Advertisement

Journal of Geographical Sciences

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 1715–1732 | Cite as

Spillover effect offsets the conservation effort in the Amazon

  • Yue Dou
  • Ramon Felipe Bicudo da Silva
  • Hongbo Yang
  • Jianguo Liu
Article

Abstract

Diverse conservation efforts have been expanding around the globe, even under the stress of increasing agricultural production. A striking example is the supply-chain agreements put upon the Amazon forest which had reduced deforestation by 80% from the early 2000s (27,772 km2) to 2015 (6207 km2). However, evaluation of these conservation efforts usually focused on the impacts within the Amazon biome only, while the effects that spill over to other areas (e.g., displacement of environmental pressure from one area to another) were rarely considered. Ignoring spillover effects may lead to biased or even wrong conclusions about the effectiveness of these conservation efforts because the hidden cost outside the target area of conservation may offset the achievement within it. It is thus important to assess the spillover effects of these supply-chain agreements. In this study, we used the two supply-chain agreements (i.e., Soy Moratorium and zero-deforestation beef agreement) implemented in the Amazon biome as examples and evaluated their spillover effects to the Cerrado. To achieve a holistic evaluation of the spillover effects, we adopted the telecoupling framework in our analysis. The application of the telecoupling framework includes the interactions between distant systems and extends the analytical boundaries beyond the signatory areas, which fill the gap of previous studies. Our results indicate that the supply-chain agreements have significantly reduced deforestation by half compared to projections within the sending system (i.e., Pará State in the Amazon, which exports soybeans and other agricultural products), but at the cost of increasing deforestation in the spillover system (i.e., a 6.6 time increase in Tocantins State of the Cerrado, where deforestation was affected by interactions between the Amazon and other places). Our study emphasizes that spillover effects should be considered in the evaluation and planning of conservation efforts, for which the telecoupling framework works as a useful tool to do that systematically.

Keywords

telecoupling Amazon Cerrado Brazil soybean trade spillover voluntary agreement deforestation conservation development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sue Nichols for her constructive comments and edits, and Dr. Mateus Batistella for his helpful critiques and insights.

References

  1. Almeida L B, 2012. Zoneamento Geoambiental do Estado do Tocantins. Rio Claro, Sao Paulo.Google Scholar
  2. Arima E Y, Richards P, Walker R et al., 2011. Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters, 6(2): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assunção J, Gandour C, Rocha R, 2015. Deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: Prices or policies? Pages 1–5 Environment and Development Economics.Google Scholar
  4. Bastos T X, Pachêco N A, 2005. Freqüências de Chuva no Estado do Pará no Plano Microrregional. Page Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento. Belem, Para.Google Scholar
  5. Bond W J, Parr C L, 2010. Beyond the forest edge: Ecology, diversity and conservation of the grassy biomes. Biological Conservation, 143(10): 2395–2404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brando P M, Coe M T, DeFries R et al., 2013. Ecology, economy and management of an agroindustrial frontier landscape in the southeast Amazon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 368(1619): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deines J M, Liu X, Liu J, 2015. Telecoupling in urban water systems: An examination of Beijing’s imported water supply. Water International, 41(2): 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foley J A, Defries R, Asner G P et al., 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734): 570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Furtado A M M, Ponte F C, 2013. Mapeamento de Unidades de Relevo do Estado do Pará. Revista GeoAmazônica, 2(2): 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrett R D, Rausch L L, 2016. Green for gold: Social and ecological tradeoffs influencing the sustainability of the Brazilian soy industry. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(2): 461–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbs H K, Munger J, L’Roe J et al., 2016. Did Ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero–deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conservation Letters, 9(1): 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbs H K, Rausch L, Munger J et al., 2015. Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Science, 347(6220): 377–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hulina J, Bocetti C, Campa III H et al., 2017. Telecoupling framework for research on migratory species in the Anthropocene. Elementa Science of the Anthroponcene, 5(5): 23.Google Scholar
  14. Klink C A, Machado R B, 2005. Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Biology, 19(3): 707–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lambin E F, Gibbs H K, Ferreira L et al., 2013. Estimating the world’s potentially available cropland using a bottom–up approach. Global Environmental Change, 23(5): 892–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lambin E F, Meyfroidt P, 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9): 3465–3472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lapola D M, Martinelli L A, Peres C A et al., 2014. Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land–use system. Nature Climate Change, 4(1): 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lapola D M, Schaldach R, Alcamo J et al., 2010. Indirect land–use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(8): 3388–3393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter S R et al., 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844): 1513–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu J, Dou Y, Batistella M et al., 2018. Spillover systems in a telecoupled Anthropocene: Typology, methods, and governance for global sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 33: 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu J, Hull V, Batistella M et al., 2013. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecology and Society, 18(2): 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu J, Hull V, Luo J et al., 2015a. Multiple telecouplings and their complex interrelationships. Ecology and Society, 20(3): 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu J, Mooney H, Hull V et al., 2015b. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 347(6225): 963–973.Google Scholar
  24. Liu J, Yang W, Li S, 2016. Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(1): 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macedo M N, DeFries R S, Morton D C et al., 2012. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4): 1341–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyfroidt P, Lambin E F, 2009. Forest transition in Vietnam and displacement of deforestation abroad. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(38): 16139–16144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morton D C, DeFries R S, Shimabukuro Y E et al., 2006. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(39): 14637–14641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nepstad D, Mcgrath D, Stickler C et al., 2014. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344(6188): 1118–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Santopuoli G, Marchetti M, Giongo M, 2016. Supporting policy decision makers in the establishment of forest plantations, using SWOT analysis and AHPs analysis: A case study in Tocantins (Brazil). Land Use Policy, 54: 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Santos C A C, Oliveira V G, 2017. Trends in extreme climate indices for Pará State, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia, 32(1): 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silva R F B D, Batistella M, Moran E F, 2016. Drivers of land change: Human–environment interactions and the Atlantic forest transition in the Paraíba Valley, Brazil. Land Use Policy, 58: 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soares–filho B, Rajão R, Macedo M et al., 2014. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science, 344(6182): 363–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sun J, Mooney H, Wu W B et al., 2018. Importing food damages domestic environment: Evidence from global soybean trade. PNAS, 115(21): 5415–5419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sun J, Tong Y, Liu J, 2017. Telecoupled land–use changes in distant countries. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 16(2): 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang F, Liu J, 2016. Conservation planning beyond giant pandas: The need for an innovative telecoupling framework. Science China Life Sciences, 60(5): 1–4.Google Scholar
  36. Wu W, Tang H, Yang P et al., 2011. Scenario–based assessment of future food security. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang W, Hyndman D W, Winkler J A et al., 2016. Urban water sustainability: Framework and application. Ecology and Society, 21(4): 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yao Z, Zhang L, Tang S et al., 2017. The basic characteristics and spatial patterns of global cultivated land change since the 1980s. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 27(7): 771–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang J, Zhao N, Liu X et al., 2016. Global virtual–land flow and saving through international cereal trade. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(5): 619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geographic Science and Natural Resources Research (IGSNRR), Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yue Dou
    • 1
  • Ramon Felipe Bicudo da Silva
    • 2
  • Hongbo Yang
    • 1
  • Jianguo Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Systems Integration and SustainabilityMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Center for Environmental Studies and ResearchState University of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations