These photos will show some impressions from my field trip to the Brazilian Amazon region in 2015. All in all I stayed about three month in the region to make interviews with local farmers about their production systems and their attitudes towards protection of the natural rain forest. My interviews covered a large area of the Amazon in the states of Acre and Mato Grosso.
My studies are part of a research-project at the Centre for Development Research in Bonn that is funded by the Robert-Bosch-Fundation. The project seeks to understand how environmental policies can contribute to lower deforestation and foster sustainable land-use in tropical rain-forest regions.
During the field research I interviewed persons about their land-use choices including the use of new technologies to increase productivity and the role of deforestation in current land-use practices. I hope to understand how social and economic forces drive these phenomena and how the effectiveness of current policy approaches is influenced by those circumstances.
All in all we were performing more than 100 interviews with farmers in different socio-economic settings. We spoke to very poor producers who rely on a relatively small piece of land as their sole income source and very rich producers who possess thousands of hectares of agricultural land and have very diversified income portfolios the span into other sectors of the economy as well.Traditionally cattle ranching is one of the most important drivers of deforestation in the Amazon region. In Brazil cattle ranching was the preferred development model to open up and occupy vast areas of pristine rain forest along the main infrastructure projects in the North. Throughout decades large amounts of public money were spent to incentivize and subsidize the expansion of cattle-ranching in the region.
Growth of export value of Brazilian Cattle. Source: Mongabay
Up to date, a huge part of the cattle production-systems in the Amazon are characterized by very low technological production-levels. Farmers miss important inputs such as fertilizers or herbicides to maintain the productivity of pastures. Also there is also a lack of additional fodder in the dry season and adequate veterinary assistance to increase nutrition levels and productivity of the animals.
With few inputs, productivity declines rapidly in the pasture and producers rely on deforestation to gather new land suitable for production. Since the environmental impacts of deforestation where not a political concern for many decades and land was relatively abundant, the cheapest form to maintain or increase production was to open up new areas for pasture creation.
Like this more forest areas got burned to the ground. Up to date around 20% of the Amazon rain-forest have been cleared in Brazil and an equal amount of area is thought to be selectively logged. Since the early 1990s Brazilian Government tried to increase the control of deforestation by implementing new environmental regulations and building up governmental entities to control land-take and usage.
Heavily armed military forces have to back up field enforcement actions of environmental agencies like IBAMA.
New policies where successful to reduce deforestation in the last ten years by increasing law enforcement and putting more pressure on the local governments to address the problem. Still it is questionable to which degree those approaches will be able to maintain or further lower deforestation rates in the future as more recent data suggests.
Clear cut deforested areas in square kilometres as observed by the Brazilian Forest Monitoring Program PRODES from 1988 to 2015. Source: INPE.
Inside the agricultural sector, environmental policies have created huge tensions because they are associated with negative impacts on production levels and the income of farmers. A lot of producers criticize environmental policies for being incongruent with what was supported or even demanded by policies in the past.
One main challenge to reduce the pressure on the forest is therefore to overcome the old production paradigm and develop land-use options that demand less areas be it either by increasing productivity inside cattle-systems or diversifying the production of cattle ranchers as such. By this environmental and socio-economical goals could be achieved in line.
Animal confinement is a form of intensive cattle-ranching that is able to reduce the amount of necessary land considerably.
One big challenge to change the current production systems is the lack of adequate infrastructure. Even though there is evidence, that expanding infrastructure is a precondition for opening up new areas, this does not automatically mean that the worse the infrastructure the better off the environment.
We continuously observed that bad infrastructure might be worse for the environment than good infrastructure. With less access to reliable infrastructure, farmers prefer to have a product that can be commercialized throughout the whole year (cattle) instead of a crop that is normally commercialized after harvest where the farm might not be accessible due to rains. This is especially true for regions with few storage capacities (e.g. grain silos).
Furthermore high transportation costs from bad infrastructure might also increase significantly the costs for production inputs thereby increasing the attractiveness of deforestation over land reform (e.g. more expensive fertilizers or agricultural lime for reducing soil acidity).
Bad access to farms might eliminate the chance for more intensive land-use. Animals however can walk over broken bridges and wade through riverbeds themselves. Some farmers make their cattle walk over 200 km to take them to the next market.
Being a more viable option under poor infrastructural conditions cattle ranching is also favourable under difficult biophysical conditions such as steep slopes where mechanized agriculture is not viable. During our field-trip, regions with a very undulated topography where often partially characterized by cattle ranching.
Besides economic reasons, cattle ranching also brings a lot of other benefits to farmers that are commonly less addressed in the literature. Cattle creation is for example significantly less labour demanding and often easier to apply and manage than agriculture. Even though farmers could significantly increase their income changing production e.g. to coffee plantations, they prefer cattle over crops for the relative easiness in implementation.
Another benefit is the herd itself functioning like a rural bank account. A growing herd is like a growing capital stock that is easy exchangeable for cash throughout the whole year. Cattle can therefore serve as a form of social security since it provides money for emergency spendings or investments, particularly in regions, where financial services are sparse. As long as the herd is visibly growing the farmer feels to be on the safe side.
Cattle also brings financial stability to producers since it is less vulnerable to inflation and other economic shocks than other investment forms. By that it is a very attractive investment for either retirement or additional income of people that do not engage traditionally in agriculture. To our surprise a lot of elder people like retired school teachers or state workers engage in cattle ranching to invest and increase their pensions.
Our upcoming publications will address those issues since they are key to understand the logic of cattle production, its attractiveness and strong persistence in the region as well as its implications for promoting sustainable land-use options in the future. Below you can find some more photos from the trip.
Besides being one of the most important rural economic activities, cattle ranching is also a social phenomena with the cowboy culture rising (very nicely documented by Jeffrey Hoelle). This photo shows a gathering of the local cattle elite at an auction of breeding animals at the agricultural fair ExpoAcre .