EDITORIALS
The Burning Question of Amazon Fires
Jair Bolsonaro’s denial of climate crisis and assault on indigenous communities intensifies the calamity.
D
angerous plumes of smoke rise from sections of the vast
Amazon rainforest, a 5.5 million square kilometre (km2)
carbon sink. During the worst of the fires, the smoke had
covered the sky of Brazil’s eastern seaboard, where the country’s
largest population lives. Brazil’s National Institute for Space
Research (INPE) says that there has been an 84% increase in the
number of fires compared to 2018, with more than 74,000 fires
tearing through one of the world’s most biodiverse regions.
Fires are not uncommon, since these occur regularly in the dry
season. But this year’s fires are extreme, which is why there has
been global concern about them.
Scientists at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute
(IPAM) say that the fires this year have been most devastating in
the 10 Amazon municipalities, which have seen the most defor-
estation. The drought of 2016 certainly plays some role in the
fires, but—IPAM scientists argue—the hypothesis that these fires
are caused by drought or by any natural cycles “must be rejected.”
Rather, IPAM notes, “despite being the dry season, moisture levels
in the Amazon are currently above average compared to the last
three years.” Based on the work of IPAM and the Deforestation
Alert System, the scientists point out that “the only plausible
explanation is that deforestation is fanning the flames.”
Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro neither believes in climate
science nor in scientific forestry and forest conservation. Early
in August, the head of the INPE—Ricardo Galvão—had warned
that the deforestation rates in Brazil had been excessive. He
said that in June 2019 itself, the Amazon lost 2,072 km2 in
forestry, a region larger than the country of Mali. Bolsonaro
called this a “lie” and fired Galvão. On behalf of the logging,
mining, and agrobusiness industries, Bolsonaro slashed fund-
ing to the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable
Natural Resources (IBAMA) by 20% during the first six months
of 2019. He said that the IBAMA officials were too zealous in
their regulations; they would “arrive with a pen in each hand,
applying astronomical fines.” The Amazon, he said, was open
for business.
The logging, mining, and agrobusiness industries have per-
ceived the presence of the indigenous communities inside the
Amazon as a major obstacle. They have resisted turning the forest
into commodities. The 1988 Constitution of Brazil created vast
reserves—mostly in the Amazon—that are for the indigenous
communities (who make up 0.6% of the Brazilian population).
Bolsonaro, and his right-wing clique, have been genocidal in
their attitude towards the Amerindians. Tashka Yawanawa, the
leader of the Yawanawa community, says that the indigenous
people are facing “genocide” in the Amazon.
8 AUGUST 31, 2019
Bolsonaro blamed the fires on conservationist non-govern-
mental organisations. He said that they had deliberately set
these fires to embarrass Brazil and to undermine his pro-busi-
ness agenda. There is no evidence to sustain his claim. This is
one more inflammatory statement from Brazil’s President.
Anger at Bolsonaro has crested in the last two weeks of
August. Mass demonstrations have taken place across Brazil,
with the epicentre in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Chants at
these protests reflect the mood—“The Amazon belongs to the
people” and “The Amazon stays, Bolsonaro goes.” Bolsonaro’s
approval ratings have slipped rapidly, with a CNT/MDA poll
showing that 39.5% of those in the survey say that his govern-
ment is “bad or terrible,” and with his personal approval rating
now at 29.4% (from 38.9% in January). The impact of the Amazon
fires, Bolsonaro’s unscientific reaction, and the protests have
put pressure on the government.
Things got worse when Europe began to openly criticise
Bolsonaro, and to threaten his two main trade and policy objectives.
European farmers pressured the European Union (EU) to stop the
import of Brazilian beef. This by itself was harmful, but worse
yet when this pressure morphed into the threat that the EU
would pull out of the trade pact with Mercosur (the bloc that
comprises Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela).
Furthermore, Bolsonaro had hoped to take Brazil into the
OECD—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment, the 36-country body that sees itself as “developed,”
Now, Brazil’s entry into the OECD is in doubt.
At the G7 meeting in France, a special session was held to
discuss the Amazon crisis. United States President Donald
Trump, who is close to Bolsonaro, did not attend. The G7
pledged $20 million—a very small amount—to fight the fires.
Bolsonaro rejected the money as an “unreasonable and gratui-
tous attack on the Amazon.” However feeling the pressure, he
has sent in the army to help fight the fire. Nevertheless, even
this feeble response seems to have emerged from instrumental
concerns rather than emerging from the intrinsic worth of the
Amazon forests and the people who live there.
Meanwhile, Brazil’s fires have swept into Bolivia, where its
President Evo Morales hastened to hire a super-tanker to help
douse the flames. Bolivia has a Law of Mother Earth on its
books, which grants nature equal rights with humans. The stark
difference in the response of these two countries shows how the
political–ideological orientation of the governments determines
their positions on ecological and humanitarian crises. There-
fore, the task of saving the Amazon cannot be dissociated from
the struggle to establish a just and decent sociopolitical order.
vol lIV no 35 EPW Economic & Political Weekly