Adventures of a Gringa

Brazilians and the Environment

With Rio+20 rapidly approaching, all eyes are on Brazil and its environment. But what do Brazilians actually think about environmental issues?

One of the most controversial environmental issues, the Forest Code, was passed by the president and seems to be plowing ahead. Dilma made a number of modifications and vetos, and after she sent the bill back to Congress, it received over 600 amendments. (Given how contentious the bill became, Dilma herself didn't actually announce the changes she made; she sent her ministers to do it.) With Dilma's changes, the bill is still fairly ambiguous and left both environmentalists and agribusiness interests unhappy. One of the biggest points of contention dealt with amnesty for deforesters; while she vetoed amnesty for large deforesters, amnesty for small-scale deforesters remained in the bill. Things took another strange turn today when some of the ruralistas tried to get the Supreme Court to block Dilma's changes to the law. Now, Congress says it won't have a final vote on the final changes until July. But some question whether the changes to the law will matter in the long run, given that the parts of the country most affected by deforestation are areas with weak rule of law where many already ignore the rules.

Given that the Forest Code has gained a lot of negative attention both in Brazil and beyond, the government has made some last-ditch efforts to produce some environmentally friendly news. This week, the government announced that according to the state-run agency INPE, the Amazon has seen the lowest deforestation rates since 1988 and that over 81 percent of the original forest has been preserved. The time period in question is between August 2010 and July 2011, but deforestation also reportedly fell between August 2011 and May 2012. The crux of the announcement--about the 2010-2011 numbers--were actually just a rehash of an announcement already made last year. But Dilma also took the opportunity to announce the creation of two new nature reserves (in Paraná and Rio Grande do Norte) and seven new indigenous reserves in the Amazon.

                Source: INPE

But as the hosts of one of the most important global environmental events, what do Brazilians think about the environment, the Amazon, and deforestation?

• Knowledge about the environment is on the rise in Brazil. Over the past 20 years, consciousness about deforestation, environmental protection, and other issues have steadily grown, as more and more Brazilians believe a healthy environment is good for the country. According to a survey released today, though only 22 percent of Brazilians know what Rio+20 is, more Brazilians are concerned about the environment. The study showed that Brazilians listed the environment as the number 6 concern for the country; in a similar study in 1992, the environment didn't even appear on the list. Interestingly, of those who said they were "very proud" of the country, most listed the environment as the number one reason for feeling proud of the country, above socioeconomic development and the Brazilian people. Also, 65 percent said it is important to protect the environment for "survival." It's also interesting to note that in 1992, 47 percent did not know or didn't give an opinion on Brazil's main environmental problems; in 2012, it decreased to 10 percent.

        Source: Ministry of the Environment

• More Brazilians are taking action about the environment. Though only an estimated 2 percent of household trash is recycled in Brazil, the environment survey released today indicated that 48 percent of Brazilians separate their trash for recycling. One in five Brazilians have taken environmental action, including separating the trash, planting trees, and group clean-ups. Around 76 percent of those who live in cities trying to reduce plastic bag use said they have committed themselves to the campaign. Brazilians also mobilized against the Forest Code. A petition signed by nearly 2 million people--of which 1.5 million were Brazilian--was delivered to Dilma asking her to veto the entire bill. A number of high-profile celebrities ranging from Gisele to Rodrigo Santoro to Fernando Meirelles mobilized support among Brazilians to protest the law both on the streets and on the web.

 

• The Amazon is ours, Brazilians sometimes say when asked about who is responsible for one of the world's largest rainforests. But for many Brazilians who live in the country's largest cities, the Amazon is something of a faraway concept, even though the Amazon rainforest accounts for between 40 and 50 percent of Brazil's total area. Still, the rallying cry of maintaining sovereignty over the Amazon--a Amazônia é nossa--may not take into complete account the fact that the Amazon basin is spread over nine countries, and around 40 percent of the total area is located in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana. There's also a lot of sensitivity around criticism and pressure from abroad to protect the Amazon, and some believe that foreigners should have no say in Amazonian protection efforts.

 

• Brazilians are very protective of the Amazon, and beyond sensitivity to outside influence, some are even suspicious of foreign intervention there. There's a long-running urban myth that foreigners are trying to take over the Amazon, a conspiracy theory that has persisted to this day. While a number of experts have tried to debunk this myth, there is evidence that foreigners support stronger restrictions on Amazon deforestation. A January 2012 survey of foreigners from 18 countries asked about their perceptions of Brazil showed that 40 percent believe the Amazon should be administered according to international law rather than Brazilian law. Plus, 65 percent said they'd be willing to donate money to help preserve the Amazon. But since Brazilians are wary of foreigners' involvement with the Amazon, would those unaware of the event--around 80 percent of the population--support Rio+20 if they knew what it was? In the end, it may not matter, since setting legally binding targets seems very unlikely. The good news is that more and more Brazilians are becoming more invested in the environment, which will hopefully mean that more people willl seek to hold leaders accountable for environmental protection and sustainability.

Rio's Waterfall

Yesterday, a story about a project to build a massive artificial waterfall in Rio made its rounds on the blogs (I found it via The Good Blood, via Treehugger). Swiss architecture firm RAFAA entered the project in the International Architecture Competition for the 2016 Olympics by proposing the construction of a solar panel operated artificial waterfall on one of the small islands off the coast of the city, right off the tip of the Leme neighborhood.

 
The structure, called the Solar City Tower, runs on solar power, pumping ocean water into the cascade over the island. Besides providing clean energy, the building would have observation decks, shops, dining, an amphitheater, and a bungee-jumping deck. The idea seems to be to make it both an environmental landmark as well as a tourist attraction.

I looked around to see if I could find any other entries for the competition, but this was all I could find. While I think it's a wonderful idea to strive to be the first zero-carbon games (good luck with that, by the way), it seems a little wacky. And despite the intent on creating something semi natural, Rio's beauty lies in its real natural wonders, and this thing just looks weird.

A better idea might be to get working on the World Cup venues, which are due sooner and are apparently behind schedule. There's no reason solar energy can't come into play there, too, even if it's not as flashy.

James Cameron in Brazil

James Cameron is in Brazil for the second time this year, lobbying the Brazilian government to block the construction of one of the world's largest hydroelectric dams, which environmentalists oppose.

From the New York Times article about the director in the Amazon:

"Now, Mr. Cameron said, he has been spurred to action, to speak out against the looming environmental destruction endangering indigenous groups around the world — a cause that is fueling his inner rage and inspiring his work on an “Avatar” sequel.

“Any direct experience that I have with indigenous peoples and their plights may feed into the nature of the story I choose to tell,” he said. “In fact, it almost certainly will.” Referring to his Amazon trip, he added, “It just makes me madder.”

Cameron brought Sigourney Weaver along this time, and both will protest the Belo Monte project in Brasilia this week. He wrote a letter to Lula, though it would seem he was denied a private meeting with him, unless it was held secretly, which I doubt.

The Belo Monte project has been in the works for a long time, and indigenous groups have fought against it since the idea came to light. It's one of the classic Amazon struggles: development to benefit Brazilians with jobs and energy vs. environmental destruction and further marginalization of indigenous groups. Despite protests against the dam, it looks as though the project is going to move forward. But with such a high profile celebrity on the ground, allied with Brazilian protesters, he just might have thrown a wrench into the process, at least temporarily.

What do you think about a big Hollywood star using his fame for this cause? Is he fighting a good fight, or is he just a gringo metido?

Charcoal

Though it would be amazing if Jose Padilha himself wrote a guest entry, I stumbled upon a short film he made for Live Earth last year, and as usual, it's interesting and thought-provoking, albeit a lot shorter and simpler than his other documentaries.

Guest Post: There's Plenty More Forest to Cut Down

Cristiano, the author of Casagrande blog and the guy behind the Brazilians Twitter account, wrote this about his encounter with a logger in Rio Grande do Sul.

Ainda tem muito mato, leva uns 50, 60 anos para a Amazônia acabar

Hoje pela manhã fui ao centro da cidade onde moro, no Rio Grande do Sul, e enquanto aguardava para ser atendido acompanhei uma conversa que me chamou a atenção.

Um rapaz, aparentando 20 anos de idade, contava como era o seu dia-a-dia na Amazônia. Pelo sotaque deduzi que era daqui mesmo. Gaúcho na Amazônia não é difícil de descobrir a profissão. A maioria são militares, criadores de gado ou madeireiros.

Não me contive e peguntei:

- Você é militar?

- Não, trabalho em uma madeireira.

- Madeira certificada? - questionei não acreditando no que havia acabado de perguntar.

- Sim - respondeu desviando o olhar.

- Porque o IBAMA certifica a madeira legal na Amazônia, certo? - continuei

- Ninguém trabalha certinho na Amazônia - interrompeu ele - quando os fiscais do IBAMA chegam todos os madeireiros param até eles irem embora.

- E para onde vai a madeira de vocês? - quis saber, curioso.

- Exportação. A 1ª linha para Europa, 2ª linha para os Estados Unidos.

- Não fica nada no Brasil? - continuei, surpreso.

- Só a madeira com muita imperfeição, que não tem como tirar os nódulos.

- Entendi. - concluí, percebendo que ele não estava disposto a continuar a entrevista.

Continuei acompanhando a conversa do rapaz com outra pessoa, com quem não tinha constrangimento em falar sobre o assunto.

"As notícias nos jornais são exageradas. O povo acha que o IBAMA está sempre lá fazendo apreensões e multando. Tem madeireiros que tem milhões em multa, mas a vida deles é essa, não vão pagar essas multas nunca."

"Falam que a Amazônia vai terminar. Ainda tem muito mato, leva uns 50, 60 anos para a Amazônia acabar."

A conversa era interessante nesta história onde pistoleiros e madeireiros eram os personagens principais enquanto governo e polícia eram coadjuvantes e eventuais.

Neste momento, precisei sair. Despedi-me de todos, olhei para ele e vi que desviou o olhar. Estava claro que não tinha constragimento para falar sobre isso com os demais, mas parecia saber que não podia confiar em mim.

See original post for photos of logging in the Amazon.

Protest Now

I recently discovered CQC (Custe o que custar), a comedy show on Band in Brazil, which roughly translates as "Whatever it takes." Though it is mostly a mixture of comedy segments, it has a fantastic political segment called "Proteste já" (Protest Now). The show sends one of the hosts, Rafinha Bastos, to investigate a social problem in a town or city in Brazil, in an effort to bring attention to the problem and to alert the responsible authorities, to ultimately resolve the problem.

In this week's episode, Rafinha (who is, incidentally, a Jewish stand-up comedian) goes to a town in Sao Paulo state where the public hospital is in a state of complete disarray. Despite the fact that the city government spends twice as much as the legal amount on public health, there are no doctors in the ER the day Rafinha arrives, with few doctors available, a broken X-ray machine, and insufficient medical instruments. Rafinha goes to the Secretary of Health in the city and gets up in his face (unlike the soft-balling Globo version of "Proteste Ja" when they show the problem, play dramatic music, and call it a day). Dressed up as Death, he reads him a long list of problems with the hospital, and asks him to give a definite answer about when and how he'll deal with the crisis. He also asks if the secretary uses the hospital, the only one in town; he meekly replies: "I go to a private hospital."

Inspired by the segment, I'm starting a new series to shed light on local issues in the Americas not getting enough attention in the international media that need to be addressed.

For the first post, let's have a look at some serious shenanigans going on in Para, one of the most lawless states in Brazil. It is also in the Amazon, and one of the most rapidly deforested areas in Brazil, due to illegal logging and cattle ranching.

Ibama, the government branch responsible for protecting the environment and punishing those who destroy it, is currently working on an operation called Boi Pirata II in the Novo Progresso area of Para, which is the municipality with the highest rate of deforestation in the country. The operation is being led by Ibama agent Leslie Tavares, who is managing one hundred agents from Ibama, the National Security Forces, the Federal Police, and the Federal Highway Police, working together to fine illegal loggers and confiscate illegal goods. In 2008, Ibama ran Operation Boi Pirata I and managed to confiscate 3,500 heads of cattle and remove another 100,000 from illegal ranches. So far, Operation Boi Pirata II has punished ranchers with $15,000 in fines and has removed 2,500 heads of cattle.

The area of the operation, which includes a national park, stretches 13,000 square kilometers, 11% of which is now completely deforested due to illegal commercial activity. The operation seeks to limit area destroyed for cattle ranching and to enforce environmental law. However, cattle ranchers essentially run entire areas of the Northeast with an iron fist, like in the days of the coronels.

Sadly, the judicial system in Para, one of the most corrupt in the country, is not always supportive of the federal government's efforts, and is often supportive of the local strongmen. This week, one of the ranchers who was fined in the operation, one Jocemar Picolotto, went to a state judge asking him to put a stop to the operation. The judge conceded the request, and ruled that Boi Pirata II must halt its efforts and return all confiscated cattle to their owners. Ibama, however, ignored the ban, after a federal appeals court (TRF-1) swiftly overturned the ruling. Nevertheless, on Tuesday, the state judge ordered that Leslie Tavares, the head of the operation, be imprisoned for failing to halt the operation. In other words--the court ordered a federal agent to be thrown in jail for doing his job.

Chaos ensued when military police came to put Tavares behind bars, while Ibama agents and federal police tried to help Tavares. But the military police succeeded and put Tavares in jail. Later, Ibama informed the authorities of the TRF's ruling, and Tavares was released.  Now, Ibama says, the judge could be thrown in jail for failing to enforce the higher court's ruling, but it is not clear what will happen to him or to Tavares.

[Source: Cruzeiro do Sul, Canal Rural & Globo Amazonia]

*Please email suggestions for this series to riogringaconsult at gmail dot com. They can be in Brazil, the US, or Latin America.

Trouble in the Amazon

Two news stories caught my eye this week, showing trouble brewing in the Amazon.

The first story isn't actually the Amazon, but rather the Pantanal, a swamp region in the southwestern part of Brazil. Three American graduate students were arrested there, accused of "crimes against the patrimony" by stealing minerals, as well as doing scientific research on tourist visas. The American and Brazilian coverage, as usual, differs considerably, in that the Brazilian coverage assumes the gringos are automatically guilty.

Here's an excerpt from the US Today story:

"University of Arizona geoscientists Michael McGlue, 31, and Mark Tress, 48, and University of Minnesota-Duluth student Kelly Wendt, 26, were arrested by federal police June 16 while working on a climate change project with the University of the State of Sao Paulo. The Americans spent eight nights in jail before being released on bail June 26. Police confiscated their passports as well as computers, research equipment, cellphones and cash.

Roberto Lins, the men's Brazilian lawyer, says the students may not go before a judge for six months and could face up to five years in prison if convicted of illegally prospecting for minerals."

Here's an excerpt from the Globo story:

"Segundo a polícia, o grupo fazia pesquisa sem autorização de nenhum órgão governamental brasileiro e sem comprovante de intercâmbio ou convênio com entidades de pesquisa do Brasil.

Ainda de acordo com a PF, eles faziam coleta de sedimentos, por meio de prospecção mineral. O material seria levado para os Estados Unidos, onde seriam analisados."

There are a couple of lessons to be gleaned from this story, and none of them are good. The first is that in rural areas like this one, you can get away with robbery, murder, and kidnapping, but not studying sand. And in this case, a study intended to do good, by monitoring climate change. The second is that this is yet one of several cases of foreigners being accused of scientific piracy and exploitation in Brazil, and it creates a major deterrent to scientific research and innovation there. The third is that Brazilian universities and scientific institutions need to be better prepared when working on projects like this, since the American students had trusted that USP had all of their permits in order and had followed their directions "just to apply for a tourist visa." If not, foreigners won't be able to trust these institutions and will go elsewhere to carry out similar projects. And finally, another lesson for foreigners in Brazil is to always, always have your paperwork in order. In the country of Great Bureaucracy, it's always better to be safe than sorry.

The second story takes place in Rondonia, the far northwest of Brazil. Ibama, the government agency responsible for protecting the environment, invaded a national park there. Though the land is supposed to be protected, 3,000 people live there raising 30,000 heads of cattle, and as a result, a quarter of the forest in the park has been destroyed. Ibama went in with 400 men to fine the cattle ranchers and to make them remove the cattle from the land immediately. However, the ranchers were angry, since the Minister of the Environment recently turned over part of the park land to the state to allow residents to stay on the destroyed part of the land.

So some ranchers decided to let Ibama have it. They set one of their cars on fire, and left this pathetically written threat:

It is in this note, I think, that the problem of environmental protection in Brazil becomes clear. The government and conservationists are up against uneducated, armed peons with few options for employment (and rich, well-connected businessmen who can get away with anything) amidst a sea of red tape and conflicting authorities and laws, none of which are effectively protecting the rainforest. This deadly combination spawns chaos, and so far, no solution has allowed the Brazilian government to figure out how to manage the delicate balance between development and conservation.