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

Opening up 4.6 million hectares to mining in Brazil is the “biggest attack on the Amazon of the last 50 years”. So why do Norway and Germany still describe REDD in Brazil as a “success”?

Posted on 29 August 20173 October 2018
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

“Norway remains a proud partner to Brazil on reducing deforestation, and considers this partnership a great success.”

“Around half of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions are caused by changes in land use and deforestation. In order to reduce global emissions, the UN climate finance model REDD+ was developed. The Brazilian Amazon Fund is considered a successful example of how this model can be implemented.”

The first quotation is from Norway’s Ministry of Climate and Environment. The second is from the German Development Agency (GIZ). Norway has given US$1.1 billion to Brazil’s Amazon Fund. The German government has given US$28 million. The third donor to the Amazon Fund, Brazil’s petroleum giant, Petrobras, has given US$6.9 million.

The Amazon Fund is a good example of the parallel world of REDD. Norway drills for oil in the Arctic. Germany digs up and burns lignite. And Petrobras is an oil company involved in what may well be the biggest ever corruption scandal ever. But they all pour money into the Amazon Fund. So, er, that’s all right, then.

Increasing deforestation

The money given to the Amazon Fund is supposed to reduce deforestation through the wonderful alchemy of REDD. If the rate of deforestation in Brazil falls, the money keeps flowing. If deforestation increases too much, the money stops.

While the rate of deforestation has fallen in Brazil from 2004, since 2012 it’s been going back up. In 2016, deforestation increased by 29% compared to 2015.

In a recent post on the ALERT website, Philip Fearnside, a leading authority on conservation in the Amazon, warns that deforestation is likely to continue rising. “There have been so many environmental and political setbacks recently that it’s difficult to know where to start,” Fearnside writes.

He lists some of Brazil’s president Michel Temer’s recent decisions:

For one thing, President Temer supported and signed the notorious “land-thieves law” that legitimizes illegal land claims of up to 2,500 hectares in area (the size of 5,000 football fields), many of which are in the Amazon rainforest.

Temer also reneged on an earlier promise to oppose an intensely controversial law that would gut the environmental licensing system for projects such as dams and highways (see here and here).

He also has effectively pardoned vast sums in fines and debts owed to the government by the powerful agribusiness and ranching sectors (see here and here), while weakening the criteria for definition of indigenous lands.

The president has also supported a controversial highway project demanded by conservative politicians — known as “ruralists” — and backed measures to reduce Amazonian protected areas (see here, here, and here).

These measures are in addition to Temer handing out over $1.3 billion in pork-barrel appropriations to selected federal deputies — with estimates of future handouts as high as $5.2 billion, not including other other expensive concessions to Temer’s political allies.

In July 2017, Temer issued a temporary decree for a new mining code. The code comes into effect immediately, but requires approval by Congress before it becomes law. The code increases royalties, but allows mining companies to monitor environmental standards, rather than the government.

Payback for the ruralists

These decisions are hugely beneficial to the ruralists – a block of wealthy landowners with interests in ranching, mining, and agribusiness. At the beginning of August, the ruralists in congress voted against referring a corruption case against Temer to the supreme court.

Temer’s decision last week to open an area of Amazon larger than Belgium is another huge payback to the ruralists. The new presidential decree opens up an area of 4.6 million hectares to mining. The area is thought to be rich in gold, iron ore, copper and other minerals.

The land, in the states of Pará and Amapá, had been protected since 1984 as the National Reserve of Copper and Associates. The area includes nine conservation and indigenous areas.

While Temer’s decree opens up 30% of the area of Renca to mining, and in theory will not cancel existing conservation and indigenous areas, the reality is that large scale mining in the area will inevitably have an impact the forests and the people living there.

In a statement, Greenpeace pointed out that,

“The measure will accelerate the arrival of infrastructure and people for mining activities in areas of native forest, reproducing in the region the same lack of governance that permits the advance of deforestation and land grabs (elsewhere) in the Amazon.”

Randolfe Rodrigues of Brazil’s Sustainability Network party, describes the government’s action as the “biggest attack on the Amazon of the last 50 years”.

None of this sounds like a “success” to me. It’s about time that Norway’s Climate Ministry and GIZ reconsidered whether they really want to describe Brazil as a success when it comes to reducing deforestation.
 

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

1 thought on “Opening up 4.6 million hectares to mining in Brazil is the “biggest attack on the Amazon of the last 50 years”. So why do Norway and Germany still describe REDD in Brazil as a “success”?”

  1. Chris Lang says:
    1 September 2017 at 10:15 pm

    A (probably temporary) reprieve: Brazilian court blocks abolition of vast Amazon reserve

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

REDDisms

“What we should be discussing is not floors on price, but governments setting more ambitious targets, which in turn would result in a higher short-term price until such time that the market achieves those targets and the price falls again. The best-case scenario is a very ambitious target and a low price, which would be an indication that the target is close to being achieved.”

— James Emanuel, head of environmental markets at STX Services BV, October 2011

Recent Posts

  • Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Peru cancels its World Bank FCPF Carbon Fund programme
  • The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s latest hot air scam: Retroactive credits
  • Some questions for Frithjof Finkbeiner, founder of Plant-for-the-Planet

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Charles Claxton on Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Chris Lang on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • Sam on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • barrywarden on Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Chris Lang on Why has the Financial Conduct Authority not taken down the website of the clone scam “Good Investment Advisors”?

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris 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 Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!