One of the many slums in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. Photo: World Resources Institute (flickr)

In Brazil, forests are rapidly being destroyed, slums are expanding, and crime has reached an all-time high.

The solution? Government officials in Rio de Janeiro insist that building a nine mile, cinder-block wall around their slums will help to prevent the Atlantic rain forest from further deforestation, and restrict the expansion of these shanty towns. Human rights groups and many residents of the slums — known as favelas — disagree, reports the Wall Street Journal. They claim the purpose of the walls is to further separate the slums from Rio's beautiful beaches and wealthier residents.

To give the government's claims some credit, the expansion of favelas has contributed to Rio De Janeiro's rain forest destruction over the years. In 2004, deforestation reached its peak when 10,588 square miles of forest were destroyed. The Atlantic rain forest, an ecosystem that once was a large and flourishing part of Brazil, has lost 93 percent of its forest cover. The walls are meant to serve as "ecobarriers," to prevent the favelas from expanding into the already at-risk, forested hillsides.

But it seems that the reason for the wall stems beyond the goal to protect the rain forest. The Journal explains:

it's all part of a wider plan by Rio officials to clean up the famously freewheeling city. Under Mr. Cabral, the state intends to hire 22,000 police officers in part to occupy favelas now under control of drug gangs.

Residents of Rio's slums claim the wall will only cage them in and restrict their ability to come and go as they please. Human rights groups are up in arms as well — referring to the proposed wall as a means of "social apartheid."

Representatives of Rochina, one of the many Rio slums in, convinced government officials to replace the high wall with ecological parks, paths, and low walls that still mark the limits of the neighborhood. Other favelas are are trying to follow suit and some government officials are reportedly considering alternatives to the wall. In the meantime, the construction of the walls continue until perhaps a different idea is agreed upon that makes the barrier clear without making residents feel trapped.

A ventor illegally sells bags of charcoal on the side of the road. Photo: Scott Gregory Photography (flickr)

Charcoal is Malawi's cheapest energy source, but local dependency on charcoal fuel is stripping the country's forests. The charcoal trade is illegal in Malawi, and now government and environmental groups are scrambling to find affordable forms of alternative energy for heating and cooking.

A shift away from charcoal seems implausible for many residents of the tiny southeast African country, where electricity and other energy options are much more expensive. Voice of America reports that Malawians, who earn an average of $19 a month, would have to fork out $30 for a new electric hot plate, where a locally made charcoal stove costs only $2.

Environmentalists say the charcoal trade is responsible for the loss of 50,000 hectares of native forests — the highest deforestation rate in Southeastern Africa.

Police roadblocks have failed to significantly impede charcoal trafficking. Malawi charcoal producer John Manda told VOA why he continues to ignore the charcoal ban:

I have been burning charcoal for 20 years. This is where my bread and butter come from; this is where I get money to pay school fees for my children. Although I know that it is not legal, there is no way I can stop without government giving me an alternative business.

Charcoal is one of the few industries in Malawi that benefits the poor, economist Patrick Kambewa told IRIN. In 2007, Kambewa published a report on charcoal consumption, trade and production which estimated that around 93,000 people depend on the charcoal industry for employment. (Malawi has a population of over 10 million.) Kambewa suggests that industry regulation — not criminalization — is a wiser way to address charcoal consumption.

"[Criminalizing the charcoal trade] has not helped matters, and all government ought to do is look into issues of taxation and rehabilitation of forests," said Kambewa. "People should be trained on how to manage forests at community level. They should be told about the importance of reforestation and the need to manage such resources.

Malawi is trying to wean itself off charcoal. The locally-based Wildlife and Environmental Society is training people in other profitable vocations like beekeeping and fruit juice production. Meanwhile, the government, with assistance from the European Union, has launched a six-year program that promotes sustainable forest management. The program will also push for expanding use of wind and solar energy. But VOA says people are skeptical that these efforts will fail to reduce the temptation of the lucrative charcoal trade.

In refugee camps in Sudan and the Congo, Mercy Corps trained locals to build and use fuel-efficient stoves, reducing the demand for firewood and ultimately cutting consumption by 50 percent.

Around 22 percent of the Brazilian Amazon is owned by various Indian tribes. Photo: leoffreitas (flickr)

The fate of the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon, hangs in the balance. In the coming weeks, Brazil’s Supreme Court will hear a case that will set a major precedent and shape the country's policy with respect to development in the Amazon and the rights of the forest's Indian tribes.

The case centers around the territory of Raposa Serra do Sol, which is located in the northeastern Brazilian state of Roraima. Raposa Serra do Sol is home to 18,000 Indians from the Macuxi, Ingarico, Patamona, Wapixana and Taurpeng tribes. In 2005, this territory was declared a reservation site for indigenous tribes.

The conflict has quickly escalated in this region as some Brazilians have refused to leave the area, claiming their right to develop the land. Specifically, some of the local rice farmers have resorted to violence in order to keep their farms. The situation is quickly deteriorating and the Supreme Court warns that the conflict could soon turn into a civil war. The court will soon decide if the government can legally continue to evict the rice farmers.

The rice farmers argue that it is not right for the government to evict people from their own land and to stop Brazilians from developing this rich area. About 12 percent of Brazil’s precious land has already been given to the various indigenous peoples. They argue that Brazilian land should be used for the betterment of Brazilians. Especially with the world food crisis, expanding Brazil’s agricultural sector into this region could greatly help the poor afford food and help the expand the local economy through much-needed jobs.

The tribes and their supporters, however, argue that their concerns outweigh the settlers’ economic reasoning. As the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon plays a major role in the environment. The forest is a climate regulator that affects rainfall in Brazil and Argentina and, some claim, even in Europe and North America. The preservation of its trees is pivotal in the fight against global warming. Already the cutting and burning of Amazonian trees account for about half of the world’s green-house gas emissions from deforestation. If Brazilians are allowed to develop this land, not only will they be kicking the Indians out of their ancestral homes, but they will also be severely hurting the already-precarious environment.

Photo: Deforestation in Mato Grosso, a major soybean growing region in Brazil leoffreita (flickr)

The woman known as the “guardian angel” of the world’s biggest rainforest has called it quits.

Marina Silva cited "the growing resistance found by our team in important sectors of the government and society" in stepping down as Brazil’s environment minister. Environmentalists saw her as a key ally in defending the Amazon.

Silva’s resignation is but one in a series of foreboding events in the face of increasing deforestation. Despite three years of decline, deforestation accelerated in the Brazilian Amazon during the last half of 2007. Land conversion pressures are attributed to soaring prices and demand for soy and beef exports. Brazil’s ascent to an agricultural superpower and its steady, 5-percent economic growth has stimulated hydroelectric dams, roads and other infrastructure projects.

The environmental effects of Amazonian destruction have global consequences. Deforestation not only threatens the existence of the indigenous populations who have lived in the Amazon for millennia, but also irreversibly damages a region of unparalleled biodiversity. Deforestation also exacerbates global warming. According to mongabay, an environmental news site:

… the country is ranked as the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases due largely to deforestation and forest degradation, which account for 70 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite the global importance of the Amazon, Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has made it clear that an international debate on the Amazon's fate is unwelcome.

This week, President Lula declared: "The Brazilian Amazon has an owner, and that owner is the Brazilian people.” He acknowledged conservationists' concerns but stressed the need to use the resources of the Amazon forest, which makes up two-thirds of the country’s territory.

If Brazil insists on framing the Amazon as a domestic issue, perhaps the best hope for conservation lies with the people who inhabit it. Construction of the Belo Monte dam — which would be one of the world's largest hydroelectric power plants, after China's Three Gorges and the Itaipu dam shared by Brazil and Paraguay and would also threatens severe ecological and social damage — gathered more than 1,000 environmental activists and Indians protesters in Altamira last week.

Nineteen years ago, a similar dam project was successfully defeated after being met with international condemnation. With today’s rate of deforestation and economic pressures, however, the future of the Amazon looks grim. The actions of both President Lula and Marina Silva lead us to one conclusion: in Brazil, economic growth trumps environmental protection.