Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07BRASILIA1498
2007-08-06 12:19:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Brasilia
Cable title:
THE SOYBEAN MORATORIUM, ONE YEAR LATER
how-toVZCZCXYZ0013 PP RUEHWEB DE RUEHBR #1498 2181219 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P 061219Z AUG 07 FM AMEMBASSY BRASILIA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9681 INFO RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION 6245 RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 4949 RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ AUG MONTEVIDEO 6991 RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0333 RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DEHLI 0312 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO 4902 RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO 0556
UNCLAS BRASILIA 001498
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR OES/ETC
STATE FOR WHA/EPSC L KUBISKE
STATE PLEASE PASS TO EPA FOR CAM HILL-MACON AND SHOFFMAN
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USGS FOR JEAN WEAVER AND JOHN GRAY
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USDA
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SENV TBIO PGOV ECON XR BR
SUBJECT: THE SOYBEAN MORATORIUM, ONE YEAR LATER
REF: 06 BRASILIA 2048
UNCLAS BRASILIA 001498
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR OES/ETC
STATE FOR WHA/EPSC L KUBISKE
STATE PLEASE PASS TO EPA FOR CAM HILL-MACON AND SHOFFMAN
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USGS FOR JEAN WEAVER AND JOHN GRAY
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USDA
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SENV TBIO PGOV ECON XR BR
SUBJECT: THE SOYBEAN MORATORIUM, ONE YEAR LATER
REF: 06 BRASILIA 2048
1. (U) Summary: On July 24, 2007, NGOs involved in the pact for
sustainable soy in the Amazon - the soy moratorium - such as
Greenpeace and The Nature Conservancy, met in Sao Paulo with
representatives of the soybean industry and large-scale European
consumers to evaluate the results of the one year moratorium. Among
other outcomes, the group agreed that the pact has been successful
in that it built partnerships between the environmental sector and
business enterprises. On the other hand, there has been a lack of
tracking tools to guarantee that the harvested soy hasn't induced
deforestation. At this point, it is not clear whether the pact will
be extended. End Summary.
2. (U) Most of the large soybean crushing plants agree that mapping
soybean production in the Amazon biome can be a tool to force
soybean producers to obey the Brazilian Forest Code (NOTE: This code
specifies that eighty percent of forested property in the Amazon
must be set-aside as a legal reserve. In addition, riparian areas
and other areas of ecological importance must be left intact as
areas of permanent protection). In other words, not only will
soybean producers have to stop felling trees, but any farmer who
doesn't have a legal reserve and intact riparian areas near rivers
and springs will not be able to sell his/her harvest.
3. (U) There are still some [in the soybean industry] who believe,
though, that the mapping should only focus on newly deforested areas
and that illegal logging should be the reason for banning a product
from the market.
4. (U) According to Brazil's Statistics and Geography Institute
(IBGE),last year the amount of land used for soybean plantation
increased 0.7% in the Amazon biome, reaching a total of 517,900
hectares. In the state of Rondonia alone, there was an increase of
30% in soybean plantations, totaling 103,000 hectares. The State of
Mato Grosso, though, is a separate case. Statistics show a
reduction of 4.8% in the area of soybean plantations. Brazilian NGO
Imazon has pointed out that deforestation rates have reduced by 40%
in the State.
5. (U) During the one-year anniversary of the moratorium, European
consumers signaled that they are willing to extend the pact, planned
to last for two years, if suppliers are unable to legalize their
activities. There was also a "discreet" mention during discussion
of the possibility of applying the responsible production of grains
to other biomes in the country.
6. A note from FAS/Brazil: The producer group APROSOJA from Mato
Grosso, Brazil's largest state for soybean production, claims the
moratorium was forced upon them without negotiation by organizations
such as ABIOVE that represent multinationals (Cargill, Bunge, ADM,
etc). In their opinion, in order for these companies to save their
image from being that of "destroyers of the Amazon" they are looking
to pass the blame and responsibility on to the farmers.
7. In addition, producers see the moratorium as an affront to
Brazilian legislation. Brazilian law allows 20% of farmers' land in
the Amazon biome be planted, while the rest be left as forest
reserve. They challenge that the moratorium conflicts with this
legislation. In their opinion, the current legislation is more
affective than the moratorium and easier to enforce.
8. In fact, APROSOJA challenges that after one year, no report has
been released informing how the moratorium has been enforced, if
indeed Multinationals refused to buy soy produced soy in the Amazon
Biome, and in what amount. They call it a marketing technique to
improve how consumers and European supermarkets and financers view
the multinationals' Brazilian operations.
9. APROSOJA has decided not to talk to the press on their views in
the media in order to avoid conflicts and polarization with ABIOVE
and ANEC, who form an important part of the supply chain.
SOBEL
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR OES/ETC
STATE FOR WHA/EPSC L KUBISKE
STATE PLEASE PASS TO EPA FOR CAM HILL-MACON AND SHOFFMAN
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USGS FOR JEAN WEAVER AND JOHN GRAY
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USDA
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SENV TBIO PGOV ECON XR BR
SUBJECT: THE SOYBEAN MORATORIUM, ONE YEAR LATER
REF: 06 BRASILIA 2048
1. (U) Summary: On July 24, 2007, NGOs involved in the pact for
sustainable soy in the Amazon - the soy moratorium - such as
Greenpeace and The Nature Conservancy, met in Sao Paulo with
representatives of the soybean industry and large-scale European
consumers to evaluate the results of the one year moratorium. Among
other outcomes, the group agreed that the pact has been successful
in that it built partnerships between the environmental sector and
business enterprises. On the other hand, there has been a lack of
tracking tools to guarantee that the harvested soy hasn't induced
deforestation. At this point, it is not clear whether the pact will
be extended. End Summary.
2. (U) Most of the large soybean crushing plants agree that mapping
soybean production in the Amazon biome can be a tool to force
soybean producers to obey the Brazilian Forest Code (NOTE: This code
specifies that eighty percent of forested property in the Amazon
must be set-aside as a legal reserve. In addition, riparian areas
and other areas of ecological importance must be left intact as
areas of permanent protection). In other words, not only will
soybean producers have to stop felling trees, but any farmer who
doesn't have a legal reserve and intact riparian areas near rivers
and springs will not be able to sell his/her harvest.
3. (U) There are still some [in the soybean industry] who believe,
though, that the mapping should only focus on newly deforested areas
and that illegal logging should be the reason for banning a product
from the market.
4. (U) According to Brazil's Statistics and Geography Institute
(IBGE),last year the amount of land used for soybean plantation
increased 0.7% in the Amazon biome, reaching a total of 517,900
hectares. In the state of Rondonia alone, there was an increase of
30% in soybean plantations, totaling 103,000 hectares. The State of
Mato Grosso, though, is a separate case. Statistics show a
reduction of 4.8% in the area of soybean plantations. Brazilian NGO
Imazon has pointed out that deforestation rates have reduced by 40%
in the State.
5. (U) During the one-year anniversary of the moratorium, European
consumers signaled that they are willing to extend the pact, planned
to last for two years, if suppliers are unable to legalize their
activities. There was also a "discreet" mention during discussion
of the possibility of applying the responsible production of grains
to other biomes in the country.
6. A note from FAS/Brazil: The producer group APROSOJA from Mato
Grosso, Brazil's largest state for soybean production, claims the
moratorium was forced upon them without negotiation by organizations
such as ABIOVE that represent multinationals (Cargill, Bunge, ADM,
etc). In their opinion, in order for these companies to save their
image from being that of "destroyers of the Amazon" they are looking
to pass the blame and responsibility on to the farmers.
7. In addition, producers see the moratorium as an affront to
Brazilian legislation. Brazilian law allows 20% of farmers' land in
the Amazon biome be planted, while the rest be left as forest
reserve. They challenge that the moratorium conflicts with this
legislation. In their opinion, the current legislation is more
affective than the moratorium and easier to enforce.
8. In fact, APROSOJA challenges that after one year, no report has
been released informing how the moratorium has been enforced, if
indeed Multinationals refused to buy soy produced soy in the Amazon
Biome, and in what amount. They call it a marketing technique to
improve how consumers and European supermarkets and financers view
the multinationals' Brazilian operations.
9. APROSOJA has decided not to talk to the press on their views in
the media in order to avoid conflicts and polarization with ABIOVE
and ANEC, who form an important part of the supply chain.
SOBEL