|
Environment of Brazil
The Environment
The environmental problem that attracted most international attention
in Brazil in the 1980s was undoubtedly deforestation in the Amazon.
Of all Latin American countries, Brazil still has the largest portion
(66 percent) of its territory covered by forests, but clearing and
burning in the Amazon proceeded at alarming rates in the 1970s and
1980s. Most of the clearing resulted from the activities of ranchers,
including large corporate operations, and a smaller portion resulted
from slash-and-burn techniques used by small farmers.
Deforestation in the Amazon declined from levels averaging 22,000
square kilometers per year during the 1970-88 period to about 11,000
square kilometers per year between 1988 and 1991. There was controversy
about the levels in the mid-1990s. Knowledgeable experts placed
the level of accumulated deforestation at about 15 percent in 1996,
as opposed to 12 percent in 1991. Although unseasonal rainfall patterns
may explain some year-to-year variation, the basic cause for the
decline in deforestation after 1987 was economic crisis. There was
insufficient capital, credit, or incentive for large-scale clearing,
as well as insufficient public investment to stimulate new migration.
Migration to the Amazon also fell quickly in the late 1980s. More
effective enforcement of government regulations and bad publicity
for large offenders, both of which were associated with changes
in public opinion about the environment, also played a part. Technical
changes involved in the transition from horizontal expansion of
agriculture to increasing productivity also accounted for decreasing
rates of deforestation.
Desertification, another important environmental problem in Brazil,
only received international attention following the United Nations
Conference on the Environment and Development, also known as the
Earth Summit, held in
Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Desertification means that the
soils and vegetation of drylands are severely degraded, not necessarily
that land turns into desert. In the early 1990s, it became evident
that the semiarid caatinga ecosystem of the Northeast was losing
its natural vegetation through clearing and that the zone was therefore
running the risk of becoming even more arid, as was occurring also
in some other regions.
In areas where agriculture is more intense and developed, there
are serious problems of soil erosion, siltation and sedimentation
of streams and rivers, and pollution with pesticides. In parts of
the savannas, where irrigated soybean production expanded in the
1980s, the water table has been affected. Expansion of pastures
for cattle-raising has reduced natural biodiversity in the savannas.
Swine effluents constitute a serious environmental problem in Santa
Catarina in the South.
In urban areas, at least in the largest cities, levels of air pollution
and congestion are typical of, or worse than, those found in cities
in developed countries. At the same time, however, basic environmental
problems related to the lack of sanitation, which developed countries
solved long ago, persist in Brazil. These problems are sometimes
worse in middle-sized and small cities than in large cities, which
have more resources to deal with them. Environmental problems of
cities and towns finally began to receive greater attention by society
and the government in the 1990s.
According to many critics, the economic
crisis in the 1980s worsened environmental degradation in Brazil
because it led to overexploitation of natural resources, stimulated
settlement in fragile lands in both rural and urban areas, and weakened
environmental protection. At the same time, however, the lower level
of economic activity may have reduced pressure on the environment,
such as the aforementioned decreased level of investment in large-scale
clearing in the Amazon. That pressure could increase if economic
growth accelerates, especially if consumption patterns remain unchanged
and more sustainable forms of production are not found.
In Brazil public policies regarding the environment are generally
advanced, although their implementation and the enforcement of environmental
laws have been far from ideal. Laws regarding forests, water, and
wildlife have been in effect since the 1930s. Brazil achieved significant
institutional advances in environmental policy design and implementation
after the Stockholm Conference on the Environment in 1972. Specialized
environmental agencies were organized at the federal level and in
some states, and many national parks and reserves were established.
By 1992 Brazil had established thirty-four national parks and fifty-six
biological reserves (see fig. 5). In 1981 the National Environment
Policy was defined, and the National System for the Environment
(Sistema Nacional do Meio Ambiente--Sisnama) was created, with the
National Environmental Council (Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente--Conama)
at its apex, municipal councils at its base, and state-level councils
in between. In addition to government authorities, all of these
councils include representatives of civil society.
The 1988 constitution incorporates environmental precepts that
are advanced compared with those of most other countries. At that
time, the Chamber of Deputies (Câmara dos Deputados) established
its permanent Commission for Defense of the Consumer, the Environment,
and Minorities. In 1989 the creation of the Brazilian Institute
for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro
do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis--Ibama)
joined together the federal environment secretariat and the federal
agencies specializing in forestry, rubber, and fisheries. In 1990
the administration of Fernando
Collor de Mello (president, 1990-92) appointed the well-known
environmentalist José Lutzemberger as secretary of the environment
and took firm positions on the environment and on Indian lands.
In 1992 Brazil played a key role at the Earth Summit, not only as
its host but also as negotiator on sustainable development agreements,
including the conventions on climate and biodiversity. The Ministry
of Environment was created in late 1992, after President Collor
had left office. In August 1993, it became the Ministry of Environment
and the Legal Amazon and took a more pragmatic approach than had
the combative Lutzemberger. However, because of turnover in its
leadership, a poorly defined mandate, and lack of funds, its role
and impact were limited. In 1995 its mandate and name were expanded
to include water resources--the Ministry of Environment, Hydraulic
Resources, and the Legal Amazon--it began a process of restructuring
to meet its mandate of "shared management of the sustainable
use of natural resources." In 1997 the Commission on Policies
for Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 began to function under
the aegis of the Civil Household. One of its main tasks was to prepare
Agenda 21 (a plan for the twenty-first century) for Brazil and to
stimulate preparation of state and local agendas.
Institutional development at the official level was accompanied
and in part stimulated by the growth, wide diffusion, and growing
professional development of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
dedicated to environmental and socio-environmental causes. The hundreds
of NGOs throughout Brazil produce documents containing both useful
information and passionate criticisms. Among the Brazilian environmental
NGOs, the most visible are SOS Atlantic Forest (SOS Mata Atlântica),
the Social-Environmental Institute (Instituto Sócio-Ambiental--ISA),
the Pro-Nature Foundation (Fundação Pró-Natureza--Funatura),
and the Amazon Working Group (Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico--GTA).
The Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment
and Development and the Brazilian Association of Nongovernmental
Organizations (Associacão Brasileira de Organizações
Não-Governamentais--ABONG) are national networks, and there
are various regional and thematic networks as well. The main international
environmental NGOs that have offices or affiliates in Brazil are
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Conservation International (CI),
and Nature Conservancy.
Especially after the events of the late 1980s, international organizations
and developed countries have allocated significant resources for
the environmental sector in Brazil. In 1992 environmental projects
worth about US$6.8 million were identified, with US$2.6 in counterpart
funds (funds provided by the Brazilian government). More than 70
percent of the total value was for sanitation, urban pollution control,
and other urban environmental projects. Thus, the allocation of
resources did not accord with the common belief that funding was
influenced unduly by alarmist views on deforestation in the Amazon.
Among the specific environmental projects with international support,
the most important was the National Environmental Plan (Plano Nacional
do Meio Ambiente--PNMA), which received a US$117 million loan from
the World Bank (see Glossary). The National Environmental Fund (Fundo
Nacional do Meio Ambiente--FNMA), in addition to budgetary funds,
received US$20 million from the Inter-American Development Bank
(see Glossary) to finance the environmental activities of NGOs and
small municipal governments. The Pilot Program for the Conservation
of the Brazilian Rain Forests (Programa Piloto para a Proteção
das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil--PPG-7) was supported by the world's
seven richest countries (the so-called G-7) and the European Community
(see Glossary), which allocated US$258 million for projects in the
Amazon and Atlantic Forest regions. The Global Environment Facility
(GEF), created in 1990, set aside US$30 million for Brazil, part
of which is managed by a national fund called Funbio. GEF also established
a small grants program for NGOs, which focused on the cerrado during
its pilot phase. The World Bank also made loans for environmental
and natural resource management in Rondônia and Mato Grosso,
in part to correct environmental and social problems that had been
created by the World Bank-funded development of the northwest corridor
in the 1980s.
Despite favorable laws,
promising institutional arrangements, and external funding, the
government has not, on the whole, been effective in controlling
damage to the environment. This failure is only in small measure
because of the opposition of anti-environmental groups. In greater
part, it can be attributed to the traditional separation between
official rhetoric and actual practice in Brazil. It is also related
to general problems of governance, fiscal crisis, and lingering
doubts about appropriate tradeoffs between the environment and development.
Some of the most effective governmental action in the environmental
area has occurred at the state and local levels in the most developed
states and has involved NGOs. In 1994 the PNMA began to stress decentralization
and strengthening of state environmental agencies, a tendency that
subsequently gained momentum.
Data as of April 1997
|
|
