9 Sustainability Indicators In Brazilian Cattle Ranching

Agnieszka E Latawiec, Bernardo BN Strassburg, Kemel Kalif, Felipe Barros, Rafael Feltran Barbieri, Helena Alves-Pinto, Márcio Cordeiro Rangel

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 Brazil And Global Food Production

Brazil is one of the largest agricultural producers worldwide and agriculture is one of the backbones of the country’s economy representing, in 2013, 22.5% of GDP (Cepea, 2014). Historically known for its sugar cane and coffee plantations, Brazil is nowadays a major producer and exporter of a range of agricultural products: fruits, cereals and meat. Brazil is the world’s largest net exporter and its share in the global food market is 9.7% in volume and 5.8% of the value of the global food market (WTO, 2014). The country also owns the largest commercial cattle herd with 211 million heads, responsible for about a quarter of the total volume of meat transacted in foreign trade supply. In 2012, the value of production of meat for the domestic market was estimated at around US$ 25.85 billion or 1.12% of the country GDP. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, in Portuguese), despite the world financial crisis in 2008, Brazil registered a record agricultural production, with an unprecedented production of grains that has reached 145 million tons. In 2012, Brazil was ranked as fourth in the global production of coffee and meat (dried) and fifth of sugar cane production (FAOstat, 2014). Furthermore, Brazil is the country with the largest forecasted increases in output over the next four decades (FAO, 2006).

In 2009, agricultural land in Brazil (arable land, under permanent crops and under permanent pastures) occupied 36% of the total land use of the country (calculated as Total Area – Native Vegetation, data from IBAMA, 2012). Arable land and area under permanent crops occupy approximately 9% of the land use of Brazil, which corresponds to 65 million hectares (of which the majority, 57 million hectares is arable land). In terms of occupied area, soybean is the main crop (25 million hectares in Brazil). Although arable land represents a significant proportion of the land, pasturelands occupy approximately 75% of the agricultural area of Brazil (159.8 million hectares, which some 57.6 are of natural pasturelands; IBGE, 2009).

9.1.2 Increasing Future Demands

Much has already been discussed regarding global population increase, concomitant demand increase entailing competition for land and the pressure that the finite global resources experience (Smith et al., 2010; Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011; Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 70% increase in food production is needed by 2050 to feed a global population projected to reach 9.1 billion people, whose increasing per capita income will shift the diets towards meat based (Smith et al., 2010). Many action-oriented initiatives worldwide are currently devoted to tackling these multiple challenges with an increasing manifestation of urgency, given that the global population has recently hit seven billion. Developing countries are bound to face increasing demand for meat driven by adoption of livestock-based diets, a trend that has already been observed in China and Brazil. The latter is predicted to have the biggest increase in meat production driven by both increasing domestic demand and for exports (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012).

9.1.3 Unsustainability Of Brazilian Cattle Ranching

Opposite to western-style intensive agriculture that is often associated with biodiversity loss and environmental pollution, in Brazil extensive low productivity agriculture often leads to environmental degradation. Similarly, Brazilian pasturelands are characterized by low stocking rates and this low efficiency has historically led to deforestation4 and to other adverse effects on environment such as soil erosion. Indeed, Martha Jr. et al. (2012) reported that the growth of the Brazilian beef production between 1950 and 1975 was primarily explained by the expansion of extensive pastures (86%) with cattle ranching productivity explaining only 14%. Since 1996, total pasture area in Brazil negatively contributed to beef production growth, while productivity gains (increased stocking rates and improved animal performance) accounted for beef production growth. However, pasture expansion continued to account for 5.6% of beef production growth in the North region between 1996 and 2006 and current productivity levels in Brazil are still below its sustainable potential. For example, Strassburg et al. (2014) shows that the current productivity of Brazilian cultivated pasturelands is between 32 and 34% of its potential.

The double strength of Brazil - environmental and agricultural - is mainly due to land abundance rather than a decoupling of intensive use of natural resources and production. Conflicts between production and nature are especially evident in areas where agricultural border is expanding, such as in the Arc of Deforestation in the Amazon Forest (Fig. 1). Brazil has increased the average agricultural productivity over the last two decades, accompanied by a drastic drop in the rate of Amazon deforestation (INPE, 2014). Yet, Brazil is still the second in the world rank of absolute deforestation, only behind Russia (Hansen et al., 2013). Also in other biomes, such as in Cerrado (Brazilian savannah), the persistence of extensive cattle ranching acts as the main factor of land use and land-cover change (Verburg et al., 2014).

9.1.4 Brazil´s Environment And Recent Initiatives To Protect It

In addition to being one of the largest agricultural producers, Brazil is also the world’s largest holder of tropical ecosystems. The most recent Global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO, 2015) shows that the country occupies 6% of global territory but shares 11% of the world’s remaining natural vegetation. Brazil is also the most biodiverse country on the planet (56,000 known plant species, versus 29,375 in Indonesia) (UNEP-WCMC, 2010). However, Brazil is the world leader in deforestation (55 million hectares over 1990-2010). In order to protect natural vegetation, the New Forest Code (Brazilian National Law No. 12.651 from May 25th, 2012) has recently been implemented.

According to the new legislation, landowners are obliged to maintain 80% and 35% of forest of their total land area in the Amazon and the Cerrado region, respectively (so called Legal Reserve, Reserva Legal (RL), in Portuguese). Moreover, the natural vegetation surrounding water bodies and other special areas such as mountaintops must be retained (Permanent Protection Areas; Áreas de Preservação Permanente (APP), in Portuguese). The country is also currently developing a National Restoration Strategy aiming to restore around 15 million hectares of native vegetation. In addition, there are other mechanisms to incentivize more sustainable land management, such as various proposed credit lines. For instance, the Brazilian government introduced a Low Carbon Agriculture program (“Programa ABC”, in Portuguese), which provides subsidized credit for implementation of climate-smart agriculture techniques, such as no-tillage, crop-livestock systems and the recuperation of degraded pasturelands (BMA, 2010).

The initial uptake of this program was low, but it has increased 50% from 2011 to 2012 (Angelo, 2012). Further, it was not very well distributed: 69% of the funding available between 2012 and 2013 was used by ranchers in the south of the country (Observatório do Plano ABC, 2013). This is partially because many small and medium producers from the Amazon region have limited knowledge regarding application process, such as requirements of documents. As a consequence, these farmers often do not apply for a loan, and if they do, they are unlikely to be awarded one (Cohn et al., 2011). There are currently several interventions being developed in the Amazon region in order to help producers with the access to the ABC program. The government also considers improving old and introducing new credit lines to promote sustainable cattle ranching, by supporting the implementation of good agricultural practices that require machinery and other inputs.

9.1.5 Sustainable Intensification Of Brazilian Cattle-Ranching Systems

Pasturelands, on account of their relative extent both globally (2.8 billion hectares versus 1.5 billion hectares of croplands, Goldewijk and Ramankutty et al., 2004) and in Brazil (159.8 million versus 65 million hectares of arable land), have received increasing attention in the context of protecting nature (Tilman et al., 2002; Bowman et al., 2012; Barretto et al., 2013). Recent studies show that pasturelands productivity is below its sustainable potential, and that increasing productivity in the areas under current pasturelands in Brazil is key to reconcile future increased food production and conservation (Bowman et al., 2012; Strassburg et al., 2014). Strassburg et al. (2014) shows that through sustainable intensification of cattle ranching it is possible to triple the productivity of existing pastures and thus meet demand for meat until 2040 (including for exports). Sustainable intensification, in essence, means increasing food production in existing farmlands without increasing pressure over the environment, and not undermining capacity to continue producing food in the future (Royal Society of London, 2009; Foresight, 2011).

Environmental, social and economic factors associated with technology access are determinant of both the dynamics and productivity levels of cattle production systems in different regions of Brazil. Indeed, the level of intensification of the system varies according to the environmental conditions in a biome, as well as depending on the size of farm (small-holders, medium and large). It is particularly important that sustainable intensification of smallholder livestock systems favors their social welfare, and it should be developed in regions with higher production potential and where the environmental conditions favor intensification. Further, for intensification to be accompanied by reduced deforestation, other initiatives such as legislation and capacity building must be put in place (see also section 2.2.7).

Sustainable intensification is already being observed in some regions in Brazil. For instance, Valentim and Andrade (2009) reported that between 1975 and 2006 the proportion of the total area of cultivated pastures increased from 24% to 56% with concurrent increase of 83% in pasture stocking rates. In the same period, Brazilian cattle herd increased by 102%. The wide adoption of improved grass cultivars of the genus Brachiaria and Panicum developed by EMBRAPA (Brazilian Corporation of Agricultural Research), mainly in the Cerrado and Amazon biomes, was one of the main factors accounting for increasing pasture-based cattle productivity in Brazil (Valentim and Andrade, 2009).

9.1.6 Selected Indicators For Sustainable Cattle Ranching In Brazil

9.1.6.1 Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) And Legal Reserves (RL)

Deforestation alters the water cycle, both by reducing evapotranspiration processes and by changing the infiltration of the water through soil profile (elevates surface runoff). This process changes the water balance - the balance between the water leaving the system in liquid form and in gaseous form. Among the areas that are considered Permanent Preservation Areas, the most impacted by livestock activity are the riparian zones (Kalif, 2007). According to the forest code, these areas, must be kept intact in order to preserve water resources. Although, APP width defined by law does not automatically guarantees provisions of all ecosystem services of riparian zones, the existence of APP, respecting the dimensions and features of the legislation, guarantees the preservation of a significant portion of the riparian forests.

9.1.6.2 Water Quality

Pollution level of water resources with nitrogen and other macronutrients is one of the sustainability indicators of cattle-ranching systems. Water quality is both influenced by remaining natural vegetation that functions as a natural filter as well as by appropriate management of the farm that prevent soil erosion (see also subsection 2.2.3). The water quality of streams, reservoirs, lakes, ponds, springs may be affected in several ways by agricultural practices. For instance, the extensive livestock farming usually suppresses the riparian forests to provide the animals’ access to water. As a result, it facilitates runoff of pesticides and fertilizers used in agricultural fields and pastures. Nutrient excess may result in eutrophication and in the loss of water quality.

9.1.6.3 Soil Erosion

The level of soil erosion depends on land management and can result in either lack or excess of nutrients, loss of soil texture and loss of organic matter. According to Nascimento et al. (1994), the degree of soil erosion is directly related to its stability, the decrease in productivity and consequent pasture degradation. According to Müller et al. (2004), degraded pastures are one of the major problems of land use in the Amazon, forcing ranchers to clear forested areas.

Soil physical properties can also be influenced by inappropriate land use, which in turn may lead to soil compaction and consolidation. Soil compaction can be caused by cattle trampling and may influence nutrient uptake and lead to low water retention and accessibility. Finally, it also facilitates runoff of rainwater, raising the level of streams and rivers. However, it can be accompanied by an increase in the total amount of sediments deposited in the water, changing immediately the water turbidity (an indicator of the amount of particulate matter). Pesticides are also carted in excess which can cause toxicity in aquatic organisms within these particles, compromising water quality.

9.1.6.4 Landscape Connectivity

The farmer’s decision on where to allocate remaining vegetation within the Legal Reserve is of utmost importance for landscape planning at larger scale. Its prioritization can contribute both to biodiversity conservation and to avoid environmental disasters in susceptible areas. This could be achieved by the creation of ecological corridors and the reestablishment of environmental services.

Studies about ecosystems fragmentation effects come from the “Island Biogeography Theory” (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967), which focuses on the effects of size and distance of oceanic islands as a direct influence on the probability of success or failure for species dispersion, influencing their diversity in a given island. Conservation biologists apply this theory to continental forest areas, considering its shape, spatial characteristics, presence of corridors and the structure and composition of the surrounding environment. Thus, landscape connectivity may also represent an indirect measurement of ecosystem integrity and its benefits to biodiversity and other ecosystem services.

One concept for connecting fragments is through ecological corridors, which may be a continuous strip of forest that connects one fragmented area to another allowing an organism to “travel” from one fragment to another (Loney and Hobbs, 1991; Hobbs, 1992; Simberloff et al., 1992; Bennett, 1997; Puth and Wilson, 2001). The most common examples of ecological corridors are historically focused on mammals and birds. However, more recently, corridors have been developed for plants and invertebrates (Benninger-Truax et al., 1992; Macedo, 1993; Micheli and Peterson, 1999; Kageyama and Gandara, 2001). The Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) could also fulfill the role of ecological corridors.

9.1.6.5 Landscape Flammability

The flammability of an environment is its propensity to fires. The flammability of the landscape consists of a mosaic of environments including anthropogenic ones that can facilitate the occurrence of large-scale fires. This propensity of flammability in tropical humid landscapes that have suffered anthropization depends on the existence of fuels (flammable material) and on drought events. The increase of deforestation in Amazon, coupled with increased logging, in addition to climatic events of drought and careless use of fire have created highly flammable environments in the Amazon landscape. Indeed, fire density in the Amazon region (Fig. 2) is directly related to land cover (Fig. 1) wherein the areas of high fire intensities (red color) are located in deforested area as well as in areas occupied by pastures.

9.1.6.6 Intensification Level (Productivity)

The level of intensification (measured, for instance, as animals or animal units per hectare) is a particularly relevant indicator when considering extensive pasturelands in Brazil. As discussed above, in Brazil, extensive pastures are often (although not always) associated with environmental degradation and socio-economic unsustainability. Sustainable intensification can be, therefore, perceived as a solution for increasing production (via productivity increase in the area already occupied by agricultural production), avoiding expansion into new areas and sparing native vegetation in Brazil (Latawiec et al., 2014). It should be noted that in the Brazilian context intensification to semi-intensive cattle-ranching system is used, rather than truly intensive (confined) as historically open space, land-based cattle ranching has been used.

If land sparing is performed in a spatially intelligent way that leads to improved landscape connectivity as discussed in section 2.2.4., it may lead to sustainability at a higher than farm level and contribute to regional sustainability. However, some authors point out that pressures over the environment are not necessarily mirrored by the level of farm inputs (Gaudino et al., 2014; see also chapter 10). They conclude that the real pressure on the environment from a particular farm should be evaluated on the basis of the measured impacts it inserts on the environment rather than extrapolated from the level of inputs. In fact, intensive or semi-intensive cattle ranching can lead to negative impacts on the environment. An example within discussions on sustainable intensification is the risk of the so called ‘rebound effect’. Rebound effect is a classic economic phenomenon where increased production does not lead to diminished demand for a resource (in this case land) but rather opposite, and results in higher demand (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011). In that sense, instead of desired land sparing for nature, production intensification may lead to deforestation.

Another factor that should be taken into account when evaluating sustainability of a cattle-ranching system is whether any action attempting to increase sustainability in one farm does not lead to unsustainability elsewhere (in a form of ‘leakage’5). So, if actions towards sustainability are to result in best positive outcomes, a range of conditions must be provided. For instance, appropriate legislation, increased governance at state and local levels, complementary measures to foster land sparing and avoid rebound effect, use of geotechnologies and geographic information systems for monitoring (see also section 2.2) should be put in place. These initiatives should also be accompanied by credit access, which would assure efficiency of production and improve ability to provide good quality beef all year round within sustainable production systems. In addition, clear tenure arrangements (avoiding land speculation), and agricultural zoning may aid better land-use planning and help maximize the positive impacts of intensification. Finally, the adoption of Good Agricultural Practices (Boas Práticas Agropecuárias, in Portuguese) that may catalyze to sustainable intensification should be promoted. Extension and capacity building should be provided and appropriate management and compliance with regulation regarding the use of agrochemicals, incentives to diminish use of fertilizers and to use them adequately, monitoring and control of farm inputs and outputs should be controlled. It is essential that farmers obtain long-term sustainable agriculture and it is fundamental to engage them within innovation outreach and research and development activities (MacMillan and Benton, 2014).

9.1.6.7 Job And Income Generation

Job and income generation are crucial socio-economic indicators considered within Brazilian cattle-ranching systems. As discussed above, extensive cattle ranching makes little sense from the economic point of view, yet has been in place for decades. There is some contradictory evidence whether sustainable intensification of cattle ranching is leading to job loss or gain. It is possible that due to increased complexity of farm management, the producers will need additional (often skilled) new workforce on theirs farms. On the other hand, intensification is often associated with mechanization of production and higher specialization, which is often associated with lower demand for workforce (Latawiec et al., 2014). However, although on farm the demand may be lower, there might be increased overall employment in the agricultural sector (including for example machines production and urban employment). From the sustainability perspective, job creation is only sustainable if it lasts, even if only associated with capacity building. Therefore, technical know-how must be provided (rural extension), new workforce must be trained or re-trained (capacity building) and adapted to changing socio-environmental landscape. Technical extension, development and dissemination of technologies, training of the farmers and the personnel responsible for technical assistance and knowledge transfer are therefore crucial aspects related to evaluating sustainability of cattle-ranching systems.

9.1.6.8 Animal Wellbeing

Animal welfare is a crucial sustainability indicator of cattle-ranching systems. It means free access to water, comfort, freedom, disease protection and shade, among others. Although the word “intensification” has widely been discussed with respect to animal ethics and welfare, yet the discussion is often complicated by the subjective perception of what actually welfare means. For example, for those more influenced by the so called ´Romantic/Agrarian´ (Fraser, 2008a) world-view, intensification (in the sense of confinement) has inherently negative consequences because animals’ natural behavior in natural environments is limited or prevented. On the other hand, others with a ´Rational/Industrial´ (Fraser, 2008a) world-view may tend to overlook these issues and point instead that indoor systems can lead to better health through protection from harsh weather, predators, pathogens and provide the ability to treat animals easily for diseases and parasites. Further, although their movement is limited they may be protected from physical injuries caused by other animals. Even though the research may be heavily influenced by dichotomy of these approaches, there is substantial evidence that some intensive-production strategies, such as highly selective breeding for extreme levels of production may produce congenitally harmed animals or influence wellbeing in other ways (Fraser, 2008b, Dawkins, 2012). For instance, emergence and spread of Escherichia coli in Europe is associated with high density of animals, which tends to facilitate the circulation of these and other pathogens (FAO, 2013).

As a part of evaluating sustainability of cattle ranching, it is important to take into account training not only with respect to appropriate handling of the animals but also strong ethical foundations and farmer’s understanding that animals experience pain, stress and discomfort. Appropriate governance should be put in place to prevent animal mistreatment, while antibiotics and pesticide use should be controlled. Campaigns to inform wider public of recognizing products where farmers comply with animal and environmental best practices and traceability of products should form part of a broader evaluation of sustainability of cattle ranching at national level.

9.1.6.9 Greenhouse Gases Emissions

Agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gases emissions and curbing these emissions has been the focus of a range of initiatives (e.g. above discussed ABC plan; section 1.3). In general, due to rational use of fertilizers and to the shortened age of animals ready to slaughter, semi-intensive well-managed cattle-ranching systems are considered to have reduced emissions as compared with extensive systems (and intensive, beyond the sustainable carrying capacity). Almeida (2010) shows that an intensive system emitted 3.6 kg CO2 eq / Kg of live weight whereas an extensive system emitted 3.8 kg CO2 eq / Kg, if only methane emissions were considered (reduced CH4 emissions might be due to shortened lifespan of cattle). Nevertheless, if other gases are included, the intensive system was responsible for almost as twice as the emissions from the extensive system (Almeida, 2010). Well managed grasses are also known for carbon sequestration when compared to other uses such as degraded systems and primary forests. Segnini et al. (2012) demonstrated that carbon storage in degraded areas, forest areas and managed pasture were of: 102, 118 and 144 Mg ha-1. As discussed in section 2.2.7., if intensification is introduced narrowly it may cause leakage by increasing emissions in other areas.

9.2 Discussion

9.2.1 Sustainability In The Context Of Brazilian Cattle Ranching

The quest for sustainability promotes actions and relations between people and nature, a process whose understanding has become the focus of research with the advent of the concept of Sustainable Development (WCED, 1987). There are many ways to discuss this concept and explain its multiple dimensions: it requires the interaction between different areas of knowledge, the definition of space-time scales, and the recognition of structural boundaries of the system that is intended to be built. In the case of the cattle supply chain in Brazil, as in any other production process worldwide, much of the challenge for the internalization of sustainability is the equalization of these dimensions. It defines a theoretical horizon to be pursued and, consequently, the forms of measurement of such internalization. The measurement of sustainability requires the parameterization of aspects linked to the achievement of that theoretical horizon, resulting in what is known as ‘sustainability indicators’.

For the definition of sustainability indicators of the Brazilian livestock, we must recognize, isolate and parameterize the main problems associated with this activity considering a multidisciplinary perspective and different scales. Associated problems are those that generate externalities and/or are barriers to maintaining a productive activity in the long term. Further, these problems should not be the same for all biomes as well as to the states within these biomes. In general, in the case of the Amazon region, production characteristics and land availability differ from other biomes in the country.

For instance, in the Amazon, livestock is characterized by relatively lower productivity when compared to agriculture. There are some plausible hypotheses. Historically, agriculture was developed as a peripheral activity in the Brazilian economy, mainly based on exports of sugar and coffee. Despite its apparent role to produce meat and leather products for domestic market, there were very low investments in cattle ranching. Furthermore, rural extension was almost absent. During decades, livestock increased due to vegetative growth rather than to planning. From the economics point of view, the reproduction of capital was materialized on livestock itself, focused on attending short-term demands. The factor that could limit this system was the land - especially on farms located far from markets, where inventories grew up faster than flow out rates - but land was abundant, and the cattle management required few labour (Furtado, 2007). This very specific dynamics not only can explain the rationality of the extensive system but also its effects on environmental degradation, including the pastures, explored until exhaustion and replaced by new areas, meaning new deforested areas. In addition, in the last decades, the high opportunity costs of lands close to larger markets promoted the specialization and segmentation of cattle ranching, where pastures were more often replaced by highly-capitalized agriculture. Such phenomenon has been an additional vector of the displacement of cattle ranching to further areas, particularly in the Amazon region where there is a vast availability of land. For instance, in 1974 when the agribusiness capitalization boom happened, the region known as Legal Amazon increased its portion of the national herd from 8.9% to 31%.

While there is scarcity of areas for ranching in the Central-South region, the opposite can be observed in frontier regions such as the deforestation arc. In these regions, forested areas of easy access or close to roads are still abundant and therefore cheap. In 2013, the average price of areas in the regions with these characteristics in the states of Pará, Mato Grosso and Rondônia were of US$ 645 ha-1 (x = 644.43, σ= 284.91; p=0.05, n=9, our results from data prices from IFNP, 2014). These prices are around 70% lower than restoration costs. Further, because of low land prices, the real revenue for the last decade considering buys and sells was of 5.48% per year, more than threefold the total cattle revenue. Finally, logging activity in these regions generated a total revenue of US$ 2.8 billion in present value in the last decade.

Even though the total amount of credit allocated to investments in cattle intensification has increased dramatically in the last years, studies show that the biggest obstacle for producers to intensify their activities is the difficulty in accessing credit, both regarding resource availability and the required assurances. Therefore, it is easier to understand the rationale of the apparent irrational logic of cattle ranching in Brazil and its consequent low mechanization indexes: high land availability, opportunity costs and obstacles for accessing financial resources. Property legal insecurity due to land tenure conflicts and fraud are hard to quantify, but add up to barriers for the development of a more intensified activity. Considering so, risks of land speculation markets may increase, as well as revenues from logging and the obstacles for financing, resulting in an extensive activity with even lower mechanization indexes. Such abundance of land coupled with an undefined land tenure and the lack of governance in the agricultural frontier results in low investment with low productivity, dominated by the economy based on the production in large areas.

In this context, the two main legal forms for environmental conservation within private rural properties in Brazil - the Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) and the Legal Reserve (RL) - have a very low level of compliance in the cattle farms. This means that if a system of indicators considers compliance as one of the minimum criteria for assessing sustainability, a significant portion of rural properties would not be able to join these indicators. However, such restriction should not be treated as an argument to avoid the incorporation of legal aspects in a list of indicators of sustainability of Brazilian livestock.

9.2.2 Indicators Should Be Transboundary And Consider Timeframe

Division of sustainability into social, environmental and economic aspects in practical terms is useful, for example for monitoring, but it is also often challenging to define whether a particular indicator, let us say, job creation in cattle ranching, should be classified as economic or as social indicator. In order to represent selected indicators discussed in this chapter and to capture a range of policies and initiatives that are influencing performance of these indicators we therefore propose a concept that represents environmental and socio-economic indicators divided into three aspects pertinent to sustainability of Brazilian cattle ranching (Fig. 3). We do not argue that the division in social, environmental and economic pillars of sustainability is incorrect, nor we promote this scheme to be applied for a range of circumstances. We do however believe that it may contribute to a broader understanding of sustainability indicators in the context of Brazilian cattle ranching and aid visualization purposes. It should also be noted that the range of indicators proposed by various institutions (governmental, public, private and NGOs) will influence perception, acceptance and adoption of indicators promoted by them (more discussion on this topic can be found in chapter 2).

The issue of scale is a recurring aspect within discussions on sustainability indicators. The question that often arises is “at what scale something is sustainable?”. This is very important in the context of Brazilian cattle ranching, for example, regarding land spared at the farm level: if not done in the right place, it may have little contribution to sustainability at a regional level (no connectivity). Sustainability can therefore be also measured at different scales: farm (Permanent Protected Areas -PPA), regional (landscape connectivity) and country (law enforcement). For example, the Rural Environmental Registry (Cadastro Ambiental Rural – CAR, in Portuguese; created by article 29 Law: nº 12.727 from 2012) was created aiming at environmental planning and monitoring at the property scale. It is, therefore, a strategic tool (Ferreira et al., 2012) for sustainable development in different scales since it builds a juridical framework that restricts some economic activities while regulates and stimulates sustainable land management.

The Rural Environmental Registry is a self-declaratory registration required for all rural properties. It is determined based on its boundaries and aims to identify Permanent Protected Areas, Areas of Restricted Uses and Legal Reserves. Thus, the owner will be able to assess whether there are any protected areas to be restored, and its location. In case restoration is necessary, it is possible to join an Environmental Regularization Program (Programa de Regularização Ambiental – PRA, in Portuguese) in which mechanisms of the environmental adequacy will be established as well as a sanction to be applied on non-compliance with the agreement signed. In the juridical framework of Legal Reserves (Article 12 of Law nº 12.651), it is possible to have economic uses concomitantly with environmental adequacy provided it does not have negative impacts on native forests. Furthermore, the economic use has to be approved by environmental agencies. By allowing the economic use of Legal Areas by sustainable management, the government may overcome the dichotomy between conservation and productivity, and may therefore increase forested areas.

The same law (Law 12.651) also established the program of Environmental Reserve Quota (Cota de Reserva Ambiental – CRA, in Portuguese) as part of its incentives to environmental preservation and recuperation (Article nº 44). The CRA is a nominal title that corresponds to the area of Legal Reserve that exceeds the area determined by law. This title must be issued by the environmental agency and the property owner must present supporting documentation as a proof of its excess area. It can therefore be used as a trade tool in order to compensate the environmental deficit of other proprieties in the same biome.

The governmental agencies have a critical role in developing supporting programs for the adoption of good practices that conciliate the agricultural productivity with environmental protection. Some examples of policies and programs are Payments for Environmental Services (PES), as well as incentives for restoration with economic benefits. Nevertheless, land owners are only eligible to participate once they have registered in the Rural Environmental Registry. It demonstrates the strategic importance of this Registry together with the need for the development of public policies that foster the application of the Law.

Another pertinent aspect to sustainability is defining what is sustainable for whom and for how long. There is little sustainability in APPs restored in 2014 that will be cut the following year (see also chapter 8). In addition, as discussed above, it is also important to measure pressures on environment rather than levels of inputs. If it is not feasible and impractical, due to high costs, for example, it is important to access additional information that could help us assess sustainability of a system. For example, the mere information on pesticide use is useful; however, the best would be to measure impacts of this pesticide on the environment. If this is not possible it would be important to collect additional information (for example on soil texture to know infiltration rates) and then levels used can be crossed with the soils and pesticide partitioning levels to infer environmental impacts. Table 1 synthesizes positive and negative environmental and socio-economic impacts that should be captured by sustainability indicators for cattle ranching.

9.2.3 Data Availability And Importance Of Monitoring

In order to monitor the change and development of sustainability indicators, data availability is crucial. In the Brazilian context, they are commonly scarce given high costs required for fieldwork. Therefore, the development of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) has been contributing to enable data acquisition for large areas while reducing costs. These tools have been widely used for environmental diagnosis and monitoring. In Brazil, institutions such as The National Institute for Space Research (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais – INPE) and EMBRAPA, among others, have shown different uses of those tools with good reputation (Kintisch, 2007), such as pasture monitoring (Geodegrade6, MapaStore7, QualiSolo8 or GeoRastro9).

The GeoDegrade project (from EMBRAPA) aims for the development of geospatial tools that contribute for the identification of degraded pastures. Thus, the main challenges are the assessment and construction of spatially explicit biophysical indicators that allow the identification of different levels of pasture degradation, combining Remote Sensing data with a validation process that includes field work. The QualiSolo project uses soil parameters as indicators to different land uses (e.g. soybeans, sugar-cane and pasture). By analyzing soil parameters spatially, it is possible to understand the correlation between land management, production capacity and its environmental effects. Finally, in order to foster the sustainable agricultural production, the GeoRastro project proposes mapping all the actors of the supply-chain: the producer has the responsibility of a transparent sustainable management. This way, we assure that the production system is not only environmentally friendly but also sanitary safe. On the other hand, there are some projects that are interested in monitoring and mapping forest degradation, which can be used as a parameter to build a sustainable indicator. The Legal Amazon’s Deforestation Rate Program (Programa de Cálculo do Desflorestamento da Amazônia – PRODES, in Portuguese) uses Remote Sensing tools to map and estimate clear-cutting deforestation rate monthly, since 1988. The result is published as spatial data identifying ‘forest’, ‘non-forest’ and ‘deforestation’. A complementary project is the TerraClass, which uses data from PRODES in order to elaborate a land-use map, allowing the identification of deforestation areas. Finally, the DETER (Sistema de Detecção de Desmatamento em Tempo Real – Live Deforestation Monitoring) alerts and DEGRAD (Degradação Florestal na Amazônia brasileira) projects were developed to support deforestation supervision and control, including the identification of areas in process of deforestation by degradation (not only clear-cutting deforestation). Those projects are of great importance since they are complementary and cover different parameters that allow not only government agencies, but also Non-Governmental Organizations and citizens to elucidate the deforestation process and pressures of land uses over environmental resources.

9.3 Conclusions

This chapter presented a selection of sustainability indicators for evaluating performance of cattle-ranching systems in Brazil. Obviously, it does not discuss all aspects of cattle ranching in Brazil nor is it exhaustive with relation to multiplicity of indicators. We believe however that it contributes to better understanding of complexity of assessing sustainability of Brazilian cattle-ranching systems. The selection and application of sustainability indicators is a subjective decision, often determined by availability of time, financial resources and conviction of what one may consider sustainable. Based on our experience and literature review we draw the following conclusions:

• 1.   It is necessary to understand the context in which to use sustainability indicators in cattle-ranching systems (western-style intensive cattle ranching is often associated with unsustainability, whereas it is extensive cattle ranching in Brazil that contributes to environmental degradation).
• 2.   Indicators should measure pressure - not inputs. Although productivity can be considered a viable indicator of cattle ranching sustainability in Brazil wherein extensive farming is usually associated with degradation, the adverse effects on environmental, social and economic aspects should be measured on account on impacts rather that inputs (or level of intensification).
• 3.   Spatial and temporal scale matter (sustainable for whom? at the farm, municipality or country level? for how long?) and should be taken into account in any assessment of sustainability of cattle-ranching system.
• 4.   Indicators can be powerful tools to change the system. For example, a farm compliance with animal wellbeing indicators, can change people’s perception, preferences as well as impact farm management (see also chapter 2 on how perception influences indicators and vice versa).
• 5.   Sustainability indicators should be used with care and we need various indicators. For example even if we record soil biodiversity at proximate level to an undisturbed system, it may not necessarily reflect vulnerability and resilience of the system. High inflammability, if an incident of fire occurs, may lead to ecosystem collapse, even one with high biodiversity.
• 6.   Indicators are not necessarily good or bad, it is rather how and when they are used. Level of fertilizer is a good indicator if we also have information on soil texture and possible infiltration excess – without this information, the level of fertilizer can give little information on system sustainability.

References

Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050. The 2012 Revision. ESA Working Paper, 12 (3).

Almeida, M.H.S.P. (2010). Análise econômico-ambiental da intensificação da pecuária de corte no centro-oeste brasileiro. Dissertação de Mestrado. Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz. USP. Piracicaba, São Paulo.

Angelo, C. (2012). Brazil’s fund for low-carbon agriculture lies fallow. Nature News. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/brazil-s-fund-for-low-carbon-agriculture-lies-fallow-1.11111. Accessed in: April 14th, 2014.

Barretto, A.G.O.P., Berndes, G., & Sparovek, G., et al. (2013). Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land-use patterns: an analysis of the 1975-2006 period. Global Change Biology, 19, 1804-1815.

Bennett, S.C. (1997). Terrestrial locomotion of Pterosaurs: a reconstruction based on Pteraichnus trackways. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 17(1),104-113.

Benninger-Truax, M., Vankat, J.L., & Schaefer, R.L. (1992). Trail corridors as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Landscape Ecology, 6(4), 269-278.

BMA. (2010). Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Programa Agricultura de Baixo Carbono - ABC. Brasília. Available at: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/desenvolvimento-sustentavel/programaabc. Accessed in: December, 2012.

Bowman, M.S., Almeida, O.T., & Merry, F.D., et al.(2012). Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: A spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy, 29, 558-568.

Cepea. (2014). Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada. Relatório Pib-Agro Brasil. Available at: http://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/comunicacao/Cepea_PIB_BR_dez13.pdf. Accessed in March 20th, 2015.

Cohn, A., Bowman, M., & O’Neill, K., et al. (2011). The Viability of Cattle Ranching Intensification in Brazil as a Strategy to Spare Land and Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. CCAFS Working Paper 11. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Dawkins, M.S. (2012). Why Animals Matter. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

FAO. (2006). Food and Agriculture Organization. World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050 prospects for food, nutrition, agriculture and major commodity groups. Global Perspectives Studies Unit, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Interim report,. Rome.

FAO. (2013). World Livestock 2013 – Changing disease landscapes. Rome.

FAO (2015). Food and Agriculture Organization. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/en/. Accessed in March 20th, 2015.

FAOStat. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2014) Available in http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E, Accessed in november, 3, 2014

Ferreira, J., Pardini, R., Metzger, J.P., et al. J (2012) Towards environmentally sustainable agriculture in Brazil: challenges and opportunities for applied ecological research. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 535-541.

Foresight. (2011). Food and Agriculture Organization. The Future of Food and Farming. Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science. London: HMSO.

Fraser, D. (2008a). Animal Welfare and Intensification of Animal Production. In P.B. Thompson (Eds.), The Ethics of Intensification. Agricultural Development and Cultural Change, 167-190. New York, NY: Springer.

Fraser, D. (2008b). Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Vol 16, 167 – 189. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell/UFAW.

Furtado, C. (2007). Formação econômica do Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras

Gaudino, S., Borreani, G., & Goia, I., et al. (2014). Cropping system intensification grading using an agro-environmental indicator set in northern Italy. Ecological Indicators 40, 76–89.

Goldewijk, K.K., & Ramankutty, N. (2004). Land cover change over the last three centuries due to human activities: the availability of new global data sets. GeoJournal, 61, 335-344.

Hansen, M.C. et al. (2013) High-Resolution global maps of 21st-Century forest cover change. Science 342(6061):850-853

Hobbs, H.H. (1992) Caves and springs. In T. Hackney, S. M. Adams, & W. H. Martin (Eds.). Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: aquatic communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 59 – 131.

IBAMA. (2012). Centro de Sensoriamento Remoto – PMDBBS, REMOTE SENSING CENTER. http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/. Accessed in March 20th, 2015.

IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2009). Censo Agropecuário 2006. Rio de Janeiro:IBGE

IFNP. Informa Economics FNP (2015). Agrianual 2015. Anual da Agricultura Brasileira. São Paulo:IFNP

INPE. (2014). Instituto Nacional De Pesquisas Espaciais. Coordenação Geral de Observação da Terra - OBT. Projeto PRODES: monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite. Available at: <http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/>. Accessed in: Jan 27th, 2014.

Kageyma, P. & Gandara, F.B. (2001). Recuperação de áreas ciliares. In R.R. Rodrigues & F.H.F. Leitão (Eds.),Matas Ciliares: conservação e recuperação, 249-269. São Paulo: Edusp.

Kalif, A. B. K. (2007). Ecologismo e produtivismo no espaço rural: enfoque em uma alternativa de gestão ambiental no Estado do Mato Grosso. Tese de Doutorado em Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Universidade Federal do Pará - Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos, pp. 181.

Kintisch, E. (2007). Carbon emissions - Improved monitoring of rainforests helps pierce haze of deforestation. Science,316, 536-537.

Lambin, E.F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 108(9), 3465-3472.

Latawiec, A.E., Strassburg, B.N.S., Ramos, F., et al. (2014). Pasture intensification in Brazil: tradeoffs and synergies between livestock productivity and environmental impacts. International Journal of Animal Bioscience, 8 (8),1255–1263.

Loney, B. & Hobbs, R.J. (1991). Management of vegetation corridors: maintenance, rehabilitation and establishment. In D.A. Saunders & R.J. Hobbs (Eds.), Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors (pp. 299 - 311). Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited.

MacArthur, R.H. & Wilson, E.O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Macedo, A.C. (1993). Revegetação de matas ciliares e de proteção ambiental. In J.V. Rezende & I. Alcântara (Eds.). Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, Fundação Florestal, p. 27.

MacMillan, T., & Benton, T.G. (2014). Engage farmers in research. Nature, 509, 25-27.

Martha Jr., G.B., Alves, E., & Contini, E. (2012). Land-saving approaches and beef production growth in Brazil. Agricultural Systems, 110, 173-177.

Micheli, F., & Peterson, C.H. (1999). Estuarine vegetated habitats as corridors for predator movements. Conservation Biology, 13,869–81.

Nascimento, J., D., Queiroz, D., S., & Santos, M.V.F. (1994). Degradação das pastagens e critérios para avaliação. In A.M. Peixoto; J.C. Moura; V.P. Faria (Eds.), Anais do Simpósio sobre Manejo de Pastagem. Piracicaba: FEALQ

Observatório do Plano ABC. (2013). A evolução de um novo paradigma. FGV Available at: http://www.observatorioabc.com.br/ckeditor_assets/attachments/38/2013_06_28_relatorio_estudo_1_observatorio_abc.pdf. Accessed in March 20th, 2015

Puth, L.M., & Wilson, K.A. (2001). Boundaries and corridors as a continuum of ecological flow control: lessons from river and streams. Conservation Biology, 15(1), 21-30.

Royal Society of London. (2009). Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. London: Royal Society.

Segnini, A., Junior, P.L.O., & Watanabe, A.L., et al. (2012). Efeito da intensificação do manejo da pecuária no sequestro de carbono em solos de pastagem: avaliação do estoque e da estabilidade da matéria orgânica do solo. Anais da IV Jornada Científica – Embrapa São Carlos. Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste e Embrapa Instrumentação, São Carlos, SP.

Simberloff, D., Farr, J.A., & Cox, J., et al. (1992). Movement corridors -conservation bargains or poor investments. Conservation Biology, 6, 493-504

Smith, P., Gregory, P.J., & van Vuuren, D., et al. (2010) Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 365, 2941-2957.

Strassburg, B.B.N., Barioni, L.G., & Latawiec, A.E., et al. (2014). When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 28, 84–97.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G.,& Matson, P.A., et al. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418, 671-677.

UNEP-WCMC. (2010). United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNEP-WCMC Species Database. Cambridge, U.K.: UNEP-WCMC. Available at: http://www.unepwcmc.org. Accessed in March 20th, 2015

Valentim, J.F., & Andrade, C.M.S. (2009). Tendências e perspectivas da pecuária bovina na Amazônia brasileira. Amazônia, Ciência & Desenvolvimento, 4 (8), 9-32.

Verburg, R., Lindoso, D., & Rodrigues, S., et al. (2014). The impact of commodity price and conservation policy scenarios on deforestation and agricultural land use in a frontier area within the Amazon. Land Use Police, 37, 14-26

WCED. World Commission on Environment and Development - 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: New York.

WTO World Trade Organization. (2014), World Trade Organization Statistics Database Available in https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/data_pub_e.htm, Accessed inf November, 7, 2014.

 

4  within so called ‘slash-and-burn’ process in which cattle is removed from degraded pasture to the area of recently cut and burned forest

5  Leakage of agricultural or logging activities means displacement of these activities to other areas where relevant monitoring and law enforcement is not in place.

6  http://www.geodegrade.cnpm.embrapa.br/web/geodegrade/home

7  http://www.cnpm.embrapa.br/projetos/mapastore/index.html

8  http://www.cnpm.embrapa.br/projetos/qualisolo/

9  http://www.cnpm.embrapa.br/projetos/georastro/