Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Ecology, economy and management of an
agroindustrial frontier landscape in the
southeast Amazon
Paulo M. Brando1,2,3, Michael T. Coe2, Ruth DeFries4 and Andrea A. Azevedo1
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
1
Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM), Av. Nazaré 669, Belém 66035-170, Brazil
Woods Hole Research Center, 149 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, MA 02450, USA
3
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA 94305-4101, USA
4
Department Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
2
Introduction
Cite this article: Brando PM, Coe MT, DeFries
R, Azevedo AA. 2013 Ecology, economy and
management of an agroindustrial frontier
landscape in the southeast Amazon. Phil
Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0152
One contribution of 18 to a Theme Issue
‘Ecology, economy and management of an
agroindustrial frontier landscape in the
southeast Amazon’.
Subject Areas:
environmental science, ecology
Keywords:
deforestation, land-use change, Amazon
forests, cattle ranching, stream, Mato Grosso
Author for correspondence:
Paulo M. Brando
e-mail: [email protected]
The papers in this special issue address a major challenge facing our society: feeding a population that is simultaneously growing and increasing its per capita food
consumption, while preventing widespread ecological and social impoverishment in the tropics. By focusing mostly on the Amazon’s most dynamic
agricultural frontier, Mato Grosso, they collectively clarify some key elements
of achieving more sustainable agriculture. First, stakeholders in commoditydriven agricultural Amazonian frontiers respond rapidly to multiple forces,
including global markets, international pressures for sustainably produced commodities and national-, state- and municipality-level policies. These forces can
encourage or discourage deforestation rate changes within a short time-period.
Second, agricultural frontiers are linked systems, land-use change is linked
with regional climate, forest fires, water quality and stream discharge, which
in turn are linked with the well-being of human populations. Thus, land-use
practices at the farm level have ecological and social repercussions far removed
from it. Third, policies need to consider the full socio-economic system to identify
the efficacy and consequences of possible land management strategies. Monitoring to devise suitable management approaches depends not only on tracking
land-use change, but also on monitoring the regional ecological and social consequences. Mato Grosso’s achievements in reducing deforestation are impressive,
yet they are also fragile. The ecological and social consequences and the successes
and failures of management in this region can serve as an example of possible
trajectories for other commodity-driven tropical agricultural frontiers.
1. Introduction
This theme issue on the development of an Amazon agroindustrial frontier
emerged from two scientific workshops held in Brazil, one at Tanguro Ranch
(Mato Grosso) in early 2011 and another one in Bonito (Mato Grosso do Sul)
during the Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation (ATBC) meeting
in mid-2012. The 18 papers in this special issue focus on a major challenge
facing our society: feeding a rapidly growing population that is increasing its
per capita food consumption, while preventing widespread forest degradation,
loss of natural ecosystems and the subsequent environmental and social consequences. These contributors address some of the key questions about the future
of tropical ecosystems (figure 1): what are the consequences of land-use change
for freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems? What are the large-scale conservation
opportunities that could reverse or mitigate the negative ecological, social and
economic consequences of crop and cattle production? What are the key forest
governance lessons to be learned from Brazil’s Amazonian agricultural frontier?
This special issue focuses mostly on the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso (MT;
figure 2), the Amazon’s biggest and most dynamic agricultural frontier [2–4].
Home to a wide range of stakeholders (e.g. large and small farmers, indigenous
peoples, etc.) over the past two decades, MT has experienced both the highest
rates of deforestation (mostly for pasture and soya bean expansion) and the greatest
reductions in deforestation rates (associated with policies and macroeconomic
& 2013 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Neill et al. [27]
Durigan et al. [23]
2
terrestrial
ecosystems
Schwartzman et al. [34]
socio-economic
systems
Neill et al. [27]
Macedo et al. [24]
VanWey et al. [29]
Schwartzman et al. [34]
Balch et al. [35]
Silvério et al. [36]
Morton et al. [32]
LCLUC
Stickler et al. [18]
Galford et al. [30]
Coe et al. [26]
Nepstad et al. [47]
infrastructure
market
Stickler et al. [18]
DeFries et al. [49]
policies
Nepstad et al. [47]
Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing the interconnections among the processes that affect land cover and land-use change (LCLUC) and the social and biophysical
outcomes of LCLUC in the Brazilian Amazon. Each contribution in this special issue is associated with at least one of the processes and outcomes. Although the
contributions do not address the roles of infrastructure directly, this is an important driver of change in Amazonia.
factors) in the Amazon. Originally, Amazon forests, cerrado
biome (savannah vegetation) and pantanal vegetation
accounted for 53 per cent, 40 per cent and 7 per cent of the
state’s natural terrestrial ecosystems, respectively. Conversion
for cattle ranching and agriculture expansion reduced these
areas to 34 per cent, 20 per cent and 5 per cent (as of 2009).
Although these three ecosystems are under pressure from
land-use change, the contributions in this special issue are primarily centred on Amazon forests (moist, wet and transitional).
The regional focus of this special issue allows for a deep
assessment of the complex ecological and social changes related
to agricultural transformation of a tropical forest environment
(figure 1). At the same time, the regional focus does not diminish
the global relevance of topics addressed in this theme issue
because deforestation and agricultural expansion are occurring
rapidly in many other tropical agricultural frontiers. In this
introduction, we summarize topics that are explored further in
the papers within this issue: the temporal trends in land-use
change in MT; the ecological and social consequences of landuse change; and the landscape management strategies that can
reduce environmental degradation in agricultural frontiers.
2. Land-use change in Mato Grosso
Until recently, MT’s development was based on economic
activities that resulted in deforestation, forest degradation and
associated socio-ecological consequences [4]. From 1990 to
2005, for example, approximately 70 000 km2 of forests in MT
were converted to low-productivity pasturelands [5,6], which
degraded streams [7], increased disturbance (e.g. escaped
forest fires) [8,9] and altered the regional climate [10]. At the
same time, socio-economic tensions emerged owing to land
speculation and conflicts among loggers, indigenous peoples
and farmers [11].
Beginning in the early 2000s, soya beans emerged as
another driver of Amazon deforestation [12], directly causing
17 per cent of MT’s forest clearing [3]. The soya bean expansion
may also have contributed indirectly to additional deforestation as it pushed the cattle ranching frontier into previously
undisturbed forests [13]. Although management practices
associated with soya bean production reduced many of the
negative environmental impacts of poorly managed pasturelands (e.g. the use of fire to remove weeds), they introduced
others (figure 3). Compared with pasturelands, for example,
soya bean fields require more pesticides and herbicides
[14], cause greater alterations in the regional energy balance
(e.g. higher albedo) [15] and demand more fertilizers [16].
To avoid the negative ecological and political consequences
of widespread deforestation for pasture and cropland expansion,
Brazil began in 2004 to set an ambitious goal under President
Luis Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva’s administration, to drastically curb
Amazon forest losses. The federal government created several
policies, including the National Plan for Deforestation Reduction (PPCDAM in Portuguese) in 2004, and the National Policy
on Climate Change (NPCC) in 2010, which aim to reduce
Amazon deforestation by 80 per cent by 2020. In 2010, MT created its own targets and proposed to cut 87 per cent of the
state’s deforestation by 2020 (see table 1 for more examples).
Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152
Gardner et al. [42]
Le Tourneau et al. [41]
Schiesari et al. [31]
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
freshwater
ecosystems
Riskin et al. [28]
Macedo et al. [24]
Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
3
(a)
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152
MODIS % tree cover
value
100%
0
0%
200 400 600
km
(b)
Tanguro Ranch
Xingu Indigenous reserve
protected areas
LUC 2000–2010
crop
pasture/cerrado
forest
pasture/cerrado > crop
0
forest > crop
100 200 300
400
km
Figure 2. (a) The Amazon river basin with the percentage canopy cover derived from MODIS for the year 2010 [1]. The state of Mato Grosso is shown with the
dashed-dotted line, the Upper Xingu River in blue. (b) Map of land cover classes and change in Mato Grosso as of 2010. Forests are in dark green, cerrado in beige,
and crops that existed prior to 2000 in yellow. Land-use changes (LUC) that occurred from 2000 to 2010 are shown as: pasture/cerrado to crop in orange and forest
to crop in red [2]. Protected areas are in medium green. The Upper Xingu is delimited with the blue line, whereas the bright green line is the boundary of the Xingu
Indigenous Park, the largest single reserve.
The process of slowing deforestation and forest degradation in MT was complicated by a number of factors,
including economic incentives designed to expand pasturelands and agricultural fields [17]; weak capacity for real-time
monitoring and enforcement to reduce deforestation in the
early 2000s [6]; jurisdictional instability, which created disincentives to comply with some of the Brazilian environmental
laws (e.g. Forest Code) [18]; increased global demand for commodities, which stimulated the expansion of cattle ranching
and soya bean planting at the cost of illegal Amazon deforestation [3]; and finally, corruption that was embedded in several
of the federal and state agencies responsible for reducing
deforestation [19].
Despite the many challenges, MT achieved a remarkable
result in the late 2000s. It reduced deforestation from 6800
(1990–2006) to 1650 km2 yr21 (2007–2012), whereas crop and
cattle production continued to grow [2]. Other Amazonian
states followed a similar path [20], providing one of the most
Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
(b)
(c)
(d)
4
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
(a)
interesting and important examples of frontier governance for
tropical nations. Although the specific reasons for these
reductions have yet to be fully understood, they were the
result of complex interactions between policies and macroeconomic factors [21]. On the policy side, the federal and state
government imposed drastic sanctions on producers in municipalities that deforested illegally, increased enforcement
of environmental laws, improved deforestation monitoring,
established new protected areas and indigenous reserves [22]
and created new incentives to increase food production without new deforestation. MT also developed an environmental
registry system of rural properties, which enabled the state to
enforce environmental laws (i.e. Forest Code) more transparently and efficiently. Regarding some of the macroeconomic
factors, the profitability of global commodities declined
during the mid–late 2000s, Brazil’s exchange rates decreased,
and the private sector created its own mechanisms to exclude
deforesters from the food supply chain [21]. The active participation of multiple stakeholders was an important force to
reduce deforestation. In 2003, for example, the Greenpeace
campaign influenced the private sector to reject soya bean produced in recently deforested areas, resulting in an agreement
called the ‘soya moratorium’.
3. Socio-ecological consequences of land-use
change
Declines in MT’s deforestation may help to avoid further
environmental degradation and loss of freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, and the associated negative consequences for
the livelihoods of forest-dependent people. However, continued ecological problems related to land management remain,
including (i) degradation of forests by the combination of
human-induced fires and drought; (ii) impoverishment of
aquatic ecosystems through the widespread application of
agricultural chemicals and lack of riparian restoration; and
(iii) loss of indigenous peoples’ livelihood options because
of ecological degradation. Furthermore, forest conversion is
expected to increase with increasing national and international
demand for soya, beef and/or palm oil. In the following sections, we describe some of the socio-ecological consequences
of land-use change that are part of this special issue. These contributions cross disciplines spanning ecology, climatology,
geography, anthropology, sociology, fire ecology and remote
sensing, among others. Because of the multi-disciplinary
perspectives included in this issue, individual papers reflect
varying approaches from different disciplines.
(a) Land –water interactions
Several papers in this special issue clarify and summarize how
changing land cover and land management over the past few
decades in MT have influenced regional hydrology and aquatic
ecology. Some of the most pervasive activities affecting stream
ecology are the removal of riparian forests [23] and construction of stream impoundments, most of which are installed
to provide cattle with access to drinking water. These features,
though concentrated in pasturelands, are common in croplands owing to the legacy of previous land uses and the need
for small-scale hydroelectric power. The staggering scale of
human impacts in this region is illustrated by Macedo et al.
[24], who document almost 10 000 impoundments in the
Upper Xingu alone, with nearly every first- and second-order
stream having one or more impoundments. The authors also
show that deforestation and impoundments degrade aquatic
environments, increase stream temperatures (by up to 48C),
and disrupt stream connectivity.
Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152
Figure 3. Some processes that influence the functioning and integrity of freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems in Mato Grosso’s agricultural frontier. (a) Understorey
fires. (b) Pesticides spraying. (c) Soya bean expansion. (d ) Human-made impoundment for cattle water drinking. (Online version in colour.)
Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
The total area deforested in MT from 1990 to 2012 is larger than
England (totalling approx. 136 000 km2). The most evident consequence of this transformation of the landscape is the loss and
(c) Socio-economic systems
The process of land-use transitions from forests to intensively
managed agricultural landscapes has several potential consequences for social systems in Amazonia. In this special
issue, three contributions present examples of these effects.
VanWey et al. [29] found that the increase in double cropping
in central MT was associated with improvements in socioeconomic indicators, such as income and investments in
education. The authors use these and other results to argue
that agriculture intensification often co-occurs with the
development of institutions and economic activities, as well
5
Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152
(b) Terrestrial ecosystems
fragmentation of natural habitats for wildlife. Less obvious,
but equally important are the indirect ecological consequences of deforestation. The opinion piece by Coe et al. [25], for
instance, suggests that changes in climate associated with
forest clearing may be large enough to increase Amazon fires
and reduce the capacity of forests to store and cycle carbon.
These effects could be particularly severe if future deforestation
rates increase in both southeast Amazonia and the cerrado,
and if atmospheric [CO2] continues to rise. In a scenario
where these gloomy predictions materialize, the end of deforestation may not be sufficient to secure the current integrity of
some Amazon forests.
Morton et al. [32] provide a glimpse of fire regimes in a
drier and warmer future Amazon. The authors quantified
the spatial–temporal patterns of forest fires in MT and other
states to show that dry and warm climatic conditions in
2007 and 2010 triggered widespread fires that affected
approximately 15 000–26 000 km2 of Amazonian forests. This
is particularly interesting because these widespread fires
occurred during a period of low deforestation, suggesting that
climate overwhelmed the likely reduction in sources of fire
ignition. Fires that occur during these climatic conditions are
expected not only to affect large forested areas, but also to be
more intense [33]. Schwartzman et al. [34], for example, report
that several indigenous groups of the Xingu Indigenous Park
(XIP) consider that fires which occur during drought events
are more intense and affect larger forested areas than they did
in previous decades. They also report that fires, which were
commonly used as a management tool for agriculture in the
past, are now more likely to escape into forests.
Two other contributions to this special issue provide more
detailed description of fire effects on vegetation dynamics.
Balch et al. [35] make the important point that repeated forest
fires can shape forest structure and diversity by altering forest
trajectories and regeneration mode (from seeds to resprouting),
whereas Silvério et al. [36] provide support for the hypothesis
that fire-induced tree mortality can mediate the transition
from forest to grassy ecosystems along forest edges, which are
abundant in the region [37]. Based on the results from these contributions and from other studies [9,37,38], it is reasonable to
infer that forest fires could become one of the most important
drivers of forest degradation in the near future. To avoid this
process of forest impoverishment by fire, management strategies should be implemented to reduce (i) sources of fire
ignition associated with pastures/agricultural activities and
(ii) the formation of forest edges. Interesting and important
initiatives are already in place (table 1), whereas others are
under development (see [39]). Logging is another important
driver of forest degradation, but is not included in this special
issue (see [40] for more details).
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
Deforestation for pasturelands and croplands also
affects aquatic systems through changes in the water balance,
stream flow and biochemistry. Coe et al. [25] review how
deforestation increases surface air temperatures, reduces
evapotranspiration and increases run-off and stream water discharge. Forest contribution to the total evapotranspiration in
MT decreased by about 20 per cent between 2000 and
2009 because of deforestation [26]. Neill et al. [27] review a
series of experiments testing how these changes affect stream
flow in a mixed forest and soya bean landscape in MT. Catchments dominated by soya bean fields had an approximately
fourfold increase in discharge compared with forested watersheds. An observed fourfold increase in N and P fluxes in the
soya bean streams was consistent with the discharge increase,
but no changes in N or P concentration were observed. Soya
bean is a nitrogen-fixer generally requiring no chemical N fertilization during the growing process, so the lack of change in
N concentration is not surprising. However, as noted by
Neill et al. [27], the lack of increase in P concentrations in soya
bean streams does not reflect the large amounts of P fertilizer
(approx. 50 kg ha21) that was applied. One potential explanation for this result is that the P was either removed during
soya bean harvesting or adsorbed in the deep Oxisol soils
common to these tropical agricultural areas [28]. Another surprising result reported by Neill et al. [27] was that there was
no measurable increase in sediment flux to soya bean streams
owing to the high-infiltration capacity of soils in this region.
Despite some soil compaction in soya bean fields, groundwater
still represented more than 95 per cent of all water flux to the
streams and no significant sediment flux was observed.
Land conversion in the southeastern Amazon has been
massive and rapid. Outside protected areas in the Xingu,
the average watershed area occupied by croplands and
pastures increased from 25 per cent in 2001 to more than
40 per cent in 2010 [24]. Research to date indicates that
the hydrological consequences of these changes for aquatic
ecosystems have been large, whereas the biogeochemical consequences have thus far been relatively small. However, there are
still a number of outstanding questions, particularly concerning
biogeochemical fluxes, which must be addressed when considering the future trajectories of aquatic ecosystem health in this
and other tropical agricultural areas. One of the most important
is that biogeochemical fluxes may increase over time. Soya bean
has been planted for only a few years in most of these study
areas. It is possible that the soil capacity to adsorb excess P
will be reduced after many years or decades in soya bean production and that P fluxes to streams will eventually increase. It
is also likely that the rapid increase in double cropping with
maize and cotton in these agricultural systems (as presented
by VanWey et al. [29]) will lead to significant change. Both
maize and cotton require large amounts of chemical N fertilizers and one could expect large increases in N flux from the
soil in the future [30]. Similarly as reviewed by Schiesari et al.
[31], all of these crops require large inputs of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. The effects of these agrochemicals on
groundwater and stream water are largely unknown but potentially significant.
Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Table 1. Main policies and associated actions to reduce deforestation and fires in Brazil.
6
policy/programme/actions
main goal
jurisdiction
1999/2000
environmental registry system of
enforce the compliance of the Forest Code more efficiently
Mato Grosso
2003
rural properties (SLAPR)
national plan for reductions in
and transparently at the property level
define an inter-ministerial plan for fighting illegal
Brazilian Legal Amazon
2007
deforestation (PPCDAM)
‘critical municipalities’ for
deforestation in the Brazilian Legal Amazon
establish sanctions and obligations for those counties that
municipalities located in
deforestation (decree 6.321/07)
Amazon fund (decree 6527/08)
establish financing mechanisms to receive and disburse
donations targeted to deforestation reduction on
private properties
2009
national policy on climate
change—NPCC (law 12187/09
and decree 7390/10)
2010
Mato Grosso plan for reductions in
deforestation and fires (PPCDQMT, decree 2943/10)
2010
low carbon agriculture plan
(ABC plan)
establish targets for reducing national greenhouse gas
emissions including via deforestation. The current
the Brazilian Legal
Amazon
states within the
Brazilian Legal
Amazon
national
commitment is to decrease deforestation by 80%
in Amazon biome and 40% in cerrado by 2020
establish MT’s commitment to an 87% reduction
Mato Grosso State
in deforestation by 2020 relative to the
1995 – 2006 baseline
finance best management practices at the property level to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Budget available is
national
about US$ 1.7 billion/year
2012
Brazilian forest code (federal
law 12651)
set policy that regulates private land-use and deforestation
limits within Brazil. Among other obligations, all states
national
will implement an ‘environmental plan of compliance’
(PRA in Portuguese) that encompasses a registry system
of all rural properties (CAR in Portuguese)
as with investments in public goods, which ultimately
improve the livelihood of some societal groups. But for
other groups—particularly those that depend directly on
natural resources for their subsistence—the environmental
consequences of land-use change can have complex and contrasting effects (details in Le Tourneau et al. [41]). For
example, it is clear that recent deforestation outside the XIP
reduced resources that are important for the livelihood
of indigenous peoples [34]. The degradation of the Xingu
headwaters, for instance, promoted the impoverishment of
fish communities which are the main source of protein for
XIP inhabitants.
Two other contributions propose innovative methodologies to assess the complex effects of land-use change on
socio-economic and ecological systems in Amazonia. Le
Tourneau et al. [41] developed a multi-dimensional indicator
system (DURAMAZ) that integrates many aspects of sustainable development. The authors used this methodology across
twelve Amazon regions to show that social, economic and
ecological characteristics varied widely depending on cultural factors, sense of place and, to a lesser extent, economic
factors. The authors concluded that the same development
policy could have different outcomes depending on the
cultural, regional, sub-regional and economic context where
it is implemented. In the second contribution, Gardner et al.
[42] present the Sustainable Amazon Network (Rede
Amazônia Sustentável), a multi-disciplinary research initiative involving more than 30 partners and organizations. The
goal of this initiative is to assess both social and ecological
dimensions of land-use sustainability in the eastern Brazilian
Amazon. To do so, the authors combine different disciplines
and spatial and temporal scales, while connecting local actors
and institutions to create better conditions for local policy and
management decisions. These two initiatives are particularly
important because they attempt to integrate the complexities related to land-use change and its effects on diverse
socio-economic and ecological systems.
4. Managing agricultural frontiers
A major challenge for sustainable management of tropical agricultural landscapes is to transform low-yield, high-deforestation
production systems into high-yield, low-deforestation ones
[43,44]. Extensive tracts of land in the tropics could undergo
these transformations, especially in Brazil’s cattle ranching frontier, where approximately 200 million ha of pastures sustain
notoriously low cattle densities [45,46]. The recent declines in
MT’s deforestation, coupled with increases in crop and cattle
productivity, suggest that agriculture intensification could
indeed spare large tracts of land for tropical forest conservation
[2] so long as deforestation is not pushed further beyond the
Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152
2008
experience increased deforestation rates for three
consecutive years
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
year
Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
national-level governance and monitoring capacity similar to
Brazil, despite the fact that about one-third of these countries
currently face pressures similar to Brazil for expansion of
export-oriented agricultural production.
5. Challenges ahead
This special issue was improved by constructive discussions with
Daniel Nepstad, Oswaldo Carvalho, Ane Alencar and Marcia
Macedo as well as by comments of three anonymous reviewers. We
thank Francis Putz, Giselda Durigan, Marcia Macedo and Chris Neil
for helpful comments on the manuscript, Paul Lefebvre for preparing
figure 2, and Divino Silvério for kindly providing figure 3d. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from NSF, and the Gordon and
Betty Moore Foundation (no. 1963).
References
1.
Hansen M, DeFries R. 2013 Vegetation
continuous fields MOD44B, 2010 percent
tree cover, collection 5. College Park,
MD: University of Maryland. See https://
lpdaac.usgs.gov/get_data (accessed 5
January 2012).
2.
Macedo MN, DeFries R, Morton DC, Stickler CM,
Galford GL, Shimabukuro YE. 2012 Decoupling of
deforestation and soy production in the southern
Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152
The papers in this issue collectively point to some key considerations for MT and other agricultural frontiers across the tropics.
First, land-use changes in commodity-driven agricultural frontiers such as MT respond rapidly to multiple forces, including
global markets, international pressures for sustainably produced commodities, and policies at the national-, state- and
municipality-level. These forces can either encourage or discourage deforestation within a short time-period, as evidenced
by the massive changes in MT that occurred in the 2000s. In
addition, climate events such as drought are becoming an
increasingly influential force, causing fire-induced degradation
that can rapidly alter the landscape. Second, agricultural frontiers are linked socio-ecological systems. Land-use changes are
linked with water quality and stream discharge, which in turn
are linked with the health of indigenous populations. Land
management practices at the farm level can thus have ecological and social repercussions far downstream of the farm.
Policies need to consider the full socio-economic system to
identify the consequences of possible land management strategies. Third, the economic, political and climatic changes
affecting tropical agricultural frontiers are newly emerging.
Adaptive approaches to management are needed to maintain
functional ecological and social systems. Monitoring to
devise suitable management approaches depends not only
on tracking land-use changes, but also on monitoring the ecological and social consequences. Because few other regions in
the tropics have environmental governance comparable to
MT, the ecological and social consequences, as well as the successes and failures of management in MT, serve as an example
of possible trajectories for other commodity-driven tropical
agricultural frontiers. Finally, while global and regional policies are important tools to influence land-use trajectories
towards sustainability, it is at the farm level that land managers
make decisions that affect these trajectories. Science-based
studies remain disconnected from these daily, local decisions.
Rather, land managers’ decisions are more likely driven by pragmatic considerations such as markets, prior practices and
perceived enforcement of regulations. Future efforts need to
identify management practices that reduce environmental costs
of production and are achievable from the farmers’ perspectives.
7
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
frontier [13]. But, without strong governance and incentives to
keep native forests standing, MT’s achievements in reducing
deforestation could be transient [47] or even reversed due to
increasing demand for food and biofuel production [48]. At
the same time, the negative ecological consequences associated
with excessive pesticide and fertilizer use—required by highly
intensive production systems—could eclipse some of the
environmental benefits of declining deforestation [31].
To create agricultural systems that are more sustainable,
Nepstad et al. [47] propose the integration of three mechanisms:
(i) jurisdictional REDDþ (reductions in carbon emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation), to avoid deforestation
and help agriculture to transition to more intensive systems,
while contributing to climate stabilization; (ii) market transformation, to exclude deforesters and producers that do not
comply with socio-environmental regulations from the production supply chain; and (iii) domestic policy reforms, to
reward and regulate environmental and social performance.
Together, these mechanisms could foster a rural development
model that promotes reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,
while increasing crop and cattle production, securing land
rights for indigenous peoples and restoring deforested areas.
Stickler et al. [18] analysed the role of the Brazilian Forest
Code (FC), one of the primary legal mechanisms for rewarding and regulating environmental performance. The authors
estimated that the costs of complying with some of the
requirements of the FC can reach US$3.7–5.8 billion in net
present value of the land. These high costs can create disincentives for producers to conserve forests as required by
law (e.g. 80% of forests on private properties in the
Amazon). Recent revisions to the FC opened the possibility
of incentives for farmers to comply with environmental regulations for non-compliant deforestation that occurred prior to
2008. These incentives include the opportunity for landowners to offset their deforestation by protecting forests
elsewhere, although this mechanism may create suboptimal
distribution of forests from an ecological standpoint. Even
with the current incentives, the opportunity costs involved
in keeping forests standing remain high, so other mechanisms
that facilitate the compliance of private landowners with the
FC seem strategic.
Durigan et al. [23] report on the challenges of restoring
riparian forests, another requirement of the Brazilian FC. The
authors assessed an interdisciplinary effort to restore the
Xingu headwaters (figure 1). Despite successes in developing
new restoration techniques and effectively engaging social
groups, the area restored by the campaign was relatively
small. Among the factors that contributed to this outcome are
the high costs of reforestation with native plants (when there
is low potential for natural regeneration), the uncertainties of
legislation and the lack of economic incentives.
Although MT’s achievements in reducing deforestation can
be considered fragile [47], this region has a level of governance
that is more effective in controlling deforestation than most
other tropical countries. DeFries et al. [49], for example,
found that very few tropical forest countries (two of 36) have
Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
intensification in Mato Grosso. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
368, 20120168. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0168)
Galford GL, Soares-Filho B, Cerri CEP. 2013
Prospects for land-use sustainability on the
agricultural frontier of the Brazilian Amazon. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B. 368, 20120171. (doi:10.1098/rstb.
2012.0171)
Schiesari L, Waichman A, Brock T, Adams C,
Grillitsch B. 2013 Pesticide use and biodiversity
conservation in the Amazonian agricultural frontier.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120378. (doi:10.1098/
rstb.2012.0378)
Morton DC, Le Page Y, DeFries R, Collatz GJ, Hurtt GC.
2013 Undestorey fire frequency and the fate of burned
forests in southern Amazonia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368,
20120163. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0163)
Brando PM, Nepstad DC, Balch JK, Bolker B,
Christman MC, Coe M, Putz FE. 2012 Fire-induced
tree mortality in a neotropical forest: the roles of
bark traits, tree size, wood density and fire
behavior. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 630 –641. (doi:10.
1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02533.x)
Schwartzman S et al. 2013 The natural and
social history of the indigenous lands and protected
areas corridor of the Xingu River basin. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120164. (doi:10.1098/rstb.
2012.0164)
Balch JK, Massad TJ, Brando PM, Nepstad DC,
Curran LM. 2013 Effects of high-frequency
understorey fires on woody plant regeneration
in southeastern Amazonian forests. Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. B 368, 20120157. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.
0157)
Silvério DV, Brando PM, Balch JK, Putz FE, Nepstad
DC, Oliveira-Santos C, Bustamante MMC. 2013
Testing the Amazon savannization hypothesis: fire
effects on invasion of a neotropical forest by native
cerrado and exotic pasture grasses. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120427. (doi:10.1098/rstb.
2012.0427)
Soares-Filho B et al. 2012 Forest fragmentation,
climate change and understory fire regimes on the
Amazonian landscapes of the Xingu headwaters.
Landscape Ecol. 27, 585–598. (doi:10.1007/
s10980-012-9723-6)
Alencar A, Asner GP, Knapp D, Zarin D. 2011
Temporal variability of forest fires in eastern
Amazonia. Ecol. Appl. 21, 2397–2412. (doi:10.
1890/10-1168.1)
Chen Y, Randerson JT, Morton DC, DeFries R,
Collatz GJ, Kasibhatla PS, Giglio L, Jin Y, Marlier ME.
2011 Forecasting fire season severity in South
America using sea surface temperature anomalies.
Science (NY) 334, 787–791. (doi:10.1126/
science.1209472)
Putz FE et al. 2012 Sustaining conservation values
in selectively logged tropical forests: the attained
and the attainable. Conserv. Lett. 5, 296–303.
(doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00242.x)
Le Tourneau F-M, Marchand G, Greissing A, Nasuti
S, Droulers M, Bursztyn M, Léna P, Dubreuil V. 2013
The DURAMAZ indicator system: a cross-disciplinary
comparative tool for assessing ecological and social
8
Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152
5.
16. Martinelli LA, Naylor R, Vitousek PM, Moutinho P.
2010 Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and
opportunities for a sustainable future. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 2, 431–438. (doi:10.1016/j.cosust.
2010.09.008)
17. Soares-Filho BS et al. 2006 Modelling conservation
in the Amazon basin. Nature 440, 520 –523.
(doi:10.1038/nature04389)
18. Stickler CM, Nepstad DC, Azevedo AA, McGrath DG.
2013 Defending public interests in private lands:
compliance, costs and potentail environmental
consequences of the Brazilian Forest Code in Mato
Grosso. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120160.
(doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0160)
19. Nepstad D, McGrath D, Alencar A, Barros AC,
Carvalho G, Santilli M, Vera Diaz MDC. 2002
Environment. Frontier governance in Amazonia.
Science (NY) 295, 629–631. (doi:10.1126/
science.1067053)
20. Ometto JP, Aguiar APD, Martinelli LA. 2011
Amazon deforestation in Brazil: effects, drivers and
challenges. Carbon Manag. 2, 575 –585. (doi:10.
4155/cmt.11.48)
21. Assunção J, Gandour C, Rocha R. 2012 Deforestation
slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: prices or policies?
Climate Policy Initiative, Rio de Janeiro. PUC-Rio.
See http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/03/Deforestation-Prices-or-PoliciesExec-Summary.pdf (accessed 30 March 2013).
22. Soares-Filho B et al. 2010 Role of Brazilian Amazon
protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proc.
Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 10 821–10 826. (doi:10.
1073/pnas.0913048107)
23. Durigan G, Guerin N, da Costa JNMN. 2013
Ecological restoration of Xingu Basin headwaters:
motivations, engagement, challenges and
perspectives. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120165.
(doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0165)
24. Macedo MN, Coe MT, DeFries R, Uriarte M, Brando
PM, Neill C, Walker WS. 2013 Land-use-driven
stream warming in southeastern Amazonia. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120153. (doi:10.1098/rstb.
2012.0153)
25. Coe MT et al. 2013 Deforestation and climate
feedbacks threaten the ecological integrity of
south –southeastern Amazonia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
B 368, 20120155. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0155)
26. Lathuillière MJ, Johnson MS, Donner SD. 2012 Water
use by terrestrial ecosystems: temporal variability in
rainforest and agricultural contributions to
evapotranspiration in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Environ.
Res. Lett. 7, 024024. (doi:10.1088/17489326/7/2/024024)
27. Neill C et al. 2013 Watershed responses to Amazon
soya bean cropland expansion and intensification
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120425. (doi:10.1098/
rstb.2012.0425)
28. Riskin SH et al. 2013 The fate of phosphorus
fertilizer in Amazon soya bean fields.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120154. (doi:10.1098/
rstb.2012.0154)
29. VanWey LK, Spera S, de Sa R, Mahr D, Mustard JF.
2013 Socioeconomic development and agricultural
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
3.
Amazon during the late 2000s. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 109, 1341–1346. (doi:10.1073/pnas.
1111374109)
Morton DC, DeFries R, Shimabukuro
YE, Anderson LO, Arai E, del Bon Espirito-Santo F,
Freitas R, Morisette J. 2006 Cropland expansion
changes deforestation dynamics in the southern
Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 103, 14 637–14 641. (doi:10.1073/pnas.
0606377103)
Nepstad D, Carvalho G, Barros AC. 2001 Road
paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of
Amazon forests. Forest Ecol. Manag. 154, 395–407.
(doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00511-4)
Barona E, Ramankutty N, Hyman G, Coomes OT.
2010 The role of pasture and soybean in
deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environ.
Res. Lett. 5, 024002. (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/
2/024002)
Alencar A, Nepstad DC, McGrath D, Moutinho P,
Pacheco P, Diaz MCV, Soares-Filho BS. 2004
Desmatamento na Amazônia: indo além da
emergência crônica. Brazil: Insituto de Pesquisa
Ambiental da Amazônia.
Castello L, McGrath D, Hess LL, Coe MT, Lefebvre PA,
Petry P, Macedo MN, Renó VF, Arantes CC. 2013 The
vulnerability of Amazon freshwater ecosystems.
Conserv. Lett. (doi:10.1111/conl.12008)
Cochrane MA. 2003 Fire science for
rainforests. Nature 421, 913 –919. (doi:10.1038/
nature01437)
Nepstad DC et al. 1999 Large-scale impoverishment
of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature
398, 505–508. (doi:10.1038/19066)
Coe MT, Costa MH, Soares-Filho BS. 2009 The
influence of historical and potential future
deforestation on the stream flow of the Amazon
River: land surface processes and atmospheric
feedbacks. J. Hydrol. 369, 165– 174. (doi:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2009.02.043)
Nepstad D et al. 2006 Inhibition of Amazon
deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous
lands. Conserv. Biol. 20, 65 –73. (doi:10.1111/j.
1523-1739.2006.00351.x)
Nepstad DC, Stickler CM, Almeida OT. 2006
Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef
industries: opportunities for conservation. Conserv.
Biol. 20, 1595 –1603. (doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.
2006.00510.x)
Arima EY, Richards P, Walker R, Caldas MM. 2011
Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change
in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 6,
024010. (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024010)
Schiesari L, Grillitsch B. 2011 Pesticides meet
megadiversity in the expansion of biofuel crops.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 215–221. (doi:10.
1890/090139)
Costa MH, Yanagi SNM, Souza PJOP, Ribeiro A,
Rocha EJP. 2007 Climate change in Amazonia
caused by soybean cropland expansion, as
compared to caused by pastureland expansion.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L07706. (doi:10.1029/
2007GL029271)
Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
transformation and low-emissions rural
development. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120167.
(doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0167)
48. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P. 2011 Global land use
change, economic globalization, and the looming
land scarcity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3465–
3472. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108/-/
DCSupplemental)
49. DeFries R, Herold M, Verchot L, Macedo MN,
Shimabukuro Y. 2013 Export-oriented deforestation
in Mato Grosso: harbinger or exception for other
tropical forests? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368,
20120173. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0173)
9
Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20120152
45. Soares-Filho BS, Lima L, Bowman M, Viana L. 2012
Challenges for low-carbon agriculture and forest
conservation in Brazil. Technical note IDB-TN-385,
Inter-American Development Bank. See http://
idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?
docnum=36711061 (accessed 30 March 2013).
46. Gouvello C. 2010 Brazil low-carbon country case study.
Washington DC: World Bank. See http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/BRAZILEXTN/Resources/
Brazil_LowcarbonStudy.pdf (accessed 30 March 2013).
47. Nepstad DC, Boyd W, Stickler CM, Bezerra T,
Azevedo AA. 2013 Responding to climate change
and the global land crisis: REDDþ, market
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
changes in the Amazon. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368,
20120475. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0475)
42. Gardner TA et al. 2013 A social and ecological
assessment of tropical land uses at multiple scales:
the Sustainable Amazon Network. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. B 368, 20120166. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0166)
43. Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL. 2011 Global food
demand and the sustainable intensification of
agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20 260–20
264. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108)
44. Foley JA et al. 2011 Solutions for a cultivated
planet. Nature 478, 337 –342. (doi:10.1038/
nature10452)