Growth vs. Sustainability: The Brazilian Dilemma and the PoliticoInstitutional Solution
Marcio Ranauro
On the 26th April 2007, President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva - upon signing the
Provisional Measure 366/2007 which divides IBAMA, (Brazilian Institute of
the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), and creates the Chico
Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Bio-diversity - implemented a new
climate for environmental protection and conservation in the country. Such a
measure, accompanied by statutes for regulating the decision1, immediately
generated adverse reactions, as much from IBAMA officials as from the
environmental movement active in the country.
The principal effect of this Provisional Measure is that it removes from
IBAMA the responsibility for the management of the Federal Conservation
Units (UCs), concentrating its powers on environmental inspection,
monitoring and licensing, including the authorisation of exploration for natural
resources. Therefore, some of the existing IBAMA offices across the country
will be handed over to the Chico Mendes Institute, thereby fragmenting its
activities, dividing its responsibilities and affecting the environmental
decisions of the most important body in the country in this area - responsible,
as it is, for the regulation of environmental preservation across the entire
national territory.
Such an attitude from the Federal Government can be directly associated with
the launch of the P.A.C. - Programme for the Acceleration of
Growth/Development - which has, as principal objective, the execution of
logistics infrastructure projects, energy generation, sanitation and housing, for
the growth of the P.I.B. - Brazilian Gross Internal Production - which depends
directly on environmental licensing.
According to the criticism of environmentalists and IBAMA officials, the
division of the body aims to facilitate licensing, thereby creating a situation

Social Scientist, Masters Student at CPDA, UFRRJ,and Socio-Environmental Consultant.
On the same day on which the Provisional Measure was published, the government also detailed the
regulatory structure and demonstrative outline of the responsibilities of the two bodies. (Statutes nº. 6.099 and
6.100, 2007).
1
that places the objectives of the P.A.C. above the mechanisms of
environmental evaluation.
According to critics, the division of the body will bring about a rupture
between licensing activities and the creation and management of the Federal
Conservation Units (UC's), which, in turn will automatically increase
bureaucracy and the risk of illegal activities. Within the current structure, the
environmental licensing of projects close to the UC's occurs in an integrated
and centralised fashion2.
Beyond these worries, the environmental movement also fears a possible lack
of resources for the management of the UC's. In Brazil, a large part of these
resources originate from compensatory measures resulting from these same
licensing procedures. With the division of the body it is probable that the
concentration of the interest of the government and the contractors in the
infrastructure projects will impose a liberalisation of licensing without taking
into account the compensation of resources destined for the maintenance of
the UC's. We can add to this the risk of the consequent division of resources
between the two bodies.
Within a few days of the publishing of the Provisional Measure, almost all of
the IBAMA offices across the entire country went on strike, demanding the
immediate withdrawal of the PM 366/2007. Such a reaction was based on the
idea that this action from the President could be a response to the supposed
reluctance by the body in granting a licence for hydroelectric construction
works on the Madeira River in Amazonia3, one of the P.A.C.´s largest energy
generation projects. In this light, the PM which has divided IBAMA, can be
seen as a reaction to IBAMA´s reluctance to grant licences.
Almost all of IBAMA´s activities are currently paralysed, awaiting judicial
decisions about the revocation of the Provisional Measure, or the
establishment of dialogue which could bring about a revision of such.
2
Some Members of Parliament and IBAMA employees believe that with the division the licensing procedures
have become slower due to the necessity for the presentation of reports from both bodies when the activity
occurs close to a Conservation Unit.
3
The construction of the Hydroelectric works on the Madeira River tends to cause different socioenvironmental impacts, principally linked to the size of the lake which is being generated; also in relation to
the modification in the flow of sediments which the river transports and the reproduction of the diversity of
fish which thrive there. It must also be emphasized that the creation of an important hydroelectric dam such as
this tends to induce a model of development inappropriate for Amazonia, which requires a form of
development equivalent to the necessity for the preservation of the rainforest.
The Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biodiversity
The division of responsibilities between the Chico Mendes Institute and
IBAMA is seen by its officials as a loss of the ´IBAMA´ trademark, who
consider it a patrimony of the Federation4. The creation of a new body
represents a loss of status and credibility with regards to the environmental
protection activities of the Federal Government.
On the other hand, those environmentalists more in favour of the creation of
areas of 'complete protection' understand that the creation of the Chico
Mendes Institute, by the very choice of its name reveals a strengthening, in
terms of governmental politics, of the Conservation Units of 'sustainable use'
(those that permit the permanence of population). Such criticism begins with
the very choice of the name Chico Mendes5 for the institute, which is the fruit
of the socio-environmentalist profile of the Minister for the Environment,
Marina Silva.
At first this measure was welcomed by the environmental movement, in the
sense of bringing about a highlighting of the management of the Federal
Conservation Units. However, the creation of the Chico Mendes Institute, in
the current context, is receiving strong resistance as it has been exactly timed
to coincide with the launch of the P.A.C., bursting as it is with infrastructure
building projects of great environmental impact. Beyond this, the
fragmentation of responsibilities implies a significant reduction in the
structure of IBAMA, already considered insufficient for country's
environmental management needs6.
4
It is necessary to emphasize that a large part of the workers participating in the strike in protest against the
PM introduced by the government, are young civil servants who have been taken on in recent years, and who
play a crucial role in the renovation of the activities of IBAMA, and in the promotion of a more militant and
'environmentalist' posture presented by the body.
5
Historically, Chico Mendes 'environmental' struggle was marked by his use of an environmental discourse to
attract attention to the rubber tappers´ cause, and prevent the cutting down of rubber trees in Acre. Hence the
worry for the more preservationalist environmentalists, that the body will favour the activities of sustainable
use of natural resources in the UC's.
6
Of the 150 IBAMA environmental inspection posts in municipalities in Brazilian rural areas, only 16 will
continue functioning, thereby reducing the inspection and monitoring of the use of natural resources.
Reactions from the Public
In the heat of all this discussion over the implementation of the P.A.C. and the
'division of IBAMA'7, the public has been accompanying the debate via news
channelled through the media. In general the IBAMA strike has been treated
as an impediment to the economic growth of the country for bringing about
the delay in the licensing of P.A.C. building works.
At the same time, IBAMA officials, represented by ASIBAMA - Association
for the employees of IBAMA - have been posting letters on the internet in
search of support for the revocation of Provisional Measure 366/2007,
considering it harmful to the process of environmental preservation, and
therefore infringing on the Human Rights of the Brazilian people. This
movement has received the support of members of parliament of the Federal
Congress, calling into doubt the approval of the Provisional Measure by
Parliament.
It is important to recognise that this movement catalysed by the employees of
IBAMA has brought about a string of debates within the National Congress,
with the participation of the public (the so-called environmentalists), focussed
on the revision of a governmental decision taken without prior consultation.
One can conclude that, with the introduction of the PM 366/2007 by the
Federal Government, a new ambience for the conservation and protection of
Bio-diversity in Brazil has been created, leaving many doubts hanging in the
air about the federal mechanisms of environmental management, and the
currently adopted model of economic growth. Within this scenario, a
revocation or not of this Provisional Measure will indicate, in the near future,
what form the profile of Brazilian Environmental Conservation will take.
7
It is in this way that the creation of the Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Bio-diversity is being
seen.