IMBIV   05474
INSTITUTO MULTIDISCIPLINARIO DE BIOLOGIA VEGETAL
Unidad Ejecutora - UE
capítulos de libros
Título:
Environmental winners and losers in Argentina´s soybean boom.
Autor/es:
CÁCERES, D; SILVETTI, F; DÍAZ, SM; CALVO, S; QUÉTIER, F
Libro:
Applying Ecological Knowledge to landuse decisions
Editorial:
IAI/SCOPE/IICA
Referencias:
Año: 2008; p. 65 - 72
Resumen:
Abstract In 1991, Argentina launched its “convertibility plan” with the aim of reducing rampant inflation and stabilizing its economy. The plan included a deregulation of the country’s economy: tariffs were lowered and export taxes (temporarily) eliminated. These reforms had major structural effects on the agricultural sector, the price of inputs (goods and services) increased relative to the price of produced commodities. Development strategies based on cost reduction and economies of scale were favored, resulting in an expansion of no-till genetically modified soybean, and a considerable increase in the size of landholdings. This modernization process was the dominant adaptation strategy by farmers and received considerable support from governmental extension services that provided technological packages for soybean cultivation for example. Together with improved rainfall and high prices, these economic changes resulted in a “soybean boom” that has made Argentina the world’s third soybean producer with more than 13 million ha under cultivation (Grau et al., 2005, Zak et al., 2008). Although it has undoubtedly brought benefits in terms of increased exports and regional wealth generation, the soybean boom and its agro-industrial development model has also come at a cost: not all farmers were able to follow the development model, thus contributing to land concentration; farm workers lost employment opportunities as labor-intensive crops and animal husbandry disappeared; small-holders and peasants were displaced, losing access to ecosystem services; and increasing pesticide use has brought health problems to rural communities. In spite of the overwhelming dominance of the agro-industrial model, alternative adaptation strategies were possible. In this paper we investigate these alternatives – their economic viability and environmental sustainability. it has undoubtedly brought benefits in terms of increased exports and regional wealth generation, the soybean boom and its agro-industrial development model has also come at a cost: not all farmers were able to follow the development model, thus contributing to land concentration; farm workers lost employment opportunities as labor-intensive crops and animal husbandry disappeared; small-holders and peasants were displaced, losing access to ecosystem services; and increasing pesticide use has brought health problems to rural communities. In spite of the overwhelming dominance of the agro-industrial model, alternative adaptation strategies were possible. In this paper we investigate these alternatives – their economic viability and environmental sustainability. ., 2008). Although it has undoubtedly brought benefits in terms of increased exports and regional wealth generation, the soybean boom and its agro-industrial development model has also come at a cost: not all farmers were able to follow the development model, thus contributing to land concentration; farm workers lost employment opportunities as labor-intensive crops and animal husbandry disappeared; small-holders and peasants were displaced, losing access to ecosystem services; and increasing pesticide use has brought health problems to rural communities. In spite of the overwhelming dominance of the agro-industrial model, alternative adaptation strategies were possible. In this paper we investigate these alternatives – their economic viability and environmental sustainability.