http://www.flickr.com/photos/8297608@N08/522058772/
Dating back to 1965, regulations maintaining 80% of South America’s amazon and preventing deforestation have been strictly enforced and upheld by South African governments. Although the government has been successful in combating deforestation, recent opposition from landowners towards deforestation has Brazilian authorities beginning to ponder how to respond. Currently, lobbying and political discussions are producing a bill that could change how the Amazon is protected in Brazil. The author of the Article “Defend the Amazon” believes that this is bringing along a sense of weakening political resolve that is already leading to more illegal clearing of Amazon forest. He argues that in order to sustain the continued protection of the Amazon, the government must create a policy that has wide support and commands respect instead of the newly proposed, more lenient policies. Although he may believe these policies represent a sentiment of relaxed protection for the Amazon, I believe they show the opposite. The new policies are backed with the same concern for the Amazon’s safeguard as those policies from the 1960’s and affectively combat deforestation.
Throughout the Article “Defend the Amazon” the author’s overlying argument suggests the possibility that the new deforestation codes would undermine the old code’s base and cause negative effects on the Amazon. He believes that based on this notion one can deduce that the Brazilian government’s attitude toward environmental protection has diminished. He most thoroughly supports this hypothesis with specific evidence regarding potential policy changes along with the environmental and political consequences they would bring. As further support, he uses conjectured statistics of future Amazon land destruction, such as the revised codes could legalize the destruction of 220000 square kilometers of the amazon. He does acknowledge that there are certain problems with existing laws that need to be fixed, but still argues that the newly proposed policies will do more harm than good. Although he gives what seem to be valid points, all his examples are extremely isolated problems that cannot be used to prove the government’s attitude to be apathetic or show any major flaws in the new policies.
The largest issue with this author’s argument is that it is based off of assumptions that were established from weak, minute evidence. The most major concern he purports is the possibility of loosening restrictions on specific regulations that are currently in place. One such example he gives is the outlawing of cutting tress in areas around rivers and steep hills. This specific law protects river health and prevents soil from being washed away, which is essential for the survival of agriculture and farms already in place. The author though doesn’t recognize the specific regulations that will remain in place and the new regulations that will protect the land. For example, the most important regulation of maintaining no less than 80% of a person’s land as forest will not only remain the center fold of deforestation prevention, but will have increased importance and dedication to. Also, in the mid 2008’s a resolution was enacted by the monetary council that requires farmers and ranchers in the Amazon to meet certain criteria in order to obtain loans from public and private banks. This constraint will continue to be enforced and have more strengthened, specific criteria.
The author also argues the new bill would give amnesty to those who committed crimes after 2008 which, as a result, could cause more illegal deforestation. If this were to happen, he believes it would give landowners the impression that the government can’t enforce the laws regarding deforestation. Yet when we look at the current government law enforcement, it shows that the government is more than willing and capable to enforce the laws. In the past year alone there has been a 32 percent increase in government inspections that has inhibited illegal deforestation in the Amazon. Due to this surveillance “around 230000 cubic meters of wood, 414 trucks and tractors, and embargoed 502000 hectares of land linked to illegal activities” have been ceased by the government. The violators associated with these illegal activities have either been arrested or issued fines. These are among the tools the government is using to financially constrain and punish those who contribute to the destruction of the forest. It is actions such as these that continue to bring farmers and landowners under submission to the government policies being put in place.
Not only does the author dwell on insignificant arguments, but he focuses on what the government may not end up doing. He never acknowledges any of the things the government does that shows Brazil is very committed to continuing their strict policies and implementing new ones concerning deforestation. For one, there are some thirteen government agencies working together to ensure deforestation rates continue to shrink, unlike the lack of involvement from the government suggested by the author. Their actions are increasing the percent of land that must be forest and creating harsher punishments to make farmers more accountable for illegal deforestation. This is in direct opposition to the author’s thought that the government’s apathy toward deforestation is causing much less fear of repercussions from the government. Additionally, in 2009 at the Copenhagen Climate Conference Brazil actually pushed to reduce deforestation and made it their goal to do so by 80%. Deforestation is one of Brazil’s biggest contributors to global greenhouse-gas emissions, accounting for nearly 75% of all Brazil’s emissions. By continuing to attempt to reduce deforestation as much as possible, Brazil could cut their emissions drastically. Tackling deforestation is at the center of Brazil’s strategy to combat global warming and is an incentive because that could allow Brazil to claim place at the front of the pack in terms of reducing carbon emissions. With such lucrative benefits for putting in place even more rigorous laws regarding deforestation, Brazil will maintain their dedication to protecting the Amazon.
In addition to not acknowledging future goals and implementations of the Brazilian government, the author does not mention any of the limitations that the Brazilian government faces in protecting against deforestation. Brazil’s Environmental Protection Agency, the governing body responsible for creating and maintaining laws that protect Brazil’s Amazon, is woefully underfunded. Last year they received only $9.5 million for law enforcement purposes and other necessary resources. With Brazil being the 5th largest country in the world and having the largest expanse of tropical wilderness of any country, the EPA has greatly exceeded what one should expect with such a small budget. The other large inhibitor for the Brazilian government is corp
All of the above arguments show the Brazilian government still places the Amazon’s conservation as a high priority, but the most convincing, irrefutable evidence for this are the statistics of recent years. Brazilian land surveys showed that from just August 2008 to July 2009 deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon dropped 45.7 percent. Further data based on analysis of satellite imagery showed that only about 2,700 square miles of the Amazon were cleared last year. This is the lowest rate recorded since deforestation monitoring of the Amazon began in 1988. There has also been a 32 percent increase in government inspections over the last year that has helped to inhibit illegal deforestation in the Amazon. There will always be some amount of deforestation in the Amazon, but looking at these statistics shows that the government is substantially covering those loses. The decrease in deforestation and the increase in government intervention show the government’s stringent attitudes toward their environmental policies are being strongly maintained.
Pressures for increased allowance of deforestation may be increasing, but it is in no means changing government’s attitudes or perceptions about protecting the Amazon. The author argues that the governments purposed policies indicate a shift in political opinions, but recent actions and statistics clearly show this is not the case. Furthermore, the awareness of the dangers of Amazon deforestation is continually increasing. Each year more and more possible solutions involving sustainable development, more efficient agriculture, and land policy reform are being introduced and readily utilized to preserve the Amazon. There will always be illegal deforestation to an extent, so the goal is to continue to lower the rate as much as possible. The government’s continued, dedicated efforts should maintain and even decrease current deforestation all while promoting greater respect for the policies being put in place.
References
Braun, David. "Amazon Deforestation Slows as Brazil Tightens Prevention." News Watch. National Geographic, 13 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2012.
Butler, Rhett. "Saving the Amazon Rainforest In Brazil." Monga Bay. 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.
Reuters, Thomson. "Brazil Senate Oks Easing of Rules to Limit Amazon Deforestation." World News. MSNBC, 6 Dec. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.
Turing, Alan. "Defend the Amazon." Nature 480.413-414 (2011): 195-202. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment