rainforestpower Headline Animator

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Foreigners buy land equivalent to six times the size of Monaco every day in Brazil

Foreign companies and citizens buy 1,200 hectares of land every day in Brazil, an area six times the size of the Principality of Monaco, local daily Folha de Sao Paulo said on Monday.

Statistics show foreign investors bought at least 1,523 rural properties or 2,269,200 hectares of land in the country from November 2007 to May 2008.

The above figures do not include land bought by Brazilian companies with foreign capital or individuals who use Brazilian citizens as front men.

Most buyers are said to buy land for the production of soybeans, ethanol, cattle-raising and crops to produce biofuel.

A study by Brazil's National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) said foreign entities owned 5.5 million hectares of Brazilian land. Of that amount, 754,700 hectares are in Mato Grosso state and 504,700 hectares are in Sao Paulo state.

The acquisition of land by foreigners, especially in the Amazon Rainforest area, is a growing source of worry for the Brazilian authorities.

In 2006, Swedish businessman Johan Eliasch purchased 160,000 hectares of land in the heart of the Amazon rain forest, which is even bigger than the country's largest city Sao Paulo.

Even though Eliasch declared he bought the land because he liked the forest and wanted to preserve it, last month his logging company was fined 450 million reais (281.25 million U.S. dollars) for illegal exploitation. INCRA is considering annulling the registry of Eliasch's ownership of the land.

Brazilian government plans to take legal measures to limit the purchase of land by foreigners. Land acquisition is now only allowed for residents and companies operating in the country.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/08/content_8510503.htm

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Petrobras JV formed to export Brazilian bioethanol

A 20-60-20 joint venture comprised of Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), Itaruma Participacoes SA, and Mitsui & Co. has been established with the aim of exporting bioethanol from Brazil to markets in Japan, Europe, and North America.

At a cost estimated at ¥30 billion, the partners will construct a 200,000 kl./year bioethanol plant in Itaruma, Goias state, and cultivate some 30,000 hectares of sugar cane as feedstock in Cerrado—all exclusively for the production of bioethanol starting in second half 2009.

The project partners say the new venture—in "a wild inland grassland area"—will not compete with the country's sugar market or contribute to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest.

The project also will use bagasse (pomace of sugar cane) by combusting it and collecting the resulting heat for ethanol production and generating electricity by a steam boiler. "Consequently," the partners said, "the bagasse power generation will help reduce the consumption of fossil fuels."

Last month, it was reported that Petrobras's gasoline-ethanol blend will be sold in Japan in 2008. Petrobras will supply E3—gasoline blended with 3% ethanol—to independent gas stations, with the wholesale price expected to be ¥1-2 less per liter than ordinary gasoline.

Earlier this week, Brazilian ethanol producer Copersucar, eyeing increased export potential and growing competition, signed an agreement to supply 200 million l./year of ethanol exports to Japan Biofuels Supply LLP (OGJ Online, July 3, 2008).

http://www.ogj.com/display_article/333536/7/ONART/none/Prong/1/Petrobras-JV-formed-to-export-Brazilian-bioethanol/

Friday, July 4, 2008

Poll shows ignorance over Rainforest role

Most people are ignorant of the crucial role the rainforests play in keeping the global climate stable, a survey has revealed.

More than 60 per cent of people questioned thought air travel and domestic heating produced more greenhouse gases than the destruction of the forests.

In fact deforestation releases more CO2 into the atmosphere each year than all of the world's planes, trains and automobiles put together.

The survey commissioned by the Rainforest Foundation UK (RFUK) revealed that 62% thought more CO2 is produced by the UK's housing stock each year than by deforestation. The truth is that cutting down the rainforests for agriculture and grazing produces more carbon emissions than all the UK domestic energy use.

ICM questioned more than 1000 British adults for the poll which found that 53% wrongly blamed aviation for more carbon emissions than deforestation. In fact rainforest destruction produces more CO2 emissions than all international air travel combined.

The survey was carried out to mark the launch of RFUK's Hot & Bothered campaign which aims to make people more aware of the role that the protection of rainforests can play in tackling climate change while at the same time helping indigenous communities who rely on the rainforests for their survival.

Each hectare of rainforest - roughly the size of two football pitches - holds an average of 160 tonnes of carbon and an area almost the size of England and Wales is cut down every year releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The destruction results in millions of people worldwide being made homeless while driving animals and plants to extinction.

RFUK Director Simon Counsell said: "At the current rate of destruction, deforestation contributes about as much to global greenhouse gas emissions annually as the entire United States, mostly from the loss of tropical forests.

We need to put an end to it, but at the same time we need to make sure that the rainforest is protected in a responsible and sustainable way. Our experience shows that the best way to protect rainforests is to secure the rights of the communities that have always lived in and depended on them.

By launching the Hot & Bothered campaign, we're calling on the public to recognise the role that these areas can play in reducing carbon emissions, while demanding that even bigger steps be taken here at home. By helping us to protect the rainforest, people can make a real contribution to tackling climate change."

RFUK has unveiled a 'Virtual Rainforest' which allows people to protect and personalise their own online acre for a £25 donation. Each online acre will help RFUK to place real acres of forest into the hands of the people that live there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/04/earainforest104.xml

Truth Behind The Dead Forests

Carbon is the chemical element at the root of life on earth. Indeed, all living things are essentially made of the stuff.

Humans and animals eat carbon-based foods and exhale some of the carbon they contain as CO2, a gaseous mix of carbon and oxygen.

Trees and plants breathe in the CO2 and use energy from the sun to separate the carbon from the oxygen.

The carbon is used to build their trunks, stalks and foliage, and the oxygen is released to be breathed in by humans and animals. And so on...

When a tree or plant eventually dies, it will rot or be burned or eaten, and most of its stored carbon is returned to the atmosphere as CO2.

The rest decomposes into the ground to become part of the soil.

This neat solar-powered process is known as the carbon cycle. It's a cycle that makes life possible and also affects the temperature of the planet, because the more CO2 there is in the air, the more of the sun's energy gets trapped in the atmosphere.

Humans are disrupting this cycle in two ways. First, we're burning oil, coal and gas, which are made of carbon soaked up by plants from previous eras.

Second, we're destroying forests to clear farmland or collect firewood and timber. When we do this, much of the carbon stored in the trees and soils over the centuries is released back into the atmosphere. In addition, the forest stops absorbing CO2 from the air. (If the cleared land is used to ranch cattle, there will be a further impact, as cows belch up large volumes of globe-warming methane.)

Deforestation is sometimes ignored in the global warming debate but it accounts for almost a fifth of the human impact on the climate. That's more than all the world's cars and planes, more than the entire USA, or the whole of China.

Tropical deforestation - the destruction of rainforests - accounts for the majority of these emissions. That's partly because regions like Europe cleared many of their forests centuries ago. But it's also because the sun-soaked forests of the tropics are more effective carbon stores than those in temperate areas.

For rainforest nations such as Brazil and Indonesia, carbon emissions from deforestation can outstrip those from fossil fuels. And that's not to mention the massive impact on biodiversity - the rainforests are home to more than half the world's species, from irradescent butterflies to awe-inspiring beasts such as gorillas and jaguars.

The challenge is finding a way to stop this destruction. If we don't, then the world might not be able to avoid runaway global warming - even if we succeed in slashing our fossil fuel use.

Ironically, one of the 'feedback loops' that scientists fear could cause such runaway warming is the potential collapse of rainforest ecosystems. The concern is that, as the planet warms, precipitation patterns could change, taking the rain out of the rainforests. If this happened for long enough, the forest could die off - killing countless species and releasing even larger volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The solution to deforestation will probably be based on western nations paying tropical countries to protect their forests - a rent for their 'carbon services', as it were, and an alternative to income from logging and farming. There are many details to work out but hopefully new and exciting projects in Peru will help the world to see that it can be done.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Climate-Change-Expert-Duncan-Clarke-On-Tackling-Deforestation-And-Carbon-Emissions/Article/200807115023843?lpos=World%2BNews_0&lid=ARTICLE_15023843_Climate%2BChange%2BExpert%2BDuncan%2BClarke%2BOn%2BTackling%2BDeforestation%2BAnd%2BCarbon%2BEmissions%2B

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Brazil fines 24 ethanol producers for illegal forest clearing

Brazil fined two dozen ethanol producers accused of illegal clearing the country's endangered Mata Atlântica or Atlantic rainforest, reports The Associated Press.

The companies face 120 million reals (US$75 million) in fines for operating without licenses and planting sugarcane in illegally deforested areas, Environment Minister Carlos Minc said in a press conference. The firms will be required to restore 143,300 acres (58,000 hectares) of forest.

"We will not let companies that destroy the Atlantic rain forest have any peace," Minc told reporters. "If these environmental crimes continue, they will provide ammunition for those who want to slap trade barriers on the export of Brazilian ethanol."

The fines come shortly after a group of Brazilian ethanol firms signed the first deal to export sustainably-produced ethanol. The deal, announced last week, will send to Sweden 115 million liters of to meet to certain social and environmental standards. The Brazilian soy and beef industries have recently announced similar certification initiatives.

In recent months Brazilian authorities have cracked down on loggers, ranchers, farmers, and charcoal producers believed to be operating in violation of environmental laws. Last week agents seized 3,100 head of cattle found grazing on illegally deforested lands in the Amazon. Minc said the cattle would be auctioned to fund Fome Zero, the government's food program for the poor. Earlier this year the government conducted operation "Arc of Fire" to stop illegal logging on the Amazon frontier.

The moves are part of an effort by Brazil to counter criticism over a recent jump in deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and neighboring ecosystems that analysts say is linked to rising commodity prices. Brazilian authorities note that while forest clearing has climbed over the past year, it is still considerably lower than the peak year of 2004 when more than 27,000 square kilometers of forest were lost. Further Brazilian ethanol is widely recognized as the most efficiently mass-produced biofuel on the market, yielding 5.5 times as much energy per unit of input compared with U.S. corn ethanol.

Brazil's Mata Atlantica once blanked the coast of the country but hundreds of years of logging and agricultural expansion have reduced the ecosystem to about eight percent of its original extent. The forest is home to dozens of well-known endangered species, including the charismatic Golden Lion Tamarin.

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0701-brazil.html

Tough on environment crime…

Regarding the article "Brazil confiscates cattle to protect its rain forest" (June 26): We must highly commend Brazil's new environment minister, Carlos Minc, for resolutely cracking down on ranchers occupying illegally deforested land.

Preservation of the Amazon rainforest is this generation's mandatory task and is contingent on this forceful style of prosecution against those who do not respect environmental legislation.

With this move, Brazil begins to demonstrate to a skeptical international community that its government is serious about protecting the rainforest from increasing illegal deforestation.

It is entirely appropriate for Minc to seize commercial livestock from protected land so that ranchers realize his hard-line stance on rainforest protection is for real. However, this is only the first step in protecting the irreplaceable rainforest, and BrasĂ­lia would be wise to continue strict regulation of environmental protection provisions.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/opinion/edlet.php

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Protecting Peru and Brazil’s Uncontacted Amazon Tribes

What is it about the recent photographs of the “uncontacted” indigenous tribe of the Peruvian-Brazilian Amazon region that has caused such a stir? The provocative photos of painted natives in loincloths, including several holding bows ready to loose their arrows at the aircraft filming them from overhead, are eliciting worldwide concern over how the government will treat these people. The image of brandished arrows seems pretty clear: these natives want to be left alone. The government recently released the photographs taken by FUNAI, Brazil’s National Foundation for Indians, in order to provide substance to the debate over isolated and uncontacted groups who exist in the Amazon.

Survival International, an organization that monitors the status of indigenous tribes worldwide, estimates that there are at least 100 isolated tribes remaining in the world, with half of them in Peru and Brazil. These native peoples and their ways of life are in constant peril due to new roads, dams, logging, mineral mining and especially disease brought from outside, and there are growing concerns that these threats endanger the many indigenous tribes’ ways of life. Contact with outsiders brings only violence, exploitation and death. The recent photos have intensified a long-standing disagreement about whether Peru and Brazil are doing enough to protect isolated indigenous tribes and the prospective ethnological fate of the entire Amazon region. Despite recent re-affirmations of their commitment to protection policies by both the Peruvian and Brazilian governments, experts insist that not enough is being done. More proactive policies must be put into place in order to preserve the Amazonian cultures.

The Main Threats

One of the longest existing threats to the livelihood of the Amazonian indigenous peoples is legal and illegal logging. Carlos Minc, Brazil’s new environment minister, announced on the second of June that the pace of deforestation is rapidly increasing. Satellite imagery from the space agency INPE shows that from August 2006 to July 2007, 4,964 square kilometers of the Amazon were cleared, while 5,850 square kilometers were cut down between August 2007 and April 2008. This represents a considerable increase in logging, and demonstrates that current policies are clearly not working. On the Peruvian side of the border, the government has been exceptionally unsuccessful in halting the logging that forces native peoples to migrate across the border to Brazil or into the territory of other tribes, which often leads to violent conflict and death. Both governments have been criticized for their failure to adequately protect these tribes.

Indigenous tribes living in the Amazon basin are also faced with the threat of a $6 billion hydroelectric dam on Brazil’s Xingu River. Known as the Belo Monte project, the dam would be built in the state of Mato Grosso to provide Brazil with the energy needed for its continued economic development. However, the 10,000 square mile Xingu Indigenous Reserve, the first federally-recognized indigenous territory in Brazil, is located along the river and will almost certainly be devastated by the dam. “Hydroelectric dams have severe social impacts,” explains Philip Fearnside, one of the world’s leading rainforest scientists, “including flooding the lands of indigenous peoples.” The Xingu reserve is home to 14 indigenous nations, while another 10,000 native peoples live just beyond its boundaries. Construction of the Belo Monte dam proceeds despite its potential for severe repercussions on local indigenous populations.

The Trans-Oceanic Highway, which will connect the Amazon to the Pacific Ocean, is also a cause for concern. This 711-mile road will link Assis, a Brazilian river port, with Peru’s Pacific ports of Matarani, San Juan and Ilo. The highway is designed to transport agricultural products, mainly cattle and soybeans, to international markets. Soy production in Brazil has recently increased due to global demand for food and increased prices. As a result of the high demand for soy products, a great deal of rainforest is being stripped in order to create additional farmland, while additional land is then cleared for cattle grazing. The emphasis on these two products has enormously increased deforestation, accounting for about 70 to 80 percent of the total area cleared.

All of these dangers are interrelated and enhance the principal threat facing indigenous tribes: the spread of disease. Deforestation - whether to construct roads and dams or to increase access to farmland - not only cuts into the land occupied by indigenous people, but also brings modern civilization into closer physical contact with isolated tribes. Natives are being exposed to diseases to which they have no immunities. Further encroachment could trigger a pandemic reminiscent of the those that swept through the Americas during the time of European exploration, when disease was the single most important factor in wiping out the majority of the American indigenous populations. “After contact was made with the Surui people, for instance, half of their 400 members died from ‘Western’ illnesses within a few years,” explains John Hemming, an author of Brazilian ethnology. Over the past two hundred years, an estimated three to four million indigenous people have been killed by foreign disease, such as the flu, chicken pox or the common cold. In fact, the groups that isolate themselves and hide from modernity, such as the ones recently photographed, are likely survivors of formerly large tribes whose members were decimated by exposure to a range of fatal diseases.

Policy on Isolated Peoples

In spite of the high visibility of the issue, both Peru and Brazil’s policies regarding isolated indigenous people are vague, inconsistent and almost always irresponsible. Policies aimed at halting deforestation and protecting isolated indigenous territory are repeatedly altered to the detriment or the indigenous peoples. Many governing officials do not believe that uncontacted tribes still exist in the Amazon, and therefore question the importance of protecting the land. Even those who recognize their existence debate the value of avoiding contact. Some believe that since modernity will inevitably intrude, contact should be made now under controlled conditions. It would be worse, they claim, to wait until the natives confront illegal loggers and petroleum company officials.

Following the release of the photographs of the uncontacted tribe on the Peruvian-Brazilian border, both countries have re-affirmed their no-contact policies. Brazil’s current strategy is to delineate indigenous land and make it off-limits to outsiders. Contact is only to be made if the natives are in danger or if they initiate contact of their own volition. A team of Peruvian experts is currently investigating whether logging is intruding on the tribe’s territory and forcing them across the Brazilian border. If this is the case, Peru has promised to take measures to stop this activity. However, just as it is difficult to curb illegal logging, it will be a challenge for both governments to ensure that isolated tribes have no unsolicited exposure to the outside world. Moreover, mounting economic pressures threaten to affect policy toward Amazonian territory in the future. Thus, the future of these no contact policies remains uncertain.

Reasons to Protect

There are a number of reasons why we must work to preserve the indigenous way of life of the people on Earth who live beyond the realm of modernity. First, Amazonia’s isolated indigenous tribes represent the astounding diversity of humankind, and observation would provide us with an incredible learning opportunity. The indigenous Amazonians’ culture has not yet been altered by contact with outside ideas, a unique situation in today’s increasingly globalized world. They are inherently valuable in that they provide a link to our past and show us an alternate way of life from which we can learn. Humanity has a great deal to gain from preserving diverse ways of life, especially when are so different from our own. Knowledge of distinctive cultures has intrinsic value.

Additionally, these indigenous people, as Survival International states, “deserve to be able to defend their lives, protect their lands and determine their own futures.” As human beings, they have autonomous rights just like everyone else. In fact, not protecting the tribes from contact might be considered a form of genocide, or the deliberate and systematic destruction of this distinct group of people. Mario Lucio Avelar, a Brazilian public prosecutor, believes that loggers who contribute to the eradication of traditional ways of life are guilty of genocide. “We are not necessarily talking about assassination, but they are making the survival of the tribe’s way of living impossible,” Avelar explains. “The loggers invade, prevent them from growing crops, hunting or practicing their culture. Without those things, the tribe cannot survive.” These tribes must be safeguarded in order to demonstrate our commitment to defending universal human dignity.

Furthermore, the isolated tribes offer a “reflection of the economic and political drama surrounding the international effort to preserve the rainforests as part of the struggle to combat climate change,” writes Dan Rabinowitz, professor of anthropology at Tel Aviv University and deputy vice chair of Greenpeace U.K. Because their lives depend precisely on the existence of the Amazon rainforest, the dilemma surrounding the need to protect the isolated tribes draws valuable attention to the climate change issue. The Amazon rainforest is vital to global ecology. It acts as a climate regulator, affecting rainfall patterns worldwide. It is in the interest of surrounding regions to protect the rainforest, as it provides the rainfall that supports agriculture. According to Meg Symington, Amazon director for the World Wildlife Fund in the U.S., destruction of trees in Brazil is responsible for half of the world’s annual greenhouse-gas emissions. In this way, destruction of the territory of the isolated natives also means elimination of the indispensable rainforest. This essential resource for all the world’s people hangs in the balance.

What Should Be Done

Brazilian president Lula da Silva has attempted to staunchly maintain his image as Brazil’s first “green” president. However, the recent increase in the rate of deforestation of the Brazilian rainforest is marring this reputation. The prospective construction of the Trans-Oceanic highway, combined with increasing agricultural demand during a time of soaring food prices, will inevitably contribute to a further consumption of land. Destruction of the rainforest will be disastrous for all indigenous peoples living in the Amazon basin area; particularly those who have managed to remain isolated. Policy needs to be focused not only on protecting the environment, but also on safeguarding those whose precarious way of life is in danger of extinction.

Critics of government policy will argue that a proactive policy is needed, and that Peru and Brazil must immediately draw clear and unyielding boundaries for Amazon territory. Rather than ignore the uncontacted tribes, both Peru and Brazil’s governments should enforce a strict policy of protection. A stringent zero-tolerance policy must be enforced. The governments should monitor and punish anyone intruding on or misusing indigenous land. Only severe prosecution of those who defy national and international law by invading and deforesting will deter these criminals. The federal governments should also require that individual states take on greater responsibility to protect land that is off-limits to poachers and severely punish transgressors. Moreover, they must ensure that from this point forward there would be no more deforestation and construction of roads or dams that disrupt tribal lands and lives. Governments must ensure that landowners re-use and increase the productivity of land that has already been cleared. Since contact with native peoples have had disastrous effects in the past, strict no-contact laws must be implemented. All nations with Amazon territory need to recognize, respect and protect tribal land and rights.

A Lesson From History

The destruction of a civilization is not a new phenomenon, especially as a result of environmental change and deforestation. Easter Island, now consisting mainly of scrub, once had a sizeable forest that natives used in the construction process of their stone statues. The disappearance of the island’s forest has been shown to coincide with the decline of the civilization that built the famous monoliths. What went through the mind of the person who cut down the last tree? Eventually, if we’re not careful, we’ll fell our last tree as well, and the rainforest’s citizens will be wiped out. In the case of the Amazonian natives, outsiders deforest their home, but the lesson is the same: indigenous tribes need to be protected, lest we risk the consequences of their permanent destruction.

http://www.coha.org/2008/07/protecting-peru-and-brazil%E2%80%99s-uncontacted-amazon-tribes/