ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEANDTHE BRAZILIAN AMAZON

APREPRINT

X.M.B. Verschuur Forest and Nature Policy Wageningen University and Research Droevendaalsesteeg, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands Supervised by Dr. J.H. Behagel [email protected]

July 17, 2020

ABSTRACT

The forest fires and deforestation levels that rapidly increased in the Brazilian Amazon in 2019 resulted in global media coverage and became a point of international concern. This information brought forward tensions regarding the use of and decision-making on the Amazon while competing claims regarding environmental justice were made. Despite the absence of a common understanding on environmental justice, the concept is widely applied by scholars and practitioners alike. The study reconstructs the discourses and discourse-coalitions in the Dutch and British media that shape the Amazon fires as an issue and illustrate how environmental justice is articulated. The results are helpful in contextualising various political debates and discourses beyond this case study to include other (transnational) environmental issues. A discourse analysis of media sources revealed three dominant discourses: 1) Bolsonaro as the Hero; 2) Bolsonaro as the Villain; and 3) The problem is bigger than Bolsonaro. The portrayal of Bolsonaro as a Villain was favoured by the media and supported by a powerful discourse-coalition, therefore suggesting that – at least internationally – this appears to be hegemonic. The two dominant Hero/Villain discourses used discursive strategies largely based on division and polarisation, including through the use of divisive rhetoric such as mythological archetypes. Distributive justice was extensively and widely articulated by all three discourses, thereby illustrating that concerns on the overemphasis of distributive justice by environmental justice scholars are warranted. The research thus illustrates how competing discourses ‘make sense’ of the Amazon fires whilst highlighting power dynamics in knowledge production, truth creation and value systems, including hegemonic ideologies. Ultimately, in order to address socio-environmental issues, a genuine attempt should be made for greater respect, recognition and participation of less powerful actors and discourses in (environmental) decision-making while using a multidimensional and critical justice approach. Gaining insights into (alternative) discourses and how these came into being is thus a first step towards more inclusive environmental politics and governance. MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Disclaimer This thesis report is part of an education program and hence might still contain (minor) inaccuracies and errors. Contact [email protected] Citation Verschuur, X.M.B. (2020). Environmental Justice of the Brazilian Amazon: A Discourse Analysis. MSc. Thesis. Wageningen University and Research. Forest and Nature Policy.

Acknowledgements I wish to express my sincere gratitude to dr. J.H. Behagel for providing me with the opportunity to conduct this research and for guiding me throughout this master thesis. I also wish to express great appreciation to my family and my housemates for putting up with me throughout this second thesis - I could not have done it without your support! In particular I want to thank Eva, Judith and Marta for their extensive contributions (feedback, brainstorming, support), Gautham, and Marnix for being my LaTeX hero.

2 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Contents

1 Chapter I: Introduction 6 1.1 Problem Statement ...... 9 1.2 Research Objective ...... 10 1.3 Research Questions ...... 10 1.4 Structure of the Thesis ...... 10

2 Chapter II: Theoretical Framework 11 2.1 Part 1: Understanding Discourse ...... 11 2.1.1 Storylines ...... 11 2.1.2 Discourse-coalitions ...... 12 2.1.3 Power in Discourses ...... 12 2.2 Mechanisms of Discourse ...... 13 2.2.1 Crisis narratives ...... 13 2.2.2 Discursive strategies as a divisive tool ...... 13 2.3 Part 2: Understanding Environmental Justice ...... 15 2.3.1 A brief introduction into environmental justice ...... 15 2.4 Distributive Justice ...... 16 2.4.1 Procedural Justice ...... 18 2.4.2 Justice as recognition ...... 18 2.4.3 Critical Environmental Justice ...... 19 2.4.4 Discussion on Environmental Justice ...... 20

3 Methods 21 3.1 Data collection and selection ...... 21 3.2 Data Analysis ...... 21

4 Bolsonaro as the Hero 23 4.1 The Discourse ...... 23 4.1.1 Storyline 1: Political Sovereignty ...... 23 4.1.2 Storyline 2: Development & Progress ...... 24 4.1.3 Storyline 3: Brazil as a Conservation leader ...... 25 4.2 Environmental Justice ...... 25 4.3 Language ...... 28

5 Chapter 5: Bolsonaro as the Villain 31

3 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

5.1 The Discourse ...... 31 5.1.1 Storyline 1: The Amazon as a Crisis ...... 31 5.1.2 Storyline 2: The Amazon as a Global Issue ...... 31 5.1.3 Storyline 3: Bolsonaro as an Enemy to All ...... 33 5.2 Environmental Justice ...... 34 5.3 Language ...... 35

6 Discourse 3: The problem is bigger than Bolsonaro 39 6.1 The Discourse ...... 39 6.1.1 Storyline 1: Underlying Drivers ...... 39 6.1.2 Storyline 2: The fires are illustrative of a global problem ...... 40 6.1.3 Storyline 3: Shared but Differentiated Responsibility ...... 41 6.2 Environmental Justice ...... 42 6.3 Language ...... 45

7 Discussion 47 7.1 Part I: Bringing it together ...... 47 7.1.1 Competing Discourses ...... 47 7.1.2 The articulation of environmental justice ...... 48 7.2 Part 2: Explaining dominance ...... 50 7.2.1 Power and the politics of knowledge ...... 50 7.2.2 Legitimacy ...... 50 7.2.3 Crisis narratives ...... 51 7.2.4 Divisive rhetoric ...... 51 7.3 Part 3: Environmental justice in discourses ...... 53 7.4 Part 4: Moving Forward and Recommendations for Action ...... 55 7.4.1 Comic apocalyptic framing ...... 55 7.4.2 A multidimensional understanding and inclusion of justice ...... 55 7.4.3 Active reflection ...... 56 7.5 Part 5: Limitations ...... 57

8 Conclusion 58

9 Appendix A: Newspaper articles used for the analysis 60

4 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Table 1: Abbreviations used throughout thesis Abbreviation Meaning BLA Brazil’s Legal Amazon CEJ Critical Environmental Justice CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DMA Discourse-Mythological Approach EJ Environmental Justice EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FUNAI National Indian Foundation GCF Green Climate Fund HR Historical (Emission) Responsibility IBAMA Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources INPE National Institute for Space Research NGO Non-Governmental Organisation UK United Kingdom UN United Nations WUM Wise Use Movement ZD Zero-Deforestation

List of Tables

1 Abbreviations used throughout thesis ...... 5 2 Newspaper articles from the Guardian that were used for the analysis ...... 60 3 Newspaper articles from the Telegraph that were used for the analysis ...... 60 4 Newspaper articles from de Telegraaf that were used for the analysis ...... 61 5 Newspaper articles from de Volkskrant that were used for the analysis ...... 61

List of Figures

1 Monthly area of rainforest lost in the Brazilian Amazon due to deforestation (2015-2019). [1] . . . . .7 2 French President Macron’s tweet on Amazon fires, 22 August 2019. [2] ...... 8 4 Deforestation levels in Brazil (2015-2019); Note the reference to ’record level’. [3] ...... 32

5 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

1 Chapter I: Introduction

October 29th, 2018, marked the day that populist-authoritarian candidate1, Jair Bolsonaro, was elected as president of Brazil. His election was based on an extreme, far-right movement with the majority of support coming from the south of Brazil where many of the economic elite and agribusinesses are located. Throughout the following year, Bolsonaro’s administration made it into a multitude of headlines in different media outlets around the world, in particular regarding the increased deforestation rates and forest fires. Newspaper headlines were diverse and included titles such: “Chaos, chaos, chaos: a journey through Bolsonaro’s Amazon inferno” [5], “#PrayforAmazonia Rainforest” [6] and “Bolsonaro declares ’the Amazon is ours’ and calls deforestation data ’lies’” [7]. Bolsonaro, an ex-military member, found much of his support from the agribusiness sector, the powerful evangelical churches, and Brazil’s political and economic elite [4, 8, 9]. Opening up the Amazon rainforest to extractive industries and agro-industrial monocultures has been an integral part in his campaign and advanced in his early presidential term, but increasingly has also become a point of contestation. Nevertheless, the success of Bolsonaro’s campaign was largely based on “the promise of radicalizing markedly authoritarian rural policies” [4, p.960], a promise that would favour the minority group of wealthy landholder producers. In the populist reasoning, the “claims of a minority group are framed to be equivalent to the claims of the ‘the people’, while the interests of most are rendered as antagonistic to those of the nation” [4]. That this political and economic elite contribute(d) to making Brazil an agricultural economic power, thereby benefiting “the country as a whole” (p.960), are long-standing claims that largely emanate from Brazil’s military dictatorship (1964-85). Back when Amazon colonisation measures were encouraged, the Produtores (or producers) aided in making Brazil one of the biggest agricultural producers in the world [4, 10]. As such, they argue(d) that they are Brazil’s hope when it comes to realising economic growth, an argument that “obfuscates the “differentiated entitlements” that grant some groups of people privileged possession of—and access to—resources while excluding and dispossessing other groups” [4, p.965] [8]. During the 1970s and 1980s, developmentalist policies shaped the Amazonian frontier as a site of violence and environmental destruction, setting in motion racial hierarchies and agricultural expansion of monoculture ecologies [4], including cattle ranching. Deforestation rates were very high during the 1980s and 1990s, partly a result of the continuous expansion of large-scale cattle ranches into the forests. During the mid-1980s, environmental issues were identified and the conservation of the Amazon was stimulated by different actors such as foreign nations and transnational environmental groups, further triggering Brazilian anxieties on the internationalization of the Amazon (i.e. “the exercise of territorial sovereignty by a third country” [10]). In the 1990s a socio-environment response was witnessed (e.g. the creation of the ‘Ministry of Environment and the Legal Amazon’ in 1992 [10]), with new environmental governance measures imposed in the mid-2000s. Between 2004 and 2014, deforestation declined dramatically, of which 70% of the ’deforestation slow-down’ happened between 2004 and 2007 [11, 12]. Between 2008 and 2012, intervention strategies by both federal and state governments occurred which included, for instance, “law enforcement campaigns and credit restrictions for landowners who deforest illegally” [12, p.1] as well as other measures such as the 2006 Soy Moratorium and 2009 beef agreement (Tac da Carne)[11, 13]. As a result of multiple factors, including these policies, deforestation rates dropped “to historic lows” and the situation was considered a ’deforestation success story’ both in terms of forest conservation and supposedly ‘green’ agricultural production [14, p.377]. In short, Brazil witnessed a myriad of policy changes: “Over the past half-century, state policies for the Brazilian Amazon have shifted from direct appropriation of land in support of elite and corporate interests to agrarian resettlement projects favouring smallholders, to laissez-faire neoliberal policies favouring private enterprise and, most recently, to new forms of ‘green grabs’ of territories for environmental purposes” [14, p.377].

1’Populist’ refers to “actions [that] do not follow legal precedent or expert knowledge but rather reflect the will of leaders who claim to speak for the people’” [4, p.959]. In other words, the actions do not support the will of the of the majority but instead a particular group who supposedly represent the true identity of the people and the nation. The rule is ’authoritarian’ in the sense that those who provide opposition between the ruling power and ’the people’ are considered to be “enemies of the nation and excluded by force from spaces of political deliberation” (p.959)

6 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Despite the general downward trend in deforestation rates, deforestation in the Brazilian Legal Amazon (BLA2) between 2012-2018 increased 65% annually, including a 150% deforestation rate increase in Brazil’s Indigenous territories from 2016 to 2018 alone [16]. This reversal in the deforestation trajectory is largely attributed to changes in governance and policies, including a controversial revision in 2012 of Brazil’s Forest Code. Since Bolsonaro’s election, however, deforestation rates have surged (see Figure 1). Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research’s (INPE) data recorded a 278% increase in deforestation rates in July 2019 compared to the previous year, resulting in 870 square miles being lost in one month alone [3, 9, 17, 18].

Figure 1: Monthly area of rainforest lost in the Brazilian Amazon due to deforestation (2015-2019). [1]

The causes and drivers of deforestation are varied but mainly relate to governmental policies and commercial drivers [4, 10–12]. The former includes the dilution of “environmental regulations, undermining indigenous rights, and ending programs in support of smallholder farmers” [4, p.960] largely supported by the ‘ruralista front’ [8]. The latter includes economic activities such as the increased demand of export-driven commodity agriculture (e.g. soy, cattle [19]), logging and mining [8, 11, 20, 21]. Infrastructural projects [8, 22] have also contributed to increased deforestation, as have a number of indirect drivers such fluctuating commodity prices, migration patterns, growing unemployment and provisional subsidies [11, 23–26]. As such, these (in)direct drivers and data on historical deforestation in the Amazon illustrate that, although Bolsonaro and his administration advocate a strong anti-environmental rhetoric, the increments of forest loss are situated in broader and more complex political environment that faces numerous challenges. The recent global outcry in the media referred to both the elevated deforestation rates as well as the increased number of reported forest fires. Although many sources appear to use deforestation and fires interchangeably, they are not synonymous. Deforestation “converts large extents of natural forests into agricultural lands” whereas fires are “commonly used as a land management technique to clean land of wood debris and invasive weeds in agricultural plots” [21, p.1058]. Although forest fires are a common occurrence during Brazil’s dry season, which usually runs from June to October, the data that INPE released concerned national and international actors alike. One of the many concerns refers

2In Brazil, one can distinguish between the Classical Amazonia and the Brazilian Legal Amazon (BLA). The former is Brazil’s northern region and consists of seven states (Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima, Tocantins) whereas the latter is Brazil’s largest administrative unit contains all nine states in the Amazon Basin (those previously mentioned and parts of Mato Grosso and Maranhão).[15] In this thesis, I refer to the BLA when talking about the Amazon.

7 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

to the impact deforestation has on the global climate. The Amazon is often referred to as the ‘lungs of the planet’ and a vital carbon sink. Moreover, the Amazon’s importance for biodiversity, hydrology, its (Indigenous) inhabitants, amongst many other social, cultural, economic and ecological elements, is widely and frequently acknowledged [20, 27]. French president Emmanuel Macron was most vocal about his concern of the situation in Brazil, and the situation in the Amazon specifically. Macron’s Tweet in which he described the situation in the Amazon as an international crisis and emergency, calling for international action (see Figure 2), went viral. It was quickly pointed out, however, that the image Macron used in his Tweet did not correspond with the fires but instead was an image taken in 1989. This resulted in outrage and skepticism of various actors, some of whom referred to Macron’s post as ‘fake news’ (see figures 3a and 3b). The ’dramatic event’ – i.e. smoke from the Amazon reached the city of São Paulo on August 19, which blackened the skies even though it was mid-afternoon [28, 29] – coupled with concerns shared by well-known celebrities and politicians, were successful in capturing the public’s attention. Consequently, the Amazon fires became both a media and political issue. The fires thus provide a useful and practical illustration of how (environmental) issues go through different phases of attention with public interest ebbing and flowing at different points in time [30].

Figure 2: French President Macron’s tweet on Amazon fires, 22 August 2019. [2]

8 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

(a) A response emphasising sovereignty [2] (b) A response emphasising fake news [2]

The increased number of fires and rates of deforestation have, in addition to the drivers discussed above, been coupled to the significant policy changes Bolsonaro has invoked since his presidency. This include, for instance, the elimination of the Ministry of the Environment (as well as the climate sections of both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) with its duties becoming part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. Moreover, the administration of Indigenous lands was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Agriculture. Threats were made to withdrawing Brazil from the 2015 Paris Agreement [4, p.123], NGOs were expelled from the country, cutbacks were implemented on programs that support family agriculture, and claims for land by Indigenous and Afro-Brazilian communities were denied [4, 31]. In addition, opening up the Amazon rainforest to extractive industries and agro-industrial monocultures has been promoted extensively [4, 12]. Overall, environmental regulations have deteriorated, Indigenous and quilombolas rights have been undermined3, support from smallholder farmers have ended while those who oppose the populist and authoritarian agenda, such as environmentalists or Indigenous leaders, have been attacked by far-right forces [8][4].

1.1 Problem Statement

Although the recent global (media) outcry was a response to the forest fires and deforestation more generally, the broader context appears to concern itself with dilemmas regarding the use and decision-making of the Amazon, as well as broader social and economic developments. As such, themes which are frequently addressed in the media include those of sovereignty, Indigenous populations, international interference, responsibility, environmental protection etc. Environmental issues and conflicts, such as the Amazon fires, are increasingly being addressed through questions of justice[32]. Despite the concept’s presence in (media) discourses, it remains a contested notion up to date. A common definition of (environmental) justice is absent, and the ambiguity of what constitutes justness, such as ‘just’ environmental management, is therefore a strong driver of environmental conflicts [33]. The literature highlights different focal points of justice interpretations, including those related to distribution, deliberative processes and recognition. This plurality, and ambiguity, thus calls for an exploration of the role of justice in environmental protection, and in particular those environmental issues that transcend (national) boundaries and territories. It should be recognised, however, that the different approaches to justice are “infused with tensions arising from centuries of colonial exploitation, global economic inequalities, and the challenges of aligning different ways of knowing and valuing nature” [33, p.122] when attempting to understand how environmental justice is used and articulated in discourses on environmental issues.

3“In Brazil, Quilombola communities are rural communities composed of descendants of enslaved people who maintain a strong historical link with the past. Quilombola communities enjoy land rights under the 1988 Constitution.” [8, p.404]

9 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Ultimately, discerning how these different interpretations and approaches are used in various discourses is a first step towards understanding what the (practical) implications of these references to justice are.

1.2 Research Objective

By using the global outcry on the increased forest fires and levels of deforestation in the Amazon as a case study, this thesis seeks to identify the discourses and discourse-coalitions that shape the Amazon fires as a problem in Dutch and British media. By doing so, this research attempts to illustrate how a discourse analysis and conceptions of environmental justice add essential insights to an analysis of environmental issues and politics, such as revealing power dynamics and competition between discourses and their coalitions. Ideally, the results are helpful in contextualising various political debates and discourses beyond this case study to include other (transnational) environmental issues, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, etc. that take place on different geographies and scales.

1.3 Research Questions

The following research question will be addressed: How do various political discourses in Dutch and British media on the Brazilian Amazon fires articulate environmental justice? To answer this question the following sub-questions will be investigated:

1. What are the main, current, discourses on the Brazilian Amazon? 2. How do these discourses articulate environmental justice? 3. Which discourse is dominant and which conception of justice is prioritised?

The first sub-question provides the basis of the results, illustrating that in the context of this thesis, three main discourses were identified. Here, the discourse-coalitions and their major storylines are presented, as are some of their main discursive practices - including the use of mythological archetypes. The second sub-question focuses on how the three dominant conceptions of environmental justice (i.e. distributive justice, procedural justice and justice as recognition) and Critical Environmental Justice are articulated in the discourses. Sub-questions three then aims to explore how particular political discourses become ’dominant’ and finds that power and discursive practices play a crucial role. In addition, the results highlight a prioritisation of particular justice approaches throughout the discourses. Overall, the results discuss these three main discourses and illustrate how various actors perceive, and construct, the Amazon fires as a problem in different ways.

1.4 Structure of the Thesis

This thesis consists of eight chapters. Chapter two explores the theoretical framework in depth, beginning with a discussion on discourses, discourse analysis and relevant analytical concepts (discourse-coalitions, storylines, mytho- logical archetypes, crisis narratives, and divisive rhetoric). The second part of the theoretical framework discusses environmental justice (EJ) theories as forming a (potential) part of discourses. Here, the focus lies on the three main conceptions of EJ and their limitations as well as a brief section on Critical Environmental Justice. Chapter three addresses the methods used, while the following three chapters explore the results of the analysis in depth. Each of the three discourses (Discourse 1: Bolsonaro as the Hero; Discourse 2: Bolsonaro as the Villain; Discourse 3: the problem is bigger than Bolsonaro) will constitute a separate chapter and will include the main storylines identified, the discourse-coalitions, the language used, and the different aspects of EJ that were articulated within each discourse. Although each discourse is referred to numerically in the thesis (Discourses 1, 2 and 3), this does not imply a hierarchical order in any way. Chapter seven then discusses the findings of the previous chapters by reflecting on the results using the theoretical framework and, where appropriate, complements it with additional literature. Suggestions for moving forward and some limitations are outlined as well. Finally, Chapter eight will conclude the thesis with a concise summary and highlight why this research is relevant.

10 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

2 Chapter II: Theoretical Framework

2.1 Part 1: Understanding Discourse

The Amazon fires are presented by the media as an issue that deserves attention and is illustrative of how environmental events can become a political issue. The way in which such an issue or story is interpreted, how actors give it meaning, and what part of the story gains priority, depends on the sender and the receiver of the message [34]. As such, how the issue is understood changes from individual to individual. However, this lack of mutual understanding does not mean that there is a lack of meaningful political interventions. On the contrary, it can prove to be very useful in creating and maintaining different political coalitions. The issue itself is thus discursively created by discourse-coalitions, groups of actors who share particular storylines, to make sense of the world through a (simplified) reality. What gives these coalitions their political power is that “the actors group around specific storylines that they employ whilst engaging in environmental politics” [32, p.4]. By controlling a discourse, actors can exert power – and it often the privileged actors that these discourses give power to [35, 36]. The Amazon fires thus form part of political discourses - discourses that occur in public spaces - whereby a discourse analysis allows for an exploration of “a struggle for discursive hegemony in which actors try to secure support for their definitions of reality” [32, p.59]. Discourses can be understood as “an ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices” [34, p.67][32, p.44]. In the context of this thesis, such ideas, concepts and theories refer specifically to environmental justice theories, development or conservation practices, the justification of discourses, and so forth. To understand and grasp the meaning of the Amazon fires as an issue, the following sections will elaborate on specific elements related to discourse analyses including storylines, discourse-coalitions, and power in discourses, followed by particular mechanisms including crisis narratives and discursive strategies as divisive tools. Part two of the theoretical framework will dive deeper in the concept of environmental justice, viewing it as an idea or concept which forms part of a discourse. A discourse analysis of Dutch and British media gives us unique insights into how environmental justice is understood and used in the context of the Amazon fires, and by whom. My understanding of discourse and discourse analysis is based on several assumptions. First, I follow the notion that language is “not a neutral medium through which reality is described; instead discourses play an active role in constructing and constituting our world, identities and social relations” [30, p.270]. Second, discourse analyses are based on the premise of social constructionism. Social constructionism can be generalised under several principles, including a critical approach to ‘taken-for-granted knowledge’, recognising that there is not one objective ‘truth’; ‘historical and cultural specificity’ characterise the way in which we understand and represent the world: this is not fixed or static; it “acknowledges the link between knowledge and social practices” as well as “a link between knowledge and social action” [30, p.268]. For this thesis, I look at the discursive constructions as presented by Dutch and British newspaper articles, excluding an examination of visual imagery used by the media.

2.1.1 Storylines

Storylines are narratives4 on social reality through which actors gain a common understanding by simplifying reality in order to make sense of the world and make it manageable [34]. Storylines present different aspects of the ’problem’, highlighting points of significance and hiding others. The problem definition continuously changes as storylines are never static. Within each story, most people tend to have their own version, yet it is often assumed that there is mutual understanding of the same issue. This, Hajer claims, is a false assumption. One of the advantages of a discourse analysis is that it illuminates these differences, but at the same time illustrates that these different interpretations can provide a functional basis for developing political coalitions. As storylines become more prominent and an increasing number

4The term narrative is often used in this thesis in a “pretheoretical and imprecise way to refer to various kinds of language representations of some length”. A narrative can be defined, however, as a concept that “is used to represent a specific kind of text/talk structure within a ‘storyline’ . . . which can be realized through different genres such as fairy tale, novel, reportage.” [37, p.2]

11 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

of actors make use of it, it attains a degree of permanency. However, storylines have to ’sound right’, meaning that the story must be plausible and the “author of the argument and the discursive practice that is employed must also be trusted” [30, p.271]. Lastly, storylines have the power to position actors in different ways (e.g. perpetrators, victims, experts, problem solvers), including ways in which “specific ideas of ’blame’ and ’responsibility’, and of ’urgency’ and ‘responsible behaviour’ are attributed” [32, p.64-65].

2.1.2 Discourse-coalitions

When actors use particular story lines, which are not necessarily synonymous with their interests, discourse-coalitions are formed. Discourse-coalitions are made up of: “a set of storylines; the actors who utter the storylines; and the practices within which the discursive activity is based” [30, p.271], or in other words, “a group of actors that, in the context of an identifiable set of practices, shares the usage of a particular set of story lines over a particular period of time” [34, p.70]. Actors within a coalition need not have met, nor do they have a specific strategy. Instead, “what unites these coalitions and what gives them their political power is the fact that its actors group around specific storylines that they employ whilst engaging in environmental politics” [32, p.4]. However, although storylines might be shared, their interpretation and perception of (environmental) issues may differ and change depending on different factors such as context, knowledge production, and power. Moreover, the actor’s perceived interest might change as a result of different storylines.

2.1.3 Power in Discourses

The relationship between power, knowledge and truth has been explored by many (for example Stoltenborg & Boelens [36]; de Bont et al.,[35]) when attempting to understand how discourses function. For Thompson, discourses can be explained as the following:

“Discourses determine what is ‘true’ at a certain point in time, and therefore distribute power to some and not others. This power in turn allows these actors to influence what is seen as normal and ‘true’. In this way, discourses both create and are created by power and knowledge.” [35, p.644]

Backgrounding and foregrounding of information, choosing what topics are addressed and which ones are not, as well as which (alternative) meanings and/ or explanations are recognised or ignored, are important processes to take into account when looking at knowledge production and truth creation [35]. As such, “discourses are not innocent tools: they often serve to justify particular policies and practices and obliterate alternative modes of thinking and acting” [36, p.456]. Science, dominated by the scientific elite, tends to be one of those dominant discourses that is privileged over others [38, 39]. As Turnhout [39] argues, “science tends to end up in a dominant position, in charge of the facts and of the problem definition, with non-scientific actors in the position of receivers of knowledge and co-creators of solutions or options” (p.366). As such, scientific representation of the environment is not a neutral process, but instead is based on intentional and purposeful selectivity. In order to understand to how (environmental) knowledge production takes place, it is necessary to identify who the ’knowers’ are of such knowledge production, who defines them, and ultimately how ’environmental problems’ and ’solutions’ are conceptualised [35, 36]. The recognition and representation of such knowers tends to be unequally distributed, however, as certain knowledge systems and ontologies are prioritised over others. This may result in knowledge production favouring certain governance logics, which then “attract and privilege certain groups of actors” [39, p.366]. Hence, the hegemony of certain discourses and discourse-coalitions may lead to a particular representation of a topic, such as the Amazon fires, which exclude other actors, alternative representations or governance logics in the process. Being aware of such processes makes it possible to take note of how political forces take shape and what their outcomes are.

12 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

2.2 Mechanisms of Discourse

It has been noted that language is not a neutral medium but that language profoundly shapes the way in which the world and reality is understood [40]. Indeed, “language has the capacity to make politics”, rendering events as important or insignificant, creating political conflicts, or shifting power balances [40, p.179]. As such, there are different mechanisms to discourse and the practices that may ensue. Based on their relevance for this thesis, I have chosen to elaborate briefly on the use of ’crisis narratives’ and certain discursive strategies, in particular looking at blame games, vilification, apocalyptic framing, and mythological archetypes. These strategies were observed in the discourses and provide some clarification into the way the Amazon fires are constructed as a problem beyond the environment to include social, economic and political elements.

2.2.1 Crisis narratives

The introduction of the thesis already highlighted a ‘crisis’ and ‘emergency’ narrative put forth by Macron and allies (see Figure 2) regarding the fires in the Amazon. Making up a major storyline in the discourse, crisis narratives are therefore considered as an analytical concept. A crisis or an emergency can be defined as “an exceptional moment; a departure from the norm that calls forth a concomitant response” [38, p.63]. Such a response allows for an exception of the ’normal’ state of affairs; hindrances that prevent accurate responses from occurring (such as the rule of law), are now able, and ‘supposed’, to be overridden [38, 41]. As a result, invoking such a narrative and a (perceived) state of emergency gives political discourses power. As Skilling [38] argues, crisis narratives “are not free-floating stories or ideas in a vacuum. Rather, they are crucially defined by their relationship to dominant interest and value positions, to political fields of power and influence and to broader social constructions of aspirations and fears” (p.62). Crisis narratives have proven to be effective and powerful ways of communicating a story due to, what Skilling [38] has coined, defamiliarisation: a balanced combination of novelty of credibility. The unfamiliarity, or abnormality, of the situation is crucial to a crisis narrative as such a narrative introduces a feeling of threat into the otherwise ’normal’ world, thereby achieving the effect of ostranenie, or defamiliarisation. The word ’crisis’ thus derives power from everyday events becoming dangerous situations. Credibility of such crisis narratives is achieved by “articulating themselves with the authoritative status of certain institutions, qualified experts and supposedly objective regimes of measurement” [38, p.63]. Here, again, we witness the relation between power(ful actors), truth-creation, and knowledge.

2.2.2 Discursive strategies as a divisive tool

Language plays a powerful role in the construction of discourses and politics; indeed, it “to create signs and symbols that can shift power-balances and that can impact on institutions and policy-making” [34, p.67]. Language can create political conflicts but can also downplay events; it can suggest possible solutions, but also undermine them. The discursive term ‘crisis’, for instance, can have major societal implications as was described above. However, I find that creating opposition and using divisive rhetoric is particularly prominent in political discourse. According to Laclau and Mouffe [42], this is not a new phenomenon as they argue that democratic politics is built on social division: “the positive assertion of any identity... is always constituted by an element of exclusion and a negative relation with an antagonistic ‘other(s)’” [43, p.220]. The ’us’ and ’them’ antagonisms are not understood as “fixed, singular or pure oppositions, but as contingent relations that are constituted by hegemonic struggles between different discourses” [43, p.220]. Political identities are thus often defined in terms of antagonisms (leading to the ’othering’ of (political) actors) whereby the hegemonic antagonism is sustained through the suppression of alternative discourse.

Blame Games The antagonistic ‘other’ is achieved through various means. Talisse [44] argues that political strategies, especially those in populist discourses and dominant political ideologies, make use of belief polarisation5. The ‘politics

5“Belief polarization invokes what is sometimes referred to as the "echo chamber effect,” when a person surrounds his or herself only with others who share their same beliefs or views. As Dr. Talisse put it, “Interaction with like-minded others turns us into more extreme versions of ourselves,” which in turn means that, “As we shift into our more extreme selves, we embrace increasingly negative attitudes towards those we perceive to be different.” [45]

13 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

of blame’, or ‘blame games’, within political and environmental discourses also help create and maintain the ‘other’. Blame games are common in modern executive politics, whereby different individual or collective social actors partake in “offensive and defensive symbolic performances” to attach or detach blame to or from their opposition [30, p.228]. A government’s blame game’s basic goal is to “persuade an audience (e.g. the readers of a newspaper) that someone in question, such as a government or a concrete officeholder, either should or should not be blamed” [30, p.231]. Argumentation6 is one way of achieving this, and manipulation of the audience’s perception occurs through argumentative moves by both the blame makers and the blame takers. Emotional appeals, however subtle, are often used in such government-related blame games as are assigning moral values to (political) actors [46].

Vilification The opposition created towards a common enemy can further be magnified through the use of violent discursive imagery, which I have grouped under the overarching term of ’warrior language’. Such language evokes feelings of distrust, violence, conflict, war, and so forth. Similarly to the other identified discursive practices, dramatic adjectives and verbs – including vilification of the ‘other’ – are used to convey a battle between ’good’ and ’evil’. Enemy vilification can occur in a variety of ways, such as an “ascription of negative in-group values to the out-group” [47, p.76]. This tends to be “enhanced with the use of metaphors, which structure the discourse and can add emotional colouring to the text” (p.87). Overall, the rhetorical patterns present in enemy vilification help create a simplistic categorisation of the ‘other’ whereby a dual opposition of values between the in- and -out groups are created.

Apocalyptic Framing Apocalyptic framing forms part of broader discursive strategies that create or (re)enforce opposition. Within apocalyptic framing the issue in question is often presented as “extra-human, driven by cosmic forces, and, as such, Fated” [48, p.162]. Other scholars, such as Heinz [49], note that the framing of environmental issues, such as the fires in the Amazon, as a violent crime “helps set up symbolic oppositions between the minority and dominant groups, thus justifying the affected group’s need for forceful reactions” (p.52). Such framing therefore creates and perpetuates “clear-cut us-versus-them oppositions” (p.52). Foust and Murphy [48] identify multiple forms of apocalyptic framing such as the tragic apocalyptic frame, the comic apocalyptic frame, and the polarising rhetoric of melodrama. In these strategies, readers are forced to choose sides, for example between heroes and villains, believers and non-believers. The polarising structure of these strategies are particularly effective because the readers are not given a more nuanced options of what is considered to be the ‘issue’. Actors are pitted against each other, for example ruralists versus environmentalists, and otherwise ‘credible’ discourse or actors (i.e. science or scientists) are discredited. There are varying opinions as to the effect of such polarising rhetoric. Some argue that the “polarising effects of melodrama may inspire action” (Schwarze in [48, p.162]), whereas others counter this [50]. Foust and Murphy share concerns with the divisive rhetoric of, particularly tragic, apocalyptic framing. They worry that such framing will reduce the feeling of collective action, responsibility and agency.

Mythological Archetypes The final discursive strategy that helps perpetuate opposition and division that will be discussed here is the use of mythological archetypes in journalism. An initial review of newspaper sources suggested that mythological archetypes played an important role in the discourses as values were juxtaposed (Bolsonaro’s ‘evil’ policies versus Macron ‘saving the lungs of the planet’), highly emotionally loaded words (‘Holocaust’) were used, as were stereotyping and simplistic categorisation (Bolsonaro as a ‘climate sceptic’). According to Kelsey, journalists and politicians may use mythological archetypes to construct political affairs [51–53]. Angela Phillips (in [53]) argues that journalists use ’familiar moral codes of storytelling’ whereby they use similar “basic character archetypes or myths, that are used by filmmakers and novelists” (p.12). Such codes can vary depending on the cultural context, but still contain the “archetypal moral conventions of storytelling” [53, p.973]. Noteworthy is that journalists do not necessarily intend on constructing stories using these models - it may be an unintentional act. However, when myths and stories are perceived as “true, valid, factual accounts of the world”, it becomes problematic [53, p.973]. As Lule [54, p.184] points

6Argumentation is understood here as “a linguistic/cognitive action pattern of problem-solving that is characterised by a sequence of speech acts (e.g. expressive, declarative, assertive, commissive, interrogative, directive) that are used to convince somebody of the acceptability of a standpoint by challenging or justifying controversial validity claims about truth and normative rightness, that is, questions of knowledge and questions of what should or should not be done” [46, p.231]

14 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

out: “Myth celebrates dominant beliefs and values. Myth degrades and demeans other beliefs that do not align with those of the storyteller”. As such, the storytelling becomes “a highly politicised negotiation of discursive practices” [53, p.972]. In the context of this thesis, the mythological archetypes of a ‘Villain’ and a ‘Hero’ will be explored as the initial review of newspaper sources already illustrated that Bolsonaro and his allies were portrayed as either ’good’ or as a ’bad’. Although other archetypal characters exist, such as the ‘Trickster’, the ‘Victim’, or the ‘Shadow’, the media’s emphasis on Bolsonaro as the main character allowed for a focus on the Hero/ Villain role. Heroes tend to take on multiple forms in storylines, including, but not limited to, “warriors or pacifists, leaders or rebels, saints or sinners, rocket scientists, rock musicians, or sports stars” [54, p.83]. What these characters have in common is their dramatic and personified character which reflects “the core values and ideals of the societies in which their stories feature” [53, p.975]. A Hero is often on a journey, pursuing a (moral) mission for the greater good of society while facing trials and battles, ultimately victorious and triumphant [54]. The Villain, on the other hand, is “expected to be callous, ruthless and unconcerned by the misery and destruction brought about by their actions” [55, p.127]. Ultimately, “journalists are storytellers (or myth makers) in contemporary societies” where society gets a way to express its “prevailing ideals, ideologies, values and beliefs” [54, p.15]. In other words, myths are social narratives that help explain social life. The discursive strategies such as those described above are also used in environmental debates and discussions. In terms of environmental issues, some scholars argue that these issues are “unresolvable because of the use of polarizing tactics and over-simple reports of enmities” or because of the diversity of arguments, ultimately suggesting that the unresolvability can be both positive and negative [40, p.179]. This diversity in argument is also visible in the way environmental justice, as a concept, is used by various discourse-coalitions. By conducting a discourse analysis and looking at the way environmental justice is articulated, specifically, it becomes possible to gain insights into the different interpretations, priorities and power dynamics between discourses. As such, the following section will elaborate on the different approaches of environmental justice approaches, their limitations, and their relevance.

2.3 Part 2: Understanding Environmental Justice

2.3.1 A brief introduction into environmental justice

The Amazon fires are an example of how an environmental issue becomes political. The discourse-coalitions that create and maintain the discourses go beyond ’environmentalists’ but include a wide range of actors who deal with environmental issues including politicians, scientists, corporate executives, small holders etc. Environmental justice (EJ) is a concept that has been able to facilitate many “debates on environmental issues, laws and decisions” [56, p.4], partially due to the lack of a common definition. Although some scholars question the concept’s utility and relevance [56], I argue that the different conceptions of EJ provide us with a useful tool to understand how different environmental challenges are understood, presented and acted up by different (groups of) people. Supporting the claim that each justice approach provides useful insights to issues of different temporal or geographical scales, this thesis values a multi-dimensional and plural approach in order to contribute to “long-term conservation and social development goals” [33, p.169]. Moreover, when it comes to complex and transboundary issues such as the Amazon fires, a singular conception of justice would fail to adequately address the diversity and magnitude of the issue. The evolution of EJ theories can broadly be grouped into two phases. The first phase has its roots as a social movement in the United States (US) during the 1970s and 1980, where communities of colour and those of lower classes received higher exposure to risks from waste facilities and other toxic sites [57]. These perceived injustices of environmental harms gained momentum after grassroot networks and research studies confirmed that “the instinct of environment-harming facilities [were] being sited in the ‘path of least resistance’” [56]. This ’first phase’ of EJ was thus primarily focused on accounts of distributive justice, although it went beyond the classical approach of (material) goods distribution [57]. The EJ debates expanded beyond the issues of hazardous (waste) sites to include the global commons and the concept of ‘inter-generational justice,’ a concept that gained prominence in the late 1980s and 1990s. Instead of focusing solely on distributive justice, this second phase of EJ literature advocated the need for other forms of justice such as procedural justice and justice as recognition. Shifting away from distributive justice was partially a result of

15 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

critics who disagreed with the general notion that environmental injustice is based on an “inequality in the distribution of environmental risks. . . , when this is clearly not the case” [57, p.22]. When the 2000s were reached, EJ discourses expanded even more to include climate justice where the topics of distribution, equity and historical responsibility are addressed [58, 59]. The increasingly complex nature of both environmental issues and political economic systems, however, has resulted in EJ cases going beyond the national scale. Despite most “environmental justice movements and claims [being] particular and place-bound local struggles”, they tend to have a globally constituted character [33, p.167]. Although EJ as a concept has developed and been used extensively over the past few decades, it remains a highly contested and ambiguous term where a common definition remains absent. As this thesis does not aim to give a moral persuasion over which approach should be given primacy, or determining what is considered just or unjust, the following paragraphs will briefly describe what these different approaches to justice are. Noteworthy is that distributive justice is discussed more extensively in the theoretical framework than procedural justice, justice as recognition, or Critical Environmental Justice (CEJ). This is largely because of the overrepresentation of distributive justice in academia and advocacy [33]. As such, the six distinct ‘principles’ of distributive justice as categorized by Okereke and Dooley [59] will briefly be explored. This should not imply, however, that this thesis favours the distributive justice approach. Instead, the aim is to understand how different conceptions of justice manifest themselves and ultimately how these represented by the discourses in Dutch and British media.

2.4 Distributive Justice

Although conceptions of distributive justice are incredibly varied, this approach has dominated the justice debates over the last few decades [16, 33]. Simply put, distributive justice can be understood as “the distribution or sharing out of goods (resources) and bads (harm and risk)” [16, p.10]. Determining what is considered just or unjust distribution, however, is frequently based on normative claims [33]. The emphasis on this approach to justice is “not surprising given the materiality of environmental goods and bads, and the implications of inter- and intra-generational distribution for the wellbeing of current and future people” [33, p.169]. The following paragraphs will highlight six dominant distributive justice approaches as identified by Okereke and Dooley [59].

Justice as Utilitarianism Justice as utilitarianism favours the idea that “justice is about finding and maximising welfare utility to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” [60, p.8] (based on Bentham 1789/1948 and Mill 1973). As such, (re)distribution occurs along lines of creating the greatest amount of utility, where utility is frequently understood in terms of happiness or preferences – although some would question whether it should be maximised at all [59]. Maximizing ‘utility’ or ‘preferences’ is also deemed problematic because: a) it is practically impossible to aggregate all elements of human welfare across different levels – from the individual, across societies or between nations; and b) “many environmental philosophers have observed, preferences are misinformed as to longer term environmental consequences” [59, p.84].

Justice as Liberal Egalitarianism This approach to justice “emphasise[s] the separateness of individuals and takes equality and freedom of all as the most basic good” [59, p.84]. As such, the theory tries to create an ’ultimate moral ideal’ by combining both political equality and economic liberty. Rawls [61] is one of the primary liberal egalitarianism thinkers and argues that institutions have failed in decision-making as inequality tends to affect the already disadvantaged. As such, Rawlsians support the idea that social and economic inequalities should be arranged in such a way that it balances in favour towards the least advantaged in society. Rawls calls this ‘justice as fairness’, which Armstrong has used to argue that the ‘principle of fairness’ (in the context of environmental conservation) binds outsiders by justice to share both direct and opportunity costs (in the protection of forests), and that if “they refuse to do so they can be found guilty of free-riding” [62, p.109]. The ‘global resource dividend’ is another offshoot of liberal egalitarianism, arguing that “nations who have used more than their fair share of the global commons are made to compensate those who have been disadvantaged” (Pogge, 1998 in Okereke & Dooley [60, p.84]), which can further be coupled to notion of ‘historical responsibility’. Historical responsibility supports the argument that “developed

16 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

countries are responsible for a large percentage of historic emissions (as well as deforestation) and should not only compensate developing countries accordingly but also bear the burden of current efforts to mitigate climate change” [59, p.84]. Nevertheless, liberal egalitarianism does contain elements that conflict with long-term sustainability. For example, viewing the autonomous individual from a liberal perspective allows for the over-consumption of resources as it does not recognise the fact that freedom and limits are not always harmonious [60].

Market Justice The philosophy of market justice argues that markets should be the main (re)distributor of wealth. Market justice has gone hand in hand with the rise of neoliberal governance and this approach rejects governments’ interventions when it comes to the redistribution of resources. Proponents of this theory deny the ability of individual liberty and egalitarianism being compatible, and instead argue that the market (without government interference) stimulates human ingenuity [63]. In addition, “social inequalities are accepted as the inevitable consequence of liberty and enterprise” [59, p.85]. This approach is not without critique, however. A plethora of scholars have argued that economic incentives are not enough when it comes to changing behaviour for a more sustainable society [59].

Justice as Mutual Advantage Justice as mutual advantage advocates that justice should be based on agreements “that have positive net benefits for all” [59, p.85]. The notion of states’ moral obligations to (re)distribute wealth in favour of the economically disadvantaged, including rights to welfare, is rejected, as is the idea of individual inherent morality. Instead, “justice is the outcome of agreement entered into by rational agents with the aim of furthering their self-interests” [59, p.85] . The aim of justice as mutual advantage is to provide people with a maximum chance of achieving their good, assuming that everyone else is also trying to achieve their (different) good [60, 64]. For Harman [65], however, justice is “nothing more and nothing less than conventions which translate in the ordering of relevant institutions in such a way as to enable individuals (and nation states) to pursue and maximize their gains under the constraints of an agreed legal framework” [59, p.85]. This can be viewed through the claims of sovereignty and ’national circumstance’ - a tactic or strategy applied by states to “either challenge or justify status quo rights and historic entitlements, or more generally to secure special favour with respect to the sharing of particular burdens and benefits of international co-operation” [59, p.85].

Justice as Communitarianism According to communitarians, communities do not receive enough attention in liberal theories of justice. Justice in this perspective “can only be determined on the basis of cultural context and values associated with the good in question” (Miller, 2000 in [59, p.85]). The communitarian ideas of justice reject the notion of a liberal focus on individualism as they believe it has two significant negative consequences, namely “the loss of community and the neglect of the state in upholding certain public goods” [59]. The idea of the state, communities and citizenship play a central role. However, communitarianists often argue there are not enough shared values and cultural ties at a global scale to apply international distributional justice (Miller, 2000 in [59, p.85]).

Justice as Meeting Needs Justice as meeting needs emphasises the states’ obligations in meeting “the rights of citizens [irrespective of race or nationality] for opportunities to fulfil their own potential” [59, p.85]. This view is underpinned by the idea of humans’ moral equality. Nussbaum [66] and Sen [67] look at this through a capability approach where they advocate the need to boost “the capability of all individuals to lead meaningful lives” [60, p.8]. When basic needs (i.e. material rights) are met, political equality can be achieved [68]; civil-political rights become meaningful due to the possibility of exercising voting rights and owning property, for instance [60]. Concepts that support a redistribution towards directly meeting the needs of the poor include ecological citizenship, historical responsibility and the polluter pays principle [59].

Limitations Distributive justice’s dominance in EJ debates over the last few decades [16] has been critiqued by various scholars, some of whom argue that the excessive focus of distribution needs to be placed in the background while other issues are looked into [69, 70]. Curran finds it problematic, for instance, that the implicit assumption, “without explicit justification, that distributional inequality is sufficient for injustice” [57, p.299]. Distributive justice’s main critique, however, refers to its relative simplicity of focusing solely on distribution without taking broader social, cultural, institutional, and symbolic mechanisms into account [71]. For Young, distribution is an important part of

17 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

justice, but it would be a mistake to equate justice to distribution. She argues that part of the reason why unjust distribution exists in the first place is due to a lack of recognition of both individuals and communities (i.e. at a cultural level). To combat this, one must look at issues of domination and oppression.

2.4.1 Procedural Justice

Procedural justice concerns itself with the deliberative processes that shape decision-making, including who participates in decision-making, how, and on who’s terms. However, there is a lack of consensus on whether procedural justice should be its own justice dimension or not. Some scholars view procedure as an antecedent of distribution, and as such subsume procedural justice under distributive justice (Vincent, 1998 in [33]). Others, such as Martin et al.[33] view procedure as a separate justice dimension. This perspective argues that procedural justice is an “important pre-condition for distributional justice and therefore a cause of injustices, but it may not always equate to distributional justice” (p.169). Miller, one of the more traditional justice theorists, argues that procedural justice is based on respect and recognition (p.26) [69]. Other theorists such as Fraser and Young agree that these dimensions are closely interlinked and have noted that “the relationship between justice as equity and justice as recognition is played out in procedural realm, as both hinder the ability of individuals and communities to participate” (p.26) [69]. In other words, when tackling questions of distribution and recognition it is necessary to take political processes into account. Hence, in their view, justice contains – and is dependent on – democratic and participatory decision-making procedures. Both Young and Fraser argue that improved participatory mechanisms can help mitigate other forms of injustice, such as combating institutionalised domination and oppression. As such, there is a need to go beyond the distributive and look at the decisions made based on rules and procedures [71]:

“The idea of justice here shifts... to procedural issues of participation in deliberation and decision making. For a norm to be just, everyone who follows it must in principle have an effective voice in its consideration and be able to agree to it without coercion. For a social condition to be just, it must enable all to meet their needs and exercise their freedom; thus justice requires that all be able to express their needs.” (p.34)

Limitations Limitations to procedural justice theories can loosely be divided in three groups (based on pragmatic, radical, and persectivalist objections [72]). The perspectivalist objection is particularly relevant for this thesis, as it argues that any theory on procedural justice is “fundamentally misguided because it fails to acknowledge the perspectives of those who have been excluded from the making and shaping of modern procedure doctrine” [72, p.236] . Such perspectives may include those of women, people of colour, Indigenous peoples, and so forth. This issue has particularly been addressed and worked with by scholars such Fraser and Young. One of the arguments relates to the necessity of addressing and mitigating other forms of injustices in order to improve participation [69]. Furthermore, Fraser argues that it is not just “that political and cultural institutions create conditions that hamper equity and recognition, but that both distributive inequity and misrecognition hamper real participation in political and cultural institutions” [69, p.28]. As such, there appears to be a trend that acknowledges that procedural justice cannot be viewed in isolation – especially not without taking matters of distribution and recognition into account.

2.4.2 Justice as recognition

Justice as recognition gained prominence during the 1980s as a result of studies on social movements and how these movements constructed justice claims. Walker [16] defines justice as recognition as “justice [which] is conceived in terms of who is given respect and who is and isn’t valued” (p.10), emphasizing the need for respect and opportunities for participation in decision-making. It not only includes recognising different ways of knowing the world, culture-nature cosmologies and so forth, but the approach also argues for respecting and treating these views equally and avoiding domination and oppression [33]. Moreover, the recognition of cultural differences and then “being reflexive regarding whose culture is privileged and respected” [73, p.124] is central in this justice dimension.

18 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Justice as recognition is highly relevant within conservation efforts as it concerns itself with “respect for local knowledge and cultures” [74, p.254]. Within academic debates on EJ, “recognition has largely been expressed in relation to the claims of Indigenous and local peoples to cultural respect and self-determination” [33, p.169]. I follow Martin et al.’s [33] claim, which argues that it is important to:

“...consider any instances in which forms of discursive power suppress the right to alternative ways of thinking. This extends to framings of justice itself: malrecognition can occur where conservation organisations uncritically assume that they are the legitimate source of justice norms. Such framing can determine whose knowledge counts and which problems and conflicts are rendered visible or invisible.” (p.169)

Limitations Some scholars dismiss the separate categorisation of recognition as a justice approach, arguing it should not be treated as a separate justice dimension. One reason is that these scholars subsume justice as recognition under procedural justice as they view the former to be a precondition of the procedural justice or of distributive justice (see Schlosberg [69, 75] for more detail). More generally, the applicability of justice as recognition remains difficult, in part due to the contested meanings and different approaches of this concept. There are also debates on who is entitled to such recognition, respect and moral consideration. Martin et al. highlight a few points of concern, such as: “concerns over the spatial and temporal scope of responsibility”; “whether or not the reach of moral responsibility should expand to include non-humans”; and “a moral responsibility towards the spiritual world which is central to some cultures and their perception of EJ” [74, p.255-256].

2.4.3 Critical Environmental Justice

David Pellow [76, 77] is a critical scholar of current EJ theories and tries to encourage people to think beyond questions of distribution, procedure and recognition - the three of which still dominate EJ debates so far. He argues that despite the shift in EJ studies to be more inclusive to wider concerns and approaches, “it still lacks critical insights and needs to be enhanced to address those flaws and limitations” [78, p.1]. Consequently, Critical Environmental Justice (CEJ) emerged and became a complex framework with entangled elements and components. The flaws of EJ that Pellow refers to are fourth-fold. Primarily, Pellow argues that current EJ studies are over-reliant on state power. Although the concept of justice has expanded from a focus on distribution to include procedure and recognition, Pellow argues that these ideas only exist in principle and not in practice “because attempts to be recognised by the state achieve little progress by policy changes” [78, p.1]. Pellow’s second critique concerns “the focus on one or two forms of social inequality” [78, p.1]. Consequently, he argues for an intersectional perspective whereby EJ studies and movements should recognise, and include, multiple forms of inequality as they all play a part in how environmental injustices are experienced. The third limitation concerns the tendency to only focus on one scale, whereas Pellow argues that issues of EJ take place on multiple scales (i.e. spatial or temporal scales). Lastly, he argues that “while EJ studies correctly theorize that marginalised human populations are viewed as less valuable to society than others... they do not fully go beyond the boundaries of place” [78, p.1]. In contrast, CEJ suggests that all “threatened bodies, populations, and spaces are indispensable to building socially and environmentally just and resilient future for all of us” [76, p.224]. In response to these flaws, Pellow developed a CEJ framework based on four pillars, arguing that EJ studies and movements should be: intersectional “i.e. multiple social categories of difference (including more-than-human)” [78, p.1], multi-scalar (i.e. spatial and temporal), anti-authoritarian (i.e. power versus counter-power) and the indispensability of both human’s and non-humans [76, 77]. Overall, the framework is complex and contains entangled components and elements. Although CEJ does not bring incredibly new insights, it is more methodologically inclusive can other EJ studies as it draws on different disciplines (e.g. race and ethnic studies, gender and sexuality, environmental humanities, critical race feminism, political ecology, and critical animal studies) [76, 79]. This intersectional and interdisciplinary approach, albeit complex and perhaps seemingly anarchistic, may provide contributions to EJ debates.

19 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

2.4.4 Discussion on Environmental Justice

As the above paragraphs highlighted, there are different approaches to EJ and a common understanding, or definition, of the concept is lacking. Schlosberg [80] argues that the “early work on environmental justice pushed beyond many boundaries: it challenged the very notion of ‘environment’, examined the construction of injustice beyond inequity, and illustrated the potential of pluralistic conceptions of social justice” (p. 37). In addition, he argues that EJ has expanded both spatially and conceptually. The former refers to the encompassment of a broader range of issues, whereas the vertical expansion refers to “the global nature of environmental injustices” (p.37). On a conceptual level, Schlosberg looks at justice in human and non-human relationships and argues that “the recent extensions of the environmental justice frame move the discourse into a new realm – where environment and nature are understood to create the conditions for social justice” (p.37). Nevertheless, distributive justice remains a dominant approach within EJ theories up to date [33, 73]. As Schlosberg [75] argues that all definitions of justice are inadequate as they are ’incomplete theoretically’ and ’insufficient in practice’, he advocates for a plural and multidimensional justice approach. Such an approach would allow for an exploration of different justice dimensions and their relationships between each other, without ascribing primacy to one particular approach [33, 75]. This thesis supports such a plural and multidimensional approach to justice. Acknowledging plurality can help shed light on how different individuals and groups view and understand justice. Recognising these differences can have potential implications in “the pursuit of long-term conservation and social development goals” [33, p.169]. As such, it is important to recognise that there are multiple rational arguments for using a particular justice approach and any agreement in how justice is understood seems unlikely.

20 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

3 Methods

3.1 Data collection and selection

This thesis was conducted using qualitative research methodology and was largely based on a qualitative data analysis of electronic media coverage from four different Dutch and British newspapers. Newspaper articles were chosen as data sources because newspapers are integral to disseminating local news to the public [53], influencing knowledge production and the way in which society is understood. As Heinz [49] puts it:

“Like all media, newspapers construct and transmit knowledge to the public. Readers try to connect what they read in news reports to their understanding of society. This process creates social institutions that exercise the dominant powers mobilizing racial, economic, and political inequalities.” (p.48)

In order to investigate the ‘European’ perspective on the Amazon fires debate (note here that I do not wish to imply that these newspapers and their views are representative of the whole of Europe), a newspaper on the political left and one on the political right for both the Netherlands and the United Kingkom (UK) was used [81, 82]. This decision was made in order to have a relatively balanced representation of the political spectrum. Consequently, de Telegraaf, de Volkskrant, the Telegraph and the Guardian were chosen with a total of fourty articles used for the analysis (see Appendix 9 for all newspaper articles). The newspaper articles, which form the bulk of the data, are complemented by other sources such as social media posts, grey and academic literature. Noteworthy is that the analysis only includes discursive elements (i.e. text), excluding visual approaches such as photographs and/ or videos. Document selection was based on certain criteria. Primarily, the time scope included the months of July, August and September 2019 where the articles were published. This time period marked the beginning of the Amazon fires and deforestation being a ‘trending topic’ on (social) media, the main event being the skies blackening in São Paolo during the afternoon resulting from the smoke of increased fire activity in areas such as the Amazon. For an article to be selected, search results needed to mention the Amazon, either Bolsonaro or Brazil, and deforestation or the fires. The search queries were carried out both in English and in Dutch, and resulted in: 34 articles from de Telegraaf, 62 articles from de Volkskrant, 117 articles from the Guardian, and 23 articles from the Telegraph. Relevance was then determined based on “the roles these documents fulfilled in the articulation of discourses and how they reflected certain practices” [83, p.56]. In addition, they needed to include at least one ‘themes’ (i.e. sovereignty, number of fires, G7, drivers of deforestation, causes of fires, and an international response) in order to establish a wide range of topics covered in the media. The articles also needed to be considered a ‘news item’: explicitly labelled opinion pieces were not consulted. Lastly, the remaining articles were chosen in terms of their contribution to providing ’new’ information (i.e. the information had not (extensively) been covered in the other articles). In short, the selection criteria included: a) being a ‘news item’; b) relevance; c) novelty; d) diversity in topics addressed.

3.2 Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted through several rounds of qualitative coding, using Atlas.ti, that can be grouped into two main phases. During the first phase, coding was done manually and through auto-generated codes, which provided preliminary thematic categories and concepts. These themes and concepts (e.g. economic development, conservation, sovereignty, drivers of deforestation/ fires) helped identify the main storylines and discourse-coalitions. In the second and third rounds of coding, attention was paid to how the theoretical concepts outlined in the Theoretical Framework were articulated in the newspaper articles. The second round of coding looked at how the dominant conceptions of EJ were articulated (i.e. distributive, procedural, recognition, CEJ). Specifically, this round looked at how concepts such as responsibility, distribution (of costs), recognition, participation in decision-making, and the four pillars of Pellow (intersectional, anti-authoritarian, indispensability and multi-scalar) came forward in the storylines of different discourse-coalitions. A third round of coding looked specifically at the language, i.e. the discursive elements used such as crisis narratives, mythological (Hero/ Villain) archetypes, ‘warrior language’, violent imagery and apocalyptic

21 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

framing, blame games, vilification, and divisive rhetoric. Focusing on language helps to understand that language is not a neutral medium but shapes the way in which the world is understood [30, 32, 34]. The discourse-analysis thus reveals how storylines represent different parts of a discourse, a simplified version of how actors (i.e. members of discourse-coalitions) try to make sense of reality [34]. The results chapters highlight the three different discourses and their major storylines identified in Dutch and British media, how the actors in the discourse- coalition articulate EJ, and the language that is used. Paying attention to the discursive elements helps understand how the discourses are legitimised and justified, as well as revealing some of the power dynamics at play. For this thesis, ‘dominance’, or the power of a discourse, is based on Hajer’s conception of ‘discourse structuration’ (i.e. when many people use a discourse to conceptualise the world [34]). Specifically, ‘dominance’ here is understood through a combination of the frequency of use of the storylines in the media and through the support of powerful actors. Given the diversity of the actors involved, however, I do not wish to imply that the discourse-coalitions are homogenous groups. Instead, the discourse-coalitions are made up of actors who will likely possess different characteristics, attributes, interests etc., but for the sake of the analysis these nuances were omitted. Ultimately, the analysis gives us insight into how different discourse-coalitions make sense of the Amazon fires (and deforestation) through the use of storylines that, together, form a discourse. Noteworthy, however, is that “even though one discourse can be dominant, ultimately the political debate draws on many different discourses” [34, p.70].

22 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

4 Bolsonaro as the Hero

4.1 The Discourse “It is a fallacy to say that the Amazon is a heritage to humankind and a misconception that is confirmed by scientists, to say that our Amazon forest are the lungs of the world.” [84]]

One of the discourses on the Amazon fires, as identified during the discourse-analysis, presented Bolsonaro as a Hero. The discourse mainly concerns itself with three thematic areas: 1) political sovereignty; 2) development and progress; and 3) Brazil as a conservation leader. The discourse is presented by a discourse-coalition of politicians (Bolsonaro’s administration), the industry, agribusinesses or produtores, the Brazilian evangelical voting group and wealthy landowners.

4.1.1 Storyline 1: Political Sovereignty

The Amazon fires, other than being an environmental issue, have ignited international concerns and started a movement that many see as a threat to Brazil’s sovereignty. This perceived threat to sovereignty and the presence of an anti- internationalisation discourse are not new phenomena but have remained since the 1960s where the last military dictatorship (1964-1985) was based on a similar rhetoric. Nationalism and patriotism were then very much present, as is increasingly the case in the current situation [85, 86].

“’It is matter of international meddling in the Amazon,’ General Augusto Heleno, head of the Institutional Security Cabinet, reiterated. The NGOs are believed to map out gold and other riches of the indigenous territories and share that information with European countries. The Ministry of Education is now looking at the possibility of developing military schools in the reserves so that the harmful influence of the international NGOs on the children is minimised.” (Own translation) [86]

The vested interests the NGOs and foreign countries are believed to have in the Amazon help give the storyline its credibility. It is argued that NGOs and foreign governments have had their eyes on the biodiversity and mineral wealth of Brazil’s indigenous reserves [85, 87]. In addition, the storyline emphasises the fact that 60% of the Amazon rainforest lies in Brazilian territories [9, 88, 89] and as such the only country who can decide on matters regarding the Brazilian Amazon is Brazil itself. This decision-making largely concerns matters on the use and protection of the Amazon, including the country’s environmental policies. Respecting sovereignty includes recognising that decisions about the Amazon are an internal matter. Unlike Macron claimed, the storyline argues that the Amazon is not a global issue, nor does it belong the international community. If anything, the unfounded and unjust feeling that the Amazon is a public good is an example of colonialist practices:

“"Any country has problems. But the sensationalist attacks we suffered from the large part of the international media over the fires in the Amazon awakened our patriotic feelings," he [Bolsonaro] said, accusing foreign critics of questioning Brazil’s sovereignty over the region in a disrespectful and "colonialist" manner.” [85]

The sensationalist attacks that the previous quote refers to are believed to taint both Brazil’s and Bolsonaro’s image. This does not only concern discursive practices, but the discourse-coalition also addresses the misleading and ’fake’ images used by the media to represent the Amazon burning [90] (see Figures 3a and 3b). In addition to the media and foreign press playing a role in disseminating false information, NGOs have also played a role in undermining Brazil’s sovereignty. All in all, the international community is found to be largely guilty and to blame for the spread of false, and often romanticised, information on the Amazon, the fires and its inhabitants.

“There are complaints by the Brazilian media about the romantic view Europe has on the Amazon. As if only Indians and wild animals live there. In reality the Amazon, including cities such as Manaus and Belem, belongs to one of the most dangerous regions in the country. Cocaine from Peru and

23 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Columbia is smuggled along the rivers of the Amazon to the northern coast from where it continues its smuggled route to Europe. You don’t hear Macron talk about these issues.”[87] (Own translation)

Lastly, this storyline argues that undermining Brazil’s sovereignty when it comes to conservation is an act of hypocrisy. Europe has deforested in the past and there are also forest fires in other parts of the world (such as Siberia). Instead of providing money for Brazil to combat the fires, the money could be better spent elsewhere: “Take that money and help Angela Merkel reforest Germany”, Bolsonaro said [17]. If Brazil had followed Europe’s suit, the Amazon would be a savannah by now. As such, there is a strong feeling of entitlement:

“The Amazon belongs to Brazil and European countries can mind their own business because they have already destroyed their own environment, said Brazil’s far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, who also described his own government’s satellite data showing an alarming rise in deforestation as "lies”. "We understand the importance of the Amazon for the world - but the Amazon is ours. There will not be any more of that sort of policy that we saw in the past that was terrible for everyone," he said. "We preserve more [rainforest] than anyone. No country in the world has the moral right to talk about the Amazon. You destroyed your own ecosystems."” [7]

4.1.2 Storyline 2: Development & Progress

This storyline emphasises the (economic) potential of the Amazon and the need for development and progress. The perception of the Amazon is that it can provide Brazil with a wealth of riches and resources, thereby providing the country with an opportunity to utilise these riches and enhance development. In particular, agriculture and cattle ranching are considered to be the driving forces of Brazil’s economy. Therefore, these sectors should be stimulated, and not restricted, by (environmental) policies [86]. The pro-business and anti-environmental rhetoric has found a lot of support, especially from the industrial and agricultural sectors. The emphasis on development and progress has also helped the storyline gain support from individuals who see this as (one of) the only way(s) to tackle poverty.

“He’s our hope for improvement," said Martins Tavares, 33, a goldminer who said he and virtually all of his colleagues backed Bolsonaro, believing his promises to open up the Amazon would help them feed their families. Rui Souza, the owner of waterside petrol station in Humaita that sells to goldseekers, said he was also optimistic Bolsonaro would do away with environmental and indigenous reserves so they could be commercially exploited. "Our Amazonia is so rich, my friend. But we’re not allowed to use any of it," the 65-year-old complained. In Rondonia - where 72% of voters backed the far-right candidate in last year’s election - support is even more widespread. Bolsonarian billboards dot the highways declaring: "Together we will change the destiny of Rondonia and Brazil! ” [5]

“’We have to develop that backwards region,’ Placido Valledares, a 70 year old businessman present at a demonstration in Blumenau, agreed. ’That is the only way to tackle poverty in Brazil.’ Valledares believes that the problem of deforestation is very much exaggerated: ’If you cut down trees in the Amazon there will be new ones within a few years,’ he claims. ’That’s because of the tropical climate, Europeans don’t understand that.” (Own translation) [87]

The storyline further finds its support with the argument that the distribution of land is currently unfair. Therefore, the notion to open up the Amazon, including the Indigenous reserves and protected areas, to economic activities is welcomed. Many find it strange that the Indigenous peoples, for instance, have stewardship over 14% of all land, yet they only make up 0,5% of the population [9, 87]. The Amazon could be put to better use and help Brazil’s economy:

“Bolsonaro has dismissed the [deforestation] figures, insisting the country "will truly take off once we manage to sensibly extract the riches" in the rainforest, of which 60% is in the Amazon.” [17]

The development narrative is further legitimised by the government by making a discursive link to the Indigenous population and the romantic and unrealistic view Europeans have on Amazonian inhabitants. Bolsonaro argues that

24 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

the Indigenous population wants to integrate in Brazilian society, make money and don’t want to hinder Brazil’s development [86]:

“Foreigners complaining about his [Bolsonaro’s] plans to open up indigenous reserves to mining showed a lack of respect for the human rights of Brazil’s indigenous people, Bolsonaro said. "You want the indigenous people to carry on like prehistoric men with no access to technology, science, information, and the wonders of modernity," he said. "Indigenous people want to work, they want to produce and they can’t. They live isolated in their areas like cavemen. What most of the foreign press do to Brazil and against these human beings is a crime.” [7]

Bolsonaro argues that Brazil finally has “a president who cares about those who were here before the arrival of the Portuguese in 1500. Indians don’t want to be poor landowners living on rich soils - especially the richest soils on Earth” [85]. In other words, he is assumed to be a defender of the Indigenous and with him in power Brazil will be able to enjoy the prosperity it deserves. Interestingly, this sentiment appears to be contradictory to the popular anti-Indigenous rhetoric Bolsonaro has advanced.

4.1.3 Storyline 3: Brazil as a Conservation leader

This storyline emphasises that Brazil is a conservation leader: the country protects more forest than anywhere else in the world [7, 85]. Therefore, (international) criticism to Brazil’s environmental policies is unwarranted. Moreover, the history of developed countries is very often built on (resource) exploitation, including historical deforestation and emissions. Current ’developed’ countries are thus acting in a hypocritical manner. Instead of making the forest fires a top priority at the G7 and securing funding to combat those fires in Brazil, the money would be better spent to “help Angela Merkel reforest Germany” [17], Bolsonaro argued. Arguments such as these appear to discredit ’Western’ politicians and actions. Moreover, appeals to morality are made to justify the current situation in Brazil:

“We understand the importance of the Amazon for the world - but the Amazon is ours. There will not be any more of that sort of policy that we saw in the past that was terrible for everyone," he said. "We preserve more [rainforest] than anyone. No country in the world has the moral right to talk about the Amazon. You destroyed your own ecosystems.” [7]

Deforestation data, according to this discourse-coalition, is based on ’lies’: the figures and data published by INPE are incorrect and exaggerated. Moreover, Brazil and Bolsonaro have to suffer sensationalist attacks by the (foreign) press, undermining Brazil’s conservation efforts. Lastly, it is argued that the fires are a normal phenomenon for this time of year (i.e. the dry season) and is often started by natural causes, criminal intent or Indigenous and traditional communities [7, 84]. Bolsonaro stated the following:

“’We are currently in a traditionally hot and dry season, with severe winds that unfortunately cause fires in the Amazon. In years with more rain, the fires are less intense, but in particularly hot years such as this one, their frequency goes up. Although the fires this year are not above the average of the past 15 years, we are not happy with what we’re seeing’.” [91] (Own translation)

Overall, the discourse articulates EJ in the three storylines in a variety of ways, which the following section will demonstrate.

4.2 Environmental Justice

“Brazil does not owe the world anything when it comes to environmental protection.” [9]

This first discourse, where Bolsonaro is the Hero, uses arguments which are largely based on elements of EJ. The main elements that come to the fore are (historical) responsibility, fairness, distribution and decision-making. The two most prominent ways in which EJ is approached are those relating to distributive and procedural justice. A distributive justice

25 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

approach can be understood in different ways, much like the concept of EJ is understood in different ways [59]. This helps illustrate that some elements of distributive justice are more central in the discourse than others. In addition, it may be the case that different actors within the same discourse-coalition give my priority to, or emphasise, certain aspects over others. Matters of historical emissions and deforestation play a crucial role in the argumentation, legitimacy and justice approach of this discourse. The idea that ’Western’ countries were able to develop as much as they did over the years was largely a result of relatively unrestricted growth and natural resource exploitation. As Bolsonaro stated, Europeans deforested their own forests in the past but now that developing countries want to do the same these developed countries are against it. Instead, emerging economies, like Brazil, feel entitled to enjoy the same industrial and economic opportunities that developed nations got to enjoy in the past. Moreover, there is the issue of compensation. The discourse argues that there are many costs to conserving the Amazon, which Brazil simply cannot afford (“During one of his live-speeches on Facebook the next day, Bolsonaro stated that the government was trying to find the cause of the fires, but that they lack the means to combat them.” [92] (Own Translation)), but also that the Amazon provides riches that will help develop the economy. As such, both direct and opportunity costs exist and are currently a burden Brazil is carrying. In this line of thinking, conserving the Amazon currently does not outweigh the benefits of economic growth. Moreover, since Brazil already conserves more forest than any other country in the world [7], it is understandable and justified that conservation is not considered to be a priority. The following quotes are examples of how actors in Discourse 1 justify or legitimise their discourse:

“The Amazon belongs to Brazil and European countries can mind their own business because they have already destroyed their own environment, said Brazil’s far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, who also described his own government’s satellite data showing an alarming rise in deforestation as "lies”. "We understand the importance of the Amazon for the world - but the Amazon is ours. There will not be any more of that sort of policy that we saw in the past that was terrible for everyone," he said. "We preserve more [rainforest] than anyone. No country in the world has the moral right to talk about the Amazon. You destroyed your own ecosystems."” [7]

“Rocha, a retired police colonel, said: "If we look at the situation in other countries, their forests are burning much more than here in our Brazil. You go to London, or other countries, and what do you see? "It’s not fog - it’s smoke! Smoke from burning; from industry. So how can they demand of us what they haven’t done themselves?”” [5]

“Brazil gets almost half of its energy from renewable sources, whereas Germany is still dependent on coal, the most polluting energy source. Bolsonaro correctly points out that Europe cut down vast areas of its own forests and that it is a clear example of arrogance when they then demand emerging economies not to do that. And what about the money that Western countries promised developing nations to help them combat climate change?” [86] (Own translation)

“The richer countries believe that global warming is such a big problem that everyone should adjust their economy and their way of living in order to prevent disastrous consequences. This conflicts with the view of poorer countries. They tell the rich countries: you caused this problem with your unlimited industrial development, and now that we want to develop and enjoy a piece of the pie you prevent us from doing the same and make finding solutions our responsibility.”[93] (Own translation)

This prioritisation of economic growth is further supported by the way in which the rainforest is valued. The Amazon is mostly valued in terms of terms of the services and provisions it provides to humanity (i.e. instrumental value). In addition, it is valued from a monetary perspective. The discourse argues that these (potential) benefits that the Amazon provides should be reaped. Agriculture and cattle ranching, amongst other activities, are the economic driving force of the country so investing in these sectors is for ’the greater good’. It will maximise utility, but current injustices need to

26 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

be tackled. This includes addressing the unequal distribution of land and the natural riches. As such, for Brazilians to get out of poverty the Amazon needs to be exploited, and that includes opening up some of Indigenous reserves and protected areas. The discourse argues that for development and progress to take place, cutting back and dismantling social and environmental organisations and policies are necessary. Opening up different parts of the Amazon will help enhance livelihoods, reduce economic inequalities (by rearranging them so that they benefit the least advantaged in society, such as the farmers and miners trying to get out of poverty, as well as the Indigenous peoples who want to develop and modernise), and boost capabilities. Bolsonaro argues that he is the only one who really follows through with what he promised during his campaigns and he will bring prosperity to the country. People want, and will be able to, modernise - including the Indigenous population who do not want to live like ’prehistoric cavemen’ [7, 94, 95]. Unlike the foreigners, Bolsonaro respects the Indigenous population and does not want to “keep them as inmates in reserves, as if they were animals in a zoo” [9]. This respect translates itself into a willingness to integrate these citizens, “bring value to all Brazilians” [9], and give them access to the wonders of modernity. Those (especially foreigners) who disagree with his plans to open up Indigenous reserves to resource extraction are disrespecting the human rights of Brazil’s Indigenous population [7]. This discourse suggests that these are examples of injustices:

“You want the indigenous people to carry on like prehistoric men with no access to technology, science, information, and the wonders of modernity,” he said. “Indigenous people want to work, they want to produce and they can’t. They live isolated in their areas like cavemen. What most of the foreign press do to Brazil and against these human beings is a crime. ” [7]

Interestingly, however, the notion that justice is brought to the Indigenous peoples by giving them access to the ’wonders of modernity’, for instance, is starkly contrasted with the discourse’s general anti-Indigenous rhetoric. On the one hand Bolsonaro says he is a supporter of the Indigenous; on the other hand, he suggests that the current distribution of land is unfair. The fact that Indigenous territories make up 14% of all land yet the indigenous people only make up 0.5% of the population [87, 96] make ’unfair distribution’ an appealing argument that appears to resonate with many people. Other actors, such as wildcat miners or small-scale farmers, also want a piece of the pie. Such an unequal distribution of land, the discourse would argue, is not only unfair but also undermines Brazil’s potential for economic growth. This appeal for development also finds its support within the Indigenous community, as the presence of Ysani Kalapalo Bolsonaro’s UN address in September 2019 illustrates [85]. In terms of decision-making, the fact that Brazil is the only country who has the ’moral right’ [7] to talk about the Amazon is based on the issues addressed above (i.e. historical responsibility, the unequal distribution of (direct and opportunity) costs and benefits, and finding the greatest good for the greatest amount of people). Related to this, it is noteworthy that Harman’s [65] understanding of justice also comes to the fore (i.e. where (international) conventions allow individuals and states to act as “rational egoistic actors to pursue and maximise gains under an agreed political framework” [59, p.85]). Throughout the forty articles analysed, ’sovereignty’ was continuously emphasised by members of this discourse-coalition. As the Amazon lies within Brazil’s national territorial boundaries, this discourse uses an EJ argument in which it is stated that the rainforest belongs to Brazil and the international community does not have a say in matters concerning its use.

“Chrisóstomo seethed: "He’s [Macron’s] not Brazil’s president. He’s not even from the Americas. This forest is not shared, as he claims. It belongs to a nation which enjoys complete autonomy and authority to decide what happens to the forest and takes every possible care to preserve it."” [5]

Since Brazil is a democratic, free nation, any foreign interference in the decision-making on the Amazon is seen as an attempt of reinstating colonialist practices. The discourse seems to imply that the decisions and policies agreed upon are representative of the will of the people as Bolsonaro was democratically elected president who is only following through on this promises on opening up the Amazon. However, it appears that matters of participation and decision-making are significantly influenced by powerful actors such as the evangelical churches and the agribusiness lobby [3, 9, 89].

27 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

4.3 Language

A notable feature of the language used in this discourse is that actors frequently apportion blame to one another and make use of emotional argumentation. Bolsonaro is the Hero of this discourse, a champion of the people. Although Bolsonaro is presented as such, it appears to be more of a construction by the discourse-coalition instead of Hero construction by the media. Heroes, depending on the context, can take on different roles. Bolsonaro appears to be rebellious, openly accusing, and blaming other actors while his characterisation of the Hero is largely based on the idea of ’the Hero’s Journey’; a journey filled with trials, tribulation, obstacles and betrayal. As a Hero, Bolsonaro is expected (or presents himself) to achieve four main things: 1) bringing prosperity to the people by creating economic growth; 2) opening up the Amazon (including protected areas and Indigenous reserves) for such economic development and for integrating the Indigenous population; 3) fulfilling a mission from God; and 4) preventing the West from taking over the Amazon and continuing their neocolonialist practices. Strength is a key feature, and Bolsonaro has received an appropriate nickname: Captain Chainsaw. Moreover, we see a strong presence of ’warrior language’, or violent discursive adjectives where the people have to, for example, “...battle the devastating wave of forest fires” [97]. With Bolsonaro as the Hero in this discourse, Macron has become representative of the ’West’ (i.e. the enemy). The identification of the enemy allows for polarisation and blame games. Starting with his campaign, Bolsonaro goes on a ‘Hero’s Journey’: he is a man of the people who will bring prosperity to the nation and fight corruption. Eight months into his first term, his approval ratings plummeted by from 38.9% in February to 29.4% in August, and disapproval ratings for Bolsonaro’s personal performance rose from 28.2% to 53.7% [98]. His campaigns were largely based on the promise to open up the Amazon to agribusinesses and mining, and since his presidency fewer illegal timber has been confiscated [99]. Since then, however, his supporters and allies have also expressed concerns: “Brazil’s agribusiness lobby, which wields significant influence within Congress, also expressed concerns over a drop in exports due to a potential boycott of Brazilian products” [89]. However, it should be emphasised that similarly to Farage in Kelsey’s study [53], Bolsonaro “does not reflect the values of any individual society as a whole, but certain values that exist within society, or in other words, the ideological agenda that he serves” (p.975). Bolsonaro and his allies have apportioned blame to various actors. Primarily, NGOs and environmentalists were blamed for starting the fires as a response to the government’s budget cuts - a statement which Bolsonaro later retracted due to lack of evidence [29, 92, 99–101]. Moreover, “they were angry because they would not receive any more funding from the government. They were trying to give Brazil and Bolsonaro a bad image” [92]. Attributing blame further took place on a global level, especially regarding the ’Western’ attitude towards Brazil. This included blaming Macron for behaving in a colonialist manner, for treating the Amazon as a colony or ’no-mans-land’, for using Amazon fires as a political strategy, amongst other things. The following quotes are illustrative of this sentiment:

“Rondonia’s governor, the Bolsonaro ally Marcos, Rocha, took an identical line, dismissing the ’fuss’ over the fires as a foreign ruse to shackle Brazil’s economy.” [5]

“Mr Macron, said Mr Bolsoanro, was bent on sensationalism and seeking "personal political gains in an internal matter for Brazil and other Amazonian countries."” [89]

“"Most of the foreign press has a completely distorted image of who I am and what I intend to do here with our policies and for the future of our Brazil," he [Bolsonaro] said. "I perfectly understand the level of the poisoning that is done to Brazil by the foreign press."” [7]

Blame was also apportioned to the natural climate where it was reasoned that drought and the extremely dry summer months were the cause of the forest fires [89, 101]. Members of the discourse-coalition claimed that INPE published false data - the figures were lies and the director was to blame, which ultimately led Galvão to lose his job [93]. Scientific claims were made which increased the legitimacy of the argument, although other actors (particularly those from Discourse 2 and 3) consider them to be erroneous. Below is an example of how the Bolsonaro has described the cause and the data of the forest fires:

28 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

“Bolsonaro called the data published by INPE this month ’lies’. ’They [the data] are manipulated and higher than what they should be, to tarnish the name of Brazil and its government.’”[88] (Own Translation)

The blame games were often accompanied with name-calling and ad hominem7 used as tools for disagreement and counterattacks. Examples of these include:

“Jair Bolsonaro, whose move to meddle in the environmental organisation’s governance led to Nor- way’s decision, reacted by suggesting that Europe was not in a position to lecture his administration. "Isn’t Norway that country that kills whales up there in the north pole?", the Brazilian president said. "Take that money and help Angela Merkel reforest Germany."” [17]

“The diplomatic row between the leaders had escalated earlier in the day, when Macron condemned Bolsonaro for what he called "extraordinarily rude" comments made about his wife, Brigitte, after the Brazilian president expressed approval online for a Facebook post implying that Brigitte Macron was not as good-looking as his own wife, Michelle.” [1]

“Bolsonaro’s education minister, Abraham Weintraub, branded Macron a characterless, "opportunis- tic knave" and "a cretin", while Brazil’s president mocked the French first lady’s appearance on Facebook.” [103]

“"Macron cannot even avoid a foreseeable fire in a church that is a world heritage site," Lorenzoni said in a reference to the blaze that devastated the Notre Dame cathedral in April. "What does he intend to teach our country?"” [1]

Throughout the discourse, different strategies and tactics that were used during the Wise Use Movement (WUM) are also visible here. Similarly to the WUM where they tried to “marginalise environmental groups by highlighting the views and actions of the radical fringe of environmentalism, and in other ways promote the perception that environmentalists are atypical of the public” (Maughan Nilson quoted in [104]), this discourse tried to ostracise environmentalists and NGOs. For example, labelling environmentalists as religious fanatics was one of the strategies used:

“Bolsonaro, whose anti-environment rhetoric has included a pledge to end "Shi’ite ecologist activism," has questioned the latest official figures showing deforestation increased 88 percent in June compared with the same period last year. He uses the word "Shi’ite" as a synonym for radicalism rather than denoting a branch of Islam.” [94]

Another tactic used aims at downplaying threats to the environment. Claims are made by members of the discourse- coalition that argue that the data on the fires and deforestation levels are exaggerated, as well as stating that fires are a natural event during the dry season. Moreover, the discourse presents itself as having the best environmental policies in the world as it has more forest than any other country. Argumentation and claim-making are frequently of a comparative nature (i.e. ’we protect more more forest than any other country’) and conclusions are drawn without proper supporting evidence:

“"Our Amazon is larger than the whole of western Europe and remains virtually untouched - proof that we are one of the countries that most protects the environment," Bolsonaro claimed.” [85]

Together, actors within this discourse-coalition form a group wherein, although diverse, share similar interests and a common “aversion to environmental regulations, which essentially constrain what they can do on private property and how they can use public land” [104, p.279]. The coalition - which includes the agricultural sector and resource

7“an argumentation method where the characteristics or authority of the writer are attacked without addressing the substance of the argument” [102]

29 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

extraction industries - appears to provide their support to this discourse on the perceived threat of environmental policies and the perceived harm they have endured as a result of environmental policies. As such, one of the main goals appears to be guaranteeing access for these industries on public, protected and Indigenous lands. The economic costs of environmental policies for protecting this land and the costs of combating the fires are stressed, illustrated in section 4.2 which shows how the direct and opportunity costs are used as arguments in the discourse. Moreover, there is a perception that the Amazon is a renewable resource: “’If you cut down trees in the Amazon there will be new ones within a few years,’ he claims. ’That’s because of the tropical climate, Europeans don’t understand that” [87] (Own translation). Lastly, the belief that environmentalists want to attain power is demonstrated by: 1) Bolsonaro and his administration blaming the NGOs for the fires; 2) people at the pro-Bolsonaro protests stating that the NGOs are there to map out and steal the Amazonian riches [87]; and 3) Bolsonaro reproaching Macron for his ’colonialist mindset’. This supports the notion that environmentalists do indeed have something to gain from environmental policies and that there is more to their agenda than simply being concerned with the common good. The arguments above are able debunk the environmentalists’ legitimacy. Moreover, environmentalism is often equated with a political left ideology and found to be destructive. Bolsonaro’s speech at the UN General Assembly on 24 September 2019 in New York was illustrative of this sentiment but, according to experts, relied heavily on fallacies:

“Brazil’s president went on the offensive, starting his speech with a Trumpian excoriation of socialism and concluding with an obscure broadside against the leftist "ideological thought systems" he alleged had invaded Brazilian schools, universities, homes and even souls. "With these methods, this ideology has always left a trail of death, ignorance and misery, wherever it has gone," Bolsonaro said. At the heart of Bolsonaro’s speech - which Brazilian fact-checkers said contained nine falsehoods and five imprecise claims - was a lengthy counter-attack against domestic and international criticism of his highly controversial vision for the Amazon and Brazil’s indigenous communities.” [85]

30 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

5 Chapter 5: Bolsonaro as the Villain

5.1 The Discourse “The Brazilian president is a right-wing populist who solely thinks in nationalist solutions, is allergic to foreign meddling and does not concern himself at all with offending someone else’s wife.” (Own translation) [93]

The second discourse which features prominently in the media is one that portrays Bolsonaro as the Villain. The representation of this mythological archetype is particularly strong when juxtaposed against the environment and Indigenous peoples. Discourse 2 is mainly advanced by environmentalists, civil society (concerned groups or individuals and NGOs), celebrities, a few politicians, and the international community in general (with some exceptions such as US president Donald Trump). Three main story lines were identified: 1) The Amazon as a crisis; 2) The Amazon as a global issue; and 3) Bolsonaro is an enemy to all.

5.1.1 Storyline 1: The Amazon as a Crisis

This storyline is particularly concerned with the Amazon fires being something abnormal and out of the ordinary. The issue has gained the title of a crisis or an emergency, thereby invoking a narrative which allows one to respond in a way that normal circumstances would not permit: the situation is regarded as an exception and asks for a concomitant response, even if that requires departing from the political-constitutional norm [38]. The ’crisis’ storyline emphasises that the ’lungs of the planet’ are on fire: an inferno, as some have called it [5]. ’Our house is burning,’ stated French president Emmanuel Macron, dubbing it both an international crisis and an emergency that should be addressed as a top priority during the G7 summit (see Figure 2). Other politicians, such as German chancellor Merkel, also wanted to treat the fires as an emergency [33]. The perception that the environmental issue is in fact a crisis is supported by claims of record-breaking numbers (see Figure 4), and phrases such as ’raging inferno’s’, ’irreversible damage’ and so forth. This sentiment was not just present in the international community, but also in Brazil itself. Several states, including Brazil’s largest state, Amazonas, declared a state of emergency [105]. More specifically, the storyline argues that the record breaking fires and deforestation rates increased by 278% by July compared to year before, equalling a destruction of approximately 870 square miles [17]. These figures are considered to be so high that a ’tipping point’ may soon be reached. This will irreversibly degrade the Amazon into a dry savannah, “transforming from a vital sink for global emissions to releasing an estimated tens of billions of tonnes of carbon into the air” [9]:

“About 17% of the Amazon has been destroyed over the last 50 years with some scientists fearing the rainforest could reach an irreversible tipping point if that rises to 20% or 25%.” [85]

With this dire outlook in mind, the storyline finds it obvious that the fires are a treated as a global crisis and emergency. For some, the Amazon fires have reached another level of destruction. Marina Silva, senator, ex-environmental minister and leader of the Rede opposition party, wrote in a letter that: “Since the nazisme murdered millions a Jews, the word Holocaust obtained the meaning total destruction. And that is what is happening now: the holocaust of the Amazon” [92].

5.1.2 Storyline 2: The Amazon as a Global Issue

This storyline is largely based on the ’Amazon crisis’ storyline and argues that the situation in the Amazon is not just a concern for Brazil anymore, but that it is a global issue. The actors urge for more (international) action and responsibility, with French president Macron being most vocal about it this:

“Speaking on French TV on Monday night, Macron reiterated that the Amazon was a global issue and intensified his criticism of Bolsonaro. "We respect your sovereignty. It’s your country," Macron

31 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Figure 4: Deforestation levels in Brazil (2015-2019); Note the reference to ’record level’. [3]

said. But the trees in the Amazon are "the lungs of the planet", he added. "The Amazon forest is a subject for the whole planet. We can help you reforest. We can find the means for your economic development that respects the natural balance. But we cannot allow you to destroy everything.” (Emphases added) [1]

Moreover, Macron has argued that France is an Amazonian nation, and appears to imply that this justifies France’s concern and interference in the fires.

“Pointing out that France itself is "an Amazonian nation" because of its overseas department, French Guiana, he said: "The Amazon is so important... in terms of biodiversity, oxygen and the fight against climate change, that we must proceed with reforestation"” [106]

Apart from being the ’lungs of the earth’, the Amazon rainforest is a necessity for the planet in terms of regulating its climate through carbon storage and water sequestration while at the same time hosting a significant number of species. The rainforest harbours, for example, 16,000 species of trees and 2.5 million species of insects that we know of [107], as well as several hundred thousand (Indigenous) people, including 300 different tribes. Due to the Amazon’s environmental and cultural importance, the storyline argues that the international community has a say and responsibility to speak up: the Amazon is something that belongs to us all. The current Minister of the Environment of Brazil, Ricardo Salles, is believed to not be a ’real’ minister but instead an ’anti-minister’ as he does not care about the protecting the rainforest. Although deforestation happened in the past and always has been an issue in the Amazon, Brazil at least had previous ministers that cared about the environment. Salles, however, does not and, according to Marina Silva, actively works against nature instead [103]. In August 2019, the opposition party Rede initiated an impeachment process against Salles and ForaSalles (’away with Salles’) became a trending topic on Twitter that day [92]. In response to the Amazon fires as a global issue, the international community acted in different ways. The first concerned the Mercosur Deal (a free trade agreement between the EU, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, known as the Mercosur Bloc) that was a two decade-long deal in the making and should have been ratified in 2019. However,

32 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

due to the events in the Amazon (most notably the highly escalated fires and deforestation levels), several governments threatened to block this deal. Concerns about the increasing deforestation rates led to the Irish parliament backing a “symbolic motion instructing the government to "immediately begin building a coalition across the EU to ensure that this deal is rejected"” [17]. Additionally, the international community decided to take a stance concerning the Amazon crisis by withholding funds that should have been received by organisations such as the Amazon Fund. The Amazon Fund was set up in 2008 to receive donations for reforestation and other conservation projects in the Amazon [88]. Its largest contributors, Germany and Norway, decided to suspend their additional funding; Norway chose to withhold an expected payment of $33.27m and Germany $39m. This decision was based on the fact that Brazil did not stick to the terms of agreement as Brazil unilaterally decided to close the Fund’s steering committee. The countries argued that Bolsonaro’s administration did not show it was serious in combating deforestation [17].

5.1.3 Storyline 3: Bolsonaro as an Enemy to All

The third storyline emphasises Bolsonaro as a right-wing populist and climate change denier [108], and presents him as an enemy to all: the environment, the Indigenous people, the political left etc. Climate Observatory, a Brazilian NGO, stated that “As expected, Bolsonaro’s speech... has doubled down on division, nationalism and on ecocide...Bolsonaro’s policies bring an immediate risk to all humankind” [85]. Over the last few months, Bolsonaro’s approval ratings plummeted [7] from 38.9% in February to 29.4% in August. The disapproval ratings on Bolsonaro’s personal performance as president rose from 28.2% to 53.7% [98], suggesting that his actions and policies do not reflect the views of the wider public. Rubens Ricupero, a former environment minister, even called president Bolsonaro the ’most despised and detested leader on earth’ [103]. Concerning the Indigenous populations, Bolsonaro has been dubbed the gravest threat and primary enemy. Bolsonaro’s anti-Indigenous rhetoric features prominently in (inter-) national media, and according to the Guardian Bolsonaro has openly declared war on the approximately 400 tribes [109]. Furthermore, his plans of opening up Indigenous reserves, the dismantling of Funai (the government agency on Indigenous peoples) [95] and weakening of law enforcement have put many of the Indigenous population in danger: “Only a global outcry stands between them and genocide” [94].

“"We are in a situation of great danger. [Bolsonaro] is proving himself to be the number-one enemy of the indigenous," he [a leader from the Javri Valley indigenous territory] said.” [95]

This anti-Indigenous sentiment and rhetoric has translated itself into policies that undermine past environmental and human rights efforts in Brazil. This includes ’crippling budget cuts to Funai’ [95] and dismantling of other agencies such as Ibama (Brazil’s environmental protection agency). Ibama has lost power since three regional headquarters were deactivated, which left only one central command post to tackle environmental crime in a state roughly three times the size of Spain [5]. Moreover, changes in policies and the continued lack of law enforcement (for example tackling illegal deforestation) have further contributed to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest:

“"Just imagine if all this is destroyed, if the government opens this area up. In two years it will all be gone," he [a leader from the Javri Valley indigenous territory] predicted. "The wood will be gone. The fish will be gone. The rivers will all be polluted. All they want is to destroy.” [95]

Different actors, such as government officials, wildcat goldminers, Indigenous leaders and environmental activists, have argue that the anti-environmental rhetoric put forward by Bolsonaro and his allies, coupled with the lack of law enforcement, have contributed to scale of the fires and the increased deforestation [5]. In addition, Bolsonaro has openly supported economic activities, mining, agriculture, logging, construction of hydroelectric dams etc., that exploit the natural environment. This new “age of wrecking” [5] is a direct result “total disregard for the vital ecological role the Amazon serves” [9]: “He’s a bad man. It’s as if he understands nothing," he [a Matis elder] remonstrated. "He doesn’t want to help the poor or the suffering. He just wants to help the rich so they can get the resources they desire” [95]. The

33 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

storyline thus highlights the environmental and cultural destruction and supports the concern of the (inter-)national community.

5.2 Environmental Justice

As with Discourse 1, elements of distributive justice are featured most prominently in this discourse. Similarly, it was observed that different approaches to distributive justice are used whereby the focal point of each approach differs slightly. One of the most prevailing arguments in this discourse tends to revolve around the moral responsibility to protect both nature and its people. In this discourse, emotional and moral argumentation play a role, as the following quote illustrates:

“Adriane Muelbert, an ecologist who’s studied how Amazon deforestation plays a role in climate change, told National Geographic: "It’s a tragedy... a crime against the planet, and a crime against humanity."” [105]

This normative claim appears to represent the general sentiment of Discourse 2. The fact that deforestation is considered to be a crime against the planet and against humanity is illustrative of the Amazon’s (perceived) utility. In this discourse, forests are valued in terms of the ecosystem services (simply put, the benefits,) that they provide. Hence, it is largely instrumental valuation that takes place, although signs of intrinsic valuation also come to the fore. Considering that the Amazon is a transnational natural resource and provides numerous benefits on a global scale, it has become a point of concern for the international community. The Amazon is the world’s largest terrestrial carbon sink and an important stabilizer of our climate, and this discourse often treats it as a public good (i.e. non-rivalrous and non-excludable); the Amazon is "our house" and "the lungs of the earth". The discourse argues that the fires are "a subject for the whole planet". As such, the fires became an issue of top priority at the G7 summit in Biarritz. It is repeated that the Amazon is the world’s largest terrestrial carbon sink, contains a high level of biodiversity, sequesters water, regulates the planet’s climate and provides a home to millions of people - including approximately three hundred indigenous groups. As such, this discourse would argue that the greatest utility would result from conserving and protecting the rainforest, ultimately leading to improved well-being for all. If we continue with the status quo, “Bolsonaro’s policies bring an immediate risk to all humankind” [85]. Conserving the Amazon is therefore seen as an act for ’the greater good’, an argument that is presented as being more valuable than other arguments (e.g. national sovereignty). In many ways Discourse 2 treats the Amazon as a public good, a dominant argument being that the Amazon is essential to life on earth (i.e. ’the lungs of the planet’) and therefore belongs to all of us [29, 89, 93, 109–112]. Moreover, in these storylines the rainforest provides positive net benefits for all, thereby resonating with a ’justice as mutual advantage perspective’.

“French president Emmanuel Macron also described the Amazon as a ’public good’ due to its role in global climate change mitigation.” (Own translation) [113]

The global importance of the Amazon justifies the international community’s concern and willingness to participate in the decision-making of the Amazon, especially when future generations are taken into account. Although ’Western’ countries seem to be particularly concerned with the conservation and protection of the Amazon, the discourse does not engage with thoughts on what the underlying drivers may be, thereby largely excluding the ’West’s’ responsibility in what has been termed a ’crisis’. However, there appears to be some understanding towards the importance of the Amazon as a driving force for the Brazilian economy, but this does not justify the Amazon’s destruction:

“"The Amazon forest is a subject for the whole planet. We can help you reforest. We can find the means for your economic development that respects the natural balance. But we cannot allow you to destroy everything."” [1] (Statement made by Macron.)

The international community’s concern is further legitimised by several factors. Primarily, science and data, which illustrate a current disbalance between economic and environmental activities and priorities, is continuously referred to

34 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

and used to gain credibility. Secondly, international pressure is warranted and legitimised by relying on these data sets, but also due to the perceived lack of credibility and ’child-like behaviour’ of Bolsonaro: it is said that Bolsonaro ’lied’ at the G20 regarding his climate change commitments [89]. Thirdly, Brazil’s unilateral decision of closing the Amazon Fund’s steering committee illustrated that he is not serious about curbing deforestation. Consequently, the discourse argues that it is legitimised, and even necessary, for the international community to pursue stronger measures. This includes, for instance, blocking the Mercosur deal or potentially boycotting Brazilian commodities. Lastly, it is noticeable that the distributive justice principle of addressing needs and capabilities is - albeit to a limited extent - included. The perspective put forward is that by destroying the natural environment and actively engaging in a anti-Indigenous rhetoric, for instance, the Bolsonaro administration is limiting and reducing access to the needs and capabilities of marginalised communities. Within such a justice approach, a healthy environment is a human right and should apply to everyone and logging, mining, cattle ranching and agriculture will severely decrease the well-being of the environment and many affected population groups. Based on this sentiment, the discourse presents the current situation to be one focused on malrecognition and social injustice while putting forward the argument of ’the greater good’. Other injustices have come forward during processes of decision-making and participation. Various occurrences have led to (inter)national consternation and critique: INPEs director being fired after conflicts over the deforestation data; Bolsonaro’s son being appointed Brazil’s ambassador to the US earlier this year, an act which some coined nepotism [7, 9]; and INPE’s budget was cut by 24%, and the Indigenous affairs are now controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture. These examples show that those who take a stance against the current (environmental) policies are increasingly at risk. Moreover, events such as these decrease the overall legitimacy and accountability of the government and its agencies, especially when illegal: “There have been numerous accounts of unpermitted development and land grabs on indigenous reserves, while the environmental regulatory issued fewer fines than at any point since 1995 during the first two months of his presidency”[9]. It also suggests that more participation of different actors is needed and should be sought in policy-making. Concerns also apply to the global nature of the forest fire crisis, and therefore include the participation in decision-making over the fate of the Amazon. Some of the members of this discourse-coalition would argue that participation in decision-making involves looking beyond the traditional nation-state. The Amazon’s future - and all of the global repercussions - should not be decided by the Bolsonaro administration alone. Many public figures expressed their concern, including Dutch minister Kaag [112], Irish prime minister Varadkar [114], German chancellor Merkel [88], French president Macron, actor DiCaprio, football player Ronaldo etc. The openly stated criticism on Bolsonaro’s policies by a wide variety of actors illustrate that many find the overall message of Discourse 1 questionable and perhaps find comfort in the normative claims presented by Discourse 2. The discursive practices used by this Discourse, including those that help present moral and normative claims, will be discussed in the following section.

5.3 Language

“Bolsonaro has ushered in a new age of wrecking.” [5]

The language in this discourse can be defined by several notable tendencies including portraying Bolsonaro as a Villain, describing the Amazon fires as a crisis and/ or emergency, using ’warrior language’, and using violent discursive elements. This discourse can also be characterised by the ambiguity of deforestation and fire data, which the actors in the discourse-coalition argue are based on facts. Bolsonaro is frequently and explicitly characterised as a villain in the media, particularly in Storyline 3 where Bolsonaro is considered to be an enemy to all: the greatest threat towards the environment and (Indigenous) people. Typical villains tend to display certain characteristics such being “self-centred, power-hungry and interested only in achieving their personal goals, usually at the cost of others” [115]. This resembles the image of Bolsonaro in this discourse: a power-hungry politician who represents violence, marginalisation, climate scepticism, nepotism, and disposing of opposition (for example by firing Galvão).

35 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

When it comes to descriptions of Bolsonaro, it is noteworthy that he is frequently coupled with the terms ’far-right populist’ and/ or ’climate sceptic’; these two adjectives seem to define, and be synonymous with, the Brazilian president. However, he is also described as ’the most detested leader in the world’, the greatest enemy to the indigenous, as well as a plethora of other adjectives: “Ever since he took office in January this evangelism, populism, and total disregard for the vital ecological role the Amazon serves have been the hallmarks of Mr Bolsonaro’s tenure” [9]. These traits seem to be equated, in the newspaper articles, with Villain archetypes. Bolsonaro is described as ’Captain Chainsaw’, a name which, it appears, he has come claim himself and is used by the media: “The Amazon, Captain Chainsaw insists, is his to do with as he pleases” [9]. In addition, the actors of this discourse-coalition portray Bolsonaro as evil: he only wants to make the rich richer, he wants to destroy the Amazon, encourage genocide of the Indigenous population, and has declared war on the 400 Indigenous groups [109]:

“"Only a global outcry stands between them [the indigenous peoples] and genocide, said Stephen Cory, director of Survival International... "President Bolsonaro and his friends in the logging industry would like nothing more than for those who still survive to be eliminated."” [94]

Moreover, Bolsonaro is portrayed as having set in motion a global crisis. The actors in this discourse-coalition present their understanding of the Amazon fires as a problem using dramatic adjectives. The Guardian in particular described the forest fires in the Amazon as if it was part of an apocalyptic movie:

“From afar, it resembles a tornado: an immense grey column shooting thousands of feet upwards from the forest canopy into the Amazonian skies. Up close it is an inferno: a raging conflagration obliterating yet another stretch of the world’s greatest rainforest as a herd of Nelore cattle looks on in bewilderment. “It started this morning,” said Valdir Urumon, the chief of an indigenous village in this isolated corner of Rondônia state, as the vast pillar of smoke loomed over his settlement’s palm-thatched homes. By late afternoon, when the Guardian arrived on the scene, the fire had intensified into a catastrophic blaze, streaking north through a strip of jungle perhaps two miles long. Huge plumes of smoke drifted skywards as if this sweep of woodland near Brazil’s north-western border with Bolivia had been subjected to a ferocious bombing campaign.” [5] (Emphases added)

This type of apocalyptic framing is not unusual (see Foust & Murphy [48]), but it is debatable whether, and how, such narratives and storylines have power and are effective. Some scholars, such as Skilling [38] argue that the power of a story depends on a combination of credibility and novelty. The credibility is largely achieved by the actors in the discourse-coalition - particularly through the use of science - and the novelty status is gained through the discursive strategies of using words such as ’unprecedented’ and achieving ’record-breaking’. The following quote, which again uses strong visual language, is illustrative of this sentiment:

“Experts say the current rate is unprecedented and the direct result of demons unleashed by Mr Bolsonaro in his pledges to turn a blind eye to environmental degradation in the name of economic progress.” [9]

However, there is much ambiguity in the media concerning the statistics on the severity of the fires, perhaps due to the different ways in which journalists, media outlets, experts and organisations define the environmental issue. Some highlight the intensity of the fires: According to NASA, the amount and intensity of the fires in the Brazilian Amazon were at its highest in 2019 since the year 2010, but when taking the entire Amazon into account, including the areas outside Brazil, this figure becomes more nuanced. In the latter case, the figures of 2019 are very close to those of 2016, but do not surpass it [116]. It therefore appears misleading to describe the forest fires in 2019 as ’unprecedented’ or achieving ’record numbers’. Emphasising different parts of the problem may create confusion amongst the readers. For example, the Telegraph, the Guardian and de Volkskrant published an article that responded to the question: why is the Amazon burning and is it really that bad? The headlines illustrate some of the ambiguity:

36 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

’Record number forest fires in the Brazilian Amazon.’ De Volkskrant (Own translation) [117]

’NASA: Amount of fires in the Amazon lower than usual.’ De Telegraaf (Own translation) [118]

’Record 84 per cent yearly increase in Amazon fires blamed on deforestation in Brazil,’ The Telegraph [119]

To support claims that the fires are a crisis, an emergency, and an unprecedented event, the members of this coalition often highlight the irreversible damage that will occur if nothing is done. This includes mentioning the threat of reaching a ’tipping point’, which is supported by scientific evidence:

“It should be no surprise that when large areas of rainforest are burnt down, it has profound consequences. Devastating droughts and storms go from 100-year events to ones we must expect every decade. Summers gradually move from lovely to too hot to life-threatening. The Earth is one great self- regulating system and if we destroy one part, our species might not survive the next steady-state. [120]

‘About 17% of the Amazon has been destroyed over the last 50 years with some scientists fearing the rainforest could reach an irreversible tipping point if that rises to 20% or 25%.’” [85]

The use of scientific evidence and statistics to support the actors in this discourse-coalition also include references to the number of species living in the Amazon, the hydrological importance of the rainforest, ecological systems thinking, the rate of deforestation and increases in forest fires; in other words, ’language of ecology’ [30]. However, some claims appear to be selectively chosen and not necessarily scientifically founded. For example, Macron and other celebrities stated through social media that the Amazon produces 20% of the planet’s oxygen and as such the Amazon has frequently been coined the ’lungs of the earth’. This phrase, or signifier, depicts the Amazon as being something absolutely crucial to the Earth’s and humankind’s survival; it generates the oxygen that we need to breath. The metaphor evokes visualisation through imagery, thereby strengthening the meaning of the phrase. Indeed, “the benefit of metaphors is that we can express ideas for which there are no words (or for which singular words don’t quite suffice)” [121]. However, even though several newspapers articles referred to this 20% figure, only two articles stated the number was actually closer to 6% [3, 86] and another explained that it was impossible to provide accurate estimates as it depends on the location and the methods used [116]. Macron’s Twitter post (Figure 2), “Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rainforest - the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen - is on fire. It is an international crisis. Members of the G7 Summit, let’s discuss this emergency first order in two days!” (emphases added) [2], not only stated the 20% figure, but also called the current situation both a crisis and emergency. As the theoretical framework elaborated on in detail, the introduction of a term such as the word ’crisis’ allows for an exception of the ’normal’ state of affairs. Procedures and a course of action is called upon which does not follow the normal state of affairs, such as discussing the issue as a priority at the G7 Summit. As Skilling [38] noted, crisis narratives are influenced by “their relationship to dominant interest and value positions, to political fields of power and influence and to broader social constructions of aspirations and fears” (p.62). This relationship between crisis narratives and power are addressed in a counter-discourse provided by Bolsonaro. According to the Brazilian president, Macron had a personal agenda when defining the Amazon fires as a crisis:

“Mr Macron, said Mr Bolsonaro, was bent on sensationalism and seeking "personal political gains in an internal matter for Brazil and other Amazonian countries."” [89]

Although the aim here is not to analyse what the underlying motives of such a response are, the quote above does highlight some of the tensions that have surfaced as a result of the fires. These tensions, and the opposition created towards and enemy, is further magnified through the use of ’warrior language’. Such language evokes feelings of conflict, war, violence, distrust etc. Similarly to the other identified discursive practices, dramatic adjectives and

37 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

verbs are used to convey a battle between ’good’ and ’evil’. It is not uncommon to find words such as ’inferno’, ’vuurzee’ (sea of fire), ’destruction’, ’obliteration’, ’catastrophic’, ’engulfed by wildfires’ and even ’holocaust’ in the newspaper articles. Although all four newspapers make use of such ’warrior language’, it is striking that such language is dominated by the Guardian and de Volkskrant. The following words or phrases, all retrieved from a single Guardian article [85] are illustrative of this point:

• ’locking horns with a succession of world leaders’ • ’Brazil battling to repair its overseas image’ • ’Brazil’s president went on the offensive’ • ’Trumpian excoriation of socialism’ • ’With these methods, this ideology has always left a trail of death, ignorance and misery’ • ’..."ideological thought systems" he alleged had invaded Brazilian schools, universities, homes and even souls’ • ’That line was a clear jab at Macron with whom Bolsonaro is locked in a long-running diplomatic feud that escalated last month’

Some other quotes (from all four media outlets) that are worth mentioning to illustrate their ability of presenting Bolsonaro as a Villain and the Amazon fires as a place of (violent) conflict:

• “The Amazon, Captain Chainsaw insists, is his to do with as he pleases.” The Telegraph [9]; • “...battle the devastating wave of forest fires” The Guardian[97]; • “...Bolsonaro has dismissed $22m in G7 assistance amid the bullish head of state’s war of words with French president Emmanuel Macron” The Telegraph [97]; • “a war of words intensified” The Guardian [89]; • “a war is raging in the Amazon” de Volkskrant [86]; • “a battle of words is raging” (own translation: ’er woedt een woordenstrijd’) De Volkskrant [93]; • “holocaust” De Volkskrant [92] • “the tree trunks stand around him like skeletons” (own translation: ’boomstammen staan als skeletten om hem heen’) De Volkskrant [86]; • “smoldering remains” (own translation: ’smeulende resten’) De Volkskrant [86]; • “apocalyptic images” (own translation: ’apocalyptische beelden’) De Volkskrant [86]; • “phenomenal attack” (own translation: ’verbluffende’ aanval’) De Telegraaf [99].

Overall, apart from portraying Bolsonaro as the Villain, the discursive practices and strategies used in this discourse have presented the situation as a crisis, the discourse-coalition of Discourse 1 to be evil, created and enhanced opposition or polarisation, emphasised normative claims, and described the current situation in the Amazon as if it was part on apocalyptic movie.

38 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

6 Discourse 3: The problem is bigger than Bolsonaro

6.1 The Discourse

This discourse, which I have come to call the problem is bigger than Bolsonaro, is not featured as prominently as the previous two in the Dutch and British media. Compared to Discourses 1 and 2 where Bolsonaro and his allies are seen to be Hero’s or Villains, this discourse provides a more nuanced view on the Amazon fires and deforestation rates. The discourse-coalition that puts forward this perspective include concerned and critical individuals and groups, such as environmentalists, journalists, and other members of civil society. Three story lines were identified and concerned the underlying drivers of the fires and deforestation, that the fires are illustrative of a global problem, and the necessity of shared but differentiated responsibility.

6.1.1 Storyline 1: Underlying Drivers “No matter how many troops President Bolsonaro deploys in Amazonas, the burning will only stop when the root causes are addressed.” [120]

Actors in this discourse-coalition have recognised that the link between fires, deforestation and the overconsumption of resources has not properly been addressed. Increasing levels of deforestation in the Amazon are largely a result of a growing demand for Brazilian (forest-risk) commodities, such as beef, leather and soy, that have found their way around global markets. From 1993 to 2013, the Brazilian cattle herd grew 200% to more than 60 million cows. The global production of footwear went up to 23.5 billion pairs by 2018, accounting for 55% of all leather production [109]. Hardly anyone asks where the cows came from, and demand for zero-deforestation (ZD) leather is virtually non-existent. The US National Wildlife Federation found in an analysis that Brazil supplies approximately 22% of global leather exports and that the country is the single largest source of animal hides [122]. As such, the largest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is attributed to cattle ranching. De Volkskrant notes that the production of soy and cattle are responsible for almost 75% of the deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. In 2018, the EU imported 500 million worth of meat, and 6 million tons of soy from Brazil of which approximately 87% is used for feed. Western-Europeans consume on average 85kg of meat and 260kg of dairy a year, more than double the global average. Although the European Commission already recognised in 2013 that Europe’s consumption patterns play a significant role in deforestation, European leaders and Bolsonaro tend to ignore this point [86]. As such, the storyline argues that the overconsumption of resources coupled with long and unclear supply chains should be addressed properly. Currently, the traceability of commodities remains difficult and ’sustainable’ options are scarce. Moreover, global trade and politics also contribute to forest destruction. Trump’s trade war with China (at the time of writing), for instance, generated a gap in soy exports which caused Brazil to fill it and add additional pressure to the Amazon [1]. In addition, the demand for beef is expected to increase in Europe as a result of the Mercosur deal, adding even more pressure to the Amazon and the Cerrado [1]. Threatening to block or delay this deal, which some countries have done, will not yield any substantial positive impacts as the deal itself is considered to be outdated:

“Most observers already recognise that a treaty that was 15 years in the making needs radical updating to recognise current realities, not least a climate crisis that is no longer just a future threat.” [120]

The power of other actors, such as the produtores, should not be underestimated. The agribusiness lobby and the evangelical voting group wield significant power in Congress, and “the former army captain was elected with the support of the mining and agricultural sectors” [17]. Although Bolsonaro’s administration has weakened the environment agency INPE, underfunded FUNAI, attacked (conservation) NGOs, dismissed satellite data on deforestation and promoted opening up the Amazon to economic activities such as agriculture, mining, logging, and infrastructure, there are many other actors at play. The agricultural lobby, for instance, has helped erode the protection systems that were regarded as successful in curbing deforestation between 2005 to 2014 [3]. Although the general trend over the last few decades was a decrease in deforestation, these levels steadily increased again with presidents Dilma Rousseff and Michel Temer.

39 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

This does not compare, however, with the huge spike that can be observed after eight months of Bolsonaro’s presidency (see Figures 1 and 4).

6.1.2 Storyline 2: The fires are illustrative of a global problem

Deforestation is not only a problem in Brazil, but is illustrative of global trend. Therefore, deforestation cannot solely be attributed to Bolsonaro or a particular ideology (e.g. right-wing populism). Bolivia, for example, also saw elevated levels of deforestation (a 114% increase in fires in the first eight months of 2019 compared to the same period the previous year) but was ruled by a left-wing populist at the time. Venezuala saw a 19% rise compared to 2018, and “Peru, Guyana, Suriname and French Guyana have recorded more than a 100 per cent increase this year [2019]” [105]. Other regions in the world have also needed to respond to enormous wildfires in 2019. Russia, for instance, declared a state of emergency after wildfires spread across Siberia [123]. Australia faced an earlier, and more severe, bushfire season than ’normal’ and also declared various state of emergencies [124]. This storyline especially illustrates that the Amazon fires and deforestation are actually an emblem, or metonym, representative of much larger and more complex issues. The public conflict Macron and Bolsonaro had online was more than a simple ’war of words’ [89, 97] between two people on the Amazon fires, but revealed other tensions. Recognising that the Amazon fires are illustrative of other global problems should not take away its perceived urgency or concern. However, underneath the surface of these debates are tensions over other matters such as global climate change. Matters of responsibility and deciding who has to shoulder the costs of climate change mitigation, biodiversity loss etc. have increasingly led to tensions between ’developed’ and ’underdeveloped’ countries [93]. A link between mitigating the climate crisis and avoided deforestation has been made:

“The lack of effective global funding schemes to halt deforestation is a source of great shame. Considering that the mitigation cost of carbon emissions from avoided deforestation is by far the lowest across the spectrum, and that without addressing deforestation we can never achieve global net zero carbon emissions, the lack of funding is astonishing.” [120]

Combating climate change, for instance, would involve wealthier nations applying effective climate policies in their own regions as well as supporting the development of sustainable economies in other countries [93]. Unfortunately, a global vision on climate change has not yet been reached and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) still lacks financial resources [93, 98, 125]. The topic of the Amazon fires brings up another issue, namely the importance of respecting, valuing, and recognising different people and ways of thinking. An article in de Volkskrant stated that from satellite images it is possible to see that the areas that are managed by the Indigenous communities are green oases in an otherwise barren and deforested landscape [86]. It is therefore argued that the Indigenous communities are the best guardians of the forest. The Amazon is furthermore important for the Indigenous people in terms of their, “cultural survival, self-determination, and wellbeing” [111], as Earth Alliance stated.

“"It’s not just deforestation that has gone up in the Amazon [under Bolsonaro]. Violence against indigenous groups has, too," he said.” [95]

However, recognising that the Indigenous people and their way of living is jeopardised by external activities, such as land grabbing and deforestation, is not enough. As Macron was quoted in de Volkskrant, “we need proper policy regarding the Amazon. But we also need to involve NGOs and the local population more than we do now” [86]. This statement recognises the need for more participation in decision-making, especially in environmental policies. Others have different suggestions:

“"He sees us as animals. As if we didn’t know how to think," said Ewerton Marubo, who hoped foreign funding might help tribes adopt surveillance techniques to safeguard their land.” [95]

40 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Increased recognition and participation could influence the dominant way of thinking and allow different valuation systems of the Amazon. According to an author from the Telegraph argues, this is the only way forward: “We will never save the rainforest until a living tree is worth more to Brazil than an incinerated one” [120]. Moreover, he argues that:

“The Paris Agreement will fail to meet its aim of saving us from self-destructive climate breakdown unless a comprehensive agreement with a performance-based funding mechanism is introduced to make the standing tree more valuable than the cut down tree.” [120]

This, however, appears to be the extent of the recognition and valuation narrative. The Discussion (Chapter 7) will put this storyline in the broader context of (hegemonic) ontologies and the power of discourse.

6.1.3 Storyline 3: Shared but Differentiated Responsibility

Storyline 3 brings us to the notion of ’shared but differentiated’ responsibility. Historical deforestation and emissions are topics that continuously addressed, resulting in some parties blaming others for their part in the current climate crisis and other environmental crises. Although the previous two discourses both had arguments that support, and counter, the issue of responsibility and the distribution of costs/ benefits, this storyline argues that there is a global responsibility towards mitigating environmental destruction of which the responsibility is not necessarily divided evenly. This perspective also goes beyond the current discourses on the Amazon fires towards recognising that the fires are really a metonym; they form a small part of a much larger environmental crisis narrative. With this in mind, the storyline promotes the idea that responsibility does not only concern putting out the fires or the (illegal) deforestation that is currently happening, but that the responsibility covers many more aspects of society. Consumers have a responsibility, for instance, with the products they buy (and have the ability to demand ZD commodities). Governments have a responsibility towards (environmental) conservation by discouraging harmful activities and encouraging the more environmental friendly alternatives. For example, European companies have a strong presence in the Amazon: Norsk Hydro, a Norwegian aluminium factory of which one third is owned by the Norwegian government, is active in the Brazilian Amazon and has been accused for years of dumping toxic waste [86]. Dutch companies are involved in the development of soy ports, railroads and roads in the Amazon. Moreover, although it is generally recognised that the consumption patterns of ’Western’ countries play a significant role in the Amazon’s deforestation, European leaders tend to avoid this issue, as does Bolsonaro since increasing the production of cattle and soy would be beneficial for the Brazilian economy [86]. Some critics consider these actions to be hypocritical and the idea that a relatively small percentage of money is invested into conservation efforts compared to the investments made towards exploitative economic activities is deemed problematic:

“For this [conservation] to be effective, governments will also need to align their environment and trade policies. Currently countries like the UK spend small sums on overseas conservation, then promote billions of dollars worth of trade in beef, soy, timber, minerals and other products that undermine Amazon protection efforts.” [3]

This global ’hypocrisy’ has angered Bolsonaro but also many environmentalists and concerned individuals alike. Many do not consider the current responses to the Amazon fires or deforestation to be enough. After the G7 summit, environmental campaigners argued that “Mr Macron announced no specific plan of action or timetable” [98] and the funding was considered to be insufficient:

“Environmental groups said G7’s emergency fire aid was insufficient and failed to address the trade and consumption drivers of deforestation. "The offer of $20m is chump change, especially as the crisis in the Amazon is directly linked to overconsumption of meat and dairy in the UK and other G7 countries," said Richard George, the head of forests for Greenpeace UK.” [1]

As such, the storyline acknowledges the complexity the Amazon fires and deforestation, linking it beyond the fire and deforestation hotspots. Responsibility, or lack thereof, comes from a wide range of actors, practices and policies.

41 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

For shared but differentiated responsibility to be enhanced or better understood, environmental, economic and social trade-offs should properly be investigated. For example, Macron has argued that economic development without necessarily destroying the environment is possible: “We can find the means for your economic development that respects the natural balance” [1]. Moreover, it is important to recognise that in order to mitigate the effects of a tipping point and for reducing emissions, it is not only necessary to protect, but also massively reforest, the Amazon. This will, however, require “far more financial support than anything seen until now” [3] and action from both state and non-state actors.However, others argue that protecting the Amazon requires a different valuation system: the rainforest will never be saved “until a living tree is worth more to Brazil than an incinerated one” [120]. This ties in to recognising the importance of different ontologies, systems of valuation, knowledge production etc. All in all, responsibility comes in different forms, involving a multitude of (global) actors, and does not necessarily have to be ’evenly’ divided.

6.2 Environmental Justice

Although Discourse 3 is not a dominant discourse, it did articulate elements of EJ quite strongly. The analysis revealed that Discourse 3 is largely based on normative justification where moral claims and responsibility were frequently addressed. Interestingly, the ways in which EJ was articulated in the discourse beared resemblance to the three storylines identified. It appears as if this discourse has a strong foundation based on EJ. As with the other two discourses, distributive justice most often comes to the fore, although hints of CEJ, justice as recognition and procedural justice are also visible. Due to distributive justice’s prominence in the discourse, this subsection will begin with exploring this approach. A significant part of Discourse 3 is based on a recurrent theme of responsibility. The discourse recognises that Europe (and the wider international community) is partly complicit in the destruction of the Amazon - Bolsonaro’s administration simply cannot be the only to blame. The Netherlands, for instance, is the second biggest importer of soy globally. As the storylines highlight, deforestation in the Amazon is a global problem and therefore global responsibility and action is required. This means questioning governmental involvement, priorities, and policies (e.g. funding for conservation versus funding for increased soy production) in both Brazil and other countries:

“The G7 should not make room for the crisis in the Amazon, it should be clearing the agenda for nothing else. Without rainforest we wouldn’t even have economies to launch trade wars.” [120]

Threats made by countries to block the Mercosur Deal are an example of governments taking a stance towards Bolsonaro’s environmental policies as undermining Brazil’s export market may be a way to induce action. However, here we see a recurrent dilemma which illustrates that far more needs to change if environmental or social goals are to be achieved:

“Green campaigners claim the [Mercosur] deal pays "lip service" to international goals to combat climate warming, and that it will lead to a surge in Brazilian cattle ranching, which many believe is responsible for growing levels of deforestation.” [17]

As such, the discourse tries to connect different phenomenon to each other in an attempt to understand the current crises and explore possible solutions. For one, it is argued that developed countries should not only help fund and protect areas in developing countries, but that they also have a responsibility to pursue conservation and climate mitigation efforts in their own countries. This responsibility extends itself towards the notion of historical responsibility. As Bolsonaro frequently points out, developed countries have a responsibility to compensate for their historical emissions and deforestation rates. Discourse 3 does not counter this argument, but neither does it release Brazil of its own responsibility towards environmentally and socially friendly (or ’just’) policies and practices. The discourse tries to take an inter- and intra-generational approach to the problem, providing scenario’s and weighing out options. The following quote is illustrative of this comparative argumentation:

42 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

“After all, every western economy jump-started their industrial revolution with the charcoal and farmland from clearing national forests. Funding Brazil and other tropical forest nations to forgo that path is a tiny cost compared to the bill humanity will face without rainforest.” [120]

The above quote begins to highlight other dilemma’s that come up when thinking of distributive justice. The costs that are frequently refer to range much broader than simply the direct costs of the fires and deforestation. It also involves taking into account other costs, such as social and opportunity costs. These costs should also be shared, as conserving the Amazon is not for the benefit of Brazil alone. As Armstrong [62] argues, the principle of fairness binds outsiders by justice to share both direct and opportunity costs in the protection of forests. If “they refuse to do so they can be found guilty of free-riding” (p.109). This means that the international community has a significant responsibility in conserving the Amazon, especially because the Amazon’s value (albeit different interpreted) is widely recognised. One could argue that the above examples are not only illustrative of distributive justice but contain elements that resonate with CEJ, in particular the pillar that refers to scale. Pellow argues for a multi-scalar approach to analysing environmental problematique, which Discourse 3 pays attention to. Issues and perspectives concerning different spatial and temporal scales can be observed in the storylines. Geographically, we see international concerns arising across the world with social media playing a major role. Nationally and regionally, the weakening of environmental agencies and policies have already had effects on Indigenous reserves and protected areas as more and more actors feel ’emboldened’ [95] by the direction environmental management and decision-making is taking. In more localised settings, violence, land grabbing and encroachment, (unsustainable) natural resource extraction, protests and demonstrations are observed. How these micro-sociological interactions have macro-sociological implications cannot be concluded from this thesis, but the discourse does hint at, for example, institutional (environmental) racism [126] which is partially achieved by those micro-sociological interactions and discourse creation. Similarly, the temporal scale has been addressed: the struggle appears to be (in part) to try and identify whether historical actions or future repercussions weigh more. The conflict is not so much about the fires as it is over matters of sovereignty, economic growth, development and feelings of entitlement. Historical actions, particularly those of ’developed’ countries, have proven to be powerful arguments used by actors in discourse-coalition 1 to justify their current actions policies (e.g. deforestation, resource extraction). Although this discourse recognises that developed countries share the responsibility in protecting the environment and mitigating climate change, it does not agree with the justification and legitimacy Discourse 1 seems to be looking for. Instead, shared but differentiated responsibility is what this discourse pleads for. Moreover, future prospects and well-being are taken into account frequently, thus illustrating that the intra-generational (including future generations) is of importance as well. The context, including the way ’utility’ is defined, helps explain how the environment is valued; “indeed, differences in views over the worth of forests and how forests ought to be valued (as carbon stocks; as ecosystems; as home to indigenous communities) reflect, in part, differences in utility functions and which preferences ought to be maximized” [59, p.84]. The discourse challenges the hegemonic instrumental valuation (largely driven from a monetary perspective) of the Amazon by looking beyond instrumental gains. Although the benefits of ecosystem services (including their instrumental value) are widely recognised, including in this discourse, Discourse 3 hints at and opens up the possibility of different perspectives on the worth of the Amazon and the way it is valued. As a headline in the Telegraph states, “we will never save the rainforest until a living tree is worth more to Brazil than an incinerated one” [120]. This quote seems to suggest that there may be more to the rainforest than simply the use it provides to humanity. The different ways in which the Amazon is valued also depends on who is taken into account. The Indigenous communities (though not homogeneous, of course) might view the Amazon differently then, let’s say, the produtores or logging companies. For the former, the Amazon might have more of an intrinsic value whereas the latter two may value it from an instrumental perspective. The distinction bears resemblance with ways in which economic goods (simply put, materials that satisfy human wants and provide utility) are classified based on exclusivity and rivalry. Whereas actors active in the agricultural or mining sectors might view the Amazon as a ’common-pool resource’, for instance, Indigenous communities may regard the Amazon as a public good. The following quote from a Indigenous respondent illustrates this sentiment:

43 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

“"All he thinks about is money. All he thinks about is deforestation," Mayoruna complained, warning of the implications for the global climate if Javari’s forests were lost. "The forest isn’t just for us indigenous," he said. "It’s for everyone."” [95]

These different ways of viewing the world, valuing the environment, and ways of thinking are recognised to be of importance. As a result, this discourse does not only articulate elements of distributive justice, but also justice as recognition and procedural justice (albeit less elaborate). The anti-Indigenous rhetoric promoted by Bolsonaro and his allies, for instance, has led to domination, oppression and violence and is therefore seen as a form of injustice. As Earth Alliance wrote, the Amazon is critical for their “cultural survival, self-determination, and wellbeing” [111] but this is not respected, nor recognised, by Bolsonaro’s administration. However, as it has been observed that the Indigenous reserves and protected areas have relatively little deforestation [86], the discourse recognises that their (and other local communities’) participation in decision-making may be necessary:

“Politicians should also listen more to the voices of the people who live in the forest, such as indigenous groups and riverine communities.” [3]

The recognition of the importance of different people and differing ways of thinking is addressed, albeit to a limited extent, is a crucial part of CEJ as well. The pillar racial and socio-ecological indispensability helps to illustrate that different beings (human and non-human, different ethnicities etc.) play vital roles in conservation and for achieving EJ. The presence of Indigenous peoples and their stewardship of Indigenous lands have illustrated that they are indispensable when it comes tackling deforestation and continuing environmental conservation [127]. Recognising Indigenous peoples and their ontologies would give room to different perspectives on environmental valuation and worth, as well as the (perhaps) indispensable role non-humans play [76, 127]. Moreover, the acknowledgement of other local and minority communities (e.g. Riverine communities) illustrate that at least some actors in this discourse-coalition recognise that they deserve recognition, and be involved in decision-making, as well. Lastly, within the notion of responsibility, Discourse 3 puts forward the idea that consumers can also play a critical role when it comes to reducing deforestation levels by choosing what, where, when and how they buy. As environmental philosophers have observed, however, “preferences are misinformed as to longer term environmental consequences” and preference satisfaction does not necessarily lead to ultimate wellbeing [59, p.84]. For instance, cattle ranching is responsible for 70% of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon [107], with leather from the fashion industry playing a significant part [109]. The overconsumption of such commodities has an enormous impact on the levels of deforestation, but as has been noted, many consumers are not aware of the high-forest risk these products bring. Coupled with long and murky supply chains, and it becomes difficult for consumers to trace back where their product comes from. This misinformation or lack of information (for example on what the social and/or environmental impacts are) makes it difficult to change the status quo and consume more sustainable products. Nevertheless, the discourse appeals for more effort to be placed in sourcing sustainable commodities, for example through ZD certification [109]. Overall, this discourse (including the different ways in which EJ is articulated) illustrates the complexities inherent to what is perceived as an environmental problem. This recognition of complexity manifests itself into a critical view of the Amazon fires. As such, I find that CEJ’s pillar, intersectionality, provides a useful way of understanding the issue at hand. An intersectional approach (depending on the case) includes looking at class, religion, race/ethnicity, sexuality, citizenship, species and ecosystems that are more-than-human etc. [78]. The storylines have addressed many of these issues, but have also shed light on the importance of using an interdisciplinary approach. Combining current and future studies from various disciplines (e.g. political ecology, ethnic studies, environmental sciences etc.) even further would help tackle the fire and deforestation issue from multiple angles and exemplify the nuances already created by this discourse. Nevertheless, although the discourse shows hints of other justice approaches, distribution remains central: (shared but differentiated) responsibility, distribution of costs and benefits, and multiple forms of valuation are key elements.

44 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

6.3 Language

Contrary to Discourses 1 and 2, Discourse 3 did not have any clear mythological archetypes. There is no distinct Hero, Villain, or other character. Instead, the discourse makes use of a counter-argumentative structure, which explains the Amazon fires problematique while using “concessive and contrastive connectives” (p.4) such as but, however, and on the other hand [37], which “makes it possible to combine arguments which are oriented in opposite directions” (p.4). By using concessions in such a way, the argumentation is presented as nuanced although it still orients it in a particular direction. For example, the farmers or wildcat miners are seen as both villains and victims. The livelihoods of the poor are acknowledged, which portrays them as victims, but instigating fires and environmental destruction is seen as something ’bad’, which makes them villains. Similarly, we see competing portrayals of Brazil in a quote from de Volkskrant, again being illustrative of the nuances this discourse promotes:

“Macron is not the only one who is concerned with Bolsonaro’s environmental policies. Germany and Norway both decided to suspend their donations to the Amazon Fund due to their disapproval over Brazil’s policies. The evening prior to the G20-summit, German chancellor Angela Merkel described the situation in Brazil as ’dramatic’. Bolsonaro responded by saying Germany could learn a lot from Brazil. He has a point. Brazil gets almost half of its energy from renewable sources whereas Germany still depends on coal, the most polluting energy source. Bolsonaro rightly points out that Europe deforested a majority of its forests, illustrative of an arrogance that argues growing economies cannot do the same. And where is the money that Western countries promised to help developing countries combat climate change?” (Own translation) [86]

Here, Brazil is cast as both a villain and victim: A villain due to its questionable environmental policies, and a victim because of its ’developing country’ status and the entitlements it is owed due to the West’s past practices. Nuances in this discourse are further achieved through the use of epistemic expressions (e.g. ’maybe’, ’probably’) where “elements of alternative or competing narratives” are introduced [37, p.5]:

“"We must stand together during this crisis, to show there are effective economic alternatives in the Amazon and deforestation makes no sense." Not all concur, however. According to Jackson dos Santos, sales manager at Juma EcoLodge, which sits on a tributary 60 miles south of Manaus, the entire narrative of the forest fires is a conspiracy. "It’s a campaign from the EU to put pressure on Brazil as our new president is very US-friendly and because it’s seeking trade agreements with [South American trade body]Mercosur," he said. "There have always been fires from farmers clearing land. There are no wild fires around the lodge and we operate normally. Unfortunately, this campaign is massively affecting reservations." That’s probably a minority view.”

As such, we find that the absence of a clear role division prevents a particular actor or group from becoming a ’scapegoat’ and being blamed for the issue, complication or ’crisis’. Instead, the possibility of collective and individual action is highlighted, as is shared but differentiated responsibility. It appears that the nuance encourages the possibility of collective agency and uses normative and moral claims to support this idea. As such, the language is often comparative and emphasises potential trade-offs. A comparative perspective, such as the following examples illustrate, allows one “to explore the impacts of conflicting narratives (frames) on public opinion, attitudes, emotions, and behavior” [37, p.2]. For example:

“The researchers were trying to persuade them that there was greater economic value in saving the rainforest biome than in destroying it. They very nearly succeeded.” (Emphasis added) [109]

“We will never save the rainforest until a living tree is worth more to Brazil than an incinerated one.” (Emphasis added) [120]

45 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

“In my opinion, the Paris Agreement will fail to meet its aim of saving us from self-destructive climate breakdown unless a comprehensive agreement with a performance-based funding mechanism is introduced to make the standing tree more valuable than the cut down tree.” (Emphasis added) [120]

These comparative statements illustrate that there are different perspectives on what constitutes ’the problem’, ranging from differing storylines, to different problematisation, and different solutions. This highlights the complexity of an environmental issue such as the Amazon fires. More specifically, the discourse does not pretend to give a single solution to a single problem. However, it does highlight the importance of global responsibility at different geographies and different scales. Government interventions, consumer responsibility, corporate social responsibility (CSR) are believed to be part of a collective movement aimed towards a improving a more sustainable and ’just’ society. The actors in the discourse-coalition are not afraid to criticise the status quo and the policies that are currently in place. Words like ’fail’ and ’shame’ are attributed to (the lack of) political action and perceived responsibility, and the 18 million presented by the G7 was coined ’chump change’. This illustrates that there is a sentiment of possible improvement. One concept or thought in particular that stands out in this discourse, is valuation. The discourse appears to be in a constant dilemma over what should be valued, by whom, and why. As such, these moral conundrums are at the heart of the EJ approaches used in the discourse. It is clear that the discourse does not recognise a single problem or advocate a single solution; indeed, the moral dilemmas and the ambiguity of EJ, coupled with the issue’s inherent complexity prevents a uniform approach. Recognising this, the discourse does not appear to be very successful in presenting itself as the ultimate ’truth’, something that the other two discourses appear to so more successfully.

46 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

7 Discussion

The discussion is divided into five parts. Part one will answer the research questions specified in the introduction before debating three themes that emerged from the analysis. These themes - power and dominance, environmental justice and ways of moving forward - will be explored further and constitute discussion parts two, three and four respectively. Finally, part five of the discussion will reflect on the research process and highlight certain limitations that came to the fore.

7.1 Part I: Bringing it together

7.1.1 Competing Discourses

The results found that there are three competing discourses on the Amazon fires. Discourse 1 presents Bolsonaro as the Hero and is largely advanced by the Brazilian political and economic elite and allies (including the agricultural sector, mining and logging industries, the evangelicals and the ‘ruralista front’). The discourse-coalition uses its political and economic position to influence the public through campaigns, mass-media (e.g. social media), blame games, polarisation, Hero archetypes (including the Hero’s journey), WUM tactics and emotional argumentation, whilst enhancing its position of social and political power. The actors advance three main storylines that emphasize (1) political sovereignty, (2) development and progress, and (3) Brazil as a conservation leader. Bolsonaro’s own rhetoric (and those of his allies) illustrates how the discursive constructions of the Hero “functioned to support and promote the ideological agenda and political objectives” of his party [53, p.971]. This ideological agenda appears to gain its legitimacy through the use of EJ elements and its credibility through powerful actors, where the discourse (similarly to the WUM) “draws membership from people who are pro-development, anti-big government, opposed to environmentalists, or just plain worried about their future economic prospects” [104, p.279]. The storylines highlight that “environmentalists and indigenous peoples have been [and still are] viewed as opponents to economic growth and barriers to development” [128, p.252], a perspective that was shared by ex-president Lula. Moreover, it is noteworthy that this discourse bear resemblance to previous anti-internationalisation discourses in the Amazon (see Zhouri [128] and De Sartre & Taravella [10], for instance). Discourse 2 emphasises archetypal Villain traits when describing Bolsonaro and his allies. Bolsonaro is considered to an enemy to all (i.e. both to the people and the environment). The discourse contains three main storylines that refer to (1) the Amazon as a crisis, (2) the Amazon as a global issue, and (3) Bolsonaro as an enemy to all. The discourse is mostly advanced by the scientific and political elite, including environmentalists, civil society, and politicians. The power of the discourse is largely fueled by governmental and environmental reasoning, whereas the responses advocated are mainly market-based. Moreover, the discourse seems to actively address certain topics whilst occluding others (e.g. criticising Bolsonaro’s environmental policies but choosing to leave out information on the role of European businesses in the destruction of the Amazon). Although the importance of the Amazon as an ecosystem is highlighted (with phrases such as the Amazon being the ‘lungs of the earth’ featuring prominently), economic and political arguments trump environmental reasoning. In terms of discursive observations, it is notable that Bolsonaro is frequently coupled with adjectives such ’right-wing populist’ and ’climate sceptic’, suggesting that these characteristics define him. Additionally, the language makes use of violent discursive elements and imagery, including ’warrior language’ (which aided in portraying Bolsonaro and what he represents as being ‘evil’) and framing the Amazon fires as a crisis and emergency. Consequently, the discourse-coalition appears to legitimise its interference and concern regarding the Amazon through their argumentation that implies it is ’for the greater good’ - both in terms of people and planet. The following quote from de Volkskrant provides a relatively accurate – albeit simplistic - description of how Bolsonaro is perceived in this discourse: “The Brazilian president is a right-wing populist who solely thinks in nationalist solutions, is allergic to foreign meddling and is not concerned at all with offending someone else’s wife. The two [Macron and Bolsonaro] are complete opposites of one another and continuously clash” (Own translation) [93]. Contrary to the polarisation and opposition that the first two discourses encourage, Discourse 3 presents a counter- discourse where a common enemy is absent. Instead, the discourse argues that the problem is bigger than Bolsonaro

47 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

and promotes three storylines based on (1) the underlying drivers of the fires and deforestation, (2) that the fires are illustrative of a global problem, and (3) the necessity of shared but differentiated responsibility. As it recognises that the fires are, in fact, emblematic, the discourse-coalition consists of critical individuals who take broader social, economic, and political processes into account when trying to give meaning to this environmental issue. In this way, the discourse is tentatively open to the idea of including alternative world views and knowledge production as it gives room for a shift away from hegemonic ideologies. Overall, Discourse 3 provides a more nuanced - albeit normative - perspective on the Amazon fires. It does not advocate a single solution, nor does it recognise a single problem. Instead, it recognises the complexity of the issue and necessary plurality and interdisciplinarity required to tackle the Amazon fires and deforestation while looking at the broader context, including the influence of powerful actors. A key feature is the argument that the current ’crisis’ cannot solely be blamed on Bolsonaro’s administration: deforestation was a problem prior to his election, it remains a problem in many other (developed and developing) nations today, and deforestation/ forest fires also occur in countries with more socialist ideologies. As such, the issue is more complex than simply attributing the high deforestation rates to Bolsonaro’s climate-skepticism or right-wing populist ideology (nevertheless, this observation does not make Bolsonaro’s administration guilt-free in the matter). Our increasingly globalized world and interconnectedness through trade, for example, makes it difficult to blame one particular actor or coalition (as the absence of a Hero/ Villain character seems to illustrate) considering the issue is a global one. As such, Discourse 3 provides a tentative antagonistic approach to the current hegemonic (neoliberal) discourses whereby shared but differentiated responsibility remains key. The competing discourses are found to have varying degrees of ’dominance’, whereby dominance is understood simply as a discourse having more power than another (in the context of discourse analyses as presented by Hajer [32, 34, 129]), and was determined through a combination of the frequency of use and the support of (powerful) actors. Using these guidelines, Discourses 1 and 2 were observed to be more ‘present’ in Dutch and British media compared to Discourse 3, with Discourse 2 gaining more support from a variety of actors. The discourse-coalition of ‘Bolsonaro as the Villain’ consists of (mainly ’Western’) political actors, scientists, and civil society members – in other words, the political and scientific elite. These actors, and the discourse they support, are portrayed as credible and legitimate (public) figures by different media outlets through the use of scientific facts, authority and references to legality, normative claims and justifiability. Two points of attention should be addressed, however, when suggesting that Discourse 2 appears to be slightly more powerful than the other two: 1) this ‘power’, or ‘dominance’, is based on Dutch and British media and as such fails to give an accurate impression of how Brazil’s media, and its citizens, understand the Amazon fires; and 2) the discourse-coalitions supporting the discourses are presented as homogeneous groups, a generalization and simplification of a diverse group of people with diverging experiences, views, vested interests etc.

7.1.2 The articulation of environmental justice

In all three discourses, distributive justice is referred to most frequently and contains two dominant elements, the distribution of (direct and indirect8) costs and the distribution of (historical and shared but differentiated) responsibility. The former mainly refers to the costs and benefits regarding the conservation or exploitation of the Amazon whereas the latter refers to the different ways in which responsibility is divided or allocated. Historical responsibility is mainly called upon by Discourse 1, arguing that historical deforestation and emissions exempts developed nations from criticising the current situation. Shared but differentiated responsibility is mainly addressed in Discourse 3, a perspective that argues that there are ample actors who are (in)directly responsible for the Amazon’s deforestation and therefore all have a responsibility to mitigate these trends and their consequences, including consumers. However, responsibility is not ‘equal’ but is influenced by a wide range of factors such as the ability for resource mobilisation or historical trends of deforestation and emissions. Aspects of distributive justice are further advanced through arguments of the ‘greater good’, utility/ valuation, and sovereignty. Discourse 1 mainly argues that economic activities and development are for ‘the greater good’ of the

8References were made to social and opportunity costs, albeit implicitly. The former can be understood as the costs to society, such as biodiversity loss or increased greenhouse gas emissions – both relevant to the Amazon case. Opportunity costs can be understood as the opportunities Brazil will forego if it chooses conservation over development, for instance.

48 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

people of Brazil whereas Discourses 2 and 3 argue that conservation of the Amazon is for ‘the greater good’ of the planet. Nevertheless, neither of these two discourses state that conservation is more important than economic growth, but rather that alternatives should be found where economic development can be coupled with environmental protection. These dynamics are illustrative of different perceived worth of the Amazon (i.e. utility and valuation), with instrumental and monetary valuation trumping intrinsic valuation. Lastly, we find that distributive justice comes forward in the frequent claims made of ’sovereignty’ (in terms of Harman’s [65] understanding), particularly by Discourse 1 in which ‘sovereignty’ makes up one of the storylines. Other justice approaches, such as justice as recognition, procedural justice and CEJ are underrepresented in the discourses when compared to distributive justice. Discourse 3 attempts to counter this focus on the distributive realm and the hegemonic truth-creation of powerful actors. It addresses the need for counter-discourses and alternative worldviews and knowledge, consequently illustrating the perceived necessity of justice as recognition and the incorporation of alternative meanings and increased participation in the procedural realm (although somewhat mildly). Aspects of procedural justice also emerge in questions over the decision-making of the Amazon where sovereignty and global responsibility are juxtaposed, leading to tensions over who gets to decide and participate. A critical view on the situation and the ways in which justice is understood is largely absent, although Discourse 3 makes an attempt at incorporating this.

49 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

7.2 Part 2: Explaining dominance

The analysis revealed that there are three competing discourses on the Amazon fires in the Dutch and British media, with Discourse 2 appearing to be the more powerful, or hegemonic, one. However, the thesis has not yet explored why this is the case and how this discourse became powerful. The following section will discuss possible explanations for this outcome, beginning with power and the politics of knowledge, followed by the concepts of legitimacy, crisis narratives and divisive rhetoric.

7.2.1 Power and the politics of knowledge

The dynamics between discourses, truth creation and knowledge allows for a distribution of power, influencing actors and the collective narrative of what is considered to be ‘true’ [36]: “discourses both create and are created by power and knowledge” [35, p.644]. Moreover, hegemonic discourses tend to lead the representation of a specific topic in certain way, attracting and privileging certain groups of actors [39, 42]. How an environmental issue such as the Amazon fires is understood and portrayed by (dominant) discourses can partially be explained by through the politics of knowledge. Simply put, the politics of environmental knowledge is the “specific and selective representations of the environment” that are produced through knowledge, ultimately playing a role the way the environment is conceptualised and understood as well as how this comes forth policy and (environmental) management [39, p.363]. In this ’truth’ creation, not all ways of thinking and understanding are included or valued equally. Turnhout [39], for instance, argues that “in practice science tends to end up in a dominant position, in charge of the facts and of the problem definition, with non-scientific actors in the position of receivers of knowledge and co-creators of solutions or options” (p.367). This idea of the scientific elite and their knowledge production being given priority can be seen as an injustice [39]. However, the politics of knowledge extends beyond this to include the foregrounding of knowledge that is produced in certain geographical and historical context-dependent settings, which has brought out questions over the legitimacy of knowledge as well [130]. In the Dutch and British media, the ’meaning’ of the Amazon storylines and knowledge on the situation is predominantly created by the political, economic and scientific elites, regardless of the discourse-coalition they form a part of. The power of the political and economic elite in Brazil dates back from the dictatorship period and the subsequent decades, where the produtores claimed they represented ’the people’ and that supporting them would be integral to Brazil’s economy [4, 14]. In Discourse 2, the scientific and political elite are the main privileged actors who support claims largely based on scientific representations of nature where interventions are legitimised through the use of scientific projections and calculations (e.g. deforestation data; potential ‘tipping points’). Science in itself is often regarded as a dominant discourse controlled by the scientific elite [30, 39], so its prominent presence and referral in this discourse is not surprising. As with other forms of truth creation and knowledge production, science is intentionally and purposefully selective in the way it represents the environment, thereby reflecting certain values, preferences and priorities whilst occluding others [39]. In other words, having the power of science behind this discourse helps produce credible knowledge claims whilst intentionally foregrounding and backgrounding other pieces of information. The scientific elites determine what should be addressed and how, and who can participate in decision-making, thus aiding in making Discourse 2 more powerful. However, some would argue that giving priority to the powerful actors and their knowledge production can be seen as a form of injustice in itself [39]. Contrary to Discourses 1 and 2, Discourse 3 appears to be lacking such privileged and powerful discourse-coalitions, which partially explains why it is such a ‘weak’ discourse in the media.

7.2.2 Legitimacy

A second factor that appears to help establish powerful or dominant discourse is the concept of legitimacy. Beetham [131] argues that three main components need to be addressed when talking of legitimacy, namely legality, normative justifiability and express consent (p.43). In Discourse 2, these three dimensions are addressed and visible. In terms of legality, for instance, there are ample concerns over the illegal encroachment and land-grabbing of the Amazon by actors, as well as illegal economic activities such as goldcat mining and logging. Macron uses normative justification

50 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

for his openly shared concern on social media and by making the fires a top priority for the G7 summit. Consent can be viewed in terms of “the social processes by which agreement to a practice or decision is given” [132, p.86]. The unilateral decision of Brazil in closing the Amazon Fund’s steering committee, a decision which did not receive consent from the Fund’s largest donors, led to Norway and Germany withholding their funds. Overall, legitimacy for Discourse 2 includes conserving the Amazon as it is a global issue and many activities that take place and are encouraged by Bolsonaro’s administration, are illegal. This perspective on legitimacy is challenged by Discourse 1, for instance, which consists of a storyline that emphasises Brazil’s sovereignty over the Amazon based on international standards, thereby dismissing global concerns to the Amazon fires. Furthermore, the discourse undermines Discourse 2 by making references to neo-colonialism and sensationalism. In Discourse 3, consent, viewed in terms of access to information, plays an important role. The discourse suggests that media outlets do not adequately present the underlying drivers of deforestation and the fires, such as the over-consumption of beef, which prevents consumers from demanding ZD commodities and withholding consent. As environmental philosophers have noted, such misinformation (or lack of information being present) misinforms preferences regarding longer term environmental consequences [59]. Overall, however, the different members of the discourse-coalitions present their discourses (largely based on the distribution of costs and responsibility) as if it is for ’the greater good’ [36, p.456], thus justifying and legitimising a ‘truth’ created by the political, economic and/ or scientific elites.

7.2.3 Crisis narratives

The storyline ‘the Amazon fires as a crisis’, promoted by Discourse 2, is a powerful storyline based on a combination of novelty and credibility. The novelty of the situation referred to the ‘record-breaking’ and ‘unprecedented’ number of fires and increased rate of deforestation, a disruption to the longer-term trend of decreasing deforestation rates. Credibility is derived from the actors of the discourse-coalition: authoritative figures such as Macron, scientists and reputable organisations. Meanwhile, invoking a crisis narrative can lead to a process, such as achieving a state of exception, that “normalises the pursuit of certain goals and, in doing so, marginalizes competing perspectives” [38, p.201]. The crisis and emergency that is used to describe the Amazon in Discourse 2 is coupled with the vilification of the ‘enemy’, i.e. Bolsonaro and his allies, members of discourse-coalition 1. This is achieved through the use of violent discursive imagery and adjectives, as well as the apocalyptic framing of the fires themselves.

7.2.4 Divisive rhetoric

The apocalyptic and divisive rhetoric of the fires in Discourse 2 not only used violent imagery, adjectives and metaphors (e.g. Bolsonaro’s ‘inferno’), but it also emphasised the threat of reaching a ‘tipping point’, thereby adding a notion of urgency. As the results illustrated, Discourse 2 was largely portrayed through an apocalyptic frame. Foust and Murphy [48] illustrate that portraying environmental issues through tragic apocalyptic framing decreases the collective feeling of responsibility and agency whilst encouraging polarisation. This also appears to be the case here: Discourse 2 appears to alleviate people of a perceived sense of responsibility of their (in)direct contribution to the fires and deforestation, as well as decreasing the sense of responsibility towards combating the issue. We can see that instead of recognising the ‘West’s’ responsibility by addressing the issues of the overconsumption of meat and soy, for example, that the Villain gets blamed for having an anti-environmental rhetoric whilst the underlying drivers are ignored. Consequently, human and collective responsibility and agency (particularly in ’Western’ countries) is considered to be limited. Furthermore, the discourse appears to create opposition and stimulate polarisation. It was with ease that the Villain (i.e. Bolsonaro) was identified, as was the blame that was attributed to him in response to the violence and destruction against the Amazon rainforest and its people. The discourse removed the feeling of individual and collective responsibility and action by portraying the enemy as having created a crisis with which the world responded to with shock, concern, and critique. Consequently, it has become evident that language in the media, including vilification, forms part of broader discursive strategies that create or (re)enforce opposition [48, 49]. As Heinz [49] notes, framing environmental issues, such as the fires in the Amazon, as a violent crime “helps set up symbolic oppositions between the minority and dominant groups, thus justifying the affected group’s need for forceful reactions” (p.52). The perceived injustices occurring in the Amazon were indeed described as violent crimes: it was the ’Holocaust’ of the Amazon and a ’genocide’

51 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

of the Indigenous population. Hence, the situation was criminalized and the injustices prompted the need for political action. Heinz [49] further argues that the “clear-cut us-versus-them oppositions perform two important functions in motivating readers to join the cause of environmental justice”: 1) the symbolic oppositions help create perpetrator and victim categories, thus making the conflict situation worthy of (media) attention; and 2) communities are presented as homogeneous group that are “united against a common enemy” (p.52) (i.e. Bolsonaro and his allies). There is much to gain from having a dominant discourse or creating opposition. Indeed, “inside and outside actors have a strong interest in having their view or interpretation accepted as ‘true’” [133, p.42]. It is in those different regimes of representation where the ’truth’ is claimed that different actions, policies, plans and distribution of resources are legitimised [35], most often determined by privileged actors such as the political, scientific and economic elite. Here, their policies, plans, actions and the distribution of resources are legitimised. Although this section has illustrated that there are multiple factors that influence the power, or hegemony, of a discourse, using justice components does not appear to be a critical element. What the added value of environmental justice is in the discourses, then, will be discussed below.

52 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

7.3 Part 3: Environmental justice in discourses

The different ways in which environmental justice is articulated in the discourses appears to support the general claim made by many scholars that there is no consensus on what the concept actually entails (Martin et al., 2014). As such, the way in which EJ is used and by whom already sheds light on the power dynamics that underly the discourse creation (found in the media) in the first place. The prioritisation of distributive justice, as compared to justice as recognition, procedural justice, or CEJ, for instance, illustrates that matters of equity or equality play an important role, as does an underlying market-based rhetoric. Moreover, it is intriguing that the Discourse 3, which articulates justice in multiple forms (e.g. ‘shared but differentiated’ responsibility), appears to be less visible and finds little support in Dutch and British media. What role, then, do these interpretations of justice play in the discourses outlined in this thesis? Primarily, the way in which discourses articulate EJ has given insights into the different value systems and the prioritisation of certain worldviews and ideologies over others. Beliefs about the value of nature differs depending on societal norms [132], consequently leading to different interpretations of what is considered to be ‘good’ or ‘just’. These value systems not only help to justify a particular discourse, but also help illustrate the differences in the Amazon’s perceived worth which “reflect, in part, differences in utility functions and which preferences ought to be maximised” [59, p.84]. This perspective is based on justice as utilitarianism and changes depending on who is asked, at what point in time and what is defined as ‘utility’. Actors from discourse-coalition 1, for instance, mainly value the Amazon from a monetary perspective, emphasising the wealth that is to gain from resource extraction. Actors from discourse-coalition 2 mainly view the Amazon from an instrumental perspective, highlighting the importance of the ecosystem services it provides. Discourse 3 tentatively argues for alternative value systems, such as intrinsic valuation and acknowledging different worldviews, though the Amazon’s instrumental value is also addressed. Including intrinsic valuation becomes problematic in environmental management and decision-making, however, as “there are no standard metrics or methods for describing the intrinsic value of ecosystems” which may be due “to our reliance on valuation approaches that are simply not capable of representing their economic worth” [134, p.953]. Moreover, the neoliberalisation of nature and neoliberalised forms of environmental governance are deemed problematic by some [135, 136] as “even more elements of nature are turned into commodities” [39, p.365]. Ultimately, however, decision-making on the use, and the value, of the Amazon is often centered around arguments based on ‘the greater good’. The focus on distributive justice, which justice as utilitarianism falls under, is not surprising given the elaborate attention that economic and market-based issues, trends and solutions, have received in all three discourses. The importance of economic development and Brazil as a top agricultural producer is highlighted in Discourse 1, partly reproducing views on anti-internationalisation and conspiracy that have been present in Brazil over the last few decades [10]. The escalation of the Amazon fires and deforestation have concerned some of Bolsonaro’s allies, however, such as politician and President of the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil, Rodrigo Maia, over its possible implications on Brazil’s export in (agricultural) commodities. Discourse 2 uses market-based threats as a way to pressure Brazil and Bolsonaro into changing their course of action, for example by threatening to block the EU-Merscosur deal. Discourse 3 challenges the neoliberal discourse (although somewhat mildly) and pleads for more sustainable commodities and supply-chains whilst recognising underlying drivers. Consequently, Discourse 3 begins to illustrate that a focus on distribution contributes to obscuring other processes and injustices from the debate, such as “the social, cultural, symbolic, and institutional conditions underlying poor distributions in the first place” [75]. The above examples thus illustrate that dominant themes in all three discourses resonate with neoliberalism and market-led development. This prioritisation of distributive justice imbued with an economic logic provides a rather simplistic perspective on the Amazon fires, all the while obscuring (or at the most, skimming over) other approaches to justice, such as justice as recognition, procedural justice and CEJ. Not only are these topics largely omitted in the discourses, they are also relatively underrepresented in (academic) literature [69]. Moreover, when marginalised groups are discussed in the discourses, they appear to be largely romanticised and presented as a vulnerable and homogeneous population. Thus, the lack of justice as recognition illustrates one of the implications of the power-knowledge-truth paradigm where powerful actors dictate discourses (including the problem definition, participation in decision-making, and solutions/ practices).

53 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

These dominant discourses thus conceal and occlude different types of knowledge, truth-creation and worldviews (including ontologies), thereby limiting potential ’solutions’ to the problem [36]. As such, this thesis supports the use of a multidimensional, plural and critical conception of justice as the different conceptions are inextricably interlinked [33, 69, 73, 77]. Moreover, the results of this discourse analysis have illustrated that although there may be dominant conceptions of EJ in the literature or in political discourses, it is not beneficial to give primacy to a single justice approach. The ambiguity of EJ and the lack of a common definition is also what gives it strength, however, as different actors can strive for different justice elements whilst recognising, respecting, and including alternative perspectives: “The acknowledgement of plurality enables us to identify differences in justice conceptions between different groups of actors, not with a view to judge, but rather to consider the potential significance of those differences, with implications for how we might practically engage with them in the pursuit of long-term conservation and social development goals” [33, p.169].

54 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

7.4 Part 4: Moving Forward and Recommendations for Action

Whittaker and Mercy [30] point out that researchers conducting discourse analyses should be transparent when it comes it their position in relation to the discourses that are being researched. Acknowledging this need for transparency, I argue that if environmental justice is the aim, it is imperative that alternative discourses, including alternative ontologies, are taken into account. Although my analysis and perception of the discourses in Dutch and British media is influenced and limited by my own knowledge and understanding, it nevertheless appears that out of the three discourses identified, Discourse 3 is more likely to promote action and justice. The discourse’s storylines are based strongly on the notion of ‘responsibility’ and give way to alternative ways of understanding the world. According to Fast [137], “successful environmental discourses provide storylines that create meaning, validate action, mobilise action and define alternatives” (p.85). Agreeing with this notion, I argue that there is a need for looking beyond the current dominant discourses to encourage action and practical justice. As such, I identified three possible courses of action that could make counter-discourses, such as Discourse 3, more powerful and promote EJ (despite its wide interpretation of the term). These recommendations include a shift towards comic apocalyptic framing, using a multidimensional understanding of justice and encouraging active reflection.

7.4.1 Comic apocalyptic framing

Instead of presenting the environmental issue, such as the Amazon fires, using a tragic apocalyptic frame (as was done in Discourse 2), a shift towards a comic apocalyptic scenario could mobilise action. An apocalyptic comedy frame presents humanity as being mistaken instead of evil, and as such makes room for the promotion of human agency. It provides the discourse with “some space for bringing ideologically disparate communities together”, thereby minimising polarisation, unifying communities, and promoting possibilities [48, p.163]. A discourse where humanity has agency to make different choices allows for the possibility of human intervention, potentially leading to different outcomes. Concretely, this could mean that discourse-coalitions could rearticulate the current issue not as a crisis, as is done in Discourse 2, but as an opportunity to avoid potential disaster to the environment, communities and the individuals’ families. By linking deforestation and the fires to the underlying drivers (i.e. human activities) instead of identifying and blaming the villain or the ’other’, (collective) agency becomes a core part of the narrative. This can provide a steppingstone for action and working towards EJ (in whichever way it is interpreted). However, although comic framing can mobilise collective agency and perceived responsibility, this type of framing does not fundamentally challenge hegemonic values, such as neoliberal logic, which appears to be an underlying assumption of many storylines and helps favour distributive justice whilst justifying the “exploitation of the earth” [48, p.163]. The results section do highlight, however, that Discourse 3 does try to counter the hegemonic discourses and values to some extent. It asks for a critical view on deforestation drivers, the current neoliberal ideology we follow, and encourages action that promotes EJ by taking social, environmental and economic perspectives into account. Not only does this discourse recognise and encourage human agency, it also avoids polarisation between the readers by preventing them from having to choose between ideologies or the Hero/ Villain archetypes.

7.4.2 A multidimensional understanding and inclusion of justice

As multiple scholars have advocated, a trivalent or multidimensional conception of justice helps provide a more holistic understanding of the term without necessarily giving primacy to one approach or interpretation. Similar to these scholars, I argue that if one wants to strive towards EJ, one should look at the three dominant justice approaches at the very minimum. Going beyond that, CEJ helps challenge one-sided discourses by creating multi-actor alliances that work on multi-scalar levels, for instance, while simultaneously reflecting on the type of information that is disseminated, by whom and how. It is crucial that there are alternative and competing discourses to challenge the dominant ‘truths’, usually determined by powerful actors (e.g the political, economic, and/ or scientific elite), in order to strive for justice. Not only recognising alternative knowledge production systems, but also actively respecting and including them, can help give less powerful populations groups a voice [33, 74]. Justice as recognition also calls for the avoidance of

55 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

domination and oppression [33]. In this perspective, reflecting on whose culture (and therefore, knowledge) is privileged and respected is integral to achieving justice [73]. As a result, translating discourses to action where one can speak of EJ includes the active recruitment and participation of marginalised, or less powerful, actors in decision-making, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, sex etc. Recognising and supporting alternative knowledge production, including alternative ontologies, can lead to practical benefits in terms of conservation. In the Brazilian Amazon, for instance, multiple scholars have illustrated that those areas that fall under Indigenous reserves and Protected Areas have significantly less deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as better maintenance of ecological integrity, than other parts of the rainforest [127, 138, 139]. Although Indigenous territories are “intended to safeguard the rights of Indigenous peoples to their land and livelihoods for social, cultural, and equity reasons”, they also tend to be cheaper and more effective conservation efforts compared to conventional state- sponsored interventions [138, p.3016]. Moreover, local and Indigenous knowledge has been illustrated to complement scientific knowledge production in a variety of ways [39, 140]. Burow et al. [141] illustrate that when “operating on multiple ontological registers rather than the occlusion of one mode by another, some Indigenous states are successfully reacquiring lands and revitalizing land-based practices” (p. 68). Although some scholars and media sources have recognised Indigenous peoples and their position in the Amazon conservation, other ‘traditional’ communities, such the Riverine and Afro-Caribbean communities, have received little attention. As such, when combating injustices, the different justice approaches should go beyond Indigenous people to include other (marginalised) groups. For this to come into effect, however, it is necessary for discourses to address these issues, injustices, and alternative knowledge systems. As Berkes [140] notes, the “differences in perspectives and knowledge are inputs for the process of deliberation”, ultimately working towards “reconciling these differences and balancing the moral imperative of conserving global biodiversity with the moral imperative of protecting human rights and entitlements” (p.15190). Consequently, using a multi-dimensional justice approach in discourses on environmental issues would likely generate some form of action, reflection, and change.

7.4.3 Active reflection

Active reflection on how discourses are created, by whom, and what storylines they consist of, is necessary to gain insight on the power dynamics and the intricacies of discourse creation, knowledge production and truth-creation. When striving for practical environmental justice, reflection can occur on several bases. Primarily, reflection “on the assumptions and values that frame their [the actor’s] own and others role in conservation initiatives” [142, p.245] should be encouraged. This includes the recognition of cultural differences and then “being reflexive regarding whose culture is privileged and respected” [73, p.124] [16]. Secondly, the different types of knowledge (including going beyond scientific knowledge) should be assessed and reflected on in order to gain a better understanding of the (conservation) context and problem definition. Thirdly, “the holders of that knowledge” should be identified, and different knowledge sources should be integrated in order to gain a joint understanding of the problem and complexity [142, p.250]. Fourthly, reflection on the participation of the specific actors in the discourse-coalitions should take place. Lastly, looking into the concept of ‘shared well-being’, and idea that “places humans and nature on the same playing field and leads to a decision-making framework that explicitly considers both ecocentric and anthropocentric perspectives” [134, p.354] is important. This could encourage a paradigm shift where humans and nature are not viewed in isolation, but instead recognise that humans (as a species) from part of the environment.

56 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

7.5 Part 5: Limitations

While carrying out this research certain limitations were found. Primarily, the selection of newspaper articles used were from the UK and the Netherlands, therefore making it difficult to draw generalised conclusions on the discourses in and outside the two countries. Secondly, the discourses identified in this thesis refer to the discourses as presented in the media, which could represent different findings compared to an empirical study based on fieldwork, for instance. Thirdly, the members of the different discourse-coalitions were largely presented as homogeneous groups. I want to emphasise, however, that naturally within these groups we find that the discourse-coalitions are heterogeneous: the actors are likely to possess different characteristics, attributes, interests etc., but for the sake of the analysis these nuances were omitted. Fourthly, in a more extended research setting, the extent of using CEJ as a justice approach could be looked into with greater detail. Due to time and resource constraints, however, properly analysing the use of such a critical approach to EJ studies proved to be unfeasible as, according to Pellow, the approach does not make sense when one of the pillars is omitted [78]. CEJ draws on methodological and theoretical ideas from a plethora of disciplines, and as such would present an interesting research opportunity by using it as a sole theory in the context of the Amazon fires. This could allow for a more intricate, detailed and critical view on how EJ is articulated by the discourses. On a more personal level, I encountered some further limitations. Primarily, although document selection was conducted using different criteria, there was still an element of bias and subjectivity. For example, during the query phase, where different criteria was used, the search generated more than ten articles per newspaper. As such, the following selection criteria was based on: a) being a ’news item’, b) relevance; c) novelty; d) diversity in topics addressed. This leads me to believe that the methodology has points of improvements to include more rigid and elaborate selection criteria. Secondly, Phillips and Jørgensen (in [30]) point out a valuable question: “How can researchers investigate how some statements are accepted as ’true’ or ’naturalised’ when the common-sense understandings under investigation are their own?” (p.272). Their argument is that discourse analysts should be transparent when it comes to their position “in relation to the discourses under investigation and consider the potential implications of their own contributions to the discursive production of our world” [30, p.272]. When it comes to (environmental) conservation I, myself, have a normative perspective and share many similar concerns and beliefs as the ’environmentalists.’ These concerns are coupled with those of social and environmental justice. As such, the research is inherently biased and tainted by my own worldviews, knowledge, and beliefs on what is deemed ‘just’.

57 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

8 Conclusion

The results of this thesis illustrate that the Amazon fires and deforestation that occurred during the summer months of 2019 are not only an environmental issue, but are situated in a social, political and economic context. This was observed through the three dominant discourses that were identified in Dutch and British media, created and (re)enforced by discourse-coalitions largely made up of the economic, political and scientific elite and dominant storylines. Two discourses were particularly dominant in the media: 1) Bolsonaro as the Hero, a popular discourse in Brazil whereby Bolsonaro is portrayed as someone who defends national pride and sovereignty, market-based development, and the livelihoods of many; 2) Bolsonaro as the Villain, where Bolsonaro is regarded as the enemy of people and planet, and conservation of the Amazon is prioritized as a global issue, vital for the planet. The first largely finds support in Brazil, whereas the second discourse is particularly hegemonic internationally, not least because the Dutch and British media appeared to support the discourse. The last discourse, where the problem is considered to be bigger than Bolsonaro, was not identified as a powerful discourse due to its low frequency in use and lack of support from powerful actors. The competing discourses illustrate that there is not one objective ‘truth’: actors (both individually and collectively) have different priorities and interests and should be viewed in a broader context to understand the intricate workings of power, knowledge and truth creation. Moreover, the presence of a hegemonic discourse does not mean that other discourses are not important: especially in international environmental politics, counter-discourses should be valued and nourished. As the dominant discourses are largely supported by powerful actors, encouraging counter-discourses can help disrupt these power dynamics and facilitate resistance against dominant conceptions of justice, the environment and the way in which nature is understood and valued. The results highlight that the discourses draw on certain elements that are entrenched in the way we think. For example, there is still a tendency in the discourses to emphasise an economic perspective, highlighting the importance of market-based development, livelihoods, trade and so forth. These claims largely override other claims founded on different perspective such as conservation, cultural preservation, and participation. While market-based mechanisms such as those advocated in the discourses might benefit powerful players, their contribution in terms protection of the Amazon and its peoples remains dubious. The tendency to focus on market-based approaches – and especially the focus on neoliberal ideologies – is further supported by the emphasis of using distributive justice when talking about responsibility, distribution, and fairness. Although the importance of respect and recognition – and therefore also equal participation - is acknowledged in literature, this does not appear to have translated itself into media and political discourse. It is striking that, despite the magnitude of the Amazon fires as a transnational (some would even argue, global,) socio-environmental conflict, the drivers of such a conflict (such as the expansion of extractive activities to support unsustainable consumerism on a global scale) are barely addressed. Instead, the issue of sovereignty and competing claims of development versus conservation are put forward, supported by the characterisation and creation of a Villain and a Hero. Thus, the political discourses appear to be centered on division and polarisation in many regards (environmentalists versus the produtores, Brazil versus the ‘West’, Bolsonaro versus Macron, livelihoods versus Amazon protection), and often use crisis narratives to support this polarisation. I thus find that ‘successful’ political discourses, including those centered on environmental issues, are based on divisive strategies where the us-versus-them rhetoric plays a prominent role. This illustrates that we need to move beyond an economic rationality and divisive strategies if we are to tackle environmental issues holistically. To conclude, I call for greater recognition and participation of less powerful actors in decision-making concerning natural resource management. Proper environmental management, in my view, must recognise that social and environmental management are intrinsically interlinked. For this case specifically, this would include Brazil’s Indigenous peoples, the Afro-Caribbean and Riverine communities, as well as other local communities. However, to challenge dominant discourses, active efforts need to be made to include alternative and marginalised knowledge (e.g. lay, citizen, local knowledge) and ontologies in order to support counter-discourses, for example by building environmental knowledge collectives. A more critical, reflexive and ultimately, inclusive, EJ approach would likely benefit forest protection, ’sustainable development’ and a great number of people (whilst perhaps generating a counter-movement to powerful

58 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

players). Overall, the Amazon fires illustrate that the (international) media and the different discourse-coalitions are not exempt from moral dilemmas; such a complex issue requires a fundamental shift in our way of thinking. As media plays an important role in political discourse by disseminating information and influencing ’truth creation’, it also plays an integral role in facilitating such a shift to include, and reflect on, elemental ethical questions regarding environmental governance and politics, our value systems and our way of life.

59 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

9 Appendix A: Newspaper articles used for the analysis

Table 2: Newspaper articles from the Guardian that were used for the analysis Date Author Title 19 July 2019 D. Phillips Bolsonaro declares ’the Amazon is ours’ and calls deforestation data ’lies’ 26 July 2019 J. Watts ’He wants to destroy us’: Bolsonaro poses gravest threat in decades, Amazon tribes say 16 August 2019 D. Boffey Norway halts Amazon fund donation in dispute with Brazil 23 August 2019 J. Watts Amazon fires: what is happening and is there any- thing we can do? 25 August 2019 T. Phillips Ex-minister: Bolsonaro ’most detested’ leader as he neglects the Amazon 26 August 2019 L. O’Neill Leonardo DiCaprio pledges $5m to help save the Amazon 27 August 2019 J. Watts Amazon rainforest fires: Brazil to reject $20m pledged by G7 29 August 2019 L. Siegle Burning issue: how fashion’s love of leather is fuelling the fires in the Amazon 9 September 2019 T. Phillips Chaos, chaos, chaos’: a journey through Bol- sonaro’s Amazon inferno 4 September 2019 T. Phillips Jair Bolsonaro says ’deceitful’ media hyping Ama- zon wildfires

Table 3: Newspaper articles from the Telegraph that were used for the analysis Date Author Title 23 July 2019 Our foreign staff Rare footage of Brazil tribe ’is evidence’ of new threat from logging 3 August 2019 Our foreign staff Brazil space research chief to leave job after Bol- sonaro rejects data showing huge jump in Amazon deforestation 21 August 2019 A. Quinn Record 84 per cent yearly increase in Amazon fires blamed on deforestation in Brazil 22 August 2019 H. Samuel Amazon fires: Brazilian president sends army to tackle blaze after Emmanuel Macron moves to block EU-South America trade deal 24 August 2019 J. Shute Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro blamed for turn- ing a blind eye to Amazon degradation in the name of ’progress’ 24 August 2019 S. Newy Why is the Amazon burning and how bad are the fires? 25 August 2019 J. Eliasch The amazon may be burning, but it needs more tourists than ever 25 August 2019 D. Chazam Pope Francis calls for international action on Ama- zon wildfires 26 August 2019 D. Chazam Environmental campaigners dismiss G7 pledge of £16 million for Amazon fires as ‘inadequate’ 4 September 2019 C. Moss The Amazon may be burning, but it needs more tourists than ever

60 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

Table 4: Newspaper articles from de Telegraaf that were used for the analysis Date Author Title 22 August 2019 Onze Redactie Rookgordijn rond vuurzee in Amazone Buitenland 23 August 2019 Onze Verslaggevers NASA: Aantal branden Amazone lager dan nor- maal 23 August 2019 J. Wiering ‘Amazone brandt voor Chinese varkens’ 23 August 2019 Unknown Author Ierland dreigt met blokkade akkoord om Amazone 23 August 2019 Onze Parlementaire Rutte bezorgd om branden Amazonegebied Redactie 23 August 2019 Unknown Author Bolsonaro stuurt leger naar Amazonegebied 23 August 2019 S. Korstjens De ’longen van de wereld’ staan in brand 24 August 2019 Unknown Author Ophef om ’fake foto’s’ bij oproep branden Ama- zone 26 August 2019 Unknown Author G7-landen trekken 20 miljoen uit voor Amazone 27 August 2019 Unknown Author Bolsonaro stelt voorwaarden voor G7-hulpaanbod

Table 5: Newspaper articles from de Volkskrant that were used for the analysis Date Author Title 16 August 2019 Redactie Na Duitsland stopt ook Noorwegen met financiële steun aan bescherming van Amazonegebied 22 August 2019 C. Speksnijder Recordaantal bosbranden in Braziliaanse Amazone 23 August 2019 M. van de Water Amazonevuur verenigt Brazilië 24 August 2019 Redactie Bolsonaro belooft ‘zero tolerance’ in Amazone en zet leger in bij bestrijding branden 27 August 2019 G. van Hal Staan de longen van de aarde in brand? En is het echt zo uitzonderlijk dit jaar? 28 August 2019 M. van de Water ‘Buitenlanders willen onze Amazone plunderen’ 28 August 2019 A. Elshout Bolsonaro is terecht in zijn wiek geschoten 30 August 2019 C. van Dillen Correspondent Marjolein van de Water is diep in de Amazone: ‘Mensen konden hier amper ademen afgelopen week’ 31 August 2019 P. Smit Brandt de Amazone voor Nederland? 7 September 2019 M. van de Water De machteloze hoeders van het woud.

61 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

References [1] J. Watts. Amazon rainforest fires: Brazil to reject $20m pledged by g7. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2019/aug/27/amazon-fires-brazil-to-reject-20m-pledged-by-g7, 27 Aug. 2019. [2] E. Macron. Our house is burning. https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/ 1164617008962527232, 22 Aug. 2019. [3] J. Watts. Amazon fires: what is happening and is there anything we can do? https://www.theguardian. com/environment/2019/aug/23/amazon-fires-what-is-happening-anything-we-can-do, 23 Aug. 2019. [4] D. Rojas, A. Olival, and A. Olival. Cultivating alternatives to authoritarian populism in amazonia. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 24(4):958–981, 2019. [5] T. Phillips. ’chaos, chaos, chaos’: a journey through bolsonaro’s amazon inferno. https://www.theguardian. com/environment/2019/sep/09/amazon-fires-brazil-rainforest, 9 Sep. 2019. [6] Amazon fires: Merkel and macron urge g7 to debate ‘emergency’. https://www.bbc.com/news/ world-latin-america-49443389. Retrieved on 18 Sep. 2019. [7] D. Phillips. Bolsonaro declares ‘the amazon is ours’; and calls defor- estation data ‘lies’. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/19/ jair-bolsonaro-brazil-amazon-rainforest-deforestation, 19 Jul. 2019. [8] M. Carneiro da Cunha, R. Caixeta, J. Campbell, C. Fausto, J. Kelly, C. Lomnitz, C. Londoño Sulkin, C. Pompeia, and A. Vilaça. Indigenous peoples boxed in by brazil’s political crisis. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(2):403–426, 2017. [9] J. Shute. Brazilian president jair bolsonaro blamed for turning a blind eye to amazon degradation in the name of ‘progress’. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/23/ wont-get-trouble-jair-bolsonaros-pledges-prospectors-blamed/, 23 Aug. 2019. [10] X. De Sartre and R. Taravella. National sovereignty vs. sustainable development lessons from the narrative on the internationalization of the brazilian amazon. Political geography, 28(7):406–415, 2009. [11] W. Carvalho, K. Mustin, R. Hilário, I. Vasconcelos, V. Eilers, and P. Fearnside. Deforestation control in the brazilian amazon: A conservation struggle being lost as agreements and regulations are subverted and bypassed. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 17(3):122–130, 2019. [12] P. Moutinho, R. Guerra, and C. Azevedo-Ramos. Achieving zero deforestation in the brazilian amazon: What is missing? Elem Sci Anth, 4, 2016. [13] E. Lambin, H. Gibbs, R. Heilmayr, K. Carlson, L. Fleck, R. Garrett, Y. de Waroux, C. McDermott, D. McLaughlin, P. Newton, et al. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, 8(2):109– 116, 2018. [14] M. et al. Schmink. From contested to ‘green’frontiers in the amazon? a long-term analysis of são félix do xingu, brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(2):377–399, 2019. [15] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The brazilian amazon: Some features of the study area, 2020. [16] G. Walker. Environmental justice: concepts, evidence and politics. Routledge, 2012. [17] D. Boffey. Norway halts amazon fund donation in dispute with brazil; international concerns grow over de- forestation surge since jair bolsonaro took power. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/ 16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro, 16 Aug. 2019. [18] S. Sax. Amazon deforestation and evelopment heighten amazon fire risk: study. https://news.mongabay. com/2019/09/amazon-deforestation-and-development-heighten-amazon-fire-risk-study/, 22 Aug. 2019.

62 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

[19] W. Peng, C. Sonne, S. Lam, Y. Ok, and A. Alstrup. The ongoing cut-down of the amazon rainforest threatens the climate and requires global tree planting projects: A short review. Environmental Research, 181:108887, 2020. [20] L. Diele-Viegas and C. Rocha. Why releasing mining on amazonian indigenous lands and the advance of agrobusiness is extremely harmful for the mitigation of world’s climate change? comment on pereira et al.(environmental science & policy 100 (2019) 8–12). Environmental Science & Policy, 103:30–31, 2020. [21] E. Matricardi, D. Skole, M. Pedlowski, and W. Chomentowski. Assessment of forest disturbances by selective logging and forest fires in the brazilian amazon using landsat data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 34(4):1057–1086, 2013. [22] E. Anderson, T. Osborne, J. Maldonado-Ocampo, M. Mills-Novoa, L. Castello, M. Montoya, A. Encalada, and C. Jenkins. Energy development reveals blind spots for ecosystem conservation in the amazon basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(9):521–529, 2019. [23] J. Ometto, A. Aguiar, and L. Martinelli. Amazon deforestation in brazil: Effects, drivers and challenges. Carbon Management, 2:575–585, 04 2014. [24] S. et al. Rodrigues-Filho. Election-driven weakening of deforestation control in the brazilian amazon. Land Use Policy, 43:111–118, 2015. [25] H. Gibbs, J. Munger, J. L’Roe, P. Barreto, R. Pereira, M. Christie, T. Amaral, and N. Walker. Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero-deforestation agreements in the brazilian amazon? Conservation Letters, 9(1):32–42, 2016. [26] L. Sonter, D. Herrera, D. Barrett, G. Galford, C. Moran, and B. Soares-Filho. Mining drives extensive deforestation in the brazilian amazon. Nature Communications, 8(1):1–7, 2017. [27] E. Pereira, P. Ferreira, L. de Santana Ribeiro, T. Carvalho, and H. de Barros Pereira. Policy in brazil (2016–2019) threaten conservation of the amazon rainforest. Environmental Science & Policy, 100:8–12, 2019. [28] I. Amigo. Amazon rainforest fires leave são paulo in the dark. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/ amazon-rainforest-fires-leave-sao-paulo-in-the-dark/, 21 Aug. 2019. [29] S. Korstjens. De longen van de wereld staan in brand. https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1260086794/ de-longen-van-de-wereld-staan-in-brand, 23 Aug. 2019. [30] J. Whittaker and D. Mercer. The victorian bushfires of 2002–03 and the politics of blame: a discourse analysis. Australian Geographer, 35(3):259–287, 2004. [31] H. Escobar. Scientists, environmentalists brace for brazil’s right turn, 2018. [32] M. Hajer. The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. 1995. [33] A. Martin, N. Gross-Camp, B. Kebede, S. McGuire, and J. Munyarukaza. Whose environmental justice? exploring local and global perspectives in a payments for ecosystem services scheme in rwanda. Geoforum, 54:167–177, 2014. [34] M. Hajer. Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. Netherlands geographical studies (ISSN 0169-4839), (344), 2006. [35] C. de Bont, G. Veldwisch, H. Komakech, and J. Vos. The fluid nature of water grabbing: The on-going contestation of water distribution between peasants and agribusinesses in nduruma, tanzania. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(3):641–654, 2016. [36] D. Stoltenborg and R. Boelens. Disputes over land and water rights in gold mining: the case of cerro de san pedro, mexico. Water International, 41(3):447–467, 2016. [37] K. Fløttum and Ø. Gjerstad. Narratives in climate change discourse. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(1):e429, 2017. [38] P. Skilling. Everyday emergency: crisis, unease and strategy in contemporary political discourse. Critical Policy Studies, 8(1):61–77, 2014.

63 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

[39] E. Turnhout. The politics of environmental knowledge. Conservation and Society, 16(3):363–371, 2018. [40] M. Hajer and W. Versteeg. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 7(3):175–184, 2005. [41] I. Fischhendler. The securitization of water discourse: Theoretical foundations, research gaps and objectives of the special issue. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 15(3):245–255, 2015. [42] E. Laclau and C. Mouffe. Hegemony and radical democracy in hegemony and socialist strategy, 2001. [43] S. Phelan. The newspaper as political antagonist: Editorial discourse and the othering of maori perspectives on the foreshore and seabed conflict. Journalism, 10(2):217–237, 2009. [44] R. Talisse. Overdoing Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2019. [45] A. Bolton. "overdoing democracy" with dr. robert talisse. https://advance-lexis-com. ezproxy.library.wur.nl/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem: 5XJ9-KBC1-JBSN-31BG-00000-00&context=1516831., 2019. [46] S. Hansson. Analysing opposition–government blame games: Argument models and strategic maneuvering. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(3):228–246, 2018. [47] M. Fabiszak. Vilification of the enemy: Different enemies, the same linguistic strategies. 2011. [48] C. Foust and O’Shannon M. Revealing and reframing apocalyptic tragedy in global warming discourse. Environmental Communication, 3(2):151–167, 2009. [49] T. Heinz. From civil rights to environmental rights: Constructions of race, community, and identity in three african american newspapers’ coverage of the environmental justice movement. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29(1):47–65, 2005. [50] W. Kinsella, P. Bsumek, G. Walker, W. Kinsella, T. Check, T. Rai Peterson, and S. Schwarze. Narratives, rhetorical genres, and environmental conflict: Responses to schwarze’s “environmental melodrama”. Environmental Communication, 2(1):78–109, 2008. [51] D. Kelsey. The myth of the city trickster: storytelling, bankers and ideology in the mail online. Journal of Political Ideologies, 19(3):307–330, 2014. [52] Darren Kelsey. Journalism, storytelling and ideology: a discourse-mythological approach. In Media, myth and terrorism, pages 23–50. Springer, 2015. [53] D. Kelsey. Hero mythology and right-wing populism: A discourse-mythological case study of nigel farage in the mail online. Journalism Studies, 17(8):971–988, 2016. [54] J. Lule. Daily news, eternal stories: The mythological role of journalism. Guilford Press, 2001. [55] A. Whittle and F. Mueller. Bankers in the dock: moral storytelling in action. Australian Geographer, 65(1):111– 139, 2012. [56] O. Pedersen. Environmental principles and environmental justice. Environmental Law Review, 12(1):26–49, 2010. [57] D. Curran. Environmental justice meets risk-class: The relational distribution of environmental bads. Antipode, 50(2):298–318, 2018. [58] J. Martin, S. Gray, E. Aceves-Bueno, P. Alagona, T. Elwell, A. Garcia, Z. Horton, D. Lopez-Carr, J. Marter- Kenyon, K. Miller, et al. What is marine justice? Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 9(2):234–243, 2019. [59] C. Okereke and K. Dooley. Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: towards a post-kyoto climate agreement. Global Environmental Change, 20(1):82–95, 2010. [60] C. Okereke. Global justice and neoliberal environmental governance: Ethics, sustainable development and international co-operation. Routledge, 2007.

64 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

[61] J. Rawls. A theory of justice.,(oxford university press: Oxford, uk.). 1971. [62] Chris Armstrong. Fairness, free-riding and rainforest protection. Political Theory, 44(1):106–130, 2016. [63] J. Dryzek. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford university press, 2013. [64] D. Gauthier. Morals by agreement. Oxford University Press on Demand, 1986. [65] G. Harman. Justice and moral bargaining. Social Philosophy and Policy, 1(1):114–131, 1983. [66] M. Nussbaum. Women and human development: The capabilities approach, volume 3. Cambridge University Press, 2001. [67] A. Sen. Development as Freedom. New York, A. Knopf, 1999. [68] W. Sachs and T. Santarius. Fair future: resource conflicts, security and global justice; a report of the wuppertal institute for climate, environment and energy. 2014. [69] D. Schlosberg. Defining environmental justice: theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press, 2009. [70] G. Walker. Globalizing environmental justice: The geography and politics of frame contextualization and evolution. Global Social Policy, 9(3):355–382, 2009. [71] I. Young. Justice and the politics of difference princeton university press. Princeton NJ, 1990. [72] L. Solum. Procedural justice. S. CAl. l. reV., 78:181, 2004. [73] A. Martin, S. McGuire, and S. Sullivan. Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation. The Geographical Journal, 179(2):122–131, 2013. [74] A. Martin, B. Coolsaet, E. Corbera, N. M Dawson, J. Fraser, I. Lehmann, and I. Rodriguez. Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition. Biological Conservation, 197:254–261, 2016. [75] D. Schlosberg. Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories. Environmental politics, 13(3):517–540, 2004. [76] D. Pellow. Toward a critical environmental justice studies black lives matter as an environmental justice challenge. DuBois Review, 13:221–236, 2016. [77] D. Pellow. What is critical environmental justice? John Wiley & Sons, 2017. [78] M. Amiri. Book review: David pellow. what is critical environmental justice? Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, pages 1–2, 2020. [79] T. Vogt. David naguib pellow: What is critical environmental justice? Environmental Ethics, 40(4):409–410, 2018. [80] D. Schlosberg. Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental politics, 22(1):37–55, 2013. [81] Redactie. Verschil tussen kranten, Dec 2017. [82] S. Wilks-Heeg, A. Blick, and S. Crone. The political affiliations of the uk’s national newspapers have shifted, but there is again a heavy tory predominance, Dec 2013. [83] J. Behagel. The politics of democratic governance: the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. 2012. [84] J. Bolsonaro. Address to the united general assembly, online video. https://www.c-span.org/video/ ?463700-2/brazilian-president-bolsonaro-united-nations-general-assembly-address, 24 Sep. 2019. [85] T. Phillips. Jair bolsonaro says ‘deceitful’ media hyping amazon wildfires. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2019/sep/24/jair-bolsonaro-says-deceitful-media-hyping-amazon-wildfires, 24 Sep. 2019.

65 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

[86] M. Van de Water. De machteloze hoeders van het woud. https://www.volkskrant.nl/ nieuws-achtergrond/de-machteloze-hoeders-van-het-woud~b420cd58/, 9 Sep. 2019. [87] M. Van de Water. ’buitenlanders willen onze amazone plunderen’. https://www.volkskrant.nl/ nieuws-achtergrond/buitenlanders-willen-onze-amazone-plunderen~b20c87e5/, 27 Aug. 2019. [88] Redactie. Na duitsland stopt ook noorwegen met financiële steun aan bescherming van amazonegebied. https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/ na-duitsland-stopt-ook-noorwegen-met-financiele-steun-aan-bescherming-van-amazonegebied~b304ff0a/, 16 Aug. 2019. [89] H. Samuel. Amazon fires: Brazilian president sends army to tackle blaze after emmanuel macron moves to block eu-south america trade deal. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/22/ brazilian-president-says-country-lacks-money-fight-amazon-fires/, 22 Aug. 2019. [90] Ophef om ’fake foto’s’ bij oproep branden amazone. https://www.telegraaf.nl/entertainment/ 1590894353/ophef-om-fake-foto-s-bij-oproep-branden-amazone, 24 Aug. 2019. [91] Redactie. Bolsonaro belooft ’zero tolerance’ in amazone en zet leger in bij bestrijding branden. https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/ bolsonaro-belooft-zero-tolerance-in-amazone-en-zet-leger-in-bij-bestrijding-branden~b58fed551/, 24 Aug. 2019. [92] M. Van de Water. Geduld van de brazilianen met regering bolsonaro en ‘holocaust van de amazone’ is op (previously called: Amazonevuur verengit brazilië. https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/ geduld-van-de-brazilianen-met-regering-bolsonaro-en-holocaust-van-de-amazone-is-op~b08d6c82/, 22 Aug. 2019. [93] A. Elshout. Bolsonaro is terecht in zijn wiek geschoten, 28 Aug. 2019. [94] Our Foreign Staff. Rare footage of brazil tribe ’is evidence’ of new threat from logging. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/23/ rare-footage-brazil-tribe-evidence-new-threat-logging/, 23 Jul. 2019. [95] T. Phillips. ’he wants to destroy us’: Bolsonaro poses gravest threat in decades, amazon tribes say. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/26/ bolsonaro-amazon-tribes-indigenous-brazil-dictatorship, 26 Jul. 2019. [96] C. Van Dillen. Correspondent marjolein van de water is diep in de amazone: ‘mensen kon- den hier amper ademen afgelopen week’. https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/ correspondent-marjolein-van-de-water-is-diep-in-de-amazone-mensen-konden-hier-amper-ademen-afgelopen-week~bc7de648/ ?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecosia.org%2F, 30 Aug. 2019. [97] E. Marshall. Brazil agrees to accept £10m from uk for amazon fire aid. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2019/08/28/brazil-agrees-accept-uk-amazon-fire-aid/, 23 Aug. 2019. [98] D. Chazan. Environmental campaigners dismiss g7 pledge of £16 million for amazon fires as ‘inadequate’. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/26/ environmental-campaigners-dismiss-g7-pledge-16-million-amazon/, 26 Aug. 2019. [99] Onze Redactie Buitenland. Rookgordijn rond vuurzee amazone. https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/ 1919296063/rookgordijn-rond-vuurzee-in-amazone, 22 Aug. 2019. [100] J. Wiering. ’amazone brandt voor chinese varkens. https://www.telegraaf.nl/financieel/ 2052045765/amazone-brandt-voor-chinese-varkens, 23 Aug. 2019. [101] Bolsonaro stuurt leger naar amazonegebied. https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1434630797/ bolsonaro-stuurt-leger-naar-amazonegebied, 24 Aug. 2019. [102] Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_ Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.jpg, 2008.

66 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

[103] T. Phillips. Ex-minister: Bolsonaro ’most detested’ leader as he neglects the amazon. https://www. theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/25/brazil-the-amazon-fires-bolsonaro, 25 Aug. 2019. [104] S. Beder. Global spin: the corporate assault on environmentalism. Green Books, 2 edition, 1997. [105] S. Newey. Why is the amazon burning and how bad are the fires? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ global-health/climate-and-people/amazon-burning-bad-fires/, 24 Aug. 2019. [106] D. Chazan. Pope francis calls for international action on amazon wildfires. https://www.telegraph.co. uk/news/2019/08/25/pope-francis-calls-international-action-amazon-wildfires/, 25 Aug. 2019. [107] R. Butler. 10 facts about the amazon rainforest in 2020. https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/ amazon-rainforest-facts.html, 12 Feb. 2020. Retrieved on 19 Feb. 2020. [108] G7-landen trekken 20 miljoen uit voor amazone. https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/706261596/ g7-landen-trekken-20-miljoen-uit-voor-amazone, 26 Aug. 2019. [109] L. Siegle. Burning issue: how fashion’s love of leather is fuelling the fires in the amazon. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/aug/29/ burning-issue-how-fashions-love-of-leather-is-fuelling-the-fires-in-the-amazon, 29 Aug. 2019. [110] C. Moss. The amazon may be burning, but it needs tourists more than ever. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ travel/destinations/south-america/brazil/articles/amazon-fires-can-i-still-travel/, 4 Sep. 2019. [111] L. O’Neil. Leonardo dicaprio pledges $5m to help save the amazon. https://www.theguardian.com/film/ 2019/aug/26/leonardo-dicaprio-amazon-rainforest-pledge-earth-alliance, 26 Aug. 2019. [112] Onze parlementaire redactie. Rutte bezorgd om branden amazonegebied. https://www.telegraaf.nl/ nieuws/1463744304/rutte-bezorgd-om-branden-amazonegebied, 23 Aug. 2019. [113] Bolsonaro stelt voorwaarden voor g7-hulpaanbod. https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/989235452/ bolsonaro-stelt-voorwaarden-voor-g7-hulpaanbod, 27 Aug. 2019. [114] Ierland dreigt met blokkade akkoord om amazone. https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/968321817/ ierland-dreigt-met-blokkade-akkoord-om-amazone, 23 Aug. 2019. [115] J. Burt. What traits would an archetypal character have? https://penandthepad.com/ traits-would-archetypal-character-have-4946.html, 2017. Retrieved on 13 Mar. 2020. [116] G. van Hal. Staan de longen van de aarde in brand? en is het echt zo uitzonderlijk dit jaar? https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/ staan-de-longen-van-de-aarde-in-brand-en-is-het-echt-zo-uitzonderlijk-dit-jaar~b6fb8869/, 27 Aug. 2019. [117] C. Speksnijder. Recordaantal bosbranden in braziliaanse amazone. https://www.volkskrant.nl/ nieuws-achtergrond/recordaantal-branden-in-braziliaans-regenwoud~bae4d916/?referer= https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecosia.org%2F, 22 Aug. 2019. [118] Onze Verslaggevers. Nasa: Aantal branden amazone lager dan normaal. https://www.telegraaf.nl/ nieuws/633292170/nasa-aantal-branden-amazone-lager-dan-normaal, 23 Aug. 2019. [119] A. Quinn. Record 84 per cent yearly increase in amazon fires blamed on deforestation in brazil. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/21/ record-84-per-cent-yearly-increase-amazon-fires-blamed-deforestation/, 21 Aug. 2019. [120] J. Eliasch. We will never save the rainforest until a living tree is worth more to brazil than an incinerated one. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/25/ will-never-save-rainforest-living-tree-worth-brazil-incinerated/, 25 Aug. 2019.

67 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

[121] W. Douglas White. The purpose of metaphors. https://wdouglaswhite.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/ the-purpose-of-metaphors/, 2012. [122] [123] et al. Rudnitsky, J. The world’s largest forest has been on fire for months. https://www.bloomberg.com/ graphics/2019-siberia-russia-wildfires/, 9 Aug. 2019. [124] A. Withey. Bushfire season starts early across northern australia due to ongoing hot, dry conditions. https:// www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/bushfire-outlook-queensland-2019/11251150, 27 Jun. 2019. [125] L. Cui and Y. Huang. Exploring the schemes for green climate fund financing: international lessons. World Development, 101:173–187, 2018. [126] T. Pacheco. Inequality, environmental injustice, and racism in brazil: beyond the question of colour. Development in Practice, 18(6):713–725, 2008. [127] S. Garnett, N. Burgess, J. Fa, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Z. Molnár, C. Robinson, J. Watson, K. Zander, B. Austin, E. Brondizio, et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7):369–374, 2018. [128] A. Zhouri. “adverse forces” in the brazilian amazon: developmentalism versus environmentalism and indigenous rights. The Journal of Environment & Development, 19(3):252–273, 2010. [129] M. Hajer, W. Dunn, R. Hoppe, P. Healey, B. Jennings, J. Dryzek, T. Kaplan, D. MacRae, and M. Rein. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, 1993. [130] G. Carolini, D. Gallagher, and I. Cruxên. The promise of proximity: The politics of knowledge and learning in south–south cooperation between water operators. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(7):1157– 1175, 2018. [131] D. Beetham. Max weber and the legitimacy of the modern state. Analyse & Kritik, 13(1):34–45, 1991. [132] A Mammadova, J. Behagel, and M. Masiero. Making deforestation risk visible. discourses on bovine leather supply chain in brazil. Geoforum, 2020. [133] R. Boelens. The rules of the game and the game of the rules: Normalization and resistance in Andean water control. Wageningen University, The Netherlands, 2008. [134] A. Rea and W. Munns Jr. The value of nature: Economic, intrinsic, or both? Integrated environmental assessment and management, 13(5):953–955, 2017. [135] E. Turnhout, C. Waterton, K. Neves, and M. Buizer. Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters, 6(3):154–161, 2013. [136] B. Büscher, S. Sullivan, K. Neves, J. Igoe, and D. Brockington. Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capitalism nature socialism, 23(2):4–30, 2012. [137] S. Fast. The biofuels debate: searching for the role of environmental justice in environmental discourse. Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies, 37(1):83–100, 2009. [138] W. Walker, S. Gorelik, A. Baccini, J. Aragon-Osejo, C. Josse, C. Meyer, M. Macedo, C. Augusto, S. Rios, T. Katan, et al. The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics of amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(6):3015–3025, 2020. [139] C. Sobrevila. The role of indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation: The natural but often forgotten partners. Washington DC: The World Bank, 2008. [140] F. Berkes. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National academy of sciences, 104(39):15188–15193, 2007. [141] P. Burow, S. Brock, and M. Dove. Unsettling the land: Indigeneity, ontology, and hybridity in settler colonialism. Environment and Society, 9(1):57–74, 2018.

68 MSC THESIS -JULY 17, 2020

[142] D. Armitage, R. De Loë, and R. Plummer. Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4):245–255, 2012.

69