Hello Dr. Dariusz Prokopowicz ,

Its truly a globally concerned issue. Exploitation of any ecosystem can be categorized based on the resources profiteered viz. faunal, floral, agricultural, industrial, ethnomedicinal etc. Any policy which aims at reducing the degradative effects of such exploitations or even to nullify changes brought about needs to channelize the efforts towards certain categories as some resources when harvested to near exhaustion cannot be replenished within the functional timeline of a human being no matte how stern the recupertive measures are.

Any changes brought about by the industrial/agricultural expansion on the floral compartments in any forest region is absolutely functionally irreversible, since the bludgeoning blow received through the rapid and large scale removal of the climax forest trees is environmentally akin to a death sentence to the ecosystem on the whole. Similar effect is achieved when mineral deposits are sponged up since the terrain biogeochemistry gets severely altered resulting in gradual changes in the ecosystem and reserves that had been accumulated over millions of years, once exhausted, will never be replenished.

Faunal exploitation receives far more outcry and attention than the others because animals have always received the extra attention because of their mobility as well as their ability to captivate spectators more at superficial level. But the sad truth is that more diminutive animals such as insects, and all the flora are of thousand fold more ecological importance in maintaining the productivity of an ecosystem, and I am not even mentioning microscopic life forms since they literally build the biological worlds. However, animals being consumers at varying trophic levels play immensely significant roles as energy conduits ensuring the flow of energy throughout the labyrinth of the ecological pyramid.

Any policy that is motivated to prevent exploitation of faunal wealth should impose rules on the harvesters so that a fraction of what is being harvested, either through direct collection or through cultivation, is donated back to the respective ecosystems from which the species are exhausted to maintain the ecological balance and to sustain the industry, since in the real world income generation is perhaps the one major issue standing in the way of actual full scale conservation and it cannot be ignored that empty human stomach is not conducive for conservation of species and sustainable conservation measures are far more effective in the long run.

I wish I could have said the same thing about other sections of the environment being exploited but once the floral, microbial and biogeochemical alterations come into effect, no amount of restorative measures will bring back the ecosystem to its former pristine glory, at least not in the observable future simply because of the fact that these resources took time frames in geochronology rather than bio-chronology to enrich the environemnt.

I believe my answer has become rather an essay and still has shed relatively little in the way you have hoped, but the topic you touched upon is such.

Thanking you,

With warm regards,

Dr. Abhishek Mukherjee

Amazon forest are unique and sacred place for tropical biodiversity.It already global natural heritage site and all knows their importance. Sad part is that even having national and international laws, treaty and other safeguard measures on pretext of aboriginals greedy people exploiting the amazon forests. I my opinion its global resource rather limited to a country is need to be declared and accordingly exclusive policy for the same otherwise at national level it will not be protected.

In the policy community involvement and alternative livelihood must be given priority

Hi All....

Policies need to be empowered with some legal acts. Policies only concentrate about controls, not the motivation. Because, majority of the policy makers are ignoring the social aspects of the situation. So that, intentional focus towards social aspects are needed.

Samantha De Mel

The main threat is in the hands of international capital: mining, the huge massive extractivist dynamics all over the Amazonian countries. Therefore, policies have to be at different levels global and local : international, national, regional... this is a complex topic with many issues

We should abandon traditional economics - it is the problem. De growth or negative growth holds fair prospects for rain forests. Please see

-https://www.amazon.co.uk/Signs-Earth-Modernity-Climate-Crisis/dp/1847740758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542622068&sr=8-1&keywords=signs+on+the+earth. 

Hello Dr. Dariusz Prokopowicz,

I'm a student yet not an expert of enviromental policy, but i travelled to Costa Rica to complete my graduation. There the policy can preserve nature easily in one way: ecoturism.

Now i don't want to sound like the smart guy but, don't you think it might be very helpfull for the purpose?

The basic problem is the poverty of the people, if we show them that they can live and improve their economy with the conservation it might do the trick.

The government should use tax breaks to incentivies ecosustainable infrastructures, or exit fee for tourist visa.

With more turism, also local guides, restaurant and stores will take advantage.

Slowly the local community should want to preserve the richness of their land, preventing mining and deforestation.

It's just a thought but i would be glad to read what do you think about it.

Thank you

I found the attached link interesting. The need for political will and to maintain same priorities/objectives over the years until you achieve results-

https://www.theafricareport.com/13137/lessons-from-peru-on-political-willpower/

It should also provide for co-benefits at national and local levels.

As from the replies above, protecting the Amazon has many dimensions. Since the original question refers to changes in economic policy, i think, practically speaking, that these changes must be to improve natural resource economics to add $ values to biodiversity and ecosystem services. Even though these are priceless !! But to accomodate that within economic theory, the above has to be done. The costs of deforestation should be so high, that the prices of the products ( soya, beef, timber, palm oil, minerals etc) would also be very high, so that consumers waste less, and place more emphasis on reusing them. For ultimately its consumer demand that creates a market for these extracted resources, and no amount of policing will help prevent destructive extraction.

Lastly, with the current Brazilian president, that is an added challenge.

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG,

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

To the problems resulting from the predatory economy of obtaining wood from the Amazon rainforest, nowadays we should add the more frequent drought and fires of this Amazon rainforest. These fires, especially the Amazon rainforest fires in Brazil are very negative for the Earth's ecosystem due to climate change. The Amazon rainforests produce up to 20 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. oxygen. During current fires (end of August 2019), part of the Amazon rainforest with an area of ​​1.5 football field burns every minute. the government in Brazil has announced that it does not have the resources to counteract this problem.

Brazil does not have enough firefighters and firefighting equipment to even try to put out the fire. This is a problem not only for Brazil but for the whole world. This is a global problem. The problem of the burning enormous rainforests of the Amazon rainforest should be the subject of urgent convening of a special UN conference as soon as possible, including the participation of many other international ecological organizations, governments of many countries, internationally operating financial institutions and industrial corporations capable of providing assistance and organizing measures and necessary actions to put out the fire as soon as possible. The Amazon rainforest fire is already a serious SOS signal for the Earth, for humanity, for the lives of many species of flora and fauna that the critical point caused by the global warming process has clearly been exceeded.

Therefore, quick actions are necessary to extinguish this fire and implement in Brazil and other countries programs of systemic implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development in accordance with the green economy philosophy. It is not easy in the situation of a developing country, a country that is just developing its industry and technology in order to achieve a level of economic development similar to the level of income, equipment with technologies etc. in highly developed countries.

In view of the above, systematic international assistance is needed for Brazil and other developing countries, which lack funds for implementing ecological innovations and implementing ecological reforms, among others in the field of development of renewable energy sources and limiting the plundering economy of obtaining wood from the Amazon rainforest. The Amazon rainforest fires are a serious SOS signal sent by nature towards humanity. Unfortunately, there is less and less time for the implementation of necessary pro-ecological activities with each subsequent year. These are no longer paraphylosophical deliberations as was thought in public opinion at the turn of the 20th century. The progressing global warming process is a fact. It is also a fact that climate change, which is unfavorable for life on Earth, is primarily the responsibility of man.

Climatologists estimate that the necessary pro-ecological reforms in global terms should be carried out by 2030 at the latest for effective slowing of the global warming process to be effective. If this plan is not implemented, then by the end of the 21st century the average temperature at the Earth's surface will increase by another min. 3-4 degrees which will result in an increase in climatic disasters. Earlier there will be a complete melting of glaciers, the release of methane from the thawing Siberian tundra and other polar regions, an increase in drought, fires and volcanic eruptions. This will cause a chain reaction of climatic disasters that are a derivative of global warming and at the same time the same processes will be the source of further greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in the average temperature at the Earth's surface. If the climate change process enters the aforementioned chain reaction of climate disasters related to the global warming process, then it will not be possible to stop and significantly slow down these negative processes on Earth's life. However, there are still a few, max. several years to implement environmentally friendly reforms globally, implement sustainable economic development in economic processes carried out in accordance with the green economy philosophy. Therefore, the current question is: Will humanity use this remaining time to implement this plan. It is the biggest global civilization challenge for humanity in the 21st century.

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this topic?

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Dariusz Prokopowicz

funny I am the first brazilian in here. You guys either are very naive or belong the the internacional plaue of international burocracy.

A few days ago it was th offer to buy Greenland. Well do you know that there are nucear weapons stored there, american weapons. Little denmark could ask politely for them to be removed and the american air base to close.

Now it is the amazon on fire a big emergency.

rThe peak of fires was decades ago with 1200000 fires, now there are 72000.

Both cases are the conseqquence of the fall of the american empire and how it will go. China is challenging it, so is Russia and iran.

Among the heavy polluters in amzon is Norway mining in Pará polluting cities waterwith heavy metals waste.

The french boy is calling for the intrnacionalization of the amazon, he could get worried by the mercury posoning of the illegal gold mining in french Guyana.

If I heard anymore the word complex to say something is complicated, i will scream.

You should not believe in the big press, they have an agenda too.

as for economics, well guess who buy the wood? Europeans mostly as far as I know.

How about an internationally enforceable moratorium on economic growth accompanied by a corresponding restriction on bank lending?

Sounds good, ask the bankers.

I think you are getting the drift. Bank lending can be restricted by law - a political responsibility. But the power of the political establishment depends on the bankers creating money. Also we the people vote politicians in who promise the good life as in Brazil and this good life depends substantially on bankers creating credit to progress our consumer life styles. The natural world have no votes - consequence forest fires.

A useful first step would be to tell McDonalds to buy their beef from somewhere else. I remember when they first bought it from Brazil, and actively encouraged forest clearing, which caused a huge reaction which, evidently, led to nothing.

My suggestion would be to close all MacDonalds, everywhere and other junk foods outlets. The people who work there, would plant forests in their own countries.