Copyright 1999-2001, MediaLink Media Projects 
November 02, 2001

Adriana Ramos is Coordinator of the Brazil Socio-Environmental Program at ISA, the Socio-Environmental Institute – an NGO dedicated to the search for integrated solutions that address both social and environmental concerns. She has been directly involved with negotiations to revise the Brazilian Forestry Code since 1999. Over nine years, she has assisted with the development of socio-environmental policies, especially those related to forests, biodiversity and indigenous peoples. She is also Coordinator of the Working Group on Forests, created by the Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for Development and the Environment, and a Coordinator of the SOS Forests Campaign, which defends the Brazilian Forestry Code. She is a former member of technical groups created to study and review Brazil's Forestry Code by CONAMA, the National Environmental Council. Her involvement with negotiations to revise the Forestry Code began in 1999. She is also a board member at IMAZON – the Amazonian Institute of Man and the Environment, and a member of the committee that selects projects to be backed by the Small Projects Fund at GEF – the Global Environmental Facilities branch in Brazil.

The ongoing discussions over changes to be made to Brazil's Forestry Code bring together the great dilemmas Brazilians have faced since the term "sustainable development" first appeared in Brazil. For a country whose model of land occupation and development, since colonization days, has been based on the transformation of large forested areas into pasture and plantations, guaranteeing and attributing value to the remaining forest cover is indeed a great challenge.

To date, all development policies introduced in Brazil have been based on predatory occupation models, and even in the Amazon region, where the wealth of the forest is self evident, the government has yet to successfully develop programs that prioritize the sustainable use of the forest and its vast resources.

So it comes as no surprise that, since the first great set of changes introduced by the federal government's Provisional Measure 1511, of 1996, the Forestry Code has been the object of ravenous reactions by representatives of the Brazilian rural or farming sector in Congress. The federal government initiative, which sought to respond to high levels of deforestation in the Amazon region that were reported that year, led to one of the longest and most controversial parliamentary debates ever seen in Brazil.

This firestorm has at its centre the rules that must be observed by each land owner, specifically how much of the original forest within the boundaries of a property must be left intact. According to Brazilian legislation, every property must retain so-called areas of permanent preservation, such as those alongside rivers and streams, hilltops and hillsides. Also, every rural landowner must preserve a certain percentage of original vegetation, known as a "legal reserve" – these are areas that can only be used by owners in approved, sustainable fashion.

These percentages vary, depending on each region's biological makeup. In the Amazon, the percentage called for in the Forestry Code since 1965 was 50 percent. Then, changes proposed by the government with Provisional Measure 1511 in 1996 raised that to 80 percent, a move intended to encourage the sustainable use of the rainforest. In other regions of Brazil, the "legal reserve" is 20 percent.

To many in the agricultural sector, these rules are an unacceptable restriction on the appropriate use of a rural property. Evidently, this assessment does not take into consideration the role of native vegetation – so-called "environmental services" it performs – in the preservation of water tables, micro climactic features, the carbon cycle, and consequently, ecological processes that are vital to agricultural production itself. Thus, according to the "logic" of those in the agricultural sector, instead of helping to attain positive levels of productivity, native vegetation is merely taking up space that ought to be destined to other crops or uses.

This perspective on the situation has set the tone for the impasse over the Forestry Code, and remains present in debates over the development model to be adopted for the Amazon. It reflects the conservative, often backward approach, of those who represent the rural sector in the political arena, to whom the interests of a specific economic sector come before the interests of all of society. To be very specific, we're not talking about small and medium sized agricultural operators, whose production is destined primarily for internal consumption. Those who truly exemplify this approach own large scale farming operations, and contribute to the growth of Brazil's GDP, mainly through grain exports.

At first glance, it could be said that we're looking at the basic dilemma between sustainable development and development at any cost. Or, between a development model whose productive processes make rational use of natural resources and are based on the activities of rural labourers, and large scale production methods, which are automated and don't require workers. But, in reality, one cannot accept that this should be a dilemma for Brazil at all. The country needs to develop and seek ways to integrate production, conservation and sustainable use. The Forestry Code should actually be the instrument that eliminates dilemmas and makes it all possible.

As it establishes what percentage of each property must be preserved, the Forestry Code aims to guarantee minimal levels of environmental sustainability, independently of the type of production to be undertaken in areas converted to agricultural use – and this is an objective that must be protected by law. In this way, the Forestry Code will be contributing significantly to the existence of truly sustainable development in Brazil. Much has been said about the Forestry Code in recent months, but up until now we have yet to agree on political action that consolidates new legislation appropriately. Society awaits as we all seek a definitive move in this direction, which should be spearheaded by the federal government – it has repeatedly said it is against the proposals put forth by the rural sector.

In the atmosphere of blackmail that reigns in the Brazilian parliament, there is no longer space for appropriate negotiations. Although non-government organizations, and CONTAG – the National Confederation of Agricultural Workers, have put together numerous proposals that might have served as the basis of new legislation, the ruralist lobby in Congress has demonstrated time and again that it is not interested in reaching a consensus. So it is now up to President Fernando Henrique Cardoso to bring together those in the congressional alliance that supports his government, in defense of this law. A final decision involving the Forestry Code may indeed become a marquee moment of the Cardoso era – for better, or for worse. Error: Unable to read footer file.