Alternatives to slash-and-burn in forest-based fallow systems of the eastern Brazilian Amazon region: Technology and policy options to halt ecological degradation and improve rural welfare

  • Jan Börner
  • Manfred Denich
  • Arisbe Mendoza-Escalante
  • Bettina Hedden-Dunkhorst
  • Tatiana Deane de Abreu Sá
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


In many smallholder farming systems in the humid tropics, the slash-and-burn practice is used for land preparation. Increasing land-use intensity by shortening fallow periods often contributes to the degradation of the natural resource base of the fallow system, i.e. the fallow vegetation and soil. In the eastern Amazon region of Brazil, we therefore searched for ways to maintain the sustainability of the traditional fallow system and to adapt it to changing agro-ecological and economic conditions.

We identified two major agro-ecological constraints of the traditional fallow system with slash-and-burn: (1) high losses of nutrients and organic matter during the burn, and (2), if land-use intensity increases, fallow regeneration capacity declines.

As alternatives to slash-and-burn, we studied modifications to those practices recognized to be harmful to the ecological sustainability of the fallow system, i.e. mulching for the management of soil organic matter and fire-free land clearing with bush choppers to transform fallow vegetation into mulch. Mulching allows extending the cropping period, planting crops off-season, and modifying crop rotations. Additionally, biomass and nutrient accumulation of degraded fallow vegetation can be improved by enrichment plantings using fast-growing leguminous tree species.

Our socio-economic analysis focused on the implications of technology change on income and land-cover change at farm and field levels. Based on farm-household data collected from 270 randomly selected households, a farm-household level bio-economic model was developed to analyze the consequences of improved access to mechanized plowing and mechanical mulching for typical smallholdings in the study area.

Model simulations suggest that the costs of mulching are still very high compared to other mechanized land preparation technologies that provide similar economic benefits from the farmers’ point of view. Among the recommendations to reduce mulching costs is the use of simpler mulching equipment on areas with young fallows.

Technology scenarios indicate that countervailing policy measures are necessary if mechanized chopping and mulching is to bring about the desired ecological benefits.

Taxes on ecologically undesirable forms of land preparation, e.g. slash and burn, are promising policy options to promote chopping-and-mulching or other fire-free land preparation techniques given that they can be provided at costs that range between 60 to 110 Euros ha−1. Tax revenues could be used for financing environmental conservation payments and/or a crop yield insurance that applies to crops that are produced using environmentally friendly production technologies.


mulch bush chopper fallow management bio-economic modeling tax yield insurance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

9 References

  1. Alencar A, Nepstad D, McGrath D, Moutinho P, Pacheco P, Carmen M do, Diaz V, Soares Filho BS (2004) Desmatamento na Amazônia: indo além da “Emergência Crônica”. IPAM, Belém, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR, Hazell PBR (eds, 1989) Variability in Grain Yields. Implications for Agricultural Research and Policy in Developing Countries. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Baar R (1997) Vegetationskundliche und-ökologische Untersuchungen der Buschbrache in der Feldumlagewirtschaft im östlichen Amazonasgebiet. Göttinger Beiträge zur Land-und Forstwirtschaft in den Tropen und Subtropen, Heft 121Google Scholar
  4. Berg E (1998) Der Einfluß von Unsicherheit und Risikoeinstellung auf die Intensität und Produktionsprogramm im Ackerbau. Published in Polish. Zagadnienia ekonomiki rolnej 4–5, 37–57Google Scholar
  5. Block A (2005) Göttinger Mähhäcksler Tritucap, und Forstmulcher — Nicht Brennende Flächenvorbereitung am Beispiel der Zona Bragantina, Nord-Ost-Amazonien, Brasilien. Ph.D. Thesis. University of GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  6. Börner J (2006) A bio-economic model of small-scale farmers’ land use decisions and technology choice in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Ph.D. thesis. University of Bonn (1/6/2006) at: hristoph URN: urn:nbn:de:hbz:5N-07475Google Scholar
  7. Brienza Jr. S (1999) Biomass dynamics of fallow vegetation enriched with leguminous trees in the Eastern Amazon of Brazil. Göttinger Beiträge zur Land-und Forstwirtschaft in den Tropen und Subtropen, Heft 134Google Scholar
  8. Bünemann, E (1998) Einfluß von Mulch und mineralischem Dünger auf Zea mays und Vigna unguiculata in der Feldumlagewirtschaft Ostamazoniens. Diploma Thesis, University of GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers RG (1988) Applied Production Analysis: A Dual Approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Denich M (1989) Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung junger Sekundärvegetation für die Nutzungssystemproduktivität im östlichen Amazonasgebiet, Brasilien. Göttinger Beiträge zur Land-und Forstwirtschaft in den Tropen und Subtropen. Heft 46Google Scholar
  11. Denich M, Vielhauer K, Kato MS de A, Block A, Kato OR, Sá TD de Abreu, Lücke W, Vlek PLG (2004) Mechanized land preparation in forest-based fallow systems: The experience from Eastern Amazonia. Agroforestry Systems 61, 91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denich M, Vlek PLG, Sá TD de Abreu, Vielhauer K, Lücke W (2005): A research concept for the development of fire-free fallow management techniques in the Eastern Amazon region, Brazil. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 110(1–2), 43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diewert WE (1973): Functional Forms for Profit and Transformation Functions. Jounal of Economic Theory 6, 284–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (2003): State of the World’s Forest. Rome (1/1/2006) at: Scholar
  15. Fearnside PM (1986) Human Carrying Capacity of the Brazilian Rainforest. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardaker JB, Huirne RBM, Anderson JR, Lien G (eds, 2004) Coping with Risk in Agriculture (2nd edition). CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Hazell PBR, Norton RD (1986) Mathematical Programming for Economic Analysis in Agriculture. Macmillan Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hazell PBR, Pomareda C, Valdéz A (1986) Crop Insurance for Agricultural Development: Issues and Experience. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Hedden-Dunkhorst B, Denich M, Vielhauer K, Sousa Filho FR de, Sá TD de Abreu, Hurtienne T, Costa F de Assis, Mendoza Escalante A, Börner J (2003): Forest-Based Fallow Systems as a Safety Net for Smallholders in the Eastern Amazon. Paper presented at International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity 19–23 May, Bonn, Germany at: (verified April 4, 2006)Google Scholar
  20. Hölscher D (1994) Wasser-und Stoffhaushalt eines Agrarökosystems mit Waldbrache im östlichen Amazonasgebiet. Göttinger Beiträge zur Land-und Forstwirtschaft in den Tropen und Subtropen, Heft 106Google Scholar
  21. Hurtienne T (2001) Agricultura Familiar e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável na Amazônia. In: Coelho CMN, Castro E, Mathis A, Hurtienne T (eds): Estado e Políticas Públicas na Amazônia. Editora Cejup Ltda, Belém-PAGoogle Scholar
  22. IBGE (1998): Censo Agropecuário 1995/6 (1/1/2004) at: Scholar
  23. IBGE (2000): Censo Demográfico 2000 (1/1/2004) at: Scholar
  24. Intriligator M (1971) Mathematical Optimization and Economic Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  25. Kato MS de Andrade (1998a) Fire-free land preparation as an alternative to slash-and-burn agriculture in the Bragantina region, Eastern Amazon: Crop performance and phosphorus dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis. Cuvillier Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  26. Kato OR (1998b) Fire-free land preparation as an alternative to slash-and-burn agriculture in the Bragantina region, Eastern Amazon: Crop performance and nitrogen dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis. Cuvillier Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  27. Kato MS de Andrade, Kato OR, Denich M, Vlek PLG (1999) Fire-free alternatives to slash-and burn for shifting cultivation in the Eastern Amazon region: The role of fertilizers. Field Crops Research 62, 225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mackensen J, Hölscher D, Klinge R, Folster H (1996) Nutrient transfer to the atmosphere by burning of debris in eastern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 86(1), 121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mendoza-Escalante A (2005) Analysis of Smallholder Agricultural Production in the Eastern Amazon: Empirical Evidence and Policy Prospects for the Bragantina Region. Ph.D. Thesis. Cuvillier Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  30. Nepstad DA, Moreira A, Alencar A (1999) Flames in the Rainforest: Origins, Impacts and Alternatives to Amazon Fire. Pilot Program for the Conservation of the Rainforests of Brazil, World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Nunez JBH (1995) Fitomassa e estoque de bioelementos das diversas fases da vegetação secundária, provenientes de diferentes sistemas de uso da terra no nordeste paraense, Brasil. Master Thesis, Federal University of Pará, BelémGoogle Scholar
  32. Penteado AR (1967) Problemas de colonização e uso da terra na região Bragantina do Estado do Pará, I+II. Ph.D. Thesis. Universidade Federal do Pará, BelémGoogle Scholar
  33. Sahn DE, Stifel D (2000) Poverty Comparisons Over Time and Across Countries in Africa. World Development 28, 2123–2155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmitt D (1997) Untersuchungen über nicht-destruktive Methoden zur Bestimmung von Biomasse junger Sekundärvegetation im östlichen Amazonien. Diploma Thesis. Institute of Agronomy in the Tropics, University of GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  35. Sommer R (2000) Water and nutrient balance in deep soils under shifting cultivation with and without burning in the Eastern Amazon. Ph.D. Thesis. Cuvillier Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  36. Sommer R, Denich M, Vlek PG (2000) Carbon storage and root penetration in deep soils under small-farmer land-use systems in the eastern Amazon region, Brazil. Plant and Soil 219, 231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tippmann R (2000) Assessment of Carbon Sequestration in Landscape under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. Diploma Thesis, University of BonnGoogle Scholar
  38. United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration. (1/1/2006) at: Scholar
  39. Vieira IC (1996) Forest Succession after Shifting Cultivation in Eastern Amazonia. Ph.D. Thesis. University of StirlingGoogle Scholar
  40. Vosti SA, Reardon T (eds, 1997) Sustainability, Growth, and Poverty Alleviation. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  41. Vosti SA, Carpentier CL, Witcover J (2002) Agricultural intensification by smallholders in the western Brazilian Amazon: From deforestation to sustainable land use. RR 130. International Food Policy Research Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker R (2000) Deforestation and Cattle Ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: External Capital and Household Processes. World Development 28(4), 683–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wickel B (2004) Water and nutrient dynamics of a humid tropical agricultural watershed in Eastern Amazonia. Ecology and Development Series 21. Cuvillier Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiesenmüller, J. (1999) Einfluß landwirtschaftlicher Flächenvorbereitung auf die Dynamik des Wurzelsystems und die oberirdische Regeneration der Sekundärvegetation Ostamazoniens, Pará, Brasilien. PhD Thesis. University of GöttingenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Börner
    • 1
    • 4
  • Manfred Denich
    • 1
  • Arisbe Mendoza-Escalante
    • 1
  • Bettina Hedden-Dunkhorst
    • 2
  • Tatiana Deane de Abreu Sá
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Development Research (ZEF)University of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Federal Agency of Nature Conservation (BfN)BonnGermany
  3. 3.Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa SedeBrasília-DFBrazil
  4. 4.Lehrstuhl für VegetationsökologieTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany

Personalised recommendations