The Power of the Cattle Industry in Brazil
The Cattle Industry holds a strong position of power and influence in Brazilian politics, but to what extent is its impact negative?
In Brazil, beef cattle farming is one of the main responsible actors for the expansion of the agricultural frontier and also the main source of GHG emissions in the sector (SEEG 2018: 2). In addition, the direct emissions from the cattle industry and the indirect emissions from deforestation have accounted for 69% of GHG emissions in 2018 (SEEG 2019: 7). On the other hand, cattle farming is also the sector with the greatest margin for implementing improvements in its productive system. According to Cardoso and colleges (2015), in Brazil over 94% of cattle are raised for beef production. The main lobbying power for the cattle industry, as explained before, is the Frente Parlamentar da Agropecuária (FPA), whose agenda does not tend to coincide with that of environmental agencies. The power and the interests (not always legitimate) of the FPA must be put in check when contrasted with social interests and with the constitutional and legal guidelines stipulated for the development of the country according to the decrees of social justice (Stolz and Gusmão 2017: 301). However, it is imperative to remember, that if one begins answering the main research question from the premise that there is, necessarily, one good side and one evil side in the narrative of the cattle industry and the environment , you will inevitably be failing to analyse the aspect of human nature.
For more than four centuries, Brazilian history has been guided by occupation and exploitation that is predominantly rural and of a single-crop culture, which is why the interests land owners continue to overlap with other interests, even after the industrialisation of Brazil, and even contemporarily, since agribusiness has expanded to other sectors of national production. In addition, as it has been observed in the previous chapter, the 2018 election of Jair Bolsonaro has served to augment the intensity surrounding the issue of conservation and production. Bolsonaro’s administration has fuelled attention and criticism towards deforestation, GHG emissions and the Cattle industry back onto the global stage. According to the Climate Action Tracker, an independent and scientifically-based organisation, this is in part because his administration is strongly “supported by ‘Ruralist’ legislators who have traditionally opposed forest protection policies, [and have] continued with the weakening of environmental institutions, including substantial budget cuts, which has severely reduced Brazil’s ability to monitor, inspect, and prevent environmental crimes, including illegal deforestation” (Climate Action Tracker 2020). The power ‘Ruralist’ lobbying has on Brazilian politics seems to be ever more apparent.
Frente Parlamentar da Aropecuária (FPA) influence on environmental legislation
Brazilian politics is filled with political actors with a clear personal interest in rural demands, that stems from the landholding characteristics with which this country has developed. They have undoubtedly made efforts to halt any kind of large social advancement in the Legislative Branch that goes against their interests. Stolz and Gusmão (2017) have demonstrated that the trajectory of dominance and influence of the FPA “has, historically and contemporaneously, infringed not only the human and fundamental rights of rural workers but, above all, abandoning them in their dignity and citizenship, making social justice in the countryside unreachable” (Stolz and Gusmão 2017: 299). The FPA has a strong representation in the National Congress and is very efficient in defending the interests of large rural producers — whether they are linked to agriculture or livestock (Camargo 2009: 32).
These land-owning politicians are linked to almost all Brazilian parties, this includes the leaders of the PMDB, PSDB and PR, who are landowners with the most hectares in the country (Stolz and Gusmão 2017: 307). This is a natural tendency, since it includes parties from the now extinct ARENA, a party that congregated during the period of the Military Dictatorship, which made-up a large part of the landowners. According to Castilho (2012), 2.03 million hectares of land were declared, as assets of elected politicians, before the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) reaching a value of 1.37 billion reais (Brazilian currency). However, it should be remembered that, in addition, to those politicians who have not declared the extent of their properties, there are those who have declared extremely questionable value of their land (Stolz and Gusmão 2017: 307).
The characteristics of the Rural group, strongly reflects the way Brazil was conceived historically, socially and politically, where rural development was and is the flagship of the national economy. Therefore the power given to groups, such as the FPA, is unparalleled and ultimately completely weakens the power of environmental institutions. Their strong influence on the appointment of ministers, largely determines and negatively shapes the environmental course of the country. In an interview conducted by Fabíola Ortiz (2020), congressman and member of Brazil’s agribusiness, Zé Silva said that “ruralist politicians are known for defending weaker environmental legislation and rejecting the demarcation of indigenous territories in order to boost profits from private land, […] they have acquired an image as powerful lobbyists that environmentalists strongly oppose”.
The power of the FPA, or more generally speaking the Ruralist group, has in influencing environmental legislation and politics in Brazil, will be illustrated with the Forest Code decree, that was first written in 1934. The Forest Code has undergone numerous amendments, “from 1965 to 1985 there were on average 3.1 changes per year most of them “related to economic development of forest based industries” (Alstor et Mueller 2007: 30). According to Fearnside, the power of the ‘Ruralist’ group “was demonstrated by the 2011 vote by a seven-to-one margin to greatly reduce environmental protections in Brazil’s Forest Code despite the opposition of 80% of the Brazilian population to any change in the code” (Fearnside 2016: 748). In addition to strongly opposing the Forest Code of 2012, they also stressed that Complementary Law 140 of December 8, 2011 (also articulated and approved by the FPA) was to be implemented. This law emptied the attributions of the National Environmental Council (CONAMA) and reduced the power of inspection of the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) (Stolz and Gusmão 2017: 306).
Brazilian environmental law is known to be strict, but the manner in which it can easily be amended largely undermines most of the environmental progress made in the the previous decades. The 1988 Constitution is a prime example of this issue. It symbolised an environmental breakthrough as it devoted an entire section to the environment. However, as it was pointed out by Fearnside “amending the constitution in Brazil is much easier than in most countries; the current constitution has been amended 99 times since it came into effect in 1988” (2018: 4). The issue that presents itself is that for environmental agencies to have any legitimate or instrumental power in the implementation and safeguard of Brazilian environmental law, it would require a huge decrease in the representation number of FPA members in congress.
The positive impact of the Cattle Industry
The Cattle Industry sector has been standing out in the Brazilian economy in recent decades due to its significant increase in productivity and its growing importance for maintaining the balance of trade in the country. Today, the agricultural sector represents 21.6% of the national GDP, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (Globo 2019). From this percentage, the beef cattle GDP represents an 8.7% share of the overall Brazilian GDP (ABIEC 2019: 4). In practice, this means that agriculture and livestock are responsible not only for what ends up on your table, but for a production chain that involves various segments of the economy: farmers, machinery manufacturers, nutritionists, veterinarians, transporters (reaching the shopkeepers and the consumer). In economic terms, agribusiness generates jobs and promotes regional development. In the entire country, according to the latest IBGE Agro Census, there are more than 15 million people employed in agricultural activity. On the other hand, the impact of the Brazilian agribusiness is not restricted to the domestic economy. Companies help to ensure food security for other countries as well. In May 2017, Brazilian agribusiness exports reached “US$ 9.68 billion, up 12.8% increase from the same period a year earlier” (Santander 2017). This shows how the agribusiness has a fundamental role in the future: to guarantee the supply of food and the generation of jobs and income in the country and the world.
The intensification of beef production tends to be associated with the increase of GHG, however, according to a study conducted by Cardoso and colleges, an intensification in beef production leads “to a reduction in the time to slaughter, pasture area and GHG emissions per kg of product” (Cardoso et al 2015: 86). In agreeance, the article Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from cattle raising in Brazil, written by Mercedes Bustamente and colleagues, indicate that “cattle ranching intensification can reduce pasture area needed for the same beef output, thus affecting deforestation rates” (Bustamente et al 2012: 571). This article, also concluded that the “mitigation potentials in the Brazilian cattle industry are significant and do not imply cutting back on current production […] they can be compatible with a moderate increase in production (Bustamente et al 2012: 573). Therefore, the investment and implementation of advanced agricultural technology, as well as the information provided by existing research on the mitigation of GHG, demonstrate the possibility of sustainable ranching across all of Brazil.
The negative impact of the Cattle Industry
The increasing pressures on the planet’s natural resources has generated a growing global concern related to the depletion of these resources and the sustainability of countries’ economic growth. Many obstacles still need to be overcome for this growth of the agricultural sector to occur in a sustainable manner, generating not only economic benefits for the country, but also ensuring the conservation of its great wealth of natural resources and providing better living conditions for rural people (Sambuichi et al, 2012: 9).
Deforestation and land degradation is, to a certain extent, an inevitable aspect of the Cattle Industry. Gouvello and colleagues (2010), point out that the increase in deforestation by the Cattle industry in Brazil is not due to a higher demand for meat by consumers, rather stems from an economic and practical perspective. The cost of deforestation and incorporating new land in border regions is usually lower than that of salvaging damaged land. According to the National Institute of Space Research (INPE), the estimated deforestation rate for the legal Amazon is 9,762 km² for the period August 2018 to July 2019 (INPE 2019). This value represents an increase of 29.54% (INPE 2019). To tackle and disincentivise deforestation the Brazilian government launched the Low Carbon Agriculture Plan (Plano ABC) in 2010, which highlighted the importance of implementing and monitoring practices to mitigate emissions by national agriculture and livestock. The overall objective of Plan ABC is to encourage better use of areas already deforested on a sustainable basis, increasing productivity and decreasing the pressures on remaining forests (SEEG 2018: 46). However, the tight budget of the ABC Plan (around 1.1%), the lack of monitoring of available resources, the reduced dynamics of allocation in priority areas, the excessive bureaucracy and the lack of accounting for the balance of carbon stocks in agricultural soils, show a mismatch between the Brazilian targets presented in the Paris Agreement and the real investment and prioritisation of low emission practices in the sector (SEEG 2018: 3).
Activities related to the Cattle Industry are responsible, directly or indirectly, for most of the GHG emissions in Brazil. Between 1970 and 2016, emissions from the agricultural sector increased by 165% (SEEG 2018: 2), making the country is the third largest global emitter in the world. The GHG emissions generated by the cattle industry aggravate climate change. According to the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, this can lead to increased desertification in semi-arid regions, increased drought in regions with higher rainfall, such as the Amazon, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme events such as droughts, rain and strong winds in several regions (IPCC 2019).
Another important impact of the Cattle raising activity is the environmental contamination caused by the use of agrochemicals and fertilizers. The main problems related to the excessive use of pesticides on crops and pastures “are the threat to the health of farmers and consumers of agricultural products and the contamination of soils, air and water bodies where the pesticide is applied” (Sambuichi et al 2012: 12). In 2008 alone, 5,295 cases of pesticide poisoning were reported in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), 2,136 resulting from agricultural use, which lead to 107 deaths (Sambuichi et al 2012: 9). According to Pinheiro and Freitas (2010) negative effects of these products on natural and cultivated ecosystems include the death of pollinators and organisms that control pest populations, in addition to affecting soil microbiology, also causing damage to crops.
A non-environmental aspect that reveals the disturbing reality of rural work and the violent nature of the Cattle Industry is slave labour. It will not be explored in depths but it is vital to acknowledge. Historically, rural work is precarious and over-exploited. In Brazil, new warning systems have been distributed in six economic sectors, with emphasis on two: “agricultural production and civil construction, which is responsible for 93% of the rescued workers” (Fernandes 2019). In rural production alone, “34 companies were reported and 343 workers were in slave labour situation” (Fernandes 2019). In 2016 there were 61 murders in conflicts in the rural areas, “of these 61 murders, 13 were indigenous people, 4 were quilombolas, 6 were women and 16 were young people between 15 and 29 years of age” (Stolz et Gusmão 2017: 317).
Is sustainable ranching possible?
Within the current debates on sustainable development, more and more scientists and politicians are reaching the consensus that the changes needed to ensure food security for the world’s growing population are not just measures to promote increased agricultural production in the world. It is necessary to consider not only the quantity but also important aspects such as the quality of the food produced, the distribution of this food to those in need and the negative impacts that this production can bring to the environment, that is, to the base of natural resources and ecosystemic services that will enable the development of current and future societies (UNCSD 2012).
Sustainability, according to the Brazilian Institute of Cattle Studies, means “being environmentally correct, economically viable and socially just” (IEPEC 2016). Their method for sustainable ranching involves eight key stages of consideration and implementation: (i) Sustainable Production System, (ii) Animal Waste Treatment, (iii) Direct Planting System, (iv) Recovery of Degraded Pastures, (v) Biodiversity, Agrobiodiversity and Agroecology, (vi) Biological Nitrogen Fixation, (vii) Water and Soils, (viii) Environmental and Territorial Management.
The main challenge in developing sustainable agricultural production is to reconcile economic, social and environmental aspects in political decisions, “since these present trade-offs that almost always lead to the favouring of one aspect over the others and often result in the development of conflicting policies” (Sambuichi et al 2012: 36). In Brazil, for example, agricultural development policies have historically encouraged deforestation and non-compliance with the Forest Code law.
In my interview with the High Ranking Officer for the Ministry of Environment (HROME), he explained the difference between efficient and inefficient cattle ranching in Brazil as we discussed the future of this industry. He stated that the index of the produtor de ponta- freely translated to high-end producer- “is increasing year by year due to the advancement of technologies, seeds, cattle genetics and operational processes” (HROME 2020). On the other hand, Brazil has large quantities of extremely inefficient producers with fewer livestock, genetically inferior cattle (lower production rates) and the producer has poor management of his pasture. So the it starts to get degraded because he does not earn enough money to invest, manage and rotate the pasture. Eventually, this degradation has an exponential increase in the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions. The High Ranking Officer for the Ministry of the Environment explained that:
“[In Brazil] the national cattle industry, is currently in the middle between these two type of producers. How will we move forward? With the spread of education. This is because these inefficient producers need to have administrative and managerial education, they have to be good micro-entrepreneurs and they have to adopt the technologies that already exist and are spread mainly by high-end producers. So this is the way for the future of the cattle industry. You are democratising this technology and increasing the average production and slowly terminating these unsophisticated and inefficient activities that are bad for the environment and bad for the entrepreneur himself.” (Freely translated HROME 2020)
So, according to the HROME, not only is sustainable ranching possible in Brazil, but it already exists and is constantly evolving. In addition, it is a good strategy to mitigate the emission of GHG. However, a discussion about the Environmental Sustainability of Brazilian Cattle Industry: Impacts, Public Policies and Challenges, conducted by the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA) in 2012, demonstrated that mere technological intensification is not the best solution to the environmental problems faced by the Cattle Industry. The discussion argues in favour of environmentally appropriate technologies, adapted to the ecological conditions of each place, “which does not only consider productivity and immediate economic return, but has a systemic and integrated vision of its cattle raising production, aiming at its optimisation and long-term continuity” (Sambuichi et al 2012: 39).
In conclusion, overcoming the sustainability challenge is not a simple task and will require the adoption of multiple strategies to make it possible, in addition to more integrated actions among the different sectors of government. In addition, it has become evident in this Chapter, that the Cattle Industry plays a very influential role within Brazilian politics, demonstrating both positive and negative impacts to both society and the environment. Since, realistically agricultural power and influence in politics is unlikely to change, is it the role of NGOs and other environmental agencies to show and convince the Cattle industry that there are better, more sustainable, more efficient and more economically beneficial ways to produce- a way that ensures environmental security.
