Avança Brasil: Environmental and Social Consequences of Brazil's Planned Infrastructure in Amazonia

“Avança Brasil” (Forward Brazil) is a package of 338 projects throughout Brazil; the portion of the plan to be carried out in Brazil's Legal Amazon region totals US$43 billion over 8 years, US$20 billion of which would be for infrastructure causing environmental damage. Brazil's environmental impact assessment system is not yet capable of coping with the challenge presented by Avança Brasil. Generic problems with the licensing process include stimulation of a lobby in favor of construction before decisions are made on the advisability of the projects, the “dragging effect” of third parties, whereby economic activity is attracted to the infrastructure but escapes the environmental impact assessment system, a tendency for consulting firms to produce favorable reports, a bureaucratic emphasis on the existence of steps without regard to the content of what is said, and the inability to take account of the chain of events unleashed when a given project is undertaken.The environmental and social costs of forest loss are high; among them is loss of opportunities for sustainable use of the forest, including loss of environmental services such as biodiversity maintenance, water cycling, and carbon storage. The benefits of export infrastructure are meager, especially from the point of view of generating employment. Much of the transportation infrastructure is for soybeans, while the hydroelectric dams contribute to processing aluminum. The example of Avança Brasil makes clear the need to rethink how major development decisions are made and to reconsider a number of the plan's component projects.     

Why a 100-Year Time Horizon should be used for GlobalWarming Mitigation Calculations

Global warming mitigation calculationsrequire consistent procedures for handlingtime in order to compare `permanent' gainsfrom energy-sector mitigation options with`impermanent' gains from many forest-sectoroptions. A critical part of carbonaccounting methodologies such as thosebased on `ton-years' (the product of thenumber of tons of carbon times the numberof years that each ton is held out of theatmosphere) is definition of a timehorizon, or the time period over whichcarbon impacts and benefits are considered. Here a case is made for using a timehorizon of 100 years. This choice avoidsdistortions created by much longer timehorizons that would lead to decisionsinconsistent with societal behavior inother spheres; it also avoids a rapidincrease in the implied value of time ifhorizons shorter than 100 years are used.Selection of a time horizon affectsdecisions on financial mechanisms andcarbon credit. Simple adaptations canallow a time horizon to be specified andused to calculate mitigation benefits andat the same time reserve a given percentageof weight in decision making forgenerations beyond the end of the timehorizon. The choice of a time horizon willheavily influence whether mitigationoptions such as avoided deforestation areconsidered viable.     

How Well Does Brazil's Environmental Law Work in Practice? Environmental Impact Assessment and the Case of the Itapiranga Private Sustainable Logging Plan

/ The Itapiranga Sustainable Logging Plan provides an example of how Brazil's licensing system functions for logging companies in the state of Amazonas. Two questions need to be dealt with: "How sustainable can logging in the Amazon be?" and "What and how effective are existing legal mechanisms to deal with logging projects?" The environmental impact assessment (EIA) and environmental impact statement (EIS, known as the RIMA in Brazil), present relatively detailed accounts of biodiversity and the need to adopt conservation strategies to protect it. However, social and health impacts are only superficially addressed. The economic sustainability of the operation over multiple cycles is not demonstrated. The multidisciplinary teams responsible for the EIA and EIS (RIMA) reports are hired by the project proponent, an arrangement inherently carrying the risk of biasing the result. Logging reduces biodiversity, releases greenhouse gases and inflicts social and health costs. These impacts reduce the ability of Amazonian forests to provide environmental services and to supply food and livelihood security to local populations. The reports inflate positive effects such as employment: the estimated number of jobs was cut by more than half in a revision made after the EIA and EIS (RIMA) had been approved. Not only do the reports need to be more realistic in assessing both positive and negative consequences of proposed projects, but better means are needed to ensure that promised mitigatory measures are enforced in practice. Many of the lessons that can be drawn from the Itapiranga Plan are not unique to logging projects and apply to licensing of development activites generally in Brazil and elsewhere.     

Political benefits as barriers to assessment of environmental costs in Brazil's Amazonian development planning: The example of the Jatapu Dam in Roraima

Development projects are rapidly changing the landscape in Brazilian Amazonia. Environmental impact assessments have been required since 1986, and the regulatory system is evolving as precedents are set by each new development project. The Jatapu Dam in Roraima provides an illustration of underlying impediments to assessment of environmental costs and to due consideration being given to these assessments when decisions are made. The high priority placed on the dam by the Roraima state government is unexplainable in terms of economic returns. The place of the dam in a long-term political strategy provides the best of several possible explanations, any one of which is incompatible with a rational weighing of economic and environmental costs and benefits. A number of lessons can be drawn from the experience of Jatapu, but some of the problems have no solution. The barriers to rational decision making illustrated by Jatapu apply to development projects in many parts of the world.     

Carbon credit for hydroelectric dams as a source of greenhouse-gas emissions: the example of Brazil’s Teles Pires Dam

Carbon credit is granted to hydroelectric dams under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the assumptions that (1) the dams would not be built without CDM funding and (2) over the 7 to 10-year duration of the projects the dams would have minimal emissions as compared to the fossil fuel-generated electricity they displace. Both of these assumptions are false, especially in the case of tropical dams such as those planned in Amazonia. Brazil’s Teles Pires Dam, now under construction, provides a concrete example indicating the need for reform of CDM regulations by eliminating credit for hydroelectric dams.     

The Value of Human Life in Global Warming Impacts

A recent article in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change by Fankhauser and Tol makes monetary estimates of potential global warming damages that assign higher value to each life lost in wealthy countries as opposed to poor ones. Regardless of how much sense such a procedure may make to GDP-oriented economists, it is morally unacceptable to most of the world and needlessly damages efforts to build support for any global warming mitigation and adaptation strategies that may be proposed. A better solution would be to use a money value of zero for human life losses and report separately the monetary and human life costs of warming (and benefits of mitigation). This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Amazonian forest loss and the long reach of China’s influence

This paper explores China’s role in deforestation in Latin America. Brazil’s Amazon region contains vast natural resources including land, timber, minerals and hydroelectric potential. China’s strong economy and large demands relative to domestic supplies of these resources mean that China has become Brazil’s largest trading partner, primarily for natural resources. The paper examines how China influences deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia in a variety of ways, including through the direct influence of Chinese enterprises through land purchases and other mechanisms. This paper finds that the rapid rise in exports of soy and beef products to China are two of the major drivers of Amazonian deforestation in Brazil. The paper further argues that Chinese purchases of agricultural and forest land and Chinese imports of commodities such as timber and aluminum also cause environmental impacts in Amazonia. Chinese financing and investment in Amazonian infrastructure such as railways and mineral processing facilities have additional impacts.