108
5 Brazil Between Bioeconomy Barons and Grassroots Agroecology
2020. Still, this period of stability might again find a new boon of expansion as more
sugarcane uses for the bioeconomy become commercial.
Agribusiness has also been claiming growing amounts of freshwater. Even though
most feedstock crops in Brazil are rain-fed, many producers have adopted irrigation
to increase yields (Takahashi and Ortega 2010). Both sugarcane and soy crops have
frequently enjoyed such supplemental irrigation (EPE 2008, p. 639). In soy’s case,
it includes river and groundwater withdrawals in water-insecure regions that experienced shortages and social unrest due to lost access (Bastos Lima and Persson 2020).
Also, pesticide use and wastewater discharges have increased alongside the expansion in the cultivated area. Biondi et al. (2009) noted that pesticide use in sugarcane
cultivation increased by nearly 70% between 2004 and 2008, the years of the ethanol
boom. Moreover, for each liter of sugarcane-ethanol produced, there are on average
13 L of acidic vinasse wastewater to dispose of (da Cruz et al. 2008). Although
sugarcane-ethanol advocates have marketed this as a closed-cycle natural fertilizer
(see Goldemberg et al. 2008), there is evidence that irregular and excessive applications have become a source of groundwater contamination (da Cruz et al. 2008).
Meanwhile, local populations have suffered immensely from pesticide contamination in areas where soy and corn (which are usually intercropped) expand (Russo
Lopes et al. 2021).
Impacts on access to food have been ambivalent, and there is a distinction to be
made between the macro and micro levels. At the macro level, there is already a
consensus that biofuels help drive agricultural commodity prices up (see Chap. 2),
though this effect seems comparatively small in the Brazilian case. Brazil does not
significantly rely on staple crops for fuel, and the food resources it uses (mainly
vegetable oil and sugar juice) have abundant supplies. In the case of biodiesel, current
and foreseen blends in the short term (12–15%) do not seem to pose a food insecurity
issue. Still, it is unclear whether that might change if the blending mandate increases
20% as some in the sector want, or if soybean oil finds further bioeconomy utilizations
in the future.
Another food security concern is the gradual replacement of smallholder family
farming with ever more consolidated industrial monocultures. Family farming in
Brazil provides the largest quantity and variety of foods eaten in the country; therefore, a bioeconomy expansion based on a handful of industrial monocultures can
impoverish national food security over time (see Bastos Lima 2008; IBGE 2009).
At the local level, too, transitions from mixed farming to feedstock cash-cropping
have created major food insecurity issues. Notably, when companies abandoned
contracted smallholders, they left them with crops farmers could not eat and could
hardly sell (see César and Batalha 2010; Gomes et al. 2010b). The policy changes
of 2008/2009 and the insertion of Petrobras in the sector improved the outcomes
significantly; in 2010, the industry spent BRL 1.2 billion (about USD 600 million at
the time) on smallholders growing feedstock, generating an additional income that
could enhance local food security (Gomes et al. 2010c). Such mixed results suggest
that impacts on local access to food vary substantially depending on the institutions
in place. Yet, some in Brazil have been critical of contract farming as a model. As
an interviewed analyst puts it,
5 Brazil Between Bioeconomy Barons and Grassroots Agroecology
2020. Still, this period of stability might again find a new boon of expansion as more
sugarcane uses for the bioeconomy become commercial.
Agribusiness has also been claiming growing amounts of freshwater. Even though
most feedstock crops in Brazil are rain-fed, many producers have adopted irrigation
to increase yields (Takahashi and Ortega 2010). Both sugarcane and soy crops have
frequently enjoyed such supplemental irrigation (EPE 2008, p. 639). In soy’s case,
it includes river and groundwater withdrawals in water-insecure regions that experienced shortages and social unrest due to lost access (Bastos Lima and Persson 2020).
Also, pesticide use and wastewater discharges have increased alongside the expansion in the cultivated area. Biondi et al. (2009) noted that pesticide use in sugarcane
cultivation increased by nearly 70% between 2004 and 2008, the years of the ethanol
boom. Moreover, for each liter of sugarcane-ethanol produced, there are on average
13 L of acidic vinasse wastewater to dispose of (da Cruz et al. 2008). Although
sugarcane-ethanol advocates have marketed this as a closed-cycle natural fertilizer
(see Goldemberg et al. 2008), there is evidence that irregular and excessive applications have become a source of groundwater contamination (da Cruz et al. 2008).
Meanwhile, local populations have suffered immensely from pesticide contamination in areas where soy and corn (which are usually intercropped) expand (Russo
Lopes et al. 2021).
Impacts on access to food have been ambivalent, and there is a distinction to be
made between the macro and micro levels. At the macro level, there is already a
consensus that biofuels help drive agricultural commodity prices up (see Chap. 2),
though this effect seems comparatively small in the Brazilian case. Brazil does not
significantly rely on staple crops for fuel, and the food resources it uses (mainly
vegetable oil and sugar juice) have abundant supplies. In the case of biodiesel, current
and foreseen blends in the short term (12–15%) do not seem to pose a food insecurity
issue. Still, it is unclear whether that might change if the blending mandate increases
20% as some in the sector want, or if soybean oil finds further bioeconomy utilizations
in the future.
Another food security concern is the gradual replacement of smallholder family
farming with ever more consolidated industrial monocultures. Family farming in
Brazil provides the largest quantity and variety of foods eaten in the country; therefore, a bioeconomy expansion based on a handful of industrial monocultures can
impoverish national food security over time (see Bastos Lima 2008; IBGE 2009).
At the local level, too, transitions from mixed farming to feedstock cash-cropping
have created major food insecurity issues. Notably, when companies abandoned
contracted smallholders, they left them with crops farmers could not eat and could
hardly sell (see César and Batalha 2010; Gomes et al. 2010b). The policy changes
of 2008/2009 and the insertion of Petrobras in the sector improved the outcomes
significantly; in 2010, the industry spent BRL 1.2 billion (about USD 600 million at
the time) on smallholders growing feedstock, generating an additional income that
could enhance local food security (Gomes et al. 2010c). Such mixed results suggest
that impacts on local access to food vary substantially depending on the institutions
in place. Yet, some in Brazil have been critical of contract farming as a model. As
an interviewed analyst puts it,