Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 11 • Number 14 • 25th July 2011
The Brazilian Forest Code: Exploitation and Preservation
by Rafael Poço
Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say
Brazil has been experiencing a tense debate over environmental legislation. In addition to the historical weakness in surveillance, Brazil has recently witnessed misconduct by the government, which has relaxed and breached environmental standards for hasty approval of major projects - a fact worsened by the existence of large hydropower and sports events projects to be held in the upcoming years. In this context, dozens of bills aimd at weakening environmental protection in the country have been proposed.
One of the core initiatives in this direction is the current debate taking place at the National Congress for an overhaul of the Brazilian Forest Code. On 24 May, the reform project was approved in the Chamber of Deputies and will now follow to the Senate; if approved, it will be finally be subjected to presidential sanction.
The Brazilian Forest Code was enacted in 1965 and amended a few times by presidential decrees. The legal text recognises the importance of the forests for the conservation of land and for setting parameters on environmental preservation.
There are two instruments of greatest relevance under the Code: the legal reserve and the permanent preservation areas. The legal reserve identifies a proportion of each rural property where vegetation must not be removed, but in which some productive activities are allowed, such as the extraction of wild resources and beekeeping. The second instrument, the permanent preservation areas (APPs), have the ultimate goal of protecting water resources, prohibiting any productive activity in riparian areas. Once the existence of APPs is justified by the need to preserve biodiversity, they must be covered by natural vegetation.
Brazilian agriculture
In order to understand the new proposals, it is necessary to understand land use in Brazil and the interests related to it. The country is a world leader producer and exporter of a large number of agricultural products, such as coffee, sugar, and ethanol from sugar cane. Additionally, since 2008, it has been on the top of the global ranking of beef exports - a trend which is expected to increase in upcoming years.
According to the National Council of Food and Nutritional Security (Consea), despite the growth in the household income both in rural and urban areas - which resulted in the increase of purchasing power and demand for food -, the growth of agricultural production for export is much higher than the production of food for domestic consumption.
Moreover, there is high concentration of land ownership in Brazil, which requires the distinction between family farming and the agribusiness production model. Family farming is responsible for a large part of the country’s food production, which is mostly destined to the internal market.
Family farming and environmental protection
Deputy Aldo Rebelo of the Communist Party of Brazil, rapporteur of the bill, and his supporters from the rural base, sought to spread an alarmist argument based on the false dichotomy that changes in the forest legislation are necessary in order to avoid food shortage in Brazil. This point of view is combined with a discourse of support for family farming. This attitude hindered more comprehensive and technical discussions on the issue.
The current Forest Code already encompasses differential treatment to family farmers. For instance, it allows the substitution of APPs by sustainable agriforestry activities practiced in small properties. The Code also allows for compensation for deforestation to be carried out in areas of Legal Reserve by the cultivation of exotic tree species. It also foresees technical support from the state environmental agency responsible for restoration of Legal Reserve. Even the latter protected areas can be used under the system of forest management, a potential incentive for employment and development of family farming.
Misleading text
The approved bill brings about structural changes in the law, since important modifications have been made to the text, either by full changes in sentences or substitution of key words. These amendments make the text more misleading and hinder its implementation - on these grounds, the project must be fully rejected.
Some examples of environmental shortcomings presented in the bill are worth highlighting. One of the misleading changes made in the text consists in the highly controversial creation of the “rural consolidated area”. The parallel for that is found in “consolidated urban areas,” understood as places where the restoration of natural vegetation is not possible. Once established, buildings and urban infrastructure are difficult to remove and, therefore, the solution is to compensate by restoring forests elsewhere. However, this logic is not valid in the case of rural areas, where natural soil conditions constantly change, as illustrated by the periods between harvest seasons, when the land is available for new planting and or rehabilitation.
The text approved provides amnesty to illegal deforestation occurred until July 22, 2008. The stipulated date lacks any legal justification, according to the Legislative Advisory Body of the Chamber of Deputies. This means that after the creation of the Environmental Regulation Program by the federal, state or local governments, landowners who register their property and join the program will avoid sanctions stemming from violations committed until July 22, 2008, related to irregular clearing of vegetation in Legal Reserve, APPs and areas of restricted use. After meeting the requirements of the Environmental Regulation Program, fines will be forgiven and crimes are no longer punishable. The deadline for landowners to join the program can be extended indefinitely by an act of the executive power, which means, for instance, that governors of states can keep the fines and penalties for infractions permanently suspended.
Compensation and waiver from Legal Reserve
With regard to the Legal Reserve areas, the project brings the possibility of compensation of deforested areas through the acquisition of an equivalent preserved land, which can be located in another unit of the federation. Compensation can also be made through payments to the public treasury. This means that, under the new system, forests that should be protected may be removed in exchange for money.
One of the most problematic issues of the project is the waiver for the obligation to recover the Legal Reserve in properties of up to four “fiscal modules.” Depending on the location of the land, a fiscal module comprises properties measuring up to 400 hectares. This criterion has no legal basis and, although rapporteur Rebelo argues that this is intended to enable the “survival” of small farmers, the reference to the size of the land - instead of the condition of the owner - would allow the extension of the benefit to landowners who do not depend on agriculture for subsistence.
The discount of APPs for calculating the area of Legal Reserve - currently adopted in exceptional cases - becomes the rule (but only if it does not “require the conversion of new areas to alternative use of the land”). This will have direct effect on the rise of deforestation and, once again, puts landowners who maintain the Legal Reserve and the APP at a disadvantage.
Scientific studies indicate that the preservation of the areas of Legal Reserve as environmental service would enable growth in agricultural productivity, especially due to pollination.
The need for a democratic debate
It is of the utmost importance that a broad debate on the reform of the Brazilian environmental legislation takes place with massive popular participation and contributions from scientists and experts. Legislative reforms of such relevance - which involve the needs of the entire population and risks to the country’s international reputation - cannot merely serve the interests of the private sector. This is especially true for large landowners, who are normally committed to old-fashioned production models, as demonstrated in the attitude of many during the congressional debates.
If approved as it stands, the project will put the protection of forests, biodiversity, and natural resources at greater risk. Additionally, Brazil will become an embarrassment on the international stage in 2012 when it hosts the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20). By then, if the project is not rejected by the senators or president Dilma Rousseff, Brazil will have nothing to present but internal conflicts in which the interests of economic growth prevail at any cost, instead of a serious and consistent debate towards sustainability. Moreover, the incoherence between hosting an event at the global level to discuss issues that are not reconciled domestically will be strikingly evident.
The reform of the Forest Code calls for a broader debate on sustainable development in the sense of changing production and consumption patterns, especially if one considers agricultural production and the new paradigm for food security in a global level. Meanwhile, we have to deal with specific and immediate interests, uncommitted to the welfare and socio-environmental balance, what forces us to take immediate measures and strive to achieve the “least worst case scenario” for the future.
Rafael Poço is Projects Counsellor at Vitae Civilis - Institute for Development, Environment, and Peace, a São Paulo-based NGO. The author is also a member of the Urban Ecology Group and the SOS Forest Coalition. This article was first published in Portuguese in Pontes Bimestral.
5 responses to “The Brazilian Forest Code: Exploitation and Preservation”
Add a comment
Enter your details and a comment below, then click Submit Comment. We’ll review and publish the best comments.
Our medical future is in the forest. We must protect it at all cost.
If everyone who said they Loved the movie “Avatar” spent the same amount of money and energy on a True Love of our own Planet ~ Of the Trees and magical creatures here, we may be able to keep the organism we are not apart from alive, and our selves alive too.
PLEASE save the Amazon - Our future depends on it.
I have been to the Amazon. During the first part of the trip,I stayed at an “eco-lodge”,devoted to preserving the Amazon.It was located, as I recall, on the river Negros,not too far from Manaus. I was most impressed with our guides, who had grown up in the area. They explained how the Amazon jungle supplied all their needs,from foods to medicines.They also pointed out how thin the soil was, and how the trees grew by being nourished by the leaves that fell, then decomposed to feed the further growth of the trees. It is a self-sustaining cycle that would be broken if the trees were cut.The thin layer of soil would be unable to sustain continued agricultural use. This was confirmed by examining a previously logged area,where regrowth had not occurred. This barren patch was being studied in an effort to find out how to restore it.
Hopefully not romanticizing a more primitive life style, I was also impressed by the healthy people - adults and children - that we met in small,more isolated settlements further along the roadless Amazon River.
In Canada, we face a similar challenge to protect our boreal forest,another major part of our planet’s lungs. I write this as I look out over the lake in a large forest reserve in Manitoba, from one of the relatively few cottages strung out along the shores of a very limited number of the many lakes encompassed in this reserve. Most of this area has no roads, travel is prohibited except by canoe. Logging is also prohibited, as is any activity that interferes with the natural environment. We can’t even transplant young trees from within the reserve to our own leased lot (no private ownership permitted)- even to replace trees that have blown down or died of old age. We still have a long way to go, our main advantage is you can’t grow crops on the granite rock of the preCambrian shield! To give credit where it is due,we have also had some enlightened governments and caring park forestry staff. Both the boreal forest and the Amazon rain forest are essential to our planet’s survival,and our human survival.
Greed is festering in the minds of some mindless men who don`t give a damn for the preservation of our God-given earth.