Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  06 Jun 2014:
Vol. 344, Issue 6188, pp. 1118-1123
DOI: 10.1126/science.1248525

You are currently viewing the figures only.

View Full Text

Log in to view the full text

Log in through your institution

Log in through your institution

  1. Fig. 1 Deforestation, area of land use categories, and production (beef and soy) trends in the Brazilian Amazon.

    (A) Annual deforestation and the area of indigenous territories, sustainable development reserves (e.g., extractive reserves), strict protection reserves, and agrarian reform settlements. (B) Soy and beef production and yields (for beef yields, @ = 15 kg of carcass weight) in the Brazilian Amazon. Annual deforestation data are from Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) (26). Indigenous territories, sustainable development reserves, and strict protection reserves are updated from Castello et al. (24), Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) (27), Nepstad et al. (28), and World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (29). Settlements area is from Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (INCRA) (30). Cattle herd and soy production data are from Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) (31) and Nassar et al. (9).

  2. Fig. 2 Phases in the evolution of public policies and supply chain initiatives to control Amazon deforestation: 2000 to 2013.

    The underlying bar graph is the annual deforestation trend as shown in Fig. 1A. Sources for policy interventions are in table S2.

  3. Fig. 3 The status of the Amazon region.

    (A) Infrastructure and forest loss since 2000. Highways (paved, unpaved, and planned paving), waterways (current and planned), and hydropower plants (current, under construction, and planned, with output scaled by size). Forest loss is of all forest types from 2000 through 2012 (32). Infrastructure updated from Soares-Filho et al. (33) and Castello et al. (23). (B) Rivers, other wetland ecosystems (23), and the number of drought episodes that exceeded the threshold of rainfall deficit [updated from Lewis et al. (34)]. (C) Indigenous territories, sustainable development reserves, strict protection reserves [updated from Castello et al. (23), ISA (27), Nepstad et al. (28), and WDPA (29)], agrarian reform farm settlements (Brazil only) from INCRA (30), and undesignated land (public and private, registered or not). (D) Areas of cattle and soy production (IBGE) (31) and locations of certified soy production and processing (Roundtable on Responsible Soy) (35), palm oil mills (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) (36), timber production (Forest Stewardship Council) (37, 38), beef plants in the Cattle Agreement (39), and farms in the Registry of Socio-Environmental Responsibility (CCS) (40).

  4. Fig. 4 Incentives for sustainable production with and without territorial performance approach.

    (A) Farmers operating in isolation are faced with many demands from regulatory agencies, commodity buyers, and financial institutions but do not receive significant positive incentives to slow deforestation. (B) The type of collective action to slow deforestation that is achieved in the Green County program could be reinforced through multiple incentives for territorial (county-wide) declines in deforestation. Regulatory agencies can simplify their licensing procedures, commodity suppliers can give full access to markets and better terms on preharvest loan packages, and banks can lower interest rates and improve terms (41).