**3. Land use trends and planning: evidences of future land use change pathways**

The Amazon forest biome has a total of 45.4% of its territory formed by protected areas and indigenous territories [3] as depicted in **Figure 2**. This large area where the forest is predominantly protected or managed in a sustainable way [4, 5] is the ballast that makes the First Way a possible model of land use for the Amazon. An effective example of the implementation of conservation policies by Amazonian governments is given by Brazil. In the 1990–2013 period, protected areas of the Amazon have grown from 11 to 125 million hectares and indigenous land have grown from 33 to 125 million hectares [6]. Indigenous territories and protected areas occupy 47.85% of the Brazilian Amazon [7].

On the other hand, the model of resource-intensive development (Second Way) rests mostly on economic activities that lead to the elimination of the forest and had cycles of intense growth for many decades. RAISG's 'Deforestation in the Amazon (1970–2013)' (see **Figure 3**) study indicates that up to 9.7% of the region have been deforested until the year 2000, and that between that year and 2013 that rose to 13.3%, which represents 37% increase in 13 years [9]. Given that, by and large, Amazon deforestation rates increased in the last 5 years, it is likely that total deforestation is close to reaching 16% of the whole basin by 2018.

Other studies show that protected areas and indigenous territories are not necessarily blocking deforestation completely. Although deforestation in indigenous territories in the Amazon remains relatively small, rates have grown 32% between 2016 and 2017 [7]. That points out that

> the barrier formed by indigenous land and other protected areas may vanish under the pressure of environmental crime and expansion of the commodities frontier, if adequate protection policies are not enforced. The increase of deforestation in some indigenous territories occurs at a time when the total rate of destruction of the Amazon rainforest fell by 16%, from 7892 km2

> **Figure 3.** Mapping of deforestation of the Amazon forest biome for two distinct periods: the total accumulated up to 2000

The Amazonia Third Way Initiative: The Role of Technology to Unveil the Potential of a Novel…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80413

187

decrease, the level is still extremely high in absolute terms [7]. For the same period, the *Sistema de Alerta de Desmatamento* (SAD) from Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (Imazon) detected an increase of 22% in the rate of deforestation in protected areas [10].

Besides the current evidences indicating that protected areas may not be a good proxy for permanent forest conservation because the prevalent model of intensive use of natural resources is a permanent dynamic force toward disrupting it, there are evidences that the future can be even more challenging for the First Way to ensure forest conservation. Official Amazonian countries' planned infrastructure developments indicate a huge increase in the construction of dams, roads, railroads and ports [11] throughout the Amazon basin. These types of infrastructure pose severe threats to the forestland through their construction and will almost

In the Brazilian Amazon, which comprises 65% of the whole biome, deforestation figures from 2005 to 2017 show that a period of consistent decrease from 2004 to 2012 may be now

certainly induce new developments of high deforestation profile.

(red color) and the increment from 2000 to 2013 (black color). Source: RAISG [9].

**Land use change in the Amazon: sustainability or deforestation?**

in August 2016–July 2017. Notwithstanding the observed

in August 2015–July 2016 to 6624 km2

reversed (**Figure 4**).

**Figure 2.** Protect areas in the Amazon basin. Source: Conservation International [8].

The Amazonia Third Way Initiative: The Role of Technology to Unveil the Potential of a Novel… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80413 187

**3. Land use trends and planning: evidences of future land use** 

that total deforestation is close to reaching 16% of the whole basin by 2018.

**Figure 2.** Protect areas in the Amazon basin. Source: Conservation International [8].

The Amazon forest biome has a total of 45.4% of its territory formed by protected areas and indigenous territories [3] as depicted in **Figure 2**. This large area where the forest is predominantly protected or managed in a sustainable way [4, 5] is the ballast that makes the First Way a possible model of land use for the Amazon. An effective example of the implementation of conservation policies by Amazonian governments is given by Brazil. In the 1990–2013 period, protected areas of the Amazon have grown from 11 to 125 million hectares and indigenous land have grown from 33 to 125 million hectares [6]. Indigenous territories and protected

On the other hand, the model of resource-intensive development (Second Way) rests mostly on economic activities that lead to the elimination of the forest and had cycles of intense growth for many decades. RAISG's 'Deforestation in the Amazon (1970–2013)' (see **Figure 3**) study indicates that up to 9.7% of the region have been deforested until the year 2000, and that between that year and 2013 that rose to 13.3%, which represents 37% increase in 13 years [9]. Given that, by and large, Amazon deforestation rates increased in the last 5 years, it is likely

Other studies show that protected areas and indigenous territories are not necessarily blocking deforestation completely. Although deforestation in indigenous territories in the Amazon remains relatively small, rates have grown 32% between 2016 and 2017 [7]. That points out that

**change pathways**

186 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

areas occupy 47.85% of the Brazilian Amazon [7].

**Figure 3.** Mapping of deforestation of the Amazon forest biome for two distinct periods: the total accumulated up to 2000 (red color) and the increment from 2000 to 2013 (black color). Source: RAISG [9].

the barrier formed by indigenous land and other protected areas may vanish under the pressure of environmental crime and expansion of the commodities frontier, if adequate protection policies are not enforced. The increase of deforestation in some indigenous territories occurs at a time when the total rate of destruction of the Amazon rainforest fell by 16%, from 7892 km2 in August 2015–July 2016 to 6624 km2 in August 2016–July 2017. Notwithstanding the observed decrease, the level is still extremely high in absolute terms [7]. For the same period, the *Sistema de Alerta de Desmatamento* (SAD) from Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (Imazon) detected an increase of 22% in the rate of deforestation in protected areas [10].

Besides the current evidences indicating that protected areas may not be a good proxy for permanent forest conservation because the prevalent model of intensive use of natural resources is a permanent dynamic force toward disrupting it, there are evidences that the future can be even more challenging for the First Way to ensure forest conservation. Official Amazonian countries' planned infrastructure developments indicate a huge increase in the construction of dams, roads, railroads and ports [11] throughout the Amazon basin. These types of infrastructure pose severe threats to the forestland through their construction and will almost certainly induce new developments of high deforestation profile.

#### **Land use change in the Amazon: sustainability or deforestation?**

In the Brazilian Amazon, which comprises 65% of the whole biome, deforestation figures from 2005 to 2017 show that a period of consistent decrease from 2004 to 2012 may be now reversed (**Figure 4**).

**4. Identification of issues and opportunities for sustainable** 

In this chapter, we analyze the issues and circumstances that have impeded to date socioeconomic development based on Amazon biodiversity assets to occur in large scale. We point out the major failures in dimensions such as concepts (imagination challenges), knowledge (research and information challenges) and implementation (governance and policy challenges & entrepreneurial capacity failures), and the lack of imagination of the potential of an innovative green economy based on nature that goes beyond the Amazon regional institutions. In the opportunity side, we present a summary of a major review in the scientific and technical literature, which identified more than 200 species of Amazonian plants with known potential to provide raw for an initial low-end bio-economy in the Amazon. Many biodiversity products of the Amazonian flora follow have established value chains. We did qualitative analysis on a sample of it to identify its main characteristics, problems, virtues and bottlenecks. This analysis included selected cases of innovative entrepreneurship leveraging relatively low-end technologies and evaluation of 25 enterprises that markets non-timber products of Amazonian biodiversity. The sample encompasses a range of segments, types,

The Amazonia Third Way Initiative: The Role of Technology to Unveil the Potential of a Novel…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80413

189

The challenges to achieving sustainable development in the Amazon can be broadly categorized in three categories, similarly to a conceptual framework laid out for planetary health

• conceptual failures (imagination challenges), such as the vision of the Amazon as only a source of commodities for the world and the lack of imagination to create alternative, less socially and environmentally damaging development pathways based on the Amazon's renewable natural resources (e.g., its rich biodiversity), with value added via technological innovations for an inclusive 'bio-industrial' model of development, generating higher

• knowledge failures (research and information challenges), such as reduced amount of funding to research institutions in the Amazon, focus of research and monitoring systems on land use transformations, insufficient R&D investments by the private sector, and lack of innovative research, for instance, to unveil the hidden economic and societal value of

• implementation failures (governance and policy challenges & entrepreneurial capacity failures), such as the failure of Amazonian countries' government to recognize the risks of current and past development policies and the inefficient implementation of a diversified economy by public and private actors and even the failure to share more equitably the benefits of the current resource-intensive economy, reducing social and income inequities.

**socioeconomic development**

sizes and bio-assets processed.

[16]:

**4.1. Conceptual failures for sustainable tropical development**

biological assets, that is, a 'tropical model of development'.

income jobs and sustainable development.

**Figure 4.** Annual deforestation rates in Brazilian Amazon (km2 ) from 2004 to 2017 and map of fraction of land cover change for 2010 (left panel) based on PRODES data [14] and projections of two possible scenarios for the Amazon in the future up to 2030 [13]: one of large deforestation (called 'Fragmentation') and one of declining deforestation (called 'Sustainability').

Future land use change in the Amazon has been modeled [12, 13] for two rather opposed scenarios which lead to very different land cover changes (**Figure 4**). In one of them (the so-called 'Fragmentation' scenario), there is a continuous weakening of strict deforestation control policies successfully implemented from 2005 to 2012 in Brazilian Amazon and expansion of resource-intensive activities leading to agricultural and livestock expansion, resulting in over 50% of the Brazilian Amazon deforested by 2050. That is a scenario quite consistent with a progression in time of the Second Way. The other scenario in **Figure 4** (the so-called 'Sustainability' scenario) calls for continuation and strengthening of the environmental policies to bring deforestation rates close to zero in the near future. It is the land cover change scenario compatible with the Third Way.

The economic rationale to protect the tropical forests (The First Way or the 'Sustainability' scenario of **Figure 4**) rests to some degree upon the assumed low costs of maintaining intact forests as carbon storage and carbon sinks as a non-costly way to mitigate climate change in comparison to more expensive alternatives such as switching energy systems to renewable energy. Calculations for Brazil [15] estimate savings up to USD 100 billion/year to 2030 for Brazil to fulfill its NDC commitments to the Paris Accord if deforestation of the Amazon and Cerrado biomes can become smaller than 4000 km2 /year and the bulk of its commitment to reduce national emissions 43% relative to 2005 emissions by 2030 come from land use policy and not from rapidly switching the energy matrix to renewable energy. However, it is clearly short-sighted to view only the carbon pathways as justification to preserve tropical forests. In fact, the Third Way Initiative raises various limitations of such approach (see [2]) and proposes that, in addition to ecosystems services, the economic potential of tropical forests rests on their biological and biomimetic assets to a larger extent.
