Brazil's Environment Minister Steps into Deforestation Controversy

Brazil’s new Environment Minister Carlos Minc takes office today in the middle of a spat over an apparent recent increase in deforestation in the Amazon region. He said deforestation in Mato Grosso has increased by 60 per cent.

The dispute concerns satellite data on deforestation and punitive measures taken by the government against ranchers and farmers in the worst-affected regions. The government sees the clampdown as essential for slowing deforestation. But one of the world’s leading Amazon scientists has told the Financial Times the measures are “just wrong” and could precipitate “a new wave of anarchy”. Inpe, a space research institute that provides satellite monitoring of the Amazon, had been expected to release data on Monday showing an increase in deforestation this year, especially in the state of Mato Grosso on the southern rim of the Amazon, which has seen agriculture greatly expand over the past four decades. But Gilberto Camara, director of Inpe, said he decided not to release the data because they would “only throw more fuel on to the fire," preferring to wait until Carlos Minc, the environment minister took office on May 27. “We need measured responses,” he said. Mr. Minc commented on the figures last week, saying deforestation in Mato Grosso had increased by 60 per cent. He blamed Blairo Maggi, the state governor who is also one of the world’s biggest soybean farmers, saying he would plant soybeans all the way to the Andes if given the chance. Mr. Maggi contested the figures, saying his state’s environment inspectors had been to areas identified by Inpe to find, for example, that new deforestation had been recorded in areas long since cleared of natural vegetation. Mr. Camara defended Inpe’s methods, saying Brazil had the best tropical forest monitoring system in the world and that its policy was to make all data publicly available for verification in the field. However, Daniel Nepstad of the Woods Hole Research Center, who has spent 20 years studying the Amazon, said Inpe’s data should not be used without such verification because the pixels produced by the satellite images were too large for precise measurements. “Defining government actions based on very uncertain data is just wrong,” he said. Recently released Inpe data appear to show an increase in deforestation after several years of decline. From a recent high of 27,000 sq km in the year to July 2004, the amount of land cleared in the Amazon fell to 11,200 sq km to July 2007. But preliminary data suggest the figure this year will be as much as 13,300 sq km. Based on preliminary figures, the government announced in January punitive measures against ranchers and farmers in the 36 counties with the highest rates of deforestation. From July, subsidised farm finance will be denied to producers who fail to prove that their properties are within the law or that they are taking steps to meet legal requirements: this includes preserving the forest on 80 per cent of their land. This requirement was introduced during the past decade and most producers were either already outside the law or have decided to ignore it. “There has been a very unfortunate battle between the government and the farm sector since the release of the numbers for late 2007,” Dr. Nepstad said. “The quality of the data and the size of the increase, if it exists, did not justify the size of the punitive measures, which have criminalised the sector just as it is in the middle of a great experiment” – a reference to a soya moratorium under which traders have stopped buying soya from recently deforested land since 2006. Similar private initiatives are under way among ranchers – who cause most deforestation – to encourage them to adopt better practices and replant sensitive areas. A bill in Brazil’s Congress would reduce the forest reserve requirement in the Amazon to 50 per cent, a change the government opposes. “If it is approved we will certainly appeal against it,” said André Lima, a director at the environment ministry. But Dr. Nepstad said the change would recognise that the 80 per cent rule was “unattainable and only perpetuates the lawlessness that has characterised the Amazon all along”. “If there were clear economic benefits to those who comply at the 50 per cent level, the result would be a decline in deforestation.”