Anna Júlia Lopes*
Launched in 2023 during COP28, GALO (Global Assessment from Local Observations) is already delivering results that highlight the importance of forests for the continuation of agricultural production. In an interview with Um Grau e Meio, researcher André Andrade, who works directly on the project, discusses its main findings and explains why similar initiatives will be increasingly necessary in the coming years.
Subscribe to receive the free Um Grau e Meio newsletter in your inbox every other Monday.
A biologist, Andrade has been a researcher at IPAM (Amazon Environmental Research Institute) since 2022. He holds a PhD in Ecology and Evolution from UFG (Federal University of Goiás), with experience in data analysis and statistical modeling focused on climate zones and biodiversity.
GALO was launched in 2023 during COP28 to investigate the relationship between agriculture and natural vegetation preservation in the Amazon and Cerrado, understand the impacts on local climate conditions, and how these factors relate to agricultural production stability. So far, with COP30 approaching, has the initiative made any progress? What are the main findings?
Since GALO was launched, we’ve achieved some very interesting results. I think one of the main findings is the importance of keeping forests standing. What we’ve seen is that having forest areas surrounding agricultural properties is extremely beneficial for productivity. These surrounding forests enhance ecosystem services provided by biodiversity, such as pollination and pest control, by increasing the diversity of many groups found in these fragments—beetles, bees, ants, birds, for example. There’s also a microclimate effect: surface temperatures are lower, water cycles are more active, and evapotranspiration is greater. GALO has made significant progress along these lines, and I think the key message is that standing forest is essential for agriculture.
Has the project reached any conclusions about the relationship between climate and crop yield?
Yes, the project has reached some conclusions regarding the relationship between climate and crop yield. We’re still refining our models, and one of the initiatives we recently launched was the Climate Risk Calculator, developed mainly by IPAM researcher Bianca Rebelatto. She has found a number of environmental factors that affect productivity. One of the main ones is VPD (Vapor Pressure Deficit), which is related to air dryness. When the VPD is high—that is, when the air is dry and arid—during the early stages of planting, productivity suffers at the end of the season because soybeans—our main focus—cannot grow properly. In addition, Rebelatto has also found a negative impact from the number of days without rainfall, i.e., extended drought periods. When the rainy season starts later, it also has a significant negative effect on soybean productivity.
These results are based on a data set shared with us by some producers in the Matopiba region. They build on earlier findings from Ludmila Rattis, IPAM researcher and GALO coordinator, back in 2021. We’re seeing productivity declines, and if we look back at 2021, we see a process of de-intensification—meaning the increasing air dryness and longer dry periods are reducing productivity. This decline affects producers’ ability to plant both a main crop and a second crop, which is a crucial part of Brazil’s agricultural calendar and economy. This dual-crop system is now at risk due to climate conditions, especially since our agriculture is primarily rainfed and thus highly dependent on stable and predictable weather.
If climate affects agricultural production, how come we’ve had record harvests in recent years despite high levels of deforestation?
Well, yes and no. We are having a record harvest now, in 2024/2025, largely because weather conditions are very favorable—we’re in a weak La Niña year, which has brought well-regulated rainfall. Also, this record harvest is due to an expansion in planted area. There was an increase of 1.7 million hectares compared to last season, so when you plant more, it’s expected that you’ll harvest more.
However, in the previous season, 2023/2024, there was a major crop failure. We had severe losses, mainly due to climate conditions linked to El Niño. The dry season lasted longer; it rained too little in some regions and too much in others. So, while this year was a record, last year was a disaster.
Furthermore, much of the ability to maintain record yields is due to intensive management. Producers are able to maintain very high soybean yields in regions like Western Bahia, for example. But it’s a region highly dependent on irrigation and intensive practices. While this helps sustain high productivity, we have to question how long this can last. We can somewhat buffer against poor weather through management—irrigation, applying fertilizers and chemicals, correcting soil deficiencies, controlling water availability—but how sustainable is this kind of agriculture in the long run? That’s something we must consider. These intensively managed systems, especially those reliant on irrigation, aren’t feasible at large scale indefinitely.
What have been the main research challenges throughout this process?
GALO is a large and ambitious project in terms of what it aims to understand and study. It seeks to explore the effects and interconnections of four main pillars: carbon, water, biodiversity, and climate—and how different agricultural practices affect these pillars. There are also two cross-cutting themes: regeneration—how it can be an ally—and the economic aspect, which is about bringing economic value to the findings from GALO.
For me, the biggest challenge has been telling this whole story—the story of these interconnections—but it’s a really exciting challenge. I’m a biologist, so I know a bit about biodiversity and climate, but I didn’t know much about water cycles and carbon. I’ve learned a lot by working with others and making connections across our pillars. It’s been a very enriching exchange. The hardest part has been trying to assimilate it all, but I think it’s working. GALO is moving forward, and I believe we’ll have some really great results in 2025 across almost all areas.
Have you noticed openness from the agricultural sector to the data and insights that GALO is generating? What has the dialogue with farmers and agribusiness stakeholders been like?
I’ve seen a very positive and encouraging openness. Some producers have already shared data with us and asked us to analyze it for them. Overall, I see a strong, genuine interest from farmers. In this sense, we’re succeeding in growing within a sector that used to be difficult to engage with. Being in the field, learning from and valuing their day-to-day work, and building together—this is key. GALO is all about collaborative development, and because of that, we’ve had a very warm reception from the agricultural sector.
How do you see these data contributing to public policy development?
That was actually the focus of our last workshop at the end of last year. We brought together GALO researchers, the Woodwell Climate Research Center, federal universities and other institutes; representatives from the agricultural sector, like farmers; and people focused on public policy, both from IPAM and external organizations. It was a rich exchange and brainstorm on how to connect science with public policies—like the Safra Plan and various funding mechanisms. We began mapping areas where we could contribute to policy discussions. It’s still a work in progress, of course, but we’re already seeing clear, actionable paths for GALO’s findings to help shape public policies.
Have other studies tried to examine the relationship between conservation and agricultural productivity? If so, what makes GALO different?
Yes, there are other studies that have looked into the link between conservation and agricultural productivity. For instance, there’s a strong research group in Brazil that studies deforestation’s impact on climate. Regarding biodiversity, there are many studies on ecosystem services—especially pollination—and how they improve yields. We have research on soybeans, cotton, tomatoes, coffee, peppers, and more.
There’s a lot out there on how conservation indirectly affects agricultural productivity. But what sets GALO apart is the integrated approach. Another key factor is that GALO works directly and closely with farmers. That’s essential for real change—we’re collaborating with the people who are actually doing the work. In academia, we often remain distant from local stakeholders or political bodies. But with GALO, since we’re working directly with producers, we have a stronger path toward influencing policy and bringing knowledge to make agriculture more sustainable. We’re doing our part to improve the food production system, and I believe the way forward is truly through collaboration with the people who are growing our food.
Brazil is an agro-environmental powerhouse, and projects like GALO seem to point to ways of balancing productivity with conservation. Do you think this model could be replicated in other countries or biomes?
I think projects like GALO will become increasingly necessary. First, because we’re clearly seeing that climate is changing. Every year breaks new heat records, and the rainfall cycle is becoming unpredictable. This isn’t just happening in Brazil—and this kind of agricultural system isn’t exclusive to Brazil.
Brazil is indeed an agricultural powerhouse, in part because we can have two cropping seasons. There’s been major investment in technology and management. But what we’re starting to see is that, in some years, the math doesn’t add up. Producers invest a lot, and then an unexpected dry spell hits, or climate conditions worsen, or a pest outbreak occurs.
We’re seeing some weaknesses in the production model. But we can address them more economically and sustainably—simply by increasing the amount of surrounding forest. I believe we’ll increasingly need nature-based solutions, because they are low-cost, long-lasting, and sustainable. Even with massive technological and financial resources, there are limits. For example, last year—an El Niño year with severe crop failure—no management strategy could fully prevent losses.
In areas with more forest cover, it’s possible to create more pleasant and moderate climate conditions, and that can make all the difference. Coping with climate challenges will become a global concern, and it’s up to us to decide what kind of development we want. We could implement massive irrigation systems, giving us more control over production, but that would also bring other problems—water crises, falling river levels, and conflicts. These aren’t viable long-term solutions. We have to increasingly think about more sustainable production systems, and this is a global issue—not just limited to Brazil’s agricultural frontier, where GALO operates. It will apply to all tropical countries going forward.
*IPAM journalist, anna.rodrigues@ipam.org.br