The politics of Amazonian deforestation: environmental policy and climate change knowledge

Abstract

This article reviews literature on the science and politics of deforestation in the Amazon from 1970 until today, focusing on their shifting meanings and the increasing relevance of climate change knowledge to their understanding and management. Since large‐scale colonization of the region began in the 1970s, the debate on deforestation has been crucial in disputes involving science, development, and the environment. In the last decade, the issue of climate change has become more present in the science, politics, and policies related to deforestation in the Amazon. This debate has helped shift discussions on both the environmental and the development agenda for the region. Although there is a broad agreement that the Amazon is being increasingly integrated into global fluxes of knowledge, goods, and people, not all view this process under the same light. The review concludes that scientific views help condition the development of changing policy arrangements aimed at curbing deforestation, and the incorporation of climate change knowledge is an important aspect of the dynamics of environmental policies in the region. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:689–701. doi: 10.1002/wcc.298 This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Communicating through vulnerability: knowledge politics, inclusion and responsiveness in responsible research and innovation

“…To address these concerns, it is necessary (as in development and environmental politics) for a range of stakeholders to be brought into deliberation over what priorities -and thus whose needs and vulnerabilities -technical and governance innovation should address, ensuring that activism, science and policy enter into dialogue to shape both the definition of problems and the development of solutions (Monteiro, de Seixas, and Vieira 2014). Engagement with publics and civil society organisations is thus an essential part of enacting and realising second-order reflexivity directed at the definition of priorities.…”

The Ability to Influence: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Advocacy Coalitions in Brazilian Climate Politics

“…Deforestation has been the main method for increasing agricultural outcome. In the 1960s and 1970s, the government encouraged agricultural expansion to forest areas to enhance territorial control (Monteiro, Seixas, & Vieira, ; Rajão & Georgiadou, ). Brazil has much private forest, 53% of native vegetation is on privately owned land (Soares‐Filho et al, ).…”

“…Brazil has much private forest, 53% of native vegetation is on privately owned land (Soares-Filho et al, 2014). Because of the high levels of GHG emissions from deforestation and landuse change, the conflict between agricultural expansion and forest preservation is central to Brazilian climate politics (Monteiro et al, 2014).…”

“…In the Forest Code debate, the climate coalition tried the same strategy it had used in the Climate Law debate: using scientific knowledge and co-authoring publications to feed into the debate (Sauer & França, 2012). In 2011, leading Brazilian climate scientists and environmental bureaucrats published "a contribution to the dialogue" on the Forest Code, addressing the environmental and climate risks of deforestation and forest degradation, and suggesting how new technology could enhance output from existing agricultural land (Monteiro et al, 2014;Silva et al, 2011). However, the Forest Code debate developed into a trench war between the agribusiness and climate coalitions, and the climate coalition's scientific framing of the forest-climate issue did not convince the Congress (interviews 8,9,13,20).…”

“…Acting as policy broker, President Rousseff vetoed the most environmentally controversial Forest Code revisions. The agribusiness coalition had nonetheless gained solid congressional support, and Rousseff 's vetoes were watered down when presented for approval in Congress (Monteiro et al, 2014;Viola & Franchini, 2014).…”