CIAO DATE: 06/02

The Brazilian Environmental Movement Post-UNCED 1992: Trends and Prospects

Samyra Brollo de Serpa Crespo

December 2000

Institute for Latin American Studies
at Columbia University

 

Abstract:

This paper describes and briefly evaluates the overall situation of the Brazilian environmental movement, based on surveys of existing environmentalist organizations. It comments on the most important aspects of the movement's post-UNCED work, and on trends that will shape its positions and commitments in the years to come.

How Many Brazilian Environmentalist Organizations Are There?

In 1992, Mater Natura, an environmental organization from the South of Brazil, identified almost 2000 organizations claiming to be environmentalist. The large number may be owing to the surge of environmental concern in the period immediately following the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as Rio-92. According to a more complete and detailed survey made in 1995 by three NGOs, Mater Natura, WWF and ISER and published under the title ECOLISTA, there were 725 Brazilian environmental NGOs. This number seems small, given the size of the country and the fact that hundreds of groups and micro-organizations emerge every day from the density and diversity of social movements. But the influence of environmentalism exists beyond these NGOs, within larger organizations and in government agencies: as national, state and local systems of environmental protection are consolidated, they hire environmentalist professionals and cadres. In other words, the Brazilian environmentalist movement is broader than might be imagined, given the number of environmentalist organizations.

However, whether the movement is weak or strong now and in the future depends on the expansion and consolidation of this group, because it concentrates the ethos of the international environmental movement, occupying political and institutional spaces, as well as symbolic ones, by representing what is specific to "environmental activism". The table below, taken from ECOLISTA, shows in percentage terms the types of organization (government or non-governmental) that work to protect the environment:

ECOLISTA (1995)
Type	Total	% Total
Government	260	26.4%
Non-governmental	725	73.6%
Total	985	100%

Other examples help quantify the size and estimate the influence of the environmental movement in Brazil. For example, there are umbrella organizations like the Brazilian Forum of Environmental Organizations and Social Movements, better known as the Brazilian Forum of NGOs (currently represented by the NGOs that coordinate it: FASE, Vitória Amazônica and Vitae Civilis); at its height, during UNCED, it had 1450 registered member organizations (not all of them strictly environmentalist). The Brazilian Forum now has 430 affiliated organizations. ABONG, the Brazilian Association of NGOs, has 230 members, of which it says only 30 are environmentalist. Another important nationwide record is CNEA, the National Register of Environmental Organizations, with 262 organizations. Registration on the CNEA enables environmentalist organizations to participate in important councils, like CONAMA (the National Council on the Environment), on which 7 NGOs have seats, the National Fund for the Environment (5 seats) and the National Commission for Sustainable Development Policies and Brazilian Agenda 21 (2 seats)

Birth and mortality rates of environmentalist organizations are very high in Brazil. Furthermore, their action is often very local, not well connected to the broader movement, and thus often not very visible.

Other data from the organizations surveyed by ECOLISTA in 1995 are:

Most organizations have existed for less than 5 years; the boom in environmental NGOs ocurred between 1985 and 1992, as can be seen in the graph below:

As for location, the organizations are heavily concentrated in the Southeast, perhaps because it is the most developed and heavily populated region of the country:

ECOLISTA — Table 2: Location by region and type of organization

Region

State	Government	Non-Govern.	Total
North	32	55	87
Acre	6	2	8
Amap·	4	2	6
Amazonas	4	4	8
Par·	5	25	30
RondÙnia	5	17	22
Roraima	4	3	7
Tocantins	4	2	6
Northeast	54	90	144
Alagoas	3	4	7
Bahia	7	46	53
Cear·	11	6	17
Maranh“o	6	6	12
ParaÌba	6	4	10
Pernambuco	9	12	21
PiauÌ	6	5	11
Rio Grande do Norte	2	7	9
Sergipe	4	0	4
Center-West	35	69	104
Distrito Federal	22	25	47
Goi·s	4	13	17
Mato Grosso	5	18	23
Mato Grosso do Sul	4	13	17
Southeast	78	346	424
EspÌrito Santo	10	23	33
Minas Gerais	16	65	81
Rio de Janeiro	13	94	107
S“o Paulo	39	164	203
South	61	165	226
Paran·	36	58	94
Rio Grande do Sul	14	69	83
Santa Catarina	11	38	49
Total	260	725	985

Most organizations have low levels of institutionalization, as is evident in: the small number of activists per organization (between 10 and 20); low levels of access to paid technical and scientific personnel (38%) and dependence on outside consultants working for free, usually from local universities; lack of legal status (16%); insignificant annual budgets (more than 70% work with less than US$10,000/year), while only the most elite organizations have access to resources from the donor agency "circuit" (USA, Canada, European Union) and public funds; limited access to computer networks and equipment; 34% of organizations' headquarters or offices are in activists' homes.  The tables below, which show levels and sources of funding, help understand the lack of institutionalization:

ECOLISTA — Table 4: Annual income levels

	Type of Organization
	Gov.	Non-Gov.	% Total	Total
Did not respond	48.1%	28.8%	33.9%	334
R$ 10,000 or less	3.1%	20.3%	15.7%	155
From R$ 11,000 to R$ 50,000	3.8%	20.3%	15.9%	157
From R$ 51,000 to R$ 100000	2.7%	11.4%	9.1%	90
From R$ 101,000 to R$ 500,000	10.8%	15.3%	14.1%	139
More than R$ 501,000	31.5%	3.9%	11.2%	110
Total	260	725		985

ECOLISTA — Table 6: Composition of NGOs' Income (725 respondents)

Source	0 -10%		10 — 25%		25 — 50%		50 -75%		75 — 100%		Received by	% Total
Members' contributions	80	(20.9%)	48	(12.5%)	48	(12.5%)	34	(8.9%)	173	(45.2%)	383	(52.8%)
Individual donations	89	(40.8%)	41	(18.8%)	43	(19.7%)	10	(4.6%)	35	(16.1%)	218	(30.1%)
Sale of services/products	89	(43.8%)	36	(17.7%)	30	(14.8%)	20	(9.9%)	28	(13.8%)	203	(28.0%)
International funding	14	(12.3%)	7	(6.1%)	21	(18.4%)	19	(16.7%)	53	(46.5%)	114	(15.7%)
Braz. gov't funding	40	(35.7%)	22	(19.6%)	31	(27.7%)	7	(6.3%)	12	(10.7%)	112	(15.4%)
Corporate funding	37	(34.6%)	18	(16.8%)	16	(15.0%)	19	(17.8%)	17	(15.9%)	107	(14.8%)
Other sources	16	(26.7%)	9	(15.0%)	6	(10.0%)	4	(6.7%)	25	(41.7%)	60	(8.3%)
Braz. NGO funding	22	(39.3%)	8	(14.3%)	11	(19.6%)	4	(7.1%)	11	(19.6%)	56	(7.7%)

In comparison to other countries, where industry increasingly pays for environmental recovery, Brazilian organizations receive little from private enterprise (14%). The state also contributes little: only 11% of organizations said they received some kind of government funding. This reiterates the limited access to public funds for environmental groups, most of which were set up at the end of the 1980s (FNMA, PDA, PNMA/PED, FUNBIO) with matching funds from foreign organizations.

These data are comparable to a national survey of environmentalist leaders done in 1997 by ISER, an NGO in Rio de Janeiro, and the Ministry of the Environment. Entitled O que O Brasileiro Pensa do Meio Ambiente, do Desenvolvimento e da Sustentabilidade (What Brazilians Think about Environment, Development and Sustainability), the survey showed that the sector is in a constant funding crisis, that the golden years of international development funding in Brazil are over and that expectations raised by UNCED about funds from donor countries to finance environmental protection activities were not met. The search for financial stability has led many organizations to go professional, that is, to propose and execute projects for local governments and companies, providing services. This fundraising strategy has generated an internal discussion in the movement over the "stage of development" of Brazilian environmentalism, its importance and its independence.

How Is Brazilian Environmentalism Doing?

Because their work is markedly local, the work of environmental organizations receives modest public recognition: in two national surveys by ISER and the Ministry of the Environment, the first in 1992 (O que o Brasileiro Pensa da Ecologia — What Brazilians think about Ecology) and the second in 1997 (the abovementioned What Brazilians Think about the Environment, Development and Sustainability), only 7% of those surveyed were able to name an organization, though the majority (more than 70%) said they were sympathetic to environmentalist work. International organizations like WWF and Greenpeace were most often cited, as they have professional media strategies (they were mentioned by 2% of respondents), along with IBAMA, the national environmental protection agency (4%). Among Brazilian organizations, SOS Mata Atlântica, based in São Paulo, was mentioned by 1% of respondents.

The problem of low visibility is difficult to comprehend, and diminishes the ability of environmental NGOs to act on either national or local issues.

Despite this, there is a general trend in Brazil — a consequence of the consolidation of democracy over the last decade — for NGOs to be increasingly recognized as legitimate players, and this includes environmentalist NGOs. There is practically no important council at federal, state or municipal level that does not include participants from civil society, meaning NGOs in almost every case. Besides CONAMA and the state and municipal councils on the environment, broader and more diverse councils have proliferated, such as the state and local development councils and the Agenda 21 Forums, that include environmentalist individuals and NGOs.

During the period after UNCED, environmentalist NGOs had a decisive role in the following processes:

• review of the legal framework (regulation and legislation) on the environment, such as: the New Law on Water Resources (1997); the New Law on Environmental Crime (1998); a law requiring environmental education in primary schools; and the rejection of the Forest Code review, which sought to cut legal reserves from 80% to 50%. (The latter initiative was proposed by representatives of landowning interests in Congress, in order to clear room for more agriculture and pasture, which would have seriously affected forests and other fragile ecosystems. The proposed law was defeated much to the credit of environmental groups.) Two laws to which environmentalists have contributed are now before Congress: the Law on Solid Waste, which will regulate, finally, the storage of radioactive and toxic waste; and the National Law on Urban Development, which aims to combat disorderly settlement and protect watersheds.
• the formulation and monitoring of public policies oriented to promoting Brazilian Agenda 21, both nationally and locally: about 12 states (of a total of 26) and 140 municipalities (out of 5,500) have taken initiatives to work on Agenda 21, almost always driven by environmentalists; large cities (state capitals) like Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte, Recife have Local Agenda 21. Agenda 21 Forums were created by law, and environmentalists are at the head of both Agenda 21 programs and Municipal Secretariats of the Environment. ANAMMA (the National Association of Municipalities and the Environment), founded in 1988, is a network of environmental managers with a strong environmentalist influence.
• the proposal and implementation of "demonstration" projects and the spread of "good practices" in sustainable development, as seen in PNMA (National Program on the Environment) reports and the 100 Experiências Brasileiras de Desenvolvimento Sustentÿvel (100 Brazilian Experiments with Sustainable Development), published by the Ministry of the Environment.
• the spread of ideas and the articulation of the environmentalist agenda to other social movements. The basic documents that constitute Brazilian Agenda 21 (a total of 6 volumes published by the Ministry of the Environment/IBAMA in 1999: Cidades Sustentÿveis (Sustainable Cities); Agricultura Sustentÿvel (Sustainable Agriculture); Manejo Sustentÿvel dos Recursos Naturais: Redução das Desigualdades Sociais (Sustainable Management of Natural Resources: Reducing Social Inequalities); Ciência e Tecnologia para o Desenvolvimento Sustentÿvel (Science and Technology for Sustainable Development); and Infra-Estrutura e Desenvolvimento Sustentÿvel (Infrastructure and Sustainable Development)) show the competence of Brazilian environmentalists in reducing the competition between social movements over the "paths to development" and how the idea of sustainable development is being absorbed in a positive way by non-environmentalist social activists. This is evidenced by the fact that three of the major Brazilian development NGOs, FASE, IBASE, ISER, all based in Rio de Janeiro, have begun environmental work, taking leading roles in important initiatives in the 1990s. The drafting of basic documents for Brazilian Agenda 21 received the direct contribution of more than 50 environmentalist NGOs;
• the formulation and monitoring of international environmental policies arising from UNCED, especially regarding "climate change" and the implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity;

Moreover, the NGOs and environmentalists have had a decisive role in networks that made it possible for Brazil to host UNCED and, five years later, its reviewuation by civil society, known as Rio +5 (convened by the Earth Council). In both of these informal networks, the Brazilian Forum of NGOs took a leading role. In spite of a constant crisis over its institutional status and representativity, it managed to bring together the environmental movement at important moments. This political effort and the Forum's ideas are expressed in two documents produced collectively: the Treaty of NGOs and Social Organizations (drafted during UNCED as a counterpoint to the Official Report) and Brazil 21^st Century — The Roads to Sustainability Five Years after UNCED (both have been published).

On What Issues are Brazilian Environmentalist Organizations Concentrating?

The 1995 survey shows that most organizations specialize in a bioregion, focussing their activities on particular ecosystems, as the table below shows:

ECOLISTA — Table 7: Bioregions by Type of Organization

	Gov.		Non-Gov.		Total	% Total
Atlantic forest	118	45.4%	386	53.2%	504	51.2%
Bush (cerrado)	81	31.2%	150	20.7%	231	23.5%
The Amazon	69	26.5%	119	16.4%	188	19.1%
Caatinga	46	17.7%	65	9.0%	111	11.3%
Araucaria pine forest	39	15.0%	67	9.2%	106	10.8%
Other	34	13.1%	70	9.7%	104	10.6%
Coastal Ecosystem 1	30	11.5%	56	7.7%	86	8.7%
Marshland (pantanal)	28	10.8%	53	7.3%	81	8.2%
Total	260		725		985

This table shows that 62% of governmental and non-governmental organizations working on environmental protection (610) concentrate their work on the Atlantic forest and associated ecosystems ₂ , probably because of two complementary factors: the heavy concentration of environmentalist organizations in the Southeast the tendency to work locally — together forming a consensus that the Atlantic Forest is the ecosystem under greatest threat in Brazil (of its original extension, only 6% remain).

No doubt, as the table shows, the most popular issue is biodiversity, which together with the high degree of interest in the issue of conservation units and the protection of forests in general reveals a strong trend by organizations to work for the conservation of wild ecosystems.

ECOLISTA — Table 8: Issues according to region of the country

	N	NE	CW	SE	S	% Total	Total
Fauna and flora(biodiversity)	70.1%	69.4%	74.0%	65.6%	66.4%	67.6%	666
Forests	73.6%	49.3%	47.1%	55.2%	50.0%	53.9%	531
Water resources	42.5%	60.4%	56.7%	53.8%	53.1%	53.9%	531
Waste (solid and liquid)	34.5%	50.0%	41.3%	51.4%	58.8%	50.4%	496
Urban environment	39.1%	54.2%	44.2%	50.9%	50.0%	49.4%	487
Conservation units	51.7%	46.5%	49.0%	47.4%	48.7%	48.1%	474
Environmental legislationand public policy	37.9%	48.6%	50.0%	50.0%	45.6%	47.7%	470
Sanitation	16.1%	34.7%	21.2%	37.7%	35.4%	33.1%	326
Agriculture and ruraldevelopment	32.2%	31.3%	33.7%	29.2%	34.5%	31.5%	310
Agrochemicals	11.5%	29.2%	29.8%	20.0%	38.5%	25.9%	255
Alternative Technologies	26.4%	27.1%	26.0%	28.3%	17.7%	25.3%	249
Traditional and gatheringpopulations	36.8%	16.0%	23.1%	17.2%	9.3%	17.6%	173
Marine resources	4.6%	29.9%	8.7%	15.3%	10.6%	14.7%	145
Indigenos peoples	35.6%	11.1%	18.3%	12.7%	8.4%	14.1%	139
Energy	3.4%	6.3%	13.5%	14.2%	12.8%	11.7%	115
Other	14.9%	11.8%	15.4%	11.1%	6.2%	10.9%	107
Climate change	14.9%	8.3%	11.5%	10.6%	8.0%	10.2%	100
Speleology	5.7%	9.0%	16.3%	10.8%	7.1%	9.8%	97
Total	87	144	104	424	226		985

This green or conservationista agenda is not surprising, given that it is part of major world trends and present in Brazil in older, "historic", Brazilian environmentalist groups. As a counterpoint, the high proportion of organizations concerned with urban problems (quality of water resources, waste, sanitation, etc.) shows that there is also an increasing concern with the quality of life of the urban population and the "brown agenda."

The Activities of Brazilian Environmentalist Organizations

Environmental education is the main activity of environmentalist NGOs in Brazil: 86% of the organizations in the ECOLISTA survey said they were thus engaged, almost always working with primary and secondary school students and groups of teenagers and young people. After environmental education, projects oriented to local communities, to mobilize public opinion (awareness-raising and denouncement campaigns) and campaigns for conservation and monitoring compliance with the law. The next table shows environmentalist NGOs' ten most common activities:

ECOLISTA — Table 9: Activities According to Type of Organization

	GOV	Non-Governmental	% Total	Total
Environmental education	67.7%	86.5%	81.5%	803
Projects with local communities	50.4%	58.5%	56.3%	555
Campaigns to mobilize public opinion	31.5%	62.1%	54.0%	532
Conservation projects	61.9%	50.6%	53.6%	528
Monitoring compliance with the law	55.0%	41.4%	45.0%	443
Research and development	53.1%	34.5%	39.4%	388
Technical advice and consultancy	45.0%	31.6%	35.1%	346
Environmental monitoring	51.2%	24.3%	31.4%	309
Ecotourism	10.4%	23.2%	19.8%	195
Natural resource management	41.9%	11.7%	19.7%	194
Total	260	725		985

Profile of the Leadership

There are no precise data on the profile of environmentalist leaders in Brazil. The older research on the NGO sector, by Leilah Landim and Rubem César Fernandes (respectively Sem Fins Lucrativos — Not For Profit, ISER, 1988; and ONGs Anos 90: A Opinião dos Dirigentes Brasileiros — NGOs in the '90s: The Opinion of Brazilian Leaders, ISER, 1992) show that the leadership is aged between 35 and 40, on average, is highly educated and that most have degrees in the humanities. Neither survey takes into account gender, showing that this issue was not of concern to the sector at that time. This "forgetfulness" holds over to the research that gave rise to ECOLISTA. Both national surveys of the leadership (90 leaders were interviewed in each) sought to balance gender, but men still predominate. Research shows that few environmentalist organizations are very active on gender issues; REDEH (Rede de Desenvolvimento Humano) is one of the rare organizations that have specific programs to train women leaders active on environmental issues. On the national scene, some women have been prominent (some have already been mentioned). Among them, Maria Tereza Jorge Pádua has an international reputation as a conservationist, Thaís Corral is a leader on Agenda 21 and Berta Becker, Dáilia Maimon, Julia Guivant and Leila Ferreira are active in universities. In the area of environmental education, as in Brazilian education in general, women are in a large majority. Recent studies of Brazilian social movements show that the leadership of grass roots organizations (residents' associations and the churches' social ministries) is increasingly women. However, the same cannot be said about the organizations as such, much less about environmentalist organizations. The absence of reliable information about this points to a gap in our knowledge that deserves specific research.

Development of the Environmentalist Agenda in Brazil (1992-2000)

The 1997 national survey of leaders in six different segments of Brazilian society (businessmen, congressmen, researchers, technicians and decision-makers, environmentalists and leaders of social movents (What Brazilians Think...) shows that the Brazilian environmentalist agenda has been developing since UNCED: it is more complex, involves new issues and the vision of new players (like business, for example, which was did not have an important voice in 1992 on the eve of UNCED).

This national survey heard from important Brazilian environmentalist leaders: Senator Marina Silva (PT — Workers' Party, Acre), former federal and now state deputy Gilney Vianna (PT, Mato Grosso do Sul), the former state secretary for the environment and now deputy Fábio Feldmann (PSDB — Social Democratic Party, São Paulo), town councilman and former president of the PV — Green Party, Alfredo Sirkis, and recognized activists like João Paulo Capobianco (ISA — Instituto Sócio-Ambiental, São Paulo), Rubem Harry Bohrn (Instituto Vitae Civilis and LEAD Project Brazil), Kátia Drager Maia (Brazilian Forum of NGOs), Mary Alegretti (now Secretary for Development of the Amazon of the Ministry of the Environment), Maria Dalce Ricas (AMDA — Associação Mineira de Defesa do Meio Ambiente, Minas Gerais) and Muriel Saragoussi (GTA — Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico).

For our leaders, the most serious environmental problems in Brazil are those related to basic sanitation: mainly waste, followed by water pollution. In their view, the environmental movement is at a time of radical change in terms of interests and action. While in 1992, because of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and the interest of developed countries, the agenda was very conservationist and "green", in the years that followed the "brown agenda" of environmental problems typical of cities, where three quarters of the Brazilian population live, has become stronger.

The municipalization of environmental management in Brazil to comply with the 1988 Constitution has attracted environmentalist organizations to urban problems (Onda Azul in Rio de Janeiro and Salvador, SOS Mata Atlântica in São Paulo, for example). The diversification of the agenda is expressed in the formation of issue-based organizations like the Atlantic Forest network and the bush (cerrado) network (that focus on the green agenda), the Living Rivers Coalition (blue agenda) and GTA/Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico (that focusses on sustainable development in the Amazon).

Most Brazilian environmental problems were ranked by leaders in practically the same way in both surveys, in 1992 and 1997:

• deforestation (first on the list in 1992, second in 1997);
• waste disposal and sanitation (second in 1992, first in the 1997 ranking)
• water resources and pollution of coastal waters (third on the list in 1992 and 1997)
• urban pollution (fourth place in both lists)

As for the global agenda, our leaders think that Brazil tends to adopt a position identified with countries of the South, opposing the view of the "developed North". This agenda is under constant debate in international forums, at conferences and issue-based meetings, at which the participation of Brazilian environmentalist organizations is, admittedly, small; environmentalist leaders note that we are not yet involved enough in international networks.

The opposition of the views of North and South means, in general, that Brazil is aligned to positions that try to discuss environment and poverty and compensatory mechanisms (finance, technology) that developed countries should make available to countries of the South. This means demanding that rich and developed countries do their share of the sacrifice, reducing standards of production and consumption.

According to the leaders, the environmental agenda is extremely dynamic; its content continually grows and becomes more complex with the inclusion of new problems, transgenics, for example, that were not nearly as important globally three years ago as they are now.

There is a general feeling that Brazilian environmentalist NGOs do not have the force or stamina to monitor everything they should and that Brazilian foreign policy, dominated by Itamaraty (the diplomatic corps) obstructs participation and effective interaction by NGOs on the most important issues. The lack of cadres with specific understanding of "international relations" and who speak foreign languages is also noted. The leaders tend to think that "a few" environmentalists "who speak English" circulate internationally and that there is not a significant comprehension of international issues among Brazilian environmentalists.

In the case of RIO +5, coordination of NGO efforts and their effective participation in the event was possible because Brazil was the venue and thanks to the efforts of the Earth Council and the Brazilian Forum of NGOs in raising funds for the national preparatory meeting (consultation).

As for RIO +10 (in 2002) there is not yet any consistent collective effort under way. The Brazilian Forum of NGOs has not published any information on the subject. There is no news of any event or specific initiative that focuses on the 2002 Conference, although documents on procedures to be adopted and discussions that have already taken place are available on the Internet. Brazil did not participate in the UNED and UN Council on Sustainable Development consultation to draft the agenda for the Conference. The Brazilian government is now beginning to work through diplomatic channels to hold the Conference in Brazil, competing with South Africa. At the moment of writing (December 2000), the Conference venue has not yet been chosen.

A network similar to what prepared for UNCED and RIO +5 is important, not only to ensure participation of Brazilian NGOs but because the result of these efforts strengthens Brazilian environmentalism as a whole, with positive results for the progress of environmental awareness, especially among opinion-makers.

Final Assessment:

Both of the surveys mentioned (O que o Brasileiro Pensa da Ecologia, 1992; and O que o Brasileiro Pensa do Meio Ambiente, do Desenvolvimento e da Sustentabilidade, 1997) give rise to the conclusion that environmentalist ideas in Brazil have increasing support and that there is great popular sympathy for the issue and the organizations that work on it. Environmental awareness grew during the period immediately after UNCED, while it was also a period of challenges to the movement.

The 1992 survey showed that an "environmental community" has begun to take shape in Brazil. The concept of "community" implies recognition of organized groups of individuals, most of them in a formal way, belonging to different segments of society (business, social movements, public sector, etc.), that share a set of values and ideas and can translate them into specific actions that differentiate them from other (competing or complementary) communities. This community became organized at that time, through a complex dynamic that political scientist Eduardo Viola calls "complex multisectoral".

According to Viola, given the increasing legitimization of the environmental issue, both internationally and nationally, various segments of Brazilian society were in contact with environmentalism and taking in its ideas, to different degrees and at different rates.

The second survey reaffirmed the existence of this community and showed increased interaction between segments. The emergence and growth of the Brazilian environmental community in the 1990s is unquestionable and much broader than the environmentalist NGO sector. The inclusion of other sectors and the development of the Brazilian environmental agenda will mean the end of the exclusive leadership of environmentalist NGOs, causing an "identity crisis" for them and a constant tension between historic environmentalists and new members.

In spite of general recognition that environmental issues are part of the Brazilian public agenda and that there are visible signs of expansion and institutionalization of environmentalism in Brazil, a tension can also be noted between the perception that environmental problems have a higher profile and are better understood by Brazilian society and the widespread idea that environmentalist organizations, as an important part of the "community", are in serious crisis. This crisis is related, on an ideological level, to the decline in the leadership role of environmentalist NGOs, caused by the rise of other players, like business, and the greater environmentalism of other social movements.

More pragmatic action, known as "results-based environmentalism", marks the working style of the community since UNCED and a difference from the vanguard and "heroic" action of the movement in previous years.

On an organizational level, NGOs have faced problems of institutionalization, funding and choosing a focus for their work.

Growing acceptance of the concept of sustainable development by all sectors of society has evened out differences and paves the way for dialogues that had previously been difficult or impossible. Everyone seems interested in sustainable development, no matter what their ethnic group, age or political party.

Unlike 1992, when the community had great internal differences, now "social environmentalism" seems to be a label that everyone feels at ease with. Social environmentalism means that "green" environmentalism loses ground and the "brown" agenda of reforms for a more just and egalitarian society has been combined with the agenda of action for a healthy environment for both present and future generations.

In this combination, where environment and development have become one methodological unit, the program that fits like a glove and generates consensus is Agenda 21 (it most easily unites the social and environmental agendas).

Therefore, efforts to promote the principles and programs of Agenda 21 in Brazil are what helps environmentalism to function as a factor of cultural change and strengthens the environmental community as a whole.

Biography

Samyra Crespo

PhD in Social History and Sociology of Development (Universidade de São Paulo)

Senior Research of CNPq — National Council for Science and Technological Development

Coordinator of the two national surveys quoted here and technical adviser to Forum 21 of the Local Agenda of City of Rio de Janeiro.

Coordinator for Environment and Development  Program of ISER (Instituto de Estudos da Religião) since 1993, where she was also a director (1995-1999).

e-mail: samyra@iser.org.br

Endnotes

Note 1: "Coastal ecosystems" include dunes, restingas, seacoast, coral reefs, mangroves, coastal islands. "Other" covers ecosystems not otherwise mentioned.  Back.

Note 2: "Ecosystems associated to the Atlantic Forest" include the Atlantic Forest and the Araucaria Forest.  Back.