Environmental Protection of Brazil's Atlantic Forest at the Local Level
The Bolsonaro administration has made it difficult to refrain from voting in the upcoming presidential elections. For those who avoid engaging in electoral politics, it is no simple task to continue this practice in face of his grotesque stances and policies. On the one hand, it seems to me that Presidents do less in terms of actual policy and more in terms of ‘selling’ to the general public and manufacturing support for whatever policy is already on the way — which is in the interest of a global Capitalist economic system as opposed to the interests of voters. On the other hand, the principles held by these individuals in major administrative roles have the power to stir public discourse and behaviors, normalizing retrogressive values which have concrete repercussions in society at large. Engaging in local lobbying initiatives, however, puts into perspective what the actual outcomes of voting are in our immediate environment.
I live in an area of Brazil with unique rocky Atlantic forest vegetation — unique enough to grant the demarcation of a nature protection reserve called Tiririca ‘Mountain range’ (Serra da Tiririca). This demarcation came after plenty of damage was already done by the swift and massive real estate industry of the last 40 years. The land my house was built on used to be a swamp, where alligators and birds lived, as well as rare plants. Unfortunately, my house is one of the few if not the only one in the neighborhood where spontaneous growth is allowed, and animals are welcomed rather than shunned or killed.
For the last 3 decades, a group called Lagoon Forever (Lagoa Para Sempre) raises awareness about the constant need to protect the limits of this reserve, and to prevent pollution and corruption in the region. It tracks regional water management institutions dumping sewage into streams, wildlife deaths, water quality, real estate projects, and urbanistic policies and permits.
Attracting residents to public hearings is a major challenge. Every step of the process seems to be created to be inaccessible and uninteresting — the language and content of documents, the times and places of gatherings, its publicizing… It is a full time job to stay up to date on urbanistic developments on a Municipal level, to understand the documents released and where to find them, and even more time needs to be invested into figuring out what can be done with all the information you manage to gather.
Most notable is the fact that the vast majority if not all the government officials we need to interact with for information and support for objectives are not elected — they are appointed. In face of the financial interest of gentrification, real estate, and obliteration of fauna, flora and even archeological sites and indigenous communities, political parties and ideological discourse from podiums are meaningless. From the audience at a hearing, the people sitting on leather chairs behind the large dark wood desk, framed by flagpoles and iron crests, all look exactly the same — men in suits recording lists of names of those present and swinging their little hammers.
In January 2022, Lagoa Para Sempre received a tip about a kiosk in Camboinhas beach which was undergoing an illegal renovation. It destroyed protected flora for its new deck, and it had no licensing sign on display. Upon further inspection, no permits were registered in any local administrative institution, and the Environment Secretariat had already issued a warning demanding the construction stopped until the submission of permits. The timeframe was not respected, and construction continued.
To find not only how but where to make a formal complaint is already a challenge. There are several institutions which do not interact; Regional Administration, Municipal-City Hall, Urbanism secretariat, Environment secretariat, State-level infrastructure secretariat… Two other challenges which are more pressing than reaching out to the right government branch are, one — how to know if something illegal is going on, and two — will fiscalization actually impede criminal behavior?
It’s quite time-consuming to research the legal standing of a property or business, but it technically is, alongside the names of the owners and administrators, public information. The law is also public information, but it is even more time-consuming to find and understand it. Within this framework, the fact that every citizen has the right to file a formal complaint seems impracticable.
Once a citizen identifies the proper government institution alongside its complaint protocol, the entity and individuals responsible, and the law which may have been infringed or the documents which may be missing, then there is the question of what will the outcome be of the subsequent fiscalization. By the time there is a response, if any, the site would possibly already have undergone irreparable environmental damage. Moreover, the punishment rarely entails demolishment and reforestation. It likely turns out to be a fine and pressure to regularize the construction, meaning the issuing of documents, paid fees and perhaps the replanting of a small fraction of the damage.
For these reasons, the culture of “having a friend” and “calling in favors” is the fast track to getting anything done. Be it a complaint or the regularization of a construction site, the strategy is the same. The main difference is that the investment of time and money into a cause which is in no way entrepreneurial in nature tends to be less robust than the investment into a retail or real estate endeavor.
To make matters worse, there are also cases of blatant conflicts of interest, such as that of city councilor Atratino, from Niterói. As a businessman and owner of construction and real estate ventures, he became his own “friend” in the government, with the power of knowledge and manipulation of administrative gears to make projects viable.
The function of city councilor includes the elaboration of organic laws of the municipality (and their exceptions). And as an eligible candidate, from the podium, he has no interest in revealing his personal interests in holding that position. Meanwhile, the voting population, as mentioned above, does not have the tools and resources of time, money and knowledge to invest in the research of subjects which are deliberately obfuscated (although they are technically public information).
Of the political strategies to combat deforestation at the local level, we must ask ourselves which is most effective and suitable for us as individuals — voting, lobbying or raising awareness. Most importantly, I would say, is to think about, if none of those, perhaps which new authentic strategy is best suited for your unique set of social and geographical contexts. The debate of whether or not to vote, or for whom, ought to be replaced with the conversation of whether voting is the only way to be politically active, or if the National scale is what matters the most.
MIRNA WABI-SABI
is a writer, editor, and translator from Brazil. She is the founder of the Plataforma9 initiative and is the author of the bilingual pocket book Anarcho-Transcreation (Anarco-Transcriação).