South America, which is cloaked in some of the world’s most beautiful ecosystems, also sits at the center of the fight over climate change. For countries such as Brazil and Colombia, which are bursting with biodiversity and ecological riches, there is a new challenge in how to prosper while preserving. “Neither country is moving step by step linearly to this challenge, but both are making progress, albeit bumpy.”
The Amazon rainforest looms over Brazil, a symbol of nature’s bounty and a theater of the war over environmental policy. After years of increasing deforestation, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva vowed to set things straight. His administration has reaffirmed its promise to protect the Amazon with an aim of zero deforestation by 2030. Meeting such an ambitious target will demand not only tougher law enforcement, but also economic incentives to adopt sustainable uses of land, and support for indigenous peoples, whose custodianship is often the rainforest’s most effective form of stewardship.
But the path forward is not that straightforward. Economic interests — particularly the demand for beef, soy and timber — collide with conservation goals. “It’s also a challenge for the government, as heavily consolidated agribusiness sectors have a lot of power.” Enforcement, however, is patchy. Recent data do show some progress, but skeptics say it’s too soon for victory laps.
On the other hand, Colombia has a litany of challenges to tackle. Home to a tapestry of ecosystems, from the Amazon basin to the Andean highlands, the country has long been a host of biodiversity, but decades of fighting left scars on its environments. Mix in illegal mining, deforestation and unregulated agriculture. Colombia’s first leftist president, Mr. Petro has made environmental protection a centerpiece of his government.
Petro has stated he wants to end oil exploration, a radical move that would be controversial given the industry’s contribution to Colombia’s economy. For Petro, the transition to renewable energy is also a moral imperative, an economic opportunity, even an opportunity, although critics claim that such change will slow down the economy. The president has also called for reforestation efforts and strengthened protections for Colombia’s rich diversity of life.
Yet resistance still exists amid these advances. Illegal logging and mining continue, sometimes supported by organized crime. The people closest to the ecosystem preservation are often those who have minimum resources or motivation, if any, to use the same in order to implement conservation. In actual gross action, what’s written doesn’t always become clear.
Unqualified international support has been crucial in defining the green vision of these two countries, too. Such programs — like Norway’s Amazon Fund — have incentivized Brazil to keep standing forest. Colombia, as well, has turned to international partners to support its natural heritage conservation credit. But some experts question whether those initiatives can be adequate in the face of the magnitude of the challenges posed.
The stakes seem almost impossibly high. The Amazon, for instance, helps to regulate climate patterns worldwide, and the loss of South American biodiversity could have irreversible effects far beyond the continent. Because Brazil and Colombia have done groundwork that’s significant, but where the real success now depends on political will and continuing money, and on how to reconcile what is an economic soup with one that’s ecological.
For now, the green agenda is a work in progress — it is equal parts prayer, hard reality, acknowledgment that time is the rarest commodity.
