Between 2004 and 2012, multiple policies contributed to one of the great conservation successes of the twenty-first century—an 84% decrease in the rate of Brazilian Amazon deforestation. Among the most prominent of these policies is the Amazon Soy Moratorium (ASM), an agreement by grain traders not to purchase soy grown on recently deforested land. The ASM inspired widespread adoption of similar zero-deforestation commitments, but its impact is poorly understood due to its overlap with other conservation policies. Here, we apply an econometric triple-differences model to remotely sensed deforestation data to isolate the ASM’s impact within Brazil’s Arc of Deforestation. We show that the ASM reduced deforestation in soy-suitable locations in the Amazon by 0.66 ± 0.32 percentage points relative to a counterfactual control, preventing 18,000 ± 9,000 km2 of deforestation over its first decade (2006–2016). Although these results highlight potential benefits of private conservation policies, the ASM’s success was dependent on complementarities with public property registries and deforestation monitoring.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Examples of shifting development pathways: lessons on how to enable broader, deeper, and faster climate action
Climate Action Open Access 15 December 2022
Leakage does not fully offset soy supply-chain efforts to reduce deforestation in Brazil
Nature Communications Open Access 17 September 2022
Spatial spillover effects from agriculture drive deforestation in Mato Grosso, Brazil
Scientific Reports Open Access 08 November 2021
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 per month
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
All of the data needed to replicate this study are available through the Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LE42B1.
All of the code needed to reproduce the results, figures and tables is available at https://github.com/rheilmayr/asm.
Schwartzman, S. & Zimmerman, B. Conservation alliances with indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 19, 721–727 (2005).
Fearnside, P. M. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences. Conserv. Biol. 19, 680–688 (2005).
Malhi, Y. et al. Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the amazon. Science 319, 169–172 (2008).
Nepstad, D. et al. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344, 1118–1123 (2014).
Assunção, J., Gandour, C. & Rocha, R. Deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: prices or policies? Environ. Dev. Econ. 20, 697–722 (2015).
Assunção, J., Gandour, C. & Rocha, R. DETERring Deforestation in the Amazon: Environmental Monitoring and Law Enforcement (Climate Policy Initiative, 2017).
Cisneros, E., Zhou, S. L. & Börner, J. Naming and shaming for conservation: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 10, e0136402 (2015).
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).
Soares-Filho, B. et al. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 10821–10826 (2010).
Soares-Filho, B. et al. Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code. Science 344, 363–364 (2014).
Assunção, J. & Rocha, R. Getting Greener by Going Black: The Priority Municipalities in Brazil (Climate Policy Initiative, 2014).
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).
Gibbs, H. K. et al. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347, 377–378 (2015).
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).
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).
Monitoramento do Desmatamento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite (INPE, 2018); http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes
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
Soy Moratorium Announcement (ABIOVE, ANEC, 2006).
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).
Trase Yearbook 2018: Sustainability in Forest-Risk Supply Chains: Spotlight on Brazilian Soy (Trase, 2018).
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).
Lambin, E. F. et al. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 109–116 (2018).
Soy Moratorium: 2016/2017 Crop Year (ABIOVE, Agrosatelite, GTS, INPE, 2017).
Rudorff, B. F. T. et al. The Soy Moratorium in the Amazon biome monitored by remote sensing images. Remote Sens. 3, 185–202 (2011).
Miranda, J., Börner, J., Kalkuhl, M. & Soares-Filho, B. Land speculation and conservation policy leakage in Brazil. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 045006 (2019).
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).
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).
Dauvergne, P. & Lister, J. The prospects and limits of eco-consumerism: shopping our way to less deforestation? Organ. Environ. 23, 132–154 (2010).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Sy, V. D. et al. Land use patterns and related carbon losses following deforestation in South America. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 124004 (2015).
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
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).
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
Silva Junior, C. H. L. et al. Fire responses to the 2010 and 2015/2016 Amazonian droughts. Front. Earth Sci. 7, 97 (2019).
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).
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).
Zalles, V. et al. Near doubling of Brazil’s intensive row crop area since 2000. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 428–435 (2019).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M. & Benedict, J. J. Deforestation spillovers from oil palm sustainability certification. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 075002 (2020).
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).
Moffette, F. & Gibbs, H. Agricultural displacement and deforestation leakage in the Brazilian Legal Amazon. Land Econ. (in the press).
Baylis, K. et al. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conserv. Lett. 9, 58–64 (2016).
Noojipady, P. et al. Forest carbon emissions from cropland expansion in the Brazilian Cerrado biome. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 025004 (2017).
Rausch, L. L. et al. Soy expansion in Brazil’s Cerrado. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12671 (2019).
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).
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).
Richards, P. What drives indirect land use change? How Brazil’s agriculture sector influences frontier deforestation. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 105, 1026–1040 (2015).
Silva, C. A. & Lima, M. Soy Moratorium in Mato Grosso: deforestation undermines the agreement. Land Use Policy 71, 540–542 (2018).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Garrett, R. D. et al. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Change 54, 135–147 (2019).
Soterroni, A. C. et al. Expanding the Soy Moratorium to Brazil’s Cerrado. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav7336 (2019).
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).
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).
Project MapBiomas—Collection 2.3 of Brazilian Land Cover & Use Map Series (MapBiomas, 2018); http://mapbiomas.org/
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).
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).
Freyaldenhoven, S., Hansen, C. & Shapiro, J. M. Pre-event trends in the panel event-study design. Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 3307–3338 (2019).
Lechner, M. The estimation of causal effects by difference-in-difference methods estimation of spatial panels. Found. Trends Econom. 4, 165–224 (2010).
Clarke, D. Estimating Difference-in-Differences in the Presence of Spillovers MPRA Paper 81604 (Univ, Library of Munich, 2017).
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).
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).
Hertel, T. W. Economic perspectives on land use change and leakage. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 075012 (2018).
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).
This paper contributes to the Global Land Programme. Funding was provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation’s Civil Society Department under the Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative. We thank I. Schelly for outstanding cartographic support.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Food thanks Andrea Garcia and the other, anonymous, reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L.L., Munger, J. et al. Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nat Food 1, 801–810 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00194-5
This article is cited by
Brazilian soybeans as feed for livestock in Europe: an insight into the nitrogen flows
Regional Environmental Change (2023)
A sustainable pathway to increase soybean production in Brazil
Nature Sustainability (2022)
Leakage does not fully offset soy supply-chain efforts to reduce deforestation in Brazil
Nature Communications (2022)
Warming reduces global agricultural production by decreasing cropping frequency and yields
Nature Climate Change (2022)
Protecting the Amazon forest and reducing global warming via agricultural intensification
Nature Sustainability (2022)