Brazil in Focus

A new social pact for the environment rewrites the Forest Code 

by Kátia Abreu
After years of discussion involving all sectors of society and stakeholders, and intense coverage by the media, the Brazilian Parliament is getting ready to cast a conclusive vote on reform of our Forest Code. A close and unbiased reading of the bill will show that it contains the strictest and most rigorous rules for land use of any country in the world. Unfortunately, the Brazilian subsidiaries of international environmental groups - not always known for their balance and impartiality - have interpreted the new Code as a plot to boost rural productity at the expense of environmental conservation.

As Brazil has become a major agricultural producer in recent decades, some are under the impression that this growth took place to the detriment of our natural landscapes. But the data suggests otherwise. Brazil's national territory covers 851 million hectares, of which 519 million hectares - nearly two-thirds of the total - are preserved and still covered with native vegetation.

In the Brazilian Amazon, where all eyes turn, 83% of the region's 420 million hectares are as pristine as they were when Brazil was discovered, in April 1500. In the Cerrado, the Brazilian savanna, where grain and fiber crops have spread most rapidly, 51.5% of the total 206 million hectares are intact. Even in the Atlantic Rainforest, where most of the country's population and cities are concentrated, 27.7% of the territory is and will remain preserved, a standard of conservation not found in any other country.

The large increase in agricultural production resulted not from extensive land occupation, but mostly from giant gains in technology and productivity. Between 1965 - the year the old Forest Code was published - and today, our annual grain production jumped from 20 million to 160 million tons, a 700% increase, while the area under cultivation expanded from 31 million to 59 million hectares, an increase of only 91%. If we farmed today the same way we did in 1965, we would have had to raze an additional 90 million hectares of wilderness.

The same is true for livestock production. In 1965 we produced 2.1 million tons of meat on 138 million hectares of pasture, while today we produce 25 million tons a year on 160 million hectares. That is, we produce eight times as much beef with only a 14.8% increase in grazing area. It's simply a myth to say that agricultural production in Brazil automatically means more deforestation and the destruction of natural habitats.

So why have Brazilian farmers tried so hard to change the law? Before answering that question, let me make it clear that all major existing environmental safeguards in the current law are preserved in the new law. The most important one states that for conservation purposes all farms should set aside a proportion of their land as off limits to production with no compensation to the owner. This is called the Legal Reserve, which stipulates preservation of 80% of private land in the Amazon forest, 35% in the Amazonian savannas and 20% in other regions. Nowhere else in the world are there such severe nationwide restrictions on farming and grazing. This standard remains unchanged.

Another rule that remains is the requirement that private landowners establish permanent preservation areas along streams, watersheds and steep slopes. Anyone acquainted with the United States, Europe or China knows that rivers in these regions have mostly been stripped of their protected band of vegetation along their banks, which are usually covered by crops, pastures and settlements. And their mountains, when fertile, are given to livestock production.

Under the new law, Brazilian landowners will be required by the Ministry of the Environment to restore some 30 million hectares of natural cover in valleys and watershed historically occupied by Brazilian farmers and herders. Such compensation is unprecedented. After all since Babylonia and ancient Egypt farmers have always sought out the river valleys, and there is no record that they were ever criminalized in their societies in their day.

Why, then, does the law need to change? First, to adapt its mechanisms to the country's current reality. The Forest Code was published in 1965, at the start of our cycle of military governments, a time when Brazil practiced traditional and low-tech agriculture which could not produce enough crops for domestic consumption. Brazil was then a net food importer. In those days, most of Brazil's territory was only sparsely populated. Brazil today is a completely different country. Our agricultural harvests rank among the top 3 in the world, and our GDP has multiplied tenfold.

Since then, and acting according to the circumstances of their time, successive governments have published abundant environmental rules, producing a jungle of regulations that created a climate of insecurity for producers. The goal of the new law is to codify all legislation definitely, through proper processes in Congress, establishing a secure and stable benchmark for environmental regulation in the field and eliminating legal uncertainty, including the all too frequent practice of applying environmental rules retroactively to penalize conduct that was once perfectly lawful.

Contrary to the version by environmentalist propagandists, the new Forest Code does not encourage deforestation or grant amnesty to violators of the old laws. Above all, this is a new social pact for the environment. It is rigorous, restrictive, and the result of a consensus calculated using the instruments and institutions of representative democracy, which will make its application much more spontaneous.

Environmental laws should be like all others. They should be debated and voted democratically, and must express the will of the majority. No social group or political movement can impose their worldview on an entire society. This is what Brazil's new forestry law teaches us.

Kátia Abreu is a Brazilian Senator from the Social Democratic Party, representing Tocantins, and President of the Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock Confederation (CNA). Translation: Roman Gautam