Stopping Deforestation in the Amazon

The Amazon—the world’s largest rainforest—is disappearing. As much as 17 percent is already gone. Destruction of the rainforest has gone on for decades. However, under Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, eased deforestation regulations have led to a 47 percent increase in the rainforest’s destruction. Deforestation in the Amazon is a triple threat to the environment. The destruction of the ecosystem has wide global ramifications including sea level rise, crop failures, and extreme weather. First, it means fewer trees can capture carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. Second, many felled trees are burned, releasing previously captured carbon dioxide. Finally, the forest is often replaced with a high-emission industry such as livestock farming. The Amazon is approaching a tipping point: once 20 to 25 percent of the rainforest is lost, scientists predict the region will turn drier, transitioning into scrubland or savannah. This ecological shift will further inhibit its carbon-capturing ability. Because of deforestation’s global consequences, governments around the world, including the United States, have an interest in checking the practice. 

However, such intervention carries risk and could appear to challenge an important international norm. Sovereignty is the idea that countries should have control over their own internal affairs—a principle that suggests Brazil can use its land as it wishes. Brazil has done just that. The country has enabled deforestation to its economic benefit as it enlarges the agricultural industry; this growing economic sector now accounts for over 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). However, the global consequences of Brazil’s land-use decisions have been so ruinous that some policymakers are suggesting intervention. Diplomats are willing to undermine Brazil’s sovereignty and set an uncomfortable precedent in order to curb the disastrous ramifications of the Amazon’s destruction. As a result, countries like the United States could face sanctions of their own, for instance over coal mines or manufacturing practices. 

The United States could use economic measures to intervene. Washington could either impose sanctions or use aid to shape Brazilian policy in the Amazon. It could sanction Amazon-relevant industries such as timber exports and beef raised on deforested land. Still, Bolsonaro has made clear that Brazil would likely fiercely resist such measures. Sanctions would also set the strongest precedent for undermining a country’s sovereignty on behalf of the environment. This action would open  the door to similar sanctions against the United States. The United States could also provide Brazil with economic incentives to stop deforestation. This incentive structure would promote more sustainable farming practices in Brazil. Economic incentives have succeeded in the past; an 80 percent decrease in deforestation between 2004 and 2012 coincided with significant aid from the internationally funded Amazon Fund. Aid carries less risk of harming diplomatic and economic relations. This form of statecraft is also more respectful of Brazilian sovereignty than sanctions. However, Bolsonaro has still discouraged any attempt at outside influence. A final, low-risk option is for the United States to maintain its current policy of simply making statements condemning deforestation. This strategy is contingent upon  the Brazilian people’s desire to elect a new president. However, with the Amazon nearing a tipping point, the window for curbing deforestation could be closing.