Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 111, Issue 20, 2014, Pages 7236-7241

  Cohn, Avery S ^a,b   Mosnier, Aline ^c   Havlík, Petr ^c   Valin, Hugo ^c   Herrero, Mario ^d   Schmid, Erwin ^e   O'Haref, Michael ^f   Obersteiner, Michael ^c  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS   (Austria)

^d CSIRO   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; AGRICULTURAL PROCEDURES; ARTICLE; BEEF; BRAZIL; CARBON FOOTPRINT; CATTLE; CATTLE RANCHING INTENSIFICATION; DEFORESTATION; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FOOD INTAKE; LAND USE; NONHUMAN; PASTURE; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TAX;

AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION; CLIMATE POLICY; LAND SPARING;

AGRICULTURE; AIR POLLUTION; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; BRAZIL; CARBON; CARBON FOOTPRINT; CATTLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; FORESTRY; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; TAXES;

EID: 84901022840     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1307163111     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Newton P, Agrawal A, Wollenberg L (2013) Enhancing the sustainability of commodity supply chains in tropical forest and agricultural landscapes. Glob Environ Change 23(6):1761-1772.
2. Nepstad DC, Boyd W, Stickler CM, Bezerra T, Azevedo AA (2013) Responding to climate change and the global land crisis: REDD+, market transformation and lowemissions rural development. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368(1619):20120167.
3. Arrow KJ, Hahn FH (1971) General Competitive Analysis (Holden-Day, San Francisco).
4. Stevenson JR, Villoria N, Byerlee D, Kelley T, Maredia M (2013) Green Revolution research saved an estimated 18 to 27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(21):8363-8368.
5. Garrett RD, Lambin EF, Naylor RL (2013) Land institutions and supply chain configurations as determinants of soybean planted area and yields in Brazil. Land Use Policy 31:385-396.
6. Andersen LE (2002) The Dynamics of Deforestation and Economic Growth in the Brazilian Amazon (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
7. Godfray HCJ, et al. (2010) Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327(5967):812-818.
8. (2010) United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (Global Forest Resource Assessment, Rome, Italy).
9. Saatchi SS, et al. (2011) Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(24):9899-9904.
10. Alston LJ, Libecap GD (1999) Titles, Conflict, and Land Use: The Development of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Amazon Frontier (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).
11. Bowman MS, et al. (2011) Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: A spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29(3):558-568.
12. Cerri CC, et al. (2010) Greenhouse gas mitigation options in Brazil for land-use change, livestock and agriculture. Scientia Agricola 67(1):102-116.
13. Borba BS, et al. (2012) Energy-related climate change mitigation in Brazil: Potential, abatement costs and associated policies. Energy Policy 49:430-441.
14. Brazilian Agricultural Ministry (2013) Long-Run Projections for Brazilian Agribusiness: 2012/13 to 2022/2023 (Government of Brazil, Brasília, Brazil).
15. Baumert K, Herzog T, Pershing J (2005) Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC).
16. Martha GB, Alves E, Contini E (2012) Land-saving approaches and beef production growth in Brazil. Agric Syst 110:173-177.
17. Euclides V, et al. (2010) Brazilian scientific progress in pasture research during the first decade of XXI century. R Bras Zootec 39:151-168.
18. Nepstad D, et al. (2009) Environment. The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 326(5958):1350-1351.
19. Eaton J, Kortum S (2002) Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica 70(5): 1741-1779.
20. Gouvello C (2010) Brazil Low Carbon Country Case Study (World Bank: Sustainable Development Department of the Latin America and Caribbean Region, Washington, DC), p 286.
21. Golub AA, et al. (2013) Global climate policy impacts on livestock, land use, livelihoods, and food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(52):20894-20899.
22. Lapola DM, et al. (2010) Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(8):3388-3393.
23. Stabile MCC, Nepstad D, Azevedo A (2012) Brazils Low Carbon Agriculture Program: Barriers to Implementation (Amazon Environmetnal Research Institute, Brasilia, Brazil).
24. Waggoner PE (1995) How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? Does technology make a difference? Technol Soc 17(1):17-34.
25. Waggoner PE, Ausubel JH (2001) How much will feeding more and wealthier people encroach on forests? Popul Dev Rev 27(2):239-257.
26. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307(5709):550-555.
27. Borlaug N (2007) Feeding a hungry world. Science 318(5849):359.
28. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D, eds (2001) Agricultural Technologies and Deforestation (CABI Publishing, New York).
29. Kaimowitz D, Angelsen A (1998) Economic Models of Tropical Deforestation: A Review (Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia).
30. Rudel TK, et al. (2009) Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970-2005. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(49):20675-20680.
31. Lywood W, Pinkney J, Cockerill S (2009) The relative contributions of changes in yield and land area to increasing crop output. GCB Bioenergy 1(5):360-369.
32. Boserup E (1965) The Condition of Agricultural Growth. The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure (Allan and Urwin, London).
33. Grainger A (2009) Measuring the planet to fill terrestrial data gaps. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(49):20557-20558.
34. Baccini A, et al. (2012) Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nature Climate Change 2(3):182-185.
35. Houghton R (2005) Aboveground forest biomass and the global carbon balance. Glob Change Biol 11(6):945-958.
36. Harris NL, et al. (2012) Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336(6088):1573-1576.
37. Olander LP, Gibbs HK, Steininger M, Swenson JJ, Murray BC (2008) Reference scenarios for deforestation and forest degradation in support of REDD: A review of data and methods. Environ Res Lett 3(2):025011.
38. Cmara G, Valeriano DM, Soares JV (2006) Methodology for the Calculation of the Annual Rate of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon [Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE), São Jose dos Campos, Brazil], p 24.
39. Richards PD, Myers RJ, Swinton SM, Walker RT (2012) Exchange rates, soybean supply response, and deforestation in South America. Glob Environ Change 22(2):454-462.
40. Nolte C, Agrawal A, Silvius KM, Soares-Filho BS (2013) Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(13):4956-4961.
41. Assunção J, Gandour CC, Rocha R (2012) Deforestation Slowdown in the Legal Amazon: Prices or Policies? (Climate Policy Initiative, Rio de Janeiro).
42. Weber CL, Matthews HS (2008) Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 42(10):3508-3513.
43. Cederberg C, Persson UM, Neovius K, Molander S, Clift R (2011) Including carbon emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef. Environ Sci Technol 45(5):1773-1779.
44. Galinato GI, Yoder JK (2010) An integrated tax-subsidy policy for carbon emission reduction. Resour Energy Econ 32(3):310-326.
45. Angelsen A (2010) Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(46):19639-19644.
46. Kaimowitz D, Angelsen A (2008) Will livestock intensification help save Latin Americas tropical forests? J Sustain For 27(1-2):6-24.
47. Di Maria C, Van der Werf E (2008) Carbon leakage revisited: Unilateral climate policy with directed technical change. Environ Resour Econ 39(2):55-74.
48. Aukland L, Costa PM, Brown S (2003) A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: The case of avoided deforestation. Clim Policy 3(2):123-136.
49. Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1999) The induced innovation hypothesis and energy- saving technological change. Q J Econ 114(3):941-975.
50. Havlík P, et al. (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(10):3709-3714.
51. Schneider UA, et al. (2011) Impacts of population growth, economic development, and technical change on global food production and consumption. Agric Syst 104(2): 204-215.
52. Havlík P, et al. (2013) Crop productivity and the global livestock sector: Implications for land use change and greenhouse gas emissions. Am J Agric Econ 95(2):442-448.
53. Alexandratos N (1999) World food and agriculture: Outlook for the medium and longer term. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(11):5908-5914.
54. McCarl BA, Spreen TH (1980) Price endogenous mathematical programming as a tool for sector analysis. Am J Agric Econ 62(1):87-102.
55. Schneider UA, McCarl BA, Schmid E (2007) Agricultural sector analysis on greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry. Agric Syst 94(2):128-140.
56. Jansson T, Heckelei T (2009) A new estimator for trade costs and its small sample properties. Econ Model 26(2):489-498.
57. Bout A, Decreux Y, Fontagné L, Jean S, Laborde D (2004) A Consistent, Ad-Valorem Equivalent Measure of Applied Protection Across the World: The MAcMap-HS6 Database (Centro DEtudes Prospectives et DInformations Internationales, Paris).
58. Leontief WW (1936) Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. Rev Econ Stat 18(3):105-125.
59. FAO (2013) FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, Rome).
60. Bartholomé E, Belward A (2005) GLC2000: A new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data. Int J Remote Sens 26(9):1959-1977.
61. Izaurralde R, Williams JR, McGill WB, Rosenberg NJ, Jakas M (2006) Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: Model description and testing against long-term data. Ecol Modell 192(3):362-384.
62. Williams J (1995) The EPIC model. Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, ed Singh V (Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO), pp 909-1000.
63. Kindermann GE, McCallum I, Fritz S, Obersteiner M (2008) A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fennica 42(3):387.
64. You L, Wood S (2006) An entropy approach to spatial disaggregation of agricultural production. Agric Syst 90(1):329-347.
65. Herrero M, et al. (2013) Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(52):20888-20893.
66. Wint W, Robinson T (2007) Gridded Livestock of the World, 2007 (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome), p 131.
67. Farrow A, Risinamhodzi K, Zingore S, Delve RJ (2011) Spatially targeting the distribution of agricultural input stockists in Malawi. Agric Syst 104(9):694-702.
68. Cerri CC, et al. (2009) Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions: The importance of agriculture and livestock. Scientia Agricola 66(6):831-843.