Playing with the lung of the world

What do we know about the largest rainforest in the world? Find out more from the former Brazilian Minister of Environment, Marina Silva

In the Brazilian Amazon, between 2000 and 2008, 150,000 square kilometers of rainforest were cleared. Although deforestation have slowed since 2004, it will continue to be an issue. The top two causes for deforestation are cattle ranching and infrastructure.

Historically, cattle ranching is responsible for much of the deforestation in the Amazon. Between 1997 and 2003, land clearing for pastures increased. In that time, Brazil became the world's largest beef exporter. Four-fifths of this growth happened within the Amazon. Brazilian cattle production’s 80 growth in 2003 is also attributed to the exploitation of the Amazon rainforest's resources. Deforestation is also caused by road construction. Roads make logging and mining sites accessible and gives the rural poor a path to enter the Amazon. Then, poor and landless farmers are able to exploit the rainforest by using it as free land for subsistence agriculture. Logging roads is allowing colonists entry to the heart of the Amazon and they proceed to exploit the region for temporary agricultural lands. Satellite data in 2004 showed an increase in deforestation along the BR-163 road, a highway paved to help soy farmers get their crops to export markets.

Deforestation results in the loss of forest cover which disturbs the climate. Trees are absorbers of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Thus, living forests such as the Brazilian Amazon has a significant impact in the lobal carbon cycle. Substantially cutting the Brazilian Amazon has already affected Brazil. Brazil had the second most rapid growth in carbon emissions in Latin America at the rate of 220% between 1970 and 1977.


Globalization has caused national governments to abandon 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 on the vast forest reserves. Environmental regulations barely exist as a result of globalization. In an international struggle to remain competitive, many nations have lowered their standards. Former President Cardoso increased the maximum area of land landowners can use for commercial interests from 50% to 80%. This encouraged the poor farmers from the North to move to the Amazon for subsistence farming. His changed policies opened up the Amazon region to colonization. This effectively opened up the Amazon region. 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. In soybean farming, it was a success; supplied 10% of soybeans in 1970 to 50% of the global market by 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 decrease costs for exporting the region's natural resources. 


Brazil: A Developing Country
We must first consider what developed countries have done to save the environment. Countries such as Canada and the U.S. have made attempts to stay competitive in the logging industry. Canada has employed the practice of dumping in selling below-market prices for timber from public lands. Its national government has provided subsidies in response to global competition. These nations focus primarily on competing internationally. 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. If we are no longer able to take advantage of the Amazon forest’s resources, we will need financial aid from developed countries to improve our environmental standard.

Avanca Brasil
The Brazilian government are implementing development activities under the provisions of Avanca Brasil (Advance Brazil). I fought against this development plan as I felt it will fuel more deforestation. It will pose new threats to the Amazon basin. Many infrastructure projects ranging this important ecological region is said to increase economic development through road paving, river channeling, and energy production. The Amazonian road network will benefit Brazil economically because it will encourage foreign investment in Brazil. Meanwhile, it will make 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. The primary reason I resigned from being the Brazilian 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. Developing plans for sustainable development is critical. Measures have to be implemented before the environmental impact is irreversible. 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. The completion of this development program, will upstart destructive trends. It will be a setback to the progress Brazil has made. Ultimately, the global community will suffer the devastating effects to the forest.

Cultural boundaries
One Hofstede cultural dimension relating to the ethics of deforestation is uncertainty avoidance. Brazil, as a society, does not tolerant uncertainty. 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. If Brazilians begin to understand there are no absolute truths and that their ways of thinking may have flaws that should be altered. This would advance progress of conserving the Amazon. In my opinion, the government should take small steps towards change. At first, it will be hard as Brazilians find it difficult to change their beliefs. However, it is important to take these steps in order to adjust the ethics of our society. Brazil is beginning to modernize and the high rate of change could have growing concern for the lack of a predictable rate of change. Although Brazilian moral principles may not be of Western standards, the Brazilian society need rules or controls to eventually adjust to morals different from their own. It is a tendency of a high uncertainty avoidance culture to have many rules to control behaviour. It is not usual to impose more laws or regulations to guide thinking.

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 difficulty of achieving an equal standard of living is higher when there are more people. The poorer people of the North have had to compromise their morals to attain what they want through legitimate means. They would prefer to go to the Amazon to pursue a living and for land at the expense of harming the environment. In a culture with large power distance, the government has the power. Its decisions will be accepted. People will grow to adapt to what those in power believe. The public is less likely to challenge than accept what the government support because of the power it holds. Thus, government is able to dictate ethics rather than people deciding for themselves.

Who is involved?
The continuous harmful changes to the Amazon impact several stakeholders. The primary stakeholder affected is the Earth, our planet. Current and past misguiding government policies and development strategies that encourage further exploitation of the Amazon for commercial interests causes the most damage to the environment. Thus, it is important to implement new policies which will ensure the environment will be protected at a certain level. For the foreseeable future, the planet needs comprehensive agreements and law against climate change and for reducing carbon dioxide emission. The Brazilian Amazon is the largest rainforest in the world. How ever Brazil decides to act, the world will be affected. Looking to the future, the world needs a long-term solution. I believe the first step would be 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/sustainable development programs. While I am no longer Brazil’s environment minister, I will remain a vocal champion for the environment of my planet.

Alternative model for development
As for a model for Amazonian development, I would suggest creating measures, economic and non-economic, to reduce climate change. For measures limiting climate change, the key is preservation. Guyana's minister of foreign affairs voiced her agreement at the Copenhagen Conference by saying, "the fastest way of reducing carbon emissions is keeping the forest alive." She explained that, "all of the other measures we could take would take technology, time. But this we could immediately... We just [have to] stop cutting." Satellite imaging and carbon measurements are useful technologies to track the process. However, to conserve the forests, incentives [economic and non-economic] must outcompete alternative activities. Foreign companies must invest in sustainable forestry as it will encourage the Brazilian government to limit carbon emissions. Brazil must also build partnerships with wealthy developed countries. This can help establish a financial transfer mechanism and create a system which can measure, monitor, and report changes in forest cover. These are beneficial for Amazonian development while letting Brazil maintain control over its resources.

Multinationals, NGOs, Consumers
Multinational corporations can gain trust of consumers by promoting a cleaner environment. Under pressures to stop deforestation, they can decide which approach to take to Corporate Social Responsibility. As consumers can exercise their power through shopping ethically. Their opinions can influence decisions made by companies concerning the global environment. Consumers are vying to become aware of how products they purchase’s impact on the world. Their buying choices can encourage companies to clean up its act which would prevent themselves from feeling the effects of global warming and extreme climate changes. Civil society has publicly opposed deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by supporting environmental organizations that are non-governmental like Greenpeace. Greenpeace is one of the environment groups which campaigned to stop various causes of deforestation. Greenpeace’s campaign against cattle ranching was the turning point from which companies took action. 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.

Ethical standards
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. "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. However, as a Brazilian, my belief is that the private and social gains need to be balanced with the environmental losses from deforestation. We must consider the tradeoffs between economic activity and protection of the Amazonian forests. Brazil is enforcing Avanca Brasil which is working towards change, but also satisfying demands from other nations. These nations have been pressuring Brazil to conform to what they believe to be ethically right. Meanwhile, companies from the U.S. and China are following the practices of the local setting by expanding their pastures in the Amazon. That is detrimental to the environment. If the world expects Brazil to follow a development path that is different from its current one, then the costs will be substantial. Currently, a number of international initiatives are promoting conservation planning and sustainable development. The most significant one is the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest. G8 nations will channel USD $340 million into land-use planning, extractive reserves, and more. There also are bilateral programs between the Brazilian and other governments. 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.

Future
As a Brazilian, I hope that we 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. Unless urgent action is taken, the Brazilian Amazon could lose an area the size of Denmark in the next 18 months.