- Email: [email protected]
Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest a,d,
T
b
Eder Johnson de Area Leão Pereira *, Luiz Carlos de Santana Ribeiro , Lúcio Flávio da Silva Freitasc, Hernane Borges de Barros Pereirad a
Instituto Federal de Educação do Maranhão, Av. João Alberto 1840, Bacabal, MA, 65700-000, Brazil Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, SE, Brazil Universidade Municipal de São Caetano do Sul, São Caetano do Sul, SP, Brazil d Programa de Modelagem Computacional, SENAI Cimatec, Av. Orlando Gomes 1845, 41.650-010, Salvador, BA, Brazil b c
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Policy Bolsonaro Amazon Agribusiness GHG emissions
Since his inauguration on January 1, 2019, Jair Bolsonaro, a declared right-wing candidate nicknamed “Tropical Trump,” has introduced measures to reduce environmental restrictions on livestock farming, the main greenhouse gas (GHG) producing sector in Brazil that is responsible for most of the deforestation in the country. This dangerous relationship between politics and livestock farming in Brazil is detrimental to environmental conservation. Politicians are introducing measures that facilitate the expansion of this type of farming, which in turn provides inputs for the food industry, i.e. agribusiness, which in turn finances politics, thus producing a dangerous cycle in forest conservation.
1. Introduction Bolsonaro assumed the Brazilian presidency and, in exchange for political support, mainly of the ruralist group (deputies and senators who are linked to Brazilian agribusiness), he has introduced several measures that encourage the expansion of agriculture and livestock. Among these is a drastic reduction in funds for forest inspection and control agencies (Brasil, 2019a), freer use of agrochemicals and pesticides, a third of which contains at least one substance that is forbidden in the European Union (Brasil, 2019b; Bombardi, 2019; Gortazár, 2019), the loosening of environmental licenses, and the unsuccessful attempt to transfer the demarcation of indigenous lands to the Ministry of Agriculture. The Amazon has a key role in mitigating global climate change because, if the deforestation situation remains, the temperature in the Amazon can rise up to 6−8 °Celsius above the 1996–2005 average from June to August until 2100. This will not only cause the death of the forest but also harm human life in many ways (Hegerl et al., 2006; Fearnside, 2006). The deforestation of the Amazon contributes significantly to intensifying the greenhouse effect both by releasing carbon from forest biomass and by releasing carbon from the soil, concentrating more than half of the rainforests and a quarter of all plant
and animal species on the planet. In fact, land use change and forest are the main source of Brazilian emissions (see Appendix 1). Forest conservation is therefore essential for planet conservation (Fearnside, 2006; Huntingford et al., 2004). In addition, there is the phenomenon of flying rivers, which are water vapor transport systems from the Amazon rainforest to the Brazilian central and southern regions. These are water vapors that are transported through the atmosphere and originate from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, being processed by the Amazon rainforest and transported to these regions. They play a fundamental role in the Brazilian water system (Marengo, 2006). Even though Brazilian Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are lower in comparison to Chinese, European or USA emissions (see Appendix 2 to top-20 global polluters), there are many good reasons to conserve the Amazon. These include decreasing agriculture and economic productivity, water availability for human use, river navigation or energy generation, and also increasing the incidence of respiratory diseases (Davidson et al., 2012)1 . If deforestation continues to rise, reaching about 40 % of the total forest area and causing global temperatures to rise by 4 °Celsius, much of the central, eastern, and southern Amazon will surely become a savannah. This phenomenon is known as the tipping point (Nobre and
⁎
Corresponding author at: Instituto Federal de Educação do Maranhão, Av. João Alberto 1840, Bacabal, MA, 65700-000, Brazil E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.J. de Area Leão Pereira), [email protected] (L.C. de Santana Ribeiro), lucioff[email protected] (L.F. da Silva Freitas), [email protected] (H.B. de Barros Pereira). 1 Despite the argument of carbon colonialism (see Bumpus and Liverman, 2011), the conservation of Amazon is still important for ecological and socioeconomic reasons. An alternative sustainable development path for the Amazon region is presented in Nobre (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104491 Received 7 August 2019; Received in revised form 14 January 2020; Accepted 22 January 2020 0264-8377/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al.
Prevention, and Control of Forest Fires Program of the ICMBio budget. The ICMBio alone is responsible for 327 units of Federal Conservation, corresponding to 75.9 million hectares of land (Pereira et al., 2019a). Some of these cuts involve discretionary expenses, such as buying fuel for vehicles to monitor the forest and the lodgings of the agents who combat deforestation. In May 2019, the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) (INPE, 2019) registered 739 km2 of deforestation in the Legal Amazon. This represents a 34 % increase compared to May 2018. In August, Brazil’s Minister of Science and Technology fired the director of INPE, Ricardo Galvão. The government classified the deforestation data as sensationalist. If deforestation continues at this rate in 2019, it may reach the highest rate since 2008, surpassing even 2018, when the area deforested was 7900 km2. According to Finer and Mamani (2019, p. 1) the fires in the Amazon forest, which reached their peak in August 2019, were in the same areas where the forest gave way to the “slash and burn” agriculture. Deforestation in the Amazon is dramatic because it is the largest rainforest in the world, sheltering a quarter of the planet’s fauna and flora. Deforestation increases greenhouse gas emissions due to the release of carbon from the forest and soil biomass. The Amazon conservation prevents changes in climate, temperatures, and droughts (Fearnside and Laurance, 2004). Besides, Loures (2019) emphasizes the relevance of multifunctionality and interdisciplinarity to promote sustainable land use, planning strategies, and policies. In order to improve its governability, Bolsonaro has made alliances with parliamentary groups that have interests contrary to environmental conservation. Clearly, the rural bench is made up of parliamentarians who are business people linked to the Brazilian agribusiness. With 257 deputies, the ruralists represent 50 % of the House, which is made up of 513 parliamentarians. In the Senate, ruralists hold 32 (39.5 %) of the 81 seats. The agribusiness lobby on government also prompted the authorization of the import and use of 211 pesticides. Thus, 2019 has already been the year with the greatest release of pesticides in Brazilian agriculture. Approximately 40 % of the new products are highly toxic, and 28 % of these products have been banned or are not allowed by the European Union (Bombardi, 2019). These are glyphosate-containing products that are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as potentially carcinogenic to humans (category 2A) and are associated with a number of cancer cases in the US justice system (Bombardi, 2019). In Congress, the Bill (PL 3,729/2004), attached to PL 2,942/2019, which reduces environmental requirements, creates self-declaratory licensing and exempts licensing for specific pollution activities. This will facilitate new infrastructure investment in environmentally protected areas. In turn, this encourages the construction of dams, highways, and hydroelectric power plants in the Amazon, with negative effects on forest conservation (Abessa et al., 2019). In another controversial step, President Jair Bolsonaro issued Provisional Measure No. 886 (Brazil, 2019d) on June 18, 2019, amending Article 21 of Law No. 13,844, attempting to remove the responsibility for the demarcation of indigenous and “quilombolas” lands from the National Indian Foundation and pass it on to the Ministry of Agriculture, headed by the ruralists. The Supreme Court has denied this attempt. On October 1, in a speech for gold miners, the President said, “interest in the Amazon isn’t in the Indian or the f* tree” (Uribe, 2019).
Borma, 2009). In other studies, this imbalance point would be 20 % of the deforested area (Lovejoy and Nobre, 2018). By August 2018, 19.5 % of the forest had been deforested. In this context, several studies have dealt with the influence of the Brazilian environmental policy on global sustainability. Fearnside (2016) states that the influence of politics in Brazil threatens the Amazon, mainly supporting large investment projects in the Amazon, such as dams and roads. Similarly, Azevedo-Santos et al. (2017) state that decisions involving the environmental policy in Brazil ignore scientific knowledge, and Rochedo et al. (2018) identified that the Brazilian government signalized landholders to increase deforestation, thus putting the country’s contribution to the Paris Agreement at risk. Abessa, Famá, and Buruaem (2019) emphasize that the dismantling of environmental legislation in Brazil can compromise global sustainability. Pereira et al. (2019a) have identified that cuts in agencies that oversee the Amazon, such as the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), may cause damage to forest conservation. It seems clear that the government is not seeking a sustainable path for economic development. Thus, the rainforest is at high risk. There is a range of methods and data available to assess the risks to the Amazon rainforest. It should be highlighted that complex networks have contributed to the economy by proposing new methods, techniques, and properties (Schweitzer et al., 2009; Pereira et al., 2017). Generally speaking, networks are vertices or nodes connected by edges. The structure of a network is represented as a graph by a set R, which, in the case of networks that do not have weights in their connections, is defined by R (v, ε ) , where v = (v1, v2, v3,…, vn,) are the vertices and ε = (ε1, ε2, ε3,…, εn,) are the edges that connect pairs of vertices; and the number of elements in v and ε is N and M, respectively. Networks have been used in several areas such as transportation, sociology, biology, medicine, and economics, among others (Newman, 2018; Pereira et al., 2019a, 2019b). Ecological networks have been consolidated as a method to evaluate how the diverse exchanges involving regional or global economic sectors affect the emission of greenhouse gases. Thus, Kagawa et al. (2015) analyzed the effects of global transactions on CO2 emissions, noting the existence of two large emitting communities, with emphasis on the civil construction sector in China. Hanaka et al. (2017) used network properties to calculate which sectors have a central role in CO2 emissions. There are applications in the global consumption of water (Fang and Chen, 2015), CO2 emissions embedded in the Chinese trade (Wang et al., 2017), and in energy consumption (Chen and Chen, 2015). We evaluated the sectorial emission relationships in the Brazilian economy using the network theory and found that the sectors that emit most greenhouse gases are related to livestock, agriculture, and the food industry, all of which are a part of the ruralist group. This paper shows that the nexus between the government and the ruralist group contributes to the increase in GHG emissions. Presently, the environmental policy facilitates the expansion of livestock production in the Amazon region. This, in turn, provides cattle for the food industry that finances the politics, which is a dangerous cycle for forest conservation. 2. Ten months of Bolsonaro’s presidency Among the most controversial measures introduced is the cut to the budget of the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for the agencies that directly supervise the Amazon forest, such as the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio). The government cut 95 % of the National Policy on Climate Change budget, 26 % of the Federal Conservation Management and Implementation Program budget, 24 % of IBAMA’s Inspection and Control Program budget, and 20 % of Environmental Inspection,
3. Methods and database The input-output model represents the trade relations between the economic sector and components of final demand in a given period. The model’s solution can be specified, according to Miller and Blair (2009), as x = Ly , where x is the sectorial output vector, L is the Leontief Inverse Matrix, that is, L = (I − A)−1 and y is the final demand vector. A z ij is defined as the Technological matrix, i.e., A = [aij] = x , where z ij is j
2
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al.
the trade relationship between sectors i and j . The main difference between the matrices A and L is that, while the former only captures the direct relationship between sectors, the Leontief Inverse Matrix also captures the indirect relationship and therefore is also known as the Total Impacts Matrix (direct and indirect effects). To incorporate GHG emissions into the input-output framework, we ej initially need to define the emission coefficient, i.e., cj = x , where ej is j
the GHG emissions vector of sector j . Thus, cj represents the total GHG emissions generated per unit of output of sector j , that is, the direct effect (Souza et al., 2016). We can define the total volume of GHG emissions produced in the economy as cj = cˆj Lf = cˆj X , where cˆj is the diagonalized emission coefficient. We used the latest available Brazilian input-output matrix, base year 2015, published by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE, 2018) and GHG emissions’ data from the National Emissions Registration System of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications (MCTIC, 2019). The share of livestock on deforestation came from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. After that, we built our environmental network of GHG emissions considering the trade flows of the Brazilian Input-Output Matrix and sectorial GHG data. Therefore, we built a directed graph with 18 vertices (economic sectors2), i.e., n=|V| = 18. Each edge in our network was a trade relationship weighted by GHG emissions between sectors i and j. In our network analysis, we used a specific metric known as the “weighted out-degree.” According to Newman (2018), the weighted out-degree of vertex i is given by the sum of the weights of all output out = ∑j ∈ Γ(i) wij . Economically arcs connected to vertex i, i.e., K wi speaking, we are looking at the supply side of the economy.
Fig. 1. Sectorial network of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil, 2015. Source: Author’s own.
GHG emissions in Brazil. Nevertheless, these sectors (Agriculture, Livestock, and Food and Beverage Industry [in red]) are responsible for the three largest sectorial emissions embodied in trade in Brazil (considering the weighted out-degree network metric that captures how much GHG a sector emits in a traded relationship with another). In addition, the livestock and food and beverage industries have the highest GHG emissions sector ratio because the food industry requires inputs and outputs from livestock (e.g. cattle, milk, eggs etc.) causing very high GHG emissions in the latter, both through the cattle fermentation of CH4 and CO2 emission from land-use change. For each R$ 1000 of variation in livestock’s final demand, 532.6 t/CO2e is generated in the Brazilian economy 43.4 t/CO2e in agriculture, 432.4 t/CO2e in livestock itself, and 2.7 t/CO2e in the food and beverage industry.
4. Results 4.1. Agribusiness and GHG emissions in Brazil The deforestation process in the Brazilian Amazon region is complex. Hoefle (2013) argues that smallholders often do the hard work of forest felling then sell out or are pushed out by landgrabbing ranchers, selling them and move on much like the smallholders do into primary forest. According to this author, ranchers accounted for 66 % of deforestation in Brazilian Amazon against 23 % caused by smallholders between 2000 and 2005. Walker (2012) also shows that the expansion of ethanol in the southern part of the Center-West has pushed soy into the northern part of this region, which has dislocated ranchers into the Amazon who in turn push smallholders deeper into the forest. Furthermore, Hoefle (2012) highlights that soy can also leapfrog into the heart of the Amazon directly, e.g. to the Santarém area. However, there were a number of environmental, economic, logistical and political limitations which slowed this before 2016. Finally, global commodity chains drive the expansion of Brazilian soy: meat demand in China (Silva et al., 2017); and the effects of ethanol production in the United States on soybean prices (Roberts and Schlenker, 2013). Livestock farming is the biggest contributor to deforestation of the Amazon forest, causing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through landuse change (FAO, 2016). In addition to these emissions, livestock emits large amounts of enteric methane (CH4) as a result of the biological processes of ruminant digestion (Cerri et al., 2009). Methane gas is considered the second largest contributor to global warming, after CO2 (Ribeiro et al., 2018). An analysis of the environmental network of GHG emission1 (Fig. 1) for Brazil in 2015 shows that the livestock sector is the hub of the network. Part of the agribusiness productive chain accounts for most 2
4.2. A dangerous cycle Part of the agribusiness finances the Brazilian ruralist group, either through agriculture and livestock or through large conglomerates linked to the food industry (Medeiros and Fonseca, 2016). This deepens a dangerous cycle against forest conservation (see Fig. 2). The President, along with the respective parliament and senate groups, passes laws that favor the unregulated expansion of livestock. Cattle raised on deforested farms are sold to the food industry, which exports a part of what is produced. The agribusiness finances its benches in Parliament and the Senate3, which vote in favor of the increase in cattle raising, thus restarting the cycle. In fact, under President Michel Temer, after the impeachment of Dilma Roussef in 2016, the ruralist group and those interested in the predatory exploration of Amazon gained power (Pereira et al., 2019a). Temer needed the support of powerful politicians in his party from the Amazonian state of Pará in order to stop a call for impeachment in the Congress. As well as the support of the ruralists, President Bolsonaro shares the military view of the development of Amazon; “devised by the military government out of geopolitical concerns: livestock and agricultural occupation to ensure sovereignty and exploitation of minerals, 3 The JBS Company, the country’s top meat/meatpacking industry, donated nearly US$ 155 million to politicians and political parties in the 2014 election alone.
Appendix 3 lists Brazilian economic sectors. 3
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al.
commodities associated with deforestation and conflicts of indigenous rights; and (iii) consult and obtain consent from Indigenous Peoples and local communities to define strict socio-environmental conditions criteria for traded goods. Another measure would be the Meat Moratorium, in which large industries would only buy meat from companies that have signed the Meat Beef Adjustment Agreement in the Amazon. It establishes that illegal deforestation should not occur within the Amazon Biome and that the limits defined by the Brazilian Forest Code must be respected. It delimits 80 % of the forest area in a private property that should be preserved as a Legal Reserve area located in the Amazon. This would combat the problem in two ways: it would help reduce emissions from land and forest use and reduce emissions from trade relations between the agriculture and the food sectors. Another measure could come from countries in East Asia and the Middle East, which imported U$ 1.5 billions worth of Brazilian meat between January and August 2019. This accounted for 66.6 % of Brazil’s total meat exports. These countries could require that these products should not come from deforested areas and thus condition bilateral trade to sustainable practices in Brazilian livestock. It used to be required that the private properties adhere to the Rural Environmental Register (CAR), a system that maintains the limits of the properties in environmental georeferencing. Unfortunately, President Bolsonaro signed a bill eliminating the deadlines for landowners to present this document (Brasil, 2019c), which makes the monitoring of adherence to the rules impossible. The present Brazilian government’s policy of slackening environmental control can profoundly affect sustainability in Brazil, which, since ECO-92, had been playing a leading role in combating global climate change, and had drastically reduced deforestation in the Legal Amazon in the period 2004-2012. This ecosystem should not be threatened by governments or by political groups that put self-interest first. The environmental and social cost of such decisions can affect the entire planet. The mobilization of civil society and the pressure of the international community are necessary to avoid irreversible losses.
Fig. 2. Cycle of deforestation in livestock, emissions and policy. Source: Author’s own.
hydropower and fossil fuels as drivers for economic development” (Nobre and Nobre, 2018, p. 190). 5. Discussion and conclusion One way to reduce further deforestation is to return to the Soy Moratorium, an environmental pact established between 2006 and 2016 among environmentalists, farmers, and nongovernmental organizations. The moratorium sought to reconcile economic development with responsible and sustainable use of natural resources. During this period, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries and the Brazilian Association of Cereal Exporters and their respective associates pledged not to market soybeans from deforested areas within the Amazon biome. The soy moratorium practically eliminated deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (Gibbs et al., 2015). In addition, Cerri et al. (2018); Carvalho et al. (2017); Koch et al. (2017), and Assunção et al. (2016) point out that there is potential for the growth of commodity production in the region without the need for additional deforestation. It is important to highlight that the soy moratorium has helped prevent deforestation, however, as pointed out by Walker (2012) and Hoefle (2012), soy rarely directly deforests the Brazilian Amazon region. The protagonist in this process, as discussed earlier, is the cattle rancher. The recent Amazon burning in August 2019 could threaten the future of agribusiness in Brazil with possible sanctions imposed by European countries (Arruda et al., 2019). In this context, Virah-Sawmy et al. (2019) propose that the EU sets the following conditions for trade negotiations with Brazil: (i) maintain the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; ii) improve procedures for tracking
CRediT authorship contribution statement Eder Johnson de Area Leão Pereira: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Investigation, Software, Validation, Project administration, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Luiz Carlos de Santana Ribeiro: Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft. Lúcio Flávio da Silva Freitas: Data curation, Writing - original draft, Formal analysis, Software. Hernane Borges de Barros Pereira: Supervision, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Fundação de Amparo e Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia - FAPESB (Grant Number BOL 0261/2017).
4
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al.
Appendix 1 Brazilian emissions since 1990, Gigaton of CO2e
Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System, at www.seeg.eco.br, accessed on 12/30/2019. *LUCF is Land Use Change and Forest Appendix 2 Top-20 global polluters, 2016, MtCO2e
World 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Country
GHG emissions including LUCF*
Share %
China United States European Union (28) India Russia Indonesia Brazil Japan Iran Germany Canada Mexico Saudi Arabia South Korea Australia South Africa Zambia Argentina Nigeria United Kingdom
49,358.03 11,576.9 5,833.5 3624.3 3,235.7 2,391.4 2,229 1,379.4 1,263.9 868 808.7 779.3 688.4 663.6 657.4 519.1 497.4 494 482.1 481 461.5
100 23.5 11.8 7.3 6.6 4.8 4.5 2.8 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
Source: Climate Watch, 2018. *LUCF is Land Use Change and Forest. Appendix 3 GHG emission per Brazilian economic sector, 2015
ID
Economic sector
Production (R$ millions)
Emission (t/CO2e)
Emission Coefficient
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Agriculture Livestock Forest exploration, fishing Extractive industries Oil and Fuel Food and Beverage Other industries Textile Pulp and paper products Chemistry products Non-metallic mineral products Manufacture of steel and derivatives Metallurgy of non-ferrous metals Metal products – excluding machinery and equipment
309,301 137,018 32,411 88,589 588,174 632,936 1,640,252 107,732 80,337 318,464 89,569 101,592 57,162 91,269
272,312,664 1,185,645,379 728,321 15,271,023 36,260,963 15,121,867 8,598,445 718,545 4,446,481 18,198,673 50,455,888 49,057,471 10,595,698 2,992,568
880.4 8,653.2 22.5 172.4 61.7 23.9 5.2 6.7 55.3 57.1 563.3 482.9 185.4 32.8
5
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al. 15 16 17 18
Electricity, gas, and other utilities Trade Transport Public Services
260,753 4,093,228 390,273 1,207,809
65,810,007 1,886,171 131,381,992 912,587
252.4 0.5 336.6 0.8
Source: Authors’ own. Appendix 4 Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104491.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2018. Matriz de insumo-produto: Brasil: 2015. IBGE, Rio de Janeiro. INPE (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais), 2019. PRODES: Monitoramento da floresta Amazônica brasileira por satélite. Accessed 16 june, 2019. http://www.obt. inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes/. Kagawa, S., Suh, S., Hubacek, K., Wiedmann, T., Nansai, K., Minx, J., 2015. CO2 emission clusters within global supply chain networks: implications for climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A 35, 486–496. Koch, N., Ermgassen, E.K.H.J., Wehkamp, J., Oliveira Filho, F.J.B., Schwerhoff, G., 2017. Agricultural Productivity and Forest Conservation: Evidence From the Brazilian Amazon. SSRNhttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3031416. Loures, L.C., 2019. Introductory Chapter: Land-use Planning and Land-use Change As Catalysts of Sustainable Development. In Land Use-assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future. IntechOpen. Lovejoy, T.E., Nobre, C., 2018. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 4 (2) art. eaat2340. Marengo, J.A., 2006. On the hydrological cycle of the Amazon Basin: a historical review and current state-of-the-art. Rev. Bras. Meteorol. 21 (3), 1–19. MCTIC, 2019. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações. Sistema de Registro Nacional de Emissões - SIRENE. At. https://www.mctic.gov.br/mctic/ opencms/textogeral/sirene.html. Medeiros, E., Fonseca, B., 2016. As bancadas da Câmara. Agência Pública, pp. 18. Miller, R.E., Blair, P.D., 2009. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, New York. Newman, M., 2018. Networks. Oxford university press. Nobre, C.A., 2018. The Amazon Third Way Initiative/Amazonia4.0: Radically Changing the Sustainable Development Paradigm for the Amazon. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura, Francia, pp. 7. Nobre, C.A., Borma, L.D.S., 2009. Tipping points’ for the Amazon forest. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1 (1), 28–36. Nobre, I., Nobre, C.A., 2018. The amazonia Third Way initiative: the role of technology to unveil the potential of a novel tropical biodiversity-based economy. In: Loures, L.C. (Ed.), Land Use - Assessing the Past. Envisioning the Future. Open Access Book, IntechOpen (in press). Pereira, E.J.D.A.L., da Silva, M.F., Pereira, H.B.B., 2017. Econophysics: past and present. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 473, 251–261. Pereira, E.J.A.L., Ferreira, P.J.S., Ribeiro, L.C.S., Carvalho, T.S., Pereira, H.B.B., 2019a. Policy in Brazil (2016–2019) threaten conservation of the Amazon rainforest. Environ. Sci. Policy 100, 8–12. Pereira, E.J.D.A.L., Ferreira, P.J.S., da Silva, M.F., Miranda, J.G.V., Pereira, H.B.B., 2019b. Multiscale network for 20 stock markets using DCCA. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 529, 121542. Ribeiro, L.C.S., Pereira, E.J.A.L., Freitas, L.F.S., 2018. Greenhouse gases emissions and economic performance of livestock, and environmental input-output analysis. Rev. Econ. E Sociol. Rural. 56, 225–238. Roberts, M.J., Schlenker, W., 2013. Identifying supply and demand elasticities of agricultural commodities: implications for the US ethanol mandate. Am. Econ. Rev. 103 (6), 2265–2295. Rochedo, P.R., Soares-Filho, B., Schaeffer, R., Viola, E., Szklo, A., Lucena, A.F., et al., 2018. The threat of political bargaining to climate mitigation in Brazil. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8 (8), 695. Schweitzer, F., Fagiolo, G., Sornette, D., Vega-Redondo, F., Vespignani, A., White, D.R., 2009. Economic networks: the new challenges. Science 325 (5939), 422–425. Silva, R.F.B., Batistella, M., Dou, Y., Moran, E., Torres, S.M., Liu, J., 2017. The SinoBrazilian telecoupled soybean system and cascading effects for the exporting country. Land 6, 53. Souza, K.B., Ribeiro, L.C.S., Perobelli, F.S., 2016. Reducing Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions: scenario simulations of targets and policies. Econ. Syst. Res. 28, 482–496. Uribe, G., 2019. Interesse na Amazônia não é no índio nem na porra da árvore. 01 October, 2019, at. diz Bolsonaro. Folha de São Paulo, São Paulo. https://www1. folha.uol.com.br/ambiente/2019/10/o-interesse-na-amazonia-nao-e-no-indio-nemna-porra-da-arvore-diz-bolsonaro.shtml. Virah-Sawmy, M., Balmford, A., Kuemmerle, T., Antonelli, A., Hochirch, A., Vira, B., et al., 2019. Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable. Science 364, 341–342. Walker, R., 2012. The scale of forest transition: Amazonia and the Atlantic forests of Brazil. Appl. Geogr. 32, 12–20. Wang, Z., Xiao, C., Niu, B., Deng, L., Liu, Y., 2017. Identify sectors’ role on the embedded CO2 transfer networks through China’s regional trade. Ecol. Indic. 80, 114–123.
References Abessa, D., Famá, A., Buruaem, L., 2019. The systematic dismantling of Brazilian environmental laws risks losses on all fronts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 (4), 510. Arruda, D., Candido, H.G., Fonseca, R., 2019. Amazon fires threaten Brazil’s agribusiness. Science 365 (6460), 1387-1387. Assunção, J., Lipscomb, M., Mobarak, A.M., Szerman, D., 2016. Agricultural Productivity and Deforestation in Brazil. Mimeo. Yale University. Azevedo-Santos, V.M., Fearnside, P.M., Oliveira, C.S., Padial, A.A., Pelicice, F.M., Lima, D.P., et al., 2017. Removing the abyss between conservation science and policy decisions in Brazil. Biodivers. Conserv. 26 (7), 1745–1752. Bombardi, L.M., 2019. Geografia do uso de agrotóxicos no Brasil e conexões com a União Europeia. FFLCH - USP, São Paulo 2017, edição revisada em 2019. 296 p. Brasil, 2019a. Decreto nº 9.741 de 29 de março de 2019. Dispõe sobre a programação orçamentária e financeira. Diário Oficial União, DF, - Seção 1 - Edição Extra – A, P. 1. Brasil, 2019b. Ato nº 70, de 2 de outubro de 2019. Publica o registro de agrotóxicos. Diário Oficial União, DF, - SEÇÃO 1 - Edição 192. pp. 4. Brasil, 2019c. Medida Provisória nº 884, de 14 de junho de 2019. Dispõe sobre a proteção da vegetação nativa e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial União, DF, - Edição: 114A, Seção: 1. pp. 1. Bumpus, A.G., Liverman, D.M., 2011. Carbon colonialism? Offsets, greenhouse gas reductions, and sustainable development. In: Peet, R., Robbins, P., Roberts, M.J. (Eds.), Global Political Ecology. Routledge, New York, pp. 203–224. Carvalho, T.S., Domingues, E.P., Horridge, J.M., 2017. Controlling deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: regional economic impacts and land-use change. Land Use Policy 64, 327–341. Cerri, C.C., Maia, S.M.F., Galdos, M.V., Cerri, C.E.P., Feigl, B.J., Bernoux, M., 2009. Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions: the importance of agriculture and livestock. Sci. Agric. 66 (6), 831–843. Cerri, C.E.P., Cerri, C.C., Maia, S.M.F., Cherubin, M.R., Feigl, B.J., Lal, R., 2018. Reducing Amazon Deforestation Through Agricultural Intensification in the Cerrado for Advancing Food Security and Mitigating Climate Change. Sustainability Switzerland 10 4. MDPI AGhttps://doi.org/10.3390/su10040989. Chen, S., Chen, B., 2015. Urban energy consumption: different insights from energy flow analysis, input–output analysis and ecological network analysis. Appl. Energy 138, 99–107. Climate Watch, 2018. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at: https://www.climatewatchdata.org, Accessed on 30/12/2019. . Davidson, E.A., et al., 2012. The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481, 321–328. Fang, D., Chen, B., 2015. Ecological network analysis for a virtual water network. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (11), 6722–6730. FAO, 2016. El Estado de los bosques del mundo 2016. Los bosques y la agricultura: desafíos y oportunidades en relación con el uso de la tierra, Roma. Fearnside, P.M., 2006. Desmatamento na Amazônia: dinâmica, impactos e controle. Acta Amazon. 36 (3), 395–400. Fearnside, P.M., 2016. Brazilian politics threaten environmental policies. Science 353 (6301), 746–748. Fearnside, P.M., Laurance, W.F., 2004. Tropical deforestation and greenhouse-gas emissions. Ecol. Appl. 14 (4), 982–986. Finer, M., Mamani, N., 2019. MAAP #110: Major Finding – Many Brazilian Amazon Fires Follow 2019 Deforestation. MAAP, pp. 110. Gibbs, H.K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D.C., Noojipady, P., et al., 2015. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347 (6220), 377–378. Gortazár, N.G., 2019. Um terço dos agrotóxicos usados no Brasil inclui alguma substância proibida pela EU. El País, São Paulo, pp. 31 de julho de 2019. Hanaka, T., Kagawa, S., Ono, H., Kanemoto, K., 2017. Finding environmentally critical transmission sectors, transactions, and paths in global supply chain networks. Energy Econ. 68, 44–52. Hegerl, G.C., Crowley, T.J., Hyde, W.T., Frame, D.J., 2006. Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Nature 440, 1029–1032. Hoefle, S.W., 2012. Soybean production in the heart of the Amazon? Horizons in Geography 81–82, 94–106. Hoefle, S.W., 2013. Beyond carbon colonialism: frontier peasant livelihoods, spatial mobility and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Crit. Anthropol. 33 (2), 193–213. Huntingford, C., Harris, P.O., Gedney, N., Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Marengo, J.A., Gash, J.H.C., 2004. Using a GCM analogue model to investigate the potential for Amazonian forest dieback. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78, 177–185.
6
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest a,d,
T
b
Eder Johnson de Area Leão Pereira *, Luiz Carlos de Santana Ribeiro , Lúcio Flávio da Silva Freitasc, Hernane Borges de Barros Pereirad a
Instituto Federal de Educação do Maranhão, Av. João Alberto 1840, Bacabal, MA, 65700-000, Brazil Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, SE, Brazil Universidade Municipal de São Caetano do Sul, São Caetano do Sul, SP, Brazil d Programa de Modelagem Computacional, SENAI Cimatec, Av. Orlando Gomes 1845, 41.650-010, Salvador, BA, Brazil b c
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Policy Bolsonaro Amazon Agribusiness GHG emissions
Since his inauguration on January 1, 2019, Jair Bolsonaro, a declared right-wing candidate nicknamed “Tropical Trump,” has introduced measures to reduce environmental restrictions on livestock farming, the main greenhouse gas (GHG) producing sector in Brazil that is responsible for most of the deforestation in the country. This dangerous relationship between politics and livestock farming in Brazil is detrimental to environmental conservation. Politicians are introducing measures that facilitate the expansion of this type of farming, which in turn provides inputs for the food industry, i.e. agribusiness, which in turn finances politics, thus producing a dangerous cycle in forest conservation.
1. Introduction Bolsonaro assumed the Brazilian presidency and, in exchange for political support, mainly of the ruralist group (deputies and senators who are linked to Brazilian agribusiness), he has introduced several measures that encourage the expansion of agriculture and livestock. Among these is a drastic reduction in funds for forest inspection and control agencies (Brasil, 2019a), freer use of agrochemicals and pesticides, a third of which contains at least one substance that is forbidden in the European Union (Brasil, 2019b; Bombardi, 2019; Gortazár, 2019), the loosening of environmental licenses, and the unsuccessful attempt to transfer the demarcation of indigenous lands to the Ministry of Agriculture. The Amazon has a key role in mitigating global climate change because, if the deforestation situation remains, the temperature in the Amazon can rise up to 6−8 °Celsius above the 1996–2005 average from June to August until 2100. This will not only cause the death of the forest but also harm human life in many ways (Hegerl et al., 2006; Fearnside, 2006). The deforestation of the Amazon contributes significantly to intensifying the greenhouse effect both by releasing carbon from forest biomass and by releasing carbon from the soil, concentrating more than half of the rainforests and a quarter of all plant
and animal species on the planet. In fact, land use change and forest are the main source of Brazilian emissions (see Appendix 1). Forest conservation is therefore essential for planet conservation (Fearnside, 2006; Huntingford et al., 2004). In addition, there is the phenomenon of flying rivers, which are water vapor transport systems from the Amazon rainforest to the Brazilian central and southern regions. These are water vapors that are transported through the atmosphere and originate from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, being processed by the Amazon rainforest and transported to these regions. They play a fundamental role in the Brazilian water system (Marengo, 2006). Even though Brazilian Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are lower in comparison to Chinese, European or USA emissions (see Appendix 2 to top-20 global polluters), there are many good reasons to conserve the Amazon. These include decreasing agriculture and economic productivity, water availability for human use, river navigation or energy generation, and also increasing the incidence of respiratory diseases (Davidson et al., 2012)1 . If deforestation continues to rise, reaching about 40 % of the total forest area and causing global temperatures to rise by 4 °Celsius, much of the central, eastern, and southern Amazon will surely become a savannah. This phenomenon is known as the tipping point (Nobre and
⁎
Corresponding author at: Instituto Federal de Educação do Maranhão, Av. João Alberto 1840, Bacabal, MA, 65700-000, Brazil E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.J. de Area Leão Pereira), [email protected] (L.C. de Santana Ribeiro), lucioff[email protected] (L.F. da Silva Freitas), [email protected] (H.B. de Barros Pereira). 1 Despite the argument of carbon colonialism (see Bumpus and Liverman, 2011), the conservation of Amazon is still important for ecological and socioeconomic reasons. An alternative sustainable development path for the Amazon region is presented in Nobre (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104491 Received 7 August 2019; Received in revised form 14 January 2020; Accepted 22 January 2020 0264-8377/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al.
Prevention, and Control of Forest Fires Program of the ICMBio budget. The ICMBio alone is responsible for 327 units of Federal Conservation, corresponding to 75.9 million hectares of land (Pereira et al., 2019a). Some of these cuts involve discretionary expenses, such as buying fuel for vehicles to monitor the forest and the lodgings of the agents who combat deforestation. In May 2019, the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) (INPE, 2019) registered 739 km2 of deforestation in the Legal Amazon. This represents a 34 % increase compared to May 2018. In August, Brazil’s Minister of Science and Technology fired the director of INPE, Ricardo Galvão. The government classified the deforestation data as sensationalist. If deforestation continues at this rate in 2019, it may reach the highest rate since 2008, surpassing even 2018, when the area deforested was 7900 km2. According to Finer and Mamani (2019, p. 1) the fires in the Amazon forest, which reached their peak in August 2019, were in the same areas where the forest gave way to the “slash and burn” agriculture. Deforestation in the Amazon is dramatic because it is the largest rainforest in the world, sheltering a quarter of the planet’s fauna and flora. Deforestation increases greenhouse gas emissions due to the release of carbon from the forest and soil biomass. The Amazon conservation prevents changes in climate, temperatures, and droughts (Fearnside and Laurance, 2004). Besides, Loures (2019) emphasizes the relevance of multifunctionality and interdisciplinarity to promote sustainable land use, planning strategies, and policies. In order to improve its governability, Bolsonaro has made alliances with parliamentary groups that have interests contrary to environmental conservation. Clearly, the rural bench is made up of parliamentarians who are business people linked to the Brazilian agribusiness. With 257 deputies, the ruralists represent 50 % of the House, which is made up of 513 parliamentarians. In the Senate, ruralists hold 32 (39.5 %) of the 81 seats. The agribusiness lobby on government also prompted the authorization of the import and use of 211 pesticides. Thus, 2019 has already been the year with the greatest release of pesticides in Brazilian agriculture. Approximately 40 % of the new products are highly toxic, and 28 % of these products have been banned or are not allowed by the European Union (Bombardi, 2019). These are glyphosate-containing products that are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as potentially carcinogenic to humans (category 2A) and are associated with a number of cancer cases in the US justice system (Bombardi, 2019). In Congress, the Bill (PL 3,729/2004), attached to PL 2,942/2019, which reduces environmental requirements, creates self-declaratory licensing and exempts licensing for specific pollution activities. This will facilitate new infrastructure investment in environmentally protected areas. In turn, this encourages the construction of dams, highways, and hydroelectric power plants in the Amazon, with negative effects on forest conservation (Abessa et al., 2019). In another controversial step, President Jair Bolsonaro issued Provisional Measure No. 886 (Brazil, 2019d) on June 18, 2019, amending Article 21 of Law No. 13,844, attempting to remove the responsibility for the demarcation of indigenous and “quilombolas” lands from the National Indian Foundation and pass it on to the Ministry of Agriculture, headed by the ruralists. The Supreme Court has denied this attempt. On October 1, in a speech for gold miners, the President said, “interest in the Amazon isn’t in the Indian or the f* tree” (Uribe, 2019).
Borma, 2009). In other studies, this imbalance point would be 20 % of the deforested area (Lovejoy and Nobre, 2018). By August 2018, 19.5 % of the forest had been deforested. In this context, several studies have dealt with the influence of the Brazilian environmental policy on global sustainability. Fearnside (2016) states that the influence of politics in Brazil threatens the Amazon, mainly supporting large investment projects in the Amazon, such as dams and roads. Similarly, Azevedo-Santos et al. (2017) state that decisions involving the environmental policy in Brazil ignore scientific knowledge, and Rochedo et al. (2018) identified that the Brazilian government signalized landholders to increase deforestation, thus putting the country’s contribution to the Paris Agreement at risk. Abessa, Famá, and Buruaem (2019) emphasize that the dismantling of environmental legislation in Brazil can compromise global sustainability. Pereira et al. (2019a) have identified that cuts in agencies that oversee the Amazon, such as the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), may cause damage to forest conservation. It seems clear that the government is not seeking a sustainable path for economic development. Thus, the rainforest is at high risk. There is a range of methods and data available to assess the risks to the Amazon rainforest. It should be highlighted that complex networks have contributed to the economy by proposing new methods, techniques, and properties (Schweitzer et al., 2009; Pereira et al., 2017). Generally speaking, networks are vertices or nodes connected by edges. The structure of a network is represented as a graph by a set R, which, in the case of networks that do not have weights in their connections, is defined by R (v, ε ) , where v = (v1, v2, v3,…, vn,) are the vertices and ε = (ε1, ε2, ε3,…, εn,) are the edges that connect pairs of vertices; and the number of elements in v and ε is N and M, respectively. Networks have been used in several areas such as transportation, sociology, biology, medicine, and economics, among others (Newman, 2018; Pereira et al., 2019a, 2019b). Ecological networks have been consolidated as a method to evaluate how the diverse exchanges involving regional or global economic sectors affect the emission of greenhouse gases. Thus, Kagawa et al. (2015) analyzed the effects of global transactions on CO2 emissions, noting the existence of two large emitting communities, with emphasis on the civil construction sector in China. Hanaka et al. (2017) used network properties to calculate which sectors have a central role in CO2 emissions. There are applications in the global consumption of water (Fang and Chen, 2015), CO2 emissions embedded in the Chinese trade (Wang et al., 2017), and in energy consumption (Chen and Chen, 2015). We evaluated the sectorial emission relationships in the Brazilian economy using the network theory and found that the sectors that emit most greenhouse gases are related to livestock, agriculture, and the food industry, all of which are a part of the ruralist group. This paper shows that the nexus between the government and the ruralist group contributes to the increase in GHG emissions. Presently, the environmental policy facilitates the expansion of livestock production in the Amazon region. This, in turn, provides cattle for the food industry that finances the politics, which is a dangerous cycle for forest conservation. 2. Ten months of Bolsonaro’s presidency Among the most controversial measures introduced is the cut to the budget of the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for the agencies that directly supervise the Amazon forest, such as the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio). The government cut 95 % of the National Policy on Climate Change budget, 26 % of the Federal Conservation Management and Implementation Program budget, 24 % of IBAMA’s Inspection and Control Program budget, and 20 % of Environmental Inspection,
3. Methods and database The input-output model represents the trade relations between the economic sector and components of final demand in a given period. The model’s solution can be specified, according to Miller and Blair (2009), as x = Ly , where x is the sectorial output vector, L is the Leontief Inverse Matrix, that is, L = (I − A)−1 and y is the final demand vector. A z ij is defined as the Technological matrix, i.e., A = [aij] = x , where z ij is j
2
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al.
the trade relationship between sectors i and j . The main difference between the matrices A and L is that, while the former only captures the direct relationship between sectors, the Leontief Inverse Matrix also captures the indirect relationship and therefore is also known as the Total Impacts Matrix (direct and indirect effects). To incorporate GHG emissions into the input-output framework, we ej initially need to define the emission coefficient, i.e., cj = x , where ej is j
the GHG emissions vector of sector j . Thus, cj represents the total GHG emissions generated per unit of output of sector j , that is, the direct effect (Souza et al., 2016). We can define the total volume of GHG emissions produced in the economy as cj = cˆj Lf = cˆj X , where cˆj is the diagonalized emission coefficient. We used the latest available Brazilian input-output matrix, base year 2015, published by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE, 2018) and GHG emissions’ data from the National Emissions Registration System of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications (MCTIC, 2019). The share of livestock on deforestation came from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. After that, we built our environmental network of GHG emissions considering the trade flows of the Brazilian Input-Output Matrix and sectorial GHG data. Therefore, we built a directed graph with 18 vertices (economic sectors2), i.e., n=|V| = 18. Each edge in our network was a trade relationship weighted by GHG emissions between sectors i and j. In our network analysis, we used a specific metric known as the “weighted out-degree.” According to Newman (2018), the weighted out-degree of vertex i is given by the sum of the weights of all output out = ∑j ∈ Γ(i) wij . Economically arcs connected to vertex i, i.e., K wi speaking, we are looking at the supply side of the economy.
Fig. 1. Sectorial network of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil, 2015. Source: Author’s own.
GHG emissions in Brazil. Nevertheless, these sectors (Agriculture, Livestock, and Food and Beverage Industry [in red]) are responsible for the three largest sectorial emissions embodied in trade in Brazil (considering the weighted out-degree network metric that captures how much GHG a sector emits in a traded relationship with another). In addition, the livestock and food and beverage industries have the highest GHG emissions sector ratio because the food industry requires inputs and outputs from livestock (e.g. cattle, milk, eggs etc.) causing very high GHG emissions in the latter, both through the cattle fermentation of CH4 and CO2 emission from land-use change. For each R$ 1000 of variation in livestock’s final demand, 532.6 t/CO2e is generated in the Brazilian economy 43.4 t/CO2e in agriculture, 432.4 t/CO2e in livestock itself, and 2.7 t/CO2e in the food and beverage industry.
4. Results 4.1. Agribusiness and GHG emissions in Brazil The deforestation process in the Brazilian Amazon region is complex. Hoefle (2013) argues that smallholders often do the hard work of forest felling then sell out or are pushed out by landgrabbing ranchers, selling them and move on much like the smallholders do into primary forest. According to this author, ranchers accounted for 66 % of deforestation in Brazilian Amazon against 23 % caused by smallholders between 2000 and 2005. Walker (2012) also shows that the expansion of ethanol in the southern part of the Center-West has pushed soy into the northern part of this region, which has dislocated ranchers into the Amazon who in turn push smallholders deeper into the forest. Furthermore, Hoefle (2012) highlights that soy can also leapfrog into the heart of the Amazon directly, e.g. to the Santarém area. However, there were a number of environmental, economic, logistical and political limitations which slowed this before 2016. Finally, global commodity chains drive the expansion of Brazilian soy: meat demand in China (Silva et al., 2017); and the effects of ethanol production in the United States on soybean prices (Roberts and Schlenker, 2013). Livestock farming is the biggest contributor to deforestation of the Amazon forest, causing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through landuse change (FAO, 2016). In addition to these emissions, livestock emits large amounts of enteric methane (CH4) as a result of the biological processes of ruminant digestion (Cerri et al., 2009). Methane gas is considered the second largest contributor to global warming, after CO2 (Ribeiro et al., 2018). An analysis of the environmental network of GHG emission1 (Fig. 1) for Brazil in 2015 shows that the livestock sector is the hub of the network. Part of the agribusiness productive chain accounts for most 2
4.2. A dangerous cycle Part of the agribusiness finances the Brazilian ruralist group, either through agriculture and livestock or through large conglomerates linked to the food industry (Medeiros and Fonseca, 2016). This deepens a dangerous cycle against forest conservation (see Fig. 2). The President, along with the respective parliament and senate groups, passes laws that favor the unregulated expansion of livestock. Cattle raised on deforested farms are sold to the food industry, which exports a part of what is produced. The agribusiness finances its benches in Parliament and the Senate3, which vote in favor of the increase in cattle raising, thus restarting the cycle. In fact, under President Michel Temer, after the impeachment of Dilma Roussef in 2016, the ruralist group and those interested in the predatory exploration of Amazon gained power (Pereira et al., 2019a). Temer needed the support of powerful politicians in his party from the Amazonian state of Pará in order to stop a call for impeachment in the Congress. As well as the support of the ruralists, President Bolsonaro shares the military view of the development of Amazon; “devised by the military government out of geopolitical concerns: livestock and agricultural occupation to ensure sovereignty and exploitation of minerals, 3 The JBS Company, the country’s top meat/meatpacking industry, donated nearly US$ 155 million to politicians and political parties in the 2014 election alone.
Appendix 3 lists Brazilian economic sectors. 3
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al.
commodities associated with deforestation and conflicts of indigenous rights; and (iii) consult and obtain consent from Indigenous Peoples and local communities to define strict socio-environmental conditions criteria for traded goods. Another measure would be the Meat Moratorium, in which large industries would only buy meat from companies that have signed the Meat Beef Adjustment Agreement in the Amazon. It establishes that illegal deforestation should not occur within the Amazon Biome and that the limits defined by the Brazilian Forest Code must be respected. It delimits 80 % of the forest area in a private property that should be preserved as a Legal Reserve area located in the Amazon. This would combat the problem in two ways: it would help reduce emissions from land and forest use and reduce emissions from trade relations between the agriculture and the food sectors. Another measure could come from countries in East Asia and the Middle East, which imported U$ 1.5 billions worth of Brazilian meat between January and August 2019. This accounted for 66.6 % of Brazil’s total meat exports. These countries could require that these products should not come from deforested areas and thus condition bilateral trade to sustainable practices in Brazilian livestock. It used to be required that the private properties adhere to the Rural Environmental Register (CAR), a system that maintains the limits of the properties in environmental georeferencing. Unfortunately, President Bolsonaro signed a bill eliminating the deadlines for landowners to present this document (Brasil, 2019c), which makes the monitoring of adherence to the rules impossible. The present Brazilian government’s policy of slackening environmental control can profoundly affect sustainability in Brazil, which, since ECO-92, had been playing a leading role in combating global climate change, and had drastically reduced deforestation in the Legal Amazon in the period 2004-2012. This ecosystem should not be threatened by governments or by political groups that put self-interest first. The environmental and social cost of such decisions can affect the entire planet. The mobilization of civil society and the pressure of the international community are necessary to avoid irreversible losses.
Fig. 2. Cycle of deforestation in livestock, emissions and policy. Source: Author’s own.
hydropower and fossil fuels as drivers for economic development” (Nobre and Nobre, 2018, p. 190). 5. Discussion and conclusion One way to reduce further deforestation is to return to the Soy Moratorium, an environmental pact established between 2006 and 2016 among environmentalists, farmers, and nongovernmental organizations. The moratorium sought to reconcile economic development with responsible and sustainable use of natural resources. During this period, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries and the Brazilian Association of Cereal Exporters and their respective associates pledged not to market soybeans from deforested areas within the Amazon biome. The soy moratorium practically eliminated deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (Gibbs et al., 2015). In addition, Cerri et al. (2018); Carvalho et al. (2017); Koch et al. (2017), and Assunção et al. (2016) point out that there is potential for the growth of commodity production in the region without the need for additional deforestation. It is important to highlight that the soy moratorium has helped prevent deforestation, however, as pointed out by Walker (2012) and Hoefle (2012), soy rarely directly deforests the Brazilian Amazon region. The protagonist in this process, as discussed earlier, is the cattle rancher. The recent Amazon burning in August 2019 could threaten the future of agribusiness in Brazil with possible sanctions imposed by European countries (Arruda et al., 2019). In this context, Virah-Sawmy et al. (2019) propose that the EU sets the following conditions for trade negotiations with Brazil: (i) maintain the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; ii) improve procedures for tracking
CRediT authorship contribution statement Eder Johnson de Area Leão Pereira: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Investigation, Software, Validation, Project administration, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Luiz Carlos de Santana Ribeiro: Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft. Lúcio Flávio da Silva Freitas: Data curation, Writing - original draft, Formal analysis, Software. Hernane Borges de Barros Pereira: Supervision, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Fundação de Amparo e Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia - FAPESB (Grant Number BOL 0261/2017).
4
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al.
Appendix 1 Brazilian emissions since 1990, Gigaton of CO2e
Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System, at www.seeg.eco.br, accessed on 12/30/2019. *LUCF is Land Use Change and Forest Appendix 2 Top-20 global polluters, 2016, MtCO2e
World 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Country
GHG emissions including LUCF*
Share %
China United States European Union (28) India Russia Indonesia Brazil Japan Iran Germany Canada Mexico Saudi Arabia South Korea Australia South Africa Zambia Argentina Nigeria United Kingdom
49,358.03 11,576.9 5,833.5 3624.3 3,235.7 2,391.4 2,229 1,379.4 1,263.9 868 808.7 779.3 688.4 663.6 657.4 519.1 497.4 494 482.1 481 461.5
100 23.5 11.8 7.3 6.6 4.8 4.5 2.8 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
Source: Climate Watch, 2018. *LUCF is Land Use Change and Forest. Appendix 3 GHG emission per Brazilian economic sector, 2015
ID
Economic sector
Production (R$ millions)
Emission (t/CO2e)
Emission Coefficient
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Agriculture Livestock Forest exploration, fishing Extractive industries Oil and Fuel Food and Beverage Other industries Textile Pulp and paper products Chemistry products Non-metallic mineral products Manufacture of steel and derivatives Metallurgy of non-ferrous metals Metal products – excluding machinery and equipment
309,301 137,018 32,411 88,589 588,174 632,936 1,640,252 107,732 80,337 318,464 89,569 101,592 57,162 91,269
272,312,664 1,185,645,379 728,321 15,271,023 36,260,963 15,121,867 8,598,445 718,545 4,446,481 18,198,673 50,455,888 49,057,471 10,595,698 2,992,568
880.4 8,653.2 22.5 172.4 61.7 23.9 5.2 6.7 55.3 57.1 563.3 482.9 185.4 32.8
5
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104491
E.J. de Area Leão Pereira, et al. 15 16 17 18
Electricity, gas, and other utilities Trade Transport Public Services
260,753 4,093,228 390,273 1,207,809
65,810,007 1,886,171 131,381,992 912,587
252.4 0.5 336.6 0.8
Source: Authors’ own. Appendix 4 Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104491.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2018. Matriz de insumo-produto: Brasil: 2015. IBGE, Rio de Janeiro. INPE (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais), 2019. PRODES: Monitoramento da floresta Amazônica brasileira por satélite. Accessed 16 june, 2019. http://www.obt. inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes/. Kagawa, S., Suh, S., Hubacek, K., Wiedmann, T., Nansai, K., Minx, J., 2015. CO2 emission clusters within global supply chain networks: implications for climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A 35, 486–496. Koch, N., Ermgassen, E.K.H.J., Wehkamp, J., Oliveira Filho, F.J.B., Schwerhoff, G., 2017. Agricultural Productivity and Forest Conservation: Evidence From the Brazilian Amazon. SSRNhttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3031416. Loures, L.C., 2019. Introductory Chapter: Land-use Planning and Land-use Change As Catalysts of Sustainable Development. In Land Use-assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future. IntechOpen. Lovejoy, T.E., Nobre, C., 2018. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 4 (2) art. eaat2340. Marengo, J.A., 2006. On the hydrological cycle of the Amazon Basin: a historical review and current state-of-the-art. Rev. Bras. Meteorol. 21 (3), 1–19. MCTIC, 2019. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações. Sistema de Registro Nacional de Emissões - SIRENE. At. https://www.mctic.gov.br/mctic/ opencms/textogeral/sirene.html. Medeiros, E., Fonseca, B., 2016. As bancadas da Câmara. Agência Pública, pp. 18. Miller, R.E., Blair, P.D., 2009. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, New York. Newman, M., 2018. Networks. Oxford university press. Nobre, C.A., 2018. The Amazon Third Way Initiative/Amazonia4.0: Radically Changing the Sustainable Development Paradigm for the Amazon. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura, Francia, pp. 7. Nobre, C.A., Borma, L.D.S., 2009. Tipping points’ for the Amazon forest. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1 (1), 28–36. Nobre, I., Nobre, C.A., 2018. The amazonia Third Way initiative: the role of technology to unveil the potential of a novel tropical biodiversity-based economy. In: Loures, L.C. (Ed.), Land Use - Assessing the Past. Envisioning the Future. Open Access Book, IntechOpen (in press). Pereira, E.J.D.A.L., da Silva, M.F., Pereira, H.B.B., 2017. Econophysics: past and present. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 473, 251–261. Pereira, E.J.A.L., Ferreira, P.J.S., Ribeiro, L.C.S., Carvalho, T.S., Pereira, H.B.B., 2019a. Policy in Brazil (2016–2019) threaten conservation of the Amazon rainforest. Environ. Sci. Policy 100, 8–12. Pereira, E.J.D.A.L., Ferreira, P.J.S., da Silva, M.F., Miranda, J.G.V., Pereira, H.B.B., 2019b. Multiscale network for 20 stock markets using DCCA. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 529, 121542. Ribeiro, L.C.S., Pereira, E.J.A.L., Freitas, L.F.S., 2018. Greenhouse gases emissions and economic performance of livestock, and environmental input-output analysis. Rev. Econ. E Sociol. Rural. 56, 225–238. Roberts, M.J., Schlenker, W., 2013. Identifying supply and demand elasticities of agricultural commodities: implications for the US ethanol mandate. Am. Econ. Rev. 103 (6), 2265–2295. Rochedo, P.R., Soares-Filho, B., Schaeffer, R., Viola, E., Szklo, A., Lucena, A.F., et al., 2018. The threat of political bargaining to climate mitigation in Brazil. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8 (8), 695. Schweitzer, F., Fagiolo, G., Sornette, D., Vega-Redondo, F., Vespignani, A., White, D.R., 2009. Economic networks: the new challenges. Science 325 (5939), 422–425. Silva, R.F.B., Batistella, M., Dou, Y., Moran, E., Torres, S.M., Liu, J., 2017. The SinoBrazilian telecoupled soybean system and cascading effects for the exporting country. Land 6, 53. Souza, K.B., Ribeiro, L.C.S., Perobelli, F.S., 2016. Reducing Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions: scenario simulations of targets and policies. Econ. Syst. Res. 28, 482–496. Uribe, G., 2019. Interesse na Amazônia não é no índio nem na porra da árvore. 01 October, 2019, at. diz Bolsonaro. Folha de São Paulo, São Paulo. https://www1. folha.uol.com.br/ambiente/2019/10/o-interesse-na-amazonia-nao-e-no-indio-nemna-porra-da-arvore-diz-bolsonaro.shtml. Virah-Sawmy, M., Balmford, A., Kuemmerle, T., Antonelli, A., Hochirch, A., Vira, B., et al., 2019. Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable. Science 364, 341–342. Walker, R., 2012. The scale of forest transition: Amazonia and the Atlantic forests of Brazil. Appl. Geogr. 32, 12–20. Wang, Z., Xiao, C., Niu, B., Deng, L., Liu, Y., 2017. Identify sectors’ role on the embedded CO2 transfer networks through China’s regional trade. Ecol. Indic. 80, 114–123.
References Abessa, D., Famá, A., Buruaem, L., 2019. The systematic dismantling of Brazilian environmental laws risks losses on all fronts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 (4), 510. Arruda, D., Candido, H.G., Fonseca, R., 2019. Amazon fires threaten Brazil’s agribusiness. Science 365 (6460), 1387-1387. Assunção, J., Lipscomb, M., Mobarak, A.M., Szerman, D., 2016. Agricultural Productivity and Deforestation in Brazil. Mimeo. Yale University. Azevedo-Santos, V.M., Fearnside, P.M., Oliveira, C.S., Padial, A.A., Pelicice, F.M., Lima, D.P., et al., 2017. Removing the abyss between conservation science and policy decisions in Brazil. Biodivers. Conserv. 26 (7), 1745–1752. Bombardi, L.M., 2019. Geografia do uso de agrotóxicos no Brasil e conexões com a União Europeia. FFLCH - USP, São Paulo 2017, edição revisada em 2019. 296 p. Brasil, 2019a. Decreto nº 9.741 de 29 de março de 2019. Dispõe sobre a programação orçamentária e financeira. Diário Oficial União, DF, - Seção 1 - Edição Extra – A, P. 1. Brasil, 2019b. Ato nº 70, de 2 de outubro de 2019. Publica o registro de agrotóxicos. Diário Oficial União, DF, - SEÇÃO 1 - Edição 192. pp. 4. Brasil, 2019c. Medida Provisória nº 884, de 14 de junho de 2019. Dispõe sobre a proteção da vegetação nativa e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial União, DF, - Edição: 114A, Seção: 1. pp. 1. Bumpus, A.G., Liverman, D.M., 2011. Carbon colonialism? Offsets, greenhouse gas reductions, and sustainable development. In: Peet, R., Robbins, P., Roberts, M.J. (Eds.), Global Political Ecology. Routledge, New York, pp. 203–224. Carvalho, T.S., Domingues, E.P., Horridge, J.M., 2017. Controlling deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: regional economic impacts and land-use change. Land Use Policy 64, 327–341. Cerri, C.C., Maia, S.M.F., Galdos, M.V., Cerri, C.E.P., Feigl, B.J., Bernoux, M., 2009. Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions: the importance of agriculture and livestock. Sci. Agric. 66 (6), 831–843. Cerri, C.E.P., Cerri, C.C., Maia, S.M.F., Cherubin, M.R., Feigl, B.J., Lal, R., 2018. Reducing Amazon Deforestation Through Agricultural Intensification in the Cerrado for Advancing Food Security and Mitigating Climate Change. Sustainability Switzerland 10 4. MDPI AGhttps://doi.org/10.3390/su10040989. Chen, S., Chen, B., 2015. Urban energy consumption: different insights from energy flow analysis, input–output analysis and ecological network analysis. Appl. Energy 138, 99–107. Climate Watch, 2018. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at: https://www.climatewatchdata.org, Accessed on 30/12/2019. . Davidson, E.A., et al., 2012. The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481, 321–328. Fang, D., Chen, B., 2015. Ecological network analysis for a virtual water network. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (11), 6722–6730. FAO, 2016. El Estado de los bosques del mundo 2016. Los bosques y la agricultura: desafíos y oportunidades en relación con el uso de la tierra, Roma. Fearnside, P.M., 2006. Desmatamento na Amazônia: dinâmica, impactos e controle. Acta Amazon. 36 (3), 395–400. Fearnside, P.M., 2016. Brazilian politics threaten environmental policies. Science 353 (6301), 746–748. Fearnside, P.M., Laurance, W.F., 2004. Tropical deforestation and greenhouse-gas emissions. Ecol. Appl. 14 (4), 982–986. Finer, M., Mamani, N., 2019. MAAP #110: Major Finding – Many Brazilian Amazon Fires Follow 2019 Deforestation. MAAP, pp. 110. Gibbs, H.K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D.C., Noojipady, P., et al., 2015. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347 (6220), 377–378. Gortazár, N.G., 2019. Um terço dos agrotóxicos usados no Brasil inclui alguma substância proibida pela EU. El País, São Paulo, pp. 31 de julho de 2019. Hanaka, T., Kagawa, S., Ono, H., Kanemoto, K., 2017. Finding environmentally critical transmission sectors, transactions, and paths in global supply chain networks. Energy Econ. 68, 44–52. Hegerl, G.C., Crowley, T.J., Hyde, W.T., Frame, D.J., 2006. Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Nature 440, 1029–1032. Hoefle, S.W., 2012. Soybean production in the heart of the Amazon? Horizons in Geography 81–82, 94–106. Hoefle, S.W., 2013. Beyond carbon colonialism: frontier peasant livelihoods, spatial mobility and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Crit. Anthropol. 33 (2), 193–213. Huntingford, C., Harris, P.O., Gedney, N., Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Marengo, J.A., Gash, J.H.C., 2004. Using a GCM analogue model to investigate the potential for Amazonian forest dieback. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78, 177–185.
6