Search

Beef, among all foods, has the greatest environmental impact and is associated with several chronic diseases. Brazil is one of the largest consumers of meat in the world, on par with developed countries and, most of its greenhouse gas emissions stem from deforestation and agricultural activities. Therefore, this article aims to project the economic and environmental impacts of reducing beef consumption due to changes in household preferences and an increase in beef taxes, with and without a revenue neutral mechanism (subsidies applied to food, excluding meat). To analyze this, a dynamic interregional Computable General Equilibrium model was employed, incorporating a land use change module and accounting for substitution between different food items in both consumption and production structure across regions within the Brazilian Amazon, Matopiba, and the rest of Brazil. The results show that a 40% reduction in beef consumption distributed between 2022 and 2050 could prevent deforestation on an area of approximately 65,000 km2, potentially mitigating up to 2.8 GtCO₂e (a third of the world's potential mitigation from dietary changes according to the UN). In the scenario with subsidies, the reduction in deforestation is smaller due to incentives provided to certain commodities that use pasture. Preference changes could have a virtually zero impact on GDP by 2050. Conversely, increased beef taxes could result in an overall rise in costs, leading to a negative impact on exports and GDP (subsidies only attenuate). In all scenarios, regional impacts would be heterogeneous, particularly affecting regions highly dependent on the cattle and beef sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Brazil is an active player in the CDM business, even playing host to the first CDM project ever registered. Although the majority of the CDM actions which have been developed to date in Brazil are in the energy sector, an analysis of Brazil''s emissions profile demonstrates that the energy sector does not have a significant share of the country''s emissions. Rather that 25% and 56% of the emissions stem from Agriculture and Land Use activities, respectively. In the light of this profile, this paper re-evaluates Brazil''s national Green House Gas (GHG) matrix, and attempts to highlight the potential of the Land Use and Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) CDM projects. An analysis of potential actions for improved penetration of LULUCF projects is presented, alongside key recommendations for future actions. This paper outlines how and why LULUCF projects can become the cornerstone of sustainable development policy in the North and North East region of Brazil, two of the main less developed regions in the country, totalling 62% of the country''s land mass. A focus is made on three A/R projects recently development in Brazil. Through these case studies, an attempt is made to outline potential guidelines for future actions. This paper demonstrates that A/R projects have a significant potential impact on local and rural development in Brazil today. They have the potential to promote the sustainable use of forestry and soil resources. From the analysis it is clear that satisfying local community needs and commitments is a necessary prerequisite to achieving a situation where the risks associated with the issuing of the CER''s (Certified Emission Reductions) could be better managed and also in line with enhanced support from the national authorities (as part of local development plans). The paper concludes that Brazil has significant potential to develop LULUCF CDM projects and that these projects can promote sustainable development through direct impact on the sustainable livelihoods of local communities over the long-term. It is recommended, in line with Brazil''s current emission profile, that to realise this potential it is necessary to design a new relationship model between the key players involved in the CDM process: government agents, local stakeholders, national academia and private parties. Further it is necessary for the Federal Government to foster the LULUCF projects. Supporting actions include defining clear policies that minimise risk and/or reduce perceived risk and the promotion of multi-stakeholder involvement in the CDM project development process. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Protected areas (PAs) are a widely used strategy for conserving forests and ecosystem services. When PAs succeed in deterring economic activities that degrade forests, the impacts include more forest yet less economic gain. These economic opportunity costs of conservation lead actors with economic interests to resist new PAs, driving their sites away from profitable market centers and towards areas featuring lower opportunity costs. Further, after PAs are created, economic actors may want PA downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (collectively PADDD). We examine reductions in PAs' spatial extent – downsizings (partial erasures) and degazettements (complete erasures) − that presumably reduce protection. Using data for the entire Brazilian Amazon from PADDDtracker.org , our empirical analyses explore whether size reductions from 2006 to 2015 resulted from bargaining between development and conservation. We find that the risks of PA size reductions are raised by: lower travel costs (as implied by distances to roads and cities), which affect economic gains and enforcement; greater PA size, which affects enforcement; and more prior internal deforestation, which lowers the impacts of size reductions. These dynamics of protection offer insights on the potentially conflicting factors that lead to PA size reductions, with implications for policymaking to enhance PA effectiveness and permanence. • We assess how factors in agencies' payoffs have affected PA size reductions across the Brazilian Amazon from 2006 to 2015. • We examine events in PADDDtracker.org Data Release Version 1.1 using relevant measures of both land and PA characteristics. • Our results suggest size reductions have development and conservation influences, rather than being only development driven. • Size reductions are more common nearer to cities, where PAs have more environmental gains, reflecting development objectives. • Size reductions are more likely given deforestation in PAs (often farther from cities), reflecting conservation objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]