Categories
Mongabay Features

Tropical Conservation Science paper examines relationship between deforestation and economic indicators in the Brazilian Amazon

Deforestation proponents in Brazil routinely argue that cutting down the Amazon is an effective way to alleviate poverty. For example, the Bolsonaro administration’s official statement to the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference asserted that “where there is a lot of forest there is also a lot of poverty,” implying that forest cover is inversely correlated to human well-being. Yet solid evidence to support this claim is rarely offered.

Ahead of Brazil’s election this coming Sunday, which pits Jair Bolsonaro, who has presided over a steep rise in deforestation, against Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who oversaw a sharp drop in Amazon forest clearing and has made saving the Amazon a key part of his campaign, a group of us led by Darren Norris of the Federal University of Amapá decided to see what the data say about links between deforestation and poverty in the Amazon. Specifically, we wanted to see whether the arguments advanced by deforestation proponents hold up to scrutiny.

Fire near the Manicoré River in Amazonas state in August 2022. Photo © Christian Braga / Greenpeace
Fire near the Manicoré River in Amazonas state in August 2022. Image © Christian Braga/Greenpeace.

To do this, we looked at forest change and economic indicators for nearly 800 municipalities covering almost 5 million hectares (12 million acres) in the Brazilian Amazon from 2002 to 2019. We used average salary, the existence of sanitation plans, and internet connectivity as the economic indicators for evaluating this question. This is not comprehensive, but it is a serviceable proxy for economic development.

We found no association between forest loss and these economic indicators. Indeed, the economic indicators for municipalities with less than 40% forest cover in 1986 were no different than those for similar municipalities with more than 60% forest cover from 1986 to 2019. The finding thus suggests that “deforestation does not necessarily generate transformative and equitable food production systems or lead to poverty alleviation,” as we write.

Figure 3 from the paper. Economic indicators and forest cover change. Comparison of three economic indicators among forest cover classes. Annual trends from 2006 to 2019 (A to C) and GAM partial plots (D to F) of three economic indicators, row wise top to bottom: agriculture Gross Value Added per capita, Gross Domestic Product per capita and salaries (expressed as a proportion of the annual minimum salary value). These indicators are compared among a subset of 357 municipalities with contrasting proportions of natural forest cover. Municipalities are grouped into three forest cover classes using percent of natural forest cover in 1986 as a reference level (“low”: less than 40%, “medium”: more than 60% in 1986 but less than 50% in 2019 and “high” more than 60% in 1986 and 2019).
Figure 3 from the paper. Economic indicators and forest cover change. Comparison of three economic indicators among forest cover classes. Annual trends from 2006 to 2019 (A to C) and GAM partial plots (D to F) of three economic indicators, row wise top to bottom: agriculture Gross Value Added per capita, Gross Domestic Product per capita and salaries (expressed as a proportion of the annual minimum salary value). These indicators are compared among a subset of 357 municipalities with contrasting proportions of natural forest cover. Municipalities are grouped into three forest cover classes using percent of natural forest cover in 1986 as a reference level (“low”: less than 40%, “medium”: more than 60% in 1986 but less than 50% in 2019 and “high” more than 60% in 1986 and 2019).

Therefore, the Bolsonaro administration’s claim that Brazilians in the Amazon cannot escape poverty without clearing forests does not seem to be a valid argument based on economic data alone.

Left unevaluated here are the ecological services afforded to local communities by healthy and productive forests. Factoring in these benefits, which are often undervalued, would further diminish the case being made by deforestation proponents.

Blackwater oxbow lake, rainforest, and a whitewater river in the Amazon. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.
Blackwater oxbow lake, rainforest, and a whitewater river in the Amazon. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

The paper, titled “Cutting down trees does not build prosperity: On the continued decoupling of Amazon deforestation and economic development in 21st century Brazil,” will be published shortly in the journal Tropical Conservation Science. A preprint version is available on EarthArXiv.

Citation:

Norris, D., Carvalho, T. S., Guerrero, A. M., Escada, M. I. S., Alencar, A., Kimbrough, L., & Butler, R. A. (2022). Cutting down trees does not build prosperity: On the continued decoupling of Amazon deforestation and economic development in 21st century Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science, 15. doi:10.1177/19400829221132193

By Rhett Ayers Butler

Rhett Ayers Butler is the Founder and CEO of Mongabay, a non-profit conservation and environmental science platform that delivers news and inspiration from Nature's frontline via a global network of local reporters. He started Mongabay in 1999 with the mission of raising interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife.