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

Norway and Brazil’s negotiations about the Amazon Fund are ignoring the failure to address the drivers of deforestation

Posted on 12 July 201927 August 2019

Norway and Brazil are currently negotiating the future of the Climate and Forest Agreement between the two countries. In a press statement, the Norwegian government claims that, “From Norway’s point of view, the Amazon Fund has worked well until now.”

Unfortunately, that’s the sort of evidence free wishful thinking that has accompanied REDD from the start.

Norway announced its US$1 billion REDD deal with Brazil in December 2007 at COP 13 in Bali.

In the three years before the deal, deforestation in Brazil had fallen dramatically. But since the money from Norway started pouring into the Amazon Fund at the end of 2008, the rate of deforestation has remained pretty much the same.

And since 2014, deforestation has been increasing once again:

Despite the clear evidence that deforestation rates have not reduced since payments to the Amazon Fund began, at the 2018 Oslo Tropical Forest Forum, on the tenth anniversary of the Amazon Fund, Elvestuen said,

“If we look at the numbers on how deforestation has slowed in Brazil in those ten years, the Fund has definitely been a success. First, you get the results, then you get the support from us. [But] in the last two years, deforestation numbers were going in the wrong direction. So, we will pay accordingly.”

The Amazon Fund manages the money that Norway has handed over to Brazil for temporarily reducing deforestation. The current negotiations between the two countries are about the steering structure of the Amazon Fund. In a press statement on the Norwegian government’s website, Ola Elvestuen, Norway’s Minister of Climate and Environment, says that, “Entering a form of cooperation with Brazil that weakens the foundation of our partnership is not an option.”

Elvestuen argues that there is “no need to change the steering structure of the Amazon fund”.

Termination of the Amazon Fund is “a possible outcome”

Elvestuen admits that the termination of the fund is “a possible outcome”. He also says that Norway is worried about “the recent developments in Brazil and reports on increased deforestation in the Amazon”.

Brazil’s Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles, wants to change the governance of the Amazon Fund. Salles wants to reduce the size of the Amazon Fund Steering Committee from 23 seats to seven. Five would be for the federal government, one for states’ representatives and one for civil society

Norway and Germany, the other main funder of the Amazon Fund, have written to Salles requesting that the current structure of the Amazon Fund remain unchanged.

Over the past 10 years, the Amazon Fund has received a total of R$3.1 billion (US$1.2 billion), 93.3% of which came from Norway. The Fund is managed by Brazil’s state development bank, BNDES.

Head of the Amazon Fund removed

Salles claims to have found problems with the fund’s contracts. Salles looked into a sample of contracts under the Amazon Fund. “There are problems in 100% of NGO contracts,” Globo reported Salles as saying.

In May 2019, BNDES removed the head of the Amazon Fund, Daniela Baccas, following Salles’ claims.

In their letter to Salles, Norway and Germany deny any problems with the Amazon Fund contracts and state that BNDES carries out annual audits to international standards. The letter states that,

None of the tax and impact audits already carried out has revealed any irregularity or mismanagement of the fund’s resources.

“Mixed reviews”

At the end of 2018, Mongabay wrote a review of the Amazon Fund after ten years. Mongabay spoke to several experts and “got mixed reviews”.

The Amazon Fund “backed many innovative local projects”, Mongabay reported, and according to Guimarães, the executive director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), “The Amazon Fund was perhaps the main source of resources for society, academia, NGOs, governments.”

Environmental organisations that worked with forest communities complained about the difficulty in getting money from the Amazon Fund.

The Amazon Fund provided funding for IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental agency. US$54 million was targeted at preventing and fighting forest fires, and monitoring and controlling illegal logging. Fines worth more than US$650 million were imposed.

But under the government of President Michel Temer, IBAMA’s budget was cut dramatically.

Soy and China

Last year saw a record soy harvest in Brazil. China bought 10 million more tons of Brazilian soy. Demand from China largely explains the ever increasing area of land in Brazil turned over to soy farming. Donald Trump’s tariff war with China meant that China stopped buying soy from the USA.

In June 2019, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon soared by more than 88% compared to the same month in 2018. That’s the second consecutive month of rising deforestation under the Jair Bolsonaro regime. In May 2019, deforestation in Brazil reached the fastest rate in a decade.
 

  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Facebook

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

  • Ian on Oakmount Management Partners, Oakwood Financial Management, Oakmount and Partners, Baron Traders, Emerald Knight, Oakmount Global Management, MH Carbon, DMD Media, Morgan Forbes, and Centrium Capital Markets: A network of scam companies
  • Chris Lang on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Tom Rayner on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Alan N. Connor on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Jeremy Sweet on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”

Recent Posts

  • Oakland Institute and Survival International call on UNESCO and IUCN to cut ties with the Tanzanian government over the most recent human rights abuses against the Maasai in Loliondo
  • Statement from Kichwa Indigenous communities about the Cordillera Azul National Park REDD (PNCAZ) project: “No to the false climate solutions offered as ‘Nature Based Solutions’ and ‘carbon neutrality’ by oil and mining companies that pollute in other regions of the world, such as Shell, Total, BHP, and others, who buy carbon from the PNCAZ.”
  • 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Aby L. Sène on “Land Grabs and Conservation Propaganda” in Africa
  • NIHT Inc’s misleading statements about the company’s REDD operations in Papua New Guinea

Recent Comments

  • Ian on Oakmount Management Partners, Oakwood Financial Management, Oakmount and Partners, Baron Traders, Emerald Knight, Oakmount Global Management, MH Carbon, DMD Media, Morgan Forbes, and Centrium Capital Markets: A network of scam companies
  • Chris Lang on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Tom Rayner on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Alan N. Connor on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Jeremy Sweet on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”

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 Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!