From large to small: Reorienting rural development

Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 52–59

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

From large to small: Reorienting rural development policies in response to climate change, food security and poverty☆ Benno Pokorny a,⁎, Wil de Jong b, 1, Javier Godar c, 2, Pablo Pacheco d, 3, James Johnson e a

Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacherstrasse 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany Centre for Integrated Area Studies, Kyoto University, 46 Shimoadachi-cho, Yoshida, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Kräftriket 2B, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden d Centre for International Forestry Research, P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD, Bogor 16000, Indonesia e Casilla 2422, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 November 2011 Received in revised form 18 February 2013 Accepted 24 February 2013 Available online 9 May 2013 Keywords: Rural development policies Amazon Smallholders Economic growth Poverty alleviation Environmental costs

a b s t r a c t Discourses regarding the development of the Amazon region highlight the importance of the local cultures, local knowledge and participation of smallholders, such as indigenous people, traditional communities and small-scale colonists. Current policies, however, still pursue a development model that is oriented towards global commodity markets and the capacity of well-qualified entrepreneurs with the capital required for large-scale investments, despite a growing consensus on its ecological incompatibilities, social limitations and economic risks. Decision makers from both governmental and non-governmental organisations widely disregard the possibility that smallholders could more actively contribute to rural development. Instead, the production practices of smallholders and their modes of social organisation are perceived as obsolete and inefficient. By presenting examples from the region, this paper argues that smallholders have the potential to manage production systems that maintain environmental stability while effectively contributing to local well-being. Therefore, the paper advocates to more effectively using local capacities for the development of rural Amazon through the promotion of small-scale production systems. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The traditional development models placed on economic growth have been recognised as reaching key global biophysical thresholds that jeopardise global environmental stability with severe local and global consequences (Rockström et al., 2009). In addition to the overarching goal of poverty alleviation (UN, 2000), in particular climate change concerns have pushed forward low-carbon development objectives (UNFCCC, 2011, 2007, 2001), while the increasing global demand for food (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007) has made food security an additional priority concern. The shift from a purely economic-growth perspective to multisectoral sustainable development and natural resource conservation (Arts and Buizer, 2009) has provoked an intense debate among policy makers, environmentalists, development and climate experts regarding ☆ This article belongs to the Special Issue: Forest and conservation policy in a changing climate. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 761 203 3680; fax: +49 761 203 3781. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Pokorny), [email protected] (W. de Jong), [email protected] (J. Godar), [email protected] (P. Pacheco), [email protected] (J. Johnson). 1 Tel.: +81 75 753 9605/9603; fax: +81 75 753 9602. 2 Tel.: +46 86 74 73 71. 3 Tel.: +62 251 8622 622; fax: +62 251 8622 100. 1389-9341/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.02.009

the policy options that more effectively deal with the synergies and trade-offs among the economic, social and environmental effects (de Jong et al., 2010; Pacheco, 2012; Pokorny, 2013). In practice, however, it often remains unclear how economic growth and poverty alleviation can be achieved at lower environmental costs, particularly in regions where millions live under precarious conditions. This challenge is particularly relevant for the Amazon basin, the largest remaining contiguous tropical forest and home of more than 50 million people. Between the 1960s and 1980s, most countries in the region started to progressively integrate their Amazonian territories into the national economy (Hecht and Cockburn, 1989). The government provided fiscal and financial incentives to stimulate private and corporate investments (Binswanger, 1991; Schneider, 1995) in large-scale cattle ranching (Barclay et al., 1991; Hecht, 1985; Hecht and Cockburn, 1989), the expansion of sugarcane, cotton and rice (Pacheco, 2006) and, more recently, soybean production (Nepstad et al., 2006). Supported by structural adjustment programmes (Schlesinger, 2011), the systematic expansion of infrastructure (Killeen, 2007; BID, 2006), and the generous granting of concession rights (Bunker, 1985; Finer et al., 2008; Merry et al., 2003), the private sector started to make significant investments to access resources of strategic interest, including land for the production of soybeans, palm oil and other agricultural crops, as well as timber, minerals, oil and gas and the building of hydroelectric dams (America Economia, 2012; Robinson, 2008).

B. Pokorny et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 52–59

These policies have prompted the expansion of economic activities in the region. Many rural inhabitants have profited from employment opportunities, roads, access to new markets, less expensive energy and services (e.g., Brazilian Ministry of Finance, 2008, 2009; de Assis Costa, 2012; UNDP, 2010). However, in the continuously expanding frontier areas, smallholders such as indigenous people, traditional river communities, rural peasants and colonists less likely benefited from market integration (Martins, 1997; Schmink and Wood, 1992; Simmons et al., 2010), whereas capital-endowed entrepreneurs employed their capacity to take advantage of poor law enforcement and administrative informality and used their finances and political leverage to control production and markets (Alston et al., 2000; Pokorny et al., 2012). Thus, in many regions, long-time residents still live under precarious conditions (UNDP, 2010) and often even have difficulties in defending their traditional or legal rights on land and resources (Carr, 2009), despite manifold efforts targeting these economically marginalised groups (Larson et al., 2006; Pokorny and Johnson, 2008; Roldán Ortega, 2004; Sunderlin et al., 2008). The prevailing economic dynamic also resulted in deforestation and resource degradation, thereby endangering the livelihood basis of numerous forest-dependent people (UNDP, 2010). In recent decades, Amazonian governments, often with massive international support, attempted to manage these detrimental environmental outcomes. To pursue sustainable forest management and forest conservation, many countries adapted their regulatory framework, strengthened governmental agencies, adjusted forestry policies and intensified efforts for land-planning and tenure reforms (May and Millikan, 2010; Pacheco et al., 2010; Soares-Filho et al., 2006). However, governments have often been unable to enforce environmental laws and to protect conservation areas (Sabogal et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2004), so that deforestation in Amazon continues, although at variable rates (FAO, 2009; INPE, 2011). Despite the significant environmental and social costs of the rural development approach that privileges actors with resources for large investments directed towards global commodity markets, Amazonian governments still argue that only these actors dispose on the capital and knowledge needed to best utilise the region's resources (Brazilian Ministry of Finance, 2008, 2009). In contrast, the smallholders' land use practices and organisation schemes are perceived as ineffective for generating the desired economic and social benefits (Chambwera et al., 2011; Wiggins et al., 2010; Sayer, 1995; Wunder, 2001). Based on over 20 years of research in the region and on empirical findings of multiple studies about natural resource management practices of smallholders, we question this generalization and present in the next sections some examples indicating that smallholders, under adequate conditions, can considerably contribute to poverty alleviation, food security, climate change mitigation, and biodiversity conservation. Based on these cases, we discuss policy alternatives in which smallholders become key protagonists of rural development in the Amazon. 2. The potential of smallholders' production systems for rural development In addition to an estimated 350 indigenous groups that reside in the Amazon basin, four centuries of immigration have resulted in an amalgam of people with different ethnic and geographic origins. The more recent residents who arrived via the newly constructed roads have adopted a wide range of land use practices. Multiple factors shaped how newcomers adapted to the Amazon environments, like the conditions of the locations from which they arrived, the social networks they brought with them or developed, but also the resources, infrastructure, public services and markets they encountered (Mathewson, 1994). Amazonian rural families throughout the basin are diverse, but they also share common features (Pokorny, 2013; Gasché and Vela Mendoza, 2012). They typically use and cultivate natural resources

53

and rely on family labour, prefer low-input, low-risk production, including swidden-fallows and forest homegardens, but also engage in cattle ranching often in silvopastoral systems, cash cropping and tree plantations. Amazonian smallholders often process harvested or collected produce, both for their own use and for sale. Generally, when agricultural frontiers advance, farmers gradually increase cash-crop production in their household portfolio. When this happens, smallholders tend to specialise in fewer activities and produce for specific markets, also relying on higher external inputs. However, whether for cultural reasons or to reduce risk, many families maintain diversified agriculture and forest production for their own consumption and local markets (Biggs, 1995; Meinke et al., 2001; Pokorny, 2013). Management practices are similar within regions, but are enriched through individual experiences and observations. Amazonian rural resource use by smallholders naturally is compatible with the individual capacities and interests, but might suffer from technical and organisational deficiencies (IFAD, 2009; Pfitzer et al., 2009). The next section presents selected examples demonstrating that smallholder driven production schemes can contribute to poverty alleviation and food security at low environmental costs. 2.1. Poverty effects Supporting small farmers has proven to be a particularly successful strategy for reducing rural poverty (World Bank, 2007). Small farmers may achieve higher productivity per hectare than large farmers, because they know local conditions well and rely on household labour on small-sized farms, which increases motivation and flexibility, and yields high returns for the invested labour (Cornia, 1985; Heltberg, 1998; Pacheco, 2012; Wiggins et al., 2010). Amazonian smallholders typically generate a regular income for a greater number of families compared with large-scale agricultural production, cattle ranching or logging. Smallholders are able to benefit from the possibilities offered by markets, partnerships with the private sector and NGOs, and credit programmes (Cano, 2012; Padoch and de Jong, 1992; Pokorny, 2013). In comparison with estate commodity production, a higher proportion of the wealth generated by smallholders is likely to remain in the region, where it enters local value chains. It is often overlooked that smallholders not only produce for their families but also have the capacity to accumulate wealth. For instance, Godar (2009) compared socio-economic and environmental information from municipalities along the Transamazon highway dominated by smallholders with those dominated by largeholders (Table 1). In the 1970s, colonists received individual properties of 100 hectares, but in the studied municipalities only in Medicilândia most of the land remains in the hands of smallholders. In the neighbouring municipalities, medium and large cattle ranchers dominate. The smallholders in Medicilândia primarily rely on the production of cacao on fertile land and the production of other agricultural products and cattle ranching elsewhere. The other municipalities, independent from site factors such as soil fertility, are dominated by large-scale operations, primarily cattle ranching. The smallholder-dominated municipality had a higher gross per capita income and human development index and a lower income Gini index, compared with the neighbouring municipalities. In the latter, the large ranchers earned over six times more than their employees; the Medicilândia small cocoa farmers earned only twice as much as their workers. The indicators of poverty, health and education were also more favourable in Medicilândia than in the other municipalities. Similarly, Pacheco (2012) found that for the entire Brazilian Amazon region, the per-hectare GDP is higher and the Gini index is lower in areas dominated by smallholders compared to areas dominated by largeholders. Another well-studied example that confirms the relevance of smallholder based production schemes for regional well-being is the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) economy (Bojanic, 2001; Stoian, 2000). In Bolivia, the Brazil nut is the most important forest export product. Its total export value doubled from USD 76 to 149 million between 2001 and 2007, primarily because of price increases. The annually exported

54


Table 1 Municipal indicators of socioeconomic performance (adapted from Godar, 2009).

Municipality GNP per capita (2004) (USD)1 Human Development Index (HDI) (2000) Gini1 index (2000)2 Average productivity (2000) (USD/month)3

Employers Employed workers Self-employed workers

Population below the poverty level (%)4 Total mortality per 1000 habitants (2004) Literacy rate (2000) (%) Dropout rate for primary school (2004) (%) 1 2 3 4

Dominance of smallholder

Dominance of medium and large producers

Medicilândia 4449 0.71 0.41 890 445 651 47 3.13 79 17.3

Brasil Novo, Anapú and Pacajá 2061 0.60 0.49 2280 356 475 57 5.38 75 21.4

Exchange rate 1 USD = 2.66 R$ (31.12.2004). Gini index: measures the degree of income distribution, the value of which ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (maximum inequality). (IBGE). Exchange rate 1 USD = 1.81 R$ (30.06.2000). Proportion of persons living in families with monthly incomes below half of the minimum salary per capita.

amount has remained at approximately 20,000 tonnes (COMTRADE, 2012). Mature Brazil nut trees are scattered over the nine million ha of the northern Bolivian Amazon region and are harvested from November to March. For approximately 6000 smallholders in 245 communities Brazil nut extraction is the primary source of cash income (Cronkleton and Pacheco, 2010; Pacheco et al., 2009). In addition, approximately 5500 migrant labourers move seasonally between the region's urban centres and Brazil nut forests to participate in the Brazil nut collection. Furthermore, approximately 8500 people work in Brazil nut processing plants located in the urban centres (Bojanic, 2001; Stoian, 2005). While the largest portion of the profit is captured by medium and large entrepreneurs controlling the market chain (Cronkleton and Pacheco, 2010), the Brazil nut economy in northern Bolivia contributes significantly to the welfare of the region (Zenteno et al., 2013). In contrast, in the neighbouring state of Rondônia in Brazil, where the natural stocks of Brazil nuts once were equally enormous, large cattle ranches and soybean estates have occupied the land along the expanding road system, and today, the degraded landscape generates only a limited economic value (Millikan, 2007). 2.2. Food security Smallholders provide an important contribution to local food supply. Worldwide, small-scale farmers are net food consumers (Murphy, 2012), but nearly 80% of the developing world's food is produced on small farms (FAO, 2011). In the Amazon, smallholders secure sustenance for their families and also provide substantial amounts of food to urban populations (Chambwera et al., 2011; IBGE, 2007). Even families engaged in export production or those relying on non-farm income often continue to grow food crops and sell a portion of it in local markets. This contribution of smallholders to the local food supply is often incompletely reflected in official statistics (Vuletin, 2008). Smallholders are particularly important regarding food security in the case of river communities (ribereños) that supply food to populated areas in remote regions poorly connected by roads. For example, half a million people live in the state capital of Iquitos in Peru, which can be reached only by riverboat and airplane but not yet by road. In the surrounding rural areas, more than 90% of the agricultural production is in the hands of smallholders, and large-scale agricultural production is virtually absent. In 2012 alone, the region produced 397,000 tonnes of manioc and 346,000 tonnes of plantain, two of the three main staples consumed in Iquitos (rice is the third main staple). Agricultural production contributed 14.9% to the department's GDP (Anonymous, 2011). Smallholders in the Peruvian Amazon have adapted their agriculture in response to the increasing urban demand for food, demonstrating their knowledge of the ecological features of the complex and highly diverse environments (Lamotte, 1990) and their capacity to carefully allocate family resources to optimise production (de Jong, 1995).

Typically, they simultaneously use multiple floodplain environments for seasonal cropping and uplands for swidden-fallow agroforestry (de Jong, 1995; Padoch and de Jong, 1989). Rice production takes place on annual mudflats, vegetable production on sand beaches, corn production on lower levees and manioc and plantain production on medium and high levees. Ribereño farmers also practice sophisticated swidden-fallow management. After staple crop production in swidden is completed, swidden-fallows are actively managed to produce fruits, construction wood, or multiple other consumable forest products (Denevan and Padoch, 1987), or they are converted into forest gardens or specialised market-oriented multiple tree crop production (Padoch and de Jong, 1992). 2.3. Stabilising landscapes for the continuous provision of environmental services and the mitigation of climate change Land use changes, particularly the conversion of natural forests into agricultural lands and pastures, significantly contribute to carbon emissions. There is agreement that stabilising the land use dynamic in the region would not only effectively mitigate climate change (IPCC, 2007), but also contribute to the conservation of biodiversity (MEA, 2005; Pistorius et al., 2011). Smallholders, similar to other actors, contribute to land use changes. While there is agreement that deforestation principally occurs along newly constructed roads, the contributions of smallholders to carbon emission remain subject of debate (Chomitz and Thomas, 2003; Godar et al., 2012b; Kissinger et al., 2012). Recently, studies have highlighted the positive role of traditional communities and indigenous groups in preserving Amazonian forests (Campos and Nepstad, 2006; Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009; Nelson and Chomitz, 2009). Their extensive forest-based production maintains the ecological features of the natural forests and limit long-term conversion to relatively small areas. In parallel, the communities function as buffers against small- and large-scale farmers, logging enterprises and other actors that rely on more destructive land use schemes. This function is particularly evident in areas in which traditional rights to resources are formally recognised (Larson et al., 2010). Fig. 1 provides an example of such an area near the city of Pucallpa in Peru. The area on the right side of Fig. 1 is populated by indigenous communities that so far penetrated the still closed forest in only three areas along the rivers. Here, families engage in swidden-fallow agriculture on fertile alluvial soils. In the more recent settlements on the left, smalland large-scale colonists engage in cattle ranching, mechanised agriculture, and the cultivation of oil palm, extending pastures and fields at the expense of forest. Similarly, the Brazil nut harvesting in Bolivia described above positively influences forest conservation. The collection of fruits from single trees has a minimal effect on the surrounding forest (Zuidema and Boot, 2002). Despite increased logging and cattle ranching (Pacheco et al.,


55

Fig. 1. The region of Pucallpa (Peru), with areas dominated by indigenous people (to the right) and areas dominated by colonists (to the left).

2009), the agro-extractive communities in northern Bolivia have been able to protect their forests from external intrusion. Also in the case of the ribereño swidden-fallow agroforestry near Iquitos, smallholders conserve a forested landscape while intensively cultivating the floodplains and creatively integrating agriculture and forestry production. The result is a landscape characterised by fruit tree stands interspaced with scattered swidden plots of various ages and a mixture of annuals, semi-perennials or perennial crops (Padoch and de Jong, 1992). In contrast to areas dominated by indigenous and traditional communities, colonists who have recently arrived in the region have greater effects on their landscapes because of their focus on market-oriented agriculture and cattle. There is evidence, however, that the influence of colonists on forests is smaller than reported in some deforestation studies (Fearnside, 2008; Soares-Filho et al., 2006). An analysis of 4547 georeferenced smallholder properties along the Brazilian Transamazon highway, for instance, revealed that the small colonists have transformed an average of only 38% of their properties into agricultural land uses (Godar et al., 2012b) and that families that settled 40 years ago had preserved 47% to 62% of the initial forest stocks (Godar et al., 2012a). Studies in Bolivia (Pando department), Peru (Ucayali region) and Ecuador (around the city of Macas) confirm that many small farmers settling in agricultural frontiers maintain small reserves of primary forest, although commonly degraded by selective logging, next to larger areas of secondary forests (Pokorny, 2013). Some older colonisation areas show a slight increase in forest cover as families abandoned land that became inadequate in agricultural production because of poor soils, lack of water or poor infrastructure (Grau and Aide, 2008). Nevertheless, over time the majority of colonists likely transform their forested lands into other land cover more suitable to their interests, preferences and needs. In particular, smallholders with cattle or

settling on poor soils periodically require expansions of their holdings (Pacheco, 2005; Parker and Meretsky, 2004). But smallholders, in contrast to larger land users, tend to concentrate their activities within their own original allocated properties. This pattern is demonstrated in the above-cited study on land use dynamics along the Transamazon highway. Only 16% of the small colonists who received 100 ha of land up to four decades ago increased the area of their properties, whereas all medium and large cattle ranchers had expanded their properties since their initial colonisation (Godar, 2009; Godar et al., 2012a,b). Demographics could play a role, but many families divide their land and distribute it to their children (Knop, 2009). As a consequence, public or collectively owned forests surrounding individual properties are rarely affected by smallholders, except by accidental fires (Carmenta et al., 2011). The same study confirms that smallholders benefiting from favourable conditions, such as fertile soils and access to public services and attractive markets are capable of preserving environmental resources, resulting in landscapes with diverse vegetation covers, including forests, secondary forests, swidden-fallows and mixtures of perennial and annual crops (Fig. 2). Fig. 2 shows landscapes after 40 years of colonisation in the smallholder dominated municipality of Medicilândia (left) and the municipality of Brasil Novo (right) dominated by medium and large cattle ranchers. The black lines indicate the boundaries of properties initially distributed along secondary roads (in white) perpendicular to the Transamazon highway. In both landscapes, the original (dark green) area of primary forest has been significantly reduced. However, pastureland, represented by the red patches, is much more scattered in the smallholder landscape; here many farmers established cocoa plantations on fertile soils (in blue) while the larger farmers in Brasil Novo

56


widely ignored this land use option despite similar site conditions; Various stages of secondary forests are represented by other colours (yellow = young, orange = medium, and light green = old). Particularly in the smallholder landscape, these secondary forests regrew on large parts of the land initially cleared for cattle ranching or the production of annual crops. The secondary forest patches are part of a fallow scheme to maintain soil fertility, control weeds and regulate water, as a reserve for future farming when the productivity of current farming patches declines. In consequence, the environmental value and stability of such smallholder mosaic landscapes are higher if compared to the landscape dominated by larger farmers with larger deforested patches. Larger deforested patches regenerate more slowly (Lamb et al., 2005) and more likely suffer from soil fertility loss, less favourable microclimates, water run-off and erosion (Giambelluca, 2002; Laurance et al., 1997, 2002). Qualitative environmental indicators that are used as proxies for ecosystem services confirm these observations (Table 2). The environmental indicators of Table 2 reflect the transformation of the initial forested landscape. However, in the smallholder-dominated municipality, the indicators were significantly better than in the other municipalities. Medicilândia contained more areas of contiguous forests, superior connectivity among fragments, and less forest fragmentation. These findings suggest that smallholder landscape mosaics can comparatively provide important environmental services, including hydrological protection, carbon sequestration, maintenance of soil fertility, seed dissemination and biodiversity conservation (Laurance et al., 2002; Manel et al., 2003; Mesquita et al., 1999). 3. Valuing smallholders as vehicles of development Especially during the last two decades, Amazonian development policies have privileged capitalised actors from the agribusiness, logging, mining and energy sector that are expected to contribute the most to economic growth (de Jong et al., 2010; Pacheco, 2012). The low-input and diversified production systems of smallholders have been perceived as obsolete and ineffective in achieving economic goals. Efforts that targeted smallholders primarily aimed at their integration into global commodity markets or at reducing poverty through monetary support. Although these policies have improved the well-being of the Amazonian population, particularly those living in the rapidly growing urban centres (BID, 2006; World Bank, 2007, 2009), the social and environmental costs have been immense (FAO, 2009; UNDP, 2010). Possible positive economic growth effects of the adaptive production of smallholders have often been disregarded in studies of frontier dynamics with a focus on environmental issues (e.g., Chomitz and

Table 2 Qualitative indicators of the landscape within predominantly smallholder municipalities compared with municipalities dominated by medium- and large-scale producers (adapted from Godar, 2009). Dominance of smallholder

Dominance of medium and large producers

Municipality

Medicilândia

Production type

Agricultural (cocoa, banana, and coffee) 71

Brasil Novo, Anapú and Pacajá Primarily ranching

Area occupied by smallholders (%) (b200 ha) Deforestation per person (ha) Forest core area (300 m)1 Connectivity (500 m)2 Fragmentation of the forest3

6.8 71 49 250

31–46 9.6–12.5 23–63 28–31 313–448

1 Areas of forest situated more than 300 m from the unit of humanised landscape (e.g., roads, pastures) that has a base in 1987 = 100 units. Indicating the state of effective conservation of a mature forest and its potential for maintaining the provision of goods and services. 2 Defined by the number of connections between forest patches with a functional distance of less than 500 m with a base in 1987 = 100 units. Indicates the degree of spatial continuity in the forest that enables or hinders different processes (e.g., hydrological protection, seed dissemination, movement of animals). 3 Relationship between forest patch density in 1987 (=100) and 2007 (e.g., in Medicilândia, there were 2.50 times more fragmented forest patches in 2007 than in 1987).

Thomas, 2003; Margulis, 2003; Michalski et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2000). The above-presented examples suggest that Amazonian smallholders could play a more active role in productive and sustainable natural resource development. Many smallholder families in the region even under extremely difficult conditions and without significant external support operate production schemes that provide important goods and services. Smallholders have the potential to operate at comparatively low environmental costs but contribute to alleviating poverty and ensuring food security in the region, as well as to reducing carbon emissions and conserving biodiversity. These observations have been confirmed by others (Fearnside, 2005; Ostrom, 1990; Pacheco, 2005; Vazquez-Barquero, 2010). Throughout Latin America, smallholders rely on natural, economic, human, institutional and cultural resources to successfully satisfy their basic needs (Alburquerque, 2001; Saraceno, 2002). The importance of individual and collective capabilities, cultural attributes, local norms and institutions, and the creative and entrepreneurial capacity of the local population have been acknowledged by sociologists (Fukuyama, 1995; Putman, 1993; Weber, 1905), historians (Landes, 1998; North, 1990)

Fig. 2. Example of a diverse landscape created by small farmers in the municipality of Medicilândia (left) compared to a more homogeneous landscape created by medium and large cattle ranchers on comparable soils and during similar timeframesin the neighbouring municipality of Brasil Novo (right).


and economists (Arrow, 1974; Guiso et al., 2006; Lewis, 1955). Smallholders have the capacity to adjust to the scarcity of natural resources (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2010) and to respond to emerging production options (Biggs, 1990). The latent efforts to optimise production systems can be considered an inherent characteristic of the livelihood strategies of smallholders (Pokorny, 2013). These findings, however, do not mean that the socio-productive systems of smallholders are optimal. In fact, smallholders do cause environmental harm and suffer from technical and organisational deficiencies. Critical social differentiation tends to emerge when smallholders are more exposed to markets, and they often show resistance to adopting meaningful innovations to optimise their production systems. Smallholders also tend to change their land use approaches when they become capitalised and then adopt destructive land use patterns (Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 2001; Wunder, 2001). An additional concern is that many capable people, in particular the young, leave rural life and migrate to urban centres in search of better lives and income opportunities (Carr, 2009). One reason for this instability is that the policies and institutional realities found in the rural Amazon are eroding rather than fostering the existing capacities of smallholders. In many regions, historically determined paternalistic relationships with local elites prevail and strongly limit the ability of smallholders to successfully develop their own initiatives (Cano, 2012; Medina et al., 2009). The families have also internalised the discourses on classical development goals (Gasché and Vela Mendoza, 2012). The lack of access to consumption and public services also decreases the appeal of rural life. The expanding road network improves the connections to urban centres but also facilitates access to markets for producers from outside of the region, who effectively use their competitive market advantages (Pokorny et al., 2012), thus threatening local production (de Schutter, 2010). Activating the immanent potential of smallholders requires new visions, concepts and operational modes for rural development that have been outlined by numerous national and international panels (e.g., de Schutter, 2009, 2010, 2011; IAASTD, 2009). Technical assistance, in contrast with classic development approaches, should not aim to replace local management schemes but should strengthen and optimise them. The promotion of agro-ecological production systems requiring a relatively large working input but little capital might play an important role (Altieri et al., 2012). It is also commonly recognised that smallholders need formal rights over land and resources as well as the legal recognition of organisations representing their interests in public arenas (Bebbington and Carroll, 2000; Larson et al., 2010). Investments in infrastructure that facilitates the marketing, storage and processing of the diverse basket of agricultural or forestry products typically produced by locals is necessary, rather than value chains that rely on one specific commodity (Poulton et al., 2010). Infrastructure investments should target the expansion of less expensive roads that reach more communities or increase transportation by water. Administrative steps to obtain loans recognise property and access public services must be simplified (Asen et al., 2012), and education and information transmission should address the specific needs and requirements of local families (Hage, 2004). This paper concludes that under the above outlined conditions, the socio-productive systems of smallholders can generate economic, social and environmental outcomes with high value for society while reducing the detrimental consequences experienced from a development dynamic dominated by commercial actors that are favoured by current development policies. Rather than continuing to simply encourage families to adapt to the demands of global markets or to provide allowances to those who fall behind, it deems useful to intensify thinking about possibilities for more effectively stimulating the potentials of smallholders to play a major role for rural development. This, however, might imply drastic changes to the prevailing development paradigms and requires investments in the search for appropriate policies. Numerous examples of initiatives for local development from Europe, Asia and

57

Latin America (e.g. Aghón et al., 2001; Altenburg and Meyer-Stamer, 1999; Scott and Garofoli, 2007; Stöhr, 1990; Vazquez-Barquero, 1993, 2010) corroborate the feasibility of such policies that ground on local cultures and capacities.

Acknowledgments Several activities leading to this paper were supported by the European Community' through its projects: Forest management by small farmers in the Amazon — An opportunity to enhance forest ecosystem stability and rural livelihood (Acronym ForLive, INCO-PL 510903) and Governança de Recursos Naturais por Pequenos Produtores Rurais da Amazônia (Acronym GOL, EuropeAid 128-046/ L/ACT/BR, DCI-NSAPVD/2010/208-221), as well as the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research: Transnational Natural Resource Governance in Borderlands, and by the JSPS funded Global Centres of Excellence (COE) Program: Towards Sustainable Humanosphere in Asia and Africa. We are grateful to the editors of the special feature for inviting us as well as the anonymous reviewers for their excellent observations. References Aghón, G., Alburquerque, F., Cortés, P., 2001. Desarrollo económico local y descentralización en América Latina: un análisis comparativo. CEPAL/GTZ, Santiago. Alburquerque, F., 2001. Evaluación y reflexiones sobre las iniciativas de desarrollo económico local en América Latina. Consejo de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid. Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D., Mueller, B., 2000. Land reform policies, the sources of violent conflict, and implications for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39 (2), 162–188. Altenburg, T., Meyer-Stamer, J., 1999. How to promote clusters: policy experiences from Latin America. World Development 27 (9), 1693–1713. Altieri, M., Funes-Monzote, F., Petersen, P., 2012. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32 (1), 1–13. America Economia, 2012. Ranking Multilatinas 2011. [online] http://rankings. americaeconomia.com/2011/multilatinas/ (accessed on 13.09.2012). Angelsen, A., Kaimowitz, D. (Eds.), 2001. Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon. Anonymous, 2011. Caracterización del departamento De Loreto. Memo Gobierno Regional Loreto, Iquitos. Arrow, K.J., 1974. The Limits of Organization. Norton, New York. Arts, B., Buizer, M., 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions. A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 11, 340–347. Asen, A., Boscolo, M., Carrillo, R., Van Dijk, K., Nordheim-Larsen, C., Oystese, S., Savenije, H., Thunberg, J., Zapata, J., 2012. Unlocking national opportunities: new insights on financing sustainable forest and land management. FAO, Rome. Barclay, F., Rodríguez, M., Santos, F., Valcárcel, M., 1991. Amazonia 1940–1990: el extravío de una ilusión. Terra Nuova & PUCP, Lima. Bebbington, J.A., Carroll, F.T., 2000. Induced social capital and federations of the rural poor. Social Capital Initiative. Working Paper19. World Bank, Washington D.C. BID (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), 2006. Construyendo un nuevo continente. Un enfoque regional para fortalecer la infraestructura sudamericana. BID, Washington D.C. Biggs, S., 1990. A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion. World Development 18 (11), 1481–1499. Biggs, S., 1995. Farming systems research and rural poverty: relationships between context and content. Agricultural Systems 47, 161–174. Binswanger, H.P., 1991. Brazilian policies that encourage deforestation in the Amazon. World Development 19 (7), 821–829. Bojanic, A., 2001. Balance is Beautiful: Assessing Sustainable Development in the Rain Forest of the Bolivian Amazon. PROMAB Scientific Series, 1. Utrecht University, Utrecht. Brazilian Ministry of Finance, 2008. The country is advancing. Sustainable Economy, 2. Editora Abril S.A., Brasília. Brazilian Ministry of Finance, 2009. Back to growth. Sustainable Economy, 5. Editora Abril S.A., Brasília. Bunker, S.G., 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon. Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern State.University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Campos, M.T., Nepstad, D.C., 2006. Smallholders, the Amazon's new conservationists. Conservation Biology 20 (5), 1553–1556. Cano, W., 2012. Power, organization and conflicts in Northern Bolivian communities after forest governance reforms. (Dissertation) Utrecht University, Utrecht. Carmenta, R., Parry, L., Blackburn, A., Vermeylen, S., Barlow, J., 2011. Understanding human-fire interactions in tropical forest regions: a case for interdisciplinary research across the natural and social sciences. Ecology and Society 16 (1), 53 ([online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art53/). Carr, D., 2009. Rural migration: the driving force behind tropical deforestation on the settlement frontier. Progress in Human Geography 33 (3), 355–378.

58


Chambwera, M., MacGregor, J., Baker, A., 2011. The informal economy. A primer for development professionals on the importance of the informal economy in developing countries.International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 106, 17667–17670. Chomitz, K., Thomas, T., 2003. Determinants of land use in Amazonia: a fine-scale spatial analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85 (4), 1016–1028. COMTRADE, 2012. Statistical database on world trade. (online) http://www.intracen. org/marketanalysis/Default.aspx (accessed on 06.03.2011). Cornia, G.A., 1985. Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: an analysis for 15 developing countries. World Development 13 (4), 513–534. Cronkleton, P., Pacheco, P., 2010. Changing policy trends in the emergence of Bolivia's Brazil nut sector. In: Laird, S., McLain, R., Wynberg, R. (Eds.), Wild Product Governance: Finding Policies that Work for Non-Timber Forest Products. Routledge/ Earthscan, London, pp. 15–41. de Assis Costa, F., 2012. Corporations and local economies in the Brazilian Amazon: the impacts of the mining sectors scheduled investments in Southeastern Pará (2004–2010). Applied Economics 44 (10), 1285–1302. de Jong, W., 1995. Diversity variation and change in ribereño agriculture and agroforestry. (Dissertation) Agricultural University Wageningen, Wageningen. de Jong, W., Borner, J., Pacheco, P., Pokorny, B., Sabogal, C., 2010. Amazon forests at the crossroads: pressures, responses, and challenges. In: Mery, G., Katila, P., Galloway, G., Alfaro, R.I., Kanninen, M., Lobovikov, M., Varjo, J. (Eds.), Forests and society – responding to global drivers of change. : IUFRO World Series, 25. IUFRO, Vienna, pp. 283–298. de Schutter, O., 2009. Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: a set of core principles and measures to address the human rights challenge. Mandate of UN special rapporteur on the right to food. de Schutter, O., 2010. Access to land and the right to food. Report of the special rapporteur on the right to food presented at the 65th general assembly of the UN. de Schutter, O., 2011. How not to think of land-grabbing. Three critiques of large-scale investments in farmland. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (2), 249–279. Denevan, W.M., Padoch, C., 1987. Swidden-fallow agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. Advances in Economic Botany, 5. New York Botanical Garden, New York. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2009. State of the World's Forests. FAO, Rome. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2011. Save and Grow. FAO, Rome (Chapter 1). Fearnside, P.M., 2005. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology 19 (3), 680–688. Fearnside, P.M., 2008. The roles and movements of actors in the deforestation of Brazilian Amazonia. Ecology and Society 13 (1), 23. Finer, M., Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., Keane, B., Ross, C., 2008. Oil and gas projects in the Western Amazon: threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples. PLoS One 3 (8), e2932. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002932. Fukuyama, F., 1995. Trust. The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Penguin Books, London. Gasché, J., Vela Mendoza, N., 2012. Sociedad Bosquesina. Ensayo de antropología rural amazónica, acompañado de una crítica y propuesta alternativa de proyectos de desarrollo, vol. I. TAREA, Lima. Giambelluca, T.W., 2002. Hydrology of altered tropical forest. Hydrological Processes 16, 1665–1669. Godar, J., 2009. The environmental and human dimensions of frontier development in the Transamazon Highway colonization area. (Dissertation) University of Leon, León. Godar, J., Tizado, E.J., Pokorny, B., Johnson, J., 2012a. Typology and characterization of Amazon colonists: a case study along the Transamazon highway. Human Ecology 40 (2), 251–267. Godar, J., Tizado, J., Pokorny, B., 2012b. Who is responsible for deforestation in the Amazon? A spatially explicit analysis along the Transamazon highway in Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 267, 58–73. Grau, H.R., Aide, M., 2008. Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecology and Society 13 (2), 16 ([online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/ iss2/art16/). Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., 2006. Does culture affect economic outcome? Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (2), 23–48. Hage, S.M., 2004. A concepção de educação do campo no cenário das políticas públicas da sociedade brasileira. Comunica Multissérie, 1. Edital, Belém. Hecht, S.B., 1985. Environment, development and politics: capital accumulation and the livestock sector in Eastern Amazonia. World Development 13, 663–684. Hecht, S., Cockburn, A., 1989. The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Destroyers, and Defenders of the Amazon. Harper Perennial, New York. Heltberg, R., 1998. Rural market imperfections and the farm size productivity relationship: evidence from Pakistan. World Development 26 (10), 1807–1826. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development), 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads. IAASTD, Washington D.C. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística), 2007. Agrarian census of 2006. IBGE, Brasilia ([online] http://www.ibge.gov.br). IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development), 2009. Smallholder agriculture and food security in the 21st century. Food price volatility — how to help smallholder farmers manage risk and uncertainty. Discussion paper and proceedings report of the governing council round table held in conjunction with the 32nd session of IFAD's governing council, February 2009. UN Commission on Sustainable Development, New York.

INPE (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais), 2011. Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazon forest by satellite. Data from 1997 to 2010 INPE, São José dos Campos ([online] http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/). IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC. (Core writing team Pachauri R. K. and Reisinger, A.). IPCC, Geneva. Killeen, T.J., 2007. A perfect storm in the Amazon wilderness: development and conservation in the context of the initiative for the integration of the regional infrastructure of South America (IIRSA). Report. Conservation International, Arlington. Kissinger, G., Herold, M., Sy, V., 2012. Drivers of deforestation: a synthesis report for REDD + policymakers. Lexeme Consulting, Vancouver. Knop, H., 2009. Agrarreformen in Lateinamerika. GRIN Verlag, Munich. Lamb, D., Erskine, P.D., Parrotta, J.A., 2005. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310, 1628–1632. Lambin, E.F., Meyfroidt, P., 2010. Land use transitions: socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 27 (2), 108–118. Lamotte, S., 1990. Fluvial dynamics and succession in the lower Ucayali river basin, Peruvian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 33 (34), 141–156. Landes, D.S., 1998. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Norton and Company Inc., New York. Larson, A., Pacheco, P., Toni, F., Vallejo, M., 2006. Exclusion and Inclusion in Latin America Forestry: Whither Decentralization? CIFOR, Bogor. Larson, A., Barry, D., Dahal, G., 2010. Forests for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform. Routledge/Earthscan, London. Laurance, W.F., Laurance, S.G., Ferreira, V.F., Rankin-de Merona, J.M., Gaston, C., Lovejoy, T.E., 1997. Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Science 278, 1117–1118. Laurance, W.F., Lovejoy, T.E., Vasconcelos, H.L., Bruna, E.M., Didham, R.K., Stouffer, P.C., Gascon, C., Bierregaard, R.O., Laurance, S.G., Sampaio, E., 2002. Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conservation Biology 16, 605–618. Lewis, A., 1955. The Theory of Economic Growth. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. Manel, S., Schwartz, M.K., Luikart, G., Taberlet, P., 2003. Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecological Evolution 18, 189–197. Margulis, S., 2003. Causes of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. World Bank, Washington D.C. Martins, J., 1997. Fronteira: a degradação do outro nos confins do humano. Hucitec, São Paulo. Mathewson, K., 1994. Human geography of the American tropics: a forty-year review. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 14 (2), 123–156. May, P.H., Millikan, B., 2010. The context of REDD+ in Brazil. Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 55. CIFOR, Bogor. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Synthesis report. UNEP, New York. Medina, G., Pokorny, B., Campbell, B., 2009. Loggers and development agents exercising power over Amazonian villagers. Development and Change 40 (4), 745–767. Meinke, H., Baethgen, W., Carberry, P., Donatelli, M., Hammer, G., Selvaraju, R., Stöckle, C., 2001. Increasing profits and reducing risks in crop production using participatory systems simulation approaches. Agricultural Systems 70, 493–513. Merry, F., Amacher, G., Pokorny, B., Lima, E., Scholz, I., Nepstad, D., Zweede, J., 2003. Some doubts about concessions in Brazil. Should Brazil shelve its proposed system of forest concessions? Tropical Forest Update 13 (3), 7–9. Mesquita, R., Delamonica, P., Laurance, W.F., 1999. Effects of surrounding vegetation on edge-related tree mortality in Amazonian forest fragments. Biological Conservation 91, 129–134. Michalski, F., Metzger, J.P., Peres, C.A., 2010. Rural property size drives patterns of upland and riparian forest retention in a tropical deforestation frontier. Global Environmental Change 20 (4), 705–712. Millikan, H.B., 2007. The dilemma of sustainable development in the Amazon: land use zoning, deforestation and social conflict in Rondônia. Luce Project on Green Governance. Institute of International Studies, Berkeley. Murphy, S., 2012. Changing Perspectives: Small-scale Farmers, Markets and Globalization. IIED, Edinburgh. Nelson, A., Chomitz, K.M., 2009. Protected area effectiveness in reducing tropical deforestation: a global analysis of the impact of protection status. Independent Evaluation Group Evaluation Brief, 7. World Bank, Washington D.C. Nepstad, D., Stickler, C.M., Almeida, O.T., 2006. Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation. Conservation Biology 20, 1595–1603. North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. Pacheco, P., 2005. Populist and capitalist frontiers in the Amazon: diverging dynamics of agrarian and land use change. (Dissertation) Clark University, Worcester (MA). Pacheco, P., 2006. Agricultural expansion and deforestation in lowland Bolivia: the import substitution versus the structural adjustment model. Land Use Policy 23, 205–225. Pacheco, P., 2012. Actor and frontier types in the Brazilian Amazon: assessing interactions and outcomes associated with frontier expansion. Geoforum 43 (4), 864–874. Pacheco, P., Ormachea, E., Cronkleton, P., Albornoz, M.A., Paye, L., 2009. Trayectorias y tendencias de la economía forestal extractiva en el norte amazónico de Bolivia. CIFOR/CEDLA/RRI, La Paz. Pacheco, P., de Jong, W., Johnson, J., 2010. The evolution of the timber sector in lowland Bolivia: examining the influence of three disparate policy approaches. Forest Policy and Economics 12 (4), 271–276. Padoch, C., de Jong, W., 1989. Diversity, variation, and change in ribereño agriculture. In: Redford, K., Padoch, C. (Eds.), Indigenous patterns of resource management neotropical forests. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 158–175.

B. Pokorny et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 52–59 Padoch, C., de Jong, W., 1992. Subsistence- and market-oriented agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. In: Nishizawa, T., Uitto, J. (Eds.), The Fragile Tropics of Latin America: Changing Environments and their Sustainable Management. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp. 226–237. Parker, D., Meretsky, V., 2004. Measuring pattern outcomes in an agent-based model of edge-effect externalities using spatial metrics. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 101 (2–3), 233–250. Parker, N., Berthin, G., de Michele, R., Mizrahi, Y., 2004. Corruption in Latin America: a desk assessment. Americas' Accountability Anti-Corruption Project. United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington D.C. Pfitzer, M., Krishnaswamy, R., Genier, C., 2009. Market development investments by agricultural input companies: transforming smallholder agriculture. FSG Social Impact Advisors, Washington D.C. Pistorius, T., Schmitt, C.B., Benick, D., Entenmann, S., Reinecke, S., 2011. Greening REDD+ — challenges and opportunities for integrating biodiversity safeguards at and across policy levels. German Journal of Forest Science 182 (5/6), 82–98. Pokorny, B., 2013. Smallholders, forest management and rural development in the Amazon: lessons learned from forestry initiatives with smallholders in the Bolivian, Brazilian, Ecuadorian, and Peruvian Amazon. Routledge/Earthscan, London. Pokorny, B., Johnson, J., 2008. Community forestry in the Amazon: the unsolved challenge of forests and the poor. ODI Natural Resource Perspectives 112, 1–4. Pokorny, B., Johnson, J., Medina, G., Hoch, L., 2012. Market-based conservation of the Amazonian forests: revisiting win–win expectations. Geoforum 43 (3), 387–401. Poulton, C., Dorward, A., Kydd, J., 2010. The future of small farms: new directions for services, institutions and intermediation. World Development 38 (10), 1413–1428. Putman, R., 1993. Making Democracy Work. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Robinson, W., 2008. Latin America and Global Capitalism: A Critical Globalization Perspective. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475. Roldán Ortega, R., 2004. Models for recognizing indigenous land rights in Latin America. Biodiversity Series, 99. World Bank, New York. Sabogal, C., de Jong, W., Pokorny, B., Louman, B. (Eds.), 2008. Manejo forestal comunitario en América tropical: Experiencias, lecciones aprendidas y retos para el futuro. CIFOR, Bogor. Saraceno, E., 2002. La política europea de desarrollo rural y su utilidad en el contexto latinoamericano. In: Correa, P.E., Viñas, S.J.M. (Eds.), Políticas, instrumentos y experiencias de desarrollo rural en América Latina y Europa, Ministerio de Agricultura. Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid, pp. 169–184. Sayer, J.A., 1995. Science and international nature conservation. Occasional Paper, 4. CIFOR, Bogor. Schlesinger, S., 2011. The financial and fiscal roots of deforestation in the Amazon. Policy Matters 18: macroeconomics policies, livelihoods and sustainability. IUCN, Gland 74–91. Schmidhuber, J., Tubiello, F.N., 2007. Global food security under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (50), 19703–19708. Schmink, M., Wood, C., 1992. Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. Columbia University Press, New York. Schneider, R., 1995. Government and the Economy on the Amazon Frontier. World Bank Environment Paper No. 11. World Bank, Washington D.C.

59

Scott, A.J., Garofoli, G., 2007. Development on the Ground. Routledge, London. Simmons, C., Walter, R., Perz, S., Aldrich, S., Caldas, M., Pereira, R., Leite, F., Fernandes, L.C., Arima, E., 2010. Doing it for themselves: direct action land reform in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development 38 (3), 429–444. Soares-Filho, B.S., Nepstad, D., Curran, L.M., Cerqueira, G.C., Garcia, R.A., Azevedo Ramos, C., Voll, E., Macdonald, A., Lefebvre, P., Schlesinger, P., 2006. Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440, 520–523. Stöhr, W.B. (Ed.), 1990. Global Challenge and Local Response. Mansell, London. Stoian, D., 2000. Variations and dynamics of extractive economies: the rural urban nexus of non-timber forest use in the Bolivian Amazon. (Dissertation) University of Freiburg, Freiburg. Stoian, D., 2005. Making the best of two worlds: rural and peri-urban livelihood options sustained by non-timber forest products from the Bolivian Amazon. World Development 33, 1473–1490. Sunderlin, W.D., Hatcher, J., Liddle, M., 2008. From exclusion to ownership? Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform. Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI), Washington D.C. UN (United Nations), 2000. We the peoples. The role of the United Nations in the 21st century.UN, New York. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2010. Regional human development report for Latin America and Caribbean 2010: acting on the future breaking the intergene-racional transmission of inequality. UNDP, San José. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2001. Report of the conference of the parties on its 7th session, held in Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001, New York. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2007. Report of the conference of the parties on its 13th session, held in Bali from 3–15 December 2007. UN, New York. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2011. Report of the conference of the parties on its 17th session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. UN, New York. Vazquez-Barquero, A., 1993. Política económica local. Editorial Pirámide, Madrid. Vazquez-Barquero, A., 2010. The New Forces of Development: Territorial Policy for Endogenous Development. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore. Vuletin, G., 2008. Measuring the Informal Economy in Latin America and the Caribbean. IMF Working Paper08/102. International Monetary Fund, Washington D.C. Walker, R., Moran, E., Anselin, L., 2000. Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: external capital and household processes. World Development 28, 683–699. Weber, M., 1905. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Routledge, London. Wiggins, S., Kirsten, J., Llambi, L. (Eds.), 2010. The future of small farmsWorld Development 38 (10), 1341–1526. World Bank, 2007. World development report 2008. Agriculture for development. World Bank, Washington D.C. World Bank, 2009. Implementing agriculture for development. World Bank Group Agriculture. Action Plan: FY2010–2012.World Bank, Washington D.C. Wunder, S., 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests — what scope for synergies. World Development 19 (11), 1817–1833. Zenteno, M., Zuidema, P., de Jong, W., Boot, R., 2013. Livelihood strategies and forest dependency: new insights from Bolivian forest communities. Forest Policy and Economics 26, 12–21. Zuidema, P., Boot, R., 2002. Demography of the Brazil nut tree (Bertholletia excelsa) in the Bolivian Amazon: impact of seed extraction on recruitment and population dynamics. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18, 1–31.