ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

A key premise underlying discussion about deforestation in Amazonian Peru is that small-scale or so-called migratory agriculture is the main driver of deforestation. This premise has been expressed in government documents and public outreach events. How the Peruvian government understands drivers of deforestation in the Amazon has profound implications for how it will confront the problem. It is therefore important to critically revisit assumptions underlying this narrative. We find that the narrative is based on remote sensing of deforestation patch sizes but not on field data, potentially conflating distinct drivers of deforestation under the umbrella of "migratory," "small-scale," or "subsistence" agriculture. In fact, small patches of deforested land may indicate any number of processes, including sustainable fallow management and agroforestry. Moreover, the data underlying the narrative tell us little about the actors driving these processes or their motivations. Different processes have distinct implications for environmental sustainability and require targeted policy responses. We unpack these diverse actors, geographies, and motivations of small-patch deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon and argue that differentiating among these drivers is necessary to develop appropriate policy responses. We call for researchers to revisit assumptions and critically assess the motivations of observed deforestation to appropriately target policy action.
REVIEW
Is small-scale agriculture really the main driver of deforestation
in the Peruvian Amazon? Moving beyond the prevailing narrative
Ashwin Ravikumar1,2 , Robin R. Sears2, Peter Cronkleton2, Mary Menton3,&Mat
´
ıas P ´
erez-Ojeda del Arco2,4
1Keller Science Action Center, The Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL, USA
2Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), La Molina, Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Lima, 12 Peru
3Solutions & Evidence for Environment & Development (SEED), 163 Howard St, Oxford OX4 3BA, UK
4Sociology of Development and Change Group, Wagenigen UR, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wagenigen, The Netherlands
Keywords
Deforestation policy; drivers of deforestation;
land use policy; Peruvian Amazon; shifting
cultivation; subsistence agriculture.
Correspondence
Ashwin Ravikumar, Keller Science Action
Center, The Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore
Drive, Chicago, IL, 60605, USA. Tel: +1
847-323-2049.
E-mail: ashwinra@gmail.com
Received
31 January 2016
Accepted
11 May 2016
Editor
Erin Sills
doi: 10.1111/conl.12264
Abstract
A key premise underlying discussion about deforestation in Amazonian Peru
is that small-scale or so-called migratory agriculture is the main driver of
deforestation. This premise has been expressed in government documents and
public outreach events. How the Peruvian government understands drivers of
deforestation in the Amazon has profound implications for how it will confront
the problem. It is therefore important to critically revisit assumptions under-
lying this narrative. We find that the narrative is based on remote sensing of
deforestation patch sizes but not on field data, potentially conflating distinct
drivers of deforestation under the umbrella of “migratory,” “small-scale,”
or “subsistence” agriculture. In fact, small patches of deforested land may
indicate any number of processes, including sustainable fallow management
and agroforestry. Moreover, the data underlying the narrative tell us little
about the actors driving these processes or their motivations. Different pro-
cesses have distinct implications for environmental sustainability and require
targeted policy responses. We unpack these diverse actors, geographies, and
motivations of small-patch deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon and argue
that differentiating among these drivers is necessary to develop appropriate
policy responses. We call for researchers to revisit assumptions and critically
assess the motivations of observed deforestation to appropriately target policy
action.
Introduction
For decades, discourse around deforestation in Peru
among government and nongovernment conservation
actors has highlighted small-scale––or “migratory”––
agriculture as the key driver (Watters 1971; Dourojeanni
1987;). This same discourse continues today (Velarde
et al. 2010), with the government claiming that 90% of
deforestation in Peru is caused by migratory agriculture
(MINAM 2014). At the same time, recent research indi-
cates that other major drivers are growing in importance,
including the conversion of primary forest for the instal-
lation of industrial monoculture plantations such as oil
palm (Guti´
errez-V´
elez et al. 2011) and cacao (EIA 2015),
gold mining (Asner et al. 2013; Scullion et al. 2014), oil
and gas extraction sites (Finer et al. 2008), and roads
through rural and wilderness areas (M¨
aki et al. 2001).
This discourse that focuses on small-scale agriculture is
often accompanied by the assertion that poverty and so-
cial conflict in the Andean highlands create an impetus
for out-migration to the Amazon, which underlies de-
forestation linked to migratory movements (Dourojeanni
1976; Ugarte-Guerra 2009; but see Ichikawa et al. 2014
for intraregional migration patterns). However, migration
is also linked to agriculture policy and programs (Alvarez
& Naughton-Treves 2003; Chavez et al. 2014). In reality,
deforestation events––including small-scale ones––have
multiple and complex underlying causes (Geist & Lambin
2002; Almeyda Zambrano et al. 2010; Coomes et al. 2011),
including policy incentives, shifting market conditions,
Conservation Letters, June 2016, 00(0), 1–8 Copyright and Photocopying: C2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Tracing deforestation drivers in Peru A. Ravikumar et al.
changes to infrastructure, and the availability of invest-
ment capital.
How the Peruvian government understands the drivers
of deforestation in the Amazon has critical implications
for how the country addresses the problem. It is therefore
important to revisit the mainstream narrative about de-
forestation and its drivers. We examine the evidence that
has been used to support the attribution of deforestation
to small-scale agriculture, and argue that it is imprecise,
outdated, and inhibits the design of an effective strategy
for combating deforestation. We applaud recent com-
munications from the government (e.g., MINAM 2015)
that present a more nuanced message about causes of
deforestation, as they provide a stronger basis for ad-
dressing the problem. Nevertheless, the discourse among
government agencies in the Peruvian Amazon continues
to blame Peru’s small-scale farmers, who have been
consistently marginalized in the country’s development
agenda and through past forest policy (Sears & Pinedo-
Vasquez 2011). In this article, we trace the origins of this
narrative to give it a critical look, and ultimately propose
a more nuanced approach to understanding drivers of
small-scale deforestation that could enable policy makers
to respond more appropriately.
The purpose of this article is to raise questions about
how deforestation is viewed by key decision makers, out-
line alternative interpretations of deforestation drivers,
and issue a call for new research that clarifies the
current confused narrative. This article ultimately does
not present new data on the drivers of deforestation,
but rather calls for such data to be collected smartly.
This need is pressing given the current dearth of such
data along with the recent emergence of new actors
and processes that drive deforestation in the Peruvian
Amazon (Finer & Novoa 2015).
The prevailing narrative of deforestation
in the Peruvian Amazon
The idea that migratory or small-scale agriculture is
the main driver of deforestation can be found in many
current documents and discussions in Peru. For ex-
ample, Peru’s 2013 REDD+1Readiness Plan (MINAM
2013) cited small -scale agriculture as the main driver of
deforestation. We heard this statement repeated by repre-
sentatives of the Ministry of Environment (MINAM) and
the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MINAGRI) in
public events related to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change Twentieth Conference of
Parties (UNFCCC COP 20) in Lima in 2014. Perhaps the
most striking expression of this narrative was found in
the Forests Pavilion at the COP 20 on a poster intended
to educate the general public about deforestation in Peru.
It stated, ”90% of the logging and burning of Peru’s
Amazon forests occurs at the hands of peasants living
in poverty who migrate from the highlands and practice
subsistence agriculture” (MINAM 2014, translation by
the authors). This statement is troublesome for three
reasons. First, it places blame firmly on migrants to
Amazonia, apparently excusing other groups. Second,
it conflates the actors who are deforesting with the
practices that lead to deforestation, which can range from
small-scale shifting cultivation, to forest conversion for
pasture or cash-crops, to mining. Third, the data-source
(CDI/INDUFOR 2012; MINAM 2012) on which this
claim is based reports on the frequency of deforestation
patch sizes and not total area deforested.
This generic narrative is also reflected in the draft of
the National Strategy on Forests and Climate Change
(MINAM 2015, translation by the authors), which states:
“Traditional small-scale agriculture is the principal
driver of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon. The
area of these landholdings varies between 5 and 30
hectares . . . The majority of deforestation is associated
with subsistence agriculture, although the final state
of deforested lands may be pasture, perennial crops, or
secondary forests.”
These examples illustrate how the Peruvian govern-
ment considers a broad group of actors, including recent
migrants and longer term resident small-scale farmers,
to be responsible for most deforestation in the Peruvian
Amazon. The above statement also reflects the assump-
tion that land use change tends to move from forest to a
final deforested state, without allowing for the dynamic
equilibria between forests, croplands, and fallows that
are found in smallholder production systems in practice
(Padoch et al. 1985; Marquardt et al. 2013). Before un-
packing these issues around land use change in the Peru-
vian Amazon, we examine the evidence for the narrative
that small-scale subsistence agriculture is responsible for
the vast majority of deforestation in the region.
Where do these conclusions come from?
The 2014 draft National Strategy on Forests and Climate
Change (Rodr´
ıguez et al. 2014), which informed public
discussions at the COP20, cited reports from The World
Agroforestry Center (Velarde et al. 2010) and a re-
port from Peru’s Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG 2002).
Velarde et al. (2010) themselves rely on MINAG (2002) to
suggest that shifting cultivation is a principal driver of de-
forestation in the Peruvian Amazon. The MINAG report
emphasized the linkages between agriculture and
deforestation, suggesting that 81% of deforestation was
2Conservation Letters, June 2016, 00(0), 1–8 Copyright and Photocopying: C2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
A. Ravikumar et al. Tracing deforestation drivers in Peru
caused by shifting cultivation using data from INRENA
(the former agency responsible for natural resource
management), which was calculated from an analysis of
Landsat imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The report explained, “contrary to popular belief, timber
extraction does not destroy forests. The activity that has
the greatest impact is agriculture and livestock (migratory
agriculture), as farmers burn enormous forest areas to
uncover lands” (p. 42, translation by the authors).
In addition, a widely cited report from CDI/INDUFOR
(2012) bases its conclusions on a MINAM (2012) anal-
ysis of remote sensing data. The MINAM data showed
that deforestation in both 2005 and 2009 occurred in
very small patches: about 75% of deforested patches
were smaller than 0.5 ha, and another 15% were smaller
than 1.0 ha. Based on this, the CDI/INDUFOR report
concluded: “It is evident that the deforestation that oc-
curred during both periods was dominated, at the na-
tional level, by the activities of peasant farmers, who re-
quire small areas for settlement” (p. 31, translation by
the authors). In this way, the report linked the frequency
of small deforested patches to small-scale agriculture as a
driver.
Examining this evidence base, we find that the gov-
ernment’s statement that most deforestation in the
Amazon is driven by migratory agriculture is ultimately
based on the frequency of a certain size of patches de-
tected in analysis of remote sensing data. We found no
evidence that the major studies used to support this nar-
rative collected field data or systematically analyzed the
actors involved in land use practices on the ground or
their motivations. Methods for linking remote sensing
and social science to provide a complete picture of land
use change dynamics have been the subject of lively de-
bate for some time (Liverman et al. 1998; Wood & Skole
1998; Rindfuss et al. 2003). Considerable attention has
been paid to the importance of ground-truthing along
with remote sensing, and the discussion is ongoing (see
Hansen et al. 2014). Even as remote sensing technologies
provide increasingly accurate information about the na-
ture of land use change on the ground, alone they still
cannot reveal which specific actors were involved and
what their underlying motivations were, nor how po-
litical negotiations and policies influenced them (Tropek
et al. 2014; Vergara-Asenjo et al. 2015). Understanding
such details is essential for assessing land cover change
comprehensively.
Without evidence of the direct drivers from the ground,
to what extent can these data sources rigorously support
the notion that the vast majority of deforestation in the
Amazon is driven by small-scale and so-called “migratory
agriculture”? We argue that policy makers need a more
nuanced picture of small-scale deforestation that draws
distinctions between the various types of actors involved
in clearing small patches as well as the varied factors that
motivate their behavior.
“Small-scale” and “migratory”
agriculture: clarifying the terminology
Key Peruvian agencies have variously used the terms
“small-scale agriculture” and “migratory agriculture.”
However, these terms frame the debate in ways that ob-
scure processes at work on forest frontiers and may ham-
per the formulation of appropriate policy responses.
There are at least two concepts that the term “mi-
gratory agriculture” may refer to that merit explicit
distinction, and that are problematic if subsumed under
a single umbrella term. First, in Spanish, the term
“migratory agriculture” often refers to swidden-fallow
agriculture, or shifting cultivation, wherein farmers
rotate production among active fields of annual crops
and regenerating forest areas, or fallows. An extensive
literature on shifting cultivation in Peru (see Denevan &
Padoch 1987) describes a tremendous diversity of strate-
gies and practices used by farmers in Amazonia. Rather
than leading to permanent land conversion, shifting culti-
vation involves patterns of growth, fallow, and regrowth.
Such cycles produce temporal and spatial mosaics of
crop fields and forests that can be relatively stable and
sustainable.
A second meaning of “migratory agriculture” is “agri-
culture by migrants” (Che Piu & Menton 2014). This
refers to the expansion of the agricultural frontier via
the influx of immigrants who may spontaneously occupy
forestland and transform it into agricultural land. While
some immigrants become resident in a given area, others
may only exploit the land until it is degraded and move
on to new frontiers, sometimes participating in land spec-
ulation schemes. These processes have long been studied
both in Peru and elsewhere in the Amazon (e.g., Collins
1986; Rudel 2013).
The first sense of the term “migratory agriculture”
refers to how agriculture is being practiced, whereas the
second refers to who is practicing agriculture. The current
discourse conflates the two. It seems to suggest that all
deforestation for small-scale agriculture is bad, and that
it necessarily occurs in forested areas not designated for
conversion. The implicit problem, from the government’s
point of view, is that these small-scale cultivators are
moving into and spontaneously settling areas that should
not be converted.
Distinguishing between who deforests, why they
deforest, and where the deforestation takes place is
essential for designing policy actions and understanding
their trade-offs, yet these distinctions are often lost in
Conservation Letters, June 2016, 00(0), 1–8 Copyright and Photocopying: C2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 3
Tracing deforestation drivers in Peru A. Ravikumar et al.
the dominant discourses described above. To illustrate,
we describe several distinct behaviors and processes
that produce small deforested patches, explain how the
motivations and incentives for these behaviors differ, and
show how recognizing these differences leads to different
sets of policy alternatives.
First, we distinguish between the types of actors and
behaviors that deforest in small patches, and also be-
tween the motivations and incentives for these behaviors
(Table 1). Most small farmers in Amazonia practice shift-
ing cultivation to meet subsistence needs on long estab-
lished landholdings. Many of the very small deforestation
events detected by remote sensing analysis are likely the
periodic clearing of 1, 2, or up to 5 hectares of forest,
usually secondary, to rotate and sometimes to expand a
productive area. In such cases, deforestation is one phase
in a relatively stable pattern of land use that over the long
term results in a diversified mosaic of fields, pasture, agro-
forests, and forests (Pinedo-Vasquez et al. 2002). These
strategies are employed by both indigenous and mestizo
communities in Peru. On the other hand, some farmers,
and especially those new to an area, convert shifting cul-
tivation systems to monocultures, pasture, and planta-
tions in a bid to intensify production. Such conversion
may be motivated by offers of credit and future prof-
its by private firms or government agencies, or opportu-
nities arising from global commodity booms, including,
importantly, the illicit cocaine trade (Salisbury & Fagan
2013).
These diverse land use scenarios should elicit distinct
policy responses from the government. For example,
cyclical on-farm deforestation in stable settlement areas,
without expansion of the original landholding, is likely
of little environmental concern. However, policy mak-
ers treat these traditional (yet adaptive, see Vogt et al.
2015) diverse farming systems as a problem, seeing them
as inefficient, unproductive, and backward. Traditional
development programs encourage a transition toward
agricultural intensification and greater reliance on exter-
nal markets through policies related to land tenure and
credit incentives. Instead of continuing these policies, de-
cision makers could seek ways to encourage sustainable
family farming.
Conversely, because negotiations between third-party
investors and small landholders are private, it is challeng-
ing for the government to intervene. Policies that incen-
tivize and create enabling conditions for family farming
and make such rental arrangements less attractive could
help reduce deforestation in this case.
Second, we distinguish between deforestation on
established landholdings in areas of stable settlement,
as discussed above, and deforestation taking place in
forested state lands zoned for permanent forest cover
or with high conservation value. The geography of
deforestation determines its environmental significance,
and should therefore frame policy alternatives. The
latter cases are of greater concern, wherein spontaneous
informal settlement is sometimes facilitated by logging
interests as an excuse to establish roads and access tim-
ber, or where large-scale commercial entities manipulate
institutional gaps to gain formal property rights from
regional governments and deforest tracts of mature
forest to install commercial monocultures. In other cases,
smallholders themselves may deforest these lands in or-
der to demonstrate “economic exploitation” of the land,
which has been required to gain titles through national
titling programs (e.g., Peruvian Legislative Decree 1089
2008).
Whether smallholders or other actors are converting
primary forests into shifting cultivation mosaics or mono-
cultures, the state has a key role in moderating these pro-
cesses by providing smart incentives (e.g., B ¨
orner et al.
2011) and facilitating dialogues with multiple stakehold-
ers to assess the costs and benefits of different land use
options. Intelligent and enforced zoning that allows some
conversion of forests, especially where it is likely to pro-
duce great benefits, but disallows it in ecologically sensi-
tive regions or areas where present deforestation is likely
to lead to future deforestation––including in and around
protected areas––is critical.
Table 1 shows these diverse processes and elabo-
rates on their distinct policy implications. It is impor-
tant to note that this table implicitly disentangles prox-
imate and underlying drivers of deforestation, a critical
distinction (see Geist & Lambin 2002). The incentives
for behavior are, in essence, underlying drivers; mean-
while, the specific behaviors that lead to small-patch de-
forestation are proximate drivers. While farmers felling
small patches proximately leads to the observed patterns,
examining factors such as the type of forest they are
felling, the crops that they are planting, and the policy
and historical factors that led them to deforest can re-
veal underlying motivations and suggest policy response
options.
Two important conclusions emerge from this overview
of the types of drivers of deforestation. First, the sim-
plifying language of “migratory agriculture” or even
“small-scale agriculture” that has pervaded discussions
in and communications from the Peruvian government
obscures important distinctions among classes of actors
and deforestation drivers. Second, the various processes
that drive deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon have
distinct motivations, which means that any policy that
is to successfully address excessive deforestation and
forest degradation must attend to these underlying
drivers.
4Conservation Letters, June 2016, 00(0), 1–8 Copyright and Photocopying: C2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
A. Ravikumar et al. Tracing deforestation drivers in Peru
Table 1 Examples of long-term land use impacts of diverse behaviors that produce small deforested patches and related policy options
Behaviors that are Incentives and underlying
proximate drivers of drivers for behavior and
small-patch deforestation Location Land use impact policy problems Viable policy responses
Smallholder shifting
cultivation
In established landholdings
and in areas of long-term
stable settlement
Diversified mosaic of
agriculture, pasture,
fallow, and forest
Policy makers treat these
systems as inefficient,
unproductive, and
backward.
They instead encourage
intensification and
dependence on narrow
range of market
commodities
Incentivize diversified farming
systems, recognizing their
environmental sustainability
and importance for
livelihoods and food security
Recognize forest fallows as a
productive land use
Recent migrants
establishing farms
Forested state land, recent
spontaneous settlement,
areas with little, or
improvised, infrastructure
Initial fragmentation of
mature forest areas,
increased access
facilitates population
influx and more forest
clearing for agriculture
Lax enforcement allows
spontaneous
occupation combined
with ineffective
sanctions for
deforestation
Eliminate the requirement for
land clearing to establish
property claims
Enact enforceable zoning to
prevent new clearing in
certain areas
Intensified smallholder
annual and perennial
production for
commercial purposes
In established landholdings Diversified production
mosaics converted into
monoculture cash crops
plantations, and
agroforestry systems
Intensification pushed by
policy makers (e.g.,
incentives for
mechanized agriculture
and monoculture) for
higher productivity and
economic development
Consider targeted support for
diversified farm mosaics by
moving away from credit
policies that incentivize
monoculture
Outside investor-driven
commercial agriculture
and ranching
In established landholdings
and in spontaneously
settled state forest lands
High-input monoculture
(e.g., papaya, maize,
and rice) replaces
extensive shifting
cultivation mosaics
Struggling farmers lease
or sell their land to
investors; the State is
absent from these
private agreements
Ensure that such behavior
does not spread into
conservation areas
Craft market policies like
credits and incentives that
create enabling conditions
for diversified family farm
production
The way forward
The Peruvian government and civil society have taken
key steps toward confronting deforestation while simul-
taneously recognizing the importance of smallholder
livelihoods issues, such as enacting new regulations
under the Forestry Law that recognize diverse forestry
activities on farms. The purpose of this article is not to
disparage discussions and efforts being made to address
deforestation and its drivers in Peru, but instead to urge
critical reexamination of the current narrative. By tracing
the origin of the notion that small-scale or “migratory
agriculture” is the main driver of deforestation, we
have illustrated how overly general assumptions can
mask the real dynamics and drivers of deforestation. In
this context, we have several suggestions to clarify the
narrative and move forward.
First, we call for renewed and rigorous investigation
to identify and characterize the direct drivers of de-
forestation and forest degradation to complement the
advances made in assessing land cover change by remote
sensing (DeVries et al. 2015; Joshi et al. 2015). We suggest
examining the underlying motivations for deforesta-
tion, particularly drawing links between agricultural
and development policies, the historical socioeco-
nomic marginalization of smallholders, and the current
power dynamics embedded in decision-making about
forests.
Such an approach will triangulate information gleaned
from remotely sensed data that have driven much of the
conversation in Peru about deforestation to date with
complementary quantitative and qualitative data that
will help policy makers to address the complexity of
Conservation Letters, June 2016, 00(0), 1–8 Copyright and Photocopying: C2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 5
Tracing deforestation drivers in Peru A. Ravikumar et al.
land use decisions in forested areas. This should permit
innovative policy design and, crucially, iterative policy
learning. We urge the Peruvian government, civil society
organizations, and academic institutions to capitalize on
this opportunity.
Second, agencies in the government of Peru, Pe-
ruvian and international researchers, and civil society
must work together to generate dialogue based on ev-
idence about current drivers of deforestation and for-
est degradation. As the proliferation of industrial plan-
tations for crops such as cacao and oil palm acceler-
ates (Guti´
errez-V´
elez et al. 2011; Dammert 2014; Potapov
et al. 2014; EIA 2015; RAISG 2015), and the gold min-
ing industry continues to boom in some parts of the
Amazon (Asner et al. 2013; Potapov et al. 2014; Scul-
lion et al. 2014), the profile of deforestation drivers is
changing (Finer & Novoa 2015). Indeed, Scullion et al.
(2014) found that in Madre de Dios, since 2007, arti-
sanal gold mining has become the predominant driver of
land use change, surpassing agriculture. Evidence from
elsewhere in the Amazon, such as in Brazil, shows that
even when small-scale agriculture––as diffuse and diverse
as it is ––does primarily drive deforestation, new pro-
cesses such as land consolidation, plantation establish-
ment, and large-scale ranching can and do become more
significant drivers over time (Godar et al. 2012; Alencar
et al. 2016). This dynamic context makes it ever more
important to revisit assumptions and conduct rigorous
research.
The implications of not fully understanding and ad-
dressing the drivers of deforestation in any country
are significant, particularly with recent commitments by
most governments to achieving REDD+emissions re-
duction targets. The existing narrative risks perpetuating
problematic generalizations about the expansion of the
agricultural frontier have led to undue condemnation of a
range of sustainable agricultural practices. It has justified
policies that aim to eliminate shifting cultivation from
conservation programs, even though traditional agricul-
tural practices can in fact be key parts of a sustainable
land use agenda (Padoch & Sunderland 2013; Van Vliet
et al. 2013; Vieira et al. 2014).
Assuming that some deforestation will occur in the
Amazon, a productive approach will be to examine the
balance of social and environmental costs and benefits
associated with different patterns of deforestation, and
then prioritize outcomes that are desirable or that should
be avoided. We support the notion that the expansion
of the agricultural frontier into undesignated natural
areas must cease in Peru and elsewhere, but we take
issue with the suggestion that shifting cultivation is the
main problem. If Peru is to reduce deforestation and
forest degradation while still meeting development and
livelihoods objectives, more rigorous mixed-methods
research on the drivers of deforestation coupled with
multistakeholder processes to evaluate trade-offs is
required. Old assumptions about deforestation must
be revisited. But acquiring better information to un-
derstand the drivers of deforestation is only an initial
step in devising effective land use plans and policy
interventions.
Ultimately, such information must be translated into
action through political negotiations, and decision mak-
ers should commit to participatory processes to enable
government, civil society, and local communities to
work together, capitalizing on the management strengths
of Amazonian people to achieve environmental, liveli-
hoods, and development objectives. As is always the case,
divergent interests will have to be negotiated. Even with
better information, the relative importance of different
drivers will likely still be contested by some actors.
Nevertheless, understanding the realities of deforestation
is a necessary starting point for such conversations. We
suggest that other countries should likewise revisit their
prevailing narratives about deforestation, and endeavor
to collect data that captures the complexity and diversity
of drivers of deforestation.
Acknowledgments
We thank Valentina Robiglio, Anne Larson, and Manuel
Guariguata for in-depth discussions that motivated this
article in the first place, and for reviews of early drafts.
We are also grateful to our friends and colleagues in the
Peruvian government who have been critical allies for
us in our research activities, and continue to be open-
minded and proactive in improving forest management
and land use practices. We would also like to thank Nigel
Pitman for a helpful review of a later draft, the Conser-
vation Letters editor, and three anonymous reviewers
for essential comments that greatly improved this article.
The CGIAR research programme on Forests, Trees, and
Agroforestry, the Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation (NORAD), the German International Cli-
mate Initiative (IKI), and The Field Museum’s Keller
Science Action Center and Integrative Research Center
helped to support this work.
References
Alencar, A., Pereira, C., Castro, I. et al. (2016). Desmatamento
nos Assentamentos da Amaz ˆ
onia: Hist ´
orico, Tendˆ
encias e
Oportunidades. IPAM,Bras
´
ılia, DF, p. 93.
Almeyda Zambrano, A., Broadbent, E., Schmink, M., Perz, S.
& Asner, G. (2010). Deforestation drivers in Southwest
6Conservation Letters, June 2016, 00(0), 1–8 Copyright and Photocopying: C2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
A. Ravikumar et al. Tracing deforestation drivers in Peru
Amazonia: comparing smallholder farmers in I ˜
napari, Peru,
and Assis Brasil, Brazil. Conserv. Soc.,8, 157-170.
Alvarez, N.L. & Naughton-Treves, L. (2003). Linking national
agrarian policy to deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon: a
case study of Tambopata, 1986-1997. Ambio,32, 269-274.
Asner, G.P., Llactayo, W., Tupayachi, R. & Luna, E.R. (2013).
Elevated rates of gold mining in the Amazon revealed
through high-resolution monitoring. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,
110, 18454-18459.
B¨
orner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Hyman, G. &
Nascimento, N. (2011). REDD sticks and carrots in the
Brazilian Amazon: assessing costs and livelihood implications.
CCAFS Working Paper 8. Copenhagen, Denmark: CCAFS.
CDI/INDUFOR. (2012). Plan de Inversi´
on Forestal
Componente III: Elementos para la identificaci ´
on de ´
areas
con mayor potential para reducir emisiones de GEI en el
sector forestal. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo,
Lima/Helsinki.
Chavez, A.B., Broadbent, E.N. & Almeyda Zambrano, A.M.
(2014). Smallholder policy adoption and land cover change
in the southeastern Peruvian Amazon: a twenty-year
perspective. Appl. Geogr.,53, 223-233.
Che Piu, H. & Menton, M. (2014). The context of REDD+in
Peru: drivers, agents and institutions. Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Collins, J. (1986). Smallholder settlement of tropical South
America: the social causes of ecological destruction. Hum.
Org.,45, 1-10.
Coomes, O.T., Takasaki, Y. & Rhemtulla, J.M. (2011).
Land-use poverty traps identified in shifting cultivation
systems shape long-term tropical forest cover. PNAS,102,
13925-13930.
Dammert, B.J.L. (2014). Cambio de uso de suelos por
agricultura a gran escala en la Amazon´
ıaandina:elcasode
la palma aceitera. Unidad de apoyo de ICAA/IRG, Lima,
Peru, p. 76.
Denevan, W. & Padoch, C., editors. (1987). Swidden-fallow
agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. The New York Botanical
Garden, New York.
DeVries, B., Decuyper, M., Verdbesselt, J., Zeileis, A., Herold,
M. & Joseph, S. (2015). Tracking disturbance-regrowth
dynamics in tropical forests using structural change
detection and Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ.,
169, 320-334.
Dourojeanni, M. (1987). Aprovechamiento del barbecho
forestal en ´
areas de agricultura migratoria en la Amazon´
ıa
peruana. Revista Forestal del Per ´
u,14, 1-33.
Dourojeanni, M.J. (1976). Una nueva estrategia para el
desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Revista Forestal del Per ´
u,
6, 1-22.
EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency). (2015).
Deforestation by definition: the Peruvian government fails to define
forests as forests. Environmental Investigation Agency, Lima,
Peru.
Finer, M., Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., Keane, B. & Ross, C.
(2008). Oil and gas projects in the Western Amazon:
threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples.
PLoS One,3, e2932.
Finer, M. & Novoa, S. (2015). Patterns and drivers of
deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon. MAAP Synthesis
#1.
Geist, H.J. & Lambin, E.F. (2002). Proximate causes and
underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation.
BioScience,52, 143-150.
Godar, J., Tizado, E.J. & Pokorny, B. (2012). Who is
responsible for deforestation in the Amazon? A spatially
explicit analysis along the Transamazon Highway in Brazil.
For. Ecol. Manag.,267, 58-73.
Guti´
errez-V´
elez, V.H., DeFries, R. & Pinedo-V´
asquez, M.
(2011). High-yield oil palm expansion spares land at the
expense of forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res.
Lett.,6, 044029.
Hansen, M., Potapov, P., Moore, M., et al. (2013).
High-resolution global mpas of 21st-century forest cover
change. Science,342, 850-853.
doi:10.1126/science.1244693.
Ichikawa, M., Ricse, A., Ugarte-Guerra, J. & Kobayashi, S.
(2014). Migration patterns and land use by immigrants
under a changing frontier society in the Peruvian Amazon.
Tropics,23, 73-82.
Joshi, N., Mitchard, E.T. & Woo, N. et al. (2015). Mapping
dynamics of deforestation and forest degradation in tropical
forests using radar satellite data. Environ. Res. Lett.,10,
034014.
Liverman, D., Moran, E.F., Rindfuss, R.R. & Stern, P.C.,
editors. (1998). People and pixels: linking remote sensing and
social science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
M¨
aki, S., Kalliola, R. & Vuorinen, K. (2001). Road
construction in the Peruvian Amazon: processes, causes
and consequences. Environ. Conserv.,28, 199-214.
Marquardt, K., Milestad, R. & Porro, R. (2013). Farmers’
perspectives on vital soil-related ecosystem services in
intensive swidden farming systems in the Peruvian
Amazon. Hum. Ecol., 41, 139-151.
MINAG (Ministerio de Agricultura). (2002). Estrategia
Nacional Forestal, Per ´
u 2002-2021. Versi ´
on concertada con
instituciones y actores forestales. Ministerio de Agricultura,
Organizaci ´
on de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y
la Alimentaci ´
on, Gobierno de los Pa´
ıses Bajos, Proyecto
FAO/GCP/PER/035 NET “Apoyo a la Estrategia Nacional
para el Desarrollo Forestal”, Lima, Per ´
u.
MINAM. (2012). Memoria T´
ecnica de Cuantificaci ´
on de
Bosque y Deforestaci ´
on: Periodo 2000-2005-2009.
Minsterio del Ambiente, Lima, Per ´
u.
MINAM. (2013). Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Peru.
Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP). Lima, Peru.
MINAM. (2014). Pabellon de Bosques: Bosque de Problemas
y Soluciones. Lima, Peru.
MINAM. (2015). Hacia una Estrategia Nacional sobre Bosques
y Cambio Clim´
atico: Documento preliminar. p. 111
http://www.serfor.gob.pe/construyamos-una-estrategia-a-
favor-de-nuestros-bosques/, Lima, Peru.
Conservation Letters, June 2016, 00(0), 1–8 Copyright and Photocopying: C2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 7
Tracing deforestation drivers in Peru A. Ravikumar et al.
Padoch, C., Chota Inuma, J., de Jong, W. & Unruh, J. (1985).
Amazonian agroforestry: a market-oriented system in Peru.
Agrofor. Syst.,3, 47-58.
Padoch, C. & Sunderland, T. (2013). Managing landscapes for
greater food security and improved livelihoods. Unasylva,
64, 3-13.
Peruvian Legislative Decree 1089. (2008). Accessed Apr. 20,
2016. URL: http://www.vivienda.gob.pe/dnc/archivos/
valuaciones/normas˙interes/D.%20LEG%201089.pdf
Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Barletti Pasqualle, J., del Castillo Torres,
D. & Coffey, K. (2002). A tradition of change: the dynamic
relationship between biodiversity and society in sector
Muyuy, Peru. Environ. Sci. Pol.,5, 43-53.
Potapov, P.V., Dempewolf, J., Talero, Y. et al. (2014). National
satellite-based humid tropical forest change assessment in
Peru in support of REDD+implementation. Environ. Res.
Lett.,9, 124012.
RAISG. (2015). Deforestaci ´
on en la Amazon´
ıa (1970-2013)
www.raisg.socioambiental.org, Lima, Peru.
Rindfuss, R.R., Prasartkul, P., Walsh, S.J. et al. (2003).
Household-parcel linkages in Nang Rong, Thailand:
Challenges of large samples. Pages 131-172 in J. Fox, R.R.
Rindfuss, S.J. Walsh, V. Mishra, editors. People and the
environment: approaches for linking household and community
surveys to remote sensing and GIS. Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Rodr´
ıguez, J., Szott, L., Solano, G. et al. (2014). Estrategia
Nacional de bosques y cambio clim´
atico. Informe de
consultor´
ıa. Lima, Per ´
u, p. 82.
Rudel, T.K. (2013). Tropical forests: paths of destruction and
regeneration. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Salisbury, D.S. & Fagan, C. (2013). Coca and conservation:
cultivation, eradication, and trafficking in the Amazon
borderlands. GeoJournal,78, 41-60.
Scullion, J.J., Vogt, K.A., Sienkiewicz, A., Gmur, S.J. &
Trujillo, C. (2014). Assessing the influence of land-cover
change and conflicting land-use authorizations on
ecosystem conversion on the forest frontier of Madre de
Dios, Peru. Biol. Conserv.,171, 247-258.
Sears, R.R. & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. (2011). Forest policy
reform and the organization of logging in Peruvian
Amazonia. Develop. Change,42, 609-631.
Tropek, R., Sedl´
aˇ
cek, O., Beck, J. et al. (2014). Comment on
“High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover
change”. Science,344, 981.
Ugarte-Guerra, L.J. (2009). Migraci ´
on, carreteras y la
din´
amica de la deforestaci ´
on en Ucayali. Pages 313-324 in
R. Porro, editor. Alternativa Agroflorestal na Amazˆ
onia em
Transformac¸ ˜
ao. Embrapa Informac¸˜
ao Tecnol ´
ogica, Embrapa
Amaz ˆ
onia Oriental, Minist´
erio da Agricultura, Pecu´
aria e
Abastecimento, Centro Mundial Agroflorestal, Brasilia,
DF.
Van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Birch-Thomsen, T. & Schmook, B.
(2013). Is there a continuing rationale for swidden
cultivation in the 21st century? Hum. Ecol., 41,1-5.
Velarde, S., Ugarte-Guerra, J., Tito, M. et al. (2010). Reducing
emissions from all land uses in Peru. Final National Report
ASB partnership for the tropical forest margins, Nairobi,
Kenya.
Vergara-Asenjo, G., Sharma, D. & Potvin, C. (2015). Engaging
stakeholders: assessing accuracy of participatory mapping
of land cover in Panama. Conserv. Lett.,8, 432-439.
Vieira, I.C.G., Gardner, T., Ferreira, J., Lees, A.C. & Barlow, J.
(2014). Challenges of governing second-growth forests: a
case study from the Brazilian Amazonian state of Par´
a.
Forests,5, 1737-1752.
Vogt, N.D., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Brondizio, E.S., Almeida, O.
& Rivero, S. (2015). Forest transitions in mosaic
landscapes: smallholder’s flexibility in land-resource use
decisions and livelihood strategies from World War II to the
present in the Amazon estuary. Soc. Nat. Res.,28, 1-16.
Watters, L. (1971). La Agricultora Migratoria en Am´
erica Latina.
FAO, Rome.
Wood, C.H. & Skole, D. (1998). Linking satellite, census, and
survey data to study deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.
Pages 70-93 in D. Liverman, E.F. Moran, R.R. Rindfuss,
P.C. Stern, editors. People and pixels: linking remote sensing
and social science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Endnote
1. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation
8Conservation Letters, June 2016, 00(0), 1–8 Copyright and Photocopying: C2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
... From 2000 to 2010, the rate of deforestation in Ghana was very high (2%) compared to that of other West African countries (0.6%) [2]. Since 1987, about 70% of the deforestation in Ghana can be attributed to agriculture expansion [3]. ...
... People use forestland for agriculture expansion since they do not know the value of managing forests (i.e., woodlot production) [6]. This leads to deforestation as forestland is used for agriculture [2,3]. The forest is depleted because people who have access to the forest do not receive an economic benefit from the forest [6]. ...
... This result confirms [9] findings that show land is put to the use that maximizes the present value of profits to the decision maker. This may explain why investors invest in staple crops and cash crops, but not woodlot production, thus leading to deforestation [2,3]. It may also explain why forestland is used for agriculture in the country [6,10]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Agriculture is the main driver of deforestation. In other to reduce deforestation, a viable alternative livelihood strategy, aside from agriculture, must be in place to provide a sustainable income for investors. Managing forests for sustainable production (the forest economy) has been suggested as an alternative for sustainable land use practice. In the current study, we undertook a comparative analysis of woodlots and agriculture. The profitability of agriculture and woodlot production in Ghana was compared using a profitability model. We looked at profitability in terms of Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of three regions in Ghana, namely, Ashanti, Bono-East, and Western Regions. We found that woodlot producers with contractual relationships with the Forest Commission and other forestry companies produce the highest Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). However, this profitability is marginally higher than that of agriculture, which gives a fixed yearly return. This means woodlot production may not be a panacea to reducing agriculture in Ghana.
... The stipulation calls for a supply chain approach and, thus, suggests links between high-value commercial agriculture and deforestation in Peru. It prompts the question as to how commodity production relates to deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon, as well as what role ZDSC initiatives could play in a country where subsistence agriculture and commodity production meant for the domestic market are reported as the main drivers of forest loss [36,37]. ...
... Moreover, the data indicate that the production and consumption of agricultural and forest commodities linked to the domestic market pose a far greater deforestation risk than that of those linked to the international market [36]. Moreover, public sector and civil society discourses have pointed to small-scale low-opportunity-cost agriculture, rather than agricultural commodity production, as the main driver of deforestation in Peru overall [37]. However, evidence indicates that commercial agriculture causes significant deforestation, but in a localized manner [53]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Global narratives around the links between deforestation and agricultural commodity production have led to the application of voluntary zero-deforestation agreements between companies, governments, and civil society. The continued tropical deforestation warrants a re-examination of this approach in order to customize its application for a particular location. Our paper contributes to this by exploring the spatial associations between deforestation and the production of cacao, coffee, and oil palm in the Amazon region in Peru. The geographical overlaps between deforestation, and the distribution of these commodity crops, indicate four types of spatial associations: (1) a high degree of deforestation and a high degree of commodity production (high-high); (2) a high degree of deforestation and a low degree of commodity production (high-low); (3) a low degree of deforestation and a high degree of commodity production (low-high); and (4) a low degree of deforestation and a low degree of commodity production (low-low). On the basis of these associations, we present four scenarios in which zero-deforestation supply chain interventions may operate in Peru and argue that broadening the perspective of such interventions by adopting a global value chain lens can improve the use of previously deforested lands, prevent unintended or future deforestation and, in turn, ensure that no forest area is left behind.
... In the site in Peru, a common practice of (smallholder) farmers is to convert primary forests into shifting cultivation mosaics, leaving the forest to recover after a few years of crop cultivation, and before cutting the forest again for another rotation cycle (Ravikumar et al., 2017). The change detection results (Fig. 4) confirm this by the relatively large proportion of secondary forest, and the specific examples ( Fig. 3 and Appendix F) indicate that the algorithm is capable of detecting the relatively fast changing forest, non-forest dynamics. ...
Article
Full-text available
Several forest change detection algorithms are available for tracking and quantifying deforestation based on dense Landsat and Sentinel time series satellite data. Only few also capture regrowth after clearing in an accurate and continuous way across a diversity of forest types (including dry and seasonal forests) and are thus suitable to address the need for better information on secondary forest succession and for assessing forest restoration activities. We present a new change detection algorithm that makes use of the flexibility of kernel density estimations to create a forest reference phenology, taking into account all historical phenological variations of the forest rather than smoothing these out by curve fitting. The AVOCADO (Anomaly Vegetation Change Detection) algorithm allows detection of anomalies with a spatially explicit likelihood measure. We demonstrate the flexibility of the algorithm for three contrasting sites using all available Landsat time series data; ranging from tropical rainforest to dry miombo forest ecosystems, with different time series data densities, and characterized by different forest change types (e.g. selective logging, shifting cultivation). We found that the approach produced in general high overall accuracies (> 90%) across these varying conditions, but had lower accuracies in the dry forest site with a slight overestimation of disturbances and regrowth. The latter was due to the similarity of crops in the time series NDMI signal, causing false regrowth detections. In the moist forest site the low producer accuracies in the intact forest and regrowth class was due to its very small area class (most forest disappeared by the nineties). We showed that the algorithm is capable of capturing small-scale (gradual) changes (e.g. selective logging, forest edge logging) and the multiple changes associated to shifting cultivation. The performance of the algorithm has been shown at regional scale, but if larger scale studies are required a representative selection of reference forest types need to be selected carefully. The outputs of the change maps allow the estimation of the spatio-temporal trends in the proportions of intact forest, secondary forest and non-forest - information that is useful for assessing the areas and potential of secondary forests to accumulate carbon and forest restoration targets. The algorithm can be used for disturbance and regrowth monitoring in different ecozones, is user friendly, and open source.
... A multi-agency and multi-level governance system over forests and farmland results in a system that lacks flexibility and feedback loops to identify problems and provide adaptive solutions and presents major challenges for engaging with key forest stakeholders, such as small-scale landowners, at the local level. Small-scale farmers in Peru are blamed for 90 percent of the deforestation [69] and are widely disparaged by the state [70]. Thus, they are already at a disadvantage in dialogue and negotiations around forest governance, even if they can get to the table. ...
Article
Full-text available
Natural forest regrowth is critical for restoring ecosystem services in degraded landscapes and providing forest resources. Those who control tenure and access rights to these secondary forest areas determine who benefits from economically charged off-farm opportunities such as finance for forest restoration, selling carbon credits, and receiving payment for ecosystem services. We explore multiple dimensions of secondary forest governance in Peru, where the lack of official government statistics of the extent, geography, and ownership, coupled with low state capacity, prevents the development of governance structures that could stimulate their sustainable management. In this paper, we review the challenges to secondary forest governance, and the opportunities to strengthen it, focusing on beneficial outcomes for smallholder farmers. We characterize secondary forest types, extent, and persistence in Peru, followed by a presentation of the social dimensions of their governance. We identify four entry points for government to take action: national mapping of the socio-geography of second growth forest, regularize the property rights of untitled landholders, relax forest regulations, and provide incentives, not sanctions, for secondary forest management. Overall, we recommend folding secondary forest governance into a landscape approach. In Peru, strengthening local forest governance could help to drive benefits of climate change mitigation incentives directly to local forest stewards.
... However, critical infrastructure is expected to be built in the area in the next few years, with the aim of reducing travelling times for citizens, but also to improve the economic efficiency of extracting raw materials F I G U R E 1 Geographical location of the region of interest (ROI) within the Peruvian Amazon (Laurance et al., 2015;Gallice et al., 2019). In fact, palm oil production has rocketed in the region of San Martin (Vijay et al., 2018), and small-scale agricultural production has increased throughout the area (Ravikumar et al., 2017). Similarly, in Madre de Dios, located in the southern area, illegal mining has increased in the last 10 years (Asner et al., 2013), with subsequent impacts in terms of toxicity and GHG emissions . ...
Article
Land use changes (LUCs), which are defined as the modification in the use of land due to anthropogenic activities, are important sources of GHG emissions. In this context, understanding future trends of LUCs, such as deforestation, in a spatial manner is relevant. The main objective of this study is to generate a deforestation prediction model for a given period of time (i.e., 2002–2017 and 2010–2017) to estimate the potential carbon emissions associated with different anthropogenic variables in the Peruvian Amazon using machine learning (ML) algorithms. This study was motivated in the analysis of a road project previously studied using life cycle assessment (LCA). Models using neural networks and random forest algorithms were trained and evaluated in a fully cloud-based environment using Google Earth Engine. ML-related results demonstrated that random forest is a quicker and straightforward response to model the system under study, especially considering that data do not require additional processing during the modeling and prediction stages. Predicted results suggest that expected road expansion may be related to considerable carbon emissions in the future. Calculated values are relevant especially if the mitigation efforts that Peru has complied with in the Paris Agreement are considered. The increased complexity of the framework is justified since it allows identifying the location of hotspots and may potentially complement the utility of LCA in policy support in the areas of territorial planning and tropical road expansion.
Thesis
This thesis is concerned with the reconfiguration of the state-indigeneity relationship through the implementation of a state-led payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme in the Peruvian Amazon. As a case study, I examine the implementation of the National Programme for the Conservation of Forests (NPCF) within seven indigenous communities in Peru. This initiative provides conditional economic incentives to the communities for the conservation of Amazonian forests. My primary research is ethnographic, focused on the ordinary exchanges that take place on a daily basis between state bureaucrats and indigenous peoples. Despite the conservation aims, the NPCF also generates social and political impacts within communities. The new administrative responsibilities of indigenous authorities strengthen their sense of agency to access new state resources and funds. Likewise, state bureaucrats, in their efforts to make state-led PES scheme goals legible for their indigenous audience, adapt and ignore formal policy content, operating as brokers to demonstrate the accountability of the economic incentives, even if that means diverting attention away from conservation issues. Economic incentives are framed by indigenous peoples as rewards and favours, producing contrasting forms of articulation with the state. Communities create an alternative interpretation of forest conservation as an asset that attracts development opportunities from external sources, including the state. Moreover, the main effect of state-led PES schemes is the bureaucratisation of the communities as a form of mediation with the state; that is to say, indigenous communities recognise that bureaucracy is, for them, a technique of citizenship and development. Indeed, for indigenous communities, bureaucratic skills allow them to become legible public policy users, able to exercise their citizenship at the margins. The common thread in this dissertation is the quotidian relevance of everyday bureaucratic procedures for accountability in a state-led PES scheme. Although NPCF administrative duties imply a heavy burden for indigenous communal leaders, they have embraced them to reconfigure their relationship with the state.
Article
Deforestation threatens biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and human communities across the Amazon Basin, including within protected areas. Development and implementation of effective management interventions depend in part on identifying the factors contributing to forest loss and areas at risk of future conversion, but standard land use change modeling approaches may not fully capture contextual factors that are not easily quantified. To better understand forest loss and agricultural expansion in Amazonian protected areas, we combine quantitative land use change modelling with qualitative discourse analysis, using Brazil's Jamanxim National Forest as a case study. We model land use change from 2008‐2018 and project deforestation through 2028 using variables identified from a review of studies modeling land use change in the Amazon and a critical discourse analysis examining documents produced by different actors at various spatial scales. We find that including variables identified as important in the qualitative discourse analysis alongside more traditional variables improves the predictive ability of these models, as measured by ANOVA, McFadden's adjusted pseudo‐R2, and quantity and allocation disagreement. Our approach of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in land use change modelling can provide a framework for future interdisciplinary work in land use change. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Article
Full-text available
Recent studies point to a rapid increase in small-scale deforestation in Amazonia. Where people live along the rivers of the basin, customary shifting cultivation creates a zone of secondary forest, orchards and crop fields around communities in what was once was old-growth terra firme forest. Visible from satellite imagery as a narrow but extensive band of forest disturbance along rivers, this zone is often considered as having been deforested. In this paper we assess forest disturbance and the dynamics of secondary forests around 275 communities along a 725 km transect on the Napo and Amazon rivers in the Peruvian Amazon. We used high-resolution satellite imagery to define the ‘working area’ around each community, based on the spatial distribution of forest/field patches and the visible boundary between old-growth and secondary forests. Land cover change was assessed between ca. 1989 and 2015 using CLASliteTM image classification. Statistical analyses using community and household-level data from the Peruvian Amazon Rural Livelihoods and Poverty (PARLAP) Project identified the predictors of the extent of forest disturbance and the dynamics of secondary forests around communities. Although shifting cultivation is the primary driver of old-growth forest loss, we find that secondary forest cover which replaces old-growth forests is stable through time, and that both the area and rate of expansion into old-growth forests are modest when compared to forest conversion in Peru for colonization and plantation development. Our findings challenge the notion that smallholder agriculture along rivers is an important threat to terra firme forests in Amazonia and point to the importance of protecting forests on community lands from loggers, colonists and other outsiders.
Chapter
This chapter presents country-specific manifestations of human intervention in the Amazon. A variety of circumstances manifest themselves despite the common underlying international and domestic economic and political forces. A rapid expansion of agricultural and extractive activities, mostly for export but also for domestic markets, and to a lesser degree small scale agriculture have led to serious deforestation and environmental degradation without substantially improving the living conditions of the population. Government policy and the extent of State ascendancy in the area also seem to be a powerful determinant of the nature and scale of the process. In the case of Colombia, the process was shaped by the presence of the guerilla and deteriorated after the Peace Treaty, which does not mention “deforestation” and perpetuates Colombia’s extractivist model. Ecuador’s case is representative of the link between fossil fuel extraction, environmental deterioration, and social exclusion. The case of Peru shows an Amazon perceived as a territory awaiting “conquest, occupation and exploitation” subjected to an unwavering extractive and market orientated drive. In Bolivia’s case, the focus is put on the contradictions between conservation and state-led development policies and business activities, which have transformed it into the second deforestation hotspot of Amazonia after Brazil. The Venezuelan Amazon is shown to be subject to rampant violence and illegal activity driven by the political geography of gold in mixed configurations of governance with blurred boundaries between legality and illegality and no concern for conservation. References are made to the case of Brazil, which succeeded in reducing deforestation with strong policy enforcement between 2005 and 2012. Other conservation experiences are also included. In all cases the extractivist model has outpaced conservation policies; yet these experiences can prove useful in the design of effective conservation policies, emissions reduction, and improvements in living conditions of Indigenous and local peoples.
Article
Full-text available
The question of how smallholders of the Amazon estuary, locally known as cabolcos, have adapted their land use systems to produce resources during booms and busts is analyzed in this article. We draw upon more than 50 years of census data and more than 30 years of remotely sensed land-cover data to reconstruct these dynamics from World War II to the present. We found that smallholders are highly flexible in their land use decisions and livelihood strategies and that such flexibility has helped them to adapt their land-use systems to produce resources in demand during market booms and conserve forests. Smallholder mosaic landscapes contain forest fragments that enhance socioecological resilience to floods and other events produced by changes in the local hydro-climatic regimes due to sea-level rise and other climate-related changes. We argue that flexibility is a tool to reduce livelihood vulnerability by facilitating adaptation to global market and climate driven changes over the long term.
Article
Full-text available
Mapping anthropogenic forest disturbances has largely been focused on distinct delineations of events of deforestation using optical satellite images. In the tropics, frequent cloud cover and the challenge of quantifying forest degradation remain problematic. In this study, we detect processes of deforestation, forest degradation and successional dynamics, using long-wavelength radar (L-band from ALOS PALSAR) backscatter. We present a detection algorithm that allows for repeated disturbances on the same land, and identifies areas with slow- and fast-recovering changes in backscatter in close spatial and temporal proximity. In the study area in Madre de Dios, Peru, 2.3% of land was found to be disturbed over three years, with a false positive rate of 0.3% of area. A low, but significant, detection rate of degradation from sparse and small-scale selective logging was achieved. Disturbances were most common along the tri-national Interoceanic Highway, as well as in mining areas and areas under no land use allocation. A continuous spatial gradient of disturbance was observed, highlighting artefacts arising from imposing discrete boundaries on deforestation events. The magnitude of initial radar backscatter, and backscatter decrease, suggested that large-scale deforestation was likely in areas with initially low biomass, either naturally or since already under anthropogenic use. Further, backscatter increases following disturbance suggested that radar can be used to characterize successional disturbance dynamics, such as biomass accumulation in lands post-abandonment. The presented radar-based detection algorithm is spatially and temporally scalable, and can support monitoring degradation and deforestation in tropical rainforests with the use of products from ALOS-2 and the future SAOCOM and BIOMASS missions.
Article
Full-text available
Mapping anthropogenic forest disturbances has largely been focused on distinct delineations of events of deforestation using optical satellite images. In the tropics, frequent cloud cover and the challenge of quantifying forest degradation remain problematic. In this study, we detect processes of deforestation, forest degradation and successional dynamics, using long-wavelength radar (L-band from ALOS PALSAR) backscatter. We present a detection algorithm that allows for repeated disturbances on the same land, and identifies areas with slow- and fast-recovering changes in backscatter in close spatial and temporal proximity. In the study area in Madre de Dios, Peru, 2.3% of land was found to be disturbed over three years, with a false positive rate of 0.3% of area. A low, but significant, detection rate of degradation from sparse and small-scale selective logging was achieved. Disturbances were most common along the tri-national Interoceanic Highway, as well as in mining areas and areas under no land use allocation. A continuous spatial gradient of disturbance was observed, highlighting artefacts arising from imposing discrete boundaries on deforestation events. The magnitude of initial radar backscatter, and backscatter decrease, suggested that large-scale deforestation was likely in areas with initially low biomass, either naturally or since already under anthropogenic use. Further, backscatter increases following disturbance suggested that radar can be used to characterize successional disturbance dynamics, such as biomass accumulation in lands post-abandonment. The presented radar-based detection algorithm is spatially and temporally scalable, and can support monitoring degradation and deforestation in tropical rainforests with the use of products from ALOS-2 and the future SAOCOM and BIOMASS missions.
Article
Full-text available
Full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, and high accuracy estimates are two current requirements for the purposes of monitoring forests at international level. We produced two land cover maps, both of which were based on digital image processing (decision trees) using Rapideye imagery, and a land cover participatory map, for indigenous territories of eastern Panama. Accuracy of the three maps was evaluated using field data. Classification that was based on participatory mapping gave best overall accuracy of 83.7% (κ = 0.783), followed by the decision tree that included textural variables (DT2 – overall accuracy of 79.9%, κ = 0.757). We have demonstrated for the first time that local knowledge can improve land cover classification and facilitate the identification of forest degradation. The plea of the UNFCC for the full and effective participation of local and indigenous people could, therefore, improve the accuracy of monitoring.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Article
In the north-western Peruvian Amazon, a new road has recently been constructed to link the city of Iquitos with the town of Nauta. The road crosses lands that are remarkably heterogeneous in terms of ecological conditions, comprising distinctive soil types from extremely poor to relatively fertile. Although this reality contributes to the land use potential and human carrying capacity of each place, deforestation of road margins appears equally intensive on all types of land. In the mid-1990s, two dead-end roads starting from both urban centres were characterized by distinctive zones of resource exploitation, with a road-free section of primary forest in between. A few years later, the separate road ends were linked by a dirt road that served only occasional traffic, but introduced significant new settlement. Various developmental trends evidence incoherent resource management and momentary public support in the region. By promoting diverse economic activities that reflect environmental conditions in the initial land use planning and land allocation, most sections along this road could be considered economically valuable for purposes such as sustainable forestry, tourism, agroforestry and, in suitable sites, intensive agriculture. To promote the more sustainable uses, thorough environmental legislation, administrative guidelines and follow-up based on an implicit mechanism of learning from previous experiences should be implemented. At the local level, there are some important initiatives to support such development, including ecological and economic zoning. However, these measures might be too late to prevent the destructive practices so common in many parts of Amazonia.
Article
Globalization has spatially and temporally varied effects on forest cover in the tropics. It destroys primary forests (first nature) in some places at the same time that it creates secondary and scrub growth (second nature) in other places. In any one region, globalization first destroys forest and then induces some regrowth. It also contributes to the emergence of persistent rural poverty in tropical regions. Although forest destruction and regeneration would appear to have mutually offsetting environmental effects, the first effect is stronger than the second, so globalization exerts a negative net influence on biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Case studies of change in forest cover in southeast Asia and west Africa illustrate these processes.