Deforestation as a Systemic Risk: The Case of Brazilian Bovine Leather

Abstract

Tropical deforestation and forest degradation driven by agricultural commodity production remains one of the important sustainability challenges of our times. The responses to tropical deforestation so far have not managed to reverse global trends of forest loss, reigniting the discussion about more robust and systemic measures. The concept of deforestation risk is highly relevant for current debates about policy and trade, and likely to increase in importance in the context of the proposed EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products and EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement. We argue that deforestation is a systemic risk that permeates through different economic sectors, including production, manufacturing, service and control sectors. International trade, investment and economic policies thus act as a systemic trap that cause the production sector to continue with nature’s destruction. This article seeks to more clearly define deforestation risk and uses the case of bovine leather from Brazil to illustrate how pressures for deforestation accumulate across economic sectors towards production, while deforestation risk is dispersed in an opposite trajectory. The article draws on multiple datasets and an extensive literature review. Included are quantitative data sources on annual slaughter, bovine hide/leather registry and annual deforestation, slaughterhouse and tannery locations. We argue that the EU banning unsustainable products from entry and putting incentives for more sustainable agricultural production in the tropics addresses deforestation risks that are currently visible and relatively easy to identify. These response mechanisms are conditioned upon traceability of deforestation risk across supply chains, which is prone to falsifications, leakage and laundry. Although proven to be essential, the proposed EU responses still miss out deeper leverage points to address the systemic drivers of deforestation coming from the manufacturing, service and control sectors that make production through deforestation profitable in the first place.

A Framework for a Hazard Taxonomy to Support Risk Assessment of Tangible Outdoor Heritage

“…As a result of this screening, 27 papers were discarded, while for the remaining 19, an analytic study of the portion relating to the definition of the risk was performed. The SLR made it possible to define indicators and indices of use for a quantitative assessment of the specific risk Deforestation/land conversion [73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91] in order to implement it in the prepared framework. Although CC was indicated as the main cause, the scientific community is increasingly aware of the role played by anthropic pressures on the natural ecosystems.…”

Understanding deforestation lock-in: Insights from Land Reform settlements in the Brazilian Amazon

“…They often seek to improve law enforcement, particularly around ecosystem conversion, but they are yet to account for the complexities of commodity production (e.g., widespread indirect sourcing; see Zu Ermgassen et al, 2022), broader socioeconomic issues (Gustafsson and Schilling-Vacaflor, 2022;Sellare et al, 2022) or the transformative change put forward by local initiatives led by smallholders and traditional populations (see Brondizio et al, 2021). As such, they risk cleaning deforestation out of specific supply chains without addressing the issues of unsustainable development on the ground (Mammadova et al, 2022). Critical underlying deforestation drivers such as systemic social, cultural, or other institutional factors frequently remain overlooked in such conventional approaches (Le Polain de Waroux et al, 2021).…”

“…Cattle ranching, however, typically demands larger clear-cut areas open for pasture -unless the livestock farming utilizes alternative methods which, as seen, entail skills not usually made available to these settlers. Their main livelihood option thus is to become suppliers for the beef-leather agroindustrial complex -the number-one deforestation driver in the Amazon (see Skidmore et al, 2021;Mammadova et al, 2022;Zu Ermgassen et al, 2022).…”

Sacrifização ambiental da Amazônia brasileira a partir do método DPSIR

“…China, União Europeia e Estados Unidos se destacaram como os principais parceiros comerciais do Brasil em relação as exportações de commodities agropecuárias (BRASIL, 2021). Porém, estas se associam à alteração do estado das condições ambientais dos ecossistemas com a perda de floresta, extinção da biodiversidade, erosão do solo, poluição das águas, assoreamento dos rios, entre outros (ARAÚJO; PONTE, 2015;MAMMADOVA et al, 2022).…”