16% of soybeans are on land with signs of irregularity – 09/25/2023 – Environment

Around 16% of the area occupied by soybeans in the Amazon and the Cerrado is on farms where there is strong evidence of environmental irregularities, according to analysis by entities that study land occupation and use. Another 58% have some degree of evidence of not following the Brazilian Forest Code.

The sum of soybean areas that are on properties potentially not in compliance with the Forest Code, in force since 2012, reached around 14 million hectares — out of a total of 19 million — on registered farms in the Amazon and Cerrado in 2020 .

The data comes from a survey by the organizations Trase and ICV (Instituto Centro de Vida) carried out based on the analysis of authorizations for deforestation on rural properties from 2009 to 2020 (for illegal deforestation prior to 2008, there was forgiveness in the legislation).

Abiove (Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries), in turn, says that the indications do not necessarily mean irregularities. The entity disputes the way in which part of the survey data was presented, but agrees that it is necessary for the sector to advance on points mentioned in the NGO report.

The 16% of the soy production area that, according to the authors, has strong signs of environmental irregularity represents approximately 3 million hectares. The survey estimates that around 80% of production derived from this area was exported: 44% to China and 13% to the European Union. Another 19% must have made their way to the Brazilian market.

The strongest evidence of an environmental problem was attributed by researchers to places where there was both detection of unauthorized deforestation since 2009 and a lower than required percentage of native vegetation on the property.

And the other 58% with less convincing evidence is divided into 40% with lower than necessary percentages of native vegetation and 18% with deforestation not associated with authorizations.

“This study shows that Brazil still has a lot to do in the soy sector to prove that soy is in compliance with the Forest Code”, says André Vasconcelos, global engagement leader of the Trase initiative. “The soy sector often pushes this problem of non-compliance to the government.”

The authors of the report took into account the rural property as a whole in their methodology, not just the area of ​​the farms where there is, in fact, soybean plantation. This means that, if there was any unauthorized deforestation in any area of ​​the property, this was taken as an indication of irregularity, a type of “contamination” of the soy produced there.

Abiove disputes the use of the entire property to consider whether or not a soybean complies with the law. For the entity, however, when irregularities are found on a property, soybeans from that farm must no longer be purchased.

“The government has to go in there and say that that property is illegal, not me. I control the soy, we track the soy. If the government says that property is illegal, I will stop buying from it. If the government embargoes area due to illegal deforestation, we stop buying. They embargo a piece of property, we stop buying”, says André Nassar, executive president of Abiove.

The Trase and ICV report points out that, when considering only the area with planted soybeans, around 95% (approximately 18 million hectares) of production in the Amazon and Cerrado in 2020 came from areas with zero deforestation — that is, without felling—from 2015 to 2019.

According to Nassar, another point of methodological divergence concerns the share of exports that would have been affected by possible irregularities. For him, because farms as a whole were taken into account, the data may be overestimated.

Ana Paula Valdiones, ICV coordinator, contests Abiove’s view. “There’s no way to talk about the regularity of soybeans since the legislation talks about ownership,” she says.

Transparency and implementation of the Forest Code

Despite the disagreements, both the sectoral body and the NGOs involved in the study agree that transparency of land use data needs to improve in Brazil. They also agree that the implementation of the Forest Code needs to move forward.

Valdiones comments, for example, that only just over 1% of CAR registrations in the federal system were analyzed (to check self-declaration made by owners).

Furthermore, there is no data on compensation for legal reserves, as the areas of properties that must maintain, by law, native vegetation are called (generally speaking, 80% in the Amazon and 20% in the Cerrado). If this rule is not being complied with, it is necessary to enter the PRA (Environmental Regularization Program) and, for example, regenerate or compensate for the missing area in another property.

Obtaining more detailed information, especially about adherence to the PRA, is a difficulty, the researchers highlight.

It is for this reason that Trase and ICV write that in the report they found potential irregularities, as they could not point them out with certainty — especially regarding the legal reserve deficit, since it is not known whether there would be compensation taking place elsewhere.

In August, in a Senate hearing, the incompleteness in the implementation of the CAR was cited by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Marina Silva. “It’s time to implement the Forest Code,” she said. “We were not even able to do the correct trial and error in implementing the Forest Code.”

The authors used deforestation data, the federal CAR database (Rural Environmental Registry) and authorizations for vegetation suppression. Not all states, however, have authorizations open for consultation, which makes it difficult to check whether or not properties are in good standing.

“We also need to advance in the transparency of this data”, says Valdiones.

Nassar advocates that authorizations for vegetation suppression be directly linked to the properties’ CAR records. He cites the recent initiative CSA Cerrado (Authorized Suppression Control in the Cerrado). “Every time soybean is planted in a deforested area, after [1º de agosto de] 2020 in the cerrado, we will ask the producer for suppression authorization. If he doesn’t present it, he will lose market share.”

The lack of transparency that still exists can also lead to difficulties for the agricultural sector in the international market, highlights Vasconcelos.

“I don’t know how the companies themselves will be able to prove it without having to ask for information from each supplier, one by one. This is a critical point. This will impact or could impact soybean exports from Brazil to the European Union”, says the expert from Trase. “And China is sending clear signals that it is starting to look at this issue.”

The environmental regularity of agricultural products gains even more prominence at this time when the European Union is implementing its legislation that seeks to block the entry into its markets of products originating from or related to deforestation and non-compliance with environmental legislation.