Forest Dialogue
A MODERN NEW FOREST CODE NEEDED FOR BRAZIL’S DEVELOPMENT
Brazil has an immense vocation for forestry. The fact that it is the only country in the world that
owes its name to a tree only reinforces the expression of this vocation. Faced by global climate
change, scientists, business executives and environmentalists look to forests as one of the most
important vectors in fostering the country’s sustainable development.
Native forests and well managed plantations earmarked for production of cellulose, paper, wood
paneling, energy and other uses are essential for the maintenance and recovery of quality
ecosystems on which we all depend: people, industry, agriculture and economy.
The availability of water for human and industrial consumption, for irrigation, drinking water for
animals and provision of energy, for example, depends directly on the protection and recovery of
the native plant cover in Brazil’s main river basins.
The faster cycle of climate change, scientifically confirmed, produces threats that should not be
neglected. Advances in agri-business cannot dispense with conciliating protection and recovery of
natural ecosystems, at the risk of increasing costs until they become economically unviable, due to
environmental unsustainability and the lack of stimuli for increasing productivity. But the new
climatic situation also produces opportunities. Forests have and will continue to have an
increasingly fundamental role in reducing, controlling and mitigating the negative impacts that
result from these changes.
For these reasons, Brazil needs strong forest legislation, with firm scientific bases and the support of
innovative public policies and institutions that are committed to protecting and increasing forest
cover in the country. Since 1965 we have had a wide-ranging Forest Code, which is also complex
and does not meet the particular needs of the various biomes and socio-economic situations in
different regions of the country, thus restricting its application.
The Chamber of Deputies, the lower House of Congress, has discussed updating the Forest Code
since 1999, and a new law on the subject is urgently needed. To this end, the signatories to this
letter present some proposals on specific points, which they consider to be fundamental to the
improvement of the current legislation.
There is neither space nor time for us to pay attention to false dichotomies between production
and conservation, between agriculture and biodiversity, between nature and society. It is the
moment to concentrate and join forces, talents and assets, aiming to construct a still more modern
and pro-active legislation, which presents to the entire range of rural property owners and to
society as a whole the legal instruments within which economic incentives for protection, forest
restoration and environmental services consistently complement the tools of command and
control.
For the reasons given above, the companies and civil society organizations that have signed this
document have taken part in a series of meetings promoted by Diálogo Florestal [Forest Dialogue]
to debate the proposals for altering the Brazilian Forest Code, and they present the following
reflections on the matter.
The Forest Code needs to be revised, improved and modernized, since the current law still
lacks boldness and is scarcely effective in making rural production and environmental
protection compatible. Any alteration should make it easier to apply the Code, not reduce
protection of environmentally important areas. Above all, it is about crating and
implementing mechanisms that encourage protection, restoration and production on
sustainable bases.
The Forest Code should be innovative and should take on the new challenges faced by
society and the planet. Climate change, payment for environmental services, sustainable
business and a new green economy are subjects that should permeate revision of the
current law.
The Code should also guarantee that planted forests are put on an equal footing with other
types of agricultural production in terms of environmental legislation.
Policies on payment for environmental services offered by forests should be installed; these
services include water, carbon, biodiversity, soil, landscape, comfort and recreation.
It is in the country’s interests to recover vegetation in Areas of Permanent Preservation and
legal reserves of set-aside land. In addition, it does not make sense to grant amnesty to
those who are responsible for recovering illegally deforested areas.
Parameters that currently exist for Areas of Permanent Preservation of gallery forest should
be maintained, seeking to ensure the conservation of water resources. On the other hand,
hilltops may be used for productive systems that guarantee the replenishment of water and
reduction of erosion, as long as they do not involve the conversion of native forests.
It is possible to create criteria for working out the Areas of Permanent Preservation within
the calculation of the legal reserve, keeping the current percentages for each biome,
without involving the conversion of areas and yet recovering what is lost. This principle
should be applied to properties of all sizes.
The discussion process for the Forest Code should consider the integrated management of
land and the protection of water and soil resources, based on what is most recent and most
robust in terms of scientific knowledge, incorporating the principles of landscape ecology in
the river basins, encouraging restoration of natural forests and the planting of forests for
commercial purposes.
Progress should be made with the concept that we have to restore and reforest, especially
in extremely fragmented biomes such as the Atlantic Rainforest. The history of planted
forests is living proof of this: they grew in harmony with the law, investing in knowledge
and best practices, and today these forests are an important part of the Brazilian economy.
The Rural Environmental Register, made up of the geo-referenced perimeter of each
property super-imposed on the map of soil use and satellite images, endorsed by the
competent public entity, should be the basic instrument used to implant the Forest Code
and related policies. Its implantation must be treated as a priority, since it is a basic tool for
fostering environmental regularization of rural production and encouraging integration
between the state environmental entities for its management.
The Forest Code is the most appropriate legal framework for regulating and ordering this
compatibility. For this reason, we are in agreement that it is needs to be improved and adapted to
the new reality of not only agri-business but also of climate change and of the risk of collapse in
those environmental services that sustain the country’s economy.
For the reasons set out above, we make our contribution to improving the Brazilian Forest Code, in
the form of the proposals presented here.
March 2011
Signatories
COMPANIES
THIRD SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
Adami S.A. Madeiras
Bonet Madeiras e Papéis Ltda.
BSC – Bahia Specialty Cellulose
Cambará S.A.
Celulose Irani S.A.
Celulose Nipo Brasileira S.A. (Cenibra)
CMPC – Celulose Riograndense
Cocelpa – Cia. de Celulose e Papel do Paraná
Ferrous Resource
Fibria Celulose S.A.
Hidrotérmica S.A.
Ibema Cia. Brasileira de Papel
Iguaçu Celulose, Papel S.A.
International Paper do Brasil Ltda.
Jari Celulose S.A.
Klabin S.A.
Lwarcel Celulose e Papel Ltda.
Melhoramentos Florestal S.A.
Miguel Forte S.A.
Nobrecel S.A. Celulose e Papel
Norske Skog Pisa Ltda.
Primo Tedesco S.A.
Rigesa Celulose, Papel e Embalagens Ltda.
Santa Maria – Cia. de Papel e Celulose
Siderúrgica Alterosa
Sindicato das Indústrias Extrativas de Minas Gerais
(Sindiextra)
Stora Enso Arapoti Ind. de Papel S.A.
Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A.
Trombini Embalagens S.A.
Veracel Celulose S.A.
Amigos da Terra – Amazônia Brasileira
Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental
(ABES/MG)
Associação de Preservação do Meio Ambiente e da Vida
(Apremavi/SC)
Associação dos Fotógrafos de Natureza (AFNATURA)
Associação Mineira de Defesa do Ambiente (Amda)
Assoc. Profissional dos Engos. Florestais do Estado do RJ
(APEFERJ)
Centro de Estudos Ambiente Brasil (MG)
Conselho Nacional da Reserva da Biosfera da Mata Atlântica
Conservação Estratégica
Conservação Internacional (CI)
Fundação Biodiversitas (MG)
Fundação Relictos (MG)
Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica
Grupo Ação Ecológica (GAE/RJ)
Iniciativa Verde (SP)
Instituto Amigos da Reserva da Biosfera da Mata Atlântica
Instituto BioAtlântica (IBio)
Instituto de Manejo e Certificação Agrícola e Florestal
(Imaflora)
Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM)
Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas (Ipê)
Instituto do Homem e o Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (Imazon)
Instituto Eco Solidário
Instituto Espinhaço de Biodiv., Cultura e Desen. Socioambiental
Instituto Floresta Viva (IFV/BA)
Instituto Guaicuy (Projeto Manuelzão/MG)
Instituto Socioambiental (ISA)
Instituto Terra Brasilis (MG)
Instituto Xopotó (MG)
Movimento Pró Rio Todos os Santos e Mucuri (MG)
Movimento Verde de Paracatu (MG)
Sociedade Brasileira de Engenheiros Florestais (SBEF)
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Valor Natural
WWF-Brasil
FOR A NEW FOREST CODE - www.dialogoflorestal.org.br