Deforestation control in MT needs concrete measures and adjustments [21/11/2006 11:55]

In an article written for the Special Feature on Deforestation that ISA has been publishing since November 6, Mato Grosso State Secretary of the Environment, Mr. Marcos Henrique Machado, points to the urgency of certain federal actions that must be carried out so that deforestation may be kept under control. Among them, the division of inspection per region or property size, between IBAMA and the State Environmental Secretariat, with objective standardised criteria that seek the optimisation of expenses, personnel, time and effectiveness in actions of common competency that gear towards environmental policy and management of the state of Mato Grosso.

Mato Grosso Environment Secretary , Marcos Machado

Mato Grosso is a mosaic of customs, cultures, economic development and environmental diversity. The most Brazilian of Brazilian states greeted North-easterners searching for diamonds and gold; southerners, paulistas and mineiros attracted by the extensive fertile soils that might produce grains and fatten cattle at low costs, as well as Arabs, Japanese, Paraguayans and Russians, all of them attracted by the available and accessible natural riches.

It was the state that received the most national financial incentives for land occupation and exploration by Brazilians and foreigners who sought easy wealth and whose main activity was mineral and vegetal extraction, followed by extensive cattle-raising and mechanised agriculture. 

The federal program, which culminated in the creation of the Legal Amazon Region, for example, didn’t aim at protecting the Amazonian biome, but at the economic development of the territory. The motto of the military government was “to integrate not to give away” (the Amazon to the USA). Devoid of a socio-economic-environmental zoning, or an environmental control since the 1970’s, it turned into a champion federal unit of grain and beef production, in addition to being a candidate to reach first place in pork and fowl production in a short period of time. 

Demographic data: area of 903.357.908 km²; Towns: 141; Global population over 2.800.000; Production of grains and fibres: 23 million tons; Cattle: 26 million heads; Alcohol distillation: 704,7 million litres; Sugar production: 10,1 million sacks; River Basins: Amazon, Prata and Tocantins; 35.500.000 ha. of opened area, with 25% for cattle-raising and 8.5% for agriculture (1,5% soy). It contains 39 state protected areas, 50 municipal protected areas and 08 federal protected areas. In its territory there is the equivalent of 30% of federal land, 17% of which is Indian reservations with over 25 thousand Indians distributed in 66 indigenous reservations. 

Mato Grosso is a state with agricultural and cattle-raising capacity that could feed the world. Even though it holds this remarkable environmental and economic heritage, the state quickly matured in the environmental area after a “enough is enough” position by Governor Blairo Maggi, who saw the state considered as a national symbol of deforestation by pseudo-guilt of the agribusiness, while, in truth of fact, disorder fell on forest exploration, be it because of the duplicity between the federal and state legislation, be it due to the endemic corruption within the workings of IBAMA in Mato Grosso before May 2005, when Operation Curupira was started. 

With the unconditional support of Minister Marina Silva and her exemplary team, not forgetting Marcus Barros, President of IBAMA, the state signed a Technical Cooperation Term (Termo de Cooperação Técnica) with the Ministry of the Environment and with IBAMA. The Term defined its competency, corrected and perfected its legislation, created a new environmental agency with a first-rate stature (Secretariat); displaying organisational structure, with personnel and budget. Internal partnerships with state agencies were created as well as external with non-governmental and environmental organisations, the productive sectors, with Public Universities (Federal and State), in addition to opening up the processes, programs, projects and, especially, data and statistics of the State and Federal Public Ministries, and began receiving the notifications and recommendations from the above partner institutions as legitimate tutors of the environment, supporting and supervising environmental policies and management. 

The government’s will, which inspired and kept latent the pact taken between the State of Mato Grosso and the Union through the Ministry of the Environment and IBAMA, lies in proving that it is possible to produce, generate jobs, public revenue and, at the same time, preserve its protected areas and its permanent preservation areas, as well as manage private legal reserves, and natural heritage private reserves. Nonetheless, news of deforestation is heard all the time, fostering concern and diffuse reactions. 

It is necessary to understand at first that deforestation in Mato Grosso will go on along the years, that is, as long as the legislation foresees the possibility to suppress the vegetation in rural properties in percentages that fixate the legal reserve, according to the biome. 

Secondly, contrary to what IBAMA imagined, when it brought a civil action suit against the State of Mato Grosso, before the pact signed in September 2005, aiming to prohibit the licensing of rural property with legal reserves of 50%, when, in point of fact, the state law was much more rigid if the ecological tension of the contact of the umbrophile forest and the cerrado is considered, the absolute majority of the environmental licensing processes revised are faced with predominately savannah vegetation cover and not only ecotone as it was said to sustain the legal reserve of 80% of the Amazon region. Then, instead of imposing the obligation to the farmer/cattle raiser of recovering or allowing the regeneration of over 30% of the vegetation, this rural land owner starts having the right to deforest or use 65% of his property. In short, the environment, instead of gaining 30%, is losing 15% of vegetation. 

Third, it is necessary to understand that one of the greatest villains of deforestation is land settlement. The state environmental agency hasn’t licensed even 5% of the federal settlements. There is no planning, nor is there an environmental licensing plan presented by Incra (National Institute for Agrarian Reform and Colonisation - Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária) that assures the environmental interest in the settlement areas. 

One mustn’t mistake illegal deforestation, which is an environmental crime and which suppresses the legal reserve or preservation area, with irregular deforestation, arising from the absence of environmental authorisation for lack of tempestive licensing. In such cases, that which is seen as illegal, and is penalised with a fine, may be regulated and licensed, provided the legal reserve percentage and areas of permanent preservation are respected. Nonetheless, there is a great distance between the official discourse and that which is actually done, when dealing with combating  deforestation in Mato Grosso. 

It can’t be denied that the state of Mato Grosso has developed and implemented a satellite deforestation monitoring system, which has been  dubbed “the environmental eye”. It is a highly efficient technological instrument that has reduced the levels of deforestation, and brought the rural producer to the environmental agency in order to be licensed. The Decentralised Actions Superintendence (Superintendência de Ações Descentralizadas - from SEMA, the Secretariat of the Environment) was created, the Environmental Police was restructured with the widening of the area, vehicles and equipment were bought, government admission tests were carried out and public servers appointed to the inspection area. Civil disobedience, however, carried on. 

As suggested by ISA’s lawyer, André Lima (ISA), on November 20, the Combat Group against Illegal Deforestation in Mato Grosso was created. Nonetheless, it is necessary to recognise that concrete federal actions must be adopted and implemented in Mato Grosso, such as: 1) allocation of resources through specific partnerships to be settled with the state agency for the acquisition of vehicles, equipment and the training of public servants and volunteer agents, as the Term of Technical Cooperation doesn’t foresee transfer of resources, but only of attributions, which, though disposed in the state legislation, is the target of disagreement and divergence and even disobedience by IBAMA public servants in Mato Grosso; 

2) implementation of the Situation Room (Sala de Situação), idealised by IBAMA’s diligent Inspection Coordinator, Art Fleck, in order to improve communication and common support between IBAMA and SEMA in Mato Grosso, whose draft of the Joint Decree (Portaria Conjunta) was prepared in June 2006, but hasn’t been published to date, with no justification thereof; 

3) the division between IBAMA and SEMA regarding inspection action per region or per property size, with objective standardised criteria, which seek the optimisation of expenses, personnel, time and effectiveness in actions of common competence that are geared to the environmental policy and management in the sate of Mato Grosso, so far has not been disciplined in management terms. Without such corrections and adjustments, deforestation in Mato Grosso will not be under control, but rather minimised with reactive measures. Marcos Henrique Machado