Amazon gets smaller as deforestation rates rise

Posted by jamie - 25 January 2008 at 4:21pm - Comments

Last year, we heard the excellent news that the rate of deforestation in the Amazon had dropped for the third consecutive year. However, yesterday came the rather less welcome news that those rates had changed and have moved in an upward direction.

Figures for August to December 2007 show that the rate of destruction has now doubled to new record levels, and although this is only preliminary data, it indicates that figures for the year overall will probably be very high. It shouldn't come as a surprise, though - many experts, including our own Amazon team, have been warning that increased prices for products like soya and beef have been tempting farmers to clear more rainforest and that without a concerted effort from the Brazilian government, an increase in deforestation was inevitable.

As Greenpeace Brazil's Paulo Adario told the Guardian, even though Brazil's President Lula da Silva's government has had some success in tackling deforestation the Amazon, "what the government does not control is the economic reality. It is the economy that controls deforestation. Each time the prices of meat and soy rise so does deforestation.

It seems we still have a long way to go before deforestation in the Amazon is a thing of the past.

Article tagged as: amazon, brazil, climate change, deforestation, forests, south america

Comments Commenting is now closed

I think the measures should be based on the stick and the carrot both and not only rely on the stick. Give local communities the carrot and I promise you that you will see deforestation figures decrease again.

I also think it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the Brazilian government to take care of it. The Brazilian rain forest is called "the lungs of the world" for its ability to consume greenhouse gases and produce oxygen, and hence I believe the world should chip in.

Just last week I wrote on our blog on Norway's announcement on its willingness to contribute about $500 million a year to projects aimed at protecting forests in developing countries. I think this kind of funding (and of course other countries should contribute as well) can make some good in Brazil and help Lula protect this precious natural resource.

Raz Godelnik
Eco-Libris
www.ecolibris.net

By raz - 28 January 2008 at 5:44am

When you consider everyone on this planet is dependant on the forests for the air we breathe.... then this country and others should be subsidized to preserve the equilibrium. It is the worlds responsibilty and its a major cop out if any country or person says otherwise

By BYG - 28 January 2008 at 3:50pm

Hi Raz,

Both you and BYG are right - there needs to be more incentives on offer to protect forests. Demand from developed nations for soya, beef, palm oil, timber - all the things that forests are cleared to farm and sell - is often the biggest cause of deforestation. So the reasons to preserve forests have to outweigh the reasons to chop 'em down, and it can't just be the responsibility of those forest nations such as Brazil and Indonesia. Plenty of noise has been made from countries like Norway (thanks for the tip on the story, I hadn't spotted that!) about providing financial aid or something similar to protect forests, but it also requires the right mechanisms and safeguards to make sure such aid does what it's supposed to.

In case you missed it, at the Bali conference last month we launched a proposal for just such a mechanism. It's very complex and weighty, but hopefully my summary makes some kind of sense.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 28 January 2008 at 5:24pm

I think that thev Brazilian government's plan is good, but I am not sure how well it can fight the economic incentives that drives the massive deforestation we see now. I think that another step to be taken is to give a counter-incentive to keep these trees alive. If local governments and municipalities will be paid to protect these trees, then they have an economic value as live trees. If this value will be high enough, then it will be worthwhile to keep them alive. I think the measures should be based on the stick and the carrot both and not only rely on the stick. Give local communities the carrot and I promise you that you will see deforestation figures decrease again. I also think it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the Brazilian government to take care of it. The Brazilian rain forest is called "the lungs of the world" for its ability to consume greenhouse gases and produce oxygen, and hence I believe the world should chip in. Just last week I wrote on our blog on Norway's announcement on its willingness to contribute about $500 million a year to projects aimed at protecting forests in developing countries. I think this kind of funding (and of course other countries should contribute as well) can make some good in Brazil and help Lula protect this precious natural resource. Raz Godelnik Eco-Libris www.ecolibris.net

By raz - 28 January 2008 at 5:44am

By BYG - 28 January 2008 at 3:50pm

Hi Raz, Both you and BYG are right - there needs to be more incentives on offer to protect forests. Demand from developed nations for soya, beef, palm oil, timber - all the things that forests are cleared to farm and sell - is often the biggest cause of deforestation. So the reasons to preserve forests have to outweigh the reasons to chop 'em down, and it can't just be the responsibility of those forest nations such as Brazil and Indonesia. Plenty of noise has been made from countries like Norway (thanks for the tip on the story, I hadn't spotted that!) about providing financial aid or something similar to protect forests, but it also requires the right mechanisms and safeguards to make sure such aid does what it's supposed to. In case you missed it, at the Bali conference last month we launched a proposal for just such a mechanism. It's very complex and weighty, but hopefully my summary makes some kind of sense. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 28 January 2008 at 5:24pm