Background and Aims: We present evidence examining spatial and temporal patterns in forest cover changes and economic indicators in Brazilian Amazonia. Specifically, we tested two predictions embedded in arguments used by influential interest groups: (i) indicators of economic progress should increase where there is less forest and (ii) areas with most recent deforestation should have increased economic indicators.
Methods: Complementary methods assessed annual variation in economic indicators across 794 administrative districts (municipalities) covering 4.9 Mkm2 of the Brazilian Amazon from 2002 to 2019. A representative subset of municipalities was used to compare economic and socioeconomic indicators across municipalities with contrasting forest cover.
Results: Contrasting results between the full and a representative subset of municipalities suggested that municipality-level economic indicators cannot be directly attributed to the loss of natural forests. There was no association between forest loss and economic (average salary) or socioeconomic indicators (existence of sanitation plans and internet connectivity). The economic indicators of municipalities with less than 40% forest cover in 1986 were no different to that of similar municipalities with more than 60% forest cover from 1986 to 2019.
Conclusion: The evidence contradicted both predictions tested. Reducing forest cover does not appear to directly promote socioeconomic progress. Any localized associations between forest cover and poverty most likely result from other more plausible alternatives including lack of opportunity and a widespread failure to effectively implement and enforce existing policies within the local socioeconomic context.
Implications for Conservation: Our findings support evidence from across the tropics that shows deforestation does not necessarily generate transformative and equitable food production systems or lead to poverty alleviation.
