IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v7y2018i3p44-d160978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implications of Land-Grabbing on the Ecological Balance of Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Luca Coscieme

    (Department of Zoology, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College, D02 PN40 Dublin 2, Ireland)

  • Valentina Niccolucci

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Biagio F. Giannetti

    (Post-Graduation Program in Production Engineering, Paulista University, São Paulo 04026-002, Brazil
    State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Federico M. Pulselli

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Nadia Marchettini

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Paul C. Sutton

    (Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80210, USA)

Abstract

In the global free-market, natural resource scarcity and opportunities for preserving the local environment are fostering international purchasing of large extensions of land, mainly for agricultural use. These land transactions often involve land cover change (i.e., through deforestation) or a shift from extensive or traditional to intensive agricultural practices. In Brazil, the land appropriation by foreign investors (i.e., the so-called “land-grabbing”) is affecting natural capital availability for local communities to a different extent in the very different territorial entities. At the same time, Brazilian investors are purchasing land in other countries. Ecological footprint accounting is one appropriate lens that can be employed to visualize the aggregated effect of natural capital appropriation and use. The aim of this paper is to provide a first estimate on the effect of land-grabbing on the ecological balance of Brazil through calculating the biocapacity embodied in purchased lands in the different states of Brazil. The results show that Brazil is losing between 9 to 9.3 million global hectares (on a gross basis, or a net total of 7.7 to 8.6 million of global hectares) of its biocapacity due to land-grabbing, when considering respectively a “cropland to cropland” (i.e., no land-cover change) and a “total deforestation” scenario. This represents a minimum estimate, highlighting the need for further land-grabbing data collection at the subnational scale. This analysis can be replicated for other countries of the world, adjusting their ecological balance by considering the biocapacity embodied in international transactions of land.

Suggested Citation

  • Luca Coscieme & Valentina Niccolucci & Biagio F. Giannetti & Federico M. Pulselli & Nadia Marchettini & Paul C. Sutton, 2018. "Implications of Land-Grabbing on the Ecological Balance of Brazil," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-10, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:7:y:2018:i:3:p:44-:d:160978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/3/44/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/3/44/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin R. Bucciferro, 2017. "The economic geography of race in the New World: Brazil, 1500–2000," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1103-1130, November.
    2. Wackernagel, Mathis & Rees, William E., 1997. "Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, January.
    3. Dell'Angelo, Jampel & Rulli, Maria Cristina & D'Odorico, Paolo, 2018. "The Global Water Grabbing Syndrome," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 276-285.
    4. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    5. Gabay, Mónica & Alam, Mahbubul, 2017. "Community forestry and its mitigation potential in the Anthropocene: The importance of land tenure governance and the threat of privatization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 26-35.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kassouri, Yacouba & Alola, Andrew Adewale, 2022. "Towards unlocking sustainable land consumption in sub-Saharan Africa: Analysing spatio-temporal variation of built-up land footprint and its determinants," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    2. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    3. Alcott, Blake, 2008. "The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 770-786, February.
    4. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    5. Miyamoto, Motoe & Mohd Parid, Mamat & Noor Aini, Zakaria & Michinaka, Tetsuya, 2014. "Proximate and underlying causes of forest cover change in Peninsular Malaysia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 18-25.
    6. Karen Turner, 2006. "Additional precision provided by region-specific data: The identification of fuel-use and pollution-generation coefficients in the Jersey economy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 347-364.
    7. Malayaranjan Sahoo & Narayan Sethi, 2022. "The dynamic impact of urbanization, structural transformation, and technological innovation on ecological footprint and PM2.5: evidence from newly industrialized countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4244-4277, March.
    8. Gabriela Simonet & Julie Subervie & Driss Ezzine-De-Blas & Marina Cromberg & Amy Duchelle, 2015. "Paying smallholders not to cut down the amazon forest: impact evaluation of a REDD+ pilot project," Working Papers 1514, Chaire Economie du climat.
    9. Henry N. N. Bulley & Oludunsin T. Arodudu & Esther A. Obonyo & Aniko Polo-Akpisso & Esther Shupel Ibrahim & Yazidhi Bamutaze, 2023. "Perspectives on Applications of Geospatial Technology and Landscape Ecology for Conservation Planning in the Global South," International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research (IJAGR), IGI Global, vol. 14(1), pages 1-23, January.
    10. Caetano, Marco Antonio Leonel & Gherardi, Douglas Francisco Marcolino & Yoneyama, Takashi, 2013. "A constraint satisfaction method applied to the problem of controlling the CO2 emission in the Legal Brazilian Amazon," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(21), pages 5322-5329.
    11. Martin C. Whitby & W. Neil Adger, 1997. "Natural And Reproducible Capital And The Sustainability Of Land Use In The Uk: A Reply," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 454-458, January.
    12. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Korhonen, Jouni & Snakin, Juha-Pekka, 2005. "Analysing the evolution of industrial ecosystems: concepts and application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 169-186, January.
    14. Suranjan Sinha & Surajit Chakraborty & Shatrajit Goswami, 2017. "Ecological footprint: an indicator of environmental sustainability of a surface coal mine," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 807-824, June.
    15. Dimitropoulos, John, 2007. "Energy productivity improvements and the rebound effect: An overview of the state of knowledge," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6354-6363, December.
    16. Prudence Dato, 2018. "Investment in Energy Efficiency, Adoption of Renewable Energy and Household Behavior: Evidence from OECD Countries," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    17. Rulli, Maria Cristina & Casirati, Stefano & Dell’Angelo, Jampel & Davis, Kyle Frankel & Passera, Corrado & D’Odorico, Paolo, 2019. "Interdependencies and telecoupling of oil palm expansion at the expense of Indonesian rainforest," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 499-512.
    18. Seo, Kami & Taylor, Jonathan, 2003. "Forest resource trade between Japan and Southeast Asia: the structure of dual decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 91-104, April.
    19. Xin Yang & Fan Zhang & Cheng Luo & Anlu Zhang, 2019. "Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    20. Clements, Tom & John, Ashish & Nielsen, Karen & An, Dara & Tan, Setha & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1283-1291, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:7:y:2018:i:3:p:44-:d:160978. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.