1 Soy Strategic Gap Analysis: Brazil and Argentina Elaboration: ICONE Team André Nassar and Laura Barcellos Antoniazzi (Coordination) Joyce Brandão Paula Moura Supervision: Jan Gilhuis - IDH Bruce Wise IFC July 2011 Funded by:
2 Contents 1. Executive Summary Introduction Global Scenario Main Producers, Importers, Exporters Price and Trends Sustainability Study Objectives Methodology Field interviews Workshops and interviews with interested parties Results Interviews with producers, institutions and workshops Workshops results RTRS Trials and interviews Conclusion Recommendations and Institutional Strategies Recommendations for the design of Responsible Soybean Programs Glossary Exhibits Interview questionnaires a. Producer questionnaire b. Trader questionnaire c. Environmental agencies questionnaire... 53
3 1. Executive Summary The Soy Strategic Gap Analysis was developed in order to identify the key gaps and bottlenecks for production and supply of sustainable certified soy in Brazil and Argentina. Sustainability criteria were assessed using RTRS Roundtable on Responsible Soy RTRS standards. The study was focused, in the first place, on understanding the challenges in the on farm and off farm environment for adopting more sustainable social and environmental practices. Secondly, it was focused on identifying the key stakeholders and possible partners in the different regions targeted in the study and recommending strategies for investment in programs to support and accelerate the adoption of sustainable soy production practices. The study was conducted mainly through interviews with producers and other relevant stakeholders such as traders, NGOs and government agencies. A questionnaire was developed for producers and field interviews were carried out in the largest soy producing regions of Brazil (Mato Grosso and Parana) and Argentina (Buenos Aires). In a second phase of the study, interviews with other relevant stakeholders were conducted and workshops were organized in order to validate the results obtained through the field interviews and to give basis for the recommendations presented in the study. The study shed light on a wide range of gaps and opportunities for responsible soy production in Brazil and Argentina. One of the main gaps identified through the study was a lack of definition and information regarding the process, costs, incentives and benefits for producers to follow RTRS criteria and become certified. Producers expect to receive a premium or other non-financial incentives, such as credit preferences, for the certifying their production practices. Another central issue identified was related to good agricultural practices, specifically regarding the lack of documented control over crop management activities, especially in small and medium farms. Regarding environmental responsibility, waste disposal was identified as one of the main issues, especially in Argentina. In Brazil, disposal of Class I waste, such as fuels and batteries, is a problem and producers would like to have more technical information on the theme. Also, problems in complying with labor legislation, specifically regarding work hours and overtime limits during the harvest period, and adaptation to the requirements of labor safety were identified in Brazil. In Argentina, most labor is outsourced to service companies; therefore this topic may need further exploration, due to the lack of information on contract and working conditions of subcontracted labor. Another major gap identified was related to the difficulty for Brazilian producers to comply with the Forest Code, especially Legal Reserve requirements. Regional strategies related to the size and scales of rural properties were identified as the starting point to construct a responsible soy program. Local partnerships, technical training, information, and investment in adaptations for legal compliance of social, environmental and land use laws deserve special attention in the formulation of a responsible soy program and in the formation of groups of producers interested in supplying certified soy to the European market. Further studies should be focused on a deeper analysis of the costs and benefits for adjusting to certification requirements. Also, it is important to assess how soy producers will adapt to Brazil s new Forest Code, which is being modified at present. Finally, an examination of compliance of labor and health criteria in Argentina is necessary, in view of the extensive outsourcing of labor in that country.
4 2. Introduction Soy is one of the world s most important sources of protein. Its global production increased from 29 thousand tons in the 1964/1965 harvest to approximately 261 million tons in the last harvest (2010/2011). In the last ten years, global production and soy cultivated areas have increased by 48% and 37%, respectively. Ongoing growth of the world s population means ongoing increase in the demand for sources of protein, such as soy Global Scenario Main Producers, Importers, Exporters. The United States, Brazil and Argentina are the world s three main producers and exporters of soy. In the 2009/2010 harvest, the United States produced 91 million tons of soy, 35% of the world s production, exporting 41 million tons, which represents 44% of the world s total exports (table 1). Brazil and Argentina account for 46% of the world s soy production, and has shown the greatest potential to increase production in recent years. In the last ten years, the production of soy in Brazil and Argentina has increased by 82% and 78%, respectively. In the United States, in the same period, there was an increase of only 21%. This data indicates the increasing relevance of the two South American countries in the context of the global soy market. In Brazil, soy is produced in every region of the country. The states of Mato Grosso and Paraná, however, are its most prominent producers, accounting for 27% and 20% of the national production, respectively. According to Aprosoja, the state of Mato Grosso alone is responsible for 8% of the world s soy production. In the 2010/2011 harvest the state produced more than 20 million tons. In cultivated areas, the order of the ranking is virtually the same, with Mato Grosso in the first place, Paraná in second and Rio Grande do Sul in third. Nevertheless, the characteristics of farms in these areas are different. In the South, farms are smaller (according to data from the 2006 Agricultural Census, 35 hectares on average) and the majority of farmers sell their production though cooperatives. Properties in the Central Western region are bigger (500 hectares on average) and cooperatives are less prominent than in southern states. Particularly in Mato Grosso, soy production takes place in large scale farms (according to the 2006 Agricultural Census, approximately 20% of the production takes place in farms with 2.5 thousand hectares or more). In Argentina, soy production is more prominent in the so-called Nucleo Zone, comprising the provinces of Córdoba, Buenos Aires, Santa Fé, Entre Rios and La Pampa, which are responsible for almost 90% of planted area. Soy production has also been increasing in expansion provinces, comprising Chaco, Salta, Santiago Del Estero and Tucuman. The Nucleo Zone is the most well established region in soy production. Expansion areas in the north are characterized by large farms (more than 5,000 hectares), generally managed by private companies. Production increases in response to the growing demand for soy may be explained based on two variables - increase in cultivated areas and productivity gains. In cultivated area, the United States also tops the range, with 31 million hectares. Brazil and Argentina follow, in second and third, respectively, with 24.2 million hectares and 18.6 million hectares (Figure 1).
5 hectares) Figure 1: Area cultivated with Soy in Argentina, Brazil and the U.S. (thousand Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS) The USA, Brazil and Argentina present equivalent growth in productivity (Figure 2). However, in the last years, the main reason for the greater expansion observed in Brazil and Argentina relative to the United States is the expansion of cultivated areas, rather than productivity gains. It is important to highlight, however, that area expansion in Argentina occurred mainly over other crops, while in Brazil it also took place in natural vegetation areas, mainly in the cerrado region. If Brazil and Argentina had increased production through productivity gains, their overall increase would have been equivalent to the North-American growth. Figure 2: Soy productivity in Argentina, Brazil and the U.S. (Mt/ha) Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS) The United States, Brazil and Argentina also top the world range on soy exports (Table 1). The three countries together respond for 90% of the world s soybean exports. Nevertheless, Argentina is stronger in the export of soy byproducts, especially oil and meal, due to its export tax policy, among other competitive advantages. In the 2009/2010 harvest, Argentina exported almost 50% more soybean meal than Brazil and almost 60% more than the United States. Similarly, Argentina exported approximately 66% more of soy oil than Brazil and the United States.
6 Table 1: Leading Soy exporters in 2010/2011 USA Country Million tons % global export Bean Meal Brazil Bean Meal Argentina Bean Meal Paraguay Bean Meal Source: USDA PSD Online % 14% 34% 24% 10% 49% 6% 2% Among the main destinations of the exported soybean, China and the European Union are the most prominent (Table 2). In the last ten years, Chinese imports of soybeans surpassed the European, and they keep growing fast. European imports decreased 30% in the last ten years, while Chinese imports increased 280% in the same period. The European Union, however, is still the main global importer of soybean meal. Nevertheless, similar to the bean imports scenario, the European share in soybean meal imports has also been decreasing (Figure 3). Table 2: Leading soy importers in 2009/2010. China Country Million tons % imports Bean Meal European Union Bean Meal Source: USDA PSD Online. 55 0, % 1% 15% 40%
7 Figure 3: Participation of the EU in the global imports of soybeans and soybean meal. Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS) Price and Trends Unlike other oilseeds, like canola, sunflower and palm, soy is a grain with high levels of protein. It is possible to extract 76% of soybean meal and 19% of oil from it. Although there is a growing demand for soy oil, it is the soy meal market that determines the grain s production expansion. Producers work with a narrow profit margin, depending on the farm s production costs, transportation costs, and the price of grains. In 2011, the soy price reached its record high in the last ten years, with an average of US$ 505/MT (Figure 4). The same occurred with soybean meal and oil. Relative to soybeans and meal, soybean oil has increased its value over time, especially as a result of the growing demand for biodiesel in Europe. The soybean oil s valorization also changed the relative prices of soybeans/meal. While soybeans and soy meal had the same price level until the middle of the 2000 decade, soybean oil valorization made the bean prices increase more than the price of soy meal. The soy crushing industry works with the concept of a crushing margin, in other words, how much value the crushing of soy added to the bean s value (Figure 4), before discounting the costs of crushing and tax payment. As a result of the price rise of soybean oil, the crushing margin has been growing. However, because many other regions, like China, use different policies (fee escalation, differentiated rates for domestic tributes and stimulus for investment in crushers) to stimulate grain imports and promote crushing domestically, the soybean grain has been gaining value in rates equivalent to those of soy oil.
8 Figure 4: Price of soy beans and byproducts in Chicago (USD/MT) and crushing margin. Source: IMF 2.3. Sustainability As previously discussed, expansion of soy production to satisfy the growing demand for the product tends to be realized through area expansion, more than through productivity gains. The expansion of soy, as well as other agricultural products, has been criticized mainly because of its connection to deforestation and resulting environmental impacts like greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. Both in Brazil and Argentina, there is a serious concern to guarantee that soy expansion takes place in a responsible manner and according to national laws. European consumers have increasingly required that the product they buy be produced according to environmental and social standards, and be certified by specific programs, like the Roundtable on Responsible Soy - RTRS. The Roundtable on Responsible Soy is an initiative to promote the responsible production of soy through the collaboration, dialogue and consensus among groups of stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the soy supply chain. The Roundtable s principles and criteria are based, in the first place, on the fulfillment of the current national laws, in addition to other requirements regarding best agricultural practices, community relations and environmental aspects. The incentives to obtain a certification greatly depend on the producer s perception regarding the added value that the certification will generate. China, currently the largest soy importer in the world, does not require anything from the imported soy in terms of sustainability, which can reduce the scale and the incentives for producers to adapt to the RTRS standard. The Roundtable s principles and criteria were used in this project for the elaboration of the survey applied to the producers and also to guide the debates that took place during the workshops carried out in the project. Besides RTRS, it is also worth mentioning the Soja Plus initiative. The objective of Soja Plus is to improve the conformity of producers to environmental and social issues, focusing on the improvement of on-farm management.
9 3. Study Objectives Identify and analyze the gaps and challenges of farms, traders/crushing industries, and other indirect stakeholders (organizations of producers, NGOs, public agencies) to engage and support a program to supply responsible soy to Europe and other markets, via the RTRS criteria. Identify the main stakeholders, synergies and cooperation models for different regions of the study. Recommend strategies for investment in support programs for the production and trading of responsible soy. The results of this study are being used by IDH and IFC to guide their soy production support programs. IDH already launched the Soy Fast Track Fund more information will soon be available through their website (http://www.duurzamehandel.com/en/home) and through the RTRS website. 4. Methodology In order to understand the gaps and challenges faced by producers regarding environmental, social, legal and agricultural handling issues, it was necessary to get a closer look at the daily routines of rural properties. Therefore, the methodology adopted included field interviews and the application of a questionnaire exclusively for producers. The questionnaire included data about the farm, like its size and production in the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 harvests and was divided into 6 sections: good agricultural practices, environmental responsibility, community relations, legal aspects, responsible labor conditions and certification, totaling 77 questions. Except for three producers who were interviewed by phone, including one whose questionnaire was used as a pre-test, all other producers were interviewed in the field. The choice of the producers interviewed and the consultation of interested parties was made based on the analysis of all members of the soy production chain and the agencies that indirectly influence or are impacted by its performance (Figure 5). The relevant players of the supply chain, are producers, traders/crushers, cooperatives and consumers and they, have direct and interdependent relationships among themselves. The productive environment is also indirectly influenced by other entities, such as rural unions, environmental and labor public agencies and the non-governmental organizations with different environmental, production and social lines of action. The difference between the two countries, Brazil and Argentina, and the soy producing regions, was considered for the stratification of the sample and the application of questionnaires. It is important to stress that the definition of the sample of interviewed producers was not based on statistical analysis. In order to aggregate analysis and validate the results of the field interviews, regional workshops and a comparative evaluation among the field trials were performed. Both contributed towards the improvement of the gap analysis.
10 Government Environmental Agencies Community Cooperatives Consumer Market Trader Rural Producer Trade association NGOs Figure 5: Institutions and stakeholders in the supply chain 4.1. Field interviews Brazil In Brazil, interviews with producers were divided in two areas with prominent production: the states of Mato Grosso and Paraná - between March 22nd and 25th, and the agricultural expansion area known as MAPITOBA, which includes the states of Maranhão, Piauí, Tocantins and West of Bahia. Mato Grosso The provinces of Sinop and Sorriso, in the north region, and Lucas do Rio Verde and Nova Mutum in the mid-northern region, located at BR-163, were selected for the application of the questionnaires due to the following reasons: having consolidated agriculture and being among the most productive and most lucrative in Mato Grosso. Also, the size of farms is larger than 500 hectares, on average. Interviews with producers took place with support from Aprosoja (Association of Soy Producers of Mato Grosso), and the cities Rural Workers Unions, which indicated farms for the interviews. Such support was essential to guarantee that the producers dedicated some time to answer the questionnaire, since it was harvesting season in the region, a factor that made the scheduling and previous articulation of interviews with producers more difficult. Non-governmental organizations, the state environment office and a trading company integrated the scope of the interviews, because of their importance within the production chain, in the case of the trading company, and with the analysis
11 of the relative context and environmental, agrarian and social conflict issues related to the production of soy. Respondents: 13 rural producers (500 to 700 hectares and a big producing company); local and national NGOs, trade associations, state environmental office and trading company. Paraná The provinces of Ponta Grossa, Maringá, Londrina, Astorga, Iguaraçu, Ipiranga, Palmeira and Sabáudia in the Northeast and Central East regions were selected for the application of interviews because of its high production level, the presence of cooperatives that represent production and the agro-industrial enrichment of the soy. The properties in this region are of small and medium producers. The interviewed with producers were carried out after meeting with cooperatives to align and support the performance of the interviews. Additionally, interviews with traders in their regional offices were carried out. Respondents: 10 producers (77 to 3,800 hectares), 3 traders and 2 cooperatives MAPITOBA (interviews by phone with company managers) Regions of the Northeast of MT, South of Piauí, West of Bahia, the provinces of Barreiras, Luis Eduardo Magalhães, Correntina and Jaborandí were selected, as they are production areas owned by agricultural companies in this region of agricultural expansion/frontier. Respondents: two large production companies (42 to 200 thousand hectares) in April Argentina In Argentina, the interviews for the study were focused on the Nucleo Zone (Provinces: Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Santa Fé, Entre Rios and La Pampa) and in smaller proportions on other provinces from the North. Small farmers were interviewed in the province of Roque Perez (Buenos Aires) and big farmers in the province of Salta, in the north region, also an expansion area. In this province, the local government was consulted about issues, such as social conflict between indigenous communities, creoles, rural workers and the expansion of soy production in the region. Respondents: 20 producers (62 to 400 hectares and 8 big companies that produce from 9,000 to hectares), 3 traders, a non-governmental organization and state public agency, between April 4th and 8th, Workshops and interviews with interested parties The goal of organizing regional workshops ((Ponta Grossa, Sorriso and Buenos Aires) was to validate the results obtained with the first field interviews with farmers and aggregate information relating to the key challenges identified in the interviews. The workshop in São Paulo had a different tone, because it included the participation of traders, suppliers of fertilizers and seeds, environmentalist NGOs, certifiers and producer associations. This
12 allowed the discussion about the need to offer services and benefits to certified farmers and to share success cases of socio-environmental programs and certifications of rural properties. During the execution of the project we undertook interviews with seven non-governmental organizations that work directly with the socio-environmental aspects and improvements in agricultural practices, as well as with the Brazilian entity representing the industry of vegetable oils producers. 5. Results This section presents the organized and analyzed results of the interviews carried out with farmers, traders, class entities, non-governmental organizations and public agencies. It also includes the validation of results and the considerations made by the participating organizations during the workshops.
13 5.1. Interviews with producers, institutions and workshops The results analyzed in the table below summarize the key gaps and situations found among farmers and the additional actors in the soy production chain related to the great themes: social, environmental, legal and agricultural practices. In order to facilitate comprehension, these themes were divided in specific sub-themes and were individually discussed. The regions and countries specifications were described in the text when necessary. When there are no details, the results are considered compatible in all regions. Table 3: Results related to the interviews and workshops Themes Sub-themes Results Costs involved Soil Conservation Plan Widespread use of no-till. In Argentina the adoption of crop rotation is greater, but it is not a general practice, and it can also be improved and amplified. Other soil conservation practices such as: terracing and level curve are employed when needed, they are not the norm. no-till: operational costs already included in the agricultural handling. In Brazil there is little adoption of crop rotation. It may be improved and amplified according to the scale/size of properties. Good Agricultural Practices Integrated Pest With the exception of large producers in Brazil and Argentina, the use Specialized workforce. Management (IPM) of IPM is a practice not fully known by the producer and as a result there is no complete application of this technique. Medium producers in general sample present pests in the crop, but do not necessarily sample the presence of natural enemies. However, the decision-making about the application of agrochemicals does not
14 Use and application of agrochemicals follow the indicators of contamination levels and minimum damage. For medium and small producers, to implement IPM means to increase costs for technical training of employees and possibly the selection of new workers to manage this activity in the field and to analyze the information. Small producers have difficulty in registering, monitoring and managing applications. Medium and small: Weather conditions for application are assessed empirically, there is no registered data. In Argentina the storage spaces in small and medium properties are not adequate and/or do not have the necessary conditions, either for full or empty packages. Cost of the investment in infrastructure for storing packages, cost variable with structure size. Good Agricultural Practices The infrastructure for storing agrochemicals is regulated in Brazil and the majority of interviewed farmers have the storage space, but this is going through an adaptation process. Control of new pests Control of the interference of GMO and agrochemicals Medium and small producers do not have the structure, capacity and technical knowledge to identify new pests and diseases. Lack of technical support to perform a systematic control plan for new pests. Producers say that this plan must be a job done by EMBRAPA (Brazil) or INTA (Argentina). In order to perform this monitoring within the scale of properties, technical training and specialized workforce are necessary. In general there is no consideration given in soy cultivation to prevent transfer of transgenic soy to neighboring properties. For other cultures, like corn, there are techniques applied for the non-interference to Specialized workforce.
15 neighbors (Brazil). In Argentina, there was no example of transfer control for neighbor properties. Good Agricultural Practices Origin of seeds Regarding agrochemical control in Argentina, there is a regulation for the minimum distance allowed of an application and the local population. The directives are local. However, air pulverization is done in general by outsourced companies and there is no knowledge about how outsourcing companies comply to this law by producers who hire them. In Argentina, because of a national law, producers can keep and produce their own seed. When they need to purchase seeds, they buy from regional seed companies. In Brazil, the purchase of known and authorized seeds is done by cooperatives in large scale (Paraná). In Mato Grosso, producers also buy authorized seeds. Biological Control Production of GMO and non-gmo Soy No biological control is currently used in the properties sampled; nevertheless the use of biological control techniques in the past was mentioned. Argentina: 100% GMO, producers are not willing to plant conventional soy again. Brazil: 2010/2011 harvest increase the use of genetically modified soy, nevertheless producers are willing to keep the production of conventional soy, depending on the productivity of the conventional variety and/or of the premium paid for this soy.
16 Evaluation of social and environmental impacts in new infrastructures In Argentina there is no law that regulates the evaluation of environmental impacts at the federal level. For large producers in some provinces, who need this authorization, this requirement is met. However, there is no normative or studies on the social impacts. In Brazil, the installation of new infra-structures requires an environmental license, the social analysis depends on the enterprise s scale. In general, no evaluation of environmental or social impacts was observed within the interviews. In Piauí, one interviewed producer stated that the expansion areas had to have an environmental license for deforestation and that they did an anthropological study of the region. Environmental Aspects Waste Management Argentina: There is no efficient waste management system that includes frequency of collection and proper final destination in the provinces. Costs involved in returning agrochemicals packaging and triple washing are not included in There are properties at Salta province that burn their wastes, because there is no appropriate place for the final destination of waste in the the operational cost, and are not viewed as additional costs. province. In the Nucleus Zone (Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Santa Fé) there is a collection program (Agrolimpio and CASAFE), but this is not accessible to all properties and there is no proper destination of Class I waste, like burned oils, fuels and batteries. Regarding the agrochemical containers, the situation is the same. Approximate cost to build a cleaning tank for the sprayer: BRL 20,000 in Mato Grosso. There is no official collection in all of the provinces and properties, which makes the logistics impracticable, as well as the high costs for small and medium producers to forward all empty containers to the provinces that have collection systems for these containers. Among the interviewees, all of them perform the triple wash. Nevertheless, there are producers who do not know about the need to
17 correctly dispose of Class I waste and how to do it. There is a lack of information about the theme. Brazil: Class I waste do not have unique/official destination, waste is sent to gas stations or the large producers send them to plants that burn the material. Every agrochemical container receives a triple wash and has proper final destination. Returns are done by the cooperatives or individually by the producers. Few properties burn their waste, nevertheless there is still burning in properties. Environmental Aspects The infrastructure required by Brazilian law for the treatment and destination of waste resulting from tank cleaning and the water and oils separation boxes originated from the properties mechanic shops are not totally adequate, the small producers have greater difficulty in the adaptations because of the high costs. Medium producers confirmed in the Mato Grosso workshop that the costs related to infrastructure are high if they have to be assumed at once; therefore, they can be diluted in time, and do not represent a high investment in the long term. Producers would like to receive more technical information about the theme. Monitoring and reduction of greenhouse gas emission Producers are not familiar with actions to reduce and monitor greenhouse gas emissions. With the exception of large producers, most others do not know this theme. In Brazil, there is an initiative in partnership with Aprosoja and some producers to research and quantify greenhouse gas emissions in the production system.
18 Expansion Area after May 2009 In almost every property interviewed in Mato Grosso, Paraná and Argentina, we did not find any cases of deforestation in new areas for soy production after May There are farmers in the north of Argentina and in some regions of Brazil that will deforest to increase their production area if they have the government s legal authorization to do so. This may prevent RTRS certification. Among the interviewees in northern Argentina, there was a case of legal deforestation in native woodland after May Environmental Aspects In the areas of agricultural frontier MAPITOBA (Maranhão, Piauí, Tocantins and West of Bahia) there was the opening of new areas (authorized deforestation) in the Brazilian cerrado after May Permanent Preservation Areas* (PPA) riparian zone Mapping and maintenance In the center region of Argentina, not all properties have riparian areas and rivers. In the North, however, where there is a riparian zone, producers know the importance of protecting that area. In Brazil, there is consensus among producers about the importance of PPA; however, not all of them are regularized with adequate mapping and recovery areas. There is a project from an NGO in the Mato Grosso region that aims to enable recovery at potentially low costs. In the regions of agricultural borders in the West of Bahia and Piauí, open areas are previously planned and comply with the distances determined by Law. The recovery cost for PPAs according to the methodology developed by a Brazilian NGO is 1/3 of the cost of restoring native forests in PPAs. This technology was adapted and used with producers -mechanized sowing. According to producers, the cost of planting native trees in PPAs is approximately between BRL 5,000 and 8,000/ha.
19 Environmental Aspects Native vegetation Areas Woodland Law Argentina In Argentina, in its center region of production, there are no forests or native pasture areas to increase production. In the North, there are properties with forests, in which the exploitation of vegetation is defined by the province s territorial ordering plan. In Brazil, the amount of native vegetation in the properties sampled does not even comply with the percentage determined by the Forest Code in the states of Paraná, Mato Grosso, West of the state of Bahia and Piauí. Therefore, there is no native vegetation available for production expansion. The woodland law requires compliance with provincial territorial ordering plans. Producers in the north know the law and know that land use planning may restrict agricultural expansion in the region, unlike in the central area where no direct restrictions are imposed since there is no expansion in natural vegetation areas. Interviews with NGO s revealed that the expansion of soybeans and the increase of land costs have led farmers to seek other areas. Additionally, it has led to illegal deforestation and to the consequent advance of soybean crops over these areas.
20 Legal Reserve** (LR) Brazil Generally in Brazil, both in Mato Grosso and Paraná, farmers interviewed are not compliant with the proportion of Legal Reserve required by the current Forest Code. For small producers, Legal Reserve requirements are even harder to be met, because it represents a significant loss of productive area. Producers in new agricultural frontiers are entrepreneurs and the new agricultural areas in the Brazilian cerrado are in compliance with Legal Reserve requirements of the current Forest Code. Controlled burning has been legally permitted -by the Brazilian Environmental Agency, IBAMA- for clearing new production areas. Hiring an agronomist, measuring, planting, maintaining the seedlings, registering (notary s office fees) Have cost a property of 1,200 hectares approximately BRL 20,000. A cost of BRL 16.70/ha. The whole process of registration of a LR for a property of 500 ha = BRL 50, in Mato Grosso. Environmental Aspects Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and Non-compliance with the Legal Reserve requirements may be due to various reasons, such as the legal uncertainty related to the Forest Code; loss of productive area; the high cost of regularizing the environmental liabilities of the Legal Reserve, e.g., reforestation or the cost of buying land for compensation; the slowness of the administrative and decision making processes imposed by public entities; lack of detailed information regarding technical aspects and the federal and state legislation regulations; lack of support from environmental agencies in the implementation and regularization of LRs. The difficulties for compliance with Legal Reserve requirements are a reality for both regions (center-west and south). However, because agriculture in the South region of Brazil has been consolidated for many years and because rural properties are small, the loss of productive area in properties is more sensitive. According to the environmental agency of Mato Grosso, the CAR is the first step towards environmental regulation. After three years the owner However, these costs are highly variable according to region, land availability, and opportunity cost of Legal Reserve compensation; Also, there are the costs of hiring a consultant and the complexity of the area. In this case, the opportunity cost of land in consolidated agriculture areas is bigger than in other areas and is a high cost for a family farmer or small rural producer. Cost of the CAR process = BRL