Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities for a

sustainable future
Luiz A Martinelli1,2, Rosamond Naylor2, Peter M Vitousek3 and
Paulo Moutinho4
Brazil has developed a large-scale commercial agricultural
system, recognized worldwide for its role in domestic
economic growth and expanding exports. However, the
success of this sector has been associated with widespread
destruction of Brazilian ecosystems, especially the Cerrado
and the Brazilian Amazon rainforest, as well as environmental
degradation. Brazils agricultural development has also led to
land consolidation, aggravating a historical land distribution
inequality. This pattern of agricultural growth has reinforced
Brazil status as one of the worlds most inequitable countries in
terms of income distribution, making it difficult to assert that the
nation is pursuing a sustainable development path. In order to
achieve sustainable development Brazil must reconcile its
increasingly productive, modern tropical agricultural system
with environmental preservation, social equity, and poverty
alleviation in rural and urban areas. Although a daunting task,
Brazil has the opportunity to lead tropical countries in
combining modernized agriculture with highly diverse and
functional ecosystems. Continued improvement in socioeconomic conditions is equally important and will require
stronger efforts to decrease inequalities in income and land
distribution in the rural sector.
Addresses
1
CENA Av Centenario 303, Piracicaba, SP, 13416-000, Brazil
2
Program on Food Security and Environment, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, USA
3
Biology Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
4
IPAM Avenida Nazare 624, Belem, PA, Brazil
Corresponding author: Martinelli, Luiz A (martinelli@cena.usp.br)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

This review comes from the Open issue
Edited by Rik Leemans and Anand Patwardhan
Received 5 July 2010; Accepted 29 September 2010
Available online 23rd October 2010
1877-3435/$ see front matter
# 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V.
DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.09.008

Introduction
Brazil has chosen a development strategy that continues
to rely heavily on the agricultural sector for economic
growth [1] a natural choice given the countrys
immense territorial area, good rain distribution throughout
the year, suitable air temperatures for agriculture in most
www.sciencedirect.com

parts of the country, and abundance of inexpensive labor

[2]. These factors have been complemented by a series of
policies (including macroeconomic adjustments, price
supports and other fiscal incentives, favorable agricultural
trade policies, and investments in research and development) that have transformed Brazil into a powerhouse of
food, fiber and biofuel production [1,3]. Brazil is a
leading producer and exporter of soybean, sugar, coffee,
oranges, poultry, beef, and more recently ethanol. As a
consequence, agricultural exports account for 40% of
Brazils trade surplus, and agricultural production
accounts for almost 6% of the GDP [FAO Yearbook,
2008, http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/publicationsstudies/statistical-yearbook/fao-statistical-yearbook-20072008/en/, accessed September 2, 2010], while the entire
agribusiness sector contributes to approximately 25% of
the countrys gross domestic product (GDP) [4,5].
This achievement has not been attained without a heavy
price. Agricultural growth in Brazil continues to occur
under a matrix of extensive social inequality and environmental degradation [69]. Brazil has one of the highest
rates of inequality in dietary energy consumption [http://
www.fao.org/economic/ess/publications-studies/statisticalyearbook/fao-statistical-yearbook-2007-2008/en/, accessed
September 2, 2010], income, and land distribution in the
world [7,8], as well as one of the highest rates of tropical
deforestation that has occurred since the beginning of
farming by humans circa 10,000 year ago [10]. In this
paper we contrast the countrys agricultural system with
its oppressive record of income and land inequalities
and environmental degradation and discuss ways to
reconcile economic, social, and environmental goals.
Brazil faces this challenge and opportunity with other
tropical developing countries and with success, it
could become a role model to other nations in Latin
America, Asia, and Africa.

Overview of the Brazilian agribusiness sector

Brazil has a total land area of 851 million ha, of which
264 million ha (30%) are classified as agriculture. In 2006,
approximately 200 million ha (75%) of the total agricultural area was pasture and the remaining 64 million ha
(25%) was considered arable land. Soybean covers the
largest cropped area in Brazil (23 million ha), followed by
corn (12 million ha) and sugar cane (7 million ha). Rice
and beans, the staple crops of Brazil, cover approximately
2.6 and 3.2 million ha, respectively [www.faodata.fao.org,
accessed May 3, 2010]. Part of the countrys agricultural
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

432 Open issue

Figure 1

Agriculture Intensification and Amazon Deforestation in Brazil. (a) Percent increase since 1960 in production (continuous line), and area (dashed line) of
soybean; (b) percent increase since 1960 in production (continuous line) and area (dashed line) of sugar cane; (c) percent increase since 1960 of
number of animals (continuous line) and pasture area (dashed line); (d) percent increase since 1960 in fertilizer use; (e) percent increase since 1991 in
use of agrochemicals; (f) percent increase since 1988 in deforested area in the Brazilian Amazon forested area. Source data: www.faostat.fao.org.br,
accessed March 14, 2010. For Amazon deforestation the source data is: www.inpe.gov.br/prodes accessed February 25, 2010.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

www.sciencedirect.com

Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities Martinelli et al. 433

success is due to increased yields and area of most crops,

especially export crops like soybean and sugarcane
(Figure 1). Although the area cropped with soybean
and sugar cane has increased, corn has risen in yield
but not in area. Cattle production has also intensified,
but remains lower than many other beef producing
countries, with only 1.0 head per hectare on average.
In the wetter areas of US (east of the Mississippi River)
the average stock rate for pastures composed by grasses of
the genera Cynodon and Paspalum is almost three animals
per hectare (Glen Aiken, USDA, unpublished data).
Therefore, Brazil is a large exporter of beef though
relying on low productivity and inefficiencies.
In terms of social equity, land distribution in Brazil remains
highly skewed: the overall Gini coefficient (a measure of
inequality, with high values representing greater inequality) is 0.77, but with a significant variety between crops.
Staple foods like cassava and beans have significantly lower
Gini coefficients than export crops like soy and sugarcane
(Table 1). Sugarcane has the highest agriculture land
distribution Gini coefficient (0.88), and a recent study
showed increased land concentration with sugar expansion
in the State of Sao Paulo in the last decade [11]. Brazils
confusing land title system, especially in the Amazon
region, has accentuated the problem of unequal land
distribution [12]. The lack of land titles has also stimulated
rural violence and economic insecurity in rural areas [13]. It
is important to note that crops with lower Gini coefficients,
particularly cassava and beans, had a smaller growth rates in
both area and productivity than the export-oriented crops
like sugarcane and soybean (Table 1). This same trend was
documented 30 years ago by Pastore [14], who concluded
that research on these staple crops, which are not exportoriented, has been neglected or ineffective in practice.

Overview of socio-economic attributes in

Brazil
In recent years, and especially since the beginning of this
decade, Brazil has improved its social and economic

indicators substantially (Figure 2). GDP per capita

(inflation adjusted for the year 2008) was below
US$ 7500 from 1976 until 2002, but has since steadily
increased, reaching approximately US$ 8500 (Figure 2a).
At the same time, the income Gini coefficient has
declined slowly to 0.55 in 2007 (Figure 2b). Figure 3
compares the income Gini coefficient to the GDP per
capita (PPP US$ 2005) for most countries of the world; it
calls attention to the fact that Brazil has an intermediate
GDP per capita (PPP US$ 2005) compared to other
countries, but still maintains substantial income inequality [15]. Inequality is also reflected in the educational
system (Figure 2c): as much as 10% of the adult population of Brazil (almost 20 million people) is illiterate, and
the average number of years in school is still very low
compared with other nations. Although poverty has
decreased since 2002, approximately 20% of the population (36 million people) is still considered poor
(Figure 2d). The income level of the poor reflects on
their nutritional status [16,17]: the most recent survey in
2004 showed 40% of the population (73 million people)
with some type of deficiency in their nutritional status
[www.sidra.ibge.gov.br, accessed May 28, 2010]. Among
these 73 million Brazilians, 45% and 36% reported having
minor and moderate problems of malnourishment,
respectively, and 19% (14 million people) suffered severe
hunger problems. Interestingly, Brazil is now experiencing the so-called nutrition transition, involving the
coexistence of malnourishment and obesity [17]. Despite
these nutritional challenges, the average life expectancy
reached 73 years in 2008, an intermediate to high value in
relation to other nations (Figure 2e).
Brazil is currently in the middle stage of what development experts refer to as structural transformation [18]:
aggregate employment and incomes in agriculture are
decreasing relative to other sectors of the economy, while
employment and incomes in non-agricultural activities
related to agribusiness (e.g., inputs, processing, transport)
are increasing. The share of the labor force in agriculture

Table 1
The Gini coefficient for land distribution of major crops in Brazil. Source data: http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pesquisas/ca/
default.asp?o=2&i=P, accessed May 20, 2010. Area harvested and productivity and the growth rate (D) between 1961 and 2008. Source
data: http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor, accessed September 2, 2010, except for rice that data was obtained from http://
www.sidra.ibge.gov.br, accessed May 20, 2010.
Land use

Gini 2006

Area 1961

Area 2008
106 ha

Cassava
Beans
Rice
Pasture
Soy
Sugarcane
a
b

0.12
0.38
0.60
0.70
0.76
0.88

1.38
2.58
3.17
122.4
2.41
1.37

DArea a

Prod. 1961

%
1.84
3.78
4.11
197.0
21.27
8.14

33
47
59
62
8700
496

Mg ha
13.07
0.68
1.70
0.45 b
1.12
43.44

Prod. 2008

DProd. a

14.07
0.91
4.23
1.01 b
2.81
79.71

8
35
149
120
150
83

Growth rates were obtained by: 100  (data of 2008 data of 1961)/(data of 1961).
Pasture productivity is expressed in stock rate (number of animal unit per hectare).

www.sciencedirect.com

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

434 Open issue

Figure 2

Brazilian economic and social indicators over time. (a) Gross Domestic Product per captia, (b) Income Gini coefficient, (c) percentage of poor people
living in Brazil, (d) average number of years in school, (e) life expectancy, (f) percentage share of labor in agriculture. Data source:
www.ipeadata.gov.br, accessed May10, 2010. GDP per capita is inflation adjusted for the year 2008. Poverty definition can be found at: http://
www.ipeadata.gov.br/ipeaweb.dll/ipeadata?7911093 and it is based on the minimum income to buy basic food items. School attainment definition can
be found at http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/ipeaweb.dll/ipeadata?7911093 and refers to average years in school for 25-year-old inhabitants.

was 18% in 2006 (Figure 2f) a historical low for Brazil

but still substantially higher than industrialized countries
like in the US and Canada where the share of the labor
force in agriculture in 2004 was only 2% [7,18]. Within the
agricultural work force, 40% of all small farmers have no
title to their lands; most of these farmers are located in the
Amazon region, (www.sidra.ibge.gov.br, Censo Agropecuario, accessed 29 July, 2010). The lack of legal land
titles has resulted in land struggles and escalating rural
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

violence, particularly in the North and Northeast regions

[13]. From 1999 to 2008 almost 13,000 cases of violence
against rural workers were reported, and in the same
period approximately 35,000 rural workers were found
to be working under very poor and dangerous labor
conditions [13].
The population distribution of Brazil has also changed
during the past four decades. In 1970 approximately half
www.sciencedirect.com

Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities Martinelli et al. 435

Figure 3

Brazilian income inequality in comparison to other countries. Plot of gross domestic product per capita versus Gini coefficients for several countries.
Brazil marked as an open circle. Data source: UNDP/UNO Humand Development Index, 2008 http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/, accessed April 4,
2010.

of the population lived in rural areas,a while in 2000 only

19% of the population was rural (Table 2). Although most
of these people are connected to agriculture, approximately 30% of the rural population has some sort of nonagricultural employment [19,20]. Graziano da Silva and
Dell Grossi [19] showed that non-agricultural employment is increasing in rural areas, while farm employment
is falling. In addition, they showed that non-agriculture
employment depends more on the degree of urbanization
and size of cities than on the degree of regional agricultural development, refuting the notion that agriculture
itself is still the engine of economic growth. On the basis
of these facts they concluded that a rural urbanization is
occurring, leading to increasing interdependence between rural and urban areas in Brazil. Even in the Amazon
region, with vast tracts of forest, there is a strong and
complex linkage between cities of different sizes and
rural areas [21].
However, some clear differences in socio-economic
indicators still persist between these rural and urban areas
(Table 2). The average income is lower in rural areas than
in urban areas, and in rural areas, the average income for
non-agricultural employment is higher than for agricula
According to Jonasson and Helfand [20], based on the Brazilian
National Household Survey of the 2000 Brazilian Demographic Census,
approximately 86% of the rural population lives in rural areas exclusive
of agglomerations; 11% live in rural towns or agglomerations; and only
3% in urban extensions.

www.sciencedirect.com

tural employment [19,20]. The Gini income coefficient,

however, is higher in urban than in rural areas. The
number of poor people was much higher in the rural
areas than in the urban areas 40 years ago (Table 2). But in
the last two decades, there has been a sharp decrease in
rural poverty and the percentage of poor people living in
rural and urban areas today is practically the same [22].
Despite this equalization in poverty rates, the depth of
poverty remains larger in rural areas, and as a result only
half of the rural population has achieved food security
compared to 62% of the urban population (Table 2).
Public services like education, water supply and
improved sanitation are also worse in rural areas. Although
literacy increased substantially in rural areas from 2001 to
2008, it remains substantially higher in urban than in rural
areas (Table 2). In 2007, only approximately 30% of the
rural population had an improved water supply (household connection), with most of rural residents procuring
water from private or collective wells (Table 2). The same
is true for sewage and garbage collection, where the
contrast with urban areas is even greater excluding urban
slums. Twenty-two percent of the rural population has no
access to improved sanitation, and only approximately
10% of the people have their garbage collected by a public
system (Table 2).
In the Southeast of Brazil, increasing value added activities associated with agricultural growth have been more
promising for rural residents than they have in the Amazon and Northeast [19]. Our recent study in the State of
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

436 Open issue

Table 2
Demographic, economical and social indicators for rural and
urban areas of Brazil.
Parameter

Year

Rural

Urban

Population (%) a

1970
2000

44
19

56
81

Month average income (R$) a

Gini income a
Share of labor force (%) a

2001 154
404
2000
0.558
0.594
2001
20
80
2008
17
83
1970
79
65
2002
19 b
20 b

Poverty (%)a,b
Literacy (%) a

2001
2008

70
76

88
91

Food security (%) a

Expenditure of income with food (%) a

2004
2000
2008

50
30
24

62
16
15

Water supply household

connection (%) c

1992

12

88

2007
1992
2007

28
64
58

93
8
6

Sanitation household connection (%) c 1992

2007
Sanitation no access (%) c
1992
2007
c
Garbage service (%)
2001

3
5
49
22
9

46
57
6
2
85

Water supply well (%) c

Data source: Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domiclios 2007

(http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/pnad/pnadpb.asp, accessed September 2, 2010).
b
Data from Rocha [22].
c
Data source: Pesquisa Nacional de Saneamento Basico 2008
(http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pesquisas/pnsb/default.asp,
accessed September 3, 2010).

Sao Paulo showed that although there are significant

environmental problems [23], and issues with labor
[24] and land concentration [11] that have yet to be
resolved, municipalities with sugar cane and mills for
bioethanol production had higher incomes and human
development indicators during the past decade than those
with only primary agriculture. Examples of the latter
include areas with only sugar cane without a mill, and
cattle ranching, or those with no agricultural development
at all [25]. These trends offer greater hope for reconciling
agricultural growth with social welfare improvements.

Environmental degradation
The growth of Brazilian agriculture has been accompanied by massive deforestation in its three major forest
biomes: the Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado, and the Amazon
Forest [9]. The Atlantic Forest has suffered the most
acute destruction due to both agriculture and the expanding urbanization of the southsoutheast region of the
country. Although initially the Atlantic Forest covered
approximately 1.3 million km2, only 10% of this total
remains today, most of it in fragments distributed in
preserved areas mainly in the eastern portions (coastal
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

and Serra do Mar and Serra Geral slopes) to southern Rio

de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Parana states [26]. The Cerrado
(tropical savanna) is the second most important agricultural biome of Brazil covering approximately 2 million km2; recent estimates showed that half of the
Cerrado has already been replaced by cropland or pasture
[27]. Perhaps the most emblematic symbol of environmental degradation, however, is the destruction of the
Amazon rainforest. The forest domain of the Brazilian
Amazon region encompasses approximately 4 million km2, and of this total, almost 750,000 km2 has already
been deforested in 2009 [10]. Only in the last four to five
years has a considerable decrease in the rates of Amazon
deforestation been observed [28].
The replacement of natural vegetation by crops has
substantially reduced the biodiversity of the most
affected biomes [29]. Brazilian forests have a very high
number of tree species per hectare [30]. Therefore, when
a pasture or a soybean farm replaces natural ecosystems in
Brazil, approximately 200300 species per hectare are
replaced by very few species. The impact on Brazilian
biomes has had additional deleterious consequences for
Brazilian fauna: the number of endangered animal species
in Brazil has increased from less than 100 in 1963 to more
than 600 in 2004 [www.mma.gov.br, accessed February
14, 2010].
A less appreciated aspect of the replacement of the
original vegetation is the loss of several ecosystem services provided by natural ecosystems. One such example
is the ability of the Amazon rainforest to generate rainfall
using two proposed mechanisms. One mechanism
revealed almost 30 years ago by Salati et al. [31] involves
the strong effect that forest evapotranspiration has on the
dynamics of the atmosphere. The second mechanism was
discovered only a few years ago by Claeys et al. [32], who
showed that isoprene, a plant-produced gas, is transformed into a particle called 2-methilthertiol; this compound is hygroscopic and enhances the formation of cloud
condensation nuclei that in turn assist in forming water
droplets and driving precipitation.
In addition to land replacement, the establishment of
crops such as soybean, corn, and sugar cane has led to land
consolidation [11] and agricultural intensification.b As a
consequence, the consumption of nutrients like N, P, and
K as mineral fertilizer has been increasing sharply
(Figure 1), although the rates of usage in Brazil are still
lower than those in the most developed nations [33]. The
use of agrochemicals such as insecticides and herbicides
has also been rising at an unprecedented rate in Brazil
(Figure 1), and several pesticides that have already been
banned in most countries are still allowed to be used in
b

Quantitative figures of these trends can be found in Martinelli and

Filoso [9].
www.sciencedirect.com

Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities Martinelli et al. 437

Brazil. Agricultural pollution, along with land use change,

is impinging on the health of both humans and ecosystems throughout the country [34,35].

A challenge and an opportunity: reconcile

economic development and environmental
preservation
Brazil is at an important juncture in terms of sustainable
development. The recent decline in Amazon deforestation rates, coupled with increased south-east Brazilian
economic development through agriculture, allow us to
be cautiously optimistic about the future. These promising signs are offset, however, by continued evidence of
rural violence, poverty, and pollution related to agriculture and more recently a weakening of the political
will to preserve ecosystems. In June 2010 a move was
initiated by members of congress supported by agricultural oligarchies and by an agri-industrial complex to
dismantle a series of environmental laws under the current Forestry Code [36]. Among several dubious proposals
presented by this faction, two stand out as extremely
disturbing: a major decrease in riparian buffer zones, and
pardoning of all prior environmental penalties up to June
2008. Additionally, Forest Act offenders would not face
any impediments to taking subsidized credit and tax
breaks. The main motivation for these proposed changes
was to permit further agricultural expansion and to alleviate pressure to invest in crop improvement and productivity growth for several inefficient agricultural subsectors.
There are two broad sets of measures that we recommend
to achieve more balanced and sustainable growth. First,
policymakers should focus on improving land titles and
promoting equity in income and land distribution
throughout the country [7]. Efforts should also be
directed towards enhancing educational quality and
school enrollment in the rural areas [19,37], and improving (and enforcing) labor standards in the rural sector in
order to avoid health problems (e.g. [38]). Such changes
would build what the development economist, Amartya
Sen, calls entitlements the factors that enable the
underprivileged class to earn higher incomes and escape
from poverty [39].
A second broad set of policies should focus on building,
rather than dismantling, protection for natural ecosystems
and environmental quality associated with agriculture. In
areas such as the Amazon that are critical for ecosystem
services and biodiversity, policymakers should aim for a
zero deforestation target, and actively participate in collaborative programs like Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) established by the United Nations as part of the global climate
negotiations (http://www.un-redd.org/, accessed September 21, 2010). Although Brazil has progressive environmental laws under the umbrella of the Forestry Code,
www.sciencedirect.com

these laws are poorly enforced. A dismantling of the laws

under the proposals discussed above would likely worsen
social inequities and stimulate further deforestation in a
period in which Brazil and the global community are
looking for carbon sinks, not carbon sources.
Finally, it is paramount that there be a change in strategy
for Brazilian agricultural development from continuing
expansion into natural ecosystems to productivity growth
on existing agricultural land without further environmental degradation. We fully recognize this is a daunting
reconciliation in a country polarized between large consolidated agricultural enterprises oriented toward export
commodities and small landholdings that produce most of
the Brazilian staple crops. At the same time, the country is
also polarized by agricultural expansionists (ruralistas)
and environmentalists, as well as powerful agricultural
lobbies and landless movements like the Movimento dos
Sem Terras (MST).
The ability of Brazil to handle these contradictions and
conflicts and to follow a path that integrates socioeconomic development with environmental preservation
will have major consequences not only for Brazil, but also
for other tropical countries and the rest of the world.
Brazil can set a pioneering example. Failure to lead on a
sustainable development pathway would represent a
major missed opportunity for the improvement of human
and natural systems, one that would have global repercussions.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
1.


Barros G: Brazil: the challenges in becoming an agricultural

superpower. In Brazil as an Economic Superpower?
Understanding Brazils Changing Role in the Global Economy.
Edited by Lael Brainard L, Martinez-Diaz L. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press; 2008:2-35.
This reference is important because shows the macroeconomical
changes in the country that allowed the growth of the Brazilian agriculture
in the last decade and the challenges that the country will face in a near
future.
2.

Gasques JS, Bastos ET, Bacchi MPR, Conceicao JCPR:

Produtividade e Fontes de Crescimento da Agricultura
Brasileira. Revista de Poltica Agrcola 2004, 13:73-90.

3.


Chaddad FR, Jank MS: The evolution of agricultural policies

and agribusiness development in Brazil. Choices 2006, 21:8590.
This reference is important because focus on changes in agricultural
policies that favor the growth of the agribusiness in Brazil, especially
those export-oriented crops.

4.


Abbey LA, Baer B, Filizzola M: Growth efficiency, and equity: the

impact of agribusiness and land reform in Brazil. Lat Am Bus
Rev 2006, 7:93-115.
This reference shows that the growth of agribusiness in Brazil has
increased inequality and explains how the land reform in Brazil is proceeding and the growth of landless movements like the MST.
5.

Brazilian Trade Balance, 2008. Department of Planning and

Development of Foreign Trade. Ministry of the Development
Industry and Foreign Trade.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

438 Open issue

6.

Amann E, Baer W: Economic orthodoxy versus social

development? The Dilemmas Facing Brazils Labour
Government. Oxford Dev Stud 2006, 34:219-241.

24. Goldemberg J, Coelho ST, Guardabassi P: The sustainability of

ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 2008,
36:2086-2097.

7.

Franko O: The Puzzle of Latin American Economical Development.

third ed.. Lanhan: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2007.

8.

Ocampo JA: Latin Americas growth and equity frustrations

during structural reforms. J Econ Perspect 2009, 18:67-88.

25. Martinelli LA, Garret R, Ferraz S, Naylor R: Sugar and ethanol

production as a rural development strategy in Brazil: Evidence
from the State of Sao Paulo. Agric Syst 2010.

9.

Martinelli LA, Filoso S: Balance between food production,

biodiversity and ecosystem services in Brazil: a challenge and
an opportunity. Biota Neotrop 2009, 9:21-25.

10. Ometto JPHB, Nobre AD, Rocha HR, Artaxo P, Martinelli LA:
Amazonia and the modern carbon cycle: lessons learned.
Oecologia 2005, 143:483-500.
11. Olivette MPA, Carmargo FP: Concentracao fundiaria no Estado
de Sao Paulo: 19962008. Informacoes Economicas 2009, 6:
June.
12. Barreto P, Pinto A, Hayashi S: Quem e o dono da Amazonia? Uma
analise do recadastramento de imoveis rurais. Belem, PA: Instituto
do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazonia; 2008.
13. Canuto A, Silva Luz CR, Wichinieski I: Conflitos no campo Brasil
2009. Sao Paulo: Comissao Pastoral da Terra, Expressao Popular;
2010.
14. Pastore J: Brazilian agriculture research export vs nutrition.

Food Policy 1977:217-227.
This paper was visionary in the sense that more than 30 years ago it
emphasizes a problem that still persists today higher investments in
export-oriented crops like sugar cane than in staple crops like rice and
beans.
15. Ferreira FGH, Leite PG, Litchfield JA: The Rise and Fall of

Brazilian Inequality: 19812004. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper 3867, March 2006.
This article investigates in details the causes of Brazilian income inequality and how macroeconomical changes has a direct effect on the variability of income inequality.
16. Messias E: Income inequality, illiteracy rate, and life
expectancy in Brazil. Am J Public Health 2003, 93:25-35.
17. Monteiro CA, Conde WL, Popkin BM: Is obesity replacing or
adding to undernutrition? Evidence from different social
classes in Brazil. Am J Public Health 2007, 97:1808-1812.
18. The World Bank, World Bank Development Report. Washington,
DC: The World Bank; 2008.
19. Graziano da Silva J, Del Grossi ME: Rural nonfarm employment

and incomes in Brazil: patterns and evolution. World Dev 2001,
29:443-453.
This article it is important because shows that rural nonfarm employments
have become increasingly more important than rural farm employments,
making really complex to understand the dichotomy ruralurban in Brazil.
20. Jonasson E, Helfand SM: How important are locational
characteristics for rural non-agricultural employment?
Lessons from Brazil. World Dev 2010, 38:727-741.
21. Guedes G, Costa S, Brondzio E: Revisiting the hierarchy of
urban areas in the Brazilian Amazon: a multilevel approach.
Popul Environ 2009, 30:159-192.
22. Rocha S: Pobreza no Brasil: o que mudou nos ultimos 30 anos?
Seminario Especial Mini-Forum em homenagem aos 40 anos do
IPEA. Estudos e Pesquisas 83. IPEA, 2004.
23. Martinelli LA, Filoso S: Expansion of sugarcane ethanol

production in Brazil: environmental and social challenges.
Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18:885-898.
This article provides a broad view of the environmental and social
consequences of the rapid expansion of sugarcane especially in the
southeast region of Brazil.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:431438

26. Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM:
The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the
remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation.
Biol Conserv 2009, 142:1141-1153.
27. Carvalho FMV, de Marco P, Ferreira Junior LG: The Cerrado intopieces: habitat fragmentation as a function of landscape use
in the savannas of central Brazil. Biol Conserv 2009, 142:13921403.
28. Nepstad DC, Soares-Filho BS, Merry F, Lima A, Moutinho P,

Carter J, Bowman M, Cattaneo A, Rodrigues H, Schwartzman S
et al.: The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.
Science 2009, 326:1350-1351.
This reference is important because complements Figure 1(f) showing the
annual variability of Amazon deforestation and explains the main causes
that determined the decrease in the deforestation rates observed in the
last four years.
29. da Silva JMC, Casteleti CHM: Atlantic Forest of South America:
biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. In State of the
Hotspots. Edited by Galindo Leal C, Camara LG. Washington, DC:
Island Press; 2003:43-59.
30. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB,
Kent J: Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature
2000, 403:853-858.
31. Salati E, Dallolio A, Matsui E, Gat JR: Recycling of water in the
Amazon basin: an isotopic study. Water Resour Res 1979,
15:1250-1258.
32. Claeys M, Graham B, Vas G, Wang W, Vermeylen R, Pashynska V,
Cafmeyer J, Guyon P, Andreae MO, Artaxo P, Maenhaut W:
Formation of secondary organic aerosols through photooxidation of isoprene. Science 2004, 303:1173-1176.
33. Martinelli LA, Howarth RW, Cuevas E, Filoso S, Austin AT,
Donoso L, Huszar V, Keeney D, Lara LL, Llerena C et al.: Sources
of reactive nitrogen affecting ecosystems in Latin America
and the Caribbean: current trends and future perspectives.
Biogeochemistry 2006, 79:3-24.
34. Cancado JE, Saldiva AA, Pereira PHNL, Lara LBLS, Artaxo P,
Martinelli LA, Arbex MA, Zanobetti A, Braga ALF: The impact of
sugar cane-burning emissions on the respiratory system of
children and the elderly. Environ Health Perspect 2006,
114:725-729.
35. Arbex MA, Martins LC, Oliveira RC, Pereira A, Arbex FF,
Cancado JE, Saldiva PN, Braga ALF: Air pollution from biomass
burning and asthma hospital admissions in a sugar cane
plantation area in Brazil. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2007,
61:395-400.
36. Metzger JP, Lewinsohn TM, Joly CA, Verdade LM, Martinelli LA,
Rodrigues RR: Brazilian Environmental Law full speed in
reverse? Science 2010, 329:276-277.
37. Dias de Moraes MAF: Indicadores do Mercado de Trabalho do
Sistema Agroindustrial da Cana-de-Acucar do Brasil no
Perodo 19922005. Est. econ., Sao Paulo 2007, 37:875-902.
38. Rocha FLR, Marziale MHP, Robazzi MLCC: A pobreza como
fator predisponente ao adoecimento de trabalhadores do
corte da cana-de-acucar. Rev. Latino-am. Enfermagem 2007,
15:S1.
39. Sen AK: Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and
DeprivationOxford U. Press; 1983.

www.sciencedirect.com