Search

While Brazil publicly committed to reduce deforestation in Amazonia at the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), the Brazilian parliament is moving toward weakening environmental laws. Deforestation rates continue ascending, reaching in 2021 the highest value since 2006 (13,235 km2). To overcome this paradox, strategies to curb deforestation are mandatory. The current strategy, "Plano Amazônia 21/22," prioritizes law enforcement actions to curb illegal deforestation in only 11 Amazonian municipalities. Here, we show that this prioritization is likely to be insufficient since these municipalities account for just 37% of the current deforestation rate. This strategy may also be undermined by the leakage of deforestation actions to unmonitored municipalities. Using a set of spatially explicit datasets integrated into a deforestation‐prediction modeling approach, we propose a science‐based alternative method for ranking deforestation hotspots to be prioritized by law enforcement actions. Our prioritization method accounts for more than 60% of the deforestation, detecting larger deforested areas in both private and public lands, while covering 27% less territory than "Plano Amazônia 21/22." Optimizing the detection of priority areas for curbing deforestation, as proposed here, is the first step to reducing deforestation rates and comply with the Brazilian legal commitment of 3925 km2 year−1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science-practice interface in ecology and conservation We aimed to identify and describe viewpoints on how the science-practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions by interviewing relevant actors, both scientists (ecologists or conservation scientists) and decision makers (who rely on basic and conservation-oriented ecological knowledge to make decisions). Interactive partners thought scientists had much to learn from decision makers (e.g., viability of potential actions, administrative and political constraints) and decision makers could learn from scientists how science contributes to informed decisions. Scientists in this group had diverse levels of productivity and engagement with practice, but decision makers had engaged in the last 5 years more directly with science than decision makers from other groups (Supporting Information). Finally, although some of our results suggest negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers (e.g., detached producers criticized decision makers for misinterpreting scientific knowledge), there was general agreement that addressing cultural differences is important for linking science and practice effectively. [Extracted from the article]

It is commonly recognized that large uncertainties exist in modelled biofuel-induced indirect land-use change, but until now, spatially explicit quantification of such uncertainties by means of error propagation modelling has never been performed. In this study, we demonstrate a general methodology to stochastically calculate direct and indirect land-use change ( dLUC and iLUC) caused by an increasing demand for biofuels, with an integrated economic - land-use change model. We use the global Computable General Equilibrium model MAGNET, connected to the spatially explicit land-use change model PLUC. We quantify important uncertainties in the modelling chain. Next, dLUC and iLUC projections for Brazil up to 2030 at different spatial scales and the uncertainty herein are assessed. Our results show that cell-based (5 × 5 km2) probabilities of dLUC range from 0 to 0.77, and of iLUC from 0 to 0.43, indicating that it is difficult to project exactly where dLUC and iLUC will occur, with more difficulties for iLUC than for dLUC. At country level, dLUC area can be projected with high certainty, having a coefficient of variation (cv) of only 0.02, while iLUC area is still uncertain, having a cv of 0.72. The latter means that, considering the 95% confidence interval, the iLUC area in Brazil might be 2.4 times as high or as low as the projected mean. Because this confidence interval is so wide that it is likely to straddle any legislation threshold, our opinion is that threshold evaluation for iLUC indicators should not be implemented in legislation. For future studies, we emphasize the need for provision of quantitative uncertainty estimates together with the calculated LUC indicators, to allow users to evaluate the reliability of these indicators and the effects of their uncertainty on the impacts of land-use change, such as greenhouse gas emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]