CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development

Understanding deforestation lock-in: Insights from Land Reform settlements in the Brazilian Amazon

Open access
Russo Lopes, Gabriela, Bastos Lima, Mairon G.·2022·Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
DOI 10.3389/ffgc.2022.951290
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cropland and pasture expansion continues to erase natural ecosystems at a staggering speed globally, notably in the tropics. Conventional policy approaches, usually focused on a particular land-use change driver (e.g., specific commodities) or individual regulations (e.g., the Amazon Soy Moratorium), have consistently failed to achieve sufficient or sustained results. The swift reversal of Brazil’s earlier success in reducing Amazon deforestation – now again accelerated – offers perhaps the most sobering illustration of that. Therefore, this article draws from scholarship on sustainability transitions to propose a more comprehensive systems view of unsustainable land-use patterns. We examine persistent tropical deforestation as a case of “lock-in,” using a transitions lens, and explore its constitutive elements. As a case study, we analyze the situation of Land Reform settlements in the Brazilian Amazon, where as much as one-third of that biome’s deforestation takes place. While subject to some specific factors, those places are also enmeshed in a broader setting that is common across the Brazilian Amazon’s deforestation frontier (e.g., infrastructure conditions, market demands, and sociocultural norms). Drawing from document analysis of Brazilian policies and fieldwork in three Land Reform settlements in Pará State, we expose multiple forms of techno-economic, institutional, and socio-cognitive lock-in that together drive deforestation systemically in those settlements. These drivers form a strongly consolidated socio-technical regime around large-scale agriculture that includes material and immaterial factors (e.g., cultural ones), a regime that not only resists change but also – like a vortex – pulls others into it. Escaping deforestation lock-in may thus require outside forces to help local actors destabilize and eventually replace this unsustainable land-use regime. International zero-deforestation efforts offer a starting point, but a transition requires moving beyond piecemeal, incremental change or end-of-pipe approaches and toward concerted, strategic action that addresses multiple of those regime elements in a coordinated way to replace it as a system. We argue that understanding deforestation lock-in is vital for tackling its worrisome persistence and that sustainability transitions theory offers an illuminating, but still underutilized, framework to analyze and eventually overcome unsustainable land use.

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 · 10.3389/ffgc.2022.951290

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?

  • State-sponsored land reform settlers, often with mixed-farming backgrounds, are typically brought to forest frontiers without viable economic alternatives but to become part of commodity chains such as beef or palm oil.

    “In this regard, it becomes meaningful that state-sponsored land reform settlersoften themselves with mixed-farming backgroundstypically are brought to forest frontiers without viable economic alternatives but to become part of commodity chains such as beef or palm oil (Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022; see also Feintrenie et al., 2010).”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022

    The 1970s–1990s section describes government settlement of farmers in the Amazon. The Techno-economic lock-in section says viable alternatives are scarce and settlers’ main livelihood option is supplying the beef-leather industry. The copy does not establish that settlers typically have mixed-farming backgrounds or enter palm-oil supply chains; it mentions palm oil only as a general example of a forest-risk commodity. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Brazilian Amazon has over 50 Mha of undesignated public lands that are routinely grabbed, frequently using cattle to suggest economic use of the land and claim land rights.

    “The Brazilian Amazon has over 50 Mha of undesignated public lands that are routinely grabbed, frequently using cattle to suggest economic use of the land and claim land rights (Azevedo-Ramos et al., 2020;Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022).”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022

    The 'Institutional and political lock-in' section says that clearing land for agriculture or livestock can demonstrate productive use and help secure Land Reform settlers' possession rights. It does not establish that the Brazilian Amazon has over 50 Mha of undesignated public land or that such land is routinely grabbed using cattle to claim rights; the passage concerns Land Reform settlements, not land grabbing on undesignated public land. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cattle have been particularly instrumental to Amazon colonization and deforestation because of the region's limited infrastructure, poor accessibility, and fuzzy land tenure configuration.

    “Cattle have been particularly instrumental to Amazon colonization and deforestationbecause of the region's limited infrastructure, poor accessibility, and fuzzy land tenure configuration (Stabile et al., 2020;Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022).”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022

    The Techno-economic lock-in section says poor transport and market access lead settlers to choose cattle, which can be transported alive, and that pasture requires larger cleared areas. The Institutional and political lock-in section links land-titling requirements to clearing. It does not establish that fuzzy land tenure specifically made cattle instrumental to Amazon colonization and deforestation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Local communities that pre-date frontierization and land reform settlers often lease-legally or illegally-and eventually sell their plots to so-called 'land aggregators,' which use cattle as a way to keep it going before they too can trade the land with a profit.

    “That typically happens both to local communities that pre-date frontierization as to land reform settlers, who often leaselegally or illegallyand eventually sell their plots to so-called”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cattle ranching works as a rudimentary solace to smallholders who are left without means to perform anything else as a viable economic activity in places such as the Amazon.

    “Finally, cattle ranching also works as a rudimentary solace to smallholders who are left without the means to perform anything else as a viable economic activity in places such as the Amazon (Krause et al., 2022;Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022).”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Russo Lopes and Bastos Lima, 2022

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: 137

  1. Abramovay, R., Ferreira, J., Assis Costa, F., Ehrlich, M., Castro Euler, M., Young, C. E. F., et al. (2021). The New Bioeconomy in the Amazon: Opportunities and Challenges for a Healthy Standing Forest and Flowing Rivers; The Amazon We Want-Chapter 30 In Brief. New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
  2. Ackerman, B., and Hassler, W. T. (2008). Clean Coal/Dirty Air: or How the Clean Air Act Became a Multibillion-Dollar Bail-Out for High-Sulfur Coal Producers. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  3. Adams, C., Murrieta, R., Neves, W., and Harris, W. (2009). Amazon Peasant Societies in a Changing Environment: Political Ecology, Invisibility and Modernity in the Rainforest. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9283-1 · DOI
  4. Alston, L., and Mueller, B. (2010). Property Rights, Land Conflict And Tenancy in Brazil. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/ · DOI
  5. w15771 · DOI
  6. Alston, L., Libecap, G., and Mueller, B. (1999). Titles, Conflict, and Land Use: the Development of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Amazon Frontier. Michigan: University Press. doi: 10.3998/mpub.16208 · DOI
  7. Arias-Gaviria, J. C., Suarez, F., Trujillo, V. M., Ochoa, J. C., Villegas-Palacio, C., and Arango-Aramburo, S. (2021). Drivers and effects of deforestation in Colombia: A systems thinking approach. Reg. Environ. Change 21:91. doi: 10.1007/ s10113-021-01822-x · DOI · Paper page
  8. Arima, E. Y., Richards, P., Walker, R., and Caldas, M. M. (2011). Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 6:024010. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024010 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Arrow, K. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev. Econ. Stud. 29:166. doi: 10.2307/2295952 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Avelino, F. (2017). Power in sustainability transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environ. Policy Gov. 27, 505-520. doi: 10.1002/eet.1777 · DOI
  11. Bäckstrand, K., Meadowcroft, J., and Oppenheimer, M. (2011). The politics and policy of carbon capture and storage: Framing an emergent technology. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 275-281. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.008 · DOI
  12. Bager, S. L., Persson, M., and Reis, T. N. P. (2021). Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation. One Earth 4, 289-306. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear. 2021.01.011 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Bastos Lima, M. G. (2021). Corporate power in the bioeconomy transition: The policies and politics of conservative ecological modernization in Brazil. Sustainability 13:6952. doi: 10.3390/su13126952 · DOI
  14. Bastos Lima, M. G., and Da Costa, K. (2022). Quo vadis, Brazil? Environmental malgovernance under bolsonaro and the ambiguous role of the sustainable development goals. Bull. Latin Am. Res. 41. Bastos Lima, M. G., and Kmoch, L. (2021). Neglect paves the way for dispossession: The politics of "last frontiers" in Brazil and Myanmar. World Dev. 148:105681. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105681 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Bastos Lima, M. G., and Palme, U. (2022). The bioeconomy-biodiversity nexus: Enhancing or undermining nature's contributions to people? Conservation 2, 7-25. doi: 10.3390/conservation2010002 · DOI
  16. Bastos Lima, M. G., and Persson, U. M. (2020). Commodity-centric landscape governance as a double-edged sword: The case of soy and the Cerrado Working Group in Brazil. Front. Forests Glob. Change 3:27. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00027 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Bastos Lima, M. G., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Braña Varela, J., and Gupta, A. (2017). A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD+: Lessons from latin america. For. Policy Econ. 78, 10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.013 · DOI
  18. Bastos Lima, M. N., Harring, S., Jagers, C., and Löfgren, Å (2021). Large-scale collective action to avoid an Amazon tipping point-key actors and interventions. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 3:100048. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100048 · DOI
  19. Bernard, E., Penna, L. A. O., and Araujo, E. (2014). Downgrading. Downsizing, Degazettement, and Reclassification of Protected Areas in Brazil. Conserv. Biol. 28, 939-950. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12298 · DOI
  20. Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Hyman, G., and Nascimento, N. (2014). Forest law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon: Costs and income effects. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 294-305. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.021 · DOI
  21. Bragança, A., Newton, P., Cohn, A., Assunção, J., Camboim, C., de Faveri, D., et al. (2022). Extension services can promote pasture restoration: Evidence from Brazil's low carbon agriculture plan. PNAS 119:e2114913119. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 2114913119 · DOI
  22. Brondizio, E. S., Andersson, K., de Castro, F., Futemma, C., Salk, C., Tengö, M., et al. (2021). Making place-based sustainability initiatives visible in the Brazilian Amazon. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 49, 66-78. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03. 007 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Bunker, S. (1988). Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, unequal exchange and the failure of the modern state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  24. Campbell, H., and Dixon, J. (2009). Introduction to the special symposium: Reflecting on twenty years of the food regimes approach in agri-food studies. Agric. Hum. Values 26, 261-265. doi: 10.1007/s10460-009-9224-7 · DOI
  25. Campbell, J. (2015). Conjuring property: Speculation and environmental futures in the Brazilian Amazon. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  26. Caro, D., Davis, S. J., Kebreab, E., and Mitloehner, F. (2018). Land-use change emissions from soybean feed embodied in Brazilian pork and poultry meat. J. Clean. Production 172, 2646-2654. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.146 · DOI
  27. Carrilho, C. D., Demarchi, G., Duchelle, A. E., Wunder, S., and Morsello, C. (2022). Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ project (Pará, Brazil). Ecol. Econ. 201:107568. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107568 · DOI
  28. Ceddia, M. G., Sedlacek, S., Bardsley, N. O., and Gomez-y-Paloma, S. J. G. E. C. (2013). Sustainable agricultural intensification or Jevons paradox? The role of public governance in tropical South America. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1052-1063. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.005 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Clapp, J. (2018). Mega-mergers on the menu: Corporate concentration and the politics of sustainability in the global food system. Glob. Environ. Polit. 18, 12-33. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00454 · DOI
  30. Clapp, J., Isakson, S. R., and Visser, O. (2017). The complex dynamics of agriculture as a financial asset: Introduction to symposium. Agric. Hum. Values 34, 179-183. doi: 10.1007/s10460-016-9682-7 · DOI
  31. Coelho-Junior, M. G., Valdiones, A. P., Shimbo, J. Z., Silgueiro, V., and Rosa, M. (2022). Unmasking the impunity of illegal deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: A call for enforcement and accountability. Environ. Res. Lett. 17:041001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac5193 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Dal Bó, E. (2006). Regulatory capture: A review. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 22, 203-225. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grj013 · DOI
  33. Delabre, I., Boyd, E., Brockhaus, M., Carton, W., Krause, T., Newell, P., et al. (2020). Unearthing the myths of global sustainable forest governance. Glob. Sustain. 3:e16. doi: 10.1017/sus.2020. · DOI
  34. DeVore, J. (2021). A politicized ecology of resilience: Redistributive land reform and distributive justice in the COVID-19 pandemic. FOCAAL J. Glob. Hist. Anthropol. 1, 1-15. doi: 10.3167/fcl.2021.031101 · DOI
  35. Dias da Silva, R., and Mello Gonçalves, G. (2019). Exports and regional development: A balance of the Kandir Law for Rio de Janeiro, Paraná and Minas Gerais. Semestre Econ. 22, 179-204. doi: 10.22395/seec. · DOI
  36. v22n50a9 · DOI
  37. Diniz, F. M., Hoogstra-Klein, A., Kok, K., and Arts, B. (2013). Livelihood strategies in settlement projects in the Brazilian Amazon: Determining drivers and factors within the agrarian reform program. J. Rural Stud. 32, 196-207. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.06.005 · DOI
  38. El Bilali, H. (2019). Research on agro-food sustainability transitions: A systematic review of research themes and an analysis of research gaps. J. Clean. Produc. 221, 353-364. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.232 · DOI
  39. Fearnside, P. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, rates, and consequences. Conserv. Biol. 19, 680-688. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00697.x · DOI
  40. Fearnside, P. (2018). Challenges for sustainable development in Brazilian Amazonia. Sustain. Dev. 26, 141-149. doi: 10.1002/sd.1725 · DOI
  41. Fearnside, P. M. (2007). Brazil's Cuiabá-Santarém (BR-163) Highway: The environmental cost of paving a soybean corridor through the Amazon. Environ. Manag. 39, 601-614. doi: 10.1007/s00267-006-0149-2 · DOI
  42. Ferrante, L., and Fearnside, P. (2019). 'Brazil's New President and 'Ruralists' Threaten Amazonia's Environment, Traditional Peoples and the Global Climate'. Environ. Conserv. 46, 261-263. doi: 10.1017/S0376892919000213 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Ferrante, L., and Fearnside, P. (2021). Brazil's political upset threatens Amazonia. Science 371, 898-898. doi: 10.1126/science. · DOI
  44. abg9786 Filho, J. E. B., Mariano, V. A., Sobreiro, C. J., and Chiappetta. (2016). Beyond the agrarian reform policies in Brazil: An empirical study of brazilian states from 1995 Through 2011. Soc. Indicat. Res. 129, 1093-1114. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-1157-5 · DOI
  45. Fink, J. (1988). The Automobile Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  46. Flach, R., Gabriel, A., Benjamin, B., Marluce, S., and Aline, S. (2021). Conserving the Cerrado and Amazon biomes of Brazil protects the soy economy from damaging warming. World Dev. 146:105582. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105582 · DOI
  47. Friis, C., and Nielsen, J. Ø (eds) (2019). Telecoupling: Exploring land-use change in a globalised world. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-11105-2 · DOI
  48. Frison, E. A. (2016). From Uniformity to Diversity: a Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems. Bonn: International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems. doi: 10.5958/0976-1926.2016. 00033. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Furumo, P., and Lambin, E. (2021). Policy sequencing to reduce tropical deforestation. Glob. Sustain. 4:E24. doi: 10.1017/sus.2021. · DOI
  50. Gardner, T. A., Benzie, M., Börner, J., Dawkins, E., Fick, S., Garrett, R., et al. (2019). Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev. 121, 163-177. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.025 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 21-40. doi: 10.1177/0263276414531627 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Geels, F. W. (2018). Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the multi- level perspective. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 224-231. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.10. 010 · DOI
  53. Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 39, 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009 · DOI
  54. Geels, G. W., and Kemp, R. (2007). Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technol. Soc. 29, 441-455. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.009 · DOI
  55. Geels, G. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., and Sorrell, S. (2017a). The Socio- Technical Dynamics of Low-Carbon Transitions. Joule 1, 463-479. doi: 10.1016/j. joule.2017.09.018 · DOI
  56. Geels, G. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., and Sorrell, S. (2017b). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357, 1242-1244. doi: 10.1126/science.aao3760 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Giraudo, M. E. (2020). Dependent development in South America: China and the soybean nexus. J. Agrar. Change 20, 60-78. doi: 10.1111/joac.12333 · DOI
  58. Godfray, H. C. J. (2015). The debate over sustainable intensification. Food Security 7, 199-208. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0424-2 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Gustafsson, M. T., and Schilling-Vacaflor, A. (2022). Indigenous peoples and multiscalar environmental governance: The opening and closure of participatory spaces. Glob. Environ. Polit. 22, 70-94. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00642 · DOI
  60. Hecht, S., and Cockburn, A. (2010). The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Destroyers, and Defenders of the Amazon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226322735.001.0001 · DOI
  61. Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L. L., Munger, J., and Gibbs, H. K. (2020). Brazil's Amazon soy moratorium reduced deforestation. Nat. Food 1, 801-810. doi: 10. 1038/s43016-020-00194-5 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Hochstetler, K., and Keck, M. (2007). Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in State and Society. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 283. doi: 10.1515/9780822390596 · DOI
  63. Hoelle, J. (2015). Rainforest Cowboys: the Rise of Ranching and Cattle Culture in Western Amazonia. Texas: University of Texas Press. doi: 10.7560/761346 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Hopewell, K. (2014). The transformation of state-business relations in an emerging economy. Crit. Perspect. Int. Bus. 10, 291-309. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-03- 2014-0019 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Hughes, T. (1983). Networks of Power. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  66. Janipour, Z., de Nooij, R., Scholten, P., Huijbregts, M. A. J., and de Coninck, H. (2020). What are sources of carbon lock-in in energy-intensive industry? A case study into Dutch chemicals production. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 60:101320. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101320 · DOI
  67. Kivimaa, P., and Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 45, 205-217. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008 · DOI
  68. Köhler, J. F., Geels, W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., and Wieczoreke, A. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 31, 1-32. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Kroger, M. (2017). Inter-sectoral determinants of forest policy: The power of deforesting actors in post-2012 Brazil. Forest Policy Econ. 77, 24-32. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.003 · DOI
  70. Lahsen, M. (2017). Buffers against inconvenient knowledge: Brazilian newspaper representations of the climate-meat link. P2P Inovação 4, 59-84. doi: 10.21721/p2p.2017v4n1.p59-84 · DOI
  71. Lambin, E. F., Meyfroidt, P., Rueda, X., Blackman, A., Börner, J., Cerutti, P. O., et al. (2014). Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 129-140. doi: 10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2014.06.007 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Le Polain de Waroux, Y. R., Garrett, D., Chapman, M., Friis, C., Hoelle, J., Hodel, L., et al. (2021). The role of culture in land system science. J. Land Use Sci. 16, 450-466. doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2021.1950229 · DOI
  73. Leite-Filho, A. T., Soares-Filho, B. S., Davis, J. L., Abrahao, G. M., Borner, J., et al. (2021). Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Commun. 12:2591. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22840-7 · DOI
  74. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., and Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42, 599-626. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Lovejoy, T., and Nobre, C. (2018). Amazon Tipping Point. Sci. Adv. 4:eaat2340. doi: 10.1126/sciadv. · DOI · Paper page
  76. aat2340 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Lowi, T. (1979). The End of Liberalism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. Malhi, Y. J., Roberts, T., Betts, R. A., Killeen, T. J., Li, W., and Nobre, C. A. (2008). Climate Change. Deforestation, and the Fate of the Amazon. Science 319:169. doi: 10.1126/science.1146961 · DOI
  78. Mammadova, A., Behagel, J., Masiero, M., and Pettenella, D. (2022). Deforestation As a Systemic Risk. The Case of Brazilian Bovine Leather. Forests 13:233. doi: 10.3390/f13020233 · DOI
  79. Margulis, S. (2004). Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Washington, DC: World Bank Working Paper, 22. doi: 10.1596/0-8213-5691-7 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Marín Durán, G., and Scott, J. (2022). Regulating trade in forest-risk commodities: Two cheers for the European Union. J. Environ. Law 34, 245-267. doi: 10.1080/03066150902820354 · DOI
  81. McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy. J. Peasant Stud. 36, 139-169. doi: 10.1093/jel/eqac002 · DOI
  82. McMichael, P. (2012). The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring. J. Peasant Stud. 39, 681-701. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.661369 · DOI
  83. Medina, G. S. (2022). The economics of agribusiness in developing countries: Areas of opportunities for a new development paradigm in the soybean supply chain in Brazil. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:842338. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.842338 · DOI
  84. Medina, G. S., Pokorny, B., and Campbell, B. (2022). Forest governance in the Amazon: Favoring the emergence of local management systems. World Dev. 149:105696. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105696 · DOI
  85. Meghani, Z., and Kuzma, J. (2011). The "Revolving Door" between regulatory agencies and industry: A problem that requires reconceptualizing objectivity. J. Agricult. Environ. Ethics 24, 575-599. doi: 10.1007/s10806-010-9287-x · DOI
  86. Milhorance, C. (2022). Policy dismantling and democratic regression in Brazil under Bolsonaro: Coalition politics, ideas, and underlying discourses. Rev. Policy Res. 1-19. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12502 · DOI · Paper page
  87. Molinari, A. L. C., Nogueira, R., Beber, R. C., Nadai Corassa, J. D., Pires, E. M., et al. (2021). O perfil social e a geração de renda em assentamentos rurais sob influência do Cinturão da soja e milho na Amazônia Matogrossense. Retratos Assentamentos 24, 253-268. doi: 10.25059/2527-2594/retratosdeassentamentos/ 2021.v24i2.370 · DOI
  88. Moore, J. W. (2000). Sugar and the expansion of the early modern world- economy: Commodity frontiers, ecological transformation, and industrialization. Review 23, 409-433.
  89. Moran, E. F. (2016). Roads and dams: Infrastructure-driven transformations in the Brazilian Amazon. Ambiente Soc. 19, 207-220. doi: 10.1590/1809- 4422ASOC256V1922016 · DOI
  90. Nehring, R. (2022). The Brazilian Green Revolution. Polit. Geogr. 95:102574. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102574 · DOI
  91. Nelson, R. (2008). Bounded rationality, cognitive maps, and trial and error learning. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 67, 78-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.06.002 · DOI
  92. Nelson, R., and Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  93. Newell, P., and Taylor, O. (2018). Contested landscapes: The global political economy of climate-smart agriculture. J. Peasant Stud. 45, 108-129. doi: 10.1080/ 03066150.2017.1324426 · DOI
  94. Normann, H. E. (2017). Policy networks in energy transitions: The cases of carbon capture and storage and offshore wind in Norway. Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change 118, 80-93. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.004 · DOI
  95. Oliveira, G. L. T. (2019). Boosters, brokers, bureaucrats and businessmen: Assembling Chinese capital with Brazilian agribusiness. Territ. Polit. Gover. 7, 22-41. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2017.1374205 · DOI
  96. Pacheco, P. (2009). Agrarian Reform in the Brazilian Amazon: Its Implications for Land Distribution and Deforestation. World Dev. 37, 1337-1347. doi: 10.1016/ j.worlddev.2008.08.019 · DOI
  97. Pendrill, F., Gardner, T. A., Meyfroidt, P., Persson, U. M., Adams, J., Azevedo, T., et al. (2022). Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science 377:eabm9267. doi: 10.1126/science.abm9267 · DOI · Paper page
  98. ab0d41 · DOI · Paper page
  99. Pereira, A. S. A., dos Santos, V. J., do Carmo Alves, S., e Silva, A. A., da Silva, C. G., and Calijuri, M. L. (2022). Contribution of rural settlements to the deforestation dynamics in the Legal Amazon. Land Use Policy 115:106039. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106039 · DOI · Paper page
  100. Rausch, L. L., and Gibbs, H. K. (2021). The low opportunity costs of the amazon soy moratorium. Front. For. Glob. Change 4:621685. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.621685 · DOI
  101. Rausch, L., Gibbs, H. K., Schelly, H., Brandão, A. D. O. Jr., and Morton, D. C. (2019). Soy expansion in Brazil's Cerrado. Conserv. Lett. 12:e12671. doi: 10.1111/ conl.12671 · DOI
  102. Razavi, S. (2003). Introduction: Agrarian change, gender and land rights. J. Agrar. Change 3, 2-32. doi: 10.1111/1471-0366.00049 · DOI
  103. Reis, T. N. P., Faria, V. G., Russo Lopes, G., Sparovek, G., West, C., Rajão, R. G., et al. (2021). Trading deforestation -Why the legality of forest-risk commodities is insufficient. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:124025. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ · DOI
  104. ac358d · DOI
  105. Rogge, K. S., Kern, F., and Howlett, M. (2017). Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025 · DOI
  106. Rosset, P. (2009). Fixing our global food system: Food sovereignty and redistributive land reform. Mon. Rev. 61:114. doi: 10.14452/MR-061-03-2009-07_9 · DOI
  107. Ruby, M. B., Alvarenga, M. S., Rozin, P., Kirby, T. A., Richer, E., Rutsztein, G., et al. (2016). Attitudes toward beef and vegetarians in Argentina. Brazil, France, and the USA. Appetite 96, 546-554. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.018 · DOI
  108. Russo Lopes, G., and Bastos Lima, M. (2020). Necropolitics in the jungle: COVID-19 and the marginalisation of Brazil's forest peoples. Bull. Lat. Am. Res. 39, 92-97. doi: 10.1111/blar.13177 · DOI
  109. Russo Lopes, G., Bastos Lima, M. G., and Reis, T. P. N. (2021). Maldevelopment revisited: Inclusiveness and social impacts of soy expansion over Brazil's Cerrado in Matopiba. World Dev. 139:105316. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020. 105316 · DOI · Paper page
  110. Salerno, T. (2017). Cargill's corporate growth in times of crises: How agro- commodity traders are increasing profits in the midst of volatility. Agric. Hum. Values 34, 211-222. doi: 10.1007/s10460-016-9681-8 · DOI
  111. Sant'Anna, A. A., and Costa, L. (2021). Environmental regulation and bail outs under weak state capacity: Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecol. Econ. 186:107071. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107071 · DOI
  112. Sauer, S. (2018). Soy expansion into the agricultural frontiers of the Brazilian Amazon: The T agribusiness economy and its social and environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 79, 326-338. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.030 · DOI
  113. Sauer, S. (2019). Rural Brazil during the Lula administrations: Agreements with agribusiness and disputes in agrarian policies. Latin Am. Perspect. 46, 103-121. doi: 10.1177/0094582X16685176 · DOI
  114. Schilling-Vacaflor, A., and Lenschow, A. (2021). Hardening foreign corporate accountability through mandatory due diligence in the European Union? New trends and persisting challenges. Regul. Gov. doi: 10.1111/rego.12402 · DOI
  115. SEEG (2020). emissões brasileiras de gases de efeito estufa nos setores de Energia e de Processos Industriais em 2019. São Paulo, SP: Instituto de Energia e Meio-Ambiente. Sellare, J., Borner, J., Brugger, F., Garrett, R., and Gunther, I. (2022). Six research priorities to support corporate due-diligence policies. Nature 606, 861-863. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-01718-8 · DOI
  116. Siqueira-Gay, J., and Sánchez, L. E. (2021). The outbreak of illegal gold mining in the Brazilian Amazon boosts deforestation. Reg. Environ. Change 21, 1-5. doi: 10.1007/s10113-021-01761-7 · DOI
  117. Skidmore, M. E., Moffette, F., Rausch, L., Christie, M., Munger, J., and Gibbs, H. (2021). Cattle ranchers and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Production, location, and policies. Glob. Environ. Change 68:102280. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha. 2021.102280 · DOI · Paper page
  118. Smallwood, J. M., Delabre, I., Pinheiro Vergara, S., and Rowhani, P. (2022). The governmentality of tropical forests and sustainable food systems, and possibilities for post-2020 sustainability governance. J. Environ. Policy Plann * . doi: 10.1080/ 1523908X.2022.2082931 · DOI
  119. Sondergaard, N. (2018). Brazilian state-agribusiness relations within global processes of regulatory formation below the corporate food regime. Ph. D thesis. Brazil: University of Brasília.
  120. Søndergaard, N. (2020). Food regime transformations and structural rebounding: Brazilian state-agribusiness relations. Territ. Polit. Gover. 2020, 120. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2020.1786447 · DOI
  121. Song, X. P., Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P., Adusei, B., Pickering, J., Adami, M., et al. (2021). Massive soybean expansion in South America since 2000 and implications for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 4, 784-792. doi: 10.1038/s41893-021- 00729-z · DOI
  122. Stabile, M. C., Guimarães, A. L., Silva, D. S., Ribeiro, V., Macedo, M. N., Coe, M. T., et al. (2020). Solving Brazil's land use puzzle: Increasing production and slowing Amazon deforestation. Land Use Policy 91:104362. doi: 10.1016/j. landusepol.2019.104362 · DOI · Paper page
  123. Svampa, M. (2015). Commodities Consensus: Neoextractivism and Enclosure of the Commons in Latin America. South Atl. Q. 114, 65-82. doi: 10.1215/00382876- 2831290 · DOI
  124. Trancoso, R. (2021). Changing Amazon deforestation patterns: Urgent need to restore command and control policies and market interventions. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:041004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abee4c · DOI
  125. Trencher, G., Rinscheid, A., Duygan, M., Truong, N., and Asuka, J. (2020). Revisiting carbon lock-in in energy systems: Explaining the perpetuation of coal power in Japan. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 69:101770. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101770 · DOI
  126. Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28, 817-830. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7 · DOI · Paper page
  127. Unruh, G. C. (2002). Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30, 317-325. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00098-2 · DOI · Paper page
  128. Van Dijck, P. (2013). The Impact of the Iirsa Road Infrastructure Programme on Amazonia. Milton Park: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203084021 · DOI
  129. Wesseling, J., and Van der Vooren, A. (2017). Lock-in of mature innovation systems: The transformation toward clean concrete in the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 155, 114-124. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.115 · DOI
  130. West, T. A. P., and Fearnside, P. (2021). Brazil's conservation reform and the reduction of deforestation in Amazonia. Land Use Policy 100:105072. doi: 10.1016/ j.landusepol.2020.105072 · DOI
  131. Wesz, V. Jr. (2016). Strategies and hybrid dynamics of soy transnational companies in the Southern Cone. J. Peasant Stud. 43, 286-312. doi: 10.1080/ 03066150.2015.1129496 · DOI
  132. White, B., Borras, S., and Hall, R. (2013). "Land reform, " in Development: Ideas, Experience and Prospects, eds B. Currie-Alder, R. Kanbur, D. Malone, and R. Medhora (Oxford: Oxford University Press), doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780199671656.003.0029 · DOI
  133. Wolford, W. (2007). Land reform in the time of neoliberalism: A many-splendored thing. Antipode 39, 550-570. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007. 00539.x · DOI
  134. Wolford, W. (2010). Participatory democracy by default: Land reform, social movements and the state in Brazil. J. Peasant Stud. 37, 91-109. doi: 10.1080/ 03066150903498770 · DOI
  135. Zalles, V., Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Parker, D., Stehman, S. V., Pickens, A. H., et al. (2021). Rapid expansion of human impact on natural land in South America since 1985. Sci. Adv. 7:eabg1620. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abg1620 Zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Ayre, B., Godar, J., Bastos Lima, M. G., Bauch, S., Garrett, R., et al. (2020a). Using supply chain data to monitor zero deforestation commitments: An assessment of progress in the Brazilian soy sector. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:035003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab6497 · DOI
  136. Zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Godar, J., Lathuilliere, M. J., and Meyfroidt, P. (2020b). The origin, supply chain, and deforestation risk of Brazil's beef exports. PNAS 117, 31770-31779. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2003270117 · DOI · Paper page
  137. Zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Bastos Lima, M. G., Bellfield, H., Dontenille, A., Gardner, T. A., et al. (2022). Addressing indirect sourcing in zero deforestation commodity supply chains. Sci. Adv. 8:eabn3132. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abn3132 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Russo Lopes, G., & Bastos Lima, M. G.
Venue
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-10-13
Volume
5
ISSN
2624-893X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/ffgc.2022.951290
OpenAlex
W4304822885
Cited by
31
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Forests and Global Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Keywords
sustainability transitions, agrarian reform settlements, Brazilian Amazon, large-scale farming, socio-technical regimes, institutional lock-in, land use change, zero deforestation, Amazon deforestation, Pará

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