DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVES AND SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVES FOR A STANDING FOREST ECONOMY IN THE AMAZON REGION USING PROBLEM STRUCTURING METHODS

ABSTRACT

This study structures objectives and sustainable-development alternatives for the Amazon Forest, based on the Amazônia 4.0 project. Value-Focused Thinking and Value-Focused Brainstorming were adopted. Amazônia 4.0 presents a new paradigm for the rainforest development, emphasizing the sustainable use of the biodiversity with innovative technologies. The project’s strategic objective is to promote the standing-forest’s value, through four fundamental objectives: adding value to products, creating means for industrialization, developing local economy and empowering communities. Alternatives include local mobile bio-industries, certified products, and educational partnerships. Challenges identified involve reevaluating the traditional credit system, creating new public policies, engaging numerous stakeholders, and addressing the lack of infrastructure. The project is in line with the Living Amazon Vision, proposed by the Science Panel for the Amazon, and takes the form of an operational bioeconomy project (already being tested). This study’s methodology can be applied to other initiatives seeking sustainable development in ecologically valuable regions.

Keywords:
Amazon forest; bioeconomy; standing forest economy; Amazônia 4.0; Value-Focused Thinking (VFT); Value-Focused Brainstorming (VFB)

1 INTRODUCTION

The Amazon rainforest has an important role in regulating natural cycles that transcends its regional limits, reaching global importance (Marengo et al., 2018). However, despite such importance, the forest has been suffering pressures that threaten and compromise the existing dynamics, potentially reaching a no-return breaking point, with permanent adverse consequences (Nobre, Sampaio, & Salazar, 2007). Moreover, the deforestation itself leads to local, regional, and global negative impacts, since it is responsible for large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions (Berenguer et al., 2021). In the context of climate change and high pressure on planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015; Rockström et al., 2009), the use of tropical forest resources linked to their conservation becomes a fundamental step towards building a sustainable future. Given this reality, it is important to understand and structure the challenges and barriers for the construction and implementation of sustainable actions in the Amazon.

Globalization and the intensification of the consumer society have drastically altered the type and scale of human intervention in the Amazon, leading to environmental and social impacts of unprecedented magnitude and severity (Larrea et al., 2021a). By 2018, the Amazon rainforest had lost approximately 870,000km² of primary forest. Regarding the remaining forests, more than 15% are degraded (Berenguer et al., 2021). Among the main drivers for deforestation in the Amazon Forest are the expansion of cattle ranching and croplands, hunting and overfishing, climate change, inappropriate infrastructure, mining and energy generation, invasive species, war and unrest, pollution, and watercourse fragmentation by small dams and impoundments. Agricultural and cattle ranching expansion is currently the greatest deforestation driver. Combined, these different threats and the interactions between them can amplify their individual effects or create new problems (Barlow et al., 2021; Berenguer et al., 2021).

The ongoing deforestation is the result of an explicit federal strategy to occupy, integrate, and “modernize” the region (Garrett et al., 2021). During the 19th and 20th centuries, there were cycles of intense exploitation of various natural products, such as Cinchona and rubber, and to a lesser extent, chestnuts. These cycles have created an interest in exploiting the Amazon that was unprecedented in Brazil. In addition to these cycles, there are extraction of gold and other ores, and oil exploration. It is worth mentioning that these processes involved the use of indigenous labor, often in conditions of exploitation (Larrea-Alcázar et al., 2021).

Nobre and Nobre (2020) point out that the policy of ”Amazon sustainability” currently applied, despite appearing to be aligned with global trends, has not separated itself from the old vision of extraction, exploitation, and occupation, promoted in past centuries. The bases for the establishment of a sustainable economy in the Amazon were never really consolidated. Forest conservation was always dependent on programs outside the forest, such as punitive measures against deforestation and fires, and public social programs (Garrett et al., 2021).

The high deforestation rates in the Amazon place it at the center of the climate change discussion. In Brazil, anthropic activity in the forestry sector is the main responsible for GHG emission (Timperley, 2018). Nonetheless, the forest also suffers the impacts of climate change. The Amazon is among the regions that will be most affected by global warming, with the possibility that, by 2100, 90% of the species that inhabit the region will be threatened (Artaxo et al., 2021). Warming in the Amazon has reached 0.6-0.7ºC in the last 40 years (Marengo et al., 2018). Moreover, the impacts of hydrological cycle’ changes alone also threaten the maintenance of ecosystem integrity (Marengo et al., 2018). To add to the context, the Amazon is the scene of severe social inequality, mainly due to a disproportional land distribution (Larrea et al., 2021b).

Given the complexity of the situation, Barlow et al. (2021) argue that there is no simple or unique solution for solving Amazon's socio-environmental problems. Instead, a broad set of sustainable initiatives need to be adopted, replicated, and scaled up. These initiatives have to go far beyond traditional solutions, demanding a new vision for the people and nature of the Amazon and investment in alternative economic strategies. Furthermore, new forms of development in the Amazon must involve all forest stakeholders, including different levels of government, civil society, with broad participation of indigenous, riverine and quilombo communities, and multiple economic sectors (Larrea et al., 2021a).

A new economic-development possibility, socially inclusive and compatible with ecosystem conservation emerges through innovative and disruptive technologies. Bencke et al. (2017) argue that developing countries have great potential for innovation in disruptive technologies. This scenario allows promoting simple and accessible solutions, causing a rupture in the models and patterns already established. In agreement, Nobre and Nobre (2020) defend an economic development path for Brazil, through the bioeconomy linked to the principles of the fourth industrial revolution. The bioeconomy proposes an economic model based on harnessing biological resources with advanced technologies (EMBRAPA, 2021); and the fourth industrial revolution, or industry 4.0, is based on the development of a set of digital-based technologies (Vermulm, 2019). As result, they offer opportunities for developing high value-added products generated by automated bioindustries. However, planning and structuring production chains in the Amazon region, using the concepts of bioeconomy and Industry 4.0, are not trivial. They involve the integration of environmental, social, and economic spheres, together with technological innovation since the problem’s boundaries are not clear. The context includes multiple actors with different interests and perspectives, on top of Amazon’s cultural diversity. Furthermore, the region presents logistical challenges in the outflow of raw materials and products, as well as a lack of electricity and internet connection. The situation constitutes a so-called wicked problem (Rittel and Webber, 1973) - an unstructured problem (Mingers and Rosenhead, 2004). Problem Structuring Methods (PSM) provide tools to approach and structure problem-situations such as the one described.

In this context, this work aims to identify viable alternatives for a standing forest economy in the Amazon. To this end, the Amazônia 4.0 project was adopted as a case study. The project, conceived by Ismael Nobre and Carlos Nobre, proposes a new development paradigm for the Amazon, with the use of standing forests as it main pillar (Nobre & Nobre, 2020). The Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) and Value-Focused Brainstorming (VFB) methods were adopted as PSMs (Keeney, 1992; Keeney, 2012; Keisler, 2012; Françozo and Belderrain, 2021) to deal with this problem situation. In this approach, these methods allow a systematic process to structure wicked problems, maintaining high quality standards during the problem structuring work (Ackermann et al., 2014). Decision-making challenges regarding sustainable development goals were previously addressed through the application of these methods (Chavez-Cortés and Maya, 2010; Manninem and Huiskonen, 2019).

The Section 2 of this article provides a theoretical background, covering the Projeto Amazônia 4.0, an overview of Problem Structuring Methods, with a specific focus on VFT and VFB, and showcasing their application to sustainability issues. The methodology in Section 3 offers details of the application of VFT and VFB within the project's context. The Section 4 presents the results, the values, objectives, and alternatives identified for establishing a standing forest economy in the Amazon based on the Amazônia 4.0 Project. The Section 4 also presents results from interviews conducted with strategic stakeholders from the banking and NGO sectors, to shed light on the problem's context. The analysis in Section 5 addresses implementation challenges and discusses the Amazônia 4.0 project as an action plan aligned with the Living Amazon Vision, proposed by the Science Panel for the Amazon. Finally, in Section 6 we conclude by presenting an outlook on extending the methodology to other regions, summarizing key findings, and offering insights for future research.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This section introduces bioeconomy, the Amazônia 4.0 project, PSM, VFT, VFB, and their application to sustainability problems.

2.1 Bioeconomy for the sustainable development

The bioeconomy has been gaining ground in the media, in government proposals and as one of the solutions for sustainable development, especially in the Amazon region (Silva et al, 2021; Willerding et al., 2020; Valle et al, 2018; Sousa et al., 2016). This economic model consists of industrial production based on biological resources associated with the use of new scientific and technological knowledge, such as industrial biotechnology, genomics, synthetic biology, among others, with a view to the production of biomaterials, ranging from biopolymers to functional foods and cosmetics (Bugge et al, 2016; EMBRAPA, 2021).

In mega biodiverse countries like Brazil, the bioeconomy is a solution to conciliate economic and social development with environmental conservation. Home to the greatest plant diversity in the world, this differential opens up opportunities for the development of various products with high added value. Furthermore, Brazil's leading role in agribusiness is a facilitator for the development of the country's bioeconomy: US$ 326.1 billion in sales in 2016 (Silva et al., 2018; EMBRAPA, 2021). However, this economic advance does not necessarily indicate an advance in sustainability. The Brazilian bioeconomy remains strongly anchored to the agribusiness sector (Bastos Lima, M. G., 2021).

Based on consultations with the Science Panel for the Amazon (Nobre et al, 2021), a sustainable bioeconomy is placed as a pillar for the development of the Pan American Amazon (Alencar et al., 2021), as proposed in the Living Amazon Vision. The proposal is based on the ecologically healthy, economically prosperous, and socially fair tripolar concept. The goal of this sustainable bioeconomy in Living Amazon Vision is to keep the forest standing and the rivers flowing.

2.2 The Amazônia 4.0 Project

The Amazônia 4.0 project presents a new paradigm for the Amazon. The project aims at economic development combined with the preservation of the standing forest through the integration of biodiversity and technological innovation. For this, the Amazônia 4.0 project proposes to explore the potential of Amazon with the solutions emerging from the industry 4.0. Its objective is the sustainable use of the forest's biodiversity potential, including the wide variety of biological and biomimetic assets, in the generation of products with high added value. This use is proposed through local and diversified bio-industries, which integrate forest communities and their knowledge (Nobre & Nobre, 2020).

The operationalization of the Amazônia 4.0 project involves the development and adoption of technological and disruptive innovations. In the Amazônia 4.0 approach, they are essential to overcome barriers and challenges typical of the region, such as digital connection, availability of access to the electricity grid, logistics, installation and transport of equipment and specialized labor. Among the range of innovations proposed by the project are the Creative Laboratory and the Rainforest Business School. The Creative Laboratories are itinerant structures mounted in tents or floating platforms to bring industry 4.0 technologies to Amazon communities and to the production chains of raw materials (Nobre & Nobre, 2020; Zanon, 2020). Through the Creative Laboratories prototypes, products from crops such as cocoa and cupuaçu are already being created and produced, in addition to genome mapping (Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, 2020). The Rainforest Business School seeks to structure a new field of interdisciplinary knowledge, with the objective of serving diverse audiences, be they local, industrial, business communities, or MBA students, among others. They would allow possible businesses, products, and processes in harmony with the standing forest.

It is worth mentioning that at the time of writing this article (2021), the initiative was entitled “Projeto Amazônia 4.0” and in 2022 it became the “Instituto Amazônia 4.0” (https://amazonia4.org/).

2.3 Problem Structuring Methods & VFT and VFB

According to Mingers and Rosenhead (2004), PSM is a family of methods to deal with complex and unstructured situations systematically and analytically. Such situations are characterized by multiple actors, multiple perspectives, conflicting or incommensurable interests, important intangibles, and key uncertainties.

The VFT is a structured approach to decision problems originally proposed by Keeney (1992). In its design and application framework, it can be considered a PSM (Keisler et al, 2014). VFT procedures assist in goal-structuring, creating alternatives and identifying decision opportunities (Keeney, 1994; Keisler et al., 2014). It has been used in several applications to structure problem situations with value-based objectives (Françozo et al, 2019; Françozo & Belderrain, 2022).

In the adoption of VFT as a PSM method, the resolution of problematic situations can be approached following 5 steps:

• 1) Definition of values.

• 2) Identification of objectives.

• 3) Elaboration of the objective hierarchy.

• 4) Construction of the objectives network; and

• 5) Action planning.

In the 5) action planning stage, the VFB approach (Keeney, 2012) can be integrated with VFT to generate better alternatives. The application of VFB in conjunction with VFT differs from traditional group brainstorming (Abuabara et al, 2018) in that: its alternative-generating procedures consider the previous definition of objectives, which is used as a guide for participants to think of higher-value alternatives; and it explores the generation of alternatives first individually, and then through discussion (Keeney, 2012).

2.4 PSM and Sustainability

Many sustainability challenges are considered “wicked problems”, which are usually beyond the reach of traditional problem-solving methods (Gregory et al., 2013; Martin, 2015; Gonzalez et al., 2015). As early as 2007, Bell and Morse (2007) advocated for the adoption of PSM for large-scale problems such as sustainability, the environment, democracy, and political conflicts.

Decisions involving sustainability are contextual, value-laden and focused on social actions. In other words, sustainability preferences are driven by perceptions and values. In this context, values must be identified transparently (Martin, 2015). There is a consensus in the literature that VFT helps to structure the sustainability problems, incorporate different perspectives, reveal hidden goals, and elicit new alternatives, in addition to identifying new decision opportunities (Alencar et al., 2017; Kamari et al., 2017). These processes inherent to the application of VFT are the reason why this method propitiates the emergence of new ideas to increase the efficiency of the use of natural resources, as well as sustainability in general (Alencar et al., 2017). Finally, VFT can help create a sustainable development paradigm with integrated design processes and assessment methodologies, as well as holistic decision support frameworks (Kamari et al., 2017).

3 METHODOLOGY

In this work the Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) and Value-Focused Brainstorming (VFB) methods (Keeney, 1996; Keeney, 2012) were applied as PSM for the structuring of objectives and identification of alternatives in the scope of the Amazônia 4.0 project. Figure 1 presents the methodological route adopted in this work.

Figure 1
Methodological route.

For understanding the context, two interviews were conducted with strategic stakeholders, who are not part of Project Amazon 4.0. To apply the VFT and VFB, two coordinators from the Project were invited to participate in the interviews, and three authors of this article acted as facilitators. The qualifications and experiences of the interviewees are described in Table 1.

Table 1
Qualifications and experiences of the interviewees.

Strategic stakeholders	Interviewee 1	Senior economist in credit affairs at the Office of Policies, Plans, and Government Programs, a department linked to the Presidency of the Banco da Amazônia (Bank of the Amazon).
	Interviewee 2	Co-founder and director of the NGO Instituto Terroá. Public administrator with experience in projects to structure productive activities in communities in the Amazon.
Project Coordinators	Coordinator 1	Executive director of Instituto Amazônia 4.0. Biologist and Professor at a higher education institution. Experience in the human dimensions of natural resources.
	Coordinator 2	Technology coordinator of Instituto Amazônia 4.0. Engineer and Professor at a higher education institution. Experience in digital technologies, sustainability and innovation projects.

3.1 Understanding the context

The VFT and VFB methods require knowledge of the problem to be structured and its context. Therefore, the first stage of the methodology consisted of a literature review and interviews to understand the context of the transformation chains of extractive products in the Amazon. The interviews carried out with strategic actors collected information about the values and objectives of the interviewees and their institutions, as well as their perception of the challenges, difficulties, uncertainties, and alternatives for the various links in the Amazon production chains.

The first interview was conducted with a representative from the Amazon Bank (Banco da Amazônia BASA) in the Cocoa Route (Rota do Cacau, 2022), which is part of the program for interministerial development paths (”Rotas do Desenvolvimento Interministerial”) led by the Ministry of Regional Development (MDR). The second interview was held with a director from a non-governmental organization (NGO) with a mission to support and facilitate participatory processes in the creation of integrated solutions that promote sustainable development. The organization focuses on strengthening value chains, engaging communities, coordinating across sectors, and accessing public policies. These interviewees play a pivotal role as strategic stakeholders in this study. Their significance extends beyond their qualifications, as the Cocoa Route embodies a confluence of interests from diverse producers and the public sector across various administrative tiers (municipal, state, and federal). Furthermore, the NGO specifically caters to the localized concerns of small-scale producers. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that while these interviewees have contributed invaluable insights, their viewpoints constitute only a subset of stakeholders and does not fully depict the complexity of the ill-structured problem at hand.

3.2 VFT and VFB Application

The VFT and VFB methods were applied in four steps, with four recorded virtual sessions with the Amazônia 4.0 project coordinators and virtual meetings between the facilitators.

Step 1 sought to identify the project's values and objectives. To this end, a semi-structured interview was carried out, divided in two parts. In the first one, the interviewees were asked to make an explanation about their roles in the project, specifically about the experience with Industry 4.0 technologies for sustainability issues. In the second part, the purpose was to distinguish values, objectives, goals, constraints, alternatives, and challenges. To this end, questions were asked based on the table ”Techniques to use in identifying objectives” by Keeney (1996, p. 543). After the session, the facilitators used the top-down approach by Franco and Montibeller (2010) to structure a list of objectives for Amazônia 4.0. They then performed a preliminary categorization of these objectives into fundamental and means objectives using the yEd Graph Editor tool.

Step 2 attempted the first validation of the objectives. During this validation meeting, the facilitators introduced aspects of the WITI Test (Why is that important?), as proposed by Keeney (1996), to distinguish between fundamental and mean objectives to the interviewees. The WITI Test served as the foundation for jointly analyzing and validating the objectives with the interviewees. During the session, the interviewees discussed the objective categories in an unsystematic manner, providing input on inclusions, changes, re-elaborations, and exclusions of objectives, along with their interrelations. These updates were made in real-time during the meeting with support from the yEd Graph Editor. Following the session, the facilitators organized the hierarchy and network of objectives to integrate the perspectives of the interviewees.

Step 3 sought the elicitation of alternatives through a third meeting with the interviewees. The alternatives were unsystematically generated during the interview with the application of the VFB. In this meeting, the network of objectives drafted after step 2.

Finally, step 4 carried out the final validation of the alternatives. For this, the facilitators organized the objectives with the respective alternatives elicited in previous meetings. In other words, the means objectives were put side by side with the generated alternatives and used as a guide for the brainstorming and elicitation of new potential alternatives. With this, at the fourth meeting, following the procedures of Keeney (2012) for VFB, more alternatives were generated, and validation was carried out with the interviewees.

4 RESULTS

In this section the results are presented, with the identification of the values, the objectives and the alternatives visualized for the Amazônia 4.0 project.

4.1 Understanding the context

The results of the interviews carried out to understand the characteristics and peculiarities of the context of the transformation chains of the extractivist products from the Amazon rainforest are presented below.

4.1.1 The banking sector’s perspective

The representative of the Banco da Amazônia (Amazon Bank) on the Cacau Route in Pará, the state with the highest production of cocoa beans in Brazil, highlighted the low added value of biodiversity products in the Amazon region. For instance, in the case of cocoa, the vast majority of beans are not processed to produce chocolate locally. Instead, these beans are exported without processing, or sold to industrialized regions of Brazil. Between 70 and 80% of local cocoa farmers sell only dry cocoa beans, a product that is barely processed and has a market value 40 times lower than cocoa n´ıbis (also an intermediate product in the manufacture of chocolate). Only a few companies, generally cooperatives and artisanal producers, have verticalized production to obtain greater value aggregation with the complete processing of cocoa beans until the production and sale of chocolate.

The primary objective of Banco da Amazônia is placed as the economic development of the region. In the interviewee's view, economic development can be achieved through actions to increase the Region's GDP, better income distribution and the establishment of people in the countryside. This starts with large-scale industrialization of the region, mainly by attracting foreign industries. To this end, they propose a more aggressive tax exemption policy. The loss of tax revenue could be offset by the increase in consumption derived from industrialization’s increase in employment and acquisitive power. Installing industries close to raw-material suppliers would also reduce transport costs. The flow of raw material is still a bottleneck due to the great distances to reach industries in other states. This raises the final price of the product and makes it difficult to expand the market. Another price-related problem pointed out is the international competition with raw materials of much lower value, obtained in regions using slave or child labor. An alternative would be the certification of products originating in the Amazon, mainly because human rights aspects are strictly observed in the granting of credit by local banks.

In the interviewee's view, large industries will not compete with small industries and craft productions, since they have different markets. Large industries will focus on selling to other states and exporting, while small industries will focus on the local and regional markets. There could be competition for the fruits, but small producers that verticalize production manage to guarantee their raw material. Also, the greater demand for products from the biodiversity of the Amazon would not bring environmental impacts, since they are sustainable crops, which contribute to the maintenance of the forested area, even with commercial species. In the case of cocoa, the extraction of native plants or those cultivated in forest regions requires little intervention since it is a plant that needs shading from other species. Planting on dry land is done in the Agroflorestry System (AFS) in association with other plants that have economic value for generating income for producers. Also, cocoa has been used in reforestation projects in degraded areas and, like other tree species, can generate additional income through carbon credits.

The bank's representative says that access to credit is a fundamental element for the production of higher value-added products in the region. Financial institutions seek to overcome the State's difficulty in resolving the land ownership issue. They attempt to do so by providing credit alternatives with subsidized rates for small family farmers. Even the people without individual land titles can obtain credit, which allows for the inclusion of communities such as riverside dwellers, agrarian reform settlers, quilombolas, and indigenous people. In any case, communities only have access to lower values, generally for agricultural cultivation or for an initial stage of processing.

4.1.2 The NGO’s perspective

The director of the NGO highlighted in the interview the importance of participatory construction in the structuring of economic activities. The interviewee states that a broad knowledge of the territory's potential is not enough to successfully structure value chains in the Amazon context. Many initiatives started and then abandoned, such as processing units or agro-industries, including those financed with international funds. Therefore, he emphasizes that it is more important to analyze the viability of the business, consider the ability to access public and international resources, and gain knowledge on the management and formation of partnerships. To this end, he highlights the need for facilitation processes that seek the integration of various actors through dialogues.

To establish truly sustainable value chains, the interviewee considers it essential to promote leadership training, management training and financial education. Local leaders can encourage social participation and access to public policies, which favor the organization of communities and the structuring of their businesses. Management training enables the community to have the autonomy to manage its production processes. Financial education is essential for the financial viability of their projects and to prevent producers from being tricked, for example, with proposals to sell their land or work in illegal activities.

In the interviewee's view, the form of organization of groups or communities fundamentally depends on their objectives and interests. These can be influenced by the conditions of the communities, such as vulnerability, location, and maturity. In general, interests are timider when barriers are higher, which can lead to the proposition of limited solutions. To illustrate this, the director states that most of the trade in products from small communities in the Amazon are carried out on a short circuit, with direct relationships between local producers and consumers. Only a minor part of the trade occurs within the long circuit. In such instances, it is carried out by communities that have greater food security, that organize themselves in associations or cooperatives, and that are interested in certification and in accessing export markets.

Furthermore, the interviewee emphasizes that a value chain exists when it is possible to distribute value to all links in the production chain, enabling adequate remuneration for all. As long as an exploiting regime remains, in which communities spend their entire lives delivering small inputs with no added value, the Amazon will not get out of the poverty zone. The NGO sees industrialization as potentially beneficial for the region, as industries can facilitate the integration of production by small extractive communities that are not yet mature in processing and prefer to deliver raw materials. With this, large companies play an important role when they establish and help to implement protocols that add value, for example, to ensure greater productivity or certification of organic production.

4.2 Values identified

The main guiding values of the Amazônia 4.0 project identified throughout the four steps of interviews are: the protection of nature; the protection of the Amazon as one of the most important biomes in the world; the valuing the standing forest; the social inclusion of riverine/traditional/indigenous/quilombo communities; and the fostering a sense of belonging to/from the land.

4.3 Objectives identified

The strategic objective identified for the Amazônia 4.0 project was to ”promote the valorization of the standing forest”. The other objectives expressed in the interview were classified into fundamental objectives and means objectives. The network of objectives (Figure 2) presents the means (1.1 - 4.3, including 3.1.1 - 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.1, 4.3.1), fundamental (1, 2, 3, and 4) and strategic (gray box) objectives.

Figure 2
Network of objectives of the Amazônia 4.0 project.

4.4 Alternatives identified and validated

The alternatives elicited by the Amazônia 4.0 coordinators are presented in Table 2. The alternatives are related to the means objectives from Figure 1 that they each address.

Table 2
Alternatives envisioned in the Amazônia 4.0 project.

	Alternatives	Means objectives
A.1	Establish partnerships with local producers/experts.	1.1; 1.2
A.2	Establish partnerships with innovation centers for the development of products (food, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, among others) derived from Amazonian extractivism (or from Amazonian biodiversity)	1.1; 1.2
A.3	Implement mobile creative labs in Amazonian communities.	1.2; 4.2.1
A.4	Automated production with final product quality assurance.	1.1; 1.2.
A.5	Develop self-sufficient mobile mini bio-factories based on Industry 4.0 principles.	1.3; 2.1
A.6	Establish partnerships with innovation centers and centers of excellence in technologies.	1.3; 2.1; 2.2
A.7	Partner with startups to create eco industries based on circular economy principles.	2.2
A.8	Develop solar-powered mini plants.	1.3; 2.3
A.9	Implement satellite and radio connection systems.	2.5
A.10	Develop water treatment for productive processes.	1.3; 2.4
A.11	Apply sewage collection and treatment.	1.3; 2.4
A.12	Apply solid waste collection and treatment.	1.3; 2.4
A.13	Develop new air (such as drones) and water (such as hydrogen cell and solar powered boats) modes for transporting products.	3.1.1
A.14	Provide e-commerce platforms and applications.	3.1.2
A.15	Apply product identification technologies with automatic readers and anti-fraud assurance (such as blockchain technology).	3.1.3
A.16	Establish partnerships with centers of excellence in genomes.	3.1.3
A.17	Develop hardware for certification using GPS technologies, biometrics, artificial intelligence, image processing, real-time codes generation.	3.2.1
A.18	Identify the trades of knowledge and disseminate good practices	4.1.1
A.19	Establish partnerships with universities and other institutions for the training of managers and operators.	4.2.1
A.20	Establish partnerships with universities and other institutions to train entrepreneurs.	4.2.1; 4.3.1
A.21	Implement basic technology courses.	4.2.1
A.22	Implement courses on digital technologies.	4.2.1
A.23	Establish partnerships with incubators.	4.3.1
A.24	Establish partnerships with universities and other institutions for teaching finance.	4.1.2; 4.2.1

• Source: the authors.

5 ANALYSIS

This section analyzes the alignment between the values, objectives and alternatives obtained. Also, the challenges that will be faced when implementing the alternatives proposed in the Amazônia 4.0 project are analyzed.

5.1 Aspects of implementing alternatives

The valorization of the standing forest emerged as a strategic objective of the Amazônia 4.0 project after the objectives-structuring exercise presented in the previous section. This objective is directly aligned with the values of protecting nature and especially the Amazon, as one of the most prominent biomes on the globe. As fundamental objectives, possible to be addressed within the context of Amazônia 4.0, the following were identified: 1. the creation of value for the products of the Amazon Forest; 2. the creation of means for industrialization in communities in the Amazon; 3. the development of the local economy based on value-added products from the Amazon and; 4. the empowerment of Amazonian communities.

The creation of value is placed as an objective that goes beyond industrialization processes with resources from the biodiversity of the Amazon. It challenges the creation of new products that are more attractive to the market, with high quality, differentiation, and customization. To this end, it is important to establish partnerships with innovation centers for the development of extractive products from the Amazon, as well as with local producers and specialists, mainly to consider aspects of traditional knowledge that can increase the perception of the value of products.

For the local industrialization, the development of self-sufficient mobile mini bio-factories based on Industry 4.0 principles emerges as an alternative for the transformation of biodiversity products through bio-industries for 'in loco' operation. This alternative enables a production infrastructure, with automated, self-controlling processes and with quality assurance, which can be operated more easily by local workers. This approach allows small communities to be included and to have access to greater income, resulting from their participation in more valued links in the production chain.

The development of the local economy from value-added products requires the development of commercialization processes and marketing strategies using disruptive technologies to overcome barriers, mainly in logistics and connectivity. For this, the use of solar energy or hydrogen cells are alternatives to provide other means of air and water to transport products. Also, the application of blockchain technology and knowledge of genomes are indicated to guarantee the traceability of products and GPS technologies, biometrics, artificial intelligence, and image processing, are alternatives for the creation of own certification of origin of the products with low cost, when compared to the processes of certification that are not accessible to small producers.

For the empowerment of communities in the Amazon, the alternatives consider the need to increase education and technical training. They are also built on the importance of reconciling traditional knowledge with science and technology, valuing and disseminating these practices in production processes. The implementation of mobile creative laboratories in the communities, according to tests in progress, is an alternative for creating hubs of excellence that makes it possible to train residents in specific industrial processes for products from local biodiversity. Partnerships with universities and other institutions seek to provide knowledge in digital technologies, financial education, and entrepreneurship development.

5.2 The Amazônia 4.0 project as an action plan for a new sustainability paradigm

The Amazônia 4.0 project's proposal for economic development based on the valorization of the standing forest is in line with other visions for the biome, such as that of academics linked to the Science Panel for the Amazon, summarized in Living Amazon Vision (Alencar et al., 2021).

The Amazônia 4.0 project and the Living Amazon Vision share as values the protection and valorization of the Amazon, as one of the most relevant biomes in the world due to its unique and complex geo and biodiversity. Another shared value is the integration of forest people in the development of a new sustainable economic model, as guardians of knowledge of the forest's potential. As a result, they present similarities between their final objectives. These are ecosystem integrity and valorization of the standing forest, economic well-being and social justice, with the integration of forest people in the leadership of development. It is also possible to observe complementarity between the two proposals. Amazônia 4.0 is based, among other measures, on the importance of promoting the feeling of belonging to/from the land for the preservation of forests, which in turn is not highlighted in Living Amazon Vision. On the other hand, Living Amazon Vision highlights governance over the region as one of the most relevant pillars for preservation, an aspect that was not identified in the objectives and alternatives elicited for the Amazonia 4.0 project. Furthermore, both Living Amazon Vision and the Amazonia 4.0 project rely on the development and use of a sustainable and co-participatory bioeconomy to achieve their goals.

Based on the comparative analysis between the two proposals: Living Amazon Vision can be framed as a strategic plan for the Amazon rainforest, while the Amazônia 4.0 project takes the form of an operational bioeconomy project with alternatives already being tested with a view to future implementation. In this sense, for the effectiveness of the implementation of the alternatives defined in the Amazônia 4.0 project, it is important to highlight the interrelationship that must exist between the strategies identified in Living Amazon Vision. Such strategies include the investment in research, marketing, and productivity of Amazonian socio-biodiversity products, and the engagement and consultation with Indigenous peoples and local communities when planning policies regarding bioeconomy arrangements and the use of territories and natural resources.

5.3 Implementation challenges

This study on the Amazônia 4.0 pilot project has identified and structured pathways for a new economic and sustainable framework in the Amazon region. The project proposal and these options mark an initial step in addressing the region's challenges. However, implementing these ideas is complex, requiring methods beyond the scope of this article for collaborative action plans. These plans involve various stakeholders: public sector, private businesses, traditional communities, financial institutions, investment funds, philanthropies, academia, startups, research centers, and visionary companies (Nobre and Nobre, 2020). A significant challenge is crafting innovative public policies across federal, state, and municipal levels, along with forming localized public-private partnerships (PPP) and coordinating policies across scales and borders (Alencar et al., 2021).

The Amazônia 4.0 project presents an innovative approach that challenges the current credit system. In the context of sharing technological production infrastructures by several communities, it will be necessary to rethink the traditional credit system. In general, small extractive communities are only able to access funding resources for agricultural cultivation or for a small processing of production.

The implementation of self-sufficient mobile mini bio-factories based on Industry 4.0 principles requires substantial financial resources. This contribution faces an important barrier in Brazil: the lack of investment in science, technology, and infrastructure directed toward production systems (Alencar et al., 2021). Furthermore, a project of this magnitude certainly requires more than one financing path, and must combine public resources, investment funds and private capital.

However, it is imperative to contemplate whether this technological production infrastructure should be owned by small communities or by major players in the private industrial sector. The latter scenario might contradict a development model aiming for greater equity in benefit distribution, unless some form of shared governance, regulation, or well-defined access criteria is established (Alencar et al., 2021). In such a scenario, despite propelling the region toward a more resource-rich economy, the local forest inhabitants could find themselves detached from value creation. In this context, PPPs can offer an alternative approach, preserving state ownership while granting the private sector responsibilities such as construction, maintenance, or service provision. PPPs stand as a significant tool, introduced by Law 11.079 (2004) facilitating private investments in services and infrastructure projects for the betterment of citizens.

The Amazônia 4.0 proposal requires sustainable means for energy generation and transmission. It also requires sustainable transport, mobility and connectivity; as opposed to traditional means, which are based on the opening of roads and canal works in navigable rivers and on the use of energy transmission lines (Nobre and Nobre, 2020). Without the definition of public policies for implementing environmentally sensitive infrastructures to support industrial production and commercialization in the region, it will not be possible to meet one of the most important premises for the emergence of a new bioeconomy (Abramovay et al., 2021). As defined in the Amazônia 4.0 project, the aim is a bioeconomy anchored in the tripolar concept of ecologically healthy, economically prosperous and socially fair.

Moreover, robust public policy support is essential to facilitate successful collaborations with universities and research and innovation centers, which stand as pivotal alternatives within Amazônia 4.0. Allocating public resources to dedicated science, technology, and innovation funds is crucial to strengthen these institutions and protect against potential contingencies. Notably, a significant demand exists for fundamental, long-term developmental research in Brazil, especially in the bioeconomy sector. This emphasizes the need for public investments and increased corporate sector involvement in research, development, and innovation (RDI) initiatives (Instituto de Engenharia, 2023).

Regarding engagement and consultation with communities, it is important to highlight the arguments of the NGO representative in the interview. According to his perspective, to achieve success in the implementation of productive activities in the Amazon, it is essential to consider the role of communities, without imposing a standard or prescriptive model. Any intervention process must be participatory, considering the objectives and interests of communities, vulnerability conditions, location, as well as their level of maturity in production processes.

The creative laboratories of Amazônia 4.0 have been developing processes and alternatives with the participation of forest communities. However, in its implementation there will be an external contribution of technology, know-how, and technical expertise to the communities. In this sense, it is worth questioning whether communities will be receptive to industries with technologies from the 4th industrial revolution. The definition of an implementation plan must understand the conditions of receptivity to production processes that are different from their traditional processes. In any case, according to the experience of the director of the NGO, the initial stage of implementing the alternatives of Amazônia 4.0 can be more effective if started in communities with a higher level of maturity. With this, they could also serve as an incentive model for others in different situations.

Finally, the success of implementing the Amazônia 4.0 alternatives depends on the search for the collaboration and engagement of countless and powerful stakeholders who have diverse and even conflicting perspectives and interests on the paths to sustainable development in the Amazon.

5.4 Outlook - extension of the methodology to other regions

The present work shows that VFT and VFB can be successfully applied to structure complex problems in areas of conflicting interests and with high ecological value. In order to do so it is important to deeply understand the context first. An excellent way for that is to carry out interviews with key actors of the region. The framework may greatly vary in other regions of the world and could include territories with disputed or unconventional governance (paramilitary groups, unrecognized leaders with major effective power, etc). With that, one can clearly identify, state, and structure the goals that are to be achieved with the development plan. VFT and VFB provide guidance as for how to do so. This must be an interactive process with the stakeholders, and it may require several iterations, through which the perception of the priorities and goals may vary. It is important to depart from pre-existing solutions, keeping an open mind to innovative and disruptive technologies. That is, regardless of whether or not their readiness level allows immediate implementation.

The methodology can be applied in different stages of the development plan. It can help conceive the plan completely, or it can aid in focusing already-existing plans on the key topics of interest.

6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

This work applied PSM methodologies (VFT and VFB) to an innovative sustainabledevelopment project in the Amazon rainforest - the Amazônia 4.0 project. Amazonia 4.0 aims at the sustainable use of the forest's biodiversity, using innovative and disruptive technologies from the fourth industrial revolution. The application of VFT and VFB methodologies allowed the authors to clarify the objectives of the initiative and helped reflect and expand the alternatives that can be implemented to enhance its impact.

The project has four main objectives, which are to:

1. Add value to the Amazon Forest products.

2. Create means for the industrialization in Amazon communities.

3. Develop local economy with value-added products from the Amazon.

4. Empower Amazon communities.

In order to achieve them, the project proposes innovative and/or disruptive alternatives for the creation and production of high value-added products, new energy sources, greater connectivity, faster and more sustainable means of production outflow, and for access channels between producer and consumer. The empowerment of local communities is to be achieved with an increase in education and technical training, and by reconciling traditional knowledge with science and technology.

A key aspect of the project is the development of autonomous mobile mini bio-factories. Such factories constitute an alternative enabling the transformation 'in loco' of the products of local extractivism. In other words, it proposes non-conventional means for implementing the various links of the production chain with the Amazon communities, exploring concepts of bioeconomy and industry 4.0.

Many challenges faced by the project were identified, such as rethinking the traditional credit system in order to allow small extractive communities to access funding resources to participate in the whole production chain. Another main challenge is the search for collaboration and engagement of numerous stakeholders who have different and even conflicting perspectives and interests on the paths to sustainable development in the Amazon. Furthermore, the availability of resources and public policies for the implementation of a sustainable infrastructure to support such industrialization are also challenges.

The Amazônia 4.0 project is in line with other development frameworks for the region such as Living Amazon Vision, proposed by academics linked to the Science Panel for the Amazon. Living Amazon Vision proposes a strategic plan for the sustainable economic development of the Amazon rainforest. Within this same zeitgeis¹, the Amazônia 4.0 project presents an operational bioeconomy project with alternatives being tested already, and with a view for future implementation. The process of structuring values and objectives aligned with the elicitation of alternatives can be applied by other initiatives that seek standing forest economy in tropical forests worldwide.

Acknowledgements

We thank Banco da Amazônia and Instituto Terroá for their interviews and for sharing with us the daily challenges of their institutions, as well as their visions for the development of the Amazon rainforest. Furthermore, we sincerely appreciate the valuable contributions made by the reviewers of this journal in enhancing the quality of the article.

References

• ABRAMOVAY R, FERREIRA J & COSTA F. 2021. The New Bioeconomy in the Amazon: Opportunities and Challenges for a Healthy Standing Forest and Flowing Rivers. In: Amazon Assessment Report 2021. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
• ACKERMANN F, FRANCO L, ROUWETTE E & WHITE L. 2014. Special issue on problem structuring research and practice. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 2(3-4): 165-172.
• ALENCAR A, PAINTER L & ATHAYDE S. 2021. A Pan-Amazonian Sustainable Development Vision. In: Amazon Assessment Report 2021. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
• ALENCAR M, PRIORI L & ALENCAR L. 2017. Structuring objectives based on value-focused thinking methodology: Creating alternatives for sustainability in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156: 62-73.
• ARTAXO P, VMF AV & B B. 2021. Impacts of deforestation and climate change on biodiversity, ecological processes, and environmental adaptation. In: Amazon Assessment Report 2021 [edited by Nobre, Encalada, Anderson et al.]. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
• BARLOW J, LEES A & SIST P. 2021. Conservation Measures to Counter the Main Threats to Amazonian Biodiversity. In: Amazon Assessment Report 2021. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
• BASTOS LIMA M. 2021. Corporate power in the bioeconomy transition: The policies and politics of conservative ecological modernization in Brazil. Sustainability, 13(12): 6952.
• BELL S & MORSE S. 2007. Problem structuring methods: Theorizing the benefits of deconstructing sustainable development projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5): 576-587.
• BENCKE F, GILIOLI R & ROYER A. 2017. Inovação disruptiva: uma análise das pesquisas empíricas publicadas no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e Inovação, 5(2): 159-180.
• BERENGUER E, ARMENTERAS D & LEES A. 2021. Drivers and Ecological Impacts of Deforestation and Forest Degradation. In: Amazon Assessment Report 2021. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
• BRASIL. 2004. Lei n.11.079, de 30 de dezembro de 2004. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil03/ato2004-2006/2004/lei/l11079.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil03/ato2004-2006/2004/lei/l11079.htm
• BUGGE M, HANSEN T & KLITKOU A. 2016. What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7): 691.
• CHÁVEZ-CORTÉS M & MAYA J. 2010. Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide the Choice of Sustainability Indicators for Tourism Development. Sustainability, 2(9): 3074-3099.
• EMBRAPA. 2021. Bioeconomia: Sobre o tema. Accessed at 04/08/2021. Available at: Available at: https://www.embrapa.br/tema-bioeconomia/sobre-o-tema
  » https://www.embrapa.br/tema-bioeconomia/sobre-o-tema
• FRANCO L & MONTIBELLER G. 2010. Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(3): 489-500.
• FRANÇOZO R & BELDERRAIN M. 2022. A problem structuring method framework for valuefocused thinking. EURO Journal on Decision Processes , 10: 100014.
• FRANÇOZO R, BELDERRAIN M & BERGIANTE N. 2019. Value-Focused Thinking na prática: análise do desenvolvimento e aplicações no período (2010-2018). In: Anais do LI Simpósio Brasileiro de Pesquisa Operacional. Limeira, SP: Galoá.
• GARRETT R, CAMMELLI F & FERREIRA J. 2021. Forests and Sustainable Development in the Brazilian Amazon: History, Trends, and Future Prospects. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46: 625-652.
• GONZALEZ E, SARKIS J & HUISINGH D. 2015. Making real progress toward more sustainable societies using decision support models and tools: Introduction to the special volume. Journal of Cleaner Production , 105: 1-13.
• GREGORY A, ATKINS J, BURDON D & ELLIOTT M. 2013. A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: The DPSIR modelling process. European Journal of Operational Research , 227(3): 558-569.
• INSTITUTO DE ENGENHARIA. 2023. Amazônia e Bioeconomia: Sustentada em Ciência, tecnologia e Inovação. Accessed at 12/07/2023. Available at: Available at: https://www.institutodeengenharia.org.br/site/amazonia-e-bioeconomia/
  » https://www.institutodeengenharia.org.br/site/amazonia-e-bioeconomia/
• KAMARI A, CORRAO R & KIRKEGAARD P. 2017. Sustainability focused decision-making in building renovation. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 6(2): 330-350.
• KEENEY R. 1996. Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research , 92(3): 537-549.
• KEENEY R. 2012. Value-focused brainstorming. Decision Analysis, 9(4): 303-313.
• KEISLER J. 2012. Is Value Focused Thinking a Problem Structuring Method or Soft OR or what? Management Science and Information Systems Faculty Publication Series. Paper, 42. Available at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/msisfacultypubs/42
  » http://scholarworks.umb.edu/msisfacultypubs/42
• KEISLER J, TURCOTTE D, DREW R & JOHNSON M. 2014. Value-focused thinking for community-based organizations: objectives and acceptance in local development. EURO Journal on Decision Processes , 2(3-4): 221-256.
• LARREA C, MURMIS M & AZEVEDO T. 2021a. Globalization, Extractivism and Social Exclusion: Threats and Opportunities to Amazon Governance in Brazil. In: Amazon Assessment Report 2021. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
• LARREA C, MURMIS M & PETERS S. 2021b. Globalization, Extractivism, and Social Exclusion: Country-Specific Manifestations. In: Amazon Assessment Report 2021. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
• LARREA-ALCÁZAR D, CUVI N & JF V. 2021. Economic drivers in the Amazon after European Colonization from the Nineteenth Century to the Middle of the Twentieth Century (the 1970s). In: Amazon Assessment Report 2021. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
• MANNINEN K & HUISKONEN J. 2018. Sustainability Goal Setting with a Value-Focused Thinking Approach. Sustainable Business Models, p. 89-118.
• MARENGO J, SOUZA C & THONICKE K. 2018. Changes in Climate and Land Use Over the Amazon Region: Current and Future Variability and Trends. Frontiers in Earth Science, 6(December): 1-21.
• MARGULIS S. 2003. Causas do desmatamento da Amazônia brasileira. Brasília: Banco Mundial.
• MARTIN L. 2015. Incorporating values into sustainability decision-making. Journal of Cleaner Production , 105: 146-156.
• MINGERS J & ROSENHEAD J. 2004. Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research , 152(3): 530-554.
• MINISTÉRIO DA AGRICULTURA, PECUÁRIA E ABASTECIMENTO. 2020. Projeto Amazônia 4.0 sugere utilização da tecnologia para exploração sustentável da biodiversidade. Available at: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/amazonia-4-0-sugere-utilizacao-da-tecnologia-para-exploracao-sustentavel-da-biodiversidade
  » https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/amazonia-4-0-sugere-utilizacao-da-tecnologia-para-exploracao-sustentavel-da-biodiversidade
• NOBRE C & NOBRE I. 2020. The Need of a novel sustainable development paradigm for the Amazon. Boletim regional, urbano e ambiental, p. 159-170. Available at: http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/bitstream/11058/10395/1/brua22opiniaoartigo12.pdf
  » http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/bitstream/11058/10395/1/brua22opiniaoartigo12.pdf
• NOBRE C, SAMPAIO G & SALAZAR L. 2007. Mudanças climáticas e Amazônia. Ciência e Cultura, 59(3): 22-27.
• RITTEL H & WEBBER M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2): 155-169.
• ROCKSTRÖM J, STEFFEN W & NOONE K. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263): 472-475.
• ROTA DO CACAU. 2022. Available at: https://rotadocacautransamazonica.com.br/
  » https://rotadocacautransamazonica.com.br/
• SILVA A, SEVALHO E & MIRANDA I. 2021. Potencial das palmeiras nativas da Amazônia Brasileira para a bioeconomia: análise em rede da produção científica e tecnológica. Ciência Florestal, 31: 1020-1046.
• SILVA M, PEREIRA F & MARTINS J. 2018. A bioeconomia brasileira em números. BNDES Setorial, 47: 277-331.
• SOUSA K, SANTOYO A & JUNIOR W. 2016. Bioeconomia na Amazônia: uma análise dos segmentos de fitoterápicos & fitocosméticos, sob a perspectiva da inovação. Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science, 5(3): 151-171.
• STEFFEN W, RICHARDSON K & ROCKSTRÖM J. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223).
• TIMPERLEY J. 2018. The Carbon Brief Profile: Brazil. Serie Country Profiles, Carbon Brief. Available at: https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-brazil
  » https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-brazil
• VERMULM R. 2019. Políticas para o desenvolvimento da indústria 4.0 no Brasil. In: A Indústria do Futuro no Brasil e no Mundo. São Paulo: IEDI.
• WILLERDING A, SILVA L & SILVA R. 2020. Estratégias para o desenvolvimento da bioeconomia no estado do Amazonas. Estudos Avançados, 34(98): 145-166.
• ZANON S. 2020. Indústria 4.0 chega à tecnologia de ponta. Amazônia: projeto quer salvar a floresta levando tecnologia de ponta.

• 1
  The general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era.

Funding

• This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  24 June 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  27 Apr 2023
• Accepted
  31 May 2023