soy production · chaco has been led primarily by environmental ngos and non-profits, among them...

SOY PRODUCTIONand Deforestation in Argentina’s Gran Chaco

A Plan for Conservation

Chris Barrett Environmental Planning - Fall 2014

2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Soy in Latin America and its Expansion into Northern Argentina....................................................... 4

The Political and Economic Drivers of Soy Production and Deforestation ......................................... 6

Current Efforts to Curb Deforestation ................................................................................................ 8

Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 11

PLAN...................................................................................................................................................... 12

Main Goals ........................................................................................................................................ 12

First Steps - Revise, Strengthen, Enforce, Monitor........................................................................... 12

Next Steps - Public Awareness and Ecosystem Services................................................................... 14

Final Steps - Restructuring of the Agricultural Sector....................................................................... 15

A New Agricultural Paradigm ....................................................................................................... 17

OUTLINE................................................................................................................................................ 19

ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................................ 20

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 22


3

I. INTRODUCTIONDeforestation fueled by urbanization, illegal logging, the conversion of land for agriculture,

as well as ‘natural’ causes such as degradation from climate change, accounts for 65% of all

of the developing world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.i Subsequent agricultural activity

such as cattle ranching and palm oil or soy cultivation -- and the transportation, pesticide

application, and soil overuse associated with it -- creates even more emissions, and

displaces the area’s native flora, fauna, and local communities. It pits small-scale farmers

and indigenous peoples against powerful transnational agricultural interests, weakening

local economies, forcing poor rural residents into peripheral urban slums, and pushing

ecosystems towards dangerous thresholds.

One of the developing world’s most threatened forest ecosystems is the Gran Chaco

semiarid forest stretching across northern Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and parts of Brazil. It

is the second-largest ecosystem in the Americas, as well as home to a diversity of species

The Gran Chaco semiarid forest encompasses much of northern Argentina, western Paraguay,eastern Bolivia, and parts of Brazil. (Source: CIA World Factbook)


4

and one of the last uncontacted indigenous tribes outside of the Amazon.ii It also acts as a

significant carbon sink. The combined threats of illegal logging and agricultural

encroachment, however, present a substantial threat to the region, which lost

approximately one hectare of forest every two minutes in the first decade of this century. In

Argentina, this massive clearing of forest is taking place primarily to open up land for the

production of soy for export, an endeavor that brings in nearly a quarter of the nation’s

wealth and has become a cornerstone of the Argentine economy.iii It has resulted in the

displacement of rural communities, the loss of biodiversity, the release of carbon dioxide

into the atmosphere, soil degradation, as well as health problems in communities exposed

to pesticides.iv Despite nominal measures to curb deforestation, Argentine economic policy

caters to the robust international demand for soy products and thus exacerbates the

problem for short-term financial gain. At current rates of deforestation, approximately half

of the Gran Chaco will be gone by the end of this century.v

In this paper I will briefly outline the historical context of soy production in Argentina, as

well as describe the principle factors -- namely, technological and agricultural innovations,

high international demand for soy and soy products, and government-supported economic

incentives -- supporting the soy industry and thus contributing to deforestation in the Gran

Chaco. The paper will conclude with an analysis of current efforts to curb deforestation, as

well as a potential pathway towards reforestation, environmental stewardship, and a

restructuring of the Argentine agricultural sector to promote sustainability.

Soy in Latin America and its Expansion into Northern Argentina

Soy was introduced as a cash crop to South America in the 1970s, principally in Brazil.vi It

gradually made its way north across the country before tropical climate conditions impeded

the crop’s ability to grow; today, however, the availability of genetically-modified soy, as

well as advances in soil remediation, allow the crop to be grown in previously inhospitable

tropical climes, particularly the cerrado in western Bahia state. In recent years, the cerrado

has seen a massive influx of North American farmers from the Midwest, snatching up

thousands of hectares at low prices and planting soy almost exclusively. While this has its

environmental implications -- it’s estimated that 40% of the area’s original vegetation has

been destroyed, and another 40 percent has been degraded -- the focus in Brazil has been


5

largely on the socio-economic impacts of the soy boom. Bahia is one of the country’s

poorest states, and the “opening up” of the cerrado has, for the most part, excluded the

native-born Brazilian farmers.vii

Soy’s journey across South America took it from Brazil to Paraguay, which has seen the most

deforestation in the Chaco due to soy productionviii, and then to Bolivia, Argentina, and

more recently, Uruguay. Beginning in the ‘70s, soy was planted in the pampas of central

Argentina, the nation’s traditional breadbasket, alongside wheat and other crops. In fact,

farmers found that they could significantly augment their income by first planting wheat,

and then planting soy in the same fields, thus reaping a doble cosecha, or “double harvest.”

This practice severely depleted the soil’s nutrients, but by then an overseas market for

Argentine soy had already developed, and the economic incentives outweighed

environmental concerns.ix

As international demand grew, more and more acreage was converted to soy production

and land in central Argentina became increasingly more expensive. Producers began looking


6

to previously inaccessible areas in which to expand, prompting a “pampa-ization”

(pampeanización) of large parts of the countryside. Much like they had opened up the

cerrado in Brazil, advances in agricultural technology and transgenic seeds made the

previously inhospitable north an attractive location for potential soy farming. The

introduction of GM soy to Argentina in 1996 meant that the lucrative crop could now be

grown in areas less fertile than the pampas. Changes in climate also allowed for this

expansion; a 20%-30% increase in rainfall in Argentina’s subtropical north since the first half

of the 20th century, attributable to climate change, created a more welcome environment

for soy production.x

Land prices, agricultural technology, and climate change all paved the way for soy’s

expansion into the Chaco and the northern provinces of Argentina, an area that had

previously only supported small-scale cotton farming and subsistence agriculture. The

political landscape of the ‘90s, followed by Argentina’s fiscal crisis of 2001, also facilitated

this shift in the agricultural sector.

The Political and Economic Drivers of Soy Production and Deforestation

For much of its history up to and including most of the 20th century, Argentina imported

very little foodstuffs, relying instead on small to medium-scale farmers, as well as some

larger agricultural entities in the pampas, to supply the country with food.xi While wheat and

meat exports did form a critical cornerstone of the economy, their production never

overwhelmed small-scale agricultural producers, and enough of these products stayed in

the country to sustain a domestic market. The agricultural sector could accommodate both

large and small-scale enterprises, both the export economy and domestic consumption, and

a relative diversity of crops assured food security and soil fertility.xii

The changes that began with the introduction of soy in the ‘70s gained speed in the 1990s, a

decade in which neoliberal economic models dominated throughout Latin America. In

Argentina, President Carlos Menem ushered in an era of privatization and deregulation, the

effects of which are still reverberating throughout the country today, not least of all in the

agricultural sector. The 1991 Law of Deregulation eliminated the governing bodies that since


7

the 1930s had regulated all agricultural activity in the country; it also preceded the

introduction of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR) soy to the country just five years later.xiii

The economic atmosphere promoted by neoliberalism encouraged the rise of large

transnational companies such as Cargill, Bunge, and others, which prioritized the production

and export of soy and corn while consolidating vast land holdings throughout the country.

Throughout this time period, Argentina’s traditional small and mid-sized farmers gave way

to larger, industrial operations; from 1988 to 2002, 87,000 small farmers, mostly growing on

less than 200 hectares, disappeared from the Argentine census. At the same time, the

number of farms 500 hectares or larger, and especially those between 1,000 and 2,500

hectares, grew significantly.xiv As these large farms spread north, armed with genetically-

modified seeds and advanced land-clearing technologies, they found themselves impeded

only by the poor and indigenous communities of Argentina’s traditionally undeveloped rural

north, and the unwelcoming thorn scrub of the Gran Chaco, which till then had also been

known by its nickname, “the Impenetrable.” Advanced land-clearing technologies soon

began rendering this appellative unsuitable.xv

If the neoliberal economic model of the ‘90s laid the groundwork for the massive cultivation

of soy and the deforestation of the Chaco, then domestic economic policy and high

international demand have since spurred these phenomena on. Increased meat

consumption in rapidly modernizing countries like China and India (where soy products are

used as animal feed), as well as the demand for soy as a biofuel in the U.S. and Europe made

the crop a dependable source of income in the period immediately following Argentina’s

debt default of 2001, and hastened the shift towards a soy-dominated agricultural sector.xvi

Through the use of Differential Export Taxes (DETs) the Argentine government has

incentivized the cultivation of the crop by encouraging international demand, and the 20-

30% tax it levies on exports provides an estimated quarter of the gross national income.xvii

Argentina’s Strategic Agri-food Plan calls for a 60% increase in grain production by 2020, a

plan that will almost surely result in more deforestation if enacted.xviii

The irresponsible exploitation of natural and agricultural resources by otherwise left-leaning

governments throughout Latin America and the developing world is known as

neoextractivism, a phenomenon that justifies itself by linking extraction projects with


8

poverty reduction.xix By directing a portion of profits from these projects towards poverty

alleviation programs, governments manufacture support for resource exploitation without

addressing the systemic causes of poverty. In Argentina’s case, the clearing of the Chaco for

soy production is tied to the patriotically-driven desire for economic independence, and has

earned the country the self-imposed nickname “La república de la soya.”xx In reality,

however, the nation has become dangerously dependent on a mono-crop that is highly

susceptible to fluctuations in the international market, and whose production is

unsustainable given its long-term effects on soil fertility after years of continuous planting.

In its quest for economic vitality, Argentina may find itself on the brink of an environmental

default if its policies aren’t reexamined.

Current Efforts to Curb Deforestation

At both the local and national levels, the fight against deforestation in the Argentine Gran

Chaco has been led primarily by environmental NGOs and non-profits, among them Banco

Argentina’s 2020 Agri-food Plan calls for a 58% increase in grain production - predominantly soy.


9

de Bosques, Greenpeace Argentina, Fundación Vida Silvestre, and others. They concentrate

their efforts on public awareness campaigns, government lobbying, and in the case of

smaller activist and indigenous groups, direct confrontation with agricultural interests.xxi

Banco de Bosques has taken a unique crowdsourcing approach to conservation by

facilitating the purchase of forested land through its website; businesses and individuals can

select a parcel of land in the Chaco to “buy,” which the non-profit then manages. In October

of this year, 128,000 hectares of land purchased through Banco de Bosques were set aside

as a national park by the Argentine Congress, to be administered by the country’s National

Parks Administration.xxii The non-profit is also involved in developing non-extractive

industries in the Chaco, such as fruit and honey production and eco-tourism, as economic

incentives for preservation.xxiii

NGOs have also expended energy lobbying the national government for forest preservation,

resulting in the country’s most important deforestation law, 2007’s Ley de Bosques.

Sponsored by a coalition led by Greenpeace Argentina, the law invoked a moratorium on all

deforestation in the country and outlined a process by which all forested land is categorized

into one of three levels of ecological importance (red, yellow, or green). It requires

A screenshot from Banco de Bosques’ crowdsourcing site.


10

provincial governments to assess all forested land (public and private) before designating it

as either “red” (protected), “yellow” (selective logging permitted), or “green” (cleared for

logging). Before “green” tracts of land can be authorized for clearance, however, the

province must conduct an environmental impact review and convene a public audience.xxiv

Despite its legal standing, provincial governors largely ignored the Ley de Bosques and its

stipulations, citing negative effects on their local economies; shortly after its passage, the

governor of Salta approved the deforestation of 1.6 million hectares of the Gran Chaco,

causing even the bill’s authors to question its enforceability.xxv Until as recently as this

month, a provincial amendment to the law in Salta (which experiences the most

deforestation of any province) allowed private landowners to recategorize their land against

the findings of the initial assessments, essentially rendering the law ineffective. This

loophole was recently closed, though it is estimated that approximately 130,000 hectares of

protected land (roughly the size of Banco de Bosque’s recently created park) were razed in

the meantime.xxvi

One strategy aimed at curbing deforestation at the global level is paying for ecosystems

services, or attaching a monetary value to ecosystems based on their perceived

environmental benefits, such as carbon sequestration. The United Nations’ REDD (Reducing

Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) program is the most well-known of

these efforts, and has been in place in Argentina since 2009. Ideally, REDD provides

communities dependent on forest clearance for their livelihood with economic incentives to

preserve, rather than cut down, trees. These funds come from developed countries or

international corporations, who pay developing countries to limit deforestation and then

receive carbon offset credits in exchange, to be traded on the global carbon market.xxvii

Finally, in addition to the Ley de Bosques and its recent enforcement, the national

government’s Strategic Agri-food Plan calls for a 35% increase in protected natural areas

(approximately 5 million hectares, though they don’t specify just what land will be

protected), and a 45% increase in overall forested land by 2020.xxviii These goals are just

footnotes in the greater scheme of the plan, however, which focuses heavily on increased

agricultural output through the use of GMOs and synthetic fertilizers. Somewhat ominously,


11

the plan also outlines a project called PROBIOMASA, which will increase “the production of

clean energy from forest biomass.”

Limitations

While deforestation in Argentina has been recognized as a significant problem, the

strategies proposed to mitigate it have lacked an overarching structure. The sense of

urgency associated with deforestation in the Amazon and other important forested areas

has also been missing, except among local activists directly involved and the communities

most affected by it. The majority of the work thus far has been carried out by environmental

NGOs which, even working in coalitions, can only achieve so much, especially at the rate at

which tracts of the Gran Chaco are disappearing.xxix

As for UN-REDD and similar ecosystems services schemes, critics have pointed out that very

little of the carbon offset money ever makes it to the communities it’s meant for, thus

removing the very disincentives at the heart of the program.xxx REDD also seems better

suited for very traditional subsistence-farming communities; money from carbon offsets

might provide enough of an incentive for a rice farmer from Madagascar to refrain from

clearing forest (assuming it found its way to that farmer’s community, as intended), but with

international demand for soy so high and record-breaking harvests each year, could it

convince a large-scale Argentine producer to forego profits? In order to work in the

Argentine context, REDD and similar initiatives must alter their strategy to include large-

scale producers, the Argentine government, as well as those indigenous communities who,

for the most part, are not engaged in deforestation.

Finally, efforts on the part of the national government, such as the Ley de Bosques, will

prove to be ineffectual considering the strong economic forces at work encouraging

deforestation. The country’s economic and agricultural strategies are still grounded heavily

in the neoextractivist paradigm, and they will need to be seriously reexamined if Argentina’s

long-term environmental and economic sustainability is to remain viable.xxxi


12

II. PLANThe deforestation of the Gran Chaco is a complex problem whose causes operate at various

scales, from the local, to the national, and the global. Furthermore, while it is primarily an

economic problem, there are various political and cultural factors to consider as well, such

as Argentine’s relationship to the land, their perception of indigenous communities residing

in the Gran Chaco, and the neoextractivist mentality so prominent throughout Latin

America. Because of its complexity, the problem must be addressed at all these scales and

with the various cultural and political considerations in mind; it also requires Argentines and

their government to take a long-term view, most likely at the expense of short-term

financial gain. What I propose is a complete overhaul of the Argentine agricultural system

with an eye towards long-term sustainability, coupled with a shift in the public’s perception

of their natural heritage, as well as a massive reforestation program supported by economic

incentives. This will require a significant realignment of national priorities, as well as

considerable policy shifts at the national and provincial levels, grassroots action at the local

level, and a reassessment of current ecosystem services programs to better fit the Argentine

reality. In the following pages I will try to outline how this might take place, though such an

endeavor assumes, at the outset, serious changes in the sentiments of the country’s political

leaders.

Main Goals:

1. Reassessment and restructuring of the Argentine agricultural sector to encourage

long-term sustainability and true economic independence.

2. Shift in public mentality from neoextractivism to conservation and stewardship.

3. Massive reforestation of the Gran Chaco, funded by improved ecosystem services

program, domestic carbon market, and strengthened fines for lawbreakers.

First Steps - Revise, Strengthen, Enforce, Monitor

As we have discussed, international demand for soy has been the single greatest driver of

deforestation in Argentina.xxxii While this is global in scope, it has been the government’s

economic policies at the national level that have catered to this demand and facilitated the


13

country’s dependency on soy production.xxxiii Therefore, the government’s recognition of

the Gran Chaco’s importance and soy’s contribution to deforestation is a necessary first step

in any meaningful effort to address the problem. In other words, in order to solve the

problem they must first admit they have one.

The first logical step the Argentine government should take is to revise and renew the

moratorium on deforestation. As a critical carbon sink, unique biome, home to vulnerable

communities and species, and potential source of income (via ecotourism and sustainable

agriculture), the Gran Chaco must be recognized as a cultural and economic asset, and

protected accordingly. Global designation as a world heritage site, or indispensable tool in

the world’s carbon mitigation arsenal, would lend greater legitimacy to its protected status.

A stronger Ley de Bosques categorization system would classify all existing forest as “red,”

or protected. Furthermore, as the first steps of a national reforestation program, tracts of

illegally deforested land would be earmarked for replanting, to be carried out in partnership

with local communities and NGOs. The Argentine government should create a domestic

carbon offset market to compensate landowners for reforesting their property, funded by

fines collected from illegally-operating soy farms and logging outfits. All requests to clear

forest would be subject to the same national assessment standards to create uniformity

within the provinces and avoid the sort of legal loopholes that were exploited in Salta. These

assessments would be carried out in collaboration with local stakeholders, with particular

scrutiny placed on the landowner’s reasons for

clearing forest. Clearcutting for monoculture, for

instance, would be less likely to be approved given

its adverse effects on the land.

In order to monitor and enforce the revised Ley de

Bosques, I propose the national and provincial

governments develop their own, or partner with an

existing, monitoring agency, such as the

International Center for Tropical Agriculture

(CIAT).xxxiv CIAT’s Terra-I satellite mapping system

monitors deforestation throughout Latin America,


14

updating its information every sixteen days; such a system would allow provincial

governments and local communities to track deforestation patterns and more easily identify

lawbreakers. Another potential solution is to enlist the local indigenous communities, such

as the Qom, as stewards of the Chaco. This is a role they’ve played historically, but official

recognition as such by the national government would improve ties with this typically

marginalized segment of society, and provide the government with a knowledgeable, local

ally.xxxv (Similar efforts by Brazil’s Amazonian tribes against illegal loggers have garnered

international attention and painted deforestation as a human rights issue).xxxvi

Next Steps - Public Awareness and Ecosystem Services

This new awareness on the part of the government must coincide with a similar shift in the

public’s perception. While environmental awareness in Argentina is on the rise (particularly

pertaining to issues of environmental justice), the old neoextractivist mentality remains

strong; that is, the belief that the exploitation of the nation’s resources will lift segments of

the population out of poverty and contribute to Argentina’s international standing.xxxvii

While NGOs such as Greenpeace and Banco de Bosques have brought the issue of

deforestation to national attention, there remains a disconnect between the problem and

its principal cause, soy production. To many Argentines, soy exports have served as a lifeline

since the debt default of 2001, as well as a matter of pride; this certainly remains true for

producers, who enjoy high international demand for their products.xxxviii To the

neoextractivist way of thinking, the Gran Chaco should be exploited if it brings wealth to

Argentina, even if that wealth is unsustainable.

One way to address this issue is to appropriate the neoextractivist paradigm and turn it on

its head, so that it induces conservation rather than exploitation. As it stands, soy

production generates significant income for the country, a portion of which funds social

programs (just as the exploitation of the Amazon and Cerrado, during Lula da Silva’s

presidency in Brazil, helped fund the social programs that lifted millions out of poverty).xxxix

A domestic carbon offset market, as mentioned earlier, working in tandem with a more

efficient REDD-like ecosystem services program, could generate income from conservation

and encourage reforestation. The Argentine government should explicitly link the economic

benefits of conservation with the social benefits of its poverty alleviation programs. Ideally,


15

payment for ecosystem services would benefit those Argentines most affected by

deforestation and soy expansion: indigenous communities, victims of pesticide-related

illnesses, and small-scale farming families forced from the land and into the villas miserias,

or shantytowns, of Buenos Aires. The Argentine government should collaborate with the

United Nations in updating its REDD program, or develop a new program tailored specifically

to the Argentine context.

A public awareness campaign should be undertaken by a coalition of environmental NGOs in

order to shift the national dialogue from exploitation to conservation. A similar campaign

should be targeted abroad, as well. Brazil has successfully halted deforestation in the

Amazon partially because that forest’s importance is felt beyond the borders of South

America; if similar sentiment could be cultivated for the Gran Chaco, the Argentine

government might feel more international pressure to curb deforestation.xl Foreign

awareness would also generate carbon offset investments from developed nations and

business entities, funding the country’s social programs as well as the proposed

reforestation campaign.

The seed for this shift in perception amongst the Argentine public already exists, as

evidenced by a growing mistrust of genetically modified crops and the industrialized

agricultural sector in generalxli, as well as broad support for programs such as Banco de

Bosques’. As awareness grows, the government and those in the environmental field should

outline a pathway towards an agricultural and environmental future that is sustainable,

equitable, and collaborative. For such a pathway to be possible, the agricultural sector must

also change not only its perceptions, but its business model. Given the economic realities

and long-term viability of soy production, this shouldn’t be as difficult as it at first seems.

Final Steps - Restructuring of the Agricultural Sector

Agricultural trends in the ‘90s made soy cultivation in Argentina, and its spread northward

into the Chaco, feasible; economic trends since the turn of the century have hastened this

spread and made it lucrative. International demand (spurred further by Argentina’s

Differential Export Taxes) has encouraged soy production even among farmers initially

averse to the idea, who now find very few alternative models to follow.xlii Finally, the


16

nation’s current Agri-food Plan extends this model into the future and is set to exacerbate

problems such as deforestation, while locking the country even further into its dependency

on soy for its income. This is all unsustainable.

Though profitable in the short-term, intensive and extensive soy production not only

threatens forests such as the Gran Chaco but presents a very real threat to Argentina’s soil

vitality and domestic food production; because of soy’s rapid takeover of the agricultural

sector, Argentina now has to import most of its food.xliii Non-soy related production, such as

livestock-raising, is becoming increasingly penned-up and industrialized. Not only does this

have environmental and health consequences, it fails to account for potential changes in

global demand and climatic changes, which could have dramatic effects on Argentina’s

economic sustainability.

For example, much of the soy produced in Argentina and nearby regions is genetically

modified. When a major scientific journal in China -- one of the biggest importers of

Argentine soy beans -- called into question the health effects of genetically-modified crops,

panic ensued among South American growers.xliv Argentina’s current agricultural

framework, so heavily dependent on a single crop, is ill-prepared for any potential drastic

changes in public demand or foreign import policies. Furthermore, long-term climatic

changes throughout the country might render certain areas once again unsuitable for soy

production. The Argentine government must recognize that it is in the national interest to


17

diversify the agricultural sector in order to remain competitive and protect against

unforeseen changes. If producers understand that diversification is economically beneficial

and more sustainable in the long-term, the shift to a new agricultural paradigm becomes

possible.

In order to initiate this shift, the Argentine government must reexamine its current policies

and existing agricultural forecasts. First and foremost, manipulation through export taxes

must cease, replaced instead by incentives for diversification and a more natural, resilient

relationship to the global market. Although it currently depends so heavily on export taxes,

the income generated from the proposed ecosystem service program, if implemented

successfully, should alleviate some of the export losses. Benefits generated in the long-term

by developing a more diverse and resilient agricultural sector will greatly outweigh the

short-term economic gains Argentina currently enjoys; essentially, they must wean

themselves from soy.

Agricultural producers should be approached from the outset for their input in developing

this new strategy, and the Argentine government should facilitate the transition by

providing economic incentives comparable to the former soy incentives. Potential incentives

include monetary compensation for reforesting former soy fields; tax breaks for producers

transitioning from large-scale monoculture to mixed and/or organic farming; and free

government-sponsored training for those producers wishing to transition to an

agroecological model.

A New Agricultural Paradigm

In neighboring Brazil, advances in agricultural technology and land-use practices have

helped bring about a decline in deforestation rates. Namely, genetically-modified crops yield

bigger harvests, and more intensive (rather than extensive) planting reduces the amount of

land cleared. Admirers have heralded this approach as the new means of supplying the

world with food while having minimal impact on forests.xlv As scrutiny of deforestation in

the Chaco grows, so too will calls for implementing this new “smart” agriculture in

Argentina, and indeed the Agri-food Plan outlines a similar model to the Brazilian

approach.xlvi


18

The Argentine government may well endorse this strategy as a way of appearing

environmentally responsible while maintaining the current soy-for-export paradigm.

Already, however, some producers are calling into question the “smart” agriculture model

which encourages the use of GM seeds, extensive pesticide use, and dependence on a

(lucrative, but unethical) mono-crop. The Argentine government must reexamine this

approach with a critical eye, as well. Rather than hedge its economic and environmental

future against the fluctuating global demand for a single product, Argentina has the

opportunity to develop a sustainable agricultural model that values the natural

environment, community health, and long-term economic security over short-term profit.

Working together, the national government, the agricultural sector, and the public can

effect this transition.


19

III. OUTLINE Acknowledge the Gran Chaco’s cultural, economic, and environmental importance,

and explicitly recognize that deforestation and soy production are linked.

Designate the Gran Chaco as an environmental world heritage site, as well as critical

tool in the fight against climate change as a carbon sink.

Issue a revised and renewed governmental moratorium on all deforestation, as well

as a strengthened Ley de Bosques and classification system.

Conduct strict assessments for all proposed clearings, with the collaboration of local

stakeholders.

Enlist local communities, particularly indigenous ones, as official stewards of the

forest and enforcers of the new Ley de Bosques.

Develop and implement an official satellite monitoring system to track deforestation

and assist on-the-ground enforcement.

Begin reforesting land that was illegally cleared.

Develop a domestic carbon market to encourage landowners to reforest and/or

conserve forested land.

Develop, in collaboration with international organizations, a revised REDD-like

ecosystems service program to fund reforestation efforts and encourage

conservation.

Explicitly link funds from carbon offsets to poverty alleviation programs and social

programming, particularly in vulnerable communities near the Chaco, thus

appropriating the neoextractivist model and rendering it obsolete.

Promote a public awareness campaign of the Chaco’s importance, both in Argentina

and abroad.

End all Differential Export Taxes and other market manipulation practices that

encourage the production of soy.

Engage the agricultural sector in developing a new, long-term agricultural strategy

that promotes diversification and responsible land use practices.

Create economic incentives for producers to transition to organic farming,

diversification, and reforestation.


20

ENDNOTESi Greene, C. “Beyond the Amazon: Deforestation in Argentina.” The Argentina Independent, September 12,2008. (Accessed September 29, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/environment/beyond-the-amazon-deforestation-in-argentina/ii Romero, Simon. “Vast Tracts in Paraguay Forest Being Replaced by Ranches.” The New York Times, March 24,2012). (Accessed October 2, 2014). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/world/americas/paraguays-chaco-forest-being-cleared-by-ranchers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0iii Barr, C. “The Soya Republic.” The Argentina Independent, May 11, 2009 (Accessed September 29, 2014)http://www.argentinaindependent.com/feature/the-soya-republic/iv Periódico Mu, translated by K. Robinson. “La Aurora: A New Dawn.” The Argentina Independent, September24, 2014. (Accessed September 29, 2014) http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/la-aurora-a-new-dawn/v Reboratti, Carlos. “La Expansión de la Soja en el Norte de la Argentina: Impactos Ambientales y Sociales.”CONICET, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires: 2008.vi Ibid.vii Wolford, Wendy. “Environmental Justice and Agricultural Development in the Brazilian Cerrado.”Environmental Justice in Latin America. Ed. David V. Carruthers. The MIT Press, Cambridge: 2008.viii Lang, Chris. “Can REDD save the thorn forests of the Paraguayan Chaco?” REDD Monitor, April 10, 2013.(Accessed September 29, 2014). http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/04/10/can-redd-save-the-thorn-forests-of-the-paraguayan-chaco/ix Reboratti, “La Expansión de la Soja en el Norte de la Argentina: Impactos Ambientales y Sociales.”x Grau, H. Ricardo, T. Mitchell Aide, & N. Ignacio Gasparri. “Globalization and Soybean Expansion into SemiaridEcosystems of Argentina.” Ambio, Vol. 34, No. 3: May 2005.xi Teubal, Miguel. “Expansión del modelo sojero en la Argentina.” Revista Realidad Económica, No. 220. BuenosAires: 2006.xii Aizen, Marcelo A., Lucas A. Garibaldi, & Mariana Dondo. “Expansión de la soja y diversidad de la agriculturaargentina.” Ecología Austral, No. 19: April 2009.xiii Teubal, “Expansión del modelo sojero en la Argentina.”xiv Ibid.xv Reboratti, “La Expansión de la Soja en el Norte de la Argentina: Impactos Ambientales y Sociales.”xvi Grau et al., “Globalization and Soybean Expansion into Semiarid Ecosystems of Argentina.”xvii Southeast Farm Press. “U.S. soybean industry protests Argentina’s unfair export tax.” Southeast Farm Press,November 3, 2014. (Accessed December 3, 2014). http://southeastfarmpress.com/soybeans/us-soybean-industry-protests-argentina-s-unfair-export-taxxviii Robinson, Kristie. “Malcomidos: An Interview with Soledad Barruti.” The Argentina Independent, January28, 2014. (Accessed September 29, 2014) http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/malcomidos-interview-soledad-barruti/xix Baletti, Brenda. “Saving the Amazon? Sustainable soy and the new extractivism.” Environment and PlanningA, Vol. 46, 2014.xx Barr, “The Soya Republic.”xxi Robinson, Kristie. “Dying of Deforestation.” The Argentina Independent, September 12, 2008. (AccessedDecember 17, 2014). http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/opinion/dying-of-deforestation/xxii The Argentina Independent. “Chaco: New National Park Created in El Impenetrable.” The ArgentinaIndependent, October 24, 2014. (Accessed November 30, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/chaco-new-national-park-created-in-el-impenetrable/xxiii Minchom, Robin. “Saving Forests, One Plastic Bottle at a Time.” The Argentina Independent, July 16, 2012.(Accessed November 5, 2014). http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/environment/saving-forests-one-plastic-bottle-at-a-time/xxiv Greenpeace. “Ley de Bosques.” (Accessed September 12, 2014).http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/blogbosques/


21

xxv Finnerty, Paul. “Ley de Bosques – Argentina Aims to Cut Deforestation Rates.” The Argentina Independent,March 2, 2009. (Accessed November 30, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/ley-de-bosques-%E2%80%93-argentina-aims-to-cut-deforestation-rates/xxvi The Argentina Independent. “Salta Governor closes Deforestation Loophole.” The Argentina Independent,December 19, 2014. (Accessed December 19, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/salta-governor-closes-deforestation-loopholexxvii Nayar, Anjali. “How to Save a Forest.” Nature, Vol. 462, November 5, 2009.xxviii Caride, Verónica. “Argentina's Experience in the Development of a Sustainable and CompetitiveAgricultural System: Smart Agriculture.” National Direction of International Agri-food Affairs. (Powerpointpresentation), January, 2014.xxix Pollock, Nic. “Terra-I: Mapping Latin America’s Disappearing Forests.” The Argentina Independent, July 25,2012. (Accessed September 12, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/environment/terra-i-mapping-latin-americas-disappearing-forests/xxx Nayar, “How to Save a Forest.”xxxi Robinson, Kristie. “Editorial: Argentina’s Unsustainable Path.” The Argentina Independent, April 2, 2014.(Accessed September 29, 2014) http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/editorial-argentinas-unsustainable-path/xxxii Grau et al., “Globalization and Soybean Expansion into Semiarid Ecosystems of Argentina.”xxxiii Reboratti, Carlos. “Un mar de soja: la nueva agricultura en Argentina y sus consecuencias.” Revista deGeografía Norte Grande, No. 45: 2010.xxxiv Pollock, “Terra-I: Mapping Latin America’s Disappearing Forests.”xxxv Robinson, “Dying of Deforestation.”xxxvi Kirkpatrick, Nick. “Tribes battle illegal loggers in the Amazon in these shocking photographs.” TheWashington Post, September 12, 2014. (Accessed December 19, 2014).http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/12/tribes-battle-illegal-loggers-in-the-amazon-in-these-shocking-photographs/xxxvii Reboratti, Carlos. “Environmental Conflicts and Environmental Justice in Argentina.” Environmental Justicein Latin America. Ed. David V. Carruthers. The MIT Press, Cambridge: 2008.xxxviii Grau et al., “Globalization and Soybean Expansion into Semiarid Ecosystems of Argentina.”xxxix Wolford, “Environmental Justice and Agricultural Development in the Brazilian Cerrado.”xl Tollefson, Jeff. “Brazil warming to green policies: Activist Marina Silva is gaining ground in presidential polls.”Nature, Vol. 513, September 25, 2014.xli Dolven, Taylor. “Camping Protesters in Argentine Town Halt Construction of Monsanto Plant.” Latino Rebels,April 5, 2014 (Accessed December 17, 2014). http://www.latinorebels.com/2014/04/05/camping-protesters-in-argentine-town-halt-construction-of-monsanto-plant/xlii Periódico Mu, “La Aurora: A New Dawn.”xliii Aizen et al., “Expansión de la soja y diversidad de la agricultura argentina.”xliv Rosenman, Olivia. “Soya bean imports revive fears in China about genetically modified food.” South ChinaMorning Post, June 23, 2013. (Accessed December 20, 2014).http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266874/soya-bean-imports-revive-fears-about-genetically-modified-foodxlv Tollefson, Jeff. “The Global Farm.” Nature, Vol. 466, July 29, 2010.xlvi Caride, “Argentina's Experience in the Development of a Sustainable and Competitive Agricultural System:Smart Agriculture.”


22

REFERENCES1. The Argentina Independent. “Chaco: New National Park Created in El Impenetrable.”

The Argentina Independent, October 24, 2014. (Accessed November 30, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/chaco-new-national-park-created-in-el-impenetrable/

2. The Argentina Independent. “Salta Governor closes Deforestation Loophole.” TheArgentina Independent, December 19, 2014. (Accessed December 19, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/salta-governor-closes-deforestation-loophole/

3. Aizen, Marcelo A., Lucas A. Garibaldi, & Mariana Dondo. “Expansión de la soja ydiversidad de la agricultura argentina.” Ecología Austral, No. 19: April 2009.

4. Baletti, Brenda. “Saving the Amazon? Sustainable soy and the new extractivism.”Environment and Planning A, Vol. 46, 2014.

5. Barr, C. “The Soya Republic.” The Argentina Independent, May 11, 2009 (AccessedSeptember 29, 2014) http://www.argentinaindependent.com/feature/the-soya-republic/

6. Caride, Verónica. “Argentina's Experience in the Development of a Sustainable andCompetitive Agricultural System: Smart Agriculture.” National Direction ofInternational Agri-food Affairs. (Powerpoint presentation), January, 2014.

7. Dolven, Taylor. “Camping Protesters in Argentine Town Halt Construction ofMonsanto Plant.” Latino Rebels, April 5, 2014 (Accessed December 17, 2014).http://www.latinorebels.com/2014/04/05/camping-protesters-in-argentine-town-halt-construction-of-monsanto-plant/

8. Finnerty, Paul. “Ley de Bosques – Argentina Aims to Cut Deforestation Rates.” TheArgentina Independent, March 2, 2009. (Accessed November 30, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/ley-de-bosques-%E2%80%93-argentina-aims-to-cut-deforestation-rates/

9. Grau, H. Ricardo, N. Ignacio Gasparri, and T. Mitchell Aide. “Agriculture expansionand deforestation in seasonally dry forests of north-west Argentina.” EnvironmentalConservation, Vol. 32, No. 2: February 2005.

10. Grau, H. Ricardo, T. Mitchell Aide, & N. Ignacio Gasparri. “Globalization and SoybeanExpansion into Semiarid Ecosystems of Argentina.” Ambio, Vol. 34, No. 3: May 2005.

11. Greenpeace. “Ley de Bosques.” (Accessed September 12, 2014).http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/blogbosques/


23

12. Greenpeace, Solutions to Deforestation. (n.d.). (Accessed September 29, 2014).http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/forests/solutions-to-deforestation/

13. Greene, C. “Beyond the Amazon: Deforestation in Argentina.” The ArgentinaIndependent, September 12, 2008. (Accessed September 29, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/environment/beyond-the-amazon-deforestation-in-argentina/

14. Kirkpatrick, Nick. “Tribes battle illegal loggers in the Amazon in these shockingphotographs.” The Washington Post, September 12, 2014. (Accessed December 19,2014). http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/12/tribes-battle-illegal-loggers-in-the-amazon-in-these-shocking-photographs/

15. Krapovickas, Julieta. “Cambio socio-ambiental en el Chaco argentino y su relacióncon la expansion de la soja en la decada de 1990.” Master’s thesis, UniversidadAutónoma de Barcelona, 2009.

16. Lang, Chris. “Can REDD save the thorn forests of the Paraguayan Chaco?” REDDMonitor, April 10, 2013. (Accessed September 29, 2014). http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/04/10/can-redd-save-the-thorn-forests-of-the-paraguayan-chaco/

17. Minchom, Robin. “Saving Forests, One Plastic Bottle at a Time.” The ArgentinaIndependent, July 16, 2012. (Accessed November 5, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/environment/saving-forests-one-plastic-bottle-at-a-time/

18. Nayar, Anjali. “How to Save a Forest.” Nature, Vol. 462, November 5, 2009.

19. National Geographic, Deforestation. (n.d.). (Accessed September 29, 2014).http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

20. Periódico Mu, translated by K. Robinson. “La Aurora: A New Dawn.” The ArgentinaIndependent, September 24, 2014. (Accessed September 29, 2014)http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/la-aurora-a-new-dawn/

21. Pollock, Nic. “Terra-I: Mapping Latin America’s Disappearing Forests.” The ArgentinaIndependent, July 25, 2012. (Accessed September 12, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/environment/terra-i-mapping-latin-americas-disappearing-forests/

22. Reboratti, Carlos. “Environmental Conflicts and Environmental Justice in Argentina.”Environmental Justice in Latin America. Ed. David V. Carruthers. The MIT Press,Cambridge: 2008.


24

23. Reboratti, Carlos. “La Expansión de la Soja en el Norte de la Argentina: ImpactosAmbientales y Sociales.” CONICET, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de BuenosAires: 2008.

24. Reboratti, Carlos. “Un mar de soja: la nueva agricultura en Argentina y susconsecuencias.” Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, No. 45: 2010.

25. Robinson, Kristie. “Dying of Deforestation.” The Argentina Independent, September12, 2008. (Accessed December 17, 2014).http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/opinion/dying-of-deforestation/

26. Robinson, Kristie. “Editorial: Argentina’s Unsustainable Path.” The ArgentinaIndependent, April 2, 2014. (Accessed September 29, 2014)http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/editorial-argentinas-unsustainable-path/

27. Robinson, Kristie. “Malcomidos: An Interview with Soledad Barruti.” The ArgentinaIndependent, January 28, 2014. (Accessed September 29, 2014)http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/malcomidos-interview-soledad-barruti/

28. Rogers, Marc. “Dams and Deforestation: The Human Contribution to NaturalDisasters.” The Argentina Independent, August 28, 2014. (Accessed September 29,2014). http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/dams-and-deforestation-the-human-contribution-to-natural-disasters/

29. Romero, Simon. “Vast Tracts in Paraguay Forest Being Replaced by Ranches.” TheNew York Times, March 24, 2012). (Accessed October 2, 2014).http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/world/americas/paraguays-chaco-forest-being-cleared-by-ranchers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

30. Rosenman, Olivia. “Soya bean imports revive fears in China about geneticallymodified food.” South China Morning Post, June 23, 2013. (Accessed December 20,2014). http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266874/soya-bean-imports-revive-fears-about-genetically-modified-food

31. Southeast Farm Press. “U.S. soybean industry protests Argentina’s unfair export tax.”Southeast Farm Press, November 3, 2014. (Accessed December 3, 2014).http://southeastfarmpress.com/soybeans/us-soybean-industry-protests-argentina-s-unfair-export-tax

32. Teubal, Miguel. “Expansión del modelo sojero en la Argentina.” Revista RealidadEconómica, No. 220. Buenos Aires: 2006.


25

33. Tollefson, Jeff. “Brazil warming to green policies: Activist Marina Silva is gainingground in presidential polls.” Nature, Vol. 513, September 25, 2014.

34. Tollefson, Jeff. “The Global Farm.” Nature, Vol. 466, July 29, 2010.

35. Wolford, Wendy. “Environmental Justice and Agricultural Development in theBrazilian Cerrado.” Environmental Justice in Latin America. Ed. David V. Carruthers.The MIT Press, Cambridge: 2008.

soy production · chaco has been led primarily by environmental ngos and non-profits, among them...

Documents