Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect

Making place-based sustainability initiatives visible in

the Brazilian Amazon
Eduardo S Brondizio1,4, Krister Andersson2, Fábio de Castro3,
Célia Futemma4, Carl Salk5, Maria Tengö6, Marina Londres4,
Daiana CM Tourne4, Taı́s S Gonzalez6, Adriana Molina-Garzón2,
Gabriela Russo Lopes3 and Sacha MO Siani1

From state-based developmentalism to community-based Introduction

initiatives to market-based conservation, the Brazilian Amazon A laboratory of development interventions for over
has been a laboratory of development interventions for over 50 years, the Brazilian Amazon is again experiencing
50 years. The region is now confronting a devastating COVID- frontier expansion, resource expropriation and deforesta-
19 pandemic amid renewed environmental pressures and tion, pollution and pressures on Indigenous and rural
increasing social inequities. While these forces are shaping the communities. Today, land-use conflicts, conservation,
present and future of the region, the Amazon has also become climate change, urban poverty and inequality, and a
an incubator of local innovations and efforts confronting these devastating COVID-19 pandemic interact in complex
pressures. Often overlooked, place-based initiatives involving ways. While academic and policy debates rightly empha-
individual and collective-action have growing roles in size these forces as shaping the present and future of the
promoting regional sustainability. We review the history of region, the Amazon has also become an incubator of local
development interventions influencing the emergence of place- innovations and efforts to confront these pressures and
based initiatives and their potential to promoting changes in historical social inequalities, by both individual and col-
productive systems, value-aggregation and market-access, lective-action [1–3,4].
and governance arrangements improving living-standards and
environmental sustainability. We provide examples of initiatives
Place-based initiatives involving individuals, rural com-
documented by the AGENTS project, contextualizing them
munities, organizations, associations and cooperatives,
within the literature. We reflect on challenges and opportunities
while often overlooked at the regional level, have growing
affecting their trajectories at this critical juncture for the future of
roles in efforts to promote sustainable development.
the region.
Throughout the region, they are contributing alternative
approaches to manage, conserve and restore landscapes
Addresses
1
Indiana University-Bloomington, USA
[5,6], promote regenerative agriculture and agroforestry
2
University of Colorado-Boulder, USA [7–9], reduce poverty [10], empower women [11], pro-
3
CEDLA, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands mote value-aggregation and market access [12], and make
4
NEPAM, State University of Campinas, Brazil environmental governance more inclusive [13]. They
5
Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
have been important protagonists of regional change
6
Stockholm University, Sweden during past decades, but remain largely marginalized
and invisible, challenged by land invasions, conflicting
Corresponding author: policies and poor access to transportation, sanitation,
de Castro, Fábio ([email protected], [email protected]) education and health services, and credit.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78 In this article, we review the recent history of develop-
This review comes from a themed issue on Transformations to ment interventions in the Brazilian Amazon to examine
sustainability: critical social science perspectives factors and conditions influencing the emergence of
Edited by Eleanor Fisher, Emily Boyd, Eduardo S Brondizio place-based initiatives and their potential to promote
and sustain changes and innovations in this time of
uncertainty for the region. Specifically, we focus on rural
Received: 16 October 2020; Accepted: 17 March 2021
place-based initiatives pursuing changes in productive
systems, institutions, and access to markets to improve
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.007 living standards and environmental sustainability. We
1877-3435/ã 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an review three overlapping phases in regional development
open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. ideas (and ideologies): state-based developmentalism
org/licenses/by/4.0/). (1960–), transnational socio-environmentalism (1990–),

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78 www.sciencedirect.com

 Place-based sustainability initiatives in Amazonia Brondizio et al. 67

market-based and corporative green schemes (2000–). Examining the emergence and trajectories of place-based
We further highlight the influence and lasting legacy initiatives has further conceptual and practical implica-
of three key interventions ‘enabling’ place-based initia- tions. Ostrom’s pioneering Governing the Commons [15]
tives, particularly the Liberation Theology movement contributed immensely to understanding the conditions
(1970 1980), the PPG7 program (1990s–2000s), and where communities can develop long-term sustainable
socioenvironmental policies (2000–2010). management of common-pool resources, at least where
external pressures are limited. Recent work investigates
We use place-based initiatives to refer to actions by on- the conditions promoting bottom-up initiatives, and sus-
the-ground actors who have ownership (and take the tainability initiatives more broadly, to replicate and
risks) in implementing ideas and actions, even if the amplify [16–19]. Less understood is under what condi-
initiatives are externally initiated and supported. While tions place-based initiatives can connect (e.g. socially,
many of these initiatives are place-specific (e.g. a rural economically and institutionally), consolidate, and inspire
association’s agroforestry nursery and fruit-pulp proces- broader and lasting changes while confronting growing
sing micro-industry), they are connected in various external pressures [20].
degrees with governments at multiple levels, external
markets, donors, and supporting non-governmental As we illustrate below, external factors have sometimes
organizations. become enabling conditions making local actors more
visible, empowered and creative to develop innovative
As reviewed in the sections that follow, place-based initia- paths with impacts beyond their local context. But in
tives are addressed in different ways in the vast academic periods of economic and political hardships, when exter-
literature examining (and influencing) the transformation nal forces and interventions generate conflicts and shrink
of the Brazilian Amazon during the last 50 years. On the one space for local actions, local actors have also developed
hand, attention is given to the power of policy and external new ways to mobilize socially, resist, reshape alliances,
interventions in impacting local practices, landscapes and redefine their livelihoods, build new knowledge and
driving conflicts and political struggles. On the other hand, inspire one another. In these spaces, transformative paths
attention is given to the power of sustainable practices are being re-imagined from conflicting but hopeful nar-
shaped by adaptation to local contexts. Beyond normative ratives of development and resistance, new ideas, political
perspectives of ‘negative’ external drivers versus ‘positive’ alliances, and exchange of experiences. During the past
local drivers, the literature describes regional transforma- two decades, these paths of action and place-based initia-
tions shaped through all kinds of dialectical relations among tives have proliferated in the region; they are gradually
interventions, environmental and climate change, and connecting through new alliances and collective narra-
local-level action. tives with support from external actors and new technol-
ogies. However, counter-forces of fragmentation, vulner-
For decades, alliances between external and local inter- ability and silence have gained strength. In response, to
est groups have enabled and benefited from govern- realize these imagined transformative paths, these seeds
ment policies and market forces supporting the spread of innovation are seeking to expand and develop new
of deforestation, logging, mining, large-scale infrastruc- connections. The recent history of the region shows that
ture, and land invasions. Recently, for instance, local place-based initiatives, if adopted by social and political
actors coordinated forest-burning events via social movements, can shape regional landscapes and policies;
media while resonating a narrative about regional they can also be undermined and disappear.
development promoted by the Brazilian president
and allies [14]. Conversely, several top-down but pro- Following a review of regional development interven-
gressive national public policies, including formal tions, we illustrate our discussion with examples of place-
titling programs, social safety-nets, Indigenous land based initiatives promoting sustainability in the region
demarcation, and environmental regulation, exist to a today as documented by the AGENTS project (Amazo-
large extent because of longstanding coordinated exter- nian Governance to Enable Transformation to Sustain-
nal and bottom-up pressure from social movements. For ability) and contextualize them within the regional liter-
instance, the rubber tapper movement grew from and ature. We then reflect on challenges and opportunities
inspired a multitude of other social movements and affecting their potential trajectories at this critical junc-
shaped public policies on conservation with implica- ture for the future of the region.
tions beyond Brazil; and experiences with community-
based management of floodplain fisheries, initially Fifty-years of development interventions and
inspired by external interventions have been scaled- conflicting legacies
up and inspired state-level policies. In today’s reconfi- From state-based developmentalism to community-
gured Amazonia, these contrasting legacies are increas- based initiatives to market-based conservation, the Bra-
ingly intertwined in an inescapable interdependence zilian Amazon has been the focus of actions, overlapping
among actors and levels of governance. in time and space, to reconfigure the region since the

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78

68 Transformations to sustainability: critical social science perspectives

Figure 1

2004
1988
PPCDAm
1970-1975 1975-1979 Chico Mendes
DETER
murdered

1989 2006
PIN PND II Soy moratoria
PRODES
POLAMAZÔNIA
1974 2008

Deforestation 1992 Beef moratoria Deforestation

mapping project Rio-92 Amazon Fund thousand km²

29

20

10
large-scale deforestation

0
1960 65 70 75 80 85 88* 90 95 00 05 10 15 2020**

Military dictatorship
1960s
Phases

State-based developmentalism
1990s
Transnational socio-environmentalism
Since 2000s
Market based & corporative green schemes
1970s-1980s
Liberation theology & Base Education Movement
Enablers

1990s-2000s
PPG7 program
2000s
Socioenvironmental policies

1990s-FNO
1970s-1980s
Geopolitical goals
2010s
Investments in roads
Green municipalities
Rural settlements
program
Subsidies for agriculture, mining, cattle
ranching & industries
Since 2000s

Agroecological movement
1970s-2000s
Rural resistance movements emerged supported by progressive catholic groups
1980s-2000s
Strengthening of rural unions & confederations
Since 1980s
Formation of rural associations & cooperatives
Support programs from social & environmental NGOs

1990s-2000s
Demarcation of protected areas, Indigenous & community land

2000s
Inclusive social policies
Bolsa Familia
Bolsa Floresta
PRONAF,PPA, PNA
Mid 2010s
Dismantling of forest
monitoring & enforcement
Increase land invasions

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Development interventions, initiatives, and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Data source: PRODES/INPE. Notes: * PRODES data is available
from 1988 to 2019. The absence of bars before 1988 does not mean there was no deforestation in the period. ** The deforestation rate in 2020 is
a preliminary estimate.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78 www.sciencedirect.com

 Place-based sustainability initiatives in Amazonia Brondizio et al. 69

1960s (Figure 1). Between 1960–1990, state-based devel- policies [35–38]. Based on Paulo Freire’s methodology,
opment projects promoted top-down, large-scale infra- they promoted literacy and political consciousness among
structure, land occupation, and a vision of economic marginalized rural populations, building rural leaders who
extractivism that lead to high deforestation rates, land became vital in land struggles during the 1980s re-democ-
ownership concentration, and social inequities [21–24]. ratization. These programs have continuously influenced
From 1990–2010, following the United Nations’ the formation of rural community associations, forest-
Rio Earth Summit in 1992, a unique version of peoples organizations, and rural worker unions through-
‘transnational socio-environmentalism’ emerged along out the region since the 1970s.
with programs to strengthen environmental policies,
expand environmental monitoring, and demarcate Indig- Movements such as that of rubber-tappers reached inter-
enous lands and protected areas. These efforts slowed national visibility [39] and continue influence many grass-
deforestation, improved land security of traditional com- roots environmental movements today. They helped
munities, and expanded sustainable production initia- connect local concerns and actors to international levels,
tives grounded in cooperativism, value-aggregation, created alliances connecting social-ecological concerns,
improvements in local infrastructure and social services and articulated a forest/river-based development narra-
[25,26,28]. As socio-environmental policies declined tive. They gave rise to ‘socio-environmentalism’ a move-
after 2010, market-based nature conservation initiatives ment during the 1990s and 2000s grounded in transna-
grew, such as voluntary compensation schemes, certifi- tional alliances between social and environmental
cation programs, and multi-stakeholder roundtables movements for alternative development pathways, based
[24,27,29]. Since 2010, these advances have happened on local knowledge and resource governance, and the
in parallel to resurgent state-based developmentalism, economic value of biodiversity and local products [24,35].
including the systematic dismantling of environmental Focused on controlling deforestation, creating protected
policies and monitoring systems, expansion of large- areas and demarcating Indigenous lands, and recognizing
scale infrastructure, illegal deforestation and continuing local knowledge and territorial governance, these com-
land conflicts [24,30,31,32,33]. While these different munities became the main allies in a larger socio-envi-
development framings and interventions emerged in ronmental project involving governmental and nongov-
different periods, today’s ideas and visions of regional ernmental organizations [40,41].
development not only overlap, but interact in synergistic
and conflicting ways. These transformative paths in social organization and
territorial governance strengthen from the launch of
Place-based initiatives have emerged and changed in the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest
several phases. Local actors have articulated experiences (PPG7) on the heels of Rio-92 (Figure 1). PPG7 became
and elements from each phase by adapting and seeking the largest environmental program implemented in Brazil
new opportunities to support their livelihoods using at the time, and arguably the most influential to date for
knowledge co-production, alliances with other actors, the Amazon.7 It shaped the current environmental gov-
and self-governance. Causing or responding to the out- ernance of the region and the experiences of rural and
comes of development programs, three groups of inter- Indigenous communities with sustainable development
ventions have enabled structural changes, and influenced initiatives [42,43,44]. The program’s impact has been
each other, at both ground and policy levels: the Catholic seen in support for the then-nascent Ministry of Envi-
Liberation Theology movement during the 1970s and ronment and of the Legal Amazon, supporting the craft-
1980s, the externally funded Pilot Program to Conserve ing socioenvironmental policies, and advancing Brazil’s
the Brazilian Rainforest (PPG7) during the 1990s and comprehensive satellite-based deforestation monitoring
2000s, and the development of a bundle of socio-envi- system.
ronmental policies by the federal and some state govern-
ments supported by non-governmental organizations and PPG7 contributed to unprecedented territorial policies,
social movements [24] (Figure 1). including the expansion of demarcated Indigenous
lands, new extractive and sustainable use reserves based
Based on social justice principles, the Liberation Theol- on co-management arrangements with communities,
ogy movement catalyzed social and economic interven- and other types of protected areas. Hundreds to thou-
tions in rural Amazonian communities [34]. Parish leaders sands of communities received support from PPG7 pro-
and supporting organizations organized rural families into grams for local projects before it wound down around
communities, often based on external ideals and practices
of collective governance and ownership. The term 7
‘community’ gained region-wide usage to represent Organized in four main areas, the program supported (1) the devel-
opment of a national environmental policy, including deforestation
place-based social and political organizations, progres- monitoring for the region, (2) the creation of protected areas and the
sively gaining relevance as a source of identity and land demarcation of Indigenous lands, (3) research about regional ecosys-
rights, and as a unit for project implementation and public tems, and (4) local sustainable development initiatives.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78

70 Transformations to sustainability: critical social science perspectives

2012. Concomitantly, many initiatives also benefited smallholder producers, gender and collective identity
from the credit program FNO (National Fund for the [53,54,55].
North), approved as part of the new 1988 constitution,
which included credit granted through associations and Making visible place-based initiatives
local organizations [45]. pursuing social and environmental goals
The legacy of this history of ideas and interventions, and
These initiatives were boosted by socioenvironmental their interactions, is a range of social-institutional arrange-
policies implemented during the Workers’ Party govern- ments, innovations, and conflicts endemic to the Brazilian
ment (2003–2016) such as credit-lines to improve agricul- Amazon. Most of the initiatives documented by the
tural practices, expanded rural energy, and conditional AGENTS project were enabled, directly or indirectly,
cash-transfer programs [24,46–48]. In addition, the crea- by interventions associated and experiences gained,
tion of the Amazon Fund in 2008 expanded the financial among others, with Liberation Theology, PPG7, and
support for place-based initiatives (Figure 1). Local and socioenvironmental policies by both federal and some
regional organizations, such as rural workers’ unions, state governments. These enabling programs were instru-
Indigenous and rural community associations, and mental in building political consciousness and re-organiz-
women’s networks were strengthened significantly. They ing kinship-based groups and migrant-colonist families
gained experience working with governments, national into ‘communities’ and issue-based associations. Com-
and international NGOs, and, not least, by sharing lead- munity identity and formal associativism have not only
ership and organizational expertise. Regionally, a com- helped ‘binding social capital’ across horizontal networks
prehensive Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of of mutual support, but ‘bridging social capital’ with
Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm) eventu- regional and supra-regional networks, and with municipal
ally led to an 80% reduction in deforestation rates by 2012 and higher governments [4,56]. These experiences con-
(Figure 1), helping to decrease pressures on forest-depen- tinue to be instrumental as new opportunities and chal-
dent communities. However, government policies during lenges have emerged. In this section, we illustrate exam-
the same period also supported the expansion of large- ples of place-based initiatives documented by the
scale commodity agriculture, logging and mining, and AGENTS project, contextualizing an illustrative set of
large-scale infrastructure, creating a situation where these these initiatives within the regional literature.
diverse forms of living and interacting with the region co-
exist today [24]. Since 2019, the AGENTS project has documented
through participatory workshops, fieldwork, archival
Since 2000, market-based sustainable development pro- and interviews over 200 place-based initiatives in over
jects also emerged through various partnership arrange- 900 localities and 174 municipalities in the Brazilian
ments [49]. Carbon compensation schemes for forest Amazon (Figure 2). These are mostly small-scale initia-
conservation started to gain more attention as corpora- tives dedicated, among others, to timber and NTFP
tions allied with environmental NGOs to develop mar- management and certification, land restoration, expan-
ket-based mechanisms to incentivize forest conserva- sion of agroforestry systems, capacity-building, women’s
tion. Voluntary sustainable supply chain certification empowerment, micro-industries, production, processing,
schemes emerged from the private sector to comply and commercialization cooperatives, and community-
with sustainability criteria increasingly demanded by based natural resource governance. Some of these inno-
global consumers. Although supply chain certification vations emerged from local knowledge and experimenta-
arrangements remained largely non-accessible to small- tion, such as intensive agroforestry systems, while others
holder producers, diverse forest product entrepreneur- came from interactions between external agendas and
ship emerged in the form of cooperatives and micro- local goals, such as the creation of sustainable-use
industries for processing and commercializing oils, fruit- reserves and community-based management arrange-
pulp, food products, jewelry, timber and other products ments. They have sought to govern more inclusively to
sold to local and to external markets. Credit lines for manage conflicts or create new and more effective agree-
family farming (PRONAF), and institutional purchase of ments among stakeholders, guiding local people’s deci-
family farmers’ products (PAA and PNAE) (Figure 1) as sions and actions around rivers, forests, agricultural, and
well as partnerships between grassroots organizations, urban landscapes.
researchers, private actors and NGOs were instrumental
in establishing these initiatives [50–52]. Also relevant Figure 2 presents a preliminary map of initiatives identi-
during this period is the rise of the agroecological move- fied by the AGENTS project based on collaborative work
ment, which gained force throughout Latin America with local organizations, individuals and groups in three
(Figure 1) in tandem with the international peasant focal areas. A database of initiatives was built with con-
movement Via Campesina, and has since expanded in tributions from collaborators and participants in dialogue
the Amazon and Brazil as a whole promoting regenera- workshops, fieldwork, and interviews. Initiatives were
tive agriculture and advocating for the social value of included based on their intended scope and also

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78 www.sciencedirect.com

 Place-based sustainability initiatives in Amazonia Brondizio et al. 71

Figure 2

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

A preliminary map of initiatives identified by the Agents project in in the Brazilian Amazon.

recognition by local actors and organizations as contrib- which are nodes of regional networks. They are found
uting to positive environmental and social transforma- among families and communities connected by roads and
tions at different scales. This is but a small sample of rivers, in some cases under larger institutional arrange-
initiatives taking place in the region, yet illustrative of the ments and property-regimes, such as in national forests,
diversity and scale of efforts happening today. About half sustainable-use reserves and Indigenous and Quilombola
of the initiatives in the database are located in community territories. Others are reconfigured agrarian-reform set-
or private lands, 18% in communities living in conser- tlements or juxtaposed with large-scale properties. For
vation units, 15% in Indigenous or Quilombola lands,8 analytical purposes, the database allows organizing initia-
and 17% in rural settlements. tives into multiple groups of working categories, such as
in terms of functional structure (e.g. Figure 2), types of
As Figure 2 illustrates, these initiatives have expanded activities performed (e.g. Figure 3), and transformation
significantly since 2000 reflecting not only the impact of outcome, such as production, market, and governance
the programs discussed above, but the building-up of arrangements (e.g. Figure 4). It is relevant to note that
experiences and social capital among local actors. For most initiatives today approach intended outcomes in
instance, the development of ‘vegetable leather’ (‘couro production, market, and governance as interdependent
vegetal’) in the mid-1990s in Acre, as a value-aggregation and requiring synergistic approaches to leverage and
technology, emerged from efforts involving rubber-tap- sustain advances [57–60].
ping communities, the state government, external orga-
nizations and funders. While the initial enterprise folded, Several groups of initiatives documented by the
the know-how continued to be disseminated throughout AGENTS project have been widely discussed in the
the region through collaborative networks and women’s regional literature, some of which we briefly review here.
groups, leading to the emergence of numerous micro- Experimentation, innovation, and the diffusion of agro-
industries and new products elsewhere in the region, as forestry systems (AFS) have been common practice in the
illustrated in Figure 3 (lower-left). The map reveals the Amazon since pre-Columbian times [61] and are currently
regional distribution of place-based initiatives, many of practiced by Indigenous people [62,63], and small-scale
to medium-scale farmers of diverse backgrounds [4,9,
8
Afro-Brazilian rural settlements recognized in the 1988 constitution. 64–67]. During the past 20 years, AFS have become a

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78

72 Transformations to sustainability: critical social science perspectives

Figure 3

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Examples of place-based initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. Upper-left to right: P.A. Benedito Alvez Bandeira; Women‘s association AMABELA, P.
A. Moju I e II; COMFLONA and Jamaraquá community, National Forest of Tapajós; Lower-left to right: Communities of Jamaraqua, Maguary, and
São Domingos, National Forest of Tapajós; São Sebastião community; Tome-Acu, PA.

preferred approach towards sustainable land-use transi- and local ecological knowledge, from bioprospecting to
tion, including for land restoration from abandoned pas- certification, emerged during the 1980s as a response to
ture and fallow areas [68]. As productive systems with a destructive policy interventions [77,73]. State govern-
forest-like structure, AFS build on synergistic effects of ments have also promoted value-aggregation projects,
crop diversity, soil-plant interactions, and ecological ser- such as in the state of Amapá starting in the late 1980s
vices. Since the 1990s, they have been framed as innova- [74] and the forest-economy policy program implemented
tive and resilient production systems that provide an in the state of Acre in the late 1990s [75]. Currently
alternative to deforestation [72,69], engender a forest- emerging, but yet to be implemented, the ‘bioeconomics’
based economy [8], address hunger and poverty [8], paradigm is proposing to re-articulate development
minimize production risks [7], promote innovations through valorization of biodiversity and local knowledge,
[76,70], and connect farmers to different markets, but also bringing attention to new technologies and
increasing their income [2,9,71]. Agroforestry production, market arrangements [76].
particularly of fruits and oils, also provides employment in
processing industries of various scales, commercialization, Concomitantly to these efforts, rural associations, coop-
and direct-sales to consumers. For instance, the agrofor- eratives and micro-industries have emerged across the
estry-based intensification of acai fruit production has region to confront the bottleneck of value-aggregation
contributed to an economy employing hundreds of thou- and market access for forest-dependent and smallholder
sands of people throughout the supply chain, restoring communities. Producers grassroots cooperatives emerged
and maintaining forests in the region’s floodplains and and proliferated from a process of education for citizen-
upland areas [72]. ship, autonomy and participation, with the mediation of
local and regional organizations, including the aforemen-
Even where smallholders have developed intensive agro- tioned enabling programs and efforts [77]. While there
forestry production for valuable products, their share of are many failures, there are several successful examples of
profits is small within the supply chain [9]. Many efforts producers’ cooperatives in the Amazon providing
have tried to address these challenges with limited or jobs and income generation, promoting of forest
uneven success. The economic valorization of Indigenous management, agroforestry and crop diversification,

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78 www.sciencedirect.com

 Place-based sustainability initiatives in Amazonia Brondizio et al. 73

Figure 4

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Illustrating synergies between production-market-governance arrangements and outcomes.

enabling political-institutional links with different been documented among rural communities engaged in
regional, national and international actors, and stimulat- community fishing agreements [85], turtle nesting pro-
ing innovation, creativity, mutual respect and participa- tection [86], community NTFP management [87–89] and
tion [1,78–80]. timber management [90–92]. Although community-based
organizations have been part of the Amazonian rural
Initiatives focusing on building women’s empowerment landscape since the 1980s, CBNRM systems became
have contributed to promoting inclusion in governance more visible in Brazil in the 1990s with the emergence
and in the production, processing, and commercialization of transnational socio-environmentalism (Figure 1),
of agricultural and forest products with variable degrees of which emphasized the role of forest communities in
success [81]. According to Shanley et al. [82], many of the sustainable development and climate-mitigation strate-
women’s groups and associations ‘capitalized on interna- gies [93]. This perspective opened new opportunities for
tional donors’ interest in gender issues and garnered support from international donors and policymakers to
funding from external sources, ( . . . ) while others came CBNRM systems.
about from the confrontation of discriminatory policies
favoring large ranchers and monoculture plantations’. Yet, Many of these grassroots initiatives have received legal
while women in leadership roles in the governance of recognition, funding, and training programs to further
local and regional organizations have increased over the develop their community-based initiatives. Formal com-
last two decades with the support of non-governmental munity-based territorial rights [92] and fishing agree-
organizations, including religious groups, they remain ments in the Lower Amazon [94], commercial develop-
largely invisible and lacking specific support in public ment of community-based management of the fish
policies [89,83,84]. Arapaima gigas [95] and community-based timber man-
agement in the Tapajós National Forest [10] are only a
Finally, governance arrangements grounded on commu- few examples. In the state of Amazonas, the perceived
nity-based natural resource management (CBNRM) have success of Arapaima management among a dozen

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78

74 Transformations to sustainability: critical social science perspectives

communities in the late 1990s led to an expansion of the networks, created new partnerships with state and non-
program, through government incentives and arrange- state actors, and melded local knowledge about resource
ments, to around 500 communities today [96]. A common management and production systems with new ideas,
denominator of these experiences is hybrid governance, technologies, and market opportunities. As illustrated in
where national policies, international funding and multi- Figure 4, place-based initiatives now take more cross-
stakeholder networks support local institutions. sectoral approaches (Figure 4). They are combining actions
intended to advance production systems (e.g. agriculture,
Learning from failures is key to engender forestry, fisheries, NTFP) in tandem with infrastructure for
long-lasting transformation agricultural product storage, value-aggregation in micro-
While place-based initiatives provide social support, industries, improving access to markets and direct-sales to
innovations, and inspiration towards more sustainable consumers, and redefining underlying governance institu-
development pathways, they also chronicle some of the tions. These more synergistic arrangements tend to address
frustration and failures that have marked the ups-and- multiple goals and involve a wider range of participants,
downs of development interventions and programs in the help increase the profitability of local products, form new
Amazon. A literature on place-based interventions has alliances and supporting networks, and balance individual/
highlighted the ephemeral nature and the ‘pilot-project family interests and collective governance institutions.
syndrome’ that have come to characterize many experi- However, they remain dependent on and limited by exter-
ences but also the long-lasting effects of some external nal support, lacking visibility and recognition as important
influences in local livelihoods [49]. Discontinuities, frus- drivers of the regional economy and, thus, more favorable
trations, and failures of community-based projects, for policies and access to basic public services.
instance, have also equipped local actors and organiza-
tions to anticipate challenges and to take charge and The power and limitations of place-based
leadership of new opportunities [97]. initiatives to engender transformative paths in
a post-pandemic Amazon
An emerging literature on regional-level case-studies The growing complexity of the Amazonian landscape
highlights the importance of cross-scale interactions in juxtaposes contrasting relationships between and among
hindering or enabling the intended outcomes of place- local populations, a changing environment, and conflict-
based initiatives, and it demonstrates the complexities ing views intervening in regional transformation and
involved in both understanding whether an achieved goal sustainability. The irreducible and intertwined social-
at one level is resilient and whether goals achieved at one ecological fabric of the region — the rivers, forests,
level may contribute to more emergent desirable states at animals, weather systems, cultures, actors, politics, insti-
higher levels [98–102], or be undermined by external tutions, economies and land uses — represents a micro-
pressures [64]. cosm of the sustainability dilemmas faced by actors from
local to global levels. Beyond a Lilliputian or Leviathan
A key to moving forward is recognizing the factors and view of the forces affecting regional transformation, we
conditions that have undermined the successes of place- examine these interactions as historical processes that
based sustainable development initiatives in the past result in emergent outcomes, either enhancing or under-
[103]. These include a lack of attention to local needs mining local goals, and from which lessons can be learned.
and capacities in program formulation [104,105], reliance
on technocratic management [106] or dependence on Place-based initiatives are powerful forces of change in
financial subsidies with limited attention to project con- the Amazon, but they also show that the governance of a
tinuation [107,108]. By overlooking local limitations, con- complex region must be a multi-level process. It is well
texts and expectations, some sustainable development recognized that effective local governance benefits from
initiatives have deepened conflicts, inequalities, and tenure security, access to conflict resolution and media-
unsustainable practices [109,110] or proven to be ephem- tion, as well as legal back-up and support in the enforce-
eral or to have mixed outcomes [49,51,111]. Local-level ment of local rules, which depend on governance pro-
factors, such as lack of administrative experience and cesses and policies within governmental organizations at
unfamiliarity with complex bureaucracies (e.g. financial higher levels [20,112,113]. Promising place-based initia-
management, sanitary certification, exporting rules) have tives by themselves, despite their success in transforming
also frustrated expectations, including bankruptcy of local local spaces, are often insufficient to advance sustainable
associations and cooperatives, community conflicts and development at broader societal scales, whereas political
frustration with collective engagements. and environmental factors are beyond their reach. Con-
fronting the persistent structural and multi-dimensional
Many initiatives documented by the AGENTS project inequalities (social, political and economic) of the region
reflect the ways actors have gained experience in interact- calls for action at all levels, from all sectors. More than in
ing and responding to external interventions and pressures. previous periods, the regional socioenvironmental infra-
They have formed new associations and inter-association structure is being systematically dismantled, while

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78 www.sciencedirect.com

 Place-based sustainability initiatives in Amazonia Brondizio et al. 75

inequalities, conflicts on the ground, and the pressures of Edited by Saito O. Singapore: Springer; 2020 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-13-8067-9_8.
climate change have been increasing [37,38]. Rural social
4. Futemma C, Castro F, Brondizio ES: Farmers and social
movements continue to be vital in supporting political  innovations in rural development: collaborative arrangements
mobilization around agrarian struggles and new pathways in eastern Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 2020, 99:104999
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104999.
to more sustainable production systems and better living This study sheds some light on models of collaboration shaped by local
standards. farmers in the Eastern region of state of Pará and built through bonding
and bridging social capital.
The current challenge, however, is how to develop a 5. Falcão JC, Dáttilo W, Izzo TJ: Efficiency of different planted
forests in recovering biodiversity and ecological interactions
[eventual] post-pandemic transformative path. The in Brazilian Amazon. For Ecol Manag 2015, 339:105-111.
COVID-19 pandemic is revealing both the power and
6. Sanches RA, Futemma C: Seeds network and collective action
limitations of local governance amid a national and global for the restoration and conservation of Xingu River’s springs
crisis. The absence of national coordination in govern- (Mato Grosso, Brazil). Desenvolv Meio Ambient (UFPR) 2019,
50:127-150.
ment programs to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in
Brazil in general, and in the Amazon in particular, has led 7. Yamada M, Gholz HL: An evaluation of agroforestry systems as
a rural development option for the Brazilian Amazon. Agrofor
to a collapse of the health system and many other eco- Syst 2002, 55:81-87.
nomic sectors, alongside increasing deforestation and 8. Porro R, Meier M, Vivan JL, Miccolis A, Rodrigues Gonçalves AL:
fires, violence and invasion of Indigenous lands and Polı´ticas Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Agroflorestal no Brasil.
conservation areas. Conversely, one observes the emer- Belém: World Agroforestry Center; 2011 http://www.fao.org/
forestry/36079-020ee9893d541ea176f0df22301c7ef99.pdf.
gence and consolidation of collective-action at multiple
levels to further limit the current sanitary and environ- 9. Brondizio ES: The Amazonian Caboclo and the Açaı´ palm: Forest
Farmers in the Global Market. New York: New York Botanical
mental crisis affecting the region’s vulnerable majority, Garden Press; 2008. 402 pp.
that is, the urban and rural poor, Indigenous and Afro- 10. Humphries S, Holmes T, de Andrade DFC, McGrath D, Dantas JB:
Brazilian communities [114]. Pathways to a more sustain- Searching for win-win forest outcomes: learning-by-doing,
financial viability, and income growth for a community-based
able and just future will depend as much on coordinated forest management cooperative in the Brazilian Amazon.
and inclusive policies as on the emergent successes of World Dev 2020, 125:104336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
place-based initiatives. worlddev.2018.06.005.
11. Kainer KA, Duryea ML: Tapping women’s knowledge: plant
resource use in extractive reserves, Acre, Brazil. Econ Bot
Conflict of interest statement 1992, 46:408-425.
Nothing declared. 12. Baggio CA, Kuhl MR: Determinants in value appropriation in
smallholder farming innovations. Ciênc Rural 2018, 48.
Acknowledgements 13. Espada ALV, Vasconcellos Sobrinho M, de Miranda Rocha G, de
We are indebted to two anonymous reviewers who provided invaluable Albuquerque Vasconcellos AM: Manejo florestal comunitário
comments and suggestions on the first version of this manuscript. We are em parceria na Amazônia Brasileira: o caso da flona do
Tapajós. Rev Bras Gestão Desenvolv Reg 2018, 14:135-165.
thankful for the support of the Belmont Forum, NORFACE, and the
International Science Council’s T2S Program and the national funders 14. Caetano MAL: Political activity in social media induces forest
supporting the AGENTS project, in particular FAPESP (Brazil), National fires in the Brazilian Amazon. Technol Forecast Soc Change
Science Foundation (USA), NWO (The Netherlands), and Vetenskapsrådet 2021, 167:120676 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
(Sweden), and to the European Commission through Horizon 2020. We are techfore.2021.120676.
also thankful for the support of Indiana University’s Emerging Areas of
Research program for the project Sustainable Food System Science. We are 15. Ostrom E: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions
indebted to the support of all individuals, communities, and organizations for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1990.
who have been collaborating with us in the Amazon. The views and ideas
expressed in the paper is the sole responsibility of the authors. 16. Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, MacPhearson T, Norstrom A,
Olsson P, Pereira L, Peterson GD, Raudsepp-Hearne C,
Beirmann F et al.: Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene.
References and recommended reading Front Ecol Environ 2016, 14:441-448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, fee.1309.
have been highlighted as:
17. Pereira LM, Hichert T, Hamann M, Preiser R, Biggs R: Using
 of special interest futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a
 of outstanding interest good Anthropocene in southern Africa. Ecol Soc 2018, 23:19
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-09907-230119.
1. Burke BJ: Cooperatives for “fair globalization”? Indigenous 18. Scoones I, Stirling A, Abrol D, Atela J, Charli-Joseph L, Eakin H,
people, cooperatives, and corporate social responsibility in Ely A, Olsson P, Pereira L, Priya R et al.: Transformations to
the Brazilian Amazon. Latin Am Perspect 2010, 37:30-52. sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling
approaches. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2020, 42:65-75.
2. Porro R, Miller RP, Tito MR, Donovan JA, Vivan JL, Trancoso R,
Van Kantem RF, Grijalva JE, Ramirez BL, Gonçalves AL: 19. Lam DP, Martı́n-López B, Wiek A, Bennett EM, Frantzeskaki N,
Agroforestry in the Amazon region: a pathway for balancing Horcea-Milcu AI, Lang DJ: Scaling the impact of sustainability
conservation and development. In Agroforestry — The Future of initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban
Global Land Use. Edited by Nair PK, Garrity D. Dordrecht: Transform 2020, 2:1-24.
Springer; 2012.
20. Olsson P, Moore ML, Westley FR, McCarthy DDP: The concept of
3. Otsuki K, Castro F: Solidarity economy in Brazil: towards the Anthropocene as a game-changer: a new context for
institutionalization of sharing and agroecological practices. In social innovation and transformations to sustainability. Ecol
Sharing Ecosystem Services: Science for Sustainable Societies. Soc 2017, 22 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-09310-220231.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78

76 Transformations to sustainability: critical social science perspectives

21. Moran EF: Developing the Amazon. Bloomington: Indiana 40. Menzies NK: Our Forest, Your Ecosystem, Their Timber:
University Press; 1981. Communities, Conservation, and the State in Community-Based
Forest Management. Columbia University Press; 2007.
22. Bunker SG: The cost of modernity: inappropriate bureaucracy,
inequality, and development program failure in the Brazilian 41. Colchester M, Apte T, Laforge M, Mandondo A, Pathak N: Bridging
Amazon. J Dev Areas 1982, 16:573-596. the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks.
Jakarta: Cifor; 2003 https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/
23. Schmink M, Wood C: Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. New York: occpapers/op-41.pdf.
Columbia University Press; 1992.
42. Le Tourneau FM, Marchand G, Greissing A, Nasuti S, Droulers M,
24. Toledo PM, Dalla-Nora E, Guimarães Vieira IC, Dutra Aguiar AP, Bursztyn M, Dubreuil V: Assessing the impacts of sustainable
Araújo R: Development paradigms contributing to the development projects in the Amazon: the DURAMAZ
transformation of the Brazilian Amazon: do people matter? experiment. Sustain Sci 2013, 8:199-212.
Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2017, 26:77-83 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.009. 43. Le Tourneau FM: The sustainability challenges of indigenous
territories in Brazil’s Amazonia. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2015,
25. Nepstad D, McGrath D, Stickler C, Alencar A, Azevedo A, 14:213-220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.017.
Swette B, Bezerra T, DiGiano M, Shimada J, da Motta RS,
Armijo E: Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy 44. Le Tourneau FM, do Canto O (Eds): Amazônias Brasileiras,
and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 2014,  Situações Locais e Evoluções, vol 2. Belém: Editora NUMA/UFPA;
344:1118-1123. 2019.
One of the few systematic studies on the outcome of sustainable devel-
26. Godar J, Gardner TA, Tizado EJ, Pacheco P: Actor-specific opment projects, particularly related to the PPG7 program, on (13) rural
contributions to the deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian and Indigenous communities in the Amazon, evaluating both social and
Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014, 111:15591-15596. environmental dimensions.
27. Castro F, Futemma C (Eds): Governança Ambiental no Brasil: 45. Tura LR, de Costa F (Eds): Campesinato e Es-tado na Amazônia:
Entre o Socioambientalismo e a Economia Verde. São Paulo: Impactos do FNO no Para’. Brasi’lia, Brazil: Brasi’lia Juri’dica/
Paco; 2015. FASE; 2000.
28. Hochstetler K, Keck ME: Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism 46. De Castro F, Koonings K, Wiesebron M (Eds): Brazil Under the
in State and Society. Durham: Duke University Press; 2007. Workers’ Party: Continuity and Change from Lula to Dilma. New
York: Palgrave; 2014.
29. Bastos Lima M, Persson U: Commodity-centric landscape
governance as a double-edged sword: the case of soy and 47. De Lima AC, Brondi’zio ES, Nardoto GB, Nascimento AC:
the Cerrado Working Group in Brazil. Front For Glob Change Conditional cash transfers in the Amazon: from the nutrition
2020, 3. transition to complex dietary behavior change. Ecol Food Nutr
2019, 59:130-153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
30. Adams C, Borges Z, Moretto E, Futemma C: Governança 03670244.2019.1678032.
Ambiental no Brasil: Acelerando em direção aos objetivos de
desenvolvimento sustentável ou olhando pelo retrovisor? 48. Wong PY, Harding T, Kuralbayeva K, Anderson L, Pessoa A: Pay
Cadernos Gestão Pública e Cidadania 2020, 25:1-13. for Performance and Deforestation: Evidence from Brazil (Working
paper). . Available at: 2018 http://barrett.dyson.cornell.edu/
31. Seixas C, Santos Prado D, Joly C, Herman May P, Souza Costa E, NEUDC/paper_366.pdf.
Ribeiro Teixeira L: Governança Ambiental no Brasil: Rumo aos
objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável? Cadernos Gestão 49. Brown K: Innovations for conservation and development.
Pública e Cidadania 2020, 25:1-21. Geogr J 2002, 168:6-17.
32. Walker R, Simmons C: Endangered Amazon: an indigenous 50. Dana L, Mallet J: An unusual empirical pattern in an indigenous
 tribe fights back against hydropower development in the setting: cooperative entrepreneurship among Brazil nut
Tapajós valley. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 2018, 60:4-15 (Bertholletia excelsa) harvesters. Int J Entrepreneurship Small
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2018.1418994. Bus 2014, 22:137.
The article reflects the rising pressures of infrastructure development
projects on Indigenous Peoples in the Eastern portion of the Brazilian 51. Gouvea R: Sustainability and entrepreneurship: fostering
Amazon. indigenous entrepreneurship in the Brazilian Amazon region.
Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 2014, 5:48-64.
33. Aldrich SP, Simmons CS, Arima E, Walker RT, Michelotti F,
 Castro E: Agronomic or contentious land change? A 52. Hiedanpää J, Salo M: Emerging forest ecosystem service
longitudinal analysis from the Eastern Brazilian Amazon. PLoS entrepreneurship in Finland and Peru. Int For Rev 2017, 19
One 2020, 15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227378. (Suppl. 1).
An excellent longitudinal analysis on the role of conflicts over land rights
as drivers of deforestation; few other studies in the Amazon have followed 53. Caporal FR, Costabeber JA: Agroecologia: Alguns Conceitos e
the topic systematically in one region. Princı´pios. Brası́lia: MDA/SAF/DATER-IICA; 2005. 24 pp.

34. Leroy JP: Uma Chama na Amazônia. Rio de Janeiro: Editora 54. Futemma C: Organic agriculture, agroecology, and
Vozes; 1992. agroforestry: small farmers in Brazil. In Socio-Environmental
Regimes and Local Visions. Edited by Arce-Ibarra nra, Parra
35. Burdick J: Legacies of Liberation: The Progressive Catholic Church Vázquez ne o, Bello Baltazar uro, Araújo caaG. Cham: Springer;
in Brazil. London: Routledge; 2019. 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49767-5_20.

36. Schwartzman S: Chico Mendes, the rubber tappers and the 55. Altieri MA, Toledo VM: The agroecological revolution in Latin
Indians: reimagining conservation and development in the  America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and
Amazon. Desenvolv Meio Ambiente 2018, 48 http://dx.doi.org/ empowering peasants. J Peasant Stud 2011, 38:587-612.
10.5380/dma.v48i0.58829. The article highlights the importance of agroecology for small-scale
farmers and rural social movements towards food sovereignty and land
37. Heyck DL: Schools in the Forest: How Grassroots Education security especially in Latin America.
Brought Political Empowerment to the Brazilian Amazon. Sterling:
Kumarian Press; 2010. 56. Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR: Connectivity and the
governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of
38. Maués RH: Comunidades "no sentido social da social capital. Ann Rev Environ Resour 2009, 34:253-278.
evangelização": CEBs, camponeses e quilombolas na
Amazônia Oriental Brasileira. Relig Soc 2010, 30:13-37. 57. Monteiro Tourne D, Futemma C, de Castro F, Brondı́zio E, da
Cunha M, Ortiz Siani S: Iniciativas Visitadas em Santarém e
39. Hecht S, Cockburn A: The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Entorno [06 a 15 de dezembro de 2019]. . Available at: 2019 https://
Destroyers, and Defenders of the Amazon. Chicago: University of agents.casel.indiana.edu/doc/
Chicago Press; 1989. relatorio_campo_regiao_santarem_dez19.pdf.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78 www.sciencedirect.com

 Place-based sustainability initiatives in Amazonia Brondizio et al. 77

58. Monteiro Tourne D, Futemma C, Brondı́zio E, Russo Lopes G, de Amazônico, 1943-2000. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Garamond; 2007.
Castro F, Ortiz Siani S, Salk C: Iniciativas Visitadas no Vale do 500pp.
Acará e Moju, PA [21 a 27 de junho de 2019]. 2019 https://agents.
casel.indiana.edu/doc/relatorio-campo-vale-acara-moju- 75. Schmink M: Forest citizens: changing life conditions and social
22-06-2020publicacao.pdf. identities in the land of the rubber tappers. Lat Am Res Rev
2011, 46:141-158. Retrieved March 4, 2021, from http://www.
59. Londres M, Salk M, Futemma C, de Castro F, Monteiro Tourne D, jstor.org/stable/41261395.
Brondı́zio E: Iniciativas e Organizações Visitadas no Acre [19 de
outubro a 1 de dezembro de 2019]. . Available at: 2019 https:// 76. Nobre I, Nobre CA: The Amazonia third way initiative: the role of
agents.casel.indiana.edu/doc/relatorio_campo_acre_out19.pdf.  technology to unveil the potential of a novel tropical
biodiversity-based economy. In Land Use-Assessing the Past,
60. Londres M, Monteiro Tourne D, Ortiz Siani S, Futemma C, de Envisioning the Future. Edited by Loures L. London: IntechOpen;
Castro F, Salk C, Tengö M, Russo Lopes G, Brondı́zio E: Iniciativas 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80413.
Visitadas em Abaetetuba, PA [21 a 27 de junho de 2019]. . Available The paper presents the Amazonia Third Way initiative as an emergent
at: 2019 https://agents.casel.indiana.edu/doc/ opportunity to conserve the Amazonian forests and the indigenous and
relatorio_campo_regiao_abaetetuba_jun19.pdf. traditional people and promote a socially inclusive biodiversity-driven
green economy.
61. Clement CR: 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic
resources. I. The relation between domestication and human 77. Silva LDJ, Pinheiro JOC, dos Santos EM, da Costa JI,
population decline. Econ Bot 1999, 53:188. Meneghetti GA: O Cooperativismo Como Instrumento Para a
Autonomia de Comunidades Rurais da Amazônia: A Experiência
62. Bianchini PC: Agroflorestas e Agentes Agroflorestais Indı´genas no dos Agricultores Extrativistas do Municı´pio de Lábrea, AM.
Acre, Master thesis. Federal University of Santa Catarina; 2006 Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental-Artigo em periódico indexado
https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/89468. (ALICE); 2019.
63. Di Giano M, Mendonza E, Ochoa ML, Ardila J, Lima FO, 78. Souza MLM, Sobrinho MV: Cooperativismo e economia
Nepstad D: The Twenty-Year-Old Partnership between Indigenous solidária: uma análise do ambiente polı́tico-institucional e do
Peoples and the Government of Acre. Brazil: Cuiabá: Earth desempenho de organizações cooperativas na Amazônia
Innovation Institute; 2018 https://earthinnovation.org/wp-content/ paraense. Movendo Ideias 2011, 16.
uploads/2018/09/Acre_EN_online.pdf.
79. Sousa AMP, Pontes BS, Silva MJSD, Vieira TA: Cooperativismo
64. Smith NJH, Falesi IC, Alvim PT, Serrão EAS: Agroforestry em Comunidades florestais na amazônia: o que dizem os não-
trajectories among smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon: membros? Ambient Soc 2019, 22.
innovation and resiliency in pioneer and older settled areas.
Ecol Econ 1996, 18:15-27. 80. Burke BJ: Transforming power in Amazonian extractivism:
historical exploitation, contemporary "fair trade", and new
65. Browder JO, Wynne RH, Pedlowski MA: Agroforestry diffusion possibilities for indigenous cooperatives and conservation. J
and secondary forest regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon: Polit Ecol 2012, 19:114-126.
further findings from the Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project
(1992-2002). Agrofor Syst 2005, 65:99-111. 81. Silveira JS: A Multidimensionalidade da Valorização de Produtos
Locais: Implicações Para Polı´ticas Públicas, Mercado, Território e
66. Batistella M, Bolfe EL, Moran EF: Agroforestry in Tomé-Açu: an Sustentabilidade na Amazônia. . [Tese de Doutorado em
alternative to pasture in the Amazon. In Human-Environment Desenvolvimento Sustentável], 391 pp Brası́lia: Universidade de
Interactions. Edited by Brondizio E, Moran E. Cham: Springer; Brası́lia, Brası́lia; 2009 https://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/
2012. 4679.
67. Castro F, Futemma C: Farming knowledge building between 82. Shanley P, Da Silva FC, MacDonald T: Brazil’s social movement,
migrant and local peasants in the eastern Amazon women and forests: a case study from the National Council of
[Conference presentation, May 26]. 15th Biannual Conference of Rubber Tappers. Int For Rev 2011, 13:236.
the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC):
The Commons Complexity and Change; Edmonton, Alberta, 83. Paula D, Weigand R, Rodriges V: Strengthening the Participation of
Canada: 2015. Women in Development Plans of Extractive Reserves and
Women’s Health in Rondônia, Brazil. Gainesville: University of
68. Hiraoka M: Land use changes in the Amazon estuary. Glob Florida Press; 2003.
Environ Change 1995, 5:323-336.
84. Gonzalez T: Understanding Women’s Stewardship in the
69. Anderson AB (Ed): Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Amazon: A Decolonial-Process-Relational Perspective, Master’s
Sustainable use of The Amazon Rain Forest. New York: Columbia thesis. Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Center; 2020.
University Press; 1990. diva2:1518533.
70. Castellani D, Monteiro RE, Takamatsu JA, Kato OR, 85. Castro F: Local politics of floodplain tenure in the Amazon. Int J
Rodrigues MRL, Miccolis A: Estudos de Sistemas Commons 2016, 10:1-20.
Agrossilviculturais para a Produção de Dendê (Elaeis guineensis)
em Propriedades Rurais de Tomé-Açu (PA). Belém: Embrapa 86. Pezzuti J, Castro F, McGrath DG, Saikoski Miorando P, Sá Leitão
Amazônia Oriental; 2009 http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/ Barboza R, Carneiro Romagnoli F: Commoning in dynamic
handle/doc/657675. environments: community-based management of turtle
nesting sites on the lower Amazon floodplain. Ecol Soc 2018,
71. Padoch C, Chota Inuma JC, De Jong W, Unruch J: Amazonian 23:36.
Agroforestry: a Market-oriented system in Peru. Agrofor Syst
1985, 3:47-58. 87. Guariguata MR, Cronkleton P, Duchelle AE, Zuidema PA:
Revisiting the ‘cornerstone of Amazonian conservation’: a
72. Brondizio ES: The Global Acai’: a chronicle of possibilities and socioecological assessment of Brazil nut exploitation.
predicaments of an Amazonian superfood. In Critical Biodivers Conserv 2017, 26:2007-2027.
Approaches to Superfoods. Edited by McDonell E, Wilk R. London:
Bloomsbury Academic Publishing; 2020:149-168. 88. Londres M, Schulze M, Staudhammer CL, Kainer KA: Population
structure and fruit production of Carapa guianensis (Andiroba)
73. Diniz JDAS, Cerdan C: Produtos da sociobiodiversidade e in Amazonian floodplain forests: implications for community-
cadeias curtas: aproximação socioespacial para uma based management. Trop Conserv Sci 2017, 10 http://dx.doi.org/
valorização cultural e econômica. In Cadeias Curtas e Redes 10.1177/1940082917718835.
Agroalimentares Alternativas: Negócios e Mercados da Agricultura
Familiar. Edited by Gazolla M, Schneider S. Porto Alegre: Editora 89. Soriano M, Kainer KA, Staudhammer CL, Soriano E:
UFRGS; 2017:259-280. Implementing multiple forest management in Brazil nut-rich
community forests: effects of logging on natural
74. Drummond JA, Póvoas Pereira MA: O Amapá nos Tempos do regeneration and forest disturbance. For Ecol Manag 2012,
Manganês: um Estudo Sobre o Desenvolvimento de um Estado 268:92-102.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78

78 Transformations to sustainability: critical social science perspectives

90. Medina G, Pokorny B, Campbell BM: Community forest 103. Purcell M, Brown JC: Against the local trap: scale and the
management for timber extraction in the Amazon frontier. Int study of environment and development. Prog Dev Stud 2005,
For Rev 2009, 11:408-420. 5:279-297.
91. Amaral P, Amaral Neto M: Manejo Florestal Comunitário Na 104. Burga CM: When REDD+ fails to support democratic
Amazônia Brasileira: Situação Atual, Desafios E Perspectivas. representation: legitimizing non-democratic practices in the
Brası́lia: Instituto Internacional De Educação Do Brasil; 2000. Amazon. In Global Forest Governance and Climate Change.
Edited by Nuesiri E. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018:279-304.
92. Berkes F: Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv
Biol 2004, 18:621-630. 105. Gebara MF, Agrawal A: Beyond rewards and punishments in the
Brazilian Amazon: practical implications of the REDD+
93. Castro F: Multi-scale environmental citizenship: traditional
discourse. Forests 2017, 8:66.
populations and protected areas in Brazil. In Environmental
and Citizenship in Latin America: Natures, Subjects, and Struggles 106. Cronkleton P, Barry D, Pulhin JM, Saigal S: The devolution of
(CEDLA Latin America Studies 101). Edited by Latta A, Wittman H. management rights and co-management of community
New York: Berghahn Books; 2012:39-58. forests. In Forests for People: Community Rights and Forest
94. McGrath D, Cardoso A, Almeida OT, Pezzuti J: Constructing a Tenure Reform. Edited by Larson A, Barry D, Dahal GR, Colfer
policy and institutional framework for an ecosystem-based CJP. London: Earthscan; 2010.
approach to managing the lower Amazon floodplain. Environ
107. Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgers P, Nasi R,
Dev Sustain 2008, 10:677-695.
Santoso L, Wunder S: Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in
95. McGrath D, Castello L, Almeida OT, Estupinan G: Market developing countries: an overview. World Dev 2005, 33:1383-
formalization, governance, and the integration of community 1402.
fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon. Soc Nat Resour 2015, 28:513-
529. 108. Cunha FA, Börner J, Wunder S, Cosenza CA, Lucena AF: The
implementation costs of forest conservation policies in Brazil.
96. Castello L, Arantes CC, McGrath DG, Stewart DN, Sousa FS: Ecol Econ 2016, 130:209-220.
Understanding fishing-induced extinctions in the Amazon.
Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2014, 25:587-598. 109. Simmons CC, Walker R, Aldrich S, Arima E, Pereira R, de
Castro EM, Michelotti F, Waylen M, Antunes A: Discipline and
97. Jacauna TDS: Horizontal and vertical diffusion of develop: destruction of the Brazil nut forest in the lower
environmental policy in the Amazon. Novos Cadernos NAEA Amazon Basin. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 2018, 109 http://dx.doi.org/
2018, 21:233-256. 10.1080/24694452.2018.1489215.
98. Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes TP: Navigating the transition to 110. Kohler F, Brondizio ES: Considering the needs of indigenous
ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, and local populations in conservation programs. Conserv Biol
Australia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008, 105:9489-9494. 2017, 31:245-251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12843.
99. Gelcich S, Hughes TP, Olsson P, Folke C, Defeo O, Fernández M, 111. Browder JO: Conservation and development projects in the
Foale S, Gunderson LH, Rodrı́guez-Sickert C, Scheffer M et al.: Brazilian Amazon: lessons from the community initiative
Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine program in Rondônia. Environ Manag 2002, 29:750-762.
coastal resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010, 107:16794-
16799. 112. Andersson K, Ostrom E: Analyzing decentralized natural
resource governance from a polycentric perspective. Policy
100. Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Sci 2008, 41:1-23.
Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives C, Jager N, Lang D:
Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 2017, 113. Andersson K: Local forest governance and the role of external
46:30-39 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y. organizations: some ties matter more than others. World Dev
2013, 43:226-237.
101. Herrfahrdt-Pähle E, Schlüter M, Olsson P, Folke C, Gelcich S,
Pahl-Wostl C: Sustainability transformations: socio-political 114. Castro F, Russo Lopes G, Brondizio ES: The Brazilian Amazon in
shocks as opportunities for governance transitions. Glob times of COVID-19: from crisis to transformation? Ambient Soc
Environ Change 2020, 63:102097. 2020, 23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809-
102. Chan KM, Boyd DR, Gould RK, Jetzkowitz J, Liu J, Muraca B, 4422asoc20200123vu2020L3ID.
Brondı́zio ES: Levers and leverage points for pathways to
sustainability. People Nat 2020, 2:693-717.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 49:66–78 www.sciencedirect.com