#00034
Across tropical forest nations, most clearing is illegal and tied to cattle, soy/palm, land-grabbing, and mining. It is profitable, remote, hard to police, and weakly enforced when political will lapses — progress is real but reversible.
As clear-cutting slows, fire and forest degradation (selective logging, edge thinning) have become dominant drivers of forest loss — often the majority of primary-forest loss in a given year. Standard metrics that only count >70% canopy loss miss them, so a forest can be hollowe…
Brazil's biggest lesson: gains are reversible on a political timescale. The same laws and satellites coexisted with an ~80% cut, a ~60% surge, and a halving again — the swing came from executive will (defunding/gagging the agency, freezing the fund). Institutions can be hollowed…
Enforcement reaches the act of clearing but not the economics behind it. Illegal miners and smallholders often clear because it's their only livelihood, so crackdowns without alternatives just push activity underground and create hardship. Without positive incentives to keep for…
Protecting one biome or commodity can just displace clearing to the next one. The Amazon Soy Moratorium shielded rainforest but pushed soy/pasture into the less-protected, highly biodiverse Cerrado savanna — now often the hardest-hit biome. Savannas and dry forests get less prot…
Cattle ranching is the top driver of Amazon clearing, and cattle are uniquely hard to govern: animals raised on illegally cleared land are "laundered" through clean intermediary ranches before sale, defeating supply-chain checks that only verify the direct supplier. The gap is i…