Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Forest conservation in Indigenous territories and protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon

Nature Sustainability volume 6, pages 295–305 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Conflicts between forest conservation and socio-economic development in the Brazilian Legal Amazon (BLA) have persisted for years but the effects of Indigenous territory (ITs) and protected area (PAs) status on deforestation there remain unclear. To address this issue, we analysed time-series satellite images and qualified annual forest area in the BLA under different governance and management regimes. Between 2000 and 2021, areas classified as ITs or PAs increased to cover 52% of forested areas in the BLA while accounting for only 5% of net forest loss and 12% of gross forest loss. In the years (2003–2021) after establishment, gross forest loss fell 48% in PAs subject to ‘strict protection’ and 11% in PAs subject to ‘sustainable use’. However, from 2018 to 2021 the percentage rate of annual gross forest loss in ITs/PAs was twice that of non-designated areas. Our findings reveal the vital role of, and substantial progress achieved by, ITs and PAs in Amazonian forest conservation as well as the dangers of recent weakening of Brazil’s forest policies.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Cumulative areas and numbers of ITs and PAs and cumulative forest areas in ITs/PAs in the BLA.
Fig. 2: Interannual changes of forest areas in the BLA from 2000 to 2021.
Fig. 3: Annual gross forest area losses in the BLA from 2002 to 2021.
Fig. 4: The effects of ITs/PAs on annual forest area loss rates in the BLA (2001–2021).
Fig. 5: Annual forest areas and gross forest area loss rates in PAs with different governance and management regimes from 2000 to 2021.
Fig. 6: Comparison of annual gross forest area loss rates from this study, the official Brazilian deforestation dataset PRODES and GFW in the BLA from 2002 to 2021.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

MODIS evergreen forest maps are available at Figshare: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Annual_evergreen_forest_cover_maps_in_the_Brazilian_Amazon_from_2000_to_2021/21298497. MOD09A1 and MOD14A2 products are available at the US Geological Survey Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC): https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/. The PRODES project data are available from INPE: http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes. The GFW product is available from the University of Maryland: https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change#dl=1;old=off;bl=off;lon=20;lat=10;zoom=3. The MapBiomas data are available from https://mapbiomas.org/en. The ITs/PAs boundary maps are available from RAISG: https://www.amazoniasocioambiental.org/en/.

Code availability

The Google Earth Engine code for evergreen forest mapping is available at Figshare: https://figshare.com/articles/software/Code_for_evergreen_forest_cover_mapping_in_the_Brazilian_Amazon_version_2_/21298725. Other code for data analysis in R x64 3.4.2, ENVI/IDL 5.2 and Matlab R2017a should be addressed to X.X. (xiangming.xiao@ou.edu).

References

  1. Qin, Y. et al. Improved estimates of forest cover and loss in the Brazilian Amazon in 2000–2017. Nat. Sustain. 2, 764–772 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Qin, Y. et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 442–448 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jenkins, C., Pimm, S. & Joppa, L. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2602–E2610 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nogueira, E., Yanai, A., de Vasconcelos, S., de Alencastro, G. & Fearnside, P. Brazil’s Amazonian protected areas as a bulwark against regional climate change. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 573–579 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ochoa-Quintero, J., Gardner, T., Rosa, I., Ferraz, S. & Sutherland, W. Thresholds of species loss in Amazonian deforestation frontier landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 29, 440–451 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cabral, A., Saito, C., Pereira, H. & Laques, A. Deforestation pattern dynamics in protected areas of the Brazilian Legal Amazon using remote sensing data. Appl. Geogr. 100, 101–115 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nepstad, D. et al. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and Indigenous lands. Conserv. Biol. 20, 65–73 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ricketts, T. et al. Indigenous lands, protected areas, and slowing climate change. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000331 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Herrera, D., Pfaff, A. & Robalino, J. Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14916–14925 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jusys, T. Changing patterns in deforestation avoidance by different protection types in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 13, e0195900 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Matricardi, E. et al. Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 369, 1378–1382 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Silva, C. et al. Benchmark maps of 33 years of secondary forest age for Brazil. Sci. Data 7, 269 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Laurance, W. et al. The future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science 291, 438–439 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Laurance, W. et al. Development of the Brazilian Amazon. Response. Science 292, 1652–1654 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Silveira, J. Development of the Brazilian Amazon. Science 292, 1651–1654 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kauano, É., Silva, J., Diniz, J. & Michalski, F. Do protected areas hamper economic development of the Amazon region? An analysis of the relationship between protected areas and the economic growth of Brazilian Amazon municipalities. Land Use Policy 92, 104473 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Silveira, F., Ferreira, M., Perillo, L., Carmo, F. & Neves, F. Brazil’s protected areas under threat. Science 361, 459–459 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Begotti, R. & Peres, C. Brazil’s indigenous lands under threat. Science 363, 592–592 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fearnside, P. Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Environmental Science (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.102

  20. Ferreira, J. et al. Brazil’s environmental leadership at risk. Science 346, 706–707 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Villén-Pérez, S., Anaya-Valenzuela, L., Conrado da Cruz, D. & Fearnside, P. Mining threatens isolated indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Environ. Change 72, 102398 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tollefson, J. Illegal mining in the Amazon hits record high amid Indigenous protests. Nature 598, 15–16 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Silva, C. et al. The Brazilian Amazon deforestation rate in 2020 is the greatest of the decade. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 144–145 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vale, M. et al. The COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to weaken environmental protection in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 255, 108994 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Charlier, P. & Varison, L. Is COVID-19 being used as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil? Lancet 396, 1069–1070 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Davidson, E. et al. The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481, 321–328 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ferrante, L. & Fearnside, P. Brazil’s new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia’s environment, traditional peoples and the global climate. Environ. Conserv. 46, 261–263 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. PRODES Legal Amazon Deforestation Monitoring System (INPE, 2020); http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes

  29. Hansen, M. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Qin, Y. et al. Annual dynamics of forest areas in South America during 2007–2010 at 50 m spatial resolution. Remote Sens. Environ. 201, 73–87 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Collection 6 of the Annual Land Use Land Cover Maps of Brazil (MapBiomas Project, accessed 10 July 2022); https://mapbiomas.org/en

  32. Tree Cover Loss (Global Forest Watch, 2021); https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?modalMeta=tree_cover_loss

  33. Fuller, C., Ondei, S., Brook, B. & Buettel, J. Protected-area planning in the Brazilian Amazon should prioritize additionality and permanence, not leakage mitigation. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108673 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. & Soares, B. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4956–4961 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tesfaw, A. et al. Land-use and land-cover change shape the sustainability and impacts of protected areas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2084–2089 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Brazil (OECD, 2015).

  37. Campos-Silva, J. et al. Sustainable-use protected areas catalyze enhanced livelihoods in rural Amazonia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2105480118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Fearnside, P., Nogueira, E. & Yanai, A. Maintaining carbon stocks in extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazonia. Desenvolv. Meio. Ambie. 48, 446–476 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6, e22722 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. BenYishay, A., Heuser, S., Runfola, D. & Trichler, R. Indigenous land rights and deforestation: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86, 29–47 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bonilla-Mejía, L. & Higuera-Mendieta, I. Protected areas under weak institutions: evidence from Colombia. World Dev. 122, 585–596 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Baragwanath, K. & Bayi, E. Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20495–20502 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mangonnet, J., Kopas, J. & Urpelainen, J. Playing politics with environmental protection: the political economy of designating protected areas. J. Politics 84, 1453–1468 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nepstad, D. et al. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344, 1118–1123 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Brando, P. M. et al. Abrupt increases in Amazonian tree mortality due to drought–fire interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6347–6352 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. West, T. & Fearnside, P. Brazil’s conservation reform and the reduction of deforestation in Amazonia. Land Use Policy 100, 105072 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Soares-Filho, B. et al. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science 344, 363–364 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Ferrante, L. & Fearnside, P. Military forces and COVID-19 as smokescreens for Amazon destruction and violation of indigenous rights. J. Geogr. Soc. 151, 258–263 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Jiménez-Muñoz, J. et al. Record-breaking warming and extreme drought in the Amazon rainforest during the course of El Niño 2015–2016. Sci. Rep. 6, 33130 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ferrante, L. & Fearnside, P. The Amazon’s road to deforestation. Science 369, 634–634 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Feng, X. et al. How deregulation, drought and increasing fire impact Amazonian biodiversity. Nature 597, 516–521 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Aragão, L. et al. 21st century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat. Commun. 9, 536 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Silva, J., Barbosa, L., Topf, J., Vieira, I. & Scarano, F. Minimum costs to conserve 80% of the Brazilian Amazon. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 20, 216–222 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lovejoy, T. & Nobre, C. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat2340 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Xiao, X., Biradar, C., Czarnecki, C., Alabi, T. & Keller, M. A simple algorithm for large-scale mapping of evergreen forests in tropical America, Africa and Asia. Remote Sens. 1, 355–374 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Natural Protected Areas and Indigenous Territories Maps in Brazil (RAISG, 2018); https://www.amazoniasocioambiental.org/en/

Download references

Acknowledgements

Y.Q. and X.X. were supported by NSF EPSCoR track 1 project (OIA-1946093), NASA ‘Geostationary Carbon Cycle Observatory (GeoCarb) Mission’ (GeoCarb Contract no. 80LARC17C0001) and NASA Science Team for the OCO Missions (80NSSC21K1077). P.F. is supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (312450/2021-4), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos/Rede Brasileira de Pesquisas sobre Mudanças Climáticas Globais (FINEP/Rede Clima) (01.13.0353-00) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (FAPEAM) (01.02.016301.000289/2021-33). We thank R. Giovanelli for his assistance on law-relevant work in Brazil.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, Center for Earth Observation and Modeling, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    Yuanwei Qin, Xiangming Xiao & Fang Liu

  2. Department of International and Area Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    Fabio de Sa e Silva

  3. Brazilian National Institute for Space Research, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil

    Yosio Shimabukuro & Egidio Arai

  4. Department of Environmental Dynamics, National Institute for Research in Amazonia (INPA), Manaus, Brazil

    Philip Martin Fearnside

Authors
  1. Yuanwei Qin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiangming Xiao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fang Liu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabio de Sa e Silva
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yosio Shimabukuro
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Egidio Arai
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Philip Martin Fearnside
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

X.X. and Y.Q. designed the overall study plan. Y.Q. and X.X. prepared the annual evergreen forest maps. Y.Q., X.X. and F.L. carried out data processing and analysis. X.X., Y.Q. and F.L. interpreted the results. Y.Q. and X.X. drafted the manuscript and F.L., F.S.S., Y.S., E.A. and P.M.F. contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangming Xiao.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Ana Cabral, Kathryn Baragnawath and José da Silva for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Spatial distribution of created years for ITs, national PAs and state PAs.

(a) ITs. (b) National protected areas (nPAs). (c) State protected areas (sPAs). States in the Brazilian Amazon: PA (Pará), AM (Amazonas), RR (Roraima), MT (Mato Grosso), MA (Maranhão), RO (Rondônia), TO (Tocantins), AC (Acre) and AP (Amapá).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of national PAs (strict protection, sustainable use) and state PAs (strict protection, sustainable use).

(a) National PAs (strict protection, sustainable use). (b) State PAs (strict protection, sustainable use).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Multivariate El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Index Version 2 (MEI).

ENSO index values are provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Physical Sciences Laboratory (PSL).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Changes in average annual forest area loss rates before and after the ITs and PAs establishment.

(a) The types of ITs and PAs. (b) The management categories of ITs and PAs.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Interannual changes of forest area estimates in the BLA from 2000 to 2021 by this study and the MapBiomas dataset.

The forest area data in 2020 from the MapBiomas dataset is the newest dataset.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Interannual changes of forest area estimates in the nine states in the BLA from 2000 to 2021 by this study and the MapBiomas dataset.

(a) Acre. (b) Amazonas. (c) Roraima. (d) Rondonia. (e) Para. (f) Amapa. (g) Mato Grosso. (h) Tocantins. (i) Maranhao.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Two hotspot regions of annual gross forest area losses in the ITs and PAs from 2002 to 2021.

Each region covers an area of ~400 km × 400 km.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Major events in laws, policies, governance and COVID-19 from 2000 to 2021, which are related to forest conservation in the BLA.

PPCDAm means the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Interannual changes of soybean price and live cattle futures.

(a) Soybean price. (b) Live cattle futures. The data are provided from https://www.macrotrends.net/.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Forest fire area and gross forest area loss in the ITs/PAs and BLA from 2002 to 2021.

(a) Interannual changes of forest fire areas and gross forest area loss with fire in the ITs and PAs. (b) Forest fire area, gross forest area loss with fire and gross forest area loss without fire in the ITs and PAs. (c) Forest fire area, gross forest area loss to fire and gross forest area loss without fire in the BLA.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary data analysis.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qin, Y., Xiao, X., Liu, F. et al. Forest conservation in Indigenous territories and protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat Sustain 6, 295–305 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01018-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01018-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing