Deforestation of the Amazon region of Brazil presents significant environmental challenges at global scale. Although the importance of the rainforest is commonly recognized, the Brazilian government is ineffective in regulating the process and limiting the impact of developing agriculture and infrastructure on the region. To make things even worse, some of the policies concerning the issue facilitate deforestation instead of limiting it. The current political climate in Brazil poses a significant threat to the continuous preservation of the world’s largest rainforest.
The primary forces behind rapid deforestation of the Amazon region are associated with the economic landscape of Brazil. Since agricultural is the main source of revenue for the people, deforestation has been historically viewed as the means to claim land and improve one’s well-being. This issue had been particularly relevant during economic crises (Fearnside, 2005). Therefore, it is safe to say that the pace of deforestation in the region is influenced by both Brazilian inner policies and factors of global economy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Analysis of the former issue is necessary for proper understanding of the current political trends and their impacts on the issue. Fearnside (2016) points to the fact that the foundation for the ongoing trend of rapid deforestation in Amazonia has been laid during the period of military dictatorship in Brazil with its focus on ambitious infrastructure projects. However, long-term environmental damage cannot be dismissed as mere failure of a non-democratic regime. The situation in the present-day democratic (at least in principle) has not changed substantially. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is that the modern governmental programs focus on “growth” rather than “development” (Fearnside, 2016). The failure to take into account the ecological impacts of the infrastructure initiatives adopted both during the twentieth century and in recent years has led to the unpredicted effects of those projects on the economy as well as ecology (Fearnside, 2016). In other words, the reluctance to take into account the role rainforest plays in all aspects of the existence of both the country and the world at large has been bringing devastating consequences.
The sheer speed of deforestation observed during recent decades is unsettling. Suffice it to say that Brazilians discuss the square of lost rainforest in terms of “Belgiums.” To understand the increase in deforestation rates associated with the infrastructure projects and the reluctance of politicians to take into account the environmental hazards brought by the issue, it is necessary to bear in mind that “ almost five centuries of European presence before 1970 deforested an area only slightly larger than Portugal ” (Fearnside, 2005, p. 681). As it is already mentioned, the impacts of deforestation affect the immediate situation in the country as well as promote climate change. Thus, Fearnside (2005) reports that deforestation leads to soil erosion and the subsequent loss of agricultural productivity. One may argue that this issue is counterbalanced by the fact that deforested areas enjoy comparatively higher rates of precipitation. However, this short-term increase is likely to be followed by the overall reduction in the precipitation rates further damaging agricultural production (Fearnside, 2005). As a result, a vicious circle in which deforestation completed to boost agriculture reduces the productivity of land making it necessary to clear even more land from the forest.
The idea of vicious circle applies to the process of deforestation as well. The reason for this situation lies in the fact that most of the forest cleared in Amazon region is used for timber. The material that cannot be used is being burned right at the place leading to forest fires that cause further deforestation (Fearnside, 2005; Escobar, 2019). Therefore, complex policy measures have to be applied in order to address the issue.
At first look, it may appear that such policies might have been successfully applied at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This impression is created by the fact that the rate of deforestation plunged 84% in the period between 2004 and 2012 (Fearnside, 2017). However, further dynamics of the process show that that steep decline was associated with international economic situation at the time rather than willful effort of Brazilian government to curb the issue. Fearnside (2017) makes the case that the current political elites in Brazil lobbies the interest of large agricultural business. As a result, the legislations protecting the rainforest have been weakened rather than strengthened.
The most recent events in the country show that the course on sacrificing the Amazon forests for the interests of large landlords continues. This issue is particularly evident from the response of President Bolsonaro to the unprecedented forest fires that ravaged the region in summer 2019. He refused to accept the idea that deforestation has been a massive contributing factor to the issue and even put the blame for the fires on his political opponents (Escobar, 2019). This response aligns with Bolsonaro’s overall determination to maintain the projects associated with the “development” of the region even though such an attitude faces criticism from world leaders (Escobar, 2019). Therefore, it is safe to say that the problem is far from being solved through political measures.
Overall, the problem of deforestation in the Amazon region must be solved for the continued prosperity of Brazil and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the realization of this fact within the country has not been achieved fully. As a result, during several decades, the governments treated the rainforest as a source of income and the potential land for infrastructure rather than the vital resource in and of itself. This approach is further supported by the current political elite in Brazil.
References
Escobar, H. (2019). Amazon fires clearly linked to deforestation, scientists say. Science , 365 (6456), 853– 853. doi: 10.1126/science.365.6456.853
Fearnside, P. M. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, Rates, and Consequences. Conservation Biology , 19 (3), 680–688. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00697.x
Fearnside, P. (2016). Environmental policy in Brazilian Amazonia: Lessons from recent history. Novos Cadernos NAEA , 19 (1). doi: 10.5801/ncn.v19i1.1379
Fearnside, P. (2017, April 18). Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Retrieved from https://e360.yale.edu/features/business-as-usual-a-resurgence-of-deforestation-in-the-brazilian-amazon.
