Ecocide in the Amazon: the contested politics of environmental rights in Brazil

Raftopoulos, Malayna; Morley, Joanna

doi:10.1080/13642987.2020.1746648

Cited by 51 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regional and global climate change, for example, have decreased the resilience of forests, making them more vulnerable to disturbances such as fires and edge effects (Matricardi et al, 2020). In addition, the administration of President Jair Bolsonaro has presided over rollbacks of protective policies and budget cuts for government agencies in charge of environmental enforcement (IBAMA) and indigenous affairs (FUNAI) (Raftopoulos and Morley, 2020). With weaker monitoring and management of ITs and PNAs (Artaxo, 2019;Escobar, 2019b), an increase in illegal invasions and escaped fires contributed to growing carbon losses from protected forests after 2018.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With weaker monitoring and management of ITs and PNAs (Artaxo, 2019;Escobar, 2019b), an increase in illegal invasions and escaped fires contributed to growing carbon losses from protected forests after 2018. Moreover, the land rights of Indigenous people and local communities have been undermined through negligence (e.g., allowing illegal invasions and fires to proceed unchecked); failure to implement the law (e.g., halting the demarcation of new ITs); and attempts to roll back existing land rights or promote land uses incompatible with forest conservation in ITs (Raftopoulos and Morley, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Deforestation: Carbon Emissions From Land Grabbing and Forest Degradation in the Brazilian Amazon

Kruid

Macedo

Gorelik

et al. 2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon losses from forest degradation and disturbances are significant and growing sources of emissions in the Brazilian Amazon. Between 2003 and 2019, degradation and disturbance accounted for 44% of forest carbon losses in the region, compared with 56% from deforestation (forest clearing). We found that land tenure played a decisive role in explaining these carbon losses, with Undesignated Public Forests and Other Lands (e.g., private properties) accounting for the majority (82%) of losses during the study period. Illegal deforestation and land grabbing in Undesignated Public Forests widespread and increasingly are important drivers of forest carbon emissions from the region. In contrast, indigenous Territories and Protected Natural Areas had the lowest emissions, demonstrating their effectiveness in preventing deforestation and maintaining carbon stocks. These trends underscore the urgent need to develop reliable systems for monitoring and reporting on carbon losses from forest degradation and disturbance. Together with improved governance, such actions will be crucial for Brazil to reduce pressure on standing forests; strengthen Indigenous land rights; and design effective climate mitigation strategies needed to achieve its national and international climate commitments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Deforestation: Carbon Emissions From Land Grabbing and Forest Degradation in the Brazilian Amazon

Kruid

Macedo

Gorelik

et al. 2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That particular biome has experienced ever new deforestation hotspots [75], either from state-sanctioned activities sold as necessary for economic subsistence, such as wildcat mining [76], or the clandestine roadbuilding frequently associated with illegal logging [77]. There is a growing push for industrialization in the Amazon but, under a business-as-usual mindset, that has meant broad environmental destruction that some describe as an ongoing "ecocide" [78]. Indigenous peoples and other local populations that hold a wealth of traditional knowledge have, in turn, experienced significant violence in a reproduction of colonial patterns of territorial occupation [70].…”

Section: Knowledge On Species and Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bioeconomy–Biodiversity Nexus: Enhancing or Undermining Nature’s Contributions to People?

Lima

Palme

2021

Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioeconomy has become fundamental for a post-fossil-resources society, in line with climate change mitigation ambitions. Although it does not have a single, consensual definition, the bioeconomy encompasses various bio-based value chains and economic activities relying on biodiversity. How these burgeoning developments may affect biodiversity, however, still needs further examination. This article explores the bioeconomy–biodiversity nexus through the lens of nature’s contributions to people (NCPs). Drawing from the bioeconomy literature and Amazonian experiences, we argue that the bioeconomy may: (i) help conserve or restore habitats, (ii) improve knowledge on biodiversity, (iii) valorize livelihoods and increase social participation, and (iv) aid in moving beyond the commodification of nature. However, none of these achievements can be taken for granted. To date, the bioeconomy has focused mainly on extracting goods from nature (e.g., food, energy, or biochemicals), often at the expense of NCPs that require integral ecosystems and are decisive for a sustainable society in the longer run. Moreover, we assert that it is critical to discern the beneficiaries of various contributions, as “people”, in reality, are composed of distinct groups that relate differently to nature and have different preferences regarding trade-offs. The NCPs framework can help broaden synergies in the bioeconomy–biodiversity nexus, but inclusive governance remains critical.

show abstract

“…Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro has become perhaps the best-known example and target in the rising demands for making powerholders responsible for their acts against the environment. Raftopoulos and Morley (2020, 1632-1633 argue that "Bolsonaro's policy, supported by Brazilian business sectors, to open up the region at any cost, is in line with the criteria set out in the preamble of the Ecocide Act with regard to the aiding, abetting, counseling, and procuring of the systematic ecocide of the Amazon." Raftopoulos and Morley (2020) use the term extractivist imperialism to describe the so-called developmental actions of the Bolsonaro regime.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%