# Behind the Myth: Land Sparing and Deforestation in Brazil

Ludivine Eloy, Karina Y. M. Kato, Valdemar João Wesz Junior, Susanna Hecht

► To cite this version:

Ludivine Eloy, Karina Y. M. Kato, Valdemar João Wesz Junior, Susanna Hecht. Behind the Myth: Land Sparing and Deforestation in Brazil. Journal of Agrarian Change, 2025, 2025 (1), pp.e70045. 10.1111/joac.70045. halshs-05283860

HAL Id: halshs-05283860

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-05283860v1

Submitted on 16 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

# Behind the Myth: Land Sparing and Deforestation in Brazil

Ludivine Eloy¹ ID | Karina Y. M. Kato² ID | Valdemar João Wesz Junior³ | Susanna Hecht⁴

¹ART-Dev, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France | ²Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil | ³Federal University for Latin American Integration (UNILA), Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil | ⁴University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA

**Correspondence:** Ludivine Eloy (ludivine.loy@univ-montp3.fr)

**Received:** 10 October 2024

| **Revised:** 3 September 2025

| **Accepted:** 5 September 2025

**Funding:** This work was supported by ANR-23-CE55-0002 SOYLANDIA, AAPG2023; Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), 314676/2021-0; and Carlos Chagas Foundation Assistance to State Research in Rio de Janeiro, FAPERJ—E-26/201.409/2022.

**Keywords:** agricultural intensification | agrobusiness | Brazil | deforestation | land sparing

## ABSTRACT

The land sparing model, that is, the idea that agricultural intensification fosters environmental protection, lacks empirical validation. In Brazil, sustainable intensification through the conversion of degraded pastures into agricultural areas became a promising and widespread solution to deforestation. We investigate the mismatch between the land sparing discourse and the reality of productive and territorial strategies of large soybean producers in Brazil. We combined documental, fieldwork and secondary data from old (Mato Grosso), intermediate (Pará) and recent agricultural frontiers (Roraima). We argue that the land sparing narrative relies on a conceptual separation between modern agriculture and a land extensive 'backward agriculture' (on deforestation fronts). We show that many agroindustrial enterprises expand their activities from consolidated areas to agricultural frontiers, maintaining farms in both regions. For the agribusiness sector, maintaining the myth of sustainable ecological intensification is crucial to conceal its role in opening up new deforestation fronts across South America.

## 1 | Introduction

Transformations in the agrifood system are necessary to harmonize food security, commodity production and nutrition with environmental sustainability (Lamine 2015; Marsden et al. 2019; Reisman and Fairbairn 2020). A strongly promoted path is 'sustainable intensification' or the 'land sparing model' based on the 'Borlaug hypothesis' (higher productivity per hectare enables preservation of natural areas) (Goulart et al. 2023; Green et al. 2005). This narrative has been adopted by dominant actors in the global agri-food system, including transnational corporations, multilateral institutions (e.g., FAO, World Bank), NGOs, agribusiness lobbies and governments (Jiren et al. 2018; Pompeia 2023).

In a broader political ecology literature, other authors note that the deforestation dynamics in South America challenge the 'land

sparing' discourse. In many regions, soybean has been a driver for deforestation, both directly and through other types of land-use changes, essentially configuring the dynamics of the Jevons Paradox¹ (Oliveira and Hecht 2016). In Brazil—the world's largest exporter of soybeans, beef, corn and chicken (USDA 2023)—agricultural expansion persists alongside technological modernization, pushing land-use frontiers into the Amazon and Cerrado, and even beyond national borders (Blanc 2015; Wesz Junior 2022). These frontier dynamics are nonlinear, often occurring in jumps driven by land speculation, infrastructure and global demand (Flexor et al. 2024; Ioris 2017).

Although intensification through pasture conversion is presented as a solution for preventing deforestation, which is often backed by institutions like Embrapa,² there is no scientific consensus on its effectiveness (Angelsen and Kaimowitz 2001; Spera 2020; Hecht 2005; Pratzer et al. 2023; Rudel et al. 2009). In

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *Journal of Agrarian Change* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
<table><caption>TABLE 1 | Soybean expansion areas (samples).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Consolidated areas</th><th>Intermediate areas</th><th>Recent areas (deforestation fronts)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Poles</th><td>Sorriso</td><td>- Paragominas<br/>-Santarém</td><td>Alto Alegre</td></tr><tr><th>States</th><td>Mato Grosso</td><td>Pará</td><td>Roraima</td></tr><tr><th>Municipalities</th><td>Sorriso, Sinop and<br/>Lucas do Rio Verde</td><td>- Paragominas, Dom Eliseu and<br/>Ulianópolis—Santarém, Mojuí<br/>dos Campos and Belterra</td><td>Alto Alegre, Boa<br/>Vista and Bonfim</td></tr><tr><th>Starting of soybean<br/>expansion frontiers</th><td>1970s</td><td>Half of the 2000s</td><td>2013</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Authors' elaboration.

this narrative, the land sparing model would depend solely on the existence of an efficient land market and policies to encourage intensification (credit, technology) (Spera 2020). In many cases, increased productivity, rather than leading to forest preservation, fosters further expansion—by displacing cattle ranching to frontier areas. It occurs as a function of indirect land-use change, as increased productivity of intensified crop areas impels new crops, thus pushing livestock further into the frontier (Gasparrí and de Waroux 2015; Nunes et al. 2022). This ‘rebound effect’ contradicts land sparing narratives, especially when intensification and expansion occur simultaneously (Goulart et al. 2023).

In this paper, we ask: how can the ‘land sparing’ narrative, continuously promoted by agribusiness, persist despite increasing deforestation and newly emerging production frontiers? We argue that a broader analytical perspective—considering consolidated, intermediate and expanding regions—uncovers a dynamic interconnection between intensification and frontier expansion. This dynamic is illustrated by multisited farm networks, where family-held firms operate across distinct regions under unified management, combining productivity gains with territorial strategies for expansion. It reveals a mismatch between the land sparing discourse and the territorial strategies of soybean producers in Brazil.

We begin by outlining the study's methodology, then describing the four selected research sites (or 'poles'), highlighting the multiple forms of coupling between consolidated regions, intermediate zones and recent agricultural frontiers. Next, we turn to what we refer to as the 'land sparing myth,' emphasizing the disconnection between its dominant narratives and the actual deforestation dynamics in Brazil. We first explore the lack of consensus in the academic literature regarding land sparing. We then examine how this myth is reinforced in Brazil by influential institutions such as Embrapa, despite the lack of empirical evidence from the Amazon and the Cerrado regions. Next, we analyse how the narrative has been shaped around a dichotomy between 'good' agribusiness (modern and intensified) and 'bad' agribusiness (extensive and deforesting). Finally, we investigate the spatial and productive strategies of seven family-held firms that simultaneously operate farms in different poles, which were selected in our research, linking these strategies to the expansion of the agricultural frontier. As we will demonstrate, in practice, the supposed line between 'good' and 'bad' agribusiness is often blurred.

## 2 | Methods

In this article, we used a mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology. Literature review included both bibliographic sources and grey literature (mostly from government, NGOs, corporations and newspaper reports). It was conducted from January to December 2023, using keywords related to the research topic. We did secondary data analysis—mostly from public institutions—on deforestation, land use, soybean production, land prices, etc.³ Our research also draws on direct observation at different political spheres in Brazil. Between 2015 and 2022, authors participated in different events—both in person and online—that discussed topics related to deforestation, expansion of the agricultural frontier, soybean production, among others, organized by institutions representing agribusiness, NGOs, universities, government, etc. It allowed us to map the main positions of different actors that are relevant to our research theme.

Then, we used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data to identify productive and territorial practices of soybean producers and deforestation dynamics. We identified a group of municipalities, referred to as 'poles,' that share similar characteristics in terms of soybean and corn production dynamics, pastureland use and patterns of deforestation. The selected poles reflect the dynamics of agricultural frontiers that extend from Cerrado to the Amazonia. They were named according to their principal municipality (Table 1, Figure 1).

Our fieldwork⁴ was carried out between 2017 and 2022 in the four poles studied. Our sample prioritized a diversified set of actors involved with soybean production. We performed 64 interviews with rural producers (from different areas and of various scales), representatives of agricultural exporters (Cargill, Bunge, ADM, Dreyfus, COFCO, Sodrugestvo and others), public institutions (National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform—INCRA, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation—Embrapa, Brazilian Company of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension—Emater, Municipal Secretary of Economic Development, Municipal Secretary of Agriculture, Municipal Secretary of Environment), producers' associations (Association of Soybean Growers—Aprosoja, associations of large producers), social movements (association of smallholder farmers, Landless Workers' Movement—MST, Movement of
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 | Location of poles studied in Brazil. Source: (IBGE 2023). Authors' elaboration.</figcaption></figure>

People Affected by Dams—MAB), real estate, researchers and others.

The interviews' objectives were as follows: (i) to contextualize the dynamics of expansion of the agricultural frontier; (ii) to understand deforestation dynamics; (iii) to characterize soybean production in each region; (iv) to identify producers who operate simultaneously in more than one pole (multisited agriculture or farms). We also explored interviewers' personal trajectories. They were recorded, with authorization, transcribed and analysed.⁵

We identified seven families⁶ that maintain properties in at least two distinct poles simultaneously, all under unified family management (Table 1). Through cross-referencing various sources, we identified additional family-held firms⁷ beyond the seven analysed; however, they were excluded from the study due to insufficient information. For obvious reasons, we kept confidential the original name of the families. We selected only family-held firms that share production and property management under a single leadership structure (multisited farms).

To select the family-held firms, we:

1. Checked if they owned land (official land cadaster—System of Land Management—SIGEF⁸).

2. Verified whether family members were partners in shared enterprises, their location and in what sector they operate (through consulting public platforms with business data, such as Econodata).⁹

3. Requests from government agencies for environmental licences and authorizations for water use and deforestation. Whenever possible, we cross-referenced these with the rural environmental registry (CAR).

4. Mapped legal proceedings involving family members and their properties, especially in a database (from Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources—IBAMA) that registers environmental crimes.

5. Mapped the participation of family members and properties as beneficiaries of state public policies, such as the policy of minimum prices, credit and tax exemptions.

6. Mapped the inclusion of the property and responsible person in registries of purchasing, advertisements and communications of trader companies.

### 3 | Old and New Agricultural Frontiers

The historical trajectory of Brazil as a soybean producer is marked by different phases of agricultural frontiers movement. With ample State support (agricultural modernization, credit, logistic and research policies), soybean traveled from Southern Brazil to the Savannah region (Cerrado and the Amazon, in a process called 'tropicalization' (Heredia et al. 2010). The soybean boom started in Mato Grosso in the 1970s (Coy et al. 2017) and spread throughout the country (Wesz Junior et al. 2021).
Among the four regions surveyed, Sorriso Pole stands out, as clearly seen in Figure 2. Although soybean cultivated area grew substantially until 2004, in recent years there has been a trend of stability in that region simultaneously with increasing soybean production in the other poles (Figure 2). In Sorriso Pole, between 1985 and 2022, the forest area reduced from 75.6% to 30.8%, while cropland and pasture areas increased from 21.3% to 66.1%, as we can confirm by satellite images (Figure 3).

In Sorriso Pole, State of Mato Grosso,¹⁰ deforestation has slowed down since 2005. While the annual average of deforestation exceeded 40 thousand hectares between 1987 and 2004, now it is below 7000 hectares (Mapbiomas 2023). In such ‘consolidated areas’ agriculture intensification is evident, but, as we saw previously, it does not guarantee that producers will stop expanding their production. Soybean acreage has increased slightly since 2000, together with some diversification (growth of maize, livestock, soybean).

At the turn of the 2000s, with the commodities boom and the announcement of improvements in BR 163 highway, producers

from Mato Grosso migrated to the State of Pará (Leão 2017). Among the drivers for this change, there were public policies (federal and state), lower land prices and compatibility for grain production. In 2001, the agricultural land price was six times cheaper in the Paragominas Pole, State of Pará, compared with Sorriso, and half the price in the Santarém pole, also in Pará, where the land was more appreciated for being close to the port (Figure 4).

In Pará, the soybean boom of the early 2000s occurred mainly at the expense of pasture (Paragominas) and natural vegetation (particularly in Santarém) (Figures 5 and 6). Figure 4 shows that in the municipality of Sorriso (Sorriso pole), from 2004 onwards, land prices showed a significant drop, though increasing from 2010 to 2013. Paragominas saw a strong appreciation of its land, lasting until 2008. From the 2010s onwards, it was Santarém that saw strong land appreciation lasting until 2014. In Boa Vista (Alto Alegre pole), land prices increased constantly from 2010 onwards. This dynamic is also observed in other regions of Brazil, such as MATOPIBA, and in the international expansion of the Brazilian soy chain to Bolivia and Paraguay (Hecht 2005).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** | Soybeans area (hectares) in the selected poles (1990–2022). Source: (IBGE 2023). Authors’ elaboration.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** | Land use depicted in satellite images of Sorriso Pole (1985, 2002 and 2022). Source: (Mapbiomas 2023).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 4** | Land prices in selected municipalities of the poles (2000 and 2022, real values—2020). *Source:* HIS Markit. Authors' elaboration.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 5** | Land use depicted in satellite images of Paragominas Pole (2000 and 2022). *Source:* (Mapbiomas 2023).</figcaption></figure>

Finally, in the most recent frontier (Alto Alegre, State of Roraima), soybean crops are expanding in tandem with pasture. Land in Roraima is eight times cheaper than in Sorriso pole, four times cheaper than in Paragominas and three times cheaper than in Santarém (FNP 2021). For the next 5 years, a significant increase in land prices is expected (Eloy, Senra, et al. 2023). The formula seems to repeat itself: as land becomes more expensive and agriculture more competitive in consolidated areas, producers seek cheaper and greater opportunities in the frontiers, moving to another region progressively. As one of our interviewees said, Sorriso 'has reached its maximum, whoever wants to expand properties, has to move forward [to other regions]'.' They move on to forest areas or former pastureland (Table 2).

Analyzing the trajectory of each pole from a broader perspective allows us to identify the connection between consolidated areas, with highly modernized agriculture, and zones of agricultural frontier expansion—a process we refer to as *coupling*. In this article, we argue for the importance of developing methodologies that take multisited firms of soybean producers and their productive and territorial practices as a starting point. In the following section, we seek to demonstrate that there is no clear consensus in the scientific literature—particularly in studies focusing on major agricultural commodity-exporting countries such as Brazil—regarding the relationship between intensification and deforestation reduction (land sparing). We will then examine the dominant narratives that sustain the myth of land
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Source:(Mapbiomas, 2023)

<caption>**FIGURE 6** | Land use depicted in satellite images of Planalto Santareno Pole (2000 and 2022). Source: (Mapbiomas 2023).</caption>

<table><caption>**TABLE 2** | Land-use change (hectares and head of cattle) in the different poles—variation between 2000 and 2020.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Pole</th><th>Soybean</th><th>Corn</th><th>Pasture</th><th>Cattle herd</th><th>Deforestation<sup>1</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Consolidated</th><td>Sorriso</td><td>+444,422</td><td>+590,725</td><td>-83,862</td><td>+36,532</td><td>-32,537</td></tr><tr><th>Intermediate</th><td>Paragominas</td><td>+304,860</td><td>+6700</td><td>+7106</td><td>-81,399</td><td>-15,425</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Santarem</td><td>+74,950</td><td>+22,750</td><td>-83,862</td><td>+49,974</td><td>-5588</td></tr><tr><th>Recent</th><td>Alto Alegre</td><td>+48,000</td><td>+7250</td><td>+29,717</td><td>+926</td><td>+746</td></tr></tbody></table>

sparing in the Brazilian context, before moving on to a deeper analysis of the productive and territorial strategies employed by the soybean producers studied.

# 4 | Land Sparing: A Promising Solution?

## 4.1 | A Controversial Model in the Scientific Literature

Sustainable intensification¹¹ is defined by its goal: increasing agricultural yields while limiting the cultivated area (Cassman 1999). It can be understood as a modality of ‘ecological modernization’ a concept that remains widely deployed as a potential way for integrating economic growth and technical change (Forsyth 2003; Spaargaren and Mol 1992). Currently, this perspective has gained visibility through the idea of land sparing, which originated with Norman Borlaug (Green et al. 2005; Strassburg et al. 2017). It stresses that separated areas of sustainably intensified agriculture (monocultures with high productivity) would permit higher food yields without expanding agricultural land, thus sparing areas for environmental protection and restoration.

However, there is no consensus in the scientific literature on the land sparing theory applied to agriculture (Goulart et al. 2023). While some authors defend land sparing as a solution (Vieira Filho 2016), others say that agricultural intensification does not necessarily lead to a decrease in overall deforestation rates, due to a ‘spatial escape’ (leakage) to outside the original localities of intensification (Goulart et al. 2023; Oliveira and Hecht 2016).

Economic and spatial models show that agricultural intensification can spare land—potentially allowing for nature preservation—under very specific economic, political and institutional conditions (Meyfroidt et al. 2018; Spera 2020). It is expected mostly in high-income countries and in the short run, generally corresponding to situations of intensification induced by restrictions on cropland expansion. It also depends on the type of product (and its price elasticity): Wheat and rice tend to intensify without expanding the productive area, unlike other types of farming such as rubber and soybean.

Indeed, it is more common to observe a rebound effect, also known as Jevons' paradox, a form of spillover, where the adoption of intensifying practices stimulates land-use expansion

<footnote n="1">¹Data on the suppression of forests and native vegetation (Mapbiomas 2024).</footnote>

<footnote>Source: (IBGE 2023) and (Mapbiomas 2023). Authors' elaboration.</footnote>
(Angelsen and Kaimowitz 2001). The rebound effect is common in middle-income countries, which have export-oriented agriculture and great extensions of land available for cropland expansion (García et al. 2020). Higher agricultural profits push investors, directly or indirectly, to clear more forestland, expanding crops or displacing livestock. Indeed, intensification increases the profitability of agriculture, not to mention access to institutional rents like credit, infrastructure expansion and public research or speculative gains (Angelsen and Kaimowitz 2001; Fearnside 1987; Line Carpentier et al. 2000; Perfecto et al. 2009; Perz 2003). As a result, increasing yields are associated with land appreciation and higher deforestation rates, especially in Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean (Costa and Rocha 2022; Goulart et al. 2023; Oliveira and Hecht 2016).

Additionally, studies argue that, in a globalized agrifood system, environmental debates must consider the progressive coupling¹² between agricultural activities and/or geographic locations (Gasperri and de Waroux 2015). They emphasize that contemporary dynamics in global commodity chains indicate that the expansion of agricultural frontiers results from interconnected drivers that span multiple geographic regions and/or sectors. Therefore, the advance of agricultural frontiers cannot be fully understood by examining a single region or sector in isolation (Eloy et al. 2016; Oliveira and Hecht 2016). It creates new channels to fuel deforestation, relativizing the land sparing narrative and demanding approaches that consider these connections (Gasperri and de Waroux 2015). Indeed, an environmental conservation policy may trigger land-use change elsewhere, reducing the overall benefit of the local intervention. Even if land sparing conditions are met on a local and short-term scale, leakage must be taken into account on broader spatio-temporal scales (Meyfroidt et al. 2018).

Hence, the land sparing model might be a myth; in other words, an 'environmental orthodoxy' (Batterbury et al. 1997). Its persistence and diffusion in different arenas despite limited evidence may conceal other interests, notably maintaining a flow of investment towards industrial agriculture (rebranded as modern and 'sustainable'), while concealing its role in deforestation. That is why it is important to confront these discourses with the spatial practices of large-scale agricultural firms, considering broad spatial scales and taking Brazil as a reference.

## 4.2 | Intensification as Sustainable Modernization in Brazil

Since the 1990s, Embrapa¹³ promotes agricultural intensification and land use capability planning as a solution to deforestation. This approach ranges from cattle ranching modernization in the Amazon and the Pantanal¹⁴ to soybean production in the Amazon and the Savannah (Cerrado). Cattle ranching's intensification relies on new methods of grassland management: grass species selection, reduced grazing time, rotations, fencing, soil amendment and chemical fertilization (Laurent et al. 2017). For soybean cultivation, it corresponds mainly to the generalization of no-tillage cropping and genetically modified seeds, the use of short-cycle crops, intensive use of pre-emergent herbicides and

pesticides, fertilization coupled with mechanization and digitalization of technical operations.

These innovations enable double-cropping systems (corn, cotton, sorghum or millet after the soybean harvest) and soybean/pasture rotations (*integração lavoura-pecuaria-ILP*) (Arvor et al. 2014). The expansion of these agricultural systems has required significant investment and was accelerated during the period commonly referred to in Latin America as neo-extractivism, leading to a recent wave of land concentration and financialization in the 2000s (Oliveira and Hecht 2016; Kato and Leite 2020). In regions such as northern Mato Grosso and western Bahia, such innovations benefit the largest farms that can diversify crop and livestock production (fish farming, pig and chicken farming, etc.), spurred on by the installation of major agrifood corporate groups (Arvor et al. 2018; Wesz Junior 2022), the modernization of infrastructures (energy, transport) and the spread of large-scale irrigation (Eloy, Da Silva, et al. 2023).

Over the years, the narrative of intensification became the cornerstone of a claimed sustainable and responsible agriculture, in spite of its complex residue of toxins and larger regional ecological damage. The crop-livestock-forestry integration model ('integração lavoura-pecuaria-floresta') has been endorsed by Embrapa and Brazilian government by means of the 'Low Carbon Agriculture' plan (Gasperini and Gomes 2020). Growing soybeans on so-called 'degraded' land as an alternative to deforestation seems particularly relevant in Brazil, which has large areas of low pasture productivity. In the Cerrado this availability is estimated to be 33.4 million hectares (Carneiro Filho and Costa 2016).

The conversion of old pastures into soybean plantations (also called 'restoration of degraded areas') became an input-intensive 'solution' to curb deforestation recommended not only by agro-nomic research centers and representative bodies of the agro-industrial sector, but also by nongovernmental organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Imazon, IPAM etc.). For example, a number of environmental NGOs, as well as agrifood companies, have joined the 'Brazil Climate, Forests, and Agriculture Coalition' that in its document 'Vision of the Future of Brazil's Forests and Agriculture' predicts that, by 2050, 'low-carbon production systems will be adopted on a large scale [...]. Sustainable production practices will be the norm, such as intensification of production in degraded areas and widespread use of ILPF [integrated agriculture-livestock-forestry] and SAF [agroforestry systems] techniques' (Brazilian Coalition 2018, 17).

This enthusiasm for land sparing through 'restoration of degraded pastures' is, in fact, based on the results of an experiment carried out in Amazonia in the early 2000s.

## 4.3 | Land Sparing in the Amazon: A Question of Scale

Since the 1970s, the rise in agricultural commodity exports in Brazil has been going hand in hand with the increase in deforestation (Mapbiomas 2024). In the Amazon, deforestation results from the conversion of forests into pastures and, after,
into agricultural areas. Pressured by national and interna-
tional environmental concerns, the Brazilian government de-
cided to strengthen environmental policies (Fearnside 2005;
McKay 2017). With better environmental law enforcement in
the beginning of the 2000s, better monitoring systems and
the institutional development of the Brazilian Institute of
Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA),
deforestation declined in the Legal Amazon¹⁵ between 2004
and 2012, mostly in Mato Grosso and eastern Pará (Nepstad
et al. 2014). In these regions, largely deforested since the 1970s,
soybean expansion relied mostly on the conversion of pasture-
land into agricultural land (Macedo et al. 2012; Oliveira and
Hecht 2016; Schielein and Börner 2018), inducing a period of
decoupling between agricultural production and deforestation
(Arvor et al. 2017).

After that, agribusiness representatives and their scientific partners (notably Embrapa) have insisted on the convergence between agricultural intensification and the drop in the rate of deforestation in the Amazon (Gazzoni et al. 2019). In a press release by the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove) in 2018,¹⁶ its president stated, ‘*The [soybean] sector has undergone a rapid evolution in land use, based on research and technological development. Increasing plantation areas without impacting natural vegetation is fundamental for Brazil to remain the world’s leading producer and exporter of sustainable soybeans*’ (ABIOVE 2018). Technological solutions build an image of a ‘sustainable’ agribusiness and legitimize the expansion of production areas.

However, the temporary reduction in deforestation was mainly in Amazon fringes, as a result of a combination of good environmental governance,¹⁷ monitoring systems and private agreements for a ‘sustainable soybean,’ as well as a decline in global prices¹⁸ (Oliveira and Hecht 2016; Strassburg et al. 2014). This political and institutional context favourable to land sparing (‘land sparing policy’) in Amazonian fringes has contributed to agribusiness consolidation at the expense of smallholders (Thaler 2017). Indeed, during this period of more intense protection in Amazonia, deforestation shifted to many areas outside Brazil, including Bolivia and Argentina, as well as to the Brazilian Cerrado, where legal environmental protection is less stringent (Eloy et al. 2016; Oliveira and Hecht 2016).

Beyond this leakage to the Cerrado, the limits of sustainable in-
tensification to curb deforestation appeared more clearly in the
Amazon since the dismantling of environmental policies (Eloy,
Da Silva, et al. 2023; Sabourin et al. 2020) that started with the
reform of the forestry code in 2012.¹⁹ Since 2012/13, deforesta-
tion in Brazilian Amazon became ‘the old normal’ (Carvalho
et al. 2019). Until 2024, the Amazon lost 55.3 million hectares
of native vegetation (14%), mostly forests. Between 1985 and
2023, pastures increased by more than 363%, while croplands
grew by 4647%. In the last 5 years alone (2019 to 2023), eight mil-
lion hectares of native vegetation were lost in Brazil, six million
hectares out of which were in the Amazon, especially in Mato
Grosso and Pará.

The debate around decoupling production from deforestation
in the Amazon (through pastureland conversion into soybean

plantation) suggests that the land sparing model depends on
the spatio-temporal scale, being geographically circumscribed
and contingent on economic, political and institutional factors.
From 2012 onwards, in the face of persistent and accelerating
deforestation—an undeniable reality in both the Amazon and
the Cerrado—the myth of land sparing has increasingly relied
on a discourse of spatial and social disconnection between soy-
bean production and deforestation. This narrative has been con-
tinuously reshaped into a simplified image of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’
agribusiness.

## 4.4 | The Divide Between the ‘Good’ and the ‘Bad’ Agribusiness

In response to Brazilian society's growing environmental concerns, the agribusiness sector reinforced the land sparing narrative, stressing the conceptual separation between a 'good' farming (with modern, legalized and intensive practices in consolidated zones) and a 'bad' farming (performing extensive practices on deforestation fronts). This narrative associates the latter with small farmer holdings (more 'traditional' cultivation and livestock). As an example, in 2019, the director of the think tank *Instituto Pensar Agricultura* stressed that deforestation was due to 'extensive,' 'low-performance farming.' For him, this behaviour does no longer correspond to the essence of the Brazilian agricultural sector, which today consists of 'modern' farms in compliance with environmental laws.²⁰

The same narrative that associates productivity and sustainabil-
ity has been reinforced by soybean producers in Brazil, as we
can see in the Aprosoja Mato Grosso advertisement (Figure 7),
which states that the ‘ideal’ of agriculture is to produce, pre-
serve, and prosper.

Less capitalized farmers (small farms) are held responsible for deforestation, both by representatives of the agro-industrial sector and by some scholars: ‘*These adaptations* [agricultural intensification] *are more difficult for family farmers, who have few alternatives to slash-and-burn cultivation, the use of fire to clear pastures, and do not have the equipment or inputs that would enable a transition*’ (Laurent et al. 2017, 18).

The discourse about the spatial and social disconnection between intensive ('modern') agricultural production and deforestation has gained momentum in the context of the critical increase in wildfires in the Cerrado, Pantanal and Amazon since 2019 (Eloy et al. 2019; Schmidt and Eloy 2020). Wildfires reached gigantic proportions in 2024 (30.9 million hectares burned, equivalent to the territory of Italy²¹). The Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock Confederation (CNA), the main entity representing farmers in Brazil, together with the Agriculture and Livestock Federation of Mato Grosso (Famato), attribute the fires fundamentally to nonproductive areas, irregular properties and agrarian reform settlements.

According to the figures, while regularized productive
properties, which represent 53.6% of the monitored
territory, recorded only 0.9 hotspots per 100km²,
non-productive areas and irregular properties, which
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 7** | Institutional advertising of the Brazilian Association of Soybean Growers of Mato Grosso (Aprosoja Mato Grosso) on the occasion of the celebration of Brazil's Republic Day. Source: APROSOJA (2022).</figcaption></figure>

occupy 23.4% of the territory, had a rate of 10.6 hotspots per 100 km², that is, more than 10 times the amount recorded in regularized areas. Even more alarming is the data that points to settlement project areas, which represent only 0.3% of the monitored territory, but have a rate of 7.47 hotspots per 100 km². These numbers reflect the commitment of rural producers to environmental preservation and sustainability, demonstrating that, where there is management and regulation, fire control is more effective

(CNA 2024, 1).

Burned areas were mostly covered with native vegetation (3/4 of the total) (Mapbiomas 2025), some located in indigenous territories.²² Based on this, CNA concludes that those figures result from their 'care and responsibility in land management and compliance with environmental standards' (CNA 2024, 1). However, looking more carefully, we notice that large rural producers were the segment with the larger share in total burned areas (2.8 million ha) (Alencar et al. 2024). There was also a large increase in fires in public forests, the main target of land grabbing in the Amazon. The dry weather had an important role, but analysts show that fires were provoked mostly by human action (Mapbiomas 2025). Indeed, fire functions as a traditional land management for both small and large holdings. In the Amazon, large producers traditionally use fire to 'clean their areas' and to circumvent environmental legislation (Mapbiomas 2025). It raises suspicion that the fires are related to the expansion of agriculture or the speculative frontier.

The narrative of the 'good' or 'responsible' agribusiness is not restricted to the private sector or scientific institutions; it is disseminated even in sectors that sustain more critical perspectives. President Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, in 2023, during his first ministerial meeting, reinforced the alliance with 'good' agribusiness. Fávaro, the Ministry of Agriculture, is a major soybean producer from Mato Grosso. According to Lula²³:

> 'I am very pleased when I see someone from agribusiness serving as Minister of Agriculture, like our colleague [Carlos] Fávaro. I believe Fávaro represents the kind of perspective we need—one that shows it is possible for serious people, responsible businesspeople in agribusiness, those who understand the importance of food production in this country, to operate without needing to invade or harm the Amazon rainforest or any other biome that must be protected. This entrepreneur who produces responsibly will be greatly respected and well-treated by us. But, those who insist on continuing to disrespect the law, invading what cannot be invaded, using pesticides that cannot be used, they will experience the force of the law, we will demand the law enforcement, because in this country we can do everything, the only thing that is not allowed is criminal actions by those who think they can disrespect Brazilian society, our Constitution and our legislation. (...)'

In this narrative, deforestation is a consequence of both insufficient capital and law enforcement. Thus, by defining agriculture through a dual paradigm, the Brazilian agribusiness and the government can deplore the persistence of deforestation (an undeniable fact), while eluding part of their responsibility. This narrative fosters the spatial and social disconnection between soybean production and deforestation, what contributes to the maintenance of the myth of land sparing. To explore the gap between discourse and practice, the following sections will examine the spatial and productive strategies of seven family-held firms that own properties in two or more of the poles selected by our research, and will relate these strategies to the advancement of the agricultural frontier. We will thus see that, in many situations, the 'good' and the 'evil' are the same one.

## 5 | 'Here and Also There': MultiSited Firms and the Frontier's Movement

We selected seven family-held firms that operate in the consolidated areas (Sorriso Pole) and, simultaneously, in regions where the frontier is being expanded (Table 3 and Figure 8). These are typically large-scale enterprises in which capital ownership and management are controlled by a family, operating through multiple production units located in various regions. The size of the lands held by these families ranges from 1500 to 16,500 ha (average 6531 ha), most of which are destined for soybean cultivation. The total amount held by each family is divided into different property titles in the name of different family members
<table><caption>TABLE 3 | Summary table of the selected families.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Families</th><th rowspan="2">Origin</th><th rowspan="2">Mato Grosso (MT)</th><th rowspan="2">Parago- Minas (PA)</th><th rowspan="2">Planalto Santareno (PA)</th><th rowspan="2">Alto Alegre (RR)</th><th colspan="2">Ties between different poles</th><th colspan="3">Family members' representative positions</th></tr><tr><th>Shared enterprises</th><th>Same familiar enterprise</th><th>Political position</th><th>Sectorial organization</th><th>Producers Association</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Family 1</td><td>From Paraná to Sorriso in the mid-1970s.</td><td>2 properties in Sorriso</td><td>3 properties in Paragominas</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Family 2</td><td>From Rio Grande do Sul to Lucas do Rio Verde in the 1970s.</td><td>2 properties in Sorriso</td><td></td><td>20 properties: 8 in Mojui dos Campos; 9 in Santarém and 3 in Belterra.</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Family 3</td><td>From Rio Grande do Sul to Sinop in 1977.</td><td>6 properties in Sorriso</td><td></td><td>*</td><td>2 properties in Cantá</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Family 4</td><td>From Paraná to Campos de Julio in Mato Grosso in the 1970s.</td><td>1 property in Vila Rica*</td><td></td><td></td><td>4 properties: 3 in Alto Alegre; 1 in Boa Vista.</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Family 5</td><td>From Paraná to Nova Mutum in Mato Grosso in 1986.</td><td>4 properties in Lucas do Rio Verde*</td><td></td><td>4 properties in Mojui dos Campos/ Belterra</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Family 6</td><td>Moved to Nova Mutum in 1979.</td><td>12 properties: 9 in Nova Mutum and 3 in São José do Rio Claro</td><td></td><td>6 properties: 5 in Mojui dos Campos and 1 in Santarém.</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Family 7</td><td>From Santa Catarina to Mato Grosso in 1985, and to Roraima in 2013</td><td>14 properties in Diamantino</td><td></td><td>13 properties em Alto Alegre e Bomfim</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*Another part of the family has a lot of properties there, but we could not find evidence that they manage the company together. Elaborated by the authors.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 8** | Multisited soybean farming in Brazil (7 family-held firms). Elaborated by the authors.</figcaption></figure>

(between 5 and 27 per family). These properties are located both in more consolidated areas and in areas where the agricultural frontier is advancing, between the Cerrado and the Amazon (Table 3). All properties are jointly managed as a family-owned business.

All those families migrated in the 1970s from the South of Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná and Santa Catarina) to Mato Grosso, either on their own resources or through the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA)'s colonization projects. Four families played an important role in the construction of municipalities, being part of official documents in local museums and giving a lot of interviews (they are called pioneers).

These family's heads expand their businesses to include their sons, daughters and even grandchildren, mixing business interests with personal and familial motivations. We found different situations: sons and daughters who have direct participation in the family business and properties, some who graduate in strategic areas (environmental and land law, agronomy, engineering forestry, economics, etc.) and some that invest the money earned with agricultural production in urban services (architecture, real state, beauty, car dealerships, etc.). In the 2000s (or earlier), all these families decided to buy land and operate in agricultural frontiers (Paragominas Pole, Santarém and Alto Alegre Poles). They still maintain operations in Mato Grosso.

These family-held firms invest in technology in Mato Grosso, but they also convert their profits into land in frontier areas. Several informants told us that they purchased 'open' lands (already deforested, with degraded pastures) or that they deforested the areas legally (by up to 20% of the property in case of the Amazon, as allowed by Brazilian law).

It comes as no surprise that a quick online search in IBAMA's website shows that, between 2000 and 2024, all the families were involved in environmental crimes, especially illegal deforestation and, to a lesser extent, fires. Our findings are limited and underestimated, as the database is often out of date (since older processes are not digitalized and others are incomplete). The disrespect for environmental legislation was accentuated in the last years of Bolsonaro's government, with the dismantling of environmental legislation (Santos et al. 2023). We identified at least 15 environmental embargoes and 6 fines issued against properties owned by these families, with more than 80% occurring between 2023 and 2024. They occurred mainly in the Paragominas, Santarém and Alto Alegre poles, but also in the Sorriso pole (IBAMA 2025).

However, in the interviews, these producers adopt a completely opposite narrative, referring to themselves as 'consolidated,' 'sustainable,' 'concerned with the environment,' 'committed to nature,' strengthening the previous idea of 'good' rural producers:
Here [in the Santarém pole] there is a lot of pressure on environmental issues. The most common ones here are NGOs; we have 176 NGOs here. [...]. We use state-of-the-art machinery, the soil is covered, and we have conservation areas. We did our part!

One of our problems is the environment. People keep accusing us, saying that agribusiness is this and that, but the reality is different. For example, Cargill here would not buy soybeans if they came from deforested land. The first [Soybean Moratorium], before the national one, began here in Santarém.

Soybean has no environmental impact, on the contrary, it improves, because it does not use fire, and the springs are better preserved

[Roraima] 04/09/2018].

Although these producers emphasize that they preserve nature, attributing the environmental burden to small and less modernized producers, our research reinforces that the reality is much more complex and contradictory. Probably there are families that continue to invest exclusively in consolidated areas or that decide to leave (and sell their land) looking for new opportunities in new areas. But the trajectories of the seven families analyzed here allows us to conclude that the association of the frontier only with decapitalized farms and 'traditional agriculture' does not correspond to reality either.

The multisited farming and the information collected indicate a connection between these families and (both direct and indirect) deforestation in regions where the agricultural frontier is moving. Such multisited firms set the agricultural frontier in motion not only from a productive and economic point of view, but also from a political stance. Five out of the seven families hold or have held important positions representing producers and agricultural interests. Three families have members who are or were part of the local producers association, another three are or were part of the board of Aprosoja's state affiliate association, and three hold or have held (or ran for) elective positions in government (as councilperson or deputy). In this sense, multisited firms work from local/regional to national contexts in the process of concertation and strengthening the political power of agribusiness in Brazil, as described by Pompeia (2020).

Despite our small sample size, our results are supported by previous works showing that multilocality is an increasingly common feature of large-scale agricultural firms in South America (Gasparri and de Waroux 2015; Gomes 2020; Guibert et al. 2011; Wesz 2016). Multilocality results from the processes of financialization and increasing concentration of production that have played a fundamental role in the recent territorial expansion of agribusiness: companies grow by buying other smaller companies located in different places according to profit opportunities (Flexor and Leite 2017; Oliveira and Hecht 2016; Sauer and Borras 2018). We can cite the example of Radar, a company that owns and manages around 500,000 ha, spread over more than 600 rural properties (in the states of São Paulo, Goiás, Piauí, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Maranhão, Minas Gerais,

Tocantins and Bahia), whose assets were transferred to a North American financial corporation (TIAA, 2017 apud Gomes 2020).

Multilocality results also from major technical and management transformations in soybean agriculture in South America: flexible farming practices can obscure accountability by allowing producers to shift operations between regions, sectors, or legal entities to avoid environmental sanctions (Cheshire et al. 2013; Ofstehage 2018). At the same time, from a broad perspective, these flexible practices are creating new 'couplings' between sectors and/or geographical regions (Gasparri and de Waroux 2015).

More research is needed to understand the spatial patterns and implications of multisited agribusiness in South America. Indeed, several reasons could explain this multilocal strategy and its linkage to land-use changes: 1) the possibility to participate in decision making regarding different public policies (environmental and land policies) that favour smaller areas; 2) strategies to access financing and credit more easily and in greater amounts (using different properties as collateral for loans) and 3) attempts to keep land in the sons and daughters' names so as to avoid taxes.

## 6 | Final Remarks

In the context of climate change and intense environmental degradation in rural areas, the way we produce food and raw materials gains preeminence. Although the perspectives of multifunctional landscapes (focused on more diversified and territorialized production systems) and the land sharing²⁴ model have gained relative salience in Brazil, the land sparing narrative predominates. For this perspective, the existence of highly productive areas with intensive agriculture can increase food production without expanding agricultural land.

The paper shows that, in view of rising deforestation rates in many regions over the last years, especially in the Amazon and Cerrado, this narrative acquired new features, as the conceptual separation between a 'good' agribusiness (modern and intensive) and a 'bad' agriculture (extensive practices and traditional farming). The problem of deforestation, then, has been progressively reduced to a technological and legalization issue: sustainable agriculture becomes synonymous with modernized agribusiness and technology-intensive farming. This narrative gives both support and legitimacy to the advancement of agribusiness in Brazil and other countries in South America.

We showed that the multisited nature of this type of agriculture conceals different and contradictory dynamics and productive/territorial (coupling) strategies of soybean producers in Brazil. It helps us understand the persistence of the myth of land sparing despite unceasing deforestation. Indeed, agricultural firms located in consolidated areas of agricultural production, such as Sorriso Pole, that sustain consecutive productivity records, simultaneously expanded their operations to new areas in the agricultural frontiers (creating multiple 'couplings'). In their business strategies, they combine investment in intensive agriculture with the incorporation of new areas. They move to pasturelands or native forest areas, conforming to 'multisited' firms that maintain simultaneous
operations in consolidated areas (as Sorriso Pole) and in areas where the agricultural frontiers are still advancing (poles such as Paragominas, Santarém and Alto Alegre). As a result, the same families who call themselves consolidated and sustainable producers operate also as drivers to the opening of new agricultural frontiers.

Farming intensification and the continuous incorporation of new lands into agricultural production are part of the same process of consolidation and expansion of a multisited agriculture. Our findings challenge the simplistic (and easy) interpretation that associates the solution to deforestation with more technology and capital. Deforestation dynamics are complex, involving multiple socioeconomic, environmental and political factors that are not limited to technology or the size of the property. Understanding this is crucial to devise transition paths and more efficient instruments to build a sustainable agrifood system.

Our results also help question governmental plans and programs that associate tackling the environmental problem with intensification, which end up favouring a certain type of agriculture (intensified and mechanized with extensive externalities) and producers (the large and more capitalized ones).

More research is needed to understand the dynamics and (economic, environmental, political and social) implications of multisited agriculture. It implies examining the connections between different farms (through distinct production and ownership relations) located in different regions but managed within the same family. To deepen our understanding, however, we must resort to multidisciplinary research and innovative methodologies that challenge us to reflect on the complexity of the territories, the contemporary dynamics of land use and the practices of stakeholders.

## Acknowledgements

We thank all our interlocutors who collaborated with this study and their institutional partners, especially during fieldwork. This work has been carried out within the framework of the ANR-23-CE55-0002 SOYLANDIA project supported by the French National Research Agency. It was also supported by CNRS through its *International Emerging Actions Project*. We also thank the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-314676/2021-0) and Carlos Chagas Foundation Assistance to State Research in Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ-E-26/201.409/2022). The Article Processing Charge for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614).

## Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available in IBGE at https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-e-pecuaria/21814-2017-censo-agropecuario.html?. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: - Censo Agropecuario, https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-e-pecuaria/21814-2017-censo-agropecuario.html?

## Endnotes

¹ The Jevons paradox refers to the idea that increased efficiency in resource use can lead to increased resource consumption, instead of reducing it. Originally, it was applied to coal (Stanley 1865).

² Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation is a state-owned research corporation that focuses on the generation of knowledge and technology for Brazilian agriculture.

³ We collected secondary data at the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics—IBGE, MapBiomas, Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), etc.

⁴ The second and third authors participated of the fieldwork in Santarém pole, 1 week in November 2017 and Sorriso Pole, 1 week in October 2022. The second author did fieldwork in Paragominas, 1 week in December 2019. The first author did fieldwork in Alto Alegre (Roraima) in august 2018. Fieldworks were not carried out specifically for this paper. However, all projects dealt with themes analogous to this paper's subject, namely, understanding the dynamics, actors and institutions involved in the expansion of soybean in the territory.

⁵ All interviews were relevant to understand the dynamics involved in the frontier's expansion. However, for the purposes of this article, we used mainly interviews with producers and documents on the subject.

⁶ Family, here, includes first and second degrees: father, mother and sons/daughters (wives/husbands); brothers, grandfathers/grandmothers. To characterize 'family-held firms,' we paid close attention to identifying family members and their respective properties that shared the same administration. Large agricultural corporations were not included in this analysis, although they also play a central role in the formation of multisite farm networks.

⁷ All families were influential in local society and in agribusiness institutions, being mentioned in newspapers and institutional reports. We surveyed the amount of land acquired by these families in public records and the companies in their names, but we did not use this data because it proved to be imprecise and, in many cases, underestimated. The land and capital data declared are almost always altered in accordance with business and tax strategies and/or split up among different family members.

⁸ The SIGEF was created in 2013 by INCRA and the Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA). It is a certificating system for georeference of public and private rural properties. SNCR is the main registry, created in 1972: administered by INCRA, and contains the general characteristics of public and private properties for agricultural, extractive or agro-industrial purposes. SIGEF contains more up-to-date information than the SNCR, but the latter has a larger base of properties.

⁹ It is important to note that in Brazil, soybean producers typically belong to large families who share the same surname and are spread across different states. However, they do not always work together or manage a single company collectively. To better understand these dynamics, we conducted a series of cross-referencing experiments to identify cases where family members collaborate in the operation and management of one or more farms.

¹⁰ From 1985 to 2023, one of the states with the highest deforestation rates (Mapbiomas 2024).

¹¹ The term ecological intensification in the agroecological literature refers to environmentally sustainable farming practices, rather than high-input agriculture (Altieri 1996).

¹² According to Gasparri and de Waroux (2015), in South America, the growing diversification and internationalization of agricultural commodity chains is creating new linkages across production frontiers (between different poles, as an example) and sectors (between soy and cattle), what they call geographical and sectoral coupling frontiers. Coupling stresses the existence of actors that take coordinated and linked initiatives and decisions over land in multiple production sectors and/or locations (Gasparri and de Waroux 2015).

¹³ Embrapa is a state-owned research corporation created in 1973. It was one of the main pillars of agricultural modernization in Brazil and its research was fundamental to allow the tropicalization of soybean.
## References

ABIOVE. 2018. Soja não é vetor importante de desmatamento no cerrado, diz estudo. Abiove. https://abiove.org.br/imprensa/soja-nao-e-vetor-importante-de-desmatamento-no-cerrado-diz-estudo/.

ABIOVE, and AGROSATÉLITE. 2021. Análise geoespacial da expansão da soja no bioma Cerrado: 2000/01 a 2020/21. W5 Publicidade. https://abiove.org.br/publicacoes/analise-geoespacial-da-expansao-da-sojano-bioma-cerrado/.

Alencar A., L. F. Martenexen, J. Gomes, D. Morton, and P. Brando. 2024. “Amazônia em chamas: Entendendo a relação entre o fogo e desmatamento em 2023” https://ipam.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Amazonia-em-Chamas-12_v01.pdf.

Altieri, M. A. 1996. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Second ed. CRC Press.

Angelsen, A., and D. Kaimowitz. 2001. Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. CABI Publishing/CIFOR.

APROSOJA (@aprosojabr). 2022. Produzir preservar prosperar: essa é a bandeira do nosso agro. Instagram. [15 November 2022]. Accessed April 12, 2025. https://www.instagram.com/p/Ck-8dkarUzF/?hl=en.

Arvor, D., M. Daugeard, I. Tritsch, N. A. De Mello-Thery, H. Thery, and V. Dubreuil. 2018. “Combining Socioeconomic Development With Environmental Governance in the Brazilian Amazon: The Mato Grosso

Agricultural Frontier at a Tipping Point.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 20, no. 1: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1066 8-016-9889-1.

Arvor, D., V. Dubreuil, J. Ronchail, M. Simões, and B. M. Funatsu. 2014. “Spatial Patterns of Rainfall Regimes Related to Levels of Double Cropping Agriculture Systems in Mato Grosso (Brazil).” International Journal of Climatology 34, no. 8: 2622–2633. https://doi.org/10.1002/ joc.3863.

Arvor, D., I. Tritsch, C. Barcellos, J. Nicolas, and V. Dubreuil. 2017. “Land Use Sustainability on the South-Eastern Amazon Agricultural Frontier: Recent Progress and the Challenges Ahead.” Applied Geography 80: 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.02.003.

Batterbury, S., T. Forsyth, and K. Thomson. 1997. “Environmental Transformations in Developing Countries: Hybrid Research and Democratic Policy.” Geographical Journal 163, no. 2: 126–132.

Blanc, J. 2015. “Enclaves of Inequality: Brasiguaios and the Transformation of the Brazil-Paraguay Borderlands.” Journal of Peasant Studies 42, no. 1: 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150. 2014.967685.

Brazilian Coalition. 2018. “2030-2050 Vision: The Future of Forests and Agriculture in Brazil” https://coalizaobr.com.br/wp-content/uploa ds/2023/05/2030-2050-The-Future-of-Forests-and-Agriculture-in- Brazil.pdf.

Carneiro Filho, A., and K. Costa. 2016. A expansão da Soja no Cerrado. Caminhos Para a ocupação Territorial, uso Do Solo e produção sustentável. Agroicone. https://www.agroicone.com.br/wp-content/ uploads/2019/12/Expansao-soja-Cerrado.pdf.

Carvalho, W. D., K. Mustin, R. R. Hilário, I. M. Vasconcelos, V. Eilers, and P. M. Fearnside. 2019. “Deforestation Control in the Brazilian Amazon: A Conservation Struggle Being Lost as Agreements and Regulations Are Subverted and Bypassed.” Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 17: 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019. 06.002.

Cassman, K. G. 1999. “Ecological Intensification of Cereal Production Systems: Yield Potential, Soil Quality, and Precision Agriculture.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96, no. 11: 5952–5959. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.11.5952.

Cheshire, L., C. Meurk, and M. Woods. 2013. “Decoupling Farm, Farming and Place: Recombinant Attachments of Globally Engaged Family Farmers.” Journal of Rural Studies 30: 64–74. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jrurstud.2012.11.005.

CNA. 2024. Áreas produtivas regularizadas mostram menor incidência de focos de calor, aponta Inpe. CNA. https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/notic ias/areas-produtivas-regularizadas-mostram-menor-incidencia-de- focos-de-calor-aponta-inpe.

Costa, L. d. A. N. d., and R. C. B. d. Rocha. 2022. “Não basta ser “tech”: o choque de produtividade da soja transgênica no desmatamento e usos do solo do Brasil.” In Prêmio BNDES pelo Clima, edited by BNDES, 5–64. BNDES.

Coy, M., M. Klingler, and G. Kohlhepp. 2017. “De frontier até pós- frontier: regiões pioneiras no Brasil dentro do processo de transfor- mação espaço-temporal e sócio-ecológico.” Confins 30: 1–30. https://doi. org/10.4000/confins.11683.

Eloy, L., C. Aubertin, F. Toni, S. L. B. Lúcio, and M. Bosgiraud. 2016. “On the Margins of soy Farms: Traditional Populations and Selective Environmental Policies in the Brazilian Cerrado.” Journal of Peasant Studies 43, no. 2: 494–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2015. 1013099.

Eloy, L., A. L. Da Silva, O. Coelho Filho, and S. Ghiotti. 2023. “The Water Frontier: Agribusiness vs. Smallholder Communities in the Brazilian Cerrado.” Water Alternatives 16, no. 3: 869–891. https:// www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol16/v16is sue3/725-a16-3-9.

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ ‘With technological intensification and consequent improvement of pasture sustainability, the productivity of cattle ranching in the Amazon can be doubled or tripled [...] a considerable amount of already degraded pasture can be recovered for forest restoration and biomass accumulation’ (Serrão and Homma 1993, 319–320).</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Legal Amazon corresponds to the Amazon recognized in Brazilian laws. The term ‘legal’ distinguish the Amazon defined by law from the biome and the hydrographic basin, as well as the International Amazon. It covers seven states: Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima, Tocantins, Mato Grosso and Maranhão.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ This document is based on a study commissioned by Abiove in partnership with The Nature Conservancy—TNC and developed by Agrosatelite (ABIOVE and AGROSATÉLITE 2021).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Mainly through the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm).</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ The Soybean Moratorium is a trade agreement supported by both environmental and agribusinesses organizations that consist of a commitment not to purchase soybeans from deforested areas in the Amazon biome after 24 July 2006. It has been renewed indefinitely.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ The new code caused controversy, being accused of relaxing some environmental rules, especially in relation to the protection of permanent preservation areas (e.g., river banks) and conservation areas (reservas legais), in order to harmonize agriculture with nature.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Speech at the “Agenda Ambiental Brasileira” a roundtable organized by the Rede de Ação Política pela Sustentabilidade—RAPS, bringing together Brazilian parliamentarians and agribusiness representatives, in Brasília.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ According to Fire Monitor, elaborated by Mapbiomas, the Amazon was the most affected biome (Mapbiomas 2025).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² “[...] possibly caused by external fires and arson, related to the intensification of illegal activities and invasions, or, in some cases, by fires that got out of control in these territories” (Alencar et al. 2024, 5).</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Speech given at the first ministerial meeting of President Lula's third presidency, on 6 January 2023 (Poder 360 2023).</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Refers to the farming strategy of prioritizing biodiversity and diversification, instead of intensification and monocultures. It is the opposite strategy regarding land sparing (Perfecto et al. 2009).</footnote>
Eloy, L., S. B. Hecht, A. Steward, and J. Mistry. 2019. "Firing Up: Policy, Politics and Polemics Under New and Old Burning Regimes." *Geographical Journal* 185, no. 1: 2-9.

Eloy, L., E. Senra, A. L. Da Silva, and C. Campos. 2023. *A aceleração recente da produção de soja na Amazônia: uma história do desmonte ambiental “em prática” no estado de Roraima*. Nuevo Mundo, Mundos Nuevos, [en ligne]. https://doi.org/10.4000/nuevomundo.93688.

Fearnside, P. M. 1987. "Rethinking Continuous Cultivation in Amazonia." *Bioscience* 37, no. 3: 209-214.

Fearnside, P. M. 2005. "Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, Rates, and Consequences." *Conservation Biology* 19, no. 3: 680-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00697.x.

Flexor, G., K. Y. Kato, and S. P. Leite. 2024. "Agri-Food Globalization and Food Security in Brazil: Recent Trends and Contradictions." *Journal of Peasant Studies* 51, no. 4: 1022-1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2023.2259807.

Flexor, G., and S. P. Leite. 2017. "Land Market and Land Grabbing in Brazil During the Commodity Boom of the 2000s." *Contexto int.* 39, no. 2: 393-420.

FNP. 2021. *Preços de Terras (R$/ha)*. FNP.

Forsyth, T. 2003. *Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science*. Routledge.

García, V., F. Gaspart, T. Kastner, and P. Meyfroidt. 2020. "Agricultural Intensification and Land Use Change: Assessing Country-Level Induced Intensification, Land Sparing and Rebound Effect." *Environmental Research Letters* 15: 085007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8b14.

Gasparri, N. I., and Y. I. P. de Waroux. 2015. "The Coupling of South American Soybean and Cattle Production Frontiers: New Challenges for Conservation Policy and Land Change Science." *Conservation Letters* 8, no. 4: 290-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12121.

Gasperini, M. M., and M. F. Gomes. 2020. "A integração lavoura-pecuária como alternativa para o desenvolvimento sustentável no agro-negócio." *Conpedi Law Review* 6, no. 1: 1-18.

Gazzoni D. L. Cattelan A. J. Nogueira M. A. 2019. "O aumento da produção brasileira de soja representa uma ameaça para a floresta amazônica?" 30 https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicações/-/publicacao/11119/15-o-aumento-da-produção-brasileira-de-soja-representa-uma-ameaca-para-a-floresta-amazonica.

Gomes, C. M. P. 2020. *Um “novo mercado global de terras no Brasil”: land grabbing e “última fronteira agrícola” – MATOPIBA*. (Tese (Doutorado em Ciências Sociais em Desenvolvimento, Agricultura e Sociedade)). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro.

Goulart, F. F., M. J. Chappell, F. Mertens, and B. Soares-Filho. 2023. "Sparing or Expanding? The Effects of Agricultural Yields on Farm Expansion and Deforestation in the Tropics." *Biodiversity and Conservation* 32: 1089-1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02540-4.

Green, R. E., S. J. Cornell, J. P. W. Scharlemann, and A. Balmford. 2005. "Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature." *Science* 307, no. 5709: 550-555. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049.

Guibert, M., S. Grosso, M. E. Bellini, and P. Arbeletche. 2011. "De Argentina a Uruguay: espacios y actores en una nueva lógica de producción agrícola." *Pampa* 1, no. 7: 13-38. https://doi.org/10.14409/pampa.v117_sup.3202.

Hecht, S. B. 2005. "Soybeans, Development and Conservation on the Amazon Frontier." *Development and Change* 36: 375-404.

Heredia, B., M. Palmeira, and S. P. Leite. 2010. "Sociedade e Economia do "Agronegócio" no Brasil." *Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais* 25: 159-176.

IBAMA. 2025. *Consulta de autuações ambientais e embargos*. IBAMA. https://servicos.ibama.gov.br/ctf/publico/areasembargadas/.

IBGE. 2023. *Banco de dados agregados*. IBGE. http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br.

Ioris, A. 2017. *Agribusiness and the Neoliberal Food System in Brazil: Frontiers and Fissures of Agro-Neoliberalism*. Routledge.

Jiren, T. S., I. Dorresteijn, J. Schultner, and J. Fischer. 2018. "The Governance of Land Use Strategies: Institutional and Social Dimensions of Land Sparing and Land Sharing." *Conservation Letters* 11, no. 3: e12429. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12429.

Kato, K., and S. P. Leite. 2020. "Land grabbing, financeirização da agribicultura e mercado de terras: velhas e novas dimensões da questão agrária no Brasil." *Revista da Anpege* 16, no. 29: 452-483.

Lamine, C. 2015. "Sustainability and Resilience in Agrifood Systems: Reconnecting Agriculture, Food and the Environment." *Sociologia Ruralis* 55, no. 1: 41-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12061.

Laurent, F., D. Arvor, M. Daugeard, et al. 2017. "Le tournant environnemental en Amazonie: ampleur et limites du découplage entre production et déforestation." *Echogeo* 41: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.15035.

Leão, S. A. V. 2017. *Agronegócio da soja e dinâmicas regionais no Oeste do Pará*. (Tese de Doutorado). CPDA/UFRRJ.

Line Carpentier, C., S. A. Vosti, and J. Witcover. 2000. "Intensified Production Systems on Western Brazilian Amazon Settlement Farms: Could They Save the Forest?" *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment* 82, no. 1: 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00217-6.

Macedo, M. N., R. S. DeFries, D. C. Morton, C. M. Stickler, G. L. Galford, and Y. E. Shimabukuro. 2012. "Decoupling of Deforestation and Soy Production in the Southern Amazon During the Late 2000s." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 109, no. 4: 1341-1346. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111374109.

Mapbiomas. 2023. *Plataforma MapBiomas uso e cobertura do solo*. Mapbiomas. https://plataforma.brasil.mapbiomas.org/.

Mapbiomas. 2024. *Mapeamento anual de cobertura e uso da terra na Amazônia (1985 a 2023)*. Mapbiomas. https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/08/Fact_Colecao-9_21.08-OK.pdf.

Mapbiomas. 2025. *Área queimada no Brasil cresce 79% em 2024 e supera os 30 milhões de hectares*. Mapbiomas. https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/2025/01/22/area-queimada-no-brasil-cresce-79-em-2024-e-supera-os-30-milhoes-de-hectares/#:~:text=Área%20queimada%20no%20Brasil%20cresc,os%2030%20milh%C3%B5es%20de%20hec%20ares&text=Mais%20de%2030%2C%20milh%C3%B5es,Monitor%20do%20Fogo%2C%20do%20MapBiomas.

Marsden, T., A. Moragues Faus, and R. Sonnino. 2019. "Reproducing Vulnerabilities in Agri-Food Systems: Tracing the Links Between Governance, Financialization, and Vulnerability in Europe Post 2007-2008." *Journal of Agrarian Change* 19, no. 1: 82-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12267.

McKay, B. M. 2017. "Agrarian Extractivism in Bolivia." *World Development* 97: 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.007.

Meyfroidt, P., R. Roy Chowdhury, A. de Bremond, et al. 2018. "Middle-Range Theories of Land System Change." *Global Environmental Change* 53: 52-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.006.

Nepstad, D., D. McGrath, C. Stickler, et al. 2014. "Slowing Amazon Deforestation Through Public Policy and Interventions in Beef and Soy Supply Chains." *Science* 344, no. 6188: 1118-1123. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248525.

Nunes, C. A., E. Berenguer, F. França, et al. 2022. "Linking Land-Use and Land-Cover Transitions to Their Ecological Impact in the Amazon." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 119, no. 27: e2202310119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202310119.

Ofstehage, A. 2018. "Farming out of Place: Transnational Family Farmers, Flexible Farming, and the Rupture of Rural Life in Bahia,
Brazil.” *American Ethnologist* 45, no. 3: 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/amtet.12667.

Oliveira, G., and S. B. Hecht. 2016. "Sacred Groves, Sacrifice Zones and Soy Production: Globalization, Intensification and Neo-Nature in South America." *Journal of Peasant Studies* 43, no. 2: 251–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1146705.

Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, and A. Wright. 2009. *Nature's Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty*, 1–242. Routledge. P. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849770132.

Perz, S. 2003. "Social Determinants and Land Use Correlates of Agricultural Technology Adoption in a Forest Frontier: A Case Study in the Brazilian Amazon." *Human Ecology* 31, no. 1: 133–165. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022838325166.

Poder 360. 2023. Leia o discurso de Lula na 1a Reunião ministerial do governo. Poder 360. 06 de janeiro de 2023. https://www.poder360.com.br/governo/leia-o-discurso-de-lula-na-1a-reuniao-ministerial-do-governo/.

Pompeia, C. 2020. "Concertação e poder: o agronegócio como fenômeno político no Brasil." *Revista Brasileira De Ciências Sociais* 35, no. 104: 1–17.

Pompeia, C. 2023. "As cinco faces do agronegócio: mudanças climáticas e territórios indígenas." *Revista de Antropologia* 66: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.11606/1678-9857.ra.2022.202839.

Pratzer, M., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, P. Meyfroidt, et al. 2023. "Agricultural Intensification, Indigenous Stewardship and Land Sparing in Tropical Dry Forests." *Nature Sustainability* 6, no. 6: 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01073-0.

Reisman, E., and M. Fairbairn. 2020. "Agri-Food Systems and the Anthropocene." *Annals of the American Association of Geographers* 111, no. 3: 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1828025.

Rudel, T. K., L. Schneider, M. Uriarte, et al. 2009. "Agricultural Intensification and Changes in Cultivated Areas, 1970–2005." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 106, no. 49: 20675–20680. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812540106.

Sabourin, E., C. Grisa, P. Niederle, et al. 2020. "Le démentèlement des politiques publiques rurales et environnementales au Brésil." *Cahiers Agricultures* 29: 31. https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2020029.

Santos, L. R., G. J. S. Neves, J. D. O. Silva, and P. M. S. Rodrigues. 2023. *A política ambiental no Brasil: impactos do Governo Bolsonaro*. Científica Digital.

Sauer, S., and S. Borras Jr. 2018. ""Land grabbing" and "Green grabbing": Uma leitura da "corrida na produção acadêmica" sobre a apropriação global de terras." *Revista Campo-Território* 11, no. 23: 06–42.

Schielein, J., and J. Börner. 2018. "Recent Transformations of Land-Use and Land-Cover Dynamics Across Different Deforestation Frontiers in the Brazilian Amazon." *Land Use Policy* 76: 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.052.

Schmidt, I. B., and L. Eloy. 2020. "Fire Regime in the Brazilian Savanna: Recent Changes, Policy and Management." *Flora* 268: 151613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2020.151613.

Serrão, E. A. S., and A. K. O. Homma. 1993. "Brazil." In *Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics*, edited by N. R. Council, 265–351. National Academy Press.

Spaargaren, G., and A. P. J. Mol. 1992. "Sociology, Environment, and Modernity: Ecological Modernization as a Theory of Social Change." *Society & Natural Resources* 5, no. 4: 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929209380797.

Spera, S. 2020. "Agricultural Intensification Can Preserve the Brazilian Cerrado: Applying Lessons From Mato Grosso and Goiás to Brazil's

Last Agricultural Frontier." *Tropical Conservation Science* 10, no. 1: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917720662.

Stanley, W. 1865. *The Coal Question; an Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines*. 1st ed. Macmillan & Co.

Strassburg, B., T. Brooks, R. Feltran-Barbieri, et al. 2017. "Moment of Truth for the Cerrado Hotspot." *Nature Ecology & Evolution* 1, no. 4: 0099.

Strassburg, B., A. Latawiec, L. Barioni, et al. 2014. "When Enough Should Be Enough: Improving the Use of Current Agricultural Lands Could Meet Production Demands and Spare Natural Habitats in Brazil." *Global Environmental Change* 28: 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.001.

Thaler, G. 2017. "The Land Sparing Complex: Environmental Governance, Agricultural Intensification, and State Building in the Brazilian Amazon." *Annals of the Association of American Geographers* 107: 1424–1443. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1309966.

USDA. 2023. *Data and Statistics*. USDA. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/.

Vieira Filho, J. E. 2016. *Expansão da fronteira agrícola no Brasil: desafios e perspectivas*. IPEA.

Wesz Junior, V. J. 2022. "Transformações e características da cadeia produtiva da soja em Mato Grosso (Brasil)." *Redes* 27, no. 1: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.17058/redes.v27i1.16725.

Wesz Junior, V. J., K. Kato, A. R. Leão, S. A. Leão, and M. d. S. B. d. Lima. 2021. "Dinâmicas recentes do agronegócio no Oeste do Pará (Brasil): expansão da soja e estruturação de corredores logísticos." *Mundo Agrario* 22, no. 50: e174. https://doi.org/10.24215/15155994e174.

Wesz, V. J., Jr. 2016. "Strategies and Hybrid Dynamics of Soy Transnational Companies in the Southern Cone." *Journal of Peasant Studies* 43, no. 2: 286–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2015.1129496.