Posted on 18 June 2011
Brasilia, Brazil: Nearly 80 percent of Brazilians
want President Dilma Rousseff to veto proposed
changes to the country’s Forest Law that
would dramatically slash forest protection
measures and offer wide-ranging amnesties
for illegal deforestation.
The finding was contained in poll results
carried out by the Datafolha polling institute
in early June at the request of environmental
organizations including WWF-Brazil.
At the other end of the scale, only seven
per cent of respondents supported the proposition
contained in the law passed by the National
Assembly that illegally planted crops should
be allowed to remain
in permanent protection areas beside watercourses
and on steep slopes.
The controversial law, anticipation of which
has already lead to a dramatic upsurge in
some Amazon states, is now entering a possible
four month debate in the Brazilian senate.
The survey found 77 per cent of Brazilians
would like to see this debate postponed
until the voice of science could be heard.
Overwhelming rejection
An overwhelming 95 per cent rejected the
National Assembly bill’s proposal to forgive
illegal deforestation without recuperation
of the forest on the part of producers.
Datafolha interviewed
ore than 1.2 thousand people in all parts
of the country in early June, with a 95
per cent level of confidence that the findings
are within plus or minus three percent of
the nominated figure. Differences between
regions, income brackets and importantly,
between urban and rural Brazilians, were
found to be insignificant.
“It is extraordinary
to find out that such a large part of the
population rejects the Forest Law Reform
proposal that was approved by the House
of Representatives recently,” said WWF-Brazil's
Conservation Director Carlos Alberto de
Mattos Scaramuzza Scaramuzza.
“Now it is the responsibility of the Senate
to hear the voice of the people and prevent
this dismantling of the present Forest Law.
“The strong support
shown by the public for the conservation
of the forests gives the government a good
basis for taking strong action to convince
senators to improve and perfect the current
legislation and guarantee its effective
enforcement and the fulfilment of Brazil's
commitments to emission reduction goals.
“Only in that way can
we provide better protection for the forests,
water for the cities and rural areas, habitat
for biodiversity, soils and pollinators
for agriculture, as well as making a proper
contribution to ensuring a safer climate
situation.”
Few buy the argument
Few Brazilians appear to be buying the agribusiness/ruralista
grouping argument that Forst protections
need to be cut back for the sake of agricultural
productivity. In the framing question of
the survey, 85 per cent of interviewees
said they would give priority to protecting
the forests (even if that eventually limits
agricultural and livestock production) as
opposed to just 10 percent who would give
priority to production (even if that means
limiting the protection of the forests).
Scientists and environmental and community
NGOs have been arguing that Brazil’s low
density of cattle means that there is ample
scope to improve productivity through such
means as pasture improvement without clearing
forests.
Amnesties rejected
Several different questions approached the
issue of amnesties for illegal deforestation.
When three qualified options are offered,
one intermediate between the other two,
it can be seen that the population’s first
choice is in favour of the more rigorous
option offered, that is, to punish deforestation
in every case in order to set an example,
and 48% of interviewees selected it; the
next option was an intermediate position
(to punish only those that refuse to recuperate
the forest) chosen by 45% while the option
of pardoning even those that refuse to recuperate
the forest they destroyed was only selected
by a mere 5% of all those interviewed.
When the options were
restricted to two, 79% declared that in
general they were against pardoning the
sanctions and fines (19% accepted that possibility)
and 77% declared they were against the idea
of lifting the obligation to restore the
forest (while 21% found that possibility
acceptable).
In the case of the illegal
occupation of Permanent Protection areas
(steep slopes, hilltops, várzea flood
lands etc.) the intermediate option prevails,
that is, to maintain only those crops or
activities that are capable of anchoring
the soil and that offer no risk of accident,
to which 66% agreed.
A quarter of respondents (25 per cent of
interviewees) agreed with the option that
all crops should be removed from such areas,
while only seven percent supported maintaining
all crops already in such areas as they
currently stand - the proposal passed by
the House of Representatives.
Other results underlined
the political implications. In addition
to the 79% favouring an eventual veto on
the part of the president should the Senate
decide to validate the version proposed
by the house, an even higher proportion,
84%, confirmed that they would not vote
for representatives or senators that had
voted in favour of pardoning illegal deforestation.
"We hope that the
Senate will prove to be a space for qualified,
coherent and unbiased debates. We are confident
that Brazil will keep on track in fulfilling
its commitments to Brazilian society in
regard to environmental protection and to
the international community in regard to
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
and the conservation of biodiversity,"
said WWF-Brazil's CEO, Denise Hamú.
The questionnaire was administered by the
Datafolha organisation at the request of
Amigos da Terra - Amazônia Brasileira
(Friends of the Earth - Brazilian Amazon),
Imaflora, Imazon, Instituto Socioambiental
(the Socio-environmental Institute), SOS
Atlantic Forest and WWF-Brazil.
