The rotten apples of Brazil's agribusiness
Abstract
In the increasingly polarized international political arena, it has become difficult to find common ground to solve Brazil's ongoing environmental crisis, which has global as well as local implications. International buyers of Brazil's agricultural commodities have raised concerns about products that are contaminated by deforestation (i.e., deforestation occurred during the process of producing the product) (text S12). European Union (EU) criticism of the Brazilian government bolsters demands to boycott Brazilian products and to withhold ratification of the trade agreement reached in 2019 between the EU and Mercosur, the South American trade bloc. Among the concerns is that increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation and forest fires in Brazil could cancel out EU climate change mitigation efforts. The Brazilian government and agribusiness contend that national laws ensure high conservation standards, and hence trading bans should not include legally authorized deforestation (1). Here, we address the interlinkage between illegal deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado—the largest Brazilian biomes with the highest rates of deforestation—and EU imports of Brazil's soy and beef, the country's major agricultural commodities (table S9). Although most of Brazil's agricultural output is deforestation-free, we find that 2% of properties in the Amazon and Cerrado are responsible for 62% of all potentially illegal deforestation and that roughly 20% of soy exports and at least 17% of beef exports from both biomes to the EU may be contaminated with illegal deforestation. Raising awareness is important to press Brazil to conserve its environmental assets and to promote international political will for cutting telecoupled GHG emissions. This could be achieved, for example, through the environmental safeguards of the Mercosur-EU trade agreement, which require EU imports to comply with the export country's legislation.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Already a Subscriber?Sign In
Supplementary Material
File (aba6646_rajao_sm.pdf)
References and Notes
1
B. Soares-Filho et al., Science 344, 363 (2014).
2
J. Karstensen, G. Peters, R. Andrew, Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024005 (2013).
3
W. Carvalho et al., Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 17, 122 (2019).
4
J. Alix-Garcia, H. Gibbs, Glob. Environ. Change 47, 201 (2017).
5
F. Gollnow, L. Hissa, P. Rufin, T. Lakes, Land Use Policy 78, 377 (2018).
6
Sistema Nacional de Cadastro Ambiental Rural, www.car.gov.br/publico/imoveis/index.
7
J. Strand et al., Nat. Sustain. 1, 657 (2018).
8
D. Rother et al., Trop. Conserv. Sci. 11, 10.1177/1940082918785076 (2018).
9
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, AgroStat—Estatisticas de Comércio Exterior do Agronegócio Brasileiro [Foreign Trade Statistics of Brazilian Agribusiness] (2020); http://indicadores.agricultura.gov.br/agrostat/index.htm.
10
B. Soares-Filho et al., PLOS ONE 11, e0152311 (2016).
11
Sustainable Trade Initiative, National Committee of the Netherlands, European Soy Monitor, (IDH and IUCN NL, 2019); www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2019/04/European-Soy-Monitor.pdf.
12
L. Jun, “We can feed the world in a sustainable way, but we need to act now” (World Economic Forum, 2019); www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/we-can-feed-the-world-in-a-sustainable-way-but-we-need-to-act-now/.
13
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Prodes Project—Deforestation Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazon Rainforest and Cerrado Biome by Satellite (2019); www.terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/app/dashboard/deforestation.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Science
Volume 369 • Issue 6501 • 17 July 2020
Pages: 246 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © 2020, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.
RE: An unsustainable and dangerous path to the Brazilian Amazonia
In this study, the authors argue that 2% of all rural properties in the Amazonia and Cerrado are responsible for 62% of all illegal deforestation in these biomes, and at least 17% of the meat exportations for the European Union originated from illegal deforestation. After acknowledging the study, the Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, declared that Europe is an "environmental sect", and that the current Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, Ricardo Salles will not be exonerated unless it is his will (2). The ministry is known for its controversial actions regarding environmental conservation, which was explicit in a meeting between Bolsonaro and his ministers in April 2020 (3). In this meeting, Salles described his intentions of taking advantage of the pandemic to approve a plethora of regulatory decrees, executive orders, and proposed laws to weaken environmental protections (3).
Bolsonaro disrespect for the environment, especially the Amazonia, can lead to severe consequences to the country, considering that this is the more extensive tropical forest in the world and thus has a fundamental role in the world's water cycle, ecosystem services, and climate system (4). Economically, the pressure over the Brazilian government has been intense since 29 investors with assets in the order of US$ 4.5 trillion threaten stop investing in the country if the government does not take any measurement to avoid the illegal deforestation in Amazonia (5). Besides, the parliament of the Netherlands and Austria already rejected the Mercosur - Europe Union commercial agreement due to deforestation. This agreement could add US$ 125 billion to the Brazilian Gross Domestic Product by 2034 (6).
Actions from the Brazilian federal government should go towards decreasing illegal deforestation in Amazonia. However, current perspectives pointed to a dangerous and unsustainable pathway. Thus, besides acknowledging the shared environmental responsibility between the country and its international partners, as punctuated by Rajão et al. (1), international investors and big banks interested in Brazilian products must demand concrete actions on environmental conservation from the Brazilian federal government.
References and Notes:
1. R. Rajão, B. Soares-Filho, F. Nunes, J. Börner, L. Machado, D. Assis, A. Oliveira, L. Pinto, V. Ribeiro, L. Rausch, H. Gibbs, D. Figueria, The rotten apples of Brazil's agribusiness. 369, 246–248 (2020).
2. F. Murakawa, Bolsonaro rebate estudo da Science e afirma que Europa é seita Ambiental. Valor Econômico (2020), (available at https://valor.globo.com/agronegocios/noticia/2020/07/16/jornal-valor-bol...).
3. Youtube, VÍDEO COMPLETO: A reunião de Bolsonaro com ministros em 22 de abril (2020; https://bit.ly/2Y5ROCg).
4. L. M. Diele-Viegas, C. F. D. Rocha, Why releasing mining on Amazonian indigenous lands and the advance of agrobusiness is extremely harmful for the mitigation of world's climate change? Comment on Pereira et al. (Environmental Science & Policy 100 (2019) 8–12). Environmental Science & Policy. 103, 30–31 (2019).
5. T. Phillips, Trillion-dollar investors warn Brazil over "dismantling" of environmental policies. (2020), (available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/23/trillion-dollar-inve...).
6. Agência Estado, Holanda rejeita acordo entre Mercosul e União Europeia citando questão ambiental. Infomoney (2020), (available at https://bit.ly/2YeIxI9).
RE: Global benefits provided by the Amazonian forest deserve international actions
Given its irreplaceable role in the carbon and water cycles, the Amazon biome plays a crucial stabilizing role for global climate. As pointed by Rajão et al. (1) important agricultural imports to EU are the results of illegally deforestation. Such fact points the responsibility of countries doing business with Brazil to adopt measures that will incite Brazilian government into stricter protection of this biome, as it is in their best interest to minimize potential adverse effects on climate. So far, the Brazilian environmental policies to protect the Amazon have only broken down, which may one reason for its reluctance to accept the measures adopted at the 25th edition of the United Nations Conference on Climate (2).
While widespread forest fires and continuous records of deforestation have gained notoriety recently, these detrimental outcomes are only projected to continue (3,4). The alliance established between the federal government and agribusiness, which facilitates bad practices in the Amazon region, appears the driving factor regulating this region (5). To remedy this situation, international initiatives have been put forth. For example, Germany and Norway interrupted their support to the Amazon Fund (6) and the Netherlands called for a boycott on Brazilian agri-food products. A bolder, but necessary attempt has been proposed by Kehoe et al. (7), which urged the European Union to obligate Brazil to undertake environmental reforms if trading is to continue.
In view of the current Brazilian political context that threatens global climate, greater number of nations ought to pressure the federal government to adopt environmentally-responsible policies. To this end, boycotting Brazilian imports until presenting environmental reforms that will result, in both short and long term conservation gain for the Amazon should be sought. Standing, the Amazonian forest provides benefits to all nations, despite being managed by shortsighted few.
References
Rajão, R., Soares-Filho, B., Nunes, F., Börner, J., Machado, L., Assis, D., ... & Gibbs, H. (2020). The rotten apples of Brazil's agribusiness. Science, 369(6501), 246-248.
Cop-25: Brasil tenta bloquear acordo, mas discussões terminam em compromisso por metas mais rigorosas. BBC News Brasil (2019): https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-50800984.
Número de queimadas na Amazônia em 2019 é o maior desde 2010, diz INPE. Jornal Nacional | G1 (2019): https://g1.globo.com/jornal-nacional/noticia/2019/08/23/numero-de-queima....
Brando, P. M.; Soares-Filho, B.; Rodrigues, L.; Assunção, A.; Morton, D.; Tuchschneider, D.; ... & Coe, M. T. (2020). The gathering firestorm in southern Amazonia. Science advances, 6(2), eaay1632.
Pereira, E. J. D. A. L.; Ferreira, P. J. S.; de Santana Ribeiro, L. C.; Carvalho, T. S.; de Barros Pereira, H. B. (2019). Policy in Brazil (2016–2019) threaten conservation of the Amazon rainforest. Environmental Science & Policy, 100, 8-12.
Norway halts Amazon fund donation in dispute with Brazil. The Guardian (2019): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-d....
Kehoe, L.; Reis, T.; Virah-Sawny, M., & 604 signatories (2019). Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable. Science 364, (2019), pp. 341-342.
Current Brazilian economic views are at odd with human welfare
Rojão et al. [1] paints a vivid picture that underscores the Brazilian government's carelessness to enforce the laws established to protect large and increasingly threatened biomes, namely the Amazon and Cerrado. The current Brazilian government is blatantly neglecting human lives with an economic policy of growth at any costs in these biomes [2]. Although the rhetoric that commercial exploitation of natural resources may lift populations out of poverty from added value and redistribution of accrued benefits, few Brazilians have profited from this view. The low and middle classes have largely been left out of the economic bounty, which is currently associated with aggressive resource extraction [2].
Former Brazilians finance ministers and directors of the Brazilian central bank have called for a sustainable post-pandemic recovery in economic growth [3]. Analyses have provided evidence that economic growth is possible in municipalities of the Amazon without sacrificing areas of natural habitat [4]. Preserving tracts of natural areas is highly valued by several economic sectors including ecotourism and sustainable extractivism/forestry; an approach that can benefit local inhabitants far more than the business-as-usual slash and burn. In these regions, such sustainable measures may be the only viable way to provide a more equitable distribution of benefits in the foreseeable future.
The conflicts generated between demands for economic growth against necessities to conserving these large Brazilian biomes exist because of the current economic dogmas, that short-term returns based direct extractivism is the Brazilian way. Existing technologies may enhance productivity in cultivated areas, and be used convert degraded areas into pastures. This approach has shaped the development of Brazilian agriculture of the last century [5]. Urgently, Brazilian needs are for public safety, health and education. These will never be attained by the economic views that strip of their value these large Brazilian biomes.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
R.Rajão et al., Science, 369, 246-248 (2020).
K.Roth, "Brazil events of 2019," Word Report 2020 (2020); https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/brazil
A.A.Tombini et al. "Carta ex ministros," Convergência pelo Brasil (2020); https://convergenciapelobrasil.org.br/leia-a-carta-na-integra/
É.E.Kauano et al., Land Use Policy, 92, 104473 (2020).
J.E.R.Vieira-Filho, A.Fishlow, "Agricultura e indústria no Brasil: inovação e competitividade," IPEA (2017); https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livros/170626_...