Climatic Change

, Volume 118, Issue 3–4, pp 509–519 | Cite as

What is at stake for Brazilian Amazonia in the climate negotiations

  • Philip M. FearnsideEmail author


Issues left undecided at COP-18 in Doha in December 2012 are critical to containing the two greatest threats to Brazil’s Amazon forest: direct deforestation and forest loss through drought and fire provoked by climate change. Brazil’s diplomatic positions on the role of tropical forests in mitigating global warming currently call for receiving donations through a voluntary fund, but without generating carbon credit valid against emissions-reduction commitments by countries that accept limits on their national emissions (i.e., Annex I countries). Brazil has long rejected accepting a target (assigned amount), and has instead presented a non-binding “voluntary objective.” At COP-17 in Durban, Brazil expressed willingness to accept a commitment after 2020, but only if all of the rest of the world agreed to do the same. This author argues that Brazil’s national interests would be better served by accepting a target now and by supporting fully marketable carbon credit from Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). The global goal of preventing mean temperature from increasing beyond 2 °C above pre-industrial levels would be much more likely to be achieved in practice with tropical forests fully included in a carbon market as part of an agreement for the period after 2012.


Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocol Forest Carbon Clean Development Mechanism Project Carbon Credit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I thank Conselho Nacional do Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq: Proc. 305880/2007-1), Rede GEOMA and Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA: PRJ13.03) for financial support. An earlier Portuguese-language version of these arguments is available at P.M.L.A. Graça and three anonymous reviewers made helpful comments.


  1. Amigos da Terra-Amazônia Brasileira (2012) Fracasso do Fundo Amazônia causa desconforto entre países doadores. 16 Jan. 2012. (access 18 Mar. 2012)
  2. Angelson A (ed) (2008) Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, p 156Google Scholar
  3. Assunção J, Gandour CC, Rocha R (2012) Deforestation Slowdown in the Legal Amazon: Prices or Policies? Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) Working Paper, Pontífica Universidade Católica (PUC), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. p 3. Available at:
  4. Barr C (2011) Governance risks for REDD+: how weak forest carbon accounting can create opportunities for corruption and fraud In: Transparency International. Global corruption report: climate change. Earthscan, London, UK and Washington, DC, USA, pp 329–344. Available at:
  5. Brazil, CIMC (Comitê Interministerial sobre Mudança do Clima) (2008) Plano Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima—PNMC—Brasil. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, p 129, Available at: Google Scholar
  6. Brazil, Fundo Amazônia (2011) Fundo Amazônia, Relatório de Atividades 2010. Banco Nacional do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES), Rio de Janeiro, p 183, Available at: Google Scholar
  7. Brazil, Fundo Amazônia (2013) Total de doações recebidas pelo Fundo Amazônia—valores históricos. (access 5 Feb. 2013)Google Scholar
  8. Brazil, MMA (Ministerio do Meio Ambiente) (2009) The Brazilian Redd Strategy. MMA, Brasília, p 29, Available at: Google Scholar
  9. Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force (2001) A letter to the President and a memorandum on U.S. policy toward Brazil. Council on Foreign Relations, New York, p 13, Available at: Google Scholar
  10. Cox PM, Harris PP, Huntingford C, Betts RA, Collins M, Jones CD, Jupp TE, Marengo JA, Nobre CA (2008) Increasing risk of Amazonian drought due to decreasing aerosol pollution. Nature 453:212–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ecodebate (2009) Governadores da região amazônica querem crédito de carbono para a conservação. 2 July 2009. (access 18 March 2012)
  12. Fearnside PM (1995) Global warming response options in Brazil’s forest sector: comparison of project-level costs and benefits. Biomass Bioenergy 8(5):309–322. doi: 10.1016/0961-9534(95)00024-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fearnside PM (1999) Como o efeito estufa pode render dinheiro para o Brasil. Ciênc Hoje 26(155):41–43Google Scholar
  14. Fearnside PM (2000) Uncertainty in land-use change and forestry sector mitigation options for global warming: plantation silviculture versus avoided deforestation. Biomass Bioenergy 18(6):457–468. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00003-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fearnside PM (2001a) Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue that divides the environmental movement. Ecol Econ 39(2):167–184. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00225-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fearnside PM (2001b) The potential of Brazil’s forest sector for mitigating global warming under the Kyoto Protocol. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 6(3–4):355–372. doi: 10.1023/A:1013379103245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fearnside PM (2001c) Environmentalists split over Kyoto and Amazonian deforestation. Environ Conserv 28(4):295–299. doi: 10.1017/S0376892901000315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fearnside PM (2002) Time preference in global warming calculations: a proposal for a unified index. Ecol Econ 41:21–31. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00004-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fearnside PM (2005) Global implications of Amazon frontier settlement: carbon, Kyoto and the role of Amazonian deforestation. In: Hall A (ed) Global impact, local action: new environmental policy in Latin America. University of London, School of Advanced Studies, Institute for the Study of the Americas, London, pp 36–64Google Scholar
  20. Fearnside PM (2006) Mitigation of climatic change in the Amazon. In: Laurance WF, Peres CA (eds) Emerging threats to tropical forests. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 353–375Google Scholar
  21. Fearnside PM (2009a) Brazil’s evolving proposal to control deforestation: Amazon still at risk. Environ Conserv 36(3):176–179. doi: 10.1017/S0376892909990294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fearnside PM (2009b) Science and carbon sinks in Brazil. Clim Chang 97(3):373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fearnside PM (2009c) A vulnerabilidade da floresta amazônica perante as mudanças climáticas. Oecol Australis 13(4):609–618. doi: 10.4257/oeco.2009.1304.05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fearnside PM (2010) Consequências do desmatamento da Amazônia. Scient Amer Brasil Especial Biodiversidade pp 54–59Google Scholar
  25. Fearnside PM (2012a) Brazil’s Amazon forest in mitigating global warming: unresolved controversies. Clim Pol 12(1):70–81. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2011.581571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fearnside PM (2012b) The theoretical battlefield: accounting for the climate benefits of maintaining Brazil’s Amazon forest. Carbon Manag 3(2):145–148. doi: 10.4155/CMT.12.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fearnside PM, Graça PMLA (2006) BR-319: Brazil’s Manaus-Porto Velho Highway and the potential impact of linking the arc of deforestation to central Amazonia. Environ Manag 38(5):705–716. doi: 10.1007/s00267-005-0295-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. FSP (Folha de São Paulo) (2007) Brasil se manterá contra metas para CO2. Folha de São Paulo, 29 November 2007, p A-34Google Scholar
  29. Greenpeace (2008) Forests for climate: developing a hybrid approach for REDD. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, p 23, Available at: Google Scholar
  30. Hare B, Meinshausen M (2006) How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided? Clim Chang 75:111–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hargrave J, Kis-Katos K (2011) Economic causes of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: a panel data analysis for the 2000s. Discussion Paper Series n.17, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. p 30. Available at:
  32. KEA 3 (2009) REDD and the effort to limit global warming to 2 °C: implications for including REDD credits in the International Carbon Market. Prepared for Greenpeace International 30 March 2009. KEA 3, Wellington, p 31, Available at: Google Scholar
  33. Lewis SL, Brando PM, Phillips OL, Van Der Heijden GMF, Nepstad D (2011) The 2010 Amazon drought. Science 331:554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malhi Y, Roberts JT, Betts R, Killeen TJ, Li W, Nobre CA (2008) Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science 319:169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marengo JA, Nobre CA, Tomasella J, Oyama MD, Sampaio de Oliveira G, de Oliveira R, Camargo H, Alves LM, Brown IF (2008) The drought of Amazonia in 2005. J Clim 21:495–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marengo JA, Tomsasella J, Alves LM, Soares W, Rodriguez DA (2011) The drought of 2010 in the context of historical droughts in the Amazon region. Geophys Res Lett 38:1–5. doi: 10.1029/2011GL047436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Metzger J-P, Lewinsohn T, Joly CA, Verdade LM, Rodrigues RR (2010) Brazilian law: full speed in reverse. Science 329:276–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moutinho P, Martins OS, Christovam M, Lima A, Nepstad D, Crisostomo AC (2011a) The emerging REDD+ regime of Brazil. Carbon Manag 2(5):587–602. doi: 10.4155/cmt.11.46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moutinho P, Stella O, Lima A, Christovam M, Alencar A, Castro I, Nepstad D (2011b) REDD in Brazil: a focus on the Amazon. Principles, criteria, and institutional structures for a national program for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation—REDD. Center for Strategic Studies and Management, Brasília, p 148, Available at: Google Scholar
  40. Munhoz F (2009) “Só aceitamos a participação do Redd no mercado de carbono se ela for limitada”, diz embaixador do Itamaraty. Instituto Carbono Brasil. 7 Dec. 2009. (access 18 Mar. 2012)
  41. Nepstad DC, Soares-Filho BS, Merry F, Moutinho P, Rodrigues HO, Bowman M, Schwartzman S, Almeida O, Rivero S (2007) The costs and benefits of reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon, Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC), Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA. Available at:
  42. Nepstad DC, Stickler C, Soares-Filho BS, Merry F (2008) Interactions among Amazon land use, forests, and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 363:1737–1746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nepstad D, Soares-Filho BS, Merry F, Lima A, Moutinho P, Carter J, Bowman M, Cattaneo A, Rodrigues H, Schwartzman S, McGrath DG, Stickler CM, Lubowski R, Piris-Cabezas P, Rivero S, Alencar A, Almeida O, Stella O (2009) The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 326:1350–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nobre CA, Borma LS (2009) Tipping points for the Amazon forest. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Salazar LF, Nobre CA, Oyama MD (2007) Climate change consequences on the biome distribution in tropical South America. Geophys Res Lett 34:L09708. doi: 10.1029/2007GL029695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schlamadinger B, Bird N, Johns T, Brown S, Canadell J, Ciccarese L, Dutschke M, Fiedler J, Fischlin A, Fearnside P, Forner C, Freibauer A, Frumhoff P, Hoehne N, Kirschbaum MUF, Labat A, Marland G, Michaelowa A, Montanarella L, Moutinho P, Murdiyarso D, Pena N, Pingoud K, Rakonczay Z, Rametsteiner E, Rock J, Sanz MJ, Schneider UA, Shvidenko A, Skutsch M, Smith P, Somogyi Z, Trines E, Ward M, Yamagata Y (2007) A synopsis of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakech Accords. Environ Sci Policy 10:271–282. doi: 10.1016.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 712, Available at: Google Scholar
  48. Telles C (2009) Com que cara eu vou? A um mês de Copenhague, o País ainda expõe contradições e desarticulação entre as áreas do governo. Página 22, No. 36:28–33. Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA)ManausBrazil

Personalised recommendations