Even without presenting documents required by law, farms in Bahia have obtained authorization from the state government to deforest. Releases are even given in areas protected by law and others in which there is a dispute over the possession of the territory and include provision for the use of prohibited techniques, such as hunting dogs to scare away fauna.
The irregularities in the legal deforestation in Bahia are pointed out by Imaterra (Hands da Terra Institute) which, in partnership with UFBA (Federal University of Bahia), analyzed the ASVs (Vegetation Suppression Authorizations) issued by Inema, the state’s environmental agency, in the last fifteen years. The research is part of the Tamo de Olho initiative, which also has a partnership between WWF-Brasil and the Instituto Sociedade, População e Natureza (ISPN).
Between 2007 and 2021, the government of Bahia authorized the deforestation of 992,587 hectares of native vegetation. Most of the area of ​​legal deforestation (80%) is in western Bahia and is mainly used for soybean, corn and cotton.
The group of researchers selected a sample of 16 requests for authorization for deforestation in western Bahia in areas of social or environmental conflict – such as overlapping with protected areas or with territories of traditional communities.
The study, published this Thursday (4), points out irregularities in all the processes analyzed.
Among the 21 types of failure in administrative processes are the absence of documents required by federal and state law. Farms have obtained authorization to deforest even without approval of their Rural Environmental Registry, provided for by the Forest Code.
Through satellite images, the project checked the information provided by the farms and found divergences that were not questioned by the environmental agency, such as, for example, the existence of APPs (Permanent Preservation Areas) not declared by the properties in their environmental registers.
According to the Forest Code, APPs must be maintained on the banks of rivers and springs, as well as on the tops and slopes of hills, and have the environmental function of protecting water resources – used on a large scale by agribusiness and the subject of dispute in western Bahia. .
The analysis of satellite images also identified abandoned areas on farms that requested authorization for further deforestation. According to article 28 of the Forest Code, “the conversion of native vegetation for alternative use of the soil is not allowed in rural properties that have an abandoned area”. Inema’s technical opinions, however, do not mention the obstacle and authorize the suppression of vegetation.
The research also evaluated the content of forest inventories and plans for scaring away and rescuing fauna, both required to obtain the ASV.
To scare away the fauna of the area to be legally deforested, the plan delivered by a farm proposes the use of hunting dogs. The practice is prohibited by the Environmental Crimes Law, but it was accepted by Inema.
The other plan presented suggests the use of mousetraps to capture the fauna. According to the study, the practice is not recommended because it injures captured animals, which can lead to death. The methods were not questioned by the technical opinions of the environmental agency of Bahia.
Forest inventories also have basic flaws, such as the description of vegetation in an area other than the area covered by the ASV. Some inventories cite species that are threatened with extinction, but do not make this information explicit, nor do they plan how to mitigate impacts.
The document from another farm classifies a species in a non-existent category: “near threatened”. The document cites a species with an unknown name and not registered in the Flora do Brasil Database.
In another case, of the 30 species identified in the inventory, five do not have a distribution for the state of Bahia and one does not have a distribution for Brazil.
Another sphere of conflict analyzed by the study shows that authorizations for deforestation were granted in cases where there is a dispute over territory and evidence of land grabbing, with overlapping areas.
On one farm, the study points out that “the ASV area is within the Rio Preto State Environmental Protection Area, but the property area is located within the Nascentes do Rio ParnaÃba National Park”.
Another three overlap with territories of traditional communities. In one of them, there is a discriminatory action in progress in the Justice that seeks to clarify the right to the lands claimed by four Gerizeiras communities. Even so, last year the farm received authorization to deforest 24,000 hectares of vegetation.
“Massive authorization for the suppression of native vegetation was incorporated as a State policy”, concludes the study. “The absence of a government declaration can also configure an implicit declaration of public policy, as a tacit policy”, he says.
THE Sheet contacted Inema and the Bahia Department of the Environment by phone and email. The press office returned the contacts, but did not respond about the issuance of ASVs until the publication of the report.
*The journalist traveled at the invitation of the Society, Population and Nature Institute (ISPN)
