Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation
Abstract
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 km 2 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The identification strategy explores a regulatory discontinuity at the Amazon biome border.
“Our identification strategy explores a regulatory discontinuity at the Amazon biome border, which has been used previously by different authors to estimate deforestation reduction impacts of various conservation policies 55,58,59 .”
From Health benefits of reduced deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2024) · cites this paper as [58]
Heilmayr et al. show that the Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation by 35%.
“Heilmayr et al. 58 show that the Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation by 35%, while Assunção et al. 55 estimate that Central Bank rural credit restrictions reduced deforestation by 60%.”
From Health benefits of reduced deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2024) · cites this paper as [58]
Cites
Designing Difference in Difference Studies: Best Practices for Public Health Policy Research
Wing, C., Simon, K., & Bello-Gomez, R. A. (2018) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013507 · Cited by 1,470 · see citing works
Soares-Filho, B., Rajão, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., Rodrigues, H., & Alencar, A. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246663 · Cited by 1,133 · see citing works
The Estimation of Causal Effects by Difference-in-Difference Methods
Lechner, M. (2011) · Foundations and Trends® in Econometrics · doi:10.1561/0800000014 · Cited by 935 · see citing works
The Effect of Rural Credit on Deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon
Assunção, J., Gandour, C., Rocha, R., & Rocha, R. (2020) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1093/ej/uez060 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Economics of Tropical Deforestation
Balboni, C., Berman, A., Burgess, R., & Olken, B. A. (2023) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-090622-024705 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome
Hänggli, A., Levy, S. A., Armenteras, D., Bovolo, C. I., Brandão, J., Rueda, X., & Garrett, R. D. (2023) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/acd408 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Health benefits of reduced deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon
Damm, Y., Börner, J., Gerber, N., & Soares-Filho, B. (2024) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01840-7 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Skidmore, M. E., Barrozo, M., Rausch, L., & Gibbs, H. K. (2024) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad7a0d · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L. L., Munger, J., & Gibbs, H. K.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Heilmayr, Robert
- Venue
- Nature Food
- Published
- 2020-12-11
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 801-810
- ISSN
- 2662-1355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3111669096
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 27 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 9.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Food (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Conservation and Management
- Keywords
- deforestation, Amazon, zero-deforestation commitments, Arc of Deforestation, land registry, deforestation monitoring, policy complementarity, grain merchants, conservation 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