Untitled

Guardians of the Brazilian
Amazon Rainforest: Environmental
Organizations and Development
The Amazon region is the focus of intense conflict between conservationists
concerned with deforestation and advocates of agro-industrial development. This
book focuses on the contributions of environmental organizations to the preservation of Brazilian Amazonia. It reveals how environmental organizations such as
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and others have fought fiercely to stop
deforestation in the region.
It documents how the history of frontier expansion and environmental struggle
in the region is linked to Brazil’s position in an evolving capitalist world economy.
It is shown how Brazil’s effort to become a developed country has led successive
Brazilian governments to devise development projects for Amazonia. The author
analyzes how globalization has led to the expansion of international commodity
chains in the region, particularly for mineral ores, soybeans and beef. He shows how
environmental organizations have politicized these commodity chains as weapons
of conservation, through boycotting certain products, while other pro-development
groups within Brazil claim that such organizations threaten the country’s sovereignty
over its own resources.
Luiz C. Barbosa is a Professor in the Department of Sociology, San Francisco
State University, USA.
This page intentionally left blank
Guardians of the Brazilian
Amazon Rainforest:
Environmental Organizations
and Development
Luiz C. Barbosa
First published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Luiz C. Barbosa
The right of Luiz C. Barbosa to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known
or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Barbosa, Luiz C.
Guardians of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest : environmental organizations
and development / Luiz C. Barbosa.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Environmental protection—Amazon River Region. 2. Environmental
protection—Brazil—Societies, etc. 3. Deforestation—Political aspects—
Amazon River Region. 4. Rain forest conservation—Political aspects—
Amazon River Region. 5. Environmental policy—Amazon River Region.
I. Title.
GE190.A43B37 2015
333.75'1609811—dc23
2014043516
ISBN: 978-1-138-82582-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-73967-0 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Keystroke, Station Road, Codsall, Wolverhampton
This book is dedicated to the memory of my mother,
Cordelia de Oliveira Barboza, and to my brilliant
environmentalist friend Roland C. Clement.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
Preface
Acknowledgements List of Portuguese acronyms for Brazilian Institutions, Associations,
and Programs
1Introduction
ix
xi
xiii
xvii
xix
1
2
Brazilian developmentalism and environmentalist challenges
28
3
The fight over mahogany
48
4
The case of the Soy Moratorium
66
5
Boycotts of illegally produced beef and leather
100
6
The case of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam
126
7
Conservative reactions
140
8Collaboration
154
9Conclusion
174
Bibliography
Index
179
216
This page intentionally left blank
Figures
1.1 The Amazon river basin
2
1.2 Annual deforestation rate for Brazilian Amazonia, 1988–2014
4
1.3 Brazilian Amazonia 22
3.1Historic range of mahogany in South America overlaid
on forest cover based on 2001 satellite data
49
4.1 Mato Grosso’s meso-regions 74
4.2Major soybean economic poles, in hectares (means for
2000–2010)79
4.3Mato Grosso’s yearly deforestation and area planted with
soybeans, 1997–2012
83
4.4 Cargill port depot in Santarém, Pará
86
5.1 Cattle ranch in northern Mato Grosso
100
5.2 Brazilian consumption of beef (thousand ton CWE), 1994–2013
110
5.3 Brazilian per capita consumption of beef (kilograms), 1994–2013
111
5.4 The Brazilian leather sector (million units)
114
5.5 Brazilian leather exports (US$ million)
115
5.6 Brazilian leather exports by type (million units)
116
6.1 One of Belo Monte’s turbine canals 136
8.1 Size of deforested area in Lucas do Rio Verde, 2000–2013
164
8.2Percentage increase of Lucas do Rio Verde’s total deforested
area, 2001–2013
166
This page intentionally left blank
Tables
3.1Estimated production and market distribution of wood produced
in Amazonia
4.1 Brazilian soybean planted area per region (hectares)
4.2 Soybean production per region (metric tons)
4.3Brazilian soybean production and export of uncrushed
beans (metric tons) 4.4 Share of exports in soybean gross production values (US$ million)
4.5Soybean production in the state of Mato Grosso, 2000–2012
(uncrushed beans)
5.1 Brazilian cattle herd
5.2 Brazilian yearly exports of beef
8.1 First phase of the ARPA Program, 2003–2010
8.2 Soybean production in Lucas do Rio Verde, 2000–2012
51
68
68
70
70
82
103
106
160
164
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
Amazonia has always fascinated me. As a child growing up in the period of the
Brazilian dictatorship (1964–1985), I was bombarded by the nationalist propaganda
of military governments about the “conquest” of the region, especially in the early
to mid-1970s. I remember television shows describing how the government was
integrating Amazonia with the rest of Brazil; it was bringing progress to remote
places in the region. They would show pictures of Indians being “helped” by the
government, usually using images of military or medical personnel. I remember
TV shows pointing out Indians were being contacted and “pacified,” so that they
could be integrated into Brazilian society and supposedly receive its benefits. The
nationalism made us kids feel good. My friends and I in the ginásio, the equivalent
of junior high at the time, would often spend time speculating about the future of
our country.Things appeared to be exciting for us.The country was developing and
everyone I knew thought that the “sleeping giant” was waking up. The fact that
Brazil had won the World Cup in 1970 supported this optimistic view. Brazil had a
bright future.
The positive, nationalistic accounts about the conquest of Amazonia of the 1970s
reflected the repression prevalent in Brazil at the time, which we kids could not see.
I do not recall a single account of “destruction” taking place in Amazonia when I
was growing up. For me, the Indians were being taken care of by gaining access to
the products of civilization, such as medical care, schools, etc. It never crossed my
mind that contact was causing them harm. With the exception of a few academics
and those working with the Indians, such as missionaries, very few people questioned
what was taking place in Amazonia. Not even the international press viewed what
was happening there as destruction. For example, in 1970, the New York Times
published two very optimistic articles about Amazonia: “In Amazonia, ‘the Army
are the Good Guys’” ( July 11, 1970) and “Brazil is Challenging a Last Frontier”
( July 7, 1970).
Then, in the late 1970s, when Brazilian society began to democratize, and
throughout the 1980s, when the international public became aware of major
environmental problems, such as the greenhouse effect, suddenly the nationalist
vision of conquering Amazonia came under attack. Brazil was no longer conquering
the last frontier but destroying the “lungs of the world.”The fact that Amazonia was
xiv Preface
being torched to the ground increased the notoriety, with pictures of the burning
forest shown throughout the world. The international reaction to this “destruction
of the Amazon” infuriated many nationalist Brazilians, who thought that foreigners
should take care of their own business; after all, they had destroyed their own forests
and killed their own native people. Now it was Brazil’s turn to develop. However,
Brazil was in the spotlight and, with democracy and a newly free press, the genie
was out of the bottle; that is, the reality of the situation taking place in Amazonia
was finally being exposed to the general public. Perhaps as a gesture of goodwill and
an attempt to stop the bad publicity, in 1989 the administration of President José
Sarney invited the United Nations to hold its 1992 Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro.The preparations for this conference
and the event itself generated much media attention, making Brazilians aware of the
state of the environment in their country and around the world.
In the 1980s and 1990s several environmental organizations were founded in
Brazil. Some of these were domestic, such as SOS Mata Atlântica (SOS Atlantic
Forest) (1986), SOS Amazonia (1988), Fundação Vitória Amazônica (FVA)
(Victory Amazonia Foundation) (1990), Instituto Centro da Vida (Institute Center
of Life) (1991), Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico (Amazonian Working Group)
(1992), Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) (Social–Environmental Institute) (1994),
and so on. However, international environmental organizations also opened offices
in Brazil in this period, including The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (1988), Friends
of the Earth (Amigos da Terra–Amazônia Brasileira) (1989), Greenpeace (1992),
and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (1996). These and several other
organizations would create a movement to save Amazonia. They became its
(unofficial) guardians, watching over it, exposing its destroyers, and pressuring the
Brazilian government to change course. The main focus of this book is on their
indispensable contributions to the preservation of the forest.
This book has been over ten years in the making. I began by building a
statistical database on deforestation, soybean production, and cattle herding at the
municipal level for the state of Mato Grosso. Later, I decided not to use this
for data analysis, but building the database gave me insights about field
visits. In 2007, I decided to visit Mato Grosso and travel along the extent of the
BR-163, the “Soybean Highway.” I contacted several environmentalist organizations
along the way and a few agreed to meet with me. These meetings were not
interviews: I call them “information-gathering/checking conversations.” These
conversations with environmental leaders in Mato Grosso provided me with
different points of view about development in the region. They allowed me to
reevaluate some of my (pre)conceptions about the situation in the state and in
Amazonia in general.
At the end of the 2007 field trip, my mother died. The fact that her death
happened during my research made writing extremely difficult for me. It was only
in 2010 that I was able to overcome this. By then, it had become apparent to me
that additional field information was needed. In the fall of 2013, I headed back to
Amazonia to travel mostly through the state of Pará. I wanted to see the Cargill, Inc.
Preface xv
grain port in the city of Santarém, travel along the state’s section of BR-163, and
see the construction site of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam. I also wanted to
meet with leaders of environmentalist organizations in the state.
This proved to be an enlightening trip. For example, I traveled from Santarém to
the town of Altamira by bus, a journey of over fifteen hours along treacherous
(mostly dirt) roads. The contrast with conditions in Mato Grosso was sharp. The
latter’s agricultural infrastructure was obviously more developed and social
conditions appeared to be better, but there was less forest along the roads. Despite
its history of deforestation, Pará was greener, with forests closer to the roads I
traveled. Living conditions appeared much worse, though: small communities
seemed isolated and poor. However, development is heading their way with the
paving of roads such as BR-163 (from north of Mato Grosso into the state) and
BR-230, the “TransAmazon Highway” (running east–west). While this might be
good for the people, the environmental consequences will likely be severe.
I use a combination of theoretical ideas, statistical information, and historical
accounts and narratives in this book. The fact that I make use of theory might
displease some readers who believe only “factual” information counts and that
theoretical models in the social sciences are ideological. While I understand some
of these criticisms, I think the theoretical tools I use are important because they
place the situation in Amazonia as part of a systemic problem of the capitalist system.
Awareness of how this system works is vital if solutions to environmental problems
are to be found and, above all, if pressure is to be applied on culprits. I hope that this
is one of the biggest lessons to be learned from studying the activism of
the environmental organizations that are trying to protect Amazonia. These
organizations have become much more efficient in deterring perpetrators of
environmental destruction by using their knowledge of the system—for instance,
by finding out how commodity chains work and threatening corporations’ profits
with boycotts.
In terms of “evidence,” many of the statistics that I use in this book come from
government sources, such as the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics
(IBGE), the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), the Ministry of
Development, Industry, and Foreign Trade (MDIC), and so on, as well as from
studies that deal with the issues addressed in the book. I also rely on estimates from
reputable independent organizations, such as the Brazilian Association of the Meat
Exporters Industry (ABIEC) and the Brazilian Aluminium Association (ABAL).
The narratives I use are from published articles, internet sources, press releases,
theses and dissertations, and my own field observations. I tried to limit my use of
press releases and internet sources to those that are descriptive of situations, such as
Greenpeace’s description of its own protests. These accounts are important because
they teach us about real protest—what activists actually do to draw attention to
their causes. I also interject my own field observations throughout the book to
exemplify some of the issues.
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgements
This book would not have been possible without the institutions and people who
helped me along the way. I would like to thank San Francisco State University for
the release time during the spring of 2007 and fall of 2013 that made my field
research trips possible. I would particularly like to thank my colleagues in the
Department of Sociology at that institution for covering some of my assignments
while I was gone. I would also like to thank the members of environmental
organizations who agreed to meet with me during my two field trips. I do not
mention them by name in order to protect them and their work.Their commitment
to their particular causes, despite major obstacles, inspired me, and their insights
allowed me to correct several of the misconceptions that I had about Amazonian
issues.
I would like to thank Ellen McElhinny for assistance with maps of Mato Grosso.
She was certainly very patient when asked to revise them because of new data. I
owe special gratitude to Thomas M. Ager and Jonathan L. Purvis for great help in
editing the manuscript. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for
their recommendations. They suggested references that I believe helped strengthen
my original arguments. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to those authors and
organizations that granted permission to use copyrighted materials.
This page intentionally left blank
Portuguese Acronyms for
Brazilian Institutions,
Associations, and Programs
ABAL
Associação Brasileira de Alumínio (Brazilian Aluminium
Association)
ABIECAssociação Brasileira das Indústrias Exportadoras de Carne (Brazilian
Association of the Meat Exporters Industry)
ABIOVEAssociação Brasileira das Indústrias de Óleos Vegetais (Brazilian
Association of the Vegetable Oil Industry)
ABONG
Associação Brasileira de Organizações não Governamentais
(Brazilian Association of Non-Governmental Organizations)
ADA
Agência de Desenvolvimento da Amazônia (Agency for the
Development of Amazonia)
ANEC
Associação Nacional dos Exportadores de Cereais (National
Association of Grain Exporters)
AGAPANAssociação Gaúcha de Proteção ao Ambiente Natural (Gaucho
Association for the Protection of the Natural Environment)
AIMEXAssociação das Indústrias Exportadoras de Madeira do Estado do Pará
(Association of Wood Exporting Industries of the State of Pará)
ARPA
Programa Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia (Amazon Region
Protected Areas Program)
BNDESBanco Nacional do Desenvolvimento (National Development
Bank)
BVSBolsa de Valores Sociais (Social Stock Market)
BVSABolsa de Valores Socioambientais (Social Environmental Stock
Market)
CIMIConselho Indigenista Missionário (Indigenous Missionary Council)
CANConfederação Nacional da Agricultura (National Confederation of
Agriculture; also known as Confederação da Agricultura e Pecuária
do Brasil or National Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock)
CONAB
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (National Supply
Company)
Consórcio pelo Desenvolvimento Socioambiental da BR-163
CONDESSA
(Consortium for the Social-Environmental Development of
BR-163)
xx Acronyms
CPDS
Comissão de Políticas de Desenvolvimento Sustentável e da
Agenda 21 Nacional (National Commission of Politics of
Sustainable Development and of Agenda 21)
CRAComissão de Agricultura e Reforma Agrária (Commission on
Agriculture and Agrarian Reform)
EMBRAPAEmpresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazilian Agriculture–
Livestock Research Corporation)
FAMATOFederação da Agricultura e Pecuária do Estado de Mato Grosso
(Federation of Agriculture and Livestock of the State of Mato
Grosso)
FABForça Aérea Brasileira (Brazilian Airforce)
Fundo Brasileiro para a Biodiversidade (Brazilian Fund for
FUNBIO
Biodiversity)
FBCNConfederação Brasileira de Conservaçao da Natureza (Brazilian
Confederation of Nature Conservancy)
Fundo Nacional do Meio Ambiente (National Environment
FNMA
Fund)
FVAFundação Vitória Amazônica (Victory Amazonia Foundation)
FVPPFundação Viver Produzir e Preservar (Live, Produce, and Preserve
Foundation)
FUNAIFundação Nacional do Índio (National Indian Foundation)
Grupo de Trabalho Interministerial (Interministerial Working
GTI
Group)
GTSGrupo de Trabalho da Soja (Soybean Working Group)
Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal (Brazilian
IBDF
Institute of Forest Development)
IBGEInstituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (Brazilian Institute of
Geography and Statistics)
IBAMAInstituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais
Renováveis (Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable
Natural Resources)
IMAFLORAInstituto de Manejo e Certificação Florestal e Agrícola (Institute of
Management and Agricultural and Forest Certification)
IMAZONInstituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (Institute of
the Amazon People and Environment)
Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (Institute of
IPAM
Environmental Research of Amazonia)
INCRAInstituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (National
Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform)
INPAInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (National Institute of
Amazonian Research)
INPEInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (National Institute for
Space Research)
ISAInstituto Socioambiental (Social–Environmental Institute)
Acronyms xxi
MAPAMinistério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supplies)
MDBMovimento Democrático Brasileiro (Brazilian Democratic
Movement)
MMAMinistério do Meio Ambiente (Ministry of the Environment)
MPFMinistério Público Federal (Federal Public Ministry)
OAB
Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (Brazilian Lawyers
Association)
Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (Accelerated
PAC
Development Program)
Plataforma de Gestão Agropecuária (Program of AgriPGA
Livestock Management)
PMDBPartido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (Brazilian
Democratic Movement Party)
Plano Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (National Plan of
PNAP
Protected Areas)
PNEFAPrograma Nacional de Erradicação da Febre Aftosa (National
Program for the Eradication of Aftosa Fever)
PNDRPolítica Nacional de Desenvolvimento Regional (National
Politics for Regional Development)
PPG7Programa Piloto para a Proteção das Florestas Tropicais do
Brasil (Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest)
PPPParceria Público–Privada (Private–Public Partnership)
Pólo do Programa de Desenvolvimento Sustentável da
PROAMBIENTE
Produção Familiar Rural da TransAmazônica (TransAmazon
Highway [Economic] Pole of the Program for Sustainable
Development of Rural Family Production)
PPCDAMPlano de Ação para Prevenção e Controle de Desmatamento
na Amazônia (Plan for Control and Prevention of Amazonian
Deforestation)
PTPartido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party)
RADAMRadar na Amazônia (Radar in Amazonia)
RAMARede de ONGs Mata Atlântica (Atlantic Forest NGO Network)
Secretaria Executiva de Ciencia e Tecnologia e Meio
SECTAM
Ambiente (Secretariat of Sciences, Technology, and
Environment)
SEMASecretaria Especial do MeioAmbiente (Special Secretariat of
the Environment)
SIESistema de Inspeção Estadual (State Inspection System)
SIFSistema de Inspeção Federal (Federal Inspection System)
SIMSistema de Inspeção Municipal (Municipal Inspection System)
SISBOVServiço Brasileiro de Rastreabilidade da Cadeia Produtiva de
Bovinos e Bubalinos (Brazilian Tracking Service of Bovines
and Bubalus)
xxii Acronyms
SIVAMSistema de Vigilância da Amazônia (Amazon Surveillance System)
SNUCSistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação (National System of
Conservation Units)
SPVEASuperintendência do Plano de Valorização Econômica da Amazônia
(Superintendence of the Plan of Economic Valorization of Amazonia)
SUDAMSuperintendência do Desenvolvimento da Amazônia (Superintendence
for the Development of Amazonia)
S uperintendência do Desenvolvimento do Centro-Oeste
SUDECO
(Superintendence for the Development of the Center-West)
SUDENESuperintendência do Desenvolvimento do Nordeste (Superintendence
for the Development of the Northeast)
Superintendência do Desenvolvimento da Região Sul
SUDESUL
(Superintendence for the Development of the South Region)
UDRUnião Democrática Ruralista (Democratic Union of Ruralists)
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Amazon basin is a jewel of the natural world. It is the largest drainage basin on
Earth, occupying an area estimated to be 6,869,000 square kilometers or roughly
40 percent of the South American continent (see Figure 1.1). It encompasses parts
of the territories of nine countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French
Guyana (France), Guyana, Peru, Surinam, and Venezuela. However, 69 percent of
it is situated in Brazil.The basin is teeming with life. It is one of the most biodiverse
systems in the world. Most of it, an estimated 5,500,000 square kilometers, is
occupied by dense tropical forests; this represents 56 percent of all broad leaf forests
in the world (GIWA 2004; McAllister 2008; Organization of American States 2005).
It contains more than 30,000 species of plants, nearly 2,000 species of fish, 60 species
of reptiles, 35 mammal families, and approximately 1,800 bird species (Organization
of American States 2005: 2; see also Vadjunec, Schmink, and Greiner 2011: 2–3).
Amazonia is a vital system for climate stability. Its forests retain an immense
amount of carbon that, if released, would greatly contribute to climate change.
The basin contributes to the Earth’s cloud convection systems, leading some to refer
to the clouds it generates as “floating rivers.” These take water to the rest of Brazil
and other South American countries (see “Correntes de ar da Amazônia levam
chuvas ao sul e sudeste do Brasil” 2009; “‘Rios voadores’ da Amazônia transportam
água para Brasil e América do Sul” 2012). Unfortunately, in Brazil alone a cumulative
area of 757,661.54 square kilometers of Amazon rainforest had been deforested
through 2012, representing 18.6 percent of the Brazilian portion.1 The nongovernmental organization (NGO) Mongabay provides an estimate of the combined
cumulative deforestation for Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guyana (France),
Guyana, Peru, Surinam, and Venezuela of 541,932 square kilometers through 2012
(Mongabay.com 2013). This leads to a cumulative deforestation estimate for the
forest as a whole of roughly 1,299,593.54 square kilometers through that year—an
area about 14 percent bigger than the whole of Colombia, whose area is 1,142,000
square kilometers. Brazil deforested another 5,891 square kilometers of Amazon
forest in 2013, and an additional 4,848 square kilometers in 2014 (Instituto Nacional
de Pesquisas Espaciais—INPE n.d.a).
The Amazon rainforest creates a dilemma for Brazil—and for all Amazonian
countries for that matter. On one hand, it signifies a reservoir of resources and a
2 Introduction
Figure 1.1 The Amazon river basin
Source: © IRD / ORE-Hybam / G. Cochonneau. Reprinted with permission
frontier of economic development in a country that is rising in the world economy;
on the other hand, it is recognized by scientists, environmentalists, and the general
public as a vital ecosystem that must be preserved. This dilemma manifests itself in
the ecopolitics of the region, with different political blocs fighting for their respective visions for the future of the forest, both in Brazil and abroad. In the words of
Brazilian scholar José Augusto Pádua, Amazonia is an “ideological forest” (floresta
ideológica; in E. Guimarães Neto 2008); that is, it has political meaning that transcends its physical characteristics. One political bloc argues that developing the
region is imperative for the future of Brazil: for example, developmentalists argue
that Brazil’s energy needs require the construction of hydroelectric dams in the
region and that expansion of economic activities and colonization farther into
Amazonia will contribute to economic growth. This political bloc includes agents
such as big business, farmers, politicians, and other proponents of development who
view Amazonia as a place of economic potential, a place with vital natural resources
to fuel Brazil’s development. It tends to attract conservative nationalists who argue