Amazon Deforestation Increases Six-fold
This
article highlights the increasing problem of deforestation of the Amazon
rainforest in Brazil. In March and April, 2011, there was a sharp increase in
the rate of deforestation in the area resulting in 593 square kilometers of
forest being destroyed – 6 times the area of destroyed forest during the same two
month period in 2010. However, the problem is not going unchecked. Brazilian
government and authorities are working diligently to protect the rainforest and
its resources through legislation and personal punishment if necessary. For
instance, those responsible for deforestation will have their cattle seized in
an effort to suppress the spread of deforestation in the country.
Furthermore,
due to the large amounts of deforestation occurring in Brazil, it has become
one of the world leaders in greenhouse gas emissions. One of the ways the
government is working to combat this issue is by enforcing the 1965 law regulating
forestry. In short, the law forces private farmers and land owners who own
sections of the forest to keep some of it intact. They do not have free reign
to use the land in whatever way they wish. The ultimate goal in doing this is
to preserve the forest and natural resources contained within it. However,
currently the country is suffering from economic problems which creates the
temptation to use all available land to earn a profit. Brazil is one of the
leading exporters of grains and farmers are urging government officials to lift
the ban on preserving sections of the forest so as to plant more corn, wheat,
etc. While in the short term, this idea seems beneficial to the Brazilian
population, the long term, irreversible consequences will have a detrimental
effect on not only the environment, but the future economy of the country. In
preserving the natural rainforest, there is a continued potential for utilizing
the natural resources for future economic gains. Until a balance can be
reached, there will be an ongoing battle between those concerned with preserving
the environment and providing food for the citizens of Brazil.
I find the issue of policy making to stop deforestation really interesting in this case. How do they determine who is "responsible for deforestation" and gets their cattle seized. I'm sure deforestation happens on many different scales and I think it'd be interesting to see how Brazilian and other countries with this problem use policy to deal with this.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, I would also like to know what the general public in Brazil thinks about deforestation and conservation law. Is opposition strictly cut across socioeconomic lines or are there other dividing factors between those who wish to conserve and those who want to use the land. Also, is it the poorest who want to utilize this land or the richest? Both would seem to have reason to want it. Which demographic is actually supporting the conservation efforts of the government? That would leave the middle class. Perhaps instead support is cut across an occupational divide with farmers and agrobusiness against everyone else? I haven't truly considered the idea of a deforestation policy or management plan until this article. It seems very complex, I'd love to see more research on this topic.
I find this issue to be extremely pressing given the sheer importance and size of the Amazon rainforests, namely that it absorbs such a huge amount of carbon dioxide and is a major factor in stemming the effects of global warming and protecting our atmosphere. I was curious to discover more about the main driving forces behind the deforestation of the rainforest. The forest clearing seems to be tightly matched with the price of commodities, especially soy and beef, which have benefited largely from the riddance of “foot-and-mouth” disease in cattle and agricultural innovation in Brazil which has converted their poor soils into land suitable for soy farms (Mongabay). Furthermore, even though federal law in Brazil requires farmers to retain 80 percent of the forests on their land, several state banks, such as the Bank of Amazon, have offered financial incentives to expand cattle ranching (such as low interest rates along with investments in new capital, funded by the banks), and these banks typically exempt loan applicants from providing proof of these expansions in forest clearing activities (Mongabay). In addition to the main driving forces (soy farming and cattle production), colonization, logging, mining, and oil and gas development all contribute to the deforestation of Amazon rainforests. Essentially the market is driving deforestation. Because of the seemingly endless cheap land throughout Brazil, the booming demand for commodities such as soy and beef in the past ten years along with several other factors, Amazon rainforests are in danger and Brazil has risen to the top of the beef exporting industry. Hopefully Brazil, along with other countries containing parts of the Amazon rainforest, can come up with a sustainable solution to this issue, perhaps an incentive for farmers and cattle ranchers to accurately and legally report their use of their land which could involve a plan to replant parts of the forest or simply become more efficient with the land they already have.
Deletehttp://news.mongabay.com/2008/0212-amazon.html
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0801-amazon.html
I think Vulpes vulpes' question of who has the most to gain from deforestation is an interesting one. The richest and the poorest would have the most to gain. While the middle class might have less not have as much at stake, I don't think they would have any motive to advocate for conservation either.
ReplyDeleteThe article states there are 5.3 million square kilometers in Brazil, 1.7 million of which are protected by the state. The rest are privately owned or have "undefined" ownership. What does that mean? Is it community land--regulated by a local population? Or does no one use it? In our discussion of New Mexico's forest we talked about the notion of public property--and questioned who has the rights to public (or “Public”) land. In New Mexico's case, the locals argued it was their land to use as they saw fit. Does this argument work in this case? Could Brazilians argue that their livelihood is dependent on cattle and soybeans--and to succeed they must burn down parts of the forest? Deforestation, like slash and burn, has a very negative connotation, but can it or should it be seen as a tolerable practice on a small scale?