ISSN 1517-2627
October, 2021

Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
Embrapa Soils
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply

DOCUMENTOS
229

Brazilian Agriculture in Times of COVID-19: some challenges and opportunities for SDGs

Ana Paula Dias Turetta
Luca Eufemia
Joyce Maria Guimarães Monteiro
Katharina Löhr
Camilo Ernesto Lozano Torres
Michelle Chevelev-Bonatti
Stefan Sieber

Embrapa Soils
Rio de Janeiro, RJ
2021

Embrapa Soils

Rua Jardim Botânico, 1024.

Jardim Botânico, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - CEP: 22460-000

Phone: + 55 (21) 2179-4500

www.embrapa.br

www.embrapa.br/fale-conosco/sac

Organization responsible for the content and publication

Embrapa Soils

Local Publication Committee

President: Gustavo de Mattos Vasques

Executive Secretary: Marcos Antônio Nakayama

Members: Bernadete da Conceição Carvalho Gomes Pedreira, David Vilas Boas de Campos, Evaldo de Paiva Lima, José Francisco Lumbreras, Joyce Maria Guimarães Monteiro, Lucia Raquel Queiroz Pereira da Luz, Maurício Rizzato Coelho, Wenceslau Geraldes Teixeira

Editorial Supervision: Marcos Antônio Nakayama

Bibliographic standardization: Luciana Sampaio de Araujo (CRB-7/5165)

Graphic project: Carlos Eduardo Felice Barbeiro

Digital publishing: Alexandre Abrantes Cotta de Mello

Cover: Alexandre Abrantes Cotta de Mello

Title page photograph: talercris / © CleanPNG

1st edition

E-book (2021)

All rights are reserved.

Unauthorized reproduction of this publication,
in its entirety or in part, is not permitted, it is a breach of copyright (Act No. 9.610).

Cataloguing in Publication (CIP) Data

Embrapa Soils

Brazilian agriculture in times of COVID-19 : some challenges and opportunities for SDGs / Ana Paula Dias Turetta ... [et al.]. – Rio de Janeiro : Embrapa Solos, 2021.

E-book : il. color. – (Documentos / Embrapa Solos, ISSN 1517-2627 ; 229).

1. Sustainable agriculture. 2. Sustainable development. 3. COVID-19 infection. I. Turetta, Ana Paula Dias. II. Eufemia, Luca. III. Monteiro, Joyce Maria Guimarães. IV. Löhr, Katharina. V. Torres, Camilo Ernesto Lozano. VI. Chevelev-Bonatti, Michelle. VII. Sieber, Stefan. VIII. Embrapa Solos. IX. Series.

DDC 630

Luciana Sampaio de Araujo (CRB-7/5165)

© Embrapa, 2021

Authors

Ana Paula Dias Turetta

Agronomist, Ph.D. in Soil Sciences, researcher at Embrapa Soils, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Luca Eufemia

Ph.D. student in Agricultural Sciences at Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany

Joyce Maria Guimarães Monteiro

Agronomist, Ph.D. in Energy Planning, researcher at Embrapa Soils, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Katharina Löhr

Ph.D. at Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany

Camilo Ernesto Lozano Torres

Ph.D. in Agrifood Sociology and Sustainable Agrifood Systems at Wageningen University, Netherlands

Michelle Chevelev-Bonatti

Ph.D. in Life Sciences at Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany

Stefan Sieber

Ph.D. in Resource and Environmental Economics at University of Bonn, Germany

Foreword

The COVID-19 pandemic presents enormous global challenges to people's health, livelihoods, economies, and food systems. Yet, while the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remain key roadmaps for the world’s sustainable development, they also envision collective actions, offering perspectives on novel opportunities that cannot be dealt with in isolation. The high performance of the Brazilian agricultural sector, with its inherent diversity, could help reduce impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on SDGs achievement by strengthening and encouraging of sustainable agricultural initiatives. An increasing body of literature and practice proves the capacity of some agricultural initiatives to reduce the trade-offs from agriculture activity and positively affect all sustainability pillars (social, economic, environmental). Thus, this document aims to present an overview about how some sustainable agricultural practices, already adopted in Brazil, have the potential to reduce the trade-offs imposed by the COVID-19 crisis and contribute to achieving the SDG targets. Additionally, the existence of a legal framework supporting the expansion of sustainable agricultural initiatives can be harnessed to improve the achievement of SDGs in Brazil.

Maria de Lourdes Mendonça Santos Brefin
Head of Embrapa Solos

Introduction

Agenda 2030 lists the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) that address social, environmental, and economic dimensions in an integrated and indivisible way across all of its 169 targets. They represent a coherent, collective vision of a better future for all and provide a framework by which progress toward this vision may be monitored (United Nations Environment Programme, 2015).

The SDGs have a multi-scale perspective: not only are they are global in nature and universally applicable, but they are also local in their implementation. Thus, their actual implementation will depend on the capability of respective countries, regions, states, and cities as well as on the technological attainment and access to natural resources. Furthermore, a clear priority setting at the policy level drives successful SDG enforcement or failure. It requires that most of the actions to implement the SDGs are necessarily at national and sub-national levels and, therefore, they should be designed within a global framework (United Nations Environment Programme, 2015).

The Brazilian government’s 2017 Voluntary National Report on the SDGs (Brasil, 2017b) argues that poverty in Brazil has markedly rural features. Policies aimed at small rural productive units - more than 4 million establishments across the country – encourage strategies to overcome poverty that are fundamentally guided by actions of productive inclusion, combining environmental protection and social promotion. For example, the Program for Food Acquisition from Family Agriculture Production (PAA) purchases products from family farming, remunerating food producers that supply social and welfare entities. The purposes of the program are linked to compliance with several SDGs, insofar as fosters family farming, promoting its economic and social inclusion and boosting sustainable production, food processing and industrialization (Brasil, 2017b).

This scenario places agricultural activities on the country agenda, expanding discussion beyond food production to include themes like its potential to generate other benefits for ecosystems and society. A focus on rural development with investments in agriculture - crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture – is proposed as a powerful way to end poverty and hunger, while enhancing sustainable development efforts (FAO, 2016).

As the prime connection between people and the planet, food and agriculture can help achieve multiple (SDGs) and therefore needs to receive particular attention (Doberman, 2018; FAO, 2018). “Investing in the agricultural sector can address not only hunger and malnutrition but also other challenges including poverty; water and energy use; climate change; and unsustainable production and consumption” (Farming First, 2021).

Strategies to cope with sustainable development are especially important since the outbreak of COVID-19. While the full extent of the pandemic’s impacts is not completely clear as of December 2020, it is already evident that societies worldwide face severe negative consequences, as first studies confirm (Hevia; Neumeyer, 2020; Min; Perucci, 2020; Mukherjee; Bonin, 2020; United Nations Sustainable Development Group, 2020a). The pandemic shows impacts on all sectors, countries, and international agreements, albeit at differing intensities. The impact of the pandemic on achieving SDGs depends on how severe the initial effects are, whether the crises recovery is gradual or rapid, as well as on whether we return to the pre-pandemic world or to one that is more sustainable and equitable (United Nations Sustainable Development Group, 2020b). Sachs et al. (2020) expect the greatest negative short-term impacts on SDGs 1 (No poverty), 2 (Zero hunger), 3 (Good health and well-being), 8 (Decent work and economic growth), and 10 (Reduced inequalities), while the impacts on the remaining SDGs is, as of December 2020, still unclear.

These SDGs are closely related to those inequalities affecting social-economic conditions, while also exposing the instability of the "business as usual" scenario regarding agriculture production and food systems. The lockdowns and disruptions triggered by COVID-19 show the fragility of people’s access to essential goods and services. Among other examples, many children are one school meal away from hunger; countries are one export ban away from food shortages - Indian rice traders have stopped signing new export contracts due to labour shortages and logistics disruptions e.g. (La Hamaide; Trompiz, 2020); farms are one travel ban away from critical labor shortages (IPES-Food, 2020).

Poch et al. (2020) recommend that, to prepare food production for a global disruption from whatever cause, it is essential to invest in the sustainability of food production systems; this includes caring for long term soil health so as to preserve soil structure, fertility, balanced organic matter and nutrients dynamics, biodiversity, and all the related soil ecosystem services (Lal, 2020).

Brazil is a diverse country and the world's leading exporter of a number of agricultural commodities. Its agribusiness sector is performing an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic (Brazilian…, 2020). Data from the General Register of Employed and Unemployed (CAGED), released by the Ministry of Economy's Secretariat of Labor, reveal that agriculture is the only sector of Brazilian economic activity with positive results in terms of job creation in 2020 (Agropecuária…, 2020).

Moreover, despite the restrictions imposed by the crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Brazilian Federal Government announced a 6% increase in the volume of resources for the 2020/2021 harvest, prioritizing investments for small and medium producers, financing the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (Pronaf), with interest of 2.75% and 4% per year, for funding and marketing (Plano…, 2021).

However, although family farming accounts for domestic food production in Brazil, these same farmers are facing economic vulnerability due to a variety of factors, including limited access to equipment that increases labor productivity, distance from cities, production scale, and middlemen exploitation, among other mechanisms. These factors should be directed connected with efforts to combat COVID-19, thus highlighting how family farmers are affected when it comes to selling their production at the market (Ribeiro-Silva et al., 2020).

Notwithstanding these developments, we argue that the high performance of the agricultural sector in Brazil and its diversity could help reduce the impacts of the COVID-19 on the achievement of the SDGs by strengthening and encouraging sustainable agricultural initiatives. Thus, this document aims to present an overview about how some sustainable agricultural practices, already adopted in Brazil, have the potential to reduce the trade-offs imposed by the COVID-19 crisis and contribute to achieving the SDG targets. With the aim of supporting Brazilian agriculture during the pandemic, hot topics, like soil erosion and deforestation, must be addressed in new ways.

This study meets the following Sustainable Development Goals stipulated by the United Nations (UN): SDG 2 – Zero Hunger, SDG 3 – Good Health and Well-Being, SDG 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 13 – Climate Action and SDG 15 - Life on Land.

Erosion and deforestation in Brazilian agriculture

The impact of soil erosion and deforestation on SDGs achievement lands directly on those directly related to the environmental domain.

Estimates regarding the rate of soil erosion on Brazilian agricultural land varies between 600 and 800 million t yr⁻¹. However, it is still fuzzy with respect to how much each agricultural activity contributes (Merten et al., 2015). The same authors highlight that it is difficult to define effective policies for erosion control.

FAO (2017) finds that the environmental, social, and economic risks related to soil erosion can be buffered by a broad range of land management practices and technologies, including those related to the conservation agriculture (CA). CA plays an important role, since it aims to reduce soil degradation through practices that not just minimize changes in soil composition and structure but also on soil natural biodiversity (Shaxson; Barber, 2003). In general, CA includes practices that reduce or eliminate soil plowing and maintain soil coverage.

In Brazil, the sector plan for low-carbon agriculture (ABC Plan – Decree nº 9.578/2018 (Brasil, 2018)) encourages the adoption of conservation agricultural initiatives that aim to mitigate greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) in concert with soil and water conservation policies. The ABC plan can make agricultural production more resilient and sustainable, producing food, employment, and income (Assad et al., 2020). The ABC Plan is composed of seven programs, six of them referring to mitigation technologies, and a final program with actions to adapt to climate change: Program 1: Recovery of Degraded Pastures; Program 2: Integration of Crop-Livestock-Forestry (iLPF) and Agroforestry Systems (SAFs); Program 3: No tillage system (SPD); Program 4: Biological Nitrogen Fixation (FBN); Program 5: Planted Forests; Program 6: Treatment of Animal Waste; Program 7: Adapting to Climate Change (Ações…, 2020).

Another important ongoing initiative in Brazil is the Water Producer Program, created in the early 2000s by the National Water Agency (Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico, 2021) with the goal of providing financial incentives to rural landowners who adopt water and soil conservation practices (Viani et al., 2019). It is a voluntary program, and its main purpose is to control rural diffuse pollution, primarily directed at hydrographic basins of strategic importance for the country. In 2014, 13 water PES were being developing in Brazil, all in Atlantic Forest (Prado et al., 2019).

The Water Producer Program can be also a strategy to face another threat to sustainable landscapes in Brazil: deforestation.

Deforestation is intricately tied to decisions on land use for agricultural production. Agricultural productivity in frontier areas, along with the land use intensity for the practiced type of farming – crop cultivation versus cattle grazing – are the key determinants of deforestation (Assunção et al., 2016). Because of the combined climate impacts of GHGs and bio geophysical effects (e.g., albedo, evapotranspiration, etc), reducing deforestation in the tropics has a major climate change mitigation effects, with benefits on the local levels as well (Alkama; Cescatti, 2016).

An increasing number of studies demonstrate that it is possible to increase agricultural yields without adverse environmental impact and without converting additional non-agricultural land, thus meaning that the sustainable intensification of agriculture is possible (Pretty; Bharucha, 2014; Muller et al., 2016). Thus, we believe that the hard time facing society, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, is also an opportunity to demonstrate the viability of sustainable initiatives in agriculture, thus improving resilience and promoting more inclusive food systems that can support the development of the 2030 Agenda in Brazil.

To be considered a sustainable production system, some key attributes must be present in the production systems, including not just the avoidance of unnecessary external inputs but also minimizing the use of technologies or practices that adversely affect the environment and human health. These should also promote nutrient cycling, biological nitrogen fixation, allelopathy, predation and parasitism; minimize the impacts of system management on externalities such as GHG emissions, clean water, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and dispersal of pests, pathogens and weeds (Pretty, 2007; Reaping…, 2009; Pretty; Bharucha, 2014).

These principles improve the resilience of agricultural systems and stimulate its multifunctionality. The concept of “multifunctional agriculture” states that agriculture is a multi-output activity, producing not only food, but also non-food outputs, such as ecosystem services, landscape amenities, and cultural heritages (Westhoek et al., 2016).

Considering these trade-offs, we propose feasible alternatives for the Brazilian agenda, designed to boost SDGs though sustainable agriculture approaches.

Although, looking at 17 goals, 169 targets and 247 indicators simultaneously is a hugely ambitious – and data intensive – undertaking, for this particular analysis, we select those SDGs targets reached directly by sustainable agriculture initiatives: SDGs 2 (Zero hunger), 3 (Good health and well-being), 6 (Clean water and sanitation), 13 (Climate action), and 15 (Life on land). Additionally, on the Brazilian platform responsible for monitoring the SDGs achievement (https://odsbrasil.gov.br/objetivo/objetivo?n=2), we observe the set of indicators associated with each SDGs’ targets. This platform is under construction and the indicators present three categories, following the guidelines proposed by the Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs): Tier 1: Indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are available (an example is the indicator, 1.1.1 Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural, which is World Bank’s custody); Tier 2: Indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are available, but data are not regularly produced (an example is the indicator 1.b.1 Pro-poor public social spending, which is UNICEF’s custody); Tier 3: No internationally established methodology or standards are yet available for the indicator, but methodology/standards are being (or will be) developed and tested (an example is the 1.4.1: Proportion of population living in households with access to basic services, which is UN-Habitat’s custody) (United Nations, 2020).

Table 1. SDGs and targets considered in this paper.

SDG

Targets

Indicators (Tier 1, 2 or 3)

2: Zero Hunger

2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment

2.3.1 - Production volume per work unit by size of farming / pastoral / forestry company (T2)

2.3.2 - Average income of small food producers, by sex and indigenous status (T2)

2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality

2.4.1 - Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture (T3)

3: Good health and well being

3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination

3.9.2 - Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water sources, unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene (T1)

6: Clean water and sanitation

6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally

6.3.2 - Proportion of water bodies with good environmental water quality (T1)

6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes

6.6.1 - Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time (T1)

13: Climate action

13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries

13.1.1 - Number of deaths, missing persons and people directly affected attributed to disasters per 100 thousand inhabitants (T1)

13.1.3 - Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies (T1)

13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and plans

13.2.1 - Number of countries with Nationally Determined Contributions, long-term strategies, national adaptation plans, strategies as reported in national and adaptation communications (T2)

13.2.2 - Total greenhouse gas emissions per year (T2)

15: Life on land

15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements

15.1.1 - Forest area as a proportion of the total area of the territory (T1)

15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world

15.3.1 - Proportion of the territory with degraded soils (T2)

15.4: By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development

15.4.2 - Vegetation coverage index in mountain regions (T1)

15.A: Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems

15.a.1 - (a) Official development assistance for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; and (b) revenue generated and financing mobilized from economic instruments relevant to biodiversity (T2)

Sustainable agriculture in Brazil

Based on the found rationale, we suggest three ongoing agriculture initiatives in Brazil to facilitate the achievement of the SDGs and to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 crisis. These three – (i) agroecology; (ii) no tillage systems; and (iii) integrated crop−livestock systems (iCL) – have the well documented capacity to reduce the trade-offs from agriculture activity while positively affecting all sustainability pillars (social, economic, environmental):

i. Agroecology

Approaches like agroecology can help countries achieve more sustainable food and agriculture in practice (FAO, 2018). Agroecological approaches emphasize the potential benefits that arise from making the best use of both genotypes of crops and animals as well as their agro-ecological management (Pretty, 2006).

Within the context of climate change and growing concerns for more healthy food systems, agroecology is gaining momentum as a scientific discipline, a sustainable farming approach, and a social movement (Silici, 2014).

The agroecological agriculture movement promotes standards compatible with family farming (Irineu, 2018). In Brazil, about 76% of farmers are classified as family farmers, with the largest concentration of them – about 47% – in the northeast (IBGE, 2017). Moreover, the country has a set of political instruments regarding agroecology practices and family farming, including the National Program for Strengthening Family Farming (PRONAF), which was established in 1996 as a political response to the social mobilization of the sector. In 2005/06, a line of PRONAF that specifically supports agroecology practices was launched (Sambuichi et al., 2017; Niederle et al., 2019).

In addition to PRONAF, it is important to highlight the Food Acquisition Program (PAA), a public policy that aims to strengthen family farmers through marketing channels in the places of origin, especially those farmers producing in small quantities. This program is designed for agricultural and food security policies in order to help combat hunger (Decree nº 9.214/ 2017 (Brasil, 2017a)). Further, the National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO) (Decree nº 7.794/ 2012 (Brasil, 2012)) presents definitions for agroecological production and transition.

Altieri and Nicholls (2020) state that, in facing COVID 19, agroecology is positioning itself as an agricultural path that can provide rural families with significant socioeconomic and environmental benefits, while equitably and sustainably feeding the urban masses. Moreover, it can support a paradigm shift that is needed for transformative changes that promote sustainability throughout the food system (Gliessman, 2020).

ii. No tillage systems (NTS)

NTS is considered to be a sustainable land management (SLM), e.g., agricultural practices that can lead not just to improved soil quality but also stabilizes the state of the soil. The main advantages of this system is its potential to increase water infiltration and restore the soil organic matter (Lal et al., 2004; Grandy; Robertson, 2006).

Starting in the 1980s, the NTS integrated production system approach was strengthened, including a set of approaches that involved species diversification, crop rotation, and intercropping, where the soil is mobilizing exclusively in the sowing line and the plant residues are maintained on the soil surface. Thus, the adoption of NTS in Brazil is driven by its efficiency at controlling soil erosion (Denardin et al., 2011).

Despite all of its advantages, it is still necessary to monitor soil compaction, which if unchecked can result in nitrate accumulation, among others (Bosch, 2020). Yet, it is demonstrated that continuous NTS applications do not just improve soil quality but also increase photosynthesis, improve nutrient accumulation, and improve the yields of many crops. This technological process is included in the ABC Plan, as part of the international commitment made by Brazil in 2009 to reduce its emissions from agriculture activities.

According to the 2017 Brazilian Agricultural Census (IBGE, 2017), Brazil has 33,052,969 ha under NTS. Eleven years earlier, in 2006, 15,746,183 ha were concentrated in grain crops (especially soybeans and corn) (IBGE, 2006). However, there is evidence that NTS is being adopted by family farmers, as demonstrated by Oliveira et al. (2009), Girardello et al. (2017) and Fayad et al. (2019).

NTS meets the sustainable soil management capable to prevent land degradation and desertification, announced by the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soil (ITPS/FAO) and highlighted by Poch et al. (2020) as building post COVID-19 food resilience.

iii. Integrated crop−livestock systems (iCL)

Livestock makes a large contribution to Brazil’s economy. In fact, Brazil is one of the biggest beef producers in the world, with more than 70 million tons produced in 2018. However, not only is it responsible for high levels of greenhouse emission emissions (GHGs) and environmental degradation (Silva, 2010; Vilela et al., 2011), it also underlies increasing income inequality in rural areas (Abramovay, 2000; Campanhola; Silva, 2004; Balsan, 2006). Beef cattle production, in particular, is associated with very low incomes and high levels of land degradation, abandonment, and deforestation (Margulis, 2004; Fearnside, 2005; Garrett et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, integrated systems appear to be an alternative to face these challenges, since they represent a technique that accentuates resource usage – labor, land, and capital – that extends productivity while also diversifying production and sparing land for conservation or other uses (Franzluebbers, 2007; Herrero et al., 2010; Lemaire et al., 2014; Reis et al., 2016).

Prior studies in Brazil, especially in the Cerrado, demonstrated that iCL systems can increase production efficiency since they contribute to improvements in soil quality, water conservation, increased animal welfare, and a reduction in GHGs per unit of food produced (Kluthcouski et al., 2003; Macedo, 2009; Vilela et al., 2011; Salton et al., 2014). Additionally, it is possible to observe an impact of iCL, helping to reduce the migratory process and facilitate greater social insertion through the generation of jobs and income (Kichel et al., 2014).

The goal set by the sector plan for low-carbon agriculture (ABC Plan – Decree nº 9.578/ 2018 (Brasil, 2018)) in 2009 was to increase the area with ICLF in Brazil by four million hectares by 2020. According to the preliminary estimate of the ABC Platform (a multi-institutional group created to monitor the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions), between 2010 and 2015 the increase of 5.96 million hectares of ICLF was responsible for the sequestration of 21.8 million tons of CO²-eq (Rede ILPF, 2020).

Thus, adopting iCL offers a wide range of advantages that address and reduce the potential risks of existing livestock models. Therefore social-environmental aspects are positively affected, with the potential to promote more resilient food systems in Brazil.

Final considerations - Blueprint to sustainable agriculture initiatives and SDGs

Based on the literature and the authors’ evaluation, we highlight aspects that can improve sustainable agriculture initiatives. These can be used by decision and policy makers to build pathways to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic impacts with respect to Agenda 2030 in Brazil. We present an outlook based on the potential of each selected initiative to directly affect the SDGs indicators from the “Tier 1” and “Tier 2” categories (Table 1) plus the main outcome from each interaction (Table 2).

Table 2. Schematic depiction regarding the interconnections* among agroecology, NTS, iCL, and SDGs indicators and main outcome. The bigger the circle, the stronger the interaction.

SDGs Indicator

Agroecology

NTS

iCL

Main outcome

2.3.1 - Production volume per work unit by size of agricultural / pastoral / forestry company (UE)

Increase food production

2.3.2 - Average income of small food producers, by sex and indigenous status (UE)

Increase the income of small producer

3.9.2 - Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water sources, unsafe sanitation and poor hygiene (P)

Reduction in agrochemical use

6.3.2 - Proportion of water bodies with good environmental quality (P)

Improve water infiltration and quality; reduce erosion

6.6.1 - Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time (P)

Improve water infiltration and quality; reduce erosion

13.1.1 - Number of deaths, missing persons and people directly affected attributed to disasters per 100,000 inhabitants (P)

Reduce erosion; regulation hydrological regime

13.1.3 - Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies (P)

Reduce erosion; regulation of hydrological regime

13.2.1 - Number of countries with Nationally Determined Contributions, long-term strategies, national adaptation plans, strategies as reported in national and adaptation communications (UE)

Reduce GHG emissions

13.2.2 - Total greenhouse gas emissions per year (UE)

Reduce GHG emissions

15.1.1 - Forest area as a proportion of the total area of the territory (P)

Reduction the opening of new areas under native vegetation

15.3.1 - Proportion of the territory with degraded soils (UE)

Reduce erosion; improve soil quality

15.4.2 - Vegetation coverage index in mountain regions (P)

Improve biomass

15.a. (a) Official development assistance for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; and (b) revenue generated and financing mobilized from economic instruments relevant to biodiversity (UE)

Reduce the opening of new areas under native vegetation; crop diversification; improve pollination

Source: Oliveira et al. (2009); Bonaudo et al. (2014); Silici (2014); Programa… (2017); Bosh (2020); Gliessman (2020); Reis et al. (2020); Rede ILPF (2021).

The connections exposed in Table 2 provide a guideline for monitoring efforts, making the interventions more consistent and accessible.

Nevertheless, as decisions and actions that advance any individual SDG will likely affect the achievement of the others, it is necessary to better understand the interactions among SDGs, especially the trade-offs, synergies, and unintended consequences. Additionally, there is evidence that by considering interactions between SDGs, substantial economic, social, and environmental benefits can be obtained from well-coordinated actions that capitalize on synergies between multiple SDGs (Scharlemann et al., 2020).

Some authors have already demonstrated the different levels of interaction among the SDGs (Le Blanc, 2015; Singh et al., 2018; Scharlemann et al., 2020).

In order to visualize the interactions among the selected SDGs, we follow the approach proposed by Scharlemann et al. (2020) to better understand how the intervention of one SDG can affect the others. In general, decisions and actions on SDGs 2, 6, 13, and 15 are those with greatest impact on SDGs 2 and 15, demonstrating the linkages between basic human needs and the health environment (Figure 1).

Focusing on SDG 2 would therefore be a promising strategy to ultimately start-off a virtuous cycle of SDG progress. For example, a family that no longer suffers from hunger (SDG 2) will be able to lead healthier lives for themselves and others, halting the spread of infectious diseases (SDG 3), raising the means of implementation through tax payments (SDG 17) which will in turn enable public investments in infrastructure (SDG 6). The key challenge for policymakers here will then be to emulate such synergetic relationships with respect to other goals.

Especially about SDG 13, a large share of trade-offs was converted into synergies in the recent years because of efforts to reduce emissions per capita and reconcile climate action with economic and social outcomes. However, many significant trade-offs remain, as well as in fact a long way to go to meet the well below 2 °C global warming target (Kroll et al., 2019).

Figure 1. Interactions among SDGs. The thicker the line, the stronger is the interaction.

Source: Adapted from Scharlemann et al. (2020).

Thus, there are two structures to track how SDGs are achieved: the first based on the interconnections among agroecology, NTS , iCL, and target SDGs indicators (Table 2) where the impacts of the selected initiatives in each SDG indicator and the main outcome that can be reached are highlighted; and the second among the SDGs (Figure 1), demonstrating their trade-offs. These represent two viable milestones with guidelines to be further detailed and contribute to meeting the Brazilian 2030 Agenda and also to boost sustainable agriculture and reduce the negative effects of the COVID 19 outbreak.

Moreover, the existence of legal frameworks, like the ABC Plan, PRONAF, and PRONAPO, each supporting the expansion of sustainable agricultural initiatives, can be harnessed to facilitate the achievement of SDGs in Brazil.

The COVID-19 pandemic is demonstrating that an urgent rethink is needed regarding the sustainability agenda, highlighting the need to embed it in ecological process to achieve social needs. It opens space for discussions about food systems, highlighting how solidarity and collaborative actions can deliver innovations facilitating socio-economic justice for all.

References

ABRAMOVAY, R. Agricultura, diferenciação social e desempenho econômico. Texto apresentado no Seminário Desafios da Pobreza Rural no Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, maio 2000.

AÇÕES do Plano: o Plano ABC é composto por sete programas, acesse esta página e confira. Brasília, DF: MAPA, 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-abc/acoes-do-plano. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ÁGUAS E SANEAMENTO BÁSICO (Brasil). Programa Produtor de Água. Brasília, DF: ANA, 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/programa-produtor-de-agua. Accessed on: Sept. 6, 2021.

AGROPECUÁRIA é o único setor com expansão de vagas em maio e em 2020. Brasília, DF: CNA, 2020. 2 p. (CNA. Comunicado técnico, 18). Available at: https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/assets/arquivos/artigostecnicos/CNA-Comunicado-Tecnico-n18-30junho2020-1.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

ALKAMA, R.; CESCATTI, A. Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science, v. 351, n. 6273, p. 600-604, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac8083.

ALTIERI, M. A.; NICHOLLS, C. I. Agroecology and the emergence of a post COVID‐19 agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, v. 37, p. 525-526, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10043-7.

ASSAD, E. D.; COSTA, L. C.; MARTINS, S.; CALMON, M.; FELTRAN-BARBIERI, R.; CAMPANILI, M.; NOBRE, C. A. Role of the ABC Plan and Planaveg in the adaptation of Brazilian agriculture to climate change. São Paulo: WRI Brasil, 2020. Available at: https://wribrasil.org.br/sites/default/files/Working-Paper-Adaptation-ENGLISH.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 22, 2020.

ASSUNÇÃO, J.; MOBARAK, A. M.; LIPSCOMB, M.; SZERMAN, D. Agricultural productivity and deforestation in Brazil. 2016. 53 p. Available at: https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Agricultural-Productivity-and-Deforestation-in-Brazil-CPI.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

BALSAN, R. Impactos decorrentes da modernização da agricultura Brasileira. Campo-Território: Revista de Geografia Agrária, v. 1, n. 2, p. 123-151, ago. 2006. Available at: http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/campoterritorio/article/download/11787/8293/0. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

BONAUDO, T.; BENDAHAN, A. B.; SABATIER, R.; RYSCHAWY, J.; BELLON, S.; LEGER, F.; MAGDA, D.; TICHIT, M. Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop-livestock systems. European Journal of Agronomy, v. 57, p. 43-51, Jul. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010.

BOSCH, D. D. Water management. In: BERGTOLD, J.; SAILUS, M. (ed). Conservation tillage systems in the southeast: production, profitability and stewardship. College Park, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, 2020. Available at: https://www.sare.org/wp-content/uploads/Conservation-Tillage-Systems-in-the-Southeast_compressed.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 22, 2020.

BRASIL. Decreto nº 7.794, de 20 de agosto de 2012. Institui a Política Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção Orgânica. Brasília, DF, 2012. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/decreto/d7794.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 23, 2020.

BRASIL. Decreto nº 9.214, de 29 de novembro de 2017. Altera o Decreto nº 7.775, de 4 de julho de 2012, que regulamenta o art. 19 da Lei nº 10.696, de 2 de julho de 2003, que institui o Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos, e o Capítulo III da Lei nº 12.512, de 14 de outubro de 2011. Brasília, DF, 2017a. Available at:  http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2017/decreto/D9214.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 23, 2020.

BRASIL. Decreto nº 9.578, de 22 de novembro de 2018. Consolida atos normativos editados pelo Poder Executivo federal que dispõem sobre o Fundo Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima, de que trata a Lei nº 12.114, de 9 de dezembro de 2009, e a Política Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima, de que trata a Lei nº 12.187, de 29 de dezembro de 2009. Brasília, DF, 2018. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/decreto/d9578.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 23, 2020.

BRASIL. Ministério do Planejamento, Desenvolvimento e Gestão. Relatório nacional voluntário sobre os objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável: Brasil 2017. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 2017b. 76 p. Available at: http://portalods.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/relatoriovoluntario_brasil2017port.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

BRAZILIAN agribusiness: facing the coronavirus crisis in the field. Amsterdam: Rabobank, 2020. Available at: https://research.rabobank.com/publicationservice/download/publication/token/lETLgVwslPIBA8JCUiS6. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

CAMPANHOLA, C.; SILVA, J. G. da (ed.). O novo rural brasileiro: novas atividades rurais. Brasília, DF: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, 2004.

DENARDIN, J. E.; KOCHHANN, R. A.; FAGANELLO, A. 15 de abril dia nacional da conservação do solo: a agricultura desenvolvida no Brasil é conservacionista ou não? Boletim Informativo da Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v. 36, n. 1, p. 10-15, jan./abr. 2011. Available at: https://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/bitstream/doc/903745/1/15deabril.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

DOBERMAN, A. Putting the sustainable development goals into practice. 2018. Available at: https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/452396. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

FAO. Conservation agriculture. Revised version. Rome, 2017. 2 p. Available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/981ab2a0-f3c6-4de3-a058-f0df6658e69f/. Accessed on: Oct. 20, 2020.

FAO. Food and agriculture: key to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Rome, 2016. 32 p. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5499e.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

FAO. Transforming food and agriculture to achieve the SDGs: 20 interconnected actions to guide decision-makers. Rome, 2018. 76 p. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/I9900EN/i9900en.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

FARMING FIRST. The story of agriculture and the sustainable development goals. Available at: https://farmingfirst.org/sdg-toolkit#home. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

FAYAD, J.A; ARL, V.; COMIN, J.J.; MAFRA, A.L.; MARCHESI, D. R. Sistema de Plantio Direto de Hortaliças. Epagri: Florianópolis, 2019. Available at: http://estaticog1.globo.com/2020/06/26/folhetohortalicas.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 28, 2021.

FEARNSIDE, P. M. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology, v. 19, n. 3, p. 680-688, Jun. 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00697.x.

FRANZLUEBBERS, A. J. Integrated crop-livestock systems in the southeastern USA. Agronomy Journal, v. 99, p. 361-372, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2006.0076.

GARRETT, R.; NILES, M.; GIL, J.; DY, P.; REIS, J.; VALENTIM, J. Policies for reintegrating crop and livestock systems: a comparative analysis. Sustainability, v. 9, n. 3, 473, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030473.

GIRARDELLO, R.; SILVA, D. M. da; GUERRA, D.; LANZANOVA, M. E.; SOUZA, E. L. de. Produção de alface sob plantio direto em sistema de transição agroecológica. Revista Verde de Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Sustentável, v. 12, n. 2, p. 273-279, 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18378/rvads.v12i2.482.

GLIESSMAN, S. R. Transforming food and agriculture systems with agroecology. Agriculture and Human Values, v. 37, p. 547-548, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10058-0.

GRANDY, A. S.; ROBERTSON, G. P. Aggregation and organic matter protection following tillage of a previously uncultivated soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 70, n. 4, p. 1398-1406, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0313.

HERRERO, M.; THORNTON, P. K.; NOTENBAERT, A. M.; WOOD, S.; MSANGI, S.; FREEMAN, H. A.; BOSSIO, D.; DIXON, J.; PETERS, M.; STEEG, J. V. D.; LYNAM, J.; RAO, P. P. Smart investments in sustainable crop-livestock systems: revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science, v. 327, n. 5967, p. 822-825, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183725.

HEVIA, C.; NEUMEYER, A. A conceptual framework for analyzing the economic impact of COVID-19 and its policy implications. New York: UNDP, 2020. 32 p. (UNDP LAC C19 PDS, n. 1). Available at: https://www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/dam/rblac/Policy%20Papers%20COVID%2019/finaldocuments/UNDP-RBLAC-CD19-PDS-Number1-EN.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

IBGE. Censo agropecuário 2006. Rio de Janeiro, 2006. Available at: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/censo-agropecuario/censo-agropecuario-2006/segunda-apuracao. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

IBGE. Censo agropecuário 2017. Rio de Janeiro, 2017. Available at: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/censo-agropecuario/censo-agropecuario-2017. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

IPES-Food. COVID-19 and the crisis in food systems: symptoms, causes, and potential solutions. Brussels, 2020. 11 p. Available at: http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/COVID-19_CommuniqueEN%283%29.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

IRINEU, N. S. O. Dimensões da agroecologia na produção e comercialização de agricultores familiares no Distrito Federal e área metropolitana. Brasília, DF: Companhia de Planejamento do Distrito Federal, 2018. 54 p. (Codeplan. Texto para discussão, n. 44). Available at: https://www.codeplan.df.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TD_44-Dimens%C3%B5es-da-Agroecologia-na-Produ%C3%A7%C3%A3o-e-Comercializa%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-Agricultores-Familiares-no-DF-e-AMB.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

KICHEL, A. N.; COSTA, J. A. A. da; ALMEIDA, R. G. de; PAULINO, V. T. Sistemas de integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta (ilpf): experiências no Brasil. Boletim de Indústria Animal, v. 71, n. 1, p. 94-105, 2014. Available at: http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/116868/1/AP-Sistemas.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

KLUTHCOUSKI, J.; STONE, L. F.; AIDAR, H. (ed.). Integração lavoura-pecuária. Santo Antônio de Goiás: Embrapa Arroz e Feijão, 2003. 570 p.

KROLL, C.; WARCHOLD, A.; PRADHAN, P. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? Palgrave Communications, v. 5, 140, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5.

LA HAMAIDE, S. de; TROMPIZ, G. Trade restrictions on food exports due to the coronavirus pandemic. [S.l.]: Reuters, 2020. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-trade-food-factbox-idUSKBN21L332. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

LAL, R.; GRIFFIN, M.; APT, J.; LAVE, L.; MORGAN, M. G. Managing soil carbon. Science, v. 304, n. 5669, p. 393, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093079.

LAL, R. Soil science beyond COVID-19. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 75, n. 4, p. 79A-81A, Jul. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.0408A.

LE BLANC, D. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustainable Development, v. 23, n. 3, p. 176-187, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582.

LEMAIRE, G.; FRANZLUEBBERS, A.; CARVALHO, P. C. de F.; DEDIEU, B. Integrated crop-livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 190, p. 4-8, Jun. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009.

MACEDO, M. C. M. Integração lavoura e pecuária: o estado da arte e inovações tecnológicas. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 38, p. 133-146, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982009001300015.

MARGULIS, S. Causes of deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004. (World Bank working paper, n. 22). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-5691-7.

MERTEN, G. H.; ARAÚJO, A. G.; BISCAIA, R. C. M.; BARBOSA, G. M. C.; CONTE, O. No-till surface runoff and soil losses in southern Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research, v. 152, p. 85-93, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.03.014.

MIN, Y.; PERUCCI, F. Impact of COVID-19 on SDG progress: a statistical perspective. Paris: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020. (UN/DESA. Policy brief, n. 81). Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/PB_81.pdf. Accessed on: Nov. 5, 2020.

MUKHERJEE, S.; BONIN, A. Achieving the SDGs through the COVID-19 response and recovery. Paris: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020. 5 p. (UN/DESA. Policy brief, n. 78). Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/PB_78.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 4, 2021.

MULLER, A.; BAUTZE, L.; MEIER, M.; GATTINGER. A.; GALL, A.; CHATZINIKOLAOU, E.; MEREDITH, S.; UKAS, T.; ULLMANN, L. Organic farming, climate change mitigation and beyond: reducing the environmental impacts of EU agriculture. Brussel: IFOAM EU, 2016. Available at: https://www.organicseurope.bio/content/uploads/2020/06/ifoameu_advocacy_climate_change_report_2016.pdf?dd. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

NIEDERLE, P. A.; SABOURIN, E.; SCHMITT, C. J.; ÁVILA, M. L. de; PETERSEN, P.; ASSIS, W. S. de. A trajetória brasileira de construção de políticas públicas para a agroecologia. Redes, v. 24, n. 1, p. 270-291, jan./abr. 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17058/redes.v24i1.13035.

OLIVEIRA, M. N. de; XAVIER, J. H. V.; SILVA, F. A. M. da; SCOPEL, E.; ZOBY, J. L. F. Efeitos da introdução do sistema de plantio direto de milho por agricultores familiares do município de Unaí, MG (Cerrado Brasileiro). Agropecuária Tropical, v. 39, n. 1, p. 51-60, jan./mar. 2009. Available at: https://www.revistas.ufg.br/pat/article/view/3953/4513. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

PLANO Safra 2020/2021 entra em vigor nesta quarta-feira. Brasília, DF: MAPA, 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/plano-safra-2020-2021-entra-em-vigor-nesta-quarta-feira. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

POCH, R. M.; ANJOS, L. H. C.; ATTIA, R.; BALKS, M.; BENAVIDES-MENDOZA, A.; BOLAÑOS-BENAVIDES, M. M.; CALZOLARI, C.; CHABALA, L. M.; DE RUITER, P. C.; FRANCKE-CAMPAÑA, S.; PRÉCHAC, F. G.; GRABER, E. R.; HALAVATAU, S.; HASSAN, K. M.; HIEN, E.; JIN, K.; KHAN, M.; KONYUSHKOVA, M.; LOBB, D. A.; MOSHIA, M. E.; MURASE, J.; NZIGUHEBA, G.; PATRA, A. K.; PIERZYNSKI, G.; EUGENIO, N. R.; ROJAS, R. V. Soil: the great connector of our lives now and beyond COVID-19. Soil, v. 6, n. 2, p. 541-547, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-6-541-2020.

PRADO, R. B.; INÁCIO, M. da C.; LIMA, A. P. M. de; SCHULER, A. E.; GUIMARÃES, J. L. B.; FIDALGO, E. C. C.; TURETTA, A. P. D.; MONTEIRO, J. M. G.; MARTINS, A. L. da S.; OLIVEIRA, A. P. de; CLEMENTE, E. de P.; PEDREIRA, B. da C. C. G.  Evolução das iniciativas de pagamentos por serviços ambientais hídricos no Brasil. Cadernos de Ciência & Tecnologia, v. 36, n. 2, e26444, maio/ago. 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.35977/0104-1096.cct2019.v36.26444.

PRETTY, J. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: biological sciences, v. 363, p. 447-465, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2163.

PRETTY, J. Agroecological approaches to agricultural development. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/9044/WDR2008_0031.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

PRETTY, J.; BHARUCHA, Z. P. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Annals of Botany, v. 114, n. 8, p. 1571-1596, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcu205.

PROGRAMA ABC: sistema plantio direto. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, 2017. 1 folder. Available at: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-abc/arquivo-publicacoes-plano-abc/sistema-plantio-direto.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 5, 2021.

REAPING the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. London: The Royal Society, 2009. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/4294967719.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 4, 2021.

REDE ILPF. Benefícios da ILPF. Available at: https://www.redeilpf.org.br/index.php/rede-ilpf/beneficios-da-ilpf. Accessed on: Oct. 5, 2021.

REDE ILPF. ICLF Network. 1 folder. Available at: https://www.redeilpf.org.br/arquivos/folderweb_EN_atual.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 6, 2020.

REIS, J. C. dos; KAMOI, M. Y. T.; LATORRACA, D.; CHEN, R. F. F.; MICHETTI, M.; WRUCK, F. J.; GARRETT, R. D.; VALENTIM, J. F.; RODRIGUES, R. de A. R.; RODRIGUES-FILHO, S. Assessing the economic viability of integrated crop-livestock systems in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, v. 34, n. 6, p. 631-642, Dec. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000280.

REIS, J. C. dos; RODRIGUES, R. de A. R.; CONCEIÇÃO, M. C. G. da; MARTINS, C. M. S. Integração Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta no Brasil: uma estratégia de agricultura sustentável baseada nos conceitos da Green Economy Initiative. Sustentabilidade em Debate, v. 7, n. 1, p. 58-73, jan./abr. 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v7n1.2016.18061.

RIBEIRO-SILVA, R. de C.; PEREIRA, M.; CAMPELLO, T.; ARAGÃO, E.; GUIMARÃES, J. M. de M.; FERREIRA, A. J. F.; BARRETO, M. L.; SANTOS, S. M. C. dos. Covid-19 pandemic implications for food and nutrition security in Brazil. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, v. 25, n. 9, p. 3421-3430, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232020259.22152020.

SACHS, J.; SCHMIDT-TRAUB, G.; KROLL, C.; LAFORTUNE, G.; FULLER, G.; WOELM, F. The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Development Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/sustainabledevelopment.report/2020/2020_sustainable_development_report.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 4, 2021.

SALTON, J. C.; MERCANTE, F. M.; TOMAZI, M.; ZANATTA, J. A.; CONCENÇO, G.; SILVA, W. M.; RETORE, M. Integrated crop-livestock system in tropical Brazil: toward a sustainable production system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 190, p. 70-79, Jun. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.023.

SAMBUICHI, R. H. R.; MOURA, I. F. de; MATTOS, L. M. de; ÁVILA, M. L. de; SPÍNOLA, P. A. C.; SILVA, A. P. M. da. (org). A política nacional de agroecologia e produção orgânica no Brasil: uma trajetória de luta pelo desenvolvimento rural sustentável. Brasília, DF: IPEA, 2017. 463 p. Available at: https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livros/144174_politica-nacional_WEB.PDF. Accessed on: Oct. 23, 2020.

SCHARLEMANN, J. P. W.; BROCK, R. C.; BALFOUR, N.; BROWN, C.; BURGESS, N. D.; GUTH, M. K.; INGRAM, D. J.; LANE, R.; MARTIN, J. C.; WICANDER, S.; KAPOS, V. Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment-human linkages. Sustainability Science, v. 15, p. 1573-1584, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00799-6.

SHAXSON, F.; BARBER, R. Optimizing soil moisture for plant production: the significance of soil porosity. Rome: FAO, 2003. (FAO soils bulletin, 79). Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/y4690e/y4690e00.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 4, 2021.

SILVA, J. G. da. Os desafios das agriculturas brasileiras. In: GASQUES, J. G.; VIEIRA FILHO, J. E. R.; NAVARRO, Z. (org.). A agricultura brasileira: desempenho, desafios e perspectivas. Brasília, DF: IPEA, 2010. cap. 6, p. 157-183. Available at: https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livros/Livro_agriculturabrasileira.pdf. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

SILICI, L. Agroecology: what it is and what it has to offer. London: IIED, 2014. Available at: https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14629IIED.pdf. Accessed on: Jul. 2, 2020.

SINGH, G. G.; CISNEROS-MONTEMAYOR, A. M.; SWARTZ, W.; CHEUNG, W.; GUY, J. A.; KENNY, T. A.; MCOWEN, C. J.; ASCH, R.; GEFFERT, J. L.; WABNITZ, C. C. C.; SUMAILA, R.; HANICH, Q.; OTA, Y. A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among sustainable development goals. Marine Policy, v. 93, p. 223-231, Jul. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.030.

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME. International Resource Panel. Policy coherence of the Sustainable Development Goals: a natural resource perspective. An International Resource Panel Report. Paris, 2015. 50 p. Available at: https://www.resourcepanel.org/file/251/download?token=678P6Zys. Accessed on: Sept. 29, 2021.

UNITED NATIONS. Statistical Division. IAEG-SDGs: tier classification for global SDG indicators. New York, 2020. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/. Accessed on: Nov. 18, 2020.

UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GROUP. A UN framework for the immediate socio-economic response to COVID-19. Paris, 2020a. 49 p. Available at: https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/UN-framework-for-the-immediate-socio-economic-response-to-COVID-19.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 4, 2021.

UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GROUP. Shared responsibility, global solidarity: responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19. Paris, 2020b. 23 p. Available at: https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/SG-Report-Socio-Economic-Impact-of-Covid19.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 4, 2021.

VIANI, R. A. G.; BRACALE, H.; TAFFARELLO, D. Lessons learned from the water producer project in the atlantic forest, Brazil. Forests, v. 10, n. 11, 1031, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f10111031.

VILELA, L.; MARTHA JUNIOR, G. B.; MACEDO, M. C. M.; MARCHÃO, R. L.; GUIMARÃES JÚNIOR, R.; PULROLNIK, K.; MACIEL, G. A. Sistemas de integração lavoura-pecuária na região do Cerrado. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, v. 46, n. 10, p. 1127-1138, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2011001000003.

WESTHOEK, H.; INGRAM J.; VAN BERKUM, S.; ÖZAY, L.; HAJER, M. Food systems and natural resources: a report of the Working Group on Food Systems of the International Resource Panel. Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme, 2016. Available at: https://www.resourcepanel.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/media/food_systems_summary_report_english.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 22, 2020.