The text that follows is a PREPRINT.
Please cite
as:
Laurance, W.F. and P.M. Fearnside.
2002. Issues in Amazonian Development. Science 295: 1643.
ISSN:
0036-8075
Copyright:
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The original publication is available at
http://www.sciencemag.org
<free
from publisher-online format>
Frontier Governance and Exploitation in Amazonia
In a recent Policy
Forum, Nepstad et al. (1) highlight some laudable improvements in
environmental protection, legislation, and public attitudes in Brazilian
Amazonia and argue that such efforts hold the key to sustainable development in
the region. While their essay provides
an important perspective on a complex and contentious issue, we believe that
some of their assertions are misleading and even dangerous.
Our greatest concern
is that, by suggesting that many of the planned infrastructure developments in
the region—including an unprecedented expansion of paved highwaysand
river-channelization projects—are “inevitable,” Nepstad et al. are in
danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Many proposed projects are far from inevitable and are likely to have
enormous environmental costs. For
example, the two largest river-channelization projects (the Tocantins-Araguaia
and Tapajós waterways) are the subject of ongoing legal battles and could have
severe impacts on aquatic habitats and indigenous peoples (2). At a time when many proposed projects are
being hotly debated, it is premature to suggest that the die has been cast.
Nepstad et al.
correctly emphasize that many gains in Amazonian environmental protection are
fragile, but they go too far, we believe, in implying that such improvements
could realistically control the impacts of massive new infrastructure
developments. Our view is supported by
negative trends like the significant acceleration of Amazonian deforestation
during the past decade (3), rampant illegal logging and gold mining (4),
and a panoply of destructive activities in southern Pará (5). Several proposed projects, including major highways
that would bisect large intact forest tracts, are likely to promote large-scale
invasions by farmers, loggers, and hunters and dramatically increase rates of
forest loss and fragmentation (6-8).
Such projects can easily open a Pandora’s box of exploitive activities
that are beyond the government’s capacity to control.
Nepstad et al.
justifiably underscore the need for economic development in Amazonia, but many
proposed mega-projects, such as paving the Cuiabá-Santarém highway, would
mainly benefit wealthy soybean exporters in central Brazil, not the Amazonian
poor (2). They also stretch
plausibility to suggest that much of the US$70 million that the soybean
exporters expect to save annually would find its way, via highway tolls or
taxes, to frontier governance in Amazonia.
.
Finally, Nepstad et
al. suggest that recent interministerial seminars in the Brazilian Congress
could signal a shift in government attitudes toward Amazonian infrastructure
development. Because press scrutiny of
the Avança Brasil program spurred by our analysis of Amazonian development
trends (6) was evidently a primary stimulus for these seminars, we feel
gratified for this. However, there is
still no compelling evidence that the planning process has fundamentally changed
(2, 3), and the threats to Amazonian ecosystems remain very real.
William F. Laurance1,2,
Philip M. Fearnside3
1Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,
Apartado 2072, Balboa, Republic of Panamá
2Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments
Project, National Institute for Amazonian Research (INPA), C.P. 478, Manaus, AM
69011-970, Brazil. Email:
laurancew@tivoli.si.edu
3Department of Ecology, INPA, C.P. 478, Manaus,
AM 69011-970, Brazil. Email:
pmfearn@inpa.gov.br
References
1. D. Nepstad et al., Science 295,
629 (2002).
2. P. M. Fearnside, Environ. Conserv. 28,
23 (2001).
3. W. F. Laurance, A. Albernaz, C. Da Costa, Environ.
Conserv. 28, 305 (2001).
4. W. F. Laurance, Trends Ecol. Evol. 13,
411 (1998).
5. P. M. Fearnside, World Devel. 29,
1361 (2001).
6. W. F. Laurance et al., Science
291, 438 (2001).
7. D. Nepstad et al., Avança Brasil: Os Custos Ambientais para Amazônia (Instituto de
Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia, Belém, Brazil, 2000).
8. G. Carvalho, A. Barros, P. Moutinho, D. Nepstad, Nature 409, 131 (2001).
(Main text: 471 words)