Battling Sides on Deforestation

 Credit to www.rainforests.net

For nearly the last 50 years, the people of Brazil have debated over the regulations that help preserve the Amazon rainforest. Recent controversy has been brewing in this country over the newest reform to nationwide deforestation laws. The newest bill loosened sanctions on landowners, primarily farmers, by cutting the percentages of required rainforest per tract, as well as including an amnesty clause that would, in fact, forgive illegal deforestation that occurred prior to 2008. Nature Magazine’s “Defend the Amazon” editorial called for Brazilian leaders to uphold their previous stances on deforestation and to repeal the legislation that would allow for an increase in deforestation. The Washington Post’s article “Brazil’s forest policy could undermine its climate goals” provides an alternate perspective on the issue, exploring the ‘ruralist’ farmer side of the equation and why the bill would help the farming industry and make Brazil a worldwide competitor in agriculture (Defend 1). There are two distinct sides on the latest Brazilian legislation on deforestation of the Amazon, and in both cases, the fate of Brazil’s future is in the hands of the people.

Nature’s editorial “Defend the Amazon” provides an environmentalist view on the bill that determines the future fate of the Amazon in Brazil. “The revised code will legalize massive new destruction of forest – about 220,000 square kilometers…and there is reason for concern that the amnesty being granted could encourage further illegal deforestation” (Defend 1). The legislation came just months after it was announced that deforestation levels in Brazil were at an all-time low. The negative point of view toward the bill continues to be blamed on a weak effort by the government to enforce its laws. The government has been dealing with “landowners and farmers in the region who were being prevented from clearing land to cash in on record prices for commodities” (Defend 1). With a requirement of 80% forest on tracts of land, not being able to clear land generates both a production and food shortage. “Defend the Amazon” points out that the new regulations will provide too much leeway and too many loopholes for farmers, and that the Amazon rainforest’s livelihood could be threatened.

Nature’s article also cites that “deforestation currently accounts for about 15% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, and some 75% of Brazil’s”, and that the new bill would only increase these numbers after such a committed effort was made by the same government to limit illegal deforestation (Defend 1). However, despite this environmental side-effect, the true issue seems to be the Brazilian people. “The real danger isn’t the new forest bill itself, but the sentiment of relaxed protection for the Amazon that seems to be behind it” (Defend 1).

The Washington Post’s editorial “Brazil’s forest policy could undermine its climate goals” provides a much more objective review of the Amazon controversy. While adding much of the same ideas of the Nature editorial, the Post’s article offers the perspectives of the farmers and landowners. “Supporters of the bill say it would make it easier for farmers to comply while creating a series of incentives that, in time, would curb deforestation” (Forero 1). With the ability to clear more land (in regards to the percentage cut regulation), farmers would be able to plant, harvest, and sell more crops. Both of these contrasting sides to the deforestation argument have created a divide between the ruralist farmers and the environmentalists. Brazilian Ministry of Environment Luis Antonio Correia de Caravalho said, “There are two extremes, but no one is asking for new deforestation.” Caravalho added that “the latest version of the bill would neither bankrupt farmers nor threaten the forest” (Forero 2). With this idea in mind, it seems that there is room for the people to compromise and work together.

The two contrasting sides of the bill on deforestation are those rural farmers in need of a greater area for production, and those environmentalists who want nothing more than to preserve the Amazon rainforest as it is today. Despite the controversy that exists between the two sides of the Amazon deforestation debate, there is one central theme, and that is Brazil’s future. “The Brazilian government can’t get there on its own, it needs its policy to have broad support, or at least command respect, from people on the ground on all sides of the debate” (Defend 1). The livelihood of the Brazilian farmer and the Amazon rainforest are both in question, and it is up to the people of Brazil to determine their own fate, for better or worse.



Washington Post Article
Nature Magazine "Defend the Amazon"

Works Cited

Forero, Juan, and Juliet Eilperin. "Brazil’s Forest Policy Could Undermine Its Climate Goals." Washington Post. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/brazils-forest-policy-could-undermine-its-climate-goals/2011/12/14/gIQACzEy2O_story.html>.

"Defend the Amazon." Nature Publishing Group. Nature, 21 Dec. 2011. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/480413b.html>.