Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

What next? Brazil’s deforestation soared by 290% in September 2014

Posted on 31 October 201420 February 2019

Between 2004 and 2012, deforestation rates fell in Brazil. Dramatically. But then in 2013, the rate increased by 29%. And in August and September this year, the rate shot up by 190% compared to the same period last year.

In September 2014, according to data from satellite images reported by Brazilian NGO Imazon, an area of 40,200 hectares was deforested, an increase of 290% compared to September 2013. An area of 62,400 hectares was degraded, an increase of 3,797% compared to September 2013.

So what’s going wrong?

Much of Brazil’s success in reducing deforestation was the result of legislation and enforcement of laws. A decade ago, Marina Silva, then-Environment Minister, introduced a series of measures to protect forests and to ensure land rights for indigenous peoples and landless peasants.

But Silva resigned in 2008. In her resignation letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva she had faced difficulties “for some time” in implementing the government’s environmental agenda.

Things took a further turn for the worse two years later, when Dilma Rousseff was elected President. Rousseff campaigned with promises of a “zero tolerance” policy for deforestation. But last year, the Brazilian government weakened its Forest Code, allowing amnesty for previous destruction and reducing the area of protected forest.

Rousseff has also given the go-ahead to dam construction in the Amazon. Shortly after she was elected, the Brazilian government approved construction of the Belo Monte dam, a massively controversial project that would flood 150,000 hectares of forest and result in the eviction of 40,000 people.

The Amazon’s silent crisis

Illegal logging in Brazil remains a serious problem. Greenpeace calls it “the Amazon’s silent crisis”. In May 2014, Greenpeace released a report that revealed that Brazil was laundering illegally logged timber on a massive scale before exporting it to the US, Europe and China. In the state of Pará 78% of the timber exported is illegally felled.

Paulo Barreto of Imazon told the Guardian that the situation is getting worse, with the area illegally logged in Pará increasing by 151% between 2011 and 2012.

Recently, Greenpeace activists spent two months putting GPS trackers on trucks involved in illegal logging in Pará. They found a network of sawmills that received the illegally logged timber.

The sawmills claimed the timber came from legal operations, but Greenpeace found little or no evidence of logging at these sites. In fact, the trucks drove deep into protected areas to collect timber and returned to the sawmills under cover of darkness.

Rousseff backed by the chainsaw queen

On 26 October 2014, Rousseff was re-elected in an election battle during which the environment played little role. Kátia Abreu, the head of the Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock, backed Rousseff in the elections. Abreu, who has the nickname the “chainsaw queen”, told the Guardian that she sees the environment and indigenous peoples’ rights as “obstacles” to Brazil’s “progress”:

“There are many things holding back progress – the environmental issue, the Indian issue and more. But even with these problems we keep producing high levels of productivity. Imagine how high it might be without those obstacles.”

In December 2014, the Brazilian Soy Moratorium will end. This could result in a further wave of deforestation.

Where does this leave REDD in Brazil?

Proponents of REDD argue that REDD helped support Brazil’s reductions in deforestation. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists argues that REDD agreements, “help reinforce the political changes that led to increased action against deforestation in the first place.”

Since 2009, Norway has spent almost US$750 million on the Amazon Fund. Per Fredrik Pharo, Director of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, argues that REDD helps weaken the agribusiness lobby in Brazil:

But consider what could have happened if Brazil had not received any international financial support, after delivering what is probably the largest single reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the world has seen in recent years. The forces that want large-scale conversion of the Amazon for agricultural purposes would have had a better hand; those wanting to protect it would be weakened.

In the face of Brazil’s increasing deforestation, these arguments are looking increasingly flimsy.

What next?

Two reports on Amazon deforestation came out in October 2014, with somewhat different recommendations for slowing deforestation.

The first report was commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund and carried out by Datu Research. The report, titled “Deforestation in the Brazilian Beef Value Chain”, found that clearing forest for cattle ranching was a cheaper option than sound pasture management.

Datu Research recommends a jurisdiction-based approach, “certifying a given jurisdiction, and all commodities produced in it, as ‘deforestation-free’”. Perhaps not coincidentally, this is precisely the approach favoured by EDF.

The second report, led by researchers from the Stockholm Environment Institute, found that the contribution to deforestation by the largest landholders decreased by 63% between 2005 and 2011, that of smallholders increased by 69%. At the same time, deforestation in remote areas was increasing.

The report concludes that Brazil’s command and control policies focussed on larger properties,

may be increasingly limited in their effectiveness and fail to address all actors equally. Further reductions in deforestation are likely to be increasingly costly and require actor-tailored approaches, including better monitoring to detect small-scale deforestation and a shift toward more incentive-based conservation policies.

 


PHOTO Credit: Fires burning in Amazonia, NASA.
 

  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Facebook

5 thoughts on “What next? Brazil’s deforestation soared by 290% in September 2014”

  1. mark jacobs says:
    5 November 2014 at 5:03 pm

    failed state brasil?
    the country should not be used as an example for anything environmental. small groups here and there but nothing on a national level to speak of

  2. Christina Teraukahawai Stanley-Tanirau. says:
    5 April 2015 at 2:29 am

    Come on the People in Our World
    Help Brazil Stop them from DeForest these Places
    inhabitants of All types Animal’s
    dependentire on Forrest in these to Live and Survival Areas!

  3. Rita Maria Krieger says:
    6 April 2015 at 10:09 am

    It concerns us all. Here in Switzerland I have t limit my consumng. I accept. The responsable of this gigantic project, brasilien and international enterpriser. Stop, we/you cause damagesto the earth in a irrevocable kind.

  4. Hefti Katharina und Hans Hefti says:
    6 April 2015 at 11:02 am

    It’s ver< important that the Regenwald is protected.

  5. suresh panikker says:
    8 April 2015 at 8:44 am

    It’seems the vested interest has upper hands when in fact all the parties concerned should thrash out an internationally bound agreements between the countries around the Amazon forest which is legally binding the Countries signing the agreement with punitive punishment who breaks the agreement. Unfortunately, the greedy and vested interested parties have an upper hand who cares only for the profits for today and not worried about the consequences of their actions upon the region or the rest of the World. We need a determined action starting from Brazil and the rest of the countries that surrounds the Amazon forest. S.Panikker.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Rachel De Moers on Verified hot air: how a popular carbon offset project in Peru has taken tens of millions of dollars from hundreds of companies and individuals but done nothing to prevent climate change
  • SusiM on The Carbon Credit Registry carbon credit “reformatting” scam continues: A company calling itself Williams & Gray is running a recovery room scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Forest offsets go up in smoke in California’s “forever fire”
  • Raymond sangster on EcoPlanet Bamboo’s investors were “significantly let down”
  • Nigel cross on Living Investments UK and Hyperion Management are boiler room scams that offered investments in teak plantations in Costa Rica. But will the UK authorities take any action?

Recent Posts

  • Blue carbon is “uncertain” and “unreliable” says new report
  • Forest offsets go up in smoke in California’s “forever fire”
  • Invictus Energy uses REDD to greenwash gas extraction in Zimbabwe
  • Brazilian Federal Prosecution Office gives Nemus 15 days to prove that it owns the land in the Amazon rainforest linked to its non-fungible tokens
  • Democratic Republic of Congo is auctioning 30 oil and gas blocks. Crypto initiative RedemptionDAO wants to buy “at least one block of land” and “co-create nature-based revenue streams with the Congolese people”

Recent Comments

  • Rachel De Moers on Verified hot air: how a popular carbon offset project in Peru has taken tens of millions of dollars from hundreds of companies and individuals but done nothing to prevent climate change
  • SusiM on The Carbon Credit Registry carbon credit “reformatting” scam continues: A company calling itself Williams & Gray is running a recovery room scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Forest offsets go up in smoke in California’s “forever fire”
  • Raymond sangster on EcoPlanet Bamboo’s investors were “significantly let down”
  • Nigel cross on Living Investments UK and Hyperion Management are boiler room scams that offered investments in teak plantations in Costa Rica. But will the UK authorities take any action?

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!