Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/Initiatives to combat deforestation in the Amazon region Brazil

From UBC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Initiatives and actions to combat deforestation in the Amazon region, Brazil, example from Porto do Mo, located in Pará

The video below showed the dymamics change of deforestation in the Amazon regions


This wiki page mainly talked about how the Brazilian government combatted the deforestation over past decades with the help of international assistance such as the REDD+ and Amazon fund. In order to specify the various stakeholders' power and interests, I used a small rainforest town named Porto de Moz as my example. That was because it was the pioneer which fought with the deforestation before the government took measures. In the end, based on my researches and the resurgence of deforestation, I made some recommendations to the Brazilian government.


The overview of deforestation in Brazilian Amazon forest in past decades

The map of Brazilian Amazon forest

Brazil owns 2/3 of the Amazon rainforest and is the home to 1/3 of the remaining rainforest in the world. Owing to the abundant rainforest, Brazil is the most biodiverse country, either in animals species or plants species It's estimated that around 55,000 species of vascular plants existing in Brazilian Amazon forests, and the total biota there is 170,000 to 210,000 species. [2] Apart from the abundant species, the Brazilian Amazon forest also has a number of different ecosystems such as wetlands, flooded riparian, which means various habitats that are vital to the local wildlife.[3] Due to its diverse habitats as well as organisms, the international attention has been led to this area when it suffered from heavy deforestation.

The deforestation started in the 1970s which was driven by the need of converting forest to cattle and soy cultivation. Until 2004, Brazil has been the global leader in tropical deforestation. It's reported that the forest had been cleared with an average speed of 19,500 km2/year from 1996 to 2005, which released approximately 0.7 to 1.4Gt/year CO2 to the atmosphere because of following pasture and farmland.[4] The images conveyed from satellites in 2006 showed that around 80% of the deforestation patterns in Brazilian Amazon forest were like fishbones, which showed the forest loss was within 30km of the official road. [5] To sum up, the pastures and farmlands were the primary causes, while the roads such as Trans-Amazonian highway running east-west from the dry northeast coast into Para and the highway running south-north from Mato Grosso into the interior Para were the direct causes which deteriorated the deforestation by allowing the loggers to reach the forests and transport the logs more easily.

However, since 2005, Brazil has transformed from environmental villain to environmental hero because of the dramatic decrease of deforestation. And more impressively, this near-miraculous drop was accompanied by a simultaneous increase in overall agricultural products. It's reported that the economy increased in Brazil by an enviable 4% each year since they started taking actions to combatting deforestation. And during 2004~2013. the production of cattle and soy had improved by 21% and 65% respectively, which accompanied a relatively small portion of forest clear outside the Amazon region. [6] The reasons contributed to such success could be divided into two aspects. For one thing, Brazil has a large amount of available supply of open land for cattle and soy cultivation. For another, they used new technology to promote the unit production of food. Both of them allowed the Brazilian government to maintain its food supply and economic growth within limited land resources.[6] Owing to the cost of deforestation was not so high, the people no matter where they lived were willing to participate in the combat to create a better living environment for themselves as well as the future generation.

Available lands and technology were the coincident but ideal conditions for the Brazil to implement the combat. However, we still need to know what kind of policy change, law reform, and market response has led to such a big, successful differences.

The opportunities for Brazil to reducing deforestation include:

1.Government commitments。

The government enacted a series of new policies and upgraded monitoring systems in order to meet its pledges and gain the corresponding fund such as Norway's financial assistance and REDD+. In The National Plan on Climate Change launched on 1 December 2008 by president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian government committed to reducing deforestation to 20% of the historical (1996-2005) rate by 2020.[7]

2. International assistance

Financial aid and technical help from foreign countries were critical to Brazil to get through the probably tough time and transform peacefully.

3. Market transition

4. Strengthen the enforcement of law in the national scale

The story of Porto do Moz

The location of Porto do Moz, Pará

Porto do Moz, a rainforest town, located in Pará, the northern region of Brazil. [8] It was comprised of 125 communities such as Gurupá and Marabá, with more than 20,000 residents. Over the past decades, deforestation activities were rampant here. And a number of logging exercises were illegal, which triggered the violent conflicts and human rights abuses owing to competition between communities and big companies. For example, one of the most critical timber company named The Madenorte commanded one kind of valuable timber, Mahogany, in the price of US$1,600 per cubic meter in the US. In order to access this luxury wood, the local communities would contend and even killed competitors. [9]

In addition to threats of death, the local communities within Porto de Moz also faced with worsening deforestation since the muddy Trans-Amazon highway constructed in the 1970s was being paved their villages. It would hasten the arrival of outsiders seeking land. Deforestation has threatened the local's lives as well as life. Therefore, The local residents, Tarcisio Feitosa da Silva and his neighbors decided to fight with the timber exploitation activities and try their best to include their land in the exclusive conservation area in 2000, which means they can fish and harvest Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) in the logging-inhibiting forests. [10]

Before the government took actions, Tarcisio Feitosa da Silva and his neighbors had made a serious of courageous actions. In 2002, hey set up a blockade which was mainly composed of the local women and man to prevent the loggers from cutting and exporting the wood in an illegal way. Under the death threats and physical attack, they did not give up. The usual situation at that time was they caught the offenders and seized the cargo until the police arrived and fined the logging companies. On account of the huge contribution of Tarcisio Feitosa da Silva, he was awarded Goldman Prize in 2006. [10]

Until 2004, the Verde para Sempre Extractive Reserve has been set up within Porto do Moz. And because of the death of Sister Dorothy Stang, an American nun who worked in Pará alongside Feitosa in February 2005, the worldwide outrage and condemnation forced the Lula government to take measures in combatting deforestation and relevant crimes in the regional as well as national scale. It's reported that two thousand federal troops poured into Pará, arresting and convicting perpetrators of deforestation-related crimes.[6]Then, gradually, the actions led by the government aimed at reducing deforestation has been taken on a national scale.

Tenure arrangements

Tenure in Brazil

According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), forest tenure is a broad concept that includes ownership, tenancy and other arrangements for the use of forests. It is a combination of legally or customarily defined forest ownership and of rights and arrangements to manage and use forest resources.[11]

Forest tenure system is complex in Brazil since squatter's rights on account of the long colonial history such as colonization by Portugal, Spain, and Netherlands.[12] Besides, re-settlement program and multiple land tenure reforms in the past like agricultural land reform also contributed to this complicated situation of forest tenure. [13] The core problem of forest tenure in Brazil is overlapped and unclear claims, which means ownership of one land might be declared several times by multiple owners. This dilemma resulted in procedural difficulties in implementing some compensated programs such as REDD+ and Payment of Ecosystem Services (PES).

Overall, in Brazil, according to The Brazilian Constitution, the forest tenure is composed of two main types. One is private land, the other is public land. Although different sources offered various private/public ownership data, it was estimated that approximately three-quarters of these forests were under the public domain, which means owned by the State, and one-fourth was private-owned. Particularly, in the public forests, around one third was comprised of conservation areas such as national parks and indigenous lands. [14]Similarly, The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) pointed out that about 68%-81% forests were publicly owned. In addition, more than 60% forests in Brazilian Amazon area have been declared of Permanent Forest Estates (PFE).[15].

However, the Global Forest Watch provided data which differed from the previous sources dramatically. Based on their database in 2012, they said the forest tenure was separated approximately equally. For the public land, the total area was 185.69MHA, while in term of the private land, the total area was 211.56 MHA. [16]

Tenure in Porto de Moz

As for the tenure in Porto de Moz, the forest was mainly owned by the private sectors, including individuals and local communities. Over the rampant deforestation period, they sold their land to the bid companies and gained profits. Whereas, in the land without clear claim, the government allowed the loggers to assert their claim after the five-year occupation. [17]

Administrative arrangements

The video below showed how Brazil is halting the deforestation in the Amazon.


In response to severe deforestation, the government has enacted rapid-fire series of policy measures after 2004. Accompanied these policies, the world-class forest monitoring system by satellites and enormous backlog of clear land available for planting made the change become practicable. In general, according to the ecologist, Danilethe Nepstad, the policies could be divided into three categories: 1. Supply 2. Risk 3. Demand.[19]

Reduce the supply land for potential deforestation

Firstly, reducing the land by means of building protected areas, establishing the indigenous land, and decreasing road construction was acting as preventing method in order to cut down the land supply for potential deforestation activities.

Protected area

Protected areas, also called conservation units, are divided into various categories according to their goals. These are defined by Law No. 9.985 of 18 July 2000, which established by the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC). [20] The protected areas were designated in the remote places where the forest faced with a high threat of timber exploitation. It's reported that from 2002 to 2008, Brazil had expanded its protected areas by 640,000 square kilometers—an area the size of France. And By 2010, the government declared that the protected areas covered 2.2 million square kilometers—44 percent of the Amazon, an area larger than Greenland. [21] In the case of Porto de Moz, the Verde para Sempre Extractive Reserve prevented the logger coming into the forest. Meanwhile, the small stakeholders such as rubber trappers still could earn their living from the Reserve.

Indigenous land

The indigenous lands were inherited and exclusively owned by the indigenous people permanently. As for 2016, there were 702 indigenous territories in Brazil, covering 1,172,995 km2 – 14% of the country's land area. [22] The establishment of indigenous land and the recognition of their tenures enabled the indigenous people to protect their land and expel the invaders legally and effectively. Whereas, although the inalienable rights of the indigenous people were declared and guaranteed by The Brazilian Constitution, the reality was the indigenous people still suffered from invasions by large companies which intended to carry out mining and logging activities there, and they did not equip with the corresponding power to exclude the invaders.

Road construction

In general, it's impossible to reduce road construction entirely within the Brazilian Amazon areas since some irresistible reasons such as the development of eco-tourism. What we discussed here was because of the necessity of constructing protected areas and indigenous land, part of the road moved out of these regions and the route of roads was shortened relatively. Compared with protected areas, the outside lands had less forest cover so that the deforestation would be mitigated to some extent.

Promote the risk and cost of deforestation

The cost and risk were promoted in term of deforestation. In 2006, Brazilian government passed the Public Forest Management Law, which developed a forest regime establishing concessions and management by the Ministry of Environment and the Institute of Natural Resources (IBAMA). Concessions highlighted that the usually cut would be limited to 30 cubic meters/ha and 50 cm minimum diameter.[19]

In addition, the law enforcement has been promoted in another way. In 2008. the Ministry of Environment blacklisted 36 of the Amazon’s 547municipalities since they joined the deforestation activities previously. The municipalities which were on the blacklist would lose market access to their product such as meat. [19]

In June 2011, the forest code was modified which required 80% remaining conserved forest cover when tenure expired. And the law was supported by the new Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation (DETER) which allowed the federal prosecutors to catch the suspects within one or two weeks. If the property owners did not keep their oaths, they would be required to submit environmental compliance plans at first, and following by risks of denial of agricultural credit and product embargoes if they broke the criteria in their previous plan.[23] Moreover, Property-level law enforcement was strengthened in 2009 when the landowners were commanded to submit their property boundaries to a registry at the first time.

Besides, in order to protect the valuable trees, the government designated the Mahogany as a CITES II species. The trade of mahogany was temporarily banned in Brazil in 2001.[24]Similarly, Brazil also banned the harvest of Brazil nut and Brazilian rosewood, and forbid the most export of unprocessed logs. Since the last few years, Brazil’s forest sector must comply with forest regulations in order to export to the US under the Lacey Act and the EU under the FLEGT.

Reduce the demand for deforestation

Accompanied by the upgrade of the forest code, the soy moratorium was established by the Greenpeace to boycott the soy which came from deforested land. When the Greenpeace pointed fingers at the big companies such as Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, McDonald’s, and the state of Mato Grosso who consumes the soy mainly derived from the deforested land, the Brazil's soy industry reacted immediately. They stopped buying soy from the farmers who cultivated their crops with the cost of the forest.[24] Like soy moratorium, the "Cattle agreement" has been set up in 2009. [25]

Apart from the decrease in demand for products produced within deforested areas, the government also provided the financial support to the peasants. For example, the Payment for ecosystem services programs (PES) like Bolsa Floresta offered monthly payment to hundreds of families in the state of Amazonas in return for keeping forest standing. Besides, the Amazon fund which mainly supported by Norway also contributed a lot to alleviate the deforested initiatives in the rural areas. [26]Lastly, The REDD+ is still functioning in preventing deforestation in Brazil.[27]

Affected Stakeholders

During the period of combating the deforestation in Brazilian Amazon region, a large number of people and companies were influenced. To be specific, we used Perto de Moz as an example to analyze the affected stakeholders.

Affected Stakeholders How they were influenced Main relevant objectives Their relative power
Individuals such as peasants, rubber trapper and fisherman Overall, deforestation benefited them by means of allowing them to expand their crops land. Therefore, on one side, preventing deforestation limited their agricultural land. However, they can shift their agriculture to other open lands where did not have the restriction. And they could gain compensates like PES if they were capable to protect their forest and recover the deforested land. Maintain their living even without agricultural land Low
Individuals such as rubber trapper and fisherman Overall, deforestation threatened their interests significantly. Therefore, Preventing deforestation was what they wanted. The extractive reserve enabled them to gain NTFP and even PESs. Protect forest by means of setting up extractive reserve and maintain their living. Medium to High
Local ranchers They are the direct beneficiary of deforestation. Inhibiting deforestation forces them to find other available places for grazing or planting soy. Continue their grazing Medium
Loggers The potential victims of deforestation. In a short-term, they gain profit by exploiting timber. However, they might suffer from the threats of death and deteriorated environment. Prohibiting deforestation improve their living condition to some extent. And they can earn money from Amazon fund if they could recover the deforested land. Make a living even without logging return. Low
Local Timber companies such as The Madenorte Direct beneficiary of deforestation. They lost timber sources and faced with moral and legal punishment. Continue deforestation even in illegal way Medium to High
International company such as McDonald. Indirect beneficiary of deforestation. They were forced to find substitutes instead of the soy and beef produced from Brazilian Amazon region. Reputation crisis management and find substitutes Medium
Environmental activists They faced with death threats when they combating deforestation Stop deforestation Medium

Interested Outside Stakeholders

Apart from the internal affected stakeholders, the battle against deforestation in Brazilian Amazon also impacted other outside stakeholders since timber exploitation was an internationally industrial chain and everyone was the victims of the climate change. Therefore, it's impossible for Brazil to combat the deforestation alone, and it should not be a lonely battle because we were all responsible for the deteriorated situation even if we did not engage directly.

Interested outside stakeholders How they were influenced Main relevant objectives Their relative power
Local government Part of the officers was corrupt and benefited from deforestation. However, combating the deforestation still brought positive effects to them since they could gain money from foreign countries such as Norway by means of combating deforestation. And this change helped them use forest and acquire taxes in a more sustainable way. Reputation crisis management and combat deforestation in terms of policy and law enforcement High
Administrative organization, IBAMA Responsible for the combating deforestation. They are under the monitor of the press and the public Reduce the deforestation by implement policies and laws High
Environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace Assis the local environmental organization and the federal government to control deforestation. Accelerate establishment of some agreement such as soy moratorium agreement Stop deforestation in Brazil and mitigate climate change High
Supporting countries, such as Norway Inspired Brazil to decrease deforestation by offering fund. They commit $1 billion if Brazil sustains progress toward its reduction target. Reduce Brazilian Amazon deforestation and mitigate climate change High
Neighbouring countries such as Peru For one thing, they can get experience form Brazil of how to reduce deforestation and illegal logging efficiently. For another, they might face the deforestation leakage problems since Brazil controls and shrinks its logging activities. Gain experience from Brazil on how to reduce deforestation and illegal logging effectively Low to medium


The overall result of combat deforestation in Brazil

Generally speaking, combat deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon forest was a huge success. The result showed that deforestation rate dropped year after year. To be specific, the deforestation area declined from 28000 k㎡, a size of Albania, to 13000 k㎡ in 2008. The Brazil just used four years to decrease more than 50% of deforestation. The more remarkable result was there were only 4600 k㎡ deforested land in 2012. In the meantime, the greenhouse emission has been reduced by 2% to 5% globally because of deforestation mitigation in Brazil. Although the number cannot represent everything, it still revealed part of the truth that the Brazil achieved an unexpected success in combatting deforestation over such short a time.

What's more, as we mentioned in the description part, the magic deforestation reduction accompanied by dramatic improvement of cattle and soy production. It demonstrated that it was unnecessary to sacrifice economic growth when the government determined to fight against deforestation. The positive result inspired many neighboring countries such as Peru and their citizens. Meanwhile, Brazil has established a well-organized strategy regarding how to manage deforestation on a national and regional scale. By learning and analyzing the benefits and shortcomings, the countries who face severe deforestation could save the opportunity cost when they started to do so.

The overall result of combat deforestation in Porto de Moz

Acting as a pioneer, Porto do Moz was the minority who won this combat before the national actions had been taken. As they wished, their territory was included in the Verde para Sempre Extractive Reserve. They were capable of getting rid of deforestation threats. No more highway construction, mining activities, and logging within their lands. Besides, the punishment such as fine has passed and enacted in order to threaten and warn the potential invaders. Moreover, during this campaign, the tenure of indigenous people has been stressed and cleared, which benefits all indigenous groups in Brazil since at least, they have rights to rejects others to exploit their living environment and limited natural resources. The permanent claim of the title enabled the indigenous to plan the land use in a more sustainable way.

Inhibition of deforestation also alleviated the social conflicts in Porto de Moz. With the register of property boundaries in the cadastre since 2009, the cutthroat competitions for timber and other NTFPs lessened. Human rights and armed conflicts were not the main focus within this area. Although some news still reported that the human abuse still existed, they had to admit that the situation has been improved significantly at present.

The resurgence of deforestation in Brazilian Amazon region

The fact

After years of positive outcomes, deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon is on the rise, with the sharp increase since 2015.Actually, it revealed that deforestation has trended upwards since 2012, with a sharp 29 percent increase in the rate of clearing in 2016. The other evidence supported the large reversion of deforestation was Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions shot up by 8.9 percent in 2016. [28]

The reasons

Some radicals urged that the government did not contribute to the decrease of deforestation in past decade. They said that the success was achieved by means of market forces, primarily declining prices of export commodities such as soy and beef. Because of the trade restriction, the lower export price, and the non-ideal exchange rate between American dollar and Brazilian currency, the declined profit forced landowners to give up deforest. However, the price of the commodity has recovered since 2008 when the deforestation rate kept decreasing at the time. [29] Thus, it's undeniable that the measures taken by the government were effective. Now that the policies still active, what hid behind the recent surge of deforestation in Brazilian Amazon areas? To make a conclusion, I listed the reasons as below:

1. The weakening of Brazilian Forest Code removed the critical restriction on deforestation, especially in Amazon regions, which brought convenience for people who wanted official permission to deforest legally.

2. Newmarket for meat and soy was opened during last years, especially China. Before the exposure of beef scandal, China always consumed a large amount of beef produced in Brazil. However, this situation stooped because the meat packers allegedly paid off the inspectors and politicians to overlook improper manufacturing of spoiled meat. [30]

3. The old motives were still functioning, including land speculation, money laundering and the unclear establishment of land tenure.

4. Low governance to the protected areas. Even though the protected areas expanded dramatically in recent years in Brazil, lack of management and regulation reminded the biggest problem.

5. The Brazilian government subsidizes deforestation by providing low-interest loans for agriculture and establishing settlements.

6. Brazil built more and more hydroelectric dams in recent years. It has been the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world with 75% national electricity came from hydropower, just behind China.[31]

7. There were more roads in Amazon regions, which enabled more people to get access to the remote forests.

8. Mining activities were rampant in Amazon regions. Previously, scientists estimated the deforestation caused by mining just 1% or 2% since they just calculated the direct result by the mines themselves. However, when scientists took all ancillary infrastructure accompanied the mines, the number climbed rapidly to 10%. [32]

The concerns

Actually, not only the international paid high attention to such a going-up trend but the Brazilian government worried about the resurgence of deforestation as well. Ironically, what caused them concerned was not the environment itself, the citizen's response, or the indigenous rights. They felt nervous just because of the warning from international financial assistance.

In June, Norway threatened to withdraw financial support for Brazil’s deforestation effort if the nation didn’t reverse its flood of anti-environmental measures. In the meanwhile, they also concerned that whether America withdrawal from the Paris Agreement provide Temer with political cover to disregard Brazil’s voluntary carbon reduction and deforestation commitments.[33]


Overall, the affected stakeholders in this combat could be grouped into several categories on the basis of their different power sources and influenced scale.

The first kind was the local individuals such as peasants, rubber trapper, and fishermen. Their power mainly came from their limited political power and the media. For example, the voting right might be one way to change the worsen deforestation situation. Besides, they had the rights to protest and advocate. Netherless, their political power ought to be tied to the media in order to function significantly and efficiently. Generally speaking, even if the success of Tarcísio Feitosa da Silva and his neighbors in Porto do Moz was inspired, the power and impact of local individuals were pretty low. Whereas, when the residents combined together and established a steering committee, the situation changed dramatically.

The administrative organization was another category. Their power was derived from the National Constitution. Among these stakeholders, they had the highest power since their ability to submit the political plans to the Brazilian Congress, and the power to modify the combat and management strategies in terms of political and legislative aspects.

The company and big ranchers were similar in their power sources.The majority of their power was originated from economic influences owing to the capital. Within their influence scale, there were three kinds people would be controlled or regulated by them. One was the local who relied on the incomes generated by these companies. The second was the government who might be corrupted or heavily depend on the tax contributed by the companies. Last was customers, owing to the consumptive customs which cultivated by these companies for a long time period, their consumptive preference might support the deforestation even if they didn't intend to do so. For example, when people knew that the beef in the burger sold by McDonald was produced in the deforested forest in Amazon regions, it's hard for them to stop eating the burger immediately since price, customs, and other reasons.

As for the foreign countries, environmental organizations and international institutions, the market, trade restrictions and financial aids enabled them the power to influence deforestation activities in such remote areas. Combined with the press, the stakeholders in this category also had a pretty high impact and authority.


Once a time, the Brazilian government has reversed its highest deforestation rate with remarkable efforts. With the administrative will, deforestation rate in Brazilian Amazon forest slowed by 80% in six years. However, it's regretful that Brazil did not last this positive trend in the recent years. Based on the reasons we discussed above, I want to provide some suggestions just from my own perspective.

Reduce mining activities

Deforestation contributed by the mining not only influenced the mining hole itself but also radiated a large scale of surrounding lands. No matter what the case coming from, Germany, London or China, they revealed that pulsing the national economy by exploiting fossil fuel was an unsustainable and costly way. After running out the coal, the nation needs to pay a lot to recover the environment. Meanwhile, the nation will trap in a dilemma where surrounded by deteriorated living condition and economic difficulties until they find a practical way to transform its economy.

Differed from the 20th century, Brazil has many choices to generate its economic growth as well as the electronic power. I did not mean that they had better stop mining immediately. That's impossible. However, the government should think about how to mining in an environmental-friendly way without sacrificing forests and start to find the possible substitute from now on.

Use wind power to replace hydroelectric power

Compared with fossil fuel, there is no doubt that hydroelectric power is more clean and sustainable. However, a recent report showed that the dam would create more greenhouse gases, especially methane in a short term. Besides, the dam will block the breeding migration way of fish in Amazon regions. [31]In addition, there were several floods in Brazilian Amazon forest which caused by Reservoirs. In reverse, the floods led to forest loss again. Therefore, the construction of dams was also responsible for the deforestation in Brazil recently.

Actually, Brazil has a long coastline which enables people to generate power by wind. Compared with the hydroelectric power. the establishment of wind power would not cause deforestation as heavy as dams since:

1. Wind power stations prefer coastal places, where less dense forest cover.

2. Wind power generation does not disrupt the watershed or cause floods.

3. Wind power generation does not radiate as many lands as dams did.

Tenure enforcement

The reality of Brazilian land tenure is a formal regulation that is not completely enforced, making the rules for land access very fragile and simplistic. Hence, the government should strengthen the governance in this aspect.

Deforestation shift

Deforestation shift usually occurs in three ways.

One is forest structure change. The government should not only monitor the forest cover but also the forest structure as well. Compared with secondary forest or the plantations, he old growth forest has totally different functions. Once the primary rainforests within Brazilian Amazon regions were destroyed, it's impossible for people to recover the same forest in human's life cycle. Thus, the replanting is a lie to some extent.

The other shift of deforestation is leakage. The government enacted the policies that allowed the ranchers to graze and farm in available open land outside Amazon. Whereas, where the ranchers chose remains a concern. Some news pointed out that they just moved into the more remote and secret places where would get rid of satellite monitor.

Lastly, the deforestation causes might shift since the market change. For example, the Brazilian government paid huge efforts to combat logging activities in Amazon regions. Netherless, they ignored the construction of the dam and mining activities.

Strengthen the cooperation with the indigenous people

The indigenous people are the natural ally of the Brazilian government since their close relationship with forests. However, the government should clarify and stress the land title of indigenous groups, and implement the ownership with powerful enforcement. Besides, although there were some punishments such as fine, the government need to set up a tenure protective systems by negotiating with the indigenous people.

In addition, the government is also responsible to educate the indigenous how to protect their land and use legislative arms properly. Of course, in order to achieve this goal, the corruption and transparency are two main barriers which need overcome by the Brazilian government.


  1. The dymamics change of deforestation in the Amazon regions (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 4 December 2017, from
  2. Lewinsohn, T. M., & Prado, P. I. (2005). How many species are there in Brazil?. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 619-624.
  3. Celentano, D., Rousseau, G. X., Engel, V. L., Zelarayán, M., Oliveira, E. C., Araujo, A. C. M., & Moura, E. G. (2017). Degradation of riparian forest affects soil properties and ecosystem services provision in eastern Amazon of Brazil. Land Degradation & Development, 28(2), 482-493.
  4. 7. Nepstad, D., Soares-Filho, B. S., Merry, F., Lima, A., Moutinho, P., Carter, J., & McGrath, D. G. (2009). The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science, 326(5958), 1350-1351.
  5. Arima, E. Y., Walker, R. T., Perz, S., & Souza Jr, C. (2016). Explaining the fragmentation in the Brazilian Amazonian forest. Journal of Land Use Science, 11(3), 257-277.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 Seymour, F., Busch, J., & JSTOR (Organization). (2016). Why forests? why now?: The science, economics, and politics of tropical forests and climate change. Washington DC: Center for Global Development. Cancel
  7. Piris-Cabezas, P., & Lubowski, R. (2009). The Brazilian National Plan on Climate Change: Potential Impacts in a US Cap-and-Trade System. EnvironmentalDefense Fund, New York, NY.
  8. Porto de Moz. (2016). Retrieved 1 December 2017, from
  9. Timber Exploitation in Porto de Moz & Prainha, Brazil | EJAtlas. (2015). Environmental Justice Atlas. Retrieved 3 December 2017, from
  10. 10.0 10.1 Tarcisio Feitosa - Goldman Environmental Foundation. (2006). Goldman Environmental Foundation. Retrieved 3 December 2017, from
  11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). Strengthening forest tenure systems and governance: Training module for facilitators. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  12. Fausto, B. (2014). A concise history of Brazil. Cambridge University Press.
  13. Duchelle, A. E., Cromberg, M., Gebara, M. F., Guerra, R., Melo, T., Larson, A., ... & Bauch, S. (2014). Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: lessons from REDD+ initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 55, 53-67.
  14. Jinyu, S. H. E. N., Xiao, H. A. N., Yali, W. E. N., & Yi, X. I. E. (2013). Comparison of the Forest Tenure in Brazil and China. Canadian Social Science, 9(6), 94.
  15. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). 2011. Status of Tropical Forest Management. ITTO Technical Series No 38.
  16. Institute, R. (2012). Brazil | Global Forest Watch. Retrieved 3 December 2017, from
  17. Fearnside, P. M. (2001). Land-tenure issues as factors in environmental destruction in Brazilian Amazonia: the case of southern Pará. World Development, 29(8), 1361-1372. Chicago
  18. How Brazil is halting the deforestation in the Amazon. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 4 December 2017, from
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 Ferretti-Gallon, K., & Busch, J. (2014). What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis of spatially explicit econometric studies.
  20. Protected areas of Brazil. (2017). Retrieved 5 December 2017, from
  21. Carranza, T., Balmford, A., Kapos, V., & Manica, A. (2014). Protected area effectiveness in reducing conversion in a rapidly vanishing ecosystem: the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 216-223.
  22. Indigenous Lands > Demarcation > Location and extension. (2015). Povos Indígenas. Retrieved 5 December 2017, from
  23. Wheeler, D., Hammer, D., Kraft, R., & Steele, A. (2014). Satellite-based forest clearing detection in the Brazilian Amazon: FORMA, DETER, and PRODES. World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA.
  24. 24.0 24.1 Gibbs, H. K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D. C., Noojipady, P., ... & Walker, N. F. (2015). Brazil's soy moratorium. Science, 347(6220), 377-378.
  25. Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., ... & Armijo, E. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. science, 344(6188), 1118-1123.
  26. PRADO, R., COSTA, M., LIMA, A., SCHULER, A., GUIMARÃES, J., FIDALGO, E., ... & CLEMENTE, E. (2015, March). Payment for ecosystem water services (PES) in Brazil (2011 to 2014): main opportunities and challenges. In Embrapa Solos-Artigo em anais de Congresso (ALICE). In: CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE SERVICIOS ECOSISTÉMICOS EN LOS NEOTRÓPICOS, 4., 2015, Mar del Plata. De la investigación a la acción: libro de resúmenes. Mar del Plata: GEAP, 2015.. Chicago
  27. Gebara, M. F., Fatorelli, L., May, P., & Zhang, S. (2014). REDD+ policy networks in Brazil: constraints and opportunities for successful policymaking. Ecology and Society, 19(3).
  28. Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. (2017). Yale E360. Retrieved 6 December 2017, from
  29. What Lies Behind the Recent Surge of Amazon Deforestation. (2015). Yale E360. Retrieved 6 December 2017, from
  30. Brazil beef scandal leaves fewer options for global buyers. (2017). U.S.. Retrieved 6 December 2017, from
  31. 31.0 31.1 How a Dam Building Boom Is Transforming the Brazilian Amazon. (2015). Yale E360. Retrieved 6 December 2017, from
  32. Scherer, G. (2017). Mining activity causing nearly 10 percent of Amazon deforestation. Conservation news. Retrieved 6 December 2017, from
  33. From carbon sink to source: Brazil puts Amazon, Paris goals at risk. (2017). Conservation news. Retrieved 6 December 2017, from

Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
This conservation resource was created by Course:FRST522. It has been viewed over 234 times.