Dear Editor,
Brazil is an excellent example of how poverty and inappropriate government policies have led to massive deforestation in the Amazon. Beginning in the mid-1960s, large numbers of landless peasants began moving into the region in search of land and employment. The government attracted them to the region by providing generous tax and credit incentives.
The settlers found that the soils in the region were fragile and could withstand intensive cultivation and livestock management for only a few years. By the 1970s deforestation in parts of the Amazon, particularly Rondonia, had reached alarming proportions. By 1998, almost 25 percent of Rondonia’s tropical forest had been cleared.
Despite the vast amounts of forest cleared and the numerous agricultural and ranching operations in the region, Amazonia is still desperately poor and contributes only 3 percent of Brazil’s national income.
In 1988 alone, Brazil may have burned as many as 20 million hectares of forest and scrub, an area the size of Nebraska, to clear the land for farming and cattle ranching. The fire caused massive air pollution and probably accounted for about one-tenth of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activities during 1988.
Brazil our neighbour has always experienced extensive flooding with about 20 percent of its land area under water during an average year.
Now in recent years, flooding has increased enormously. Today in the United States of America some states are under water, including large portions of cities. Many believe that such catastrophic flooding is caused by loss of vegetative cover in the forest and upland areas that used to absorb rainfall and moderate the flooding.
Before the rain forest is exploited, forest land should be classified as to its suitability for agriculture, timber production, wildlife protection and other uses. Forest unsuited for sustainable agriculture should not be cleared for cropland or cattle ranching, but should be used for other purposes, including watershed protection, sustainable production of forest products, species conservation, and recreation.
Yours faithfully,
Mohamed Khan
In Guyana, if the government should offer tangible asssistance to farmers to till the infertile areas such as savannas then less farmining would be done in the forests.
As it is at present, farming is done mostly in the forests because the land is more fertile and costs les to produce more.
You got this entire Brazilian experience wrong Mr. Khan. I suggest you do your research. Brazil had a plan when they were transfering their forest into farms. If you are closely following the presidential debate in the US you would realise that Brazil’s policy has bourne good fruit. Reacting to the high cost of fuel, US policy experts are considering Brazil’s strategy to self sufficiency in fuel. Don’t just follow the basic news casts, check out the related human interest stories. Go to CNN and check out Brazil.
Brazil is the only country in the world which can take care of itself if the world supply of fuel dries up. How did they do it? By converting vast sugar cane crops into bio-fuel. They went against the fear mongering of the environmentalists and now they are considered role models and are completely self sufficient in energy.
Guyana needs to take a page out of this play book.
Mr. Mohamad Khan is correct. The Amazon region inside Brazilian boundaries, what we Brazilians call ¨Amazonia Legal¨, is also our hope to solve the problem
of water suply to the northeastern of Brazil. The density of the population is quite higher in the northeastern region and distribution of potable water is critical there. In the ¨Amazonia Legal¨ the density of population is very low and there is abundance of potable water.
my e-mail: clovis31@sapo.pt