116
5 Brazil Between Bioeconomy Barons and Grassroots Agroecology
Third, the cause of those policies and dominant norms is to be found in
agency. Although there is a coalition of contenders (smallholder movements, socioenvironmental NGOs, and more critical scientists) advancing an approach based on
agroecology, food sovereignty and social justice, an agribusiness coalition dominates
Brazil’s biofuels agenda. This dominant coalition has had a conveniently narrower
view on sustainability, which coincidentally matches the key environmental concerns
in export markets such as Europe (see Bastos Lima and Persson 2020). It is not interested in structural changes or power shifts—only at the international level. Using
a combination of instrumental, structural, and discursive powers, this coalition has
systematically succeeded in translating its policy-beliefs into the institutions that
now guide Brazilian biofuel production and its bioeconomy agenda. Perhaps, the one
exception is the Social Fuel Seal, which emerged due to pressure from the agroecology coalition. Now that this coalition’s power waned, Brazil’s biodiesel sector
has been voided of its original poverty-reduction function.
Finally, a more systemic cause for the present shape of Brazil’s bioeconomy
agenda can be found in the distributive outcomes and social impacts of its production
systems. By benefiting agribusiness disproportionately, dominant biomass production systems have increased their advocates’ material capabilities, helped them reinforce their discursive power over civil society, and tightened their grip on public institutions. Meanwhile, critics and adversaries such as those in the agroecology coalition
lose legitimacy, political space, and opportunities to advance their beliefs. As such,
Brazil finds itself in a vicious cycle, like a power spiral where the prevailing systems
of biofuel and other bio-based production reinforce the status quo, preventing any
significant changes in the agenda (see Fig. 5.3). “Locked” as it is in this biofuel and
bioeconomy development path, Brazil may well achieve its economic, geopolitical,
and energy-related goals, but at the expense of the environment and of its society as
a whole, who will continue experiencing the consequences of poverty and inequity.
5.4.2 Alternatives
More sustainable outcomes would require some key changes in Brazil’s current
biofuel policies and broader rural development strategy. Notably, ethanol production
can be made far more equitable and socially inclusive. As a start, it could incorporate
smallholders under similar requirements to those applied in biodiesel chains for social
certification. However, for more significant results on poverty reduction and equitable
rural development, smallholder integration in bio-based chains would need to foresee
a second phase with feedstock-supplier cooperatives climbing up to value-added
stages, such as ethanol distilling or vegetable oil extraction, and keeping co-products
for sales or local use (e.g., as organic fertilizer or livestock feed). Smallholders
could also be capacitated for local energy use or further vegetable oil processing into
biodiesel, aviation biofuels or biomaterials, and to use co-products such as glycerin
(e.g., in soap manufacturing).
5 Brazil Between Bioeconomy Barons and Grassroots Agroecology
Third, the cause of those policies and dominant norms is to be found in
agency. Although there is a coalition of contenders (smallholder movements, socioenvironmental NGOs, and more critical scientists) advancing an approach based on
agroecology, food sovereignty and social justice, an agribusiness coalition dominates
Brazil’s biofuels agenda. This dominant coalition has had a conveniently narrower
view on sustainability, which coincidentally matches the key environmental concerns
in export markets such as Europe (see Bastos Lima and Persson 2020). It is not interested in structural changes or power shifts—only at the international level. Using
a combination of instrumental, structural, and discursive powers, this coalition has
systematically succeeded in translating its policy-beliefs into the institutions that
now guide Brazilian biofuel production and its bioeconomy agenda. Perhaps, the one
exception is the Social Fuel Seal, which emerged due to pressure from the agroecology coalition. Now that this coalition’s power waned, Brazil’s biodiesel sector
has been voided of its original poverty-reduction function.
Finally, a more systemic cause for the present shape of Brazil’s bioeconomy
agenda can be found in the distributive outcomes and social impacts of its production
systems. By benefiting agribusiness disproportionately, dominant biomass production systems have increased their advocates’ material capabilities, helped them reinforce their discursive power over civil society, and tightened their grip on public institutions. Meanwhile, critics and adversaries such as those in the agroecology coalition
lose legitimacy, political space, and opportunities to advance their beliefs. As such,
Brazil finds itself in a vicious cycle, like a power spiral where the prevailing systems
of biofuel and other bio-based production reinforce the status quo, preventing any
significant changes in the agenda (see Fig. 5.3). “Locked” as it is in this biofuel and
bioeconomy development path, Brazil may well achieve its economic, geopolitical,
and energy-related goals, but at the expense of the environment and of its society as
a whole, who will continue experiencing the consequences of poverty and inequity.
5.4.2 Alternatives
More sustainable outcomes would require some key changes in Brazil’s current
biofuel policies and broader rural development strategy. Notably, ethanol production
can be made far more equitable and socially inclusive. As a start, it could incorporate
smallholders under similar requirements to those applied in biodiesel chains for social
certification. However, for more significant results on poverty reduction and equitable
rural development, smallholder integration in bio-based chains would need to foresee
a second phase with feedstock-supplier cooperatives climbing up to value-added
stages, such as ethanol distilling or vegetable oil extraction, and keeping co-products
for sales or local use (e.g., as organic fertilizer or livestock feed). Smallholders
could also be capacitated for local energy use or further vegetable oil processing into
biodiesel, aviation biofuels or biomaterials, and to use co-products such as glycerin
(e.g., in soap manufacturing).