1840 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
Why integration of the Ecological Footprint indicator into Global Beef Production and Consumption can be beneficial to future generations of humanity?
Por que a integração do indicador da Pegada Ecológica na Produção e no Consumo de Carne Bovina Global pode ser benéfica para gerações futuras da humanidade?
Recebimento dos originais: 01/10/2019 Aceitação para publicação: 29/11/2019
Regina da Silva de Camargo Barros Doutora em Administração pela Faculdade de Economia, Administração, Contabilidade e Atuária FEA-USP Instituição: Universidade Federal de São Paulo - UNIFESP Endereço: R Angélica, 100 - Jardim das Flores - Osasco/SP - Cep 06110-295 E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT With the world population expected to reach 9 billion people during the 21st century, there is also an increase in the demand for beef, which is accompanied by an increase in the consumption of natural resources on the planet. Among the impacts caused by the increase in demand is an atmosphere heated by greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, agriculture faces a choice: on the one hand the need for continuous food production, and on the other hand, the need to conserve limited natural resources for future human generations. In view of this, the search for technological efficiency in the use of resources becomes a target, but still treated in a secondary way by the segment. To meet the need to identify the limit of the planet's natural resources different ecological indicators have been developed and one of them is the Ecological Footprint. With all these reasoning presented, the scenario that underlies the key question of this research is created: Why is integrating the indicators of the ecological footprint into the production and consumption of global beef beneficial for the future? To answer this question, a methodology was developed, composed of two distinct phases: a Systematic Bibliographic Review of researches from 2004 to 2014, followed by the identification of natural resources together with the consequences of beef cattle raising, with the objective environmental benefits and harms. Through this analysis, it was identified that by integrating the ecological footprint indicators into the production and consumption of beef, it is possible to develop a balance between the exploitation of natural resources, production and consumption of beef and the preservation of the environment, ensuring a sustainable future for future generations. Keywords: Ecological Footprint, Beef, Sustainable Development;
RESUMO Com a população mundial prevista para chegar em 9 bilhões de pessoas durante o século 21, ocorre também o aumento na demanda de carne bovina, que segue acompanhado de um aumento no consumo de recursos naturais do planeta. Entre os impactos causados pelo aumento da demanda encontra-se uma atmosfera aquecida pelas emissões de gases do efeito estufa. Com isso, a agricultura enfrenta uma escolha: por um lado a necessidade de produção contínua de alimentos, e por outro lado, a necessidade de conservação dos recursos naturais limitados, tendo em vista futuras gerações humanas. Em vista disso, a busca de eficiência tecnológica no uso de recursos torna-se um alvo, porém ainda tratado de Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1841 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
forma secundária pelo segmento. Para atender a necessidade de identificar o limite dos recursos naturais do planeta foram desenvolvidos diferentes indicadores ecológicos e um deles é a Pegada Ecológica (ou Ecological Footprint). Com todos esses raciocínios apresentados, cria-se o panorama que fundamentou a pergunta chave desta pesquisa: Por que a integração dos indicadores da pegada ecológica na produção e no consumo de carne bovina global é benéfica para o futuro? Para responder a essa pergunta foi desenvolvida uma metodologia, composta por duas distintas fases: uma Revisão Bibliográfica Sistemática de pesquisas entre os anos de 2004-2014, seguida pela identificação dos recursos naturais juntamente com as consequências advindas da pecuária bovina de corte, com o objetivo de identificar os benefícios e malefícios ambientais. Através dessa análise foi identificado que através da integração dos indicadores da pegada ecológica na produção e no consumo de carne bovina torna-se possível desenvolver um nível de equilíbrio entre a exploração dos recursos naturais, produção e consumo de carne bovina e a preservação do meio ambiente, assegurando um futuro sustentável para gerações futuras.
Palavras-chave: Pegada Ecológica, Carne Bovina, Desenvolvimento Sustentável
1 INTRODUCTION Agriculture changed not only food habits but also human civilization, bringing to men the need to abandon the nomadic life and change to a more centralized life (in the form of villages and future cities) for the planting and cultivation of food. During Prehistory, specifically in the Palaeolithic period (4.4 million BCE up to 10,000 BCE), man was nomadic and depended on what he located to feed, especially plants or part of them, such as fruits and roots. During the Neolithic period (12,000 BC to 4,000 BC), the fire was discovered and along with it were creations and discoveries of hunting instruments. This allowed the inclusion of animal meat as an item of consumption in food. For this, man began to domesticate animals for his own consumption and began a process that, after degrees of evolution came to be known as agriculture. (DE CHARDIN, 2005 p.235; LOPES, 2010 p.20). During the 8,500 years that followed, agriculture has evolved slowly through trial and error for food and fiber production. Tools were replaced so that the work became more efficient, but the work was still slow. In the 18th and 19th centuries, agricultural innovation evolved, starting with inventions that allowed greater efficiency, organization and quickness in planting, such as the first mechanical sowing machine. During the 20th century, new technological advances pushed agriculture forward: machinery (replacing traditional equipment), use of fertilizers, pesticides, and improved seeds. (MONSANTO, 2015). From the beginning of agriculture until the middle of the last century, the predominant food production system was based on small, almost self-sufficient family farms, in the so-called "Cutting Livestock". The vegetables grew in vegetable gardens and orchards, side by side with the raising of goats, chickens and cattle, which supplied milk, eggs and meat. The grains were crushed in stone mills and consumed in the integral form, preserving the fibers and the natural benefits. (DE CHARDIN, 2005
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1842 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
p.236-240). However, changes occurred after World War II, driven by a new rural image and use of technologies that help to technify beef cattle. One of these changes occurred in the control and regulation of food production and imports in the United States. A liberal, productivist food model called "American" was developed, which was quickly established also in Latin America, Asia and Africa, which depended heavily on beef production and this created an incentive for the industrial production of livestock and crops destined for their food. With the implementation of this model, from the point of view of production, agriculture underwent two fundamental changes: the change from a mixed grains model and cattle production to a regime specialized in grains and intensive operations of livestock raising, with ecological consequences. (BELIK, MALUF, 2000). On the other hand, it is possible to observe another element that can also contribute to the cattle raising of the beef cattle to acquire an intensive operation every year - the population increase. It is observed that between 1900 and 2012, the world population grew from 1.6 billion to more than 7 billion. (WORLD BANK, 2014f). As cities grew, crops were moved to places farther from urban centers, which made it necessary to build railroads and roads to enable them to transport food. Vegetables and other fresh foods gave way to people's trade and table for products that could be transported more easily and last longer. During the twentieth century, the consumption of industrialized foods was intensified, due to behavioral and routine changes to the lifestyle suffered by the population. But even contemplating behavioral changes, agricultural production was driven to increase its level of production and include in its business model techniques that contemplated the cultivation of a variety of foods and fresh and continuous supply. (MONSANTO, 2015). According to FAO data (2014a) the world population will grow better by 2030, with 3050 kilocalories per day available per capita, compared to the 2360 daily kilocalories available per capita in the sixties and the 2800 available today. This change reflects, above all, the increase in consumption in many developing countries, where the average will be around 3000 kilocalories per capita in 2030. This increase in consumption generates a tendency towards obesity (or overweight). The World Health Organization - WHO points to obesity as one of the biggest public health problems in the world. The projection is that, by 2025, about 2.3 billion adults are overweight; and more than 700 million, obese. (ABREGO, 2015, CARVALHO, ROCHA, 2011). Based on the facts exposed so far, a reasoning in another area arises. With the world population expected to reach 9 billion people during the 21st century (FAO, 2013), the demand for food production, especially in livestock, increases and for that, the consumption of natural resources used in the production and cultivation of food also tends to increase accordingly. And because some of these resources are limited, there is a tendency to intensify this depletion, aggravated by increased pollution,
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1843 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
resource disputes and the consequences of an atmosphere that is rapidly heating up by greenhouse gas emissions. All these factors can still produce economic impacts, significantly affecting the Gross Domestic Product - world GDP. All these effects will be gradually noticed with accumulated effect for generations to come. (MEADOWS et al., 2004, p.53-54). Concerns are expressed that agriculture may in the not too distant future not be able to produce the food needed to feed a growing world population with levels sufficient to lead a healthy and active life. In the year 1700, only 7% of the land surface was used for agriculture. Currently this area adds more than 40%. However only a remaining part of the land is currently suitable for cultivation. (FAO, 2014a). A second concern is with the environment. According to FAO (2013), global health, human health and future food security depend on how we treat the planet and ensuring well-being is synonymous with respect for the environment, so that sustainable prosperity long term is a reality for humanity. In this way, agriculture faces a choice: on the one hand the need for continuous food production, and on the other, the need to conserve limited natural resources for future human generations. In the current global scenario, sustainable beef production can result in generous and positive fruits to mitigate the harmful effects on the environment. This can be achieved through appropriate water and soil conservation, adoption of low greenhouse gas emissions technologies, and integration of crop- livestock, adequate management of production, adequate and adequate production and harvesting of production harvested. However, sustainable beef production is recognized by many producers as a challenge away from the actual realization, especially accentuated by trends in the need for increased production. (MONSANTO, 2015). Thus, it is possible to assume that changes are prudent, contemplating the consequences already addressed: change in the processes of cultivation and production of food (especially in livestock) and changes in patterns of production and consumption of food, both aiming at a reduction in the extraction of resources natural resources. (MORALES et al., 2007; Quirino et al., 1999, p.32-33). In order to identify the limit of the natural resources of the planet, the indicator Ecological Footprint (REES et al., 1996; WACKERNAGEL; YOUNT, 1998) was used, but an indicator of sustainable production and consumption of (or specific for beef cattle) that considers current consumption, future growth and the variables that influence it. With all these reasoning presented, the scenario that underlies the key question of this research is created: Why is integrating the indicators of the ecological footprint into the production and consumption of global beef beneficial for the future?
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1844 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
2 METHOD The choice of methodological tools may seem to a layman in the subject, or even to an inexperienced researcher, a mere formality that every author must comply with, otherwise scientific texts will be considered incomplete or deficient. The fact is that the inadequate description of the methodological scope actually compromises the quality of the research, since it does not allow the reader to understand the essence of what the researcher intended when elaborating his work, much less if what he actually obtained is in agreement with the objectives. According to DUBÉ; PARÉ (2003), methodological rigor alone is not a sufficient element to guarantee the quality of the research, but there is also a need to meet minimum requirements to develop a research with quality and a high degree of relevance for the the scientific community and society as a whole. In this sense, MARCONI; LAKATOS (2010) present fundamental conditions in the choice of methodological tools, among them the type of research, which will depend on several factors related to the research, ie the nature of the phenomena, the research object [...] and other elements that may arise in the field of research. Considering these aspects, the first phase of this research was classified as qualitative, of an exploratory nature, which according to HAIR JR et al. (2005 p.83,86) is used to develop a better understanding of the analyzed subject or when questions raised by the researcher on the subject of research are vague, there is little theory available to guide predictions, and can map trends and give rise to hypotheses. As part of the first phase of the research, a Systematic Literature Review or SLR research was developed. SLR is an applied tool for mapping published works concerning the specific topic of research, so that the researcher is able to elaborate a synthesis of the existing knowledge on the subject. (BIOLCHINI et al., 2007 p.135) For the purpose of comparison with the set of articles present in each base, the SLR was carried out, with a narrative and method-based character, aiming to achieve higher quality in the searches and results of the a literature review, that is, to obtain an understanding of the "state of the art" of using the Ecological Footprint Analysis model, through data compilation, hypothesis refinement, sample estimation, expanded definition of the research method to be adopted for the problem and finally define the direction of the search for better results. (COOK et al., 1997 p.3-4) For this it was necessary to adopt a procedure, a set of steps, techniques and specific tools. The definition for SLR adopted in this work is an adaptation of the LEVY proposal; ELLIS (2006 p.182-183), which was carried out in three databases of scientific academic papers, with the filter of academic papers published between the years 2004-2014 with the search string Ecological Footprint Analysis.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1845 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
The research was developed in 37 hours and obtained, after filters 1 and 2, the sum of 153 articles published in international journals and a mean return of 28%, as shown in table 1, followed by the distribution of publications by base and year in the table 2.
Table 1: Systematic Review Ecological Footprint Preliminary Database and journal search: F1 T1 F2 T2 Excluded Rep. String - Ecological Footprint Filter Analysis 2217 165 10:00 153 27:00 12 153
Date of Preliminary # Base F1 T1 F2 T2 Excluded Rep. Return search Filter
1 JSTOR 25/12/14 1546 10 03:00 10 01:00 0 10 1% 2 ISI* 26/12/14 623 123 05:00 112 24:00 11 112 18% 3 EBSCO 27/12/14 48 32 02:00 31 02:00 1 31 65% * Web of KnowledgeSM Source: developed by the author
Table 2: Distribution of publications by base and year
JSTOR ISI* EBSCO Year
2004 1 3 -
2005 1 1 2
2006 1 6 3
2007 3 12 5
2008 3 15 3
2009 - 13 5
2010 - 8 3
2011 - 9 2
2012 - 18 2
2013 1 13 3
2014 - 14 3
* Web of KnowledgeSM Source: developed by the author
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1846 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
The data presented in the mentioned tables show that the scientific production related to the subject is relatively new, since the main article of the indicator Ecological Footprint is of the 90's (REES, 1992) and therefore there is scope for the construction of new studies and improvements in the model. The second part of this survey sought to analyze the studies that were carried out in the publications identified in the years 2004-2014 in the three bases analyzed. Table 3 presents data that make it possible to understand that 56% of the works published in the subject of RU are cases of studies of regions, usually applied to urbanism; 22% to agriculture or the environment, with applications to energy, water or fossil fuels; 12% to wood, fruit or university industries in order to measure PE and use it as a way of teaching sustainability and 10% are notes or comments that allude to a survey carried out concerning the indicator or some correction note.
Table 3: Distribution of publications by year, base and EF case study JSTOR ISI* EBSCO Year CSC AGRO ORG COM CSC AGRO ORG COM CSC AGRO ORG COM
2004 1 - - - 2 - - 1 - - - -
2005 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 1 - -
2006 - 1 - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 -
2007 3 - - - 7 3 1 1 1 2 - 2
2008 1 - - 2 9 4 2 - 2 1 - -
2009 - - - - 8 2 1 2 3 1 1 -
2010 - - - - 6 2 - - 2 1 - -
2011 - - - - 6 2 1 - 1 1 - -
2012 - - - - 9 1 7 1 - 1 1 -
2013 - - - 1 6 4 2 - 1 3 - -
2014 - - - - 9 1 1 3 2 - - 1
* Web of KnowledgeSM Note: CSC (City, State, Country); AGRI (agriculture and livestock, environment); ORG (companies, industries, universities and etc); COM (comments or corrections to published articles) Source: developed by the author.
Table 4 shows a distribution of the methodology used in the analyzed works. In sum, 48% are based solely on the application of EF; 18% applied EF to statistical techniques such as Monte Carlo, Partial Least Square - PLS or varied econometric methods; 20% comparative analyzes of PE and sustainability indicators and only 14% presented suggestions for improvement in the methodology applied in the research.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1847 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
Table 4: Distribution of publications per year and EF methodology applied Traditional Application Comparisons Application Traditional Year of Statistical with + Application Methods Indicators Adjustment Tips
2004 3 1
2005 3 1
2006 3 2 2 3
2007 9 6 3 2
2008 10 3 4 4
2009 9 3 4 2
2010 5 3 1 2
2011 6 2 3
2012 11 2 5 2
2013 9 5 2 1
2014 6 1 5 5
Source: developed by the author
In all, as presented in Table 1, 153 articles were analyzed in the Title, Summary and Keywords fields (filter 1) and Introduction and Conclusion (filter 2). Among the articles analyzed, only two (AUGUSTIN, PEREIRA, 2013; ALVARENGA et al., 2012) were published by Brazilian researchers. During the SLR developed based on the subject Ecological Footprint Analysis, some researches based on food production were identified individually, but none with similar proposal to this research: integration of the indicator EF in the production and consumption of beef. In this way a field was analyzed to produce academic and social contributions. Following the first phase of the research, an exploratory research was carried out, through a survey of information on secondary data, based on natural resources together with the consequences of beef cattle, with the objective of identifying environmental benefits and harms. In this phase, sustainability indicators were also identified to help answer the research question proposed in the research.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1848 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
3 THEORY 3.1 EARTH AND ITS NATURAL RESOURCES The human being can be considered a tenant of the Earth, which depends on the availability of earth, energy, water and air on the planet for its survival. Overcoming the existing limits of these items means walking towards suicide and ecocide. The present situation presents, after 200 years of economic development, significant gains, propitiated by the Industrial Revolution, of reduction of the mortality rates and the growth of the life expectancy. Nowadays, on average, people live longer and better. (WHO, 2014; WORLD BANK, 2014e). On the other hand, mankind's average consumption has increased. Between 1800 and 2010, the world's population grew approximately sevenfold (from 1 billion to 7 billion people) (WORLD BANK, 2014f) and the economy (GDP) increased about 50 times (WORLD BANK, 2014d). But the growth of wealth has occurred at the expense of the pauperization of the planet, that is, excessive use of natural resources, especially non-renewable ones. (WTO, 2010) According to BITTENCOURT (2012), agriculture affects air quality and the atmosphere in four ways: carbon dioxide production due to fires; methane from rice and livestock production; nitrous oxide from fertilizers and manure; and manure and urine ammonia. In table 5 it is possible to identify that the emission of methane has been shown to be constant, unlike the nitrous oxide that shows growing. Biomass burning for the clearing of the soil for planting emits pollutants into the atmosphere and this is a very common practice in tropical agriculture, either to stimulate the development of fodder for the herds or to clear the land for new plantings, mainly in the case of rice, but whose pollution extends to regions beyond the origin of the fires. (BITTENCOURT, 2012 p.134).
Table 5: Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions (% of total)
Source: developed by the authors based on WORLD BANK (2014a) and WORLD BANK (2014b)
For some countries the emission of greenhouse gases by agriculture represents an important part of total emissions, although this is rarely the dominant emission type. This share of gas emissions from agriculture can grow as emissions from industrial production and energy grow less rapidly. There is also concern about other sources of emissions, such as methane, nitrous acid, and ammonia (shown in table 6), which in some countries may account for about 80% of total greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture. (MORILHAS et al., 2009).
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1849 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
Table 6: Agriculture's contribution to the emission of gases and other emissions
Source: Adapted from BITTENCOURT (2012)
3.2 BEEF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION According to FAOSTAT (2014) data shown in Figures 1 and 2, in 2014, out of a total of 1.4 billion head, 44% of its concentration is divided between Brazil (14%) India ( 13%), China (8%) and the United States (6%). Among the three main commercial herds (Brazil, the United States and China), the Brazilian presented the highest growth rate in the period 1993 to 2014.
Figure 1: Worldwide cattle breeding (in heads)
Source: developed by the authors based on FAO (2014a)
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1850 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
Figure 2: Major cattle breeders (in heads)
Source: developed by the author based in FAO (2014a)
3.3 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT Within this perspective, possibly the most influential effort to solve or overcome problems of aggregation and economic and environmental weighting through indicators was the methodology of the Ecological Footprint - EF (or the so-called Ecological Footprint). It has been proposed for about 18 years, both as an approach and a method, which aims to determine the degree of (in) sustainability of activities and regions / countries. (ODEGARD, INGRID, 2011; ODEGARD, VAN DER VOET, 2014). The Global Footprint Network is a community that aims to establish international standards for EF methodology in order to establish it as a standard indicator of sustainability. EF applications vary from the study of the demand for resources at the global, national level to regional levels. Recent examples of EF applications at the international level are the "WWF - Living Planet Report 2014" (WWF, 2014) and the "Living Forests Report 2011" (WWF, 2011). Examples of nationally applied EF studies are: Exergy-based Ecological Fo- per Accounting for China "(SHAO et al., 2013)," Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts' (BORUCKE et al., 2013), "Ecological Footprint Time Series of Austria, the Philippines and South Korea for 1961-1999" (WACKERNAGEL et al., 2004). Under the theme of food and / or agriculture, some EF-based models have been researched to analyze the future of food. (AGOSTINHO; PEREIRA, 2013; BLAIR; SOBAL, 2006; CERUTTI et al., 2010; CERUTTI et al., 2011; CERUTTI et al., 2013; KISSINGER et al., 2007; MÓZNER, 2014; SARAVIA-CORTEZ et al., 2013). The EF compares the biocapacity described by various natural resources (agriculture, pasture, forests, fishing, built area, energy and area required for carbon dioxide absorption) with different classes of consumption (food, housing, mobility and transport, services, government and infrastructure) and aims to assess the pressure of human populations on natural resources and has become an important environmental and urban management tool that allows for mitigation actions that can be taken to reduce
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1851 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
impacts. The EF of a country, state, city or person corresponds to the size of the terrestrial and marine productive areas necessary to sustain a certain lifestyle. It is considered a way of translating, in hectares, the extent of territory that a person or a society uses to live, feed, move around, dress and consume goods in general. (REES, 1992 p.124-126). EF is popular, not only because it supposedly provides a general indicator for environmental or impact pressure, but also because it resonates with the notion that human activities should not exceed the capacity for assimilation of the environment, everyday decisions generate on the environment. (BORUCKE et al., 2013, HERENDEEN, 2000). Currently, the global EF average is 2.6 global hectares per person, while the biocapacity available for each human being is only 1.7 hectares globally. This puts humanity at a severe ecological deficit of 0.9 gha / cap, or, in other words, humankind consumes a planet and a half, thus exceeding the planet's regenerative capacity by 50 percent. Since the mid-1980s, mankind has begun to consume more than the planet naturally offers and remains above the necessary boundary of a planet. Projections for 2050 indicate that if humanity continues to do so, greater ecological capacity will be required to maintain the same pattern of consumption. The EF of mankind has more than doubled since 1966 and currently stands at 2.9 global hectares per capita, indicating that the average consumption of natural resources by the Brazilian is very close to the global one. (VEN DEN BERGH, GRAZI, 2014 p.10). An example of this is that in 1961 only 63% of the Earth was needed to meet human demands. But by 1975, 97% of the Earth was needed. In 1980, 100.6% of the Earth was required, so more ecological capacity was needed. In 2005, the figure was already 145% of the Earth. This means that it takes almost one and a half Earth to live up to the general consumption of humanity. In 2011 humanity approached 170% of the Earth. So close to two Earth planets. Following this rhythm, statistics indicate that by the year 2030 at least three Earth planets will be needed equal to the one that mankind lives on. If hypothetically if it wanted to universalize for all humanity the level of consumption that rich countries like the United States, the European Union and Japan enjoy, biologists and cosmologists say that it would take five Earth planets, which becomes irrational. (WWF, 2014 p.32-33). The main objective of the EF methodology is to answer the question concerning the necessary condition for sustainable consumption: "Is human demand within the planet's regenerative capacity?" (KITZES; WACKERNAGEL, 2009; SCHAEFER et al., 2006; VAN DEN BERGH; GRAZI, 2014). EF measurement is divided into two parts: the demand on nature (or Ecological Footprint, EF) and the ecological supply (or Biocapacity, BC), estimated for a defined period of time. On the demand side, there is the EF utilization feature (built-up areas, energy consumption and renewable resources), which is expressed in units of space or global hectares. On the supply side, BC aggregates the production
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1852 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
of several ecosystems in a given area (such as arable land, pasture, forests or productive seas). The weighting factors harmonize influences or heterogeneous components and convert them into different units: (tonnes (t) or hectares (ha)) in standard units (Global Hectares, gha). Each global hectare equals an equal amount of biological productivity. (LAZARUS et al., 2014; REES, 2001; SCHAEFER et al., 2006). The measure translated into EF is the productivity of the resources needed during the specified time period (eg one year), the product selected (eg crops, animal product and etc.) and the type of land bound (eg, pasture, pasture, fishing area). In short, EF is a measure of the consumption (or demand) of renewable resources (crops, animal products, timber and fish) through the result of energy consumption and the use of urbanized areas converted into standardized production units - global hectares - gha. (LAZARUS et al., 2014). The equivalence factor (in gha / ha) translates a specific type of land (such as arable land or forest) into one hectare. This equivalence factor represents the average potential productivity of the world of a given bioproductive in relation to the world average potential productivity of all bioproductive areas. For example, the average productivity of agricultural land is higher than the average productivity of all other land types, which are converted by applying their corresponding equivalence factor to be expressed in global hectares. Equivalence is the same for all countries, but varies from year to year due to changes in the relative productivity of ecosystem types or land use by environmental factors (such as weather patterns). (LAZARUS et al., 2014). The equivalence factors are derived from the Global Agro- Ecological Zones adequacy index - GAEZ, which consists of an Agriculturist Model of Income. (FAO, IIASA, 2000). Biocapacity - BC is a methodology that answers the question: "How many renewable resources have been made available by the regenerative capacity of the biosphere (or are they produced by the various ecosystems)?" (SCHAEFER et al., 2006). BC represents most of the capacity regeneration of the biosphere.It is an aggregation of production of several ecosystems in a given area (eg, arable land, pasture, forest, sea), some of which may also consist of built or degraded land. biological and with higher productivity per unit of area (LAZARUS et al., 2014, WWF, 2011, 2014, 2015). In 2004, Earth had 11.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and sea for approximately a quarter of the planet's surface (2.3 billion hectares of oceanic and terrestrial water, 1.5 billion hectares of cultivated land, 3 , 5 billion hectares of pasture, 3.8 billion hectares of forests on planet Earth and 0.2 billion hectares of urban land). On the basis of this, it is vitally important to remember that one hectare (gha) is a unit of land that contains the average productivity of the Earth, ie it is a biologically productive
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1853 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
universal unit, which includes its waste absorption capacity. (LAZARUS et al., 2014; SCHAEFER et al., 2006). It should be noted that biocapacity depends not only on natural conditions but also on prevailing land-use practices (eg agriculture, forestry, etc.). (GALLI et al., 2014) It is possible to identify in the specific income factor of a country discrepancies, which can be attributed to different levels of productivity of a land type and technological advances. (KAIMOWITZ, SMITH, 2001). In this way, each country can have its own set of income factors that suffer oscillations year after year. And again, the equivalence factor (in gha / ha) translates one hectare of a specific land type (such as pastures, forest areas, marine waters or built-up areas) into a global hectare. (LAZARUS et al., 2014; SCHAEFER et al., 2006).
4 RESULTS With the relatively high population growth expected until 2030, demand for food (including meat) and water is expected to increase. According to BARLOW; CLARKE (2003) estimates that within a 25-year horizon, up to 2/3 of the population will be living with severe shortages of fresh water. BROWN et al. (2000) states that the world facing water scarcity will also face food shortages, since an average of 1000 tonnes of water is needed to produce one ton of grain, ie a 1000: 1. So competition for water is likely to affect world food markets. In many countries, the availability of water for agriculture is already limited and uncertain, and this situation is expected to worsen further. Exploitation of water for agriculture accounts for 44% of the total water extracted in OECD countries, but is equivalent to more than 60% in the cases of eight OECD countries that rely heavily on irrigated agriculture. In the BRICs (Brazil, Russian Federation, India and China), agriculture accounts for 74% of water exploitation (ranging from 20% in the case of the Russian Federation to 87% in the case of India). In less developed countries (LDCs), the proportion is more than 90%. (HOEKSTRA; MEKONNEN, 2012 p.3236). The continued decline of arable land per capita is often cited as an indicator of impending problems. The underlying cause for these problems is perceived as a growing demand for agricultural products that face finite natural resources such as land, water and genetic potential. (BRUINSMA, 2009 p.3). The scarcity of these finite natural resources would be exacerbated by the demands of competitors, from urbanization, industrial uses and use in the production of biofuels, by forces that would change their availability such as climate change and the need to preserve resources for future generations. Although there is still potential for increase in crop areas, between five and seven million hectares (0.6%) of agricultural land are lost annually because of accelerated land degradation and urbanization, the
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1854 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
reduction in the number of farms as more and more people migrate to the cities. The increase in population means that the amount of land cultivated per person is also decreasing severely: from 0.4 hectares in 1961 to 0.2 hectares in 2011. (HOEKSTRA; MEKONNEN, 2012 p.3236; WORLD BANK, 2014c). Agriculture - including crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture - is the main human activity responsible for the management of natural resources at local and regional level. 40% of the world's land is used for crops and pastures, and 70% of all freshwater is destined for irrigation in the production of food for people and a stable food supply for livestock. (FAO, 2013 p.219). The results of such large-scale use of land and water resources are increasingly producing threatening environments. (ALIGLERI et al., 2009 p.54). For example, agriculture is the main source of ammonium nitrate and pollution both in groundwater and surface water and is a major contributor to the pollution of phosphate watercourses. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land uses contribute significantly to the threat of global warming. Land sectors account for almost 30% of all man-made GHG emissions in the atmosphere, a contribution comparable to that of the energy sector and much higher in total transport emissions. Agricultural and livestock production is, in isolation, responsible for half of the methane and two thirds of the nitrous oxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activity. Such negative impacts on the atmosphere, soil and water have, in turn, generated negative impacts on agricultural production and human well-being. Increased soil salinity, depletion of aquifers and reduced soil degradation reach high rates, which endanger the ability of farmers to produce in a pure and food- safe way. (FAO, 2013 p.220). Livestock farming is also responsible for approximately 18% of the GHGs emitted in the world. Among the greenhouse gases produced by livestock, the most significant are CO2, CH4 and N2O. Large amounts of GHG come from the methane emitted by the enteric fermentation of ruminants, the burning of agricultural residues, the decomposition of organic matter and the use of fossil fuels. The production of methane by cattle is known as methanogenesis, where CH4 is produced by the use of energy from the diet by the animal and represents a loss in feed efficiency. Emissions of methane from cattle are between 2% and 12% of the gross energy intake (as shown in table 7). The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) calculates that a cow emits on average 1.1 tons of CO2eq (CO2 equivalent) per year as enteric methane (1kg of methane = 21kg of CO2eq). Consequently, the agricultural activity with a herd of 211 million head represents 37% of Brazilian GHG emissions, reaching a total of 446 Mt CO2eq. Soon, agriculture and cattle ranching became the third most emitting sector of GHG, just behind the Energy and Land Use Change sector. (FAO, 2013 p.140) and as a consequence one of the major causes of damage to the environment (table 8).
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1855 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
Table 7: Emissions of CH4, in grams per day, accumulated until slaughter
Source: (CSR/UFMG, 2015)
Table 8: Actions, Causes and Consequences of Human Actions to the Environment
Source: developed by the authors
Recent studies have produced further in-depth analyzes on the subject. An approach called the "Planetary Boundaries" (or PB), shown in figure 3, was developed with the purpose of defining a safe operational space for human societies in order to develop and thrive, with based on the evolution of our understanding of the functioning and resilience of the Earth system.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1856 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
Figure 3: Planetary Boundaries
Source: (WWF, 2014 p.67)
Since its introduction, this approach has been the subject of scientific scrutiny and at the same time interest and discussions within policy, governance, and business sectors as an approach to informing efforts for sustainability globally. (STEFFEN et al., 2015 p.737). The Planetary Boundaries intend to guide human societies by defining a "safe operating space" in which human society can continue to develop and at the same time thrive. According to STEFFEN et al. (2015 p.738) proposition and respect for planetary boundaries reduces the threat that anthropogenic activities (or abrupt changes) inadvertently lead the Earth system to a state of instability. The Planetary Boundaries contemplate nine processes or limits, which are being modified by human action. For each of these processes, an attempt has been made to define, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, safe boundaries in order to ensure the stability of the planet. Through these planetary boundaries a "safe operating space for humanity" is established, where there is a better prospect of a continued and prosperous future for future generations. The nine frontiers identified are climate change, ocean acidification, ozone loss, interference with global nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, global freshwater use, land system change, biodiversity loss, aerosol loading atmospheric (not yet quantified) and chemical pollution (not yet quantified). While exact inflection points are impossible to determine with any degree of certainty, three planetary boundaries are assessed with some degree of confidence because their boundaries have already been exceeded: the integrity of the biosphere, climate change, and changes in the nitrogen cycle. (STEFFEN et al., 2015). The concept of "planetary boundaries" suggests
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1857 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
that the existence of the world that is known and sustained depends now on a new plan of action. This reinforces the need for a new paradigm of development, perhaps accompanied by a realignment of development policies, business models, and lifestyle choices of the population. (STEFFEN et al., 2015).
5 DISCUSSION While agriculture continues to be a major user of land and water, it may seek new ways to maintain these resources in order to maintain their viability while minimizing negative impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Ensuring sufficient food and water for a world population and at the same time achieving a level of sustainable rural development requires responsible management of natural resources and therefore a sustainable agriculture system. It is possible to say that sustainability has a dynamic character, as explained by SACHS et al., (2002) as a process of change, in which the exploitation of resources, the dynamics of investments, and the orientation of technological and institutional innovations are carried out consistent with both the current and future needs of the planet. Considering that renewable natural resources are not necessarily durable for long or infinite periods, that is, their availability may be extinguished, it is necessary to develop measures and / or to minimize the effects of the unavoidable exploitation of biodiversity, considering the importance of time in the processes of nature renewal and consumption control. (BRUNDTLAN, 1987; DE VRIES et al., 1995; WWF, 2011; 2014). For a long time development was considered synonymous with economic growth. For the philosopher Pinto (2005), economic growth has a quantitative, conservative, merely expansive character that favors only a minority, different from the development that is seen as qualitative and transforming reality, made in geometric progression and which has a universally liberating role. For VAN BELLEN (2005), sustainable development involves joint economic growth with justice and opportunities for all human beings on the planet, without the privilege of some species, without destroying natural resources and without exceeding the carrying capacity of the system. The main challenge of sustainable development policy is to find a balance between the exploitation of natural resources and the conservation of natural resources, since most of them are not renewable. According to WWF (2015), the term "sustainable development" has become popular since the early 1990s and refers to the use of natural resources so as not to deplete them while maintaining or renewing replacement cycles. Following this understanding, mankind must preserve (protect) and conserve (use reasonably in order to renew) nature.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1858 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
The search for indicators or parameters of sustainable development is a recurring theme in the literature of environmental science, industrial ecology and environmental and political management. (HUYSMAN et al., 2015; JAKOB; EDENHOFER, 2014; JONES-WALTERS; MULDER, 2009; OJEDE et al., 2013). Scientists have investigated components in order to select indicators, aggregation procedures and weights and this has given rise to many aggregate environmental indices, which, unfortunately, do not always point in the same direction. (CHAPAGAIN, ASHOK KUMAR, 2006; CHAPAGAIN, ASHOK K; CHAPAGAIN, A. K.; ORR, 2009; HOEKSTRA; MEKONNEN, 2012; MEKONNEN, M.; HOEKSTRA, 2010; MEKONNEN, M. M.; HOEKSTRA, 2011; VANHAM; MEKONNEN; HOEKSTRA, 2013). In this way, the continuity of studies that relate the integration of ecological footprint indicators into the production and consumption of beef contributes to the development of a level of balance between the exploitation of natural resources, production and consumption of beef and at the same time cooperates with the preservation of the environment, ensuring a sustainable future for future generations.
REFERENCES
ABESO. Mapa da Obesidade. http://www.obeso.org.br, 2015. Available at: < http://www.abeso.org.br/atitude-saudavel/mapa-obesidade >. Access in: 22 de agosto. AGOSTINHO, F.; PEREIRA, L. Support area as an indicator of environmental load: Comparison between Embodied Energy, Ecological Footprint, and Emergy Accounting methods. Ecological Indicators, v. 24, p. 494-503, 2013. BARLOW, M.; CLARKE, T. Ouro azul: como as grandes corporações estão se apoderando da água doce do nosso planeta. M. Books do Brasil Ed., 2003. ISBN 9788589384049. BELIK, W.; MALUF, R. S. Abastecimento e segurança alimentar: os limites da liberalização. UNICAMP, Instituto de Economia, 2000. BIOLCHINI, J. C. D. A. et al. Scientific research ontology to support systematic review in software engineering. Adv. Eng. Inform., v. 21, n. 2, p. 133-151, 2007. BITTENCOURT, M. V. L. Impactos da agricultura no meio-ambiente: Principais tendências e desafios (Parte 1). 2012. ISBN 2238-1988|escape}. BLAIR, D.; SOBAL, J. Luxus Consumption: Wasting Food Resources Through Overeating. Agriculture and Human Values, v. 23, n. 1, p. 63-74, 2006.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1859 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
BORUCKE, M. et al. Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, v. 24, n. 0, p. 518-533, 1// 2013. BROWN, L.; FLAVIN, C.; FRENCH, H. Estado do mundo 2000. Salvador: UMA Ed, 2000. BRUINSMA, J. The resource outlook to 2050. Expert meeting on how to feed the world in, 2009. p.1- 33. BRUNDTLAN, C. Comissão Mundial sobre Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento: o nosso futuro comum. Universidade de Oxford. . Nova Iorque. 1987 CARVALHO, E. O.; ROCHA, E. F. D. Consumo alimentar de população adulta residente em área rural da cidade de Ibatiba (ES, Brasil). Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, v. 16, p. 179-185, 2011. CERUTTI, A. K. et al. Evaluation of the sustainability of swine manure fertilization in orchard through Ecological Footprint Analysis: results from a case study in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 19, n. 4, p. 318-324, 2011. CERUTTI, A. K. et al. Multifunctional Ecological Footprint Analysis for assessing eco-efficiency: a case study of fruit production systems in Northern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 40, p. 108- 117, 2013. CHAPAGAIN, A. K. Globalisation of water: Opportunities and threats of virtual water trade. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, 2006. ISBN 0415409160. CHAPAGAIN, A. K.; HOEKSTRA, A. Y. Water footprints of nations. 2004. CHAPAGAIN, A. K.; ORR, S. An improved water footprint methodology linking global consumption to local water resources: a case of Spanish tomatoes. J Environ Manage, v. 90, n. 2, p. 1219-28, Feb 2009. COOK, D. J.; MULROW, C. D.; HAYNES, R. B. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of internal medicine, v. 126, n. 5, p. 376-380, 1997. CSR/UFMG, C. D. S. R. E. E. D. V. D. U. F. D. M. G. Cenários para a Pecuária de Corte Amazônica. 2015. Available at: < http://csr.ufmg.br/pecuaria/ >. Access in: 28 de dezembro. DE CHARDIN, P. T. Fenômeno Humano, O. Cultrix, 2005. ISBN 9788531601682. DE VRIES, F. W. T. P.; VAN KEULEN, H.; RABBINGE, R. Natural resources and limits of food production in 2040. In: BOUMA, J.;KUYVENHOVEN, A., et al (Ed.). Eco-regional approaches for sustainable land use and food production: Springer Netherlands, v.4, 1995. cap. 5, p.65-87. (Systems Approaches for Sustainable Agricultural Development). ISBN 978-94-010-4058-7. DUBÉ, L.; PARÉ, G. Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS quarterly, p. 597-636, 2003.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1860 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
FAO. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013: World Food and Agriculture. 2013 ______. FAOSTAT: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2014a. FAO; IIASA. Global Agro-Ecological Zones. 2000. Available at: < http://www.fao.org/nr/gaez/en/ >. Access in: 29 de dezembro. GALLI, A. et al. Ecological Footprint: Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation, v. 173, p. 121-132, 2014. HAIR JR, J. F. et al. Fundamentos de métodos de pesquisa em administração: Porto Alegre: Bookman 2005. HERENDEEN, R. A. Ecological footprint is a vivid indicator of indirect effects. Ecological Economics, v. 32, n. 3, p. 357-358, 3// 2000. HOEKSTRA, A. Y.; MEKONNEN, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, v. 109, n. 9, p. 3232-3237, 2012. HUYSMAN, S. et al. Toward a systematized framework for resource efficiency indicators. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 95, n. 0, p. 68-76, 2// 2015. JAKOB, M.; EDENHOFER, O. Green growth, degrowth, and the commons. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, v. 30, n. 3, p. 447-468, 2014. JONES-WALTERS, L.; MULDER, I. Valuing nature: The economics of biodiversity. Journal for Nature Conservation, v. 17, n. 4, p. 245-247, 12// 2009. KAIMOWITZ, D.; SMITH, J. Soybean technology and the loss of natural vegetation in Brazil and Bolivia. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing, 2001. 195-211 KISSINGER, M.; FIX, J.; REES, W. E. Wood and non-wood pulp production: Comparative ecological footprinting on the Canadian prairies. Ecological Economics, v. 62, n. 3-4, p. 552-558, 2007. KITZES, J.; WACKERNAGEL, M. Answers to common questions in Ecological Footprint accounting. Ecological Indicators, v. 9, n. 4, p. 812-817, 2009. LAZARUS, E. et al. Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts. Global Footprint Network. Oakland. 2014. LEVY, Y.; ELLIS, T. J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, v. 9, n. 1, p. 181-212, 2006. LOPES, K. R. F. Avicultura: da pré-história à produção industrial. Mossoró: Katia Regina Freire Lopes, 2010. ISBN 9781458307583. MARCONI, M. D. A.; LAKATOS, E. M. Fundamentos da metodologia científica. In: (Ed.). Fundamentos da metodologia científica: Altas, 2010.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1861 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
MEADOWS, D.; RANDERS, J.; MEADOWS, D. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004. ISBN 9781603581554. MEKONNEN, M.; HOEKSTRA, A. The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. 2010. MEKONNEN, M. M.; HOEKSTRA, A. Y. National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption. 2011. MONSANTO. Um breve histórico da Agricultura. http://www.monsanto.com, 2015. Available at: < http://www.monsanto.com/global/br/melhorar-a-agricultura/pages/um-breve-historico-da- agricultura.aspx >. Access in: 19 de julho de 2015. MORILHAS, L. J.; SCATENA, L. S.; MACEDO, L. O. B. A Cadeia da carne bovina no Brasil e as mudanças climáticas. In: MARCOVITCH, J. O. (Ed.). Para mudar o futuro: Mitigação de gases de efeito estufa: A experiência setorial e regional no Brasil. . São Paulo, v.v., 2009. p.p. 12-30. MORILHAS, L. J.; WECHSLER, A. M. G.; KRUGLIANSKAS, I. O meio ambiente e o desenvolvimento. Revista Gerenciais. 6: 109-117 p. 2007. MÓZNER, Z. V. Sustainability and consumption structure: environmental impacts of food consumption clusters. A case study for Hungary. International Journal of Consumer Studies, v. 38, n. 5, p. 529-539, 2014. ODEGARD, I. Y. R. The Future of Food? Scenarios and the Effects on Resource Use in Agriculture. 2011. 173 (Master of Science in Industrial Ecology ). Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University and Delft University of Technology. ODEGARD, I. Y. R.; VAN DER VOET, E. The future of food — Scenarios and the effect on natural resource use in agriculture in 2050. Ecological Economics, v. 97, n. 0, p. 51-59, 1// 2014. OJEDE, A.; MUGERA, A.; SEO, D. Macroeconomic Policy Reforms and Productivity Growth in African Agriculture Contemporary Economic Policy, v. 31, n. 4, p. 814-830, Oct 2013. PINTO, Á. V. O conceito de tecnologia. 2005 QUIRINO, T. R.; IRIAS, L. J. M.; WRIGHT, J. T. C. Impacto agroambiental: perspectivas, problemas e prioridades. Embrapa Environment, 1999. ISBN 8521201737. REES, W. E. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and urbanization, v. 4, n. 2, p. 121-130, 1992. ______. Concept of Ecological Footprint. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, v. 2, p. 229-244, 2001. REES, W.; WACKERNAGEL, M. Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 16, n. 4–6, p. 223- 248, 7// 1996.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1862 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
SACHS, I.; VIEIRA, P. F.; WEBER, J. Desenvolvimento sustentável, bio-industrialização descentralizada e novas configurações rural-urbanas: os casos da Índia e do Brasil. Gestão de Recursos Naturais Renováveis e Desenvolvimento–novos desafios para a pesquisa ambiental, v. 3, 2002. SARAVIA-CORTEZ, A. M. et al. Assessing environmental sustainability of particleboard production process by ecological footprint. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 52, p. 301-308, 2013. SCHAEFER, F. et al. Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity: The world’s ability to regenerate resources and absorb waste in a limited time period. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2006. SHAO, L.; WU, Z.; CHEN, G. Q. Exergy based ecological footprint accounting for China. Ecological Modelling, v. 252, p. 83-96, 2013. STEFFEN, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, v. 347, n. 6223, February 13, 2015 2015. VAN BELLEN, H. M. Indicadores de sustentabilidade: uma análise comparativa. FGV Editora, 2005. ISBN 8522505063. VAN DEN BERGH, J. C. J. M.; GRAZI, F. Ecological Footprint Policy? Land Use as an Environmental Indicator. Journal of Industrial Ecology, v. 18, n. 1, p. 10-19, 2014. VANHAM, D.; MEKONNEN, M. M.; HOEKSTRA, A. Y. The water footprint of the EU for different diets. Ecological Indicators, v. 32, n. 0, p. 1-8, 9// 2013. WACKERNAGEL, M.; YOUNT, J. D. The Ecological Footprint: an Indicator of Progress Toward Regional Sustainability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 51, n. 1-2, p. 511-529, 1998/06/01 1998. WACKERNAGEL, M. et al. Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961–1999: comparing the conventional approach to an ‘actual land area’ approach. Land Use Policy, v. 21, n. 3, p. 261-269, 2004. WHO. World Health Statistics 2014. WHO Press. 2014. WORLD BANK. Agricultural methane emissions (% of total). Washington, DC.: World Bank Open Data 2014a. ______. Agricultural nitrous oxide emissions (% of total). Washington, DC.: World Bank Open Data 2014b. ______. Arable land (hectares per person). Washington, D.C: World Bank Open Data 2014c. ______. GDP per capita. Washington, DC.: World Bank Open Data 2014d. _____. Life expectancy at birth. Washington, DC.: World Bank Open Data 2014e. ______. Total Population. Washington, D.C: World Bank Open Data 2014f.
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X 1863 Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research
WTO, W. T. O. World Trade Report 2010 - Trade in Natural Resources. World Trade Organization, 2010. ISBN 1813-8136. WWF, I. WWF Living Forests Report. Gland, Switzerland. 2011 ______. Living Planet Report. 2014 ______. O que é desenvolvimento sustentável? , http://www.wwf.org.br, 2015. Available at:http://www.wwf.org.br/natureza_brasileira/questoes_ambientais/desenvolvimento_sustentavel/ >. Access in: 23 de julho de 2015
Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res., Curitiba, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1840-1863, out./dez. 2019 ISSN 2595-573X