Marina Silva, environmentalist and politician
I understand there have been issues surrounding deforestation of our Amazon forest. And I will address these concerns openly and with detail.
In the Brazilian Amazon, between 2000 and 2008, more than 150,000 square kilometers were cleared. Since 2004, deforestation have slowed, but it will continue to be an issue. Some main causes are cattle farming and infrastructure.
Historically a large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial interests, misguided government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest resources
Infrastructure
Road construction leads to deforestation. Roads provide access to logging and mining sites while makes the forest accessible to the rural poor who exploit the rainforest by using it as free land for subsistence agriculture.
Satellite data in 2004 showed an increase in deforestation along the BR-163 road, a highway the government paved to help soy farmers get their crops to export markets.
Logging roads give colonists access to rainforest, which they exploit for fuelwood, game, building material, and temporary agricultural lands.
Cattle
Brazil became the world's largest beef exporter between 1997 and 2003; four-fifths of this growth was within the Amazon.
Cattle ranching is the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon. In 2003, 80% growth in Brazilian cattle production was in the Amazon and was export driven.
In Latin America, Brazil had the second most rapid growth in carbon emissions between 1970 and 1997 with Brazil 220%
Loss of forest cover affects climate. Forests play an important role in the global carbon cycle because they absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Stakeholders
The planet
· policies ensure the environment will be protected at a certain level are necessary for the foreseeable future
· need comprehensive against climate change and reduce carbon dioxide emission
The Brazilian Amazon is the largest tropical forest in the world. Whatever Brazil does with it, the world will be affected. Looking to the future, we need a long-term solution. First, establishing comprehensive climate regulations and supplying carbon-free energy sources. Tomorrow's industrialists must realize that it is profitable to reduce emissions by funding conservation programmes. Just because I am no longer Brazil’s environment minister does not mean I cannot be a vocal champion for the environment of my country and my fellow citizens.
Businesses
· gain trust of consumers
· promoting a cleaner environment ensures they are taking a proactive approach
· not under pressure to perform
Brands like Nike, Adidas, and Clarks which were using Brazilian leather from cattle raised in the Amazon are now committed to "zero deforestation in their supply chains" along with Princes, the makers of beef products. They are the four biggest players in the global cattle sector, and all of them have chosen to take a proactive approach to Corporate Social Responsibility. These multinational corporations have taken initiatives against the values and practices of Brazil. They believe certain absolute truths apply everywhere and deforestation is wrong according to Western ethical standards. In this case, the MNC’s chose to lean towards ethical imperialism as the solution to this ethical issue. Other countries are pressuring Brazil to change its ways [the government to take initiative/make changes] "Morality is as genuine a human universal as is language. All cultures have moral systems." They believe the idea of separate but equal cultures no longer accurate in that cultures are not separate; they exist in the same space. One nation’s actions will affect other countries. Greenpeace’s Amazon director, Paulo Adario claimed that, the pressure from other nations contributed to the government’s desire to stop rainforest deforestation. Greenpeace is just one of the non-profit, non-governmental environment groups which campaigned to stop various causes of deforestation. It was Greenpeace’s campaign against cattle ranching was the turning point from which companies decided to take action.
Consumer
· can exercise their power by shopping ethically to influence decisions made about their global environment
· aware of how the products they are buying are impacting their future
· encourage companies to clean up its act which prevents themselves from feeling the effects of global warming and extreme climate changes
Civil society for its part has publicly opposed deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by supporting environmental organizations that are non-governmental and non-profitable like Greenpeace. This prevented a code which could have become a charter for industrial logging interests.
Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions
Uncertainty avoidance
One Hofstede cultural dimension relating to the ethics of deforestation is uncertainty avoidance. Brazil, as a society, does not tolerant uncertainty. The objective of the government is to provide society with strict laws, policies, and regulations which they can follow. We must also make aware the positive aspects of reducing deforestation. Allowing Brazilians to believe they are taking risks with new policies would hurt the Amazon, and in turn, the world. In my opinion, the government should take small steps towards change. At first, it will be hard because it is difficult for Brazilians to change their beliefs. But it is important to take these steps in order to adjust the ethics of our society. Although our moral principles may not be of Western standards, the Brazilian society need rules or controls to eventually adjust to morals different from their own. The government must inform the public that there is no need to feel threatened by efforts to promote conservation planning in the Brazilian Amazon. If the mass is educated on the organization and structure of these policies, it will avoid their low tolerance for uncertainty. They must understand why deforestation will benefit them, be good for future generations, and the potentially detrimental implications if the current rate of Amazonian deforestation continue. If they begin to understand truths they know is not the absolute truth and that their ways of thinking may have flaws. Brazil is beginning to modernize and the high rate of change could have growing concern for the lack of a predictable rate of change. It is a tendency of a high uncertainty avoidance culture to have many and many more rules to control behaviour. It is not usual to impose more laws or regulations to guide thinking.
Power distance
The large power distance of the Brazilian society signifies that inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to develop. This is due to the large population. The more people they are, the harder it is for everyone to achieve an equal standard of living. The poorer people of the North have had to compromise their morals to get they want through legitimate means. They would prefer to go to the Amazon to pursue a living and for land at the expense of hurting the environment. What this means for the government is that they have the power. Its decisions will be accepted. People will grow to adapt to what those in power believe. In terms of ethics, the public is less likely to challenge than accept what the government support because of the power it holds.
Cultural relativism and ethical imperialism
As a Brazilian, I do believe the private and social gains need to be balanced with the social and environmental losses from deforestation. We must consider the tradeoffs between economic activity and protection of the Amazonian forests. Brazil is implementing the Avanca Brasil which is working towards change, but also satisfying demands from other nations particularly European and North American ones. These nations have been pressuring Brazil to conform to what they believe to be ethically right. English newspapers have boldly reported that they believe the fate of the Brazilian Amazon should not be left up to Brazil. However, Brazil has the needs of their citizens to consider. Other countries may want to assist Brazil in developing as a nation, however, they cannot decide to impose their own rules and laws on Brazilian people. Personally, I do believe that Brazilians should not be settling and claiming land in the Amazon. Companies from the U.S. or China for example are following the practices of the local setting by expanding their pastures in the Amazon. To be honest, I believe that is wrong. First and foremost, we need to look towards the future and stop planning for the short-term. To do so, developing plans for sustainable development is important. Measures have to be implemented before the environmental impact is irreversible. In the end... If the world expects Brazil to follow a development path that is different from its current one--and from a path that developed nations have followed, then the costs will be substantial. As of right now, a number of international and domestic initiatives are attempting to promote conservation planning and sustainable development. The most significant one is the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest, which will channel $340 million from G8 nations (Germany, Britain, France, Italy, the United States, Canada, Japan, and Russia) into land-use planning, extractive and Amerindian reserves, ecological corridor systems, etc. There also are bilateral programs between the Brazilian and other governments, domestic governmental initiatives, and private organizations involved. Collectively, these programs involve hundreds of millions of dollars. The investment, in my opinion, would be worth it. The fate of the greatest tropical rainforest on Earth is at stake. Without it, we would lose the lung of the world. By then, the livelihoods of everyone and the survival of biodiversity on Earth will be at stake.
An ongoing development activity in the Amazon under the provisions of Avanca Brasil (Advance Brazil) is implemented by the Brazilian government. I fought against this development plan as I feel it will fuel more deforestation. I believe it will pose new threats to the Amazon basin. Many infrastructure projects ranging this important ecological region is said to increase economic developments concerning industrial agriculture, timber, and mining, but the investments will cost $45 billion USD. The money is used for road paving, river channeling, and energy production i.e. hydroelectric projects, power lines. Although the Amazonian road network will benefit Brazil economically because it will encourage foreign investment in Brazil. It will also more the region more susceptible to forest destruction. What also shocks me is that key environmental agencies were excluded from planning these developments. The Ministry of the Environment was unable to give input. That is the primary reason I resigned from being the environmental minister is due to this program. The way it is being promoted to the public is misleading as it can have detrimental impacts on their future. We need a more long-term plan, this will only advance Brazil in the short-term. By then, if the government have not protected the Amazon region through sustainable development, not only Brazilians but the world will suffer. Highways, roads, logging projects, and colonization are the causes of deforestation. With the completion of this development program, these primary causes will contribute to /upstart the destructive trends again. It will be a setback to the progress Brazil has made because Avanca Brasil is representative of the topdown planning process used in the Amazon. First, the government or business propose projects and have it approved before the evaluation of environmental costs and risks. Project like the BR-310 highway and Araguaia-Tocantins waterway create passageways between the remote Amazonian frontier and densely populated places. They start a process of spontaneous colonization, logging, mining the Brazilian government will find difficult to control. Most importantly, the forests suffer the devastating effects.
Land-use change is attributable to globalization and is found in emerging globalized economies, especially when environmentalists lobby for conservation approaches for inhabited landscapes like in the Brazilian Amazon.
A model for Amazonian development I would suggest creating complementary measures (both economic and non-economic) that reduce climate change. These measures should strengthen property rights and restrict access to the forest areas. These could counter the government subsidized agriculture and colonization programs.
Globalization has caused national governments to abandon forest protection laws and regulations because of the need to be competitive. In Latin America, globalization has and still is driving a great deal of deforestation. Brazil is a prime example. There have been few protections for the environment despite the vast forest reserves. Environmental regulations barely exist as a result of globalization. In the midst of an international struggle to remain competitive, many nations have lowered their standards. Brazil’s constitutional protections for indigenous lands have been weakened by former President Cardoso, allowing private interests to displace native people from the forests. He also increased the maximum area which landowners in the Amazon are able to exploit (from 50% to 80). This effectively opened up the Amazon region. Due to globalization, One driving force of globalization is eliminating government restrictions on foreign investment, giving access to resources previously unexploited. Brazil’s land costs are half of that of United States. Thus, foreign direct investment began to increase exponentially. Brazil’s competitive edge in comparative costs of production is helped by government incentives. From supplying 10% of soybeans in the international market in 1970 to half the global market by the early 1980s. Overall costs are lower for Brazilian production than for United States production which was Brazil’s main competition. The Brazilian government's planned transport infrastructure for the Amazon is designed to expedite and reduce costs for exporting the region's vast natural resources. Even Canada had made attempts to stay competitive in the logging industry. Canadians have not established an Endangered Species Act. Below-market prices for timber from public lands, particularly in the US and Canada has also employed the practice of dumping in selling below-market prices for timber from public lands. Its national government has provided subsidies in response to stiffening global competition. Although Canada's largest forest-exporting province, British Columbia, has for years sold public timber at one-third the price of the cost in the US, BC's Premier cut it by another 12% to boost competitiveness. In terms of ethical imperialism, if the world expects Brazil to follow a different development path to conserving the Amazonian forest. It should first consider what developed countries who claim they want to save the environment do. They are allowed to focus primarily on international competition. Brazil, being a developing country is more in need of developing a competitive and comparative advantage. Our abundance of natural resources is responsible for our economic growth. We will need financial aid from developed countries to improve our environmental standard. Or else, it is not a possible feat. As a Brazilian, I hope that we, as a global community, can implement change for the future. We would not want to witness a near-complete destruction of the world's few remaining forests and the globalization of suicidal standards.
Tropical deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon are influenced by local farms, regional patterns and international conditions.
Deforestation in Amazonia is correlated with changing demographic and economic conditions in southern Brazil. In the early 1970s, changes in land tenure and land use directly influenced deforestation. These changes resulted from external factors. These factors were preconditions for deforestation that still exists today. The international activities were related to world oil production, distribution, and price was one reason.
Brazil, being a developing country, needed money to fund economic development, modernization, and industrialization programs. They also needed US dollars to pay for oil, because oil is bought and traded in dollars. Brazil came up with a 2 step strategy: First - reduce imported oil by developing domestic sources like hydroelectric energy Second - borrow from foreign lenders to fund domestic economic development programs. A focus on developing financing was agricultural modernization because agricultural exports could be used to service the debt.
Since then, agricultural modernization has been a national goal in Brazil. In the last 20 years, total farmland area increased more than 60% and the land in crops increased 176%. Between 1970 and 1980, there was large-scale financial investment in agriculture. The use of machinery grew as Brazil became a leading exporter of commodities as soybeans and oranges. The investment programs were successful; the net value of agricultural output increased substantially.
The agricultural modernization programs led to changing land allocation and land tenure. Figure 5 shows the distribution of crop credits by crop type in 1978. First, almost half of the total crop area receiving credits was used for three export crops: wheat, soybeans, and coffee. Second, the largest fraction of crop area was in soybean production. Third, hardly any cropland was used for staple crops such as black bean.
In class I’ve heard this phrase, in the last 30 years; interdependence has caused countries to change their political, economic, and cultural practices. As an array of products/services become accessible, cultures are exposed to other countries’ beliefs/values. Therefore, countries begin to change their practices because of outside influences. Crops for domestic use are not grown, export crops for other countries are. Unless urgent action is taken, the Brazilian Amazon could lose an additional area the size of Denmark over the next 18 months
No comments:
Post a Comment