Amazonia%20under%20pressure26_04_2013 by Instituto Socioambiental

Balneário de Cauamé and road linking Brasil and Venezuela. Boa Vista, Roraima, Brasil.

Urban district on the outskirts of Manaus encroaching on the forest. Manaus, Brasil.

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

Carajás, the world’s largest open pit iron mine. Pará, Brasil.

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

Alunorte, the world’s largest aluminum refinery. Barcarena, Pará, Brasil.

Waste disposal from the Alunorte refinery. Barcarena, Pará, Brasil.

Tucuruí Hydroelectric Plant, on the Tocantins river. Pará, Brasil.

Aluminum ingot storage zone owned by Albras. Barcarena, Pará, Brasil.

Bogotá (Colombia); Caracas (Venezuela); Lima (Perú); Paramaribo (Suriname); Quito (Ecuador); Santa Cruz de La Sierra (Bolivia); Belém and São Paulo (Brasil) 2012 Mechanized soya harvesting. Campo Verde, Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Paulo Fridman/Pulsar Imagens, 2008

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

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

Amazonia under Pressure

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

Suggested format for citing the document: RAISG, 2012. Amazonia under Pressure. 68 pages (www.raisg.socioambiental.org)

General Coordinator: Beto Ricardo (ISA) Assistant General Coordinator: Alicia Rolla (ISA) General workgroup RAISG/Atlas: Adriana Sarmiento-Dueñas (Gaia), Alicia Rolla (ISA), Beto Ricardo (ISA), Carla Soria (IBC), Cicero Cardoso Augusto (ISA), Karla Beltrán (EcoCiencia), Katia Regina Pereira (Imazon), Maria Oliveira-Miranda (Provita), Melvin Uiterloo (ACT Suriname), Pedro Tipula (IBC), Ricardo Abad (ICV), Saul Cuellar (FAN), Víctor López (EcoCiencia) Responsible for cartographic thematic analysis: Mining: Adriana Sarmiento-Dueñas (Gaia) and Katia Regina Pereira (Imazon) Hydroelectric Plants: Saul Cuellar (FAN) and Ricardo Abad (ICV) Fires (Hot Spots): Saul Cuellar (FAN) and Ricardo Abad (ICV) Oil and Gas: Pedro Tipula (IBC) and Carla Soria (IBC) Roads: Cicero Cardoso Augusto (ISA) and Maria Oliveira-Miranda (Provita) Deforestation: Cicero Cardoso Augusto (ISA) and Maria Oliveira-Miranda (Provita) Workgroup RAISG/Deforestation: Carlos Souza Jr. (Imazon), Cicero Cardoso Augusto (ISA), João Victor Siqueira (Imazon), Maria Oliveira-Miranda (Provita), Melvin Uiterloo (ACT Suriname), Milton Romero-Ruíz (Gaia), Sandra Ríos (IBC), Saul Cuellar (FAN), Sergio Zambrano (IVIC); with the collaboration of: Adriana Sarmiento-Dueñas (Gaia), Andrés Llanos (Gaia), Boris Hinojosa Guzman, Elimar Márquez (Provita), Fabian Santos (EcoCiencia), Jhonny Arroyo (FAN), Jorge Fernández (IBC), José Saito (IBC), Marlene Quintanilla (FAN),Rosa María de Oliveira (Provita), Sara Espinoza (FAN), Suzette Flantua Image research: Claudio Aparecido Tavares (ISA), Pedro Tipula (IBC), Víctor López (EcoCiencia) Map production: Alicia Rolla (ISA), Adriana Sarmiento (FGA) and Carla Soria (IBC) Editing: Alicia Rolla (ISA) (maps and text); Beto Ricardo (ISA) (text and photos); Daniel Larrea (FAN) (text); Janette Ulloa (EcoCiencia) (text), Natalia Hernández (text) Organization of first draft of texts: Ramón Laborde and Natalia Hernández Technical revision collaborators: Ermeto Tuesta (IBC), Maria Fernanda Prado (ISA), Marisa Gesteira Fonseca (ISA), Renata Aparecida Alves (ISA), Sandra Ríos (IBC), Víctor López (EcoCiencia)

EcoCiencia Pasaje Estocolmo E2- 166 y Av. Amazonas – (Sector El Labrador - Norte de Quito). Tel: (593-2) 2 410 781 / 2 410 791 / 2 410 489 http://www.ecociencia.org FAN - Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza Km.7 1/2 Doble Vía La Guardia – Bolivia Tel: +591-3-3556800 http://www.fan-bo.org

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

ICV - Instituto Centro de Vida Rua Américo Salgado, 1890 CEP: 78045-055 Cuiabá – Mato Grosso, Brasil Tel./Fax: (55 65) 3621-3148 http://www.icv.org.br IMAZON - Instituto do Homem e do Meio Ambiente da Amazônia Rua Domingos Marreiros, 2020 CEP: 66.060-160 Belém – Pará, Brasil Tel: (55 91) 3182-4000 Fax: (55 91) 3182-4027 http://www.imazon.org.br IVIC - Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas Centro de Ecología, Laboratorio de Biología de Organismos San Antonio de los Altos, Carretera Panamericana, Km 11, Altos de Pipe, Estado Miranda – Caracas, Venezuela Tel: (58 212) 504-1888 / 504-1617 http://www.ivic.gob.ve/ecologia/index.php?mod=lab.php&labid=biolorg

Dados Internacionais de Catalogação na Publicação (CIP)

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

(Câmara Brasileira do Livro, SP, Brasil)

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

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

Título original: Amazonía bajo presión Vários autores. Bibliografia

13-104225 CDD-304.2709811 Índices para catálogo sistemático: 1. Amazônia : Biodiversidade : Aspectos socioambientais 304.2709811

Coordinator

Supporters of RAISG:

The geographical boundaries of Amazonia Protected Natural Areas and Indigenous Territories Amazonian Basins General Methodology BIN1. Livestock and crop farming in the expansion of Amazonian frontiers BIN2. Logging

ROADS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

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

INTRODUCTION 9 11 13 14 15

Translation: David Rodgers

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

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

MOG1. Oil and Gas in Amazonia MOG2. Oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase BOG1. The main oil/gas companies with interests in Amazonia TOG1. Oil/gas activity phases in Amazonia, by country TOG2. Quantity and surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase TOG3. Quantity and surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by country BOG2. State, oil and Indigenous Territories in Ecuadorian Amazonia GOG1. Distribution of surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country TOG4. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country TOG5. The ten Amazonian sub-basins with the largest overlap of oil/gas blocks MOG3. Proportion of oil/gas blocks per macro-basin in Amazonia MOG4. Proportion of oil/gas blocks per sub-basin in Amazonia MOG5. Proportion of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia TOG6. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by country GOG2. Proportion of PNAs in Amazonia with oil/gas blocks, by country and activity phase TOG7. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by activity phase, administrative sphere and type of use GOG3. Proportion of ITs in Amazonia with oil/gas blocks, by country and activity phase TOG8. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in ITs in Amazonia, by activity phase, administrative sphere and type of use BOG3. Oil and gas exploration in the sedimentary basins of Acre and Madre de Dios MOG6. Proportion of oil/gas blocks in ITs in Amazonia MMN1. Mining in Amazonia MMN2. Mining activity phases in Amazonia, by country BMN1. The main mining companies and the largest mining projects TMN1. Categories of mining blocks in the countries of Amazonia TMN2. Quantity and surface area of mining blocks in Amazonia, by category GMN1. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase TMN3. Quantity and surface area of mining blocks in Amazonia, by country GMN2. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country TMN4. Surface area of mining blocks in macro-basins in Amazonia, by category GMN3. Distribution of mining blocks in Amazonia, by macro-basin TMN5. The ten sub-basins with the largest surface area covered by mining blocks in Amazonia MMN3. Proportion of mining blocks per country in Amazonia MMN4. Proportion of mining blocks per macro-basin in Amazonia MMN5. Proportion of mining blocks per sub-basin in Amazonia TMN6. Surface area of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use GMN4. Distribution of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use GMN5. Distribution of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by country and activity phase GMN6. Distribution of mining blocks in ITs in Amazonia, by country and activity phase MMN6. Proportion of mining blocks per PNA in Amazonia BMN2 . The new gold rush in Amazonia MMN7. Proportion of mining blocks by ITs in Amazonia BMN3. Mining, participation and social mobilization in Ecuador

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

50 DEFORESTATION 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

30 MINING 31 32 33 34 35 36

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

FIRES (HOT SPOTS) 45 46 47 48 49

OIL and GAS 25 26 27 28 29

HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS 39 40 41 42 43

7 PREFACE

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

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

Contents

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

60 CONCLUSIONS 63

INFORMATION SOURCES

65 ABBREVIATIONS 67

CAPTIONS FOR THE MOSAIC OF PHOTOS 2

Work meetings and public presentations of RAISG between 2007–2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

After a low-profile period, from 2007 onwards, as part of the new ‘Amazonian wave’ linked to the global debate on climate change, we were able to mobilize a group of institutions that together combine the minimal conditions needed to elaborate a joint work plan:  have a socio-environmental agenda;  make strategic use of geographic information systems; and  able to exchange and combine databases at (Pan) Amazonian scale. Since then considerable effort has been invested in creating and implementing technical and political protocols, as well as investments in equipment, computing tools and staff capacity building, with support from the Rainforest Foundation Norway, the Ford Foundation, Avina and the Skoll Foundation. The composition of the network has remained basically stable throughout the process with only a few changes. It is currently composed of 11 institutions (see page 4). The work required a series of face-to-face meetings in São Paulo, Lima, Belém, Bogotá and Quito in order to adapt methods, define technical criteria, verify information, combine data, prioritize themes, strengthen capacities and exchange experiences and knowledge (the previous page shows a photographic mosaic of RAISG meetings and events held between 2007 and 2012). Both consultations and virtual meetings with other technical specialists were also held in each of the different countries.

The present publication, one of the results of the RAISG initiative, is a contribution from civil society to the democratic debate on pressures in Amazonia and particularly on deforestation, an issue that is presently being assessed by various national governments, as well as at the intergovernmental level of ACTO (Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization). RAISG is currently in the process of formulating a 2013-2015 work plan, which will include:

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

 establishing cooperation agreements with other networks with the aim of generating joint products; and  forming regional sub-networks.

RAISG is a collaborative space open to all those interested in promoting a sustainable future and strengthening the socio-environmental diversity of Amazonia. The present Atlas is intended to contribute to consolidating a wideranging regional view in which Amazonia is seen to extend beyond Brasil to include the Andean and Guianese countries. Beto Ricardo November, 2012

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

Amazonia under Pressure

7 RAISG

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

IntroduCTION The Amazonia presented in this publication is a territory with a huge socioenvironmental diversity now undergoing a process of rapid change. It covers an area of 7.8 million km2, including 12 macro-basins and 158 sub-basins, shared by 1,497 municipalities, 68 departments/states/provinces in eight countries: Bolivia (6.2%), Brasil (64.3%), Colombia (6.2%), Ecuador (1.5%), Guyana (2.8%), Perú (10.1%), Suriname (2.1%) and Venezuela (5.8%), as well as Guyane Française (1.1%).1 Around 33 million people live in Amazonia, including 385 indigenous peoples, as well as some living in ‘isolation.’ There are 610 PNAs and 2,344 ITs that occupy 45% of the Amazonian surface area, without counting the small, medium and large rural landowners, various types of companies, research and support institutions, religious organizations and civil society organizations. This area results from boundaries agreed upon by RAISG members by combining socio-environmental and juridical-administrative criteria, as explained below, in order to define a spatial expression of the information and analyses. The geographical information system developed by RAISG has the flexibility to allow products to be generated using other boundaries, such as those defined by hydrographic or biogeographic criteria, for example. Map 2. Amazonia: cumulative threats (RAISG, 2012)

Although countries like Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador and Perú define juridical-administrative boundaries for their portions of Amazonia, public policies do not reflect Amazonian socio-environmental particularities and are far from adopting the necessary (Pan-) Amazonian view and improving cooperation mechanisms. In all cases, there persists a view of Amazonia as a remote frontier providing ‘infinite’ natural resources, with a demographic vacuum open to new forms of farming and extractivist colonization. This view has become more complex over the last 50 years with the new forms in which the region has been integrated into national and international economies. Amazonia is also now considered at national level as a territory capable of ensuring energy sovereignty and as a source of income based on the production and commercialization of raw materials. At the global level, the region

is seen as the most important source of fresh water and biodiversity, as a regulator of the planet’s climate and as a carbon sink for large quantities of greenhouse gases. Like the other products generated through the work of RAISG, the main objective of this publication is to overcome our fragmented views of Amazonia and offer an ample panorama of the pressures and threats across the entire region and other sub-units of analysis. The opposite page shows two maps providing a spatial illustration of the combined sum of pressures (map 1) and threats (map 2). Pressures refers to the human actions currently taking place in Amazonia that put at risk the integrity of the ecosystems and the collective and diffuse rights of its inhabitants, whether traditional or otherwise. The threats are the human plans, projects or initiatives marked for the near future, which may turn into pressures once implemented. In both cases RAISG’s members organized information under a set of priority themes mentioned in the preface, compiling and generating high quality information that could be represented cartographically for the entire Amazonian region. The present Atlas contains information on the following six themes, representing the pressures and threats faced by Amazonia over the last decade – roads, oil and gas, hydroelectric plants, mining, fires and deforestation – analyzed in relation to Amazonia as a whole as well as to five different territorial units: Amazonia in each country, Hydrographic Basins, Protected Natural Areas (PNAs), and Indigenous Territories (ITs). These analyses are supported by 55 maps, 61 tables, 23 graphs, 16 boxes and 73 photographs. All this information is organized in thematic chapters running to a total of 68 pages. It should be pointed out that it was not possible to include specific chapters on logging and farming – themes of great importance for a more complete evaluation of the pressures and threats on Amazonia – since no basic information on them exists that covers the region as a whole. These themes will be discussed in two boxes included in the present introduction.

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

RAISG 8

Amazonia under Pressure

9 RAISG

The geographical boundary of Amazonia The boundaries of Amazonia as a region can be defined using different methodologies as well as a variety of data sources for mapping them. The boundaries most frequently used are the biophysical borders – related to hydrography, relief and vegetation – and the administrative boundaries recognized by the different nations for the application of protection and/or development policies, which take into account the region’s unique features. Economic and social criteria can also be used in defining the region’s boundaries. Hence no consensus exists on exactly what Amazonia is: to the contrary, we know that there are various Amazonias related to the different universes of the actors and interests involved. In 2004 a study undertaken by ACTO on the boundaries of Amazonia, focusing on different biophysical parameters, identified a number of important overlaps that highlight the difficulties involved in selecting the criteria for defining the region’s borders: “- defining the area hydrologically is unsatisfactory given the diversity of Amazonia’s biogeography; - since the biota of the tropical forests of the Amazonian lowlands is similar in various important aspects with that of the Guianas region, the latter should also be considered in the definition of the area;

MIN1. Amazonia boundaries and land coverage

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

TIN1. Amazon definitions, by country HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN

“LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE”

BOLIVIA

approx. 475,278 km2. It comprises about half of the area of Bolivia (475,278 km2). It consists of a mosaic of extensive upland and seasonally flooded (várzea and igapó) Amazonian forests, flooded savannas, semi-humid transition forests in the direction of the Cerrado, and sub-Andean and Yungas forests (the latter being characterized by high biodiversity).

BIOGEOGRAPHIC

approx. 714,493 km2. The watershed is comprised of the Rio Madera watershed and a small portion of the upper Amazonas basin on the border with Brazil.

approx. 156,267 km2. Article 390 of Bolivia’s new Political Constitution of the State (CPE) defines the Bolivian Amazon as a strategic area, specially protected for the comprehensive development of the country given its environmental sensitivity, existing biodiversity, water resources, and eco-regions. It is understood to encompass the entire department of Pando, the province of Iturralde in the department of La Paz, and the Ballivián and Vaca Diez provinces in the department of Beni.

BRASIL

approx. 4,213.463 km2. Wide variety of physiognomies, with dominance of flat-topped interfluves covered by evergreen tropical forests and submontane forests associated to infrequent elevations. It includes a transitional zone between rainforest and savanna like areas (locally called “cerrado”), and large extensions of sandy soils with structural and floristic patterns of forest and sandy savannas highly and locally adapted, called “campinaranas” and “campinas”, respectively. Periodically flooded wetlands have vegetation types that vary from wet fields to Palm Swamps (locally called veredas) and riparian forests.

approx. 4,692.488 km². Basins of the rivers Amazonas, Negro, Madera and Tocantins, and the Guyana/Macapá and Atlantico basins.

approx. 5,217.423 km². Region of planning and incentive to occupation called “Amazonia Legal”, defined by Federal Law 1806 from January 6th 1953 with the political aim of integrating the region to the national territory and foster its development. It consists of the Brazilian north region states (Acre, Amazonas, Amapá, Pará, Roraima, Rondônia and Tocantins), Mato Grosso and a portion of Maranhão (west from meridian 44º).

ECUADOR

approx. 91,045.74 Km2. Starts in the Andean-Amazonian transitional forests, at 1,300 meters above sea level along the foothills of the Andes, and moves toward the Amazon floodplain to about 300 m altitude it is dominated by several types of lowland evergreen forests including: flooded forests of white and black water, palm forest) with a significant presence of lacustrine grasslands and other non foreste ecosystems (Sierra, 1999)

approx. 131,950.45 km2. It includes portions of the basins of the rivers Putumayo, Napo, Tigre, Pastaza, Morona Santiago and Mayo. All are binational or transnational basins.

approx. 116,605.87 km2. According to the Article 250 of the new Constitution of Ecuador of 2008, referred to the Ecuadorian Amazon as the territory of the Amazon provinces and states that it is part of an ecosystem necessary for the environmental balance of the planet. This territory will be a special land for which there will be a comprehensive planning law including social, economic, environmental and cultural issues, with a land use planning to ensure the conservation and protection of ecosystems and the principle of “Sumak Kawsay” (Good living). The Ecuadorian Amazon region comprises the provinces of Sucumbios, Napo, Orellana, Pastaza, Morona Santiago and Zamora.

COLOMBIA

approx. 483,164 km2. The Amazon region incorporates hydrographic as well as biogeographic politicaladministrative boundaries: i) the basin boundary in the western sector is defined by the drainage divide in the upper part of the eastern mountains of the Colombian Andes; ii) the northern sector reaches up to where the forest cover limits with the natural savannahs in the Orinoquia; iii) the southern and eastern boundaries limit the international borders of Colombia with Ecuador, Peru, Brazil and Venezuela (http://siatac.siac.net.co/web/guest/region, Murcia Garcia, 2009); and iv) the ecosystems include the Eastern Mountain “Paramos”, birth of important rivers which cross the Amazon basin, to areas of the tropical rain forest. These ecosystems range from Andean, flood plains, mainland to xeric and savannahs.

approx. 342,372.9 km2. Putumayo River Basin, Negro River basin, Caquetá River basin and a small portion of the Napo River basin.

approx. 483,164 km2. The political-administrative division covers the southern part of the department of Vichada; the southeastern of the Meta Department; the entire territory of the departments of Guainia, Guaviare, Vaupes, Amazonas, Putumayo and Caqueta; “la Bota Caucana”, in the department of Cauca and the Amazonian watershed of Nariño (the highest part of the Guamuez, Sucio, San Miguel and Aguarico rivers). The basin’s administrative districts or municipalities are in total 78. 58 correspond to municipalities (41 fully included in the region and 17 partially included) and 20 departmental administrative districts , all included in the region (Murcia Garcia et al, 2009).

GUIANA

The entire country

approx. 12,300 km2. Tributary of the Branco River.

Without information

GUYANE FRANÇAISE

The entire country

Is not tributary of the Amazonas River.

Without information

PERÚ

approx. 782,813 km2. There are several different classifications of ecosystems in the Peruvian Amazon. Most of them divide this region into two large landscapes: The Amazonian lowland, located below the 500 to 800 msnm and the high jungle or montaña above the Plain and up to 3600 msnm. However, this classification simplifies the eco-systemic diversity in contrast with that postulated by Encarnación (1993) who identifies 16 types of vegetation in the Amazon lowland defined by the predominant plant species or by the type of waters that flood the forests. Source: Encarnación, F. 1993. El bosque y las formaciones vegetales en la llanura amazónica del Perú. Alma Mater Rev. UNMSM. 6: 94-114.

approx. 966,170 km2. The Peruvian Amazon is drained by many rivers of varying sizes and volumes; the largest of these include the Amazonas, Marañón, Napo, Ucayali and Madre de Dios Rivers. Source: ANA 2010.Unidades Hidrográficas del Perú, 1/100 000.

Sin información de área In terms of political units, the Peruvian Amazon includes the entirety of the Departments of Loreto, Ucayali and Madre de Dios and a part of the Departments of Amazonas, Cajamarca, Huancavelica, La Libertad, Pasco, Piura, Puno, Ayacucho, Junín, Cusco, Huánuco and San Martín. Source: MINAM 2009. Mapa de Deforestación de la Amazonía Peruana – 2000. Memoria Descriptiva, Lima, p14.

SURINAME

Historically known region of the Amazon lowland rainforest biome in northern South America (taken or inferred from TREES map 1999; S and E borders delimited according to Soares, 1953).

Is not tributary of the Amazonas River.

Without information

VENEZUELA

approx. 453,915 km2. It is equivalent to the Venezuelan Guiana Shield region (Huber 1995, Gorzula and Señaris 1998, Pérez-Hernández and Lew 2001, Eva and Huber 2005), which occupies, in its widest interpretation, the states of Amazonas, Bolívar and Delta Amacuro.

approx. 53,280 km2. From a strict hydrographic point of view, the Amazon basin only includes the area south of the Casiquiare river, which communicates the Orinoco with the Negro River (Eva and Huber 2005).

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

- similarly, the slopes of the Brazilian mountains, which drain into the Amazon Basin, despite presenting different geographic and biotic characteristics, are ecologically and hydrologically connected to Amazonia; - in terms of climate, the Amazonian region cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the continent or indeed the world.” For RAISG, the objective is not to establish an unequivocal Amazonian boundary, administratively or scientifically based, but to delimit an area of analysis in a way that the information is useful to a variety of actors. The products will have different formats and publics, whether they are published on the network’s web site (www.raisg.socioambiental.org) or in printed format. In these analyses, given the different definitions of the Amazonian borders used by each country, RAISG used a boundary that corresponds to a region for which we have updated and systemized data, backed by accumulated knowledge and a working experience. This enables RAISG to carry out diagnoses and projections regarding both the threats and the attempts to protect the area, as well as efforts to monitor their evolution over time. This boundary, which encompasses 7.8 million km2, is primarily composed of the biogeographical boundary with the exception of Ecuador and Brasil where legal-administrative criteria are used. This is the area to which the statistics and other general references to Amazonia in this publication apply. Table TIN1 presents the definition of Amazonian areas used by each country. To assist the reader, the boundaries of both Amazonia as a basin and the biogeographical Amazonia are shown in the map Amazonia 2012 – based on the consolidated information – as well as the “boundary used by RAISG.” On RAISG’s web page the information will be organized in a form that enables users to make searches taking this boundary or basins and sub-basins as parameters when analyzing hydrographic aspects, for example. Similarly, biogeographical parameters can be used when planning for conservation projects, while administrative boundaries can be employed when the user’s interest relates to development, taking into account socioenvironmental information. A survey of the different definitions of Amazonia in each of the countries from the biogeographical, hydrographic and legal-administrative viewpoints is summarized in TIN2, where the boundary employed by RAISG for its calculations and analyses is highlighted in green. The MIN1 map shows the main classes of plant cover with the existing vegetation and the zones of human intervention (agriculture, livestock farming and so on). The overlapping of the three aforementioned Amazonian boundaries allows the reader to observe the approximate degree of human impact within each of them. TIN2. Amazon surfaces per country Country Bolivia

Amazon area (km2)

% of Amazonia

% of country

479,264

6.2

43.6

5,006.316

64.3

58.8

Colombia

483,164

6.2

42.3

Ecuador

116,284

1.5

46.7

Guyana

214,969

2.8

100.0

86,504

1.1

100.0

Perú

782,820

10.1

60.9

Suriname

163,820

2.1

100.0

Venezuela

453,915

5.8

49.5

Brasil

Guyane Française

Total

7,787.056

Protected Natural Areas and Indigenous Territories Protection of Amazonia’s socio-environmental diversity is being consolidated through the recognition of the territorial rights of indigenous peoples and the creation and implementation of a diverse set of protected areas. These conservation strategies have expanded over recent years and today cover a surface area of 3,502,750 km2 (2,144,412 km2 in Indigenous Territories and 1,696,529 km2 in Protected Natural Areas with 336,365 km2 overlapping between the two) corresponding to 45% of the region (TIN3). A portion of the Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) and Indigenous Territories (ITs) in Amazonia have effectively turned into islands of forest following the expansion of the export economy in basic products of low aggregated value. There is a large shortfall in official recognition of the lands of many of the 385 indigenous peoples living in Amazonia. These remain to be identified and quantified. Currently they cover a surface area of 1,641,117 km2 and 28,127 km2, represented by territorial reserves and intangible zones respectively, which combined correspond to 21.5% of the region. The proposals for territorial reserves and the ITs now in the process of official recognition add up to 475,168 km2, equivalent to 6.1% of the total region

TIN3. PNA and IT in Amazonia Area (km2) Protected Natural Areas (PNAs)

1,696.529

21.8%

Indigenous Territories (ITs)

2,144.412

27.5%

336,365

4.3%

3,502.750

45.0%

Overlapping area between PNAs and ITs PNAs and ITs without overlapping

RAISG 10

Amazonia under Pressure

% of Amazonia

TIN4. Cartographic sources of PNAs and ITs used Country Bolivia Brasil Colombia Ecuador Guiane Française Guyana Perú Suriname Venezuela Bolivia Brasil Colombia Ecuador Guiana Francesa Guyana Perú Venezuela Bolivia Brasil Ecuador

RAISG member

Source/date (year) IT Viceministerio de Tierras. Mapa de TCOs y sus áreas tituladas en Bolivia (no publicado). Versión 2009 Instituto Socioambiental, 2012 Instituto Geografico Agustin Codazzi, 2007; INCODER, 2009 EcoCiencia, 2009; ECORAE ,2002; ECOLEX, 2011; Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado de Sucumbíos, 2011; Subsecretaría de Tierras, 2011; Fundación Arcoiris, 2010; MAE, 2011 Direction Régionale de l’Environnement de Guyane, 2009 Indigenous Affair/Governo da Guyana, 2009 SICNA: incluye ACPC, AIDESEP-CIPTA, CEDIA, IBC, PETT-Loreto, GEF PNUD, GOREL y PFS. 2011 Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Salud (mapa), 2007 NATIONAL PNA SERNAP 2005 Instituto Socioambiental, 2012 Unidad Administrativa Especial Sistema Parques Nacionales - Dirección Terrriotial Amazonía, 2010 MAE, 2010 Direction Régionale de l’Environnement de Guyane Digital Chart of World, 1993 MINAM, 2012 Rodriguez et al., 2011 (datos no oficiales) DEPARTMENTAL PNA Gobierno Municipal de La Paz, 2010; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua, 2009; PMOT Ixiamas, 2009; Prefectura del Beni, 2008 Instituto Socioambiental, 2012 FOREST MAE, 2010

FAN ISA FGA EcoCiencia DEAL ISA IBC ACT Provita FAN ISA FGA EcoCiencia DEAL IBC Provita FAN ISA EcoCiencia

Amazonia under Pressure

11 RAISG

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

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

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

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

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

Watersheds within the Amazon Basin The watersheds utilized in the analyses were obtained through relief data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), available with a resolution of 15 arc-seconds (approximately 450 meters) and originally processed by the HydroSHEDS Project. This data was then used to generate the flow direction and accumulation models semiautomatically, along with the 2,862 hierarchized and structured river drainage systems, corresponding to 1,453 basins covering more than 150,000 hectares and their 1,409 intermediary areas, affluents of the Orinoco and Amazon rivers, as well as the Guianas, the areas surrounding the Tocantins river and the western part of the Brazilian ‘NE Atlantic.’ Using a specially developed algorithm, a unique system was established and applied to codify the segments hierarchically in accordance with the six generated Strahler levels, common to the hydrographic network and their respective basins. Based on the names contained in the digital cartography of rivers, compiled by the institutions belonging to RAISG in the different countries, and the consultation of different maps, the drainage sections were assigned with the name of the respective river in complete form up to Strahler level 3 and in partial form to levels 2 and 1 (TIN7). TIN5. Extension of Indigenous Territories in Amazonia (km2) Indigenous Territories officially recognized Indigenous Territories not officially recognized (or without information) Territorial Reservation Proposed Territorial Reservation

Administrative level 132,078

900,338

Direct use

403,016

354,942

757,958

34,079

4,154

1,209.509

487,020

1,696.529

Total

3) Systematization and organization of cartographic information, presented in a layered theme format. In order to ensure that the representation was cartographically and numerically equivalent across the different countries, the specifications of each were taken into account in order to obtain a common set of captions. For example, the international borders were adjusted according to a single baseline in order to avoid gaps and overlaps in information. For all the themes, information was classified on the basis of a shared attribute of a caption defined during the initial stage. Protected Natural Areas were classified by type of use, while Indigenous Territories were classified in relation to the degree of official recognition. The aim was to classify the pressure themes by activity phase or their time scale. 4) Processing and cross-checking of data by thematic subgroups. The themes were crosschecked with the borders of the countries, basins, PNAs and ITs previously grouped and systemized into a single layer of information; 5) Analysis of results by theme with the elaboration of tables and analytic maps that, combined with the compiled secondary information, served as a basis for producing technical notes on each theme. 6) Elaboration of technical notes on each theme. For the development of these stages, work sessions and technical meetings were held at different moments, both face-to-face and virtual, with the exchange of experiences, knowledge and capacity building between the teams.

Total

Departmental

768,261

Direct/Indirect use

2) Compilation of secondary information on the themes.

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

Indirect use Transitory use (Perú)

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

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

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

The methodology is grounded on six sequential stages:

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

2,144.412

Type of use

The information providing the foundation for this atlas Amazonia Under Pressure was assembled in June 2009 and updated in May 2011. This information was compiled in each country based on official sources, which show differences in time, scale, projection, availability and update period. The cartographic sources used are cited where appropriate in the thematic chapters.

435,406 39,762

Total

General Methodology

1,641.117 28,127

MIN2. Hydrographic basins in Amazonia

TIN7, Length and number of drainage segments per Strahler levels Strahler

Length (km)

107,410

1,453

59,137

726

27,666

348

16,044

225

5,456

1,330

217,044

2,862

Total

RAISG 12

Number of segments

Amazonia under Pressure

13 RAISG

BIN2. Logging

BIN1. Livestock and crop farming in the expansion of Amazonian frontiers

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

In Pan-Amazonia, the farming sector has historically been more an instrument for colonial expansion than a consolidated activity with an economic aim. At regional level we can identify six common trends: √ The development of activities that make occupation of the land possible, without any direct connections with production chains, focused mainly on the primary sector rather than industry or adding value. √ High rate of extensive activities and/or low relative productivity, even among different technological or social models. √ Little knowledge – or recognition – of the diversity of soil types in the region, many of them unique and particular (for example, seasonal floodland crops). √ Pasture occupies more than 90% of the areas used for annual, perennial or agroforestry crops. √ High rate of phytosanitary problems in both the primary sector and in processing. √ Absence, or sporadic presence, of technical assistance and rural extension work. Staying at regional level, four main models of this activity can be identified: √Traditional integrated: based on the knowledge and adaptation of indigenous, extractivist or river-dwelling communities. Characterized by communal land use, high diversification, management of natural resources, priority given to selfconsumption, low environmental impact and low income generation. √Small-scale colonial farming: based on official land distribution programs and opportunistic migrations associated with the implementation of infrastructure projects. This farming is developed in independent areas, does not adapt to local conditions and has a high turnover.

Forest and pasture being burnt for cattle ranching, Pará, Brasil © Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace, 2008

√ Medium and large-scale private occupation: very often based on the appropriation of public lands. Normally focused on cattle ranching with low investment in technology and infrastructure, associated with property (herd and land ownership) rather than economic per se. Has difficulties in integrating with production chains. √ Private sector agribusiness production: is the most recent and less frequent. It is installed in zones with better infrastructure, privileges mechanized large-scale monocropping (of soya, for example) and intensive use of chemical inputs with a small workforce. In contrast to the other forms, it is connected to more substantial production chains. Rice, cacao, coffee, manioc and fruit trees are the relatively more common crops in (Pan) Amazonia, in addition to pasture land. At more local level, coca is grown in Bolivia, Colombia and Perú; maize primarily in Perú, Ecuador and Bolivia; dendê in Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Perú and Venezuela; soya in Bolivia and Brasil; and forestry (monocrops) in Bolivia, Brasil and Venezuela. In the case of Brazilian Amazonia the entire area used for agriculture represents less than 7% of the total farming area, around 3.4 million hectares from a total of 45.1 million. The remaining 93% are covered by various kinds of pastures with a capacity ranging from 0.4 to 5 animals per hectare with an average of roughly 0.9. The 3.4 million hectares cited for agricultural use include large-scale commercial crops (specially soya and dendê), variable scale commercial crops ranging from family farming to middle-size properties (manioc, fruits, cacao, pepper, rice, jute, mallow, assai, cupuaçu, peach palm, sugar cane, maize, etc.), agroforestry systems (normally small scale) and finally subsistence crops (rice, beans, manioc, etc.) (Roberto Smeraldi/Amigos da Terra-Brazilian Amazonia). In Bolivian Amazonia agriculture and cattle ranching are the primary activities responsible for deforestation. These two activities resulted from a variety of economic and social forces that led on one hand to the disordered formation of pasture and, on the other, to the arrival of rural populations from the highlands who practice subsistence farming (crops of rice, maize, fruit trees and so on) in mostly unplanned form. The southern portion of Amazonia is also threatened by the expansion of mechanized farming (crops of soya, sunflowers, sugar cane and rice), which have developed more strongly in the central part of the Santa Cruz department, especially from the 1980s onwards. Hence deforestation results from the recent expansion in mechanized farming (in the southern portion) along with small-scale cattle ranching and agriculture (in the south, west and north of Amazonia). Between 2000 and 2010 around 765,000 ha were deforested, representing around 1.6% of Bolivian Amazonia. (Daniel Larrea/FAN) In Ecuadorian Amazonia the main income generating activities among producers are concentrated in agriculture (56.5%), cattle ranching (10%) and mixed farming (30%), through systems making intensive use of natural resources and labor with very low levels of productivity and profitability, while forestry or agroforestry activities, which exploit the resources of standing forest, account for just 1.4% of Amazonian producers. (Víctor López/EcoCiencia) In Colombian Amazonia agricultural and cattle ranching activities are the biggest cause of deforestation and have developed principally in the departments of Caquetá, Guaviare, Meta and Putumayo, located in the northwestern zone that includes much of the Andean-Amazonian ‘Piemonte.’ These activities began at the start of the 1960s when the national government pushed directed colonization programs in Amazonia with the idea of distributing land to rural populations dislocated by the violence in the Andean zone and enable the lands abandoned in eastern Colombia, previously forest, to become commercially productive. At the end of the 1980s the coca bonanza began in Colombia and it was in the colonization zones of Amazonia that subsistence crops, cattle and forest were replaced by coca crops grown for illegal use. In 2011 around 100,000 hectares had either permanent or intermittent coca plots in these four departments. At the start of the 21st century the Colombian government began to fight coca cultivation through aerial fumigation programs and manual eradication, and by stimulating the reconversion of these lands to cattle ranching (Caquetá and Meta), family production units (Guaviare) and bean growing (Putumayo). (Natalia Hernández)

Port run by Cargill for grain exportation. Santarém, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2010

Logging in Amazonia is a vector of forest degradation and most of it illegal. There are some examples of sustainable forest management certified by bodies such as the Forest Administration Board (Conselho de Administração Florestal: FSC), but these are a minority. Centered on a few species of hard woods, logging exerts a strong pressure on Protected Natural Areas, Indigenous Territories and other areas, and is frequently associated with illegal appropriation of public lands. Illegal logging also puts pressure on private areas received through government concessions schemes: this hinders the correct application of management plans due to the theft of timber and unfair competition in the marketplace, since these illegal operators do not pay income tax or environmental costs. Logging involves a specialized production chain that connects remote areas far from the national and international markets, using the legal road network and navigable rivers, as well as clearing illegal new roads. In general legal logging accompanies long-term Forest Management Concessions and Plans or as a phase anticipating the implementation of farming projects where the income from felled timber plays an important role in capitalizing new agricultural companies, i.e. as a pioneering activity preceding the development of pastures and grain crops. In Brasil, legal forest management occurs in three situations: in privately owned forest areas, in areas belonging to traditional communities (public or private) and in public forest concessions. Around 75% of the forest in Brazilian Amazonia is public land and the legal activities of forest companies are restricted to forest concessions, established by law in 2006. There exist around 10 forest concession contracts in operation in Brasil, all stemming from public tenders. For Brazilian Amazonia, Imazon developed the Logging Monitoring System (Simex), applied to the states of Pará and Mato Grosso where the incidence is high. In these regions predatory extraction has penetrated into Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) and Indigenous Territories (ITs).According to Simex, the total area logged – legally (with licenses) and illegally (unauthorized) – from August 2009 to July 2010 was 1,205 km2 of forest, most (65%) illegal. Most of this illegal logging (84%) occurred in private unoccupied or disputed areas. In Mato Grosso state 2,260 km2 was logged between August 2009 and July 2010, 44% illegal. Most of this total (87.8%) was also logged in private unoccupied or disputed areas. In Perú since the 1960s legislation has attempted to regulate forest logging through the implantation of systems of concessions or contracts. The last version dates from July 16th 2000 when Law 27,308 was issued, the Forestry and Wildlife Law. This law established the creation of Permanent Production Woods (BPPs), intended exclusively for forest management. These areas are also assigned as forest usage units, each approximately 50 km2 in size, which are handed over to private interests in the form of Forest Concessions (FCs) after a public tender process. These areas remain in State ownership with usufruct given to the concessionaires for up to forty years. The latter are allowed to obtain a maximum area of 500 km2. In August 2009 there were 177,639 km2 of permanent production woods, 7,618 km2 of which had already been conceded. However this law, approved in 2000 and implemented in 2001, did not generate the expected results, primarily because the State’s delimitation of the woods was practically all done from distant offices, producing a series of overlaps with registered native communities and, even more seriously, with lands and woods belonging to indigenous populations yet to be registered and/or demarcated. Traditional areas used by indigenous peoples were not analyzed as this information was not available. An independent investigation revealed that 80% of Peruvian logging is illegal (Urrunaga et al., 2012). In Bolivia the forest legislation is based on Law 1,700, approved in 1992, which in the 1990s stimulated the voluntary conversion of the former usage contracts into a successful concessions system supervised by what was then the Forest Agency. In 2009 the latter institution was replaced by the Woodland and Lands Supervision and Public Oversight Authority (ABT), responsible for forest resources, land and soils. This change was accompanied by the approval of a new State Political Constitution (SPC) during the same year, which does not recognize the system of concessions for exploring natural resources, including forest resources. This scenario stimulated an increase in the illegal exploration and commercialization of timber species. Currently a new law is being drafted with the aim of regulating forest activities. Recently the Framework Law for Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well was approved (October 2012), which set outs the overall vision and legal foundations for integral development of the use of natural resources in Bolivia. However, the forest issue is approached in a very superficial way. There is no secure information on illegal logging in Ecuadorian Amazonia and for this reason, since 2010, the government has been investing in completion of the National Forest Inventory. The provinces of Orellana, Pastaza and Morona Santiago are the most affected by illegal logging. Around 70% of the timber exported from Ecuador is illegally sources and may even derive from indigenous lands or zones reserved to isolated indigenous groups, as in the case of the Taromenane and Waorani (Conaie, 2006 and Sierra et al., 2010). In Colombia it is estimated that 42% of timber sold is illegal, and that between 20 and 40% of the same is extracted in Amazonia. Only 33% of sold timber has forestry certificates. To combat this problem in August 2009 the Inter-Sector Agreement for Legal Timber was agreed, renewed in 2011, which looks to ensure that the timber extracted, transported, processes, sold and used comes exclusively from legal sources (Legal Timber Agreement in Colombia). (Beto Ricardo, ISA, with the collaboration of Tasso Azevedo)

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

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

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

Roads – Amazonia under Pressure

15 RAISG

MRD1

Roads

in Amazonia

ROADS O

ver the last 50 years, roads have been recognized as one of the main factors encouraging new forms of using and occupying Amazonia. Their presence supports the advance of colonization and changes in the ways in which land is used, which, in turn, acts as a catalyzing or determining factor in deforestation (Chomitz et al. 1996; Barreto et al., 2006; Pfaff et al., 2007; Southworth et al., 2011). The intensity with which areas are affected in each region depends on the socioeconomic context, the development policies in place, and the speed with which changes are occurring in the vegetative cover (Barreto et al., 2006; Duchelle et al., 2010; Almeyda et al., 2010).

Context Roads (highways, roads or trails) can accelerate the use of Amazonia’s resources and the region’s transformation. Their presence is an incentive to expanding human settlements and intensifying farming activities, logging, mining and so on. The correlation between paved roads and deforestation is high. It is estimated that in 80% of cases in Brazilian Amazonia, deforestation is found up to a distance of 30 km from paved roads, although many fire-cleared areas can be found at greater distances (Barreto et al., 2006). Roads, whether paved or not, promote new forms of occupying the Amazonian territory. The development of the road infrastructure in all the Amazonian countries is justified by governments in various ways: (i) to facilitate transportation of imported goods from sea ports to the different regions of the countries; (ii) to facilitate the transport and exportation of raw materials, minerals, oil and manufactured goods from the different regions to the sea ports; and (iii) to strengthen the regional economy through the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America (IIRSA). Nonetheless the road system does not necessarily or only meet these objectives. In the countries of Andean Amazonia, the road system was constructed following a north-south axis in order to generate connections, the main cities. Over the last ten years, though, the road system has been constructed, expanded and improved from east to west in order to interconnect the populated centers of Brazilian Amazonia with the Andean region and these centers, in turn, with the coastal cities where the main sea ports onto the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are located.

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

Plans to connect the Atlantic to the Pacific accelerate the pressures on Amazonian territories There are 96,500 km of roads throughout Amazonia as a whole. Most of these, 64.5%, are unpaved

Perú and Bolivia are the two countries with highways planned through the heart of Amazonian forest The peripheral distribution of roads mostly affects the headwaters of the Upper and Middle Amazon basins PNAs and ITs have a road density 3 to 4 times

lower than the regional average

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

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

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

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

Ä Due to the construction of roads to Inter-Oceanic Highway on the Brasil-Perú Amazonian border. © Odair Leal, 2006

RAISG 16

Amazonia under Pressure – Roads

explore oil, Ecuador has the highest density of roads in the whole of Amazonia, 27.5 Km/Km2.

¾ Local communities contest the construction

of the highway linking Pucallpa to Cruzeiro do Sul (IIRSA) between Brasil and Perú.

¸ Construction of the highway that will cut through TIPNIS in Bolivia, under contract to the Brazilian company OAS, was paralyzed in 2010 due to social movements demanding prior consultation. Roads – Amazonia under Pressure

17 RAISG

Amazonia as a whole The total extent of the roads identified in Amazonia was 96,544 km, including paved roads (31,632 km, 32.8% of the total), unpaved roads (62,271 km, 64.5%), and planned roads (2,635 km, 2.7%) (TRD1 and GRD1). The overall density was 12.4 km/km2 including paved roads (4.1 km/km2), unpaved roads (8.0 km/km2) and planned roads (0.3 km/km2) (TRD2). The highest concentration of roads was detected on the borders of Amazonia, especially in Guyana, in the southeast and south of Brazilian Amazonia, and in Ecuador (MRD2).

In the 2011 Projects Portfolio of the Inter-American Infrastructure and Planning Council (COSIPLAN) there are seven groups of projects in the Amazon Integration and Development Axis, which include 64 infrastructural works, 15 of which are roads, with a total investment estimated at US$ 3,355 billion. Group

Project

1. Access Putumayo Waterway

2. Access Napo Waterway

3. Access Huallaga – Marañón Waterway

4. Access Ucayali Waterway

5. Access Solimões–Amazonas Waterway 6. Amazon Waterways Network

7. Access Morona-Marañón-Amazonas Waterway

71.4% of the total length of roads existing in Amazonia are located in Brasil, most of these being ‘unpaved’ roads. Next comes Perú with 6.2% of the region’s total, Bolivia with 5.6%, Ecuador with 4.5% and Guyana with 4.4 % (TRD1).

373

Rehabilitation and paving of the section San LorenzoEl Carmen (EC)

Subtotal Group 1

466

449

Subtotal Group 2

124

Tarapoto-Yurimaguas Road and Yurimaguas Port (PE)

224

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

189

Paita-Tarapoto Road (PE)

274

1,062

687

Tingo María-Pucallpa Road and Pucallpa Port (PE)

361

Highway Lima-Ricardo Palma (PE)

242

Rio Branco-Cruzeiro do Sul road connection (BR)

400

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

100

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

2,959

1,173

Cuiabá-Santarém Road (BR)

700

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

MRD3. Road density by country in Amazonia

712

Subtotal Group 6

316

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

140

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

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

Source: Cosiplan, 2011

% of length by type

Projected 90

Projected

5,425

0.9

3.8

0.9

5.6

68,930

22.8

48.6

0.0

71.4

477

1,287

1,764

0.5

1.3

0.0

1.8

3,017

1,343

4,360

3.1

1.4

0.0

4.5

845

0.9

0.0

0.9

4,259

0.0

4.4

0.0

4.4

5,988

1.8

2.6

1.8

6.2

839 2,552

1,744

1,434

0.0

1.5

0.0

1.5

2.756

783

3,539

2.9

0.8

0.0

3.7

31,632

62,271

96,544

32.8

64.5

2.7

100.0

2,635

TRD2. Road density in Amazonia. by type and country Country

Amazon area by country (km2)

Ecuador Guyana

Road density (km/km2) Paved

Unpaved

Projected

458

335

6,100

3,355

Total

116,284

25.9

11.5

0.0

37.5

214,969

0.0

20.1

0.0

20.1

5,006.316

4.4

9.4

0.0

13.8

479,264

1.8

7.7

1.9

11.3

86,504

9.7

0.1

0.0

9.8

Suriname

163,820

0.0

8.8

0.0

8.8

Venezuela

453,915

6.1

1.7

0.0

7.8

Perú

782,820

2.2

3.3

2.2

7.6

Brasil Bolivia Guyane Française

Colombia

483,164

1.0

2.7

0.0

3.7

7,787.056

4.1

8.0

0.3

12.4

TRD3. Road length and density in the Amazonian macro-basins, by type Macro-basin

The extent of ‘paved’ and ‘unpaved’ roads varies between countries. For example, while in Guyane Française all the roads are paved, in Colombia, Brasil and Bolivia, more than 70% of the roads are unpaved (see GRD2). In the cases of Guyana and Suriname there is no cartographic information allowing ‘paved’ roads to be distinguished from ‘unpaved’ roads. An estimated 96% of roads are paved in Suriname. In Bolivia and Perú the construction of new roads is planned for the short and medium term. Within the framework of the IIRSA, as well as Bolivia and Perú, the construction of new roads is also planned in Brasil, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. The highest road densities were detected in Ecuador (37.5 km/km2) and Guyana (20.1 km/km2), countries that account for 1.5% and 2.8% of the surface area of Amazonia respectively. These are followed by Brasil, Bolivia and Guyane Française with densities of 13.8, 11.3 and 9.8 km/km2, respectively. The remaining countries show values lower than 9 km/km2 with a low density especially notable in Colombia (3.6 km/km2). (TRD2 and MRD3)

By Basin

Tocantins

Area km²

Projected

576,164

Madeira

1,124.271

Middle-Lower Amazonas

1,600.287

Upper Amazonas

2,035.912

1,529 1,105

Unpaved

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

Paved

Total

Total density (km/km2)

11,661

6,165

17,825

30.9

10,980

3,011

15,520

13.8

12,298

1,791

14,090

8.8

6,771

5,573

13,449

6.6

Western Northeast Atlantic

223,385

3,353

4,973

8,327

3.3

Paraná

175,114

5,537

2,537

8,074

46.1

Guyanas/Amapá

559,969

5,928

1,634

7,562

13.5

Negro

715,171

3,009

1,419

4,428

6.2

Mouth of the Amazonas/ Estuary

233,626

1,326

1,765

3,091

13.2

Orinoco

520,740

729

2,100

2,829

5.4

Parnaíba

46,813

573

574

1,147

24.5

6,217

180

28.9

Middle Amazonas

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

MRD4. Road density by Amazonian macro-basin

Road length (km)

168

Total

3,675

1,692

Total

Unpaved

46,937

4,259

Venezuela

Paved

859

Guyana Perú

Total

21,993

Total 714

Total Investment estimated (US$ million)

Bolivia Brasil

Unpaved

Suriname

Subtotal Group 5

Subtotal Group 7

Paved

Guyane Française

Subtotal Group 4

Road length (km)

Ecuador

in roads

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

Subtotal Group 3

Country

Colombia

Estimated Investment (US$ million) total group

MRD2. Roads in Amazonia, by type

Amazonia in each country

TRD1. Road lengths in Amazonia, by type and country

BRD1. Roads in the Amazon Integration and Development Axes Projects

GRD2. Road distribution in Amazonia, by type and country GRD1. Road distribution in Amazonia, by type

RAISG 18

Amazonia under Pressure – Roads

Roads – Amazonia under Pressure

19 RAISG

TRD4. The ten Amazonian sub-basins with the highest road density Sub-basin Western Northeast Atlantic N (Brasil)

Area (km²)

Road density (km/km²)

Road length (km) Unpaved

19,883

603

Paranã B (Brasil)

1,791

107

Araguaia (Brasil)

23,587

805

Paved

Total

736

TRD6). The highest densities are found in direct/indirect use national PNAs (19.5 km/km2), followed

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

Unpaved

Paved

Country Total

Sphere

Type of use

Categorya

Area (km2)

Name

Road density (km/km2)

Brasil

departmental

indirect

Natural Monument

Árvores Fossilizadas do Tocantins

326

117.8

Brasil

departmental

indirect

State Park

Morro dos Seis Lagos

375

109.4

Brasil

departmental

direct

Environmental Protection Area

Igarapé São Francisco

297

81.9

339

30.3

37.0

67.3

107

59.8

0.0

59.8

Brasil

departmental

direct

Environmental Protection Area

Curiaú

226

79.1

337

142

34.1

14.3

48.4

Brasil

departmental

indirect

State Park

Águas do Cuiabá

106

73.3

Middle Juruena (Brasil)

5,314

223

42,0

0.0

42.0

Brasil

departmental

direct

Environmental Protection Area

Lago de Palmas

601

61.2

Santiago (Ecuador, Perú)

7,207

345

790

134

12.7

29.0

41.7

Brasil

national

direct

Extractive Reserve

Quilombo Frechal

176

60.5

Western Northeast Atlantic S (Brasil)

30,922

2,231

3,164

395

17.0

24.2

41.2

Bolivia

departmental

direct

Watershed Protection Area

Cumbre de Apacheta

155

60.0

Brasil

national

direct

Environmental Protection Area

Igarapé Gelado

203

42.8

Middle-Lower Tocantins 1 (Brasil)

57,564

1,099

1,260

359

19.1

21.9

41.0

Brasil

national

direct

Extractive Reserve

Mata Grande

133

42.2

Palma (Brasil)

16,580

338

676

20.4

40.7

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

Middle-Lower Tocantins 2 (Brasil)

71,291

1,693

1,174

868

23.8

16.5

40.2

Ji-Paraná (Brasil)

75,042

2,237

643

880

29.8

8.6

38.4

by direct use departmental PNAs (7.2 km/km2) and by the direct use national PNAs (3.0 km/km2). The PNAs of other administrative levels and types of use have densities ≤ 2.3 km/km2 (TRD6 and MRD6). The PNAs with the highest road densities are located in Brasil (density figures between 42.2 and 117.8 km/km2), seven of them in direct or indirect departmental PNAs and three in direct use national PNAs (TRD7 and MRD6).

By Indigenous Territories The total length of the roads identified in Indigenous Territories (ITs) was 9,530 km, distributed between paved roads (2,391 km, 25.1% of the total), unpaved roads (6,424 km, 67.4%) and planned roads (715 km, 7.5%). The greatest lengths are found in officially recognized ITs (5,471 km, 57.4% of the total), followed by the areas of traditional occupation without official recognition (3,968 km, 41.6%) and by the territorial reserves or intangible zones (91 km, 1%) (TRD8 and MRD7).

Total area (km²)

Total

Projected

Unpaved

Paved

Total

MRD7. Road density by IT in Amazonia

Paved

Type of IT

Road density (km/km2)

Unpaved

Road length (km)

Projected

MRD5. Road density by Amazonian sub-basin

1,603.652

500

4,472

499

5,471

0.3

2.8

0.3

3.4

491,673

124

1,952

1,892

3,968

0.3

3.8

8.1

29,336

3.1

2,124.661

715

6,424

2,391

9,530

0.3

3.0

1.1

4.5

GRD3. Road distribution in PNA in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use IT officially recognized IT not officially recognized Territorial Reservation or Intangible zones Total

By Protected Areas

BRD2. IIRSA road between Pucallpa–Cruzeiro do Sul: a project in question

The total length of roads identified inside Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) was 7,202 km, distributed between paved roads (2,160 km, 30% of the total), unpaved (4,416 km, 61.3%) and planned (626 km, 8.7%). The largest lengths are found in direct use departmental PNAs (3,583 km, 49.7% of the total), followed by indirect use national PNAs (1,754 km, 24%) and by direct use national PNAs (1,280 km, 17.7%). The PNAs of other administrative levels and types of use have road lengths ≤ 292 km (TRD5 and GRD3). The total density of roads identified inside PNAs was 3.3 km/km2, distributed between paved roads (1.0 km/km2), unpaved roads (2.0 km/km2) and planned roads (0.3 km/km2). This figure is lower than all the national figures [min-max: 3.7 km/km2 (Colombia) – 37.5 km/km2 (Ecuador)] (TRD2 and

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

MRD6. Road density by PNA in Amazonia

Area (km²)

Direct use departmental

497,202

Indirect use departmental

129,730

Direct use national

426,566

Direct/Indirect use national

Road Length (km) Projected 10

Unpaved

Paved

Total

Road Density (km/km2)

2,175

1,399

3,583

7.2

258

292

2.3

178

817

285

1,280

3.0

19.5

Indirect use national

774,180

396

951

406

1,754

2.3

Transitory use national

327,326

139

211

0.6

2,159.169

626

4,416

2,160

7,202

3.3

Total

Road Length (km)

General total

4,165

TRD6. Density of road types in PNA in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use Administrative sphere and type of use Direct/Indirect use national

Amazonia under Pressure – Roads

Road Density (km/km²) Projected

4,165

Unpaved

Paved

18.3

1.2

19.5

Direct use departmental

497,202

4.4

2.8

7.2

3,583

Direct use national

426,566

0.4

1.9

0.7

3.0

1,280

Indirect use national

774,180

0.5

1.2

0.5

2.3

1,754

Indirect use departmental

129,730

2.0

0.3

2.3

292

Transitory use national

327,326

0.1

0.4

0.1

0.6

211

2,159.169

0.3

2.0

1.0

3.3

7,202

General total

RAISG 20

Area (km²)

The Pucallpa–Cruzeiro Do Sul road project, connecting the port of Callao on the Pacific Ocean with Cruzeiro do Sul, passing through Pucallpa, is part of the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA) which has a portfolio of more than 350 projects for road, energy and communications infrastructures, organized along geographical axes. This road project, which would establish IIRSA’s Central Axis in Perú, is the least advanced of the three axes impacting this country (North, Centre and South). This integration has been an aim pursued by national and regional authorities since 2006 when the presidents of Perú and Brasil agreed to work towards completing the binational connection projects along the North and Central Axes. At the end of 2009, Presidents Alán García and Lula da Silva signed 16 bilateral cooperation agreements, including the commitment to conclude the Central Axis. According to those promoting this project, the road will be the solution to the crossborder region’s problems of isolation and lack of economic development. Although IIRSA plans for construction of the road, a number of conflicting views exist concerning the type of interconnection that should be made between Pucallpa and Cruzeiro do Sul. On the Peruvian side, the Executive apparently decided in favor of the road, since the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) and the Special Infrastructure Project for National Transport – PROVÍAS NACIONAL possess a pre-viability study that indicates the layout of the future road. However during the last government administration, Congress declared the construction of the ‘Brasil-Perú’ Atlantic-Pacific Transcontinental Railway along the same route to be a public need and in the national interest. The regional government of Ucayali also supports the railway option because of its lower impact on the environment. On the Brazilian side, the scant news available on the subject suggests that the interconnection option favored is also the railway. According to the Brazilian Ambassador to Perú, Carlos Alfredo Lazary Teixeira, “a consensus exists among the authorities in Brasil that the connection between the cities of Pucallpa in Perú and Cruzeiro Do Sul in should be via railway rather than road in order to safeguard and care for the environment.” On the Peruvian side various studies indicate that the proposed route for the road managed by the Peruvian MTC could have very negative impacts for the Sierra do Divisor protected natural area and for the Reserve established to protect the Isconahua indigenous people living in isolation. In the case of Brasil, it would directly affect the Serra do Divisor National Park and the indigenous population neighboring the park. The Regional Group for Monitoring Mega-Protects in the Ucayali Region, created in July 2008 by representatives of indigenous communities, the regional government and civil society, expressed considerable concern over the lack of official transparency in the handling of information and decisions relating to the Pucallpa-Cruzeiro de Sul interconnection, as well as the absence of dialogue with the local actors involved. According to the public declaration made by the Regional Group, they questioned the convocation for the pre-viability study since it was made “without elaborating a development strategy for the frontier between Ucayali and Acre, nor indeed a long-term environmental strategy, that clearly includes the procedures of prior and informed consultation before, during and after the project.” (Pedro Tipula/IBC)

Roads – Amazonia under Pressure

21 RAISG

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

Total

% of ITs by country

Projected

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

BRD3. Development versus conservation: The case of the TIPNISs in Bolivia

Road density (km/km2) Unpaved

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

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

Paved

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

IT not officially recognized

0.8

9.4

2.4

12.6

16.8

IT officially recognized

0.0

2.5

1.7

4.2

Brasil*

22.2

IT officially recognized

0.4

2.8

0.0

3.2

Colombia*

53.4

IT officially recognized

Ecuador*

57.4

IT not officially recognized

Guyana*

14.7

Country

9.6

Bolivia

Type of IT

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.1

14.4

11.2

0.0

25.5

IT officially recognized

0.0

30.5

0.0

30.5

8.2

IT officially recognized

2.3

0.0

2.3

1.7

IT not officially recognized

0.0

0.7

1.0

1.6

3.6

Territorial Reservation or Intangible Zones

0.0

3.1

13.6

IT officially recognized

0.2

1.9

2.9

5.0

Suriname*

30.3

IT not officially recognized

0.0

5.5

0.0

5.5

Venezuela*

67.4

IT not officially recognized

3.2

1.5

0.0

4.7

Guyane Française* Perú

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

Conclusion The presence of roads in Amazonia encourages and accelerates deforestation. Their construction is associated with predatory forms of forest resource extraction (such as illegal logging), the substitution of forest landscapes with agrarian landscapes, and the large-scale infrastructure and urbanization projects. Roads are clearly associated with regions with higher levels of deforestation, as in the notorious case of the so-called ‘arc of deforestation’ in the Brazilian Amazonia, where the BelémBrasília (BR-153), Cuiabá-Santarém, (BR-163) and Cuiabá-Porto Velho (BR-364) highways are located. Another example is the transoceanic highway between Puerto Maldonado (Perú) – Cobija (Bolivia) – Rio Branco (Brasil), inaugurated in 2011, which aims to improve trade between the three countries and facilitate the exportation of Brazilian products to China and Peruvian products to Africa and Europe. This highway could quickly double the number of inhabitants of Puerto Maldonado, today numbering more than 200,000 people. At the same time the region is experiencing an exponential growth in illegal roads associated with forest degradation, especially through illegal logging. Although Brasil has the largest road network, road density occupies third place in the region after Ecuador and Guyana. The largely peripheral distribution of the roads affects the headwaters of Amazonia’s macro-basins, especially those of the Upper and Middle Amazon. In some cases the socioenvironmental impacts associated with road construction are only mentioned or remain subordinate to the political decision to build them (for example, the construction of the section 2 of the road linking Villa Tunari to San Ignacio in Bolivia). Another example that stands out is the Porto Velho-Manaus-Boa Vista-Caracas route, which crosses the central part of Amazonia and which is considered a key route connecting the region’s north and south. Generally speaking the PNAs and ITs have road densities between three and four times lower than the regional density. This shows their potential as conservation strategies that work to slow down the intervention processes. Nonetheless, the direct/indirect use national PNAs (Bolivia and Guyana) and the direct use departmental PNAs (Bolivia and Brasil) do not seem to perform this role. Most of the officially recognized ITs show a lower level of impact. More detailed analyses are needed in Guyana, Ecuador and Bolivia to understand the causes of the observed patterns.

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

Bolivia Brasil Colombia Ecuador Guyane Française Guyana Perú Suriname

Name

Type of IT

Area (km²)

Road length (km)

Road density (km/km2) 114.6

Yaminahua Machineri

IT not officially recognized

308

Canichana

IT not officially recognized

251

62.2

Tabalascada

IT officially recognized

130

155.9

Barata/Livramento

IT officially recognized

123

94.6

Ríos Atabapo e Inírida (Cacahual)

IT officially recognized

5,239

111

1.4

Predio Putumayo

IT officially recognized

58,964

0.1

San Francisco

IT not officially recognized

100

116.8

Juan Pío Montufar

IT not officially recognized

167

93.9

Galibi (Costa)

IT officially recognized

179

85.6

Kaburi

IT officially recognized

108

209.9

Shulinab (Macusi)

IT officially recognized

384

165.2

Urakuza

IT officially recognized

189

153.9

Wawik (Nuevo Belén)

IT officially recognized

107

146.9

Moiwana

IT not officially recognized

432

67.9

Santigron

IT not officially recognized

1,441

62.1

Venezuela

Etnia Hiwi

IT not officially recognized

2,901

168

57.9

Venezuela

Etnia Kari'ña

IT not officially recognized

5,122

172

33.6

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

The Isiboro Sécure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) is one of the 22 protected national areas of Bolivia and covers around 1.3 million hectares (~1.2% of Bolivia’s surface). TIPNIS is bounded by the Isiboro river (to the south) and the Sécure (to the north) – which lend their name to the area – in the departments of Cochabamba and Beni in Bolivia, and was created in 1990 with the aim of conserving the seasonally flooded Amazonian rainforest and the culture and customs of the indigenous peoples living in the region (more than 12,000 inhabitants including the Mojeño, Yaracaré and Chimane). It is estimated that around 86% of its surface is still in a good state of conservation and that its core zone (or full protection zone) has almost no kind of disturbance. This encouraging scenario contrasts with the reality that developed to the south of the area where the presence and expansion of farm areas dedicated primarily to growing coca threaten the conservation of the area’s socio-environmental diversity. As a result part of the area was revoked as an indigenous land and is now occupied by rural colonists engaged in coca cultivation. This zone is known as ‘Polygon 7’ and covers a surface area of ~100,000 ha between the communities of Villa Tunari and Isinuta where around 20,000 families live. The construction of a paved road 306 km in length and 9.2 m in breadth in order to connect the populations from Villa Tunari (Department of Cochabamba) and San Ignacio (Department of Beni) alarmed conservationists and environmental institutions in Bolivia, provoking debates on the advantages and disadvantages of its construction, and also stirred the interest of society as a whole (especially young people) in learning more about and valuing the protected areas and indigenous territories existing in Bolivia, feeding the differences existing between the distinct viewpoints on what we understand as conservation and/ or development. In the case of TIPNIS, the problem centers on section II of the road in question, which will link the populations of Isinuta with those of Montegrande da Fe, the latter located in the area’s core zone. Construction of the road is not a recent initiative: the first plans emerged in 2006 before being conceded to the Brazilian company OAS in 2008. In 2010, after a march organized by CIDOB (Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Eastern Bolivia) the work was paralyzed by the need to carry out prior consultation, a right enshrined in the Political Constitution of the State (Article 30), and established in Convention 169 of the ILO (Article 6). This consultation was scheduled for the second half of the year and the results submitted in December or at the start of the 2013 administration. Resolution of the TIPNIS issue will undoubtedly set a precedent in terms of Bolivian society’s perception of what indigenous territories and protected areas are. (Daniel Larrea/FAN)

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

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

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

RAISG 22

Indigenous march in protest against the highway in the TIPNIS Park reaches La Paz. © Szymon Kochanski, 2011 Amazonia under Pressure – Roads

Roads – Amazonia under Pressure

23 RAISG

MOG1

Oil and Gas in Amazonia

OIL and GAS T

he growing demand for oil and gas at the global level and the high price of oil have stimulated prospecting and drilling activities in Amazonia at unprecedented levels (Finer et al., 2008). The Amazonian countries view oil and gas as strategic resources and claim ownership at the constitutional level. Governments allocate these resources via policies that typically fail to include prevention and mitigation of socio-environmental impacts generated by the extraction of these resources nor the investments needed to compensate for them. Among the main impacts related to these extractive activities are: alterations in the quality of water and air, soil contamination, habitat destruction, change in soil cover, erosion, changes in the behavior and distribution of species and the introduction of disease vectors (Correa-Viana & Esclasans, 2011). As part of the socio-environmental diversity of Amazonia, the eco-systemic services and the traditional and scientific bodies of knowledge are also considered strategic resources, especially within the framework of climate change. The global economic context poses a dilemma for both the developing and emerging countries: on one hand, the need to eradicate poverty and hunger, and on the other the need to conserve Amazonia as a grand ecosystem that contributes to the welfare of its inhabitants and of the planet. Responding to this challenge presumes the need to maintain socio-environmental diversity as a vital part of the development of oil and gas reserves, as well as a search for alternative energy sources compatible with the region’s unique features. Neither the industrialized countries nor the developing countries have managed to reach a consensus on progressively and decisively reducing their high dependence on fossil fuels. Countries like Perú, Colombia and Ecuador have sizeable oil reserves in Amazonia from which they expect to obtain the financing for and the push forward to satisfy their national needs and development projects. As a result, oil exploration and production in Amazonia has multiplied over the last decade and will continue to grow over the foreseeable future.

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

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

Currently 81 oil/gas blocks are being explored, but there are another 246 blocks with oil industry interests The 327 oil/gas blocks that could potentially be explored

occupy 1.08 million km2 or 15% of Amazonia 24 companies work in oil exploration in Amazonia, though just nine of them dominate 78% of the blocks under exploration Perú has the largest surface area dedicated to oil production, 84% of its area of Amazonia, while Colombia has demarcated the largest number of blocks (102)

¸ ¾

In six Amazonian countries the oil blocks overlap with PNAs and ITs

Prospecting and drilling for oil and gas take place within a political and regulatory framework which consistently fails to recognize or incorporate any real limits or safeguards to protect socio-environmental diversity. Sometimes oil and gas companies can operate virtually without any government control over these aspects, causing negative impacts and pressures that are exacerbated in particularly fragile ecosystems such as those of Amazonia (see BOG1: The main oil companies with interests in Amazonia). The environmental contamination, generated by the inevitable leakage and dumping of oil and toxic refuse, causes long-term harm to the health of local inhabitants and to the natural habitat. The construction of roads, oil/gas pipelines and other associated infrastructure exacerbates forest degradation and clearance, along with the advance of colonization, which in turn leads to outbreaks of disease, the weakening of social relationships and forms of control in indigenous communities, and other negative impacts.

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

Ä Since the 1990s, civil organizations in Terminal of Petrobras’s Urucu gas pipeline in Coari. Amazonas, Brasil. © Ricardo Stuckert, 2006

RAISG 24

Amazonia under Pressure – Oil and Gas

Ecuador have tried to impose a moratorium on oil exploration in the Yasuní region, where indigenous peoples live in isolation.

¾ The Acre and Madre de Dios

sedimentary basins are considered new frontiers for oil and gas exploration in western Amazonia.

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

Oil and Gas – Amazonia under Pressure

25 RAISG

Methodology The georeferenced information on the concessionary blocks awarded for hydrocarbon activities was compiled from different secondary sources located in the different Amazonian countries. These blocks were classified into four types according to their current phase: Open for Bidding (concessionary blocks offered by the government), Under Tender (concessionary blocks with a pending offer awaiting official approval), Under Exploration (concessionary blocks with a company actively prospecting) and Under Production (concessionary blocks producing oil or gas). TOG1 shows which of the six countries that offer concessionary hydrocarbon blocks recognize each of these phases. In order to display the results, block polygons were ignored when the area overlapping the units of analysis was less than 9 ha.

Amazonia as a whole There are currently 327 hydrocarbon blocks in Amazonia. They cover a total area of 1,082,704 2 km (14% of Amazonia’s surface). These include those Open for Bidding (6.2%), those Under Tender (1.8%), those Under Exploration (5.6%) and those Under Production (0.5%). The 81 blocks now under production occupy 40,717 km2, while the blocks in the other three phases occupy a total area of 1,041,988 km2 (TOG2). 80% (263) of the blocks are concentrated in the Andean Amazonia (MOG2). It should be emphasized that this region contains almost half of the indigenous peoples, including those still living in isolation, half of the water, the largest biodiversity per unit area and the most varied socio-environmental services in the entire Amazon region. MOG2. Oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase

BOG1. The main oil/gas companies with interests in Amazonia

BOG2. State, oil and Indigenous Territories in Ecuadorian Amazonia

At least 71 oil companies are now operating in Amazonia. Among them are 20 public and private companies, which combined have a presence in 60% of the surface area delimited as oil blocks (approximately 648,000 km2). There are 24 companies involved in oil exploration regionally. Nine of them operate in 78% (31,835 km2) of the surface of the blocks in this phase. Those with the largest concessions are: Pluspetrol of Argentina with 8,826 km2 in Perú; the Ecuadorian Petroamazonas EP with 4,785 km2 in Ecuador; the Anglo-French Perenco with 4,616 km2 in Ecuador; and Petroriental of China with 3,197 km2 in Ecuador. In research phase there are 50 companies operating across Amazonia as a whole. Ten of them cover 67% (288,548 km2) of the surface of blocks where research is taking place. The companies exploring the largest areas are: Petrobras with 61,487 km2; Talisman Energy of Canada with 30,491 km2; OGX Petróleo e Gás Ltda of Brasil with 28,744 km2 in the same country; and the US company Burlington with 27,197 km2 in Perú.

Until the mid 20th century light crude oil was explored on the coast by Anglo, providing relatively few benefits for the country. Amid the dispute over the border between Ecuador and Perú (1941), oil surveying was begun in the mid south of Amazonia by Shell and two decades later in the current northeastern sub-region (border with Colombia) where, in 1967, Texaco-Gulf starting exploring the Lago Agrio 1 well and the state oil company (CEPE, subsequently Petroecuador and today Petroamazonas EP) started the exploration of the Amazonian District, which includes wells, fields, stations, oil pipelines, multi-purpose pipelines and roads, as well as actual oil towns: Lago, Coca, Shushufindi and Sacha. This meant the forced relocation, ethnocide and acculturation of ancestral peoples like the Tetete (extinct) and other Tukano-speaking groups (Siona and Secoya), Barbacoano (Cofán) and Waorani. The region still contains the legacy from the Texaco era (pools with waste and toxic water that flows into the rivers or underground water system, degradation and deforestation, causing leukemia and other cancers). Consequently in 1994 a group of 30,000 people affected by this toxic legacy decided to sue in the US those responsible for these operations, at the time Texaco, today Chevron, which absorbed the former almost a decade ago. Although oil income has financed much of the national revenue since 1972 when exports began, Amazonian oil is not as an important factor in the country’s energy security as it should be since the Ecuador imports oil derivatives (naphta, liquefied gas and bunker) into a domestic market seriously distorted by subsidized prices (U$ 1.5/gal). In the face of this, in the mid 1990s civil and indigenous organizations requested a moratorium on heavy crude oil exploration in protected areas and intangible zones for indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation, as in the Yasuní, forerunner of the initiative adopted by the government in 2008 of leaving 900 million barrels of oil unexplored in exchange for compensation from the international community (equivalent to 50% of the estimated revenue from oil exports) and that would enable the reduction of emissions in an effective form shared between exporting and consuming countries. However there is no concrete response, not so much because of the novelty of the financing mechanism – run by the UNDP – but because of the lack of guarantees for the continuity of this ‘post-oil’ policy, as it is promoted by the government. This was observed by President Correa since the launch of the initiative by announcing that if the initiative is not consolidated, ‘Plan B’ will be launched within a period set for the exploration of these proven reserves. Although the supposed start of this plan has been postponed since 2009, the beginning of a new oil round has also been announced with the intention of tendering 2 million hectares in the mid south of Ecuadorian Amazonia where the surveys by Shell and Petroecuador proved negative for commercial reserves. Thus increases the pressure on a region of high importance due to its large socio-environmental diversity (headwaters of the Pastaza, Tigre and Morona rivers), since the State and the oil companies anticipate extending the oil frontier to the northeast, affecting indigenous territories (Achuar, Andoa, Sapara, Shiwiar and Kichwa de Pastaza) in a sub-region that contains few protected areas or State natural heritage areas (PANE). Prior informed consultation also lacks a consistent legal framework after presidential decree annulled specific legislation in 2008. Neither do the pre-legislative consultative or popular consultation established in the Constitution seem viable options for maintaining the protected areas free of extractivist activities, especially now that the State is set to pay China (US$ 5 billion) with the anticipated sale of oil until 2016. (Víctor López/EcoCiencia)

Companies with oil/gas blocks over 10,000 km2 #

Total area (km2)

Company

Countries

Phases

Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos

87,624

Colombia

Open for bidding

Petrobras

72,131

Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Perú

Open for bidding, under exploration, under production

Talisman

54,248

Colombia, Perú

Open for bidding, under exploration

YPFB Petroandina

53,837

Bolivia

Open for bidding

Upland Oil & Gas

37,080

Perú

Under tender

Pluspetrol

36,864

Colombia, Perú

Open for bidding, under exploration, under production

Petron Resources

29,441

Perú

Under tender

Burlington

29,197

Ecuador, Perú

Under exploration, under production

OGX Petróleo e Gás Ltda,

28,744

Brasil

Under exploration

Petra Energía S/A

26,719

Brasil

Under exploration

CEPSA

25,748

Perú

Under exploration

REPSOL-YPF

24,582

Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú

Under exploration, under production

Pacific Stratus Energy

24,112

Colombia, Perú

Under exploration

M&S Brasil S,A,

23,184

Brasil

Under exploration

BHP Billiton Petroleum

19,666

Colombia

Open for bidding

Hunt Oil

18,695

Perú

Under exploration

Petrolifera

16,640

Perú

Under exploration

Grantierra Energy

14,671

Colombia, Perú

Under exploration, under production

Ecopetrol S,A,

14,226

Colombia

Open for bidding, under exploration, under production

Petrominerales

10,926

Colombia, Perú

Under exploration

expected reserves of 120 million barrels of oil, were put up for bidding (BOG2: State, oil and indigenous territories in Equatorial Amazonia). In terms of surface area the largest threat is found in Perú and Colombia where the hydrocarbon blocks open for bidding plus those already under exploration occupy 82.9% and 24.4% of these two countries’ Amazonian territories (TOG4).

By basin The Amazonian macro-basins containing the largest surface areas of hydrocarbon blocks (in any phase) are the Upper Amazonas (with 855,120 km2, equivalent to 42% of the basin’s total surface area), Orinoco (138,349 km2, 26%) and Madeira (131,522 km2, 11%) (MOG3). The ten sub-basins with the largest surface areas of oil blocks are found in the Upper Amazonas macro-basin (TOG5 and MOG4). MOG3. Proportion of oil/gas blocks per macro-basin in Amazonia

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

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

TOG1. Oil/gas activity phases in Amazonia, by country Country

Open for bidding

Bolivia

Under tender

Under exploration

Brasil Colombia

Under production

Ecuador Perú

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

X X

Venezuela

TOG4. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia, by activity phase and country (km2) Country

TOG2. Quantity and surface area of oil/gas blocks in Amazonia. by activity phase Phase

Amazonia in each country The Amazonian countries with the largest surface areas dedicated to hydrocarbon activities in all phases are: Perú (84%), Colombia (40%) and Ecuador (21%). Ecuador is the country with the largest area of hydrocarbon blocks under production in Amazonia. Although only 3% of Brazilian Amazonia has blocks, these occupy 127,862 km2, which represents the third largest surface area after Perú and Colombia (TOG3). Colombia is the country that has demarcated the largest number of blocks (102), followed by Perú (92), Bolivia and Brasil (55 each) (GOG1). Venezuela, considered the oil producer par excellence, has demarcated few blocks in the Amazonian portion of the country since its main reserves are located outside this region (PDVSA, 2012). In Brasil most of the blocks under production are found offshore. Similarly in Suriname, Guyana and Guyane Française the majority of concessionary blocks are also located in their territorial waters (Kriege & Chedi-Toelsie, 2006; Way, 2012). In Ecuador the information obtained refers exclusively to blocks under production, but the country is known to have begun the XI Oil Round, in which 12 blocks in the southeast of the country, with

% of total blocks

% of total Amazonia

Under exploration

Under production

Total

Amazon area (km2)

Perú

253,447

133,336

262,385

10,770

659,937

782,820

170,003

21,367

2,044

193,414

483,164

126,843

1,019

127,862

5,006,316

53,837

17,879

1,500

73,215

479,264

Open for bidding

477,286

44.1%

6.2%

Under tender

136,228

12.6%

1.8%

Brasil

Under exploration

141

428,473

39.6%

5.6%

Bolivia

Under production

40,717

3.8%

0.5%

Ecuador

24,957

116,284

Venezuela

2,892

427

3,319

453,915

477,286

136,228

428,473

40,717

1,082.704

7,321.763

Total

327

1,082.704

100.0%

14.0%

Total

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

Amazon area (km ) 2

Nº of blocks

Blocks area (km2)

% surface of blocks in relation to Amazonia by country

Perú

782,820

659,937

84%

Colombia

483,164

102

193,414

40%

Ecuador

116,284

24,957

21%

Bolivia

479,264

73,215

15%

Brasil

5,006.316

127,862

Venezuela

453,915

3,319

Guyana

214,969

86,504

Suriname Amazonia under Pressure – Oil and Gas

Area (km2)

Under tender

Colombia

Guyane Française

RAISG 26

Number of blocks

Open for bidding

Total

163,820

7,787.056

327

1,082.704

15%

TOG5. The ten Amazonian sub-basins with the largest overlap of oil/gas blocks (km2) Sub-basin Ucayali (middle) Marañón (middle) Marañón (lower) Marañón (middle-lower) Amazonas Alto (middle) Pachitea Ucayali (lower) Amazonas Alto (lower) Marañón Tambo

Sub-basin area (km2) 22,046 4,284 2,223 36,342 27,832 29,026 111,078 32,941 81,498 32,405

Area covered by blocks (km2) 21,946 4,264 2,213 36,159 26,371 26,520 101,217 29,825 72,585 27,892

% 100 100 100 99 95 91 91 91 89 86

Phase Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding Open for bidding, under exploration Open for bidding, under exploration, under production Open for bidding, under exploration Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding Open for bidding, under exploration Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding, under production Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding Under exploration, under tender, open for bidding Oil and Gas – Amazonia under Pressure

27 RAISG

By Protected Area

By Indigenous Territories

TOG6. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by country Country

PNA surface (km2)

PNA area covered by blocks (km2)

% covered by blocks

The hydrocarbon blocks in Amazonia overlap with 6% (115,784 km2) of the total surface area of the Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) (TOG6). The blocks open for bidding superimposed with PNAs make up 58% of this total (67,331 km2), those under tender make up 3% (3,910 km2), those under exploration make up 34% (33,808 km2) and those under production 5% (5,735 km2) (TOG7). The most critical situations appear in Perú where 49% of the PNAs are covered with hydrocarbon blocks, Bolivia (23%) and Ecuador (17%), irrespective of the phase in which they are found (MOG5).

Perú

159,846

77,597

49%

Bolivia

135,524

30,555

23%

29,836

5,196

17%

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

Total

Ecuador Colombia Brasil Venezuela

81,842

1,426

1,173.962

976

<1%

171,145

<1%

1,845.864

115,784

BOG3. Oil and gas exploration in the sedimentary basins of Acre and Madre de Dios

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

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

TPG7. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by activity phase, administrative sphere and type of use Area covered by blocks (km2) PNA administrative sphere and type of use

Open for bidding

Under tender

Under exploration

Under production

Total

PNA surface (km2)

% covered by blocks

National-transitory use*

13,318

441

10,808

121

24,688

25,390

97%

National-direct use

16,431

2,551

19,436

38,458

429,415

National-indirect use

33,941

918

6,260

5,570

46,689

764,180

Departmental-direct use Total

3,641

2,305

5,949

494,425

67,331

3,910

38,808

5,735

115,784

1,845.864

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

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

The oil and gas surveying activities now taking place in the sedimentary basins of Acre and Madre de Dios, considered the ‘new frontier,’ form an integral part of the 2002 Ten-Year Plan and the 2007 Multi-Annual Plan (2007-2012) with a planned investment of R$ 137 million in these basins. Since 2007 various research stages have been carried out in Acre state and in the southwestern portion of Amazonas state: specialized technical services in capturing and processing aerogravimetric and aeromagnetic data along 105,000 km in the sedimentary basins of Acre, Madre de Dios and Solimões; aerial reconnaissance along 24,000 km in the sedimentary basins of Acre and Madre de Dios, covering practically the entire area of Acre state, excluding a strip along the borders with Perú and Bolivia; and specialized technical services in the collection, laboratory analysis and interpretation of geochemical data from 2,000 soil samples taken from the Acre basin. The latter activities were authorized by an environmental licenses issued by the Amazon Environmental Protection Institute (IPAAM) by the Environmental and Sustainable Development Office (SDS) of Amazonas state, and by the Acre Environment Institute (IMAC). At the time ANP reached agreements with FUNAI and the Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biodiversity (ICMBio) to promote surveys in four Conservation Units: the Serra do Divisor National Park and the Extractivist Reserves of the Alto Tarauacá, Alto Juruá and Riozinho da Liberdade, as well as 530 collection points located at least ten kilometers from the borders of five indigenous lands located in Acre and Amazonas. The surveys inside the conservation units ended up not taking place to restrictions imposed by the environmental legislation. The survey results across a 31,000 km2 area on the Upper Juruá (Acre and Amazonas states) showed indications of thermogenic hydrocarbon gases. In 2010 terrestrial seismic data collected by an earlier 1998 investigating from the Acre basin was reprocessed along 575 km of 2D seismic lines, primarily in the Serra do Divisor region. For the third stage of field research in 2010, the company Georadar Levantamentos Geofísicos S/A was contracted (with a loan approved in 2012 by BNDES) to survey 1,017 km of 2D seismic lines with 40,700 seismograms (seismic reflection records) in the Acre and Solimões sedimentary basins. In February 2012 IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) granted an Operating License with specific conditions for three years and authorized the removal of plant cover in May of the same year in order to open 285 clearings along the lines. The company set up its base of operations in the city of Cruzeiro do Sul (AC) in 2012 and began to hire and train its workforce, along with recognition of zones and the organization of talks in the communities where the lines are today being opened. Lasting a ten months, the records are being acquired along twelve seismic lines distributed in the basin of the Upper Juruá, in the municipalities of Cruzeiro do Sul, Marechal Thaumaturgo, Porto Walter, Rodrigues Alves and Mâncio Lima, in Acre state, and Ipixuna and Guajará, in Amazonas state (see map). The routes taken by the lines are at least ten kilometers from the borders of the nine indigenous lands and the six conservation units (direct use and full protection). Although the company has held information events along with ANP and the Acre Government in the cities of Rio Branco and Cruzeiro do Sul (April 2012), the meetings and documents of the indigenous organizations, social movements and even municipalities reiterated questions concerning the lack of tools for consultation and information on the project and its potential socio-environmental impacts on the region, following the example of what has happened since 2007. (ISA)

Hydrocarbon blocks in Amazonia overlap 13% (273,801 km2) of the total surface area of Indigenous Territories (ITs) (MOG6 and TOG8). Blocks open for bidding account for 50% (136,264 km2) of this overlap, those under tender, 10% (27,218 km2), those under exploration, 32% (88,404 km2) and those under production, 8% (21,914 km2). The most critical situation is found in Perú where overlapping covers 66.3% of IT areas, while in Brasil by contrast there is no recorded instance of such overlapping (GOG3). In terms of the different categories of IT, 11% of the total surface area of officially-recognized ITs are overlapped by hydrocarbon blocks, compared to 9% of the unrecognized ITs. Ecuador is today the country with the largest surface area of ITs overlapped with hydrocarbon blocks under production. 71% of the total area of intangible zones in Ecuador and territorial reserves in Perú, both intended to protect isolated indigenous peoples, overlaps with hydrocarbon blocks. Meanwhile 95% of the area proposed for territorial reserves in the Peruvian Amazonia is covered with hydrocarbon blocks. MOG6. Proportion of oil/gas blocks in ITs in Amazonia

Lines of seismic investigation in Acre, 2012

Conclusion Hydrocarbon blocks overlap many ITs and PNAs irrespective of the categories found in each country. Historically the extraction of oil and gas in Amazonia has placed pressure on socio-environmental diversity. The experience of Perú and Ecuador shows the high level of impact that this type of activity can generate. Agreement on socio-environmental protection regulations related to hydrocarbon production is urgently needed in the short-term. TOG8. Surface area of oil/gas blocks in ITs in Amazonia, by activity phase, administrative area and type of use Area covered by blocks (km2) IT type

Open for bidding

Under tender

Under exploration

Under production

Total

IT surface (km2)

% covered by blocks

Proposed Territorial Reservation

16,022

301

20,303

1,116

37,743

39,762

95%

Territorial Reservation

14,153

224

5,508

19,884

28,127

71%

IT officially recognized

98,722

22,275

60,587

1,963

183,547

1,693.431

11%

IT not officially recognized Total

7,368

4,641

7,291

13,327

32,626

368,603

136,264

27,218

88,404

21,914

273,801

2,129.923

13%

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

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

RAISG 28

Amazonia under Pressure – Oil and Gas

Oil and Gas – Amazonia under Pressure

29 RAISG

MMN1

Mining

in Amazonia

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

mining Zones with mining interests cover a total of 1.6 million km2, re-

ince the beginning of European conquest in Amazonia there has been a continuous search for ‘El Dorado,’ promoted by the stories of the enormous mineral wealth contained in the region. For centuries prospecting and mining was concentrated in the extremely rich gold and silver mines of the Andean region. It was only in the 20th century with the discovery of large mineral deposits, like the Serra dos Carajás in Brazilian Amazonia (in 1967), that mining activities began to spread, today covering much of the region, whether in the form of industrial production plants or concessionary blocks, as well as illegal mining. During this period the increase in the prices of precious minerals, the growing demand for other strategic minerals (aluminum, iron, titanium, vanadium and so on), and the need in the region’s countries to generate income through the use of Amazonia’s natural resources, has made mining a major source for economic growth; more recently, national development policies have included mining as one of the fundamental sectors for generating jobs and fighting poverty. Those policies encouraged exploration and prospecting in Amazonia, which has revealed its great mining potential. However this growth in the mining industry has largely ignored the socio-environmental impacts that it produces. As was pointed out in the previous chapter on hydrocarbons, the separation and lack of coordination between different sector-based policies for extractive industries enables the development of mining blocks inside protected areas and Indigenous Territories, as this chapter will show.

presenting 21% of Amazonia’s surface Most of these zones (50.8%) are still in approval stage, followed by zones under exploration (30.8%) Guiana is the country with the largest proportion of its Amazonian territory covered by mining zones The mining zones already occupy 15% of the PNAs and 19% of the ITs in Amazonia The strong rise in the price of gold in recent years has stimulated illegal mining in Amazonia, generating considerable socio-environmental impacts

Context

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

In 2012 Colombia announced a moratorium on mining activities in the Amazonian region. The socio-environmental sector of Colombia’s civil society persuaded the government to use more caution in responding to the huge volume of applications for mining concessions. The government suspended, for ten years, the approval of any mining concessions until an objective selection processes could be established to allocate the 201 mining blocks planned for the region. Meanwhile Brasil is promoting mining exploration on a large scale in Amazonia, while the National Congress is currently discussing a Bill to permit mining surveys and extractive activities in Indigenous Territories. An important case that combines the generation of hydroelectricity with mining activities is now taking place in Brazilian Amazonia, in the region of the Volta Grande (Big Bend) of the Xingu river, where permission from the environmental sector is in the process of being granted for what will be the largest open pit gold mine in the country. The Canadian mining company Belo Sun plans to install its mining operations within 16 km of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, which will provide cheap energy for the mine beginning in 2015. The ambitious plans for expanding hydroelectric capacity along the rivers of Brazilian Amazonia likely driving the huge expansion in new mining projects in the region. Despite the legislation in force, illegal mining activities have increased across the region over the last few decades, producing increasingly larger and more uncontrollable impacts, very often placing at risk the health of entire local communities. Contamination of water with heavy metals such as mercury has long-term health impacts on the communities exposed to these waterways, even when they are located at large distances downstream from the mines.

RAISG 30

Amazonia under Pressure – Mining

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

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

Ä In the Madre de Dios region the rate

of deforestation related to small-scale gold mining was 292 ha/year between 2006 and 2009.

¾ In Guyana the deforestation caused

by gold mining tripled between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008.

¸ Mining poses a threat to indigenous territories in Brasil. 407,300 km2 (79%) of the total mining zones in ITs in Amazonia are located in Brasil. Mining – Amazonia under Pressure

31 RAISG

The Beni river in Bolivia is one of the most critical cases of contamination of water, sediments and fish by mercury and other heavy metals, affecting both indigenous and riverside communities. These mining activities have been growing since the 1970s with a greater emphasis over the last 20 years (Bourgoin, 2001). A similar case is the illegal gold mining in the Madre de Dios river basin in Perú. Here more than 150,000 ha of alluvial soils, well suited to agriculture, have been completely degraded by the largely illegal mining activities (Dourojeanni, 2009). In addition to the damage caused to entire ecosystems, illegal mining also generates other serious collateral effects in areas of indigenous peoples who are uncontacted or only recently contacted, as in the case of the Yanomami in the border region between Venezuela and Brasil (see BMN2: The new gold rush in Amazonia).

Methodology The analysis of information regarding the concessionary blocks for mining established by the government and the mining activities in Amazonia is based on official data compiled in each country. It has been systemized and classified into five categories according to the procedural phase that both concessionary blocks are currently in. These are: Open for Bidding (concessionary blocks offered by the government), Under Tender (concessionary blocks with a pending offer awaiting official approval), Under Exploration (concessionary blocks with a company actively prospecting), Under Production (concessionary blocks with on-going extractive activities) and No Information (concessionary blocks without current information). In Perú and in some of Ecuador’s mining blocks it was impossible to differentiate blocks under exploration from those under production. In these cases the blocks were analyzed as both. The classification of concessionary blocks by phase in the different countries is shown in table TMN1. As information on illegal mining was not obtainable for all the countries, this data was not included in the analyses. Due to differences in the information sources, geographic (topological) corrections had to be made in order for the data to be analyzed and combined. Consequently differences may exist between the results published here and the figures obtained in analyses conducted in the countries. To avoid duplicating areas and over-estimation of surface areas, the analysis excluded overlapping areas between mining blocks that are in the same phase. After excluding these overlaps, only areas over five hectares in size were selected in all the analyses. The data was analyzed by the following units: Amazonia, countries, macro-basins and subbasins, PNAs and ITs.

Amazonia as a whole For 2010 there are a total of 52,974 blocks in Amazonia with mining interests covering a total area of 1,628,850 km2, which corresponds to 21% of the entire region (TMN2). The majority of mining blocks are under tender (50.8%), followed by those under exploration (30.8%) (MMN2 and GMN1).

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

BMN1. The main mining companies and the largest mining projects

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

Among the main mining ventures in Amazonia we can identify the Madre de Dios mining region, in Perú, on the border with Bolivia; the southeast of Ecuador in the provinces of Morona Santiago and Zamora Chinchipe with the Fruta do Norte and Mirador projects in Ecuador; the bauxite mining region operated by Bosai in Guyana; the Carajás project extracting pig iron, a concession run by Vale; the Pitinga mine, where the Taboca mining company extracts mainly tin; and the Juruti project, a concession run by Alcoa for mining bauxite. These last three ventures are located in Brasil.

Amazonia in each country Table TMN3 shows the quantity and surface area of concessionary blocks for mining per country. Guyana is the country with the highest percentage of its Amazonia region covered by mining blocks in all categories (67.5%), followed by Brasil with 27% and Suriname with 18.6%. The country with the lowest proportion of its Amazonia covered by mining blocks in Amazonia is Bolivia at 0.8%. In terms of the number of concessionary blocks, 80.5% of the total number of blocks are located in Brasil and 11% in Perú. The surface covered by the different categories of mining blocks in each country is shown in map MMN3. Although large-scale mining has not begun in Ecuador, in the medium term this will be the main threat following hydrocarbon activities. MMN3. Proportion of mining blocks per country in Amazonia

TMN1. Categories of mining blocks in the countries of Amazonia No information

Open for bidding

Under tender

Under exploration

Under exploration/ production

Under production

Bolivia

Brasil

Colombia

Ecuador

Guyana

Country*

TMN4. Surface area of mining blocks in macro-basins in Amazonia, by category Surface area of mining blocks (km²) Macro-basin

Under exploration

Middle-Lower Amazonas

169,141

Guyanas/Amapá

82,002 91,804 55,161

Perú

Tocantins

Suriname

Madeira

Venezuela

Negro

* There is no data for Guyane Française.

TMN2. Quantity and surface area of mining blocks in Amazonia. by category Category

# Mining blocks

Open for bidding

# by phase (%)

Area (km²)

% Area by phase

Amazon area

2,529

4.8

164,999

10.1

2.1

30,411

57.4

827,142

50.8

10.7

Under exploration

9,828

18.6

502,085

30.8

6.5

Under exploration/production

4,711

8.9

25,383

1.6

0.3

Under production

5,482

10.3

109,202

6.7

1.4

0.0

52,974

100.0

1,628.850

100.0

21.0

Under tender

No information Total

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

Under exploration/ production 5,157 6,591

Under production

Open for bidding

No information

Under tender

Total

5,166

57,969

387,618

619,894

72,293

29,762

22,311

212,524

3,594

39,113

56,098

190,609

5,792

16,507

100,248

184,332

8,420

1,579

8,379

150,462

168,839

Western Northeast Atlantic

31,903

3,548

5,179

29,979

70,609

Mouth of the Amazonas/ Estuary

26,928

4,401

4,087

19,507

54,924

Paraná

30,164

912

2,531

15,424

49,031

390

1,419

25,842

45,257

Upper Amazonas

3,964

13,635

Orinoco

631

10,433

15,558

26,622

Parnaíba

485

3,520

4,082

1,471

572

2,111

109,201

164,999

827,138

1,628.844

Middle Amazonas General total

502,084

25,382

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

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

MMN2. Mining activity phases in Amazonia, by country

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

By basin The macro-basin within Amazonia with the largest total area covered by mining blocks is the Amazonas Middle-Lower macro-basin in Brasil, with a total area of 619,894 km2 with designated mining blocks. This macro-basin is followed by the Guyana/Amapá (212,524 km2), Tocantins (190,609 km2), Madeira (184.332 km2) and Negro macro-basins (168,839 km2) (TMN4 and GMN3). TMN5. The ten sub-basins with the largest surface area covered by mining blocks in Amazonia

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

Quantity of mining blocks number of blocks

Surface area of mining blocks Area (km2)

% of Amazonia

485

0.9

3,734

0.8

0.0

42,623

80.5

1,349.207

27.0

17.3

Amazonas (Juruá-Paru-Jari) Iriri

Surface area of mining blocks (km²) Under production 493

Under exploration

Under tender

11,032

81,049

Open for bidding

Total

6,717

99,291

449

5,510

61,418

2,126

69,503

33,928

12,014

448

14,503

60,893

23,113

21,851

11,580

59,143

1,563

3.0

50,192

10.4

0.6

Ecuador

791

1.5

4,840

4.2

0.1

Tocantins (B)

2,599

Guyana

743

1.4

145,069

67.5

1.9

Trombetas

1,304

6,154

46,066

4,876

58,400

168

11,906

36,374

1,469

49,917

9,276

36,797

3,780

49,853

5,812

11.0

22,587

2.9

0.3

Sucunduri-Abacaxis-Maués

Suriname

0.0

30,419

18.6

0.4

Guyana-Esequibo (Costa)

Venezuela

946

1.8

22,803

5.0

0.3

Guaporé

924

8,259

36,075

2,909

48,167

Teles Pires (S,Manuel)

175

31,805

10,322

4,676

46,978

Araguaia (B)

236

17,367

11,105

10,753

39,460

Perú

Total

52,974

100

1,628.850

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

Amazonia under Pressure – Mining

Sub-basin

Cuyuní

Colombia

RAISG 32

Participation in the total

20.9

In terms of individual phases of concessionary blocks, the largest surface areas covered by blocks in the Open for Bidding and Under Exploration phases are found in the Amazonas (MiddleLower), Tocantins and Guyana/Amapá macro-basins. The largest surface areas covered by blocks in the Under Tender phase are found in the Amazonas (Middle-Lower), Negro and Madeira macro-basins (TMN4). Table TMN5 shows the ten sub-basins with the largest surface area covered by mining blocks in the different phases. The sub-basins with the largest areas covered by blocks in all phases are the Amazonas river (Juruá-Paru-Jari) with 99,291 km2, followed by the Iriri with 69.503 km2, Cuyuní with 60,893 km2, Lower Tocantins with 59,143 km2 and Trombetas with 58,400 km2. Fourteen sub-basins were identified with more than 52% of their surface covered by concessionary mining blocks, as can be observed in map MMN5. In relation to those blocks in the Under Production phase, the Cuyuní sub-basin, covering areas of Guyana and Venezuela, presented the largest area with 33,928 km2 (21,551 km2 and 12,377

Mining – Amazonia under Pressure

33 RAISG

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

Area covered by blocks (km²) PNA administrative sphere and type of use Departmental - direct use

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

BMN2. The new gold rush in Amazonia

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

Departmental - indirect use National - direct use

Open for bidding

Under tender

Under production

Total

20,719

517

95,300

33.9

591

35,611

6,380

194

42,776

15.2

7,632

34,955

23,699

3,921

70,222

25.0

0.0

921

31,036

11.0

743

41,735

14.8

6,298

281,089

100.0

18 2,290

20,656

6,469

700

40,992 20,060

196,732

57,284

714

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

Participation (%)

64,518

National - transitory use General total

Under exploration/ production

9,547

National - direct/indirect use National - indirect use

Under exploration

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

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

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

The PNAs with the largest number of mining blocks in the combined exploration/production phase, are: REc Cofán Bermejo, RfVS El Zarza, RBi El Quimi and PN Yacuri, all in Ecuador. In the Under Exploration phase, Brasil contains the largest areas in all categories of PNAs: 23.554 km2 overlapping direct use national PNAs, followed by direct use departmental PNAs (20,244 km2), indirect use departmental PNAs (6,380 km2) and indirect use national PNAs (5,651 km2). The direct use national PNAs with the largest surface area covered by mining blocks in this phase are: APA Tapajós (6,287 km2), FN Carajás (1,947 km2), FN Crepori (1,706 km2), FN Amaná (1,606 km2), and REx Verde para Sempre (1,574 km2).

Aerial view of illegal gold mining in the Serra do Divisor mountain range, between Brasil and Perú. © Thomas Müller/SPDA, 2010 GMN5. Distribution of mining blocks in PNAs in Amazonia, by country and activity phase

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

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

Over the last 20 years various ANPs and ITs in Amazonia have been under pressure from the increase in small-scale illegal semimechanized alluvial gold mining. This gold rush was stimulated by the exponential increase in the price of the metal, which has risen 500% over the last ten years. The miners working in the production sites in the forest are sustained by a network of intermediate traders providing basic supplies: food, fuel, machines and air and/or land transportation. The semi-mechanized prospecting model causes river silting, the loss of biodiversity in the aquatic ecosystems, including due to the turbidity, soil removal and forest conversion. It contributes to a third of the total world mercury pollution and causes substantial health and environmental impacts. More than an estimated 100 tons of mercury are used each year in illegal gold mining in Amazonia. In Amazonia 37% of the Protected Natural Areas (Parks and Reserves) of seven countries are affected by illegal mining. The situation is particularly acute in Western Amazonia (Madre de Dios, Perú), in the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname and Guyane Française) and in the Yanomami territory (Brasil and Venezuela). In the Madre de Dios region the deforestation rate related to small-scale gold mining is estimated to have increased from 292 ha/ year between 2003 and 2006 to 1,915 ha/year between 2006 and 2009. In Guyana, a study by WWF Guyanas (Marín and May, 2012) showed that the deforestation caused by gold mining tripled between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008, destroying 650 km2 of forests. The pollution associated with small-scale gold mining followed a similar

Mining blocks in the Open for Bidding phase overlap PNAs by 20,060 km2. Most of these are in Brasil: REx Verde para Sempre, APA Tapajós, FN Jamanxim and FN Carajás. A total area of 196,732 km2 in concessionary blocks is in the Under Tender phase. Direct use departmental PNAs are overlapped with 64,518 km2, followed by transitory use national PNAs (40,992 km2) and indirect use departmental PNAs (35.611 km2). The PNAs most threatened by blocks under tender are APA Tapajós, FN Amazonas, PN Montanhas do Tumucumaque and EE Jari, all in Brasil, and the Amazonia Forestry Reserve in Colombia. MMN6. Proportion of mining blocks per PNA in Amazonia

growth pattern, affecting 26,000 km of rivers in 2008. The territory traditionally occupied by the Yanomami people in the forest and mountain region of the border between Brasil and Venezuela was the target of a massive invasion of prospectors coming from Boa Vista (Roraima) in the second half of the 1980s which resulted in the death of 15% of the Yanomami population in Brasil and many other serious socio-environmental impacts. This pressure was relieved somewhat after a mega operation to remove miners organized by Brasil’s federal government at the start of the 1990s. In the last five years the Yanomami IT has been systematically invaded by Brazilian prospectors who cross the international border, a situation that demands the coordinated action of the governments in Brasil and Venezuela. There are recent indications of an association between mining interests and drug trafficking. (Beto Ricardo/ISA, in collaboration with Claudio Maretti/WWF)

By Indigenous Territories By Protected Area

Concessionary blocks for mining overlapping Indigenous Territories (ITs) cover a total surface area of 407,320 km2, representing 19% of the total surface area of ITs in Amazonia. The largest proportion is found in recognized ITs (381,857 km2, 94%) with the remainder in traditionally occupied lands without official recognition (25,437 km2, 6%).

The area covered by mining blocks and their distribution are displayed in table TMN6 and graph GMN4. The total combined surface area of mining blocks, in all phases, overlapping Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) is 281,089 km2, which corresponds to 15% of the total surface area of PNAs in Amazonia. In terms of categories of PNAs, the largest area of mining blocks, in all phases, is located in direct use departmental PNAs (95,300 km2), followed by direct use national PNAs (70.222 km2), indirect

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

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

RAISG 34

Amazonia under Pressure – Mining

Mining – Amazonia under Pressure

35 RAISG

MMN7. Proportion of mining blocks by ITs in Amazonia

Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the total area of mining blocks under exploration in ITs are located in officially recognized areas, with the remaining 3% located in traditionally occupied ITs without official recognition. The ITs overlapped by the largest area of mining blocks under exploration are: Rio Paru d’Este, Trombetas/Mapuera, Xipaya and Xikrin do Cateté in Brasil, and Orealla in Guyana. The total area of mining blocks under exploration/production (Perú y Ecuador) registered within ITs is 3,492 km2, 62% of which is located in traditionally occupied ITs without official recognition. The ITs with the highest pressures are in Perú (Naranjos) and Suriname (Kwinti). The mining blocks under production cover 24,162 km2, 91% of which is located in traditionally occupied ITs without official recognition, 50% situated in Suriname and 41% in Venezuela. The ITs with the largest surface areas covered in mining blocks under production are found in Venezuela (10,015 km2) and in Suriname (12,130 km2): Saramacaners, Aukaners, Wayana, Matawai and Aluku.

Eighty-eight per cent (88%) of the mining blocks under tender within ITs are located in Brasil (307,305 km2) and the remaining 12% in Colombia (40,759 km2). Around 99% of these are located inside recognized ITs, the most threatened being: Yanomami, Menkragnoti, Alto Rio Negro, Baú and Tumucumaque.

BMN3. Mining, participation and social mobilization in Ecuador Mining activity is considered as a Public Utility and National Priority Interest by the Ecuadorian state and is regulated by the provisions set out in Mining Mandate Nº 6 of April 2008, the new Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador made official in October 2008, as well as the Mining Law and its Regulatory Framework, approved in 2009 and reformed in 2011. Article 313 of the Constitution identifies non-renewable natural resources, including minerals, as strategic sectors. The cause of the controversy between the different sectors of the country – the central government and the indigenous and ecologist movements – is Article 407, which “prohibits the extraction of non-renewable resources in protected areas and in zones declared as intangible, including forest exploration,” but with a safeguard: “in exceptional cases these resources may be explored through a substantiated request from the Presidency of the Republic and a prior declaration of national interest from the National Assembly, which, if deemed convenient, may convoke a popular consultation.” The National Assembly approved the Mining Mandate on April 18th 2008, establishing the basic conditions for mining surveys and exploration “by unrestricted compliance with the legal obligations, including those relating to preservation of the environment and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples, Afro-Ecuadorians and communities that are directly or indirectly involved… and by payment of all legally established patents, rights and taxes.” It should be emphasized that in Ecuador there is no clear regulatory framework for social participation and prior consultation. Article 88 of the Mining Law establishes the obligation of concessionaires from the granting of the concession, and during all its stages, to provide adequate information to the competent authorities, autonomous decentralized governments, communities and entities that represent social, environmental or union interests, on the potential impacts – positive or negative – of mining activity. On the other hand, Article 87 of the Mining Law observes that the State is responsible for implementing the processes of social participation and consultation through the corresponding public institutions, according to the constitutional principles and regulations in force. This responsibility cannot be transferred to any private entity. Although large-scale mining has not yet started in Ecuador, indigenous communities, local populations and social organizations have expressed their concern and indeed rejected the development of the mining activities of the Fruta do Norte project, one of the largest gold discoveries in the world (6.8 million ounces of gold and 9.1 million ounces of silver) in Zamora Chinchipe province, run by the Canadian company Kinross, and the Mirador project, run by the Chinese company Ecuacorriente, which will explore reserves of more than 10 billion pounds of copper. Despite the opposition of indigenous organizations and ecological groups, an initial agreement was signed with Kinross in December 2011 and with Ecuacorriente in March 2012. March 8th 2012 in Pangui, Zamora Chinchipe province, saw the start of the “March for Water, Life and Dignity of the Peoples,” which covered a distance of 600 km to reach Quito on the 22nd March to demand that the government provide spaces of participation and dialogue in the discussion of indigenous rights and the nature of mining projects, among other contemporary issues. The government, for its part, convoked a countermarch and refused to recognize the legitimacy of their social demands. The demonstrators went to the Assembly to express 19 points including their opposition to largescale mining. However as aside from the setting up of a commission to discuss the issue, there was no concrete outcome. (Víctor López and Janette Ulloa/EcoCiencia)

The large number of blocks under tender overlapping ITs in Brasil is due to a failure to introduce a specific law to regulate mining on Indigenous Territories, as required by the Federal Constitution. The 1996 Law no. 1610, still under analysis, “provides for the exploration and/or exploitation of mineral resources in Indigenous Territories.” Although the current data from the Mining Register of Brazil’s National Department of Mineral Production was officially reviewed before it was published on the institution’s website, the blocks under tender affecting ITs were not removed from the list. Apparently they were left on the list with the expectation that a new law regarding mining and ITs will give precedence to claims already under tender before the law is passed. The ITs with the largest areas with blocks open for bidding (which only appears in Brasil and Guyana) are located in Brasil, namely the Trincheira/Bacajá, Parakanã and Mundurucu ITs.

Conclusion

Ovens that convert the Amazonian forest into charcoal to supply the steel industry. Marabá, Pará, Brasil. © Sérgio Vignes, 2011

Due to the increase in the price of gold and other selected minerals on the international market, mining has increased substantially over the last 20 years. The governments in all the Amazonian countries have identified specific blocks for mining concessions which are now in one of the different phases mentioned above (Open for Bidding, Under Tender, Under Exploration and Under Production). Guyana and Brasil are the countries with the largest area covered by them. Mining interests, reflected in the existing concessionary blocks, are concentrated on the periphery of Amazonia, negatively affecting the PNAs and ITs significantly. Local populations are increasingly concerned over the presence of mining interests on their lands. The impacts of this activity at local level on water quality, soil nutrients and cultural and biological diversity are potentially very serious. An important next step will be to analyze which are the minerals of most interest in the region (e.g. gold, aluminum and iron) and the current and future geographic patterns involved in activities concerning each of them.

Steel production with intensive use of charcoal. Marabá, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 1997

March for Water, Life and Dignity of the people of Quito, Ecuador. © Fundación Pachamama/Quito, 2012

Aerial view of an illegal gold mining dredge in Puerto Maldonado, Madre de Dios, Perú. © Thomas Müller/SPDA, 2010

RAISG 36

Amazonia under Pressure – Mining

Industrial steel production plant. Marabá, Pará, Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2009 Mining – Amazonia under Pressure

37 RAISG

MHI1

Hidroeletrics Plants in Amazonia

Hydroelectric Plants T

he Amazon basin is seen by governments, companies, investors and consumers as a virtually inexhaustible source of water resources for energy production. This view is based on two facts: 1. the current supply of electrical energy from Amazonia to the region’s countries is significant– up to 75% of the national energy supply in Perú, Bolivia and Ecuador – and 2. a potential contribution of Amazonia to these countries’ electrical energy need is very high. The latter fact is based on the potential for high capacity installations in the Andean-Amazonian mountain rainforest region along with the capacity of the giant Amazon itself where the ‘Brazilian hydroelectric potential,’ estimated at 260,000 MW, accounting for more than 50% of the exploitable capacity of the entire Amazon region (Gamboa & Cueto, 2012). Hence the major challenge posed for Amazonian countries in the near future is the need to reconcile the exploitation of Amazonia’s hydroelectric potential with the integrated management of basins, including the recuperation and conservation of the ecological, social, economic and cultural cycles of a region that values and essentially depends on its rivers.

Context The great hydroelectric potential of the Amazonian rivers provides the possibility of obtaining low-cost electricity without resorting to fossil fuels or nuclear reactors, and at the same time, an opportunity to attain high levels of sustainability in national electricity supplies. In Ecuador the government presents the implementation of the Coca Codo Sinclair hydroelectric project as a possibility to make the country energy independent, while reversing the current purchase of electricity from Colombia and Perú (up to 10% of the supply) in the dry season and perhaps even selling energy to these same countries. Despite the considerable technical problems (the lack of studies for upgrading to 500 KV transmission lines) and financial issues (lack of tenders) identified by critics in relation to this project, the government plans for the hydroelectric plant to enter into operation from 2016 onwards (López, 2011). Likewise the energy agreement between Perú and Brasil for the production and exportation of electricity in Perú’s border zones (the Inambari megaproject and others) is justified by the annual increase in electricity demand. “Based on the expected level of growth over the next decade, under a permanent planning scheme, Brasil will require national and foreign hydroelectric energy sources. Consequently and very consciously, both state planning and that of the state company Eletrobras show a clear interest in building hydroelectric plants within and beyond Brazilian Amazonia …” (Gamboa & Cueto, 2012). In 2009 the Peruvian government authorized Brasil to fund, build and operate six large hydroelectric plants in the rainforest-covered eastern side of the Peruvian Andes, with the clear objective of selling hydroelectric power to supply Brasil’s energy needs (Dourojeanni, 2009). However this decision is now being analyzed by the Peruvian Congress’s Foreign Affairs Commission. Meanwhile Brasil is pushing forward construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, the third largest in the world, located on the Xingu river, an important tributary of the Amazonas river. This project is one of the dozens of large, medium and small-sized hydroelectric plants planned for the next ten years.

Spillway of the Tucuruí Hydroelectric Plant (UHE), work begun in 1975 on the Tocantins river and completed 30 years later at the cost of approximately US$ 15 billion, ten times more expensive than originally budgeted. Brasil. © Paulo Santos, 2002

There are 171 hydroelectric plants in operation or under construction in Amazonia as a whole, and 246 planned or under study With the construction of the Belo Monte Dam, Brasil will have the largest hydroelectric plant in Amazonia, with a capacity of 11,233 MW The Upper Amazon macro-basin has the highest number of hydroelectric plants in operation or under construction The PNAs are primarily affected by small hydroelectric plants ¸

The transfrontier issues relating to hydroelectric plants are not being debated publicly Ä

The socio-environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the hydroelectric dams and reservoirs – such as alterations in the water regime, reduction of hydrobiological diversity, water contamination and accelerated deforestation – are undervalued or simply ignored. Measurements of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Balbina reservoir in Brasil and the Petit Saut reservoir in Guyane Française have shown that the hydroelectric plants may also be significant sources of GHGs (Fearnside & Pueyo, 2012).

Methodology A georeferenced database with the location of current hydroelectric plants and projects for building future plants was compiled and systemized, based on both official and non-official sources. They were grouped into two types: projects with the capacity to generate more than 30 megawatts (MW), called Hydroelectric Units (UHEs), and Small Hydroelectric Plants (PCHs), with the capacity to produce less than 30 MW. In addition, some information was compiled for 17 projected hydroelectric plants with capacities of more than 300 MW in Ecuador and Perú these were not included in the carto-

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

Ä Perú and Bolivia account for 75% of Andean Aerial view of the workers’ shelters for the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant (UHE). Altamira, Pará, Brasil.

RAISG 38

Amazonia, a region where various Amazonian rivers rise and that is an extremely important transition zone in the region’s hydrography.

¾ Covering 190,000 km2 and containing

11 indigenous territories, the basin of the Juruena river has a total of 19 PCHs planned, as well as one gigantic plant.

¸ Close to entering into operation, the

Santo Antônio and Jirau hydroelectric plants on the Madeira river have not been the object of a transfrontier socio-environmental assessment. Hydroelectric Plants – Amazonia under Pressure

39 RAISG

graphic analyses since no information on their geographic location was available. The hydroelectric plants may be found in different phases: Operational, Under Construction, Planned and Under Study (THP1). This analyses groups those under construction and operational as ‘Actual’ and those projected and under study as ‘Planned.’

Amazonia as a whole As of 2012, the RAISG database contains information regarding 417 hydroelectric plants (MHP2). 171 are in operation or under construction the great majority of which (120) have a capacity of less than 30 MW (PCHs). The remaining 246 plants have been included in national energy plans, most of which (179) are PCHs, producing less than 30 MW (GHP1). The majority of hydroelectric plants are situated in the southern part of Amazonia, followed by the eastern and western regions. Few hydroelectric projects were recorded in the central and northern regions. If all the planned hydroelectric units were constructed, there would be a 144% increase in the number of units currently in operation or under construction. The increase in the number of PCHs would be 149% and the number of UHEs 131%. This data suggests that much of the future use of the water resources of Amazonia may be committed to generating electricity.

BHP1. From the Andes to Amazonia: water in the mountain rainforest Andean Amazonia covers a transition area between the Andes and the Eastern Mountain Range (Cordilheira Real Oriental: CRO), defining upland ecosystems, whether mountain or mountain forest (2200 to 600 m above sea level), before expanding across the vast Amazonian plain or the lowland forest, characterized by their areas of forest floodland. Perú and Bolivia account for 75% of Andean Amazonia where the mountain forest is a very important transition zone, though in general little known. The particularity of the CRO resides in its local climate of high rainfall, amid steep escarpments, permanent cloud cover and forest soils, which have been subject to exchanges in soil use and deforestation. However we can note an enormous availability of water resources in these basins, a factor that explains the expansion of the frontiers for hydroelectric generation and for drinking water and irrigation in the Andes. Although the enormous hydroelectric potential of upland Amazonia is little exploited even today, pressure is increasing on these basins from medium and large scale (> 100 MW) hydroelectric generation projects, as well as the channeling of water to cities on the Pacific side, as in the Ecuadorian case where around 30 hydroelectric projects are registered, along with other multi-use projects for channeling drinking water to cities like Quito (supplying up to 80%) and for irrigating flower farms and agroindustrial zones. We can also observe protected areas that from their outset recognized the importance of the water services of the highlands and mountain forests of the Amazonian side: here it should be noted that the rivers rising in the Andes deposit their sediment-rich waters in the lowland basins of Brasil, crossing international boundaries on the way, as in the case of Ecuador whose Amazonian hydrographic systems are shared with Perú and Colombia. One aspect that should be investigated in depth is the public institutional framework available for the administration and management of water resources in the Amazon basin and the mountain forests in particular, since it represents a transition zone between the Andes and the Amazonian floodlands, where the water environmental services are beginning to be seen as a factor in local development. Here the projects for hydroelectric generation or domestic consumption of water and irrigation may be able to ensure the financing of remuneration systems for the integrated management of the ecosystems that regulate the hydrological cycles and deal with the excess of sediments produced by the planned enterprises. Finally very specific legislation is needed, such as an institutional framework and public policies that take into account local climate patterns, the fragility of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and the human safety aspects in a zone with high vulnerability from heavy rainfall and the alteration in climate systems seen over the last decade. (Víctor López/EcoCiencia)

Twelve hydroelectric plants with a capacity higher than 300 MW were identified (seven in operation and five under construction). The most important hydroelectric plant in operation is the Guri Hydroelectric Plant located in Venezuela with a capacity of 10,325 MW (THP2), while Belo Monte, in Brasil, is the hydroelectric plant under construction has the highest projected capacity (11,233 MW). Twenty-five (37%) of the 67 projected UHEs will have a capacity of more than 300 MW. Half of these will be built in Brasil (13). The largest will be located in the Pongo de Manseriche, situated on the Marañon river (Perú) with a projected capacity of 7,550 MW (THP3). MHP2. Hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and activity phase

THP1. Phases of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia Country*

Under Study

Planned

Under Construction

Operational

Country

Capacity (MW)

Sub-basin

Pongo de Manseriche

7,550 Marañon

Brasil

Jirau

3,450 Madeira

Bolivia

Río Madera

3,000 Mamoré

Brasil

Marabá

2,160 Tocantins

Perú

Inambari

2,000 Madre de Dios

Perú

Paquitzapango

2,000 Tambo

Brasil

Teles Pires

1,820 Teles Pires

Bolivia

El Bala

1,600 Beni

Perú

Rentema

1,525 Pastaza

Brasil

Serra Quebrada

1,328 Tocantins

Brasil

Santa Isabel

1,087 Araguaia

Perú

Sumabeni

1,074 Mantaro

Brasil

Araguanã

960 Araguaia

Bolivia

Cachuela Esperanza

900 Beni

Perú

Cuquipampa

800 Mantaro

Perú

Vizcatán

750 Mantaro

Brasil

São Manoel

746 Teles Pires

Brasil

Tupiratins

620 Tocantins

Perú

Tambo-Pto, Prado

620 Tambo

Brasil

Ipueiras

480 Tocantins

Brasil

Sinop

461 Teles Pires

Perú

Chaglla

360 Huallaga

Brasil

Tabajara

350 Ji-Paraná ou Machado

Brasil

Colider

342 Teles Pires

Brasil

Água Limpa

320 Das Mortes

Brasil

Colombia

Ecuador

Guyane Française

Perú

Brasil

Suriname

Perú

Venezuela

GHP1. Distribution of hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and situation (threat)

Name

Perú

Bolivia

* Without information for Guyana.

MHP3. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia

THP3. Hydroelectric plants with capacity >300 MW projected in Amazonia

THP4. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per country in Amazonia, by type and phase Country

Planned PCH

UHE

176

Bolivia

Ecuador Venezuela

Actual

By Basin

Total

PCH

UHE

total

231

109

340

Colombia

Guyane Française

Suriname

179

246

120

171

417

General total

total

The Amazonas (Middle-Lower) macro-basin has the highest number of hydroelectric plants in operation, under construction or planned, followed by the macro-basins of the Paraná, Madeira, Tocantins and Upper Amazonas rivers (MHP4 and THP5). The sub-basins with the largest number of current and planned hydroelectric plants are the Juruena (29), Arinos (22), Do Sangue (19), Teles Pires (19), Guaporé (18) and Ji-Paraná (17) basins, among others. As shown in map MHP5 and table THP6, these plants are situated in the southern part of Amazonia, mainly in Brasil. MHP4. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per macro-basin in Amazonia

THP5. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per macro-basin in Amazonia, by type and phase Macro-basin Middle-Lower Amazonas Upper Amazonas Western Northeast Atlantic

Name

Capacity (MW)

Brasil has the highest number of hydroelectric plants with 340 recorded (81.5% of the regional total), 109 of which are in operation or under construction and another 231 planned. Next is Perú, with 33 hydroelectric plants in operation or under construction and 11 planned, making a total of 44. Bolivia has a total of 14 hydroelectric units (ten in operation and four planned). In the other countries less than ten hydroelectric plants are found with Guyana the only country in which no hydroelectric plant was recorded (MHP3 and THP4).

RAISG 40

Amazonia under Pressure – Hydroelectric Plants

PCH

Total

UHE

total

113

Madeira

Negro

Orinoco

Paraná

General total

179

246

120

171

417

Sub-basin

Operational

Amazonia in each country

total

Tocantins Country

Actual

UHE

Guyanas/Amapá

Parnaíba

THP2. Hydroelectric plants with capacity > 300 MW in operation and under construction in Amazonia

Planned PCH

Venezuela

Guri

10,325

Caroní

Brasil

Tucuruí I e II

8,370

Tocantins

Venezuela

Tocoma

2,260

Caroní

Venezuela

Macagua I

2,190

Caroní

Venezuela

Caruachi

2,160

Brasil

Lajeado (L,E,Magalhães)

902

Brasil

Peixe Angical

452

THP6. The ten sub-basins with the highest number of hydroelectric plants in Amazonia, by type and phase Sub-basin (country)

PCH

UHE

Juruena (Brasil)

Arinos (Brasil)

Caroní

Do Sangue (Brasil)

Tocantins

Teles Pires (Brasil)

Tocantins

Guaporé (Brasil, Bolivia) Ji-Paraná (Brasil)

Under Construction 11,233

Brasil

Belo Monte

Brasil

Santo António

3,150

Madeira

Ecuador

Coca Codo Sinclair

1,500

Napo

Brasil

Estreito

1,087

Tocantins

Ecuador

Sopladora

487

Planned

Xingú

Pastaza

Palma (Brasil) Candeias do Jamari (Brasil) Tambo (Perú)

Actual total

total

Total

PCH

UHE

Amapá-Costa (Brasil, Guyane Française)

General total

115

178

Hydroelectric Plants – Amazonia under Pressure

41 RAISG

THP7. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in PNAs in Amazonia, by administrative sphere and type of use

MHP5. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per sub-basin in Amazonia

PNA

Planned

Administrative sphere Departmental National

Type of use

PCH

UHE

General total

Actual total

PCH

total

Direct

Indirect

Direct

Indirect

Total

UHE 3

THP8. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in PNAs in Amazonia Protected National Area FE do Amapá (Brasil)

Planned PCH

UHE

FN Iquiri (Brasil)

PCH

BHP2. The case of the small hydroelectric plants in the Juruena river basin (Mato Grosso, Brasil)

By Protected Areas A total of 171 hydroelectric plants were in operation or under construction within Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) as of 2010. Thirteen (7.6%) of these were wholly or partially located within PNAs (eight UHEs and five PCHs), while 36 future hydroelectric plants (14.6% of the 246 planned as of 2010) will operate inside PNAs (16 UHEs and 20 PCHs) (MHP6 and THP7). Various PNAs face current pressures or are threatened by future constructions of hydroelectric plants. The PNAs currently experiencing the greatest pressures from actual plants are located in Ecuador (3), Brasil (8), Perú (1) and Guyane Française (1), while the PNAs under threat from projected plants are found in Brasil (33), Perú (1) and Bolivia (1) (THP8). MHP6. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per PNA in Amazonia

The basin of the Juruena river, which flows into the left shore of the Tapajós, is full of PCHs (Small Hydroelectric Plants) – four in operation, six under construction, six awarded and 11 earmarked: a total of 27 – as well as two UHEs (large-scale hydroelectric plants) also already earmarked. With a surface area of 190,000 km2, the basin includes 11 indigenous lands and a large mixture of environments. Currently there exist across Amazonia 120 PCHs already installed or under construction and 188 planned, concentrated especially in the Central West region of Brasil and in Peruvian Amazonia. The installation of the PCHS has increased exponentially in Brazilian Amazonia over the last 20 years. Under Brazilian law, PCHs are defined as plants with a capacity to generate between 1 and 30 MW, with a reservoir equal to or less than 3 km2. These criteria were established by the National Electricity Agency (ANEEL) in 1998. The licensing process is simplified and responsibility assigned to the state governments. Systemic analyses of the socio-environmental impacts are not required and authorization is given case by case, without prior evaluation integrated with the accumulative impacts of various PCHs operating in the same region. This is the case of the Juruena basin and the neighboring basins of the Aripuanã, Papagaio and Juína rivers, located in the state of Mato Grosso (MT) where, since 2002, one company alone, Maggi Energia, plans to install nine PCHs and UHEs. This company forms part of the Amaggi group, the largest producer and processor of soya in Brazilian Amazonia – led by Blairo Maggi, ex-governor of Mato Grosso state (2003-2010) and currently a senator of the Republic. In 2005, the construction firms formed the Juruena Consortium, with the transfer of Maggi’s licenses to two other companies: Juruena Participações and Linear Incorporações, and the works became included in the PAC (Growth Acceleration Program) formulated by the government of President Lula (2003-2010) and continued by President Dilma Rousseff, with loans from BNDES. These PCHs will affect the Indigenous Territories of the Paresi, Nambiquara Menky, Rikbaktsa and Enawenê-nawê. There was no prior, free and informed consultation, as required by the Federal Constitution and Convention 169 of the ILO, of which Brasil is a signatory. The company negotiated some financial compensations directly with these peoples. However the Enawenê-nawê re-evaluated this agreement, alarmed by the fact that the start of construction work on a PCH upstream on the Juruena had already altered the flow of fish, compromising the performance of Yakwã, perhaps the longest ritual cycle of any indigenous people in contemporary Amazonia. Each year the Enawenê traditionally begin a ritual complex, seven months in duration, which includes the artisanal construction of temporary dams to capture fish. Over the last few years, post-PCH, the once abundant fish have not appeared, compromising the performance of the ritual cycle. Paradoxically in November 2010, the Yakwã ritual was recognized by the National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) of the Ministry of Culture as part of Brasil’s cultural heritage, inserted in the Record of Celebrations. In 2008, the Enawenê-nawê set fire to the construction site for the Telegráfica PCH, located in the town of Sapezal (430 km from Cuiabá, the capital of Mato Grosso). Soon after this episode, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office reiterated the request to suspend the construction work until the accumulative impacts of all the region’s PCHs were adequately assessed. The works were in fact paralyzed for a while but the measure was overturned by the STF (Federal Supreme Court) after a visit from the governor of Mato View of the Juruena river where the Enawene Nawe live and where various Grosso.

Total

4 3

PN Chapada das Mesas (Brasil)

APA (D) Chapada dos Guimarães (Brasil)

FN Mulata (Brasil)

PE do Jalapão (Brasil)

APA do Jalapão (Brasil)

FN Amapá (Brasil)

PE Cristalino II (Brasil)

PE Dom Osório Stoffel (Brasil)

REx Ituxi (Brasil)

3 1

APA (D) Lago de Peixe Angical (Brasil) 1

1 1

SH Machupicchu (Perú)

1 1 1

PN Montanhas do Tumucumaque (Brasil)

APA (D) Lago de São Salvador (Brasil) SN Megantoni (Perú)

APA (D) Lago de Santa Isabel (Brasil)

RBi Nascentes da Serra do Cachimbo (Brasil)

APA (D) Nascentes do Rio Paraguai (Brasil)

FE Paru (Brasil)

RBiF Pilón Lajas (Bolivia)

RDS Rio Iratapuru (Brasil)

APA Rio Madeira (Brasil)

FE Rio Preto-Jacundá (Brasil)

APA (D) Salto Magessi (Brasil)

PN Sangay (Ecuador)

APA (D) Serra do Lajeado (Brasil)

RN Trinité (Guyane Française) Total

THP9. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in ITs in Amazonia, by type of territory Indigenous Territories IT officially recognized

Planned PCH

UHE

Actual Total

PCH

UHE

IT not officially recognized Total

Total

THI10. Quantity of hydroelectric plants in ITs in Amazonia Indigenous Territories

Planned PCH

UHE

Actual Total

PCH

Mayni (Perú) PI Aripuanã (Brasil)

UHE

Total

Puerto Ocopa (Perú)

Shuar (Ecuador)

2 1

Erikpatsa (Brasil)

Irantxe (Brasil)

Ponte de Pedra (Brasil)

Utiariti (Brasil)

Vaupés Parte Oriental (Colombia) Total

1 7

The hydroelectric plants are concentrated in the south of Amazonia and in a sizeable area of the Andean-Amazonian region (mainly in Perú). The construction of these plants, their current operation and the building of others in the short and medium term, are linked to national development plans regarding the countries’ projected energy matrix. The socio-environmental impacts of these hydroelectric units have not been adequately assessed or addressed. The plants form a key element in cross-border cooperation agendas. Five of the 12 Amazonian macro-basins cross international borders (42% of the total) and 32 of the 154 sub-basins (21%). This situation highlights the need for strategic cross-border socio-environmental assessments at basin level, which was not undertaken, for example, in the construction of the Jirau and Santo Antônio hydroelectric plants in the Madeira macro-basin, shared by Brasil and Bolivia. This may also occur in the construction of the Madeira and Cachuela Esperanza hydroelectric plants in Bolivia, located in the same macro-basin. Likewise the plans for the construction of hydroelectric plants in Perú appear not to take into account of impacts in the lower portions of the rivers in the Brazilian and Bolivian regions of Amazonia.

Bacurizinho (Brasil)

Conclusion

Total

Potsoteni (Perú)

Pilon Lajas (Bolivia)

Various ITs are under current pressure or are threatened by future constructions of hydroelectric plants. Currently the ITs facing the pressure from actual plants are found in Brasil (2), Perú (1), Ecuador (2) and Colombia (1), while the ITs directly threatened by projected plants are located in Brasil (7), Perú (2) and Bolivia (1) (THP10).

Total

PN Cayambe Coca (Ecuador)

Renewable traditional fish trap made by the Enawene Nawe indigenous people, on the Juruena river. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Vincent Carelli/Vídeo nas Aldeias, 2009

UHE

In relation to ITs, six (3,5%) of the 171 hydroelectric plants in operation in 2012 are wholly or partially situated within ITs (two UHEs and four PCHs), while 10 future hydroelectric plants (4.1% of the 246 planned as of 2010) will operate inside ITs (three UHEs and seven PCHs) (MHP7 and THP9).

MHP7. Quantity of hydroelectric plants per IT in Amazonia

Actual Total

By Indigenous Territories

Small Hydroelectric Plants (PCHs) are under construction. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Margi Moss/Projeto Brasil das Águas, 2007

RAISG 42

Amazonia under Pressure – Hydroelectric Plants

Hydroelectric Plants – Amazonia under Pressure

43 RAISG

MFI1

Fires (Hot Spots) in Amazonia

FIRES (HOT SPOTS) Fire forms part of the slash-burn model of agriculture practiced for millennia in Amazonia by indigenous peoples and more recently by other local populations that have settled there. Over the last 50 years fire has been used on a larger scale, very often associated with deforestation, in order to convert extensive areas of Amazonian forest into farm landscapes (MFI1). The use of fire as the “most efficient and cheapest tool” for eliminating forest cover has transformed millions of hectares into new Amazonian ecosystems completely different from their original condition. With climate change generating extreme events in Amazonia, such as the 2005 drought, the conditions have been favorable for large-scale forest fires, such as those reported in Brasil and Bolivia (Marengo et al., 2008). Uncontrolled forest and ground fires may be responsible for a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions in Amazonia.

Context Fires, increasingly common and more intense in the region, are not limited just to the infamous ‘arc of deforestation’ of Brasil and Bolivia. New fires have been occurring in more remote areas and within Protected Natural Areas (PNAs). Indigenous and traditional communities, including some who inhabit regions far from the colonization frontiers, have denounced problems in controlling fires and illustrate the need to develop procedures for adapting to the climate changes under way. One example of this is the case of the Xingu Indigenous Park (MT, Brasil), an island of forest surrounded by the deforestation produced over the last 20 years by farming activities, where 16 ethnic groups live in more than 50 different communities. In 2009 an experimental process was begun to mobilize twelve communities, belonging to seven ethnic groups, to create new forms of managing and fighting fire (see BFI1: The Xingu Indigenous Park on the fire path). Scientists monitoring and studying the dynamic of deforestation and degradation in Amazonia agree that a number of interrelated factors exists that increases the forest’s vulnerability to fire (Fearnside, 2005). The main factors described include: 1) the advance of farming in Bolivian and Brazilian Amazonia close to areas of cerrado and dry transition forests, which are already naturally more prone to fire propagation (Laurance et al., 2001; Steininger et al., 2001); 2) the degradation of forest areas through selective logging, which increases sunlight and wind penetration, lowering the relative humidity of the forest (Nepstad et al., 2004), which explains the particular vulnerability to fire of illegal logging zones (Veríssimo et al., 1992); 3) the severity and duration of the dry season, worsened by the fires themselves, which curb cloud formation and delay the onset of the rainy season (Laurance et al., 2002); and 4) the fact that trees in Amazonia are not adapted to fire, which means that after the first fire has burnt, the volume of material susceptible to burning and aridity increases, significantly augmenting the intensity of subsequent fires (Cochrane, 2003).

¾ Burning to convert forest into cattle pasture. São Félix do Xingu, Pará, Brasil. © Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace, 2008

A millennial agricultural practice, fire is no longer restricted to border areas and is advancing deep into Amazonia The years 2002, 2004 and 2005 recorded the highest number of fires The southeast of Amazonia, in the region of the Arc of Deforestation (Brasil and Bolivia) is the region with the highest number of fires recorded All 10 indigenous territories most heavily affected by fire in the period 2000-2010 are located in Bolivia and Brasil The traditional forms of managing fire used by

indigenous peoples will have to adapt to climate change Ä

The immediate and most evident consequences of the increase in fires are the loss of diversity in wildlife and plant life, air pollution and the consequent impact on human health, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction in local rainfall due to the smoke. Recent estimates indicate that the combination of deforestation and climate change may lead to a 50% increase in the occurrence of fires in Amazonia by 2050 (Silvestrini et al., 2011), intensifying forest degradation and impoverishment.

Methodology Georeferenced information on ”hot spots” in Amazonia for the 2000-2010 period was obtained from Brasil’s National Space Research Institute (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais do Brasil: INPE), taking into account: (i) the recorded date of hotspots, and (ii) the type of sensor used. Only data from the NOAA-12 (from 01/01/2000 to 09/08/2007) and NOAA-15 (from 10/08/2007 to 31/12/2010) satellites were used. For these satellites a hotspot appears as a 1 km² area of high temperature, which may represent the occurrence of a single small fire, several small fires or a larger fire. These satellites cannot detect fires that occur on the ground under the tree cover. To facilitate analysis, the data was

RAISG 44

Cartographic sources for the theme Fires (Hot Spots):  Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais de Brasil (INPE), 2011 (http://www.dpi.inpe.br/proarco/bdqueimadas/). Ocean and relieve: World Physical Map,U.S. National Park Service, in ArcGIS Online Services.

Ä In 2010 the number of fires Young man from the Waurá indigenous peoples training to put out fires inside the Xingu Indigenous Park. Mato Grosso, Brasil. © Rogério Assis, 2011

Amazonia under Pressure – Fires

in the Xingu Indigenous Park reached 884, almost four times as high as 2007, itself the highest in a decade.

¾ Proportionally Guyane Française was

the country with the highest number of fires in protected areas in the period 2000-2010 – 44.7%.

¸ In the arc of deforestation in Brasil,

most of the fires are recorded in areas of cerrado, dry forests and transition zones.

Fires – Amazonia under Pressure

45 RAISG

represented in 10 km2 boxes and separated into two periods: 2000-2005 and 2006–2010. The information was analyzed for the following units: Amazonia, Amazonian countries, macro-basins and subbasins, Protected Natural Areas and Indigenous Territories.

GFI1. Fires recorded annually in Amazonia over the period 2000-2010

MFI3. Quantity of fires per country in Amazonia (2000-2010)

BFI1. The Xingu Indigenous Park on the fire path The 16 peoples who live in the Xingu Indigenous Park (PIX) – one of the best known indigenous lands in Brazilian Amazonia, spanning across 280,000 km2 – have discovered that fire, which was always used in traditional activities, has got out of control much more frequently: bonfires that previously burnt themselves out now very easily become fires, while the burning of vegetation used to clear fields now invades the forest, and so on. In 2010, a very dry year, the number of fires inside the PIX reached 884, almost four times higher than in 2007, which was the year with the most forest fires in a decade. Fire fighting brigades already exist in many villages. Forest fires are at the same time cause and effect of the profound changes occurring in the Amazon basin (Davidson et al., 2012). Recent estimates indicate that the combination of deforestation and climate change may increase the occurrence of fires in Amazonia by almost 50% by 2050, giving rise to a cycle of degradation and loss of biodiversity (Silvestrini et al., 2011). In the Xingu basin, situated in the transition zone between savannah and forest in Brazilian Amazonia, fire has increasingly become a threat to socioenvironmental sustainability. Fire, used in agricultural practices to clear lands or intentionally used to begin the opening of a new area, may escape control and affect large tracts of forest. Forest fires, including those occurring deep in the forest, without destroying the forest cover immediately, increase the mortality rate of trees and the opening of the forest canopy, reducing the forest’s humidity, increasing the quantity of dry material within the forest and making it more susceptible to new blazes (Nepstad et al., 2001). As well as affecting structure and composition of the forest, the fires damage wildlife, provoke the emission of greenhouse gases, worsening global warming, and produce smoke, which reduced local rainfall and harms human health, causing respiratory problems (Cochrane 2003). The transition forests found in the region formed by the Xingu’s headwaters are naturally more susceptible to fire compared to other types of forest, given that they are smaller, have less dense plant cover and have lower humidity in the driest months (Ray et al., 2005; Alencar et al., 2006). This vulnerability is exacerbated by the high rates of deforestation affecting the region. Hence these forests are considered one of the ecosystems most threatened within the Amazon basin. In extremely dry years, the surface affected by forest fires may be up to 14 times greater than in normal years (Alencar et al., 2006). With climate change and the increase in the desertification of the forest, these events tend to be more frequent and intense. Fire, used traditionally by indigenous peoples in their subsistence activities (for example, to clear fields, gather honey and to make small bonfires during fishing and hunt camps), has become an ever bigger threat. As the forest has become more inflammable, traditional management practices already no longer seem sufficient to control them. This fact shows the need for traditional practices to adapt to the climate changes taking place on the planet. (Adapted from Observing the Xingu basin, ISA 2012)

Amazonia as a whole A total of 1,320,866 fires were recorded for the period 2000-2010. The years with the highest number of fires were 2004, 2005 and 2002, in this order (GFI1). There were more fires during the 2000-2005 period (approximately 685,000) than the 2006-2010 period (approximately 551,000). The largest number of fires occurred in the months of August, September and October, with the highest figures recorded for September 2004 (59,698), August 2005 (51,627) and September 2005 (59,455). These fires were detected in larger proportion in the southeast of Amazonia (MFI2), a zone called the ‘arc of deforestation’ of Brazilian Amazonia (Schor et al., 2008; Vieira et al., 2008) and Bolivian Amazonia. MFI2. Fires in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010 (quantity per 10 km2 squares)

GFI2. Fires recorded monthly in Amazonia over the period 2000-2010

GFI3. Annual quantity of fires recorded in Brazilian Amazonia over the period 2000-2010

By Basin The Middle-Lower Amazonas macro-basin presented the highest number of fires, followed by Tocantins and Madeira. This trend was maintained over the eleven year time span, although more intensely during the 2000-2005 period (see TFI1 and MFI4). The sub-basins with the largest number of fires were the Western Northeast Atlantic S, Teles Pires, Lower Araguaia, Arinos and Lower Tocantins. In all cases, the largest proportion of fires was recorded during the period 2000-2005 (TFI2 and MFI5). MFI4. Quantity of fires per macro-basin in Amazonia (2000-2010)

Amazonia in each country A total of 1,194,060 (90%) fires occurred in Brazilian Amazonia during the 2000-2010 period. The largest numbers occurred in the years 2004 (166,750), 2005 (161,589) and 2002 (157,299), and the lowest in the years 2009 (39,627) and 2000 (66,175). The months with the largest number of fires were August, September and October. It should be emphasized that there are large areas of savannah and drier transition forests within the limits of Brazilian Amazonia, which is where 25.7% of the detected fires occured (GFI2). Bolivia had the second highest number of recorded fires, a total of 97,033, followed by Venezuela with a total of 19,912. In Perú 4,364 fires were counted, while in Colombia a total of 2,962 were recorded. In Guyana there were 1,619 fires. Finally the countries with fewer than 500 recorded fires were Suriname (490), Guyane Française (369) and Ecuador (57). The annual distribution of fires, except for Brasil, is shown in GFI3. The largest proportion of fires in Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador, Perú and Venezuela were detected during the 2000-2005 period, while in Colombia, Guyana, Guyane Française and Suriname the highest numbers were in the 2006-2010 period. The intensity of fires per country in the period 2000-2010 is represented in MFI3.

TFI1. Fires recorded in the macro-basins of Amazonia over the period 2000-2010 Macro-basin

Total

295,971

130,164

426,135

Tocantins

174,442

116,067

290,509

Madeira

158,919

78,059

236,978

Western Northeast Atlantic

102,024

58,356

160,380

Mouth of the Amazonas/Estuary

47,356

27,186

74,542

Paraná

27,221

16,619

43,840

Upper Amazonas

17,655

7,247

24,902

Orinoco

13,347

5,839

19,186

Negro

12,570

5,478

18,048

Parnaíba

10,325

6,588

16,913

5,570

3,565

9,135

156

189

Middle Amazonas São Francisco

Amazonia under Pressure – Fires

2006-2010

Middle-Lower Amazonas

Guyanas/Amapá

RAISG 46

2000-2005

Fires – Amazonia under Pressure

47 RAISG

TFI2. Ten sub-basins of Amazonia with the highest number of fires (2000-2010) Sub-basin

2000-2005

By Indigenous Land

TFI5. The ten PNAs of Amazonia with the highest number of fires in the period 2000-2010

2006-2010

Total

Category

Name

Deforestation Type of use

Sphere

Area (km²)

2000-2005 (km²)

2005-2010 (km²)

MDF9. Proportion of deforestation per PNA in Amazonia % Total

Bolivia Integrated Management Natural Area

Amboró

Direct

National

1,302

4.7

Regional Park

Yacuma

Direct

Departmental

2,356

3.2

Area of Watersheds Protection

Cumbre Alto Beni

Direct

Departmental

852

2.1

Environmental Protection Rio Pardo Area

Direct

Departmental

1,436

307

287

41.3

Extractive Reserve

Direct

Departmental

2,102

194

315

24.2

Direct

Departmental

16,833

2,238

1,430

21.8

Brasil

MDF8. Evolution of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010

Jaci Paraná

Environmental Protection Triunfo do Xingu Area Colombia

Type of use

Administrative sphere

Bolívia

(%)

Deforestation 2000-2005 (km²)

National

552

9.6

Indirect

National

2,268

100

7.4

Natural National Park

Sierra de la Macarena

Indirect

National

6,123

133

3.2

Protection Forest

Cerro Sumaco

Indirect

National

987

5.9

2005-2010

(%)

(km²)

2000-2010

Protection Forest

Corazon de Oro

Indirect

National

363

5.0

(%)

(km²)

(%)

Protection Forest

El Bermejo

Indirect

National

109

3.7

100,434

74.7

299

0.3

339

0.3

638

0.6

Guyana National Park

Shell Beach

Indirect

National

405

6.7

Departmental

38,608

65.6

0.2

130

0.3

220

0.6

National Park

Kanuku Mts.

Indirect

National

3,656

0.8

Direct Use

National

28,990

81.8

141

0.5

128

0.4

269

0.9

National Park

Extended Kaieteur

Indirect

National

370

0.2

Direct/Indirect Use

National

282

65.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

Guyane Française

Indirect Use

National

32,554

82.1

0.2

0.3

149

0.5

177

1.9

10,074

0.9

5,086

0.4

15,161

1.3

Forêt des Sables blancs de Mana

National

73.0

Area of Special Ecological Importance

Indirect

858,447

Direct Use

Departmental

280,024

64.0

5,915

2.1

3,288

1.2

9,203

3.3

Forest Biological Reserve Lucifer Dékou-Dékou

Direct

National

1,116

1.3

Indirect Use

Departmental

92,503

71.6

404

0.4

0.1

492

0.5

Natural Reserve

Kaw-Roura

Indirect

National

132

1.1

Direct Use

National

249,230

85.3

2,356

0.9

1,272

0.5

3,628

1.5

Perú

Indirect Use

National

236,690

74.9

1,400

0.6

437

0.2

1,837

0.8

Choquequirao

Direct

National

138

5.2

76,319

95.7

409

0.5

455

0.6

864

1.1

Regional Conservation Area

76,319

95.7

409

0.5

455

0.6

864

1.1

Cordillera Escalera

Direct

National

1,513

4.2

30,424

78.9

138

0.5

131

0.4

268

0.9

Regional Conservation Area

30,424

78.9

138

0.5

131

0.4

268

0.9

Protection Forest

Alto Mayo

Direct

National

1,783

3.5

9,081

97.3

0.5

0.2

0.7

Suriname

3,696

99.0

0.1

0.2

Multiple Use Management Area

North Commewijne + Marowijne

Direct

National

486

10.7

Multiple Use Management Area

North Coronie

Direct

National

304

7.3

Multiple Use Management Area

North Saramacca

Direct

National

889

6.3

Natural Monument

Cerro Guanay

Indirect

National

253

5.3

Natural Monument

Cerro Camani

Indirect

National

103

3.3

National Park

Delta del Orinoco

Indirect

National

3,073

2.9

Colombia Indirect Use

National

Ecuador Indirect Use

National

Guyana

The Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) maintained 78.6% of their areas covered by forests in 2000. In ten years (2000-2010) this area was reduced by 2.1%. As would be expected with the PNAs functioning as conservation units, this rate is lower than that found in unprotected lands where deforestation is more than double (5.6%), and lower too than the regional average (4.5%). This reveals the strong pressure exerted on the area of Amazonia not included in PNAs, which has less forest cover (64.8% compared to 78.6%). Within the PNAs we can observe the same reduction between the 2000-2005 and 2005-2010 periods (TDF3 and GDF2). Analyzing the PNA use types, areas for direct use show a loss of forest up to three times as high as those areas for indirect use. This tendency was particularly strong in the departmental PNAs, which saw a forest loss of 3% over the decade 2000-2010.

(km²)

Indirect

Tinigua

Direct Use

Brasil

By Protected Areas

Forest in 2000

Alto Fragua-Indiwasi

Natural National Park Ecuador

TDF4. Forest loss in the PNAs of Amazonia in the period 2000-2010. by country PNA

Natural National Park

Direct/Indirect Use

National

Indirect Use

National

Guyane Française

5,385

96.1

0.8

0.2

1.1

38,396

96.3

0.1

0.2

118

0.3

Direct Use

National

15,241

96.1

0.2

0.3

0.5

Indirect Use

National

23,155

96.5

0.1

0.2

Perú

179,498

95.2

331

0.2

669

0.4

1,000

0.6

Direct Use

National

73,843

94.5

210

0.3

386

0.5

596

0.8

Indirect Use

National

72,229

94.5

0.1

235

0.3

320

0.4

Transitory Use

National

33,426

98.7

0.1

0.3

18,794

87.2

143

0.8

0.1

166

0.9

Suriname Direct Use

National

1,634

80.5

123

7.5

1.0

139

8.5

Indirect Use

National

17,160

87.9

0.1

0.0

0.2

149,561

87.3

1,109

0.7

311

0.2

1,421

0.9

149,561

87.3

1,109

0.7

311

0.2

1,421

0.9

Venezuela Indirect Use

National

Venezuela

* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

By Indigenous Territories In 2000, 81.4% of the ITs in Amazonia were covered by forest. The deforestation that took place over the period 2000-2010 removed 0.9% of the forest cover of the ITs. This figure is much lower (five times) than the deforestation verified in the region as a whole (4.5%), less than half the average for PNAs and almost seven times less than the average of areas outside of the ITs (MDF10 and TDF6). Although there was a reduction in deforestation inside ITs – with a rate of 0.5% in the five-year period of 2000-2005 falling to 0.4% in 2005-2010 – the downward trend in these lands was observed to be less than regional level, and less than outside the ITs, where a reduction from 4.3% to 2.0% was seen. At regional level the officially recognized ITs had less deforestation than the unrecognized lands (TDF6 and GDF4), while at national level, where Bolivia and Perú are the only countries in the region that present both types of IT, recognized and unrecognized – differences were observable between these categories. In Bolivia the regional pattern was repeated with recognized ITs losing up to 0.5% of their forest cover and unrecognized ITs 3.3%. In Perú it was observed that unrecognized ITs have lower percentage rates than recognized lands (0.9 and 2.2% respectively) (TDF7). In relation to ITs per country, the highest deforestation rates were detected in Guyana and Bolivia, followed by Ecuador and Perú, while in national terms, without distinguishing between categories of IT, Guyana showed the highest forest loss (3.9%). Forty-one ITs were found with forest losses higher than 20% of their total cover. Most of these (34) have a total area below 100 km2 or are located in Perú (26). The IT most affected was Huascayacu in Perú, where deforestation reached 50.5% of its area (TDF8).

* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

RAISG 56

Amazonia under Pressure – Deforestation

Deforestation – Amazonia under Pressure

57 RAISG

MDF10. Proportion of deforestation per IT in Amazonia

TDF6. Forest loss in ITs in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010. by type of IT* IT

Deforestation

Forest in 2000

Type

(km²)

(%)

TDF8. The three ITs (with an area over 100 km²) from each country in Amazonia with the largest amount of deforestation in the period 2000-2010*

2000-2005 (km²)

2005-2010

(%)

(km²)

2000-2010

(%)

(km²)

Name

(%)

391,674

81.2

3,392

0.9

1,960

0.5

5,352

1.4

Bolivia

Proposed Territorial Reservation

38,296

98.8

0.0

0.1

0.2

Guarayos

Territorial Reservation

33,627

97.2

0.0

0.1

IT not officially recognized

Deforestation Type

Area (km²)

2000-2005 (km²)

2005-2010 (km²)

% Total

IT not officially recognized

6,706

390

181

8.5

Tich (Chiman)

IT not officially recognized

1,190

5.3

IT not officially recognized

303

2.6

IT officially recognized

1,396

273

106

27.1

Awá

IT officially recognized

1,044

17.7

Tuwa Apekuokawera

IT officially recognized

106

13.2

Altamira

IT officially recognized

107

10.0

Lagos del Dorado. Lagos del Paso y El Remanso

IT officially recognized

494

7.5

Inga de Aponte

IT officially recognized

130

6.3

Avila Viejo

IT not officially recognized

109

9.7

Juan Pío Montufar

IT not officially recognized

167

6.3

San Francisco

IT not officially recognized

100

4.0

St. Cuthberth’s

IT officially recognized

200

23.8

Kanapang

IT officially recognized

184

20.9

Itabac

IT officially recognized

171

15.0

Etnia Galibi

IT officially recognized

179

1.0

Etnia Boni. Émérillons et Wayana

IT officially recognized

2,693

0.3

Etnia Arawack

IT officially recognized

145

0.2

Huascayacu

IT officially recognized

108

50.5

Alto Mayo

IT officially recognized

120

32.8

Shimpiyacu

IT officially recognized

176

24.3

IT officially recognized

1,287.957

80.7

6,189

0.5

4,177

0.3

10,366

0.8

Yaminahua Machineri

Total

1,751.555

81.4

9,612

0.5

6,214

0.4

15,826

0.9

Brasil

Out of IT

3,605.839

64.5

153,636

4.3

70,423

2.0

224,060

6.2

Maraiwatsede

* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

BDF3. Deforestation in the Colombian Amazonian Northwest

Colombia

GDF4. Distribution of forest loss in ITs in Amazonia, by type and period (2000-2005 and 2005-2010)

Ecuador

Guyana

Guyane Française

Conclusion Deforestation is a process affecting a large portion of Amazonia. Brasil is undoubtedly the country with the highest level of forest loss. Nonetheless in the period 2005-2010 the country saw a substantial reduction in deforestation, in contrast to other countries, which showed an accelerating trend, as in the case of Colombia. The results presented reinforce the important role that the PNAs and ITs have been performing in slowing down and containing forest loss in each country and in Amazonia as a whole. The differences detected between the lands included in these two types of territorial units and those outside clearly support this role. Hence it is important to develop and implement a deforestation monitoring program that, as well as Brazilian Amazonia, also includes Andean Amazonia and the Guianas. The results presented in this chapter are the first step in this direction.

Perú

TDF7. Forest loss in ITs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010. by country and type of IT Country

IT Type

Forest in 2000 (km²)

(%)

Deforestation 2000-2005 (km²)

2005-2010

(%)

(km²)

Suriname

2000-2010

(%)

(km²)

(%)

Santigron

IT not officially recognized

1,441

7.0

IT not officially recognized

26,305

56.7

511

1.9

358

1.3

868

3.3

Aluku

IT not officially recognized

847

1.3

IT officially recognized

64,439

79.9

0.1

227

0.4

305

0.5

Saramacaners

IT not officially recognized

9,199

0.9

Brasil

IT officially recognized

843,254

76.0

3,245

0.4

1,770

0.2

5,014

0.6

Venezuela

Colombia

IT officially recognized

237,473

94.9

929

0.4

683

0.3

1,612

0.7

Etnia Mapoyo

IT not officially recognized

300

3.7

50,185

81.7

446

0.9

387

0.8

833

1.7

Etnia E’ñapa

IT not officially recognized

16,880

164

380

3.2

Territorial Reservation

4,960

89.0

0.1

Etnia Yabarana

IT not officially recognized

905

2.9

Guyana

IT officially recognized

21,851

79.3

514

2.4

345

1.5

859

3.9

Guyane Française

IT officially recognized

6,691

96.4

0.1

0.2

Bolivia

Ecuador

Perú

IT not officially recognized

12,293

94.6

0.4

108

0.9

Proposed Territorial Reservation

38,296

98.8

0.0

0.1

0.2

Territorial Reservation

28,667

98.8

0.0

0.1

IT officially recognized

114,249

93.9

1,415

1.2

1,147

1.0

2,562

2.2

IT not officially recognized

50,485

91.3

215

0.4

0.2

296

0.6

Venezuela IT not officially recognized

252,406

82.4

2,166

0.9

1,081

0.4

3,247

1.3

Suriname

* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.

The upper basins of the Guaviare, Caquetá, Putumayo and Vaupés rivers, located in the northwestern section of Colombian Amazonia, are today covered mainly by pasture, secondary vegetation of anthropic origin and mosaics of pastures and crops. Only a few fragments of forest remain, linking the uplands with the lowlands. Between 2000 and 2005, 86% of the total deforested area recorded in Colombian Amazonia was located in these basins (Guaviare 36%, Caquetá 32%, Vaupés 10% and Putumayo 8.2%). Between 2005 and 2010, although this trend had lowered compared to Colombian Amazonia as a whole (81%), there was a notable increase in the basin of the upper Caquetá (40%) and a reduction in the other basins (Guaviare 27%, Putumayo 6%, Vaupés 8.4%). Due to their geographic position, these basins are characterized by a rich and unique landscape that allows them to be distinguished as one of the areas richest in biodiversity and natural resources in Colombia. The fringe located in the northwestern section of Colombian Amazonia comprises a natural bridge for the flow of species between the highlands, Andean woods, dense Amazonian forests and Orinoco savannahs. Its broad diversity has been heavily depleted over the last few decades since the region’s resources were subjected to an extractivist model, developed in both legal and illegal fashion and placing the integrity of the region’s present-day ecosystem under enormous threat. Deforestation in this northwestern region of Colombian Amazonia is linked to socioeconomic, historical and environmental factors that determine how the region is used. The main causal agents have been the spread of urban areas and the transport infrastructure (Etter et al., 2006; Rincón et al., 2006), the navigability of the large rivers, which serve as channels of communication within the Amazonian forest (Armenteras et al., 2009), demographic growth (Etter et al., 2006), oil exploration (Martínez & Sánchez, 2007), the expansion of coca crops (Dávalos et al., 2011; Armenteras et al., 2009; Etter et al., 2006) and recently mining (Romero & Sarmiento, 2011). These processes have also led to the reduction of the natural forest biomass, contributing to the loss of biodiversity, soil deterioration, alteration of the hydrological cycle, the low quality of the remaining areas, and so on (Romero & Sarmiento, 2011). For thousands of years this region was occupied by diverse indigenous groups and until the end of the 19th century was covered by natural vegetation (Martínez & Sánchez, 2007). Due to its climatic and health conditions, the Amazon region was considered an isolated area, populated solely by small indigenous groups. The first colonial advances from Andean settlers occurred at the start of the 20th century when various settlements were founded in the foothills of the departments of Meta, Caquetá and Putumayo, enticed by the commercialization of cinchona and caucho rubber. Later a second wave of migration occurred in the 1920s at government initiative, beginning with the construction of roads linking the first settlements and motivated by the desire to protect national sovereignty. The third wave of migration began at the end of the 1930s and continued until the end of the 1960s. In 1936 the national government issued Law 200 on Agrarian Reform, which promoted the purchase of land in these areas, leading to the dislocation of rural migrant populations originally from the south of the Andean region. In the 1940s the problem of dislocations in this region was mad worse by internal conflict in the country. At the end of the 1950s Law 20 of 1959 was issued, establishing three colonization fronts stimulated by the national government, encouraging colonization in the zones of La Mono, Maguaré and Valparaíso in Caquetá department with the aim of colonizing 6,920 km2. The forth phase of migration took place in the 1970s, driven on by oil exploration in the foothills of Putumayo (Etter et al., 2008). Subsequently, in the 1980s, the scourge of illegal crops invaded Colombia, converting the country into the world’s largest producer of cocaine. In the first decade of the 21st century this agroindustry generated a loss of approximately 1,100 km2 of primary forest in Colombia (UNODC, 2009). On average over this period, 55% of these crops are concentrated in the lowland forests and foothill forests of the Orinoquia region and Amazonia. Around 27% of this total are located in the Meta and Guaviare departments, 18% in the Putumayo and Caquetá departments, and 10.4% in the Vichada, Guainía, Vaupés and Amazonas departments. From the year 2000 onwards, due to the policies implemented in Colombia, an unprecedented boom in oil drilling and mining began across the country. The mountain foothills were not exempt from this situation, indeed important areas for oil exploration were located in the upper basin of the Putumayo river. In parallel, over the latter decade factors such as the prices of illegal crops, armed conflict, the absence of the state and the oil and mining boom have been fundamental processes in stimulating the high level of deforestation found in this area of the country. (Gaia Amazonas Foundation)

Deforestation in the region surrounding Calamar, east of the Chiribiquete National Natural Park, Guaviare, Colombian Amazonia. © Rodrigo Botero García, 2009

RAISG 58

Amazonia under Pressure – Deforestation

Deforestation – Amazonia under Pressure

59 RAISG

Pressures in PNAs and ITs

CONCLUSION The active pressures and threats currently facing Amazonia, evident in the cartographic language used in this publication, are driving enormous changes there: the forest landscapes, socio-environmental diversity and fresh water sources are being replaced by degraded, savannah zones that are drier and much less diverse.

 The PNAs and ITs curbed the pressures to some extent, but new mechanisms are needed to stop or mitigate the threats faced by them.  Deforestation in the PNAs is lower than the rest of Amazonia, while in the ITs it is lower than in the PNAs.  80% of the PNAs and 95% of the ITs are affected by some of the analyzed themes. The PNAs most affected are direct use national areas.  1,634 ITs (66%) and 65 PNAs (11%) are affected by oil drilling.

Pressures in hydrographic basins  All sub-basins have at least one affectation, 45% of them are affected by five of the analyzed themes, either in the form of pressures or threats  The sub-basins of the Upper Amazonas have the highest number of affectations for all themes analyzed

MCC2. Summary: number of themes overlapping PNA

 1,998 ITs (81%) and 346 PNAs (57%) area affected by deforestation.  570 ITs (23%) and 239 PNAs (41%) are affected by mining.  29 ANP (5%) and 14 TI (0.6%) are directly affected by hydroelectric plants. Reversing the current conditions of all the river basins, PNAs and ITs is not always possible. However any effort in this direction should be initiated with a more fine-tuned analysis that identifies management measures, integrated with the participation of local and institutional actors.

MCF3. Summary: number of themes overlapping IT

MCC1. Summary: number of themes overlapping sub-basins

The planet’s largest and most complex rainforest – with at least 10,000 years of human activities – is fast becoming a space for the extraction and/ or production of agroindustrial inputs and non-renewable raw materials (commodities with a low value added) for national and international markets. This impairs its potential for sustainable long-term development and destroys its inhabitable spaces. This Atlas has demonstrated that there already is an arc of deforestation that extends from Brasil to Bolivia; areas with great pressure on their aquatic resources, very active exploration and production of oil and gas in the Andean Amazonia and rapidly growing legal and illegal mining activities in the region’s periphery. The analysis of deforestation shows that between 2000 and 2010 around 240,000 km2 of Amazonian forest were cut down. This is equivalent to twice the area of Ecuadorian Amazonia or to the entire surface of the United Kingdom. It is clear that, given the threats identified in a growing number of infrastructure projects for transport (roads or multimodal routes), along with the oil/gas and mining projects, as much as a half of the current Amazonian forest could disappear in the near future. It is urgent to further analyze what is happening in the Amazonia, based on the information generated by RAISG, in order to identify the future situation of issues like: forest carbon capture and storage according to land uses (protected areas, Indigenous Territories and so on); new extractive economic frontiers related to water (hydroelectric plants or redirection of rivers to provide irrigation and drinking water); promotion of regional integration and its implications in terms of infrastructure, energy security and mobilizing populations; strategies for adapting to climate change in order to reduce socioenvironmental vulnerability in mountain rainforest and in the flood plains of Amazonia. There is also a clear need to adopt other themes from a positive agenda linked to governance (of the environment, forests, water or energy), effective measures for integrated management of basins as part of the adaptation to extreme variability and climate change, good practices and sustainable production chains, among others. For this Atlas we were unable to include an analysis of key themes such as illegal mining, logging and farming due to the lack of quality information which can be visualized on maps for Amazonia as a whole. When these factors are included, the overall panorama will likely be even more adverse.

RAISG 60

Amazonia under Pressure

TCC3. Number of PNAs affected by one or more themes of analysis

TCC1. Number of sub-basins affected by one or more themes of analysis Quantity of themes analyzed Macro-basin

PNA Administrative sphere and type of use

Total

Upper Amazonas

Middle-Lower Amazonas

Madeira

Negro

Tocantins

Orinoco

Guyanas/Amapá

Direct Use Direct/Indirect Use Indirect Use Transitory Use Total

TCC5. Number of ITs affected by one or more themes of analysis

Quantity of themes analyzed 0

3 54

4 77

5 44

Total

6 7

Territorial Reservation

IT officially recognized

105

311

1,222

274

106

229

129

421

1,457

351

5.2%

17.1%

59.2%

14.3%

252

120

144

130

127

590

20.3%

24.4%

22.0%

21.5%

10.2%

1.5%

0.0%

IT not officially recognized Proposed Territorial Reservation Total

Total

6 0

1,990

458

2,460

3.6%

0.5%

0.0%

TCC6. Number of ITs affected by theme of analysis

Mouth of the Amazonas/Estuary

Western Northeast Atlantic

Roads

137

Roads

Middle Amazonas

Oil and Gas

Parnaíba

Hydroelectric Plants

São Francisco

Mining

239

Mining

570

Total of sub-basins

159

Fires (Hot Spots)

254

Fires (Hot Spots)

3.1%

10.1%

8.2%

8.8%

45.3%

24.5%

100.0%

Deforestation

346

Deforestation

Themes

324

TCC4. Number of PNAs affected by theme of analysis

Quantity of themes analyzed

IT types

Number of PNAs affected

Themes

Number of ITs affected 310 1,634

282 1,998

TCC2. Number of sub-basins affected by theme of analysis Themes

Number of sub-basins affected

Roads

127

Oil and Gas

119

Hydroelectric Plants

Mining

135

Fires (Hot Spots)

157

Deforestation

137

Amazonia under Pressure

61 RAISG

Information sources ADENEY, J.M.; CHRISTENSEN JR., N.L.; PIMM, S.L. 2009. Reserves protect against deforestation fires in the Amazon. PLoS ONE 4 (4). Disponible en: <http://www.plosone.org/ article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005014#>.

DUCHELLE, A.E. 2009. Conservation and livelihood development in Brazil nut-producing communities in a tri-national amazonian frontier. PhD Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

ALENCAR, A.; NEPSTAD, D.; DIAZ, M. 2006. Forest understory fire in the brazilian Amazon in enso and non-enso years: area burned and committed carbon emissions. Earth Interactions 10: 1-17.

DUCHELLE, A.E. et al. 2010. Conservation in an Amazonian tri-national frontier: patterns and drivers of land cover change in community-managed forests. Disponible en: <http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/events/montpellier/scientific-session/Presentations/Session%2013/Duchelle_etal_Montpelier.pdf>. (Consultado: 05 april 2012).

ALMEYDA, A.M. et al. 2010. Deforestation drivers in Southwest Amazonía: comparing smallholder farmers in Iñapari, Peru, and Assis Brasil, Brazil. Conservation and Society 8 (3): 157-170. Disponible en: <http://www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2010/8/3/157/73805>. ANDAM, K.S. et al. 2008. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. PNAS 105 (42): 16089 –16094. ARA (Articulación Regional Amazónica). 2011. La Amazonía y los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio. Celentano, D.; Vedoveto, M. (eds.). Quito, Ecuador. ARMENTERAS, D.; RODRÍGUEZ, N.; RETANA, J. 2009. Are conservation strategies effective in avoiding the deforestation of the Colombian Guyana Shield? Biological. Conservancy 142 (7): 1411–1419. ÁVILA, F. 2012. NASA: apenas as mudanças climáticas explicam eventos recentes. Florianópolis, Brasil: Instituto CarbonoBrasil. Disponible en: < http://www.institutocarbonobrasil.org.br/noticias2/noticia=731398>.

EBI (Iniciativa de Energía y Biodiversidad). 2003. Integrando la conservación de la biodiversidad en el desarrollo del petróleo y del gas. Washington, USA: Conservation International. (EBI: BP, ChevronTexaco, Conservation International, Fauna & Flora International, IUCN, The Nature Conservancy, Shell, Smithsonian Institution, Statoil). Disponible en: <http://www.conservation.org/global/celb/Documents/ebi_report_spanish.pdf>. EMBRAPA; INPE. 2011. Levantamento de informações de uso e cobertura da terra na Amazônia: sumário executivo. Belém, Brasil: Embrapa; Inpe; Campinas, Brasil: Embrapa. ENCARNACIÓN, F. 1993. El bosque y las formaciones vegetales en la llanura amazónica del Perú. Alma Mater 6: 94-114. ETTER, A. et al. 2006. Regional patterns of agricultural land use and deforestation in Colombia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114 (2-4): 369–386.

BANK INFORMATION CENTER. 2010. Proyecto Complejo hidroeléctrico del río Madera. Disponible en: <http://www.bicusa.org/es/Project.10138.aspx>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

ETTER, A.; McALPINE, C.; POSSINGHAM, H. 2008. Historical patterns and drivers of landscape change in Colombia since 1500: a regionalized spatial approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98 (1): 2 - 23.

BANK INFORMATION CENTER. 2010. UHE Jirau. Disponible en: <http://www.bicusa.org/es/Article.11710.aspx>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

EVA, H.D.; HUBER, O. (eds). 2005. Una propuesta para la definición de los límites geográficos de la Amazonía (A proposal for defining the geographical boundaries of Amazonía). Luxembourg: European Commission.

BANK INFORMATION CENTER. 2010. UHE Santo Antonio. Disponible en: <http://www.bicusa.org/es/Article.11709.aspx>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011). BANK INFORMATION CENTER. 2011. Proyecto Represa Hidroeléctrica Inambari. Disponible en: <http://www.bicusa.org/es/Project.10078.aspx>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

FAO. 2010. Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales (2010): informe principal. Roma, Italia. (Estudio FAO: Montes, 163). FEARNSIDE, P. M. 1995. Hydroelectric dams in the brazilian Amazon as Sources of “greenhouse” gases. Environmental Conservation 22: 7-19.

BARLOW, J.; PERES, C.A. 2008. Fire-mediated dieback and compositional cascade in an Amazonian forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363 (1498): 17871794. Disponible en: <http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1498/1787.full.pdf+html>.

FEARNSIDE, P. M. 2002. Greenhouse gas emissions from a hydroelectric reservoir (Brazil’s Tucuruí Dam) and the energy policy implications. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 133 (1-4): 69-96.

BARRETO, P. et al. 2006. Human pressure on the brazilian Amazon forests. Belém, Brasil: Imazon; Washington, USA: World Resource Institute. Disponible en: <http://www. globalforestwatch.org/common/pdf/Human_Pressure_Final_English.pdf>. (Consultado 05 april 2012).

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2005, Deforestation in brazilian Amazonía: history, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology 19 (3): 680–688.

BARROW, C. J. 1983. The environment consequences of water resource development it the tropics. En: BEE, doi Jun (ed.). Natural resource in tropical countries. Singapore: Singapore University Press. p. 439-476. BELLO, L. J. (ed.). 2011. El Estado ante la sociedad multiétnica y pluricultural: políticas públicas y derechos de los pueblos indígenas en Venezuela (1999-2010). Copenhague: Iwgia; Caracas, Venezuela: Wataniba.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2012. Belo Monte Dam: a spearhead for Brazil’s dam building attack on Amazonía? Canberra, Australia: Global Water Forum. (GWF Discussion Paper, 1210). FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2012. Carbon credit for hydroelectric dams as a source of greenhouse-gas emissions: the example of Brazil’s Teles Pires Dam. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Disponible en: <http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-012-9382-6>.

BERMAN, M. 1988. All that is solid melts in to air: the experience of modernity. New York, USA: Penguin Books.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2012. Desafios para midiatização da ciência na Amazônia: o exemplo da hidrelétrica de Belo Monte como fonte de gases de efeito estufa. En: Fausto Neto, A. (ed.). A midiatização da ciência: cenários, desafios, possibilidades. Campina Grande, Brasil: Editora da Universidade Estadual da Paraíba. p. 107-23.

BLATE, G.M. 2003. Efectos del manejo forestal en la vulnerabilidad a incendios de un bosque semi-deciduo en Bolivia. Santa Cruz, Bolivia: Proyecto BOLFOR; Chemonics International. (Documento Técnico, 129). Disponible en: <http://ibcperu.org/doc/isis/9256.pdf>.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2012.Will Brazil’s Belo Monte Dam get the green light? Latin America Energy Advisor: 1-4. Disponible en: <http://www.thedialogue.org/energyadvisornewsletter>.

BOURGOIN, L.M. 2001. El mercurio en la Amazonía boliviana. La Paz, Bolivia: Ed. Edobol.

FEARNSIDE, P.M.; PUEYO, S. 2012. Greenhouse-gas emissions from tropical dams. Nature Climate Change 2: 382-384.

BOWMAN, M.S. et al. 2012. Persistence of cattle ranching in the brazilian Amazon: a spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29 (3): 558-568.

FINER, M. et al. 2008. Oil and gas projects in the Western Amazon: threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE 3 (8). Disponible en: <http://www. plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002932>.

CAMPODÓNICO, H. 2008. Renta petrolera y minera en países seleccionados de América Latina. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL. CAMPOS, Ciro (org.). 2011. Diversidade socioambiental de Roraima: subsídios para debater o futuro sustentável da região. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto Socioambiental. (Cartô Brasil Socioambiental, 3). CARNEIRO FILHO, A.; SOUZA, O.B. 2009. Atlas de pressões e ameaças às terras indígenas na Amazônia brasileira. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto Socioambiental. (Cartô Brasil Socioambiental, 1).

FINNER, M.; JENKINS, C.N. 2012. Proliferation of hydroelectric dams in the andean Amazon and implications for Andes-Amazon connectivity. PLoS ONE 7 (4). Disponible en: <http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0035126>. GAMBOA, C.; CUETO, V. 2012. Matriz energética en el Perú y energías renovables. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert; Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR). GARZÓN, C. 1984. Water quality in hydrelectric projects: considerations for planning in tropical forest regions. Washington, USA: World Bank. (Technical Paper, 20).

CARRASCO, M. 2009.Tribus no contactadas por la depredación del Amazonas boliviano. Cambio - Revista 7 Días, La Paz, Bolivia, 31 may., p. 12-17. Disponible en: <http:// www.cambio.bo/suplemento-interactivo/2009-05-31/16_suplemento.htm>.

GORZULA, S.; SEÑARIS, J.C. 1998. Contributions to the herpetofauna of the Venezuelan Guayana. Scientia Guianae 8: 1-270.

CARVALHO, G. 2012. Grandes projetos de infraestrutura, conflitos e violação de direitos na Pan-Amazônia. Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho y Políticas Ambientales 2 (2): 213-233.

HERNÁNDEZ, J. 2008. El corredor de transporte bioceanico Santa Cruz – Puerto Suárez en Bolivia y sus impactos socio ambientales. Montevideo, Uruguay: CLAES.

CAVIGLIA-HARRIS, J.L. 2005. Cattle accumulation and land use intensification by households in the brazilian Amazon. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 34 (2): 145–162. CEADESC (Centro de Estudios Aplicados a los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales). 2011. Atlas de Megaproyectos de Infraestructura en Bolivia. Oslo: Rainforest Foundation Norway; Cochabamba, Bolivia: CEADESC. CELENTANO, D.; VERÍSSIMO, A. 2007. A Amazônia e os Objetivos do Milênio. Belém, Brasil: Imazon. (O Estado da Amazônia: indicadores, 1). CELENTANO, D.; VERÍSSIMO, A. 2007. O avanço da fronteira na Amazônia: do boom ao colapso. Belém, Brasil: Imazon. (O Estado da Amazônia: indicadores, 2). CHOMITZ, K.M.; GRAY, D.A. 1996. Roads, land use, and deforestation: a spatial model applied to Belize. The World Bank Economic Review 10 (3): 487–512. CIAT; TNC; CBI. 2012. Road impact on habitat loss of IIRSA corridor in Peru: 2004 to 2011. Washington, USA: IDB (Inter-American Development Bank). COCHRANE, M.A. et al. 1999. Positive feedbacks in the fire dynamic of closed canopy tropical forests. Science 284: 1832-1835. COCHRANE, M.A. 2003. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421 (6926): 913-919. COCHRANE, M.A.; LAURANCE, W.F. 2002. Fire as a large-scale edge effect in amazonian forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18 (3): 311-325. COCHRANE, M.A.; LAURANCE, W.F. 2008. Synergisms among fire, land use, and climate change in the Amazon. Ambio: a journal of the human environment 37 (7): 522-527. CONAIE. 2006. Pueblos indígenas en el aislamiento voluntario en la Amazonía ecuatoriana: documento base. Quito, Ecuador. Disponible en: <http://www.sosyasuni.org/ en/files/conaie_taromenani2.pdf>. CONSEJO NACIONAL DE ELECTRICIDAD. 2009. Proyectos hidroeléctricos disponibles para su desarrollo, potencia instalable entre 100 y 1140 MW. Quito, Ecuador: Conelec. Disponible en: <http://www.conelec.gob.ec/contenido.php?cd=1348&l=1>. (Consultado: 26 octubre 2011). CORREA-VIANA, M.; ESCLASANS, D. 2011. Impactos de la industria petrolera. En: KLEIN, E.; CÁRDENAS, J.J. (eds.). Identificación de prioridades de conservación asociadas a los ecosistemas de la fachada atlántica venezolana y a su biodiversidad. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Simón Bolívar; The Nature Conservancy. p. 69-71. COSIPLAN (Consejo Suramericano de Infraestructura y Planeamiento). 2011. Cartera de Proyectos IIRSA. Disponible en: <http://www.iirsa.org/BancoMedios/Documentos%20PDF/lb11_completo_baja.pdf>.

GUERRERO, S. 2011. Informe sectorial: Ecuador - sector energético. PacificCredit Rating. Disponible en: <http://www.ratingspcr.com>. (Consultado: 26 octubre 2011). HUBER, O. 1995. Vegetation. En: BERRY, P.E.; HOLST, B.K.; YATSKIEVYCH, K. (Eds.). Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana: introduction. v. 1. Portland, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. p. 97-160. HUMMEL, A.C. et al. 2010. A atividade madeireira na Amazônia brasileira: produção, receita e mercados. Belém, Brasil: Imazon; Brasília, Brasil: Serviço Florestal Brasileiro - SFB. IDÁRRAGA, A.; MUÑOZ, D.A.; VÉLEZ, H. 2010. Conflictos socio-ambientales por la extracción minera en Colombia: casos de la inversión británica. Bogotá, Colombia: Censat Agua Viva; Amigos de la Tierra Colombia. INIAP-El Surco. 2011. Caracterización de los sistemas de producción agropecuaria de la región amazónica ecuatoriana, RAE. Presentación de resultados preliminares. Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. Coca- Estación San Carlos (15 abr. 2011). INSTITUTO OBSERVATÓRIO SOCIAL. 2011. O aço da devastação: crimes ambientais e trabalhistas na cadeia produtiva da indústria siderúrgica instalada na Amazônia. São Paulo, Brasil. (Revista Observatório Social, ed. esp.). JUNK, W.J.; MELLO, J.A. 1990. Impactos ecológicos das represas hidroelétricas na Bacia Amazônica brasileira. Estudos Avançados 4 (8): 123-146. KILLEEN, T. et al. 2007. Dry spots and wet spots in the Andean hotspot. Journal of Biogeography 34: 1357-1373. KRIEGE, R.; CHEDI-TOELSIE, S. 2006. A case study of progressive cavity pump gauges and installation in staatsolie, Suriname. Disponible en: <http://www.grcamerada. com/documents/Case%20Study%20-%20PCP%20gauge%20installation%20at%20Staatsolie%20in%20Suriname.pdf>. KISSINGER, G. 2011. Linking forests and food production in the REDD+ context. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. (CCAFS Working Paper, 1). LAURANCE, W.F. et al. 2001. The future of the brazilian Amazon. Science 291: 438-439. Disponible en: <http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41014098.pdf>. LAURANCE, W.F. et al. 2002. Ecosystem decay of amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conservation Biology 16 (3): 605-618. LEWIS, S.L. et al. 2011. The 2010 Amazon drought. Science 4 (331): 554. LÓPEZ, V. 2009. Implicaciones del proyecto Coca Codo Sinclair para la Amazonía ecuatoriana. Quito, Ecuador: EcoCiencia.

DÁVALOS L.M. et al. 2011. Forests and drugs: coca-driven deforestation in tropical biodiversity hotspots. Environmental Science & Technology 45(4): 1219-1227.

LÓPEZ, V. 2011. El proyecto hidroeléctrico Coca Codo Sinclair y la gobernanza energética en la Amazonía ecuatoriana. Letras Verdes - Energía y Ambiente 8: 1-3. Disponible en: <http://flacsoandes.org/dspace/bitstream/10469/2728/42/RFLACSO-L8.pdf>.

DAVIDSON, E.A. et al. 2012. The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481 (7381): 321-328.

MACEDO, M.N. et al. 2012. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. PNAS 109: 1341-1346.

DENMAN, K.; BRASSEUR, G. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. En: Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

MADS (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible). 2012. Manual para las asignaciones de compensaciones por pérdida de biodiversidad. Bogotá, Colombia.

DIJCK, P. 2009. The IIRSA Guyana Shield Hub: the case of Suriname. Disponible en: <http://www.cedla.uva.nl/20_research/pdf/vDijck/suriname_project/IIRSA.pdf>.

MAESO, V.; REYERO, P.; VARGAS, M. (coord.). 2010. El Complejo del Río Madera: un caso de anticooperación española. Barcelona: ODG. Disponible en: <http://www.odg.cat/ documents/publicacions/InformeODG_Madera_Web_CAST.pdf>. (Consultado: 25 octubre 2011).

DOUROJEANNI, M. 2009. Hidroeléctricas en la Amazonía peruana. La Revista Agraria 109: 4-6.

MARENGO, J. et al. 2008. The drought of Amazonía in 2005. Journal of Climate 21 (3): 495–516.

DOUROJEANNI, M.; BARANDIARÁN, A.; DOUROJEANNI, D. 2009. Amazonía peruana en 2021. Explotación de recursos naturales e infraestructura: ¿Qué está pasando? ¿Qué es lo que significa para el futuro? Lima, Peru: ProNaturaleza. Disponible en: < http://www.iiap.org.pe/Upload/Publicacion/PUBL908.pdf>.

MARGOLIS, M. 2011. The new gold rush: soaring gold prices are causing a new mining boom that’s threatening the Amazon rainforest. The DailyBeast. Disponible en: <http:// www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/19/gold-prices-cause-mining-boom-that-threatens.print.html>.

Amazonia under Pressure

63 RAISG

MARÍN, S.; MAY, E. 2012. Gold mining in the Amazon: key issues and engangement strategy, 3ª versión no publicada de borrador. Paramaribo, Suriname: WWF Guianas/ Living Amazon Initiative.

SPRACKLEN, D.V.; ARNOLD, S.R.; TAYLOR, C.M. 2012. Observations of increased tropical rainfall preceded by air passage over forests. Nature 489: 282-285. Disponible en: <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/abs/nature11390.html>.

MARTÍNEZ, G.; SÁNCHEZ, E. 2007. Contexto físico natural del sur de la Amazonía. En: RUIZ, S.L. et al (eds.). Diversidad biológica y cultural del sur de la Amazonía colombiana: diagnóstico. Bogotá, Colombia: Corpoamazonia; Instituto Humboldt; Instituto Sinchi; UAESPNN.

STEININGER, M.K. et al. 2001. Clearance and fragmentation of tropical deciduous forest in the Tierras Bajas, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Conservation Biology 15: 856-866.

MATSUMURA-TUNDISI, T. et al. 1991. Limnology of Samuel Reservoir (Brazil, Rondonia) in the ﬁlling phase. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 24: p.1428-1487. MELO, M.; BELTRÁN, B.; ORTIZ, P. 2007. Quién decide en la Amazonía ecuatoriana? La superposición de intereses en los territorios ancestrales del Centro Sur de la Amazonía ecuatoriana. Quito, Ecuador: Fundación Pachamama.

STRAHLER, A. et al. 2006. Global land cover validation: recommendations for evaluation and accuracy assessment of global land cover maps. Luxemburg: European Communities. (GOFC-GOLD Report, 25). Disponible en: <http://nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/gofc-gold/Report%20Series/GOLD_25.pdf>. SWENSON, J.J. et al. 2011. Gold mining in the peruvian Amazon: global prices, deforestation, and mercury imports. PLoS ONE 6 (4). Disponible en: <http://www.plosone.org/article/ info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018875>. TRANCOSO, R. et al. 2010 Deforestation and conservation in major watersheds of the brazilian Amazon. Environmental Conservation 36: 277-288.

MME. EPE (Ministério de Minas e Energia. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética). 2010. Plano Decenal de Expansão de Energia 2019. Brasília, Brasil. Disponible en: <http://www. mme.gov.br/mme/galerias/arquivos/noticias/2010/PDE2019_03Maio2010.pdf>.

TUNDISI, J. G. 1999. Limnologia no século XXI: perspectivas e desaﬁos. Conferência de abertura do 7º Congresso Brasileiro de Limnologia. São Carlos, Brasil: Instituto Internacional de Ecologia.

MONTEIRO, A. et al. 2011. Boletim Transparência Manejo Florestal Estado do Mato Grosso (agosto de 2009 a julho de 2010). Belém, Brasil: Imazon. MONTEIRO, A. et al. 2011. Boletim Transparência Manejo Florestal Estado do Pará (2009 e 2010). Belém, Brasil: Imazon.

UNIDAD DE PLANEACIÓN MINERO ENERGÉTICA. 2007. Portafolio de proyectos de generación de energía. Bogotá, Colombia: UPME. Disponible en: <http://www1.upme.gov. co/>. (Consultado: 29 julio 2011).

MÜLLER, R. et al. 2011. Spatiotemporal modeling of the expansion of mechanized agriculture in the Bolivian lowland forests. Applied Geography 31 (2): 631-640.

UNODC Colombia 2009. Censos de cultivos de coca 2008. Bogotá, Colombia. Disponible en: <ftp://190.144.33.2/UNODC/censo2008es.pdf>.

MÜLLER, R. et al. 2012. Proximate causes of deforestation in the Bolivian lowlands: an analysis of spatial dynamics. Regional Environmental Change 12 (3): 445-459. Disponible en: <http://www.springerlink.com/content/w3j848xm1703313h/fulltext.pdf>.

UNODC (Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito). 2011. Monitoreo de cultivos de coca. Gobiernos de Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador y Perú. 63 p.

MURCIA GARCÍA, U.G. et al. 2009. Monitoreo de los bosques y otras coberturas de la Amazonia colombiana. Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto Sinchi.

URRUNAGA, J. et al. 2012. La máquina lavadora: cómo el fraude y la corrupción en el sistema de concesiones están destruyendo el futuro de los bosques de Perú. Washington, USA: EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency). Disponible en: <http://launderingmachine.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/spanish_report_eia_final2.pdf>.

NELLEMANN, C.; INTERPOL Environmental Crime Programme (eds). 2012. Green carbon, black trade: illegal logging, tax fraud and laundering in the worlds tropical forests. A rapid response assessment. Arendal, Norway: UNEP, GRID-Arendal.

VAL, A.L.; SANTOS, G.M. (orgs.). 2011. GEEA: Grupo de Estudos Estratégicos Amazônicos. Manaus, Brasil: INPA. (Caderno de Debates, 4). Disponible en: <http://www.inpa. gov.br/comites/arquivos_geea/livro_geea_n4.pdf>.

NEPSTAD, D. et al. 2001 Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 395-407.

VALENTIM, J.F.; ANDRADE, C.M. 2009. Tendências e perspectivas da pecuária bovina na Amazônia brasileira. Amazônia: Ciência & Desenvolvimento 4 (8): 7-30.

NEPSTAD, D. et al. 2004. Amazon drought and its implications for forest flammability and tree growth: a basin-wide analysis. Global Change Biology 10: 704-717. Disponible en: <http://www.frames.gov/rcs/ttrs/16000/16791.html>.

VERDUM, R. 2012. As obras de infraestrutura do PAC e os povos indígenas na Amazônia brasileira. Brasília, Brasil: Inesc. Disponible en: <http://www.inesc.org.br/noticias/ biblioteca/noticias/biblioteca/textos/obras-do-pac-e-povos-indigenas/>.

NEPSTAD, D. et al. 2006. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20 (1): 65–73.

VERÍSSIMO, A. et al. 1992. Logging impacts and prospects for sustainable forest management in an old amazonian frontier: the case of Paragominas. Forest Ecology and Management 55: 169-199.

NOBRE, C.A. 2012. Fundamentos científicos das mudanças climáticas. São José dos Campos, Brasil: Rede Clima/INPE. OLSON, S.H. et al. 2010. Deforestation and malaria in Mâncio Lima County, Brazil. Emerging Infectious Diseases 16 (7): 1108-1115. Disponible em: <http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/ eid/article/16/7/pdfs/09-1785.pdf>. OTCA. 2010. Agenda estratégica de cooperação amazônica: aprovada na X Reunião de Ministros de Relações Exteriores do TCA. Brasília, Brasil. PACHECO, C., AGUADO, I.; MOLLICONE, D. 2011. Las causas de la deforestación en Venezuela: un estudio retrospectivo. BioLlania 10: 281-292. PALACIO, G. (ed.). 2009. Ecología política de la Amazonía: las profusas y difusas redes de la gobernanza. Bogotá, Colombia: ILSA; Ecofondo; Universidad Nacional de Colombia. PDVSA (Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.). 2012. Informe de gestión anual 2011: PDVSA y filiales. Caracas, Venezuela. Disponible en: <http://www.pdvsa.com>. PÉREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, R.; LEW, D. 2001. Las clasificaciones e hipótesis biogeográficas para la Guayana Venezolana. Interciencia 26 (9): 373-382. PFAFF, A. et al. 2007. Road investments, spatial spillovers, and deforestation in the brazilian Amazon. Journal of Regional Science 47 (1): 109–123. PINTO, L.F. 2011. Tucuruí: a barrragem da ditadura. Belém, Brasil: Jornal Pessoal. PINTO, L.F. 2012. A Amazônia em questão: Belo Monte, Vale e outros temas. São Paulo, Brasil: B4 Editores. PNUMA; OTCA; CIUP. 2009. GEO Amazonía: perspectivas del medio ambiente en la Amazonía. Panamá: Pnuma; Brasília, Brasil: OTCA. Disponible en: <http://www.iiap.org. pe/Upload/Publicacion/PUBL909.pdf>. RAY, D.; NEPSTAD, D.; MOUTINHO, P. 2005. Micrometeorological and canopy controls of fire susceptibility in forested Amazon landscape. Ecological Applications 15: 1664–1678. RINCÓN A. et al. 2006. Modelamiento de presiones sobre la biodiversidad en la Guayana. Revista Internacional de Sostenibilidad, Tecnología y Humanismo 211-244p. Disponible en: <http://upcommons.upc.edu/revistes/bitstream/2099/2580/1/13Rincon.pdf>.

VERÍSSIMO, A. et al (orgs.). 2011. Áreas Protegidas na Amazônia brasileira: avanços e desafios. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto Socioambiental; Belém, Brasil: Imazon. VIEIRA, I.C.; SILVA, J.M.; TOLEDO, P.M. 2005. Estratégias para evitar a perda de biodiversidade na Amazônia. Estudos Avançados 19 (54): 153-164. VIEIRA, I.C. et al. 2008. Deforestation and threats to the biodiversity of Amazonía. Brazilian Journal of Biology 68 (4): 949-956. Disponible en: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjb/ v68n4s0/a04v684s.pdf>. VILLAS-BÔAS, A. (org.). 2012. De olho na Bacia do Xingu. São Paulo: Instituto Socioambiental. (Cartô Brasil Socioambiental, 5). WAY, F. 2012. Guyana & Suriname Oil and Gas Opportunities Promotions Project. Report prepared for Canada’s High Commissioner to Guyana and Ambassador to Suriname. Georgetown, Guyana. Disponible en: <http://www.guyanalaw.net/Recent-developments-in-Oil-and-Gas-In-Guyana-2012.pdf>. WEINHOLD, D.; REIS, E.J.; Vale, P.M. 2012. Sustainability in the tropics: does a boom in deforestation lead to a bust in development? London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. (Working Paper, 82). ZÚÑIGA, P. (coord.). 2011. Transformaciones en la Amazonía colombiana: retos para un desarrollo sostenible. Bogotá: Fundación Alisos. Sites consulted Andes Agua Amazonía - <http://www.oeco.com.br/andesaguaamazonia>. Forest Sterwardship Council - <http://www.fsc.org>. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística /Geociências - <http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/geociencias/default_prod.shtm#MAPAS>. Instituto de Manejo e Certificação Florestal e Agrícola - <http://www.imaflora.org>.

RITTNER, D.; BORGES, A. 2012. Novas hidrelétricas vão alagar área equivalente a dez capitais. Valor Econômico, São Paulo, 26 set., Brasil, p. A4.

Instituto de Planificación y Promoción de Soluciones Energéticas - <http://www.ipse.gov.co/>.

RIVERO, S. et al. 2009. Pecuária e desmatamento: uma análise das principais causas diretas do desmatamento na Amazônia. Nova Economia 19 (1): 41-66.

Pacto Intersectorial por la madera legal en Colombia - <http://www.wwf.org.co/?203723/Pacto-Intersectorial-por-la-madera-legal-en-Colombia>.

RODRIGUES, A. et al. 2009. Boom-and-bust development patterns across the Amazon deforestation frontier. Science 324: 1435-1437.

Projeto TerraClass - <http://www.inpe.br/cra/projetos_pesquisas/terraclass.php>.

RODRÍGUEZ, J.P. et al. (eds.). 2011. Representación digital de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas de Venezuela: Parques Nacionales, Monumentos Naturales, Refugios de Fauna, Reservas de Fauna y Reservas de Biósfera. Caracas, Venezuela: Centro de Ecología, IVIC; Total Venezuela, S.A.

Represas en Amazonia - <http://www.dams-info.org/es>.

ROLDÁN, R. 2005. Manual para la formación en derechos indígenas: territorios, recursos naturales y convenios internacionales. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala.

Unidades de Conservação na Amazônia Brasileira - <http://uc.socioambiental.org/>.

ROMERO-RUIZ, M., SARMIENTO, A. 2011. Presiones y amenazas de la Cuenca Amazónica. Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación Gaia Amazonas. Disponible en: <http://www. gaiaamazonas.org/es/docman/test/presiones-y-amenazas-de-la-cuenca-amazonica/download>. ROSA, I.M.; SOUZA JR., C.; EWERS, R.M. Canges in size of deforested patches in the brazilian Amazon. Conservation Biology 26 (5): 923-937. SALAZAR, L.F.; NOBRE, C.A.; OYAMA, M.D. 2007. Climate change consequences on the biome distribution in tropical South America. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L09708. Disponible en: <http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029695.shtml>. SÁNCHEZ-CUERVO, A.M. et al. 2012. Land cover change in Colombia: surprising forest recovery trends between 2001 and 2010. PLoS ONE 7 (8). Disponible en: http://www. plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0043943 SANTOS, M.A. et al. 2007. Mercado e dinâmica local da cadeia produtiva da pecuária de corte na Região Norte. Belém, Brasil: Banco da Amazônia. (Estudos Setoriais, 1). SASAKI, N.; Putz, E. 2009. Critical need for new deﬁnitions of ‘forest’ and ‘forest degradation’ in global climate change agreements. Conservation Letter 2: 1-7. SCHNEIDER, R. et al. 2002. Sustainable Amazon: limitations and opportunities for rural development. Washington, USA: World Bank. (World Bank Technical Paper - Environmental Series, 515). SCHOENE, D. et al. 2007. Definitional issues related to reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries. Roma, Italia: FAO. (Forests and Climate Change Working Paper, 5). SCHOR, T.; CARNEIRO FILHO, A.; TOLEDO, C. 2008. Fire and economics: understanding the Amazonía’s Fire Arch. En: Proceedings of the second international symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: a global view (Córdoba, 19-22 april 2004). Albany: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. p. 99-109. Disponible en: <http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr208en/psw_gtr208en_099-110_schor.pdf>. SFB (Serviço Florestal Brasileiro). 2011. Plano Anual de Outorga Florestal – PAOF 2012. Brasília, Brasil. SIERRA, R. (ed.). 1999. Propuesta Preliminar de un sistema de clasificación de vegetación para el Ecuador continental. Quito, Ecuador: Proyecto Inefan/GEF – BIRF y EcoCiencia. SIERRA, R.; CALVA, O.; CEVALLOS, J. 2010. Protocolo del sub-sistema de monitoreo remoto para el plan para la protección de los pueblos indígenas aislados. Quito, Ecuador: Ministerio de Ambiente; Ecociencia. SILVESTRINI, R. A. et al. 2011. Simulating ﬁre regimes in the Amazon in response to climate change and deforestation. Ecological Applications 21: 1573-1590. SOARES, L.C. 1953. Limites meridionais e orientais da área de ocorrência da floresta amazônica em território brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Geografia 15 (1): 3-122. SOUTHWORTH, J. et al. 2011. Roads as drivers of change: trajectories across the tri-national frontier in map, the Southwestern Amazon. Remote Sensing 3 (5): 1047–1066. SOUZA JR., C. et al. 2004. Avanço des estradas endógenas na Amazônia. Belém, Brasil: Imazon. (Série Amazônia em Foco). Disponible en: <http://www.imazon.org.br/ publicacoes/o-estado-da-Amazonía/pressao-humana-no-bioma-Amazonía>. (Consultado: 05 april 2012).

RAISG 64

Amazonia under Pressure

Sistema de Información Ambiental Territorial de la Amazonia Colombiana - <http://siatac.siac.net.co/web/guest/region>.

Abbreviations ABT (Bolivia) Autoridad de Fiscalización y Control Social de Bosques y Tierra ACPC Asociación para la Conservación del Patrimonio de Cutivireni ACT The Amazon Conservation Team AIDESEP-CIPTA Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana - Centro de Información y Planificación Territorial ANA (Perú) Autoridad Nacional del Agua ANEEL (Brasil) Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica ANH (Colombia) Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos ANP (Brasil) Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis APA Environmental Protection Area BDEP Banco de Dados de Exploração e Produção BDF Box of the chapter Deforestation BFI Box of the chapter Fires (Hot Spots) BHP Box of the chapter Hydroelectric Plants BMN Box of the chapter Mining BNDES Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social BOG Box of the chapter Oil and Gas BR Brasil BRD Box of the chapter Roads CDB Convention on Biological Diversity CEDIA Centro para el Desarrollo del Indígena Amazónico CEPE Corporación Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana CEPSA Compañía Española de Petróleos CIDOB Confederación de Pueblos Indígenas del Oriente de Bolivia CO Colombia COICA Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica CONAIE Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuardo CONELEC (Ecuador) Consejo Nacional de Electricidad COSIPLAN Consejo Interamericano de Infraestructura y Planeamento CPC Centro de Investigación Conjunta CPE (Bolivia) Constitución Política del Estado CRO Cordillera Real Oriental DEAL Direction de l’environnement, de l’aménagement et du logement DNPM (Brasil) Departamento Nacional da Produção Mineral EC Ecuador ECOLEX Corporación de Gestión y Derecho Ambiental ECORAE Instituto para el Ecodesarrollo Regional Amazónico EE Ecological Station EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária ESA European Space Agency FAN Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations FC Forest Concessions FE State Forest FGA Fundación Gaia Amazonas FLACSO Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales FN National Forest FSC Conselho de Administração Florestal FUNAI Fundação Nacional do Índio GDF Chart of the chapter Deforestation GEF Global Environment Facility GEG Greenhouse Gas GFI Chart of the chapter Fires (Hot Spots) GHP Chart of the chapter Hydroelectric Plants GIS Geographic Information System GMN Chart of the chapter Mining GOG Chart of the chapter Oil and Gas GOREL Regional Government of Loreto GRD Chart of the chapter Roads HydroSHEDS Hydrological data and maps based on Shuttle Elevation Derivatives at multiple Scales IBAMA Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis IBC Instituto del Bien Común IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística ICMBio Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade] IT Indigenous Territories ICV Instituto Centro de Vida IGAC (Colombia) Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi IIRSA Integración de la Infraestructura Regional Suramericana IMAC Instituto de Meio Ambiente do Acre IMAZON Instituto do Homem e do Meio Ambiente da Amazônia INCODER Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural Incra (Brasil) Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária INGEMMET Instituto Geológico Minero y Metalúrgico INPE (Brasil) Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais IPAAM Instituto de Proteção Ambiental do Amazonas IPHAN (Brasil) Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional ISA (Brasil) Instituto Socioambiental IVIC Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Centro de Ecología, Laboratorio de Biología de Organismos MAE (Ecuador) Ministerio del Ambiente MDF Map of the chapter Deforestation MFI Map of the chapter Fires (Hot Spots)

MHP Map of the chapter Hydroelectric Plants MINAM (Perú) Ministerio del Ambiente MINEM (Perú) Ministerio de Energía y Minas MMN Map of the chapter Mining NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration MOG Map of the chapter Oil and Gas MRD Map of the chapter Roads MTC (Perú) Ministerio de Transporte y Comunicaciones NARENA (Suriname) Natural Resource and Environmental Assessment OCEP Oleoducto de Crudos Pesados OIT Organização Internacional do Trabalho OTCA Organización del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica PCH Small Hydroelectric Plants PDVSA Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. PANE (Ecuador) Patrimonio Nacional de Áreas Naturales del Estado PE State Park PE Perú Petroamazonas EP (Ecuador) Petroamazonas Empresa Publica PETT-Loreto Programa Especial de Titulación de Tierras en Loreto PFS Proyecto Frontera Selva PI Parque Indígena PIX Parque Indígena do Xingu PMOT Plan Municipal de Ordenamiento Territorial PN Parque Nacional PNA Protected Natural Area PPCDAm Plano de Ação para Proteção e Controle do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal PRODES Projeto Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite PROVÍAS NACIONAL (Perú) Proyecto Especial de Infraestructura de Transporte Nacional RAISG Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information RBi Biological Reserve RBiF Forest Biological Reserve RDS Sustainable Development Reserve REx Extractive Reserve RN National Reserve SDS Secretaria de Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Amazonas SERGEOTECMIN (Bolivia) Servicio Nacional de Geología y Técnico de Minas SERNAP (Bolivia) Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas SH Historical Sanctuary SIATAC Sistema de Información Ambiental Territorial de la Amazonía Colombiana SICNA Sistema de Información sobre Comunidades Nativas de la Amazonía Peruana SIG Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SIMEX Sistema de Monitoreo de la Explotación Maderera SN National Sanctuary SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission STF (Brasil) Superior Tribunal Federal TCO Tierra Comunitaria de Origen TDF Table of the chapter Deforestation TRD Table of the chapter Roads TFI Table of the chapter Fires (Hot Spots) THP Table of the chapter Hydroelectric Plants TIPNIS Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure TMN Table of the chapter Mining TOG Table of the chapter Oil and Gas TREES Tropical Resources and Environment Monitoring by Satellite UHE Hydroelectric Units UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNMSM Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos YPFV Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos

Amazonia under Pressure

65 RAISG

Savannah close to Santa Helena de Uiarem, Venezuela, border with Brasil.

Nasepotiti Village, Panará indigenous people. Mato Grosso, Brasil.

Maloca belonging to ‘isolated’ indigenous people between the Itacoaí and Jandiatuba Rivers, on the Brasil-Perú border.© Peetsaa/ Arquivo CGIIRC/Funai, 2011

selo FSC

Salto do Sapo, Canaima National Park, Venezuela. Headwaters of the Upano River, which rises in the Andes and flows into the Amazon.

San Rafael Waterfall, Coca River. The latter will be adversely affected by the Coca Codo Sinclair Hydroelectric Plant which is being built in Ecuadorian Amazonia with Chinese loans. © Juan Calles, 2010

printed by: Pancrom Indústria Gráfica, São Paulo - Brasil impression: 1.000

Purus River, affluent flowing into the right bank of the Amazonas river. Brasil. Forest in the foothills of the Serra da Mocidade National Park, Brasil-Venezuela border. Roraima, Brasil. © Taylor Nunes, 2006