Next Article in Journal
Decoding Socio-Cultural Spatial Patterns in Historic Chinese Neighborhoods: A Pattern Language Approach from Chengdu
Previous Article in Journal
Planning for People with People: Green Infrastructure and Nature-Based Solutions in Participatory Land-Use Planning, Co-Design, and Co-Governance of Green and Open Spaces
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/land14091802
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Socio-Ecological Impacts and Sustainable Transformation Pathways of Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon Region

by
Min Zhang
1,*,
Fernando Romero Wimer
2,
Mengnan Zhou
1,
Marcos Jardim Pinheiro
2 and
Paula Daniela Fernández
2
1
Center for American Studies, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
2
Latin American Institute of Economics, Society and Politics, Federal University of Latin American Integration, Foz do Iguaçu 85870-650, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(9), 1802; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091802
Submission received: 28 May 2025 / Revised: 20 July 2025 / Accepted: 14 August 2025 / Published: 3 September 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

This study examines the socio-ecological impacts of soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon, a region of critical importance for global climate regulation and biodiversity conservation. It explores how the expansion of soybean cultivation in this region since the 1990s, driven by international demand and domestic policies, has triggered a series of unsustainable socio-ecological consequences, such as deforestation, overuse of agrochemicals, displacement of indigenous communities, and land tenure conflicts. Inadequate governance, at both national and international levels, has exacerbated these challenges, undermining efforts to balance soybean cultivation with sustainable development in Brazilian Amazon. Through a mixed analysis method, this study proposes pathways for sustainable soybean production in the Amazon, including extending the Soy Moratorium to the Cerrado, strengthening indigenous land rights, enhancing international cooperation, and adopting sustainable agricultural practices such as agroforestry. These findings contributes to reconciling soybean cultivation with sustainable development in the Brazilian Amazon.

1. Introduction

The Brazilian Amazon, the world’s largest tropical rainforest, serves as a cornerstone of global ecological stability. It is one of the most biodiverse places on the planet, with a large number of species still undiscovered, and it plays an important role in the storage and sequestration of carbon [1]. These critical attributes enable this expansive biome to regulate global climate patterns, sustain hydrological cycles, and harbor countless endemic species.
Since the 1970s, Brazilian government policies that are focused on developing the Amazon have profoundly transformed the region’s landscape. Initially dominated by road building, mining, and cattle farming, development later shifted to large-scale soybean production during the late 1990s and early 2000s [2]. Driven by a surging international demand for animal feed and biofuels, alongside domestic policies promoting agribusiness, soybean production transformed the Amazon into an important agricultural frontier over the past 20 years [3]. Nearly one third of the recent soybean expansion in Brazil has occurred in the Amazon [2].
However, the expansion of soybeans in the Amazon, while economically lucrative, has come at a profound ecological and social cost. The conversion of forests into monoculture soybean plantations has triggered a series of unsustainable results, including deforestation [4], and ecosystem conversion which may effect climate change and biodiversity [5]. Socioeconomically, soybean-driven land use changes have intensified social inequalities, which have manifested as youth unemployment [6], the displacement of indigenous groups and traditional communities, and heightened land conflicts [7]. In a telecoupling world, these impacts transcend national borders, affecting soybean-importing countries and even the Earth system. As a result, soybean cultivation in the Amazon has attracted widespread attention in the world.
Governance frameworks, both domestic and international, struggle to reconcile economic growth with sustainability imperatives in the Amazon. At the international level, efforts are frequently constrained by the principle of national sovereignty, limiting their effectiveness. Domestically in Brazil, the weak enforcement of environmental laws, conflicting land use policies, and agricultural expansion within the Amazon contribute significantly to deforestation. While voluntary governance initiatives by non-state actors have played a complementary role, they remain heavily influenced by market forces. Consequently, existing governance mechanisms have proven inadequate to ensure the fully sustainable development of soybean cultivation in the Amazon.
In 2025, with the beginning of the tariff war between China and the United States, as well as the increasingly close relationship between China and Brazil, American soybeans in the Chinese market will soon be replaced by Brazilian soybeans. It was reported that in the first quarter of 2025, Brazil reached a historic milestone by exporting USD 66 billion worth of soybeans to China [8]. This surge in trade has consequently intensified concerns regarding the linkage between Brazilian soybean production and the sustainable development of the Brazilian Amazon.
This study employed a mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative) to unravel the complex interplay between soybean cultivation and its multidimensional impacts in the Brazilian Amazon. Authoritative data were first sourced and quantitatively analyzed using SPSS 27.0 to explore correlations between soybean expansion in the Amazon and key regional impacts, specifically deforestation and increased agrochemical usage. Subsequently, a qualitative analysis was conducted through a comprehensive literature review to further examine the socio-ecological consequences of soybean expansion and discuss the current governance framework for sustainable soybean cultivation in the region. Finally, this study proposes policy recommendations to advance a sustainable coexistence between soybean production and the Amazon social ecosystem.

2. Materials and Methods

To achieve the research objectives, this study obtained relevant authoritative data from publicly accessible online sources, including the following:
Soybean cultivation area data (1988–2024) for states in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado, sourced from Brazil’s National Supply Company (Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento, CONAB, Brasília, Brazil) (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Total deforestation data (1988–2024) for the legal Amazon in Brazil, obtained from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, INPE) (Table 3, Figure 3).
Primary forest loss data (2001–2024) for states in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado, acquired via the Global Forest Watch platform (Table 4 and Table 5, Figure 4 and Figure 5).
Agricultural chemical usage data in Brazil, obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Table 6 and Table 7, Figure 6 and Figure 7).
Subsequently, this study employed statistical methods, primarily utilizing the SPSS 27.0 software, to conduct a quantitative analysis of the aforementioned data. The analysis encompassed the following analysis:
The overall development trends of soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon;
Correlations between soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon;
Correlations between soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon and agricultural chemical usage in Brazil;
Correlations between soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon and deforestation in the Cerrado.
Based on the above analysis, this study applied the literature research method to conduct a qualitative analysis. This facilitated an in-depth discussion of the broader impacts of soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon. This study first analyzed the effects of soybean cultivation on soil and water resources in the Brazilian Amazon, secondly examined the current governance landscape for sustainable soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon, and finally proposed policy recommendations to advance sustainable soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon.

3. Results

3.1. Development Trends of Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon

Through a statistical analysis of the data, it can be observed that, over the past three decades, soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon has undergone significant scale expansion and spatial restructuring. During the 1988/1989 crop year, the total soybean cultivated area in the region was approximately 1804.7 thousand hectares (Missing data in Table 1 is considered as zero); by the 2023/2024 crop year, this figure had grown to 17,095.7 thousand hectares, representing nearly a 9.5-fold expansion in scale. The growth rate increased significantly after 1990, as shown in Figure 1. By the 2023/2024 crop year, the soybean cultivation area in the Brazilian Amazon have accounted for more than 35% of Brazil’s total soybean cultivated area, marking the region as a critical soybean cultivation area in Brazil and the global soybean supply chain.
Among the Brazilian Amazon states, Mato Grosso has consistently maintained absolute dominance in soybean cultivation: its cultivated area expanded from 1708.2 thousand hectares in 1988 to 12,376.1 thousand hectares in 2024 (a 7.25-fold increase), accounting for over 70% of the region’s total soybean cultivation. Next are Tocantins, Pará, and Maranhão, which demonstrated more rapid growth trends. Tocantins surged from 59 thousand hectares (1988) to 1456.7 thousand hectares (2024), a 24.7-fold increase; Pará recorded the most explosive growth, escalating from its initial documented 2.6 thousand hectares (1997) to 1129.3 thousand hectares (2024), representing an astronomical 434-fold increase; and Maranhão rose from 21.9 thousand hectares (1988) to 1329.7 thousand hectares (2024), a 60.7-fold increase.
Rondônia and Roraima account for a relatively small scale, but they have also achieved rapid development in soybean cultivation. The former expanded from 15.6 thousand hectares in 1988 to 643.2 thousand hectares in 2024 (a 41.2-fold increase), while the latter rose from 1.8 thousand hectares in 1995 to 118 thousand hectares in 2024, an increase of 65.6 times, with the growth rate becoming particularly rapid after 2015.
In contrast, Amazonas, Acre, and Amapá remain marginal production areas for soybeans in Brazil, with the total soybean cultivation area of the three states in 2024 totaling less than 50,000 hectares. Notably, soybean cultivation in Amazonas and Acre has also exhibited rapid growth: Amazonas increased from 1.5 thousand hectares in 2017 to 17.7 thousand hectares in 2024 (an 11.8-fold increase), while Acre surged from 0.5 thousand hectares in 2017 to 17.5 thousand hectares in 2024 (a 35-fold increase). These figures indicate that the soybean cultivation continues to encroach into the core areas of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest.

3.2. A Qualitative Analysis of the Impact of Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon

3.2.1. The Impact of Soybean Cultivation on Amazon Deforestation

A statistical analysis using the SPSS software on the correlation between the total deforestation and the soybean cultivation area in the Brazilian Amazon from 1988 to 2006 revealed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.541, p = 0.020 < 0.05) (Table 8). This indicates that soybean cultivation exerted a discernible influence on Amazon deforestation. However, given the multifaceted drivers of deforestation, including legal/policy factors, political dynamics, and broader economic forces, soybean cultivation represents only one contributing element. Consequently, while the data confirm a statistically significant association, the correlation coefficient does not reach a strong level.
However, the statistical analysis using the SPSS software for the 2007–2024 period revealed an extremely weak and statistically non-significant correlation between the total deforestation and the soybean cultivation area in the Brazilian Amazon (r = 0.019, p = 0.941 > 0.05) (Table 9). This indicates no demonstrable association between soybean cultivation and Amazon deforestation during this phase. Consequently, based on the available statistical data, no significant aggregate-level correlation could be established between soybean cultivation and Amazon deforestation in the post-2007 period.

3.2.2. Correlation Between Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon and Agricultural Chemical Usage

A statistical analysis using the SPSS software revealed significant positive correlations between soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon and agricultural chemical usage. Specifically, the soybean cultivation area in the Brazilian Amazon demonstrated exceptionally strong linear relationships with agricultural chemical usage. Among them, the Pearson correlation coefficient with potash fertilizer usage was r = 0.968 (p < 0.01), that with phosphate fertilizer usage was r = 0.932 (p < 0.01), and that with herbicide usage was r = 0.980 (p < 0.01) (see Table 10).
The findings reveal correlation coefficients approaching unity with an exceptionally high statistical significance. This indicates that, when the soybean cultivation area expands in Brazil’s Amazon region, the usage of various agricultural chemicals, including potash fertilizer, phosphate fertilizer, and herbicides, exhibits a highly synchronized growth trend.

3.2.3. The Relationship Between Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon and Deforestation in the Cerrado

The implementation of the Soy Moratorium in 2006 effectively curbed soybean-driven deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon [9]. This largely explains the absence of a significant positive correlation between the soybean cultivation area and deforestation levels in the region post-2007. Notably, however, this policy triggered a geographical shift in deforestation pressure toward the Cerrado. Under Brazilian law, there is a requirement to conserve 80% of the native vegetation on private lands in the Amazon, but only 20–35% in the Cerrado [10]. The statistical data reveal that deforestation in the Cerrado surged from 15.44 thousand hectares in 2007/2008 to 44.62 thousand hectares in 2023/2024, increasing nearly 3-fold and marking a pronounced acceleration.
Using the SPSS software to analyze the correlation between soybean cultivation and deforestation in the Cerrado (2002–2024) showed that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.532 (p = 0.009 < 0.01), indicating a moderate positive correlation between the two (Table 11).
However, an analysis of the correlation between soybean cultivation and deforestation in Brazil’s Cerrado region (2007–2024) revealed that the correlation coefficient increased to 0.697 (p = 0.001 < 0.01), suggesting a significant strengthening of the positive correlation in the more recent period (Table 12).
This indicates that the association between soybean cultivation expansion and deforestation in the Cerrado has further strengthened since 2007. Notably, 2007 was the first year after the implementation of the Amazon Soy Moratorium. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Amazon Soy Moratorium contributed to increased soybean-driven deforestation in the Cerrado region after 2007.

4. Discussion

4.1. Further Social–Ecological Impact of Soybean Cultivation in the Amazon

4.1.1. The Impact on Soil Quality and Water Resources in the Amazon

As a land-intensive crop, soybean cultivation requires a large amount of farmland. Transforming the forest soil in the Amazon into farmland suitable for soybean cultivation necessarily involves remarkably altering the soil structure. Most soils in the Amazon region are acidic and infertile, containing high levels of aluminum and low levels of essential nutrients such as phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium [11]. However, these essential nutrients (including phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) are crucial for soybean growth [12]. Therefore, accommodating soybean production necessarily requires the application of large amounts of chemical fertilizers; thus, substantial transformation of the soil nutrition composition is required, heightening the risks to the Amazonian ecosystem health.
In addition, Brazil’s soybean cultivation employs a technology system developed in the United States, including genetically modified soybean varieties, glyphosate pesticides, and no-till farming [13]. While no-till technology can reduce soil erosion, its effect on improving the soil structure is limited. It can create a dense surface soil, particularly during the initial years of adoption [14]. The long-term use of no-till techniques for soybean cultivation can make the soil more compact [15], modifying the dynamics of water and gases in the soil [16], which further affects the activity of soil microorganisms and depletes soil fertility.
The Amazon forest plays an important role in conserving water sources, and the moist airflow formed by the released and transported water vapor is known as the flying rivers [17]. However, the conversion of forests to agricultural land has altered the hydrological regimes of topsoil [18], increasing surface runoff and decreasing groundwater contributions. Another issue is that the agrochemicals used in monoculture soybean cultivation enter rivers via water flow, causing water pollution and adversely affecting the survival and reproduction of aquatic organisms. Research has shown that large-scale soybean farming contributes to the pollution of aquatic ecosystems with pesticide residues such as atrazine, metolachlor, DDTs, and endosulfan. These contaminants are found in groundwater, surface water, and sediments near soybean fields in the Brazilian Amazon [19].

4.1.2. Agricultural Economic Income and Distribution Imbalance

Soybean production is a key driver of economic development in the region. It has increased rural incomes and contributed to the overall economic growth of the municipalities involved in soybean farming. Numerous business and job opportunities related to the industry, distribution, and input market in these cities have been created [20]. The increase in the GDP per capita in soybean-producing areas highlights the economic benefits [21]. As a result, in order to maintain economic interests, the Brazilian agribusiness group, mainly of the ruralist group (deputies and senators who are linked to Brazilian agribusiness), frequently lobbied Congress to pass laws encouraging the expansion of agriculture and livestock and loosening of environmental licenses in the Amazon [22]. The weakening of deforestation policies in the Amazon during the Bolsonaro government is proof of this position.
Despite the economic benefits, soybean production has also been closely associated with heightened social inequality. It promotes the ecological exclusion of customary users (e.g., local people, smallholders) while taking over diverse former land uses, but also excluding those communities (e.g., indigenous, smallholders) from the socioeconomic outcomes of this agricultural activity [23]. The expansion of soybean farming has also resulted in the displacement of local populations to urban areas, increasing the unemployment rate for young people [6] and driving small farmers to markets with lower coordination and added value [24]. This displacement can deepen economic inequalities and undermine food security in Brazil [25]. Meanwhile, the agribusiness sector, which always promotes the large-scale soy model, is dominated and led by men, which increases gender inequalities. In the last few decades, women have been excluded from commercial agrarian production [26].

4.1.3. Conflict with Indigenous Community and Land Tenure Dispute

The Amazon forest is the primary habitat for indigenous people in Brazil, with approximately 22% of it located within demarcated indigenous territories [27]. These indigenous communities have been sustainably managing and shaping the environment over the past one thousand years and domesticating native plants of global economic importance (e.g., cacao, coca). The combination of bio- and cultural diversity supported by the Amazon has helped provide several of the world’s most important inventions, from rubber to medicines, and could provide still many undiscovered solutions to global challenges [28].
Although Brazil’s democratic Constitution of 1988 recognized for the first time the right of indigenous people to their own land, the demarcation of indigenous land still faces a lot of challenges today [29]. Although much land was redistributed, this did not have much of an impact on the land ownership distribution [30]. In some indigenous communities, such as the Guarani-Kaiowa of the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, land rights violations had displaced the people from their ancestral lands and exposed them to the worst side of agricultural frontier making [31]. Such land disputes not only infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of indigenous people, but also destroy the local ecological environment and cultural diversity.
However, the existing judicial relief mechanism in Brazil is inadequate to solve these problems. Racist attitudes and practices still need to be removed from Brazil’s judicial system [32], which creates obstacles for indigenous peoples to use legal procedures to protect their rights. Although the Brazilian judicial system provides many remedies for indigenous land disputes, in reality, these procedures often suffer from delays [33]. These shortages make it difficult for the judicial relief mechanism to function as intended, and land rights disputes in indigenous communities remain unresolved.

4.2. Current Governance Framework of the Sustainability of the Brazilian Amazon

The Amazon forest is not only an important part of Brazil’s territory, but also an important component of the Earth system. Therefore, the conservation of the Amazon has long attracted widespread attention throughout the world, and various measures have been adopted. However, these measures have not completely prevented the conflict between soybean production and the sustainable development of the social ecosystem in the Amazon. In 2025, the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP30, will be held in the Brazilian Amazon, and the sustainable governance of the Amazon will once again become a topic of global concern. Therefore, this section reviews the current governance framework and its shortcomings, and proposes suggestions for improving the governance framework.

4.2.1. Brazilian Domestic Laws and Polices

Brazil has taken numerous measures to curb Amazon deforestation and promote sustainable development in the Amazon, such as the Environmental Crimes Law, the Sustainable Amazon Plan (PAS), and the Amazon Deforestation Prevention and Control Program (PPCDAm) [34]. However, due to deficiencies in legislation and enforcement, most of these measures have not achieved the expected governance effects. Although the PPCDAm once achieved obvious achievements [35], there are still significant doubts about whether it can be sustained in the long term. Critically, the sustainability dimensions of soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon remain inadequately addressed within the existing regulatory frameworks and policy instruments.
Meanwhile, as a federalism country, interest conflicts between the local and federal governments have emerged as a critical challenge in curbing deforestation in the Amazon. Brazil embraces the federative form of state organization, including the national, state, and local governments. They are all endowed with autonomy and have constitutionally established powers [36]. While the Brazilian Constitution has a strong emphasis on environmental protection, the Brazilian bureaucracy exhibits significant heterogeneity and inequality across the different levels of governance [37]. The local government always chooses to relax environmental regulations and weaken the enforcement of national environmental laws. For example, Mato Grosso’s governor once earned Greenpeace’s “Golden Chainsaw Award” for deforestation linked to the soy industry in 2005 [38]. Meanwhile, the Brazilian federal government was implementing the PPCDAm during this period.

4.2.2. International Governance Frameworks Based on Sovereignty

At the multilateral level, numerous international laws contribute to promoting the sustainable development of the social ecosystem in the Amazon region, such as the Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the International Tropical Timber Agreement. However, as a sovereign state, Brazil has greater discretion in how to implement these national conventions.
At the regional level, Amazon countries had already established the Amazon Cooperation Organization (ACTO) as early as the 1980s to promote the development of the Amazon. However, the cooperation on sustainable development and environmental issues has not been a priority of the organization for a long time. Although this trend has changed in recent years, such as the release of the Belem Declaration [39] and the Leticia Pact for the Amazon [40], sovereignty remains a foundational principle within Amazon countries [41], constraining it as a primary governance pathway for advancing sustainable soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon.

4.2.3. Voluntary Governance of Non-State Actors

In order to reduce the adverse environmental and social impacts of soybean production and trade, non-state actors such as multinational corporations, industry associations, and environmental organizations are actively exploring the transnational sustainable trade of soybeans and have formulated relevant voluntary governance rules. The Amazon Soy Moratorium and the Responsible Roundtable on Soybeans (RTRS) are the more representative ones. These measures have already played a positive role, but there is still a lot of space for further improvement.
The Amazon Soy Moratorium (ASM) contributed to overall reductions in Amazon deforestation since its implementation in 2006 [9], and significantly contributed to an 84% decrease in the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon between 2004 and 2012 together with other multiple policies [42]. However, the amount of direct deforestation for soybean expansion declined following the implementation of the ASM, accompanied by indirect deforestation associated with soybean expansion and the moving of the deforestation frontier to the Cerrado [43]. This conclusion is also supported by our data analysis.
Other voluntary governance measures include the fair trade movement, the Responsible Roundtable on Soybeans (RTRS), and the Agro Plus Program [44], among others. However, the lack of uniform standards and norms in the regulatory process among multinational corporations leads to variations in the intensity and methods of regulation across different companies, providing opportunities for suppliers to choose the standard that is beneficial to them. Thus, these voluntary governance measures are prone to greenwashing problems [45]. For example, the Soy Sourcing Guidelines of European Feed Manufacturer’s Federation (FEFAC) requires only zero illegal deforestation [46]. Given that Brazilian laws regularly grant amnesty to a large number of past offenders, such as Brazil’s 2012 Forest Code [47], this standard is clearly not conducive to the strict implementation of zero deforestation in soybean supply chains.

4.3. Pathways for Sustainable Transformation of Soybean Cultivation in Brazilian Amazon

4.3.1. Expand the Implementation of the Amazon Soy Moratorium

This study found that, prior to 2006, there existed a significant correlation between deforestation and soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon. However, this correlation began to disappear after 2006, precisely the year when the Amazon Soy Moratorium was implemented. These results indicate that the moratorium significantly reduced Amazon deforestation. Therefore, the continued implementation of the Amazon Soy Moratorium will help curb deforestation in the Amazon.
However, this study also revealed that the deforestation in the Cerrado is rapidly increasing, and there was a correlation between soybean cultivation and deforestation in the Cerrado after 2006. This suggests that, post-2006, soybean cultivation has driven deforestation in the Cerrado. To prevent the displacement of deforestation from the Amazon to the Cerrado, the Amazon Soy Moratorium should be extended to the Cerrado. However, this arrangement will need to address the issue of a low legal protection level for forests in the Cerrado. According to the Brazilian 2012 Forest Code, the legal reserve (LR) areas are 80% in the Amazon and only 20–35% in the Cerrado [48].

4.3.2. Improving Domestic Laws and Policies in Brazil

Due to significant deficiencies in Brazil’s domestic laws and policies around preventing deforestation in the Amazon, to promote sustainable soybean production in the Amazon, Brazil needs to enhance its domestic legal and policy frameworks.
Firstly, improving indigenous land governance in the Amazon is crucial for curbing deforestation in the Amazon. In Latin America, indigenous land has reduced deforestation and degradation rates, often more so than in state-managed protected areas [49]. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the demarcation of indigenous land and ensure judicial fairness and the high speed of the judicial procedure.
Secondly, the law should be revised to close the loopholes that allow for “legal deforestation”. The amnesty for illegal deforestation in several laws, such as the 2012 Forest Code, has contributed to deforestation in the Amazon. Preventing impunity for deforestation will help eliminate opportunities for deforestation to escape legal punishment and better achieve the goal of curbing deforestation in the Amazon.
In addition to policy formulation, enforcement and monitoring need to be strengthened. The rural environmental registration system (CAR) can be integrated more effectively. This system is a large environmental registration program in Brazil that combines a monitoring tool based on satellite images and the digital georeferencing of rural properties [50]. By ensuring that all landowners comply with the registration requirements and regularly update their information, the government can better monitor land use and enforce environmental regulations.

4.3.3. Strengthen International Cooperation on Sustainable Amazon

Given that the limitations of Brazil’s domestic legal frameworks cannot be solved in the short term, strengthening international cooperation has become critical to advancing sustainable governance in the Amazon. Over recent decades, the international community has launched numerous collaborative initiatives for Amazon forest protection, including the Pilot Programme to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest (PPG7) [51], the Amazon Fund [52], and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) [53]. While these projects have yielded partial success, they have not fundamentally curbed Amazon deforestation. A key limitation lies in their focus on localized governance, prioritizing governance of the Amazon region while overlooking drivers in distant international markets.
In an increasingly interconnected world [54], the factors driving Amazon deforestation extend far beyond the region’s borders. Soybean production in the Brazilian Amazon is heavily influenced by distant international markets, exemplifying a telecoupling system [55]. Thus, addressing these transboundary drivers is essential to ensuring sustainable soybean development in the Amazon and reducing soy-driven deforestation. To this end, major soybean-importing countries must enhance their governance of the soybean supply chain through transnational supply chain legislation, preventing unsustainable Amazonian soybeans from entering domestic markets. European nations have led in this effort by prohibiting the imports of soybeans linked to deforestation, such as the adoption of Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive [56]. Other major importers, such as China, still need to strengthen their regulatory frameworks around this issue.

4.3.4. Adopting More Sustainable Soybean Cultivation Techniques

The soybean cultivation system currently used in Brazil is conducive to large-scale production and a reduction in soil erosion, but its use in the Amazon region has also brought a series of unsustainable problems, including changes to natural landscapes and the accompanying ecosystem destruction. Adopting a more sustainable soybean cultivation system will help address these issues. Agroforestry systems, which integrate trees with crops, present a promising alternative for sustainable soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon.
This model integrates soybean cultivation with forest protection, meeting the needs of agricultural production while also contributing to ecological balance. By intercropping soybeans with trees, the soil quality can be improved. The roots of native tree species can penetrate deep into the soil, enhancing the soil’s aeration and water retention while also fixing nutrients in the soil and reducing soil erosion. Soybeans, through nitrogen fixation by rhizobia, provide additional nitrogen to the soil, promoting tree growth. This mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship effectively enhances soil fertility, laying a foundation for long-term agricultural production. As one of the countries with the longest history of soybean cultivation, China has a long history of adopting an agroforestry system for soybeans. The ancient Chinese agricultural book Qi Min Yao Shu records that soybeans benefit mulberry trees [57], meaning that intercropping soybeans with mulberry trees can promote the growth of mulberry leaves.
Currently, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Embrapa, has developed a series of technical solutions for this model [58]. By selecting suitable intercropping soybean varieties and native tree species, they have optimized the planting density and layout, enhancing the system’s productivity and stability [59]. Through a proper spatial configuration, both soybeans and trees can make full use of sunlight, water, and nutrients. Studies have shown that the soybean yield in agroforestry systems can vary significantly based on the arrangement and density of tree rows. Wider alleys (e.g., 42 m) between tree rows tend to result in higher soybean yields compared to narrower alleys (e.g., 18 m) [60]. Considering the advantages of this cultivation system, Brazil should make policies to encourage its application in the Amazon.
In addition, as a country with thousands of years of soybean cultivation history, China has developed rich sustainable soybean cultivation techniques throughout its long history. For example, the ancient Chinese scientific and technological work Cosmic Crafter’s Groundbreaking Creations recorded a flexible soybean no-tillage technology [61] that can effectively avoid the shortcomings of the current Brazilian soybean no-tillage technology. Therefore, strengthening the sustainable soybean technology cooperation between China and Brazil will help promote the sustainable development of soybeans in the Amazon.

5. Conclusions

Based on the comprehensive analysis presented, this study concluded that soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon has generated profound socio-ecological consequences, including deforestation, soil and water resource disturbance, agrochemical pollution, heightened social inequalities, and indigenous land conflicts. The current governance measures, both domestic and international, have proven insufficient to effectively reconcile economic expansion with ecological sustainability and social equity. Nevertheless, evidence-based pathways exist to transform soybean production toward greater sustainability in the Amazon region. These include rigorously maintaining the Soy Moratorium and extending it to the vulnerable Cerrado biome; strengthening Brazilian land governance and enforcement mechanisms in the Amazon; enhancing transnational cooperation, particularly in supply chain regulation; and adopting agroecological innovations such as integrated agroforestry systems. The concerted implementation of these measures offers a viable route to align agricultural productivity with the long-term resilience of the Amazon’s social–ecological systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Z. (Min Zhang) and F.R.W.; methodology, M.Z. (Min Zhang) and M.Z. (Mengnan Zhou); formal analysis, M.Z. (Min Zhang) and M.Z. (Mengnan Zhou); resources, F.R.W.; data curation, M.Z. (Min Zhang), M.J.P. and P.D.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.Z. (Min Zhang) and F.R.W.; writing, M.Z. (Min Zhang) and M.Z. (Mengnan Zhou) The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by [Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities] grant number [SKGL2025006] and iangsu University Philosophy and Social Science Foundation grant number [2021SJZDA 028].

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT 4, Gork 4 and Deepseek-v3 for the purposes of language proofreading. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Leal Filho, W.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Canova, M.A.; Cataldi, M.; da Costa, G.A.S.; Enrich-Prast, A.; Brearley, F.Q. Managing ecosystem services in the Brazilian Amazon: The influence of deforestation and forest degradation in the world’s largest rain forest. Geosci. Lett. 2025, 12, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Marin, F.R.; Zanon, A.J.; Monzon, J.P.; Andrade, J.F.; Silva, E.H.; Richter, G.L.; Grassini, P. Protecting the Amazon forest and reducing global warming via agricultural intensification. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 1018–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Marengo, J.A.; Jimenez, J.C.; Espinoza, J.C.; Cunha, A.P.; Aragão, L.E. Increased climate pressure on the agricultural frontier in the Eastern Amazonia–Cerrado transition zone. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Paim, M.A. Zero deforestation in the Amazon: The Soy Moratorium and global forest governance. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 2021, 30, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Flach, R.; Abrahão, G.; Bryant, B.; Scarabello, M.; Soterroni, A.C.; Ramos, F.M.; Cohn, A.S. Conserving the Cerrado and Amazon biomes of Brazil protects the soy economy from damaging warming. World Dev 2021, 146, 105582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Oliveira, R.C.D.; de Souza e Silva, R.D. Increase of agribusiness in the Brazilian Amazon: Development or inequality? Earth 2021, 2, 1077–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Silva, R.G.D.C. Amazonia, Territorial Dynamics, and Agrarian Conflicts: A review of a short-term trajectory. Rev. NERA 2025, 28, e10467. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cargo Sapiens. Brazil Records Record Soybean Exports to China in Q1 2025. Available online: https://cargosapiens.com/en/blog/brasil-registra-recorde-nas-exportacoes-de-soja-para-a-china-no-1o-trimestre-de-2025/ (accessed on 20 July 2025).
  9. Rausch, L.L.; Gibbs, H.K. The low opportunity costs of the Amazon soy moratorium. Front. For. Glob. Change 2021, 4, 621685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Soterroni, A.C.; Ramos, F.M.; Mosnier, A.; Fargione, J.; Andrade, P.R.; Baumgarten, L.; Polasky, S. Expanding the soy moratorium to Brazil’s Cerrado. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaav7336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moreira, A.; Fageria, N.K.; Garcia y Garcia, A. Soil fertility, mineral nitrogen, and microbial biomass in upland soils of the Central Amazon under different plant covers. Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 694–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bagale, S. Nutrient management for soybean crops. Int. J. Agron. 2021, 1, 3304634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Adegas, F.S.; Correia, N.M.; da Silva, A.F.; Concenço, G.; Gazziero, D.L.; Dalazen, G. Glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean and corn in Brazil: Past, present, and future. Adv. Weed Sci. 2022, 40, e0202200102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mondal, S.; Chakraborty, D. Global meta-analysis suggests that no-tillage favourably changes soil structure and porosity. Geoderma 2022, 405, 115443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ferreira, C.J.B.; Tormena, C.A.; Severiano, E.D.C.; Zotarelli, L.; Betioli Júnior, E. Soil compaction influences soil physical quality and soybean yield under long-term no-tillage. Arch. Agron. Soil. Sci. 2021, 67, 383–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Betioli Junior, E.; Tormena, C.A.; Moreira, W.H.; Ball, B.C.; Figueiredo, G.C.; da Silva, Á.P.; Giarola, N.F.B. Aeration condition of a clayey Oxisol under long-term no-tillage. Rev. Bras. De Ciência Do Solo. 2014, 38, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fearnside, P.M.; Filho, W.L. COP 30: Brazilian policies must change. Science 2025, 387, 1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Robinet, J.; Minella, J.P.; de Barros, C.A.; Schlesner, A.; Lücke, A.; Ameijeiras-Mariño, Y.; Govers, G. Impacts of forest conversion and agriculture practices on water pathways in Southern Brazil. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32, 2304–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. de Azeredo Morgado, M.G.; Passos, C.J.S.; Garnier, J.; De Lima, L.A.; de Alcântara Mendes, R.; Samson-Brais, É.; Lucotte, M. Large-scale agriculture and environmental pollution of ground and surface water and sediment by pesticides in the Brazilian Amazon: The case of the santarém region. Water Air Soil. Pollut. 2023, 234, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Toloi, M.N.V.; Bonilla, S.H.; Toloi, R.C.; Silva, H.R.O.; Nääs, I.D.A. Development indicators and soybean production in Brazil. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Andrade Neto, A.O.D.; Raiher, A.P. Socioeconomic impact of soybean crop in the minimum comparable areas of Brazil. Rev. De Econ. E Sociol. Rural. 2023, 62, e267567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pereira, E.J.D.A.L.; de Santana Ribeiro, L.C.; da Silva Freitas, L.F.; de Barros Pereira, H.B. Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest. Land Use Policy 2020, 92, 104491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. da Silva, R.F.B.; Viña, A.; Moran, E.F.; Dou, Y.; Batistella, M.; Liu, J. Socioeconomic and environmental effects of soybean production in metacoupled systems. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rodrigues, M.; Campos, I. Soybean cropping by family farmers: A new institutional path for rural development in Brazilian Central-West. Ital. Rev. Agric. Econ. (REA) 2019, 74, 29–39. [Google Scholar]
  25. de Souza, R.M.; Ribeiro, J.C. The Impact of Brazil’s Agricultural Export Boom on Domestic Food Security. Law Econ. 2025, 4, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Backhouse, M.; Lühmann, M.; Tittor, A. Global inequalities in the bioeconomy: Thinking continuity and change in view of the global soy complex. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Duarte, D.P.; Peres, C.A.; Perdomo, E.F.C.; Guizar-Coutino, A.; Nelson, B.W. Reducing natural vegetation loss in Amazonia critically depends on the formal recognition of indigenous lands. Biol. Conserv. 2023, 279, 109936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garrett, R.D.; Cammelli, F.; Ferreira, J.; Levy, S.A.; Valentim, J.; Vieira, I. Forests and sustainable development in the Brazilian Amazon: History, trends, and future prospects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2021, 46, 625–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chiavari, J.; Lopes, C.L. Indigenous land rights in Brazil: Challenges and barriers to land demarcation. In Indigenous Amazonia, Regional Development and Territorial Dynamics: Contentious Issues; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 39–59. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mueller, B. Property rights and violence in indigenous land in Brazil. Land Use Policy 2022, 116, 106063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ioris, A.A. Indigenous peoples, land-based disputes and strategies of socio-spatial resistance at agricultural frontiers. Ethnopolitics 2022, 21, 278–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dos Santos, S.A. Law programs, ethno–racial relations education, and confronting racism in the Brazilian judiciary. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barros Soares, L.; Chaves Costa, C.; Brilhante Bezerra, L.; Alvares Costa, A.P.; Nascimento Moita, Y. Explanatory factors for the delay in the demarcation of indigenous lands in Brazil. RAP Rev. Bras. De Adm. Pública 2024, 58, e2023-0125. [Google Scholar]
  34. Murilo, C.; de Mendonça, F.M.; Ferreira, D.M. O efeito do plano de prevenção e controle do desmatamento na Amazônia legal (PPCDAm) nas causas diretas do desmatamento. Rev. Bras. De Gestão E Desenvolv. Reg. 2025, 21, 2. [Google Scholar]
  35. West, T.A.; Fearnside, P.M. Brazil’s conservation reform and the reduction of deforestation in Amazonia. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 105072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Barbosa, L.B. Environmental Federalism in Brazil and the economic analysis of law. In Federalismo e democracia: Reflexões contemporâneas; UEMG: Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2023; pp. 71–92. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bersch, K.; Lotta, G. Political control and bureaucratic resistance: The case of environmental agencies in Brazil. Lat. Am. Politics Soc. 2024, 66, 27–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gueiros, C.; Jodoin, S.; McDermott, C.L. Jurisdictional approaches to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Brazil: Why do states adopt jurisdictional policies? Land Use Policy 2023, 127, 106582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Peña-Claros, M.; Nobre, C. A regional approach to save the Amazon. Science 2023, 381, 1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nekrasov, B.I. The Evolution of the Cooperation between South American Countries in the Amazon Basin: From the Development of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty to the Signing of the Leticia Pact for the Amazon. Vestnik RUDN. Int. Relat. 2020, 20, 805–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Merino, R. Governing International Commons: Re-examining Environmental and Sovereignty Imaginaries in the Amazon. Transnatl. Environ. Law 2025, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Heilmayr, R.; Rausch, L.L.; Munger, J.; Gibbs, H.K. Brazil’s Amazon soy moratorium reduced deforestation. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moffette, F.; Gibbs, H.K. Agricultural displacement and deforestation leakage in the Brazilian Legal Amazon. Land Econ. 2021, 97, 155–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Oliveira, A.C.T.; da Silva Júnior, A.G.; Min, Z. Sustainability of Soybean Farms Participating in the Agro Plus Program in Minas Gerais State, Brazil: An Application of Cluster and Principal Component Analyzes. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2023, 14, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Inês, A.; Diniz, A.; Moreira, A.C. A review of greenwashing and supply chain management: Challenges ahead. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2023, 11, 100136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hinkes, C.V.M. Sustainability Certification for Deforestation-Free Supply Chains: The Cases of Palm Oil and Soy. Doctoral Dissertation, Georg-August Universität, Göttingen, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nunes, F.S.; Soares-Filho, B.S.; Oliveira, A.R.; Veloso, L.V.; Schmitt, J.; Van der Hoff, R.; Costa, M.A. Lessons from the historical dynamics of environmental law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Magalhães, I.B.; de Paula Pereira, A.S.A.; Calijuri, M.L.; do Carmo Alves, S.; dos Santos, V.J.; Lorentz, J.F. Brazilian Cerrado and Soy moratorium: Effects on biome preservation and consequences on grain production. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 105030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sze, J.S.; Carrasco, L.R.; Childs, D.; Edwards, D.P. Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pacheco, R.; Rajão, R.; Van der Hoff, R.; Soares-Filho, B. Will farmers seek environmental regularization in the Amazon and how? Insights from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) questionnaires. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 284, 112010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Horn, C. Valuing forests, but not the labor that protects them: International payments for ecosystem services in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Peasant. Stud. 2025, 52, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Correa, J.; Cisneros, E.; Börner, J.; Pfaff, A.; Costa, M.; Rajão, R. Evaluating REDD+ at subnational level: Amazon fund impacts in Alta Floresta, Brazil. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 116, 102178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Riva, F.R.; Paes-De-Souza, M.; Talamini, E. REDD+: Analysis of its components through a systematic review of scientific literature from Brazil and Indonesia. Int. For. Rev. 2022, 24, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kapsar, K.E.; Hovis, C.L.; Bicudo da Silva, R.F.; Buchholtz, E.K.; Carlson, A.K.; Dou, Y.; Liu, J. Telecoupling research: The first five years. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, J. Leveraging the metacoupling framework for sustainability science and global sustainable development. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2023, 10, nwad090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Min, Z.; Wimer, F.R. Transnational governance of soybean land use in south America: A polycentric approach. Transnatl. Environ. Law 2025, 14, 145–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jia, S. Qi Min Yao Shu; Changjiang Literature and Art Publishing House: Wuhan, China, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  58. Dos Reis, J.C.; Kamoi, M.Y.T.; Michetti, M.; Wruck, F.J.; de Aragão Ribeiro Rodrigues, R.; de Farias Neto, A.L. Economic and environmental impacts of integrated systems adoption in Brazilian agriculture-forest frontier. Agrofor. Syst. 2023, 97, 847–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Werner, F.; Balbinot, A.A.; Franchini, J.C.; Ferreira, A.S.; Silva, M.A.D.A.E. Agronomic performance of soybean cultivars in an agroforestry system. Pesqui. Agropecuária Trop. 2017, 47, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ribeiro, R.D.S.; Passos, A.M.D.; Aker, A.M. Agronomic performance of soybean crops under integrated production systems in the Southwestern Brazilian Amazon biome. Rev. Bras. De Eng. Agrícola E Ambient. 2020, 24, 793–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Song, Y.X. Cosmic Crafter’s Groundbreaking Creations (Tian Gong Kai Wu); Shanghai Ancient Books Press: Shanghai, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Land 14 01802 g001
Figure 1. Soybean area in the Brazilian Amazon (1988/1989–2023/2024). Source: CONAB. Notice: Missing data (-) in Table 1 were replaced with zeros in this Figure.
Figure 1. Soybean area in the Brazilian Amazon (1988/1989–2023/2024). Source: CONAB. Notice: Missing data (-) in Table 1 were replaced with zeros in this Figure.
Land 14 01802 g001
Land 14 01802 g002
Figure 2. Soybean area in the Cerrado (not in the Amazon) (2001/2002–2023/2024). Source: CONAB.
Figure 2. Soybean area in the Cerrado (not in the Amazon) (2001/2002–2023/2024). Source: CONAB.
Land 14 01802 g002
Land 14 01802 g003
Figure 3. Total deforestation area in legal Amazon (1988–2023). Source: INPE.
Figure 3. Total deforestation area in legal Amazon (1988–2023). Source: INPE.
Land 14 01802 g003
Land 14 01802 g004
Figure 4. Deforestation of primary humid forest in the Amazon states of Brazil (2002–2024). Source: Global Forest Watch.
Figure 4. Deforestation of primary humid forest in the Amazon states of Brazil (2002–2024). Source: Global Forest Watch.
Land 14 01802 g004
Land 14 01802 g005
Figure 5. Deforestation of primary humid forest in the Cerrado (not in the Amazon). Source: Global Forest Watch.
Figure 5. Deforestation of primary humid forest in the Cerrado (not in the Amazon). Source: Global Forest Watch.
Land 14 01802 g005
Land 14 01802 g006
Figure 6. Usage of phosphate P2O5 and potash K2O in Brazilian agriculture. Source: FAOSTAT.
Figure 6. Usage of phosphate P2O5 and potash K2O in Brazilian agriculture. Source: FAOSTAT.
Land 14 01802 g006
Land 14 01802 g007
Figure 7. Herbicides usage in Brazilian agriculture. Source: FAOSTAT.
Figure 7. Herbicides usage in Brazilian agriculture. Source: FAOSTAT.
Land 14 01802 g007
Table 1. Soybean area in the Brazilian Amazon (1988/1989–2023/2024). Unit: thousands of hectares.
Table 1. Soybean area in the Brazilian Amazon (1988/1989–2023/2024). Unit: thousands of hectares.
YearAmazonasParáMato GrossoMaranhãoRondôniaAcreAmapáTocantinsRoraima
1988/1989--1708.221.915.6--59.0-
1989/1990--1503.016.07.8--34.2-
1990/1991--1100.04.62.4--3.9-
1991/1992--1452.021.10.1--12.0-
1992/1993--1713.442.74.5--15.5-
1993/1994--1996.062.8---22.76.0
1994/1995--2295.491.74.8--16.6-
1995/1996--1905.289.1---4.91.8
1996/1997--2095.7120.03.3--21.9-
1997/1998-2.62600.0144.04.7--40.1-
1998/1999-1.62548.0162.78.7--40.1-
1999/2000-2.32800.0175.711.8--45.60.0
2000/2001-0.73120.0210.025.0--66.0-
2001/20021.12.93853.2238.328.6--105.03.5
2002/20032.115.54419.6274.041.0--148.13.0
2003/20042.135.25240.5342.559.5--243.612.0
2004/20052.869.06105.2375.074.4--355.720.0
2005/20061.979.76196.8382.5106.4--309.510.0
2006/2007-47.05124.8384.490.4--267.75.5
2007/2008-71.15675.0421.599.8--331.615.0
2008/2009-72.25828.2387.4106.0--311.48.0
2009/2010-86.96224.5502.1122.3--364.31.4
2010/2011-104.86398.8518.2132.3--404.73.7
2011/2012-119.26980.5559.7143.5--451.23.7
2012/2013-172.27818.2586.0167.7--549.612.0
2013/2014-221.48615.7662.2191.1--748.418.0
2014/2015-336.38934.5749.6231.5--849.623.8
2015/2016-428.99140.0786.3252.6--870.824.0
2016/2017-500.19322.8821.7296.0-18.9964.030.0
2017/20181.5549.69518.6951.5333.60.520.2988.138.2
2018/20192.2561.49699.5992.4333.71.520.91028.640.0
2019/20202.3607.410,004.1976.4348.44.020.91078.049.8
2020/20214.3731.910,479.71005.7396.56.15.31210.570.0
2021/20224.5828.511,108.51075.1491.76.16.51340.895.0
2022/20236.9939.512,086.01192.7595.012.07.41438.4123.0
2023/202417.71129.312,376.11329.7643.217.57.51456.7118.0
Source: CONAB.
Table 2. Soybean area in the Cerrado (not in the Amazon) (2001/2002–2023/2024). Unit: thousands of hectares.
Table 2. Soybean area in the Cerrado (not in the Amazon) (2001/2002–2023/2024). Unit: thousands of hectares.
YearGoiásMato Grosso do SulMinas GeraisBahiaPiauíSão Paulo
2001/20021887.4 1192.2 719.0 800.0 86.8 567.1
2002/20032170.5 1415.1 873.6 850.4 116.3 615.3
2003/20042572.0 1797.2 1065.8 821.5 159.3 761.1
2004/20052662.0 2030.8 1119.1 870.0 197.1 772.5
2005/20062542.2 1949.6 1060.9 872.6 232.0 656.6
2006/20072191.4 1737.1 930.4 850.8 219.7 538.4
2007/20082179.7 1731.4 870.0 905.0 253.6 526.0
2008/20092307.2 1715.8 929.1 947.5 273.1 531.3
2009/20102549.5 1712.2 1019.0 1016.5 343.1 572.2
2010/20112605.6 1760.1 1024.1 1043.9 383.6 612.8
2011/20122644.7 1815.0 1024.0 1112.8 444.6 582.2
2012/20132888.0 2017.0 1121.2 1281.9 546.4 637.0
2013/20143101.7 2120.0 1238.2 1312.7 627.3 751.7
2014/20153325.0 2300.5 1319.4 1422.0 673.7 796.8
2015/20163285.1 2430.0 1469.3 1526.9 565.0 857.6
2016/20173278.5 2522.3 1456.1 1580.3 693.8 895.3
2017/20183386.7 2672.0 1508.5 1599.3 710.5 961.6
2018/20193476.4 2853.7 1574.9 1580.1 758.1 996.2
2019/20203825.1 3016.4 1647.3 1620.0 758.9 1109.8
2020/20214299.0 3499.3 1899.3 1701.0 834.8 1162.0
2021/20224393.6 3660.31982.9 1893.2 850.7 1215.5
2022/20234547.4 3887.2 2171.3 1919.7 976.6 1296.9
2023/20244833.94124.32251.61979.21087.01304.7
Source: CONAB.
Table 3. Total deforestation area in legal Amazon (1988–2023). (Unit: km2). Source: INPE.
Table 3. Total deforestation area in legal Amazon (1988–2023). (Unit: km2). Source: INPE.
YearArea
198821,050
198917,770
199013,730
199111,030
199213,786
199314,896
199414,896
199529,059
199618,161
199713,227
199817,383
199917,259
200018,226
200118,165
200221,650
200325,396
200427,772
200519,014
200614,286
200711,651
200812,911
20097464
20107000
20116418
20124571
20135891
20145012
20156207
20167893
20176947
20187536
201910,129
202010,851
202113,038
202211,594
20239064
Table 4. Deforestation of primary humid forest in the Amazon states of Brazil (2002–2023). Unit: thousands of hectares. Source: Global Forest Watch.
Table 4. Deforestation of primary humid forest in the Amazon states of Brazil (2002–2023). Unit: thousands of hectares. Source: Global Forest Watch.
YearAmazonasParáMato GrossoMaranhãoRondôniaAcreAmapáTocantinsRoraima
200260.2414.7690.327.1310.955.45.86.321.3
200374.3367.4768.120.2243.027.84.09.126.4
200469.4651.5904.623.3258.053.95.44.517.5
2005123.6577.9580.940.6315.5124.16.512.515.4
2006114.9532.8407.040.8228.934.25.17.420.7
200766.9451.3365.332.1138.030.45.18.329.9
200870.8499.7280.829.592.444.65.95.827.3
200979.6311.0127.713.479.630.511.85.725.4
2010109.7367.0388.637.5170.234.85.84.717.1
201165.0287.7236.917.6120.432.15.38.514.7
2012118.1388.8346.225.9133.353.69.47.114.0
201386.8240.7131.422.759.843.86.810.615.3
2014104.2327.6214.127.7154.354.96.010.321.6
2015118.3256.8205.722.1132.041.45.711.222.4
2016450.61116.3417.1226.8212.769.021.919.2267.0
2017194.5832.5624.255.1228.070.420.137.833.4
2018156.3545.7308.326.1160.173.76.920.532.7
2019178.7479.8298.414.0158.977.04.59.8120.2
2020197.7566.8577.023.9167.880.54.611.627.0
2021271.6497.4374.919.7203.2107.52.97.221.7
2022351.3585.2431.422.0185.9132.55.17.427.0
2023251.0406.6218.833.577.556.111.18.439.3
2024396.01288.3576.025.4221.284.218.334.9131.2
Table 5. Deforestation of primary humid forest in the Cerrado (not in the Amazon). Unit: thousands of hectares. Source: Global Forest Watch.
Table 5. Deforestation of primary humid forest in the Cerrado (not in the Amazon). Unit: thousands of hectares. Source: Global Forest Watch.
YearGoiásMato Grosso Do SulMinas GeraisBahiaPiauíSão PauloTotal
20026.315.20.83.20.021.026.52
20038.013.10.63.50.010.926.11
20045.711.60.45.60.021.324.62
20055.210.60.64.30.101.322.10
20062.89.40.55.40.171.920.17
20072.79.10.56.00.261.620.16
20081.75.70.36.80.040.915.44
20092.44.90.25.60.020.713.82
20101.96.10.35.50.031.014.83
20112.54.90.33.10.020.711.52
20122.27.40.46.00.051.317.35
20131.53.70.25.20.110.811.51
20141.64.60.68.50.141.016.44
20151.83.00.35.00.010.510.61
20161.84.10.518.30.200.825.70
20178.96.12.19.30.062.629.06
20181.34.20.65.30.211.012.61
20191.88.70.44.50.03 1.016.43
20201.235.50.43.90.120.741.82
20211.228.00.35.70.251.637.05
20221.412.30.34.10.280.618.98
20230.924.00.24.70.181.131.08
20242.033.00.86.40.122.344.62
Table 6. Usage of phosphate P2O5 and potash K2O in Brazilian agriculture. Unit: tons. Source: FAOSTAT.
Table 6. Usage of phosphate P2O5 and potash K2O in Brazilian agriculture. Unit: tons. Source: FAOSTAT.
YearPhosphate P2O5Potash K2O
19881,507,0001,406,285
19891,296,1151,263,689
19901,201,6001,209,600
19911,279,6001,276,400
19921,360,6401,333,600
19931,640,5001,724,000
19941,931,0001,866,000
19951,275,2001,790,600
19961,704,8002,064,300
19972,004,4002,397,400
19982,022,4002,283,200
19991,953,6972,255,308
20002,338,0002,562,000
20012,482,0002,716,000
20022,713,6972,993,595
20033,138,2993,488,031
20043,927,2884,440,202
20052,879,5113,345,294
20063,056,5643,626,122
20074,075,6134,379,138
20083,564,3554,381,903
20092,642,2952,467,960
20103,307,5954,025,709
20114,289,2564,968,786
20124,087,6234,572,780
20134,922,8925,156,986
20145,098,0985,735,462
20154,323,0144,984,601
20163,984,7855,626,813
20174,574,0086,256,100
20185,106,9396,685,608
20194,860,2586,774,144
20207,233,8107,221,888
20216,623,5898,198,403
20225,735,1277,687,978
Table 7. Herbicides usage in Brazilian agriculture (Unit: tons). Source: FAOSTAT.
Table 7. Herbicides usage in Brazilian agriculture (Unit: tons). Source: FAOSTAT.
YearHerbicides
199022,903
199127,928
199232,954
199337,979
199443,004
199548,030
199653,055
199758,080
199863,106
199968,131
200081,862
200188,359
200283,859
2003110,215
2004124,060
2005136,853
2006144,986
2007189,101
2008185,665
2009202,554
2010204,957
2011251,914
2012298,872
2013303,573
2014294,916
2015314,453
2016322,755
2017315,573
2018338,838
2019369,579
2020413,833
2021407,463
2022492,445
Table 8. Correlation analysis between soybean area and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (1988–2006).
Table 8. Correlation analysis between soybean area and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (1988–2006).
SoybeanDeforestation
SoybeanPearson correlation10.541 *
Significance (2-tailed) 0.020
N1818
DeforestationPearson correlation0.541 *1
Significance (2-tailed)0.020
N1818
Notice: * indicates p < 0.05.
Table 9. Correlation analysis between soybean area and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2007–2024).
Table 9. Correlation analysis between soybean area and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2007–2024).
SoybeanDeforestation
SoybeanPearson correlation10.019
Significance (2-tailed) 0.941
N1818
DeforestationPearson correlation0.0191
Significance (2-tailed)0.941
N1818
Table 10. Correlation analysis between soybean area and agricultural chemical usage in Brazilian Amazon (1989–2022).
Table 10. Correlation analysis between soybean area and agricultural chemical usage in Brazilian Amazon (1989–2022).
SoybeanPotash K2OPhosphate P2O5Herbicide
Soybean10.968 **0.932 **0.980 **
Potash K2O0.968 **1--
Phosphate P2O50.932 **-1-
Herbicide0.980 **--1
Notice: ** indicates p < 0.01.
Table 11. Correlation analysis between soybean cultivation and deforestation in the Cerrado (2002–2024).
Table 11. Correlation analysis between soybean cultivation and deforestation in the Cerrado (2002–2024).
SoybeanDeforestation
SoybeanPearson correlation10.532 **
Significance (2-tailed) 0.009
N2323
DeforestationPearson correlation0.532 **1
Significance (2-tailed)0.009
N2323
Notice: ** indicates p < 0.01.
Table 12. Correlation analysis between soybean cultivation and deforestation in the Cerrado (2007–2024).
Table 12. Correlation analysis between soybean cultivation and deforestation in the Cerrado (2007–2024).
SoybeanDeforestation
SoybeanPearson correlation10.697 **
Significance (2-tailed) 0.001
N1818
DeforestationPearson correlation0.697 **1
Significance (2-tailed)0.001
N1818
Notice: ** indicates p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, M.; Wimer, F.R.; Zhou, M.; Pinheiro, M.J.; Fernández, P.D. Socio-Ecological Impacts and Sustainable Transformation Pathways of Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon Region. Land 2025, 14, 1802. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091802

AMA Style

Zhang M, Wimer FR, Zhou M, Pinheiro MJ, Fernández PD. Socio-Ecological Impacts and Sustainable Transformation Pathways of Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon Region. Land. 2025; 14(9):1802. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091802

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Min, Fernando Romero Wimer, Mengnan Zhou, Marcos Jardim Pinheiro, and Paula Daniela Fernández. 2025. "Socio-Ecological Impacts and Sustainable Transformation Pathways of Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon Region" Land 14, no. 9: 1802. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091802

APA Style

Zhang, M., Wimer, F. R., Zhou, M., Pinheiro, M. J., & Fernández, P. D. (2025). Socio-Ecological Impacts and Sustainable Transformation Pathways of Soybean Cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon Region. Land, 14(9), 1802. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091802

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop