Bogotá (Colombia); Caracas (Venezuela); Lima (Perú); Paramaribo (Suriname); Quito (Ecuador); Santa Cruz de La Sierra (Bolivia); Belém and São Paulo (Brasil)

2012

Balneário de Cauamé and road linking Brasil and Venezuela. Boa Vista, Roraima, Brasil. © Tiago Orihuela, 2006

Urban district on the outskirts of Manaus encroaching on the forest. Manaus, Brasil. © Alberto César de Souza Araújo/ISA, 2007

City of Altamira on the shores of the Xingu where the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam (UHE) is being built. Pará, Brasil. © Marcelo Salazar/ISA, 2011

Carajás, the world’s largest open pit iron mine. Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 1999

Amazonas river during one of the worst droughts registered in Amazonia. Barreirinha, Amazonas, Brasil. © Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace, 2005

Alunorte, the world’s largest aluminum refinery. Barcarena, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2006

Waste disposal from the Alunorte refinery. Barcarena, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2008

Tucuruí Hydroelectric Plant, on the Tocantins river. Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2002

Aluminum ingot storage zone owned by Albras. Barcarena, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 1996

Mechanized soya harvesting. Campo Verde, Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Paulo Fridman/Pulsar Imagens, 2008

Cattle ranch previously forestland, between Querência and São José do Xingu. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Federico Bellone, 2010

Yard of one of the 140 logging companies established in Tailândia, in 2008. Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2008

Amazonia under Pressure

© RAISG Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socio-environmental Information www.raisg.socioambiental.org Suggested format for citing the document: RAISG, 2012. Amazonia under Pressure. 68 pages (www.raisg.socioambiental.org)

General Coordinator: Beto Ricardo (ISA)assistant General Coordinator: Alicia Rolla (ISA)General workGroup raisG/atlas: Adriana Sarmiento-Dueñas (Gaia), Alicia Rolla (ISA), Beto Ricardo (ISA), Carla Soria (IBC), Cicero Cardoso Augusto (ISA), Karla Beltrán (EcoCiencia), Katia Regina Pereira (Imazon), Maria Oliveira-Miranda (Provita), Melvin Uiterloo (ACT Suriname), Pedro Tipula (IBC), Ricardo Abad (ICV), Saul Cuellar (FAN), Víctor López (EcoCiencia)responsible for CartoGraphiC thematiC analysis:

Mining: Adriana Sarmiento-Dueñas (Gaia) and Katia Regina Pereira (Imazon)Hydroelectric Plants: Saul Cuellar (FAN) and Ricardo Abad (ICV)Fires (Hot Spots): Saul Cuellar (FAN) and Ricardo Abad (ICV)Oil and Gas: Pedro Tipula (IBC) and Carla Soria (IBC)Roads: Cicero Cardoso Augusto (ISA) and Maria Oliveira-Miranda (Provita)Deforestation: Cicero Cardoso Augusto (ISA) and Maria Oliveira-Miranda (Provita)

workGroup raisG/deforestation: Carlos Souza Jr. (Imazon), Cicero Cardoso Augusto (ISA), João Victor Siqueira (Imazon), Maria Oliveira-Miranda (Provita), Melvin Uiterloo (ACT Suriname), Milton Romero-Ruíz (Gaia), Sandra Ríos (IBC), Saul Cuellar (FAN), Sergio Zambrano (IVIC); with the collaboration of: Adriana Sarmiento-Dueñas (Gaia), Andrés Llanos (Gaia), Boris Hinojosa Guzman, Elimar Márquez (Provita), Fabian Santos (EcoCiencia), Jhonny Arroyo (FAN), Jorge Fernández (IBC), José Saito (IBC), Marlene Quintanilla (FAN),Rosa María de Oliveira (Provita), Sara Espinoza (FAN), Suzette FlantuaimaGe researCh: Claudio Aparecido Tavares (ISA), Pedro Tipula (IBC), Víctor López (EcoCiencia) map produCtion: Alicia Rolla (ISA), Adriana Sarmiento (FGA) and Carla Soria (IBC)editinG: Alicia Rolla (ISA) (maps and text); Beto Ricardo (ISA) (text and photos); Daniel Larrea (FAN) (text); Janette Ulloa (EcoCiencia) (text), Natalia Hernández (text)orGanization of first draft of texts: Ramón Laborde and Natalia HernándezteChniCal revision Collaborators: Ermeto Tuesta (IBC), Maria Fernanda Prado (ISA), Marisa Gesteira Fonseca (ISA), Renata Aparecida Alves (ISA), Sandra Ríos (IBC), Víctor López (EcoCiencia)

translation: David Rodgers

text revision: Richard Smith (IBC)revision and standardization of information sourCes: Leila Maria Monteiro(ISA)revision and standardization of abbreviations: Francis Miti Nishiyama (ISA) GraphiC desiGn and layout: Vera Feitosa (ISA)Cover: Beto Ricardo and Roberto Straussintitutional Coordinators: Beto Ricardo (ISA), Carlos Souza Jr. (Imazon), Gwendolyn Emanuels-Smith (ACT-Suri-name), Daniel Larrea (FAN), Janette Ulloa (EcoCiencia), Jon Paul Rodriguez (Provita y IVIC), Laurent Micol (ICV), Martín Von Hildebrand (Gaia), Richard Smith (IBC).speCial partiCipation : Biviany Rojas Garzón, Fernando Salazar, Gustavo Faleiros (Oecoamazonia), Roxroy Bollers (Iwokrama) thanks to: Alberto César de Souza Araújo, Daniel Beltra, Federico Bellone, Félix Grande Bagazgoita, Fernando Soría, Fundación Pachamama/Quito, Heinz Plenge, Juan Calles, Marcelo Pietrafita, Margi Moss/Projeto Brasil das Águas, Marizilda Cruppe, Odair Leal, Pablo Baños/Fundación Avina, Paulo Santos, Pedro Martinelli, Peetsaa/ Arquivo CGIIRC/Funai/2011, Prensa em Redes, Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay, Ricardo Stuckert, Roberto Smeraldi, Rodrigo Botero García, Rogério Assis, Rubén Ramírez/Proyecto Andes Agua Amazonía, Sérgio Vignes, Szymon Kochanski, Tasso Azevedo, Taylor Nunes, Thomas Müller/SPDA, Tiago Orihuela, Ton Koene, Vincent Carelli/Vídeo nas Aldeias

The AMAZONIAN NETWORK OF GEOREFERENCED SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION is a space for the coordination and exchange of georeferenced socioenvironmental information, for use by processes that positively link collective rights to the valorization and sustainability of the socioenvironmental diversity of the Amazonian region. The main objective of RAISG since its foundation in 1996 has been to stimulate and facilitate cooperation between institutions working with georeferenced socioenvironmental information systems in Amazonia, with a methodology based on the coordination of joint efforts, through an accumulative, decentralized and public process of exchanging, producing and disseminating information.

ACT - The Amazon Conservation Team SurinameNickeriestraat #4 – Paramaribo, SurinameTel: (597) 401-264http://www.actsuriname.org

DEAL - Direction de l’environnement, de l’aménagement et du logement - GuyaneRoute du Vieux Port – BP 603 – 97 306 CAYENNE CEDEXTel.: 0594 39 80 00http://www.guyane.ecologie.gouv.fr

EcoCienciaPasaje Estocolmo E2- 166 y Av. Amazonas – (Sector El Labrador - Norte de Quito).Tel: (593-2) 2 410 781 / 2 410 791 / 2 410 489http://www.ecociencia.org

FAN - Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza Km.7 1/2 Doble Vía La Guardia – BoliviaTel: +591-3-3556800 http://www.fan-bo.org

FGA - Fundación Gaia AmazonasCarrera 4 nº 26D-31 – Bogotá, Colombia(571) 281 4925 / 281 4985 / Fax: (571) 281 4945http://www.gaiaamazonas.org/

IBC - Instituto del Bien ComúnAv. Petit Thouars 4377 – Lima 18 – PerúTel.: (511) 440-0006 / 421-7579 Fax: (511) 440-6688http://www.ibcperu.org/

ICV - Instituto Centro de Vida Rua Américo Salgado, 1890 CEP: 78045-055 Cuiabá – Mato Grosso, BrasilTel./Fax: (55 65) 3621-3148http://www.icv.org.br

IMAZON - Instituto do Homem e do Meio Ambiente da Amazônia Rua Domingos Marreiros, 2020 CEP: 66.060-160 Belém – Pará, BrasilTel: (55 91) 3182-4000 Fax: (55 91) 3182-4027http://www.imazon.org.br

IVIC - Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas Centro de Ecología, Laboratorio de Biología de OrganismosSan Antonio de los Altos, Carretera Panamericana, Km 11, Altos de Pipe, Estado Miranda – Caracas, VenezuelaTel: (58 212) 504-1888 / 504-1617http://www.ivic.gob.ve/ecologia/index.php?mod=lab.php&labid=biolorg

ProvitaAv. Rómulo Gallegos c/Av. 1 Santa Eduvigis, Edif. Pascal, Torre A, Piso 17, Ofic. 171-A, Caracas, VenezuelaTel: (58 212) 286-3169, (58 212) 286-1077http://www.provita.org.ve

ISA – Instituto SocioambientalAvenida Higienópolis, 901 – sala 30 CEP: 01238-001 São Paulo – SP, BrasilTel.: (55 11 ) 3515-8900 Fax: (55 11 ) 3515-8904http://www.socioambiental.org

Supporters of RAISG:

Contents7 PREFACE

9 INTRODUCTION9 The geographical boundaries of Amazonia11 Protected Natural Areas and Indigenous Territories Amazonian Basins13 General Methodology14 BIN1. Cattle ranching and agriculture in the expasion of Amazonian frontiers15 BIN2. Logging

16 ROADS17 MRD1. Roads in Amazonia18 MRD2. Roads in Amazonia, by type MRD3. Road density by country in Amazonia BRD1. Roads in the Amazon Integration and Development Axis Projects GRD1. Road distribution in Amazonia, by type19 TRD1. Road lengths in Amazonia, by type and country TRD2. Road density in Amazonia, by type and country TRD3. Road length and density in the Amazonian macro-basins, by type GRD2. Road distribution in Amazonia, by type and country MRD4. Road density by Amazonian macro-basin20 MRD5. Road density by Amazonian sub-basin MRD6. Road density by PNA in Amazonia TRD4. The ten Amazonian sub-basins with the highest road density GRD3. Road distribution in PNA in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use TRD5. Length of road types in PNA in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use TRD6. Density of road types in PNA in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use21 TRD7. The ten PNAs (with areas over 100 km²) with the highest road density in Amazonia TRD8. Length and density of road types in Amazonian ITs, by territory type BRD2. IIRSA road between Pucallpa and Cruzeiro do Sul: a project in question MRD7. Road density by IT in Amazonia22 TRD9. Density of road types in IT in Amazonia, by country and territory type TRD10. The two ITs (with an area over 100 km²) with highest road density in each country in Amazonia GRD4. Road distribution in ITs in Amazonia, by country and territory type23 BRD3. Development versus conservation: the TIPNIS case in Bolivia

24 OIL and GAS25 MOG1. Oil and Gas in Amazonia26 MOG2. Oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase BOG1. The main oil companies with interests in Amazonia TOG1. Oil/gas activity phases in Amazonia, by country TOG2. Quantity and surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase TOG3. Quantity and surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by country27 BOG2. State, oil and Indigenous Territories in Ecuadorian Amazonia GOG1. Distribution of surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country TOG4. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country TOG5. The ten Amazonian sub-basins with the largest overlap of oil/gas blocks MOG3. Proportion of oil/gas blocks per macro-basin in Amazonia MOG4. Proportion of oil/gas blocks per sub-basin in Amazonia28 MOG5. Proportion of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia TOG6. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by country GOG2. Proportion of PNAs in Amazonia with oil/gas blocks, by country and activity phase TOG7. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by activity phase, administrative sphere and type of use GOG3. Proportion of ITs in Amazonia with oil/gas blocks, by country and activity phase TOG8. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in ITs in Amazonia, by activity phase, administrative sphere and type of use29 BOG3. Oil and gas surveying in the sedimentary basins of Acre and Madre de Dios MOG6. Proportion of oil/gas blocks in ITs in Amazonia

30 MINING31 MMN1. Mining in Amazonia32 MMN2. Mining activity phases in Amazonia, by country BMN1. The main companies and the largest mining ventures TMN1. Categories of mining blocks in the countries of Amazonia TMN2. Quantity and surface area of mining blocks in Amazonia, by category GMN1. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase TMN3. Quantity and surface area of mining blocks in Amazonia, by country33 GMN2. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country TMN4. Surface area of mining blocks in macro-basins in Amazonia, by category GMN3. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by macro-basin TMN5. The ten sub-basins with the largest surface area covered by mining blocks in Amazonia MMN3. Proportion of mining blocks per country in Amazonia34 MMN4. Proportion of mining blocks per macro-basin in Amazonia MMN5. Proportion of mining blocks per sub-basin in Amazonia TMN6. Surface area of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use GMN4. Distribution of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use GMN5. Distribution of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by country and activity phase GMN6. Distribution of mining blocks in ITs in Amazonia, by country and activity phase35 MMN6. Proportion of mining blocks per PNA in Amazonia BMN2 . The new gold rush in Amazonia36 MMN7. Proportion of mining blocks by ITs in Amazonia BMN3. Mining, participation and social mobilization in Ecuador

38 HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS39 MHP1. Hydroelectric plants in Amazonia40 THP1. Phases of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia GHP1. Distribution of hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and situation (threat) THP2. Hydroelectric plants with capacity > 300 MW in operation and under construction in Amazonia MHP2. Hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and activity phase BHP1. From the Andes to Amazonia: water in the mountain forests41 THP3. Hydroelectric plants with capacity >300 MW projected in Amazonia THP4. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia, by type and phase THP5. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per macro-basin in Amazonia, by type and phase THP6. The ten sub-basins with the highest number of hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and phase MHP3. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia MHP4. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per macro-basin in Amazonia42 MHP5. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per sub-basin in Amazonia MHP6. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per PNA in Amazonia BHP2. Small hydroelectric plants in the Juruena basin (Mato Grosso, Brasil)43 THP7. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use THP8. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in PNAs in Amazonia THP9. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in ITs in Amazonia, by type of territory THP10. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in ITs in Amazonia MHP7. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per IT in Amazonia

44 FIRES (HOT SPOTS)45 MFI1. Fires in Amazonia46 MFI2. Fires in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010 (quantity per 10 km2 squares) GFI1. Fires recorded annually in Amazonia over the period 2000-2010 GFI2. Fires recorded monthly in Amazonia over the period 2000-2010 GFI3. Annual quantity of fires recorded in Brazilian Amazonia over the period 2000-2010 TFI1. Fires recorded in the macro-basins of Amazonia over the period 2000-201047 BFI1. Xingu Indigenous Park on the fire path MFI3. Quantity of fires per country in Amazonia (2000-2010) MFI4. Quantity of fires per macro-basin in Amazonia (2000-2010)48 MFI5. Quantity of fires per sub-basin in Amazonia (2000-2010) TFI2. Ten sub-basins of Amazonia with the highest number of fires (2000-2010) MFI6. Quantity of fires per PNA in Amazonia (2000-2010) GFI4. Annual distribution of fires in Amazonia, by country, except Brasil (2000-2010) TFI3. Fires recorded in PNAs in Amazonia (2000-2010) TFI4. Fires recorded in PNAs in Amazonia by country (2000-2010)49 TFI5. The ten PNAs of Amazonia with the highest number of fires in the period 2000-2010 TFI6. Fires recorded in ITs in Amazonia (2000-2010) GFI5. Distribution of fires in ITs in Amazonia, by type of territory (2000-2010) TFI7. Fires in ITs in Amazonia, by country (2000-2010) TFI8. The ten ITs in Amazonia with the highest density of fires in the period 2000-2010 MFI7. Quantity of fires per IT in Amazonia (2000-2010)

50 DEFORESTATION51 MDF1. Deforestation in Amazonia52 BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region53 MDF2. Base map of soil cover in Amazonia, year 2000 MDF3. Deforestation in Amazonia in the periods 2000-2005 and 2005-201054 MDF4. Proportion of deforestation from 2000 to 2010 in Amazonia, by country TDF1. Relative distribution of Amazonia and Amazonian forest by country in the year 2000 TDF2. Deforestation in Amazonia in the periods 2000-20005 and 2005-2010, by country GDF1. Distribution of forest loss in Amazonia for the periods 2000-2005 and 2005-2010, by country55 BDF2. The arm of deforestation in the IT and PNA corridor in the Xingu basin MDF5. Proportion of deforestation from 2000 to 2010 in the macro-basins of Amazonia MDF6. Proportion of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia for the period 2000-200556 MDF7. Proportion of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia for the period 2005-2010 MDF8. Evolution of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010 TDF3. Forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010, by type of use and administrative sphere GDF2. Distribution of forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia, by type of use and period (2000-2005 and 2005-2010) TDF4. Forest loss in the PNAs of Amazonia in the period 2000-2010, by country57 GDF3. Distribution of forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010, by country and type of use TDF5. PNAs most affected by deforestation in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010, by country MDF9. Proportion of deforestation per PNA in Amazonia58 MDF10. Proportion of deforestation per IT in Amazonia TDF6. Forest loss in ITs in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010, by type of IT GDF4. Distribution of forest loss in ITs in Amazonia, by type and period (2000-2005 and 2005-2010) TDF7. Forest loss in ITs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010, by country and type of IT59 TDF8. The three ITs (with an area over 100 km²) from each country in Amazonia with the largest amount of deforestation in the period 2000-2010 BDF3. Deforestation in the northwest Colombian Amazonia

60 CONCLUSIONS

63 INFORMATION SOURCES

65 ABBREVIATIONS

67 CAPTIONS FOR THE MOSAIC OF PHOTOS 2

Coordinator

Dados Internacionais de Catalogação na Publicação (CIP)(Câmara Brasileira do Livro, SP, Brasil)

Amazonia under pressure / RAISG - Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socio-environmental Information ; [general coordinator Beto Ricardo (ISA) ; translation David Rodgers]. -- São Paulo : Instituto Socioambiental, 2013.

Título original: Amazonía bajo presión Vários autores.

Bibliografia

1. Amazônia - Aspectos sociais 2. Amazônia - Clima 3. Amazônia - Condições econômicas 4. Amazônia - Condições sociais 5. Amazônia - Descrição 6. Desenvolvimento sustentável 7. Problemas sociais 8. Reflorestamento I. RAISG - Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socio-environmental Information. II. Ricardo, Beto.

13-104225 CDD-304.2709811

Índices para catálogo sistemático:

1. Amazônia : Biodiversidade : Aspectos socioambientais 304.2709811

AmAzoniA under Pressure 7 RAISG

PREFACE

Amazonia under Pressure is the result of a joint project involving civil society and research organizations from the Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information (RAISG).

The first attempt to structure this collaborative space was sponsored by ISA in 1996, based on its experience of working in Brasil, accumulated since the 1970s.

From the outset the proposal was to build a fertile environment for developing a long-term accumulative and decentralized process that would enable the compilation, generation and publication of information and analyses of the contemporary dynamics of (Pan) Amazonia.

After a low-profile period, from 2007 onwards, as part of the new ‘Amazonian wave’ linked to the global debate on climate change, we were able to mobilize a group of institutions that together combine the minimal conditions needed to elaborate a joint work plan:

have a socio-environmental agenda;

make strategic use of geographic information systems; and

able to exchange and combine databases at (Pan) Amazonian scale.

Since then considerable effort has been invested in creating and implementing technical and political protocols, as well as investments in equipment, computing tools and staff capacity building, with support from the Rainforest Foundation Norway, the Ford Foundation, Avina and the Skoll Foundation.

The composition of the network has remained basically stable throughout the process with only a few changes. It is currently composed of 11 institutions (see page 4).

The work required a series of face-to-face meetings in São Paulo, Lima, Belém, Bogotá and Quito in order to adapt methods, define technical criteria, verify information, combine data, prioritize themes, strengthen capacities and exchange experiences and knowledge (the previous page shows a photographic mosaic of RAISG meetings and events held between 2007 and 2012).

Both consultations and virtual meetings with other technical specialists were also held in each of the different countries.

The first output of RAISG’s work was the map AmAzoniA 2009 Protected Areas and indigenous Territories, printed in Spanish, Portuguese and English. It was made available for downloading in digital format (www.raisg.socioambiental.org).

Following this, each institution set up routines to update regularly the thematic databases on Amazonia in each country, adhering to formats and protocols that ensure that this information can be integrated at various scales.

In mid 2012 an updated version of the 2009 map was published and now this atlas, Amazonia under Pressure, which includes data and analyses on roads, oil and gas, mining, hydroelectric plants, fires and deforestation.

Work on deforestation was assisted by Imazon’s software and experience in interpreting satellite images of the Brazilian Amazonia, which helped RAISG to define a methodology suited to the diversity of Andean-Amazonian and Guianese landscapes. The assessment of deforestation carried out using this methodology allowed us to obtain preliminary results for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010, as presented in this atlas and the enclosed map.

The present publication, one of the results of the RAISG initiative, is a contribution from civil society to the democratic debate on pressures in Amazonia and particularly on deforestation, an issue that is presently being assessed by various national governments, as well as at the intergovernmental level of ACTO (Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization).

RAISG is currently in the process of formulating a 2013-2015 work plan, which will include:

maintaining basic routines for updating, enhancing, analyzing and disseminating data on the themes of pressures and threats;

incorporating new work themes;

establishing cooperation agreements with other networks with the aim of generating joint products; and

forming regional sub-networks.

RAISG is a collaborative space open to all those interested in promoting a sustainable future and strengthening the socio-environmental diversity of Amazonia. The present Atlas is intended to contribute to consolidating a wide-ranging regional view in which Amazonia is seen to extend beyond Brasil to include the Andean and Guianese countries.

Beto Ricardo November, 2012

Work meetings and public presentations of RAISG between 2007–2012

RAISG 8 AmAzoniA under Pressure AmAzoniA under Pressure 9 RAISG

IntRoduCtIon

Map 1. Amazonia: cumulative pressure (RAISG, 2012)

Map 2. Amazonia: cumulative threats (RAISG, 2012)

The Amazonia presented in this publication is a territory with a huge socio-environmental diversity now undergoing a process of rapid change. It covers an area of 7.8 million km2, including 12 macro-basins and 158 sub-basins, shared by 1,497 municipalities, 68 departments/states/provinces in eight countries: Bolivia (6.2%), Brasil (64.3%), Colombia (6.2%), Ecuador (1.5%), Guyana (2.8%), Perú (10.1%), Suriname (2.1%) and Venezuela (5.8%), as well as Guyane Française (1.1%).1 Around 33 million people live in Amazonia, including 385 indigenous peoples, as well as some living in ‘isolation.’ There are 610 PNAs and 2,344 ITs that occupy 45% of the Amazonian surface area, without counting the small, medium and large rural landowners, various types of companies, research and support institutions, religious organizations and civil society organizations.

This area results from boundaries agreed upon by RAISG members by combining socio-environmental and juridical-administrative criteria, as explained below, in order to define a spatial expression of the information and analyses.

The geographical information system developed by RAISG has the flex-ibility to allow products to be generated using other boundaries, such as those defined by hydrographic or biogeographic criteria, for example.

Although countries like Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador and Perú de-fine juridical-administrative boundaries for their portions of Amazonia, public policies do not reflect Amazonian socio-environmental particularities and are far from adopting the necessary (Pan-) Amazonian view and improving cooperation mechanisms.

In all cases, there persists a view of Amazonia as a remote frontier provid-ing ‘infinite’ natural resources, with a demographic vacuum open to new forms of farming and extractivist colonization.

This view has become more complex over the last 50 years with the new forms in which the region has been integrated into national and international economies. Amazonia is also now considered at national level as a territory ca-pable of ensuring energy sovereignty and as a source of income based on the production and commercialization of raw materials. At the global level, the region

1 The RAISG workgroups decided to maintain the country names as written in their original languages

in all publications.

is seen as the most important source of fresh water and biodiversity, as a regula-tor of the planet’s climate and as a carbon sink for large quantities of greenhouse gases.

Like the other products generated through the work of RAISG, the main objective of this publication is to overcome our fragmented views of Amazonia and offer an ample panorama of the pressures and threats across the entire region and other sub-units of analysis. The opposite page shows two maps providing a spatial illustration of the combined sum of pressures (map 1) and threats (map 2).

Pressures refers to the human actions currently taking place in Amazonia that put at risk the integrity of the ecosystems and the collective and diffuse rights of its inhabitants, whether traditional or otherwise.

The threats are the human plans, projects or initiatives marked for the near future, which may turn into pressures once implemented.

In both cases RAISG’s members organized information under a set of pri-ority themes mentioned in the preface, compiling and generating high quality information that could be represented cartographically for the entire Amazonian region.

The present Atlas contains information on the following six themes, rep-resenting the pressures and threats faced by Amazonia over the last decade – roads, oil and gas, hydroelectric plants, mining, fires and deforestation – ana-lyzed in relation to Amazonia as a whole as well as to five different territorial units: Amazonia in each country, Hydrographic Basins, Protected Natural Areas (PNAs), and Indigenous Territories (ITs). These analyses are supported by 55 maps, 61 tables, 23 graphs, 16 boxes and 73 photographs. All this information is organized in thematic chapters running to a total of 68 pages.

It should be pointed out that it was not possible to include specific chapters on logging and farming – themes of great importance for a more complete evalu-ation of the pressures and threats on Amazonia – since no basic information on them exists that covers the region as a whole. These themes will be discussed in two boxes included in the present introduction.

RAISG 10 AmAzoniA under Pressure AmAzoniA under Pressure 11 RAISG

TIN3. PNA and IT in AmazoniaArea (km2) % of Amazonia

Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) 1,696.529 21.8%

Indigenous Territories (ITs) 2,144.412 27.5%

Overlapping area between PNAs and ITs 336,365 4.3%

PNAs and ITs without overlapping 3,502.750 45.0%

TIN2. Amazon surfaces per countryCountry Amazon area (km2) % of Amazonia % of country

Bolivia 479,264 6.2 43.6

Brasil 5,006.316 64.3 58.8

Colombia 483,164 6.2 42.3

Ecuador 116,284 1.5 46.7

Guyana 214,969 2.8 100.0

Guyane Française 86,504 1.1 100.0

Perú 782,820 10.1 60.9

Suriname 163,820 2.1 100.0

Venezuela 453,915 5.8 49.5

Total 7,787.056

the geographical boundary of AmazoniaThe boundaries of Amazonia as a region can be defined using different methodologies as well

as a variety of data sources for mapping them. The boundaries most frequently used are the biophysi-cal borders – related to hydrography, relief and vegetation – and the administrative boundaries recog-nized by the different nations for the application of protection and/or development policies, which take into account the region’s unique features. Economic and social criteria can also be used in defining the region’s boundaries. Hence no consensus exists on exactly what Amazonia is: to the contrary, we know that there are various Amazonias related to the different universes of the actors and interests involved.

In 2004 a study undertaken by ACTO on the boundaries of Amazonia, focusing on different bio-physical parameters, identified a number of important overlaps that highlight the difficulties involved in selecting the criteria for defining the region’s borders:

“- defining the area hydrologically is unsatisfactory given the diversity of Amazonia’s biogeogra-phy;

- since the biota of the tropical forests of the Amazonian lowlands is similar in various important aspects with that of the Guianas region, the latter should also be considered in the definition of the area;

- generally speaking, the biota of the Andean highlands are not directly related to the flora and fauna of the Amazonian lowlands, though they are interconnected ecologically and hydrologi-cally;

- similarly, the slopes of the Brazilian mountains, which drain into the Amazon Basin, despite presenting different geographic and biotic characteristics, are ecologically and hydrologically connected to Amazonia;

- in terms of climate, the Amazonian region cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the continent or indeed the world.”

For RAISG, the objective is not to establish an unequivocal Amazonian boundary, administra-tively or scientifically based, but to delimit an area of analysis in a way that the information is useful to a variety of actors. The products will have different formats and publics, whether they are published on the network’s web site (www.raisg.socioambiental.org) or in printed format.

In these analyses, given the different definitions of the Amazonian borders used by each coun-try, RAISG used a boundary that corresponds to a region for which we have updated and systemized data, backed by accumulated knowledge and a working experience. This enables RAISG to carry out diagnoses and projections regarding both the threats and the attempts to protect the area, as well as efforts to monitor their evolution over time. This boundary, which encompasses 7.8 million km2, is

primarily composed of the biogeographical boundary with the exception of Ecuador and Brasil where legal-administrative criteria are used. This is the area to which the statistics and other general references to Amazonia in this publication apply. Table TIN1 presents the definition of Amazonian areas used by each country.

To assist the reader, the boundaries of both Amazonia as a basin and the biogeo-graphical Amazonia are shown in the map Amazonia 2012 – based on the consolidated information – as well as the “boundary used by RAISG.”

On RAISG’s web page the information will be organized in a form that enables us-ers to make searches taking this boundary or basins and sub-basins as parameters when analyzing hydrographic aspects, for example. Similarly, biogeographical parameters can be used when planning for conservation projects, while administrative boundaries can be employed when the user’s interest relates to development, taking into account socio-environmental information.

A survey of the different definitions of Amazonia in each of the countries from the biogeographical, hydrographic and legal-administrative viewpoints is summarized in TIN2, where the boundary employed by RAISG for its calculations and analyses is high-lighted in green.

The MIN1 map shows the main classes of plant cover with the existing vegetation and the zones of human intervention (agriculture, livestock farming and so on). The over-lapping of the three aforementioned Amazonian boundaries allows the reader to observe the approximate degree of human impact within each of them.

MIN1. Amazonia boundaries and land coverage

TIN1. Amazon definitions, by country

Protected natural Areas and Indigenous territoriesProtection of Amazonia’s socio-environmental diversity is being consolidated through the rec-

ognition of the territorial rights of indigenous peoples and the creation and implementation of a diverse set of protected areas. These conservation strategies have expanded over recent years and today cover a surface area of 3,502,750 km2 (2,144,412 km2 in Indigenous Territories and 1,696,529 km2 in Protected Natural Areas with 336,365 km2 overlapping between the two) corresponding to 45% of the region (TIN3).

A portion of the Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) and Indigenous Territories (ITs) in Amazonia have effectively turned into islands of forest following the expansion of the export economy in basic products of low aggregated value.

There is a large shortfall in official recognition of the lands of many of the 385 indigenous peoples living in Amazonia. These remain to be identified and quantified. Currently they cover a surface area of 1,641,117 km2 and 28,127 km2, represented by territorial reserves and intangible zones respectively, which combined correspond to 21.5% of the region. The proposals for territorial reserves and the ITs now in the process of official recognition add up to 475,168 km2, equivalent to 6.1% of the total region

TIN4. Cartographic sources of PNAs and ITs used

Country Source/date (year)RAISG

memberIT

Bolivia Viceministerio de Tierras. Mapa de TCOs y sus áreas tituladas en Bolivia (no publicado). Versión 2009 FANBrasil Instituto Socioambiental, 2012 ISAColombia Instituto Geografico Agustin Codazzi, 2007; INCODER, 2009 FGAEcuador EcoCiencia, 2009; ECORAE ,2002; ECOLEX, 2011; Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado de Sucum-

bíos, 2011; Subsecretaría de Tierras, 2011; Fundación Arcoiris, 2010; MAE, 2011EcoCiencia

Guiane Française Direction Régionale de l’Environnement de Guyane, 2009 DEALGuyana Indigenous Affair/Governo da Guyana, 2009 ISAPerú SICNA: incluye ACPC, AIDESEP-CIPTA, CEDIA, IBC, PETT-Loreto, GEF PNUD, GOREL y PFS. 2011 IBCSuriname ACTVenezuela Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Salud (mapa), 2007 Provita

NATIONAL PNABolivia SERNAP 2005 FANBrasil Instituto Socioambiental, 2012 ISAColombia Unidad Administrativa Especial Sistema Parques Nacionales - Dirección Terrriotial Amazonía, 2010 FGAEcuador MAE, 2010 EcoCienciaGuiana Francesa Direction Régionale de l’Environnement de Guyane DEALGuyana Digital Chart of World, 1993 Perú MINAM, 2012 IBCVenezuela Rodriguez et al., 2011 (datos no oficiales) Provita

DEPARTMENTAL PNABolivia Gobierno Municipal de La Paz, 2010; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua, 2009; PMOT Ixiamas,

2009; Prefectura del Beni, 2008FAN

Brasil Instituto Socioambiental, 2012 ISAFOREST

Ecuador MAE, 2010 EcoCiencia

BIOGEOGRAPHIC HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN “LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE”

BOLIVIA approx. 475,278 km2. It comprises about half of the area of Bolivia (475,278 km2). It consists of a

mosaic of extensive upland and seasonally flooded (várzea and igapó) Amazonian forests, flooded

savannas, semi-humid transition forests in the direction of the Cerrado, and sub-Andean and Yungas

forests (the latter being characterized by high biodiversity).

approx. 714,493 km2. The watershed is comprised of the Rio Madera watershed and a small

portion of the upper Amazonas basin on the border with Brazil.

approx. 156,267 km2. Article 390 of Bolivia’s new Political Constitution of the State

(CPE) defines the Bolivian Amazon as a strategic area, specially protected for the

comprehensive development of the country given its environmental sensitivity, existing

biodiversity, water resources, and eco-regions. It is understood to encompass the entire

department of Pando, the province of Iturralde in the department of La Paz, and the

Ballivián and Vaca Diez provinces in the department of Beni.

BRASIL approx. 4,213.463 km2. Wide variety of physiognomies, with dominance of flat-topped interfluves

covered by evergreen tropical forests and submontane forests associated to infrequent elevations. It

includes a transitional zone between rainforest and savanna like areas (locally called “cerrado”), and

large extensions of sandy soils with structural and floristic patterns of forest and sandy savannas

highly and locally adapted, called “campinaranas” and “campinas”, respectively. Periodically flooded

wetlands have vegetation types that vary from wet fields to Palm Swamps (locally called veredas) and

riparian forests.

approx. 4,692.488 km². Basins of the rivers Amazonas, Negro, Madera and Tocantins, and

the Guyana/Macapá and Atlantico basins.

approx. 5,217.423 km². Region of planning and incentive to occupation called “Amazo-

nia Legal”, defined by Federal Law 1806 from January 6th 1953 with the political aim of

integrating the region to the national territory and foster its development. It consists of

the Brazilian north region states (Acre, Amazonas, Amapá, Pará, Roraima, Rondônia and

Tocantins), Mato Grosso and a portion of Maranhão (west from meridian 44º).

ECUADOR approx. 91,045.74 Km2. Starts in the Andean-Amazonian transitional forests, at 1,300 meters above

sea level along the foothills of the Andes, and moves toward the Amazon floodplain to about 300 m

altitude it is dominated by several types of lowland evergreen forests including: flooded forests of white

and black water, palm forest) with a significant presence of lacustrine grasslands and other non foreste

ecosystems (Sierra, 1999)

approx. 131,950.45 km2. It includes portions of the basins of the rivers Putumayo, Napo,

Tigre, Pastaza, Morona Santiago and Mayo. All are binational or transnational basins.

approx. 116,605.87 km2. According to the Article 250 of the new Constitution of Ecua-

dor of 2008, referred to the Ecuadorian Amazon as the territory of the Amazon provinces

and states that it is part of an ecosystem necessary for the environmental balance of

the planet. This territory will be a special land for which there will be a comprehensive

planning law including social, economic, environmental and cultural issues, with a land

use planning to ensure the conservation and protection of ecosystems and the principle

of “Sumak Kawsay” (Good living). The Ecuadorian Amazon region comprises the pro-

vinces of Sucumbios, Napo, Orellana, Pastaza, Morona Santiago and Zamora.

COLOMBIA approx. 483,164 km2. The Amazon region incorporates hydrographic as well as biogeographic political-

administrative boundaries: i) the basin boundary in the western sector is defined by the drainage divide

in the upper part of the eastern mountains of the Colombian Andes; ii) the northern sector reaches

up to where the forest cover limits with the natural savannahs in the Orinoquia; iii) the southern and

eastern boundaries limit the international borders of Colombia with Ecuador, Peru, Brazil and Venezuela

(http://siatac.siac.net.co/web/guest/region, Murcia Garcia, 2009); and iv) the ecosystems include

the Eastern Mountain “Paramos”, birth of important rivers which cross the Amazon basin, to areas

of the tropical rain forest. These ecosystems range from Andean, flood plains, mainland to xeric and

savannahs.

approx. 342,372.9 km2. Putumayo River Basin, Negro River basin, Caquetá River basin and

a small portion of the Napo River basin.

approx. 483,164 km2. The political-administrative division covers the southern part of

the department of Vichada; the southeastern of the Meta Department; the entire territory

of the departments of Guainia, Guaviare, Vaupes, Amazonas, Putumayo and Caqueta;

“la Bota Caucana”, in the department of Cauca and the Amazonian watershed of Nariño

(the highest part of the Guamuez, Sucio, San Miguel and Aguarico rivers). The basin’s

administrative districts or municipalities are in total 78. 58 correspond to municipalities

(41 fully included in the region and 17 partially included) and 20 departmental adminis-

trative districts , all included in the region (Murcia Garcia et al, 2009).

GUIANA The entire country approx. 12,300 km2. Tributary of the Branco River. Without information

GUYANE FRANÇAISE The entire country Is not tributary of the Amazonas River. Without information

PERÚ approx. 782,813 km2. There are several different classifications of ecosystems in the Peruvian Ama-

zon. Most of them divide this region into two large landscapes: The Amazonian lowland, located below

the 500 to 800 msnm and the high jungle or montaña above the Plain and up to 3600 msnm. However,

this classification simplifies the eco-systemic diversity in contrast with that postulated by Encarnación

(1993) who identifies 16 types of vegetation in the Amazon lowland defined by the predominant plant

species or by the type of waters that flood the forests. Source: Encarnación, F. 1993. El bosque y las

formaciones vegetales en la llanura amazónica del Perú. Alma Mater Rev. UNMSM. 6: 94-114.

approx. 966,170 km2. The Peruvian Amazon is drained by many rivers of varying sizes and

volumes; the largest of these include the Amazonas, Marañón, Napo, Ucayali and Madre de

Dios Rivers. Source: ANA 2010.Unidades Hidrográficas del Perú, 1/100 000.

Sin información de área In terms of political units, the Peruvian Amazon includes the

entirety of the Departments of Loreto, Ucayali and Madre de Dios and a part of the

Departments of Amazonas, Cajamarca, Huancavelica, La Libertad, Pasco, Piura, Puno,

Ayacucho, Junín, Cusco, Huánuco and San Martín. Source: MINAM 2009. Mapa de

Deforestación de la Amazonía Peruana – 2000. Memoria Descriptiva, Lima, p14.

SURINAME Historically known region of the Amazon lowland rainforest biome in northern South America (taken or

inferred from TREES map 1999; S and E borders delimited according to Soares, 1953).

Is not tributary of the Amazonas River. Without information

VENEZUELA approx. 453,915 km2. It is equivalent to the Venezuelan Guiana Shield region (Huber 1995, Gorzula and

Señaris 1998, Pérez-Hernández and Lew 2001, Eva and Huber 2005), which occupies, in its widest

interpretation, the states of Amazonas, Bolívar and Delta Amacuro.

approx. 53,280 km2. From a strict hydrographic point of view, the Amazon basin only inclu-

des the area south of the Casiquiare river, which communicates the Orinoco with the Negro

River (Eva and Huber 2005).

approx. 53,280 km2. Officially includes only the hydrographic boundaries of the water-

shed.

RAISG 12 AmAzoniA under Pressure AmAzoniA under Pressure 13 RAISG

TIN7, Length and number of drainage segments per Strahler levelsStrahler Length (km) Number of segments

1 107,410 1,453

2 59,137 726

3 27,666 348

4 16,044 225

5 5,456 89

6 1,330 21

Total 217,044 2,862

TIN6. Extension of Protected Natural Areas in Amazonia (km2)

Type of use Administrative level

TotalNational Departmental

Indirect use 768,261 132,078 900,338

Direct use 403,016 354,942 757,958

Transitory use (Perú) 34,079 0 34,079

Direct/Indirect use 4,154 0 4,154

Total 1,209.509 487,020 1,696.529

TIN5. Extension of Indigenous Territories in Amazonia (km2) Indigenous Territories officially recognized 1,641.117

Indigenous Territories not officially recognized (or without information) 435,406

Territorial Reservation 28,127

Proposed Territorial Reservation 39,762

Total 2,144.412

MIN2. Hydrographic basins in Amazonia

(TIN5). The area of potential newly recognized ITs is unknown. Based on the data compiled for the dif-ferent countries, the ITs were classified in terms of their level of official recognition and the categories used by each country. This resulted in three classes: i) officially recognized lands of traditional use and occupation; ii) traditionally used and occupied lands without official recognition now in the process of being recognized (or lacking information on the official recognition process); and iii) territorial reserves or intangible zones (reserved for isolated indigenous peoples).

The boundaries of PNAs and ITs used in this Atlas were complied and/or produced by the insti-tutions belonging to RAISG based on a variety of different official and non-official sources (TIN4).

PNAs in Amazonia cover a significant total surface area of 1,696,529 km2, corresponding to 21.8% of Amazonia – excluding the overlaps of different categories of environmental protection and including the overlaps with Indigenous Territories, which equals 336,365 km2 (TIN6). Systems of pro-tected areas are now being consolidated at national, regional and local level in various countries in the region. Based on data compiled for each country, the PNAs were classified in terms of their administra-tive level (national or departmental/state) and the type of use of the areas, resulting in four classes: i) indirect use: protection of biodiversity, geological and scenic landscape (aesthetic quality) compatible with tourism, education and research; ii) direct use: protection of resources compatible with controlled use following utilization plans; iii) direct/indirect use: mixed areas where use is defined through zoning; and iv) transitory categories: reserved areas of forest that may or may not be converted into protected areas or concessions, in accordance with the result of research.

Watersheds within the Amazon Basin The watersheds utilized in the analyses were obtained through relief data from the Shuttle Radar

Topography Mission (SRTM), available with a resolution of 15 arc-seconds (approximately 450 meters) and originally processed by the HydroSHEDS Project.

This data was then used to generate the flow direction and accumulation models semiauto-matically, along with the 2,862 hierarchized and structured river drainage systems, corresponding to 1,453 basins covering more than 150,000 hectares and their 1,409 intermediary areas, affluents of the Orinoco and Amazon rivers, as well as the Guianas, the areas surrounding the Tocantins river and the western part of the Brazilian ‘NE Atlantic.’

Using a specially developed algorithm, a unique system was established and applied to codify the segments hierarchically in accordance with the six generated Strahler levels, common to the hydro-graphic network and their respective basins.

Based on the names contained in the digital cartography of rivers, compiled by the institutions belonging to RAISG in the different countries, and the consultation of different maps, the drainage sec-tions were assigned with the name of the respective river in complete form up to Strahler level 3 and in partial form to levels 2 and 1 (TIN7).

After generating the drainage sections as described above, all the respective basins or related areas were generated, structured, codified and named: nine level 6 basins, 29 level 5 basins, 63 level 4 basins and 192 level 3 basins. Levels 1 and 2 are still awaiting codification and toponyms. Level 3 was established as the basis for presenting results on deforestation and other pressures, recognizing that in many cases this level approximates the scale of municipalities and other correlated administrative units, which may be of interest to local governments.

In this Atlas, macro-basins are those described here as level 5, and sub-basins as those at level 3 (MIN2).

General MethodologyThe information providing the foundation for this atlas Amazonia Under Pressure was assem-

bled in June 2009 and updated in May 2011. This information was compiled in each country based on official sources, which show differences in time, scale, projection, availability and update period. The cartographic sources used are cited where appropriate in the thematic chapters.

The methodology is grounded on six sequential stages:

1) Identification and compilation of cartographic information, which was revised and standard-ized, selecting only the data located within the area of study and available for all countries.

2) Compilation of secondary information on the themes.

3) Systematization and organization of cartographic information, presented in a layered theme format. In order to ensure that the representation was cartographically and numerically equiva-lent across the different countries, the specifications of each were taken into account in order to obtain a common set of captions. For example, the international borders were adjusted accord-ing to a single baseline in order to avoid gaps and overlaps in information. For all the themes, information was classified on the basis of a shared attribute of a caption defined during the initial stage. Protected Natural Areas were classified by type of use, while Indigenous Territories were classified in relation to the degree of official recognition. The aim was to classify the pressure themes by activity phase or their time scale.

4) Processing and cross-checking of data by thematic subgroups. The themes were cross-checked with the borders of the countries, basins, PNAs and ITs previously grouped and sys-temized into a single layer of information;

5) Analysis of results by theme with the elaboration of tables and analytic maps that, combined with the compiled secondary information, served as a basis for producing technical notes on each theme.

6) Elaboration of technical notes on each theme.

For the development of these stages, work sessions and technical meetings were held at differ-ent moments, both face-to-face and virtual, with the exchange of experiences, knowledge and capacity building between the teams.

The ArcGis GIS tool was used, along with Access for the database resulting from the analyses.

In all chapters the results of the cross-checks and analyses are presented in the following order: Amazonia as a whole, Amazonia within each country, macro-basins and sub-basins, Protected Natural Areas and Indigenous Territories.

It is important to stress that the thematic cartographic analyses took into account only the direct overlapping of the themes with the units of analysis: in other words, “areas of influence or impact” relat-ing to the themes were not considered.

roAds – AmAzoniA under Pressure 15 RAISG

In Pan-Amazonia, the farming sector has historically been more an instrument for expansion of the agricultural frontier

than a consolidated activity with an economic objective. At the regional level we can identify six common characteristics

of this sector:

√ The development of activities that make occupation of the land possible, without any direct connections with produc-

tion chains and focused mainly on production rather than transformation or adding value to the crop.

√ A high degree of activities requiring large open spaces and/or low relative productivity, based on a variety of different

technological or social models.

√ Little knowledge – or recognition – of the diversity of soil types in the region, some of them unique and particular (for

example, those used for seasonal floodland crops).

√ Pastures end up occupying more than 90% of the areas initially used for annual, perennial or agroforestry crops.

√ A high rate of disease infestation in both the primary production and the processing sectors.

√ An almost total absence of technical assistance and rural extension work.

At the regional level, four farming systems were identified:

√ The traditional integrated system is based on the knowledge and adaptation of indigenous, extractivist or river-

dwelling communities. It is characterized by a common property regime, high diversification, management of natural

resources, low environmental impact and low income generation with priority given to subsistence use.

√ The small-scale colonization system is based on official land distribution programs or on opportunistic migrations

associated with a road or other infrastructure project. This system is developed in independent areas, does not adapt to

local conditions and has a high turnover.

√ The medium and large-scale individual family system is very often based on the appropriation of public lands. These

are most often focused on cattle ranching with low investment in technology and infrastructure, while priority is given

to the property (cattle herd and pastureland) rather than to economic accumulation per se. This farming system has

shown difficulty integrating itself into external production chains.

√ The large-scale agribusiness system is the most recent to appear in the Amazon and is much less frequent than the

others. It has arisen in zones with better infrastructure. This system prioritizes large-scale and mechanized monocrop-

ping (soya, for example), intensive use of chemical inputs and a small workforce. In contrast to the other forms, it is

directly connected to more substantial production chains.

Rice, cacao, coffee, manioc and fruit trees are the more common crops found in Pan-Amazonia, in addition to pasture

land. At the local level, coca is grown in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru; maize primarily in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia; palm for

oil in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela; soy beans in Bolivia and Brazil; and forest plantations in Bolivia, Brazil

and Venezuela.

In the case of the Brazilian Amazonia the entire area used for agriculture, around 3.4 million hectares, represents less

than 7% of the total farming area, (45.1 million hectares). The remaining 93% is covered by various kinds of pasture with

a productivity ranging from 0.4 to 5 animals per hectare with an average of roughly 0.9. The 3.4 million hectares used for

agricultural includes large-scale commercial crops (specially soy beans and oil palm), variable scale commercial crops,

planted in the small- to medium-range farms (manioc, fruits, cacao, pepper, rice, jute, mallow, assai palm, cupuaçu fruit,

peach palm, sugar cane, corn, etc.), small-scale agroforestry systems (fruits, timber, fibers) and finally subsistence crops

(rice, beans, manioc, etc.). (Roberto Smeraldi/Amigos da Terra-Brazilian Amazonia)

In the Bolivian Amazonia agriculture and cattle ranching are the primary activities responsible for deforestation. These

two activities resulted from a variety of economic and social forces that led, on one hand, to a disorderly establishment

of pastures and, on the other, to the arrival of rural migrants from the highlands who practice subsistence farming (rice,

maize, fruit trees and so on) with little or no planning in their occupation of forest lands. The southern portion of the Bolivian

Amazonia is also threatened by the expansion of mechanized farming (soy beans, sunflowers, sugar cane and rice), which

is more developed in the central part of the Santa Cruz department, especially from the 1980s onwards. Hence deforesta-

tion results from the recent expansion in mechanized farming in the southern part along with small-scale cattle ranching

and agriculture in the southern part, but also in the western and northnorthern parts of the Bolivian Amazonia. Between

2000 and 2010 around 765,000 ha were deforested, representing 1.6% of the Bolivian Amazonia. (Daniel Larrea/FAN)

In the Ecuadorian Amazonia the main income generating activities include agriculture (56.5%), cattle ranching (10%)

and mixed farming (30%). These activities are carried out through systems that use natural resources and labor intensively

but with very low levels of productivity and profitability. Forestry and agroforestry activities, which exploit the resources of

standing forests, account for just 1.4% of economic production. (Víctor López/EcoCiencia)

In the Colombian Amazonia agricultural and cattle ranching activities are the biggest cause of deforestation and have

developed principally in the departments of Caquetá, Guaviare, Meta and Putumayo, located in the northwestern zone that

includes much of the Andean-Amazonian piedmont. These activities began in the early 1960s when the national govern-

ment promoted organized colonization programs in the Amazonia with the idea of distributing land to rural populations

dislocated by the violence in the Andean zone and bring under commercial production the vast “unused” lands in eastern

Colombia. At the end of the 1980s the coca bonanza began in Colombia and it was in the Amazonian colonization zones

that subsistence crops, cattle and forest were replaced by coca grown for illegal use. In 2011 around 100,000 hectares

had either permanent or intermittent coca plots in these four departments. During the past decade the Colombian govern-

ment began to eliminate coca cultivation through programs combining aerial fumigation and manual eradication, and by

stimulating the reconversion of these lands to cattle ranching (Caquetá and Meta), family production units (Guaviare) and

bean growing (Putumayo). (Natalia Hernández)

BIn1. Cattle ranching and agriculture in the expansion of Amazonian frontiers BIn2. LoggingLogging in Amazonia is an important factor in the degradation of its forest; most of it illegal. There are some examples

of sustainable forest management certified by bodies such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), but these represent a

small percentage of the overall activity.

Most often centered on a few, high-priced species of hard woods, logging exerts a strong pressure on PNAs, ITs and

other areas, and is frequently associated with illegal appropriation of public lands. Illegal logging also affects legal logging

concessions and hampers the profitability of approved management plans given the theft of timber and unfair competition in

the marketplace, since the illegal operators do not pay taxes or environmental costs.

Logging involves a specialized production chain that connects remote areas far from the national and international mar-

kets, using the legal road network and navigable rivers, as well as illegal private roads.

Legal logging may turn into a long-term forest management effort or may be only a phase anticipating the implementation

of an agricultural project, in which the income from felled timber plays an important role in capitalizing the new agricultural

ventures. Thus logging can be a pioneering activity preceding the development of pastures or farm land for grain crops.

In Brazil, legal forest management occurs in three situations: in privately owned forest areas, in areas belonging to tradi-

tional communities (public or private) and in public forest concessions. Around 75% of the forest in Brazilian Amazonia is

public land and the legal activities of forest companies are restricted to forest concessions, established by law in 2006. There

exist around 10 forest concession contracts in operation in Brazil, all stemming from public tenders.

For the Brazilian Amazonia, Imazon developed the Logging Monitoring System (Simex) which is being implemented in the

states of Pará and Mato Grosso where the incidence of logging is high. In these regions predatory extraction has penetrated

into PNAs and ITs. According to Simex, the total area logged in Pará – legally and illegally – from August 2009 to July 2010

was 1,205 km2, most of it (65%) illegal. Most of this illegal logging (84%) occurred in private unoccupied or disputed areas.

In Mato Grosso 2,260 km2 was logged between August 2009 and July 2010, 44% of which was illegal. Most of this total

(87.8%) was also logged in private unoccupied or disputed areas.

In Peru since the 1960s legislation has attempted to regulate forest logging through the implantation of a system of con-

cessions or contracts. The last version dates from 2000 when a new Forestry and Wildlife Law (Nº 27308) was issued. It

established the creation of Permanent Production Forests (BPPs) intended exclusively for forest management. Each area was

divided into smaller units, each approximately 50 km2 in size, which are auctioned off to private bidders in the form of Forest

Concessions (FCs). These areas remain under State ownership with usufruct rights given to the concessionaires for up to for-

ty years. Individual concessionaires are allowed to accumulate a maximum area of 500 km2 (10 FCs). In August 2009 there

were 177,639 km2 of permanent production forests, 7,618 km2 of which had already been awarded in forest concessions.

Despite these advances, an independent investigation revealed that 80% of Peruvian logging is illegal (Urrunaga et al., 2012).

Unfortunately the 2000 law has not generate the expected results, in part because the process for delimitation of the Per-

manent Production Forests was carried out from distant urban offices, without information regarding or concern for current

occupation or traditional use of the areas. This produced a series of overlaps with registered native communities and, even

more seriously, with lands and forests claimed by indigenous populations but not yet registered and/or demarcated.

In Bolivia the forest legislation is based on Law 1700, approved in 1992, which in the 1990s stimulated the voluntary

conversion of the former usage contracts into a successful concessions system supervised by what was then the Forest

Superintendent. In 2009 this institution was replaced by the Land and Forest Public Oversight Authority (ABT), responsible for

forest resources, land and soils. This change was accompanied by the approval of a new Constitution during the same year

that does not recognize the system of concessions for exploiting natural resources, including forest resources. This scenario

stimulated an increase in the illegal exploitation and marketing of timber. Currently a new law is being drafted with the aim of

regulating forest activities. Recently the Framework Law for Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well was ap-

proved (October 2012), which sets out the overall vision and legal foundation for integral development with the use of natural

resources in Bolivia. However, the forest issue is dealt with only in a very superficial way in this new law.

In Ecuador, the government has been trying to finish the National Forest Inventory since 2010. Nonetheless, there is little

reliable information regarding illegal logging in the Ecuadorian Amazonia. It is estimated that 70% of the timber exported from

Ecuador is illegally sourced and may even derive from indigenous lands or zones reserved to isolated indigenous groups, as

in the case of the Taromenane and Waorani (CONAIE, 2006 and Sierra et al., 2010). Other sources assert that the provinces

of Orellana, Pastaza and Morona Santiago are the most affected by illegal logging.

In Colombia it is estimated that 42% of timber sold is illegal, and that between 20 and 40% of the same is extracted in

Amazonia. Only 33% of sold timber has forestry certificates. To combat this problem in August 2009 the Inter-Sector Agree-

ment for Legal Timber was established and renewed in 2011. This instrument looks to ensure that the timber extracted, trans-

ported, processed, sold and used in Colombia comes exclusively from legal sources (Legal Timber Agreement in Colombia).

(Beto Ricardo, ISA, with the collaboration of Tasso Azevedo)

Soy cultivation advancing into the forest. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Ton Koene, 2009

Forest and pasture being burnt for cattle ranching, Pará, Brasil © Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace, 2008 Port run by Cargill for grain exportation. Santarém, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2010

Logging company, one of 140 established in Tailândia. Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2008

Batch of illegal timber confiscated in Belém. Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2010

Operation to control illegal logging. Belém, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2010

RAISG 16 AmAzoniA under Pressure – roAds roAds – AmAzoniA under Pressure 17 RAISG

RoAdS

Over the last 50 years, roads have been recognized as one of the main factors encouraging new forms of using and occupying Amazonia. Their presence supports the advance of

colonization and changes in the ways in which land is used, which, in turn, acts as a catalyzing or de-termining factor in deforestation (Chomitz et al. 1996; Barreto et al., 2006; Pfaff et al., 2007; Southworth et al., 2011). The intensity with which areas are affected in each region depends on the socioeconomic context, the development policies in place, and the speed with which changes are occurring in the vegetative cover (Barreto et al., 2006; DuChelle et al., 2010; almeyDa et al., 2010).

ContextRoads (highways, roads or trails) can accelerate the use of Amazonia’s resources and the re-

gion’s transformation. Their presence is an incentive to expanding human settlements and intensifying farming activities, logging, mining and so on.

The correlation between paved roads and deforestation is high. It is estimated that in 80% of cases in Brazilian Amazonia, deforestation is found up to a distance of 30 km from paved roads, although many fire-cleared areas can be found at greater distances (Barreto et al., 2006). Roads, whether paved or not, promote new forms of occupying the Amazonian territory.

The development of the road infrastructure in all the Amazonian countries is justified by govern-ments in various ways: (i) to facilitate transportation of imported goods from sea ports to the different regions of the countries; (ii) to facilitate the transport and exportation of raw materials, minerals, oil and manufactured goods from the different regions to the sea ports; and (iii) to strengthen the regional economy through the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America (IIR-SA). Nonetheless the road system does not necessarily or only meet these objectives.

In the countries of Andean Amazonia, the road system was constructed following a north-south axis in order to generate connections, the main cities. Over the last ten years, though, the road system has been constructed, expanded and improved from east to west in order to interconnect the popu-lated centers of Brazilian Amazonia with the Andean region and these centers, in turn, with the coastal cities where the main sea ports onto the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are located.

It should be emphasized that across a vast extent of Amazonia, river navigation represents the only form of covering large distances, as well as gain access to communities, cultivated areas and other production zones. Along the Amazon Axis of the IIRSA, the aim was to connect the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean through a series of land and river routes across an area covering 5,657,679 km2 (CoSiPlan, 2011).

MethodologyTo identify and describe the geographic features of the road distribution, georeferenced infor-

mation was compiled on the main paved roads, unpaved roads and projected (or planned) roads ex-isting in Amazonia. The roads in the process of being paved and those for which no information exists were classified as ‘unpaved.’ Due to the differences in the level of information available in each country, the analyses excluded secondary or tertiary roads (tracks), along with the service roads existing within production areas.

The road density per unit of analysis was calculated [(total extent of roads (km)/surface area of unit of analysis (km2)*1.000] which will be indicated below as km/km2. The multiplication of the final value by 1,000 was designed to facilitate use of the figures and lessen distortions caused by the differ-ences in the total length of roads according to the units of analysis used (region, country, macro-basin and sub-basin, protected areas and Indigenous Territories).

MRd1

Roads in Amazonia

Cartographic sources for the theme Roads: • BOLIVIA: FAN, 2009 • BRASIL: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE, Malha Municipal 1:1.000.000, 2005 • COLOMBIA: Fundación Puerto Rastrojo (Atlas de la Amazonía Colombiana), 2001; IGAC, 2010 • ECUADOR: Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas, 2006 • PERÚ: Ministerio de Transporte y Comunicaciones - MTC, 2008 • SURINAME: Digital Chart of World, 1993 • VENEZUELA: Instituto Geográfico de Venezuela Simón Bolívar, 2003. Ocean and relieve: World Physical Map, U.S. National Park Service, in ArcGIS Online Services.

Ä due to the construction of roads to explore oil, Ecuador has the highest density of roads in the whole of Amazonia, 37.5 Km/Km2.

¾ Local communities object to the construction of the IIRSA highway linking Pucallpa to Cruzeiro do Sul between Brasil andPerú.

¸ Construction of the highway that will cut through tIPnIS in Bolivia, under contract to the Brazilian company oAS, was paralyzed in 2010 due to social movements demanding prior consultation.

Trans-Amazonian Highway. Anapú, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2005

Inter-Oceanic Highway on the Brasil-Perú Amazonian border. © Odair Leal, 2006

Ä

¾

¸

Plans to connect the Atlantic to the Pacific accelerate the pressures on Amazonian territories

there are 96,500 km of roads throughout Amazonia as a whole. Most of these, 64.5%, are unpaved

Perú and Bolivia are the two countries with highways planned through the heart of the Amazonian forest

the peripheral pattern of road distribution largely affects the headwaters of the upper and Middle Amazon basins

PnAs and Its have a road density 3 to 4 times lower than the regional average

RAISG 18 AmAzoniA under Pressure – roAds roAds – AmAzoniA under Pressure 19 RAISG

MRD2. Roads in Amazonia, by type

GRD1. Road distribution in Amazonia, by type

BRd1. Roads in the Amazon Integration and development Axei Projects

In the 2011 Projects Portfolio of the Inter-American Infrastructure and Planning Council (COSIPLAN) there are

seven groups of projects in the Amazon Integration and Development Axis, which include 64 infrastructural works,

15 of which are roads, with a total investment estimated at US$ 3.355 billion.

Source: Cosiplan, 2011

Amazonia as a wholeThe total extent of the roads identified in Amazonia was 96,544 km, including paved roads

(31,632 km, 32.8% of the total), unpaved roads (62,271 km, 64.5%), and planned roads (2,635 km, 2.7%) (TRD1 and GRD1). The overall density was 12.4 km/km2 including paved roads (4.1 km/km2), unpaved roads (8.0 km/km2) and planned roads (0.3 km/km2) (TRD2). The highest concentration of roads was detected on the borders of Amazonia, especially in Guyana, in the southeast and south of Brazilian Amazonia, and in Ecuador (MRD2).

Amazonia in each country71.4% of the total length of roads existing in Amazonia are located in Brasil, most of these being

‘unpaved’ roads. Next comes Perú with 6.2% of the region’s total, Bolivia with 5.6%, Ecuador with 4.5% and Guyana with 4.4 % (TRD1).

MRD3. Road density by country in Amazonia

GRD2. Road distribution in Amazonia, by type and country

TRD1. Road lengths in Amazonia, by type and country

CountryRoad length (km) % of length by type

Paved Unpaved Projected Total Paved Unpaved Projected Total

Bolivia 859 3,675 90 5,425 0.9 3.8 0.9 5.6

Brasil 21,993 46,937 68,930 22.8 48.6 0.0 71.4

Colombia 477 1,287 1,764 0.5 1.3 0.0 1.8

Ecuador 3,017 1,343 4,360 3.1 1.4 0.0 4.5

Guyane Française 839 845 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9

Guyana 4,259 4,259 0.0 4.4 0.0 4.4

Perú 1,692 2,552 1,744 5,988 1.8 2.6 1.8 6.2

Suriname 1,434 1,434 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5

Venezuela 2.756 783 3,539 2.9 0.8 0.0 3.7

Total 31,632 62,271 2,635 96,544 32.8 64.5 2.7 100.0

TRD2. Road density in Amazonia. by type and country

Country Amazon area by country

(km2)Road density (km/km2)

Paved Unpaved Projected Total

Ecuador 116,284 25.9 11.5 0.0 37.5

Guyana 214,969 0.0 20.1 0.0 20.1

Brasil 5,006.316 4.4 9.4 0.0 13.8

Bolivia 479,264 1.8 7.7 1.9 11.3

Guyane Française 86,504 9.7 0.1 0.0 9.8

Suriname 163,820 0.0 8.8 0.0 8.8

Venezuela 453,915 6.1 1.7 0.0 7.8

Perú 782,820 2.2 3.3 2.2 7.6

Colombia 483,164 1.0 2.7 0.0 3.7

Total 7,787.056 4.1 8.0 0.3 12.4

The extent of ‘paved’ and ‘unpaved’ roads varies between countries. For example, while in Guyane Française all the roads are paved, in Colombia, Brasil and Bolivia, more than 70% of the roads are unpaved (see GRD2). In the cases of Guyana and Suriname there is no cartographic information allowing ‘paved’ roads to be distinguished from ‘unpaved’ roads. An estimated 96% of roads are paved in Suriname. In Bolivia and Perú the construction of new roads is planned for the short and medium term. Within the framework of the IIRSA, as well as Bolivia and Perú, the construction of new roads is also planned in Brasil, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela.

The highest road densities were detected in Ecuador (37.5 km/km2) and Guyana (20.1 km/km2), countries that account for 1.5% and 2.8% of the surface area of Amazonia respectively. These are fol-lowed by Brasil, Bolivia and Guyane Française with densities of 13.8, 11.3 and 9.8 km/km2, respectively. The remaining countries show values lower than 9 km/km2 with a low density especially notable in Co-lombia (3.6 km/km2). (TRD2 and MRD3)

By Basin The macro-basins with the most roads are Tocantins, Madeira, Middle-Lower Amazonas and

Upper Amazonas, with more than 13,000 km of roads in each, as well as the basins of the Western Northeast Atlantic and Paraná, with more than 8,000 km of roads (MRD4 and TRD3). These six macro-basins concentrate 88.4% of the roads in Amazonia, most of them unpaved. In terms of density, the most affected basins are Paraná, Western Northeast Atlantic, Middle Amazonas and Paraíba, all of which have densities ≥ 24,5 km/km2.

The sub-basins with the highest densities of roads are located in the south and southeast of Brazilian Amazonia (density rates between 38.4 and 67.3 km/km2), including a sub-basin shared by Perú and Ecuador (Santiago, 41.7 km/km2) (see MRD5 and TRD4). The densities of paved and unpaved roads vary between these sub-basins. In the case of unpaved roads, the density ranges from 17 km/km2 (Western Northeast Atlantic S) to 59.8 km/km2 (Paraná B), while in the case of paved roads the densities recorded vary from zero (Paraná B) to 37 km/km2 (Western Northeast Atlantic N). It should be emphasized that although Brasil is not the country with the highest road density, it does contain the sub-basins with the highest road density figures.

TRD3. Road length and density in the Amazonian macro-basins, by typeRoad length (km) Total density

(km/km2)Macro-basin Area km² Projected Unpaved Paved Total

Tocantins 576,164 11,661 6,165 17,825 30.9

Madeira 1,124.271 1,529 10,980 3,011 15,520 13.8

Middle-Lower Amazonas 1,600.287 12,298 1,791 14,090 8.8

Upper Amazonas 2,035.912 1,105 6,771 5,573 13,449 6.6

Western Northeast Atlantic 223,385 3,353 4,973 8,327 3.3

Paraná 175,114 5,537 2,537 8,074 46.1

Guyanas/Amapá 559,969 5,928 1,634 7,562 13.5

Negro 715,171 3,009 1,419 4,428 6.2

Mouth of the Amazonas/Estuary

233,626 1,326 1,765 3,091 13.2

Orinoco 520,740 729 2,100 2,829 5.4

Parnaíba 46,813 573 574 1,147 24.5

Middle Amazonas 6,217 91 89 180 28.9

MRD4. Road density by Amazonian macro-basin

Group Project

Estimated Investment (US$ million)

total group in roads

1. Access Putumayo Waterway

Road Corridor Tumaco-Pasto-Mocoa-Puerto Asís (CO) 373

Rehabilitation and paving of the section San Lorenzo-El Carmen (EC)

76

Subtotal Group 1 466 449

2. Access Napo Waterway Subtotal Group 2 124 0

3. Access Huallaga – Marañón Waterway

Tarapoto-Yurimaguas Road and Yurimaguas Port (PE) 224

Construction and improvement of El Reposo-Sarameri-za Road (National Route 4C) (PE)

189

Paita-Tarapoto Road (PE) 274

Subtotal Group 3 1,062 687

4. Access Ucayali Waterway

Tingo María-Pucallpa Road and Pucallpa Port (PE) 361

Highway Lima-Ricardo Palma (PE) 242

Rio Branco-Cruzeiro do Sul road connection (BR) 400

IIRSA Central, section 2: Ricardo Palma-La Oroya- De-tour Cerro de Pasco / La Oroya-Huancayo (PE)

100

IIRSA Central, section 3: Detour Cerro de Pasco-Tingo María (PE)

70

Subtotal Group 4 2,959 1,173

5. Access Solimões–Amazonas Waterway

Cuiabá-Santarém Road (BR) 700

Environmental and territorial management program (Route Cuiabá-Santarém) (BR)

12

Subtotal Group 5 714 712

6. Amazon Waterways Network Subtotal Group 6 316 0

7. Access Morona-Marañón-Ama-zonas Waterway

Improvement of the route Guayaquil-El Triumph-La Troncal-Zhud-El Tambo-Cañar-Azogues-Paute-Amaluza-Méndez and improvement and extension of the Méndez-Puerto Morona section (EC)

140

Improvement of the route Puerto Bolívar-Santa Rosa-Balsas-Chaguarpamba-Loja Zamora-Yantzaza-El Pangui-Gualaquiza-Gral.Leónidas Plaza-Méndez (EC)

168

Improvement of the route Puerto Bolívar-Pasaje-Santa Isabel-Girón-Cuenca-Paute-Amaluza-Méndez-Puerto Morona (EC)

27

Subtotal Group 7 458 335

Total Investment estimated (US$ million) 6,100 3,355

RAISG 20 AmAzoniA under Pressure – roAds roAds – AmAzoniA under Pressure 21 RAISG

GRD3. Road distribution in PNA in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use

MRD5. Road density by Amazonian sub-basin TRD4. The ten Amazonian sub-basins with the highest road density

Sub-basinArea (km²)

Road length (km)Road density

(km/km²)

Unpaved Paved Total Unpaved Paved Total

Western Northeast Atlantic N (Brasil)

19,883 603 736 339 30.3 37.0 67.3

Paranã B (Brasil) 1,791 107 107 59.8 0.0 59.8

Araguaia (Brasil) 23,587 805 337 142 34.1 14.3 48.4

Middle Juruena (Brasil) 5,314 223 223 42,0 0.0 42.0

Santiago (Ecuador, Perú) 7,207 345 790 134 12.7 29.0 41.7

Western Northeast Atlantic S (Brasil)

30,922 2,231 3,164 395 17.0 24.2 41.2

Middle-Lower Tocantins 1 (Brasil)

57,564 1,099 1,260 359 19.1 21.9 41.0

Palma (Brasil) 16,580 338 338 676 20.4 20.4 40.7

Middle-Lower Tocantins 2 (Brasil)

71,291 1,693 1,174 868 23.8 16.5 40.2

Ji-Paraná (Brasil) 75,042 2,237 643 880 29.8 8.6 38.4

MRD6. Road density by PNA in Amazonia

MRD7. Road density by IT in Amazonia

BRd2. IIRSA road between Pucallpa and Cruzeiro do Sul: a project in question

The Pucallpa–Cruzeiro do Sul road project, connecting the port of Callao on the Pacific Ocean of Peru with Cruzeiro do

Sul, Brazil, passing through Pucallpa, is part of the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America

(IIRSA). IIRSA has a portfolio of more than 350 projects for road, energy and communications infrastructures, organized

along geographical axes. This road project, which would establish IIRSA’s Central Axis in Peru, is the least advanced of the

three axes impacting this country (North, Center and South).

This integration has been an objective pursued by national and regional authorities since 2006 when the presidents of

Peru and Brazil agreed to work towards completing the northern and central bi-national projects to connect their coun-

tries. At the end of 2009, Presidents Alán García and Lula da Silva signed 16 bilateral cooperation agreements, including

a commitment to conclude the Central Axis. According to those promoting this project, the road will be the solution to the

problems of isolation and lack of economic development Identified in this central cross-border region.

Although the IIRSA plan for construction of the road appears to be underway, a number of conflicting views exist

concerning the type of interconnection that should be made between Pucallpa and Cruzeiro do Sul. On the Peruvian side,

the Executive apparently decided in favor of the road, since the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) and

the Special Infrastructure Project for National Transport – PROVÍAS NACIONAL have carried out a pre-viability study that

indicates the route of the future road. However during the previous government administration, Congress declared in the

national interest the construction of the ‘Brazil-Peru’ Atlantic-Pacific Transcontinental Railway along the same route. The

regional government of Ucayali also supports the railway option because of its lower impact on the environment. On the

Brazilian side, the scant news available on the subject suggests that the interconnection option favored is also the railway.

According to the Brazilian Ambassador to Peru, Carlos Alfredo Lazary Teixeira, “a

consensus exists among the authorities in Brazil that the connection between the

cities of Pucallpa in Peru and Cruzeiro do Sul should be via railway rather than road

in order to safeguard and care for the environment.”

On the Peruvian side several studies indicate that the route proposed by the Pe-

ruvian MTC could have very negative impacts for the Sierra del Divisor PNA and for

the Reserve established to protect the Isconahua indigenous people living in isolation,

both on the Peruvian side. On the Brazilian side, it would directly affect the Serra do

Divisor National Park and the indigenous territories bordering on the park.

The Regional Group for Monitoring Mega-Protects in the Ucayali Region, cre-

ated in July 2008 by representatives of indigenous communities, the regional gov-

ernment and civil society, expressed considerable concern over the lack of official

transparency in the handling of information and decisions relating to the Pucallpa-

Cruzeiro do Sul interconnection, as well as the absence of dialogue with the local

actors involved.

According to the public declaration made by the Regional Group, they questioned

the convocation for the pre-viability study since it was made “without elaborating

a development strategy for the frontier between Ucayali and Acre, nor indeed a

long-term environmental strategy, that clearly includes the procedures of prior and

informed consultation before, during and after the project.” (Pedro Tipula/IBC)

By Protected AreasThe total length of roads identified inside Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) was 7,202 km, dis-

tributed between paved roads (2,160 km, 30% of the total), unpaved (4,416 km, 61.3%) and planned (626 km, 8.7%). The largest lengths are found in direct use departmental PNAs (3,583 km, 49.7% of the total), followed by indirect use national PNAs (1,754 km, 24%) and by direct use national PNAs (1,280 km, 17.7%). The PNAs of other administrative levels and types of use have road lengths ≤ 292 km (TRD5 and GRD3).

The total density of roads identified inside PNAs was 3.3 km/km2, distributed between paved roads (1.0 km/km2), unpaved roads (2.0 km/km2) and planned roads (0.3 km/km2). This figure is lower than all the national figures [min-max: 3.7 km/km2 (Colombia) – 37.5 km/km2 (Ecuador)] (TRD2 and

TRD6). The highest densities are found in direct/indirect use national PNAs (19.5 km/km2), followed by direct use departmental PNAs (7.2 km/km2) and by the direct use national PNAs (3.0 km/km2). The PNAs of other administrative levels and types of use have densities ≤ 2.3 km/km2 (TRD6 and MRD6).

The PNAs with the highest road densities are located in Brasil (density figures between 42.2 and 117.8 km/km2), seven of them in direct or indirect departmental PNAs and three in direct use national PNAs (TRD7 and MRD6).

By Indigenous territoriesThe total length of the roads identified in Indigenous Territories (ITs) was 9,530 km, distributed

between paved roads (2,391 km, 25.1% of the total), unpaved roads (6,424 km, 67.4%) and planned roads (715 km, 7.5%). The greatest lengths are found in officially recognized ITs (5,471 km, 57.4% of the total), followed by the areas of traditional occupation without official recognition (3,968 km, 41.6%) and by the territorial reserves or intangible zones (91 km, 1%) (TRD8 and MRD7).

TRD5. Length of road types in PNA in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use

Administrative sphere and type of use

Area (km²)

Road Length (km) Road Density (km/km2)Projected Unpaved Paved Total

Direct use departmental 497,202 10 2,175 1,399 3,583 7.2

Indirect use departmental 129,730 258 34 292 2.3

Direct use national 426,566 178 817 285 1,280 3.0

Direct/Indirect use national 4,165 76 5 81 19.5

Indirect use national 774,180 396 951 406 1,754 2.3

Transitory use national 327,326 42 139 30 211 0.6

General total 2,159.169 626 4,416 2,160 7,202 3.3

TRD6. Density of road types in PNA in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use

Administrative sphere and type of use

Area (km²)

Road Density (km/km²) Road Length(km)Projected Unpaved Paved Total

Direct/Indirect use national 4,165 18.3 1.2 19.5 81

Direct use departmental 497,202 4.4 2.8 7.2 3,583

Direct use national 426,566 0.4 1.9 0.7 3.0 1,280

Indirect use national 774,180 0.5 1.2 0.5 2.3 1,754

Indirect use departmental 129,730 2.0 0.3 2.3 292

Transitory use national 327,326 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.6 211

General total 2,159.169 0.3 2.0 1.0 3.3 7,202

TRD7. The ten PNAs (with areas over 100 km²) with the highest road density in Amazonia

Country Sphere Type of use Categorya NameArea (km2)

Road density (km/km2)

Brasil departmental indirect Natural Monument Árvores Fossilizadas do Tocantins 326 117.8

Brasil departmental indirect State Park Morro dos Seis Lagos 375 109.4

Brasil departmental direct Environmental Protection Area Igarapé São Francisco 297 81.9

Brasil departmental direct Environmental Protection Area Curiaú 226 79.1

Brasil departmental indirect State Park Águas do Cuiabá 106 73.3

Brasil departmental direct Environmental Protection Area Lago de Palmas 601 61.2

Brasil national direct Extractive Reserve Quilombo Frechal 176 60.5

Bolivia departmental direct Watershed Protection Area Cumbre de Apacheta 155 60.0

Brasil national direct Environmental Protection Area Igarapé Gelado 203 42.8

Brasil national direct Extractive Reserve Mata Grande 133 42.2

TRD8. Length and density of road types in Amazonian ITs, by territory type

Type of IT Total area

(km²)

Road length (km) Road density (km/km2)

Proj

ecte

d

Unpa

ved

Pave

d

Tota

l

Proj

ecte

d

Unpa

ved

Pave

d

Tota

l

IT officially recognized 1,603.652 500 4,472 499 5,471 0.3 2.8 0.3 3.4

IT not officially recognized 491,673 124 1,952 1,892 3,968 0.3 4 3.8 8.1

Territorial Reservation or Intangible zones

29,336 91 - - 91 3.1 0 0 3.1

Total 2,124.661 715 6,424 2,391 9,530 0.3 3.0 1.1 4.5

RAISG 22 AmAzoniA under Pressure – roAds roAds – AmAzoniA under Pressure 23 RAISG

GRD4. Road distribution in ITs in Amazonia, by country and territory type

The total density of roads identified inside ITs was 4.5 km/km2, including paved roads (1.1 km/km2), unpaved roads (3.0 km/km2) and planned roads (0.3 km/km2). The highest densities were found in areas of traditional occupation without official recognition (8.1 km/km2), followed by officially recog-nized ITs (3.4 km/km2) and territorial reserves or intangible zones (3.1 km/km2) (TRD8).

At national level the two countries with the highest road densities in ITs are Guyana and Ecuador (30.5 and 25.5 km/km2, respectively), followed by Bolivia (12.6 km/km2 in ITs without official recognition and 4.2 km/km2 in officially recognized ITs). The remaining countries show figures lower than 10 km/km2 (TRD9 and GRD4). With the exception of the density rate in officially recognized ITs in Bolivia, the previous figures exceed the regional density (12.4 km/km2).

The density of paved roads within ITs is high in Ecuador (14.4 km/km2), while the density of un-paved roads is significant in officially recognized ITs in Guyana (30.5 km/km2). The density of planned roads is high in Perú, affecting especially officially recognized ITs (2.9 km/km2) and territorial reserves (3.1 km/km2) (TRD9).

The ITs with the highest road densities are in Guyana (Kaburí IT and Shulinab IT with densities of 209.9 and 165.2 km/km2, respectively), Perú (TI Urakuza and TI Wawik with densities of 153.9 and 146.9, respectively), Brasil (Tabalascada IT, with a density of 155.9 km/km2), Ecuador (San Francisco IT, with a density of 116.8 km/km2) and Bolivia (Yaminahua Machineri IT, with a density of 114.6 km/km2) (TRD10).

ConclusionThe presence of roads in Amazonia encourages and accelerates deforestation. Their construc-

tion is associated with predatory forms of forest resource extraction (such as illegal logging), the sub-stitution of forest landscapes with agrarian landscapes, and the large-scale infrastructure and urban-ization projects. Roads are clearly associated with regions with higher levels of deforestation, as in the notorious case of the so-called ‘arc of deforestation’ in the Brazilian Amazonia, where the Belém-Brasília (BR-153), Cuiabá-Santarém, (BR-163) and Cuiabá-Porto Velho (BR-364) highways are located.

Another example is the transoceanic highway between Puerto Maldonado (Perú) – Cobija (Bo-livia) – Rio Branco (Brasil), inaugurated in 2011, which aims to improve trade between the three coun-tries and facilitate the exportation of Brazilian products to China and Peruvian products to Africa and Europe. This highway could quickly double the number of inhabitants of Puerto Maldonado, today num-bering more than 200,000 people. At the same time the region is experiencing an exponential growth in illegal roads associated with forest degradation, especially through illegal logging.

Although Brasil has the largest road network, road density occupies third place in the region after Ecuador and Guyana. The largely peripheral distribution of the roads affects the headwaters of Amazonia’s macro-basins, especially those of the Upper and Middle Amazon. In some cases the socio-environmental impacts associated with road construction are only mentioned or remain subordinate to the political decision to build them (for example, the construction of the section 2 of the road linking Villa Tunari to San Ignacio in Bolivia). Another example that stands out is the Porto Velho-Manaus-Boa Vista-Caracas route, which crosses the central part of Amazonia and which is considered a key route connecting the region’s north and south.

Generally speaking the PNAs and ITs have road densities between three and four times lower than the regional density. This shows their potential as conservation strategies that work to slow down the intervention processes. Nonetheless, the direct/indirect use national PNAs (Bolivia and Guyana) and the direct use departmental PNAs (Bolivia and Brasil) do not seem to perform this role. Most of the officially recognized ITs show a lower level of impact. More detailed analyses are needed in Guyana, Ecuador and Bolivia to understand the causes of the observed patterns.

A full assessment of circulation and transportation in Amazonia requires the inclusion of wa-terways (associated with farm production) and railways (associated with mining). Monitoring the con-struction of roads planned under the IIRSA agreements– which may modify the territorial dimension of the development and especially the conservation of Amazonia – needs to be prioritized in the region’s environmental agendas.

BRd3. development versus conservation: the tIPnIS case in Bolivia

The Isiboro Sécure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) is one of the 22 PNAs of Bolivia and covers

around 1.3 million hectares (~1.2% of Bolivia’s surface). TIPNIS is bounded by the Isiboro River to the south and the

Sécure River to the north – which lend their name to the area – in the departments of Cochabamba and Beni. It was

created in 1990 with the aim of conserving the seasonally flooded Amazonian rainforest and the culture and customs

of the indigenous peoples living in the region (more than 12,000 inhabitants including the Mojeño, Yaracaré and Chi-

mane). It is estimated that around 86% of its surface is still in a good state of conservation and that its core area (a fully

protected zone) is without human disturbance.

This scenario contrasts with the reality that has developed to the south of the TIPNIS where expanding colonization

and farms dedicated primarily to growing coca threaten the conservation of the area’s socio-environmental diversity. As

a result of political pressure by the colonists and coca growers, part of TIPNIS was annulled as indigenous territory and

is now occupied by rural colonists engaged in coca cultivation. This area is known as ‘Polygon 7’ and covers a surface

area of about 100,000 ha between the communities of Villa Tunari and Isinuta where around 20,000 families live.

The proposed construction of a paved road (306 km in length and 9.2 m in width) passing through the TIPNIS to

connect the inhabitants of Villa Tunari (Department of Cochabamba) with those of San Ignacio (Department of Beni)

has alarmed conservationists and environmental institutions in Bolivia, leading to debates on the advantages and

disadvantages of its construction. It also stirred up widespread interest in the Bolivian society as a whole (especially

young people) to learn more about the value of protected areas and indigenous territories existing in Bolivia, polarizing

the population between the different viewpoints regarding how Bolivians understand conservation and development.

In this case, the major conflict centers on section II of the road, linking the populations of Isinuta with those of

Montegrande da Fe, the latter located in TIPNIS’ fully protected zone. Construction of the road is not a recent initiative:

the first plans emerged in 2006 before being conceded to the Brazilian company OAS in 2008. In 2010, after a march

organized by CIDOB (Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Eastern Bolivia) the work was stopped in order to carry

out prior consultation, a right of indigenous peoples recognized in the Bolivian Constitution (Article 30), and established

in the ILO Convention 169 (Article 6). The consultation process was scheduled for the second half of 2012 and the

results to be made public at the beginning of 2013. Resolution of the TIPNIS conflict will undoubtedly set a precedent in

terms of Bolivian society’s perception of what indigenous territories and protected areas should be. (Daniel Larrea/FAN)

Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Land and National Park (TIPNIS), Cochabamba Department, Bolivia. © Fernando Soría, 2006

Indigenous people from Bolivian Amazonia on the eighth march to La Paz to protest against the construction of a highway crossing the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Land and National Park (TIPNIS). © Fernando Soría, 2011

Indigenous march in protest against the highway in the TIPNIS Park reaches La Paz. © Szymon Kochanski, 2011

TRD9. Density of road types in IT in Amazonia. by country and territory type

Country% of ITs by

countryType of IT

Road density (km/km2)

Pave

d

Unpa

ved

Proj

ecte

d

Tota

l

Bolivia9.6 IT not officially recognized 0.8 9.4 2.4 12.6

16.8 IT officially recognized 0.0 2.5 1.7 4.2

Brasil* 22.2 IT officially recognized 0.4 2.8 0.0 3.2

Colombia* 53.4 IT officially recognized 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

Ecuador* 57.4 IT not officially recognized 14.4 11.2 0.0 25.5

Guyana* 14.7 IT officially recognized 0.0 30.5 0.0 30.5

Guyane Française* 8.2 IT officially recognized 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3

Perú

1.7 IT not officially recognized 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.6

3.6 Territorial Reservation or Intangible Zones 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1

13.6 IT officially recognized 0.2 1.9 2.9 5.0

Suriname* 30.3 IT not officially recognized 0.0 5.5 0.0 5.5

Venezuela* 67.4 IT not officially recognized 3.2 1.5 0.0 4.7

* There is only one type of IT in these countries.

TES10. The two ITs (with an area over 100 km²) with highest road density in each country in Amazonia

Country Name Type of ITArea (km²)

Road length (km)

Road density

(km/km2)

BoliviaYaminahua Machineri IT not officially recognized 308 35 114.6

Canichana IT not officially recognized 251 16 62.2

BrasilTabalascada IT officially recognized 130 25 155.9

Barata/Livramento IT officially recognized 123 12 94.6

ColombiaRíos Atabapo e Inírida (Cacahual) IT officially recognized 5,239 111 1.4

Predio Putumayo IT officially recognized 58,964 3 0.1

EcuadorSan Francisco IT not officially recognized 100 12 116.8

Juan Pío Montufar IT not officially recognized 167 32 93.9

Guyane Française Galibi (Costa) IT officially recognized 179 15 85.6

GuyanaKaburi IT officially recognized 108 23 209.9

Shulinab (Macusi) IT officially recognized 384 63 165.2

PerúUrakuza IT officially recognized 189 29 153.9

Wawik (Nuevo Belén) IT officially recognized 107 16 146.9

SurinameMoiwana IT not officially recognized 432 29 67.9

Santigron IT not officially recognized 1,441 90 62.1

Venezuela Etnia Hiwi IT not officially recognized 2,901 168 57.9

Venezuela Etnia Kari'ña IT not officially recognized 5,122 172 33.6

RAISG 24 AmAzoniA under Pressure – oil And GAs oil And GAs – AmAzoniA under Pressure 25 RAISG

The growing demand for oil and gas at the global level and the high price of oil have stimu-lated prospecting and drilling activities in Amazonia at unprecedented levels (finer et al.,

2008). The Amazonian countries view oil and gas as strategic resources and claim ownership at the constitutional level. Governments allocate these resources via policies that typically fail to include pre-vention and mitigation of socio-environmental impacts generated by the extraction of these resources nor the investments needed to compensate for them. Among the main impacts related to these ex-tractive activities are: alterations in the quality of water and air, soil contamination, habitat destruction, change in soil cover, erosion, changes in the behavior and distribution of species and the introduction of disease vectors (Correa-Viana & eSClaSanS, 2011).

As part of the socio-environmental diversity of Amazonia, the eco-systemic services and the traditional and scientific bodies of knowledge are also considered strategic resources, especially within the framework of climate change. The global economic context poses a dilemma for both the develop-ing and emerging countries: on one hand, the need to eradicate poverty and hunger, and on the other the need to conserve Amazonia as a grand ecosystem that contributes to the welfare of its inhabitants and of the planet. Responding to this challenge presumes the need to maintain socio-environmental diversity as a vital part of the development of oil and gas reserves, as well as a search for alternative energy sources compatible with the region’s unique features.

Neither the industrialized countries nor the developing countries have managed to reach a con-sensus on progressively and decisively reducing their high dependence on fossil fuels. Countries like Perú, Colombia and Ecuador have sizeable oil reserves in Amazonia from which they expect to obtain the financing for and the push forward to satisfy their national needs and development projects. As a result, oil exploration and production in Amazonia has multiplied over the last decade and will continue to grow over the foreseeable future.

ContextThe environmental policies and regulations regarding the exploration and extraction of hydro-

carbons, as well as those for other extractive industries, are in the process of being consolidated in the different countries of the region. Generally speaking there is a lack of planning instruments that con-sider and include the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in the plans, programs and policies of this sector. This situation fails to meet the obligations established in Convention 169 of the ILO (1991) – ratified by all the Amazonian countries except Guyana, Guyane Française and Suriname – and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ratified by all the countries. The protection of the socio-environmental heritage of Amazonia is an urgent issue for the region’s governments. The opposi-tion of indigenous and environmental movements to hydrocarbon activities is increasingly more com-mon. At the same time, judicial entities at the national and international levels are showing a tendancy to recognize the collective rights of indigenous peoples and the protection of nature.

Prospecting and drilling for oil and gas take place within a political and regulatory framework which consistently fails to recognize or incorporate any real limits or safeguards to protect socio-envi-ronmental diversity. Sometimes oil and gas companies can operate virtually without any government control over these aspects, causing negative impacts and pressures that are exacerbated in particu-larly fragile ecosystems such as those of Amazonia (see BOG1: The main oil companies with interests

in Amazonia). The environmental contamination, generated by the inevitable leakage and dumping of oil and toxic refuse, causes long-term harm to the health of local inhabitants and to the natural habi-tat. The construction of roads, oil/gas pipelines and other associated infrastructure exacerbates forest degradation and clearance, along with the advance of colonization, which in turn leads to outbreaks of disease, the weakening of social relationships and forms of control in indigenous communities, and other negative impacts.

oIL and GAS

Terminal of Petrobras’s Urucu gas pipeline in Coari. Amazonas, Brasil. © Ricardo Stuckert, 2006

Oil well in the region of the Yasuní National Park, Napo river, Ecuador. © Pablo Baños/Avina, 2010

MoG1

oil and Gas in Amazonia

Currently 81 oil/gas blocks are under production, but there are another 246 blocks oil/gas blocks open for bidding,

under tender or under exploration

the 327 oil/gas blocks that could potentially be brought under production occupy 1.08 million km2 or 15% of Amazonia

24 companies work in oil exploration in Amazonia, though just nine of them dominate 78% of the blocks under production

Perú has the largest surface area dedicated to oil production, 84% of its area of Amazonia, while Colombia has demarcated the largest number of blocks (102)

In six Amazonian countries the oil blocks overlap with PnAs and Its

Ä Since the 1990s, civil society organizations in Ecuador have tried to impose a moratorium on oil production in the Yasuní region, where indigenous peoples live in isolation.

¾ the Acre and Madre de dios sedimentary basins are considered new frontiers for oil and gas exploration in western Amazonia.

¸ In Perú, 66.3% of indigenous lands are overlapped by oil/gas blocks.

Ä

¾

¸

Cartographic sources for the theme Oil and Gas: • BOLIVIA: FAN, 2009 • BRASIL: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE, Malha Municipal 1:1.000.000, 2005 • COLOMBIA: Fundación Puerto Rastrojo (Atlas de la Amazonía Colombiana), 2001; IGAC, 2010 • ECUADOR: Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas, 2006 • PERÚ: Ministerio de Transporte y Comunicaciones - MTC, 2008 • SURINAME: Digital Chart of World, 1993 • VENEZUELA: Instituto Geográfico de Venezuela Simón Bolívar, 2003. Ocean and relieve: World Physical Map, U.S. National Park Service, in ArcGIS Online Services.

RAISG 26 AmAzoniA under Pressure – oil And GAs oil And GAs – AmAzoniA under Pressure 27 RAISG

BoG1. the main oil companies with interests in Amazonia

At least 71 oil companies are now operating in Amazonia. Among them are 20 public and private companies that,

combined, are operating in 60% of the surface area delimited as oil concessions (approximately 648,000 km2).

There are 24 companies involved in oil production at the regional level. Nine of them operate in 78% (31,835 km2) of

the surface of the concessions in this phase. Those with the largest concessions are: Pluspetrol of Argentina with 8,826

km2 in Peru; the Ecuadorian Petroamazonas EP with 4,785 km2 in Ecuador; the Anglo-French Perenco with 4,616 km2 in

Ecuador; and Petroriental of China with 3,197 km2 in Ecuador.

There are 50 companies operating across Amazonia in the exploration phase. Ten of them cover 67% (288,548 km2)

of the surface area of concessions in the exploration phase. The companies exploring the largest areas are: Petrobras

with 61,487 km2; Talisman Energy of Canada with 30,491 km2; OGX Petróleo e Gás Ltda of Brazil with 28,744 km2 in the

same call in Brazil; and the US company Burlington with 27,197 km2 in Peru.

Companies with oil/gas blocks over 10,000 km2

#Company

Total area (km2)

Countries Phases

1 Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos 87,624 Colombia Open for bidding

2 Petrobras 72,131 Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Perú

Open for bidding, under exploration, under production

3 Talisman 54,248 Colombia, Perú Open for bidding, under exploration

4 YPFB Petroandina 53,837 Bolivia Open for bidding

5 Upland Oil & Gas 37,080 Perú Under tender

6 Pluspetrol 36,864 Colombia, Perú Open for bidding, under exploration, under production

7 Petron Resources 29,441 Perú Under tender

8 Burlington 29,197 Ecuador, Perú Under exploration, under production

9 OGX Petróleo e Gás Ltda, 28,744 Brasil Under exploration

10 Petra Energía S/A 26,719 Brasil Under exploration

11 CEPSA 25,748 Perú Under exploration

12 REPSOL-YPF 24,582 Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú Under exploration, under production

13 Pacific Stratus Energy 24,112 Colombia, Perú Under exploration

14 M&S Brasil S,A, 23,184 Brasil Under exploration

15 BHP Billiton Petroleum 19,666 Colombia Open for bidding

16 Hunt Oil 18,695 Perú Under exploration

17 Petrolifera 16,640 Perú Under exploration

18 Grantierra Energy 14,671 Colombia, Perú Under exploration, under production

19 Ecopetrol S,A, 14,226 Colombia Open for bidding, under exploration, under production

20 Petrominerales 10,926 Colombia, Perú Under exploration

Source: RAISG Databasis (see Cartographic sources in MOG1).

MethodologyThe georeferenced information on the concessionary blocks awarded for hydrocarbon activities

was compiled from different secondary sources located in the different Amazonian countries. These blocks were classified into four types according to their current phase: Open for Bidding (conces-sionary blocks offered by the government), Under Tender (concessionary blocks with a pending offer awaiting official approval), Under Exploration (concessionary blocks with a company actively prospect-ing) and Under Production (concessionary blocks producing oil or gas). TOG1 shows which of the six countries that offer concessionary hydrocarbon blocks recognize each of these phases.

In order to display the results, block polygons were ignored when the area overlapping the units of analysis was less than 9 ha.

Amazonia as a wholeThere are currently 327 hydrocarbon blocks in Amazonia. They cover a total area of 1,082,704

km2 (14% of Amazonia’s surface). These include those Open for Bidding (6.2%), those Under Tender (1.8%), those Under Exploration (5.6%) and those Under Production (0.5%). The 81 blocks now un-der production occupy 40,717 km2, while the blocks in the other three phases occupy a total area of 1,041,988 km2 (TOG2).

80% (263) of the blocks are concentrated in the Andean Amazonia (MOG2). It should be em-phasized that this region contains almost half of the indigenous peoples, including those still living in isolation, half of the water, the largest biodiversity per unit area and the most varied socio-environmental services in the entire Amazon region.

MOG2. Oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase

Amazonia in each countryThe Amazonian countries with the largest surface areas dedicated to hydrocarbon activities in

all phases are: Perú (84%), Colombia (40%) and Ecuador (21%). Ecuador is the country with the largest area of hydrocarbon blocks under production in Amazonia. Although only 3% of Brazilian Amazonia has blocks, these occupy 127,862 km2, which represents the third largest surface area after Perú and Colombia (TOG3). Colombia is the country that has demarcated the largest number of blocks (102), followed by Perú (92), Bolivia and Brasil (55 each) (GOG1). Venezuela, considered the oil producer par excellence, has demarcated few blocks in the Amazonian portion of the country since its main reserves are located outside this region (PDVSa, 2012). In Brasil most of the blocks under production are found offshore. Similarly in Suriname, Guyana and Guyane Française the majority of concessionary blocks are also located in their territorial waters (Kriege & CheDi-toelSie, 2006; way, 2012).

In Ecuador the information obtained refers exclusively to blocks under production, but the coun-try is known to have begun the XI Oil Round, in which 12 blocks in the southeast of the country, with

GOG1. Distribution of surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country

BoG2. State, oil and indigenous lands in the Ecuadorian Amazonia

Until the mid 20th century light crude oil was extracted off the coast of Ecuador by Anglo, providing relatively few benefits for the country. During the dispute over the border between Ecuador and Peru (1941), oil surveying was begun in the south central part of the Ecuadorian Amazonia by Shell.

Two decades later activities began in the northeastern sub-region (bordering with Colombia) where, in 1967, Texaco-Gulf began extracting oil at the Lago Agrio 1 well and the state oil company CEPE (subsequently Petroecuador and today Petroamazonas EP) began activities in the Amazonas District, which included wells, fields, stations, oil pipelines, multi-purpose pipelines and roads, as well as oil towns: Lago, Coca, Shushufindi and Sacha. This meant the forced relocation, ethnocide and acculturation of indigenous peoples like the Tetete (now extinct) and other Tukano-speaking groups (Siona and Secoya), Barbacoano (Cofán) and Waorani.

One can still see the Texaco legacy in this region including pools with waste and toxic water that flows into the rivers or under-ground water system, degradation and deforestation, tied to cases of leukemia and other cancers. Consequently in 1994 a group of 30,000 people affected by this toxic legacy decided to sue in a US court those responsible for these operations at the time, Texaco and today Chevron, which absorbed the former almost a decade ago.

Although oil income has financed much of the national revenue since 1972 when exports began, Amazonian oil is not as important a factor in the country’s energy security as it should be since Ecuador imports oil derivatives (naphta, liquefied gas and bunker) for a domestic market seriously distorted by subsidized prices (U$ 1.5/gal). In the face of this, in the mid 1990s civil and indigenous orga-nizations requested a moratorium on the extraction of heavy crude oil in protected areas and intangible zones for indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation, such as in the Yasuní.

This was a forerunner of the initiative adopted by the government in 2008 to leave 900 million barrels of oil in the ground in exchange for compensation from the international community equivalent to 50% of the estimated revenue from oil exports. It was also argued that this deal would enable the reduction of emissions in an effective form shared between exporting and consuming countries. However there has been no concrete response, not so much because of the novelty of the financing mechanism – run by the UNDP – but because of the lack of guarantees for the continuity of this ‘post-oil’ policy. From the beginning, President Correa warned that if the initiative is not consolidated, ‘Plan B’ will be launched within a limited time-frame for the extraction of these proven reserves.

Although the supposed start of this plan has been postponed since 2009, the beginning of a new oil round has also been an-nounced with the intention of tendering 2 million hectares in the south central part of the Ecuadorian Amazonia where the surveys by Shell and Petroecuador proved negative for commercial reserves. This puts increased pressure on a region of high importance due to its large socio-environmental diversity (headwaters of the Pastaza, Tigre and Morona rivers), because the government and the oil companies anticipate extending the oil frontier south from its current center in the northeast, affecting indigenous territories (Achuar, Andoa, Sapara, Shiwiar and Kichwa de Pastaza) in a sub-region that contains few protected or natural heritage areas (PANE). Prior informed consultation also lacks a consistent legal framework after a presidential decree annulled the specific regulations in 2008. Neither the pre-legislative nor popular consultation established by the Constitution seem viable options for maintaining the protected areas free of hydrocarbon activities, especially now that the State is set to pay China (US$ 5 billion) with the anticipated sale of oil up until 2016. (Víctor López/EcoCiencia)

expected reserves of 120 million barrels of oil, were put up for bidding (BOG2: State, oil and indigenous

territories in Equatorial Amazonia). In terms of surface area the largest threat is found in Perú and Co-lombia where the hydrocarbon blocks open for bidding plus those already under exploration occupy 82.9% and 24.4% of these two countries’ Amazonian territories (TOG4).

By basinThe Amazonian macro-basins containing the largest surface areas of hydrocarbon blocks (in

any phase) are the Upper Amazonas (with 855,120 km2, equivalent to 42% of the basin’s total surface area), Orinoco (138,349 km2, 26%) and Madeira (131,522 km2, 11%) (MOG3). The ten sub-basins with the largest surface areas of oil blocks are found in the Upper Amazonas macro-basin (TOG5 and

MOG4).

MOG3. Proportion of oil/gas blocks per macro-basin in Amazonia

MOG4. Proportion of oil/gas blocks per sub-basin in Amazonia

TOG1. Oil/gas activity phases in Amazonia, by country Country Open for bidding Under tender Under exploration Under production

Bolivia X X X

Brasil X X

Colombia X X X

Ecuador X

Perú X X X X

Venezuela X X

TOG2. Quantity and surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia. by activity phasePhase Number of blocks Area (km2) % of total blocks % of total Amazonia

Open for bidding 85 477,286 44.1% 6.2%

Under tender 20 136,228 12.6% 1.8%

Under exploration 141 428,473 39.6% 5.6%

Under production 81 40,717 3.8% 0.5%

Total 327 1,082.704 100.0% 14.0%

TOG3. Quantity and surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by country

Country Amazon area (km2) Nº of blocks Blocks area

(km2) % surface of blocks in relation to

Amazonia by country

Perú 782,820 92 659,937 84%

Colombia 483,164 102 193,414 40%

Ecuador 116,284 14 24,957 21%

Bolivia 479,264 55 73,215 15%

Brasil 5,006.316 55 127,862 3%

Venezuela 453,915 9 3,319 1%

Guyana 214,969 0 - -

Guyane Française 86,504 0 - -

Suriname 163,820 0 - -

Total 7,787.056 327 1,082.704 15%

TOG4. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country (km2)Country Open for bidding Under tender Under exploration Under production Total Amazon area (km2)

Perú 253,447 133,336 262,385 10,770 659,937 782,820

Colombia 170,003 21,367 2,044 193,414 483,164

Brasil 126,843 1,019 127,862 5,006,316

Bolivia 53,837 17,879 1,500 73,215 479,264

Ecuador 24,957 24,957 116,284

Venezuela 2,892 427 3,319 453,915

Total 477,286 136,228 428,473 40,717 1,082.704 7,321.763

TOG5. The ten Amazonian sub-basins with the largest overlap of oil/gas blocks (km2)

Sub-basinSub-basin area (km2)

Area covered by blocks (km2)

% Phase

Ucayali (middle) 22,046 21,946 100 Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding Marañón (middle) 4,284 4,264 100 Under exploration, under tender, open for biddingMarañón (lower) 2,223 2,213 100 Open for bidding, under explorationMarañón (middle-lower) 36,342 36,159 99 Open for bidding, under exploration, under productionAmazonas Alto (middle) 27,832 26,371 95 Open for bidding, under explorationPachitea 29,026 26,520 91 Under exploration, under tender, open for biddingUcayali (lower) 111,078 101,217 91 Open for bidding, under explorationAmazonas Alto (lower) 32,941 29,825 91 Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding, under productionMarañón 81,498 72,585 89 Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding Tambo 32,405 27,892 86 Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding

RAISG 28 AmAzoniA under Pressure – oil And GAs oil And GAs – AmAzoniA under Pressure 29 RAISG

GOG2. Proportion of PNAs in Amazonia with oil/gas blocks, by country and activity phase

* Without considering the area of the Forest Reserveof the Act 2nd from Colombia.

GOG3. Proportion of ITs in Amazonia with oil/gas blocks, by country and activity phase

MOG5.Proportion of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia

By Protected AreaThe hydrocarbon blocks in Amazonia overlap with 6% (115,784 km2) of the total surface area

of the Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) (TOG6). The blocks open for bidding superimposed with PNAs make up 58% of this total (67,331 km2), those under tender make up 3% (3,910 km2), those under explo-ration make up 34% (33,808 km2) and those under production 5% (5,735 km2) (TOG7). The most critical situations appear in Perú where 49% of the PNAs are covered with hydrocarbon blocks, Bolivia (23%) and Ecuador (17%), irrespective of the phase in which they are found (MOG5).

95% of the total surface area of hydrocarbon blocks in PNAs, corresponds to those up for bid-ding, under tender and under exploration. Most of these are located in Perú and Bolivia. Ecuador con-tains the largest number of oil blocks under production inside PNAs (GOG2). If the Yasuní ITT initiative is not implemented, the Yasuní National Park will be threatened with the possibility of an expansion in oil production to as much as 900 million barrels of extra heavy oil. In terms of PNA categories, 97% of the areas overlapped with hydrocarbon blocks are in national PNAs in the transitory use category; only 1% is located in the departmental PNAs for direct use. . MOG6. Proportion of oil/gas blocks in ITs in Amazonia

BoG3. oil and gas surveying in the sedimentary basins of Acre and Madre de dios

The oil and gas surveying activities now taking place in the sedimentary basins of Acre and Madre de Dios, considered

the ‘new frontier,’ form an integral part of the 2002 Ten-Year Plan and the 2007 Multi-Annual Plan (2007-2012) with esti-

mated investments of R$ 137 million in these basins.

Since 2007 various phases of exploration have been carried out in Acre and in the southwestern portion of Amazo-

nas, including specialized technical services in capturing and processing aerogravimetric and aeromagnetic data along

105,000 lineal kms in the sedimentary basins of Acre, Madre de Dios and Solimões; aerial reconnaissance along 24,000

lineal kms in the sedimentary basins of Acre and Madre de Dios, covering practically the entire area of the State of Acre,

excluding a strip along the borders with Peru and Bolivia; and specialized technical services in the collection, laboratory

analysis and interpretation of geochemical data from 2,000 soil samples taken from the Acre basin.

The latter activities were exonerated from having an environmental license by the Amazon Environmental Protection

Institute (IPAAM), by the Environmental and Sustainable Development Office (SDS) of Amazonas state, and by the Acre

Environment Institute (IMAC). Up to now, National Agency of Petroleum (ANP) has reached agreements with FUNAI and

the Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biodiversity (ICMBio) to promote surveys in four Conservation Units:

the Serra do Divisor National Park and the Extractivist Reserves of the Alto Tarauacá, Alto Juruá and Riozinho da Liberdade,

as well as 530 collection points located at least ten kilometers from the borders of five indigenous territories located in

Acre and Amazonas. The surveys inside the conservation units did not take place due to the restrictions imposed by the

environmental legislation.

The survey results across a 31,000 km2 area on the Upper Juruá (Acre and Amazonas states) showed indications of

thermogenic hydrocarbon gases.

In 2010 terrestrial seismic data collected by an earlier 1998 survey from the Acre basin was reprocessed along 575 km

of 2D seismic lines, primarily in the Serra do Divisor region.

For the third stage of field research in 2010, the company Georadar Levantamentos Geofísicos S/A was contracted

(with a loan approved in 2012 by BNDES) to survey 1,017 km of 2D seismic lines with 40,700 seismograms (seismic

reflection records) in the Acre and Solimões sedimentary basins. In February 2012 IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of the En-

vironment and Renewable Natural Resources) granted an Operating License with specific conditions for three years and

authorized the removal of plant cover in May of the same year in order to open 285 clearings along the lines.

The company set up its base of operations in the city of Cruzeiro do Sul (AC) in 2012 and began to hire and train its

workforce, along with recognition of zones and the organization of talks in the communities where the lines are today being

opened. Over a period of ten months, the records are being acquired along twelve seismic lines distributed in the basin of

the Upper Juruá, in the municipalities of Cruzeiro do Sul, Marechal Thaumaturgo, Porto Walter, Rodrigues Alves and Mân-

cio Lima, in Acre state, and Ipixuna and Guajará, in Amazonas state (see map). The routes taken by the lines are at least

ten kilometers from the borders of the nine indigenous lands and the six conservation units (direct use and full protection).

Although the company has held informational events along with ANP and the Acre Government in the cities of Rio

Branco and Cruzeiro do Sul (April 2012), the meetings and documents of the indigenous organizations, the social move-

ments and even municipalities reiterated questions concerning the lack of tools for consultation and information on the

project and its potential socio-environmental impacts on the region, following the example of what has happened since

2007. (ISA)

Lines of seismic investigation in Acre, 2012

By Indigenous territoriesHydrocarbon blocks in Amazonia overlap 13% (273,801 km2) of the total surface area of Indig-

enous Territories (ITs) (MOG6 and TOG8). Blocks open for bidding account for 50% (136,264 km2) of this overlap, those under tender, 10% (27,218 km2), those under exploration, 32% (88,404 km2) and those under production, 8% (21,914 km2). The most critical situation is found in Perú where overlapping covers 66.3% of IT areas, while in Brasil by contrast there is no recorded instance of such overlapping (GOG3).

In terms of the different categories of IT, 11% of the total surface area of officially-recognized ITs are overlapped by hydrocarbon blocks, compared to 9% of the unrecognized ITs. Ecuador is today the country with the largest surface area of ITs overlapped with hydrocarbon blocks under production. 71% of the total area of intangible zones in Ecuador and territorial reserves in Perú, both intended to protect isolated indigenous peoples, overlaps with hydrocarbon blocks. Meanwhile 95% of the area proposed for territorial reserves in the Peruvian Amazonia is covered with hydrocarbon blocks.

ConclusionHydrocarbon blocks overlap many ITs and PNAs irrespective of the categories found in each

country. Historically the extraction of oil and gas in Amazonia has placed pressure on socio-environ-mental diversity. The experience of Perú and Ecuador shows the high level of impact that this type of activity can generate. Agreement on socio-environmental protection regulations related to hydrocarbon production is urgently needed in the short-term.

In Ecuador, which contains 25,000 of the 40,000 km2 of hydrocarbon blocks under production across Amazonia, both the government and the companies expect, with the new round of bidding for other 20,000 km2, to extend oil production as far as the ITs in the southeast of the country, a region with little surface area protected by the government for conservation purposes or for indigenous peoples. This portends a new era of conflicts between the hydrocarbon industry and indigenous peoples from the Pastaza and Morona provinces.

Spill from the Crude Oil Pipeline (OCP) into the Santa Rosa, Quijos and Coca Rivers, in Ecuadorian Amazonia © Juan Calles/EcoCiencia, 2009

TOG6. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by countryCountry PNA surface (km2) PNA area covered by blocks (km2) % covered by blocks

Perú 159,846 77,597 49%

Bolivia 135,524 30,555 23%

Ecuador 29,836 5,196 17%

Colombia 81,842 1,426 2%

Brasil 1,173.962 976 <1%

Venezuela 171,145 35 <1%

Total 1,845.864 115,784 6%

TPG7. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by activity phase, administrative sphere and type of use

PNA administrative sphere and type of use

Area covered by blocks (km2)PNA surface

(km2)% covered by blocksOpen for

biddingUnder tender

Under explo-ration

Under pro-duction

Total

National-transitory use* 13,318 441 10,808 121 24,688 25,390 97%

National-direct use 16,431 2,551 19,436 40 38,458 429,415 9%

National-indirect use 33,941 918 6,260 5,570 46,689 764,180 6%

Departmental-direct use 3,641 0 2,305 4 5,949 494,425 1%

Total 67,331 3,910 38,808 5,735 115,784 1,845.864 6%

TOG8. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in ITs in Amazonia, by activity phase, administrative area and type of use

IT type Area covered by blocks (km2)

IT surface (km2)

% covered by blocksOpen for

biddingUnder tender

Under exploration

Under production

Total

Proposed Territorial Reservation 16,022 301 20,303 1,116 37,743 39,762 95%

Territorial Reservation 14,153 0 224 5,508 19,884 28,127 71%

IT officially recognized 98,722 22,275 60,587 1,963 183,547 1,693.431 11%

IT not officially recognized 7,368 4,641 7,291 13,327 32,626 368,603 9%

Total 136,264 27,218 88,404 21,914 273,801 2,129.923 13%

Total

RAISG 30 AmAzoniA under Pressure – mininG mininG – AmAzoniA under Pressure 31 RAISG

MInInGAlunorte, the world’s largest aluminum refinery, inaugurated in 1995, consumes energy from the Tucuruí Hydroelectric Plant (UHE). Barcarena, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2006

The world’s largest open-pit iron mine, owned by Vale, in Carajás. Pará, Brasil. © Pedro Martinelli, 1996

MMn1

Mining in Amazonia

Ä In the Madre de dios region the rate of deforestation related to small-scale gold mining was 292 ha/year between 2006 and 2009.

¾ In Guyana the deforestation caused by gold mining tripled between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008.

¸ Mining poses a threat to indigenous territories in Brasil; 79% (407,300 km2) of the total area covered by mining concessions in Its in Amazonia are located in Brasil.

Since the beginning of European conquest in Amazonia there has been a continuous search for ‘El Dorado,’ promoted by the stories of the enormous mineral wealth contained in the

region. For centuries prospecting and mining was concentrated in the extremely rich gold and silver mines of the Andean region. It was only in the 20th century with the discovery of large mineral depos-its, like the Serra dos Carajás in Brazilian Amazonia (in 1967), that mining activities began to spread, today covering much of the region, whether in the form of industrial production plants or concessionary blocks, as well as illegal mining.

During this period the increase in the prices of precious minerals, the growing demand for other strategic minerals (aluminum, iron, titanium, vanadium and so on), and the need in the region’s coun-tries to generate income through the use of Amazonia’s natural resources, has made mining a major source for economic growth; more recently, national development policies have included mining as one of the fundamental sectors for generating jobs and fighting poverty.

Those policies encouraged exploration and prospecting in Amazonia, which has revealed its great mining potential. However this growth in the mining industry has largely ignored the socio-envi-ronmental impacts that it produces. As was pointed out in the previous chapter on hydrocarbons, the separation and lack of coordination between different sector-based policies for extractive industries enables the development of mining blocks inside protected areas and Indigenous Territories, as this chapter will show.

ContextThe Amazonian republics continued the colonial legal and political tradition of attributing the

ownership of mineral resources to the State, irrespective of the type of land tenure (private, collective or public). The range of different types of land rights found in Amazonia does not restrict the possibility of undertaking sub-surface mining activities. Hence each government reserves the right to grant conces-sions to third parties for surveying, extraction and sale of these resources.

In 2012 Colombia announced a moratorium on mining activities in the Amazonian region. The socio-environmental sector of Colombia’s civil society persuaded the government to use more caution in responding to the huge volume of applications for mining concessions. The government suspended, for ten years, the approval of any mining concessions until an objective selection processes could be established to allocate the 201 mining blocks planned for the region. Meanwhile Brasil is promoting mining exploration on a large scale in Amazonia, while the National Congress is currently discussing a Bill to permit mining surveys and extractive activities in Indigenous Territories.

An important case that combines the generation of hydroelectricity with mining activities is now tak-ing place in Brazilian Amazonia, in the region of the Volta Grande (Big Bend) of the Xingu river, where per-mission from the environmental sector is in the process of being granted for what will be the largest open pit gold mine in the country. The Canadian mining company Belo Sun plans to install its mining operations within 16 km of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, which will provide cheap energy for the mine beginning in 2015. The ambitious plans for expanding hydroelectric capacity along the rivers of Brazilian Amazonia likely driving the huge expansion in new mining projects in the region.

Despite the legislation in force, illegal mining activities have increased across the region over the last few decades, producing increasingly larger and more uncontrollable impacts, very often plac-ing at risk the health of entire local communities. Contamination of water with heavy metals such as mercury has long-term health impacts on the communities exposed to these waterways, even when they are located at large distances downstream from the mines.

Areas covered with mining concessions cover a total of 1.6 million km2, representing 21% of Amazonia’s surface

Most of these areas (50.8%) are still under tender, followed by those under exploration (30.8%)

Guiana is the country with the largest proportion of its Amazonian territory covered by mining concessions

Areas covered with mining concessions already occupy 15% of the PnAs and 19% of the Its in Amazonia

the sharp rise in the price of gold in recent years has stimulated illegal mining in Amazonia,

generating considerable socio-environmental impacts

Ä

¾

¸

Cartographic sources for the theme Mining: • BOLIVIA: FAN, 2009 • BRASIL: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE, Malha Municipal 1:1.000.000, 2005 • COLOMBIA: Fundación Puerto Rastrojo (Atlas de la Amazonía Colombiana), 2001; IGAC, 2010 • ECUADOR: Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas, 2006 • PERÚ: Ministerio de Transporte y Comunicaciones - MTC, 2008 • SURINAME: Digital Chart of World, 1993 • VENEZUELA: Instituto Geográfico de Venezuela Simón Bolívar, 2003. Ocean and relieve: World Physical Map, U.S. National Park Service, in ArcGIS Online Services.

RAISG 32 AmAzoniA under Pressure – mininG mininG – AmAzoniA under Pressure 33 RAISG

BMn1. the main companies and the largest mining ventures

Among the main mining ventures in Amazonia we

can identify the following: the Madre de Dios mining re-

gion in Peru on the border with Bolivia; the southeast of

Ecuador in the provinces of Morona Santiago and Zamora

Chinchipe where the Fruta do Norte and Mirador projects

are being carried out; the bauxite mining region operated

by Bosai in Guyana; the Carajás project extracting pig iron

in a concession run by Vale; the Pitinga mine, where the

Taboca mining company extracts mainly tin; and the Ju-

ruti project, a concession run by Alcoa for mining bauxite.

These last three ventures are located in Brazil.

* There is no data for Guyane Française.

* The Amazonia has 20.3% of its area covered by mining blocks when it eliminates overlapping areas between blocks in different phases of activity.

GMN1. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase

MMN2. Mining activity phases in Amazonia, by country

* The overlapping areas within the same category were eliminated for not overestimate the total area.

GMN2. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country

MMN3. Proportion of mining blocks per country in Amazonia

The Beni river in Bolivia is one of the most critical cases of contamination of water, sediments and fish by mercury and other heavy metals, affecting both indigenous and riverside communities. These mining activities have been growing since the 1970s with a greater emphasis over the last 20 years (Bourgoin, 2001). A similar case is the illegal gold mining in the Madre de Dios river basin in Perú. Here more than 150,000 ha of alluvial soils, well suited to agriculture, have been completely degraded by the largely illegal mining activities (Dourojeanni, 2009).

In addition to the damage caused to entire ecosystems, illegal mining also generates other seri-ous collateral effects in areas of indigenous peoples who are uncontacted or only recently contacted, as in the case of the Yanomami in the border region between Venezuela and Brasil (see BMN2: The new

gold rush in Amazonia).

MethodologyThe analysis of information regarding the concessionary blocks for mining established by the

government and the mining activities in Amazonia is based on official data compiled in each country. It has been systemized and classified into five categories according to the procedural phase that both concessionary blocks are currently in. These are: Open for Bidding (concessionary blocks offered by the government), Under Tender (concessionary blocks with a pending offer awaiting official approval), Under Exploration (concessionary blocks with a company actively prospecting), Under Production (con-cessionary blocks with on-going extractive activities) and No Information (concessionary blocks without current information). In Perú and in some of Ecuador’s mining blocks it was impossible to differentiate blocks under exploration from those under production. In these cases the blocks were analyzed as both. The classification of concessionary blocks by phase in the different countries is shown in table TMN1.

As information on illegal mining was not obtainable for all the countries, this data was not in-cluded in the analyses.

Due to differences in the information sources, geographic (topological) corrections had to be made in order for the data to be analyzed and combined. Consequently differences may exist between the results published here and the figures obtained in analyses conducted in the countries. To avoid du-plicating areas and over-estimation of surface areas, the analysis excluded overlapping areas between mining blocks that are in the same phase. After excluding these overlaps, only areas over five hectares in size were selected in all the analyses.

The data was analyzed by the following units: Amazonia, countries, macro-basins and sub-basins, PNAs and ITs.

Amazonia as a wholeFor 2010 there are a total of 52,974 blocks in Amazonia with mining interests covering a total

area of 1,628,850 km2, which corresponds to 21% of the entire region (TMN2). The majority of mining blocks are under tender (50.8%), followed by those under exploration (30.8%) (MMN2 and GMN1).

The total surface area covered by mining blocks under tender represents 10.7% of Amazonia (827,142 km2), while the areas now under exploration cover 6.5% (502,085 km2).

Amazonia in each countryTable TMN3 shows the quantity and surface area of concessionary blocks for mining per coun-

try. Guyana is the country with the highest percentage of its Amazonia region covered by mining blocks in all categories (67.5%), followed by Brasil with 27% and Suriname with 18.6%. The country with the lowest proportion of its Amazonia covered by mining blocks in Amazonia is Bolivia at 0.8%. In terms of the number of concessionary blocks, 80.5% of the total number of blocks are located in Brasil and 11% in Perú. The surface covered by the different categories of mining blocks in each country is shown in map MMN3. Although large-scale mining has not begun in Ecuador, in the medium term this will be the main threat following hydrocarbon activities.

According to the analysis of mining block categories by country, most of the surface area of the mining blocks in Guyana and Bolivia is under exploration. In Ecuador and Perú the largest proportion corresponds to blocks under exploration/production. In Colombia and Brasil the largest proportion cor-responds to blocks under tender (GMN2).

By basinThe macro-basin within Amazonia with the largest total area covered by mining blocks is the

Amazonas Middle-Lower macro-basin in Brasil, with a total area of 619,894 km2 with designated mining blocks. This macro-basin is followed by the Guyana/Amapá (212,524 km2), Tocantins (190,609 km2), Madeira (184.332 km2) and Negro macro-basins (168,839 km2) (TMN4 and GMN3).

In terms of individual phases of concessionary blocks, the largest surface areas covered by blocks in the Open for Bidding and Under Exploration phases are found in the Amazonas (Middle-Lower), Tocantins and Guyana/Amapá macro-basins. The largest surface areas covered by blocks in the Under Tender phase are found in the Amazonas (Middle-Lower), Negro and Madeira macro-basins (TMN4).

Table TMN5 shows the ten sub-basins with the largest surface area covered by mining blocks in the different phases. The sub-basins with the largest areas covered by blocks in all phases are the Amazonas river (Juruá-Paru-Jari) with 99,291 km2, followed by the Iriri with 69.503 km2, Cuyuní with 60,893 km2, Lower Tocantins with 59,143 km2 and Trombetas with 58,400 km2. Fourteen sub-basins were identified with more than 52% of their surface covered by concessionary mining blocks, as can be observed in map MMN5.

In relation to those blocks in the Under Production phase, the Cuyuní sub-basin, covering ar-eas of Guyana and Venezuela, presented the largest area with 33,928 km2 (21,551 km2 and 12,377

GMN3. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by macro-basin

TMN1. Categories of mining blocks in the countries of Amazonia

Country* No informationOpen for bidding

Under tenderUnder

exploration Under exploration/

productionUnder

production

Bolivia X X X X

Brasil X X X X

Colombia X X

Ecuador X X X

Guyana X X X

Perú X X X

Suriname X X X

Venezuela X X

TMN2. Quantity and surface area of mining blocks in Amazonia. by categoryCategory # Mining blocks # by phase (%) Area (km²) % Area by phase Amazon area

Open for bidding 2,529 4.8 164,999 10.1 2.1

Under tender 30,411 57.4 827,142 50.8 10.7

Under exploration 9,828 18.6 502,085 30.8 6.5

Under exploration/production 4,711 8.9 25,383 1.6 0.3

Under production 5,482 10.3 109,202 6.7 1.4

No information 13 0.0 40 0.0 0.0

Total 52,974 100.0 1,628.850 100.0 21.0

TMN3. Quantity and surface area of mining blocks in Amazonia. by country

CountryQuantity of mining blocks Surface area of mining blocks Participation

in the totalnumber of blocks % Area (km2) % of Amazonia

Bolivia 485 0.9 3,734 0.8 0.0

Brasil 42,623 80.5 1,349.207 27.0 17.3

Colombia 1,563 3.0 50,192 10.4 0.6

Ecuador 791 1.5 4,840 4.2 0.1

Guyana 743 1.4 145,069 67.5 1.9

Perú 5,812 11.0 22,587 2.9 0.3

Suriname 11 0.0 30,419 18.6 0.4

Venezuela 946 1.8 22,803 5.0 0.3

Total 52,974 100 1,628.850 20.9 20.9

TMN4. Surface area of mining blocks in macro-basins in Amazonia, by category

Surface area of mining blocks (km²)

Macro-basinUnder

explorationUnder exploration/

productionUnder

productionOpen for bidding

No information

Under tender

Total

Middle-Lower Amazonas 169,141 5,166 57,969 387,618 619,894

Guyanas/Amapá 82,002 5,157 72,293 29,762 22,311 212,524

Tocantins 91,804 3,594 39,113 56,098 190,609

Madeira 55,161 6,591 5,792 16,507 33 100,248 184,332

Negro 8,420 1,579 8,379 150,462 168,839

Western Northeast Atlantic

31,903 3,548 5,179 29,979 70,609

Mouth of the Amazonas/Estuary

26,928 4,401 4,087 19,507 54,924

Paraná 30,164 912 2,531 15,424 49,031

Upper Amazonas 3,964 13,635 390 1,419 8 25,842 45,257

Orinoco 631 10,433 15,558 26,622

Parnaíba 485 38 39 3,520 4,082

Middle Amazonas 1,471 56 13 572 2,111

General total 502,084 25,382 109,201 164,999 40 827,138 1,628.844

TMN5. The ten sub-basins with the largest surface area covered by mining blocks in Amazonia

Sub-basinSurface area of mining blocks (km²)

Under production Under exploration Under tender Open for bidding Total

Amazonas (Juruá-Paru-Jari) 493 11,032 81,049 6,717 99,291

Iriri 449 5,510 61,418 2,126 69,503

Cuyuní 33,928 12,014 448 14,503 60,893

Tocantins (B) 2,599 23,113 21,851 11,580 59,143

Trombetas 1,304 6,154 46,066 4,876 58,400

Sucunduri-Abacaxis-Maués 168 11,906 36,374 1,469 49,917

Guyana-Esequibo (Costa) 9,276 36,797 3,780 49,853

Guaporé 924 8,259 36,075 2,909 48,167

Teles Pires (S,Manuel) 175 31,805 10,322 4,676 46,978

Araguaia (B) 236 17,367 11,105 10,753 39,460

RAISG 34 AmAzoniA under Pressure – mininG mininG – AmAzoniA under Pressure 35 RAISG

MMN5. Proportion of mining blocks per sub-basin in Amazonia

MMN6. Proportion of mining blocks per PNA in Amazonia

km2 respectively), followed by the Guyana-Essequibo (Costa) with 9,276 km2. The largest areas of the combined Under Exploration/Production phases (Peru and Ecuador) were located in the Madre de Dios (6,591 km2) and Marañón (5,636 km2) sub-basins. The Guyana/Esequibo (Costa) sub-basin had the largest surface area (36,797 km2) covered by blocks in the Under Exploration phase, followed by the Teles Pires with 31.805 km2 (TMN5).

GMN6. Distribution of mining blocks in ITs in Amazonia, by country and activity phase

GMN4. Distribution of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use

GMN5. Distribution of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by country and activity phase

use departmental PNAs (42,776 km2), transitory use national PNAs (41,735 km2), and indirect use na-tional PNAs (31,036 km2). Mining blocks in direct/indirect use national PNAs cover an area of 20 km2.

Turning to the different phases of mining activity, those blocks under tender cover 196,732 km2 of the PNAs in Amazonia (70% of the total area of mining blocks in PNAs), followed by those under exploration (57,284 km2, 20%), those open for bidding (20,060 km2, 7%), those under production (6,298 km2, 2%) and finally those in the combined Under Exploration/Production phase (714 km2). Most of the mining blocks within PNAs are found in Brasil, occupying a total area of 234,461 km2 (83% of the total surface area of mining blocks located in PNAs) (GMN5 and MMN6).

The largest area of blocks in the Under Production phase is found in national PNAs intended for direct use (3,921 km2) and indirect use (921 km2). The PNAs with the highest pressure from these min-ing production are: FN Saracá-Taquera (1,290 km2), FN Carajás (1,107 km2) and FN Jamari (939 km2) in Brasil, the Amazonia Second Law Forest Reserve in Colombia (743 km2), the PN Canaima in Venezuela (550 km2), the APA Tapajós (293 km2) and the RBi Maicuru (117 km2) in Brasil.

The PNAs with the largest number of mining blocks in the combined exploration/production phase, are: REc Cofán Bermejo, RfVS El Zarza, RBi El Quimi and PN Yacuri, all in Ecuador.

In the Under Exploration phase, Brasil contains the largest areas in all categories of PNAs: 23.554 km2 overlapping direct use national PNAs, followed by direct use departmental PNAs (20,244 km2), indirect use departmental PNAs (6,380 km2) and indirect use national PNAs (5,651 km2). The di-rect use national PNAs with the largest surface area covered by mining blocks in this phase are: APA Tapajós (6,287 km2), FN Carajás (1,947 km2), FN Crepori (1,706 km2), FN Amaná (1,606 km2), and REx Verde para Sempre (1,574 km2).

Mining blocks in the Open for Bidding phase overlap PNAs by 20,060 km2. Most of these are in Brasil: REx Verde para Sempre, APA Tapajós, FN Jamanxim and FN Carajás.

A total area of 196,732 km2 in concessionary blocks is in the Under Tender phase. Direct use departmental PNAs are overlapped with 64,518 km2, followed by transitory use national PNAs (40,992 km2) and indirect use departmental PNAs (35.611 km2). The PNAs most threatened by blocks under tender are APA Tapajós, FN Amazonas, PN Montanhas do Tumucumaque and EE Jari, all in Brasil, and the Amazonia Forestry Reserve in Colombia.

MMN4. Proportion of mining blocks per macro-basin in Amazonia

Over the last 20 years various PNAs and ITs in Amazonia have been under pressure from the increase in small-scale illegal semi-

mechanized alluvial gold mining. This gold rush was stimulated by the exponential increase in the price of the metal, which has risen

500% over the last ten years. The miners working in the production sites in the forest are sustained by a network of middle-men traders

providing basic supplies: food, fuel, machines and air and/or land transportation.

The semi-mechanized prospecting system causes river silting, the loss of biodiversity in the aquatic ecosystems, due to the turbid-

ity, soil removal and forest conversion. It contributes to a third of the total world mercury pollution and causes substantial health and

environmental impacts. More than an estimated 100 tons of mercury are used each year in illegal gold mining in Amazonia.

In Amazonia 37% of the Protected Natural Areas (Parks and Reserves) of seven countries are affected by illegal mining. The situa-

tion is particularly acute in Western Amazonia (Madre de Dios, Peru), in the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname and Guyane Française) and

in the Yanomami territory (Brazil and Venezuela). In the Madre de Dios region the deforestation rate related to small-scale gold mining

is estimated to have increased from 292 ha/year between 2003 and 2006 to 1,915 ha/year between 2006 and 2009. In Guyana, a

study by WWF Guyanas (Marín and May, 2012) showed that the deforestation caused by gold mining tripled between 2001-2002 and

2007-2008, destroying 650 km2 of forests. The pollution associated with small-scale gold mining followed a similar growth pattern,

affecting 26,000 km of rivers in 2008.

The territory traditionally occupied by the Yanomami people in the forest and mountain region of the border between Brazil and

Venezuela was the target of a massive invasion of prospectors coming from Boa Vista (Roraima) in the second half of the 1980s which

resulted in the death of 15% of the Yanomami population in Brazil and many other serious socio-environmental impacts. This pressure

was relieved somewhat after a mega operation to remove miners organized by Brazil’s federal government at the start of the 1990s. In

the last five years the Yanomami IT has been systematically invaded by Brazilian prospectors who cross the international border, a situ-

ation that demands the coordinated action of the governments in Brazil and Venezuela. There are recent indications of an association

between mining interests and drug trafficking. (Beto Ricardo/ISA, in collaboration with Claudio Maretti/WWF)

Aerial view of illegal gold mining in the Serra do Divisor mountain range, between Brasil and Perú. © Thomas Müller/SPDA, 2010

BMn2. the new gold rush in the Amazonia

Semi-mechanized gold mining, on the upper Madre de Dios River, Peruvian Amazonia.. © Heinz Plenge, 2008

By Protected AreaThe area covered by mining blocks and their distribution are displayed in table TMN6 and graph

GMN4. The total combined surface area of mining blocks, in all phases, overlapping Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) is 281,089 km2, which corresponds to 15% of the total surface area of PNAs in Amazonia.

In terms of categories of PNAs, the largest area of mining blocks, in all phases, is located in direct use departmental PNAs (95,300 km2), followed by direct use national PNAs (70.222 km2), indirect

TMN6. Surface area of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use

PNA administrative sphere and type of use

Area covered by blocks (km²)Participation

(%)Open for bidding

Under tender

Under exploration

Under exploration/production

Under production

Total

Departmental - direct use 9,547 64,518 20,719 517 95,300 33.9

Departmental - indirect use 591 35,611 6,380 194 42,776 15.2

National - direct use 7,632 34,955 23,699 14 3,921 70,222 25.0

National - direct/indirect use 18 2 20 0.0

National - indirect use 2,290 20,656 6,469 700 921 31,036 11.0

National - transitory use 40,992 743 41,735 14.8

General total 20,060 196,732 57,284 714 6,298 281,089 100.0

By Indigenous territoriesConcessionary blocks for mining overlapping Indigenous Territories (ITs) cover a total surface

area of 407,320 km2, representing 19% of the total surface area of ITs in Amazonia. The largest propor-tion is found in recognized ITs (381,857 km2, 94%) with the remainder in traditionally occupied lands without official recognition (25,437 km2, 6%).

Of that total area, mining blocks under tender account for 348,993 km2 of the region’s ITs. Those under production account for 24,163 km2, and those under exploration, 16,933 km2. 79% of the total area overlapped by mining concessions is located in Brasil (GMN6 and MMN7).

RAISG 36 AmAzoniA under Pressure – mininG mininG – AmAzoniA under Pressure 37 RAISG

MMN7. Proportion of mining blocks by ITs in AmazoniaBMn3. Mining, participation and social mobilization in Ecuador

Mining activity is considered a Public Utility and National Priority Interest by the Ecuadorian government and is regulated

by the provisions set out in the Mining Mandate Nº 6 of 2008, in the new Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador

made official also in 2008, as well as in the Mining Law and its Regulatory Framework, approved in 2009 and reformed

in 2011.

Article 313 of the Constitution identifies non-renewable natural resources, including minerals, as strategic sectors. The

cause of the controversy between the different sectors of the country – the central government and the indigenous and

ecologist movements – is Article 407, which “prohibits the extraction of non-renewable resources in protected areas and

in zones declared as intangible, including logging activities.” However a safeguard is included: “in exceptional cases these

resources may be extracted through a substantiated request from the Presidency of the Republic and a prior declaration of

national interest from the National Assembly, which, if deemed convenient, may convoke a popular consultation.”

The National Assembly approved the Mining Mandate on April 18th 2008, establishing the basic conditions for mining

surveys and mineral extraction “by unrestricted compliance with the legal obligations, including those relating to preserva-

tion of the environment and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples, Afro-Ecuadorians and communities that are di-

rectly or indirectly involved… and by payment of all legally established patents, rights and taxes.” It should be emphasized

that in Ecuador there is no clear regulatory framework for social participation and prior consultation.

Article 88 of the Mining Law establishes the obligation of concessionaires, from the granting of the concession through

all its stages, to provide adequate information to the competent authorities, autonomous decentralized governments, com-

munities and entities that represent social, environmental or labor interests, on the potential impacts – positive or negative

– of their mining activity. On the other hand, Article 87 of the Mining Law observes that the State is responsible for imple-

menting the processes of social participation and consultation through the corresponding public institutions, according to

the constitutional principles and regulations in force. This responsibility cannot be transferred to any private entity.

Although large-scale mining has not yet started in Ecuador, indigenous communities, local populations and social orga-

nizations have expressed their concern and indeed rejected the development of the mining activities of the Fruta do Norte

project, one of the largest gold discoveries in the world (6.8 million ounces of gold and 9.1 million ounces of silver) in

Zamora Chinchipe province, run by the Canadian company Kinross, and the Mirador project, run by the Chinese company

Ecuacorriente, which will exploit reserves of more than 10 billion pounds of copper. Despite the opposition of indigenous

organizations and ecological groups, an initial agreement was signed with Kinross in December 2011 and with Ecuacor-

riente in March 2012.

On March 8th 2012, the “March for Water, Life and Dignity of the Peoples,” in Pangui, Zamora Chinchipe Province began

to demand that the government provide opportunities for participation and dialogue regarding indigenous rights and the

nature of mining projects, among other contemporary issues., The March covered a distance of 600 km to reach Quito on

March 22nd. The government, for its part, convoked a countermarch and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the social

demands of the original march. The demonstrators went to the Assembly to express 19 points of concern including their

opposition to large-scale mining. However, aside from the setting up of a commission to discuss the issue, there was no

concrete outcome. (Víctor López and Janette Ulloa/EcoCiencia)

Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the total area of mining blocks under exploration in ITs are located in officially recognized areas, with the remaining 3% located in traditionally occupied ITs without official recognition. The ITs overlapped by the largest area of mining blocks under exploration are: Rio Paru d’Este, Trombetas/Mapuera, Xipaya and Xikrin do Cateté in Brasil, and Orealla in Guyana.

The total area of mining blocks under exploration/production (Perú y Ecuador) registered within ITs is 3,492 km2, 62% of which is located in traditionally occupied ITs without official recognition. The ITs with the highest pressures are in Perú (Naranjos) and Suriname (Kwinti).

The mining blocks under production cover 24,162 km2, 91% of which is located in traditionally occupied ITs without official recognition, 50% situated in Suriname and 41% in Venezuela. The ITs with the largest surface areas covered in mining blocks under production are found in Venezuela (10,015 km2) and in Suriname (12,130 km2): Saramacaners, Aukaners, Wayana, Matawai and Aluku.

Eighty-eight per cent (88%) of the mining blocks under tender within ITs are located in Brasil (307,305 km2) and the remaining 12% in Colombia (40,759 km2). Around 99% of these are located inside recognized ITs, the most threatened being: Yanomami, Menkragnoti, Alto Rio Negro, Baú and Tumucumaque.

The large number of blocks under tender overlapping ITs in Brasil is due to a failure to introduce a specific law to regulate mining on Indigenous Territories, as required by the Federal Constitution. The 1996 Law no. 1610, still under analysis, “provides for the exploration and/or exploitation of mineral resources in Indigenous Territories.” Although the current data from the Mining Register of Brazil’s National Department of Mineral Production was officially reviewed before it was published on the insti-tution’s website, the blocks under tender affecting ITs were not removed from the list. Apparently they were left on the list with the expectation that a new law regarding mining and ITs will give precedence to claims already under tender before the law is passed.

The ITs with the largest areas with blocks open for bidding (which only appears in Brasil and Guyana) are located in Brasil, namely the Trincheira/Bacajá, Parakanã and Mundurucu ITs.

ConclusionDue to the increase in the price of gold and other selected minerals on the international mar-

ket, mining has increased substantially over the last 20 years. The governments in all the Amazonian countries have identified specific blocks for mining concessions which are now in one of the different phases mentioned above (Open for Bidding, Under Tender, Under Exploration and Under Production). Guyana and Brasil are the countries with the largest area covered by them. Mining interests, reflected in the existing concessionary blocks, are concentrated on the periphery of Amazonia, negatively affecting the PNAs and ITs significantly. Local populations are increasingly concerned over the presence of min-ing interests on their lands. The impacts of this activity at local level on water quality, soil nutrients and cultural and biological diversity are potentially very serious. An important next step will be to analyze which are the minerals of most interest in the region (e.g. gold, aluminum and iron) and the current and future geographic patterns involved in activities concerning each of them.

Ovens that convert the Amazonian forest into charcoal to supply the steel industry. Marabá, Pará, Brasil. © Sérgio Vignes, 2011

March for Water, Life and Dignity of the people of Quito, Ecuador. © Fundación Pachamama/Quito, 2012

Steel production with intensive use of charcoal. Marabá, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 1997

Industrial steel production plant. Marabá, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2009

Aerial view of an illegal gold mining dredge in Puerto Maldonado, Madre de Dios, Perú. © Thomas Müller/SPDA, 2010

RAISG 38 AmAzoniA under Pressure – Hydroelectric PlAnts Hydroelectric PlAnts – AmAzoniA under Pressure 39 RAISG

HYdRoELECtRIC PLAntS

The Amazon basin is seen by governments, companies, investors and consumers as a virtu-ally inexhaustible source of water resources for energy production. This view is based on two

facts: 1. the current supply of electrical energy from Amazonia to the region’s countries is significant– up to 75% of the national energy supply in Perú, Bolivia and Ecuador – and 2. a potential contribution of Amazonia to these countries’ electrical energy need is very high. The latter fact is based on the poten-tial for high capacity installations in the Andean-Amazonian mountain rainforest region along with the capacity of the giant Amazon itself where the ‘Brazilian hydroelectric potential,’ estimated at 260,000 MW, accounting for more than 50% of the exploitable capacity of the entire Amazon region (gamBoa & Cueto, 2012). Hence the major challenge posed for Amazonian countries in the near future is the need to reconcile the exploitation of Amazonia’s hydroelectric potential with the integrated management of basins, including the recuperation and conservation of the ecological, social, economic and cultural cycles of a region that values and essentially depends on its rivers.

ContextThe great hydroelectric potential of the Amazonian rivers provides the possibility of obtaining

low-cost electricity without resorting to fossil fuels or nuclear reactors, and at the same time, an op-portunity to attain high levels of sustainability in national electricity supplies. In Ecuador the government presents the implementation of the Coca Codo Sinclair hydroelectric project as a possibility to make the country energy independent, while reversing the current purchase of electricity from Colombia and Perú (up to 10% of the supply) in the dry season and perhaps even selling energy to these same countries. Despite the considerable technical problems (the lack of studies for upgrading to 500 KV transmission lines) and financial issues (lack of tenders) identified by critics in relation to this project, the government plans for the hydroelectric plant to enter into operation from 2016 onwards (lóPez, 2011). Likewise the energy agreement between Perú and Brasil for the production and exportation of electricity in Perú’s border zones (the Inambari megaproject and others) is justified by the annual increase in electricity demand. “Based on the expected level of growth over the next decade, under a permanent planning scheme, Brasil will require national and foreign hydroelectric energy sources. Consequently and very consciously, both state planning and that of the state company Eletrobras show a clear interest in build-ing hydroelectric plants within and beyond Brazilian Amazonia …” (gamBoa & Cueto, 2012).

In 2009 the Peruvian government authorized Brasil to fund, build and operate six large hydro-electric plants in the rainforest-covered eastern side of the Peruvian Andes, with the clear objective of selling hydroelectric power to supply Brasil’s energy needs (Dourojeanni, 2009). However this decision is now being analyzed by the Peruvian Congress’s Foreign Affairs Commission. Meanwhile Brasil is pushing forward construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, the third largest in the world, lo-cated on the Xingu river, an important tributary of the Amazonas river. This project is one of the dozens of large, medium and small-sized hydroelectric plants planned for the next ten years.

The socio-environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the hydroelectric dams and reservoirs – such as alterations in the water regime, reduction of hydrobiological diversity, water contamination and accelerated deforestation – are undervalued or simply ignored.

Measurements of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Balbina reservoir in Brasil and the Petit Saut reservoir in Guyane Française have shown that the hydroelectric plants may also be significant sources of GHGs (fearnSiDe & Pueyo, 2012).

MethodologyA georeferenced database with the location of current hydroelectric plants and projects for

building future plants was compiled and systemized, based on both official and non-official sources. They were grouped into two types: projects with the capacity to generate more than 30 megawatts (MW), called Hydroelectric Units (UHEs), and Small Hydroelectric Plants (PCHs), with the capacity to produce less than 30 MW. In addition, some information was compiled for 17 projected hydroelectric plants with capacities of more than 300 MW in Ecuador and Perú these were not included in the carto-

MHI1

Hidroeletrics Plants in Amazonia

¾ Covering190,000 km2 and containing 11 indigenous territories, the Juruena River basin has a total of 19 PCHs planned, as well as one gigantic plant functioning.

¸ Soon to begin operations, the Santo Antônio and Jirau hydroelectric plants on the Madeira River have not been the object of a cross-border socio-environmental assessment.

there are 171 hydroelectric plants in operation or under construction in Amazonia as a whole,

and 246 planned or under study

With the construction of the Belo Monte dam, Brasil will have the largest hydroelectric plant in Amazonia,

with a capacity of 11,233 MW

the upper Amazon macro-basin has the highest number of hydroelectric plants in operation or under construction

the PnAs are primarily affected by small hydroelectric plants

the cross-border issues relating to hydroelectric plants are not being debated publicly

Ä Perú and Bolivia account for 75% of the Andean Amazonia, a region where many Amazonian rivers arise; this is an extremely important transition zone in the region’s hydrography.

Ä

Ä

¾

¸

Spillway of the Tucuruí Hydroelectric Plant (UHE), work begun in 1975 on the Tocantins river and completed 30 years later at the cost of approximately US$ 15 billion, ten times more expensive than originally budgeted. Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2002

Aerial view of the workers’ shelters for the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant (UHE). Altamira, Pará, Brasil. © Marizilda Cruppe/EVE/Greenpeace, 2012

Cartographic sources for the theme Hydroelectric Plants: • BOLIVIA: FAN, 2009 • BRASIL: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE, Malha Municipal 1:1.000.000, 2005 • COLOMBIA: Fundación Puerto Rastrojo (Atlas de la Amazonía Colom-biana), 2001; IGAC, 2010 • ECUADOR: Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas, 2006 • PERÚ: Ministerio de Transporte y Comunicaciones - MTC, 2008 • SURINAME: Digital Chart of World, 1993 • VENEZUELA: Instituto Geográfico de Venezuela Simón Bolívar, 2003. Ocean and relieve: World Physical Map, U.S. National Park Service, in ArcGIS Online Services.

RAISG 40 AmAzoniA under Pressure – Hydroelectric PlAnts Hydroelectric PlAnts – AmAzoniA under Pressure 41 RAISG

graphic analyses since no information on their geographic location was available. The hydroelectric plants may be found in different phases: Operational, Under Construction, Planned and Under Study (THP1). This analyses groups those under construction and opera-tional as ‘Actual’ and those projected and under study as ‘Planned.’

Amazonia as a wholeAs of 2012, the RAISG database contains information regard-

ing 417 hydroelectric plants (MHP2). 171 are in operation or under construction the great majority of which (120) have a capacity of less than 30 MW (PCHs). The remaining 246 plants have been included in national energy plans, most of which (179) are PCHs, producing less than 30 MW (GHP1). The majority of hydroelectric plants are situated in the southern part of Amazonia, followed by the eastern and western regions. Few hydroelectric projects were recorded in the central and northern regions.

If all the planned hydroelectric units were constructed, there would be a 144% increase in the number of units currently in op-eration or under construction. The increase in the number of PCHs would be 149% and the number of UHEs 131%. This data suggests that much of the future use of the water resources of Amazonia may be committed to generating electricity.

Twelve hydroelectric plants with a capacity higher than 300 MW were identified (seven in opera-tion and five under construction). The most important hydroelectric plant in operation is the Guri Hydro-electric Plant located in Venezuela with a capacity of 10,325 MW (THP2), while Belo Monte, in Brasil, is the hydroelectric plant under construction has the highest projected capacity (11,233 MW).

Twenty-five (37%) of the 67 projected UHEs will have a capacity of more than 300 MW. Half of these will be built in Brasil (13). The largest will be located in the Pongo de Manseriche, situated on the Marañon river (Perú) with a projected capacity of 7,550 MW (THP3).

BHP1. From the Andes to Amazonia: water in the mountain forests

Andean Amazonia covers a transition area between the Andes and the Eastern Mountain Range (Cordilheira Real Oriental: CRO), defining a series of upland ecosys-tems, whether montane or high jungle forest (2200 to 600 m above sea level), before expanding across the vast Amazonian plain or low jungle, characterized by areas of flooded forest. Peru and Bolivia account for 75% of the Andean Amazonia where the montane forest is a very important transition zone, though in general little known. The particularity of the CRO is its climate producing high rainfall, amid steep escarpments, permanent cloud cover and forest soils that have been subject to deforestation and changes in use type.

However the enormous availability of water resources in these basins is a factor that explains the expansion of the frontiers for hydroelectric generation and for drinking water and irrigation in the Andes. Although the enormous hydroelectric potential of upland Amazonia is little exploited even today, pressure is increasing on these basins from medium and large scale (> 100 MW) hydroelectric generation projects, as well as the channeling of water to cities on the Pacific side, as in the Ecuadorian case where around 30 hydroelectric projects are registered, along with other multi-use projects for channeling drinking water to cities like Quito (supplying up to 80%) and for irrigating flower farms and agroindustrial zones.

We can also observe protected areas that from their outset recognized the importance of the water services of the montane forests of the Amazonian side: here it should be noted that the rivers rising in the Andes deposit their sediment-rich waters in the lowland basins of Brazil, crossing international boundaries on the way, as in the case of Ecuador whose Amazonian hydrographic systems are shared with Peru and Colombia.

One aspect that should be investigated in depth is the public institutional framework available for the administration and management of water resources in the Amazon basin and in the montane forests in particular, since this area represents a transition zone between the Andes and the Amazonian floodlands, where the water resources are now seen as a factor in local development. Here future projects for hydroelectric generation, potable water and irrigation could provide a system of remunerative pay-ments for the integrated management of the watersheds that regulate the hydrological cycles and deal with the excess of sediments produced by these and other large-scale projects. Finally very specific legislation is needed, such as an institutional framework and public policies that take into account local climate patterns, the fragility of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and the human safety aspects in a zone with high vulnerability from heavy rainfall and the alteration in climate systems seen over the last decade. (Víctor López/EcoCiencia)

MHP3. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia

GHP1. Distribution of hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and situation (threat)

MHP2. Hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and activity phase

MHP4. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per macro-basin in Amazonia

THP1. Phases of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia Country* Under Study Planned Under Construction Operational

Bolivia X X

Brasil X X X X

Colombia X

Ecuador X X

Guyane Française X

Perú X X

Suriname X

Venezuela X

* Without information for Guyana.

THP2. Hydroelectric plants with capacity > 300 MW in operation and under construction in AmazoniaCountry Name Capacity (MW) Sub-basin

Operational

Venezuela Guri 10,325 Caroní

Brasil Tucuruí I e II 8,370 Tocantins

Venezuela Tocoma 2,260 Caroní

Venezuela Macagua I 2,190 Caroní

Venezuela Caruachi 2,160 Caroní

Brasil Lajeado (L,E,Magalhães) 902 Tocantins

Brasil Peixe Angical 452 Tocantins

Under Construction

Brasil Belo Monte 11,233 Xingú

Brasil Santo António 3,150 Madeira

Ecuador Coca Codo Sinclair 1,500 Napo

Brasil Estreito 1,087 Tocantins

Ecuador Sopladora 487 Pastaza

THP3. Hydroelectric plants with capacity >300 MW projected in AmazoniaCountry Name Capacity (MW) Sub-basin

Perú Pongo de Manseriche 7,550 Marañon

Brasil Jirau 3,450 Madeira

Bolivia Río Madera 3,000 Mamoré

Brasil Marabá 2,160 Tocantins

Perú Inambari 2,000 Madre de Dios

Perú Paquitzapango 2,000 Tambo

Brasil Teles Pires 1,820 Teles Pires

Bolivia El Bala 1,600 Beni

Perú Rentema 1,525 Pastaza

Brasil Serra Quebrada 1,328 Tocantins

Brasil Santa Isabel 1,087 Araguaia

Perú Sumabeni 1,074 Mantaro

Brasil Araguanã 960 Araguaia

Bolivia Cachuela Esperanza 900 Beni

Perú Cuquipampa 800 Mantaro

Perú Vizcatán 750 Mantaro

Brasil São Manoel 746 Teles Pires

Brasil Tupiratins 620 Tocantins

Perú Tambo-Pto, Prado 620 Tambo

Brasil Ipueiras 480 Tocantins

Brasil Sinop 461 Teles Pires

Perú Chaglla 360 Huallaga

Brasil Tabajara 350 Ji-Paraná ou Machado

Brasil Colider 342 Teles Pires

Brasil Água Limpa 320 Das Mortes

Amazonia in each countryBrasil has the highest number of hydroelectric plants with 340 recorded (81.5% of the regional

total), 109 of which are in operation or under construction and another 231 planned. Next is Perú, with 33 hydroelectric plants in operation or under construction and 11 planned, making a total of 44. Bolivia has a total of 14 hydroelectric units (ten in operation and four planned). In the other countries less than ten hydroelectric plants are found with Guyana the only country in which no hydroelectric plant was recorded (MHP3 and THP4).

THP4. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia, by type and phase

CountryPlanned Actual

TotalPCH UHE total PCH UHE total

Brasil 176 55 231 87 22 109 340

Perú 2 9 11 31 2 33 44

Bolivia 1 3 4 1 9 10 14

Ecuador 10 10 10

Venezuela 6 6 6

Colombia 1 1 1

Guyane Française 1 1 1

Suriname 1 1 1

General total 179 67 246 120 51 171 417

THP5. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per macro-basin in Amazonia, by type and phase

Macro-basinPlanned Actual

Total PCH UHE total PCH UHE total

Middle-Lower Amazonas 63 16 79 30 4 34 113

Upper Amazonas 2 13 15 29 12 41 56

Western Northeast Atlantic 5 5 5

Guyanas/Amapá 13 6 19 3 3 22

Madeira 28 6 34 24 14 38 72

Negro 1 1 1

Orinoco 6 6 6

Paraná 54 4 58 20 6 26 84

Parnaíba 2 2 2

Tocantins 14 20 34 16 6 22 56

General total 179 67 246 120 51 171 417

THP6. The ten sub-basins with the highest number of hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and phase

Sub-basin (country)Planned Actual

TotalPCH UHE total PCH UHE total

Juruena (Brasil) 17 2 19 10 10 29

Arinos (Brasil) 21 1 22 22

Do Sangue (Brasil) 12 4 16 3 3 19

Teles Pires (Brasil) 5 6 11 8 8 19

Guaporé (Brasil, Bolivia) 4 4 13 1 14 18

Ji-Paraná (Brasil) 10 1 11 5 1 6 17

Palma (Brasil) 2 3 5 10 10 15

Candeias do Jamari (Brasil) 13 13 1 1 14

Tambo (Perú) 2 2 9 2 11 13

Amapá-Costa (Brasil, Guyane Française) 11 1 12 12

General total 95 20 115 58 5 63 178

By BasinThe Amazonas (Middle-Lower) macro-basin has the highest number of hydroelectric plants in

operation, under construction or planned, followed by the macro-basins of the Paraná, Madeira, Tocan-tins and Upper Amazonas rivers (MHP4 and THP5).

The sub-basins with the largest number of current and planned hydroelectric plants are the Juruena (29), Arinos (22), Do Sangue (19), Teles Pires (19), Guaporé (18) and Ji-Paraná (17) basins, among others. As shown in map MHP5 and table THP6, these plants are situated in the southern part of Amazonia, mainly in Brasil.

RAISG 42 AmAzoniA under Pressure – Hydroelectric PlAnts Hydroelectric PlAnts – AmAzoniA under Pressure 43 RAISG

MHP5. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per sub-basin in Amazonia

BHP2. Small hydroelectric plants in the Juruena basin (Mato Grosso, Brazil)

The basin of the Juruena river, which flows into the left bank of the Tapajós, is full of PCHs (Small Hydroelectric Plants)

– four in operation, six under construction, six awarded and 11 earmarked: a total of 27 – as well as two UHEs (large-scale

hydroelectric plants) also already earmarked. With a surface area of 190,000 km2, the basin includes 11 indigenous territories

and a large mixture of environments.

Currently there exist across Amazonia 120 PCHs already installed or under construction and 188 planned, concentrated

especially in the central part of the western region of Brazil and in the Peruvian Amazonia. The installation of the PCHs has

increased exponentially in the Brazilian Amazonia over the last 20 years.

Under Brazilian law, PCHs are defined as plants with a capacity to generate between 1 and 30 MW, with a reservoir equal to

or less than 3 km2. These criteria were established by the National Electricity Agency (ANEEL) in 1998. The licensing process

is simplified and responsibility assigned to the state governments. Systemic analyses of the socio-environmental impacts are

not required and authorization is given case by case, without prior evaluation of the accumulative impacts of various PCHs

operating in the same region.

This is the case of the Juruena basin and the neighboring basins of the Aripuanã, Papagaio and Juína rivers, located in the

state of Mato Grosso (MT) where, since 2002, one company alone, Maggi Energia, plans to install nine PCHs and UHEs. This

company forms part of the Andre Maggi Group, the largest producer and processor of soya in the Brazilian Amazonia – led by

Blairo Maggi, ex-governor of Mato Grosso state (2003-2010) and currently a senator of the Republic.

In 2005, several construction firms formed the Juruena Consortium, with the transfer of Maggi’s licenses to two other

companies: Juruena Participações and Linear Incorporações, and the works became included in the PAC (Growth Accelera-

tion Program) formulated by the government of President Lula (2003-2010) and continued by President Dilma Rousseff, with

loans from BNDES.

These PCHs will affect the Indigenous Territories of the Paresi, Nambiquara Menky, Rikbaktsa and Enawenê-nawê. There

was no prior, free and informed consultation, as required by the Federal Constitution and Convention 169 of the ILO, of which

Brazil is a signatory. The company negotiated some financial compensation directly with these peoples. However the Enawenê-

nawê re-evaluated this agreement, alarmed by the fact that the start of construction work on a PCH upstream on the Juruena

had already altered the flow of fish, compromising the performance of Yakwã, perhaps the longest ritual cycle of any indig-

enous people in contemporary Amazonia.

Each year the Enawenê traditionally begin a ritual complex, seven months in duration, which includes the artisanal construc-

tion of temporary dams to capture fish. Over the last few years, post-PCH, the once abundant fish have not appeared, compro-

mising the performance of the ritual cycle. Paradoxically in November 2010, the Yakwã ritual was recognized by the National

Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) of the Ministry of Culture as part of Brazil’s cultural heritage, inserted in the

Record of Celebrations.

In 2008, the Enawenê-nawê

set fire to the construction

site for the Telegráfica PCH,

located in the town of Sape-

zal (430 km from Cuiabá, the

capital of Mato Grosso). Soon

after this episode, the Federal

Public Prosecutor’s Office re-

iterated the request to suspend

the construction work until the

accumulative impacts of all the

region’s PCHs were adequately

assessed. The work was in fact

paralyzed for a while but the

measure was overturned by the

STF (Federal Supreme Court)

after a visit from the governor of

Mato Grosso.

MHP7. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per IT in Amazonia

MHP6. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per PNA in Amazonia

Renewable traditional fish trap made by the Enawene Nawe indigenous people, on the Juruena river. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Vincent Carelli/Vídeo nas Aldeias, 2009

View of the Juruena river where the Enawene Nawe live and where various Small Hydroelectric Plants (PCHs) are under construction. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Margi Moss/Projeto Brasil das Águas, 2007

By Protected AreasA total of 171 hydroelectric plants were in operation or under construction within Protected Natu-

ral Areas (PNAs) as of 2010. Thirteen (7.6%) of these were wholly or partially located within PNAs (eight UHEs and five PCHs), while 36 future hydroelectric plants (14.6% of the 246 planned as of 2010) will operate inside PNAs (16 UHEs and 20 PCHs) (MHP6 and THP7).

Various PNAs face current pressures or are threatened by future constructions of hydroelectric plants. The PNAs currently experiencing the greatest pressures from actual plants are located in Ecua-dor (3), Brasil (8), Perú (1) and Guyane Française (1), while the PNAs under threat from projected plants are found in Brasil (33), Perú (1) and Bolivia (1) (THP8).

THP7. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use

PNA Planned ActualGeneral

total

Administrative sphere Type of use PCH UHE total PCH UHE total

DepartmentalDirect 12 5 17 3 3 6 23

Indirect 3 1 4 4

NationalDirect 1 9 10 10

Indirect 4 1 5 2 5 7 12

Total 20 16 36 5 8 13 49

THP8. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in PNAs in Amazonia

Protected National Area Planned Actual

TotalPCH UHE Total PCH UHE Total

FE do Amapá (Brasil) 9 1 10 10

FN Iquiri (Brasil) 4 4 4

PN Cayambe Coca (Ecuador) 3 3 3

PN Chapada das Mesas (Brasil) 3 3 3

APA (D) Chapada dos Guimarães (Brasil) 2 2 1 1 3

FN Mulata (Brasil) 1 1 2 2

PE do Jalapão (Brasil) 1 1 2 2

APA do Jalapão (Brasil) 1 1 1

FN Amapá (Brasil) 1 1 1

PE Cristalino II (Brasil) 1 1 1

PE Dom Osório Stoffel (Brasil) 1 1 1

REx Ituxi (Brasil) 1 1 1

APA (D) Lago de Peixe Angical (Brasil) 1 1 1

APA (D) Lago de Santa Isabel (Brasil) 1 1 1

APA (D) Lago de São Salvador (Brasil) 1 1 1

SH Machupicchu (Perú) 1 1 1

SN Megantoni (Perú) 1 1 1

PN Montanhas do Tumucumaque (Brasil) 1 1 1

RBi Nascentes da Serra do Cachimbo (Brasil) 1 1 1

APA (D) Nascentes do Rio Paraguai (Brasil) 1 1 1

FE Paru (Brasil) 1 1 1

RBiF Pilón Lajas (Bolivia) 1 1 1

RDS Rio Iratapuru (Brasil) 1 1 1

APA Rio Madeira (Brasil) 1 1 1

FE Rio Preto-Jacundá (Brasil) 1 1 1

APA (D) Salto Magessi (Brasil) 1 1 1

PN Sangay (Ecuador) 1 1 1

APA (D) Serra do Lajeado (Brasil) 1 1 1

RN Trinité (Guyane Française) 1 1 1

Total 20 16 36 5 8 13 49

THP9. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in ITs in Amazonia, by type of territory

Indigenous TerritoriesPlanned Actual

Total PCH UHE Total PCH UHE Total

IT officially recognized 7 3 10 4 4 14

IT not officially recognized 2 2 2

Total 7 3 10 4 2 6 16

THI10. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in ITs in Amazonia

Indigenous TerritoriesPlanned Actual

TotalPCH UHE Total PCH UHE Total

Mayni (Perú) 1 1 1

PI Aripuanã (Brasil) 1 1 1

Potsoteni (Perú) 1 1 1

Puerto Ocopa (Perú) 1 1 1

Shuar (Ecuador) 2 2 2

Pilon Lajas (Bolivia) 1 1 1

Bacurizinho (Brasil) 1 1 1

Erikpatsa (Brasil) 1 1 1

Irantxe (Brasil) 1 1 1

Ponte de Pedra (Brasil) 1 1 1

Utiariti (Brasil) 3 3 1 1 4

Vaupés Parte Oriental (Colombia) 1 1 1

Total 7 3 10 4 2 6 16

By Indigenous territoriesIn relation to ITs, six (3,5%) of the 171 hydroelectric plants in operation in 2012 are wholly or par-

tially situated within ITs (two UHEs and four PCHs), while 10 future hydroelectric plants (4.1% of the 246 planned as of 2010) will operate inside ITs (three UHEs and seven PCHs) (MHP7 and THP9).

Various ITs are under current pressure or are threatened by future constructions of hydroelectric plants. Currently the ITs facing the pressure from actual plants are found in Brasil (2), Perú (1), Ecuador (2) and Colombia (1), while the ITs directly threatened by projected plants are located in Brasil (7), Perú (2) and Bolivia (1) (THP10).

ConclusionThe hydroelectric plants are concentrated in the south of Amazonia and in a sizeable area of the

Andean-Amazonian region (mainly in Perú). The construction of these plants, their current operation and the building of others in the short and medium term, are linked to national development plans re-garding the countries’ projected energy matrix. The socio-environmental impacts of these hydroelectric units have not been adequately assessed or addressed. The plants form a key element in cross-border cooperation agendas. Five of the 12 Amazonian macro-basins cross international borders (42% of the total) and 32 of the 154 sub-basins (21%). This situation highlights the need for strategic cross-border socio-environmental assessments at basin level, which was not undertaken, for example, in the con-struction of the Jirau and Santo Antônio hydroelectric plants in the Madeira macro-basin, shared by Brasil and Bolivia. This may also occur in the construction of the Madeira and Cachuela Esperanza hydroelectric plants in Bolivia, located in the same macro-basin. Likewise the plans for the construction of hydroelectric plants in Perú appear not to take into account of impacts in the lower portions of the rivers in the Brazilian and Bolivian regions of Amazonia.

RAISG 44 AmAzoniA under Pressure – Fires Fires – AmAzoniA under Pressure 45 RAISG

FIRES (Hot SPotS)

Fire forms part of the slash-burn model of agriculture practiced for millennia in Amazonia by indigenous peoples and more recently by other local populations that have settled there. Over the last 50 years fire has been used on a larger scale, very often associated with deforestation, in order to convert extensive areas of Amazonian forest into farm landscapes (MFI1). The use of fire as the “most efficient and cheapest tool” for eliminating forest cover has transformed millions of hectares into new Amazonian ecosystems completely different from their original condition.

With climate change generating extreme events in Amazonia, such as the 2005 drought, the conditions have been favorable for large-scale forest fires, such as those reported in Brasil and Bolivia (marengo et al., 2008). Uncontrolled forest and ground fires may be responsible for a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions in Amazonia.

ContextFires, increasingly common and more intense in the region, are not limited just to the infamous

‘arc of deforestation’ of Brasil and Bolivia. New fires have been occurring in more remote areas and within Protected Natural Areas (PNAs). Indigenous and traditional communities, including some who inhabit regions far from the colonization frontiers, have denounced problems in controlling fires and il-lustrate the need to develop procedures for adapting to the climate changes under way. One example of this is the case of the Xingu Indigenous Park (MT, Brasil), an island of forest surrounded by the defor-estation produced over the last 20 years by farming activities, where 16 ethnic groups live in more than 50 different communities. In 2009 an experimental process was begun to mobilize twelve communities, belonging to seven ethnic groups, to create new forms of managing and fighting fire (see BFI1: The

Xingu Indigenous Park on the fire path).

Scientists monitoring and studying the dynamic of deforestation and degradation in Amazonia agree that a number of interrelated factors exists that increases the forest’s vulnerability to fire (fearn-SiDe, 2005). The main factors described include: 1) the advance of farming in Bolivian and Brazilian Amazonia close to areas of cerrado and dry transition forests, which are already naturally more prone to fire propagation (lauranCe et al., 2001; Steininger et al., 2001); 2) the degradation of forest areas through selective logging, which increases sunlight and wind penetration, lowering the relative humid-ity of the forest (nePStaD et al., 2004), which explains the particular vulnerability to fire of illegal logging zones (VeríSSimo et al., 1992); 3) the severity and duration of the dry season, worsened by the fires themselves, which curb cloud formation and delay the onset of the rainy season (lauranCe et al., 2002); and 4) the fact that trees in Amazonia are not adapted to fire, which means that after the first fire has burnt, the volume of material susceptible to burning and aridity increases, significantly augmenting the intensity of subsequent fires (CoChrane, 2003).

The immediate and most evident consequences of the increase in fires are the loss of diversity in wildlife and plant life, air pollution and the consequent impact on human health, the increase in green-house gas emissions and the reduction in local rainfall due to the smoke.

Recent estimates indicate that the combination of deforestation and climate change may lead to a 50% increase in the occurrence of fires in Amazonia by 2050 (SilVeStrini et al., 2011), intensifying forest degradation and impoverishment.

MethodologyGeoreferenced information on ”hot spots” in Amazonia for the 2000-2010 period was obtained

from Brasil’s National Space Research Institute (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais do Brasil: INPE), taking into account: (i) the recorded date of hotspots, and (ii) the type of sensor used. Only data from the NOAA-12 (from 01/01/2000 to 09/08/2007) and NOAA-15 (from 10/08/2007 to 31/12/2010) satellites were used. For these satellites a hotspot appears as a 1 km² area of high temperature, which may represent the occurrence of a single small fire, several small fires or a larger fire. These satellites cannot detect fires that occur on the ground under the tree cover. To facilitate analysis, the data was

MFI1

Fires (Hot Spots) in Amazonia

Cartographic sources for the theme Fires (Hot Spots): Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais de Brasil (INPE), 2011 (http://www.dpi.inpe.br/proarco/bdqueimadas/). Ocean and relieve: World Physical Map,U.S. National Park Service, in ArcGIS Online Services.

¾ Guyane Française was proportionally the country with the highest number of forest fires in protected areas during the period 2000-2010 (44.7%).

¸ In the arc of deforestation in Brasil, most of the forest fires are recorded in areas of Cerrado, dry forests or transition zones.

Fire, used in traditional agriculture, is no longer restricted to marginal areas; it is advancing deep into Amazonia

the highest number of forest fires were recorded during the years 2002, 2004 and 2005

the southeastern portion of Amazonia, known as the Arc of deforestation (Brasil and Bolivia) is the region

with the highest number of recorded forest fires

the 10 indigenous territories most heavily affected by fire during the period 2000-2010 are located in Bolivia and Brasil

the traditional forms of managing fire used by indigenous peoples will have to adapt to climate change

Ä In 2010 the number of forest fires in the Xingu Indigenous Park reached 884, almost four times as high as 2007, the previous record-high year for fires.

Ä

¾

¸

Burning to convert forest into cattle pasture. São Félix do Xingu, Pará, Brasil. © Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace, 2008

Young man from the Waurá indigenous peoples training to put out fires inside the Xingu Indigenous Park. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Rogério Assis, 2011

RAISG 46 AmAzoniA under Pressure – Fires Fires – AmAzoniA under Pressure 47 RAISG

GFI1. Fires recorded annually in Amazonia over the period 2000-2010

MFI2. Fires in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010 (quantity per 10 km2 squares)GFI2. Fires recorded monthly in Amazonia over the period 2000-2010

represented in 10 km2 boxes and separated into two periods: 2000-2005 and 2006–2010. The infor-mation was analyzed for the following units: Amazonia, Amazonian countries, macro-basins and sub-basins, Protected Natural Areas and Indigenous Territories.

Amazonia as a wholeA total of 1,320,866 fires were recorded for the period 2000-2010. The years with the high-

est number of fires were 2004, 2005 and 2002, in this order (GFI1). There were more fires during the 2000-2005 period (approximately 685,000) than the 2006-2010 period (approximately 551,000).

The largest number of fires occurred in the months of August, September and October, with the highest figures recorded for September 2004 (59,698), August 2005 (51,627) and September 2005 (59,455).

These fires were detected in larger proportion in the southeast of Amazonia (MFI2), a zone called the ‘arc of deforestation’ of Brazilian Amazonia (SChor et al., 2008; Vieira et al., 2008) and Bolivian Amazonia.

Amazonia in each countryA total of 1,194,060 (90%) fires occurred in Brazilian Amazonia during the 2000-2010 period.

The largest numbers occurred in the years 2004 (166,750), 2005 (161,589) and 2002 (157,299), and the lowest in the years 2009 (39,627) and 2000 (66,175). The months with the largest number of fires were August, September and October. It should be emphasized that there are large areas of savannah and drier transition forests within the limits of Brazilian Amazonia, which is where 25.7% of the detected fires occured (GFI2).

Bolivia had the second highest number of recorded fires, a total of 97,033, followed by Ven-ezuela with a total of 19,912. In Perú 4,364 fires were counted, while in Colombia a total of 2,962 were recorded. In Guyana there were 1,619 fires. Finally the countries with fewer than 500 recorded fires were Suriname (490), Guyane Française (369) and Ecuador (57). The annual distribution of fires, except for Brasil, is shown in GFI3.

The largest proportion of fires in Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador, Perú and Venezuela were detected during the 2000-2005 period, while in Colombia, Guyana, Guyane Française and Suriname the high-est numbers were in the 2006-2010 period. The intensity of fires per country in the period 2000-2010 is represented in MFI3.

GFI3. Annual quantity of fires recorded in Brazilian Amazonia over the period 2000-2010

BFI1. Xingu Indigenous Park on the fire path

The 16 indigenous peoples who live in the Xingu Indigenous Park (PIX) – one of the best known indigenous territories in the Brazil-

ian Amazonia, spanning across 280,000 km2 – have discovered a growing tendency for fire, which was always used in traditional

activities, to go out of control: small fires that previously burnt themselves out now very easily become forest fires, while the burning

of vegetation used to clear fields now invades the forest, and so on. In 2010, a very dry year, the number of forest fires inside the PIX

reached 884, almost four times higher than in 2007, which was the year with the most forest fires in a decade. Fire fighting brigades

already exist in many villages.

Forest fires are, at the same time, cause and effect of the profound changes occurring in the Amazon basin (Davidson et al., 2012).

Recent estimates indicate that the combination of deforestation and climate change may increase the occurrence of fires in Amazonia

by almost 50% by 2050, giving rise to a cycle of degradation and loss of biodiversity (Silvestrini et al., 2011). In the Xingu basin,

situated in the transition zone between savannah and forest in the Brazilian Amazonia, fire has increasingly become a threat to socio-

environmental sustainability.

Fire, used to clear lands already deforested for agricultural practices or to open new lands for crops, may escape control and affect

large tracts of forest. Forest fires, including those occurring deep in the forest, without destroying the forest cover immediately, increase

the mortality rate of trees and the opening of the forest canopy, reducing the forest’s humidity, increasing the quantity of dry material

within the forest and making it more susceptible to new blazes (Nepstad et al., 2001). Besides affecting the structure and composition

of the forest, the fires kill off wildlife, provoke the emission of greenhouse gases, worsening global warming, and produce smoke,

which reduces local rainfall and causes respiratory and

other health problems among humans (Cochrane 2003).

The transition forests found in the region formed by

the Xingu’s headwaters are naturally more susceptible to

fire compared to other types of forest, given that they

are smaller, have less dense plant cover and have lower

humidity in the driest months (Ray et al., 2005; Alencar

et al., 2006). This vulnerability is exacerbated by the

high rates of deforestation affecting the region. Hence

these forests are considered one of the ecosystems

most threatened within the Amazon basin. In extremely

dry years, the surface affected by forest fires may be

up to 14 times greater than in normal years (Alencar et

al., 2006). With climate change and the increase in the

desertification of the forest, these events tend to be more

frequent and intense.

Fire, used traditionally by indigenous peoples in their

subsistence activities (for example, to clear fields, gather

honey and to make small campfires during fishing and

hunt trips), has become an ever bigger threat. As the

forest has become more inflammable, traditional man-

agement practices already no longer seem sufficient to

control them. This fact shows the need for traditional

practices to adapt to the climate changes taking place

on the planet. (Adapted from Observing the Xingu basin,

ISA 2012)

MFI3. Quantity of fires per country in Amazonia (2000-2010)

By BasinThe Middle-Lower Amazonas macro-basin presented the highest number of fires, followed by

Tocantins and Madeira. This trend was maintained over the eleven year time span, although more in-tensely during the 2000-2005 period (see TFI1 and MFI4).

The sub-basins with the largest number of fires were the Western Northeast Atlantic S, Teles Pires, Lower Araguaia, Arinos and Lower Tocantins. In all cases, the largest proportion of fires was recorded during the period 2000-2005 (TFI2 and MFI5).

MFI4. Quantity of fires per macro-basin in Amazonia (2000-2010)

TFI1. Fires recorded in the macro-basins of Amazonia over the period 2000-2010Macro-basin 2000-2005 2006-2010 Total

Middle-Lower Amazonas 295,971 130,164 426,135

Tocantins 174,442 116,067 290,509

Madeira 158,919 78,059 236,978

Western Northeast Atlantic 102,024 58,356 160,380

Mouth of the Amazonas/Estuary 47,356 27,186 74,542

Paraná 27,221 16,619 43,840

Upper Amazonas 17,655 7,247 24,902

Orinoco 13,347 5,839 19,186

Negro 12,570 5,478 18,048

Parnaíba 10,325 6,588 16,913

Guyanas/Amapá 5,570 3,565 9,135

Middle Amazonas 156 33 189

São Francisco 31 22 53

RAISG 48 AmAzoniA under Pressure – Fires Fires – AmAzoniA under Pressure 49 RAISG

GFI4. Annual distribution of fires in Amazonia, by country, except Brasil (2000-2010)

MFI5. Quantity of fires per sub-basin in Amazonia (2000-2010)

MFI6. Quantity of fires per PNA in Amazonia (2000-2010)

MFI7. Quantity of fires per IT in Amazonia (2000-2010)

GFI5. Distribution of fires in ITs in Amazonia, by type of territory (2000-2010)

By Protected AreaThe total number of fires recorded within PNAs was 101,546 (8% of the total recorded in Ama-

zonia). The largest number of fires (58,591) were recorded in departmental direct use PNAs, followed by national direct use PNAs (18,894), national direct use PNAs (16,262) and departmental indirect use PNAs (7,765) (GFI4 and TFI3).

At national level Brasil recorded the highest number of fires within PNAs (83,399), which repre-sents 82.1% of the total recorded in all PNAs. Fires registered inside PNAs in Brasil represent 7% of the total fires recorded in the country. The highest proportions of fires within PNAs compared to the national total were found in Guyane Française (44.7%) and Ecuador (42.1%) (TFI4 and MFI6). The second high-est number of fires inside PNAs was recorded in Bolivia with 15,242 fires in total, representing 15.7% of the national total and 15% of the Amazonian total. The ten PNAs with the highest number of fires are located in Brasil and Bolivia (TFI5).

By Indigenous LandThe total number of fires recorded during the years from 2000 to 2010 inside Indigenous Ter-

ritories (ITs) was 90,307 (7% of the total recorded in Amazonia). The largest proportion of fires was recorded in officially recognized ITs (70,256), followed by areas earmarked for the creation of territorial reserves (11,912), traditionally occupied areas without official recognition (8,121) and finally territorial reserves or intangible zones (18) (GFI5 and TFI6).

At the national level Brasil registered 59,137 fires within ITs, representing 5% of the total number of fires recorded in the country and 65.5% of the total recorded in ITs within Amazonia. In Bolivia, for its part, the number of fires within ITs was 21,993, equivalent to 22.7% of the fires in the country and 24.4% of the total in Amazonia. In Venezuela 7,907 fires were registered in ITs, amounting to 39.7% of fires in the country and 8.8% of the total recorded in Amazonia. The highest proportion of fires in ITs at national level was recorded in Perú (45.6%) (TFI7 and MCF7). The ten ITs with the highest number of fires are located in Brasil and Bolivia (TFI8).

ConclusionThe highest concentration of fires coincides with Amazonia’s ‘arc of deforestation,’ a zone dis-

tinguished by the rapid advance of farming. There were proportionally fewer fires within the PNAs and ITs, which emphasizes their role as ‘social and natural barriers’ that limit the expansion of fires. The low number of fires inside PNAs and ITs may also be explained in large part by the fact that they are normally located in zones with moderate or low populations. In addition the adequate management of fire is linked to the traditional knowledge and practices still used by indigenous and rural peoples living in these territorial units. On the other hand, the ‘arc of deforestation’ zone coincides with the cerrado biome and drier transition forests that form part of Brazilian Amazonia and where fire is a historical and natural element of the ecology of their landscapes.

TFI2. Ten sub-basins of Amazonia with the highest number of fires (2000-2010)Sub-basin 2000-2005 2006-2010 Total

Western Northeast Atlantic (South) 63,354 37,821 101,175

Teles Pires 65,349 16,652 82,001

Lower Araguaia 47,085 28,118 75,203

Arinos 38,622 12,744 51,366

Lower Tocantins 32,926 15,754 48,680

Guaporé 26,849 11,546 38,395

Middle-Lower Tocantins 2 23,046 13,887 36,933

Pindaré 22,848 12,512 35,360

Middle Xingu 18,655 16,627 35,282

Mamoré 24,681 9,805 34,486

TFI3. Fires recorded in PNAs in Amazonia (2000-2010)

PNA administrative

sphere and type of use

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Tota

l

National - Direct Use 793 1,293 1,613 1,626 2,875 2,184 1,376 1,561 1,295 536 1,110 16,262

National - Indirect Use

801 1,678 2,027 2,138 2,473 2,431 1,319 1,990 1,280 608 2,149 18,894

National - Direct/Indirect Use

4 5 1 1 11

National - Transitory Use

12 1 4 3 3 23

Departmental - Direct Use

3,414 3,586 7,043 5,311 7,590 8,418 5,595 5,511 5,455 1,931 4,737 58,591

Departmental - Indirect Use 410 777 702 736 827 1,152 331 759 552 182 1,337 7,765

Total 5,430 7,334 11,386 9,811 13,769 14,188 8,621 9,825 8,590 3,258 9,334 101,546

TFI4. Fires recorded in PNAs in Amazonia by country (2000-2010)Country Fires in PNA Total fires % of total fires % of total fires in PNA

Brasil 83,399 1,194.060 7.0 82.1

Bolivia 15,242 97,033 15.7 15.0

Venezuela 2,098 19,912 10.5 2.1

Colombia 278 2,962 9.4 0.3

Perú 186 4,364 4.3 0.2

Guyane Française 165 369 44.7 0.2

Suriname 138 490 28.2 0.1

Ecuador 24 57 42.1 0.0

Guyana 16 1,619 1.0 0.0

Total 101,546 1,320.866 7.7 100.0

TFI5. The ten PNAs of Amazonia with the highest number of fires in the period 2000-2010Category PNA Country Number of fires Area (km2)

APA (D) Triunfo do Xingu Brasil 10,849 16,833

APA (D) Leandro (Ilha do Bananal/Cantão) Brasil 7,304 15,703

APA (D) Baixada Ocidental Maranhense Brasil 7,264 17,963

APA (D) Reentrâncias Maranhenses Brasil 4,950 26,630

FN Jamanxim Brasil 4,065 21,770

PDyANMI (D) Iténez Bolivia 3,409 14,308

PN Araguaia Brasil 2,924 5,500

FE Rio Preto-Jacundá Brasil 2,518 11,668

ANMI (D) Santos Reyes Bolivia 2,418 9,042

APM Pampas del Río Yacuma Bolivia 2,185 5,985

TFI6. Fires recorded in ITs in Amazonia (2000-2010)

IT Type

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

tota

l

IT officially recognized

3,373 5,343 7,460 5,931 8,575 7,808 4,468 8,168 5,515 2,118 11,497 70,256

IT not officially recognized

393 1,220 661 1,889 858 749 544 951 507 156 193 8,121

Proposed Territorial Reservation

880 519 1,865 984 2,052 1,597 810 870 1,090 384 861 11,912

Territorial Reservation 2 1 1 1 3 6 2 2 18

Total 4,648 7,082 9,986 8,804 11,486 10,155 5,823 9,992 7,118 2,660 12,553 90,307

TFI7. Fires in ITs in Amazonia. by country (2000-2010)Country Fires in IT Total fires % of total fires % of total fires in IT

Brasil 59,137 1,194.060 5.0 65.5

Bolivia 21,993 97,033 22.7 24.4

Venezuela 7,907 19,912 39.7 8.8

Colombia 350 2,962 9.9 0.5

Ecuador 26 57 11.8 0.4

Guyana 261 1,619 16.1 0.3

Guyane Française 23 369 35.9 0.2

Perú 434 4,364 45.6 0.0

Suriname 176 490 6.2 0.0

Total 90,307 1,320.866 6.8 100.0

TFI8. The ten ITs in Amazonia with the highest density of fires in the period 2000-2010Indigenous Territory Country Number of fires Area (km2)

PI Araguaia Brasil 8,843 13,585

TI Maraiwatsede Brasil 3,385 1,652

TCO Guarayos Bolivia 3,189 21,030

TCO Itonoma Bolivia 2,737 12,635

Pemón Venezuela 2,382 s,i,

TCO Cayubaba Bolivia 2,229 7,531

PI Xingu Brasil 2,188 26,420

TI Inãwébohona Brasil 2,088 3,771

TCO Cavineño Bolivia 2,044 5,713

TCO TIPNIS (Isiboro Sécure) Bolivia 2,030 11,808

RAISG 50 AmAzoniA under Pressure – deForestAtion deForestAtion – AmAzoniA under Pressure 51 RAISG

Deforestation in Amazonia results from a complex process of land use change, which leads to the replacement of forest by roads, farming, mining activities, areas assigned to the

construction of large infrastructural works and urban growth. It negatively affects ecosystem services by generating changes that alter or deteriorate the climate, biodiversity and sources of clean water, and results in soil erosion, depletion of nutrients, damage to regulatory functions in the hydrographic basins and greenhouse gas emissions (carbon and nitrogen cycles, among others) (fearnSiDe, 2005; PaCheCo et al., 2011; SPraCKlen et al., 2012). From the viewpoint of biodiversity, the number of species affected in Amazonia is unknown (Barreto et al., 2006). In terms of number of organisms, it is estimated that 50 million birds were affected by the loss of 26,000 km2 of Amazon rainforest between 2003 and 2004 (Vieira et al., 2005). The number of primates affected over this same period was estimated at two million individuals (Vieira et al., 2005). In addition deforestation of tropical forests – whose largest expanses are located in South America and Africa – contributes to 20% of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2 (Denman & BraSSeur, 2007).

The FAO has published reports on deforestations since 1984. The results of the 2010 assess-ment indicate that forests are recovering at global level, but higher rates of deforestation persist in tropi-cal regions, such as Amazonia, where the forests have been converted primarily into farmland (PaCheCo et al., 2011). Among the main causes of deforestation are the expansion of farming, predatory models of forest logging, mining extraction, oil and gas production and transport, construction of infrastructure (access roads, reservoirs and dams, power transmission lines, oil and gas pipeline), and so on. Al-though there are many studies on deforestation in Amazonia, especially Brazilian Amazonia (DuChelle, 2009; almeyDa et al., 2010; PaCheCo et al., 2011; roSa et al., 2012), no assessment have yet been made at a macro-regional level, incorporating Andean Amazonia and the Guiana region.

ContextThe process of deforestation in the nine Amazonian countries began to accelerate from the

1970s onwards. Contingents of rural populations from other more crowded regions were encouraged to colonize and farm Amazonian forestlands. Government programs in Ecuador, Perú and Brasil en-couraged deforestation as a prerequisite for being granted ownership of the new lands. This process, more so than others, changed the patterns of territorial occupation of Amazonia.

Over the last 30 years more than 70 million hectares of Amazonian tropical forest have been cut down (approximately 9% of Amazonia), principally in Brasil (Pnuma & otCa, 2009) where deforestation was responsible for more than 70% of all green house gas emissions in the country (monti, 2010).

The main impacts of deforestation in Amazonia include: loss of biodiversity, reduction of the water cycle and rainfall, as well as contribution to global warming (fearnSiDe, 2005). Additionally diverse studies have confirmed its negative effects on human health, the best documented case thus far being the propagation of malaria (olSon et al., 2010).

The causes of deforestation vary from country to country. Extensive industrial farming and cattle ranching is the predominant motive for deforestation in Brasil, while the main cause in Bolivia and Co-lombia is the conversion of forests to small farms. It is estimated that more than 60% of the deforested area is initially used for cattle ranching, later followed, in some countries, by agricultural production.

In Perú the main causes of deforestation are mining activities, oil production and the opening up of roads to lay the oil pipelines. In Ecuador oil exploration and colonization are the main drivers of deforestation in Amazonia. The expansion of illegal coca crops is also a significant cause of deforesta-tion in Colombia, Bolivia and Perú (unoDC, 2011).

In Guyana, Guyane Française and Suriname the growth in timber exports and monocropping for the production of biofuels are identified as the main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the region. In Venezuela, meanwhile, deforestation is related primarily to illegal mining activities and tourism (Pnuma anD otCa, 2009).

In the Brazilian case, considered the most critical for Amazonia as a whole, deforestation is clearly related to cattle ranching, mechanized monocrop farming and logging. Although deforesta-tion rates in Amazonia have fallen over the last five years, specialists agree that considerable in-

dEFoREStAtIon

MdE1

deforestation in Amazonia

Cartographic sources for the theme Deforestation:: • For all countries, except Brasil: RAISG, 2012 • Brasil: Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais - INPE, 2011 (http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodesdigital). Ocean and relieve: World Physical Map, U.S. National Park Service, in ArcGIS Online Services.

¾ the sub-basins with losses equal to or over 10% of their forest cover were the Middle-Lower Madeira, Arinos, Juruena and Candeias do Jamari.

¸ the renewed farming and logging activities in the Colombian Amazonia is putting pressure on the headwaters of the Caquetá and Vaupés Rivers.

In 2000, the area covered by forest in Amazonia corresponded to 68.8% of the entire region (5.3 million km2)

Between 2000 and 2010, the total area covered by forest was reduced by 4.5% (240,000 km2), with the highest levels of

deforestation occurring in Brasil, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador

Between 2005 and 2010, the pace of deforestation was reduced, primarily due to a reduction in forest loss in Brasil

deforestation inside PnAs and Its is well below the average for the Amazonian region

deforestation increased in the Andean countries, especially in Colombia

Ä though begun in 1960, deforestation in the basin of the Xingu river has increased over the last decade: more than 35000 km2 of native vegetation were lost.

Ä

¾

¸

Deforestation and fires surrounding the Xingu Indigenous Park. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Pedro Martinelli/ISA, 2003

Burning forest to extend soy cultivation, on the borders of the Xingu Indigenous Park. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Pedro Martinelli/ISA, 2003

RAISG 52 AmAzoniA under Pressure – deForestAtion deForestAtion – AmAzoniA under Pressure 53 RAISG

creases are expected over the next few years as a result of the relaxation evident in recently approved environmental legislation and the increase in the international price of grains, particularly soybeans and maize.

MethodologyTo evaluate the geographic patterns of the impact of deforestation in Amazonia, two sources of

information were used:

1. for Andean Amazonia (Colombia, Ecuador, Perú and Bolivia) and the Guianas (Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana and Guyane Française) the analysis used preliminary data produced by RAISG for the periods 2000-2005 and 2005-2010, obtained using the Spectral Mixture Analy-sis method and a decision tree algorithm (see BDF1: Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-

Amazonian region).

2. for Brazilian Amazonia, the analysis used data on deforestation produced by Prodes (Brazil-ian Amazon Rainforest Satellite Monitoring Project), published by INPE (National Institute For Space Research) in 2011, which cover the period 2000-2010. For the purposes of comparison, this data was grouped into two periods: 2000-2005 and 2005-2010.

In both cases the year 2000 was taken as a baseline (base map). Deforestation was analyzed for the Amazon region as a whole, for Amazonia in each country, by macro-basin and sub-basin, by Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) and by Indigenous Territories (ITs).

Amazonia as a wholeThe area of forest present in Amazonia in 2000 was equivalent to 68.8% of the entire region

(5,357,001 km2) (TDF1). On the 2000 base map (used to assess deforestation in the decade from 2000 to 2010) we can see large tracts of unforested areas which include large areas that were origi-nally not forested, as well as those areas deforested prior to 2000 (MDF2).

Over the period 2000-2010, this forest cover was reduced by 4.5% (approximately 240,000 km2), equivalent to almost half the Colombian Amazonia. This deforestation primarily occurred in the southern part of the Brazilian Amazonia, known as the ‘arc of deforestation’ (MDF3). The loss of forest for the area under evaluation was greater during the 2000-2005 period (163,020 km2, 3% of the forest existing in 2000) in comparison with the 2005-2010 period (76,922 km2, 1.4%). This trend matches the findings published by the FAO (2010), which reported a diminution in forest loss over the 2005-2010 period compared to 2000-2005.

Cloud cover in the satellite imagery makes it difficult to obtain a more precise panorama of what is happening on the ground. In regional terms cloud cover rose from 2.2 in the first period to 3.6% in the second; however, the particular situation varies among the countries. Ecuador is the most

BdF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean Amazonia region

Information on deforestation in the Andean Amazonia is fragmented, out of date, based on different sources, methodolo-

gies and resolutions, both spatial and temporal and not always available.

RAISG analyzed deforestation in Amazonia in an integrated manner at the regional level, using an appropriate methodol-

ogy and spatial/temporal resolutions. The first step was to produce a base map for the year 2000 and then, as a second

step, to assess deforestation in two periods: 2000-2005 and 2005-2010. The work of interpretation began in 2010, based

on training courses supervised by Imazon, and the adaptation of a single methodology by the RAISG team to all the Andean

and Guianese Amazonia countries.

The results of this assessment are presented in this publication. These results are preliminary, first of all, because the

analysis of the Brazilian Amazonia is still in progress. For this reason, the maps in this Atlas use the results of a deforesta-

tion study conducted for Brazil by INPE through Prodes. Secondly, a validation phase, needed for all countries, is currently

under way. Even so the information published here provides a good idea of the impact of deforestation on the Amazonian

ecosystem.

Landsat satellite imagery was employed for the analysis of deforestation. This enabled a study of the entire area with

a detailed spatial resolution. It should be emphasized that it is the same satellite used by the INPE study in Brazil. Each

Landsat image covers an area of 185 km x 185 km denominated a scene. Figure 1 and Table 1 show the scenes that cover

Amazonia. RAISG was unable to obtain good quality images for three scenes covering Guyana during these three dates.

The area mapped, denominated the effective area of

study, corresponds to the area for which scenes were

found on the three dates – 2000, 2005 and 2010 – to

which the analyses were applied.

The 2000 base map (baseline) was established

identifying for each scene: forested areas, non-forested

areas, areas covered by water and areas covered by

clouds. At this point the non-forested areas were not

differentiated in terms of whether they were originally

non-forested or whether they had been deforested at

some time before the year 2000. For the years 2005

and 2010 the deforested areas were identified in rela-

tion to the baseline. The effective area analyzed repre-

sented 99% of the Amazonian territory where Guyana was the only country with a relatively high proportion unanalyzed

(23%) (Figure 1). For the other countries this figure was lower than 2%.

The methodology used to identify the forest cover mentioned was based on Spectral Mixture Analysis, combined with a

tree decision algorithm, developed initially by Imazon and later adapted by RAISG’s technical team.

The design of a precision assessment methodology based on maps derived from teledetection requires the application

of protocols that ensure statistical rigor and at the same time an adaptation to the practical realities related to cost limits

(Strahler et al., 2006).

The validation process involves comparing the information from the generated map with reference information consid-

ered to be highly reliable. Generally it is based on samples from verification spots whose classification was obtained either

from field observations or more detailed analysis of the images than those used to generate the map.

The complete and validated data on deforestation, including a methodological description of the entire process, will be

published in 2013, in a special edition for this extremely important topic.

Landsat images coverage for Amazonia

Number of analized Landsat Images by countryBolivia 30

Brasil 214

Colombia 26

Ecuador 8

Guyana 4

Guyane Française 6

Perú 41

Suriname 11

Venezuela 29

MDF3. Deforestation in Amazonia in the periods 2000-2005 and 2005-2010

affected with cloud cover varying between 10 and 13%, followed by Guyana, Guyane Française, Perú and Venezuela. In the case of Brasil, the data shows cloud cover remained constant between 2000 and 2010, corresponding to 5.9% of the area under analysis, though mostly located over areas little af-fected by deforestation.

Amazonia in each countryIn 2000 Amazonia was covered by forests across 68.8% of its surface area (TDF1) with Brasil

containing 58.1% of these forests. In terms of relative area per country, Guyane Française, Perú, Colom-bia and Venezuela have the highest forest cover with values that exceed 80% of the total surface area of Amazonia in their countries, while Brasil and Bolivia have the lowest percentages (62.1 and 64.1% respectively). This also results from the fact that the latter countries have a wider variety of non-forest

Illustration of the deforestation assessment process

The following figure shows a sequential example of the classification on three different dates of a portion of the Landsat

7-66 scene at a point along the Aguaytía River, an affluent of the Ucayali River, in the Peruvian Department of Ucayali. The

first shows the construction of the ‘baseline,’ where the originally non-forested areas, like savannahs, were classified as

‘non-forest’ along with areas already deforested by this date. This baseline was then used to determine the deforestation

during the periods 2000-2005 and 2005-2010. Given the limitations in the availability of high quality images with low

amounts of cloud cover, the reference year 2000 may have been based on scenes taken within the period between 1998

and 2002, the reference year 2005 on scenes taken between 2003 and 2007, and finally the year 2010 on scenes taken

between 2008 and 2011.

Aerial view of deforestation associated with the Inter-Oceanic Highway, in Perú. © Rhett A. Butler/mongabay.com, 2011

MDF2. Base map of soil cover in Amazonia, year 2000

RAISG 54 AmAzoniA under Pressure – deForestAtion deForestAtion – AmAzoniA under Pressure 55 RAISG

MDF6. Proportion of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia for the period 2000-2005

BdF2. the arm of deforestation in the It and PnA corridor in the Xingu basin

The Xingu River flows for approximately 2,700 km across the northeast of the states of Mato Grosso and Pará in Brazil, until it

reaches the Amazon River. Its basin, covering around 511,000 km2, contains one of the largest continuous mosaics of protected

areas in Brazil, forming a corridor of socio-environmental diversity encompassing more than 280,000 km2, composed of 20 Indig-

enous Territories and 10 Protected Natural Areas.

Deforestation in the Xingu basin first appeared in the 1960s, driven by the government colonization projects and private enter-

prise. As in other regions of Amazonia, deforestation expanded primarily throughout the network of roads that emerged following

the construction of the main highways.

Examining the last decade, deforestation in the Xingu basin increased in the period from 2000 to 2005, when more than 35,000

km2 of native vegetation were lost. From 2005 onwards there was a reduction in deforestation, following the trend in the Brazilian

Amazonia in general, probably due to the combination of economic factors, such as the fluctuation in raw material prices, and the

alterations in government command and control actions, with emphasis on the Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in

Legal Amazonia (Trancoso et al., 2010; Macedo et al., 2012). The creation and divulgation in 2008 by the Ministry of the Environ-

ment of a list of the municipalities with the highest amount of deforestation and the moratorium on soya and meat are also factors

contributing to the reduction in deforestation in the region (Macedo et al., 2012).

As of the year 2010, more than 105,000 km2 were deforested in the Xingu basin, representing 22% of the basin, according to

the monitoring undertaken by INPE (in the forested area) and by ISA (in the cerrado area).

Although indigenous territories occupy around 40% of the surface area of the Xingu basin, less than 3% of the total deforesta-

tion occurs in them. Likewise the national conservation units occupy approximately 14% of the basin but contain just 1.4% of total

deforestation.

Most of the deforestation occurs precisely in the headwaters of the Xingu River, causing alterations to the hydrological and

biochemical processes across the basin.

One of the main areas of occupation in the basin is found in the region of the municipalities of Tucumã and São Félix de Xingu, in

the East, where cattle ranching is the predominant economic activity. São Félix has the largest deforested surface area in the basin

(16,900 km2) – and is also the city with the largest cattle herd in Brazil – while Tucumã has the highest percentage of deforestation

within a single municipality (90.5%).

An important route for

spreading new settlement is the

BR-163 highway, which cross-

es the western part of the ba-

sin. Plans for its paving in 2004

increased the dispute over land

and encouraged deforesta-

tion in the region of the mu-

nicipalities of Novo Progresso

and Castelo dos Sonhos. The

most recent impact in the ba-

sin can be observed in the area

around the Baú IT. To the north

of the basin, deforestation is

produced by the proliferation

of secondary roads spreading

out from the BR-230 (Trans-

Amazonian Highway).

The headwaters of the Xingu

are seen as highly favorable to

agribusiness due to their soil

characteristics, topography and

rainfall patterns.

In the Mato Grosso portion

of the basin, the oldest and

predominant form of colonial

occupation was cattle ranching

and logging in the west. In the

south, one finds a mixture of

cattle ranching and agriculture.

Since the start of the 1990s

soya has advanced in parts of

the south and east of the basin,

replacing areas of pasture and

forest, pushing cattle ranch-

ing westwards and provoking

increased deforestation and

increased activity in the land

market. (Adapted from Observ-

ing the Xingu basin, ISA/2012)

IT and PNA corridor in the Xingu basin, Brasil* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

GDF1. . Distribution of forest loss in Amazonia for the periods 2000-2005 and 2005-2010, by country

ecosystems within the Amazonian area, such as the seasonally flooded savannahs of the Llanos de Moxos in Bolivia, and a large extent of savannah (cerrado) across the entire southeast of the Brazilian Amazonia, as well as large enclaves of savannah, such as the ‘Lavrado’ in Roraima state in the north of Brasil (MDF2).

The deforestation evaluated in the 2000-2010 period took place mostly in Brasil, which had a 6.2% loss of forest cover, followed by Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador with rates of 2.8%, 2.5% and 2.4% respectively. The countries with the lowest deforestation levels were Guyane Française and Suriname with less than 1%. The forest loss in Brasil represented 80.4% of the total forest cut down during the period under analysis, followed by Perú with 6.2% and Colombia with 5%. The analyses by five-year period indicate that total forest loss for the 2005-2010 period was generally lower with the exception of Perú, Colombia and Guyane Française (TDF2 and GDF1). In the latter two cases deforestation rose from 1.2 to 1.6% and from 0.3 to 0.4% respectively, while in Perú the rate remained at 1.1% during both pe-riods. During the two five-year periods Brasil was the country with the largest proportion of forest loss, followed during the first half of the decade by Bolivia with 1.4% and Ecuador and Guyana with 1.3% and in the second half by Colombia with 1.6% and Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana and Perú, the latter countries with a loss of 1.1%. Over the two periods Suriname was the country with the largest relative reduction in forest loss (from 0.7% to 0.1%), followed by Brasil (from 4.5% to 1.7%).

MDF4. Proportion of deforestation from 2000 to 2010 in Amazonia, by country

By BasinThe macro-basins most affected by deforestation during the 2000-2010 period were the Mouth

of the Amazonas/Estuary and the Western Northeast Atlantic, both in Brasil, which lost 9.7 and 6.2% of their forest cover respectively. In third place was the Middle-Lower Amazonas macro-basin with a loss of 5.2% of its forest cover. These three basins are located in Mato Grosso and Pará, the states with the highest deforestation rates in Brazilian Amazonia over recent years (MDF5).

During the 2000-2005 period the sub-basins with losses of forest cover equal to or over 10% were the Middle-Lower Madeira, Arinos, Juruena and Candeias do Jamari (MDF6). Furthermore the 32 most heavily deforested sub-basins (with more than 3.8% forest loss) are found in Brasil. Other sub-basins were identified in Perú (Pachitea and Huallaga), Colombia (Caquetá) and Bolivia (Mamoré), which had a deforestation rate of more than 2% of their total forest cover.

For the 2005-2010 period two sub-basins in Brasil (Middle-Lower Madeira 2 and Pacajá) had the highest levels of deforestation (7.2 and 6.6 % respectively) (MDF7).

Sub-basins were detected in Colombia, Perú and Bolivia that experienced an increase in deforestation between the periods 2000-2005 and 2005-2010. Rates in the Colombian sub-basins of the Caquetá and the Yari increased from 2.4 to 3.9% and from 0.6 to 2.2% respectively, indicating that deforestation is occurring in new geographic areas in this country. In Perú the Middle Marañon, Urubamba and Lower Ucayali sub-basins also saw an increase in deforestation, but at levels lower

MDF5. Proportion of deforestation from 2000 to 2010 in the macro-basins of Amazonia

than 1%. The same also occured in Bolivia, on the border with Perú, in the Lower and Middle Beni sub-basins (MDF8). Some sub-basins in the south-southeast of Brasil saw a reduction in deforestation during the second period, possibly the result of government intervention through the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in Legal Amazonia (PPCDAm), implemented in 2004.

TDF1. Relative distribution of Amazonia and Amazonian forest by country in the year 2000Country Amazon surface (km²) % of total % of forest in 2000 % of total forest

Bolivia 479,264 6.2 64.1 5.7

Brasil 5,006.316 64.3 62.1 58.1

Colombia 483,164 6.2 88.7 8.0

Ecuador 116,284 1.5 76.3 1.7

Guyana 214,969 2.8 65.3 2.6

Guyane Française 86,504 1.1 92.4 1.5

Perú 782,820 10.1 89.5 13.1

Suriname 163,820 2.1 79.8 2.4

Venezuela 453,915 5.8 81.6 6.9

Total 7,787.056 100.0 68.8 100.0

TDF2. Deforestation in Amazonia in the periods 2000-20005 and 2005-2010. by country

CountryForest in 2000

Deforestation 2000-2005

Deforestation 2005-2010

Deforestation 2000-2010

% of total

(km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (%)

Bolivia 307,123 64.1 4,187 1.4 3,494 1.1 7,682 2.5 3.2

Brasil 3,110.668 62.1 138,804 4.5 54,181 1.7 192,985 6.2 80.4

Colombia 428,498 88.7 5,170 1.2 6,816 1.6 11,986 2.8 5.0

Ecuador 88,361 76.0 1,171 1.3 965 1.1 2,136 2.4 0.9

Guyana 140,411 65.3 1,800 1.3 1,488 1.1 3,288 2.3 1.4

Guyane Française 79,916 92.4 210 0.3 293 0.4 502 0.6 0.2

Perú 700,738 89.5 7,365 1.1 7,674 1.1 14,974 2.1 6.2

Suriname 130,719 79.8 938 0.7 191 0.1 1,130 0.9 0.5

Venezuela 370,567 81.6 3,375 0.9 1,820 0.5 5,195 1.4 2.2

Total 5,357.001 68.8 163,020 3.0 76,922 1.4 239,942 4.5 100.0

RAISG 56 AmAzoniA under Pressure – deForestAtion deForestAtion – AmAzoniA under Pressure 57 RAISG

MDF8. Evolution of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010

GDF2. Distribution of forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia, by type of use and period (2000-2005 and 2005-2010)

MDF9. Proportion of deforestation per PNA in Amazonia

GDF3. Distribution of forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010, by country and type of use

By Protected AreasThe Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) maintained 78.6% of their areas covered by forests in 2000.

In ten years (2000-2010) this area was reduced by 2.1%. As would be expected with the PNAs function-ing as conservation units, this rate is lower than that found in unprotected lands where deforestation is more than double (5.6%), and lower too than the regional average (4.5%). This reveals the strong pressure exerted on the area of Amazonia not included in PNAs, which has less forest cover (64.8% compared to 78.6%). Within the PNAs we can observe the same reduction between the 2000-2005 and 2005-2010 periods (TDF3 and GDF2). Analyzing the PNA use types, areas for direct use show a loss of forest up to three times as high as those areas for indirect use. This tendency was particularly strong in the departmental PNAs, which saw a forest loss of 3% over the decade 2000-2010.

MDF7. Proportion of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia for the period 2005-2010 The trend towards higher levels of deforestation in direct use PNAs was identified in all coun-tries. Brazil maintained high levels of alteration (1.3%), with the direct use departmental PNAs present-ing a deforestation rate of 3.3% (TDF4 and GDF3). This is explained in part by the fact that in Brazil the direct use PNAs include Environmental Protection Areas (Áreas de Proteção Ambiental: APA), which have a highly permissive use system, including urban and private areas within their borders. The APAs accounted for 49.5% of all deforestation among this group of PNAs in Brasil.

The variation in the percentage of loss across the different countries was highly significant, as were the variations within the same country (MDF9 and TDF5). Brasil had the PNAs with the highest percentages of deforestation during the decade, reaching as high as 41.3% in the APA Rio Pardo. This recently created APA (2010) is one of the PNAs in Rondônia state whose category and use type were altered, including the consolidation of the illegal occupation of the National Forest that had already taken place. In the other countries the percentages found in the PNAs were less than 10.7% as. For example, in the North Commewijne/Marowijne Multiple Management area in Suriname, or the PN Alto Fragua-Indiwasi in Colombia, 9.6% of its forest was lost.

By Indigenous territoriesIn 2000, 81.4% of the ITs in Amazonia were covered by forest. The deforestation that took

place over the period 2000-2010 removed 0.9% of the forest cover of the ITs. This figure is much lower (five times) than the deforestation verified in the region as a whole (4.5%), less than half the average for PNAs and almost seven times less than the average of areas outside of the ITs (MDF10

and TDF6).

Although there was a reduction in deforestation inside ITs – with a rate of 0.5% in the five-year period of 2000-2005 falling to 0.4% in 2005-2010 – the downward trend in these lands was observed to be less than regional level, and less than outside the ITs, where a reduction from 4.3% to 2.0% was seen. At regional level the officially recognized ITs had less deforestation than the unrecognized lands (TDF6 and GDF4), while at national level, where Bolivia and Perú are the only countries in the region that present both types of IT, recognized and unrecognized – differences were observable between these categories. In Bolivia the regional pattern was repeated with recognized ITs losing up to 0.5% of their forest cover and unrecognized ITs 3.3%. In Perú it was observed that unrecognized ITs have lower per-centage rates than recognized lands (0.9 and 2.2% respectively) (TDF7). In relation to ITs per country, the highest deforestation rates were detected in Guyana and Bolivia, followed by Ecuador and Perú, while in national terms, without distinguishing between categories of IT, Guyana showed the highest forest loss (3.9%).

Forty-one ITs were found with forest losses higher than 20% of their total cover. Most of these (34) have a total area below 100 km2 or are located in Perú (26). The IT most affected was Huascayacu in Perú, where deforestation reached 50.5% of its area (TDF8).

TDF3. Forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010. by type of use and administrative sphere

PNA Forest in 2000Deforestation

2000-2005 2005-2010 2000-2010

Type of use/Administrative sphere (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%)

Direct Use 687,569 74.7 8,864 3.0 5,265 0.7 14,130 2.1

Departmental 318,632 64.2 6,005 1.9 3,418 1.1 9,423 3.0

National 368,937 87.1 2,859 0.8 1,847 0.5 4,706 1.3

Indirect Use 735,979 81.8 3,700 0.5 1,781 0.2 5,481 0.7

Departmental 92,503 71.6 404 0.4 88 0.1 492 0.5

National 643,476 83.5 3,296 0.5 1,692 0.3 4,989 0.8

Direct/Indirect Use 3,979 93.5 2 0.1 5 0.1 7 0.2

National 3,979 95.5 2 0.1 5 0.1 7 0.2

Transitory Use 33,426 98.7 35 0.1 49 0.1 84 0.3

National 33,426 98.7 35 0.1 49 0.1 84 0.3

Total 1,460.954 78.6 12,602 1.7 7,100 0.5 19,701 2.1* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

TDF4. Forest loss in the PNAs of Amazonia in the period 2000-2010. by country

PNA Forest in 2000Deforestation

2000-2005 2005-2010 2000-2010

Type of use Administrative sphere (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%)

Bolívia 100,434 74.7 299 0.3 339 0.3 638 0.6

Direct Use Departmental 38,608 65.6 90 0.2 130 0.3 220 0.6

Direct Use National 28,990 81.8 141 0.5 128 0.4 269 0.9

Direct/Indirect Use National 282 65.1 0 0.1 0.0 0 0.1

Indirect Use National 32,554 82.1 67 0.2 82 0.3 149 0.5

Brasil 858,447 73.0 10,074 0.9 5,086 0.4 15,161 1.3

Direct Use Departmental 280,024 64.0 5,915 2.1 3,288 1.2 9,203 3.3

Indirect Use Departmental 92,503 71.6 404 0.4 88 0.1 492 0.5

Direct Use National 249,230 85.3 2,356 0.9 1,272 0.5 3,628 1.5

Indirect Use National 236,690 74.9 1,400 0.6 437 0.2 1,837 0.8

Colombia 76,319 95.7 409 0.5 455 0.6 864 1.1

Indirect Use National 76,319 95.7 409 0.5 455 0.6 864 1.1

Ecuador 30,424 78.9 138 0.5 131 0.4 268 0.9

Indirect Use National 30,424 78.9 138 0.5 131 0.4 268 0.9

Guyana 9,081 97.3 46 0.5 18 0.2 65 0.7

Direct/Indirect Use National 3,696 99.0 2 0.1 5 0.1 7 0.2

Indirect Use National 5,385 96.1 44 0.8 14 0.2 58 1.1

Guyane Française 38,396 96.3 52 0.1 67 0.2 118 0.3

Direct Use National 15,241 96.1 30 0.2 44 0.3 74 0.5

Indirect Use National 23,155 96.5 22 0.1 22 0.1 44 0.2

Perú 179,498 95.2 331 0.2 669 0.4 1,000 0.6

Direct Use National 73,843 94.5 210 0.3 386 0.5 596 0.8

Indirect Use National 72,229 94.5 85 0.1 235 0.3 320 0.4

Transitory Use National 33,426 98.7 35 0.1 49 0.1 84 0.3

Suriname 18,794 87.2 143 0.8 23 0.1 166 0.9

Direct Use National 1,634 80.5 123 7.5 17 1.0 139 8.5

Indirect Use National 17,160 87.9 21 0.1 6 0.0 27 0.2

Venezuela 149,561 87.3 1,109 0.7 311 0.2 1,421 0.9

Indirect Use National 149,561 87.3 1,109 0.7 311 0.2 1,421 0.9

* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

TDF5. PNAs most affected by deforestation in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010. by countryPNA Deforestation

Category Name Type of use Sphere Area (km²)

2000-2005 (km²)

2005-2010 (km²)

% Total

Bolivia

Integrated Management Natural Area

Amboró Direct National 1,302 31 31 4.7

Regional Park Yacuma Direct Departmental 2,356 30 46 3.2

Area of Watersheds Protection

Cumbre Alto Beni Direct Departmental 852 14 5 2.1

Brasil

Environmental Protection Area

Rio Pardo Direct Departmental 1,436 307 287 41.3

Extractive Reserve Jaci Paraná Direct Departmental 2,102 194 315 24.2

Environmental Protection Area

Triunfo do Xingu Direct Departmental 16,833 2,238 1,430 21.8

Colombia

Natural National Park Alto Fragua-Indiwasi Indirect National 552 28 24 9.6

Natural National Park Tinigua Indirect National 2,268 69 100 7.4

Natural National Park Sierra de la Macarena Indirect National 6,123 64 133 3.2

Ecuador

Protection Forest Cerro Sumaco Indirect National 987 30 28 5.9

Protection Forest Corazon de Oro Indirect National 363 9 9 5.0

Protection Forest El Bermejo Indirect National 109 2 2 3.7

Guyana

National Park Shell Beach Indirect National 405 20 7 6.7

National Park Kanuku Mts. Indirect National 3,656 23 5 0.8

National Park Extended Kaieteur Indirect National 370 0 0 0.2

Guyane Française

Area of Special Ecological Importance

Forêt des Sables blancs de Mana

Indirect National 177 0 3 1.9

Forest Biological Reserve Lucifer Dékou-Dékou Direct National 1,116 9 6 1.3

Natural Reserve Kaw-Roura Indirect National 132 1 1 1.1

Perú

Regional Conservation Area

Choquequirao Direct National 138 0 7 5.2

Regional Conservation Area

Cordillera Escalera Direct National 1,513 35 29 4.2

Protection Forest Alto Mayo Direct National 1,783 27 35 3.5

Suriname

Multiple Use Management Area

North Commewijne + Marowijne

Direct National 486 49 3 10.7

Multiple Use Management Area

North Coronie Direct National 304 18 4 7.3

Multiple Use Management Area

North Saramacca Direct National 889 52 4 6.3

Venezuela

Natural Monument Cerro Guanay Indirect National 253 4 9 5.3

Natural Monument Cerro Camani Indirect National 103 2 1 3.3

National Park Delta del Orinoco Indirect National 3,073 85 4 2.9

RAISG 58 AmAzoniA under Pressure – deForestAtion deForestAtion – AmAzoniA under Pressure 59 RAISG

GDF4. Distribution of forest loss in ITs in Amazonia, by type and period (2000-2005 and 2005-2010)

BdF3. deforestation in the northwest of Colombian Amazonia

The upper basins of the Guaviare, Caquetá, Putumayo and Vaupés rivers, located in the western part of the Colombian

Amazonia, are today covered mainly by pasture, secondary vegetation of human origin and mosaics of pastures and crops.

Only a few fragments of forest remain, linking the uplands with the lowlands. Between 2000 and 2005, 86% of the total

deforested area recorded in Colombian Amazonia was located in these basins (Guaviare 36%, Caquetá 32%, Vaupés 10%

and Putumayo 8.2%). Between 2005 and 2010, although the percentage of the total deforested area represented by these-

four basins was lower (81%), there was a notable increase in deforestation in the upper Caquetá (40%) and a reduction in

the other basins (Guaviare 27%, Putumayo 6%, Vaupés 8.4%).

Due to their geographic position, these basins are characterized by a rich and unique landscape that has given them

a reputation as one of the areas richest in biodiversity and natural resources in Colombia. The northwestern periphery of

the Colombian Amazonia comprises a natural bridge for the flow of species between the highlands, the Andean forests,

the dense Amazonian forests and the Orinoco savannahs. Its broad diversity has been heavily depleted over the last few

decades since the region’s resources were subjected to the impacts of hydrocarbon and mineral extraction, developed in

both legal and illegal fashion and placing the integrity of the region’s present-day ecosystem under enormous threat. Defor-

estation in this northwestern periphery is linked to socioeconomic, historical and environmental factors that determine how

the region has been used. The main causal agents have been the spread of urban areas and highways (Etter et al., 2006;

Rincón et al., 2006), the navigability of the large rivers, which serve as channels of communication within the Amazonian

forest (Armenteras et al., 2009), demographic growth (Etter et al., 2006), oil exploitation (Martínez & Sánchez, 2007),

the expansion of coca cultivation (Dávalos et al., 2011; Armenteras et al., 2009; Etter et al., 2006) and recently mining

(Romero & Sarmiento, 2011). These processes have also led to the reduction of the natural forest biomass, contributing

to the loss of biodiversity, soil deterioration, alteration of the hydrological cycle, and the low quality of the remaining areas

(Romero & Sarmiento, 2011).

For thousands of years this region was occupied by diverse indigenous groups and until the end of the 19th century was

covered by natural vegetation (Martínez & Sánchez, 2007). Due to its climatic and health conditions, the Amazon region

was considered an isolated area, populated solely by small indigenous groups. The first colonial advances from Andean

settlers occurred at the start of the 20th century when various settlements were founded in the foothills of the departments

of Meta, Caquetá and Putumayo, enticed by the cinchona and rubber trade. Later a second wave of migration occurred in

the 1920s at the government´s initiative, beginning with the construction of roads linking the first settlements and moti-

vated by the desire to protect national sovereignty.

The third wave of migration began at the end of the 1930s and continued until the end of the 1960s. In 1936 the na-

tional government issued the Agrarian Reform Law (Nº 200) that facilitated the purchase of land in these areas, leading to

the influx of rural populations originally from the south of the Andean region. In the 1940s the problem of movement into

this region was made worse by internal conflict in the country. In 1959, Law 20 was issued with the aim of colonizing

6,920 km2 of forest lands. As a result of this law, three colonization frontiers in the areas around La Mono, Maguaré and

Valparaíso in Caquetá Department were established and subsidized by the national government.

The fourth phase of migration took place in the 1970s, driven by oil exploration in the foothills of the upper Putumayo

(Etter et al., 2008). Subsequently, in the 1980s, illegal crops invaded Colombia, converting the country into the world’s

largest producer of cocaine. In the first decade of the 21st century, the drug business generated a loss of approximately

1,100 km2 of primary forest in Colombia (UNODC, 2009). On average over this period, 55% of these crops were concen-

trated in the lowland and montane forests of the Orinoquia region and Amazonia. Around 27% of this total is located in the

Meta and Guaviare Departments, 18% in the Putumayo and Caquetá Departments, and 10.4% in the Vichada, Guainía,

Vaupés and Amazonas Departments.

From the year 2000 onwards, due to the public policies imple-

mented in Colombia, an unprecedented boom in oil drilling and min-

ing began across the country. The foothills were not exempt from

this situation; indeed important areas for oil exploration were located

in the upper basin of the Putumayo River. In parallel, over the past

decade factors such as the prices of illegal crops, armed conflict,

the absence of the state and the oil and mining boom have been

fundamental processes in stimulating the high level of deforestation

found in this area of the country. (Gaia Amazonas Foundation)

MDF10. Proportion of deforestation per IT in Amazonia

Deforestation in the region surrounding Calamar, east of the Chiribiquete National Natural Park, Guaviare, Colombian Amazonia. © Rodrigo Botero García, 2009

ConclusionDeforestation is a process affecting a large portion of Amazonia. Brasil is undoubtedly the coun-

try with the highest level of forest loss. Nonetheless in the period 2005-2010 the country saw a substan-tial reduction in deforestation, in contrast to other countries, which showed an accelerating trend, as in the case of Colombia.

The results presented reinforce the important role that the PNAs and ITs have been performing in slowing down and containing forest loss in each country and in Amazonia as a whole. The differences detected between the lands included in these two types of territorial units and those outside clearly sup-port this role. Hence it is important to develop and implement a deforestation monitoring program that, as well as Brazilian Amazonia, also includes Andean Amazonia and the Guianas. The results presented in this chapter are the first step in this direction.

TDF6. Forest loss in ITs in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010. by type of IT*

IT Forest in 2000Deforestation

2000-2005 2005-2010 2000-2010

Type (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%)

IT not officially recognized 391,674 81.2 3,392 0.9 1,960 0.5 5,352 1.4

Proposed Territorial Reservation 38,296 98.8 17 0.0 47 0.1 64 0.2

Territorial Reservation 33,627 97.2 14 0.0 31 0.1 45 0.1

IT officially recognized 1,287.957 80.7 6,189 0.5 4,177 0.3 10,366 0.8

Total 1,751.555 81.4 9,612 0.5 6,214 0.4 15,826 0.9

Out of IT 3,605.839 64.5 153,636 4.3 70,423 2.0 224,060 6.2

* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

TDF7. Forest loss in ITs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010. by country and type of IT

CountryIT Forest in 2000

Deforestation

2000-2005 2005-2010 2000-2010

Type (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%)

BoliviaIT not officially recognized 26,305 56.7 511 1.9 358 1.3 868 3.3

IT officially recognized 64,439 79.9 78 0.1 227 0.4 305 0.5

Brasil IT officially recognized 843,254 76.0 3,245 0.4 1,770 0.2 5,014 0.6

Colombia IT officially recognized 237,473 94.9 929 0.4 683 0.3 1,612 0.7

EcuadorIT not officially recognized 50,185 81.7 446 0.9 387 0.8 833 1.7

Territorial Reservation 4,960 89.0 4 0.1 3 0.1 7 0.1

Guyana IT officially recognized 21,851 79.3 514 2.4 345 1.5 859 3.9

Guyane Française

IT officially recognized 6,691 96.4 8 0.1 5 0.1 13 0.2

Perú

IT not officially recognized 12,293 94.6 55 0.4 54 0.4 108 0.9

Proposed Territorial Reservation 38,296 98.8 17 0.0 47 0.1 64 0.2

Territorial Reservation 28,667 98.8 10 0.0 27 0.1 37 0.1

IT officially recognized 114,249 93.9 1,415 1.2 1,147 1.0 2,562 2.2

Suriname IT not officially recognized 50,485 91.3 215 0.4 81 0.2 296 0.6

Venezuela IT not officially recognized 252,406 82.4 2,166 0.9 1,081 0.4 3,247 1.3

TDF8. The three ITs (with an area over 100 km²) from each country in Amazonia with the largest amount of deforestation in the period 2000-2010*

IT Deforestation

Name Type Area (km²) 2000-2005 (km²) 2005-2010 (km²) % Total

Bolivia

Guarayos IT not officially recognized 6,706 390 181 8.5

Tich (Chiman) IT not officially recognized 1,190 30 34 5.3

Yaminahua Machineri IT not officially recognized 303 3 4 2.6

Brasil

Maraiwatsede IT officially recognized 1,396 273 106 27.1

Awá IT officially recognized 1,044 91 94 17.7

Tuwa Apekuokawera IT officially recognized 106 13 1 13.2

Colombia

Altamira IT officially recognized 107 6 5 10.0

Lagos del Dorado. Lagos del Paso y El Remanso

IT officially recognized 494 23 14 7.5

Inga de Aponte IT officially recognized 130 2 7 6.3

Ecuador

Avila Viejo IT not officially recognized 109 7 4 9.7

Juan Pío Montufar IT not officially recognized 167 7 4 6.3

San Francisco IT not officially recognized 100 3 1 4.0

Guyana

St. Cuthberth’s IT officially recognized 200 12 36 23.8

Kanapang IT officially recognized 184 38 1 20.9

Itabac IT officially recognized 171 25 1 15.0

Guyane Française

Etnia Galibi IT officially recognized 179 0 2 1.0

Etnia Boni. Émérillons et Wayana

IT officially recognized 2,693 6 1 0.3

Etnia Arawack IT officially recognized 145 0 0 0.2

Perú

Huascayacu IT officially recognized 108 19 36 50.5

Alto Mayo IT officially recognized 120 10 29 32.8

Shimpiyacu IT officially recognized 176 17 25 24.3

Suriname

Santigron IT not officially recognized 1,441 94 6 7.0

Aluku IT not officially recognized 847 4 7 1.3

Saramacaners IT not officially recognized 9,199 58 27 0.9

Venezuela

Etnia Mapoyo IT not officially recognized 300 10 1 3.7

Etnia E’ñapa IT not officially recognized 16,880 164 380 3.2

Etnia Yabarana IT not officially recognized 905 19 7 2.9

RAISG 60 AmAzoniA under Pressure AmAzoniA under Pressure 61 RAISG

ConCLuSIon

The active pressures and threats currently facing Amazonia, evident in the cartographic language used in this publication, are driving enormous changes there: the forest landscapes, socio-environmental diversity and fresh water sources are being replaced by degraded, savannah zones that are drier and much less diverse.

The planet’s largest and most complex rainforest – with at least 10,000 years of human activities – is fast becoming a space for the extraction and/or production of agroindustrial inputs and non-renewable raw materials (commodities with a low value added) for national and international markets. This impairs its potential for sustainable long-term development and destroys its inhabitable spaces.

This Atlas has demonstrated that there already is an arc of deforestation that extends from Brasil to Bolivia; areas with great pressure on their aquatic resources, very active exploration and production of oil and gas in the Andean Amazonia and rapidly growing legal and illegal mining activities in the region’s periphery.

The analysis of deforestation shows that between 2000 and 2010 around 240,000 km2 of Amazonian forest were cut down. This is equivalent to twice the area of Ecuadorian Amazonia or to the entire surface of the United Kingdom.

It is clear that, given the threats identified in a growing number of infrastructure projects for transport (roads or multimodal routes), along with the oil/gas and mining projects, as much as a half of the current Amazonian forest could disappear in the near future.

It is urgent to further analyze what is happening in the Amazonia, based on the information generated by RAISG, in order to identify the future situation of issues like: forest carbon capture and storage according to land uses (protected areas, Indigenous Territories and so on); new extractive economic frontiers related to water (hydroelectric plants or redirection of rivers to provide irrigation and drinking water); promotion of regional integration and its implications in terms of infrastructure, energy security and mobilizing populations; strategies for adapting to climate change in order to reduce socio-environmental vulnerability in mountain rainforest and in the flood plains of Amazonia.

There is also a clear need to adopt other themes from a positive agenda linked to governance (of the environment, forests, water or energy), effective measures for integrated management of basins as part of the adaptation to extreme variability and climate change, good practices and sustainable production chains, among others.

For this Atlas we were unable to include an analysis of key themes such as illegal mining, logging and farming due to the lack of quality information which can be visualized on maps for Amazonia as a whole. When these factors are included, the overall panorama will likely be even more adverse.

MCC1. Summary: number of themes overlapping sub-basins

MCC2. Summary: number of themes overlapping PNA MCF3. Summary: number of themes overlapping IT

TCC1. Number of sub-basins affected by one or more themes of analysisQuantity of themes analyzed

TotalMacro-basin 1 2 3 4 5 6

Upper Amazonas 3 8 7 3 13 9 43

Middle-Lower Amazonas 3 1 12 12 28

Madeira 1 1 2 2 12 9 27

Negro 1 3 4 7 15

Tocantins 1 9 4 14

Orinoco 3 8 1 12

Guyanas/Amapá 3 3 3 9

Mouth of the Amazonas/Estuary 1 3 4

Western Northeast Atlantic 3 1 4

Middle Amazonas 1 1

Parnaíba 1 1

São Francisco 1 1

Total of sub-basins 5 16 13 14 72 39 159

3.1% 10.1% 8.2% 8.8% 45.3% 24.5% 100.0%

TCC2. Number of sub-basins affected by theme of analysisThemes Number of sub-basins affected

Roads 127

Oil and Gas 119

Hydroelectric Plants 51

Mining 135

Fires (Hot Spots) 157

Deforestation 137

TCC3. Number of PNAs affected by one or more themes of analysisPNA Administrative sphere

and type of useQuantity of themes analyzed

Total0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Direct Use 78 64 54 77 44 7 0 324

Direct/Indirect Use 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2

Indirect Use 35 80 73 48 14 2 0 252

Transitory Use 7 0 2 2 1 0 0 12

Total 120 144 130 127 60 9 0 590

20.3% 24.4% 22.0% 21.5% 10.2% 1.5% 0.0%

TCC4. Number of PNAs affected by theme of analysisThemes Number of PNAs affected

Roads 137

Oil and Gas 65

Hydroelectric Plants 29

Mining 239

Fires (Hot Spots) 254

Deforestation 346

TCC6. Number of ITs affected by theme of analysisThemes Number of ITs affected

Roads 310

Oil and Gas 1,634

Hydroelectric Plants 14

Mining 570

Fires (Hot Spots) 282

Deforestation 1,998

TCC5. Number of ITs affected by one or more themes of analysis

IT typesQuantity of themes analyzed

Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Territorial Reservation 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 6

IT officially recognized 105 311 1,222 274 69 9 0 1,990

IT not officially recognized 24 106 229 75 20 4 0 458

Proposed Territorial Reservation 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 6

Total 129 421 1,457 351 89 13 0 2,460

5.2% 17.1% 59.2% 14.3% 3.6% 0.5% 0.0%

Pressures in hydrographic basins All sub-basins have at least one affectation, 45% of them are affected by five of the analyzed themes, either in the form of pressures or threats The sub-basins of the Upper Amazonas have the highest number of af-fectations for all themes analyzed

1,998 ITs (81%) and 346 PNAs (57%) area affected by deforestation. 570 ITs (23%) and 239 PNAs (41%) are affected by mining. 29 ANP (5%) and 14 TI (0.6%) are directly affected by hydroelectric plants.Reversing the current conditions of all the river basins, PNAs and ITs is not

always possible. However any effort in this direction should be initiated with a more fine-tuned analysis that identifies management measures, integrated with the participation of local and institutional actors.

Pressures in PnAs and Its The PNAs and ITs curbed the pressures to some extent, but new mecha-nisms are needed to stop or mitigate the threats faced by them. Deforestation in the PNAs is lower than the rest of Amazonia, while in the ITs it is lower than in the PNAs. 80% of the PNAs and 95% of the ITs are affected by some of the analyzed themes. The PNAs most affected are direct use national areas. 1,634 ITs (66%) and 65 PNAs (11%) are affected by oil drilling.

AmAzoniA under Pressure 63 RAISG

Information sources

ADENEY, J.M.; CHRISTENSEN JR., N.L.; PIMM, S.L. 2009. Reserves protect against deforestation fires in the Amazon. PLoS ONE 4 (4). Disponible en: <http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005014#>.

ALENCAR, A.; NEPSTAD, D.; DIAZ, M. 2006. Forest understory fire in the brazilian Amazon in enso and non-enso years: area burned and committed carbon emissions. Earth Interactions 10: 1-17.

ALMEYDA, A.M. et al. 2010. Deforestation drivers in Southwest Amazonía: comparing smallholder farmers in Iñapari, Peru, and Assis Brasil, Brazil. Conservation and Society 8 (3): 157-170. Disponible en: <http://www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2010/8/3/157/73805>.

ANDAM, K.S. et al. 2008. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. PNAS 105 (42): 16089 –16094.

ARA (Articulación Regional Amazónica). 2011. La Amazonía y los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio. Celentano, D.; Vedoveto, M. (eds.). Quito, Ecuador.

ARMENTERAS, D.; RODRÍGUEZ, N.; RETANA, J. 2009. Are conservation strategies effective in avoiding the deforestation of the Colombian Guyana Shield? Biological. Conser-vancy 142 (7): 1411–1419.

ÁVILA, F. 2012. NASA: apenas as mudanças climáticas explicam eventos recentes. Florianópolis, Brasil: Instituto CarbonoBrasil. Disponible en: < http://www.institutocar-bonobrasil.org.br/noticias2/noticia=731398>.

BANK INFORMATION CENTER. 2010. Proyecto Complejo hidroeléctrico del río Madera. Disponible en: <http://www.bicusa.org/es/Project.10138.aspx>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

BANK INFORMATION CENTER. 2010. UHE Jirau. Disponible en: <http://www.bicusa.org/es/Article.11710.aspx>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

BANK INFORMATION CENTER. 2010. UHE Santo Antonio. Disponible en: <http://www.bicusa.org/es/Article.11709.aspx>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

BANK INFORMATION CENTER. 2011. Proyecto Represa Hidroeléctrica Inambari. Disponible en: <http://www.bicusa.org/es/Project.10078.aspx>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

BARLOW, J.; PERES, C.A. 2008. Fire-mediated dieback and compositional cascade in an Amazonian forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363 (1498): 1787-1794. Disponible en: <http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1498/1787.full.pdf+html>.

BARRETO, P. et al. 2006. Human pressure on the brazilian Amazon forests. Belém, Brasil: Imazon; Washington, USA: World Resource Institute. Disponible en: <http://www.globalforestwatch.org/common/pdf/Human_Pressure_Final_English.pdf>. (Consultado 05 april 2012).

BARROW, C. J. 1983. The environment consequences of water resource development it the tropics. En: BEE, doi Jun (ed.). Natural resource in tropical countries. Singapore: Singapore University Press. p. 439-476.

BELLO, L. J. (ed.). 2011. El Estado ante la sociedad multiétnica y pluricultural: políticas públicas y derechos de los pueblos indígenas en Venezuela (1999-2010). Copenhague: Iwgia; Caracas, Venezuela: Wataniba.

BERMAN, M. 1988. All that is solid melts in to air: the experience of modernity. New York, USA: Penguin Books.

BLATE, G.M. 2003. Efectos del manejo forestal en la vulnerabilidad a incendios de un bosque semi-deciduo en Bolivia. Santa Cruz, Bolivia: Proyecto BOLFOR; Chemonics International. (Documento Técnico, 129). Disponible en: <http://ibcperu.org/doc/isis/9256.pdf>.

BOURGOIN, L.M. 2001. El mercurio en la Amazonía boliviana. La Paz, Bolivia: Ed. Edobol.

BOWMAN, M.S. et al. 2012. Persistence of cattle ranching in the brazilian Amazon: a spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29 (3): 558-568.

CAMPODÓNICO, H. 2008. Renta petrolera y minera en países seleccionados de América Latina. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL.

CAMPOS, Ciro (org.). 2011. Diversidade socioambiental de Roraima: subsídios para debater o futuro sustentável da região. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto Socioambiental. (Cartô Brasil Socioambiental, 3).

CARNEIRO FILHO, A.; SOUZA, O.B. 2009. Atlas de pressões e ameaças às terras indígenas na Amazônia brasileira. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto Socioambiental. (Cartô Brasil Socioambiental, 1).

CARRASCO, M. 2009.Tribus no contactadas por la depredación del Amazonas boliviano. Cambio - Revista 7 Días, La Paz, Bolivia, 31 may., p. 12-17. Disponible en: <http://www.cambio.bo/suplemento-interactivo/2009-05-31/16_suplemento.htm>.

CARVALHO, G. 2012. Grandes projetos de infraestrutura, conflitos e violação de direitos na Pan-Amazônia. Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho y Políticas Ambientales 2 (2): 213-233.

CAVIGLIA-HARRIS, J.L. 2005. Cattle accumulation and land use intensification by households in the brazilian Amazon. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 34 (2): 145–162.

CEADESC (Centro de Estudios Aplicados a los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales). 2011. Atlas de Megaproyectos de Infraestructura en Bolivia. Oslo: Rainforest Foundation Norway; Cochabamba, Bolivia: CEADESC.

CELENTANO, D.; VERÍSSIMO, A. 2007. A Amazônia e os Objetivos do Milênio. Belém, Brasil: Imazon. (O Estado da Amazônia: indicadores, 1).

CELENTANO, D.; VERÍSSIMO, A. 2007. O avanço da fronteira na Amazônia: do boom ao colapso. Belém, Brasil: Imazon. (O Estado da Amazônia: indicadores, 2).

CHOMITZ, K.M.; GRAY, D.A. 1996. Roads, land use, and deforestation: a spatial model applied to Belize. The World Bank Economic Review 10 (3): 487–512.

CIAT; TNC; CBI. 2012. Road impact on habitat loss of IIRSA corridor in Peru: 2004 to 2011. Washington, USA: IDB (Inter-American Development Bank).

COCHRANE, M.A. et al. 1999. Positive feedbacks in the fire dynamic of closed canopy tropical forests. Science 284: 1832-1835.

COCHRANE, M.A. 2003. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421 (6926): 913-919.

COCHRANE, M.A.; LAURANCE, W.F. 2002. Fire as a large-scale edge effect in amazonian forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18 (3): 311-325.

COCHRANE, M.A.; LAURANCE, W.F. 2008. Synergisms among fire, land use, and climate change in the Amazon. Ambio: a journal of the human environment 37 (7): 522-527.

CONAIE. 2006. Pueblos indígenas en el aislamiento voluntario en la Amazonía ecuatoriana: documento base. Quito, Ecuador. Disponible en: <http://www.sosyasuni.org/en/files/conaie_taromenani2.pdf>.

CONSEJO NACIONAL DE ELECTRICIDAD. 2009. Proyectos hidroeléctricos disponibles para su desarrollo, potencia instalable entre 100 y 1140 MW. Quito, Ecuador: Conelec. Disponible en: <http://www.conelec.gob.ec/contenido.php?cd=1348&l=1>. (Consultado: 26 octubre 2011).

CORREA-VIANA, M.; ESCLASANS, D. 2011. Impactos de la industria petrolera. En: KLEIN, E.; CÁRDENAS, J.J. (eds.). Identificación de prioridades de conservación asociadas a los ecosistemas de la fachada atlántica venezolana y a su biodiversidad. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Simón Bolívar; The Nature Conservancy. p. 69-71.

COSIPLAN (Consejo Suramericano de Infraestructura y Planeamiento). 2011. Cartera de Proyectos IIRSA. Disponible en: <http://www.iirsa.org/BancoMedios/Documen-tos%20PDF/lb11_completo_baja.pdf>.

DÁVALOS L.M. et al. 2011. Forests and drugs: coca-driven deforestation in tropical biodiversity hotspots. Environmental Science & Technology 45(4): 1219-1227.

DAVIDSON, E.A. et al. 2012. The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481 (7381): 321-328.

DENMAN, K.; BRASSEUR, G. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. En: Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

DIJCK, P. 2009. The IIRSA Guyana Shield Hub: the case of Suriname. Disponible en: <http://www.cedla.uva.nl/20_research/pdf/vDijck/suriname_project/IIRSA.pdf>.

DOUROJEANNI, M. 2009. Hidroeléctricas en la Amazonía peruana. La Revista Agraria 109: 4-6.

DOUROJEANNI, M.; BARANDIARÁN, A.; DOUROJEANNI, D. 2009. Amazonía peruana en 2021. Explotación de recursos naturales e infraestructura: ¿Qué está pasando? ¿Qué es lo que significa para el futuro? Lima, Peru: ProNaturaleza. Disponible en: < http://www.iiap.org.pe/Upload/Publicacion/PUBL908.pdf>.

DUCHELLE, A.E. 2009. Conservation and livelihood development in Brazil nut-producing communities in a tri-national amazonian frontier. PhD Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

DUCHELLE, A.E. et al. 2010. Conservation in an Amazonian tri-national frontier: patterns and drivers of land cover change in community-managed forests. Disponible en: <http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/events/montpellier/scientific-session/Presentations/Session%2013/Duchelle_etal_Montpelier.pdf>. (Consultado: 05 april 2012).

EBI (Iniciativa de Energía y Biodiversidad). 2003. Integrando la conservación de la biodiversidad en el desarrollo del petróleo y del gas. Washington, USA: Conservation International. (EBI: BP, ChevronTexaco, Conservation International, Fauna & Flora International, IUCN, The Nature Conservancy, Shell, Smithsonian Institution, Statoil). Disponible en: <http://www.conservation.org/global/celb/Documents/ebi_report_spanish.pdf>.

EMBRAPA; INPE. 2011. Levantamento de informações de uso e cobertura da terra na Amazônia: sumário executivo. Belém, Brasil: Embrapa; Inpe; Campinas, Brasil: Embrapa.

ENCARNACIÓN, F. 1993. El bosque y las formaciones vegetales en la llanura amazónica del Perú. Alma Mater 6: 94-114.

ETTER, A. et al. 2006. Regional patterns of agricultural land use and deforestation in Colombia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114 (2-4): 369–386.

ETTER, A.; McALPINE, C.; POSSINGHAM, H. 2008. Historical patterns and drivers of landscape change in Colombia since 1500: a regionalized spatial approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98 (1): 2 - 23.

EVA, H.D.; HUBER, O. (eds). 2005. Una propuesta para la definición de los límites geográficos de la Amazonía (A proposal for defining the geographical boundaries of Amazonía). Luxembourg: European Commission.

FAO. 2010. Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales (2010): informe principal. Roma, Italia. (Estudio FAO: Montes, 163).

FEARNSIDE, P. M. 1995. Hydroelectric dams in the brazilian Amazon as Sources of “greenhouse” gases. Environmental Conservation 22: 7-19.

FEARNSIDE, P. M. 2002. Greenhouse gas emissions from a hydroelectric reservoir (Brazil’s Tucuruí Dam) and the energy policy implications. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 133 (1-4): 69-96.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2005, Deforestation in brazilian Amazonía: history, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology 19 (3): 680–688.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2012. Belo Monte Dam: a spearhead for Brazil’s dam building attack on Amazonía? Canberra, Australia: Global Water Forum. (GWF Discussion Paper, 1210).

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2012. Carbon credit for hydroelectric dams as a source of greenhouse-gas emissions: the example of Brazil’s Teles Pires Dam. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Disponible en: <http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-012-9382-6>.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2012. Desafios para midiatização da ciência na Amazônia: o exemplo da hidrelétrica de Belo Monte como fonte de gases de efeito estufa. En: Fausto Neto, A. (ed.). A midiatização da ciência: cenários, desafios, possibilidades. Campina Grande, Brasil: Editora da Universidade Estadual da Paraíba. p. 107-23.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2012.Will Brazil’s Belo Monte Dam get the green light? Latin America Energy Advisor: 1-4. Disponible en: <http://www.thedialogue.org/energyadvi-sornewsletter>.

FEARNSIDE, P.M.; PUEYO, S. 2012. Greenhouse-gas emissions from tropical dams. Nature Climate Change 2: 382-384.

FINER, M. et al. 2008. Oil and gas projects in the Western Amazon: threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE 3 (8). Disponible en: <http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002932>.

FINNER, M.; JENKINS, C.N. 2012. Proliferation of hydroelectric dams in the andean Amazon and implications for Andes-Amazon connectivity. PLoS ONE 7 (4). Disponible en: <http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0035126>.

GAMBOA, C.; CUETO, V. 2012. Matriz energética en el Perú y energías renovables. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert; Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR).

GARZÓN, C. 1984. Water quality in hydrelectric projects: considerations for planning in tropical forest regions. Washington, USA: World Bank. (Technical Paper, 20).

GORZULA, S.; SEÑARIS, J.C. 1998. Contributions to the herpetofauna of the Venezuelan Guayana. Scientia Guianae 8: 1-270.

GUERRERO, S. 2011. Informe sectorial: Ecuador - sector energético. PacificCredit Rating. Disponible en: <http://www.ratingspcr.com>. (Consultado: 26 octubre 2011).

HERNÁNDEZ, J. 2008. El corredor de transporte bioceanico Santa Cruz – Puerto Suárez en Bolivia y sus impactos socio ambientales. Montevideo, Uruguay: CLAES.

HUBER, O. 1995. Vegetation. En: BERRY, P.E.; HOLST, B.K.; YATSKIEVYCH, K. (Eds.). Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana: introduction. v. 1. Portland, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. p. 97-160.

HUMMEL, A.C. et al. 2010. A atividade madeireira na Amazônia brasileira: produção, receita e mercados. Belém, Brasil: Imazon; Brasília, Brasil: Serviço Florestal Brasileiro - SFB.

IDÁRRAGA, A.; MUÑOZ, D.A.; VÉLEZ, H. 2010. Conflictos socio-ambientales por la extracción minera en Colombia: casos de la inversión británica. Bogotá, Colombia: Censat Agua Viva; Amigos de la Tierra Colombia.

INIAP-El Surco. 2011. Caracterización de los sistemas de producción agropecuaria de la región amazónica ecuatoriana, RAE. Presentación de resultados preliminares. Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. Coca- Estación San Carlos (15 abr. 2011).

INSTITUTO OBSERVATÓRIO SOCIAL. 2011. O aço da devastação: crimes ambientais e trabalhistas na cadeia produtiva da indústria siderúrgica instalada na Amazônia. São Paulo, Brasil. (Revista Observatório Social, ed. esp.).

JUNK, W.J.; MELLO, J.A. 1990. Impactos ecológicos das represas hidroelétricas na Bacia Amazônica brasileira. Estudos Avançados 4 (8): 123-146.

KILLEEN, T. et al. 2007. Dry spots and wet spots in the Andean hotspot. Journal of Biogeography 34: 1357-1373.

KRIEGE, R.; CHEDI-TOELSIE, S. 2006. A case study of progressive cavity pump gauges and installation in staatsolie, Suriname. Disponible en: <http://www.grcamerada.com/documents/Case%20Study%20-%20PCP%20gauge%20installation%20at%20Staatsolie%20in%20Suriname.pdf>.

KISSINGER, G. 2011. Linking forests and food production in the REDD+ context. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. (CCAFS Working Paper, 1).

LAURANCE, W.F. et al. 2001. The future of the brazilian Amazon. Science 291: 438-439. Disponible en: <http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41014098.pdf>.

LAURANCE, W.F. et al. 2002. Ecosystem decay of amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conservation Biology 16 (3): 605-618.

LEWIS, S.L. et al. 2011. The 2010 Amazon drought. Science 4 (331): 554.

LÓPEZ, V. 2009. Implicaciones del proyecto Coca Codo Sinclair para la Amazonía ecuatoriana. Quito, Ecuador: EcoCiencia.

LÓPEZ, V. 2011. El proyecto hidroeléctrico Coca Codo Sinclair y la gobernanza energética en la Amazonía ecuatoriana. Letras Verdes - Energía y Ambiente 8: 1-3. Disponible en: <http://flacsoandes.org/dspace/bitstream/10469/2728/42/RFLACSO-L8.pdf>.

MACEDO, M.N. et al. 2012. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. PNAS 109: 1341-1346.

MADS (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible). 2012. Manual para las asignaciones de compensaciones por pérdida de biodiversidad. Bogotá, Colombia.

MAESO, V.; REYERO, P.; VARGAS, M. (coord.). 2010. El Complejo del Río Madera: un caso de anticooperación española. Barcelona: ODG. Disponible en: <http://www.odg.cat/documents/publicacions/InformeODG_Madera_Web_CAST.pdf>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

MARENGO, J. et al. 2008. The drought of Amazonía in 2005. Journal of Climate 21 (3): 495–516.

MARGOLIS, M. 2011. The new gold rush: soaring gold prices are causing a new mining boom that’s threatening the Amazon rainforest. The DailyBeast. Disponible en: <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/19/gold-prices-cause-mining-boom-that-threatens.print.html>.

RAISG 64 AmAzoniA under Pressure AmAzoniA under Pressure 65 RAISG

AbbreviationsABT (Bolivia) Autoridad de Fiscalización y Control Social de Bosques y Tierra

ACPC Asociación para la Conservación del Patrimonio de Cutivireni

ACT The Amazon Conservation Team

AIDESEP-CIPTA Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana - Centro de Información y Planificación Territorial

ANA (Perú) Autoridad Nacional del Agua

ANEEL (Brasil) Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica

ANH (Colombia) Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos

ANP (Brasil) Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis

APA Environmental Protection Area

BDEP Banco de Dados de Exploração e Produção

BDF Box of the chapter Deforestation

BFI Box of the chapter Fires (Hot Spots)

BHP Box of the chapter Hydroelectric Plants

BMN Box of the chapter Mining

BNDES Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social

BOG Box of the chapter Oil and Gas

BR Brasil

BRD Box of the chapter Roads

CDB Convention on Biological Diversity

CEDIA Centro para el Desarrollo del Indígena Amazónico

CEPE Corporación Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana

CEPSA Compañía Española de Petróleos

CIDOB Confederación de Pueblos Indígenas del Oriente de Bolivia

CO Colombia

COICA Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica

CONAIE Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuardo

CONELEC (Ecuador) Consejo Nacional de Electricidad

COSIPLAN Consejo Interamericano de Infraestructura y Planeamento

CPC Centro de Investigación Conjunta

CPE (Bolivia) Constitución Política del Estado

CRO Cordillera Real Oriental

DEAL Direction de l’environnement, de l’aménagement et du logement

DNPM (Brasil) Departamento Nacional da Produção Mineral

EC Ecuador

ECOLEX Corporación de Gestión y Derecho Ambiental

ECORAE Instituto para el Ecodesarrollo Regional Amazónico

EE Ecological Station

EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária

ESA European Space Agency

FAN Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations

FC Forest Concessions

FE State Forest

FGA Fundación Gaia Amazonas

FLACSO Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales

FN National Forest

FSC Conselho de Administração Florestal

FUNAI Fundação Nacional do Índio

GDF Chart of the chapter Deforestation

GEF Global Environment Facility

GEG Greenhouse Gas

GFI Chart of the chapter Fires (Hot Spots)

GHP Chart of the chapter Hydroelectric Plants

GIS Geographic Information System

GMN Chart of the chapter Mining

GOG Chart of the chapter Oil and Gas

GOREL Regional Government of Loreto

GRD Chart of the chapter Roads

HydroSHEDS Hydrological data and maps based on Shuttle Elevation Derivatives at multiple Scales

IBAMA Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis

IBC Instituto del Bien Común

IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística

ICMBio Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade]

IT Indigenous Territories

ICV Instituto Centro de Vida

IGAC (Colombia) Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi

IIRSA Integración de la Infraestructura Regional Suramericana

IMAC Instituto de Meio Ambiente do Acre

IMAZON Instituto do Homem e do Meio Ambiente da Amazônia

INCODER Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural

INCRA (Brasil) Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária

INGEMMET Instituto Geológico Minero y Metalúrgico

INPE (Brasil) Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais

IPAAM Instituto de Proteção Ambiental do Amazonas

IPHAN (Brasil) Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional

ISA (Brasil) Instituto Socioambiental

IVIC Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Centro de Ecología, Laboratorio de Biología de Organismos

MAE (Ecuador) Ministerio del Ambiente

MDF Map of the chapter Deforestation

MFI Map of the chapter Fires (Hot Spots)

MARÍN, S.; MAY, E. 2012. Gold mining in the Amazon: key issues and engangement strategy, 3ª versión no publicada de borrador. Paramaribo, Suriname: WWF Guianas/Living Amazon Initiative.

MARTÍNEZ, G.; SÁNCHEZ, E. 2007. Contexto físico natural del sur de la Amazonía. En: RUIZ, S.L. et al (eds.). Diversidad biológica y cultural del sur de la Amazonía colombi-ana: diagnóstico. Bogotá, Colombia: Corpoamazonia; Instituto Humboldt; Instituto Sinchi; UAESPNN.

MATSUMURA-TUNDISI, T. et al. 1991. Limnology of Samuel Reservoir (Brazil, Rondonia) in the filling phase. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 24: p.1428-1487.

MELO, M.; BELTRÁN, B.; ORTIZ, P. 2007. Quién decide en la Amazonía ecuatoriana? La superposición de intereses en los territorios ancestrales del Centro Sur de la Amazonía ecuatoriana. Quito, Ecuador: Fundación Pachamama.

MME. EPE (Ministério de Minas e Energia. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética). 2010. Plano Decenal de Expansão de Energia 2019. Brasília, Brasil. Disponible en: <http://www.mme.gov.br/mme/galerias/arquivos/noticias/2010/PDE2019_03Maio2010.pdf>.

MONTEIRO, A. et al. 2011. Boletim Transparência Manejo Florestal Estado do Mato Grosso (agosto de 2009 a julho de 2010). Belém, Brasil: Imazon.

MONTEIRO, A. et al. 2011. Boletim Transparência Manejo Florestal Estado do Pará (2009 e 2010). Belém, Brasil: Imazon.

MÜLLER, R. et al. 2011. Spatiotemporal modeling of the expansion of mechanized agriculture in the Bolivian lowland forests. Applied Geography 31 (2): 631-640.

MÜLLER, R. et al. 2012. Proximate causes of deforestation in the Bolivian lowlands: an analysis of spatial dynamics. Regional Environmental Change 12 (3): 445-459. Disponible en: <http://www.springerlink.com/content/w3j848xm1703313h/fulltext.pdf>.

MURCIA GARCÍA, U.G. et al. 2009. Monitoreo de los bosques y otras coberturas de la Amazonia colombiana. Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto Sinchi.

NELLEMANN, C.; INTERPOL Environmental Crime Programme (eds). 2012. Green carbon, black trade: illegal logging, tax fraud and laundering in the worlds tropical forests. A rapid response assessment. Arendal, Norway: UNEP, GRID-Arendal.

NEPSTAD, D. et al. 2001 Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 395-407.

NEPSTAD, D. et al. 2004. Amazon drought and its implications for forest flammability and tree growth: a basin-wide analysis. Global Change Biology 10: 704-717. Disponible en: <http://www.frames.gov/rcs/ttrs/16000/16791.html>.

NEPSTAD, D. et al. 2006. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20 (1): 65–73.

NOBRE, C.A. 2012. Fundamentos científicos das mudanças climáticas. São José dos Campos, Brasil: Rede Clima/INPE.

OLSON, S.H. et al. 2010. Deforestation and malaria in Mâncio Lima County, Brazil. Emerging Infectious Diseases 16 (7): 1108-1115. Disponible em: <http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/16/7/pdfs/09-1785.pdf>.

OTCA. 2010. Agenda estratégica de cooperação amazônica: aprovada na X Reunião de Ministros de Relações Exteriores do TCA. Brasília, Brasil.

PACHECO, C., AGUADO, I.; MOLLICONE, D. 2011. Las causas de la deforestación en Venezuela: un estudio retrospectivo. BioLlania 10: 281-292.

PALACIO, G. (ed.). 2009. Ecología política de la Amazonía: las profusas y difusas redes de la gobernanza. Bogotá, Colombia: ILSA; Ecofondo; Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

PDVSA (Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.). 2012. Informe de gestión anual 2011: PDVSA y filiales. Caracas, Venezuela. Disponible en: <http://www.pdvsa.com>.

PÉREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, R.; LEW, D. 2001. Las clasificaciones e hipótesis biogeográficas para la Guayana Venezolana. Interciencia 26 (9): 373-382.

PFAFF, A. et al. 2007. Road investments, spatial spillovers, and deforestation in the brazilian Amazon. Journal of Regional Science 47 (1): 109–123.

PINTO, L.F. 2011. Tucuruí: a barrragem da ditadura. Belém, Brasil: Jornal Pessoal.

PINTO, L.F. 2012. A Amazônia em questão: Belo Monte, Vale e outros temas. São Paulo, Brasil: B4 Editores.

PNUMA; OTCA; CIUP. 2009. GEO Amazonía: perspectivas del medio ambiente en la Amazonía. Panamá: Pnuma; Brasília, Brasil: OTCA. Disponible en: <http://www.iiap.org.pe/Upload/Publicacion/PUBL909.pdf>.

RAY, D.; NEPSTAD, D.; MOUTINHO, P. 2005. Micrometeorological and canopy controls of fire susceptibility in forested Amazon landscape. Ecological Applications 15: 1664–1678.

RINCÓN A. et al. 2006. Modelamiento de presiones sobre la biodiversidad en la Guayana. Revista Internacional de Sostenibilidad, Tecnología y Humanismo 211-244p. Disponible en: <http://upcommons.upc.edu/revistes/bitstream/2099/2580/1/13Rincon.pdf>.

RITTNER, D.; BORGES, A. 2012. Novas hidrelétricas vão alagar área equivalente a dez capitais. Valor Econômico, São Paulo, 26 set., Brasil, p. A4.

RIVERO, S. et al. 2009. Pecuária e desmatamento: uma análise das principais causas diretas do desmatamento na Amazônia. Nova Economia 19 (1): 41-66.

RODRIGUES, A. et al. 2009. Boom-and-bust development patterns across the Amazon deforestation frontier. Science 324: 1435-1437.

RODRÍGUEZ, J.P. et al. (eds.). 2011. Representación digital de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas de Venezuela: Parques Nacionales, Monumentos Naturales, Refugios de Fauna, Reservas de Fauna y Reservas de Biósfera. Caracas, Venezuela: Centro de Ecología, IVIC; Total Venezuela, S.A.

ROLDÁN, R. 2005. Manual para la formación en derechos indígenas: territorios, recursos naturales y convenios internacionales. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala.

ROMERO-RUIZ, M., SARMIENTO, A. 2011. Presiones y amenazas de la Cuenca Amazónica. Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación Gaia Amazonas. Disponible en: <http://www.gaiaamazonas.org/es/docman/test/presiones-y-amenazas-de-la-cuenca-amazonica/download>.

ROSA, I.M.; SOUZA JR., C.; EWERS, R.M. Canges in size of deforested patches in the brazilian Amazon. Conservation Biology 26 (5): 923-937.

SALAZAR, L.F.; NOBRE, C.A.; OYAMA, M.D. 2007. Climate change consequences on the biome distribution in tropical South America. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L09708. Disponible en: <http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029695.shtml>.

SÁNCHEZ-CUERVO, A.M. et al. 2012. Land cover change in Colombia: surprising forest recovery trends between 2001 and 2010. PLoS ONE 7 (8). Disponible en: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0043943

SANTOS, M.A. et al. 2007. Mercado e dinâmica local da cadeia produtiva da pecuária de corte na Região Norte. Belém, Brasil: Banco da Amazônia. (Estudos Setoriais, 1).

SASAKI, N.; Putz, E. 2009. Critical need for new definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘forest degradation’ in global climate change agreements. Conservation Letter 2: 1-7.

SCHNEIDER, R. et al. 2002. Sustainable Amazon: limitations and opportunities for rural development. Washington, USA: World Bank. (World Bank Technical Paper - Envi-ronmental Series, 515).

SCHOENE, D. et al. 2007. Definitional issues related to reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries. Roma, Italia: FAO. (Forests and Climate Change Working Paper, 5).

SCHOR, T.; CARNEIRO FILHO, A.; TOLEDO, C. 2008. Fire and economics: understanding the Amazonía’s Fire Arch. En: Proceedings of the second international symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: a global view (Córdoba, 19-22 april 2004). Albany: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. p. 99-109. Disponible en: <http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr208en/psw_gtr208en_099-110_schor.pdf>.

SFB (Serviço Florestal Brasileiro). 2011. Plano Anual de Outorga Florestal – PAOF 2012. Brasília, Brasil.

SIERRA, R. (ed.). 1999. Propuesta Preliminar de un sistema de clasificación de vegetación para el Ecuador continental. Quito, Ecuador: Proyecto Inefan/GEF – BIRF y EcoCiencia.

SIERRA, R.; CALVA, O.; CEVALLOS, J. 2010. Protocolo del sub-sistema de monitoreo remoto para el plan para la protección de los pueblos indígenas aislados. Quito, Ecuador: Ministerio de Ambiente; Ecociencia.

SILVESTRINI, R. A. et al. 2011. Simulating fire regimes in the Amazon in response to climate change and deforestation. Ecological Applications 21: 1573-1590.

SOARES, L.C. 1953. Limites meridionais e orientais da área de ocorrência da floresta amazônica em território brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Geografia 15 (1): 3-122.

SOUTHWORTH, J. et al. 2011. Roads as drivers of change: trajectories across the tri-national frontier in map, the Southwestern Amazon. Remote Sensing 3 (5): 1047–1066.

SOUZA JR., C. et al. 2004. Avanço des estradas endógenas na Amazônia. Belém, Brasil: Imazon. (Série Amazônia em Foco). Disponible en: <http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/o-estado-da-Amazonía/pressao-humana-no-bioma-Amazonía>. (Consultado: 05 april 2012).

MHP Map of the chapter Hydroelectric Plants

MINAM (Perú) Ministerio del Ambiente

MINEM (Perú) Ministerio de Energía y Minas

MMN Map of the chapter Mining

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

MOG Map of the chapter Oil and Gas

MRD Map of the chapter Roads

MTC (Perú) Ministerio de Transporte y Comunicaciones

NARENA (Suriname) Natural Resource and Environmental Assessment

OCEP Oleoducto de Crudos Pesados

OIT Organização Internacional do Trabalho

OTCA Organización del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica

PCH Small Hydroelectric Plants

PDVSA Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.

PANE (Ecuador) Patrimonio Nacional de Áreas Naturales del Estado

PE State Park

PE Perú

Petroamazonas EP (Ecuador) Petroamazonas Empresa Publica

PETT-Loreto Programa Especial de Titulación de Tierras en Loreto

PFS Proyecto Frontera Selva

PI Parque Indígena

PIX Parque Indígena do Xingu

PMOT Plan Municipal de Ordenamiento Territorial

PN Parque Nacional

PNA Protected Natural Area

PPCDAm Plano de Ação para Proteção e Controle do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal

PRODES Projeto Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite

PROVÍAS NACIONAL (Perú) Proyecto Especial de Infraestructura de Transporte Nacional

RAISG Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information

RBi Biological Reserve

RBiF Forest Biological Reserve

RDS Sustainable Development Reserve

REx Extractive Reserve

RN National Reserve

SDS Secretaria de Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Amazonas

SERGEOTECMIN (Bolivia) Servicio Nacional de Geología y Técnico de Minas

SERNAP (Bolivia) Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas

SH Historical Sanctuary

SIATAC Sistema de Información Ambiental Territorial de la Amazonía Colombiana

SICNA Sistema de Información sobre Comunidades Nativas de la Amazonía Peruana

SIG Sistemas de Informação Geográfica

SIMEX Sistema de Monitoreo de la Explotación Maderera

SN National Sanctuary

SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

STF (Brasil) Superior Tribunal Federal

TCO Tierra Comunitaria de Origen

TDF Table of the chapter Deforestation

TRD Table of the chapter Roads

TFI Table of the chapter Fires (Hot Spots)

THP Table of the chapter Hydroelectric Plants

TIPNIS Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure

TMN Table of the chapter Mining

TOG Table of the chapter Oil and Gas

TREES Tropical Resources and Environment Monitoring by Satellite

UHE Hydroelectric Units

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNMSM Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos

YPFV Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos

SPRACKLEN, D.V.; ARNOLD, S.R.; TAYLOR, C.M. 2012. Observations of increased tropical rainfall preceded by air passage over forests. Nature 489: 282-285. Disponible en: <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/abs/nature11390.html>.

STEININGER, M.K. et al. 2001. Clearance and fragmentation of tropical deciduous forest in the Tierras Bajas, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Conservation Biology 15: 856-866.

STRAHLER, A. et al. 2006. Global land cover validation: recommendations for evaluation and accuracy assessment of global land cover maps. Luxemburg: Eu-ropean Communities. (GOFC-GOLD Report, 25). Disponible en: <http://nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/gofc-gold/Report%20Series/GOLD_25.pdf>. SWENSON, J.J. et al. 2011. Gold mining in the peruvian Amazon: global prices, deforestation, and mercury imports. PLoS ONE 6 (4). Disponible en: <http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018875>.

TRANCOSO, R. et al. 2010 Deforestation and conservation in major watersheds of the brazilian Amazon. Environmental Conservation 36: 277-288.

TUNDISI, J. G. 1999. Limnologia no século XXI: perspectivas e desafios. Conferência de abertura do 7º Congresso Brasileiro de Limnologia. São Carlos, Brasil: Instituto Internacional de Ecologia.

UNIDAD DE PLANEACIÓN MINERO ENERGÉTICA. 2007. Portafolio de proyectos de generación de energía. Bogotá, Colombia: UPME. Disponible en: <http://www1.upme.gov.co/>. (Consultado: 29 julio 2011).

UNODC Colombia 2009. Censos de cultivos de coca 2008. Bogotá, Colombia. Disponible en: <ftp://190.144.33.2/UNODC/censo2008es.pdf>.

UNODC (Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito). 2011. Monitoreo de cultivos de coca. Gobiernos de Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador y Perú. 63 p.

URRUNAGA, J. et al. 2012. La máquina lavadora: cómo el fraude y la corrupción en el sistema de concesiones están destruyendo el futuro de los bosques de Perú. Washington, USA: EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency). Disponible en: <http://launderingmachine.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/spanish_report_eia_final2.pdf>.

VAL, A.L.; SANTOS, G.M. (orgs.). 2011. GEEA: Grupo de Estudos Estratégicos Amazônicos. Manaus, Brasil: INPA. (Caderno de Debates, 4). Disponible en: <http://www.inpa.gov.br/comites/arquivos_geea/livro_geea_n4.pdf>.

VALENTIM, J.F.; ANDRADE, C.M. 2009. Tendências e perspectivas da pecuária bovina na Amazônia brasileira. Amazônia: Ciência & Desenvolvimento 4 (8): 7-30.

VERDUM, R. 2012. As obras de infraestrutura do PAC e os povos indígenas na Amazônia brasileira. Brasília, Brasil: Inesc. Disponible en: <http://www.inesc.org.br/noticias/biblioteca/noticias/biblioteca/textos/obras-do-pac-e-povos-indigenas/>.

VERÍSSIMO, A. et al. 1992. Logging impacts and prospects for sustainable forest management in an old amazonian frontier: the case of Paragominas. Forest Ecology and Management 55: 169-199.

VERÍSSIMO, A. et al (orgs.). 2011. Áreas Protegidas na Amazônia brasileira: avanços e desafios. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto Socioambiental; Belém, Brasil: Imazon.

VIEIRA, I.C.; SILVA, J.M.; TOLEDO, P.M. 2005. Estratégias para evitar a perda de biodiversidade na Amazônia. Estudos Avançados 19 (54): 153-164.

VIEIRA, I.C. et al. 2008. Deforestation and threats to the biodiversity of Amazonía. Brazilian Journal of Biology 68 (4): 949-956. Disponible en: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjb/v68n4s0/a04v684s.pdf>.

VILLAS-BÔAS, A. (org.). 2012. De olho na Bacia do Xingu. São Paulo: Instituto Socioambiental. (Cartô Brasil Socioambiental, 5).

WAY, F. 2012. Guyana & Suriname Oil and Gas Opportunities Promotions Project. Report prepared for Canada’s High Commissioner to Guyana and Ambassador to Suriname. Georgetown, Guyana. Disponible en: <http://www.guyanalaw.net/Recent-developments-in-Oil-and-Gas-In-Guyana-2012.pdf>.

WEINHOLD, D.; REIS, E.J.; Vale, P.M. 2012. Sustainability in the tropics: does a boom in deforestation lead to a bust in development? London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. (Working Paper, 82).

ZÚÑIGA, P. (coord.). 2011. Transformaciones en la Amazonía colombiana: retos para un desarrollo sostenible. Bogotá: Fundación Alisos.

Sites consulted

Andes Agua Amazonía - <http://www.oeco.com.br/andesaguaamazonia>.

Forest Sterwardship Council - <http://www.fsc.org>.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística /Geociências - <http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/geociencias/default_prod.shtm#MAPAS>.

Instituto de Manejo e Certificação Florestal e Agrícola - <http://www.imaflora.org>.

Instituto de Planificación y Promoción de Soluciones Energéticas - <http://www.ipse.gov.co/>.

Pacto Intersectorial por la madera legal en Colombia - <http://www.wwf.org.co/?203723/Pacto-Intersectorial-por-la-madera-legal-en-Colombia>.

Projeto TerraClass - <http://www.inpe.br/cra/projetos_pesquisas/terraclass.php>.

Represas en Amazonia - <http://www.dams-info.org/es>.

Sistema de Información Ambiental Territorial de la Amazonia Colombiana - <http://siatac.siac.net.co/web/guest/region>.

Unidades de Conservação na Amazônia Brasileira - <http://uc.socioambiental.org/>.

printed by:

Pancrom Indústria Gráfica, São Paulo - Brasil

impression:

1.000

selo FSC

Xingu River. Pará, Brasil. © Pedro Martinelli/ISA, 2002

Savannah close to Santa Helena de Uiarem, Venezuela, border with Brasil. © Félix Grande Bagazgoita, 2008

Nasepotiti Village, Panará indigenous people. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © André Villas-Bôas/ISA, 2002

Wuarao community, Orinoco Delta. Amacuro Delta. Venezuela. © Federico Bellone, 1999 Sisi-wen Waterfall, Upper Cotingo River, Raposa Serra do Sol Indigenous Land.

Roraima, Brasil. © Taylor Nunes, 2007

Maloca belonging to ‘isolated’ indigenous people between the Itacoaí and Jandiatuba Rivers, on the Brasil-Perú border.© Peetsaa/ Arquivo CGIIRC/Funai, 2011

San Rafael Waterfall, Coca River. The latter will be adversely affected by the Coca Codo Sinclair Hydroelectric Plant which is being built in Ecuadorian Amazonia with Chinese loans. © Juan Calles, 2010

Headwaters of the Upano River, which rises in the Andes and flows into the Amazon. © Rubén Ramírez/Proyecto Andes Agua Amazonía,, 2012

Salto do Sapo, Canaima National Park, Venezuela. © Federico Bellone, 1999

Forest in the foothills of the Serra da Mocidade National Park, Brasil-Venezuela border. Roraima, Brasil. © Taylor Nunes, 2006

Purus River, affluent flowing into the right bank of the Amazonas river. Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2001

Indigenous settlement in the savannah at the base of Mount Roraima, Bolívar state. Venezuela.© Federico Bellone, 1999