Aumento no desmatamento na Amazônia. Ponto fora da curva ou fora de controle?

In 2012-2013, the rate of deforestation in the Amazon increased significantly by 28% (INPE, 2013), a value considered unacceptable, since the government has the fundamental means to prevent such an outcome. Although the deforested area in this period (5843 km ² ) is the second lowest recorded since the start of monitoring INPE (1988), this still represents a big waste because abound in the Amazon a large area already deforested and which is completely underutilized .

EMBRAPA and INPE estimate that by 2010 the abandoned or underutilized area (covered by dirty pasture or grazing under forest regeneration) in the region totaled approximately 12 million hectares (5.4 times the area of the state of Sergipe). If 25% of this area was properly used, in addition to avoiding deforestation, would be enough to meet the growing demand for meat by 2022. This deforestation, illegal largely resulted in the issuance of approximately 220 million tonnes of CO ₂ , a volume equivalent to three times the annual emissions (2012) of the country’s transport sector [1] .

The continuity of deforestation, even with “raises” sporadic or lower rates, is concerned. So in this document are provided some reflections on the reasons for this continuity and addresses the lessons learned by the country to combat it, especially one considered illegal.

For that deforestation increased in 2013?

The increase in deforestation (Figure 1) coincided with several factors that traditionally encourage cutting forests and forests reached located in different land categories (Figure 2). The rising price of agricultural products, for example, has historically encouraged deforestation both for production purposes as speculative. if deforestation-to “enhance” the land and make gains to the extent that the price increase in the future.

In turn, large infrastructure projects such as dams, roads paving (BR-163, Trans) and construction of ports (Itaituba and Santarém) changes the dynamics of the region and may have contributed in part to the recent increase in felling forests. In many cases, works such as roads and ports, attract those seeking facilities, for example, in the flow of agricultural production. Environmental and social safeguards to mitigate the risk of deforestation associated with these great works, however, are weak. In addition, failure to collect and government investment in order to be fulfilled. The most emblematic example of this was the fact that the recommendation made by the environmental impact report of Belo Monte, to the creation of about 15,000 square kilometers of protected areas, have not been heeded.

At the same time, the government is weakening environmental rules. The new Forest Code, adopted in 2012, allowed a significant part of the consolidation of illegally deforested areas in the past, which created expectations that further deforestation can be amnestied in the future. The government also reduced Conservation Units (responsible for only 3% of deforestation, although cover 25% of the Amazon territory, Figure 2 and Table 1) and the National Congress (PEC 215) threatens to undermine indigenous rights.

Still, the pattern of forest felling suggests that deforestation is increasing on public lands for uses and those that still lack information about the land situation (Figure 2, Table 1). Around 37% of clearing occurred in areas included in these two categories (Table 1).

Deforestation in agrarian reform settlement areas has also been high and is apparently associated with the concentration of land not settled . For example, considering only the clearing of nesting areas (29% of the total – Figure 2 and Table 1), 75% of deforestation exceeds 10 hectares, inconsistent value with the profile of the land reform settlers, which usually drop on average two hectares per year for subsistence purposes. Furthermore, only 55 settlements (over 2700) contributed 50% of clearing land within this category. 

The lessons on combating deforestation

In recent years, Brazil has learned several lessons on how to combat deforestation in the Amazon. For example, from 2005, with the rates that the forest had been felled, they began to fall gradually because of various control measures. Estre they intensified surveillance (including the prison involved in environmental crimes) and the creation of protected areas [2] (Figure 1). Also contributed to this decline in rates, the embargo of the areas of soybean purchase that were cleared. However, in 2008, the deforestation rate increased by 11% (Figure 1). In response, the government quickly implemented even tougher and focused measures including:

• concentrated supervision in critical municipalities with the highest deforestation rates;
• credit constraint for producers who did not start the environmental regularization of their property;
• embargo of deforested areas and providing maps of these areas on the Internet, making it liable to penalties those who purchase products from these regions.

In addition to the actions of the Executive Branch, the Public Ministry initiated actions against companies that bought cattle illegally deforested areas. Despite the success of the fight against Amazon deforestation recorded in recent years it is necessary that the government and society to be alert increases, even if possible, be avoided. The persistence of this deforestation indicates that new measures to its combat should be implemented.

Such measures must be particularly in the field of economic incentives for conservation and reduction of speculative deforestation. After all, the ultimate goal is the complete extinction of deforestation in the region, as even the area currently tipping, environmental and climatic point of view, it is still unacceptable. The forest is a finite resource. To preserve it, you need to stop deforestation as soon as possible. So, so we can follow up with consistent reductions in deforestation rates in the coming years will be necessary to advance in already established combat actions and implement other innovative. Below, we offer some alternatives in this regard.

1)  Monitor and quickly punish

It is necessary to monitor and quickly punish environmental crimes both actions of the Federal Police, as Ibama. Surveillance should be more preventive than reactive. For this, the detection and surveillance of areas degraded by logging should be prioritized in anticipation strategy to deforestation. It also needs to ensure that embargoed areas continue in this condition. There is evidence that is happening the marketing of products originating in these areas. In this sense, it will be necessary to expand the confiscation of cattle raised in embargoed areas and blame the refrigerators on the purchase of cattle. This can be done by crossing the data that are available in Animal Transport guides with the information from the list of embargoed areas. The soy moratorium and the actions of the prosecution against illegal meat should be extended and strengthened. In addition to restricting the market for illegal producers, such measures should value those who produce in a sustainable way. The effective punishment of the major illegal loggers should also be a priority. Whereas to clear one hectare of forest the cost is approximately US $ 1500 per hectare (field information), research on the financial transactions involved in the illegal destruction of the forest can be an innovative action control to be used. A task force between IBAMA, the Federal Police and the State and Federal Public Ministry could blame not only those who directly promote illegal logging, but also those who finances. such measures should value those who produce in a sustainable way. The effective punishment of the major illegal loggers should also be a priority. Whereas to clear one hectare of forest the cost is approximately US $ 1500 per hectare (field information), research on the financial transactions involved in the illegal destruction of the forest can be an innovative action control to be used. A task force between IBAMA, the Federal Police and the State and Federal Public Ministry could blame not only those who directly promote illegal logging, but also those who finances. such measures should value those who produce in a sustainable way. The effective punishment of the major illegal loggers should also be a priority. Whereas to clear one hectare of forest the cost is approximately US $ 1500 per hectare (field information), research on the financial transactions involved in the illegal destruction of the forest can be an innovative action control to be used. A task force between IBAMA, the Federal Police and the State and Federal Public Ministry could blame not only those who directly promote illegal logging, but also those who finances. 5000 per hectare (field information), research on the financial transactions involved in the illegal destruction of the forest can be an innovative action control to be used. A task force between IBAMA, the Federal Police and the State and Federal Public Ministry could blame not only those who directly promote illegal logging, but also those who finances. 5000 per hectare (field information), research on the financial transactions involved in the illegal destruction of the forest can be an innovative action control to be used. A task force between IBAMA, the Federal Police and the State and Federal Public Ministry could blame not only those who directly promote illegal logging, but also those who finances.

2) Create economic incentives for conservation

In addition to punishing offenders it is essential to support conservation. This can be done with immediate economic incentives in scale for conservation, restoration and forest regularization. The credit for agricultural activities in the Amazon has grown substantially without, for example, the adaptation to the Forest Code, even with all the inherent loosening its new version of the law, be adopted as selection criteria for granting funding. Some of the incentives are already provided for in Article 41 of the new forestry law, such as sustainable procurement, differentiated tax treatment, payment for environmental services, certification and credit for sustainable forestry and agricultural production. Incentives should be directed preferentially to family farming, according to the new Forest Code, and could strengthen initiatives like the Settlements Program Green, INCRA, and the proposed payment for environmental services via the Food Acquisition Program (PAA). Incentives could also cover taxes. For example, the government still collects only a small fraction of the Rural Land Tax (ITR), which was created to curb speculative occupation, and it could be used as a resource for encouraging sustainable production. In 2002, the federal government collected only 6% of the potential value of ITR according to an analyst at the IRS. the government still collects only a small fraction of the Rural Land Tax (ITR), which was created to curb speculative occupation, and it could be used as a resource for encouraging sustainable production. In 2002, the federal government collected only 6% of the potential value of ITR according to an analyst at the IRS. the government still collects only a small fraction of the Rural Land Tax (ITR), which was created to curb speculative occupation, and it could be used as a resource for encouraging sustainable production. In 2002, the federal government collected only 6% of the potential value of ITR according to an analyst at the IRS.

3) To combat land speculation

Land speculation or speculative clearing appears to be a major reason for the advance of deforestation, even when large areas have cleared are still available. Speculation certainly move illegal logging. The forest clearing for misappropriation ( “ownership”) of public land is historically consolidated stimulus and often reinforced by the government. Rarely does the government takes possession of these lands, even when they are clearly misused or unproductive. In this sense, the collection of the ITR is essential to discourage speculation. Especially in cities with underutilized areas concentration of the sample are Felix Xingu, Para, and Aripuanã, Mato Grosso [3] .

To avoid speculation the government must also resist pressures to reduce the protected areas in the region. A recent study has shown that protected areas less effective against deforestation are those where there are land disputes [4] . So it is not surprising that deforestation in the vicinity of Altamira and National Forests Jamanxim (Figure 3) and the Indigenous Land Chest, the area of influence of the BR-163, is associated with the expectation of reducing the limits of these protected areas. Therefore, we must stop the political process of reviewing these limits in Congress and charge less ambiguous signals the government’s stand on the matter.

4) order and properly allocate the land use

Deforestation continues to advance on public lands not intended. Are million hectares of forest land awaiting allocation [5] and are at the mercy of speculators and land grabbers (Figure 2). The government should coordinate and focus the actions of various agencies responsible for the allocation and management of these areas, such as the Brazilian Forest Service, Ibama, ICMBio, Incra and Funai. Priority must be given to the allocation of land for conservation and sustainable use of forest peoples, which come under pressure, including from new infrastructure projects in the region.

In areas already occupied, the government should accelerate the Rural Environmental Registration (CAR) georeferenced – accompanied by their effective monitoring – something which unfortunately is still very flawed. Furthermore, it should accelerate and improve land tenure. For example, it has been reported that squatter embargoed areas are receiving land titles in western Pará. These actions should be focused around great works of federal interest infrastructure, including the paving of BR-163 (accounting for more than 50% of deforestation this year), the Trans and around the power plants of the Madeira and Belo Monte. Finally, recent history shows that the fight against deforestation must be seen as a permanent mission, as is the fight against inflation.

Therefore, it is important to note and take action against deforestation reduction targets established for the region. Considering the volume of land already cleared and abandoned, this goal should be zero deforestation! With the incessant and integrated implementation of policies that have proven effective against deforestation, coupled with innovative policies, it would be perfectly possible to achieve this goal. In this sense, the institutions listed below offer this brief analysis of deforestation recorded in 2013 and placed at the disposal of the Government to discuss in depth the findings and recommendations presented here briefly. With a joint effort of society and government,

Brasilia, January 7, 2013.

Environmental Research Institute of Amazonia – IPAM Environmental Institute – ISA Institute of Man and Environment in the Amazon – Imazon