Next Article in Journal
Digital Transformation of Hungary’s Economy between 2015 and 2021: Results and Future Objectives
Previous Article in Journal
The Influence of Rural Urbanization on the Change in Soil Organic Matter of Farmland in Northeast China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 11
10.3390/su16114685
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Key to the Sustainability and Conservation of Extractive Reserves in the Amazon

by
Josimar da Silva Freitas
1,2,*,
Armin Mathis
3,
Milton Cordeiro Farias Filho
2,
Alfredo Kingo Oyama Homma
4,5,
Givanildo de Gois
6,
José Francisco Carvalho Ferreira
7,
Alexandre Almir Ferreira Rivas
8,
Jodival Mauricio da Costa
9,
David Costa Correia Silva
10,
José Alessandro Cândido da Silva
6,11,
Raquel da Rocha Paiva Maia
12,
José Valderi Farias de Souza
13,
Kennedy Maia dos Santos
14,
Gelson Dias Florentino
15 and
Ananda Brito Bastos
7
1
Postgraduate Program in Geography, Federal University of Roraima, Boa Vista 69310-000, Brazil
2
Postgraduate Program in Territorial Intelligence and Sustainability, University Center of the State of Pará, Belém 66040-020, Brazil
3
Postgraduate Program in Sustainable Development in the Humid Tropics, Federal University of Pará, Belém 66075-750, Brazil
4
Embrapa Eastern Amazon, Belém 66095-903, Brazil
5
Postgraduate Program in Environmental Sciences, Pará State University, Belém 66095-903, Brazil
6
Postgraduate Program Environmental Sciences, Federal University of Acre, Cruzeiro do Sul 69980-000, Brazil
7
Postgraduate Program in Development of Sustainable Amazon, Federal University of Amapá, Macapá 68903-419, Brazil
8
Department of Economics and Analysis, Federal University of Amazon, Manaus 69080-900, Brazil
9
Postgraduate Program in Frontier Studies, Federal University of Amapá, Macapá 68903-419, Brazil
10
Campus Paragominas, Federal Rural University of Amazon, Paragominas 68627-451, Brazil
11
Postgraduate Program in Teaching Humanities and Languages, Federal University of Acre, Cruzeiro do Sul 69980-000, Brazil
12
Health and Sport Sciences Center, Federal University of Acre, Rio Branco 69915-900, Brazil
13
Center for Education and Letters, Federal University of Acre, Cruzeiro do Sul 69980-000, Brazil
14
Department of Health Science, Uninorte University Center, Rio Branco 69915-901, Brazil
15
Administration & Business, Accounting and Technology, La Salle College, Manaus 69040-040, Brazil
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(11), 4685; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114685
Submission received: 30 March 2024 / Revised: 23 May 2024 / Accepted: 27 May 2024 / Published: 31 May 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Extractive reserves (RESEXs) are relevant areas that aim to allow the conservation of environmental resources and sustainable production practices of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock. In this study, we evaluated whether this aim is viable in the context of sustainability and conservation. Data were collected in the Alto Juruá, Rio Ouro Preto, and Rio Cajari RESEXs, via 384 questionnaires to investigate environmental, economic, social, and institutional issues in different communities. Here, we conclude that the failure of RESEXs in relation to conservation and development is correlated with a lack of institutional investment in innovations and technologies; low production from extractivism, agriculture, and livestock; lack of technical support; low production; and difficulties in markets for the commercialization of products.

1. Introduction

The Amazon is a rich essential ecosystem providing high biodiversity, climate regulation, and agricultural products sustaining human existence for more than 10,000 years [1,2]. The wealth endowment of the Amazon is of planetary dimensions; it has the largest tropical forest; the largest river; and abundant flora, fauna, minerals, wood, and carbon in the form of billions of trees [3,4]. It contains the largest biodiversity reserve and genetic bank on Earth, 20% of the planet’s freshwater, and sustainable agroextractive potential. This extends to nine countries, with more than half of its 600 million hectares present in Brazil [5,6,7,8].
However, colonial governments and modern states have plundered the extraction of natural resources, with commodity production, unequal development, land concentration, environmental contamination, usurpation of indigenous territories, infrastructure projects, and extractive industries [9,10,11]. For example, deforestation, burning, mining, and business agribusiness have resulted in degradation of the forests that is visible from space, altered climatic conditions, caused biodiversity losses, and hindered sustainable livelihoods in the Amazon [12,13,14,15,16,17]. This has drawn the attention of national and international communities and led to the adoption of new measures in an attempt to mitigate the damage to natural and environmental resources [18,19,20].
One such measure is the creation of protected areas (PAs), which have biological, mineral, water, and geological richness [21,22], offering advantages to biological diversity, societies, and climate [23,24], demarcating 15% of the Earth’s surface [25]. In the Amazon, there is a set of PAs that covers 52.2% [26], representing 718 PAs (2.2 million km2), approximately half of which constitute the PAs of sustainable and indigenous lands [27].
PAs cooperate with the conservation of natural and environmental resources [28], climate, water, fauna, flora [29], and carbon stocks [30]; reduce deforestation and burning rates [31,32,33]; have economic importance [34]; and accommodate local and/or traditional communities [35]. PAs also contribute to global diversity and climate change mitigation goals [36].
PAs contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [37], especially in South America, where there are territories with high ecosystem richness, traditional communities, and people who have cultural relations and subsistence [38]. Therefore, PAs are areas of ecosystem importance [39] that aim to allow human connections with natural resources [40] and collaboration for preservation, conservation, and development [41,42,43].
In this context, the International Union for Conservation of Nature encourages the establishment and conservation of PAs, as they are vital for the environment, culture, and livelihoods of local communities [44]. Brazilian PAs depend on the National System of Conservation Units (NSCU, Federal Law No. 9985, 2000) and are subject to both conservation and protection because of their natural characteristics as well as investments, oversight, management, elaboration, and approval of management plans [45].
The NSCU divides conservation PAs into full-protection and sustainable-use categories [46]. The first is subdivided into five types: ecological stations, biological reserves, national parks, natural monuments, and wildlife refuges [47]. The second category includes seven types: environmental protection areas, areas of relevant ecological interest, national forests, extractive reserves, fauna reserves, sustainable development reserves, and natural heritage reserves [47].
This study prioritizes the category of RESEXs, which are areas that aim to conserve environmental resources and sustainable productive practices of agriculture, extractivism, and livestock, essentially for the subsistence of traditional communities [48,49,50]. RESEXs aim to reconcile nature conservation with sustainable productive activities [51], as well as allowing income generation through green economy and bioeconomy [52,53].
However, RESEXs have had unsatisfactory experiences of productive activities of extractivism (rubber, vegetable oils, and Brazil nuts) and livestock farming (cattle, pigs, sheep, and poultry) because there was no integration or combination of productive activities [54,55]. The limitations and lack of institutional pragmatism have led to increased deforestation, worsening the living conditions of local communities and threatening the environmental and socioeconomic sustainability of RESEXs [56,57]. The means by which protected areas are created, maintained, and commodified may lead to increased environmental degradation through the loss of rights and land [58].
Helping small producers improve production conditions in the short term is necessary for subsistence, avoiding the abandonment of RESEXs and considerably reducing the accumulation of deforestation [59]. It is necessary to create alternatives to enhance extractivism together with swidden (rotational) farming and animal husbandry [60].
Therefore, we surmise that it is strategic to combine environmental conservation with the productive activities of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock in the context of sustainability and conservation.
This proposal is present in the literature. Productive activities of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock can contribute to socio-environmental development [61], given that they are subsistence strategies that generate income and strengthen the local cultural identity [62]. These three activities complement each other to ensure environmental sustainability; social, cultural, political, and ethical respect; and the livelihood of RESEXs communities [63].
In this context, this study evaluated whether it would be strategic to combine environmental conservation with the productive activities of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock in the context of sustainability and conservation. We aimed to do an in-depth analysis by searching 11 databases (Cambridge Journals Online, Ebsco, Jstor, Nature, Web of Science, World Scientific, Science Direct, Springer, Scopus, Capes, and Scielo), and no studies were found that used this approach. We believe this is a relevant and valid area of research. We aim to extend and contribute to the literature and provide data that is helpful to government institutions and NGOs and to foster general awareness.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a brief literature review of major international conferences and the commitments of nations. Section 3 describes the materials and methods, specifically the research subjects, delineation, procedures, and data analysis. Section 4 analyzes the results. Section 5 discusses and confirms the results. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions of this study.

2. Toward the Development of Global Sustainability and the Challenges of Nations

The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Stockholm 1972 inaugurated the first debate on environmental problems, mainly with international concerns about air, water, and soil pollution, and the new model of economic development [64]. It was a wasted opportunity for progress because time and money were invested to articulate and discuss global sustainability, yet nations did not demonstrate the political will to implement ambitious action plans [65].
The WSSD of Rio 1992 or the Earth Summit took on an agenda that includes the term sustainable development in reference to a possible alliance between environmental conservation and social development [66]. Given the very broad and misdirected agenda, developing countries were hampered by gaps in the implementation of Agenda 21 as well as by the non-implementation of the financial investments that had been defined among the 178 nations [67].
Rio+10 represented the WSSD in Johannesburg (2002), with the aim of reinforcing the multilateral commitment to sustainable development and taking stock of WSSD Rio 1992 [68]. Although there have been attempts to involve civil society on a global scale and broaden the dialogue for stakeholders in international mega-conferences, structural changes are still needed if other forums are to achieve their objectives [69].
The Rio+20 WSSD aimed to reconcile the need to eradicate poverty with the green economy but failed to reconcile firm sustainability goals with economic growth in poor countries and eradicate poverty [70]. At the global level, sustainability challenges have not been met, and the world is in a more perilous situation than it was two decades ago. Current trends show inequalities in health, wealth, and unsustainable patterns of consumption and development [71].
Some studies have confirmed that humans’ sustainable relationships with nature reduce impacts on biodiversity and climate change, as well as ensuring the quality of life, social security, morality, and ethics [72]. The United Nations SDGs include 17 interconnected goals with 169 universal targets: ending poverty; reducing impacts on the oceans, forests, and climate change [73]; improving people’s socioeconomic conditions [74]; and ensuring the peace and prosperity of societies by 2030 [75,76].
To better address climate change, the Paris Agreement was established at the 21st Conference of the Parties and aimed to set a global climate target to limit the average temperature to 2 °C compared with pre-industrial levels and to keep it below 1.5 °C [77].
In Brazil, the SDGs and the COP showed the following results: 65% are in retrogression; 6.5% went into stagnation; 8.28% are threatened; 14.2% had insufficient progress; and only 0.59% showed satisfactory progress [78]. In turn, the United States established a net-zero commitment based on the Paris Agreement [79], and China assumed responsibility for reducing CO2 emissions, a goal defined at COP26 [80]. However, both countries have been unable to comply with the agreements defined at the conferences [81].
The European Union (EU) is experiencing the depth and complexity of progress or policy shortcomings in relation to the SDGs, as biodiversity, ecosystems, and human wellbeing remain threats [82]. The EU will achieve its SDG by integrating the environment, economy, and society [83]. To achieve the SDGs, the EU relies on the interconnection between environmental, economic, social, and institutional accountability dimensions to achieve local and global sustainability [84].
Another complex situation is the armed tensions of the Russia–Ukraine and Israel–Hamas war, (ongoing since February 2022), resulting in serious environmental, economic, and social degradation impacting global sustainable development [85]. In addition, nations are experiencing impacts on food, agricultural commodity prices, metal markets, oil, energy [86], global geopolitics [87], and the challenges of achieving the SDGs by 2030 [88].
Globally, the fossil fuel energy paradigm continues to impact the economy, ecology, politics, and society [89]. For example, the European gas and electricity market is experiencing considerable stress given that the 2021 to 2023 energy crisis, caused a global grid effect [90]. The energy crisis and fragile energy supply have brought great dangers to the global production and security of energy supplements [91].
However, various energy options and policies, such as reducing fossil fuel consumption, increasing energy efficiency, and conserving energy, are important for the economic and environmental achievement of the SDGs [92]. The energy crisis can be correlated with green growth and technological progress, as technology is vital for sustainable development in the Amazon and other regions of the world [93].
The application of green extraction technologies and the development of a bioeconomy are promising ways to improve the Amazon scenario because they are environmentally friendly and meet social, economic, and environmental demands [52]. China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan are the five countries that emit the most greenhouse gases, so they have greater responsibilities for the conservation of natural and environmental resources [94].

3. Materials and Method

3.1. Research Subjects

This study was conducted in the Alto Juruá (Marechal Thaumaturgo, Acre, Brazil), Rio Ouro Preto (Guajará Mirim and Nova Mamoré, Rondônia, Brazil), and Rio Cajari (Laranjal do Jari, Mazagão, and Vitória do Jari, Amapá, Brazil) RESEXs (Figure 1). The criteria of choice and inclusion were based on the length they have existed. Thirty-four years of experience has revealed how conservation can be reconciled with the productive activities of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock. These RESEXs were first created in Brazil and thus have the comprehensive cultural wealth of local communities, the relevant experience of environmental and socioeconomic investments, and a broad potential for biological diversity.
RESEX Alto Juruá was founded through Decree No. 98,863 (23 January 1990) and covers 537,946 hectares. Based on the most recent demographic census, 4170 inhabitants live in 80 communities that are accessible through the Amônia, Breu, and Manteiga rivers [95]. The most economically important production activities include cassava flour, tobacco, sugarcane, beans, rice, corn, cattle, poultry, and pigs. There are no productive chestnut trees; thus, there is no production of Brazil nuts or other extractive activities.
RESEX Rio Ouro Preto was founded through Decree No. 99,166 (13 March 1990) and covers 204,631 ha. According to the last demographic census, 699 inhabitants live in 12 communities that can be accessed through vicinal roads (Ramal dos Macacos, Ramal dos Seringueiros, and Ramal do Pompeu) as well as by Rio Ouro Preto [95]. The main production activities for subsistence are cassava flour, bananas, beans, corn, rice, Brazil nuts, cattle, poultry, and pigs.
RESEX Rio Cajari was founded through Decree No. 99,145 (12 March 1990) and covers 532,397 hectares. According to the latest demographic census, 2293 inhabitants live in 31 communities with the following access routes: BR-156, vicinal roads, the Cajari River, and its tributaries [95]. The subsistence economy consists of the following productive activities: bananas, beans, rice, corn, potatoes, cassava flour, cattle, poultry, pigs, sheep, and Brazil nuts and their derivatives.
This study prioritized a simple random-sample calculation (Figure 2). It included 384 interviewees from 7152 inhabitants in 113 communities of the three RESEXs: Alto Juruá, Rio Ouro Preto, and Rio Cajari (Figure 1). The levels of relevance and the sampling error were 95% and 5.4%, respectively.
n = N · Z 2 · p · ( 1 − p ) N − 1 · E 2 + Z 2 · p · ( 1 − p )
where
  • n = sample size (384 interviewees);
  • N = size of the universe (7152 locals);
  • p = proportion found (50%);
  • Z = confidence level (95%);
  • E = margin of error (5%).
The criteria for defining the sample followed traditionally researched values, specifically a significance of 95% and a sampling error of 5%. In the data collection, the challenges of distance, displacement, availability of interviewees, methodological procedures, and goals at each stage of the collection were addressed. Scientific rigor, in line with the local reality of the interviewees, was the key to the success of this research.

3.2. Study Delineation

This study was developed using the method of association with interference, given that more than two variables from the environmental, economic, institutional, and social groups are associated under a dependent relationship [96,97]. For example, the lack of state support for productive policies of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock rearing motivated the commercialization of wood and illegal deforestation in the RESEXs. The inhabitants and traditional communities who opt for these measures need to be aware of environmental rules and economic subsistence needs.
Our priorities in this study were to analyze the phenomena and evidence in the field and specifically to observe real situations, listen to the interviewees, and live with the local inhabitants on a daily basis. This allowed us to understand the mechanisms of institutional control; the cause of the accumulation of annual deforestation; the income from extractivism activities, agriculture, and cattle; the inefficiency of socioeconomic policies; and the challenges that need to be addressed for the sustainability of RESEXs.
Additionally, this path provides innovative changes to environmental and socioeconomic policies. The institutional management model aims to increase the chances of reducing exploitation of forest resources, hunger, social inequality, and poverty to a considerable extent; promote the supply of physical structure, professionals, and medicines through the Unified Health System; and strengthen the social capital of local communities.

3.3. Procedures

Before data collection, the project was submitted to the Biodiversity Authorization and Information System and received approval for collecting data. The next step involved conversations through email and phone with the heads of the RESEXs with the aim of scheduling the team’s trips and preparing them for receptivity. Once the dates were set, the team planned the acquisition of tickets, budgeted expenses for permanent materials and consumption, and calculated the financial costs.
The trips were made by air, land, and river owing to the large distances between the research subjects. Large commercial aircraft contributed to embarkation and disembarkation in larger cities and small ones in smaller cities, close to the research subjects. In addition, 4 × 4 pickup trucks were used because vicinal roads were difficult to access. The data were collected during the Amazonian winter. Most communities were located in riverside areas, and rapid river transport, known as speedboats, conveyed the research team to the RESEX communities for data collection.
The survey was conducted with 234 interviewees from January to March 2017 and 150 interviewees from January to March 2019, resulting in 384 respondents. Only one person responsible for each family home was interviewed because of their experience and knowledge of the policies implemented in the RESEXs. The questionnaire included questions related to the productive activities of extractivism, agriculture, and cattle; public policies; credit availability; household income; deforestation; and environmental impacts.
Each interviewee, regardless of gender, was informed about the procedures, rights, and guarantees before each interview by reading the Free and Informed Consent Form (FICF) out loud. The interviews were conducted in the residence of each interviewee, and all the participants were receptive, kind, and willing to participate. In addition, the interviewees were comfortable with their answers; there was no interference or manipulation, and the results were presented rigorously based on the evidence and phenomena identified in the field.
Audio recorders and a semi-open questionnaire were used for the interviews. The interviews were recorded considering that the information provided may extend beyond the limits of the forms and help enrich this study. After collection, the data were processed, systematized, and made available to the institutions concerned.
In addition, although this was not a systematic review, the search for articles in the databases was conducted in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Protected areas, extractive reserves, conservation, development, and Amazon were the main keywords as well as Boolean operators. The identification criterion was title. The team worked together to analyze the texts and relied on the Mendeley citation and reference manager to identify study duplications.

3.4. Data Analysis

This study adopted a qualitative approach, as the interviews recorded audio, observations, informal conversations, application of forms, and literature that validated the conclusions. The phenomenon of local communities and inhabitants was observed, analyzed, and interpreted. The systematization of the interviewees’ ideas was presented in situ to ensure credibility, reliable results, careful explanation, and relevance [98]. The interviews recorded in audio, conversations with the interviewees, and application of questionnaires are presented in text and figure formats to produce results that can be used to guide public policies and environmental and socioeconomic practices [99,100,101].
In addition to the qualitative approach, the quantitative approach provided tests for mean, median, fashion, variance, correlation, and elaboration of tables and self-explanatory figures. Statistical correlation tests or comparisons of the central tendency measures were quantified based on interviews and forms [102]. A quantitative approach was applied to understand the different causes and effects of phenomena prevalent in environmental, economic, social, and institutional variables [103]. A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches strengthened this study and enabled sensitivity, reasoning, determination, and environmental and socioeconomic novelty.

4. Results

RESEXs face difficulties in ensuring the survival of their inhabitants; thus, efforts are required to make productive activities sustainable. The state is responsible for the management and implementation of public policies. However, flaws do not allow RESEXs to meet the socioeconomic needs of local communities (Figure 2).
The results show that the socioeconomic policies of institutions are ineffective and require reformulation and investment, especially in productive activities. The lack of inclusion of local communities in the planning, elaboration, and participation stages and the lack of human and financial support compels the inhabitants to indulge in two culturally known activities: cattle rearing and agriculture.
Although these activities have a greater impact on natural resources, the inhabitants are driven by high knowledge of the swidden market and the need for survival. In addition to cattle rearing and agriculture, the extraction of Brazil nuts comprises the third activity. This is less impactful from the point of view of economic importance; however, it does not damage environmental resources (Figure 3).
Based on the results of the forms, the harvest of Brazil nuts occurred from December to April, with trees having high production in one year and falling in the following year. However, the following difficulties must be overcome to expand production: distance from the family home to the chestnut collection area, short production periods, and annual price oscillations. Cassava flour, beans, corn, rice, bananas, and tobacco are the main agricultural products. Their advantage over extractivism lies in their continuous production and a year-round market. Additionally, cattle rearing is a productive activity commanding greater preference as it requires less effort, yields milk and meat, and fetches high prices in the market.
The local communities still work with traditional agricultural systems and stump swiddens are used for agriculture and cattle rearing. Here, agriculture, chestnut extraction, and cattle rearing occur in an integrated manner, with the objective of making the best use of productive seasonal periods and increasing the subsistence condition of families. Figure 4 presents the productive structure, possible impacts on natural resources, and type of credit that aims to subsidize agricultural and livestock products.
According to the information in the forms, the credit cost of up to BRL 5000 (equivalent to USD 975) per family was incurred by the National Program for Strengthening Agriculture (Pronaf), whose investments were directed to agriculture and cattle rearing. Cattle rearing is considered a productive activity with the greatest impact on environmental resources. However, breeders understand that it meets subsistence needs and that buying and selling is easy. In turn, agriculture enables subsistence because of the productive diversity and commercialization of some products.
Agriculture and extractivism are millenary activities (developed more than three millennia ago by the pre-Columbian people), while cattle have existed in Brazil for approximately 1/2 millennium. In this sense, the choice of productive activities by local communities, such as productive cultural knowledge, food contributions, labor conditions, production costs, and product prices, is logical. Figure 5 shows the monthly household income from agriculture, extractivism, and cattle.
The results of the forms indicate that Brazil nut extractivism does not invest in the verticalization of production, and the collection activities carried out only during seasonal periods result in an income that is less than half of the minimum wage. Agriculture results in an income between half or equal to the minimum wage because productive diversity corresponds to a greater supply of products in the market. Cattle rearing results in an income between the minimum wage and one and a half of it. This is attributed to high consumption and a strong regional market and thus complements agriculture and extractivism.
Higher income from cattle means a possible increase in herd size in the short and medium term in RESEXs. This logic mischaracterizes the model of environmental conservation and socioeconomic development, specifically the sustainable use of natural resources. RESEXs are designed to reduce the impact on biological diversity and to meet the livelihood needs of local communities. Table 1 shows the year of RESEX creation, size, and deforestation in hectares, divided into five periods.
According to the results, RESEX Rio Ouro Preto experienced the highest deforestation in the entire historical series. This RESEX has a lower population density (699 inhabitants) and a territorial area that is less than half that of RESEX Alto Juruá. Despite the intervention of the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), a group of livestock farmers in the communities of Bom Sossego, Cachoerinha, and Pompeu practice deforestation annually.
RESEX Alto Juruá brought deforestation closer to Rio Ouro Preto; however, both the population density (4170 inhabitants) and territorial area (333 hectares more) were higher. There are cattle farmers (on the banks of the Juruá River) who have lived for more than five decades and continue deforestation because the state has not paid expropriation costs. This situation generates negative results because opening new primary areas for pastures decreases environmental resources.
RESEX Rio Cajari approaches the territorial area of Alto Juruá with a population density (2293 inhabitants) and considerably lower deforestation. The cattle raised in this RESEX on the banks of the Cajari River are buffaloes, as they are suited to extensive flooded areas and swamps. Here, deforestation is lower mainly attributed to the extraction of Brazil nuts, açaí, and vegetable oils. In addition, the margins of br-156 (Água Branca Community) are commercialized for the production of various fresh products derived from Brazil nuts produced by the community.

5. Discussion

Cattle and agriculture are the most extensive productive and commercial activities undertaken by the local communities of the RESEXs; however, the most significant deforestation occurs due to cattle rearing, which requires extensive areas for grazing. In addition, the state’s priority is to protect the forest; however, there is little interest in boosting extractive activities combined sustainably with agriculture and livestock management.
The challenge would be to implement extractive activities in first nature (native forest), as well as to transform second nature (deforested areas) into third nature. This can be achieved with the implementation of technologies for proper soil management, planting, and harvesting for productive activities [104]. These activities are necessary because a significant portion of the small-producer population does not produce enough to sustain a minimum standard of living, and these families then rely on government transfers and retirement benefits [105].
These suggestions have the potential and scope to be effective because the means of production are traditional and rudimentary, lacking the technology that could facilitate the collection, beneficiation, processing, and soil management of productive activities in RESEXs.
Thus, it is appropriate to emphasize that productive activities with technologies generate the following benefits: they enable increased production of cassava, oil, banana, and cocoa; facilitate investment credits for the acquisition of machines and equipment; encourage reforestation policies in areas that should not be deforested; and provide cooperation between research institutions, such as the Brazilian Agricultural Research Company, the National Institute of Amazonian Research, and other universities [106].
These strategies are ideal for overcoming the current challenges and legitimizing the sustainability of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock activities, specifically as a fundamental requirement for environmental and socioeconomic success [107]. Productive activities contribute to food security, generate employment and income, and maintain the cultural aspects of traditional communities [108].
However, there is still a lack of planning, organization, investment, and management of the productive activities of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock rearing; therefore, the integration of agroextractivism increases the possibility of improving the living conditions of inhabitants and conserving the natural and environmental resources of the RESEXs.
In addition, these activities should ensure a considerable reduction in deforestation, strengthen cultural and economic practices, diversify production methods, and equitably distribute benefits to local communities [109]. Productive integration provides resilience, ensures economic viability, presents productivity variations [110], builds and maintains fertility over time, increases the chances of preserving biodiversity, and boosts food production [111].
Small-scale agriculture and cattle rearing complement Brazil nut extraction, support the extractive model, generate income, and prevent the migration of traditional communities [112]. The integration of environmental and agricultural policies stimulates development, provides project formulation, and is a key factor for the sustainability of production systems [113,114]. In this sense, institutional changes in state management establish a relationship of trust between local communities and opportunities for successful productive activities [115].
Even when the RESEXs are not in the productive phase, extractivism, agriculture, and cattle ranching are considered adequate ecological and technological solutions to reduce the human pressure on natural resources and poverty in these areas. Nonetheless, the potential of food sovereignty has been co-opted by a state-centered version and neoliberal food security arrangements at the national and supranational levels. This weakens the territorial governance of local communities and severely affects environmental conservation [116]. Thus, it is essential to strengthen productive activities to improve food efficiency and reduce subsistence difficulties through environmentally sustainable strategies [10].
Agriculture is a crucial site of analysis through which one can understand extractivist logic and practices; where these are present, one can speak about extractivism, and agriculture livestock [117]. In the rural world, climate justice can only be pursued within the context of agrarian justice. The fundamental question remains as to why some social classes and groups are particularly vulnerable to climate change whereas others are not [118].
In this context, the effective collaboration of traditional productive practices associated with technology promotes spatial awareness, is capable of promoting the use and management of the forest’s natural resources without destroying them, and updates traditional knowledge and ways of thriving in the Amazon with economic autonomy [119]. This productive model tends to enter the daily work of traditional communities because of sociodemographic and productive influences [120].
Thus, agriculture, livestock rearing, and extractivism have become significant because they occur in an integrated manner, contribute to economic security for traditional communities, and boost socioeconomic income without mischaracterizing the ways of life [112]. In addition, these productive activities play an important role in diversifying and increasing incomes [121,122] and reducing poverty and deforestation [123]. Some families carry out these three productive activities in isolation because ICMBio has not yet presented an environmental and socioeconomic policy for support and productive advancement to reduce deforestation and enhance family subsistence.
Deforestation occurs in greater intensity in communities located on the banks of adjacent roads, close to markets, and with a medium or high population density [124,125]. The expansion of new areas also occurs for extensive livestock rearing [126,127]. Moreover, deforestation, economic growth projects, and global warming threaten the maintenance of environmental resources [128]. Solutions to reduce deforestation and burning and improve the quality of life of small producers require investment, increased supervision, and the development of technological and economic alternatives [104]. Therefore, the existence of environmental and socioeconomic policies with effective governance will reduce deforestation [18].
Deforestation and the loss of natural resources are common environmental problems. However, the strict environmental objectives of the state undermine the conservation goals and needs of the local communities of RESEXs and other small producers. Families understand the importance of collecting plant products, the role of forests in climate regulation, and the improvement of the quality of human life. However, continue deforestation of primary forests continues because of the necessity of meeting socioeconomic requirements. It is relevant to recognize the social, political, economic, and historical contributions of traditional communities to extractivism in the Amazon and comprehend that it is essential to integrate extractivism with agriculture and livestock rearing.

6. Conclusions

The productive activities of extractivism, or plantation for extractivism, can be sustainably integrated along with agriculture and livestock rearing. This is an alternative means of improving the living conditions of local inhabitants and reducing deforestation and its impact on fauna and flora. The loss of primary forests is most often caused by local communities attempting to meet their subsistence needs.
Food, clothing, medication, child maintenance at school, and transportation expenses contribute the most to socioeconomic deficiencies. Here, we conclude that the failure of RESEXs in relation to conservation and development is correlated with the following: a lack of institutional investment in innovations and technologies; low production from extractivism, agriculture, and livestock; lack of technical support; low production; and difficulties in markets for the commercialization of products.
The integration of productive activities of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock with extractive/domestication technologies is a way to reduce the use of natural and environmental resources, increase family income and subsistence capacity, and ensure the permanence of children in schools. To achieve sustainability of the RESEXs in the Amazon, it is necessary to respect the cultures and vocations of its inhabitants; the relationship of local communities with nature; provide socioeconomic sufficiency; innovate production processes; and reformulate environmental, economic, and social policy aspects.
According to this logic, the Amazon has no magical solution. Extractivists, small producers, indigenous peoples, quilombolas, riparian areas, and traditional populations must all pursue the objective of improving their technological standards. The reduced dependence on government transfers will then be an indicator of an improved standard of living. Therefore, it is important to combine conservation with the productive activities of extractivism, agriculture, and livestock to achieve sustainable development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.d.S.F. and A.K.O.H.; methodology, A.M. and M.C.F.F.; software, G.d.G. and R.d.R.P.M.; validation, D.C.C.S.; formal analysis, J.A.C.d.S.; investigation, J.d.S.F.; resources, A.M.; data curation, A.A.F.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.d.S.F. and J.V.F.d.S.; writing—review and editing, K.M.d.S. and G.D.F.; visualization, A.B.B.; supervision, J.M.d.C.; project administration, A.A.F.R.; funding acquisition, J.F.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partially supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES/Brazil), under the number 88882.317117/2019-01.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was supported and approved by the Biodiversity Information System (SISBIO) with the following characteristics: authorization for activities with scientific purposes under number 49337-2. The SISBIO is linked to the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation and the Ministry of the Environment.

Informed Consent Statement

After reading the free and informed consent provision, everyone involved in this study agreed to participate.

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the permission for effective data collection and the good reception of the managers of the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) and the acceptance, availability, and collaboration of the interviewees of the Alto Juruá, Rio Ouro Preto, and Rio Cajari RESEXs.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Alfredo Kingo Oyama Homma was employed by Embrapa Eastern Amazon. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Peng, W.; Sonne, C.; Lam, S.S.; Ok, Y.S.; Alstrup, A.K.O. The ongoing cutdown of the Amazon rainforest threatens the climate and requires global tree planting projects: A short review. Environ. Res. 2019, 181, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Coe, M.T.; Costa, M.H.; Soares-Filho, B.S. The influence of historical and potential future deforestation on the stream flow of the Amazon River—Land surface processes and atmospheric feedbacks. J. Hydrol. 2009, 369, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Homma, A.K.O. (Ed.) Propostas agrícolas para a Amazônia. In Sinergias de Mudança da Agricultura Amazônica; Conflitos e oportunidades: Brasilia, Brazil, 2022; pp. 445–464. [Google Scholar]
  4. Greenleaf, M. The value of the untenured forest: Land rights, green labor, and forest carbon in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Peasant. Stud. 2019, 47, 286–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Singh, S.R. Biodiversity-meaning, different levels, importance, and its conservation. In Environment Conservation, Challenges Threats in Conservation of Biodiversity; Barwant, M.M., Manan, V.K., Eds.; Science Publications: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2022; pp. 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jige, S.B. Biodiversity: A future real wealth of nation. In Environment Conservation, Challenges Threats in Conservation of Biodiversity; Barwant, M.M., Manam, V.K., Eds.; BMR Group: Boucherville, QC, Canada, 2022; pp. 90–95. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hopkins, M.J.G. Modelling the known and unknown plant biodiversity of the Amazon Basin. J. Biogeogr. 2007, 34, 1400–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dale, V.H.; Pearson, S.M.; Offerman, H.L.; O’Neill, R.V. Relating patterns of land-use change to faunal biodiversity in the Central Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 1994, 8, 1027–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Groth, A. Landscapes of Inequity: Environmental justice in the Andes-Amazon Region. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 2022, 21, 198–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kumar, D.; Purohit, G.N. Cesarean section in cattle: A review. Agric. Rev. 2022, 43, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Roldan, C.M. Climate Change and Biodiversity Governance in the Amazon: At the edge of ecological collapse? Environ. Politics 2022, 31, 1309–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fearnside, P.M. A sustentabilidade da agricultura na Amazônia: Meus pensamentos. In Sinergias de Mudança da Agricultura Amazônica; Homma, A.K.O., Ed.; Conflitos e Oportunidades, Embrapa: Brasilia, Brazil, 2022; pp. 46–66. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sierra, J.P.; Junquas, C.; Espinoza, J.C.; Segura, H.; Condom, T.; Andrade, M.; Sicart, J.E. Deforestation impacts on Amazon-Andes hydroclimatic connectivity. Clim. Dyn. 2022, 58, 2609–2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rorato, A.C.; Escada, M.I.S.; Camara, G.; Picoli, M.C.; Verstegen, J.A. Environmental vulnerability assessment of Brazilian Amazon Indigenous Lands. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 129, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Siqueira-Gay, J.; Metzger, J.P.; Sánchez, L.E.; Sonter, L.J. Strategic planning to mitigate mining impacts on protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 853–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Burity, J. Conservative wave, religion and the secular state in post-impeachment Brazil. Int. J. Lat. Am. Relig. 2020, 4, 83–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bhattacharjee, A.; Aravena, C.; Castillo, N.; Ehrlich, M.; Taou, N.; Wagner, T. Agroforestry Programs in the Colombian Amazon: Selection, Treatment and Exposure Effects on Deforestation (No. 537); National Institute of Economic and Social Research: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  18. Martin, P.; Silva, S.T.; Santos, M.D.; Dutra, C. Governance and metagovernance systems for the Amazon. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 2022, 31, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pallais-Downing, D. International literacy development in the Peruvian Amazon: Three problematic assumptions. In Global Meaning Making (Advances in Research on Teaching); Assaf, L.C., Sowa, P., Zammit, K., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022; Volume 39, pp. 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Maglia, C. Global networks in national governance? Changes of professional expertise in Amazon environmental governance. Glob. Netw. 2022, 24, 792–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brogi, R.; Grignolio, D.; Brivio, F.; Apollonio, M. Protected areas as refuges for pest species? The case of wild boar. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e00969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gutiérrez-Arellano, C.; Mulligan, M. Small-sized protected areas contribute more per unit area to tropical crop pollination than large protected areas. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 44, 101137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rice, W.L.; Newmana, P.; Miller, Z.D.; Taff, B.D. Protected areas and noise abatement: A spatial approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 194, 103701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jones, N.; Graziano, M.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Social impacts of European Protected Areas and policy recommendations. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 112, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mackinnon, K.; Richardson, K.; Mackinno, J. Protected and other conserved areas: Ensuring the future of forest biodiversity in a changing climate. Int. For. Rev. 2020, 22, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Saura, S.; Bastin, L.; Battistella, L.; Mandrici, A.; Dubois, G. Protected areas in the world’s ecoregions: How well connected are they? Ecol. Indic. 2017, 76, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Steege, H.; Pitman, N.C.A.; Killeen, T.J.; Laurance, W.F.; Peres, C.A.; Guevara, J.E.; Gamarra, L.V. Estimating the global conservation status of more than 15,000 Amazonian tree species. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1500936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Geldmann, J.; Manica, A.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 23209–23215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Strand, J.; Soares-Filho, B.; Costa, M.H.; Oliveira, U.; Sonia Carvalho Ribeiro, S.C.; Pires, G.F.; Oliveira, A.; Rajão, R.; May, P.; Hoff, R.; et al. Spatially explicit valuation of the Brazilian Amazon Forest’s Ecosystem Services. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Walker, W.S.; Gorelik, S.R.; Baccini, A.; Schwartzman, S. The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 3015–3025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oliveira, U.; Soares-Filho, B.; Bustamante, M.; Gomes, L.; Ometto, R. Determinants of fire impact in the Brazilian biomes. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2022, 5, 735017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Herrera, D.; Pfaff, A.; Robalino, J. Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: Comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 14916–14925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Souza, D.G.; Vilela, B.; Phalan, B.; Dobrovolski, R. The role of protected areas in maintaining natural vegetation in Brazil. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabh2932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Leite-Filho, A.T.; Soares-Filho, B.S.; Davis, J.L.; Abrahão, G.M.; Börner, J. Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ribeiro, S.M.C.; Soares Filho, B.S.; Costa, W.L.; Bachi, L.; Oliveira, A.R.; Bilotta, P.; Saadi, A.; Lopes, E.; O’Riordan, T.; Pennacchio, H.L.; et al. Can multifunctional livelihoods, including recreational ecosystem services (RES) and non-timber forest products (NTFP) maintain biodiverse forests in the Brazilian Amazon? Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 21, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fuller, C.; Ondei, S.; Brook, B.; Buettel, J. Protected-area planning in the Brazilian Amazon should prioritize additionality and permanence, not leakage mitigation. University of Tasmania. J. Contrib. 2020, 248, 108673. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dudley, N.; Ali, N.; Kettunen, M.; MacKinnon, K. Editorial essay: Protected areas and the sustainable development goals. Parks 2017, 23, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Woodhouse, E.; Bedelian, C.; Dawson, N.; Barnes, P. Social impacts of protected areas: Exploring evidence of trade-offs and synergies. In Ecosystem Services and Poverty Reduction: Trade-Offs and Governance; Schreckenberg, K., Mace, G., Poudyal, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kim, J.; Shin, W.; Kim, W.; Choe, H.; Tanaka, T.; Song, Y. Use of ecosystem services and land ownership to prioritize conservation areas on Jeju Island, Republic of Korea. Ecosyst. Serv. 2024, 66, 101605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Awoyemi, A.G.; Ibánez-Rueda, N.; Guardiola, J.; Ibánez-Alamo, J.D. Human-nature interactions in the Afrotropics: Experiential and cognitive connections among urban residents in southern Nigeria. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 218, 108105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fernandes, S.; Athayde, S.; Harrisona, I.; Perry, D. Connectivity and policy confluences: A multi-scalar conservation approach for protecting Amazon riverine ecosystems. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2024, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bontempi, A.; Venturi, P.; Bene, D.D.; Scheidel, A.; Aubanell, Q.Z.; Zaragoza, R.M. Conflict and conservation: On the role of protected areas for environmental justice. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2023, 82, 102740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Caballero, C.B.; Biggs, T.W.; Vergopolan, N.; West, T.; Ruhoff, A. Transformation of Brazil’s biomes: The dynamics and fate of agriculture and pasture expansion into native vegetation. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 896, 166323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chiaka, J.C.; Liu, G.; Li, H.; Zhang, W.; Wu, M.; Huo, Z.; Gonella, F. Land cover changes and management effectiveness of protected areas in tropical coastal area of sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2024, 22, 100340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. West, T.A.P.; Caviglia-Harris, J.L.; Martins, F.S.R.V.; Silva, D.E.; Borner, J. Potential conservation gains from improved protected area management in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 269, 109526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Presidência da República. Lei no. 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, § 1o, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituição Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. Brasilia, Governo Federal; 2000. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9985.htm (accessed on 22 March 2024).
  47. ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade). Dados Estatísticos de Unidades de Conservação Federal; Brasília, Governo Federal; 2024. Available online: https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/criacao-de-unidades-de-conservacao/legislacao (accessed on 22 March 2024).
  48. Silva, R.O.; Albuquerque, A.A.; Almeida, R.H.C.; Pereira, J.L.G. Estudos socioambientais para criação de unidades de conservação de uso sustentável: O caso das RESEXs marinhas no Estado do Pará. Rev. Campo Da História 2022, 7, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brondizio, E. The global açaí: A chronicle of possibilities and predicaments of an Amazonian superfood. In Critical Approaches to Superfoods; Wilk, E., McDonell, R., Eds.; Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK; New York, NY, USA; Oxford, UK; New Delhi, India; Sydney, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  50. Almeida, M.W.; Allegretti, M.H.; Postigo, A. O Legado de Chico Mendes: Êxitos e entraves das reservas extrativistas. Desenvolv. E Meio Ambiente 2018, 48, 25–49. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lopes, R.V.P.; Tejerina-Garro, F.L.; Leite, C.; Nascimento, M.H.R.M.; Nascimento, A.S. Assessing the degree of sustainability in extractive reserves in the Amazon biome using the fuzzy logic tool for decision making. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Freitas, L.C.; Santos, R.W.S.; Reis, F.R.; Haminiuk, C.W.I.; Corazza, M.L.C.; Masson, M.L. Green extraction technologies: A path to the Amazon bioeconomy development. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 147, 104462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ribeiro, S.C.; Soares Filho, B.; Cesalpino, T.; Araújo, A.; Teixeira, J.; Figueiras, D.; Nunes, F.; Rajao, R. Bioeconomic markets based on the use of native species (NS) in Brazil. Ecol. Econ. 2024, 218, 108124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Freitas, J.S.; Homma, A.K.O.; Milton Filho, C.F.; Mathis, A.; Ferreira, J.F.C.; Mariani, M.A.; Santos, K.M. Necessity of productive association with technological innovations for sustainability of extractive reserves in the Amazon. J. Manag. Sustain. 2022, 12, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cavalcante Filho, P.G.; Maciel, R.C.G.; Oliveira, O.F.; Araujo, W.S. Pobreza, segurança alimentar e autoconsumo na Reserva Extrativista (RESEX) Chico Mendes. Rev. Bras. De Gestão E Desenvolv. Reg. 2020, 16, 186–200. [Google Scholar]
  56. Maciel, R.C.G.; Oliveira, O.F.; Cavalcante Filho, P.G.; Ribeiro, L.N.; Silva, G.S.A.L.; Santos, W.S.; Silva, I.H.B. Distribution of income and poverty in the Chico Mendes Extrative Reserve (RESEX). J. Agric. Stud. 2019, 7, 138–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Milien, E.J.; Rocha, K.S.; Brown, I.F.; Perz, S.G. Roads, deforestation and the mitigating effect of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve in the southwestern Amazon. Trees For. People 2021, 3, 100056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Freitas, J.S.; Mathis, A.; Caldas, M.M.; Homma, A.K.O.; Farias Filho, M.C.; Rivas, A.A.F.; Santos, K.M. Socio-environmental success or failure of extractive reserves in the Amazon? Res. Soc. Dev. 2021, 10, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kelly, A.B. Conservation practice as primitive accumulation. J. Peasant. Stud. 2011, 38, 683–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moraes, L.A.F.; Floreano, I.X. LULC zoning in the “Madeira river” settlement, legal Amazon, Brazil, before and after implementation of the rural environmental registry (CAR) (2008–2018). Environ. Dev. 2022, 43, 100725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chagnon, C.W.; Durante, F.; Gills, B.K.; Hagolani-Albov, S.E.; Hokkanen, S.; Kangasluoma, S.M.; Konttinen, H.; Kröger, M.; LaFleur, W.; Ollinaho, O.; et al. From extractivism to global extractivism: The evolution of an organizing concept. J. Peasant. Stud. 2022, 49, 760–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Borges, D.M.L.; Araújo, V.M.; Ribeiro, E.M.; Cruz, M.S.; Santos, L.R. A comercialização de produtos do agroextrativismo em feiras livres do Alto Jequitinhonha. Campo-Territ. 2020, 325–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bispo, T.W.; Diniz, J.D. Agroextrativismo no Vale do rio Urucuia- MG: Uma análise sobre pluriatividade e multifuncionalidade no Cerrado. Sustentabilidade Em Debate 2014, 5, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Melo, S.W.C. Extrativismo Vegetal Como Estratégia de Desenvolvimento Rural no Cerrado; Dissertação de Mestrado em Agronegócios, Universidade de Brasília: Brasília, Brazil, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  65. Clarke, R.; Timberlake, L. Stockholm Plus Ten: Promises, Promises? The Decade Since the 1972 un Environment Conference; International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED): London, UK, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  66. Martins, L.A.P.; Brando, F.R. O meio ambiente em discussão: As conferências de Estolcomo e Rio 1992. Cad. De História Da Ciência 2023, 17, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Osborn, D.; Bigg, T. Earth Summit II: Outcomes and Analysis; Earthscan: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lipschutz, R.D. Crossing borders: Global civil society and the reconfiguration of transnational political space. GeoJournal 2000, 52, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Carr, D.L.; Norman, E.S. Global civil society? The Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development. Geoforum 2008, 39, 358–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tukker, A. Knowledge collaboration and learning by aligning global sustainability programs: Reflections in the context of Rio+20. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Haines, A.; Alleyne, G.; Kickbusch, I.; Dora, C. From the earth summit to Rio+20: Integration of health and sustainable development. Review 2012, 379, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Baste, I.A.; Watson, R.T. Tackling the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies by making peace with nature 50 years after the Stockholm Conference. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2022, 73, 102466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sorooshian, S. The Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations: A Comparative Midterm Research Review. J. Pre-Proof 2024, 142272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yumnam, G.; Gyanendra, Y.; Singh, C.I. A systematic bibliometric review of the global research dynamics of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030. Sustain. Futures 2024, 7, 100192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yu, K.; Song, Y.; Lin, J.; Qu, S. Evaluating complementaries among urban water, energy, infrastructure, and social Sustainable Development Goals in China. J. Environ. Sci. 2025, 149, 585–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shahmoradi, S.; Abtahi, S.M.; Guimarães, P. Pedestrian street and its effect on economic sustainability of a historical middle eastern city: The case of Chaharbagh Abbasi in Isfahan, Iran. Geogr. Sustain. 2023, 4, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhang, M.; Abbasi, K.R.; Inuwa, N.; Sinisi, C.I. Does economic policy uncertainty, energy transition and ecological innovation affect environmental degradation in the United States? Ecological innovation affect environmental degradation. Econ. Res. Istraživanja 2023, 36, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Grin, E.J.; Pantoja, I. Agenda 2030 and the challenges of the sustainable urban development goals in Brazil: The case of Jundiaí. In Urban Policy in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda; García, M.A.H., Miranda, A.R., Ugalde, V., Rodríguez, R.M., Eds.; The Urban Book Series: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ellis, H.; Henderson, K. The climate change challenge. Rebuilding Br. 2017, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vaughan, A. COP26: China’s Climate Plan Promises to Peak CO2 Emissions before 2030. New Sci. 2021. Available online: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2295350-chinas-new-climate-plan-promises-to-peak-co2-emissions-before-2030/ (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  81. Abbasi, K.R.; Zhang, O.; Ozturk, I.; Alvarado, R.; Musa, M. Energy transition, fossil fuels, and green innovations: Paving the way to achieving sustainable development goals in the United States. Gondwana Res. 2024, 130, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Eurostat. Sustainable Development in the European Union. Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs in an EU Context, 2023rd ed.; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  83. Kluza, K.; Ziolo, M.; Postula, M. Climate policy development and implementation from the Sustainable Development Goals perspective. Evidence from the European Union countries. Energy Strategy Rev. 2024, 52, 101321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Nakhle, P.; Stamos, I.; Proietti, P.; Siragusa, A. Environmental monitoring in European regions using the sustainable development goals (SDG) framework. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2024, 21, 100332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wang, Q.; Ren, F.; Li, R. Does geopolitical risk impact sustainable development? A perspective on linkage between geopolitical risk and sustainable development research. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 421, 141980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chishti, M.Z.; Khalid, A.A.; Sana, M. Conflict vs. sustainability of global energy, agricultural and metal markets: A lesson from Ukraine-Russia war. Resour. Policy 2023, 84, 103775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Shen, L.; Hong, Y. Can geopolitical risks excite Germany economic policy uncertainty: Rethinking in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Finance Res. Lett. 2023, 51, 103420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Pereira, P.; Zhao, W.; Symochko, L.; Inacio, M.; Bogunovic, I.; Barcelo, D. The Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict will push back the sustainable development goals. Geogr. Sustain. 2022, 3, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wakili, K.G. The world energy crisis—Part 2: Some more vacuum-based solutions. Vacuum 2008, 82, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pollitt, M.G.; Fehr, N.M.; Willems, B.; Banet, C.; Coq, C.L.; Chyong, C.K. Recommendations for a future-proof electricity market design in Europe in light of the 2021-23 energy crisis. Energy Policy 2024, 188, 114051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wei, X.; Shi, X.; Li, Y.; Hongling Ma, H.; Ban, S.; Liu, X.; Liu, H.; Yang, C. Analysis of the European energy crisis and its implications for the development of strategic energy storage in China. J. Energy Storage 2024, 82, 110522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kartal, M.T.; Pata, U.K.; Erdogan, S.; Destek, M.A. Facing the challenge of alternative energy sources: The scenario of European Union countries based on economic and environmental analysis. Gondwana Res. 2024, 128, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Maris, G.; Psychalis, M. Energy and environmental challenges in the European Union and green bonds. Soc. Sci. 2014, 13, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Webb, E.L.; Lalogafu’afu’a, A.I.; Mekuli, O.; Olo, E.; Phelps, J.; Taisegi, L.; Taua, N.; Tualaulelei, A.; Vaito’, J.; Jamaludin, J.; et al. Last stand: Application of a criteria-based framework to inform conservation of a critically threatened tropical lowland forest fragment. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2024, 51, 02871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). Censo Demográfico; 2010. Available online: https://senso2010.ibge.gov.br (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  96. Volpato, G.L. O método lógico para redação científica. Reciis 2015, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Elster, J. Peças e Engrenagens das Ciências Sociais; Relume Dumara: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  98. Godoy, A.S. Refletindo sobre critérios de qualidade da pesquisa qualitativa. Rev. Eletrônica De Gestão Organ. 2005, 3, 81–89. [Google Scholar]
  99. Nair, R.; Hunter, R.; Garjani, A.; Middleton, R.M.; Tuite-Dalton, K.A.; Nicholas, R.S.; Evangelou, N. Challenges of developing, conducting, analysing and reporting a COVID-19 study as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds: An online co-autoethnographic study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, 048788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Shareck, M.; Alexander, S.; Glenn, N.M. In-situ at a distance? challenges and opportunities for health and place research methods in a post-COVID-19 world. Health Place 2021, 69, 102572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Artioli, G.; Sarli, L. The qualitative method for a humanisation of research. Acta Biomed. Atenei Parm. 2021, 92, e2021041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Volpato, G.L.; Barreto, L.E. Estatística sem dor; Best Writing: Botucatu, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  103. Knechtel, M.R. Metodologia da Pesquisa em Educação: Uma Abordagem Teórico-Prática Dialogada; Inter Saberes: Curitiba, India, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  104. Homma, A.K.O. Sinergias de mudança da agricultura amazônica; Homma, A.K.O., Brasília, D.F., Eds.; Conflitos e oportunidades: Embrapa, India, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  105. Fearnside, P.M. Amazon environmental services: Why Brazil’s highway BR-319 is so damaging. Ambio 2022, 51, 1367–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Santana, C.A.M.; Souza, G.S.; Homma, A.K.O.; Gomes, E.G.; Aragão, A.A. 40 anos de transformações na agricultura paraense: Implicações para as políticas públicas. In Sinergias de Mudança da Agricultura Amazônica; Conflitos e Oportunidades, Embrapa: Brasilia, Brazil, 2022; pp. 178–217. [Google Scholar]
  107. Dias-Filho, M.B.; Lopes, M.J.S. Histórico e desafios da pecuária bovina na Amazônia. In Sinergias de Mudança da Agricultura Amazônica; Homma, A.K.O., Ed.; Conflitos e oportunidades. Embrapa: Brasilia, Brazil, 2020; pp. 267–288. [Google Scholar]
  108. Chaves, S.F.S.; Alves, R.M.; Dias, A.S. Contribution of breeding to agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. In Açaí palm and oil palm. Crop Breed. Appl. Biotechnol. 2021, 21, e386221S8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Bergamo, D.; Zerbini, O.; Pinho, P.; Moutinho, P. The Amazon bioeconomy: Beyond the use of forest products. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 199, 107448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Dantas, D.P.; Flickinger, D.L.; Costa, G.A.; Moraes-Valenti, P.M.; Valenti, W.C. Economic effects of production scale, use of agricultural greenhouses, and integration of tropical aquaculture species when farming in a subtropical climate. Aquac. Int. 2022, 30, 547–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Levin, B. Regenerative agriculture as biodiversity Islands. In Biodiversity Islands: Strategies for Conservation in Human-Dominated Environments. Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation; Montagnini, F., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; p. 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Alexiades, B.; Alexiades, M. Forests, fields, and pastures: Unequal access to Brazil nuts and livelihood strategies in an extractive reserve, Brazilian Amazon. Land 2022, 11, 967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rath, S.; Sahoo, P.P.; Sarangi, K.K.; Kareemulla, K. Environmental implications of agricultural development in Odisha State. J. Financ. Econ. 2022, 3, 2–25. [Google Scholar]
  114. Oliveira, J.G.O.; Santana Júnior, M.L.; Maia, N.J.C.; Dubeux Junior, C.B.; Gameiro, A.H.; Kunrath, T.R.; Mendonça, G.G.; Simili, F.F. Nitrogen balance and efficiency as indicators for monitoring the proper use of fertilizers in agricultural and livestock systems. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 12021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Ntuli, H.; Mukong, A.K.; Kimengsi, J.N. Institutions and environmental resource extraction within local communities in Mozambique. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 139, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Roger, M. The geopolitics of food security and food sovereignty in Latin America: Harmonizing competing visions or reinforcing extractive agriculture? Geopolitics 2020, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Petras, J.; Veltmeyer, H. Extractive Imperialism in the Americas; Capitalism’s New Frontier: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ribot, J. Cause and response: Vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene. J. Peasant. Stud. 2014, 41, 667–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ribeiro, R.M.; Amaral, S.; Monteiro, A.M.V.; Dal’Asta, A.P. Cities in the forest and cities of the forest: An environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) spatial approach to analyzing the urbanization-deforestation relationship in a Brazilian Amazon State. Ecol. Soc. 2022, 27, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Heredia-R, M.; Torres, B.; Vasseur, L.; Puhl, L.; Barreto, D.; Díaz-Ambrona, C.G.H. Sustainability dimensions assessment in four traditional agricultural systems in the Amazon. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 5, 782633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Bussoni, A.; Juan, C.; Fernández, E.; Boscana, M.; Cubbage, F.; Bentancur, O. Integrated beef and wood production in Uruguay: Potential and limitations. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 1107–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Nugroho, E.; Ihle, R.; Heijman, W.; Oosting, S.J. The contribution of forest extraction to income diversification and poverty alleviation for Indonesian smallholder cattle breeders. Small-Scale For. 2022, 21, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Nimwegen, P.; Lloyd, D.J.; Vanclay, J.K. Prospects for Integrated Timber–Forage–Livestock Agroforestry Systems for Economic Diversification in West Timor Farming Communities; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  124. López, S. Deforestation, forest degradation, and land use dynamics in the Northeastern Ecuadorian Amazon. Appl. Geogr. 2022, 145, 102749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Domingues, S.C.O.; Silva, I.O.C.; Santos, J.S.; Yamashita, O.M.; Carvalho, M.A.C. Dinâmica do arco do desmatamento: Fronteiras agrícolas. Sci. Electron. Arch. 2020, 13, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Silveira, J.G.D.; Oliveira Neto, S.N.D.; Canto, A.C.B.D.; Leite, F.G.D.; Cordeiro, F.R.; Assad, L.T.; Silva, G.C.C.; Marques, R.D.O.; Dalarme, M.S.L.; Ferreira, I.G.M. Land use, land cover change and sustainable intensification of agriculture and livestock in the amazon and the Atlantic Forest in Brazil. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ferreira, R.P.; Lopes, P.F.M.; Campos-Silva, J.V.; Silvano, R.A.M.; Begossi, A. The upper Juruá Extractive Reserve in the Brazilian amazon: Past and present. Braz. J. Biol. 2022, 82, 239188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Benzeev, R.; Wilson, B.; Butler, M.; Massoca, P.; Paudel, K.; Redmore, L. What’s governance got to do with it? Examining the relationship between governance and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0269729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 16 04685 g001
Figure 1. Location and spatial elements of RESEXs Alto Juruá, Rio Ouro Preto, and Cajari River. Source: Prepared by the authors, 2024.
Figure 1. Location and spatial elements of RESEXs Alto Juruá, Rio Ouro Preto, and Cajari River. Source: Prepared by the authors, 2024.
Sustainability 16 04685 g001
Sustainability 16 04685 g002
Figure 2. Situation of institutional policies and priority productive activities of local inhabitants. Source: Fieldwork, 2017, 2019. Prepared by the authors, 2022.
Figure 2. Situation of institutional policies and priority productive activities of local inhabitants. Source: Fieldwork, 2017, 2019. Prepared by the authors, 2022.
Sustainability 16 04685 g002
Sustainability 16 04685 g003
Figure 3. Extractivism, cattle, and agriculture combined collaborate with subsistence. Source: Fieldwork, 2017, 2019. Prepared by the authors, 2022.
Figure 3. Extractivism, cattle, and agriculture combined collaborate with subsistence. Source: Fieldwork, 2017, 2019. Prepared by the authors, 2022.
Sustainability 16 04685 g003
Sustainability 16 04685 g004
Figure 4. Costing credit applied to agriculture and livestock due to the economic highlight. Source: Fieldwork, 2017, 2019. Prepared by the authors, 2022.
Figure 4. Costing credit applied to agriculture and livestock due to the economic highlight. Source: Fieldwork, 2017, 2019. Prepared by the authors, 2022.
Sustainability 16 04685 g004
Sustainability 16 04685 g005
Figure 5. Monthly household income from products from agriculture, extractivism, and cattle. Source: Fieldwork, 2017, 2019. Prepared by the authors, 2022.
Figure 5. Monthly household income from products from agriculture, extractivism, and cattle. Source: Fieldwork, 2017, 2019. Prepared by the authors, 2022.
Sustainability 16 04685 g005
Table 1. Deforestation in the Alto Juruá, Rio Ouro Preto, and Rio Cajari RESEXs.
Table 1. Deforestation in the Alto Juruá, Rio Ouro Preto, and Rio Cajari RESEXs.
RESEX/Year
Creation		Total Area and
Inhabitants		PeriodDeforestation (ha)%
Alto Juruá (Acre)
1990		 Until 199765391.21
2000–200549690.92
537,946 (ha)2006–201030470.57
2011–201519260.36
4170 (population)2016–202138060.70
20,2873.76
Rio Ouro Preto (Rondônia)
1990		 Until 199777303.78
2000–200589664.38
204,631 (ha)2006–201016950.83
2011–201512310.60
699 (population)2016–202112360.61
20,85810.20
Rio Cajari (Amapá)
1990		 Until 199777201.45
2000–200514540.27
532,397 (ha)2006–201019400.36
2011–20157760.14
2293 (population)2016–20219660.18
12,8562.40
Source. INPE/PRODES, 2022. Adapted by the authors, 2023.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Freitas, J.d.S.; Mathis, A.; Farias Filho, M.C.; Homma, A.K.O.; Gois, G.d.; Ferreira, J.F.C.; Rivas, A.A.F.; Costa, J.M.d.; Silva, D.C.C.; Silva, J.A.C.d.; et al. The Key to the Sustainability and Conservation of Extractive Reserves in the Amazon. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114685

AMA Style

Freitas JdS, Mathis A, Farias Filho MC, Homma AKO, Gois Gd, Ferreira JFC, Rivas AAF, Costa JMd, Silva DCC, Silva JACd, et al. The Key to the Sustainability and Conservation of Extractive Reserves in the Amazon. Sustainability. 2024; 16(11):4685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114685

Chicago/Turabian Style

Freitas, Josimar da Silva, Armin Mathis, Milton Cordeiro Farias Filho, Alfredo Kingo Oyama Homma, Givanildo de Gois, José Francisco Carvalho Ferreira, Alexandre Almir Ferreira Rivas, Jodival Mauricio da Costa, David Costa Correia Silva, José Alessandro Cândido da Silva, and et al. 2024. "The Key to the Sustainability and Conservation of Extractive Reserves in the Amazon" Sustainability 16, no. 11: 4685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114685

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop