Search

Fake controversies have influenced policy making on health and environmental issues for decades, resulting in major implementation setbacks worldwide. As a case study, in this paper we examine fake controversies produced by a small group of active Brazilian researchers that have seriously impacted environmental conservation, particularly in issues related to deforestation and climate change. Based on the literature, we develop a typology of strategies deployed in fake controversies, which include manufacturing uncertainty, misusing scientific credentials, and disregarding scientific literature. Afterwards, we examine the influence of this group of contrarians at the National Congress. We then analyze the fake controversies promoted by these contrarians and argue that, to properly understand them, we need to consider a strategy so far overlooked in the literature: the manufacture of "pseudo-facts", namely, affirmations at odds with the established literature but that strives to appear as scientific facts. Unlike other contexts, in which contrarians have mainly sought to cast doubt on consensual issues by arguing that there are still considerable uncertainties surrounding them, in Brazil pseudo-facts on deforestation have been produced and published outside the peer-reviewed literature. We conclude the study with recommendations on how to oppose fake scientific controversies that threaten environmental conservation in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Setting aside private land is an essential component of the biodiversity crisis response. In Brazil, landowners are required to have Legal Reserves (LR) (20%–80% of their property set aside for native vegetation) which, if degraded, need to be restored. Alternatively, landowners can compensate for an LR deficit by purchasing surplus credits. Each landowner can define the location and spatial arrangement of their LR, affecting the reserve's ability to maintain biodiversity and provide ecosystem services (ES). We used hierarchical models to determine drivers for the amount and location of those LR in 3622 farms. The likelihood of setting aside part of the farm as LR (avoiding off-farm compensation) increased with farm size and extent of native vegetation cover, particularly for riparian areas and steep slopes, where conserving vegetation is also mandated in what are called Areas of Permanent Protection (APP). Properties with APP were more likely to meet the full LR requirement within their areas if located in areas of higher transportation costs and lower agricultural suitability. Within properties, the location of LR was mostly in areas with low agricultural suitability, high transportation cost, and close to APP. Landowners' decisions intend to maximize property income and reduce restoration costs, resulting in a spatial pattern similar to public protected areas — usually located on marginal land for agriculture. These areas do not necessarily provide the greatest biodiversity and ES benefits, suggesting that government interventions may be needed to encourage landowners to set aside native vegetation in ways that maximize conservation and ES outcomes. [Display omitted] • Economic processes determine landowner decision around private land conservation. • Decision-making maximizes property income and reduces restoration costs. • Farms with low vegetation cover are less likely to restore or set in-farm reserves. • Conservation in-farm in our area has a similar location bias to protected areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]