FROM RAINFOREST TO CHICKEN BREAST
Effects of soybean cultivation for animal feed on people and nature
in the Amazon region – a chain of custody study
17 January 2006
Jan Willem van Gelder
Profundo
Jan Maarten Dros
AIDEnvironment
Commissioned by Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth Netherlands and Cordaid
FROM RAINFOREST TO CHICKEN BREAST
Effects of soybean cultivation for animal feed on people and nature
in the Amazon region – a chain of custody study
A research report for the Dutch Soy Coalition commissioned by
Friends of the Earth Netherlands and Cordaid
Jan Willem van Gelder
Jan Maarten Dros
Profundo
AIDEnvironment
Van Duurenlaan 9
1901 KX Castricum
Phone: +31 (0) 251-658 385
Fax: +31 (0) 251-658 386
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.profundo.nl
Donker Curtiusstraat 7-523
1051 JL Amsterdam
Phone: +31 (0) 20-58 18 250
Fax: +31 (0) 20-68 66 251
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aidenvironment.org
Cover: A ship unloading soy at the Cargill terminal in Santarem, Brazil.
© Frente em Defesa da Amazônia.
Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................ii
Introduction................................................................................................................4
Chapter 1
Cases................................................................................................6
1.1
Introduction................................................................................................ 6
1.2
Urucuí, Piauí............................................................................................... 7
1.2.1
Ecology........................................................................................................ 7
1.2.2
Soy in Piauí ................................................................................................. 8
1.2.3
Environmental impacts ................................................................................ 9
1.2.4
Socio-economic impacts............................................................................ 11
1.3
Pará........................................................................................................... 13
1.3.1
Ecology...................................................................................................... 13
1.3.2
Soy in Pará ................................................................................................ 13
1.3.3
Environmental impacts .............................................................................. 15
1.3.4
Social-economic impacts........................................................................... 17
1.4
Mato Grosso............................................................................................. 19
1.4.1
Environmental impacts .............................................................................. 20
1.4.2
Social impacts ........................................................................................... 20
1.5
Maranhão and Tocantins ........................................................................ 20
1.5.1
Environmental damage.............................................................................. 21
1.5.2
Socio-economic impacts............................................................................ 22
Chapter 2
Chain of Custody...........................................................................23
2.1
Overview................................................................................................... 23
2.2
Traders, crushers and transshipment companies ............................... 24
2.3
Sea transport and importers .................................................................. 25
2.3.1
Overview of soy transports from Itaquí and Santarem .............................. 25
2.3.2
Cargill ........................................................................................................ 25
2.4
Feed producers........................................................................................ 26
2.5
Farmers, slaughterhouses and supermarkets...................................... 29
2.5.1
Integrations................................................................................................ 29
2.5.2
Pork slaughterhouses................................................................................ 30
2.5.3
Chicken slaughterhouses .......................................................................... 31
Appendix 1
Consignment notes GE-soy .........................................................35
Appendix 2
Notes ..............................................................................................37
Production areas of Amazon soybeans in Northern Brazil. The inset map at the top left shows the
main ecosystems in Brazil. The expansion of soy production is concentrated in the ecosystems of
the Cerrado and the Amazon. Source Google Earth and MMA.
-i-
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide information about Dutch companies that are involved in
abuses in the Brazilian soy industry by importing and processing Brazilian soy in the Netherlands.
Research has been carried out with the Brazilian organisations Frente em Defesa de Amazônia
(Santarem, Pará), Caritas/Comissão Pastoral de Terra (Belém, Pará) and Funáguas (Teresina,
Piauí) into the social and environmental impacts of the production, processing and trade in soy
near Santarem and Urucuí, two growth centres of Brazilian soy production. Additional information
has been drawn from recent reports on the connections between soy production and slave labour,
illegal land acquisition and deforestation. The study reveals cases of tropical forest clearance,
slavery, violent land expropriation, pollution and violation of environmental legislation at a large
number of soy producing companies in the Amazone region and adjoining Cerrado savannas.
Local partners have traced the soy produced by the companies involved in these abuses to local
storage and transshipment facilities owned by Bunge (soy processing factory in Urucuí, Piauí;
storage and transshipment facilities in Itaquí, Maranhão) and Cargill (storage and transshipment
facilities in Santarem, Pará and Itaquí, Maranhão). Most ships departing from Santarem with
cargos of soy sail to the Netherlands.
For the last few years the Brazilian labour inspectorate has found at least six soy farms for
employing slave labour of which two can be directly linked to exports to the Netherlands. Over a
hundred reports of slavery on the soy sector are currently under investigation.The report of the
Brazilian Special Envoy for Human Rights makes it clear that soy from these companies operating
in the Mato Grosso has been transported via Grupo A. Maggi, ADM and Coinbra (a subsidiary of
Louis Dreyfus) to the Netherlands. In their report Mato Grosso: Amazônia (i)legal, ISA shows that
at least 31% of the deforestation at registered agricultural and livestock farms took place illegally
during the 2000–2003 period. Soy from these illegally deforested parcels of land in Mato Grosso is
also transported to the Netherlands via Cargill, Bunge, AMaggi, Coinbra and ADM.
From March to the end of October 2005 the Brazilian organisations Frente em Defesa de
Amazônia (FDA) and Funáguas noted which ships left from two important export ports carrying
soybeans and soy meal. In this period two shiploads of soybeans appeared to leave from the port
of Itaquí (Maranhão) and six shiploads of soybeans from the port of Santarem (Pará) to the
Netherlands. In total, these eight shiploads amounted to about 350,000 tonnes of soybeans,
approximately 7% of annual Dutch soybean imports. All these shipments were destined for soy
importer and processor Cargill in Amsterdam. Cargill crushes these soybeans to produce soy
hulls, soy meal and soy oil. Most of the crude soy meal is supplied to the animal feed industry. In
addition, Cargill supplies soy hulls and some of the crude soy oil, together with a few further
processed soy meal products, to the animal feed industry. Telephone interviews conducted by the
Dutch Soy Coalition have revealed that the following large Dutch animal feed companies are
important buyers of crude soy materials from Cargill:
Coöperatie ABCTA u.a.
De Heus Brokking Koudijs B.V.
Hendrix UTD B.V. (Nutreco)
Provimi
The first three companies belong to the six largest Dutch animal feed producers, which account for
60% of the market. Provimi is the most important producer of pre-mixes in the Netherlands.
These animal feed producers supply feed processed with crude soy materials to farmers,
particularly broiler and pig farmers. In turn, these farmers supply broilers and pigs to abattoirs.
Often there is close collaboration (an integration) between the animal feed producers, the farmers
and the abattoirs. On the basis of information found about these integrations, a number of pig and
broiler abattoirs can be identified where pigs and broilers fed with Brazilian soy have probably
been slaughtered:
- ii -
Vion (pigs)
Esbro (chickens)
Plukon Poultry (chickens)
Storteboom (chickens)
Van den Bor (chickens)
Vion is the most important pig slaughterer in the Netherlands, with a market share of more than
80%. The four chicken abattoirs together have a market share in the Netherlands of 50%.
Information has been obtained which confirms that a number of these abattoirs deliver prepackaged chicken and pork to large Dutch supermarket concerns, particularly to:
Albert Heijn
Laurus: Edah, Super de Boer and Konmar
To sum up, we can conclude that there is a good chance that mixed feed derived from crude soy
materials originating from the investigated regions in Brazil is used in the production of the prepackaged chicken and pork sold in these supermarkets.
- iii -
Introduction
This report provides information about Dutch companies that are linked to abuses in the
Brazilian soy industry by importing and processing Brazilian soy in the Netherlands.
Chapter 1 contains a number of case studies of companies that produce and trade in soy in
Brazil and are involved in abuses such as deforestation, slavery, breach of rules contained in
environmental impact statements, illegal land transactions and underpayment of labourers. It
is not possible to give an exhaustive overview, but a number of well-documented and proven
cases are provided.
Research has been carried out with the Brazilian organisations Frente em Defesa de
Amazônia (Santarem, Pará), Caritas/Comissão Pastoral de Terra (Belém, Pará) and
Funáguas (Teresina, Piauí) into the social and environmental impacts of the production,
processing and trade in soy in the area of Santarem and Urucuí, two growth centres in
Brazilian soy production. Additional information has been drawn from recent reports on the
connections between soy production and slave labour, illegal land acquisition and
deforestation in the federal states of Mato Grosso, Maranhão and Tocantins.
Chapter 2 examines the chain of custody that connects Dutch companies to these Brazilian
soy producing and trading companies.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report want to thank the members of Frente em Defesa da Amazônia,
Caritas/Comissão Pastoral da Terra Belém and Funágas for their valuable contribution.
This research report was financed by Milieudefensie and Cordaid, and made possible by
contributions made by the Pure Oil Programme of Stichting DOEN and Cordaid to the work
of Funáguas, FDA and Caritas/CPT Belém.
-4-
-5-
Chapter 1
1.1
Cases
Introduction
This chapter contains descriptions of a number of cases of companies that produce and
trade in soy in Brazil and are involved in abuses such as deforestation, slavery, breaches of
environmental legislation, illegal land transactions and underpayment of labourers. It is not
possible to give an exhaustive overview, but a number of well-documented and proven cases
are provided.
Research has been carried out with the Brazilian organisations Frente em Defesa de
Amazônia (Santarem, Pará), Caritas/Comissão Pastoral de Terra (Belém, Pará) and
Funáguas (Teresina, Piauí) into the social and environmental impacts of the production,
processing and trade of soy in the area of Santarem and Urucuí, two growth centres in
Brazilian soy production. Additional information has been drawn from recent reports on the
connections between soy production and slave labour, illegal land acquisition and
deforestation.
Figure 1. Study regions: 1: Piauí 2: Santarem 3: Mato Grosso 4: Paragominas, Pará 5:
Krahô, Tocantins © Google Earth
Five regions were selected for this research: southwest Piauí; Santarem and its
surroundings; Mato Grosso; northeast Pará; and Krahô at the border of Maranhão and
Tocantins (see Figure 1). In the first two regions fieldwork was conducted by local partners.
In at least six cases, the abuses at soy production companies they found can be directly
-6-
Maranhão
linked to ships exporting soy to the Netherlands via the local storage and processing
facilities. In the other two regions abuses have been found without being able to trace the
produced soy to any particular ship. In a number of cases it proved possible to identify the
buyers or exporters of this soy, some of which was destined for export to the Netherlands.
For each of these regions we provide an overview of the environmental and social impacts.
Source material is listed in the references.
1.2
Urucuí, Piauí
1.2.1 Ecology
Piauí is situated in the northeast of Brazil where the relatively humid Cerrado woodlandsavanna changes into the dry Caatinga scrub. The Cerrado in the western part of Piauí, the
south of Maranhão and the northwest of Bahia is one of the last contiguous Cerrado areas in
Brazil and in the world. Relatively little is known about the Cerrado, which originally covered
23% of the area of Brazil, but it is the habitat of 50% of all bird species and of 40% of all
mammal, reptile and fish species in Brazil. It is home to 178 species listed as endangered or
vulnerable.1
Figure 2. Cerrado (green) and soy fields (white) in the Urucuí area.
-7-
© Google Earth
After the Amazon, the Cerrado is the largest ecosystem of Brazil; it covers about 25% of the
country, or 2 million square kilometres. Less than 2% of the Cerrado has a protected status
and it is estimated that only 20% remains under natural vegetation.2 Unlike the forests of the
Amazone region, deforestation of the Cerrado is not being monitored and it is very uncertain
how much damage agriculture and cattle farming is causing. The Piauí Cerrado is
characterised by flat plateaus with deep and acid soils, criss-crossed by relatively deep
valleys with stony slopes. Traditional land use is extensive cattle farming (pecuária) in the
natural Cerrado and small-scale agriculture (roça) around villages and settlements. During
the wet season cattle graze on the plateaus and rice, corn and beans are grown in the
valleys. During the dry season the cattle are moved to the valleys.
Figure 3. Natural Cerrado in the area of Urucuí, Piauí. © Funáguas
1.2.2
Soy in Piauí
During the 2004/05 season 188,000 hectares in southwest Piauí were planted with soy. The
soy is planted on the flat plateaus (see Figure 3). The soy producers in southwest Piauí sell
their soy largely to Bunge, which owns a soy crusher in Urucuí near the border with
Maranhão. This crusher has a capacity of 660,000 tonnes per year, which is enough to
process 300,000 hectares of soy. With a doubling of capacity to 1.3 million tonnes
anticipated in early 2007, it can be expected that soy production in the area around the
crusher will expand by about 400,000 hectares.
-8-
After crushing (which produces 80% high-protein soy meal and 20% soy oil) the soy meal is
transported by road to the port of export in Itaquí, Maranhão. Bunge sells the oil in the
domestic market. CVRD (Compania de Vale do Rio Doce, a mining company that mines iron
ore in Pará) operates the rail and harbour infrastructure in Itaquí.3 About 10% of the soy that
leaves Brazil via Itaquí currently comes from southwest Piauí, one of the regions that has
been researched.4
Figure 4. Bunge soy crusher near Urucuí.
© AIDEnvironment
1.2.3
Environmental impacts
Deforestation
Since 1999 soy acreage has expanded by about 150,000 hectares, replacing the natural
Cerrado vegetation. Since 2002 the area of land under soy cultivation has expanded at a
rate of about 25,000 hectares per year.5 The actual extent of deforestation is probably
higher because not all deforested parcels are sown with soybeans; at the fazenda Italia
(farm) only 7,000 of the 19,000 hectares cleared have been sown.6 Most of the
deforestation that takes place is illegal. In Piauí, for example, between January 2000 and
May 2003 deforestation licenses were granted for a total area of 18,600 hectares, while
the soy area in the same period increased by at least 55,000 hectares.7
The Cerrado is cleared by a chain about 40 metres long stretched between two bulldozers
which rips out the vegetation as the bulldozers move forward. This is called the correntão
(giant chain) method. The roots and the fertile top layer of the soil are then pushed
together into strips and set on fire. The fires regularly spread to the adjoining Cerrado (see
Figure 5). A further 7,000 hectares are being cleared to dry and process the soy in the
crusher; the wood cleared by the correntão method is not suitable as fuel because it is
polluted with soil and leaves. Bunge has been convicted by the federal state for using
cleared wood in the crusher without having looked into more environmentally friendly
alternatives. After the federal conviction, however, Bunge managed to come to an
agreement with the attorney general and obtained permission for the use of native fuel
wood for six years. The agreement alledgedly involved not only the judge, the attorney
general and Bunge, but also the governor of Piauí. Bunge’s threatened to close the
crusher down and withdraw from Piauí which may have played a part in coming to this
agreement. Funáguas filed an objection against the ruling, which is currently being
considered provide fuelwood.8
-9-
Figure 5. Fires in the Cerrado in the Piauí region (brown areas). The white and light green areas
are soy fields. © Google Earth
Climate change
The clearance of the Cerrado plateaus, and the subsequent sowing of soy, leads to an
almost fourfold increase in evaporation (evapotranspiration) by 2 mm per day to 8 mm per
day. This reduces infiltration and eventually leads to a fall in the water table, and as a
result the springs run dry.9 The bare soil warms up faster and dries out sooner, with
severe consequences for the local climate – lower atmospheric humidity and higher
temperatures – which may finally result in less rainfall.10 Piauí’s climate seems to be too
dry for soy production, which depends on rainfall; the harvests of 2002 and 2005 failed
because of a lack of rain. When irrigation schemes are built in future, as is now happening
in neighbouring Maranhão, they will lower the water table even further and reduce the
availability of water in the valleys.
Erosion
The combination of deforestation and warming of the soil lowers the water infiltration
capacity of the soil of the Cerrado. This situation is worsening because no environmentally
friendly agricultural methods, such as contour ploughing and zero tillage, are used. The
complete deforestation of contiguous parcels up to 10,000 hectares in extent makes the
soil extremely vulnerable to wind and water erosion.11 Desertification is a serious threat to
these areas, which have a long dry season.
-10-
Genetic engineering
Consignment notes (see Appendix 1) show that at least some of the soy cultivated in this
region in the 2004/05 season has been genetically engineered (herbicide tolerant).12
Pollution
Large-scale soy production on the infertile Cerrado soils needs high inputs of
agrochemicals. Herbicides and pesticides are particularly damaging to the environment.
The farmers’ union FETAG reported 65 cases of poisoning, 15 of which were lethal, to the
local labour inspectorate. Contaminated drinking water and a lack of protective clothing
were mentioned as causes of the poisoning.13 When the soy fields are sprayed by
airplanes the neighbouring nature reserves, farmland and houses are sprayed too,
especially when there are strong winds.14 Springs and rivers are also polluted. In 2005
there were reports of large-scale fish mortality in the municipalities of Ribeirão Gonçalves
and Urucuí. The atmosphere in villages and cities is polluted (by dust, noise, fumes) by
the trucks that transport soy from the plantations to the crushing plants and ports. About
16,000 40-ton trucks are needed to transport the production capacity of the crusher
(658,000 tonnes per year). This heavy traffic makes great demands on the quality of the
roads. The trucks drive through the centres of the villages and cities that lie along the
export route, often on unpaved roads. In spring 2005 the mayor of one of the
municipalities along this route decided to ban heavy traffic through his village. Since there
is no alternative route, this in effect blocked the export of soy from Piauí.15
Inadequate environmental impact statements and deforestation licences
Before a crushing plant can be granted a licence an environmental impact assessment
(EIA) has to be carried out and an environmental statement (RIMA) published. The
EIA/RIMA on the Bunge plant in Piauí had many faults: insufficient attention had been
paid to the direct and indirect impacts of the plant on the Cerrado vegetation, a RIMA (a
public document with important findings and recommendations of the EIA) was not
published and no public hearing had taken place as required by the National Commission
for the Environment, CONAMA.16 Licences granted by the federal state of Piauí for
logging and other activities are also currently under investigation. One of these concerns
a deforestation licence for the agricultural development of 39,000 hectares in the
Cerrado.17
1.2.4
Socio-economic impacts
Illegal land acquisition
Titles and occupancy rights for land are often illegally obtained, a process which in Brazil
is referred to as grilagem. Research by INTERPI (Land Institute of Piauí) and INCRA
(National Institute of Colonisation and Agrarian Reform) suggests that 80% of the land
titles have been obtained illegally or fraudulently.18 Land turned over to soy plantations
provides no work or means of support for the original inhabitants and land users, who
depend on extensive cattle farming and small-scale agriculture (rice, corn, cassava,
beans) for their livelihood. They generally have no official proof of ownership. Instead,
under a (legal) customary law the land they occupy and use is known as a posse; keepers
of a posse are called posseiros. If a landowner with a title (legitimately or illegitimately
obtained) wants to plant soy or any other crop, they are legally obliged to compensate the
posseiros. In Urucuí the compensation a posseiro receives for abandoning his rights
amounts to ten euros per hectare, a lot less than the value or annual yield of the land
-11-
under posse.19 They are often forced to accept this inadequate compensation by
intimidation or the use of violence.
Slave labour and violation of labour laws
Slavery is a big problem in Piauí, where 15% of the total number of cases in Brazil were
registered. Most cases of slavery are found in the municipalities of Urucui, Barros and
São Raimundo Nonato.20 Two soy producers, owners of the Cosmos and Ribeirão
fazendas, were fined by the Brazilian Ministry of Labour for slavery practices. The
labourers on Cosmos fazenda – which supplies soy to Bunge – were used to remove the
Cerrado vegetation remaining after mechanical deforestation by the correntão method.
They were not registered21 and were forced to work seven days a week, ten hours a day
without any protective clothing. Three minors of 15 and 16 were involved. The
accommodation consisted of improvised sheds with roofs of plastic foil and without walls.
Sanitation, drinking water and first aid were not available. Provisions (food, clothing, liquor
and cigarettes) made available to the labourers by the company or an intermediary were
deducted from their wages against exhorbitant prices, forcing them into debt with the
fazenda (debt slavery).22 The owner of the Ribeirão fazenda was fined for similar reasons
and both companies are being prosecuted by the Counsel for the Prosecution.23 Similar
excesses have been reported at the Graúna fazenda, which supplies fuel wood to
Bunge.24
Unemployment and migration from rural areas
The conversion of Cerrado to soy plantations has a negative effect on employment: a soy
plantation of 19,000 hectares provides employment for only 50 employees (1 per 400
hectares). The same 400 hectares under small-scale agriculture in northeast Brazil
provides work for 80 people.25 It is therefore not surprising that more and more people are
leaving the rural areas and settling in the slums of neighbouring cities. The population of
Urucuí rose from 18,000 to 23,000 between 2001 and 2004, a growth of 9% per year.26 In
the city there is hardly any work for the unskilled rural people, and poverty and
unemployment are driving up the incidence of prostitution and criminality in Urucuí.27
Figure 6. Young prostitutes in Urucuí, Piaui. © Funáguas
-12-
Poor public facilities
To facilitate the establishment of the Bunge soy crusher, the federal government of Piauí
has exempted the company from a number of local taxes: ICMS, IPTU and ISS.28 As a
result, the state and municipal authorities hardly receive any tax income from Bunge’s
economic activities. Moreover, in Piauí no sales tax is levied on pesticides, which come
under the zero rate for medicines.29 The exemption from ICMS is currently under
investigation by the Counsel of the Prosecution in Piauí. Deprived of this tax income, the
local authorities cannot invest in basic facilities like sanitation and education. According to
the city manager, in 2003 and 2004 not a single metre of sewerage had been installed
and no classrooms built, while the slum population had grown rapidly.30
Repression of civil society
Individuals, social organisations and media critical of the soy industry are regularly
intimidated and prosecuted for slander – the Funáguas website has been closed down by
court order31 – and a murder attempt on a journalist who investigated links between the
soy industry and politicians has only just been thwarted.32
1.3
Pará
1.3.1 Ecology
The Amazon region covers 420 million hectares, or half of the total area of Brazil.33 Pará is
one of five Brazilian federal states that lies entirely in the Amazon region and extends from
the heart of the Brazilian Amazon to the estuary near the regional capital Belém. Santarem,
where the still modest production and trade in soy is concentrated, lies in the central part of
the Brazilian Amazon region, where the Tapajos and Amazon rivers meet. During the last 50
years about 20% of the Brazilian Amazon forest has disappeared because of logging, cattle
farming and agriculture, most of which has taken place within 50 km of through roads. In
these areas traditional forms of land use (fisheries, hunting, selective logging of hardwood,
rubber tapping and collecting non-wood forest products like Brazil nuts) have been replaced
by small-scale and large-scale agriculture and cattle farming. The planned paving of the
1,500 kilometre road from Cuiabá, Mato Grosso to Santarem, Pará will open up 10 million
hectares of Amazon forest for exploitation, 3 times the size of the Netherlands.
1.3.2
Soy in Pará
The most important soy production areas in Pará are Santarem, Paragominas and
Redenção. Cargill has a soy export terminal in Santarem, from which soy from Mato Grosso,
Rondônia and Pará can be shipped directly to the European Union and the Far East. Soy
from Paragominas is exported via Itaquí, Maranhão.
-13-
Figure 7. Soy production areas in Pará. Source: SIPAM in CPT 2005.
At the moment soy is produced in Santarem and Monte Alegre on 26,000 hectares. Before
the harvested soy is shipped, the beans are stored in the Cargill silos in the port of
Santarem, where Cargill also transships soy transported from Mato Grosso and Rondônia via
the Madeira and Amazon rivers (see section 1.4 and Appendix 1).
-14-
Figure 8. Soybean field bordering on the rainforest near Santarem,
Pará. © FDA
According to Embrapa (National Agricultural Research Service of Brazil) 500,000 hectares
(about 1/6 of the area of the Netherlands) in the vicinity of Santarem is suitable for largescale, mechanised agriculture. These areas are plateaus which lie above the rivers and have
well-drained, flat and non-stony soils.34 Large soy and rice producers already own 200,000
hectares and are currently cultivating 70,000 hectares of this land. In the short term, 130,000
hectares are likely to be cleared and in the long run a further 300,000 hectares are in danger
of being cleared. In Santarem alone 5,000 to 10,000 families face the risk of being driven off
their land. Once this occurs it will probably pave the way for further deforestation because
the dispossessed families will probably take refuge in the forests, or the authorities will grant
them parcels of forest land. Over the next ten years an estimated 500,000 hectares in the
federal state of Pará will be deforested to make way for large-scale agriculture. In the same
period, 100,000 people are expected to become landless.35 Soy is not the only driving force
behind deforestation; other commodities like rice, eucalyptus (for the production of paper
pulp and charcoal), corn and palm oil are cultivated on an increasing scale in Pará.
1.3.3
Environmental impacts
Deforestation
So far, deforestation in Pará has been caused by logging and clearing land for cattle
farming and rice cultivation, but pastures and rice fields are now being converted into soy
fields – and this process is accelerating.
During the 1980s the period between deforestation and the introduction of mechanised
agriculture was at least ten years. Now this period has been reduced to two to three
years, and even as little as one year on 20% of the 31 investigated new large-scale
cultivated areas. The same research shows that the expanding soy production in Mato
Grosso ‘pushes’ cattle farming further into the Amazon region. Soy production is therefore
an important indirect cause of deforestation.36
-15-
Figure 9. Rice and soybean cropland and cattle pastures (light green) and forest (dark
green) around Santarem. The Transamazonica road can be seen in the distance;
the typical fishbone pattern is land deforested by colonists. © Google Earth
Soy cropland in Pará has grown exponentially in recent years: in the entire region the area
under soy doubled in a year from 16,000 hectares in 2003 to 33,000 hectares in 2004. In
Santarem and Belterra the area of soy cropland increased from 7,000 hectares in 2003 to
14,000 in 2004 and to 23,000 in 2005. This expansion partly took place in primary forest in
the Moju nature reserve in Pacoval, PA Moju. In Belterra, Santarem, Jabuti and Boa
Esperança secondary and degraded forests have been cleared to make way for soy
plantations, and in some areas small-scale, non-mechanised farms have been taken over.
Small farmers dislocated from their lands on the plateau around Santarem are forced to
cultivate new land for their small-scale agriculture and cattle farms in the lower-lying
areas. This cultivation often involves additional deforestation.
Some farmers who have been driven off their land are also moved into forests designated
as land reform settlements (assentamentos). In Figure 9 the typical fishbone structure of
these assentamentos can be seen; the farmers, settled along side roads off the
Transamazonian highway, clear a small piece of forest every year. Recently, forest land
has been allocated to 140 displaced families in Corta Corda (Figure 11) and another 140
families are waiting for titles.37 An average title in an assentamento consists of about 100
hectares, of which 20% may legally be cleared. In Paragominas, eastern Pará,
deforestation caused by logging and cattle farming has progressed further than in
Santarem. Here, however, the last parcels of rainforest are being cleared to make way for
soy and the cleared wood is used for making charcoal.38 As in Piauí, land is often
obtained in a fraudulent or illegal way. At the end of 2004 three criminal networks were
rounded up that had illegally obtained deforestation licenses for cultivating 150,000
hectares of soy plantations39 and a claim by a soy producer on 2,500 hectares in Belterra
-16-
was pronounced illegitimate by the Santarem court after protests by the local farmers’
union.40 Throughout Pará only 2% of forest clearances have been licensed.41
Erosion and sedimentation
Exposure of the soil to very intensive rainfall in the Santarem region causes erosion,
especially near streams and rivers. The sediment is transported downstream, where it
makes the rivers and coves turbid.42
Genetic engineering
In Ulianópolis 2,500 hectares were planted with genetically engineered soy in 2004.43
Pollution
The abundant use of agrochemicals in soy production pollutes the soil, air and water;
together with the impacts of erosion this has a negative effect on the fish stock. The large
soy plantations spray herbicides from airplanes. To prevent poisoning of schoolchildren,
schools are shut down on the days when spraying takes place, but many cases of
poisoning by agrochemicals have been reported. In Monte Alegre and Alenquer excessive
pesticide levels in rivers have been reported and the Uraim river has been polluted with
fertilizer.44 So far no systematic research has been carried out on the effects of this
pollution on people and nature. Additional pollution is caused by soy ships in Santarem
harbour discharging ballast water, which contains exotic species that disrupt the sensitive
ecological balance of the river.45
Figure 10. Soy ships discharge ballast water in Santarem harbour. © FDA
1.3.4
Social-economic impacts
Growing numbers of small farmers are selling their land, sometimes under pressure or forced
by large soy producers. They migrate from the rural areas (exodo rural) to the cities, where
the farmers often end up in slums, as in Santarem, or to the forests to open up new farmland.
Farmers settled in government-sponsored resettlement areas (assentamentos) suitable for
the mechanised production of soy or other crops are often put under pressure to sell their
land to the bigger landowners.
-17-
Figure 11. Expansion of soy cultivation and displacement of small-scale farmers in the Santarem
region (orange arrows) and registered conflicts involving land rights and illegal
deforestation (red stars). Source: Caritas / CPT
Because the assentamentos are already in agricultural use they are easier to convert by
the landowners than officially protected national forests. Between 2000 and 2003 almost
600 families in Santarem sold their land to plantation owners and a number of local
communities suffered a population decline of 70%. In Paragominas the situation is even
more extreme; 85% of the population of the Colônia Uraim assentamento sold their land
to soy farmers who had recently immigrated from southern Brazil.46
Slave labour and violation of labour laws
Pará has the largest number of registered cases of slaver labour in Brazil (4,227 in 2002),
largely related to cattle farming.47 The owners of these ranches also make use of slave
labour to convert forests and cattle fields into soy plantations. In 2004 during raids the
Brazilian labour inspection (MTE) freed an unknown number of slaves who were deployed
to cultivate soy fields in the municipalities of Dom Eliseu and Ulianópolis. There are
indications that labour laws are violated on a large scale taxes are being evaded.48
-18-
Endangerment of the livelihood of local communities
The development of soy plantations and assentamentos by small farmers not only leads to
deforestation, but also forms a threat to the traditional users of the forest. The local and
indigenous communities in the forests of the Gleba Nova Olinda and Gleba Pascoal
assentamentos depend for their livelihood on what the forest offers them: game, fish,
rubber, fruit and other forest products. Many of the new plantations in the Santarem region
cultivate rice before they sow soy. The increased supply of rice pushes prices down,
considerably lowering the incomes of small farmers in the region who have always
produced rice for the population of Santarem.49
Figure 12. Local protest against the decline of the Amazon rainforest. © FDA
1.4
Mato Grosso
The state of Mato Grosso in Brazil has the highest production of soy and the highest
increase in area of land under soy cultivation, from 3 million hectares in 2000 to 5.6 million
hectares in 2005.50 The paving of the road to Santarem will further stimulate production. As
in Piauí and Pará, this expansion is associated with violation of human rights and
deforestation. From the report of the Brazilian Special Delegate for Human Rights51 it is clear
that soy from Mato Grosso produced by two suppliers employing slave labour has been
transported via Grupo A. Maggi, ADM and Coinbra (a subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus) to the
Netherlands. ISA shows in the report Mato Grosso: Amazônia (i)legal that during the 2000–
2003 period at least 31% of the deforestation at listed52 agricultural and livestock farms was
illegal.53 This soy from Mato Grosso is also transported to the Netherlands by Cargill, Bunge,
AMaggi, Coinbra and ADM.
Soy from Mato Grosso is either transported overland to the ports in the southeast of Brazil
(Vitória, Santos, Paranaguá) or by road to Porto Velho, and from there by barge to the ocean
ports of Itacoatiara, or Santarem. In Itacoatiara the Amaggi Group operates a soy crushing
plant and port facilities. Cargill has port facilities in Santarem, Pará and silos at the CVRD
terminal in Itaquí, Maranhão.
-19-
1.4.1
Environmental impacts
Deforestation
Mato Grosso is the main soy producing state in Brazil. The area under soy cultivation
increased from 3 million hectares in 2000 to 5 million hectares in 2005. Deforestation
increased from 800,000 hectares in 2002 to 1 million in 2003 and 1.2 million in 2004, or
half of the total deforestation in the Amazon. These figures are exclusive of conversion of
Cerrado, which is not monitored systematically54. Even with the most advanced
deforestation monitoring system in the world, illegal deforestation has not been halted
because of the lack of enforcement. Unauthorized deforestation in monitored properties
increased significantly following the inauguration of the new state government led by
Blairo Maggi, a former co-director and slaveholder of the Amaggi soy production and
trading group. In the 2003/04 season at least 31% of deforestation in registered
properties within the established boundaries of legal reserves was illegal55 . Mato Grosso
has the highest occurrence of burning in the Brazilian Amazon, with approximately 60%
of all registered fires.
1.4.2
Social impacts
Slavery
Every year the Brazilian Federal Ministry of Labour releases a ‘dirty list’ (lista suja) of the
top 100 agricultural enterprises fined or convicted for engaging slave labour. Ten soy
and/or cotton enterprises featured on the 2005 list. Of these, at least two soy farms (Vo
Gercy and Tupy Barão) produced soy that was exported by the traders Amaggi, Bunge,
Coinbra (a subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus) and ADM to the Netherlands. In September 2005
35 slaves were freed on the Mattana fazenda in Campos de Júlio municipality, which is
owned by Marcos Antônio Mattana Sebbem, one of the region’s biggest soy producers.
The freed labourers lived in precarious conditions with no drinking water or sanitation,
some for almost a year. The owner was fined by the Ministry of Labour and Employment
and had to pay R$161,000 (€60,000) in compensation to the workers.
Land rights violations
Problems with illegal land acquisition and displacement of small-scale farmers are
widespread in Mato Grosso. Forty-five cases involving 9,428 families were recorded in
2002 (CPT 2003) as farm types (soy / other crops / cattle) are not specified. It is
unknown how many of these conflicts relate to soy.
1.5
Maranhão and Tocantins
Between 2000 and 2004 the area under soy cultivation in Maranhão increased from 180,000
hectares to 340,000 hectares and it is estimated that this will grow to about 400,000 hectares
in 2005. In neighbouring Tocantins, where in 2000 less than 50,000 hectares was planted
with soy, the cultivation area increased to 215,000 in 2004.56 Little structured research has
-20-
Figure 13. Indigenous reserve (TI) Kraolândia, Tocantins. Large-scale soy
cultivation is advancing from the east. © Google Earth
been carried out into the impacts of soy production in these states yet. A small-scale field
study by the Brazilian organisation Centro de Trabalho Indigenista (CTI) in 2004 was carried
out in the Krahô indigenous territory on the border with Maranhão and Tocantins. This study
revealed that abuses such as illegal deforestation, land grabbing, pesticide intoxication,
described in other states also occur in this region. Cargill and Bunge have silos in this area
and finance the soy production. At least one of the soy producers involved in these abuses is
directly financed by Cargill.57 Cargill soy sourced from this region is exported to the
Netherlands via Itaquí.
1.5.1
Environmental damage
In Campos Lindos, Tocantins, 1,700 hectares of Cerrado was deforested in 2003 and 1,300
hectares in 2004 by Manuel Domingos de Barros. The cleared land was planted with soy at
the end of 2004, financed by Cargill. Since then serious erosion has occurred along two
streams (Ribeirão Barro Duro and do Chapéu) and the Ribeirão Angico, into which these two
streams flow, has been polluted with agrochemicals. Erosion and water pollution have also
occurred in Serra do Centro. Two deaths in Serra do Centro (forty-year-old Inacio Brandão
Lopes and a one-year-old baby) are attributed to poisoning because of excessive aerial
spraying of pesticides.58
-21-
Figure 14. Soybean fields and silos near Campos Lindos, Tocantins © CTI
1.5.2
Socio-economic impacts
The illegal acquisition (grilagem) of 4,500 hectares of land in Sussuarana, based on false
documents, was declared invalid by Itertins (land register of Tocantins) at the end of 2003.
Twenty-two of the 40 families living on the territory were pressurised to leave the territory in
return for a paltry sum. The remaining 18 families live on parcels of 60 to 70 hectares
between the soy fields and the (polluted) river. In Serro do Centro, the government bought
out large landowners in 1997 and reinstated 127 farming families who had lived there for 70
years, but despite promises about land reforms most of the area is in use for large-scale soy
production. Most of the Cerrado inhabitants from these two villages were forced to leave for
the slums of the neighbouring city Campos Lindos, where they cannot find work.59
Figure 15. Cargill silos in Campos Lindos © CTI
-22-
Chapter 2
2.1
Chain of Custody
Overview
The chain of custody from soy producers in Brazil to the end users in the Netherlands has
many links and is fairly complicated. A simplified diagram of this chain of custody is shown in
Figure 16.
Soy producer
Trader
Crusher
Transshipment
Sea transport
Transshipment
Importer
Crusher
Feed producer
Pig farmer
Poultry farmer
Egg packer
Slaughterhouse
Dairy farmer
Dairy plant
Food producer
Supermarket
Figure 16. Chain of custody from soy producers to the supermarket.
As shown in Figure 16, a trader buys the soy from a Brazilian soy producer. This trader either
has the soy crushed in Brazil (after which the soy meal and soy oil are traded separately) or
exports the unprocessed soybeans. The soy meal and a proportion of the soybeans imported
to the Netherlands are sold to a feed producer directly from the port of import. The importer
first has most of the soybeans crushed, after which soy meal and soy oil are traded
separately.
-23-
Most of the soy meal entering the Dutch market (by direct import or by crushing the imported
soybeans) are processed into different kinds of feed by the Dutch feed producers. This feed
goes to Dutch farmers: poultry farmers (layers and broilers), pig farmers and – increasingly –
to dairy farmers. These farmers sell their produce to slaughterhouses (chicken and pork),
egg-packing factories and dairy plants, which in turn deliver consumer products to
supermarkets: packaged eggs, pre-packed meat, milk and dairy products. They also deliver
semi-manufactured products to the companies in the food industry, which process these
semi-manufactured products into sausages, meat products, ready-to-eat meals, soups,
sauces, pastry, etc.
The following sections summarise the hard facts we have uncovered about the chain of
custody of the soy from the areas described in Chapter 1.
2.2
Traders, crushers and transshipment companies
The following information has been found about traders, crushers and transshipment
companies active in the four regions described in Chapter 1.
Piauí: The trader active in this region is the American company Bunge. In Urucuí (Piauí)
Bunge has a crusher where most of the soybeans from this region go. The soy meal
produced there is transported to the port of Itaquí (São Luis, Maranhão). Soy produced in
Piauí and neighbouring Maranhão is also exported in non-crushed form via Itaquí. The
transshipment companies in this port are owned by the Brazilian mining and steel
company CVRD, but Bunge has its own transhipment facilities here and uses this port to
export its soy meal.
Santarem, Pará: The trader active in this region is the American company Cargill. In the port
of Santarem (Pará) Cargill has large storage and transhipment facilities used for exporting
soybeans from this region.
Paragominas, Pará: The American company Cargill seems to be the most important trader
in this region too. Soybeans from this region are transported to the port of Itaquí
(Maranhão). The transshipment companies in this port are owned by the Brazilian mining
and steel company CVRD, but Cargill has its own storage facilities here and uses this port
for exporting its soybeans.
Mato Grosso: Many traders are active in this region: the Brazilian trader and soy producer
Amaggi, the American companies ADM, Bunge and Cargill, and Coinbra, a subsidiary of
the French Louis Dreyfus company. Amaggi transports soybeans from Mato Grosso to the
port of Itacoatiara (Amazonas) in the north, where it has a crushing factory and storage
and transshipment facilities. Cargill also exports via the northern port of Santarem (Pará)
where it has large storage and transhipment facilities. The other three traders – ADM,
Bunge and Coinbra – seem to transport the soybeans from Mato Grosso only to crushing
factories in the south and the export ports of Vitória, Santos and Paranaguá in southeast
Brazil.
-24-
2.3
Sea transport and importers
2.3.1
Overview of soy transports from Itaquí and Santarem
From March to the end of October 2005 the Brazilian organisations Frente em Defesa de
Amazônia and Funáguas observed which ships sailed with cargos of soybeans and soy meal
from two important export ports in the north of Brazil:
•
•
the port of Itaquí (Maranhão) used by Bunge for exporting soy meal from Piauí and by
Cargill for exporting soybeans from the Paragominas region (Pará);
the port of Santarem (Pará) used by Cargill for exporting soybeans from the
Santarem region (Pará) and from Mato Grosso and Rondônia.
The two NGOs observed nine ships leaving Itaquí with soybeans and soy meal and ten ships
departing from Santarem. In one case a ship visited both ports. On closer examination, the
following destinations and facts about these ships were ascertained:60
Table 1 Soy ships from Santarem and Itaquí, March–October 2005
Port of departure
Santarem
Itaquí
Number
Port of destination
of ships
6*
Amsterdam, Netherlands
2
Liverpool, Great Britain
1
Gent, Belgium
1
Barcelona, Spain
2
Escombreras, Spain
2*
Amsterdam, Netherlands
1
Las Palmas, Spain
1
Liverpool, Great Britain
1
Gent, Belgium
1
Rijeka, Croatia
1
Brest, France
Importer
Cargo
Cargill
Soybeans
Soybeans
Cargill
Soybeans
* One ship, the Nordmoritz, picked up soybeans in both Santarem and Itaquí
This table clearly shows that six shipments of soy from Santarem and two from Itaquí were
imported into the Netherlands by Cargill via the port of Amsterdam. One ship, the
Nordmoritz, picked up soybeans in both Santarem and Itaquí. The total volume of these
seven loads was about 350,000 tonnes of soy beans, or about 7% of annual Dutch soybean
imports (4.4 million tonnes in 2004).61
The soybeans exported via the port of Santarem originally come from Mato Grosso,
Rondônia and western Pará (see section 1.3). The soybeans exported from the port of Itaquí
probably come from the region of Paragominas, eastern Pará and the federal states
Maranhão and Tocantins (see sections 1.3 and 1.5). Soy meal from Piauí has been shipped
to other European destinations.
2.3.2
Cargill
Coenhavenweg 2
P.O. Box 8074
1005 AB Amsterdam
Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)20-5801911
Fax: +31 (0)20-6820193
-25-
Website: www.cargill.nl
Cargill Inc. in Minneapolis (Minnesota, USA) is probably the largest privately-owned business
in the world. The company has 124,000 employees in 59 countries and sells agricultural and
non-agricultural crude materials worldwide. Cargill also is an important supplier of semimanufactured and end products for the food industry and the retail trade. In addition, Cargill
provides large-scale financial services in risk management. In 2004/2005 Cargill achieved a
turnover of US$71.1 billion, resulting in net earnings of US$1.5 billion.62
Cargill B.V., the Dutch subsidiary of Cargill Inc., has 2,000 employees and ranks as one of
the 20 largest companies in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands Cargill trades sugar,
fertiliser and crude materials for feed and produces and processes orange juice, cocoa,
barley (malt), glucose and starch (from corn and wheat), chicken, textured soy proteins and
refined oils and fats. Particularly relevant for this research is the fact that the company owns
its own transshipment company (IGMA) and a crushing factory for soybeans with a
processing capacity of 3,300 tonnes per day. This crushing factory mainly processes
soybeans from the United States, Brazil and Argentina.63
In 2003/2004 Cargill B.V. realised a turnover of €3.3 billion, resulting in net earnings of €72.3
million. The crushing factory, however, hardly contributed to these earnings. Cargill reports
that the crushing margin suffers from severe competition from Argentinian crushers, the
worsening euro/dollar rate, the falling production of feed in Europe and the ongoing
discussions about GE soy. The growth of the crushing capacity in Latin America in particular
is expected to precipitate a restructuring of the European crushing industry.64 Cargill’s much
smaller crushing factory in Gent (Belgium) has already been taken out of service in May
2005 for an indefinite period.65
In the Cargill soy crushing factory in the Amsterdam Coen harbour the hulls of the soy beans
are removed and processed into feed. The dehulled beans are then separated into soy meal
and soy oil using the solvent hexane. Most of the meal goes to the feed industry and some of
the crude soy oil is sold as an ingredient for livestock feed; the rest of the soy oil is refined for
human consumption.66 A small proportion of the soy meal produced in the crushing factory is
processed in an especially hygienic way. These defatted soy flakes go to Cargill’s
neighbouring protein factory where a range of specialty and ready-made products are
produced for the food, pharmaceutical and feed industries. An important product of the
protein factory is the feed ingredient ProvaSoy, which is produced by grinding the defatted
soy flakes. Another product from defatted soy flakes is Textrafeed, which is produced by a
special grinding, sieving, drying and extruding process and is an excellent ingredient for
making feed for young animals.67
2.4
Feed producers
As described in section 2.3, the majority of the raw soy meal produced by Cargill’s crushing
factory is delivered to the feed industry. Cargill also produces soy hulls, raw soy oil for the
feed industry and some further processed soy meal products, such as ProvaSoy and
Textrafeed.
The following Dutch feed producers are known to purchase crude soy materials from
Cargill.68
•
Coöperatie ABCTA u.a.
Kwinkweerd 12
P.O. Box 91
-26-
7240 AB Lochem
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)573-288800
Fax: +31 (0)573-288899
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.abcta.nl
ABCTA is the fifth biggest feed producer in the Netherlands. The cooperative was founded
in July 2000 after the merger of the two feed cooperatives ABC and CTA. The 6,000
members of ABCTA are mainly active in the provinces of Gelderland, Overijssel and
Noord-Brabant and the cooperative has feed factories in Almelo, Lochem, Delden,
Deventer and Harreveld (organic pig feed).69 Its consolidated turnover in 2004 was €390
million. ABCTA produces more than 1.2 million tonnes of feed, primarily pig feed (50%),
cattle feed (30%) and poultry feed (15%), but also small amounts of feed for sheep, goats
and horses.70
•
Coöperatie Agrifirm u.a.
Noordeinde 31
P.O. Box 1033
7940 KA Meppel
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)522-268911
Fax: +31 (0)522-268930
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.agrifirm.nl
Agrifirm is the fourth biggest feed producer in the Netherlands. The cooperative was
founded in February 2001 following a merger of the cooperatives ACM and Cavo Latuco.
Agrifirm has 17,000 members, mainly active in the provinces of Friesland, Groningen,
Drenthe, Overijssel, Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland and Utrecht. Agrifirm produces not only
feed but also agricultural products.71 In 2004 Agrifirm sold 1.37 million tonnes of feed,
consisting of cattle feed (41%), poultry feed (28%), pig feed (22%) and other feed (8%).
Agrifirm’s turnover in 2004 was €672 million.72 Agrifirm indicated it stopped importing soy
from Santarem in 2005.
•
De Heus Brokking Koudijs B.V.
Rubensstraat 175
P.O. Box 396
6710 BJ Ede
Netherlands
Telephone: +31-(0)318-675500
Fax: +31 (0)318-675509
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.deheusbrokkingkoudijs.nl
De Heus Brokking Koudijs is the third biggest feed producer in the Netherlands and the
largest family company in this sector. Its eight production sites produce feed for pigs,
cattle and poultry.73 Before taking over Sondag, the company produced 1.6 million tonnes
of feed per year. 74
-27-
•
Hendrix UTD B.V.
Veerstraat 38
P.O. Box 1
5831 JN Boxmeer
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)485-589911
Fax: +31 (0)485-573924
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.hendrixutd.nl
Hendrix UTD is a subsidiary of the Dutch food and feed company Nutreco, with 90
holdings in 20 countries. Hendrix UTD was founded in 1998 after the merger of Hendrix’
Voeders and Mengvoeder UT-Delfia. It is the biggest private feed producer in the
Netherlands with an annual production of 1.8 million tonnes. It delivers cattle feed
throughout the Netherlands and parts of Denmark and Germany; pig feed throughout the
Netherlands and parts of Germany; layer feed throughout the Netherlands and Belgium
and broiler feed throughout the Netherlands and Western Germany. Hendrix UTD has
production sites in Helmond, Oosterhout, Heijen, Lochem, Deventer, Zwolle and Meppel.75
•
Provimi B.V.
Veerlaan 17-23
3072 AN Rotterdam
Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)10-4239500
Fax: +31 (0)10-4239500
Website: www.provimi.nl
The Dutch company Provimi is one of the biggest feed producers in the world, with over a
hundred factories in 30 countries. Worldwide turnover in 2004 was €1.6 billion, resulting in
a net profit of €18.7 million.76 However, contrary to the other companies listed here,
Provimi’s activities in the Netherlands are limited to the production of premixes (mixtures
of minerals, vitamins and other additives for feed), special feeds for piglets and milk
substitutes for calves. Provimi delivers its premixes to feed producers and the piglet feeds
and milk substitutes to farmers. Soy products are one of the main ingredients used in the
manufacture of milk substitutes for calves.77
The first four companies are among the top six Dutch feed producers, and together with
Cehave Landbouwbelang and Rijnvallei they account for 60% of the Dutch market.78 Provimi
is the most important Dutch producer of premixes.
Another feed producer which probably also buys soy from Cargill is:
•
Coöperatie Cehave Landbouwbelang u.a.
Pater van den Elsenlaan 4
P.O. Box 200
5460 BC Veghel
Netherlands
Telephone: +31(0)413-382355
Fax: +31 (0)413-382818
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.voeders.nl
-28-
Cehave Landbouwbelang is the biggest feed producer in the Netherlands. It is not known
whether Cehave buys soy from Cargill. Given the size of both Cargill and Cehave, and
considering the standard situation in the sector (all large companies have more suppliers),
it is highly unlikely that Cehave does not buy soy from Cargill. The cooperative produces
feeds in the Netherlands (Veghel, Maasbracht and Wanssum), Belgium and Poland. In
2004 its turnover was €737 million and net profits amounted to €7.9 million.79 Half the feed
produced by Cehave is for pigs and the rest is equally divided between poultry and cattle.
The cooperative sells about 80% of its feed in the provinces of Noord-Brabant, Limburg
and Zeeland.80
2.5
Farmers, slaughterhouses and supermarkets
2.5.1
Integrations
The feed producers mentioned in section 2.4 deliver their feed to farmers. In the case of
cooperatives these are mostly the members of the cooperative and there is a very strong
connection between farmers and their feed supplier. Private feed producers also try to
establish binding relationships with their clients.
Under pressure from governments, supermarkets and consumers, who want to know more
about the origin of food products and exert greater control over the production process, a
process has been underway for years now in which feed producers are working more closely
with slaughterhouses in what are known as ‘integrations’. Livestock farmers are encouraged
or pressured in several ways to join one of these integrations. The free livestock farmer who
decides, when the time is right, which slaughterhouse to sell his chickens or pigs to, is a
dying breed. Increasingly, strict and recognisable market chains are set up in which feed
producer, farmer and slaughterhouses cooperate in the production of chicken and pork meat.
The feed producers mentioned in paragraph 2.4 are involved in the following market chains
and integrations.
•
Coöperatie ABCTA u.a.
Pork: ABCTA has close connections to the Dumeco pig slaughterhouse, which is now
part of Vion. 81 ABCTA is also certified by the German slaughterhouse Westfleisch, to
which some ABCTA members supply their pigs.82
Poultry: ABCTA was the owner of the Esbro broiler chicken slaughterhouse, but in May
2005 this slaughterhouse was privatised. Many ABCTA members, however, will continue
to deliver to this slaughterhouse.83 ABCTA is co-owner of Cebeco, the mother company
of Plukon Poultry chicken slaughterhouse. ABCTA, Agrifirm and Plukon Poultry
participate in the KuikenaeR integration.84
•
Coöperatie Agrifirm u.a.
Poultry: Agrifirm is co-owner of Cebeco, the mother company of Plukon Poultry chicken
slaughterhouse. Agrifirm, ABCTA and Plukon Poultry participate in the KuikenaeR
integration.85 Agrifirm stated they stopped importing soy from the Santarem region in
2005.
-29-
•
Coöperatie Cehave Landbouwbelang u.a.
Poultry: Cehave Landbouwbelang is owner of Astenhof chicken slaughterhouse and
works closely with Astenhof, breeders and poultry farmers in the Cehave
Landbouwbelang Vleespluimvee integration.86
Pork: Cehave Landbouwbelang still has a small interest in Dumeco pig slaughterhouse,
which is now part of Vion. Many members of Cehave Landbouwbelang deliver their pigs
to this slaughterhouse.
•
De Heus Brokking Koudijs B.V.
Poultry: De Heus Brokking Koudijs has formed the De Heus Virtuele Integrale
Pluimveevleesketen (De Heus Virtual Integral Poultry meat chain) with some farms and
the Storteboom, Van den Bor and Lintor slaughterhouses (Belgium).87
•
Hendrix UTD B.V.
Poultry: Hendrix UTD has set up an integration with Pingo Poultry poultry
slaughterhouse, which, until recently, was also a subsidiary of Nutreco.88 This close
relationship will probably continue exist following the takeover of Pingo Poultry by Plukon
Poultry.
Pork: The pig farmers that obtain their feed from Hendrix UTD have their pigs
slaughtered mainly by Hendrix Meat Group, which belonged to Nutreco until the end of
2004. Hendrix Meat Group is currently part of Vion.89
2.5.2
Pork slaughterhouses
As we have seen from section 2.5.1, the feed producers ABCTA, Cehave Landbouwbelang
and Hendrix UTD have close associations with the Vion pig slaughterhouse. It is likely,
therefore, that pigs fed with pig feed from either of these three feed producers will be
slaughtered by Vion. Given Vion’s dominant position in the Dutch pork sector, it probably
also slaughters many Dutch pigs fed with feed supplied by other producers.
•
Vion B.V.
NCB-weg 10
P.O. Box 380
5680 AJ Best
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)411-658700
Fax: +31 (0)411-683194
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.vionfood.com
Vion B.V. is the largest producer of pork and beef in Europe. Vion originated from a recent
merger between the Dutch pig slaughterhouses Dumeco and Hendrix Meat Group, the
Dutch cattle slaughterhouse Kroot Vlees and the German meat companies Moksel,
Nordfleisch and SüdFleisch. In the Netherlands Vion has approximately 4,200 employees
at 18 locations. Annual turnover in the Netherlands is €2.2 billion.90 Vion has a more than
80% share of the Dutch pork market.
-30-
Vion B.V. is a subsidiary of Sovion N.V., the biggest agricultural enterprise in the
Netherlands with approximately 14,000 employees. For 2005 a turnover of €6.5 billion is
expected, putting Sovion among the top 20 biggest Dutch manufacturing companies. The
ultimate stockholder of Sovion is the Dutch Zuidelijke Land- en Tuinbouworganisatie
(ZLTO) which promotes the interests of farmers in the provinces of Noord-Brabant,
Zeeland and southern Gelderland. The ZLTO has approximately 19,000 members,
representing more than 12,000 agricultural enterprises.91
Vion delivers slaughtered beef and pork to the meat processing industry, the wholesale
trade and butchers, but also produces meat products itself and delivers fresh pre-packed
meat to supermarkets. Besides its home markets of Germany and Netherlands, Vion also
focuses on important export countries such as Italy, the UK, Belgium, France, Greece and
many other countries in and outside Europe.92
The following are known customers of Vion:
•
•
•
•
•
2.5.3
Retailer Laurus, which owns the supermarket chains Super de Boer, Edah and
Konmar, takes all its fresh pre-packed pork from Vion.93
Retailer Albert Heijn takes unpacked pork, meat products and pre-packed organic
pork and beef from Vion. From June 2004 Albert Heijn’s pre-packed pork has been
supplied by Hilton Meats in Zaandam, which already supplies pre-packed beef to
Albert Heijn.94 Hilton Meats is a subsidiary of the British beef and lamb
slaughterhouses Foyle Food Group and RWM Food Group.95 Since Hilton Meats
does not own their own pig slaughterhouse, it is highly likely that the slaughtered
pigs, which are cut and packed in Zaandam, are supplied by Vion.
Butcher chain De Groene Weg, a subsidiary of Vion.96
Numerous restaurants, company cafeterias, caterers, care facilities and other food
service companies, to which Vion supplies meat under the Q-lineaire brand
name.97
Other supermarkets and butchers that sell meat and meat products from Vion
under its own brand names of Q-linesse and Bio+.98
Chicken slaughterhouses
In section 2.5.1 a number of chicken slaughterhouses are mentioned which cooperate with
the five feed producers that take soy from Cargill. These chicken slaughterhouses are
discussed below. The five chicken slaughterhouses mentioned here have a combined market
share in the Netherlands of approximately 50%.
•
Astenhof B.V.
Ommelse Bos 5, Ommel
P.O. Box 16
5720 AA Asten
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)493-681222
Fax: +31 (0)493-695353
Website: www.astenhof.nl
-31-
Chicken slaughterhouse Astenhof belongs to the ten biggest chicken slaughterhouses in
the Netherlands, with a slaughter capacity of 425,000 chickens a week. Until recently
Astenhof was a full subsidiary of feed cooperative Cehave Landbouwbelang. In
September 2005, however, Astenhof entered into a joint-venture with the Belgian
company Flandrex, in which Cehave Landbouwbelang only has a minority share.99
Cehave Landbouwbelang had set up an integration with Astenhof, in which poultry
farmers took their feed from Cehave and had the broilers slaughtered at Astenhof.100 It
may be assumed that this close connection will continue for a while. Cehave has not
confirmed that it takes soy from Cargill (see section 2.4) and a direct relation between
Amazon soy and Cargill has not been shown.
The following is known about the Dutch customers of Astenhof:
•
•
•
Astenhof sells fresh and deep-frozen chicken meat under the brand names
Astenhof and Astenland.101
Astenhof is an important supplier of pre-packed fresh chicken meat to
supermarkets. In this sector Astenhof formed an alliance with Dumeco (now Vion)
in August 2003, which enabled Dumeco to supply its customers with pre-packed
fresh chicken meat. 102
Esbro B.V.
Rembrandtweg 4
7004 AD Doetinchem
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)314-332741
Fax: +31 (0)314-360041
Esbro is a smaller Dutch chicken slaughterhouse, which slaughters 300,000 broilers each
week. Until recently Esbro belonged to ABCTA; following the privatisation many of the
ABCTA-broiler farmers will have their broilers slaughtered by Esbro.103 Esbro is also
supplied by independent broiler farmers, who, depending on market conditions, choose
different suppliers for their feed and one-day chickens.104
•
Plukon Poultry B.V.
Industrieweg 36
P.O. Box 10
8090 AA Wezep
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)38-3766637
Fax: +31 (0)38-3763874
Website: www.friki.com
Until recently Plukon Poultry owned six production sites in the Netherlands and Germany
where broilers were slaughtered and processed into pre-packed chicken meat. Sister
company Plusfood processes slaughtered broilers and turkeys into fresh chicken and
turkey products at three production sites in the Netherlands, the UK and Romania.105 The
takeover of Pingo Poultry (a subsidiary of Nutreco) announced in June 2005 adds two
chicken slaughterhouses in the Netherlands and Belgium and a meat processing
company.106 Plukon Poultry is now obviously the biggest poultry slaughterhouse in the
Netherlands, with a market share of 20 to 30%.107 The total slaughter capacity in the
Netherlands is estimated at 2 million chickens per week.
-32-
Plukon Poultry and Plusfood are subsidiary companies of the biggest Dutch cooperative
Cebeco. Cebeco itself is owned by 19 agricultural cooperatives, including the Agrifirm and
ABCTA feed cooperatives.108 Plukon Poultry has set up an integration with these two feed
cooperatives known as de KuikenaeR,109 which means that Plukon Poultry takes broilers
from broiler farms that have bought feed from these manufacturers. Following the
takeover of Pingo Poultry, the same applies to the broiler farmers that were supplied with
feed from Hendrix UTD.
The following is known about the Dutch customers of Plukon Poultry and Pingo Poultry:
Pingo Poultry is one of the preferred suppliers of chicken products to retailer Albert Heijn.
In June 2001 it was announced that Pingo Poultry would develop an organic product
line for poultry meat products with Albert Heijn for the supermarket chain’s own AH
brand.110
Plukon Poultry claims to be market leader for fresh pre-packed poultry meat, with a
market share of more than 30%.111 In January 2004 Plukon Poultry was elected by the
Dutch retail sector, for the third year in a row, as the best supplier in the categories
meat, meat products, fish, salads and meals. The election took place as part of the
annual Industributieonderzoek by the Erasmus University Rotterdam.112 Plukon Poultry
is also an important supplier of fresh pre-packed chicken meat to Albert Heijn.113
Plukon Poultry delivers fresh pre-packed chicken meat, deep-frozen chicken meat and
processed chicken meat products under the brand name Friki to retail and food service
companies.114
• Storteboom Group B.V.
Provincialeweg 70
9864PG Kornhorn
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)594-677577
Fax: +31 (0)594-677558
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.storteboom.nl
Storteboom Group slaughters broilers and processes them into fresh and deep-frozen
chicken meat products. With eight subsidiaries, the company was market leader in the
Netherlands, but went bankrupt in spring 2003 in the wake of the Avian influenza crisis. In
May 2003 the company restarted, but production is much lower than before the
bankruptcy. Owned previously by the Storteboom family (80%) and feed cooperative
Agrifirm (20%), after the restart Storteboom became the property of director Fred Sterk,
meat trader Klaas van den Berg and the NOM (Investerings- en
Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland).115 The total slaughter capacity of the
two remaining slaughterhouses of Storteboom is now 1.5 million chickens per week.116
Storteboom works closely with de Heus Brokking Koudijs in its virtual broiler integration –
‘virtual’ because it does not have a financial connection with any particular
slaughterhouse. The virtual integration of de Heus takes about 1.3 million broilers a week
on contract from 250 broiler farmers, giving it a market share of 20 to 25% of the Dutch
market. De Heus distributes these broilers mostly to the Storteboom and Van den Bor
slaughterhouses.117
Not much is known about Storteboom’s customers. Storteboom delivers chicken products
to retailers, bulk companies, processors and food services around the world. A large part
of the production is exported to the UK, Germany and southern Europe, partly under the
Meister Jan brand name.118
-33-
•
Van den Bor Pluimveeslachterij B.V.
Amersfoortseweg 118
3864 NG Nijkerkerveen
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)33-2580188
Fax: +31 (0)33-2572037
Email:[email protected]
Van den Bor Pluimveeslachterij B.V. is owned by the van den Bor family. Its speciality is
the Nijkerks echte maïskip: chickens fed with 50% maize. Van den Bor slaughters
350,000 to 400,000 broilers per week.119 Like Storteboom, Van den Bor works with feed
producer De Heus Brokking Koudijs in its virtual broiler integration.120
Not much is known about the customers of Van den Bor, which sells 70% of its production
to the Dutch market, 20% to the German market and about 10% to other markets.121 The
five chicken slaughterhouses discussed here together have a market share in the
Netherlands of about 50%.122
-34-
Appendix 1
Consignment notes GE-soy
-35-
-36-
Appendix 2
Notes
1
Shepherd (2000), Silva (1995), Brandão et al. (1999), Colli et al. (2002) and Mittermenier et al. (1997) cited
in Produção e destino da soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina, August 2005.
2
White, R.P. and Vanasselt, W., Grassland in pieces, modification and conversion take a toll, Earth Trends,
World Resources Institute, Washington DC, December 2000. It should be noted that there is very little
quantitative data available on Cerrado conversion, and estimates vary widely: from 7% to 50% remaining.
An assessment of the extent of (virgin) natural Cerrado and priority conservation areas is badly needed.
3
Information on vessels calling at the CVRD terminal in Itaquí can be obtained from:
http://ironnotes.cvrd.com.br/portonor/pgmnavio/posicaomadeira.nsf/vWeb/MadeiraIngles.htm
4
Produção e destino da soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina, August 2005.
5
Produção e destino da soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina, August 2005.
6
Field observation by AIDEnvironment, 10 July 2004, Fazenda Italia, Urucuí, Piauí.
7
Interview with Almir Bezerra Lima, IBAMA, Teresina, 6/6/2003, quoted in Bickel, U. and J.M. Dros, The
impacts of soybean cultivation on Brazilian ecosystems, Three case studies, WWF Forest Conversion
Initiative, Zurich, October 2003.
8
Documents on these processes are held by Funáguas, Teresina; see also press release on the Rios Vivos
website: www.riosvivos.org.br, viewed in August 2005.
9
Mazetto, C.E., Limites e potencialidades da sustentabilidade da agricultura no cerrado, Teresina, 2005.
10
Interne studie Secretaria do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Hidricos – Piauí; cited in Produção e destino da
soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina, August 2005.
11
Malvezze, R., Grito dos Povos Contra a Destruição do Cerrado – Questão Planetária e Nacional da Água e
do Cerrado, CPT, Brasília, 2004; cited in Produção e destino da soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina,
August 2005.
12
See Appendix 2: copies of Bunge consignment notes.
13
T. Martins, Agrotóxicos utilizados na lavoura da soja contaminam trabalhadores de dez municípios no
Cerrado do Piauí, boletim informativo, Teresina, 24 October 2005; 180graus.com, 15 trabalhadores rurais
morrem e 50 ficam intoxicados no Piauí, Teresina, 24 October 2005.
14
Verklaring door M. de Conceição de Souza, president, Sindicato de Trabalhadores Rurais Assentamento
Sta. Teresina, in vídeo-opnamen veldbezoek Funáguas / AIDEnvironment July 2004, Urucuí.
15
Prefeito fecha Pontão em Benedito Leite, portal accesso Piauí, 18/04/2005; website
http://www.acessepiaui.com.br/geral2.php?ref=200504, viewed in April, October 2005.
16
Almeida, A.F. de, Estudo de Impacto Ambiental – Bunge Piauí. Parecer. Universidade de São Paulo
(ESALQ-USP); Piracicaba, September 2003; Antonio Alberto Jorge Farias Castro, CERRADO DO PIAUÍ E
EIA / RIMA DA BUNGE ALIMENTOS, Jornal Diário do Povo, 14 June 2003.
17
Antonio Alberto Jorge Farias Castro, CERRADO DO PIAUÍ E EIA / RIMA DA BUNGE ALIMENTOS, Jornal
Diário do Povo, 14 June 2003, cited in Produção e destino da soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina, August
2005.
18
Onderzoek van INTERPI / INCRA (kadaster Piauí resp nationale landhervormingsdienst) cited in Produção
e destino da soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina, August 2005.
19
Produção e destino da soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina August 2005 and video statement of a
disposessed farmer (anonymous, name held by AIDEnvironment and Funáguas), Sangue, Piauí, July 2004,
in the presentation ‘van sojaveld tot supermarkt’, AIDEnvironment 2005.
-37-
20
Commisão Pastoral da Terra, Conflitos no Campo 2002 and 2003, and CPT website: www.cpt.org.br,
viewed in August 2005.
21
In Brazilië heeft elke werknemer een persoonlijke arbeidskaart, de zgn. CTPS, vergelijkbaar met het
Nederlandse sofi-nummer. Een door de werkgever ondertekende kaart geeft de werknemer recht op
vergoeding van o.a. medische kosten door de werkgever. Hoewel werkgevers verplicht zijn hun werknemers
via de CTPS te registreren en dus te verzekeren, gebeurt dit in veel gevallen niet.
22
Grupo Especial de Fiscalização Rural, Ministerio de Trabalho e Emprego, cited in Produção e destino da
soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina, August 2005.
23
Produção e destino da soja Piauiense, Funaguas, Teresina, August 2005.
24
Almeida, A.F. de, Estudo de Impacto Ambiental – Bunge Piauí. Parecer. Universidade de São Paulo
(ESALQ-USP); Piracicaba, September 2003, cited in Bickel U., Expansão de Soja, Conflitos SócioEcologicos e Segurança Alimentar, University of Bonn, Bonn, 2004.
25
Interview met plantation managers at Fazenda Italia, Urucuí, July 2004; Galinkin, M., Partnership for a
better future, CEBRAC, presentation during the Amsterdam soja seminar, 23 January 2004.
26
Interview with Deusimar Araújo Silva, municipal clerk of Urucuí, July 2004.
27
Judson Barros, president, Funáguas, personal communication, October 2005.
28
Decree Nº 10.867 of the federal state of Piauí, Brazil, 11 September 2002, states that during a period of 15
years Bunge is exempt from ICMS (state sales tax), ISS (municipal sales tax) and IPTU (property tax); Rios
Vivos website: www.riosvivos.org.br, viewed in October 2005.
29
Interview with Adriana Almeida, seller of agrochemicals in Urucuí; field visit report, AIDEnvironment, July
2004.
30
Interview with Deusimar Araújo Silva, municipal clerk of Urucuí, July 2004.
31
Rios Vivos, Alegações da Bunge para processar o ambientalista e a Funaguas, 28 April 2005, Rios Vivos
website: www.riosvivos.org.br, viewed in October 2005.
32
Portal AZ, Descoberto plano para assassinar o jornalista Arimatéia Azevedo: Teresina, Piauí, 30 December
2004, website http://www.portalaz.com.br/ novoazz/noticias.asp?Secao=Geral&Noti_ID=27457; viewed in
January 2005.
33
IBGE and MMA, Mapa de biomas do Brazil.
34
Embrapa, cited in Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a
Expansão da soja no Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
35
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
36
Cattle farmers worden uitgekocht door, of verhuren hun land aan, sojaproducenten. Met de opbrengsten
daarvan worden nieuwe veeteeltgebieden ontwikkeld ten koste van het bos. FBOMS, Grupo de Trabalho de
Florestas, Relação entre cultivo de soja e desmatamento, São Paulo, 2005.
37
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
38
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
39
News article in Estado de Sao Paulo, São Paulo,1 January 2005.
40
Frente em Defesa de Amazônia, relatorio de impactos de soja em Santarem, Santarem, August 2005.
-38-
41
Greenpeace Brasil, Pará: State of Conflict, São Paulo, 2004.
42
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
43
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
44
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
45
Frente em Defesa de Amazônia, relatorio de impactos de soja em Santarem, Santarem, August 2005.
46
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
47
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Conflitos no campo 2002 and 2003, Brasília, 2004.
48
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
49
Caritas / Commissão Pastoral da Terra Belém, Levantamento Exploratório sobre a Expansão da soja no
Estado do Pará, Caritas Brasileira Norte 2, August 2005.
50
Websites of IBGE (www.ibge.gov.br) and CONAB (www.conab.gov.br), viewed in March / September 2005.
51
A cadeia produtiva do trabalho escravo no Brasil, the President of Brazil’s Special Envoy for Human Rights
and Reporter Brasil, Brasília, 2004.
52
Since the introduction of the Sistema de Licençiamento Ambiental em Propriedades Rurais (SLAPR;
environmental licensing system for rural landholdings) in 2000, 16 million hectares, or 17% of the area of
Mato Grosso, has been entered into an electronic land register. The area of forest within these registered
landholdings is determined each year by satellite monitoring.
53
Mato Grosso, Amazônia (i)Legal. Desmatamentos de florestas em propriedades rurais integradas ao
Sistema de Licenciamento Ambiental Rural entre 2001 e 2004, Instituto Socioambiental, Brasília, June
2005.
54
AIDEnvironment, INPE/IBGE from FoE Amazonia news service.
55
Mato Grosso, Amazônia (i)Legal. Desmatamentos de florestas em propriedades rurais integradas ao
Sistema de Licenciamento Ambiental Rural entre 2001 e 2004, Instituto Socioambiental, Brasilia, June
2005.
56
Websites of IBGE (www.ibge.gov.br) and CONAB (www.conab.gov.br), viewed in March / September 2005.
57
J.H. Nascimento, Relatorio de visita de campo, CTI, Carolina, November 2004.
58
J.H. Nascimento, Relatorio de visita de campo, CTI, Carolina, November 2004.
59
J.H. Nascimento, Relatorio de visita de campo, CTI, Carolina, November 2004.
60
Databank ShipInfo, Dirkzwager, Rotterdam, September 2005.
61
Oil World Annual 2005, ISTA Mielke, Hamburg, June 2005.
62
Website Cargill (www.cargill.com), viewed in October 2005.
63
Website Cargill (www.cargill.com), viewed in October 2005; website Cargill Benelux (www.cargill.nl), viewed
in October 2005.
-39-
64
Annual accounts for the year ending May 31, 2004, Cargill B.V., Amsterdam, December 2004.
65
‘Cargill Gent gaat voor onbepaalde tijd dicht’, Gazet van Antwerpen, Antwerp, 23 March 2005; ‘Euro-Silo
ontslaat kwart personeel’, Het Nieuwsblad, Antwerp, 29 June 2005; ‘Gedaan met de graanschuur - Aanvoer
van graan, soja en tapioca in haven keldert’, Dieter Herregodts, Het Volk, Antwerp, 5 August 2005.
66
‘Cargill, producent van sojaolie en eiwitten’, Hans van Vliet, De Molenaar, 9 May 2003.
67
‘Cargill, producent van sojaolie en eiwitten’, Hans van Vliet, De Molenaar, 9 May 2003.
68
Telephone interviews with feed producers, July to October 2005.
69
‘Fusievoordeel van ABCTA becijferd op zeker tien miljoen’, René van Buitenen, Agrarisch Dagblad,
Doetinchem, 18 July 2000; ‘ABCTA sluit vestiging Almelo’, Dagblad Tubantia/Twentsche Courant, Almelo,
26 April 2003.
70
Website ABCTA (www.abcta.nl), viewed in October 2005.
71
‘Met twee duo's naar een kwartet’, Rene van Buitenen, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 8 February 2001;
Website Agrifirm (www.agrifirm.nl), viewed in October 2005.
72
Website Nationale Coöperatieve Raad (www.cooperatie.nl), viewed in October 2005.
73
Website De Heus Brokking Koudijs (www.deheusbrokkingkoudijs.nl), viewed in October 2005.
74
Quote-500, Quote, Amsterdam, 30 December 2002.
75
Website Hendrix UTD (www.hendrix-utd.nl), viewed in October 2005.
76
Annual report 2004, Provimi S.A., Rotterdam, April 2005.
77
Website Provimi B.V. (www.provimi.nl), viewed in October 2005; Website Provimi S.A. (www.provimi.com),
viewed in October 2005.
78
Samenwerking VWA en TrusQ, Press release TrusQ, 24 August 2005.
79
Annual Report 2004, Cehave Landbouwbelang, Veghel, May 2005.
80
‘Krimp Intensieve Veehouderij Noodzaakt Agribusiness Tot Actie’, Jan Engwerda, Agrarisch Dagblad, 12
October 2002.
81
‘Varkenshouder voldoet aan eisen HACCP maar wil geen certificering’, Jan Engwerda, Agrarisch Dagblad,
Doetinchem, 15 May 2003; website Q-linaire (www.q-linaire.nl), viewed in October 2005.
82
‘Westfleisch-certificaat voor voercoöperatie ABCTA’, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 3 September 2003.
83
Esbro weer zelfstandig, Press release ABCTA, Lochem, 23 May 2005.
84
‘Overlegstructuur basis voor pluimveeintegratie Cebeco’, Bert Kleiboer, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 11
April 2000; website Plukon Poultry (www.friki.com), viewed in October 2005.
85
‘Overlegstructuur basis voor pluimveeintegratie Cebeco’, Bert Kleiboer, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 11
April 2000; website Plukon Poultry (www.friki.com), viewed in October 2005.
86
Website Cehave Landbouwbelang (www.cehave.nl), viewed in October 2005.
87
Website De Heus Virtuele Integrale Pluimveevleesketen (www.de-heus-vip.nl), viewed in October 2005.
-40-
88
Website Hendrix UTD (www.hendrixutd.nl), viewed in October 2005.
89
Website Hendrix Meat Group (www.hendrixmeatgroup.com), viewed in October 2005.
90
‘Vion grootste Europese vleesverwerker na overname’, Richard Kok, Zibb.nl, 27 September 2005; Dumeco
wijzigt naam in VION, Press release Dumeco, Boxtel, 5 October 2005.
91
Website Vion (www.vionfood.com), viewed in October 2005; website Sovion (www.sovion.com), viewed in
October 2005.
92
Website Vion (www.vionfood.com), viewed in October 2005.
93
‘Hendrix Meat Group behaalt BRC certificaat’, Press release Hendrik Meat Group, Groenlo, 8 August 2003.
94
Dumeco saneert na verlies AH-contract, ANP, 29 June 2004; AH keert terug naar zijn oude slagerij, Derk
Klein Kranenberg, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 30 June 2004.
95
Website RWM Food Group (www.rwmfoodgroup.com), Viewed in October 2005; Website Foyle Food Group
(www.foylefoodgroup.com), Viewed in October 2005; Website Hilton Food Group
(www.hiltonfoodgroup.com), Viewed in October 2005.
96
Website Dumeco (www.dumeco.nl), viewed in October 2005.
97
Website Q-linaire (www.q-linaire.nl), viewed in October 2005.
98
Website Dumeco (www.dumeco.nl), viewed in October 2005.
99
Flandrex België en Astenhof Nederland samen verder in Pluimveeslachterij, Press release Flandrex België
and Astenhof Nederland, Veghel/Moeskroen, 14 September 2005.
100
Website Cehave Landbouwbelang Pluimvee Integratie (www.vleespluimvee-integratie.nl), viewed in October
2005; website Astenhof (www.astenhof.nl), viewed in October 2005.
101
Website Astenhof (www.astenhof.nl), viewed in October 2005.
102
Astenhof en Dumeco Retail starten partnership, Press release Astenhof and Dumeco, Asten/Groenlo, 6
August 2003.
103
Esbro weer zelfstandig, Press release ABCTA, Lochem, 23 May 2005.
104
'Uitbreiding aantal vleeskuikens moet de vaste kosten drukken', Derk Klein Kranenberg, Agrarisch Dagblad,
Doetinchem, 11 June 2003.
105
Website Plukon Poultry (www.friki.com), viewed in October 2005; website Plusfood (www.plusfood.nl),
viewed in October 2005.
106
Nutreco bereikt principeovereenkomst over verkoop van Pingo Poultry aan Plukon Royale, Press release
Nutreco, Amersfoort, 27 June 2005; website Pingo Poultry (www.pingopoultry.com), viewed in October
2005.
107
Decision by the Board of the Netherlands Competition Authority, referred to in Article 37, paragraph 1 of the
Competitive Trading Act: 5141/Plukon - Pingo Poultry, Netherlands Competition Authority, The Hague, 24
August 2005.
108
Annual Report 2004, Cebeco, Rotterdam, May 2005.
109
‘Overlegstructuur basis voor pluimveeintegratie Cebeco’, Bert Kleiboer, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 11
April 2000; website Plukon Poultry (www.friki.com), viewed in October 2005.
-41-
110
Nutreco tekent intentieverklaring met Ham Holding B.V., Press release Nutreco Holding N.V., Amersfoort,
14 December 2000; ‘Het sudderlapje wordt niet zomaar een A-merk’, Friso Liesker, Het Financieele
Dagblad, Amsterdam, 7 June 2001.
111
‘Kippensector profiteert niet van Thaise crisis’, Het Financieele Dagblad, Amsterdam, 27 January 2004.
112
Friki wint voor derde keer op rij prestigieuze Industributietrofee, Press release Plukon Poultry, Wezep, 14
January 2004.
113
‘Vleeskuikensector vindt salmonella-convenant een politieke stunt’, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 7
February 2002; ‘Salmonellavrije kip Albert Heijn toch besmet’, Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, 20
February 2004; ‘Tegenslag voor project salmonellavrije kip’, Sake Moesker, Agrarisch Dagblad,
Doetinchem, 21 February 2004; ‘Plukon overweegt stappen tegen krant’, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem,
13 March 2004.
114
Website Plukon Poultry (www.friki.com), viewed in October 2005; website Plusfood (www.plusfood.nl),
viewed in October 2005.
115
‘Crisis bij grootste slachterij; Honderden banen op de tocht bij pluimveeverwerker’, Algemeen Dagblad,
Rotterdam, 10 May 2003; ‘Faillissement Storteboom komt 2 Sisters goed uit’, Derk Klein Kranenberg,
Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 15 May 2003; Sterk Advies, Berg Holding en NOM geven Storteboom
bedrijven een nieuwe start, Press release Storteboom, Kornhorn, 21 May 2003; website Storteboom
(www.storteboom.nl), viewed in October 2005.
116
‘Aanvoer knelpunt Storteboom, Derk Klein Kranenberg’, Agrarisch Dagblad, Doetinchem, 7 June 2003; ‘EUmarkt zit niet te wachten op Nederlands pluimveevlees’, Derk Klein Kranenberg, Agrarisch Dagblad,
Doetinchem, 12 August 2003; ‘Bij Storteboom Putten: Ex-personeel protesteert tegen ontslag’, Veluws
Dagblad, Apeldoorn, 9 September 2003.
117
'Traceerbaarheid en kwaliteitszekerheid met behoud vrijheid', Derk Klein Kranenberg, Agrarisch Dagblad,
Doetinchem, 12 December 2001; website De Heus Virtuele Integrale Pluimveevleesketen (www.de-heusvip.nl), viewed in October 2005.
118
Website Storteboom (www.storteboom.nl), Viewed in October 2005.
119
Website De Heus Virtuele Integrale Pluimveevleesketen (www.de-heus-vip.nl), viewed in October 2005.
120
Website De Heus Virtuele Integrale Pluimveevleesketen (www.de-heus-vip.nl), viewed in October 2005.
121
Website De Heus Virtuele Integrale Pluimveevleesketen (www.de-heus-vip.nl), viewed in October 2005.
122
Export van Nederlands kippenvlees naar Afrika, research report for Novib, Jan Willem van Gelder,
Profundo, Castricum, 12 January 2005.
-42-