Global Change Biology (2016) 22, 1821–1840, doi: 10.1111/gcb.

13134

Land use change emission scenarios: anticipating a forest

transition process in the Brazilian Amazon
A N A P A U L A D U T R A A G U I A R 1 , I M A C EL ~ S VIEIRA2, TALITA OLIVEIRA

I A G U I M A R AE
A S S I S , E L O I L D A L L A - N O R A , P E T E R M A N N T O L E D O 1 , R O B E R T O A R A UJ
1 1
O OLIVEIRA
1 3,4
SANTOS-JUNIOR , MATEUS BATISTELLA , ANDREA SANTOS COELHO5, ELZA
4
K A W A K A M I S A V A G E T , L U I Z E D U A R D O O L I V E I R A C R U Z A R A G AO ~ 6, CARLOS AFONSO
7 1
N O B R E and J E A N P I E R R E H . O M E T T O
1
Earth System Science Center (CCST), National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovation (MCTI), Av. dos Astronautas 1758, S~ao Jose dos Campos, CEP 12227-010 SP, Brazil, 2Research and Postgraduate
Coordination, Emilio Goeldi Museum of Para (MPEG), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), Av. Magalh~aes
Barata 376, Belem, CEP 66040-170 PA, Brazil, 3Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA), Parque Estacß~ao Biologica - PqEB s/n°, Brasılia, CEP 70770-901 DF, Brazil,
4
Center for Environmental Studies and Research (NEPAM), State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Cidade Universitaria
Zeferino Vaz, Campinas, CEP 13083-970 SP, Brazil, 5Amazon Regional Center (CRA), Brazilian Institute for Space Research
(INPE), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), Parque de Ci^encia e Tecnologia do Guama, Av. Perimetral 2651,
Belem, CEP 66077-830 PA, Brazil, 6Tropical Ecosystems and Environmental Sciences Group (TREES), Remote Sensing Division,
Brazilian Institute for Space Research (INPE), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), Av dos Astronautas 1758,
S~ao Jose dos Campos, CEP 12227-010 SP, Brazil, 7Higher Education Improvement Coordination (CAPES), Ministry of Education,
Setor Bancario Norte, Quadra 2, Bloco L, Lote 06, Brasılia, CEP 70040-020 DF, Brazil

Abstract
Following an intense occupation process that was initiated in the 1960s, deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon
have decreased significantly since 2004, stabilizing around 6000 km2 yr
1 in the last 5 years. A convergence of condi-
tions contributed to this, including the creation of protected areas, the use of effective monitoring systems, and credit
restriction mechanisms. Nevertheless, other threats remain, including the rapidly expanding global markets for agricul-
tural commodities, large-scale transportation and energy infrastructure projects, and weak institutions. We propose
three updated qualitative and quantitative land-use scenarios for the Brazilian Amazon, including a normative ‘Sustain-
ability’ scenario in which we envision major socio-economic, institutional, and environmental achievements in the
region. We developed an innovative spatially explicit modelling approach capable of representing alternative pathways
of the clear-cut deforestation, secondary vegetation dynamics, and the old-growth forest degradation. We use the com-
putational models to estimate net deforestation-driven carbon emissions for the different scenarios. The region would
become a sink of carbon after 2020 in a scenario of residual deforestation (~1000 km2 yr
1) and a change in the current
dynamics of the secondary vegetation – in a forest transition scenario. However, our results also show that the continua-
tion of the current situation of relatively low deforestation rates and short life cycle of the secondary vegetation would
maintain the region as a source of CO2 – even if a large portion of the deforested area is covered by secondary vegetation. In rela-
tion to the old-growth forest degradation process, we estimated average gross emission corresponding to 47% of the
clear-cut deforestation from 2007 to 2013 (using the DEGRAD system data), although the aggregate effects of the post-
disturbance regeneration can partially offset these emissions. Both processes (secondary vegetation and forest degrada-
tion) need to be better understood as they potentially will play a decisive role in the future regional carbon balance.
Keywords: Brazilian Amazon, CO2 emissions, deforestation, forest degradation, forest transition, scenarios, secondary
vegetation, sustainability

Received 10 June 2015; revised version received 26 September 2015 and accepted 4 October 2015

and deforestation-driven CO2 emissions. According to

Introduction
Several studies discussed the future of tropical forests
in the wake of global concerns over biodiversity loss
Correspondence: Ana Paula Dutra Aguiar, Av. dos Astronautas
1758, CEP 12227-010, S~ ao Jos
e dos Campos, SP, Brazil, tel. +55 12
3208 7799, fax: +55 12 3208-7903, e-mail: ana.aguiar@inpe.br
Le Qu
er
e et al. (2015), CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
combustion was 8.9  0.4 GtC yr
1 from 2004 to 2013,
while emissions from land use change, mainly defor-
estation, represented 0.9  0.5 GtC yr
1 in the same
period. Emissions derived from deforestation processes
are considered one of the most uncertain components

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1821

1822 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.

of the global carbon cycle. The high uncertainty reflects
both the complexity of the deforestation process itself
and the variety of methodologies and data sources used
in the calculations (Ramankutty et al., 2007; Le Qu
er
e
et al., 2015). In this context, improving the methodolo-
gies for quantifying present and future deforestation-
driven emissions is central to climate change, mitiga-
tion, and adaptation studies.
Moreover, it is in the future of the tropical forest
areas themselves where an enormous source of uncer-
tainty lies. For instance, previous scenario modelling
exercises (Laurance et al., 2001; Aguiar, 2006; Soares-
Filho et al., 2006; Lapola et al., 2011) which have
attempted to project deforestation rates for the Brazilian
Amazon highly overestimated the deforestation after
2004 (Dalla-Nora et al., 2014). Until the beginning of the
last decade, the aggressive deforestation and illegal
land appropriation processes in the region (Becker,
1997, 2004; Alves, 2002) seemed to be uncontrollable,
peaking at 27 772 km2 yr
1 in 2004 (INPE 2015). Clear-
cut deforestation rates have been decreasing since then,
oscillating around 6000 km2 yr
1 during the last
5 years. Figure 1a illustrates the difference in the mag-
nitude and spatial distribution of the deforestation pro-
cess comparing the 2001–2006 and 2006–2013 periods.
Recent analyses have discussed the role of commodity
prices and other economic factors, such as the soy and
beef moratoriums, in the slowdown of deforestation
rates, although most have unveiled the integrated set of
actions taken by the Brazilian government to curb
deforestation as a decisive factor (Malingreau et al.,
2011; Assuncß~ao et al., 2012; Macedo et al., 2012; Boucher
et al., 2013; Nepstad et al., 2014). These measures
included the creation of protected areas, the use of
effective monitoring and control systems, and credit
restriction mechanisms. In 2009, the Brazilian govern-
ment also committed to an 80% reduction in clear-cut
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by 2020 com-
pared with the 1996–2005 average annual rates (Federal
Decree 7390 of 9 December 2010). Thus, we can expect
the deforestation and illegal land appropriation control
actions to be maintained, at least in short term.
In fact, some sectors of the society are pressing the
government to go even further and adopt specific
policies to reduce deforestation to zero (Vieira et al.,
2008). Moreover, one of the key issues of the current
Brazilian Forest Code (Sparovek et al., 2012) is the
restoration of the legal reserves (LR) and permanent
protection areas (PPA) in private farms that were ille-
gally deforested during the previous decades. In spite

Hotspots of new deforestation in each period

2001-2006 2006-2013 (25 x 25 km2 cell area %):
(a) 0%

40%
Water, cerrado

Secondary Vegetation in 2008

(b) Total deforested area in 2013 (c) (25 x 25 km2 cell area %):
(25 x 25 km2 cell area %):
0%
0%

40%
100% Water, cerrado
Water, cerrado

Fig. 1 (a) Changes in the deforestation hot spots comparing the 2002–2006 and 2006–2013 periods in regular cells of 25 9 25 km2
(source: PRODES); (b) total deforested area in each 25 9 25 km2 cell in 2013 (source: PRODES); (c) heterogeneous spatial pattern of the
secondary vegetation area in 25 9 25 km2 cells in 2008. (source: TerraClass).

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
 A M A Z O N D E F O R E S T A T I O N E M I S S I O N S C E N A R I O S 1823
of the controversies and uncertainties about the effects
of the recent changes in the law (including the amnesty
to farmers that deforest in the Amazon basin before
2008), the LR and PPA regularization items – if enforced
and incentivised – may induce a considerable restaura-
tion process in the Amazon, which could amount
~80.000 km2 (Soares-Filho et al., 2014). Alternatively,
the Forest Code also allows the regularization of the LR
though a compensation mechanism, protecting avail-
able old-growth forest areas in the same biome. Also on
a positive note, we can mention the establishment of
the Low Carbon Agriculture Program (ABC Plan), led
by the Brazilian Agriculture Ministry, focusing on envi-
ronmentally safe agricultural practices and recupera-
tion of degraded lands (Galford et al., 2013). Finally, the
environmental service payment programs such as
REDD+ combined with global environmental aware-
ness, resulting in consumer-oriented certification pro-
grams and multisector pacts such as soy and beef
moratoriums (Nepstad et al., 2014; Gibbs et al., 2015)
may act as a counterforce to the possibility of the re-
establishment of aggressive deforestation practices.
However, multiple other forces can potentially con-
tribute to the return of high deforestation rates in the
next decades. Among them, the rapidly expanding glo-
bal markets for agricultural commodities fuelled by the
increasing world0 s population and consumption (Lap-
ola et al., 2010; Foley et al., 2011; Lambin & Meyfroidt,
2011), large-scale transportation and energy infrastruc-
ture projects (Fearnside et al., 2006), and – no less impor-
tant – weak institutions (Vieira et al., 2008). Besides, the
threats to the forest are becoming more scattered and
difficult to control. Farmers have shrewdly changed
their deforestation methods and are now clearing smal-
ler patches of forest in an attempt to disguise them
from the current satellite monitoring systems, which
may be underestimating the forest hazards (Rosa et al.,
2012). Moreover, large areas of the old-growth forests
have been annually disturbed by illegal logging activi-
ties and forest fires during the last decades (Cochrane
et al., 1999; Nepstad et al., 1999; Barlow et al., 2003;
Asner et al., 2005, 2006; Arag~ ao & Shimabukuro, 2010;
Alencar et al., 2011) – resulting in a forest degradation
process (Thompson et al., 2013) that leads to a reduc-
tion in the capacity of a forest to produce ecosystem
services, including carbon storage. Recent remote
sensing assessments (INPE0 s DEGRAD system) have
identified 103 000 km2 of degraded forests due to ille-
gal logging and fire activities from 2007 to 2013 – while
the total (clear-cut) deforestation area in the same per-
iod was approximately 56 000 km2 (Figure S4.1). There-
fore, although the environmental protection actions of
the last decade contributed to the decrease of the clear-
cut deforestation rates, they were not sufficient to con-
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
trol the old-growth forest degradation process. In other
words, the old agricultural frontier mentality (Becker,
1997, 2004) still underlies the regional economic, politi-
cal, and institutional contexts, co-existing with stronger
environmental enforcement.
Currently, almost 19% of the original forest in the
Brazilian Amazon has been (clear-cut) deforested
according to the PRODES system (INPE 2015). A new
land-use monitoring system develop by INPE and
EMBRAPA (TerraClass, available for 2008, 2010, and
2012), and approximately 62% of the deforested area in
the Brazilian Amazon is converted to pasture. Highly
mechanised agricultural systems, such as those for soy-
bean crops, are mostly found at the Cerrado Biome bor-
ders and account for 5% of the deforested area. The
TerraClass results for 2012 estimates that approxi-
mately 23% of the deforested areas are later abandoned,
with secondary vegetation taking over – a slight
increase in the overall area of secondary vegetation area
in relation to 2008 (21%) and 2010 (22%). On the other
hand, in 2012, TerraClass estimated the suppression of
25% of the total secondary vegetation area that had
been identified in 2008. As Fig. 1c illustrates, the sec-
ondary vegetation presents a heterogeneous spatial dis-
tribution inside the deforested areas. These differences
emerge from the multiple actors and land-use trajecto-
ries in the region (Perz & Skole, 2003; Costa, 2004;
Aguiar et al., 2007; Almeida et al., 2010). Some land-
scapes are highly dynamic, with shifting patterns of
active agricultural production, fallow and land aban-
donment (Mello & Alves, 2011; Vieira et al., 2014). A
multitemporal (1997–2006) remote sensing analysis
(Almeida, 2009) points out that the half-life of the sec-
ondary vegetation varies across the region, ranging
from 21 to 3 years (5 years in average) depending on
the level of deforestation in each area (Box S3.1).
As Fig. 1b illustrates, most of the deforested areas in
the previous decades concentrates in a region known as
the ‘arch of deforestation’, which has most of the cities
and roads infrastructure, and is more connected to the
rest of the country (Aguiar et al., 2007). As Fig. 1b also
illustrates, the percentage of old-growth forest is close
to 0% in some of the opened areas, despite the legisla-
tion regulated by the Brazilian Forest Code (Sparovek
et al., 2012), which, since 2001, has stipulated that in the
Brazilian Amazon biome every farm must preserve
80% of its area as forest. Previously, since 1965 (Federal
Law 4771), the limit was established at 50%. On the
other hand, the historical deforestation outcome has
helped keep intact the bulk of the ‘Terra Firme’ forests
(Fig. 1b), which host some of the most richly biodiverse
areas in Central and Western Amazonia (Peres et al.,
2010). A significant amount of these old-growth forests
are formally allocated as protected areas, currently
1824 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.
accounting for 60% of the Amazon biome (Figure S3b).
Several studies showed how effective such units may
be at retaining the deforestation frontier (Soares-Filho
et al., 2010; Nolte et al., 2013). Although the fate of the
forest areas outside such a network of protected areas
is more uncertain, the forests sheltered in protected
areas may still suffer the impacts of illegal logging and
of political and economic pressure to give way to agri-
cultural expansion, major infrastructure, and natural
resource extraction projects (FSP 2013; Ferreira et al.,
2014). In addition to all these direct and indirect land-
use-change-related threats, climate change effects may
also affect carbon stocks through the intensification of
extremes events (e.g. frequency and intensity of
droughts) and vulnerability of the forest to fires (Mar-
engo et al., 2011). In summary, all these factors may
pose distinct levels of threats to the remaining forest
lands, both in public and private areas (Vieira et al.,
2008).
Finally, it is important to stress that, although the
greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss
derived from the deforestation process drew interna-
tional attention to the region, any discussion about a
sustainable future must also consider the population
well-being. Decreasing deforestation rates does not
automatically bring socio-economic development (de
Santos-Junior et al., 2010), as the region0 s rural econ-
omy is largely based on the natural resources exploita-
tion (forestry, mining) and cattle-ranching sectors.
Furthermore, the combined results of the fall of defor-
estation and increased agricultural productivity in the
agribusiness have additionally led to a political weak-
ening of a sustainable territorial management model
that includes participation of local populations (de
Santos-Junior et al., 2010). Agricultural settlements also
suffer from lack of proper infrastructure, limiting the
economic opportunities for those actors. The Brazilian
Amazon has a population of 24 million people, 75 per
cent living in urban areas (IBGE 2010). In recent years
(2000–2010), urban areas have experienced an increase
of 30 per cent in the number of dwellings they contain
(IBGE 2010). The perspective of better services and
employment attracts the rural population to urban
areas (Parry et al., 2010). The urbanization process in
the Amazon region, however, has not been followed
by proportional investments in urban infrastructure
(Perz, 2000), and the cities also lack basic services and
employment (Guedes et al., 2009; Santos & Brondizio,
2011; Eloy et al., 2015). In fact, there is an increasing
concern about deteriorating quality of life in the
peripheries of mid- and large cities related to the
intense rural–urban migration (Kanai, 2014). Violence
rates in the region, both in rural and urban areas, are
also alarming (Waiselfisz, 2013).
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
New scenarios for the Brazilian Amazon
In such contexts of high level of uncertainty about the
future, the scenario techniques are recognized as a use-
ful mechanism to explore and understand the conse-
quences of alternative pathways in environmental
studies (Wollenberg et al., 2000; B€ orjeson et al., 2006;
Alcamo, 2008; Wilkinson & Eidinow, 2008). Scenarios
are ‘plausible, challenging, and relevant stories about
how the future might unfold, which can be told in both
words and numbers. Scenarios are not forecasts, projec-
tions, predictions, or recommendations. They are about
envisioning future pathways and accounting for critical
uncertainties’ (Raskin et al., 2005). Environmental sce-
narios were largely exploratory (‘where plausibly are
we heading to?’) in the past decades. Normative/back-
casting approaches (‘what do we want and how do we
get there?’) gradually become more popular and more
widely applied over the last decade, due to the rising
popularity of the strongly normative concept of sustain-
ability (Vergragt & Quist, 2011).
In this study, we propose three updated scenarios for
the Brazilian Amazon until 2050, focusing on their con-
sequences in terms of net CO2 emissions. The scenarios
were built combining exploratory and normative
approaches, participatory methods, and qualitative and
quantitative elements (Raskin et al., 2005), adapting the
method developed by (Folhes et al., 2015) to the regio-
nal scale. Qualitative scenarios about the future were
discussed with representatives from different sectors of
society during two workshops held in Brazil. After a
first workshop, quantitative and spatially explicit mod-
elling results were fed backed to the stakeholders in a
second workshop, to subside a discussion about the
future, especially actions that would lead to a more sus-
tainable future. The computational models (Aguiar
et al., 2012a,b) represent some of the aspects discussed
during the workshops to estimate regional net CO2
emissions.
The modelling approach proposed here is capable of
representing future alternative pathways of the clear-
cut deforestation, the secondary vegetation dynamics,
and the old-growth forest degradation processes – inte-
grating them in a spatially explicit framework to
estimate deforestation-driven CO2 emission. For clarifi-
cation, in this study, (clear-cut) deforestation denotes
the complete removal of trees from an old-growth
forest and the land-use conversion from forest into agri-
culture, urban, mining, etc. Secondary vegetation
dynamics denotes the (intentional) abandonment of the
previously (clear-cut) deforested areas (due to shift cul-
tivation practices, lack of proper pasture management,
or regeneration purposes), and the cyclic removal of
the secondary vegetation. Finally, old-growth forest
1824 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.
accounting for 60% of the Amazon biome (Figure S3b).
Several studies showed how effective such units may
be at retaining the deforestation frontier (Soares-Filho
et al., 2010; Nolte et al., 2013). Although the fate of the
forest areas outside such a network of protected areas
is more uncertain, the forests sheltered in protected
areas may still suffer the impacts of illegal logging and
of political and economic pressure to give way to agri-
cultural expansion, major infrastructure, and natural
resource extraction projects (FSP 2013; Ferreira et al.,
2014). In addition to all these direct and indirect land-
use-change-related threats, climate change effects may
also affect carbon stocks through the intensification of
extremes events (e.g. frequency and intensity of
droughts) and vulnerability of the forest to fires (Mar-
engo et al., 2011). In summary, all these factors may
pose distinct levels of threats to the remaining forest
lands, both in public and private areas (Vieira et al.,
2008).
Finally, it is important to stress that, although the
greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss
derived from the deforestation process drew interna-
tional attention to the region, any discussion about a
sustainable future must also consider the population
well-being. Decreasing deforestation rates does not
automatically bring socio-economic development (de
Santos-Junior et al., 2010), as the region0 s rural econ-
omy is largely based on the natural resources exploita-
tion (forestry, mining) and cattle-ranching sectors.
Furthermore, the combined results of the fall of defor-
estation and increased agricultural productivity in the
agribusiness have additionally led to a political weak-
ening of a sustainable territorial management model
that includes participation of local populations (de
Santos-Junior et al., 2010). Agricultural settlements also
suffer from lack of proper infrastructure, limiting the
economic opportunities for those actors. The Brazilian
Amazon has a population of 24 million people, 75 per
cent living in urban areas (IBGE 2010). In recent years
(2000–2010), urban areas have experienced an increase
of 30 per cent in the number of dwellings they contain
(IBGE 2010). The perspective of better services and
employment attracts the rural population to urban
areas (Parry et al., 2010). The urbanization process in
the Amazon region, however, has not been followed
by proportional investments in urban infrastructure
(Perz, 2000), and the cities also lack basic services and
employment (Guedes et al., 2009; Santos & Brondizio,
2011; Eloy et al., 2015). In fact, there is an increasing
concern about deteriorating quality of life in the
peripheries of mid- and large cities related to the
intense rural–urban migration (Kanai, 2014). Violence
rates in the region, both in rural and urban areas, are
also alarming (Waiselfisz, 2013).
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
New scenarios for the Brazilian Amazon
In such contexts of high level of uncertainty about the
future, the scenario techniques are recognized as a use-
ful mechanism to explore and understand the conse-
quences of alternative pathways in environmental
studies (Wollenberg et al., 2000; B€ orjeson et al., 2006;
Alcamo, 2008; Wilkinson & Eidinow, 2008). Scenarios
are ‘plausible, challenging, and relevant stories about
how the future might unfold, which can be told in both
words and numbers. Scenarios are not forecasts, projec-
tions, predictions, or recommendations. They are about
envisioning future pathways and accounting for critical
uncertainties’ (Raskin et al., 2005). Environmental sce-
narios were largely exploratory (‘where plausibly are
we heading to?’) in the past decades. Normative/back-
casting approaches (‘what do we want and how do we
get there?’) gradually become more popular and more
widely applied over the last decade, due to the rising
popularity of the strongly normative concept of sustain-
ability (Vergragt & Quist, 2011).
In this study, we propose three updated scenarios for
the Brazilian Amazon until 2050, focusing on their con-
sequences in terms of net CO2 emissions. The scenarios
were built combining exploratory and normative
approaches, participatory methods, and qualitative and
quantitative elements (Raskin et al., 2005), adapting the
method developed by (Folhes et al., 2015) to the regio-
nal scale. Qualitative scenarios about the future were
discussed with representatives from different sectors of
society during two workshops held in Brazil. After a
first workshop, quantitative and spatially explicit mod-
elling results were fed backed to the stakeholders in a
second workshop, to subside a discussion about the
future, especially actions that would lead to a more sus-
tainable future. The computational models (Aguiar
et al., 2012a,b) represent some of the aspects discussed
during the workshops to estimate regional net CO2
emissions.
The modelling approach proposed here is capable of
representing future alternative pathways of the clear-
cut deforestation, the secondary vegetation dynamics,
and the old-growth forest degradation processes – inte-
grating them in a spatially explicit framework to
estimate deforestation-driven CO2 emission. For clarifi-
cation, in this study, (clear-cut) deforestation denotes
the complete removal of trees from an old-growth
forest and the land-use conversion from forest into agri-
culture, urban, mining, etc. Secondary vegetation
dynamics denotes the (intentional) abandonment of the
previously (clear-cut) deforested areas (due to shift cul-
tivation practices, lack of proper pasture management,
or regeneration purposes), and the cyclic removal of
the secondary vegetation. Finally, old-growth forest
1826 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.

depends on the project goal. In this work, we selected four ele-
ments of storylines related to the natural resources and land-
use dynamics (Theme I of the participatory workshops,
Figure S1.3) characterizing the different scenarios, to estimate
net CO2 emissions and generate spatially explicit maps: (a)
environmental law enforcement representing the institutional
context; (b) future clear-cut deforestation and old-growth for-
est degradation rates; (c) secondary vegetation dynamics in
abandoned areas after clear-cut deforestation; and (d) changes
in the major spatio-temporal deforestation drivers: protected
areas and roads infrastructure (Aguiar et al., 2007). Table 1
synthesizes the elements used for the quantification of each
scenario, including the intermediate Scenario B (‘Middle of
the road’), combining premises of the two extreme scenarios.
SI2 illustrates the differences regarding the temporal evolution
of the spatial drivers in each scenario.
The quantification of the Sustainability scenario (Scenario
A) considers that institutional and political conditions would
favour the decrease of the old-growth forest degradation and
clear-cut deforestation rates until 2020, reaching a ‘zero
(nonauthorized) deforestation’ target by 2025 (Vieira et al.,
2008) – even surpassing the current Forest Code regulation.
Only a residual 1000 km2 yr
1 deforestation would be autho-
rized under Scenario A, related to urban sprawl, infrastruc-
ture, and mining projects requirements. Scenario A also
considers the regeneration of all illegally deforested areas

Table 1 Scenario quantification: natural resources and land-use theme elements (basis for quantification)

Quantification element Scenario A: sustainability Scenario B: middle of road Scenario C: fragmentation

(a) (Envrionmental) Forest Code Restoration (LRs
Law enforcement and PPAs) and Conservation
measures are enforced,
incentivezed and even
surpassed, promoting a
Forest Transition process and
a “zero” deforestation
situation after 2025. Protected
areas are fully implemented
and respected
(b) Future clear-cut Deforestation rates follows
deforestation and old the current slowdown trend
growth forest degradation and achieve the deforestation
rates target set to 2020 (3900 km2),
and then a new “Zero”
(residual <1000 km2 yr
1)
deforestation target after
2025. Degradation rates
decrease to 1000 km2 yr
1
after 2025
(c) Secondary Percentage of secondary
Vegetation vegetation in relation to the
Dynamics deforested area in every cell
increase to 35% from 2015–
2030. Existing areas of
secondary vegetation are not
disturbed after 2020
(d) Changes in Roads On-going paving concluded
spatial drivers network in 2017 (BR-163, BR-319 and
BR-230). No major federal or
State roads built after 2017
Protected Maintenance of the 2010
areas-PAs protected areas network.
Fully protected
Forest Code Restoration (LRs
and PPAs) measures are
satisfied by compensation
mechanisms, such as remote
forest quotas, instead of local
restoration. Forest code
conservation measures are
respected, deforestation
control mechanisms in place,
and the deforestation target
set to 2020 is achieved and
maintained
Follow the lower
deforestation trend up to the
target 2020 (3900 km2 yr
1),
but stabilize after that at this
level (around
4000 km2 yr
1). Degradation
rates maintains current
average (14 700 km2 yr
1)
Follows the current dynamic
(less secondary vegetation in
more densely occupied areas,
~5 years half-life), except in
old occupation areas where
old secondary forests are
preserved
Same as Scenario C, but
accompained with measures
to avoid uncontrolled
occupation
Same as Scenario A in terms
of area, but less protected in
more densely occupied areas
Forest Code is not respected
and deforestation control
measures are descontinued.
Protected areas are not fully
implemented and protected
Deforestation rates start to
rise from 2014 to 2020 and
continue uncontrolled until
2050, at historical levels prior
to 2004. Degradation rates
maintains current average
(14 700 km2 yr
1)
Follows the current dynamic
(less secondary vegetation in
more densely occupied areas,
~5 years half-life), including
areas of old secondary forests
All paving and planned
roads (Federal and State)
built, distributed in 2017,
2025, 2030 and 2042
Decrease in the extension
and level of protection of the
PAs, gradually returning to
the 2002 extension in 2022
(2018 = 2006; 2020 = 2004;
2022 = 2002)

LR, legal reserves; PPA, permanent protection areas.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
 A M A Z O N D E F O R E S T A T I O N E M I S S I O N S C E N A R I O S 1827
inside private properties (LR and PPA), as measured by
(Soares-Filho et al., 2014), according to the Brazilian Forest
Code, will be successfully implemented though the restaura-
tion mechanism, and other incentives will favour an even
wider restoration process. Institutional mechanisms will be in
place to protect and value the secondary forests as an impor-
tant mechanism of ecosystem services provision (Vieira et al.,
2014). Thus, Scenario A assumes the secondary vegetation
would not be removed periodically, as in the current dynam-
ics (Almeida et al., 2010; Mello & Alves, 2011), being allowed
to grow and became a secondary forest. Besides, the percent-
age of secondary vegetation increases from 22% to 35% from
2015 to 2030, in average 1% per year.
These four premises regarding the natural resources in Sce-
nario A (decrease in the old-growth forest degradation, clear-
cut deforestation, and secondary vegetation removal, allied to
secondary forests expansion) would lead to a ‘forest transi-
tion’ process in the Brazilian Amazon. A forest transition is a
‘land use transition from a land use system characterized by
exploitative use of forests (and thus associated with declining
forest cover) to another characterized by a sustainable use of
forests and thus associated with recovering forest cover’ (Mey-
froidt et al., 2010; Meyfroidt & Lambin, 2011). In a broader
sense, the regeneration of the forest cover in a forest transition
process may result from multiple trends, for instance, the nat-
ural regeneration of forests, forest plantation, and adoption of
agroforestry. In Scenario A, we quantify the CO2 emissions of
a potential forest transition process based on the passive regener-
ation (Hall et al., 2012) of previously (clear-cut) deforested
areas in the Brazilian Amazon. The concept of forest transition
usually refers to process at a regional or national scale here we
refer to a subnational case. Scenario A does not necessarily
implies a Forest Transition in Brazil (Pfaff & Walker, 2010), as
deforestation might continue in other parts of the country,
especially in the Cerrado Biome (Dalla-Nora, 2014).
In Scenario B (‘Middle of the road’), we assume deforesta-
tion rates will reach 3900 km2 yr
1 in 2020 (according to the
voluntary emission reduction national targets) and stabilize at
this level up to 2050. It is important to notice that Scenario B is
also a ‘zero (nonauthorized) deforestation’. But, in this scenar-
io, future deforestation takes place over legally available for-
ests according to the Forest Code, which sums up
~200.000 km2 (Soares-Filho et al., 2014; Martini et al., 2015) In
other words, the forest surplus use is not limited by urban
sprawl or infrastructure purposes, but fully considered for
agricultural expansion. Also differently from Scenario A, in
Scenario B secondary vegetation will follow the current
dynamics, maintaining a relatively low percentage and
lifespan in more densely occupied areas (Almeida, 2009; Mello
& Alves, 2011). Therefore, Scenario B assumes that a restora-
tion process will not take place. This Scenario assumes that the
regularization of the Legal Reserves will occur through the
compensation mechanism in the same biome, as also allowed by
the Forest Code (Soares-Filho et al., 2014; Martini et al., 2015)
On the other hand, the Fragmentation scenario (Scenario C)
assumes a recrudescence of the deforestation rates in the fol-
lowing years, returning to historic levels prior to 2004, due to
political and institutional changes in Brazil. Allied to a global
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
pressure for food, fibre, and biofuels, environmental protec-
tion loses space to the agricultural expansion. Scenario C
assumes an average of 15 000 km2 yr
1 based on a recent
modelling result. Dalla-Nora (2014) modified a global general
equilibrium model (GGEM) to estimate the deforestation rates
for the Brazilian Amazonia and Cerrado. Dalla-Nora (2014)
model combines the effect of intraregional policies applied
after 2004 (such as the credit restriction and the creation of
Protect areas) and the global demand for commodities, based
on population and GDP growth projections until 2050. In the
worst scenario, compatible with the Scenario C premises, the
model estimated an average rate of 15 000 km2 yr
1 for the
Amazonia until 2050. Scenario C also does not consider the
Forest Code will be respected. The secondary vegetation
dynamics follows the current dynamics, including a compara-
tively higher percentage of abandonment close to the forest
border, and a shorter life cycle in more consolidated areas.
Old-growth forest degradation through selective logging and
fore will continue at current levels, both in Scenarios B and C,
based on annual rates observed by the DEGRAD system
(14 700 km2 yr
1), (Appendix S4.1).
Modelling tools parameterization
Our land-use spatially explicit modelling approach combines
a new version of the CLUE model (Verburg et al., 1999) imple-
mented in the LuccME Modelling Framework (Aguiar et al.,
2012a) and the INPE-EM emission modelling framework
(Aguiar et al., 2012b). We use LuccME to generate annual
deforestation maps and INPE-EM to represent the subsequent
secondary vegetation dynamics in the deforested areas:
LuccME. is an open-source framework for the development
of spatially explicit land-use and cover change models devel-
oped at INPE, built as an extension to the TerraME program-
ming environment (Carneiro et al., 2013). To build the model
in this study, we used the LuccME components derived from
the CLUE model for continuous land-use variables (Verburg
et al., 1999) to generate annual deforestation maps. In the case
of deforestation, cells with a positive change potential
received a percentage of the annual change that must be allo-
cated to the whole area, proportionally to their potential. The
current LuccME version differs from the original CLUE model
(Verburg et al., 1999) and also from the initial version adapted
for the Brazilian context (Aguiar, 2006). The original CLUE
model relied on the linear regression method to estimate the
cell potential for change. We created an alternative method
based on the spatial lag regression method (Anselin, 2001;
Aguiar et al., 2007) accounting for spatial autocorrelation (Spa-
tialLagRegression component). Using this component, we were
able to dynamically update the potential of change at each
time step considering not only the temporal changes in the
spatial drivers (according to the scenario premises), but also
the distance to previously opened areas. The allocation mecha-
nism was also modified. In the LuccME version (Alloca-
tionClueLikeSaturation), there are parameters to control the
amount of change that can happen in each cell each year. This
mechanism can be used to represent distinct law enforcement
1826 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.

depends on the project goal. In this work, we selected four ele-
ments of storylines related to the natural resources and land-
use dynamics (Theme I of the participatory workshops,
Figure S1.3) characterizing the different scenarios, to estimate
net CO2 emissions and generate spatially explicit maps: (a)
environmental law enforcement representing the institutional
context; (b) future clear-cut deforestation and old-growth for-
est degradation rates; (c) secondary vegetation dynamics in
abandoned areas after clear-cut deforestation; and (d) changes
in the major spatio-temporal deforestation drivers: protected
areas and roads infrastructure (Aguiar et al., 2007). Table 1
synthesizes the elements used for the quantification of each
scenario, including the intermediate Scenario B (‘Middle of
the road’), combining premises of the two extreme scenarios.
SI2 illustrates the differences regarding the temporal evolution
of the spatial drivers in each scenario.
The quantification of the Sustainability scenario (Scenario
A) considers that institutional and political conditions would
favour the decrease of the old-growth forest degradation and
clear-cut deforestation rates until 2020, reaching a ‘zero
(nonauthorized) deforestation’ target by 2025 (Vieira et al.,
2008) – even surpassing the current Forest Code regulation.
Only a residual 1000 km2 yr
1 deforestation would be autho-
rized under Scenario A, related to urban sprawl, infrastruc-
ture, and mining projects requirements. Scenario A also
considers the regeneration of all illegally deforested areas

Table 1 Scenario quantification: natural resources and land-use theme elements (basis for quantification)

Quantification element Scenario A: sustainability Scenario B: middle of road Scenario C: fragmentation

(a) (Envrionmental) Forest Code Restoration (LRs
Law enforcement and PPAs) and Conservation
measures are enforced,
incentivezed and even
surpassed, promoting a
Forest Transition process and
a “zero” deforestation
situation after 2025. Protected
areas are fully implemented
and respected
(b) Future clear-cut Deforestation rates follows
deforestation and old the current slowdown trend
growth forest degradation and achieve the deforestation
rates target set to 2020 (3900 km2),
and then a new “Zero”
(residual <1000 km2 yr
1)
deforestation target after
2025. Degradation rates
decrease to 1000 km2 yr
1
after 2025
(c) Secondary Percentage of secondary
Vegetation vegetation in relation to the
Dynamics deforested area in every cell
increase to 35% from 2015–
2030. Existing areas of
secondary vegetation are not
disturbed after 2020
(d) Changes in Roads On-going paving concluded
spatial drivers network in 2017 (BR-163, BR-319 and
BR-230). No major federal or
State roads built after 2017
Protected Maintenance of the 2010
areas-PAs protected areas network.
Fully protected
Forest Code Restoration (LRs
and PPAs) measures are
satisfied by compensation
mechanisms, such as remote
forest quotas, instead of local
restoration. Forest code
conservation measures are
respected, deforestation
control mechanisms in place,
and the deforestation target
set to 2020 is achieved and
maintained
Follow the lower
deforestation trend up to the
target 2020 (3900 km2 yr
1),
but stabilize after that at this
level (around
4000 km2 yr
1). Degradation
rates maintains current
average (14 700 km2 yr
1)
Follows the current dynamic
(less secondary vegetation in
more densely occupied areas,
~5 years half-life), except in
old occupation areas where
old secondary forests are
preserved
Same as Scenario C, but
accompained with measures
to avoid uncontrolled
occupation
Same as Scenario A in terms
of area, but less protected in
more densely occupied areas
Forest Code is not respected
and deforestation control
measures are descontinued.
Protected areas are not fully
implemented and protected
Deforestation rates start to
rise from 2014 to 2020 and
continue uncontrolled until
2050, at historical levels prior
to 2004. Degradation rates
maintains current average
(14 700 km2 yr
1)
Follows the current dynamic
(less secondary vegetation in
more densely occupied areas,
~5 years half-life), including
areas of old secondary forests
All paving and planned
roads (Federal and State)
built, distributed in 2017,
2025, 2030 and 2042
Decrease in the extension
and level of protection of the
PAs, gradually returning to
the 2002 extension in 2022
(2018 = 2006; 2020 = 2004;
2022 = 2002)

LR, legal reserves; PPA, permanent protection areas.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
 A M A Z O N D E F O R E S T A T I O N E M I S S I O N S C E N A R I O S 1829

Table 2 LuccME parameters (in bold the differences between the three scenarios)

General parameters

Spatial scale Extent Brazilian Amazon Rain Forest area

(according to PRODES mask)
Resolution Regular cells of 25 9 25 km2
Temporal scale Extent 2013–2050 (scenarios)
Resolution Yearly
Calibration/validation 2004–2010–2013 (PRODES)
Land use/cover classes Percentage of forest, deforest, no-data (cerrado, clouds, water) in the cell

Potential: SpatialLagRegression parameters

Scenario
Deforestation spatial determinants* dependent† Std B Significance

W_log_def Spatial autoregressive coefficient 0.769 0.000

Constant Regression constant
0.012 0.000
connMkt_SPNE Connectivity index via the road network to S~ ao Y
0.046 0.000
Paulo or Recife(source: DNIT and PAC2)
log_distRoads_PAVED Euclidean distance to the closest paved road Y
0.039 0.000
(log10 transformed) (source: DNIT and PAC2)
log_distRoads_ALL Euclidean distance to the closest road (log10 Y
0.029 0.000
transformed) (source: DNIT and PAC2)
log_distWoodProdPoles Euclidean distance to the closest timber
0.084 0.000
extraction and processing center (log10
transformed) (source: IMAZON)
settlProject_AGR Percentage of cell area covered by agrarian 0.048 0.007
projects for agricultural use (PA) (source:
INCRA)
landFertility_HIGH Percentage of cell area covered by soils of high 0.044 0.000
fertility (source: EMBRAPA/IBGE)
protPublicForests_ALL Percentage of cell area covered by Indigenous Y
0.103 0.000
Lands, Conservation Units, Sustainable
settlement projects and Military areas. (source:
MMA, INCRA and FUNAI)

Allocation: ClueLikeAllocationSaturation parameters

Deforestation allocation parameters Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

maxError Maximum allocation error allowed for each 1000 km2 1000 km2 1000 km2
land use
minValue Minimum value (percentage) allowed for that 0% 0% 0%
land use as a result of new changes.
maxValue Maximum value (percentage) allowed for that 50% 50% 80%
land use as a result of new changes
changeThresholdValue Threshold applied to the level of saturation in 40% 40% 40%
each cell. The saturation level is dynamically
computed, according to the available forest in
a 10 9 10 neighborhood, deconsidering the
protected areas. According to the threshold
the speed of change of a given land use in the
cell is modified
maxChange Maximum change in a given land use 4% 6% 6%
allowed in a cell in a time step until
(saturation) threshold
maxChangeAbovethreshold Maximum change in a given land use 3% 3% 3%
allowed in a cell in a time step after
(saturation) threshold

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
1830 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.

Table 2 (continued)

Demand: PreComputed Values

Deforestation rates (km2/year) Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Decreasing to 3900 (2020) to Decreasing to 3900 (2020) Incresing to 15000†† (2020)

1000 (2025) and stabilizing and stabilizing until 2050 and stabilizing until 2050
until 2050

*Data souces: DNIT – Transport and infrastructure National Department. PAC2 – Program for Accelerated Growth Phase 2. INCRA
—Brazilian Institute of Colonization and Homestead. MMA – Environment Ministry. FUNAI—Brazilian National Foundation for
Indigenous Peoples.
†S2 presents the spatiotemporal changes in the drivers for the different scenarios. S6 provides a link to the complete regression
models. Here we present the StdB to allow intercomparison of the drivers.
††An alternative quantification of Scenario C was run for the AMAZALERT project, adopting the annual rate of 19 500 km2 (aver-
age from 1996 to 2005) after 2020. All the other parameters are the same. Although we do not discuss the emission estimates of this
version here, as they are comparatively similar to the 15 000 km2 version, the shapefiles are available (S6).

considerably higher than the clear-cut deforestation rates,
especially in 2008 and 2011, as Figure S4.1 illustrates. The
model estimates for each cell the amount of carbon lost after
each event and the derived 1st order CO2 emissions. The sys-
tem does not discriminate if those areas have or not been
explored by selective logging, nor the intensity of the degrada-
tion. Therefore, for the scenarios, we assumed an average of
40% of carbon loss (Berenguer et al., 2014), including immedi-
ate release by fire and post event mortality. We parametrized
the period for the regeneration of the total biomass loss as
50 years based on Blanc et al. (2009). The model would pro-
vide biased information if the previous degradation (prior to
2007) was not considered, given the aggressive occupation
process in the region during the last decades. Therefore, we
assumed the same average rate of degradation observed from
2007 to 2013 (14 700 km2 yr
1) since 1980.
We use (Nogueira et al., 2008) as the spatially explicit
information regarding the forest above-ground live biomass
(AGBL). The other carbon pools considered are also based
on Nogueira et al. (2008) and included in the model as per-
centages of the AGBL: roots as 25.8%, dead wood as 8.8%,
and litter as 4.9% of the AGBL. The primary forest deforesta-
tion emission parameters are the ones used in Aguiar et al.
(2012a,b), which consider that the 50% of carbon in the
above-ground biomass in the cleared area is instantaneously
released by fire, and the remaining is released gradually
during the following years by biological decomposition and
cyclic fires. It is important to note that the CO2 emission esti-
mated values should be analysed comparatively among the
scenarios, acknowledging that there is a marked large varia-
tion in the magnitude and spatial distribution among
different biomass data sources (Aguiar et al., 2012b; Mitch-
ard et al., 2014; Ometto et al., 2014).
Results
We first present the spatial projections and emission
estimates derived from the clear-cut and subsequent
secondary vegetation dynamics in abandoned agricul-
tural areas. Then, we add the old-growth forest
degradation component and analyse the potential
impacts of the new component on the emission esti-
mates.
Clear-cut deforestation and secondary vegetation
dynamics
Figure 2 illustrates the integrated LuccME/INPE-EM
modelling results regarding the (clear-cut) deforesta-
tion process and secondary vegetation dynamics in
subsequently abandoned areas. Figure 2a presents the
spatially explicit deforestation distribution for the dif-
ferent scenarios in 2050, generated by LuccME. Scenario
A and Scenario B show similar deforestation patterns
around the current existing frontiers (compare with
Fig. 1). Scenario B spatial patterns are very similar to
Scenario A in 2050, except for the larger spread of the
deforested areas around the roads in Central Amazo-
nia. Scenario C shows a more intense concentration of
the deforested areas around previously opened areas,
but also shows the emergence of new frontiers around
some planned roads (for instance, in the Amazonas
State), in a heterogeneous pattern resulting from the
spatial drivers and law enforcement restrictions built-in
in the model allocation procedure (Table 2).
Underneath the similar deforestation patterns in Sce-
narios A and B lays the difference in the area of sec-
ondary forests allowed to regenerate. As Fig. 2b
presents the spatially explicit distribution of the
secondary vegetation in the different scenarios, result-
ing from INPE-EM model runs. Although the main goal
of INPE-EM is to estimate net carbon emissions, the
framework also generates as a by-product the annual
maps of the resulting secondary vegetation spatial dis-
tribution. In Scenario A, according to the rules imple-
mented for the scenarios (Table 1), a major process of
regeneration takes place in a large portion of the previ-

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
 Table 3 INPE-EM parameters (in bold the spatio-temporal parameters and differences between the three scenarios)

Parameter values

2014–2050
Spatially 1960–2001
Parameter name Description explicit (nonspatial mode) 2002–2013 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

SecondaryVegetation component parameters

AgriculturalUseCycle Number of years it takes for n 2 years idem idem idem idem
agricultural land to be
abandoned or rest after
deforestation
InitialAbandonment Number of years of n 3 years idem idem idem idem
Cycle abandonment, before the
secondary vegetation can
be identified by remote
sensing images
AreaPercVegSec Percentage of the deforested y 21% average Based on 0% after 2020 Dynamically Dynamically
area in a given year that will TerraClass 2008 TerraClass 2008† updated updated for
be abandoned and become each year† each year†

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
secondary vegetation.
Source: INPE (2015)
AreaAccPercVegSec Percentage of the total y 0% 0% Increases for each 0% 0%
deforested area that will cell from 2015 to
be allowed to regenerate 2030† to reach 35%.
in addition to the percentage
defined by AreaPercVegSec
RecoveryPeriod1Perc* Percentage of original n 70% idem idem idem idem
biomass recovered
during Period 1
RecoveryPeriod1* Number of years n 25 years idem idem idem idem
of faster recovery
RecoveryPeriod2Perc* Percentage of original n 30% idem idem idem idem
biomass recovered
during Period 2
RecoveryPeriod2* Number of years n 50 years idem idem idem idem
of slower recovery
Halflife Number of years it takes to 50% y Decreases from Dynamically updated After 2020, equals Dynamically Dynamically
of the secondary vegetation to be 19 years (1960) to each year based 10000 (assumes no updated each updated
cut, following an exponential 5 years (2001) on Almeida (2009)† removal) year† each year†
curve. Source: Almeida (2009)
A M A Z O N D E F O R E S T A T I O N E M I S S I O N S C E N A R I O S 1831
 1832 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.

ously deforested areas (Fig. 2c and d). In Scenario B,

‡See S5 for the component description. In this version of the model, considering instantaneous and subsequent death and decomposition of AGBL, i.e., 1st order emissions.
average (14 700
we maintain the current secondary vegetation dynam-
Scenario C ics (with current intraregional differences, see

2007–2013

km2 yr
1)
Appendix S3). However, in Scenario C, the percentage

idem
40%
of secondary vegetation (in relation to the total defor-
ested area) even slightly decreases to 19% (Appendix
S6), as the model spatially represents the premises of
less secondary vegetation in more densely deforested
areas, including in areas of old secondary forests. The
Scenario B

2007–2013

km2 yr
1)

decrease is also a result of deforestation following a

average
(14 700

highly concentrated pattern in Scenario C, reaching

idem
40%

80% of the area in most of the deforested cells, due to

the parameters representing the lack of law enforce-
ment we adopted in the allocation component
<1000 km2 yr
1

(Table 2).
Decrease to
Scenario A
2014–2050

Figure 2d illustrates the CO2 net emission estimates

resulting from the land change processes established
idem
40%

for Scenarios A, B, and C comparing the contribution of

the primary and secondary vegetation for the net emis-
sions in each case. Figure 3 compares the net emission
differences in decadal periods for each scenario (see
18%-40%-57%

Appendix S5 for complete tables). The contrasting sec-

DEGRAD
2007–2013

ondary vegetation dynamics in Scenarios A and B lead

each cell
area in

to very different net CO2 emission estimates. In Sce-

idem

nario A, as Figs 2d and 3a illustrate, we estimate that

the region could become a carbon sink after 2020 in
relation to deforestation-driven emissions. In Scenario
(nonspatial mode)

†See S3 for the details on the generation of the secondary vegetation dynamic parameters.
After 1980, 2007–

B, net carbon emissions remain positive. This happens

18%-40%-57%
2013 average

because the carbon uptake due to the growth of sec-

1960–2007

ondary vegetation is continuously compensated by the

50 years

removal of the old-growth and secondary vegetation.

Carbon uptake is slow (in our model, it takes 25 years
to accumulate 70% of the original biomass, and another
Spatially
explicit

50 years to reach 100%, according to Houghton et al.,

*Model of biomass accumulation based on Houghton et al. (2000).

2000). On the other hand, according to our half-life pre-

y

mises, around 6% every year is being removed, which

summed to the old-growth forest removal offsets the
that year by fire/logging events
The area identified as degraded

Number of years to recuperate

the lost biomass (source: Blanc
OldGrowthForestDegradation component parameters‡

uptake.
ao et al., 2014)
Percentage of AGBL lost as a

Net emission differences between Scenarios B and A

result of the event (source:

can be attributed to the composed effects of decreasing

Berenguer et al., 2014).
(source: INPE, 2015)

deforestation rates, halting the suppression of the sec-

et al. 2008, Arag~

ondary vegetation removal and expanding the existing

secondary vegetation area. To illustrate the contribution
Other compartments not included).

of the secondary vegetation cyclic suppression emis-

sions, we run a variation of the Scenario B (named sim-
ulation B*), assuming the existing secondary vegetation
suppression will cease after 2020 – maintaining the old-
Degrad_PercLossAGBL

growth deforestation rates. The simulation also

Degrad_PeriodRegrow

assumes the deforested areas after 2020 are not going to

Table 3 (continued)

be further abandoned. Our results show the net emis-

Degrad_Area

sions are significantly smaller in Simulation B* than

that in Scenario B, close to zero but still positive, as
Fig. 3a illustrates. This means that even with 21% of the
historically deforested area regenerating (prior to 2020)

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
 A M A Z O N D E F O R E S T A T I O N E M I S S I O N S C E N A R I O S 1833

Total deforested area in 2050

(a) Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C (25 x 25 km2 cell area %):
0%

100%
Water, cerrado

Scenario C Secondary vegetation in 2050

(b) Scenario A Scenario B
(25 x 25 km2 cell area %):
0%

40%
Water, cerrado

(c) Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

1.5 1.5 1.5
Crops, pasture and other
1.2 1.2 1.2 land uses
Area (Mkm2)

Area (Mkm2)
Area (Mkm2)

0.9 0.9 0.9 Secondary vegetation

0.6 0.6 0.6 Total deforested

area
0.3 0.3 0.3

0 0 0
(c) 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

(d)
1500 1500 1500
CO2 emissions (MtonCO2)

Net (CC + SV emission

CO2 emissions (MtonCO2)

CO2 emissions (MtonCO2)

1200 1200 1200

– SV absorption)
900 900 900
Clear cut (CC) emission
600 600 600
300 Secondary vegetation
300 300
(SV) emission
0 0 0
CC + SV emission
–300 –300 –300
–600 Secondary vegetation
–600 –600
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 (SV) absorption
(d) 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Fig. 2 LuccME/INPE-EM scenario results – (a) Spatial distribution of the deforested areas in 2050; (b) spatial distribution of the secondary
vegetation areas in 2050; (c) evolution of total deforested area and secondary vegetation area from 2000–2050; (d) evolution of CO2 emissions
from 2000–2050.

– and consequently absorbing CO2 – the annual absorp- A and C, for example, would be approximately 9 PgC,
tion rate is of the same magnitude than the old-growth from 2015–2050 – of the same order than the estimated
forest annual deforestation-driven emissions (at the at annual global CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion
the 3900 km2 yr
1 level). In Scenario A, the negative (Le Qu
er
e et al., 2015). The net emission results in Fig. 4
net emission estimates are the combined result of the do not clearly capture the point raised in previous
very low authorized deforestation rates (in average works that deforestation frontiers in the Brazilian Ama-
1000 km2 yr
1) and the suppression of secondary vege- zon are moving to areas of higher biomass (Loarie et al.,
tation removal, boosted by the increase of the sec- 2009; Ometto et al., 2014). However, a simple compar-
ondary vegetation area to 35% of the previously ison (Table S5.1) of the average biomass in the defor-
deforested areas. ested area in the following decades, based on Scenario
As expected, Scenario C shows very high emission C spatial projections and three biomass data sources
estimates in comparison with Scenarios A and B. The (Nogueira et al., 2008; Saatchi et al., 2011; Baccini et al.,
cumulative CO2 emission difference between Scenarios 2012), actually confirms the previous works conclu-

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
1834 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.
sions. For instance, using Nogueira et al. (2008), the
average AGBL in the deforested areas is 245 Mgha
1 in
the 2001–2010 decade, but is 263 Mgha
1 from 2041–
2050. Using Baccini et al. (2012), for instance, it
increases, respectively, from 249 to 280 Mgha
1.
Including the old-growth forest degradation component
Figure 4a presents 1st order forest degradation emis-
sion estimates from 2007 to 2013 using the spatially
explicit OldGrowthForestDegradation component of
INPE-EM (Appendix S4), comparing different percent-
ages of the AGBL loss as a result of the degradation,
based on the field work performed by (Berenguer et al.,
2014). In their study, losses from 18% to 57% were
reported, considering a diversity of burned, logged,
and burned and logged plots. Our results illustrate
how significant the forest degradation emissions might
be when compared to 1st order clear-cut deforestation
rates, especially in years such 2011 (compare Fig. 4a
and b). For the 2007–2011 period (Fig. 4a), in average
(considering the intermediate 40% biomass loss level),
the gross degradation emissions represented 47% of the
clear-cut emissions. The results show a consistent
decrease in the clear-cut deforestation emissions
according to the increase in the carbon loss of the dis-
turbed old-growth forests. This changes represent the
aggregated effect of the decrease in the old-growth for-
est biomass in cells where later PRODES detected a
clear-cut deforestation event (see Appendix S5). On the
other hand, our estimates also illustrate how the carbon
uptake resulting from the past regeneration (since 1980)
may also be considerable. For instance, considering the
intermediate 40% biomass loss level from 2007–2011
(a) Annual average from 2007-2013
900
600
MonCO2yr–1
300
0 0
–300
No 18% 40% 57%
degrad loss loss loss
PRODES (emission) 446 433 417 405
DEGRAD (emission) 0 93 196 268
DEGRAD (absorption) 0 –61 –137 –193
Fig. 3 Annual emissions (1st order) comparing the clear-cut deforestation emissions (based on PRODES) and old-growth forest degra-
dation emission and regeneration uptake (based on DEGRAD) Regeneration uptake considers degraded area since 1980: (a) average
from 2007 to 2013; (b) 2011. Notice how the (gross) degradation emission almost equals the clear-cut deforestation in 2011.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
(Fig. 4a), CO2 absorption was 33% of the average 1st
order clear-cut deforestation emissions and 70% of the
degradation 1st order emission.
Finally, Fig. 3b synthesizes the regional balance
considering the three INPE-EM components (Old-
GrowthForestDegradation, ClearCutDeforestation, and Seco-
ndaryVegetation). The complete tables are available in
Appendix S5. Including the forest degradation compo-
nent increases significantly the historical emissions, as
exemplified by the 2000–2010 period (compare with
Fig. 3a). However, counterintuitively, in the long run
(1960–2050), the inclusion of the forest degradation
component (according to the premises in Table 3) does
not show a significant increase in the net emissions of
Scenarios B and C. On the contrary, there is a decrease
(mainly after 2030, compare with Fig. 3a). The explana-
tion for this is the aggregated effect of the past old-
growth forest degradation result in a large carbon
uptake that offsets the new degradation emissions. On
the other hand, controlling future degradation in Sce-
nario A increases the magnitude of the carbon sink
already estimated for that Scenario (compare with
Fig. 3a) – at least while the old-growth forest is recover-
ing from past degradation and part of the previously
deforested area is also undergoing a regeneration pro-
cess (until 2070 and 2095, respectively, according to the
model premises, Table 3).
Discussion
The focus of this paper was to present an innovative
and spatially explicit approach to represent alternative
pathways of CO2 emissions in tropical forest areas. We
proposed new updated spatially explicit scenarios for
(b) 2011
900
600
MonCO2yr–1
300
–300
No
18% loss 40% loss 57% loss
degrad
PRODES (emission) 363 351 337 327
DEGRAD (emission) 0 150 309 415
DEGRAD (absorption) 0 -62 -140 -197
 A M A Z O N D E F O R E S T A T I O N E M I S S I O N S C E N A R I O S 1835

the Brazilian Amazonia, generating annual deforesta- models, in the scope of the AMAZALERT project (see
tion and secondary forest maps until 2050. Updated Appendix S1 and S6 for the project details) and other
quantitative scenarios for the region were necessary initiatives. Moreover, the resulting scenarios can be
because, as discussed by (Dalla-Nora et al., 2014), none nested to the global SSPs (O’Neill et al., 2014), facilitat-
of the scenarios available in the literature plausibly cap- ing comparison with other studies and their use for dif-
tured the overall trajectory that has been observed dur- ferent purposes.
ing the last decade in the Amazon (Laurance et al., To generate the spatially explicit results, we developed
2001; Aguiar, 2006; Soares-Filho et al., 2006; Nepstad new components of the LuccME and INPE-EM mod-
et al., 2008; Lapola et al., 2011). But, different from the elling frameworks (Aguiar et al., 2012a; Aguiar et al.,
previous modelling exercises, here we did not focus on 2012b). The LuccME components are derived from the
the quantitative ‘prediction’ of deforestation or agricul- CLUE model (Verburg et al., 1999) for continuous land-
tural expansion, nor on the development of purely use variables (area percentage of each land use in each
exploratory or BAU (Business as Usual) variation type cell). The use of area percentage information to repre-
of scenarios (Soares-Filho et al., 2006; UNEP 2008). sent the land-use distribution facilitates the application
Instead, we adopted a normative scenario approach, the model for large regions, while preserving the essen-
combining qualitative and quantitative elements, tial information. The main adaptations include using a
adapting the method developed at (Folhes et al., 2015). spatial lag regression technique (Anselin, 2001) to
The proposed scenario approach is in consonance with assess the change potential and the incorporation of
recent sustainability-oriented studies (Vergragt & allocation mechanisms to control the amount of change
Quist, 2011), combining environmental and social for each cell at a given time, based on dynamically
concerns in a broader discussion about the future we updated neighbourhood attributes (Table 2). Using
want and how to get there. We believe the scenario these improvements, there was no need to regionalize
methodology we describe in Appendix S1 could be the study area, as in previous modelling exercises
replicated in other regions and even for different prob- (Aguiar, 2006; Soares-Filho et al., 2006), to correctly allo-
lems. The resulting spatially explicit quantitative sce- cate change across the 4 million ha area. The heteroge-
narios are already being used as the basis to explore the neous spatio-temporal patterns emerge during model
impacts of the land use changes through environmental run according to the spatial drivers, proximity to previ-

(a) Components: ClearCutDeforestation and (b) Components: ClearCutDeforestation, SecondaryVegetation

SecondaryVegetation and OldGrowthForestDegradation
1200 1200
2001-2010 2011-2020 2021-2030 2001-2010 2011-2020 2021-2030
Average annual net CO2 emission in the decade

Average annual net CO2 emission in the decade

2031-2040 2041-2050 2031-2040 2041-2050

900 900

600 600
(MtonCO2yr–1)

(MtonCO2yr–1)

300 300

0 0

–300 –300

–600
A B* B C –600
A B* B C
2001-2010 867 867 867 867 2001-2010 943 943 943 943
2011-2020 268 291 306 466 2011-2020 219 329 343 494
2021-2030 –172 13 188 731 2021-2030 –290 41 212 711
2031-2040 –317 –1 178 770 2031-2040 –418 0 175 705
2041-2050 –328 –7 168 782 2041-2050 –413 –23 152 689

Fig. 4 Net CO2 emission estimates: scenario comparison per decade. (a) Results without including the OldGrowthForestComponent,
using INPE-EM spatial mode (ClearCutDeforestation + SecondaryVegetation). Emissions become negative only combining low old-growth
and secondary vegetation suppression rates (A and B*). (b) Results combining the tree components (OldGrowthForest + ClearCutDefor-
estation + SecondaryVegetation), in the nonspatial mode (as we do not have future spatial projections of the degradation).

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
1836 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.
ously opened areas and allocation model parameters.
Our results reinforce the previous understanding about
the role of the roads as major drivers of the deforesta-
tion (Pfaff, 1999) and the importance of the protected
areas (including indigenous lands, conservation units,
and sustainable settlements) as barriers the frontier
expansion (Soares-Filho et al., 2010) (see Table 2). But it
was only when incorporating the connectivity to mar-
kets variable that we corrected captured the spatial pat-
terns from 2002–2013. The connection to markets
variable was initially developed by (Aguiar, 2006;
Aguiar et al., 2007) as a proxy to the insertion of Ama-
zonia in the national and international productive sys-
tem, to represent the knowledge that roads that offer an
easier access to markets concentrate a greater propor-
tion of deforestation (Alves, 2002). They represent the
influence of places and cities outside the Amazon in the
deforestation patterns, linking the results to the current
teleconnections understanding of land use changes
(Cardille & Bennett 2010; Seto et al. 2012). These results
indicate the importance of developing and exploring
the impacts of new connectivity measures in future
research, especially considering the importance of the
huge multimodal transport network projects underway
in the region to decrease the soybean export costs
(Fearnside, 2015).
The INPE-EM model proved capable of representing
alternative secondary vegetation dynamics and old-growth
degradation and their impacts on the net CO2 balance.
Our approach contributes to the refinement of the car-
bon balance estimates in tropical regions. Previous esti-
mates for the region that do not consider the secondary
vegetation cyclic removal effect overemphasize the role
of the secondary vegetation as a potential sink in the
past and current emissions (Houghton et al., 2000; Ara-
g~ao et al., 2014). Furthermore, Scenario B net emission
results illustrate how the continuation of the current
dynamics of relatively low deforestation rates and short
life cycle of the secondary vegetation would maintain
the region as a source of CO2 – even if a large portion of
the deforested area is covered by secondary vegetation as the
TerraClass system points out. Only in simulation B*, in
which we halted the secondary vegetation removal, we
reach a ‘zero net emission’ situation. But, even in this
case, the region does not become a sink because the
clear-cut deforestation emission still offsets the sec-
ondary vegetation uptake. These results reinforce the
need to better represent the role of the secondary forest
dynamics in the regional carbon balance. Further
research is needed to improve the understanding about
their growing process (carbon uptake) and suppression
cycle (emissions). Currently, we are using a simple lin-
ear growth model based on Houghton et al. (2000), dis-
regarding biophysical and socio-economic factors that
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
may modify the growth rate at different areas (Zarin
et al., 2005; Wandelli & Fearnside, 2015). Carbon uptake
from alternative reforestation mechanisms (for the
restoration of APP and LR, for instance) could also be
explored. Besides, our results also reinforce (Table S6)
the large discrepancies in the magnitude and distribu-
tion of the available forest biomass (Mitchard et al.,
2014; Ometto et al., 2014), which must be addressed to
decrease the level of uncertainty in the emission esti-
mates.
Concerning the old-growth forest degradation process,
our results confirm the potential impact of forest fires
and selective logging emissions as discussed in the lit-
erature (Asner et al., 2006; Arag~ao et al., 2014; Beren-
guer et al., 2014). From 2007 to 2013, we estimated the
average gross emission to be 47% of the clear-cut defor-
estation gross emissions in the same period. However,
previous work did not fully consider the aggregate
effects on time of the subsequent regeneration in the
carbon budget. According to our results (Fig. 4), the
regeneration can partially offset the emissions (Figs 3b
and 4). Our results also provide the first annual assess-
ment of the impacts of the degradation in the old forest
biomass (in a spatially explicit way) and later in the
clear-cut deforestation emissions. However, there are
also many uncertainties that need to be addressed in
future research. First of all, at this point, we are only
providing rough average 1st order emission and carbon
uptake estimates based on the available literature.
There is a need to refine the knowledge about instanta-
neous and lagged emissions, including combustion
fractions of live and dead biomass, subsequent three
mortality (Barlow et al., 2003) and the regeneration
rates through long-term monitoring of postdisturbance
dynamics within permanent plots (Arag~ao et al., 2014).
There is also a need to better discriminate selective log-
ging from fire events, and consider the intensity of the
events through the development of improved monitor-
ing systems. All these improvements would allow us to
build a 2nd order emission model. Besides, the use of a
finer scale resolution grid would minimize the uncer-
tainty about the recurrence of events in the same loca-
tion (see Appendix S4). Second, the impacts of the
degradation though fires and selective logging need to
be assessed not only from changes in carbon stocks.
Previous studies have shown increasingly disturbed
primary forests become more and more similar to
young secondary forests with the changes in structure
and composition (Barlow & Peres, 2008; Berenguer
et al., 2014). Therefore, the detrimental impact on biodi-
versity also needs to be considered. Third, our Scenario
C premises regarding the old-growth forest degrada-
tion rates are maybe conservative, considering that the
high in the clear-cut deforestation rates in that scenario
 A M A Z O N D E F O R E S T A T I O N E M I S S I O N S C E N A R I O S 1837
may increase the remaining forest susceptibility and
the effects of climate change and the frequency of
droughts were are also not considered (Arag~ao et al.,
2008; Alencar et al., 2011).
In spite of the inherent uncertainties in any sce-
nario process, our quantitative results illustrate the
magnitude of the carbon sink that would result from
Scenario A, in which the three processes are halted
to a minimum level: old-growth forest deforestation, sec-
ondary vegetation suppression, and forest degradation.
More broadly than carbon, the expanded and pre-
served forest area in this scenario could also play an
important role in the provision of ecosystem services,
maintaining partial genetic diversity and flows, and
in hydrologic functioning (Almeida et al., 2010). But
is this forest expansion feasible considering the socioeco-
nomic and institutional context of the region? And how
do this forest transition process relates to a broader transi-
tion to sustainability? What is the feasibility of each
scenario? We close the paper with a discussion on
these topics.
Feasibility of the scenarios
Specifically regarding the deforestation rates, a recent
modelling efforts (Dalla-Nora, 2014) reinforce the per-
ception of the stakeholders about importance of the
intraregional actions as a balance to the global demand
for commodities (as summarized in Table S1.2) – and
the feasibility of the contrasting deforestation pathways in
our scenarios. As mentioned, Dalla-Nora (2014) modi-
fied a GGEM to simulate how the interaction of global
demand for commodities and regional land-use poli-
cies would interfere in the deforestation rates (de-
mand) for the Brazilian Amazonia and Cerrado
Biomes. Using premises of intraregional actions
aligned to Scenario A, the model estimated deforesta-
tion rates of approximately 2000 km2 yr
1 after 2020 –
rates between the ones we adopted for Scenarios A
and B (Tables 1 and 2). Using premises of aligned to
the ones in Scenario C, on the other hand, the eco-
nomic model projected that deforestation rates may
reach 15 000 km2 yr
1. However, we must note that
the premises of Scenario C in relation to institutional
context are highly pessimist, giving the current society
concern with the environmental changes. On the other
hand, the framework provided by the Forest Code
allows the future (legal) deforestation of 119 000 km2 –
if the LR are regularized through the compensation
mechanism – or 200 000 km2 – if the regularization
happens through the restoration mechanism (Soares-
Filho et al., 2014). Therefore, the deforestation rates of
Scenario B could be considered the more likely ones,
but since the current institutional conditions are kept
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
in place, including the monitoring systems and the
legal framework protection (Table S1.1).
On the other hand, the possibility massive forest
transition envisioned in Scenario A raises several
issues. First, even if the current Forest Code demands
the regularization of LR and PPA that are below the
legal limits, it is not economically reasonable to assume
farmers in the Amazonia will opt for abandoning pro-
ductive areas for restoration purposes – unless some
finance mechanism is in place to incentivize and
enforce the contrary. Otherwise, the compensation mech-
anism (through the possibility of protecting existing
old-growth forest areas in the same biome) seems the
most consistent choice. Besides, the use of the restora-
tion mechanism would induce more deforestation, both
from a legal perspective (as more old-growth forest
areas would be available according to the Forest Code)
and also from a purely economic perspective (in a logic
of demand–supply), as discussed in (Soares-Filho et al.,
2014; Martini et al., 2015).
Second, the literature identifies some nonexclusive
pathways of forest transition occurring in different
parts of the world (Rudel et al. (2005). In the Brazilian
Amazonia, historically the existing secondary vegeta-
tion resulted from the lack of land appropriation con-
trol and proper technical assistance during the past
decades, which favored extensive cattle ranching, shifting
cultivation and land abandonment practices (Becker, 1997;
Pacheco, 2012; Aldrich et al., 2013). Therefore, the sec-
ondary vegetation in the region was part of the domi-
nant productive systems, at least until 2004. The small
increase (1%) in the overall area of secondary forests
identified by TerraClass from 2008 to 2012 might indi-
cate some subtle change in the current secondary vege-
tation dynamics in the direction of a forest transition
process. On the other hand, also according to Terra-
Class, approximately 25% of the area identified as sec-
ondary vegetation in 2008 was replaced by other uses
in 2012. However, from 2010 to 2012, this percentage is
20% – possibly indicating an increase in the suppres-
sion rate – the opposite of what we would expect in for-
est transition process.
There is a need for future research to unveil the dif-
ferences in the local processes behind these numbers,
analysing different contexts, through comparative local
studies – as some authors report local forest transition
processes, while others the suppression of secondary
forests to give away space to palm plantations (Yui &
Yeh 2013; Lees & Vieira 2013; Brond
ızio 2011). Besides,
understanding the role of secondary forests play in dif-
ferent human-modified landscapes may help us maxi-
mize the environmental services provided by them as
(if) they expand throughout the region. It is also impor-
tant to improve our understanding the impacts of the
1838 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.
deforestation control actions after 2004 on different
types of actors, including intensification and abandon-
ment trajectories. The enforcing of environmental pro-
tection of old-growth and secondary forests though
legislation (Vieira et al., 2014) seems to be inducing
some level of intensification for some actors (de Santos-
Junior et al., 2010; Galford et al., 2013; Pacheco & Poc-
card-Chapuis, 2013). However, there is a need to under-
stand if the lack of options for the less capitalized
actors (small-scale agriculture, traditional population,
settlements) may be boosting land abandonment and
migration, worsening the already chaotic urbanization
process in the region – exactly the opposite of what is
envisioned as a sustainable future from the social per-
spective in Scenario A, in which the structural social
problems of the region are solved, not made worst. Sce-
nario A is a future with well-structured cities, high
quality of life for the entire population, diversified eco-
nomic activities in all sectors, natural resources pre-
served, and widely used for different purposes in a
sustainable manner and by different stakeholders (see
SI.1). In future works, an important complement to the
method we propose would be use other types of mod-
els, including economic ones, to perform a more quanti-
tative analysis about costs and trade-offs of alternative
pathways to the sustainable future discussed with
stakeholders, considering the joint improvement of
socio-economic and environmental indicators.
Finally, it is important to reiterate that as much as a
discussion about a sustainable future cannot be
restricted to the forest fate, it also cannot be restricted
to Brazilian Amazon. Avoiding deforestation and
enforcing restoration only in the Brazilian Amazon can
induce leakages of natural resources degradation in the
neighbour countries and in regions of Brazil, especially
to the Cerrado (Dalla-Nora, 2014) as this biome is less
protected than the Amazonia due to the importance
and power of the agribusiness sector in Brazil (Wolford
et al., 2013) Broader than this, unless a quite uncertain for-
est transition process takes place, our analysis shows that
the land use and forest sector in Brazil will actually pre-
sent a very limited capacity of mitigating other sectors
emissions in the next decades (Le Qu
er
e et al., 2015). As
discussed above, the (legal) deforestation rates and
emissions in the Amazon (and mainly in Cerrado) will
possibly remain positive. In fact, the global warming
challenge we face also requires a major structural
change in the society – instead of relying on unrealistic
forest carbon uptake promises (The-Guardian 2015).
We hope that the modelling and scenario approaches
we developed and the research questions we propose –
and the large uncertainties we leave about the future –
motivate the social actors to further explore alternative
pathways to a sustainable future. The greater or lesser
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
capacity of the models to represent (and influence) the
paths actually pursued by social actors depends on the
social uses – in the public debate and political arenas –
of these analytical tools.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the colleagues and stakeholders who discussed the
scenario premises with the authors, especially at CCST and dur-
ing the AMAZALERT stakeholder workshops. We thank Kas-
per Kok, Dorian Frieden and Naomi Pena for the fruitful
discussions about the qualitative scenario approach in the scope
of AMAZALERT. We also thank the students and researchers
from INPE and other institutes that contributed directly or indi-
rectly to the development of the LuccME and the INPE-EM
modelling frameworks during the last years. We especially
thank Dalton Valeriano, Juliana Kury, Thelma Krug, and the
Ministry of Environment colleagues for the forest degradation
discussion. The authors were partially funded by the following
projects: AMAZALERT (Seventh Framework Programme Pro-
ject 282664), Rede Clima (MCTI), FAPESP (Project n. 14/50627-
2), and INCT Mudancßas Clim
aticas (CNPq).
References
Aguiar APD (2006) Modeling Land Use Change in the Brazilian Amazon: Exploring Intra-
Regional Heterogeneity (MODELAGEM DE MUDANC ß A DO USO DA TERRA NA
AMAZONIA: EXPLORANDO A HETEROGENEIDADE INTRARREGIONAL).
INPE, S~ao Jos
e dos Campos. Available at http://mtc-m16b.sid.inpe.br/col/sid.in-
pe.br/MTC-m13@80/2006/08.10.18.21/doc/publicacao.pdf(accessed 30 Novem-
ber 2015).
Aguiar APD, Camar G, Escada MIS (2007) Spatial statistical analysis of land-use
determinants in the Brazilian Amazonia: exploring intra-regional heterogeneity.
Ecological Modelling, 209, 169–188.
Aguiar APD, Carneiro T, Andrade PR, Assis TO (2012a) LuccME-TerraME: an open-
source framework for spatially explicit land use change modelling. Global Land
Project News, 8, 21–23.
Aguiar APD, Ometto JP, Nobre C et al. (2012b) Modeling the spatial and temporal
heterogeneity of deforestation-driven carbon emissions: the INPE-EM framework
applied to the Brazilian Amazon. Global Change Biology, 18 , 3346–3366.
Alcamo J (2008) Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Alcamo J, Robeiro T (2001) Scenarios as tools for international environmental assessments.
Environmental issue report No 24, Luxembourg. Available at http://www.eea.eu-
ropa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_24 (accessed 30 November
2015).
Aldrich S, Walker R, Simmons C, Caldas M, Perz S (2013) Contentious land change in
the Amazon’s arc of deforestation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
102 , 103–128.
Alencar A, Asner G, Knapp D, Zarin DJ (2011) Temporal variability of forest fires in
eastern Amazonia. Ecological Applications, 21 , 2397–2412.
Almeida C (2009) Estimativa da area e do tempo de perman^encia da vegetacß~ao secundaria na
Amaz^onia legal por meio de imagens Landsat/TM. INPE, S~ao Jos
e dos Campos.
Almeida AS, Stone TA, Vieira ICG, Davidson EA (2010) Nonfrontier deforestation in
the Eastern Amazon. Earth Interactions, 14 , 1–15.
Alves DS (2002) Space-time dynamics of deforestation in Brazilian Amaz^ onia. Interna-
tional Journal of Remote Sensing, 23, 2903–2908.
Anselin L (2001) Spatial Econometrics. In A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics (ed.
Baltagi B), pp. 310–330. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Arag~ao LEOC, Shimabukuro YE (2010) The incidence of fire in Amazonian forests
with implications for REDD. Science, 328 , 1275–1278.
Arag~ao LEOC, Malhi Y, Barbier N, Lima A, Shimabukuro Y, Anderson L, Saatchi S
(2008) Interactions between rainfall, deforestation and fires during recent years in
the Brazilian Amazonia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, 363 , 1779–1785.
Arag~ao LEOC, Poulter B, Barlow JB et al. (2014) Environmental change and the car-
bon balance of Amazonian forests. Biological Reviews, 89 , 913–931.
 A M A Z O N D E F O R E S T A T I O N E M I S S I O N S C E N A R I O S 1839
Asner GP, Knapp DE, Broadbent EN, Oliveira PJC, Keller M, Silva JN (2005) Selective
logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science, 310, 480–482.
Asner GP, Broadbent EN, Oliveira PJC, Keller M, Knapp DE, Silva JNM (2006) Condi-
tion and fate of logged forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 103 , 12947–12950.
Assuncß~ao JA, Gandour CC, Rocha R (2012) Deforestation Slowdown in the Legal Amazon:
prices or Policies?. Climate Policy Initiative - PUC Rio, Rio de Janeiro.
Baccini A, Goetz SJ, Walker WS et al. (2012) Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from
tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nature Climate Change, 2
, 182–185.
Barlow J, Peres CA (2008) Fire-mediated dieback and compositional cascade in an
Amazonian forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biologi-
cal Sciences, 363 , 1787–1794.
Barlow J, Peres CA, Lagan BO, Haugaasen T (2003) Large tree mortality and the
decline of forest biomass following Amazonian wildfires. Ecology Letters, 6 , 6–8.


Becker B (1997) Amaz^onia 5a. Atica, S~ao Paulo.
Becker B (2004) Amaz^onia: geopolıtica na virada do III mil^enio. Garamond, Rio de
Janeiro.
Berenguer E, Ferreira J, Gardner TA et al. (2014) A large-scale field assessment of car-
bon stocks in human-modified tropical forests. Global Change Biology, 20, 3713–3726.
Blanc L, Echard M, Herault B, Bonal D, Marcon E, Chave J, Baraloto C. (2009) Dynam-
ics of aboveground carbon stocks in a selectively logged tropical forest. Ecological
applications: a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 19 , 1397–1404.
B€
orjeson L, H€ ojer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and
techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38 , 723–739.
Boucher D, Roquemore S, Fitzhugh E (2013) Brazil’s success in reducing deforesta-
tion. Tropical Conservation Science, 6 , 426–445.
Brond
ızio ES (2011) Forest resources, family networks and the municipal disconnect:
examining recurrent underdevelopment in the Amazon estuary. In: The Amazon
Varzea – The Decade Past and the Decade Ahead (eds Pinedo-Vasquez M, Ruffino ML,
Padoch C, Brond
ızio ES), pp. 207–222, Springer, New York.
Cardille JA, Bennett EM (2010) Ecology: tropical teleconnections. Nature Geoscience, 3,
154–155.
Carneiro TGS, Andrade PR, C^amara G, Monteiro AMV, Pereira RR (2013). An exten-
sible toolbox for modeling nature-society interactions. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 46 Issue C, 104–117.
Cochrane MA, Alencar A, Schulze MD, Souza CM, Nepstad DC, Lefebvre P, David-
son EA (1999) Positive feedbacks in the fire dynamic of closed canopy tropical for-
ests. Science, 284 , 1832–1835.
Costa FA (2004) Path dependency e a transformacß~ao agr
aria do bioma amaz^ onico:o
sentido econ^ omico das capoeiras para o desenvolvimento sustent
avel. Novos
Cadernos NAEA, 7, 111–158.
Costanza R (1989) Model goodness of fit: a multiple resolution procedure. Ecological
Modelling, 47, 199–215.
Dalla-Nora EL (2014) Modeling the interplay between global and regional drivers on ama-
zon deforestation. INPE. Available at http://mtc-m21b.sid.inpe.br/col/sid.inpe.br/
mtc-m21b/2014/05.23.11.59/doc/publicacao.pdf (accessed 30 November 2015).
Dalla-Nora EL, Aguiar APD, Lapola DM, Woltjer G (2014) Why have land use change
models for the Amazon failed to capture the amount of deforestation over the last
decade? Land Use Policy, 39, 403–411.
Eloy L, Brondizio ES, Do-Pateo R (2015) New perspectives on mobility, urbanisation
and resource management in riverine amaz^ onia. Bulletin of Latin American Research,
34 , 3–18.
Fearnside P (2015) Amazon dams and waterways: Brazil’s Tapaj
os Basin plans.
Ambio, 44 , 426–439.
Fearnside P, Gracßa PA, Lima PM (2006) Brazil0 s Manaus-Porto Velho highway and
the potential impact of linking the arc of deforestation to central amazonia. Envi-
ronmental Management, 38 , 705–716.
Ferreira J , Arag~ao LEOC, Barlow J et al. (2014) Brazil’s environmental leadership at
risk. Science, 346 , 706–707.
Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA et al. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet.
Nature, 478 , 337–342.
Folhes RT, Aguiar APD, Stoll E, Dalla-Nora EL, Ara
ujo R, Coelho A, Canto O. (2015)
Multi-scale participatory scenario methods and territorial planning in the Brazilian
Amazon. Futures, 73, 86–99.
FSP (2013) Entenda demarcacßo ~es de terras ind
ıgenas e conflitos com propriet
arios
rurais. Folha de S~ao Paulo. Available at http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/
2013/06/1295478-entenda-demarcacoes-de-terras-indigenas-e-conflito-com-pro-
prietarios-rurais.shtml (accessed 30 November 2015).
Galford GL, Soares-Filho B, Cerri CEP (2013) Prospects for land-use sustainability
on the agricultural frontier of the Brazilian Amazon. Philosophical Transactions
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368. Available at http://rstb.royalsoci-
etypublishing.org/content/368/1619/20120171.abstract (accessed 31 December
2015).
Gibbs HK, Rausch L, Munger J et al. (2015) Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science, 347 ,
377–378.
Guedes G, Costa S, Brond
ızio E (2009) Revisiting the hierarchy of urban areas in
the Brazilian Amazon: a multilevel approach. Population and environment, 30 , 159–
192.
Hall J, Holt T, Daniels A, Balthazar V, Lambin E (2012) Trade-offs between tree cover,
carbon storage and floristic biodiversity in reforesting landscapes. Landscape Ecol-
ogy, 27 , 1135–1147.
Hosonuma N, Herold M, Sy V et al. (2012) An assessment of deforestation and forest
degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters, 7 ,
44009.
Houghton RA, Skole DL, Nobre CA, Hackler JL, Lawrence KT, Chomentowski WH
(2000) Annual fluxes of carbon from deforestation and regrowth in the Brazilian
Amazon. Nature, 403 , 301–304.
IBGE (2010) Censo demografico 2010. Sistema IBGE de Recuperacao Automatica –
SIDRA. [WWW document]. Available at www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/ (accessed 30
November 2015).
INPE (2015) Amazon Program - Monitoring the Brazilian Amazon by satellite: The
PRODES, DETER, DEGRAD and TerraClass Systems. Available at www.inpe.br
(accessed 30 November 2015).
Kanai JM (2014) On the peripheries of planetary urbanization: globalizing Manaus
and its expanding impact. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32 , 1071–
1087.
Kok K (2009) The potential of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for semi-quantitative scenario
development, with an example from Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 107 , 3389–3393.
Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and
the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 ,
3465–3472.
Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Koch J, Koelking C, Priess JA (2010)
Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 , 3388–3393.
Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J et al. (2011) Impacts of climate change and the
end of deforestation on land use in the Brazilian Legal Amazon. Earth Interactions,
15 , 1–29.
Laurance W, Cochrane M, Bergen S et al. (2001) The future of the Brazilian Amazon.
Science, 291, 438–439.
Le Qu
er
e C, Moriarty R, Andrew RM et al. (2015) Global carbon budget 2014. Earth
System Science Data, 7 , 47–85.
Lees AC, Vieira ICG (2013) Oil-palm concerns in Brazilian Amazon. Nature, 497, 188.
Loarie SR, Asner GP, Field CB (2009) Boosted carbon emissions from Amazon defor-
estation. Geophysical Research Letters, 36 , L14810.
Macedo MN, DeFries RS, Morton DC, Stickler CM, Galford GL, Shimabukuro YE
(2012) Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon
during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 1341–1346.
Malingreau J, Eva H, Miranda E (2011) Brazilian Amazon: a significant five year drop
in deforestation rates but figures are on the rise again. AMBIO: a Journal of the
Human Environment, 41 , 309–314.
Marengo JA, Tomasella J, Alves LM, Soares WR, Rodriguez DA (2011) The drought
of 2010 in the context of historical droughts in the Amazon region. Geophysical
Research Letters, 38 , L12703.
Martini DZ, Moreira MA, Arag~ao LEOC, Formaggio AR, Dalla-Nora EL (2015) Poten-
tial land availability for agricultural expansion in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use
Policy, 49, 35–42.
Mello AYI, Alves DS (2011) Secondary vegetation dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon
based on thematic mapper imagery. Remote Sensing Letters, 2 , 189–194.
Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2011) Global forest transition: prospects for an end to defor-
estation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36 , 343–371.
Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010). Forest transitions, trade, and the global
displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 ,
20917–20922.
Mitchard ETA, Feldpausch TR, Brienen RJW et al. (2014) Markedly divergent esti-
mates of Amazon forest carbon density from ground plots and satellites. Global
Ecology and Biogeography, 23 , 935–946.
Nepstad DC, Verssimo A, Alencar A et al. (1999) Large-scale impoverishment of
Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature, 398 , 505–508.
Nepstad DC, Stickler CM, Soares-Filho BS, Merry F (2008) Interactions among Ama-
zon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point.
1840 A . P . D . A G U I A R et al.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363,
1737–1746.
Nepstad D, McGrath D, Stickler C et al. (2014) Slowing Amazon deforestation
through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344
, 1118–1123.
Nogueira EM, Fearnside PM, Nelson BW, Barbosa RI (2008) Estimates of forest biomass
in the Brazilian Amazon: new allometric equations and adjustments to biomass
from wood-volume inventories. Forest Ecology and Management, 256 , 1853–1867.
Nolte C, Agrawal A, Silvius KM, Soares-Filho BS (2013) Governance regime and loca-
tion influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian
Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 4956–4961.
Ometto JP, Aguiar APD, Assis T et al. (2014) Amazon forest biomass density maps:
tackling the uncertainty in carbon emission estimates. Climatic Change, 124, 545–
560.
O’Neill B, Kriegler E, Riahi K et al. (2014) A new scenario framework for climate
change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change,
122 , 387–400.
Pacheco P (2012) Actor and frontier types in the Brazilian Amazon: assessing interac-
tions and outcomes associated with frontier expansion. Geoforum, 43 , 864–874.
Pacheco P, Poccard-Chapuis R (2013) The complex evolution of cattle ranching devel-
opment amid market integration and policy shifts in the Brazilian Amazon. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 102 , 1366–1390.
Parry L, Day B, Amaral S, Peres CA (2010) Drivers of rural exodus from Amazonian
headwaters. Population and Environment, 32 , 137–176.
Peres CA, Gardner TA, Barlow J et al. (2010) Biodiversity conservation in human-
modified Amazonian forest landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143 , 2314–2327.
Perz SG (2000) The quality of urban environments in the Brazilian Amazon. Social
Indicators Research, 49, 181–212.
Perz SG, Skole DL (2003) Social determinants of secondary forests in the Brazilian
Amazon. Social Science Research, 32, 25–60.
Pfaff A (1999) What drives deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? Evidence from
satellite and socio-economic data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
ment, 37, 26–43.
Pfaff A, Walker R (2010) Regional interdependence and forest transitions: substitute
deforestation limits the relevance of local reversals. Land Use Policy, 27 , 119–129.
Pontius RG (2002) Statistical methods to partition effects of quantity and location dur-
ing comparison of categorical maps at multiple resolutions. Photogrammetric Engi-
neering & Remote Sensing, 68, 1041–1049.
Ramankutty N, Gibbs HK, Achard F, Defries R, Foley JA, Houghton RA. (2007) Chal-
lenges to estimating carbon emissions from tropical deforestation. Global Change
Biology, 13 , 51–66.
Raskin P, Monks F, Ribeiro T, vanVuuren D, Zurek M (2005) Global Scenarios in His-
torical Perspectives. In Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios. Volume 2: findings
of the scenarios working group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (ed. Carpenter
PLPSR, Bennett EM, Zurek MB), pp. 35–44. Washington, DC, USA, Island Press.
Rosa IMD, Souza C, Ewers RM (2012) Changes in size of deforested patches in the
Brazilian Amazon. Conservation Biology, 26 , 932–937.
Rudel TK, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A (2005) Forest transitions:
towards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environmental Change,
15, 23.
Saatchi SS, Harris NL, Brown S et al. (2011) Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in
tropical regions across three continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 108 , 9899–9904.
Santos S, Brondizio ES (2011). Cities Along the Floodplain of the Brazilian Amazon:
characteristics and Trends. In The Amazon Varzea - The Decade Past and the Decade
Ahead (eds Pinedo-Vasquez M, Ruffino ML, Padoch C, Brondı́zio ES), pp. 83–100.
Springer, New York.
Santos-Junior RAO, Costa FDA, Aguiar APD, de Toledo PM, Vieira ICG, Camara G
(2010) Desmatamento, trajetorias tecnologicas rurais e metas de contencao de
emissoes na Amazonia. Ciencia e Cultura, 62, 56–59.
Seto K, Reenberg A, Boone CG et al. (2012) Urban land teleconnections and sustain-
ability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
109, 7687–7692.
Soares-Filho B, Nepstad D, Curran L et al. (2006) Modeling conservation in the Ama-
zon basin. Nature, 440, 520–523.
Soares-Filho B, Moutinho P, Nepstad D et al. (2010) Role of Brazilian Amazon pro-
tected areas in climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 107 , 10821–10826.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 22, 1821–1840
Soares-Filho B, Raj~ao R, Macedo M et al. (2014) Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science,
344 , 363–364.
Sparovek G, Berndes G, Barretto AG de OP, Klug ILF (2012) The revision of the
Brazilian Forest Act: increased deforestation or a historic step towards balancing
agricultural development and nature conservation. Environmental Science & Policy,
16, 65–72.
The-Guardian (2015) Brazil announces massive reforestation and renewable energy
plan with US. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/30/
brazil-us-reforestation-forests-renewable-energy (accessed 30 November 2015).
Thompson ID, Guariguata MR, Okabe K, Bahamondez C, Nasi R, Heymell V, Sabogal
C (2013) An operational framework for defining and monitoring forest degrada-
tion. Ecology and Society, 18.
UNEP (2008) Environment Outlook in the Amazonia - GEO Amazonia. UNEP/ACTO/
CIUP, Panama City, Panama.
Verburg P, De Koning G, Kok K, Veldkamp A, Bouma J (1999) A spatial explicit allo-
cation procedure for modelling the pattern of land use change based upon actual
land use. Ecological Modelling, 116, 45–61.
Vergragt PJ, Quist J (2011) Backcasting for sustainability: introduction to the special
issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78 , 747–755.
Vieira ICG, Toledo PM, Silva JMC, Higuchi H (2008) Deforestation and threats to the
biodiversity of Amazonia. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 68, 949–956.
Vieira I, Gardner T, Ferreira J, Lees A, Barlow J (2014) Challenges of governing sec-
ond-growth forests: a Case Study from the Brazilian Amazonian State of Para. For-
ests, 5 , 1737–1752.
Waiselfisz JJ (2013) Mapa da Viol^encia 2013: Mortes Matadas por Arma de Fogo.
Available at http://www.mapadaviolencia.org.br/mapa2013_armas.php (ac-
cessed 30 November 2015).
Wandelli EV, Fearnside PM (2015) Secondary vegetation in central Amazonia: land-
use history effects on aboveground biomass. Forest Ecology and Management, 347,
140–148.
Wilkinson A, Eidinow E (2008) Evolving practices in environmental scenarios: a new
scenario typology. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 045017.
Wolford W, Borras SM, Hall R, Scoones I, White B (2013) Governing global land
deals: the role of the state in the rush for land. Development and Change, 44 , 189–
210.
Wollenberg E, Edmunds D, Buck L (2000) Anticipating Change: scenarios as a Tool
for Adaptive Forest Management. A Guide. CIFOR, Bogor.
Yui S, Yeh S (2013) Land use change emissions from oil palm expansion in Par
a, Bra-
zil depend on proper policy enforcement on deforested lands. Environmental
Research Letters, 8, 44031.
Zarin DJ, Davidson EA, Brondizio E et al. (2005) Legacy of fire slows carbon accumu-
lation in Amazonian forest regrowth. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3 ,
365–369.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the
online version of this article:
Appendix S1. Participatory scenario process: overview and
key results.
Appendix S2. LuccME: scenario-dependent spatiotemporal
drivers.
Appendix S3. INPE-EM: scenario-dependent dynamic sec-
ondary vegetation parameters.
Appendix S4. INPE-EM: the new Forest Degradation Com-
ponent.
Appendix S5. Changes in average biomass from 2015 to
2050 in Scenario C.
Appendix S6. Information for download: model code, data
and results.