The Amazon's susceptibility to fire will only increase over time as deforestation and climate change disrupt the forest's ability to transport moisture inland.
In early June, President Lula announced 825.7 million reais ($150 million) from the Amazon Fund to boost enforcement. It’s the largest-ever financial aid through the fund, a conservation initiative established in 2008 with donations from countries such as Norway, Germany and the U.S.
The solution is not to give more money to the government; they would just waste it. Even if we disregard the inefficiencies of central government bureaucracy, there are far too many conflicting political and economic interests that will inevitably lead to policies destructive to the forest. If even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not immune to this, we have no reason to think that this particular administration in Brazil or any future administration will be able or willing to resist the influence of the cattle industry.
Saving the forest requires that people 1) stop funding animal agriculture and smaller-scale regional drivers of forest destruction, and 2) take action to reclaim the land and actually plant new trees and protect the regenerating secondary forests which just so happen to be crucial to mitigating climate change.
If anyone wants to spend money to save the Amazon rainforest, the best use of that money would be to acquire (by any means) some land to protect or to donate to someone else so that they can do so. Without people living there to protect the forest, it will most likely be converted to grass for profit. (And if that profit can be taxed, then you can bet that such practices will be defended to the last by the same government that pledges to end deforestation by 2030.)
Sabotaging centralised points of failure such as slaughterhouses, meat-packing facilities, Cargill's soy terminal in Santarém... would also be helpful, but without addressing the primary production and consumer demand sides, it would never be sufficient.