WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Paulo Barreto, Ritaumaria Pereira Amintas Brandão Jr. e Sara Baima
With contributions by Bruno Marianno, Ana Paula Valdiones e Glaucia Barreto WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Paulo Barreto, Ritaumaria Pereira Amintas Brandão Jr. e Sara Baima
With contributions by Bruno Marianno, Ana Paula Valdiones e Glaucia Barreto
Belém, 2017 Copyright © 2017 by Imazon
Authors Paulo Barreto Ritaumaria Pereira Amintas Brandão Jr. Sara Baima
Contribution Bruno Marianno Ana Paula Valdiones Glaucia Barreto
Photos Rafael Araújo
Editorial design and cover Luciano Silva e Roger Almeida www.rl2design.com.br
Editing and text revision Glaucia Barreto [email protected]
INTERNATIONAL DATA FOR CATALOGUING PUBLICATION (CIP) OF THE NATIONAL BOOK DEPARTMENT
B273 Will meat-packing plants help halt deforestation in the Amazon? / Paulo Barreto... [et al]; with contributions by Bruno Marianno, Ana Paula Valdiones and Glaucia Barreto. – Belém, PA: Imazon; Cuiabá: Instituto Centro da Vida, 2017.
160 p. 21,5 x 28 cm
ISBN 978-85-86212-94-9
1. Deforestation – Brazilian Amazon. 2. Ranching. 3. Meat-packing plant. 4. Public policies. 5. Environmental protection. 6. Conduct Adjustment Term (TAC). I. Barreto, Paulo. II. Pereira, Ritaumaria. III. Brandão Jr., Amintas. IV. Baima, Sara. V. Institute of People and the Environment of the Amazon. VI. Instituto Centro da Vida.
CDD (21. ed.): 333.71709811
The data and opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of those financing this study.
Trav. Dom Romualdo de Seixas nº 1698, Edifício Zion Business, 11º andar • Bairro Umarizal - ZIP-CODE: 66.055-200 Belém - Pará - Brazil www.imazon.org.br ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Norwegian Agency for Development and Cooperation (Norad) for supporting and funding this study; to the veterinarians at the agriculture and ranching defense agencies, to the Federal Public Prosecution Service in the Amazon states and to the managers of meat-packing plants and ranchers, especially Mauro Lúcio de Castro Costa, for the information shared; to Mathias Almeida (Natcap Sustainable Solutions) and Eduardo Pegurier (OEco) for comments on the draft of this publication; to Jordan Timo Carvalho (Apoio Consultoria, Projetos e Certificações LTDA) for the estimates of the cost of traceability for cattle; to Heron Martins for the analysis of polygon redesign in the Rural Environmental Registry; and a Rodney Salomão for classifying the data used in the risk model. About Imazon
The Amazon Institute of People the Public Interest (Oscip), granted by and the Environment is a not-for-profit the Brazilian Ministry of Justice. In 26 research institution, founded in 1990, in years of research in the Amazon, Imazon Belém, Pará. Its mission is to promote has produced about 650 publications, of sustainable development in the Amazon which almost a third came out in articles through studies, support for formulating in international scientific journals, besides public policies, wide dissemination of technical studies and strategic documents information and professional training. for public policies. To learn more about Since 2006 the institute has had the Imazon and access its publications, see status of Civil Society Organization in www.imazon.org.br.
About ICV
The Instituto Centro de Vida (Center resource use, through actions that reach of Life Institute - ICV) is a Civil Society international, national and state levels on issues Organization in the Public Interest (Oscip), of transparency, environmental governance that is non-partisan and not-for-profit, and public policies, and at the municipal level founded in 1991, in Cuiabá, Mato Grosso. in terms of practical experiences. The ICV was ICV activities consist of building shared declared to be a public interest organization solutions in sustainability for land natural by state law no. 6.752/1996. About the authors
Paulo Barreto (Associate researcher events in 16 countries. The results of his at Imazon) grew up moving back and forth publications have been cited more than 200 between rural and urban environments times by the news media. in the eastern Amazon in the 1970s and Ritaumaria Pereira (Analyst III 1980s, when he observed the rapid forest at Imazon) is an Agronomic Engineer degradation and deforestation going on in (Federal University of Bahia), Master of the region. He studied Forest Engineering Applied Economics (Federal University of from 1985 to 1989 at the College of Viçosa), Doctor of Geography (Michigan Agricultural Sciences of Pará (Fcap). From State University-USA) and Post-Doctorate 1995 to 1997 he was at Yale University, in Environmental Sciences (University where he received a Master’s in Forestry. As of Wisconsin-Madison-USA). She has a researcher at Imazon since 1990 he has been working in the Amazon since 2002 published more than 100 works, including in scientific research on issues related to articles in scientific journals, books, book deforestation, ranching, settlements and chapters and technical reports. The topics regional development. of his research cover forest management Amintas Brandão Jr. (Associate techniques, forest policies, application of Researcher at Imazon) is an Environmental environmental laws, land-title regularization Engineer (State University of Pará), specialist and causes of deforestation. Paulo Barreto in Applied Statistics (UFPA), Master has participated in debates over public of Geographic Information Systems for policies for the Amazon at various public Development of the Environment – GISDE hearings in the Brazilian Parliament, in (Clark University-USA) and currently Amintas working groups with environmentalist is a PhD student in Environmental Sciences at NGOs, with state and federal government the University of Wisconsin-Madison-USA. representatives, prosecutors and attorneys Sara Baima (Analyst I at Imazon) for the Federal and State Public Prosecution is an Agronomic Engineer (Federal Services and with the private sector. He Rural University of the Amazon). Sara has shared knowledge and learned about is enrolled in a specialization program in forest use and conservation and agriculture Environmental Management at the Federal and ranching during technical trips and University of Pará. About the collaborators
Ana Paula Valdiones has a degree in 2012 and works with projects for fighting Environmental Management (University deforestation in partnership with the Green of São Paulo-USP) and a Master’s in Municipalities Program (PMV) and with Science from the Graduate Program in the State Secretariat for the Environment Social Change and Political Participation and Sustainability of Pará (Semas). He also (USP). Currently, she is an Environmental works with environmental monitoring of the Management Analyst at the Instituto beef and soy production chains in Pará. He Centro de Vida and works mainly on the collected various data for this study. issues of: transparency, forest management Glaucia Barreto has a degree in Social and governance. She has collected data on Communications and Publicity (Federal meat-packing plants in Acre, Mato Grosso University of Pará-Belém). She has been and Rondônia and on audits at the meat- working as a freelance editor for more than packing plants in Mato Grosso. 15 years, and has edited dozens of technical Bruno Marianno has a degree publications (books, book chapters, technical in Environmental Management (Senac reports and scientific articles). Besides University Center of São Paulo). He has revising and editing this book, she also wrote been a consultant with Imazon since the Appendix on Operation Carne Fria. Table os Contents
SUMMARY ...... 12 1. INTRODUCTION...... 22 2. METHOD...... 27 2.1 Estimate of the ranking of exposure of the companies to the deforestation risk...... 27 2.1.1 Map the meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF in the Brazilian Amazon. ...27 2.1.2 Obtain the maximum distances from the meat-packing plants for purchasing cattle...... 29 2.1.3 Estimate the potential cattle-buying zones ...... 29 2.1.4 Rank the meat-packing companies in terms of exposure to deforestation...... 33 2.2 Analysis of the persistence of deforestation after the agreements...... 35 2.3 Analysis of the future of deforestation and of the ranching agreements...... 35 3. RESULTS ...... 36 3.1 Location and slaughter capacity of the meat-packing plants with and without TAC...... 36 3.2 The potential cattle-buying zones...... 41 3.2.1 The aggregate zones ...... 54 3.3 The risks associated with deforestation in the potential cattle-buying zones...... 56 3.4 Ranking of exposure of the companies to the risks associated with deforestation ...... 60 3.4.1 Ranking of exposure of the companies with TAC to the risks associated with deforestation. 63 3.4.1.1 Ranking of exposure of the JBS plants to the risks associated with deforestation ...... 65 3.4.2 Ranking of exposure of the companies without TAC to the risks associated with deforestation...... 68 3.5 The potential buying zones and the persistence of deforestation...... 70 3.5.1 Half of the meat-packing plants have not signed commitments against deforestation. . . . . 70 3.5.2 The control over direct suppliers has advanced, but there are weaknesses ...... 74 3.5.3 Control over indirect suppliers of cattle does not exist or is incipient ...... 77 3.5.4 The weakening of the environmental policies ...... 80 4. WILL RANCHING CONTINUE TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?...... 82 4.1 Setbacks and possibilities in the short term...... 83 4.2 Promises and rules for medium and long-term deadlines against deforestation ...... 86 4.2.1 Agreements and international initiatives ...... 86 4.2.2 National policies...... 87 4.2.3 Insufficient advances with medium and long-term promises ...... 88 EPILOGUE...... 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 93 APPENDICES ...... 103 8 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? List os Figures
Figure 1. Herd and slaughter of bovine cattle in the Brazilian Amazon from 2009 to 2016...... 26 Figure 2. Satellite images of two meat-packing plants in the Google Earth platform ...... 28 Figure 3. Maximum potential zone of a packing plant in southwestern Pará for purchasing cattle in 2016...... 30 Figure 4. Definition of the potential reach zone for the Rio Maria meat-packing plant, situated in the municipality of Rio Maria, PA. A - Maximum calculated reach. B - Maximum adjusted reach, after exclusion of areas in Tocantins based on information that the packing-plant does not buy in that state...... 32 Figure 5. Zones for purchasing cattle of a packing plant with overlay of pasture (A), recent deforestation (B), areas embargoed (C) and at risk of deforestation (D)...... 34 Figure 6. Location of the 157 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF in the Brazilian Amazon in April 2016. The numbers beside the location points of the meat-packing plants correspond to the identification number in Appendix 3 ...... 37 Figure 7. Number of active meat-packing plants, cattle herd and pasture area by state in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 ...... 38 Figure 8. Number of active and inactive meat-packing plants by company and cumulative slaughter of all meat-packing plants and only of the active in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 ...... 40 Figure 9. Examples of characteristics that influence the potential buying zones of the meat-packing plants mapped in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 ...... 43 Figure 10. Potential cattle-buying zones for 12 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in southeastern Mato Grosso in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 ...... 44 Figure 11. Potential cattle-buying zones for 19 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in southwestern Mato Grosso in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 ...... 45 Figure 12. Potential cattle-buying zones for 19 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in northern Mato Grosso in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 ...... 46 Figure 13. Potential cattle-buying zones for 19 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in southeastern and western Pará in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3. . .. 47 Figure 14. Potential cattle-buying zones for 17 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in northeastern Pará and Maranhão in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3...... 48 Figure 15. Potential cattle-buying zones for 24 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in Rondônia in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 ...... 49 Figure 16. Potential cattle-buying zones for 13 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in Tocantins in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 ...... 50 Figure 17. Potential cattle-buying zones for 19 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in Acre in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 ...... 51 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 9
Figure 18. Potential cattle-buying zones for 10 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in Amazonas in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 ...... 52 Figure 19. Potential cattle-buying zones for five active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC located in Roraima and Amapá in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 ...... 53 Figure 20. Potential zones for purchasing cattle of the active meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016...... 55 Figure 21. Areas embargoed up to November 2016 in the potential cattle-buying zones of the active meat-packing plants in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 ...... 57 Figure 22. Areas deforested from 2010 to 2015 in the potential cattle-buying zones of the meat-packing plants active in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 ...... 58 Figure 23. Risk of future deforestation (2016-2018) in the potential cattle-buying zones of the active meat-packing plants in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 ...... 59 Figure 24. Ranking of the companies in terms of exposure to three risks associated with deforestation in their potential buying zones in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016. The ranking includes the companies exposed to at least 50 thousand hectares of the three risks totaled together...... 62 Figure 25. Ranking of the 38 companies with TAC in terms of exposure to three risks associated with deforestation in their potential buying zones in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 . . .. 64 Figure 26. Potential zones for purchasing cattle of the 32 active and inactive JBS plants located in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016. Numbers next to the meat-packing plants correspond to the SIF registered in Mapa...... 66 Figure 27. Ranking of the 32 active and inactive JBS meat-packing plants in terms of exposure to three risks associated with deforestation in their potential buying zones in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016...... 67 Figure 28. Ranking of the 72 companies without TAC in terms of exposure to three risks associated with deforestation in their potential buying zones in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016...... 69 Figure 29. Distribution of potential cattle-buying zones of the 157 active and inactive meat-packing plants of companies with and without TAC in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016...... 71 Figure 30. Number of active and inactive meat-packing plants (SIF and SIE) of the companies with and without TAC by state in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016...... 72 Figure 31. Number of animals originating in the Brazilian Amazon slaughtered in meat-packing plants under federal inspection (SIF) in other states (including in the Brazilian Amazon) from 2009 to 2015...... 73 Figure 32. Percentage of meat-packing plants with and without TAC by state in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016...... 75 Figure 33. Example of reduction in the CAR polygon to exclude an area deforested after 2008 that could not have been regularized according to the new Forest Code...... 75 Figure 34. Deforestation and land cover in the municipality of Novo Repartimento-PA mapped by the Boi Guardião Program from 2010 to 2011...... 78 10 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
List of Tables
Table 1. Number of companies, of meat-packing plants and their overall slaughter capacity and with and without TAC among the meat-packing plants with state (SIE) and federal (SIF) registration in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 ...... 38 Table 2. Meat-packing plants that supply the domestic and international market (SIF) have greater slaughter capacity and buy cattle from greater maximum distances than those licensed to sell only in the states where they are located (SIE) ...... 42 Table 3. Force fields for and against deforestation. Light green indicates the potential of the force if the action is implemented ...... 90
Appendix
Appendix 1. The Soy Moratorium...... 104 Appendix 2. The control of foot-and-mouth disease...... 105 Appendix 3. Name and location of the 157 meat-packing plants in the Brazilian Amazon registered with SIE and SIF and respective operational status and commitment to TAC ...... 108 Appendix 4. Estimate of the demand for pasture in order to supply the installed capacity of meat-packing plants in the Brazilian Amazon ...... 115 Appendix 5. Methodology for estimating deforestation risk for the 2016-2018 period...... 117 Appendix 6. Ranking of the meat-packing companies in terms of reach of pasture (2014) and exposure to embargoed areas (2016), deforestation 2010-2015 and risk of deforestation 2016-2018...... 125 Appendix 7. Initiative of meat-packing companies to inform the origin of cattle...... 133 Appendix 8. Operation Carne Fria and its repercussions ...... 136 Appendix 9. Results of the independent audits of three companies that signed public agreements with Greenpeace ...... 152 Appendix 10. The example of tracking of ranches in Mato Grosso...... 154 Appendix 11. Control of indirect suppliers in a pilot project in São Félix do Xingu-PA ...... 156 Appendix 12.The pressures for linking the GTA with CAR in the state of Pará...... 157 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 11
List of acronyms
Abiove Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries Abras Brazilian Supermarket Association Adaf Agency for Agriculture and Livestock and Forestry Defense of the State of Amazonas Adapec Agency de Agriculture and Livestock Defense of the State of Tocantins Adepara Agricultural and Ranching Defense Agency of the State of Pará Aderr Agency for Agriculture and Livestock Defense of Roraima Aged State Agency for Agriculture and Livestock Defense of Maranhão BNDES National Bank for Economic and Social Development CAR Rural Environmental Registry Diagro Agency for Agriculture and Livestock Defense and Inspection of Amapá GTA Animal Transport Permit Ibama Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources IBGE Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute ICMBio Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation ICV Instituto Centro de Vida (Center of Life Institute) Idaf Institute for Agriculture and Livestock and Forestry Defense of Acre Idaron Agency for Sanitary Agriculture, Silviculture and Livestock Defense of the State of Rondônia Indea Institute for Agriculture and Livestock Defense of the State of Mato Grosso Inpe National Space Research Institute ISA Instituto Socioambiental (Socioenvironmental Institute) LDI List of Illegal Deforestation of the State of Pará Mapa Ministry of Agriculture, Ranching and Supply MPF Federal Public Prosecution Service NDC Nationally Determined Contribution OIE World Organisation for Animal Health NGO Non-Governmental Organization UN United Nations Organization Pecsa Program for Sustainable Ranching in the Amazon Pnefa National Program for Eradicating Foot-and-Mouth Disease SDA Secretariat for Agriculture and Livestock Defense Semas State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability SIE State Inspection System SIF Federal Inspection System SIM Municipal Inspection System TAC Conduct Adjustment Term TNC The Nature Conservancy UC Conservation Unit WWF World Wildlife Fund 12
Summary
The meat-packing plants that purchase the agreements have advanced, but many cattle in the Amazon have been pressured by still need to be done in order for the sector environmental campaigns and lawsuits to to effectively contribute towards eliminating fight the deforestation practiced by ranchers. deforestation in the Amazon. The pressure to eliminate deforestation, In 2009, the Federal Public legal or illegal, is growing, since this is the Prosecution Service (MPF) and the most polluting activity in the country if we Brazilian Institute for the Environment and consider gases emitted by burning forests Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) sued that contribute to global warming. Some meat-packing plants in the state of Pará meat-packing companies have committed that were buying from embargoed ranches to buying only from ranches without due to illegal deforestation and the MPF deforestation occurring after 2009. Seven also threatened to sue companies such as years after the first agreement, we went to supermarkets and tanning factories that the field to see if the meat-packing plants continued to buy from those meat-packing can in fact contribute towards eliminating plants. In the same period, Greenpeace deforestation in the region. Based on new carried out a global campaign that alerted data and revised studies, we demonstrate that buyers of products from meat-packing WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 13
plants that were associated with illegal ranches free of deforestation after 2009, off deforestation. the list for work analogous to slavery of the In order to free themselves from Ministry of Labor, registered with the Rural criminal charges and boycotts from part of Environmental Registry (CAR provides a the market, several meat-packing plants, map of the ranch and information on the including the four largest at the time, signed holder of the property and serves as an settlement agreements (Conduct Adjustment identification card for the ranch) and that Terms – TAC) with the MPF and a public are not in Protected Areas. Later on, other commitment with Greenpeace. The TAC is meat-packing plants signed TAC in other a legal commitment that, if not followed, Amazon states, creating the expectation that authorizes the MPF to carry out sanctions this type of agreement may be a promising without the need for court intervention. The instrument against deforestation. Below, we meat-packing plants that signed the TAC summarize the situation with the agreements, committed themselves to buying only from their advances and their challenges.
Half of the active meat-packing plants, responsible for 70% of the slaughter capacity, have signed agreements against deforestation
110 companies are responsible for 93% Interviews with representatives of of slaughters in the Brazilian Amazon. We the companies owning the meat-packing began with mapping to discover where the plants revealed that the 157 plants mapped meat-packing plants that signed or did not in the Brazilian Amazon belonged to 110 sign the TAC in the Brazilian Amazon are companies, but only 128 plants, belonging located and what their characteristics are. to 99 companies, were active in 2016. Using government data and satellite images, The meat-packing plants registered we found 157 meat-packing plants registered with SIF (who may sell throughout with the SIE and SIF, which were responsible Brazil and export) have, on average, a for 93% of slaughters in 2016 in the Brazilian greater slaughter capacity (708 animals/ Amazon according to the IBGE – The day), demand more suppliers and travel, meat-packing plants registered in the State on average, 360 km to purchase cattle, Inspection System (SIE) may sell only in according to interviews and our estimates. the states where they are located and those A meat-packing plant registered with registered in the Federal Inspection System SIF would need, on average, about 580 (SIF) may sell to the entire country and, if thousand hectares of pasture to supply its they meet additional criteria, may export. annual demand, considering the total use 14 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
of their average slaughter capacity and the can directly or indirectly influence 390 average productivity of pastures. thousand ranches with a total estimated As for the meat-packing plants herd of 79 million head (93% of the total). registered with SIE (who only sell in the We further estimate that the potential state where they are located) they can buying zones for the meat-packing plants affect slaughter, on average, 181 animals/day, can regions that contain the majority of problems buy cattle up to a maximum distance of associated with deforestation in the Brazilian 153 km and would need 25% of the pasture Amazon: 88% of the total of embargoed areas area of a packing plant registered in SIF to by Ibama, 88% of the area deforested from supply their annual demand. 99 companies 2010-2015 that was not embargoed (although can buy from zones that reach 390 thousand a large share may be illegal) and about 90% ranches holding 93% of the Amazon herd. of the areas at greater risk for deforestation We estimate that the potential buying from 2016-2018 (of a total of 1.68 million zones for all of the 128-active meat-packing hectares of forests). Therefore, demanding that plants extend to regions that encompass the 110 meat-packing companies – which are 91% of existing pastures in the Amazon – the doors to the market – follow the law or which is compatible with the fact that they commit to zero deforestation seems to be a account for 93% of the cattle slaughtered more promising path to reducing deforestation in the region. Thus, we estimate that the 99 than individually inspecting tabs on the 390 companies, owners of the 128 active plants, thousand ranchers.
The advances and challenges of the agreements against deforestation
Our analyses revealed various advances purchasing zones of those companies jointly with the agreements and many challenges. cover 86% of the total of embargoed areas by 70% of the slaughter capacity is in Ibama, 83% of the area deforested from 2010- meat-packing plants that have signed TACs. 2015 that was not embargoed (although a Crossing our list of meat-packing plants large part may be illegal) and about 85% of the with records of the Public Prosecutors in the areas under greatest risk of deforestation from Amazon, we discovered that 49% of the active 2016-2018 (of a total of 1.68 million hectares meat-packing plants (63 of the 128) registered of forests). Thus, if they all complied with with SIF and SIE signed TAC and that they the agreements, the potential for reducing hold 70% of the slaughtering capacity of all deforestation would be significant. the packing plants. Thirty-eight companies There is evidence that some companies control those meat-packing plants. The are boycotting purchases from irregular WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 15
ranches including a scientific study of a meat- meat-packing plants. One meat-packing packing company ( JBS) and independent company evaluated that about half of the audits of the public commitment of the direct supply ranches buy cattle from other three largest meat-packing companies ranches before fattening and selling them operating in the region ( JBS, Marfrig and to the meat-packing plants. There are ways Minerva). However, it has not been verified to control the indirect suppliers, as pilot if all of the signatories are controlling the projects in the region and experiences in suppliers, whether because of delays in the other countries have shown, but neither the independent audits that should have been market nor the MPF can effectively control made by all the signatories or due to the the indirect suppliers so far. lack of dissemination of results of audits After the first TAC pilot audit in done in Mato Grosso. Pará, in 2014 the state government began an Even the companies that signed innovative approach to facilitate control over TACs are exposed to the risks associated all ranches, including the indirect ones: only with deforestation. The first problem is issuing animal transport permits (GTA) to that ranchers have evaded boycotts using ranches registered with CAR. However, due laundering mechanisms. For example, to resistance from the state animal health ranchers rent embargoed ranches to other agency in Pará, Adepará, and difficulties ranchers, who sell the cattle using documents in coordination between Adepará and (CPF, CNPJ, CAR) that are different from State Secretariat for The Environment and those on the Ibama or state embargo lists. Sustainability of Pará (Semas), the initial The frauds are facilitated because the public calendar was not met. After new demands managers complicate or prohibit access to by MPF, a new calendar was put in place public information on CAR and information and the link between issuing the GTA to on transport of cattle between ranches and CAR was supposed to be demanded for from ranches to the meat-packing plants (the all ranches in Pará by October 2018, but Animal Transport Permit-GTA). The GTAs informants have declared that this linkage are obligatory and are issued by state animal had again been paralyzed. health control agencies. Pará is the only state The third challenge is that 30% of the in the region that allows full public access to slaughter capacity is in meat-packing plants CAR data for ranches. that have not signed the TAC. This involves The second major challenge is that 65 active meat-packing plants, belonging most meat-packing plants do not control to 63 companies. In general, those meat- the indirect supply ranches, meaning those packing plants buy in the same zones as where the cattle were born and spent the meat-packing plants with TAC. Thus, some time before arriving at the fattening a portion of the ranchers boycotted by ranches, who sell the fattened cattle to the the companies with TAC is able to sell 16 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
to meat-packing plants without TAC – Those barriers to the advances of which means a leakage of the effect of agreements and the fact that the government the agreements and unfair competition has been reducing environmental protection, with companies that are trying to assume facilitate an increase in deforestation. For costs to exclude ranchers who deforest. For example, since 2012 the deforestation rate example, ranchers in Pará can sell to both has increased 75% after Congress and the meat-packing plants in their own state and president at the time forgave part of the to meat-packing plants in neighboring deforestation when changing the Forest states, such as Tocantins, Amapá, Code and reduced the size and degree of Amazonas and Maranhão. Meat-packing protection of Conservation Units and the plants from Amazonas without TAC also number of inspectors at Ibama and the buy from Rondônia and, can thus “export” Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity the deforestation risk to that state. Conservation (ICMBio) da Amazônia.
The companies most exposed to the risks associated with deforestation
The great majority of companies type of control and would have lower costs continue being exposed to the risks associated moving forward and might be more rapidly with deforestation: the TAC signatories benefitted by the market. Additionally, they because they suffer the effects of frauds and would benefit from enforcement against do not control the indirect suppliers and non- unfair competition from those who do not signatories because they do not adopt any adopt any control. In this group is JBS, form of control over the suppliers. potentially the company most exposed to the The companies most exposed to the risks associated with deforestation, since it risks have various plants distributed in the has 32 plants in the region, of which 21 region, supply the domestic market and may are active. In the potential buying zones of export (SIF) or serve a large state market those plants are 4.6 million hectares with in regions with little local supply of cattle, some type of risk, including 1.7 million and thus buy from distant areas using cheap hectares embargoed, 1.6 million hectares river transport. of area deforested from2010-2015 and The companies with TAC that are at 1.2 million hectares of forest at risk for the top of the risk ranking would probably deforestation from 2016 to 2018. Another be the ones most benefitting from efforts at four companies occupied a second level of improving control. They already adopt some exposure to risk. The Redentor meat-packer WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 17
in northern Mato Grosso occupied the which stands out because it buys cattle in a second position in the ranking with only one zone that during the rainy season can extend plant, but located in a region with high rates to animals more than 1,000 km away, in Pará of embargoed areas, recent deforestation and Rondônia, when they supply of animals embargos and with high risk of future near Manaus becomes scarce. A second group deforestation. The three other companies with greater exposure includes ten companies, have more than one plant: Marfrig (5 nine of them registered in SIF – meaning plants), Vale Grande (3 plants) and Meat- they can sell beef and beef byproducts on the packing plant Mercúrio (2 plants). national market and, if properly enable, in It is notable that the various companies international markets as well –, who buy from without a TAC also occupy a significant long distances (e.g. Bovinorte, in Manaus- position in the ranking of potential exposure AM) or who have more than one plant (e.g. to deforestation risk. Getting those companies Total, in Rolim de Moura and Ariquemes to boycott cattle associated with deforestation and Distriboi, in Cacoal and Ji-Paraná, all in could result in rapid gains in controlling Rondônia), or that are located in areas under deforestation. At the top of this ranking is great pressure for new deforestation (e.g. T. M. the Figo Manaus meat-packing company, da Silva de Carvalho, in Novo Progresso-PA).
Will ranching continue to be associated with deforestation in the Amazon?
After assessing the advances and to be boycotted or were at increased risk challenges so far, we now reflect upon the of legal sanctions or losses to reputation future: will the agreements made by the (which might lead to future losses of market companies be consolidated and expanded and or financing). lead to a drastic reduction in deforestation? Considering lessons from the past Or will part of the market continue buying and future possibilities, we conclude that from ranchers who deforest? To answer the forces favoring deforestation are at a these questions, we analyze the forces in short-term advantage, but that there are favor and against deforestation and their possibilities for turning the game around. relation with the ranching agreements. The There are several promises of national and history of the sector shows that significant international commitments to eliminate or changes in behavior by ranchers and meat- drastically reduce deforestation from 2020 to packing companies have occurred only 2030. However, the advances are still modest when they have been boycotted or about and achievement of goals is uncertain. 18 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Setbacks and possibilities in the short term
In 2016, exports increased with the options for improving implementation of opening of the Chinese market, which may the TAC after operation Carne Fria may be increase pressure to deforest. At the same a space for expanding the pilot initiative. The time, the government continues to deny first meetings included Ibama, Ministry of access to data on the identification of holders the Environment (MMA), MPF, producers of rural properties registered with CAR and and meat-packing companies. The project on cattle transport (GTAs), which could could be accelerated with the participation of facilitate control over cattle sold directly major buyers of products from meat-packing and indirectly. Furthermore, the president plants and the other necessary sectors of of Brazil and Congress are approving the government such as the Ministry of laws that reduce de level of protection of Agriculture, Ranching and Supply (Mapa). Conservation Units and that extend the The Brazilian Supermarket Association deadlines for illegal occupants to request the (Abras), which signed a commitment with regularization of titles to public lands. MPF, should also engage in strengthening In April 2017, an operation by the role of retailers. As our data show, fewer Ibama in Pará (Carne Fria, meaning “Cold than 50 companies are responsible for the Beef ”) embargoed packing plants and one great majority of cattle slaughtered. exporter of live cattle accused of buying Operation Carne Fria may still lead to cattle from embargoed areas. However, other indirect impacts. Ibama has suggested those immediate results were weakened to MPF in Pará the execution of sanctions by actions from the federal government, established in the TAC against meat-packing regional politicians and the Judiciary. companies that violate the agreement. The Nonetheless, Ibama has demanded that the MPF may apply the sanctions extrajudicially companies administratively unembargoed (without intervention by a judge), which present solutions within 90 days to avoid could accelerate the adoption of best practices. purchases from irregular areas. After that, Thus, the effect of the operation in the short some of the large supermarkets have term will largely depend on the decision of the demanded information from meat-packing MPF, which stated it was awaiting responses plants accused by Ibama and indicated that from the meat-packers before deciding what they may halt purchases if the answers are to do about the Ibama recommendations. not satisfactory. That demand is helping to In the short term, the TAC audits and accelerate development of a pilot project for TAC sanctions resulting from operation control of indirect suppliers that was being Carne Fria may be the most promising discussed by ranchers in Pará. The meetings events against deforestation. Twenty-two that the Pará government called to assess the companies who signed the TAC in Pará WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 19
and 12 in Mato Grosso have contracted development in the country, since it is possible independent audits. If the MPF and the to increase production in the vast deforested market punish the meat-packing plants areas that are poorly utilized, both in the who violate the agreements, the companies Amazon and in the rest of the country. will tend to strengthen control, including The tide may also turn in the battle over indirect suppliers. against deforestation because of the However, the reactions against environmental campaigns that can occur at operation Carne Fria show that it is any moment and weaken the forces favorable necessary to halt political pressures against to the deforestation. Greenpeace suspended environmental agencies. The environmental its negotiations with JBS on the Public sector could learn from the recent experience Commitment by Ranching shortly after of fighting corruption in Brazil. The use of operation Carne Fria and later suspended communication strategies has helped the participation in the agreement with all the Lava Jato investigators to obtain support from companies due to the lack of advances, the population and halt political pressures. the revelation of the involvement of the A communications plan could have controlling partners of JBS in corruption and two lines of action. One would highlight the setbacks in environmental policies. Because of negative social, environmental and economic the increase of deforestation in the Amazon, it impacts of deforestation. The other would is plausible to believe that new campaigns will demonstrate that fighting deforestation has occur focusing on the meat-packing plants not prevented and will not impede economic that operate in the region.
Promises and rules for medium and long-term deadlines against deforestation
Several promises made by the private major international corporations such sector, governments and multilateral as Unilever, Walmart and MacDonald’s, agencies against deforestation have 2020 promised to achieve zero net deforestation to 2030 as deadline. These measures have in their supply chains by 2020. Zero net so far had little immediate effect on the deforestation implies that the loss of forest ground. If the promises are kept, they may must be offset through reforestation or have an effect, especially with regard to the natural regeneration. larger companies. In 2014, governments, companies International agreements and and civil society approved the New York initiatives. In 2010, the Consumer Declaration on Forests (NYDF), which Goods Forum (CGF), made up of is an international voluntary and non- 20 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
binding declaration for taking measures to and implement the Socioenvironmental reduce global deforestation. Goal two of Responsibility Policy (PRSA) beginning in the NYDF is to support and aid the private February 2015. The government of Mato sector in eliminating deforestation linked Grosso promised to reduce deforestation 90% to production of agricultural commodities by 2030 and eliminate illegal deforestation such as palm oil, soy, paper and meat by by 2020. In 2016, the federal and state no later than 2020. Among the companies governments increased enforcement in the are Cargill, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, state, but 95.4% of the area deforested in McDonald´s, Johnson & Johnson and Mato Grosso did not have authorization Nestlé. The Brazilian government is not a from the environmental agency. In 2016 signatory, but the states of Acre, Amapá and deforestation fell by only 6% in Mato Grosso Amazonas are. compared to 2015. The dissuasive power of In 2015 the Brazilian government and enforcement was probably weakened by the other countries adhered to the Sustainable recent amnesties. Development Goals of the United Nations In Pará, in 2012, the state governor (UN), which include halting deforestation established a goal of eliminating net by 2020. Brazil, as a signatory, agreed to deforestation by 2020. Despite programs in annually present a Voluntary National the state such as the Green Municipalities Review on advances towards reaching the Program and the Pará 2030 strategy, goals. Although voluntary, this agreement deforestation in the state continues high is more ambitious than the policy on and rose 75% from 2012 to 2016. The case climate changes whose goal is to reduce of Pará seems to show that local plans are Amazon deforestation to less than 3,800 insufficient for dealing with market forces square kilometers by 2020 and to eliminate and national plans that favor deforestation, illegal deforestation by 2030 (referring such as the reduction of legal protection to the Paris agreement, to which Brazil is and major infrastructure projects that also a signatory). The annual review will attract immigrants without the execution expose the countries that are not advancing of mitigation measures. This situation is toward their goals, but the consequences are serious because it seems unlikely that the uncertain. current leaders of the federal Executive and National policies. The Brazilian and Legislative will spontaneously strengthen state governments have instituted other measures against deforestation. The goals. The National Monetary Council and advances of those policies will depend the Central Bank, through Resolution no. upon an increase in pressure over those 4.327/2014, require that financial institutions public agents, from Brazilian civil society, and other institutions authorized to function agents of the market and the international by the Central Bank of Brazil establish community. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 21
Insufficient advances with medium and long-term promises
However, the international medium the annual report of the supply chain for and long-term promises are presenting the CDP in January 2018. Among the eight insufficient advances. A global analysis of companies are JBS and Arcos Dorados, the 500 companies, investors and governments McDonald’s franchise in Latin America. has revealed that commitments such as In short, the success of promises and those by the CGF and NYDF will not be agreements depends upon more impacting met by 2020 or 2030 if the rate of progress steps or for implementation in the short observed up to 2016 is maintained. Most of term – such as sanctions or market the countries that import products linked restrictions if certain goals are not met. to deforestation do not have measures that Prior experiences have shown that ranchers restrict purchases. and agroindustry respond pragmatically The forces against deforestation when pressures and incentives are clear may change it those assessments of the and consistent. Without clear pressure commitments inspire short-term concrete from outside the sector (from the market, actions. For example, eight companies are Society and public agencies), it is likely working with the Carbon Disclosure Project that many meat-packers will not assume (CDP) to collect information from their commitments and that the agreements main suppliers on how they are managing will not be effectively implemented. In the risks associated with deforestation. The that scenario, thousands of ranchers in the analysis of data from suppliers collected in Amazon will continue felling and burning the pilot year of 2017 will be published in forests to raise cattle. 22
1. Introduction
Every day, ranchers in the Amazon The leather goes to tanneries and after receive a message from the market: I’ll processing is turned into shoes, purses, buy your cattle. The messengers of the car seats and other in Brazil and overseas. market who arrive by rivers and roads, are About 23% of Brazilian beef production is middlemen traders and employees of meat- exported, and the rest supplies the domestic packing plants who transport the cattle market (IFNP, 2016). using trucks and barges for up to hundreds Responding to market appetite, of kilometers to the slaughter site. From the local ranchers and new migrants to the meat-packing plants, meat and offal go to Amazon deforested more areas in order to various clients such as local butchers, major plant pastures. As a result, the herd in the supermarket chains in large Brazilian and Brazilian Amazon[1] grew from 37 million international cities and restaurant chains. head (23% of the national herd) in 1995
[1] The Brazilian Amazon (Amazônia Legal) covers the territories of Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima and Tocantins and a portion of Maranhão situated West of meridian 44º W. It was defined in 1953 based on its sociopolitical character. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 23
para 85 million in 2016, or almost 40% occupation of public lands (See example in of the national herd. Thus, in 2016, there MPF-PA, 2016). were approximately four head of cattle per In order to combat the negative inhabitant in the region. The growth of aspects of ranching in the Amazon, in ranching in the Brazilian Amazon is also 2009 environmental non-governmental supported by public policies such as rural organizations (NGOs) carried out credit and sanitary surveillance, and in campaigns and attorneys for the Federal 2006 involved approximately 393 thousand Public Prosecution Service (MPF) and the ranches, according to more recent data from Brazilian Institute for the Environment the IBGE (IBGE - Censo Agropecuário, and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) 2006; Rivero et al., 2009). in Pará conducted legal procedures against However, ranching has increasingly ranches, meat-packing plants, supermarkets, been seen as a major environmental tanneries, retailers (supermarkets) and threat, especially because of its associated industry (Greenpeace, 2009; MPF, 2009; deforestation, the great majority of which is Smeraldi & May, 2009). The action by illegal. Around 65% of the area deforested the MPF was based on a law that requires in the Amazon was occupied by pastures accountability from a company that buys in 2013-2014 (Inpe/Embrapa, 2015 and products derived from environmental crimes Inpe/ Embrapa, 2016). The burnings used and on the fact that the government had begun to clear the land after deforestation account disseminating a list with areas embargoed for about 37% of the countries greenhouse due to illegal deforestation (MPF, 2013). In gases that cause global warming (SEEG, response to those actions, several companies 2016). Besides affecting the climate, this immediately stopped buying meat from 11 pollution causes premature deaths due to meat-packing companies in Pará. respiratory diseases in the region, in the To regain the market and rid rest of the country and in South America, themselves of lawsuits, several meat- where the smoke spreads[2]; and causes packing companies have signed agreements premature births and the birth of babies that seek to reduce deforestation, promote below normal weight (Bermúdez et al., regeneration of illegally deforested areas 2014). Furthermore, ranching is the leading and curb slave labor. They have committed activity in cases of work analogous to slavery to boycotting cattle coming from areas (CPT, 2016) and is strongly associated with at least one of the following problems: with land-grabbing, meaning the illegal deforested after October 2009, embargoed
[2] For example, the reduction in deforestation from 2001 to 2012 avoided the death of 1,700 persons per year in this region, according to Reddington et al. (2015). 24 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
by Ibama, convicted of the occurrence of the origin of beef so as so avoid purchases of labor analogous to slavery as found on beef from deforested areas in the Amazon the Ministry of Labor list, overlapping and associated with other environmental protected areas (Conservation Units and and social irregularities (Inacio and Froufe, Indigenous Lands), not registered in 2009; Abras, 2013). Furthermore, in 2016, Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and after the campaign disseminated in the lacking Animal Transport Permits (GTA) Greenpeace report “Carne ao Molho (Barreto and Araújo, 2012; Gibbs et al., Madeira,” which mobilized consumers, 2015). Additionally, the meat-packing three large supermarket chains (Walmart, companies were given a deadline for Pão de Açúcar and Carrefour) committed developing mechanisms to also monitor to monitoring their direct suppliers (meat- their indirect suppliers and guarantee that packing companies) and developing tools those properties had also not deforested to avoid purchases from areas with recent after October 2009 (Greenpeace, n.d.). The deforestation and the occurrence of work indirect suppliers are ranches who produce analogous to slavery. These agreements calves and bullocks and later sell them to generated great expectations due to the fattening ranches from who the meat- their innovative nature and the fact that packers purchase the fattened cattle for Brazil is the largest deforested on the slaughter. Compliance with the agreements planet (Greenpeace, 2016b). However, was to be evaluated through independent the agreements have not been enough to audits. After the agreements in Pará, meat- reduce deforestation in the Amazon in a packing companies in other states also sustained manner. The annual deforestation signed TACs (MPF, 2013). rates fell from 2010 to 2012 (7 thousand Other repercussions occurred after the to 4.5 thousand square kilometers), but first agreements. In 2009, the National Bank have risen since 2013, reaching 8 thousand for Economic and Social Development square kilometers in 2016 (Inpe, 2016), a (BNDES) issued guidelines for financing period when more companies had signed meat-packing companies, in which it the agreements. Meanwhile, the cattle herd promised to demand that by December slaughtering in the region are continuing to 2015 all cattle supplying the companies rise, according to data from IBGE (2017 financed would be tracked from birth to to 2017a) and Pnefa (2016) (Figure 1). slaughter (BNDES, 2009). The Brazilian Slaughtering only fell in 2015 because of Supermarket Association (Abras) also the economic recession in Brazil (Azevedo promised to launch a system for certifying and Portugal, 2016). WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 25
Therefore, companies involved 5. Will deforestation for ranching conti- with ranching in the Amazon (producers, nue, given the current forces and ten- processers, buyers, guarantors) continue dencies for and against deforestation? running risks (direct and indirect) of lawsuits, Our analysis was able to deal with loss of their reputations due to environmental most of the meat-processing industry, campaigns and loss of markets. because we mapped the meat-packing Seven years after the later do first plants responsible for 93% of slaughter in agreement, we went to the field to discover 2016, according to IBGE (2017a). These are if the meat-packing plants can in fact the meat-packing plants registered with the contribute towards eliminating deforestation State Inspection Systems (SIE), which can in the region. Based on interviews, surveys sell only in the states where they are located, with new data and reviews of studies and and in the Federal Inspection System (SIF), polices from the companies and the public who may sell throughout the country and sector, we answered the following questions: even export, if they meet additional criteria. 1. Where are the meat-packing com- We did not map the meat-packing plants panies (owners of the meat-packing and slaughterhouses registered with these plants), whether signatories or non-sig- Municipal Inspection Systems (SIM), natories of TAC in the Brazilian Ama- which can sell only in the municipalities zon and what are their characteristics? where they are registered. Although in 2. Where does each meat-packer (pa- larger number, the companies registered cking plant) probably purchase cattle with SIM account for only 7% of slaughter (potential cattle purchase zone) and activity according to IBGE (2017a) and what are the risks associated with de- their data are harder to found, since they are forestation in those zones considering not systematically made publicly available. the areas embargoed by Ibama due There are also clandestine slaughterhouses to deforestation, deforestation from that are not registered with any sanitary 2010-2015 and the risk of future de- inspection system, which accounted for less forestation (2016-2018)? than 10% of slaughters in 2012 according to 3. Which meat-packing companies are Cepea (Cepea, 2014). As we will show later, more exposed to the risks associated the purchasing zones analyzed covered with deforestation? almost all of the pasture areas. Thus, the 4. Why does deforestation persist despi- limitations in municipal data did not result te the agreements? in a significant loss for the analysis. 26 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 1. Herd and slaughter of bovine cattle in the Brazilian Amazon from 2009 to 2016
86,000 12,000
84,000 10,000 82,000 head)
80,000 8,000 head)
78,000 6,000
76,000 (thousand (thousand
74,000 4,000 Herd
72,000 Slaughter 2,000 70,000
68,000 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Herd Slaughter 27
2. Method
We used specific methodologies for each of the three parts of the study, as will be presented below.
2.1 Estimate of the ranking of exposure of the companies to the deforestation risk
This estimate required four steps. (Mapa, 2016) and the state agencies for agricultural and livestock defense in 2.1.1 Map the meat-packing plants the Brazilian Amazon (Adaf, Adapec, registered with the SIE and SIF in Adepará, Aderr, Aged, Diagro, Idaf, the Brazilian Amazon Idaron and Indea). Next, we identified which packing-plants were active and The first step was to map the inactive. To do that, we did phone meat-packing plants. We obtained interviews with representatives of the their addresses fromdatabases at Mapa meat-packing plants and agriculture and 28 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
livestock defense agencies and consulted structure with corrals tanks for water specialized sites for ranching[3]. storage and treatment, as we showed Next, we validated the addresses in Figure 2. When the address did not of meat-packing plants using satellite coincide exactly with a packing plant in images available on the Google Earth the satellite image, we manually adjusted platform[4]. We individually inserted the the geographical coordinates so that the addresses in the platform, which directed point was exactly over the plant. The final us to the location indicated in the image, product of this stage was a table in the where we verified if the image of the site Fusion Table App environment[5] and a corresponded to the characteristics of a map with the validated location of the meat-packing plant. That was possible meat-packing plants in the Google Earth because a packing plant has a standardized program and the ArcGis 10.3 program.
Figure 2. Satellite images of two meat-packing plants in the Google Earth platform
A - JBS Packing Plant, Santana do Araguaia - PA B - Rio Maria Packing Plant, Rio Maria - PA
[3] The sites consulted were: http://g1.globo.com/mato-grosso/noticia/2015/07/frigorifico-de-matupa-fecha-e-demite- cerca-de-200-funcionarios.html; http://jaruonline.com.br/cinco-frigorificos-de-carne-estao-fechados/; https://www. facebook.com/851300584980716/photos/pcb.854093761368065/854093024701472. [4] Google Earth is a three-dimensional map application managed by Google, that makes it possible to identify crossings, constructions, cities, landscapes and other elements with known characteristics, as well as to visualize addresses, generate maps and access satellite images. [5] The Fusion Table App is a service provided by Google that enables data storage and management. Users can visualize and share the data online, as well as downloading and modifying them. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 29
2.1.2 Obtain the maximum located in the state do Amazonas, who travel distances from the meat-packing greater distances during the rainy season, plants for purchasing cattle when there is a scarcity of animals nearby and they need to use the rivers to buy cattle The second step was to obtain data in more distant regions. Those routes are a on the maximum distances from the meat- network of official and non-official roads packing plants for purchasing cattle. That and/or navigable rivers. was done in phone interviews from March to April 2016, with representatives of 40 2.1.3 Estimate the potential cattle- plants[6], or 31% of the active units. For the buying zones meat-packing plants we were not able to contact, we estimate a regional average of The third step was to was to estimate distances based on the known data from the the potential cattle-buying zones for meat- three closest meat-packing and, when we packing plants, which is the reason where lacked sufficient information to calculate it is feasible for them to purchase the cattle that average, we estimated a state average (See an example of a zone in Figure 3). That according to the type of inspection – estimate was carried out in two stages. First, meaning, we estimate that those registered we projected the zones considering the with SIF would have a scale of slaughter maximum distances for purchase informed and distance for purchasing cattle in the by the interviewees and the access routes. same range as those that also have federal Next, when necessary, we adjusted the zones registration. The product of this step was considering factors that restrict or expand a Fusion Table App spreadsheet with the the purchasing zones in particular situations. record of the maximum distances for each We note that the estimate determines the meat-packing plant. potential maximum purchase zone and We consider that the data provided by not necessarily the effective purchase zone. the interviewees refer to the drier period or The estimate of that zone thus serves to the year, which is when the meat-packing map the potential risk exposure, but does plants travel greater distances to buy cattle. not attribute a precise risk for effective The exception are the meat-packing plants purchases by the companies.
[6] We interviewed only representatives of the meat-packing plants who were willing to provide information. 30 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? . Maximum potential zone of a packing plant in southwestern Pará for purchasing cattle for purchasing in 2016 potential zone of a packing Maximum Pará plant in southwestern Figure 3 . WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 31
In order to project the potential for from each state. When the information maximum zone ranges for purchasing cattle generated by ArcGis and the information of each meat-packing plant we used the supplied by the aforementioned sources function of a program (Cost Distance from did not coincide, we had to exclude or ArcGis) that makes it possible to identify add areas to the zones defined by ArcGis. all and use all of the routes available near That adjustment resulted in a 7% cut in the plants until reaching the maximum the zone initially calculated. The principal purchasing distance obtained. To do that, adjustments were made in Amazonas, Pará we used the location of the meat-packing and Amapá. That occurred, for example, plants and considered the following routes: when ArcGis recorded the potential official roads (IBGE, 2012) and non-official purchasing zone of a packing plant or roads[7] (Imazon, 2012), navigable rivers part of it in an area of a neighboring state (Inpe/Prodes, 2015) and pastures in 2014 where the company does not by cattle, in the Amazon biome (Inpe/Embrapa, according to the bibliography, k e y 2016) and in 2010 for the portion of the informants and/or the database from Mapa Cerrado biome contained in the Brazilian consulted. For example, our data sources Amazon (Lapig, 2010). See an example of informed us that it is common for animals a potential purchasing zone for a packing to leave Pará and be taken to Tocantins for plant in Figure 4A. slaughter, but not the opposite. In those To confirm if the reaches of the cases, then, we excluded the territory of the potential cattle-purchasing zones generated neighboring state from the zone (See an by ArcGis were plausible, we consulted the illustration of that example in Figure 4B). literature, key informants (a total of six, Another example was when the zone for including rural producers and veterinarians purchasing cattle of a given meat-packing from the agriculture and ranching defense plant extended to municipalities that were agencies) and the database of the Ministry in fact not suppliers, and we had to expand of Agriculture, Ranching and Supply the zone according to information provided (Mapa), who the destinations of animals by our data sources.
[7] Data for non-official roads are only available inside the Amazon biome. For areas outside the biome, but inside the Brazilian Amazon, we used information from official roads, navigable rivers and pasture to define the potential cattle- buying zones. 32 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? information that the packing-plant does not buy in that state Maria, PA. A - Maximum calculated reach. B - Maximum adjusted reach, after exclusion of areas in Tocantins based on based on Tocantins after exclusionin of areas reach, adjusted B - Maximum calculated reach. A - Maximum PA. Maria, . Definition of the potential reach zone for the Rio Maria meat-packing plant, situated in the municipality situated in the of Rio reach of the potential zone for the Rio Maria Definition meat-packing plant, Figure 4 . WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 33
2.1.4 Rank the meat-packing We used the Jenks natural breaks companies in terms of exposure to classification method to classify the deforestation companies according to internal variance and to enable visualization of different The fourth and last step was to rank risk groups. the meat-packing companies in terms of In the case of companies that had exposure to the risk of purchasing cattle more than one (meat-packing plants), we produced from deforestation. To estimate totaled the areas of those variables inside the exposure of each meat-packing plant the purchasing zones of all of the plants the we crossed the map of the potential company had. We used the ArcGis computer purchasing zone of each of them with the program to do the crossing and sum of all maps of the areas embargoed by Ibama (up the variables. Figure 5 shows an example of to November 2016) with the largest total crossing the purchasing zone of a packing of areas recently deforested (2014-2015) plant with the indicators evaluated. and at risk of future deforestation (2016- In a complementary analysis, we 2018). Later we ranked the meat-packing overlaid the purchasing zones of meat- plants according to as the largest sums of packing companies on areas of pastures those variables. To avoid double counting formed by 2014 in order to estimate the of deforested areas, we subtracted the areas pasture area potentially accessible to each embargoed from the areas deforested. company. 34 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 5. Zones for purchasing cattle of a packing plant with overlay of pasture (A), recent deforestation (B), areas embargoed (C) and at risk of deforestation (D) WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 35
2.2 Analysis of the persistence of deforestation after the agreements
To analyze the factors that contribute obtained from the MPF; ii) the advances to the persistence of deforestation in the and failures in ranching agreements, Amazon after the ranching agreements, including the results of the three audits of we used information from the literature the companies that signed the agreement and our data on: i) the signatory and non- with Greenpeace (Marfrig, Minerva signatory companies of TACs, with data and JBS[8]); and iii) the weakening of from all the states of the Brazilian Amazon environmental policy in Brazil.
2.3 Analysis of the future of deforestation and of the ranching agreements
We analyzed the forces in favor and and/or threats to their reputation (which against deforestation and their relation with could lead to future market or funding the ranching agreements using the Lewin losses). Such a pattern may be observed in force field method (Ramalingam, 2006). This the case of the Soy Moratorium that helped analysis allows one to evaluate the potential to reduce direct deforestation for soy planting change in a situation considering the factors in the Amazon (Appendix 1), and also in the favorable to change (in this case, reducing restrictions that led ranchers with support deforestation) and the forces of resistance from the government to expand control of (favoring deforestation). First, we listed the foot-and-mouth disease in order to be able forces based on a review of literature, recent to export fresh beef (Appendix 2). Thus, events (e.g. changes in legislation) and we considered that restrictive, lasting and promises of future actions (e.g. promises broadly applied actions are more effective by companies and government of goals for against deforestation, whereas promises for reducing deforestation). the medium and long range and pilot actions Later, we assigned a score to the are weak. In the same way, concrete actions forces (from one to five), considering their in the short term that block measures against power to influence changes or resistance. deforestation strongly favor deforestation. We considered that significant changes of This analysis does not claim behavior among ranching sector companies mathematical precision, but instead only occurred when the companies were indicates the order of magnitude of the boycotted or about to be, and/or when they forces and identifies measures that may were at heightened risk of legal penalties favor changes.
[8] To have access to the files with results from the audits we consultedhttp://www.greenpeace.org/brasil/pt/Noticias/ Auditorias-reforcam-sucesso-do-Compromisso-Publico-da-Pecuaria/. 36
3. Results
3.1 Location and slaughter capacity of the meat-packing plants with and without TAC
We mapped 157 meat-packing plants plants registered with the SIF represented in the Brazilian Amazon registered with SIF 91% of the slaughter capacity of the active and SIE (complete list in Appendix 3). Of meat-packing plants signing TAC and the those, 128 were active (82%) and 29 inactive meat-packing plants registered in SIE totaled in May 2016 (Figure 6 and Table 1). The only 9% of that capacity. The three largest states of Pará, Mato Grosso and Rondônia meat-packing companies ( JBS, Marfrig and togethers concentrated 62.9% of the active Minerva) are TAC signatories and owned meat-packing plants, 75.3% of the cattle herd 27 active meat-packing plants (21% of the and 74,9% of the total pasture area in the active meat-packing plants) and 42% of the Brazilian Amazon (Figure 7). Box 1 explains slaughter capacity of the active units. As for the probable causes of closing for meat- the 52% (66 out of 128) remaining active packing plants. The 128-active meat-packing meat-packing plants belonging to 72 that plants belonged to 99 companies and together did not sign, they accounted for 30% of the had a slaughter capacity of 59,824 animals a active slaughter capacity (or 24% of the total day (equivalent to 78% of the total slaughter installed slaughter capacity, including the capacity installed in the plants registered with inactive meat-packing plants). SIE and SIF - Table 1). Ten companies[9] concentrated 59% Forty-nine percent (63 out of 128) of the total slaughter capacity of the active of the active meat-packing plants belonged meat-packing plants. The remaining 41% to 38 companies that were signatories of are distributed among smaller companies TACs and totaled 70% of the active slaughter (Figure 8). That distribution will have capacity (or 54% of the total installed implications for the capacity to influence slaughter capacity, including the inactive the intensification of problems or solutions meat-packing plants). The meat-packing for the sector, as we will discuss in section 4.
[9] The ten companies are JBS, Marfrig Global Foods, Minerva Alimentos, Mercúrio Alimentos, Masterboi, Vale Grande, Frigol, Frigon, Fribal and Cooperativa dos Produtores de Carne and Derivados de Gurupi. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 37 2016. The numbers beside the location points of the meat-packing plants correspond to the identificationAppendix 3 number in The numbers beside the location points of the meat-packing plants correspond 2016. . Location of the 157 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE Location and SIF meat-packing in the Brazilian plants registered Amazon and inactive in April of the 157 active Figure 6 . 38 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Table 1. Number of companies, of meat-packing plants and their overall slaughter capacity and with and without TAC among the meat-packing plants with state (SIE) and federal (SIF) registration in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 Overall number Without TAC % of Total With TAC % of Total Nº total % Nº total % Variables Total % % SIE SIF without without with with general General General TAC TAC TAC TAC Total number of 65 45 110 72 65 100 38 35 100 companies Active 57 42 99 63 57 88 36 33 95 Inactive 8 3 11 9 8 12 2 2 5 Total number of 65 92 157 78 50 100 79 50 100 meat-packing Active 57 71 128 65 42 83 63 40 80 Inactive 8 21 29 13 8 17 16 10 20 Total daily slaughter 10,605 66,360 76,965 24,304 32 100 52,661 68 100 capacity (animals day) Active 9,064 50,760 59,824 17,751 23 73 42,073 54 80 Inactive 1,541 15,600 17,141 6,553 9 27 10,588 14 20
Figure 7. Number of active meat-packing plants, cattle herd and pasture area by state in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 35,000 40
30,000 35
30 25,000 25 20,000 20 15,000 15 10,000
Herd (thousand head) and 10 Pasture (thousand hectares)
5,000 5 Number of ac�ve slaughterhouses
- 0 MT PA RO TO MA AC AM RR AP
Pasture area (hectares) Herd (head) Ac�ve meat-packing (units)
Data sources: Pasture area in the Amazon (Inpe/Embrapa, 2016) and Cerrado (Inpe/Embrapa, 2015) biomes; Herd (IBGE/PPM, 2016); Active meat-packing plants (Data from the study). WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 39
Box 1. Why were 18% of inactive meat-packing plants in 2016?
Of the 29 inactive meat-packing plants, 21 (72%) were registered in SIF and 8 (28%) in SIE. The majority (14) were in Mato Grosso and Rondônia (9). Pará and Acre respectively had 2 and 4 inactive units. The daily slaughter capacity of the meat-packing plants ranged from 1,400 head ( JBS in Vila Rica, MT) to 60 head (Frigovale Jaciara, in MT and Frigoisa, in RO). The average slaughter capacity of the inactive plants registered with SIF was 743 animals/day and with SIE, 193 animals/day.
Four factors may have contributed to the deactivation of those meat-packing plants.
• The principal factor appears to be excessive investment in meat-packing plants in rela- tion to the productive capacity in the region. Supplying the installed capacity of the me- at-packing plants with registration in SIE and SIF would require about 67 million hec- tares of pastures, an amount 13% greater than the 61 million hectares of pastures existing in the Brazilian Amazon, including pasture in the Cerrado portion in 2013 (estimated by Inpe/Embrapa, 2015) and the pasture in the Amazon biome portion in 2014 (Inpe/ Embrapa, 2016). That estimate considered the typical productivity in the region and did not consider the meat-packing plants that supply only the municipalities (registered with the SIM) and exports of live cattle (See details in Appendix 4). As part of this investment, some of the large companies have bought and closed smaller plants. For example, 11 (or one third) of the 32 JBS plants were inactive. • Another factor is the emergence of a market for exporting live cattle, especially in Pará, which reduced, at least in the short term, the supply of cattle for slaughter in meat-pa- cking plants beginning in 2005. For example, the 650 thousand live animals exported per year from 2013 to 2014 would be enough to supply almost three meat-packing plants registered with the SIF or 10 meat-packing plants registered with the SIE, considering the respective average slaughter capacities of the closed meat-packing. • The third factor is the prolonged drought, which also reduced the supply of cattle and consequently increased the prices, leading to the closing of plants (G1 MT, 2014; Estadão Conteúdo, 2015). • The fourth and final factor is a reduction in demand due to the economic recession in Brazil in 2015 and the drop in exports, which led to a reduction in slaughters (Azevedo and Portugal, 2016; See Figure 1), which may have left some plants not feasible.
40 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? Slaughter capacity Slaughter
8 0 , 7 0 , 6 0 , 5 0 , 4 0 , 3 0 , 2 0 , 1 0 ,0 0
a n a v a S o c i f í r o g i r F
é s o J o ã S o c i f í r o g i r F
a m o R o c i f í r o g i r F
s a l l a D o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L s a i h D o c i f í r o g i r F - s a i h d o g i r F
a d t L . C . G s e õ ç a z i n a g r O
o i g ú f e R o r u o d a t a M
a t s i t a B . R
. p x E e . p m I a t i u q s e M e d s e u g i r d o R . J . A - . P . J
a d t L e d r e v o g i r F
r e d í l o g i r F
á c a u a r a T e d s a t s i r a u c e p e s e r o t l u c i r g A s o d a v i t a r e p o o C - e d r e V i o B
o n i r d n a x e l A
a r a i c a J e l a v o g i r F
o ã i t s a b e S o ã S o c i f í r o g i r F
a i n ô d n o R o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L o t l a n a l P a i r e t n a h c r a M e o r u o d a t a M - o ã d u r r A
n a v o g i r F
a d t L a r o d a s I a t n a S o c i f í r o g i r F - a s i o g i r F
a d t L a t s o C o c i f í r o g i r F - a n e s o g i r F
a d t L l i s a r B s e n r a C e d l a i c r e m o C - á b o t a J o c i f í r o g i r F
o r i e b i R . O . R . C
o c i f í r o g i r F e n r a c o s s A
o l e d o M o c i f í r o g i r F
e r c A e t r o n o g i r F
a d t L s o t n e m i l A o g i r f i r t u N
a d t L e n r a C a v o N o c i f í r o g i r F
o c n a r B o i R o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L s e n r a C e d a i r t s ú d n I e o i c r é m o C é r o p a u G o d e l a v o g i r F
o t r o p o g i r F
m o B i o B o c i f í r o g i r F
u ç A - é m o T t r o n i r F
a d t L i t n a f e D e i t n a f e D - n a c i r F
a b u J o r u o d a t a M
s i l o p ó n o d n o R o c i f í r o g i r F
a z n a n o B o c i f í r o g i r F
é f e t o g i r
Total cumulative slaughter capacity F
a d t L e t r o N i o B F B A o c i f í r o g i r F
a d n u m i a R a n o D o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L a i n ô z a m A o r u o d a t a M - s o t n e m i l A a i n ô z a m A
e g r o J o ã S o r u o d e t a b A
a d t L s o t n e m i l A i l o g i r F
s ó j a p a T o d e l a V o c i f í r o g i r F - a t a v i r F
e t r o n i v o B
o c i r f a M
a d t L a n e r a c r a B o c i f í r o g i r F e o r u o d a t a M - s o t n e m i l A r a b i r f a M
s o t n e m i d n e e r p m E a i n ô z a m A o c i f í r o g i r F - p a a i r F
l a o c a C o c i f í r o g i r F - l a c o g i r F
i o b o g i r F
a r r e z e B o c i f í r o g i r F o r u o d a t a M - B F M
a r i m a t l A o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L s e õ ç a t r o p x E e s e õ ç a t r o p m I - l i s a r B R P V
s o t n e m i l A i o b i n U
a d t L s o t n e m i d n e e r p m E a g a r B o r u o d a t a M - p a m i r F
S R o c i f í r o g i r F
s o ã m r I I I I o c i f í r o g i r F
t r o n o g i r F
a ç n a i l A o c i f í r o g i r F e o r u o d a t a M
a d a r o v l A o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L l a o c a C e v r e s o g i r F
a d t L l i M o c i f í r o g i r F - l i m o g i r F
A / S s e m e u q i r A o c i f í r o g i r F - i r a o g i r F
s u a n a M o g i r
Cumulative ctive slaughter capacity Cumulative ctive slaughter F
a d t L l a h n a t s a C e d l a i r t s u d n I o c i f í r o g i r F - a s i r f s a C
a d t L e r c A o d o s n o f A o t n a S o c i f í r o g i r F - e r c a s i r F
o r i e b i R o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L s o t n e m i l A g i r f a r u t a N
a d t L s e r g u B o d e l a V o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L o s í r a P o c i f í r o g i r F
A / S g i r F
a m i a r o R e d o c i f í r o g i r F o r u o d a t a M - r i f a M
a d t L o c n a r B i o B s e n r a C
Inactive A / S s o t n e m i l A e d l a i r t s u d n i o r g A a r g A
a d t L s o t n e m i l A a n e l P
a d t L t t u n o B s o d a v i r e D E s e n r a C e d o i c r é m o C e a i r t s ú d n I
l a n a t n a P o c i f í r o g i r F
a d t L o g i r f e t r o F o c i f í r o g i r F
A / S i r f s a r B
i o b n o z a m A
. I . M . A s o t n e m i l A - o s s e r g o r P o v o N
a d t L o i a p m a S s o n i v o B e d o r u o d e t a b A
a d t L a i r a M o i R o c i f i r o g i r
Active F packing in the Brazilian plants and only Amazon in 2016 of the active
m o b o g i r F
o c i f í r o g i r F o h l a v r a C e D a v l i S a d . M . T
A / S o i c r é m o C E a i r t s ú d n I o g i r f r e p u S
á r a P o d a i r á u c e P a i r t s ú d n I a d a v i t a r e p o o C - e p i c o S
a d t L o c i f í r o g i r F l a c i r F
a r o d a t r o p m I E a r o d a t r o p x E s o t n e m i l A o v i t A
A / S o i c r é m o C E a i r t s ú d n I a r a u g n i X
a d t L s o d a v i r e D E s e n r a C e D o i c r é m o C E a i r t s ú d n I a r i e n a t n a P
a d t L á r a g n a T o c i f í r o g i r F
s e n r a C e d e t r o p s n a r T e o i c r é m o C , a i r t s ú d n I - i o b i r t s i D
a d t L l i s a r B i o B s o d a v i r e D e s e n r a C e d o i c r é m o C e a i r t s ú d n I
a d t L s o c i f í r o g i r F e t r o f i o B
A / S s a n o z a m A a i r á u c e P E a r u t l u c i r g A - m a p o r g A
A / S s o t n e m i l A i o b a t a M
a d t L o s s o N o c i f í r o g i r F
A / S r o t n e d e R o c i f í r o g i r F
. Number of active and inactive meat-packing plants by company and cumulative slaughter of all meat- and cumulative company meat-packing plants by and inactive of active Number Figure 8 . A / S l a t o T
i p i r u G e d s o d a v i r e D e s e n r a C e D s a v i t a r e p o o C
a d t L s e n r a C e d o i c r é m o C e d n a r G o i R - l a b i r F
s e v l a ç n o G s o ã m r I o c i f í r o g i r F - n o g i r F
A / S l o g i r F
A / S s o t n e m i l A e d o i c r é m o C e a i r t s ú d n I e d n a r G e l a V
A / S s o n i v o B o s s o r G o t a M
a d t L i o b r e t s a M
A / S s o t n e m i l A o i r ú c r e M
A / S s o t n e m i l A e d o i c é m o C e a i r t s ú d n I a v r e n i M
A / S s d o o F l a b o l G g i r f r a M
A / S S B J
5 0
3 5 3 0 2 5 2 0 1 5 1 0 Number of meet-packing plants meet-packing of Number WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 41
3.2 The potential cattle-buying zones
The potential cattle-buying zones of were, on average, about 15 million hectares. the meat-packing plants reveal situations For their part, the meat-packing plants that are important for managing the zero registered with the SIE (who sell only in the deforestation agreements. state where they are located) had an average The extent of the zones differs mainly slaughter capacity of 181 animals/day due to slaughter capacity, which is influenced (maximum installed of 500 animals/day and by the potential market (state or federal and minimum of 15 animals/day), buy cattle at export), the availability of cattle near the an average maximum distance of 153 km and meat-packing plants and transport costs require a pasture area four times smaller than (land or river) (Figure 9). For example, in a meat-packing plant registered with SIF to Acre, a meat-packing plant that supplies the supply their annual demand (Table 2). local market and has an adequate in supply The potential buying zones are much of cattle in the surrounding area, buys cattle larger than the total pasture area necessary up to a distance of by no more than 20 km. for supplying the plant because the pastures Meanwhile, in Amazonas, a meat-packing are scattered throughout regions that plant that supplies only the market in Manaus include other land uses, Conservation Units, (a large city), but has a low local supply and Indigenous Lands and areas that are unsuitable accessible river transportation that is cheaper for pastures. Furthermore, in general, there are than land travel, buys cattle up to 1,050 km several meat-packing plants operating in the away, in the state of Rondônia (Figure 9). same region (whose purchasing zones overlap) The largest zones were those of meat- and they must buy cattle at distances greater packing plants registered with SIF, who than those of their immediate surroundings. can sell throughout Brazil and export, if Overlapping purchasing zones are more licensed. The plants registered with the SIF intense where there are more cattle and have, on average, greater slaughter capacity several meat-packing plants installed, such as (708 animals/day), demand more suppliers in Mato Grosso, eastern Pará and Rondônia and travel greater distances (on average 360 (Figures 10 to 15). km) to purchase animals. A packing plant The maps show that there is a wide registered with SIF would need, on average, overlap of meat-packing plants with and approximately 580 thousand hectares without TAC in various regions, which of pasture to meet its annual demand, creates a risk of leakage – when a TAC considering total use of its average slaughter signatory refuses to buy from an irregular capacity and average pasture productivity of ranch, the rancher can sell to another buyer pastures. The potential buying zones of the without TAC or to one with a TAC who is meat-packing plants registered with SIF not fully complying with the agreement. 42 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Ranchers in Pará can sell to meat- TAC also buy from Rondônia and can packing plants without TAC in their thus export the deforestation risk to that own state or in neighboring states such state. Meat-packing plants without TAC as Tocantins, Amapá, Amazonas and in western Acre can buy from southern Maranhão (Figures 14, 16, 18 and 19). Amazonas (Figure 17). In section 3.5.1 we Meat-packing plants in Amazonas without will discuss this risk of unfair competition.
Table 2. Meat-packing plants that supply the domestic and international market (SIF) have greater slaughter capacity and buy cattle from greater maximum distances than those licensed to sell only in the states where they are located (SIE)
Variables SIF SIE Average slaughter capacity - animals/day 708 181 Average medium distance for purchase – Km 360 153 Average area of potential purchasing zone (hectares) 15,303,011 6,313,317 Average pasture area necessary to supply the average slaughter capacity of the meat-packing plant for one year 579,459 148,138 (hectares) WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 43 [13] ,lack of [12] buying distance Determinants of Small market, local Small market, supply sufficient. High cattle supply near the meat- packing plant and high density of competitors competition in competition north of Pará Large market, low low Large market, local supply and river transportation Low local supply and river transportation Broad Broad market [11] [10] [14] 20 300 1,000 600 (km) 1,050 distance for buying Maximum Maximum PA MT AM dia/AC Manaus/ Guarantã Location do Norte/ Xinguara/ Macapá/AP - Epitaciolân 50 700 350 day) 1,000 (head/ capacity Slaughter Name Xinguara Indústria e Comércio (SIF) Frigorífico Frigorífico Redentor (SIF) P (SIE) J. Frimap Frimap (SIE) (Inspection) Frigo Frigo Manaus (SIE) . Examples of characteristics that influence the potential buying of the meat-packingFigurezones plants mapped in the BrazilianAmazon in 2016 9 . That information was validated by data from Carrero et al. (2015) and by information collected from cattle raisers and employees of the state sanitary by information collectedcattle from raisers and employees (2015) and defense agency in Roraima (Aderr). et al. Carrero by data from That information was validated da Baliza, João São Roraima (Rorainópolis, and Canutama), Lábrea Apuí, Amazonas south of (Humaitá, municipalities in the extreme by from That meat-packingcattle coming plant is supplied Egypt Kong. and Hong (2016) as licensed to export meat in natura and offal to the United Arab Emirates, Listed in Mapa/SDA municipalities the Pará than 128 thousand came more from with the SIFin 2015, in the state of Mato Grosso in plants registered that of the animals slaughtered Mapa (2016) show Data from (2014) and from State et al. t o data from Soares according VitóriaUruará, do Xingu and Prainha, Alegre, Monte Novo, Brasil municipalities of Altamira, Pará the bought from The company São Luís do Anauá, Caroebe, Iracema and Mucajaí), Rondônia (Porto Velho, Ariquemes, Guajará-Mirim and Ji-Paraná) and Pará (Novo Progresso, Altamira, Anapu, Trairão and Vitória and do Xingu). Trairão Anapu, Altamira, Progresso, (Novo Guajará-Mirim and Pará and Ji-Paraná) Ariquemes, Velho, (Porto Rondônia and Mucajaí), Iracema Caroebe, São Luís do Anauá, with na installed slaughter capacity of 500 Pará, in western Progresso, with SIF in Novo 2015 did a packing Only begin activities plant register in August Itaituba and Altamira. Progresso, of Novo animals/day.. Agency for Sanitary Defense(Diagro). of Amapá [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 44 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? without TAC located in southeastern Mato Grosso in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packingAppendix 3 plant number in The ID corresponds located in 2016. in southeastern Mato Grosso TAC without . Potential cattle-buying zones for 12 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing plants registered and with zones and inactive for 12 active Potential Figure 10 . WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 45 without TAC located in southwestern Mato Grosso in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packingAppendix 3 The plant number in ID corresponds in 2016. located Mato Grosso in southwestern TAC without . Potential cattle-buying zones for 19 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing plants registered and with zones and inactive for 19 active Potential Figure 11 . 46 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? without TAC located in northern Mato Grosso in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packingAppendix 3 The plant number in ID corresponds located in northern in 2016. Mato Grosso TAC without . Potential cattle-buying zones for 19 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing plants registered and with zones and inactive for 19 active Potential Figure 12 . WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 47 . Potential cattle-buying zones for 19 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing and with plants registered zones and inactive for 19 active Potential Figure 13 . without TAC located in southeastern and western Pará in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packingAppendix 3 plant number in The ID corresponds in 2016. located in southeastern Pará and western TAC without 48 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? . Potential cattle-buying zones for 17 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing and with plants registered zones and inactive for 17 active Potential Figure 14 . without TAC located in northeastern Pará and Maranhão in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packingAppendix 3 The plant number in ID corresponds located in 2016. and Maranhão in northeastern Pará TAC without WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 49 without TAC located in Rondônia in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 to the meat-packing plant number in The ID corresponds in 2016. located in Rondônia TAC without . Potential cattle-buying zones for 24 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing and with plants registered zones and inactive for 24 active Potential Figure 15 . 50 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? without TAC located in Tocantins in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packingAppendix 3 plant number in The ID corresponds in 2016. Tocantins located in TAC without . Potential cattle-buying zones for 13 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing plants registered and with zones and inactive for 13 active Potential Figure 16 . WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 51 without TAC located in Acre in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packingAppendix 3 plant number in The ID corresponds in 2016. located in Acre TAC without . Potential cattle-buying zones for 19 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing plants registered and with zones and inactive for 19 active Potential Figure 17 . 52 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? without TAC located in Amazonas in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packingAppendix 3 plant number in The ID corresponds located in Amazonas in 2016. TAC without . Potential cattle-buying zones for 10 active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buying and SIF meat-packing and with plants registered zones and inactive for 10 active Potential Figure 18 . WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 53 without TAC located in Roraima and Amapá in 2016. The ID corresponds to the meat-packing plant number in Appendix 3 to the meat-packing The plant number in ID corresponds located in 2016. in Roraima and Amapá TAC without . Potential cattle-buying zones for five active and inactive meat-packing plants registered with the SIE cattle-buyingregistered and SIF meat-packing plants and with and inactive zonesactive for five Potential Figure 19 . 54 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
3.2.1 The aggregate zones meat-packing plants registered with the SIM or are clandestine and not considered The potential buying zones of the in our analysis, and may also include ranches 157 meat-packing plants registered with specializing breeding and rearing herds that the SIE and SIF in the Amazon in 2016 supply other fattening ranches inside the indicate the extensive zone of influence supply zones of the larger meat-packing of the sector, which buys cattle through plants (registered with the SIF and SIE). a network of official and informal roads We estimate that the 99 companies and the main navigable rivers (Figure 20). owning the 128 active plants influence the Ninety-two percent of the total pastures behavior of about 390 thousand ranches with existing in the region in 2013-2014 were a herd of approximately 79 million cattle. It inside potential buying zones of all meat- is relevant to note that maximum purchasing packing plants, active and inactive (Figure distance of the meat-packing plants also 20). The potential buying zones of the reached zones that were not yet pastures in 128-active meat-packing plants covered 2013-2014. That indicates that it would be 91% of existing pastures. economically viable for meat-packing plants The broad reach of the meat-packing to buy cattle from new pastures that were plants over the pastures was already expected opened in areas still under forest cover from because all of the units registered with the 2013 to 2014. In other words, if the companies SIE and SIF were responsible for 93% of do not fulfill the agreements and/or if the the slaughters accounted for by IBGE in companies that did not sign agreements 2016. The small portion (8%) of pastures continue not having any commitment, there that are outside those zones probably is a risk that the meat-packing plants will directly supply slaughterhouses and local encourage new deforestation. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 55 in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 . Potential zones for purchasing cattle of the active meat-packing plants registered with the SIE and SIF and with and without TAC TAC with the SIE zones and SIF meat-packing forcattle plants registered and with without purchasing of the active Potential . Figure 20 56 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
3.3 The risks associated with deforestation in the potential cattle-buying zones
The potential cattle-buying zones of Additionally, we estimate that 1.68 the meat-packing plants overlap the largest million hectares of forests are at the highest portion of the region at some type of risk risk of deforestation from 2016-2018 if the associated with deforestation (Figures 21, average rates for the 2009-2014 period are 22 and 23). maintained (See Appendix 5). About 90% of About 2,3 million hectares embargoed those at-risk areas are in the potential buying by Ibama in the Brazilian Amazon are in zones das meat-packing companies mapped the potential buying zones of all of the (Figure 23). The states of Pará, Mato Grosso meat-packing plants (Figure 21) – which is and Rondônia total 72% of the deforestation equivalent to 88% of the total of embargoed risk over the next three years. Pará leads with areas in the region. The areas embargoed are an accumulated 31.4% of the total risk, in mainly in the states of Mato Grosso, Pará areas close to the BR-163 and the middle and Rondônia. The meat-packing plants can and southern parts of the state, especially consult the Ibama list and avoid buying cattle in and around the municipality of São from those areas. However, ranchers have Félix do Xingu, the leader in terms of both gotten around the list by leasing the areas deforestation and cattle herd in the state. to other persons and making control more Mato Grosso is second, with 26.6% of the difficult, as will be detailed in section 3.5.2. risk, in areas in the northern part of the state, In the same way, 88% of deforestation distributed close to the BR-163 and BR-158 from 2010 to 2015 in the Brazilian federal highways, and northwest, in an area Amazon occurred inside the mapped distributed along the MT-322 state highway. potential cattle-buying zones of the meat- Deforestation along the BR-163 coincides packing plants registered with SIE and with a meat-packing plant buying area in SIF mapped (Figure 22). Mato Grosso, northern Mato Grosso, southwest Pará and Pará and Rondônia concentrate the highest Manaus area. Finally, Rondônia concentrates levels of recent deforestation. Although 13,4% of the deforestation risk, mainly in those areas had not been embargoed, the north, in areas that supply meat-packing it is very probable that they had been plants in the state and also Amazonas. illegally deforested, since deforestation for If the meat-packing plants continue agriculture and livestock is rarely licensed. buying without control over their direct and For example, in 2016 it was informed that indirect suppliers ranchers will continue to 95% of deforestation in Mato Grosso be encouraged to deforest those areas at occurred without licenses (Mundel, 2016). greatest risk. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 57 Amazon in 2016 . Areas embargoed up to November 2016 in the potential cattle-buying up to November embargoed meat-packing zones plants in the Brazilian Areas of the active . Figure 21 58 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? Amazon in 2016 . Areas deforested from 2010 to 2015 in the potential cattle-buying from zones deforested in the Brazilian of the meat-packing Areas plants active . Figure 22 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 59 Amazon in 2016 . Risk of future deforestation (2016-2018) in the potential cattle-buying deforestation meat-packing zones Risk of future plants in the Brazilian of the active Figure 23 . 60 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
3.4 Ranking of exposure of the companies to the risks associated with deforestation
A company’s exposure to the risk of deforestation from 2016 to 2018 (more buying cattle obtained from deforestation information on the JBS units in section was greater, when the sum of embargoed 3.4.1.1). JBS signed a TAC and achieved areas by Ibama for illegal deforestation up control over its direct suppliers[15]. to November 2016, the areas deforested Nonetheless, the lack of control over the from 2010 to 2015 and the areas at risk indirect origin of cattle leaves the company for deforestation from 2016 to 2018 in the vulnerable to the risk of indirect purchases potential buying zone of its plants, in hectares, from areas with recent deforestation or was also greater (Figure 24 and Appendix under embargo. In fact, in April 2017 6). Thus, the farther the purchasing distance Ibama accused two JBS plants of buying of each plant and the greater the number of 49,438 head of cattle from embargoed plants for each company, the greater was its ranches that indirectly supplied cattle (See exposure. The variation in the exposure to details in Appendix 8). risks made it possible to divide companies The total area at risk in the JBS into classes according to the internal variance potential buying zones was approximately of each group. three times greater than that of the company The JBS company was alone at the occupying the second place in the ranking. top of the ranking for exposure to risk, The Redentor meat-packing plant occupied totaling 4.6 million hectares with some the second position in the ranking with only type of risk in the potential buying zones one plant, but in a region with high rates of of its 32 plants, 21 of which active. Of the embargos (965 thousand hectares), recent total of at-risk areas, 17 million hectares deforestation (270 thousand hectares) were embargoed, 16 million hectares were and high risk of future deforestation (342 deforested during 2010-2015 and 1.2 thousand hectares). The plant is located in million hectares were of forests at risk of the extreme north of Mato Grosso and its
[15] JBS maintains a site with information on the origin of its beef. Other companies have also begun actions seeking transparency on the origin of their beef; however, the data available do not yet reach the indirect suppliers, are insufficient or were discontinued (See Appendix 7). WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 61
buying zone extends to southwestern Pará, to the indicators evaluated. For example, along the BR-163. In the second group, the Fribal company, with two plants in together with Redentor, are four companies Maranhão, is exposed to intermediate risks, (3 registered with SIF and one in SIE) at recent and future deforestation and is active the top in terms of risk, totaling from 1.2 in areas with low levels of embargoed areas. million a 1.6 million hectares at risk. The In this classification are also meat-packing other companies in this group include Vale plants active in areas with high historical Grande (3 plants), Frigo Manaus (1 plant), deforestation, and thus operating in areas Marfrig (5 plants) and Mercúrio (2 plants) with little or no forest remnants, such as the (Figure 24). Rio Maria meat-packing plant, in Pará. This In the second group of exposure intermediate group and the low risk group to risk we identified 14 companies, 10 are notable for concentrating 88% of the registered with SIF and 4 with SIE. With company’s que have not signed TAC. exposure to risk varying from approximately The group of companies with potential 630 thousand to 995 thousand hectares, buying zones at lowest risk (with 651 hectares the companies located in this group source to 50 thousand hectares of at-risk areas) cattle in regions with a high incidence of ranges from small companies with a local embargoed areas or with high rates of recent market (e.g. J.P. meat-packing plant, in Acre, deforestation, for example, Brasfri, in Mato which buys cattle at a maximum distance of Grosso, and T. M. da Silva de Carvalho, 20 km, registered with SIE) to companies that in Pará. The four companies registered are medium-sized companies, but are active in with SIE (all in Amazonas) in this group zones with high accumulated old deforestation are notable for buying animals from long and thus low remaining forest areas (e.g. distances in areas with high rates of recent Casfrisa and Arrudão, in Castanhal-PA), deforestation in Rondônia and Pará. or that operate in zones inside the Cerrado The companies in subsequent rankings biome (e.g. Boi Brasil meat-packing plant, (with less than 630 thousand hectares at the only one in the group registered with SIF, risk) have distinct characters in relation installed in Alvorada-TO). 62 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 24. Ranking of the companies in terms of exposure to three risks associated with deforestation in their potential buying zones in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016. The ranking includes the companies exposed to at least 50 thousand hectares of the three risks totaled together[16]
Areas embargoed (thousand ha) Deforestation 2010-2015 (thousand ha) Risk of deforestation 2016-2018 (thousand ha)
Group 1 JBS S/A Frigorífico Redentor S/A Vale Grande Ind. e Com. de Alimentos S/A Group 2 Frigo Manaus Marfrig Global Foods S/ A Mercúrio Alimentos S/A Brasfri S/A Frigorífico Nosso Ltda Amazonboi Minerva Ind. e Com. de Alimentos S/A Frig S/A Bovinorte Group 3 Frigol S/A Total S/ A Ativo Alimentos Exp. e Imp. Frigorífico Tangará Ltda Distriboi - Ind., Com. e Transp. de Carnes Mafrico T. M. da Silva de Carvalho Frigorífico Masterboi Ltda Fribal - Comcarne Comercial de Carne Ltda Ind. de Carnes e Derivados Bonutt Ltda Xinguara Indústria e Comércio S/A Frigoari - Frigorífico Ariquemes S/A Boiforte Frigoríficos Ltda VPR Brasil - Importações e Exportações Ltda Abatedouro de Bovinos Sampaio Ltda Frigon - Frigorífico Irmãos Gonçalves Group 4 Carnes Boi Branco Ltda Frigoserve Cacoal Ltda Frisacre - Frigorífico Santo Afonso do Acre Ltda Frimap - Matadouro Braga Empreendimentos Ltda Friaap - Frigorífico Amazônia Empreendimentos Frigorífico Paraíso Ltda Frigorífico Fortefrigo Ltda Plena Alimentos Ltda Frigorífico Dallas Frigomil - Frigorífico Mil Ltda Frigorífico Alvorada R. E. Ribeiro Soares Frigobom Agropam - Agricultura e Pecuária Amazonas S/A Frigolíder Frigoporto Frigoboi Frigorífico Modelo Matadouro e Frigorífico Aliança Boi Bom Organizações G. C. Ltda Mato Grosso Bovinos S. A Uniboi Alimentos Frigorífico Rio Maria Ltda Frigorífico Altamira Bonanza Frigorífico Vale Do Bugres Ltda Frigovan Frigorífico Rondônia Group 5 C R O Ribeiro Frigoli Alimentos Frigorífico Rio Branco Frigonort Mataboi Alimentos S/A Superfrigo Indústria e Comércio S/A Frigorífico Roma Frigosena - Frigorífico Costa Ltda Mafir - Matadouro Frigorífico de Roraima Agra Agroindustrial de Alimentos S/A Frinort Tomé-Açu Naturafrig Alimentos Ltda Frigorífico RS Ltda Frigoverde MFB Matadouro Frigorífico Bezerra Pantaneira Ind. e Com. de Carnes e Derivados Frical Frigorífico Ltda Frivata - Frigorífico Vale do Tapajós Frigorífico Pantanal Frican - Defanti e defanti Ltda Frigocal - Frigorífico Cacoal Cooperativa dos Produtores de Carne e Derivados de Gurupi Alexandrino Frigorífico Abf Boi Norte Ltda
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Thousand hectares
[16] Complete list in Appendix 6. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 63
3.4.1 Ranking of exposure of the areas to acquire animals, reaching areas with companies with TAC to the risks high levels of environmental degradation associated with deforestation (Figure 25). The companies less exposed to risk all have state inspection (SIE),reach at Among the companies that signed most 150 Km to purchase cattle and are TAC, the ones most exposed to risk located in regions that have accumulated are JBS, Redentor, Vale Grande and a history of high levels of deforestation Mercúrio, which have more than one meat- (e.g. Arrudão and Casfrisa in Castanhal- packing plant, are registered withSIF and PA) or in regions with a history of low have greater slaughter capacity. These are levels of forest loss (e.g. Frigonorte Acre, packing plants that search more distant in Cruzeiro do Sul-AM) 64 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 25. Ranking of the 38 companies with TAC in terms of exposure to three risks associated with deforestation in their potential buying zones in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016
Areas embargoed (thousand ha) Deforestation 2010-2015 (thousand ha) Risk of deforestation 2016-2018 (thousand ha)
JBS S/A Frigorífico Redentor S/A Vale Grande Ind. e Com. de Alimentos S/A Marfrig Global Foods S/ A Mercúrio Alimentos S/A Frigorífico Nosso Ltda Amazonboi Minerva Ind. e Com. de Alimentos S/A Frig S/A Frigol S/A Ativo Alimentos Exp. e Imp. Frigorífico Tangará Ltda Mafrico Xinguara Indústria e Comércio S/A Carnes Boi Branco Ltda Plena Alimentos Ltda R. E. Ribeiro Soares Frigobom Agropam - Agricultura e Pecuária Amazonas S/A Frigoboi Frigorífico Rio Maria Ltda Frigorífico Vale Do Bugres Ltda Frigorífico Rio Branco Superfrigo Indústria e Comércio S/A Frigosena - Frigorífico Costa Ltda Agra Agroindustrial de Alimentos S/A Frinort Tomé-Açu Naturafrig Alimentos Ltda Frigoverde Pantaneira Ind. e Com. de Carnes e Derivados Frical Frigorífico Ltda Nova Carne Socipe - Cooperativa da Indústria Pecuária do Pará Ltda Arrudão - Matadouro e Marchanteria Planalto Ltda Casfrisa - Frigorífico Industrial de Castanhal Ltda Frigovale do Guaporé Comércio e Indústria de Carnes Ltda Frigonorte Acre
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Thousand hectares WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 65
3.4.1.1 Ranking of exposure of the recent deforestation are notable. In the latter JBS plants to the risks associated with de- group there are 12 meat-packing plants, forestation located in Mato Grosso (7), Rondônia Since JBS is by far the largest company, (2), Pará (2) and Acre (1), that have zones in Figure 26 we highlight the exposure of with a large number of embargoed areas all of its plants. The 32 JBS plants together (e.g. in Água Boa-MT and Diamantino- cover a potential buying zone overlapping MT), with a high concentration of recent 38 million hectares of pastures in 2013- deforestation (e.g. units in Rolim de 2014, or 75% of the total in the Brazilian Moura-RO and Rio Branco-AC) and Amazon. These plants situated in northern with high risk of future deforestation (e.g. Mato Grosso are more exposed to the units in Araputanga-MT and São José dos deforestation risk (Figure 27). In this group Quatro Marcos-MT). are plants in Matupá, Colíder (2 plants) JBS also has units with low exposure and Alta Floresta, municipalities with high to deforestation risks because they are in incidence of embargos. zones in the Amazon biome that are already At the next level we found four JBS highly deforested or in transition zones such plants: two in Pará (municipalities of Tucumã as the Cerrado, whose deforestation we have and Eldorado dos Carajás), one in Mato not assessed. In Mato Grosso there are four Grosso ( Juara) and one in Rondônia (Pimenta JBS plants with lower exposure to the risk: Bueno), in regions with a large incidence of in Pedra Preta, Cuiabá, Barra do Garças and recent deforestation (2010- 2015). Pontes e Lacerda (Figure 27), with the first At an intermediate level are plants three located in the Cerrado biome. That situated in Rondônia (3), Mato Grosso does not mean the risk will not increase if (2), Tocantins (1), Pará (1) and Maranhão environmental authorities intensify activities (1). Despite the geographical diversity, the against deforestation in the Cerrado and potential buying zones with high rates of embargo areas in this biome. 66 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? Numbers next to the meat-packing plants correspond to the SIF registered in Mapa to the SIF registered next to the meat-packing plants correspond Numbers . Potential zones for purchasing cattle of the 32 active and inactive JBS plants located in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016. JBS plants located zones in the Brazilian and inactive cattle for Amazon purchasing in 2016. of the 32 active Potential Figure 26 . WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 67
Figure 27. Ranking of the 32 active and inactive JBS meat-packing plants in terms of exposure to three risks associated with deforestation in their potential buying zones in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016
Areas embargoed (ha)
Deforestation 2010-2015 (ha)
Risk of deforestation 2016-2018 (ha)
Matupá* Colíder Group 1 Colíder* Alta Floresta Juara*
Group 2 Tucumã Pimenta Bueno Eldorado dos Carajás* Juruena Juína Araguaína
Group 3 Ariquemes* Marabá Porto Velho Açailândia São Miguel do Guaporé Água Boa Rio Branco Rolim de Moura* Diamantino Santana do Araguaia
Group 4 Redenção Confresa Araputanga* São José dos Quatro Marcos* Cáceres* Vilhena Vila Rica* Pedra Preta Pontes e Lacerda Group 5 Barra do Garças Cuiabá*
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 Thousand hectares
* Inactive meat-packing plants at time of data collection 68 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
3.4.2 Ranking of exposure of the group are nine companies registered with companies without TAC to the risks the SIF, that may sell meat and byproducts associated with deforestation on the domestic market, and, if licensed, on the international market as well (Figure 28). The exposure to the risk associated In a third exposure group (231 with deforestation is also diverse among the thousand to 518 thousand hectares) are 14 72 companies that did not sign the TAC meat-packing companies without TAC, of (Figure 28). Frigo Manaus[17] is noteworthy which 8 are registered with SIF. “Among because it buys in a zone that can reach the characteristics of these companies are animals at a distance of more than 1,000 km determining factors related to exposure during the rainy season, when the supply of to deforestation risk, such as location. animals in the environs of Manaus becomes Four are in Rondônia, three in Mato scarce. The risk in the buying zone totals Grosso and one in Pará, states notable for almost 1,5 million hectares, of which 314 recent deforestation. Two companies with thousand hectares are of embargoed areas, registration in SIE located in Amapá stand 884 thousand are of deforestation from out for sourcing animals at greater distances, 2010-2015 and 278 thousand are of at-risk teaching areas with a high rate of recent areas of new deforestation during the 2016- deforestation in Pará. 2018 period, including in Rondônia. The following groups, below 227 A second group with greater exposure thousand hectares of risks, concentrates (from 572 thousand to 997 thousand meat-packing plants registered with SIE, hectares) includes ten companies that buy with a low slaughter capacity and demand from long distances (e.g. Bovinorte, in for few animals, which are bought from Manaus-AM) or who have more than one nearby areas. Some companies do not plant (e.g. Total, in Rolim de Moura-RO and present a risk of exposure to embargoed Ariquemes-RO and Distriboi, in Cacoal- areas (e.g. Frigodhias, in Axixá-MA and RO and Ji-Paraná-RO) or companies Matadouro Amazônia, in Bragança- PA) located in areas under great pressure for or to deforestation risk (e.g. Frigorífico São new deforestation (e.g. T. M. da Silva de Jorge, in Cáceres-MT and Frigovale Jaciara, Carvalho, in Novo Progresso-PA). In that in Jaciara-MT).
[17] Frigo Manaus signed TAC after we finished our report in Portuguese. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 69
Figure 28. Ranking of the 72 companies without TAC in terms of exposure to three risks associated with deforestation in their potential buying zones in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016
Areas embargoed (thousand ha) Deforestation 2010-2015 (thousand ha) Risk of deforestation 2016-2018 (thousand ha)
Group 1 Frigo Manaus Brasfri S/A Bovinorte Total S/ A Distriboi - Ind., Com. e Transp. de Carnes Group 2 T. M. da Silva de Carvalho Frigorífico Masterboi Ltda Fribal - Comcarne Comercial de Carne Ltda Ind. de Carnes e Derivados Bonutt Ltda Frigoari - Frigorífico Ariquemes S/A Boiforte Frigoríficos Ltda VPR Brasil - Importações e Exportações Ltda Abatedouro de Bovinos Sampaio Ltda Frigon - Frigorífico Irmãos Gonçalves Frigoserve Cacoal Ltda Frisacre - Frigorífico Santo Afonso do Acre Ltda Frimap - Matadouro Braga Empreendimentos Ltda Group 3 Friaap - Frigorífico Amazônia Empreendimentos Frigorífico Paraíso Ltda Frigorífico Fortefrigo Ltda Frigorífico Dallas Frigomil - Frigorífico Mil Ltda Frigorífico Alvorada Frigolíder Frigoporto Frigorífico Modelo Matadouro e Frigorífico Aliança Boi Bom Organizações G. C. Ltda Mato Grosso Bovinos S. A Uniboi Alimentos Frigorífico Altamira Group 4 Bonanza Frigovan Frigorífico Rondônia C R O Ribeiro Frigoli Alimentos Frigonort Mataboi Alimentos S/A Frigorífico Roma Mafir - Matadouro Frigorífico de Roraima Frigorífico RS Ltda MFB Matadouro Frigorífico Bezerra Frivata - Frigorífico Vale do Tapajós Frigorífico Pantanal Frican - Defanti e defanti Ltda Frigocal - Frigorífico Cacoal Cooperativa dos Produtores de Carne e Derivados de Gurupi Alexandrino Frigorífico Abf Boi Norte Ltda Frigorífico São José Mafribar Alimentos - Matadouro e Frigorífico Barcarena Ltda Frigodhias - Frigorífico Dhias Ltda Indústria e Comércio de Carnes e Derivados Boi Brasil Assocarne Frigorífico Amazônia Alimentos - Matadouro Amazônia Ltda Matadouro Refúgio Novo Progresso - Alimentos A M. I. Boi Verde - Cooperativa dos Agricultores e Pecuaristas de Tarauacá FrigorÍfico III Irmãos Frigorífico São Sebastião Matadouro Juba Frigoisa - Frigorífico Santa Isadora Ltda Group 5 Nutrifrigo Alimentos Frigorífico Jatobá Abatedouro São Jorge Frigorífico Dona Raimunda Frigotefé Frigorífico Rondonópolis Frigovale Jaciara J. P. - A. J. Rodrigues de Mesquita Imp. e Exp. R. Batista
- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Thousand hectares 70 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
3.5 The potential buying zones and the persistence of deforestation
Four factors explain the persistence capacity active in 2016. Supplying that of deforestation in the potential buying capacity would demand a potential area zones of meat-packing plants, even those of 16 million hectares (or 26% of the with agreements, as we will describe below. total pasture area) of pastures per year, considering the typical productivity of the 3.5.1 Half of the meat- regions where they operate. packing plants have not signed The risk of leakage is broad, because commitments against deforestation there are non-signatory companies in all the states in the region, that are owners of 23 Seventy-eight meat-packing plants active meat-packing plants registered with – or half of the total – belong to companies SIF, which can export beef to other states that have not signed the ranching TAC and even to other countries (Figure 29). and there are no indications that they The sum of the potential buying zones of have been voluntarily adopting methods the companies without TAC is significant, to verify if their suppliers are not encompassing 87% of all pastures, 81% irregularly deforesting. The meat-packing of recent deforestation, 73% of the area companies that lack such control methods embargoed and 75% of the area at risk of probably buy from illegally deforested deforestation from 2016-2018. areas, voluntarily or not. Thus, ranchers The majority of the non-signatory who are boycotted by the companies that companies concentrate their meat-packing sign TAC may sell to companies without plants in Pará, Mato Grosso and Rondônia, control methods, in what we call “leakage where deforestation have historically been from the agreements”. The active packing higher (Figure 30). Acre also stands out for plants whose proprietary companies had its number of small-scale plants registered not signed TAC had a slaughter capacity with SIE, whose proprietary companies equivalent to 30% of the total installed have not yet signed the agreement. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 71 without TAC in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 TAC without . Distribution of potential cattle-buying meat-packingwith and plants of companies and inactive zones of the 157 active Figure 29 . 72 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 30. Number of active and inactive meat-packing plants (SIF and SIE) of the companies with and without TAC by state in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016
MT 35 12 PA 18 15 RO 10 13 AC 7 13 AM 4 6 TO* 3 10 MA 1 3 RR 0 4 AP 0 2
0 10 20 30 40 50
with TAC without TAC
* Plena Alimentos, a company with one plant in Tocantins (TO) signed TAC with MPF of Mato Grosso (MT).
The leakage from the agreements may with SIF in other Brazilian states such as São occur both inside and between states. For Paulo and Goiás. The sale of animals to other example, ranchers boycotted by companies states fell in 2015, probably because of the that signed agreements in the southeast economic recession according to data from of Pará, where the first TACs were signed, Azevedo and Portugal (2016) and Mapa/ informed us that they were able to sell to SDA (2016a) (Figure 31). companies without TAC in Tocantins. The increase in sales of fattened cattle This may explain the 144% increase in the from Pará for slaughter in meat-packing number of animals from Pará slaughtered in plants registered with SIF in other states meat-packing plants registered with SIF in from 2009 to 2014 totaled 210 thousand Tocantins after the signing of TACs in Pará animals per year. This volume would be from 2008 to 2015: from 54 thousand to sufficient to supply for one year the average 131 thousand animals according to Mapa[18]. slaughter capacity of 4.6 meat-packing Furthermore, from 2009 to 2015, Pará had a plants with SIE state registry 1.2 meat- 76% increase (from 72,8 thousand to 131.5 packing plant with SIF registry. That means thousand) in the sale of animals for slaughter unfair competition between those who have to meat-packing plants registered with SIF signed agreements and those who have not in Mato Grosso; and in 215% the sale of signed or do not keep them. Thus, to avoid animals for slaughter in meat-packing plants the environmental and economic damages
[18] The tendency for an increase in the number of animals from Pará slaughtered in Tocantins was changed only from 2012 to 2014, when the price of cattle was favorable for exporting live animals to other countries. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 73
of leaking it is necessary to act so that other have already signed agreements valid for all companies will sign the ranching TAC or of the Amazon (Personal communication equivalent agreements. It is worth noting with MPF-TO on July 11, 2016). In April that in 2016 the MPF in Tocantins tried, 2017, Ibama fined three meat-packing without success, to negotiate agreements plants from Tocantins accused of buying with the meat-packing plants in the state 3,461 head of cattle from embargoed areas that are not part of the large groups that in Pará, as we detail in Appendix 8.
Figure 31. Number of animals originating in the Brazilian Amazon slaughtered in meat-packing plants under federal inspection (SIF) in other states (including in the Brazilian Amazon) from 2009 to 2015
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000 Slaughter (number of animals) (number of Slaughter
100,000
50,000
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TO 49,731 134,143 82,836 66,090 58,088 147,621 120,471 MT 72,784 128,153 166,275 71,513 135,862 129,434 120,571 SP 37,130 74,284 43,708 85,707 67,850 69,485 21,099 GO 23,797 52,070 33,271 42,276 66,343 54,674 20,809 RO 39,585 33,728 83,581 78,877 66,992 41,930 56,551 MA 13,978 4,422 8,629 3,276 4,003 7,565 6,314 PA 4,149 10,923 864 23,258 1,428 7,105 9,021 AC 4,947 0 2,297 281 240 7,008 3,373 BA 2,002 1,269 0 1,120 2,705 4,152 2,571 MS 0 0 66 1,110 80 176 176 MG 10,408 0 0 470 0 107 0 SE 165 57 38 0 286 92 25 PR 0 534 0 0 0 0 0 AM 39,765 0 0 1,484 1,114 0 0 74 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
3.5.2 The control over direct if they were of legal origin, meaning they suppliers has advanced, but there have been “laundered” (Gibbs et al., 2015; are weaknesses Tinoco and Sá, 2016, field data). The set of interviews revealed that About half of the meat-packing plants ranchers adopt the following forms of (79) belong to 38 companies that signed laundering: i) registering in CAR only TAC and committed to verifying if their the portion of the ranch free of irregular direct suppliers (fattening ranches) have not deforestation and, based on in this CAR, deforested after October 2009 and were free selling the cattle raised in the portion with of other irregularities, such as slave labor. irregular deforestation; ii) “Borrowing” the Of the 79 units, 63 were active in 2016, the CAR number and GTAs from a regular equivalent of 49% of the total of plants in ranch to sell cattle obtained from an activity. The proportion of meat-packing irregular ranch; iii) selling cattle from a plants that signed the TAC with MPF varies ranch without CAR and/or embargoed to by state, with Mato Grosso and Pará being one with CAR, who then sells the cattle responsible for 69% of the total (Figure 32). immediately to a meat-packing plant; Compliance with the agreements iv) leasing the embargoed ranchers to needs to be verified annually through other ranchers, who sell the cattle using independent audits funded by the public documents (CPF, CNPJ, CAR) different authority (in the case of Pará up to the first from those on the embargo lists from Ibama audit) or by the companies themselves, in or the states; and v) remove the part of the the other states of the Brazilian Amazon, property with irregular deforestation from in the case of a commitment endorsed by CAR, as may be observed in Figure 33. Greenpeace and the agreements with the This last form of laundering began to MPF. There is evidence that some of the occur, at least in Pará, after a new cost-free signatory companies have invested in control system was made available to the meat- systems to do that verification (Gibbs et al., packing plants for checking the occurrence 2015; BDO, 2016; BDO, 2016a; DNV GL, of deforestation (Barreto & Gibbs, 2015). 2016). According to Gibbs et al. (2015), That system was constructed by demand adoption of controls by the JBS company from MPF after a pilot audit identified has led to an increase in the number of the laundering mechanisms (Barreto & ranches registered with CAR in Pará and the Gibbs, 2015). Since that form of laundering reduction of deforestation on such ranches. occurred in 2017, it is clear that the public However, some ranchers and traders authorities are not yet punishing such frauds. get around the agreements and cattle Furthermore, some audits have not verified obtained from illegal fattening ranches arrive the history of changes in the CAR areas at the meat-packing plants of companies and, for that reason, may fail to identify the that are signatories of the agreements as occurrence of frauds WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 75
Figure 32. Percentage of meat-packing plants with and without TAC by state in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% MT PA RO AM AC MA TO AP RR % with TAC % without TAC
Figure 33. Example of reduction in the CAR polygon to exclude an area deforested after 2008 that could not have been regularized according to the new Forest Code 76 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Laundering has persisted because have verified that, in general, the agreements progress with the audits is limited. In have been met (Appendix 9). However, the Pará, after a delay of three years, in 2013 methodology of those audits was different the state government contracted a pilot from that developed for the TAC audit in audit of compliance with the TAC by three Pará. The audits contracted by the signatories companies. The audit crossed the CAR did not have access to the data from GTAs of data of all the ranches registered with the all the sales by direct and indirect suppliers, state with the data from all the GTAs for which makes it impossible to identify transporting cattle for slaughter in 2012. some of the laundering mechanisms. For Thus, the auditors have been able to identify example, without the GTAs for all the the mechanisms for laundering and leakage. transactions it is impossible to detect if a However, a new conclusive audit has not regular ranch is laundering cattle from an been done for all of the signatory companies irregular ranch. That type of verification and the one that began in the second would be especially important in the case quarter of 2017 has not yet been concluded. of those three companies, who may be In Mato Grosso, the MPF has received keeping ranchers with Ibama embargoes the audits contracted by some companies, as direct suppliers. That happens because but has not made the results available to there is an understanding that in according us because they consider that the reports to the purchasing criteria defined by are confidential due to containing “data Greenpeace the embargo is restricted only from suppliers and commercial operations to the property, not to the proprietor. Thus, carried out by each one of the meat-packing ranchers who have more than one property, plants.” The MPF stated that it would meet with some under embargo and others not with representatives of the meat-packing are selling animals obtained from a property plants for the purpose of making the results without an embargo (with a different name of the audits (Paiva, 2017). from the embargoed one and/or in another The three signatory companies municipality) may do business with the ( JBS, Marfrig and Minerva) of the public meat-packing plant[19]. We thus understand agreement proposed by Greenpeace, who that due to verification failures with the account for more than 45% of the installed GTA, there is no way to confirm that those slaughter capacity of the Brazilian Amazon, cattle have not spent some part of their life have contracted independent audits that cycle on an embargoed property.
[19] See BDO audit reports (2016); BDO (2016a) and DNV GL (2016). For the Marfrig case see page 9 (DNV GL, 2016), for JBS see page 7 (BDO, 2016) and for Minerva see pages 7 and 13 (BDO, 2016a), which inform the possibility and the terms for unblocking properties of those who have their CPF cited in other embargos at Ibama. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 77
For example, the owner can raise part of their lives on other ranches. Ranchers calves and steers (breeding and rearing) on interviewed recognized that deforestation an embargoed ranch and, when they are occurs on indirect supplier ranches[20]. ready for slaughter, sell the animals to a Meanwhile, in general, the promises of meat-packing plant under the registration control over all suppliers were not met, were of a non-embargoed property. delayed or are incipient. For example, the However, it is important to note that Boi Guardião (Guardian Cattle) Program verification of GTAs in the audits alone is from Mapa (Box 2) mapped almost 347 not a definitive measure against laundering, thousand hectares of new deforestations in 33 since there is evidence of failure in municipalities in southeastern Pará from 2009 enforcement of the use of those guides. For to 2011 (Latis, 2011 - Figure 34). However, example, a recent news article showed that that information was not used to refuse the ranchers and cattle traders in São Félix do issuing of GTAs to ranches that had deforested Xingu, in southern Pará, were using GTAs illegally. Since then Mapa has stopped mapping to transport cattle from places that are not deforested areas. Additionally, the guideline their sources (Tinoco and Sá, 2016). established by BNDES for demanding traceability of the herd that supplies the meat- 3.5.3 Control over indirect packing plants that it finances was also not suppliers of cattle does not exist or met (BNDES, 2009a). is incipient Currently, only one company (Marfrig) reports that it is trying to control the indirect Although a complete survey is not suppliers, but with a method that is still available, it is known in the sector that a insufficient (Appendix 9). Other control significant number of the cattle that arrive initiatives involving companies are still at the at the meat-packing plants have spent part pilot stage, with a small group of ranches in of their lives on at least one other ranch northern Mato Grosso (which JBS stated that before arriving at the fattening property. it was supporting, in a report) and in southern For example, the Marfrig group found that Pará (where they partner with Marfrig) (See only half of its purchases were from ranches Appendices 10 and 11). that did the complete cattle-raising cycle Four years after the failure of the Boi (Almeida, 2016). Thus, at least half of the Guardião Program, starting in June 2015, purchases included cattle that had spent the government of Pará decreed that it
[20] For example, a rancher in Southern Pará reported that he raised the cattle in a ranch inside an Indigenous Land and later transported themfor fattening on another ranch he owned in a neighboring municipality. Because this second ranch was legalized and free of recent deforestation, he had no problems in selling the cattle to meat-packing plants near his fattening ranch. 78 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
would gradually adopt the Green GTA – Complemented by a rigorous verification meaning that it would only issue the GTA of GTAs and CAR because of evidences to ranches registered with CAR. However, of frauds presented in the previous section this control began only in November 2016 (See Figure 33). after pressures from the MPF is to include Therefore, as long as the indirect the entire herd beginning in October suppliers are not fully controlled, the risk 2018 (Semas, 2016) (Appendix 12). That of deforestation associated with them will is a wise decision, but it needs to be continue.
Figure 34. Deforestation and land cover in the municipality of Novo Repartimento-PA mapped by the Boi Guardião Program from 2010 to 2011 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 79
Box 2. The Boi Guardião Program
In December 2009, then minister of Agriculture, Reinhold Stephanes, launched the Boi Guardião (Guardian Bull) Program in southern Pará, which sought to curb trade in cattle of from deforested areas by denying to issue GTAs to ranches with new deforestation (Froufe, 2009). To that end, the program would cross maps from newly deforested areas to be compiled by the federal government with the coordinates of ranches to be supplied by the Pará government and verifications would be made in the field. The minister declared to the press that producers would benefit by guaranteeing an increasingly demanding market that seeks to know the origin of the beef and that “Boi Guardião will lead us to zero deforestation”. The program was to begin in a pilot form in southern Pará and would later be expanded to Mato Grosso and Rondônia by 2011. At the ceremony, the minister also signed an agreement for implementing the program with representatives of the government of Pará, BNDES, supermarkets and meat-packing plants. Luciano Vacari, superintendent of the Cattle-Raisers’ Association of Mato Grosso, immediately criticized the program by affirming that “this is another tool for intimidating the rancher” (Ferreira, 2009). Despite the criticism, in July 2010, Wagner Rossi, the new Agriculture minister at the time, spoke to European commissioners about the program (ZH, 2010): “We monitor practically the entire Amazon biome in real time and any change that indicates deforestation invalidates the property for providing any product for sale.” However, although the government did map deforestation in Pará, we did not find records of the data having been used and there is no mention of the existence of the program on the Ministry of Agriculture (Mapa) website 80 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
3.5.4 The weakening of the and Congress reduced 2.9 million hectares environmental policies from Conservation Units in order to validate irregular occupations and facilitate The persistence of, and increase in hydroelectric dam construction (Martins deforestation after the agreements have also et al., 2014). Even after the deforestation resulted in a strong reaction from the rural increased in 2015, in December 2016, the sector against the forest protection policies president of Brazil issued a provisional and against the agreements themselves. measure reducing the level of protection There is evidence that those reactions have for UCs in western Pará, going against the increased the belief in impunity. In 2012, recommendation of the Chico Mendes the Executive and Legislative branches Institute for Biodiversity Conservation revised the Forest Code and forgave part of (ICM- Bio) and a lawsuit filed by the MPF the illegal deforestation done before 2008. in Pará (MPF-PA, 2016a; Lima, 2017). According to studies, that measure enabled That measure also encouraged the amnesty of the illegal deforestation of congressional representatives from Amazonas 29 million (Soares-Filho et al., 2014) to 41 to demand the reduction of 1 million hectares million hectares (Girardi, 2017). A director in other Conservation Units created in 2016 at Ibama declared that the pardon was (ISA, 2017). stimulating new deforestation (Lourenço, In 2015, the federal government 2011). Since the change in the Forest Code, established the goal of zero illegal the deforestation rate increased 75% by deforestation by 2030 as part of its goal 2016, according to governmental data (Inpe, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 2016). From 2013 to 2016, the Legislative That measure was interpreted as signaling and Executive branches delayed the deadline tolerance (Campos, 2015). for beginning registration in CAR three Besides weakening the rules, the times. From 1995 to 2013, the government public sector reduced the number of WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 81
personnel responsible for implementing The weakening of the environmental them. From 2010 to 2016, the staff of policies was probably facilitated by the environmental analysts at ICMBio was massive financing by agribusiness of electoral reduced by 40%; and from 2009 to 2015 the campaigns for a large number of politicians. number of analysts at Ibama was reduced by Studies show that in Brazil members of 33% (Araújo et al., 2017). parliament vote in harmony with campaign It is relevant to note that the funders and that the companies that fund Executive and Legislative branches have them receive more public benefits, such weakened policies although scientists, civil as subsidized credit (Mancuso, 2015). society and the population support forest The leniency agreement of the director of protection. For example, the Brazilian Institutional and Government Relations Society for the Progress of Science at J&F (the main holding of JBS) and its published a report against the changes to controller partner illustrate the power the Forest Code (SBPC, 2012) and 1.3 of influence held by the agriculture and million persons signed a petition (Vilar, livestock sector[21]. Members of parliament 2011) against such changes. Furthermore, who defend the sector have been informally one opinion poll demonstrated that called the cattle bench or the beef and 79% of those consulted were against the barbecue bench (bringing together those amnesty for deforestation and another funded by meat-packing companies and showed that 91% were favorable towards breweries) (Toledo et al., 2014; Martins, forest conservation (MMA, 2012). 2015; Medeiros and Fonseca, 2016).
[21] According to a report by Rodrigues et al. (2017), the director confessed to having made “hidden payments” to the campaigns of 1,829 candidates in the 2014 elections, of which 179 were elected state representatives in 23 states and 167 federal representatives, from 19 parties. He further confessed to paying “bribes to 16 elected governors and to 28 Senate candidates who were seeking election, reelection or election as governors.” According to him, such payments created a “reservoir of good will.” “It was so they wouldn’t get in our way,” he stated 82
4. Will ranching continue to be associated with deforestation in the Amazon?
Legal pressures and environmental Will the agreements made by campaigns led to agreements by half of the the companies be consolidated and meat-packing plants against deforestation, expanded and lead to a drastic reduction and they control 70% of the active slaughter in deforestation? Or will a part of the capacity. However, we have demonstrated market continue buying from ranchers who that deforestation continues, since 30% of deforest? We next discuss the forces for and the slaughter capacity still operates without against deforestation that may determine commitments, and that there are weaknesses the answers to those questions, considering in implementing the agreements to control the facts and tendencies summarized in the direct suppliers (including frauds) and lack previous section and in Table 3 later in this of control over indirect suppliers. report. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 83
4.1 Setbacks and possibilities in the short term
The forces are more favorable to thousand head of cattle from 24 embargoed deforestation and, new government ranches (Ibama, 2017). The transformational measures and the increasing demand for potential of the action was weakened, at least beef are strengthening the threats. In 2016, in the short term, because of the court-ordered exports increased after the Chinese market release from the embargo of two meat-packing was opened (Freitas, 2016). Meanwhile, the plants under the argument that the number federal government continues to block access of cattle bought illegally by the meat-packing to data identifying the owners of properties plants was negligible if compared to the registered in CAR and on cattle transport number of head sourced legally over the last (GTAs), which could facilitate control over few years. Ibama also lifted the embargo on cattle sold directly and indirectly. four meat-packing plants after administrative Moreover, the President of Brazil appeals (See Appendix 8). has issued provisional measures that Ibama was also weakened by were converted into law by Congress, reactions from politicians and ranchers in which reduce the level of protection Pará and President’s office. Under pressure, of Conservation Units and extend the the Environment minister apologized to deadline for illegal occupants to request the producers and declared that operation regularization of titles to public lands Carne Fria had been poorly timed because (Bragança, 2017). In May 2017 several one week before another operation (Carne groups, including the Brazilian Coalition Fraca, meaning weak beef ) had hit meat- on Climate, Forests and Agriculture, which packing plants accused of evading sanitation brings together companies, NGOs and controls in the country (Poder360, 2017). academics, suggested that the president veto According to the minister, the operations the reduction of protection for Conservation would weaken the sector, on which Brazil Units (Coalizão Brasil, 2017). depends very much economically. The In April 2017, Ibama’s operation Carne interim superintendent of Ibama in Pará Fria (Cold Beef ), with great potential against who participated in preparing operation the meat-packing plants and embargoed Carne Fria was dismissed (Pegurier, 2017). ranches, was opposed by the federal Despite the setbacks, Operation government itself, by regional politicians and Carne Fria may result in advances. In by the Judiciary (Details in Appendix 8). The the decisions lifting the administrative operation resulted in 172 notices of violation embargo, Ibama demanded that the and a total of R$ 294 million in fines and companies released presented solutions in embargo of 15 meat-packing plants accused 90 days to avoid purchases from irregular of directly and indirectly buying almost 59 areas. After that, according to a consultant 84 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
from the region, some of the large Brazilian to the MPF of Pará that they carry out supermarkets have requested information the sanctions established in the Beef TAC from meat-packing plants accused by against the signatory meat-packing plants Ibama and indicated that they may stop that disobeyed the agreement by sourcing buying if the answers are not satisfactory. cattle from embargoed areas. Because the That demand is helping to accelerated TAC can be enforced extrajudicially, the development of a pilot project for sanctions could be applied more rapidly controlling indirect suppliers that was being than in administrative and legal proceedings. discussed by ranchers in Pará (See Freitas, Therefore, the effect of the operation in the 2017). Participants in the project hope to short term will depend, to a large degree, launch a system in July 2017. According to on the MPF’s decision. The MPF informed the same consultant, the cost of traceability that it is waiting for the meat-packing plants of the cattle from the beginning of their life to express their positions before deciding on will cost something like R$ 15 per animal. the Ibama recommendations. Therefore, that amount, equivalent to about In the short term, the TAC audits and ten cents of a Real per kilo of deboned beef, the TAC sanctions resulting from operation would be negligible. This type of initiative Carne Fria may be the most promising events could gain scale with the participation of against deforestation. Twenty-two companies more public and private actors as happened that signed the TAC in Pará and 12 in Mato with the successful program for fighting Grosso have contracted independent audits. foot-and-mouth disease (Appendix 2). If the MPF and the market punish the The meetings that the Pará government companies that violate the agreements, more called to assess options for improving companies will tend to strengthen control, implantation of the TAC after operation including over indirect suppliers. Carne Fria (Corrêa, 2017) may be a space However, to guarantee the sustainability for expanding the pilot initiatives. The first of the positive effects of operation Carne Fria meetings included Ibama, MMA, MPF, it will be important to reduce illegitimate producers and meat-packing companies. negative political interferences. Operation The project could be accelerated with the Lava Jato (Car Wash) and its associated participation of the major buyers of products operations, which are investigating corruption from the meat-packing plants and the in Brazil, have demonstrated that it is possible necessary sectors of the government, such by exposing heads of public agencies and their as Mapa. As our data show, fewer than 50 funders at various large companies, including companies are responsible for the great JBS (Fabrini, 2017). The use of communications majority of slaughter. strategies has been one of the means used by Operation Carne Fria may also result the Lava Jato coordinators to obtain popular in other indirect impacts. Ibama suggested support (See analyses by Mendes, 2016 and WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 85
Macedo Jr., 2016) and, thus, confront political that may occur at any moment. In pressures. Therefore, a similar approach might February 2017, the report “The ultimate be used by public managers responsible for mystery meat: Exposing the secrets behind fighting deforestation. The strengthening of Burger King and global meat production,” communication could have two components. from Mighty Earth, denounced that One would clarify the negative effects of deforestation for soy production in the deforestation, such as premature deaths Brazilian Cerrado and Bolivian Amazon from respiratory diseases, losses of funds were associated to two large traders due to corruption and the appropriation of Bunge and Cargill (Bellantonio et al., public resources (land fraud and logging 2017) whose products feed the cattle that on public lands), and social problems, such supply the Burger King fast food chain. as violence and slave labor (See examples Additionally, the report demanded that in MPF-PA, 2015; MPF-PA, 2016b). The the companies follow the model of the Soy other component would demonstrate that Moratorium. Outlets of the international reducing deforestation has not impeded nor press reported on the case (example in will it impede economic development in Tabuchi et al., 2017 and Neslen, 2017), the country, since it is possible to increase which was followed by protests in front of production in the vast deforested areas that a Burger King restaurant[22] in São Paulo. are poorly utilized, both in the Amazon and In May 2017, the same organization made the rest of the country (See analyses in Barreto another accusation that deforestation was and Silva, 2013; Iasi, 2014; Strassburg et al., continuing in the two regions (Mighty, 2014; Observatório do Plano ABC, 2015). 2017). In response, the traders pointed A recent article by two Brazilian researchers, out that they have plans established to one from Embrapa and the other from Inpe eliminate deforestation in their supply exemplifies a communication product to chains (Cannon, 2017). influence forming opinions about the issue. Also, in April 2017, Greenpeace In the Valor Econômico newspaper Nobre & suspended negotiations with JBS over the Assad (2017) defend a moratorium on beef Public Commitment by Ranching shortly in the Amazon along the lines of the Soy after operation Carne Fria (Greenpeace, Moratorium in order to avoid environmental 2017). To improve control, Greenpeace damage and to guarantee sustainability in proposed more transparency and publicizing agriculture and livestock production. of data, as well as control over the indirect The war against deforestation may also suppliers and blocking ranches located turn because of environmental campaigns inside Indigenous Lands. Greenpeace also
[22] See protests at http://www.mightyearth.org/engajamundo-rallies-outside-sao-paulo-burger-king/ 86 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
exhorted the three largest supermarket of progress, the revelation of involvement chains operating in Brazil (Carrefour, Pão by the controller partners of JBS in de Açúcar and Walmart) to fulfill their corruption and because of backtracking commitments to zero deforestation. Two on environmental policies (Greenpeace, months later, Greenpeace suspended its 2017a). Greenpeace’s departure from the participation in the agreements with all the agreements weakens the credibility of the companies in the sector because of the lack sector even more.
4.2 Promises and rules for medium and long-term deadlines against deforestation
Several promises from the private sector, net deforestation[23] in its supply chain by governments and multilateral agencies against 2020. The CGF has 400 members with deforestation have 2020 to 2030 as deadlines. US$ 3.9 trillion in revenues and promised That type of commitment is a global tendency to focus on halting deforestation associated because of climate changes and has occurred with purchases of soy, palm oil, cellulose with other agriculture and livestock activities, and paper and beef[24] (CDP, 2017). The electricity generation, mining and others (See CGF created a public-private partnership examples in Global Witness (n.d.); RE100 in 2012, the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 (n.d.); SumofUs (n.d.), Greenpeace, 2009a; (TFA), to support implementation of the Carrington, 2016). So far, those measures have promise of zero deforestation through had little effect in the field. If the as promises several partnerships (TFA2020, n.d.). are kept, they may have an effect especially In 2014, at the United Nations with regard to the largest companies. Conference of the Parties on Climate, the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) 4.2.1 Agreements and international was approved, which is an international initiatives voluntary and non-binding declaration for taking measures to reduce global deforestation. In 2010, the Consumer Goods In 2016, those endorsing the NYDF reached Forum-CGF, made up of large international 190: 40 governments, 20 subnational corporations such as Unilever, Walmart and governments, 57 multinationals, 16 groups MacDonald’s, promised to achieve zero representing indigenous communities and
[23] Zero net deforestation starts with the assumption that the deforestation that occurs will be offset through reforestation, so as to neutralize any forest loss (WWF, n.d.) [24] See commitment in CGF (2013) WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 87
57 non-governmental organizations (NYDF, 4.2.2 National policies n.d.). Among the companies are Cargill, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, McDonald´s, Resolution no. 4.327/2014 of the Johnson & Johnson and Nestlé. The Brazilian National Monetary Council and the government is not a signatory, but the states Central Bank require financial institutions of Acre, Amapá and Amazonas are[25]. The and other institutions authorized to operate declaration seeks to reduce deforestation by by the Central Bank of Brazil to establish 50% by 2020 and end losses of natural forests and implement the Socioenvironmental by 2030. However, goal two of the NYDF Responsibility (PRSA) beginning in is to support and help the private sector to February 2015 (Bacen, 2014). If the eliminate deforestation linked to production banks carry out their policies, the effect of agricultural commodities such as palm oil, can be considerable given that Brazil soy, paper and beef by no later than 2020. allocates about R$ 200 billion per year in In September 2015 another global agricultural credit. But there is a risk of the initiative appeared, The Sustainable public authority delaying or extinguishing Development Goals of the UN, which the need for implementing this type of include halting deforestation by 2020 resolution, as it has done with the Forest (United Nations, 2016). Brazil, as a Code, the reduction of Conservation Units signatory, agreed to annually present a and is trying to do with environmental National Voluntary Review on the advances licensing. In fact, in May 2017 Congress in achieving the goals (United Nations, inserted an article in a provisional method n.d.). That agreement, although voluntary, that makes it difficult to hold banks liable is more ambitious than the national policies for environmental crimes associated with on climate changes: which determine the partnership contracts (See analysis in ISA, reduction of Amazon deforestation to 2017a). less than 3,800 square kilometers by 2020 Another difficulty in curbing and a halt to illegal deforestation by 2030 financing for deforestation is that some of (referring to the Paris agreement of which the ranchers can get their own funds from Brasil is also a signatory). The annual review the sale of timber from the public forests to be submitted to the UN will expose the that they occupy free of charge. Thus, it countries that have advanced toward the would be necessary to combat land grab goals, but the consequences are uncertain. fraud in order to block that source of capital,
[25] The complete list of signatories is available at United Nations (2014). 88 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
but the government has recently facilitated market pressures and national plans that regularization of titles to public lands, favor deforestation, such as the reduction will certainly encourage new occupations of legal protection and major infrastructure (Rodrigues, 2017). projects that attract immigrants carrying Some Brazilian states have also out mitigating measures, such as the Belo promised goals against deforestation. In Monte Hydroelectric Project (See Barreto 2015, the government of Mato Grosso et al., 2011 and Mansur, 2017) and paving promised a 90% reduction in deforestation of the BR-163 highway. by 2030 using the 2001-2010 period as a reference (Mato Grosso, n.d.). In 2016, 4.2.3 Insufficient advances with 95.4% of deforestation in Mato Grosso medium and long-term promises was illegal, although the area assessed by the state agency in 2016 increased more Despite the agreements that the than 50% in relation to the previous year Brazilian government has signed (Paris and enforcement by Ibama increased Agreement and Sustainable Development 122% during the same period (ICV, 2017). Goals), it seems unlikely that the heads of However, in 2016 deforestation fell by only the Executive and Legislative branches will 6% in Mato Grosso in relation to 2015. spontaneously strengthen measures against The dissuasive power of enforcement was deforestation – considering their recent probably weakened by recent amnesties for history and the budget and political crises environmental crimes, such as the change in and the power of their campaign funders. the Forest Code. At the same time, international In Pará, in 2012, the governor promises in the medium and long range show announced the goal of halting net insufficient advances (Climate Focus, 2016; deforestation by 2020 (Pará, 2012). To reduce GLF, n.d.). For example, a global analysis of deforestation and attract investments for 500 companies, investors and governments sustainable development, the government who can influence deforestation (Forest 500) created the Green Municipalities Program[26] reveals that those with commitments such and the Pará 2030 strategy[27]. However, as the CGF and the NYDF will not meet deforestation in the state continues to be them by 2020 or 2030 if the rate of progress high and rose 75% from 2012 to 2016. recorded up to 2016 is maintained (GLF, The case of Pará also seems to show that n.d.). Of the group evaluated, only 26% of local plans are insufficient for dealing with the companies in the ranching supply chain
[26] http://www.municipiosverdes.pa.gov.br/ [27] http://para2030.com.br/ WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 89
(meat and leather) have policies for dealing global impact of those agreements over the with their environmental impacts. Sarah next two years (NYDF, n.d.). Lake, head of the Supply Chains Program Other repercussions are initiatives for at GCP, which produced the report, states influencing the policies of other countries. that “many of these commitments lack the For example, in May 2017, FERN, an NGO teeth to make meaningful change in the that seeks to influence European policies that sustainability of commodity production” affect forests, released a report suggesting (GLF, n.d.). Most countries that import to the European Parliament measures to products linked to deforestation do not have keep soy imports by the European Union measures that restrict sourcing. Germany from stimulating deforestation in Brazil and the Netherlands are the only importing (Gregory & Polsterer, 2017). The report was countries on the Forest 500 list that support launched in the European Parliament as the initiative for importing sustainable raw part of the revision of the European Union’s materials. Common Agricultural Policy, which will be The forces against deforestation concluded in 2020, and was supported by a may change if those evaluations of the German member of parliament who is part commitments inspire concrete actions in the of the revision committee (FERN, 2017). short term. For example, eight companies To summarize, the success of long-term are working with Carbon Disclosure promises and agreements will depend on steps Project (CDP) to collect information from or benchmarks that are more compelling in their principal suppliers regarding their the short term – such as punishments and management of the risks associated with market restrictions if certain goals are not deforestation (CDP, 2016). The analysis of met. Prior experiences show that ranchers and data from suppliers collected in the pilot agribusiness respond in a pragmatic manner year of 2017 will be published in the annual when pressures and incentives are clear and CDP report on the supply chain in January consistent. Without clear pressure from 2018. Among the eight companies are outside the sector (from the market, society Arcos Dorados, the McDonald’s franchise and public agents), it is likely that many meat- in Latin America and JBS (CDP, 2017)[28]. packing plants will not assume commitments Besides the CDP, two other tools – Global and that the agreements will not be effectively Forest Watch (n.d.), and Commodities and implemented. Thus, thousands of ranchers in Transparency for Sustainable Economies the Amazon would continue to fell and burn (Trase, n.d.) – are being refined to assess the forests for raising cattle.
[28] In Brazil, the CDP is supported, since its first edition, by the Brazilian Association of Closed Entities of Supplementary Pension Plan (Abrapp) and the Brazilian Association of Publicly-Held Companies (Abrasca). 90 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? Justice and Ibama suspend embargo of meat-packing plants of meat-packing Justice and Ibama suspend embargo There is public financing for meat-packing plants that do There is public financing for meat-packing over indirect suppliers control not adopt There is a market for meat-packing plants without There is a market for meat-packing over indirect suppliers TAC or with lacking control Reduction of Ucs and ease for regularizing public lands land-grabbing through obtained Federal Government denies access to information from CAR and GTA denies access to information Government Federal in changes to Forest Code Ammesty for illegal deforestation and embargoes Impunity for CAR frauds Carne Fria Ministry of the Environment criticizes Ibama over operation complicates more of land title regularization Lack investments productive product traceable for Market does not signal pay premium reduced budget and Government Federal personnel at environmental agencies Advertising on the economic importance of the agriculture Advertising on the economic importance to the national economy sector Justice denies injunction against reducing UC in Pará 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 In favor of deforestation 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 2
l Against deforestation a t o by 2020 2 T Audits for ranching TAC from embargoed ranches net deforestation by 2020 halt deforestation by 2020 Independent audits of TAC control of indirect suppliers their controls over sourcing net zero deforestation in 2020 deforestation and other crimes Resolution for banks to establish Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) Conservation Units in Western Pará UN Sustainable Development Goals: National Polict on Climtate Changes: deforestation below 3,800 km Declaration by Governor of Pará for zero socioenvironmental responsibility policies MPF sued Justice in opposing reduction of Pilot initiatives by companies and NGOs for Linking of issuance GTA to registry in the Declarations by large companies (CGF) favoring Subsidized rural credit for intensifying ranching . Force fields for and against deforestation. Light green indicates the potential of the force if the action is implemented action indicates if the the potential of Light green force fields for and against deforestation. Force . State plan by Mato Grosso: reduce deforestation Large supermarket chains promise to strengthen by 2020 and halt deforestation in general 2030 NGOs denounce backtracking on environmental laws DNYF: zero deforestation for agricultural commodities 90% by 2030 and eliminate illegal deforestation 2020 Ibama embargoes meat-packing plants that were buying MPF, Fedreal Police, Ibama and Federal Revenue act against Table 3 Table Brazilian NDC: strengthen policies and measures with a view to Brazilian NDC. Strengthen policies and measures seeking to move Meat-packing plants sign TAC and agreement with Greenpeace Population and scientists protest against environmental setbacks achieving zero illegal deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by 2030 forward, in the Brazilian Amazon, with zero illegal deforestation by 2030 OS FRIGORÍFICOS VÃO AJUDAR A ZERAR O DESMATAMENTO DA AMAZÔNIA? 91
Epilogue
The cost of insisting on policies that favor deforestation
After we concluded this report, several President Temer veto the Project; it soon events exemplified the political and reputation reached 2 million hits. risks of continuing to promote deforestation. At the same time The Guardian noted In April 2017, Congress approved a that the Brazilian president is viewed as an ally reduction in the level of protection of almost of the rural lobby, who pressure him for cuts in 600 thousand hectares in two Conservation protecting the Amazon (Carrington, 2017). Units in western Pará. In June, several Manifestations from the private sector. manifestations by the private sector, NGOs Brazilian and international business leaders have and individuals made the President of Brazil declared that reducing protection in the Amazon veto the project. The events included: may affect the access of Brazilian products to the Letter from the Minister for the international market (Calixto, 2017). They point Environment and Energy of Norway. In out that environmental legislation is weakened the letter sent shortly before the visit of by the loss of protected areas, influencing president Michel Temer to Oslo, the Minister deforestation rates and also affecting a growing for the Environment of Norway expressed market that demands less polluting activities and concern about the tendency towards rising more sustainable products. deforestation during the 2015-2016 period. Internet campaigns. Several institutions During the visit of Brazilian authorities to have collected signatures against the project. the country, the Norwegian government then Together the Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) confirmed that it will follow the rules of the and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF-Brasil) Amazon Fund and reduce the transfer of have collected almost 31 thousand signatures funds due to the increase of deforestation in from persons opposed to the MP (ISA, 2017; 2016 (Angelo, 2017). WWF-Brasil, 2017). Personalities such as Domestic and international News reports. Leonardo DiCaprio and Gisele Bündchen have Among the news stories that highlighted the jointed the voices calling for a veto to the MP reduction of protection areas was one from the (Estadão, 2017). After the veto, President Michel Jornal Nacional showing that approval of the Temer directly responded to model Gisele provisional measure (MP) would benefit illegal Bündchen and the WWF with the message: “@ occupations and encourage new deforestation giseleofficial and @WWF, today I fully vetoed ( JN, 2017). After the report, Pará singer Fafá all of the items in the MPs that would reduce de Belém produced a video demanding that the preserved area in the Amazon” (G1, 2017). 92 OS FRIGORÍFICOS VÃO AJUDAR A ZERAR O DESMATAMENTO DA AMAZÔNIA?
However, the Environment minister donations to the Amazon Fund will be reduced promised senator Flexa Ribeiro, who led the due to the increase in deforestation led the proposal for reducing the areas, that the project Environment minister to retreat and announce would be resubmitted as a bill with constitutional that the reduction of the area will be conditioned urgency (ISA, 2017a). The maneuver was to a technical report from ICMBio. immediately denounced by NGOs in a manifesto The outcome of this case is still uncertain, (Veto para Norueguês Ver?) and was widely but demonstrates the risk to reputation reported in the press (ISA, 2017a; Leite, 2017; and business if the companies and the Bragança, 2017). That situation and the fact that public authority insist on policies that favor the Norwegian government has confirmed that deforestation. Bibliography:
Ângelo, C. 2017. Noruega dá bronca no Brasil sobre floresta, às vésperas de visita de Temer. Observatório do Clima. Available at:
Bibliography
Almeida, C.A.; Coutinho, A.C.; Esquerdo, J.C.D.M.; Adami, M.; Venturieri, A.; Diniz, C.G.; Des- say, N.; Durieux, L. & Gomes, A.R. High spatial resolution land use and land cover mapping of the Brazilian Legal Amazon in 2008 using Landsat-5/TM and MODIS data. In: Acta Amazonica, Vol 46 (3) 2016: 291-302. Almeida, M. 2016. Responsible Sourcing Marfrig Beef. Apresentado durante a GRSB Global Conference 2016: Alberta, Canadá. Available at:
BDO RCS Auditores Independentes. 2016a. Relatório de auditoria de terceira parte para atendi- mento ao “compromisso de adoção dos critérios mínimos para operações com gado e produtos bovi- nos em escala industrial no bioma Amazônia”. São Paulo-SP: BDO/Minerva. p.37. Bellantonio, M.; Hurowitz, G.; Leifsdatter Grønlund, A. and Yousefi, A. 2017. The ultimate mys- tery meat: Exposing the secrets behind Burger King and global meat production. Mighty/Rainforest Foundation Norway. Available at:
Coalizão Brasil - Clima, Florestas e Agricultura. 2017. Carta aberta: Pedido de veto às Medidas Provisórias 756 e 758 que reduzem a proteção florestal no Brasil. Notícia. 25/05/2017. Available at:
Gibbs, H. K.; Munger, J.; L’Roe, J.; Barreto, P.; Pereira, R.; Christie, M.; Amaral, T. & Walker, N. F. 2015. Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Zero-Deforestation Agreements in the Brazi- lian Amazon? Conservation Letters 9, 32-42. Girardi, G. 2017. Mudança do Código Florestal ‘anistiou’ 41 milhões de hectares. Notícia. 26/05/2017. Available at:
Inácio, A & Froufe, C. 2009. Revista Exame [digital]. Avança negociação para certificação de origem da carne. Available at:
Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). 2017a. ‘Contrabando legislativo’ livra bancos de punição por dano ambiental. Notícia. 01/06/2017. Available at:
Mighty. 2017. Still at it: Major soy suppliers caught in continued deforestation linked to fast food, supermarkets. Report. Available at:
Neslen, A. 2017. Burger King animal feed sourced from deforested lands in Brazil and Bolivia. The Guardian. Food. 01/03/2017. Available at:
Rodrigues, E. 2017. A MP 759 coloca o Brasil à venda. Carta Capital. Política. 17/05/2017. Availa- ble at:
The Consumer Goods Forum (CGF). 2013. The Consumer Goods Forum Sustainability Activation Toolkit. Available at:
Appendices 104 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Appendix 1. The Soy Moratorium
After a campaign against deforestation, Vegetable Oils (Abiove), hired independent a number of large companies established audits that used satellite images and aerial the Soy Moratorium in 2009, which led surveys (Imaflora, 2017). The success of to a strong reduction in deforestation the initiative led to the moratorium being associated with this crop – from a 30% maintained over the last ten years and increase in expansion of planting before the beginning in 2016 it was kept in effect for moratorium to about 1% afterwards (Gibbs an indefinite period (Greenpeace, 2016). et al., 2015). At the same time, soy production That path is also plausible with ranching, rose due to increased productivity and the since it is possible to increase production use of degraded pastures. To achieve that without deforestation, as demonstrated in advance the major companies in the sector, the analyses of Barreto & Silva (2013) and coordinated by the Brazilian Association of Strassburg et al. (2014).
Bibliography
Barreto, P. & Silva, D. S. da. 2013. Como desenvolver a economia rural sem desmatar a Amazônia? Belém-PA: Imazon. 60p. Gibbs, H. K.; Rausch, L.; Munger, J.; Schelly, I.; Morton, D. C.; Noojipady, P.; Soares-Filho, B.; Bar- reto, P.; Micol, L.; Walker, N. F. 2015. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science. v.347. p.377-378. Greenpeace. 2016. Moratória da Soja é renovada por tempo indeterminado. Notícia. 09/05/2017. Available at:
Appendix 2. The control of foot-and-mouth disease
The lack of control of foot-and-mouth herd (Figure 1). Those cases threatened the disease kept most Brazilian states from economy and closed markets. The work exporting fresh beef up to 1998 (Naranjo continued, and 2016 was the tenth straight and Cosivi, 2013). To open up the market, year without recorded foot-and-mouth state, municipal and federal governments disease in Brazil. and the private sector (ranchers, associations, As a result of the collective effort, from federations and the confederation) organized 1998 to 2014 control grew from 10% to 98% to control the disease by vaccinating the of the herd (Figure 1) and enabled Brazil entire herd. Given the complexity of to increase exports from 5.7% to 21.7 % of the problem, the National Program for production with an additional revenue of U$ Eradicating and Preventing Foot-and- 5.5 billion (Pnefa, 2014; IFNP, 2000 to 2015). Mouth Disease (Pnefa) established goals In 2017, Roraima was declared and deadlines, according to the Terrestrial free of foot-and-mouth disease throught Animal Health Code, established by the vaccination by the Ministry of Agriculture, World Organisation for Animal Health Ranching and Supply (Mapa). That (OIE), and zones for moving forward with recognition allows the sale of animals from control (Lima et al., 2005; Aeapa, 2006) all states in Brazil, except Santa Catarina, [1]. The commitment was so clear that it the only state classified as free of foot-and- even established that the private sector mouth disease without vaccination. The should mobilize “financial resources and next step is to seek international recognition political influences to maintain the program” (OIE) so that the state can also export live (CRPBZ, 2016). animals to other countries (Portal Brasil, In 1998, the first zone free of foot- 2017). With the update in the status of and-mouth disease in Brazil was recognized, Roraima in 2017, only two states (Amapá made up of two states that together and Amazonas) are still in the zone accounted for about 10% of the herd (Figure classified as infected, besides a small zone 1). The control advanced rapidly, but cases of in the state of Pará (Figure 2) that borders the disease were recorded in 2001 and 2005, those states and is classified as a buffer or which reduced the percentage of the clean protection zone (Pnefa, 2017).
[1] The zones were declared free considering that the disease had not occurred for a period greater than two years, there was no evidence of the presence of the virus causing the disease for at least the last 12 months and there was surveillance to detect the incidence of the virus. 106 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 1. Percentage of the cattle herd free of foot-and-mouth disease in Brazil
100 98 88 84 80 80
60
40 15 20 10
0 1998 2002 2003 2005 2008 2014
Figure 2. Current situation of the control of foot-and-mouth disease in Brazil WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 107
Bibliography
Associação dos Engenheiros Agrônomos do Pará (Aeapa). 2006. Pará - Jatene investe quase R$ 100 milhões na erradicação da aftosa. Available at:
Appendix 3. Name and location of the 157 meat-packing plants in the Brazilian Amazon registered with SIE and SIF and respective operational status and commitment to TAC
The ID column follows the identification of Figure 6. The * beside the ID indicates units interviewed. The operational status reflects the data collection period, which was February to April 2016.
Not signed TAC Signed TAC
Type of Signed ID Name of company Municipality UF Status Inspection TAC? 1 Assocarne Frigorífico Araguaína TO Active State Frigorífico Jatobá - Comercial de 2 Porto Nacional TO Active State Carnes Brasil Ltda 3 Frigorífico Savana Silvanópolis TO Active State 4 Frigorífico ABF Boi Norte Ltda Caracaraí RR Active State 5 Frican - Defanti e Defanti Ltda Cantá RR Active State Frimap - Matadouro Braga 6 Macapá AP Active State Empreendimentos Ltda Friiap - Frigorífico Amazônia 7 Santana AP Active State Empreendimentos 8 Frigorífico Rondônia Ji-Paraná RO Active State 9 Frigocal - Frigorífico Cacoal Cacoal RO Active State 10 Frigorífico Roma Guajará Mirim RO Active State 11 Frigorífico Dallas Ariquemes RO Active State Frigoisa - Frigorífico Santa Isadora Alta Floresta do 12 RO Inactive State Ltda Oeste 13 Frigobom Sinop MT Active State
WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 109
Continuation
Type of Signed ID Name of company Municipality UF Status Inspection TAC? 14 Frigorífico Rondonópolis Rondonópolis MT Active State 15* Nutrifrigo Alimentos Ltda Primavera do Leste MT Active State 16 Matadouro Juba Cáceres MT Active State 17 Frigorífico Bonanza Alta Floresta MT Inactive State 18 Frigorífico RS Ltda Juína MT Active State 19* Frigorífico Alvorada Alta Floresta MT Active State 20 Frigorífico Nova Carne Ltda Nova Xavantina MT Active State Frigovale do Guaporé Comércio e 21 Pontes e Lacerda MT Active State Indústria de Carnes Ltda 22 Abatedouro São Jorge Cáceres MT Active State 24 Frigovale Jaciara Jaciara MT Inactive State 25 Frigolíder Colíder MT Active State Socipe - Cooperativa da Indústria 26 Belém PA Active State Pecuária do Pará Ltda 27 Frigorífico Altamira Altamira PA Active State Arrudão - Matadouro e 28 Castanhal PA Active State Marchanteria Planalto Ltda Casfrisa - Frigorífico Industrial de 29 Castanhal PA Active State Castanhal Ltda 30 Frigonorte Acre Marabá PA Active State Mafribar Alimentos - Matadouro e 31 Barcarena PA Inactive State Frigorífico Barcarena Ltda 32 Matadouro e Frigorífico Aliança Breu Branco PA Active State Frivata - Frigorífico Vale do 33 Itaituba PA Active State Tapajós MFB - Matadouro Frigorífico 34 Mãe do Rio PA Active State bezerra 35 Frigovan Parauapebas PA Active State 36 Frinort Tomé-Açu Tome Açu PA Active State 37 Uniboi Alimentos Jacundá PA Active State 38 Frigorífico São José Capitão Poço PA Active State Amazônia Alimentos - Matadouro 39 Bragança PA Active State Amazônia Ltda
110 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Continuation
Type of Signed ID Name of company Municipality UF Status Inspection TAC? 41 Frigonorte Acre Cruzeiro do Sul AC Inactive State 42 Frigorífico Rio Branco Brasiléia AC Active State 43* Frigorífico Boi Bom Acrelândia AC Active State 44 Frigoboi Rio Branco AC Active State 45 Frigoverde Ltda Xapuri AC Active State 46 Frigoporto Porto Acre AC Active State 47 Frigorífico Modelo Rio Branco AC Inactive State
48 C. R. O. Ribeiro Senador Guiomard AC Active State
49 Frigosena - Frigorífico Costa Ltda Sena Madureira AC Active State 50 Alexandrino Brasiléia AC Active State 51 Matadouro Refúgio Feijó AC Active State
52 Organizações G. C. Ltda Plácido de Castro AC Active State J. P. - A. J. Rodrigues de Mesquita 53* Epitaciolândia AC Active State Imp. e Exp. Boi Verde - Cooperativa dos 54 Agricultores e Pecuaristas de Tarauacá AC Active State Tarauacá 55 Frigorífico São Sebastião Rodrigues Alves AC Inactive State 56 Frigorífico III Irmãos Cruzeiro do Sul AC Inactive State 57 Frig S/A Iranduba AM Active State 58 Bovinorte Itacoatiara AM Active State 59 Frigoli Alimentos Ltda Boca do Acre AM Active State 60 Amazonboi Manaus AM Active State 61 Mafrico Manacapuru AM Active State 62 Frigo Manaus Manaus AM Active State 63 R. Batista Tabatinga AM Active State 64 Frigotefé Tefé AM Active State 65 Frigorífico Dona Raimunda Labréa AM Active State Frigodhias - Frogorífico Dhias 66 Axixá MA Active State Ltda 67 Mercúrio Alimentos S/A Castanhal PA Active Federal
WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 111
Continuation
Type of Signed ID Name of company Municipality UF Status Inspection TAC? 68* Fribal - Comercial de Carne Ltda Igarapé do Meio MA Active Federal Pantaneira Indústria e Comércio de 69 Várzea Grande MT Active Federal Carnes e Derivados Ltda 70* Marfrig Global Foods S/A Tucumã PA Active Federal 71 Frigoserve Cacoal Ltda Cacoal RO Inactive Federal Indústria e Comércio de Carnes e 72* Alvorada TO Active Federal Derivados Boi Brasil Ltda 73 Naturafrig Alimentos Ltda Barra do Bugres MT Active Federal 74 JBS S/A Juruena MT Active Federal Abatedouro de Bovinos Sampaio 75 Redenção PA Active Federal Ltda São Geraldo do 76* Masterboi Ltda PA Active Federal Araguaia Indústria de Carnes e Derivados 77 Araguaína TO Active Federal Bonutt Ltda 78* Carnes Boi Branco Ltda Várzea Grande MT Active Federal
79 Mato Grosso Bovinos S/A Várzea Grande MT Inactive Federal 80 JBS S/A Diamantino MT Active Federal
81* JBS S/A Pimenta Bueno RO Active Federal Vale Grande Indústria e Comércio Nova Canaã do 82* MT Active Federal de Alimentos S/A Norte 83* JBS S/A Juína MT Active Federal 84* JBS S/A Confresa MT Active Federal
85* Brasfri S/A Nova Monte Verde MT Active Federal
86* Marfrig Global Foods S/A Nova Xavantina MT Inactive Federal
87 JBS S/A Rolim de Moura RO Inactive Federal VPR Brasil - Importações e São José do Rio 88 MT Active Federal Exportações Ltda Claro Agra Agroindustrial de Alimentos 89* Rondonópolis MT Active Federal S/A 90 Frigol S/A São Félix do Xingu PA Active Federal
112 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Continuation
Type of Signed ID Name of company Municipality UF Status Inspection TAC? 91 JBS S/A Colíder MT Active Federal 92 JBS S/A Matupá MT Inactive Federal Paraíso do 93* Frigorífico Paraíso Ltda TO Active Federal Tocantins 94 Frigorífico Vale do Bugres Ltda Barra do Bugres MT Active Federal Superfrigo Indústria e Comércio 95 Rondonópolis MT Active Federal S/A Distriboi - Indústria, Comércio e 96* Ji-Paraná RO Inactive Federal Transporte de Carnes T. M. da Silva de Carvalho 97 Novo Progresso PA Active Federal Frigorífico Frisacre - Frigorífico Santo 98 Rio Branco AC Active Federal Antonio do Acre Ltda 99 Frgorífico Nosso Ltda Senador Guiomard AC Active Federal Mafir - Matadouro Frigorífico de 100* Boa Vista RR Active Federal Roraima Agropam - Agricultura e Pecuária 101* Boca do Acre AM Active Federal Amazonas S/A 102 JBS S/A Acailândia MA Active Federal Fribal - Rio Grande Comércio de 103* Imperatriz MA Active Federal Carnes Ltda Distriboi - Indústria, Comércio e 104* Cacoal RO Active Federal Transporte de Carnes Frigon - Frigorífico Irmãos 105* Jaru RO Active Federal Gonçalves 106* Frigorífico Tangará Ltda Ji-Paraná RO Active Federal
107* Frigomil - Frigorífico Mil Ltda Pimenta Bueno RO Active Federal
108 JBS S/A Porto Velho RO Active Federal 109 Total S/A Rolim de Moura RO Inactive Federal 110 JBS S/A Vilhena RO Active Federal 111* Marfrig Global Foods S/A Chupinguaia RO Active Federal Novo Progresso - Alimentos A. M. 112 Araguaçu TO Active Federal I. Água Azul do 113* Frigol S/A PA Active Federal Norte
WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 113
Continuation
Type of Signed ID Name of company Municipality UF Status Inspection TAC? 114 Frigorífico Ribeiro Santarém PA Active Federal 115 JBS S/A Tucumã PA Active Federal 116 Mercúrio Alimentos S/A Xinguara PA Active Federal 117 JBS S/A Água Boa MT Active Federal 118 JBS S/A Alta Floresta MT Active Federal 119 JBS S/A Araputanga MT Inactive Federal 120 JBS S/A Cáceres MT Inactive Federal 121 JBS S/A Colíder MT Inactive Federal Vale Grande Indústria e Comércio 122* Matupá MT Active Federal de Alimentos S/A Mato Grosso Bovinos S/A 123 Mirassol D’Oeste MT Inactive Federal (Arrendado ao Minerva) 124* Marfrig Global Foods S/A Paranatinga MT Active Federal 125 JBS S/A Pedra Preta MT Active Federal São José dos 126 JBS S/A MT Inactive Federal Quatro Marcos 127 Mataboi Alimentos S/A Rondonópolis MT Active Federal Vale Grande Indústria e Comércio 128* Sinop MT Inactive Federal de Alimentos S/A 129* Marfrig Global Foods S/A Tangará da Serra MT Active Federal
130 JBS S/A Vila Rica MT Inactive Federal 131 JBS S/A Ariquemes RO Inactive Federal Paraíso do 132 Plena Alimentos Ltda TO Active Federal Tocantins 133 JBS S/A Araguaína TO Active Federal Active Alimentos Exportadora e 134* Castanhal PA Active Federal Importadora Xinguara Indústria e Comércio 135 Xinguara PA Active Federal S/A 136 Frical Frigorífico Ltda Várzea Grande MT Active Federal 137* JBS S/A Rio Branco AC Active Federal Minerva Indústria e Comércio de 138* Araguaína TO Active Federal Alimentos S/A 139 JBS S/A Barra do Garças MT Active Federal
114 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Continuation
Type of Signed ID Name of company Municipality UF Status Inspection TAC? 140 JBS S/A Pontes e Lacerda MT Active Federal Cooperativa dos Produtores de 141* Gurupi TO Active Federal Carne e Derivados de Gurupi 142* Frigorífico Rio Maria Ltda Rio Maria PA Active Federal São Miguel do 143 JBS S/A RO Active Federal Guaporé 144 JBS S/A Juara MT Inactive Federal 145* Frigorífico Fortefrigo Ltda Paragominas PA Active Federal 146 Frigorífico Nosso Ltda Porto Velho RO Inactive Federal
147* Frigorífico Redentor S/A Guarantã do Norte MT Active Federal
148 Total S/A Ariquemes RO Inactive Federal 149 JBS S/A Marabá PA Active Federal Frigoari - Frigorífico Ariquemes 150 Ariquemes RO Active Federal S/A Eldorado do 151 JBS S/A PA Inactive Federal Carajás 152 Frigorífico Pantanal Ji-Paraná RO Inactive Federal 153* Boiforte Frigoríficos Ltda Araguaína TO Active Federal Minerva Indústria e Comércio de 154 Rolim de Moura RO Active Federal Alimentos S/A 155 JBS S/A Redenção PA Active Federal 156 JBS S/A Cuiabá MT Inactive Federal 157* Masterboi Ltda Nova Olinda TO Active Federal Santana do 158 JBS S/A PA Active Federal Araguaia WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 115
Appendix 4. Estimate of the demand for pasture in order to supply the installed capacity of meat-packing plants in the Brazilian Amazon
We estimated the pasture area of three, we estimate the total of cattle that necessary for supplying the maximum would need to be in the pastures. installed slaughter capacity of the meat- We divided the total of cattle by the packing plants registered with the SIF average stocking rate of pastures in the and SIE. We obtained the data on region (1.26 animal per hectare, according slaughter capacity through interviews with to Dias-Filho, 2014) to find the pasture representatives of 40 meat-packing plants. area necessary to supply the installed We then used those data to estimate capacity of the meat-packing plants in the capacity of the remaining plants, the Brazilian Amazon. For example, we considering the classification attributed to estimate that approximately 68 million the meat-packing plants by Mapa (SIF), hectares of pasture would be needed to or used the average of the meat-packing supply the entire slaughter capacity of the plants registered with SIE by state. meat-packing plants registered with the With the maximum daily capacity SIE and SIF active in 2016. established, we used the total number of Later, we compared the total pasture work days (254) in 2016 to estimate the area needed by categories of meat-packing demand of animals for slaughter per year plant with the total area existing in 2013- of all the companies individually and in 2014 (61 million de hectares). Therefore, total. the area necessary for supplying the Next, we estimate the total of animals installed active slaughter capacity would needed to meet the demand according to be a pasture area 13% greater than what the average daily slaughter rate per state existed in 2014 (Table 2). If all the meat- from 2013 to 2015 (Table 1). The slaughter packing plants were active and operating rate is the percentage of the total of cattle at total capacity, an area of pasture 46% slaughtered during the year. Using a rule greater would be necessary. 116 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Table 1. Cattle slaughter rate in the states of the Brazilian Amazon in 2016
Years Average from UF 2013 2014 2015 2013 to 2015 RO 20.9 20.3 16.5 19.2 AC 16.0 15.0 14.3 15.1 AM 27.4 27.1 20.0 24.8 RR 16.2 15.9 17.7 16.6 PA 16.1 15.5 15.7 15.8 AP 32.9 24.2 41.0 32.7 TO 20.5 19.9 19.5 20.0 MA 17.6 17.6 13.8 16.3 MT 17.0 17.6 16.1 16.9 Source: IFNP, 2016
Table 2. Percentage of pasture necessary to meet the slaughter needs of the meat-packing plants installed in the Brazilian Amazon in 2016
Slaughter capacity/year Hectares necessary to meet Situation of the % of total by situation of plants capacity by situation of meat- meat-packing plants pasture (number of animals) packing plants Total 6,173,216 27,303,587 44.8 Without Actives 4,508,754 19,758,044 32.4 TAC Inactives 1,664,462 7,545,542 12.4 Total 13,375,894 61,674,946 101.1 With TAC Actives 10,686,542 49,201,464 80.7 InActives 2,689,352 12,473,482 20.4 Total 19,549,110 88,978,533 145.9 Total Actives 15,195,296 68,959,508 113.1 Inactives 4,353,814 20,019,025 32.8
Bibliography
Dias-Filho, M. B. 2014. Diagnóstico das pastagens no Brasil. Documentos 402. Belém-PA: Embrapa Amazônia Oriental. 38p. Instituto FNP (IFNP). 2016. Anualpec 2016: Anuário da Pecuária Brasileira. São Paulo-SP: Informa Economics FNP, 271p. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 117
Appendix 5. Methodology for estimating deforestation risk for the 2016-2018 period
We estimated the areas of remaining regarding the future rate, but does serve to forest in the Amazon that would be at the indicate areas that deserve more attention greatest risk of deforestation from 2016 from efforts at containing deforestation. to 2018. To do that, we considered that To predict the areas at risk of someone who deforests takes into account deforestation, we first quantify the factors that affect the potential success of remaining forest in the Amazon. The next using the area, such as the slope of the land, step consisted of calibrating the model – in the distance from market for agriculture other words, analyzing the significance and and ranching products (e.g. meat-packing weight of factors that have encouraged or plants) and the availability of transportation discouraged deforestation in the recent past (distance from roads and navigable rivers). (2009 to 2014), such distances to roads, It is thus possible to estimate (or project) meat-packing plants and Conservation the risk of future deforestation in a given Units. Later, we calculated the probability forest considering its location in relation to that remaining forests would be deforested the factors that are historically associated considering the closeness of those factors. with deforestation. Finally, we estimated the forest areas To estimate what areas would be at at greatest probability for deforestation, greater risk of deforestation in three years, assuming that those areas at greatest risk we would need to estimate how much would would be deforested first, until reaching the be cut in that period. A precise estimate total that had been deforested over the last is difficult, because many variables are three years – in other word, 17 thousand unknown, for example, if the government square kilometers. will intensify enforcement. Therefore, to We next present the data and simplify the analysis, we consider that the procedures for this analysis. rates for the next three years would be similar Quantify the remaining forest. The to those of the last three years. We know purchasing zones of the meat-packing that this assumption provides no certainty plants were combined with historical 118 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
deforestation data generated by the Satellite one of the annual variables from 2009 to Forest Monitoring Project (Prodes), 2014 we calculated the RW of each variable National Space Research Institute (Inpe), utilized in the model (Figure 2). The variables resampled for 1 km x 1 km pixels. The with values close to 1 demonstrate high objective of that analysis was to quantify the importance for the model. The variables close remaining forest available in each zone of to zero demonstrate low importance. The the meat-packing plant, besides describing most important risk factors included distances the historic deforestation rates by zone to areas with recent deforestation, to non- (Figure 1-C). military areas and to areas with deforestation, Estimate the areas at risk of new settlement, Protected Areas and distance to deforestation. We used Land Change Modeler, meat-packing plants (Figure 3). available in the TerrSet program (version Project the areas at risk of deforestation. 18.31), to estimate the risk of deforestation The projection occurred in four stages. of forest remnants. The program calculated First, we estimate what variables are more the risk by evaluating the association of associated with deforestation comparing deforestation occurring from 2009 to 2014 year by year 2009 to 2014 (Figure 4 A and with maps for elevation and slope of the land, B). That map made it possible to generate the distance from rivers, from old deforestation, maps for transition potential that show the from recent deforestation, from non-military regions with more or fewer characteristics of areas, from protected areas, from roads, occurrence of deforestation comparing the from Incra settlements, from military areas, passage from one year to the next (Figure from meat-packing plants and from areas 4 – C). Later, we combined those maps and embargoed by Ibama (Figure 2 and Table 1). calculated the average transition value from Distances were calculated using the Distance 2009 to 2014 (Figure 4 D), which is the model of the IDRISI program. average risk map. To calibrate the model, we used With the risk map (Figure 4 D), we the Relevance Weight (RW) method used the TopRank module of the TerrSet (Sangermano et al., 2010), which estimated program to project the parcels of forest at the importance of each variable to generate greater risk of being deforested in the future the deforestation risk map. The RW consists (Figure 5). That module selected and totaled of comparing the standard dev change with the regions with the greatest probability of the standard deviation of the same variable reaching the projected 17 thousand square generated at the Amazon scale. For each kilometers. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 119 and deforestation accumulated up 2015 within the purchasing zone up 2015 within the purchasing of the meat-packing plant accumulated and deforestation . Example of potential purchasing zone defined using the Cost Distance tool of the ArcGis 10.3 program. A. Location of the A. 10.3 program. zone Example of potential purchasing defined using the Cost Distance tool of ArcGis Figure 1 . meat-packing plant and roads; B. Zona for purchasing cattle defined based on a purchase distance of 340 km; and C. Remaining forest Remaining forest and C. Zona distance of 340 km; cattle foron a purchase purchasing defined based B. meat-packing plant and roads; 120 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 2. Map of variables used for calibrating the deforestation risk model
Slope Elevation Distance from Rivers
Distance from land reform settlements Distance from roads Distance from protected areas
Distance from non-protected areas Distance from non-military areas Distance from military areas
Distance from meat-packing plants Distance from old deforestation Distance from embargoed areas
Distance from active deforestation Values High
Low WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 121
Table 1. Variables used to calibrate the deforestation risk model
Variables Sources of data used for calculating distances Slope of the land SRTM (2000) Elevation of land SRTM (2000) Distance from rivers IBGE and Prodes (2015) Distance from meat-packing plants Imazon, data for this study Distance from land reform Incra (2012) settlements Distance from roads Imazon (2012) Conservation Units (ICMBio) and Indigenous Lands Distance from protected areas (Funai). The map shows the distance from the outside edge of protected areas (2014) The map shows the distance from the outside edge of the Distance from non-protected areas protected areas (2015). Same sources above. Distance from old deforestation Prodes for 2009 (Inpe) Military areas (IBGE). The map shows the distance from Distance from non-military areas the outside edge of the military areas (2015) Distance from embargoed areas Ibama (2009-2014) The active deforestation corresponds to the annual Distance from active deforestation deforestation considering the difference between two years. Prodes/Inpe (2009- 2014) 122 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 3. Importance of the variables analyzed for defining the risk of deforestation using Relevance Weight (RW) method
1.00
0.80 t h g i 0.60 e W
e c a n v e l 0.40 e R
0.20
- Slope Elevation Distance from rivers Distance from roads Distance from settlements Distance from military areas Distance from protected areas Distance from non-military area Distance from old deforestation Distance from embargoed areas Distance from active deforestation Distance from non-protected areas Distance from meat-packing plants WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 123
Figure 4. Stages para estimating the risk of deforestation. A. History of land cover from 2009 to 2014; B. Analysis de auxiliary variables associated with deforestation; C. Calculation of the map for potential intermediate transition for each pair of years; and D. Potential for average transition for the period of 2009-2014
A C Historical land cover maps Land Change Modeler (LCM)
2014 2013 2013-2014 2012-2013
2012 2011 2011-2012 2010-2011
2010 2009 2009-2010
B D Auxiliary variables Average transition potencial map 124 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 5. Areas with highest risk of deforestation projected from 2016 to 2018 in the Brazilian Amazon
Bibliography
Sangermano, F.; Eastman, J. R. & Zhu, H., 2010. Similarity weighted instance based learning for the generation of transition potentials in land change modeling. Transactions in GIS, 14(5), 569-580. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 125 11.4 16.54 73.91 15.53 10.71 % of total 278 192 261 180 ha 1,242 1,000 2016-2018 6 1 7 15 16 Risk of deforestation Rank 32.24 21.66 60.18 21.52 20.28 % of total 884 594 590 556 ha 1,650 1,000 2010 - 2015 Deforestation 2 3 1 4 5 Rank 6.39 5.86 12.02 67.05 14.45 % of total Signed TAC 314 167 378 153 ha 1,753 1,000 Embargoed Areas Embargoed 8 1 7 20 23 Rank 5.94 5.36 11.07 75.27 20.22 % of total ha 6,753 3,625 3,268 1,000 45,913 12,336 Not signed TAC Pasture 2013-2014 Pasture 1 8 19 42 48 Rank TAC Signed The data are presented in growing order of the ranking of deforestation 2010-2015. of the ranking of deforestation order in growing presented The data are Name of company Name Appendix 6. Ranking of the meat-packing companies in terms reach pasture (2014) and exposure to embargoed areas (2016), deforestation 2010-2015 and risk of 2016-2018 Amazonboi JBS S/A Mercúrio Alimentos S/A Mercúrio Frigo Manaus Frigo Frig S/A Frig 126 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Continuation 8.7 5.53 13.3 0.27 0.27 8.99 8.63 5.69 14.4 6.94 14.11 11.88 10.65 13.31 14.62 21.71 22.75 % of total 5 5 93 96 237 223 200 179 151 146 145 224 242 246 365 382 117 ha 1,000 2016-2018 9 8 3 2 36 11 13 80 79 14 17 19 20 21 35 12 27 Risk of deforestation Rank 19.73 15.06 13.93 12.40 12.07 11.63 11.56 10.80 10.36 10.36 18.13 13.97 10.90 17.62 16.70 16.08 15.65 % of total 541 413 382 340 331 319 317 296 284 284 497 383 299 483 458 441 429 ha 1,000 2010 - 2015 Deforestation 6 7 8 9 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 13 19 10 11 Rank 5.3 7.15 4.14 1.81 1.81 3.12 2.93 5.57 7.57 5.48 5.44 4.09 9.92 7.74 6.11 4.24 20.83 % of total 47 47 82 77 187 139 108 146 198 143 142 107 259 202 160 544 111 ha 1,000 Embargoed Areas Embargoed 4 17 27 31 49 50 35 37 24 14 25 26 32 10 13 22 30 Rank 5.54 5.58 5.37 7.42 6.44 4.55 10.66 10.26 21.49 21.69 22.66 21.56 11.57 10.10 15.57 30.52 33.76 % of total ha 3,380 6,503 6,259 3,404 3,274 4,526 7,060 6,159 9,495 3,926 2,777 1,000 13,109 13,229 13,825 13,149 18,619 20,592 Pasture 2013-2014 Pasture 7 5 4 6 3 2 45 21 22 44 47 35 18 23 11 40 52 Rank TAC Signed Name of company Name Active Alimentos Exp. e Imp. Alimentos Exp. Active Tangará Ltda Frigorífico Braga - Matadouro Frimap Ltda Empreendimentos Amazônia - Frigorífico Friaap Empreendimentos - Comcarne Comercial Fribal de Carne Ltda - Frigorífico Frigoari Ariquemes S/A S/A Frigol Masterboi Ltda Ltda Boiforte Frigoríficos Bovinorte Minerva Ind. e Com. de e Com. Minerva Ind. Alimentos S/A e Com. Distriboi - Ind., de Carnes Transp. de Carnes e Derivados Ind. Ltda Bonutt Frigorífico Nosso Ltda Frigorífico Marfrig Global Foods S. A S. Marfrig Global Foods Mafrico Total S/ A Total WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 127
Continuation 6.9 2.4 0.06 3.82 6.52 5.48 5.83 1.05 7.28 2.14 8.33 8.02 10.42 14.25 20.35 20.81 % of total 1 64 92 98 18 36 40 116 110 175 122 140 239 135 342 350 ha 1,000 2016-2018 5 4 89 28 46 29 37 18 34 73 26 54 22 10 53 23 Risk of deforestation Rank 9.92 9.48 9.85 10.10 4.49 8.21 7.95 7.18 6.05 5.32 5.29 4.78 4.16 3.87 7.62 9.15 % of total 123 272 260 225 218 197 166 146 145 131 114 106 209 270 251 277 ha 1,000 2010 - 2015 Deforestation 36 24 26 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 30 25 27 23 Rank 1.14 2.19 3.48 2.86 1.17 2.59 3.05 8.65 1.59 1.09 2.62 7.43 19.04 10.78 36.92 35.73 % of total 30 57 91 75 31 68 80 42 28 68 498 226 282 965 194 934 ha 1,000 Embargoed Areas Embargoed 5 9 2 3 60 47 34 38 58 42 36 12 51 61 41 15 Rank 1.23 7.84 9.63 9.67 7.97 4.13 8.96 2.75 2.42 6.84 3.43 2.86 8.95 15.57 16.53 10.73 % of total 750 ha 4,784 5,872 5,901 4,862 2,517 5,465 1,679 9,497 1,476 4,175 2,093 1,742 5,461 6,546 1,000 10,083 Pasture 2013-2014 Pasture 9 34 26 25 33 54 28 62 10 64 85 38 58 61 29 20 Rank TAC Signed Name of company Name VPR Brasil - Importações e Exportações Ltda Frigorífico Fortefrigo Ltda Frigorífico Soares Ribeiro E. R. Mil - Frigorífico Frigomil Ltda Santo - Frigorífico Frisacre Ltda Afonso do Acre de Bovinos Abatedouro Sampaio Ltda e Frigorífico Matadouro Aliança Altamira Frigorífico Uniboi Alimentos Frigorífico Redentor S/A Frigorífico Xinguara Indústria e S/A Comércio Vale Grande Ind. e Com. de e Com. Grande Ind. Vale Alimentos S/A Frigorífico Dallas Frigorífico Frigoserve Cacoal Ltda Frigoserve Cacoal Brasfri S/A Frigon - Frigorífico Irmãos Irmãos - Frigorífico Frigon Gonçalves 128 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Continuation
1.4 1.6 4.95 1.53 6.43 6.21 3.82 2.89 0.33 5.12 4.84 0.61 4.73 7.55 6.19 6.49 4.96 2.11 % of total 6 0 24 83 27 26 64 49 86 81 10 79 83 35 108 104 127 104 109 ha 1,000 2016-2018
70 40 64 66 31 32 45 49 78 38 41 77 42 25 33 30 39 55 Risk of deforestation Rank 2.99 3.76 3.36 3.28 3.17 3.06 2.77 2.74 2.52 2.41 2.30 2.22 2.95 3.50 3.32 3.25 3.10 2.41 2.41 % of total 82 92 90 87 84 76 75 69 66 63 61 81 96 91 89 85 66 66 103 ha 1,000 2010 - 2015 Deforestation 48 39 41 43 45 47 50 51 52 53 56 57 49 40 42 44 46 54 55 Rank 6.8 0.27 7.18 0.92 0.57 1.24 0.98 6.98 0.73 0.33 4.09 1.21 1.52 0.59 2.31 9.71 0.92 6.26 2.41 % of total 7 9 24 15 32 26 19 32 40 16 60 24 63 188 182 107 178 254 164 ha 1,000 Embargoed Areas Embargoed 79 16 65 73 56 63 18 68 78 33 57 53 72 19 46 11 66 21 44 Rank 0.84 5.24 5.49 2.05 1.98 4.84 6.39 2.89 9.80 1.78 1.82 2.35 2.02 1.98 1.25 9.18 14.64 14.07 13.15 % of total 510 762 ha 8,930 3,196 3,351 1,251 1,206 2,954 3,895 1,761 5,979 1,083 1,112 1,434 8,585 1,230 8,019 1,206 5,599 1,000 Pasture 2013-2014 Pasture 12 49 46 72 74 89 50 41 60 24 80 77 66 13 73 14 75 84 27 Rank TAC Signed Name of company Name Frinort Tomé-Açu Frinort Plena Alimentos Ltda - AgriculturaAgropam e Amazonas S/A Pecuária Carnes Boi Branco Ltda Frigoboi Frigorífico Mafir - Matadouro de Roraima Rondônia Frigorífico Frigorífico MFB Matadouro Bezerra A Bovinos S. Mato Grosso Boi Bom Frigobom Frigorífico Paraíso Ltda Frigorífico Frigorífico Alvorada Frigorífico Frigovan Frigonort Frigoporto Modelo Frigorífico Frigorífico Rio Maria Ltda Frigorífico Organizações G. C. Ltda C. Organizações G. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 129
Continuation
3.7 1.7 1.65 7.55 0.08 1.29 0.12 3.67 1.13 2.01 0.11 2.89 2.49 2.64 % of total 1 2 2 0 28 22 62 62 19 34 29 49 42 44 127 ha 1,000 2016-2018
61 24 87 71 84 47 48 72 57 85 59 50 52 51 Risk of deforestation Rank 2.08 1.93 1.93 1.71 1.57 1.53 1.53 1.46 2.19 1.71 1.50 1.17 2.01 1.39 1.35 % of total 57 53 53 47 43 42 42 40 60 47 41 32 55 38 37 ha 1,000 2010 - 2015 Deforestation 59 61 62 64 65 66 67 69 58 63 68 72 60 70 71 Rank 0.4 1.16 0.72 0.08 0.16 1.32 1.32 0.08 5.25 0.05 4.26 0.35 2.65 0.17 17.65 % of total 2 4 2 1 9 5 30 19 34 34 10 69 461 137 111 ha 1,000 Embargoed Areas Embargoed 6 59 69 90 84 54 55 91 28 97 29 76 75 40 82 Rank 0.57 1.14 0.55 0.50 0.97 0.81 0.77 0.44 3.57 2.57 3.35 4.09 0.74 7.42 1.00 % of total 351 694 335 305 589 495 467 267 453 613 ha 2,175 1,566 2,046 2,493 4,524 1,000 Pasture 2013-2014 Pasture 57 95 86 97 63 98 88 90 91 59 55 93 36 87 100 Rank TAC Signed Name of company Name Frigosena - Frigorífico Costa - Frigorífico Frigosena Ltda Vale do - Frigorífico Frivata Tapajós José São Frigorífico Mafribar Alimentos - e Frigorífico Matadouro Ltda Barcarena C R O Ribeiro Alimentos Frigoli Bonanza Vale Do Bugres Frigorífico Ltda Frigorífico Roma Frigorífico - Defanti e Frican Ltda Frigorífico Abf Boi Norte Abf Boi Frigorífico Ltda Frigolíder T. M. da Silva de Carvalho M. T. Frigorífico Frigoverde Frigocal - Frigorífico Cacoal - Frigorífico Frigocal 130 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Continuation
2.04 0.02 1.79 1.58 1.52 0.03 1.61 3.98 4.11 1.52 1.66 1.63 % of total 0 0 0 1 0 0 34 30 27 26 27 67 69 26 28 27 ha 1,000 2016-2018
56 93 58 65 68 91 63 44 43 67 60 62 Risk of deforestation Rank 1.09 0.58 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.69 0.55 1.02 0.95 0.91 0.84 0.98 0.95 0.88 0.84 0.84 % of total 30 16 26 25 24 19 15 28 26 25 23 27 26 24 23 23 ha 1,000 2010 - 2015 Deforestation 73 87 76 79 82 86 88 74 77 80 83 75 78 81 84 85 Rank 0.13 0.09 2.71 1.82 0.83 0.01 0.16 0.08 1.02 0.34 0.45 0.09 0.07 0.93 2.44 2.37 % of total 3 2 0 4 2 9 2 2 71 48 22 27 12 24 64 62 ha 1,000 Embargoed Areas Embargoed 85 87 39 48 67 83 89 62 77 74 88 92 64 43 45 106 Rank 0.56 0.19 1.93 8.50 1.68 4.41 0.73 8.55 6.46 1.47 1.79 1.78 8.45 12.24 11.97 11.91 % of total 344 118 448 895 ha 7,466 1,176 5,187 1,027 2,690 5,216 3,941 1,092 1,087 5,157 7,305 7,265 1,000 Pasture 2013-2014 Pasture 96 15 76 31 82 53 94 30 39 83 78 79 32 16 17 101 Rank TAC Signed Name of company Name Socipe - Cooperativa da do Pará Indústria Pecuária Ltda Assocarne Frigorífico Pantaneira Ind. e Com. de e Com. Ind. Pantaneira Carnes e Derivados Naturafrig Alimentos Ltda Rio Branco Frigorífico Matadouro Refúgio Matadouro Alexandrino Arrudão - Matadouro e Arrudão - Matadouro Marchanteria Planalto Ltda Casfrisa - Frigorífico Casfrisa - Frigorífico Industrial de Castanhal Ltda Ltda Frigorífico Frical Superfrigo Indústria e S/A Comércio Mataboi Alimentos S/A Pantanal Frigorífico Agra de Agroindustrial Alimentos S/A Frigorífico RS Ltda Frigorífico Amazônia Alimentos - Amazônia Ltda Matadouro WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 131
Continuation
0.1 0.99 0.15 0.68 0.24 0.17 0.02 0.62 % of total 3 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 17 12 10 ha 1,000 2016-2018
74 83 75 81 82 94 86 76 Risk of deforestation Rank 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.36 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.51 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.40 % of total 4 3 3 5 5 4 1 1 13 12 12 10 14 12 11 ha 1,000 2010 - 2015 Deforestation 90 91 93 95 99 89 96 97 98 92 94 100 101 102 103 Rank 0 0 0.1 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.02 1.58 0.03 0.03 0.72 0.02 0.06 0.05 % of total 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 41 19 ha 1,000 Embargoed Areas Embargoed 93 94 96 99 52 70 86 95 98 107 108 104 100 101 102 Rank 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.44 0.76 0.00 0.01 7.05 2.26 2.24 5.83 2.41 3.64 0.19 2.33 % of total 3 5 115 117 116 268 466 116 ha 4,301 1,376 1,364 3,556 1,471 2,218 1,421 1,000 Pasture 2013-2014 Pasture 37 99 69 71 43 92 65 56 67 105 102 104 108 107 103 Rank TAC Signed Name of company Name Matadouro Juba Matadouro Frigotefé Boi Verde - Cooperativa dos Verde Boi de e Pecuaristas Agricultores Tarauacá IIIIrmãos Frigorífico Acre Frigonorte do Guaporé Frigovale e Indústria de Comércio Carnes Ltda São Jorge Abatedouro Santa - Frigorífico Frigoisa Ltda Isadora Dona Raimunda Frigorífico Jaciara Frigovale Nutrifrigo Alimentos Indústria e Comércio de Indústria e Comércio Carnes e Derivados Boi Brasil Cooperativa dos Produtores Cooperativa dos Produtores de Carne e Derivados de Gurupi Frigodhias - Frigorífico Dhias - Frigorífico Frigodhias Ltda Frigorífico São Frigorífico Sebastião 132 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Continuation
0.04 0.02 0.07 1.46 % of total 1 0 1 0 0 25 ha 1,000 2016-2018
90 92 88 69 Risk of deforestation Rank - 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 % of total 1 1 1 1 0 1 ha 1,000 2010 - 2015 Deforestation 104 107 105 106 109 108 Rank 0 0.01 0.62 0.02 0.24 0.26 % of total 0 0 1 6 7 16 ha 1,000 Embargoed Areas Embargoed 71 81 80 105 109 103 Rank 0.10 0.00 4.70 2.24 1.77 2.27 % of total 1 60 ha 2,870 1,369 1,082 1,385 1,000 Pasture 2013-2014 Pasture 51 70 81 68 106 109 Rank TAC Signed Name of company Name Novo Progresso - Alimentos Progresso Novo I. A M. Frigorífico Rondonópolis Frigorífico Batista R. Carne Nova J. P. - A. J. Rodrigues de J. - A. P. J. e Exp. Mesquita Imp. Frigorífico Jatobá Frigorífico WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 133
Appendix 7. Initiative of meat-packing companies to inform the origin of cattle
In response to the ranching animals: i) The QR code, a code located agreements for zero deforestation in the on packages of the company’s brand Amazon, some companies have developed allowing the list of suppliers to be accessed tools for showing consumers the origin of using smartphones; and ii) a site (http:// the cattle. The models range from a list of www.confiancadesdeaorigemjbs.com.br/), ranches to certified and audited information through which a consumer can access the with characteristics of the ranches. list of suppliers by inserting the SIF number In 2014 Mafrinorte (Ativo of the producing plant and the slaughter Alimentos) had a tool for traceability on date (Figure 3A). On the list, next to de its site (Figure 1A), in which one could name of each supplying ranch, there is select the year, month and date to verify the an icon, that when clicked on, shows the supplying ranches, but it seems that the tool geographical coordinates of the ranch, as has been discontinued, because it no longer shown in Figure 3B. provides the current data, nor for previous For the consumer, what is more useful years (Figure 1B). is certified information with quality of the Marfrig maintains a site (https:// origin – e.g. the tracking system developed rastreabilidade.marfrig.com.br/GadoLegal/) by Safe Trace that traces the origin of the providing access to the list of its suppliers cattle with a chip or tag, storing the genetic, (Figure 2) by inserting the SIF number sanitation and management history, updated of the plant and the slaughter date, but it with a software (Aranha, 2015). Retail only provides the name and municipality of networks such as the Pão de Açúcar Group the plant, without giving its geographical (GPA), are using that system to track the coordinates. origin of beef and promise to, in the short JBS S/A has two mechanisms term, have 100% of their beef tracked, for the consumer to verify origin of the considering animals from birth to slaughter. 134 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Figure 1. Data available at the Mafrinorte site (Ativo Alimentos) in 2014 (A) and how it is presented in 2017 (B)
A B
Figure 2. Example of a list of suppliers accessed at the site of the Marfrig meat-packing plant WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 135
Figure 3. Example of list of suppliers of a JBS packing plant (SIF 1110) accessed on 22/07/2016 (A); and geographic location of Fazenda Terra Nativa, in Santana do Araguaia (PA), obtained by clicking on the locator of the origin on the JBS site (B). The point coordinates are 9°34’37.8”S+51°09’39.2”W.[1]
A B
[1] After finishing the report we noted that access to information about the origin of the JBS cattle had become unavailable. When we researched by registration number in SIF and date of production the following message appeared: “Service unavailable at the moment. Please try again.”
Bibliography
Aranha, C. 2015. Ferramenta de rastreamento garante transparência na origem do produto. Glo- bo Rural. 01/12/2015. Available at:
Appendix 8. Operation Carne Fria and its repercussions
Objectives and planning of the operation
In March 2017 Ibama carried out Environmental Registry (CAR) and the operation Carne Fria to crack down on Animal Transport Permits (GTA), which raising and sale of cattle coming from areas control the transport of cattle between embargoed due to illegal deforestation the ranches and from them to the meat- and, when it was found that animals packing plants. The CAR data were had been acquired from those areas after obtained from the State Secretariat for their vegetation had been suppressed, the Environment and Sustainability of the buyers of those animals were held Pará (Semas) and the National System liable as established by Federal Decree for Rural Environmental Registry (Sicar), no. 6.514/2008. According to Ibama, the including georeferenced information on operation “is part of one of the lines of action the property and identification of the of the monitoring and control theme of the owner. Ibama confirmed the use of the Action Plan for Preventing and Controlling embargoed areas by visiting and overflying Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon the ranches. The GTAs were obtained after (PPCDAm), created in 2004. PPCDAm a request made in 2014 to the Agency for is one of the instruments of the National Agriculture and Livestock Defense of the Policy on Climate Change and its objective State of Pará (Adepará)[1], through the is to continuously and consistently reduce Federal Public Prosecution Service (MPF), deforestation, as well as to create conditions and to the meat-packing plants in the for a model of sustainable development in south, southeast and west of Pará in 2016, the Brazilian Amazon” (Ibama, 2017a). through a notification. The crossing of data To discover the violations, Ibama from the ranches of origin of the cattle crossed information on embargoes made with data from the embargoed ranches by the institute with data from the Rural allowed Ibama to track the cattle from
[1] Ibama requested access to documents for moving cattle and to the System for Integrating Agriculture and Livestock (Siapec), which controls the GTAs (Ibama, 2017b). WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 137
ranch to meat-packing plant/exporter and raise the cattle in embargoed areas next identify the direct and indirect irregular to regular ranches, transfer and mix them sources. The direct sale occurs from the with animals legally raised on those ranches fattening ranches who sell the cattle and then sell them as if they were legal directly meat-packing plants/exporters. (Locatelli & Aranha, 2017). Finally, Ibama The indirect sources are the ranches under discovered transactions involving cattle embargo (irregular) who raise the cattle between rural properties and embargoed and sell or transfer them (calves, bullocks areas (Ibama, 2017a). or adult cattle) to fattening ranches Those schemes show the failings of the (regular or irregular), who for their part agreements – which establish monitoring sell to the meat-packing plants/exporters, only for the direct origin of cattle sold to in a scheme called “laundering” or “heating meat-packing plants/exporters, but keep cattle” (falsifying documentation). the indirect origin unknown – and do During the investigation Ibama not require development of a means for identified two laundering schemes used to verifying the origin of animals during their hide the origin of cattle and, thus, to not entire life cycle. There are cases of cattle violate the agreements signed with MPF leaving ranches under embargo and going and/or Greenpeace. In the first, the rancher to fattening ranches and later to meat- would raise the cattle in embargoed areas, packing plants/exporters in a single day. but use GTAs with the name of regular According to Ibama, Carne Fria ranches to sell and transport them to the is not related to operation Carne Fraca, buyer meat-packing plants/exporters. In begun three day earlier, on March 17, by the the second scheme, the rancher would Federal Police.
The results of the operation
During the operation, Ibama interdicted The meat-packing plants and the live 15 meat-packing plants in the states of Pará cattle exporter were accused of violating (11), Tocantins (3) and Bahia (1), one exporter the TAC for Beef signed in 2009 by of live cattle (Pará) and 24 ranches in Pará acquiring directly or indirectly (through with areas embargoed by Ibama due to illegal intermediary ranches where their illegal deforestation (Table 1) (Ibama, 2017a). origin was “laundered”) 58,872 head of 138 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
cattle raised on 50.7 thousand hectares Besides interdicting the meat-packing embargoed in Pará and selling them for plants, Ibama embargoed the purchase the amount of R$ 130.8 million (Table of new animals and made their release 2) according to the value per established conditional on confirmation of their origin. by the State Treasury Secretariat of As for the 20 ranches under embargo, all Pará (Sefa), equivalent to approximately in Pará, they were accused of violating the 14,719 tons of processed meat (Ibama, embargo (usage for pasture) due to impeding 2017a; Corrêa, 2017). the regrowth of native vegetation (18 of them In Pará, meat-packing plants presented in Table 3) in those areas and/or were interdicted in the municipalities of sale of live cattle raised in the embargoed Redenção, Santana do Araguaia, Tucumã, areas (24 properties). They are situated in Rio Maria and Xinguara (Figure 1). The the Pará municipalities of Cumaru do Norte, JBS S/A company was the main target Santana do Araguaia, Redenção, São Félix of the operation, with two meat-packing do Xingu and Bannach. Approximately 43% plants, one located in Redenção-PA and of the cattle were indirectly bought from the other in Santana do Araguaia-PA. JBS the embargoed ranches; and the average S/A was accused of acquiring 49,438 head percentage of the total area of the ranches of cattle from embargoed areas, equivalent embargoed is significant: 38% (Table 4). to 84% of the total involved in the action, Overall, there were 172 notices of and fines totaling R$ 24.7 million (Ibama, violation, totaling R$ 294 million in fines 2017b; Locatelli & Aranha, 2017). (Ibama, 2017b). WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 139
Table 1. Violations and amount in fines by type of establishment penalized by operation Carne Fria
Establish- Number of Number of Amount of Violation ments offenders autos fines (R$) Direct or indirect purchase and Meat-packing 15 sale of cattle obtained from areas 65 29,088,500 plant embargoed by Ibama Direct or indirect purchase and Exporter of live 1 sale of cattle obtained from areas 1 351,000 cattle embargoed by Ibama Impeding regeneration of native 20 vegetation (Article 79 of Decree 34 7,480,000 no. 6.514/2008) 20 Violation of embargo 20 198,270,000 Ranches Sale of cattle directly raised in 24 embargoed areas (Article 54 of * 20,169,000 Decree no. 6.514/2008) Fraud to legalize (falsify) the sale * of cattle coming from embargoed * 8,919,500 areas Total 244,109,000[2] Source: Ibama, 2017b. *No data available in Ibama’s press note.
[2] This total differs from what was presented in a note that Ibama released to the press (R$ 294 million). We were not able to obtain an explanation from the agency about that difference. 140 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Table 2. Number of cattle raised in embargoed and illegally deforested areas, acquired by meat-packing plants and amounts in fines applied and estimated value of the beef sold
Recipients of cattle obtained Number of Amount in Estimated value of beef UF from embargoed ranches cattle fines (R$) potentially sold (R$) Boi Dourado Comércio de BA 81 40,500 189,540 Carnes Ltda PA JBS S/A Santana do Araguaia 26,966 13,483,000 59,765,910 PA JBS S/A Redenção 22,472 11,236,000 49,963,950 PA Mercúrio Alimentos S/A 3,767 1,883,500 8,431,860 Agroexport Trading e PA Agronegócios S/A (Export. Gado 702 351,000 1,615,680 Em Pé) PA Frigorífico Rio Maria Ltda 603 301,500 1,366,470 Frigorífico Xinguara Indústria e PA 576 288,000 1,347,450 Comércio S/A R.M. Abatedouro de Carnes PA 104 52,000 233,160 Ltda - Me PA MasterCarnes 49 24,500 107,910 Abatedouro e Comércio de PA 36 18,000 84,240 Carnes Carajás Ltda - Epp PA J B De Lima Comércio - Epp 32 16,000 74,880 D Souza da Costa Comércio - PA 18 9,000 39,420 Epp PA J C De Veras Eireli 12 6,000 26,280 Plena Indústria e Comércio de TO 2,706 1,353,000 5,857,140 Alimentos Ltda Coop. dos Prod. de Carne e TO 690 345,000 1,560,600 Deriv. de Gurupi TO Ind. Com. Alim. Der. Ltda 65 32,500 142,800 Overall total 58,879 29,439,500 130,807,290 Source: Ibama, 2017b. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 141
Figure 1. Examples of location of meat-packing plants and embargoed ranches that were targets of Operation Carne Fria 142 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Table 3. Number of cattle acquired in direct and indirect manner from embargoed areas by the companies fined in operation Carne Fria by Ibama in Pará and amounts in fines
Type of Number of Hectares Amount in Name of Ranch supplier animals embargoed fines (R$) Agropecuária Santa Bárbara 15,040 2,986 7,520,000 Fazenda Nossa Senhora do 12,720 3,339 6,360,000 Carmo Fazenda Rio da Paz 5,159 5,600 2,579,500 Fazenda Shalon 4,344 608 2,172,000 Fazenda Santa Isabel 3,368 1,684,000 Fazenda Santa Maria 2,420 2,524 1,210,000 Direct Fazenda Maipu 1,440 1,194 720,000 Fazenda Santa Tereza 1,079 2,753 539,500 Fazenda Maceió 781 724 390,500 Fazenda Maravilha 422 55 211,000 Fazenda Mato Dentro 144 417 72,000 Fazenda 4 Meninos 90 325 45,000 Fazenda Terra Linda do Pará 78 604 39,000 Fazenda Rio Turvo 67 600 33,500
Fazenda Nova Caracol 6,993 2,463 3,496,500 Fazenda Simalu I 557 278,500 Indirect Fazenda 4 Meninos 144 325 72,000 Fazenda Terra Nova 12 6,000 Total 54,858 27,429,000[3]
[3] This number is lower than the one reported in the Ibama note to the press, which totaled more than R$ 28 million. We did not obtain the information from Ibama about that difference in time. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 143 39 35 34 41 27 14 78 18 27 78 14 38 bargoed % of the ranch em - area of the area total of the 546 545 324 546 545 270 1,689 32,946 23,413 13,656 16,699 (ha)* Average pasture bargoed bargoed Total em - Total area in the area * 697 697 1,994 1,751 1,994 1,877 84,507 66,622 39,616 41,024 12,059 Total Total pasture pasture area (ha) area * 4 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Number Number suppliers of indirect of indirect * 9 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 of direct of direct Number Number suppliers 49 36 32 18 12 603 576 104 5,472 26,966 22,472 56,340 Total Total cattle bought 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 432 9,652 3,767 10,552 24,439 chase Indirect Indirect cattle pur - 68 49 36 32 18 12 171 576 1,705 17,314 11,920 31,901 cattle mente Direct Direct purchase - Total No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TAC Signed * We did not total this column, since a ranch may have sold to more than one destination. than one sold to more since a ranch have may did not total this column, We * Araguaia Araguaia Xinguara Xinguara Redenção Redenção Redenção Redenção Redenção Redenção Rio Maria Santana do Santana do Municipality Meat-packing plant JBS Santana JBS Redenção Mercúrio Frigorífico Rio Maria Frigorífico Xinguara Indústria e Comércio R. M. Abatedouro M. R. MasterCarnes Abatedouro 3C Abatedouro Abatedouro JBL Abatedouro Abatedouro D SouzaAbatedouro J C Veras - Stop Veras J C Carne . Participation of direct and indirect sources and of the areas embargoed by company fined in Carne Fria by Ibama in Paráby Fria Ibama in fined in Carne company by embargoed and of the areas sources and indirect of direct Participation 4 . Table 144 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Recommendations for other enforcement agencies
Besides the fines, Ibama also From Semas, Ibama requested an recommended that other agencies take analysis of the list of suppliers of cattle action. presented by the JBS Redenção meat-packing For the MPF in Pará Ibama suggested: plant, according to the annual demand i) execution of the sanctions established in provided in the environmental permit, in the TAC for Beef on the signatory meat- order to verify and confirm its legal origin. packing plants that demonstrably violated From Adepará, Ibama demanded i) the agreement by purchasing cattle from effective control over the production chain, embargoed areas; ii) a Civil Public Suit with integration of the environmental demanding that those meat-packing plants management systems (Sicar, Simlam, Sigam, repair the environmental damages, which Lists of embargoed areas) with Siapec; ii) shall be assessed based on the area under definition of norms/procedures, analyses embargo utilized during the 2013-2016 routines and field verification that validate period; and iii) the demand for a “judicial rural production areas that meet environmental collateral” in the amount of R$ 130,807,290, requirements in order to supply bovines to the referring to the equivalent to the 58,177 meat-packing plants; and iii) providing Ibama head of cattle acquired by the meat-packing full access to Siapec, in order to appraise the plants should the meat processed/produced production chain of cattle and continue to from animals acquired from the embargoed verify the regularity of the rural properties areas have already been sold. that supply the meat-packing plants.
Repercussions of the operation
Criticisms from politicians and They challenged the methodology rural producers of the investigation, considering it inappropriate, pointless and truculent, and There was a strong and immediate defended the meat industry in Pará, praising reaction from politicians and rural producers its efforts at regularity and its importance to neutralize the operation. The federal, state to the economy (Pegurier, 2017; Poder360, of Pará and Xinguara municipal governments, 2017; Nunes, 2017; Ambiente Inteiro, 2017; and representatives of the ranching class in the Diário online, 2017; CT Online, 2017; state harshly criticized the approach utilized Ramos, 2017). by Ibama in the operation, which they called According to the site O eco, the untimely, arbitrary and other things. reaction of the Presidential Palace, in WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 145
Brasília, when learning of the operation, which, according to assembly president was to try to suppress its dissemination at Márcio Miranda, “was not against Ibama the national level by twice stopping the fulfilling its duties and doing enforcement, president of Ibama, Suely Araújo, from but against the way the operation was calling a press conference to announce carried out” (Ambiente Inteiro, 2017). the operation (Pegurier, 2017), which was Representatives Gesmar Rosa (PSD) and denied by the institute. Also, according to Sidney Rosa (PSB) also spoke out defending O eco, that happened because not even the production in the state and defining the Ministry of the Environment was informed method used by Ibama in the operation as about the operation. In a video, minister “truculent” (Pegurier, 2017). Sarney Filho affirmed that the MMA had In a meeting with the environmental not been informed by Ibama about the minister and the president and directors operation, even though the institute is part of Ibama to deal with the repercussions of of that ministry, and although he was not Operation Carne Fria, Pará state government opposed to operations that promote legality, secretaries, Pará members of congress, entities the moment was not opportune for carrying and companies in the state’s meat business out the operation given that the agriculture defended the environmental regularity of the and livestock sector, so important to the beef industry in Pará (Agência Pará, 2017). Brazilian economy, was already weakened The extraordinary secretary of the State because of Operation Carne Fraca, Green Municipalities Program, Justiniano launched by the Federal Police three days Netto, alleged that the beef industry has done earlier (Poder360, 2017). a serious job and adhered to the TAC and, The vice-governor of Pará, José da because of that, did not deserve the treatment Cruz Marinho, considered the operation received during the operation. He also to be “an undue interference by Ibama affirmed that the embargoes had proven to be in the state’s jurisprudence,” given that disproportional and senseless, so much so that the legislation already delegates the state Ibama soon reviewed some of the embargos powers to conduct and legalize productive and the Justice system granted an injunction; activities in its. He furthermore said that and that the operation was totally unfocused, Prodes, used in the investigations to map because it considered old deforestation, from deforestation on properties, is a regionalized more than ten years ago, as well as trying to deforestation mapping system, and is thus hold meat-packing plants liable for not using imprecise for mapping at the property level information that is not available in Ibama’s (Nunes, 2017). public systems (Agência Pará, 2017). In the Pará State Legislative Assembly Speaking for the ranching sector, the (Alepa), the representatives unanimously Rural Producers’ Association of Xinguara also approved a vote repudiating Carne Fria, strongly criticized the methodology adopted 146 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
in the operation. According to its president, as of March 23, one day after the interdiction, Joel Lobato, who is also director of the Pará under the condition that the companies Federation of Agriculture and Ranching present their suppliers (Corrêa, 2017). (Faepa), “the general complaint is that there Seven meat-packing plants and one were no charges, demands for documents or exporter of live cattle requested suspension for information on the methods used by the of the embargoes, either judicially or meat-packing plants to monitor the origin of administratively, and obtained a favorable the cattle they buy” (Diário online, 2017). preliminary decision. The fines totaled R$ The municipality of Xinguara, through 9,544,500 for the acquisition and sale of its mayor Osvaldo de Oliveira Assunção 55,098 bovines obtained from embargoed Júnior, also expressed himself by publishing a areas, that are respectively equivalent to protest note “expressing his highest solidarity 99% of the total in fines for those infractions with the representatives of the meat industry, and 94% of the number of head of cattle rural producer associations, business leaders, accounted for all of the meat-packing plants ranchers and rural producers in general, fined in the operation. in the lamentable episode of the Ibama The Mercúrio Alimentos S/A, Rio embargo of the meat-packing plants in our Maria S/A and Stop Carnes meat-packing region, which paralyzed the entire productive plants and the live cattle exporter Agroexport chain of the meat industry in southern Pará” Trading and Agronegócios S/A filed a request (CT Online, 2017). The called on ranchers, for suspension of the embargo with Ibama, meat-packing industry representatives, rural presenting documents that, in principle, producers, political and community leaders confirm that the provisions expected for March in agribusiness and authorities in general in were not associated to the rural properties southern Pará to a meeting to outline goals, embargoed by the institute, according to the guidelines and strategies for reacting to the conditions of the institute itself established at problem that has hit the regional economy the moment of the embargo. After analyzing (Ramos, 2017). the documents, Ibama issued Interlocutory Decisions (DI) – meaning partial decisions Judicial and administrative releases that do not end the process – suspending the embargoes, with specific determinations After the interdiction of the meat- to each one of the appellant companies and packing plants on March 22, agribusiness determining to all that “within ninety days leaders held meeting in Belém and Brasília be presented solution, which, effectively to try to reverse the situation. After meeting absolutely inhibit the acquisition of animal with Pará authorities, the Ibama presidency products and byproducts produced in an announced that all of the meat-packing plants area under embargo, to strive for legality in would be cleared and could function normally the business of the entire productive chain WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 147
involved” (Interlocutory Decision MMA- the beef processed/produced from animals Ibama no. 209/27 of March 2017 - SEDE/ bought from the embargoed areas had NUIP; Interlocutory Decision MMA-Ibama already been sold – a “judicial collateral” of no. 208/27 of March 2017 - SEDE/NUIP; R$ 130,807,290 referring to the equivalent Interlocutory Decision MMA-Ibama no. to the 58,177 head of cattle sourced from 224/04 de April 2017 - SEDE/NUIP). The irregular areas by the meat-packing plants, list of embargos and respective procedures is Federal Prosecutor Daniel César Azeredo available at
since 2009. In the agreement, JBS S/A Meetings to coordinate long-term commits itself to excluding ranches involved solutions in deforestation, slave labor, and invasion of Indigenous Lands and Conservation Starting with a suggestion from the Units from its list of suppliers. Lifting government of Pará, the MPF called a the suspension was made conditional to meeting of representatives of the ranching confirmation that the beef sold is fit for chain, state and federal authorities to discuss consumption and free of deforestation, slave improvement in environmental monitoring labor and conflicts with Indigenous Lands and control of ranching. In the meeting and Conservation Units (Greenpeace, 2017). that occurred in Brasília on April 25, 2017, According to Greenpeace (2017), the companies that provide consultancies to operation “reveals the frailty of the control TAC signatories demonstrated that there systems and the need for expanding social are technologies to provide monitoring and control over the ranching production chain, even traceability for purchases. However, with more transparency and public access to the tracking of indirect suppliers would data that are relevant to society. Since 2007, depend on making available data such as the federal government has been announcing GTA or the adoption of other technologies greater control over the cattle export chain, for individual traceability of cattle. The lack especially for export, with adoption of an of validation for CAR was also indicated electronic GTA and its integration with as a problem, since there is considerable Sisbov (Service for Traceability of the Bovine overlapping of data. The available and Buffalo Production Chain), but that has technologies allow the registration of never happened.” (Greenpeace, 2017). To fraudulent boundaries in CAR. improve control over deforestation related to It is relevant to note that the group ranching production, Greenpeace proposed did not decide about adopting methods for new criteria that seek to improve control controlling indirect suppliers, especially over transparency and publicity for data, as with the lack of a decision on making well as indirect suppliers and blocking for the GTAs available. Two institutions ranches located inside Indigenous Lands. that are essential for controlling GTA Greenpeace also called on the three largest were not present: Mapa was not invited supermarket chains operating in Brazil and Adepará was invited, but did not (Carrefour, Pão de Açúcar and Walmart) show up. The group decided to set up a to meet their commitments to Zero working group involving state and federal Deforestation. However, as this report was environmental authorities to assess the being concluded, none of the actors had unified procedures for monitoring and announced new measures. enforcing the TAC. Jair Schmit, director WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 149
of the Department of Forests and At any rate, two outcomes of the Combatting Deforestation will be the operation may have area impact on the focus point for the federal government in sector and deserve to be monitored. The managing the ranching TAC. first is the demand by Ibama that the companies in ninety days present solutions Final considerations for guaranteeing the legality of the entire supply chain. It is not yet certain if that The operation focused on relevant decision will be maintained, since it may be problems, these being control of the submitted to revision in the administrative indirect origin of cattle and laundering. procedures. The embargoes might force quick decisions Second, the Ibama recommendation to avoid irregular purchases. However, for the MPF to execute the sanctions the Strong reaction from politicians and provided in the TAC against the meat- ranchers and the judicial and administrative packing might have a short-term impact, decision for lifting the embargo weakened given that the TAC can be extrajudicially the potential for immediate direct impact executed. Therefore, the effect of the by the operation. The political reaction was operation in the short term will to a large expected given the economic relevance of degree depend on the decision by MPF. the sector and very probably by the power Because this was the main operation of influence in politics that was recently for enforcing compliance with the TAC, revealed by the confession of the controller its repercussions may be the indicator of partners of JBS S/A and of one of its the success or failure of that mechanism for executives . assigning liability to offenders.
[4] The leniency agreement of the director of Institutional and Government Relations at J&F (the main holding company of JBS) and its controller partner illustrates the power of influence held by the agriculture and livestock sector. According to a report by Rodrigues et al. (2017), the director confessed to having made “hidden payments” to the campaigns of 1,829 candidates in the 2014 elections, of which 179 were elected state representatives in 23 states and 167 federal representatives, from 19 parties. He further confessed to paying “bribes to 16 elected governors and to 28 Senate candidates who were seeking election, reelection or election as governors.” According to him, such payments created a “reservoir of good will.” “It was so they wouldn’t get in our way,” he stated. 150 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Bibliography
Agência Pará. 2017. Governo do Pará defende regularidade ambiental da indústria da carne. Notícia. 30/03/2017. Available at:
Locatelli, P. & Aranha, A. 2017. JBS compra gado de área desmatada ilegalmente e leva multa de R$ 24 milhões. Repórter Brasil. 22/03/2017. Available at:
Appendix 9. Results of the independent audits of three companies that signed public agreements with Greenpeace
Since 2014, a JBS, Marfrig and verification of overlapping of ranches with Minerva, companies that signed the public deforestation recorded by Prodes with commitment with Greenpeace, have made Indigenous Lands and Conservation Units. public the results of independent audits The 2016 audits found that, in made to test their systems for purchasing general, JBS, Marfrig and Minerva were cattle from the direct supplying ranches complying with the agreements, but that (fattened cattle) in the Amazon biome. there are some failings (BDO, 2016; BDO, The auditors verified if there 2016a; DNV GL, 2016). In relation to was purchase of cattle from areas with purchases from direct suppliers, JBS bought deforestation occurring after October 2009, from three areas on the Ibama embargo list, with embargoes on the Ibama list, with the which represented 0.026% of the audited practice of slave or degrading labor observed JBS purchases. Additionally, the audit found on the MTE list, originating from Indigenous flaws in the integration of the JBS system Lands and Conservation Units and/or from with Agrotools, the company responsible property grabs that involved land conflicts. for georeferencing the ranches that supply To test compliance with the rules, the company. One controversial decision the auditors verified 10% of the total of by JBS was to exclude from the audit seven purchases made in a period of one year. plants that were closed in 2016, but that sold Furthermore, they simulated purchases with animals from the Amazon biome in 2015[2]. qualified and non-qualified properties in According to the audit report (BDO, 2016), the systems of each company. The auditors the “Company chose not to consider them also verified the records of the companies in the sample, as well as in the analyses, due contracted by the meat-packing plants[1] to the difficulty in surveying documentation to do control of purchases, including to confirm the tests that were performed.”
[1] Agrotools for JBS and Marfrig and Apoio for Minerva [2] As unidades que compraram do bioma Amazônia em 2015 e que não foram incluídas na auditoria por estarem fechadas em 2016 estão localizadas em Amargosa-BA, Ariquemes-RO, Cuiabá-MT, Iguatemi-MS, Matupá-MT, Rolim de Moura-RO e São José dos Quatro Marcos-MT (BDO, 2016). WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 153
The risk resulting from the lack of the auditors, Marfrig does not verify those traceability. The audits found that JBS ranches in a systematic manner, since the and Minerva do not adopt any system for company is not yet able to adopt auditable verifying the indirect suppliers (breeding procedures that will affect those suppliers and rearing ranches that sell to the (DNV GL, 2016). fattening ranches). JBS supports the Novo Besides those limitations, the audits Campo Program in Mato Grosso, whose of the three meat-packing companies reveal initiatives include developing a system for the vulnerability of companies to buying following up the indirect suppliers, but it cattle that are being “laundered.” That is still a pilot project (See data on Pecsa in happens because the purchasing system can Appendix 10). “unembargo” a rancher if he (or she) has As for Marfrig, according to the other ranches besides the embargoed area. audit report, it asks the direct suppliers to With that procedure, the meat-packing inform the origin of the animals that were plants can buy cattle from the areas without bought from other ranches, including data embargoes. However, because there is on the property, the municipality, the state, no traceability or because the system for the name of the owner and the CNPJ or verifying third parties is still fragile, the CPF. Marfrig then verifies if the indirect cattle bought from area without an embargo suppliers are on the Ibama embargo and may have been raised on the embargoed the slave labor lists. However, according to ranches of the same owner.
Bibliography
BDO RCS Auditores Independentes. 2016. Relatório de auditoria de terceira parte para atendimento ao compromisso de adoção do “compromisso público da pecuária”, conforme “critérios mínimos para operações com gado e produtos bovinos em escala industrial no bioma Amazônia”. São Paulo: BDO/ JBS. p.42. BDO RCS Auditores Independente. 2016a. Relatório de auditoria de terceira parte para atendimen- to ao “compromisso de adoção dos critérios mínimos para operações com gado e produtos bovinos em escala industrial no bioma Amazônia”. São Paulo: BDO/Minerva. p.37. Det Norske Veritas GL (DNV GL). 2016. Avaliação do atendimento do compromisso público da pecuária na Amazônia. São Paulo-SP: DNV/Marfrig. p. 17. 154 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Appendix 10. The example of tracking of ranches in Mato Grosso
Sustainable Ranching of the Amazon The implementation of control (Pecsa)[1] is a company investing to achieve over indirect suppliers by Pecsa has been sustainability for ranches in the region. monitored by the Instituto Centro de To that end, it seeks to make the entire Vida (ICV). The ICV keeps deforestation productive chain free of deforestation, post-2008 updated, producing maps that through long-term partnerships with combine recent deforestation with property ranchers involved in self-reproducing and limits. Members of Pecsa use those maps fattening the animals. For the company, it is to verify the situation of suppliers before a legal obligation to assure legal sources of purchasing cattle. When the map indicates cattle suppliers (including raising), since the that a new supplier presents deforestation productive chain is legally co-responsible. post-2008, that supplier is informed of the To understand the participation need to reforest, so that it can sell in the area of ranchers in the entire ranching chain, under the scope of Pecsa. Pecsa accesses the GTA, which informs And in cases where there is no the movement of the animals, indicating deforestation post-2008, Pecsa establishes their origin and destination, and the names a new commercial relation and the new of their owners. That information makes supplier has its data included in the Terras it possible to identify if some property or – Novo Campo platform. With that, all animal owner has environmental restrictions. the cattle sold by ranches participating in The use of the information contained in the Pecsa are registered in the platform, which GTA was successfully tested on the pilot uses the Ecotrack tool, of the Terras – Novo ranches, and the results were presented to Campo platform, which enables constant JBS, McDonald’s and in workshops. monitoring of the entire chain (direct and
[1] Information obtained from Laurent Micol, director for Governance and Investments at Pecsa. WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON? 155
indirect) by ICV in order to guarantee zero cows, which total 9,725 hectares. On those deforestation. ranches 18 thousand head of cattle are being To assure that all of the animals raised. When the intensification is completely monitored are in fact coming from areas implanted, within 1.5 years, they will be 33.4 free of deforestation, an audit is periodically thousand head (3.4 per hectare). Additionally, carried out, which uses GTA data from Pecsa works with 68 suppliers, with ranches all participating ranches to verify if all the totaling 91 thousand hectares, of which about commercial activities correspond to those 50 thousand hectares are pastures. On those registered with the platform. ranches for cattle-raising there is around 0.8 Currently, Pecsa has a partnership cow (breeders) per hectare, thus totaling about with six ranches for rearing and fattening 40 thousand breeders. 156 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Appendix 11. Control of indirect suppliers in a pilot project in São Félix do Xingu-PA[1]
Since 2013 The Nature Conservancy first results showed a productivity increase (TNC), in partnership with Walmart and of approximately 54% among participating Marfrig, has been developing the project properties, with adoption of techniques Sustainable Beef: from the Ranch to the such as pasture rotation. Table to promote sustainable ranching But there was still the challenge of development in the region, with greater reaching the entire ranching value chain. productivity and better use of degraded To that end, methods were developed to pasture. The project, begun in the expand traceability for animals, so that municipality of São Félix do Xingu-PA, is partner companies and consumers can be in its second phase and there are plans for sure that the meat consumed comes from expanding it to other municipalities in Pará properties that did not have their forests cut and Mato Grosso. down. In that stage data were shared from Initially, 16 rural producers were producers involved in the direct and indirect selected for the pilot project, which covered supply of animals (such as the GTA); and on 46 thousand hectares, with potential for some properties, “earrings” with chips were slaughtering 500 animals per month and implanted in the animals and data from the supplying 70 tons of meet every month to “earrings” or the GTA were crossed with supermarkets (Baggio, 2016). Later, the CAR. With those measures it was possible project provided information, technical to verify the origin of the animals before support and investment to participating reaching the fattening ranch (or direct properties, of different sizes and layouts. The supplier).
[1] Information obtained from Francisco Fonseca, coordinator for Sustainable Production at TNC, on February 1, 2017. Bibliography
Baggio, G. 2016. Commitments and Sourcing in Action. Apresentado durante a GRSB Global Conference 2016: Alberta, Canadá. Available at:
Appendix 12. The pressures for linking the GTA with CAR in the state of Pará
The pilot audit of the TAC carried out to ranches registered in CAR, according to in Pará in 2014 revealed the possibilities for a calendar: i) beginning in June 2014 for leakage and laundering of cattle. When those interstate operations; and ii) for in-state results were presented to the signatories to operations, beginning on a date to be defined the agreement, they suggested to the MPF in August 2014 by the Steering Committee in Pará that Adepará only issue GTAs for (Coges) of the Green Municipalities cattle from ranches that were registered in Program (PMV). However, that calendar CAR in order to avoid trade in cattle from was only established in April 2015 (Table irregular areas. 1). It had as a parameter the number of head To meet that demand, in May 2014 in the herd and the location of the ranch the state government published the decree[1] and emphasized municipalities that were a that required Adepará to issue a GTA only priority for controlling deforestation.
Table 1. Initial calendar defined by decree no. 1.052/2014 for Adepará to make issuance of the GTA conditional on registration in CAR
Scale and geography Date Greater than 1,000 head in the entire state Jun/15 Above 500 head in the municipalities of Novo Progresso, São Félix, Altamira, Jun/15 Itaituba, Cumaru do Norte, Trairão and Jacareacanga Between1,000 and 500 head in the entire state Dec/15 Between 500 and 100 head in the entire state Jun/16 Below 100 head in the entire state Dec/16
[1] Decreto nº. 1.052/2014. Diário Oficial do Pará. 158 WILL MEAT-PACKING PLANTS HELP HALT DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON?
Despite the efforts of those involved and rental contracts and contracts for purchase the announcement of the linkage between[2] and sale of rural properties, as well as access the GTA and CAR by the president of to all the movement of GTAs between rural Adepará in March 2016, the decree was not properties and buyers of cattle slaughter and implemented. During the 21st meeting of export of live cattle and full access to the the PMV Steering Committee, an Adepará data contained in Siapec. Those data were employee attributed the delay in carrying out used by Ibama for the analyses that resulted the decree to deficiencies in the technological in Operation Carne Fria (See Appendix infrastructure existing in the agency, which 8). The second[4] recommendation, sent in led to difficulty in integrating the System September, ordered compliance within 60 for Integrating Agriculture and Livestock, days, with Decree no. 1,052 of the state of Adepará, and Simlam, of Semas (today of Pará regarding the obligatory nature of replaced with Sicar-PA). GTA-CAR integration. With the non-achievement of the As a result, in October 2016 Semas and link between GTA and CAR, the MPF Adepará issued Joint Normative Instruction sent two recommendations to Adepará in no. 01/2016[5] with new deadlines to 2016. The first[3], in July, determined the make issuance of the GTAs conditional delivery, within 15 days, of the GTAs issued on confirmation of registration in CAR in all Pará municipalities and of copies of according to the calendar in Table 2.
Table 2. Calendar defined by IN no. 01/2016 for Adepará to make issuing the GTA conditional on registration in CAR according to the size of the herd
Scale Date Greater than 1,000 head Nov/16 Above 500 head Jan/17 Above 100 head Aug/17 Equal to or less than 100 head Oct/18
[2] News found at: http://amazonia.org.br/2016/03/pecuaria-no-para-estamos-dizendo-ao-brasil-e-ao-mundo-que-nos- respeitamos-as-leis-entrevista-com-luciano-guedes/ [3] Recomendação nº 01/2016 – GAB02/PRM/ALTAMIRA-PA. [4] Recomendação nº. 189/2016 – GAB10/PR/PA. [5] IN Conjunta Semas/Adepará nº. 01/2016, available at: https://www.semas.pa.gov.br/2016/10/31/instrucao-normativa- conjunta-no0012016-semasadepara-publicada-no-doe-33241-pagina-41/. Access on: 10 dez. 2016.