Amazonia Is Burning. Corruption Is One of the Reasons.

Amazonia is the largest tropical rainforest in the world, spread over nine South American countries (Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guyana, Peru, Surinam, and Venezuela), with approximately 60% of the forest (over four million square kilometers) located in in the north of Brazil. Brazilian Amazonia is home to around 45,000 different plant and animal species. This rainforest is also crucial to the global environment, especially with respect to climate change. During the past several months, an increase in the number and extent of forest fires in Brazilian Amazonia has triggered great concern, much of it focused on whether the Bolsonaro Administration’s policies are partly to blame for the widespread fires. While that conversation is no doubt important, it is also crucial to recognize that environmental crimes in Amazonia—including those related to the fires—are in part the product of widespread corruption, and that addressing Amazonia’s environmental crisis will require addressing Brazil’s governance crisis as well.

To understand how and why corruption is contributing to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, a bit of background is in order. The greatest environmental threats in this region are the illegal harvesting of timber and the illegal clearing of land (often through burning) to prepare the land for commercial use for agriculture and livestock. (Between 70% and 80% of the deforested area in Amazonia has been used to create pasture for breeding cattle to produce meat for domestic and international consumption.) To be sure, Brazil has laws in place to protect Amazonia from over-exploitation and other forms of environmental damage. About 80% of the land in Amazonia is publicly owned; on this public land, the forest may not be exploited or burned. The remaining 20% of Amazonia is private land owned by individuals or corporations; even for this privately owned land, Brazilian law requires that the owners keep between 50% and 80% of the area intact and unexploited. The Brazilian government is responsible for enforcing these rules and for regulating and overseeing the extraction, transportation, and commercialization of timber from Amazonia. The regulatory system involves government approval of forest management plans, the issuance of permits for timber harvesting and land clearing, and the tracking of timber to ensure that it was not illegally removed from public lands or from the protected areas of private lands.

That’s how it’s supposed to work. But in practice, private companies collude with corrupt public servants—forest wardens, police officers, and others—to evade these rules. As a result, substantial quantities of timber are illegally extracted from public lands and protected private areas, and agricultural and livestock interests illegally burn and clear irreplaceable forests. The corrupted public servants not only turn a blind eye to these environmental crimes, but they also warn the infringers about possible inspections by other agents.

Brazilian law enforcement agencies have been trying to combat the criminal organizations and corrupt officials engaged in the illegal deforestation of Amazonia since at least the beginning of the 2000s, conducting numerous large-scale operations that have uncovered and prosecuted corruption by, among others, forest wardens, police officers, government attorneys, and high-level officials of a state environmental agency. Yet despite these aggressive efforts, the investigation and prosecution of corruption crimes in Amazonia face serious difficulties. Extensive areas of forest without human presence impair the efficient prevention and detection of unlawful activities. Corrupt public servants can hamper the collection of evidence. And the effectiveness of prosecutions is undermined by the significant delay in judicial proceedings, a problem caused in large part by the absence of a dedicated federal appellate court for the Amazon region. (Just to illustrate: One of the first major federal law enforcement operations against environmental crime and corruption in Amazonia began fourteen years ago, but there are still not any final decisions in any of the prosecutions that resulted from that operation.) The sense of impunity encourages the persistence of illegality and environmental degradation.

Despite these challenges—or perhaps because of them—greater attention to the corruption dimension of environmental degradation in Amazonia is vital. Brazil needs to intensify its efforts to attack this problem and remedy the deficiencies of the current system. An effective approach should embrace a range of measures, including some or all of the following:

  • First, Brazil should amend its laws to enhance penalties for corruption offenses that are associated with environmental crime. (That is, a connection to environmental crime should be considered an aggravating circumstance for an ordinary corruption offense, such as bribery.) This change, along with a more general increase in the penalties for environmental crimes, would send a powerful message and enhance the deterrent effect of the criminal law in this area.
  • Second, Brazil should allocate more resources to the prevention, detection, and repression of corruption crimes related to the environment. Large expanses of forest require sufficient human supervision, implemented under a proper structure that promotes integrity. Yet today the Brazilian federal environmental agency has over 2,000 vacant positions, a number that is almost half of total number of positions. This situation hinders not only environmental oversight but also internal discipline and integrity.
  • Third, Brazilian regulatory and enforcement authorities should make greater use of technology, such as big data and business intelligence tools, to monitor forest exploitation, and to identify not only possible violations, but also instances of likely complicity of public agents. More intensive use of technology would help to overcome the natural difficulties that the protection of Amazonia poses.
  • Fourth, as noted above, Brazil should create a federal appellate court specifically for the Amazon region, in order to increase the speed of criminal cases related to Amazonia exploitation. The Brazilian Constitution contains a provision about this topic (Amendment n. 73), which states that a federal appellate court with jurisdiction over states of the Amazon region must be created, but this amendment has not yet been implemented.

This is all easier said than done, of course, but addressing the corruption problem in Amazonia is vital to ensure sustainable and honest use of natural resources, with the ultimate goal of protecting a forest that is crucial to the Earth’s environmental balance.

8 thoughts on “Amazonia Is Burning. Corruption Is One of the Reasons.

  1. Thank you Rodrigo for your timely post. Exposing the vast physical damage corruption can lead to is extremely helpful in showing the extent to which corruption harms societies in diverse ways. I also liked your targeted recommendations though I wonder which ones would be the most politically and financially feasible at this time. After reading your argument it makes me wonder what kind of regional or international organizations could put pressure on Bolsonaro’s government to adhere to the national laws already in place. Are there specific legal instruments such organizations could utilize to increase compliance? Is this kind of outside pressure even advisable? I am a strong believer in the need for locally-driven calls for change and accountability but also know that in some local contexts, power dynamics make it harder for citizens to demand and bring about meaningful reform. I also think about how indigenous people are affected by these policies or lack of adherence to environmental law, but also think about how they could be a force for monitoring or possible enforcement. However, I don’t know much about the particularities in Brazil or the power of indigenous populations to engage with the state on these matters. Lastly, I wonder about salaries of these public servants, forest wardens and police officers. Are they sufficient for someone to make a decent living or is this a possible reason that these officials engage in corruption?

    • Thank you for your comments, Megan. Trying to answer your questions, I think that the most effective kind of international pressure to push for environmental protection in Amazonia and in Brazil at large is the imposition of conditions to the purchase of agricultural and livestock products by other countries and foreign corporations. The importation of Brazilian goods should be restricted to strict environmental certification, for example. Apparently, Brazilian government is more sensitive to economic losses. Regarding indigenous people, they are very diverse. Some of them are involved in the illegal exploitation of timber and other natural resources. One of the large investigations on environmental crimes arrested members of an indigenous tribe who concurred in the unlawful harvesting of wood from their protected land. On the other hand, many indigenous people help in the preservation of the environment. They act as wardens of the forest. For this reason, they suffer persecution from the owners of timber companies. This week, unfortunately one of them was killed in an ambush. Apart from corruption, violence is a huge problem in this setting.

        • I have just realized that I did not provide information about your last question, regarding the salaries of civil servants involved in environmental protection. In the federal level, salaries of forest wardens and police officers are around the average in Brazilian public service. On the one hand, those salaries cannot be considered excellent; on the other hand, they cannot be deemed low. Thus, I think it is not the main problem. In the state level, police officers’ salaries are very low. This might be an incentive to corruption. However, state governments have not been performing a relevant role in environmental protection in Amazonia. That’s another point that should be addressed to improve the forest protection.

  2. Thank you for this post, Rodrigo, I’ve learned a lot from your explanation. I’m curious what the companies’ liability currently is for its or its employees’ violations of the environmental regulations. To what degree do the logging or agricultural companies bear the burden of violating these laws? Is there any possibility of imposing some sort of system of strict liability for those companies whose employees are found to have violated environmental regulations? Or those who have engaged in corrupt practices facilitating environmental harm in the Amazon? Perhaps this is already accounted for in the Brazilian system, but I was wondering if it is possible to increase the companies’ economic incentives to comply with the regulations or increase the risks they face for engaging in corrupt behavior.

    • Thank you for your comments, Maura. Under Brazilian law, corporations are criminal liable for environmental crimes. It is the only kind of crime for which companies can be punished in Brazil. However, the rules of criminal liability are limited. We did not adopt the American “respondeat superior” doctrine. So, companies only can be punished for environmental crimes when there is evidence that the offense was committed pursuant to a decision of their managers. Besides, the unlawful exploitation of timber usually involves shell companies, created to hide the actual responsible for its operations. This situation tends to make very ineffective even the civil and administrative liability.

  3. Hi Rodrigo, thank you for this post! I was wondering what your thoughts were on non-legal solutions. For example, is there a power to simply naming and shaming these companies and hurting them economically? Or other economic sanctions (such as removing any greenhouse gas emission credits they may have etc.). I know some people in the U.S. have been playing around with providing companies with a “green” certification, do you think this would have any impact on Brazilian companies?

  4. Thank you Rodrigo for this informative post – I learnt a completely different perspective on this issue. To the point on international cooperation, do you see any levers apart from restrictions on importing Brazilian livestock goods without an environment certificate? Given the importance of the Amazon forest for people all over the world, and their corresponding sense of attachment to something that is seen as “belonging to the earth”, do you think a public campaign to garner support to press for these demands could put pressure on the national government? I also wonder if there are distinctions between how the law treats indigenous communities traditionally dependent on the forest for their livelihood and other commercial interests. For example, increasing of penalties for environmental crimes and the use of AI could backfire and further marginalize these communities, locking them out of their source of income.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.