“We can expand Brazilian agriculture without felling the forest”, says Agriculture Minister [08/11/2006 15:04]
In the second Special Feature interview that ISA publishes on deforestation – the third part of the series – the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Luís Carlos Guedes Pinto, talks about the obstacles hindering an agriculture policy against deforestation and advances a few of the aspects of the plan that his ministry is elaborating for the sustainable development of agriculture and cattle-raising in the Amazon region. He reaffirms the interest of his ministry in including environmental criteria into agriculture credit lines. As stated by some agribusiness leaders, Guedes agrees that it is no longer necessary to fell a hectare of forest in order to expand Brazilian production.
One of the main demands of environmentalist organisations regarding Lula’s administration is about the greater participation of other ministries, such as Agriculture, Cattle-Raising and Supply (MAPA), Transport (MT) and Mines and Energy (MME), in the actions proposed by the Ministry of Environment (MMA). One of the fundaments of the Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation in the Amazon Region is that deforestation features many social and economic causes, and therefore, different State sectors must mobilise in order to take up responsibility for the problem.
The government, NGOs and researchers recognise that inspection and the creation of Protected Areas only is not enough to keep the deforestation rates at acceptable levels. The creation of agriculture policy instruments – such as conditioned credit, fiscal incentive and the offer of resources for conservation reforestation – is considered fundamental in the consolidation of a sustainable economy for the Amazon, in view of the relationship between the advances in the agriculture and cattle-raising frontier and devastation. Despite the restrictions imposed in the last three years on public funding to enterprises with environmental impacts in the region, the recent frustrated attempt of the inclusion of environmental criteria in the agriculture sector debt renegotiations is an example of the difficulties faced by the government in making progress in tackling of the economic causes of deforestation. Up until the beginning of December, the Ministry of Agriculture should present the Executive Plan for the Sustainable Development of Agribusiness in the Amazon Region.
 |
| Luís Carlos Guedes: there is a lack of medium and long term policies for the Amazon region. |
In an interview granted to ISA, the Minister of Agriculture, Luis Carlos Guedes Pinto reaffirms the Ministry’s interest in the implementation of environmental conditionings for agriculture credit lines and, as stated by a few agribusiness leaders, considers that is not necessary to fell more forest in order to expand the limits of agriculture and cattle-raising production. Guedes is a specialist in agriculture economy, has served for over 40 years in the public sector and has headed the National Supply Company (Conab – Compania Nacional de Abastecimento). He took office at the Ministry last July, after Roberto Rodrigues’ exit, of whom he was a close aide.
Luís Carlos Guedes – The evaluation we have confirms that we can expand Brazilian agriculture a lot more without touching a single square meter, not only of the Amazon rainforest, but also of all other reserves in the country. Of the 851 million hectares that Brazil features, the annual cultivated area totals 45 million hectares, and permanent crops total 17 million hectares. We have cultivated 62 million hectares. Besides, we have around 220 million hectares of grazing land, of which 40 million are degraded. We already have a defined production system: the crop/cattle raising integration, which allows us to recover these areas through managing and productivity increase. If we have 40 million hectares of degraded areas in a total of 45 million we have cultivated in 500 years of annual crops, it is possible to double the cultivation area. We can not only recuperate but also free up other crop areas because the productivity per hectare both of meat and milk is relatively low. The development and the competitiveness of Brazilian agriculture do not depend on the felling of a hectare or of a single tree, not only in the Amazon, but also in any other area. We have the technology to do so.
Please be more specific, because your question is generic.
I tried to bring it down to specifics because, in order to lead actions into practice, instruments are needed. In the case of the agriculture policy, the instruments that we can typically resort to are: knowledge generation, for you have to hold information and technology and offer it to the rural producer, which we do by means of Embrapa [Brazilian Corporation for Agricultural Research - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária]; negotiate with the government finance areas the support for these projects. In the specific case of agriculture/cattle-raising integration, we rely on the BNDES [National Bank for Social and Economic Development - Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social] resources of 200 million. Besides, we have negotiated with the FCO [Mid-West Constitutional Fund- Fundo Constitucional do Centro-oeste], here with no limits. We are negotiating with the BND [North-eastern Bank] and the Basa [Amazon Region Bank], for already occupied and exploited areas, outside of the Amazon forest. We have also negotiated the constitutional funds of the North and North-east regions in order to fund this programme.
Exactly.
They do not need to be compatible with the areas, but instead, with the demand. Because this is the producer’s decision. The resources have been compatible with the demand. We cannot impose a decision on the producer. It is up to us to generate and circulate knowledge and, in tandem with the support and development instances, create specific programmes. In Brazil, the classic fomenting instrument is rural credit, which presents specific features regarding similar credit lines. The Ministry of Agriculture has developed such work in the case of technologies. In parallel, we sought to capacitate our technicians and to carry out diffusion activities. For instance, Embrapa is seeking to survey what goes on in the Amazon region.
One of the great challenges we face ahead is the improvement in the institutionalisation of the Amazon region territorial ordination. What is up to whom? We find many government areas acting in the Amazon region but none has the effective control power. Perhaps it should be up to a body directly linked to the Presidency, perhaps that Strategic Features Secretariat… We need a body above the ministries to carry out ordination and to lead occupation. Because the Amazon region, in the first place, is extremely heterogeneous. People often speak meaning different things. Another aspect is that the Amazon region has proved to be very dynamic. Data on the region changes weekly.
In this heterogeneity one could highlight the areas that have been occupied for a decade now, protected areas and frontier areas. Different features are put forward for these areas and they demand distinct policies. It seems to me that there is a lack of medium and long term policies. I have a feeling that the public service is always reacting, putting fires out and facing crises down. We need to be clearer about the path we intend to follow. Which are the concrete actions we have to develop in order to get there and which are the criteria, the indicators I have to adopt in order to know if I am developing the actions and achieving the goals I have defined so that I can conduct the necessary corrections?
I think that the matter is not so simple, I’m sorry. Reality is very complex, as is the Amazon region’s. I believe that there are several components at play. As you generate technology, like in the agriculture/cattle-raising integration, it is a lot cheaper to produce and widen your production in these already available areas. Because they are already deforested, there is no cost in clearing the land. I will not discuss the merit of when they have been deforested, but they are already occupied areas. They feature closer infrastructure, they are closer to the market and they involve no risks regarding environmental penalties. My perception, still somewhat empirical, is that the rural producer is beginning to realise that he faces conflicts regarding the environment, that there are questionings on the international level, regarding social movements and environmental organisations. He is realising that it is cheaper to recuperate degraded areas, for instance.
In my view, these are questionings emerging more from economic than environmental interests. To say that the meat eaten at McDonald’s in England is the fruit of the deforestation in the Amazon region is a result from the fact that Brazil has demonstrated a very high capacity to offer quality products at competitive prices. We are displacing international producers. Today, Brazil is the biggest meat and poultry exporter. We are occupying spaces, previously occupied by Ireland, for instance; this is, typically, one of the origins for such questionings, from Ireland and from other European countries. As I see it, many of these environmental manifestations, that I do not deny, find their root in economic interests trying to impose barriers. Because tariff barriers in the world have been exhausted. You need to create other kinds of barriers, such as sanitary, environmental etc.
Of course I also think that there has been a more efficacious action by the Ministry of Agriculture and by IBAMA [Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources - Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis], which are organs in charge of inspection. Actually, this is not the Agriculture Ministry’s competence.
 |
| Guedes took office in July, after Roberto Rodrigues stood down. Guedes was a close adviser to Rodrigues during a good part of Lula’s administration.
|
I was trying to show that I think that there is a set of factors. It is possible, indeed… In 2004 and 2005 we had a serious crisis. And in 2005-2006 a new crisis, not so acute as the previous one, but one that emerged just after another, aggravating the situation. There has been an income reduction in the sector and it is possible that the great crisis in the sector has also contributed to this fact [fall in deforestation rates].
I’ll be frank with you: I did not follow this negotiation because I have been in office for 45 days. Minister Roberto Rodrigues and the Agriculture Policy Secretariat usually participated in these negotiations. The experience I have is that the crisis was intense, very strong, and that the negotiations had to be concluded in a relatively short time, and the verification of the observance or not of these environmental criteria would implicate the use of resources that we do not have, and also that it would be necessary to decide quickly so as not to risk the next harvests. So I believe that this is what may have made it difficult. I did not participate in the negotiations. But I wish to reaffirm that the Ministry of Agriculture is in full agreement with this inclusion.
I think this too recent an feature to yield an evaluation. These traders have reacted rapidly, which shows their sensitivity from the commercial and market points of view. Anyway, it could be a support instrument for such action. I think that we have to necessarily tread, on the medium and long terms, towards production certification. To certify how a product was obtained in environmental, social and above all terms, with regards to production input, agricultural materials or supplies. The world is going to demand this in the future. In the future, traceability will allow you to buy meat or a kilo of coffee in the supermarket and know how it was obtained. This is not where it comes from, but under what conditions it has been produced. This is possible with information technology, perfectly viable if you manage rural property, including small producers. We will have to certify production, from the environmental point of view, if it has originated from deforestation or not, in order to place it under monitoring, until harvest and under what conditions.
The plan has been divided into three goals, three main programmes: a capacity building programme for the sustainable development of agribusiness, which corresponds to the producers’ participative capacity building and professional upgrade; another programme is the promotion of agribusiness sustainable development, geared towards value addition, trading and marketing of regional products; the third is a programme for the operational articulation, both with the Federation States and in some cases reaching municipalities as well. In fact, this plan will contemplate all actions by the 5 Ministry secretariats, plus the actions by related institutions. The idea is to channel all these actions into the social and environmental sustainability topic, interacting with the local community, with the governmental entities at state level and, in a transversal manner, with the other ministries.
ISA.
print