Specialty of the Day: Amazonian Beef Steak and climate change. Maria Jose Barney e João Meirelles Filho (2011)

1. 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
Rua Ó de Almeida, 1083 | CEP: 66053-190 | Belém, Pará, Brasil
F +55 91 3222 6000 | peabiru@peabiru.org.br | www.peabiru.org.br

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.
2

3. Map 1 - Vegetation & Deforestation in Brazilian Amazon, IMAZON, 2011.
Key words: Amazon – Cattle production – Climate change – Meat industry – Food
Security
3

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
4

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.
5

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.
6

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,
7

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.
8

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).
9

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.
10

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
11

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
12

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.
13

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.
14

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
15

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?
16

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)
17

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.
18

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
19

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
20

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
21

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:
22

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.
23

24. 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
25

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
26

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)
27

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
28

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.
29

30. i
In its peak, in the 1990’s it reached 25,000 km/yr. Now it is under 10,000 km/yr.
30