in

Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation

  • 1.

    Schwartzman, S. & Zimmerman, B. Conservation alliances with indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 19, 721–727 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • 2.

    Fearnside, P. M. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences. Conserv. Biol. 19, 680–688 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • 3.

    Malhi, Y. et al. Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the amazon. Science 319, 169–172 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 4.

    Nepstad, D. et al. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344, 1118–1123 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 5.

    Assunção, J., Gandour, C. & Rocha, R. Deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: prices or policies? Environ. Dev. Econ. 20, 697–722 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 6.

    Assunção, J., Gandour, C. & Rocha, R. DETERring Deforestation in the Amazon: Environmental Monitoring and Law Enforcement (Climate Policy Initiative, 2017).

  • 7.

    Cisneros, E., Zhou, S. L. & Börner, J. Naming and shaming for conservation: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 10, e0136402 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 8.

    Arima, E. Y., Barreto, P., Araújo, E. & Soares-Filho, B. Public policies can reduce tropical deforestation: lessons and challenges from Brazil. Land Use Policy 41, 465–473 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 9.

    Soares-Filho, B. et al. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 10821–10826 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 10.

    Soares-Filho, B. et al. Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code. Science 344, 363–364 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Assunção, J. & Rocha, R. Getting Greener by Going Black: The Priority Municipalities in Brazil (Climate Policy Initiative, 2014).

  • 12.

    Assunção, J., Gandour, C., Rocha, R. & Rocha, R. The effect of rural credit on deforestation: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. Econ. J. 130, 290–330 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 13.

    Gibbs, H. K. et al. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347, 377–378 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 14.

    Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M. & Almeida, O. T. Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1595–1603 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    Gibbs, H. K. et al. Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero-deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Brazil’s zero-deforestation pacts. Conserv. Lett. 9, 32–42 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    Monitoramento do Desmatamento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite (INPE, 2018); http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes

  • 17.

    Eating up the Amazon (Greenpeace, 2006); https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Global/usa/report/2010/2/eating-up-the-amazon.pdf

  • 18.

    Soy Moratorium Announcement (ABIOVE, ANEC, 2006).

  • 19.

    Rudorff, B. F. T. et al. Remote sensing images to detect soy plantations in the Amazon biome—the Soy Moratorium Initiative. Sustainability 4, 1074–1088 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 20.

    Trase Yearbook 2018: Sustainability in Forest-Risk Supply Chains: Spotlight on Brazilian Soy (Trase, 2018).

  • 21.

    Zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. et al. Using supply chain data to monitor zero deforestation commitments: an assessment of progress in the Brazilian soy sector. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 035003 (2020).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 22.

    Lambin, E. F. et al. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 109–116 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 23.

    Soy Moratorium: 2016/2017 Crop Year (ABIOVE, Agrosatelite, GTS, INPE, 2017).

  • 24.

    Rudorff, B. F. T. et al. The Soy Moratorium in the Amazon biome monitored by remote sensing images. Remote Sens. 3, 185–202 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 25.

    Miranda, J., Börner, J., Kalkuhl, M. & Soares-Filho, B. Land speculation and conservation policy leakage in Brazil. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 045006 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 26.

    Ferrante, L. & Fearnside, P. M. Brazil’s new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia’s environment, traditional peoples and the global climate. Environ. Conserv. 46, 261–263 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 27.

    Abessa, D., Famá, A. & Buruaem, L. The systematic dismantling of Brazilian environmental laws risks losses on all fronts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 510–511 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 28.

    Dauvergne, P. & Lister, J. The prospects and limits of eco-consumerism: shopping our way to less deforestation? Organ. Environ. 23, 132–154 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • 29.

    Macedo, M. N. et al. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 1341–1346 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 30.

    Kastens, J. H., Brown, J. C., Coutinho, A. C., Bishop, C. R. & Esquerdo, J. C. D. M. Soy moratorium impacts on soybean and deforestation dynamics in Mato Grosso, Brazil. PLoS ONE 12, e0176168 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 31.

    Svahn, J., Brunner, D. & Harding, T. Did the Soy Moratorium Reduce Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? A Counterfactual Analysis of the Impact of the Soy Moratorium on Deforestation in the Amazon Biome. MSc thesis, Norwegian School of Economics (2018).

  • 32.

    West, T. A. P., Börner, J. & Fearnside, P. M.Climatic benefits from the 2006–2017 avoided deforestation in Amazonian Brazil. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 52 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 33.

    Sy, V. D. et al. Land use patterns and related carbon losses following deforestation in South America. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 124004 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Moratatória da Soja: Monitoramento por Imagens de Satélites dos Plantios de Soja no Bioma Amazonia (ABIOVE & Agrosatélite, 2018); https://abiove.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/30012019-165924-portugues.pdf

  • 35.

    Alix-Garcia, J., Rausch, L. L., L’Roe, J., Gibbs, H. K. & Munger, J. Avoided deforestation linked to environmental registration of properties in the Brazilian Amazon: environmental registration in the Amazon. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12414 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Burgess, R., Costa, F. J. M. & Olken, B. A. Wilderness Conservation and the Reach of the State: Evidence from National Borders in the Amazon Working Paper 24861 (2018); https://doi.org/10.3386/w24861

  • 37.

    Silva Junior, C. H. L. et al. Fire responses to the 2010 and 2015/2016 Amazonian droughts. Front. Earth Sci. 7, 97 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 38.

    Rudorff, B. F. T. & Risso, J. Geospatial Analyses of the Annual Crops Dynamic in the Brazilian Cerrado Biome: 2000 to 2014 (Agrosatélite Applied Geotechnology, 2015).

  • 39.

    Gollnow, F., Hissa, L., de, B. V., Rufin, P. & Lakes, T. Property-level direct and indirect deforestation for soybean production in the Amazon region of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Land Use Policy 78, 377–385 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 40.

    Zalles, V. et al. Near doubling of Brazil’s intensive row crop area since 2000. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 428–435 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 41.

    Arima, E. Y., Richards, P., Walker, R. & Caldas, M. M. Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 024010 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Hyman, G. & Nascimento, N. Forest law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon: costs and income effects. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 294–305 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 43.

    Sills, E. O. et al. Estimating the impacts of local policy innovation: the synthetic control method applied to tropical deforestation. PLoS ONE 10, e0132590 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 44.

    Börner, J., Kis-Katos, K., Hargrave, J. & König, K. Post-crackdown effectiveness of field-based forest law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 10, e0121544 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 45.

    L’Roe, J., Rausch, L., Munger, J. & Gibbs, H. K. Mapping properties to monitor forests: landholder response to a large environmental registration program in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 57, 193–203 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 46.

    Azevedo, A. A. et al. Limits of Brazil’s Forest Code as a means to end illegal deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7653–7658 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 47.

    Brown, J. C. & Koeppe, M. in Environment and the Law in Amazonia: A Plurilateral Encounter (eds Cooper, J. M. & Hunefeldt, C.) 110–126 (Sussex Academic Press, 2013).

  • 48.

    Lambin, E. F. et al. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 129–140 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 49.

    Garrett, R. D., Carlson, K. M., Rueda, X. & Noojipady, P. Assessing the potential additionality of certification by the Round Table on Responsible Soybeans and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 045003 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 50.

    Le Polain de Waroux, Y. et al. The restructuring of South American soy and beef production and trade under changing environmental regulations. World Dev. 121, 188–202 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 51.

    Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M. & Benedict, J. J. Deforestation spillovers from oil palm sustainability certification. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 075002 (2020).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 52.

    Dou, Y., da Silva, R. F. B., Yang, H. & Liu, J. Spillover effect offsets the conservation effort in the Amazon. J. Geogr. Sci. 28, 1715–1732 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 53.

    Moffette, F. & Gibbs, H. Agricultural displacement and deforestation leakage in the Brazilian Legal Amazon. Land Econ. (in the press).

  • 54.

    Baylis, K. et al. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conserv. Lett. 9, 58–64 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 55.

    Noojipady, P. et al. Forest carbon emissions from cropland expansion in the Brazilian Cerrado biome. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 025004 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 56.

    Rausch, L. L. et al. Soy expansion in Brazil’s Cerrado. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12671 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 57.

    S. Garcia, A. et al. Assessing land use/cover dynamics and exploring drivers in the Amazon’s Arc of Deforestation through a hierarchical, multi-scale and multi-temporal classification approach. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 15, 100233 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 58.

    Richards, P. D., Walker, R. T. & Arima, E. Y. Spatially complex land change: the indirect effect of Brazil’s agricultural sector on land use in Amazonia. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 1–9 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 59.

    Richards, P. What drives indirect land use change? How Brazil’s agriculture sector influences frontier deforestation. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 105, 1026–1040 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 60.

    Silva, C. A. & Lima, M. Soy Moratorium in Mato Grosso: deforestation undermines the agreement. Land Use Policy 71, 540–542 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 61.

    Rausch, L. & Gibbs, H. Property arrangements and soy governance in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso: implications for deforestation-free production. Land 5, 7 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 62.

    Garrett, R. D. et al. Intensification in agriculture–forest frontiers: land use responses to development and conservation policies in Brazil. Glob. Environ. Change 53, 233–243 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 63.

    Koch, N., zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Wehkamp, J., Oliveira Filho, F. J. B. & Schwerhoff, G.Agricultural productivity and forest conservation: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101, 919–940 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 64.

    Le Polain de Waroux, Y., Garrett, R. D., Heilmayr, R. & Lambin, E. F. Land-use policies and corporate investments in agriculture in the Gran Chaco and Chiquitano. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4021–4026 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 65.

    Garrett, R. D. et al. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Change 54, 135–147 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 66.

    Soterroni, A. C. et al. Expanding the Soy Moratorium to Brazil’s Cerrado. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav7336 (2019).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 67.

    Governo alega ameaça à soberania nacional e apoia fim da Moratória da Soja. Aprosoja http://www.aprosoja.com.br/comunicacao/noticia/governo-alega-ameaca-a-soberania-nacional-e-apoia-fim-da-moratoria-da-soja (2019).

  • 68.

    Barona, E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G. & Coomes, O. T. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 024002 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 69.

    Project MapBiomas—Collection 2.3 of Brazilian Land Cover & Use Map Series (MapBiomas, 2018); http://mapbiomas.org/

  • 70.

    Richards, P. D., Myers, R. J., Swinton, S. M. & Walker, R. T. Exchange rates, soybean supply response, and deforestation in South America. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 454–462 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 71.

    Wing, C., Simon, K. & Bello-Gomez, R. A. Designing difference in difference studies: best practices for public health policy research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 39, 453–469 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 72.

    Freyaldenhoven, S., Hansen, C. & Shapiro, J. M. Pre-event trends in the panel event-study design. Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 3307–3338 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 73.

    Lechner, M. The estimation of causal effects by difference-in-difference methods estimation of spatial panels. Found. Trends Econom. 4, 165–224 (2010).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 74.

    Clarke, D. Estimating Difference-in-Differences in the Presence of Spillovers MPRA Paper 81604 (Univ, Library of Munich, 2017).

  • 75.

    Zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. et al. Using supply chain data to monitor zero deforestation commitments: an assessment of progress in the Brazilian soy sector. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 035003 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 76.

    Alix-Garcia, J. M., Shapiro, E. N. & Sims, K. R. E. Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services program. Land Econ. 88, 613–638 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 77.

    Hertel, T. W. Economic perspectives on land use change and leakage. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 075012 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • 78.

    Hertel, T. W., West, T. A. P., Börner, J. & Villoria, N. B. A review of global–local–global linkages in economic land-use/cover change models. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 053003 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    A core microbiota dominates a rich microbial diversity in the bovine udder and may indicate presence of dysbiosis

    Case studies show climate variation linked to rise and fall of medieval nomadic empires