- The Observer
44 25.08.19 Comment & Analysis
Established in 1791 Issue No 11883
Amazon fi res
Europe can
use fi nancial
muscle to save
the rainforest
S
moke from the wildfi res burning
in the Amazon plunged São Paolo,
1,700 miles from the scenes
of destruction, into an eerie
darkness last Monday afternoon.
The temporary blackout made it
impossible for residents of Brazil’s
largest city to ignore the ecological
carnage taking place on the other
side of their country. But the ruin of
rainforest we are currently witnessing will reverberate
far beyond the borders of Brazil in decades to come.
Home to 3m species – one in 10 of all known plants
and animals on Earth – the Amazonian rainforest is
the most biodiverse place on the planet. Three-quarters
of plant species there are unique to the rainforest. The
Amazon is also home to a million indigenous people,
thousands of whom have lost their lives in recent decades
defending the forest against commercial interests.
The rainforest plays a critical role in regulating
the Earth’s climate, absorbing millions of tonnes of
carbon dioxide a year. Halting deforestation is no lessimportant than eliminating fossil fuel use in terms of
avoiding catastrophic global over heating; scientists
have estimated that protecting and restoring rainforests
could reduce carbon emissions by 18% by 2030.
Much, then, is at stake. For decades, the Amazon
has been the site of a struggle between, on one
hand, conservationists and indigenous people,
who are desperate to protect the forest, and, on the
other, Brazil’s business lobby, which sees lucrative
potential in its destruction to make way for farming,
mining and logging. For a decade, it looked as though
the conservationists were winning as the rate of
deforestation declined. But in the past fi ve years, that
trend has reversed with the growing infl uence of
Brazilian agribusiness. And since the election of Jair
Bolsonaro, dubbed “Captain Chainsaw” for his support
of Amazonian deforestation, it has sharply accelerated.
Bolsonaro has thrown his support behind Brazil’s
agricultural industry and the commercial exploitation
of the Amazon. Enforcement action aimed at protecting
the forest has dwindled since his election. Emboldened,
farmers have declared “fi re days”, deliberately setting
fi re to chunks of the forest in order to destroy it so it
can be used to graze cattle. Bolsonaro has responded
by rubbishing satellite data from Brazil’s own space
agency, which shows that an area the equivalent of fi ve
football pitches was cleared every minute in July, a 278%
rise on the same month last year. He accused its head
of “peddling lies” and sacked him earlier this month.
Last week he also made the preposterous suggestion
–without any evidence – that environmental NGOs had
started the fi res to make the government look bad.
A fi fth of the Amazonian biome has been irrevocably
lost. And the current destruction takes the rainforest
closer to a tipping point. It risks the extinction of
thousands of species, not to mention eliminating any
chance of limiting global heating to less than 1.5 C above
preindustrial levels.
How should the international community respond?
The situation is complicated by the fact that Bolsonaro
is not the only rightwing populist to threaten the global
action needed to avert catastrophic over heating of the
planet. He is cut from the same cloth as Donald Trump,who has rejected scientifi c evidence about the climate
crisis, withdrawn the US from the Paris agreement
and reversed Obama administration policies to reduce
domestic carbon emissions.
But while a lack of concern for biodiversity and the
climate crisis may be a common feature of right wing
populists, it is not necessarily the most popular plank of
their agenda, driven instead by close links with business.
This suggests that there is scope for international
pressure to work. Ahead of this weekend’s G7 summit,
France and Ireland – in truth, likely motivated by their
own trading interests as well as concern for the Amazon- threatened to veto the EU-Mercosur trade deal that is
agreed but yet to be ratifi ed. Bolsonaro has continued
to condemn international intervention in what he
has labelled an “ internal issue ” , accusing Macron of
a “ colonial mindset ”. But away from the high-octane
rhetoric, he appears to have responded and has ordered
the Brazilian army to help fi ght the fi res.
It’s all very well for European governments to
condemn Bolsonaro, but western demand for Brazilian
beef is contributing to deforestation. The EU imported
more than £490m worth of beef from Brazil last year.
Consumers in Britain were indirectly responsible for the
destruction of the equivalent of 500 football pitches of
rainforest in Brazil last year; Italy, four times as much.
Under the terms of the Mercosur agreement, that will go
up. The EU must use its power as Brazil’s second biggest
export market to insist that the agreement cannot go
ahead unless Bolsonaro steps up enforcement action
against illegal deforestation.
Strong-arming less affl uent nations into action
through trade deals is not, by itself, enough. Wealthier
countries in Europe need to do far more when it
comes to stumping up proper resources for overseas
conservation, an area of spending that governments
have found it too easy to skimp on.
Environmental rhetoric comes cheap. Only the
coming months will tell if European leaders are
prepared to take the action that is needed to support
those Brazilians who are battling to protect the Amazon
and the unique role it plays in safeguarding a biodiverse,
sustainable planet for future generations.
Kings Place,
90 York Way,
London N1 9GU
Telephone
020 3353 2000
email editor@
observer.co.ukMiddle East
The west’s failure
to act on Syria
becomes ever
more shameful
T
he crisis in Syria does not
feature high on the agenda
at this weekend’s G7 summit
in Biarritz. The absence of
two key players – Russia
and Turkey – means any
substantive initiatives are unlikely.
Donald Trump has washed his hands of
the confl ict, although Pentagon chiefs are
resisting his demand to withdraw all US
forces. European leaders, beset by many
other urgent problems, seem to prefer
not to think about Syria at all.
This attitude is intolerably
short sighted. Western governments’
neglect of the eight-year war and, inparticular, its impact on civilians is a
sadly familiar phenomenon, but no
more acceptable for being predictable.
Their involvement has been sporadic
and uneven, spurred from time to time
by headline events such as chemical
weapons attacks or war crimes too
horrifi c to ignore. The campaign against
Islamic State (Isis) was given priority.
The price of this collective failure
to tackle head-on one of the greatest
strategic challenges of our time is
now being paid, once again, by Syria’s
population. In Idlib, north-west Syria,
as we report today, more than 3 million
people are under fi re from Syrian regime
forces, backed by Russian bombers and
artillery. More than 800 non combatants
have died since April. At least half-
a-million civilians, many previously
displaced, have fl ed towards the
Turkish border.
Despite repeated appeals for help
by the UN, aid agencies and local
organisations such as the White
Helmets, the slaughter and mayhem are
intensifying following last week’s fall to
Bashar al-Assad’s troops of the southern
Idlib town of Khan Sheikhoun. The plight
of the fl eeing population is compoundedby Turkey’s reluctance to accept more
refugees and its determination to force
many among 3.6 million Syrians already
in Turkey out of the big cities and back
across the border.
If not out of compassion then for
reasons of narrow self-interest, western
leaders must pay more attention. Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president, has
helped hold the line in Idlib since last
year, when he set up military observation
posts to keep regime forces, rebels and
jihadists apart. But this arrangement is
falling apart. Last week a Turkish convoy
was attacked, prompting Erdoğan to seek
an emergency meeting with Vladimir
Putin, his Russian counterpart.
If a politically weakened Erdoğan loses
patience, the consequences could be dire.
In line with previous Turkish operations
in al-Bab, Afrin and Azaz , he could order
more military incursions into Syria to
create what Ankara calls refugee “safe
havens”. He may further challenge the
pro-western Syrian Kurds’ control of areas
east of the Euphrates. And by blocking the
main escape route for Idlib’s civilians, he
could trigger another mass refugee exodus
in the direction of Europe, similar to what
happened in 2015.All this matters greatly for the wider
stability of the Middle East. Despite
Turkey’s view of them as terrorists,
Syria’s Kurds, backed on the ground
by US and British special forces, are a
vital element in the unfi nished fi ght
against Isis. Reports across the region
speak of a signifi cant Isis resurgence in
northern Syria and Iraq. Sleeper cells
have reportedly mounted 43 attacks in
Syrian Kurdish areas since late July. There
is even a suspicion that Turkey is covertly
assisting them.
At the same time Israel, with Trump’s
blessing and possibly Putin’s too , is using
Syrian chaos to widen an undeclared
war with Iran. It has launched numerous
air strikes on Iranian forces and their
proxies inside Syria. Now it is expanding
its campaign to include Iranian targets
in Iraq. Munitions warehouses and a
military base north of Baghdad used
by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were
hit in recent, unacknowledged Israeli
strikes. These escalations presage ever-
deepening instability.
Idlib, Isis, Israel-Iran: it is a toxic mix.
And all are by products of the west’s
abject failure to move decisively to halt
the Syrian war.