Brazilian Legal Time of Sustainable Development …
373
Regarding formal features, though, our findings unveil that Brazilian case is one of
weak regulation of sustainable development and somehow expresses lack of engagement.
No doubts it would be better if laws (either complementar or ordinaria), instead
of Presidential Decrees, were the prevailing legal instrument to implement public
policies of sustainable development. But as it was shown, this is not the case. This
feature notably points out the debility of the current regulatory framework.
The Brazilian model of planning its development within a short term view, without
multilevel dialogue and full of discontinuities, somehow expresses lack of engagement. Although recent attempts to overcome this model, it is still dominant.
Whenever one observes the way UN have been addressing the issue of development, soon realizes that since the Declaration on the Right to Development (1986)
up to Agenda 2030, efforts have been made to articulate human rights and implement
executive plans that could be able to assure protection and progressive promotion of
all human rights, as well as sustainable development in a multidimensional perspective. Such guidelines are not set forth explicitly in the Brazilian Constitution, but the
Charter is fully receptive thereof. Beyond these standards, UN have been making
intensive efforts with the help of States, toward managing a complex data system not
only to monitor domestic implementation of action plans, but also to share outcomes.
Significant differences comes up with the means of implementing plans of development. So far, Brazil was not able to articulate national priorities domestically,
neither with the convergence of PPAs from all members of the Federation, nor with a
national system information on the implementation of the most part of public policies.
In addition, if to the UN guidelines the challenging changes toward sustainable
development require continuity and progressive implementation of measures in the
long run, in this particular point one meet sparking contrast between Brazil’s model
and that suggested by the Agenda 2030. Brazil didn’t even dare creating a multiannual plan of development based on broad national interests of the long run, in
spite of the constitutional authority set forth to do so. SDGs targets and goals require
commitments that might last longer than singular government mandates. Still, such
plans require transversal actions as well as participation of multiple stakeholders.
None of this have been part of the Brazilian model of planning development.
The SDG 2030 Agenda will fail in Brazil should a new model of constitutional
and infra-constitutional regulation is not set out, clearly suitable with innovations
required to implement ODS in 15-year cycles. Based on the current model, there are
few chances towards Brazil implementing the Agenda 2030.
Acknowledgements We are particularly grateful to Carolina Tissi Della Zuana for her assistance
with the correction of a number of minor errors of this translation.
373
Regarding formal features, though, our findings unveil that Brazilian case is one of
weak regulation of sustainable development and somehow expresses lack of engagement.
No doubts it would be better if laws (either complementar or ordinaria), instead
of Presidential Decrees, were the prevailing legal instrument to implement public
policies of sustainable development. But as it was shown, this is not the case. This
feature notably points out the debility of the current regulatory framework.
The Brazilian model of planning its development within a short term view, without
multilevel dialogue and full of discontinuities, somehow expresses lack of engagement. Although recent attempts to overcome this model, it is still dominant.
Whenever one observes the way UN have been addressing the issue of development, soon realizes that since the Declaration on the Right to Development (1986)
up to Agenda 2030, efforts have been made to articulate human rights and implement
executive plans that could be able to assure protection and progressive promotion of
all human rights, as well as sustainable development in a multidimensional perspective. Such guidelines are not set forth explicitly in the Brazilian Constitution, but the
Charter is fully receptive thereof. Beyond these standards, UN have been making
intensive efforts with the help of States, toward managing a complex data system not
only to monitor domestic implementation of action plans, but also to share outcomes.
Significant differences comes up with the means of implementing plans of development. So far, Brazil was not able to articulate national priorities domestically,
neither with the convergence of PPAs from all members of the Federation, nor with a
national system information on the implementation of the most part of public policies.
In addition, if to the UN guidelines the challenging changes toward sustainable
development require continuity and progressive implementation of measures in the
long run, in this particular point one meet sparking contrast between Brazil’s model
and that suggested by the Agenda 2030. Brazil didn’t even dare creating a multiannual plan of development based on broad national interests of the long run, in
spite of the constitutional authority set forth to do so. SDGs targets and goals require
commitments that might last longer than singular government mandates. Still, such
plans require transversal actions as well as participation of multiple stakeholders.
None of this have been part of the Brazilian model of planning development.
The SDG 2030 Agenda will fail in Brazil should a new model of constitutional
and infra-constitutional regulation is not set out, clearly suitable with innovations
required to implement ODS in 15-year cycles. Based on the current model, there are
few chances towards Brazil implementing the Agenda 2030.
Acknowledgements We are particularly grateful to Carolina Tissi Della Zuana for her assistance
with the correction of a number of minor errors of this translation.