Amazon Deforestation Policies Found To Leave Forest Degradation Largely Unchecked

by Sophie Jenkins
London, UK (SPX) Apr 28, 2026
Policies that have driven significant reductions in deforestation across the Brazilian Amazon over the past two decades have largely failed to address forest degradation - a slower, less visible, and potentially more dangerous form of forest destruction - according to a new study led by the University of Cambridge.

The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. An international research team examined four major deforestation policies across three Brazilian states and found no conclusive evidence that any of them reduced forest degradation caused by fires, illegal logging, or habitat fragmentation.

Unlike deforestation, where whole areas of forest are cleared for farming, industry, or infrastructure, a degraded forest retains standing trees while losing most of its ecological function. Fire damage, illegal logging, fragmentation, drought, and over-hunting strip the forest floor of shade and moisture, converting it into a tinderbox. "There's still a forest there, but it's so damaged that the carbon it once stored starts leaking, the animals have disappeared, and new grass species colonise the forest edges," said lead author Federico Cammelli from Cambridge's Department of Geography and the Conservation Research Institute.

Cammelli noted that tropical forest fires are typically low-intensity, with flames often remaining undetected beneath the canopy. After one or two years, however, trees die while still standing, and the forest transforms into what he described as "a cemetery of dead standing trees."

Earlier research found that between 2001 and 2018, net carbon emissions from forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon were comparable to or even higher than those from deforestation itself. Projections suggest that by 2050, degradation could affect the entire Brazilian Amazon, yet it has barely featured in the policies designed to protect the region.

Brazil has made genuine progress on deforestation. The first phase of the government's Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon, launched in the mid-2000s, reduced tree clearing by an estimated 60 to 80 percent. Private sector agreements - including a moratorium on soybeans sourced from deforested land and commitments by major meat packers not to purchase cattle from newly cleared areas - also contributed to the region's record.

However, the new research found that these same policies did not reduce degradation. While some degradation does slow when deforestation slows - because forests suffer less from so-called edge effects where cleared areas border intact woodland - the researchers found no evidence that supply chain policies such as the soy moratorium or cattle agreements tackled the primary drivers of anthropogenic degradation.

In one case the findings suggest a counterproductive dynamic. The G4 cattle agreement, signed by Brazil's four biggest meat packers, appeared to be linked to an increase in timber extraction, possibly because as cattle ranching became more regulated, some operators shifted into the less-regulated logging sector.

The human cost of these policy gaps is felt on the ground. Antonio, a firefighter who has worked inside the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve - one of the most biodiverse areas on Earth - since 2019, described 2024 as the most extreme fire year he had witnessed. "I had never seen anything like it. The forest burned like dry pasture - it was frightening for those of us who risk our lives to protect it," he said. Antonio also noted that dry seasons are growing longer each year, forests more fragile, and rains increasingly violent, washing out bridges and blocking roads.

Cammelli said political will is essential. A 2023 update to Brazilian environmental policy included forest degradation among the criteria for directing environmental law enforcement toward municipalities with poor environmental records, alongside existing requirements to reduce deforestation. He called for further action on the timber sector, which remains poorly regulated, and on fire management, noting that fires frequently spread across multiple land holdings, creating complex questions of legal liability best addressed at a landscape scale.

The researchers are also calling on the European Union to broaden its approach. The EU Deforestation Regulation, which bans imports of products linked to forest destruction, defines degradation too narrowly and largely overlooks fire damage and fragmentation caused by soybean and beef production. The team found no publicly documented examples of companies operating in the Brazilian Amazon that had set concrete targets specifically addressing forest degradation.

"Avoiding deforestation and degradation is so much more important for climate and nature than restoring what's already gone," said senior author Professor Rachael Garrett, also from Cambridge's Department of Geography and Conservation Research Institute. "There are certain things you can't get back."

The research was supported in part by the European Union and the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Research Report:Deforestation-focused policies do not reduce degradation in the Brazilian Amazon