Vicente de MelloWhenever ecologist Ima Célia Guimarães Vieira visits the sustainable-use reserves of the Santarém region in Pará, she talks to the residents of Tupinambá ethnic communities about ways they could work together to restore areas of rainforest damaged by fires. She offers suggestions and listens closely, although she has a lot to say, having studied the recovery mechanisms of native vegetation for almost 40 years. Her research has shown that it is often possible to simply let the forest recover on its own, although when land use has been intense, native species need to be planted to accelerate the recovery of degraded areas.
Born in Pará’s state capital of Belém, she divided her time growing up between the cities, fields, and forests of the island of Marajó, where she spent time with her parents—both of whom were judges—and her five siblings. She is divorced and has two children: Murilo, 29, a historian and music producer, and Tomás, 26, a drummer and music student at the State University of Pará. The new generation inherited the family’s musical flair. Her grandmother played four instruments, her sister is an opera singer and director, and her brother is a guitar player and university professor.
Vieira’s voice is different, but always firm and serene. Her knowledge and skill as a conciliator took her to the Vatican in 2019 to help give 185 bishops a better perspective of the largest tropical forest on the planet, and to Rio de Janeiro at the beginning of this year to advise the president of the Brazilian Funding Authority for Studies and Projects (FINEP). She also has strong opinions about the ways the Amazon is occupied, which she expressed in the interview below, given via videocall days before she traveled from Belém to the FINEP headquarters.
Area of expertise
Forest ecology
Institution
Emílio Goeldi Museum of Pará (MPEG)
Educational background
Degree in agronomy from the Federal Rural University of Amazonia (1980–1983), master’s degree in plant genetics and breeding from the University of São Paulo (1984–1987), PhD in ecology from the University of Stirling, UK, (1992–1996)
What forces govern deforestation in the Amazon?
The Amazon is a disputed territory. On the one hand, you have a socioenvironmental model, strengthened following the 1992 Earth Summit, that calls for conservation and management of the rainforest, and on the other, a developmental model, which even uses illegal resources to convert the forest into economically productive areas. The developmental model, which has predominated, has led to this situation of high rates of deforestation, with support from the Brazilian State through credit and incentives for the expansion of large-scale agriculture. Roberto Araújo, a fellow anthropologist here at MPEG (see Pesquisa FAPESP issue nº 309), came up with the concept of post-environmentalism, which seeks to make the developmental model greener, more environmentally friendly, through certifications and the commodification of carbon. Another colleague of mine, economist Francisco Costa of the Federal University of Pará (see Pesquisa FAPESP issue nº 277), uses very detailed data to show that deforestation intensity varies depending on the demand for land to use for pasture or agriculture. When we see public areas of rainforest being burned and destroyed, it’s not for nothing. It is to put these areas of land on the market, because then comes the possibility of them being legalized and used to produce commodities. Public policies for the Amazon reflect these conflicting interests. Infrastructure and support for economic development are linked to agribusiness and mining. These approaches to bioeconomy, forest restoration, and carbon credit do not directly meet the needs of traditional populations, who occupy 40% of the Amazon and not only conserve but also manage the rainforest over centuries. Restoration is not a big issue for these populations because they use small areas. We are seeking solutions to problems caused by people who are destroying the Amazon, which leads us to what I call restoration justice. It does not seem fair to me that the same groups that received public money to destroy the rainforest are now given more to undo the damage they caused. Agribusiness itself should be paying for the restoration, not public money.
Is there no place for large pastures and farms in the Amazon?
They should not have been favored in public regional development policies and now they should not have any more space—20% of the Amazon has already been cleared now. We should not be deforesting any more. The problem, as Gilberto Câmara from the INPE [Brazilian National Institute for Space Research] says, is that farmers produce very little in the areas they deforested. It was for this reason that we proposed the goal of zero deforestation in 2005, which President Lula now supports. Together with Brazilian zoology professor José Maria Cardoso of the University of Miami and former MPEG director Peter Mann de Toledo, I presented the idea in an article published in the journal Advanced Studies. At the time, deforestation rates in the Amazon exceeded 20,000 square kilometers per year. The advancement of agriculture and large-scale farming in the Amazon rainforest is no longer acceptable. The areas already cleared are or should be capable of meeting humankind’s food needs. Much of this open area—around 65% of it—is occupied by agriculture, including clear and degraded pastures, and around 30% is abandoned, not used for farming, with some parts already degraded. Without proper land use governance in the Amazon, it will be difficult to make progress on the climate and energy transitions, and even worse, it could lead to other problems and injustices. Most major projects implemented in the Amazon were designed outside the region and few were discussed with Amazonians. We need strong governance for all, to avoid giving more public money to those who destroyed the rainforest and now want to plant trees to absorb carbon. The socioenvironmental model should be supported, with funding for local communities. Traditional, Indigenous, and quilombola populations are currently responsible for the conservation of 198 million hectares, and there are another 60 million hectares of undesignated public forest. We must ensure that these areas are not destroyed. It is estimated that 40% of public land in the rainforest is already degraded. These areas must immediately be designated for forestry use and thus removed from the illegal land market.
– Multiple systems use satellites to monitor deforestation in the Amazon
– Maps show that 14% of the Amazon is occupied by pasture and agriculture
– Guide to Amazon snakes launched at the Butantan Institute
– The roots of Amazonian biodiversity
– Communication and diet different in urban primates
Is there a recipe for restoring areas in the Amazon?
There is no recipe, but one of the main strategies is natural regeneration. Around 40% of deforested areas in the Amazon have medium to high regeneration potential. Natural regeneration is known as a passive restoration method and should be seen as a priority in restoration projects for degraded areas in the Amazon. It is capable of recovering up to 80% of biodiversity, carbon, ecological processes, and ecosystem services. Where there has been intensive land use with a lot of burning and mechanization, active restoration is needed, with the planting of native species.
Are there any good examples of active restoration?
The Pará state government is creating a rainforest restoration plan, which I hope will enable us to organize actions and support for projects, as well as to monitor them. There are already several companies setting themselves up in the state with the aim of recovering degraded areas. This is a bit concerning, because without clear government guidelines and oversight, they might bring species or seedlings into the Amazon from other states. Public restoration policies must be very well managed to make sure they do not create more problems than they solve. In my opinion, we should place a greater emphasis on natural regeneration to restore native vegetation on properties with environmental obligations, as permitted by the Forest Code. If a farmer’s property includes environmental obligations, they can opt to take this approach in their environmental regularization plan. And it is a low-cost solution. The land is simply allowed to recover without direct human intervention, and in some cases, management actions can be adopted to stimulate the natural regeneration process.
Large pastures and farms do not need more space—20% of the Amazon has already been cleared
Tell us about your forest restoration work with the communities of Santarém.
It is going well, but the frequent forest fires are scary. In the Baixo Tapajós region, near Santarém, there are two large, protected areas: the Tapajós-Arapiuns Sustainable-Use Reserve and the Tapajós National Forest. The rise in wildfires is having several impacts on traditional populations and the rainforest—the Tapajós-Arapiuns Reserve has even been affected by megafires. With the Institute for the Climate and Society (ICS), we are working with Indigenous people of the Tupinambá ethnic group to restore degraded forests in the reserve. We are combining scientific and traditional knowledge. What we see as a process of ecological competition, they see as invasion by nut grass and other species. It is important that they organize and empower themselves so that we can seek new approaches, such as support in the creation of seed-collection areas in the villages. We can see that they understand the vulnerabilities of the rainforest and they know they need to take action to prevent fires and recover the areas. We will be going back there in December.
When did you start researching forest restoration?
Almost 40 years ago. As soon as I finished my master’s degree, I submitted a project to the CNPq [Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development]. I was awarded a regional development grant and the Goeldi museum accepted me onto a fellowship. My goal was to understand how invasive plants took root in the abandoned pastures of Paragominas [east of Pará] and to study what we call ecological succession, the process through which a sequence of structural and functional changes occur in communities after a disturbance. I had a fellowship but not the funding I needed to go into the field. A colleague who worked with Chris [Christopher Uhl] told me it was the kind of topic he would be interested in. He is one of the greatest tropical ecologists in the world and at that time, in the late 1980s, he was a visiting researcher at EMBRAPA. I wrote to him and he responded promptly, saying that I could visit the project and join the group. When I returned to Pará, I went to Paragominas, learned about his work, and realized it was a great opportunity for my project. I started doing surveys, but I kept one eye on what they were doing, which seemed really interesting to me.
Personal archive
Alongside MPEG’s Carlos Silva and a resident of a sustainable-use reserve, Vieira measures trees in parts of the rainforestPersonal archiveWhat were they doing?
They were doing experiments to understand the ecological succession process and the mechanisms of plant regeneration in abandoned pastures, as well as changes caused by anthropogenic disturbances in the behavior of birds, bats, and other seed dispersers. With the arrival of Daniel Nepstad [an American ecologist], the studies expanded and Paragominas became an ecological research laboratory. I ended up getting involved in these projects and produced one of my most cited articles with Chris and Daniel, about how one of these invasive species facilitates the succession process. I was hired as a researcher at MPEG in 1988, a year after arriving in Paragominas. I started my PhD in 1992, while already working as a public official.
Have ideas about forest regeneration changed since that time?
In the 1980s, the only studies were done by researchers from MPEG and EMBRAPA in the Bragantina region east of Belém, which had been the first agricultural center on terra firma in the Amazon back in the nineteenth century. A lot of deforestation occurred there, but it was to form small-scale agricultural colonies, nothing like Paragominas and the other occupied fronts. The researchers described the spontaneous shrubby and grassy vegetation that appeared after the areas were deforested, cultivated, and abandoned. There was no understanding that it was a successional process with a whole regenerative dynamic.
Could you explain this succession process a little?
The succession process, from a theoretical point of view, is not new. It was in 1916 that [American botanist Frederic] Clements [1874–1945] shared his comprehensive and logical theory of succession, with changes in vegetation occurring in an orderly and predictable manner towards a condition of stability, known as the climax. This theory dominated the scientific field until the middle of the twentieth century. The current view is that succession occurs probabilistically and can lead to multiple states of equilibrium. This is important for restoration, which is best understood as the manipulation of succession processes. In the Amazon, ecological succession was only studied intensively by Chris Uhl’s group in Paragominas. His work from 1984 onwards was the first to show that the Amazon is resilient, that it is able to regenerate after large-scale deforestation, but that the new vegetation is different from the original plants. The land use intensity and distance between the rainforest and the modified area also had an influence. In Paragominas, the farms were very large and the pasture areas were getting farther and farther from the forest, before being abandoned after a cycle of eight to ten years of production. The studies showed that pasture areas farther from the forest have less capacity for regeneration because they are frequented by fewer seed dispersers, such as birds and bats. Some young researchers, like me, José Maria Cardoso, and others, contributed to a broader understanding of this process. More recently, teams from EMBRAPA, INPA [the Brazilian National Institute of Amazonian Research], and several universities have been studying regeneration in the Amazon, not only to understand changes in successional trajectories after deforestation, but also after wildfires of anthropogenic origin that are on the rise in the region.
Can the rainforest go back to the way it was?
It would be difficult. During my PhD, I examined secondary forests in the Bragantina region soon after areas were abandoned and at 3, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 70 years, with the aim of understanding the successional process over time. I discovered that only 35% of the species from the mature forest returned. Studies in other areas of the Amazon have shown that after 20 years, around 80% of tree species diversity is recovered, but the species composition is different. Other groups of plants, different from the primary forest, establish themselves in these areas. Forest species with very large seeds, which are difficult to disperse, tend to disappear from anthropized areas, while those with smaller seeds tend to remain. Those with the ability to sprout soon after fire or cutting also become more common in environments that have been used for pasture or agriculture. But the potential for natural regeneration differs from one area to another. As Chris Uhl highlighted in the 1980s, forest recovery depends on land use intensity. The greater the use of machinery and fires, the lower the regeneration potential and the lower the species diversity in the long term.
Without proper land use governance, it will be difficult to make progress on the climate and energy transitions
What are your thoughts on the Amazon’s so-called bioeconomy?
We have to be very careful with the term bioeconomy, because it can be used with different intentions, including as it has been by agribusiness. I worry about the idea that the Amazon could have a highly technological bioeconomy, as some propose. The region’s population, generally lacking in terms of education and access to information, is not prepared for a highly technological approach. This puts them at risk of being left on the sidelines of production processes once again or becoming proletarians of the rainforest, as says a friend from the ISA [the SocioEnvironmental Institute], as a result of a bioeconomy disconnected from the biome. From an economic perspective, it is important to ensure that areas deforested and occupied by agriculture are productive. Giving agribusiness even more technological or biotechnological input is not consistent with public policies that seek to conserve the rainforest and its biodiversity. I think the best approach to a bioeconomy in the Amazon is one associated with socio-biodiversity, which recognizes the value of traditional knowledge, empowers local communities, and establishes new production technologies together with them. To achieve this, we have to accelerate recognition of the role these people play in the rainforest economy and provide support to local institutions.
Are there any good examples along these lines?
The best examples come from traditional populations, based on their knowledge and practices in forest management. The products sold on the international market—nuts, açaí, and cocoa—come from associations with traditional populations, who produce at least 2,000 nontimber forest products in the Amazon. What is missing is appreciation and support for these associations and cooperatives, and public policies capable of strengthening the sale of socio-biodiversity products. With açaí, the problem is that until the 1990s, there was a sustainable production process involving traditional populations. But the açaí boom—today the fruit is sold in 70 countries—has led some producers to abandon their good practices and has intensified farming on floodplains. Areas once used to grow 200 to 400 clumps per hectare now have up to 3,000 clumps per hectare. This causes floodplain degradation, damaging biodiversity and leading to ecological imbalances.
And what about palm oil in the Amazon?
It is definitely not a low-impact culture. The oil palm originates from Africa and was introduced in Pará in the 1940s. Most production takes place in large areas, via monoculture, mainly in the Moju region [north of Pará]. Deforestation for oil palm cultivation has decreased, but it still happens on a small scale. The biggest problem is the total destructuring of the landscape due to the large areas of monoculture. Land used to grow oil palm features few forest remnants and low connectivity between fragments. Farmers are supposed to maintain connected reserves and at least 40% native forest, since areas with greater forest cover have different environmental conditions and resources capable of maintaining high species diversity. This should also guarantee the sustainability of the agricultural environment, via pollination and pest control, for example.
The greater the use of machinery and fires, the lower the regeneration potential and the lower the species diversity
How do you see the effects of climate change on the Amazon?
Very worrying. Scientists from INPE have already shown that droughts in the Amazon are becoming longer and more intense. Higher temperatures, lower moisture, and intense droughts are associated with deforestation and land use. We saw the dramatic effects of these associations in 1995, then in 2003, 2010, 2015, 2017, and now in 2023. Neither Brazil, nor the Amazon, nor the municipalities, nor the locals, are prepared for these changes, which are having major impacts on the lives of people, animals, and vegetation. We talk about “savannization,” but I do not like this term, because it implies that the Cerrado and other savannas are somehow inferior to rainforests. I prefer to use “shrubification,” which is the transformation of rainforest into florally impoverished vegetation and a structure that is different from a mature forest. Recent studies show that climate change is affecting species growth and mortality and altering the composition of tree species in parts of the Amazon. The findings highlight the need for zero deforestation and how important it is to keep large areas of forest intact.
What are your current priorities?
I have been advising the FINEP leadership since May, which is a change of focus for me, having previously worked exclusively as a scientist. I recently helped prepare technical reports and policy briefs to support management decisions on environmental policies. With colleagues from EMBRAPA, INPE, CEMADEN [the Brazilian Center for Natural Disaster Monitoring], IPAM [the Amazon Environmental Research Institute], etc., I have been working to show the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment [MMA] that forest degradation, which is expressed by the progressive impoverishment of the rainforest due to one or more disturbances, such as fires, must also be combated alongside deforestation. In March, we presented a technical report to the MMA highlighting this problem, associated with the major fires in the Amazon. Under the scope of the Simbiose/CNPq Program, I have worked to highlight natural regeneration as an important approach in environmental regularization programs for rural properties in the Amazon. In October we prepared a technical report and shared it at an event in Belém, and I hope that the environmental departments of Amazonian states will use this information to monitor degraded area recovery projects within the scope of environmental regularization programs. As advisor to the FINEP leadership, I am also involved in other activities.
Such as?
I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Amazon Biobusiness Center and I take part in discussions and program planning on the subject for FINEP’s regional management in Belém. Yesterday [November 8], Celso Pansera, the organization’s president, asked me to participate in a meeting of the Amazon Working Group, run by the Council for Sustainable Economic and Social Development, a body that directly advises President Lula. I spoke about the importance of implementing science and technology actions territorially in the region. Another member of the working group, Ennio Candotti [director of the Amazonian Museum in Manaus], mapped more than 300 institutions in almost 200 municipalities in the Amazon, including research centers, EMBRAPA and FIOCRUZ units, universities, and institutes, and we discussed how to integrate this network of institutions into the national science and technology agenda.
Are conversations progressing?
In a way, yes. Reinforcing a regional system of science, technology, and innovation is not easy, because there has never been a state program for the Amazon. There is still a lot of prejudice and ignorance about the history, culture, and life in the region. Few people know that Amazonia as a region has only existed since 1823, when Pará joined the fight for independence and Grão-Pará was split into Amazonas and Pará. Until then we were a Portuguese colonial state, like the state of Brazil, both run by Lisbon. Only when we understand the processes through which Amazonia was incorporated and integrated into Brazil do we realize the tragic consequences of these projects, which to this day have resulted in underdevelopment and environmental and social damage here. Changing the situation is difficult, but there is still a chance to create new strategies capable of boosting the science produced in the region. This requires a lot of investment, though. That is my challenge now.
