So if legislators gave it the thumbs up, doesn’t that mean the people they represent – Brazilians – would agree? It doesn’t look that way. Our friends at Mongabay reported news from Brazil a week or two back that a recent survey conducted by Datafolha polling nearly 1,300 Brazilians from across the country demonstrates sharp opposition to proposed changes in Brazil’s Forest Code. The survey (sponsored by a variety of Brazilian environmental groups) found that 79% of survey respondents supported President Rousseff vetoing changes to the Forest Code which would grant amnesty to farmers and ranchers who illegally cleared rainforest in the past, in addition to allowing greater deforestation of the Amazon. If Brazilians oppose changes to the Forest Code, why don’t their representatives?

Our Message: The Brazilian Senate should listen to the citizens of Brazil and reject changes to the Forest Code approved by Brazil’s lower house. If the changes make it through the Senate, President Rousseff should move to veto the Bill!

Credit : Rachel Kramer / NWF – Conflicts over Land and Deforestation in the Amazon has come to a Boiling Point.

Only 10 days after Brazil’s Vice President, Michel Temer, announced the creation of a working group on violence in the Amazon, an elite task force of 60 police officers have been sent out to protect environmental activists in the Amazon. What has prompted this sudden concern for the safety of Amazon activists ? A series of murders which have happened across Brazil in the past few weeks.   While the murder of Amazon activists in Brazil is far from uncommon, it’s important to note that the government is showing a stronger response than ever before.

Murders in the Amazon

Somewhere between the night of May 23rd and the morning of May 24th, Joao Claudio Ribeiro da Silva and his wife, Maria do Espirito Santo, were killed in an ambush near their home in the Brazilian state of Pará.  According to reports, they were stopped in their vehicle by unknown gunmen, taken out and shot. The circumstances surrounding their murder, including the fact that one of da Silva’s ears was chopped off, have led the prosecutor to suggest that this is the work of hired hitmen.

The couple had been working for the Amazon-focused non-governmental group CNS, ( National Council of Rubber Tappers in Brazil which advocates for social, economic, and social rights for Amazonian peoples), and was set up by legendary environmental activist Chico Mendes who himself was killed by landowners in the Amazon in 1988.

Da Silva was a well-known  environmentalist and the recipient of international recognition for the positive work he has done towards taking a stand against rising rates of deforestation in the Amazon.  Along with the many awards, however,  came many death threats.

According to the CNS, the couple had been receiving death threats since 2008  in response to their work! Justs six months ealier, da Silva had even predicted his own murder :

” I could be here today talking to you and in one month you will get the news that I disappeared. I will protect the forest at all costs. That is why I could get a bullet in my head at any moment … because I denounce the loggers and charcoal producers, and that is why they think I cannot exist. “

[People] ask me, ‘are you afraid?’ Yes, I’m a human being, of course I am afraid. But my fear does not silence me. As long as I have the strength to walk I will denounce all of those who damage the forest”

His name was also one of many on a list released in 2008, which listed 260 people in Brazil who were under threat of being murdered because they in some way had raised their voices in protest against ongoing deforestation in the Amazon, led by (the majority of the time) loggers, cattle ranchers, miners, and farmers.

THEN, on the morning  of May 27th, Adelino “Dinho” Ramos, president of the Movimento Camponeses Corumbiara e da Associação dos Camponeses do Amazonas, an association for small farmers, was gunned down in front of his family in the Brazilian state of  Rondônia.  Brazil’s Special Secretariat for Human Rights has stated it is still unclear who killed Ramos, but they have acknowledged that he had continually been the subject of numerous death threats from loggers for his work.

So three prominent environmentalists, who have been very vocal about the need to protect the Amazon, are mysteriously murdered within a week of the controversial vote on the Brazilian Forest Code in the Brazilian House of Representatives. Can we draw any conclusions from this?

José Batista Gonçalves Afonso, a lawyer at the Catholic social action organization, Land Pastoral Commission – CPT, seems to think we can. He  says that the upcoming changes in the Forest Code, ( aka Código Florestal) and the idea of giving amnesty for cases of illegal deforestation is a large source of  tension in the country.

“It may not be the main reason, but this moment of legislative ambiguity and pressure by landowners creates tension and generates insecurity,” stated Afonso, adding that the proposed alterations in the Forest Code contribute to “an atmosphere of violence… As landowners push hard for more space and the liberty to expand their activities into the Amazon region these are tense times.”

We’ll let you draw your own conclusions.  Whoever is responsible for the murders aside, Mr. Afonso is right about these proposed changes in the Forest Code causing tensions across Brazil. Additionally, in the past two months, according to figures from the Brazilian government, deforestation in the Amazon has spiked — this being an increase  of OVER 500% when compared to last year’s numbers.  Also, keep in mind that, because of  clouds and rain, which prevented satellite monitoring, the state of Para that boasted the highest rates of forest loss in 2010 was, for the most part,  not included in these numbers, so unfortunately the rates of deforestation may be even higher than we think.

If these changes to the Forest Code are passed, they will undermine forest protections and threaten tens of millions of acres of natural habitat and wildlife in the Amazon, and other natural habitats across Brazil. These ongoing assasinations of prominent environmental activists, who dare to make their voice heard may possibly scare other groups from speaking out against these proposed changes to the Forest Code, out of fear for their lives.

But it currently looks as if the debate is still very much alive in Brazil, so check back on Forest Justice for the latest updates!

Credit : Wikimedia Commons – Meet U.S. Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Apparently he thinks cutting down forests would be a great way to cut CO2 emissions. Do you?

 Well luckily for us, U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher has contributed his 2 cents: “Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases? ” As reported in Politico, he went on to suggest that because trees decompose and release greenhouse gases, clear-cutting the world’s rainforests would be an effective way of reducing greenhouse gases! 

So how exactly is he going about defending this argument? Well he seems to be saying that 80-90%  percent of greenhouse gas emissions are “generated by nature itself.” Sure we’ll give him that.  It’s true we’re only aiming to control man-made emissions. But he forgets the other half of the argument (or maybe he didn’t think that it was relevant?), that forests regrow, and as they do so, they absorb carbon dioxide.  

So how exactly is he going about defending this argument? Well he seems to fixate on the fact that forests emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, and he’s right. But he ignores the other side of that coin: that as forests grow they absorb and store huge amounts of carbon dioxide.  We  humans, who burn gas, build factories, etc.,  that give off carbon dioxide, do absolutely nothing to absorb it all back (all those reading this blog, claiming to be able to absorb their own CO2, give yourself a pat on the back – and probably seek a medical professional, because humans are NOT supposed to be able to do that).  

Still with us? Well, let’s add another layer to this story:  

Meet Dr. Simon Lewis,  ecologist and tropical forest expert. He confirms that normally trees absorb the carbon they emit. BUT  in a forest, say the Amazon, not only is the carbon dioxide being absorbed by the trees BUT it’s also fertilizing the trees, and causing them to absorb even more carbon – so now not only are they cleaning up their own mess, but ours too.  In fact this figure is 1.5 billion tons of CO2 per year. (Take our word for it, that’s A LOT !)

 But don’t just breathe a sigh of relief yet. As the Amazon gets drier, (did you not hear about this year’s droughts?)  that’s how forest fires start and not to mention a lot of trees just die from lack of water. And when they die, do you remember all that carbon dioxide they were absorbing PLUS the extra being absorbed that we humans emitted? Well that is ALL going back into the atmosphere. 

Credit: Ben Sutherland via Flickr Creative Commons – An drought in the Amazon. Trust us, it can get even drier than this.

So what have we learned?  

1. U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher needs to do his homework. He gets that trees release carbon dioxide when they die, but is kind’ve forgetting about the part where they absorb carbon, while they live, including the emissions from our cars, planes, factories, etc.  
2. Not only that, if we did as Rep. Rohrabacher suggests, according to a quote from Dr. Lewis, “If the forests of the Amazon were all removed, this would perhaps add 100-200 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere….. 10-20 years’ worth of today’s level of [man-made] emissions.” OF THE WHOLE WORLD.  
3. The trend in the Amazon recently, is that trees are absorbing 1.5 billion tons even more carbon than on average! BUT when these trees die, ie they’re cut down, die from thirst, 0r forest fires, they will give off more carbon than on average. PLUS let’s not forget there’s also fewer trees to absorb all of this extra CO2 emitted.  
4. Check in with us regularly for more interesting stories like this one. (Ok technically you didn’t learn that in our post, but you should still stop by!)

The Brazilian Forest Code Changes have survived a Vote in the House and Passed! Can you believe it? (We couldn’t, or rather didn’t want to)

This was after multiple rounds of debate, where no one really got to see the final text of the code, because the draft was constantly being changed by Aldo Rebeldo (the author of these changes) in an effort to try and get it to pass. But how exactly did he expect representatives were going to vote on these significant (clarification significant here = bad, not good) changes to the code that will have such a HUGE impact on forests, if they can’t even see the full text?!

So what’s next?: The text will now be voted on in the Brazilian Senate, where, hopefully, there will be more time to debate exactly what these changes will mean for future of the Amazon, small farmers making a modest living off the land, and big agribusiness.

Check out an EXCLUSIVE Press Release from National Wildlife Federation to learn more:

Brazilian Forest Protections Under Threat: Amazon in the Crosshairs

A serious weakening of Brazil’s Forest Code has passed through the lower house of the legislature, signaling an attempt to make the most significant change in the code since 1965. Should the amendment pass a later vote in Brazil’s Senate, it will undermine forest protections and threaten tens of millions of acres of natural habitat and wildlife.

Internationally, the Forest Code is considered to be one of the world’s most progressive forest policies.  By passing today’s modifications, however, the Brazilian House of Representatives could be rolling back much of the progress Brazil has achieved towards reducing national deforestation rates, which have fallen over 70 percent in the last six years.

One particularly controversial proposal would greatly reduce the percentage of their properties that landowners are required to keep as forest. While this amount varies by region in Brazil, the proposed changes would allow additional areas to be legally cleared.

Another key amendment coming under fire from opponents includes a provision that would give amnesty to farmers who illegally deforested their land before 2008. While those behind the new provision declare it an opportunity to give the farmers a clean slate, many that did adhere to the law object that they are being penalized for compliance.  Under the new proposals, farmers who were found in violation of the Forest Code before July 2008 would be pardoned and allowed to keep profits earned by farming illegally on deforested lands rather than facing fines.

The Green Party and leading Brazilian civil society organizations oppose the proposals. “The Forest Code is the primary law protecting our forests and biodiversity,” said Marina Silva, former Environmental Minister and leader of Brazil’s Green Party. “Instead of debating an update that would give amnesty to those who broke the law, we should be discussing a forest policy that improves the protection of forests, creates incentives for development of agriculture and forestry, generates jobs and improves income in the rural sector.”

Calls for modification of the Code have grown louder in the past few years, notably from a legislative bloc known as the Ruralistas, who argue the changes are necessary for Brazil to be a globally competitive crop producer, while still growing enough to feed Brazil’s rapidly expanding population. They claim that the need to increase available farmland requires cutting into forests, though this is disputed by those working to improve land management in the Amazon.

Should these changes pass in the Senate, they will then go before newly-elected President Dilma Rousseff for possible veto. Estimates suggest that tens of millions of acres of Amazon rainforest could be lost as a result of relaxing the Forest Code, which would release greenhouse gas pollution on the scale of the U.S. annual rate of emissions.

# # #

The National Wildlife Federation is America’s largest conservation organization inspiring Americans to protect wildlife for our children’s future.

Immediate Release:  May 24, 2011

Contacts: Barbara Bramble +1 202-797-6601 bramble@nwf.org; Nathalie Walker +1-202-797-6817 walkern@nwf.org; Sabrina Patel  +1-202-797-6637 patels@nwf.org

Last fall, these girls – Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen contacted the Union of Concerned Scientists for help with their campaign to make Girl Scout cookies deforestation-free.  They started the campaign 4 years ago – all while completing some research as part of a project to earn a Girl Scout award.  As they were researching orangutans, they learned a sad truth -  orangutans are facing extinction because their home, the tropical forest, is being cleared. In Indonesia and Malaysia, where orangutans live, much of that deforestation is occurring to make room for palm oil plantations.  And, as you may have guessed already, palm oil is an ingredient in Girl Scout cookies.

Credit : Marit & Toomas Hinnosaar/Flickr Creative Commons – Pictured, the Girl Scout Cookies you Know and Love. Rhiannon and Madison, 2 brave and persistent Girl Scouts and activists have been working to make sure that you can enjoy these cookies, which we all know and love, with the assurance that the palm oil in them is not associated with Deforestation! They're saying NO palm oil unless it's Certified as Sustainable!

Thanks to the pressure from activists like you, the Girls Scouts of the USA has agreed to meet with Madison and Rhiannon next week. We need to keep the pressure on during the time leading up to the meeting so that the Girl Scouts organization knows that Madison, Rhiannon, and all of us are serious about seeing deforestation-free Girl Scout cookies!  Join the Union of Concerned Scientists, Rhiannon, and Madi and send a note to the Girl Scouts letting them know how you feel – www.ucsusa.org/girlscouts.

Credit : Rachel Kramer / NWF – Making Amendments to the Brazilian Forest Code that would allow holes (like the one above) in the Amazon to get even BIGGER? Doesn't seem like the kind of law you would want to pass, would you?

But the voting doesn’t just end at the House:  if the vote passes in the House, it will need to be voted on and approved in the Senate, and then it could still be vetoed by president-elect Dilma Rousseff.

This would be the first major change in 45 years, and could be the biggest ever threat to the Amazon!

What do YOU do? Stay tuned…..

In the last week or two, Bolivia and neighboring Peru both made major conservation headlines, for dramatically different reasons.  In Peru rising gold prices are leading to rapid deforestation of one of the Earth’s most biodiverse forests in the region of Madre de Dios, while just next door Bolivia is set to pass exciting, but “radical” legislation that would grant nature equal rights as humans, which they are calling the Law of Mother Earth.

Gold Prices and Deforestation Linked in Peru

A new study recently published in the science journal PLoS ONE has demonstrated how rapidly escalating gold prices (rising approximately 18% each year) have led to a 600% increase in deforestation since 2003 in the megadiverse Amazon region of Madre de Dios, Peru (see map below).

Credit: PLoS ONE. Study area, Department of Madre de Dios in Peru.

Not only are the forests being completely flattened and the land destroyed because of this small-scale gold mining industry, mercury contamination of the environment is also on the rise.  Mercury is used in the processing of gold ore, but once it is used, it can easily seep into the soil and water which not only jeopardizes the health of the environment, but human health too!

Bolivia and the Law of Mother Earth

But it’s not all bad news in South America.  As the Guardian reported , a new law is set to be passed in Bolivia which would grant 11 new rights to nature, the first such law of its kind in the world.

This demonstrates a clear recognition by Bolivia of nature and sets a new global precedent for granting legal rights to nature.  By granting these rights, it is hoped that Bolivia can help protect its natural resources from being over exploited and help reduce the country’s contributions to climate change.  Bolivia is already struggling to cope with many of the damaging impacts of global climate change, one of the main threats being :  a quickly-shrinking water supply for agriculture and drinking water as glaciers continue to shrink because of rises in temperature.

Much like Peru, however, Bolivia is also very dependent on mining operations like gold extraction, so it remains to be seen how they will balance the new Law of Mother Earth with their economic needs.

Keep following us on Forest Justice and we’ll be sure to updates you on Bolivia’s progress towards granting forests and nature legal rights AND Peru’s struggle to protect their environment from exploitation by the gold mining industry !

Credit : Michael Thirnbeck, Flickr (Mangiwau ) – Oil palm plantations cutting into tropical forests – aka home for orangutans, and thousands of other species.

There’s been a flurry of activity this week surrounding palm oil sourcing and production, and for once its (mostly) good news!  Check out the week’s palm oil news roundup, courtesy of Forest Justice.

The Good

Avon, the major cosmetics manufacturer, has announced a new Palm Oil Promise program.  Avon is working with the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil to purchase sustainable palm oil certificates, in addition to supporting efforts to ensure that palm oil doesn’t come at the expense of primary rainforests or peatlands (another important habitat in Southeast Asia). Although most palm oil is used in food, the cosmetics industry has long relied on the use of unsustainable palm oil, so this is definitely a step in the right direction.

What else has palm oil in it? Click here!

The Bad

Following up on our last post: Mongabay reported this week that the palm oil lobby (groups that advocate on behalf of the industrial palm oil sector) is in an uproar over the World Bank’s new policy regarding palm oil financing, which aims to support small-scale palm oil producers rather than large corporate plantations.  Industry representatives suggested the new World Bank plan will only increase poverty in Africa and Southeast Asia.  According to the World Bank, however, the new plan is meant to ensure that the appropriate social and environmental safeguards are in place so that the palm oil industry respects worker’s rights and minimizes damage to the environment.

It still remains to be seen how the new World Bank plan will impact forest conservation on the ground, but if the big palm oil lobbies are this upset it might just mean good news for rain forests!

The Ugly

Credit : liam.jon_d / Flickr CC – Australian Senator Nick Xenophon lobbies for labels with Palm Oil in them to be clearly labeled as such!

It was announced this week that the Malaysian Palm Oil Council is furious over a bill presented in the Australian Senate by Independent Senator Nick Xenophon.  Xenophon’s bill would force products containing palm oil to feature a label so consumers would be aware of its presence in their food and also if the palm oil was sourced sustainably. (Could we have labeling like this in the US?)  According to the Malaysian Palm Oil Council, the bill could threaten the livelihoods of over half a million workers on palm oil plantations, though how this statistic was determined is unclear.  Although Xenophon introduced the bill in 2009, it is still being debated in a senate committee.

Are we seeing a shift in the palm oil industry?

If this week is any indication, it seems like the palm oil industry is really on the defensive against plans which would allow consumers to find out if their products include (or don’t include) sustainably produced palm oil. But as a consumer, don’t you have the right to know what ingredients are in the foods you eat? The more consumers are aware of the disastrous impacts palm oil production can have on tropical rainforests and species who live there (like orangutans), the more momentum we can create to ensure palm oil is produced sustainably and isn’t responsible for further destruction of rainforests.

Let’s keep the momentum going! Join Forest Justice’s Palm Break 2011 either here or on Facebook and learn more about where you palm oil comes from and how you can ensure it is being produced sustainably.

Credit : Nick Ares / CC – Is sending Guyana $40 MILLION more dollars really the answer to helping them achieve lower rates of deforestation ? Consider the fact that in 2009 Norway signed a deal with Guyana worth$250 million to protect Guyana’s rainforests. And YET, Global Witness has reported a 200% increase in deforestation this past year!! Norway is showing great initiative towards working to protect these rainforests, but shouldn't they first get assurances that these increases in deforestation won't continue?

Last week we highlighted the surprising news that the REDD deal between Norway and Guyana was actually responsible in part for increasing deforestation rates in Guyana rather than helping protect these tropical rainforests (read our blog all about that here).  Despite this huge jump in deforestation, Norway just announced last week that despite this discouraging news, it was still sending Guyana an additional 40 Million Dollars as part of their REDD agreement (What’s REDD? Watch this!).

What’s going on here?

The Good: Money for saving forests is of course a good thing. As an article in the Guardian commented recently, for a poor country like Guyana, the money being invested by Norway represents a significant sum and could go a long way towards protecting huge tracts of  pristine tropical rainforests.

The Bad: We need data transparency and assurances that corruption isn’t allowing Guyana to receive funds when in fact their deforestation rates are increasing (this past year despite the deal with Norway their deforestation increased 200 percent !).  For these reasons it unsettling that Norway has not delayed its latest payment to Guyana without assurances that these increases in deforestation won’t continue.

This was big news because this marked the lifting of an 18-month moratorium the World Bank had imposed on themselves, starting in 2009.  So why the sudden change of heart?

World Bank Logo.

A little history  : The World Bank stopped investing money in oil palm in 2009 after an internal audit revealed that the World Bank’s investments in major oil palm plantations were not in compliance with the World Bank’s own standards for performance. The audit was conducted after indigenous rights groups, NGO’s, and smallholder farmers filed a complaint about the practices and standards used by plantation companies funded by the World Bank.

So we get back to our initial question : why would they lift the moratorium if there were these major problems with lending? The World Bank has come up with this new framework (rules) for their lending, which are supposed to protect standing forests by, for example,  only allowing plantations to be grown  on already-degraded lands and/or by improving current plantation productivity (more product for less land). They have also  now stated that new money invested in oil palm would be used to support small-scale oil palm producers rather than large, commercial plantations.

 But the question remains—will ending this ban and restarting their lending  actually hurt tropical rainforests? It’s tough to know the answer to that yet—small scale oil palm has been praised as “a more environmentally friendly” form of producing oil palm compared to plantation agriculture, but there is no guarantee this is always the case. Oil palm plantations are very clearly NOT a substitute for natural forests — it doesn’t matter whether it is run by a smallholder farmer or a big plantation owner.

Credit : Achmad Rabin Taim / Wikimedia – Although they may look "green", acre after acre of natural tropical forest must be cut down in order to make way for oil palm plantations. Let's hope the new World Bank lending strategies do not promote more clear-cutting, and instead endorese sustainable planting on lands that are ALREADY deforested. We cannot continue expanding into these standing forests!

But what if we can’t just keep huge tracts of tropical forest untouched by palm oil plantations?  It’s hard to just tell the oil palm industry to just STOP what they’re doing.  According to the World Bank the palm oil sector employs over six million rural poor worldwide! Not only that, but there is a huge global demand for palm oil, and in the US it’s believed that it can be found in over half of all items on your supermarket shelves!   So while conserving intact forests in Southeast Asia is still the single most important way to protect endangered species like orangutans, sustainable oil palm production also has an important role to play in protecting nature while supporting local livelihoods. The good news is that the World Bank is being closely watched to see how their new investments impact both poverty reduction AND conservation efforts, which may help ensure forests are adequately protected under these new investments.

I guess everyone’s “homework” is to keep an eye on just how environmentally-friendly their new lending policies end up being. If it becomes clear that, once again, there are serious problems with the World Bank’s standards, then we, the international community, will have to call for another moratorium so that we can ensure that World Bank lending does not promote more deforestation!