The Amazon is on fire, and European politicians want it to burn even more

The media reports from recent weeks might suggest that forest burning started in Brazil this year. The truth, however, is that one of the world’s most valuable biological regions has been burning for decades. There are many reasons for this, and of course, their common feature is the desire for profit. Amazonia is also on fire because European politicians, regardless of the consequences, had negotiated a trade agreement with South American countries. The new free trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur will make sure that the forests will keep burning for many years to come. 

The image of Amazon’s gradual destruction, giving way to new arable fields, pastures, mines and oil fields, is a permanent part of our reality. Over the past 50 years, the arboreous areas of the Brazilian part of the forest have shrunk by one-fifth, and more figuratively – by an area two and a half times larger than Polish territory. The record-breaking and extremely dry year 2004 saw the loss of forests areas as large as Haiti or a large Polish province – 28 thousand km². Later on, deforestation was hampered significantly, but this year, for the first time in a decade, we are likely to lose more than 10,000 km² of the Amazon again.

To convince those who do not rely on statistics about the destruction of the forest, politicians and celebrities alike have filled their social media accounts with images of the burning Amazon. Emmanuel Macron and Leonardo DiCaprio published their alarming Twitter entries, with a picture taken by a photographer who had died in 2003. As the New York Times reported, Madonna, in turn, chose a photograph from 1989 and published it on her Instagram profile.

Not only nature but also people fell victim of brutally tearing ever larger tracts of land by latifundists and big business representatives. The topic has also been raised in popular culture many times over. In 2013, a book by Artur Domosławski under the meaningful title Death in the Amazon was published on the Polish market, telling the tale of the heroic and tragic fight of nature defenders and the region’s inhabitants. Probably the most famous forest defender, Chico Mendes, murdered by latifundists in 1988, was honoured in a film, later awarded with three Golden Globes. Mendes was also made known thanks to the song recorded by the world-famous (due to collaboration with Carlos Santana) Mexican band Maná.

Although this year’s Amazon fires are nothing special compared to the last half-century, it is not surprising that media images showing plumes of black smoke enveloping Sao Paulo have moved the public opinion deeply. Since the issue is being widely commented by society, politicians will not remain silent for long, even if speaking out would expose their hypocrisy.

Words of outrage roll over Europe

Carried by a wave of social outrage, European decision-makers began to publicly threaten to withdraw the European Union from the free trade agreement with the Mercosur, and thus with the economic bloc focusing Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay in addition to Brazil. The agreement on this issue was only announced a few weeks ago at the G-20 summit in Osaka, following 20 years of negotiations. Regardless, a few days ago Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar announced that if Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro does not refrain from burning the Amazon deliberately, then the Irish government would block the agreement’s entry into force. Emmanuel Macron and Donald Tusk, among others, spoke in a similar tone. Angela Merkel, although she did not question the contract, stated that „our house is on fire and we cannot remain silent”.

The criticism of the Brazilian government is facilitated by the fact that the President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro is simply the perfect bad guy. The „Amazon Trump” cares little for environmental protection and climate change. He called the government agency data regarding the rapid increase in the pace of deforestation a lie, and had its head fired. He accused environmental organizations of setting fire to the forests, allegedly trying to discredit him. He urged foreign politicians not to stick their noses in the matter, because he said that Amazon belongs solely to Brazil.

The Amazon forests in Brazil under Bolsonaro’s rule are to be replaced with arable fields, pastures and rare metal mines. Although the great latifundists have always had a strong grip of Brazilian authorities, now, thanks to Bolsonaro and his ministers of environment and agriculture – Ricardo Salles and Tereza Cristina – they are making decisions on their own, virtually without unnecessary intermediaries. Therefore, even if pressure from international public opinion resulted in the president sending the army to put out fires, it is doubtful that he wanted to solve the problem.

Of course, European politicians know that the exploitation of the Amazon did not start with the Brazilian president’s coming to power and this year’s fires. Bolsonaro, on the other hand, is well aware of the fact that despite all criticism, European politicians are essentially his allies. Now they are wringing their hands about the destructive way of exploiting the Amazon rainforest and the catastrophic consequences for the climate, but the trade agreement they had negotiated between the EU and the Mercosur is based on the logic that leads to the destruction of the natural environment and drives forest burning. When the negotiations were finalized, however, there were no voices of concern for endangered nature. The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, even wrote about „positive effects for the environment and the consumers.”

Meanwhile, the pillar of the new agreement involves liberalizing trade in agricultural products, whose industrial production is the main reason for deforestation. Already today, the lion’s share of goods exported from the Mercosur to the EU, worth over EUR 40 billion, is food, beverages and tobacco (20.5%), soy and coffee (16.3%), as well as meat and animal products (6.1%). In Brazil alone, soybean fields cover an area equal to Germany. Almost a third of all the world’s cattle – short of 300 million – are bred in Brazil and Argentina.

The Brazilian government is counting on the „historic deal” (both Juncker and Bolsonaro have used this term) tripling the Brazilian economy’s exports to the European Union over the next 15 years. This cannot be done without – to use equally professional as euphemistic jargon – intensifying the economic exploitation of the rainforest. In practice, this means further burning and grubbing up the Amazon.

False care

Of course, the EU-Mercosur deal will include a section on sustainable development and environmental protection. However, unlike the lifting of trade barriers, these will not be binding. Despite the words of concern, European politicians are working hand in hand with local industrialists, rubbing their hands at the news of opening South American markets to European cars, machinery and chemical products. Likewise, Bolsonaro and the great landowners in Brazil are honing in on new, preferential beef export prices.

The capitalist logic of a free market is once again triumphing over environmental protection and the fight against climate change. This will not be changed by more or less symbolic gestures, such as Norway and Germany suspending funds for the Amazon Fund, used for financing forest protection projects. So far, around one billion euros have been raised under the mechanism established in 2008. For comparison: the annual value of Brazil’s exports to the European Union alone is EUR 32 billion.

If we want to save the planet’s green lungs, we need much more radical solutions than loose provisions on environmental protection in liberal trade agreements or modest (comparing to the size of the global economy) funds dedicated to ecological projects.

The destruction of the Amazon is a threat to the whole world. To counteract it effectively, we must realize that forest fires are not a temporary crisis or accident at work, but much like oil spills into the oceans or mountains of toxic waste, they are part and parcel of the economic system we have created. To fix this, we need global solutions that go beyond calculating big business profits and political mock-action in times of crisis.

What would this approach look like? In 2007, the then leftist president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, announced the Yasuni-ITT initiative at the UN General Assembly. Its purpose was Ecuador’s withdrawal from oil extraction in the Yasuni National Park, which is part of the Amazon rainforest. It is estimated that the deposits there constitute about 20% of Ecuador’s reserves of this raw material. Correa wished for other countries to compensate Ecuador for the cost or refraining from oil extraction in the amount of half of its estimated profits, for the sake of protecting biodiversity and the climate. The idea was supported by the then UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, as well as celebrities involved in climate protection, such as Leonardo DiCaprio.

In the end, however, instead of $3.5 billion, only a dozen or so million were raised, along with declarations for another two hundred. The international community has concluded that saving the green lungs of the world is too expensive to be expressed in dollars, instead of words and gestures. Finally, in August 2013, Correa announced the project cancelled and the commencement of drilling, justifying his decision, e.g. saying that he would not let at least one Ecuadorian suffer in the name of protecting trees. This argument is often raised in Brazil as well.

While expecting social pressure to force politicians to take decisive steps, we can also reach for individual forms of resistance. Paradoxically, Bolsonaro himself had suggested such a solution. When a journalist asked him if it was possible to reconcile driving the economic prosperity, fighting against world hunger and climate protection, he replied: „Just eat less.” Although the President intended to mock, he is quite right. We can limit our meat consumption by changing our eating habits, or by introducing legal regulations that would adjust its prices. All it takes is to take into account the actual climatic and environmental costs of production. Half of the Brazilian cattle nowadays are bred in areas that have previously been covered with tropical forests.

Polish version is available here.