Forest-biased terminology does not help to include open ecosystems in conservation policies

• Published in: Perspectives in ecology and conservation Vol. 22; no. 4; pp. 328 - 330
• Main Authors: Overbeck, Gerhard E., Pillar, Valério D.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01.10.2024; Elsevier
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Brazil; ecology; Environmental law; Forest-bias; Grassland; Lei de Proteção da Vegetação Nativa; terminology; Brazil; Grassland; Brazil; Forest-bias; Biodiversity; Lei de Proteção da Vegetação Nativa; Environmental law
• ISSN: 2530-0644; 2530-0644
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pecon.2024.11.001

[Display omitted] •In all conservation debates, terminology needs to adequately describe the ecosystems in questions.•Using ‘Forest Code’ for Law 12.651, Brazil's Law for Protection of Native Vegetation, is incorrect and should be abandoned.•The term ‘deforestation’ should not be applied to vegetation types other than forest. Inadequate terminology, in particular the use of the term ‘Forest Code’ for the main conservation law and of the term ‘deforestation’ for loss of all types of ecosystems, in the conservation debate in Brazil confuses the public and risks jeopardizing conservation goals. We urge scientists, conservationists and government agencies to use adequate terminology as not to reinforce already existing biases in conservation and to better inform the public about the need to conserve all types of ecosystems.