ArticlePDF Available

Summary of all participatory activities and results related to scenario development. EU-AMAZALERT Delivery report 1.2. Grant agreement no:282664

  • Zukunft – Umwelt – Gesellschaft (ZUG) gGmbH

Abstract and Figures

This Deliverable has a somewhat different content than originally envisioned. The original proposal assumed that the stakeholder engagement process would entirely be through a series of (three) workshops in Brazil to develop socio-economic and land use scenarios in close collaboration with SHS. During initial discussions, it became clear that by making use of an ongoing scenario-development process in Brazil, other options would become available to expand the stakeholder interaction process. We decided to add two stakeholder-engagement activities within AMAZALERT, namely a scenario workshop in Europe and a number of interviews with additional stakeholders in Brazil to enlarge the geographic coverage of our pool of stakeholders.
Content may be subject to copyright.
AMAZALERT Delivery Report
AMAZALERT stakeholder workshops
and interviews: Summary of all
participatory activities and results
related to scenario development
Work Package Number
Delivery number
Ana Paula Dutra de Aguiar, Kasper Kok,
Mateus Batistella
Ana Paula Dutra de Aguiar, Kasper Kok,
Mateus Batistella, Dorian Frieden, Ariella
Helfgott, Gudrun Lettmayer, Pedro Zanetti
Date of completion
29 Novermber 2014
Name leading Work Package Leader
Approved by the Leading Work
Package Leader
To complete by the Coordinator
Approved by the Coordinator
Date of approval by the Coordinator
Table of Content
I.1. Introduction
I.2. Stakeholder participation
I.3. Methods
I.4. Results
I.5. Policy implications
I.6. References
I.7. Annexes
II.1. Introduction
II.2. Workshop methodology
II.3. Workshop results
II.4. Policy robustness and comparison
II.5. Discussion
II.6. Conclusions
III.1. Introduction
III.2. Methods
III.3. Results
III.4. Summary and analysis
III.5. Conclusions and recommendations
III.6. References
III.7. Annexes
This Deliverable has a somewhat different content than originally envisioned, reflecting changes in
the work that was executed. The original proposal, as documented in the Description of Work,
assumed that the stakeholder engagement process would entirely be through a series of (three)
workshops in Brazil to develop socioeconomic and land use scenarios in close collaboration with
SHS. During initial discussions, it became clear that by making use of an ongoing scenario-
development process in Brazil, other options would become available to expand the stakeholder
interaction process. We decided to add two stakeholder-engagement activities within
AMAZALERT, namely a scenario workshop in Europe and a number of interviews with additional
stakeholders in Brazil to enlarge the geographic coverage of our pool of stakeholders. This
Deliverable therefore consists of three main parts.
Part I: Stakeholder workshops in Brazil. This part contains the methods and main results obtained
from two workshops organised in Brazil (Belem and Brasilia).
Part II: Stakeholder workshop in Europe. This part contains the methods and main results obtained
from a workshop organised in Belgium (Brussels).
Part III: Stakeholder interviews in Brazil. This part contains methods and results obtained from
interviews with Amazon-wide interviews.
The concluding section will shortly highlight some of the differences and commonalities.
I.1. Introduction
The approach adopted for the construction of scenarios of land use in AMAZALERT is the use of
participatory methods, combining qualitative and quantitative elements
. Stories about future
alternatives with representatives from different sectors of society will be quantified by
computational models capable of generating explicit spatially representations of land use in the
region in coming decades. Society participation in this process is essential so that the scenarios
reflect multiple perspectives on the future. Furthermore, we hope that the process of scenarios
discussing can itself, to some extent, contribute to the region's future - providing a space for joint
reflection on actions needed to achieve a sustainable future.
This part summarises the qualitative results of two AMAZALERT Scenario Participatory
Workshops. The first workshop was held on June 24, 25 and 26 in Belem, State of Para, and aimed
to discuss alternative scenarios for the future of the Brazilian Amazon in 2050 with representatives
of civil society and the stakeholders. The focus of the first workshop was the discussion of what
would be a common future with high social and environmental development (SUSTAINABILITY),
as opposed to a low social and environmental development (FRAGMENTATION). Such scenarios
represent plausible opposing based on current trends of the dynamics of land use in the region. As
illustrated in Figure 1, these scenarios are aligned with the SSP 1 and 3 of the AR5, as well as
scenarios for Brazil under discussion at the Center of Earth Science (INPE), based on the same axes
(Social and Environmental Development). In AMAZALERT, the ‘Middle’ scenario will also be
quantified using computational models, combining elements of the most extreme scenarios.
The second workshop was held in Brasilia on November 25, 2013, including representatives
from research and governmental organizations, and representatives from the 1st workshop. The 2nd
workshop aimed to discuss the trajectories and actions needed to achieve the desired future outlined
on the 1st workshop, focusing on public policy. For the workshops scenarios in the project, we had
the collaboration of partner institutions headquartered in the Amazon, especially the Emilio Goeldi
Museum of Para and IDESP, Para. The organization and conduct of workshops were the
responsibility of EMBRAPA Satellite Monitoring and INPE.
This part will be distributed to the participants of the two workshops. Based on received
comments, final document will be combination of elaborated qualitative and quantitative results.
There are different types of scenarios and approaches used for different purposes. See Aguiar et al.
(2014) for a review of scenarios in which you can understand where lies the approach adopted in
Figure 1: Representation of AMAZALERT scenarios of land use in the context of the axes defined
by the scenarios of the CCST, aligned to the SSP, AR5.
"The present": current situation and trends.
"The Future": vision of the desired future and unwanted by the year 2050.
"The Pathway": evolution of the current situation for the two opposites, with
emphasis on the path to the desired future: what actions are necessary?
Each step of the workshop (present, future, and pathway) was organized around a discussion about
four themes:
Theme I: Natural resources (in particular use and land cover).
Theme II: Social Development in the countryside and cities (access to education,
health, employment, violence, conflict).
Theme III: economic activities, infrastructure and technology.
Theme IV: institutional and political context.
Figure 2. Workshops structure
This document is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the list of participants for each workshop.
Section 3 describes the steps for constructing the scenarios. Section 4 presents a summary of the
final results (presented in full in Annex A, B and C). Section 5 finally presents reached conclusions.
I.2. Stakeholder participation
I.2.1 Workshop in Belem
Starting from the 200 institutions identified in 2012, 30 names were selected. The team responsible
for workshops sought to privilege the representative diversity within the categories established by
the AMAZALERT Project. In this first workshop the goal was to build the scenarios from the
perspective of representatives of society, not the government or research institutions. Thus, we
prioritize non-governmental organizations with more environmentally focused, non-governmental
organizations acting with local societies and representations of the productive sectors of
agribusiness, livestock, forestry and minerals. As a representative of the Federal Government, only
the Department of Strategic Affairs (SAE) was called for the first workshop. The selection criteria
were based on the historical trajectory of the institutions and also in memory of the surveys and
case studies developed by CCST - INPE, Goeldi Museum and Embrapa. Of the 30 invited, 20 were
confirmed (Table 1.), and effectively appeared 15 institutions. Thus, the first Participatory
AMAZALERT Scenario workshop had representation from at least one representative of the
intended sectors. Table 2 presents the list of mediators and organizers of the workshop. Altogether,
the 1st workshop had 26 participants.
Table 1. List of civil society organizations and stakeholder participants in Belem workshop (alphabetical order)
Institution (complete name)
Name(s) of representative(s) at workshop
Associação Brasileira de Criadores
Helio Madalena Jr
Associação Brasileira da Indústria de Óleos Vegetais
Bernardo Pires
Associação Brasileira dos Frigoríficos
Gil Reis
Associação da Indústria dos Exportadores de Madeira do Pará
Gilberto Carvalho
Alcoa Aluminios S.A.
Milene Maués
Conselho Indigenista Missionário
Marcos Borges ou Claudemir Monteiro
Conselho Nacional da Populações extrativistas
Manoel Silva da Cunha
Comissão Pastoral da Terra
Padre Paulinho
Centro de Trabalhadores da Amazônia e Comitê Chico Mendes
Julia Feitosa da Silva Dias e Marcos Jorge Dias
Federação de Agricultura e Pecuária do Pará
Dr. Carlos Xavie
FASE Educação e Solidariedade
Graça Costa
Fórum Nacional de Atividades de Base Florestal
Guilherme Carvalho
Instituto Floresta Tropical
Marcos Lentini
Fundação Viver Produzir e Preservar
Diego Luiz do Nascimento
Edwin Keiser
Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil
Manuel Amaral
Instituto Socio Ambiental
Renata Alves
The Nature Conservancy
Iam Thompson
Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos
Arnaldo Carneiro
Vale S.A.
Leonardo Neves ou Francinaldo Magno
* Not appeared
As a representative of the Federal Government, only the Secretariat for Strategic Affairs (SAE) was called in the first workshop. The government sector
attended the second workshop.
The workshop was chaired by researchers from the Embrapa Satellite Monitoring, INPE and partner institutions in the Amazon (IDESP and Goeldi
Museum of Pará), Table 2.
Table 2. Mediators / organizers of the workshop (EMBRAPA coordination / CNPM and INPE / CCST)
Institution (complete name)
Name(s) of representative(s) at
EMBRAPA Monitoramento por Satélite
(Ministério da Agricultura)
Cláudio Bragantini, Elza
Kawakami Savaget, Mateus
Batistella, Sérgio Tosto
Centro de Ciência do Sistema Terrestre -
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais
(Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e
Ana Paula Aguiar, Celso Von
Randow, Patrícia Pinho, Peter
Mann de Toledo, Roberto Araújo
Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (Ministério da
Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação)
Ima Célia Vieria
Instituto de Desenvolvimento Econômico,
Social e Ambiental do Pará (Secretaria de
Estado de Gestão do Pará)
Andréa Coelho
Below is a brief description of the participating organizations in categories according to the
focus of activity and represented interests.
Environmental NGOs:
o TNC - Founded in 1951 by a group of North American scientist, interested in studying
and protecting nature. Operating in Brazil since 1988 and has the mission of working
for the conservation of natural areas and waters on which life depends. Its main focus is
on the conservation of natural resources especially water resources.
o ISA - with historical role in indigenous traditional communities, since 1994, its mission
is to build "sustainable solutions that ensure collective and diffuse rights and value the
environmental diversity
o GREENPEACE - Non-profit and independent organization that does not accept
donations from governments, corporations or political parties. Entire work is funded by
donations from millions of civilian employees worldwide. Present in 43 countries,
entitled as a global organization has the task to protect the environment and for the
promotion of peace and seeks to inspire changes in attitude which will ensure greener
and cleaner future for present and future generations.
o IIEB - Their aim is spreading knowledge through publications, qualification courses
with specialized courses, themed events and training grants.
o FASE - Education and Solidarity: aims sustainable human development, based on
criteria of local development. Work with agro ecological alternatives and cooperative
enterprise, ensuring the right to the forest, to land, food, water and culture,
democratization of local political management, protection of socio-environmental
diversity and traditional knowledge in heritage management, among other. For FASE
Amazon has a weight that extrapolate understanding generally widespread, and is
regarded as the world's largest rainforest reserve, water and biodiversity.
Social movement (traditional, indigenous and family farms)
o CNS - Fights to defend the Amazonian forests, is engaged in the struggle for the
realization of land reform. It also considers that extractive reserves are concrete results
in the formation of the territories and important tool in the provision of environmental
o CTA - Institution that appeared during the 70s, initially as the base of rural rubber
tappers trade unions of Xapuri in Acre, in order to face the pressure on landowners.
They were institutionalized in 1983. Since then, CTA seeks to respond the social
demands coming from the latex harvest communities.
o CCM - The Committee Chico Mendes is a network of non-governmental institutions
without legal personality, is an entity of memory, created on the night of murder Chico
Mendes 22/12/1988. It aims to combat impunity for crimes against the extractive and
agricultural workers; their institutional mission is "Fighting for justice and rights of the
rubber tappers and agricultural workers and against impunity."
o FVPP It is founded in 1991 on the initiative of the peasant organizations, pastoral
movement, urban and popular educators of Trans-Amazon Highway and the Xingu
River. It is a non-profit organization that was formed to address families abandoned
from public policies of settlement programs. Currently its institutional mission is to
contribute to sustainable development policies in the Amazon.
o CPT - Founded in 1975 by the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (Catholic) in
response to the situation of rural workers, squatters and pedestrians especially in the
Amazon. Currently is an ecumenical organization that incorporates other Christian
churches such as Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil. In each region of Brazil works
according to local challenges, considering human rights.
o CIMI - Founded in 1972 is linked to CNBB and with the goal to "respect the indigenous
culture in their ethnic, cultural and historical plurality", believe that indigenous people
are a source of inspiration for the revision of the senses, the story and direction of social
practices and economic.
o CONTAG - Founded in 1963 it is a confederation that unites 27 associations of workers
from agriculture (FETAG) and the trade unions and affiliated rural workers.
Forest Sector
o AIMEX - is an association of the forest-based companies and focus on sustainable
management, encouraging its members to use the method of good practice. Also
maintains a laboratory seedlings and seeds of forest trees of the Amazon, and made
them available to rural producers and entrepreneurs who want to reforest more
o IFT - The institution that developed the methodologies and spreads best practices for
logging in the Amazon. Furthermore, it is considered a centre of excellence and
improvement of forest management in the Amazon - Reduced Impact Logging. It is also
considered a centre of excellence and improvement of forest management in the
o FSC - International certifier founded in 1993 with headquarters in Germany,
represented nationally in about 70 countries. Operates in Brazil since 1996 and through
the certification system recognizes the responsible production of forest products, which
favours the use of good practices, which has to reduce environmental impacts, and to
improve social equity groups involved in the activity. This way it makes information
regarding these products more available for consumers and businesses to make more
conscious decisions.
Livestock and Agriculture Business
o CNA - Represents, organizes and strengthens Brazilian farmers. Also defending their
rights and interests to promote economic and social development of the agricultural
sector. To do this congregates associations and rural leaders and participates actively
and permanently in discussions and decisions on national agricultural policy. CNA
system covers the SENAR which focuses on Professional Training and Social
promotion in rural area and CNA Institute that aims researching and studying of
agribusiness social matters.
o ANEC - Founded in 1965, is meant to promote the development of activities related to
grains and cereals. It is an association with 35 member companies, with 20 effective and
15 contributors. ANEC's mission is to develop the best scenario for import and export
of soybeans and corn, in all its marketable forms, and the assistance to associate by
mapping the future scenario and interaction with the government.
o ABC Breeders - Association formed by ranchers beef and dairy founded in 1926 as the
Federation of Cattle Breeders. Today, after 85 years of activities conducted throughout
the country, it is considered as one of the first associations of rural nature which
represents business owners and professionals dedicated to animal production.
o FAEPA- founded in 1951 the Federation of Agriculture and Livestock of Para is
maintained by farmers and it is a part CNA and aims to defend the interests of affiliated
unions and agricultural producers.
o ABRAFRIGO - represents the industrial segment of the beef with national coverage. It
is the institution that establishes dialogue with the various instances of government,
national and international markets.
o IBRAM - National entity representing companies and institutions working in the mining
industry. It is non-profit entity that promotes the integration of the sector as well as
promoting sustainable development and use of best practices in occupational safety and
health in mining. Additionally it stimulates the studies, research, development and
innovation in this sector.
o VALE S.A - Considered being one of the largest mining companies in the world, it was
nationalized in 1942 and privatized by Getúlio Vargas in 1997 the government of
Fernando Henrique.
o ALCOA S.A - - Private company that operates in 31 countries. Since 1965 it exist in
Brazil and operates in the whole production chain of the metal from bauxite mining to
the production of transformers. Additionally it has shareholdings in four hydroelectric
power stations: Machadinho and Barra Grande on the border of Santa Catarina and Rio
Grande; Sierra Hawk in Goiás; Strait between Maranhão and Tocantins.
I.2.2 Workshop in Brasilia
The second workshop aimed to refine the paths that were discussed at the first Workshop, focusing
on public policy. Therefore, priority was given to guests from the Government that could contribute
to the discussion of the scenarios started in the first workshop. It was also decided to prioritize
organizations that operate throughout the Amazon region, so the decision was to hold the workshop
in Brasilia and invite representatives from different ministries (Environment, Agricultural
Development, Agriculture, Social Development, Planning, Science and Technology, Civil Office,
Fishing, etc.). There were also invited some of the participants of the 1st Workshop and
representatives of the financial sector and investment banks. Table 3 presents the list of guests and
those who attended. Table 4 presents separately the participants of the research institutions that are
part of the project or associated projects, and supported the mediation workshop. Altogether, the
workshop had 30 participants.
Table 3. 2nd Workshop - Representatives from government, civil and financial sector
MMA - Diretoria de Zoneamento Territorial
MMA Serviço Florestal Brasileiro
ANA - Coordenação de Gestão Estratégica
Ministério das Cidades
EPE - Empresa de Pesquisas Energéticas
The Nature Conservancy
MDS Assessor Parlamentar
MAPA Dep. de Sistema de Produção e Sustentabilidade
MMA Dep. de Políticas para Combate ao Desmatamento
MCT - Diretoria de Mudanças Climáticas
ABC Criadores
Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura
Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura
Fundação Viver Produzir e Preservar
MAPA Dep. de Sistema de Produção e Sustentabilidade
MMA Gerente Executivo de Monitoramento e Auditoria Florestais
CTA - Conselho dos Trabalhadores da Amazônia
European Commission
Comitê Chico Mendes
Banco Basa
SAE/PR Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos da Presidência da
Banco BASA
FUNAI Coordenadora de Gestão Ambiental
INPA Coordenador de dinâmicas ambientais
Ministério da Defesa - Diretoria de Serviço Geográfico (DSG)
European Commission
MDA Terra Legal
Table 4 - Mediators / organizers of the 2nd workshop (EMBRAPA coordination / NMA and INPE / CCST) and researchers associated projects
Institution (complete name)
Name(s) of
representative(s) at
EMBRAPA Monitoramento por Satélite
(Ministério da Agricultura)
Cláudio Bragantini, Elza
Kawakami Savaget, Mateus
Batistella, Marko Monteiro
(guest student UNICAMP)
Centro de Ciência do Sistema Terrestre -
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas
Espaciais (Ministério da Ciência,
Tecnologia e Inovação)
Ana Paula Aguiar, Celso Von
Randow, Roberto Araújo
Instituto de Desenvolvimento
Econômico, Social e Ambiental do Pará
(Secretaria de Estado de Gestão do Pará)
Andréa Coelho
Bart Kruijt Kasper Kok,
Pedro Zanetti (fellow guest
EMBRAPA Solos (Ministério da
Margareth Simões (guest
ROBIN project)
I.3. Methods
The proposed method is based on the approach proposed by Folhes (2010) Folhes et al. (submitted).
The workshops were organized in separate steps to discuss the PRESENT, FUTURE and
PATHWAY for two opposite scenarios (a desired and not desired) considering socioeconomic and
environmental aspects in an integrated way. It was discussed about scenario with high social and
environmental development (SUSTAINABILITY, Scenario A), as opposed to a future with low
social and environmental development (CHAOS, Scenario C), as shown in Figure 1. Activities were
held in plenary or group, supported by a group of mediators, using simple features like tables and
keywords (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Photos of the first Workshop illustrating used resources.
For organizational purposes, the discussion of each step was organized around four themes:
Theme I: Natural resources (in particular use and land cover).
Theme II: Social Development in the countryside and cities (access to education, health,
employment, violence, conflicts).
Theme III Theme III: economic activities, infrastructure and technology.
Theme IV: institutional and political context.
The themes were suggested by researchers and presented at the opening of the first Workshop, as
summarised in Box 2.
Box 2. Details of topics for discussion at the first Workshop
Theme I: Natural resources
Forest degradation and fire susceptibility
Secondary vegetation
Environmental services (biodiversity, water quality and availability, soil)
Protected areas
Theme II: Social Development in the countryside and cities
Access to education, health, mobility, housing, employment, credit
Agrarian and urban violence conflicts
Theme III: Economic activities, infrastructure and technology
Dominant economic sectors
Land use
Transport, sanitation and energy infrastructure
Theme IV: Institutional and political context
The State Role
Rule of law
Market regulations
In this section we detailed steps of the workshops, describing how the results presented in Annexes
A, B, C and D were obtained. The steps were:
Phase 1: (held at the 1st Workshop): PRESENT (Theme)
The first phase consisted of building conjunction tables (in plenary with all participants)
summarizing the present, using pictures and keywords by theme.
Phase 2: (held on the 1st Workshop): FUTURE (Vision 2050 per theme)
This phase consisted of discussing (also in plenary) a vision of the future in 2050 in
Scenario A (Sustainability) and Scenario C (Fragmentation / Chaos). This discussion was
also conducted using pictures and keywords by theme.
Phase 3: (held at the 1st Workshop): FUTURE (Vision 2050 with narration)
Narratives have been written into two groups (Scenario A and Scenario C), (like essays)
consolidating the vision of the future discussed in Step 2, tacking discussions about the
future among topics. In parallel, the group began a discussion of the actions that would lead
to Scenario A or C (called pathways). The results were presented in plenary.
Phase 4: (held at the 2nd Workshop): PATHWAYS
The results of the first workshop (Phase 1, 2 and 3) were presented at the opening in the plenary of
the workshop and distributed to participants. Then, in groups by subject, the results of steps 1 and 2
were reviewed. Attention then turned to the discussion of pathways and the actions needed to reach
the future outlined in Scenario A, in each subject. Next, the exercise in Scenario C was repeated.
I.4. Results
The results of Phase 4 described in the previous section were compiled by the researches and
subsequently reviewed by the speakers of the groups. The results of this review process are
consolidated in the Annexes:
Annex A - PRESENT - displays the contents of tables prepared in Phase 1 of the 1st Workshop,
revised 2nd Workshop, organized by theme.
Annex D - brings some other intermediate outcomes, such as narratives and trajectories from
Phase 3), and photos of the tables of the 1st workshop. All original material from the workshops is
available and can be sent by the organizers. In this section, researchers proposed a synthesis of the
main points on Present, Future and Pathways, compiled from analysis of Annexes A, B and C.
I.4.1 Present
I.4.1.1 Social development
One of the points most emphasised by the participants during the first workshop was the process by
which the medium and large cities in the Amazon have been through, that -in function of the
services they offer, although of poor quality - attract large populations coming from migration and
rural exodus to their peri-urban areas, increases even further the levels of violence and poverty
existing in these cities. The migratory dynamics that involves the same is associated with points
discussed at the workshop: (a) the negative effects produced by the installation of large projects in
the region as works of transport infrastructure / energy projects and the mining sector, which attract
people to cities , which in turn does not have infrastructure to support population growth,
particularly by increasing the demand for services such as health, education, safety, housing,
communications, energy, among others. An emblematic case is the current city of Altamira, which
suffers from the changes caused by the implementation of AHE Belo Monte in neighbouring Vitória
do Xingu, but by offering greater network services attracts the larger number of inhabitants than the
city where the project is being built. Another problem considered is the demobilization phase of the
hand labour and the subsequent construction of the resort, when jobs are scarce causing the local
economy becomes depressed, because in general there is not a regional development project that
considers these steps. (b) the ineffective implementation of the protected areas, leaving traditional
populations (forest people) without survival prospects, and making them vulnerable against the
advancement of agricultural and infrastructure projects under construction or planned for the region;
(c) situation of INCRA settlements, many created in isolated areas without infrastructure and
alternatives. It was observed an inversion of the role of settlements created in the past decade in
forest areas to meet the demand for wood, not to fulfil their social role; (d) Failure and / or
ineffectiveness of public policies for family farming. This condition causes the producers give up
the activity or at least not feel encouraged to keep their children on the field, mostly encouraging
their children to work and seek some productive activity in the city.
I.4.1.2 Economical activities
Main economic activities include: Recognition of how important is the mining activity to the
region's economy, and with significant potential for expansion it has, due to its large existing
mineral reserves, and the relevance that the market for this type of commodity possesses for the
national trade balance and growing demand in the international market. There is, however, great
concern about the social and environmental impacts in the short, medium and long term generated
by the activity; (b) weakening trend of the forestry sector, the slowness of the process initiated by
grant SFB, greater control of illegal activity by the government (although there is still corruption in
the issuance of the environmental licenses), and alternative markets of raw materials for
construction and furniture industry (reforestation wood, for example); (c) although there is a
tendency to increase the area of agriculture in the Amazon (food and biofuel), perspective is that
more mechanic livestock remains the dominant activity - and that agriculture expands primarily by
Cerrado, well as in some axes of the Amazon (as BR163, for example). For planned infrastructure
projects or in the one in progress, defined in PAC2, give priority to meeting the needs of productive
activities such as grains and minerals that require the optimization of logistics for production and
enhancement of national energy matrix at the expense of social development region.
I.4.1.3 Natural Resources
Main aspects related to natural resources include: (a) shallow-cut logging with abrupt fall from
2005, and fluctuations around 6000 km2 / year over the past three years; high rates of forest
degradation; (b) recent data show an increase in the area of secondary vegetation (increase of 1%
per year); (c) issues regarding transnational river basins in countries without environmental
governance; (d) concern with the commercialization of nature and exploitation of natural resources
without sharing benefits and social transformation; (e) a tendency to increase in extreme events,
especially droughts and floods.
I.4.1.4 Institutional and political context
Main aspects include: (a) concern with reviewing legal frameworks according to demands of the
productive sector only. For example, pressure on indigenous lands, including data showing soy
plantations on indigenous lands over lease, and possible revision of their boundaries; (b) the
importance of efforts to spatial planning (zoning, protected areas), land regularization, the
organization of logging activities by SFB, payments for environmental services, local clusters.
However, all these efforts are partial and / or incipient, not completing all the necessary cycle to
ensure sustainability. c) In terms of public policy, that in fact worked in the Amazon was the
component command and control PPCDAM. But is this enough? The reduction in Amazon
deforestation was a response to global pressure on the carbon problem, but until when? Food safety
problem for the global population in the coming decades may supplant issue of global warming and
biodiversity? (d) Street movements indicate a flattening of democracy and give priority to the
reduction of inequality in access to services. On the other hand, there is a greater awareness of the
environment, the place where one lives, including by companies (but not appeared in the street
movements for now); (f) At the end, we emphasize the questioning ability of the current model to
promote sustainability, to seek solutions focused on market and consumption, treating people out of
the market as invisible. State's role as a mediator and regulator needs to be discussed.
I.4.2 Visions of the future for 2050
Scenario A (Sustainability): a future with well-structured cities, quality of life for the entire
population, diversified economic activities in all sectors, natural resources preserved and widely
used for different purposes in a sustainable manner and by different stakeholders, integrated land
management considering environmental, social and economic aspects, as illustrated in Figures 3.a
3.c (axis natural resources and social development; in Portuguese, see annexes for English
translations). Scenario C (Chaos / fragmentation): a future with exhausted natural resources, poor
quality of life for the majority of society, with islands of prosperity and unequal access to services
and opportunities. Figure 3a and 3b illustrates some key aspects of the envisioned futures for the
Natural Resources and Social Development themes (for a complete description, refer to A, B and
Scenarios A and C are extreme scenarios, and considered by many participants very unlikely but
plausible. Scenario B (Half Way) was not detailed in the workshop, but is considered a more likely
scenario. Scenario B combines elements of social development and environmental heterogeneously-
gradation course of action will depend on the society in coming decades as much to solve structural
social problems of the region, as well as for dealing with the external demand for food and
commodities. The option for the extremes occurred precisely to provide discussion about actions
toward (pathways) to future of Sustainability - with emphasis on the power of intervention of local
actors, without disregarding the global context.
Figure 3 Schematic representation of the Present and Future in 2050: (a) Social Development; (b) Natural Resources, focusing on Forest issues.
I.4.3 Pathways to arrive at visions (scenario endpoints)
I.4.3.1 Scenario A: Sustainability
In scenario A, we propose to group the main activities listed in Annex B in three items, up to a point
related to distinct, complementary and interconnected ranges. The first item refers to broader
institutional issues. A second item, which includes a range of activities related to land management
in urban and rural areas by integrating environmental, social and economic aspects measures.
Finally, a specific item on actions related to large enterprises, due to the importance and concern
about this issue during the workshops.
General level:
Renewal of the Social Contract: allow effective access to rights provided in the legal
framework (institutional reform and consolidation of the rule of law).
Strengthening of cities with infrastructure, network services and appropriate education to
meet the demands of sustainability, aiming an interconnected network of medium-sized
Increased management capacity of municipalities, and consolidation of mechanisms for
Integrated Management of Territories, as discussed below.
Consolidation of monitoring and control systems started in PPCDAM, but linked to actions
of social and economic order, in the context discussed below, and the expansion of
enforcement capacity of environmental crimes as a whole.
Consolidation, review and extension of planning instruments / land management and land
tenure (environmental licensing, ZEE, Plans, SNUG, CAR) to meet the environmental,
social and economic demands effectively.
Reform of the judiciary and of the police and public security institutions, with increased
rates of condemnation for violations of the law and ending impunity.
Valuing of primary and secondary forests through the implementation of PES (Payments
for Environmental Services) and integration with AFS (agroforestry) programs,
Adoption of tripartite councils (government, productive sector and users) to discuss issues
related to the different production chains (various scales).
Integration of activities with neighbouring countries in different sectors (economic
opportunities (e.g. tourism), environmental monitoring, integrated watershed management,
drug trafficking, etc.).
Integrated Management of Territories:
Integration (within the territorial bases) between social policies to combat poverty (such as
Bolsa Familia, Bolsa Verde, My House My Life), environmental and incentives for the
production, following the criteria of the system and considering local particularities
(agendas, uses and practices of the population).
Implementation of instruments for integrated urban and rural planning, considering
socioeconomic and environmental factors at the landscape scale (ecological corridors,
rebuild international reserves, land uses, different types of actors, environmental services,
Incentives to diversify local economies (services, industry, trade, tourism), with integrated
strengthening urban and rural areas, reducing the distinction between them.
Organization of local supply chains, focusing on agricultural production to supply the urban
centres and large enterprises in the Amazon, in addition to national and international
Training, training centres (education and research) and technical assistance aimed not only
agricultural activities, but also new urban markets and segments, focused on the use of
natural resources, development of new technologies and new ventures.
Planning for the implementation of large projects (see below) in order to promote local
economic activities and avoid boom-bust economies of the cities), consistent with land
Incentives for widespread adoption of technologies with economic and environmental
sustainability in various sectors.
In livestock, specifically, production diversification, by advancing aquaculture and small
animals. Encourage small / medium / large (state as mediator) integration.
Reallocation of structured settlements with management for peri-urban areas seeking food
demand of cities.
Organization and revitalization of urban space for better social integration, providing
alternatives for young people (parks, nurseries, sports courts, schools, etc.).
Large projects:
Planning for the implementation of large projects integrated land management (avoid
boom-bust economies of the cities).
Planning of infrastructure geared to the needs of the population (river transport, for
example), as the market demands (production flow).
Ensuring that basic environmental plans of ventures in the region are met and monitored
Compatibility between projects and objectives of Protected Areas, Indigenous Lands and
Settlements, so that builders consider specific areas and interests of the population.
Improvement of corporate social responsibility in large developments and best use of
royalties by the government, with popular participation.
I.4.3.2 Scenario C:
Many of the points listed in Annex C reflect the absence of the actions listed in Annex B, with
emphasis on:
Discontinuity of monitoring systems, e.g. PPCDAM.
Review of legal frameworks aimed only at the macroeconomic interests - at the expense of
social and environmental aspects - leading to a regression of the positive results obtained so
far (drop in deforestation, for example).
Use of cities (and standardized housing programs) to create depots workforce
underemployed, without investment.
Lack of shares consolidation or improvement of instruments for territorial and land use
planning that can counteract the pressure of the market for land.
Infrastructure works without social and environmental consideration.
Absence of effective actions to re-establish the Social Contract and reduce inequality in
access to services and opportunities.
I.5. Policy implications of the qualitative and quantitative scenarios
This section is taken from Deliverable 4.2. It is reproduced here because of the strong connection
with the information presented in Part I. For more details on the land use model and model results,
we refer to Deliverable 4.2.
The large differences between Scenarios A, B and C developed within AMAZALERT reflect the
current level of uncertainty about the future of the region. In the case of Brazil, until the beginning
of the last decade, the aggressive deforestation and illegal land appropriation processes in the region
seemed to be uncontrollable, peaking at 27,772 km2yr-1 in 2004. Clear-cut deforestation rates have
been decreasing since then, establishing at approximately 6000 km2yr-1 in the last three years.
Although some recent analyses have discussed the role of commodity prices and other economic
factors in the slowdown of deforestation rates, most have unveiled the integrated set of actions
taken by the Brazilian Federal Government to curb deforestation as a decisive factor. These
measures included the creation of protected areas, the use of effective monitoring and control
systems, and credit restriction mechanisms. In 2010, the Brazilian government committed to an
80% reduction in clear-cut deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by 2020 compared with the 1996-
2005 average annual rates (Federal Decree 7390 of 9 Dec. 2010). However, multiple other forces
can potentially contribute to the return of high deforestation rates in the next decades. Among them
the rapidly expanding global markets for agricultural commodities fuelled by the increasing world´s
population and consumption, large-scale transportation and energy infrastructure projects, and - no
less important - weak institutions.
In this context, AMAZALERT developed new and contrasting scenarios for the land use in the
region. For the Brazilian Amazonia they were constructed using participatory,
qualitative/quantitative, normative/exploratory approaches. Representatives of diverse sectors of the
society contributed to the construction of the qualitative storylines for the two most opposite
scenarios. Scenario A (“Sustainability”) is an ideal/desired normative scenario, in which
stakeholders envisioned and detailed major achievements in the socioeconomic, institutional and
environmental dimensions - that would constitute a common sustainable future for the region. The
opposite Scenario - Scenario C, named “Fragmentation- is a very pessimistic scenario, in which
they envisioned a weakening of the efforts of the recent years, mainly in the socio-environmental
dimension and a chaotic urbanized Amazonia. For each scenario, stakeholders also defined a
comprehensive list of actions which would lead to such the opposite futures. From that list
(presented in Deliverable D1.3), we extracted five key points proposed to achieve Scenario A and
avoid Scenario C, summarized in Table 7. As the selected items cover short to long term actions,
the existing initiatives are mentioned as examples, which should be enhanced, integrated - or even
avoided in some cases according to the proposed actions.
Table 5: Policy recommendations derived from the qualitative scenarios results
EXAMPLES (positive and negative)
(a) MONITORING SYSTEMS: continuation and enhancement of
the satellite based monitoring systems initiated at PPCDAM,
considered as the key aspect to control deforestation. This
includes the development of new systems (based on new
sensors, for instance), and expansion to other biomes, to
avoid leakages.
Examples of current initiatives to be enhanced and
enhancement of multiple instruments for territorial and land
use planning, in order to concomitantly regulate pressure for
land, create sustainable economic alternatives and integrate
social programs at a territorial basis. This includes private
and public lands (such as conservation units, indigenous
lands, settlements), rural and urban areas.
Several of the on-going public and private initiatives
were mentioned as positive examples, although they
need to be consolidated and integrated, some
effectively implemented (for instance, the SNUC
(National System of Conservation Units, ZEE
(Ecological Economic Zoning), Land Titling Program,
ABC Program (Low Carbon Agriculture), Soy/Beef
Moratorium, Certification, Poverty eradication
programs, Food Purchase program3). Other aspects of
the current were mentioned as really negative, such as
the lack of economic opportunities in settlements and
many protected areas (for instance, extractive
(c) CITIES RESTRUCTURING: Strengthening of cities to create
an interconnected network of medium-sized cities, with
infrastructure, proper network of services and education to
meet the demands of sustainability.
One of the points most emphasized by the participants
during the stakeholder workshops was the process by
which the medium and large cities in the Amazon have
been through: attracting large populations coming from
migration and rural exodus to their peri-urban areas, in
spite of the poor services offered, increasing even
further the levels of violence and poverty existing in
these cities.
implementation of large projects (including infrastructure and
mining) combined to the integrated territorial planning (item
B), avoiding the boom-bust economies of the cities. In the
case of infrastructure, planning geared both to the needs of
the local population (river transport, for example), as well as
market demands (commodities production flow through
The city of Altamira, which suffers from the changes
caused by the implementation of AHE Belo Monte is an
emblematic example (also for item c).
enhancement of the legislation governing the access to
natural resources and land use, creating mechanisms to
balance the influence of macroeconomic interests in
modifying legal marks at the expense of regional, social and
environmental aspects.
The modification of the legal framework aiming solely
at specific sectors interests was another item of
concern during the workshops, exemplified by the
pressure on indigenous lands, including data showing
soy plantations on indigenous lands over lease, and
possible revision of their boundaries due to the mining
See AMAZALERT Deliverable 4.1 for a description of the current policies in place in the Amazon.
It is interesting to notice how these actions consider the environmental and economic dimensions in
an integrated way, while aiming at reducing inequality in access to services and opportunities, as a
result of the project choice of initial axis (Figure 4). Scenario B (Middle of the Road) was not
detailed in the workshops, but is considered a more likely scenario combining elements of social
development and environmental heterogeneously. If Scenario B will be more similar to A or C will
depend on the actions society takes in coming decades as much to solve structural social problems
of the region - as well as for dealing with the internal and external demand for agricultural and
mining commodities. The option for the extremes occurred precisely to provide discussion about
such actions toward (pathways) to future of Sustainability - with emphasis on the power of
intervention of local actors, without disregarding the global context.
Figure 4: Representation of AMAZALERT scenarios of land use in the context of the
Environmental and Social Development axes.
To build a trajectory in the direction of Scenario A, in which natural vegetation areas (primary and
secondary) are maintained or even expanded, forests need to be seen as valuable assets by the
different actors in the region through their provision of ecosystem services (e.g., biodiversity,
carbon, hydrological cycle, bio-products) by the development of a solid forest-based economy,
balancing the benefits from forests and agricultural lands to the society as a whole. However, as
made clear by stakeholders during the workshops, decreasing deforestation rates or growing
secondary forests does not automatically bring socioeconomic development. There is a concern in
the region about the deteriorating quality of life in the mid and large-sized cities, due to the lack of
economic options both in rural and urban areas. Finally, the stakeholders also stressed a discussion
about a Sustainability Scenario for the Brazilian Amazon cannot be restricted to the Brazilian
Amazon. Avoiding deforestation only in the Brazilian Amazon can induce leakages of natural
resources degradation in the neighbour countries and in regions of Brazil (especially the Cerrado),
as recent studies point out (Dalla-Nora et al. 2014).
Some considerations on the quantitative results and mitigation implications
Underneath the similar deforestation patterns in Scenario A and B, lays the difference in the area of
secondary forests allowed to regenerate in Scenario A, and consequently in the net CO2 emission
estimates. Aguiar et al. (submitted) estimated that the region could become a carbon sink after 2020
considering Scenario A premises results, with a negative net emission of -3±0.3 PgC from 2011 to
2050. Scenario A in fact represents a Forest Transition scenario for the Amazon (Figure 5). Thus
future mitigation options should include incentives to preservation of existing secondary forests and
incentive to the regeneration of LR (Legal Reserves) and PPA (Permanent Protection Areas), even
above the new Forest Code demands.
Figure 5: Forest transition scenario in the Brazilian Amazon
I.6. References
Aguiar APD, Assis T, Folhes RT, Dalla-Nora E, Araújo R, Alves DS (2014) Cenários e modelos de
desmatamento para a Amazônia In: Ambiente e Sociedade na Amazônia, editado por I Vieira,
P Toledo e R Araújo. Garamond, Rio de Janeiro, 249-275.
Arnell, N., Kram, T., Carter, T., Ebi, K., Edmonds, J., Hallegatte, S., Kriegler, E., Mathur, R.,
O'Neill, B.C., Riahi, K., Winkler, H., van Vuuren, D., Zwickel, T. 2011. A framework for a
new generation of socioeconomic scenarios for climate change impact, adaptation,
vulnerability and mitigation research. Available at
Folhes RT, Cenários de mudanças de uso da terra na Amazônia: explorando uma abordagem
participativa e multi-escala no PAE Lago Grande, em Santarém-Pará, Tese (Master),
UFPA/PPGCA, Belém, 2010.
Folhes RT, Aguiar APD, Araújo, R. Cenários Participativos de Mudanças de Uso da Terra na
Amazônia: o caso de Vila Brasil no Projeto de Assentamento Agroextrativista do Lago
Grande, PA. CAMPO-TERRITÓRIO: revista de geografia agrária, v. 7, n. 14, p. 1-34, ago.,
Folhes RT, Aguiar APDA, Araújo R, Stoll E, Coelho A, do-Canto O, Dalla-Nora E. Multi-scale
participatory scenario methods and territorial planning in the Brazilian Amazon (submitted)
I.7. Annexes
I.7.1 Annex A. Present
I.7.1.1. Natural Resources
Deforestation in decline by 2012. Converted 18% of the original forest.
High forest degradation (fires and illegal logging).
High environmental liabilities: Legal Reserves (RL) and Permanent Protection Areas (APP)
to be restored.
Mosaic of protected areas: 60% of the region, not fully implemented.
Deforestation problem in trans boundary basins.
Increase of extreme events (droughts and floods).
Expansion of the exploitation of mineral and water resources.
Expansion of infrastructure (hydroelectric plants, roads, bulk terminals, etc.). Disregarding
cumulative environmental and social impacts (PAC - Growth Acceleration Program, IIRSA
- Initiative for the Integration of South American Regional Infrastructure).
Tendency for appreciation / valuation of nature through payment for environmental services
I.7.1.2 Social Development
Overcrowded cities.
Intensification of peri-urban migration.
Rural and urban violence (civil war levels).
HDI (Human Development Index) increased compared to 2000, but still lower than the rest
of the country.
Intensification of conflicts in areas of human activities that are not prepared to deal with
Deviation of the function of settlements (logging and environmental protection instead of
social and agrarian question). Lack of infrastructure (remote sites). Deforestation on the rise
in settlements, but perhaps associated with external agents.
Vulnerability of traditional populations, non-consolidation of Conservation Units.
Invisibility of the forest people, with different problems of small farmers and settlers, for
example, including land tenure insecurity.
Allegations of slave labour.
Sanitation and poor access to basic services in the cities and the countryside.
Question of political culture (e.g. corruption).
In large works, compensation policies fail to mitigate the social stresses. Early processes of
distributing royalties and compensations of mineral exploration.
Impact Study and Environmental Licensing primarily considers the physical environment,
but leaves little room for social impacts.
I.7.1.3 Economic activities
MINING expanding - many investments of large companies. Currently there is a tendency
to favour the entry of large mining companies, which contributes to conflicts in former
mining areas. Therefore, it is important to distinguish large mining companies and illegal
mining (Northern Pará, for example, Crepurisão) which is linked to river pollution (e.g. 800
km in the Tapajos. Currently, besides mercury, there are two other major problems related
to mining: Use of cyanide indiscriminately and backhoes.
INFORMAL ECONOMY: Invisible, with jobs not counted.
TRANSPORTATION: PAC oriented to market demands not the needs of the population
ENERGY: major engineering works (hydroelectric plants, for example, Belo Monte)
causing uncontrolled increase of the population. The impacts are felt even before the project
is put in place, such HPPs of São Luiz do Tapajós and Jatoba in the Tapajós. Exploration of
oil and natural gas.
WOOD INDUSTRY: declining production. Activity frowned upon. Effort to stabilize the
activity by creating the Forest Service. Forest concessions do not happen at the expected
INDUSTRY: concentrated in Manaus. Incipient vertical integration. Low use of
LIVESTOCK: Main land use, as a percentage of converted areas. Chain structure.
Requires-qualifying livestock - Production in legal area and with technology (e.g. ABC
program below).
PROTECTED AREAS: Lack of economic alternatives. Seen as an impediment to
development in some sectors. Lack of assets / investments for implementation and
sustainable management. Society needs to view the value of environmental services. Fragile
in front of economic interests, as has happened in the Tapajós where 5 UCs had their
boundaries redefined in order to hydropower project can be implemented.
AGRICULTURE: enhancing the role of the product in the market (soybeans, for example),
not the producer. Technical assistance historically poor (currently ATER).
FAMILY AGRICULTURE: dominant agricultural technology: cutting and burning. Each
decaying over time in some regions (as in Itaituba, for example).
BIOFUELS: Oil palm expansion in Para. Grains advancing on degraded pastures.
TOURISM: important and potential activity, but with infrastructure problems and high
I.7.1.4 Institutional context
Advancement within the legal frameworks in the environmental area in the first decade of
the 20th century (creation of the National System of Conservation Units, PPCDAM, Forest
Service, TerraLegal, etc.).
At the national level, the Northern region has little political clout to discuss policies.
Exacerbation of conflicts between farmers and indigenes for land (Raposa Serra do Sol,
Mato Grosso, Apuí)
Plan ABC (Low Carbon Agriculture) and National Climate Change Plan (voluntary targets
for emission reduction).
Reducing deforestation in the Amazon was a response to global pressure on the carbon
problem, but until when? Food security problem can supplant issue of global warming and
biodiversity? And if deforestation continues low will the social issues be resolved?
Role of the market:
Market pressure consumers for products not related to practices harmful to the environment
and society (certifications, moratoria)
Model development at a crossroads: the market solutions in contrast to greater social
control and other actions.
Clash of different cultures and traditions: Should Indians, for example, be forced to take up
the consumer/market model?
PAC: Economic focus, growth, not social development. For example, no PAC for river
transport for the people.
92 dams and thousands of PCH without plans / legislation for post-deployment phase and
without locks, which makes water transport (logistics for economic activities and
Weakening of environmental legislation to facilitate large projects (pressure of the
productive sector).
Absence of the state in municipalities that receive large enterprises.
Many of the basic infrastructure works made by mining companies, for example.
I.7.2 Annex 2. Scenario A: Sustainability
I.7.2.1 Vision in 2050
Natural Resources
Remnant vegetation cover of 80%.
Illegal deforestation zero (<1000 km2 per year).
Secondary forest occupying restored areas (legal reserves and permanent).
Ecological corridors linking private and public forest reserves.
Adaptation and mitigation to climate change.
Indigenous lands regularized and protected, PNGATI (National Policy of Territorial and
Environmental Management of Brazilian Indigenous Lands) implemented
Not silted rivers, and preserved aquatic connectivity kept riparian zones.
Integrated management of territories / basins.
Extensive use of natural resources for different purposes in a sustainable manner and by
different actors (agroforestry and agroecological systems, agro ecology).
UC (Integrated Sustainable Use and Protection) and Settlement Projects of Sustainable Use
fully implemented with management plans that ensure livelihood of populations. Changes
in the category of some units may occur, keeping, however, the sustainable character of the
area (e.g., creation of projects Sustainable Settlements), and ensuring land security of the
people, for example, in areas affected by projects.
Expansion of protected network areas through the creation of voluntary private reserves.
Social development
Interconnected cities with necessary infrastructure.
Network of services and education appropriate to cover the demands of sustainability.
Inclusion in rural and urban areas, reduction of inequality.
Differentiation of man from the country / city, small or large farmer will make less sense.
Living in the countryside or in the city is a matter of choice.
Reversal of rural exodus, due to the distribution of network of services and opportunities
(including leisure).
Technician jobs in the areas of livestock, biotechnology and services.
Settlements with structured management, relocated to peri-urban areas in order to supply
demand for food in the cities.
Communication, infrastructure and technologies aimed at the welfare of the population.
Diversified local economies (medium centres) with post-deployment opportunities for large
Medium-sized cities with integrated urban and rural planning (integrated management of
Economic activities
Efficient transportation system, but implemented in accordance with a plan to minimize
their social and environmental impacts (including long term).
Mining activity of great economic importance in the Amazon (enormous wealth of mineral
deposits), practiced a sustainable manner with large returns to society.
Industrial Park - deployed and decentralized, with particular emphasis in biotechnology,
among others.
Low Carbon Farming widely practiced.
Agro pastoral systems in previously degraded areas.
Sustainable forest management for timber and non-timber, with structured supply chains
(timber medium term).
Legal Biodiversity reserves being explored.
Technical assistance for easy access to small and large producers.
Planning for major projects (energy, mining) in order to avoid boom-bust economies of the
Diversified local economies (medium centres)
Tourism as well structured activity
Livestock: (a) high technology, developed in half of the area currently occupied with
transforming forms of absorption of labour (highly skilled); (b) 50% for export; c)
intensified with the adoption of technologies with economic and environmental
sustainability; (d) increased global production in absolute terms, but lower consumption per
capita; (e) Large cattle breeder of the future will be the farmer. Integration enables livestock
(ABC Plan); (f) investment in realignment for the farmers to migrate to more sustainable
Institutional context
Renewed social contract: access to the rights provided for in the legal framework, including
respect for individuals and communities, which allows the city and country there is quality
of life.
Consolidated monitoring systems started in PPCDAM.
Tenure and complete environmental control with fully operational systems.
RESEX and other protected areas consolidated from the rational use of natural resources /
in a sustainable manner (in all dimensions, in especially social).
Territorial planning instruments (ZEE, master plans, etc.). Implemented and operational,
following the guidelines mandatory revisions (Law).
Existence and effectiveness of new instruments for assessing social and environmental
impacts of works and projects beyond the EIA-RIMA.
Centres of education and research to local people, focused on the use of natural resources,
development of new technologies and new ventures.
I.7.2.2 Pathway
Natural resources
Short-term actions:
Increased surveillance - C (IBAMA; ICMBIO; SEMAS; SEMMAS; DPF; FNS;
environmental police, FUNAI).
Facilitation of access to credit, especially for family farms - C (MF; FINANCIAL
Short / medium term actions:
Strengthening of land management / environmental - use of instruments such ZEE, master
plans, CAR, UCs management plans, TIs management plans, plans for basins PRADA
(recovery plan degraded or altered areas) - C / M (executive powers of each instance;
Compliance with the Brazilian Forest Code - C / M (IBAMA; SEMAS; SEMMAS; DPF;
FNS; environmental police, FUNAI)
Implementation of training and environmental education programs - C / M (NGOs; SEMA;
Incentive for forest restoration at a landscape level (ecological corridors) - C / M (FBS;
Short / medium and long term actions:
Strengthening institutional governance (all levels) - C / M / L (Strengthening the
democratic rule of law).
Valuation of primary and secondary forests through implementation of PSA programs and
integration with SAF, respectively - C / M / L (SAGRI; EMBRAPA; SEMA, MAP; SFB;
Social development
Short term actions:
Integration between different policy sectors (green purse, My House My Life etc. and
incentives for the production) in territorial bases, following the criteria of the zoning.
Adequacy of social and territorial policies management to local realities (agendas, customs
and practices of populations).
Use of local knowledge and traditional knowledge in formulating training and technical
assistance programs.
Qualification, training and technical assistance activities aimed not only for agricultural but
also for new urban markets and segments (courses etc.).
Reform of police and public security institutions, with increased rates of condemnation for
violations of the law and ending impunity.
Organization and revitalization of urban space for better social integration and alternatives
for youth (plazas, sports facilities, schools, etc.).
Reform of the Judiciary.
Improvement of border surveillance.
Guarantee of land rights for traditional communities.
Enhancement of corporate social responsibility in large projects.
Enhancing the use of royalties by public authorities, with citizen participation
.Medium term actions :( 2015-2025)
Use of local knowledge and traditional knowledge in formulating training and technical
assistance programs.
Qualification, training and technical assistance activities aimed not only for agricultural but
also for new urban markets and segments (courses etc.).
Design and implementation of new educational policy
Short / medium term actions:
Organization of the productive chains, focusing on local agricultural production for
supplying large enterprises in the Amazon.
Short / medium and long term actions:
Investing in technological procedures whit use of biodiversity
Medium and long term actions:
Institutional reform and consolidation of the rule of law
Disappearance of inequalities in access to citizenship
Economic activities
Short term actions:
Preparation of Master Plan (Federal, State and Municipal)
Finalizing National Logistics and Transport Plan (EPL)
Talk about efficient use of fuels (Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Environment).
Reviewing Clearing Plans, considered unsatisfactory (Ministry of Mines and Energy,
Ministry of Environment).
Study ways of adding value through technology adoption and market development
(Ministry of Mines and Energy, Ministry of Science and Technology; Ministry of Foreign
Training miners and restraining illegal and predatory exploitation in the mines.
Biotechnology industrial park
Preparation of plan that will change the current situation, based on isolated initiatives.
Low Carbon Agriculture
Implementation of ABC plan.
Technical assistance
Increasing the number of technicians.
Enlargement of networks and telecenters in order to facilitate distance education.
Agroecology system
Discussion and deployment planning
Early work focused on small livestock and modifying negative image of livestock (Ministry
of Agriculture and pastoralists civil society organizations).
Elaboration and discussion of National Tourism Plan, aiming structuring of models:
sustainable tourism whit community-based Amazon.
Medium term actions:
Master Plan implemented with EIA / RIMA (Federal, State and Municipal)
Waterway transportation (EPL)
Efficient use of planned fuel (Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Environment), with
integrated action between ministries for implementation.
Compensation Plans including legislation, technology, education and adequate monitoring
(Ministry of Mines and Energy, Ministry of Environment).
Vertical integration of production, including construction of the production chain in the
Amazon (Ministry of Mines and Energy, Ministry of Science and Technology; Ministry of
Foreign Affairs).
Biotechnology industrial park
Skilled local community
Research and extended application
University and community integrated into market
Low Carbon Agriculture
Entrepreneurial culture realigned according to ABC Plan
Technical assistance
Technical Assistance - greater geographic footprint and close proximity of activities
Capacity building and expanded global access to internet
Agroecology system
Occupying 10% of deforested areas through investments ABC Plan (Ministry of
Production only in legal area and with technology
Recognition of the role of farmer and cultural change to/cattle breeder
Diversification of production for the advancement of aquaculture and small animals.
Encourage small / medium / large integration (State as mediator)
Adoption of tripartite councils to discuss issues related to the different supply chains.
Greater integration / coordination with neighbouring countries.
Extreme events
Development of forecasting and risk management system
Forest Management (multiple use)
Mapping and certification of projects and forest products (Brazilian Forest Service,
Structuring of the production chain
Exploration of the legal reserve areas (private property)
Stimulating research and innovation which explore use of biodiversity
Planning of major projects
Compatibility between projects and goals of Conservation Units and Indigenous Lands, so
that they begin to consider the specifics of the areas where there are Tis and UCs.
Continuity of the National Tourism Plan actions: training; adoption of policies without
competition between states (packages cooperation); strengthening of sustainable and
community-based tourism; transforming potential for products (infrastructure, cost, etc.);
fishing tourism: legislation strengthening.
Institution (General)
Enlargement of the management capacity of municipalities (training).
Environmental licensing revision.
Integration of actions with neighbouring countries in different sectors
Ensuring that basic environmental plans of ventures in the region are fulfilled, and
systematically monitored.
Long term actions:
National Plan for Logistics and Transportation implemented with sustainability criteria
Pan -Amazonian integration completed.
Production sustainable and verticalised.
Biotechnology industrial park
Low carbon Agriculture
Technical assistance
Extensive use of IT in order to subsidize and modernize technical assistance
Agroecology system
Occupying 20% of deforested areas through ABC Plan investments (Ministry of
Consolidated as a major use of the land, but uncertainty regarding the percentage of
occupied deforested area. (check demand: CNA) -% of future occupation:
Uncertainty: livestock wide and intensive (sustainable livestock confined or extensive).
Cost containment is high in the Amazon. Containment out of AM.
Extreme events
Forecasting and risk management system implemented.
Forest Management (multiple use)
Planning of major projects
Consolidated and without conflicts
Amazon as a top tourist destination
Integration with other countries in the Amazon region circuit with other destinations in
Latin America, the Pantanal
Institutional context
Enlargement of the management capacity of municipalities (capacity building).
Implement measures necessary to enable effective access to rights provided in the legal
framework (renewal of the Social Contract).
Consolidation of monitoring systems started in PPCDAM
Complete land and environmental regulation
Integration of actions with neighbouring countries in different sectors in different
dimensions (environmental, economic, social).
Maintain operations and improve control systems.
Consolidate RESEX and further protected areas starting with rational use of natural
resources/sustainable use (in all dimensions, particularly social).
Operationalize spatial planning instruments (ZEE, master plans, etc.) following the
guidelines mandatory revisions (Law).
Operationalize and implement new tools for assessing social and environmental impacts of
works and projects beyond the EIA-RIMA.
Create and strengthen research and education centres for local people, focused on the use of
natural resources, development of new technologies and new ventures.
I.7.3 Annex 3. Scenario C: Chaos and fragmentation
I.7.3.1 Vision in 2050
Natural resources
Total deforested area would reach 30-40%.
Degraded forest fragment without biological corridors, ecological functions compromised.
Extensive use of natural resources in indigenous lands and conservation units.
Unsustainable use of forest, water, mineral and soil resources.
Evidence of climate change increasing.
Inadequate forestry (with concession or not).
Compromised availability and quality of surface and underground water.
Compromised air quality.
Dependence on fossil fuels; lack of implementation of alternative energy sources
Disorderly expansion of hydropower plants and absence of effective environmental
Agricultural production based on unsustainable practices
Impoverishment of forests ("savannisation"), with increased susceptibility to fire.
Climate change, rising extreme events affecting food availability.
Loss of biodiversity.
Reducing of protected areas, too.
Social development
Total deforested area would reach 30-40%.
Social Degradation (drugs, violence, etc..).
Unemployment / informal employment.
Insecurity of basic services (health, education, infrastructure, security).
Increased property conflicts.
Increased rural exodus.
Breakdown of lifestyle (reproduction) of the communities.
Fragility of communities with respect to developments and consequent economic
Conflicts between borders.
Lack of social programs
Increase of slumming of cities and inequalities
Economic activities
Economy oriented to the international market (monocultures, commodities).
Low land value (off the market and no land control).
Wood demand supplied mostly by reforestation.
Unsustainable forest management, but limited; timber sector has little expression,
occupying some niche of wood from native trees market.
Contamination of genetic materials.
Global Inflation
Increased informal mining activities (illegal mines, extraction of sand, irregular pebble,
Predatory mineral activity
Institutional context
Regulatory frameworks favouring economic interests at the expense of social and
Destructuring of organizations / institutions.
Strong presence of narco-trafficking due to this disruption.
High levels of corruption.
Fragmentation of states and consequent pressure on forest areas.
Absence of mitigation measures and adaptation to climate change.
Internationalization of the Amazon.
Fragility of security / sovereignty of borders.
Conflicts at borders.
I.7.3.2 Pathway
Natural resources
Short term actions:
Deficient and inadequate supervision - C (IBAMA; ICMBIO; SEMAD; SEMMAS; DRF;
FNS; environmental police, FUNAI).
Credit lines unconnected to environmental policies (environmental ballast) and absence /
lack of credit to agriculture family - C (MF; FINANCIAL AGENTS; NGOs)
Short / medium term actions:
Focus on development policies without environmental protection - C / M (MAP; MDA;
ANATER; SAGRI; specific State agencies).
Lack of stimulation for traditional modes of use and management of biodiversity - C / M
Inadequacy and / or lack of territorial / environmental management (such as ZEE, master
plans, CAR, UCs management plans, Tis management plans, river basin plans) - C / M
(Executive powers of each instance; NGOs).n
Absence and / or lack of training and environmental education programs - C / M (NGOs;
Change of land use which triggers the increase of forest fragmentation - C / M (FBS;
Medium term actions:
Noncompliance forest code M (MMA; IBAMA; MP; SEMA; INCRA)
Exploitation of water resources beyond the capacity, change of the dynamics of a river
basins and water pollution - M (ANA; STATE AGENCIES FOR WATER RESOURCES;
Absence of plans and actions focused on mitigation and adaptation to climate change - M /
Short / medium and long term actions:
Discontinuity of monitoring systems - C / M / L (INPE; IBAMA; SEMA; NGOs; SIPAM).
Continuing unsustainable practices in agriculture production systems - C / M / L
Institutional weakness (in every sphere) - C / M / L (Strengthening the democratic rule of
Elimination of secondary forests for charcoal production and implementation of agricultural
systems - C / M / L (SAGRI; EMBRAPA; SEMA, MAPA; SFB; NGOs; MMA).
Absence of policies encouraging sustainable activities.
Excessive appreciation of timber forest resources.
Social development
Short term actions: (Agents: State, Private Sector, NGOs)
Credits and abundant tax incentives for agro-export model based on the extensive use of
natural resources in the Amazon.
Prioritization of energy production for the industrial and mining activity in the region as
unique vocation
Decommissioning of monitoring systems of using natural resources.
Liberalization of territorial employment without concern for the regularization and the ZEE
Dismantling of INCRA, IBAMA, FUNAI and ICMBio.
Dismantling / extinction of the SNUC.
Indian acculturation as social inclusion policy.
Use of cities (and standardized housing programs) for creating pools of underemployed
Maintenance of standardization in public policies, without considering culture and local
characteristics for housing construction.
Lack of measures to address the issue of access to water in human settlements.
Medium and long term actions :( Agents: State, Private Sector, NGOs)
Deepening of Developmental Model for the region.
Maintenance of unequal access to citizenship and income.
Economic activities
Only Command and Control PPCDAM axis kept
Transport infrastructure - No planning and without prepared Master Plan.
Lack of discussion about an effective transportation solution for urban areas
Inefficient circulation of people, goods and services
No land tenure regularization - unmanaged and with no governance.
No precautionary measures in relation to climate change and natural disasters.
Radicalization, sectarianism, conflict.
Intensification of differences between capitalistic /development model and social demands.
Institutional context
Short / medium term actions:
Easing of legal frameworks (social and environmental)
II.1. Introduction
Stakeholder participation is a crucial aspect of AMAZALERT, particularly related to the issue of
(scenarios for) deforestation and land use change. Crucial is the combination of exploring plausible
future outlooks and discussing potential policies and strategies to reduce deforestation.
Socioeconomic scenarios were developed in order to explore a range of socioeconomic, political,
and institutional drivers of deforestation and a set of plausible future outlooks of land use change in
the Brazilian Amazon. These can then be used to discuss robust policies to slow deforestation. With
this in mind, a series of three workshops was designed and executed.
The purpose of this part of the Deliverable is to provide an overview of the main methods and
results related to the third and last in a series of stakeholder workshops conducted within the
AMAZALERT project. Two earlier workshops were conducted in Brazil that yielded a number of
products related to future outlooks for the Brazilian Amazon in 2050, including qualitative stories,
quantitative (land use) model results, and lists of policies and other actions that would need to be
undertaken to decrease deforestation (see Part I). From the results, it was concluded that Brazil is
firmly embedded in an international and global setting, where manifold outside forces could
influence Amazonian policy making and deforestation. It was therefore decided to organise a third
workshop in Europe, in order to discuss the broader setting of Brazilian deforestation, and
particularly the potential role of the European Union to influence it. This part is a short version of a
longer and more complete report of the workshop’s methods and results, which is available upon
II.1.2 Objectives of third workshop
A one-day workshop was organised in Brussels on 11 December 2013. The workshop’s main
objectives were:
Dissemination. Presenting and discussing an overview of the main results of the project
and of the first two workshops was seen as essential, mostly because AMAZALERT was in
its final stage and results were available.
List and discuss European (“no-regret”) policies. Assess the current situation of policies
and other initiatives in Europe to stop deforestation in the Amazon. Discuss possible
policies and other actions that could be successful under various scenarios, i.e. no-regret
The second objective was reached with three sub-objectives:
1. Discuss current policies and their impacts. Stakeholders were asked to draw the current
policies and other initiatives from within Europe that targeted deforestation in the Amazon,
and their impact. This activity served to establish the perception of the participants on the
current situation.
2. Discuss plausible future policies. Stakeholders were asked to discuss possibilities to
reduce deforestation in the Amazon by identifying policies from within Europe and their
impact, building on the first activity. These policies were scenario-specific as two groups
were given a contextual future outlook that predefined a number of global and European
developments beyond the control of the participants.
3. Identify potential no-regret policies. Policies resulting from two scenario-specific
contexts were compared and a list that would work in both scenarios, i.e. no-regret policies,
was drafted.
The report is not part of any Deliverable of the AMAZALERT project and will therefore not be available
from the project’s website. A copy can be obtained by contacting Kasper Kok (
II.1.3 Structure of report
The report is divided into two main parts. The first part includes Section 2 and 3 and describes the
methods that were used (Section 2) and provides an overview of the main results that were obtained
during the workshop (Section 3). The second part includes Section 4 and 5 and describes the post-
workshop analysis by AMAZALERT scientists of the results in terms of policy robustness (Section
4) followed by an overall discussion and conclusion (Section 5).
II.2. Workshop methodology
II.2.1 Agenda
The final programme of the workshop was drafted after consultations with a number of project
partners (see Table 1). The morning was reserved for dissemination of project results and an initial
discussion on current policies, while it was planned to spend the afternoon discussing future
outlooks and policies for two distinctly different scenarios. Figure 1-4 provide an impression of the
participants and the work executed.
Table 1. Agenda of workshop
Registration and welcome
Participant introduction
First objective: Dissemination (AMAZALERT-wide).
Presentations on background and results of AMAZALERT, land use
modelling in Brazil, and policies in the Amazon.
Second objective: Current policies.
Break-out groups; session I. Central question: What is the current role of
European policies and other actions related to deforestation in the
Brazilian Amazon?
Introduction to European and Brazilian scenarios
Second objective: Future policies.
Break-out groups; session II. What future policies and other actions are
needed to contribute towards the goal of reducing deforestation?
Second objective: No-regret policies.
Plenary reporting back and discussion on robust policy options1
Conclusions and next steps
1: The planned discussion on robust policy options did not take place during the actual workshop (see section
II.2.2 Stakeholder selection
A mixture of stakeholders was selected that had both relevant expertise on the impact of Europe on
Amazon deforestation and the ability to influence policy and practice. In principle, we drew from
four main stakeholder categories: Policy makers, scientists, environmental NGOs, and businesses.
Additionally, we invited a small number of participants from the first workshops in Brazil to take
Figure 1. Workshop participants listening to presentations
II.2.3 Dissemination - Presentations
Dissemination revolved around those aspects of AMAZALERT that directly related to deforestation
in the Amazon. Short presentations covered the background of AMAZALERT and results until
December 2013 including socioeconomic scenarios, land use modelling in Brazil, and policies in
the Amazon and Europe. Presentations were followed by discussions. Topics included:
Welcome and introduction of DG R&I (Marco Gemmer, Project Officer European
Overview of main intermediate results of AMAZALERT (Bart Kruijt, Project coordinator)
New insights on Brazilian deforestation: the Brazilian Perspective (Arnaldo Carneiro,
stakeholder WS1 and WS2)
Introduction to scenario method and scenarios as developed in WS1 and WS2 (Kasper Kok,
scenario-expert AMAZALERT)
Overview of Brazilian policies related to deforestation. (Mateus Batistella, Director,
EMBRAPA Satellite Monitoring, Brazil)
Overview European policies potentially having an impact on Amazon deforestation (Dorian
Frieden, policy expert AMAZALERT)
Presentations will be made available online
. The content will not be elaborated upon in this report.
Figure 2. Discussions in break-out group 2 on current policies
II.2.4 Current policies Mindmapping
A mind map is a diagram used to visually organise information. A mind map is often created around
a single concept like deforestation , drawn as an image or in key words in the centre of a blank
landscape page, to which associated representations of ideas such as images, words or parts of
words are added. Mindmapping was selected as the method to employ as it provides the opportunity
for in-depth knowledge sharing between participants and researchers alike, while yielding
structured outcomes with documented relationships between main factors and policies.
The activity took place with participants gathered around a table on which the mindmap was
constructed. Participants were facilitated to brainstorm features of European policy and behaviour
that impact upon deforestation of the Amazon, to explore the mechanisms through which these
impacts occur, and to represent these relationships by arrows between items on the mindmap. The
activity involved a facilitated discussion between participants about the relationships between
European policy and Amazon deforestation and the role that Europe could play in reducing Amazon
Presentations will be available shortly after November 30, 2014 on the AMALAERT website (
Figure 3. Construction of mindmap in break-out group 2.
II.2.5 Future policies and strategies - Backcasting
II.2.5.1 Scenarios: general purpose and method
The highly complex global interrelationships between social, environmental, political and economic
issues mean that the future is often impossible to predict. We cannot afford to make strategies on
how to tackle issues such as deforestation without examining the underlying assumptions that were
made on what the future will be like. The success of any strategy or policy depends on the context
for which it has been developed; if that context changes, so does the usefulness of the plan.
The use of scenarios allows groups of planners and decision makers to explore diverse, plausible
(which means believable and consistent) futures and what challenges and opportunities they may
pose to plans and actions. A scenario set is often a set of diverse narratives (in words, numbers,
images) about the future. Each scenario represents a future that is very different from the others in
the set. Scenarios offer a tool for the integration of different types of information and have been
reported to increase systems thinking in those who develop or use the scenarios.
Robustness testing:
Important in the context of this workshop is the ability to use scenarios to test the robustness of
strategies. Using a diverse set of scenarios ensures that a number of distinctly different futures are
included. As a second step, scenario-specific strategies can be discussed, in this case to reach zero-
deforestation in the Amazon. These sets of scenario-specific plans can then be compared. Elements
that are common to all scenario-specific sets can be considered “robust” in the sense that they
would be successful in any future that might unfold. Seeing scenarios as a tool for testing plans is
key just like a car is not just tested on a smooth road but under extreme conditions, scenarios
provide extreme futures to see whether plans hold up under such conditions. Several sets of global
and European scenarios have been developed over the past two decades within important initiatives
such as the IPCC, the Global Environment Outlook, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and
the Global Scenarios Group.
Figure 4. Discussion future strategies in break-out group 2, with mindmap of current policies in the
II.2.5.2 Contextual scenarios
For the purpose of this workshop, we used the GEO-4 scenarios as context, mostly because they
have a global and a European version, which makes them particularly suitable for discussing
European effects on Amazon ecosystems. Figure 5 illustrates the four GEO-4 scenarios with four
Figure 5. The four GEO-4 Scenarios.
Of those four scenarios, two were selected to be used by the two break-out groups.
Security First: The world becomes increasingly unstable due to a number of crises, which causes
instability and an increase in terrorism across Europe. This leads to an increased exploitation and
strict management of domestic natural resources, paying less attention to environmental
consequences. The gap between the rich and poor countries widens, yet the EU survives.
Sustainability First: The main long-term changes towards 2050 include a transition towards
environmental sustainability, in which the landscape has become the basic unit. The overall focus is
on quality of life rather than economic indicators through local diversity which is governed by local
networks. This transition to local sustainability is the result of a long-term process that starts with a
set of strong top-down measures, and which is later accompanied by behavioural change and a new
governance structure.
2.5.3 Backcasting
This activity was conducted in the same two breakout groups as in the first phase. Using the mind
map from the previous activity as an object to stimulate discussion and focus thinking, participants
were asked to brainstorm on strategies and policies which Europe could implement in order to
minimise Amazon deforestation both by limiting its own negative impacts and exerting positive
pressures. A backcasting approach was followed that started with the identification of a desirable
end-point and intermediate milestones, and was followed by a backward reasoning from the end-
point to a set of concrete actions needed to reach objectives, accounting for obstacles and
opportunities as presented by the contextual scenario. Beforehand, possible desirable end-points
were discussed and the following end-point was agreed upon to use as a first proposal:
Zero/strongly reduced deforestation and degradation in 2050 in the Amazon
Both mindmapping and backcasting were conducted in two breakout groups of about 5-10
participants. The same two groups were maintained in the morning sessions and in the afternoon
scenario-specific sessions. The main logic to opt for more than one group was that by splitting we
would quickly generate more information than in a single plenary session.
II.2.5.4 Robust policies
The original agenda included a comparison between the main strategy lines and a discussion on the
robustness of the strategies that emerged from both groups. Unfortunately, as the day drew to an
end, a number of participants had to leave. In order to keep the workshop’s outcomes as much as
possible a product of all participants, we concluded the day with both groups presenting the results
of the backcasting session to each other. A summary of the main strategy lines and actions that
emerged from the two groups and an analysis of similarities and differences, and thus robustness of
strategy lines, was conducted a posteriori by AMAZALERT project members.
II.3. Workshop results
II.3.1 Current impacts and policies
II.3.1.1 Break-out group 1
Figure 6 shows the mindmap as it was produced during the first session that was to discuss current
policies and impacts on deforestation in the Amazon. It is beyond the scope of this report to provide
a detailed analysis of all the richness of the product. What follows is a short summary of the main
aspects that were discussed.
Figure 6. Current impacts and policies: Mindmap of break-out group 1.
Main aspects (marked in red in Figure 6):
EU consumers food demand. Participants agreed that there is a relatively large role for
European consumers as they link to food and wood demand through their influence on
global markets.
Forest trade and investment. Participants identified trade in forest products as another
main component in the discussion around deforestation.
Energy. Participants agreed that the energy sector (biofuels) was an important factor,
mostly through the current Renewable Energy directive.
Other important aspects:
EU policies. An item discussed at great length throughout the session was the identification
of current EU policies and their impact. A long discussion took place that covered many
existing policies. Participants, in general, agreed that the current direct impact of EU-level
policies is limited. The Common Agricultural Policy, for example, was singled out as a key
policy instrument, currently of little influence on deforestation.
Economic growth. Participants discussed at some length the role of economic development
and how a “different model of development” might be needed to decrease the current
impact of economic growth.
Important insights from the group included:
Social aspects are becoming increasingly important as driving forces. This is
represented by the consumption issue in the EU and by socio-economic targets that have been set
for fulfilling certain regional needs in the Amazon.
The EU cannot do it alone. The EU is by far not the only international player with
influence on the Amazon. The EU should deal with the role of its policies at the global level.
In short, the influence of EU policies on the Amazon mainly acts via the sectors EU consumption,
trade and investment, technical cooperation and EU directives. Among these sectors, impacts
emerge from timber trade, food supply and the EU Renewable Energy directive that have been
identified as main drivers of deforestation. Especially “food” (including EU consumption of
agricultural products on the one hand, and European subsidies in the agricultural sector on the
other) was highlighted as one of the main driving forces; as for the consumption patterns (market
behaviour), the role of certification and awareness raising have been highlighted. Additionally, but
clearly secondary, “wood” was earmarked as important, again mostly through market mechanisms.
II.3.1.2 Break-out group 2
The group agreed that Europe affects the Amazon directly in terms of consumption behaviour, trade
agreements and standards, and indirectly through setting an example and applying pressure. The
group found it was easier to talk about what Europe was not doing in terms of managing its impacts
than what is was doing. Accordingly the group listed the things that Europe was not doing or could
do more of and therefore effectively jumped immediately to the response exercise. The results of
their activity are summarized below and demonstrated in Figure 7 and 8.
Figure 7. Current impacts and policies: Excerpt of mind map created by break-out group 2.
Figure 8. Current impacts and policies: Excerpt of mind map created by break-out group 2. Detail.
A major discussion line was that the EU’s direct impact on deforestation is relatively small as
compared to major importers such as China. The EU demand for forest products has low impact on
forests in Brazil as the big majority of products are consumed in Brazil or exported to Asia. An
expansion of forest plantations for export could however potentially emerge. Due to the currently
perceived limited direct impact of the EU, Europe should act at the international scale (e.g. WTO,
Specific (EU) standards on trade and imports could address bioenergy and soy. Support criteria for
REDD projects in compliance with local/reciprocal arrangements and the risk of “backfiring” when
REDD programs are badly designed were discussed (Risk of “good intentions”). Norway, Germany,
UK and the Netherlands were specifically mentioned in the context of REDD.
European trade should go beyond satisfying its own demand and should be more broadly engaged.
Specific rules for ethical company behaviour were discussed and covered policies governing TNCs
(trans-national companies) and their investments, the establishment of a baseline for importing
based on forest law compliance.
Regional cooperation, between Amazon countries and between Latin America and Europe, and
dialogue should be fostered including hosting and enhancing dialogues on experiences of regional
sustainable development, trans-border cooperation on institution building, and support of
international and national efforts such as REDD and FLEGT both financially and in terms of
expertise. In terms of technical cooperation, addressing agricultural planning and development,
environmental planning, sustainable infrastructure, land use/landscape planning and forest
conservation were mentioned. A lack of focus on social benefits/innovations of domestic production
systems was mentioned. Fostering social inclusion and pro poor action could include the
development of a small scale forest sector (native species) near to demand in Brazil, and a support
of community banks, economies and products. The current policy was perceived as distorting
farming in terms of large scale producers.
A last main discussion line referred to the EU internal sustainability and its magnitude of demand
for imports which impacts global markets. Here the EU could set an example by attempting to
reduce demand for products that are less sustainable. A lack of policies addressing the overall
consumption in Europe (except for energy) as well as a lack of policy cohesiveness was pointed out.
Besides reducing the overall consumption/increasing efficiency, the balance of domestic production
and imports could be addressed (CAP). The role of the civil society for improving internal
sustainability was mentioned.
II.3.1.3 Communalities between break-out groups
Looking at the results from both break-out groups, there is an apparent and rather large overlap in
the issues that were addressed. Generally, speaking, two main elements stand out:
Firstly, the current impact of EU policies as well as EU consumption is (very) limited.
Secondly, issues to be discussed, therefore, needed to revolve around the lack of policies rather than
current presence. Among those, both groups identified the following aspects as having potential to
increase the impact of the EU on the deforestation issue:
1. Enhanced (regional) cooperation. This broad category refers to cooperation between
Amazon countries, between Brazil and the EU, and within Brazil between the different
states. It includes cross-border cooperation, EU-national-local collaborations, and cross-
sectoral collaboration. Cornerstones for a successful collaboration are increased
transparency (of internal Brazilian and EU policies) and enhanced knowledge transfer
(between Brazil and the EU).
2. Improve/strengthen (trade) policies and standards. This includes altering EU-level
policies such as the CAP and the Renewable Energy Directive.
3. Increase influence of EU in international policies. This includes REDD+ but also social
policies and trade standards and rules.
4. Pay more attention to social cohesion and awareness. This includes all activities that
relate to better informing EU consumers, increasing quality of life, and working towards a
new development model that puts less emphasis on economic growth and more on aspects
of social capital.
II.3.2 Future policies and strategies
II.3.2.1 Break-out group 1 Policies in Sustainability First
Figure 9. Future policy options. Results of backcasting exercise of break-out group 1.
The context-scenario for this group was Sustainability First which assumes a transition towards
environmental sustainability. This was interpreted as a scenario that offers many possibilities to
develop and implement new policies and strategies. In fact, the discussions assumed that to a large
extent the scenario did not influence the main conclusions. The discussions therefore largely built
on the outcomes of the previous session. The session started with discussing the implications of a
desirable end-point of zero deforestation in 2050. It was decided that in order to reach this, an
essential milestone would have to “Cross-sectoral international policies achieved”. Figure 9 shows
the results of the backcasting exercise that followed. Again, it is beyond the scope of this report to
present the results in all detail. Below a short summary is given, focusing on the important
milestones that need to be reached, some examples of individual actions, and the main strategy lines
that were discussed during the session.
Important Milestones:
Institutional transparency increased. This includes better information and better
information provision, protocols to increase traceability, and new international agreements.
Concrete elements are the definition and application of precise criteria for decisions and
sanction setting in cases of non-adherence to demonstrate the credibility of control systems.
New cross-sectoral international policies developed. Directives, actions, and agreements
become policies that can and will be enforced. This includes that criteria are applied, and
sanctions are agreed and enforced.
Sustainability criteria for investments defined and applied. Crucial is an early
agreement on what criteria need to be enforced, followed by the actual application around
Important actions:
There was consensus that deforestation can only be stopped through better policies if many different
key actions are taken, some examples of which are given below.
Tackling global challenges related to Amazon deforestation, including combatting
climate change; addressing the global phosphate crisis; implementing global treaties on
equitable food distribution; and securing payment for environmental services.
Strengthening strategic aspects of EU-Amazon cooperation, including developing an
EU deforestation strategy; extending FLEGT to agro and renewable energy; implementing
CBD POWPA; and Europe providing adequate and predictable and long term funding.
Strengthening strategic issues inside the Amazon, including supporting the land
ownership agreement process; improving the river transportation network; and enhancing
local solutions.
Intensify knowledge exchange and knowledge transfer, including cross-border
cooperation; cultural and academic exchange; and identifying deforestation frontiers
Increase consumer awareness, including forest impacts; targeted campaigns; and
promoting voluntary certification.
Explore new markets and engage industries, including pharmaceutical industries;
markets for non-timber forest products; and tourism.
Main strategy lines:
Summarising the milestones and key actions, three main strategy lines for the EU were discerned:
1. Stimulate scientific research related to environmental sustainability. There was agreement
that the EU could invest more in scientific research, which through collaborations and
knowledge transfer would help stopping deforestation.
2. Establish international agreements and ultimately policies. In line with the overall
objective, crucial in the strategy were collaborations, cross-border, cross-scale, and cross-
sectoral. These would start relatively informal but with clear criteria, but would quickly
(towards 2030) be transformed to strict policies with sanctions and consequences.
3. Market investments and public awareness. Much of the discussions in this session and in
the previous one revolved around markets, investments, and incentives for companies on
the one hand, and public awareness and transparency on the other hand.
Other observations:
It was noted that even if all actions would successfully be implemented and international
policies enforced, the impact on deforestation in the Amazon would be limited. A
percentage of 25% was mentioned as the influence of Europe.
A rather large number of the suggested actions were, in fact, largely the responsibility of
Brazil and other Latin American countries (e.g. “local solutions”). As such, they need to be
treated with care as they could not be directly tied to stakeholders present in the discussion.
II.3.2.2 Break-out group 2 Policies in Security First
Figure 10. Future policy options. Results of backcasting exercise of break-out group 1. Overview.
Overview of actions and strategies (see Figure 10 and 11):
The context-scenario for this group was Security First, an increasingly unstable world with
increased levels of terrorism, which triggers the need for security and resulting focus on market
protectionism and an increased gap between poor and rich. This was interpreted as a scenario that
presents many obstacles in order to achieve zero deforestation. The end-point was not defined as
strictly as in break-out group 1, but kept more general as “zero deforestation in 2050”. Figure 5
shows the results of the backcasting exercise that followed. Below is a summary of the overall
‘storyline’ that was developed that explains how the overall goal could be achieved despite the
contextual scenario:
European NGOs offer posts to Chinese nationals developing relationships, cultural exchange and
training. A SINO-EU ethical business partnership is set up (“The Club of Good Business”), which
invests in protective projects to conserve forests, but also social, human, and financial capital in
the broadest sense collaboratively in return for improved terms of trade. There is cultural
exchange with China through web, TV etc. promoting conservation and social inclusion. Many
active civil society movements begin in response to the unequal, unsustainable status quo. These
movements gain a great deal of strength. Social media is used to raise awareness globally about
grounded realities for the forest and rural poor. Domestic and international interest in sustainability
is further built in this way. Brazilian civil society movements channel EU civil society support to
build the effectiveness of local movements. Through public pressure stronger policies of command
and control for environmental and socio-economic quantities are put in place. There are stronger
policies to stop deforestation as well as pro poor agricultural and environmental policies. Bilateral
agreements are negotiated to enforce these conditions as the WTO no longer exists in this scenario.
Civil society applies pressure for these agreements to also include economic incentives for
engagement in social or environmental improvement. Environmental obligations are included in
trade conditions.
Figure 11. Future policy options. Results of backcasting exercise of break-out group 1. Detail.
Most important newly developed strategies in the afternoon session:
Strengthen civil society. Because of the fragmented nature of governance institutions, civil
society played a huge role in establishing the sustainable pathway, through social media and
other awareness raising campaigns
Incorporation of the cost of harm. A novel item in the afternoon session was the notion
that the costs of harm needed to be included in goods and services.
Strategies that were a continuation from the morning exercise:
Education of the next generation. Education is what in many ways is indispensable to
start any other action, and was seen as absolutely crucial.
New and strong trade agreements. Agreements were particularly seen as important with
the other BRIC countries, notably China.
Europe ‘cleans up its own act’. Despite the strong arguments for collaborations, it was
also stressed that this cannot successfully take place without the EU better organising
financial, political, and environmental issues at the same time.
II.3.2.3 An artist’s impression
Ms Bridget Currie, a professional artist, attended the afternoon sessions of the workshop and was
asked to make impressions of the workshop, in order to produce outcomes in addition to the formal
products. As visualisations can be potentially powerful, we asked for images. Figure 12 and 13 give
examples of images that were produced to illustrate the inequalities in the Security First scenario.
Figure 12. Example of an image drawn by artist during afternoon session of workshop illustrating
the inequalities in the Security First scenario.
Figure 13. Example of an image drawn by artist during afternoon session of workshop illustrating
the sustainable solutions discussed within the context of the Sustainability First scenario.
II.4. Policy robustness and comparison
As indicated in Section 2, the final part of the methodology was not executed during the workshop.
Results on the analysis of policy robustness and comparison across scenarios were generated a
posteriori, based on an analysis by AMAZALERT project members. Because it yielded important
additional insights and because it was based on the results as generated during the workshops, we
opted to include the main findings in this report.
II.4.1 Robust policies
The results are presented in Table 2. Included are seven strategy lines that followed directly from
the results presented in Section 3. The following conclusions can be drawn:
Three strategy lines, international policy agreements; strengthen civil society; and create
sustainability criteria for investments, could be considered fully robust as they were
discussed in the context of both scenarios. A fourth strategy line, international trade
agreements could also be considered potentially robust.
For most of the strategy lines, further analysis is needed to establish the degree of
robustness in terms of underlying objectives, timing, actors involved, and overall approach.
The international trade agreements strategy line shows that there might be differences.
In general, none of the strategy lines except ‘more scientific research’ were evaluated as not
Table 2. Comparison of main strategy lines and evaluation of robustness in the two scenarios.
Underlining indicates scenario within which strategy was proposed.
Strategy line
Sustainability First
Security First
Potentially robust?
More scientific
International policy
Sustainability criteria
for investments
Strengthen civil
International trade
Incorporation of cost
of harm
Not discussed
To be determined
Increase strength of
EU-level agreements
Not discussed
To be determined
In short, there is a rather large degree of similarity between the strategies that resulted from the
context of two radically different future scenarios. Although more and more detailed analysis is
needed to substantiate whether the potential similarities hold when further elaborated, it seems that
there are at least elements of a number of strategies that could be successful in both Sustainability
First and in Security First, and particularly related to:
o Working towards new international policy and trade agreements
o Supporting sustainability criteria for (market) investments
o Investing in public awareness raising campaigns
II.4.2 Current and future policy needs
A final comparison that was made after the workshop was between the items identified as currently
important in the morning session and future strategies in the context of a scenario in the afternoon
session. Table 4 compares the results presented in Section 3.1 (current impacts) and Section 3.2
(future actions). It can be concluded that a number of main elements were discussed both to
describe the current situation and in the context of a future scenario to actively aim at reducing
deforestation, including the need to strengthen civic society, the potential role of international trade
and trade agreements, and regional collaboration. Given the fact that the same groups discussed
present and future, this is perhaps not unexpected. More interesting, however, is that a number of
issues emerged from the discussions that were framed by contextual scenarios and desired
endpoints within those, including the need for scientific research and the strategy to incorporate
Table 4. Comparison between issues discussed as currently important in discussing deforestation in
the Amazon and future strategies to reduce deforestation.
Current issues
Future strategy
Social cohesion
Strengthen civic society
Continuously discussed
Continuously discussed
Standards and
norms for
Trade agreements
Continuously discussed
Continuously discussed
Less important in scenario
Scientific research
Emerged from scenario discussions
Strengthen EU
Emerged from scenario discussions
Incorporate costs
Emerged from scenario discussions
Besides those mentioned in the table, the example of bilateral collaboration with China as proposed
in the context of Security First serves to illustrate how new discussions were triggered. It can be
concluded that it is potentially beneficial to use multiple methods in a single workshop, as they
provide different pieces of the puzzle, in this case ‘current problems’ and ‘future solutions’, that
together help identifying key elements of how Europe can contribute to slowing deforestation in
Similar to the analysis on robust strategies, however, this is but an initial analysis that only
provides hints of what general issues seem most important to further investigate. Other methods
would be needed to corroborate these findings, particularly (quantitative) models that can, for
example, provide more information on the role of trade.
II.4. Discussion
II.4.1 Process
We aimed at fulfilling a rather large number of objectives in one single-day workshop. We knew up
front that this was a challenging undertaking. One day did indeed turn out to be very short for what
we planned to do. Because of the animated discussions during the presentations in the morning,
time pressure on the actual workshop sessions was very high. The final session in which strategies
are compared and the robustness of policies is analysed was ultimately not conducted during the
workshop, but by AMAZALERT project members afterwards. For any future cases, we recommend
to conduct a two-day workshop to increase time availability.
On the other hand, throughout the day, participation was very active and in both break-out groups
there were animated discussions. Lunch was similarly used to continue discussions. Additionally,
most participants arrived in time and stayed for the duration of the day. Moreover, there was an
active interest in results of AMAZALERT project. Presentations were followed by lively
discussions and detailed questions.
II.4.2 Results
A large amount of material was generated. The choice for two break-out groups during all sessions
and the choice for mindmapping and backcasting as two central methods yielded a wealth of
information. The two scenarios that were selected to shape discussions on future policies gave rise
to sets of policies and strategies that were highly complementary. Overall, the different methods
yielded results that together provided a complete picture of the current situation, possible future
changes, and (robust) strategies to decrease deforestation.
On the downside, almost all actions that were identified remained rather vague. This was partly
related to a lack of time and partly to the fact that being concrete on future action within a
contextual scenario is difficult. A two-day workshop will increase time available to flesh out the
policies and other actions in more detail.
II.5. Conclusions
The workshop was successful in terms of process and outcomes. In general terms, all objectives
were met, although the last and synthesising session was completed after the workshop. A (small)
list of potentially no-regret policies was obtained, importantly related to strengthening civil society
and social cohesion; a better embedding of the EU in international agreements and policies; and
investments based on sustainability criteria. Together these might increase the influence of the EU
on reducing deforestation in the Amazon.
III.1. Introduction
The workshops in Brazil and Europe brought together a broad range of stakeholders and
perspectives. Yet, a disadvantage of workshops is the fact that people need to be brought together
physically in one place. This is particularly problematic in a country as large as Brazil.
Consequently, we decided to also use “interviews” as a means to collect information on issues
similar to those discussed in the various workshops with in explicit intention to include also those
stakeholders from places that were underrepresented among the workshop participants. Between
June and November 2013, 18 interviews were conducted with experts from different backgrounds
and specializations, covering most of the States on the Legal Amazon, with the exceptions of
Maranhão, Tocantins and Rondônia, as well as representatives from nationwide organizations.
The interviews took approximately 1 hour and explored the following aspects:
Main factors and activities that lead to deforestation and land use change;
Challenges and goals for the coming years;
Impact and influence of external agents
Key national policies and initiatives of importance in the region;
Importance of ecosystem services.
The overall result is a rich data base with relevant information about the present situation of the
Amazon, the short-term trends (5 to 10 years) and long-term future outlook (40 years), the
perspective of the different stakeholders about what in their opinion would be a desirable future for
the Amazon, and pathways to achieve this desirable future.
III.2. Methods
III.2.1 Stakeholder selection
We tried to maximise the stakeholders that were identified and interviewed, based on the following
Geography. We attempted to interview at least one person from every state within the Legal
Background. We targeted stakeholders from government, NGOs, business, and academia.
Expertise. We focused on stakeholders with knowledge from the following sectors:
agriculture, climate change, land use, forestry, and nature conservation.
Gender. We aimed to include at least 25% women
Age. We targeted specifically also more junior stakeholders.
We started with the identification of over 200 relevant institutions, companies, government bodies
etc. From those, 25 were selected as primary targets for the interviews. Subsequently, we identified
and contacted 25 individuals that agreed to be interviewed. Out of those 25 potential interviewees,
18 were interviewed, partly due to time constraints (see Table 1 for an overview of geographical
spread and background; see Annex 2 for additional background information).
III.2.2 Interview set-up and execution
We opted for a semi-structured interview set-up (for the interview questions, see Annex 1), using
both features from structured and open-interviews. A series of questions was prepared, in order to
obtain a structure in the interview. The questions were chosen and phrased such that the information
obtained could be compared to the results of the workshops. Exact formulation was discussed with
representatives from the Brazilian partners in AMAZALERT (EMBRAPA and INPE) to ensure that
comparable information would be obtained. Because of the huge geographic spread of the
interviewees, interviews were conducted by Skype.
The introduction of the interview (introducing myself, explaining why/how/how long the interview
will take etc.) complied with the criteria as described in Frey and Oishi (1995). After this
introduction, general questions were asked to obtain an idea of the respondent’s background.
Questions were meant to comfort the respondent, and to establish the personal connection between
the respondent and the Amazon forest. The following questions were more focused on the goal of
the research. The interviewer attempted to remain neutral the entire time, by asking open questions
and by not showing his own opinion. The formulation of the questions was kept simple but accurate
(see Frey and Oishi, 1995; Wulms, 2012). All interviews were taped using the software “MP3 skype
recorder”. The taped version was used to transcribe a summarized version (following Ritchie and
Lewis, 2003).
III.2.3 Data analysis
Fourteen questions were asked in a logical sequence, exploring specific issues on the current
situation and future outlook. Therefore in order to analyse the data, the questions were divided into
3 groups:
1. Current situation what are drivers and policies at present?
2. Future outlook - what could happen in short-term and long-term future?
3. Pathways what could be done to change this?
This also mirrored the main topics addressed in the various workshops.
Table 1. Geographic location and background of the stakeholders interviewed.
N° per Sectors /
Amazonas (AM)
Pará (PA)
Rondônia (RO)
Roraima (RR)
Amapá (AP)
Mato Grosso (MT)
Acre (AC)
Tocantins (TO)
Maranhão (MA)
Legal Amazon
III.3. Results
III.3.1 Present situation
III.3.1.1 Main causes of deforestation
Figure 1 shows a frequency distribution of the main current causes of deforestation as indicated by
the stakeholders. An overall consensus shared by the stakeholders was that it is difficult to list the
main causes of deforestation within the Amazon as there are multiples pressures and drivers acting
simultaneously, varying in intensity from region to region. Yet, most of them started giving their
opinion on what they believe is causing deforestation in the region after this first statement. The
expansion of the agricultural frontier through livestock farming, associated with logging activities
and together with mechanised agriculture were raised as the three main direct causes of
deforestation. However, those activities are influenced by several different aspects, which determine
the regional importance. Large infrastructure programs (such as opening of roads like BR 319 and
BR 163, hydro dams like Belo Monte, PAC, etc.) as well as land tenure issues and the difficulty to
have the necessary legal land ownership documents, associated with the fact that there was an
introduction of a model in the region based on agriculture, help to shape the importance of the main
drivers in different regions. The answers of Fernando Sampaio (executive director of ABIEC),
Rogério Cabral (Executive director of NEXCU’S) and Ricardo Abad (ICV Geo tech coordinator),
respectively, serve as an example of the consensus shared by respondents on the complexity of the
issue to single out a small number of causes of deforestation:
“Many people consider cattle farming as a cause of deforestation, but in fact it is a consequence. If
you look at the data, the area occupied with pasture is decreasing in Brazil, today it is possible to
increase productivity without increasing the productive area. Our interpretation is as follows. At the
border area the first activity that will appear after deforestation is cattle ranching. The error here is
to transform this correlation in a cause correlation question. What causes deforestation is the
disorganized occupation of land and the absolute absence of the state in protecting public lands. The
best way to prove that you are occupying that area is to put cattle there. Sell the wood first and then
put the cattle.” (Fernando Sampaio)
“As Amazônia is so big, it may have different causes (...) variables that are most prevalent in a
particular region than elsewhere, for example. The opening of roads, like BR 319 that connects
Porto Velho to Manaus, is one of the major sources of stress for those who are there in the protected
areas of Southern Amazon. Now in Pará the UCs (Conservation Units) suffer more with cattle and
mining, but the BR 163 in Santarém is also a source. More recently, hydropower, as a work of
infrastructure (...) so the variables are not many but change the profile and strength of each of these
threats according to each region. The state of Amazonas has a very strong pressure with the oil and
gas. So it is a very characteristic profile, for each region you will find a set of these factors working
with a variable more predominant and other less predominant.”
(Rogério Cabral)
“There are many causes and they are very dynamic, varying in intensity depending on other issues.
At present, for example, we see a decrease of deforestation, especially related to large areas like we
had over the last decade. However, an increase of number of fires and degradation of forests,
sometimes with less impact like selective logging. The tendency is an intensification of cattle
ranching, with soy entering the degraded pasture lands. There have been recent alerts on the
increase of deforestation again, but they are not 100% trustworthy, so to be sure we'll have to do a
deeper analysis like PRODES.”
(Ricardo Abad)
A few other causes were raised with less consensus, such as the pressure on rural settlements,
smallholder farming and mining, oil and gas activities. Fires, disorganized occupation of the
territory, absence of the Government protecting public lands, economy/ market forces and greed
were also commented as important causes.
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of current main causes of deforestation, as expressed by
The results are similar to what can be found in literature on the drivers of change in the Amazon.
According to various sources (e.g. Martino 2007; Betts et al. 2008; FAO FRA 2010), the main
driver of change in the Amazon Basin is land use change through deforestation and large-scale
degradation of tropical rain forest. In some countries, the most visible threat is deforestation and
forest degradation along the infrastructure projects, through road expansion and large scale
agriculture that comes with intensive use of fire (see Barreto et al. 2006; Killeen et al. 2007, 2008;
Martino 2007; Jarvis et al. 2009; RAISG 2009; Betts et al. 2008; Müller et al. 2011a, 2011b for the
case of the Bolivian Amazon). The literature, therefore, confirms that the drivers identified here for
the Brazilian Amazon are very similar to the ones reported to be important in other Amazon
Main causes of deforestation today
III.3.1.2 Ecosystem Goods and Services
The next question in the interview was related to the perceived most important ecosystem goods
and services provided by Amazon forests. As illustrated in Figure 2, 20 different ecosystem goods
and services were mentioned. The most often mentioned (15 out of 18 respondents) ecosystem
service was ‘water conservation’. ‘Climate regulation’ and ‘biodiversity conservation’ were
mentioned by more than half of the stakeholders as well. Following those three services, ‘food
production’, ‘carbon cycle regulation’ and ‘its people and the tropical culture’ were mentioned most
often. ‘Timber and Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP)’, ‘spiritual and religious value’ and
‘maintenance of livelihoods’ were also mentioned at least 4 times, followed by ‘scenic beauty’, ‘soil
conservation’, ‘medicinal plants’, ‘recreation’ and ‘genetic resource conservation’ that were all
mentioned more than once. Finally, ‘pollenisation service’, ‘fire barriers’, ‘soil nutrient cycle’ and
‘cosmology’ were mentioned once, but were nonetheless regarded as important given the rather low
number of interviews.
Comparing these results with the findings reported in Deliverable 1.4 on most important ecosystem
services across South America, we conclude that there are large similarities. Deliverable 1.4 lists as
most important ecosystem services ‘water supply’, ‘fishing’ (that could be a benefit derived from
the protection of biodiversity conservation and water supply and also related to food production),
‘climate regulation’, ‘carbon sequestration’, ‘soil’ (related to agriculture) and the ‘protection of
biodiversity’ (including genetic resources), also indicated by Pinell et al, 2012).
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of ecosystem goods and services provided by Amazon forests, as
expressed by stakeholders.
Goods and services provided by nature
III.3.1.3 Social development and relation with deforestation
We analysed questions 10 and 13 (See Annex 1) together in order to get the full picture of the
stakeholders’ perception on rural and urban social development trends over the Amazon. Their view
over the key ways to achieve this type of development is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Frequency distribution of key ways to achieve (social and/or economic) development
without deforestation as mentioned by the stakeholders.
Key ways to achieve (social and/or economic) development without deforestation
Stimulate market for forests products that keep the forest standing (Organization of supply chains
with a fair remuneration as its base of NTFP and timber production through sustainable
management of forests)
Development based on the valorisation and production of local knowledge, the solutions coming
out from them.
Re-evaluate the way we measure development and growth, including quality of life and the
services provided by nature (new models of development)
Payment for environmental services
Higher investments on education.
Production intensification on the areas we already have opened today, with the recovery and
restoration of degraded lands using them sustainably.
Strengthening of "Command and Control" policies.
Use and valorisation of Biodiversity.
Have better access to basic services, infrastructure and technology in way that is not harmful.
Policies that stimulate more diversified production and better practices at the local level, with less
social and environmental impact. (Demonstration units helping to spread)
Planted forests
Development of economic poles in urban centres where people are better linked with the wider
network of the economy.
Better systems to make sustainable forest management and environmental projects less slow on
Fast Urbanization, so there is less human pressure in the country side.
Better definition of land titles rights.
Long term planning and the construction of development strategies for the country to establish a
new model.
Better territorial management
Better organization on the transition from rural migration to the urban centres.
Political willingness
Development of a sustainable aquiculture
Strong rural extension agencies, attuned to the new technologies.
These results are complemented by answers to the question whether ‘zero deforestation’ is possible
given current rural and urban social development trends. The majority of the respondents indicated
that it is impossible, mostly because the new Forest Code allows (limited) deforestation, which is
therefore assumed to also take place. Additionally, illegal deforestation is pointed out as a large
threat, which needs to be combatted. Main issues/solutions to reduce deforestation in general
presented by respondents were:
The strategy the government has adopted so far with PPCDAm (“Command and Control”)
has helped, but it is insufficient. Only command and control is not enough to solve the issue
of illegal deforestation, as you are not acting on the underlying causes.
Lack of willingness, with the rural sector being very strongly represented in the
Government, even though the market sector is ready for it. It needs to get the market supply
chains in order and discuss with their providers to implement expansion without
deforestation further.
Slash and burn culture needs to be better understood, raising public awareness about the
negative sides of this practice.
A strong social movement and sufficient investments by the government in a structure that
allows efficient monitoring and control system.
The government should be more ambitious and have a positive net rate of reforestation as
the goal.
III.3.1.4 Political and institutional context
The below summarises the views of the stakeholders on the current political situation.
There was consensus that over the last decade the political and institutional context within Brazil
and the Amazon has strongly improved, although it is also perceived as remaining insufficient. The
political willingness to set up strong foundations in order to build a sustainable future for the region
is a complicated issue, as it depends on a variety of actors and desires. Although increasing the
public is aware of the environmental problems related to land use change and the markets are more
demanding regarding sustainable practices, it is still not enough to influence decision making. An
good example is the new Forest Code, which during the debate was very controversial and still
provokes tension between the different sectors. As a result, even though we have countless
successful experiences happening at smaller scales, they are relatively insignificant at broader scale.
Or worse, sometimes they have the right scale and are working fine, but when there is a change of
the government initiatives are abandoned.
Another important issue raised was the lack of transparency and corruption occurring at all
(political) levels, which have been improving but are far from being eradicated. Below, we describe
the details of opinions of the stakeholders on how external actors influence land use change and
which policies are important at the moment for the region.
Influence of external factors
By and large, respondents agreed that policies outside of the Amazon have at least an indirect
influence on land use change in the Amazon, mostly related to the demand coming from abroad.
Some respondents indicated that when there is market demand for agricultural commodities or
timber, the influence on deforestation rates. Others argued that the governance system of Brazil is
rather independent of these commercial external influences, and that therefore the main factor
driving land use change are internal economic activities. Yet, there was broad agreement that the
role of the EU and US differs from the role of China. The EU and the US market demand a higher
degree of sustainable production, through, for example, information on the source of the product,
i.e. related to purchasing products from areas without deforestation only. If Europe would limit
wood imports to timber from sustainable areas only, it would stimulate this practice. In this
example, the commercial market sector paves the way by setting a good example. The same holds
for certification programs that were also mentioned as important tools to help shaping the demand
for sustainable products. A good example is the soy moratorium, where the market pressure from
Europe, forced companies to implement this agreement.
In contrary, the Chinese market is much less regulated, largely because of the enormous
demand for raw materials. Stakeholders agreed that as long as China does not have any regulation
to limit import of transgenic soy from Brazil, the producers in Brazil will plant transgenic soy
everywhere to meet this strong and growing demand. Arnaldo Carneiro and Willian Assis
statements argue in that direction:
Arnaldo Carneiro:
“The supply today of the Chinese soybean market is being done at the expense of the
cerrado. Although we will see a small recovery of deforestation rates in the vicinity of major
infrastructure projects in the Amazon, as in the Tapajos (bulk ports), I do not believe we will
witness new major deforestation due to the market.
Willian Assis:
“China's interest in mining (iron demand is impressive) is increasingly visible. The demand
for soybeans and corn comes from where? Certainly not from the internal market. If you go to the
harbour in Belém and you look where the products (timber, meat, iron, soy) are going you will see
this influence. It all goes to the first world countries. So even though sometimes the effect is
indirect, it clearly helps financing deforestation in Brazil.”
A related interesting point was raised by Edel Moraes (Vice president of the extractive population
national council), remembering that the international influence is not only the demand for
“Most of those large infrastructure projects are also influenced by external actors, with foreign
companies constructing the roads or hydro dams, or the hydro dams being constructed to offer
energy to foreign mining companies like ALCOA. We are still their colony, with massive
exploitation of our natural resources.”
After this open question, we wanted to know with more detail their opinion on four specific topics,
which are also related to external influences.
Biofuel policies:
The overall consensus is that the largest risk is over, as the ecological economic zonation for the
region does not allow sugarcane and palm oil plantations in the Amazon. Joberto Freitas (Serviço
Florestal Brasileiro) agreed to it and stated that “if there is a new policy related to biofuels that it
will endanger the forest more than what we have today, will likely have an alert on society to fight
against it.” A point raised by Laurent (ICV) which is worth mentioning, is that this type of zonation
is fragile and dynamic: “If suddenly China, U.S and Europe increase the demand for biofuel, it can
be a threat for sure.”
Soybean policies:
Most stakeholders agreed that if there is an increase of the soy demand on the market and prices are
high, this will result in an increase of plantations in the Amazon. Once you have demand for a
product which offer good financial return that can replace standing forests, this can lead to legal
and illegal deforestation. Stakeholders clearly indicated that demand from China, for example,
will increase which poses a danger to Amazon forests. However, another point shared by most
respondents is the fact Brazil has already adopted technologies to increase the production without
further deforestation (Like Plantio direto, Integração lavoura pecuária floresta, production
intensification, etc.). Furthermore, international agreements with European countries have been
made, with the aforementioned soy moratorium as a good example, mentioned by most of the
stakeholders. Below is the view of Gustavo Pinheiro on this issue:
"The production is not coming from previously forested areas anymore. The soybean round table
itself in Brazil has started to monitor the purchase of soybeans and the origin of the produce. As a
consequence, the large traders no longer buy soy coming from areas which have been deforested.
But the challenge is to make sure that the whole supply chain is monitored and checked to ensure
the legal origin, and not to look only for soybeans and livestock separately."
Certification programs:
Most of the respondents agreed that certification programs help to shape the demand of the market
based on sustainable practices, which in turn stimulates the producers to aim to achieve the
necessary practices. However, stakeholders also agreed that this practice is far from being a
sufficient solution. The following remaining issues were identified:
The certification programs reach only a niche market, which is not enough to have a large
impact. The efforts end up only benefiting a few well-organised groups.
Product traceability is not complete.
Other internal policies could have a much larger impact.
In this respect, Rogério Cabral’s statement is very interesting, alerting that this practice only work if
there is a market sensitivity to pay differently for this product:
“I think certification programs are extremely healthy and useful, but only as long as there is a
market awareness to recognise this. You need to have a market sensitivity to pay differently for a
product that is certified. Europe has this sensitivity, but China and the internal Brazilian market do
Answers on this issue varied. Gustavo, Adriana, Bernardo and Laurent were more optimistic about
the possible influence of REDD+, arguing that REDD+ holds a large potential to change the land
use dynamics, since it would bring a substantial contribution of resources to the environmental
agenda. They noted, however, that the program will work only when we have goals agreed
internationally. This view is shared by Rogério, Edel and Lana, who are less optimistic. They argue
that REDD+ related agreements are not yet strong enough. They argue that there is a large risk of
creating a local expectation of a particular community (to receive carbon credits for example),
without having created the pre-conditions to ensure this effectively. Somewhat more moderate are
the views of Ricardo, Gutemberg and Joaquim, who see the mechanism as positive when it brings a
clear return to the society (like payment for one of the environmental services the forests provide).
However, they argued that until now the practical implementation mechanisms have not been well
defined. Kaline’s answer is an interesting reflection on the implementation mechanisms in different
areas of the Amazon.
“In Acre, I do not believe that REDD+ could work because some areas are so isolated that
deforestation is not the issue; there are other problems. In the Amazonas state maybe. In any case,
for REDD+ to be successful it requires full transparency in communication to the local communities
so they understand well what they will have to do when implementing the project. It cannot be done
from the top down.”
III.3.1.5 Currently important policies
A list of 22 policies was mentioned (see Table 3). None of the policies really stand out as much
more important than the others. The two most often mentioned policies (5 out of 18 interviews)
were the effort to establish an official cadastre (CAR) and the PPCDAm programs, because of their
correlation with the recent decrease of the deforestation rates. Another six policies followed
including Education towards an agroecological approach; Policies that keep the forest standing and
provide income generation (RESEX, PRONAF, PROEXTRATIVISMO…); Payment for
environmental services (PES); improved rural technical assistance agencies; the new Forest Code;
and the ABC program.
Table 3. Frequency distribution of currently important policies as mentioned by the stakeholders.
Which policies important at the moment
Cadastro Ambiental Rural (CAR)
Education towards an agroecological approach
Policies that keep the forest standing ( RESEX, PRONAF, PROEXTRATIVISMO...)
Payment for Environmental Services (PES)
Rural technical assistance agencies
The new forest code
ABC Program
PAS, Sustainable Amazon Plan
Policies that organize the supply chain of NTFPs
Politica Nacional de aquisição de alimentos nas escolas (PNAE)
Política de aquisação de alimentos (PAA)
Land management for municipalities
The public buying based on well-managed forests
Municípios Verdes (green municipalities)
Policies that stimulate awareness
Policies that stimulate local fish production
Land title regularization and equal distribution of land
Encouraging trade fairs of family farming.
Sustainable infrastructure
III.3.2 Future outlook
III.3.2.1 Short-term trends (5 10 years):
How will currently important policies evolve?
The analysis of how current policies will evolve was based on the answers provided on the previous
question. Responses varied, with different perspectives being put forward. The only view shared by
the majority of the stakeholders is that the near future of current polices will depend largely on the
political willingness of decision makers, especially with the upcoming elections (which took place
in November 2014). The political system suffers from a great instability with policies sometimes
being very personal. The view of Lana Oliveira illustrates this argument:
“The tendency is the strengthening of policies, but it depends a lot on the political willingness (…)
if the government and the interests change, a lot can be reversed. That is why I believe we need the
institutionalisation of concrete policies, like an agenda with a long term commitment (…) because
single environmental projects come and go.”
Rogério Cabral agrees with this view and indicated that what he would like to see is continuity and
permanence. He argues that worse than not having policies is to keep changing them continuously.
Especially when we are talking about Amazon conservation, arguing that the results are never short
to medium term. It requires a political continuity.
Below is the summary of the main short-term trends as indicated by the stakeholders:
A tendency of the situation to remain as it is today.
A tendency to strengthen the environmental management at municipality level. Yet, this
will probably not be institutionalised within the next 10 years.
A potentially stronger rural technical assistance, because of the recent creation of the new
national technical assistance agency.
More financial resources for environmental/sustainability projects. Yet, when compared to
investments in other sectors, the amount invested is almost negligible.
The rural agricultural credits (for example, the ABC program) are opening space for
alternative agricultural practices, such as agroforestry systems and organic agriculture. This
can be a great incentive for those practices to spread.
Policies related to sustainable management of forests are going to be more frequent,
strengthening the forest-based economy.
Education has been improving over the last years, so the tendency is to further improve, or
at least an improved access to education.
The economic crises, still have an impact and could create financial barriers or
opportunities driving an increase on deforestation rates over the next years.
Changes in the socio economical context:
Here we decided the best approach would be to make a small summary of the perspective of each
stakeholder in order to cover all important aspects, as the opinions varied substantially according to
their expertises. Table 4 summarises their answers:
Table 4. Summary of individual stakeholder’s answers related to most likely short-term (5-10 years)
socioeconomic changes.
Changes in the socioeconomic context (5 10 years):
Rogério Cabral
Pressure on urban centres, with an increase of population. Stronger influence of rural
populations in the Amazon in public policy (making). This follows current trends
initiated by policies such as Bolsa Família and Bolsa Floresta.
Joberto Freitas
Advance of a forest-based economy; clean timber production systems; sustainable long-
term forest management; and a more regular supply that impacts the market, allowing an
increase of export.
Edwin Keizer
The current political situation is not very good and will not improve: Limited flexibility
in environmental laws, poor possibilities of licensing of projects, lack of demarcation of
conservation areas. Thus, the short-term outlook is one of possible serious conflicts,
especially related to big infrastructure projects taking place at present.
Kaline Rossi
Higher income of the people whose livelihood depends (partly) on forest products. This
is already taking place and I believe the trend will continue.
Lana Oliveira
Slow but steady increase of the quality of life of communities living next to and inside
the forests.
Edel Moraes
Improved access to education and increase of public awareness and consciousness of the
issues around deforestation, agribusiness, extractive populations, indigenous rights etc. (
even if it is very slow).
Ricardo Abad
The largest influences on deforestation are the infrastructure projects planned for the
region, like roads, hydro dams and industrial parks, which are likely to be executed and
increase deforestation.
Mauro Silva
More social pressure and a return of social conflicts that had been slowing down. The
PAC will be implemented, so you further conflicts are to be expected. The tendency is a
stabilization of deforestation rates because most of it is already gone. Agriculture will
either be towards more monocultures or towards a diversified family agriculture system
(fruit production, honey, fish, and small livestock farming). In macro-economic terms
the regulation of land titles and the removal of farmers for mining purposes will be
The short-term outlook is not good. The will be large negative environmental impacts
caused by the high speed of economical exploitation boosted by soy plantations and the
construction of big hydro dams in order to supply energy for mining purposes. I see big
social environmental conflicts in a near future.
Improvement of the monitoring system, which has evolved a lot. But we will continue to
follow this command and control policy, which may not be enough.
Willian Assis
The dynamics of agribusiness, both in the cereal production, livestock and biofuel, can
cause serious problems. (loss of autonomy of farmers) and mining due to the
international demand.
The dynamic of infrastructure will slightly change the axis of development within the
Amazon, with the consolidation of the southern Amazon. An integration with Peru and
the set of Madeira dams, bringing this “development” process to the south of the
Amazon, has already happened. This will have the potential to change the dynamics of
the region. Similarly, the axis of deforestation of Tapajós (BR163, Itaetuba ports,
hydroelectric complex in the Tapajós) will further deforest. There is potential that the
entire northern Mato Grosso becomes agriculture, with the soybeans plantations taking
over current pasturelands.
The recent drop in deforestation has shown that Brazil is taking better care of what it
owns. And with the advancement of the Forest Code and CAR, the trend is to improve
The livestock industry is using a very large share of the Amazon area. The sector has the
power to assign it to other activities, as it is going through an intensification process.
Adriana Ramos
There is a tendency of deforestation to increase again, certainly if the same speech and
the same policy approach is continued. Yet, obviously deforestation rates will never be
as high as they were.
Bernardo Pires
The opening of roads might lead to an increase of deforestation rates. Population
pressure tends to remain the same.
A continuation of the trends we observe today. Intensification of production from the
Amazon for the global commodity market, with potential impacts on forests. The major
infrastructure projects and population flow that comes with it, might result in large
impacts on the livelihoods of those in the surrounding regions.
I do not see much change compared to the situation we have today in Roraima. Over the
past five years, livestock ranching has strongly increased and these trends are likely to
continue, especially near the city centre of Boa Vista and around small urban centres.
Agriculture is increasingly in remote areas, opening new agricultural frontiers.
III.3.2.2 Long-term outlook (2050)
Long-term socioeconomic outlook
We follow the same structure as in the previous section, as it relates to the same question, only with
a different time frame (long-term; 40 years from now). Table 5 summarises their answers.
Table 5. Summary of individual stakeholder’s answers related to most likely long-term (40 years)
socioeconomic changes.
Changes in the socioeconomic context (2050):
Rogério Cabral
Same tendency as for short-term trends, but with improvements more firmly established.
Mining/ oil and gas is the major problem to be dealt with.
Joberto Freitas
I think than by 2050 we may be in a stage that the actual timber production is minimal,
but the payment for the existence of the forest will be compulsory. Where there is forest,
there will be payment for its services.
Edwin Keizer
If more big infrastructure projects are planned for the region, I think the number of
conflicts between the indigenous and local communities with grileiros, big farmers,
sawmills and industries (hydropower, oil/gas/mining) will increase.
Kaline Rossi
If we have successfully implemented strong public policies on the valorisation of
standing forests, I would say it would slow down migration to the urban centres. So I
think besides keeping the forests standing, it would also keep the people inside the forest,
with them taking care of it, preserving its services. I believe the land conflicts because of
indigenous land demarcation will be solved.
Lana Oliveira
I think rural communities will be able to develop mechanisms to be self-sufficient,
without the need of governmental aids like Bolsa Família and Bolsa Floresta).
Edel Moraes
Increasing access to education at all levels, including isolated communities that will need
a different kind of approach to education. So it is not an education that will be given to
us, but an education we will bring to ourselves, respecting who we are and our way of
Ricardo Abad
If the large projects go ahead and there is flexibility on the management of protected
areas like is happening today in some Conservation Units because of infrastructure
projects, we can expect a huge increase in deforestation.
Mauro Silva
The social resistance of local communities in the region will increase, coupled with a
higher consciousness of urban populations on rural issues.
The last protests here in Brazil are showing the strengthening of social movements.
However it is hard to visualise how far and how much local communities will be able to
organise themselves in order to redefine political issues. So I see two possible directions:
1. the implementation of this new model which redefines the relation society has with the
environment, and 2. the implementation of authoritarian governments which will
continue the last 40 years of mistakes in the Amazon.
As the command and control policy is subject to all kinds of political pressure, long-term
investments to support and expand the control are difficult to realise.
Willian Assis
Major infrastructure projects will be main determinants of change. All this infrastructure
and power generation connects with IRSA, which is for the entire South America. The
Amazon region will be interconnected through a multimodal transport system and
hydraulic power generation. If only half of what is planned to be implemented in IRSA
happens, we will witness a tremendous transformation in the region accompanied by a
large increase in deforestation.
If the paving of BR 319 and Transamazônica occur, then a process of occupation in the
heart of the Amazon will start.
The lack of long term planning, especially in large projects such as related to
hydroelectric power, may hinder the Amazon to achieve a more sustainable future.
We need to work towards social and economic integration of local communities, taking
the indigenous and extractive communities out of isolation and link them to clean
sustainable markets.
Adriana Ramos
What is expected in terms of growth in mining, oil and gas tends to also bring about a lot
of pressure. So if action is not being taken within the next 10 years, I think the worst
scenarios predicted for 2050 will materialise.
Bernardo Pires
The big trend is that the next agricultural frontier will be over abandoned land and
degraded areas previously occupied by livestock. This is around 60 to 90 million ha,
equivalent to the entire agricultural area of the country.
Laurent Micol
We will face the need for a much greater integration in terms of infrastructure. Now this
may be aimed at conservation, better use of forests or as a trend of continued
degradation. Today those are the two large scenarios.
I have no prospect of improvement.
Main causes of deforestation in 2050
In order to have a comprehensive picture of which main challenges Amazon forests could be facing
in 2050, we joined questions 4 and 6 to better analyse the issue.
Figure 3 shows that stakeholders identified three main causes of deforestation within the Amazon in
2050. According to their perspective, large infrastructure projects such as PAC, the Belo Monte
Hydro dam and the construction of roads like BR163 and BR319 are the main problems the
Amazon will face in 2050. A second driver of high importance is mining, oil and gas industries. The
third main problem which could threaten the Amazon forests is a problem the region has faced for
centuries, which according to 5 out 18 respondents will not have been solved by 2050, namely land
tenure issues. The remainder 8 drivers that were mentioned, were only brought up by 1-2
Figure 3. Frequency distribution of main causes of deforestation in 2050, as expressed by
It is interesting to note is that if you compare the current main causes of deforestation (see Figure 1)
with those mentioned here, it seems that stakeholders believed that problems related to livestock
farming, mechanized agriculture and logging activities (the top 3 of current main causes) will all
have been overcome.
III.3.3 Towards a desirable future: visions and pathways
III.3.3.1 Key aspects of a desirable vision
We asked stakeholders to voice their opinion on how their 2050 desirable vision for the Amazon
would look like. What are the main characteristics and the key aspects of this vision, and how could
it be achieved? Table 6 summarises the stakeholders’ opinion on the key aspects of the desirable
Table 6. Frequency distribution of key aspects of desirable vision for 2050, as mentioned by the
Key aspects of desirable vision (2050)
Large investments in education and research at all levels.
Solutions for the Amazonian problems being created within the Amazon, with
valorisation of local knowledge.
Real implementation of all conservation areas, while respecting indigenous territories
and traditions.
Strong policies related to generating income while keeping the forest standing and
restoration and conversion of degraded areas. (PES, Sust. Man. of For., NTFPs)
Main Causes of deforestation in 2050
High quality of life with access of poor communities to minimal services facilities.
A strong, developed, forest-based economy, with the use of biodiversity, generating
income and economic development without deforestation.
New development model implemented
Large incentives for eco and ethno tourism
The livestock chain as a whole assumes the legality, the practice of traceability,
transparency, fostering innovation (less extensive, toward intensification)
Zero deforestation
Strong "Command and Control" policies.
Construction of an economic incentive to be applied in the Amazon that values
resources before they become scarce.
Improved logistics between economic poles within the Amazon, but only after the
Conservation Areas are established and protected.
Higher political representation on the government with proportional budget
Land tenure issues solved and a more equal distribution of the land.
Strong local communities, organised in sustainable networks.
Social environmental fund established, directed to a group of Amazonian institutions
to think about a macro-structuring plan for the region.
High-quality rural technical assistance
Strong social movements
A broad worldwide discussion on the use of natural resources
Settlements with economic sustainability, drawn into the socioeconomic dynamics and
guided by agroecological practices.
Policies to guide a transition from an agricultural to an urbanised economy
III.3.3.2 Key obstacles to achieve the desirable vision
In order to achieve this desirable future many obstacles would have to be overcome. Table 7 lists
the main obstacles as perceived by the stakeholders. Perhaps not unexpectedly, the main obstacle
raised was the lack of political willingness to set up the foundations of a sustainable future for the
region. This was followed by the ‘lack of planning with a vision’ that considers conservation
strategies and the fact we need to strengthen MMA structure that takes care of monitoring and
enforcement (PPCDAm). Although the table shows numbers of times an obstacle was mentioned
during the 18 interviews, the numbers are less important here. What matters more is the (large) total
number of different obstacles that were identified and the richness of the description of each one of
them, as illustrated in Table 7.
Table 7. Frequency distribution of key obstacles to achieve desirable vision in 2050, as mentioned
by the stakeholders.
Obstacles to achieve the desirable vision in 2050
Lack of political willingness
Lack of planning with a vision that considers conservation strategies. Government
policy decisions are taken with a view to economic and social gain at first and then
when the decision is being implemented they will think about the environmental issues.
Lack of structure in MMA (that takes care of monitoring and enforcement (PPCDAm)).
There is a big gap between what is available and what is really needed in terms of
technical instruments and staff to be able to effectively monitor and control the Amazon
Existence of legislation that allows deforestation.
Poorly enforced environmental laws, recent problems with the demarcation of
indigenous territory.
Corruption, it is not a matter of lack of resources
Lack of education.
Lack of legal land security.
Agrarian reform policies that sometimes deploy settlements, which end up leading to
more deforestation.
Illegal timber production is a key aspect. Anything that can be done to reduce the supply
of illegal timber, values the standing forest.
Lack of participation of local communities in the implementation of those big
infrastructure projects.
Federal government trying to transfer the responsibility of controlling, monitoring and
policy implementations towards the state government, which might increase the
conflicts between different states and obstruct the construction of an overall plan for the
entire Amazon.
Market demand for agricultural commodities that puts pressure on the forest areas to be
converted into a different land cover.
The new Forest Code that changes the size of the legal reserve and can have a big
negative impact not only on the forests, but also on some services like water and soil
conservation for example.
A strong lobby inside the government that is favouring the classical economic
development with less social and environmental interests.
The global economic system, translated into the agribusiness practices and greed of the
world, with the continuation of Amazon and Brazil as a colony of the developed
Science as it is done today, reinforcing this model of society, most of the times not
connected to reality.
As long as the farmers are not placed at the heart of the process, building the policies
and scientific validation together with the scientists and the decision makers on a
horizontal approach, will never result in fundamental changes.
The dominance of the model implemented after the green revolution, with high
production specialisation. This ends up simplifying what cannot be simplified, which is
agriculture in the tropics.
The dominant paradigm placing ourselves as superior and separated from the rest of the
High demographic pressure (Amazonas and Pará)
Large-scale migrations coming from the northeast, as a result of droughts.
Lack of quality and availability of technical assistance
Lack of capacity of local communities to organise themselves to achieve a common
Government's inability to articulate a dialogue between different sectors, particularly
within the Amazon.
Weak credit lines for people living in the forests (riparian, maroon, traditional
communities), inhibiting possibilities to invest in sustainable management of forests
(Timber and NTFPs).
Small farmers having difficulty entering the market.
Regulatory hurdle is too high. The laws need to be reformed, simplified and become less
bureaucratic for this transition to happen more easily.
Lack of Spatial planning
Lack of CAR being effectively implemented, helping to solve the land tenure issues,
demarcation of indigenous lands, Conservation Units, and eco-economic zoning.
Lack of environmental governance.
Shortage of funding for technological development
Lack of policies valuing the local culture
III.3.3.3 Which polices should be implemented to achieve the desirable vision?
After analysing the key aspects for a desirable vision for the Amazon in 2050 and associated
obstacles that would need to be overcome, we wanted to know their opinion on which concrete
local, national and international policies and other actions should be implemented to help achieving
the vision. Table 8-10 list those multi-scale policies.
Table 8. Frequency distribution of local policies and other actions needed to achieve the desirable
vision, as mentioned by the stakeholders.
Which policies can be taken to achieve the goals
Municípios Verdes (Strengthening of environmental sector management at municipal
Infrastructure and technology adapted to the Amazonian way of living
Rural technical assistance which take into account the diversity of realities for each
Payment for environmental services extended to other services than carbon (water,
biodiversity, etc.)
Higher investments on education
Map all the successful experiences happening at the local scale, building regional
references and opportunities for economic inclusion of smallholders
Municipal spatial planning
Support of the state government to local associations that help to organise themselves to
market production, to add more value to their product, benefiting and selling them for
higher prices.
Local solutions that increase the purchasing power of the families using the forest. What
they get should be enough to lead a decent life.
The timber demand of municipal and state governments satisfied only by wood from
well managed forests
Stimulate community sustainable management of forests, both for timber and NTFP.
Rural education under the perspective of an agroecological approach.
Table 9. Frequency distribution of national policies needed to achieve the desirable vision, as
mentioned by the stakeholders.
Which policies can be taken to achieve the goals
Credit lines to prioritise more balanced production systems and promoting innovation.
National program on payment for environmental and ecosystem services.
Higher investments in education
Land title regulations and equal distribution of land.
The new Forest Code with the CAR initiatives
Politica Nacional de aquisição de alimentos nas escolas (PNAE)
Política de aquisação de alimentos (PAA)
Strengthening of "Command and Control" policies. (PPCDAm)
Agroecological National Policy
National policies that strengthen the local levels
The timber demand of federal governments satisfied only by wood from well managed
Soy moratorium
PAS, Sustainable Amazon Plan
Investments in education and research directed to a new model, more intensive in
labour work and use of local resources than on capital investments. Reduce farmers’
dependency on external inputs.
Strengthening of short circuits, which help better planning of production at national and
international levels.
ICMS Verde
Accountability in the implementation of infrastructure projects, making proper licensing.
ABC Program
Table 10. Frequency distribution of international policies needed to achieve the desirable vision, as
mentioned by the stakeholders.
Which policies can be taken to achieve the goals
Certification programs helping to shape the demand of the market based on sustainable
REDD+ can be important, but only when the goals are agreed internationally
Higher investments in education
It will work unless it (also) comes from inside Brazil. Strengthen national-international
Effective commitment to reduce emissions internationally agreed, which actually forces
countries to act accordingly.
Increase commitment from countries, with Brazil playing a leading role on the
international forums.
Financially support certain projects (Fundo Amazônia, FNMA, etc.)
III.4. Summary and analysis
Given the large amount of information, this section summarises the main findings reported in
Section 3, slightly changing the order to facilitate analysis and synthesis.
III.4.1 Main causes of deforestation today (count)
Livestock farming (13)
Mechanised agriculture (8)
Logging activities (5)
Infrastructure programmes + opening of roads (5+4)
Hydropower (4)
There is agreement that causes are many and very different. Livestock, mechanised agriculture and
associated logging are the three main causes. Underlying causes related to land tenure were also
pointed out.
III.4.2 Main causes of deforestation in 2050 (count)
Infrastructure programmes + opening roads (12 +2)
Mining oil and gas (8)
Land tenure issues (5)
Markets (2)
Hydropower (2)
None of the top 3 mentioned as important today reoccurs in this list. Apparently, livestock farming,
agriculture, and logging will have been solved. Remarkable is the importance given to mining
issues and land tenure issues.
III.4.3 Main ecosystem good and services (count)
Water conservation (15)
Climate regulation (13)
Biodiversity Conservation (12)
Food production (8)
Carbon Cycle (8)
A large number of different ecosystem services (20) were mentioned. Water conservation, climate
regulation, and biodiversity conservation stand out at the top 3, but a large additional range was
recognised of also having importance.
III.4.4 How to achieve social development without deforestation? (count)
Stimulate market for forests products (8)
Stimulate and value local knowledge (6)
New models of development (5)
Payment for Ecosystem Services (3)
Investment in education (3)
Strengthen Command and Control policies (3)
Land use intensification (3)
Policies that aim at diversification (3)
Importantly, the majority of stakeholders thinks that zero deforestation is impossible, particularly
before 2020. Fighting illegal deforestation will be difficult.
Crucial are that Command and Control is not enough and that willingness is often lacking. Efforts
need to include the entire market supply chain.
The answers provided here can be considered as elements of a utopian scenario resembling
“Scenario A” as used in the Brazilian workshops and “SSP1” of the most recent set of global
socioeconomic scenarios.
III.4.5 External factors
Demand: The overall answers on this issue pretty much agree that policies outside of the Amazon
have at least an indirect influence on land use change in the Amazon, based on the demand coming
from outside. Largest influence from China.
Biofuel: largest risk is over due to zonation regulations for sugarcane and oil palm.
Soy bean policies: Agreement that an increase in demand will eventually lead to deforestation.
Certification programs: Agreement that certification programs help to regulate the demand of the
market based on sustainable practices.
REDD+ policies: Mixed opinions all agree that it will only work when internationally coordinated
and agreed. Effect on deforestation is unclear.
III.4.6 Currently important policies
Cadastre (CAS) (5)
Command and control (PPCDAm) (5)
Education (4)
Policies that “keep the forest standing” (RESEX, PRONAF, PROEXTRATIVISMO) (3)
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) (3)
Forest Code (3)
Low-carbon agriculture (ABC plan) (3)
The total list of policies includes 22 categories, from a range of different ministries. There seems
agreement that the land titling/tenure and Command and Control are the top 2 important policies.
III.4.7 Short-term outlook
Situation will remain the same
Strengthen role of municipalities
Investments increase but still low
More sustainable policies
Education improves
Overall: a positive short-term outlook
III.4.8 Changes socio-economic context (short-term and long-term):
The individual answers provided were matched to the five global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways,
to analyse the type of future that is being imagined by the respondents (see Table 11). Annex 3
provides a short summary of the five SSPs.
Table 11. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways associated with the short-term and long-term future
outlooks as provided by stakeholders.
Short-term: The majority of the stakeholders viewed the short-term outlook at similar to today
(SSP2) with som