Sossella withdraws bill that would modify pesticide law.

Iuri Müller
On the 21 - After months of discussion and postponements in the Legislative Assembly, bill 20/2012, which modifies the conditions for the marketing and storage of pesticides, was removed from the agenda this Tuesday (20). The decision was made by the author of the proposal himself, Deputy Gilmar Sossella (PDT). The vote was suspended in the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) and had its deadline yesterday morning. Sossella, however, guaranteed that the discussion should return to the state legislature.

The changes to current legislation have generated reactions from environmental organizations and the Rio Grande do Sul State Environmental Protection Foundation (Fepam) itself, which released a technical opinion on the project back in 2012. Critics argue that the proposal puts the health of people who live, study, or work near pesticide storage facilities at risk, and also removes Fepam's legitimacy to define the environmental criteria involving these products.

Gilmar Sossella stated that, following Tuesday's retreat, "one or two articles" should be modified in the original text before the debate returns to the Assembly. According to the PDT member, "Fepam cannot prevent deputies from legislating," so the clash between some parliamentarians and environmental organizations is likely to continue in the coming months.

"The Fepam ordinance is absurd," declares the congressman.

Contrary to the project, Fepam establishes a minimum distance of thirty meters between storage facilities and residences. According to the technical opinion signed by biologist Marta Labres, these are "toxic products, and their storage in residential areas puts the surrounding population at risk of contamination." "Several complaints have been received from neighbors of pesticide storage facilities regarding the smell perceived in their homes and (in relation to) respiratory problems," the document continues.

“These companies have been established in these areas for thirty years, and if I can't legislate, imagine Fepam. Until yesterday, there was no problem with this, and only now do they want to change it,” reported Gilmar Sossella. The deputy contested the entity's position: “Fepam's ordinance is absurd and does not reflect reality.” Fepam's opinion mentions that bill 20/2012 “aims to favor a few companies that are located very close to residences, and this is explicit in article 12.”

The article, which may be modified after the initial withdrawal of the proposal, literally establishes that "all processes filed with Fepam from 2009 onwards must be re-analyzed under the perspective of this law, with companies being exempt from paying a new fee." However, the justification for the PDT member's project presents the intention to "reduce bureaucracy" in accessing competition for small businesses in the areas of marketing and storage of "agrochemicals," a term used in the text.

Finally, the Foundation's technical report clearly states: "we need laws that guarantee progress in environmental protection and public health, and not laws that imply a regression of what has already been achieved and established." The congressman, in turn, recalled "the records broken with each harvest" and argued that "radicalism" should be set aside in the discussion so that production continues to grow.

According to environmentalist, withdrawing the project was strategic.

A Gaia Foundation activist, journalist Cláudia Dreier, followed the sessions in the Legislative Assembly committee that, every month, postponed the decision on the rules. Cláudia stated that Deputy Gilmar Sossella wanted to bring the project to a vote this Tuesday, but ended up withdrawing the measure strategically. According to her, supporters of the proposal lost backers in recent weeks, including Deputies Edson Brum (PMDB), Ronaldo Santini (PTB), and Jorge Pozzobon (PSDB).

“We would prefer that the project be voted on today and end up being rejected in the CCJ itself. We believe that the new proposal will take time, and we hope that it will not be signed by as many deputies as last time,” opined the activist. Cláudia Dreier is confident that the constant mobilization of environmental organizations can reverse the situation, since “at least seven voting intentions” have been altered by today's meeting. There is still no deadline for the author of the proposal to resubmit it to the Legislative Assembly.

For Cláudia, the project presented problems for two fundamental reasons: ignoring the danger that the proximity of the landfills to residential areas represents and removing Fepam's autonomy on the matter. “The meetings in the CCJ are like a game of chess. There are intricacies in this process and it is necessary to be prepared for them, in order to respond politically,” she compared.