Ruralist Side of Deforesation

 

Photo Credit to Neil Palmer of CIAT 

The rate of deforestation within the Brazilian Amazon has been declining at record highs over the last year, but a building frustration from farmers and land-owners has brought about new legislation that could potentially threaten this environmental progress. Current laws and regulations restrict landowners’ farming abilities by requiring around eighty percent of each acre of land to be forest and trees (Nature 1). With such a staggeringly large percentage of land designated for rainforest protection, the measly twenty percent of available land per acre that can be used for farming is beginning to threaten the Brazilian agriculture industry’s ability to stay afloat in the world market of food production. The proposed new bill being passed around the Brazilian legislation is attempting to free up larger percentages of land to be used for farming purposes in an attempt to appease the disgruntled and threatened agricultural industry. Critiques over this new bill have focused on rises in deforestation numbers, and the strength of the Brazilian government has also been put into question. The motivation of the new Brazilian deforestation bill should not be viewed from a condemning environmentalist perspective, but rather this new legislation should be viewed from its motivation: the Brazilian government’s attempt to save the farming industry’s competitiveness through a reduction of strict regulations.

Nature magazine’s “Defend the Amazon” editorial explores the claim that the effort to prevent deforestation should outweigh the need to clear land for agriculture (Nature 1). This environmentalist view argues that with the passing of a new forest code bill, too much leeway would exist, and that the Amazon rainforest’s livelihood would be put in unnecessary danger. To argue that this bill puts the entire Amazon in danger by lowering a small percentage of required forest land is ridiculous.

Using the Nature article’s reasoning, one could argue that raising an abstract speed limit from 45 to 50 would cause all drivers to increase their speed constantly and eventually completely disregard the use of speed limits. It is true that deforestation would rise in the short-term in reaction to the lowering of regulations, just as people would increase their speed in reaction to a higher speed limit; However, in the long-term, deforestation would not continue to rise, just as speeds of cars would not continue rising above 50, and instead both the deforestation levels and speeding levels would cease to increase beyond their limits.

Another key argument of the Nature article focuses on attacking specific points of the deforestation bill and solely focusing these points on consequences for the rainforest rather than exploring the motivation or purpose of the rule for agriculture. One particular example from the articles says, “The bill undermines the old code's base in ecology, in that it would loosen restrictions on cutting trees in areas around rivers and on steep hills — rules that are intended to protect river health and prevent soil that is normally protected by vegetation being washed into waterways,” (Nature 1). This statement is intended to shed light on a negative aspect of the new legislation, yet it completely ignores the purpose of this rule’s existence.  If naysayers were to view this bill as a complete entity, they would be able to see that yes, the deforestation rate will rise minutely, but the positive effect on the Brazilian economy will vastly outweigh this negative exponent.

Brazilian researcher and small scale farmer Mario Lira Jr. commented on this idea, explaining why such a law is necessary and included in the legislation. Mario Lira’s farm in Atlantic Forest is required to have twenty percent of the land considered untouchable, and “the problem is that this limit doesn´t include hilltops, areas with steep declines or river margins. When you sum up those items, it may mean that more than fifty percent of the property must not be used,” (Nature Comment). With such a significant percentage of farms “around rivers and on steep hills”, the available property for agricultural production is greatly depleted. Lawmakers are attempting to eliminate this disadvantage to farmers, opening up more land for crop production, even at the expense of a small ecological impact.

Nature’s “Defend the Amazon” focuses on criticizing the Brazilian bill, but a major claim is made in the conclusion that seeks to back off of the article’s thesis. “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” (Nature 1). However, Nature’s criticism of the bill for its relaxed protection is anything but on target. The Brazilian government is actually more protective than ever of the Amazon rainforest, but it realizes the dire need for land that could save the economy and agricultural industry of Brazil. The author makes a key error by misinterpreting a lowered restriction on deforestation as a sign of weakening protection, yet it merely signifies a protective government that realizes it must open up more property to allow farmers to grow economically. By freeing a larger percentage of land available for farming use, the Brazilian government is making a major stride in its attempt to balance the preservation of the Amazon, and the livelihood of agricultural production in Brazil.

Reforestation is an idea in the bill that is completely overlooked by the Nature article as a positive side to the legislation. One article featured in the Washington Post makes an attempt to explain how this idea could provide an extra benefit to the Brazilian Amazon’s environment. “Farmers also would be able to reforest as much as 50 percent of illegally denuded areas with exotic species, rather than native trees,” (Post 1). Reforestation would give farmers the incentive of clearing parts of their own usable land with the idea of replenishing previously illegally forested lands as a form of payment.

Along these same lines is the amnesty clause included in the bill that would grant forgiveness to people who illegally deforested prior to 2008. Director of the Institute for International Trade Negotiations, Andre Nassar, commented, saying “You take that farmer (who illegally deforested) and bring him into the law, and then that farmer probably will not continue to carry out that illegal deforestation,” (Post 1). Brazilian lawmakers are hoping to create a fresh start for farmers and allow for the new regulations to serve as the strict law enforcement for the future. The motivation to grant farmers forgiveness to bring them into the law coincides with protecting the Amazon’s future from all potential dangers. Gaining a vast majority of the population behind the legislation is a key motivation for the lawmakers in order to create unified and accepted regulations for the Amazon’s future.

The “Defend the Amazon” article’s weakest aspect of all is its failure to recognize the vital importance of opening land up for farming. Brazilian Senator Katia Abreu commented that “a new, more farm-friendly land-use law was needed to help Brazil, already the world’s third-largest exporter of foodstuffs, compete with the United States, Europe and Argentina” (Post 2). Dealing with the balance between farming land and protecting land has been the most difficult issue of the legislation, but Senator Jorge Viana attempts to put the issue in perspective. “Brazil has to take care of the environment, but at the same time it also has a responsibility to feed the world,” (CNN 1). With such an overwhelming need, “private ranchers and growers as well as the government have invested millions to expand soybean and beef production,” (CNN 1). Brazil is aiming to maintain its spot in the international agricultural market and continue to lead the world in production by changing an outdated 1965 forest code policy.

Nature’s editorial misinforms its audience on multiple accounts and it incorrectly identifies the true issues at hand in Brazil. Many of the critiques that point to valid ecological concerns mislead the audience to ignore the farmer perspective. The legislation is attempting to provide an opportunity for a unified and just forest code that addresses the growing farming needs in Brazil while also keeping Amazon protection in mind. Amnesty and reforestation are Brazilian lawmaking attempts to provide both forgiveness to perpetrators and positive strides for the Amazon’s future. Property needs for farmers are the most obvious problems ignored by “Defend the Amazon”, and rather, an environmentalist criticism overtakes the substance of the editorial. Describing the deforestation story as one-sided completely ignores the motivation of such a transforming bill. The motivation of the Brazilian deforestation legislation is not attempting to deforest the Amazon rainforest, but rather, its purpose is to appease the requirements of a growing agricultural need for land at the cost of a small percentage of forest depletion.



Washington Post Article

Nature "Defend the Amazon"

CNN Article

Works Cited

Darlington, Shasta. "Brazil Senate Passes Amazon Deforestation Code." CNN. 07 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-07/americas/world_americas_brazil-deforestation_1_deforestation-amazon-forest-carbon-emissions?_s=PM:AMERICAS>.

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>.