More than half of the amounts given to the environmental ministry have gone towards neutering dogs and cats since 2021, when the government () decided that the political coordination of sterilizations should be the responsibility of the department dedicated to nature protection.
In total, over the last five years, deputies and senators reserved around R$249 million from the federal budget for the ministry, which in the current administration (PT) is called the Ministry of Climate Change (MMA).
Of this total, already corrected by the IPCA, 54% of the amounts went to the surgical procedure on animals, which corresponds to approximately R$ 135 million, according to data from the official Siga Brasil portal.
Considering the amendments invested specifically in the states of the Legal Amazon, made up of Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima, Tocantins and part of Maranhão, expenses for neutering pets also prevail.
In the last five years, the sum of amendments directed to this region, where the country’s tropical forest area is located, amounted to R$8.8 million. More than three quarters (78%) of this amount, equivalent to R$6.8 million, was allocated to the sterilization of domestic animals.
Furthermore, the amounts registered as national in scope, which could have been delivered to any of the states or bodies such as ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) and Ibama (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), totaled R$18.7 million.
The survey of Sheet takes 2021 as its starting point because it was in that year that the Bolsonaro government removed the coordination of the pet neutering policy from the zoonoses area of the Ministry of Health and transferred it to the environment department.
During the period, the largest amendment was authored by federal deputy Bruno Ganem (Podemos-SP), worth R$ 16.7 million. Elected by São Paulo, the deputy reserved the resources for castrations, directing the funds to a project by an entity based in Rio de Janeiro called Eu Sou Testemunha do Golias, arguing that the plans are for the institution to promote sterilizations in cities in São Paulo.
This amount was almost double the amount in amendments allocated to the Legal Amazon states in the last five years.
In 2023, congressmen created the Parliamentary Front in Defense of Animals, which has 66% of its 204 members aligned more to the center and right, with agendas focused mainly on domestic animals. Congress also has the Environmentalist Parliamentary Front, in which 60% of the 188 members belong to parties with a more left-wing profile.
In the vote on the call, criticized by environmentalists for making nature protection laws more flexible, the score among members of the Front in Defense of Animals was 105 photos in favor and 52 votes against. Among the parliamentarians of the Environmentalist Front, there were 90 votes against the bill and 45 in favor.
In the Amazon region, due to COP30, a conference that puts Brazil in the global showcase and mobilizes the political class with speeches in defense of nature.
According to Natalia Figueiredo, Public Policy manager at the NGO Global Animal Protection, the attention of congressmen should not be restricted to the neutering of pets.
“It is essential to look a little more at wild animals, which brings together both ICMBio and Ibama, which are bodies that have this prerogative, rather than focusing only on castration programs that are easily implemented and focused on local actors, in municipalities”, he states.
For Figueiredo, the defense of domestic animals, although very necessary, is an easy topic to explore with the aim of securing votes. “It’s a very palatable agenda and easy to depoliticize, because it’s nice to make a video with a dog or a cat. It’s nonsense to position yourself as a defender of animals and be in favor of increasing the , which clearly affects wild animals.”
In the expert’s assessment, the return of the animal agenda to the Health department could increase the available funds, but the Ministry of the Environment’s commitment to the topic led to important political advances.
“The decree that transferred the issue to the MMA brought animal welfare and animal rights expressed as competences of the ministry. Today, it is much more about the individual animal and not just in the light of human health. It is a complex debate, but the animal needs to be the center of the process to formulate public policy”, says Figueiredo.
The executive secretary of the MMA, Anna Flávia Franco, says that the neutering of pets has always been treated as a public health problem and the recent migration of the subject to the environment area allows for a broader approach to the topic, which is the subject of a specific program at the environmental ministry.
“The program that the ministry developed mainly during this administration resolves a historical gap. Domestic animals must also be under the guardianship of the State. Today, dogs and cats are understood as animals that require a policy of preservation and population control”, states Franco.
Wanted by Sheetthe advisor to the president of , Davi Alcolumbre (União Brasil-AP), sent a note in which he stated that “the presidency of the Federal Senate and of the does not make a value judgment on the allocative choices of parliamentarians”.
“Considering the continental dimension of Brazil and its regional diversities, defining priorities for the allocation of amendments is the responsibility of deputies and senators, individually or collectively, under the terms of the legislation”, stated Alcolumbre in the note.
According to the statement, “the definition of the environmental budget is the responsibility of the Executive, through the Ministry of the Environment in conjunction with federal bodies such as Ibama and ICMBio. It is up to the National Congress to approve budgetary laws, monitor their execution and participate in decisions through individual, bench and committee parliamentary amendments, subject to criteria of transparency and legality”.
The report also sought the presidency of the House through its press office, which stated that the issue should be addressed by leaders of the House’s budget committees. The leaders were contacted, but did not speak out.
