Internationalization of the Amazon Overview

Topic Overview:

QUESTION OF: The Internationalization of the Amazon Rainforest:
The Amazon Rainforest, referred to by many as “the lungs of the planet,” is the world’s largest rainforest. It covers about 40% of South America, encompassing the countries of Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana. Covering 1.7 billion acres (about seven million square kilometers), the Amazon Rainforest is responsible for the production of roughly 20% of the world’s oxygen. Today, deforestation is still ravaging the Amazon, and the Brazilian government’s measures have been ineffective in solving the issue. Since 1970, the Amazon has lost over 600,000 square kilometers to deforestation. This question of regards the desires of several countries such as the United States to make the Amazon Rainforest a global patrimony, where the entire world would be able to intervene to try to restore the Amazon Rainforest. However, the Brazilian government is afraid that the internationalization of the Amazon would cause further deforestation, due to the ease foreign companies would find to invest in the rainforest. It would also mean dispossessing Brazil of a very large part of its territory (roughly 61%), that has Brazilian people living in it and funds Brazilian economy.

Suggestions for further reading:
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/
http://tupiwire.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/internationalization-of-the-amazon-lulas-surprise-counterattack/

hello delegates!

Brazil feels likes it has the responsibility to start the discussion in such polemic topic. To get all delegations aware of what's going on and also present some controversial positions on this topic, Brazil would like to share an article about a speech that was made by a Brazilian humanist.


http://www.brazzil.com/articles/188-february-2008/10043.html (this is the article in english)

http://www.portalbrasil.net/reportagem_amazonia.htm (this is the complete speech, but it's in portuguese!)


After reading this speech, one question is left in the air:Why internationalize only the Amazon rainforest?

The delegation of Venezuela (me) would like to point out that the Amazon is already internationalized. It does not belong only to Brasil, but to the more than half of the countries in South America that have Amazon lands inside their territories. Only our is the right to explore Amazonic lands, for they are an important part of our nations. Just so, only ours is the responsibility to protect it and to preserve it; if we don't, we Latin American countries will be the ones most damaged.

Delegate of Venezuela, the Amazon is not an international territory. Yes, there are several countries in South America that has parts of the Amazon as their territory, but this has nothing to do with the internationalization of the Amazon. Meaning that Brazil deals with its portion of the Amazon, Venezuela deals with its portion of the Amazon and so on. What the American government have been porposing over the months is to make the Amazon Forrest a territory owned by the world as a whole, similar to the ideas purposed to solve the situation in Jerusalem.

Let's internationalize the world's oil resources! Japan supports Brazil's sovereignty.

Brazil is confused, does the delegate of Japan agree or not with internationalization? And why exactly internationalize the oil resources?

Delegates!

Brazil is really interested in knowing what are the different positions you have when it comes to the internationalization of the Amazon! Please start posting them here!

The delegate of Pakistan would like to say that Brasilian-Pakistani relations have been friendly and cooperative. Pakistan wishes to find a solution that will help all countries, but the Amazon should not be internationalized.

Deelegates perhaps a clear outline of who would control the Amazon and how this would help fight the Drug traffic in the region, how this would affect the native population, how this would be done respecting each nation involved sovereignty? How will this internationalization Benefit the world community and how would this prevent the creation a bureaucratic mess toghter with a chance for criminals to hide within these conflicting jurisdiction. What would happen to Acre, Amapa, Amazonas, Roraima amd Para and their people? what about the Peruvian states in the region?
The delegation of Iraq is against such a resolution as it would be detrimental to the overall protection of the environment.

Delegate of Pakistan,

That's exactly what Brazil will propose in its resolution, programs and projects that will incentive and turn feasible the preservation of the Amazon and recuperation of areas that have been destroyed. Brazil believes that the solution won't come with internationalization, but with preservation. If countries only have ecological reasons in mind, then they will have no reasons to go against the Brazilian resolution.

Would the Brazilian delegation be in favor of allowing international researchers to access Amazon biodiversity? Assuming they pay proper royalties of course, and that internationalization would be away for pharmaceutical companies avoid doing so and also conduct research that would have been illegal in Brazil?

Delegates!

I bought a magazine this weekend about the deforestation of the Amazon and different sustainable economical activities that can be applied to the Amazon as way of developing the economy of the Amazon, but in a rational way. Just as important as preserving the Amazon, it's also important to make sure we can use the resources of the rainforest for the well-being of the whole world. Only maintaining its security is not enough and that's why Brazil has also included a clause in its resolution concerning different economical activities that should be developed in the Amazon. We plan on creating a "green economy".

Either ways, I found an online copy of this magazine and thought it'd be very interesting to share it. I recommend taking a look at pages 10-13 for they present graphs that serve as proof of how the Brazilian government has been engaged in this cause. The deforestation won't be handled from night to day and definitely not with the internationalization. Think about it and take a look at the other articles as well!

http://www.revistavalor.com.br/default.aspx?pub=56&edicao=1 (The magazine is in portuguese, but every article has an english translation)

Delegate of Iraq,

First of all, thank you for the insightful questions on your previous post, they are all concerns that Brazil also has and would be grateful if the United States or any nation in favor of the internationalization cared to answer some of them.

Secondly, I didn't understand completely your second question about international researchers. What I can say is that Brazil wants for researches to happen on the Amazon as a way of finding out about the innumerable resources existent in our rainforest and how we can make use of them. International researchers are welcome to visit the Amazon. Keeping in mind that anything found has to be given first to the Brazilian government, which can then decide what is the proper way to make use of the information. Brazil is not saying this would be something confidential, on the contrary, it'd be interesting for the whole world to know about it, but before making any extraction of the material, the Brazilian government would have of approve of it. This is only necessary for the simple purpose of conserving the Amazon and making sure that the extraction of resources are being done in the most eco-friendly way.

Furthermore, Brazil even has a clause about research on its resolution =)

As one of our former Prime Ministers stated, “While regimes can be very effective when dealing with problems of a more “global” nature, which affect the international “commons” such as the pollution to the atmosphere or the damages to the ozone layer, it is difficult for them to address issues of a more domestic nature, such as the freshwater problem.” Israel believes, that due to the Amazon’s wide and diverse number of resources, it would be difficult to internationalize it without interfering in a state’s sovereignty (in this case maybe Brazil’s, Colombia’s, Venezuela’s, Bolivia’s, Peru’s, Ecuador’s, Guyana’s, or Suriname’s), Israel doesn’t feel that fully internationalizing the rain forest would favor the actual countries who inhabit it… has the delegate of Brazil thought about creating a council or group with international advisors so that to some extent, the rest of the world could some input?

Delegate of Israel,

Brazil is not saying that help is not necessary, in fact it is essential and in its resolution Brazil is asking for help in various forms. Either it is in monetary aid, technological aid or even intellectual. What Brazil doesn't believe in is creating a whole council just for discussing what's best for the Amazon. Nations are more than welcome to discuss about it, but let's not take it to a whole different level where we are having to create groups that'll tell us what we should do. It'd be like having a bunch parents gathering together to discuss the best way for a mom to take care of her son and I'm sure that mom wouldn't be very happy. If Israel believes in that idea, then it believes that Brazil is not taking good care of its rainforest and that's not what Brazil is here to show. We are more than capable of preserving our rainforest!

Delegate of Brazil, it’s very important to notice that Brazil hasn’t taken enough care with the Amazon. Over the Brazilian and other smaller owners regime in the Amazon more than 587,000 square kilometers were devastated which is more than six times the size of Portugal. Noting that the United Nations has something called (responsibility to protect) and Japan together with the environmental worried nations are going to adjust the Amazonian territory rule.




.

Delegate of Japan,

First of all, let us be reminded that Brazil is one of the few nations that still has its natural beauties preserved and that is due to strong work and a lot of commitment from the Brazilian population. It's not luck that we have the most biodiverse rainforest in the world and apart from that we also have parts from the Atlantic Forest, the Pantanal and the Cerrado.
It's true that in the past the Amazon has been severely damaged because of a lack of security in the area, but that's not what is happening now. Ever since 2005, Lula and his government have created extensive projects on the preservation of the Amazon and as a direct result of these projects, deforestation rates has decreased up to 60%. In 2205, there was an average of 19,000 km2 being deforested, in 2006 that number dropped to 13,000 km2, and the latest researches show that it is now at an average of 9,000 km2. And all these amazing results were accomplished by the Brazilian government itself, so please delegate don't make vague statements like the one that "Brazil hasn't taken enough care with the Amazon" when they're accompanied by no actual facts.

Furthermore, there's no such thing as responsibility to protect when there is no one in danger.

Delegate of Brazil,

If the delegate is not aware:

The world has been suffering with climate change and more than 150,000 people have died. One of the rezones for climate change is deforestation, which still occur in Brazil. The international committee has to increase its policy over deforestation and take severe actions over nations that don’t bring this number close to zero. Even though Brazil is working hard to achieve a decent level of priority to its natural resources, they might not come to an end to this issue. The international committee may not agree to live with an indirect future and should take actions towards our Amazon. Unfortunately Brazil is not even close to halt this issue and an intervention is necessary.

Furthermore, deforestation has brought serious damages to our climate, so it’s directly affecting the deaths and (responsibility to protect) should be immediately called.

Delegate of Japan,

Following the rate that's been going on, Brazil can reach a umber very close to 0 in about 5 years. Global warming IS happening and people ARE dying, but before jumping conclusions and having to take drastic measures such as the internationalization there are other simple things the world can do. One of them is signing the Kyoto Protocol and abiding by it, which is a simple thing that nations wishing to internationalize the Amazon have not done yet. Brazil is very concerned with the deforestation that's going on and that's why it's dedicating an entire resolution in the UNSC to it and if Japan was able to get past this blockade in his mind that internationalization is the only solution, then it could see that the solutions presented by Brazil are much more pragmatic. The idea of internationalization doesn't keep in mind the severe economic consequences this would have in Brazil, the Brazilian citizens living in the rainforest and how much easier it would be for deforestation to happen is there was no single leader on the Amazon.
When the delegate says there should be intervention in the Amazon because deforestation is going on there and this is an impetus to climate change which is causing deaths, then should we be able to internationalize the United States that didn't sign the Kyoto? Internationalize Antarctica for the glaciers that are melting? Internationalize all forests that are being deforested?

Delegate of Japan,

Venezuela would just like to point out that what is at stake here is not only people lives, but the conservation of the global ecosystem as a whole. In the Amazon Rainforest, there are thousands of animal and vegetal species unknown to man that may simply disappear (and many more that probably already have) even before we humans get to known them, because of the deforestation. However, it is not right to pinpoint deforestation and the Latin American actions or lack thereof regarding this issue as the sole cause of the climate change. The very own economic and social system that Japan and other imperialist countries are part of is at the core of this problem. If we truly want to achieve the end of climate change and deforestation, we can't just keep blaming and burdening each other. We all have to unite and seek a solution, one that will bring the Earth back on its tracks and settle this issue once and for all.

Thank you delegate of Venezuela for clearly stating what our main goal in this topic is, and it is NOT to accuse each other. The reason that the deforestation of the Amazon was brought up to the Security Council is to bring awareness to the whole world of the alarming situation that is going on and getting nations to ponder on solutions for such problem. Resolutions in this topic should not bring out irrational ideas or criticism at other countries, because there is no country with credibility to talk about conservation of nature. Resolutions for the Amazon should be filled with ideas for protection of the biodiversity and ways to explore he riches in a sustainable way. It's very sad to see countries like Japan and the United States using all their time and effort to find someone to blame instead of working hard in finding pragmatic solutions for the deforesation.

Delegates,
please pay attention to your words.
We should all maintain an overall view of the current situation of the Amazon rain forest. When has Brazil, in particular, proven its efficiency and capacity to administrate the land? And the delegate of the United States doesn't believe it will after the deforestation statistics have been published, which do not favor Brazil's perpective. What the USA is proposing is to make the rain forest a territory for researches, where ALL countries will be able to benefit from its discoveries. It is important to remember the region is the world's lungs, and it should not be monitored by a country alone that hasn't appropriately managed the resources the land has to offer. The Northern American resolution is proposing an improvement of the land resources and of the native's living conditions, since the money charged for the lease of the land will belong to the Brazilian government and directed to the proper administration of the rain forest as a whole. The SIVAM, an organization already developed by both the USA and Brazil has focused on developing technics to better control the zone. In the Venezuela portion of the Amazon, which is only a bit less than 5%, human activity is controlled by the law with the only purpose to prevent negative effects on the ecosystem. However, Brazil alone wasn't able to do so. My resolution doesn't exactly differ from Brazil's, afterall, we both are asking for international help to improve the conditions of the region and the people. The major divergence is the method that we are proposing; and the USA's appear to be much more appealing. When it concerns sovereignty, the USA has no plans in interfering Brazil's, only aiding its development. It isn't a matter of time anymore. We don't have more time to spend. The area with the biggest biodiversity is being destroyed and action has to take place. Brazil was given time to do it alone, and it was uncapable to do any positive, memorable action to the land. Now its time that we all help; and that's what the USA is proposing.

Could the American delegate please specify how ALL nations would benefit from the internationalization of the Amazon? As Brazil records, the North American resolution gave special privileges so that only SOME countries could control the money that came in or out of the Amazon. And instead of the delegate only bringing up biased opinions on Brazil's administration could some facts please be brought up, just like the Brazilian delegation presented? If it's only a matter of opinions and not what's truly happening, then Brazil also thinks the United States isn't the best nation to take care of a territory that has always belonged to Brazil and its Latin American neighbors.

When has Brazil, in particular, proven its efficiency and capacity to administrate the land?

Brazil_Julia wrote:

First of all, let us be reminded that Brazil is one of the few nations that still has its natural beauties preserved and that is due to strong work and a lot of commitment from the Brazilian population. It's not luck that we have the most biodiverse rainforest in the world and apart from that we also have parts from the Atlantic Forest, the Pantanal and the Cerrado.
It's true that in the past the Amazon has been severely damaged because of a lack of security in the area, but that's not what is happening now. Ever since 2005, Lula and his government have created extensive projects on the preservation of the Amazon and as a direct result of these projects, deforestation rates has decreased up to 60%. In 2205, there was an average of 19,000 km2 being deforested, in 2006 that number dropped to 13,000 km2, and the latest researches show that it is now at an average of 9,000 km2. And all these amazing results were accomplished by the Brazilian government itself, so please delegate don't make vague statements like the one that "Brazil hasn't taken enough care with the Amazon" when they're accompanied by no actual facts.

Don't mistake yourself, delegate of Brazil.
The USA has no intentions on taking over the Amazon, far from it. The delegate is only proposing to better distribute the power that is held on the land into safer and stronger hands (PM...), afterall, the rainforest upholds the world’s widest range of plant species, one sixth of the world’s birds, one eighth of all amphibians, one eleventh of every mammal, five thousand diverge kinds of trees, 20% of the fresh water entering the oceans comes from the Amazon. It is the world's richest area, regarding resources, and its not fair to be upon who has no capacity to stop the deforestation alone. And the world doesn't blame you, we all understand how difficult it is. And that's why we lend a hand. The Northern American delegate cannot demand money from underdeveloped countries who are unable to financially aid the areas, which justifies the presence of the PM within the terriroty.
The delegate of the USA hasn't posted statistics and facts previsouly due to its consideration for the Brazilian government, since "Between May 2000 and August 2005, Brazil lost more than 132,000 square kilometers of forest—an area larger than Greece—and since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometers (232,000 square miles) of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed." And its only because "a large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, MISGUIDED GOVERNMENT POLICIES, INAPPROPRIATE World Bank projects, and commercial EXPLOITATION of forest resources."
Its more than clear Brazil needs a helping hand...

Delegate of the US,

Brazil won't deny it has suffered a lot from the deforestation of the rainforest and part of that may have been because brazilian laws were not applied appropriately, but if the delegate would look into recent statistics, not the ones from five years ago, you would notice how successful the former government has been in protecting the Amazon and how much the government has invested in programs together with UNESCO, UNEP and even the United States. Brazil has lost big part of its natural riches, but don't forget your forest and many others in the world have been totally destroyed a long time ago only to open space to big metropolis so your economies could boost. That is the same pattern Brazil is noticing right now. The United States has once more put economy before its morals and says that is trying to do this for ecological purposes. If what the USA really wants is what will be the best for the world and for Brazil, the proper owner of the land, then there would be no problem in accepting Brazil's resolution, which asks for help from the international community, but without hurting its sovereignty; creates stricter laws for illegal activities in the Amazon and sets several steps to put forth the transparency of what's happening in the coordination of the rainforest.
Btw, if Brazil was in need of a helping hand it would be the one to ask for, if no help was requested then what the US is trying to do would just invade not only my sovereignty, but of eight other nations that own portions of the Amazon.
Its more than clear the United States has bigger interests than just being eco-friendly...