With the largest extent of tropical forest in the world, the dynamics of forest loss and fragmentation in Brazil have been the focus of attention for over 50 years. Global shifts in trade to the Pacific and growing infrastructure, however, threaten the western end of the forests in the Andean region, including the Amazon. Research combining spatial and socioeconomic analyses, as well as exploring the 20th-century history of the region, reveals three surprising findings. First, wedges of deforestation are strongly associated with directed colonization projects more than 40 years old. Second, although pastures are the end state of much formerly forested land, demand for beef is a poor predictor of this process and urbanization following infrastructure upgrade is a better correlate. Finally, coca cultivation, widely believed to be a motor of forest loss, contributes little to the process both directly and indirectly. Instead, the clearing of these forests corresponds to the transformation of nominally state-owned forests into private properties, and occurs in tandem with local urbanization and despite overall rural depopulation.

1. Past, present, and future of deforestation in the
northwestern Amazon
Liliana M. Dávalos
Columbia University
E3B Seminar
27 March 2018
!

2. What we do in the lab
The Dávalos Lab

3. A double mission
Biological
diversity
Evolution Extinctionincrease decrease

4. Focus on deforestation A recent headline
Biological
diversity
Evolution Habitat lossincrease decrease

5. A positive exponential trend
Álvarez 2002 Cons. Biol.

6. Dávalos et al. 2011 Env.
Sci. & Tech.
Coca = deforestation

7. Evaluating effects of
coca
• Direct vs. indirect
• Plots small, direct
effect small
• Indirect effects larger
• There are other countries
• Should hold across
producers
• Background
deforestation ≠ 0
• Must control for other
factors
• E.g., roads, population
Dávalos et al. 2011 Env.
Sci. & Tech.

8. If coca cultivation is an
important factor then:
• Direct effects
• Loss rate high
• Compared to other
agriculture
• Indirect effects:
• Loss rate higher in
producer countries/
areas
• Times with more coca
correspond to more
deforestation
• Coca cultivation will
covary with rates

9. Rates higher in areas
without coca, but Bolivia
Data from Hansen et al.
2013 Science

10. Direct loss rate from
coca is low
UNODC 2016 World
Drug Report

11. In Bolivia rates did rise
with coca boom
Killeen et al. 2007
Ambio

12. The best data are
from Colombia
• Three ≠ studies
• Dávalos et al. 2011
Env. Sci. & Tech.
• LandSat 2002-2007
• Armenteras et al. 2013
Reg. Environ. Change
• LandSat 1990-2005
• Sánchez Cuervo & Aide
2013 Ecosystems
• MODIS 2001-2010
Dávalos et al. 2011 Env.
Sci. & Tech.

13. Not in Amazonia, but still
signal
Armenteras et al. 2013
Reg. Environ. Change

14. However, generalized linear
models cannot be trusted
Mets et al. 2017
Ecosphere

15. A reanalysis of the data Unpublished

16. Key points, illicit crops
• Direct effects
• Loss rate high ✘ when
compared to other
agriculture
• Indirect effects:
• Loss rate higher in
producer countries ✘
• Times with more coca
correspond to more
deforestation ✔ in Bolivia
• Coca cultivation will covary
with rates ✘
Novoa & Finer 2015

17. 200 km
40 km
Not all effects
depend on rates
• If endemic species
• Small area = large
effect
• Biodiversity in Andes,
Chocó
• High
• Irreplaceable
• Detailed and focused
analyses needed
Unpublished

18. Serranía de San
Lucas
• Last large remnant of
Andean forest in
Colombia
• Unprotected
• Almost declared a park
in 2010
• Decision postponed
because of gold mining
• Threats:
• Agriculture including
coca
• Mining
Dávalos 2001 Biod. &
Cons.

19. Dynamics of San Lucas
stand out
Mets et al. 2017
Ecosphere
San Lucas
Santa Marta
San Lucas
Santa Marta
San Lucas
Santa Marta
San Lucas
Santa Marta

20. Modeling forest loss
in San Lucas
• Time
• 2002-2007
• 2007-2010
• Factors
• Roads
• Rivers
• Proximity to other
crops
Chadid et al. 2015
Forests

21. Modeling forest loss
in San Lucas
• Time
• 2002-2007
• 2007-2010
• Factors
• Roads
• Rivers
• Proximity to other
crops
Chadid et al. 2015
Forests

22. Pastures and coca
behave differently
Chadid et al. 2015
Forests

23. Key points, San
Lucas
• Deforestation accelerating ✔
• Focus on annual
deforestation obscures
pattern
• Direct loss
• Coca << pasture ✘
• But coca not negligible ✔
• Operates as spearhead
for later cultivation
• Frontier dynamics
• Roads either not recorded or
not important ✘
Chadid et al. 2015
Forests

24. Most forest loss =
pasture = cattle?
Kaimowitz et al. 2004
CIFOR

25. Guaviare forests, coca, pastures and cattle
Hamburger! (or steak)
Kaimowitz et al. 2004 CIFOR
Coca
Dávalos et al. 2011 Environ
Sci Technol
Land tenure and property
Hecht 1993 BioScience

26. Three hypotheses, three sets of predictions
Hamburger! (or steak)
Kaimowitz et al. 2004 CIFOR
Coca
Dávalos et al. 2011 Environ
Sci Technol
Land tenure and property
Hecht 1993 BioScience
+ demand beef
+ beef, + cattle
+ cattle, + pasture
+ pasture, - forest
+ demand cocaine
+ cocaine, + coca
+ coca, - forest
+ demand land
+ pasture, + cattle
+ cattle, - forest

27. 1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
3035404550
Forest
NP
1500
2000
2500
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Pasture
150
200
250
300
350
400
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
0.51.01.52.02.5
Coca
500
550
600
650
700
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
3035404550
PA(ha)
150
200
250
300
350
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
28 30 32 34 36 38 40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
0.51.01.52.02.5
90
100
110
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
3035404550
PLAND
ENN(m)
95
100
105
110
115
120
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
28 30 32 34 36 38 40
PLAND
300
400
500
600
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
0.51.01.52.02.5
PLAND
Figure 2
BA
G
C
E FD
H I
25
30
35
40
45
50
2001 2004 2007 2010
25
30
35
40
2001 2004 2007 2010
1
2
3
2001 2004 2007 2010
PLAND
K L M
Rapid forest loss in
Guaviare
Dávalos et al. 2014
Biol. Cons.

28. A
B
C
Figure
Calamar
El Retorno
San Jose
30,000
60,000
90,000
10
20
30
Year
CattlePriceofbeef(pesos/Kg)RanchingGDP(109
pesos)
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
The hamburger
connection
• Cattle increase ✔
• Demand beef ✘
• Revenue beef ✘
Dávalos et al. 2014
Biol. Cons.

29. ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
2000
4000
6000
0 3000 6000 9000
Eradication previous year (ha)
Cocacultivation(ha)
The coca connection
• Cultivation increase ✘
• Effect of
eradication?
Dávalos et al. 2014
Biol. Cons.

30. Municipality
●
●
●
Calamar
El Retorno
San Jose
Figure 6
A B
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
20
30
40
30,000 60,000 90,000
Cattle
Percentagelandpasture
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
2,000
4,000
6,000
30 40 50 60
Percentage population urban
Cocacultivation(ha)
Urban development
eliminates coca
• More urban, less coca
• At ~50% urban
population
• No coca in smaller
municipalities
Dávalos et al. 2014
Biol. Cons.

31. A
B
C
Figure 5
Calamar
El Retorno
San Jose
2010
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
20
30
40
50
2
3
4
5
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Year
FinancialGDP
(109pesos)
ConstructionGDP
(109pesos)
PropertyTax
(106pesos/capita)
Urban/developing
Guaviare
• Larger tax base
• More construction
GDP
• Finance more
important
• Less dependence on
ranching (and
agriculture)
Dávalos et al. 2014
Biol. Cons.

32. Key points, Guaviare
• Rapidly urbanizing
• Catalysts:
• Bogotá-Villavicencio road time
cut in half since 1990s
• Improving road Villavicencio-
San José
• Expectation of urbanization
• Land grabs
• Agricultural tech
• Especially farther into Llanos
• Ley 2 1959 (national forest
reserve)
• Ineffective
Dávalos et al. 2014
Biol. Cons.

33. Brazil
Bolivia
Peru
Colombia
Ecuador
Coca cultivation
Government-sponsored
before 1979
1990/1992
Projects
Coca cultivation
High
Low
2014
Percent forest P
a b
A remarkable spatial
pattern
Dávalos et al. 2016
Bioscience

34. A spatial relationship Dávalos et al. 2016
Bioscience
Brazil
Bolivia
Peru
Colombia
Ecuador
Coca cultivation
Government-sponsored
before 1979
1990/1992
Projects
Coca cultivation
High
Low
2014
Percent forest
High
Low
Probability of coca
a b c

35. The Amazonian frontier Denevan 1966 Geogr.
Rev.

36. Charter and declaration
of Punta del Este
INCORA 1974 IICA
Presidents of America 1967 Punta
del Este Declaration

37. This is the past
Etter et al. 2006 J. Environ. Manage.

38. Brazil
Bolivia
Peru
Colombia
Ecuador
Coca cultivation
Government-sponsored
before 1979
1990/1992
Projects
Coca cultivation
High
Low
2014
Percent forest P
a b
This is the present: Projects
& roads ~ carbon emissions
Global Forest Watch
Climate 2017

39. The present No longer remote

40. Is this is the future? Ray et al. 2015 Mongabay

41. What happens when the
frontier closes?
1869

42. Frontier closes, forest
vanishes
Stanton 2014 Biol. Cons.

43. First proposal:
protect NOW
• We must protect the forests
• NOW
• The forest frontier will
close
• But need for storage is
imminent
• Price of carbon storage
will rise
• How?
• Protected areas
• Collective titles

44. Second proposal: a
market for deforestation
• Development and
demobilization create access
• Access generates
deforestation
• Market can set targets for
local actors
• Municipalities
• Corporaciones
Regionales
• Private sector
• And trade can help meet
national targets

45. Third proposal: Raise
the return on forest
• Market in deforestation can
be part of this
• Conserve and get dividend
from another actor
• But need other sources of
return that don’t require
clearing
• Therefore
• All road extensions need
local forest reserves
• Develop parts of local
forests for tourism

46. Thanks!