CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementOil Palm Production and SustainabilityAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon could be halved by scaling up the implementation of zero-deforestation cattle commitments

Open access
Levy, Samuel A., Cammelli, Federico, Munger, Jacob, Gibbs, Holly K., Garrett, Rachael D.·2023·Global Environmental Change
DOI 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102671
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Deforestation for agriculture is a key threat to global carbon stocks, biodiversity, and indigenous ways of life. In the absence of strong territorial governance, zero-deforestation commitments (ZDCs), corporate policies to decouple food production from deforestation, remain a central tool to combat this issue. Yet evidence on their effectiveness remains mixed and the mechanisms limiting effectiveness are poorly understood. To advance understanding of ZDCs’ potential at reducing deforestation, we developed the first spatially explicit estimates of farmers’ exposure to ZDC companies in the Brazilian Amazon cattle sector. Exposure was measured by determining the market share of ZDC firms from the first full year of ZDC adoption in 2010 until 2018. Our analysis evaluated how variation in this exposure influenced deforestation. We found the G4 Agreement, the most widespread and strongly implemented cattle ZDC, reduced cattle-driven deforestation by 7,000 ± 4,000 km2 (15 ± 8%) between 2010 and 2018. Additionally, had all firms adopted and implemented an effective ZDC, cattle-driven deforestation could have dropped by 24,000 ± 13,000 km2 (51 ± 28%). These results for the world’s principal deforestation hotspot suggests supply chain policies can substantially reduce deforestation. However, their effectiveness is contingent on widespread adoption and rigorous implementation, both of which are currently insufficient to prevent large scale deforestation. Increased adoption and implementation could be incentivized through greater pressure from the Brazilian government and import countries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102671

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing evidence suggests that properties with recent deforestation tend to specialize in indirect supply.

    “existing evidence suggests that properties with recent deforestation tend to specialize in indirect supply (Rajão et al 2020, Skidmore et al 2021, Levy et al 2023).”

    From Cattle supply chain fidelity in the Brazilian Amazon: key considerations for deforestation monitoring (2024) · cites this paper as Levy et al 2023

    The Introduction (p. 2) describes deforestation-linked cattle passing through intermediary properties, and section 4.3 (p. 8) says producers wishing to deforest can sell indirectly. These passages support a link between deforestation and indirect supply, but do not establish that properties with recent deforestation tend to specialize in indirect supply. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Aadland, D., 2004. Cattle cycles, heterogeneous expectations and the age distribution of capital. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 28, 1977 -2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jedc.2003.08.003. · DOI
  2. Agergaard, J., Fold, N., Gough, K.V., 2009. Global -local interactions: socioeconomic and spatial dynamics in Vietnam ' s coffee frontier. Geogr. J. 175, 133 -145. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2009.00320.x. · DOI
  3. Alix-Garcia, J., Gibbs, H.K., 2017. Forest conservation effects of Brazil ' s zero deforestation cattle agreements undermined by leakage. Glob. Environ. Change 47, 201 -217. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0025)
  4. Almeida, J., Brito, B., Farias, H., 2022. O Judici ´ ario est ´ a punindo desmatadores ilegais na Amaz ˆ onia? Imazon, Bel ´ em, Par ´ a, Brazil. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0030)
  5. Amaral, T., 2017. The evolving role of the Federal Prosecutors in changing cattle environmental governance in the Brazilian Amazon (M.S, thesis). University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0035)
  6. Arima, E.Y., Barreto, P., Araújo, E., Soares-Filho, B., 2014. Public policies can reduce tropical deforestation: Lessons and challenges from Brazil. Land Use Policy 41, 465 -473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.026. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Assunç ˜ ao, J., Rocha, R., 2019. Getting greener by going black: the effect of blacklisting municipalities on Amazon deforestation. Environ. Dev. Econ. 24, 115 -137. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X18000499. · DOI
  8. Assunç ˜ ao, J., Gandour, C., Rocha, R., 2015. Deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: prices or policies? Environ. Dev. Econ. 20, 697 -722. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1355770X15000078. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Azevedo, T., Oliveira, S., Siqueira, J., Rosa, M., Velez, E., Alencar, A., Valdiones, A.P., Barroso, M., Vergotti, M., 2021. Annual Report on deforestation in Brazil 2020. Project MapBiomas, S ˜ ao Paulo, Brazil. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0060)
  10. Barreto, P., Pereira, R., Brand ˜ ao, A., Baima, S., 2017. Will meat-packing plants help halt deforestation in the Amazon? Imazon, Bel ´ em, Par ´ a, Brazil. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0070)
  11. Brand ˜ ao Jr., A., Rausch, L., Paz Dur ´ an, A., Costa Jr., C., Spawn, S.A., Gibbs, H.K., 2020. Estimating the Potential for Conservation and Farming in the Amazon and Cerrado under Four Policy Scenarios. Sustainability 12, 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12031277.
  12. Cammelli, F., Levy, S.A., Grabs, J., Valentim, J.F., Garrett, R.D., 2022. Effectivenessequity tradeoffs in enforcing exclusionary supply chain policies: Lessons from the Amazonian cattle sector. J. Clean. Prod. 332, 130031 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.130031. · DOI
  13. Carvalho, W.D., Mustin, K., Hil ´ ario, R.R., Vasconcelos, I.M., Eilers, V., Fearnside, P.M., 2019. Deforestation control in the Brazilian Amazon: A conservation struggle being lost as agreements and regulations are subverted and bypassed. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 17, 122 -130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.06.002. · DOI
  14. Coyle, W., Gehlhar, M., Hertel, T.W., Wang, Z., Yu, W., 1998. Understanding the Determinants of Structural Change in World Food Markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80, 1051 -1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244203. · DOI
  15. de Area Le ˜ ao Pereira, E.J., Silveira Ferreira, P.J., de Santana Ribeiro, L.C., Sabadini Carvalho, T., de Barros Pereira, H.B., 2019. Policy in Brazil (2016 -2019) threaten conservation of the Amazon rainforest. Environ. Sci. Policy 100, 8 -12. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0105)
  16. de Area Le ˜ ao Pereira, E.J., de Santana Ribeiro, L.C., da Silva Freitas, L.F., de Barros Pereira, H.B., 2020. Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest. Land Use Policy 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104491. · DOI
  17. de Vos, R.E., 2016. Multi-Functional Lands Facing Oil Palm Monocultures: A Case Study of a Land Conflict in West Kalimantan. Indonesia. Austrian J. South-East Asian Stud. 9, 11 -32. https://doi.org/10.14764/10.ASEAS-2016.1-2. · DOI
  18. Fearnside, P., 2019. Setbacks under president Bolsonaro: a challenge to sustainability in the Amazon. Sustentabilidade Int. Sci. J. 1, 40 -43. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0125)
  19. Ferraz, J.B.S., de Felício, P.E., 2010. Production systems -An example from Brazil 84, 238 -243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.006. · DOI
  20. Fliessbach, A., Ihle, R., 2020. Cycles in cattle and hog prices in South America. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 64, 1167 -1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12392. · DOI
  21. Garrett, R.D., Levy, S., Carlson, K.M., Gardner, T.A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P., Heilmayr, R., le Polain de Waroux, Y., Ayre, B., Barr, R., D ø vre, B., Gibbs, H.K., Hall, S., Lake, S., Milder, J.C., Rausch, L.L., Rivero, R., Rueda, X., Sarsfield, R., Soares-Filho, B., Villoria, N., 2019. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Change 54, 135 -147. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0145)
  22. Garrett, R.D., Cammelli, F., Ferreira, J., Levy, S.A., Valentim, J., Vieira, I., 2021a. Forests and Sustainable Development in the Brazilian Amazon: History, Trends, and Future Prospects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46 (1), 625 -652. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0150)
  23. Garrett, R.D., Levy, S.A., Gollnow, F., Hodel, L., Rueda, X., 2021b. Have food supply chain policies improved forest conservation and rural livelihoods? A systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (3) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe0ed. · DOI
  24. Giam, X., 2017. Global biodiversity loss from tropical deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114, 5775 -5777. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706264114. · DOI
  25. Gibbs, H.K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D.C., Noojipady, P., SoaresFilho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L., Walker, N.F., 2015. Brazil ' s soy moratorium. Science 347 (6220), 377 -378. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0165)
  26. Gibbs, H.K., Munger, J., L ' Roe, J., Barreto, P., Pereira, R., Christie, M., Amaral, T., Walker, N.F., 2016. Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to ZeroDeforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conserv. Lett. 9, 32 -42. https:// doi.org/10.1111/conl.12175. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Gollnow, F., Cammelli, F., Carlson, K.M., Garrett, R.D., 2022. Gaps in adoption and implementation limit the current and potential effectiveness of zero-deforestation supply chain policies for soy. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 114003. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1748-9326/ac97f6. · DOI
  28. Grabs, J., Cammelli, F., Levy, S.A., Garrett, R.D., 2021. Designing effective and equitable zero-deforestation supply chain policies. Glob. Environ. Change 70, 102357. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102357. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Haupt, F., Bakhtary, H., Schulte, I., Galt, H., Streck, C., 2018. Progress on Corporate Commitments and Their Implementation Climate focus. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/optvrDBQOBkyK)
  30. Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K.M., Benedict, J.J., 2020a. Deforestation spillovers from oil palm sustainability certification. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (7) https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/ab7f0c. · DOI
  31. Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L.L., Munger, J., Gibbs, H.K., 2020b. Brazil ' s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nat. Food 1, 801 -810. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s43016-020-00194-5.
  32. JBS, 2021. JBS makes global commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. JBS - Aliment, O Mundo Com O Que H ´ a Melhor https://jbs.com.br/en/ press/jbs-makes-global-commitment-to-achieve-net-zero-greenhouse-gas-emissionsby-2040/ (accessed 6.4.21. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0245)
  33. Klingler, M., Richards, P.D., Ossner, R., 2018. Cattle vaccination records question the impact of recent zero-deforestation agreements in the Amazon. Reg. Environ. Change 18 (1), 33 -46. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0250)
  34. Lambin, E.F., Gibbs, H.K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K.M., Fleck, L.C., Garrett, R.D., le Polain de Waroux, Y., McDermott, C.L., McLaughlin, D., Newton, P., Nolte, C., Pacheco, P., Rausch, L.L., Streck, C., Thorlakson, T., Walker, N.F., 2018. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 8 (2), 109 -116. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(2300037-7/h0255)
  35. LAPIG, 2017. Matadouros e Frigorificos do Brasil. Universidade Federal de Goi ´ as (UFG). Lapola, D.M., Pinho, P., Quesada, C.A., Strassburg, B.B.N., Rammig, A., Kruijt, B., Brown, F., Ometto, J.P.H.B., Premebida, A., Marengo, J.A., Vergara, W., Nobre, C.A., 2018. Limiting the high impacts of Amazon forest dieback with no-regrets science and policy action. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 11671 -11679. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1721770115. · DOI
  36. Leijten, F., dos Reis, T.N.P., Sim, S., Verburg, P.H., Meyfroidt, P., 2022. The influence of company sourcing patterns on the adoption and effectiveness of zero-deforestation commitments in Brazil ' s soy supply chain. Environ. Sci. Policy 128, 208 -215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.032. · DOI
  37. Lyons-White, J., Knight, A.T., 2018. Palm oil supply chain complexity impedes implementation of corporate no-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 303 -313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.012. · DOI
  38. Mammadova, A., Behagel, J., Masiero, M., Pettenella, D., 2022. Deforestation As a Systemic Risk. The Case of Brazilian Bovine Leather. Forests 13, 233. https://doi. org/10.3390/f13020233. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levy, S. A., Cammelli, F., Munger, J., Gibbs, H. K., & Garrett, R. D.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Levy, Samuel A.
ORCID
Venue
Global Environmental Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
80
Pages
102671
ISSN
0959-3780 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102671
OpenAlex
W4366495239
Cited by
50
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10
FWCI
5.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Global Environmental Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1739253)
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
  • University of California, Santa Barbara
  • H2020 European Research Council (949932)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Keywords
zero-deforestation commitments, cattle ranching, deforestation, Brazilian Amazon, supply chain governance, corporate environmental policy, agricultural supply chain, deforestation reduction, policy effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review