Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Soy Strategic Gap Analysis: Brazil and
Argentina
Elaboration: ICONE Team
André Nassar and Laura Barcellos Antoniazzi
(Coordination)
Joyce Brandão
Paula Moura
Supervision:
Jan Gilhuis - IDH
Bruce Wise – IFC
July 2011
Funded by:
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Contents
1.
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3
2.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.
Global Scenario – Main Producers, Importers, Exporters. ...................................................... 4
2.2.
Price and Trends ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.
Sustainability............................................................................................................................ 8
3.
Study Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 9
4.
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 9
5.
4.1.
Field interviews ...................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.
Workshops and interviews with interested parties ................................................................ 11
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 12
5.1.
Interviews with producers, institutions and workshops ......................................................... 13
5.2.
Workshops results ................................................................................................................. 33
5.3.
RTRS Trials and interviews ................................................................................................... 36
6.
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 37
7.
Recommendations and Institutional Strategies ............................................................................. 38
7.1.
Recommendations for the design of Responsible Soybean Programs ................................. 38
8.
Glossary......................................................................................................................................... 41
9.
Exhibits – Interview questionnaires ............................................................................................... 42
a. Producer questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 42
b. Trader questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 52
c. Environmental agencies questionnaire .......................................................................................... 53
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
1.
Executive Summary
The Soy Strategic Gap Analysis was developed in order to identify the key gaps and
bottlenecks for production and supply of sustainable certified soy in Brazil and Argentina.
Sustainability criteria were assessed using RTRS Roundtable on Responsible Soy – RTRS standards.
The study was focused, in the first place, on understanding the challenges in the on farm and off farm
environment for adopting more sustainable social and environmental practices. Secondly, it was
focused on identifying the key stakeholders and possible partners in the different regions targeted in
the study and recommending strategies for investment in programs to support and accelerate the
adoption of sustainable soy production practices.
The study was conducted mainly through interviews with producers and other relevant
stakeholders such as traders, NGOs and government agencies. A questionnaire was developed for
producers and field interviews were carried out in the largest soy producing regions of Brazil (Mato
Grosso and Parana) and Argentina (Buenos Aires). In a second phase of the study, interviews with
other relevant stakeholders were conducted and workshops were organized in order to validate the
results obtained through the field interviews and to give basis for the recommendations presented in
the study.
The study shed light on a wide range of gaps and opportunities for responsible soy production
in Brazil and Argentina. One of the main gaps identified through the study was a lack of definition and
information regarding the process, costs, incentives and benefits for producers to follow RTRS criteria
and become certified. Producers expect to receive a premium or other non-financial incentives, such
as credit preferences, for the certifying their production practices. Another central issue identified was
related to good agricultural practices, specifically regarding the lack of documented control over crop
management activities, especially in small and medium farms. Regarding environmental responsibility,
waste disposal was identified as one of the main issues, especially in Argentina. In Brazil, disposal of
Class I waste, such as fuels and batteries, is a problem and producers would like to have more
technical information on the theme. Also, problems in complying with labor legislation, specifically
regarding work hours and overtime limits during the harvest period, and adaptation to the
requirements of labor safety were identified in Brazil. In Argentina, most labor is outsourced to service
companies; therefore this topic may need further exploration, due to the lack of information on contract
and working conditions of subcontracted labor. Another major gap identified was related to the
difficulty for Brazilian producers to comply with the Forest Code, especially Legal Reserve
requirements.
Regional strategies related to the size and scales of rural properties were identified as the
starting point to construct a responsible soy program. Local partnerships, technical training,
information, and investment in adaptations for legal compliance of social, environmental and land use
laws deserve special attention in the formulation of a responsible soy program and in the formation of
groups of producers interested in supplying certified soy to the European market. Further studies
should be focused on a deeper analysis of the costs and benefits for adjusting to certification
requirements. Also, it is important to assess how soy producers will adapt to Brazil´s new Forest
Code, which is being modified at present. Finally, an examination of compliance of labor and health
criteria in Argentina is necessary, in view of the extensive outsourcing of labor in that country.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
2.
Introduction
Soy is one of the world’s most important sources of protein. Its global production increased from 29
thousand tons in the 1964/1965 harvest to approximately 261 million tons in the last harvest
(2010/2011). In the last ten years, global production and soy cultivated areas have increased by 48%
and 37%, respectively. Ongoing growth of the world’s population means ongoing increase in the
demand for sources of protein, such as soy.
2.1. Global Scenario – Main Producers, Importers, Exporters.
The United States, Brazil and Argentina are the world’s three main producers and exporters of soy. In
the 2009/2010 harvest, the United States produced 91 million tons of soy, 35% of the world’s
production, exporting 41 million tons, which represents 44% of the world’s total exports (table 1). Brazil
and Argentina account for 46% of the world’s soy production, and has shown the greatest potential to
increase production in recent years. In the last ten years, the production of soy in Brazil and Argentina
has increased by 82% and 78%, respectively. In the United States, in the same period, there was an
increase of only 21%. This data indicates the increasing relevance of the two South American
countries in the context of the global soy market.
In Brazil, soy is produced in every region of the country. The states of Mato Grosso and Paraná,
however, are its most prominent producers, accounting for 27% and 20% of the national production,
respectively. According to Aprosoja, the state of Mato Grosso alone is responsible for 8% of the
.
world’s soy production In the 2010/2011 harvest the state produced more than 20 million tons. In
cultivated areas, the order of the ranking is virtually the same, with Mato Grosso in the first place,
Paraná in second and Rio Grande do Sul in third.
Nevertheless, the characteristics of farms in these areas are different. In the South, farms are smaller
(according to data from the 2006 Agricultural Census, 35 hectares on average) and the majority of
farmers sell their production though cooperatives. Properties in the Central Western region are bigger
(500 hectares on average) and cooperatives are less prominent than in southern states. Particularly in
Mato Grosso, soy production takes place in large scale farms (according to the 2006 Agricultural
Census, approximately 20% of the production takes place in farms with 2.5 thousand hectares or
more).
In Argentina, soy production is more prominent in the so-called Nucleo Zone, comprising the provinces
of Córdoba, Buenos Aires, Santa Fé, Entre Rios and La Pampa, which are responsible for almost 90%
of planted area. Soy production has also been increasing in expansion provinces, comprising Chaco,
Salta, Santiago Del Estero and Tucuman. The Nucleo Zone is the most well established region in soy
production. Expansion areas in the north are characterized by large farms (more than 5,000 hectares),
generally managed by private companies.
Production increases in response to the growing demand for soy may be explained based on two
variables - increase in cultivated areas and productivity gains. In cultivated area, the United States
also tops the range, with 31 million hectares. Brazil and Argentina follow, in second and third,
respectively, with 24.2 million hectares and 18.6 million hectares (Figure 1).
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Figure 1: Area cultivated with Soy in Argentina, Brazil and the U.S. (thousand
hectares)
Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS)
The USA, Brazil and Argentina present equivalent growth in productivity (Figure 2). However, in the
last years, the main reason for the greater expansion observed in Brazil and Argentina relative to the
United States is the expansion of cultivated areas, rather than productivity gains. It is important to
highlight, however, that area expansion in Argentina occurred mainly over other crops, while in Brazil it
also took place in natural vegetation areas, mainly in the cerrado region. If Brazil and Argentina had
increased production through productivity gains, their overall increase would have been equivalent to
the North-American growth.
Figure 2: Soy productivity in Argentina, Brazil and the U.S. (Mt/ha)
Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS)
The United States, Brazil and Argentina also top the world range on soy exports (Table 1). The three
countries together respond for 90% of the world’s soybean exports. Nevertheless, Argentina is
stronger in the export of soy byproducts, especially oil and meal, due to its export tax policy, among
other competitive advantages. In the 2009/2010 harvest, Argentina exported almost 50% more
soybean meal than Brazil and almost 60% more than the United States. Similarly, Argentina exported
approximately 66% more of soy oil than Brazil and the United States.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Table 1: Leading Soy exporters in 2010/2011
Country
Million tons
% global export
Bean
42
44%
Meal
10
14%
Bean
32
34%
Meal
14
24%
Bean
10
10%
Meal
29
49%
Bean
6
6%
Meal
1
2%
USA
Brazil
Argentina
Paraguay
Source: USDA – PSD Online
Among the main destinations of the exported soybean, China and the European Union are the most
prominent (Table 2). In the last ten years, Chinese imports of soybeans surpassed the European, and
they keep growing fast. European imports decreased 30% in the last ten years, while Chinese imports
increased 280% in the same period. The European Union, however, is still the main global importer of
soybean meal. Nevertheless, similar to the bean imports scenario, the European share in soybean
meal imports has also been decreasing (Figure 3).
Table 2: Leading soy importers in 2009/2010.
Country
Million tons
% imports
Bean
55
59%
Meal
0,3
1%
Bean
14
15%
Meal
23
40%
China
European Union
Source: USDA – PSD Online.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Figure 3: Participation of the EU in the global imports of soybeans and soybean meal.
Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS).
2.2. Price and Trends
Unlike other oilseeds, like canola, sunflower and palm, soy is a grain with high levels of protein. It is
possible to extract 76% of soybean meal and 19% of oil from it. Although there is a growing demand
for soy oil, it is the soy meal market that determines the grain’s production expansion.
Producers work with a narrow profit margin, depending on the farm’s production costs, transportation
costs, and the price of grains. In 2011, the soy price reached its record high in the last ten years, with
an average of US$ 505/MT (Figure 4). The same occurred with soybean meal and oil. Relative to
soybeans and meal, soybean oil has increased its value over time, especially as a result of the
growing demand for biodiesel in Europe. The soybean oil’s valorization also changed the relative
prices of soybeans/meal. While soybeans and soy meal had the same price level until the middle of
the 2000 decade, soybean oil valorization made the bean prices increase more than the price of soy
meal.
The soy crushing industry works with the concept of a crushing margin, in other words, how much
value the crushing of soy added to the bean’s value (Figure 4), before discounting the costs of
crushing and tax payment. As a result of the price rise of soybean oil, the crushing margin has been
growing. However, because many other regions, like China, use different policies (fee escalation,
differentiated rates for domestic tributes and stimulus for investment in crushers) to stimulate grain
imports and promote crushing domestically, the soybean grain has been gaining value in rates
equivalent to those of soy oil.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Figure 4: Price of soy beans and byproducts in Chicago (USD/MT) and crushing margin.
Source: IMF
2.3. Sustainability
As previously discussed, expansion of soy production to satisfy the growing demand for the product
tends to be realized through area expansion, more than through productivity gains. The expansion of
soy, as well as other agricultural products, has been criticized mainly because of its connection to
deforestation and resulting environmental impacts like greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity
loss. Both in Brazil and Argentina, there is a serious concern to guarantee that soy expansion takes
place in a responsible manner and according to national laws. European consumers have increasingly
required that the product they buy be produced according to environmental and social standards, and
be certified by specific programs, like the Roundtable on Responsible Soy - RTRS.
The Roundtable on Responsible Soy is an initiative to promote the responsible production of soy
through the collaboration, dialogue and consensus among groups of stakeholders directly or indirectly
involved in the soy supply chain. The Roundtable’s principles and criteria are based, in the first place,
on the fulfillment of the current national laws, in addition to other requirements regarding best
agricultural practices, community relations and environmental aspects. The incentives to obtain a
certification greatly depend on the producer´s perception regarding the added value that the
certification will generate. China, currently the largest soy importer in the world, does not require
anything from the imported soy in terms of sustainability, which can reduce the scale and the
incentives for producers to adapt to the RTRS standard. The Roundtable’s principles and criteria were
used in this project for the elaboration of the survey applied to the producers and also to guide the
debates that took place during the workshops carried out in the project.
Besides RTRS, it is also worth mentioning the Soja Plus initiative. The objective of Soja Plus is to
improve the conformity of producers to environmental and social issues, focusing on the improvement
of on-farm management.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
3.
Study Objectives

Identify and analyze the gaps and challenges of farms, traders/crushing industries, and other
indirect stakeholders (organizations of producers, NGOs, public agencies) to engage and
support a program to supply responsible soy to Europe and other markets, via the RTRS
criteria.

Identify the main stakeholders, synergies and cooperation models for different regions of the
study.

Recommend strategies for investment in support programs for the production and trading of
responsible soy.
The results of this study are being used by IDH and IFC to guide their soy production support
programs. IDH already launched the “Soy Fast Track Fund” – more information will soon be available
through their website (http://www.duurzamehandel.com/en/home) and through the RTRS website.
4.
Methodology
In order to understand the gaps and challenges faced by producers regarding environmental, social,
legal and agricultural handling issues, it was necessary to get a closer look at the daily routines of
rural properties. Therefore, the methodology adopted included field interviews and the application of a
questionnaire exclusively for producers. The questionnaire included data about the farm, like its size
and production in the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 harvests and was divided into 6 sections: good
agricultural practices, environmental responsibility, community relations, legal aspects, responsible
labor conditions and certification, totaling 77 questions. Except for three producers who were
interviewed by phone, including one whose questionnaire was used as a pre-test, all other producers
were interviewed in the field.
The choice of the producers interviewed and the consultation of interested parties was made based on
the analysis of all members of the soy production chain and the agencies that indirectly influence or
are impacted by its performance (Figure 5). The relevant players of the supply chain, are producers,
traders/crushers, cooperatives and consumers and they, have direct and interdependent relationships
among themselves. The productive environment is also indirectly influenced by other entities, such as
rural unions, environmental and labor public agencies and the non-governmental organizations with
different environmental, production and social lines of action.
The difference between the two countries, Brazil and Argentina, and the soy producing regions, was
considered for the stratification of the sample and the application of questionnaires. It is important to
stress that the definition of the sample of interviewed producers was not based on statistical analysis.
In order to aggregate analysis and validate the results of the field interviews, regional workshops and
a comparative evaluation among the field trials were performed. Both contributed towards the
improvement of the gap analysis.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Government
Community
Environmental
Cooperatives
Agencies
Consumer Market
Trade association
Trader
Rural Producer
NGOs
Figure 5: Institutions and stakeholders in the supply chain
4.1. Field interviews
Brazil
In Brazil, interviews with producers were divided in two areas with prominent production: the states of
Mato Grosso and Paraná - between March 22nd and 25th, 2011 - and the agricultural expansion area
known as MAPITOBA, which includes the states of Maranhão, Piauí, Tocantins and West of Bahia.
Mato Grosso
The provinces of Sinop and Sorriso, in the north region, and Lucas do Rio Verde and Nova Mutum in
the mid-northern region, located at BR-163, were selected for the application of the questionnaires
due to the following reasons: having consolidated agriculture and being among the most productive
and most lucrative in Mato Grosso. Also, the size of farms is larger than 500 hectares, on average.
Interviews with producers took place with support from Aprosoja (Association of Soy Producers of
Mato Grosso), and the cities’ Rural Workers Unions, which indicated farms for the interviews. Such
support was essential to guarantee that the producers dedicated some time to answer the
questionnaire, since it was harvesting season in the region, a factor that made the scheduling and
previous articulation of interviews with producers more difficult. Non-governmental organizations, the
state environment office and a trading company integrated the scope of the interviews, because of
their importance within the production chain, in the case of the trading company, and with the analysis
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
of the relative context and environmental, agrarian and social conflict issues related to the production
of soy.
Respondents: 13 rural producers (500 to 700 hectares and a big producing company); local and
national NGOs, trade associations, state environmental office and trading company.
Paraná
The provinces of Ponta Grossa, Maringá, Londrina, Astorga, Iguaraçu, Ipiranga, Palmeira and
Sabáudia in the Northeast and Central East regions were selected for the application of interviews
because of its high production level, the presence of cooperatives that represent production and the
agro-industrial enrichment of the soy. The properties in this region are of small and medium
producers. The interviewed with producers were carried out after meeting with cooperatives to align
and support the performance of the interviews. Additionally, interviews with traders in their regional
offices were carried out.
Respondents: 10 producers (77 to 3,800 hectares), 3 traders and 2 cooperatives
MAPITOBA (interviews by phone with company managers)
Regions of the Northeast of MT, South of Piauí, West of Bahia, the provinces of Barreiras, Luis
Eduardo Magalhães, Correntina and Jaborandí were selected, as they are production areas owned by
agricultural companies in this region of agricultural expansion/frontier.
Respondents: two large production companies (42 to 200 thousand hectares) in April 2011.
Argentina
In Argentina, the interviews for the study were focused on the Nucleo Zone (Provinces: Buenos Aires,
Córdoba, Santa Fé, Entre Rios and La Pampa) and in smaller proportions on other provinces from the
North. Small farmers were interviewed in the province of Roque Perez (Buenos Aires) and big farmers
in the province of Salta, in the north region, also an expansion area. In this province, the local
government was consulted about issues, such as social conflict between indigenous communities,
creoles, rural workers and the expansion of soy production in the region.
Respondents: 20 producers (62 to 400 hectares and 8 big companies that produce from 9,000 to
120.000 hectares), 3 traders, a non-governmental organization and state public agency, between April
4th and 8th, 2011.
4.2. Workshops and interviews with interested parties
The goal of organizing regional workshops ((Ponta Grossa, Sorriso and Buenos Aires) was to validate
the results obtained with the first field interviews with farmers and aggregate information relating to the
key challenges identified in the interviews.
The workshop in São Paulo had a different tone, because it included the participation of traders,
suppliers of fertilizers and seeds, environmentalist NGOs, certifiers and producer associations. This
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
allowed the discussion about the need to offer services and benefits to certified farmers and to share
success cases of socio-environmental programs and certifications of rural properties.
During the execution of the project we undertook interviews with seven non-governmental
organizations that work directly with the socio-environmental aspects and improvements in agricultural
practices, as well as with the Brazilian entity representing the industry of vegetable oils producers.
5.
Results
This section presents the organized and analyzed results of the interviews carried out with farmers,
traders, class entities, non-governmental organizations and public agencies. It also includes the
validation of results and the considerations made by the participating organizations during the
workshops.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
5.1. Interviews with producers, institutions and workshops
The results analyzed in the table below summarize the key gaps and situations found among farmers and the additional actors in the soy production chain
related to the great themes: social, environmental, legal and agricultural practices. In order to facilitate comprehension, these themes were divided in specific
sub-themes and were individually discussed. The regions and countries specifications were described in the text when necessary. W hen there are no details,
the results are considered compatible in all regions.
Table 3: Results related to the interviews and workshops
Themes
Sub-themes
Results
Soil Conservation Plan
Widespread use of no-till.
In Argentina the adoption of crop rotation is greater, but it is not a
general practice, and it can also be improved and amplified.
Costs involved
no-till: operational costs already
included
in
the
agricultural
handling.
Other soil conservation practices such as: terracing and level curve are
employed when needed, they are not the norm.
In Brazil there is little adoption of crop rotation. It may be improved and
amplified according to the scale/size of properties.
Good Agricultural
Practices
Integrated
Management (IPM)
Pest
With the exception of large producers in Brazil and Argentina, the use
of IPM is a practice not fully known by the producer and as a result
there is no complete application of this technique.
Medium producers in general sample present pests in the crop, but do
not necessarily sample the presence of natural enemies. However, the
decision-making about the application of agrochemicals does not
Specialized workforce.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
follow the indicators of contamination levels and minimum damage.
For medium and small producers, to implement IPM means to increase
costs for technical training of employees and possibly the selection of
new workers to manage this activity in the field and to analyze the
information.
Use and application of
Small producers have difficulty in registering, monitoring and managing
Cost of the investment in infra-
agrochemicals
applications.
structure for storing packages,
Medium and small: Weather conditions for application are assessed
cost variable with structure size.
empirically, there is no registered data.
In Argentina the storage spaces in small and medium properties are
not adequate and/or do not have the necessary conditions, either for
full or empty packages.
Good Agricultural
The infrastructure for storing agrochemicals is regulated in Brazil and
Practices
the majority of interviewed farmers have the storage space, but this is
going through an adaptation process.
Control of new pests
Medium and small producers do not have the structure, capacity and
technical knowledge to identify new pests and diseases.
Lack of technical support to perform a systematic control plan for new
pests. Producers say that this plan must be a job done by EMBRAPA
(Brazil) or INTA (Argentina). In order to perform this monitoring within
the scale of properties, technical training and specialized workforce are
necessary.
Control of the interference
In general there is no consideration given in soy cultivation to prevent
of
transfer of transgenic soy to neighboring properties. For other cultures,
GMO
agrochemicals
and
like corn, there are techniques applied for the non-interference to
Specialized workforce.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
neighbors (Brazil). In Argentina, there was no example of transfer
control for neighbor properties.
Regarding agrochemical control in Argentina, there is a regulation for
the minimum distance allowed of an application and the local
population. The directives are local. However, air pulverization is done
in general by outsourced companies and there is no knowledge about
how outsourcing companies comply to this law by producers who hire
them.
Origin of seeds
In Argentina, because of a national law, producers can keep and
produce their own seed. When they need to purchase seeds, they buy
from regional seed companies.
Good Agricultural
Practices
In Brazil, the purchase of known and authorized seeds is done by
cooperatives in large scale (Paraná). In Mato Grosso, producers also
buy authorized seeds.
Biological Control
No biological control is currently used in the properties sampled;
nevertheless the use of biological control techniques in the past was
mentioned.
Production of GMO and
Argentina: 100% GMO, producers are not willing to plant conventional
non-GMO Soy
soy again.
Brazil: 2010/2011 harvest increase the use of genetically modified soy,
nevertheless producers are willing to keep the production of
conventional soy, depending on the productivity of the conventional
variety and/or of the premium paid for this soy.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Evaluation of social and
In Argentina there is no law that regulates the evaluation of
environmental impacts in
environmental impacts at the federal level. For large producers in
new infrastructures
some provinces, who need this authorization, this requirement is met.
However, there is no normative or studies on the social impacts.
In Brazil, the installation of new infra-structures requires an
environmental license, the social analysis depends on the enterprise’s
scale. In general, no evaluation of environmental or social impacts was
observed within the interviews. In Piauí, one interviewed producer
stated that the expansion areas had to have an environmental license
for deforestation and that they did an anthropological study of the
region.
Waste Management
Environmental
Aspects
Argentina: There is no efficient waste management system that
Costs
includes frequency of collection and proper final destination in the
agrochemicals
provinces.
triple washing are not included in
There are properties at Salta province that burn their wastes, because
there is no appropriate place for the final destination of waste in the
involved
in
returning
packaging
and
the operational cost, and are not
viewed as additional costs.
province. In the Nucleus Zone (Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Santa Fé)
there is a collection program (Agrolimpio and CASAFE), but this is not
accessible to all properties and there is no proper destination of Class I
waste, like burned oils, fuels and batteries.
Regarding the agrochemical containers, the situation is the same.
There is no official collection in all of the provinces and properties,
which makes the logistics impracticable, as well as the high costs for
small and medium producers to forward all empty containers to the
provinces that have collection systems for these containers.
Among the interviewees, all of them perform the triple wash.
Nevertheless, there are producers who do not know about the need to
Approximate cost to build a
cleaning tank for the sprayer:
BRL 20,000 in Mato Grosso.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
correctly dispose of Class I waste and how to do it. There is a lack of
information about the theme.
Brazil: Class I waste do not have unique/official destination, waste is
sent to gas stations or the large producers send them to plants that
burn the material.
Every agrochemical container receives a triple wash and has proper
final destination. Returns are done by the cooperatives or individually
by the producers.
Few properties burn their waste, nevertheless there is still burning in
properties.
The infrastructure required by Brazilian law for the treatment and
Environmental
destination of waste resulting from tank cleaning and the water and oils
Aspects
separation boxes originated from the properties mechanic shops are
not totally adequate, the small producers have greater difficulty in the
adaptations because of the high costs.
Medium producers confirmed in the Mato Grosso workshop that the
costs related to infrastructure are high if they have to be assumed at
once; therefore, they can be diluted in time, and do not represent a
high investment in the long term. Producers would like to receive more
technical information about the theme.
Monitoring and reduction
Producers are not familiar with actions to reduce and monitor
of
greenhouse gas emissions. With the exception of large producers,
greenhouse
emission
gas
most others do not know this theme.
In Brazil, there is an initiative in partnership with Aprosoja and some
producers to research and quantify greenhouse gas emissions in the
production system.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Expansion Area after May
In almost every property interviewed in Mato Grosso, Paraná and
2009
Argentina, we did not find any cases of deforestation in new areas for
soy production after May 2009. There are farmers in the north of
Argentina and in some regions of Brazil that will deforest to increase
their production area if they have the government’s legal authorization
to do so. This may prevent RTRS certification.
Among the interviewees in northern Argentina, there was a case of
legal deforestation in native woodland after May 2009.
In the areas of agricultural frontier MAPITOBA (Maranhão, Piauí,
Environmental
Tocantins and West of Bahia) there was the opening of new areas
Aspects
(authorized deforestation) in the Brazilian cerrado after May 2009.
Permanent
Preservation
In the center region of Argentina, not all properties have riparian areas
The recovery cost for PPAs
Areas* (PPA) – riparian
and rivers. In the North, however, where there is a riparian zone,
according to the methodology
zone
producers know the importance of protecting that area.
developed by a Brazilian NGO is
1/3 of the cost of restoring native
forests in PPAs. This technology
Mapping
maintenance
and
In Brazil, there is consensus among producers about the importance of
was adapted and used with
PPA; however, not all of them are regularized with adequate mapping
producers -mechanized sowing.
and recovery areas. There is a project from an NGO in the Mato
Grosso region that aims to enable recovery at potentially low costs. In
the regions of agricultural borders in the West of Bahia and Piauí, open
According to producers, the cost
areas are previously planned and comply with the distances
of planting native trees in PPAs is
determined by Law.
approximately
between
5,000 and 8,000/ha.
BRL
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Native vegetation Areas
In Argentina, in its center region of production, there are no forests or
native pasture areas to increase production. In the North, there are
properties with forests, in which the exploitation of vegetation is
defined by the province´s territorial ordering plan.
In Brazil, the amount of native vegetation in the properties sampled
does not even comply with the percentage determined by the Forest
Code in the states of Paraná, Mato Grosso, West of the state of Bahia
and Piauí. Therefore, there is no native vegetation available for
Environmental
Aspects
production expansion.
Woodland
Argentina
Law
–
The woodland law requires compliance with provincial territorial
ordering plans. Producers in the north know the law and know that land
use planning may restrict agricultural expansion in the region, unlike in
the central area where no direct restrictions are imposed since there is
no expansion in natural vegetation areas. Interviews with NGO´s
revealed that the expansion of soybeans and the increase of land
costs have led farmers to seek other areas. Additionally, it has led to
illegal deforestation and to the consequent advance of soybean crops
over these areas.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Legal Reserve** (LR) –
Generally in Brazil, both in Mato Grosso and Paraná, farmers
Hiring an agronomist, measuring,
Brazil
interviewed are not compliant with the proportion of Legal Reserve
planting,
required by the current Forest Code. For small producers, Legal
seedlings, registering (notary’s
Reserve requirements are even harder to be met, because it
office fees)
represents a significant loss of productive area.
property
maintaining
of
the
– Have
cost a
1,200
hectares
approximately BRL 20,000. A
cost of BRL 16.70/ha.
Producers in new agricultural frontiers are entrepreneurs and the new
agricultural areas in the Brazilian cerrado are in compliance with Legal
Reserve requirements of the current Forest Code. Controlled burning
The whole process of registration
has been legally permitted -by the Brazilian Environmental Agency,
of a LR for a property of 500 ha =
IBAMA- for clearing new production areas.
BRL 50,000.00 in Mato Grosso.
Non-compliance with the Legal Reserve requirements may be due to
However, these costs are highly
various reasons, such as the legal uncertainty related to the Forest
variable according to region, land
Code; loss of productive area; the high cost of regularizing the
availability, and opportunity cost
environmental liabilities of the Legal Reserve, e.g., reforestation or the
of Legal Reserve compensation;
cost of buying land for compensation; the slowness of the
Also, there are the costs of hiring
administrative and decision making processes imposed by public
a consultant and the complexity
entities; lack of detailed information regarding technical aspects and
of the area. In this case, the
the federal and state legislation regulations; lack of support from
opportunity
environmental agencies in the implementation and regularization of
consolidated agriculture areas is
LRs. The difficulties for compliance with Legal Reserve requirements
bigger than in other areas and is
are a reality for both regions (center-west and south). However,
a high cost for a family farmer or
because agriculture in the South region of Brazil has been
small rural producer.
Environmental
Aspects
cost
of
land
in
consolidated for many years and because rural properties are small,
the loss of productive area in properties is more sensitive.
Rural
Environmental
According to the environmental agency of Mato Grosso, the CAR is the
Registry
(CAR)
first step towards environmental regulation. After three years the owner
and
Cost of the CAR process = BRL
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Unified
Environmental
Licensing (LAU) – Mato
Grosso (MT) case
must apply for LAU issuance and full regularization of agricultural and
forestry assets.
6/ha.
LAU Compliance: BRL 10,000 for
Low number of certified CAR and LAU properties (less than half of the
a property of 400 ha (the amount
respondents), the Mato Grosso State Board of Environment (SEMA)
includes land purchase for LR
reported low adherence throughout the state to the Mato Grosso Legal
compensation);
Program, which promotes the regularization of properties, across the
depending on the price of land.
costs
vary
state.
The municipalities with the largest number of adherences were Lucas
do Rio Verde, Alta Floresta and Querência, which works in
partnesrship with NGOs.
The
rate
of
administrative
the
LAU
process
varies
depending on the number of
Environmental
hectares in the property and the
Aspects
deforested area.
Challenges in complying
There are different opinions regarding what
with the Forest Code
producers in adapting to the code,:
are the challenges for
Lack of information and understanding regarding the changes in the
law; complexity of the law; environmental agencies are not sufficiently
organized to promote regularization processes; there are producers
who do not see major problems, but see the need to promote
organization among them for collective planting; difficulties in
converting already productive agricultural areas into LR areas; lack of
incentives to recover the LR, as well as lack of technical support and
inputs; and legal inconsistency.
Relationship with the
community
Local communities
The countries and regions sampled have distinct histories of
occupation.
In the northern provinces of Argentina, in the region of agricultural
expansion, it is possible to find indigenous communities and peasants
living in the vicinities of soy farms. In the northwest of Salta there are
Costs have not been mentioned.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Conflicts and land
four departments: San Martin, Rivadavia, Oran y Santa Victoria that
occupation
are prohibited to deforest by the Supreme Court; this resulted from a
complaint made by indigenous communities. According to interviews
with NGOs and other institutions, land occupation conflicts are present
in 4 to 5% of the soybean production areas.
In Brazil, regions of Mato Grosso and Paraná had no land occupation
conflicts. Likewise, research with local NGOs in Mato Grosso also
revealed that conflicts with indigenous people and quilombolas Brazilian hinterland settlements founded by people of African origin,
generally descendants of fugitive slaves- over land are currently
resolved, and currently there are no issues.
Relationship with the
Nowadays, land conflicts have shifted to the frontier area in the region
community
of Maranhão, Piauí, Tocantins and West of Bahia. These conflicts over
land occur between producers and squatters. In these regions there
are local communities living in the vicinity of agricultural properties,
which are directly and indirectly, positively or negatively affected by the
new regional agricultural activities.
One of the respondents reported that they did a local anthropological
and socioeconomic survey for the implementation of soybean
production in the area.
Impacts
From the perspective of producers, agricultural production does not
cause negative impacts on local communities, but improves the
economic conditions of the region.
The positive or negative social impacts are rarely measured; such as
the effects of mechanized production, expansion into new areas, the
increase of land prices, land sales and rural exodus.
Communication
The largest producers in Argentina and Brazil have local policies and
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
communication programs, as well as local initiatives.
Relationship with the
In some cases, when there is aerial spraying, notices are given to
community
neighbors.
Communication between neighbors, communities and villages is
informal. Producers are typically members of unions, cooperatives,
rural societies and local groups.
Agrarian regularization
A large number of producers have property deeds and lease contracts,
Costs
related
the minority, however, are pending regularization.
professionals
to
hiring
specialized
in
maps, geographic referencing,
and bureaucratic processes for
Family farmer: some struggle with agrarian regularization due to verbal
regularization of land in public
lease agreements and/or legal processes related to property division
government
and issues with inheritance/inventories.
INCRA). There is also the cost of
bodies
(Brazil:
time spent due to the slowness of
government bodies and some
Legal Aspects
cases of corruption (mentioned in
the interviews).
Knowledge
of
the
Legislation
Producers are aware of the main existing legislations, such as the
forestry, labor legislations, in addition to work safety and taxes
applicable to production, but that does not mean that producers know
exactly what these legislations require, how they apply and how to
comply with them.
Main compliance issues
Argentina
High cost of land, infrastructure;
regarding
Regulation on the application and use of agrochemicals is defined by
training
legislation
environmental
municipal districts and, therefore, it is hard for large producers to
comply with different criteria when they have business in several
municipal districts.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Brazil
1- 1- Legal reserve: lack of incentives, loss of productive area, land
purchase to compensate LR;
2- Cost of infrastructure adaptations for fuel and spray storage tanks,
oil separator and water from workshops;
3- Insufficient information about laws and how to accomplish them;
4- Inefficiency, slowness and lack of human resources in public
environmental agencies.
Legal Aspects
Solutions
environment-
related issues
Suggestions:

Payment Program for Environmental Services related to Legal
Reserve;

Improving management and efficiency of public agencies;

Improving the quality and availability of information for
compliance with environmental legislation (e.g.: storage tanks,
forest restoration methodologies and regulation of pesticides in
Argentina);

Facilitating
training
and
technical
support
to
producer
associations, cooperatives and unions, enabling them to
become multiplying agents and guides in environmental
practices.
Main issues in complying
Labor Legislation
Hiring consulting company to
with
1. Working hours and overtime during harvest periods exceed those
prepare and oversee the program
permitted by national laws;
of
2. Premium payment to employees for production, but such premium
occupational health and worker
labor,
health
and
safety in the workplace
legislations
safety
accident
prevention,
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
is not taxed;
3. Documentation and costly bureaucracy
Cost of PPE (Personal Protection
Health and Safety at workplace
Equipment)/employee:
1. Infrastructure adaptations of NR-31. E.g. lodging, living area,
120.00
BRL
bathrooms, storage of pesticides;
2. Monitoring of employee use and awareness regarding Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE)
Specifically in Argentina: there is a lack of control of the activities and
Legal Aspects
employees of outsourced companies regarding labor, safety and
healthy aspects.
Solutions
for
the
difficulties of labor, health
and safety issues at work
Suggestions: Changes in labor legislation;
Brazil: Information and support for compliance with NR-31; increase
staffing for large producers; verify the possibility of a collective
agreement between the union of rural workers and employers to
regulate the bank of hours; awareness of rights and duties of workers.
Potential
Partner
Institutions
Good practices guide
Suggestions of partnerships: SENAR, Cooperatives, Union of rural
workers, EMATER, SEBRAE.
Argentina: only two producers follow the APRESID good practices
guide
In Brazil, this issue was not widely answered; producers do not follow
any manual.
Average
Responsible work
conditions
permanent
and
employees.
number
of
employees
temporary
Argentina
Given the fact that the hiring scheme is outsourced, this number is not
monitored, there is no specific data.
Increase of the property’s fixed
cost with the increase of work
shifts to adapt to the work hours
required by law.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Brazil
Properties smaller than 100 ha in Paraná do not have employees;
Mato Grosso Average = 3 to 7 regular employees and 3 to 4 temporary
employees (medium producers)
Outsourcing
Argentina: All the activities related to soybean production are
outsourced – planting, harvesting, spraying and transportation.
Given this context, the outsourced companies were not able to
evaluate compliance to labor and health and safety of rural workers
laws,
Producers are fully responsible for activities that take place inside their
properties, even regarding outsourced services. In a certification,
Responsible work
producers must take responsibility for actions
conditions
of outsourcing
companies and offer equal working conditions to direct and indirect
workers. However, the interviewed producers know little about working
conditions of indirect (outsourced) workers. In a certification process,
all labor conditions are evaluated, both for direct, permanent workers
and indirect workers. Brazil: low rate of outsourced activities, only
aerial spraying.
Minimum Age
Workers below the age of 18 years were not found, only one case in
Brazil and one in Argentina, where the minor was the producer´s son
and had the guardian´s legal permission to work.
Recruitment criteria
Most workers do not have specific criteria, and only require the
technical qualifications for the job. In recent years, there is a growing
shortage of qualified labor force in rural areas.
Workday
Brazil: 44 hours per week + 2 hours/overtime allowed.
Argentina: 48 hours per week + 30 hours/overtime (per month)
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
In the harvest period, there is an excess of working hours. According to
producers, this is a widespread problem and it is difficult to control
overtime.
Salary
Wage: Over the regular minimum wage, in addition to that, they
receive an extra premium for production in the harvest period.
The mechanism of payment of premiums for production is required to
collect proportional taxes by law; however this practice is not adopted
by the majority of producers and their employees in both countries. In
Argentina, the practice also occurs, although it was not possible to
Responsible work
conditions
interview outsourced companies to deepen the subject.
Habitation and Lodging
The accommodations and lodging were not visited but, according to
producers:
In Argentina, appropriate lodging conditions were reported.
In Brazil, producers consider that lodging and habitation are in good
conditions and some of them are going through some adjustments in
order to meet the legal requirements of the Ministry of Labor.
Farm leaves
At least once a week, as necessary.
Training
Argentina: training is offered for the duties performed and safety for
regular worker (generally in large corporations), but the outsourced
companies have not been contacted and the small and medium
producers do not have their monitoring on the conduction of training to
their employees.
Brazil: Training and capacity building according to the worker’s
function, trainings related to work safety, application of agrochemicals
and NR-31 do not generally occur in Mato Grosso properties. Most
training is given by consulting companies, low participation of SENAR
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
in Mato Grosso.
In Paraná the trainings are held focusing on the worker’s occupation
and on worker safety, in general by SENAR and the Cooperatives.
Responsible work
conditions
Health and Safety
Low rate of formalization of the health and safety program, although
Brazil:
Hiring
consultants
to
Program
there are actions in the field already.
elaborate prepare and monitor
the health and safety at work
program.
Estimated
company
cost
in
for
a
Brazil:
large
BRL
5
thousand/year for consulting and
BRL 100 thousand to hire worker
safety technician;
Mato
Grosso:
consulting
approximately BRL 1,100/month
Paraná:
Health
and
Safety
Consulting BRL 120/employee
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Personal
Protective
Equipment (PPE)
Provision of PPE is widespread; however, use is not general yet. There
is a gap in monitoring use and awareness of the worker regarding the
importance of using it.
Responsible work
Emergency Procedure
Large producers have specific emergency procedures.
Union of Rural Workers
In Argentina the UATRE Union has federal level operations, and
workers contribute financially, but worker participation was not detailed
conditions
in UATRE.
Brazil: Low participation of rural workers in their class unions.
Only the union of Sorriso in Mato Grosso has the Collective Agreement
between the Workers Union and employees.
Perceptions
regarding
Positive view regarding the socio-environmental certification within the
certification systems
themes presented in this study.
Knowledge of certification
Argentina: large producers know the certification systems of the no-till
initiatives for sustainable
farming (AC-AAPRESID), Carbio for biofuels and RTRS, however
soybean
small and medium producers do not know any.
Brazil: General lack of knowledge regarding soybean certification
programs, except one huge producer and other two producers
Certification
members of Aprosoja.
Have a certification
Argentina: AAPRESID, ISO 9001
Brazil: one producer certified by Global Gap.
Approx. BRL115/employee
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Knows the RTRS
Argentina: Only large producers know.
Brazil: Only two producers know. One of them is a large producer.
Main
barriers
certification of
sustainability
for
soybean
For Argentina and Brazil:

cost
of
certification
(advisement,
adjustments
and
maintenance);

qualified labor force for property management;

traceability;

lack of information about the criteria for certification;

lack of premiums/benefits for the rural producer.
Property management, and analysis and control of records are
procedures that small and medium producers are not accustomed to
Certification
do. This was identified by producers in both countries as an important
gap for certification. Some procedures, such as keeping records of
agricultural chemical applications, monitoring handling operations, and
environmental actions are not present in the producer´s day to day
activities.
Specifically in Brazil: compliance and regularization to comply with the
Forest Code.
Bonus/Premium
Essential to leverage the process.
However, the study evidenced that there is an information gap
regarding producer knowledge of the benefits of certification and the
path to meet the criteria.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
Rural producers and some other interviewed groups noted that a
value-added to the product is necessary since, at the moment, just
access to the market is unrewarding; China is the main importer and
does not require any socio environmental certification/standard.
Producers interviewed stated that the premium must be sufficient to
cover the initial costs of adaptations for certification.
All other organizations interviewed stated that other options such as
financial incentives for certification are desirable, but the producers did
not expand on this, since they do not know the certification system, the
possibilities it offers through the market and the involvement of other
actors of the soybean supply chain in supporting certification, such as
Certification
input and seed providers, traders, banks, among other possibilities.
The organizations that comprise direct and/ or indirectly the soybean
supply chain showed that the services, products, and programs
intended to promote responsible soybean production should be
presented to rural producers combined, i.e., as benefits package. This
package would include tools to improve the quality and productivity of
the production system, information on market access, issues of social
and environmental sustainability, support to legal and technical
adjustments, financing rates and supply of inputs with differentiated
financing benefits.
Negotiation criteria with
Producers and other institutions believe that the involvement of the
traders
trader to define the award is important; however producers have
doubts whether the traders positioning in the negotiations of the
premium for the certified product will be transparent.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
How
traders
would
In general, producers do not know how traders would position
position themselves in the
themselves in commercializing certified products. There is no formal
commercialization
positioning.
of
a
certified products
Some producers believe that international and market pressure are
needed for traders to engage in this process.
Expectations regarding
Certification
participation and / or
cooperation of traders to
facilitate the production
and commercialization of
sustainable soy
Technical/legal/
The participation and involvement of cooperatives is essential.
The trader has organizational capacity and good relationship with
producers to engage them in certification processes and social and
environmental
improvements,
property
management
and
good
agricultural practices.
Argentina: ACREA, consulting firms.
environmental/ health and
safety Assistance
Mato Grosso and MAPITOBA (Brazil): consulting firms.
Paraná (Brazil): SENAR, Cooperatives and consulting firms.
Producers realize that the cooperatives, SENAR, the unions and some
NGOs can be important partners in advancing the certification process.
* The Permanent Preservation
Area (PPA) have specific ecological functions for the protection of water courses, ponds, lakes or reservoirs (natural or artificial), headwaters, hilltops, hills,
mountains, hillsides with slopes exceeding 45 degrees, fixing sandbanks of dunes or mangrove stabilizers, edges of plateaus, at altitudes above 1,800 meters.
** Legal Reserve (LR): according to the Brazilian forest legislation it refers to an area within the rural property representative of the natural environment of the region and is required in the sustainable
use of natural resources, conservation and rehabilitation of ecological processes, biodiversity conservation and shelter, and protection of native flora and fauna. The current requirements of Legal
Reserve
in
Brazil
according
to
the
differente
biomes
are:
35%
cerrado
http://www.mte.gov.br/legislacao/normas_regulamentadoras/nr_31.pdf
in
the
legal
Amazon,
80%
Forest
in
the
legal
Amazon
and
20%
in
other
biomes.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
5.2. Workshops results
Apart from validating the results described above, the workshops contributed to plugging information,
gaps and identifying possible institutional arrangements to leverage improvements in agricultural,
social and environmental practices in property management and responsible certification of the
soybean production chain.
1. Property management and Certification. Direct and indirect actors in the soybean supply chain,
such as traders, producer associations and NGOs stated that starting a certification process that
encompasses agricultural, environmental, social and legal principles, with a high level of
requirements, as the RTRS, can be an excluding process of producers. The representatives of the
productive sector are the ones that especially insist on the idea that a high level of requirements
must be accompanied by incentives for producers to engage, such as market premiums or tools to
improve property management. Moreover, the situation in the field demonstrates that producers of
different scales of production and technological levels still have many gaps related to agrarian
regularization, adequacies and environmental liabilities and compliance with labor laws and safety
in rural work. These gaps refer simply to law compliance. Additionally, when it comes to
certification, there are improvements to be made in agricultural practices and property
management that are still far from medium and small producers. Considering this, there is a
congruence of opinions among the consulted organizations that promoting adequacy and
improving overall management of rural properties is a benefit for the producer and should be
valued. Nevertheless, this statement highlights the importance of programs to manage the property
but does not exclude the possibility of starting the certification processes with those producers who
are already organized and taking actions to improve social and environmental conditions in the
properties.
2. Farmers’ awareness of the certification process. Analyses of interviews with rural producers and
consultations with other interested parties showed the lack of information among farmers regarding
the existence of the RTRS certification system, and other certifications. This also indicated that
rural producers are also unaware, or have only superficial knowledge, of the criteria involved in
certification. In this item, it is important to highlight the lack of information available to the producer
regarding the alternatives within the certification process, such as book and claim certificate
trading, the mass balance and segregation systems.
In Argentina, only large-scale entrepreneurial producers seemed to be familiar with RTRS
certification criteria, and other certification options available on the market. It has been observed
that the lack of information among small and medium rural producers in Brazil could be the result of
a failure on the part of the relevant class representative entities. Our analysis indicates that these
entities have a defined political stance, especially regarding the RTRS, whereby several of them
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
have decided not to lend further support to negotiations, which includes the flow of information.
However, the RTRS does not have a wide-ranging strategy to ensure that information pertaining to
the certification actually gets to rural producers.
3. Local institutional arrangements and successful models for the involvement of rural producers. The
strategy to involve rural producers in programs or projects linked to improvements in agricultural
practices, environmental preservation, social aspects and certification should be based on the
principle that they should all possess a common element that unites them; whether they are
productive practices or the sharing of common natural resources or even cultural and economic
elements. However, it is important that when any negotiation with producers is initiated, the other
players involved, such as traders and suppliers of inputs and seeds, be in accordance regarding
the benefits to be offered, so that everyone involved in the productive chain is engaged in the
whole process. Partnerships with local institutions build rapport with producers and facilitate their
involvement. The importance of local institutional arrangements stems from the fact that, in most
cases, training of producers for management and/or socio-environmental certifications will depend
on the levels of training and education of the multiplying agents in these entities.
4. The inefficiency of government agencies. Considering that abiding by national legislation is an
integral part of any socio-environmental certification, the inefficiency of government agencies was
emphasized by those who are engaged in the process of environmental regularization. The lack of
management and executive capacity and the command and control policies of Brazilian
environmental government agencies were identified as a bottleneck in increasing the scale of
environmental regularization. The main points of concern are the slowness of the processes,
uncertainty regarding regulations and cases of corruption. Ministry of Labor inspections have been
intensified, however, producers still feel the need for specific information on rules, for example, on
NR-31 and facilities for the disposal of class I chemicals and agrochemical containers.
5. Inclusion of small and medium producers in good agricultural and socio-environmental practices.
The inclusion of medium and small-scale producers in the RTRS certification, for example, is one
potential mechanism for increasing the level of good practices in rural areas. However, the
question is which other instruments and programs should be included so that this tool is not applied
only to a restricted number of producers. As previously presented, the joint strategy of a wideranging support program for improvements in agricultural property management, and the
organization of local institutional arrangements may be an alternative to leveraging and including
below-average producers in a certification process.
6. Services and products to stimulate responsible practices. Offering exclusive products and services
to producers who engage in certification initiatives is a decisive factor, according to participants.
The strategy proposed was that different players in the value chain can contribute to promoting the
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
adoption of responsible practices by rural producers. Services and products must be presented in
combination, in other words, as a package of benefits, which includes quality and productivity
improvement aspects of the productive system, information on market access, information related
to social and environmental sustainability, legal regularization and technical support, exclusive
financial rates and the supply of inputs with financing benefits.
7. Marketing / communication campaigns. The whole supply chain must be involved in investments in
marketing and communication campaigns. Everyone from end users -providing information on how
that final product is differentiated- to producers, cooperatives and associations, need to have a
greater understanding of the importance of improvements in socio-environmental practices, the
gains to be achieved with improvements in management until reaching the certification level and
the criteria for participation, how to participate and what market it encompasses.
8. Differentiated prices for certified products. A recurrent subject throughout the workshops and
interviews was that of a market premium, as a means of stimulating producer engagement.
Although participants translated the concept of a premium primarily as a monetary value in addition
to the market price, we understood that this differentiation could occur with less tangible attributes
of valorization of the certified product. The subject of premiums was frequently raised because the
methods of commercialization of certified products have still not been made clear to producers and
traders. One reason that leads agents to insist on the necessity of price differentiation is the lack of
information related to the structure of the chain of custody that will attend the market for certified
products.
9. Adaptation costs. In general, costs related to environmental adaptation, work safety and the
improvement of managerial capacity of the property are significant costs for producers; however,
few of them know the values spent on adaptations, on the administrative processes required by
government agencies, on operational changes and on management. When questioning producers
about the costs that a certification support program should cover, the general answer was that
there should be a financial reward that compensates the investment that they will have to make to
adapt to the law and the certification standard. But because producers are unaware of the
certification mechanism and all the players involved, they are also unaware of the costs of the
certification process. Thus, the first question producers ask is whether that reward, the additional
financial value, will be sufficient to pay for the adaptations and whether they will have any profit.
However, as mentioned in the previous item, producers’ vision of the process is still limited,
because they are unaware of whether there are other possible mechanisms of support, such as the
"benefits package", mentioned by other players - traders, banks, input companies - that could
benefit them. Some producers see that this could constitute a new market niche and that certified
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
soybeans could mean a guarantee of sale of their product; however, others believe that this alone
is not enough to compensate the investments in adaptations.
10. High Conservation Value Areas: the indefiniteness of the maps of national High Conservation
Value Areas (HCVA) by the RTRS can be a limiting factor for producer adhesion to this
certification process. Because these maps are not yet defined and because they represent
restrictions for the expansion of soy production, Mato Grosso producers do not accept these
criteria. According to them, accepting HCVA in the RTRS criteria would be compromising to
something without knowing for sure the consequences of doing so.
5.3. RTRS Trials and interviews
Field tests involving the RTRS have indicated similar gaps to the ones found in this study. The main
aspects covered by both studies are as follows:

Knowledge gap, on the part of rural producers, regarding the existence of the RTRS;

Difficulty in understanding and fully adapting to Brazilian and Argentine legislation and their
standards and procedures for legalization;

Low rate of registration, monitoring and management of activities on properties, no
programmed routines or schedules;

Excess work hours and overtime during the harvesting period;

Lack of monitoring of outsourced companies, with regards to the work hours of harvesters,
planters and sprayers and lack of health and safety policies, due to the fact that they work only
for results – especially in Argentina.

Relationships with surrounding communities and neighbors are informal;

Need for a campaign about the RTRS;

Need for incentives to stimulate producers to participate in the RTRS;

HCVA has no clear definition; there are still no maps;

Lack of public or private services for adequate final disposal of waste, especially in Argentina.

Need for investments in training in social and environmental technical aspects, as well as
good agricultural practices; need for the creation of technical information material and material
about certification and field training;

In Argentina, the practice of leasing properties through short lease agreements hinders the
management and fulfillment of criteria linked to better agricultural practices and the pre-2009
guarantee of non-deforestation.
This analysis of the similarity of results was general and not stratified, due to the fact that the trials do
not present differences between properties regarding size or scale of production. Also, the trials noted
noncompliance to legislation in a generalized manner, while this study brought to light specific
elements of noncompliance to legislation regarding environmental, social, land use and labor aspects,
besides an indication of the costs of compliance.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
6.
Conclusion
Genera results are synthesized as follows:
For Brazil and Argentina:
Low rate of use of diversified good agricultural practices techniques;
Gap in compliance with some environmental requirements related to native vegetation,
and waste management.
Gap in compliance with labor and worker safety requirements.
Lack of awareness as to the real costs of making adaptations to comply with the law and
the criteria of the standard;
Conflict over land issues are generally prompt and occur in agricultural borderlands;
No conflicts involving indigenous and/or Quilombola [Brazilian hinterland settlements
founded by people of African origin, generally descendants of fugitive slaves] communities
were identified;
Lack of technical assistance to producers for improvements in good agricultural practices,
environmental adaptation, adhesion to labor and worker safety laws;
Lack of information to producers about certification systems and socio-environmental
criteria;
Unclear benefits and lack of rewards for rural producers are limiting factors for the initiation
of certification;
The lack of previous knowledge of producers about certification systems and standards
made it difficult to undertake a more precise evaluation of the interest of producers in this
system and the difficulties and benefits of adapting to the standards;
Necessity to improve inclusion mechanisms to engage rural producers in the process of
implementing better agricultural practices, environmental and social regularizations, thus,
enabling a process of socio-environmental certification;
For Brazil:
Gap in legal compliance in rural properties, especially in Legal Reserves and inefficiency
of government bodies responsible for land and environmental regularizations.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
7.
Recommendations and Institutional Strategies
This section on institutional recommendations and strategies is intended to interconnect, from the
technical and policy standpoint, the interfaces, actions and partnerships necessary for the
development of a program to support the responsible and/or sustainable production of soybeans. The
recommendations are focused on opportunities for socio-environmental improvements in the field, in
the productive system and in efforts of players who are part of the soybean productive chain.
7.1. Recommendations for the design of Responsible Soybean Programs
Through a technical and political analysis of the results, it is possible to indicate several important
principles for the development of a responsible soybean program in the countries addressed. The
underlying premise of this plan must be that each country and each region has its own particular
characteristics in the economic, political, environmental, social and legal domains, which must be
taken into account, because it is based on this context that partnerships of potential funding and
experiences already underway may be defined, adapted and empowered.
For a certification support program to gain scale, we believe that it must, not only concentrate on the
fulfillment of the standard criteria, but also on management of agricultural properties, starting with
basic initiatives, such as regularization, implementation of good agricultural practices, increase in
productivity, training and improvements in infrastructure. The approach, therefore, must consider
certification as a result that is of interest to the most important actor, i.e. the rural producer.
Below, we propose a set of strategies to initiate and empower a program for responsible soybean
production.
1.
Distinctive strategies for each country, region and scale of the venture: the potential to abide
by the norms of the RTRS, for example, is directly related to the size and scale of production.
E.g.: Argentina (different programs for the Nucleo Zone and the Northern Region, which is the
agricultural expansion area); Brazil (distinctive programs for Mato Grosso, for the productive
states of the southern region of Brazil and for the regions of agricultural expansion in the west
of the state of Bahia, and the northeastern states of Piauí and Maranhão).
2.
Shared agreements among stakeholders in the production chain: the formalization of a
commitment encompassing end users, supermarkets, traders, input and seed companies,
banks and cooperatives to propose benefits and services to be offered to rural producers to
achieve the final goal of improving production standards (whether certified or not).
3.
Stratify the regions based on several criteria: a) groups of interested producers and/or a group
of producers engaged in initiatives/projects underway with local organizations (for example:
unions, NGOs, associations); b) evaluate the level of dialogue among traders and producers;
c) evaluate the degree of loyalty between producers and traders, because a greater number of
long-term suppliers is a positive factor in the creation of loyalty benefits among producers and
traders. Furthermore, this variable helps in the evaluation of the ease or difficulty of traders to
work with producers and with the region, possibly indicating a relationship based on trust
among traders and rural producers.
4.
Creation of groups of producers:
In the territory chosen to initiate the responsible soy
program, we suggest the creation and mobilization of a group of producers that have similar
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
interests and ideas. Evaluate what are the common characteristics among producers. For
example: properties that integrate the same watershed, cultural identities, members of the
same cooperative, sale to the same supplier, among other possible local synergies.
5.
To engage producers’ representatives in the certification scheme: there is more resistance to
support certification schemes at the leadership level than at the farmer level. Leaders tend to
be more conservative and more sensitive to political issues while farmers are more concerned
about practical consequences of engaging in certification schemes. It is fundamental to
engage leaders, making them part of the process rather than requiring them only to validate
taken decisions.
6.
Communication of the certification program objectives and/or management of the rural
property: the certification initiative or the management program must establish a dedicated
information program that targets producers directly. Furthermore, the availability of information
must be followed up by training on the rules and criteria for certification, involving producers,
cooperatives and interested partner institutions. Information on the management program or
responsible soybean certification should not depend on a single institution.
7.
Identify and formalize global and local partnerships: Promoting trader efforts, through their
local representatives, as multiplying agents in the adoption of good social and environmental
agricultural practices. In the case of the southern region of Brazil; alignment and partnerships
with cooperatives, because without their involvement and agreement, it is practically
unfeasible to articulate groups to prepare rural properties for certification. Alignment and
partnerships with local (municipal) and regional (state) government agencies may facilitate the
increase and improvement of the quality of information to rural producers on the rules for
adaptation, and they may become partners in the formulation of educational material of the
necessary social and environmental adaptations required in agricultural properties.
8.
Training: Training programs that involve strategic changes to properties must focus on
managers, those in charge of properties or owners. In Argentina, training programs pertaining
to worker health and safety and labor legislation must be carried out by outsourced
companies, responsible for carrying out the activities in the field. Technical training in
agronomy (improving the use of good agricultural practices), environmental and social issues,
such as implementation of NR-31, safety standards, facilities for the disposal of class I
chemical waste and agrochemical packaging, recovery of PPA and LR, property management
and the certification system are all essential.
9.
Property Ranking system (Step Wise approach): including grades/rankings in the certification
system may facilitate the insertion of rural properties into the certification process. Large-scale
producers already have the capacity to initiate the complete certification process, but for small
and medium producers, the ranking (or categories) would be more appropriate.
10. Market and rewards: Marketing linked to the responsible soybean trade. Important so that
consumers can identify the differentiation among producers.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
11. Suggestion of extra studies: A deeper understanding of the relationship between the costs and
benefits of certification is necessary, besides from the transaction costs associated to the
certification system itself. In the latter case, it is necessary to consider the field auditing costs,
considering that it is not always possible to take advantage of other verifications by
governmental bodies. Such studies are important in order to analyze if certification systems
are a good tool to use in promoting sustainable practices in the soy chain.
Two other studies are recommended: Analysis of the level of compliance with the labor and
worker health and safety criteria in Argentina, essentially the relationship between the
outsourcing companies and their employees who provide services to rural producers, since
during the certification process, outsourced workers are audited for the same criteria as the
permanent workers.. Furthermore, with the pending approval of a new Forestry Code in Brazil,
it would be appropriate to analyze the adaptation of agricultural properties regarding the new
Code, considering that the latter will alter current requirements.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
8.
Glossary
Brazilian institutions
SENAR: National Service for Rural Learning - has operations throughout Brazilian territory and
develops rural training activities such as professional training, social integration, and quality of life
improvement.
Cooperatives: in this study, these refer to rural producer cooperatives, and in some cases include agro
industrial activities, where producers work in cooperation, bringing benefits and collective
responsibilities.
Patronal Unions: class entity that represents rural producers with local or regional operations.
Rural Labor Unions: class entity that represents local or regional rural workers.
EMATER: Institution dedicated to providing technical assistance and rural extension, each Brazilian
state has a state level EMATER with particular characteristics.
SEBRAE: Brazilian Service of Support to micro and small companies.
APROSOJA: Association of Mato Grosso Soybean producers.
IBAMA: Brazilian Environment and Renewable Natural Resources Institute – national operations.
INCRA: National Colonization and Agrarian Reform Institute – national operations.
Argentine Institutions
CASAFE: Agriculture, Livestock and Fertilizer Sanity Chamber – composed by a business association
that represents the Science of Cultivation Industry.
Agro Limpio: Program to collect and recycle empty agrochemical containers, created by CASAFE and
several public-private partnerships.
UATRE: National Union of Rural Workers and Dockers.
APRESID: Argentine Association of No Till Producers.
ACREA: Argentine Association of Regional Consortiums of Agricultural Experimentation.
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
9.
Exhibits – Interview questionnaires
a. Producer questionnaire
Nome do produtor e/ou empresa (OPCIONAL):
Produtor: ( ) pequeno ( ) Médio ( ) Grande
Hectares da propriedade:
Hectares de soja safra 2009/2010
Hectares de soja safra 2010/2011
Produção (ton) safra 2009/2010
Produção (ton) safra 2010/2011
Município e Estado da propriedade agrícola:
Pertence a alguma associação e/ou cooperativa: ( ) Sim ( ) Não. Qual?
Introdução
Como você define a soja sustentável?
A sua produção de soja é sustentável?
Seção 1: Boas Práticas Agrícolas
1.
A propriedade possui um plano de conservação do solo para evitar erosão e manter a qualidade do
mesmo?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
1.a Se não e/ou parcial: Por quê?
( ) não possui informação técnicas sobre
( ) alto custo na adequação
( ) não existe necessidade
( ) não possui assistência técnica capacitada para o uso destas práticas
( ) outros. Detalhar
2.
Vocês utilizam um sistema de manejo integrado de pragas (MIP)?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
2.a Se não: Por quê?
( ) não possui informação técnicas sobre MIP
( ) alto custo
( ) não existe necessidade
( ) não possui assistência técnica capacitada para o uso destas práticas
( ) outros. Detalhar
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
3.
Quais defensivos são utilizados na produção agrícola?
4.
Há na propriedade um controle documentado da aplicação de defensivos agrícolas?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
5.
Há o uso de controle biológico de pragas?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
Se sim: As práticas de controle biológico possuem registro? Estão de acordo com a legislação nacional?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
Existe um plano para monitoramento e controle de espécies invasivas introduzidas ou novas pragas?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
7.a Qual a dificuldade em implantar este plano?
6.
7.
8.
Existe um plano para prevenir a interferência com processos produtivos diferentes em áreas vizinhas?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
8.a Qual a dificuldade em implantar este plano?
9.
Quem são seus principais fornecedores de sementes?
10. Existe um controle de origem das sementes?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
10.a Se não: por quê?
11. Qual soja você produz?
( ) transgênica. Por quê?
( ) convencional. Por quê?
( ) orgânica. Por quê?
11 a. Se produzir transgênico: Você plantaria soja convencional em quais condições?
Seção 2: Responsabilidade Ambiental
12. Quando há ampliação de infra-estrutura dentro ou fora da fazenda são realizadas avaliações prévias de
impactos sociais e ambientais?
( ) sim ( ) não
15.a Se não: Por quê?
( ) alto custo dos estudos
( ) falta de profissional capacitado para a realização da avaliação
( ) falta de necessidade
( ) outros. Detalhar
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
12.b Se sim: Os estudos estão documentados e implementados?
( ) sim ( ) não
13. Quais os custos envolvidos e estimados para realização dos estudos e sua implantação?
14. Existe algum tipo de queimadas na propriedade, ou de algum produto?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) às vezes
17.a Se sim: Qual a finalidade?
( ) queima é o destino de resíduos gerais e/ou sobras de safra
( ) supressão de vegetação
( ) geração de energia
( ) outros. Detalhar
15. Existe um programa de gerenciamento de resíduos (exemplo: descarte correto de embalagens de
agroquímicos, EPI usados, resíduos classe I – óleos, combustível, baterias)
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
15.a Se não e/ou parcial: Por quê?
( ) desnecessário
( ) dificuldade de recebimento do resíduo final na região
( ) falta de informação e capacitação de pessoal
( ) outros. Detalhar
16. Quais os custos envolvidos na implantação do programa?
17. Existe um programa de monitoramento e controle das emissões de gases do efeito estufa? (exemplo:
registro do uso dos combustíveis fósseis em volume e unidade de produto, monitoramento de carbono
no solo)
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
17. a Se não: por quê?
( ) desnecessário
( ) falta de informação e capacitação de pessoal
( ) alto custo na implantação
( ) outros. Detalhar
18. Vocês possuem um programa ou ações para reduzir essas emissões e/ou aumentar a captação desses
gases? (Se o produtor não entender pode-se dar os seguintes exemplos: práticas de mitigação como
plantio direto, recuperação de áreas degradadas, dentre outras).
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
18.a Se não: por quê?
( ) desnecessário
( ) falta de informação e capacitação de pessoal
( ) alto custo na implantação
( ) outros. Detalhar
19. Quais os custos envolvidos para a implantação de um programa e da redução das emissões?
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
20. A sua propriedade passou por área de expansão de soja desde maio de 2009?
( ) sim ( ) não
20.a Se sim: A área de expansão se deu em qual tipo de uso do solo?
( ) vegetação nativa cerrado
( ) vegetação nativa floresta amazônica
( ) Vegetação nativa mata atlântica
( ) cerrado em regeneração
( )pasto
( ) outra cultura agrícola
21. Se afirmativo a questão 20: Porque a expansão foi feita nessas áreas?
( ) ampliação da produção e falta de áreas disponíveis
( ) custo baixo
( ) terras aptas à produção de soja
( ) outros. Detalhar
22. As Áreas de Preservação Permanente (APP): margem de rio, nascentes, lagoas e encostas são
mapeadas, mantidas ou restauradas?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
23.a Se não: Há intenção de recuperar essas áreas?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
23.b. Se não: Por quê?
23. Existem outras áreas com vegetação nativa na sua fazenda?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) não sabe
Quantos hectares são? ________ ha
24.a Se sim: Essas áreas atendem ás exigências de Reserva Legal, 35% Cerrado, 20 % Sudeste, 80%
Amazônia?
( ) sim ( ) não
24.b Essa área está regularizada?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) em processo
24.c Se não e/ou em processo: Por quê?
( ) não possui informação sobre a importância na proteção dessas áreas
( )alto custo na implantação de mapeamento e medidas de proteção
( ) não existe necessidade
( ) não possui profissionais capacitados
( ) demora do órgão ambiental
( ) outros. Detalhar
24. Quais as principais dificuldades na adequação ao Código Florestal no seu ponto de vista? ( Reserva
legal e APP)
25. Existem custos envolvidos? Quais?
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
26. Você acha que a possibilidade de compensar a reserva legal em outra propriedade seria uma forma de
resolver problemas ligados ao Código Florestal?
Seção 3: Relações com a comunidade
27. Você sabe quem são as comunidades locais e os vizinhos do entorno da sua propriedade?
( ) pequenos produtores rurais
( ) assentamentos rurais
( ) produtores de soja
( ) produtores rurais com outras culturas agrícolas
( ) não conhece
( ) outros. Detalhar
28. A propriedade se comunica com a comunidade local e demais membros da sociedade? Exemplo:
( ) sim ( ) não
29.a Se sim: Como é a comunicação?
( ) visitas do técnico agrícola as comunidades e aos lideres locais
( ) Informe via carta
( ) reuniões
( ) outros. Detalhar
29.b Se não: Porque não há a comunicação?
( ) desnecessário
( ) dificuldade de articulação e de mão de obra capacitada para este diálogo
( ) falta de tempo
( ) custo
( ) outros. Detalhar
29. Existe custo ou algum serviço especial para realizar esta atividade de diálogo com a comunidade local?
Quanto? Para quais atividades?
30. Existe ou já existiu algum conflito relacionado à ocupação da terra na sua propriedade?
( ) sim ( ) não
31.a Se sim: Como foi ou está sendo resolvido?
( ) litígio na justiça
( ) Avaliação dos direitos das comunidades com resolução acordada
( ) o problema não foi tratado
( ) houve consentimento dos usuários tradicionais de terra
( ) outros. Detalhar
31. Se o problema não foi tratado: qual a dificuldade em estabelecer a resolução?
( ) custos legais – Advogados
( ) possível perda de área produtiva
( ) outros. Detalhar
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
32. Há documentação sobre os atuais conflitos com comunidades locais e/ou tradicionais ou conflitos
passados?
( ) sim ( ) não
33. Os trabalhadores da fazenda são da região?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) alguns
34.a Se não ou alguns: Por quê?
( ) falta de mão de obra capacitada na região
( ) outros. Detalhar
Seção 4: Aspectos Legais
34. Como é a questão fundiária da(s) sua(s) propriedade(s)? Exemplo: Existe escritura, são várias
matrículas, há documento de posse, etc.
( ) Averbação da Matrícula do Imóvel
( ) Escritura do Imóvel
( ) Documento de posse
( ) Contrato de arrendamento
( ) Outros. Detalhar
35. Você conhece as principais leis nacionais e regionais aplicáveis para a propriedade rural e/ou para a
produção agrícola?
Sim ( ) Não ( )
36.a Quais são elas?
( ) Código Florestal/ legislação estadual ambiental
( ) Legislação Trabalhista
( ) Fitossanitária
( ) Uso de Agroquímicos
( ) outros. Detalhar
36. Quais as três principais dificuldades encontradas para a adequação à legislação nacional e estadual
quanto à temática ambiental?
37.a E quanto à legislação trabalhista?
37. Quais os principais custos envolvidos para a regularização/adequações? (associar as leis não
cumpridas)
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
38. Você sabe se a propriedade e/ou a produção agrícola gera algum impacto social, positivo ou negativo,
para os trabalhadores e para a comunidade do entorno, no âmbito local ou regional?
( ) Sim ( ) Não
39.a Se sim: Quais? Poderia me fornecer exemplos.
( ) saúde do trabalhador
( ) desemprego devido à mecanização da lavoura
( ) outros. Detalhar:
39. Você sabe se a propriedade e/ou a produção agrícola gera algum impacto ambiental, positivo ou
negativo, no âmbito da propriedade, local ou regional?
( ) Sim ( ) Não
40.a Se sim: Quais? Poderia me fornecer exemplos.
( ) erosão e assoreamento de rios
( ) contaminação de corpos de água
( ) degradação de estradas
( ) desmatamento
( ) não sabe
( ) outros Detalhar
40. Você segue algum tipo de processo ou manual de boas práticas para amenizar impactos ambientais e
sociais? Qual?
( ) sim ( ) não
Seção 5: Condições de Trabalho Responsável
41. Quanto se fala em questões trabalhistas e de segurança no trabalho, quais são os três principais
problemas enfrentados pela propriedade nesse aspecto?
42. Quais instituições apóiam vocês na resolução destas questões?
43. Quais os caminhos para enfrentar estes problemas e qual o custo envolvido?
44. Quais são as formas de contrato que existem com os funcionários da fazenda?
( ) registro em carteira de trabalho
( ) temporário - diária
( ) temporário contrato por produção/safrista
( ) outros. Detalhar
45. Existem contratos via terceiros?
( ) sim ( ) não.
46.a Quais os serviços são realizados pelos terceirizados?
46. Você possui problemas na contratação direta e com contrato (CLT) de mão-de-obra?
( ) sim ( ) não
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
47.a Se sim: Por quê?
( ) falta de trabalhadores/ sazonalidade
( ) alto custo pagamento de impostos – FGTS/INSS entre outros
( ) Falta de trabalhadores capacitados
( ) outros. Detalhar
47. A propriedade/empresa possui critérios específicos para a contratação da mão de obra?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) parcial
48.a Quais são eles?
( ) somente contratação de mão de obra local
( ) somente homens
( ) maiores de 18 anos
( ) maiores de 14 anos
( ) não há critérios
( ) outros. Detalhar
48. Quantos funcionários trabalham na propriedade agrícola?
49. Qual a idade mínima dos trabalhadores da fazenda?
( )18 anos
( ) maiores de 14 anos
( ) maiores de 16 anos
( ) outros. Detalhar
50. Se houver menores de 18 anos: quais as atividades são exercidas por eles?
( ) tratoristas
( ) aplicadores de agroquímico
( ) pragueiro
( ) serviço gral
( ) outros. Detalhar
51. Qual a jornada de trabalho semanal dos trabalhadores?
( ) 44 horas semanais
( ) menor que 44 horas semanais
( ) mais que 44 horas semanais
( ) outros. Detalhar
52. Há a realização de hora-extra na safra?
( ) sim ( ) não
53. Quantos funcionários, em média, realizam hora-extra? Em porcentagem:
( ) até 20%
( ) até 50 %
( ) mais que 50 %
( ) outros. Detalhar
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
54. Qual o valor da remuneração mínima na propriedade agrícola?
( ) menor que salário mínimo nacional vigente
( ) salário mínimo nacional vigente
( ) piso salarial estabelecido pela convenção coletiva
( ) diária. Anotar o valor:___________________
( ) empreitada. Anotar o valor:______________
( ) outros. Detalhar
55. Se a resposta 55 for menor que o salário mínimo: Qual o maior desafio de contratação com salário
mínimo ou piso salarial base?
56. Existem trabalhadores alojados e/ou moradores na propriedade?
( ) sim ( ) não
57. O que é disponibilizado para os trabalhadores que moram e/ou se alojam na fazenda?
( ) água
( ) comida
( ) cama/armário
( ) outros. Detalhar
58. Existe algum tratamento ou análise da água fornecida?
( ) Não há tratamento de água
( ) Não há necessidade
( ) alto custo para as análises
( ) alto custo para o tratamento
( ) outros. Detalhar
59. Os funcionários contribuem/pagam para o uso do alojamento, moradia, alimentação?
( ) sim ( ) não.
60.a Se sim: Quanto?
60. Com qual freqüência o trabalhador se desloca da fazenda? Como?
( ) uma vez por semana – finais de semana, transporte da fazenda
( ) uma vez por semana - finais de semana, transporte público
( ) mensal - transporte público
( ) mensal – transporte da fazenda
( ) não há freqüência determinada, somente em caso de emergência
( ) outros. Detalhar
61. São realizados treinamentos/capacitações para os trabalhadores?
( ) sim ( ) não.
63.a Se sim: Quais?
( ) Saúde e Segurança no trabalho
( ) Direito trabalhista
( )Treinamento especifico para a função exercida. Tratorista, aplicadores de agroquímicos, entre
outros.
( ) outros. Detalhar
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
62. Existe um programa de saúde e segurança para o trabalhador?
( ) sim ( ) não
63.a Se sim: O que este programa engloba?
63.b Se não: Qual a dificuldade para a implantação de um programa de saúde e segurança no
trabalho?
( ) falta de necessidade
( ) falta de assistência profissional
( ) falta de conhecimento sobre a necessidade
( ) custo para elaboração do programa e implantação
( ) outros. Detalhar
63. Qual o custo estimado para implantar o programa?
64. São fornecidos equipamentos de proteção individual ( EPI) adequado para a função dos
trabalhadores?
( ) sim ( ) não
65.a Se não: Qual a dificuldade para o fornecimento dos EPIS?
( ) falta de necessidade
( ) falta de conhecimento sobre a necessidade
( ) custo de fornecimento e manutenção
( ) outros. Detalhar
65. Existe procedimento de emergência em caso de acidentes de trabalhadores na atividade agrícola?
( ) sim ( ) não
66.a Se não: Por quê?
66.b Se sim: Os procedimentos são conhecidos pelos funcionários?
( ) sim ( ) não
66. Os trabalhadores participam de sindicatos ou associações?
( ) sim ( ) não ( ) alguns ( ) não sabe
67.a Se não: Por quê?
( ) proibido pelo produtor
( ) não há interesse
( ) não há sindicatos ou associações locais
( ) outros. Detalha
Seção 6: Sistemas de Certificação
67. Qual é sua impressão sobre sistemas de certificação de sustentabilidade?
68. Você tem conhecimento de iniciativas de certificação de soja sustentável no Brasil/Argentina?
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
69. Você possui ou está no processo de obter alguma certificação de sustentabilidade?
70. Você conhece a iniciativa Mesa Redonda da Soja (RTRS - Roundtable on Responsible Soy)? Qual a sua
opinião? Por quê?
71. Quais são as principais barreiras para obter certificação de sustentabilidade da soja?
72. Você espera receber um bônus/ágio caso seja certificado? Ou pensa que esse diferencial é importante
para ganhar mercados independentemente de conseguir um plus no preço da soja?
73.a Existem critérios para negociação de preços/ágios com as traders? Que tipo?
73. Como se posicionam as traders em relação a comercialização deste produto?
74. Você espera algum apoio, participação envolvimento das comercializadoras/tradings/cooperativas para
facilitar a produção e comercialização da soja sustentável?
75. Quem dá assessoria/apóia/coopera com vocês para contornar os problemas atuais relacionados com a
assistência técnica, a jurídica, com os provedores de insumos, com os bancos, tradings, governo, ONGs?
76. Na sua região os serviços necessários para resolver problemas discutidos na entrevista estão
disponíveis para o produtor? Quais faltam, ou quais precisariam ser melhorados?
b. Trader questionnaire
Pontos para a entrevista
1.

Qual a intenção e o papel da trader em influenciar a adoção dos programas de certificação?
quais as dificuldades?
2.

Como vocês podem estimular os produtores na adequação as normas de certificação socioambiental,
exemplo RTRS ?
quais as dificuldades na execução, planejamento, interesse
3.
Quais regiões de maior interesse e facilidade para a adequação as normas?
4.
Quais as áreas de maiores problemas para a adequação? Quais são estes problemas?
5.
Qual a capacidade organizacional da trader em fomentar esse suporte aos produtores?
Institute for International Trade Negotiations
6.
Garantir a quantidade de produto certificado pode ser um gargalo? Como garantir?
7.

Quais problemas podem ser enfrentados no fornecimento destes produtos certificados para o
mercado europeu?
Pode gerar custos adicionais?
8.
Há garantia de ágio/Premium para o produto certificado?
c. Environmental agencies questionnaire

Quais são os procedimentos para a regularização ambiental de uma propriedade rural?

Do ponto de vista da (nome da instituição ambiental regional) quais os gargalos para as
propriedades agrícolas se adequarem a legislação ambiental nacional e estadual?

(nome da instituição ambiental regional) possui parcerias com instituições que
facilitaram/fomentaram a regularização e adequação ambiental de propriedades agrícolas
produtoras de soja? Quais são? Como foi essa experiência?

Quais tipos de programas/parcerias/ações seriam interessantes para fomentar a adequação
destas propriedades?

(nome da instituição ambiental regional) conhece iniciativas de certificação socioambiental
em propriedades agrícolas na região? Conhecem os resultados? positivos/negativos