Rua Ó de Almeida, 1083 | CEP: 66053-190 | Belém, Pará, Brasil F +55 91 3222 6000 | peabiru@peabiru.org.br | www.peabiru.org.br

Peabiru Working Paper No. 1

Specialty of the day João Meirelles Filho Maria Jose Barney Gonzalez

Delicious 500gms of Amazonian Beef Steak produced by 7.000 grams of carbon dioxide, 7.000 litres of water, mixed with belched methane, is the ideal recipe for climate change

This paper has been presented to Nature TM Inc.

Questioning the Market Panacea in Environmental

Policy and Conservation Conference, June 30 - July

2nd 2011, ISS, The Hague, The Netherlands

July 2011

2

Peabiru Working Paper No. 1/ 07/2011

Specialty of the Day:

Delicious 500gms of Amazonian Beef Steak produced by 7.000 grams of carbon

dioxide, 7.000 litres of water, mixed with belched methane, is the ideal recipe for

climate change

João Meirelles and Maria Jose Barney Gonzalez,

Belém, Pará, Brazil & Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

July 2011

We thank AVINA Foundation - Amazon Program for supporting this paper and related

research, and IMAZON for the maps

This paper has been presented to Nature TM Inc. Questioning the Market Panacea in

Environmental Policy and Conservation Conference, June 30 - July 2nd 2011, ISS, The

Hague, The Netherlands

Abstract

“Delicious 500 grams of Amazonian Beef Steak produced by 7.000 grams of carbon

dioxide, 7.000 litres of water, mixed with belched methane and other gases, is the ideal

recipe for climate change” is a call for attention to the impact of the cattle production

value chain on the conservation of the Amazon and climate change. This paper looks at

the Brazilian cattle industry as the main driver of the Brazilian Amazon deforestation, its

massive production of greenhouse gases, its social impact and strategies to deal with its

impact.

3

Map 1 - Vegetation & Deforestation in Brazilian Amazon, IMAZON, 2011.

Key words: Amazon – Cattle production – Climate change – Meat industry – Food

Security

4

1. General context

Research is increasingly demonstrating that the livestock industry, in particular cattle

production, is one of the world’s most significant contributors to climate change and

environmental damage. Increased consumer capacity due to income availability is

leading consumer of grains and plants to replace their diet for meat and dairy products.

This current trend of increased global demand for beef, combined with unsustainable

production practices, particularly in the Brazilian Amazon, can lead to the collapse of the

Amazon forest biome, and the environmental balance services it provides to the planet.

The FAO’s 2009 report, The State of Food And Agriculture: “Livestock in the Balance”,

recognises that the expansion of livestock production contributes with 18% of global

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and increased deforestation in some countries, while

producing less than 2% of global gross domestic product (GDP). This low level of GDP

contribution requires 26% of the earth’s ice-free land surface for grazing, and 33% of

agricultural cropland for the production of the feed needed by livestock (STEINFELD et

al., 2006). The report also argues that current GDP calculations “underestimate the

economic and social contribution of livestock as it does not capture the value of the

numerous multifunctional contributions of livestock to livelihoods”; and is calling for

improvement of resource-use and efficiency of livestock production, policies and

regulations, in order to reduce the negative environmental externalities produced by the

sector. (FAO, 2009, pg. 5).

Demand for beef is growing fast. According to the same report there is pressure to

double livestock production by 2050, from 228 to 463 million ton, this will mean an

5

increase of cattle-heads of more than 73%. If that causes euphoria among the packing

and processing industries it causes panic in climate change and conservations forums.

Other FAO Study - Livestock Long Shadow, alerts to the threat to food security for

most excluded groups: “Booming demand in the world’s most rapidly growing

economies for food derived from animals has led to large increases in livestock

production, supported by major technological innovations and structural changes in the

sector. This surging demand has been mostly met by commercial livestock production

and associated food chains. At the same time, millions of rural people still keep livestock

in traditional production systems, where they support livelihoods and household food

security. (FAO - Livestock Long Shadow, 2006)

Brazilian context

Since the 1970’s, the Brazilian government had implemented economic modernization

policies and provided subsidies to support the economic development of the Amazon

region. The main economic activity became cattle production, particularly in the states

of Mato Grosso, Rondônia and Pará. The government’s policies and strategies have

been the main responsible of a major Amazon forest clearance, which created the so-

called Deforestation Arch. Those policies and strategies did not take into consideration

the heavy resource-use required by this particular production activity. Numbers shows

that cattle production, in the Amazon, is unsustainable, inefficient and un-fair, as for

every human being living in the region there are 3 head of cattle, each requiring over

one hectare of land.

6

Today, Brazil has one of the world’s largest commercial cattle herd. By offering low

prices Brazil has managed to become the largest exporter of beef, and a big player in

the international market, with policies and practices aiming to have vertical control of

the chain by buying companies abroad to process and pack the products derived from

cattle production. The Brazilian Government is determined to invest in becoming a top

player in the export of agribusiness commodities such as beef, aiming at incorporating

more value by giving emphasis to processing, packing, marketing and distribution

facilities. As part of this policy, the Federal Investment Bank - BNDES, has spent more

than US$ 10 billion in the beef processing industry. Approximately 30% on loans, 60%

on acquisitions (JBS/Friboi and Marfrig), the other 10% is kept for future acquisitions.

Specialists believe that other investments in the development of the Cattle/beef chain

should be expected, as the country seeks control of a significant portion of the world

meat (mainly beef) export markets.

Meat consumption in Brazil grows consistently at 0.5 kg/inhabitant per year; in 2007

each Brazilian consumed 36.7 kg. With millions leaving poverty and increasing its

consumer power from E to D, from D to C etc. meat consumption, especially beef,

increases significantly. In Brazil eating beef is a matter of social status. Considering a

scenario of 20 years, in 2030, the per capita consumption will be around 48-50

kg/capita (close to United States 45.3 kg/capita nowadays). This will require and

increased beef production, of 29%, from 6.8 million ton/yr to 8.8 million ton/yr just to

supply its local market.

If we also consider the growing international demand, specially from China, where

although beef represents only 4 kg/yr per capita compared to pork - 37 kg/yr the

demand for beef will still be considerable due to the increased of consumption capacity

of its large population.

7

2. Climate change, cattle production, and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon

The Amazon basin holds the largest remaining tropical forest in the planet, with the

most complex known biome, representing 5% of the Earth surface. The Amazon and

the Tocantins Estuary contains 1/5 of the planet’s river water. The region is in the

middle of polemic debates concerning climate change, as scientific research is

establishing a clear link between processes of deforestation and the planet’s

environmental and climate balance. The traditional slash and burn practices used in the

Amazon to steal land from the forest, means its rich biodiversity is lost as a service to

the planet, and becomes smoke, releasing massive emissions of CO2 into the

atmosphere. Deforestation and slash and burning of the Amazon forest would

represent rough 5-6% of the World’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

According to The World Resources Institute, Navigating the Numbers Report, Brazil is

the 8th largest emitter of greenhouse gas (GHG) in the world, producing 815 million

tons of Carbon Dioxide. After Indonesia, Brazil is the 2nd largest emitter of CO2 due to

changes in land-use; in other words deforestation. The report estimates that, by 2025,

the growth of the Brazilian GDP could increase its current level of CO2 emissions from

anything between 84 to 165%.

Deforestation of the Amazon contributes with 75% of the Brazilian large carbon dioxide

production. The Greenpeace study, “Amazon Cattle” mentions that from 1996 to

2006, pasture for cattle production in the Brazilian Amazon grew by 10 million

hectares, and area 2.4 times the size of the Netherlands. By 2009, approximately 74

million hectares equivalent to 15% of the Brazilian Amazon has been deforested (INPE,

8

2010), this is an area equivalent to Germany, Austria and Italy combined. According to

a CIFOR (2004) study, more than 91% of the deforested lands (approximately 70

million hectares) are used for cattle pasture, and agriculture land to produce grains for

animal feed.

According to a recent IMAZON & ISA study, only 43% of the Brazilian Amazon (219.7

million ha) is protected, either by conservation units (22.2%) or Indian Reserves

(21.7%), therefore, there are still many areas that need protection or deserve special

attention1. (ISA, IMAZON, April 2011). Among those un-protected areas that need

attention IMAZON recommends to consider both “deforested” and “under pressure”

areas.

Currently, there is a lot of pressure for the economic exploitation of the region rich

resources. Most, if not all, of the planned economic activities require access and use of

land. For example: to increase cattle production to respond to international markets

demand, or to implement mining projects and mega-agribusiness. Any of such projects

will require forest clearing, and just this process would produce such an amount of

GHG emissions that Brazil and the planet could face a huge environmental problem.

Therefore, the prediction that by 2030 more than 55% of the Brazilian Amazon forest

could disappear would become reality.

We call for action, as this is no longer a viable option for Brazil and the planet. The

development of policies and regulations is a must and this should be based on research

and monitoring of the environmental, social and economic impact of cattle production

1 Although these areas are legally protected, in a decade (1998/2008) 12 thousand ha were deforested. That is mainly

due to invasion of public land destined for conservation being used by loggers and cattle production.

9

and other economic activities based on the implementation of any mega-projects in the

area.

The mentioned Greenpeace study argues that the Amazon cattle industry carries a

heavy environmental, economic and social footprint. The maps of this study clearly

show a link between the cattle and beef industry and the destruction of the Amazon

due to deforestation. João Andrade de Carvalho Jr. from UNESP, figures show that 100

hectares of burnt forest is equivalent to the amount of CO2 produced by 6,820 cars a

year.

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is also a lost opportunity for environmental

services. Dr. Philip Fearnside, from the Brazilian Amazon Institute of Research (INPA)

sees deforestation as an activity that “causes losses of environmental services that are

more valuable than the short-lived uses that replace the forest. These services include

maintenance of biodiversity, of water cycling and of the stocks of carbon that avoid

further intensification of the greenhouse effect. Feedbacks between climatic changes

and the forest through such processes as forest fires, tree mortality from drought and

heat and the release of carbon stocks in the soil represent dangers for the climate, the

forest and the Brazilian population. Recent events indicate that deforestation can be

controlled, given the political will, because the underlying processes depend on human

decisions”. (FEARNSIDE, 2005)

For Paulo Barreto, from IMAZON’s, a Brazilian think-tank institution, “the debate about

climate change, however, has facilitated policies and market pressures against

deforestation”. (BARRETO, 2010).

10

A crucial key issue for researchers, NGO and policy makers, is to understand the causes

of deforestation. For Dr. Philip Fearnside, deforestation in Amazonia proceeds at a rapid

rate for various reasons, many of which depend on government decisions (FEARNSIDE,

INPA, 2005). Many studies demonstrate that when the government builds new or

improves old roads, to facilitate access to mega-projects, deforestation and pressure to

traditional population grows in geometric rates. In the last four years, the federal

government Growth Acceleration Plan (Plano de Acerelação do Crescimento PAC) has

supported a series of large-scale engineering works, such as a dozen of hydroelectric

dams, roads and ports improvement, among others, which are resulting in more than

US$ 90 billion of investment in the region (VERISSIMO, 2010).

Timothy J. Killeen’ a senior analyst at Conservation International, when describing the

impact of a series of investments in the Amazon, said that “The ongoing changes that

threaten the Amazon Wilderness – agriculture, logging, climate change – will likely be

intensified under a South American initiative to build roads and other infrastructure

across the continent. (KILLEN, 2007)

The above prediction will, unfortunately, become a reality, if the Brazilian government

continues with its drive to increase its cattle and beef international market share from

30 to 60% during the next decade. Undoubtedly, as in the last decade, this growth will

take place mainly in the Amazon.

Lack of national and international regulations and policies promoting sustainable beef

production practices should be a major concern for all, as the shear survival of the

Amazon is a stake for a meagre steak.

11

There is an incredible lack of awareness of beef consumers, at international and national

levels; about the impact beef production has on climate change and the survival of the

Amazon forest, which calls for a global consumer awareness campaign. We urgently

need to increase consumer understanding of what is the real cost the “the 500 or 250

grams beef steak they have at their table”. At the same time, we need to influence

decision makers, by demanding the urgent development and/or implementation of

sustainable beef production strategies.

WorldWatch Institute contributes to the debate through the following

recommendation: Whenever the causes of climate change are discussed, fossil fuels top

the list. Oil, natural gas, and especially coal are indeed major sources of human-caused

emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). But we believe that the life cycle

and supply chain of domesticated animals raised for food have been vastly

underestimated as a source of GHGs, and in fact account for at least half of all human-

caused GHGs. If this argument is right, it implies that replacing livestock products with

better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. In fact, this

approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric

concentrations—and thus on the rate the climate is warming—than actions to replace

fossil fuels with renewable energy. (GOODLAND & ANHANG, 2010)

3. Consuming “expensive food”

Since the early 1970s, when the North American researcher Frances Moore Lappé

said… “For every 16 pounds of grain and soy fed to beef cattle in the United States we

only get 1 pound back in meat on our plates. The other 15 pounds are inaccessible to

12

us, either used by the animal to produce energy or to make some part of its own body

that we do not eat (like hair or bones) or excreted”. (LAPPE, 1971, p. 76) - many

studies have been discussing the cost of producing “expensive” food.

Forty years have passed, in spite of a number of studies identifying the effect of cattle

production on climate change, and its ecological footprint, Brazil is aiming to be the

largest world player on cattle and beef production and trading, without addressing the

expensive and un-sustainable production processes used and its enormous impact on

climate change.

Beef is an “Expensive food” to produce. The price of a beef steak fails to incorporate

the real cost of its production footprint, e.g. in order to obtain a kilo of beef, 15.000

kilos of Carbon Dioxide is produced and 14,000 litres of water are required to produce

a kilogram of beef. In reality, the cheap beef arriving on your plate from the Brazilian

Amazon is an extremely “expensive food” due to its huge environmental, social and

economic footprint.

Amazon Cattle production pollutes water sources, soil and air and has high social cost.

As already mentioned, this chain produces high levels of Carbon Dioxide emissions, and

methane gas (CH4) due to cattle belching which is 23 times a more potent gas for

trapping heat than CO2. On the other hand manure is the source of nitrous oxide (a

man made product) 300 times more potent than CO2. The production of beef in the

Amazon also has social impacts, since it generates little employment and normally

workers are underpaid. In fact, in some farms slavery and child labour are still a normal

practice. We also have found that traditional communities have been displaced by cattle

farmers, and they have no or limited access to water and other natural resources.

A recent article in the France Press, with the provoking title “Eat a steak, warm the

planet” says that according to a Japanese study led by Akifumi Ogino of the National

Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, “ producing a kilogram of beef

13

creates 36.4 kilos of CO2 which is more greenhouse-gas and other pollution, than

driving for three hours, while leaving all the lights-on, back at home”.

4. Amazonian Cattle production from peasants to large-scale producers

Globally, the production trend we are seeing is the vertical integration of cattle and beef

chain, and the governance of the chain on the hands of a small number of large-scale

enterprises. This vertical integration of the chain means that large-scale producers and

processors are having greater control and coordination of activities along the livestock

value chain and using contract farming as a growth strategy (FREEMAN, 2006, PG

220). As mentioned, the Brazilian government is supporting this vertical integration and

concentration of the chain through investment.

From 1990 to 2008, the Brazilian Amazon cattle herd grew from 25.7 million to nearly

71.5 million heads, an increase from 18% to 35% of the total Brazilian herd.

(BARRETO, 2010). One third of the Amazonian herd is in the hands of thousands of

small-scale producers.

The impact of the vertical control of the cattle and beef value chain by large-scale

enterprises on small-scale producers and peasants is unknown and further research is

needed. Few studies have been concerned with the position of peasants and small-scale

producers in the chain, the environmental impact of their production practices and the

relation with livelihood issues.

14

However, we know that the benefits this group of producers derive from cattle as an

economic activity are insignificant if compared to larger producers. They are basically

excluded from active participation in the formal beef value chain. The lack of access to

formal markets and other value chain activities increases the economic inequalities,

which are at the root of current social problems in the region.

When small holders fail to generate income from agriculture activities such as cocoa,

Brazil nut, guaraná, tropical fruits or other annual crops, due to lack of access to credit,

markets or expensive transport cost, etc. many turn to cattle production as a major

economic activity, (MEIRELLES, 2003). More than an option, it becomes the only

alternative to survival, in many cases it is an insurance policy or a saving account, as in

emergencies when cash is short cattle is sold.

Although in the last five years, due to law enforcement, deforestation in large

properties has substantially diminishedi, the challenge is to guarantee effective public

policies to offer alternatives to deforestation for small landholders2.

According to the 2006 Federal Government Rural Census (IBGE, 2006) figures for the

North Region added to those of the Mato Grosso State3, means there are over 588,753

properties, occupying 102.5 million hectare (equivalent to 1/5 of Legal Amazonia). Of

these, 76,743 properties were acquired through land reform programs, more than 80-

90% of the properties belong to family agriculture and small holders (50+cattle-heads)

whereas most public policies related to cattle production are basically directed to

medium and large-scale properties.

2 Small landholders include family agriculture (less than 10 ha) and small production units (less than 150-200

hectares). 3 Amazon region comprises the North Region, part of the Mato Grosso state and part of the Maranhão state.

15

Cattle production in the Amazon has been traditionally a pioneer economic frontier,

associated with illegal logging, in low value forested land, which was opened by slash &

burning after logging. This economic practice, we believe, results from the fact that only

deforested land has value, as the Brazilian law only recognises land ownership titles

when the land is deforested.

Further, public policies are not oriented towards effective and sustainable productivity

growth, e.g. increase in the kg of beef produced per hectare of land. Although Brazil is

a leading country in terms of research and development of new technologies for cattle

production, little is invested in sharing the existing knowledge with small or large

holders, and changing their practices. Government and other Institutions are not

developing strategies to make sure all small or large cattle producers apply the existing

knowledge to improve the efficiency and sustainability of the production, while

diminishing its huge footprint. At the same time, cattle production is an extremely

informal activity and there is not enough public pressure to change current practices. In

particular, large-scale producers (among them the economic elite, politicians and other

public figures) controlling the chain, are not interested in having their rural activities in

the Amazon under control. Many are selling their expensive land in other parts of the

country and acquiring cheap Amazonian land, where labour is cheap and informal,

slavery practices are in existence, and where environmental law enforcement is very

weak, and corruption levels high. The picture is really bleak!

In the last 50 years, the transfer of cattle production to the Amazons has been the

largest in history. If we project the growth of the Brazilian cattle herd for the next 20

years based on the 1.7% growth of country’s herd from 1994 to 2007, we will have

103.7 million head of cattle in the Amazon by 2030. The mayor source of land

16

expansion will undoubtedly be the Amazon region, and the predictions above

mentioned would become a reality e.g. by 2030 we will have 55% of the Brazilian

Amazon deforested.

For example, the 2006 IBGE Agriculture Census confirmed a significant cattle

production expansion in Oriental and South Amazonia, which is moving from East to

West in Oriental Amazonia, now pressing the Xingu and the low Tocantins basins; and

South to North, following the roads linking Cuiabá, in the state of Mato Grosso, to Rio

Branco, in the state of Acre.

All this facts enter in contradiction with Brazil’s commitment to cut GHG emission.

Following Freeman (2006:219) we believe that the key challenge or question faced by

Brazil’s livestock decision makers is: How can research and development institutions

respond to the livestock demands of the market in ways that address social equity, the

environment (in particular GHG emissions), and public health issues?

17

5. Brazilian Government Policies

As mentioned, since the 1970’s Federal incentives have been responsible for a

significant support to cattle production in the Amazon.

More than 590 large-scale agriculture farms received fiscal incentive from the federal

government and, of these, 90% was for cattle production. Located in the heart of the

forest these farms facilitated access to land invasion, and to illegal logging. Besides, in

the last 20 years, loans with very low interest were offered to large and middle size

cattle produces and to the processing industry. IMAZON calculates that at least US$ 2

billion where given mainly by two public banking institutions - the BNDES and the

Banco da Amazônia (a federal bank dedicated to the region).

According to an IMAZON study, in the Amazon, 1,354 rural settlements had been

created up to 2002, occupying more than 231 thousand square kilometres. Those

settlements are vital for land distribution and have already benefited some 231,815

families. However, activities developed by the families, such as agriculture and logging,

generates deforestation and forest degradation in the region. The research found that

around 106 thousand square kilometres (49% of the area of settlements mapped) were

deforested up to 2004, representing 15% of Amazon deforestation. Additionally, from

1997 to 2004, the rate of deforestation in the settlements was 1.8% per year

(IMAZON, 2006)

18

Critics, of this land reform, such as Jean Hervé Thery comments: “what is done in Brazil

is not the largest land reform on Earth but the largest counter-land reform in the

Planet.” The impact of this policy is that rural settlements become major contributors of

GHGs due to deforestation using slash and burning in small scale. The problem is that

the government does not have a serious comprehensive monitoring activity; neither is

developing strategies to support more sustainable forms of cattle production for

peasant or small-scale producers.

Map 2 - Official roads & Rural Settlement Brazilian Amazon, IMAZON 2011.

19

In the last years of President Lula da Silva 2nd mandate, we have seen a change in public

policies implementation due to pressure from Greenpeace, other conservationist groups,

backed by public opinion. The federal government was forced to launch a series of law

enforcement campaigns. This lead to the shut down of saw mills, large farms and the

implementation of a meatpacking embargo, etc. The focus was on 36 of the 760

municipalities located in the so-called “deforestation arch”. The effect of this campaign

was that deforestation diminished, large supermarket chains (responsible for 1/3 of the

meat distribution in Brazil) became very nervous with public opinion pressure, however,

the industry did not change, they just continued with the “business as usual” approach,

ignoring the problem. No real effort to change practices was made to improve

productivity by the key actors in the value chain.

Large meat packers also signed agreements with the Federal Public Ministry, in which

they were committed to buy meat from non-deforested areas. These measures did not

try to address the real problems which are the production practices used by cattle-

producers, neither try to create policies or regulations preventing increase of

deforestation, or limiting the use of land for cattle-production, or creating a code of

conduct.

To this respect Paulo Barreto questioned the extent to which the beef market is

vulnerable to voluntary environmental pressure. The recent pressure against the meat

packing industry was facilitated by the fact that the sector is becoming more

concentrated and therefore more visible as a target for environmental campaigns, by

non-governmental organizations and by the government. As in other cases, the large

corporations of the meat sector in Brazil were more likely to commit to best

environmental practices (Cohen & Konar, 2000; Simpson, Garner, & Gibbs, 2007), due

to the potential negative impact on their brand. The question is: to what extend the

20

government will be able to enforce such pressure to the whole meat sector?

Approximately one third of the Brazilian slaughter activity is still clandestine. Illegal,

clandestine abattoirs, operate in informal markets and do not abide to rules and

regulations, animals are slaughtered without sanitary and fiscal controls. This

uncontrolled activity might continue buying from producers who deforest land for cattle

production. (BARRETO, 2010)

The Brazilian Forest Code (a hot issue at the Brazilian Congress at the moment)

determines that 80% of a property in the Amazon should be kept as forest. Less than

5% of the landowners in the region respect this limit, therefore, a large number of

cattle is produced illegally. Of course the situation in the rural settlement is even worse

as access to land is limited. (IMAZON, 2006)

6. Results from Peabiru recent research

Analysing some of the findings of two studies undertaken by Peabiru in 2010 – 2011, in

two geographical regions (municipality of Tailândia and Moju, and in Marajó

Archipelago - Amazon River Estuary, both in the state of Pará) Peabiru concluded that:

The government economic development model for the Eastern Amazon basically

encouraged occupation of land that in reality benefited few; on the opposite it

has contributed to exacerbate the socioeconomic exclusion of traditional rural

communities. Social groups such as Indigenous communities, Afro-descendents,

Riverside Communities (riberinhos), and Peasants are still living in isolation in a

21

subsistence and/or informal economy, lacking access to: a) basic services

(education, health, electricity, transport etc.); b) land security; c) access to

markets; d) technical knowledge and expertise etc. Creating a negative impact

on traditional rural communities capacity to actively participate in the formal

economy and fully benefit from the government strategies for the region.

Large and middle size cattle-producers practices have a negative impact on

communities. 1) Land conflict has increased as communities are pushed out of

their land in order to increase the number of cattle heads, in many cases using

force or violence; 2) Food security is reduced as access to natural resources (such

as forest and rivers), is denied or reduced. Communities access to products

harvested for family consumption, such as hunting, fishing, fruit picking (açai –

Euterpe olereacea, bacuri – Platonia insignis etc.), and other non-timer products,

are being reduced; 3) natural water resources, normally used by communities for

household needs and leisure, are being destroyed, the course of streams is being

diverted, and igarapés (small rivers) are being drained.

In Marajo as well as in Tailândia (Brazil), natural resources are not valued;

therefore the practice of deforestation is not questioned, in spite of awareness

that this diminishes access to natural resources.

A study of Peabiru with UFRA University found that In the native wetland of

Marajó, small farms are not economically viable without access to 3 hectares of

land per animal. Existing data informs that the current average is 1.3 ha/animal,

this means overgrazing with possible serious environmental damage in the

medium term. In Marajó cattle production is dominated by middle and large-

scale producers, and their production practices are limiting its development and

affecting the long term sustainability of the production process. Lack of

22

infrastructure, and access to energy, potable water and transport in the case of

Marajo is also serious constraint for the development of the chain in spite of

Marajo being a significant player in cattle and buffalo production. This chain

activity is neither generating development for the region, in spite of generating

revenue for the large producers; the Isle has high poverty levels. Local

communities are excluded from the main chain activities, remaining at its

margins, mainly as labourers, and therefore, from having no or limited access to

its benefits.

7. Conclusions and recommendations -

- The economic development paradigm for the Brazilian Amazon, is still in

essence, and in spite of progress made, based on the old concept of

deforestation, and in the slash-and-burning method of deforestation, which

carries a significant impact on climate change. This paradigm needs to change to

a paradigm based on conservation of natural resources and biodiversity, while

addressing the socio-economic and environmental inequalities and exclusion

affecting the life of the traditional Amazonian rural communities. This change

would demand a mayor cultural shift, the strict implementation of existing

policies as well as the development of new policies and regulations addressing

the issues.

- Current cattle production practices in the Amazon region are un-sustainable.

Urgent action seeking the transformation of the cattle and beef production value

chain is needed. We must campaign for change by influencing the:

23

- 1) Development of national and international policies and regulations

seeking socioeconomic and environmentally sustainable cattle and beef

production;

- 2) Formalization of all activities in the cattle-beef production chain in

Brazil with emphasis in the Amazon region;

- 3) Development of a monitoring systems to ensure the implementation of

policies and regulations, and contributing to law enforcement;

- 4) Development of sustainable and inclusive policies and strategies geared

to address the needs of traditional rural communities, peasants and small-

scale producers to increase their capacity to implement more efficient and

sustainable production practices, as well as benefiting from their active

participation in cattle-beef value chain and technical and financial

services;

- 5) Consumer level of awareness of the real cost of the 250 grams of beef

they eat during a meal;

- 6) Development of environmental awareness and production practices of

traditional rural communities by involving them in a process of monitoring

the impact of cattle-production in their livelihoods and development of

income diversification strategies that value the forest such as

environmental services and other products contributing to maintain bio-

diversity;

- 7) Research activity making sure studies of cattle-beef value chain include

the environmental and economic impact this activity has on economically

and socially excluded traditional rural communities, in particular in the

state of Pará;

- 8) Development of strategies seeking better production practices in

support of more sustainable production technologies, making more

efficient use of resources.

24

25

Annex 1:

Instituto Peabiru, Belém, Pará, Brazil

The Instituto Peabiru (Peabiru) is a Civil Society Organization of Public Interest - OSCIP,

established in 1998 with headquarters in Belém, Pará, Brazil, concerned with the socio-

economic and environmental issues related to the long-term sustainability of the

Brazilian Amazon, in particular those encountered in the Eastern part of the Brazilian

Amazon (states of Pará and Amapá) which since the 1970s has been one of the most

important Brazilian fronts of economic occupation.

Our purpose is to work alongside communities and local civil society organizations to

increase capacity to exercise full citizenship, as part of their human development

process, and enjoy the benefits of a sustainable economic model while promoting the

conservation of the forest. Peabiru also works with the private sector, as we believe

they must play a role in the development of strategies seeking to address the socio-

economic and environmental impact of the economic activities.

Currently, Peabiru is addressing the socio-economic, environmental and cultural issues

that concern the organization through three main programmes: 1) Local Development

and Protected Areas; 2) Corporate Social Responsibility; 3) Inclusive Value Chains.

Inclusive Value Chains

Peabiru believes that strengthening the active economic participation of excluded rural

communities in the development of inclusive chains valuing biodiversity and natural and

26

social resources contribute to the long-term sustainability of the Eastern Amazon

Region.

Peabiru works with a broad concept of inclusive value chain development, which

consider five core dimensions: Economic, Human capacities Citizenship, Cultural

valorisation of resources, and Environment aspects.

Currently, Peabiru is working on the development of two products: honey from the

Melipona bees native to the Amazon (non-stinging-bees) and Community-based-

ecotourism.

The Institute is involved in researching four product chains: Açaí berry (Euterpe

olereacea); Artisanal fishing; Manioc flour from bitter cassava (Manihot utilissima) and

Cattle & Buffalo production in the wetlands of the Island of Marajo.

Peabiru’s work on cattle & buffalo production, is aiming to explore the impact of this

economic activity on the environment and its negative contribution to climate change.

The purpose is to work with traditional rural communities in the development of

sustainable production strategies, in order to reduce the negative environmental impact

of cattle production in the region, with particular attention to the Marajó Archipelago

and the Northeast of Pará.

Contact information:

João Meirelles, General Director, Instituto Peabiru

Mobile + 55 91 91447566; office + 55 91 3222.6000

27

Rua Ó de Almeida, 1083, Reduto, Belém, Pará, Brazil cep 66053-190

jmeirelles@peabiru.org.br - www.peabiru.org.br

Maria Jose Barney Gonzalez, Program Advisor

mariajose@peabiru.org.br

Mobile +31 6 24 88 97 14 (The Netherlands)

28

Bibliography

AFP - Associated France Press - Eat a steak, warm the planet

(http://www.afp.com/francais/home/).

ARAUJO, E., & Barreto, P. (2010, July). Formal threats to protected areas in the

Amazon.The State of the Amazon (16).

BARRETO, P., & Silva, D. (Novembro de 2009). Os desafios para uma pecuária mais

sustentável na Amazônia. Estado da Amazônia , 14, 4. Belém: Instituto do Homem e

Meio Ambiente da Amazônia.

BARRETO, Paulo, SILVA, Daniel – Will cattle ranching continue to drive deforestation in

the Brazilian Amazon? IMAZON November 2010 pbarreto@imazon.org.br,

BRANDAO Jr., A. & Souza Jr., C Deforestation in Land Reform Settlements in the

Amazon. 2006. State of the Amazon, nº 7. Belém: Imazon. 4p.

CLARK, Nathalia, Como parar o desmate nos assentamentos? O Eco 30-MARCH-2011

- http://www.oeco.com.br/reportagens/24921-como-parar-o-desmatamento-nos-

assentamentos

CEDERBERG Christel, U. Martin Persson, Kristian Neovius, Sverker Molander, and

Roland Clift, Including Carbon Emissions from Deforestation in the Carbon Footprint of

Brazilian Beef

FAO - Livestock Long Shadow, 2006 Annual Report,

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

FAO Annual Report 2009 - The State of Food And Agriculture: Livestock in the Balance

FEARNSIDE, Philip M. DESMATAMENTO NA AMAZÔNIA: DINÂMICA, IMPACTOS E

CONTROLE; Coordenação de Pesquisas em Ecologia-CPEC Inst. Nac. de Pesquisas da

Amazônia-INPA 14 de dez. de 2005 revis: 29 de set. de 2006

29

FREEMAN, Ade H., Philip K. Thornton, Jeannette A. van de Steeg & Anni Mcleod,

Future scenarios of livestock systems in developing countries; International Livestock

Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy

WAAP Book of the Year 2006, page 219-232 E-mail: A.FREEMAN@cgiar.org

http://www.eaap.eu/pages/Freeman.pdf

GREENPEACE Amazon Cattle Footprint, Mato Grosso: State of destruction,

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/amazon-cattle-

footprint-mato.pdf

GOODLAND, Robert & ANHANG, Jeff, Worldwatch Institute,

http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

IMAZON & ISA - Áreas Protegidas na Amazônia brasileira : avanços e desafios /

[organizadores Adalberto Veríssimo... [et al.] ]. Belém: Imazon; São Paulo: Instituto

Socioambiental, 2011.

KILLEN, Timothy J., A Perfect Storm in the Amazon Wilderness: Development and

Conservation in the Context of the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional

Infrastructure of South America (IIRSA), Conservation International, 2007

LAPPE, Frances Moore, Diet for a Small Planet. New York: Ballantine Books, 1982, pp.

76)

MEIRELLES, Joao, Livro de Ouro da Amazônia, Ediouro, Rio de Janeiro, 2003

STIGLITZ, Prof. Joseph E. Chair, SEN, Amartya; FITOUSSI, Jean-Paul UN; Report by the

Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr, 2008

THERY, Herve & ENGLIN, Jean, Le pillage de l’Amazonie. Paris: François Maspero,

1982.

30

i In its peak, in the 1990’s it reached 25,000 km/yr. Now it is under 10,000 km/yr.