Collingwood, v. 30, n. 7, p. 644-655, jul. 2021.
NASA. Crops in space: AI for agricultural monitoring. Washington, D.C.: NASA,
2024. Disponível em: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/. Acesso em: 24 jan. 2025.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND
DEVELOPMENT (OECD). AI and the Environment: Supporting Sustainable
Development. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021.
PLANET LABS. Daily satellite imagery and insights. São Francisco: Planet Labs,
2024. Disponível em: https://www.planet.com/. Acesso em: 26 jul. 2024.
SAVIN, Adrian. e ethics of Artificial Intelligence. e Journal of Artificial
Intelligence Research, Ann Arbor, v. 68, n. 1, p. 443-518, jan. 2020.
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION (UNESCO). e UNESCO Framework for Ethical AI. Paris:
UNESCO, 2021.
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE (UNFCCC). e Paris Agreement. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat, 2015.
28
29
Environmental regulation
strategies as a basis for the
agricultural trade agreement
between the European
Union and Mercosur
José Neto Cassiano de Camargo
Karla Emmanuela Ribeiro Hora
Abstract: e context of global climate change has led to changes in trade strategies
between different economic blocs, as can be seen in the proposed trade agreement between
the European Union (EU) and Mercosur, based on the inclusion of environmental
provisions. Although structured differently, environmental clauses open new possibilities
for regulatory changes between the countries involved. In view of this, this text, based on
a bibliographic review and documentary research, aims to reflect on how environmental
regulatory provisions adopted by the European Union, with the purpose of protecting
ecosystems, fit into international trade negotiations. With emphasis on trade in agricultural
products and their possible consequences for Brazil. e results indicate that, despite
distinct economic and social structures, environmental provisions open the possibility for
the inclusion of new actors in the negotiations, as well as for the enhancement of existing
environmental monitoring devices for protected areas in Brazil.
Keywords: commodities; agriculture; protected areas; environment; climate change.
IntroductIon
e global climate change scenario has led to the development of
different strategies to contain the increase in average global temperatures
and its consequences. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions resulting
from the use of fossil fuels, deforestation for the expansion of agricultural
https://doi.org/10.36311/2025.978-65-5954-580-3.p29-40
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
30
areas has proven to be a major contributor (Coelho et al., 2024). Due to the
environmental impacts resulting from agricultural production processes,
new commercial demands have emerged on the global scene that seek to
protect and conserve natural ecosystems (Lima; Matias, 2023).
Given that international trade is essential for the economic and social
development of many countries, new trade agreements seek to include
clauses that guarantee the traceability of agricultural production and, thus,
prevent the commercialization of products originating from deforested
areas. e essential purpose of trade agreements is to reduce customs
barriers, although labor, the environment, energy, technology, human
rights and climate change aspects are also considered (orstensen et al.,
2014). In this context, the proposal for a free trade agreement between
the European Union (EU) and Mercosur (ME) blocs is noteworthy.
e negotiations for this agreement began in the 1990s and were only
completed in 2024, but to date there is no forecast for its entry into force
(Brasil, 2024).
e trade volume between the two blocs is already robust, given
that in 2023, exports from Mercosur to Europe reached US$ 66.792
billion. Brazil alone accounts for around 81% of these transactions, with
agricultural commodities being the main items, while the remainder of
the trade is conducted by the bloc’s other active members; Argentina,
Uruguay and Paraguay (ECLAC, 2024). Among the various importers of
Brazilian products, the EU was the destination of approximately 13% of
all goods exported by the national agribusiness in 2023. Hence, the EU
consolidated its position as the second biggest destination for Brazilian
agricultural products, after China. Belgium alone accounted for 31% of
Brazil’s orange juice exports, Germany for 13% of its coffee and Spain
10% of national fruits (Cepea, 2024).
As noted, inter-bloc trade is considerable and will likely increase
after ratification of the agreement. It is therefore important to anticipate its
likely impacts, which may be ample and generate unwanted or unforeseen
consequences. e adoption of specific environmental regulations with
protective effects can be effective and in the interest of society, because
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
31
they prevent ecosystems from being degraded under the justification of
serving the new open consumer market (Lima; Matias, 2023).
In this sense, the EU has been approving innovative environmental
legislation in recent years, with the purpose of contributing to the preservation
of nature and improving the population’s quality of life. is can be seen in
regulations aimed at generating extraterritorial effects and that can serve as
a model and inspiration for other countries (Moura et al., 2023). Likewise,
Brazil is also seeking to move to create regulations with the aim of promoting
sustainable development and meeting external demands.
As such, the objective of this text is to reflect on the impacts of
environmental regulatory devices adopted by the EU, which are part of
international trade negotiations. e emphasis is on trade in agricultural
products covered by the EU-Mercosur agreement and its possible
implications for Brazil.
Methodology
e study’s methodological design consists of a literature review and
documentary research, based on a compilation of data on the characteristics
of international trade. e focus is on the EU’s environmental legislation
aimed at agricultural trade and its implications on the protection of
strategic areas in the global south. To this end, the authors have employed
the exploratory method (Gil, 2022), looking to identify the mechanisms
of environmental regulation, their implications and potential for the
protection of sensitive ecosystems. First, the relevant legislation is
identified, then compared with the design of the EU-Mercosur agreement,
and realigned with the possibilities of environmental protection provided
by the Brazilian Forest Code.
For Sousa et al. (2021), bibliographic research provides a possibility
to study and learn from preexisting texts by other authors on a given
topic. A critical analysis of these publications makes it possible to find new
interpretations and impressions on the subject under study, considering
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
32
its most relevant and current aspects. As such, the literature review allows
for a synthesis of different texts and ideas, with a clear focus on the
particularities raised by the reviewers.
results and dIscussIon
I B M-E
U A
e Brazilian agricultural market stands out on the international
scene due to its high level of productive efficiency and technological
sophistication. e modernization of Brazil’s agriculture occurred mainly
in the second half of the 20th century. It not only significantly increased
agricultural production each year, but has changed the national agrarian
space, consolidating large properties as the standard production model, with
access to credit, technology and technical assistance. is enabled the country
to become an important global player in food production (Monteiro Neto et
al., 2017), albeit at a significant socio-environmental cost.
e importance of Brazilian agriculture is even more evident when
we consider that Brazil is the world’s third largest food producer, in addition
to being the leader in exports of the following agricultural products: coffee,
beef, orange juice, sugar, and ethanol (Embrapa, 2023). In 2023, Brazil’s
agribusiness accounted for 48.6% of all exports, an essential part of the
national trade balance. At the same time, it represented 6.8% of all imports
(Ferreira; Souza Júnior, 2024).
In the 1990s, against the background of changing global geopolitics
and the possibility of expanding consumer markets and new trade
agreements, the possibility of creating a preferential trade agreement
between Mercosur and the European Union arose (Nonnenberg; Ribeiro,
2019). It is important to note that an agreement between the two blocs
implies the integration of a market with around 700 million inhabitants
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
33
and almost 25% of global GDP, and with more than US$ 90 billion in
bilateral trade in goods and services (Brazil, 2019).
Debates regarding this trade agreement are complex, as they involve
two very different blocs. While Mercosur is made up of four active full
members, the EU consists of 27 countries. e fact that each country
has its own national interests makes it difficult to finalize the agreement,
given that approval and ratification by all member states of both blocs is a
precondition (Abreu; Florêncio, 2015; Costa, 2017).
According to Silva et al. (2019), during the more than 20 years of
negotiations the agricultural sector occupied a central space. e talks were
complex, and over time Mercosur made several concessions, notably a
reduction of import tariffs on European industrialized products, with the
intention of obtaining reciprocity for South American agricultural produce.
However, resistance from EU representatives persists. eir opposition to
the import of agricultural products from Mercosur reveals concerns about
the competitiveness and survival of European producers, especially small and
medium-sized producers in countries with strong economies like France.
In an effort to protect their respective agricultural markets, the two
blocs foresee the implementation of import quotas within the agreement’s
framework, meaning that the flow will not be fully liberalized. is can be
observed for items like pork, which is set to have a quota of 25 thousand
tons, with a specific tariff of €83/ton for entry into the EU, whereas in 2023
the tariff was €536/ton. In the case of Mercosur, 30,000 tons of cheese will
be allowed to enter with a progressive tariff reduction, with differentiated
tarriffs above mentioned quota. It is worth noting that these quotas are to be
divided between member states (Nonnenberg; Ribeiro, 2019).
Since Brazil is the member with the greatest economic and territorial
expression within Mercosur, the effects of the agreement will be most
noticeable in that country. Especially with the increase in its exports based
on the primary sector, which could show a significant growth of 76%.
erefore, if it comes into force, the agreement will have the capacity to
change the Brazilian economic structure, with the further strengthening of
part of the agricultural sector (Megiato et al., 2016).
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
34
E B
.
To access new markets and consolidate those already accessible,
Brazil must present the best sustainable production standards, in addition
to providing products with good sanitary quality. Offering consumer
markets grains, vegetables, fruits and proteins whose production process
respects the health of the planet and of society as a whole is increasingly
important. Consequently, complying with the regulatory framework of
export destinations is essential, as these rules can affect the trade flows
between different countries (Domene et al., 2023; Moura, 2023).
According to Lima and Matias (2023), the application of laws that
aim to protect ecosystems is a challenge. In this sense, the European Union
is a pioneer, since it has adopted a legal framework capable of interfering
not only in its own jurisdiction but, based on the extent of its foreign
trade, is also able to foster environmental recovery and conservation in
third countries. erefore, the agreement with Mercosur involved several
environmental dimensions (Brasil, 2024).
orstensen et al. (2022) consider that the EU's ability to establish
and lead the international debate on trade and the environment is due
to its leadership and its public commitments. e anti-deforestation law
2023/1115 is a good example of this, in which the EU established standards
and requirements for the import of some products, such as soybeans, beef,
timber and coffee, which, in order to enter the European market, must
come from areas with zero deforestation. is legislation also prevents the
entry of products from places where deforestation is authorized by the
domestic legislation of the exporting countries. is measure stems from
the perception that some countries have low production transparency and
modest engagement with environmental protection, thus imposing the use
of more restrictive rules (Nonnemberg et al., 2024).
Being subject to the consequences of climate change itself, the EU’s
actions follow local and global interests to foster international cooperation
in reducing and mitigating its effects. It is within this scope that the Anti-
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
35
Deforestation Regulation 2023/1115, which strengthens environmental
protection and encourages sustainable production, came into being. at
being said, such legislation is the target of several objections and could
undergo amendments. Even more so in the context of international trade,
which seeks to reconcile the various interests involved, and relies on means
of retaliation and protectionism that can generate more instability and
increases in international prices (Moura et al., 2023).
Regulation 2024/1991, which deals with nature restoration, is
another regulation that reinforces the European Union’s environmental
concern. It was approved in 2024 for the territories under its jurisdiction
and aims to restore 20% of all land and sea areas by 2030. By 2050, the
goal is for all degraded ecosystems to have undergone restoration processes.
is will be done by planting trees, regenerating rivers, and increasing
pollinating insects, among others. In a context in which 80% of European
habitats are in a state of degradation, it is estimated that for every euro
invested, 38 euros are returned in ecosystem benefits, such as improvements
in soil, water and air quality (European Commission, 2024).
In the case of the Nature Restoration Act, its direct impact on non-
EU countries is limited, but it can serve as an example and a path for
several other nations. According to orstensen et al. (2022), this type of
regulation may be able to reposition the entire bloc in international trade,
given that it requires international partners to adopt similar conservation
measures. Finally, environmental issues are raised across the board, being
present in all projects undertaken by the European Union.
In the Brazilian case, a comparative reflection would be the active
performance of the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), derived
from the Forest Code, Law No. 12,651 of May 25, 2012. rough the
monitoring of areas and data registered in the CAR, various agricultural
supply chains will be able to certify the origin of their goods and ensure
that their production processes are in accordance with the demands of
importing markets. us, with periodic updates, the CAR could become
a strategic tool for effective commercial exchanges, acting as a guarantor
of environmental conservation, the traceability of goods, in addition to
adding value to national agricultural output (Weid; Amorim, 2023).
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
36
e Brazilian forestry code has other mechanisms for the conservation
of national ecosystems. e legal reserve (RL), for example, consists of
allocating a percentage of the area of rural properties, varying between 20%
and 80% depending on the biome, to the conservation of native vegetation
and sustainable economic use. In addition, another legal provision concerns
permanent preservation areas (APPs), the purpose of which is to guarantee
protection for specific regions, such as riverbanks, springs, mangroves, and
others. It is clear that Brazil, like the EU, has sought to implement regulatory
measures with a view to protecting its natural biomes (Brazil, 2012).
Additionally, the creation of consistent environmental recovery
programs based on tactical actions, such as the promotion of conservation
strategies in biomes like the Amazon and the Cerrado, with the reduction
of agrarian conflicts in Protected Lands and the remediation of degraded
pasture areas, may be interesting for strengthening environmental measures
linked to trade exchanges (Coelho et al., 2024). However, for such
sustainability to materialize, non-hegemonic actors in trade negotiations
like Traditional Peoples and Communities and Family Farming should be
included. Although this would result in longer negotiation times, it has the
potential to yield qualitative climate gains for nation states (Middeldorp,
2021). Even more so when considering that the territories under the
management of such communities have larger areas of protected vegetation
than more settled regions.
conclusIons
It is important to keep in mind that international trade agreements
are strategies for reserving market share between the parties. ey can,
on the one hand, boost the local economy whilst, on the other, create
barriers to development or exacerbate social exclusion. Furthermore,
factors like food security and the protection of traditional means of
production in each country also have to be taken into consideration,
which is why the Brazilian agricultural sector is prominently present in
these types of negotiations.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
37
On the international stage, the EU has been consolidating its position
as a leader in environmental issues by enacting innovative legislation, such
as regulations 2023/1115 and 2024/1991. ese regulatory frameworks
are capable of inducing changes outside the EU jurisdiction proper. By
including environmental requirements in the international trade sphere the
EU exercises soft power, which helps other nations find their own alternatives
and solutions to issues regarding environmental protection. us, with the
entry into force of the Mercosur-EU agreement, environmental concerns are
likely to come to the forefront, either due to the volume of the trade flows
or their aggregate value.
e Mercosur-European Union agreement could open up several
opportunities for trade. Despite this, preventing the increase in deforestation
to meet new business opportunities is essential. Furthermore, the agreement
could favor and cover strategic areas of activity beyond the production of
agricultural commodities, such as speeding up the regularization of protected
territories in compliance with ILO 169. erefore, by looking at the EU's
normative acts, following its regulatory and monitoring mechanisms, as
well as its operational developments, it is possible to stimulate the adoption
of environmental innovations in production systems, with a focus on
energy efficiency, water resource management, genetic improvements, and
environmental protection of strategic territories.
In a scenario of acute climate change, the coming years will be
challenging for international trade between the two blocs. ere is an
urgency to adapt to new international requirements, search for sustainable
production practices and to open a dialogue with other segments of society.
references
ABREU, S.; FLORÊNCIO, L. Trajetória do Mercosul e mudança de paradigmas
e de posições da política externa brasileira: começo virtuoso e crise recente –
possíveis interpretações. Brasília, DF: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada,
2015. (Texto para discussão).
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
38
BRASIL. Lei nº 12.651, de 25 de maio de 2012. Dispõe sobre a proteção da
vegetação nativa. Brasília, DF, 2012. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.
br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm. Acesso: 31 dez. 2024.
BRASIL. Acordo de associação Mercosul-união europeia. Resumo informativo
elaborado pelo governo brasileiro. Brasília, DF, 2019. Disponível em: https://
www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/media/2019-10-24-resumo-acordo-mercosul-ue-cgnce.
pdf Acesso em: 2 jan. 2025.
BRASIL. Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. Perguntas e respostas - Acordo
de Parceria MERCOSUL-União Europeia. Disponível: https://www.gov.br/
agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/anuncio-da-conclusao-das-negociacoes-
do-acordo-de-parceria-entre-o-mercosul-e-a-uniao-europeia/copy_of_
PerguntaserespostasMERCOSULUE.pdf. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2024.
COMISIÓN ECONÓMICA PARA AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE
(CEPAL). Oportunidades y desafíos para la integración regional en un escenario
de fragmentación mundial. Boletín de Comercio Exterior del MERCOSUR,
Santiago, n. 7, p. p. 9-52, 2024.
CENTRO DE ESTUDOS AVANÇADOS EM ECONOMIA APLICADA
(CEPEA). Índices exportação do agronegócio de janeiro a dezembro de 2023.
Piracicaba: ESALQ/USP, 2024.
COELHO, C. A. W. et al. Mudança do clima no Brasil: síntese atualizada e
perspectivas para decisões estratégicas. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Ciência,
Tecnologia e Inovação, 2024.
COMISSÃO EUROPEIA. Nature Restoration Law. Bruxelas: Comissão
Europeia, 2024. Disponível em: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/
nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en. Acesso em: 26 dez. 2024.
COSTA, O. A União Europeia e sua política exterior. Brasília, DF: FUNAG, 2017.
DOMENE, S. M. A. et al. Segurança alimentar: reflexões sobre um problema
complexo. Estudos avançados,São Paulo, v. 37, n. 109, p. 181-206, set./dez.
2023. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-4014.2023.37109.012. Disponível em: https://
www.scielo.br/j/ea/a/fWcBkcLhN577MztGLnddSDn/?format=pdf&lang=pt.
Acesso em: 20 mar. 2024.
EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA (EMBRAPA).
Brasil em 50 alimentos. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2023.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
39
FERREIRA, D.; SOUZA JÚNIOR, J. R. C. Comércio exterior do agronegócio
em 2023. Rio de Janeiro: Ipea, 2024. (Carta de Conjuntura nº 62, 1˚ trimestre).
GIL, A. C. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. São Paulo: Editora atlas, 2002.
LIMA, M. C G. V.; MATIAS, J. L. N. Os efeitos extraterritoriais do
regulamento antidesmatamento da união europeia no brasil. Revista CEJ,
Brasília, DF, Ano XXVII, n. 85, p. 47-54, jan./jul. 2023.
MEGIATO, E. I.; MASSUQUETTI, A.; AZEVEDO, A. F. Z. Impacts of
integration of Brazil with the European Union through a general equilibrium
model. Economia, Bingley, v. 17, n. 1, p.126–140, Jan./Apr. 2016. DOI:
10.1016/j.econ.2015.10.001. Disponível em: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S1517758015000429. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2024.
MIDDELDORP, N. O Acordo Comercial UE-Mercosul: uma análise crítica e
uma alternativa. Amsterdã: Ed. Handel Anders, 2021. p. 4-42.
MONTEIRO NETO, A.; CASTRO, C. N.; BRANDÃO, C. A.
Desenvolvimento regional no Brasil: políticas, estratégias e perspectivas. Rio de
Janeiro: Ipea, 2017.
MOURA, A. B.; LERIN, C.; SANTOS, B. M. Impactos extraterritoriais do
regulamento (eu) 2023/1115: a proibição da comercialização de matérias
primas e produtos associados ao desmatamento e à degradação florestal.
Revista de Ciências do Estado, Belo Horizonte, v. 8, n. 2, p. 1-30, 2023.
DOI:10.35699/2525-8036.2023.48034. Disponível em: https://periodicos.
ufmg.br/index.php/revice/article/view/e48034/e48034. Acesso em: 12 dez.
2024.
MOURA, A. M. M. Integração entre as políticas ambiental e agrícola no
brasil. In: VIEIRA FILHO, J. E. R.; GASQUES, J. G. Agropecuária Brasileira:
evolução, resiliência e oportunidades. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Pesquisa
Econômica Aplicada (Ipea), 2023. p. 219-243.
NONNENBERG, M. J. B.; RIBEIRO, F. J. Análise preliminar do acordo
Mercosul-União Europeia. Rio de Janeiro: Ipea, 2019. (Carta de Conjuntura nº
44, 3˚ trimestre).
NONNENBERG, M. J. B.; MARTINS, M. M. V.; CECHIN, A.; VIANNA,
R. S.; CRUZ, C. C. P.; SILVA, F. A.; BISPO, S. Q. A.; SANTOS, F. E. L. A.
Efeitos da lei europeia contra desmatamento sobre as exportações brasileiras. Rio de
Janeiro: Ipea, 2024. (Texto para discussão 3016).
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
40
SILVA, R. R. M.; SILVA, R. D.; FERREIRA, F. R. O agronegócio brasileiro e
as negociações Mercosul-União Europeia. Revista Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte,
v. 14, n. 3, p. 5-32, nov. 2019. DOI: 10.21530/ci.v14n3.2019.940. Disponível
em: https://www.cartainternacional.abri.org.br/Carta/article/view/940/734.
Acesso em: 12 dez. 2024.
SOUSA, A. S.; OLIVEIRA, G. S.; ALVES, L. H. A pesquisa bibliográfica:
princípios e fundamentos. Cadernos da Fucamp, Monte Carmelo, v. 20, n. 43,
p. 64-83, mar. 2021.
THORSTENSEN, V.; BANDIN, R. M. S.; MÜLLER, C.; ELEOTÉRIO, B.
Acordos preferenciais de comércio: da multiplicação de novas regras aos mega-
acordos comerciais. São Paulo: FGV-EESP, 2014.
THORSTENSEN, V.; MOTA, C. R.; ARIMA JÚNIOR, M. K.;
THOMAZELLA, F. J. T.; ZUCHIERI, A. M. Vanguardismo ambiental e
protecionismo comercial na União Europeia e nos Estados Unidos. Rio de Janeiro:
Ipea, 2022. (Texto para discussão 2724).
WEID, C. V. D.; AMORIM, D. I. M. O cadastro ambiental rural [car] como
ferramenta de política comercial e acesso a mercados. Sinergia, Rio Grande, v.
27, n. 1, p. 51-66, jan./jun. 2023. DOI:10.17648/2236-7608-v27n1-14073.
Disponível em: https://periodicos.furg.br/sinergia/article/view/14073/10183.
Acesso em: 12 dez. 2024.
41
Climate governance in perspective:
a comparison between brazilian and spanish
climate adaptation and mitigation policies
Diego Tarley Ferreira Nascimento
Javier Martín-Vide
Abstract: is study features a comparative analysis between Brazilian and Spanish climate
adaptation and mitigation policies, with the aim of identifying Spanish best practices
that may strengthen Brazilian climate governance. To this end, a survey, review and a
critical analysis of legislation, strategies and programs related to the topic was conducted,
covering the national, regional and local levels in both countries. In the Spanish case, the
documentary analysis at the regional scale was focused on the Autonomous Community
of Catalonia and the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, with the city of Barcelona itself
as local scale. On the Brazilian side, the research was conducted in the state of Goiás
regionally and the municipality of its capital Goiânia locally. Based on the analysis, the
progress and challenges present in both countries are highlighted, offering reflections
on how Brazil could incorporate lessons learned from the Spanish experience to adapt
and improve its legal and institutional structures. Finally, possible strategies for climate
governance in Brazil are outlined, such as integrating administrative levels, ensuring
climate finance, strengthening local governance, promoting climate justice, and a
sustainable and inclusive energy transition.
Keywords: climate change; public policies; climate resilience
IntroductIon
Evidence of climate change is widely observed on a global scale,
manifesting itself through increased average temperatures, warming and
rising sea levels, reduced polar ice sheets, the migration of tropical disease
https://doi.org/10.36311/2025.978-65-5954-580-3.p41-53
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
42
vectors and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events in all regions of the planet (IPCC, 2021). ese phenomena not
only alter the climate system and cause environmental impacts, but also
significantly affect key sectors like food and energy production, as well as
water availability (Hoff, 2011; Mariani et al., 2016). ere is an increasing
pressure on natural resources, exacerbating conflicts in various regions of the
world and intensifying the migratory flows of so-called “climate refugees”
(Hartmann, 2010; Biermann; Boas, 2010). e economic impacts of climate
change are also notable, especially those associated with extreme events like
floods, droughts, storms and heat waves, which result in significant material
losses and increase reconstruction and recovery costs (Cassol; Bohner, 2012).
In addition, the compromised climate affects the well-being and health of
the population, in particular vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, children
and the chronically ill, especially during heat and cold waves (Clayton, 2020;
Masselot et al., 2023; Romanello et al. 2024).
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC, 2021), climate change is widespread, accelerated and without
historical precedent. Scientific literature points to the unquestionable
anthropogenic influence on climate change on the planet (Cook et al.,
2013), including a possible point of no return (Lenton et al., 2019;
Armstrong Mckay et al., 2022).
e IPCC (2022a, 2022b) highlights that there are viable options
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and minimizing
climate impacts (adaptation), which involve energy efficiency, urban
green infrastructure, waste management and sustainable management of
forests, plantations and pastures. Other authors advocate degrowth, i.e.
the reduction of resource consumption (Turiel, 2020). us, in view of the
emergency of the climate crisis (Artaxo, 2020; Ripple, 2020, 2024), climate
resilient development currently requires political governance. Political
governance plays a fundamental role in establishing effective guidelines
and actions to address the climate crisis (IPCC, 2022b). However, such
governance must be adapted to national and local contexts, and promote
the participation of civil society and the private sector. In addition, it
needs international funding and cooperation (Taks, 2019). In this context,
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
43
this chapter presents a comparative analysis between climate governance
policies and strategies in Brazil and Spain, considering that both countries
are signatories to international treaties and are committed to reducing the
effects of climate change. e objective is to identify common advances and
challenges, as well as Spanish best practices that can strengthen Brazilian
climate governance, with a focus on the national, regional and local levels.
e methodology includes a documentary review and content
analysis, supported by a literature review for critical analysis. e laws,
programs and plans related to climate change were compiled from official
sources in both Spain and Brazil. In Spain, the regional analysis focused on
Catalonia and the Barcelona Metropolitan Area, and locally on the city of
Barcelona. In Brazil, the regional level consisted of the state of Goiás and,
locally, the municipality of its capital Goiânia.
After this contextualization, the text is organized into three main
topics. e first presents an overview of climate policies in Spain and
Brazil, including their history, scope and strategies. e second provides a
comparative analysis of the relevant legislation in both countries. Finally,
the third provides insights to strengthen Brazilian climate governance,
based on the Spanish experience.
spanIsh and BrazIlIan polIcIes to coMBat clIMate change
In Spain, the 2006 National Climate Adaptation Plan (PNACC)
was milestone in the coordination between different levels of government.
It assesses impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation and mitigation strategies
for climate change. e plan established clear goals to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2050, prioritizing strategic sectors such as water resources,
biodiversity, health, agriculture and urban planning. In addition, the
PNACC promoted the integration of these actions into regional and local
policies, offering a comprehensive climate governance model. In 2021, the
plan was updated for the period of 2021 to 2030, expanding its initial scope
by adding principles of social equity, evidence-based science, integration
in sectoral plans, as well as the mobilization of public and private actors.
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
44
e PNACC is in line with international commitments, notably the
Paris Agreement and European Union (EU) policies like the European
Climate Adaptation Strategy, the European Green Deal and the Sustainable
Finance Action Plan. Furthermore, the implementation of local actions
was driven by EU funding, in particular the Next Generation EU program,
which enabled infrastructure works, expansion of green areas and water
resource management.
At the regional level, the Catalan Climate Change Law of 2017 stands
out. It established guidelines to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
by 40% by 2030 and promote the transition to a net-zero economy. is
law was drafted through a process of civil participation, testament to a
commitment to social inclusion. A relevant mechanism of this legislation
is the Climate Fund, which directs resources from environmental taxes
to climate mitigation and adaptation projects. Complementing these
initiatives, the Catalan Energy Institute developed the National Pact for the
Energy Transition of Catalonia, which seeks to achieve a 100% renewable
energy matrix by 2050, prioritizing energy efficiency, decentralized energy
and civil empowerment.
At the local level, Barcelona stands out for its pioneering actions.
e city has been implementing mitigation measures since the late 1990s,
such as the Solar and ermal Energy Regulation (1999), the Energy
Efficiency Plan (2002), the Photovoltaic Energy Regulation (2011) and
the Barcelona Energy, Climate Change and Air Quality Plan (2011-2020).
Barcelona is also a signatory to the Pacto de Alcades (Covenant of Mayors),
committed to exceeding European emission reduction targets.
At the COP21 (2015), where the Paris Agreement was signed, the
Barcelona Climate Commitment (2015-2017) was presented, consolidating
Barcelona as a pioneer in joining forces to mitigate and adapt to climate
change in an equitable and participatory manner. As a result, the Barcelona
Climate Plan (2018-2030) was established. It included ambitious targets
of reducing emissions by 45% by 2030 and achieving climate neutrality by
2050, through integrated actions in mitigation, adaptation, climate justice
and participatory governance. More recently, Barcelona has made even
more ambitious climate commitments, stemming from the 2021 Climate
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
45
Emergency Action Plan and the 2024 Barcelona City Climate Agreement,
all of which call for action in the face of the climate emergency.
By incorporating nature-based solutions, such as green roofs and
greenways, ecological corridors and infiltration gardens, Barcelona
is becoming a global benchmark in sustainability. An iconic urban
adaptation strategy in Barcelona refers to climate shelters. Little known in
Ibero-American cities, climate shelters comprise spaces (open or closed),
properly signposted, where the population can take shelter from high
temperatures during the summer and low temperatures during the winter,
with access to water and a place to rest (Martín-Vide; Moreno Garcia,
2024). In Spain, the city of Barcelona was a pioneer in implementing
a climate shelter network, with currently over 350 spaces. Another
interesting adaptation measure in Barcelona is a network with more than
100 drinking water fountains for the population. In addition, it is worth
mentioning the iconic urbanistic project of superblocks. is is recognized
by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as an innovative
example of combating climate change, since it ensures the expansion of
green areas and the improvement of air quality, noise pollution and urban
mobility, further consolidating Barcelona as a global reference in urban
sustainability (Frago; Morcuende, 2024).
In Brazil, climate governance is guided by the National Policy on
Climate Change (NPCC) of 2008. e NPCC made a commitment to
reduce GHG emissions between 36.1% and 38.9% by 2020, established
guidelines for environmental preservation, reducing deforestation in the
Amazon by 80% and in the Cerrado by 40%, and has encouraged the creation
of sectoral plans. One of the main instruments of the NPCC is the 2008
National Plan on Climate Change (NPCC), which emphasized integration
between different spheres of government and laid the foundations for federal
climate governance, as pointed out by Santos (2021).
Another instrument of the NPCC is the National Plan for
Adaptation to Climate Change (PNA) launched in 2016. is plan
expanded climate actions in the country by addressing specific sectors, such
as water resources, health, agriculture, and cities, integrating principles of
sustainable development and climate justice. Currently, both the NPCC
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
46
and the PNA are being updated. e new Climate Plan (2024-2035)
provides for national mitigation and adaptation strategies, with sectoral
plans and a cross-cutting approach that includes financing, a fair transition
and monitoring. Furthermore, also in 2024, the Ministry of Environment
and Climate Change (MECC) published Ordinance 1.256, offering
technical and financial support for the preparation of Municipal Plans for
Adaptation to Climate Change (AdaptaCidades), aimed at strengthening
action at the local level.
Nevertheless, a review of climate policies and the current Federal
Government’s commitment to the issue (Vilani; Ferrante; Fearnside,
2023) led to the presentation in 2024, during COP29, of a new Nationally
Determined Contribution (NDC), with bolder commitments for Brazil.
It includes targets to eliminate illegal deforestation by 2028, reduce GHG
emissions between 59% and 67% by 2035 and achieve carbon neutrality
by 2050. Despite criticism related to the concept of net zero emissions
(Bayrak; Marafa, 2016; Pajares, 2024; Smil, 2024), these targets represent
a significant advance in tackling climate change, especially in light of the
previous federal government’ legacy, which involved the dismantling of
organizations and the repeal of several environmental policies (Ripple et
al., 2016, 2021;).
At the regional level, the state of Goiás has a robust policy guided
by Law 16.497/2009, which established the State Policy on Climate
Change (PEMC), with principles and guidelines for climate mitigation
and adaptive action. However, it was only in 2021 that the State Plan
for Mitigation/Adaptation to Climate Change and Sustainability in
Agriculture was established as a legal instrument to reduce GHG emissions.
e Goiás Carbon Neutral Strategy, launched in 2023, set targets of 25%
emission reduction by 2025 and 50% by 2030, and of neutralizing carbon
emissions by 2050. To this end, programs such as REDD+ Goiás and PSA
Cerrado em Pé have contributed to the implementation of regulatory,
administrative, and financial structures for forest conservation and low-
carbon rural development. Another recent initiative is the Goiás Resilient
Program, launched in 2024, which aims to improve the technical and
operational capacity of municipal civil defense organs, to ensure the
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
47
integration of calamity risk reduction policies, and to foster community
participation and the adherence of local governments to the Federal
Government’s AdaptaCidades.
At the local level, Goiânia stands out for its Municipal Master Plan
(PDM), launched in 2007 and updated in 2022. is is a planning and
territorial organization instrument that incorporates guidelines for tackling
climate change, encouraging sustainable practices and clean technologies.
In 2011, the city also developed the Goiânia Sustainable Plan, within
the scope of the Emerging and Sustainable Cities Platform of the Inter-
American Development Bank (IDB). Additionally, the city has policies
focused on urban mobility, sanitation, solid waste, and civil defense.
More recently, the Goiânia Resiliente Report (Novaes; Ramalho, 2024)
presented a diagnosis of the municipality’s vulnerability and exposure,
proposing guidelines to increase the municipality’s climate resilience,
including green infrastructure, water management, air pollution control
and climate financing mechanisms.
coMparatIve analysIs of spanIsh and BrazIlIan legIslatIon
Climate legislation in Spain is integrated and clear, with specific
guidelines, whereas in Brazil it is fragmented, making implementation
and integration between different levels of government difficult (Neves;
Chang; Pierri, 2015). e National Policy on Climate Change (NPCC)
faces challenges, such as a lack of command and control instruments, as
well as the non-implementation of the Brazilian Emissions Reduction
Market, which was only regulated in 2024.
Spain also stands out for the implementation of well-funded
adaptation and mitigation programs, with a focus on nature-based
solutions and citizen participation. In Brazil, the implementation of
climate programs is hampered by a lack of resources and technical support
(Setzer; Macedo; Rei, 2015). Despite some progress in cities like São Paulo
and Rio de Janeiro (Martins; Ferreira, 2011; Di Giulio et al., 2018), local
climate governance needs to be strengthened, as emphasized by Jacobi
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
48
(2023). Local governments play a crucial role in implementing climate
policies (Ryan, 2015), although they face limitations due to a lack of
adequate funding, human resources and the short duration of political
mandates (Leme, 2010).
In terms of mitigation strategies, Spain has adopted integrated
actions that combine mitigation and adaptation, such as climate
monitoring networks and coastal management. In Brazil, policies focus
on combating deforestation and renewable energy, with few adaptation
initiatives (Rodrigues, 2014; Chiquetto; Nolasco, 2024). Nonetheless,
both countries face financial barriers and political resistance, in addition
to a need for better intersectoral coordination.
InsIght for strengthenIng BrazIlIan clIMate governance
e Spanish experience suggests that climate governance in Brazil
should be improved through unified and integrated legislation across different
levels of government, as proposed in the National Plan. Furthermore, it is
essential to implement climate adaptation strategies, especially nature-based
solutions as seen in Barcelona. Effectively implementing funding mechanisms
for climate actions is also crucial, given that the National Fund on Climate
Change still demonstrates an institutional weakness in mobilizing resources
(Lopes; Albunquerque, 2023).
Brazil needs to strengthen its administrative structures and the
technical and financial capacity of local governments in order to formulate
preventive and reactive action plans in the face of climate emergencies. Of
particular significance here are the initiatives of Goiás Resiliente (state) and
AdaptaClima (federal). It is also vital to guarantee climate justice, in the
sense of ensuring the participation of civil society in the formulation of
climate policies. Moreover, it is necessary to invest in climate education so
as to raise awareness about the impacts of climate change and about the
need to adopt different habits (Rosa, 2021). Actions that reduce social and
economic inequalities, and democratize access to resources which increase
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
49
the capacities of individuals and infrastructures should also be prioritized to
build more resilient cities and communities (Ioris; Irigaray, Girard, 2014).
conclusIon
Climate governance in Brazil and Spain reflects the commitment of
these two countries to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Although both Brazil and Spain have made significant progress in climate
policies, they face distinct challenges. Spain stands out for its integration
with European Union guidelines and multiscalar governance, whereas
Brazil faces the challenge of balancing ambitious goals with environmental
preservation and the promotion of socioeconomic development. Local
initiatives, such as those in Barcelona and Goiânia, show that cities have
a vital role to play in building resilience and implementing innovative
solutions for the climate crisis.
e aforementioned laws and plans reflect multiscalar approaches,
integrating national, regional and local policies to address climate challenges.
A comparative analysis of these initiatives offers valuable insights for
improving Brazilian climate governance, inspired by Spanish best practices.
Areas of interest include cooperation between different government levels,
securing climate funding, strengthening local governance, promoting
climate justice, as well as a sustainable and inclusive energy transition.
Adopting innovative solutions and promoting a greater integration between
administrative spheres are crucial steps to ensure a fair and resilient transition.
Dialogue between nations should be encouraged to share experiences and
address global climate challenges in a cooperative manner.
references
ARMSTRONG MCKAY, D. I. et al. Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could
trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science, Washington, v. 377, n. 6611, p.
1171-1179, Sept. 2022.
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
50
ARTAXO, P. As três emergências que nossa sociedade enfrenta: saúde,
biodiversidade e mudanças climáticas. Estudos Avançados, São Paulo, v. 34, n.
?, p. 53-66, out. 2020. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/eav/article/
view/178752. Acesso em: 26 jun. 2024.
BAYRAK, M. M.; MARAFA, L. M. Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review
of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities. Sustainability,
Basel, v. 8, n. 620, p. 1-22, Jul. 2016.
BIERMANN, F.; BOAS, I. Preparing for a warmer world: towards a global
governance system to protect climate refugees. Global Environmental Politics, [S.
l.], v. 10, n. 1, p. 60-88, Feb. 2010.
CASSOL, P. B.; BOHNER, T. Os eventos climáticos e a sua indissociabilidade
na saúde e na economia global. Revista Eletrônica em Gestão, Educação e
Tecnologia Ambiental, Santa Maria, v. 5, n. 5, p. 653-657, out. 2012.
CHIQUETTO, J. B.; NOLASCO, M. A. Climate adaptation in Brazil:
advancements and challenges. Environmental science and policy, Amsterdã, v.
161, n. 4, p. e103888, Nov. 2024.
CLAYTON, S. Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Amsterdã, v. 74, n. 2, p. e102263, Aug. 2020.
COOK, J. et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, Bristol, v. 8, n. 1, , p.
024024, May 2013.
DI GIULIO, G. M. et al. Mainstreaming climate adaptation in the megacity of
São Paulo, Brazil. Cities, Amsterdã, v. 72, n. ?, p. 237–244, Jun. 2018.
FRAGO, L.; MORCUENDE, A. Urban planning paradoxes and sociospatial
fragmentation: the superblock Barcelona case (2016-2023). International journal
of urban and regional research, Oxford, v. 48, n. 6, p. 1055-1078, Nov. 2024.
JACOBI, P. R. Desafios da governança ambiental urbana face à emergência
climática. Cadernos de Pós-Graduação em Arquitetura e Urbanismo, São Paulo, v.
23, n. 1, p. 9-20, jan./jun. 2023.
HARTMANN, B. Rethinking climate refugees and climate conflict: Rhetoric,
reality and the politics of policy discourse. Journal of International Development,
Chichester, v. 22, n. 2, p. 233-246, mar. 2010.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
51
HOFF, H. Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn 2011
Conference: the water, energy and food security nexus. Stockholm: Stockholm
Environment Institute, 2011.
IORIS, A.; IRIGARAY, C.; GIRARD, P. Institutional responses to climate
change: opportunities and barriers for adaptation in the Pantanal and the Upper
Paraguay River Basin. Climatic Change, Dordrecht, v. 127, n. 1, p.139-51,
Mar. 2014.
IPCC. Climate Change 2021: e physical science basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press, 2021,
IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York,
NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press, 2022.
LEME, T. N. Os municípios e a política nacional do meio ambiente. Revista
Planejamento e Políticas Públicas, Brasília, DF, v. 35, n. 2, p. 25-52, jul./dez. 2010.
LOPES, A. C. C. G.; ALBUQUERQUE, A. A. de. Financiamento climático:
eficácia institucional do Fundo Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima. Revista de
Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 57, n. 3, p. e2022-0318, maio/jun. 2023.
MARIANI, L.; GUARENGHI, M. M.; MITO, J. Y. L.; CAVALIERO, C. K.
N.; GALVÃO, R. R. de A. Análise de oportunidades e desafios para o nexo
água-energia. Desenvolvimento e Meio ambiente, Curitiba, v. 37, p. 9-30, 2016.
Edição especial.
MARTINS, R. A.; FERREIRA, L. da C. Climate change action at the city level:
tales from two megacities in Brazil. Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, Bingley, v. 22 n. 3, p. 344-357, Apr. 2011.
MARTIN-VIDE, J.; MORENO GARCIA, M. del C. Unas notas sobre la
emergencia climática: ciudades y salud. Geo UERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. ?, n. 46, p.
e87631, nov. 2024.
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
52
MASSELOT, P. et al. Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold: a health impact
assessment study in 854 cities in Europe. Lancet Planet Health, Amsterdã, v. 7,
n. 4, p. 271-281, Apr. 2023.
NEVES, F. M.; CHANG, M.; PIERRI, N. As estratégias do enfrentamento
das mudanças climáticas expressas nas políticas públicas federais do Brasil.
Desenvolvimento e meio ambiente, Curitiba, v. 34, n. 1, p. 5-23, jan./jun. 2015.
NOVAES, P. da C.; RAMALHO, T. Goiânia Resiliente: mudanças climáticas,
adaptação urbana e direitos humanos. Goiânia: Prefeitura Municipal de
Goiânia; Secretaria Municipal de Direitos Humanos e Políticas Afirmativas,
2024. 58 p.
PAJARES, M. Bla-bla-bla. El mito del capitalismo ecológico. Valência: Rayo
Verde, 2024.
RIPPLE, W. J. et al. e 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet
Earth. BioScience, Special Report, p. p. 1-12, Jan. 2024.
RIPPLE, W. J. et al. World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.
BioScience, Oxford, v. 70, n. 1, p. 8-12, Sept. 2020.
RIPPLE, W. J. et al. World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021.
BioScience, Oxford, v. 71, n. 9, p. 894-898, Sept. 2021.
RODRIGUES, D. F. A política brasileira de mudanças climáticas: competição,
cooperação e diversidade internacional. Fortaleza, Edições UFC, 2014.
ROMANELLO, M. et al. e 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health
and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action. e
Lancet, Londres, v. 404, n. 10465, p. 1847-1896, Nov. 2024.
ROSA, J. Comparing climate science misconceptions with worldview and
cognitive reflection suggests poor understanding and motivated reasoning
among undergraduates. Journal of Geoscience Education, Londres, v. 70, n. 4, p.
501-516, Oct. 2021.
RYAN, D. From commitment to action: a literature review on climate policy
implementation at city level. Climatic Change, Londres, v. 131, n. 4, p. 519–
529, Dez. 2015.
SANTOS, A. C. Política Nacional sobre Mudanças do Clima no Brasil: uma
avaliação de instrumentos e de efetividade. Espaço Público: Revista de políticas
públicas da UFPE, Recife, v. 6, n. 1, p. 1-25, jan./jun. 2021.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
53
SETZER, J.; MACEDO, L. V.; REI, F. Combining local and transnational
action in adaptation of climate policies in the city of São Paulo. In:
JOHNSON, C.; TOLY, N.; SCHROEDER, H. (ed.). e urban climate
challenge: Rethinking the role of cities in the global climate regime. New York:
Routledge, 2015. Cap. 6, p. 101–118.
SMIL, V. Halfway between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely
Outcome. Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2024. 46 p.
TAKS, J. Transformaciones de la narrativa del cambio climático global en
Uruguay. Sociologias, Porto Alegre, ano 21, n. 51, maio/ago. p. 102-123, 2019.
TURIEL, A. Petrocalipsis: crisis energética global y cómo (no) la
solucionaremos. Barcelona: Alfabeto Editorial, 2020.
VILANI, R. M; FERRANTE, L.; FEARNSIDE, P. M. e first acts of Brazil’s
new president: Lula’s new Amazon institutionality. Environmental Conservation,
Cambridge, v. 50, n. 3, p. 148-151, Sept. 2023.
54
55
About the European Union’s
Deforestation Regulation:
Sustainability Policy or Economic Protectionism?
Filipe Prado Macedo da Silva
Abstract: is chapter reflects on the European Union’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR
- 2023/1115). Scheduled to come into force at the end of 2024, but recently postponed
to December 2025, its objective is to ensure that seven agricultural products and their
derivatives – beef, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soybeans and timber – imported, processed
and consumed by the European Union (EU) shall not contribute to deforestation and forest
degradation worldwide. In practice, the EUDR will monitor the “most critical” agricultural
products, originating from third countries with a “high risk” of deforestation and forest
degradation, such as Brazil. us, this regulation is part of the new green paradigm of the
EU’s sustainable strategies, institutionalized in the European Green Deal. e problem is
that the EUDR raises ambiguities about its role in protecting the international environment
versus its role in geopolitical disputes involving economic protectionism. Using official
documents from the EU and environmental studies from multilateral organizations and
Brazilian entities, in addition to speeches by European authorities, this chapter demonstrates
that the EUDR is in fact more focused on environmental and sustainability concerns than
on protectionism. erefore, in the case of Brazil, it may help transform the international
relations agenda and improve national tools to monitor and protect the country’s forests.
Keywords: European green deal; deforestation; forest degradation; European Union; forests.
IntroductIon - an IMMInent clIMate eMergency
A large part of environmental legislation drafted in the 21st century
points to the same problem: greenhouse gas emissions are producing an
https://doi.org/10.36311/2025.978-65-5954-580-3.p55-66
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
56
unprecedented international climate emergency. According to a report
by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere reached a new record in 2023 (WMO,
2024b). e consequence of this persistent accumulation of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere is rising temperatures now and, inevitably, in the
future. Forecasts presented at COP29 have indicated that 2024 is on track
to be – the data have yet to be consolidated – the hottest year on record,
temporarily exceeding the 1.5ºC limit of the Paris Climate Agreement
(UNEP, 2024; WMO, 2024a, 2024b).
In this context of increasing average temperatures since 1980, a
recent report by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) revealed a
tenfold increase in the frequency of natural disasters since the 1960s, rising
from 39 global incidents in 1960 to 396 in 2019 (IEP, 2020; WMO,
2024a). Furthermore, the same IEP report (2020) noted an increase in the
intensity of natural disasters between 1990 and 2019. During this period,
9,924 incidents were recorded worldwide, meaning that over the course of
29 years, an extreme weather event occurred every 25 hours. Around 71%
of the climate emergencies between 1990 and 2019 were caused by floods
and severe storms. According to the IEP (2020), such extreme climate
threats expose around 80% of the world’s population (in 141 countries) to
economic and human losses.
In light of such a climate emergency, it is worth asking which economic
sectors are responsible for global greenhouse gas emissions. Updated data
from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) show that
four sectors are responsible for more than 60% of contamination, namely:
the energy production sector (26%); transport (15%); industry (11%);
and agriculture (11%) (UNEP, 2024). e first three sectors – energy,
transport and industry – generate atmospheric contamination through
the burning of fossil fuels. e agricultural sector, on the other hand,
contributes to greenhouse gas emissions through deforestation and forest
degradation, given that the burning of forest to submit areas to agricultural
use intensifies the increase in atmospheric contamination.
is chapter will focus on deforestation and forest degradation. It
is important to remember that forests are natural carbon reservoirs and
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
57
that, therefore, deforestation and degradation release the carbon stored
in forest biomass into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. According to
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the world loses around 10
million hectares of forest per year. Between 1990 and 2020, around 420
million hectares were deforested and degraded worldwide (FAO, 2021).
is corresponds to 10% of the remaining forests in the world – an area
equivalent to more than 100% of the EU’s territorial extent and around
50% of Brazil’s territory (FAO, 2021; Silva, 2024a).
Another serious problem resulting from deforestation and forest
degradation is the loss of biodiversity, especially in so-called “primary”
or “pristine” forests, that is, those that have never been deforested and
have developed through natural processes, including natural regeneration.
erefore, primary forests are unique, heterogeneous and irreplaceable,
housing around 80% of the Earth’s biodiversity. In this case, Brazil is one
of the three countries – along with Canada and Russia – that are home
to the largest area of primary forests in the world (FAO, 2021). In the
Brazilian case, the Amazon rainforest represents the largest primary forest
area in the world (FAO, 2021; Silva, 2024b). Planted forests, on the other
hand, have a different development in terms of biodiversity and have
ecosystems different from primary forests. It is in this context of imminent
climate emergency that the EU has stepped up its environmental concerns,
implementing a new sustainability paradigm: the ambitious European
Green Deal. Launched in December 2019, the European Green Deal aims
to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. As such, it
acts as an institutional umbrella for the EU’s various green public policy
strategies and regulations. is includes the new EU Regulation 2023/1115
on “Products Not Associated with Deforestation” (EUDR). us, the EU
does not hide its interest in being a protagonist in the preservation of
forests worldwide and in being the “normative” leader in the international
system for promoting the global ecological transition.
In the next section, we consider the purpose and functioning of the
EUDR. We will assess whether it is likely to function as a new sustainability
policy or as a tool for economic protectionism. Finally, we will suggest
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
58
some sustainable strategies that may improve Brazil’s relations with the
EU, while benefiting the economy and the environment on both sides.
the european green deal: eu regulatIon 2023/1115
Several green policy strategies and regulations have already been
approved, and others are in the legislative debate stage in the European
Parliament, all of which can change the EU’s environmental regulations in
the coming years. ese include EU Regulation 2023/1115 on “Products
Not Associated” with Deforestation (EUDR), approved by the European
Parliament in April 2023. It was initially expected to come into force at the
end of 2024, but the European Parliament recently approved an extension
to December 2025. is extension was due to requests from several global
partners, including Brazil under the Lula government (Brazil, 2024).
Additionally, some EU member states expressed concerns about their
preparedness to comply with the new environmental legislation (European
Union, 2024).
Although the EUDR is more recent, the first EU document with
the intention of protecting forests worldwide dates back to 2019. A
document titled “Stepping up EU action to protect forests worldwide”
by the European Commission initiated the debate and formulation of
the environmental regulation in all EU governance bodies, in addition to
including European civil society in the discussions. In November 2021
the European Parliament published the first legislative proposal. e
following year, in 2022, the proposal gained traction in the European
legislature, being promptly approved by all legislative committees it passed
through. It was at this point that environmentalists began to praise the
European initiative, whereas international agribusinesses pointed to it as a
protectionist attack.
In this scenario, how will the EUDR work? First, it is worth noting
that its objective is to ensure that agricultural products imported and
consumed by EU citizens do not contribute to deforestation and forest
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
59
degradation worldwide, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
biodiversity loss (European Union, 2023). In practice, European operators
and traders will have to carry out due diligence in traceability and
geolocation, assessing the risk levels of their suppliers before placing fresh
agricultural products on the EU market or exporting processed (agro-
industrial) products. All 27 EU member states are to have authorities
designated to monitor products entering (fresh) and leaving (processed)
the EU.
However, will the EU monitor all products originating from
agribusiness? According to the European Union (2023), in Annex I,
only the “most critical” agricultural products shall be monitored, that is,
those that are responsible for the largest share of deforestation and forest
degradation driven by EU consumption. is decision was underpinned
by a scientific study, which concluded that in particular seven products
and their derivatives needed to be monitored in terms of production and
consumption, being beef, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy and timber
(see Table 1). It is important to highlight that the monitoring of these
seven products and their derivatives includes those produced and processed
within the EU, such as Irish cattle and Finnish timber.
Table 1 – Estimated Impact of EU Production and Consumption on
Global Deforestation and Forest Degradation, for Selected Products,
2019-2030
Agricultural Products and their
Derivatives
Participation of Annual
Impact (%)
Estimative of Annual
Impact (hectares)
Beef 5,0 12.400
Cocoa 7,5 18.600
Coffee 7,0 17.360
Palm oil 34,0 84.320
Rubber 3,4 8.432
Soy 32,8 81.344
Timber 8,6 21.328
Source: Pendrill, Persson, Godar and Kastner (2019); European Union (2023).
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
60
e EU’s production and consumption of these seven agricultural
products translates into an annual forest impact of 248,000 hectares
between 2019 and 2030 (European Union, 2023). In the same sense, data
from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) indicate that EU imports
are responsible for 16% of global deforestation (Deutsche Welle, 2024).
Table 1 shows the high impact on deforestation and forest degradation
of the production and consumption of, for example, palm oil (34%) and
soy (33%). Meanwhile, the lowest environmental impact is that of rubber
and its derivatives (3%). It is in fact based on these data that the EU will
regulate the intensity of inspections per product and producing country.
Most third countries will be classified as low risk or “no risk”, meaning that
they will be subject to little inspection.
Regardinge the intensity of inspections in high-risk cases, the level
of inspections and audits will reach up to 9% of European operators/
traders who purchase selected agricultural products from countries at high
risk of deforestation and forest degradation. It is important to highlight
that the attention of EU authorities will focus on five high-risk countries
– Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay (in South America), Indonesia (in Asia) and
Congo (in Africa) – i.e. the countries responsible for more than half of the
deforestation attributed to agricultural and pastoral expansion worldwide.
Moreover, in the Brazilian case there is an additional risk related to products
produced or extracted from indigenous lands (Silva, 2024a, 2024b).
With reference to sanctions for European operators/traders in cases
of violations, EU member states can apply different penalties, such as fines,
confiscation of products and revenues obtained from irregular sales, and
even the temporary prohibition of economic activities in EU territory. It is
important to remember that the EUDR established a deadline for products
not to be associated with deforestation: December 31, 2020. From that
date onwards, forests cannot be cleared of degraded, especially for the
production of the aforementioned seven critical agricultural products.
is includes deforestation and natural degradation unrelated to human
activities. Such areas should not be used for agricultural production, and
steps are to be taken to restore and manage them sustainably.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
61
sustaInaBIlIty polIcy or econoMIc protectIonIsM?
Faced with the imminent international climate emergency, we can
rest assured that the EUDR has a strong environmental focus, representing
a new sustainability policy aligned with the most diverse scientific
studies and ecological data about the impact of agricultural production
on the world’s forests. In this context, the EU has been praised for its
unprecedented initiative in combating deforestation and forest degradation
by environmentalists and international non-governmental organizations,
including in Brazil. However, the appraisal came with critical observations
that the regulations should reach beyond the Amazon, covering Brazilian
ecosystems like the Cerrado, the Caatinga, the Pantanal and the Pampa
(Deutsche Welle, 2024; Silva, 2024a).
In general, the harshest criticism of the EUDR originated from
the productive sectors and governments of the producing countries. In
practice, what is at stake are the extra costs of traceability and geolocation
of selected agricultural products, in addition to the limits indirectly
imposed on agricultural expansion into new lands (for example, those
previously covered by forests). Furthermore, they have claimed that the
EUDR violates free trade agreements and create new non-tariff barriers to
agricultural products from third countries, thus confirming its protectionist
bias. In Brazil, rural associations, cooperatives and producers have said that
the EU’s environmental regulations will result in an average annual loss of
US$ 15 billion in agricultural exports (Faverin, 2024).
However, the following four points affirm that the EUDR does not
have a protectionist bias and will not block agricultural produce from third
countries:
1. e argument that the EU will exceed its legal territorial limits
and impose its new environmental legislation on other territories
is mistaken (Silva, 2024a). In reality, the EU is legislating – with
environmental improvements – what enters the borders of its
27 member countries (article 1) (European Union, 2023). is
already occurs with products that are illegal or prohibited as
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
62
per European legislation. Furthermore, the EU’s strictness in
agricultural imports has been known since the 1990s mad cow
disease. is means that the Brazilian cattle market, for instance,
already has expertise in the traceability of exported herds and is
able to adopt more sustainable practices;
2. e criticism that the EUDR violates the environmental laws
of third countries – in the Brazilian case, the Forest Code – is
incorrect, since Article 3 of the EUDR states that agricultural
products inspected by the EU must have “been produced in
accordance with the applicable legislation of the country of
production” (European Union, 2023). In Brazil, the problem
is that much of the deforestation in the Amazon, for example,
is illegal (above the 20% threshold set by the Forest Code) and
for the purpose of clearing pasture (90% for cattle). A similar
example is soy farming, which has been systematically advancing
towards the fringes of the Amazon rainforest in southern Pará.
Hence, it is products that already violate the environmental law
of the producing country which will be prevented from entering
the EU consumer market;
3. It is incorrect to state that the new EU regulation will hinder
or harm small agricultural producers. is is especially true
because, in general, small farmers do not export directly to
Europe, especially those of the seven mentioned products subject
to scrutiny. For example, in the case of Brazilian coffee, small
and medium-sized coffee growers are organized in cooperatives,
such as Cooxupé (from Minas Gerais), to carry out international
commercial operations. In this situation, the cooperatives have
the technical and financial conditions to prepare the path
for their members. Meanwhile, European micro-, small and
medium-sized (SME) traders who sell the inspected products
will have a longer preparation period (Article 38), as well as
simplified due diligence and verifications (Article 19);
4. Finally, according to economic literature, protectionism occurs
when a country, in order to protect its national production,
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
63
creates barriers for foreign imports or blocks them altogether
(Krugman; Obstfeld; Melitz, 2015). is is not the case with
the EU’s environmental regulations, because with the exception
of cattle and timber, all other agricultural products subject
to inspection are not commercially produced by European
agribusiness.
conclusIon: sustaInaBle strategIes
e EUDR appears to be an appropriate and necessary measure
in current times. ird countries and producers like Brazil can take
advantage of European legislation to push for changes in the international
relations agenda (external strategy), and to improve internal command
and control tools regarding forest management and sustainability (internal
strategy). e fact is that forest destruction, at the current rate, is harmful
to both exporting countries (e.g. Brazil, Indonesia and Ivory Coast) and
importers (the 27 EU member states) of the seven agricultural products
covered by the EUDR. Against this background, the short-term costs of a
new sustainability policy are always lower than the long-term costs of an
unprecedented climate emergency.
As for Brazilian foreign policy, a diplomatic strategy could be to
negotiate with the EU a financial counterpart to compensate for any
possible barriers to agricultural products associated with deforestation and
forest degradation. For example, the EU could return the value of barred
products by investing an equivalent sum in the protection of Brazilian
forests. is may be done through donations to the Amazon Fund, for
example. In addition, the Brazilian government and rural producers
should invest more in international missions to raise awareness and ensure
that goods produced legally are not confused with illegal produce. On the
national scale, improvements in public agricultural funding should favor
producers who 1) adopt more sustainable practices in accordance with
the Forest Code; 2) recover degraded lands, reducing the pressure on new
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
64
agricultural frontiers; and 3) incorporate new agroecological technologies
like tracking mechanisms.
references
BRASIL. Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria, Comércio e Serviços.
Proposta de adiar lei antidesmatamento reconhece pleito do governo por maior
clareza na lei. Brasília, DF: MDIC, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/
mdic/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/ 2024/outubro/proposta-de-adiamento-da-eudr-
reconhece-pleito-do-governo-por-maior-clareza-na-lei. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2025.
DEUTSCHE WELLE. Comissão Europeia propõe adiamento de lei
antidesmatamento. Berlim: DW.COM, 2024. Disponível em: https://p.dw.com/
p/4lLxI. Acesso em: 11 jan. 2025.
FAVERIN, V. Lei europeia pode impactar 60% das exportações do agro
brasileiro ao bloco, diz FGV. Canal Rural, São Paulo, 25 set. 2024. Disponível
em: https://www.canalrural.co m.br/agricultura/agronegocio/lei-europeia-pode-
impactar-60-das-exportacoes-do-agro-brasileiro-ao-bloco-diz-fgv/. Acesso em:
11 jan. 2025.
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED
NATIONS (FAO). Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales 2020 – Informe
principal. Roma: FAO, 2021. Disponível em: https://openknowledge.fao.org/
handle/20.500.14283/ca9825es. Acesso em: 6 jan. 2025.
INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMICS & PEACE (IEP). Ecological reat
Register 2020: Understanding Ecological reats, Resilience and Peace.
Sydney: IEP, 2020. Disponível em: http://visionofhumanity.org/reports.
Acesso em: 6 jan. 2025.
KRUGMAN, P. R.; OBSTFELD, M.; MELITZ, M. Economia internacional.
10. ed. São Paulo: Pearson Education do Brasil, 2015.
MANNERS, I. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? JCMS:
Journal of Common Market Studies, v. 40, n. 2, p. 235-258, Dec. 2002.
Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.111 1/1468-5965.00353. Acesso em: 10
jan. 2025.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
65
PENDRILL, F.; PERSSON, U. M.; GODAR, J.; KASTNER, T. Deforestation
displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest
transition. Environmental Research Letters, Bristol, v. 14, n. 5, May 2019.
Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.108 8/1748-9326/ab0d41. Acesso em: 11
jan. 2025.
SILVA, F. P. M. da. Sobre el Reglamento Europeo de Deforestación: ¿protección
del medioambiente o proteccionismo económico encubierto? Madrid:
Plataforma Tierra Cajamar: Actualidad, 2024a. Disponível em: https://www.
plataformatierra.es/actualidad/ reglamento-europeo-deforestacion-proteccion-
medioambiente-proteccionismo-economi co-encubierto. Acesso em: 8 jan. 2025.
SILVA, F. P. M. da. Como a lei de desmatamento europeia pode ajudar à
Amazônia. e Observatory on European Studies. Florianópolis: Latin
American Center of European Studies, 2024b. Disponível em: https://
eurolatinstu dies.com/en/como-a-lei-de-desmatamento-europeia-pode-ajudar-a-
amazonia/. Acesso em: 8 jan. 2025.
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. Comissão Europeia. A intensificação da ação da UE
para proteger as florestas a nível mundial. COM/2019/352 final: Bruxelas:
Jornal Oficial da União Europeia, 2019. Disponível em: https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0352. Acesso
em: 8 jan. 2025.
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. Comissão Europeia. Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council, on making available on the Union market
as well as export from the Union of certain commodities and products
associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation
(EU) 995/2010. COM/2021/706 final: Brussels: e Official Journal of the
European Union, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/
RegData/docs_autres_institutions/com mission_europeenne/com/2021/0706/
COM_COM(2021)0706_EN.pdf. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2025.
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. Regulamento (UE) 2023/1115 do Parlamento Europeu
e Conselho da União Europeia, de 31 de maio de 2023. Jornal Oficial da União
Europeia, Luxemburgo, JO L 150 de 9.6.2023, p. 206-247. Disponível em:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/ TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.
Acesso em: 3 jan. 2025.
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
66
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. Comissão Europeia. A Comissão reforça o seu apoio à
aplicação do Regulamento Desflorestação da UE, em resposta aos apelos dos parceiros
mundiais, propondo uma prorrogação, por mais 12 meses, do período de introdução
progressiva. Comunicado de Imprensa. Bruxelas, 2024. Disponível em: https://
ec.eu ropa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/pt/ip_24_5009. Acesso em: 10
jan. 2025.
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP). Emissions
Gap Report 2024: No more hot air … please! With a massive gap between
rhetoric and reality, countries draft new climate commitments. Nairobi: UNEP,
2024. Disponível em: https://doi. org/10.59117/20.500.11822/46404. Acesso
em: 6 jan. 2025.
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION (WMO). State of the
Climate 2024: Update for COP29, Geneva: WMO, 2024a. Disponível em:
https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/ 69075. Acesso em: 6 jan. 2025.
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION (WMO). WMO
Greenhouse Gas Bulletin: e State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere
Based on Global Observations through 202. Geneva: WMO, 2024b.
Disponível em: https://library.wmo.int/ idurl/4/69057. Acesso em: 3 jan. 2025.
67
Sustainable transformation:
e role of INYAGA/UFRJ in
the Brazil-EU connection
Kelyane Silva
Fabiana dos Santos e Souza Frickmann
alissa Pádua Gilaberte
Eliane Ribeiro Pereira
Ana Paula Sperling Mendes
Antônio José Barbosa de Oliveira
Rosário Mauritti
Vicente Antônio de Castro Ferreira
Rodrigo Antunes Malvar Hermida
Abstract: In 2025 Brazil will host the 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30).
e transition to more efficient economic models that take into account health,
social justice, and environmental responsibility has become a global priority, both in
Brazil and Mercosur, as in the European Union. Entrepreneurial initiatives are being
articulated to promote new technologies and sustainable solutions with social impact.
In this context, the Social and Environmental Impact Business Incubator (Inyaga) at
the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) has emerged as an integrative platform
for technological and sustainable innovation to support startups and entrepreneurs.
It promotes businesses with a social and environmental impact to solve complex local
problems, such as inequality in access to resources, climate change, pollution, soil
improvement, environmental monitoring, and social inclusion. With a multidisciplinary
and collaborative approach, Inyaga connects academics, managers, researchers, students,
and entrepreneurs to opportunities that promote innovation. It has also created links
with international partners like the University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE) to foster
scientific and technological cooperation between the UFRJ and ISCTE. As such, the
https://doi.org/10.36311/2025.978-65-5954-580-3.p67-78
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
68
organ reflects a willingness to build ties that strengthen innovation, sustainability and an
exchange of experiences and good practices between Brazil and Portugal, representing a
bridge for international academic and scientific exchange. is encourages the creation of
innovative solutions that can be replicated in different contexts, integrating local Brazilian
knowledge with international technological and methodological developments. Inyaga
values diversity in the inclusive and holistic way required to face global challenges. As
such, its collaboration with ISCTE is an example of a partnership that strengthens public
policies and creates sustainable solutions for the global challenges of the 21st century
through international cooperation.
Keywords: Sustainable solutions; environmental responsibility; entrepreneurs innovation;
UFRJ, Brazil-EU connection
IntroductIon
In the contemporary scenario, where Brazil will host the 30th UN
Conference on Climate Change (COP30) in Belém (PA) in November
2025, innovation and sustainability policies play a key role in addressing
the most urgent global challenges. e transition to development models
that integrate economic efficiency, health, social justice, and environmental
responsibility has become a priority on national and international
agendas. is movement is driven by issues such as climate change,
epidemics, increasing social inequalities, the pressure for greater economic
competitiveness in globalized markets, and the need to conserve natural
resources for future generations.
In Brazil and within the scope of Mercosur and the European
Union, initiatives focused on innovative entrepreneurship have emerged in
response to these demands. ese initiatives not only promote the creation
of new technologies and solutions, but also seek to integrate sustainability
and the social impact of economic development.
According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2021),
entrepreneurship in Brazil has shown significant trends towards innovation
and social impact, reflecting a transformation in the profile of emerging
businesses in the country. e report highlighted that entrepreneurial
initiatives are not only addressing economic demands, but are increasingly
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
69
aligned with sustainable development goals, promoting solutions that
integrate technology, sustainability, and social benefits.
In this context, business incubators play a crucial role, acting
as true laboratories for the development of entrepreneurial ideas that,
besides being economically viable, are aligned with socio-environmental
transformation goals. Incubators are more than spaces for logistical and
technical support, and have traditionally been used to support startups
(Bergaman; McMullen, 2022; Capatina et al., 2023).
ese spaces act as ecosystems that promote interaction between
entrepreneurs, academic institutions, public and private organizations,
as well as investors, creating an environment conducive to innovation
and interdisciplinary collaboration. It is important to highlight that the
primary goal of an incubator is to foster the growth of successful, financially
sustainable, and competitive companies in their markets. As such, they
ensure that these organizations continue to evolve even after completing
their incubation period (Dornelas, 2008; Bergaman; McMullen, 2022).
is initial support can be decisive for the consolidation of companies
that contribute not only to economic development, but also to the
construction of innovative social technological solutions aimed at global
demands (Chavez, 2016).
In this panorama, the Social and Environmental Impact Business
Incubator (Inyaga), linked to the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
(UFRJ), has emerged as a relevant example of how Brazilian institutions can
integrate technological innovation and sustainability into their practices.
Inyaga supports startups and entrepreneurs by promoting social
and environmental impact businesses. It focuses on solving complex, real,
and local problems, such as inequality in resource access, climate change,
pollution, soil improvement, environmental monitoring, and social
inclusion. Its model is based on a multidisciplinary and collaborative
approach, connecting academics, business managers, researchers, students,
and entrepreneurs to opportunities that promote innovation. Furthermore,
as argued by Sansone et al. (2020), public policies are essential to foster social
incubators, because they have the potential to support entrepreneurship in
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
70
Brazil more effectively, thus contributing to the strengthening of the social
and environmental innovation ecosystem.
e main objective of this chapter is to analyze the performance of
Inyaga as a practical example of how innovation and sustainability policies
can be implemented in a national and global context. e analysis covers
its organizational structure, the support programs offered, and the impacts
generated in terms of socioeconomic and environmental development.
Additionally, it seeks to understand how Inyaga positions itself within
the Brazilian innovation ecosystem, investigating its relationship with
public policies that encourage innovation and international collaboration
networks.
developMent
overvIew of InnovatIon and sustaInaBIlIty polIcIes
In Brazil, the formation of incubators is relatively recent compared
to the United States, beginning in the 1980s with the initiative of CNPq
(National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) to create
the first institutions to support innovative ventures in the country, located
in Campina Grande (PB), Manaus (AM), São Carlos (SP), Porto Alegre
(RS), and Florianópolis (SC). is decision led to the creation of ParqTec
- São Carlos High Technology Park Foundation - in 1984, where Brazil’s
first incubator was established (Anprotec, 2016).
However, it was only in 2004 that the National Science, Technology,
and Innovation Strategy (ENCTI) was created, with the publication of
Innovation Law No. 10.973 (Brasil, 2004). is law was an important
milestone for promoting innovation in the country, as it encouraged
actions like the creation and development of technological parks.
Regarding socio-environmental sustainability, society in 2024
had a dual perception (except for indigenous peoples and traditional
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
71
communities): one of socio-historical origin and another of scientific
origin. Since the 1960s, urban populations have become increasingly
aware of the planet’s growing deterioration, due to issues like pollution,
environmental accidents, degradation of ecosystems and natural resources,
the limitation of these resources, accelerated and chaotic urbanization,
and anthropogenic disturbances. e scientific origin reflects actions to
capture knowledge about nature and its elements from natural sciences
(Chaves, 2015).
e European Union is recognized for its robust innovation and
sustainability strategies, with programs like Horizon Europe, which
integrates investments in green technology and social impact startups
(European Commission, 2020). In Mercosur, although there are joint
efforts such as the MERCOSUR Network of Business Incubators,
challenges to regional integration have limited the advancement of
transnational projects.
In this context, although it is evident that both Brazil and the EU
promote policies aligned with the seventeen Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2015), they employ different strategies. Whereas the
EU prioritizes regulatory harmonization and long-term funding, Brazil
faces structural challenges that require creative local solutions, such as
those proposed by Inyaga.
e scientific and technological partnership between the School
of Business and Accounting Sciences at the Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro (UFRJ) and the Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE) illustrates
how the exchange of knowledge and experience between institutions from
different countries can enhance local initiatives, thus strengthening the
impact of business incubators and contributing to the consolidation of a
global innovation environment.
erefore, this chapter aims to reflect on the progress and challenges
faced by initiatives like Inyaga, exploring its transformative potential
in both the Brazilian and international contexts. e actions of Inyaga
consider socio-economic aspects and Brazil’s reality. Unlike European
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
72
countries, Brazil faces a discrepancy in environmental and social realities,
which manifests in different understandings of territorial knowledge.
For instance, it is worth highlighting the interfaces between traditional
knowledge (indigenous peoples, quilombolas, traditional farmers, etc.),
scientific knowledge, and urban knowledge. In this regard, partnerships
through scientific and technological cooperation with developed countries
have proven to be a promising tool for reflecting on Brazil’s alignment with
the global sustainable development goals.
socIo-envIronMental IMpact & results
e scientific and technological cooperation agreement between
UFRJ and ISCTE reflects the parties’ willingness to build ties that
strengthen innovation and sustainability. It also allows for the exchange
of experiences and best practices between Brazil and Portugal, in which
capacity it serves as a bridge for academic and scientific exchange between
Mercosur and the EU.
is partnership not only strengthens Brazil’s innovation and
entrepreneurship capacity, it also positions the country as a relevant
player in the international sustainable development arena. e exchange
of knowledge and experiences facilitated by the agreement fosters the
creation of innovative solutions that can be replicated in other contexts,
thus expanding the reach of best practices. Moreover, by integrating local
Brazilian knowledge with international technological and methodological
advances, the agreement contributes to the appreciation of the country’s
cultural and scientific diversity, in addition to promoting a more inclusive
and holistic approach to global challenges.
Another relevant aspect is the creation of opportunities for young
researchers and entrepreneurs who, through this cooperation, gain access
to international cooperation networks and resources that enhance their
initiatives. e connection between Inyaga, the UFRJ, and ISCTE
exemplifies how cooperation between institutions from different countries
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
73
can result in mutual benefits, while consolidating an environment
conducive to advancing science, technology, and innovation.
Inyaga operates as a business incubator focused on socio-
environmental impact. It has an organizational structure that prioritizes
interdisciplinarity and the integration of knowledge. Based on its mission,
the incubator organizes its support programs into three main pillars:
specialized mentoring; connections with national and international
innovation networks; and the promotion of sustainability. ese pillars
enable entrepreneurs from various sectors to develop innovative and
sustainable solutions that address local and global demands.
e governance of Inyaga reflects a collaborative approach, involving
not only UFRJ experts, but also external partners. is support network is
essential for creating a fertile environment for innovation, and it ensures a
convergence of resources and knowledge.
BrazIl-european unIon connectIon: cooperatIon agreeMent wIth
Iscte and InterdIscIplInary suBjects
e Scientific and Technological Cooperation Agreement, signed
in 2019 between FACC/UFRJ and the School of Sociology and Public
Policy at ISCTE aims to strengthen the academic and scientific exchange
between both institutions. e partnership facilitates joint participation
in research projects, the organization of scientific events, participation in
academic committees, publication development and, most importantly,
the creation and implementation of interdisciplinary subjects focused on
innovation and entrepreneurship.
e objective of the Agreement is to enhance the training of leaders
and equip them to tackle the complexities of contemporary challenges,
promoting sustainable practices and driving technological advancements
essential for national development. As part of this strategy, since 2023,
four subjetcs have already been implemented at UFRJ, as a direct result of
the cooperation between ISCTE and UFRJ:
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
74
• Acquisition of Interpersonal Skills for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship
• Innovation and Technology
• Design inking for Innovation and Social Impact
• Innovation Indicators
ese subjects not only provide students with essential complementary
training to face contemporary challenges, they have also contributed to
the establishment of a Laboratory of Transversal Competencies at UFRJ,
the latter being aimed at consolidating an institutional model focused on
higher education innovation. It is worth noting that new interdisciplinary
subjects are planned to further expand the initiative’s impact.
e knowledge and experience gained by students in these subjects
are further enhanced through their immersion in innovative environments
like Inyaga. In this context, Inyaga serves as an experimentation platform,
allowing students to engage with real-world challenges, apply classroom-
acquired knowledge, and develop practical experiences through projects
and internships.
With an organizational structure that prioritizes interdisciplinarity
and knowledge integration, Inyaga supports entrepreneurs through
three key pillars: specialized mentoring; connection with national and
international innovation networks; and sustainability promotion. ese
pillars enable the development of innovative solutions aligned with both
local and global demands, strengthening the entrepreneurial ecosystem
within the university.
Inyaga’s governance reflects this collaborative approach, involving
not only UFRJ experts but also external partners, such as ISCTE. is
cooperative network is essential for creating an academic and professional
environment conducive to innovation, fostering the convergence of
knowledge and resources, and driving the adoption of innovative practices
in higher education.
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
75
Inyaga as a Model for socIo-envIronMental IMpact IncuBators
As defined in its statutes, Inyaga is an innovation unit at the UFRJ
that promotes teaching, research and extension projects. Its main objectives
include identifying and supporting emerging ventures, while fostering a
culture of technological and social innovation, and creating a measurable
socio-environmental impact. is model stands out for integrating academics,
managers, entrepreneurs and investors into a collaborative ecosystem.
Among Inyaga’s programs, the following stand out:
• Pre-Incubation Program: Structuring innovative ideas and
enabling their transformation into sustainable businesses.
• Mentorships and Consultations: Continuous support in business
modeling, socio-environmental impact assessment, Technology
Readiness Level (TRL), intellectual and industrial property,
as well as strategic development, all focused on enhancing
innovative solutions.
• Workshops and Training: Practical and theoretical workshops on
innovation, sustainability and entrepreneurship, contributing
to strengthening the capacities of incubated businesses and the
external community.
• Connection with Investors: Building networks between
entrepreneurs and investors interested in social and environmental
impact, in addition to expanding fundraising opportunities for
impactful businesses.
rough this multifaceted approach, Inyaga has positioned itself as a
reference among socio-environmental impact incubators in Brazil. In this
capacity, it contributes to the consolidation of an innovation ecosystem
that prioritizes sustainable and inclusive solutions.
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
76
Inyaga structure and governance
Inyaga operates with a participatory governance structure composed
of three main bodies: the General Management; Advisory Board; and
the Technical Committee. is organization allows for decentralized and
inclusive management, promoting collaborative decisions able to meet the
demands of the innovation ecosystem and Brazil’s environmental needs,
aimed at sustainable development.
e Advisory Board, for instance, is responsible for deliberating on
strategic issues, including the selection of new members and performance
assessment. e Technical Committee acts as an advisory body, and analyzes
the technical quality of projects applying to the incubator’s programs. is
robust structure ensures that Inyaga maintains a standard of excellence in
its operations.
Inyaga, whose name means “Our Land” in the Brazilian Ka’apor
indigenous language, stands out in preparing UFRJ’s scientific environment
by furthering innovation research and commercial links with enterprises
and new businesses.
• Mission: Contribute to building a more just and sustainable
world through the catalysis of technology-based businesses and
socio-environmental values.
• Vision: Become a reference as a catalyst for businesses capable of
causing socio-environmental impacts and innovative solutions
by 2030.
• Values: Sustainability, ethics & respect, innovation, partnership
and entrepreneurship.
conclusIon
e academic integration between Brazil and the European
Union, exemplified by the agreement between UFRJ and ISCTE, shows
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
77
how international partnerships can drive sustainable development and
innovation. ese collaborations are essential for strengthening public
policies and creating shared sustainable solutions for the global challenges
of the 21st century.
In conclusion, the cooperation between both institutions serves as
an example of how academic partnerships may contribute to sustainable
development and innovation. Moreover, Inyaga’s performance has been able
to stimulate interactions between researchers and the industrial sector at
the national level. us, Inyaga contributes to the development of strategic
innovations necessary for Brazil’s industry to gain a competitive edge, and
also promotes the sustainability of Brazilian cities as replicable models that
can be adopted by other countries through international cooperation.
references
ANPROTEC. Histórico do setor de incubação de empresas no Brasil e no mundo.
Brasília, DF: ANPROTEC, 2016.
BERGAMAN, B. J.; McMullen, J. S. Helping entrepreneurs help themselves:
a review and relatioanal research agenda, on entre preneurial support
organizations. Entrepreneurchip eory and practice, Newbury Park, v. 46, n. 3,
p. 688-728, Jul. 2022.
BRASIL. Presidência da República. Lei n. 10.973 de 02 de dezembro de 2004.
Dispõe sobre incentivos à inovação e à pesquisa científica e tecnológica no
ambiente produtivo e dá outras providências. Lei de Inovação Brasileira.
Brasília, DF: Planalto, 2004.
CAPATINA, A.; CRISTEA, D. S.; MICU, A.; MICU, A. E.; EMPOLI, G.;
CODIGNOLA, F. Exploring causal recipes of startup acceptance into business
incubators: a cross-country study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, Bingley, v. 29, n. 7, p. 1584-1612, Jan. 2023. DOI
10.1108/IJEBR-06-2022-0527. Disponível em: https://www.emerald.com/
insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijebr-06-2022-0527/full/pdf?title=exploring-
causal-recipes-of-startup-acceptance-into-business-incubators-a-cross-country-
study IJEBR-06-2022-0527_proof 1584..1612. Acesso em: 6 jan. 2025.
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
78
CHAVES, M. P. S. R. Desenvolvimento e Sustentabilidade na Amazônia. In:
CASSIOLATO, M. G.; PODCAMENI, M. C. SOARES, J. Sustentabilidade
socioambiental em contexto de crise. Rio de Janeiro: E papers, 2015. p. 193-210.
CHAVEZ, V. A.; STINNETT, R.; TIERNEY, R.; WALSH, S. e importance
of the technologically able social innovators and entrepreneurs: A US national
laboratory perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Amsterdã, v.
121, p. 205-215, Oct. 2017.
DORNELAS, J. C. A. Empreendedorismo: transformando ideias em negócios. 3.
ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2008. 222 p.
FAVERO, M. B.; C. CHIRNEV; P. R. da SILVA; L. H. P. TOME; R. T.
CEZARIN; M. PENHA. Empreendedorismo e ensino superior: análise do
perfil empreendedor de alunos de um centro universitário. Gestão, Inovação e
Empreendedorismo, Ribeirão Preto, v. 7, n. 1, p. 118-130, 2024. Disponivel em:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13852022. Acesso em: 6 jan. 2024.
GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR (GEM). Empreendedorismo
no Brasil: Relatório Nacional 2021. Londres: GEM, 2021. Disponível em:
https://www.gemconsortium.org. Acesso em: 14 jan. 2025.
ONU. Agenda 2030 para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. ODS. Objetivos para
o Desenvolvimento Sustentável da Agenda 2030 das Organizações Unidas
(ONU). East River, Nova York: ONU, 2015.
MACHADO H. O. et. al. Mapeamento de atores do ecossistema de inovação
da cidade de Timon – Maranhão e suas potencialidades. Revista de Gestão e
Secretariado, Lisboa, v. 15, n. 1, p. 995–1011, jan./mar. 2024.
SANTA ANA, M. F. O distanciamento que existe entre as pesquisas
desenvolvidas nas universidades e a inovação que chega as indústrias brasileiras.
Revista Ibero-Americana de Humanidades, Ciências e Educação, São Paulo, v. 7,
n. 7, p. 324-334, jul. 2021. DOI: http://doi.org/10.51891/rease.v7i7.1691.
Disponivel em: https://periodicorease.pro.br/rease/article/download/1691/680.
Acesso em: 15 nov. 2024.
SANSONE, G.; ANDREOTTI, P.; COLOMBELLI, A.; LANDONI, P.
Are social incubators different from other incubators? Evidence from Italy.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Amsterdã, v. 1 Disponivel em: 61, n.
158, p. 1-13, Jun.. 2020. Acesso em: 13 jan. 2025.
79
Final Considerations
is book has highlighted the main themes of each chapter and their
relevance in the context of Brazil-EU relations and the Jean Monnet Chair
at UFG, from the perspective of Laís Forti omaz, Chair Coordinator.
is conclusion addresses the main policy recommendations (policy
prescription) addressed to the EU, Brazil and the state of Goiás. e
present recommendations result from the particular interpretation of each
chapter of this book.
First, the use of artificial intelligence in the service of environmental
protection is recommended, as it allows for the monitoring of
deforestation, pollution and climate change, among others (see chapter
by Oliveira and Flauzino). Data collection and analysis using AI could
provide more effective, faster and more accurate public policies in the face
of environmental problems.
Guidelines and regulations are recommended to ethically guide the
collection, storage and use of data. Additionally, the promotion of inclusive
and fair governance based on a collaborative and adaptive approach in
view of global standards and local needs is emphasized.
Secondly, a perspective that integrates economic, environmental and
local community approaches is recommended in view of the provisions on
https://doi.org/10.36311/2025.978-65-5954-580-3.p79-81
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
80
trade and environmental protection contained in the agreements between
Mercosur and the EU (see chapter by Camargo and Hora). In this context,
at least at the diplomatic level, there was an understanding about the
need to combat deforestation, restore degraded areas and regularize the
protected territories of indigenous peoples.
In this case, Brazil adheres to the ILO Convention 169 and has
adopted a robust forestry code. is recommendation highlights the
possibility of benefiting agricultural exporters who respect the standards
and actively promote sustainability. erein lies a potential for innovation
in cooperation with the EU in the areas of energy efficiency, water resource
management and genetic improvements, among others. However, not all
Brazilian exporters abide by these rules, and it is this group of producers
that the EU is concerned about with reference to Brazil.
irdly, it is recommended that Brazil pay attention to the
opportunities to achieve high standards of environmental preservation
supported by European funding for projects to promote sustainable
development (see chapter by Silva). In this sense, Brazil could, instead
of accusing the EU of economic protectionism under an environmental
pretext, highlight products and economic sectors that comply with both
national legislation and EU requirements. is reinforces the argument
that promoting environmental sustainability is also a way to foster
economic development.
Fourthly, recommendations directly related to municipalities
stand out: aligning local legislation and projects with national and global
guidelines and standards; as well as promoting the exchange of experiences
with a view to implementing these laws and projects (see chapter by
Nascimento and Martín-Vide). For example, both Brazil and Spain have
committed to mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change,
but nationally and locally, there are several layers that differentiate these
contexts. Sharing experiences has the potential to diagnose similar problems
and apply adaptive solutions.
In the fifth place, the report on the partnership between the Social
and Environmental Impact Business Incubator (Inyaga) of the Federal
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
81
University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and the University Institute of Lisbon
(ISCTE) reinforces the aforementioned recommendation (see chapter by
Silva et al.). In addition, it inspires an additional recommendation, which
concerns the interdisciplinary approach of projects in unison with the
private sector. It is worth noting, in this context, that actions to promote
innovation and sustainable development do not depend solely on the
State, and that it is crucial to stimulate businesses, especially those with a
high socio-environmental impact.
Finally, two recommendations present in all chapters of this book
stand out. e first is the centrality of local actors. e perspectives
presented in this work have emphasized the leading role of these actors,
the need to adapt to them, or both. e second relates to the centrality
of the EU as a global actor, which is indicated by its prominence in the
environmental agenda or by the capillarity of initiatives (programs or
projects) that involve cooperation at the national, regional or local level, as
well as between state and non-state actors.
Diego Trindade d’Ávila Magalhães
Vice-Coordinator of the Jean Monnet Chair at UFG
82
83
Authors’ Mini Biographies
Ana Paula Sperling Mendes
Plastics Engineer (ULBRA) with a specialization in Environment (UFRJ)
and Business Processes (FGV). Socioenvironmental Innovation Agent at
the UFRJ Social and Environmental Impact Business Incubator (Inyaga).
Email: ana@inyaga.ufrj.br
Antônio José Barbosa de Oliveira
PhD in Social Memory (UERJ). Associate Professor and Director at the
School of Administration and Accounting Sciences (FACC) of the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Email: antoniojose@facc.ufrj.br
Diego Tarley Ferreira Nascimento
Geographer and PhD in Geography, Associate Professor at the Federal
University of Goiás (UFG) and accredited to the Graduate Programs in
Geography (PPGEO/UFG), Environmental Sciences (CIAMB/UFG) and
Geography (PPGEO/UEG). Contact: diego_nascimento@ufg.br
Diego Trindade d’Ávila Magalhães
Vice-Coordinator of the Jean Monnet Chair at UFG. Associate Professor
of International Relations at the Federal University of Goiás (UFG). PhD
in International Strategic Studies (UFRGS). Contact: diegotdm@ufg.br
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
84
Eliane Ribeiro Pereira
PhD in Production Engineering (UFF). Full Professor at the School of
Administration and Accounting Sciences (FACC) of the Federal University
of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Coordinator of the UFRJ Incubator for Social
and Environmental Impact Businesses (Inyaga). Email: Eliane@facc.ufrj.br
Fabiana dos Santos e Souza Frickmann
PhD in Plant Biotectology (UFRJ). Master in Tropical Forest Ecology
(INPA). Specialist in phytomedicines (NGBS/FIOCRUZ). Biologist
(UFRJ). Socio-environmental Innovation Agent at the UFRJ Social and
Environmental Impact Business Incubator (Inyaga). Email: phasect@
yahoo.com.br
Filipe Prado Macedo da Silva
Professor and Researcher at the Institute of Economics and International
Relations of the Federal University of Uberlândia (IERI/UFU). Leader
of the “Conexão Bruxelas | Study Group on Europe and the European
Union”. Institutional email: filipe.prado@ufu.br.
Javier Martín-Vide
Mathematician and PhD in Geography and History, Full Professor at the
University of Barcelona (UB), member of the Royal Academy of Sciences
and Arts of Barcelona and coordinator of the Expert Group on Climate
Change of Catalonia. Contact: jmartinvide@ub.edu
José Neto Cassiano de Camargo
Graduated in Agronomy, Master in Sustainable Rural Development and
PhD candidate in Environmental Sciences (Ciamb) at UFG. Contact:
jose.camargo@discente.ufg.br
Karla Emmanuela Ribeiro Hora
Graduated in Architecture and Urbanism, Master in Geography, PhD in
Environment and Development from UFPR. Professor at the PPG Ciamb/
UFG. Contact: karla_hora@ufg.br
European Union and Brazil:
Innovative and Sustainable Strategies for Cooperation
85
Kelyane Silva
PhD in Intellectual Property and Innovation (INPI). Associate Professor
at the School of Administration and Accounting Sciences (FACC) of the
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Vice-Coordinator of the
UFRJ Incubator for Social and Environmental Impact Businesses (Inyaga).
Email: kelyane@facc.ufrj.br
Laís Forti omaz
Coordinator of the Jean Monnet Chair at UFG. Associate Professor of
International Relations. Chief of Staff at the Ministry of Mines and Energy
(MME). laisthomaz@ufg.br / lais.thomaz@mme.gov.br
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira
Full Professor at UNESP – Marília Campus and CEO of IGEPRI (Institute
of Public Management and International Relations). Contact: marcelo.
fernandes@unesp.br.
Rodrigo Antunes Malvar Hermida
Master’s student in Production Engineering (UFRJ). Business
Administration with specialization in Marketing (PUC RIO) and Project
Management (FGV RJ). Socioenvironmental Innovation Agent at the
UFRJ Incubator for Social and Environmental Impact Businesses (Inyaga).
Email: rodrigoantunes@inyaga.ufrj.br
Rosário Mauritti
Sociologist. Associate Professor at Iscte-University Institute of Lisbon.
Director of the Laboratory of Transversal Skills (LCT-Iscte). Email: rosario.
mauritti@iscte-iul.pt
alissa Pádua Gilaberte
PhD in Intellectual Property and Innovation (INPI). Lawyer and Socio-
Environmental Innovation Agent at the UFRJ Social and Environmental
Impact Business Incubator (Inyaga). Email: thalissa@inyaga.ufrj.br
Diego Trindade D’Ávila Magalhães, Laís Forti omaz e
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira (Org.)
86
Vicente Antônio de Castro Ferreira
PhD in Industrial and Technological Economics (UFRJ). Professor at the
Institute of Economics of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).
Email: vicente@coppead.ufrj.br
Victória Eduarda Flauzino
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNESP -/Campus de Marília and
Researcher at IGEPRI (Institute of Public Management and International
Relations). Contact: victoria.e.flauzino@unesp.br
cataloguIng In puBlIcatIon (cIp)
Telma Jaqueline Dias Silveira
CRB 8/7867
norMalIzatIon
Elizabete Cristina de Souza de Aguiar
Monteiro
CRB - 8/7963
cover and
Cairo José Alves Guimarães
Gláucio Rogério de Morais
layout
Gláucio Rogério de Morais
graphIc productIon
Giancarlo Malheiro Silva
Gláucio Rogério de Morais
technIcal consultancy
Renato Geraldi
unIversIty worKshop
Laboratório Editorial
labeditorial.marilia@unesp.br
forMat
16 x 23cm
typology
Adobe Garamond Pro
2025
aBout the BooK
Diego Trindade D´Ávila Magalhães
Laís Forti Thomaz
Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira
(Organizers)
EUROPEAN UNION
AND BRAZIL
Innovative and Sustainable
Strategies for Cooperation
Diego Trindade , Laís Forti e Marcelo Fernandes (Org.)
EUROPEAN UNION AND BRAZIL
