Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Spillover effect offsets the conservation effort in the Amazon
Author: Dou Yue (1987-), Postdoctoral Research Associate, specialized in land use and land cover changes and modeling. E-mail: yuedou@msu.edu
Received date: 2017-09-01
Accepted date: 2018-01-15
Online published: 2018-11-20
Supported by
US National Science Foundation Award, No.1518518
Complex Dynamics of Telecoupled Human and Natural System
Michigan AgBioResearch
São Paulo Research Foundation, No.15/25892-7
Copyright
Diverse conservation efforts have been expanding around the globe, even under the stress of increasing agricultural production. A striking example is the supply-chain agreements put upon the Amazon forest which had reduced deforestation by 80% from the early 2000s (27,772 km2) to 2015 (6207 km2). However, evaluation of these conservation efforts usually focused on the impacts within the Amazon biome only, while the effects that spill over to other areas (e.g., displacement of environmental pressure from one area to another) were rarely considered. Ignoring spillover effects may lead to biased or even wrong conclusions about the effectiveness of these conservation efforts because the hidden cost outside the target area of conservation may offset the achievement within it. It is thus important to assess the spillover effects of these supply-chain agreements. In this study, we used the two supply-chain agreements (i.e., Soy Moratorium and zero-deforestation beef agreement) implemented in the Amazon biome as examples and evaluated their spillover effects to the Cerrado. To achieve a holistic evaluation of the spillover effects, we adopted the telecoupling framework in our analysis. The application of the telecoupling framework includes the interactions between distant systems and extends the analytical boundaries beyond the signatory areas, which fill the gap of previous studies. Our results indicate that the supply-chain agreements have significantly reduced deforestation by half compared to projections within the sending system (i.e., Pará State in the Amazon, which exports soybeans and other agricultural products), but at the cost of increasing deforestation in the spillover system (i.e., a 6.6 time increase in Tocantins State of the Cerrado, where deforestation was affected by interactions between the Amazon and other places). Our study emphasizes that spillover effects should be considered in the evaluation and planning of conservation efforts, for which the telecoupling framework works as a useful tool to do that systematically.
Key words: telecoupling; Amazon; Cerrado; Brazil; soybean trade; spillover; voluntary agreement; deforestation; conservation; development
DOU Yue , Ramon Felipe Bicudo da SILVA , YANG Hongbo , LIU Jianguo . Spillover effect offsets the conservation effort in the Amazon[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018 , 28(11) : 1715 -1732 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-018-1539-0
Figure 1 Spillover effects to Cerrado biome. The flow between sending and receiving systems is regulated by the agreements, but not the flow between spillover and receiving systems. We hypothesized the implementation of the conservation policies and agreements in the sending system may have increased the flow of information from sending system to the spillover system, causing more deforestation in the Cerrado than before as a spillover. Explanation of variables can be found in the following section. |
Figure 2 Location of Pará (sending system) and Tocantins (spillover system) in Brazil. Pará is in the Amazon biome. Tocantins is on the edge of Amazon and Cerrado, 87% of its area is in Cerrado biome that strict Brazilian Amazon regulation does not apply. |
Table 1 Contexts and methods used to study deforestation and land use in Brazil in current literatures |
Reference | Region | Temporal period | Land use and land cover changes | Control variables | Model or method | Analytical framework |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Macedo et al., 2012 | Mato Grosso | 2001-2010 | Post-deforestation land use, indirect land use | Market trends Climate variability Yield Cost of production | Correlation | No framework used, identified policies and market trends as external factors to land use changes in MT. |
Richards et al., 2014 | Amazon | 2002-2011 | Deforestation, indirect land use | Market trends Local effects Indirect agricultural influence | Spatial regression | No framework used, indirect influence was calculated as weighted distance. |
Arima et al., 2011 | Legal Amazon | 2003-2008 | Deforestation, indirect land use | Soybean planted area Cattle herd Precipitation Farm gate price for cattle | Fixed effect spatial regression | No framework used, distance was measured in the regression. |
Barona et al., 2010 | Legal Amazon | 2001-2006 | Deforestation, indirect land use | Pasture land change, Cropland change | Linear regression | No framework |
Spera et al., 2014 | Mato Grosso | 2001-2011 | Land use transition | Land characters | t-test | No framework |
Figure 3 Annual deforestation rate in sending (Pará in Amazon) and spillover (Tocantins in Cerrado) systems |
Figure 4 Descriptive statistics of deforested parcels in the sending (Pará) and spillover systems (Tocantins) |
Table 2 Significance and coefficient of variables to deforestation in sending (Pará) and spillover (Tocantins) systems |
PA coefficient | P-value | TO coefficient | P-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | -2.44 | *** | -0.46 | |
Soybean price lagged | -0.30 | 0.12 | ||
Soybean price current | 0.78 | * | -3.35 | *** |
Post2006 | 0.46 | -0.70 | ** | |
Soybean price lagged: Post2006 | 0.59 | -0.84 | ||
Soybean price current: Post2006 | -1.74 | *** | 4.05 | *** |
Beef price current | 0.06 | -0.04 | ||
Beef price lagged | -0.10 | * | -0.19 | ** |
Post2009 | -0.59 | * | -0.85 | ** |
Beef price current: Post2009 | -0.10 | 0.01 | ||
Beef price lagged: Post2009 | 0.18 | . | 0.29 | *** |
Road density | 0.61 | *** | -1.32 | * |
Distance to closest major ports | 0.00 | *** | 0.00 | |
Available area | 0.39 | *** | 0.76 | *** |
R-square | 0.53 | 0.34 |
Significance codes: 0 ‘***’, .001 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘.’, and 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 |
Figure 5 Projection of deforestation in the absence of agreements: (a) observed and predicted deforestation in sending system (Pará); (b) observed and predicted deforestation in spillover system (Tocantins) |
Figure 6 Planted soybean area in the sending (Pará) and spillover (Tocantins) systems from 2003 to 2015 |
Table 3 Soybean planted area and its correlation with deforestation and other factors |
Pará | Tocantins | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Correlation | Significance | Correlation | Significance | |
Deforestation t | + | *** | ||
Deforestation t-1 | ||||
Deforestation t-2 | + | ** | ||
Soybean yield | + | *** | + | *** |
Soybean price t | + | *** | ||
Soybean price t-1 | + | *** |
Note: Significance codes: 0 ‘***’, .001 ‘**’; '+' means positive correlation. |
Figure 7 Annual change of pasture land size in the sending system (Pará) and the spillover system (Tocantins) from 2003 to 2015 |
Figure 8 Possible deforestation processes before and after agreements in the sending (Pará) and spillover (Tocantins) systems. F is short for Forest, P for Pasture land, and S for Soybean land. The left section is the land use processes in Pará, the Amazon biome while on the right is the land use processes in Tocantins, the Cerrado biome, with pattern filling indicating displaced soybean land use (or saved forest) and underline indicating displaced pasture. |
Table 4 Alternative models of deforestation |
Sending (Pará) | Sample size | Soybean yield impact | R2 |
---|---|---|---|
Current model | 748 | Not applicable | 0.59 |
Soybean yield | 203 | Not significant | 0.63 |
GDP industry t & t-1 | 543 | Not significant | 0.59 |
Spillover (Tocantins) | Sample size | Soybean yield impact | R2 |
Current model | 1186 | Not applicable | 0.35 |
Soybean yield | 580 | Not significant | 0.36 |
GDP industry t & t-1 | 782 | Not significant | 0.32 |
Figure 9 Soybean and beef price used in regression of deforestation with other factors in Equation 1 |
Figure 10 Soybean exported from the sending (Pará) and spillover (Tocantins) systems |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |