Seven major European investment firms said they would divest from beef producers, grains traders and even government bonds in Brazil if they do not see progress in resolving the surging destruction of the Amazon rainforest.
The rising threats from investors with more than US$2 trillion in assets under management, including Finland-based Nordea and the UK’s Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM), show how the private sector is taking global action to protect the world’s largest rainforest.
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has shrugged off diplomatic pressure on the matter.
Deforestation of Brazil’s Amazon surged to an 11-year high last year, Bolsonaro’s first year in office, and has risen a further 34 percent in the first five months of this year, according to preliminary data from the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research. The right-wing populist has weakened environmental protections and called for more mining and farming in the Amazon region.
“The trends we’ve seen in Brazil are very concerning,” said Daniela da Costa-Bulthuis, Brazil portfolio manager for Netherlands-based asset manager Robeco. “You have a dismantling of the regulatory mechanisms of environmental control since last year.”
Bolsonaro’s press office declined to comment on the investors’ concerns.
Bolsonaro last year defended Brazil’s environmental record against criticism from world leaders as destructive fires in the Amazon drew global outcry. So far, corporate pressure has proven more effective in turning Brasilia’s attention to the environment.
A bill Bolsonaro originally proposed to grant property deeds for irregularly settled public land, a measure seen encouraging deforestation, last month failed to reach a vote and is delayed indefinitely after more than 40 mostly European companies threatened to boycott Brazilian exports.
In September last year, 230 institutional investors signed a letter calling for urgent action to combat the fires surging in the Amazon rainforest, capturing global attention.
However, seven asset management firms — Storebrand, AP7, KLP, DNB Asset Management, Robeco, Nordea Asset Management and LGIM — went further in laying out the threat of divestment if there is not progress. The firms hold more than US$5 billion in investments linked to Brazil, including global grains traders with major operations in the country.
Norway’s largest pension fund KLP said it was engaging with trading firms Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill and Bunge and judging if their environmental policies are adequate.
“If our conclusion is negative, divestment can be the likely result, potentially as soon as this year and we’d expect such a move to trigger other larger investors to follow our lead,” KLP head of responsible investment Jeanett Bergan said in an e-mail.
In response to questions on divestment, Bunge and Cargill described a range of efforts to root out deforestation from their supply chains, citing their adherence to the “Amazon Soy Moratorium.”
In that voluntary agreement, major trading firms including Cargill, Bunge and ADM pledged not to buy soy from parts of the Amazon deforested since 2008.
ADM did not respond to request for comment.
Norwegian insurance and pension provider Storebrand and Sweden’s largest national pension fund AP7 also said they could divest from ADM and Bunge if the companies do not take adequate measures to combat deforestation.
Norway’s DNB Asset Management AS said that index funds it manages, which include holdings in Bunge, could exclude companies that fail to meet its sustainability standards.
Other investment firms mentioned concerns related to Brazilian meatpackers, which have drawn scrutiny in the past for sourcing beef from deforested areas of the Amazon.
LGIM is pushing Brazilian companies, including the world’s largest meatpacker, JBS, and smaller rivals Marfrig and Minerva for “robust climate targets and land-use policies, with inaction potentially leading to voting sanctions and targeted divestments,” LGIM senior sustainability analyst Yasmine Svan said in an e-mailed statement.
JBS, Minerva and Marfrig said in separate statements they are committed to eliminating Amazon deforestation from their supply chains and detailed their efforts.
The asset management arm of Nordea, one of the Nordic countries’ biggest banks, halted purchases of Brazilian sovereign debt last year after forest fires flared, putting its roughly 100 million euros (US$112.1 million) of Brazilian government bonds in “quarantine.”
However, Nordea Asset Management head of emerging-market debt Thede Ruest said the firm could go further.
“The next level of escalation from quarantining actually means selling our Brazil government bonds, which could trigger other funds following suit,” Ruest said. “We are disappointed by the lack of progress by the current administration, with deforestation rates continuing to soar ahead of another major fire season.”
Da Costa-Bulthuis of Robeco, which manages at least 3 billion euros in Brazilian equities and up to 5 billion euros when including debt and other assets, declined to comment on specific holdings.
She said the firm could reduce its exposure to Brazil if its environmental record deteriorates further.
Da Costa-Bulthuis, along with Svan and Ruest, expressed alarm about a video of a Brazilian cabinet meeting, made public due to a federal investigation.
In the recording, Brazilian Minister of the Environment Ricardo Salles told Bolsonaro and other ministers that the government should accelerate environmental deregulation while the public is distracted by the current coronavirus pandemic.
“He’s working against the environment. What he said was unacceptable,” Da Costa-Bulthuis said. “If they [the government] will be sensible or not, I think one way to start would be to change the environment minister, because this guy does not have credibility.”
Salles and his press office did not respond to requests for comment on the statement. At the time, the minister said he was only calling for cutting unhelpful bureaucracy that hinders investment.
Bolsonaro last month dispatched the military to combat destruction of the Amazon, although deforestation last month rose again compared with a year earlier for the 13th straight month.
Da Costa-Bulthuis said that the deployment was “the minimum” the government could do and not an adequate replacement for strengthening agencies specialized in environmental enforcement.
“We don’t think they’re doing enough,” she said.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has over the past few months continued to escalate its hegemonic rhetoric and increase its incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone. The US, in turn, has finally realized how its “strategic ambiguity” is increasingly wearing thin. Similarly, any hopes the US had that the PRC would be a responsible stakeholder and economic player have diminished, if not been abandoned. Taiwan, of course, remains as the same de facto independent, democratic nation that the PRC covets. As a result, the US needs to reconsider not only the amount, but also the type of arms
Taking advantage of my Taipei Times editors’ forbearance, I thought I would go with a change of pace by offering a few observations on an interesting nature topic, the many varieties of snakes in Taiwan. I will be drawing on my experiences living in Taiwan five times, from my teenage years in Kaohsiung back in the early sixties, to my last assignment as American Institute in Taiwan Director in 2006-9. Taiwan, with its semitropical climate, is a perfect setting for serpents. Indeed, one might say serpents are an integral part of the island’s ecosystem. Taiwan is warm, humid, with lots of
China constantly seeks out ways to complain about perceived slights and provocations as pretexts for its own aggressive behavior. It is both victimization paranoia and a form of information warfare that keeps the West on the defensive. True to form, China objected even to the innocuous reference to Taiwan at April 16’s summit meeting between US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. Neither leader’s prepared remarks even mentioned Taiwan, out of deference to the Japanese side. Biden’s opening statement was modest: “Prime Minister Suga and I affirmed our ironclad support for US-Japanese alliance and for our shared security.
There is no ambiguity when it comes to war. Ambiguity begs for certainty and a lack thereof has historically led to war. History is full of examples: Europe’s and the US’ ambiguity as to how they would respond to Hitler’s growing territorial expansion in Europe was certainly a contributing factor to World War II. In the same vein, US ambiguity toward Japan’s expansionist militarism in the 1930s clearly led to the Pearl Harbor attacks that started the war in Asia in 1941. Ambiguity in a world with leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) will inevitably