A Brazilian plan to protect the Amazon through sustainable logging sounds like a great idea, but opponents claim it amounts to privatisation of the rainforest, writes Clare Davidson
Clare Davidson Friday October 1, 2004 The Guardian
In one decade an area of forest twice the size of Portugal has been destroyed in the Amazon, the planet's most bio-diverse forest, so a Brazilian plan to better protect the area through sustainable forestry, certainly sounds positive.
But the plan - which is due to go to Brazilian Congress in two weeks - is proving highly controversial.
The proposed law, first discussed in 2002 under Brazil's rightwing former president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, would grant access to public land for sustainable use, initially for 30 years.
Licences would be allocated under a system of competitive bids and would be open only to Brazilian firms. Licence-holders would pay an annual fee calculated on what they extract, such as wood or resins, from their plot.
But information on how much money the government will make from the licences is hard to come by.
The topic gained particular notoriety after Brazil's O Globo newspaper described it as "a plan to privatise the Amazon", saying the government wanted to sell land to private enterprises, including non-Brazilians.
The parliamentary group in defence of Brazil, a nationalist group, has claimed the law would threaten Brazil's sovereignty.
The government says its intention is the exact opposite.
Speaking to Guardian Unlimited last month during the second international Amazonian trade fair in the Amazonian city of Manaus, Malvino Salvador, forestry and sustainable development agency director for Amazonas state, said the law should "facilitate conservation of public land and better protect it by insisting parties fulfil rules and pay for the privilege".
Environmental and social organisations largely favour regulation for sustainable land use, though they have expressed concerns about the detail s.
However, in response to claims by O Globo that environmental organisations were violently opposed to the plan, a working group of NGOs and social groups was obliged to issue a statement clarifying their position, which stated: "Contrary to press reports, the law is an attempt to guarantee public control for public land."
That measures are needed to protect the Amazon is unquestionable; today the area is victim to illegal wood logging, destructive cattle ranching and soya production and forest burning at increasing rates. But how to protect the area, home to 20 million people and the generator of 8% of Brazil's exports, in an economically viable way is no easy feat.
Even within the environment ministry there are diverging opinions. Virgilio Vianna, environment and sustainable development secretary for Amazonas state said: "I favour the concession proposal. It is far better for [extraction] to be ordered and disciplined than not - but not in its current form."
While 70% of the Amazon is public land, potential concession areas - land that remains outside conservation, local population or research areas - is far smaller at around 2%.
In practice, this means a hectare, which typically has 300 adult trees and 10,000 more growing, would allow five to six trees to be chopped down every thirty years.
"With good forest management, you shouldn't be able to tell that trees have been cut," said Tasso Azevedo, director of the environment ministry's national forestry programme.
One of the main hurdles to regulation is land ownership. "There has been no legal framework permitting the use of public land, let alone encouraging sustainable use forest use," explained Brazil's Friends of the Earth director, Roberto Smeraldi. This has discouraged serious law-abiding businesses interested in invested, he added.
And mapping such land remains a challenge. Paulo Barreto, a researcher with Imazon, which promotes sustainable development in the Amazon, explained that a high number of land title documents are illegal or false, and the government lacks ownership proof.
Another concern is implementation of concessions. Jefferson Peres, senator for the leftwing Democratic Workers party, said implementation requires the National Institute of Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and Brazil's Institute for Environmental and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) to have "far more resources, trained personnel, and better coordination". "Implementing the law any time soon would be precipitous," he added.
"There are certainly ways the proposal could be improved," stated Friends of the Earth's Smeraldi. He cited the lack of guarantees as a problem, saying financial collateral is needed for concessions.
He also said the government's choice of flexible payments (based on the value of what is extracted) does not encourage the most economical use of land, stimulate good forestry management or technological investment.
Paulo Prado, of environmental organisation Conservation International (Brazil), added that the current study has not taken into account how to include local workforces into such projects.
In response to such criticism, Mr Azevedo said the current situation is untenable. "This law will provide some security - that alone is a gigantic change." The politician added: "We are adopting this new model precisely because land is being destroyed now." But he added that the participation of NGOs and social groups in debating the law remains "essential".
The government has examined over 50 cases of forestry concession worldwide but it is difficult to draw comparisons. Brazil's forests are generally more diverse and larger than elsewhere and already have significant communities living there.
Peru, which adopted a law two years ago permitting long-term concessions, is the best equivalent model, argues Smeraldi, because it encompasses parts of the Amazon - although the Peruvian law is already being revised in the light of experience, Smeraldi said.
And if parties don't fulfill the rules? "We are not going to allow just anybody access to concession rights. If a party breaks the rules they lose their rights," said Malvino Salvador. Moreover, for the first 10 years only 20% of the potential land will available for concessions.
Flying over the Amazon, it is impossible to imagine that a lack of trees, which reach far further than they eye can see, could ever be a problem. But Brazil's Atlantic forest only has 7% intact. "We cannot repeat this in the Amazon," warned Virgílio Vianna.
When the law reaches Congress in the coming weeks it will doubtless generate a heated debate. As Jose Rabelo of Amazonas' environment protection institute (IPAAM) made clear: "Doing nothing is not an option."