Capítulo 22 - Embrapasimposio.cpac.embrapa.br/.../projeto/palestras/capitulo_22.pdf · Capítulo 22 O velho engenho ao relento Suas três moendas movia Lançando ao ar um lamento

Capítulo 22O velho engenho ao relentoSuas três moendas movia

Lançando ao ar um lamentoComo se fosse poesia.

Era como se nós doisTivéssemos sina insana

Ao subjugar os boisE roubar o mel da cana.

Geovane Alves de Andrade

Foto: Coert Geldenhuys

745

Increase in Social and EnvironmentalStandards to Brazilian SugarcaneExpansion Pathways

Gerd Sparovek

Alberto Giaroli de Oliveira Pereira Barretto

Rodrigo Fernando Maule

Sérgio Paganini Martins

Juliana Negrini Smorigo

Abstract

Governments are promoting biofuels, and consequent changes in land use have raisedconcerns about impacts related to indirect greenhouse gas emissions (GGE), competitionwith food crops and minor contribution to local community development. These objectionsare mostly based on model projections of changes in land use involving a significant degreeof uncertainty. Brazil produces 35 % of the world’s ethanol, representing 22 x 10 9 L in 2007/2008, and sugarcane expanded 1.3 million hectare between 1996 and 2006. Changing ofrelevant proxy variables (environmental impact, food security, economic development, andland use) during this expansion period can be used to predict l impacts for further expansionand design mitigation measurements. First, sugarcane expansion areas were compared totheir neighboring regions. This methodological approach showed no difference for food cropproduction or increase in direct deforestation. Gross domestic product was greater andincreased faster in expansion areas. The major change was related to extensive and pasturebased livestock production. Pastures were reduced in expansion areas. Cattle heads did notincrease in the neighboring region, thus possible migration reaching further regions of morepreserved environments. The minor expansion of sugarcane in remote areas located in theAmazon biome was related to several negative externalities not present in the mainexpansion areas in Central Brazil. Integration of sugarcane with the prevailing land use mayavoid displacement of extensive livestock production to remote regions, promotes milk andbeef cattle intensification, and investment opportunities for local communities. Several policydesigns and pathways for implementation of integrated systems are discussed and

considered related to its strengths and difficulties.

Savanas: desafios e estratégias para o equilíbrio entre sociedade , agronegócio e recursos naturais746

Introduction

The expansion potential of sugarcane in Brazil is high, and will accelerate in the nearfuture. The rationales for this are: (i) abundance of open arable land occupied with extensiveand low profitable livestock production (pastures) in the main expansion region; (ii) noseverely restricting environmental legislation in the expansion region; (iii) enterprise mergersand access to open capital from local and international investors able to sustain privateinvestments; (iv) tendency for clusters formation around production initiatives in new regions;(v) extremely favorable medium and long term perspective for ethanol markets; (vi) strongand expanding internal market that will ensure the transition from present productionvolumes to larger immerging international demand (with no substantial need for subsidies asin the case with the USA and the EU); (vii) current competitiveness of Brazilian ethanol whencompared to any other large scale commercial source or production technology for ethanoland sugar; (viii) internal diversification opening markets for electricity supply, scarce resourcein most sugarcane production areas; and (ix) current public investments in infrastructure inthe new production regions (e.g. pipelines, roads, housing).

These issues are situational and concrete regardless of circumstantial factors andpolitical transitions. As threatening circumstances we have: (i) interruption ordeceleration of gasoline substitution or blending in industrialized countries; (ii)acceleration of sugarcane based ethanol production in Africa and Asia; (iii) time reductionfor commercial expansion of second generation ethanol; (iv) long term maintenance ofstrong commercial barriers in the USA and the EU for Brazilian ethanol; (v) abrupt changesin environmental legislation related to sugarcane production licenses; and (vi) reduction oflocal ethanol market ensured by flex-fuel fleet improvement, the current main basis thatsustain sugarcane expansion. We do not realize that negative circumstances prevail overthe positive conjuncture, wich is favorable for expansion.

Considering sugarcane is expanding rapidly in Brazil and will continue to expand overat least the next 10 to 15 years, changes in local or regional economies and social indicatorsare expected, as well there can be direct and indirect Land Use and Cover Changes (LUCC)and environmental impacts. One way of predicting these changes is the analysis of the mostrecent sugarcane expansion period that is spatially coincident with the current expansionarea. Parameters that aim for mitigating negative impacts and externalities in theforthcoming production regions can be based on these results. The objective of this study is

to summarize recent research on sugarcane expansion in Brazil and impact alleviation

Increase in Social and Environmental Standards to Brazilian Sugarcane... 747

pathways, adding a final chapter on policy design that aim to increase the social standard inexpansion areas. Most of the discussion is based on two recent articles (1, 2) that were firstpresented in a summarized version.

Past and Present Expansion Regions and Related Impacts

Brazil produces 35 % of the world’s ethanol, representing 22 x 10 9 L in 2007/2008. Therecently finished Brazilian National Agrarian Census 20061 is partially available and completeaccess to the data is set for November 2008. Its comparison with the 95/962 Census includesa period of sugarcane expansion in several Brazilian regions. According to yearly estimates3

sugarcane increased in Brazil from an area of 4,814,084 ha in 1997 to 6,144,286 ha in 2006, i.e.,an expansion of 1,330,202 ha. The results presented in this paper were obtained fromdetecting changes for selected proxy variables in areas where sugarcane expandedsubstantially in Brazil during the 1996 to 2006 period (sugarcane expansion municipalities:ScEx) and comparing these changes with those in neighboring comparable areas, wich didnot experiencing significant sugarcane expansion (no-expansion municipalities: ScNoEx)during the same time period. The proxy variables were selected to reflect forests, food andlivestock production, and local economic development.

Fig. 1 shows the location of ScEx and the neighboring ScNoEx, used for variablecomparison. The expansion areas were divided into two groups to reduce the effects ofregional differences: (i) Central Expansion Area (CEA) defined by the expansion thatoccurred radiating from the main production region of São Paulo and neighboring States(Table 1); and (ii) Peripheral Expansion Area (PEA) represented by all other expansionareas. PEA values (Table 2) are presented for one group including all municipalitieslocated in the Amazon Administrative Region (Legal Amazon) (PEA-AM) and a secondgroup including all other PEA municipalities (PEA-NoAM). CEA included 87 % of the ScExmunicipalities (118 of 136) and 90.5 % of the analyzed sugarcane expansion area(873,934 ha of 965,837 ha) and can thus be considered as representative for sugarcane

expansion in Brazil for the period 1996 to 2006. During this period no specific governmental

regulation or certification procedure was applied to the sugarcane sector. PEA results,

1 IBGE, Brazilian Agrarian Census 2006 Preliminary results. Available in: <at http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pesquisas/ca/default.asp>. Aceess in: May 2006.

2 IBGE, Brazilian Agrarian Census 1995-1996, at <http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pesquisas/ca/default1996.asp?z=p&o=2&i=P> collected during May, 2006

3 IBGE, Municipal Agricultural Production. Available in:<http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pesquisas/pam/default.asp> . Aceess in: May 2006


representing a relatively small region but including important biomes such as the Amazon

and the poor Northeast region, indicate effects in non traditional expansion regions. In

Fig. 2 we represented the location of the 370 mills operating in 2007 and the location of the

mills under construction in 2007. The area of ScEx municipalities observed in Fig. 1 is

coincident with mills under construction, sustaining the rationale that the analysis of the

impacts and changes of ScEx areas and ScNoEx areas based on the period between 1996

and 2006 is a useful starting point for predictions for the next 5 or 10 years.

Fig. 1. Sugarcane expansion and comparable no-expansion areas in Brazilduring the 1996-2006 period and areas of sugarcane predominance in1995.

0°0°

23°27’9’’ 23°27’9’’Capricorn

Equator

N

0 500 1000 km

Sugarcane expansion 1996-2006 (ScEx-Municipalities)No significant sugarcane expansion 1996-2006 (ScEx-Municipalities)

Traditional sugarcane regions in 1995

Central Expansion Area (CEA)Peripheral Expansion Area (PEA)Amazon administrative region (Legal Amazon)

Increase in Social and Environmental Standards to Brazilian Sugarcane...

749

Table 1. Differences between sugarcane expansion an no-expansion areas in the Central Expansion Area.

Variable Period Central Expansion Area Unit

ScEx ScNoEx Sig. (Student)

Sugarcane in the municipality 2006 24.72 9.1 0.00 % of municipal area

Increase of sugarcane in the municipality 1997-2006 10.9 6.0 0.00 % y -1

Forest area in farm land 2006 10.3 11.1 0.38 % of farm area

Forest area difference in farmland (2006 minus 1996-2006 2.7 2.1 0.30 %

1996)

Other crops area in the municipality 2006 20.0 19.3 0.77 % of municipal area

Other crops increase in the municipality 1997–2006 1.5 2.0 0.57 % y -1

Pasture in farm land 2006 39.0 51.7 0.00 % of farm area

Pasture area difference in farmland (2006 minus 1996-2006 -12.3 -9.4 0.04 %

1996)

Cattle head density in the municipality 2006 53.9 72.5 0.00 head.km-² of municipality

Number of cattle head increase 1997–2006 -1.6 -0.2 0.00 %.y -1

Municipal Gross Domestic Product (MGDP) 2005 217,767 138,915 0.02 R$.10³ per municipality

MGDP increase 1999-2005 2.0 1.0 0.11 %.y -1

Savanas: desafios e estratégias para o equilíbrio entre sociedade , agronegócio e recursos naturais750Table 2. Differences between sugarcane expansion an no-expansion areas in the Peripheral Expansion Areas (PEA).

Variable Period PEA-Amazon PEA-No Amazon

ScEx ScNoEx Sig. ScEx ScNoEx Sig

Sugarcane in the municipality 2006 6.5 1.4 0.08 27.5 7.9 0.01

Increase of sugarcane in the municipality 1997-2006 13.4 16.3 0.83 6.8 0.2 0.02

Forest area in farm land 2006 30.5 37.5 0.42 10.0 19.9 0.04

Forest area difference in farmland (2006 minus 1996) 1996-2006 -11.5 1.6 0.08 -5.1 2.1 0.19

Other crops area in the municipality 2006 8.9 11.2 0.73 4.2 9.9 0.01

Other crops increase in the municipality 1997–2006 10.8 7.8 0.50 1.5 1.7 0.95

Pasture in farm land 2006 41.7 40.5 0.89 27.6 34.9 0.40

Pasture area difference in farmland (2006 minus 1996) 1996-2006 1.4 1.5 0.99 4.5 1.2 0.61

Cattle head density in the municipality 2006 25.1 25.0 0.99 21.3 25.5 0.63

Number of cattle head increase 1997–2006 2.5 4.3 0.32 2.1 2.6 0.76

Municipal Gross Domestic Product (MGDP) 2005 164,605 128,879 0.63 279,970 153,512 0.21

MGDP increase 1999-2005 11.9 11.7 0.97 8.7 4.5 0.13


Fig. 2. Location of the 370 operating mills in 2007 and the mills underconstruction in the same year.

0°0°

23°27’9’’ 23°27’9’’Capricorn

Equator

N

0 500 1000 km1

2

�3

1

2

�3

Amazon administrative region (Legal Amazon)

In CEA, Municipal Gross Domestic Product in 2006 was greater in ScEx than in

ScNoEx and also increased faster during 1996-2006, possibly indicating that sugarcane

expansion induced economic diversification involving not only increased cultivation but

also local industrialization. Differences between ScEx and ScNoEx were not found for PEA-

AM and were less evident in PEA-NoAM.

In CEA, the area of forests on farmland (environmental proxy variable) was similar

in ScEx and ScNoEx (about 10 % in 2006), with small increases during the period 1996-

2006. Sugarcane expansion did not induce increased direct deforestation. However, the

average area of forests is remarkably low in both ScEx and ScNoEx. Brazilian

environmental legislation for this region requires that farmers keep 20 % of their area as a


natural reserve and the riparian areas (usually 10 % -15 % of the farm area) also have to beprotected with forests. The forest area was substantially below legal requirements. The

fact that ScEx and ScNoEx had similarly low forest area indicates that historic agriculturalexpansion caused the forest scarcity, rather than recent sugarcane expansion specifically.In PEA-AM direct deforestation (average 12 % reduction of forests on farmland) wasobserved in ScEx during the period of 1996 to 2006, while forest area remained stable inScNoEx (1.6 % forest area increase). The average farmland areas covered by forests in2006 were substantially below the minimum legal requirement (80 % in Amazon region) in

both ScEx and ScNoEx. PEA-NoAM showed the same trend. These results suggest thatsugarcane expansion can lead to further direct deforestation in remote and morepreserved regions that have already lost substantial forest area to agricultural expansion.

In CEA, the cropland areas used for other crops than sugarcane (proxy variable fordisplacement of food crops) were similar in ScEx and ScNoEx in 2006, and increased atthe same rates during 1996-2006. The expansion of sugarcane did not significantly affectfood crop production during the studied period. Possible explanations include: (i)

improvements in infrastructure promoted by sugarcane expansion also stimulated thecultivation of other crops, and (ii) soybean, peanut and cover crops are traditionallycultivated in areas where sugarcane is renewed. This area represents 20 % -25 % of thearea cultivated with sugarcane. In PEA-NoAM the cropland area used for other crops thansugarcane were lower in ScEx than in ScNoEx, while no difference between ScEx andScNoEx was detected in PEA-AM. PEA-NoAM includes a region where family agriculturebased food production for self consumption and local market supply is dominant, what

raises concerns about possible impacts on local food security.

The main LUCC effects were related to pasture area and cattle production (proxyvariables for extensive land use) which were predominant in both ScEx and ScNoEx. InCEA, the average share of municipal areas under pastures in 2006 was lower in ScEx andalso decreased faster during the 1996-2006 period. Cattle density in 2006 was also lowerin ScEx, and the number of cattle heads decreased in ScEx while it remained stable inScNoEx. The results support that sugarcane primarily competes with pastures and

expansion leads to discontinued cattle production where it established. The reduced cattleproduction in ScEx can induce either increased intensity in already established cattle

production elsewhere or conversion of additional land to pastures (i.e., indirect LUCC). The

methods adopted for this study did not allow for determining the extent to which


sugarcane expansion caused displacement of cattle production to other regions. However,

the fact that no increase in cattle heads was detected in ScNoEx indicates that the

migration, if it occurred at significant rates, was long distance and reaching beyond the

neighboring municipalities. The migration may have followed a traditional pattern of

establishment in remote regions at the border of the Amazon. In this case, indirect CO2

emissions and environmental impacts related to deforestation may have occurred. There

is limited knowledge concerning migration and re-establishment patterns among

displaced agents. Thus, the linking and quantification of indirect LUCC caused by

sugarcane expansion is presently not possible to achieve with high confidence due to lack

of empirical data. Nevertheless, the possibly large CO2 emissions that might arise from

indirect LUCC motivate the development of sugarcane expansion models that reduces the

risks of indirect effects. Integration models, such as described in Sparovek et al., 2007

potentially promote increased food crop and livestock production in sugarcane expansion

areas, and reduce the possibility of extensive cattle production migration. The results

reported here indicate that integration did not occur during the studied period. PEA did not

show the same differences between ScEx and ScNoEx in relation to the extensive land

use proxy variables.

Occurring at smaller rates, the expansion of sugarcane in more preserved regions

such as the Amazonian biome and the Northeast region was related to several negative

externalities: direct deforestation, competition with food crops and absence of economic

growth. In the spite of the fact that these regions are not expected to experience

substantial increases in sugarcane plantations in the near future, establishment of

mitigating measures and regulations are warranted.

Mitigation Measurements

Impacts of conventional sugarcane ethanol expansion

Due to high logistic costs, sugarcane can not be transported over long distances

for processing, thus it has to be produced close to a mill (i.e. > 80 km). Considering the

location of the mills under construction (Fig. 2), and the short range around the mills

where sugarcane fields are planted, expansion will occur predominantly on areas currently


occupied with extensive pastures: (i) such areas are largely available in these regions; (ii)

land prices or rent payments are low; and (iii) cattle ranchers find it economically rationalto sell or rent out their land to increase income.

As shown, livestock production is expected to decrease or to be displaced, and alsoland market dynamic is expected to speed-up. Small properties tend to merge into morefeasible units for large scale sugarcane production. Without regulation or interference, thechanges will occur based on market logic and previous experience in expanding regions.Sugarcane will monopolize land use and economic activities, as a result from local

industrialization. Although, regulation may alleviate impacts and better sustain expansion.The interference in the above described scenario should aim at a more integrated expansion.Coexistence instead of hegemony (sugarcane monoculture), integration instead ofdisplacement, welfare return for affected communities and reduction of local and off-siteenvironmental impacts should drive intervention. It is desirable that integration leads to: (i)local development, (ii) no (or minimal) land use displacement, and (iii) unaffected land tenure:

the land property structure is kept intact by avoiding that small holders sell land for theestablishment of larger producing units. The ideal integration will also provide enough areaaround the industrial plant for intensive sugarcane cropping, while stimulating the traditionalland use at the surroundings of the plant and even regionally. Sugarcane can to some extentbe integrated with other agricultural land uses. However, it is a semi-perennial crop, standingon the fields for 5 to 7 years. During renewal (on typically 20 % of the cultivated area) thefields are idle only for a short period of 3 to 4 months, usually at the beginning of the rainy

season because most sugarcane is planted at the end of this. Thus, only short-seasonedcrops such as peanuts, soybean and green manure are suitable: extensive livestockproduction cannot exploit this integration opportunity.

Integration of sugarcane ethanol production with livestock production can insteadbe based on opportunities to produce animal feed at the ethanol plant: minor adaptationsof an industrial plant designed for sugarcane processing for sugar and ethanol – usingproven, commercially available technology – makes it possible to produce animal feed

based on steam cooked (hydrolyzed) bagasse pulp. Factory bagasse contains about 45 %cellulose, 35 % hemicellulose and 10 % lignin. This raw material has a very lowdigestibility (about 30 %). However, improvements can be brought about by high pressuresteam (18 kg/cm2, 250°C) which, through acid hydrolysis solubilises the hemicellulose

component by increasing digestibility to 65 %. In Brazil, rations based on steam-hydrolyzed


bagasse are produced for beef cattle production in several industrial plants. Until 1995,

120 plants were equipped with such facilities. This number is currently reduced to about

30 due to other similarly profitable uses of the surplus bagasse emerged (e.g. co-

generation of electricity). However, the technology is fully developed and the equipments

for hydrolysis and ration production are commercially available; thus feasible for large

scale implementation on short term*. The complete ration based on bagasse utilizes other

sugarcane residues (molasse, filter cake, vinasse, yeast, and factory bagasse), grains and

vitamins. This complete ration has a very low production cost when compared to the

other feeding options, but can not be stored for long periods (except as silage) because of

the high water content. Currently, with few exceptions, the ration facilities are used to

produce free-stall confined beef cattle for sugarcane industries, and not for other local

producers. The integration of the industrial plant as the main source of animal feed may

benefit not only the areas where sugarcane fields will expand, by allowing its coexistence

with livestock production (beef cattle, milk, sheep, pork, or horses), but also spread out

over a larger region. The design of such an integration scenario is outlined below.

Benefits of sugarcane integration with livestockproduction

Animal production

In regions with a dry winter (a type of climate also suitable for sugarcane

cropping), extensive livestock productivity is restricted because of the low availability of

pasture in winter time. Sugarcane is harvested during winter, and therefore the complete

ration can be produced and delivered at cost-price to the ranchers during this shortage

period. The expected outcome is roughly reduced by 30 % of non-integrated land needed to

sustain the same herd (estimated based on the land suitable for agricultural production).

During the rain season no ration can be produced (because no sugarcane is harvested at

this time and the industry is not operating), but pastures are highly productive, thus also

* Peterson(1995) (3) describes several alternatives for animal feeding in tropical regions, referring to Basile eMachado(1990) (4) for steam treated sugarcane bagasse; both are from University of São Paulo, wherethe concept was first developed experimentally in Brazil (5). Steam treated bagasse specifically for beefcattle finishing is also described by Osorio et al. (1989)(6)


allowing the reduction in area. The remaining 70 % of the area (based on the land suitable

for agricultural production), used previously to spare pastures for the winter or produce

silage during the summer, can now be utilized for sugarcane production. The productivity

of livestock tends to increase. Solving the winter feed problem is the key aspect for

production intensifying under seasonal climate conditions. Considering this integration,

sugarcane is still possible at the surrounding of the industrial plant, except on the 30 % of

land used by the ranchers as summer pastures. Ranchers’ income will increase not only

because of higher productivity, but also due to income from the sugarcane production on

the remaining land, or from renting out the land for this purpose. The increased

productivity and income may also reduce the occurrence of migration of ranchers to

remote regions. This integration is possible for any farm scale. Involvement of family

agriculture in the integration also reduces the likelihood of farm aggregation into larger

units, thus maintaining tenure structure.

Local economy

Integration will allow not only expansion of sugarcane, but also stimulate

intensification of the previous extensive land use. The dependence on one economic

sector is reduced: diversity helps to balance local economy and reduces the vulnerability

to varying profits in one or other sector. Native farmers and ranchers are more likely to

use their increased income for local investments, thereby stimulating other sectors

regionally. Additionally, not only the sugarcane sector will demand labour, but also the

more intensive livestock production. Local economy will grow and become more dynamic,

relying on not only one product, but on a more diverse range of production chains and

services that are stimulated by livestock intensification in cooperation with sugarcane

expansion.

Local social-structures

Initially the need for specialized labour, services and goods for sugarcane

production and industrial processing will in part be supplied from external sources or by

migration from other regions, thus limiting positive local effects. With integration, the

existing social structures and productive arrangements will be less impacted, and even

expanded. Considering livestock producers will not move, but intensify production locally,


the actual existing supply markets for goods and services have a tendency to improve and

grow. So even assuming more complex and specialized needs from the expanding

sugarcane business are supplied from elsewhere, local social structures will also benefit,

and have more time to adapt to the new situation.

Environment

As has been explained earlier, when sugarcane ethanol expands in a conventional

way, displacement is intrinsic for economic reasons. This is due to the impossibility to

maintain extensive and low productive livestock production close to the sugarcane fields.

The increased productivity and income induced by the expansion model based on

integration may reduce migration of ranchers to remote regions. If accomplished with a

socio-environmental certification, an expansion model may define targets for

displacement and indicators for effective monitoring. Considering Brazilian political and

social organization, a near-to-market reason to avoid the displacement of extensive

livestock production, and the consequential off-site deforestation impacts of sugarcane

expansion, may be more effective than enforcement by law or the creation of a

comprehensive official (state-led) monitoring action. Environmental impacts intrinsic to a

more intensive agricultural land use – that makes use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides,

soil tillage and residue management – are difficult to avoid, but certification and adoption

of best management practices may reduce these impacts to tolerable levels and suggest

mitigation measurements.

Sugarcane industries

Sugarcane industries will initially have to invest in the construction and operation

of the feed ration factories. In order to gain local support for the integration concept and

guarantee participation of ranchers, this ration should be sold at a low price, implying a

long period of investment amortization. More sensitive and certified markets may

enforce integration, so this means a sine qua non condition in this context. Another

advantage is related to the diversification of the industry itself that become engaged in

intensive beef cattle farming in marginal areas or in a confined free-stall facilities. The

same is applicable for milk production. Diversification may be a strategy for the

industries to sustain business.


Sugarcane sector

Integration as a driver for sugarcane expansion at the institutional level will allow

the industrial sector to promote tangible regional development in expansion regions. This

would help the industry’s public image and be beneficial from a political perspective: a

better social insertion will result in support by the State and society in general.

Difficulties for large scale implementation

The initial implementation of the expansion model is manageable with local

arrangements and can avoid scale problems by a careful selection of the areas most suitable

for the integration concept. Implementation on a larger scale requires that less suitable areas

are included and non-ideal conditions may raise additional difficulties related to: (i) technical

restrictions for intensification in marginal areas; (ii) technology adoption resistance by

ranchers; (iii) lacking capacity for adequate assistance; (iv) markets for the increased

livestock production; and (v) competition from traditional extensive livestock production in

remote areas. Another obstacle for large scale implementation of the integration model is

concurrent use for the surplus bagasse. Current uses of bagasse, e.g. co-generation, may be

stimulated in the future with higher prices or even new applications may be commercially

available in a near future. This is the case of using bagasse (and other lignocellulose

materials) for direct fuel ethanol production. Prospects for overcoming these barriers and the

impact of concurrent use of bagasse on its market price will determine the longer term scope

for the expansion model. Reliable projections of these are difficult to establish before the

integration model is tested in a more comprehensive mannes both in practice and prediction

models, thus out of the scope of this paper.

Policy Eesign for Integration

Even with apparent tangible benefits for livestock producers (large or small scale),

municipalities, local economy and mill owners, the suggested integration is not

establishing naturally. The reasons for that may include: (i) lack of successful empirical

example of this integration scheme; (ii) nonexistence of regional or global planning for

sectors development; (iii) no tradition and institutionalization in multilateral negotiation

between the involved stakeholders; (iv) no tradition and no instrumentality of the small


rural municipalities to discuss a boarder perspective of development; (v) absence of a

clear central policy or advising procedure to guide sugarcane expansion; (vi) centralspread out of the related issues in several ministries (Ministry of Agrarian Developmentfor family agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture for agribusiness, Ministry of SocialDevelopment for socially directed policies, Ministry of Environment for externality effectsand licenses) that usually operate in a non articulated way; and (vii) objection by theBrazilian industrial sector to any specific regulation, with the main argument that these

would have to apply to all sectors to keep competitiveness, preferring to keep social andenvironmental targets that are seth forth in law on a volunteer basis.

Implementation of the integration model may follow one or a combination of thefollowing pathways: (i) state regulated or centrally induced; (ii) incentives; (iii) marketdriven stimulation; and (iv) voluntary adoption.

In the first case, of central regulated adoption, the benefits are the larger scale andreduced time of implementation possibility. The complexity is related to the need ofcooperation between several ministries, previous establishment of a legal framework, theneed for centrally considering different local condition, and the resistance of the industrial

sector to accept ruling. The mechanisms are the inclusion of integration targets orobligations in laws, condition them to licenses or to access public founds. Obligatory andgovernmental based certification may also add to the central mechanism. Also the needfor a central surveillance and monitoring system may add to the difficulties or itsinefficiency, reduce the real outputs of such mechanism. The incentive based adoption isprobably easier to establish and may also achieve large scales. The mechanisms may

involve tax reductions for integrated mills, partial financing of implementation costs, andprivileged access to public funds or priority in licensing. Constrains are the need forgreater public founds, central multilateral articulation and the need for centralizedsurveillance and monitoring to control adoption of integration targets. The market drivenmechanisms can follow the voluntary certification defined by consumption markets,following examples of organic, fair-trade or social-environment labels. The voluntary basis

is certainly related to low resistance and will privilege the more skilled and organizedproducers. The basic idea is to gradually drive the whole sector to a higher standard bygood examples and market differentiation for good producers. The slower move and thepartial adoption may restrict the scale and the impacts to local isolated cases, notnecessarily located in the most demanding regions. The voluntary adoption not induced or


stimulated by any specific mechanism, based only on the perspective of benefits mirroring

some examples, implemented under induced conditions (e.g. sponsored by the government or

private agents) may have the lowest resistance no need for central organization. These

apparent benefits should be balanced with the low perspective for large scale adoption and

the absence of control of real benefits. There is also no possibility to guide the integrated

system to locations where the expected social outcomes are greater.

Concluding Remarks

The impacts shown from the latest expansion period of sugarcane in Brazil (1996-

2006) clearly show that public interference is demanded to guide this sector’s development.

Effective and viable mitigation measurements, that allow the integration of sugarcane to

previous land uses only establish partially for a reduced amount of land-use types. Especially

livestock production is affected by sugarcane expansion, interrupting small family based milk

production and displacing large scale extensive beef cattle production.

The probable best implementation design of mitigation measurements should

consider a combination of mechanisms that may be applied at different times, regions or

cases. For example, the Pontal do Paranapanema region in São Paulo, considered as the

main expansion area for sugarcane in the State is also the region with most of its agrarian

reform settlements. A strong central regulation may be needed and acceptable in this

case. In other regions, with low presence of family agriculture and minor environmental

concerns volunteer mechanisms may be more effective. In any case, some degree of

regulation, stimulation or market driven induction is needed to allow integration

mechanism to occupy meaningful areas and produce tangible benefits for local

communities and society.

References

BASILE, F.; MACHADO, P. F. Feeding value of steam treated sugar cane bagasse in ruminant rations.Livestock Research for Rural Development, v. 2, n. 1, p.1-6, 1990.

BURGI, R . Produção do bagaço de cana-de-acúcar (Saccharum sp.L.) auto-hidrolisado eavaliação de seu valor nutritivo para ruminantes. 1985. 61 f. (MSc Thesis) - University of SãoPaulo, Piracicaba, 1985.


OSORIO, H.; PRESTON, T. R.; SPEEDY, A. W. The finishing of Zebu bulls on steam-hydrolysed sugarcane bagasse with different supplements. British Society of Animal Production. Winter Meeting.Paper n. 133,1989.

PETERSON, T. R. Tropical animal feeding: a manual for research workers. Rome: FAO, 1995. 305 p.(FAO Animal Production and Health Papers – 126).

SPAROVEK, G.; BERNDES, G.; EGESKOG, A.; FREITAS, .F L. M.; GUSTAFSSON, S.; HANSSON, J.(2007). Sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: an expansion model sensitive to socioeconomic andenvironmental concerns. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, v. 1, n. 4, p. 270-282.

Documents

Capítulo 22 - Embrapasimposio.cpac.embrapa.br/.../projeto/palestras/capitulo_22.pdf · Capítulo 22 O velho engenho ao relento Suas três moendas movia Lançando ao ar um lamento