

Currently released so far... 12553 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
APECO
ASEC
AMGT
AFIN
APER
ACABQ
AORC
AEMR
AF
AE
AR
AGMT
AU
AY
ABLD
AS
AG
AJ
APCS
AX
AM
AMEX
ATRN
ADM
AMED
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AL
ASUP
AND
ARM
ASEAN
AFFAIRS
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AODE
APEC
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AO
ABUD
AC
ADPM
ADCO
ASIG
ARF
AUC
ASEX
AGAO
AA
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
AIT
AADP
ASCH
AORL
AROC
ACOA
ANET
AID
AMCHAMS
AINF
AMG
AFU
AN
ALOW
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ACS
ADANA
AECL
ACAO
AORG
AGR
BEXP
BR
BM
BG
BL
BA
BTIO
BO
BP
BC
BILAT
BK
BU
BD
BRUSSELS
BB
BF
BBSR
BIDEN
BX
BE
BH
BT
BY
BMGT
BWC
BTIU
BN
CA
CASC
CFED
CO
CH
CS
CU
CE
CI
CM
CMGT
CJAN
COM
CG
CIS
CVIS
CR
CKGR
CHR
CVR
COUNTER
CIA
CLINTON
CY
CPAS
CD
CBW
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CDG
CW
CODEL
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
COE
CN
CARICOM
CB
CONDOLEEZZA
CWC
CACS
CSW
CIDA
CIC
CITT
CONS
CL
CACM
CDB
CDC
CAN
CF
CJUS
CTM
CBSA
CARSON
CT
CLMT
CBC
CEUDA
CV
COPUOS
CTR
CROS
CAPC
CAC
CNARC
CICTE
CBE
ECON
ETRD
EIND
ENRG
EC
ELAB
EAGR
EAID
EFIS
EFIN
EINV
EUN
EG
EPET
EAIR
EU
ELTN
EWWT
ECIN
ERD
EI
ETTC
EUR
EN
EZ
ETC
ENVI
EMIN
ET
ENVR
ER
ECPS
EINT
EAP
ES
ENIV
ECONOMY
EXTERNAL
EINN
EFTA
ECONOMIC
EPA
EXBS
ECA
ELN
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENGR
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
ELECTIONS
EIAR
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
ENERG
EFIM
EAIDS
EK
ETRDECONWTOCS
EINVETC
ECONCS
EUNCH
ESA
ECINECONCS
EUREM
ESENV
EFINECONCS
ETRC
ENNP
EAIG
EXIM
EEPET
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
ERNG
ETRO
ETRN
EINVEFIN
ICTY
IN
IS
IR
IC
IZ
IA
INTERPOL
IAEA
IT
IMO
IO
IV
ID
IRAQI
IEA
INRB
IL
IWC
ITU
ICAO
ISRAELI
ICRC
IIP
IMF
IBRD
ISLAMISTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
ILO
IPR
IQ
IRS
IAHRC
IZPREL
IRAJ
IDP
ILC
ITF
ICJ
IF
ITPHUM
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
IACI
IBET
ITRA
INR
IRC
IDA
ICTR
IGAD
INRA
INRO
IEFIN
INTELSAT
INTERNAL
INDO
ITPGOV
KWMN
KSCA
KDEM
KTFN
KIPR
KCRM
KPAL
KE
KPAO
KPKO
KS
KN
KISL
KFRD
KJUS
KIRF
KFLO
KG
KTIP
KTER
KRCM
KTIA
KGHG
KIRC
KU
KPRP
KMCA
KMPI
KSEO
KNNP
KZ
KNEI
KCOR
KOMC
KCFC
KSTC
KMDR
KFLU
KSAF
KSEP
KSAC
KR
KGIC
KSUM
KWBG
KCIP
KDRG
KOLY
KAWC
KCHG
KHDP
KRVC
KBIO
KAWK
KGCC
KHLS
KBCT
KPLS
KREL
KCFE
KMFO
KV
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KVPR
KTDB
KSPR
KIDE
KVRP
KTEX
KBTR
KTRD
KICC
KCOM
KO
KLIG
KDEMAF
KMRS
KRAD
KOCI
KSTH
KUNR
KNSD
KGIT
KFSC
KHIV
KPAI
KICA
KACT
KHUM
KREC
KSEC
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCMR
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KNAR
KNUC
KPWR
KENV
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KPRV
KOM
KBTS
KCRS
KNPP
KWNM
KRFD
KVIR
KTBT
KAID
KRIM
KDDG
KRGY
KHSA
KWMM
KMOC
KSCI
KPAK
KX
KPAONZ
KCGC
KID
KPOA
KIFR
KFIN
KWAC
KOMS
KCRCM
KNUP
KMIG
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KTLA
KCSY
KJUST
MOPS
MARR
MASS
MNUC
MX
MCAP
MO
MR
MI
MD
MK
MA
MP
MY
MTCRE
MOPPS
MASC
MIL
MTS
MLS
MILI
MAR
MU
MEPN
MAPP
MTCR
MEPI
MZ
MEETINGS
MG
MW
MAS
MT
MCC
MIK
ML
MARAD
MV
MERCOSUR
MTRE
MPOS
MEPP
MILITARY
MDC
MQADHAFI
MUCN
MRCRE
MAPS
MEDIA
MASSMNUC
MC
NZ
NZUS
NL
NU
NATO
NP
NO
NIPP
NE
NH
NR
NA
NPT
NI
NSF
NG
NSG
NAFTA
NC
NDP
NEW
NRR
NATIONAL
NT
NS
NASA
NAR
NV
NORAD
NSSP
NK
NPA
NGO
NSC
NATOPREL
NW
NPG
NSFO
OPDC
OTRA
OIIP
OREP
OVIP
OSCE
OEXC
OIE
OPRC
OAS
OPIC
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OFFICIALS
OECD
OSCI
OBSP
OFDA
OPCW
ODIP
OFDP
OES
OPAD
OCII
OHUM
OVP
ON
OIC
OCS
PHUM
PREL
PGOV
PINR
PTER
PARM
PREF
PM
PE
PINS
PK
PHSA
PBTS
PRGOV
PA
PORG
PP
PS
PGOF
PL
PO
PARMS
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PAK
POL
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PBIO
PINF
PNG
PMIL
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PAO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PTBS
PCUL
PROP
PNAT
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PROG
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
PGOC
PY
PCI
PLN
PDOV
PREO
PGIV
PHUH
PAS
PU
POGOV
PF
PINL
POV
PAHO
PRL
PG
PRAM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLICY
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGGV
PHUS
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PEL
PSI
PAIGH
POSTS
PBT
PTERE
RS
RU
RW
RM
RO
RP
REGION
RSP
RF
RICE
RCMP
RFE
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
RUPREL
RELATIONS
ROOD
REACTION
RSO
REPORT
SENV
SNAR
SCUL
SR
SC
SOCI
SMIG
SI
SP
SU
SO
SW
SY
SA
SZ
SAN
SF
SN
STEINBERG
SG
ST
SIPDIS
SNARIZ
SNARN
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SAARC
SL
SEVN
SARS
SIPRS
SHUM
SANC
SWE
SHI
SYR
SNARCS
SPCE
SYRIA
SEN
SH
SCRS
SENVKGHG
TRGY
TSPL
TPHY
TSPA
TBIO
TI
TW
THPY
TX
TU
TS
TZ
TC
TH
TT
TIP
TO
TERRORISM
TRSY
TINT
TN
TURKEY
TBID
TL
TV
TNGD
TD
TF
TP
TFIN
TAGS
TK
TR
UNSC
UK
UNGA
UN
US
UNHRC
UG
UP
UNMIK
UNHCR
UE
USTR
UNVIE
UAE
UZ
UY
UNO
UNESCO
USEU
USOAS
UV
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNEP
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNDP
UNPUOS
UNC
UNAUS
USUN
UNCHC
UNCHR
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCSD
UNDC
USNC
USPS
USAID
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 10BRASILIA156, BRAZIL: FOREST CODE PROVOKES HEATED DEBATE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND FARMERS
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #10BRASILIA156.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
10BRASILIA156 | 2010-02-10 19:01 | 2010-12-14 15:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Embassy Brasilia |
VZCZCXRO0760
RR RUEHAST RUEHDH RUEHHM RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHPB RUEHPOD RUEHSL RUEHTRO
DE RUEHBR #0156/01 0411903
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 101901Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY BRASILIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0463
INFO ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE
RUEHC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHRG/AMCONSUL RECIFE
RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO
RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRASILIA 000156
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SENV EAGR KGHG KSCA BR
SUBJECT: BRAZIL: FOREST CODE PROVOKES HEATED DEBATE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND FARMERS
REF: 2009 BRASILIA 123; 2009 BRASILIA 893 (U) THIS CABLE IS SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED AND NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION.
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY. The Brazilian Forest Code's requirement that a rural landowner in the Amazon maintain 80 percent of the native forest as a legal reserve has produced a heated dispute between the agriculture and environmental communities. Environmentalists see it as a potentially powerful tool to prevent deforestation, and the agriculture sector views it as economically ruinous for millions of ranchers and farmers. As a practical matter, that legal reserve requirement has never been effectively implemented, and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has decided, once again, to postpone implementation till June 2011 - after the upcoming national elections. While the debate continues over the Forest Code, the Government of Brazil's other policies have contributed to a sharp decline in the rate of Amazon deforestation from 21.5 thousand square kilometers in 2002 to 7.0 thousand last year. END SUMMARY
FOREST CODE'S CONTROVERSIAL RESERVE REQUIREMENT
¶2. (SBU) The Brazilian Forest Code (Law 4,771 from Sept. 15, 1965) began its life as much a tool for sound soil and water resources management as to promote forest conservation. The law required maintenance of forests in strategic areas, such as along rivers, streams and lakes, on tops of hills and mountains, and on steep hillsides, to protect water quality and prevention erosion. At the time of its enactment in 1965, the Brazilian Government supported policies to clear the Amazon for agricultural production. The Constitution still includes a provision requiring a landowner to make productive use of the land, which is commonly read to mean that landowners must clear some forests for agriculture purposes or risk losing the land. The Forest Code initially required rural properties in the Amazon Region to maintain 50 percent of the native forest on the property. This area is called the "reserva legal" (or legal reserve). The legal reserve was 20 percent for rural areas in the savannah (or "Cerrado") region and also 20 percent for the rest of the country.
¶3. (SBU) In response to massive deforestation in the Amazon, then-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso sought to turn the Forest Code into a central tool to conserve the Amazon. In 1996 he issued a "Provisory Measure" to amend the Forest Code to raise the legal reserve requirement in the Amazon to 80 percent and in the Cerrado to 35 percent. Opposition from the powerful rural bloc in Congress, however, ensured that this measure was not brought up for a vote. Instead, the Presidency reissued the measure 67 times to keep it in effect, until 2001 when the rules governing Provisory Measures were changed. Today, although the Congress never voted on it, the 2001 Provisory Measure is generally viewed as having the effect of law.
¶4. (SBU) The Government of Brazil (GOB) has not pursued violators of the legal reserve requirement in the Amazon, whether using the 50 percent or the 80 percent standard. It looked as though this was about to change on December 11, 2009. That was the date when legislation on environmental crimes, including possible criminal sanctions and stiff fines for violating the Forest Code, was scheduled to enter into effect. Previously, the government lacked the authority to severely punish violators of the Forest Code's reserve requirement. (REFTEL A)
A REPRIEVE UNTIL AFTER THE NATIONAL ELECTIONS
¶5. (SBU) On December 10, 2009, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva signed Presidential Decree number 7029, which postponed the criminal and stiffer penalties for violations of the Forest Code. This new Decree creates the Program Mais Ambiente (or "More Environment") that provides a three year period for all land owners to register their lands with the competent government authority. In order to become legal, the landholder will need to register the size of the legal reserve with appropriate documentation and in case the reserve size is under the 80 percent, the landholder must enter an agreement with the government, committing to correct this problem. To calm the environmental sector, President Lula decided that there will be fines and criminal penalties for those landholders who do not register their holdings under the program and those who are not in compliance with the Forest Code's reserve requirements starting June 11, 2011, giving errant landholders at least an 18 months' reprieve. 6. (SBU) Agriculture Minister Reinhold Stephanes supported the decision by saying that if Presidente Lula hadn't set a new deadline over three million agricultural producers would have become criminals. Out of that total, one million farmers and ranchers would have likely been in a position to lose their land. Environment Minister Carlos Minc sought to make the best of the decision. He stated that "The [Mais Ambiente] Program will help those producers who want to protect the environment to make their property legal. The Program gives a hand to those who want to protect the environment, which is mandatory."
COMMENT. It is no surprise that the government stepped away from turning millions of farmers and ranchers into criminals who could potential lose their land; especially in light of the upcoming October 2010 national elections.
END COMMENT.
¶7. (SBU) The vocal environmental community had foreseen the GOB's lack of support for the Forest Code. Back in October 2009, a group made of fifteen important environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) wrote an open letter criticizing the GOB's efforts to make, what they considered one of Brazil's most important environmental legislation, less stringent. These NGOs contended that the Forest Code is not as draconian as painted by the rural lobby. The fines and penalties are supposed to be implemented in a flexible way. For example, sanctions for violations of the Code are to be imposed after a determination that a violation has taken place and the landholder has been officially notified. After notification, a landholder would normally have 180 days to solve any pending issues with the authorities.
(NOTE: As a practical matter, identifying and notifying violators would be a slow process due to the size of the Amazon and the limited staff in the region, as well as the lack of information about particular landholdings. If the GOB becomes serious about penalizing the large number of landholders in violation of the Forest Code, the national government can expect stiff opposition and possibly even violent push back, like those that occurred in the municipality of Tailandia last year after government raids on illegal loggers or in Novo Progresso, where even Brazilian researchers viewed as "snooping" around were run off. END NOTE)
LONG TERM SOLUTION NEEDED 8. (SBU) President Lula's postponement of the implementation of criminal penalties and fines for violation of the legal reserve only defers this controversial issue, but does not solve it. Currently, there are about thirty proposals in Congress to modify the Forest Code, most of which call for changing the legal reserve requirement. The National Agriculture Confederation (CNA) told Post that while they support efforts to reduce deforestation, they view the current 80 percent requirement as unworkable. There are a number of proposals to return the requirement to 50 percent, which would make it possible for large numbers of ranchers and farmers who couldn't economically sustain themselves at the 80 percent level to comply with the law. Environmental groups in Brazil are divided on this step too. Greenpeace calls reducing the requirement a sell-out, but Friends of the Earth consider it a pragmatic and constructive step. The head of the Special Commission in the Chamber of Deputies looking at amending the Forest Code, Aldo Rebelo (Communist Party-Sao Paulo), wants to bring the proposed amendments to a vote in April, including one heavily criticized by environmentalists that would allow each state to establish the applicable legal reserve. In a recent press interview, Rebelo complained that the GOB through the 2001 Provisory Measure the GOB had "altered the [1965 Forest Code] without listening to anyone."
¶9. (SBU) While the dispute over the 80 percent legal reserve requirement continues, a couple of practical solutions are coming into play. The Forest Code provides (Article 16) that an Economic-Ecological Zoning (ZEE) can reduce the legal reserve to 50 percent. The small western Amazonian state of Acre has a ZEE in place and is taking advantage of this option. Unfortunately, this is not a solution for the whole region because of the lack of ZEEs (it is an extremely complex and long study) and, as a political matter, the government doesn't want to use this exception to throw out the 80 percent requirement on a wholesale basis. Another possible solution is being pursued by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), which seeks to work with landowners to satisfy the 80 percent requirement by using compensatory land tracts. The concept is that the landholder instead of meeting the 80 percent requirement with its land would conserve the required amount of forests on other lands in the biome. This theoretically could work, but needs further development and approval by the government.
MEANWHILE - REGISTERING TITLE
¶10. (SBU) While it remains an open question of when, if ever, and in what form the Forest Code will be enforced, Brazil is pursuing less controversial measures that may have a far greater impact on deforestation. These include establishing large protected areas and indigenous reserves, increasing law enforcement efforts against illegal land grabs, and cutting off financial credits for areas responsible for large amounts of deforestation. Moreover, the national and state governments have sought to clarify the murky question of land title in the Amazon. In a January 2010 presentation, the World Bank estimated that 85 percent of the land occupied by private interests (which is about 30 percent of the total) lacks documentation or are based on suspicious or fraudulent title documents. The government last year passed a law (REFTEL B) that creates a path for clear title for small parcels of land in the Amazon region. Further, by tying financial credits to a municipality's registration of land titles, the national government is giving an incentive for resolving the ownership question. For example, the municipality of Paragominas - previously one of the more prolific deforesters - should meet the registration requirement in a few months and its mayor has called for zero deforestation. Preliminary information suggests that when landholders obtain clear title they begin to behave more responsibly and reduce the rate of deforestation.
¶11. (SBU) COMMENT: The Forest Code's 80 percent legal reserve requirement in the Amazon Forest has generated much heated debate in Brazil since its proposal in 1996. Never having been implemented, it has served principally as a point of dispute between the agriculture and environmental communities, while others less controversial policies have been effective at reducing the deforestation rate in the Amazon. Since coming into office, the Lula Administration has overseen a decline in the rate of deforestation in the Amazon from 21.5 thousand square kilometers in 2002 to 7.0 thousand last year. If the deforestation rate continues to drop, then the environmentalist community may be willing to show more flexibility about a pragmatic compromise on the Forest Code when the issue comes up again in 2011. END COMMENT. SHANNON SHANNON