![Figure3. Flow of processes, services and opportunities. Data from [63].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Ometto/publication/276302940/figure/fig1/AS:613865977040897@1523368462151/Figure3-Flow-of-processes-services-and-opportunities-Data-from-63_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Jean Pierre Ometto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jean Pierre Ometto on Jul 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
future science group 575
ISSN 1758-3004
10.4155/CMT.11.48 © 2011 Future Science Ltd
Tropical regions, especially the rainforest, play a criti-
cal role in the global carbon budget [1 –3] . As the larg-
est continuous area of remaining tropical rainforest,
the Amazon region in South America has particular
importance. The Brazilian Amazon alone contains more
carbon stored in its forest, a complex myriad of plant
species, than the amount of global human-induced fossil
fuel CO2 emissions of an entire decade [4]. Key questions
are posed as to the fate of this ecosystem:
How does the carbon balance of tropical forests
respond to rapid, ongoing changes in climate and
atmospheric composition? [5 –7] ;
What are the implications of drastic changes in land
cover in regard to its function and dynamic? [8,9] ;
What are the key drivers in land u se-change
processes? [10 , 11] ;
Which mechanisms can be effective in preserving a
substantial portion of the forest in the long term?
Amazon deforestation
Human presence in the Amazon can be traced back
thousands of years, when indigenous people settled in
a geographically complex organization throughout the
entire area [12] . However, in the past 40 years the region
has experienced drastic changes in the land cover and
use, fostered, mainly, by the replacement of native veg-
etation for cattle ranching and subsistence/family agri-
culture and, lately, large-scale agriculture, such as soy-
bean cultivation. In the Brazilian Amazon, most of the
changes in land cover and anthropogenic degradation
are concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of the
region [13 , 14 ] , in what is called the ‘arc of deforestation’
(Figure1). Despite this trend, changes in the character
Carbon Management (2011) 2(5), 575–585
Amazon deforestation in Brazil: eects, drivers
andchallenges
Jean Pierre Ometto†1, Ana Paula Dutra Aguiar1 & Luiz Antonio Martinelli2
The concept of global ecosystem services has become a powerful paradigm for understanding the link
between ecosystem processes and related human activities, which is expressed by the economic and
ecological quantication of the services in regards to sustainable development. The role of tropical forests
in the global climate system and the uncertainty of the exact magnitude of this complex interaction has
become a major concern to the scientic community. In this paper we review and synthesize the global
eects of Amazon deforestation in Brazil, as well as drivers and challenges related to this process. To this end,
we provide data on carbon emissions from combined annual maps of clear cutting of primary forests and
spatial information on biomass distribution for dierent vegetation types and secondary vegetation growth,
as well as the temporal dynamic related to the deforestation process and its interregional heterogeneity, the
social and institutional drivers. In 2009, during the Conference of Parties, of the United Nation Framework
Convention on Climate Change (Copenhagen, Denmark), Brazil announced a voluntary commitment to
reduce the national GHG emissions by 2020 and, to this end, such commitment requires reducing Amazon
rainforest deforestation by 80% over a decade. To achieve this target, a set of consolidated remote sensing
techniques have served to monitor and calculate the extent of deforestation, which became indispensable
auditing tools for conservation, forest restoration and implementing climate change mitigation schemes.
REVIEW
1CCST/INPE, Av. dos Astronautas, 1758, São José dos C ampos, SP, 12227–010, Brazil
2CENA/USP, Av. Centenário, 303. Piracic aba, SP, 13416–000, Brazil
†Author for correspondence: E-mail: jean .ometto@inpe.br
For reprint orders, please contact reprints@future-science.com
Carbon Mana gement (2011) 2(5) future science group
576
Review Ometto, Aguiar & Martinelli
of economic development, in the
near future, with increases in infra-
structure and the presence of the
highly capitalized agribusiness, can
constitute a grave threat to the cur-
rent preserved central and western-
most areas, posing a challenge to the
social structure and environmental
balance in the region.
The Brazilian National Institute
for Space Research has monitored the
rate of deforestation in the Amazon
region since the late 1980s (Amazon
Deforestation Calculation Program
[PRODES]) [101] , providing some
of the more consistent mapping of
deforestation in tropical regions
in the world. Until 1970, defor-
estation in the Brazilian Amazon
totaled approximately 98,000 km2;
whilst in the last 40 years (1970–
2009), the deforested area totaled
730,000 km2, encompassing approx-
imately 18% of the areas originally
covered by primary vegetation [15, 16 ] ,
imperiling thousands of species
and launching billions of tons of
GHGs into the atmosphere [1 7] .
The PRODES system identified a
reduction in the annual clear-cut
deforestation rate in the region over
the past 4 years, stabilizing dur-
ing the biennium 2007–2008 at
approximately 12,200 km2
y-1, with
a smaller rate in 2009 (7464 km2)
(Figure2) [101] . Systematic monitoring
by the Brazilian National Institute
for Space Research allowed the
Brazilian government to propose a
target plan for reducing deforesta-
tion in the Amazon region. This
proposal, discussed further in this
document, considered the mean
annual deforestation from 1995
to 2005 (19,613 km2 y-1) as refer-
ence, (Ministry of Science and
Technology, [MCT], Brazil).
Carbon emissions due
todeforestation
Aside from the effects on atmospheric
chemistry and global GHG budget,
changes in land cover and land use
have a direct effect on several eco-
system dynamics, overall, related to
the water and energy balance [18] , loss of biodiversity,
harmful surface run-off and the nitrogen dynamic [19– 21] .
Among various processes affected by changes in land
cover, the carbon dynamic is frequently altered. Carbon
accounts for more than 45% of the biomass and repre-
sents the flux biotic of energy in the systems. According
to Quere et al. and Longo et al., given the magnitude of
burning in the Amazon rainforest and the efficiency of
the atmospheric transport processes of fire emissions,
these perturbations can affect the climate system on a
regional and global scale [3, 22] . Nevertheless, estimates of
sources and sinks in terrestrial ecosystems are not trivial,
but are critical for a better understanding of the anthro-
pogenic contribution to the increase of CO2 concentra-
tion in the atmosphere, the airborne fraction [23]. Even
so, substantial uncertainty surrounds land use change
and vegetation dynamic in the tropics.
Recently, Mahli revisited several carbon emission
estimates of deforestation in the tropical A mericas,
and observed a 20% increase in deforested areas from
1990 to 1999 and 2000 to 2005 (yet not considering
recent reductions in deforestation rates in Brazil and
Indonesia) [24]. His findings account for the total car-
bon emission from deforestation, in the tropics of the
Americas, from 0.44 ± 0.13 PgC (first period, 1990–1999)
to 0.53 ± 0.12 PgC (second period, 2000–2005).
Forest
Savannah
Water
Deforestation until 1997
Deforestation from 2000 to 2009
10°0’0”S 0°0’0”
10°0’0”S 0°0’0”
70°0’0”W 60°0’0”W 50°0’0”W 40°0’0”W
70°0’0”W 60°0’0”W 50°0’0”W 40°0’0”W
Figure1. Deforestation pattern in the Brazilian Amazon.
Data from [10 3] .
Key terms
Tropical forests: Forests occurring near
the equator, within the area bounded
by latitudes 23.5° north and south.
These forests are characterized by the
greatest diversity of species and distinct
precipitation seasonality. Temperature
varies little throughout the year and
averages 20–25°C. Precipitation is
distributed throughout the year but
with clear wet/dry seasonality and
annual rainfall generally exceeds
2000mm. Tropical forests are
recognized by high carbon stocks in the
above and bellow ground biomass.
Deforestation: Removal of a forest
where the land is thereafter converted
to another use (i.e., agriculture, pasture
or urbanization). In this text,
deforestation is the clear cutting of a
forest, that is, most or all trees in a
harvest area are cut down.
Amazon deforestation in Brazil Review
future science group www.future-science.com 577
Fearnside estimated the total emission of 2.4 PgC.y-1
for the Pan Tropical region from 1981 to 1990 [25], esti-
mating higher than calculations by DeFries et al. and
Archard et al. [26 ,2 7]. These authors used an advanced very
high resolution radiometer [26] a nd L and sat™ im age s [27]
to show values ranging from 0.3 to 0.50 PgC.y-1 (the
198 0s ) a nd 0 .5 to 1.4 PgC.y-1 (the 1990s). Hirsch et al.
estimated the carbon flux from the Brazilian Amazon
to the atmosphere at 7.0 PgC from 1970 to 1998 [2 8].
These authors stressed that if the soil organic carbon
and litter dynamic are considered, one more petagram
of carbon would have to be included in the emission
balance. Estimates of carbon losses directly related to
deforestation in the Amazon vary strongly, from 0.16
to 0.60 PgC.y-1 [2, 27–3 0] , depending on the methodology
considered [28] . If one considers that the mean contribu-
tion from the Brazilian Amazon to global humid tropic
deforestation from 1995 to 2005 was close to 45%, the
recent trend in the deforestation rate in Brazil accounts
for a reduction of 62% of the country’s contribution
to the global emissions associated with depletion of
primary vegetation.
Recently, Aguiar et al. proposed a spatial distribu-
tion model to estimate carbon loss from deforestation
in the Brazilian Amazon [31]. The model follows several
studies suggesting that accounting for the standing bio-
mass in the deforested area, and its spatial variability,
are crucial elements in estimating carbon loss by defor-
estation [2, 32, 33] . Using historical data, the model in
Aguiar et al. looks back to 1960 in considering hori-
zontal deforestation rates and carbon emissions, which
is critical when the dynamic of the processes and car-
bon emissions are considered over
time. Accordingly, biomass, a key
input parameter for the model, is
related to wood density, which at
the stand level is closely related to
species distribution and occurrence.
Nogueira et al. presented values for
wood density, in the southern and
southwestern Brazilian Amazon [34] ,
being 7% lower than prior numbers
proposed for Amazon forests [35].
The findings of Nogueira et al.,
extrapolated to the region, suggest
that the calculation of gross carbon
emissions from deforestation in the
Amazon should be reduced by 6.38–
6.72 TgC.y-1 . For this extrapolation,
these authors used 1990 as the base
year and 13.800 km2 of clear-cut
deforestation. If we take into account
the annual flux of carbon from
deforestation and abandonment of
21,050
17,770
13,730
11,030
13,786
14,896 14,896
29,059
18,161
13,227
17,383 17,259
18,226 18,165
21,394
25,247
27,423
18,846
14,109
11,532
12,911
7464
Deforestation rate (km2/year)
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1987–1988
1988–1989
1989–1990
1990–1991
1991–1992
1992–1993
1993–1994
1994–1995
1995–1996
1996–1997
1997–1998
1998–1999
1999–2000
2001–2002
2002–2003
2004–2005
2003–2004
2005–2006
2006–2007
2007–2008
2008–2009
2000–2001
Figure2. Annual deforestation rate in the Brazilian Amazon. The axes are (X): deforestation rate in km2/year; and
(Y):monitoring period (from 1 August in a year to 31 July in the next year).
Data from [10 3] .
Key terms
Land use change: General term for the
human modication of Earth’s terrestrial
surface. The history of humankind
describes a path of land modication to
obtain food and other essentials.
However, the extents and intensities of
land use changes in the past hundred
years are far greater than ever in history,
driving unprecedented changes in
ecosystems and environmental
processes at local, regional and global
scales. These changes encompass the
greatest environmental concerns of
human populations today, including
climate change, biodiversity loss and
the pollution of water, soils and air,
which are associated to this process.
Carbon emission: The transferring of
carbon from the biosphere to the
atmosphere, naturally through the
carbon cycle and through human
activities, such as the burning of fossil
fuels or biomass. Processes normally
associated to emissions of CO2 or CH4.
Carbon Mana gement (2011) 2(5) future science group
578
Review Ometto, Aguiar & Martinelli
agricultural lands in the Brazilian
Amazon based on the data presented
above, the reduction in fluxes with
the recalculation of the wood density
would be 3–4% for 1990.
Revisiting the Brazilian GHG
inventory, Cerri et al. compared
emissions from the 1990s to 2000
and 2005 [36 ]. The contribution
of forest and grassland conver-
sion plus emissions and reductions from soils account
for 1030 Mt of CO2-equivalent in 1990. According to
the Brazilian National Communication (MCT, Brazil,
2010), in 2005 the emissions related to land use change
and deforestation (excluding agriculture) was 1323 Tg of
CO2-equivalent, Amazon deforestation being the major
contribution (65% of the total).
Deforestation impacts
The large area and paleoclimatic stability of Amazonian
forests may help explain the high regional- to local-scale
plant and animal species diversity and high ecological
sensitivity to recent anthropogenic land use change [37].
The extraordinary plant density in the Amazon region
comprises more than 50,000 vascular plant species, of
which 30,000–35,000 are endemic [38] , with 500–700
trees per ha [39], not accounting for the fauna (i.e., mam-
mals, birds, reptiles and insects). Considering a mean
amount of trees per hectare and taking into account defor-
estation in 2009, a reduction of more than 600,000,000
trees can be estimated for the Amazon region in 2009.
Habitat fragmentation may directly drive the loss of
bird [4 0] and mammal [11] species through reductions in
population size and an associated increase in the risk of
local extinction through stochastic failure. According
to Peres et al., reporting 32 years of Amazonian forest
fragment studies, edge effects have been a dominant
driver of fragmentation dynamics, strongly affecting,
tree mortality and fauna [41].
The negative impact of local land use change may
also be observed in the bare soil itself, feeding back to
its own microclimate [4 1], when clear-cut deforestation
takes place. According to some studies [42,4 3], change in
the vegetation canopy height alters the temperature and
humidity balance, defining different regional precipita-
tion patterns that can feed back negatively to agricultural
production. However, the reduction of natural vegeta-
tion in deforestation processes can occur in a variety
of ways. The deforestation dynamic includes strategies
used for removing the forest and establishing another
land cover such as velocity and intensity of the processes,
use of fire, commercial extraction of timber and use of
heavy-weight machinery. Depending on the activity
replacing the original forest (pasture, intense agriculture
or subsistence agriculture), deforestation might be
completed in a few months or years. For instance, it is
assumed that all above-ground biomass is completely
lost by burning and clearing of the land for intensive
agriculture [30] . Yet, in clearing for pasture implementa-
tion, which dominates post deforestation rural activity
in the Amazon [17, 29 ] , some trees are left standing and
many stumps and logs persist for decades, retaining car-
bon for a slow transfer to the atmosphere. Therefore, to
better represent dynamic, carbon and biodiversity losses
associated with deforestation, one needs to consider the
set of integrative processes associated with the change of
land cover. Protecting biodiversity in the Amazon shall
also promote: maintaining of core ecosystem functions
(as seed dispersal, pollination, nutrient cycling, tim-
ber and food provision); conservation of headwaters,
watersheds and the hydrological cycles; empowering
indigenous cultures, who live in the region for thou-
sand of year in a low-impact manner; and government
and civil society involvement in the preservation efforts.
According to Borner and Wunder, large-scale changes in
the forest cover in the Amazon can potentially impact
indigenous people and subsistence farmers, since the eco-
nomic value of biodiversity for extractive use of wood,
food and medicines are non-negligible [37]. Poverty and
biodiversity in the Amazon are linked, thus conserving
ecosystem structure and services opens the opportuni-
ties of enhancing local communities’ income by enter-
ing emerging markets for sustainable products, certified
forest and agricultural products, and ecotourism. In a
review article, Sanches states that the management of
natural resources towards mitigation and adaptation
to environmental changes should follow six steps from
identifying and quantifying the extent of rural poverty,
and resource degradation and insecurity of food supply,
to structuring and conducting technological and policy
research on economic and environmental functions, pol-
icy implementation and assessing impacts and providing
feedbacks to the local communities, as well as market
opportunities optimizing the trade-offs between global
environmental benefits and private farmer benefits [44].
However, the Amazon forest provides ecosystem ser-
vices that are manifested beyond the scale of the Amazon
Basin itself [45] . Regional regulation of climate and air
chemistry over large areas of the continent, atmospheric
carbon sequestration, and storage and regulation of water
balance, are recognized feedback between the Amazon
Forest and services to human kind at regional and global
scale [25, 45] .
The Amazon forest as a carbon sink
The spatial-based deforestation model proposed by
Aguiar et al. considers the distribution of the emissions
related to the deforestation dynamic and social/human
Key term
Amazonian: From the geographical
region located in South America, largely
covered by tropical rainforest. The
Amazon Basin, the largest in the world,
denes the limits of the region.
Although most of the basin is located in
Brazil, this area encompasses more than
7 million square kilometers, belonging
to ninenations.
Amazon deforestation in Brazil Review
future science group www.future-science.com 579
motivation to deforest, as described earlier in this arti-
cle [31]. These processes are related to social and politi-
cal decisions leading to implementing economic activity
after removing the natural vegetation. This model high-
lights the importance of regional differences in estimat-
ing emissions from tropical forest deforestation, as well as
considering the secondary forest dynamic. The growth of
the secondary forest is also seen as an important mecha-
nism to recuperate the regional ecosystem dynamic, such
as hydrology, energy balance, evapotranspiration, soil
surface properties and biodiversity, but also to mitigate
historical emissions from deforestation [17, 32 , 33 ] . The vari-
ation in regrowth and carbon accumulation in secondary
vegetation varies tremendously throughout the region,
depending on several physical and ecological parameters;
for example, soil type, seed bank, pollination and mean
climate conditions. Accordingly, the secondary vegeta-
tion dynamic depends on several social and economic
drivers associated with the activity following the defor-
estation process in any specific area [10] , as well as climate
patterns and conditions.
The response of the Amazon ecosystem to climate
change might reflect in increased forest biomass, as
suggested by Gloor et al. [7] , considering a positive
response from the vegetation to the increase of CO2 in
the atmosphere. To verify this hypothesis, the authors
analyzed the results of 135 above-ground biomass study
sites (RAINFOR network) [102 ] , mathematically explor-
ing consequences of sampling artifacts in the biomass
results. The data discussed by Gloor et al. [7] corroborate
with Vieira et al., who estimate an increase of carbon sink
in the region [38] , corresponding to approximately 10%
of the global carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources
in 2008 [3] . Overall the basin could be a net source of
more than 1 PgC.y-1, or a net sink as great as 0.5 PgC.y-1.
Reviewing impact of global environmental changes in
the ecology of tropical forest ecology, Lewis et al. sug-
gested that, despite the critical role played by distur-
bance in these regions (i.e., drought related to El Niño
events), it is unlikely that large-scale disturbance be a
major driver of directional changes over large areas of the
tropics and, likewise, in the Amazon [46 ]. Contrastingly,
specific events can be major in regard to carbon emis-
sions. Phillips et al., analyzing the anomalous and
extreme 2005 drought across Amazonia, suggested a
reduction in the biomass increment rate in the order of
0.1 MgC.ha-1, causing a carbon impact of 1.2–1.6 Pg C
in the region [47].
Better future predictions of the coupled climate-
biosphere system depend on reducing the uncertainties
of the GHG balance of tropical land. Current results
vary substantially across different model formulations
in which some remain highly controversial and entirely
ignore land conversion by humans [7] .
Deforestation drivers & challenges
The Amazon Basin is home to more than 25 million
people in Brazil. Whilst the forest area continues to
be reduced, several regional developing programs and
market drivers provide opportunities for the expansion
of the agriculture, logging and urbanization in replacing
the natural vegetation. A great challenge faced by the
region is to maintain the ecosystem services provided by
the pristine forest and its complex ecological processes,
as well as the needs of the growing human population
in the region, as in communities elsewhere [48].T he e co -
system services can be described as natural functions
of the ecosystems. Data on ecosystem services have
informed the establishment of payment for ecosystem
services to manage/preserve ecosystems using economic
incentives [49]. One can consider ecosystem services such
as maintenance of the biodiversity, water cycling, soil
fertility and climatic equilibrium, among other exam-
ples. Therefore, large-scale changes in land cover can
lead to local and regional changes in natural cycles,
due to the interconnectivity of the climatic systems [50] .
At the level of the ecosystem, the biodiversity services
described, such as the genetic bank and species diversity,
are linked to the processes and ecological functioning
described as photosynthesis and food production, wood
production, water cycle through evapotranspiration and
soil percolation, which finally represent services such as
timber, crop pollination and climate moderation. The
flow of solid information will define the economic value
of the service itself (Figure3), which might provide feed-
back for policies toward conservation and restoration of
natural ecosystems.
The drivers on changing land use in the Amazon
are mostly related to economic opportunities. A few
regions, mainly associated with traditional and indig-
enous communities, are still in constant search for soils
capable of sustaining shift cultivation. According to the
etnopedology approach, the decision to establish an
agricultural area by indigenous people is mainly based
on the community location in the landscape and certain
empirical soil characteristics [103 ] , which are followed by
agricultural practices that comprise clearing and burn-
ing of the native forest immediately before planting a
set of separate crops. In general, however, the social
actors affecting the spatial and temporal patterns of
deforestation are highly heterogeneous, including cattle
ranchers, small farmers, capitalized and mechanized
farmers [51], aside from traditional and indigenous com-
munities. The trajectories of land cover change in the
Amazon, in space and time, are shaped by multiple
actors and institutional arrangements, which under dis-
tinct socioeconomic, biophysical and political contexts,
define the patterns of deforestation and ultimately land
use [52] .
Carbon Mana gement (2011) 2(5) future science group
580
Review Ometto, Aguiar & Martinelli
The Brazi lia n Institute for Geogra phy and
Statistics [1 04 ] and the Brazilian MCT [10 5] officially
identifies pasture as the main land cover in recent
deforested areas, meaning that this is the ma in
economic activity after the natura l vegetation is
depleted. According to Bustamante et al., the area
of pasture in the Brazilian Amazon in 2002 was
245,808.2 km2 [Bustama nte et al.,Unpubli shed Data], rep-
resenting 5.9% of the total biome area and 16.5% of
the total pasture area in Brazil [52]. In order to map
the distribution and consistency of cattle ranching as
the primary activity replacing the original forest in the
Amazon, the Brazilian Ministry of Environment [105]
combined detailed annual deforestation maps from
the PRODES program [101] to IBGE agricultural cen-
sus data (2006) [10 4 ] , using the approach proposed
by Aguiar et al. [53] . These authors obtained num-
bers varying from 60 to 80% of the deforested areas
becoming pasture, depending on the region.
The heterogeneity among regions in Amazonia
defines different patterns of la nd use change and,
therefore, deforestation patterns. Thus the compre-
hension of the underlying social interactions and
institutional arrangements working at different lev-
els is needed to capture the direction, variability, and
extent of land use change in the region [R Ar ajou et al.,
Unpublished Data]. Changes in deforestation rates can be
attributed to a wide range of factors such as macroeco-
nomic shocks to the Brazilian economy and interna-
tional exchange rates [54] , expansion of cattle ranching
and soybean farming [55,56] , agricultural intensifica-
tion, poor technological use in the timber sector, infra-
structural expansion and the proliferation of paved
and unpaved roads [11] , land tenure arrangements and
policy failures [57], structure of the economic basis for
production and market connectivity [10 ] . The factors
above plus environmental conditions explain 83% of
deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon. Geist and
Lambin, analyzing 152 deforestation cases in tropi-
cal regions worldwide, observed that more than one-
third of the cases were driven by the full interplay of
economic, institutional, technological, cultural and
demographic variables, highlighting multiple fac-
tors and drivers acting synergistically rather than by
single-factor causation [57] . It is worth pointing out
that in 81% of the studied cases, commercialization
Species
distribution and
occurrence
Ecosystems/
biodiversity
)reshwater systems,
forests, estuaries and so on
)#"s,
insects and so on
)"rvation
)"#!#
)""#
#
resources
Institutions;
s
market
Value
Processes
)#"'#""
)%apotranspiration
)$"#
$!$#
)#!"
Biosphere–ph'"
system
interactions
Service
)#!#
)#
)Timber production
)#!"
$!ium;
Moderation
Infor#ow
"#"#s
'
Figure3. Flow of processes, services and opportunities.
Data from [63].
Amazon deforestation in Brazil Review
future science group www.future-science.com 581
and economic factors are prominent driving forces in
tropical deforestation. The increase in local yield tends
to stimulate agricultural encroachment [58], which is
consistent with the current scenario in which a grow-
ing cash economy constitutes a robust underlying force
to deforestation. The intensification of the agricultural
practices, with the use of state-of-the-art technology
has also been thought to be a mechanism for reduc-
ing deforestation of native vegetation [59] . In contrast,
the socioeconomic debate argues that with the eco-
nomic empowering of the agricultural sector and lack
of regulatory structure, the pressure on neighboring
forests increases [1 3] . According to Vieira et al., one of
the main problems associated with the tropical econ-
omy based on agriculture and cattle raising is territo-
rial planning, since the undefined land situation in
remote locations allows for intense, uncontrolled and
unplanned human intervention [38] . The central and
local governments have an important role to play in
deforestation rates and drivers, either directly, through
investment in regional economic development, or by
inaction of fragile regulatory institutions that do not
enforce land use legislation.
Several publications recommend invoking the
Protected Areas and Indian Reservation as possible
strategies for restricting deforestation expansion [60 ].
According to Ricketts et al., since 2002 the average
probability of deforestation is seven- to 11-times lower
within indigenous lands and other protected areas in
the Brazilian Amazon, than in surrounding areas [61].
Their simulations suggest that the protected areas
established between 2003 and 2007 in this region
could prevent 272,000 km2 of deforestation through
to 2050, which would have an important impact on
carbon emission mitigation. However, forest fire moni-
toring programs using satellite techniques [106] have
identified an increase of fires concentrated within con-
servation areas in the Amazon, which has also been
analyzed by Schroeder et al. [62]. Anthropogenic fires
in protected areas may lead to forest degradation, eco-
system fragmentation and loss of biodiversity. This
program allows online, updated, open-source verifica-
tion of the forest fire dynamics in the Amazon region,
also being an important mechanism for environmental
control and policy implementation.
The Brazilian government has recently proposed a
plan to reduce deforestation rates in the Amazon, as
part of the country’s voluntary commitments to the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change car-
bon emissions reduction. The plan consists of reduc-
tion targets based on a 10-year deforestation rate,
from 1995 to 2004. For each 5-year interva l, from
2006 until 2020, the plan aims to reduce the emis-
sions by 37, 36 and 34% , respectively. In this plan, the
total predicted reduction for the entire region is of the
order of 80% of the initial mean (i.e., 19,500 km2). To
this end, we believe that regionally distinct strategies
and regulatory guidelines are needed for infrastruc-
ture improvement, as well as agriculture and timber
extract ion expansion. The achievements from the
actions toward this plan can be expressed in numbers.
From 2004 to 2009 the deforestation rate decreased
75% in the Ama zon region, which represents more
than 60% reduction below the 10-year average, which
places Brazil in a good position in relation to the
country pledge for the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change. Two reasons for the substantial
reduction is the well-established land cover-monitor-
ing system and the implementation of on-the-ground
inspection policies. Nevertheless, f ur ther analyses
are needed to better understand the means in place
to achieve the reduction in deforestation rates and
the consistence toward the f uture. Mechanisms as
‘Reducing Carbon Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation’ shall rely on historical observed
deforestation estimates at regiona l level, looking to
local dynamics, but are potentially an important com-
ponent of a basin-wide conservation strategy. Other
opportunities, carried at National level, as Reducing
Carbon Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation plus (a portfolio that takes GHG emis-
sions beyond deforestation and forest degradation),
can be ef fective in forest conservation. These UN
mechanisms include the role of conservation, sustain-
able management of forests and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks [10 7] . However, we do not see a unique
policy for controlling deforestation in the Amazon,
thus local-scale institutional actors should play a cru-
cial role in this planning, concurrently with a close
examination of national economic/market oppor-
tunities and challenges. Currently, there remains a
significant lack of understanding of tropical forest
responses to the increase of CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere, although a great deal of data have been
gathered in the past 20 years. For example, regional
models are more representative today than a few years
ago; atmospheric physical processes are more accu-
rately represented; hydrology and biosphere–atmos-
phere interaction studies have provided new insights
to understanding ecosystem functioning; and the con-
struction of climatic scenarios are more well defined.
However, further studies are greatly needed, especially
in dealing with such a complex environment, where
an unknown portion of its biodiversity is yet to be
discovered. Understanding of the impact of land use
cha nge on the Amazon ecosystem functioning has
also advanced but, again, the intense dynamic of the
change on the use of land raises questions that remain
Carbon Mana gement (2011) 2(5) future science group
582
Review Ometto, Aguiar & Martinelli
to be answered related to synergistic factors, feedback,
biodiversity loss, nutrient cycling, environmental, bio-
physical and biogeochemical processes. Likewise, a
deeper understand of deforestation drivers has been
attained in recent years. Nevertheless, social and
econometric models need to be further developed to
further clarif y local, regional and global drivers of
land use change in the region.
Future perspective
The ha rmonization of economic development a nd
social expectations, alongside with environmental
preservation, are the essence of sustainability. The
grail effort of a substantial portion of the scientific
community is on constructing scenarios for the plan-
et’s ecological and physical functioning in the face of
different possible courses of human actions, which
is seen as means of guiding initiatives contributing
to a sustainable presence of humanity on Earth. The
maintenance of pristine forested areas in the Amazon
presents a unique strategic opportunity to preserve an
enormous and immeasurably valuable genetic bank
and mitigate potentially catastrophic climatic change.
Few regions in the world present terrestrial ecosystems
with such combined potential, allowing nations in the
Tropics to develop new relations with their natural
resources and services, framing potential reduction
of poverty while promoting sustainable development.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge D Valeriano, R Araújo and G Câmara
for insightful discussions.
Financial & competing interests disclosure
The authors acknowledge the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Científico e Tecnológico for research funding support. The authors
have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any
organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict
with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript
apart from those disclosed.
The authors acknowledge AcademicEnglish Solutions.com for
revising the English.
Executive summary
The Amazon region in Brazil in relation to carbon stocks and uxes is briey presented.
In addition, there are questions related to the fate of the Amazon ecosystem facing climate change and direct human activities.
Amazon deforestation
Until 1970, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon totaled approximately 98,000km2, whilst in the last 40years (1970–2009) the deforested
area totaled 730,000km2, encompassing approximately 18% of the areas originally covered by primary vegetation.
The National Institute for Space Research provides deforestation numbers through the ‘PRODES’ system.
Carbon emissions due to deforestation
The estimates of sources and sinks in terrestrial ecosystems are not trivial, but are critical for a better understanding of the anthropogenic
contribution to the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
According to the Brazilian National Communication (Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazil, 2010), in 2005 the emissions related to
land use change and deforestation (excluding agriculture) was 1323Tg of CO2-equivalent, with Amazon deforestation being the major
contributor (accounting to 65% of the total).
Biodiversity losses
With 500 –700 trees per ha, the Amazon region comprises more than 50,000 vascular plant species, of which 30,000–35,000 areendemic.
Considering a mean amount of trees per hectare and taking into account deforestation in 2009, a reduction of more than 600,000,000
trees can be estimated for the Amazon region in that year.
Furthermore, the diverse fauna (mammals, birds, reptiles and insects species) are highly threaten by deforestation.
Protecting biodiversity in the Amazon shall also promote: maintaining of core ecosystem functions; conservation of headwaters,
watersheds and the hydrological cycles; empowering indigenous cultures; and having the government and civil society involvement in the
preservation eorts.
The Amazon forest as a carbon sink
Overall, the basin could be a net source of more than 1PgC.y-1 or a net sink by the pristine forest in the region, as great as 0.5PgC.y-1.
Deforestation drivers & challenges
The trajectories of land cover change in the Amazon, in space and time, are shaped by multiple actors and institutional arrangements,
which under distinct socioeconomic, biophysical and political contexts, dene the patterns of deforestation, and ultimately land use.
Thus, the comprehension of the underlying social interactions working at dierent levels is needed to capture the direction, variabilit y and
extent of the land use changes occurring in the region.
The major drivers for deforestation can be attributed to a wide range of factors such as macroeconomic drivers, expansion of cattle
ranching and soybean farming, agricultural intensication, poor technological use in the timber sector, market connectivity, infrastructural
expansion and the proliferation of paved and unpaved roads, land tenure arrangements and policy failures.
Therefore, a unique policy for controlling deforestation in the Amazon is not realistic. Local-scale institutional actors should play a
crucial role in planning the land use and conservation strategies, concurrently with a close examination of national economic/market
opportunities and challenges.
Amazon deforestation in Brazil Review
future science group www.future-science.com 583
Bibliography
Papers of special note have been highlighted as:
of interest
of considerable interest
1 Chambers JQ, Higuchi N, Tribuzy ES,
Trumbore SE. Sink for a century: carbon
sequestration in the Amazon. Nature 410
(6827), 429–429 (2001).
2 Loarie SR, Asner GP, Field CB. Boosted carbon
emissions from Amazon deforestation. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 36(14), 1–5 (2009).
3 Le Quere C, Raupach MR, Canadell JG et al.
Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon
dioxide. Nat. Geosci. 2, 831–836 (2009).
Brings together observation and modeling
results, aiming to understand the difference in
the amount between anthropogenic CO2
emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2
concentration at global scale. Achieving this
goal requires good estimates of the sinks and
good attribution of the cause of changes, both
for the emissions and for their partitioning
between the natural reservoirs.
4 Carvalho G, Moutinho P, Nepstad D, Mattos
L, Arcio M. An Amazon perspective on the
forest–climate connection: opportunity for
climate mitigation, conservation and
development? Env. Dev. Sust. 6, 163–174
(2004).
5 Ometto JP, Nobre AD, Rocha HR, Artaxo P,
Martinelli LA. Amazonia and the modern
carbon cycle: lessons learned. Oecologia 143,
483–500 (2005).
Review of several outcomes from the
large-scale biosphere–atmosphere experiment
in Amazonia concerning carbon stocks
and fluxes.
6 Gash JHC, Huntingford C, Marengo JA et al.
Amazonian climate: results and future research.
Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78, 187–193 (2004).
7 Gloor M, Phillips OL, Lloyd JJ et al. Does the
disturbance hypothesis explain the biomass
increase in basin-wide Amazon forest plot data?
Glob. Change Biol. 15, 2418–2430 (2009).
Characterizes statistically the disturbance
process in Amazon old growth and explores
the consequences of sampling artefacts using a
data-based stochastic simulator. The results
lend further support to the notion that,
currently, observed biomass gains for intact
forests across the Amazon are actually
occurring over large scales.
8 Sampaio G, Nobre C, Costa MH, Satyamurty
P, Soares-Filho BS, Cardoso M. Regional
climate change over eastern Amazonia caused
by pasture and soybean cropland expansion.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L17709 (2007).
Suggests that large-sca le deforestation in
Amazonia could alter the regional climate
signi ficant ly, projecting a warmer and
somewhat drier postdeforestation climate.
Results show an accelerating decrease of
rainfall for increasing deforestation in
different classes of land use conversions.
9 Fisher JB, Malhi Y, Bonal D et al. The
land– atmosphere water flux in the tropics.
Glob. Change Biol. 15(11), 2694–2714
(2009).
10 Aguiar A PD, Camara G, Escada M. Spatial
statistical ana lysis of land-use determinants
in the Brazilian Amazonia: exploring
intra-regional heterogeneity. Ecol. Model.
209, 169–188 (2007).
The authors combine deforestation maps
derived from remote sensing and 1996
agricultural census, and describe the
patterns of land use change in the ‘arc
of deforestation’.
11 Soares-filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran
LM et al. Modelling conser vation in the
Amazon basin. Nature 440, 3–6 (2006).
12 Deneva n WM. A bluff model of riverine
settlement in Prehistoric Amazonia. Annals
Assoc. Am. Geog. 86(4), 654– 681 (1996).
13 Morton DC , DeFries RS, Shimabukuro
YE et al. Cropland expansion changes
deforestation dynamics in the southern
Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
103(39), 14637–14641 (2006).
14 DeFries RS, Morton DC, va n der Werf
GR et al. Fire-related carbon emissions from
land use transitions in southern A mazonia.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 35(22), 1–5 (2008).
15 Almeida C. Estimativa da área e do tempo de
permanência da vegetação secundária na
Amazônia legal por meio de imagens
Landsat/TM. INPE 130. Thesis. National
Institute for Space Research, São Paulo,
Brazil (2009).
16 Fearnside PM, Righi CA, Graça PM et al.
Biomass and greenhouse-gas emissions from
land-use change in Brazil’s Amazonian ‘arc of
deforestation’: the states of Mato Grosso and
Rondônia. Forest Ecol. Manage. 258(9),
196 8–19 78 (2 009 ).
17 Laurance W. Roads are ruining the
rainforests. New Sci. 2723, 24 –25 (2009).
18 Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP et al. Global
consequences of land use. Science 309,
570–574. (2005).
19 Luizão FJ. Litter production and mineral
element input to the forest floor in a central
Amazonian Forest. Geojournal 19(4),
407–417 (1989).
20 Steudler PA, Melillo JM, Feigl BJ et al.
Consequence of forest-to-pasture conversion
on CH4 fluxes in the Brazilian A mazon.
J. Geophys. Res. 101, 18547–18554 (1996).
21 Melillo JM, Steudler PA, Feigl BJ et al.
Nitrous oxide emissions from forests and
pastures of various ages in the Brazilian
Amazon. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 34179–34188
(2001).
22 Longo KM, Freitas SR, A ndreae MO,
Yokelson R, Artaxo P. Biomass burning, long
range transport of products, and regiona l and
remote impacts. In: Amazonia and Global
Change. Geophysical Monograph Series. Keller
M, Busta mante M, Ga sh J, Dias PLS (Eds).
American Geophysical Union, Washington,
DC, USA (2009).
23 Sarmiento JL, Gloor M, Gruber N et al.
Trends and regional distributions of land and
ocean carbon sinks. Biogeosciences 7,
2351–2367 (2010).
24 Malhi Y. The carbon balance of tropical forest
regions, 1990 –2010. Curr. Opin. Sust. Sci.
2(4), 237–244 (2010).
Provides a synthesis of the latest evidence
from both the carbon source a fter tropical
forest conversion and the carbon sink in
tropica l vegetation.
25 Fearnside PM. Global wa rming a nd tropical
land use change : greenhouse gas emissions
from biomass burning, decomposition, and
soils in forest conversion, shifting cultivation,
and secondary vegetation. Climatic Change
46, 115–158 (2000).
26 DeFries RS, Houghton RA, Hansen MC,
Field CB, Skole D, Townshend J. Carbon
emissions from tropica l deforestation and
regrowth based on satellite observations for
the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl Acad . Sci.
USA 99, 14256–14261 (2002).
27 Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig HJ et al.
Determination of deforestation rates of the
world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297,
999–1002 (20 02).
28 Hirsch A I, Little WS, Houghton R A, Scott
NA, White JD. The net carbon flux due to
deforestation and forest re-growth in the
Brazilian Amazon: ana lysis using a process-
based model. Glob. Change Biol. 10(5),
908–924 (2004).
29 Potter C, Klooster S, Huete AR et al.
Terrestrial carbon sinks in the Brazilian
Amazon and Cerrado Region predicted from
MODIS satellite data and ecosystem
modeling. Biogeosciences 6, 1–23 (2009).
30 Van der Werf G, Morton DC, DeFries
RS et al. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nat.
Geosci. 2, 737–738 (2009).
Carbon Mana gement (2011) 2(5) future science group
584
Review Ometto, Aguiar & Martinelli
31 Aguiar APD, Ometto JP, Nobre CA et al.
Report on GHG Emissions in the Brazilian
Amazon. National Institute for Space
Research, São Paulo, Brazil (2009).
32 Houghton RA, Skole DL, Nobre CA, Hackler
JL, Lawrence KT. Annual fluxes of carbon
from deforestation and regrowth in the
Brazilian Amazon. Nature 403, 301–304
(2000).
33 Ramankutty N, Gibbs HK, Achard F et al.
Challenges to estimating carbon emissions
from tropical deforestation. Glob. Change Biol.
13(1), 51–66 (2007).
34 Nogueira EM, Fearnside PM, Nelson BW,
Franc MB. Wood density in forests of Brazil’s
‘arc of deforestation’: Implications for biomass
and flux of carbon from land-use change in
Amazonia. Forest Ecol. Mange. 248(3),
119 –135 (2 007 ).
Presents new wood density estimates for the
southern and southwestern Brazilian
Amazon portions of the arc of deforestation,
using locally collected species weighted by
their volume in large local inventories.
35 Fearnside P. Wood density for estimating
forest biomass in Brazilian Amazonia. Forest
Ecol. Mange. 90(1), 59–87 (1997).
36 Cerri CC, Bernoux M, Maia SMF et al.
Greenhouse gas mitigation options in Brazil
for land-use change, livestock and agriculture.
Scientia Agrícola, 67, 102–116 (2009).
Presents an update of the GHG emissions
estimates for the Brazilian territory.
37 Borner J, Wunder S. Paying for avoided
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: from
cost assessment to scheme design. Int. Forestry
Rev. 10, 496–511 (2008)
38 Vieira ICG, Toledo PM, Silva JMC, Higuchi
H. Deforestation and threats to the
biodiversity of Amazonia. Braz. J. Biol.
68(Suppl. 4), 949–956 (2008).
39 Vieira S, Ca margo PB, Selhorst D et al. Forest
structure and carbon dynamics in Amazonian
tropical rainforests. Oecologia (140), 468–479
(2004).
40 Feeley KJ, Terborgh JW. Direct versus indirect
effects of habitat reduction on the loss of avian
species from tropical forest fragments. Anim.
Conserv. 11 (5) , 3 53– 360 (20 08 ).
41 Peres CA, Gardner TA, Barlow J
et al. Biodiversity conservation in human-
modified Amazonia n forest landscapes. Biol .
Conserv. 143 (10), 2314–2323 (2010).
Illustrates the importance of considering
interactions between different forms of forest
disturbance to develop effective
conservation policy.
42 Costa MH, Yanagi SNM, Souza PJOP et al.
Climate change in Amazonia c aused by
soybean cropland expansion, as c ompared
with caused by pastureland. Geophys. R es.
Lett. 34, 4 (2007).
43 Ramos da Silva R, Werth D, Avissar R .
Regional impacts of future land-cover
changes on the Amazon Basin wet-season
climate. J. Clim. 21, 1153–1170 (2008).
44 Sanches PA. Linking climate cha nge
rese arch wit h food securit y and poverty
reduction in the tropics. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 82(1–3), 371–383 (2000).
45 Foley JA, Asner GP, Costa MH et a l.
Amazon ia re vealed: forest degradation and
loss of ecosystem goods and service s in the
Amazon Basin. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5(1),
25–32 (20 07).
Rev iews cha nge s in the A mazon
rai nforests and consequences to the the
ecosystem services that they provide.
46 Lewis SL , Lloyd J, Sitch S, Mitchard ETA,
Laurance WF. Changing ecology of
tropical forests : ev idenc e and drivers.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 529–549
(2009).
47 Phillips OL, A ragao L, Lewis SL et al.
Drought sensitivity of the Amazon
rainforest. Science 323, 1344–1347 (2009 ).
Amazon forest response to the intense
2005 drought, analy zed from mult iple
long-term monitoring plots across t he
region. A possible analog of f utu re events
is also explored.
48 Davidson E , Arta xo P. Globally sig nificant
changes in biological processe s of t he
Amazon Basin: results of the large-sc ale
biosphere–atmosphere experiment. Glob.
Change Biol. 10, 519–529 (2004).
49 Farley J, Costanz a R. Payments for
ecosystem services : from loc al to global.
Ecol. Econ. 69(11), 2045–2302 (2010).
Presents the development of a set of
principles for payment for ecosystem
ser vices systems and reports on evolving
initiatives in several countries.
50 Avis sar R, Werth D. Global
hydroclimatological teleconnections
resu lting from tropica l deforestation.
J. Hydrometeorol . 6(2), 134 (2005).
51 Becker B. Geopolítica da A mazônia.
Estudos Avançados 19(53), 71–86 (2005).
52 Brond izio ES. Landsc apes of the past,
footprints of the future. In: Time and
Complexity in Historical Ecology. Balée W,
Erikson C (Eds). Colu mbia Univer sity
Press, NY, USA 365–405 (2006).
53 Ag uiar APD. Modeling land u se cha nge in
the Brazi lian Amazon: explor ing the
intra-regiona l heterogeneity. PhD T hesis,
Nationa l Institute for Space R esearch, São
Paulo, Braz il (2006 ).
54 Ewers R M, Laurance WF, Sou za Jr C M.
Temporal fluctuations in Amazonian
deforestation rates. Env. Conserv. 35(4),
303–310 (2008).
55 Margulis S. Causes of Deforestation of the
Brazilian Amazon. World Bank Working
Paper 22 (20 04).
56 Américo MC , Vieira IC , Araújo R, Veiga JB.
A pecuária como elemento central na
reestruturação do território na Amazônia: o
caso da rodovia PA279 e da Terra do Meio
no Pará. In : Desenvolvimento Sustentável e
Sociedades na Amazônia. Araújo R, Lena P
(Eds). M PEG/ PPG-7, Belém, PA, Brazil
(2010).
57 Geist HJ, L ambi n EF. Proximate cau ses and
underlying driving force s of tropica l
deforestation. Bioscience 52, 143–150
(2002).
58 Angelsen A. Climate mitigation and
agricult ura l productivity in tropical
land scapes specia l feature : policies for
reduced deforestation and t heir impact on
agricultural production. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 107(46), 19639–19644 (2010).
59 Galford GL, Melillo JM, Kick lig htera
DW et al. Greenhouse ga s emissions from
alternative futures of deforestation and
agricult ura l management in the southern
Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107(46),
19649–19654 (2010).
Examines sc enarios of deforestation and
post-c learing land use to estimate the
future (2006 –2050) impacts on GHG
emissions from t he agricultu ral frontier in
southern A mazonia, using a process-based
biogeochem istry model. Estimate of net
GHG emissions is also presented.
60 Nepstad DC, Schwartzma n S, Bamberger
B et al. Inhibition of Am azon deforestation
and fi re by parks and indigenous reserves.
Conserv. Biol. 20, 65–73 (2006).
61 Ricket ts TH, Soares-Filho B, da Fonseca
GAB et al. Indigenous land s, protected
areas, and slowing climate change. PLoS
Biol. 8(3), e1000331 (2010).
Discussions on R EDD initiative in the
tropical forests and the role of
protected areas.
62 Schroeder W, Alencar A, A rima E, Setzer A.
The spatial distribution and inter-annual
variability of Fire in Amazônia. In: Amazonia
and Global Change. Geophysical Monograph
Amazon deforestation in Brazil Review
future science group www.future-science.com 585
Series. Keller M, Bustamante M, Gash J, Dias
PLS. American Geophysical Union,
Washington, DC, USA (2009).
63 Weber JL. Ecosystem accounting for the cost
of biodiversity losses : framework and case
study for coastal Mediterranean wetlands.
Presented at: The Economics of the Global Loss
of Biological Diversity Workshop. Brussels,
Belgium, 5–6 March 2008.
Websites
101 Ama zon Forest Inventory Network.
RAINFOR.
www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/rainfor
102 Resilience Foundation. Designing international
interdisciplinary research in the field of
management of natural resources.
http://resilience-foundation.nl/docs/
interdisciplinary_research.pdf
103 National Institute for Space Research.
PRODES: Assessment of Deforestation in
Brazilian Amazonia.
www.obt.inpe.br/prodes
104 Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics.
http://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/mapas/tematicos/
integrado_zee_amazonia_legal/Amazonia_
Estrutura_ Agraria.pdf
105 Brazilian Ministry of Environment. ProBio.
http: //mapas.mma.gov.br/mapas/aplic/
probio/datadownload.htm
106 National Institute for Space Research.
http: //sigma.cptec.inpe.br/queimadas
107 The United Nations Collaborative
Programme on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in
Developing Countries.
www.un-redd.org
