_.png)
Brazil's emissions are expected to rise by 10 to 20% this year compared to 2018, the last year for which data is available. Deforestation is the main reason for this estimate, as 1,202 square km (464 miles) were cleared between January and April. This is equal to a 55% increase from the same period in 2019, which was the worst year for the Brazilian Amazon in a decade.
In August, ranchers set fire to cleared land to prepare it for grazing. Thus the high deforestation rate in 2020 means the risk of wildfires is greater this year than it was in 2019.
According to a recent report by Imaflora and Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV), 27% of deforestation in Mato Grosso between 2012 and 2017 occurred on soya plantations. 95% of the deforestation was illegal and 33% of it took place in the Amazon. As one-third of the soya that enters the EU comes from Mato Grosso, the institution must implement policies to protect the Amazon and ensure that no deforestation has occurred during the soya production. Currently, only 2 to 3% of soya is certified and deforestation-free. Much of it is also hidden, as animals are fed 75% of all produced soya and consumers do not consider the impact of animal's feed when they purchase animal products.
Scientists have warned that the Amazon is approaching its tipping point, after which the ecosystem cannot recover and its degradation escalates. Once this occurs, billions of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere and we will lose the battle against climate change.
So how do we fix this problem? There are many solutions, but the issues are very complex due to the nature of Brazil's supply chains. The cattle supply chain is plagued by cattle laundering, mainly caused by indirect suppliers selling or moving cattle to direct suppliers throughout the animals' lives. It is nearly impossible for corporations to track their supply chains and monitor suppliers behaviour as a result. Minerva, one of the three largest beef companies in Brazil, has worked on a solution called 'full-cycle breeding'. This means that the cattle remains with a single supplier and Minerva can monitor the supplier as a result. Minerva is also considering identifying regions with particularly high deforestation rates and prioritising ranchers from other areas.
Another solution is divestment. Big banks invest in companies selling soya and cattle products such as meat, as they are growing in profitability, including JBS, Marfrig and Minerva. Blackrock is one of these banks, in spite of making promises to improve its investments to tackle climate change.
Finally, ranchers and farmers must be offered more and better incentives for upholding good environmental practices and abstaining from deforestation. International and industry agreements place several demands on suppliers but offer little to none in return for their compliance. This creates a conflict of interest and is in direct contrast to environmental social governance practices, which require creating a win-win situation for all negotiating parties, as other solutions are prone to fail. Better enforcement mechanisms and co-operation from the government are also needed to ensure that the signatories of international agreements comply with them.