Anyone looking at Brazil on the map sees a huge swath of green, which symbolizes a country that is blessed by natural resources and a true environmental power. It isn't without a price that the world can see Brazil in this way. We have ensured keeping 61% of the land untouched and preserved. Along with that, we have managed to export U.S. $88 billion annually in agribusiness products to over 140 countries under the stronghold of an outdated environmental law passed in 1965.
Forty-six years ago it was impossible to foresee the need to reduce current carbon emissions in food production. Likewise, it was unthinkable to fathom that the world would have to increase food production 70% by 2050 in order to feed 9 billion people. That is, we had to balance both a just and growing demand for environmental preservation of the planet along with the ethical and moral obligation to produce more in order to ensure that the population has the fundamental right to food.
The pursuit of this balance is what has guided the great debate being waged in the Brazilian Congress, in the process of updating the old Forestry Code. This is the central aim of Brazilian deputies and senators, who are working with great responsibility, despite the environmental lobby, led in large part, by international NGOs. It is these lobbies that misinform the public and claim that the Forest Code is being framed for the benefit of large producers to meet the interests of landowners.
They also claim that the changes will give amnesty for environmental crimes. Those who believe in this either have not read the proposed bill to update the law, or they are interested in creating difficulties for the development of our country.
The bill, which was already approved in the House, by an undisputed majority of 86% of the votes, is now being discussed in the Senate. Currently, there is no single article or line allowing the expansion of deforestation. Likewise, there is no amnesty for environmental crimes. The New Forest Code only suspends fines after perpetrators of environmental crimes sign a pledge for the regularization of their properties.
Producers have a deadline to join an educational environmental program (PRA), which must be inspected by local environmental agencies. Afterwards, the environmental agency will visit the farms to ensure that the terms of the commitment are being met. If the landowners are not in compliance with the Code, or if any possible environmental damage has not been mitigated, the fines will be converted into services for environmental protection. For that reason there is no "amnesty", since there is no pure and simple "forgiveness". Brazilian producers have to rescue their environmental liabilities before having their penalties converted into environmental services -- a true benefit for the environment.
What the environmental lobby calls "amnesty" was already established in the Federal Decree 7029, that dates December 2009. Hence, the New Forest Code is not exonerating those who break the law and nor is it benefiting large producers. It is only enforcing rules that prioritize the protection of the environment instead of raising money through fines. Moreover, those who cleared illegally after 7/22/2008, will not benefit from this.
Much is said about the deforestation of the Amazon forest, but few people know two fundamental points:
1) As of today, 85% of the Amazon forest is preserved, just as it was 500 years ago, when Brazil was discovered. These are the official numbers of the Ministry of Environment of Brazil.
2) Both new and current Forest Codes are only applied on private lands, that represent solely a quarter of the entire Amazon region.
Thus, considering that the New Forest Code maintains all the current protective rules -- such as the requirement that each property of the Amazon forest maintains 80% of the area with native vegetation (called Legal Reserve), we are assured of the preservation of the forest.
The last great misconception that has been conveyed, through sheer lack of information, or perhaps maliciously "planted," is that the Brazilian Congress would be unable to discuss the Forest Code adequately. Who, then, could discuss it? Who, if not the legitimate representatives of the Brazilian people could discuss a law designed to protect the largest rainforest in the world and help feed 9 billion people?
Of course we are capable of changing old codes that create legal uncertainty and prevent the development of our country... and we will.
Senator Katia Abreu is the President of the CNA, the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock.
Many ONGs lie when say particulars destroy forest. The most of desforation occurs in public areas where the goverment should protect. Now wants to privatize legal reserves , showing incompetence and lack of money (because the corruption takes all).
See a example of ONGs against new florestal code and Katia Abreu and note the ower:
http://www.codigoflorestal.com/2011/10/ser-dono-de-ong-ambientalista-e-um.html#more
Believe me a coffe stand (sell food) in a mall (shopping) is more valuable than a large farm where you can use only 20%.
We have the 2nd world heavier tax burden. Have no infraestructure and much corrupion.
Please look the video (i´m translating to portuquese) ‘The Story of Agriculture and the Green Economy’ at http://www.farmingfirst.org/
The attempt to change the Brazilian Forest code has already been dennouced by Brazilian Academy of Sciences and Brazilian Society for the Advance of Science. It has been dennounced by 10 former MInisters of Environment in Brazil. It has been dennouced by the church, lawyers, environmental institutions and small farmers (who don´t agree with the proposed changes).
The present bill under discussion in the will amnesty illegal deforesters, will destroy protection of forests around rivers and headwaters and will unprotect at least an area the size of United Kingdom (22 million hectares). This is not a guess, it is an estimate produced by Institute for Economic Applied Research, a think-tank Governmental institution.
Thus, my friends, while senator Katia Abreu was writing this article, the forest drivers were running against forests waiting for softned legislation and amnesty to their crimes.
-Streamlines Legal Land Title Challenges,
-Reduces Amazon Reserve Requirement from 80 to 50%,
-Allows use of fallow land in High Conservation Value Areas. (Slopes, hilltops, Palm & Mangrove Swamps)
-Amnesty for Deforestation Before 2008
-State governors can indefinitely renew amnesty
-Reduce the Land Strips Along Riverbanks and Streams from 30m (100ft) to 15m (50ft)
-Reduces Control and Ability of the Legal Reserve Compensation System to Function
-No Mandate for Restoration of Illegal Deforestation
-Municipalities Are Allowed to Authorize Deforestation (Article 27)
Further- while the existing Code is very good, Brazil has not been able to enforce it meaningfully.
I refer readers to publically available materials:
•Fact sheet on Forest Code changes, they are publically available on WWF Brasil’s webpage which is devoted to the Forest Code: http://www.wwf.org.br/natureza_brasileira/reducao_de_impactos2/temas_nacionais/codigoflorestal/estudos_e_publicacoes/ The reports referenced is a bit further down the page and entitled:
o“Analysis by Prof. Gerd Sparovek, at the USP on May 27, 2011, about the proposal Forest Law approved by the Brazilian House of Representatives on May 24”
o“Forest Law: an analysis of major flaws in the Aldo Rebelo report – 19 points about the impacts of the proposal approved by the Brazilian House of Representatives”
Who is the bad guy?
% Forest (1)
% Original Forest (2)
original
% Reforestation (3)
replantada
Protection forest area (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Holland 11% 0% 100% NO
UK 12% 23% 77% NO
India 23% 85% 15% NO
Poland 30% 05% 95% NO
USA 33% 92% 08% NO
Japan 69% 49% 41% NO
Sweden 69% 87% 13% NO
China 22% 63% 37% NO
France 29% 90% 10% NO
Germany 32% 52% 48% NO
Indonesia 52% 96% 04% NO
Just look at the hundreds of innocent farmers that have been killed in the range war in the Amazon. I think only two of these murders have ever been prosecuted.
http://www.mstbrazil.org/news/12010-farmer-against-katia-abreu
more can be found here: http://www.cartamaior.com.br/templates/materiaMostrar.cfm?materia_id=10218
Killing any ecosystem naturally kills the veritable, life giving physical body of Earth, regardless. Last I knew, California had more endangered species on the threshold of eternal extinction, second only to Hawaii's. It's past time, man concluded, he exists only because of ecosystems, and ecosystems exist only because of their richness of biological diversity. In all of wildness...
Go out and look at the rest of the world, and then you may have the basis to form an accurate opinion.
Brazil passes lots of environmental statutes, then never enforces any of them. Any corporation that wants to violate these statutes only has to pay the appropriate minister. You know that.
(By the way, Brazil has not any commitment under Kyoto Protocol or UNFCCC to reduce emissions)