Justice Analysis – Deforestation of The Amazon

Environmental justice theory offers a perspective to understand the dynamics of deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest, particularly how environmental harm intersects with social inequity. It explores how all communities, regardless of race, class, or geographic location should all be able to have equal access to protection from environmental hazards and access to the benefits. This perspective underlines the need for a fair distribution of environmental resources and stresses the importance of involving affected communities in decision-making processes and policy creation. In the Amazon, this is especially relevant due to the local and indigenous communities experiencing the effects and shouldering the burden of the environmental degradation caused by deforestation. The Amazon is home to almost 2.7 million Amazonian indigenous people, 60 of which are still in voluntary isolation, these communities depend on it for substance, cultural practices, and livelihood (WWF, 2024). However, their land and rights are often overlooked and disregarded in favour of economic interests such as logging, mining and agricultural expansion prioritising financial benefits over ecological and community welfare. This constant exploitation undermines the community’s existence, disrupts ecosystems and further accelerates global emissions (Fearnside, 2005).

Environmental justice shows the need that indigenous communities in the Amazon must be directly included in the discussions and decisions about deforestation. These communities are rarely involved in the lead up to policy making and decisions which leads to projects failing to recognise their unique needs and values. It suggests that those responsible for the amazon’s destruction such as corporations that benefit from deforestation should be held responsible for minimising and mitigating its impacts (Hurowitz, 2020). For example, companies such as Cargill face legal and media scrutiny for their contributions to Amazonian deforestation through agricultural activities. Despite publicly pledging to transform their supply chains to be deforestation-free by 2030 and claiming that "farming and forests can coexist," investigations reveal otherwise (Watts, 2023). Cargill has been found supplying companies like McDonald’s, Tesco, and Nando’s with chickens fed on soy linked to significant Amazonian forest fires and large-scale tree clearance (Watts, 2023). Corporations, like McDonald’s, further mislead consumers by marketing themselves as environmentally responsible while continuing to be some of Cargill’s largest customers. This "greenwashing" tactic allows corporations to sidestep accountability by promoting themselves as sustainable while continuing practices that exploit land and disregard indigenous rights (Watts, 2023).

This pattern of greenwashing extends beyond agricultural companies to financial institutions. Five of the world’s biggest banks are providing billions to oil and gas companies to finance projects that destabilise the climate or impinging on the land and livelihoods of indigenous people (Watts, 2024). However, 71% of the Amazon is not effectively protected by the banks risk management policies allowing them to say they follow ethical practices (Watts, 2024). This exemplifies that limited accountability measures are in place and highlights the gaps in being able to achieve true environmental justice for Amazon communities, showing the need for in depth and stronger policies to be able to hold corporate companies accountable for their actions.

Moreover, structural inequalities are further exacerbated with international funding of $2.7 billion aimed at preserving the Amazon has been pledged for conservation efforts (Griffin, 2023). Despite this, less than 1% of climate assistance lands in the hands of the local communities (Griffin, 2023). These figures demonstrate unequal distribution showing how the indigenous rights are dismissed and the limited voice these communities have in managing their land resulting in them enduring the environmental repercussions of their land being exploited by both illegal and legal mining and logging companies.

Overall, applying the justice environmental framework to the deforestation in the Amazon illustrates the critical need for equal involvement of the indigenous communities in the decision-making process alongside accountability measures for corporations. Without these regulations in place the Amazon’s ecosystems and the communities dependent on them will continue to face exploitation and exclusion from the resources intended to sustain them.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. (2005) ‘Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, rates, and consequences’, Conservation Biology, 19(3), pp. 680–688. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00697.x.

Griffin, R. (2023) Deep inside the Amazon, indigenous leaders are fighting to preserve the rainforest and stabilize the climate, Vital Signs. Available at: https://vitalsigns.edf.org/photo-essay/deep-inside-amazon-indigenous-leaders-are-fighting-preserve-rainforest-and-stabilize (Accessed: 01 November 2024).

Hurowitz, G. (2020) How pressuring corporations can save the Amazon from destruction, Yale School of the Environment. Available at: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-pressuring-corporations-can-save-the-amazon-from-destruction (Accessed: 01 November 2024).

Protected areas and indigenous territories (2024) WWF. Available at: https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/vision_amazon/living_amazon_initiative222/protected_areas_and_indigenous_territories/ (Accessed: 01 November 2024).