By JEAN MARC VON DER WEID*
How is this ongoing ecological disaster affecting each of us?
While the smoke does not irritate the eyes, throats and lungs of children and the elderly in metropolitan areas on or near the Brazilian coast, it seems that the fire that is devouring millions of hectares of vegetation in various biomes is not happening in this country but on another continent or another planet.
We are in the midst of an environmental crisis and not even the government, Congress, the press or the candidates for the next municipal elections are aware of the extreme gravity of the situation. It took the city of São Paulo being ranked first among 120 on the planet with the worst air quality for days in a row for there to be any reaction, yet no one (or almost no one) outside the narrow circle of environmentalists and scientists is denouncing the implications of the sea of flames for the near future of the country, much less pointing out who is responsible.
Burning and deforestation have been commonplace and increasing in Brazil since the military decided to “integrate rather than surrender” the Amazon in the 70s. 200 million hectares have been deforested and burned in the last 40 years, since the occupation of the “new agricultural frontiers” accelerated. 73 million of these hectares are located in the Amazon.
In times of major fires, scientists and environmentalists shout, some deputies give speeches, governments prevaricate and the press speculate. Public opinion continues to ignore the causes and consequences of these frightening events and sleeps soundly, although the moon and stars (and even the sun) are extinguished or opaque for a time by the smoke.
Let us begin with the impacts of this prolonged process of destruction. Burning and deforestation are causing climate change in Brazil, faster than in most of the planet. Heat waves are occurring all over the world, due to global warming, to which greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction in carbon capture caused by our deforestation and burning contribute significantly.
We are the sixth largest emitter of CO2, and our contribution to the destruction of the planet comes mainly from burning and deforestation. But the first impact of this warming is right here and more intense than in other parts of the world.
While the rest of the planet is seeing an increase in average temperatures of 1,5°C this year, it is predicted that the Amazon will record an increase of 2025°C by 2,5. These numbers may seem like small numbers to the layman, but they mean maximum temperatures exceeding 40°C very frequently throughout the year, not just in the summer months. For those who do not live in environments controlled by air conditioning, this is more than just an inconvenience, but a real threat to health, especially for children, the elderly and workers in open spaces.
In almost the entire country, the forecast is for increases above the world average: plus 2,5º C in the Northeast, plus 2º C in the Center-West and plus 1,5º C in the Southeast. Only in the South is the predicted increase (1º C) below the world average.
The second serious effect of the deforestation and burning process is the drop in rainfall and, perhaps even more serious, its great irregularity. As we saw this year, Porto Alegre was drowned in a year in which the rest of the country has been experiencing a prolonged drought for two consecutive years, with no prospect of relief in the next rainy season.
Forecasts for next year indicate reductions in average rainfall of 20% in the Amazon, 25% in the Northeast, 15% in the Central-West, and 10% in the Southeast. In the South, rainfall will increase by 5%.
The system of “flying rivers” that irrigate the South, Southeast and Central-West regions with moisture produced by the evapotranspiration of the Amazon rainforest is being thrown out of balance by the destruction of the biome. The regions that concentrate 80% of our agricultural production (almost entirely dependent on rainwater) are subject to losses of 10 to 30% of production, depending on the crop and the region. The impact on the economy will be enormous, both in the trade balance and in the price of food. Hunger, a problem that has not been resolved in Brazil even in less environmentally unfavorable periods, will affect many more people than those who suffer from it today.
Climate imbalance, with less rain, higher temperatures and lower humidity, is already causing a reduction in the flow of our rivers, with the São Francisco River being the most affected, with its flow reduced by 60% in the last 30 years. The effects are being felt in the water supply of several cities, with some already under rationing and others experiencing a worsening of water quality.
The reduction in electricity generation is already high in nine plants, five of them in São Francisco (Sobradinho, Apolônio Sales, Paulo Afonso, Luiz Gonzaga and Xingó). Everyone will feel the cost of the red flags from the National System Operator that will activate the thermoelectric plants, increasing our contribution to the use of fossil fuels with the consequent increase in CO emissions.2.
The unbreathable air in São Paulo is making headlines in major cities, but cities in the north and center-west have been affected year after year for a long time. And it's a good idea to prepare for an increasingly frequent repetition of this "bad weather" from now on.
Who is responsible for this state of affairs?
According to most newspapers and television commentators, the most cited cause is “global warming,” without going into detail about who is responsible for this phenomenon. It can be said that the Brazilian press has taken a step forward in understanding the problem, because at least it does not deny global warming. But for many people, this is a natural phenomenon, independent of human factors. Among evangelicals, a resigned position such as “it is God’s will” or “God punishes us for our sins” is common. Nothing is more paralyzing from the point of view of the need to do something.
In Congress, but also in the Legislative Assemblies, in the federal executive, but also in the State and City Halls, there is a prevailing paralysis and disregard for the catastrophe that is plaguing us now and threatening us in the future, except to ask for federal money for palliative measures.
The powerful ruralist bloc is not saying a word when discussing the crisis, except to ask for compensatory funds for the losses of agribusiness. Worse than that, the illustrious parliamentarians have 20 bills in the pipeline to dismantle our already very flawed and ignored environmental legislation. It is the “herd passing by”, just like in the times of Bolsonaro and his criminal Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles.
Among the most frequent evaluations heard on TV, the concept of “good agribusiness” appears, the one used in advertising (“agriculture is technology…”). According to several commentators, there is a “modern”, “sustainable” and “environmentally friendly” sector and this sector has been called upon to speak out by more than one TV anchor. There is no in-depth discussion of who, in contrast to this sector, would be the “bad” agribusiness, the predator of the environment. Could it be responsible for the fires and deforestation? No one says this outright; in most cases it is implied.
Some numbers can help us think about our agribusiness. According to the 51.203 census, there are 2017 properties with more than a thousand hectares, occupying 167 million hectares. But the level of land concentration is even more astonishing: just 2.450 rural landowners with areas larger than ten thousand hectares occupy 51,6 million hectares! The first group of agribusiness leaders represents only 1% of all rural producers, whether employers or family-owned.
The second represents 0,05% of the total number of producers. In terms of location, nearly 75% of these large agribusiness producers are located in the Southeast, South and Central-West regions. These are the major soybean, corn, sugarcane, coffee, orange and cotton plantations. The largest cattle breeders are located in the Amazon and Cerrado, with nearly 65% of the national cattle herd.
Agribusiness is highly concentrated in terms of land ownership, but this concentration is even greater in terms of capital and production value. Just 25 of these superproducers are responsible for 60% of the basic value of agricultural production (VBP). This concentration of economic power is reflected in the concentration of political power.
The agribusiness economic elite dominates the sector's entities, including the more conventional National Confederation of Agriculture and the more recent and dynamic Brazilian Agribusiness Association. This economic power is used to finance high-impact advertising campaigns and, above all, to elect the largest thematic group in the national congress: the ruralist group. Under Bolsonaro, the executive branch has become a kind of appendix to the think thanks do LOBBY of agribusiness, adopting the entire sector's agenda.
Let us remember that agribusiness is not just the primary sector, made up of farmers and livestock breeders, but also includes the industries of inputs (pesticides, seeds, fertilizers and machinery) and processing and related services. There are powerful lobbies such as the associations of zebu and nelore cattle breeders, or Aprosoja, Abiove, etc. But some large companies play a prominent role, among them the large meatpacking companies, especially JBS, the largest meat processing company in the world. And they are the ones who define the policies for the biomes that have been burning for months.
Both cattle ranchers and soy and cotton producers in the Amazon and Cerrado benefit from the land grabbing process that accompanies the occupation of these territories. It is the cheapest land in the world, making our meat one of the most competitive agribusiness products on the international market.
The illegally seized lands, almost all of which are federal property, have cost the occupants nothing for a long time. Documents are forged to “legalize” the sale of illegally deforested and burned lands, and from time to time, successive governments grant amnesty for these crimes. Cattle ranchers buy the lands and exploit them to the point of deforestation, selling the cattle to “good agribusiness” to fatten them in areas that have not been recently deforested.
And the meatpacking plants, the most powerful sector of Brazilian agribusiness, buy cheap cattle and export or sell the meat to the domestic market, all duly certified. It must be the most profitable sector of agribusiness here and worldwide.
And what about cattle ranchers in other regions, many of whom have cutting-edge technology and even sustainable management of their livestock? Their meat is more expensive, but of better quality and fetches better prices even in Argentina. Are these businesspeople respectful of the environment and able to adapt to the new European Union rules with tracking to prevent the purchase of meat from areas deforested since 2020? And why don't they fight for national legislation that requires this practice? Is this a solidarity with the agrotroglodytes of the Amazon, Cerrado and Pantanal?
I suspect that this so-called “modern” sector has an interest in the continuation of cattle farming in deforested areas. If the EU legislation is put into practice next year, and with the Chinese, Americans and English discussing similar measures, there will be a block on exports of Brazilian beef, which will not be certified. More than half of our beef exports will be held up in the domestic market and national prices will fall.
On the other hand, those who have certified meat will be able to take advantage of the increase in the price of meat on the international market (due to the blockade) and our “good” livestock agribusiness will be swimming with ease for a long time. This seems to me to be a very reasonable calculation to explain the complicit silence of the “modern” agribusiness sectors and the lack of action for legislation on traceability.
Meat tracking should be a national law that is strictly and urgently enforced to stop deforestation and fires in the Amazon, Cerrado and Pantanal. The government does not want to confront agribusiness in Congress and would rather create yet another environmental agency, called the “Climate Authority”. I will not discuss the importance of this instrument, but by the time it is in place and operational, the mess could be completely ruined.
In Brazil, it is always like this: when faced with an emergency, a committee is created to discuss what to do, while it has long been known that the measure capable of containing the process of deforestation and fires is the tracking of cattle and the certification of meat. The threats of control by Ibama or ICMBio and the Federal Police are negligible, even if their employees are multiplied by thousands.
There are many land grabbers deforesting and burning land with or without the protection of drug trafficking militias, which also operate in illegal mining. And they count on the complicity of local justice, civil and military police, governors and mayors. The strangulation of these criminal processes will only be effective with measures that prevent their products from being placed on the market. On the other hand, public and private banks could join in the fight, requiring tracking in order to finance meatpacking plants and cattle ranchers. In the case of private banks, this does not even require a specific law, only an administrative resolution.
It is not enough to make speeches during “concerned” visits to the affected areas, as Lula is a master at doing. Scientists say that in another two or three years with the current rates of deforestation and burning, the Amazon rainforest will collapse. This is not a localized collapse; this has already occurred throughout the “arc of fire” that stretches from northern Mato Grosso to southern Pará, Tocantins, Matopiba, Rondônia and Acre. We are talking about a process of degeneration of the entire remaining forest, which will lead to the transformation of the large humid plain, cut through by huge rivers, into a dry, shrubby savannah and, over time, into a desert.
We must consider another imminent effect of this disaster: the displacement of the population to cities in the three biomes mentioned, which will extend to the large metropolises of the southeast and south. Several tens of millions of Brazilians will become climate refugees and increase urban poverty in the country.
The Northeast, for more general climatic reasons, is also rapidly moving from semi-arid to arid, even without the intensity of deforestation discussed in this article. The forecast of an average temperature increase of around 3°C in the region will imply a 30% loss in agricultural productivity, mainly affecting family farming. We are facing the strong likelihood of a return to the social crises arising from droughts, crises that lasted until the 1970s. In the past, fleeing droughts, “migrants” migrated to a very broad “South”, from the metropolitan cities of the Southeast to the rural areas of Paraná and São Paulo. Where will the new migrants go?
Brazilian agribusiness has always been adept at the indiscriminate use of fire to expand its crops and pastures. Today, the disaster is proportional to the power acquired by this sector. It knows very well that in the wake of this advance, tens of millions of hectares (between 80 and 100 hectares) of “degraded areas” remain, but as long as there is land to be illegally occupied and forests to be burned, the process will continue.
And then what? Well, then they will fly to Miami and enjoy the dollars they have earned. Little do they know that the rise in the oceans caused by global warming that they are helping to increase will swallow up the paradise of the rich Brazilians.
*Jean Marc von der Weid is a former president of the UNE (1969-71). Founder of the non-governmental organization Family Agriculture and Agroecology (ASTA).
To read the first article in this series click on https://aterraeredonda.com.br/queimadas/
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
